I hadn't read Giddens until I came across the book in a charity shop a few months ago. I found it worth reading and, a little later, I came across Laing's 'The Divided Self' which was along a similar line of thinking.

The idea of the self is often seen as an aspect of psychology and as one of philosophy to some extent. However, the aspects of sociology are also important too, especially the the idea of the social construction of reality. This includes social life, including gender construction, ideas of deviance and the sociology of religion. When I did study sociology the sociology of knowledge went into aspects of epistemology too. Some writers within the tradition of sociology do explore the nature of subjectivity in relation to a sense of otherness, such as GH Mead. Also, Erving Goffman's understanding of the social presentation of self in everyday life do explore the social construction of human identity.

My own interpretation of how Schopenhauer comes to see the will as the 'thing in itself' is through the idea of it being an imminent reality in mind/body consciousness. This is different from seeing as it as being transcendent and separate and, possibly unknowable.

It may be that the issue of authenticity is related to Jungian individuation more than any other approach. It does seem that some people go down this path accidentally and like you, I did and found Jung's writings helpful on the way through many of the difficulties.

The shadow is the most difficult part of the process of knowing oneself because it can be a form of destructiveness on many levels, including selfdestructiveness and may include addiction or even suicidal ideas. Alternatively, it may be about bringing up anger and not in a destructive way towards self or other but as a way of positive energy as empowerment. My own experience of the shadow involved a time of listening to nu metal music and going to see live metal and punk music. It felt as if through doing this I was seizing a raw energy, as a way of transmuting it positively.

It is possible that thinking that suffering has meaning may set up a wrong mindset, one leading to the expectation and acceptance of struggle. It was expressed in the Christian idea of picking up your cross and carrying it daily. Ideas of martyrdom also prevailed with the belief of being rewarded in an afterlife.

Nevertheless, even if one wishes to have joy and happiness life often comes with so many obstacles, such as sickness and death of others. So, many philosophers and thinkers, including the Buddha and Schopenhauer have begun their thinking from the problem of suffering, more so than Christianity which sees sin as the most basic problem. It is hard not to give up amidst suffering and it can bring about despair.

One important writer on meaning in suffering is Victor Frank, who wrote after spending time in a concentration camp. He argued that establishing goals amidst unbearable circumstances was a way of finding meaning amidst the most harsh and brutal life experiences.

Welcome to the forum and I hope that you find some interesting discussions.

Jack

Perhaps, the notions of God and the devil serve as guiding ideas about the heights and the depths of the possibilities for becoming, and individuation is about weaving through these extremes. Some may gravitate more towards the devil figure and some more to God, even without necessarily believing in these literally as metaphysical beings. It may be that the human quest is mythical and life experiences are narrative stories in the creation of narrative identity subjectively.

It is a good question whether it is one's lesser self or not which is seeking ways of coping. It make involve reasoning but also deeper, less conscious aspects of motivation. This is where the issue of will and the unconscious come in. I sometimes find that I get illnesses, like infections and viruses when I am stressed and it is like my deeper sense of self is trying to slow me down and allow rest. Even accidents can be seen in that way but, of course, it is all about interpretations of experience. It is almost like the unhelpful defense mechanisms have a place, or the aspects of false self are an important opposition in the ongoing journey of becoming, especially as mistakes can be important lessons in life.

There is the issue of egoism versus altruism and how this relates to human nature. Getting the balance between one's own needs and other beings, moving towards the larger spheres of humanity can be an ongoing conflict. The basic needs can be difficult to meet at times and knowing how much to give and take is difficult and determining one's own genuine needs. It is hard not to swing to extremes and the Buddhist idea of the middle way can be useful but it has to be negotiated in all the lopsided aspects of living as a member within various overlapping subgroups of other people.

Dependency or independence is a conflict. As a teenager I used to be extremely close to my parents and trying to please them. I was an only child and my parents had me when they were almost 40. I left home to study when I was 19 and I think that my parents expected that I would return home after studying and they were rather disappointed that I wished to stay in London. One aspect which I chose not to have shared with my parents was my questioning of religion and Catholism. I have been unsure whether this is cowardice on my part or protecting them. However, it has always felt the best way on an intuitive level.

