You say that I don't have any experience of theism but I was raised as a Catholic, so I was initially coming from a theistic perspective. However, probably at that stage, I was more focused on Jesus than thinking about God on a metaphysical level. My own questioning of religion involved reading a lot of Carl Jung. I do read on the debate between theism and atheism, including the new atheism. I have read some earlier philosophy of theism but find some of it hard to relate to because it comes from a completely different worldview.

I had a brief look and I can see that he separated the religious from the scientific. However, it does seem that he was coming more from a scientific background. The area I am more interested in is to what extent can an arts based view contribute to understanding the nature of symbolic reality. Of course, I can see why some may not see the need for use of the term God. The Buddha didn't use the term God, so I am not wishing to suggest that it is necessary to cling to the concept of God. It is more about an understanding of reality, not opposed to science, but not restricted by such a model, but open to a more symbolic understanding.

I hope that I don't sound completely ignorant but I haven't read Stephen Jay Gould. I will google his name, to familiarise myself with his ideas.

You are missing the importance of interpretation of events in the development of happiness or melancholy. As the cognitive behavioral thinkers suggest it is not experiences themselves which lead to emotional states but the thoughts which a person has about the experiences.

This can be habitual and cumulative, resulting in a particular state of mind and there is the possibility of reframing events in order to change emotions, but it may not be easy to achieve, especially the biological manifestation of unhappiness and sadness into clinical depression. It is this complexity which leads to a need for a combination of medication and other therapeutic options.

The philosophy of the law of attraction is that it operates all the time, but that the reason bad consequences is due to contradictory wishes. That implies that aspects of the self are playing games with ourselves. I know that I have internal war over my wishes. For example, when I tried to work at a hostel where I hated working and tried to be grateful and develop a positive mindset, practically everything I did at work went wrong until I realised that I really didn't wish to work there.

Okay, this may seem like one example, but on a daily basis I do find such links. Of course, I realise that there is the question as to whether it is simply my perception and interpretation or is attraction itself which influences events? If the law of attraction is true in any way, my perception of it may affect the unfolding of events in my life. On the other hand, you don't wish to see a law of attraction so it does not appear to you. I don't know how much it comes down to choice of how one wishes to see life events and aspects of life and personal will and motivation.

Do you read all writing at the same speed? I vary according to what I am reading, but not simply on the basis of whether the writing is grabbing my attention although that may be a factor. I go more slowly if I am wishing to stop and think about the ideas. So, sometimes I skim through books which don't seem paying that much attention to and often spend the longest time on the ones that seem worth reflecting on.

I do have some eye problems too, so try to take breaks, especially when reading online because the blue light can have bad effects on the retina.

I admit there are plenty of times when I tried to approach life with gratefulness and optimism and had a horrible day. The advocates of the law of attraction argue it is due to subconscious factors, and it is questionable how deep is the subconscious in its power to unleash the terrible and abominable. Mostly, if I have a bad day I often find that the best approach is to take it easy for the rest of the day and even listen to some 'therapeutically negative' music for the evening and try to get a good night's sleep and hope that the next day will be better. Often, it is.

I am not sure that the topic of intention and mindset is about determinism either, and the link which I saw was about how people have or not have to choose their destiny. However, it may be that mindset and attention is more about the will as a source of motivation.

I always consider it to be a bad thing if I am the last person on a thread, especially if it is one of my own. It is as if I may have written gobbledegook or waffle and no one can be bothered to answer or continue on any longer. However, the idea of the last post as a positive thing, as the last word is interesting, with the idea possibly being because people are speechless in awe.

Also, it is often assumed that the threads which are long are successful. However, in some cases, some controversial inflammatory remark is made which provokes endless responses. With short threads it may be that people simply agree. When there is a final post it is hard to know if it is the ultimate word or simply that people have found threads which are more exciting and stimulating.

I definitely was brought up with the folk wisdom that 'everything happens for a reason', but it may be more patterns than actual reasons. Of course, as you know I am influenced by the idea of synchronicity, and I am uncertain how much in life is chance.

I am reading Schopenhauer on will at the moment, so I will see if there is any relevance there, and I do have a book on continental philosophy. In the last 18 months I have been reading more of the established philosophers. While I was working I did read a lot of pseudoscience, but, really, I prefer reading as widely and critically as possible.

I do struggle with negativity but I think it I am better at coping with it than I used to be. Often, I do remind myself of the law of attraction and it seem to work, even if there is an element of 'fantasy' or 'delusion'. I am not sure how the idea of the law of attraction could be proven. Research could be done by interviewing people about their experiences but even that would only show how the idea works psychologically.

