Oh dear. An unfortunate reminder of Trump's Proud Boy order of 'stand back and stand by' — Amity

It was meant as a positive echo to a negative order. Down tools and get out of the way for a while.

I am becoming increasingly concerned with American politics. It sickens me. — Amity

Not theirs alone, either! Don't look east or southward!
Yes. We keep watching You Tube, as one would a million-car collision in slow motion, hardly able to believe what's become of the nation that gave us All in the Family. This election is close? As Alan Shore used to say in his closing arguments: How can this be? How can this be!?
My current theory is solar flares. They're driving the world's population mad. It's incremental, because organisms have different levels of susceptibility. There will still be a few (unfortunate) relatively sane humans when the cats begin to succumb. By then, all the apes, elephants and dolphins and dogs will be at one another's throats.

The gods we care about were first created 2 or 3 millennia ago. — BC

But not for the purpose of explaining thunder and lightning because they didn't know science.
I don't actually care what each believer believes or pretends to; only about how they treat other people. I don't actually care whether they think their god created evil, condones evil or is evil; I only care whether they do evil. Because I don't think evil has anything to do with gods or faiths: it's a human concept, a human attribute.

You mean this sarcastically? — schopenhauer1

Not at all. I simply mean that any merit there may have been in distinguishing the purpose and function of organized, civilized religions from grass-roots, primitive religions has been lost in the Judeo-Christian history and is no longer relevant.

I concede. All general comments on the nature of organized religions hereby withdrawn.

However, the Bible itself in the context of why/when it was written, contradicts some of that. — schopenhauer1

Every religion differs in some respects from all the others. And every state religion nevertheless supports the hierarchy. Chastising a king is not the same as advocating for a republic; they just want a new and stronger king, once they've had time to recover and regroup. That happens in most nations from time to time.

The Bible was written when Israel and Judah were defeated, and Judah was reconstituted as a small province under the satraps of the Persian Empire. — schopenhauer1

Parts of it were written then.
The main difference between the religion of Judah/Israel and all the others is that no other nation's scribe-recorded chronicles ended up as the Holy Book of a very different, much more powerful nation.
That was a fluke, which also influenced the evolution of Jehovah, from tribal deity to Lord Of the Universe. But his most powerful churches never stopped supporting the earthly power structure.

But you mentioned a purpose, and I gave you some purpose(s) from the many layers. — schopenhauer1

Yes, you supplied some specifics that I hadn't known, and I appreciate it.

However, they were along the way creating an identity outside the original context of a kingdom-state. It was also creating from the ashes of destruction a way of uniting a nation without state, or without a king at least. — schopenhauer1

In that instance. Which supplied a nice underpinning for the eventual king-making power of the RCC, and the theocracies of Islam.

I was referring to the general purpose common to all organized religions - which, of course, began as state religions - which was to reinforce the authority of whoever was already in power, and ensure the continuity of the regime.
E.g., as noted above, the divine right of kings as a doctrine, and then the custom of archbishops anointing kings - lest they forget which side their power is buttered. Without the clergy and its revenue-generating carrot, they would have to rely on expensive the military stick alone.

We could probably trace a similar history for the pantheons of all civilizations.
They didn't all need the series of prophets predicting a very predictable conquest by a much bigger power and blaming the disobedience by their king to of god's edicts. So, the god is secure, and the nation will be okay under the guidance of the priesthood ... nothing self-serving there!

On the one hand, we created God so we can know everything about God. — BC

Which "we" is that? I had no part in the creation of any gods. My only sources of information are documents written by men, long dead, about gods they may or may not have had some part in creating. All I know about their gods is what they tell me, and that's far from everything.

Thus we can have it both ways: When it is convenient, we know what God wants, doesn't want, what God likes, what God hates, etc. Or, when it is convenient, God can be an unknowable mystery. — BC

That "we" not only excludes myself, but the majority of people. Who has it every way they want are the manipulators of faith and credulity; the manipulated have no such power.

