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.

It is hard to be certain about many of the big questions in philosophy and doubt is important.
However, I do think it is worth taking risks in exploring lines of thinking, even those beyond the conventional ones. What do we have to lose? You ask if 'there is no concession that philosophy being done better (or worse) falls on us being better?' Of course, it is debatable about what us being better means really, but I am inclined to think that the more we explore ideas helps us gain self-knowledge, even if we don't manage to gain absolute knowledge of the big questions, the self knowledge we gain can enable us to live in a more conscious and reflective manner than if we have not thought about the philosophy questions in the first place, and who knows, it can involve stumbling upon new ways of seeing.

So, I am personally prepared to leap into the deep void and discuss all the issues even though I don't claim to have the answers because it is a search for meaning and it seems foolish to just sit back and wait for ideas to arise out of nowhere. Reading others ideas is good, but perhaps we have to test them in our individual, unique ways as well. I see this as an exciting challenge.

I believe that if we approach others on the internet in an attitude of hostility we are not going to achieve any meaningful interaction. I have not been on any other forums apart from this one, and when I write comments and threads I am wanting the best possible philosophy discussions. Obviously, this involves a certain amount of argument but this can be constructive. I did not join the forum for nastiness, to give or receive it. I have seen too much of that in daily life and that has often led me away from groups. So, I wish to engage with others who are looking for genuine philosophy debate and the best option I see is when someone does not seem to be coming from that angle it is better to move on and engage with another person instead.

As you know, I am interested in the whole issue of consciousness after death too. My own view shifts and, deep down, I am not really sure. I do think that near death experiences point to a possibility of life going beyond this one, although I do think that it is possible to enter into heightened states of awareness of without dying too, including out of body experiences.

The other question which I wonder about, although I know that it is not directly in your thread but linked, is what the near death experiences point to ultimately. The reason why I say this is because I had a college tutor once who saw near death experiences as leading to a possible eternity of being in that dimension. At the time, I was swayed towards that idea. However, looking at that way of thinking now, I am inclined to think that that state would not be permanent. Personally, having read 'The Tibetan Book of the Dead,' I wonder if the near death experiences is an entry into the bardo state, and would be a period of time and lead to eventual rebirth. Of course, I realise that this is only a speculation.

I am inclined to agree with Freud that suppression of our desires results in the subconscious rebelling. I am sure that Freud had many weaknesses in his ideas. However, I think that if one reads his writings he does have a lot to say that is worthwhile.

The way you are viewing eternal recurrence in the movie based on repeated patterns until one becomes less egoist sounds similar to the idea of karma. Do you think that the underlying truth of the two principles is the same?


I would also say that your view of the essential underlying truth of the principle seems based on the importance of satisfaction. I am just wondering to what extent would this be about satisfying it, or of relinquishing it?I am inclined to believe that we are left with this conundrum because it is not easy to overcome desires, and do we really desire to overcome all of our desires?

Actually, I am inclined to think that life repeats itself until something becomes 'entirely different.' This is based on my own experience of noticing repeated situations and patterns in this life. It is perhaps when we learn certain things from them, that changes and new circumstances occur. I am not thinking that this occurs through some divine hand of fate, but from within the depths of our own consciousness and being, which brings forth shifts in our circumstances.

Welcome to the forum, and I actually wrote this thread about 3 months ago and you are the first person to comment about it. Since that time, someone explained to me how Nietzsche's at some points in his life saw the idea of eternal life as literal and, later saw it more as metaphorical.

However, you are correct to say that at the time I wrote the thread I was contemplating the idea as an objective one. I was wondering what it would be like to live the same life over and over again forever more. Deep down, I probably do see it more as symbolic.

Your idea that if you would not want to live this life over and over again is a sign that it needs changing is one which I had not considered in relation to the idea of eternal recurrence. Nevertheless, I have been in many situations in which I wish to make changes in life and don't always find it easy because obstacles keep appearing stopping the changes. Changes do occur but slower than I would like and they seem to often involve new problems, like knots. So perhaps I am not living the path of eternal recurrence but a mythical life of knots. But the moral you point to is a good suggestion.

I am glad that you found this site and I have found that it has given me a lot of liberty to express ideas since I found it in September last year.

I do think that the idea of valuing liberty is important, especially in giving a sense of empowerment. Of course, you are right to say that it should not be 'used as a loophole to hide crime'.I also like your idea of mainstream media 'as one big obnoxious vacuum cleaner'. I don't watch much television and don't know how or why so many people do, but I do listen to some mainstream music. I do spend a lot of time reading but do listen to music to relax. I find this important because life can be so intense otherwise.

I read the article on Sorokin, thanks. I had not come across him but it does seem that he has some useful ideas. The one which I found particular interesting was the idea of the supraconscious. Perhaps the idea of a higher self is helpful for us for guiding us. Certainly, at times I find that it is as if I can tune into a higher state of mind than ego consciousness. Generally, I think that many people may not be aware of this faculty and it probably gets lost if we focus on television and other social media too much. It may be that this dimension of seeing is the one which enables liberty being seen as just about fulfilling one's own personal wishes.

The activity which I find so liberating is creative writing groups and workshops. Of course, finding the right one is important. I enjoy writing fiction because it gives more scope for juggling bits of self disclosure and creating characters. I do also enjoy art activities, but don't want to go to ones which are still life, and prefer it if I can work on my own ideas. Once, when I was at university I discovered a philosophy group run at someone's home.

It is good that more people are joining in a thread and it was really just a slow starter, but that is probably better than one that is very active but fizzled out within a couple of days.