Thanks for your detailed response. The most striking aspect of what your post raises is how do the tragic in art and the art of living interact. What may be worrying is that in spite of the potential within art for catharsis and wisdom through artistic expression it may be not going in the right direction. That is because the tragic dramas are being externalised in life in so much conflict, especially so many devastating war situations. It is possible that news in the media is becoming the new tragic drama, rather than individuals' inner journeys taking them to the place of 'better', or ethical living. People may be becoming spectators of the tragic aspects of life through the cultural consumption of manufactured media news.

The Dionysian aspects of catharsis show how tragedy and ecstasy may be interconnected. I see this as being about the process of transmuting the darkness or finding the sublime within it. In some ways, this is similar to the quest of the shaman, who journeyed to underworld and upperworld regions. This involved the process of healing and art for the people by the shamans who may have been 'medicine men' or performers.

Of course, times have changed and what art satisfies is so variable. So much has changed with postmodern values and aesthetics. Also, there is so much choice with people to choose from the whole of history and global perspectives. It can be daunting or it can be an exciting adventure. It makes the search for what works to appeal to the depths of one's own life dramas and quest a personal quest. In previous times, what was considered as important in art, drama, literature and writing may have been more of a group quest whereas it is becoming interconnected with the pursuit of the inner life.

My understanding of the argument that Aristotle's picture of catharsis as being different from physicalism is that he came from a different worldview. Even though he brought the idealism down to the world of causes he was still basing his ideas on the ancient worldview primarily. The idea of catharsis and purgation of humours is so different to the understanding of physiology. It would involve balance through bloodletting. Such practice would not make sense today apart from for people who suffer from the blood disorder of polycythemia, who are often advised to donate blood.

Your understanding, based on Artaud, of drama as involving the some expression of savage aspects of life is consistent with Freud. It goes back to the ritualistic aspect of life, including religious rites. Drama performance, with the live element, is like a ritualistic celebration. It may involve some kind of channelling of taboo aspects of human nature in a socially acceptable form. It may also be an expression of anger at life's injustices as opposed to the celebration of the joyful aspects of life.

The books which you speak of sound interesting. It does seem that it is harder to get a glimpse of the nature of trajedy in the commercialised West. So much of drama and cinema is about sensation. I actually prefer going to see drama rather than watch films because it feels like a participation in the problem dealing with suffering, death and difficult emotions rather than superficial glamour. It is likely that the mythic depths are still present amidst the glamour, but some may get lost. That may be why fiction may still have an important role to play in dealing with existential experiences, because story remains the essential aspect.

What I find really useful about your post is that it looks not simply at the audience experience of art and trajedy but the process of art making and suffering. Artists and writers may be able to work with the raw material of suffering to create a profound vision. Audiences may be able to partake and participate in the masterpieces of this.

It is likely that the art of Van Gogh appeals to so many because he created a profound visual worldview amidst suffering. Of course, the life of a writer and artist may contribute to an enigma.

I studied art therapy and it does seem that the creative arts can be a way of living with suffering and the injustices of life. Both the making and appreciation of art forms may be a way of processing life experiences.

I have just seen your post and others, which I will look at properly tomorrow. However, what I do wish to say immediately is that the reference to Fuller, as opposed to Nuttall, on many occasions is a bad typo error. So, I apologise and will correct it in my outpost tomorrow morning. Thanks for pointing it out to me.

As I am aware that my summary of Nuttall's discussion may not have been full enough for critical discussion, I will add this quote on why the weakness of Aristotle's outlook as opposed to that of Nietzsche or Freud is that Aristotle's account, 'seemed to place its emphasis on form, and, on the palpable unreality of trajedy.' Nuttall goes on to suggest 'in frightening dreams the subject can as it were experience disaster without actually experiencing it'. He adds that tragedy is a way 'of practising for crisis'.

This seems important to me, with the tragic aspects of art being connected to the development of wisdom for living. However, I am sure that there are many levels of understanding the tragic in art, and that the ideas of Aristotle and so many philosophers contribute to this. Any thoughts on Nuttall's comparison between dreams and tragedy, or on the wider issue of tragedy, pleasure in art in connection with human suffering.

Part of the problem which I see with the idea of karma is when it is thought of as 'punishment' or 'reward'. This was a basis for justifying the caste system.