The millennia-long dead authors of god-tales were likely in great earnest. They lived in a pre-scientific world where there was a lot of unexplained, unexplainable events that needed some sort of explanation. — BC

I very much doubt that was their motivation. I allow that as part of the motivation of people who made up stories of origin and causation in the unrecorded eras before writing. But by the time of clay tablets, papyrus and alphabets, civilizations were hierarchical and stratified; there was rulership and obedience, law and punishment.
Scripture was purposeful. Obviously, the authors incorporated all the elements of myth, legend and traditional folklore as an institutional religion would carry - and they themselves may even have believed some or most of it. That didn't prevent them depicting the hierarchy of their pantheons as a reflection of their own realms, or identifying the deities with their own ruling class, or setting out divine laws that serves the good order of their own social system.
I don't call that cynical, exactly, but neither is it the kind of organic belief system that evolves along with the people who operate in it. Organized religion, with a king-god on top and expediters, enforcers and interpreters below is imposed on a people from above.

Remember that the Bible was not, after all, written by the Holy Spirit in one go. It's a collection of diverse narratives for various purposes--NOT a unitary whole. — BC

From what other sources can we learn the nature and desires of God?

BTW - I believe women who have either pets or children or both should rule the world for a while. Nobody else eligible to run for any administrative or head of government department position for the next 20 years.
Then we can review.
I love and respect many men, but it's time for them to stand down and stand back.

I don't think it unusual for people to wonder as to the benefits of Philosophy as an academic discipline. — Amity

I don't question the value or benefits of the academic application. In fact, that's what I was trying to say: in the educational setting, philosophy becomes systematic and disciplined and that the orderly academic mindset renders it useful.
I don't think Philosophy is a discipline in any other context. Or that it was ever unified in its aspirations or significance until academics packaged it. In any other setting, it's just a lot of disparate thinkers, thinking out loud.

As to Philosophy serving a 'social function'...what is that exactly? Whose philosophy? — Amity

Each disparate opinion is published in a given time and place. It may sway public opinion in that society, or make a deep impression on someone who then becomes a leader. It may and even influence legal and legislative decisions in the near future, and in related cultures. It may influence contemporary thinkers and future ones. That's hit-and-miss; some philosophies sink without a trace; some valid observations are denied or vilified.
As an academic discipline, philosophy is far more powerful. It familiarizes intelligent young people with different ways of thinking, of regarding the world and their fellow humans. Each student is likely to be more heavily influenced by one or another of the philosophers they study, according their own leanings, but whichever it is will have articulated a world view - and thus illustrated for the student how it's done.
Of course there is no guarantee that every student will emulate the thought process of their role model, rather than rely on quotes from him to carry their arguments, but at least every student who takes a philosophy course is given the opportunity to think more deeply and widely. Whatever they do in the world afterward is bound to have an effect on their society.

According to common belief, evil is one of the reasons people abandon faith in God as an omnibenevolent and all good being. — Shawn

Could you have faith in a being who does not make direct contact with you, does not manifest in any way you recognize, is described differently by every cult, each of which has has profound and irreconcilable internal contradictions?
Can you believe in an an omnipotent, omnibenevolent being who not only condones but creates evil? Then, too, as humans have developed a pretty healthy concept of evil themselves, would you continue to have faith in a fabled being whose mythology depicts him as performing and promoting acts that most humans consider evil?

High quality steel can be made into a fork, a knife, a plate or even a plow. The steel would be the essence, the substance of the object. — Sir2u

Okay. I have no problem with substance, which is just raw material. Everything that has a physical form has substance. Why raise that to some kind spiritual level?

When we talk about people, "He is essentially a good person", we talk about the things that make him good. — Sir2u

Which is not about substance. Good or bad, a person is made of biomass. But is that what you mean by essence? Is it the person's essence you're discussing or the essence of goodness - which has no physical substance? In that sentence, 'essentially' is used in the sense of 'basically'; at the foundation of his personality - which also has no physical substance. 'Essence' is non-material attribute. I see no reason to stick it on inanimate objects.

