I replied to your second post and see that, in the first, you describe how you have read Ryle's work and found it frustrating. I am finding it more helpful than not, mainly because so many writers I have read, such as Dennett, Pinker and B F Skinner seemed to dismiss introspection entirely. I came across Skinner during 'A' level psychology and have felt that so many psychologists dismiss introspection, which may be the fundamental seat of self-awareness and self-knowledge.

Funnily enough, I don't think that I reflected on the term consciousness that much until I began using this forum about 2 years ago. But, I was probably a dualist, and have questioned this, for better or worse. It can lead to tangents but I am hoping that reflection of such matters also leads to greater self-awareness, even though that idea may be open to philosophical speculation in it's own right.

At the moment, I am finding the ideas of Ryle very helpful, and I am happy to share with you and anyone else who is interested. I nearly put the ideas onto the one on the poll on materialism, idealism and realism, but as it such a popular one, even though it started as a poll, I decided that the ideas of Ryle would probably get lost there entirely. My own reading of Ryle is that it raises the question of what is 'mind' in a fundamental way and the conception of consciousness itself.

Ryle traces the emergence of the idea of consciousness. He says,
'When the epistemologists' concept of consciousness first became popular, it seems to have been in part a transformed application of the Protestant notion of conscience...When Galileo and Descartes' representations of the mechanical world seemed to require that minds should be solved from mechanism by being represented as constituting a duplicate world, the need was felt to explain how the ghostly world could be ascertained, again without sensory perception.'
Ryle goes on to speak of how Locke understood inner states, and called this,
'supposed inner perception "reflection"(our introspection), borrowing the word "reflection" from the the familiar optical phenomenon of the reflections of faces in mirrors. The mind can "see" or look at it's own operations in the light given by themselves. The myth of consciousness is a piece of para-optics'.

In this way, Ryle is calling into question the idea of consciousness itself, especially in relation to what inner experience means and its significance in understanding the nature of 'reality', with the division of inner and outer being an important interface. He is questioning the nature of knowledge and how it connects to self-knowledge, which is such a crucial link in the interplay between subjective and objective understanding.

It may be that many see the entire idea of the 'ghost in the machine' as absurd in the context of neuroscience. However, on the other hand, there is the question as to what extent the nature of the senses is reliable, because it is open to question of altered perceptions, especially psychedelic experiences. These may be attributed to chemicals alone, or may raise the question of deeper states of 'mind.

In some ways the whole phenomenon of experiences of altered states of consciousness, including psychedelic experiences, could throw back the understanding of mind in the direction of idealism, such as Bergson's idea of -'mind at large', or the brain as a 'filter of consciousness', which may also be relevant in thinking of the nature of mind.

It can be asked to what extent is the brain and the conventional experiences of sensory reality the most 'real' and underlying perspective of reality, or the possibilities of any others. It may relate to the nature of concepts and the nature of reality, conceptually and metaphysically. In some ways, it may come down to what is the fundamental nature of reality? Is the idea of the 'ghost in the machine' one which is to be abandoned completely?

I just hope that he is okay. I know that you say that there are many social clubs, but today I tried to join art groups in the local library where I have moved to and, I was turned away because they were oversubscribed. All, I could do after joining the library, was get out books and found myself looking at the philosophy section, as if I don't have enough books. So, many of us are thrown back alone, with nothing more than online interaction. I am sure that Agent Smith would not wish for a lengthy postmortem on his future, but l just hope that he doesn't just see this banning as 'failure' and finds new openings for his expression of ideas, online, or in real life. It is likely that many here will remember his presence and I certainly valued his contributions.

I do agree with you, but it probably also remains an issue for the site in general, where many write such short posts, with one line remarks and emoticons. It isn't an academic site, but, sometimes, there seems to be so much which is shallow and lacking in philosophical depth in discussion. It is so complex on a site which is neither a chit chat one or one of formal academic philosophy, and Agent Smith's contributions may draw attention to this dilemma.

I do think that his banning will probably be more of a loss to the site than anything. Of course,I am sure that he had his bad moments, as we all do and wrote posts which are not one's best. Standards are important, but it does depend how they are seen and whether it is simply measured according to academic ones.

As it is, many users on the site are alone in rooms, reaching out to other people, so I do wonder if this needs to be taken into consideration rather than the site emphasising quality in every single post. As it was, it may be that Agent Smith did write many posts and threads which were of quality and it seems sad that such a significant contributor Is excluded forever more. I am sure that some of his posts were a challenge for moderators, but it may be that only keeping those who conform to the norms and standards are about maintaining the bland and status quo in philosophy, rather than being open to innovation and creative expression and juxtaposition of ideas.

