I agree with what you are saying and it makes more sense than the theoretical beginning of your thread. I think you could probably blend theory and reflections more in your writing.

I found it amusing that you googled the philosophy of disasters and found my name. However, in a way I am not that surprised but that is why I try to be a bit careful how much personal information I disclose. I don't want to create a pseudonym, so I just try to make sure that I can stand according to what I write.

On a more serious note, I do worry at times that it is the end times of history. What is worse is that if belief in this becomes a self'fulfilling prophecy. I think that the idea of the end of history was a core part in the arms race, especially some American strands of Christianity. Really, I think that we are at a crossroads and we, as a collective force, may determine the fate of humanity. I find this scary. Of course, the leaders play a key role but perhaps what each of us thinks and does is important too. Perhaps we are all like individuals cells in a gigantic organism and no one can say how much influence one has in the grand scheme.

I find that the opposite happens to me. If I try to meditate, I start off with many distractions, ranging from worries to distractions from noise or being too cold or too hot, or many others. I have to switch off the thoughts gradually and, only then, can I reach a peaceful, or blissful state.

I think the way we all experience these states differently is one of the problems with all the techniques and underlying philosophies. What works for one person is different for every individual and at different times in life. I was even told by one professional, but do not know whether it is really true, that if someone in an extremely anxious state tries too hard to switch off through relaxation techniques it can trigger psychotic experiences.

I just think you are being too theoretical. You need to back up what you are saying with reference to the experiences of life in order for the argument to have any convincing merit.

I have no training in music but I gravitated towards record shops at about 8 years old and would have loved to work in one.

I do believe that music is such a subjective taste and I leap backwards and forwards in genres. You say that you are interested in electronic and dance music and think that some of only touches the surfaces. I can see what you mean in some ways but I think there are some which go fairly deep. Artists I find inspirational are Daft Punk, Four Tet and Caribou, but of course that is my subjective taste. I did like Avicci and I was very sad when I found out that he had committed suicide. Apart from his music, I did not know much about him or what personal struggles he had.

Generally, I think that some of the rock music which is made on digital devices does not capture the depths of music made in recording studios and that is why people often prefer albums made decades ago. It also depends on what speakers one has and that is why people think that CDs don't sound as good as records. They just need good speakers for their players as it is about capturing the frequencies. I have tried music on different systems and it sounds so different. Of course, it does depend on artistry put into work, but sometimes some might bring forth wonderful work without too much effort.

I am glad that you have found the forum. I have read some but not all of Plato. Apart from being boring, life would be entirely different without Plato. If he hadn't existed the whole of philosophy would have been different. Of course, if he hadn't existed as a human being another person would have probably come to his ideas eventually. Of course, Plato was very fortunate to have Socrates to learn from. I would love to find a new Socrates in my travels.

Anyway, I hope you find some exciting adventures and encounters on this site.

I would love to discuss mindfulness but your post is so theoretical. Are you opposing mindfulness, because it is extremely hard to make sense of what you are writing partly due to the way you write. I think the point you are missing is that mindfulness is about engagement with the senses and experience itself. We are not just beings of the head, engaging in theoretical constructs and the whole point of mindfulness is to bring us back to our senses, for our own wellbeing.

I would say that mindfulness does involve thoughts as well. It can involve the awareness of the thoughts as they arise in our heads. We can watch them arise, like aspects in the natural world rather than become passive victims. In particular, in states of depression people can almost experience negative thoughts as a concrete reality. Mindfulness enables people to see the limits of thought. Mindfulness is a technique for helping people to cope in life and I don't see how a phenomenological theory could help here.

Yes, life is too stressful. Even though I am so relieved that my mum was negative for Covid_19 I have not recovered really from all the anxiety of yesterday.

I do agree with not being able to drink coffee is awful, worse than not being able to play music really. I think coffee is the elixir for philosophy. I remember when I was at work if something really awful happened other staff members knew that I needed a coffee in order to think clearly.

I would say that philosophy loses its meaning when it becomes too detached from our life experiences and that is probably why I started this post about disasters. I don't understand why people want to engage in discussions which are more like word games.

The most ancient philosophers asked big questions but they were also engaged with the issues of day to day existence. Some people might choose to ignore this thread because there is a thread on Coronavirus already, but I am concerned about what the situation we are being thrown into. I think that we are being pushed in directions we never expected, and it requires a whole new way of seeing and existing.

I also believe that we cannot know for certain what lies within the meanings we see within the works of the arts, whether it is really there or in our own imagination. That is the problem with aesthetic judgments and when people make claims that certain works being superior.

