Your reference to Heidegger is very apt to the topic because my whole thinking around the idea of the question of pessimism and optimism was not meant to be about personal life. I do see it as applying to social and political issues. The fears about the destruction of the world are such that the spirit of people may become broken to the point where humanity on a mass level believe that we are on the brink of collapse and give up trying to make changes for the better. The whole rise of technology and the mass media is affecting people's perception of the world. We have means of mass destruction through nuclear weapons and the whole ecological threat are so apparent in the information available to us. The whole impact of this information is such that it could have a self fulfilling prophecy on the mass consciousness and unconscious of humanity.

This may have already been ushered in partially through the millennium belief in fear of the apocalypse. There have been many times when people thought that we were at the end of time already. However, the situation has become one which is not dependent on any set of religious beliefs, but on a very real possibility of a possible extinction of the human race, or of such environmental conditions that people may really begin speculating that the situation is beyond all possibility of remedies. Even the politicians and other leaders in the world may be affected in a negative way by a whole underlying perspective of the end of the human race. So, we are talking about a situation in which despair could engulf the mass psyche of humanity, and leading to people losing strength to achieve the best possible ways forward

I see pessimism as a leading to a problem for choices. I once had a tutor who said that it was a mistake to try to give people a sense of hope. I see false hope as a problematic, because it can lead to a sense of futility. However, to discourage any sense of hope at all, taken to the maximum, would seem to imply that it is not worth bothering to try to make any improvements or changes to make one's own situation, or even that of others, any better. It would seem to me that it would be saying that the situation is hopeless and amount to the position of giving up all together. That would be the ultimate logic of nihilism, in its most negative form.

I am out at the moment, so plan to respond to comments when I get home, but I can respond to yours quickly while outside. I don't think that you should concern yourself with getting the answer come up, as I think that is just a feature of the software. I don't think that the one that shows up saying 'Answer' means that it is the definitive one. After all, it is about debate...

I find pessimism as rather limited and prefer optimism. However, it seems to me that so much philosophy is biased in favour of pessimism. I would be interested to know more about your position of being a meleoristic-optimist.

I think that it is both one of avoiding deception and of reaching our goals in life. My query is about the whole way of finding a balanced perception from which we are able to live.

I think that you are right that people are going back to the idea of the premodern? I am inclined to think that postmodernism was extremely useful as a basis for exploring the whole way our thinking is constructed. However, perhaps it went too far and led to the whole collapse of meaning and the rise of 'post truth'. I think that we need more synthetic thinking which can establish important links between ideas, rather than just a return to the premodern. Here, I am suggesting that even though postmodernism comes with potential problems, in that it can give rise to a collapse of values, the insights of modernity and postmodernism are important for enabling critical analysis.

I believe that we have experienced modernism and postmodernism, with its deconstruction of values. Perhaps we are in the post post modern. The whole experience of self and authenticity was perceived by the moderns, ripped apart by the postmodernists, and we may, now, have to put all the meanings together again. When you query whether we were ever modern, perhaps the problem was that it never became a homeland but just a resting place and, now, may be the chance to juxtapose all different fragments of the broken down philosophies. Of course, we may all do this differently and it may be the end of a cycle, with a lot of disintegration in the aftermath of the post modern, on the brink off the post apocalyptic era.

Yes, I didn't think that your triangle should mean that people should just stay at the bottom. In many ways, dualistic thinking seems to be the illusory way of conventional thinking. It does seem that most philosophies which stress some kind of evolution of consciousness, or even initiation do see beyond binary thinking. Or, if nothing else, they see opposites as more intricately involved, like the yin and yang symbol, in which the complementary parts are reflected in the circles of the two halves. I am also thinking of how Jung spoke of the path of individuation as being one in which one opposites are faced on the path towards conscious wholeness.

I completely agree with your perspective on boredom. It seems far more preferable to suffering. I don't get bored very often but from talking to some people who do, it does seem that it can be an absence of meaning which can border on to nihilism.

I think that your view of Maslow is a bit wrong because he is not just a social activist or scientist. He places great emphasis on peak experiences. Even though the Buddha stressed the overcoming of desire as a goal, he did also stress enlightenment.

