You speak of 'multiple personality disorder', which is a rare diagnosis. It is the extreme end of splits in personality and will, but it is likely that many people do experience degrees of splits, which may trigger some underlying mental health problems and imbalances.

The idea of schizophrenia as being about a split personality were a gross caricaturistic overgeneralisation. Nevertheless, it is likely that divisions in thinking are the source of psychotic breakdown. This was suggested by RD Laing in, 'The Divided Self'. He spoke of contradictions in socialisations which give rise to internal conflicts. His writings were part of the antipsychiatry movement, which is not predominant now, but the idea of 'the divided self' is still a useful metaphor or idea for considering divisions and split in the psyche and will.

I can see the weaknesses you mention in my line of argument. I guess that I am coming from the angle of seeing determinism as fatalistic.

Also, a few months ago, I read John Gray's ' The Soul of the Marionette: A Short Enquiry into Human Freedom' (2015), which connects the concept of freedom and free will. It goes as far as questioning to what extent do human beings wish to be free. Gray suggests,
'Many people today hold to a a Gnostic view of things without fully realising the fact. Believing that human beings can be understood in the terms of scientific materialism, they reject any idea of free will. But they cannot give up hope of being masters of their destiny. So they have come to believe that science will somehow enable the human mind to escape the limitations that shape its condition.'

Gray argues that the illusion of lack of freedom and free will enables people to be 'like fairground puppets', escaping the 'burden of choice'. In that respect, determinism is an ideology.

The coexistence of determinism and free will makes sense. I subscribe to a biopsychocial model of influence in life. Factors from genetics, socialisation and the environment have a determining role. The physical laws and the weather have a determining effect on thinking and behaviour. The variables always come together and interact.

Free will, as the deliberate art of innovation is more likely as an act of rebellion against pain and suffering. If one is comfortable and content there may be no need to make changes at all. In this respect, the existence of pain and discontent may break cycles of repetition. This may be evolutionary as ongoing evolution of human consciousness, with free will as the mover towards creativity on a personal and cultural level.

The gap between what a person seeks in their intent and finding the means to reach that end is central to human agency. It is where human choice makes deliberate acts to bring about chosen ends consciously.

I do believe in the existence of free will. It is not absolute because we are affected by so many variables outside of oneself. I may even go a stage beyond the position of free will as such. That is to say that one's conscious and subconscious will, apart from affecting one's actions can have a determining effect in leading to the circumstances which manifest in one's life. Intention is so powerful.

The balance between reading others' ideas and usage of language alongside a unique personal or independent opinion is tricky, but important. It is possible to get lost in the labyrinth of thoughts of others, especially in thinking of the issue of free will. This is because it is a philosophy problem throughout history. Ultimately, each person arrives at a unique personal perspective through sifting through ideas in conjunction with experience of life. It is an issue which can be explored for a lifetime, and what matters most is how it contributes to living life with the greatest freedom.

Doubts may be experienced so often by an individual. I certainly feel in a maze, or even a fog of confusion of possibilities on a frequent basis. That is often because it is difficult to see the larger picture, especially of the unknown future. What I like about Watson and Skinner's picture of rats iand mouses n mazes isn't the actual deterministic picture of behaviorism but the metaphor of the creatures within the maze.

Behaviorism certainly paints a picture of determinism. However, the later development of cognitive behavioral approaches may alter this. That is cognition plays a part in making sense of it all, including the mazes, even if there are not any easy solutions.

The question of what 'I' is a big one in thinking, especially in relation to free will. In her volume on consciousness, Susan Blackmore thought that acknowledging perplexity was important.

With the idea of willing in the moment, there is the contrast with sustained will. In particular, a feeling of intent may arise in a situation or as an ongoing aspect of the establishment of goals. The momentary aspects of choice and the longer term ones may compete.

As far as where the will comes from it is likely to be complex, including nature and nurture as well as in connection with factors in the social environment. A person is a system within the context of larger systems. The individual is both acted upon and acts upon other systems. The elusive 'I' could be viewed as the narrative author weaving all this together in a personal context.

The strategy which Dispenza suggests for coping with conflicts of will is mental rehearsal. Personally, I do find that visualisation and imagining a situation in advance can be helpful for desired outcomes. It is far from absolute because life has so many unpredictable variables. However, imagining scenarios mentally is a potential way of preparation for affirmation of intent and will.

The link which you provided on compatabilism is useful. That is because the idea has a history and I have found when reading about it that various authors use the idea differently.

