What you are saying shows how we are all taught differently. I am interested to know what ideas you have and sources you have for alternative pictures of Mary Magdalene. I have come across some people who think that she was Jesus's partner, but it is hard to come up with clear evidence. There is even so much written about Jesus and the tomb after his death, the Grail tradition so much more. It could be much more than one lifetimes of research really, and one area of exploration opens up many more.

Myth is an extremely complex but interesting topic. One of the problems with the term myth is its colloquial use to mean false. I embrace it in the sense of the whole idea of symbolic dimensions. There is so much interesting reading in this area from the writings of James Campbell, Carl Jung and Mircea Eliade. In thinking of the mythical we are talking about a whole dimension of experience of trying to capture truths.

We have the whole story of Adam and Eve and the garden of Eden as a starting point. This has caused a lot of controversy and, really, if you think about it the account probably was part of oral history which got written down and some people have taken it all so literally, when it was never written down on the first day of creation, like a newspaper report.

One mythical idea which I find fascinating is the whole idea of the fall of the angels and the consequent fall of mankind. I was taught this very strongly as a child and when I tried to explore this idea I discovered that it is more based on Milton's 'Paradise Lost' than the Bible. However, if you look in esoteric literature there are all kinds of ideas about the fall of Atlantis and Nephilim giants who ruled the earth. It is so hard to know if this is pure imagination.

Myth fascinates me and it encompasses all the comparative religious perspectives. One of the best resources which we have is art and I am thinking of all the riches within religious icons of Christianity, Hindu art and statues of all the gods and goddesses and the many other varieties of symbols. The symbolic dimensions are endless and we can begin to access them in our dreams or in out of body experiences. Some Eastern thinkers speak of this dimensions as the 'astral plane' but I would guess than many philosophers would be very suspicious of this concept.

I have read some of a book, 'The Physics of Transfigured Light: The Imaginal Realm and the Hermetic Foundations of Light' , James Marvell (2016) which suggest that there is an imaginary dimension, which is objectively real and the author even suggests that it is from this realm may even that from which Plato's forms are derived. However, when we get into the whole question of dimensions beyond us so much is speculation and, as much as I am fascinated by the imaginary it is possible to go off into tangents, but I do think that the nature of myth, should have a place, like religion, in the philosophy.

I think that we were replying at the same time, so I have just read your latest comment. I think I leave a certain amount of ambiguity about the idea of the unseen order, whether I would place it in the ranking of the 'divine' or 'science' because I simply don't know how to define it in an ultimate way.

I think that you are correct to see the idea of an unseen order as being an aspect of science. I think that the idea can be used in a religious or scientific context equally. Sometimes, I think when people see the concept of an unseen order, the associations conjured up are of magic, mysticism and the supernatural arise. Perhaps the word supernatural would be regarded as almost a swear word in some philosophy circles, although I once read a book by Lyall Watson called, 'Supernatural' in which he was using to describe order and patterns in biology and nature, rather than in a hidden order of spiritual beings.

I definitely don't think that fears around the topics of hell and sex are exclusive to Catholicism and I am sure that many people from other Christian denominations experience fear and anxiety in relation to these. Personally, I have spoken to many people raised in the Catholic church who have spoken about these. Some of these have become Buddhists in response to the need for a religion which is free from this fear.

At least, within Catholicism there is regular confession, thought of as a sacrament, and absolution of sin. I am not sure that confessions features as strongly in other denominations. But, of course, forgiveness of sins should play an important role. We do get a picture of Jesus having his feet washed by Mary Magdalene, the prostitute, and him forgiving her sins.

I have never had much discussion with anyone from an Islamic background on the topic of hell or sex to know their exact experiences, but from my reading of the Islamic faith, I would imagine that Muslims would probably have a lot to worry about too.

Yes, it does seem that there does appear to be some higher source behind the scenes of the laws of the universe, some mysterious factor that gives rise to the laws of nature and ignites the spark of consciousness. Many have called this God, or the Tao.

