I think that your outpost is a very good critique of what is happening in the world, especially in relation to gender, but 'cultural wars' in general. It does involve aspects of race as @Leontiskos mentions. It also involves the nature of individualism in terms of personal identity, especially in a world fragmented by cultural relativism and movement into the digital age, of online images and identities.

With regard to gender, often the issue of transgender is looked at as the 'problem' of the individual who experiences gender identity issues. This misses the way in which identity is constructed socially. Feelings, thoughts and the development identity involves so much on an intersubjective level, is influenced by cultural ideas, such as the media, modernism and postmodernism as well as science.

The fragmented nature of identity construction is also affected by the way in which people's lives are experienced. Rather than the emphasis on individualism, there is a tendency in the digital age for people to be regarded as mere numbers amidst the 'mass' of humans, especially when they are expected to compete with machines and artificial intelligence. The fragmentation can be linked to a loss of appreciation of the uniqueness of the person, as well as so much emphasis on bodies and appearance in the media.

The 2 albums of 2024 which I would recommend are The The's, 'Ensoulment' and The Lemon Twigs, 'Everything Harmony. The The are one of my all time favourite bands as they are so philosophical. The Lemon Twigs are a newer act, but are quite retro and psychedelic, with hints of Beach Boy harmonies.

I am also contemplating buying the 2024 album by the Cure, based on reviews I have read.

Daniel Dennett is also one who speaks the language of neuroscience in a very concrete way. I like the way in which some Buddhists incorporate neuroscience, but in a less reductionist way.

I am inclined to the view that all explanation is mythic because narrative is built into human understanding. We have narrative identity and it is from this starting point that we develop all pictures of the world. I am not sure that 'reality' can be explained in a way which is different from myth, whether it is in terms of models or metaphors. I work from the assumption that my thinking, and that of all others, is based on story, and this involves the way in which a person has been taught or chosen to understand.

It is true that religion does involve belief in the supernatural in most instances, but not always. One interesting area is that of a miracles, which was challenged by David Hume. However, I do see there being more than just superstition in miracles. There are the stories of the healing at Lourdes. There is also the recent story of the canonisation of St Luigi. He died as a teenager, who had created a website on miracles, and miracles have been attributed to him. It may be my Catholic side coming out but I do think that there may be more to miracles than many would admit. It is about an invisible dimension beyond the material one.

You make sense very good points. In particular, I like the way in which you bring in neuroscience. That is because it may be the secular replacement of 'God', especially as an explanation for consciousness. The images of CT scans and in textbooks present a visual and causal explanatory logic which may be seen as fact and 'reality' itself. Also, science often claims objectivity as 'the truth', ignoring the way in which science, including physics only gives models. Science involves the mythic imagination.

I am sure that there is an overlap between magic and religion, but magic often involves belief in nature as alive as opposed to being about a specific deity. For example, there is the idea of sympathetic magic, which underlies systems of voodoism. There is also a shamanic element to magic.

The story of the resurrection involves a shamanic aspect. It is true that there is a recurrent theme of a dying god, rising again, such as in the myth of Osiris.

With your comment about power structures may change, that is where myth and story come into play. It is likely that the stories we read influence what happens in real life, like the Book of Revelation, and Orwell's '1984'. When I read Orwell's writing it is as if he is describing the way the world has become in many ways. Therefore, fiction authors have a big responsibility, just like philosophers, because they provide the mythic material which may influence the course of history.

With the history of religion, which emerged after magic, there were ideas of coercion and sacrifice. Even in Christianity, Jesus represents 'the sacrificial lamb', to atone for human 'sin'. With diversity, which may have preceded this, there is the possibility of a future return to diversity in the aftermath of so much which has occurred in human history, although from the way the world looks at present there is an extremely long way for this to happen. There may be small steps but if it is likely to be thwarted by hierarchies of power, which represent the interests of the elite.

It could be argued that 'God' is consciousness, but this has been seen in an anthropomorphic way. Both theists and atheists may be talking about 'ultimate reality', but this way it is named and described are so different, as a source of arguments and perspectives.

I wonder how similar animism and panpsychism is. There is some challenge to the idea that matter and mind are separate in the notion of quantum entanglement. But, that is physics, but as part of 'modern' metaphysics. The 'modern', or 'postmodern' ways of matter as solid and primary, objective 'reality' are challenged. Even en the notion of the intersubjective realm involves a complex weaving in between outer and inner perspectives in thinking of the nature of symbolic structures.

