Yes, I would agree with the idea that an entirely solitary life would be too extreme. While I moan that I have difficulty getting enough private time and space, if I was cut off from others entirely I would struggle. When alone, the thought of significant others is very important. If I think about times when I have enjoyed time alone it has been in the context of knowing that I had important connections with other human beings. I don't think I could become a hermit, living out in the mountains alone. So, the ideal of a rich inner life is probably best seen as balanced with connections and relationships with others, and reading books written by others too.

I think that your argument is very detailed in analysis and manages to connect the whole area of duty on the level of motivation with the actual practice of moral actions. This moves the understanding of ethics beyond the apparent conflict between the deontological and utilitarian approaches of Kant vs. J S Mill. The two have most often been seen as in opposition to one another and I believe that you have succeeded in offering a way of bridging the two viewpoints.

The question would be to what extent can good and evil be understood as objective categories? Even if you see good and evil as objective, who is able to judge and spell out their exact nature in applications for human affairs. I see the word 'bad' as a value judgement.

On a wider and deeper level, I would go on to ask: is there anything which is absolutely wrong? This specific question was once given to me as an essay title and it got me thinking, but I won't go on to share the conclusions I came to. I think that it is more useful to just pose the question, for you to reflect upon, in relation to the area of debate which you have raised.

Actually I do agree with you that in many respects we only meet other minds on a certain level. I do have some experience of giving and having personal therapy and that is an example where there is an interchange of meaning but it is partial. The client shares experience and interacts with the therapist, but the two persons still retain the personal experiences and may be coming from such different meanings that there is barely any communion of minds. For example, for one person discussion about family may be based on a whole set of positive meanings and the other from negative ones.

I suppose that in any dialogue the art is to be able to find the connections which enable the common ground, so as to give the possible ways in which the two minds may meet to achieve the best possible collaboration. In everyday conversation this is about mutual negotiation but, in the example of therapy, the art of therapy is to enable the client to access the therapist's consciousness and attention to enable an expanded view to bring some possible new level of awareness for the client. This is to work on the 'stuck' nature of a problem which may have led the person to need therapy.

I have to admit that I haven't read much Wittgenstein. Reading his writings is on my 'To do' list along with Sartre's "Being and Nothingness', but it hasn't happened yet. These works seem a bit obscure and abstract to entice me toward them but this may be my failing and loss. Perhaps I will gravitate and appreciate them in time.

I can see what you mean about words having meaning which is private, but surely this divide is fuzzy because our thinking is also connected to the web of ideas. In particular, when we are communicating with others in these philosophy discussions the specific words which we use do have private, personal meaning but as we use the words in exchange with others surely we are moving more into others' meanings and partaking in the shared meanings, which lead us to expand our personal ones.

When you speak of unspoken thought, which you say is not private language, I would say that unspoken thought could occur in two different ways. First, it could be about aspects which are hard to formulate in words, since in some cases people may not be articulate their emotions fully.

The other kind of unspoken might be that which it seems better to withhold from conversations. Here, I am not talking about lying but what seems relevant and in the best interests. For example, it might seem better to avoid voicing a criticism of a person to that person if it could be hurtful and is not essential. So, we can hold back this aspect of potential dialogue as private monologues, which are a private language because they are not formulated into the way of dialogue with the other.

I did look up Eugene Gendlin online and his ideas do seem useful, so thanks for introducing him to me. His book, 'Focusing' sounds worth reading and I will try to find it and read it. However, the whole concept of focusing seems important, because my whole emphasis on the inner world is really about the way it is a focus point for all that happens in our lives. Focus is central to interpretation and intentionality.

I had some eye problems and got referred to an eye clinic and was told that I may have a condition called Coates disease, involving abnormalities of the blood vessels of the eyes. The condition is rare and usually appears in males under 10 years old and mine was not picked up until adulthood and seems stable.

However, as a result of being given this possible diagnosis I have read and thought a lot on the subject of eyesight. I realise that my biggest fear is blindness, although I am aware that some fear deafness rather than blindness. I have also read about how good eyesight is linked to good health in general. In particular, diabetes, which is a growing health problems is linked to a number of eye conditions. There is even some research linking good eye health to lesser likelihood of developing dementia. A whole central aspect of this is the way in which the retina is actually part of the brain.

