I think that the whole way in which we process our experience enables us to create pathways in our thinking and enable us to move away from being passive victims. I do believe that state of mind does affect what experience we have on a subconscious level. I had got into a negative state of mind prior to my experience of getting knocked down by the bicycle. Strangely, I had been in a most atrocious mood on the day when I got knocked down by a car. I did see both experiences more as a wake up call, and last night and today I was trying to focus in a more positive way and I think this did work as by this afternoon I was feeling far more upbeat.

I do try to incorporate various techniques to help cope with experience, including mindfulness and some meditation. I also believe that cognitive behavioral therapy techniques are helpful. I did undertake some personal psychotherapy as part of art therapy training but I found that it made me more depressed. Some people seem to find psychotherapy extremely helpful and I guess that a certain amount can release unexpressed emotions. However, it is focusing on the past mainly, whereas cognitive behavioral therapy is concerned with the past. It is probably about getting the right balance and people vary in their needs.

Of course, you are right to say that performing tasks does help too. I think that writing and engaging on this forum is a good practice for expression, critical thinking and for raising self esteem, rather than thinking alone.

I think that you are new to the forum, so I hope that you find some interesting discussions. I am in favour of awareness of the moment and I am interested in the whole process of transformation.

I have read a fair amount in the area of transpersonal psychology. So, my whole understanding of experience is about wishing to pursue higher states of consciousness, although that doesn't mean that we can necessarily sidestep some of the hardest learning experiences.

I was crossing the road when I got knocked over in the High Street when I got knocked over by a bike. It was probably because I had a mask on, as I had just come out of the supermarket, and this was obscuring my vision and the bike was going really fastly. At least, the man on the bike did get off the bike and asked me if I was okay. A few years ago I got knocked to the ground by a car and hurt my leg and the car didn't even stop and the driver must have seen that he had knocked me down.

But, I will have to be careful that it isn't a bus next time. I was shaken up though yesterday and earlier I had gone for a walk by the river and wandering along without being able to go inside any buildings had made me feel like some kind of vagrant. So, it was really in this frame of mind that I wrote this thread. It was my little drama and it does seem that life is full of so many dramas for reflection.

I do think that what we experienced in life affects the whole way we think and form our ideas. Perhaps, the people who have the most difficult time in life are the ones who become the most philosophical. I am not sure that all the individuals who gravitate towards philosophy are always doing so because they have been having a hard time. However, I do think that suffering is a reason why many people do begin asking questions.

I definitely have found that I probably would not have taken the interest in philosophy if I had not struggled so much as a teenager. I think my whole religious background that got me reading and thinking about philosophy in the first place. But I do read philosophy when I am happy too because it has become such a central interest. But I do think that the whole experience of suffering can be a starting point for deep thinking and that many people don't begin to think deeply because they don't feel the need.

When I did my degree independent thought was considered as the mark of excellence. However, in courses I have done more recently independent thinking is not about independence at all, but just backing up arguments with published opinion. I had a tutor told me, 'You might as well suggest that people fold up pieces of paper all day, unless you back it up with empirical evidence to show that what you are saying works.'

I think this probably goes back to the whole idea of post truth, which I mentioned in the discussion on relativism. Even though I have found some of the postmodern authors, such as Lacan and Baudrillard useful for helping me think through ideas, I believe that postmodernism has contributed to the erosion of individual expression and the importance of uniqueness.

I think that some people are better at trying to be robots than others. At work, I can remember how so many people just used to be able to be so alike. The more people expect me to act like a mould the more chaotic I become.

Perhaps it comes down to how we are treated as children. I don't think that I was forced to conform that much. Even at school, I was considered as 'arty' and left to my own devices a lot. My close friends are mainly arts orientated and seem to have difficulty conforming and being robotic.

So, I am really in favour of the right to be a creative bohemian outsider. It will be interesting to see what other people on the site think of your thread and whether they struggle if they are not given enough scope to be unique.

Extra: I just looked under discussion and saw all your previous one. I smiled at the one about toilet paper, and I think my mum hoards toilet rolls.

I think that it is a good topic because we need to be treated as unique individuals. I would say that there is an increasing tendency to treat and expect everyone to be the same and we are not. I know that I cannot function or perform if I am expected to behave in that way. I remember once being in a job where I was told that I needed to do exactly all the tasks which the person before me had done.It was as if I was meant to be a duplicate of the other person, as if nobody would notice that he had left and I had taken over. I did not stay in that job because I didn't feel valued as a unique person, and felt I was meant to behave almost like a robot.

