Transparency in arguments is important in seeking the rational explanations and justifications. It involves honesty about the basis for acceptance of ideas and goes far beyond winning arguments.

Perhaps, the need to win an argument stems from uncertainty about one's own position and the need for validation from others. This involves the transparency with oneself as opposed to self deception. It is possible to hold a view and not be aware why one adopts it. Some ideas may accepted from others unquestioningly and there may also be psychological factors involved.

A certain amount of transparency with oneself may be beneficial and it may not that once this achieved there may be less need to argue one's position. However, ongoing interaction, such as on a philosophy forum, may be useful for fluidity in thinking and ongoing modification of ideas in the light of new perspectives and development of knowledge.

I am afraid that I don't have wonderful advice because I struggle with the process. However, I have got to the point, where based on feedback, I think that outlines and plotting are essential. They are probably where I end up falling down because my stories end up meandering up in no man's land.

I do read books on writing but there are just so many that it would be possible to spend all one's time reading them and not writing at all. One of my favourites is Stephen King's 'On Writing' and I see him as a wonderful storyteller. I am not sure if he outlines but for most of us it's probably essential. I can remember making clear plans for essays at school and how it helped so much. Personally, I have probably gone too far in therapeutic writing, especially based on Julia Cameron's idea of 'morning pages' and realise that the craft of story itself is essential. For some, it may come easily, just like cooking or sport, but I find it difficult and know that I need to work on it. I am not sure that this post will be helpful but sometimes it can be reassuring to hear the voices of those who are struggling rather than simply those of the 'successful'.

The relationship between shamanism.and technology may be complex, especially in relation to states of consciousness. For example, one of my own memorable experiences was of using a 'dream machine'. This was a programme of visual and sensory states of altered awareness. Such programmes may be more common. I have even come across an idea of AI seances.

So much of this may come back to the nature of human imagination and its source. I wonder how does this relate to shamanism and the understanding of reality. Saying that I am trying to take a break from the abstractions of philosophy, in the form of the threads on creative writing. However, what I do aee as an underlying philosophical issue is the source of ideas and imagination, as well as states of consciousness.

I wonder how important ars these, in the age of technological 'solutions' and the entire area of healing , although I am not convinced that it is a dichotomy between the 'natural' and the 'artificial' entirely. However, the idea of 'trance' is complex, ranging from trance music to hypnotic suggestions and underlying perspectives of 'spirit', altered states of awareness and ideas of 'reality'.

I wonder about the empirical as opposed to rhetorical numbers, and its interplay with meanings may be significant. Are 'axioms' objective, or are they constructions by human beings, They may 'stand for empirical findings'. One important question here may the nature of empirical evidence in itself and it social meaning and politics. It may be possible to construct 'evidence' and methodologies of neutral research. However, the role of the researcher in observation may not be neutral but bound up with values for interpretation.

This means that numbers in themselves, such as statistics may not be separate from values and linguistic meaning. So, it leads to the question as to what extent is the numerically quantifiable coming from a different philosophical slant to be nature of the construction of human experiences, including ontological explanations.

I am writing as someone who is more interested in creativity and language, as opposed to numbers and the quantifiable. However, I am aware of the importance of Maths, numbers and the quantifiable.

As regard to 'axioms of arithmetic', what may be important is how these stand as objective aspects for understanding. Here, I am referring to the way in which mathematics comes up with clear definitive examples, as opposed by the subjectivity of understanding of the arts. It may not be absolute though, with imaginary mathematics, but it may be a little different from the fantasy of the arts?

So, my question here may be what are 'axioms' and how do these figure in objective, subjective or intersubjective understanding?

Yes, numbers do appear as symbols and even the alphabet may be seen as symbolic representations as the basic foundation for language.

Julian Jaynes, in 'The Bicameral Mind' spoke of how language evolved and looked at the role of song, poetry and writing as forms of expression. However, there is also the idea of numbers, as empirical quantification in daily life. However, it may span Kant's idea of the a posteri and a priori of logic. In some senses, mathematics can be seen as a foundation for philosophy. However, without language it may not make much sense at all, even in regard to the basis of logic.

