Can you articulate at all what is the distinction between inner and outer? It is one of those things that seem so obvious until one tries to specify... I am sympathetic to the idea, but then it sometimes seems as if it is, contrariwise, the concern with 'Boredom, Anxiety and Freedom,' that is the problem of the modern.

I agree that the distinction between outer and inner reality is not absolute. Even when we are alone we can perceive the outer reality of our own body. However, the most simple way of thinking about inner reality is about shutting our eyes and being in silence. Of course, even then, we have memories of sensory world. However, I do believe that there is a significant inner world and an example of this would be the realm of dreams and imagination.

The quote I offered was from a modern text but I do believe that the reality of the inner world has existed for all human beings at all times.

Extra: Bearing in mind your question, I have added 'Inner Space' to my title because that is probably how I view inner reality.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by inner and outer lives but it seems like you're drawing a distinction between study of our minds (inner) and study of the world to the exclusion of the mind (outer). On this view, psychology, logic, spiritualism, religion count as inner life and science, materialism, engineering, to name a few constitute the outer life.

If this is the correct interpretation of the concepts of inner and outer lives, what might be of interest to you, what's amazing, is that the outer life, to me, seems to be an inner life affair. We turn our gaze outward only to the extent that it aids us in discovering who we, ourselves, are i.e. we want to, let's just say, enrich and enhance our inner life when we engage with our outer life.

I do agree that the interaction between the outer and inner life is complex,. However, at the same I do believe we have distinct inner lives, even if the inner life is influenced by the outer world. You speak of it the two realms as being a focus of study. I would agree but also see the inner world as a source of fantasy, and I am thinking of the realms of exploration of consciousness which does happen in these dimensions.

I mentioned the way in which we are in bodily existence to @unenlightened and I believe that the way in which we exist as bodies is an important interface for distinguishing between the inner and outer aspects of reality. I have found a relevant quote from a Buddhist writer, Geshe Kelsang Gyatso. He says, 'If we correctly identify and negate the inherently existent body, the body that we normally see, and meditate on the mere absence of such a body with strong concentration, we shall feel our normal body dissolving into emptiness,'

If I start to meditate, or even just sit quietly I can grasp something of this emptiness. Also, when I have tried meditation, although I mostly improvise on various techniques, I do find that sometimes I can begin to voyage into inner space. It seems to me that this dimensions of experience is so different from experience in the external world.

Can you articulate at all what is the distinction between inner and outer? — unenlightened

Perhaps the inner is what defines the purpose of an otherwise inherently purposeless outer. Purposeless with the exception of creating purpose for the inner. Or something cliched like that.

Inner life being self-worth, sense of personal identity, values, beliefs, motivation, drive, that sort of thing?

Outer life being how they all interact with the inner lives of others? Or like mentioned discovery and exploration.

Perhaps the inner is the sole commentator on the most important of the five Ws. The only one qualified enough to answer the "why", while the outer answers the remaining four.

Thoughts? Maybe?

fantasy — Jack Cummins

:up:

That's a fine piece of philosophical analysis by my standards. You drew a distinction between inner and outer lives and I should've immediately caught on regarding what you meant but I didn't. The inner life and outer life should be like NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria) - there should be nothing or little in common between the two and fantasy and imagination seem to be the right place to start in order to make this distinction of inner and outer lives. After all, our fantasies, our inner lives, usually don't correspond to anything in our outer lives. The two are distinct in this sense. I suppose all of us do create and live part of our existence in fantasy worlds where we have total freedom to do whatever we want. The outer life isn't like that - we have to restrain ourselves, control our impulses, conform to standards, and the like.

Reminds me of solipsism, computer simulation, even god. We play every character, the environment and setting down to every last detail is entirely our choice and we have the power to create and destroy at will in worlds we fantasize about. Such freedom is unavailable in our outer lives.

I do find that sometimes I can begin to voyage into inner space. It seems to me that this dimensions of experience is so different from experience in the external world. — Jack Cummins

Shall we call it subjectivity? It is dubious ground you voyage to. One can declare it the source of all meaning and the answer to 'why?' , and another declare it fantasy, solipsism and madness. There seems to be no authority, no settlement to be reached.