I think that the whole idea of nature and nurture is a topic which can be explored by sociology but It is not simple when we try to look at individuals, but of course we can ask them. We can think about our own socialisation. I certainly hated gender stereotypes.

I remember giving a birthday card to a girl at her party and getting told off because her mother said it was a boys' one. I just said I chose it because I thought it was the best picture. I am surprised why so many girls are going for pink these days.

In these days of identity confusion and dysphoria, we could ask has the idea of androgyny been thrown aside into the scrapheap?

I would say that it is not possible to determine whether someone's behaviour is derived from norms or not, but the best we can hope for is to give every person the best opportunities and free choice.

I think that I dislike sexism in some of its most stupid forms or what appear as stupid to me. In particular, I dislike the whole way in which shops divide books and birthday cards into those for men and women. When I go to buy birthday cards I just want to find a nice one, whoever it is for, and find the categorisation as ridiculous, especially when the ones for women seem to come in pink.

I am very bi and do go to gay pubs but can't say that I find them particularly friendly. I used to prefer them to straight pubs but now I think that some of them are a lot more cliched. But I have heard that a lot of Soho may never reopen and I think that will be a great shame. I don't know how Brighton will be affected, but a few of my friends have moved there because they feel that it is the most tolerant and open minded community in many ways.

As I just said to Bitter Crank, I certainly don't believe that we are in an actual experiment. I am really speaking of how we can experiment to give life meaning. So, I am editing my title to prevent my question being misinterpreted. I don't believe if in some kind of grand design, so I am more into consideration of how we experiment to create our own reality, or even our own personal little utopia, rather than looking for some ultimate transcendent reality.

But I do see it as being many different experiments rather than just one. I think the reason why I even wrote the thread is because I feel that lockdown restrictions have turned my life upside down and so many other people's lives. It feels like the world we knew and the lives we have made have collapsed, so I was just thinking about how it is all like an experimental drama.

I feel a bit like Bart Simpson. As I know that you like music, one band which I would recommend is The Dream Syndicate. They have made quite a few good albums but the one which I have been enjoying recently is, 'How did I find myself here?' Perhaps it would have been a better thread question than the one I asked.

I certainly wasn't implying that our lives are an experiment from any divine higher power. I had quite a bad yesterday and even got knocked down by a bicycle on the road. Fortunately, apart from a few aches and pains, I am fine but was feeling a bit shaken up and miserable.

I think me asking that specific question about can life be viewed as an experiment was probably a reaction to being on my phone and there just seem to be so many people creating threads about God and religion. Even people who are opposed to the ones who are creating the religious ones are busy creating debates about theology. It sometimes feels like it is the centre of the whole agenda of philosophy.

I am not a nihilist but don't feel that we are part of some kind of grand design. It just feels like we have to find meanings and not give up. I had also been reading the thread on reasons for living and that seems to be about finding solid, logical reasons for carrying on life. I believe that there aren't any clear answers to that thread question but at the same time, I do believe, personally, that life is worth living and that we need to make the best of it. So, I am really saying that we can create our destiny through our own experimentation.

I know that some people have criticised Carl Jung for a possible bias in favour of Germans rather than Jews at the time of Nazi Germany. In particular, he treated some Nazi's as patients and did a speak not speak out about what was happening at a critical time in history. Some people have dismissed Jung's ideas on this basis but I think that his whole idea of the shadow is a useful idea for thinking about collective evil, including prejudice.

The whole way in which we take on board ideas is questionable too in some ways. For example, on one course I did a tutor said that the external examiners questioned the tutors on why all our essays seemed to adopt feminist ideas. It was queried whether we were being indoctrinated. I believe that we were adopting feminist ideas because we were all critical of sexism.

There are also disagreements within sections of communities. One particular one is how some radical lesbians have been fairly hostile to transgender people. When I was at college I knew a woman who had been identifying as a lesbian. Really, she considered herself as bisexual and she told me how when she had an affair with a man, she felt her lesbian flatmates were more hostile to her than any heterosexual people had been to her about her lesbian relationships.

So, there are many possible issues and debates , and they are all relevant when thinking about the whole nature of prejudice.

(I am giving short answers as perhaps that is what you are seeking.)

