I have loved 'The Marriage of Heaven and Hell' since I discovered it at age 16. It is fairly difficult to interpret, and part of it comes down to the influence of the visionary, Emmanuel Swedenborg, who influenced Blake so much.

As far as the 'voice of the devil', it seems that Blake is criticising the idea of perfection as a goal within Christianity, especially in the form of asceticism. There are some parallels between Blake's approach to this with Carl Jung in 'Answer to Job'. Jung points to the way in which Christianity tends to suggest the need to suppress and repress sexual desires.

Blake's philosophy is extremely interesting one in the way it came at a time when most people believed in the metaphysical reality of God and the devil. It is a contrast to the approach of Milton, even though Blake suggests that Milton was 'part of the devil's party without knowing it.' When I first read the passage it did trouble me because I was a practicing Catholic at the time and I thought that I was probably part of the 'devil's party because I was better at expression of the demonic side too.

It is important to note that Blake sees a duality of the soul and the body. Of course, it is rare to use the concept of the soul, and are more likely to use the term mind or self. I find the idea of 'Energy is eternal delight' inspirational and many others have done so too. Blake was an artist and poet who was radical for his time. He was also rather eccentric and a visionary. If he were alive today he would have probably been Sectioned for treatment in a psychiatric hospital and, quite likely, he would not have written and created the work for which he is known and loved by so many.

Nowhere and no man's land
Opposite to something
There is nothing to say about nothing
Hopping around looking for what can't be found
Is there any potential in the void?
No clear explantions about nothing
Got to find a path back to the reality of existence

I looked at your poll and began trying to vote, but didn't do so because the categories seemed too clear cut. In particular, I am not sure whether there will be an actual 'apocalypse or not, but wouldn't say that I have no answer because it is something which I wonder about so much. Originally, my thoughts on apocalypse were based on the Bible, with a bit of Nostradamus thrown in.

However, stepping outside of those perspectives the actual possibility of apocalypse still appears to be a possibility with the weapons of mass destruction and ecological issues. But, it is hard to know what will happen and it may be that there are some apocalyptic scenarios, but not ones which affect the entire world. Of course, there could be one ultimate one, such as if the most powerful atom bomb was dropped, destroying all human and other lifeforms, and, possibly the planet itself. Another scenario is the possibility of a meteorite crashing into the earth.

Certainly is much an issue in accuracy. However, in organisations there may be an attempt to gloss over the uncertainties. Sometimes, policies and statistics may make it appear that there is more certainty and predictability than there is. One book which I found helpful for thinking about the nature of lack of certainty was Nassim Taleb's, ' The Black Swan' which speaks about how the uncertainties can be understood and used as a basis for decisions. In relation to judgments, it may be that the attention in judgments should be focused on the unique and particulars rather than simply general patterns of predictability.

You know that I am a little inclined to see philosophy as the search for answers and truth. When I wrote the thread I didn't clearly think about what I meant by the term judgment but I guess that I was implying accuracy as a general measure. For example, if there is a court case it is a matter of weighing up information and witness accounts to get the truest picture. For example, there have been people sentenced to prison and it has later been discovered that they were not guilty. Some aspects of judgment are about clarity and thoroughness, like if one has a medical issue and goes to doctors there is a need for thoroughness and care in getting the most correct diagnosis and treatment, which gets into medical ethics. It may be that judgment as an aspect of philosophy is connected to the application of philosophical scrutiny in the practical matters of life and the use of critical analysis and thinking.

Kant's ideas on judgment are useful for thinking about this various aspects of the process. It is likely that there are different levels of awareness and consciousness and the awareness, particularly in reflecting on mistakes is important. The reflection on mistakes is probably essential in learning from them but may not always mean that better choices are made in the future. I have come across the idea that the importance of studying history is in order to learn from mistakes made. But, it is not always clear that mistakes will be less likely because the variables being judged may change so much.

With risk assessment, that is so much of a current policy approach within organisations for making judgements and assessments. Sometimes it helps in looking at potential predictions. However, it often is less effective in practice due to the limitations of knowledge. One example which I give, and that is because it was what I used to be involved in judging risk in mental health care, is risk of harm to oneself and others. There were important aspects of guidelines as to how people had acted in the past, but the problem was that it was not possible to know people's plans and motivation.