Or is it the case, and it is just a suggestion, that what is agreeable, what can be settled, and indubitable, is that exact emptiness, groundlessness, and silence, that is the answer to all the 'whys'? That in the end, whatever might be held to be the content substance and furniture of the inner world is indeed fantasy and nonsense, and as one enters the void, the void enters the world as oneself. And the cessation of thought, and the ending of identification is the emptiness that leaves room for something new, and that is freedom.

Beware though of materialised subjectivities.

I think that fantasy is one of the most central aspects of life. I am talking about daydreaming, but also fantasy as a source for developing ideas and images. I believe in the importance of what Jung described as active imagination. It is a source for the arts and my reference to inner space is based on my interest in science fiction and fantasy writing.

There is much discussion in philosophy about the tension between emotion and reason. However, I see the tension between fact and imagination as just as important. I do not believe that truth is simply about facts, partly because it is possible to build up facts to support our views. I believe that fantasy and imagination are central to thinking.

Perhaps reason and fantasy correspondence with the distinction between right and left brain thinking. In an article called, 'The Laurel and Hardy Theory of Consciousness, ' (1979) Colin Wilson, who drew upon the research of Ornstein, spoke of the left hemispheres as the 'other self.' He spoke of the 'exciting' implications of this, saying, 'the powers of that "other self" are far greater than we realise, and yet that they might nevertheless be accessible to consciousness control.' So, perhaps we need to tap into these powers.

I do believe that philosophy should not be about encouraging reason alone.

I have just said to the Madfool that I do believe that the world of the imagination should not be dismissed by philosophers.

I pointed to the importance of left brain thinking and as I read your post I am thinking how spiritual teachers spoke of the left and right path. The left was seen as fraught with dangers. In particular, the use of drugs for intoxication were forbidden.

However, in philosophy, perhaps we need some left brain thinking, and I am not talking about intoxication. It could be that philosophy has gone too far in right brain reason and that it needs some left brain thinking to restore balance.

Well, the way I see it, we need to frame our two powerful abilities - memory and imagination - in a temporal context. Memory accesses the past and imagination "accesses" the future; what we've learned is in our memory and this knowledge, relevant aspects of it, is applied in the present after a desired future state has been imagined. Our imagination thus can generate multiple alternative realities and although, as I'm inclined to believe, this may largely be about planning a desired future state, it also gives us the ability to create wholly new mindscapes or fantasy worlds populated by Alice in Wonderland type of characters. with their own set of rules that can be and, in my case, have been, radically different from what we know as reality.

I do not wish to go down an Alice in Wonderland philosophy path but I think that the present path of reason is often arriving at antinatalism and nihilism.

In the article I mentioned, Colin Wilson spoke not simply of the left side of the brain, but the integration of the two saying,
'The left-right view of the human entity gives altogether firmer grounds for optimism about man's future. It suggests that our real trouble is not that we are at the mercy of sinister dark forces, but that we are enfeeebled by a completely unjustified lack of self- confidence.'

I do agree that the inner life can enable us to keep hold of a sense of purpose, because it is too easy to get overwhelmed by the path of reason, as it often seems to lead to deadend.

I do not wish to go down an Alice in Wonderland philosophy path — Jack Cummins

You said you're interested in "...science fiction and fantasy writing" Anyway, have a good day. I'll call it a day.

Yes, I will call it a day as well, but I want imagination in philosophy but I want the fantasy to stay in fantasy and science fiction.

I am not a big fan of Alice in Wonderland and prefer the more futuristic aspects of fantasy and steampunk. I am not trying to be contradictory, but I would say that crossovers of disciplines and genres are exciting territories.

I agree that the distinction between outer and inner reality is not absolute. Even when we are alone we can perceive the outer reality of our own body. However, the most simple way of thinking about inner reality is about shutting our eyes and being in silence. Of course, even then, we have memories of sensory world. However, I do believe that there is a significant inner world and an example of this would be the realm of dreams and imagination. — Jack Cummins

I do not believe there is any real or definable boundary between inner and outer, so the attempt to establish such a distinction would be fruitless. However I do believe that there is a valid distinction to be made in direction, towards the inner, and towards the outer. This would mean that there would be some usefulness in classifying actions this way. But we would need some principles as to what constitutes toward the inner and what constitutes toward the outer. I would think that it would be similar to understanding the flow of time. Some actions go with the flow, and some go against the flow.