The coexistence of the empirical aspects of neuroscience and the questions of philosophy may be complementary. One without the other may be insufficient. Many of the important thinkers were speculating about the nature of 'mind' and free will. In the understanding of consciousness there can be an opposite tendency to see neuroscience as replacing this. The philosophy of the question of the
hard problem of consciousness and free will do not go away and it may be possible to build bridges between the findings of neuroscience and the underlying philosophical ideas.

With the idea of a strong will to eat chocolate there may be conflict between the conscious and subconscious aspects of will. A person may enjoy chocolate but realise a need to not do so, especially for health reasons. This may create a complex dynamic and subconscious aspects, such as comfort, may be a stumbling block.

The other part of this may be where an intention or aspects of will fit in within the larger system of one's motivation and gratification. If one is trying to make change in one area of life a certain amount of stability in various other aspects may be important. That is because to deal with too much conflict and change at once may be too difficult.

Strangely, or by synchronicity, we are both interested in the prefrontal cortex because I was writing about that in a thread on free will as yours appeared on the forum.

As far as your idea of the significance of the chimpanzee recognising his or her image in the mirror, it may suggest a form of personal identity based on an image of one's bodily appearance. The recognition of oneself in the mirror is an important point in a child's awareness. Of course, the existence of mirror images may be a detrimental factor in human identity insofar as it creates the potential for narcissistic tendencies and body image issues.

Compatanilism makes sense because it involves both the physical and mental aspects of agency. Dispenza looks at the way the neurochemistry involves the pleasurable aspects of behaviour. He suggests that this is what hinders change because we are addicted to the chemical aspects of certain patterns of behaviour and thinking.

There is probably a continuum of strong and weak wills. This is likely based on the degree of strength which a person has learned. Also, it is possible to be weak in some areas but strong in other aspects. For example, a person may be strong in resisting violent impulses, but be weak in bingeing on chocolate.

The area of freedom of will is likely to be interconnected to the examination of values. In this respect, it is connected to the nature of 'the examined life', as opposed to robotic automatic functioning.

Our thoughts are us, although there is more than just than that' is worth thinking about in relation to the idea of free will. It is possible to identify with the flow of thought completely, that is the basis of uncritical belief. It may involve a sense of almost unconscious basis for action. The 'more than' our thoughts is ambiguous, but may involve being able to observe thoughts, analyse and reflect on them, which may be a basis for mental freedom or the development of free will. In that respect, philosophy may enable the art of cultivating free will.

Yes, a person can steer thoughts to some degree. Of course, thoughts can be intrusive, especially negative ones in conjunction with mood. It is complicated because mood affects thinking and, at the same time, thought affects mood and may be the factor which can be a determining factor in altering patterns of mindset.

Yes, I would agree that the will.is a central aspect of change in the process. It may be viewed as the depths of motivation. Perhaps; that is why choices to make changes from addictions, unhelpful relationships and other situations fail. They may be too superficial and change may require a dramatic shift at the subconscious level. Conscious thoughts may be part of this, probably on a cumulative basis, but will itself is likely to be stubborn, hard to change aspects of automatic thinking and behaviour.

There is probably an interplay of determined aspects of thought and behaviour, as well as reflective choices. Complete free will would be impossible because it would be beyond the scope of causality itself. The reflective aspect is that part of critical thinking which can seek new patterns and innovation on the basis of awareness of past 'mistakes'.

The idea of 'self' as 'pre-exists' may be problematic because it would mean that no change or modification is possible. This would be contrary. Wlll is not separate from the self but part of its core basis as motivation. Of course, there are different theories of motivation. The deterministic view would see the scope of modification as limited whereas more cognitive based models would see change as possible through the role of cognition.

There is the agency of 'self' in the editing of thought. I am not speaking of self' as an entity but as a central organising process. If this was not the case we would be overwhelmed by stimuli and bombardment of thought, This is as argued by Henri Bergson in his idea of the brain as filter from 'mind at large'. It is only possible to focus on so much in one's awareness in the moment.

However, it may be an active as opposed to passive process because it is possible to select pathways of thinking. Some of it is based on memory but it is possible to change narrative scripts. This may be done through learned experience and intentionality.

This is an interesting shift to the issue of what free will means. The concept may have begun in relation to religious thinking, with connotations of 'sin'. In that context, there was also the question whether human behaviour was predestined by 'God'.

The different usage of the term is significant. Most discussion in contemporary philosophy focuses upon the extent to which one generates thoughts oneself. It can be argued that even the wish to change is based upon the flow of thoughts. However, this may sidestep the issue of choice of thoughts and pathways of choice in this process.