It's easy to see the connection between poetry and song lyrics. But can that be translated to sound, notes and chords? — Amity

Beethoven took a pretty good stab at it. Vivaldi didn't suck, either.

Stealers Wheel ~ Stuck In The Middle With You — Amity

I can't see or hear that in any context except with the image of Jane Fonda and Lily Tomlin (Are they not the most amazing women??) in that comedy series - not always in the best taste.
I like many song lyrics - perhaps my favourites are by Simon and Garfunkel, because they supplied the score for my youthful yearnings and heartbreaks. The first record I ever owned was a single Sounds of Silence, a gift from a friend who also felt very much on the fringes of high-school culture. A bright, sad Welsh boy, a poet.

How true is it that: 'the novel can now do for us what philosophy once aspired to'. — Amity

While I fancied that that understood where some philosophers were coming from, and what they were having a go at, I never figured out whether Philosophy as a whole intended or aspired. As a 'discipline', I think it's purely academic, because it takes a pedagogue's orderly mind to make a system of it; in the wild, it's quite undisciplined. Does it serve a social function? Some branches do; some practitioners do so deliberately and self-consciously, while some, I'm a little afraid to say aloud in this environment, seem to me no more than cloud-gazing and verbal calisthenics.

Novels, on the other hand... I'd rather say fiction, because it ought to include drama, has many origins and purposes and social functions. Some of it, obviously, is also cloud-gazing and verbal calisthenics, some is philosophical, A fair amount is mythologizing of a people's self image; a good deal of it is social commentary (which may have been Plato's objection to the dramatic poets of his time; they were successful rivals for what he regarded as his territory... or maybe not; I didn't know him well enough to judge) and even more is just crowd-fodder, created to entertain or frighten or titillate briefly and then fade away. The best fiction combines philosophy and social commentary, edification and intellectual stimulation in an entertaining form. (At least, that's what some of us aspire to.)

Well, it's confusing, that's for sure! Are they on the moon? If so, what's a river estuary doing there?
How come the environment suits are described in more detail than the ruins the people are investigating?
If something was constructed, rules of mathematics and architecture had to apply. Our knowledge of buildings is that they are constructed by living entities for specific purposes. The conclusion is entirely unwarranted by the scant information you've supplied.
Perhaps if you could point to some features that suggest inorganic growth, such as the formation of crystals and snowflakes.... but those are geometrically perfect, so that's no solution. An organic but undirected development, like a coral reef, could be a good example - but it requires living organisms.

I don't see how you can make it work on the present premise.
However, the idea of ruins on the moon or on Mars pointing to long-ago alien habitation, that could be the start of a good story.

Would that not depend on the definition being used for 'essence'? — Sir2u

If it were a food flavouring, yes. I suppose you can apply it to a tool, meaning either its character (function, rather than personality) or its substance (what it's made of and how it's made). But how would that be distinct from purpose or nature?

An artefact such as a letter opener has an essence before it exists, for a human being must have conceived it before it came into existence, and this conception is the essence or nature of the thing. — Jedothek

That is the purpose and utility of the thing. It has no 'essence' and its nature is determined by its design, the material from from which it was made and the skill with which it was crafted.

Since there is no God, there is no one to conceive humanity before it exists, thus the human being has no nature before he ... exists. — Jedothek

He has no pre-designated purpose or utility. His nature is determined by the material from which he is made, the environment and evolution that produced him.

If God does not exist, brutes also have no nature before they exist — Jedothek

They, too are products of environment and evolution; they also have no pre-designated purpose or function.

Therefore, he is free to do has he chooses. — Jedothek

Within the confines of his physical nature, his needs, his condition, his environment and his capabilities. Both he and the beast are constrained in the same ways.
Nature is dependent neither on God nor on Sartre.

Someone will always open the basement door. You can count on it. — Nils Loc

So frickin' true! What a species!

I always tell the protagonist in a horror movie or thriller to stay the hell out of that basement; I yell and swear at them, but they never listen. God probably feels the same way sometimes.