However, I can see the relevance of Maslow's ideas, because he is suggesting that when one need is met this becomes a basis for moving on to the next one up in the hierarchy. Also, it would be easy to compare the whole idea of desires with needs, because both could be seen as arising from the essence of human nature, even though the actual idealised goal of the two thinkers is vastly different.

Okay, that's fine, because the discussion did begin with Schopenhauer, and I probably was stretching the question in other directions.

But I am not convinced that all life is miserable. That is Schopenhauer's subjective perspective. Personally, I find that it has extreme lows and highs, and some inbetween times. But it does come down to personal experience and interpretation.

I am really talking about conflict over desire, although I am aware that the passage from Schopenhauer is talking about boredom. However, I do believe that the difficulty of desire may be about conflict in achieving them. Of course, life is different in our time. What that means is that our satisfaction of desires may be done differently. We may watch television, use the internet and probably have a different repertoire of working with desires.

You speak of sensation and I am not sure that desires are purely physical, because they involve the emotions. The emotions arise physically but they are bound up with conscious wishes, so are idea related. In the case I spoke of a person who feels oppressed by another and experience a desire to kill that person it may be based on an idea of the impact this has. It may be experienced as a sensation but even as an intrusive thought. It is at that level that we may experience conflict because we don't just have sensations but thoughts about them.

Getting back to the idea of boredom, we could ask if that is an actual sensation, experienced bodily, because it could be experienced more as an absence. So, really, Shopenhauer's Jack may just be left with a void of craving if he did not have to work to win Jill's love. So, it seems that the presence of craving is seen as worth having as opposed to boredom. The question is whether boredom is really the worst possible scenario. What is boredom exactly? Is it simply a sensation?

I know that you are talking about the higher consciousness but do you think that the balance of opposites is different to the one in real life?Do you not think we can climb the triangle to the highest state to enable us to find the answers?Or does that involve such dangers as going trying to go beyond good and evil? I am wondering about the Buddhist middle way, or am I jumbling up all the jigsaw pieces?

I think that there are so many perspectives, especially the subjective. I think that it can be that some fulfilment of desires leads to a happier and higher level of functioning. If I get Jill I may be much more positive to be around than if I am unhappy Jack, moping in a corner.

Also, at face value the desire to kill someone may appear to be based on a sensation, but it may not be that simple. It could be that the desire is based upon the way that person is having in their life. However, we may be talking about a certain desire arising and it does not mean that the person would actively try to fulfill that desire. Many people may experience such a desire but realise that it would be a problem to act upon it.

I think that is the motivational aspect, but apart from that there is a whole process about what is agreed in small groups and in larger groups. In thinking about this, it would probably involve the consideration of the evolution of morality, and probably the whole idea of a social contract, such as Hobbes described.

One aspect which I think that it is worth clarifying is to what extent you are thinking about the comfort of being protected by morality or about how we are comforted in the form of conscience, personally? Of course, the two interrelate and have probably done so throughout human culture and in all societies. I would imagine that the whole fabric of society is based on this connection of there being certain explicit,or even implicit, rules of some kind.

I do also wonder what you mean by comfort, whether it is about benefits. However, some may see some disadvantages depending on what morality you are speaking of because it covers the whole spectrum of behaviour, ranging from the personal to the social. In this way, it is complex because while most people favour morality of some kind, it is not as everyone agrees on the specifics.

I believe that you are correct in focusing on Cicero and, when you suggest that all religions are the same, I think that you are pointing to the way in which there are central importance teachings underlying most of them. Probably some of the teachings have been distorted in the implementation by organised religion, but the original teachers had a certain vision. It is likely that the distortions, as well as valid philosophy questions which turned people away, and it may be that are moving into a time of religio, as suggested by @Anand-Haqq

I do believe that it is important for us to draw upon the best of all traditions of thought, religious and secular. Also, you point to the whole issue of male domination and it does seem that Western and some other religions have been served a patriarchal society. However, there is a whole tradition of the goddess. It may be that the idea of the goddess preceded the Judaeo-Christian image of God as Jahweh.This may be a lost, repressed aspect of religion. Certainly, some anthropologists, such as Chris Knight, have pointed to a matriarchy prior to a patriarchy.

I do believe that apart from asking why we need religious beliefs, the whole history of religion is also important. This includes understanding how the ideas were established. It also involves the complex relationship between mainstream teachings and esoteric ones. What I find is that the more I try to write, the more aware I become of the need to read so much more, because there is so much to discover.