I can remember once getting into an almost argument with someone who was trying to say that the music of Hawkwind was more advanced than almost any other band. My friend was saying that the music led people into certain dimensions which were real, and I was trying to query whether everyone who listened to the music would have the same experience. I know personally that my own experience of listening to a piece of music or viewing a piece of art varies according to the emotional mindset at that time.

I think that the emotional state of the person partaking in perceiving any form of art is critical and makes it difficult to come to a position of objective aesthetics. This is because aesthetics, more than knowledge by reason, is dependent on emotions, which involve sensory experiences and life experiences.

Yes, we are surfacing on another thread and I am in agreement against nuclear weapons. Perhaps more miracles are what we need on this site.

We are now shifting suggestions into the arena of life which is a new interesting take on your thread. I am not a big fan of parks but right now I would love to go to one. When the rules are a bit relaxed and weather a bit better I will take up your suggestion.

I realise that you are only making suggestions and I am probably getting wound up not with you really but because life is so difficult with lockdown restrictions. Many of us are forced to stay at home and interact online instead of in real life.

I have to admit that I get so intense reading these threads, and on several occasions I have woken up after dreams in which I have read and received comments on this site which have only been dreams. I am probably taking it too seriously, so I will try not to do so. But I think that we should bear in mind that others may also be struggling with a lack of outlets so this may impact on what they write too. I think we need a bit more fun because it is in short supply at the moment.

The reason why your thread is making me extremely anxious is that I am so grateful for this site and fear it will cease to exist or be altered too much. I am not saying that changes should not be brought in at all, but it seems that you are wishing to overhaul the site completely, so I do wonder if you would be best to start your own rather than try to change one which may be working for many. I know you say that some people keep on writing their views but perhaps it is their only way of expressing their ideas. So, while you say about catching new members that should not be the only one, because surely the site should not just be part of the grab and go, quick fixes available on Google but also, a community of minds.

I am sorry to say that your thread is making me feel really angry. You are making assumptions that everyone wants this forum to be article dominated. Someone made a really nice point that the whole presence of personalities is so important.

If the changes you wish for are implemented I will stop using it because all the beauty of it would be lost entirely. But you have already said that I am a nobody although you have admitted that you are too. I am going to have to stop here because I am getting really wound up, because I feel that you are trying to destroy all freedom of expression and vitality.

I think that you make a really good point in saying how the pandemic is a situation in which we are all affected. I think on that level it can raise awareness and bring wisdom. As you say, let's hope that people can 'start to focus on our commonalities instead of our differences.'

I think that we have to take responsibility for what we write rather than leave it to the mods. Surely we don't want them to have to keep intervening like some government.

I personally want to read good philosophy discussion and the problem is when people are just having petty arguments or ranting their own views. I do not log in to the couple of political forum threads that were opened in the last week because I know that it is going to be about people ranting or attacking one another. But of course you are right that when people who are new see this they are likely to be put off.

We are meant to be asking questions and even this one is not. It is for debate but surely it might have been better if you had put it in the lounge, especially if it just ends up saying how inadequate the site is that would put people off. Why don't you start a really stimulating discussion in the way you recommend instead, to inspire others and raise the level of expectation, so that people have something to gravitate towards and the ones which are chit chat become less popular. Really, I think you raise important points but we are the ones who should be making the site better not just the moderators.

I just saw an article on my phone saying that scientists have noticed that the world is spinning faster than it has ever done in 50 years in 2021. The last time it was spinning this fast was in 1937, so I am wondering if this will have any implications for our energy vibrations and experience. Perhaps it may make the experience of the pandemic seem slightly shorter.

I am writing a joint reply because it seems most appropriate because I just had a scare that my mother had Covid_19. I got a phone call this evening, but fortunately a test was done very promptly and she was negative, but until I got the call I was in a panic. But I told my flatmates that I might have to self-isolate because I saw my mum a few days ago and one of them said that I had better go and be with her. I could not believe the ignorance of this. But of course it is a big relief that she has a chest infection rather than the virus.

However, I did go into disaster mode. I would also be meant to self-isolate if she had it because I saw her 3 days ago. This would be extremely difficult in shared accommodation. The policy makers do not realise how difficult all the rules and regulations are difficult to practice in settings such as accommodation with shared facilities. I know that the level of the virus has escalated in London in spite of lockdown. I wonder if this is because many people are in cramped, overcrowded living arrangements. I was able to distance far better until everyone was told to stay at home, because I found private corners.

Anyway, I am trying to rise above potential disasters and hoping that an electrician will come to look at my socket. The landlord said he does not know if anyone can come during lockdown but that could be 2 months or more. I will get a lot of reading done if I am not able to use any electrical items in my room. I am having to charge my phone in the kitchen and will have to buy batteries to listen to CDs.

