Hopefully, it is not simply a matter of ignorance is bliss. Understanding may be about looking at everything in detail, and when I started this thread about a month ago, I was certainly not suggesting that we should only see mysteries as opposed to looking for critical analysis of the many complex aspects of philosophy.

I am not wishing to dismiss the views of thinkers who have developed critical analytical perspectives on religion. I am simply wishing to open up horizons beyond Western thought. I am not trying to simply look to philosophy which supports theism, but look at the widest horizons, ranging from many ideas within Western thinking, and many other traditions.

I will admit to having a foot in the "alternative' philosophies, mainly with an open mind towards esoteric systems of thought. I used to read David Icke at one stage, but did think that he was 'over the top' in his conspiracy theories, especially his idea that the Royal Family were shapeshifting reptiles. I think that conspiracy theories can be dangerous if they are taken literally, but are quite useful as unusual ways of looking and thinking.
Apart from David Icke, I have read Blavatsky, Rudolf Steiner and Benjamin Creme and many other alternative thinkers.

I read them less nowadays, especially since reading philosophy, in conjunction with reading and writing on this site. However, what is interesting is your choice of the words 'flat earth', because 'flatland' was the way Ken Wilber, a transpersonal philosopher, described many mainstream traditions of thought.

Personally, I like to read as widely as possible, and try to juggle various ways of thinking, ranging from the extremes of materialistic perspectives of determinism to the 'spiritual' alternatives of the esoteric thinkers. I believe that the 'truth' may be somewhere in between, but it is not clear and rigid because there is the whole symbolic dimension of reality. I believe that this may be why people are often drawn to the alternative philosophers.

I think that you are right to say that reality is 'beyond the mind', because even though we can only know about it through our minds, and what others describe, it is so much larger than our own experiences. That is probably the benefit of communicating with others, because it gives so much more understanding of reality than one's own subjective experience, and this is involved in the exploration of our existence, including scientific models and descriptions.

I think that what is interesting is that while moods are so related to neurotransmitters, they are affected by experience so much. Also, some people seem to get immediate effects of mood after specific experiences and others seem to get cumulative ones. Each person is so variable in the experience of moods, and some are not able to pinpoint the triggers or the factors.

But, all this does mean that working with 'mood disorders' is extremely complex, with or without medication. In our age, if we are feeling low, an easy answer is to request medication, whereas in previous ages, people had to rely on nature rectifying the problem. It is interesting that some people find the various therapy options more helpful and it shows how moods and neurotransmitters can be implicated in the way in which we think about and structure our experiences.

Also, some people seem to have moods which are more even, while others have a rollercoaster of possible fluctuations. There are even some people who, even with every medical option seem to be permanently low in mood. I think that this may show that the wiring of moods through neurotransmitters is shaped in early life.

We all make the rules together. My bear, Russell, who is tall and thin, unlike most fat teddies, says , Hello,' but I am about to go out for the day, so my rule for now, is try to have fun and be surreal. But, I am not that keen on games apart from scrabble.

Do we have to use objective standards of measurements of time, or can we play once we 'feel' one hundred years old?

Play with teddy bears.

I am aware that I am using the idea of private language very different to Wittgenstein. I have not read that much by him apart from excerpts, and probably should at some point. I know that he is seen as so important, and I recently discovered a bookshop with rows of shelves focusing upon him.

I guess that I probably am, or that we all have individual journeys, with individual meanings, and this is probably based on reading psychotherapy, I think that this does crossover into philosophy because apart from stories being important rational explanations, using language, come into play. We live in mythic dramas and use language to think about life and why things happen.

Actually, I am sure that @Banno will have plenty to say on this thread because he is extremely interested in language. I suppose my own take on private language is the way in which specific words take us to very unique memories, which may involve pain and qualia, but are more of entire narratives or stories. I am sure that is probably a bit outside of Wittgenstein's discussion and is about mythic structure rather than simply linguistic structure.