I think that there is definitely a spiritual and ecstatic side to music, including the shamanic one. This includes the whole of psychedelic and dance culture too. Okay, people may say that substances play a role, but not for everyone and the music is essential.

I even find a spiritual side to metal music, because it is about living with aspects of selves which are often repressed, and explore our own black holes, but not get stuck in them, hopefully. Prog music and psych-rock can also help us to voyage into inner space. Of course, it is quite possible to get into dangerous territories, as indeed has happened to some of the rock stars...

There are also some possibilities for meditation and music, especially the musician, Tim Wheater, who has developed and performed sound healing.

One idea is the law of attraction, developed by Esther and Jeremy Hicks, and a number of others, which suggests that we can draw the circumstances which we desire to us. A lot of people do find this helpful and I have experimented with it. I find it works to some extent. However, I do still get a lot of unpleasant experiences and this is supposed to be about aspects of the subconscious which oppose our conscious wishes and desires.

However, I don't think this is meant to be about wishing harm to others, which is another issue altogether. I would think that the person may be best to consider why they wish for that. It may point to something deeper.We could also ask if we got everything we wished for would not develop any wisdom? So, it may be worth reaching for the heights in what we wish for, but with some awareness that it may not even be desirable to fulfill all of our desires.

I found the ideas of Niscolescu very helpful as my understanding of reality is certainly multidimensional. I also think that the whole idea of the middle is essential, as it seems that binary thinking, as extremes seem so limiting. In particular, I feel that a lot of people tend to prefer a clear pessimist or optimist approach both seem mistaken. I think that we need to find the balance in how we see most aspects of life, in order for be able to think clearly. Obviously, we don't just want a watered down version of reality, but it seems to be about juxtaposing opposites in a careful and intricate way in our perception and philosophical quest.

One author who I came across in anthropology is Chris Knight. I don't have any work by him but he tied together the ideas of symbolism, especially the idea of the snake, with the ideas of Levi Strauss, and came to an unusual conclusion. He linked the idea of the serpent, especially the rainbow snake of the aborigines, to menstruation patterns in women and thought that this was important in the emergence of language in human culture. He explained this with reference to women saying 'no' to sex at certain times of the month and thought that the snake was part of the communal expression of this, and the whole idea of the symbolism of menstrual blood in culture. I am not sure if I find his ideas completely convincing but I think that it is an interesting, unusual perspective, and who knows, it may capture some elements worthy of exploration.

I am sorry that my description is a bit limited, and I am not sure how much his ideas are accepted. If you look him up on the internet, the Chris Knight I am talking about is not the same one who has written a number of books on esoteric topics. The one I am referring to has written papers but I don't know if he has even published a book. I know that he was part of what was known as the Radical Anthropology group in London.

The whole idea of the flood is extremely interesting. My own reading has often been in esoteric literature, and some of the writing is of questionable authority. However, some make the link with the lost continent of Atlantis, although I realise that Atlantis is quite likely mythical. It does seem that Sumer seems to be a starting point from the various sources I have read.

I am inclined to think that books which have been lost in history, especially Biblical ones, are probably lost for a reason. In usual times, I go to a large esoteric bookshop, with all kinds of rare literature. So, I will look in that basement, which has a lot on the history of religion from a critical perspective, if the shop opens again, which could possibly be some time in April.

Sorry to keep playing around with my title, but it didn't feel quite right to say 'without a body' and I think that beyond seems to make more sense in relation to the spectrum of possibilities, and include immortality once again because I am talking about existence beyond the body after death. I am not even sure to what extent we should be thinking about it , but for me the whole question of immortality hovers in the background always.I am not sure that we can really know the answer, but, really,I am raising the one of what if...? It is all speculation and, I would also add, that I am not wishing to oppose anyone's views, but simply open up the philosophical imagination, and dream..

I am probably spending too much time, 'Alone in a Room', like Leonard Cohen.But, I do believe that we don't really know what comes after death. Many people probably don't think about it unless they are face to face with death, their own or that of someone close. I wonder if the pandemic is leading more people to think about it as there is a whole fear of death underlying it. Also, people are spending more time alone rather than with the usual distractions of daily life.

