I emphathise with @180 Proof for being thankful for sleep. I am also glad to be having weather which is not noticeable at all. England has barely had any summer weather but some people have been struggling with unbearable heat and even life threatening weather. So, I am grateful for not being too hot to sleep.

Reading Wittgenstein has been on my 'to do' list for a long time, but, somehow, other writers seem to keep winning my attention first. Often, I am drawn to the more obscure writers rather than those that everyone reads.

I think that we all need more play, fantasy and toys. The psychoanalyst, Donald Winnicott, spoke of teddy bears as an important aspect in play as 'transitional objects' in forming symbolic ideas and the sharing of ideas with others. My mother has about 100 and they all have names and wear clothes. She used to act in theatre, so she encouraged me to play a lot. You may not have so many toys, but you have an office, which is what I probably need more than any new toys.

But, I do believe that playfulness and fantasy is essential to the creative process in art and poetry. This is especially true in art therapy. I believe that writing, including poetry and philosophy can be so therapeutic. There is the issue of metaphysics of poetry but there is also philosophy as a form of creative writing.

I think that it is a good idea and recommend within the philosophy of the law of attraction as recommended by Esther and Jeremy Hicks. I am sure that many on this site would rubbish the law of attraction, but I do believe that the more we appreciate what we have enables us to continue to receive.

My thanks you for today will be for all the many different people I have experienced on the forum since when I joined it almost a year ago.

I don't really write poetry but do play around writing with a magnetic poetry kit at times and I find that it is a way of accessing what Jung describes as 'active imagination'. I believe that poetry writing, like some forms of art is a way of accessing deeper levels of the subconscious.
I used to illustrate a poetry magazine and did discuss poetry with many of the people who contributed to it and it did appear that some of them saw it in this way.

During that time, I got to know a fairly well known poet in England, UA Fanthorpe, who has died since, and, it was during the phase where I was really reading Immanuel Kant, and she said to me that she just couldn't see why I needed to and I think that she was dismissive of the larger framework of metaphysics. She was a Quaker and she took me to a meeting. What was interesting is that people sat in silence, only speaking when inspired to do so. The idea of uttering words from within a background of silence seems important.

Recently, I was discussing philosophy with a man working in a bookshop and he was telling me that he wrote poetry and how he saw the writing of poetry as being influenced by his own understanding of Wittgenstein on language. It does appear that playing with language is central to poetry, and, perhaps, it is about the juxtaposition of ideas, as well as images, which makes it such a creative process.

I think that the aspect which is also important beyond the subjective is the intersubjective. This may account for what you speak of as truth having having a connection with 'the conception of the masses'. I remember someone once saying to me that ideas don't exist unless they are communicated in some social way. I was not entirely convinced, but on the other hand, while we live in a world of many subjective perspectives, it is in social and cultural contexts. Of course, it is not as if there is general agreement in cultural life, which leads to stress, conflicts and opposition.

I think that the way in which you describe poetry is connected to the way in which we are becoming accustomed to think and, how indeed philosophy itself has become more concerned with language.

I thought that the problem was that he wrote some posts which had some deeper discussions and some which were really shallow. To some extent, I think that we all write some posts which are better than others, but the way he was writing on so many threads and churning out new ones was probably affecting the whole dynamics of the site. The point at which I thought that this guy is likely to get banned was when he wrote a thread called, 'Is the mind like a marshmallow?'

I have been thinking about what you have written and it is interesting that you refer to the opposition between rationality and irrationality. That is not often made in philosophy within the thinking of the twentieth and twentieth first century as far as I am aware. The debate is often seen as one between reason and emotion, and this is usually interconnected to a more subjective conception of knowledge. When I was reading Hegel's writings recently I noticed that he does refer to the idea of a priori reasoning, which I think many do not believe in at all, especially after the deconstruction of the postmodern thinkers.

I am not saying that I believe that we can simply go back to systems of metaphysics of thinkers like Kant. However, on the other hand, we may have moved into an age of post-truth and relativism. In such a metaphysics world view, some may see reason as arbitrary and this could even blur and distort thinking about reason within culture to the point where irrationality, including that on a political level, including the facts about ecology and the future become obscured.