I hope that future posts are not about me wallowing in my own disasters as if people log into this site for the first time and see this out of context they will think the thread is about moaning. Of course, I don't object if people do share their experiences of disaster because philosophy is about real life rather than pure theory. It may be about trying to juggle the two together creatively.

I started reading this today and it seems to follow on in some ways to the thread on is art creative and I was in agreement with you on the qualitative aspect. However, I read @Manuel s post above because I ran into difficulty when the discussion ran into music when The Beatles and Mozart were compared. My first thought was that of course Mozart is not better because I do not like classical music.

Of course, your categories of originality, popularity, comprehensibility and truth/ accuracy are probably important here, and of course, The Beatles are popular but at the same time I think that some of their music, especially that of John Lennon does go deep. I also believe that some of the obscure music I listen to does go into other dimensions. For example, I think of higher states of consciousness when listening to the music artist Avicii, especially the track 'levels', but this is possibly my subjective experience, so how do we know if the aesthetic meaning we see is objective or based on the projections of our subjectivity.

From my point of view, you are starting a very interesting discussion about the ideas of Victor Frankl. I have not read him as much as I wish. What I am concerned about is that some of the religious assumptions you may alienate a lot of people reading it. Personally, I think that you write well and, I am open minded about religion and mysticism, so I will read what you write. But what I am thinking is that it might be helpful if you concentrate a bit more on the ideas of Victor Frankl, especially as he is not given as much attention as he probably deserves.

Also, the question as to whether mankind can endure anything other than meaning is defintely worthy of debate, independently of Frankl's ideas. I am not sure that I can cope with everything, although I try, even if I have meaning, but perhaps that is because I do not have the spiritual understanding which you present, and so, this might be why you have included the spiritual background, so my response may be erroneous.

I know that you wish to end the conversation but I do think that there is some quality discussion on the site and you have not found it such junk as to stop logging in all together. I think that it would be sad if it became like Reddit and I am sure that I write plenty that is not that good. However, I do believe that the more we write helps us develop our writing and philosophy skills. it is enables us all explore our ideas, rather than leaving philosophy in the hands of the academic elite.

I am not saying that I don't want to see quality material but that in having to submit work it would destroy all the spontaneity and probably drive many away. I would certainly not have taken part in the site at all if it had been devised in this way because I do not see myself as a professional and would not have the confidence to submit. It would be like submitting for 'Philosophy Now'. Yes, I could have taken part in the lounge conversations but I probably would not have bothered because it would be just like being a nobody in the audience.

If everything had to be scrutinised, who would do it.?There are the moderators but they would be working night and day, so who we become the new judges. If it became established members of the site that would certainly be elitist, even if it were just the moderators, and it could become a clique.

I would say that I do think we should do the best we can but I do believe that it is not just about writing fully fledged articles, but involving others in collaborative discussions because philosophy is such a wide topic with so many aspects and angles.

I am certainly not wishing to dismiss the inner world and wrote a thread on it less than a fortnight ago. However, I did feel that a lot of people objected to the idea of the inner world, mainly as being dualistic or too selfish a concept.

But I am all in favour of meditation. I try to practice it but do improvise and don't always get to the point of bliss. So, you are doing very well if you can achieve this.

But what I would say is that you are starting up a really interesting area of debate, connecting the idea of the self(inner world) with ethics, so I hope that you get a lot of discussion going. I dived into the discussion because I couldn't resist it. If anything, the self is such a complex topic for debate because, for better or worse, we all have one.

I
I think that the suggestions you make would be the worst possibility, mainly the idea of dividing it into accepted articles and conversations. This is because it would mean that any full discussion would have to be approved officially, almost like having to get published. All else would be just seen as conversation and just be lounge material, as if encouraging only superficial material.

I would also say that the idea of articles depends on what device you are reading them from. When I am reading on my phone the font on the couple of articles was not easy to read at all.

I have looked at some other forums and not bothered to join because they seem to have less freedom than this one. I am worried that you are seeking to divide 'quality' which weaves in and out of discussion. It would also create a hierarchy or division between the writers of articles and those who are just in conversations.

As far as new members are concerned they can obviously decide for themselves if they want to participate but the main thing I believe is that they feel listened to. I think I was fortunate that in the first few times I logged in I was treated with some sensitivity. I think that the main thing is that we listen to what people are saying, especially with people who are new to the site.

The other issue is that, in some ways, the self can be seen as illusory, in the sense that the Buddhists describe, as not being static, but a viewpoint rather than an actual entity in its own right.

