I am sure that Buddhism does not actually suggest detachment. I think that the problem is people interpreting in a shallow way. I think that it is unfortunate that the shallow interpretations are upheld by many, and I would intend that in my post that such misconceptions can be explored and clarified, because they are complex.

I think that the biggest problem is when any group of people think that they are in a position to dictate how we should live our lives.

For better or worse, we have certain attachments and who has the right to stand as judge? Perhaps we need more people with compassionate understanding of attachments rather than philosophies which simply proclaim detachment as an end.

I think that part of the diminishing role of art is because people are beginning to want fast solutions, especially entertainment through television and on the internet. I am inclined to think that the loss of meaning in art began when popular art became part of consumer material society, with pictures being sold to be placed on the wall, almost becoming parts of furniture.

I see your point( Brett)about landscapes painted on Sunday afternoons, and this whole side of art does seem to deplete it of any meaning. On the basis of liking my drawings, many people asked me to draw their pets or their houses, and I did not take up the challenge, even when though they offered me money, because I had no meaningful way of making art based on the objects of their sentiments because it seemed at odds with the whole quest of my art. I tried to explain that to them but I don't think that they understood, because they saw drawing as a practical skill. The most I achieved was to be able to come up with pictures for my parents' living room walls, because this was not too limiting.

I think that the whole idea of art as products is part of the problem. This applies to other arts, including music and books, which is a whole area of commercial value. I don't think that most creative people do wish to work for money but they have to survive. Perhaps the best solution is a day job to support oneself, rather than relying on artistic work for a living, but this is complicated, especially as we are moving into a time of possible mass unemployment.

I would say that it is likely that art will be a minority interest. When I have been running art groups, I have found that a lot of adults think that making art is just for children. However, they do not think that about art, However, they do not seem to think this about playing sports, and I think that it is unfortunate that art is not seen as a means of enjoyment, expression and questing for meaning.

One other point which I would make is that some would say that philosophy is a minority interest and irrelevant. Should we be following the direction of the minority or be trying to rise above it?:I do believe that some of the original posters on this site are not saying simply that art is not creative but that it is worthless and, therefore, should not be pursued at all.This seems so nihilistic, and is in the spirit of discouraging creativity

What is the better creative replacement for art and the arts? I know that you (Brett) think that the state of mind(Zen) you experience is the answer, but surely to reduce all exploration to one answer is far too simplistic, and it should not be instead of the arts, and possibly the two states could be complementary. Art and spirituality are not enemies.

If the arts lack any creativity whatsoever, I am left wondering how one chooses to understand the term creativity, and I am not sure that it can just be reduced to the idea of 'originality' as some posters wish to cling, to rigidly as the supreme benchmark. It seems to me to be lopsided thinking and to try to say that art has no creativity, or potential for creativity.

Do you think that suffering is a 'pernicious lie' and that 'which we cherish the most is immune to damage, death and decay', because surely this contradicts the idea of impermanence.

However, I do like the idea of reason personified as 'a protagonist', although some might object to me saying 'like' because I am not sure if we are meant to be swayed by our likes, and I am perhaps following the path of attachments here, in the realm of ideas, and ignoring Reason's governing power.

Yes, that is a good point that we should not work upon attachments unless they are a problem. Personally, I have felt guilty about attachments and I have found it hard to hold onto the things to which I would like to. But, yes, if there is not a problem, why create one?

I would agree that there is a problem in viewing this life from the standpoint of future lives. Even if a person believes in future ones, surely this one should be the focus, because it is the life being lived rather than imaginary ones.

Yes, I think that attachments are complicated and each person's own set of them are unique. We probably have to negotiate the right balance in all areas of life.

Meaningful connections are fine, but sometimes they become more than this, or we would probably not have friendships or relationships at all, including sexual ones. Also, sometimes we want connections with others and this is not reciprocated and this leads to the negative side of attachments.