Do you have a cogent argument for how it becomes the case that any creature could begin thinking about their own previous thought and belief? All timekeeping presupposes that. — creativesoul

I did include a citation about biological clocks. I don't see how that presupposes or requires 'thinking about own previous thought and belief'. Yet another caveat added in order to exclude other species.

As best we can tell, time keeping practices were existentially dependent upon naming and descriptive practices. — creativesoul

From what can you tell that? Stonehenge? Obelisks? Athens' Tower of the Winds? They don't say much, except that humans have been keeping public time since the beginning of civilization. those practices may have been named and described. Before that, humans had to depend on our own sense of when to wake, when to eat, when to move to the summer camp, when to hunt, when to preserve food for the winter. Whether anyone named that or not, we don't know.

Dogs are always in the moment and unreflective. — creativesoul

Now, there is a bald, naked, unsupported statement.
you can have it. I'm done here.

That's only one among many factors, but I understand it really is a deep seated fear for her, and knowing that in particular, I'm not much inclined to challenge her views. — wonderer1

We were the same with my sister-in-law. She had MS and clung to her faith till the very end. We could see that it was a comfort to her and were careful never to challenge it. Even took her to church a couple of times when she was visiting, even though... Well, we took her shopping and brought her KFC buckets, too: whatever made her life a little brighter.

I thought it was the same young woman in both - possibly with father and mother. In a religious community, obviously. If the father had been a bully, she would not have argued with him while she was dependent - you do not talk back! But she might try to assert herself, once she was out of the house. That would also give us a better perspective on why she'd give in to the mother - who had shared in her oppression over the years, and is still under the yoke, to which she has capitulated, while the daughter escaped and carried a burden of guilt for her desertion.

Yes, i think we're probably reading too much into it, bringing too much of our own experience to it. But, what the hay, isn't that what poetry is for?

I do know the other one, too: the drip, drip, drip of guilt, of shaming, of turning your best impulses on you as weapons. — Vera Mont

Sorry to hear that. — Amity

Oh, not directly. My father was a bully, nothing we could do about that. But my mother equipped me with some resistance to the guilt and shame thing. She made fun of it, so my brother and I learned to make fun of it. But I did subsequently witness how it happens to others. Usually through religion, which encases the very young child in a waterproof shell: he's helpless for fifteen years or more. The even more insidious form is smothering 'love' - sustained and unrelenting emotional blackmail.

the young, male doctor couldn't understand or empathize. "But it's only a dog!" — Amity

A Dog for Jesus
(Where dogs go when they die)

I wish someone had given Jesus a dog.
As loyal and loving as mine.
To sleep by His manger and gaze in His eyes
And adore Him for being divine.

As our Lord grew to manhood His faithful dog,
Would have followed Him all through the day.
While He preached to the crowds and made the sick well
And knelt in the garden to pray.
It is sad to remember that Christ went away.
To face death alone and apart.

With no tender dog following close behind,
To comfort its Master’s Heart.
And when Jesus rose on that Easter morn,
How happy He would have been,
As His dog kissed His hand and barked it’s delight,
For The One who died for all men.

Well, the Lord has a dog now, I just sent Him mine,
The old pal so dear to me.
And I smile through my tears on this first day alone,
Knowing they’re in eternity.
Day after day, the whole day through,
Wherever my road inclined,
Four feet said, “Wait, I’m coming with you!”
And trotted along behind.

by: Rudyard Kipling

The same wish goes to that doctor.

However, I find it troubling that it is not even included in the Poetry Foundation website. Only the part concerning the Man. — Amity

That's just wrong! If you're going to print a poem, print the whole thing - else, desist.

And often asks her not to yell

That's the gist of it for me, the power trip. If he 'raises his voice from time to time', it's because she's being obtuse and exasperating; if she does, she's strident or hysterical. I know this story well enough.
I do know the other one, too: the drip, drip, drip of guilt, of shaming, of turning your best impulses on you as weapons.
Yes, it is excellent as two halves of a whole.

