What a dream (of 'human fulfillment') this woman was fortunate enough to have lived, and apparently to the fullest in every respect – vita activa, then vita simplex et contemplativa. I imagine Spinoza (or even Nietzsche) would have admired her ...

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57399288

:death: :flower:

Thinking of following the example and retiring to the vita simplex et contemplativa yourself then?

I'd like to think I already have.

That's an interesting story of a nun. Funnily enough, when I was a teenager I knew a couple of girls who really wished to become nuns. I think it was almost a romance, and they ended up having extramarital affairs and getting pregnant. I often wonder where they are now, as I wonder about the boy I knew, who introduced me to Jung and Freud, but declaring that he wished to die within 5 years when he was 16.

Anyway, I am out reading a book on transpersonal psychology and philosophy, including a few chapters on lucid dreaming. I just logged onto my phone and was glad to see that my thread has not died yet. Anyway, I hope that you and others continue, in any form of discussion which is helpful, because when I write threads I see them as having potential for all kinds of thought and speculation, way beyond my initial ideas.

I sent a reply to Proof, but I am also glad to see that you are still engaged in discussion on the thread too. I do believe that there is more to discuss about dreams. At the moment, I am reading on the transpersonal school of philosophy, and I wonder if you have read much in this direction?

At the moment, I am reading on the transpersonal school of philosophy, and I wonder if you have read much in this direction? — Jack Cummins

To be quite honest, transpersonal philosophy or psychology to me tends to evoke the image of school leavers going off to India to fill the ashrams, babble about “shakti” and “chakras” and ingest rather too many substances of the kind I would advise even my worst enemies against. In other words, what 180 referred to as “New Agery”. For some reason Jung’s advice against dabbling in Eastern spirituality (I think it was in Yoga and the West) that I read a few years back has never left me.

I have read some stuff by Wilber but it sounds very much like Advaita Vedanta coached in Western jargon and I usually prefer to go to the sources than have them interpreted for me by self-styled “gurus” and “experts”. Other than that, if it has anything to add to Plato and Plotinus, I don’t mind having a quick look at it, time permitting. 180 apparently has a degree in psych so maybe he knows more about it.

I feel that you are probably not aware of a whole tradition of thought which draws upon the past, including writings such as John of the Cross on the dark nights of the soul, and many divergent trends from various disciplines. I do see the whole area as being comprised of many perspective from the past and the present.

I have deep respect for psychology, but in the last five years, I am sure that I have met over a thousand people with psychology degrees. Some are much wiser than others. I engage with @180 Proof on a regular basis, and I do think that his ideas are extremely helpful, especially in enabling me to think critically about the 'woo woo' areas of philosophy.

I also think that you have made an extremely unusual but valid contribution to the consideration of ideas on this site. Indirectly, it was you who drew attention to Plato's 'Phaedro' which is probably ranked as the most important discussion on this site in recent times.

As for myself, I am interested in philosophies ranging from the ancient to the ones arising within the current times. I am interested in most traditions of current thought, but I may be the only person interested in the tradition of transpersonal philosophy. I may give up communicating on this forum at all, because sometimes it feels as though the agenda is just about the question of whether God exists or not. I believe that there is so much more to discuss, in terms of human experiences, and the possibilities of experience. I have an interest in philosophies ranging from the ancient Greeks to the ones of our times, and my main reason for continuing to engage on this site is the dialogue of all these ideas.

However, I am extremely interested in how dreams come into play in all of this, ranging from the personal, to the wider panorama of the human condition. But, I am not sure that the whole discussion can be based on philosophy of the ancients, and dismissing the ideas which have occurred in the last century. Saying that, I am sure that many on this site, probably see dreaming as being of so little significance for philosophy at all.

I am interested in most traditions of current thought, but I may be the only person interested in the tradition of transpersonal philosophy. — Jack Cummins

I'm not saying it isn't interesting. And of course I know of John of the Cross and others. The problem is that this is a field of knowledge that has been largely neglected by science and even by mainstream psychology with the result that when you discuss these issues it tends to sound like "New-Age speak" which puts some people off or gives the impression that it doesn't belong on a philosophy forum, especially one with strong materialist (not to say anti-spiritual) inclinations. This applies particularly when addressing personal experiences.

I am probably interested in what has been neglected, and that is probably why I feel demoralised at times at the forum, even though do get a fair amount of responses. However, I have just started a new thread for better or worse, and I may be my own worst enemy. I sometimes throw myself into the deep end, and ask all sorts of almost impossible questions...

I may give up communicating on this forum at all, because sometimes it feels as though the agenda is just about the question of whether God exists or not. — Jack Cummins

It's always seemed to me that the question What is the real? persists unavoidably because it frames all other questions insofar as they (absolutely) presuppose it. Philosophical discourse reflects on its "ground rules", so to speak, even as philosophers strive to raise probative questions without begging them and thereby gradually unlearn irrational (i.e. self-immiserating) habits. In other words: Is the real "God", "gods" or godless? and the ontological, axiological & epistemological implications of these aporia, respectively. In the end, one decides on which aporia ("ground rules") to commit to, as much on that philosophically comparative basis as on an existential-exigent basis.

Logos confronting, or reflecting on, mythos (but within the hermeneutical context of mythos) was once the grounds for doing philosophy and, I think, still is; otherwise, Jack, why bother? For me, and I suspect you too like most others here, the so-called "alternatives" – pseudo-intellectual "guru self-help" sophistries – amount to nothing more than philosophical suicide (Camus) aka "wankery".

I am glad that I am still getting replies in this thread, but I have just got home so I will reply tomorrow.

I know that at times I may come across like as going in the direction of 'self-help guru', but I hope that is not only what I am about. I am interested in 'logo reflecting on mythos' as a ground but just come from strange angles. But, I don't want to be a 'philosophical suicide', and I guess 'a rock'n'roll suicide' may be better.

I think that I have probably been writing on the site a bit too much, and I think that it is because I used to have a job and, now, I don't really know how to channel my energies. I am looking for work daily, and get rather despondent. Perhaps, I would be better just listening to music, or dreaming...

I understand. Always more music, philosophy is optional. Good (job) hunting.