Really, the idea of karma means cause and effect, 'As you reap, so shall you show. ' in its esoteric sense, it involves cause and effect being complex, beyond physicality. This involves aspects of the depths of the subconscious. For example, I often do feel that I get bad consequences if I feel that I have acted in a way which I should not have done. Sometimes, it seems to be 'instant karma', like the John Lennon song. Nevertheless, my karma is probably connected to my subconscious and conscious awareness of mistakes.

The division between matter and spirit is an interesting one. It may involve the visible and invisible and it may not be completely distinct, with quantum physics showing this to be a fuzzy area, such as Davis Bohm' s idea of the indifference between the implicate and replicate order. It may be about processes itself in the nature of manifestation in nature and life.

I wonder how different the atheism of substance dualism is from theism. I know that there have been threads on substance dualism and that I have engaged with you on the topic many times. At one point, I remember you comparing it with the difference between an Afro hairstyle and a bald head, an interesting analogy but I am not sure if it is that clearcut.

The difference may be theism often speaks of God as a being and nondualism with Being itself as the foundation of everything. I wonder about how different this really is and such theism and atheism as a different linguistic stance as opposed to an entire difference in metaphysics. In particular, even though Buddhism doesn't portray a specific 'God' the understanding of consciousness may be similar to ones that speak of the 'divine'. Ancient thinkers, such as Stoicism, thought in such a way rather than the dichotomy between theism and atheism which arises in the phllosophy of religion as it stands presently.

I guess it is very different when one is reading books, such as ones on non-dualism in the pursuit of philosophy as opposed to under the guidance of a 'guru'. It is important to remember the context, and how it was connected to ideas for application in spiritual searching and living as opposed to simply being about analytical issues.

I have gone back to reading Spinoza(not sure which translation on my Kindle), although I am finding it 'heavy weather). It may be that Spinoza was challenging the theism with which he was familiar. However, it still has to be recognised that he was writing in a historical period so different from the current one. This makes his correspondence with current thinking, such as neuroscience, mere speculation. Of course, it is possible to reframe his writings in such a way but that does mean acknowledging that it is interpretation, as is any use of a historic philosopher in thinking about issues of the current time.

Non-dualism is a fairly difficult perspective because it involves going beyond splits, or binary divisions. It is a bit like the title of the Waterboys' song, in trying to see, 'The Whole of the Moon'. It involves awareness of partiality in epistemology in trying to be aware of the 'other side' of perception.

I have been reading about Spinoza's philosophy and as far as I can see there is a lot of ambiguity over how his ideas are interpreted, especially the equation between God and nature and his idea that God was 'nothing other than the whole universe'. As an alternative to atheism it can be viewed as suggesting that 'God' is in every aspect of nature.

I am currently looking at a chapter by Varadara V. Raman, 'Thoughts on Deism and Pandeism', in , 'Pandeism: An Anthology of the Creative Mind' (ed Mapson and Perry.in which it is argued that, God,
'is there in the heart of grand supernova as in the singularities of dismal black holes. He is mutely present in every breath of Man as in every neuron fired in the brains. The Creator is into the Creation: In creatura creator. A crude analogy would be a playwright who writes a one-hero play and gets into its performance himself: not very common, but not impossible, especially for God. This is the God of pandeism.'

In that respect, the duality of nature and God can be seen as more consistent with non-consistent with spiritual non-dualism as opposed to the materialistic one. The choice of seeing nature/consciousness or God/consciousness may be the duality of choice inherent in human thinking.

The idea of a 'neutral theory' is an interesting one as being seen as objective. Kant thought that he was able to establish it by a priori logic. It does come down to the issue of whether there is an absolute 'truth' and the perennial philosophy is an interesting alternative to Kant because it involves pluralistic understanding based on intersubjective common principles.

However, the concept of a neutral theory may be still problematic because it is bound up with meanings and values. For example, the choice of the dual options of theism or atheism may come down to psychological and pragmatic concerns in choices of how to perceive the nature of 'reality'.

Thank you for reminding me of Lao Tzu's writings, because they do capture the descriptive issues of Tao. Sometimes, even though the concepts of theism and atheism and other positions are useful as a tool, they can become too rigid as ways of seeing. Indeed, transcendent and imminent can be seen as dualistic, which is the way human thinking involves splitting.

Labels are central to both theories and metaphysics, as ways of trying to analyse the way in which life works, as the aspects beyond physics. For many it may come down to science gradually, with philosophy almost as an apologetic appendage. Even science, founded in empirical knowledge is only descriptive understanding. Science and philosophy can become split, with so much validity being placed on the 'truth' of science when the abstraction of creating scientific theories and models involves the metaphysical and metaphorical imagination.