The foundation of numbers was represented in relation to the objects of the environment. Also, it may have come into play in systems of thought, including astronomy, and even the construction of the pyramids.

But what are numbers and words? Are they forms of qualia or simply forms of human expression and understanding? How may numbers, symbols and language be seen as independent 'realities' or as aspects of human consciousness and the attempt to construct pictures or explanations of 'reality'? How do symbols function in the interplay between the numeric aspects of understanding and the hermeneutics arising from linguistics?

I hope that my question does not appear too simplistic or too abstract. It is aimed at understanding and thinking about the ways ideas are realised. In particular, it may be involve the difference and interplay of logic and intuition Does intuition come as a starting point for logic and how do numbers, symbols and words come into the primary aspects of thinking?

Happy 40th birthday to U2's 'New Year's Day'. If I remember correctly, it is on 'War' which is great and on the live compilation, 'Under a Blood Red Sky'.

The closest term to purity in a deeper sense may be asceticism, which may have influence many philosophy traditions and spirituality. It may have been bound up with ideas of renunciation, including bodily pleasures, especially sexuality.

One aspect underlying the debate about sexuality and 'sin' may go back to Plato's idea of the lower versus the higher self. This may have been carried through into Kant's moral philosophy, which was incorporated into Christianity, especially in relation to the tradition of Paul's teachings in Christianity.

Through the enlightenment, ideas of the importance of aspects of the 'lower self' may have been demystified. In particular, while Maslow's hierarchy of needs does not look at sexuality specifically, it does make a less clear distinction between the lower and higher self, as differentiated by Plato.

So, in looking at ideas about sexuality in Western and Eastern philosophy, there may be ideas about hierarchies of needs. Scientific ideas, especially sexology, and reconstructive ideas in the social sciences may have called into question the emphasis on moral puritanical ethics, especially about the body.

So, it could be asked whether ideas of puritanical ethics have a place in ethical systems of religious worldviews. If this is true, what are the fundamental aspects for thinking about sexuality and its ethics?

What is corruption and mercy? Is it an idea of 'forgiveness,' in the traditional religious sense, from the lures and desires of the physical aspects of human nature?

The issue of sexuality and religious or spiritual perspectives may be connected to ideas about how pleasure is seen, especially the pleasures of the body. Many spiritual philosophies, including those in Eastern thinking see the seeking of such pleasure as a hindrance on the spiritual path.

However, it is complex, as suggested in the interplay expressed by the poets, John Milton and William Blake. Similarly, there are traditions of puritanism in Eastern philosophy and more diverse ones, such as Tantric systems? There is the whole idea of sublimation, which exists in Freudian psychology and Tantric philosophy. Expression of bodily pleasures and desires, especially in terms of sexuality, may represent an ongoing questionable area for living life to the fullest.

It is interesting to think how the perspectives of Christianity came together. There are probably so many influences ranging from Egyptian ideas, Hermeticism as well as the diverse influences upon Judaism. The cross cultural influences are probably extremely important, especially the dialogue between Western and Eastern philosophy, as well as idealism and its many oppositions

The issue of Gnosticism and its impact and upon puritanical thinking and its opposition was an aspect which I was seeking to explore. However, this may have got lost as other threads on Christianity were created in its aftermath. Also, I wonder about the dialogue between Western and Eastern influences in thinking about sexuality, so I have created a new thread on religious perspectives in thinking about sexuality. This is aimed at going beyond the black and white thinking for and against Christianity, or other religious perspectives, and seeing more subtle shades. Gnosticism may be important here, in highlighting in between areas, especially in the thinking in areas between orthodoxy and heresy, which may be an enormous spectrum.

As the thread began on a general approach towards the deconstruction of Christianity, I may not have followed through with a clear picture of Gnosticism, as emerging in the Gnostic Gospels, which is an important area in itself.