I suppose that each one of us has a slightly different one, with a mixture of private and shared meanings. How we think probably involves different terms which we have come across in the various academic studies which we have followed. I would even say that I see the world a bit differently than a year ago as a result of discussion about certain words. I had never had thought so much about the idea of consciousness as much, and this has probably changed my own consciousness.

But, aside from philosophy I think that my own linguistic experience is affected by song lyrics. Also, certain authors, such as William Blake and Cormac McCarthy, have impacted my own linguistic universe. Also, generalizing about our linguistic universes, I do wonder if the words embedded in our most important experiences have a profound effect here too.

Okay, I don't have a copy. But, even then my interpretation of your comment was based on how you worded what you wrote, and how it resounded within the linguistic structure of my inner world.

It is a good question what 'the limits of language' are and would it be if someone's mental state deteriorated so much as, for example, in dementia. Or, we could be talking about a heightened state of consciousness, where a person in unable to describe the ineffable, as in mystical states.

I think that if Wittgenstein's statement is taken too concretely it goes too far, because there is so much more to life experiences than simply words. There is the whole dimension of images and the non verbal in communication. Nevertheless, the use of language is so important for thinking and probably is the critical factor which makes human beings different from other species and has shaped culture.

While we do think in images and other sensory ways, especially in relation to practical tasks, I think that most of our understanding of life and our meanings are bound up with language. I remember a friend telling me that she had difficulty in thinking about her experiences because she could not put them into words. I would not say that her language ability is particularly poor, but her comment did make me think about how language does affect the ability to process experiences. I know that art therapy offers scope for people to construct their experiences visually, but in most cases, words still play an important role in reflection upon the art.

I think that the 'out there' being 'in there' in the brain is probably captured in the idea, which goes back to Plato, of the microcosm and the macroscosm. The brain is so complex as the neuroscientists show, and if there are deficits, it affects the whole wiring, and psychedelics can create transformations, as suggested by Huxley's 'Doors of Perception'. But, we cannot step outside of our brains to perceive true objective reality, as suggested by Nagel in 'The View From Nowhere'.

Even if you can't download your posts they are on the site permanently, so you can access them. If you were to download all your threads it would probably fill a complete kindle. It would be 'The Collected Works of Madfool.'

I definitely don't think that technological control is the best approach. If anything, my thread question of 'control' is a critical aspect of this because human beings like to be in 'control', but that is the perspective of the ego. I think that we are may be best looking to the ideas of the writers you mentioned and some other ancient thinkers because they have more of an intuitive understanding of turbulence and flow inherent within ourselves and other aspects of nature.

The problem of mastery of nature and human nature are interconnected, and bound up with the idea of chaos. We have areas of wilderness and storms within our psyches and are unpredictable. The sages tried to master human nature, and perhaps greater understanding is the key aspect, even if there are no easy solutions. There is so much we do not understand and it may be that trying to gain the deepest possible understanding of our own nature, and the natural world can make us more conscious of our actions and, the effects which they have in the larger scheme of life.

I think what I am suggesting is that there is probably some kind of ordering behind nature but we can't try and explain it by our human meanings alone. My own view is that nature has some underlying memory, like Rupert Sheldrake suggests in his theory of morphic resonance.

As it is, we are struggling to make sense of what is happening and, for all we know, there could be some kind of process going on which will bring about further stages in evolution. I think that our own perspective is limited because we can't see into the future, but, that doesn't mean that we should overlook our responsibility for future generations.

I think that there is a danger in reading meanings into natural occurrences, especially how some people interpreted Aids as nature's vengeance against gay people. It is possible to project our own agendas and meanings onto occurrences in the natural world.

The best option would be if human nature can adapt to nature. I think that people are becoming more minimalist and starting to see possessions more negatively as clutter.

Another possibility is that nature will accommodate by bringing changes in mutations to enable people to survive in different conditions, like how people stopped needing an appendix in relation to diet changes. Perhaps, future human beings will evolve a bit differently in the future.

