All your thoughts are your own responsibility, and thus due to you. — DifferentiatingEgg

Each person has a world beneath, so-called the subconscious mind. I would say that most of our emotions are rooted in the subconscious mind, since the conscious mind, although in charge of controlling things, is very simple.

To a large extent, living in the 'here and now' may be about dealing with the practical and pragmatic aspects of philosophical awareness. There is so much potential for getting caught up in theory or abstraction. That represents a challenge or distraction from dealing with life in the here and now. Being able to juggle theoretical thinking with the day to day aspects of life may be a fine art, or wisdom based philosophy.

Philosophy often looks at the problem of consciousness, but the idea of the subconscious may get overlooked. It involves layers of memories and conditioned programmes. The subconscious may manifest itself in so many ways, dreams or unexpected conscious experiences. The intricate relationship between subjective experiences, memory and time may be an essential aspect of juggling the here and now with wider, expansive understanding of life and how 'reality' becomes manifest in lived experiences.

One reliable trick I've found for "living in the here and now" is taking care for another.

Philosophy often looks at the problem of consciousness, but the idea of the subconscious may get overlooked. It involves layers of memories and conditioned programmes. The subconscious may manifest itself in so many ways, dreams or unexpected conscious experiences. The intricate relationship between subjective experiences, memory and time may be an essential aspect of juggling the here and now with wider, expansive understanding of life and how 'reality' becomes manifest in lived experiences. — Jack Cummins

Correct.

I do agree about the importance of taking care of another in the here and now. If anything, I see this being more problematic as people live in the virtual online simulated realities, cut off from the raw and ready experiences of others' suffering in the 'here and 'now' of face to face interaction.

The 'here and now' is majorly abstracted in my opinion. Billions of cars on the roads all rushing off. This itself is creating a flow we are to either follow or lose out. I am sincere in thinking that the 'here and now' deserves a bit more stillness, it's hard to see straight at reality for what it is purely; a man made system is overarching into the purity, abstracting the way it's experienced. Animal torture in factory farms or poor farming regimes is another problem, another abstraction. The system you're almost forced into, almost forces you into situations where you support animal suffering. There are plenty more reasons why the 'here and now' is not the place to be, but I put kindly to the purity of the statement.

Perhaps the state of civilization in the present era is not 'here' at all, and is completely oblivious to the 'now'. This is a question for a good judge. Is the state of civilization presently lost? It doesn't seem to be going anywhere apart from what is accepted as an unavoidable extinction, without, and this is the accepted cure, populating another planet.

Yes, live in the 'here and now', but that's a tough life if what I suggest is correct, and that the state of civilization currently is lost. You have a major abstraction and enmity that works against such a lifestyle. I don't agree civilization was meant to be this way. I don't believe we don't have a choice.

My moral argument is that the abstraction of 'here and now' is bad, and potentially evil. I am saying pack up the cars. I am saying stop the rushed farming practices. I am saying we need to fix the system if we are to at all live in the 'here and now.' This is not a question of what system, this is the matter for a good judge--- one who can judge whether humans are living goodly or badly, or evily, given the objective is to survive and to enjoy.

Living in the 'here and now' at present seems a lot like getting a job, working til your 70, buying food, drink and booze and going on holiday. It's not much of a life. The enjoyment of 'here and now' is surely much lesser than what it could be. As opposed to a pure 'here and now', which seems far more bright, where we build things to aid us in survival and enjoyment, far better than where those cars are going or where the job centers are taking us.

You may have a point of how the idea of the 'here and now' may be translated in.practical terms, such as 'get a job'. It can become a philosophy of supporting the status quo, and trying to fit into established repertoires of mundane routines.

I am certainly not trying to reinforce ideas of fitting into the established rebertoires. It may be, alternatively, that the 'here and now'involves aspects of rebellion.

The 'stillness' of the 'here and now' may be about pure reflective moments of consciousness. Going beyond that is another question and where the 'here and now' leads to on a moral basis, other than the ongoing conflicts of juggling differing agendas of importance in values.

:up: :up:

I don’t disagree with you to a certain point I suppose what you're getting at is that there are a large number of certain things determined about us that are out of our control. Though, dare I say that, simply on account of you being here, and engaging with philosophy, that there is some inclination born of strength, to ask forbidden questions, and to know yourself, to understand, and to overcome certain traits about yourself that you may not agree with outright, but that you could find a way to sublimate any of those "evils" you find within yourself into something less destructive, and into your own more creative drives that you do agree with? As a way of accepting all of who you are?

Being able to juggle theoretical thinking with the day to day aspects of life may be a fine art, or wisdom based philosophy

Yeah, both descriptors are reasonable. But regardless of which one we choose (or even a third one), basically you get out of life what you put in. Thus in my experience, it's totally worth the effort to maximize one's chance of thriving in the future, which after all is where we're all going to be for the rest of our lives.

psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (trying to pronounce that name might produce a flow state.)) — Wayfarer

Verbal diarrhoea?

It has taken me several years to control the evils that I have encountered. My depression, which was unbearable for several years, is under control. Evil thoughts are less frequent and they are not as dense and persistent as past. I am doing well with my subconscious mind right now. As a result, I am more creative compared to the past. So, yes, we can manage the hard situation. I am, however, not sure how to divert evils to something useful for me and others. Do you know how to do that?

there is a tyrant within you...that in todays world is seen as despicable...but I say embrace who you are in all of your beauty and in all of your horror, accept yourself wholly. But obviously dont give in to the tyrant. But rather channel that mother effr into your passions.

What is the 'tyrant' within, or the internal saboteur? Is it metaphysical and hoe does it come into play in the dynamics of the moment, as in conjunction with the larger the scale picture of what constitutes 'time' and the idea of 'the eternal', or unchanging?