Here's one I recall tearing me up in Gr 10 - and each I've come across it since:

There is sorrow enough in the natural way
From men and women to fill our day;
And when we are certain of sorrow in store,
Why do we always arrange for more?
Brothers and Sisters, I bid you beware
Of giving your heart to a dog to tear.

Buy a pup and your money will buy
Love unflinching that cannot lie--
Perfect passion and worship fed
By a kick in the ribs or a pat on the head.
Nevertheless it is hardly fair
To risk your heart for a dog to tear.

When the fourteen years which Nature permits
Are closing in asthma, or tumour, or fits,
And the vet's unspoken prescription runs
To lethal chambers or loaded guns,
Then you will find--it's your own affair--
But...you've given your heart for a dog to tear.

When the body that lived at your single will,
With its whimper of welcome, is stilled (how still!);
When the spirit that answered your every mood
Is gone--wherever it goes--for good,
You will discover how much you care,
And will give your heart for the dog to tear.

We've sorrow enough in the natural way,
When it comes to burying Christian clay.
Our loves are not given, but only lent,
At compound interest of cent per cent.
Though it is not always the case, I believe,
That the longer we've kept 'em, the more do we grieve:
For, when debts are payable, right or wrong,
A short-time loan is as bad as a long--
So why in Heaven (before we are there)
Should we give our hearts to a dog to tear?

Rudyard Kipling - The Power of the Dog

That's an interesting poem. It presents two ways in which people who seek and apprehend a truth are browbeaten and silenced 1. through authority and 2. through social/emotional pressure.

When I was about six, I greatly admired an uncle who could whistle any tune he liked. It was difficult to figure out, but I eventually taught myself the rudiments - got much better, once my permanent teeth came in. My father told me to stop that noise! My grandmother told me that when she hears a girl whistle, the Virgin Mary cries. I'd seen pictures of that soppy woman with her eyeballs rolled up and heart stuck out in front of her tunic, and I thought, "Let 'her cry!" But I sure didn't dare whistle when my father was home.

If Part 2 is disregarded, it's partly because the emotional one is a less compelling reason to desist: the one who has a truth reflect back on the aggrieved person responsibility for their own grievance. Against authority, you have no such recourse.
And partly on aesthetic grounds. The second poem is a little too long and repetitious to make the same impact. It reflect the way that social/emotional pressure may be brought to bear, over time, on a child, but how easily it may be resisted by an independent adult.

Surely a rational reason for friendship turns the friendship into something else - a transactional, conditional relationshiop? — Ludwig V

It is. If you wish to deny that, you can use the excuse of irrationality. Me, I prefer to be befriended, as I choose my friends, for positive qualities and for compatibility of temperament and interest. Friends expect sympathy support and respect from one another; that makes it transactional.
I also terminate a relationship in which I feel cheated, exploited or betrayed. So, yes, it's also conditional.
It's the same with 'falling in love'. Do it irrationally, and you end up falling out again - in the usual case - and Shakespearean tragedy in the worst. In the spectrum between are unhappy marriages and emotionally scarred children, as well as happy accidents where crazy attraction leads a stable relationship.

Surely, the irrational is two-edged - or perhaps, in itself is neither - it all depends on how irrational and what the irrationality leads to. — Ludwig V

There is a line, which may look very faint and fine from some perspectives, between the non-rational (that is, emotional) component of interpersonal relations and the irrational (contrary to reason). Emotions and instinct can augment rational decisions; unreason undermines them.

And then there's Hume claim that "reason is, and ought to be, the slave of the passions" and his fact/value distinction. — Ludwig V

And how did he demonstrate this in his own life?

What is love and how do we know when we are loved? — Athena

There are different types and flavours and degrees of love.
They all begin with regard: some particular person is more significant to us than other people are, for some particular reason. That person is somehow special.
Parental love begins in ego: This is my offspring, my DNA, my legacy. But then the baby becomes a separate individual, who is special because... of its vague unfocused eyes, its ultra-fine hair, its smell, its velvet skin, its tiny hands curling around our finger (that makes most fathers gaga from day 1) its total helplessness and need of care and protection: it makes us heroes. And then love grows and expands in milestones, in challenges, frustrations, accomplishments, hardship and sorrows as the baby grows. Love changes over time, over the development of a new, increasingly autonomous individual. It's never the same from day to day and yet is constant from year to year.