I think that people are struggling to know what to do with the knowledge of the mess we are in. Generally, the approach seems to be that we need to use resources very differently rather than the need for less people to be brought into the world Even the antinatalists are not seeing the reason not to bring children into the world as a way of reducing harm, because their perspective is about the suffering of being born in itself. I think that a lot of people do feel demoralised by the current situation and the leaders are struggling rather than seeing it as a philosophical problem.

I also wonder if nature will find a way of solving the problem somehow, or of bringing balance. It is hard to know if there was a flood, as mentioned in the Bible, which may have wiped out aspects of civilisation, or even the lost continent of Atlantis. But, let's hope that we don't have to see some kind of global catastrophe, and it would be better if humanity was able to take steps to address its relationship with nature, which is probably deeper than the pressing concern of climate change.

You say that; 'Our control of nature is very deceptive' and I think that many human beings do like to feel in control. That is connected to our psychological sense of empowerment. But, in reality the natural world is much larger and more powerful than us. I believe that we need to be aware of our own role in the cosmic scheme in a much more humble way, and, perhaps see ourselves as stewards rather than lords of the universe.

I think that if governments tried to enforce population control in the Western world it would cause outrage. I think that such measures were in place in Third World countries but in the Western world I think that people would see it as a severe restriction of civil liberties.

I think that it is tricky because we want to have progress and the best possible life. But, petroleum is running out and it may not be possible to sustain the lifestyles we have come to expect in consumer materialistic culture. It is hard to know what kind of life human beings will have in fifty or a hundred years time. I believe that is why some people have antinatalist views.

However, on the other hand, we have transhumanism which is about trying to overcome death. If many people try to do this, I don't see how life would be sustainable at all. Therefore, I see antinatalism and transhumanism as two opposing poles along the spectrum of approaches to our relationship with nature. I think that we probably need a balanced approach, but this is hard because life is often about imminent concerns with no ultimate knowledge of the future and we make it up as we go along.

As far as use and abuse is concerned, I think that human beings have seen themselves as the top of the hierarchy with a right to use all resources for human consumption. I think that there is also a mythic assumption of our time that we are at the end of history. This almost allows for human beings to think that it does not matter what we do to the planet.

In England we are still wearing masks and there is still talk of people having to have Covid_19 passports to show that they have been vaccinated to enter some venues.

As far as mask wearing, I think that most people are accepting it but if it becomes like wearing a seat belt it would be a problem. That is because many people find it hard doing things while wearing a mask. Personally, I have tripped over a couple of times, got knocked down by a bike once, and knocked over items on shelves because I can't see what I am doing. That is because the mask steams up my glasses. I even sometimes stop wearing my glasses in shops because it becomes so hard to see.

Also, we don't know how much protection masks provide really. They only protect others rather than the wearer and it is not as if there have been scientific studies to show that masks have stopped transmission of the virus. It probably only stops the spread of germs if people cough.

As far as enforcing vaccines, I think it is starting to happen. If people are forced to show proof that they have been vaccinated to do many activities, I think that this would be going too far, and would restrict civil liberties. On the other hand, if loads of people choose to not be vaccinated there is no end to the spread of the virus, so it will go on indefinitely. Another problem is that even people who have been vaccinated can still get the virus, but it definitely does offer some hope.

So, generally, I would argue that mask wearing may be useful for stopping some transmission but it should not be enforced in the same way as seatbelts. Also, it will help if most people have vaccines but I am not sure that it can be enforced through people being only allowed to enter public places through proof of having been vaccinated.

On the other hand, we will probably get to the point where people can't get jobs in health care without agreeing to being vaccinated and, perhaps, that may be acceptable because it is to protect the public. This may be acceptable as a way of risk minimization in the same way as it being necessary to agree to police clearance in order to work with vulnerable people.

I think that your point, ' We can control nature until we can't, then we perish' may be pertinent to our times. We have come so far in technological advances and creating the 'best' conditions for human beings to thrive.