I. Ultimate reality is beyond matter. It could be seen as a force and has been called God by some but this description is problematic in some ways because, sometimes, people project human qualities on it.

2. It is hard to know for certain if there are absolute truths beyond the relative ones.

3. Morality has a certain amount of relativity but some acts, such as murder and rape are harder to describe in that way.

4. We are here as a result of evolution. We are here to live as well as we can, for our benefit and that of others. We are here to create pathways for future generations and lifeforms.

I would say that the whole spectrum of gender identities is complex indeed for some people. It is a topic beyond the scope of a gender rates poll and I was just clearing up any confusion about the word 'other' on forms, because I know this category has been introduced on some forms in the last few years.

I would be prepared to give you some kind of answer but you have asked 3 of the biggest philosophy questions ever, and some others. I don't know if you were asked to devise questions. If you were, I think you could perhaps narrow it down a little, or else a full answer might almost involve writing a book, at least.

I am not sure what you are trying to say. I am interested in discussing prejudice and I don't consider my background as being 'snug' or'posh'. I would argue that that the striving to overcome prejudice goes beyond being a progressive idea and is central to any genuine concern about human beings.

I think that people are entitled to be whoever they choose to be. I think women shouldn't have to be housewives because of a social norm, but if they wish to be that should not be a problem either Also, I think that men should be entitled to wear dresses too. I am not in favour of restrictions based on ideas of gender norms at all.

The reason why 'other' is sometimes used on forms is to give room to anyone, who, for whatever reason, does not feel that they fit into a binary distinction of the two gender categories.

I think that your final paragraph gets to the core of the difficulty. How far can you let people go about voicing prejudices without condoning them? Another underlying problem is that even though in many situations some authority can say what is allowed to be expressed, but ultimately you cannot tell people what they are allowed to think or feel.

Okay, you may think that this is the matter between the private and the social but it is not so simple. For example, what I have seen in some situations is that when managers and other figures are around everything is said in a very politically correct way. When these people are not present, however, all the suppressed prejudices are voiced and come into play, with so much vengeance. So, what is the answer to this kind of problem?

I am inclined to wonder if you are speaking of the imaginary or imagination.

When you saw my unedited response to Madfool it should have read as mathsism rather atheism. I think my phone changed mathsism, possibly because I have invented it.

I don't know if that would have altered your reasoning of my comment. The actual question of the thread is whether or not quality is an illusion and I don't think that this should be a question exclusive to maths or hard science. Most of the thread introduction was about maths, but with some discussion of beauty. The end question was about whether everything can be reduced to maths and I am saying that it cannot.

An interesting bit of debate going on here. I think that the idea of 'cleansing' of prejudice is a bit problematic as a metaphor. It reminds me too much of the whole racist of the idea of ethnic cleansing. It also conjures up images of antibacterial gel and disinfectant, as if being applied to our thoughts and feelings.

I think that the whole point is to be aware of prejudice as the starting point rather than have it kept buried and emerging in a more sinister form.How different might things have been if Hitler had been able to admit to a prejudice against the Jews rather than have this lurking in his subconscious and coming out in the idea of a the creation of a master race.

I would suggest that what is important is that prejudices, preferences and dislikes are brought out into the open for discussion. Perhaps this is what is really needed for the raising of consciousness.

I don't know why you want to quantify everything. It seems like a prejudice of mathsism.The reason I began talking about literature and fiction is because I believe that this is an area in which there is a whole debate as to whether quality is an illusion.

I would say that the value of any human life should be held very highly because each unique person is like a universe. Perhaps, in an overpopulated world the value of each individual is not considered as being that significant. But that might be a reflection of the values of consumer material industrial society.

However, there is also the other matter of human beings seeing themselves as the top of the hierarchy of living beings, to dominate and exploit the natural world. This valuing is questionable.

I am certainly not suggesting that you think that people should be treated as objects. From what you have written in your many posts it would not make sense.

However, I do feel that you are dismissive the whole aspect of psychological truths in fiction. Just because people in fiction have bodies doesn't mean that fiction can be understood in that way. What I think you are doing is applying the philosophy of reductive determinism to fiction and literature, and this misses the whole purpose of most novels.

Yes, I agree that prejudice is so complicated as it goes deeper into the unconscious. I do think that it is bound up with likes and dislikes. Also, the idea of cleansing out or fumugating all prejudices would be going to far. If anything, I would say that the main thing is for us to be critically aware more than anything else.