That is possibly separate from many of aspects of exoteric religions. However, many have argued clearly for and against belief in God, and I inclined to think that some of these arguments are so bound up in logistics. I think that we can appreciate the mysterious from a religious or scientific perspective and I wonder if it really matters how we label this.

I think many people have missed Maslow's whole emphasis on peak experiences, in focusing on his hierarchy of needs. When I have been on modules of psychology courses I have found that his ideas are often represented as the importance of the lower needs being met as the main thing. I remember being in a class and speaking about the peak experiences and self actualization and the tutor looked puzzled. I certainly don't think that she had read Maslow's writing.

I think that Roper's model of nursing has done disservice to Maslow's psychology because it has used it as a model for focusing on the activities of daily living. In mental health nursing, I have seen it being used as a model for planning care. The sort of way in which it seems to be applied to the top of the hierarchy needs is making patients aware of the chaplaincy services for various cultural groups. Of course, I am not saying that staff are able to look at issues such as peak experiences. However, I feel that staff in psychiatric care, including psychologists often don't seem aware of this dimensions to Maslow's theory.

I believe that the search for peak experiences underpins the quest for religious experience and knowledge. This is probably true of most religions traditions but probably many who go through the motions of attending church services and rituals probably don't really explore this dimension.

You say that you were ranting and that's interesting because it seems that's what people who adhere to authoritarian religions seem to do. One of the problems which I see from the whole way that the Judaeo-Christian image of God is the way this translates into practice. The idea of omniscience and wrathful God goes hand in hand with such leadership and it is hard to see whether man is creating an anthropomorphic image of God, or whether the image of God is creating a certain ideal of human nature.

Of course, there is a big contrast between the God of the NewTestament, in Christ, with Jahweh of the Old Testament. It does seem that Jesus was emphasising the first two commandments and emphasising the importance of morality based on loving one's neighbour. However, how much of the image of God in history of Christendom was biased on this is questionable in the way of the Crusades and fighting forces for the mission of bringing the Christian message across the globe. Generally, I think that the whole tension between the God of the Old Testament and Christ has been an underlying tension. There is also the tension between the prospect of heaven and hell. Certainly, I found difficulty feeling these tensions when I have been in church, and while many find comfort I felt oppressed and depressed on many occasions.

I do think that the Eastern thinkers have so much to offer. I do believe that earliest Christianity may have been more attuned to the way of perceiving of the East, but I am drawing upon the wisdom of some of the the Gnostic gospels, which were cast out and buried and found in Nag Hamadi.

What I did find in mainstream Christianity is that everything was taken on such a literal level and I am not sure that events such as the transfiguration or ascension, among other aspects can be read like a textbook. I believe that the whole Cartesian-Newtownian mechanistic model led to the underlying wisdom becoming distorted.

I think that the many contradictions may have given rise for the need for nihilism. However, this can just be a blind avenue as the word 'nihilism' itself implies. That is probably why I think that it may be important for an integration of aspects of diverse traditions and I think that quite a lot of individuals are going in this direction in their thinking.

I think that you are definitely right to say that I read the Bible as if it is a work of literature rather than in the way it was understood originally. However, that is not the way I began reading it.
As a teenager I used to read it in a really literal manner, apart from the 'Book of Genesis', because I was familiar with Darwin. I used to really agonise over passages and worry how to interpret 'The Book of Revelation'. The whole Judaea Christian tradition has a strong belief in the idea of a personal relationship with God, and the Bible is read in that context.

I was brought up in Catholicism, but went to Christian Union. Here, I encountered real difficulty because many people there seemed to think that the reading I was doing, including most of the philosophy and the work of Carl Jung were the work of the devil. I ended up spending a whole day in bed, feeling so confused and depressed. So, perhaps this is why I ended up coming to the approach of being an outsider, looking in on the various religious traditions.