Arthur Janov claims that the experience prior to birth is anything but basic in his book, 'The Primal Scream'. I think that in early childhood I was aware of having experienced a definite something beyond birth( or even after a previous life before this one).

I have said a bit about my experiences earlier in the thread and don't want to say more here to bore other readers who have read my previous posts. But what I will add here is that I did think about death at an early age because my grandmother died when I was 2 and a half and this was explained to me.

But the one point I would criticise about your post is that you say that there is no consciousness in dreamless sleep. This is disputable and here, I am thinking of the near death experiences. This has only been touched on briefly but has been looked at more fully on another thread on evidence of consciousness after death by @"Sam26, if you are interested.

I think what you are talking about really is what is called the ego by psychologists, and is the conscious entity which makes decisions. It could be called a self but the idea of a self has wider implications, encompassing deeper levels of consciousness which merge in and out of conscious awareness, for example in falling asleep.

The whole question is at what point does consciousness first emerge. Is it a spark which arises at conception and flickers out eventually at death. A few posts back I asked 'what is consciousness?' and someone gave me a link to a lengthy thread on consciousness and I found that the arguments were going around in circles. I think that this is because, ultimately, consciousness is a mystery. This was expressed so well by Erwin Schodringer:
'Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms, for consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else. Quantum physics reveals a basic oneness of the universe. Multiplicticity is only apparent in truth, there is only one mind.'

I ended my dialogue with you yesterday evening because I had to phone my landlord because the electric socket on the wall was making noises.

However, my thoughts on a new transhuman species of soldiers being genetically engineered on the aesthetics of strength, endurance and intelligence is that these three principles are exactly what are needed to cope with disasters. Personally, I wish that I had more of these strengths.

I also have been thinking that it is also important to think about coping with disaster on a personal level, and I mean this in a positive way. I have edited my title to include 'beyond' because I am trying to consider disasters not as an inevitable end but as something that we can live with and go beyond. This involves going beyond the position of being catastrophic in thinking. This is important in coping in the light of the pandemic and in all difficulties.

One book which I have read in the last couple of days is 'Resilience: How the Stories we tell become the lives we live' by George Howick. He argues that, 'There is no such thing as an inherently good, or bad event', and that, 'It is the embrace of this principle that will give us the best perspective and mental clarity to achieve the best possible outcome from our situation. ' I have to admit that I often think the worst when a disaster occurs but I do realise that it is our response to a disaster which is so important, because we can be broken by it or we can use it as a positive turning point.

I would think that this site is a good one for discussing philosophy books. Of course, there is the possibility that others may not have read the book but that would quite possibly be the case even if you were using the site.

What I would think that you could do, bearing in mind that others might not have read the book which you have, is write a short review of a book and, in this way, enable others to discuss the main ideas in the book.

I am sorry if this suggests is helpful, but I am and hopefully some others, might be interested in discussing ideas in philosophy books, including current ones.

I have just woken up and read your reply and am just aware of how different your life is to mine. I can't imagine what it is like to be thinking of survival in terms of cattle. I prefer vegetarian food, but seeing your response did make me smile because it was certainly not the sort of response I expected.

My latest disaster is that the electrics in my room, but not the light have gone wrong. The plug socket is making wiring noises so I dare'nt use. I will have to buy batteries to be able to listen to my music. I phoned my landlord and he is going to get someone to look at it.

In the grand scheme my moaning makes me realise how a little disaster can seem big. In the meantime I will try to stop feeling sorry for myself and perhaps I will read instead of listening to music.

What you are saying is interesting because there is definitely meant to be life before birth, in the period while the baby is in the womb.

The idea of life uniting with the universe sounds rather nice.

Yes, it is rather worrying if your country does not get a quality vaccine. I had not really thought about some countries not getting the best, or trying to make money.

So the whole idea of creating 'better' human beings is to make them more disease resistant? I don't know if this is even possible because human beings are living systems and will inevitably get sick in some way or another, especially under stress. The danger is that if they are not able to get certain diseases they may just develop new kinds of diseases altogether.

I would have thought it more helpful if people were given the best life conditions to thrive, in order to avoid certain illnesses, rather than be enhanced. However, saying that I know that on one of my ex-tutors has written some books on medical enhancement and at the time I heard of that it did not concern me. It just sounded a bit unusual but now that I am hearing of the idea being put into practice it is a bit disturbing, mainly because we don't know the political interests of those putting the idea into practice.

So are the new form of human beings being engineered genetically? What are they being programmed to do, or to serve?

It is a bit worrying. I also know many people who are afraid of the vaccine. Some people are concerned about what the vaccine contains. It is sometimes hard to sort out the facts from the fiction.