You might be interested in Joshs' radical temporality:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9913/introducing-the-philosophy-of-radical-temporality

I think that part of the complicated of understanding how inner and outer levels of experience work together is that while we may perceive others as aspects of outer reality, these others also experiencing their dialogue between inner and outer reality.

I think that the flow between inner and outer can be seen as flowing inwards and outwards. We take in information and generate it in our psyche.

Please note: As I was writing this, I received your link, which you think is relevant. Thanks for this, so I will look at it and reply at a later point.

Thanks for the link and I am sure that the theory is a good framework but what I am interested in is a bit different. I am more interested in the experiential level of understanding in philosophy.I am not saying that theories for understanding the way we understand are irrelevant to this but do believe that we can look within as a source for knowledge and a more direct encounter.

Possibly, my approach is more in line with Eastern approaches to philosophy. I am not trying to say that we should not dialogue with others or understanding the history of philosophy. What I am saying is that the inner dimension, which some might dispute as existing in it's own right, is a source for imagination and connection with a certain kind of engagement with knowledge or self knowledge. But, I am not trying to suggest a withdrawn person struggling alone with the questions of philosophy, but drawing from intuition and imagination, which get forgotten and ignored sometimes.

What do others think about the finding of the reality within? — Jack Cummins

Well, where else would we find it — we are real, existing within reality, no? immanent and embodied, right? 'closer to you than your own jugular' ... I don't see how indulging in introspection illusions (i.e. navel gazing) gets one any closer to reality ... any more than gulping seawater gets a fish closer to the sea.

I
I see your introspection illusions link and I do not want to become a navelgazer, or probably, in my case a shoegazer, because I am a bit of indie and psychedelic. I can see the dangers of focusing too much on the inner world. It is not even just about introspection and illusions but even, at its extremes, psychotic delusions.

I am not wishing that we should rely simply on the territory of our own introspection. If anything, I spend a lot of time going into the worlds created by other minds in the books which I read. But probably what I find, is that there is so much theorising, and ,somehow, I feel that we can get lost in the mazes, and lose touch with intuition as a source of wisdom.

:up:

I would say that inner space is an important arena for questioning. It can be a frightening world to explore and perhaps we need to touch base with others, as a way for avoiding the wastelands of subjectivity and difficulties we might find in searching for answers.

It is sometimes useful to search for answers within oneself, but also useful to compare with others and see our own exploration within its historical and cultural climate. The searching can be personal but also universal, because each person is confronted by the dilemmas of philosophy in some way.I do not believe that philosophy is a pure academic pursuit but one which draws upon the principles of reason and academic study, but it is also a personal search for meaning and truth.

I wish that I could find or offer easy answers but, unfortunately, it is not that simple and one question often leads to another. But, I am not saying it is all futile, and perhaps the philosophy quest is the most ultimate one in life, and the writings of the philosophers are the testimonies, nothing more and nothing less, and there is no one who can claim that their own inner truth is superior.

I would say that inner space is an important arena for questioning. It can be a frightening world to explore and perhaps we need to touch base with others, as a way for avoiding the wastelands of subjectivity and difficulties we might find in searching for answers. — Jack Cummins

Following 180proof, I'd want to say that maybe we should question the assumption that looking inside, inner space, introspection etc... is even a way to get answers to questions about meaning, identity and the like.

I am not wishing that we should rely simply on the territory of our own introspection. If anything, I spend a lot of time going into the worlds created by other minds in the books which I read. But probably what I find, is that there is so much theorising, and ,somehow, I feel that we can get lost in the mazes, and lose touch with intuition as a source of wisdom. — Jack Cummins

I agree with this, you and I are located in a specific place with a specific context for which other peoples thoughts won't necessarily be all that relevant or applicable. For navigating your world your own thoughts and intuitions would typically be more suited, and there is indeed a danger in drowning them in other peoples thoughts when you spent a lot of time with those. But I wouldn't conflate relying more on your own intuitions and instincts with introspection or 'looking inside'. They come to you as you interact with the world, and are geared towards you interacting with that 'external' world... you don't need to go looking for them inside. In fact I think deliberately looking for them via introspection will mostly only fracture them in a self-reflective hall of mirrors.