I think that you underplay the importance and significance of poetry, as a source of expression and its power. We only have to think of the writings of Homer and Shakespeare to see how they played a vital role. Perhaps, poetry can be seen as one of the main ways in which symbolic and metaphorical constructs can be depicted. Personally, my own approach and interpretation of Nietzsche's writings is on the symbolic level and I think that in some ways he can be seen as a poet rather than simply as a philosopher.

I think that poetry, or poesis, is a different way of viewing the world and, in many ways, is more about intuition than logic. It also is about language to capture images and it could be seen like painting In words. It does involve subjective expression more than reason, but it can touch and grasp higher, 'truths' as well. I think that some of the poets, including William Blake, and W B Yeats, stand out as such important thinkers in their own right. But, seeing their ideas as objective is questionable, but they did create worldviews, like many novelists and romantic philosophers.

There was, of course, the tradition of metaphysical poets, such as John Donne, but it was a very specific worldview and probably not one which could be seen as truly objective.

In some ways, it seems a shame because he was full of ideas, and he probably just needed to slow down a bit, and reflect rather than just writing. He must have created about 25 threads in less than a week. He also seemed to be online almost all the time and I even wondered if he was more than one person, although in some ways I am sure that this idea is ridiculous. But, he was so prominent that it was affecting the entire dynamics of the site and his constant new threads was making other ones vanish from the front page very quickly.

I am glad to see you have written again on the forum and it is an interesting piece of writing from my point of view, especially because my own last thread was om metaphysics relating to the mind and body problem. This is probably a bit different from exactly what you are thinking about but I am interested in the whole question of duality.

I am very interested in the philosophy of Hegel, but I think that he is rather rejected within many circles of philosophy. I have began reading his 'Phenomenology of Mind', which is, of course, so different from the ideas of phenomenology as understood by many thinkers.

I have read some of his other writings and I think that his understanding of purpose is interesting because it is so different from many other viewpoints and, in some ways he could be seen as a bit 'esoteric', but I definitely think that he sees the human being striving forward to try and grasp a way forward meaningfully and this is interconnected with the whole question of where humanity is going, or even Gaughin' s concept,'Where Do We Come From? What Are We? Where Are We Going?'

I think that it is a way in which emotions are expressed cathartically, like laughter. Children cry so much but people usually cry less when they adults and how much they cry varies from person to person. I wonder how much is about social learning and even the gain from crying from sadness being communicated to others in this way..Also, we could question whether men cry less, or i If there is any intrinsic difference between the pattern of crying it could point to the role of biology. Perhaps testosterone suppresses tears and turns tears to anger. However, it may partly be about stereotypes and how women feel more able to cry openly while men are encouraged to hide their emotions.

I think that one idea of relevance to this is Jung's idea of synchronicity, which he developed in response to his own premonitions. However, he does suggest that it is about seeing patterns in things rather than about causality outrightly. But, some other thinkers have developed this idea a little differently, as for example, Deepak Chopra in, 'Synchrodestiny'. It is a question of whether what happens in life is mere chance?

Personally, I have wondered about this issue a lot because I had a number of really horrible premonitions as a teenager, especially of people dying and, then they died shortly after. This included my headmaster and several other people I only knew by sight. In one instance, I remember being in the school library and seeing a boy whose name I didn't know and the thought coming through my head, 'he has not got as many problems as me but his dad is going to die.' About a week later, I found out that his father really had died. My various experiences almost made me become unwell mentally because I began to wonder if it was my fault that the people were dying. But, fortunately, I found Jung's autobiography and read about his struggle to understand his premonitions. I have experienced some strange premonitions in adulthood but not to the extent as I did during adolescence.

As for coincidence, personally, I am not convinced that anything in life is pure chance. Of course, it all comes down to a question of meanings but I think that meaning is so central to life that it affects what becomes manifest in the events within our lives.