What can be particularly painful is rejection, but I am not saying that we cannot rise above the surface of the suffering However, in doing so, we might form attachments which are built on the original source of pain, making the glue of these new attachments more fixed, and less flexible. Of course, in some cases the rejection may make some fearful of connections and even solitude is a form of attachment, as well as a detachment, in a strange way.

Apart from formal education I would say that families are the beginning of the process of learning to think, rather than just being told what to think. My parents used to talk to me a lot and encourage me to think freely. When I was at school I was aware that had discussed so much that others had not been encouraged to think about.It is surprising that my parents never thought through their religious beliefs fully, as I have done, and chose to cling on to their original beliefs.

I would say that we have to connect with others before the attachments occur. Attachments don't arise out of nowhere. They have to have some basis from which to form in the first place. It is not possible to be attached to someone without a meaningful connection.

The conflict between time spent alone and with others is as 'a paradox' as the Madfool would say.I grew up as an only child and often spent a lot of time by myself and was often longing to meet others. But, I have never lived alone and often crave just a bit of private space and time and have even struggled to find this even in this time of social distancing.

Probably our experiences affect our cravings. I am fed up that I cannot meet with friends or go to social events, but at the same time, as I live in overcrowded, shared accommodation I am constantly negotiating private space, even just to read and write on this site, free from intrusions from others. But, of course communication on this site is connection anyway.

That is a good question, although it is as if we are living in space capsules during this year of social isolation, with need or unmet needs. My imagined fantasy of a space capsule with all my needs met would be the chance for freedom to pursue the writing and artistic life. But I would probably still want to meet others. Nevertheless, I would prefer the space bubble to a really stressful social situation.

Even if we follow the path of self realisation and self-analysis, I think that attachments are still likely to play a large part. I do believe that we can work on particular areas which we can work on, but not all the areas at once. Meditation has an a central role but do not necessarily have to aim to become sages. Of course, if becoming one occurs in the process it may be the best possibility, but if we were to seek that goal it might become a hollow attachment ideal in itself.

I do agree about your essential idea about our brains being transmitters, receiving information, and I think it is a bit similar to those of Henri Bergson and his whole idea of Mind at Large. Perhaps you do not need Descartes to be at the centre of the theorI about tuning into to thought waves. I have also been writing in response to @Possibility, about art, this afternoon, and reading her writing is inspirational for thinking about dimensions which we can tap into.

I have read the posts that you have written and I believe in you have addressed a number of very important problems.

One of the main ones is the tension between making art with other people, in contrast to the individual is in the process of discovery of symbolism in a journey of self exploration. I think that the process of sharing art made with others is important, but art made in groups often allows for this exploration to get lost.

The most interesting aspect I have found is that there can be some underlying shared themes emerging in the art, . and that is not because individuals have been looking at each other, because they have often been situated far apart. The shared elements do suggest that the individuals are tapping into a collective dimension.

The problem with art therapy can be that the art is expected to fall into a secondary role. In art psychotherapy, the whole thinking was mainly based on Freudian and Kleinian objects relations theory. This involved the idea of the transference being central. I am not dismissing this as being important but on the course I did this meant that other approaches were almost excluded. I am extremely interested in James Campbell' s portrayal of mythic exploration, and I can remember talking about this in a workshop and I got the feeling that the tutor and other students regarded the whole matter as unimportant.

In exploring the symbolic dimensions, one of the ideas which I also consider helpful is shamanic vision quests, including accessing the upper world and the underworld. One aspect of this is the imagery in hypnagogic and hypopompic imagery, and I do try to incorporate my own experience of this into symbolic art, but sometimes it is difficult to recall the details exactly. One way which I have also found helpful for finding doorways into multidimensional reality for art making is the listening to music, ranging from metal, dance, and prog rock.

You ask about the limitations of 2D art for the exploration of the hero's journey. I have to admit that I have found that to be the case, to some extent. Since doing the art therapy course, I have experimented in fiction writing, and do wish to do so in the future. I find that it is possible to explore all the senses in writing and that words, while being limited, do have potential for creating unknown dimensions, and I am particularly interested in fantasy and the deeper side of cyberpunk and steampunk.

