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.

Thanks for replying to my thread. I went out for a walk in the park after writing the question and have spent the evening going through the replies, and worked upwards.

I do believe that the ideas of William James are essential to the understanding of why religion is important. I also believe that other writers' views are important too, including those of Carl Jung, Mircea Eliade and all ot those who have explored the psychological and comparative aspects of religion.

When you speak of the possibility of destruction in relation to this, I do wonder how nihilism fits into the picture. Personally, I do have times when I feel that there is no objective meaning. I cannot always separate this from depression on a personal level. In other words, it is not always clear whether my own depression leads to lack of belief in any higher power being involved in the enrollment of life, or the opposite way round. Nevertheless, I am still inclined to the view that personal and collective survival matter still matter, but I can see that it is a dodgy area because once we get into the area of a godless world it is possible for all meaning to collapse.

I am glad to meet you on the forum. It is interesting to interact with someone who comes from the complete opposite angle of having been raised in an atheist background. In contrast, I was brought up with the belief that I had God watching me, in every moment. This did make me feel fearful but it did lead me to a sense of not being alone. I felt that I had a friend in the form of Jesus, as the son of God, and was brought up in the tradition of praying.

I wonder how much of that affects us even in the present. I say that because even though I don't hold to the beliefs I was taught, I think that I still do act as though I am in touch with some higher power. This probably is related to the way that I do still feel that I have some relationships with some underlying higher power in the universe, and this proceeds from my initial background. I wonder how your background still affects you, and whether it affects you as you go through the day to day experience of life.

I would say that the balance between too much information and too much reflection time is complex. I often feel overwhelmed by both of them. I have so many books to read and that is not counting the online resources. The endless time of reflection, and I am not a good sleeper which means that I think a lot about these issues in the night.

Thee whole prospect of the amount of information and time spent in reflection means that we have a lot of work to do. The one thing that I would say that I do wish is that the quest can be pleasurable too, because I think that without a certain amount of fun and light relief it would all become too overwhelming and beyond our human capabilities. I am not meaning to dismiss the seriousness of the quest, but if there is a higher power overseeing us in our own philosophical pursuit, I cannot believe that this being would want it to be nothing but torture and agony.

I do believe that it is essential that we hold on to the need to be able to hold onto the search for truth, wherever it takes us, into the rocky banks of seas of uncertainty. For some, it may lead into an abyss of nihilistic uncertainty and, for others to a spiritual paradise of knowing. I journey in between the two and embrace existentialist perspectives alongside aspects of Western and Eastern spiritual philosophies. I suppose one question is to what extent is it about objective searching and knowing and how much is it about psychological need? Personally, I admit that I have a certain amount of searching for what I wish to find, but objective questions about truth matter as well, in a very deep sense.

How do you think that we can go to the heart of this issue authentically, but without being bound to intellectualisation?

Do you think that the basis of being born into a tradition is of that much significance nowadays? The reason why I ask this is because we live in such an information age that I wonder to what extent the ideas we are brought up with are likely to be held to firmly for the rest of our lives.

You mentioned the idea of indoctrination and this is important to consider. I think that this involves the whole hypnotic power of beliefs and I wonder to what extent can we break free from it?

I see that you think that James's definition of religion is not sufficient. I am open to other ones, if you feel that there are more expansive ones. I think that the reasons you spell out are useful for considering the whole level of importance for religion for many people.

Perhaps your reason 3 is the most important to consider. You suggest, 'Maybe there is an unseen order.' I am interested to know more about this.

I am interested to know why you think that we don't need religious beliefs, any more than alcohol and opium. I think that we are talking about whole mythological structures and systems of values. I do believe that we can rethink these for ourselves and find our own, but probably most people don't find the need to do so. To find our own mythic structure of meaning seems worthwhile to me, but this might mean that we are in the minority of the extraordinary.

'If we dwell on the notion that we are being deceived or toyed with on some level by a higher power, it can become a self fulfilling prophecy.' I think that this is an important issue, because the belief in free will is essential to finding that freedom rather than feeling that we are puppets, unable to create our own destiny. This deterministic perspective can come from the belief in a higher power or from within the determinism of hard materialism.

One idea which I believe is interesting in relation to understanding of causality is the idea of synchronicity. It is not an actual model of causation, but of meaningful coincidences. It is important for aiding the individual in understanding patterns within our lives, and perhaps through tuning into these patterns we can gain greater understanding of where we are and who we are individually.This may give us the consciousnes with which to find our true pathways in the grander scheme of life. Jung spoke of how these synchronicities often arise in critical moments in life. Personally, I have experienced these, including precognitive dreams, and have found them useful in understanding symbolic patterns in situations where I often felt almost powerless. Understanding symbolic dimensions can provide a way of seeing stories unfolding in life and how we can become the authors creating our own destinies more consciously.

