The shifts between different models of mind and behaviour is where philosophy and psychiatry is an important interface. I have read Jung and I often wonder what is going on my own psyche, as well as trying to understand others' experiences. How causation of thoughts and agency is significant.

Apart from the issue of how a person behaves in response to thoughts there is also the question how does thinking and feeling differ in itself? Feelings may be connected to the body more whereas thoughts with cognitive brain processes. However, the brain and thinking cannot be split off between body and 'mind'/brain as they are interconnected in a dynamic way. This is the case in differing models. In neuroscience, the chemistry of thought is intricate. Within psychodynamic theory, the conscious and subconscious are not completely separate too. But, the understanding of thinking and feeling does differ so much according to perspectives. I wonder to what extent psychiatry training includes philosophical reflection on this complex area.

Evidence about medication is important. It is a complex area because it involves quantitative and qualitative evidence and both subjective experience, as well as observations of others about a person's treatment. With any medication, there is an issue of placebo effects, but this would not explain the full impact of SSRIs as with any other medication. Part of the problem with forms of meditation is that effects do differ from individual to individual, which may say more about what is unique. Advances in neuroscience may help in tailoring medication.

If anything, it may be that medication is being prescribed or sought as a shortcut. I do take SSRI(Fluoextine) medication myself. I requested it when I was feeling very low in mood. If I stop taking it, sometimes I notice a difference and sometimes not. Mood is affected by so many variables, including overalk physical wellness and factors in life.

I am rather surprised that you challenge questioning the medical model. Also, I am not sure about your division between experience as being subjective and behaviour as objective.

As far as the medical model is concerned it is bound up with values, especially of what is 'normal' or acceptable. This involves ideas and what counts as delusions. For example, religious and spiritual ideas. The cultural context is important. Similarly, ideas of acceptable behaviour are socially constructed. The medical model and science are established by underpinning values, rather than being value free.

With difference between experience and behaviour, the fine line may be the interaction between experience and behaviour. Experience includes thoughts and feelings, whereas behaviour is about how a person acts in regard to thoughts and feelings. For example, a person may experience intrusive thoughts of suicide or harming others and what is critical is the perceived risk of a person acting out the intrusive thoughts.

How a person understands experience is important in itself. Interpretation of experience is not merely subjective because it involves others' understanding, which in turn affects subjective experience.

Your reply is important in pointing to the way in which the philosophy of mind is inherent to psychiatry. It may be asked to what extent can the 'cure' be found in the body? It is complex because the brain and nervous system are the centre of experience but influenced by so many factors, especially issues of beliefs and construction of meaning.

Psychiatry may still be seen in a negative light insofar as it involves treatment to 'normalise' people. Often, the medications given have problematic side-effects. Nevertheless, many people do seek medication, especially antidepressants and sleeping tablets. It is often a combination of medication and talking therapies which may help. There is a move towards online therapies and my own feeling is that the online approaches may help some people. Nevertheless, the experience of being listened to by a human being may part of the essential experience of therapy.

The idea of philosophical counselling does sound worthwhile. There was a tradition of pastoral counselling but this was often in conjunction with a religious or spiritual approach to human life. However, idea of philosophical counselling could be much wider into the examination of human values, which would be compatible with the person-centred emphasis on values and human meaning.

Thank you for your detailed reply to the outpost. Often chemical treatments of what is regarded as 'abnormal' are the focus within psychiatry. I am also thinking that differences may occur geographically. I am most familiar with the profession of psychiatry in England. The psychiatrists are trained in medicine initially and often do training in therapy in later training. There was an emphasis on the psychodynamic model developed by Freud and others. More recently, that has shifted towards a cognitive behavioral approach.

The cognitive behaviourist approach does involve a philosophical look at underlying beliefs and the way that they affect emotional life. There is some emphasise on positive aspects of mental wellbeing as opposed to just looking at correcting what is perceived to be 'abnormal'.

I hadn't come across the Boulder model, so thank you for pointing to that. It does seem that Szasz and Laing have lost their influence in the critique of psychiatric practice. There is a focus on critical psychiatry though. Psychiatry is bound up with values about norms or what is considered 'normal'. There are also political aspects of the practice of psychiatry too.

Psychology does draw upon the meaning aspects of understanding experience as well as neuroscience. Of course, there are different schools of thought within psychology. Some emphasise the physical basis of the brain.

Psychiatry is often focused on the way of correcting what is regarded as 'abnormal' through chemical treatments. However, the field of psychiatry often draws upon a bio psychosocial approach, understanding the way in which developmental and social circumstances affect or impinge on psychological wellbeing.