So, this would all support your view of the central role of vision and visual focusing as an important factor in the achievement of physical and emotional wellbeing.

One of the most complex stories around gender is told in, ' As Nature Made Him: The Boy Raised As A Girl,' by John Colapinto. The author tells of his true life story He was a twin, had circumcision and it went wrong and he lost his penis. A decision was made to raise him as a girl. He was given surgery as a child to create realistic female genititalia. This was followed by oestrogen therapy and John became Joan. The sexologist John Money used this example to show that gender is nurture based rather than dependent on nature. The implications of this were applied in decisions about rearing intersex children.

However, what happened eventually, and was shown by John Calapinto is that he did not identify as female at all, as sociologists were implying. He had not even looked like a female as he had still become hairy and masculine as a even though he was given female hormones and been bullied for this. He chose to live as a male and had some kind of physical treatment to become more male again, but at the time he wrote the book he had not had surgery to create a prosthetic penis. However, he actually committed suicide a short time after the book was published.

It is worth saying that what emerged was that John was also experiencing many other life difficulties, and his twin brother also committed suicide, although I am not sure if John or his twin, who developed schizophrenia, committed suicide first. However, I think that this whole true story points to the essential nature of gender and gender identity and how it is more than a social construct. This has importance for the whole understanding of intersex conditions as well gender dysphoria.

Your latest response was good to read, because reading through most of the responses to my question it has appeared that the inner life is being dismissed as being of any importance at all.

It is seen more as something to be avoided altogether. It is as if we only matter as social creatures according to most of people who have looked into this thread. However, even if we are completely immersed in social life and try to avoid 'inner life' as a luxury as far as I can see we are still have an inner self, although the self can be understood as a construct and has fluidity.

I would say that it is also important to take into consideration how the perceives their gender as well. It is also complicated if we make assumptions just on the basis of the way a person may look. Perhaps we would need to engage in conversation with the person who appears male, but is wearing a pink leotard, to know their unique story, before we start to apply labels and pronouns on the basis of our assumptions, which are only assumptions.

I think that part of the problem with applying Kant's system of thought to practical ethical situations is that his whole emphasis was on moral duties, in terms of motivations rather than ends. In the present time, we are more concerned with the effects of our behaviour. The example of the conflict of duty that you give is the most extreme. However, for many ethical decisions we make on a daily basis it is so much more complicated applying his whole system of logic, especially the principle of universalisation because we are often confronted by the particulars and the unique.

I haven't come across Eugene Gendlin, but I will look him up. Thanks

Yes, the more abstract it becomes the more the arguments begin to get meaningless, although the idea of some processes after death, prior to a rebirth in another bodily form is another possibility. If this was the case I would think that it is likely that humans are reborn as human beings. The theosophical writers argued in this direction.

At face value, what you say appears true and you may be right. On the other hand, perhaps the matter is not as straightforward as we often think. We could ask what is consciousness, exactly?

I
I have seen your reply.

The one thing that I will say I is that I have studied many aspects of psychology but don't just go by popular psychology, which you refer to. I prefer to look to psychology in its diversity, ranging from psychoanalytic, cognitive and humanistic. The way the psychosocial is viewed varies so much depending on the perspective. I have to admit that I have more of an interest in the psychoanalytic, which might explain my emphasis on the inner world, but I try to keep aware of what can be learned from other perspectives too.

It seems a bit simplistic to say that, 'the outer provides, the inner digests' because we are not just passive observers.

However, I would agree that it is easy for us to slip into the observer world, viewing the media, and this leading to a more interior perspective It says a lot about our culture, for better or worse. I am sure that many other cultures did not have the luxury of being able to indulge in the inner life like we can, but this could change if many people become much poorer.

I am not convinced that many people in the past or in certain parts of the world have been able to focus on the inner life in the way that we can, on our phones, reading and listening to music. So, the big question would be what will happen if we have to adapt to a much harsher existence if consumer materialist culture diminishes in the near future? Would 'the inner life' offer a means of sustenance or would most of us just lack survival skills, become unwell mentally, or find new ways of negotiating the boundaries between inner and outer?

