I am not sure that knowledge applies to the external world alone because there is so much which can be gained about inner reality within the work of great writers, including Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung.

I think that both people who have subjective experiences and those who stand back objectively have important contributions. In the case of schizophrenia, both the ideas of the psychiatrist and the patients offer valid insights. The dialogue between the two perspectives can be extremely interesting.

In the case of the near death experiences some of those who have them are too immersed to see them at face value. Others can go to the other extreme and dismiss them as psychotic fantasies and the task of the philosopher is to juggle these views and possibly come to a different conclusion altogether.

As you have enough interest to have created the post perhaps all you need to is to think ask is whether you believe that the experiences are real or not?

At least you are honest about it. I have not died but probably take an interest because I have had out of body experiences and probably my interest began from that really. I will wait and see if people add more to the thread in the next few days and may create one on out of body experiences next week.

So, we may again on another thread, and I do like the picture and your pen name. For the time being I am not taking a pen name, because life is too surreal at the moment anyway, but if I do this at any point I might become Dr Dream.

I am a bit disappointed that you have not engaged in any discussion about the philosophy of near death experiences when it appeared that you wished to do so.

All you appeared to say was that you miss someone called Sam who was special and wrote on the topic. Unfortunately, I was not on the forum when he was writing and it is likely that other new forum members have not come into contact with his ideas.

I do believe that there are probably many new members who could give worthwhile ideas but you have not even given a starting point. I offered a bare sketch of some basic ideas before just before the exchange between Hippyhead and Tim Wood. I am sorry if this does not in anyway live up to the standard you would expect but I do think you need to be a bit more forthcoming.

I want to help your thread stay top of the charts, even though I think its title may not even tempt some to open it at all. I just would like to know a bit more about your thoughts or even why you think that it is the subject matter of philosophy. I think that it is but I am not sure that everyone does, from a couple of responses so far.

I have not read Cicero but take your point about possible undertaking of training in thinking.

I think that the book you refer to is part of the genre of smart thinking. I do not dismiss this tradition as well as other systems of improving thinking ability including NLP and cognitive behavioral therapy. I wish to engage with this tradition as much as possible.

My own thoughts are I am wary of the smart thinking genre if it is seen as a means of thinking as the supreme thinking tool. I think it can be used alongside philosophy rather than as a quick shortcut and replacement for philosophy as an art and discipline for developing thinking ability.

Your references are useful and I may try to read them if I can at some point.

I think the subject has probably a very extensive body of literature from many perspectives and certainly while I am writing on my phone I feel very limited but I certainly see my own remarks as mere reflections based on previous reading.

One remarkable by John R Searle in his book The Mystery of Consciousness is that 'the simulation of mental states is no more a mental state than the simulation of an explosion is an explosion is in itself an explosion.' I think that this point is pertinent because there is a danger of the near death experiences being viewed in a literal way. Of course I am not wishing to undermine the value of the experiences for individuals. They often have seem of profound and transformative value for the individuals but based on my reading of Jung I would see them as symbolic primarily.


Edward F Bruner in his discussion of the creative persona has pointed to the creation of experience of light in connection with interaction between the left and brain hemispheres. I think the reason why this is importance of possible neurology involved in possible brain processes.

While having a limited knowledge of neuroscience the reason for pointing to this is that it does seem central to the experience of near death survivors is light, although some accounts include dead relatives which suggests that the experiences is more than a creation of light imagery.

This leads back to the possibility of placing the experiences in the level of deep dream states at least. Of course, as mediators are aware breath has a profound impact upon higher states of consciousness. Perhaps this involves the trigger of alpha and theta states of consciousness.

One thing I will also say, before closing for now, is that it is interesting that the tunnel of light features in those who return from death, suggesting possible heavenly journeys but not of any descending to hellish regions. But of course, the history of visionaries, including William Blake, and many others, especially those diagnosed as schizophrenic, have known infernal as well as heavenly regions, which could lead to the need to frame the near death experiences within the context of the larger picture of visionary and other altered states of consciousness.

I am personally inclined to suspend judgement based on the whole issue that the altered states of consciousness may be derived from chemical states including lack of oxygen. I have never died but have had out of body states arising from stress, or if I have been severely lacking in sleep or food.

Apart from chemical imbalances I think that the layers of consciousness may also be involved. I am interested in the mythic depths of consciousness including the writings of Stranislav Grof about life in the womb, and more importantly, the ideas on dream imagery and archetypes arising from Carl Jung's ideas.