I do think that the Catholic religion is a very powerful and it is like a world in its own right. There is immense power from the symbolism and many find it to be so comforting. However, when you are living in it can be overwhelming and full of contradictions. I was brought up in a church and a school in which the clashes between the adherence to the church and adherence to the values of modern culture were celebrated. Part of the problem is where 'sex' fits into the picture and also the unspoken undercurrent of 'hell'. These factors brought conflict for me and for many others raised in this tradition.

I am certainly in favour of the experiential domain. I didn't know about Simone Weil's teenage experience, probably because until you pointed her out to me, I was not really familiar with her. She definitely seems to be your spiritual mentor. Mine is Carl Jung as I discovered him when I was a teenager and he definitely had an inner struggle in encountering the lived experience of the 'divine'. This is most evident in his autobiography, 'Memories, Dreams and Reflections.'

I am certainly in favour of exploring the transcendent and that also includes the existence of the diabolical, often called the devil. Perhaps the more one searches for God, one is brought to face the devil, or inner demons, too. The main difference of where I come from to most religious people is that I don't really frame my experience in one clear box. I do believe that the questions and areas of exploration of religion are of central importance though. Probably, the people who do partake within a specific religion rather than go outside it have an easier path. The individual quests can be hazardous.

The idea of a God who doesn't wish to be prayed to and is accepting of atheism is an interesting radical alternative to the picture of Jahweh of the Old Testament.

I do think that many people would prefer the conventional life you describe of family and employment, but I think that so many don't have this any longer. There are so many who live outside of these conventions. When I think of the people I went to school with who did go on to the more conventional lifestyles, a lot of them do appear to be the ones who did not challenge their religious backgrounds. It is perhaps hard to see whether the lifestyle or the challenging of beliefs comes first. I know that even though I was still religious in my final couple of years at school I was clearly stepping outside my religious background in my reading and it was probably inevitable that I would question deeply, although the need to do so psychologically didn't present it to me at the time.

I would agree that without religious ideas it is sometimes easy to fall into nihilism. I do have some affinity with the philosophy of Nietzsche, Camus and Sartre, even while I was still more religious. It is probably easier to cultivate depression when seeing life from the angle of those kind of thinkers. Personally, I try to keep a more balanced perspective by reading a lot of other ideas, especially those from Eastern Europe and ideas within psychology which have a focus on transforming, such as the tradition of transpersonal psychology. Generally, I like to read as widely as possible and be able to draw on as many different forms of philosophy and thinking as possible, but this does mean that reading is a main part of my life. Perhaps, the idea of a reading life has replaced religion for me.

I think that the post you have just written makes your argument a bit more explicit, but I am a bit troubled by your use of the word, 'perversity'. It seems to be a rather loaded word, and we all probably bring all kinds of preconceived ideas when thinking about this term.

I do agree with you and Bertrand Russell and think our original faiths are still there lurking in the background. I have never called myself an atheist, and have even told some people that I am a post Catholic. I can see that so much of my own reactions and things I say are clearly influenced by the way I was taught to think as a child, but that is not to say that I have learned to think very differently. I do go to church with a Catholic friend sometimes, but I do find the experience extremely difficult, especially going through the whole ritualistic approach.

My friend finds church so comforting but does also has an affinity with the ideas in, 'A Course in Miracles'. I find this book extremely helpful because it does work more as a psychological way of seeing many of the ideas, especially the idea of forgiveness, on a psychological level.

I think that you are right in the sense that the idea of God as presented in Christianity does imply that of being looked after by God, the father. Definitely, when I was growing up, I felt that I did not need to take full responsibility because that was God's job. It was probably when I stepped outside that picture that I began to feel that I needed to take responsibility for my choices. However, even when we think about it all from the standpoint of personal responsibility, it does seem that we cannot control everything. We are still unable to determine what happens in our fully.

