I had not seen your article until just now, because I think it was just before I joined the forum. I was impressed by it.

I do believe in the law of karma, even though I find it hard to explain logically. I definitely feel I am given learning experiences on a daily basis, sometimes very harsh ones.

Some would explain it purely in terms of the subconscious, but even that is complex to explain.I definitely get synchronicity experiences on a regular basis. Also, I think that Jeremy and Esther Hicks law of attraction also come into the picture.

Anyway, I was impressed with your article, but will read it in more depth as well, because I find it difficult to read for too long on my phone.

In thinking about the various relationships you describe I believe that the various forms of love depend on the nature of the attachments we have and what we project on to various people or animals we love. Some of attachments may be about bonds, for example we may make certain friendships because we can identify with the particular individual, and their can be a unified experience of sharing. In a sense, perhaps all the basics of love begin with meaningful connections.

Of course, part of the criteria for love involves sexuality. This is obvious in the case of a partner, but possibly, to some extent, this is true of all relationships with other people (but not with one's dog hopefully.) Of course this does go back to the Freudian tradition but it does not have to be purely about the Oedipus complex, although it may be part of the picture.

But going away from that concept, we could say that all relationships are about self expression, and this has a sexual component. This would include same sex relationships too. Of course, many people would claim that they are completely heterosexual.Perhaps they are, in the sense that they would not have gay sex but there may be some homoerotic feelings at the basis of friendships, even though these might not be named by themselves in such terms.

As far as hate goes, perhaps the various forms of hate depend on why someone hates another and the degree of hate. For example, someone may feel a certain amount of hate towards someone who is more successful, but this may just be passing thoughts. On the other hand, someone may hate someone incredibly because they project onto others aspects of themselves they hate or fear. This may be what happens in the case of people becoming bullies,and in this example the victim may start to hate the bully. But the intensity of feelings and duration are probably significant to hate becoming a real problem.

But I do think that it is a paradox as you suggest. In particular, there can be complex ambivalence. For example, a person might have ambivalence to an aging parent. This could be a combination of affection, past sentimental memories as well as gratefulness in favour of love. But this could be combined with hate for possible hurts from the past, difficulty with watching the parent decline and feeling trapped by the demands of the care needs of the aging parent. So, ambivalence between love and hate can be based on the whole spectrum of emotionally charged experiences.

The whole depths of love and hate are so complicated. Perhaps the best we can do is try to be conscious of the emotions. Personally, I try to aim to seek loving thoughts rather than dwell on hateful ones. But not to the point of denying them entirely. I think that mindfulness is helpful here. But of course, we need a bit of release, which can include talking to others which can be helpful, but this varies depending on their own mindset. And, for dealing with love and hate and it's difficulties that is where a bit of music comes in. I definitely have my heavy metal days.....

Having come from the perspective of an interest in Jung's shadow I think that hate is just as complex as hate and is not lacking in variety as the Madfool suggests.

In particular, it can be a description of strong dislike to describe an object or a person, but without any harmful intent. On the other end of the scale it can be more toxic, with ill wishes and intent to harm. On the more harmful level it can be broken down as being a conglomeration of other emotions, including rage, jealousy and revenge, which come together to form the basis of hate. This is similar to the sentiments which lead to romantic love of eros, or the ones which result in agape.

Perhaps the reason it is not explored as much as love is because it lacks the romance of love. Also, perhaps those in its sway are too overpowered by it to become distant from it and the more critical minded tend to avoid it.

But hate has gained it's own following in horror and gothic fiction, especially in dark fantasy writing, such as that of Stephen King and Poppy Z Brite. If you explore these writers you will see the complexity of hatred. In music, hate is such a prevalent force in metal music and emo. Here, the use of hatred can range from teenage angst to romantic rebellion and a particularly form of hatred, in the form of self-hatred.


The subject of self hatred is central to the whole genre of 'emo' music, and emo is short for emotional hardcore, as demonstrated in the music of bands like My Chemical Romance, Bullet for My Valentine and many more. The self hatred here covers the whole spectrum of despair, battling with inner demons and suicidal tendencies. Of course we do not need to listen to emo music necessarily as we can learn about self hatred in real life stories of those who struggle in this way, especially those who self-harm. It would be too simplistic to say that people who self-harm just lack self love, because many describe feelings of release of hatred of self and others, as well as feelings of exhilaration or elation.