However, I am not convinced that there are not many areas left for 2D visual art, and not just as therapy. Personally, I do plan to do more visual art and would like to use art and writing in a complementary way. Although I have not done much art for a few years, for the few months before I found this site, I had playing around drawing inner worlds on my phone and do wish to use these ideas for future art work or for writing.

I am not sure if I am wrong, or the people who saying that 2D art has come to an end, because as far as I can see, there is so much scope for all kinds of new art.

Yes, this is a new, interesting area of discussion and I am thinking about it before I begin replies to other discussions. But I can relate to it, of course, because playing music on my speakers is my basic mode of being,

As a child, one of the things that I found so fascinating was the way in which sounds can be impressed onto grooves of records and to the tapes inside cassettes, and I think that this relates to the whole area of radio transmission and the transmission of thoughts. It comes down to identifying the source.

It would be wrong to say that the radio is speaking or that the record was singing. They are the outer layer responsible for the transmission but did not create the sounds. However, unlike Descartes, radios, records and CDs don't have self-consciousness, so they do not begin to think they are identical with the sounds.

The question is to what extent, are Descartes and ourselves different from the radio? We transmit thoughts, but are not identical with the source of consciousness itself. The source can be identified as the brain or mind, depending on whether one is a dualist or not, and how reductionist one is. Or, the source can even be seen as the collective unconscious.

Where Descartes identified himself as existing on the basis that he was thinking, he was drawing on the idea of the 'I' as the observer, or as Ken Wilber spoke of 'witness' consciousness. But, on the basis that we observe or witness, what does this mean about the 'I'. Is the 'I' an entity, even a self, or is just an illusionary fragment.

Perhaps it is an entity in the sense that it is a means of establishing an autobiographical self through life, but perhaps it is not really an actual being but more like a device for channelling sensory and mental stimuli. But, having just written that sentence, I can sense my own inner 'I', saying, 'But of course I am real' So, what do we make of this mysterious I. It is the seat of ego consciousness and cohesive identity. Without it, we would be a jumble of sensory experiences. It would be wrong to see oneself, or Descartes, as the source of thoughts but it could be said that the I is able to, at least, establish itself as existing as the seat of consciousness.

Having read what I wrote a short while ago, I realise that I am also doing the shifting of blame, placing the blame on biology. It is just that it is hard to pin reason or emotions onto any exact peg. Maybe the whole problem lies, on some level, at the quantum level. Perhaps in the energy dynamics, reason and emotions can be divided , but that distinction is complex, as are attachments which have developed and are embedded within our systems.

Hopefully, education will improve and not simply be about religion. However, I do believe that even with the best possible education some people are going to struggle and have to find their way through the maze, because the answers to the big philosophy questions are deep, and this involves searching. But, hopefully, not getting too lost.

I do believe that I am of a disposition of not accepting anything at face value and would have struggled to search for answers independently of the ideas presented to me by parents and teachers. It involves existential suffering, but it is perhaps the purpose of my own existence, and of many others. And the processes which I am describing is probably in accordance with the idea of the shamanic journey or quest.

I am glad if you are able to clarify your thoughts through discussions on threads because that should be the purpose of philosophy. It may involve hard questions. Attachment is a monster and I am sure that there are even some dragons to come yet.

The subject of whether we delude ourselves or not is a big one. Having worked in psychiatric care, the subject of delusions was always around.People were proclaim as delusional on a day to day basis and I think all of us probably adopt some delusions, but I am not sure that it is simply about the division between emotions and reason.

You say that there is always a reason why we suffer and I am not sure that it is that simple. It could be that we suffer because we don't understand our emotions enough and the real nature of our emotions, but even then, sometimes suffering comes out of nowhere. A day can be going well and then a sense of low mood comes from nowhere. It could be chemically related.