However, I do think that it comes with a lot of 'buts' and questions of where do we go from here? Throughout the Covid_19 crisis, I have seen the problem as being about the destruction aspects of nature rearing their ugly head. Meanwhile, there is so much bravado about vaccines, but it is not a simple picture with variant strains, and, from my perspective, it is hard to predict how far it is under control. Also, we don't know what potential viruses are coming, or catastrophes.

With climate change, it appears that the problems are increasing at a far larger scale than ever imagined. I put Covid_19 and climate change together, as being the 'dark' side of nature, and I am genuinely of the belief that human beings do not have nearly as much control of this as we would like to believe, in spite of scientific and technological advances.

I am glad for your response and I do think that ' perspectives' is important. However, I do believe that if no one other than you responds to my thread it may suggest that the 'nature' is not seen as important at all.I believe that nature is often seen as unimportant in Western culture, as something which we can and should exploit for human benefit.

My own view is that this is not possible. For example, in medical science, we make progress, but even medicines come with side effects. I am not in any way against medical advances. but I am suggesting that sometimes nature seeks vengeance. Also, we are very far from being in control. For example, we cannot turn off, or turn on, the rain at the present time.

I am left wondering about the experiences of suffering in this, both that of the individual and of others. I think that it involves balancing the two, but it also involves the widest distanced perspectives. I think that climate change was underestimated and many people thought that Covid_19 would be a brief problem, and my own view and; of some others, is that it is going to be a real problem for many many years to come.

So, while you speak of the ego simultaneously seeking to 'avoid annihilation' in conjunction with 'the will to power', I think that it occurs within a context of uncertainty and unpredictability. I know that Wittgenstein speaks about uncertainty, but I think that apart from this being an epistemological problem, it also poses a problem with how we tackle problems, juggling the immediate and potential long reaching effects of any specific actions which we initiate for our benefit or those of other people or forms of life. Therefore, I think that we need to understand the effects of our actions in the fullest way, but I do believe that there are limitations of this because life, because even science does not seem to be able to fine tune the exact way in which nature and reality becomes manifest in real life.

I do believe that ego plays a very important but precarious role. There is the 'will to power' identified by Nietzsche, in contrast to our fears of annihilation, or loss of self, or chaos. I think that we each walk this tightrope, but it may involve careful, ongoing negotiations of our own assertion of our own needs, but also the exploitation of nature. I believe that it is extremely complex, and it is also difficult because we see the immediate effects of our actions. It is so difficult to see the wider implications of any specific way, especially in predicting harms, but often, in retrospect, we can see these. I think that the ideal would be about greater awareness of our own deepest needs alongside, awareness of the ripple effects of our own actions.

I think that it is interesting that you link the idea of nature with human nature. But, when you speak of our relationship with nature, I think that it partly comes down to whether we see our own lives as serving nature or as using nature for our own benefits and 'pleasure'. I certainly don't think that egotism can be overcome easily, but I do believe that our understanding of our needs does need to be considered in balance to wider aspects of the natural order. It probably, involves seeing our place or role within it, in the most balanced way.

Having thought about the whole question of good and evil in this thread, I do think that it so much easier to think about our own conceptions of these. Once we get to the big metaphysics of it, we also come up against the question of whether good or evil is more powerful, which may only make sense if seen in a religious context. I do believe that the framing of good and evil, metaphysically and morally, shows how abstract such areas of philosophical thought can be.Perhaps,our own psychological understandings, are important, as a phenomenological starting point from which to see the wider aspects of the philosophical issue of the problem of evil.

When you say that, 'If we were incapable of thinking but we were didn't (before birth and after death) it could be said that we were in hell( before birth) and we will go back to hell (after death)' you are suggesting that non existence as a form of to be dreaded. This is a common attitude to death in Western culture. I think that death and non existence is seen very differently in Eastern traditions.