The basis of evaluation is on knowing what is going on in someone's mind on the basis of what they say and do, which only gives a partial picture of intent. In all judgments involving human affairs the undisclosed truths of people, as well as general unpredictability make human judgments extremely difficult. Some people speak of intuition but that can even be subconscious bias, so there are likely to be restrictions in accurate judgments of events which have happened in the past, character and potential behaviour.

Kahneman aside, there are so many different aspects of judgment, ranging from predictions about what is likely to happen, especially in relation to decisions made. Also, there is the way in which people judge, or prejudge other people. Judgments are made throughout life because they are at the centre of all choices in life, including who to associate with and weighing up information about the past. Judgment is at the core of thinking, involving reflective processes and without judgements people would be passive rather than able to make authentic choices.

It is a question whether everything happens for a reason or as a result of complex causations. How this is judged in the human mind may make a big difference. If someone believes that everything happens for a reason it may lead to a sense of fatalism and inevitability. However, if the multiple causal factors are taken into account it can lead to thinking about the future and how all the causes in the future may be determined by actions taken in the present.

Your point about avoiding drastic mistakes and consequences is important in relation to judgments. In this way, it is probably related to risk management, and the severity of what is at stake. It may be about the elimination of dangers with a certain amount of caution in preventing grave errors. Judgment is likely to be fallible, but the need for the utmost rigour is more important, especially in relation to life and death issues, including medical ones and legal ones. Some judgments are more important than others, so probably require far greater carefulness in weighing up all the intricate details.

It may be worth asking where are the most erroneous judgments are made. Part of the problem may be about seeing the consequences of certain behaviours and decisions. That is even if the outcomes of action are problematic, if other opinions or choices could have made.

The various judgments and measures affect outcomes, but the internal perceptions or projections of 'evil' onto others may be in relation to fear of a 'judge' who may punish and reward. In speaking of this, I am not suggesting that changing other should always, but the creative exploration of possible futures Any thoughts?

Many people may learn from small errors. It may be best to make the smaller errors, but it is a continuum. Also, what appears to be a small error for some may be an atrocious one for some other people. In this sense, the whole art or science of judgments may be haphazard and something to be learned, in order to avoid being belled as a 'failure' or lacking in the attributes of 'beauty ' in evaluating taste and evaluation of where one stands in relation to categorisation of what is conceptualized as 'normal.

Blindspots may be a problem and human beings may try to flee from them and hide in the shadows or under the duvet. It may be that the most strongest of perceived thoughts may be a source of delusions and blind spots. This is hard to work with though, and it could be that the greater entanglements of identity and quests for truth may enable a certain amount of demystification and more clarity about personal viewpoints.

The experience of 'madness' may lead to many philosophy problems. Certain perspectives may viewed as 'realism', whereas others may he assigned to the lesser emphasis on mythic or narrative aspects of understanding. It is a grey area, especially as ideas about 'madness' and 'normality' may 6detrimental, especially in the conception of 'truth'.

I am sure that many of us make great errors in judgment. It may be that greater understanding of assumptions and premise of arguments may lead to greater understanding of thought. It may not be easy to filter out all biases and 'noise', but this awareness of the ways in which the various sources of distortion may lead to less distortion. I am not suggesting that all human beings may wish to get to the point of objective 'truth' it is possible that the breakdown of ideas of objectivity may be a catalyst for more careful, with more attention to the fine-tuning of detail.

The task may be to try to see beyond delusion, which may involve greater awareness of the processes of evaluating information, as a path towards a certain amount of critical awareness.

The nature of language may be a source of discussion, especially in understanding the lack of objectivity in judgments. It may be that many people think that they are being objective, but there may be more to it. There may be blindspots in judgments. Perhaps, the awareness of the psychological aspects of judgment may be important in understanding this area of philosophy. The understanding of where is coming from may be a starting point for escaping the attachment to opinions and a more rigorous and less slanted view, especially in relation to aspects of social and political life. Bias may be curtain for hiding behind, and it may be that once the curtains fall down the obstacles present in judgments may enable greater clarity of thought.

The issue may be about the best lens of perception, for judgment. It may be about recognizing biases and interference as a potential problem, and as a means of overcoming these problems. It is not possible to go beyond subjectivity in the process of evaluating and interpretation, but it may be that it more that can be understood about these aspects, which infringe on judgment, may allow for a certain amount of distance in understanding. Human beings are not able to step outside of subjectivity, but the awareness of subjectivity may be an important starting point for thinking about how interpretation and evaluations are made.