We had better remember to eat our carrots and, at least they are cheaper than psychedelics, and legal too.

I think that it partly depends how you think about the nature of psychedelic reality, and I understand the word to be about mind expansion. I think that your idea that we are all tripping through seeing colours probably points to the way in which we take such vision for granted. I don't really because I do have some underlying vision problems, and my biggest fear is of going blind oneday. So, I try to be grateful for the amazing nature of vision, including the spectrum of colours.

I think that it comes down to the way in which we experience and think about perception and this is linked to art as a way of exploration. For most of my life I used to draw regularly and paint on occasions. However, I have barely done this at all for the last couple of years, partly due to being in the right state of mind and not having the right place to do it. I am aware that this may have had a negative impact on my appreciate of life and even contributed to my eyesight becoming blurry recently. I think visual perception and its appreciation is somehow central to our existence and brain functioning because the retina is part of the brain ultimately.

Going back to your way of thinking about colour there is the dichotomy about making art in black and white or in colour. Often I draw in black and white, but I do experiment in colours and find using a vast array of watercolour pencils is one way of doing this with a view to capturing the full colour spectrum. At one point in the past, people photography was usually done in black and white, and television was in that way, whereas we expect to view coloured pictures most of the time. But, it is an aspect of mind expanding perception really, or the perception of multidimensional reality.

I think that I notice that colours become brighter when I am feeling more cheerful than when I am feeling miserable. Of course, we do all have a certain amount of psychoactive brain chemicals naturally than without recourse to hallucinogenics.

One thing which I found strange was that I was using hallucinogenics on a regular basis was that I used to see hues of pastel shades of colour and coloured shadows, and some auras. I used to also see reflections in non reflective surfaces.

But, I think that some people are more trippy than others. I almost always saw visual images when I used to smoke dope. I used to see cathedral ceilings and images like in Hindu art. I wanted to sketch them, but the only thing substances which I felt able to use and draw the images I was seeing while using it was morning glory seeds. But, I don't recommend it because it gave me bad stomach ache because the seed manufacturers coat them poison to deter people from using them for this purposes.

Apart from colours, another interesting aspect of psychedelia is synthesaesia. I have a few instances of that without any substances, in which I found that sounds triggered visual images when my eyes were closed. Apparently, the reason why some people experience this is because the eyes and the ears develop from the same nodule.

I think that an underlying problem of many perspectives on the psychology and philosophy of mind, is the vague and elastic nature of the concept. We could ask what is 'mind' exactly?

I agree that reading the importance philosophers is important and I do wish to put Spinoza on my agenda. You also ask about the framing of the mind and body problem and one aspect which I am thinking of is how dualism made it easier to think of life after death because it gives a division between the physical and material, with a view to the non material element being able to survive. I am not saying that I agree with this division and way of thinking, but I do believe that it has been prevalent in many Western philosophical approaches to life and death.

You have probably written so much in the last few days that you could almost have written a book. I have only been writing on this thread in the last few days but in the last year I have written so many, and I am trying to slow down a bit.

I think that my own thread is intended to open up questions of the mind, including quantum fields and the widest spectrum of possible considerations of mind and body.

I amazed at the amount of comments and threads you have created in the last few days. So, in connection with my thread, I am interested in further elaboration on the spectrum of naturalism and supernature, with regard to the mind and body problem. I hope that I am not setting an impossible area of questioning but I am a bit taken aback by the nature of your interaction on the site in the last few days.

Yes, I have probably created a tough thread question and it will probably be not particularly popular, but I am grateful that I have a few people engaging. I do believe that thinking about the individual problems in philosophy does require some kind of way of viewing them alongside others. I am not saying that I am concerned with building a system or world picture, but, on the other hand, I cannot make much sense of seeing the individual problems of philosophy in isolation, which is why I am trying to connect the mind and body problem with the idea of metaphysics.

I think that phenomenology is an important way of connecting metaphysics with the philosophy of the mind/body problem. Also, I think that emotions are important because while they lie at the core of psychology, they do represent an important interface between mind and body.