It is likely that animals have some kind of underlying grasp of concepts although it may be different from human beings, especially as it does not involve language.

Of course, it is not possible to grasp the experience of animals' mental states fully, but it does seem that communication is of a sophisticated level. There may be varying degrees, and my recent jokey question is do bed bugs have consciousness? They seem to have a strong instinctual will towards survival. It may come down to the varying degrees of evolution of consciousness in the various kingdoms, ranging from mineral, vegetable, animal and humans. Even within the categories it appears that there are vast differences in consciousness, intelligence and behaviour repertoires.

I wouldn't wish to start a thread on Murdoch's ideas at this stage due to repetition, but even though this thread has turned into a surreal mix of ideas, hopefully some will see the discussion here. I have been reading the essay'The Sovereignty of Good Over Other Concepts'. I find this passage useful in thinking about truth and virtue in art, even though she does see art as having more potential for degradation. Murdoch argues,
'Good art reveals what we are usually too selfish and too timid to recognise, the minute and absolutely random detail of the world, and it reveals it together with a sense of unity and form. This form often seems to us mysterious because it resists the easy patterns of the fantasy, whereas there is nothing mysterious about the bad forms of art since they are the recognisable and familiar rat-runs of selfish day-dream. Good art shows us how difficult it to be objective by showing us how differently the world looks to an objective vision. We are presented with a truthful image of the human condition in a form which can be contemplated...'

This passage captures the way in which art is about the seeking of 'truth'. It is a form of mysticism based on observation of imminent truth as opposed to the transcendent aspects of metaphysics. Of course, it does not mean that metaphysics is outmoded but it does give a focus in 'this world' as opposed to in the abstractions of the 'hidden'. As much as I enjoy reading esoteric ideas, they may be artificial fantasies of the human imagination.

I am reading the volume of essays by Murdoch, 'Existentialists and Mystics: Writings on Philosophy and Literature', which I was fortunate to find in my local library. There is a lot to read and ponder in it, as it includes a lot of discussion, including a whole section on reading Plato.

One of the important aspects which I am finding in her work is her comparison between the arts and philosophy. This is pertinent in understanding Murdoch because she wrote novels and philosophy, so had experience in both fields. In particular, she sees both literature and philosophy as being involved in the pursuit of 'truth'. She sees the distinct role of philosophy in the following way:
'Philosophy is not exactly entertaining but it can be comforting, since it too is an eliciting of form from muddle. Philosophers often construct huge schemes involving a lot of complicated imagery. Many kinds of philosophical argument depend more on or less on explicitly upon imagery. A philosopher is likely to be suspicious of aesthetic motives in himself and critical of the instinctive side of his imagination. Whereas any artist must be at least half in love with his unconscious mind, which after all provides his motive force and does a lot of his work. Of course philosophers have unconscious minds too, and philosophy can relieve our fears; it is often revealing to ask of a philosopher, "What is he afraid of?" The philosopher must resist the comfort-seeking artist in himself. He must always be undoing his own work in the interests of truth as to go on gripping his problem. This tends to be incompatible with literary art. Philosophy is repetitive, it comes back over the same ground and is continually breaking the forms which it has made.'

I really like Murdoch's emphasis on repetition in philosophy as it captures the way in which one keeps coming back to the same problems over and over again. This is the philosophical method and is how ideas develop.

Also, her argument about philosophy being more than entertainment. If anything, it may be that philosophy needs to be a bit more entertaining than theory. After all, many of the influential philosophers and works wrote creative non fiction or wrote novels as well as philosophy. For example, 'The Republic' and 'Thus Spake Zarathustra', although not light entertainment, probably succeeded as classics because they were great pieces of literary art.

I am glad to be engaged with someone who has studied Greek literature. My own reading of Plato and other ancient Greek thinkers is not as informed as I would like it to be. I am finding Iris Murdoch's discussion of Plato's writings as,particularly useful regarding Plato's ideas on literature and philosophy. I think that I probably need to read more of Plato's writings other than 'The Republic'. I have read some writing by Homer and this is probably important alongside Plato for understanding the ancient Greek worldview..

With regard to Jung, I have read his writings since I was at school. I am aware that he does not sit within philosophy clearly. There again, he does not fit in with twentieth first century psychology at all. One of the reasons why I see his writing as important though is because he has read so many philosophical authors and this reading is integrated in his writing and, for this reason, he offers a significant contribution to philosophy in his many volumes of writings..