Your point about whether myth is like Plato's realm of ideas is interesting because it does raise the question of another realm, of archetypes. These could be seen as separate from human consciousness and transcendent. However, these evolve alongside culture as symbolic aspects of culture. Humans realise the human imagination and contribute to it, as aspects of the dreaming mind, as part symbolic reality, but whether it exists as an independent realm, as qualia, is a good question.

I am sure that you are correct to suggest that how people live and social organisations of power have a significant role. In particular, the patriarchy played an important role, especially with the suppression of women. Similarly, racism suppressed ideas of the Orient. The dynamics between power and belief are complex and interact. Ideas of gods and God may be used to protect power structures and, similarly, analysis of such beliefs may influence the nature of social systems.

I do agree that religious perspectives are more inclined to looking within. Putting it together with life in the outer world is where it gets messy. Ultimately, the two should work together, but they frequently become separated so much and become so hollow.

Jesus recognised this when he criticised the superficial hypocrisy of the Pharisees. The Gnostics, who looked at inner or symbolic interpretations of the life of Jesus were outlawed as heretics. Their accounts are so different, including suggestions of Mary Magdalene as Jesus' partner. This is so different from the conventional ideas about sexuality within Christianity, which were based on the ideas of the Paul.

Also, in many ways spiritual ideas underlying many religions involved shared views of wisdom, even though there have been so many rifts between the different religions and traditions within these religions.

It is definitely true that a lot of religious beliefs have been a factor of toxicity, especially in the development of war. But, this may something about the human nature and mass psychology as much as the ideas of the leaders. If the teachings of Christ or the Buddha had been followed fully, it should have led to less war as opposed to creating it. In particular, the culture of Christendom is so opposed to the Biblical teachings themselves, especially in the development of material wealth as opposed to the Gospel teachings.

As it is, humanity is made up of so many diverging traditions and there is so much conflict and war. It is not clear that mere loss of belief in spiritual reality will lead to a more peaceful one necessarily. If only it was that simple and the problem may be fundamentalism in general. There is religious fundamentalism and even atheistic fundamentalism. A lot is about concrete, dogmatic thinking.

If people are more able to understand the symbolic dimension it can be a source of wisdom, and does not have to come down to belief in God. Spirituality is not dependent on gods or God, but about self-awareness and wisdom within. The inner psyche may be a starting point for transformation of consciousness, which may lead to greater understanding of others ' needs and of all living beings.

Yes, the contrast between logos and mythos is an area discussed in previous threads. The problem which I see is if people treat mythos as though it were logos, unable to differentiate this at all. Many conventionally religious people are inclined to do this and it took me some time to be able to do so.

However, it is difficult though, not just about the existence of God but areas such as the ideas like the fall of the angels and humanity. I was definitely brought up to believe in this and even now see it as standing for something possibly 'real' because there is a lot that is unknown about ancient history. At one stage, I read writers like Graham Hancock and some of this may be mythic but the idea of the Nephilim race is one which I find intriguing. I have come across the idea that in thinking of evolution this was a process in which humans slept with apes.

Some of the ideas are likely to be symbolic but the correspondences between the planets and early gods is important in thinking of the ancient worldviews. Sometimes, people assume that ancient people were 'primitive' but cultures like Egypt and Rome were extremely advanced.

I enjoy mythic fiction, including Marion Zimmer Bradley and Bernard Cornwell. Being half Irish by descent, I am particularly interested in Celtic and British legends, including those in the Magbinon, Arthur and those surrounding Glastonbury. Tolkien also presents a fascinating journey into the mythic imagination.

I will explore Seyedd Hossain because I haven't come across him. It does seem that we have read some of the same authors, Huston Smith, Gary Lachman, James Hillman and James Hillman. I don't think that James Hillman is that well known as you are the first person I have come across who has and I find him to be a very good writer. I also find Edward Edinger's , 'Ego and Archetype very helpful, as well as the writings of Mircea Eliade.

It is a very large topic, as you say. I first became interested in when my school English teacher encouraged reading on the topic. A few years ago I did a term long course on mythology as well as an evening class on anthropology. I would like to study more anthropology and have done some reading of Levi Strauss, as well as Mary Douglas's 'Purity and Danger'. The culture assumptions of the sacred and taboo are important in thinking of ideas about good and evil.

