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.'

It is hard to know if the various scientific observations could have brought us the technology to maintain civilisation because we are dealing with the unpredictable and with the whole practical and political management of resources. No one a couple of years ago would have imagined the deep mess we are in presently amidst the pandemic.

My battling selves have a war between the possibility of our time for transformation, or the other prospect that the worse is yet to come with many further waves of Covid_19, which could last for many years to come potentially. Science has provided the vaccines but will it be enough?

The same goes for ecology and the likelihood that petroleum will run out. Science has some ideas but to what extent will the best ideas be embraced enough and will the ideas work?

So, I would say that I have a raging war in my own psyche between optimism and pessimism, as well as other conflicts in thinking.

I just found a quote which I thought perhaps is useful for reflection, by an author called Bruno Scattolin:
'Truth is relative, reality is absolute. But as you are plunged into the world of relativism you can only have a partial perception of reality.'

So, what this is suggesting is that it is not that there is no absolute, but that we are locked into a particular limitation of perspective, in space and time, and one's whole cultural and personal embodiment.

I have looked at the quote you gave from Kierkergaard and not sure what to make of it out of context. I am sure that the idea of spiritual trial makes sense. I do feel that many, including myself, dislike the word sin because it seems to conjure up a picture of preachers telling people what they should and should not do. That is not to say that I think that the idea of sin, in its meaning of erring, should be underplayed.

I do plan to read more Kierkergaard because I do believe that he struggled 'spiritual trial' but I think that sometimes the language of religion does reinforce convention. Of course, the Gospels do really go beyond this, in the whole way that Jesus criticised the Pharisees. I do believe that the whole inner process of trial is important and one quote I do have access to from Kierkergaard's writing is,
'Despair is a Sickness in the Spirit, in the Self, and So it May Assume a Triple Form: in Despair at Not Being Conscious of Having a Self (Despair Improperly So Called); in Despair at Not Willing to Be Oneself; in Despair at Willing to Be Oneself.'

Of course, I am simply choosing a quote which I prefer but all this talk of sin in religion brought me to the despair in the first place, and I wonder if Kierkergaard was coming from that perspective too.

I still think your system is one which completely reinforces the status quo. Your last paragraph points out the potential danger of this. It does give too much power to the academic establishments.

Surely, in the last century we may saw a move away from the academic elite having the ultimate say about knowledge and a move towards a more lively open exchange of ideas. What you are describing sounds like a regime for killing off the true spirit of philosophical exploration and expression. Ultimately, do you think that your academic elite process of peer review would accept such a site as this, or would it seek for it to be under the control and governance of the academic 'experts'? Also, would there be more censorship of views and ideas which the academic hierarchy saw as 'false'?

I can see that your approach is one which tries to see the importance of all views rather than any one, but the problem which I see is that it places too much power in the hands of the academic elite. I am pointing here your suggestions on religious knowledge based on a process of peer review as being a 'substitute for authoritative religious texts'. Forgive me if I misunderstand you, but your use of the word pastor, which comes from the religious context, seems to be reinterpreted to make the academic, such as the professors, into a new form of pastors, and of priestly significance.

Peer review may work in the academic world, and I am sure that there is an elite academic world of philosophy, but to have decisions as to what is true, especially in the realms of religion, being decided as you describe seems completely hierarchical and can be seen as giving too much power to the academic elite. This raises questions, including the socioeconomic issues underlying who become the academic elite, and the processes of election and inclusion in this power process.

Even though you say the system would not be authoritarian in telling people what to believe it does still seem that the process would be giving be giving those ranking in the academic establishments a certain monopoly on the whole viewing of knowledge. Even though you suggest that it would include other people's ideas it does seem like a system which would reinforce the power of the academic hierarchy to have the ultimate word in how and on what basis ideas are and should be evaluated. I would imagine that this happens to some extent already but it just seems that you wish to make academia even more powerful, as judges in determining 'the best findings about reality.'

I planned to look at it in the morning, but started thinking and dashed off a reply, so I have to admit that I hadn't paid full attention to the quote. I will have a read of it again in the morning as it's after midnight. I definitely don't wish to see Kierkergaard as boring and would like to read more of his writings really.