I am partly coming up with this idea because I thought that the post createdp earlier today was going to explore this when it contained testosterone in the title. But it lacked this and this was disappointing because I do think that our biology affects our emotions and reason, which you speak of as being in conflict.

So, getting back to the subject of attachment, I am asking whether an underlying source of our attachments is derived from biology. To what extent are we limited by the biology of our being?

So, do you think that the idea of renunciation is not about following a set pathway, but more of a mindset, in which one feels free from the binding of the concerns of day to day existence?

In saying that attachments causing 'disharmony in one's situations and relations in one's situations and relations...is proof of attachments that must be gotten rid of' I am left wondering how do you think that they should be got rid of?

This is because the attachments have deep roots. Meditation is one possibility, but even meditation is not easy. Psychological interventions range from the behavioural to the cognitive, or a blending of the two.

Really, I am saying that eliminating attachments is a problem in itself, so I am wondering if we should we even seek to get rid of them at all.?Perhaps we would be better addressing the disharmony or conflict which we experienced rather than the actual attachment itself. This may be about acceptance of certain aspects of ourselves which we would wish to deny, and probably be about acknowledging our attachments and living with them, at least.

I am not sure that we need religion or Christianity to go away completely. Perhaps the dialogue between religion and science is a good thing. If the scientists had complete monopoly on the idea of truth, the picture might be flat, leading to reason but with no room for emotion or intuition.

Regarding Christianity, we have to be aware that the difference between the historical development of Christianity is probably and the original teachings of Christ, especially those within esoteric Christianity, such as that arising in the Gnostic gospels. Also, the ideas of Buddhism, and other Eastern systems of thought offer a radical alternative to Christianity.

Paganism is also a tradition which should not be left out. I think that the whole perspective of shamanism is very important too. I have read a lot more about shamanism than Christianity. The whole lifestyle of the shaman, in vision quests, exploring the upper realms and the underworld is a direct form of seeking truth and healing.

In some ways, perhaps we, who can look to the sciences and all these many spiritual traditions are at an advantage in having many doorways to explore. There is a danger of getting lost in the maze, but , if we can find our way it gives so much scope for the pursuit of finding individual truth.

I appreciate your contribution and do believe that the Buddhist perspective has a lot to contribute, as I have just said in my reply to the Madfool.In particular, this discussion focused upon the problem of suffering and impermanence. Emotionality and rationality are two competing aspects in life, and reason offers a way for us to consider our attachments rather than being overwhelmed by them.

However, I am struggling a bit with what you are saying about the ideas of detachment. I am not sure to what extent detachment is desirable. Is it different from indifference?

I am also not convinced that renunciation is a helpful idea. However, I will say that I am viewing the idea through the lens of my Christian upbringing. Here, I am speaking of the whole view that we should not seek pleasure. This led to all sorts of problems, such as the whole shadow side of the Catholic church. Sexuality was repressed on one hand, with gay men turning to the priesthood. The whole issue of priests abusing young boys has come to light, and throws into question the whole issue of renunciation as practiced within Catholicism.

Aside from this, perhaps pleasure is to be celebrated rather than eliminated. For this reason, Athena replied, querying the whole question of the post. She was objecting to the whole way in which many spiritual teachers have tried to encourage the suppression and repression of pleasure. She points to the the pagan tradition as an important one to the argument. Perhaps we can think of the way in which Dionysus points to the importance of pleasure and, this could lead us to consider the whole idea of renunciation as a problem in itself.

I appreciate your contribution and I think that it captures some extremely important points, especially the Buddhist perspective. I would not consider myself as a Buddhist as such, but do think that suffering and impermanence are the central aspects of human experiences.

I used to have a big problem with impermanence, especially as teenager. Now, I think that the constant process of change is to be celebrated as well deplored because it does mean that all the bad aspects of life will pass, not just the pleasant ones.

I think that you are right to emphasise the two strands, emotion and rationality. The use of reason is useful for considering our attachment, rather than just being driven by it blindly.