The issues of ideologies in relation to myth is a good question. That is especially in relation to 'a kind of wasteland of shattered of shattered or diminished cultures'. It involves the idea of meaning, hope but may be a little different from worldviews in which an entirely different stance was taken. Some of these were utopian and some built upon differing metaphysics entirely, such as resurrection of the dead.

The question, or issue, may also be about what is an explanation, which may be answered so differently. It could come down to a 'supernatural deity', a material cause or some kind of psychological intermediate. Historical origins may be important but it may also be about origins in terms of causes, or how these are understood, involving both logical explanations and metaphors or symbolic dimensions of thinking.

The concept of 'God' or ''gods' is interesting. It is worth considering to what extent it represents 'a higher reality' as such, or a tool in human understanding? This may be an issue which spans psychology and anthropology, as well as philosophy. It may go back to core basics of metaphysics, and how these are constructed by human beings.

I am sure that the issue of hows and whys of religious thinking have been explored on so many threads. One major aspect may the psychology of religion, and why do people seek to attribute so much to gods or God?

Of course, it could be turned around, as into the question of whether psychological aspects are a question of higher metaphysics? I see it as very complex, but I am probably someone who overthinks. This relates back to your query about 'names' for the same thing', because it may be a matter of language and framing in human explanations.

It is not that I don't appreciate your position of moral naturalism. As far as the relationship between ethics and religion (including esotericism) the two evolved together. Even though Aristotle's approach was more naturalistic than that of Plato it still had spiritual foundation.

Ethics still matter with or without religion and there is a danger of Dostoevsky's idea that without God 'everything is permissible.' At the present time of relativism there is such a mixture of overlapping worldviews.

I find the Buddhis perspective interesting as it is neither materialistic or with a literal anthromorphic deity. The middle way may be a way beyond so much of the false ways of ethics based on guilt tripping,Also, the middle way is also in the context of the overall emphasis on compassion, which is a about respect for people and all life.

It is true that perfectionism is more about salvation, whereas ethics is about social action. With esotericism, I wonder to what extent it is focused on salvation or deeper aspects of life and ethics. One aspect of this was the way in which the esoteric was often for an inner circle within a religion whereas there were less strict moral guidelines for the wider group.

I am not sure that the esoteric is simply about personal salvation as such. In particular, the idea of karma is not simply about personal gain through moral action. Some may say it is, but it may be more about a deeper understanding of causality, as in the principle of 'As you sow, so shall you reap'. This is because the idea of rebirth is not necessarily about continuity of the 'self' or ego. It may be seen as being about the future lifeforms and the ethical principles regarding concerns of future generations.

Thank you for your post, as it does seem that you have read widely on the topic of the idea of the middle way. Some popular authors may have presented it far too superficially.

The Buddha, like Jesus Christ, are figures of certain ideals. So much would have been different completely if their ideas had been written by them as opposed to by others. As it is so much is attributed to them or projected onto them. With Buddha, like Christ, this has meant that many different traditions within Buddhism have emerged rather than one set of definitive interpretations.

The 'middle way' can be seen as the tension between opposites, of ideas of 'good' and and 'evil'. It may be more of a symbolic concept because it may be realised in so many differing ways. Schumacher made a specific interpretation in 'Small is Beautiful' in which he looked at the emphasis on capitalist growth and the socialist concern for needs. He saw the idea of the 'middle way' as offering a way of balancing of the extremes in a positive way.

One relevant book which is useful in thinking about wholeness is, 'The Wisdom of Imperfection', by Rob Reece. He links Bufdhism and its idea of enlightenment with Jung's idea of wholeness. Jung spoke of the emphasis on moral perfection within the Judaeo-Christian tradition( it would apply to Abrahamic religion in general). It led to the accumulation of a shadow, as a dark side of the repressed and suppressed aspects of human nature. This involves a tension between 'good' and 'evil', which needs to be balanced to combat the destructive aspects of human potential and power. He spoke of this in the form of nuclear warfare, but it applies to both individual psychology and humanity on group levels.

The concept of compassion may not be straightforward. That is because it involves moral feelings as well as ethical ideals. Part of the dilemma may involve aspects of moral judgmentalness. It involves the distinction between the act and the person committing a moral action. It comes down to the dichotomy of ends, or consequence of actions, as opposed to motivation and intentionality.

With compassion, it may go beyond rationality, to empathy. The idea of 'love your neighbour as yourself' may involve this. Part of the problem may be that each person has so many neighbours, which may bring the question back to Kant's categorical abstract.