I would say that in some ways Flying Hawkseye is correct to say that hatred can be seen as the 'shadow of love' but I think it is complex, and does manifest in many forms of mental illness.

Going beyond Jung's ideas on the shadow, Melanie Klein analysed and traced it back to its original form in the split between love and hate in the child's feelings towards the mother. Here lies the paradox, but I am just saying hate is complex like love but perhaps we may be inclined to oversimpify hate because it may make us feel uncomfortable to explore its darkest depths.

The idea that you start your life again at the moment of death is not new to the physics model which you talk about. The idea of eternal recurrence was suggested in the writings of Ouspensky and Nietzsche.

But it is all speculation and I wonder how different it is really to the idea of reincarnation, even though the reincarnation believes that the person is reborn as a new, unique individual. But both eternal recurrence and reincarnation are based on the cyclical model of time and the archetype of rebirth.

Do you really believe that it does not matter how or when humanity becomes extinct. I am wondering why you take this view.

I am not sure that I follow your argument entirely, but that may be my defect. I think that you are querying the evolution and role of imagination.

It must be a central aspect of human wiring. Without it we would live in a world without the arts and probably the sciences too because many of the scientists, like Leonardo da Vinci and Einstein.
If we lost the imagination life would become like a world full of robots.

Perhaps through the power of imagination we can seek creative vision for the future and provide pathways for these to become manifested in the world.

Let us just hope that the future is one of more knowledge rather than ignorance. I am inclined to think that we are at a crossroads, and history can make negative or positive of knowledge and that it could be used destruction or positively. Perhaps, it will be a mixed picture.

We live in a world where death is seen as the enemy and belief that life should be extended to the maximum.

Perhaps Covid_19 is nature's vengeance for overpopulation and destroying other life forms for our benefits. Certainly, death is creeping in a way we are not used to and scientists are struggling. There is hope of a vaccine but will it be successful and even new viruses could occur.

I think that we, the people of today, have become almost complacent. People have been living much longer and we are expecting this to increase, but nature may put obstacles in our way, showing that mankind is not entitled to reign as the master of the world.

I probably should have remained silent but it is so tempting to write little philosophy essays on my phone. I find myself looking at my phone for answers to what I have said and watch the latest threads pop up. Philosophy has never been so addictive as this.

But yes, is it all imaginary? Everyone has their own individual voice in expressing thoughts on life, death and meaning. Does it is mean it is all a waste of time?

I have wondered whether I will spend my whole life thinking, to the point where I barely live a life at all. But that was mainly when I used to take my books out with me and spend time reading them alone, in silence. I think that it is better to share thoughts with others. I have only been using this site for about 2 to 3 months and have felt that through reading and exchanging views, even though some might not like my ideas, that I have learned far more than many months of reading books by myself.

Some people have a tendency or inclination towards the philosophical just like some people are inclined to any other activity. Perhaps philosophical discussion is as important as television but I am sure that many would laugh at this idea. But while it is best if we do get round to living life rather being locked up in Plato's cave while the non philosophers engage in real life, I think that 2020 should be the year for philosophy when people are being expected to spend alone. Besides, I am sure that philosophy in itself must be part of the purpose of life.

Enough said, I will retreat to my bed and read my Kindle in silence.

The problem I see with your argument is that you talk as though the choice of avoiding 'otherness' of masturbation as if it is a lasting, permanent option. It is surely an option rather than just entering into relationships just for sexual gratification.

Relationships are based on a lot more, so I would argue that masturbation is a way of living in the meantime. The right person may not be found for a while or not at all, but this is a matter very different to the act of masturbation itself.

I think that the couple of points you make are important as they speak about the human condition in a broad sense. Also, you don't make any generalisations about certain groups, which can be dangerous, but simply frame the individual within a group context.

I am reading Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil at the moment and saw on this thread that you speak of how he opposed nihilism on one level. However, he actually sees it as a basis for creating new values. I can see that this aspect of his viewpoint is missed by many readers but is central to his entire picture of 'the transvaluation of values.'

Nietzsche's goes on to speak of the 'painfulest recollection on what wretched obstacles promising developments of the highest rank have hitherto usually gone to pieces, broken down...'
So, he depicts the way in which systems of philosophy often crumble in the face of difficult circumstances but, nevertheless, it is from the chaos of collapse itself that new starting points can be built. I think that the paradox of this is extremely important.