I do see the query as to whether materialism is a form of non-dualism, especially as that was my first thought when I became aware of more 'spiritual' forms of non-dualism. The mind-body problem is made so complicated by an apparent duality of mind and body, but a clear connection between the two.

I have read some of Damasio's writing and it is fairly well argued. It may be hard to entangle the underlying basis of the unity and know if there is an primary basis of mind and matter because they emerge together. It may come down to first causes and it is hard to know whether the matter arose from consciousness or vice versa. In a way, it may not be important as a tangent, although it can be seen as of importance in knowing whether there is any 'spirit' involved as an eternal source of consciousness.

It does seem that materialism arose as a consequence of atheism rather than the other way around. Personally, I see both materialism and idealism as being a bit limited and 'flat'. Non-dualism may be one option amongst others.

One book which I have been reading recently is 'Berkley: A Guide for the Perplexed', by Talia Mae Betcher (2008). Berkley's idealism may have been a central one and it was connected with theism. It holds that only ideas and spirits exist, to the point where even objects and the external world are seen as mind-dependent. He denies the existence of matter. This is open to a lot of potential criticism.

Naturalism and realism can be seen as a radical departure from the idealism of Berkley. Also, the philosophy of Sartre sees the existence of matter and bodies as à starting point. It does come down to what is primary, in the dual existence of mind and body or their embodied unity. The way in which non-dualism departs from such perspectives is that it sees mind as embodied, but sees consciousness, as the source, whether this is called 'God' or not.

To have no hope can be to be at the end of one's tether and suicidality. I have known people who have committed suicide or attempted it in the face of despair and loss of all hope. One book which I found useful for thinking about this is by James Hillman, 'Suicide and the Soul', in which he argues within suicidality, there is usually a wish for transformation. This is dependent on hope to some extent, although acknowledging despair is probably essential as well.

Bringing this back to the topic of theism and atheism, it is possible that both can lead to suicidal despair. The first person who I ever knew who committed suicide did so after becoming an evangelical Christian. That is because rather than being filled with a sense of salvation, he saw himself as so sinful. In some religious perspectives the duality comes down not to good being projected 'out there' metaphysically onto God as a separate being. The Biblical account of 'the fall' of the angels and mankind, with the idea of original sin, is a bound up with assumptions of duality.

It is a good question whether it is necessary to have theism or atheism before one gets to non-dualism. It may be possible in secular society, which is science-based and plural, to get to non-dualism but,historically, most form of non-dualism emergent in the East came after the Hindu belief in gods. Nevertheless, even though Hinduism had many gods there was still a belief in an underlying 'oneness'.

Also, even though theism preceded atheism, many aspects of ancient philosophy, including Greek and Stoic philosophy were less dependent on belief in God than in the thinking of the Judaeo-Christian worldview.

In connection with Swami Ahhanyananda as a figure, my first approach in reading his book, 'The Supreme Self: The Way to Enlightenment', as he describes his life in a cabin in the wilderness, in his own quest was that it would be so difficult to do this in the current time. That is because it is so difficult to establish a life detached from others in the West. To participate in life in the West one needs is subject to ID checks and reliant on the internet for so much. Most exploration of ideas, even about spirituality, is done online.

One other aspect which he speaks about is how he followed Ram Dass initially.Then, he found out that Ran Dass had a 'dark side' with his sexual relationships with women and attempts to conceal this. He stopped following Ram Dass and his teachings for some time. What this shows is that even though the ideas of the East may be an appealing alternative, the dark side of religion, or human nature, shows up in Eastern as well as Western religions and spiritual movements.

The way in which you describe religion points to the way in which, in its extreme, religion can give comfort of salvation and atheism to nihilism.

At the moment, a friend who has become a Jehovah Witness, keeps sending me 'preachy' emails, saying that the Bible holds the 'truth' for the troubles of the world, the 'end times', which will be replaced by a better world for the righteous to inherit. Such people cling to hope, which may be similar to the romanticism of the 'new age'.

I think that you wrote a post to me some time ago about non-dualism. It is interesting that it can be an approach for approaching all metaphysics but is so often ignored within Western philosophy. It may be about the organisation of the right and left brain in thinking, especially within education. It may be that those with a more mystical leaning find it makes sense than those with a more theoretical approach. Ideally, I would like to be able to blend the two as a more synthetic understanding, going beyond the duality of right and left brain, Eastern and Western philosophy. I am all in favour of seeing bridges rather than inherent splits.