Perhaps we will see a move away from cities, and smaller less centralised forms of living, as recommend in E F Schumacher's 'Small is Beautiful'.

The role of money might change in the future too. In the worst possible scenario we may see a greater division between the wealthy and the poor. However, I do wonder if poverty became so great whether money might cease to exist at all. Here, I am thinking that if great numbers became homeless because they could not afford to rethink. This is because it might not be that property was not available but that people could not afford it, so it would have to remain empty, or perhaps other solutions could be found.

If those in poverty became the majority perhaps we would really see people rising up to overthrow the capitalist system. Or perhaps ways of exchange could take place, such as barter. The only problem with barter is that some vulnerable individuals may not be able to contribute much, so they could still be left out, so economic inequality might not be changed.

At times, I find that all these areas of thought are rather depressing but I am hoping that there will positive aspects at the other side of potential disasters. I hope that it will not just be more calamities, because at this stage in human evolution, surely humanity could find creative ways of living which involve compassion and less destruction.

A friend told me that he heard talk of a new higher developed form of human being born, mentioned on some radio programme. I have never heard of this, but it is an interesting idea, because can we just assume that the present human beings are the highest form possible, or whether there could be new mutations?

Yes, I think that the Tower of Babel metaphor is good for explaining the communication problems of this time. We are being swamped and overwhelmed with information. I think that there is probably a lot going on below the surface of the news we are being given and the mass media serves the interests of the wealthy elites. I believe that the majority of people are trying to abide by the rules and the way in which we are being given so much prescriptive guidance is leading to a lot of anger. It is very well for the leaders to keep telling people to stay at home when they are able to relax in the comfort of luxury homes.

Somehow, I do believe that we have been on the brink of disaster for some time. Could we have expected to escape some event of an inevitable catastrophic event? Perhaps the Covid_19 virus, initially blamed on China, is nature's wake up call for the way in which overpopulation and industrialisation are damaging the ecology of the planet.

The one point on which I do wonder is you say that for some countries the pandemic is a 'mere inconvenience' because I am not convinced that we have seen the worst that is to come, and wonder if what we are seeing is only the beginning. Here, I am talking of the possibility of far more mutant strains of the virus and more deadly viruses. Of course, I hope that I am wrong.

Really, I swing between pessimism and optimism. Part of me thinks that the whole pandemic is going to bring forth so many crises. But, another part of me believes that the disasters may bring opportunities for positive change. Maybe, the reality will be a mixed picture. But, to some extent I think that while the leaders need to take responsibility, we may all have to make changes in order to help others and for the wellbeing of others and for the future of the planet.

Perhaps we are at a critical crossroads on the question of where humanity is going? In a metaphorical sense this may be the day of judgement, and we judge ourselves ultimately.

I do consider myself as left wing but you have not discussed anything other than the possibility of being attacked, so I am unclear what point you are trying to make.

You say that 'the thinking must change,' and of course you are right but the question is whether it is too late? The problem is that all this uncertainty has arisen when, previously, for many everything was too certain. There was no planning for a pandemic on this scale.

I realise that you are from the Phillipines and probably your society is more community orientated. In England, as I said to you in the thread on human nature, it is easy for people to become isolated, especially if they are not living with family. I think that this has become more acute as a result of the pandemic, and, in a way, the rules of social distancing are reinforcing isolation. Of course, it is important that the virus is not to be spread, but this is making the community spirit fragment altogether. Many are critical of English people amidst the pandemic, for not adhering to rules. The way in which rules have been broken may be because policies have not looked at the problem of how the community is fragmenting. The whole emphasis is on the individual who is becoming unwell mentally or drinking too much, but the social contexts are not being explored fully. Of course people need to avoid potential situations to prevent the spread of the virus but the danger is that people become more self-control, ignoring the needs of others.

As no planning was made for this pandemic, perhaps all that we can hope for is that, through learning from the present, there will be more planning for future disasters. I remember having a conversation with a friend in the summer, in which I said that I hoped that the whole experience of Covid_19 would change us all for the better in some ways. My friend said that by Christmas people would have forgotten about it completely and have gone back to their usual routines and behaviour. At the time, none of us knew that the whole problem would be much worse rather than better at Christmas and beyond. We still do not know what is going to happen and I believe that we are going to be changed, and have to change, by what is happening.

I am sorry if anyone has been reading this and been unable to do so, because I have been editing it, trying to capture what I am trying to say and ask. I am aware that it is very far from perfect, but would we need a forum at all if our ideas emerged fully, without flaws and in need of consolidation?