I think you may have put your comment together a bit wrongly because you have quoted me as saying a whole paragraph I did not say. I would imagine that the second paragraph is your answer, but it is rather unclear to me, as it could be a quote from someone else. Please could you clarify this.

I don't think that it is possible to say that inner or outer experience comes first, and this is where the danger of dualism comes in because they are interrelated.

I am not sure what point you are making by your reference Sheler and Wittgenstein approaching others' emotional states on the basis of facial expressions. This aspect of life is the reading of people's emotions on the basis of non verbal signals. I would say that it does show basics of their emotional life but little about the content of the inner life. Surely, inner life cannot be reduced to emotionality alone.

Also, when you say that, 'Thinking and imagining always intends beyond itself,' this seems so vague. I do believe that most people wish to interact with other people, or certain significant others, or the environment, but there are so many possible choices that it could involve numerous aspects arising from the inner life. I would suggest that to understand the individual's inner experience we need to ask the person, in order to get an understanding of the meaning and depth of the actual experience, rather than base our view on observations.

So, when you ask what my understanding of the inner life is beyond reflection, imagination and dreaming are you asking if I am seeing these as separate from interpersonal acts? I see inner life as related to social life, but would not reduce it to this alone. One person could be in positive relationships but feel deeply depressed. Another could be deeply unhappy about relationships but be experiencing a rich inner life depending on their inner resources and imagination. I am not just thinking in terms of day to day pleasure but of creativity. Here, I would say that some of the most recognised people, including Van Gogh, Kierkergaard and Nietzsche, may not have been the most contented social beings but they were able to cultivate the rich inner lives, evident in their creative work.

I have been reading your posts and would say that I am not in any way trying to suggest that we should be or see ourselves as isolated beings. However, I would say that the inner life is the starting point for any connections with other people.

I would argue that if we do not understand ourselves and have a certain amount of inner harmony this will affect our relationships with others. Of course, our own conflicts may stem from damages caused in the outer world, but if nothing else, it is the one area which we can work upon, and we may even seek therapy for help. Of course, reaching out to others and taking part in life is essential, but this does involve one's mindset, which brings back the inner life as a focus point, although bodily wellbeing is part of this too?

Perhaps this implies dualistic thinking? I do advocate a holistic picture of the human being, but the the relationship between physical and mental wellbeing is complex too.

It may be that you or other people don't see that the inner life as central because you have already achieved the basis of a harmonious inner life already, but for others this is not as straightforward.

The reason why I have not replied to this thread so far is that I think the perfect questions should be reserved for creating threads. Throwing all the ideas into this one, without even exploring them properly seems a bit futile, but what I would think is worth exploring is the nature of perfect questions: areas not considered enough and processes for the generation of ideas.

I agree that the inner world can enable reflective contemplation, dreaming and imagination, and 'the richest source of access to truly new worlds.'
However, beyond that it our basic form of being and processing.

I am not wishing to underplay relationships with others, but in all aspects of life the inner world is central. We have to internalise the outer experience to process it, in order to connect with others and relate to our surroundings. The inner world is also the source of appreciation, enjoyment and ways of engaging with other beings in a meaningful way.

I do agree that it is best if we do not try to establish a clear boundary between inner and outer reality. There have been times when I have looked out at my body and the world and slipped into dualist thinking, as if my mind was detached from my body and the world in general. What made matters worse was reading books on astral projection as this led me to see my mind travelling off in adventures of its own.

My initial idea for creating this thread was that in a discussion on art in another threa I agreed with someone, saying that I did not like the word 'spiritual' any longer. The reason why I said that it is seemed to me that the concept of spiritual is too neat and tidy, as well as too traditional in its connotations. However, having said that I didn't think in terms spiritual, I felt that perhaps I was dismissing a whole dimension of life, inner reality.

I went on to think how this whole aspect of life is so central to life: thinking and reflecting, the arts and sciences and most aspects of life. But I would not suggest that we see it as separate from outer aspects of existence, because I do believe in a holistic approach.

