You are not being mean. Ideologies have always existed; it is likely that they have been identified and analysed so much more in this century and the last.

You are right to say that we use the word 'war' for so many things, including the war against terror, the war against Covid-19 and psychological conflict. It is probably about metaphorical possibilities.

In its literal sense it is about taking up arms in defending territories; it is the Hobbesian way of establishing order against disorder. It is natural in that way, but could be seen as a rather outdated approach to life if it is about literal violence. Of course, aggression is part of human nature and in the 21st century such aggression may be in a different form, such as in cyberwar, which could have as destructive effect as physical violence. There is also the evolutionary possibility of people thinking of avoiding destruction.

There is also a war of competing ideas. This is metaphorical in a way, but it is being fought out as ideologies. Often these are subtle but they have an impact. For example, there is a lot of emphasis on the unemployed as lazy and (people with disabilities being included). It serves to ignore difficulties of those who experience inequalities. In other words, politics itself is a form of war, with ideologies as weapons. In this context, totalitarianism is presented as being protective.

Yes, Jesus is probably the ultimate role model of martyrdom and I probably gave Socrates as an example because it is simpler. With the story of Jesus there is so much more, with ideas of Jesus atoning for people's sins and being the 'Son of God'. But, Jesus did lead the way of martyrdom in Christendom.

Regarding the anarchism and totalitarianism spectrum, it is worth saying that there can be differing forms. In particular, there is a difference between anarchism which includes violence and that which is based on peaceful community living without need for government control. At the present time, of global powers and technological advances, there may be such a tendency towards totalitarianism. What I find surprising is that what is happening is not questioned more, as being a militant form of control.

It is true that war is a form of 'legalised violence', with it's own set of rules, almost like the rules in a game. When I speak of the nature of war, I am coming from the angle of thinking how so many deaths may be unnecessary. Also, I wonder to what extent people wish to avoid war if they do not believe in life after death. The idea of glorification in a heavenly reward may lead people to be prepared to fight and die. Without belief in life after death the other form of 'immortality' is to remembered as a hero.

The nature of resolution of conflicts has become more complex in the power dynamics of the world. There are so many different codes and sets of rules which can be used or violated making it so strategic. With the authority element those in positions of power have a lead but there are likely to be so many oppositions. It may come down to cultural relativism in politics, which may give rise to a swing between totalitarian control and anarchist solutions.

Yes, diplomacy may be seen as a non-violent approach to war and even a war of words and arguments. It can still be an intense battle, fuelled by anger. It is probably on that level that outer war can be compared with the battles of internal conflicts in one's inner world.

Even non-violent action, can be a form of war of a different kind, especially as protest. Non-violence has power, as shown by Gandhi. Of course there is martyrdom which is different from violence but involves the choice to give up one's life for a cause. Socrates may be the role model of martyrdom.

What reading your post leads me to think is how war is a central factor in politics. It is about wielding power by force. Policy has become central, as a means of social contracts. Sometimes, policies are followed in an extremely concrete way, as the law, often taking advantage of loopholes. War may be the shadow of ethics in enforcing what is sanctioned or not by leaders and people in power.

Your remarks on ideas of warriors and martialism are useful in thinking of how war evolved. In many ways, war may have been a means of defense and territorial boundary negotiations. This is similar to in the animal kingdom but a culture around war developed. This involved ritualism, ideas of what was legitimate or 'just, or even 'good' war.

It is likely that people became more questioning of war after the first and second world wars. The philosopher, Bertrand Russell, was a leading in figure in the CND movement. War has changed so much since the time of warriors. Of course, people died fighting but it cannot be compared with the wars of the twentieth first century in the extent of consequences.

The idea of warriorship had entertainment value and even in a time of sensationalism in entertainment, it would raise a lot of questions if the large scale wars were a source of pleasure or enjoyment. It is more than martial arts or the injuries of wrestling matches. The wars of the present time could wipe out nations and the planet, with the potential of future generations.

I found the following legal definition of war:
'War is a phenomenon of organised collective violence that affects either the relations between two or more societies or more societies or the power relations within a society governed by the law of armed conflict, also called international humanitarian law', in 'War. The Practical Guide to Humanitarian Law' (hhtps// guide- humanitarian law org).

The legal definition may be a means of defining what is acceptable, including ethical assumptions. However, it does not look at the nature of war in any deeper analytical way. It could be seen as having an implicit assumption of war being 'natural'. However, it does not query the status quo at all, the history of war as a solution and the question of why do people fight wars?