I do believe that addiction is extremely complex, and beyond the psychological dimensions, chemical dependence is central, so I see where you are coming from. I get really annoyed when people become judgemental about people with addictions. I did a 12 week placement in a drug addiction unit as part of a psychiatric nursing course and I would say it was one of the most interesting areas I have ever worked in. I would consider working in addiction services in the future.

I think that I do have an addictive personality, so I have to be careful to avoid excesses. Perhaps, the best way is to have several addictions rather than one to get balance: coffee, books, writing, music, art, wine and a few secret ones. etc. What I am saying is that it is better to have several options for enjoyment or coping rather than just one, because it stops any one getting out of control.

My own biggest addiction is probably caffeine because I have to begin everyday with 2 cups of coffee, and this goes back to having used Pro Plus caffeine tablets as a student. I used to take them so often for essay writing and as a form of 'speed', and sometimes in more than the recommended dose. They gave me bad insomnia and I used to feel awful the next day, worse than a hangover, and I used to sometimes reach for the packet to take a tablet to feel better.But I did stop, but people often remark that I drink a lot of coffee.

I can also relate to the problem of accumulating clutter. I had to move in the summer and had a really horrible time. I do not consider myself as materialist because I have never been drawn to conventional possessions, such as a buying a car. But books and music are my disease and what to keep, donate to charity shops, or throw away was a nightmare. I can understand why some people end up with hoarding problems, especially if they live in one place for a long time.

But, I do think that attachment to material possessions is not simply about how much one accumulates but to the nature of the attachment. Some people may have only a few possessions but be attached to them greatly.

So, yes I would agree that addiction are big issues and I would not dismiss them, but frame them in the context of the larger picture of human suffering.

You will see that I have edited and added 'A Monster Question' to the title of the thread based on reflecting upon the post I have created after your comment. I have done so, because I think in doing so, I will encourage readers to think outside of the box of traditions, but I am unsure how this will see what impact this will have on the debate, but I am in favour of experimental thinking, and looking at arguments in the rawest, forms.

Yes, what kind of thread have I created? Your post is very interesting. Perhaps it is my 'monster,' and it arose from my subconscious on Christmas eve, and was unleashed on the forum for everyone to consider. I think it probably stems from the conflicts which I have going around in my subconscious, encompassing Catholic guilt and disillusionment.

I am really interested in paganism and I would imagine that that it is certainly about celebrating of pleasure rather than repression. I have read a bit but not much but know that the early albums by The Waterboys, who are one of my favourite artists embrace it in their music.

But I would imagine that the pagan solstice celebrations are extremely different from the ones in Christian based consumer culture. When I was at school and in my original church background I always found a clash between the supposed Christian basis of it in the birth of Christ and the commercial celebration. I do believe Chistmas was originally a pagan custom, which the Christians redesigned to fit into their perspective and system of rituals.

It will be interesting to see if others respond to your thinking and I would ask simply do you think that attachment should not be seen as a problem? But, of course, remember that in my questioning I am not simply asking whether we should avoid attachment as a spiritual goal, but also as a problem of frustrated goals and desires in an unequal, upside down world.

I think that Freud wrote about the way in which Christians are indulging in cannibalistic rituals in the idea of communion. Of course, the debate becomes even more complicated within the Church, as to how much is seen as part of symbolic ritual. I was brought up as Catholic and taught firmly, and not even meant to question, the idea that it is not symbolic and that is the literal eating of the body and blood of Christ.

Of course, we are at a strange time in history because to a large extent places of worship have been shut or only allowing small amounts of people inside churches. This must apply to all religious faiths, but what is now the case, is that within the Christian church, we are now in a position in which, to a large extent, Easter and Christmas have been cancelled and I am sure that this is the first time. I do wonder if this will have a long term effect on the future of belief, because I am inclined to think that life will be different fundamentally after the pandemic.

Perhaps religious belief, especially Christianity, is at the crossroads, and perhaps it will not be the same pillar of truth for many in the future like it has been within the history of Western civilisation.