Dependency and co-dependency in relationships and friendships can be problematic for most people. It can be that or a less social life which can go as far as isolation. It is hard to get the right balance. I haven't had many long term relationships but have found that it can be difficult if a partner is jealous about all other social interactions. I do have friends who have fairly serious mental health problems and phone me late at night often. It can be difficult to negotiate boundaries in friendships, and it can also be hard to find the right places to even find friends, and knowing who to trust, as one of the aspects of finding an authentic place in an upside down world.

It may be that there is no 'true' self and it is a mythic concept. The problem may be more where people have developed such a fragmentary or fragile self that it becomes unstable. However, this may not be a fault of finding the self but a variety of factors involved biological and social circumstances, including trauma, especially in the early years and the damage done to the internal structure of object relations.

It is interesting to hear how loss of belief in God made you less egocentric. I am sure it can go in many different ways. Belief in God can lead to some forms of dogmatic arrogance and inflated sense of oneself in the relationship with the divine.

Narcissism is in itself a complex topic because it comes in various forms, and one book which I read on it is, 'The Fragile Self: The Structure of Narcissistic Disturbance', by Phil Mollon, which looks at disturbances in the sense of self. This traces it back to childhood and some of the ways one develops a core sense of self. Mollon explores Freud's idea of religion as playing a role in illusions rather than reality. Of course, the reality of social life in itself may be a source for the need for comforts of many kinds, including escapism, including addiction as well as religion.

Religious ideas may involve guilt and its management and suffering itself may be one of the biggest existential problems, and one of the most helpful forms of coping with the subjective sense of self may be the arts, including listening to music.

I haven't read Weber but I learned a little about Calvinism in history. One aspect which I do think comes into play is the context of values related to the basic economic structure of social life. In particular, this relates to consumer materialistic society. Baudrillard spoke of the way in which images of consumerism affect the nature of human identity, with people buying products which include status symbols, such as property and cars. These all affect the sense of self in the way of being tokens of 'happiness' and he points to the shopping mall as being seductive in the pursuit of finding pleasure and contentment, in the context of individualism and materialistic values.

The idea of heteronomy is interesting because as the opposite of autonomy it is worth thinking about the forces which impact on human beings and choices.

Also, since discussion on a previous thread I have read Martin Buber's, 'I and Thou'. It does have bearing on the this thread because how one sees the 'thou' influences the nature of subjective reality and identity. What I thought about was how when I was a teenager I used to pray a lot and I often thought of myself in communication with God. That didn't mean that I didn't care about the opinions of others as much as later. So, in some ways the loss of God as the significant other may lead to a far greater narcissism, with the opinions of others often being the significant mirror, although that doesn't rule out the idea of self in relation to the wider nature of reality, whether it is seen as the divine or, the realm of the intersubjective, or however, reality itself is understood.

I am not necessarily referring to the 'best' self because that may be about the ego ideal, almost with a moralistic overtones. However, it may be about bringing out potential, so it is about some kind of reaching for the heights, but this is where it gets complicated because it is not about morality as such, but about finding one's calling in life and some have spoken of finding vocation. As far as I can see, the quest for authenticity involves juggling of all of these and it is likely to be a difficult quest for some. It may be that it is hard to achieve, like the U2 song title, 'I Still Haven't Found What I Am Looking For'.

One writer who Laing draws upon is Lionel Trilling, who looked at the difference between sincerity and authenticity. Trilling suggests that there has been a move from the value of sincerity to authenticity. With the idea of sincerity there was an emphasis on trustworthiness and being true to one's word. Authenticity is more about finding oneself through experimentation.

Trilling and Laing were writing in the twentieth century and identity and meaning have probably shifted. There may be a greater degree of fragmentation of identity, especially in the context of online communication often replacing face to face interaction. Individualist values may be strong but probably with a greater degree of anonymity and amidst the masses there may be often the feeling of being a number; with this depending a lot on the community in which one lives and whether one has quality relationships.

I agree that the self IS in relationships and it can be hard to stand back from it and, here, may a lot of blindspots. It is not as if everyone analyses themselves. The most obvious problems are when someone has such problems that the self fragments, which can lead to some kind of breakdown, especially in the form of psychosis. Laing's writing was important in this respect, showing how people are given confusing messages. This involves double binds and it has also been looked at in the cybernetic theory of Gregory Bateson. A double bind can be a person being told that they should seek happiness, but, at the same time being given loads of restrictive rules.