You speak of two forms of truth, relative and absolute. I am not sure that it can be divided so distinctly and think that there may be a whole spectrum of possibilities. Also, in thinking about the idea of the inevitable, I think that this is a word chosen by the mystics. The problem with this for philosophy is that we are trying to get to the whole where we can grasp to explain everything in words.

However, one of the problems with this is that there are levels of reality which are beyond us in the epistemological sense. Obviously, I don't think that we should make excuses for ourselves, but our brains and perceptual apparatus may not have the capability. Plato's idea of the Forms behind the cave of shadows was one round it, but I am sure that the whole idea of Forms is open for debate.

Perhaps the way forward in the current paradigm is in the realm of quantum dimensionality. Nevertheless, even then, this is the territory of the mystics, although most people seem to just stand back in awe of quantum physics. Perhaps that is because it is seen as mystique as opposed to mystical, because people feel blinded by the knowledge and language of the new physics.

The quote from Kierkergaard is interesting to me because I do remember reading that he worried about the unpardonable sin.

Regarding the book, 'A Course in Miracles', it does seem that it approaches the whole idea of the Holy Spirit on a psychological level. However, on some level, I do think that ultimately, as a 'channelled' piece of writing, that implies some higher source, and wouldn't that be the Holy Spirit. I have a Catholic friend, who does a lot of religious art and she describes her own work and inspiration as 'channelling' the Holy Spirit.

I think that in some ways the church may have used the term Holy Spirit to reinforce it's own views over those of other faiths. However, on a positive level, I think that it refers to the whole spirit and healing pointed to in Christ's life and message. But, even though I am interested in religion more in line with the theosophical tradition, I do still worry about what it would mean to really have committed the unpardonable sin. At one point, when I looked in the footnotes to the large family Bible in my parents' home, the suggestion was that it would be the whole reverse set of values, in which good is seen as evil.

I really don't think that you should see your liking for black men as problematic. It would be as absurd as seeing your liking for men as sexism against women. I think that the world is full enough of homophobia and we need to get to a place where personal preferences is disentangled from the political.

On a similar level, I was once speaking to a woman about the music I liked and because I like male vocalists and bands she suggested that I was sexist in my taste. This did bother me, but I thought that really what music I like is personal taste and nothing more. If I was working in the music industry and took this further and only supported male artists, or showed them favour, it is at this point that I think that I would be crossing the line into actual sexism. As it is, I have discovered some female artists who I like more recently.

So, with your taste in black men, it may be worth you thinking what it is that appeals to you psychologically, but beyond this why not simply accept, embrace and celebrate your personal taste for what it is.

This is a question I think about a lot, and I even started a thread on relativism and truth. I believe that it is a question which is central to the whole philosophy quest, and of course an interrelated issue is moral relativism vs absolutism. As far as the question of the transcendent, the biggest question is how we can we discover the ultimate truth. Science is one way, but that is one limited perspective and is sometimes, but not always, in conflict with religion.

In looking at the relative, anthropology throws a whole lot of light on cultural similarities and differences. I think relativism is limited when it becomes purely descriptive, as if no possible truth should be looked for. Perhaps, pluralism is a better approach because it tries to put together the various perspectives, but with a view to looking over and above the relative differences.

In searching for the transcendent absolute we are thrown back upon the epistemological principles. Also, some people look for one ultimate picture of truth, as in the supreme truth, beyond all others. Personally, I think that we all look for a subjective truth but, I am inclined to think that it is worth looking for the best from many disciplines and perspectives. However, that is, of course, my subjective slant and many other people probably view the matter differently altogether.

Anyway, I thought that after having had a whole thread discussion, I might as well join in, and you may get a very different debate going because mine was about 3 months ago and a lot of new members have joined in that time.

One viewpoint which I think is worth considering in relation to the dialogue of selves is that of RD Laing. I know that the antipsychiatry movement is seen as outdated in some ways, but in 'The Divided Self', he explored the whole way our thinking can be affected by the conflicting voices, in socialisation within the family. The contradictions we are brought up with giving rise to divisions within our sense of identity and thinking, to the point where it can it can lead to 'breakdowns'.

However, I do realise that you are speaking about entropy and futility, but you are also looking at defense mechanisms, so this may involve looking at the basis of power structures within our imaginary personal inner selves.