I find your area of questioning interesting as I first began finding books in the philosophy section when I was about 12 or 13. I can remember getting a book out on 'The Mind' when I was 12 and I think it was probably as much connected to the issues of the philosophy of mind as much as the psychology. I can also remember engaging school friends in conversation about the nature of time and the existence of God. I think part of it came from being an only child and spending more time by myself and not liking playing sports.

My reading life grew through adolescence, especially when I became depressed in sixth form, and by the time I left school reading philosophy and related areas was an integral part of my life. It was partly sparked by the tension between religion and science too.

Generally, from interacting with others, it seems that it is those who for some reason need to question life in a slightly deeper way who are most drawn to philosophy. I have come across some interesting people in philosophy sections of libraries, often a bit 'on the edge'. However, that doesn't mean that all people who are interested in are 'troubled souls', but they usually have some reason to go beyond conventional common sense understanding. I have also come across a couple of people who did begin studying philosophy, who dropped out, because they didn't like all the questioning which it involved.

I will miss him too, because he was distinct and unique. I think that he probably just got carried away at times, probably as a result of not having enough outlets to express himself.

Philosophy and psychology have such an important relationship. In the beginning of the last century they overlapped and it was the movements of behaviorism, psychodynamic theory, psychiatry and cognitive psychology which changed all of that. In some ways, philosophy became the forgotten twin. This is rather unfortunate because it the essential partner in thinking about 'mind', especially as all psychological rest upon philosophical assumptions, including ideas about human nature.

I would agree that people often make too many assumptions about other's psychological experiences. That is why I specify the importance of listening. Of course, our listening to others is filtered by our own cognitive biases too. So, the models we make of other people's inner experiences are only working models and like most other aspects of everything in life knowledge is partial, with an underlying uncertainty.

Of course, we have subjective experiences. Your experience of listening to The Doors is unique to you and mine to me. However, they are not so subjective that there are not any common grounds. That would be bordering onto solipticism. It may not be objective but intersubjective. We can make some guess at others' minds on the basis of both behaviour and their own testimonies, in addition to our own experiences. Without this, there would be no empathy. Of course, people may make mistakes about others' inner experiences if they simply base their assumptions on their own, which is why listening to others is of vital importance.

We know that other people have inner experiences because we are able to talk about them in a comparative way. For example, we can talk about our experiences of music or dreams. With knowing about what it means for others to think about what it means to think of one having a soul, mind, spirit or self. The term spirit is the most complicated because it may involve relationships beyond the physical world and it gets into the realm of metaphysics. But, to compare soul is about thinking of the depths of experience of being, mind probably as reflective consciousness and self as what it means to have a centre in the phenomenological and social fabric of reality. It is likely that we would not even be able to engage in this discussion of inner experiences if we were not able to look inside ourselves introspectively and identify common aspects of such experience.

My perspective is that the various terms of mind, soul, spirit and self overlap and probably capture partial aspects of the inner experiences of human beings. Self is definitely the most popular at the present time, especially as the others suggested some kind of disembodied form. Spirit may be the the most complicated because it captures some kind of transcendent reality and this may not be ruled out entirely but it is entirely speculative and fits most easily into spiritual worldviews.

My personal favourite term of the group may be mind because, unless one is a dualist, is not separate from the body. The difficulty with it may be that it is often associated with the brain most clearly and consciousness may be not entirely reduced to the body. In some ways, self enables a more expansive view but it may be too focused on the social negotiation of the person's core of being. Of course, every person exists in a social context as recognised in the social sciences. The issue may be that the idea of the self may be too socially reductive and not allow for the unique and separate consciousness of the person to be valid in it's own right.

However, I would not wish to use the idea of mind and reject all the others because, as discussed in the earliest discussion on the thread it does all depend on the context of the usage of the terms, especially as all philosophy has a linguistic aspect. It may be that it is simply worth thinking of our own favoured use of the four terms, as well as others, such as the ego, in the way in which the subtle differences point to underlying approaches to in understanding the nature of consciousness and what it means to be a human being.

I have not read Lacan at present, but your reflection on his thinking is important, especially in the dialogue between psychoanalysis and philosophy.