However, that is still abstract and it may be queried whether compassion may override this. There are universal principles of rationality. Nevertheless, the existential aspects of embodied existence may make the idea of compassion go beyond the mere principles of reason alone.

My own perspective on ethics is that the integration of reason, emotion and the instinctive aspects of life are important. However, there may be so many juxtapositions In the search for balance. Imbalance and error may be important here in resets and human endeavours towards wholeness, as opposed to ideas and ideals of perfection.

One argument which I found important is James Hillman's idea that the idea of suicide is related to a wish for transformation. Having experienced suicidal ideas, I am inclined to the view that the frontier of suicide involves a wish for transformation. Suicide is final whereas so much experimentation in life offers up areas of potential, beyond the finitude of death as an absolute extinguisher of creative possibilities.

Thanks for your reply and it does seem to involve the ambiguity over ideas of good and evil. Of course, the Buddha was writing prior to ideas of Nietzsche and Jung, which throw absolutism of good, evil and ethics open.

I wonder how compassion fits into the picture. That is because it involves a certain amount of distancing from moral absolutes and ethical ideas. However, compassion is not merely abstract, detached from moral feeling and issues of practical ethics.

We are all going to die and be dead for eternity. The question is whether to speed it up or wait until death comes of it's own accord. The difference may come down to deliberation in destruction. So many aspects of life, especially diet and lifestyle may be important factors.

The idea of committing suicide is not simple. That is because some self-harm and survive, whereas others may make acts of self-harm and survive. It is about the juggling of risk in the tension between life and death existentially.

I wish to add that ideas of Buddhist ethics have been introduced into concerns about the future, such as in EF Schumacher's 'Small is Beautiful'. This is a critique of values. The idea of economic growth is open to question, especially in relation to consumer materialism.

One important aspect of Buddhist ethics may be seen as a breakaway from the authoritarian ethics of many forms of religious thinking. It is not necessarily a secular form of materialism but about the scope of widest thinking. I am not trying to suggest that Buddhism is the one and only way of thinking, but looking to see it, and its metaphysical foundation. It is in that context that I am asking about the idea of the 'middle way' and to what extent is it useful in thinking about ethics?

I am glad that you think that there will be enough people around for a New Renaissance. Nevertheless, I do think that there is likely to be a lot of population reduction through many factors, from war and inequalities. Of course, this is not the first time and the ability to cope with change is questionable.

You say about learning to adapt without I-phones and relying on supermarkets, but I am not sure that many could. That is because most people don't have sources of local food. Also, it is becoming difficult to access so much from money to medical care without doing it online. Life for many is becoming more and more fragile. Theoretically, technology should be enabling greater self sufficiency but it is doing the opposite of creating so much dependency.

A lot of fragility comes from inequality in mass society, with those at the higher scale being able to access comforts and those at the bottom often left with nothing. The lack of community in the Western world may be a critical factor too. In parts of the world, such as the third world, people may be able to cope through sharing and group support. But, in the first world the nature of how individualism has developed means that many suffer in isolation.

The problem comes down to the nature of the 'mass' society and consumer materialism. New economists, such as Schumacher pointed to the need for smaller and local resources but the opposite seems to be happening. The pandemic may have taught some lessons and in England there is some development of community hubs. Some have had a chance for a rethink, but it is so variable and political leaders make tough choices over resources.

I hope to participate as both reader and writer in the literary activity of December 2024, as long as no horrific 'black swans' deter me from that direction. I am hoping that it will be fun and a bit of a break but also complementary to philosophy too. It will be great if loads take part, although will keep us all busy over the holiday period.

There is often a tendency to retro romanticism about the past, whether it is the sixties or the 'golden age' of ancient history. Plato's idea of abdiogenesis was based on the idea that something had been lost which needed to be remembered. A similar idea is involved in the Christian concept of the 'fall'.

Thinking about the future is so uncertain as unknown possibilities. They involve comparison with the past as a way of framing. How we frame all of this may make a difference in how we choose to live in making critical decisions of what comes next. That is if humans have any role in intentionality in the larger scheme. The humans are only part of the larger system but through consciousness have some freedom in shaping their destiny and the nature of all life on Planet Earth.

The will to power can have such an impact, especially in politics. It involves the ego's attempt to assert itself as master. Ego is needed as an aspect of narrative identity. However, it can be brutal and social ethics involves a deeper sense of responsibility.