I have only read a couple of Nietzsche's books, so I have a limited knowledge. I was tempted to begin a thread on his book, Beyond Good and Evil, but decided against it because the reply comments may be a bombardment of misunderstandings of his whole perspective. There is so much distortion of his philosophy and as a result I chose to initiate discussion with you or other people beginning with your remark about his complex understanding of nihilism.

I think that you are suggesting that identity is just a part of the picture and we have to see ourselves as like mere cells in this process. I am not sure that this is different from the Eastern mystical approach.

That is interesting. In saying that the ego is limited I am probably thinking of Eastern perspective on consciousness as well.

As I am influenced in the healing journey with aspects of the subconscious, influenced by Jung and psychoanalysis, I probably have reorganised my own ego a fair amount anyway.

But I do like the your idea of the reorganisation of the ego as infinite.

I am sure that the whole way in which I am influenced by Jung permeates my thinking and probably even influenced the way in which I wrote the start of this thread. I do regard Jung is my important mentor and even though I come to philosophy in search of truth I am concerned about healing. I think that both are of supreme importance.

I am interested in spirituality in the sense in which your Nietzsche's quote says, a 'consuming fire'. I also love his writings, especially Thus Spoke Zarathustra. I think his writing is spiritual in the truest sense, separated from the dogmatic framework of conventional religious frameworks.

I think it works well. There is so much limitation through identifying with the ego. The whole idea of identity of consciousness can encompass all the levels of being, and it does not have to include or exclude clear boundaries of the conscious, subconscious or unconscious.

I can certainly think of my own identity in terms of consciousness.

Many writers have got themselves in a deep mess by assigning characteristics to a particular race, gender or group of people. Even though I see a lot of strengths in Jung's writings, his enormous weakness, or shadow was the way he made generalisations about racial groups, in particular about the Jewish and German nation, and at a critical time in history.

Certainly, any use of the term human nature needs to go beyond stereotypes. If the term is used it is about understanding the basics of the human condition and nothing more.

You suggest that the main point is to survive and reproduce. I am not denying the importance of future generations but I think we may need to adapt not just in the future but now, in order to survive in the gateway of the future.

Many are suffering now, not just in a remote future, from poverty, unemployment, depression and suicidal ideas . Human nature in the sense of the limits of human potential is critical right now.

Of course, many might argue that there have been critical periods in history and the majority survive, but surely that is simply a means of negating the critical factors of our own time.

The role of evidence for proving the basis of ideas is critical but also precarious. So much of current scientific thinking hinges upon it. In some cases there can almost be a mystification of evidence claims through a bombardment of baffling statistics, graphs and other aspects of quantitative evidence.

In saying that it is critical I am saying that we need reasons to believe any viewpoint. One of the reasons we believe in the hard sciences and reject some of the ideas in social science is that great bodies of experiments have been built up to prove the ideas. Of course, the analysis of data is crucial and it can be possible to refute the ideas by this method rather than based on arguments alone.

However, it is precarious in the sense that bias comes into the picture. It is well known that there is a participant observer bias. But there are probably subtle biases which are very strong too, such as the wishes of those who undertake the research. For example, the effects of certain medications are sponsored by the pharmaceutical company which manufature the drugs.This was suggested by James Davies(2013) in his book 'Cracked: Why Psychiatry is Doing More Harm Than Good.' it is possible that there is more than just accidental bias but that it can be 'deliberate. It is possible to create a body of evidence to support views.

In regard to my third suggestion of mystifying evidence obviously this has its limitations because there will be people who can see beyond this. But at the same time it is possible to build up an argument by just pointing to what appears to be a solid body of research. I probably will not be popular for saying this, but I have even seen people on this site claiming a view by just providing a link to an article or video without giving any detail of the validity of the evidence provided. To just provide evidence in this way is lazy and meaningless. Mere reference to research without any analysis of it is like undigested food.

But, that aside where does philosophy stand, hopping between opinion and solid evidence. If there is no evidence perhaps it is clever opinions. I am sure this can even be true of legal cases too, because it is possible to fuzz over truth by clever use of words. I would say that the best option is to look at all the facets of information we have in the most careful way, to establish the most enlightened picture possible, until a better one emerges.

But what I am saying lacks any evidence and can be seen as fuzzy play of thoughts and words, so perhaps it can be superseded by a more objective answer in the next person who makes a comment.

You are raising a good question. To what extent should we be trying to change our nature? Of course we do try and change our nature to some extent by medication: antidepressants, antipsychotics, hormone replacement, and many other chemicals.