The hatred and fear of difference is a factor in war and violence, whether it is another racial group, the 'other sex' or a minority group can be an example of inner conflict. That is because it is based on fear of that which is different. It goes back to Melanie Klein's ideas of splitting. This involves the separation of mother and child, as well as the splitting of the good vs bad mother. Fear itself is about opposites, especially bound up with ideas of otherness and ego identity.

War may be driven by beliefs, especially if they are fixed rather than flexible. It may also involve attachment to beliefs.

So, do you think that there is not a relationship between inner conflicts and outer ones? Is it simply a matter of the battlefield? How do you see the concept or definition of war? The idea of a 'political animal' is also worth thinking about because it involves sentient needs and desires, but also issues of power which are constructed externally and internally.

I wonder about the relationship between inner and outer conflict. It may relate to the psychology of projection, with people not recognising wars of opposites within and seeing faults in others, the enemy. The enemies may be another religious perspective, Sadam Hussein or a terrorist. It does connect the opposites of good and evil as constructed in the human psyche. It probably begins in the playground and ideas of 'otherness'.

Religion is bound up with worship, which in its worst form may involve distance from the dramas of life. In it's best form, it could be awareness of the 'transcendent', as the underlying force of nature, which is often called 'God'.

fIn thinking about the anthromorphic representations in the form of deity, it probably occurred because it is easier to imagine by thinking of as a 'person's to relate to. The problem may be where this became too fixed, with so much projected onto 'God', resulting in diminished consciousness of human nature and its flaws. The concept of the 'devil' or Satan allowed for evil to be projected outside or, if realised inside oneself as a source for guilt. The mythic aspect of good and evil within religion may have become too separate from the process of self-realisation.

The idealism of Hegel and some others does make an important contribution. From what I have read it seems that Hegel sees history as a realisation of potential. In this way, all the events in life can be seen as the enfoldment of mythic possibilities.

I think that your outpost is a very good critique of what is happening in the world, especially in relation to gender, but 'cultural wars' in general. It does involve aspects of race as @Leontiskos mentions. It also involves the nature of individualism in terms of personal identity, especially in a world fragmented by cultural relativism and movement into the digital age, of online images and identities.

With regard to gender, often the issue of transgender is looked at as the 'problem' of the individual who experiences gender identity issues. This misses the way in which identity is constructed socially. Feelings, thoughts and the development identity involves so much on an intersubjective level, is influenced by cultural ideas, such as the media, modernism and postmodernism as well as science.

The fragmented nature of identity construction is also affected by the way in which people's lives are experienced. Rather than the emphasis on individualism, there is a tendency in the digital age for people to be regarded as mere numbers amidst the 'mass' of humans, especially when they are expected to compete with machines and artificial intelligence. The fragmentation can be linked to a loss of appreciation of the uniqueness of the person, as well as so much emphasis on bodies and appearance in the media.

The 2 albums of 2024 which I would recommend are The The's, 'Ensoulment' and The Lemon Twigs, 'Everything Harmony. The The are one of my all time favourite bands as they are so philosophical. The Lemon Twigs are a newer act, but are quite retro and psychedelic, with hints of Beach Boy harmonies.

I am also contemplating buying the 2024 album by the Cure, based on reviews I have read.

Daniel Dennett is also one who speaks the language of neuroscience in a very concrete way. I like the way in which some Buddhists incorporate neuroscience, but in a less reductionist way.

I am inclined to the view that all explanation is mythic because narrative is built into human understanding. We have narrative identity and it is from this starting point that we develop all pictures of the world. I am not sure that 'reality' can be explained in a way which is different from myth, whether it is in terms of models or metaphors. I work from the assumption that my thinking, and that of all others, is based on story, and this involves the way in which a person has been taught or chosen to understand.

It is true that religion does involve belief in the supernatural in most instances, but not always. One interesting area is that of a miracles, which was challenged by David Hume. However, I do see there being more than just superstition in miracles. There are the stories of the healing at Lourdes. There is also the recent story of the canonisation of St Luigi. He died as a teenager, who had created a website on miracles, and miracles have been attributed to him. It may be my Catholic side coming out but I do think that there may be more to miracles than many would admit. It is about an invisible dimension beyond the material one.

You make sense very good points. In particular, I like the way in which you bring in neuroscience. That is because it may be the secular replacement of 'God', especially as an explanation for consciousness. The images of CT scans and in textbooks present a visual and causal explanatory logic which may be seen as fact and 'reality' itself. Also, science often claims objectivity as 'the truth', ignoring the way in which science, including physics only gives models. Science involves the mythic imagination.

I am sure that there is an overlap between magic and religion, but magic often involves belief in nature as alive as opposed to being about a specific deity. For example, there is the idea of sympathetic magic, which underlies systems of voodoism. There is also a shamanic element to magic.