Of course the near encounter with death is a truly archetypal event.

I do not see why you think it is the case that the thinking processes will result in us arriving at the same conclusions. I think the more we think the more diverse our conclusions will become. In backing this up I would say that the history of philosophy from ancient times has been one in which Plato in particular created some profound beginnings for us to create 'footnotes', as it has been stated. But after all the centuries of thought views have been ever diversifying, and I am not sure that this a negative point against developments.

In addition, you throw in the topic of predestination as if is a taken for granted assumption. Perhaps you need to back this up or create a post about this initially if this is part of your underlying basis of argument about the nature of conclusions. It may be the issue about predestination is the starting point of the debate you are creating in the first place and it may get lost in the haze of your concern about conclusions in the mess of the world.

Replying to you as a poster what you were proposing is far more interesting. I might try something new starting from the mind and body problem and looking more broadly to other fields because I do believe that philosophy needs to engage with other disciplines, rather than closing in upon itself

I am not saying that what I write will be wonderful but I will have a go and I don't think it would need a whole blog or a whole life time's worth, although it might be a worthwhile life spent. But I will wait and try and reframe the question differently because I don't want to block the creative pathway of the original inventor of the post. In the meantime others, including yourself, can dive in and may come up with some brilliant insights and analysis.

This current post may have all sorts of exciting twists and turns. And in wishing to make a contribution rather than a mere criticism of its early beginnings I would mainly just ask whether the near death journeys should be taken at face value for what they appear to represent or as something else?

I don't see the logic of what you are saying by saying that anyone who created us had the ability to ensure that thought processes led to the same conclusion. This is because on an empirical level it is clear that the exact opposite is true. Or are you wishing for a return to Kant's transcendent logic and categorical imperatives?

To some extent I see what you are saying. That is why I am waiting to see what happens. The only problem is that the originator of the thread, as far as I see never actually put forward any philosophy propositions and the last couple of comments he made were like mere text banter and nothing more.

I would put forward ideas about the philosophers of near death experiences but think any serious discussion would be lost amidst pointless banter.

I believe that rather than be given an overriding power to moderate the originator of the thread should be given respect. That is why I will not write my own thread at this stage because I wish to wait and allow him to respond and write an actual philosophical argument, because at the moment no actual philosophcal propositions or arguments as such has been put forward so far.

If I do begin my own thread I will try and frame it slightly differently but as a philosophy question and I realise that others may wish mine to be demoted to purgatory and his to reign supreme on the front page.

I really was hoping that you were going to write a serious discussion on the philosophy near death experiences, so I might be tempted to do so because I do think it has a lot of scope.

I saw Hippyhead' s point and I think he has worthy points but am inclined to think they are more metaphorical than a serious consideration of the distinct altered states of consciousness associated with clinical death.

So, at the moment I am rather disappointed that the main page discussion of near death experiences is failing to offer what its title promised.

I think that a near death experiences
is a very good idea because it is clear topic for debate, central to the whole mind and body problem, but it needs to be written as a clear philosophical question, specifying the core issues and scope of the topic. I would even like to have a go at posing it in such a way but at the moment the question seems to be more about whether it would go on the front page because someone wrote one in the past.

I don't want to chip in at this point but would like to see you spell out a question more clearly. I would love to do it but firstly, I feel you might feel I am stealing your topic but I do have a strong and genuine interest in this area of philosophy.

I am writing at 3am, unable to sleep as often, and I think that comfort is fine if you have it but I am not sure that it is a real goal in philosophy.

If anything, I envy you because whatever way I have of thinking about the world of all things I have never felt 'comfort', especially when I adhered to religious beliefs. I remember the stress of being told that my ideas verged onto the new age and were dangerous, especially my interest in Carl Jung. He is not a philosophy in the strict sense but he encapsulates a lot of philosophy.

I wrestle with ideas, but I am not saying that I do not enjoy books but I am not sure that the term comfort is the right word. Life is too precarious and the word comfort stresses ease where in fact I often feel more in a battlefield and the ideas are tools or weapons against inner demons and monsters.

But maybe my inner life and daily experience has a more aggressive plot than yours. I could envy you if you find comfort in philosophy but that would be pointless as I don't know anything about you and envy is an unproductive emotion.