Your idea of a formula sounds fair enough, but whether it is one which will be implemented in most societies is one which I would question. I see the idea of day jobs for all as an ideal, but whether that will be implemented is uncertain. I am not sure that in the aftermath of the pandemic, whether or not we will see a greater divide in the rich and the poor and more inequality. I believe that it could go either way and, of course, it may vary in certain parts of the world. Let us just hope that we see some positive changes coming and, I personally hope that this is the new 1968. Perhaps we need a bit of flower power to cheer us up. Bring on Bob Dylan...

Yes, there a whole load of interesting questions which exist independently of the various religious and other belief systems. It almost seems that the theory of evolution is taken to cover the existence of the human beings and a possible answer such as the big bang, but so much is not explained, such as the underlying laws, rhythms and cycles. The ongoing order of night following day routinely is taken for granted. The seasons seem a bit messed up with climate change and we would all get a bit shocked if the rhythm of night and day altered. Just imagine if we were suddenly plunged into constant night.

I try to juxtapose the various disciplines in thinking about all these matters. I have read Stephen Hawking's 'The Grand Design' and find that inspirational. Also, I think that Fritjof Capra's 'The Tao of Physics' is wonderful. Night and day can be seen as falling alongside the opposites of yin and yan, male and female, as well as light and dark. It seems to me that even if there is no God in the way many conventional religious people believe, there is definitely some higher power, such as that regarded as the Tao, from which the underlying order, patterns and cycles of creativity and destruction emerge and continue onwards.

While I said in my previous post to you that I thought that it would be problematic to see the philosopher's task as being one of character, rather than of work, I do believe that that the quest for knowledge arises within the context of living experience. Therefore, I think that in a deep sense, philosophy stems from the personal experience, and this means that it connected to the person. It is limiting to just see philosophy as a search for independent knowledge.

The question of what analysis involves does depend upon whether it is viewed as a grasp towards independent knowledge. I would say that analysis involves taking ideas apart and considering their meaning carefully. This would involve cultural significance and evaluation but it is done within a framework of subjective participation. We are looking at ideas within the context of our own search for understanding. When we read a writer's work it is done so in connection with our search for meaning and to dismiss this would seem to me to miss the whole purpose of reading. It is inevitably connected to the search for personal truth.

So, I think that the question of the virtue of the philosopher is complicated, because it is bound up with the personal life and authenticity. It should probably be seen as one which the philosophy is accountable to a life of virtue in a sense of personal accountability, and you do suggest the point of 'perfecting our selves by reaching for personal responsibility for our actions and expressions'. Here, I would suggest that the philosophers are accountable in many senses and are not to be judged any more or less than any individuals, but as they search for truth they may be more intricately involved in deciphering values more than most people. In doing so, the thoroughness of this quest is important and does require a certain dedication, and this should be how philosophy should be approached ideally.

I am inclined to think that matter and everything is recycled in some ways. In some ways, the idea of reincarnation is like recycling of 'souls'. The concept of the soul is open to dispute though.

As far as cycles, it seems that there are certain cycles, and the most obvious ones are the days and the whole following on of the seasons on a yearly basis. With the wider cycles, it is a matter of how we frame them. Certainly, the Indian philosophers saw us within an eternity of cosmic cycles. I believe that the idea of eternal recurrence was prominent in Zoroathranism. One other depiction of cycles was the astrological system and, in that picture, we are at the cusp between Pisces and Aquarius.

Part of the problem with seeing whether the fate of the earth, as to whether it is linear or cyclical is because we don't know the eventual outcome. Also, we don't know if universes and worlds populated by lifeforms have existed before us. So, we have a very limited frame of reference. Of course, this is taking the idea of eternal recurrence as a literal one. However, even though Nietzsche's may have eventually concluded that it was symbolic, the whole idea is worth considering on a cosmic level and I believe that the writer, Ouspensky, saw it in this grander scale. I am inclined to think that there are cycles but that we cannot see this fully because they are gradual and, as a result appear deceptively as being part of a linear process.

The question that you are asking is one that I wonder about a lot and it has also been one looked at in other threads

I think that the future of our culture has been on the brink of collapse for a long time. I think that the current Covid_19 pandemic is not the underlying source of this but it could hasten it forwards, mainly through economic factors, if huge sectors are plunged into severe poverty. it may be the reset button, to end the majority of civilisation and I am not sure that what you suggest about positive messages from institutions will help. It may do the opposite, in lulling people into a sense that everything will be fine, when the exact opposite is true.

One thing which I have been thinking in the last few days is that what may happen is that the ruling class may allow civilisation to collapse for the majority of people but preserve themselves. There is a growing awareness that resources, especially petroleum are being exhausted, so that humanity cannot live in way of the present consumer materialist society. So, one scenario I wonder about is a process whereby the ruling class simply ensure that their lives and lineage are protected, while the rest of the population are left to go down the route of cultural collapse. I don't know if this could happen, because it would involve making the majority of the population blind to this process, but I think that it is possible if the mass media are able to distort truth carefully enough.

Actions may determine the future but only partially. In particular, the events of the last year have thrown countless numbers of people's lives into jeopardy in a way which was not related to their actions. Life has and always will be unpredictable, even with the best will and action. People encounter all kinds of unexpected misfortunes often. I am not saying that there is no karmic law of cause and effect but it does not seem that the balance is always a fair outcome.