There is a strong connection between Plato and Jung because Jung develops his idea of archetypes from Plato. However, a big difference is regarding ideas of perfection. Plato sees this as an ideal to attain whereas Jung is influenced by Gnosticism, which sees good and evil in a very different way. In particular, Jung, writing in the twentieth century, offers a critique of the development of ideas of good and evil in Christendom and ways which have lead to problems for humanity, especially human destructiveness.

Iris Murdock looks at Plato mainly in regard to art, and how he sees art as often being about 'lies', as opposed to the difference between 'appearance and reality'. Murdock shows how Plato also sees art as being focused on pleasures as opposed to enlightenment.

As far as I can see the perspective of Plato and Neoplatonism are based on a belief in the 'reality' of the 'soul'. Plato's picture of the unconscious is based on the idea of 'the World Soul'. Between Plato and Plotinus there is an underlying perspective of the 'Divine' as a source which individuals connect with via the soul. It is what Jung refers to as a the relationship between 'God and the Unconscious'. It is about an invisible source behind the visible as manifest in mind/body human experiences.

The idea of 'compositionality' does seem useful because human beings to grasp and capture ideas by a sense of meaning. It is likely that this involves intuition as a starting point for connection with ideas. It comes into play in learning of ideas in childhood. Ideas may come into play simply initially and become more complex when the intricacies of language are understood.

The only challenge to the idea which I see is Plato's notion of amanesia(recollection), which is about rediscovery of eternal ideas. However, Plato's understanding only makes sense in the context of the assumption of an 'eternal soul', which extends before and after this life. This would amount to a picture of disembodied spirits as a basis of idealism and innate aspects of connection with concepts of ideas.

Philosophy itself may be about making a mountain out of a mole hill. On this site, if may be more about what is seen and what is forgotten. The lounge is useful, and I do look at it personally, but it may be the more hidden than most live aspects of philosophy debates.

I have created a few topics in the lounge and see this as worthwhile when the areas of discussion are more generic rather than about philosophy as such. Nevertheless, it all remains so arbitrary and unpredictable as what is important is so changeable. What may be lounge discussion may be the heated debates of philosophy in the future. This applies to the aspects of politics and contemporary life which may may be the raw aspects of philosophical concerns. The lounge areas may be live aspects of the generation of future topics at the core of philosophy.

I hope that you cope with the virus and rules. Part of the problem which I see is a lack of compassion for those who become unwell. It can come down to ideas of protecting others with lack of concern for those who are unwell with the virus.

On another level, the breakdown of the virus by those who experience it, like all forms of suffering, may be the apocalyptic breakdown for all kinds of personal transformation.

I often get stuck in thinking how to put discussions of ideas into categories. Part of the problem may be that there are complex interplays between the various aspects of philosophy, such as art, science and metaphysics. There are divisions but they are far from absolute.

Even though there are categories, I am glad that these don't show up on the front page. It allows for a blurring of the many aspects of philosophy. As regards to the lounge, my own understanding is that it allows for discussion which is slightly off key from philosophy itself. All in all, let's hope that it allows for the broadest discussion of philosophy.

The philosophy of the arts may be seen as of lesser importance than that of the sciences. I see this as extremely problematic and hope that the way in which all of the categories show up on the front page allows for as little bias as possible in multidisciplinary thinking on this site.

I am reading ' Existentialism and Mysticism' by Iris Murdoch. This includes plenty of discussion on art as 'truth' or 'lies'. Some of this comes down to metaphysics and some to metaphorical understanding. Plato's ideas are relevant, or not, in twentieth first century understanding?

Plato's idea of 'forms' may he important as metaphysical abstracts. Nevertheless, it may be important to go beyond abstraction. Murdoch argues how in the thinking of Plato, life after death may continue beyond the body. Is this a problem with Platonism and its embodiment in life? It may be point to questionable areas about ideas as 'forms', beyond the physical. So, I am left wondering about the spectrum of eternal ideas and how these come into play in the human imagination. Any further thoughts?

The story of the allegory of Plato's Cave is important and I shall try to read further. There is the possibility that some of the story may have got lost or have been suppressed in the Augustian interpretation of Plato which developed in Christendom.

There may be varying pictures of idealism and the principle of matter as an idea. Some of this may have emerged from mainstream Christianity.

However, the esoteric roots of idealism, which may have influenced Plato seem to rest on an assumption that mind may have fallen into matter. It is likely that wonder Plato comes from this tradition of ancient thinking and esotericism. His perspective of the cave of shadows as a representation of ' truth' does suggest to me the idea of a dimension 'beyond'.the physical.

The specific view of matter as an idea seems to correspond with the later perspective of Berkley, which came later in conjunction with mainstream Christianity.