Saying that, my own interest lies in the area in between philosophy and psychology, as conveyed in my interest in the work of Carl Jung and I am also interested in mythology and shamanic views of reality. I believe that these spheres of thought, and symbolic aspects of truth, are often pushed out of philosophy whilst they offer valuable insights as an alternative realm to that of concrete facts derived from the objective, material world. I am not simply trying to find a theory to understand it, but to encourage the philosophers to explore this realm.

I found your post helpful because I often get demoralised by people dismissing any ideas I have about influence and creativity. I probably shouldn't get disheartened but I find that most people try to discourage me, but of course I do not really side with the majority, but at the same time I am a bit sensitive to criticism.

I definitely believe in collaboration, but sometimes finding people to collaborate with is not easy. I do have ideas for involvement in art and creative writing groups. I was involved in such groups in libraries and a museum until all these closed in March. I find that trying to do most things, including find work, is so difficult when practically all the structures we know are shut down. I have found that the last year seemed to havel asted about 10 years. It will be interesting to see what life will be like after the pandemic and I am hoping that it will bring some positive changes.

Yes, it is important to try to be part of the positive change one would like to be. I definitely would like to be involved in bringing positive changes and I think that you are right to say that it is likely to be occurring by the time structural changes occur. I also hope that others read what you wrote because I think that people need to be inspired positively.

I am really not trying to be confusing talking about more than three dimensions. I have actually been engaging with a member of the forum, Possibility, about dimensions in relation to art. The fourth dimension probably includes aspects of time, such as memories.

However, while some people are starting to think in more than three dimensions, I don't think that it is essential to do so as it is probably not a mainstream view. I remember talking about the 5D reality to one of my managers at work and I think that she thought that I was crazy.

In your post you speak of life being fast because it is in 3D. I would just suggest that life has 4, 5 and perhaps many more. I am inclined to think that if consciousness exists beyond death, may be in a different dimension to the one we are accustomed to in daily life.

The whole issue of magical thinking is an interesting one. I came across it on a short cognitive behavioral therapy course. Most people use magical thinking a lot and it requires work to overcome. In the first place, I even used magical thinking, wishing against the belief in life after death because my Catholic belief system left me worried about hell. So, I would say that the idea of life after death is not always too good to be true.

Please don't think that I was actually criticising you. I have been reflecting how the whole question of what is an opinion in philosophy. Perhaps arguments are only opinions constructed on the basis of reason, especially on topics such as this one, and the whole existence of God.

I did read your post and I am not sure that the arguments you gave were convincing evidence of life after death, personally. I think that is only one aspect of the issue of the life after death debate.

People are still writing in the thread I created, mostly against life after death but some arguing from the point of view in favour of life after death. I do wonder if it would be worth you writing your argument about NDE in the thread because it is possible that people are logging into the one I created. Probably the two thread can be connected by links but, even so, if there are 2 with a similar title it is a bit confusing.

Whatever, you choose I hope that people engage with you, because I do believe that life after death is one of the central questions of philosophy. Personally, I am not convinced that the inductive argument is relevant for considering NDEs but others may view the matter very differently from me. But I definitely think that it is worth you going forward with your argument in some way because I felt that when I have been looking at the question some of on the site missed your prescience.

You said in response to Bitter Crank that people are not entitled to opinion on a philosophy forum. On the particular question of life after death I am not sure that people can give more than opinion.Of course, the introduction of reason can be important but in thinking about life after death has its limitations because we are talking about the unknown.

I am also aware that Sam26 has restarted his thread from a year ago on the subject of evidence of consciousness after death if anyone is interested. It is 21 pages long, although I have to admit that I have not read it all, but others might wish to.

I think that the danger is probably in looking too hard for answers in the inner world. The process needs to involve a certain amount of spontaneity and reflection on others' points of view. But, personally, I do see some kind of meditation practice as important for bringing my mind to the right state of awareness in order to think with clarity.

The question is what is the truest state of being 'awake'?

I would say that inner space is an important arena for questioning. It can be a frightening world to explore and perhaps we need to touch base with others, as a way for avoiding the wastelands of subjectivity and difficulties we might find in searching for answers.