Medical judgments, like law have such an 'official' status. Many dare'nt question them. I am not coming from the view that effort and expertise is not involved in such judgments. However, in some instances the judgments may not be full enough and the lack of the fullest depths of judgments in human affairs, including medicine and law, may lead to compromised views of possible options and the scope of understanding the complexities of life, and choices.

The question of whether a judgment is beyond an art form is outstanding. It could be asked how various perspectives are considered here, especially those of the arts and sciences. How may such approaches be evaluated in relation to the larger picture of philosophical truth?

I am feeling a bit better, but the problem of human error is still one which remains. I am not suggesting that many aspects of the human limitations of judgments are not ones to be tackled philosophically. It may be that the elimination of error and bias is the most which human beings can strive towards. Clarity of thought and aspects of objective approaches in evaluating information may be of utmost importance in the best possible attempts at careful judgments.

Actually, given the constraints of 'noise', human beings often make fairly good judgments.

I don't feel able to write anymore. I think that I am coming down with flu because I can't eat properly today and just fell asleep, so I will go to bed and look at the thread when I am feeling a bit better.

I definitely agree that it is worth striving for making the best and fullest judgments possible. It probably involves looking at all the factors and not being superficial. The book didn't seem to me to give enough consideration to the ways of overcoming 'noise' and bias in specific ways, other than recognizing that it occurs.

Sometimes it is information overload. It may be important to be selective because we are not mere seives to be filled with information. I read a lot but sometimes less is more, because there is the active engagement with the ideas. I know some people who go through periods where they stop reading. I wouldn't go that far but sometimes I try reading too many books at once and get rather overwhelmed, lost in the maze of the ideaverse.

I have often thought that boredom covers many other emotions, depression being one, but not the only possibility. Generally, I haven't experienced boredom too much because I love reading and listening to music. However, for the last few months I have felt like I have come to a dead end or stagnation, which is a bit similar to boredom. I find that if I stay at home, but it may be that you are not well enough to go out. Many people complain of boredom if they stay at home too much, so it is best not to beat yourself up about it.

It is something that you enjoy philosophy. I don't know how I would have coped with lockdown if it hadn't been for this forum.

I didn't like Maths at all. I can remember feeling so depressed when I had double periods of it at school. I don't know why I disliked it so much and whether it was because some of it was so difficult or because it did leave much scope for imagination. I was getting on reasonably okay with it though until I had a teacher whose style I found unhelpful and, then I lost all interest entirely. I can do the everyday arithmetic but found equations and trigonometry so meaningless.

Why when he was only 2 years old? He admitted to knowing nothing anyway.

I have definitely found that philosophy has been important in life, in providing the essential tools and basis for thinking. Of course, everyone thinks but philosophy provides a way of navigating thought, based on the history of those who have done so in the fullest possible ways.

I have to admit that I was a little disappointed by the book because its arguments didn't go as deep as I thought that they could have done. Other than show subjective bias and interferences in the processing of information there was not much scope to the discussion.

Perhaps the combination of self-reflection and the reading of others is essential. Introspection was considered important by William James and philosophy may have gone to the other extreme of becoming too theoretical in the twentieth century.

Socrates was in such an opposite predicament to the present time of looking back at centuries of others' ideas. Also, there is so much to be accessed in the information age and internet resources. The reading of theory can be such a large task that it is is possible to become lost in the sea of ideas, wrestling with the tangents of theories. So, it may be that reflection as a process of interacting with ideas on the basis of experience is one way of trying to find one's own independent philosophy position, with the balance between reflective awareness and analytical arguments.

The reasons for noncompliance with treatment through medication amongst schizophrenics are not just about not recognising that one is unwell but often due to the negative side-effects of some medications, including movement disorders and weight gain.

In terms of getting people to be aware of having schizophrenia it may be that the essential aspect is the person getting to the realisation of the comparison between being well and unwell. In working with the issue, it is important for the health professional to listen and work with the individual's experience rather than simply giving a diagnosis. This is because, ultimately, it is not simply about getting a person to 'comply' with treatment plans but getting the person to a greater state of wellbeing and, being able to plan goals to enable recovery and identify sources which may contribute to becoming unwell in the future.