However, the balance between negativity and positivity is complicated. There is often the principle of seeing the glass as half full or half empty as a way of seeing. In some ways, it may be better to be able to see both aspects, the negative and the positive simultaneously. Negativity has bad consequences but false positivity can sometimes be very unhelpful too. There is some need for realism but faith as well, in spite of adversity.

Also, some people seem to have more 'luck' in life or better circumstances. Or, is there more to it than that? It is hard to know for sure.

Magical thinking is unhelpful which is why I am asking about the issue of whether the idea of the law of attraction is superstition. Nevertheless, on some level, from my experience it seems to work, as I notice a clear link between my intention and what happens. Of course, I am not suggesting a form of 'magic' whereby complete control of life is necessarily achieved, although some people seem to be able to have more mastery over circumstances than others. But, it may be that the role of intention is underplayed in academic philosophy, because of the influence of determinism.

Your reply points to the complexity of psychology and exaggeration of emotional affect. I know that at times this has worked negatively or positively for me personally. I can remember at one point when I was really thinking about leaving my mental health nursing course because I was doing badly in practical exams certain pleasant social experiences enabled me to work on areas where I was failing.

Similarly, I find that little aspects of life, such as friction between people I am living with or little incidents can affect mindset so much. Even on Christmas day, I cut my finger on a knife and it just wouldn't stop bleeding. Somehow, that seemed to make everything go wrong and I got negative and the effects of this negativity seemed to last beyond that day even.

I wonder to what extent this happens to people in general because the experience of negativity and positivity in people may vary significantly. I even try to pay attention to what music I play. Not too much of 'Nirvana'. But, to say avoid all 'dark' music and arts may be going too far because some extremes may be important. Some CBT may help but it definitely seems that human beings have the power to exaggerate and amplify emotional affect.

What I mean by repercussions is that there are ripple effects of actions, almost like a magnetism of energies. One really strange thing which happened to me once. I was on a staircase in a public library and a boy threatened me with a knife. I think he expected me to become aggressive in response and I did nothing and somehow the knife flicked back hitting his hand, although not injuring him. It seemed as if the intent he had bounced back to him.

Of course, the example I gave is fairly unusual and I have not had a similar experience. But, with repercussions in general, it is as if everything has an effect at some level. Even thinking and writing a thread starts something off with ripple effects. But, say I had not started a thread but had simply thought about the nature of the law of attraction it may be that the thoughts would have affected my state of mind on some level.

I was not presuming that you see the law of attraction as mystical because I don't know your complete outlook. I think that this is the first time I have interacted with you on this forum.

I am not sure that the law of attraction is dependent on a universal ethics, and I had not really thought about how it connects to ethics. It is more about effects of action and intention. There may be some parallel with the idea of you reap as you so, in the sense of the consequences of actions coming back to the person. But, that is complex and it does seem that sometimes the wicked thrive. But, whether intent of action comes back to people eventually is a question. If anything, the law of attraction would possibly involve being aware of the repercussions of thought and action.

In some ways, the law of attraction may be less 'mystical' than it appears at first. It can be about how there are chain effects, with state of mind being at the centre. I do have some days in which everything starts to go wrong from the start to the end. For example, when I was working, I had a day when I was due to go to a course which I didn't wish to go to, somehow ended up going to completely the wrong venue, got lost going back to work. Then, I was due to vote and stayed out late and then realised I had brought home an important set of keys. By this time, there was a terrible thunder storm. I needed to get the keys back to work urgently and needed a taxi, but needed to get to a cash point to get money for a taxi etc, etc. All through this, my mind was going through a negative whirlpool...

I do struggle with negative thoughts a fair amount and when I realise that I am going into a kind of spiral I do try to get out and back on track. I am not a believer in superficial positivity, but more aware of the way in which mindset plays a role.

Also, so much of life is based on interaction with others. Of course, no one can control another person completely. However, in the interactive relationships, it may be about how people connect with their own intentions in conjunction with the intentions of others.

One aspect related to this was Schopenhauer's interpretation of this with human consciousness as the thing-in-itself. Here, the human will is of critical importance. I am not sure to what extent Schopenhauer's outlook corresponds with the law of attraction. However, Byrne suggests that many thinkers, including Galileo, Plato and Einstein thought that the law of attraction existed. I am not sure that the idea is necessarily identical with idealism, but it is definitely against materialistic determinism. In some ways, it could be seen as having a phenomenological aspect, with the human mind being a centre of influence.