I do wonder if Nietzsche's idea of God being dead does come with a subtext of there being nothing after death. The two ideas do seem linked because the belief in life after death usually goes alongside the idea of God. I am not aware of many atheists believing in life after death, but that doesn't mean that it is not possible to think of there being life after death independently of believing in God. It would probably be a different form of an afterlife, but there other ways of thinking about the matter other than the ones within Western religions, such as within Buddhism.

Yes, I think that time can be a fearful concept, and sometimes it seems to pass so slowly and other times so fastly. So, there does seem to be a whole subjective way of experiencing it. It is also true that none of us know how long we have in life, and the idea of death can be terrifying for some people.

You say about 'regaining the body' and the question is whether one would wish to do so. It may depend on the bodilý existence one had prior to death and the realm one had entered. Also, would one necessarily be able to go back into the body? If one was entering into horrible dimensions, the worst problem would be that one could not even kill oneself, being dead already. The best option might be to try to journey forward to a better place, which may be suggested by the Christian idea of purgatory, because that implies temporary suffering, from which one may reach heaven eventually.

It is a whole area of speculation and even though I am not sure that the idea of not having a body has been discussed as such, I do think that certain ideas about life after death do raise that possibility. Certainly, in my own upbringing in Catholicism I was taught that we would be raised from the dead after the resurrection of the dead at the end of the world. However, I was taught by some people that there would be some kind of existence in between death and resurrection. So, that did make me wonder about the whole possibility of disembodied existence. I do find myself wondering about that whenever I start thinking about the mind body problem in philosophy. I don't know why I started thinking about it today, but I did. Perhaps, I am spending too much time thinking...

I am answering your response first because it is the most rational one. Your point about it making you think about not being born is relevant because we don't have a body of our own or an ego at this stage.

Obviously, it is likely that in many ways that death is the answer to the loss of the existence of the body, although Huxley's idea of how hallucinogenics open up perceptual doorways has made me wonder about other possible scenarios sometimes. But, of course one did still have a body. The whole out of body experiences may be an illusion. When I have experienced a couple of borderline sleep experiences in which I am flying around my room and can view my body lying on my bed, I am aware of being back in my body at some stage, and I am still alive in the usual way. I do consider these as astral projection experiences, but whether the astral dimension is real, independent of our experiences is questionable. Of course, many people do see the possibility of entering into such states after death as possible. I would imagine that this is the basis for ideas such as heaven and hell.

I am not saying that I think such ideas of an afterlife should be taken literally, but it is an interesting area to wonder about. I am not sure whether people imagine that they would have physical bodies in heaven and hell. Perhaps such bodies would be more subtle bodies rather than the bodies like ours. I think that some esoteric writers, such as Blavatsky, speak of early human beings having a less gross physical body, and the Bible refers to the idea of a spiritual body.

I see the problem of awareness this raises because we would be without the senses, as we know them. Or, would we have some kind of multisensory awareness? It would involve living some kind of existence as a spiritual being.

I am sure that many people on the forum will consider my question as complete nonsense. However, many people do believe in the existence of beings without physical bodies. Even the mythical account of the fallen angels suggests the idea that the fallen state involved entering into a bodily existence. So, I am just wondering about how this can be thought of, but with openness towards fantasy, or as you suggest 'atoms flying around.' And, of course, people's lives at the end, with all that was left unsettled, everything from wills to severed connections. it also raises the question of contact with other being, embodied or disembodied.

I have just updated my thread question because I am not really wishing to ask if there is actual life after death. I think that is such a difficult question and I am not sure if we can answer it with any certainty. I also think it would probably be pointless to start a debate on the form life after death may take because we have so little evidence to go on.

So, I am pointing to one idea which is apparent in some ideas about life after death, which is the that of living without a physical body. I have been wondering what that would be like. No physical needs: food, sleep, sex etc. I wonder what it would be like? Would we miss our bodies, or imagine that we still have our former bodily form?

I am not trying to create a problematic discussion, but create one for pure imaginative philosophical speculation.

Yes, in some ways I think that the experiences of life after death, by its very nature, could be a form of punishment. However, I am aware that many people seek it and, in many ways, some have found refuge in the beliefs, in coping with a painful existence in this life. Perhaps the people who are enjoying this life greatly spend less time wondering about a possible life after this one. I am inclined to think that this life is hard enough, with or without a future one.