Yes, the vocabulary of thinking changes so much. I guess the reason why I set up this thread was in order to think about the interplay of such concepts, and how these impact on philosophical thinking. The 'self' is definitely the one of consistent importance of the twentieth century, and I am not opposed to the preference. The issue which I am trying to think about is how these concepts emerged and inform thinking, especially in relation to human consciousness.

The ideas of souls and spirits are more complicated than the self, especially as there is often a belief in some kind of disembodied form of consciousness. Spirits first developed in animism and I do wonder to what extent is the idea of panpsychism a return to the ideas of animism, with matter itself being seen as having some form of spirit.

I did go through a period of reading in the theosophical tradition. In that tradition there are believed to be different subtleties of souls and spirit beyond this. It is all a bit complicated. One idea which I came across in that tradition was the notion of aspects breaking down prior to death and afterwards. In particular, the idea of ghosts was not as the actual 'soul' of a person but as an aspect of a prior person affecting the energy fields. This would mean that those who witness ghosts or take part in seances experience this. I have never seen a ghost but I know many who claim to have done. When the ward where I worked on in the psychiatric hospital was temporarily moved to another one, a number of staff members claimed to sense the presence of a ghost of a baby in one particular room, to the point where some staff members felt uncomfortable going down one corridor.

Of course, in theosophy and some other spiritual traditions there is a belief that the soul goes through a period of purification, prior to rebirth, or reincarnation. This is the process described in 'The Tibetan Book of the Dead', and some people maintain that this is the beginning process of what some people encounter in the the descriptions of near death experiences.

I had a look at your post on the idea of a 'future self' which is in itself an interesting concept and the nature of temporality of the self is important. That is because the sense of self develops in childhood with an important aspect considered to be the sense of separation from the mother. However, that is the internalised concept of self as a conscious process but there may a rudimentary self beginning in the womb. Memory itself may be the basic brain aspect of this, in the form of ego consciousness. Even during dreams the sense of ego differentiates and self is in a state of becoming.

The self does appear to be about narrative identity and although embodied I wonder to what extent it is subject to linear time strictly. That is about potential becoming is a goal which determines its earliest course. In other words, does future self exist from the beginning as a blueprint? Also ego consciousness may end at death, and in some cases, especially in the form of dementia, the ego and sense of self may fragment. This may also happen in forms of psychosis, possibly as if the fragility of the self has been broken down, even if as only a temporary development.

Your reply is interesting, in regard to the divisions in the self, mind and matter. The emergent perspective does break down potential divisions, especially problematic in dualist perspectives. The idea of the self as an 'avatar' may make sense because it is like a unity, especially in the formation of autobiographical identity, which leads to an underlying continuity of identity. For example, I can remember my first day at school and the thoughts which I had, as well the essential experiences of my life in the construction of my sense of 'self'.

Those who have dissociative experiences may have disruptions but, on the whole it leads to inner experiences, as David Hume argued, as being more than 'a bundle of experiences. I wonder to what extent such continuity may have been what led Descartes and others the idea of the soul. The problem with the soul may not be how it works as a construct for thinking about the seat of consciousness, but the way in which certain thinkers, especially those within religious traditions, turned it into a mystical or supernatural construct, especially as a disembodied entity independent from embodied experiences in life.

The question of a stable sense of 'self' for philosophy or living is an interesting dilemma. It goes back to the idea of the 'examined life' of Socrates. There is the issue as to whether the lens of perception need to be clear as a basic prerequisite for clarity of thought? Or, do the wounded or traumatised philosophers go into a quest for self-awareness which is deeper in its pursuit? As for the actual aspects of living a solid sense of self may make living less complicated although it may be that fragility leads to a certain amount of innovation, possibility as ways of thinking about priorities, values and what is important.

My guess is that the fragility of self could go either way in leading to completely off-balance thinking and ways of thinking. It may be that being thrown off the tracks, or even falling apart, may lead to the wilderness. There may be chaos, and all kinds of attempts to find answers and solutions. It is a potential path for erroneous thinking but it may be a starting point for originality, spontaneity and authenticity. While it may be a pathway of hazards it may be a tightrope which once gone through may be about lived experience and creativity of thought as opposed to following convention, safety and the common place ideas and methods. In other words, it may lead away from the solutions of the herd to the primal creativity of philosophy.