It is sometimes useful to search for answers within oneself, but also useful to compare with others and see our own exploration within its historical and cultural climate. The searching can be personal but also universal, because each person is confronted by the dilemmas of philosophy in some way.I do not believe that philosophy is a pure academic pursuit but one which draws upon the principles of reason and academic study, but it is also a personal search for meaning and truth.

I wish that I could find or offer easy answers but, unfortunately, it is not that simple and one question often leads to another. But, I am not saying it is all futile, and perhaps the philosophy quest is the most ultimate one in life, and the writings of the philosophers are the testimonies, nothing more and nothing less, and there is no one who can claim that their own inner truth is superior.

Yes, if we do not exist beyond death we will not know it, but if we do exist we will know. This spells out the extent of possibilities, except borderline states of consciousness, and future rebirth.

Perhaps the people who do not think about this matter at all are better off, and perhaps it would have been better if this thread had not been created.However, I am sure that some may worry about this alone, so, if nothing else, the thread may be an outlet for anxiety over this problem, which I see as possibly the hardest philosophy questions of all.

Its interesting that in your job that you were often seen as the 'tea lady' , when you probably did so much more. I think I was remembered in nursing jobs by patients for art more than anything else, to the point where a patient queried why I was giving medication to him, and he said, ' But, you're the art teacher,' My worst moments were when, in rehab hostels, I was expected to cook the supper, and sometimes my best resource was getting the patients to help, and technically I was correct, because psychiatric rehabilitation is meant to be about getting patients involved as part of the rehabilitation process.

I do think that power is a matter of perspective. At times, I feel that I am powerless, and other times, I realise that others seem almost unnerved by my power.

So, I would say that the whole question of creativity, in art and all aspects of life is a matter of perspective, with no absolutes, but a matter of framing. It involves conjuring up the imagination, rather than closing it down by focusing upon restrictions in a negative way.

I
I see your introspection illusions link and I do not want to become a navelgazer, or probably, in my case a shoegazer, because I am a bit of indie and psychedelic. I can see the dangers of focusing too much on the inner world. It is not even just about introspection and illusions but even, at its extremes, psychotic delusions.

I am not wishing that we should rely simply on the territory of our own introspection. If anything, I spend a lot of time going into the worlds created by other minds in the books which I read. But probably what I find, is that there is so much theorising, and ,somehow, I feel that we can get lost in the mazes, and lose touch with intuition as a source of wisdom.

I think that you make a good point. What happens after death is a mystery, even though some people think that they have definite answers. Whatever, this life is important and living it well, and perhaps this must be upheld, and I say this from the perspective of having agonised over the question of life after death endlessly. I wish that I knew the answer to the question of life after death but I am afraid that I do not know, and, for the present time, just try to accept this lack of knowledge.

One possible distinction which I can see between attachments and desires are that attachments may refer to the nature of our experiences of meeting desires. Loss of objects of desire may also be incurred, of course. However, that is perhaps another experience, separate from desire which may be about the fire for unquenched desires. They are connected but there are some subtle differences.

Thanks for the link and I am sure that the theory is a good framework but what I am interested in is a bit different. I am more interested in the experiential level of understanding in philosophy.I am not saying that theories for understanding the way we understand are irrelevant to this but do believe that we can look within as a source for knowledge and a more direct encounter.

Possibly, my approach is more in line with Eastern approaches to philosophy. I am not trying to say that we should not dialogue with others or understanding the history of philosophy. What I am saying is that the inner dimension, which some might dispute as existing in it's own right, is a source for imagination and connection with a certain kind of engagement with knowledge or self knowledge. But, I am not trying to suggest a withdrawn person struggling alone with the questions of philosophy, but drawing from intuition and imagination, which get forgotten and ignored sometimes.

I think that part of the complicated of understanding how inner and outer levels of experience work together is that while we may perceive others as aspects of outer reality, these others also experiencing their dialogue between inner and outer reality.

I think that the flow between inner and outer can be seen as flowing inwards and outwards. We take in information and generate it in our psyche.

Please note: As I was writing this, I received your link, which you think is relevant. Thanks for this, so I will look at it and reply at a later point.