Projection is happening in all spheres of the social system and, to some extent, it is hard to withdraw all projections. The current backlash against trans and so much of the debate about what a 'real woman' is related to projection. The scapegoats for projection change and shift, whether it is gay people, the unemployed or the mentally ill. The roots of prejudice, including racism and sexism stem from projections of otherness. It involves splitting of good and evil in childhood development as argued by Melanie Klein. It is a central factor in social conflict and as a source which generates war, including religious wars.

I did read your other thread and it will be an interesting experiment. My only concern would be about its competitive nature and the war of egos. There has been so much of that in the creative writing competitions/activities.

The problem which I see with philosophy essays on a forum such as this as they are too formal. Having written essays for courses, there is so much of having to go to source material and provide academically acceptable referencing. Some of this is done by links currently, but this comes with risks of online viruses. I am wary of links and use them sparingly (but I won't groan about anxiety about the health of my phone).

There is also the question as to how much people wish to log in and read essays on the forum. There may be a tension between chit chat and formal essays. I am inclined for something in between. I do read essays and books anyway but that is aside from forum. There are many here who take philosophy seriously as a creative endeavour but I am not sure that essay presentation is central to forum interaction. Some might be useful but I see the forum as a general sounding board for ideas rather than the best platform for essays. They would take up so much space and if it all became too academic it might deter from the creative process of exchanging the ideas as the raw materials of philosophy.

In thinking of individualism, it is likely that that its historical development has often been about outer as opposed to inner ones. It has been primarily about materialistism and the concerns of ego. The other side to this would be about the development of human potential of each individual. There is an obvious link between the idea of individual and social transformation. With consumer materialism the idea of transformation may have got lost. One significant developed was transhumanism which is about technological innovation mainly as opposed to transformation of consciousness.

The idea of 'end times' and the 'end of the world' has always been a human concern, especially in Christendom. My original anxiety about the end of the world came in the context of Catholicism and reading the 'Book of Revelation' as an adolescent. I can also remember hearing rumours of writings stored in a vault at the Vatican regarding end times. I grew up with a fear of the apocalypse to come and going back to the early Christian's, they expected an imminent end of days.

However, what I found was that the idea of the end of the world existed outside the Christian context or the prophecies of Nostradamus. The threat of nuclear warfare meant that it was possible for human beings to unleash it. My understanding is that Reagan saw himself as preparing for Armageddon in the development of the arms race. The millennium and the one before this came with so many fantasised predictions. Then, there was talk of the end of the Mayan calendar in 2012 and the world continued.

However, in the last few years it does seem that there have been such stark developments, especially since and around the time of the pandemic. I have been wondering about this at the same time as questioning ideas of religion on this forum. Also, reading writings on 'the end of history' by Baudrillard and Fukuyama have made me wonder where history is going. The present news headlines which I have read about imminent Third World War by Putin's use of missiles and threat to the West, as well as the ongoing process of climate change make the idea of the end of the world seem as real in a secular context as in a religious one.

It is hard to know how much is alarmist and whether the media is hyping it up. At the same time, there is some underlying idea of a 'New World Order'. However, what this would entail is not exactly clear. Would it be a more harmonious relationships between nations? Or, would it be a form of totalitarian authoritarianism? All of these ideas form a subtext of human thought and it is likely that the mythical idea of the 'end times' has an influence on the shaping of history and how people live.

The problem with the confusion is that so much is not disentangled and the factors you speak of are so important. As far as politics, the issue of 'others' is central. The nature of projection is its core feature, with the idea of the 'enemy'. There is always an enemy to be attacked, with evil being projected onto Sadam Hussein or some other critical figure. It involves the attempt to destroy 'evil', and Hitler himself saw his own mission as being about this, eliminating the 'inferior', which he identified in Jews, homosexuals etc. Projection of 'evil' onto others is the main dynamic factor in war.

The news does focus on the sensations of 'evil' as well, because it sells. This means that those working for peace and just causes often go unnoticed. When I spend too much time reading news it can skew one's perception and be demoralising. Recently, my phone had some problems and not seeing horrific news headlines popping up on it for several days was extremely liberating. Doom and gloom can have such a detrimental mpact on mental wellbeing.

As far as what would one sacrifice to save the world, the secular beliefs may make the situation so different from any previous world wars. That is due to loss of belief in life after death. Soldiers, terrorists and martyrs may be spurred on by thought of a reward in an afterlife.