What would say that in a way you are lucky if you find comfort in philosophy because if anything I find it a necessity and it often leads me to seewhat I would rather not see, but I will say no more and I don't want to overdo the tortured artist/ philosophy act because it has been overdone and is in itself a glamour seeking stance.

Perhaps if you can construct a philosophy which leads to comfort it might cheer up the misery of so much doom and gloom of being tangled up in knots and tangles. I don't wish to be a doom and gloom philosopher and if nothing else I like Dosteovsky's wish to transmute evil into good. Even in the darkness, we may rise to the heights of ecstasy. If anything I have never found comforts but extreme lows and some highs but rarely much time for plateaus in between. In other words, little rest.

It is hard engaging in deep conversations without without engaging with people in fleshand blood, almost a soliptist reality at times.

I get a bit uptight and sensitive about replies. I have even feared that I have even been banned as inadequate to write on the site at times but this is probably my own failure neurosis playing up.

But I really did worry on my train journey today in case I am regarded as such a waste of space making comments, lacking in critical thinking ability and the fluency to express myself in the true language of philosophers, even though the writers are amateurs officially. But I plod on, taking risks, for better or worse.

I look back at things I have written and think if only I had written better, but even, then, despite my fear of rejection and even being banned as a totally incompetent thinker I realise that it would be possible for a person to be shunned on this site and end up a published writer.

For now, I encourage you to write and you will probably be far more successful than me. I take risks and the worst that can happen is rejection and I taper off into a lonely soliptist reality, even if it is a completely different take on soliptist than your own, but that is the sadness or beauty of the entrapment in one's own personal reality.

I am sure that your comments will probably be far more esteemed and successful than mine, but I have not given up yet.

I only found this response today because sometimes my messages don't show up immediately to forgo on my phone. Sometimes I get them immediately and and others days after.

I will.bear this in mind and keep plodding on with the daily realities of the philosophers plight
because it is not easy but part of the quest.

I am not an academic but struggle with the questions of philosophy day by day and wish to make a contribution. I am neither a complete egoist or a subscribed philosopher of noble aclaom but I believe that we can all take part in drawing up issues for debate rather than leave it all in the hands of those in authority.

It is difficult because all of us have our own opinions about what should be said or not.

I think that the main issue is of respect for others opinions.

Sometimes I get irritated by answers which are mere symbols on a device. But maybe that is my problem.

But I do think that the key issue is listening to others and engaging. We all have our weaknesses, whether it as lack or too many words.

If anything I am inclined to think that opening up discussion rather than closing it is better, but we all have to live with all possibilities whether it is banning to be the depths of hell or whatever region of existence we may go.

I try to live with all possibilities but if nothing else I am inclined to the view that sometimes the shortest responses with symbols are the worst. But maybe that is my prejudice...

I think that you have to embark on this adventure to find out.

I have no clear answers and I am a fellow traveller but I do believe that the personal is a starting point, but with many hard lessons.

But who would say that philosophy, personal and collective is easy. We need our own support networks and I feel grateful for this site because it is an arena for philosophical debate and possibly the hardest questions we can experience can be discussed on our mobile devices, so perhaps we are need not be alone as we grapple with the most difficult questions about life.

I was certainly not trying to connect you in a pedantic way. I struggle with writing on my mobile phone.

Anything I write, is to be taken in the spirit of enquiry. I am a bit quirky in my philosophical endeavors but I do believe that the discoveries about Egyptian civilisation could pave forward in the quest to understand questions about humanity and consequently questions about humanity.

I am an amateur in the field of philosophy, playing around in fields from psychotherapy and other social sciences, but I do believe that this is all important because in the past,philosophers have remained in their own elite towers, blinded by their own ego related concerns.

We all need to be aware of all our motives, even the most darkest, in order to awaken to the human quest in its grimmest and shadowy puzzles in order to understand the quagmire of past civilisation and the highest points of culture. We need to understand the highest and lowest aspects of human potential to be realistic participants of the future we are creating, theory or reality.

I don't claim to be any expert but I am inclined to think that the solution to your quest might be about looking within oneself rather than to the larger universe.

It is so much easier to proceed from the microcosm of the self initially, corresponding with Socrates' search for self knowledge. I am sure that Socrates' view has been used and abused but I do think that the microcosm is the starting point for understanding the macrocosm.