It all comes down to whether gender is seen as a biological given or not. What constitutes being a man or woman? In gender rulings, the problem may be that everything is reduced to how a person is assigned to a gender at birth. There is so much which is so complex, involving both biology and psychology. This may be why non-binary identities are being adopted, in order to overcome clear disturbances..

Many people may see this blurring as a problem. However, identity is complex and individuals may identify differently from assigned and biological sex. To try to fit such identities into the binary of gender distinctions may show the limitations of the binary of gender.

When I have been interacting on the forum, I find that it affects both my conscious experience and dreams. At times, the communication seems more real if I know a little about the person I am communicating with.

At times, I have dreamt that I am interacting on the forum and either disappointed or relieved that the exchange was not 'real'. At one point, I even dreamt that my own threads were rolled up as scrolls beside my bed. The experience of communicating on the forum seems to make philosophy surreal. Previous to that my own philosophy reading felt rather lonely and cut off, so I have felt some validification as a thinker in interaction on the forum. I don't mind the surreal aspect because, in a way all communication is surreal in the sense that communication between others involves imaginary aspects of listening and interpretation.

There is an 'almost giddiness in approaching the question' of my thread. I do see it as connected to Sartre's idea of 'nothingness' and his ideas of existence in body and for others.

When I was reading your thread on the mirror and reflection of narcissism, it led me think about my own mirror experience from when I experimented with LSD a long time ago. Whilst under the 'trip' in a warehouse rave I went to a mirror, expecting to see myself in diabolical form. However, when I looked into the mirror what I saw was all surroundings, including a radiator' but I was not present. It felt like the confrontation with loss of my body, or nothingness. It led me to panic that I would be left in a vacuum of nothingness forever. I had a sense of 'self' but felt detached from the physical world. To what extent did I no longer exist, I wondered. It was a relief when I discovered that I could still communicate with other people, as this seemed to validate my own existence in the world.

Of course, non-existence after having once existed is different from complete non-existence of never existing, but probably only from the standpoint of others who still exist.

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.

The problem is that the contradictions about free speech to address hate speech incites cultural wars. Of course, unexpressed hatred exists as an unconscious subtext to life. Suppression of hostility may lead it to fester but there is the question of whether too much freedom is giving more power to hostile emotions as opposed to seeking common grounds beyond differences. It all seems symptomatic of fragmentation of value systems.

I am glad that you make a connection with my question and life reviews. That is because I was led to this point while ill in hospital a few months ago. I started to experience near-death imagery while my oxygen levels were extremely low. Since that time, while I am not sure that I actually came close to death, I have been reviewing my life and thinking about the impact my existence has made, for better or worse. I worry that I take more than I give, although that is not my intention.

When I was a teenager I tried to do 'good' but felt that I ended up as a dysfunctional 'do gooder'. I try to find the right balance but it is extremely hard, especially when one is out of work and not really part ot a community. So much of the current culture is of socially isolated 'nobodies' who are just struggling to survive in the world.

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?

Yes, there is a lot of scepticism towards scepticism about introspective starting points for philosophy. However; the philosophy of relativism, especially based on quantum physics, calls into question the idea of so-called 'objective' measures. I am not sure to what extent this would call into question the basics of human needs, especially the physiological aspects.

For a while, I have questioned the dichotomy between the 'inner' and 'outer' aspects of human need. It may come back to the question of the 'meat and potatoes' of human existence, and values, or the validity of the inner dimensions of experience, as a basis for philosophical awareness.

What is wrong with the idea of the 'supernatural'? Is it because it is disembodied? I can see the problem of disembodied existence, especially in the form of Plato's idea of the afterlife.

However, I am not sure that embodiment is as simple as as physicalism. I know that you go back to the philosophy of Spinoza but even that may not capture the subtle aspects of the physical or non- physical. I am not sure whether this is captured best in Western or Eastern metaphysics.

I also wonder about the nature of the symbolic and what it stands for. It could be argued that both ideas of God are metaphorical. However, I am left wondering about metaphor and metaphysics. Metaphysics seems more concrete but metaphor seems too reductive. This is how I see the conundrums of the philosophy of myth and religion. In other words, I am not sure what myth and symbols stand for. Anthropology is important but, still, the understanding of the mythological and symbolic aspects of human understanding seems important.

I wonder to what extent 'desire' is about bodily aspects of physiology. There is also the realm of attachments, which may be physical but also based on human aspects of relating. This is not disembodied and, if anything, it is ideas which are disembodied. However, such disembodied ideas are realised by embodied human beings.