RD Laing spoke of the idea of the true and false self, but I believe that the actual idea was developed by the psychoanalyst, Donald Winnicott. However, going back to ancient times, Plato spoke of being true to oneself.

The effects of family and community are profound. For example, gay and transgender people may sometimes try to deny this side to their lives out of pressure, especially if they are from religious backgrounds. In particular, I have met people who were gay and of African descent and they told me how to be open about themselves was a likely means of being ostracized from the community. Also, in Muslim culture, people are often forced into arranged marriages under extreme pressure.

Generally, there is more opportunity for stepping outside of social groups and backgrounds in Western culture, in the context of liberal values. However, people who challenge the social norms of social groups may experience certain costs, such as rejection.

Yes, I am not sure how helpful the term ego, and I guess this may depend on how ego and egoism is defined. It also, may vary at different stages in terms of the importance of goals. For example, in Eastern traditions there was more of an emphasis on the spiritual aspects of oneself later, after worldly goals had been achieved. It may be more fluid in Western culture and following ideas of truth may be an ongoing quest, involving religious, political or other aspects of life. However, truth as conscience may be about following certain moral codes, such as what was oneself spoken of as selling or losing one's own soul when people turn aside from their innermost values to gain popularity or worldly success.

It is true that social and material circumstances affect what potential there is. Also, it may vary at different stages of life. In particular, there may be more options early on and they may narrow down once a particular pathway has been chosen, or open up wider for those who have achieved, especially in careers. However, it is not just about work but the whole range of options.

As far as others' opinions, it may vary how much one can step outside of social expectations. However, part of who one is may be about choices of moving outside specific circles, including family or communities, such as those of a church. Often, to break with certain social ties can involve courage as most people rely on a certain amount of social support.

It is difficult to know to what extent the ego is or isn't involved in finding oneself. It may depend on the criteria used, and values of what matters or is is meaningful. Some may judge themselves on social roles, successes and outward achievements. Others, on the basis of inner qualities and it may be a mixture of all these in many instances. Conscience may be one aspect and others' opinions, although some may be less influenced by others' perceptions.

I wonder about karma a fair amount because I often feel that I get some forms of instant karma. Of course, I realise that I may be overinterpreting. However, one aspect which may be possible is that the unconscious aspect of oneself gives us the lessons which are needed. In this way, the law of karma is the law of cause and effect but involving the deeper aspects of mind rather than simply being about cause and effect on a physical basis. Also, it doesn't have to be about punishment although it is possible that some underlying sense of guilt may have a kind of atoning aspect.

The other aspects is whether or not the idea of karma is dependent on rebirth. If there is some kind of chain of births it may be that the present lifeforms are influenced in some way by the present ones, rather than literal reincarnation. That would be like the influence of the ancestors on the people being born, perhaps, in a basic way, like DNA, The body returns to dust and everything is recycled in new forms.

Have you read 'Cosmic Consciousness', by Bucke
I would recommend it, and it looks at lives of those who achieved exceptional consciousness, including Blake, the Buddha, and many famous figures. I know that Wayfarer has read it because he wrote about it, so it is a shame that he has left the forum.

One other book which I have found very good is Colin Wilson's final book, 'Superconsciousness'. He focuses on peak experiences and, in his writings in general, he speaks about creative people who saw the world differently, including some of the Existentialists and artists. He often sees consciousness as a form of waking up from a robotic state, following the thinking of Guirdieff.

That is interesting. I have never read any writing by Liebniz. The concept 'of the fundamental reality underlying our own existence' is interesting because it is open to dispute, especially whether it is physical or non physical, or a complex category of another kind.

One book which is Huston Smith's, 'The Forgotten Truth, which is about comparative religion. However, it gets into metaphysics about the nature of dimensions beyond space and time, as well as 'levels'. Any understanding of levels which is hierarchical or beyond the nature of the seen is open to dispute. However, it may also be said that the perspective of realism may be too flat, because perception is so bound up with awareness, almost breaking down or calling into question the separation of subject and objects of perception.