I see religious thinking as full of mythic narrative and symbolic truths. Some of these can be traced back to Egyptian ideas and other ancient pictures of life. But, probably I am fairly esoteric in my own understanding.

I think that you need to be more specific, with examples, to make your argument clearer in making it fit into your philosophy of egoism. At the moment, it appears to me to be rather abstract. The idea probably works for you, but when it is read out of context, it seems a bit fuzzy, as if you are telling rather than showing the underlying picture you are presenting.

I think that it is true that religion is connected to family and community life and, of course, I would not be advocating abolishing religion. That would be a bit totalitarian. Perhaps it will be the people who are not so connected to family and community life who will be free to do more of the individual searching for themselves.

There is a long history of opposition between science and religion, especially when the ideas of Darwin came along. However, it is possible to reconcile these ideas if one chooses to do so, and this can be done through understanding the Bible as a story rather than a literal account. Perhaps the apparent conflicts between religion and science arise when people see the religious texts too concretely.

It does seem that there are phases when scientists seem to be dominant in thinking and times when religion is. Philosophy does seem to have given rise to atheism, but it is quite possible that other ways of seeing may become more accepted, such as the ideas of Kant or Spinoza. But it does seem likely that any attempt to bring forth religious views will need to be a view which takes into account the thinking of the scientists.

I am not sure that religion is an innate need, but perhaps the whole unseen dimension and symbolic aspects of life is. We have the various ways of seeing, such as the the shamanic picture of reality. I do wonder if in the future people will have more direct encounters with the symbolic realm, but perhaps even combining parts from various religious traditions, as so much information is available, rather than being combined to one. We could see more individualised quests with the dimensions arising from the unconscious, rather than people bound to specific doctrines and rituals of mainstream organised religions.

I am not sure why you think that some stories are not mythic. I take the view that just about all stories have some relationships to mythic structures, because some archetypal forces are coming into play. If the mythic is removed what is left of value in a story?

I suppose that part of the issue of whether you find it hard to believe in anything is whether you really want to or not. Personally, I do believe that a major aspect of acceptance of an idea does depend on our motivation, to some extent. This may appear to make a mockery of serious religious beliefs, because many religious believers say that they believe because the ideas represent the truth. However, I am inclined to believe that it is not that straightforward and we often believe what we wish to believe,possibly on a subconscious level, and that is where the psychological aspect comes into play.

I do have a strong interest in the gothic. This probably arose around the time I was questioning religious beliefs, especially as I was reading Jung on the idea of the shadow. I did a couple of courses on art therapy and that was where I read the ideas of Freud on Thanatos, and tried exploring my own shadow in art. This led me to explore the music of Marilyn Manson and go to see many live metal music events. But now, I do read a lot of dark fantasy literature and I have read some Poe and H P Lovecraft.

The whole experience of the 'dark' in religion is interesting, including gargoyles. I remember reading in one of Blake's prose pieces, the idea that Milton was part of the devil's party without knowing it, because he seemed to write better about the infernal aspects of life. This may have been said in Blake's-'The Marriage of Heaven and Hell' which really got me thinking about good and evil before I had got to the point of thinking analytically about religion.

I have always found the esoteric traditions of religion more interesting than the exoteric ones. Within Christianity, there are the ideas of Celtic Christianity as well as the whole tradition of Gnosticism. The early Church was hostile towards Gnostic thinking but, nevertheless, it seems likely that a lot of Gnostic thinking did get incorporated into Christianity on some level, as the Gospel of St John and the Book of Revelation seem to be part of that tradition. There is even speculation that one of the founding fathers had some affinity with Gnostic thinking.

Of course, esoteric ideas have a whole history, as expressed in the Rosucrucian movement, alchemy and, more recently, as well as the ideas of Emmanuel Swedenborg and Rudolf Steiner. More recently, drawing upon the ideas of Eastern thinking, we have the whole movement of theosophy. I have been to a few meetings run by The Theosophical Society. One particular thing that I was impressed by within that organisation is the whole idea of recognizing the truth underlying all religions and creeds. Religion understood on that level makes more sense in some cases than just confining ideas to one viewpoint. The reason I say this is because many people adopt the religious beliefs which they are brought up with as children. That seems to make it all seem too relative and I am in favour of understanding the religious quest on a universal level of meeting the human need for understanding and truth.