The idea of 'desire' as an aspect of evolutionary becoming is interesting because it does show the way in which the physical aspects of existence are part of the pathways of development. Desires may play a significant role in the evolution of consciousness. Desire may be seen as detrimental to life, or it may be seen as the path to expansive awareness. Spinoza argued that if the 'fall' had not occurred there would be no history. Desire, as a bodily aspect of embodiment, may be the essential stepping stone in evolutionary pathways.

I wonder to what extent the idea of 'Know Thyself' is a basis for all understanding, especially the foundation for ethics. How one sees one's own basic needs and issues of desires may constitute the basis for ethical values. Desires may be seen as needs, especially sexual ones and power needs. Alternatively, the 'spiritual needs' may miss the basics of physiological needs. What it means to be human involves the various holistic elements of body, mind and spirit, and how may this be put together as an aspect of ethics and a philosophy of human understanding and wisdom?

I think that you are right to raise this question and it is essential to the thread. That is because self awareness and introspection is at the core of all understanding of personal need. We construct needs introspectively and this is bound up with a personal sense of egoism. It is about looking inwards (and outwards) but, essentially, each person can only evaluate from the phenomenological basis of personal experience. This is about the subjective experience of one's own inner life as a basis for understanding oneself, what matters and the basis of values.

I wonder to what extent the emphasis on the value of hate speech is libertarian humanism turned upside down. It may miss the spirit of civil liberties and freedom by collapsing it into a denial of the human rights and civil liberties, especially of those who are marginalised.

I know that so many oppose 'wokism'. However, this may be about allowing bullying and legitimising forms of oppression in the name of 'freedom to express hate', as a human right. This may end up in a philosophy of denial of human rights, and even a justification of oppression.

I am also wondering about how my question ties in with @Badens consideration of ''What Can Go Wrong in the Mirror'. That is because that thread looked at the narcissistic elements of personal identity. My question is a little different because I am looking at existence vs non existence per se. However, as my question can only be looked at by existent beings, it raises the question of being as an aspect of interpersonal dynamics. One's existence is in the eye of the beholder, which in turn is reflected in the interpretation of one's own existent sense of being and becoming.

The question of the difference between the 'minds' of women and men raises important issues of what it means to exist in a male or female body. Of course, there are many threads on the forum about gender, but, here in this thread, what may be important is embodiment as gendered beings. This is where the nature of personal identity comes in.

At the current time, so much is being dismissed about the elements of personal identity and embodied experiences. This is reflected in the backlash against transgender, in which those who oppose transgender authenticity are reducing gender to anatomy and genitalia entirely. The argument that transgender people are not their 'real' gender shows how gender, as an aspect of unique experience, is being reduced to being in the body, with dismissal of differences in 'minds' and mental states of being and becoming. I wonder to what extent the philosophy of Sartre on embodied 'being' comes into the debate.

Each person can see the tragedy of having not existed. This is contrasted with the way in which each one is participating in mythical quests of a universal nature. What I am saying is that evaluating personal significance can be overvalued or undervalued.

There is the question as to whether each of us matters for oneself or others. There is relative significance of both the private universe and varying contingencies of the interpersonal, or public aspects of 'self'. All of this is important in querying what it means to exist, or the polar opposite of having never existed at all.

Going back in history there are very few female philosophers and it was only in the twentieth century that the voices of women became present. Also, there are issues of dominance by white people too. Even on this forum there are far less women. Whether this is marginalisation as such is hard to know. I once remarked to a female friend about the lack of females on a philosophy forum. She remarked that it may be because women have other things to do and may not have time to spend on philosophy sites.

As for whether it should matter in philosophy as to what gender one is or one's race is an interesting question because it depends if those factors come into play in philosophical understanding. There is the perspective of feminism which does look at the way ideas are constructed, such as the patriarchal aspects of religion. Also, sociology could be seen as a branch of philosophy looking at the way reflect social structures and inequalities and their impact. The advance of sociology, especially in the 1970s may have given rise to more females, black people and marginalised voices.

I have big issues in thinking about the nature of inner and outer reality..The inner perspective is a way of focusing on the outer, but it is not absolute, because it may hold limitations of others's perspectives. It may end up with a form of philosophy shoegazing. Being able to look within and outwards simultaneously, in thinking of needs, self and others may be an intricate process in thinking about the experience of needs.

You make an important point because the anonymous experiences of dying, or life, may be equal, if not more than those held up as exemplified examples. Human worth is so complicated and it may be that there are no real contingencies in this.