Filial love, fraternal love, friendship, all go though changes over time. But they are all grounded in regard for that other person who is special to you for some particular reason.
Romantic love goes through changes, too. Sometimes it dies young, because its roots were shallow. Sometimes it lasts a lifetime and beyond, because its roots are deep: because the other person is special for reasons fundamental to your own well-being and happiness.

How do you know if you are loved? How does the other person treat you? Do they make you feel small and stupid, or interesting and accomplished? Do they support your ambitions or applaud your failures? Do you trust them with an embarrassing secret? If you called them at 3am because you're stranded at a closed mall due to your own foolishness, would they come to get you?

Oh gosh. That is in dire need of argumentative support. I have no reason to believe that that's true, as written. Bald assertion is inadequate. — creativesoul

It's not all that hairless:

The brain is an efficient machine in orchestrating temporal information across a wide range of time scales. Remarkably, circadian and interval timing processes are shared phenomena across many species and behaviours. Moreover, timing is a pivotal biological function that supports fundamental cognitive (e.g. memory, attention, decision-making) and physiological (e.g. daily variations of hormones and sleep–wake cycles) processes.

Bald assertion conflicting with known relevant facts is completely unacceptable.

Which relevant facts are those? From what source can you be certain that early hominids did not have a sense of time? If they did not, why did they not miss it for so long, and then suddenly, with the onset of civilization, perceive a need to devise instruments for measuring time?

Humans charted stars, planned voyages, recorded seasons and all sorts of other things long before inventing clocks. — creativesoul

Not really. Humans had been been measuring time for quite a while before those other innovations.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/keeping-time-at-stonehenge/792A5E8E091C8B7CB9C26B4A35A6B399

Horology—the study of the measurement of time—dates back to 1450 BC when the Ancient Egyptians first observed the earth’s natural circadian rhythms. They divided the day into two 12-hour periods and used large obelisks to track the sun’s movement.

Planning routines, instead of just being a part of them, is a time keeping practice. Dogs don't do that. — creativesoul

Probably not. But maybe that's because they're constrained by their people's work-leisure schedules, rather than the requirements of nature. The vultures in my area are staging for winter migration, holding exercises to make sure all the year's fledglings are flight-capable. The squirrels are very busy, hiding chestnuts and acorns. It's evening; the raccoons are preparing to forage, the salamanders and chipmunks have retired to their hidden nests. A coyote pack somewhere is assembling for the hunt - I hear their calls - but they must wait till moonrise.

Dogs do not think about their own expectations as a subject matter in their own right. — creativesoul

I only read their actions. You read their minds. Uncanny!

Thinking about one's own thought and belief requires first having them, then becoming capable of isolating them as a subject matter in their own right — creativesoul

But having them doesn't require reflecting on them or isolating them or deciding what their rights may be.
Dogs don't need to do that; they're not riddled with self-doubt.
(that last one is as bald as Patrick Stewart)

No, the dog knows when their human is about to arrive but has no clue what time the arrival happens because the dog doesn't practice timekeeping. — creativesoul

The dog practices timekeeping in exactly the same way humans did before the invention of clocks. The dog knows when it's time to wake people, when it's mealtime, when it's time for various family members to leave the house and arrive home again, what time the newspaper and mail arrive, when it's time to go for an evening walk and when it's bedtime for children.

You neglect some very important distinctions. — creativesoul

These are manufactured distinctions with no meaning that I can attend to.

I know other things, and "this" follows from those things. — creativesoul

Ditto.