I remember several months ago we were discussing Aldous Huxley, and his book, 'The Perennial Wisdom'. He is an interesting example of someone who paid attention to the mystics' approach. Also, in the post I have just written above I spoke of the 'hidden' as possibly being unhelpful but his writing in 'The Doors of Perception/ Heaven and Hell' points to the dimensions of perception under the influence of Mescalin which is like seeing alternative dimensions or parallel universes.

I definitely recall your thread on mysticism and how you have more of a 'meat and potatoes' approach and question tbe idea of the 'hidden'. I am not sure that there is a literal hidden reality of the mystics but feel that perception varies, with some people being more attuned to the mundane and others to more alternative ways of seeing. However, I would not elevate the mystical ones, because that would be putting the mystics as having superior insight, which may be an extreme generalisation and a far too black and white value judgement.

I have read a little of Spinoza and probably should read more. I do have a copy of Buber' s 'I and Thou' on my shelf. One thing which I do find interesting is how all these philosophers explore these ideas. It may be that in the present time science seems to be considered as the most ultimate authority of ideas. Of course, it gives incredible knowledge but it is questionable as to how much insight it has, and many do have some, but certain aspects may be discussed in meaningful ways in philosophy, as in metaphysics.

I have moved on to lemon squash now. No more alcohol for me, especially in the hot weather. If I drink too much I often get lost going home or in great big metaphysical knots and in need of philosophical resuscitation, on this site or going through my cluttered piles of books. Enjoy your drink!

William Blake made important contributions to the understanding of pleasure, challenging puritanical aspects of Judaeo- Christian thought, especially within the thought of Jonh Milton, which was far more puritanical and mainstream. He and Whitman were radical in their perception of puritanical doctrines. Also, Yeats went back to the mythical aspects of the Celtic tradition. While the mystics may appear traditional in their views, looked at from the perspective of twentieth first century thinking, in their own historical and cultural contexts they were fairly radical and subversive.

I am not sure that the idea of the ineffable is particularly helpful, but that may be an overgeneralised simplification of mysticism. Figures like William Blake, Walt Whitman and WB Yeats may stand out as making major contributions to human thought. Within philosophy, mysticism may be dismissed but simply replaced by blandness, which may say little of any meaningful consequence. Of course, the mystics have their weaknesses, just like everyone else. It is all about dialogue and the widest expanses of thought arising in the human imagination, in mythic and rational explanations.

I am a bit of a caffeine fan, not much of a sugar freak though, although I am having a glass of red wine as I speak. It may not be relevant to the discussion, except in terms of states of consciousness, and, perhaps, in making thinking about philosophy more intense and enjoyable.

Mysticism may have an important link with aesthetics. I have been reading about the idea of the sublime, going back to the ideas of Kant on imagination, in 'Aesthetics and Subjectivity: From Kant to Nietzsche, by Andrew Bowie, (2003). In the history of philosophy mysticism may be traced back to philosophers who saw the transcendent in terms of the idea of God.

However, states of consciousness may be also compatible with the sublime, as being those of deep intersubjectivity, such as in core understanding of ethics, intelligence and wisdom which can be applied in human affairs in life. The parallel between the good in the form of its connection with the 'good' may be important. However, that is not to say that there are no conflicts and exceptions to the rule, because truth and fairness may sometimes be ugly, or uncanny aspects of life, ugly rather than beauty. There may be inversions of aesthetics and conventions of wisdom, which may involve startling aspects of intuition and imagination, going beyond traditional boundaries and ways of perception.

I am not sure that what I am saying is part of your philosophy. However, many Christian believers may see Jesus as the son as God; as having the share with God, the Father, in the source of omniscient knowledge. This may miss the way in which everyone is a Son ot God. Carl Jung spoke of the image of God evolving through human consciousness and understanding, which may involve human beings as consciousness, perhaps in conjunction with Schopenhauer's understanding of human consciousness and will, as an interpretation of Kant's 'thing in itself', as the transcendent, which may be what is deemed as the absolute source, as God.

It does seem that reductionist materialism is on the rise in popular philosophy. Aldous Huxley, with his emphasis on perennial wisdom was important at some point. It is hard to know what the current climate of thinking is, because there may be so much going on in people's minds, balancing the findings of the neuroscientists and the ideas of the ancients.