A stable platform, especially in the solidity of a personal sense of self, may be important for philosophical clarity. A deflated or inflated sense of self may be deficits of fragility, which obscure a clear sense of who one is, as an aspect of personal identity, and trying to see one's role and existential existence in the wider social and cosmic sense. In that way, the idea of self may be a safe philosophical concept because it is neither grandiose or diminishing in its basis for a foundation for personal human identity.

There is a danger of summaries leading to overgeneralisations of ideas. There are intricate aspects of different systems or frameworks which may be glossed over in synthetic understanding and, for this reason, while comparisons of concepts may be useful that is not to the point where subtle differences and details are cast aside, because such details may be essential in getting a clear picture in the search for a general map for trying to navigate the various possibilities.

You have indeed captured the way in which the ideas of mind, soul, spirit and self are at the core of so many aspects of philosophy, including the philosophy of religion and the whole query of who am I? These concepts are involved in how we frame our own autobiographical sense of identity in relation to others and the wider scheme of existence. In previous worldviews, especially the religious ones people often saw themselves in relation to 'the divine'. In a more secular outlook, and one based on social sciences and psychology, there is far more of an emphasis on the intersubjective as opposed to the objective, as in the idea of any 'being' as a spiritual reality 'out there'.

This juxtaposition is captured in Martin Buber's, 'I and Thou', which contrasts the idea of 'thou' as being God, or the 'divine' with the focus being on other human beings. The sense of human identity may fluctuate according to how the ideas, such as mind, spirit, soul and self is concerned and whether we define ourselves by these terms. For example, it may be so different how one views one's being in the cosmos. It may be connected to a sense of the finite and the infinite. In particular, it could be asked to what extent is the mind finite or infinite?

If mind is seen in conjunction with the idea of soul or spirit it is more likely to be seen as something which transcends the body; the connection with self is far more based on the link between the physical seat of consciousness. In this way, the nature of identity and what it means to be a human person may be at stake in the usage of terms to describe the inner aspects of human identity.

I do agree with ego, psyche and heart being possible terms which could have been added to the list. The term ego is fairly ambiguous because it has different connotations in Freud's theory to the use in Eastern thinking. Psyche was used by Jung and in archetypal psychology. Heart is an interesting one because what it signifies is that consciousness is not located in the head alone as the exclusive source. It is most clearly recognized in the Eastern model of the chakra system.

To some extent the various terms are synonymons which depending on usage may be used to speak about the nature of inner experiences. I do like the term 'soul' to some extent although it may give rise to certain religious or spiritual connotations. The particular use of the term which I find helpful is in transpersonal philosophy and psychology, such as in the writing of Thomas More in, 'Care of the Soul' and 'The Dark Night of the Soul'. They are probably used in a spiritual as opposed to strictly religious sense. Mind you, in some ways the idea of soul could also be linked to the association of the genre of soul music, which I believe was based on it reaching the depths of emotional experiences.

Identity does seem to capture the whole spectrum of this as the autobiographical process of 'self'. Self is useful but it may appeal to the 'me' of egocentricism and in the context of individualism, and even the narcissistic aspect of seeing oneself in the mirror of others' perceptions in a social context.

Self has definitely taken over from soul and I can see why. Although I do appreciate the Zen Buddhist view which sees self as not being an entity in its own right, which was the criticism of mind and soul previously. And, yes, some have queried consciousness, such as Daniel Dennett's idea of 'consciousness is an illusion'. It does come down to the experiential beyond tangible physical reality' being hard to pin down exactly. However, even the clear distinction between 'mind' or 'consciousness' is hard to separate because they are interconnected, like two sides of a coin. Reflection itself may be the biggest evidence of consciousness or even 'mind' with 'self' possibly representing the interface between mind and body, especially in relation to emotions.

It is likely to be far to compare almost ANYTHING, but it is likely that in order to become a clear, independent thinker it is worth working out a framework of how various ideas overlap at all or work together or against one another. Otherwise, there is a danger of getting locked or trapped in the language of one set system of ideas. Of course, it is hard to do form a synthetic understanding and it is going to be limited because it is not possible to be aware of all the different ideas. It would require one to become a living encyclopedia, and the closest one gets to this is the computer knowledge of Wikipedia.

You are right to say that the concepts which I am talking about are non-physical which makes them fall more into the category of the philosophy of religion. It is quite something that after a tendency towards materialism in science that the quantum physicists' conception of reality has gone back to find what was missing in the Newtonian-Cartesian world view which had been the basis for the development of physicalist models.