It is a complex topic and one issue which I would raise is a puzzling passage in 'The Gospel of Thomas':
'Simon Peter said to them, ''Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life". Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter into the kingdom of heaven'.

This passage may raise issues about gender but, basically, I don't think that it is about that entirely but about the idea of perfection versus bodily pleasures. This is where Gnosticism becomes complex in the question of acceptance or rejection of the body and sexuality. The Gnostics rejected the idea of 'body' as inferior to 'spirit'. This, in itself can be interpreted in many ways. So, I am asking here about what has been the influence of Gnosticism, especially in views about the role of sexuality in the development of Christian thinking?

What you are saying about the relationship between Christianity and its roots in Judaism and the particular understanding of 'Jahweh' are important. It does seem the Judaic picture of reality is a vital part of this, especially the idea of human beings having an intimate personal relationship with God.

I have moved into an area populated by the Jewish community in a way which I have never encountered before, and do see this as an essential aspect for understanding the roots of the Christian worldview.

I am glad that you raise the question of what happened to the historical Jesus, especially in regard to the resurrection. My own interest in uncovering the Grail tradition is in relation to this. It seems to be so important in understanding and disentangling facts and mythical ideas. The problem is so much literature, and trying to understand the historical agendas which are underlying them.

There may not be a clear distinction between the esoteric and the exoteric as it may be more dynamic. Even within the Bible the 'Gospel of John' and 'The Book of Revelation' are more esoteric and influenced by Gnosticism. It does come down to how reality is seen in many ways, especially the importance of inner reality. The distinction between the rituals of religion and the inner aspects of spiritual development are a tension, as well as that which is seen to be an overall approach for everyone to follow as religion and the more 'secret' aspects of initiation for some. However, it is probably extremely fluid.

I have thought about your question of why I find symbolic understanding to be important. It is likely that I would not have found this if I had not been socialised into a religious perspective, especially the Judaeo- Christian one, and had to disentangle the concrete and the symbolic.

On the other hand, the symbolic aspects of understanding may span the different between logic and intuition, as well as the perspectives of the sciences and the arts. Bridges between these may be important in human understanding and meaning.

I have read some of Hegel's ideas and found them useful, but the political aspects emerging from his ideas are more questionable.

As for Kant, he was definitely anti-sex and may have done so well in the emergence of puritanical thinking, especially in his writings on morality. I have come across the suggestion that Kant's arguments for the existence of God were to back up his moral theory. However, it is hard to know and remains speculative.

I do realise that you are not singling my topic out. If anything, I don't want my thread to be filled with the tedious, so mine is going to be given a new title to make it slanted towards the more esoteric. That is more the area which I read in anyway.

The book which I have been reading has articles by Elaine Pagels. I find the tradition of Gnosticism and the Grail legend interesting, especially as I am interested in esoteric philosophy. That is more my interest really rather than the fors and against of religion. As there are now threads looking at that, I think that I am going to change my title to reflect the esoteric! That was my own angle, and I now have an excuse to follow the path of the more esoteric ideas.

The Catholic Church has a large shadow of repressed sexuality. Even at age 12, when I chose to go to a Catholic school because I didn't agree with the idea of evolution at the time, I noticed so much sexualisation in the Catholic one than the other non religious one. It was like the repressed sexuality throughout history was leaking out everywhere.

The only problem is that I created a thread on Christianity yesterday when there didn't appear to be any active ones. Now, there are 4 on the front page. It doesn't matter really but it probably ends up with a lot of broken up discussions. Christianity is probably a large topic, so it may be that several are needed, although there are likely to be a lot of crossovers within the various ones. But, it makes a change from the threads discussing the more abstract issues of the existence of God.

My understanding of theological scholarship is that the writings of the NT were written much after the time of Jesus. So much is the perspective of Paul which influenced the development of the Church and the canon, especially in opposition to the Gnostics.