I like the comment about us but what I was playing with our toys but I knocked my phone while I was writing. I play daily with my books and music and see this as important in understanding reality.

I wonder if we could ascend to the wisdom of ancient civilisations. I am certainly no expert but perhaps the ancient Egyptians were in touch with states of consciousness beyond most living today.

My thinking may be a bit off beat as I am a big fan of Carl Jung and the esoteric, including the idea of astral travel but I think that the ancient Egyptians were in touch with dimensions of existence way beyond the material world, especially the philosophy of the current world of philosophy.

I may go overboard at times in my search but I do believe that the Egyptians were in touch with levels of reality unknown to most people in the present world. I wish to tap into these dimensions.


I realise that philosophy is about theory rather than experience but do think that the experiences are a key issue and do believe that the states of consciousness of ancient people were different.

This is mere conjecture and in way of theoretical underpinning the most academic text I can refer to is Julian Jaynes The Origins of the Bicameral Mind. Of course it is open to criticism in itself.

Pppplike the comment that we are just children playing with toys. . V

I do see what you are saying because philosophy has become more of a closed academic profession. I am not part of the academia so I feel able to open up beyond this.

The brilliance of this site is that it is beyond the fetters of the academic. I was in dialogue about this in another thread and we are not likely to be rewarded by prestige. Therefore, I would say that we can dare touch base with unknown territories and the optimist within myself says that in a world falling apart who knows what could happen to philosophy for worse or better....

I think that I may have replied to you in another thread, saying about premonitions, but that was why I wrote the Towee of Babel thread even if it was an off beat metaphor.

I have experienced a lot of premonitions and synchronisities and not all are bad. But all in all, I do feel that I access higher states of consciousness at times, even by psychedelic music that many would hate.

I am not the most conventional and could even be deemed as taking part in what Rudolph Otto classed as profane as opposed to sacred mysticism. I do look to shamanic possibilities and have found meaningful in the writings of Carlos Castenada, even if the factual basis is open to question.

I love the writings of the transpersonal psychologists. I will probably never make it in the world of philosophy, even on this site, but I am an explorer of consciousness and its expansion and I deem this to be part of philosophy but I am sure that others may see this as futile and beyond the scope of the philosophers but I beg to differ.

I am interested in your remarks about clairvoyant because as a teenager I had lots of premonitions. Some of them were premonitions of people's deaths and having already struggled with worries about the unpardonable sin I had even new problems.

In understanding the premonitions, at one point which could have led to psychosis if I had not found Jung's Memories, Dreams and Reflections, I even questioned whether I was responsible for the deaths I had foreseen. But somehow I puzzled together the importance of the collective unconscious as being part of the issue.

I also remember reading a book by J B Priestly in a library. I did not make notes and have never seen the book again but it seemed to suggest that time was not straightforward, and that we can travel backwards and forwards and this made me wonder about clairvoyance.

Perhaps it is about seeing patterns in the scheme of things. There is so much debate on this site ranging from the cycle of time and quantum reality but perhaps the whole area of the past and the future is not straightforward and we can perceive the future in hidden patterns if we are sensitive enough.

I am not sure that it is that simple because the ancient civilisation were perhaps different from ours. Life may be more than the satisfaction of survival needs. We are going back to a survival mode in the current times but perhaps the earliest philosophy looked beyond this. I don't know about our present time.

I do care about life in its basic form and can relate to Maslow's hierarchy of needs, but think that the philosophical quest is extremely important. Without the questions of ultimate meaning I think I would be feel like giving up. Perhaps I am a weirdo but I think that the philosophical quest is one of the important aspects of life.

I would not wish for philosophy to evaporate in a cloud, in which philosophical questions were seen as a useless relic of the past. Perhaps what is needed is for smart thinking and philosophy to converge to create the best possible thinking.

I am drawn to mystical ideas. I think it could be productive for creating fantastic art and literature.
I love the art of Alex Grey and in a many respects William Blake and Y B Yeats were mystics.

Perhaps I am an idle dreamer, and I am not exactly the most successful worldly person, but I do believe that the mystic and visionary perspectives should not be lost in the increasingly drudgery of materialism. I think mysticism is a the atrophied tail of philosophy.

While it is true that we are influenced so much by the past I think that it is easy to become a victim of it. The experience we have do affect us so much on a subconscious level as to be able to destroy us if we allow it.