The role of the devil in Christianity is interesting. Having been brought up as a Catholic, I had immense fear of the devil, sin and hell. This was the point at which psychology stepped into the picture for me. I found the ideas of Carl Jung extremely important. In particular, his book 'Answer to Job' looks at the whole problem of evil within Christianity, and the whole idea of the devil critically. Jung is controversial in his approach because he sees the idea of the image of God as a Trinity as inadequate and suggests that psychologically the idea of a quarternity is more consistent with the needs of the human psyche. The fourth aspect which he suggests is the the devil, and, or the feminine principle because he thinks that these have been repressed and suppressed within Christianity. In particular, he thinks that we need to become aware of our own dark side, the shadow, which if not faced cconsciously can result in evil being unleashed in a horrific way. Rather than seeing the devil outside of us, he sees it arising within us as destructiveness, especially in the possibility of nuclear devastation which could be carried out. Jung was writing this in the 1950s and I am sure that there are other threats, including terrorism.

Your first comment was good as well. I have just been struggling to get round to replying today. I think that one particular point you make is the distinction around theism and other alternatives. In particular, you can control the Judaeo-Christian God with all the many gods of Hinduism. Personally, I am inclined to think that all these are representations of the underlying divine power. Here, I am drawing upon the way in which Jung speaks about God-images. Personally, my first realisation that I didn't really fit into mainstream Christianity was when I realised how the Hindu idea of Brahman merging into Atman from Hinduism made more sense to me than most of the ideas within Christianity. I have also explored the wide spectrum of Christianity approaches and I think that the one that I probably feel more comfortable with is the Quakers. It is a strict contrast to Catholicism because it so free from ritualism.

Your list of the benefits and disadvantages of organised religion is comprehensive. I think that I would side with the list of disadvantages. But that doesn't mean that I think that religion can be eradicated easily. This is probably because we probably do feel a need for some sense of an underlying divine sense over us, but, of course, it is possible to hold on to this and be apart from organised religion, although I am sure that many feel more at ease with organized religion. Personally, I have never found it easy to conform, so I prefer to think my own thoughts outside the confines of organised religion.

I think that the question of why people need religion is in the borderlands between philosophy and psychology. I am interested in the writings of Freud on this, and, more so, the ideas of Carl Jung. These thinkers were writing mainly from a psychoanalytical perspective, but what they said did cross into philosophy and Jung drew upon Kant's epistemological theory when talking about ideas about belief in God.



I did spend a period of time, probably about 2 years, around about the time after 2 of my friends committed suicide, in which I really agonized over religious questions. Even a few years ago, when I was working night shifts I used to spend time when I was not busy really worrying about spiritual matters, especially life after death. So, I have been compelled to think about religion, but it is probably because thinking about life in a religious context was so central to my thinking in childhood and adolescence that I have not really been able to break free from it, even if I have tried to do so.

Perhaps the time we are entering into will show us how hardwired we are for uncertainty. I am inclined to think that any religious beliefs or of an unseen order need to evolve and be adapted to the difficulties of our times. Perhaps we can go outside of conventional religious thinking and explore deeper esoteric systems, including pagan ideas, which have been suppressed within the mainstream of Western philosophy and culture.

Perhaps we should not recoil and evade such horrors. Obviously, it so easy to look for the brighter aspects of life, but perhaps this is too onesided. Perhaps we need to be more gothic in our exploration. On a philosophical level, I would express this in terms of the whole Jungian emphasis on the shadow, and the general psychoanalytic emphasis of Freud, regarding the battle between the forces of Eros and Thanatos. Perhaps, the reality of Thanatos on a subconscious level has not been acknowledged, and this is a hindrance when we begin to encounter the unknown dimensions.