Even though Hinduism and Buddhism often indicate possible journeys to other dimensions, such as those described in, 'The Tibetan Book of the Dead' and future rebirths, there is still a certain emphasis upon breaking free from the cycle of rebirth and potential Nirvana. Whether the idea of Nirvana is seen as non existence ultimately is something which I am not certain about from my reading of such ideas, but, nevertheless it does point to the end of existence as we know it. I think it definitely points to the end of the existence of ego consciousness and the thinking mind, but this is not viewed as something to be dreaded.

I think that the truth of the matter is that we don't know what 'near death experiences' signify. We don't know how widespread they are. I think that the main difficulty in interpreting them is the fact that the people who had them did not die. But, even if they are just a result of oxygen deprivation, they may be an important aspect of the experience of dying. I think that there are epistemological problems with knowing about the actual moment of death as the ultimate end because none of us have really died, including Sam Harris.

I think that there are various aspects involved in contemplating our death and one aspect is imagining the world without our existence in it. This would include the potential effects that our death will have on significant others, as well as the significant of our non existence will have in the world. However, I do believe that you are thinking more about non existence from a subjective point of consciousness.

I believe that it is possible that the encounter with our non existence through death may vary from person to person. Here, I am suggesting that the transition to death may involve varying states, some more gradual than others, with some people being more conscious that death is being encountered than others. Perhaps, some people fade into unconscious gradually through dreamless sleep.

On the other hand, there is the near death experiences phenomena. Even if these don't necessarily point to immortality itself, they may represent a transitional state of consciousness, and we don't know how they continue in the process of dying because the people who are in the position of describing them returned to life. This leads me to think that the encounter with death represents an 'unknown' experience, and I think that this is conveyed symbolically by Hindu mystics, who speak of, 'Atman' merging with' Brahman'. In other words, self consciousness, or death of the ego may occur, while our bodies return to dust, as an aspect of the recycling of matter.

I agree that sentience is important, and I am not sure that there is any absolute 'reality' behind the way we construct our own meanings, but I do believe that it is an ongoing area of philosophy debate. In saying this, I am aware that it raises and questions the ideas of Kant and Plato in a really big way. I am not saying that I think that they had all the answers, but I still believe that some of their ideas about categories, such as Plato's forms, are still useful for trying to explain some 'mysterious' underlying aspects of reality and existence.

I am glad to see your thread discussion and the article links, and I think that the ethics of war and peace is an interesting area.

I have always had a leaning towards pacifism and its philosophy. I found a CND badge when was I still at school and felt that the non violent protest of Ghandi was an important philosophy to follow. However, I am aware of it can be seen as a form of idealism to oppose war, and, of course, CND is against the idea of nuclear weapons, not war outrightly. There is also the big question of just and unjust war, but I do still believe it is better to find solutions which don't involve war.

I often try to get a white poppy rather than a red one, but that is not to say that I undervalue the people who lost their lives in the first and second world wars. But, I think that we have gone past the age of martyrdom and the couple of individuals who I know who joined the army hoped that they would not be in any frontline conflict. But, I also believe that avoiding war is the best option for leaders with all the sophisticated weaponry available because increasingly it looks more possible that mass destruction could occur.

I see your point about giving up using the word 'evil', but if anything I think that it is a word we should use with caution. From this thread discussion, it has become clear to me that evil is hard to define because it is abstract, nevertheless it does appear that there are extreme aspects of existence and moral behaviour which point to the end aspects of the spectrum in between the polar opposition between good and evil.

I think that you probably go to rather different music events to me, but it probably goes back to what music we were brought up with as children. I was raised on pop and rock. When I get to know people, at first they sometimes imagine that I would like classical music and are surprised to find that I am mostly into alternative rock. But, I guess that we are all inspired in different ways.

Generally, I gravitate the alternative side of creativity and towards creative bohemians, and have some empathy with the description by Keroac, in, 'On the Road', as he says that, the
'people that interest me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones that never yawn or say a commonplace thing..but burn, burn, burn like roman candles in the night.' The reason for this preference is because I think that it captures more of the essence of the mysterious side of life.