The question may be, to what extent can the experiences of life be captured by the logic or propositions. Saying that, I am not wishing to suggest that rationality should be avoided, which is why I queried whether the idea of the law of attraction is superstition. However, it may be that induction is more complex than many believe. Of course, at the most basic level, mindset and intention affect how human beings act. A little bit beyond that, interpretation of experiences affects mood, which is related to mindset and the basis of motivation. It could be asked whether intention goes beyond this, in terms of vibrations. This goes against the physicalist model, but it may be in accordance with the quantum aspects of reality. This would mean that consciousness is more important than many have believed in Western thought about mind.

Generally, the problem which you raise is a problem which may be underlying the philosophy of consequentialism. Acts are seen as morally good from the basis of what the repercussions will be and it is hard to know the exact consequences of acts because there are so many unknown variables in life. So, it may be that a sense of duty needs to come into the picture, but it may be hard to see duty without some thought of outcomes.

So, it may be that the ethics of consequentialism needs to be balanced with uncertainty, or what Nassim Taleb refers to as the ' Black Swan' aspects of life. Predicting what happen has limitations insofar as there are irregularities and some awareness of this makes morality less clear. It may be about being able to think of consequences but retain awareness that it is not possible to find clear consequential solutions, making ethics a puzzle of uncertainties.

I was reading this thread and noticed you refer to the law of attraction. I think that I have referred to it a couple times on the forum. However, I have never come across anyone else referring to it. I think that it does exist like a magnetic energy force and it does even relate to the idea of prayer and how 'mind' may exist at the level of causation. However, it is likely that many do find it hard to believe in, probably because it has a basis in esoteric thought and goes against the perspective of scientific materialism.

I am just thinking that neuroscience is important in understanding various aspects of the mind but if it is seen as the 'absolute' picture of consciousness it would be about putting it in a box, which may mean that the full impact of consciousness in its creative sense may be lost in the picture. It may be like caging an animal and thinking that gives a true portrayal of its nature.

Absolutely, and it can be asked is consciousness a matter of the brain or something more? Of course, the brain is connected to mental states but whether consciousness can be reduced to the apparatus of the brain is another matter. Humans need brains and bodies but it can be asked if they can be simplified into the reductive language and images gathered by neuroscience? Can the mind of Van Gogh, Schopenhauer, Buddha or Sartre be reduced in such a way or does consciousness itself, especially of the greatest minds, triumph above the descriptive logic of neuroscience, in bringing forth insight and understanding.

You speak of 'biological function' and, I am not dismissing biology. However, it is one model and way of seeing reality. To what extent can everything be reduced to this model, which is materialism. I am not advocating idealism as the opposite instead of materialism, but would suggest that reality may be larger than either model.

That is because, ultimately, all these views are models, including neuroscience, and none of these can be viewed as 'absolute reality.' I am not opposed to neuroscience because it is important but to see it as 'the Unequivocal Triumph' may be to put it on a pedestal and see it concretely, in the way 'religious' perspectives were once seen. The findings of neuroscience are important in science but may not contain all that is known about consciousness because it can describe consciousness but is not consciousness itself.

Neuroscience is only one way of describing and viewing consciousness. I have been reading Noam Chomsky on the mind and body problem and he captures the way in which all the various terms are ambiguous, including the 'body' itself. He says that 'there is a material world, the properties of which are to be discovered, with no a priori demarcation of what will count as "body". He is pointing to the way in which even pinning down aspects of the mind to a physical body and brain rests on how the body itself is seen, with the underlying question of what is body and mind exactly?

I do try to experiment with mindfulness in different ways, but improvise mostly. I did go to a silent meditation in Central London a couple of days and tried to do it there. Only one person was present and he slept mostly. I almost fell asleep myself and that has never happened in a group situation before, because I am conscious of others. I do think that there is some benefit from meditation in a group although it is easy to get distracted by other people.

I was just looking at your post and I thinking about mindfulness and someone becoming a suicide bomber. It may be that mindfulness could make someone less critical in thinking and more complacent in following out acts. However, it could be that mindfulness enables a person to gain distance from destructive thoughts through enabling less reactivity. The psychology of a suicide bomber is probably complex though, independently of the issue of mindfulness. Perhaps, if people grew up with a philosophy of mindfulness they would gain greater awareness of thoughts and feelings, allowing for greater clarity of self awareness generally.