It’s more of a metaphor I suppose ...
Humans have a wide range of instincts. Left unchecked many of these more aggressive instincts could destroy you like the scorpion that stings itself—recklessness, violence, generalized hostility, pride, domination etc. Though to be certain so too can many of the "selfless" instincts, by giving too much of you away such that you have nothing.

Let's put that aside for a moment, because I want to bring up a point... men like Hobbes, Rousseau, and Locke, have it all wrong. There is no individual before society. Society crestes the individuals. There is no such thing as self-contained individual who come together to form society. Humans always have been social animals.

Organized society/the state doesn't start out with the conception or aim to supress the individual because there simply aren't any individuals. A state produces herd mentality from the get go, humans who can live together, coordinate, and share values and practices. We are not born with fully original drives, but rather we learn them socially. When the bonds of society come into conflict with each other, they begin to disintegrate, this is when individuals become possible through inheriting contradictory impulses, judgements, and experiences that were once coherent in the larger social body. This could be due to various reasons, like witnessing something from another culture/society/nation that seems profound to you, books from other cultures, though also there could be an inclination born of strength, something like skepticism that keeps you from fully integrated within society... these days there is so much "bleeding" through the boundaries with technology this is why some nations attempt to put up a national filter on certain technologies that requires a VPN to bypass. This is why many Americans want that border wall so badly for example to stop the "corruption" that occurs from this culture "bleed through."

Since no culture is really pure-bred anymore we begin to see more and more individuals appearimg on the stage with a variety of values that come from all over the world. But this process of differentiation is a painful process, it creates a certain style of suffering within the individual through the internalized conflict. One either attempts to integrate back into societ and quiet the war within, or one takes to the task of reorganizing and reassimilating to their new individual drives. One who loves freedom, is a warrior. Freedom is the will to be responsible for our "idios." To be ready and willing to sacrifice one’s self for one's "idios." Even at the expense of happiness.

What I mean by the tyrant within are those inexorable and terrible instincts of an individual which challenges the authority of the state/society through their own great discipline. The tyrant, although terrible, like the uncouth barbarian, reigns in their most destructive instincts.

As to the "eternal" consider this passage from Julian Jaynes book on the origin of consciousness, which details this Tyrant within across different ages:

The deep voice was so loud and so clear, everyone must have heard it. He got up and walked slowly away, down the stairs of the boardwalk to the stretch of sand below. He waited to see if the voice came back. It did, its words pounding in this time, not the way you hear any words, but deeper,

. . . as though all parts of me had become ears, with my fingers hearing the words, and my legs, and my head too. “You’re no good,” the voice said slowly, in the same deep tones. “You’ve never been any good or use on earth. There is the ocean. You might just as well drown yourself. Just walk in, and keep walking.” As soon as the voice was through, I knew by its cold command, I had to obey it. . .

The patient walking the pounded sands of Coney Island heard his pounding voices as clearly as Achilles heard Thetis along the misted shores of the Aegean. And even as Agamemnon “had to obey” the “cold command” of Zeus, or Paul the command of Jesus before Damascus, so Mr. Jayson waded into the Atlantic Ocean to drown. — Julian Jaynes, Origin of Consciousness

Speaking from my own experience with this tyramt within, the most effed up part about it all is that the free man, in the here and now, is always a few steps shy of being possessed by this tyrant within. One wars against the tyrant within from allowing it to take completely control, but utilizes him to control and organize the chaos within. In this way, we always are our own worst enemy. But these are the very instincts which creates a warrior, and molds and shapes the free individual. How does this free individual fight what he loves and what he hates (the tyrant)? By accepting all of who he is, in all of his beauty and in all of his horror, by overcoming one's self in their opposite...

I suppose that's enough to answer your question, at least from my perspective.

there is a tyrant within you...that in todays world is seen as despicable...but I say embrace who you are in all of your beauty and in all of your horror, accept yourself wholly. But obviously dont give in to the tyrant. But rather channel that mother effr into your passions. — DifferentiatingEgg

I think we need to understand why the subconscious mind could be so cruel in some individuals. It is partly genetic and partly due to the bad treatment of the conscious mind. We cannot fix the first part, yet we can suppress it according to the leatreatures. For the second part, we need to understand the trouble we have caused to the subconscious mind, trying to heal it.

, I should point out that Nietzsche's philosophy was quite a balancing act, and there are all sorts of aphorisms about living in the here and now, in the "gateway of this moment," by understanding the riddle of eternal recurrence and Amor Fati. One could make several tomes on this from his works and fragments. That's why her refers to systematizers as backworlds men.

I do see your interpretation of Nietzsche's philosophy, especially the idea of 'eternal recurrence' as being helpful in contemplating living in the 'here and now'. His original thinking was of a literal ongoing process of cycles, whereas he later viewed the idea as being more symbolic.

What may have been problematic in the interpretation of Nietzsche is how so much has focused upon his thinking as a critique of Christianity. It was so to a large extent, but it was not just a foundations for nihilism and absence of meaning. If anything, it was a foundation of 'transvaluation of values'. This involves the path of individuation and Zarathrustra's quest could be seen in that context. This, especially in relation to the idea of 'eternal recurrence' can be viewed about framing and creating meaning in the moment.

Although he critiqued Christianity, one of the lesser understood aspects of Nietzsche's philosophy is that he was a bit of a "fan" of the primative Christianity of Christ, prior to the church and the disciples take. In fact Nietzsche subsumes the framework of Christ into the detaila of his noble time. Not the teachings of Christ but the way he operated. We can see from AC 33 and 39 what he subsumes from Christ's framework. Which allows for one to "feel blessed," in the moment.