Our image of a perfectly, or even just excessively, rational person is not a compliment. The complaint would be that they are emotionless, too like a machine, without understanding of those endearing irrationalities that makes us all human. — Ludwig V

I don't think irrationality - thinking contrary to factual information, as in ideological zealotry, or baseless prejudice, or self-destructive delusion - is particularly endearing. We humans who are supposedly in possession of the only rational mind in the universe, are capable of profound and catastrophic irrationalities. But we don't have to indulge them. Most of the time, most of us respond in rational ways to mundane, practical events and interactions; most of the time most of us make mundane, practical, rational decisions about ordinary matters. Otherwise, all our lives would be in constant chaos. Most of us can be emotional, empathic, kind, compassionate, generous, curious, spontaneous, insightful, irresponsible, angry, sad, confused, frustrated, ignorant, lazy, careless, spaced out, or off on flights of fancy without becoming irrational. Yet all of us get away with being irrational sometimes, because we have strong familial and community support networks, and some of us can be irrational in groups, because they're armed and hard to resist.
Most other animals don't have that luxury.

The rest is available for learning, memory, language, culture, skill acquisition, storytelling, convictions, wealth accumulation, altruism, invention, emotional complexity, deceit, social bonding, philosophy, ambition, superstition, delusion and madness. As well as reasoning and assessment. — Vera Mont

But all that is not rational thinking. Rational thinking requires critical thinking and we would have an extremely short lifespan if all our awake time was also our critical thinking time. — Athena

Reasoning and assessment are rational thinking, that require some degree of critical thinking. So do the accumulation of wealth, invention, skill acquisition and deceit. And yet rich people, academics, scientists and con artists do not have noticeably shorter lifespans than janitors, navvies and assembly line workers, who are not required to expend very much brainpower for their work - and the majority of whom are unlikely to be chess champions or ingenious puzzle solvers in their spare time. I

Yes, it's true that some types of thinking require more energy than others, as complex mental tasks, like problem solving or learning new information, activate more brain regions and demand a higher level of neural activity, resulting in increased energy consumption compared to simpler thought processes like daydreaming or routine tasks.

Indeed. Yet occasional bouts of intense thought don't shorten one's life, though they sometimes lengthens one's afternoon nap or elicit a strong craving for ice cream. Not all critical thinking is complex problem-solving and learning new tasks. A lot of rational thought is simply choosing what to cook for dinner, whether to walk or take the bus, which air conditioner comes with a better warranty, or what to wear for a date? All decisions are either rational or irrational, but only a few are intellectually challenging.
We all need both intensive thinking time and down time. Humans have resources other than critical thought: instinct, intuition, memory, imagination. None of them need to conflict with observed fact or rely on blind faith - iow, we don't need to be irrational in order to daydream or perform routine tasks. We can be irrational, even though we have language and mathematics, access to information we did not personally collect, and critical faculties that we can engage at will.
But that doesn't mean we need to be irrational most of the time, or that other animals can't be rational even though they have no human language, math or databases.

It seems you never surprised yourself with new revelations or ideas impacting you or changing ways of thinking? — Amity

I don't know if I could use the word surprise: for me, change in direction and opinion have been gradual processes, rather than revelations, though I have had the odd little eureka moment when disparate strands of information came together and something made sense.
I was, as mentioned, very lucky in my female relatives - mother, aunts and grandmothers who never made me feel insignificant or deficient. I was lucky to come to Canada when I was young enough to assimilate (that's down to a father who otherwise was not much of an asset), lucky in a good, fair public school system and some wonderful teachers, lucky in the second half of the 20th century. My cohort experience one of the best moments in western history - perhaps the best.

I didn't know you had a Blue Willow Collection. — Amity

I don't. I have a white elephant of a Herendi set. The story begins in England in 1819, soon after Turner and Minton introduced that pattern, with the hanging of the Cato Street Conspirators. One of his daughters inherits the tea service. It travels with her to the New World, and is passed down from mother do daughter.

Is your novel a series of linked short stories? — Amity

No, they're all single continuous narratives, but the last two are told from three different characters' point of view, set in three different locations. That was a new challenge.