Reflection in relation to mindfulness has different aspects. One distinction which I came across in nursing theory, by a writer called John's, is reflection in action and after action. The perspectives may be extremely different because in the moment of experience one may 'react', which may be the adrenaline response of fight and flight. However, when experiences are seen in retrospect they may be viewed differently and this involves memory and how this impacts on the senses, as well as the way in which cognition comes into play.

The cognitive behavioral theorists emphasise thought but thought itself is not simply experience in the 'head' but in the bodily aspects of emotions. This is where it may be complex, in paying attention to the senses and thoughts and how these interact or may be disentangled psychologically and philosophically. Where do feelings end and where do ideas come into the picture of understanding?

It is extremely hard to ignore the 'dark side' by just being aware of it because emotions play such a significant part in life. It may be the most an individual can do is live with the uncomfortable aspect rather than 'reacting' in some form. I have read one book which combines Jungian thought and Buddhism, 'The Wisdom of Im perfection: The Challenge of Individuation in Buddhist Life', by Rob Preece. The author sees the process of awareness of the dark side, called the 'shadow' as being an awareness of 'blind spots.'.

I have never smoked 'ordinary' cigarettes but did go through a phase of smoking them with cannabis, and sitting in a group doing this. The process, even the making of the 'joints', felt like a dark celebration. But, during my time of deconstructing Catholic ideas, which felt like an acceptance of human nature, rather than casting aside 'sin' was aided by caffeine tablets. It seemed to give a rational awareness of everything as opposed to being led by the emotional aspects of cultural condition. However, after the 'high' element, there was a 'coming down' and a need to rebalance and I can see why most Buddhists don't recommend psychoactive drugs or alcohol as a shortcut to achieve desired states of altered consciousness.

Ignoring darker aspects of the self may be by living with it as background noise. That is the way I tend to see it.

Thanks for linking in the article because it is really useful. A lot of the time, many people dismiss mindfulness as being just about reaching for the 'bright' side of human consciousness and nature. On the contrary, it can be about living with 'inner demons' and dark emotions. There may be a human tendency to try to avoid the darker side, while mindfulness can bring about a greater awareness of such emotions and thoughts, as opposed to trying to avoid the existence of them. It may be that such awareness and self knowledge enables people to live with these aspects of human nature rather than being driven by them unknowingly.

The biggest problem is that the book is written 50 years after the evening which makes it like a fictitious fabrication. I came across so much writing ABOUT Wittgenstein and I only began reading his own writing a few months ago. It can be a problem hearing others' interpretations of a thinker's ideas rather than focusing on the writing itself. It probably gives distortions, especially as it is difficult not to be influenced by the interpretations. I wish that I had started reading his work before reading so many other's thoughts about what he meant.

Thanks for your reply and I am glad that you have read the book. I think that you are right to say that both Popper and Wittgenstein were looking 'opposite ends of the Viennesse tele/microscope' and that it is more complex than than. In terms of rhetoric, it is interesting that Edmonds and Eideinow had chapter 18 called, 'The Problem with Puzzles' and chapter 19 called, 'The Puzzle Over Problems', which is a play on the conceptual differences.

What I do wonder about though is whether there was more going on in terms of competition between Popper, Wittgenstein and Russell. That is because dynamics go beyond actual arguments and have a psychodynamic element. The authors of the book do not state this but the focus on the lives of the philosophers does hint at this. What do you think about this aspect?

I have found a discussion of the book by Sean Walsh (6. 2. 2021) in www. the article.com . Walsh says: 'The verdict? That Wittgenstein may or may not have been guilty of a failure of donnish etiquette (or attempted assault). The Edmonds- Eidenow prosecution file is an agreeable condensation of most of the historical issues'.
That is how I found the book in the sense that it spells out that there were different accounts of it but there is so much ambiguity of the details in the book.

Walsh also describes it as being 'a beautifully written portrait of the idiosyncrasies of the main protagonists (including Bertrand Russell), but as 'wonderful psychology and incomplete philosophy'. This seems true in that it builds up the character of Russell who taught Wittgenstein, but the book is vague in many ways. It was written in 2001, and this may account for the vagueness because it is so much later than the event, although there is a fairly extensive bibliography included.

Walsh says that it was the only time that Popper and Wittgenstein ever met each other and that Wittgenstein died 5 years later. He also suggests that at the time of the meeting, Wittgenstein, 'considered philosophy as a diversion, one which merits little more attention than a crossword puzzle.'