But I am also wondering about what the existence of a life without a body would be like. That is because it is unclear in some of the ideas about life after death whether it would be embodied or disembodied. So, I think that I am going to revise my question to what it would be like to live without a body?

I think that the question of rights is complex because I certainly wouldn't be wishing to go out and interacting with people and spreading the virus. However, the problem is that the rules are so extreme and we don't really know when or if this will end at all. In England, extreme sanctions have been in place for a year with very brief forms of certain rules being relaxed.

We have the vaccines in place but there is so much uncertainty about the new variants. In England there is some hope for people to meet up in outdoor venues in mid April, but even this, is dependent on the data. There is also speculation of a third wave. I just don't see how we are going to survive physically or mentally if this keeps being extended further and further into the future. It is so hard to know if this will become better by summer, autumn or whether the whole situation is just going to become indefinite, because last year many spoke of it all ending by Christmas, and the exact opposite happened.

It is a time of all social activities being forbidden, and finding work being almost impossible. So, I just daren't think what is going to happen long term. Also, the messages of the media almost seem to make one feel guilty for wanting to meet others or go out. Also, on the other hand, I have felt guilt tripped by people wishing to meet up. Of course, I am sure that many are breaking the rules daily, which is one of the problems, but this is probably the result of the extreme of life as we know it has been taken away from us completely.

I think that you are mistaken to see listening to music as simply a means of not having to think. Probably some people use it in this way. I listen to a lot of rock, and alternative music, even some pop and use it as a means of inspiration. I read a lot, but can't do that all day everyday. Just thinking all day everyday, can lead to creating mental knots, or in my case, the creation of endless impossible thread questions. I would say that music, can lead to a certain amount of balance, but also, a way of appreciating, involving the sensory level, hearing, but also invoking other aspects of sensory imagination.

I see the term non binary as a way of embracing the whole continuum concept of gender, rather than being boxed into the categories of male and female.

One idea relating to non binary is androgyny.This whole idea was explored by June Singer in her book, 'Androgyny', the archetypal combination of masculinity and femininity and she traces this idea back into ancient mythology.She defines androgyny as' the One which contains the Two; namely the male (andro-) and the female (gyne).'She sees it as a term which can be applied to the physical combination, especially hermaphroditism, but more especially about psychological androgyny. She doesn't really discuss transgender in any depth, but her book was written in the 1970s.

When I see videos of 70s music, I am struck how many of the male singers in bands, especially glam rock, look so feminine, and this applies to the new romantic bands of the 1980s, like Japan and Duran Duran. Gender ambiguity has been part of music culture for a very long while, Only yesterday, I read how Sam Smith had been excluded from this year's Brit music awards because they couldn't be fitted into the male or female categories, as they wished to identify as non binary.

That is impermanence. I believe that we can take nothing for granted and that we are often taken aback by the unexpected. Many people try to develop a static viewpoint. I think it all about constant revision and evolution of thinking as we go with the flow, which has so many ups and downs.

It is probably true to say that we often choose to overintellectualise, but I am also sure that you have going too far to say about not understanding anything. The problem may be more that we often wish to understand everything.

As far as the trees are concerned, I remember one idea I really like, in 'The White Goddess' by Robert Graves, and that is the idea of the 'battle of the trees', and I believe that it was based on a poem from Celtic mythology.

I think that each of us has a black hole within our consciousness, to work with and climb out of, and perhaps we need to find our own inner philosopher to guide the way through this darkness. But, it is like an alchemical quest of healing, of finding the treasure within the depths of the blackness and, of transmuting the dark energies into radiant wisdom.

I think that it is great if you enjoy the trees, but please don't let the trees think that they are so important that philosophy simply doesn't matter at all anymore.

I am interested in reading Kierkergaard, but not necessarily expecting him to provide answers, but just to encounter his voice and perspective. Both he, Hegel, and others were coming from a different time in history. I am not suggesting the current climate of thinking is a superior viewpoint, but radically different because we have such a wider panorama of ideas.

I am not wishing to go into the wilderness of mere relativism, but wish to be aware of the many perspectives because this awareness leads to a certain amount of distance. I don't believe that humanity has overcome the need for religious thinking, because even the most rational scientists have to encounter the unexpected and unpredictable. Perhaps the people who think that they have no moral dilemmas, will get to the point where they feel the guilt of conscience, even though they may not call it 'sin.'