It does seem that the issue of sexuality is such an important theme in the battle for and against Christianity, which is often not acknowledged enough. Gay people often have a hard time in Catholicism in particular, as well as the topics of abortion and even contraception. There is a general puritanical slant which even forbade masturbation as sinful. This probably applies to many religions as well. Islam is particularly opposed to gay people and is also connected to the subordination of women. The political aspects of religious ideas is essential in thinking about it critically, and a lot of ideas thrive on the emotions of fear and guilt.

I am interested in both the demystification of religion as a system of ethics and in the history of ideas. To a large extent, the disentanglement of philosophy for ethics occurred in the movement of humanism.

The underlying belief system of Christianity has taken place through methods and writings from the enlightenment and science, as well as approaches in philosophy, including analytic philosophy and postmodern. I guess that while I see these as being important I am also interested in the developments within history, as well as the underlying approach of comparative religion. I am actually interested in the philosophy of religion, but more from an angle of the esoteric. Here, I have to admit some underlying sympathy with idealism, but balanced against mythical narratives.

I am not saying that I swing to a 'hardcore' idealism, but have a general leaning towards the nature of 'symbolic truths'. From my current reading, I see the history of Christian ideas being partly related to historical gender wars, and other political issues, especially in the way Christianity wiped out paganism. Of course, a literal paganism may be problematic as well, as opposed to a more symbolic approach, such as the way most writers on shamanism juxtapose imagination and the symbolic understanding of 'otherworlds'.

It does seem that there is so much out there which challenges the mainstream accounts of it. I guess that the various disagreements when I read different writers often leaves me rather confused at times. I am sure that this does apply to other religious teachings, such as Islam and Judaism. Often, I unsure to what extent it comes down to actual 'lies' or simply different interpretations, just like the way in which each person on this forum thinks from a different point of view. There may be a whole spectrum of this based partly on wishful thinking and social contexts in which one exists and has learned specific ideas.

I just began reading the thread today and smiled when I found one of the previous threads of mine on thinking about the philosophy of the Bible. It is about 2 years ago, and brought back memories of interaction on the site a couple of years ago. It seems such a long time ago and it is almost an entirely different place. It also reminded me of interaction with Amen3017 and the Madfool.

It also led me to wonder how much my thinking has changed or hasn't changed since that time. I am more into thinking more about ideas of Christianity outside the mainstream and that which is not included in the Bible. I am not saying that I was really mainstream then, but I do like to read between the gaps in the history of knowledge. I guess when we read our own and those of others on previous threads it is important in tracing one's philosophy journey. At this point, on this topic, and so many others, I am aware of so much potential worthwhile reading. Hopefully, this reading is a basis for shifts in thinking, along with ongoing reflection.

Okay, I am probably asking a lot, but my rationale is that philosophy of religion often focuses on the existence of God. This is important, but it may sidestep some of the more intricate aspects of belief, especially in relation to Christianity. From my point of view, the historical aspects of Christian teachings, which emerged in the Judaeo-Christian tradition are as pertinent, if not more than the logistics of the idea of God's existence.

Some of this may come down to scholarship, but it is likely that there are gaps here, which may reflect biases in theology, as well as the political aspects of the development of the Christian Church. This may say alot in itself, but it does make it hard to put the missing jigsaw pieces together coherently.

The difference between intuition and other means of knowledge may be hard to pin down to philosophical methods and rigour. That is because it different from rationality, which is the essential approach of philosophy, especially logic.

However, logic may be limited and the nature of judgement purely on the basis of rationality may not work entirely in the context of human understanding, which is more synthetic. As human beings, experiencing and navigating experiences there is the sensory, emotional and logical and intuition as 'inner knowledge' as a means of subjective processing of the external aspects and the objective in a meaningful way. The reliability of intuition may be how if acts as an intermediary between sensory and rational aspects, also in relation to personal emotions.

It does seem that most theories are not able to capture the nature of awareness itself, which is so complex an aspect of experience itself. The idea of 'witness' consciousness was suggested by Ken Wilber, and this can be seen as a third factor within the mind and body relationship. This nature of awareness, which goes back to Descartes' 'I', is dependent on reflection based synthesis, with language giving rise to narrative identity, including the significance of memories and ideas of potential future self as seen in the moment.