From what I have read of your posts you don't appear to be arguing for belief in God, atheism or agnosticism clearly which is why I went for the 'other' box. However, as there are so many threads on this forum it may be that you may have said something really clearly on the existence of God somewhere. I guess that is the problem with so many threads and the busy nature of the forum, going on 24 hours a day. It may mean that parts get missed and hidden in the understanding of each other's complete philosophies.

I am not sure that my answer is what you are seeking but I am writing it because it has been going through my mind when I look at your thread. My answer is self creation would involve cloning. Of course, that is different from creating out of nowhere, which would be more like the account of the Virgin birth of Jesus.

It is hard to know what the aesthetics of A1 will be. It may not be based purely on biology like Darwin's natural selection. Perhaps, it may involve blending of the genders at some stage as the creation of androgynous or hermaphrodite superbeings.

I was speaking more about the aesthetics of the created bodies of artificial intelligence rather than their specific artistic abilities. Your point about their own creative capabilities would raise the question as to what kind of minds can be created as artificial intelligence?

I feel that 'The Wind Cries Mary' by Hendrix is a wonderful track and it sometimes gets overlooked amongst his songs.

[reply="Agent
The whole relationship between the internet and beauty is interesting. Initially, computers seemed to be about the functionality but, gradually art became incorporated. This meant that art and design being incorporated, especially in graphics and illustration. When I was at school I wished to be an illustrator but chose not to go down that route because so much was becoming computer art and I wished to draw and paint. I have become aware of the way in which many have seized the opportunity and I had a friend who became a website designer. Also, some individuals make fantastic computer art, for example @PoeticUniverse on this site, and I don't know if you have seen his work.

There have been mixed reactions to the digital age of art but it is also likely that the internet has changed conceptions of aesthetics. Many choose to escape into the comforts of the virtual world, including reading, looking at images and listening to music, in a way which could become separate from appreciation of the aesthetics of the real world. It is a fantasy world with possibilities beyond the ugliness of many aspects of mundane daily lives. Like the media in general there are pictures which are enhanced by technical means and choice of selection. So, it is about the manufacture of aesthetics. Who knows where it will go and will AIs have the 'perfect' bodies, as some may have imagined in a different age as being only possible after a resurrection at the end of the world.

I have always been a Manic Street Preachers' fan. I like their music, including that including Richey and afterwards. I think that my favourite album is ' This is My Truth, Tell Me Yours'. The track ' Motorcycle Emptiness' does stand out in their early work, and I do appreciate, 'The Holy Bible' album although Richey' s mental torture is evident and I would probably find listening to it too often a bit too much.

I have just looked at the link because I didn't notice it before. It is an interesting. I suppose this may be where psychiatry comes into the picture of posthumanist possibilities, because there are ways to fix the human emotions. I would like to read Damasco's ideas further because the philosophy of mind does raise the issue of volition and how much is physical and how much is the brain, because emotions are at the interface between mind and body.

The will may be hard to pin down here because it is connected to the physical brain and deeper aspects of concepts arising in human thought or culture. Taking this back to the cultural elements, even the concept of the 'superman' or 'overman' is bound up with the construction of what the highest evolutionary possibilities are, and what is practically or morally desirable from specific viewpoints.

I know that Spinoza says that will and the intellect are the same thing, but I am not sure that it is as simple in practice. Philosophy and psychology may emphasise the rational, but I still wonder whether in daily life rationality is as powerful as many would like to believe, or how much of human life is often driven by irrational aspects of human motivation. Cognitive behavioral therapy and reflection may help, but they may not be the norm. Perhaps, human beings have a long way to go in reaching the idea of 'superman' yet.

The topic of will does incorporate various meanings. It goes back to the idea of voluntarism which goes back to Kant. Schopenhauer on will is also important. However, there is a big debate over will in relation to the intellect. Here, the issue of will in relation to pleasure vs intellect is particularly important. I guess that the nature of the self is also important too, especially in the idea of ego in mediating the various aspects of will, ranging from truth, pleasure and meaning. The idea of ego is mostly associated with psychoanalysis nowadays but Nietzsche's ideas come prior to that. However, it is likely that the idea of will is sometimes vague in philosophy and psychology. The idea of 'will to power' may be extremely vague and that may be the basic problem which arises when trying to interpret his understanding of human motivation.