As you say, as long as we are alive it is hard to be free of all attachments. This is likely to involve a mixture of aspects of fulfilled and unfulfilled yearnings. A central part is the attachment to life itself, which most people hold onto. Even many who make suicide attempts and survive are often glad that they did not die afterwards.

You are right to say that many traditions, such as Buddhism, shift the focus from attachment to the Buddhism Path, and the importance of right action. This probably brings balance and stops us being trapped in the cycle of personal gratification, with all its highs and lows.

I do agree that a life without music or love is indeed questionable, but I won't go as far as saying not worth living because I am aware of some people being deaf, but hopefully the majority of these will not live a loveless life as well.

In terms of these basics, I think that it great suffering to live without these pleasures, although I think being blind is my worst imaginable fear, although I would probably be in a better position than those who have never known sight. But, of course, I am attached to visual perceptions whereas a blind person has not formed this attachment.

I don't really believe that the supreme state of Nirvana would, from my point of view, the utmost. What would be the point of attaining such bliss without sharing it? Even in Hindu philosophy there is some debate as to whether nirvana is an ultimate end state of development of the soul, or whether, at some point the soul would be reborn once again.

GOOD LUCK, SEEKER
'Throughout all ages humans have sought
and some have found
a door through which we may pass
but that door is within the soul
It is an enlargement of consciousness
whereby we perceive things to which
we have hitherto been blind'

The Waterboys (2020)

I do believe in the importance of enjoying ourselves and being one's best. I don't believe that life is meant to be miserable.

Hope you are have a good Christmas. I am busy reading and writing but having an enjoyable time. I am also being DJ with my mum, giving her an assortment of music.

Let's hope that 2021 brings more enjoyable times for everyone!

I do agree that there is a difference between attachments and desires, but I am not sure that it can be divided simply into a quantitative or qualitative one, but a mixture of the two.

This is because some aspects of life we wish for are easier to achieve than others and this varies so much between individuals. For example, some people find that they can get a job as soon as they begin looking, and you can ask how important this is? The reason it would not be simply about how important it is because the matter itself could be divided into smaller goals, such as the need for money and the need for purpose and social identity. The person would likely need some means of financial support and whether they could cope would be according to sources of money for basic needs. Also, the questions about purpose and identity would also be dependent on other social aspects of life and meaning.

One critical factor, I believe, is the way in which frustrated desire fuels and drives the desires. For example, supposing that a person is desperately wishing for a romantic relationship, the very absence of it over a period of time is likely to make the desire increase. It might also involve how that desire has been satisfied in the past. For example, the person who has not had a relationship at all may have a more intense desire than one who has done in the past.

Perhaps a certain level of satisfaction of desires also leads to some indifference. Perhaps this is what happens in relationships which go wrong. Maybe the satisfied desire results in boredom, and we might, in a similar way, become bored by certain taken for granted aspects of our life, because we do not have to stop and revision the cravings on a regular basis. It could be that we do not realise the depths of our attachments until we face losses which hit upon us.

As far as lying in bed goes, I know that if I am going through a rough patch in life I love to crawl into bed, to lie there wallowing, play music and escape into sleep. I am also aware that there are many people in the world who do not have a soft bed, and have no choice but to sleep on the hard earth. So, I am always grateful for having a bed. And, when I am happy, as well as low and downcast, I still adore, and hold onto my attachment to my bed.

I think that attachment is linked to desire, and the whole issue of Buddha getting out of bed is a critical example. Here, he went to both extremes and this is illustrated by the contrast between the thin and fat Buddha illustrates this.

I would say that it is extremely difficult not to form attachments. Even in the case of people who fail on the autistic spectrum, they may fail to form the early childhood attachments to others, including their primary caregivers. However, that does not mean that they do not interact with the objects within the physical world.

The relationship between attachments to objects and other human beings is complex, as illustrated by the child development theory of Winnicott. He spoke of the role of transitional objects, giving the example of the teddy bear, as a way in which objects enable connections between the child and adults. Of course, there are many other factors going on, including some which are detrimental to the formation of initial and later relationships.