The experience of the body as object is important too. It probably takes some time before a person establishes being able to see one's body in this way. The idea of the sense of separation from the mother is meant to be an important marker. The experience of being able to see onesealf in the mirror may be a crucial point too because it enables looking at oneself in a detached way, like being able to view oneself from the outside rather than simply in the internal world of embodied experience.

The idea of self being related to embodiment is especially true and that is where the mind/body problem seems to err with some viewing mind as a 'ghost in the machine. This kind of perspective may have fading with the knowledge of neuroscience and quantum theory making the idea of mind or self as an entity appear as rather ridiculous.

The idea of the updating of self is interesting because it may not that this is not done on a conscious basis mostly. The whole dimension of social experiences, as well as the body itself may affect people so much, with there being a narcissistic element to social life. It may be difficult not to be affected by others' perceptions of oneself at all. The core basis of self may begin in early childhood, as the object-relations theorists, such as Winnicott suggest, but it goes on and on. The maintenance of a balanced sense of self, as opposed to a fragmented one in many psychiatric disorders and psychological issues is central to wellbeing.

Cassirer's perspective seems useful. Sometimes, in philosophy it seems as if the relationship between self is almost seen as an isolated cell of conscious experience whereas in actual experience it is at the centre. I remember reading GH Mead when studying sociology. I have always seen sociology as well as social psychology as essential to understanding life.

What you describe reminds me of Aldous Huxley's, 'The Doors of Perception' in which the person in a mescaline-induced state of consciousness is mesmerised and overwhelmed by aesthetic experiences. Huxley's thinking also draws upon Henri Bergson's idea of perception as a filter. If we were able to perceive all the potential stimuli on a sensory level it would be overwhelming. So, the brain filters it down in order to enable functionality on a biological level.

If anything the way human beings are expected to perform in education and especially in work, may have gone too far, in leaving out art and aesthetics. It is something which I struggle with (without being on mescaline) because I do approach life from more of an arts based perspective and find it hard to switch off from aesthetic appreciation in order to simply 'perform' at times. So, I am sometimes criticised for being a daydreamer and unable to multitask in a a time when people are being expected to perform more and more like automated robots.

However, I realise that what you are saying in your outpost is a little different because you are seeing beauty as made, including on the internet. It can be like this for people working in a free way like web site designers, or even when we are writing on this forum. However, when it is about being overseen by managers in organisations with performance goals att and aesthetics is often cast aside. The life of dopamine pleasure is strictly in one's private life and time.

I am not sure if you think that my reply makes sense, although I am unsure about what you are are trying to say in your outpost or reply to me.

Semantics aside, it does seem that enjoyment of music in its contractidory and influential happens. I love Led Zeppelin's 'Stairway to Heaven' and most "dark' music. Sometimes, the experience of the darkest, including Metallica, emo and goth, seems to give a potential for the transmutation of suffering itself, including the darkest of mental states.

The dark and the light in music is the yin and yang of experience. It involves the innermost aspects of existential philosophy. One critical aspect of this may be the lifestyles of the rock stars, and to what extent are they role models? Beyond this, the content of the music may say a lot about authenticity in the existential sense.

Some of the themes deal with the hardest aspects of human life and also reflect human lifestyles. With one foot in Catholic guilt, my own experience of lived philosophy also was connected with the values of sex, drugs and rock'n'roll. The music says so much about protest and subversion, like a reflection of postmodern decadence and a post-apocalyptic grasping for meaning in the wastelands and collapse of a broken world.

I remember when I was going to Christian youth events there was so much talk of rock music being the 'devil's music. There were people speaking about how songs played backwards had certain 'demonic' messages. In particular, if you played Led Zepellin's 'Stairway to Heaven' backwards there was a scream of 'Satan is God'.