I found the book in a charity shop a couple of months ago. There may be some discussion of it online and I will have a look to see if I can find any further references of material related to the discussion.

I had no idea that Wittgenstein may have had some kind of autism. I once read a book that suggested that Kant may have had this too, although I guess there is a danger in applying diagnostic labels to writers. However, it is possible that in previous times these kinds of disorders would not have been picked up on as they are today.

I find it hard to juggle between the issues of how far to go in the direction of seeing philosophy as language analysis. That is because my own inclination is to go into metaphysical analysis. However, it also seems that language analysis is important, especially as the issue raises was the difference of the meaning of problems or puzzles.

The question you ask could be answered partly in terms of the psychoanalytic thinking of Melanie Klein. She looked at object relations in infancy, especially in the relationship between the child and mother. She describes ambivalence in how the child sees the mother and describes the interplay of the paranoid schizoid position, which involves feelings of hostility and anger with the mother. Following this, the child goes onto the stage of guilt and the need for reparation. Klein sees these two basic positions as the starting point for other relationships and psychology in adulthood.

Of course, she is speaking about psychological positions as opposed to clinical descriptions of moods. However, there is a recognition of how suppressed anger can lie behind depression. The nature of clinical depression is complex because it involves body and thought, and how these come together. It could be seen as a default position in relation to how it can be a cessation of activity, like the calm after a storm, a break or breakdown of the strength of the ego before a person is able to move forward or find a new direction.

I am not sure how you define perfection? People see it differently with some emphasising piety and some as about being the highest example of a human being. But it does make a difference how it is judged, especially whether it is about the way one lives or about an underlying attitude to life. It does not help to generalise or say that it needs to be about both because that makes it seem so abstract and unachievable. Actually, it is this vagueness which makes it seem unrealistic as a goal. When I grew up as a Catholic, I was aware of 'sin' and the ideal of perfection was there as an ultimate extreme, which only 'saints' might live up to and I gave up the goal of being a saint long before adolescence.

Carl Jung saw the way in which religious perspectives, especially the history of Christianity, emphasised the goal of perfection. He maintained that people struggled with this, and the inferior side of human nature, which he called the shadow, was formed in the process, with potential for human destruction.

Of course, his perspective is open to critique but so is the idea of perfection. It may be easier for those who are in relative privileged positions to live up to than for the disadvantaged. In other words, those who have an easier life may have less difficulty reaching for the highest ideals than those who are struggling to survive.

Of course, it does come down to how the idea or ideal of perfection is viewed. Within Christianity, Jesus spoke of the hollow spirituality of the Pharisees. That was about adherence to the outer aspects of morality, as opposed to looking at it on a deeper level.

Whether one looks at the idea of perfection from one religious perspective or from a purely philosophical one, one could ask what does perfection mean? Is it the absence of mistakes and is it something which can be measured at all, especially in relation to action. Is perfection more a state of mind? It can also be disputed at how it can be achieved and whether it may be arrived at intrinsically or after learning from mistakes and does this matter in how the concept of perfection is viewed?

Interpretations are important as well as explanations because it involves seeing why people think in certain ways and critical examination of explanations. It's a pity that 'smoking the herb' doesn't make everyone as insightful as Bob Marley. A lot of people end becoming 'paranoid' rather than self aware. It probably enhances underlying tendencies which are there in the first instance.

It is likely that what form of meditation helps is so variable from individual to individual. Many don't meditate at all. As someone who is is a bit 'spaced out' at times, mindfulness is a way of being a bit more grounded through awareness of the senses. Buddhist teachings seem to suggest that psychoactive drugs are best avoided but many people who believe in Buddhism seem to use them. I have used them in the past and I am not sure that they helped meditation at all and I didn't even become detached on them.

That's an interesting point of view, the difference between philosophical reflection or one with it being effortless. I guess that I see mindfulness more about living with emotions and philosophy reflection as being more concerned with explanations. Prior to the a century ago philosophy and psychology were less differentiated as separate fields. Psychology and philosophy became more apart, with the 'know yourself' aspect more a concern of psychology .

The question of how mindfulness compares with the Rasta smoking weed or hashish everyday raises the question of how much is about focusing and how much is about escapism. When I smoked some strong stuff from Rastas I was sent off into another realm altogether. That is where the question of mindfulness and mindlessness becomes complex. Sometimes, when I do try practicing some techniques which I have read, especially when I am unable to sleep, it could be that I am practicing mindful worrying or rumination more than anything else.