The story of the resurrection involves a shamanic aspect. It is true that there is a recurrent theme of a dying god, rising again, such as in the myth of Osiris.

With your comment about power structures may change, that is where myth and story come into play. It is likely that the stories we read influence what happens in real life, like the Book of Revelation, and Orwell's '1984'. When I read Orwell's writing it is as if he is describing the way the world has become in many ways. Therefore, fiction authors have a big responsibility, just like philosophers, because they provide the mythic material which may influence the course of history.

With the history of religion, which emerged after magic, there were ideas of coercion and sacrifice. Even in Christianity, Jesus represents 'the sacrificial lamb', to atone for human 'sin'. With diversity, which may have preceded this, there is the possibility of a future return to diversity in the aftermath of so much which has occurred in human history, although from the way the world looks at present there is an extremely long way for this to happen. There may be small steps but if it is likely to be thwarted by hierarchies of power, which represent the interests of the elite.

It could be argued that 'God' is consciousness, but this has been seen in an anthropomorphic way. Both theists and atheists may be talking about 'ultimate reality', but this way it is named and described are so different, as a source of arguments and perspectives.

I wonder how similar animism and panpsychism is. There is some challenge to the idea that matter and mind are separate in the notion of quantum entanglement. But, that is physics, but as part of 'modern' metaphysics. The 'modern', or 'postmodern' ways of matter as solid and primary, objective 'reality' are challenged. Even en the notion of the intersubjective realm involves a complex weaving in between outer and inner perspectives in thinking of the nature of symbolic structures.

Your point about whether myth is like Plato's realm of ideas is interesting because it does raise the question of another realm, of archetypes. These could be seen as separate from human consciousness and transcendent. However, these evolve alongside culture as symbolic aspects of culture. Humans realise the human imagination and contribute to it, as aspects of the dreaming mind, as part symbolic reality, but whether it exists as an independent realm, as qualia, is a good question.

I am sure that you are correct to suggest that how people live and social organisations of power have a significant role. In particular, the patriarchy played an important role, especially with the suppression of women. Similarly, racism suppressed ideas of the Orient. The dynamics between power and belief are complex and interact. Ideas of gods and God may be used to protect power structures and, similarly, analysis of such beliefs may influence the nature of social systems.

I do agree that religious perspectives are more inclined to looking within. Putting it together with life in the outer world is where it gets messy. Ultimately, the two should work together, but they frequently become separated so much and become so hollow.

Jesus recognised this when he criticised the superficial hypocrisy of the Pharisees. The Gnostics, who looked at inner or symbolic interpretations of the life of Jesus were outlawed as heretics. Their accounts are so different, including suggestions of Mary Magdalene as Jesus' partner. This is so different from the conventional ideas about sexuality within Christianity, which were based on the ideas of the Paul.

Also, in many ways spiritual ideas underlying many religions involved shared views of wisdom, even though there have been so many rifts between the different religions and traditions within these religions.

It is definitely true that a lot of religious beliefs have been a factor of toxicity, especially in the development of war. But, this may something about the human nature and mass psychology as much as the ideas of the leaders. If the teachings of Christ or the Buddha had been followed fully, it should have led to less war as opposed to creating it. In particular, the culture of Christendom is so opposed to the Biblical teachings themselves, especially in the development of material wealth as opposed to the Gospel teachings.

As it is, humanity is made up of so many diverging traditions and there is so much conflict and war. It is not clear that mere loss of belief in spiritual reality will lead to a more peaceful one necessarily. If only it was that simple and the problem may be fundamentalism in general. There is religious fundamentalism and even atheistic fundamentalism. A lot is about concrete, dogmatic thinking.

If people are more able to understand the symbolic dimension it can be a source of wisdom, and does not have to come down to belief in God. Spirituality is not dependent on gods or God, but about self-awareness and wisdom within. The inner psyche may be a starting point for transformation of consciousness, which may lead to greater understanding of others ' needs and of all living beings.

Yes, the contrast between logos and mythos is an area discussed in previous threads. The problem which I see is if people treat mythos as though it were logos, unable to differentiate this at all. Many conventionally religious people are inclined to do this and it took me some time to be able to do so.

However, it is difficult though, not just about the existence of God but areas such as the ideas like the fall of the angels and humanity. I was definitely brought up to believe in this and even now see it as standing for something possibly 'real' because there is a lot that is unknown about ancient history. At one stage, I read writers like Graham Hancock and some of this may be mythic but the idea of the Nephilim race is one which I find intriguing. I have come across the idea that in thinking of evolution this was a process in which humans slept with apes.