At the time, I can recall being really worried as it conjured up so much fear. It involved so much fear of Satanism and often seemed like people were looking for Satan. Also, it may have been based on a gimmick, with bands having 666 in titles and certain letters being spelt backwards. However, I can remember a lot of people going as far as destroying certain music as though it was 'evil'. It went quite far, with even groups like Status Quo and The Beatles being viewed as 'Satanic'.

The topic goes into discussion about toilets and the trans issues. As a couple of people have pointed out already, gender neutral toilets are a possibility. Such facilities already exist in places like coffee shops, and make no binary distinctions based on genitals, appearance or chromosomes.

The question of what is a woman goes back to comments by JK Rowling and culture wars. After many successful attempts to bring acceptance of trans issues and people who don't fit into the binary, there is a current backlash. It seems to often revolve around the right of cisgender to suggest that people, mainly women, are likely to be offended, especially by people who began as male, biologically, in women's spaces.

This idea is not new because it was raised historically by lesbian feminists but it is now perpetuated by the media. It rests on an assumption that men can rape women and that a pre-op male to female could rape a female potentially. It is sometimes backed up by concerns about transwomen who have committed sexual offences, which portrays a negative stereotype of a transwoman rather like the film, 'Silence of the Lambs.'

With the current focus on 'what is a woman' in the media there is a question how far it will go in ushering in a backlash. I read recently than in South Korea there is an introduction of legislation to allow police to inspect the genitalia of transgender people in toilets by a member of the police of the person's assigned gender. There is also a lot of hostility to LGBTIQ throughout the world, so any genuine philosophy discussion needs.

The attempt to ask what is a woman, which is sexist without the equivalent one of what is a man, can become shallow if it is simply about trying to reinforce the binary. It is this strict binary division which may drive people to 'fit in' as opposed to a more critical and fluid understanding of gender stereotypes about behaviour and bodies.

The nature of consciousness may be different during sleep as opposed to absent. In particular, states of REM dreaming consciousness is present. During dreams people are aware of their own individual identity, with the narratives of experience being altered. There are degrees of depths of unconsciousness, which may show that consciousness is a spectrum, with presence and attention to outer reality being only the tip of the iceberg of awareness.

This is in accordance with Henri Bergson's suggestion of the brain as being a filter of perception. The states of awareness of waking reality, as experienced during awareness may not be the only dimensions of consciousness. The waking states, as emphasised by the philosophy of realism are a basic starting point for negotiation of experience but consciousness may not be as straightforward.

The performance aspect of gender is where biology and culture meet. It often results in an exaggeration of biological differences. It varies throughout history and geographical locations.

Currently, the media play a critical role, especially in ideals about the body and its aesthetics. It is a even a source of gender dysphoria as people are bombarded by images, including before and after images of transgender.

Stereotypes exaggerate biological differences and a clear binary divisions. It is possible to see gender in a less rigid way as a possible continuum, which was expressed in the idea of androgyny which has existed throughout human culture, long before the rise of the medical diagnosis of transsexualism and the movement of transgender and its politics.

I think you are mistaken to see transgender people as 'impersonators', meaning 'fake'. That is because as Judith Butler argued gender is performance. When it comes down to it the most definitive basis of sex is related to reproductive roles. As far as chromosomes are concerned most people make presumptions about what their chromosomes are, because unless there is a particular reason for it chromosomes are not tested. Even with genitals people make assumptions about what genitals a person has and in some cases they may be wrong.

In speaking of the cases which point to disasters like if a transwoman rapes in a female only environment it is wrong to make generalisations. The majority of people who are transgender wish to simply live their own lives. Some blend in better than others in their chosen gender which may be more about ability to 'pass'. This may be about fortune than anything else and to focus on those who don't blend in is to reinforce stereotypes about bodies.

When people point to incongruencies about appearance it does not help, as if poking fun and stigmatisation of 'abnormality'. That is because it is those stereotypical ideals which may lead people to feel that they need to change their bodies in order to express their gender identity which does not always match biological gender.

Okay, I will offer a couple of questions:
1. To what extent is humanity on the verge of totalitarianism?
2. Is AI too heavily invested in as a solution for many problems and overvalued in philosophy circles?