I do believe that the question you raise is an important one, especially with the inclusion of both the cultural and personal elements. Our cultural background beliefs influence us so much, but it is likely that our individual experiences as well. I am inclined to think that it is more likely that we will challenge the beliefs of our own cultural background if we encounter personal difficulties and, that is because it can be hard work to question the cultural ideas. However, there will be some who cling to particular beliefs, such as religious ones, for comfort or security in the face of difficulties. So, in all kinds of ways the whole perspective of the world is subjective, with cultural and personal experience affecting, but not necessarily determining, the interpretation of our everything.

I think that your distinction between describing the world through science and explaining it through religion is an important one. I think that you are right to say that religion is irrational, but part of the issue I see with that is that we are not completely rational beings. Certainly, I try to develop the rational side of myself, but I am aware of irrationality in myself and my own thinking. I have thought through my own religious background of Catholicism, and don't hold onto them as I did I did, but I would not describe myself as an atheist. But, it is definitely good to have an atheist join in the debate because I did not intend for this thread to be one just intended for people who hold religious convictions.

One outlook on the idea of the Holy Spirit, as overseeing the ego, is in, 'A Course of Miracles'.
Here is an example passage:
'The ego speaks in judgement, and the Holy Spirit reverses its decision, much as a higher court has the power to reverse a lower court's decisions in this world. The ego's decisions are always wrong because they are based on the error they were made to uphold. Nothing the ego perceives is interpreted correctly. Not only does the ego cite scripture for its purpose, but it even interprets Scripture as a witness for itself. The Bible is a fearful thing in the ego's judgement. Perceiving it as frightening, it interprets it fearfully.'

I realise that, 'A Course in Miracles' is criticised by some, especially some Christians, because it is a 'channelled' book, but for some, who have developed a whole attitude of fear in response to the Bible and Christianity it can be helpful, in working with the fear itself.

After I wrote my reply to you I thought how thinking in itself could be seen almost as a magical process in some ways. Sometimes, like today, for instance, I feel that my own mind is almost clouded in a great fog. I have been struggling to think and plan anything at all. At other times, my thoughts just seem to flow and I have instant ideas. Also, we are minds within a larger group mind. I remember seeing this described by one writer, Vera Stanley Alder, as, us being individually, 'cells of consciousness' It is organic, perhaps, if not an underlying 'magic'. I know that Dawkins, called a book, 'The Magic of Reality, ' just to show how life, in the scientific sense, could be seen as wondrous, without any reference to any supernatural power.

That is absolutely fine, because thinking what to write requires time. Sometimes, when I get posts sent to me I start to feel pressure within myself to reply almost instantly. Having replied, I often think that it would have been better had I not rushed. I realise that I put pressure on myself but sometimes the forum almost seems a live being in itself, with threads flickering up constantly.

So do you think that truth can perceive, because surely that would turn into a conscious entity, more like a god, even if only in the sense that the pagans or Egyptians meant? That is if truth exists in a distinct way, of course, independent of our perception and meaning.

I notice in your post previously to this that in relation to vibrations and energy, you asked are we more than that? That is a big question and I am inclined to think that we are, but I am also interested to know your view.

I am afraid that I haven't come across it, but I am interested to know if you think it has particular significance, and even that is why it may have become 'lost'.

It is interesting that you were concerned about the passage in the Bible about the unforgivable sin, because I have only ever come across one other person who has told me that they were worried. It was when I was starting my upper school and it did affect my school work. The RE teacher did seek to reassure me but I was annoyed that he seemed to think I must have done something, But it was the first time that I really began worrying about hell, and at a later stage of adolescence that I began worrying again in relation to real sins.

However, at some stage in school, I did learn from the same RE teacher that what was taught to the disciples was different from the rest of the people. But, generally the fear of hell was what led me to look outside of Christianity, and even now, I do find I get anxious if I try to read the Bible or if I go to church. I think that the distress of the whole time I worried about the passage in the Bible has left me with a deep psychological scar. However, this may go beyond this because I know so many Catholics who have a big guilt complex generally.

I think that the word psychedelic and hallucinogenic are not identical, although in some books people do use the word psychedelic substances. I would probably say that the psychedelic counterculture is a movement and it is possible to be part of that without hallucinogenic substances. Personally, I had always embraced the whole tradition of psychedelic music, ranging from the Beatles, The Psychedelic Furs, The Stone Roses and countless others. I read Tom Wolfe and Timothy Leary independent of using any substances. If my life had gone in a different direction, with more ups than downs, I probably would have never risked experimentation with substances. However, I do sometimes wonder if it was almost inevitable that I would experiment, with my whole leaning towards the psychedelic movement. But I am sure that there are plenty who have been influenced by the movement who have not tried any hallucinogenics at all.