You describe the life of potential virtue but it does not seem to me that this would necessarily result in enabling one to be a 'better philosopher' . It seems as if you are almost giving a person specification, like in a job description. Certain people may fit the description but it doesn't mean that they would make the best philosophers because, surely, that requires analytical ability as well. I am not sure that to be a philosopher, character is necessarily more important than intellect. Who is in the position to judge the character of the philosopher? That would be to view them almost like priests. I would have thought that the criteria for thinking about the philosophers is their work and not their personal lives. You might say that the ideals you suggest could be measured in their work, but I am not sure that this is true necessarily.

The one thing which I do have to point to is that we have moved away from the idea of eternal recurrence as expressed by Nietzsche. But having voiced an idea, that doesn't mean that it cannot be developed in a different way, but I think it is important to acknowledge doing so.

In understanding life in cycles in this universe and in any others we have history and certain knowledge from physics but beyond that a lot is left up to imagination. I am also influenced by Eastern philosophy and, in particular, Hinduism sees time and life within cycles. I was aware of the Hindu view of cyclical time before I read Nietzsche's idea of eternal recurrence. Of course, I am aware that even though I have dipped into these areas I haven't studied them in depth, so I would not wish to present my own interest as expertise in any way. However, with ideas such as recurrence, I think that there needs to be scope for imagination. I just think that even though many people think that human knowledge is so vast we probably have so much that we don't know, and perhaps eternal recurrence can even be seen as an idea pointing to the infinity of unknown possibilities.

Actually I have to say that I find mindfulness more helpful than psychotherapy. I had some Jungian therapy while I was doing an art therapy course and it made me feel depressed, all this focusing on the past. It is important to focus on the present and that is hard because that is only a bridge between the past and the future. The now vanished before us. I think that if anything I have more difficulty switching off the worries about the future than the past, so that is perhaps 'eternal precurrence' or imaginary possibilities. It is probably through the what ifs of the future that I first began really wondering about the idea of eternal recurrence. I do believe in cycles though and I was even aware of them as a child, but the momentary reality of awareness is central, as even though it collapses and vanishes, all we ever have is moment to moment existence within the eternal 'now'.

Yes, I think that NDEs only give us so much else and the rest is speculation. Even within Christianity there is a division between those who believe that people rest until a final resurrection at the end of the world.

I would agree that if there is consciousness beyond death it is far more complex than imagined within religious experience. I think that the whole idea of the astral dimension is important because that would be the one in which the person enters in the near death experiences.

That's an interesting take on his idea. I certainly am bombarded by the little voices within which play back experiences over and again. Psychotherapy is all about this too and we could even consider the role of eternal recurrence within the therapy process as it may be about breaking the repetition of our thoughts about the past and patterns in our behaviour.

I am not sure about a mechanistic picture, although of course there are fundamental laws in the physical universe. The idea of karma is meant to be about cause and effect. I am inclined to the view that this is complex and it is a bit simplistic to see it as reward and punishment. However, I do believe that inner consciousness has a determinant aspect and we have a role in creating what becomes manifest in lives. I think it goes beyond chance and that evolution is not a random process. Also, we are within cycles within larger cycles and it is often hard to see the wider picture.

Yes, I don't believe that Nietzsche's perspective was intended to be fatalistic. I am inclined to think that he was juggling between pessimism and optimism.

Hello, I see that you are both new to the forum and first incarnated onto a thread which I wrote 3 months ago. No one seemed to notice and respond to it and it lay dormant and sprung to life a couple of days ago. Perhaps it was all part of an organic process. Personally, I am inclined to think that nothing is chance and we are all complex parts within wider cycles of time, but probably more complex than the idea of the eternal recurrence itself. I definitely don't his idea is an important symbolic truth.

I hope that you find many fascinating discussions. It took me a while to get my way around the forum but it was the first forum I found. It is sometimes like digging below the surface of thread headlines to find the Philosopher's stone.

Obviously you have to choose whether you stay on the forum or not. It sounds like you have an outlet for your philosophy exploration in your present studies. Personally, I wish that I had an outlet but the only real channel for my ideas at the moment is this forum, so I wish to make the best use of it as I can. When I first blundered onto the site, I was fortunate that the recipients in my first couple of weeks showed no hostility. I see this as fortunate because I would have probably just have not logged in again at all and it does bother me that I can imagine that some may encounter initial hostility and withdraw from the forum for this reason.

It took me a while to get to know how to use the forum, about how some engage and about how much I feel safe to self disclose, and how much is relevant. After being on the forum for about 5 months I do get demoralised when I see what appears to be banter, but I just try to ignore this, and I do believe that I am able to gain plenty of meaningful exchange, but it is about finding it. I think this takes time and patience.

I would imagine that you have a lot to contribute, but I would imagine that you need to be selective and find the right thread discussions for you, or you could even risk creating another one rather than just this particular one. I would imagine that a lot of people are extremely interested in serious discussion about neuroscience, as it throws so much light on debates about the nature of consciousness.