It is questionable what 'out there' aspects of judgements exist. These may have been part of many religious and spiritual perspectives. How this relates to billions of years of evolution is another question entirely. Philosophy ideas, including spiritual paradigms, may seek to put this together systematically but so much remains open. In particular, the nature of randomness, or any underlying 'design', or purpose, involves differences in putting it all together in the larger picture. Each person may seek the larger picture, as a grasp for understanding, but there are so many open questions, especially regarding randomness vs design.

I can see that the dichotomy between inwards and outwards exist to some extent. However, the panorama of this may be a little more complex, especially in the ideas of Western philosophy and otherwise. I see both looking inwards and outwards as integral aspects, and wonder how it can be put together systematically. Of course, this would involve strengths and weaknesses in thinking in perspectives.

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.

What does it mean to 'think'? Is it a product of the nervous system or something more? Descartes understood thought to be an essential aspect of existence. However, he still.came back to the problem of physicalism and some kind of link between 'mind' and 'brain', including the role of the pineal gland.

The idea of AI thinking goes beyond the physiological aspects of brains to thought as information. This area is complex because it involves the question as to what extent thought transcends the thinker. It also involves the question as to the role of sentience underlying thought. To what extent is thought an aspect beyond the experience of thought in lived experience, or some independent criteria of ideas and knowledge?

Yes, I am unsure of the exact differences between pantheism and pansychism, beyond the labels. Both seem to point to some kind of underlying consciousness pervading nature. I am still trying to think exactly what pansychism exactly. I started a thread on panpsychism fairly recently but did not end up any clearer on how thise who regard themselves as pansychists see the idea of spirit.

So many discussions about the idea of 'God' hinge around the way in which spirit and matter are seen. It can be about mere abstraction of philosophical ideas or some kind of personal meaning of how 'reality' seems to work. A large part of this is about subjective interpretation of the objective aspects. The question may be to what extent may an objective picture of the 'absolute' be found within the diversity of subjective experiences of the 'absolute' and renderings of the idea of 'God'?

It does come down to how the unique and individual drops are seen, reduced or magnified, like grains of sand. A human being may be seen as insignificant or 'special' from variable perspective. I was once accused by a tutor of seeing myself as 'special'.

When this was queried and discussed, I tied to explain that I see everyone as special. Hierarchies of the 'special' may problematic, if it comes down to identifying some or others. It is like the problematic conundrum of Aldous Huxley's 'Animal Farm', in which 'Eveyone is special, but some more than others'. It shows how so much of this comes down to the social construction of values and significance.

The 'drops in the ocean' of understanding may be elevated or deflated, according to different systems of values and underlying philosophy of what matters. Here, the tension between those who endeavour towards universal or relative approaches to understanding meaning and significance diversify so much in underlying stances. The drops may be drips from failing taps or the build up of torrents of waves about to cascade the experience of the 'regular' aspects of experience.

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.

I should probably read the 'Tao de Ching' asi I have seen it referred to a lot on this forum in the past. It probably represents a far 'softer' form of thinking than in Western philosophy.

I am also interested in Tantric Tantric understanding of sexuality and the nature of human awareness. One concept at the core of this, is 'kundalini', such as that spoken about by Gopi Krishna. Of course, it may be regarded, or disregarded, as esoteric. But, the understanding of the nature of desire may hinge on how one sees the physical and the nature of sensory reality.

Yes, the biological aspects of 'desire' is important and Maslow's hierarchy of needs begins with the physical. It involves the spectrum of animal and human sentient existence. One aspect which this, which Maslow may not go into enough detail about is sexual desire. This involves both the physiological and the psychological components of love and attachment.

In the Western philosophy tradition, this has been an area of great challenge, ranging from Kantian puritanism, to Gnostic celebration of the body, and the postmodern deconstruction of all such ideas.

This is where the cultural aspects come into play, as seen from the larger sphere of pluralistic understanding. The singular philosophies of desire, especially within spiritual perspectives, relate back to cultural values.Here, there is so much disagreement, especially at the core of underlying ethical values.

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.

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.

After writing the post above I am also aware that all the people I refer to are men. This shows the way in which the power structure is also significant in the unfolding of human thought. Gender and race are important factors in the roles people play in unique contributions and the development of individuality. The history of philosophy and history in general reflects the way in which each person's uniqueness is understood.

The aspect of this which I see as curious is each person's unique contribution to life and understanding. If some of those who are considered to be important thinkers, such as Plato, Kant, Marx, Einstein, Freud and Wittgenstein had not existed human thought and aspects of history may have been different. If Banno had not existed the discussion of twentieth century analytical philosophy tradition would not have unfolded on this forum in the way it has. Each person has some significant role in history and the development of ideas.