I am afraid that I am not a physicist and as field of thought it is enormous because it is a whole paradigm in it's own right, including the ideas of Einstein and many others. For the present purpose of discussion, I will just give a short summarised view by Fritjof Capra, (1996), 'The Systems View of Life':
'Ever since Newton, physicists have believed that all physical phenomena could be reduced to the properties of hard and solid material particles. In the 1920s, however, quantum theory forced them to accept the fact that the solid material objects of classical physics dissolve at the subatomic level into wave-like patterns of probabilities of interconnections. The subatomic particles have no meaning as isolated entities but can be understood only as interconnections, or correlations, between various processes of observation and measurement. In other words, subatomic particles are not '"things" but interconnections between other things, and so on.'

In giving this extremely basic idea which underlies the new physics, I would suggest that the main emphasis is on relationships in a way which scientists had not described before. It does not lead to any clear conclusions but Fritjof Capra himself thought that one could see some comparisons between the new emerging picture and the idea of God, which had been described by some Eastern thinkers, as the Tao.

I have to admit that I explored psychedelics briefly. I can empathise with the whole idea of needing to 'focus my corrective lenses', because I sometimes seem to see a bit differently. However, I think that I felt this prior to any psychedelics and it only changed a little as a result. I don't think I have ever got to the point of becoming clinically 'psychotic'. The way it seems to affect me is that I struggle to do physical tasks, as if I have to almost focus myself into the world of the physical body to do practical tasks. I often joke with others about being a bit, 'out of body.'

I would say that I probably began being interested in the world seen by Aldous Huxley, in 'The Doors of Perception/ Heaven and Hell'. At the time when I read it, I did not plan to experiment, but it got to the point where I felt compelled to explore. Definitely, I can see where Huxley is coming from, in viewing the senses and brain as a reductive perspective on reality. I cannot say that I enjoyed my experiments entirely, but I think that was possibly due to the settings I had to enter into to experiment. I am not into clubs really but that my two acid experiments involved these. I do think that psychedelic experimentation probably works better in the context of more shamanic cultures, which have a place for the idea of a 'vision quest'.

In my own view of how psychedelics work, I do embrace the Eastern idea of the chakras. There is a lot of writing on this, but I am not sure that it is really respected that much within the Western philosophy view. However, the Eastern view incorporates this, and a similar and, perhaps overlapping idea is the Chinese meridian system, which underlies holistic systems of medicine.

A particular approach on the chakras is taken by Gopi Krishna, who speaks of the idea of kundalini awakening. The kundalini is the life force, which is often described as the 'coiled snake' rising from the various chakra points, based from the spine upwards to the head, including the third eye. The kundalini life force can awaken spontaneously, through meditation or psychedelics. The third eye can be awakened too prematurely through psychedelics, and this may be what leads to psychosis. I take an interest in these ideas, but with a certain amount of scepticism, because it may be that it is when such ideas are accepted too concretely or literally that there is a danger in slipping into the realm of delusions.

I see that the two you were speaking of the passage in the Bible, which I think is the hardest of all, or certainly it really worried me. That is the passage about the unpardonable sin: 'whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, will not be forgiven, either on earth or in heaven.' You mentioned it in connection with the idea of the Trinity, but it is has far wider implications for the idea of an unpardonable sin seems so contrary to the whole emphasis on forgiveness in the New Testament. When I have mentioned this idea to a number of people who are Christian's they don't really seem tot have thought that much about it. However, having agonised over it, I was a bit reassured to discover later that Jung and Kierkergaard had both struggled over this.

When I read the passage I lay awake worrying about it and I was troubled for about a year. I was so puzzled about what blasphemy against the Holy Spirit was and, somehow, became convinced that I might have committed it. I was 13 at the time and did not confide in my parents but did tell a friend. The RE teacher ended up hearing about my worry and called me in, but he was not completely helpful because he seemed to think that I had done something which I felt ashamed about. However, I did manage to look up the idea in some reference books and it did seem that the whole idea represented the whole rejection of the spirit of Christ's teachings and that the reason why the person could not be forgiven was because the person, having rejected Christ, would not wish for his forgiveness. But I never saw the passage as being one about the essentiality of the Trinity idea, although that is an interesting interpretation. Personally, I would say that the passage you referred to was the initial anxiety I had with the Bible.