I am definitely into combining and blending different ideas rather than simply differentiating and this is where it gets interesting. That is because sometimes ideas from different perspectives become dichotomized rather than seeing parallels. In that respect, a perennial philosophy, such as that of Aldous Huxley is able to see recurrent themes and traditions rather than seeing various viewpoints as clashing voices in the metaphorical Tower of Babel.

Yes, it is interesting to what purpose are such terms used. I started very much in the direction of the idea of the soul, in a religious background of Catholicism and a clear belief in spirits. I am not sure that the terms, especially soul are not useful in some ways but I probably think of them differently from initially. The idea of disembodied souls, or souls raises problems. So, it is all about the specific implications of the use of the terms.

One reference to the idea of the soul which I always liked was in the Spandau Ballet song, 'Gold', which had the line, 'Always believe in your soul, it's indestructible'. This way be true but more along the idea of the permeating lifeforce imminent in all living beings. In some ways it could signify immortality but whether that is a literal form of afterlife but as an underlying continuity of lifeforms.

Okay, I will look at the link. I did start Spinoza w couple of times and didn't get very far. I also did come across Hegel in relation to communism, and the political aspects of writers cannot be ignored. I went through a Kant phase a long time ago...

I definitely see the point of Wittgenstein's idea of the 'use' of meanings, which was why I didn't attempt to define the various words. It would have probably been pointless if in response to the thread people had tried to do so. I guess I was thinking of the complexity of the terms because I see them used in some overlapping and various ways. In particular, I am definitely questioning of the materialist approach of writers such as Dennett but have found reading on the Zen concept of 'no mind' to be interesting. I guess that the Zen approach seems deeper.

You are probably wise to be thematic in your reading and I have a bit of a chaotic mix and match approach which may end up being like putting a jigsaw puzzle together with the wrong pieces at times. Thanks for the recommendations and I will look up Mark Vernon because I haven't come across him. I started with Ninian Smart on comparative religion.

We may come from conflicting angles, because while I am not a theist I have an interest in comparative religion and points of view, in trying to understand evil and suffering. In particular, I am find the Buddhist perspective useful and the ideas of Carl Jung. I did study religious studies as my third topic on my undergraduate course. It involved looking at the problem of evil in Christianity. I find theology extremely different to read but read one writer, J Hick who wrote on the idea of evil in relation to human free will. Also, J Mackie wrote on the idea of omnipotence and evil. You may find these writers interesting to look at and critique.

Yes, putting these ideas together into one thread may not work, as they are such complex areas, involving so many different writers, with a need to understand the cultural contexts. I am extremely interested in the field of comparative religion and have found the ideas of Huston Smith useful. I am probably in the position of having read such a diverse selection of writers and trying to put it all together, with some important omissions, such as Spinoza.

I started this thread because in real life I don't really have anyone to discuss philosophy ideas with. I continue with my reading life and do use this forum to try to ground myself in the rational aspects of philosophy. You are most definitely correct to say that understanding of the contexts of the usage of them is important and that is why trying to define the ideas may be too simplistic. If anything, some may dismiss certain terms without entering into the philosophical imagination of the worldviews from which they emerged. If anything, I like to think and read broadly, so I have a big task whereas those who go for one specific perspective may have a narrower focus.

Yes, I think that both of us have got to this point before as your link shows and I am still in the position of having not read Spinoza, in order to get a full picture of property dualism, although I am aware that some have seen his writings as advocating pantheism. I am aware that you are not a materialist but, on the other hand, reject the idea of the supernatural. I am probably juggling this area, especially with my reading of Jung and the transpersonal.

Out of interest, what do you make of Hegel? I read his account of history and spirit and his particular phenomenology of mind about a year ago. It seems that he is a bit rejected in philosophy.

On the subject of what did I learn today, I spent a lot of time reading, including some philosophy essays, and, sometimes reading philosophy leads to philosophical knots. I was reading about the mind and body problem, including discussion of idealism. Sometimes, it seems that philosophy becomes too abstract and theoretical. I am extremely introspective and most definitely overthink.

It is a fine line between philosophy and overthinking, especially as so much of the issues explored on forum discussion, involve thinking about the concepts used in everyday language and I guess that my area of interest has always been the 'mind' and associated concepts and aspects of life. I am not sure what I have learned of significance today experientially or in terms of analytical thinking but there are a few hours left so there is a time for some learning experience yet. I don't know about your day and what you have learned about yourself, or beyond. Wonder is indeed limited but without it there may be no basis for speculation, in looking within or outside oneself.