Interesting, and Led Zeppelin and others spoke of dog as the reverse of God. Some destroyed their records but what does it say about the role of dogs within a grand design'?

We may be talking about the top of the hierarchy of power, especially those who make the decisions. However, the idea of government is probably complex, because it involves the power structures underlying it, especially the voice of the elite, or ruling class, which have ownership of so much property. However, so much sway of ideas may come from public opinion. So, there is tension between the leaders and those who it represents. In addition, so much conflict and fear may be projected onto leaders, and it is hard to know on what level this has an impact on the government and turns it into an illusionary entity, holding on to collapsed illusions and disillusionment. So we may ask what is a government exactly, and is it truly about leadership?

You speak of government as, 'The consequent system of humanity's free and successful interactions per individual', but I am not sure that we always feel, in reality, that it is serving our interests. It depends on the nature of the particular government in power.

I would agree that it is best if we keep our messages as simple as possible. It is difficult though, in dealing with such a complex topic, but overblown theories can get in the way sometimes

I do believe that we have to be careful, especially in looking at religious experience.

If anything, I have been a bit overwhelmed by the many replies, when I thought perhaps no one would reply to my thread at all. So, I am probably going to log off for today, but I am especially interested in the whole religious experience as depicted in the writings of Carl Jung, and the whole experience of the whole experience of the numinous, as described by Rudolf Otto.

I am interested in drawing this out and probably more interested in the whole question of living experience of other dimensions, evident in various traditions of thinking, including those of Eastern and Western religious perspectives. I do believe that the whole area of comparative religion is central to the philosophy of religion. I know that you are interested in the practice of meditation and I, most certainly, do see such direct experience with whatever dimensions or reality beyond our everyday experience as being of central importance for us as we find our own search for personal meaning.

I think that myth is of supreme importance. I believe that this connection with reality is at the core of how we live. It may come into play in religious perspectives but also in our creative lives. Personally, I am interested in the whole level of archetypal reality and I have some gravitation towards transpersonal psychology and philosophy, but I think that the whole dimension of fantasy and stepping into other quantum dimensions is one worth pursuing. This may enable us to face the primordial reality of unknown dimensions in the truest possible way.

You ask why a personal structure would be mythic, and I think that this is because we are immersed in personal and other stories, and cannot really step outside of these entirely.

Yes, I think that we do need to consider the whole question of what it means to turn 'inwardly towards the light'. However, I come also with many questions. Even within the more esoteric part of Christianity, we have the whole question of the Luciferan emphasis on light and how this led to the 'fall' of the angelic and human kingdoms. We can also consider to what extent is this symbolic, but this does lead to the larger question as to what extent are all religious perspectives mythic representations. Even the non religious and scientific paradigms can be seen as models, so, even those, are representations.

I think that William James was writing at a particular time and it did, inevitably leave a lot of questions about what we can do in this process. One book which I am reading currently, which explores the connections we can make with any divine power in the universe is by Dr Joe Dispenza, (2017) 'Becoming Supernatural: How Common People Are Doing the Uncommon'.

This book is looking at the idea of transformation and I think that it is useful. However, I am aware that the idea of the 'supernatural' is open to question in its own right, and I think that such ideas do need to be subject to philosophical analysis.

I do believe that science give us some certainty, but even that can make us feel under a rigid agenda of medical views and diagnostic criteria. Long before the crisis of the pandemic, we have been evaluating ourselves under guidelines about health and wellbeing. I am not saying that this is not important but even this has a mythical level of seeing our lives.

Perhaps religious belief or lack of it can both be overwhelming. Without religion, it all seems illusionary, but, on the other hand, if we see ourselves in the hand of the almighty, as in facing the wrath of Jahweh of The Old Testament, it can be rather stressful, as evident in the writings of Kierkergaard.