The art is to be more mindful of the moment, which turns into the past immediately that we have registered 'the now.' We are constantly in the immediate now which is suspended between the past and future.

To some extent, we need to look to the past to understand mistakes but it is too easy to dwell on to the point of being trapped in it. This applies in both the examination of history and in the personal.

Freudian psychoanalysis encourages this. The patient may spend many 50 minute sessions regurgitating past traumas. The idea is that this can lead to catharsis but perhaps this may not happen and the person becomes a victim of the entrapment of the past.

It may be different if the past is spoken of in the personal or collective but while both may be slightly different, I would say that we need to think of the past but within the context of the present and the future.

Of course, the past may also be seen as retro, with a sense of nostalgia but even then, it is too easy to live in the past and miss the opportunity of the creative possibilities.

And perhaps we can even time travel mentally to possible worlds of the past to reframe distant past events alongside our future selves.

I used to believe in unconditional love, thinking that Carl Rogers philosophy on the subject was a wonderful basis for psychotherapy interventions and as a way for living.

That was until I discovered that the people I knew who had introduced it to me were extremely opportunistic themselves. I do think that the individuals really believed that they were practising unconditional love because they saw it as a theoretical underpinning for working with others professionaly but had not stopped to consider the difference between therapeutic work and daily life.

I believe that Carl Rogers was a very important writer but while he wrote very well on the subject it is too easy to romanticize that one can achieve such high ideals. I would love to say that I can l can give unconditional love, but I am too aware of the shadow as Jung described. Dark motives can smuggle in through the back door unexpectedly.

Your concern that philosophy is about deep, mysterious questions which remain unanswered points to the way in which even published philosophers often write very badly. It was as if they were trying to be clever by being unintelligible, which is a bit like the Sophists.

It is also possible to write and think endlessly about topics and go round in circles, never coming up with any answers. Perhaps it is about lack of commitment to and one way of seeing amidst a diversity of possible options. Or, perhaps it is about not seeing thinking to clear ends. It is easy to dabble with philosophical questions but not work hard enough at them.

I am not sure that the issue is simply that pre-philosohical solutions is a solution because I am not sure that such solutions are pre-philosophical in the first place. That is because philosophy goes back to ancient times and by using arguments so most ways of seeing life are rooted in some kind of roots in philosophy in the first place.

I believe that what is needed is clearer vision in philosophy rather than casting it aside. The twentieth century saw all the language games and then the postmodern writers came up with very sophisticated debates. But so many questions remain unanswered. Perhaps the best way forward would be philosophy which can engage with the debates of the past as well as the scientific knowledge of today. However, it could be one involving demystification.

While it is is unlikely that absolute answers could be established the challenge would be to explore any central arguments as fully as possible and come up with best possible answers which could enable people to not be lost forever drowning in the deep philosophical mysteries.

I think you are correct in saying that to be part of the academic world of philosophy you have to adhere to majority opinion. I know quite a few professors, although not philosophers, and they do not really challenge conventions.

I never really thought that I was particularly conventional but it is in the last few years that I have really discovered that I am at odds with mainstream institutions. It has been a hard lesson and now I think I have become a bit of a dropout. Before that, I used to joke about being an arty misfit but did not really think I had enemies.

I don't think I can really try to fit in again which in a way is okay because it would be too painful to try but it does leave me feeling a bit isolated and I do need to find a job again at some point in the near future.

As far as this site goes, it is a good way of experimenting with ideas and I do feel that exchange views in this way does help me develop my own ideas. I have only been using it for 6 weeks and I feel that it has been a very useful experience, especially as there are such diverse opinions. It is also a lot more interesting than just receiving texts about day to day matters and it can be exciting waiting to see what comments people make and what new threads appear.

I read your reply to Benj 96 and it made me think while I was unable to sleep. What that led me to conclude was that there certain facts which are consensus, including ones including personal ones like, date of birth, country and some of the structures of one's life. Also, mathematics and basic aspects of geography etc. I think except in rare circumstances it would be pointless to argue against these.

But I would say they are the basic structure and that is where we get into the way in which fact and fiction get blurry. This is because life is socially constructed. History itself is a biased interplay of facts and interpretation. The history of religion is too, such as the development of Christianity being swayed by the Church leaders.

So, I am arguing that certain basics of fact could be seen as more or less absolutely but from this point the start of the fictive begins. And in the eternal scheme of life these fictive aspects may be just as important as any real objective facts. In many ways the fictions of life shape life our daily existence and contribute to the future.