Having read your outpost again here, I am wondering to what extent you see 'God' as a metaphorical construct for thinking about imaginary worlds. In that way, your perspective about 'toy worlds' for thinking about the nature of objective ways for viewing the wider perspective of moral evil. Or, I am I wrong in my interpretation of your critique and the thought experiment which you describe?

Do you not stop and wonder about these topics or concepts? Perhaps, I give my own 'soul' torture in doing so, but such ideas are a subtext underlying the whole debate about physicalism. In the sentence I have just written I am using the term 'soul' in a fairly loose, metaphorical way. However, at one point I used to believe in a literal 'soul' in the dualistic way of Descartes, especially in his distinct use of the concept 'I'.

Nowadays, having read in the direction of psychology and philosophers, especially Daniel Dennett, I can see that the ideas of soul and mind are open to question. However, as I am not convinced by physicalism because it is so reductive, even though empirical methods may be important it may give limited analysis. I know that you have considered the physicalist perspective seriously, but I would still question what it really amounts to other than linking the brain and consciousness. Therefore, my own query is whether the actual terms, especially 'mind' and 'soul' are worthy of consideration, as a basis for deeper philosophical analysis.

I am a bit surprised that your response suggests that we may be better off knowing little about such topics, and I am wondering why?

I appreciate your points and if anything think that the topic is too large to be simply a debating matter on the forum. Everyone has opinions and so many people have mental health issues. So, if your thread is to be of any quality it needs to embrace diverse ideas and angles. I only wrote a response because I have worked in mental health care, know people with enduring mental health problems and read on the various perspectives of therapy and healing.

It seems that you have a genuine interest but I am not sure that the thread will do the topic any justice, because there are so many aspects and it is a fairly sensitive topic, especially for internet discussion because it encompasses the political, the personal and psychological. If anything, it may have been better broken down into several questions and I may even write a question or two myself as a thread, but not today because I am extremely stressed out by my own life circumstances of moving. I do hope that your thread generates some worthwhile discussion though.

I am interested in critical thinking about psychiatry and the idea of 'healing the soul'. I have worked as a psychiatric nurse and, before that, I had read in the direction of the antipsychiatry movement. It is a very complex area because it involves politics and the mental wellbeing of individuals. The movement of antipsychiatry, as advocated by Thomas Szaz and RD Laing was rejected many, including both mental health service users and professionals for not looking at the real experience of mental health issues in enough depth.

Having known people who have had various mental health issues, the whole idea of mental health and its healing is important. Part of my own decision to train in mental health nursing was having known people with mental health issues, and knowing people who had committed suicide. There are so many people who are affected by mental health issues in society, its diagnosis and treatment and the various therapeutic options.

Different people find the various treatments and therapeutic options more helpful than others. For some, various medications seem to be helpful and may be complemented by other approaches, including the recovery model of identifying goals. For some, therapeutic interventions may be favoured, including the psychodynamic approaches or cognitive behavioral ones. In some instances, certain interventions may be seen as intrusive and disempowering, which is where the movement of antipsychiatry began.

During training in art psychotherapy, one approach which I came across in a one-day workshop was the transpersonal approach in psychotherapy. This may be a hidden gem, as it focuses on healing of the 'soul' and the idea of transformation. One of the writers includes Thomas More, who looks at care of the soul and the dark night of the soul. The scope of the transpersonal perspective may offer hope to some, but not necessarily all. It draws upon the idea of healing and wholeness and integration from psychology and Eastern thinking. It may be important for thinking in where antipsychiatry ended as a deadend for some, reducing it all to politics whereas some of the originators, including Laing, saw saw psychiatric issues as arising in the existential aspects of suffering and meaning.

There is even a song by U2, 'Two Hearts Beat As One', and the synchronisation in nature is a fairly familiar phenomena in nature. It might link in with Rupert Sheldrake's idea of morphic resonance. I know that I tend to find myself having similar sleep and wake patterns with other people I am sharing a house with.

The idea of telepathy is also related to synchronisation possibly. The question may be to what extent a person actually tunes into another person's thoughts or whether there are parallels as a natural phenomenon? If two people are thinking similar thoughts it may be what causes what? Of course, with my own Jungian leaning, it leads back to the idea of synchronicity and the collective unconscious. It may be best thought about as a natural sympathy or rhythms in nature, just as there are seasons, night and day and patterns. It is natural not supernatural and 'mind' itself has rhythm, pattern and resonances which may go beyond the individual.