Of course the other possibility is bioengineering. The ideas of the transhumanist writers, such as Ruth Chadwick are interesting in this respect.

Right now, I would like some chemicals to improve my functioning because we need to be smart and tough to survive these times. 2020 is worse than the rough tumbles in the playground and it is a struggle, but perhaps we will evolve and change through the rough times naturally.

I like your little sketch of the various positions of philosophy. I hope that other people see it, so it might be helpful for you to squeeze it into another thread at some point, because you may capture a wider audience than those who have read this particular thread.

I find the whole area of philosophical anthropology fascinating and I do hope to read more, although I already spend so much time reading. I would encourage you to contribute this perspective as it has been sadly lacking in many areas of recent debate and I am sure it could be extremely valuable.

I am afraid that I am not a biologist so cannot really explain how instincts and drives work. Even Freud had a conflict about whether instincts and drives are different. And, as one writer commenting on the thread I started on Freud, his whole theory of sexuality was a bit limited by him not having the knowledge about hormones which we have acquired.

I think that from a the standpoint of philosophy it is important for us to become as knowledgeable as possible about recent scientific studies. However, I do not think philosophy should be just demoted as an unnecessary body part to thought, like an appendix which can be removed.

Anyway, I have never seen any comments by you on this website so far, so my guess is that you are new, so I hope that you find interesting discussions and of course you can initiate ones of your own.

I definitely think that too much generalisations about 'human nature' are not particularly helpful. There are many differences between individuals. When I argue that the concept of human nature is still important I am looking more at basic model structure, like the instinctual drives and, dare I say it, basic archetypes, which I am sure that many hard materialists would dismiss as fantasies. But even the materialist have their fantasies, though they may think them to be unreal.

I most certainly agree with you that a static philosophy would be unhelpful for 'changing times' as you say. Perhaps the art is to be able to blend the truths of past ages with contemporary knowledge and insight. Hopefully we do not have to wait until the philosophers are dead to buried to be able to acknowledge their value.

I am glad that you can see that we are probably a bit different from our earliest ancestors. But of course, it is hard to know how much because as you point out evolution is a slow process.

The question is how will we evolve in the future?
I have read that many children being born now do not have their original set of wisdom teeth and have an extra artery in the arm. I am not sure how much difference that will make. But I have also read, but not sure of the evidence, that children born now have more junk DNA activated. That may make some difference as some scientists have suggested that what was thought to be junk DNA may contain content for the development of psychological and emotional life.

I think you were probably replying to what I wrote on the thread on Jung's shadow.

I do agree that Jung does not write much based on his personal experience, except in his autobiography, Memories, Dreams and Reflections. I think that his rather detached style of writing was the fashion of the time and I would prefer the role of witness to be included.

However, I am sure that some people have written from the witness stance in response to his writings, or we can do it ourselves. Anyway, I am not sure it would give more credibility to his argument because hard, quantitative evidence is the preferred trend in psychology today.

I don't know if you were replying to what I said or someone else's comment on this thread because you did not address anyone. I don't think I or the other people writing are actually saying that human nature is unalterable. If you were going by the last comment I made I was merely addressing this part of the debate as expressed by Pinprick's comment about the nature vs nurture debate. If you look at the thread discussion in full you will see that it is looking at the whole question about whether the use of the term human nature is helpful.

Thanks for giving me the details because it sounds interesting.

What you have explained is different to what I thought you meant, but nevertheless my supposition of what you meant lead to a thread in itself. The subject of human nature was due for discussion and what you are saying now adds to the debate.

I thought that you were coming from the point of view of thinking that human nature is an unnecessary construct whereas you think it is immutable, but think that the role of nurture is the main issue. I can see where you are coming from because we are definitely not isolated cells of consciousness. Most of the psychologists do think that the socialisation process of supreme importance. Of course, we could say that genetic factors play a role too.

I think that the nature vs nurture debate is a very important aspect of the debate about human nature, but the topic has many facets because it is central to who we are.

I do have a question about the immutabilty, whether human nature is nature or nurture. If it is part biological or shaped by the environment is it not the case that we are different from people from earliest times. I am not saying that they were less evolved because it may be the case that they were sensitive in ways beyond our capabilities but were they the same or different from us? I suppose I am just wondering about the core constructs of what it means to be a human being and whether this is distinct from the culture in which the person belongs.