The whole question of what is 'real' does come into the picture, including the issue of binary logic. In some ways, naturalism comes into play the picture in some ways. Thinking of the matter from an arts based point of view, I have an affinity with the movement of superrealism, which is about magnifying the elements of the real world as an aspect of perception. Translating this into philosophy, it would probably be about a kind of zooming as a way of analysing. I think that that many philosophers, including Shopenhauer, Nietzsche, Spinoza and others probably went down this pathway. Perhaps, the problem is that many of us see philosophy as a sideline pursuit, rather than as a central aspect of human existence.

I definitely don't believe that consciousness is an illusion. Perhaps, I may have created more interest if I had created a thread on whether consciousness is an illusion. We could even ask what is an illusion, throwing the question about what is real. I am certainly not opposed to naturalism, and not looking to the view about abstractions, and I do believe that the idea of the supernatural often gets in the way. I am just looking for the deepest analysis of the mind within philosophy rather than just psychological theories, which draw upon philosophy in some respects.

I think that the question of the metaphysics underlying philosophies of mind is inevitably connected with those about whether consciousness is an illusion. The way of seeing it as an illusion stems from B F Skinner and the philosophy of Dennett. It is also interconnected to the whole question of will and free will, and in the most reductive philosophies human beings are often seen as mere robots. Also, I believe that an underlying rhetoric of such philosophies is a belief that the individual person does not matter, and that we are mere numbers and insignificant. So, on one hand, dualism may support the concerns of the individual ego, but the argument against it can be used to say that we do not have any intrinsic worth at all.

I have to admit that I probably need to read Descartes again as he had such insights which probably go far beyond the Cartesian picture that developed after him.

I think that sometimes the focus in philosophy of mind is more upon labels rather than the intricate relationship of mind and body. I am not trying to say that it is simply mysterious, but it probably should not be put into boxes, with clear, neat categories and labels.

I may be wrong but I do think that many people do see the physical as far more real than mind. Of course, the two are interconnected in a very complex way and I do believe that embodied existence is central. If anything, I just believe that we may be going in a direction in which neuroscientists have all the answers, almost making philosophical thinking an aspect of the past. I believe that we still need to interpret, reflect and think deeply about all of these areas as part of our quest for knowledge and understanding.

I suppose in some ways we could ask what is a body or matter exactly? While it can be perceived by the senses and measured, in some ways it could be perceived as something which has an impermanent nature, and while it can be viewed as more 'real' than the mind in some ways, the record and interpretation of the material in memories gives a certain sense of reality over and above matter itself.

I think that Descartes would probably be rather distraught by all the debate on dualism he started. I think that his own thinking has been stretched out of shape. Strangely the aspect which is not considered much is how he saw the importance connection between the mind and body as involving the pineal gland, which is known to regulate the chemical melatonin, which is important for the regulation of sleep. Perhaps, this is a link because REM dream sleep and dreaming may be an important interface between mind and body.

I think that consciousness does imply sentience, although some people seem to believe that machines can be conscious, but that doesn't quite make sense to me. I am not sure that the ideas of panpsychism really but I do think that it may be about energy fields. This would explain the experience of phantom limbs after amputations.I think that part of the issue about consciousness here is whether it involves self identity. That is what constitutes the 'I' of consciousness, although I would assume that animals don't have a sense of ego identity but have some continuity of memories. The apparent experience of 'dualism' seems to me to be bound up with ego identity and it is possible that the practice of mindfulness is important here in enabling people to understand embodiment through greater sensory awareness.

I do agree that the mechanical basis of the body has collapsed. I think that our own language of explaining it has broken down too. I am not sure really whether it makes any more sense to say that the physical or the material are more real. They could be seen like two sides of the same coin and, ultimately, it could be about not simply going beyond dualism but about going beyond duality. Opposites exist, but within the scheme of an underlying larger duality.