I didn't come across the idea of non-dualism until a few years ago. Nevertheless, even when I was going to Christian Union as a student the Brahman-Atman relationship which I had read about seemed important. I do find the ideas of Eastern traditions more compatible than many in Western theism or atheism. It may come down to a far more contemplative approach to life or a softer, more subtle metaphysics.

I have started looking at your links but will read them further before making a full reply. My current approach to your post is that you see the issues very theoretically. I am not dismissing theory, because it is certainly a way of navigating one's way around thinking about issue carefully. I try to read the theories for clear thinking, especially in untangling knots of socialised beliefs. But I am not sure that it comes down to ontology completely. There seems to be something deeper, but maybe I say this because I am not convinced entirely by naturalism.

It is debatable how much the issue of materialism vs idealism matters; for some it can be pure academic philosophy. In a way, it may matter more to those who come from a theistic perspective, especially in relation to the issue of life after death. Having grown up within a Catholic background, I definitely began with a clear belief in life after death and it has perplexed me ever since.

At one point, the issue was whether life after death would be physical or material. It was round about that time that I began to question life after death seriously. Heaven and hell, reincarnation, karma and nirvana may be symbolic of one's place in the eternal scheme. Nevertheless, coming from the starting point of Catholic or Christian theism, which was rather worrying with the prospect of fear of hell, I continue to find issues of God, or lack of God, as well as concepts of mind, body and spirit fascinating. Non-dualism appeals to me because it encompasses the splits, especially in a way which is a realisation of one's self, or ego, in a way which is part of larger processes, which can be an important part of the experience of enlightenment.

It would be hard to defend idealism in the face of science and quantum physics demonstrates duality, such as in particle as a particle and wave. It presents a less certain nature of causality. Idealism would signify the disembodied as more real than the embodied. Non-dualism goes beyond this, but it can be seen as having a foot in idealism when it involves seeing consciousness as the source, whereas materialism sees matter as primary.

What is probably the importance of Shopenhauer here, is the way in which he brought the numinous, or 'thing in itself' of Kant down to being imminent in human experiences as opposed to transcendent.

The 'new age' movement did usher the ideas of interconnectedness. The romanticism of new age has died and may have been replaced by brokenness and isolation. Also, the philosophy of materialistic determinism may be an ideology to support totalitarianism or authoritarianism in its denial of consciousness and free will. Marx spoke of religion as the opium of the people but atheistic materialistic determinism may lead people to loss of meaning, and turning to alcohol and heroin to dull the pain of meaninglessness.

Paradox is a useful way of seeing opposites. It is like looking at both sides of a coin and realising that they are both aspects of the same coin. Taoism grasped the idea of duality within oneness so well.

To some extent it comes down to the use of various labels to try to explain the metaphysics of 'reality'. In thinking about whether theism depends on atheism conceptually and vice versa, an essential aspect is what one means by the concept of God, as an idea in the human mind.

In considering the history of theism, it is worth thinking about the origins of religion and supernatural belief. It may be considered in the context of the anthropologist, James Frazer's description of transitions from belief in magic, religion to science. In looking at whether theism itself was dependent on the opposite of atheism, it has to be remembered that ancient people did not have the knowledge of science. Also, it is possible that human beings literally believed that they conversed with gods or God, such as Moses receiving the commandments from God. This was spoken of by Julian Jaynes in 'The Bicameral Mind: The Origins of Consciousness'. Jaynes argues that the human beings may have actually heard 'voices', with schizophrenia being a throwback to such experience. He suggests that this involves a lack of differentiation between inner and outer, or subjectivity and objectivity.

It could be argued that it comes down to the way in which opposites are constructed in the human mind, such as embraced by Taoism. There are opposites, such as good and evil, male and female, light and darkness within the framework of a larger underlying unity. The human mind constructs in a dualistic way, so this has led to the development of opposites in historic development, including subjective and objective, as well as theism and atheism, or earlier in Abrahamic religions, as God and the devil.

I have edited the title and added a poll, to see if people see a link between idealism and belief in God. I wonder are the two connected as philosophical ideas?

I wonder to what extent democracy is increasing or decreasing in the digital age. We have so much access to ideas and of means of expression. It is in the context of free expression of ideas that the issue of political correctness arises. Nevertheless, so much is becoming controlled at a digital level that freedom in daily life may be vanishing. For example, when applying for jobs, all is done online and what I find is that most responses I get are bot responses rather than human beings.