I am not against your principle but I think the truth may be more complex. Is history linear or cycles.?Who are we in the scheme of it all? If it is cycles will we or similar versions of us exist in future cycles ?

The point you are making that time is defined by one's perceptual threshold is the exact issue. This gives way for many possibilities and even Nietzsche cannot be ridiculed entirely because all we have is models and they are speculation.

I don't see why we have to settle for linear or cycles alone because the matter may be more complex. I am not trying to fuzz the issue but how do we know if the cycle is an aspect of the larger cycle or if the cycles are part of the linear? I am curious and would like to understand this mystery.

Fact can be seen as a concrete dimension but it all depends on perspectives and distortions too. We are assaulted by the baseline of factual reality, often wishing to retreat into a different reality. This can pave the way for outright lies or on a more subtle level it can lead to the shadow world of psychosis

What I am saying is not new but as human beings it is possible to break away from the world of facts according to our motives. Some facts are just unbearable and can lead us to create all kinds of alternatives, ranging from the ridiculous to mythic storytelling, because even if facts exist it is in a sphere of larger facts.

Yes, and perhaps this relates to Nietzsche' s idea of eternal recurrence. I am not saying that I think the idea of eternal is a one hundred per cent accurate model, but if nothing else, we could argue that time may contain linear and cyclic aspects as it is a dimension of the unknown aspects of reality. We do not have to settle for lines or cycles and perhaps webs could even be useful as time itself is a great mystery.

Perhaps philosophy needs to be about real life and not just a pastime of speculation. Perhaps philosophy is about speculation not as a hobby but as a core aspect of who we are and where we are going.

Perhaps philosophy can be a vital aspect of life rather than a mere game for the comfortable. As I see it, the philosophic endeavor is imperative for the future and is about life and death in the raw world rather than an armchair activity for the complacent.

But you forget that philosophy is not the esteemed profession of all times. It is the fool of academia.

Psychology has its clinical pathways but philosophy, unless you are part of the academic elite has no easy pathways and this probably comes down to funding because philosophy is often regarded as esoterica, while it might be what we really need in the current upside down world. No one realised that life would be so precarious........

I am a bit saddened by your thought that philosophical thought will not be made from this forum because it is so alive with issues at the heart of thinking, including your own theories about the ego.

It is a sad state of affairs if philosophy must remain in the hands of the academic professionals alone. This site offers an alternative but of course we do not want philosophy to be made as insignificant, a mere everyday chit chat but an informed way of thinking about the world with critical thinking and insight.

As part of the philosophical pursuit, even though we may not become the prestigious members of society, surely we should not be the rejected because this would be the end of all hope for all humanity. Perhaps your own ego based philosophy could pave the way forward, although it even seems as if ideologies of the collective good are being upheld a political rhetoric at the present time. I even think that Covid_19 being abused to abolish the needs of ego.

Perhaps we need to fight our corner, not against anyone on this site,but in the spirit of Nietzsche, against the oppressors of freedom of spirit.

My comment was written just now, so I don't know why it is showing up as 7 days ago. Perhaps time is collapsing amidst the techno glamour of the broken world.

BONO, THE BIGGEST EGO
I am a fan of physical music, especially music shops which are in steady decline. Believe it or not, I am the CD king, as I believe they are the most durable form of music. The important thing is not CDS, vinyl, but having good speakers.

Anyway, for my recommendation, which unfortunately offers no link( but you can find one easily) I think that U2 are my favourite band of all time.I am album fan, as the album creates the spectrum for a full piece of work and War, The Unforgettable Fire, The Joshua Tree, Achtung Baby, and many other works offer such inspiration, if you are not put off by the great ego of Bono.

I even met someone who said that she had met him and found his egocentricity as abominable. But I find his music, as well as inspiring.

I even find Prince a great example, a big ego even though he was probably about the same size as me.

But, as the CD king I recommend U2, Prince, The Doors, The Psychedelic Furs, Mercury Rev, Biffy Clyro, The The, , My Chemical Romance, Bright Eyes, The Flaming Lips, and so far my favourite album of 2020 is These Times by The Dream Syndicate.

I also like the crossover between genres, metal, goth, indie, dance etc. But the only problem would be that there is so much wonderful music to indulge in rather than the real pursuit of philosophy.