I hadn't ever come across the idea of any gay bars being exclusive to any specific ethnic group because I don't think that there are any in England which are. One thing I am particularly aware of is the way in which gay people who are of African descent often have an extremely difficult time within their families and in their communities.

I probably do have some prejudice against the extremely wealthy, which I hadn't really thought about until you mentioned it. But, I don't really come into much contact with the extremely wealthy. That is, as far as I know, because I might encounter these people and not even be aware of their great wealth.

The idea of a ' cognitively slow' person raises a lot of questions in itself. What on earth does it mean to be labelled cognitively 'slow'. Also, the factors leading to learning disabilities are numerous, and not always genetic

Genetics is unpredictable. Two people who have exceptionally high IQs won't necessarily have a child that does. Also, genetics is about dominant genes and can have various results. In particular, children of a set of parents may not all look alike at all.

But fiction isn't just about objects. It's about people and their psychological truths. To just view the people as objects would be a very flat level of understanding the whole scope and meaning of literature. Even if you think of the romantic relationships it would be a mistake to think that this is just about beautiful bodies, because so much is about the emotions.

I would say that I know many people who are extremely racist and sexist. I probably thought a lot about these matters when I studied sociology in sixth form. I do think that these prejudices are embedded in structures not just specific individuals. Of course, the values of the individuals shape and change structures but this is probably at a much slower rate than the ideas of specific individuals.

Of course, all the different aspects of life add up, such as America having a black president and England having a woman prime minister are significant. I am sure that a black woman born into the Western world today has a far better prospect than if she had been born 100 years ago, or in a remote part of the world.

I can remember struggling over a Kant essay. I was writing about the whole issue of means and ends and the topic I chose to focus on for some of the discussion was prostitution. So, that is an example of a life issue which you could think about and discuss.

It is not about whether I give privileges on account of such characteristics. I try to see all people for who they are on a deeper level and so do many other people but I do see people being treated unequally.

I really like your music taste and it is quite an interesting contrast. I love the Waterboys for when I am up(This is the Sea' album) and The Jesus and Mary Chain for when I am down(esp Darklands album) I recommend a Waterboys side project, featuring Karl Wallinger, The World Party. You may well have come across them, but I think that 'Private Revolution' and 'Goodbye Jumbo' are terrific.

Okay, someone is born with biological characteristics of a specific gender or race and these are not privileges as such. However, the person is coming into a social world in which th privileges are likely to be based on these characteristics. Unless we are in a social order which does not have a cultural ranking based on such differences there are likely to be certain privileges. I am sure that there has been a big shift in the last 50 years but I don't think that we really live in an equal world in many ways.

Fiction can't be translated easily into shapes. I know that it written in alphabetical shapes but it would be absurd to try to quantify it in this way. It involves stepping into the mythical perspective and this involves specific meaning for different individuals. Individuals are likely to approach idifferently according to their personal experiences. I don't think that it would be possible to quantify the whole realm of storytelling at all.

Yes, I agree that equal opportunities are important for enabling equality. Unfortunately, I have seen situations where people pay lip service to this while the whole spirit of it is ignored. For example, if people try to make the statistics show that gay or disabled people are being employed in certain professions and the reality is that those people go on to get bullied so much that they leave the job.It is not good if the translation of policy into practice becomes one of empty rhetoric and, unfortunately, from what I have seen, this can be what happens in some organisations.

You say that 'the recipient of privilege is never born with it', but that ignores the whole way into which can be born into an environment of privilege. An easy example is how some people are born into wealthier backgrounds. The whole life we are given at birth affects who and what we can become in so many ways.

One thing that it is worth thinking about is the clear distinction between fact and fiction. Okay, with the person in the wheelchair that is something we can see directly, but not all others are so straightforward. The example of the person with the criminal record is a clear example. Only very limited people would have access to that information and so, in such cases, a lot may be about rumours, or if more, it may be about someone having abused access to or sharing of confidential information.

I still maintain that you are using the term bad faith to justify a whole process of seeing the bad in others. Sometimes, when we see bad in others it involves psychological projection.

Yes, I think that the less we put people into little boxes the better. I don't want to become 'Jack in the Box'. We are becoming used to having to tick more and more boxes, on more and more forms, increasingly.