As I have just said to Wayfarer I am in favour of a holistic model, or systems view of life.

However, I still believe that the idea of human nature is useful even in the light of scientific developments. I think it is easy for philosophy to get carried away with the scientific discoveries, especially quantum physics, and almost get blinded by the light to the point of missing the shadows. I don't think we can be expected to accept scientific truth as a replacement for the whole concept of human nature, because to do so would be to dismiss the basics of philosophy going back to the ancient thinkers.

I am completely in agreement with a holistic picture of human nature of life personally, and in the reply I was just writing I suggested Maslow as being a useful model, but we could also point to the whole systems point of view, such as that put forward by the physicist Fritjof Capra.

I am not a hard materialist and an obvious example of one would be the behaviourist psychologist B F Skinner.

I am particularly very interested in both Freud and Jung. I am interested in the instinctual drives described by Freud, particularly the life and death instincts. I am not sure that the Oedipus complex is exactly true but I think it is a partial description of deeper archetypal truths. I accept the idea of the collective unconscious described by Jung but not as some supernatural pool but perhaps as a memory inherent in nature, along the lines described by Rupert Sheldrake in his idea of morphic resonance. In fact, I think Sheldrake may be a missing link in connecting psychology and biology.

Human nature is such a vast topic and I would say that not just philosophers but every human being has some view on it because it is part of the way we understand the self and how to live. Of course, views about human nature can be seen as opinion, more especially when they are constructed in terms such as whether people are good or evil. The theories of human nature which are founded in science are grounded in evidence but even scientific models are only models.

Perhaps one fairly good model is the triangle of needs described by Maslow, which starts from the basic survival needs, moving upwards to the social needs, with the need for self-actualization at the top. This model is fairly diverse because it incorporates all the different layers.

I would say that any model of human nature needs to be able to take on board the many facets of the human condition. But my main argument is that however grand or smart a theory is, some kind of view of what a human being is central. In other words, the very concept of human nature in it a fluid but not fixed sense, cannot be redundant.

I am not sure if I am seeing what you are seeing.
Perhaps it is like looking at one of those magic optical illusion pieces of art.

I can see that I am saying that the various thinkers all begin from different premises about the human being, but the point I was making is that all models begin with a particular view of the human being.

I have wondered if my statement about the neuroscientists and biologists could be the contradiction because neuroscience is a part of biology itself. Perhaps what I said makes it sound like the brain is separated with hormones raging in a course of their own making, although I am aware that they are all interrelated.

Please put me out of my misery and tell me my contradiction.

In the first place, I wrote this thread discussion because I was startled when a person queried me using the term human nature in another thread. I had been believing that however they conceived it that all philosophy begins with some premises about human nature. But it appears that the person who made the comment disputed this.

I am interested in the origins, nature and future of humanity. My own philosophical interest is wide, but I have strong leanings towards the overlap between psychology and philosophy in understanding human nature. However, I do have an interest in anthropology, and anthropology does help us consider how there are differences and similarities between different cultures. This is useful for asking how fixed or variable human nature is.

I may be accused of looking at life from too much of a broad angle rather than being more focused. My original degree was in Social Ethics, which was a combination of philosophy, social science and comparative ethical traditions. But I am interested in understanding life and human belief as fully as possible, with a view to how humanity survive in face of an uncertain future.

Your reply was interesting and I can see why you say that once we are consciously aware of our shadow it functions differently.

In my own experience I have found that the more you experience the shadow the deeper it gets. I got into nu metal music when I explored the depths of my own shadow imagery while studying art therapy. This led me into a gothic underworld journey. But that was my relationship with my shadow and others may have very different experiences.

One strange thing I also experienced was that when I had some Jungian psychotherapy, in which my therapist was especially interested my dreams, I almost stopped dreaming. But I was having all kinds of experience in daily life and it was as the language of my unconscious was manifesting in waking life rather than confined to the night life of dreams.

I was also interested in your inclusion of the whole issue of anorexia nervous as an aspect of the shadow of female sexual liberation. I have worked briefly in an eating disorder unit and the disorder is predominantly in females, although some teenage boys are beginning to develop it as well. Anorexia is a good example of the shadow because so many people who develop wrestle with perfectionism. Jung spoke of the whole emphasis on perfection as a key component in psychic development, leading to shadow problems. Of course, in anorexia and bulimia the concern is about having a perfect body, which can in some ways be seen as a shadow aspect of the present liberal acceptance of sexuality.