Also, digital media may encourage marginalisation through the free expression of prejudice. The shadow of democracy may be the expression of prejudice and this may come down to how the elite and leaders at the top manage the issue of free expression. While political correctness can be extreme, the actual outlawing of political correctness may amount to encouraging stereotypes and prejudice to keep those at the lowest levels disempowered and silenced in some contexts.

The idea of being objective or subjective is often approached from the perspective of rationality. However, it may come down to core values, which may be more complex, in standing back and thinking critically, as they are so involved in aspects of daily life and bound up with the the reflective processes in philosophy and philosophy. This may involve fetters which get in the way of self awareness, leading to blindspots, which may be stumbling blocks in philosophical understanding, making the distinction between the subjective and objective into a blur of confusion so often. The only possible way for disentangling this may be about looking to the depths and sources of underlying beliefs, especially in relation to core values.

I also wonder about the possibility of 'no origins' as such, with cycles in the earth and the wider cosmic sense, including other worlds and universes.

It is interesting to think about the way in which ideas of religion may hinder ideas of morality and ethics Some of this may come down to the way in which superficial observances and rituals may be given uppermost consideration. This was acknowledged by Jesus, in his criticism of the hollow practice of observances of the Pharisees and Saducees. It may come down to the way in which religious thinking can be hollow, lacking in depth, with so much based on hypocrisy of human thinking and values.

The problem may be with religious fundamentalism and its various forms. The subjective ans objective aspects of thinking may be important, especially the way in which ethical ideals and values are based on assumptions of religious belief, or secular perspectives of 'reality', with the religious ones being considered as more objective, in the absolutism of perspectives of religious thinking.

My understanding of McCarthy's words, 'historical law' is referring to the laws which were developed in various forms of civilisation. In connection with your idea of , 'Real morality is the law of the universe', which is very Kantian, it does come down to whether there are specific ideas or laws independently of the consequences of an action or the way in which morals develop in any given society.

There are some underlying universals, such as the treating others as well as a general principle of murder being wrong. These develop in relation to human life, as opposed to apart from it, so they could be seen as intersubjective principles rather than objective.

As for the idea of political correctness as a 'horror show', I am wondering who determines what the horror is exactly? I am not saying that I am in favour of the rigidity of political correctness in language, but I do think that language sensitivity matters in day to day life.

I am sure that 'greed' and 'power' is a problem as a human weakness, and as enshrined in capitalism. These are problems and may be connected with loss of meaning in general, as may be the source of children and adults committing suicide. It may point to a 'broken' system, and the question may be about who and how can it be put together again, especially in relation to philosophy.

I admit that I use the term PC with some ambiguity but it is such an area ot ambiguity in itself.

Yes, I could see no moral imperative for the shop to omit all CDs. Even if the artists who were recorded on them committed immoral acts, the profit made in the charity shop would not go them at all. That is why I saw it as a political statement or absurd logic. It reminded me of how, when I couldn't finish my dinner at school, I got told off on the basis that people were starving in Africa. If anything, it may come down to illogical moral connections.

Going back to music and 'offending', I remember how there were some objections to the the song by Thicke, 'Blurred Lines', on the basis of the video showing Pharrell Williams with a goat. Apparently, Pharrell was surprised by the way some saw the video as sexist. As it happened, Robin Thicke got sued for the song, but not on the basis of sexism, but because the track had too many chord resemblances to a song by Stevie Wonder.

With art and issues of the ambiguous area of political correctness, there is the issue of it being art as opposed to 'real life' and how much influence does artistic representation have? I am sure that it has some influence, such as in the subliminal use of images, but at the end of the day, art is only expression, and how far moral guidelines go in terms of artistic licence, or as entertainment, is a matter of opinion.

It is true that all aspects of life, including aesthetics are based in historical and political contexts. This applies to the arts so much and the interplay between politics and art. There is artistry in politics and the dynamics of this may have been so influential. The philosophy of the Judaeo-Christian tradition may have been expressed in church architecture as a backdrop to the power and wealth structures behind it. Similarly, in the twentieth century, postmodernism questioned aesthetics and power structures, as well as forms of objective morality.

Your mention of humans as reptiles makes me think of David Icke, who argued that the Royal Family in England were shapeshifting reptiles literally. This was rather extreme literalism, missing the symbolic aspects. Humans are part of the evolutionary process of reptiles and the reptilian aspect may be the 'lower self'.