I know that it is a good idea to keep a back-up. However, I rarely do this. And it would 'hurt' in terms of time, energy and space. — Amity

I copy everything - now, after I had a couple of good scoldings - including works in progress on a memory stick, so it doesn't clutter up my regular files (which I have enough trouble finding my around.) Techno-klutz, me, but lucky again in my choice of life-mate.

The pins are out — Amity

A call to arms from a comerade usually so mild-mannered and generous cannot but be heeded!

Was it always like this for you? Or was there a time as a beginner when you felt the strangeness and anxiety of finding yourself in your writing?
When the unconscious or subconscious meets the conscious...if you understand what I mean? — Amity

I don't think there was such a time. I made up my first poem before I could write and I told stories to my pets, relatives, playmate and little brother since I can remember. No anxiety at all back then; sublime confidence. As an adult, I often fretted over the right tone, cadence, structure, word choice, concision and precision, but not nothing I can identify as 'finding myself'. I guess I never felt lost or obscure or confused - I even have a pretty good idea where my dreams come from. I've often wondered whether I'm just shallow.

Perhaps you always had a strong sense of identity. In the past, there were no obvious gender issues. And I can see how they aren't a necessary part in a story. — Amity

That's a much more positive perspective. My characters, straight and gay, don't have any doubts of their identity: it wasn't required for the stories, and I wouldn't know how to convey that convincingly.
(I admit, though, that on forums up until this one, I'd been content to let people assume I was male, to avoid the tedious condescension.

However, many strong women fighting for their rights suffered through centuries of well, I won't go on...you know history better than I do. You've lived through it! — Amity

I did some mild activism for the cause - among others. (Nothing courageous. The Greenpeace guys thought my only possible function was to stuff envelopes, make coffee and keep quiet. I didn't stay long.)

What 'Blue Willow' story ? The only story I can recall about a woman is 'Dawn'. — Amity

It's in the same collection with Dawn. A grandmother recounting the 200 years witnessed by a family heirloom. I doubt it would interest anyone but Canadians.

I don't see how there can be no passion or urge involved when it comes to the effort required to research. Or at least, enjoyment. — Amity

The core message can be important - or frivolous - and I do enjoy the process, including research, organizing the material, constructing the plot, and I love stage-setting. I really enjoyed working on sets in amateur theater, as well. I suppose because it crosses media; I like construction, painting and drama.

I'm right with you on organizing humans and human activities. I couldn't be a director, administrator or team leader.

If it is not about your interests, hopes and dream worlds, then what is it? — Amity

Oh, it's always that. I just meant that I don't get so emotionally invested in a story that I agonize over it. It's more an intellectual exercise for me.

I'm thinking of reworking the Blue Willow story to include more details of Canadian women's history as well as more of the narrator's personality. But it's already quite long, and I'm not up for the intensive research a novel would require, so I keep shelving it. No great passion; just weighing options.
Of course, that may be a matter of age: I can't make long-term commitments.

If a literary challenge is presented, poetry or prose, I'd like to participate -- unless it's a format in which I feel hopelessly incompetent.

We owe a lot to our good teachers. I was lucky to have several outstanding ones.

Something a bit like that happened to me on the Gr. 13 English final. They gave us a dozen titles to choose from, one of which perfectly fit a story I was already writing in my head. By the time I finished, there were only a few minutes left for the other questions. I answered less than half of them, and was sure I'd get a lousy mark.
I got 96%. My teacher liked the story so much, she wasn't bothered about the grammar and structure questions. She even invited me to a summer course in creative writing. (Couldn't go; had to get a job. I'm still sorry I missed it.)

I can't imagine writing in anything but solitude. (Except cats; there's always cats around.) I hate being interrupted. But then, my stories are not personal or profound; they're just stories.

I rather liked the poem idea, too, but there may not be enough participants who can both master the form and remain faithful to the spirit. It sounds like quite a challenge.

But a lighthearted story form, or epic poem with no very strict rules of verse structure - I guess I mean an epic doggerel - might be fun, and plain old storytelling is even more accessible. That, I know people around here can do well!