Certainly, I won't be trying to put down anyone's personal beliefs, but would just be trying to offer thought for reflection. The thread may just die overnight anyway, as so many are being created everyday. So, I think that I will just log off for the night and hope that any discussion is one from which positive, constructive ideas can emerge. I will look in the morning and do my best to follow through....

Good night, Jack

I don't know why people get nasty with others in such discussions. Perhaps the threat is the whole idea of uncertainty which emerges, and it gets projected onto others who see a bit differently. I prefer to have the conflicts of opposing ideas in my own consciousness, and live with that, rather than trying to just look for one clear scientific or spiritual view. I believe in trying to think as clearly as possible, evaluating ideas. If there was one clear picture for guiding all other thought, surely it would be apparent. Of course, the search for truth is subjective in many ways, but it is easy to get lost or bogged down in this information age, amidst the whole array of competing ideas.

I am certainly not wishing to start a debate that becomes nasty. To some extent, it seems that all debates on this forum are heated and there is a whole undercurrent of thinking surrounding the philosophical underlying religious and spiritual questions. Just now, since I started this one today, I have noticed that someone else has created one about the supernatural.

I am wishing to explore the whole question of belief surrounding the whole experience of the extraordinary. It is an area for the gullible but people who are struggling to make sense of life. There are shelves of books on angels, demons and all kinds of occult or new age ideas. Really, I think that there is some big rift between those who subscribe to materialism and those who look for spiritual systems of thought. This may be more of a divide now than the conflict in religious beliefs and atheism.

I think many people are questioning deeply. As people on the forum probably know by now, I embrace a wide spectrum of thought rather than having one specific one. Perhaps people would prefer it if I had one fixed belief. However, I don't see this as easy, but I do think that if anything we need ways of seeing and thinking which can reconcile a lot of conflicts raised by the findings of science and the whole quest for understanding our lives, especially the realm of the mysterious. But, I am certainly wishing to think beyond delusions.

I am not sure that your three degrees of Christianity are definitive. I don't feel that I fit into them, and probably would consider myself as post Christian. I think that this has some connection with your idea of pre Christian, more than non Christian because it is more a case of feeling unable to follow the original pathway. However, that is not rejection but more of a feeling of wishing to embrace the truth underlying all religions rather than one. I think that this is probably more in line with the theosophical tradition.

I think that I am familiar with the attention to such practices as holy days and prayers, as certainly that was the Catholic background I was brought up in. My father grew up in Ireland and following the catechism was very important. I was taught to kneel down and say prayers every night. Lent and fast days were seen as being of extreme importance.

I think that it is only a minority who hold on to these ideals now. I remember as a child that, when I explained about my own religious background, some other children seemed a bit shocked. I don't adhere to the specific practices but do still hold onto the central principles, such as attention. I think that it is true that emotionality may have replaced attention and, this may mean that psychology has taken over in filling the void left by the meaning which religious beliefs used to provide.

I have found being in groups extremely difficult at times, due to the whole herd factor. I do think that my own social skills are deteriorating in lockdown and wonder how I will cope with groups again. I wonder if I am the only one feeling this way or whether other people are wondering if they will be able to go back to being in groups after becoming used to isolation.

I do think that the whole question of 'prophetic experiences' is one which raises questions about scientific determinism and it is questionable of how much our freedom is an illusion. My own experiences of premonitions, especially in adolescence, was what made me not accept the materialistic explanations, because, otherwise I think that I might have done so. I am inclined to the view that a picture of reality which may be more adequate would be one which is being perceived in the new physics, which sees life more in terms of vibrations and energies.

I am in favour of looking for the most rational ways of looking at all matters, but it does just seem to me that some of the most conventional explanations for certain experiences are a bit inadequate. I am all in favour of new discoveries to explain what appears to be unexplainable.

It is so hard to explain these things. When under a lot of stress, especially if I have not slept or had eaten very much, I have intense experiences on the borderline of sleep. Sometimes, it is as if I am arising from my body and or of being in my bed and held down by alien entities. Some may say it is the astral dimension and others would say that it is strange dreams or nightmares.