However, I would argue that it is supremely difficult, for better or worse, to live without attachments and desires. I am not sure that, as living human beings, we are able to achieve it. If we simply stayed in bed most of the time rather than pursue grander desires, it would still involve an attachment to the comfort of being in bed.

I do agree that part of the issue is about the whole
disparity between fulfilled desires. Sometimes it is not just that we are trying to overcome desires but
meet obstacles in trying to fulfill them and, as you say, this can lead to depression, including the extremes of clinical depression.

Personally, I find that I am functioning at my best when I am able to fulfill my desires rather than when I cannot. I would say that I am a better person to be around than when I am miserable, and that is why I would challenge any philosophy which is world rejecting.

But, I would say that life comes with so many ups and downs that it is sometimes inevitable that we have the suffering of unfulfilled desires. Some might say that the underlying problem is the desires themselves, but I would feel that to give up trying would be contrary to the life drives and instincts.

I would agree that one of the problems arising attachment is addiction. You say that that the best solution is to be 'only attached to things that are good,' If only it was that simple.

I am sure that when the person who goes on to develop an alcoholic first experiments with alcohol it appears so good, and only years later after 1000s of drinks and many years later sees that what began as a good turned into an evil. I have met people in this predicament. I think that this applies to most addictive forms of pleasure, including those which are more obviously not so good, such as drugs, to the more simple pleasures which can turn into excesses.

So, the question is how do we prioritise? Even if we steer clear of attachments to material possessions and focus on people, we can still stumble and fall. Relationships can become toxic and the people we love may reject us and die, leading us into potential misery and despair. When we form attachments how can we know the direction these will take us?

Yes, I have to admit that I probably fall into the sceptical ignoramus because I think and read so much that I am overwhelmed and thrown into limbo.

One idea which I think might have some bearing on your debate is Johari's window of knowing which is a quadrant of aspects known to self, those known to both self and others, those known to others and our possible blindspots. I am sure that you can find further details on Wikipedia if you are interested. However, it frames the problem more in a social context, but it is useful for thinking about our knowledge and its limits.

Hope you have a happy Christmas, free from and with plenty of paradoxes,
Jack

I do agree that emotional attachment seems a natural aspect of life as a human being, and perhaps without it would be more like machines. However, I was dwelling on it this morning, and do see it as a philosophical problem.

However, I do believe that enjoyment is important and hope that all the members of the forum have a good Christmas, without too much worry and philosophical angst.

Happy Christmas and let us hope that 2021 is a positive year for us all,
Jack x

This is my longest thread so far, so I am pleased generally. I like to see it as organic, so it will shrink or grow of its own accord, so I will try not to force it one way. One aspect is the following of others reading suggestions, because that takes time to follow through. For example, Gnonom recommended the ideas of Hegel and if I get round to this shortly, I may contact him on this thread, or if it is later, and I am influenced strongly by Hegel, I could always start a thread on his ideas.

I have to admit that I have not read that much Greek philosophy, and really only have familiarity with the basics of Plato and Aristotle. I tend to think that I need to be aware of new, emerging ideas but that should not be about neglecting the past.

You say that, 'Having one God is an intellectual dead end.' I think that is true and I do like to be able to dip in and out of the many threads which people create, as I probably have many recurring threads in my own thoughts. Sometimes, I think that I have written a comment and been ignored and, days later I get a reply from someone who has read it and decided to respond. I actually write a lot of comments, and probably some of them are not great, but I do believe that the more we write, and take risks, the more likely we will say important ideas, and that these ideas can evolve.

Really, the whole area of relativism, religion, science and truth involves so many questions. So far, I have found that it has cleared some of my own fuzzy thoughts and the aspect which I have focusing upon is the individual, authentic search for truth as being central rather than any outright objective one. However, this belief leads me to keep an open mind for whatever emerges next on this thread, or beyond.