I think that the danger is probably in looking too hard for answers in the inner world. The process needs to involve a certain amount of spontaneity and reflection on others' points of view. But, personally, I do see some kind of meditation practice as important for bringing my mind to the right state of awareness in order to think with clarity.

The 'inner world" is what happens only if we allow it to happen. Unlike operations that happen with other people, our personal experiences have no avenues of escape. Accepting that isolation is a body of work. A person goes through the trouble of paying attention to what is happening to them as they try to do this or that. It is difficult to speak generally about those kinds of choices.Socrates tried to address this problem.

But there are other ways to look at it. Acquiring skill is not just becoming a better dancer. If what I experience shows me what is happening to other people, then the trick that helps me is connected to other events in a manner I don't understand.

I think that part of the complicated of understanding how inner and outer levels of experience work together is that while we may perceive others as aspects of outer reality, these others also experiencing their dialogue between inner and outer reality. — Jack Cummins

The problems arise when we try to establish a boundary between inner and outer. We say that other people, and all sorts of external objects are definitely outer. So I tend to think that anything outside my body is outer. However, when thinking with the conscious mind as the point of perspective, I start to see my hands and feet, and things like that as outside my mind. And I see them with my eyes and this only tends to confirm that they are outside. Then I start to get inclined toward dualism and see my whole body as outside my conscious mind. Now I have no place to draw the boundary, because I've lost track of where the inner could possibly be, and I need something to validate the very idea of a distinction between inner and outer.

I do agree that it is best if we do not try to establish a clear boundary between inner and outer reality. There have been times when I have looked out at my body and the world and slipped into dualist thinking, as if my mind was detached from my body and the world in general. What made matters worse was reading books on astral projection as this led me to see my mind travelling off in adventures of its own.

My initial idea for creating this thread was that in a discussion on art in another threa I agreed with someone, saying that I did not like the word 'spiritual' any longer. The reason why I said that it is seemed to me that the concept of spiritual is too neat and tidy, as well as too traditional in its connotations. However, having said that I didn't think in terms spiritual, I felt that perhaps I was dismissing a whole dimension of life, inner reality.

I went on to think how this whole aspect of life is so central to life: thinking and reflecting, the arts and sciences and most aspects of life. But I would not suggest that we see it as separate from outer aspects of existence, because I do believe in a holistic approach.

Saying that, my own interest lies in the area in between philosophy and psychology, as conveyed in my interest in the work of Carl Jung and I am also interested in mythology and shamanic views of reality. I believe that these spheres of thought, and symbolic aspects of truth, are often pushed out of philosophy whilst they offer valuable insights as an alternative realm to that of concrete facts derived from the objective, material world. I am not simply trying to find a theory to understand it, but to encourage the philosophers to explore this realm.

So why do we refer to a distinction between imagination and sense perception in terms of outer and inner? Well, for one thing, our ordinary concept of space is based on geometrical logic. From that vantage , the person is an object within a surrounding. Thought is located inside that object and sensory perception enters from the outside. Of
course, embodied enactivist approaches to cognition insist that thought is not inside the head. It is a embedded in the body and extended into the world as an interaction.

But another sense of the inner-outer distinction, one that may be more relevant for this discussion, is between exposure to novelty and recycling of already-existing knowledge. We tend to think that in dreaming, with access to ‘outer’ stimulation cut off, all that can happen is a reshuffling of existing concepts in the head.

But, as phenomenology points out, there is no exposure to ‘raw’ external stimuli. The ‘ outer’ comes to us already interpreted , filtered and directed by the ‘inner’. Meanwhile, reflective contemplation, dreaming and imagination is perhaps the richest source of access to truely new worlds.

One is alive in a place where things are happening in real time. The singularity of that event can be modeled in various ways. There is much to be gained through comparing the stories with each other.
But this is our only time under the sun. The inner and the outer better have something to do with each other in my generation because that is all I have got.

I agree that the inner world can enable reflective contemplation, dreaming and imagination, and 'the richest source of access to truly new worlds.'
However, beyond that it our basic form of being and processing.

I am not wishing to underplay relationships with others, but in all aspects of life the inner world is central. We have to internalise the outer experience to process it, in order to connect with others and relate to our surroundings. The inner world is also the source of appreciation, enjoyment and ways of engaging with other beings in a meaningful way.