Some of the ideas are likely to be symbolic but the correspondences between the planets and early gods is important in thinking of the ancient worldviews. Sometimes, people assume that ancient people were 'primitive' but cultures like Egypt and Rome were extremely advanced.

I enjoy mythic fiction, including Marion Zimmer Bradley and Bernard Cornwell. Being half Irish by descent, I am particularly interested in Celtic and British legends, including those in the Magbinon, Arthur and those surrounding Glastonbury. Tolkien also presents a fascinating journey into the mythic imagination.

I will explore Seyedd Hossain because I haven't come across him. It does seem that we have read some of the same authors, Huston Smith, Gary Lachman, James Hillman and James Hillman. I don't think that James Hillman is that well known as you are the first person I have come across who has and I find him to be a very good writer. I also find Edward Edinger's , 'Ego and Archetype very helpful, as well as the writings of Mircea Eliade.

It is a very large topic, as you say. I first became interested in when my school English teacher encouraged reading on the topic. A few years ago I did a term long course on mythology as well as an evening class on anthropology. I would like to study more anthropology and have done some reading of Levi Strauss, as well as Mary Douglas's 'Purity and Danger'. The culture assumptions of the sacred and taboo are important in thinking of ideas about good and evil.

The issues of ideologies in relation to myth is a good question. That is especially in relation to 'a kind of wasteland of shattered of shattered or diminished cultures'. It involves the idea of meaning, hope but may be a little different from worldviews in which an entirely different stance was taken. Some of these were utopian and some built upon differing metaphysics entirely, such as resurrection of the dead.

The question, or issue, may also be about what is an explanation, which may be answered so differently. It could come down to a 'supernatural deity', a material cause or some kind of psychological intermediate. Historical origins may be important but it may also be about origins in terms of causes, or how these are understood, involving both logical explanations and metaphors or symbolic dimensions of thinking.

The concept of 'God' or ''gods' is interesting. It is worth considering to what extent it represents 'a higher reality' as such, or a tool in human understanding? This may be an issue which spans psychology and anthropology, as well as philosophy. It may go back to core basics of metaphysics, and how these are constructed by human beings.

I am sure that the issue of hows and whys of religious thinking have been explored on so many threads. One major aspect may the psychology of religion, and why do people seek to attribute so much to gods or God?

Of course, it could be turned around, as into the question of whether psychological aspects are a question of higher metaphysics? I see it as very complex, but I am probably someone who overthinks. This relates back to your query about 'names' for the same thing', because it may be a matter of language and framing in human explanations.

It is not that I don't appreciate your position of moral naturalism. As far as the relationship between ethics and religion (including esotericism) the two evolved together. Even though Aristotle's approach was more naturalistic than that of Plato it still had spiritual foundation.

Ethics still matter with or without religion and there is a danger of Dostoevsky's idea that without God 'everything is permissible.' At the present time of relativism there is such a mixture of overlapping worldviews.

I find the Buddhis perspective interesting as it is neither materialistic or with a literal anthromorphic deity. The middle way may be a way beyond so much of the false ways of ethics based on guilt tripping,Also, the middle way is also in the context of the overall emphasis on compassion, which is a about respect for people and all life.

It is true that perfectionism is more about salvation, whereas ethics is about social action. With esotericism, I wonder to what extent it is focused on salvation or deeper aspects of life and ethics. One aspect of this was the way in which the esoteric was often for an inner circle within a religion whereas there were less strict moral guidelines for the wider group.

I am not sure that the esoteric is simply about personal salvation as such. In particular, the idea of karma is not simply about personal gain through moral action. Some may say it is, but it may be more about a deeper understanding of causality, as in the principle of 'As you sow, so shall you reap'. This is because the idea of rebirth is not necessarily about continuity of the 'self' or ego. It may be seen as being about the future lifeforms and the ethical principles regarding concerns of future generations.

Thank you for your post, as it does seem that you have read widely on the topic of the idea of the middle way. Some popular authors may have presented it far too superficially.

The Buddha, like Jesus Christ, are figures of certain ideals. So much would have been different completely if their ideas had been written by them as opposed to by others. As it is so much is attributed to them or projected onto them. With Buddha, like Christ, this has meant that many different traditions within Buddhism have emerged rather than one set of definitive interpretations.

The 'middle way' can be seen as the tension between opposites, of ideas of 'good' and and 'evil'. It may be more of a symbolic concept because it may be realised in so many differing ways. Schumacher made a specific interpretation in 'Small is Beautiful' in which he looked at the emphasis on capitalist growth and the socialist concern for needs. He saw the idea of the 'middle way' as offering a way of balancing of the extremes in a positive way.