Anyway, I am not sure if I have really delved into your thought that psychological theory is self refuting rather than being a self fulfilling prophecy, but it is all fascinating. Perhaps my shadow self is creating a block in my thinking around this. But what I would certainly say is that psychological views, especially the psychoanalytic ones have not yet been able to captivate the unknown aspects of the psyche at the present time and perhaps will never be able to do so.

I believe that we have a certain amount of choice about whether to be happy or sad, but not a complete one because we are creatures affected by experience.

When people encounter adverse experiences it is difficult to remain happy because it affects the brain chemistry, often leading to depression which can become serious in some cases, even generating suicidal thoughts. Individuals differ and some people get depressed more easily and it is difficult to know how much is biological and how much is connected to thought processes. It is probably a complex mixture of the two, but each of us has a unique disposition.

However, it is likely that intention plays a critical role too, especially in our own conflict between sadness and happiness. The more we dwell on the negative the more sad we become. It is a feedback loop and probably antidepressants enable people to stop dwelling on the painful thoughts. Of course, in most cases people don't get so sad that it gets to the point where they get so sad that they need medication. Some people are able to maintain happiness amidst the most horrible circumstances.

It is also possible that it is possible to draw towards ourselves certain experiences according to our mindset. Here, I am drawing upon the idea of the law of attraction, as spoken of by Esther and Jeremy Hicks. These writers suggest that the focus of our utmost wishes leads to our the experiences manifest in our lives.

Of course, you come from a Stoic point of view and I have not really done so, but I might do in the future, because I do battle between the extreme of sadness and happiness. Generally, my own experience is that sadness cannot be eliminated entirely because pain has to be acknowledged, but it is possible to avoid caving in to despair, by consciousness choice of aiming for happiness.

I am not sure about your statement that 'any psychology remains true only to the extent that it is neglected or rejected.' This seems to give in to the sway of popular opinion beyond truth itself. This seems to go against the whole pursuit of philosophy, the distant cousin of psychology.

However, what you go on to say, 'whatever the current popular theory is becomes incorporated into the mass identity, and so changes that psyche which it is a theory of,' is rather interesting. It seems to hint that psychological theory has a self fulfilling prophecy. No wonder the world is upside down we could say, it could be that the ideas we have internalised collectively shape us.I think that you are saying something very important here.

This would probably be true on a personal level too. I began reading Freud and Jung so it surprising that I keep stumbling across the terrain of the subconscious and the shadow. Of course I am just one person who entered into this world view by picking books from library shelves, zooming into a popular perspective. But of course it is becoming a buried tradition with the cognitive behavioral and neuroscientists winning.

But we better be careful what models of thought we allow to get onto the popular platforms as you say because they shape our path by becoming part of our psyches, as you say. I would imagine that this applies to philosophy as well as psychology.

I think you are in danger of discouraging the efforts of aspiring musicians and creative people in general. A lot of the best books were rejected many times and a lot of the artists were only valued later.

Surely, we should not be dictated to by the herd mentality. This is true for music, writing and even philosophy. It seems that you want to live in the past, with Radiohead as the be and end all of music. I do like them but they can be a bit gloomy.

What you are saying is rather defeatist. Art is not simply about popularity but the whole process of transformation through creativity and discovery. We need to usher in the new.

Yes, you seem to understand the psychology of projection of the shadow aspect of the psyche. It does create a form of blindness and perhaps the philosophers wish to remain blind, discussion soliptism.

I wrote the thread in order to create discussion of mass identity, because I think that cultural issues are an important matter. But apart from American politics there is not much discussion of the world. I am not wishing to undermine American politics but it is not the only country in the world.

You ask if I am related to an engineer and I am not as far as I know. But I like steampunk fiction writing and art so I get round to creating my own engines in some form when I get tired of writing comments and threads on this site.

What you are saying sounds really sad. You are suggesting that there is no audience any longer and that making music can only be for enjoyment. Is it only music therapy? I am not saying I cannot see where you are coming from, bearing in mind the way music is going on digital devices.

But 'Is this the end?' cries Jim Morrison. Is it the end for art and literature too? Perhaps even philosophy has experimented to its logical end and we are living in the after image of civilisation.

I would be glad to know what the question was related to if not the philosophy of art. I am not being critical, but just curious to know where you are you coming from, metaphorical or otherwise?