When I read your outpost I missed seeing the bit about you having Covid, so hope that you get well soon.

Sometimes, after all the rules and regulations, it as if Covid is ignored almost. It is still around, alongside so many issues which were brought on by the pandemic/lockdown, which have been the trigger for so much psychological and societal breakdown.

One of the reasons why I enjoy reading and writing on the forum is interacting throughout the world, with people from very different backgrounds. Some people stay within familiar territories in social life, which may be a comfort zone. This may be in one geographical area, or in a specific social group.

It may be out of fear that one stays in safe zones. It can shake one's beliefs. Probably, the reason why I am happy to venture into other territories is because I never experienced 'comfort of belief' in the first place. My 'mental breakdown', of awareness of cultural differences in beliefs, had set in during childhood.

As I was writing my post, I was actually thinking how Kant did see epistemology as limited, with the transcendent being beyond it. However, it is complex because he also emphasised the contrast between the a priori and the a posteri of empirical experience. In general, idealism may be about a realm beyond the physical. It can be seen as a top downwards perspective of reality.

It is probably true that I probably exaggerate the difference between Western and Eastern metaphysics. It has probably been about ongoing questions by many thinkers. Apart from the difference between Eastern and Western thinking there is also some kind of historical shifts.

In particular, ancient writers often felt that they conversed with the gods. This would be disputed greatly by most serious thinkers in the twentieth first century. The realm of numinous experiences are viewed as mythic or art based fantasy. For example, ideas of heaven and hell, as well as the shamanic model of an upper and lower world are seen as metaphorical rather than as literal dimensions.

This is of significance because ideas of heaven and hell may be useful for metaphoric descriptions of experience in the here and now. This is different from the idea of heaven and hell to describe rewards and punishment in an afterlife.

Metaphysics make a difference for daily living and ethics. For example, the idealism of Plato can lead to moral authoritarianism. Similarly, the application of Kant's a priori allows for an underlying moral absolutism. As far as the Eastern concept of 'maya' it a softer metaphysics than in Western metaphysics. It does not lead to complete relativism or nihilism. It is far more subtle in its scope, allowing for awareness of the nature of existence being impermanent and fluid.

That is not to deny the importance of the meanings and concerns of those partaking in the dramas of life. Eastern metaphysics, including the idea of 'maya', does not mean that morality is superfluous and redundant. It may be a basis for standing back from our daily dramas rather than seeing them in an extremely fixed and rigid manner.

A lot of the images in surrealist art are statements about absurdity and with a certain amount of humour. Many works of surrealism, including some by Dali and Magritte have a lot of sexual content, even a celebration of polymorphic perversity.

It is partly a reflection of psychoanalysis, which includes ideas of others. Some of this looks at the dynamics of splitting into 'good' and 'bad' objects in the processes of projection. Also, Lacan looks at the symbolism of the phallus in gender and culture.

Lacan stands at the doorway between psychoanalysis and postmodernism and ideas of the deconstruction of gender and sexuality. In many ways, such an outlook is meant to be provocative and may have been followed on by artists like Gilbert and George.

I have done some experiments with blank paper (not canvas), while on art therapy course. Some people get very abstract to the point of incoherency. I am a little bit the other way and end up with more familiar subject matter of drawings, such as rock guitarists and punk rockers. It is probably about getting into the frame of consciousness for active imagination.

What I have found to be useful for more automatic drawing by myself is music. This can allow for a degree of altered consciousness for accessing the imagination, almost as lucid dreaming. The ideal would be to incorporate dream images but it can be difficult to remember the details but I would like to experiment with this more. The process of this, like dream journaling may lead to greater coherency of one's own inner symbolic narratives.

As a result of this thread I have been reading about the surrealist movement as it encompasses a whole approach to the arts. It also has an important contribution to the philosophy of ideas, such as in the thinking of Andre Breton.

Part of the approach draws upon Freud's understanding of the unconscious and one aspect of this is the idea of automatic drawing and writing. This does involve the generation of ideas and symbols. Of course, this does relate to the whole tradition of fantasy and the unconscious, including James Joyce's idea of the 'stream of consciousness' and the writings of WB Yeats, including his ' A Vision'.

What the surrealists recognise is that the products of the imagination are not 'real' in a metaphysical sense. Many religious thinkers and writers took the ideas in a literal sense, which may have been a great error. I am not even sure to what extent William Blake thought of his angels and demons as symbolic or something more. The surrealists manage to deconstruct metaphysical literalism, recognising the human being juxtaposing images and words in creative experimentation.