There is so much to be discovered in the realm of ideas in the information age Alongside the great sources of knowledge as information there is the experiential level of knowing and this may be the raw substance, useful for digging up ideas which have become buried in layers. Consensus may not prevail, but the ongoing search, like the quest for 'the philosopher's stone may fuel the need for careful and deeper understanding, whether it comes down to language or ideas.
,

I would say that I come from a basic gravitation towards the mystical, having read authors like William Blake and WB Yeats. I have a mixed approach to the mystical, and mysterious. This is based on the need for understanding and my biggest issue with mysticism itself is that while language may be limited, in philosophy, there is a need for words to articulate and the need for explanations. In that respect, I respect the insights of the mystics, but think that philosophy is important too, in looking at the experiences of those on the mystic path.

I have read your posts. As far as I can see death is a form of peace, a bit like sleep. It may be that each of us comes from a different, unique angle, making it difficult. I guess that it is that I do enjoy life providing it is not too painful constantly, with constant knockdowns. However, it doesn't seem that you come from that point of view and it your own position may be more along the lines of Camus's one, but I am not entirely sure of this. How do you find the thinking of the existentialist writers? Do you feel an affinity with them?

I am glad to see you back on site because I after reading your posts about death and you not being on the site for a long time I had worried that you had killed yourself. The reason why I say I was worried is because I do see suicide as being about the worst way to die. I do have thoughts of it at times, mainly when I feel that I have more stress than I can cope with, but I am glad that I have never given into such thoughts. I have known people who have killed themselves, often in extreme situations of panic and despair.

Death is probably the end, and I say that because I used to believe in life after death but, now, see it as unlikely. Life does seem harsh at times and it seems that some people have harder lives than others. The things which I think would just be unbearable are having to sleep rough on the streets or becoming blind. I don't know what your own reason for wishing to die is but everyone will die at some point.

Generally, I wish to make the best of what happens and cope with whatever happens to the best of my abilities. I think that I would be too afraid to kill myself whatever situation I was in. Even though I don't fear hell like when I was a teenager I know of people who have tried to kill themselves and ended up with all sorts of injuries, including not being able to walk.

One strange experience which I had in relation to forgotten memories occurred a few years ago. I was lying on my bed and accidentally bumped my head against the wall. In doing so, I got some memories from early childhood which I had completely forgotten come into my mind. I am reasonably sure that they are genuine memories because it was a series of memories, which made sense. It has made me wonder about the nature of layers of memory in brain storage in its connection with spectrum between consciousness and unconsciousness, with the brain being the hardware for the processes of it.

Perhaps, intersubjectivity is based on underlying consensus, like the group mind. Even though in the post above, I have just argued for a importance of intuition, rationality is the clearest foundation for thinking. However, while the intersubjective ideas may be the stepping stones it may be that individual thinkers' originality and creativity are central to the way in the understanding of underlying thinking moves forward, or evolves.

Sorry it's taken me a while to get back to you, as I have been busy dealing with the practical uncertainties in life. I am not exaggerating, I found out yesterday that all the people in the house where I am living will have to find alternative accommodation by the middle of next month. So, I am a bit shaken up by this unexpected news.

The reason why I am mentioning it because it does tie in with your own one on intuition. When thrown into difficult situations, while reasoning is important, intuition is likely to play a large role, especially in decision making. Often, in difficult choices and, finding a viable way forward, I have found intuition to be extremely valuable.

While critical thinking relies on logical analysis, intuition seems to sometimes almost contain another kind of way of seeing, which almost cuts through some of conundrums of logic. Of course, it doesn't mean that all intuitions are going to be all knowing, but, there againn, neither are all rational arguments reliable, especially as there are often contradictory ones. It may not that learning the art of intuition, which may be about gut responses, is one which can be learned as a form of spontaneous thinking, in the face of that which is uncertain.

The question of objectivity is a difficult one because human life is comprised of different subjectivities. Even intersubjective aspects of thought may be based on consensus assumptions and may be limited. In a way, it may be difficult to know of objective truth ultimately because it is not possible to step outside of one's subjectivity, which is bound up with sentience. Much of what is seen as objective may be based on shared understanding as opposed to soliptist thinking.