I do agree that the 'I' is hard to explain as an entity rather than us being a mass of experience. I believe that it is this which lead to the idea of dualism in the first place, because even if it is illusory, it involves a certain sense of distance or separation from the body and experience itself, and it is this 'I' of consciousness which many believed to be an inner aspect of consciousness which could even survive death potentially. It may be that the 'I' has an inflated sense of ego consciousness, but the I sees itself as having some independent existence in many ways.

It is not that I really mind how the mind and body relationship is described and I do think that it is emergent. I am just not convinced that it is as clear cut as some philosophers have tried to explain it and I don't rule out the possibility of panpsychism because it may be that consciousness is not exclusive to sentient beings. For all we know, the stars may have some kind of consciousness. As human beings we judge the idea of consciousness with reference to our human experiences and it may be that presents a limitation. But, getting back to the metaphysical, I think that there is probably so much that is beyond our understanding. Science is taking us there, but if humanity exists, it may be that in several centuries time, our current conceptions will be seen as outdated.

I think that it is impossible to know the full extent of the larger whole because it is so large. We have to draw on anthropology and history. But the idea of knowledge of other minds is limited. We may draw upon shared assumption, but the question is to what extent are there similarities or differences, and, for this reason, I have always seen Kant's idea of the categorical imperative as a little bit problematic. We don't all want the same thing in life. So, it may come down to understand of the universal and the unique, but we can never know all these individual unique subjectivities.

Yes, I think that the idea of the 'I' does convey some focus on the isolated individual. But, we do exist as aspects of a larger whole and as separate beings. Even the understanding of 'I' consciousness is constructed in the shared language of social meaning through language. We live in a world of other minds and we could ask to what extent an individual mind exist because minds operate on shared cultural meanings and discourse?

It is interesting to think of the possibility of metaphysics being replaced by images. I am wondering where language would fit into this and whether it would involve a new way of mental processing.

As far as metaphysics being seen as obsolete, I think that since the time of Wittgenstein, we have been moving into a direction of it being seen as make it up as you go along speculative nonsense. However, while metaphysics as a focus may be fading, it is implicit in philosophies of mind and as assumptions underlying all psychological perspectives. In that sense, I think that it is important for it to be seen as worth discussing.

I have to admit that I find Spinoza's writings a bit difficult to come to grips with, but at the same time I do think that in many ways, mind can be seen as a process. I think that such a perspective is probably compatible with the ideas of quantum physics and, probably, the neuroscientists. I guess what I am trying to argue against is a philosophy of mind which is too reductive.

In this respect, I do believe that Bergson's idea of the 'mind at large', which was drawn upon by Huxley, is useful. I am not necessarily trying to say that there is a hidden reality as such, although I do believe in the collective unconscious as an underlying source, even though I know that this concept is seen as outdated by many psychologists and philosophers. I think that they frame the idea a bit wrongly by seeing it as abstract and 'supernatural'. I see it more as an underlying aspect, or as Sheldrake suggests in his idea of morphic resonance, a memory inherent in nature, including mind itself.

I think that disembodied consciousness is not possible. The closest one could get to that is 'out of body experiences' but I am not saying that the separation between mind and body which is felt can be assumed in a literal sense. The experience can be seen as a state of dreaming consciousness, which is, of course, going into the realm of imagination.

Today, I have been reading, 'A Revolutionary Way of Thinking,' by Charles Kreb, which looks at the mind, body, spirit perspective of Chinese thought.It draws upon the Eastern perspective of there being 'subtle' bodies, and this makes sense to me, but I am sure that many people on this forum would not embrace such a view. This is an approach which underlies some thinking about healing, including the existence of meridian points in the energy body. It also involves a picture in which the subconscious pattern of thoughts are seen as interconnected to the physical body, as a complex feedback loop. In such a view thoughts can affect the body and vice versa. I am not saying that I am sure of this viewpoint, but I think that it is worth thinking about, even though I am aware that such a way of understanding is likely to be extremely unpopular by many within the Western philosophy tradition and on this site.

I read some but not all of your debate with Hanover. I think that it is relevant, but not sure that it covers my question entirely. However, I will have a look at that thread and see what I think after that.