I would agree with your summary of 'Blood Meridian' and its idea of First World expansion. It seems prophetic, as if we are living in a 'post-apocalyptic age'. I don't wish to sink into nihilistic doom and gloom, however, because there may be some truth in self-fulfilling prophecies...It may be the battle between 'new age' utopianism and nihilistic visions of doom and gloom of human dreams becoming manifest in the dramas of human civilisation, with an odd mixture of chaos.

Adolescence is such an important time for thinking about values and rebelling. Some are more inclined to write and, as adults writing on philosophy sites, ongoing development and modification of ideas may occur. I see it as a lifelong search.

The negative opposite to martyrdom may be forms of self-harm, including alcohol or substance abuse, and even suicide which Camus saw as a form of 'metaphysical rebellion'. In the collapse of so many aspects of life, alongside nihilism, there may be a loss of self-care as well as regard for the needs of others.

I agree with your idea or ideal of morality as being based on empathy. However, achievement of this may not be simple because it involves compassion which is a form of wisdom. The degree of empathy or compassion which a person aquires is so variable, and some individuals are extremely deficient, especially those who are diagnosed with an antisocial personality disorder. It was Gautama Buddha's experience of witnessing poverty and sickness, which led him to contemplate the importance of compassion.

The lady in the charity shop, or those in higher positions of the charity were being cautious about stocking music. It is hard to know whether this comes down to risk assessment or fear.

Political correctness as a 'sword to shame people' is definitely problematic, as people make mistakes in language, especially in relation to ideas of understanding differences. Also, changes in language change so much. Within mental health nursing, I found changes from the way people were referred to as 'patients', to 'clients', 'service-users' and 'customers'. It may have been pedantic as much as about political correctness. A more political correct change was that the diagnosis of Asperger's Syndrome has been replaced by autistic spectrum disorder, not simply because it is a spectrum, but, also, because Asperger was a Nazi.

In thinking of the concept of authenticity, I read the writing of a twentieth literary critic, Lionel Trilling, 'Authenticity and Sincerity'. He saw the movement from sincerity, as being honest to one's word, to authenticity, involve experimentation, in finding one' 'true self'. Authenticity also involves questioning of social roles and norms.

In thinking of social dynamics, scapegoating has probably played a significant as has martyrdom, with people being prepared to lay down their lives for the highest ethical ideals, including Socrates and Emiline Pankhurst for the Suffragettes. There is the negative equivalent of this in the form of terrorism. It is questionable to what extent there is a place for philosophical martyrs within secular ethics, however, without the idea of rewards in the afterlife.

As far as the gravitation towards totalitarianism goes, it may definitely come in the context of fear in the complete uncertainty about the future, with a wish for a sense of a leader who is 'in control'. Within the pandemic, there may have been a lot of obedience to rules due to a whole aspect of uncertainty, which still exists in the effects of the lockdown and the uncertainty in general, especially in relation to the threats of climate change and the fear of potential World War 3. Humanity is living with so much to fear as a source of moral panic.

You are correct to place McCarthy's ideas in America and the quote was in a discussion of war. Nihilism is a position which can be slipped into easily and it involves attitude as opposed to logical arguments.

Ethics may be about the highest ideals, but it may become so much less in the chaos of life, especially amidst suffering and oppression. It may even tie in with Maslow's hierarchy of needs, with many struggling with the basic aspects of physical survival and not being able to achieve self-actualization and creativity in life.

Thanks for your recent post, which makes many interesting and critical points. It is indeed a good question as to who are the 'weak' and on what basis is there a criteria?

The finding of a truly authentic morality is complex because so much is about values handed down during socialisation, with potential for modifications. This makes authenticity in ethics a spectrum and it would probably be hard to pin down the exact difference between inauthentic and authentic ethics and, each person's exploration of how to live is unique.

Do you not think that projection is an important aspect of hatred, because as far as I see it, this has occurred so much at the centre of conflicts and war, including when it is projected onto minority groups or leaders, as the psychodynamics of politics. As for potential totalitarianism, I see it as an authoritarian response to the existential fear of the panorama of the pluralism, in a multicultural and multifaith/worldviews.

The nature of politics as 'the application of ethics to monopoly and power' is the basis of the dialogues and debates of social ethics, and is probably where it goes beyond ideas of personal morality alone.

The issue with political correctness is balancing conflicting interests. In particular, Equal Opportunities policies have been developed to protect issues of difference. The problem is that some who don't wish to adhere to such a perspective see it as being authoritarian and don't like to be told what is acceptable. In Scotland, anti-hate laws have been developed because some rebel by wishing to express hate, to the point of violence.

Regarding the anti-hate laws in Scotland,
JK Rowling has protested about these in relation to trans issues. She is not arguing against transgender people as such, but suggesting that people should not be told that they can't 'call a man a man', which means an invalidation of people's gender transitions.

Trans is one aspect of where there are conflicts of interests but there are so many others too, including people of varying religious faiths, which has always been a problem, especially when ideas of superiority come in.

The basis for my partial agreement with Cormac McCarthy is a fairly negative view of human nature, based on reading of history and so much which is going on in the world currently.

However, I don't see human beings in an entirely negative way. It may be that reflection itself is part of the stepping point towards authentic morality. The authentic morality would be based on wisdom, or some degree of self-mastery.

However, such self-mastery is not without awareness of one's weaknesses, as opposed to the perfectionism aspired to by the Abrahamic religious traditions. The highest morality may have been achieved by some human beings, Socrates, Jesus Christ, the Buddha and Gandhi. However, what was passed down in religious traditions was a mere facade.

The same may be true in secular ethics. So much is projection of 'evil' onto others and this is happening in both the left and right of politics, including the backlash against political correctness. Such a backlash paves the way for Neo-Nazi totalitarianism and that worry is probably the basis for my incongruous mixture of sources for my initial outpost.

My quoting of Cormac McCarthy was on the basis of it being a point worthy of reflection. I would say that I think that it makes a fair point but it may be not a full enough view and would need far more substantiation.

Most moral systems evolved in conjunction with religious worldviews and the move towards more secular ideas has not been straightforward. It is probably difficult to take a writer's viewpoint outside of the social context in which they emerged.

It definitely seems that the backlashes of the present time may be far 'longer and fiercer' than the original movements towards liberation. This is what makes them into cultural wars, amidst a background of cultural relativism, with specific groups arguing for their values and interests.

It is true that Cormac McCarthy's statement is an overgeneralisation, and I don't wish to make too much of an issue of this, but your post's quote of it does make it look like mine. I will go back and look at the examples in the fiction content which follows the specific statement. Maybe, Tom Storm is right to see it as an artistic statement more than anything else and, despite the way McCarthy's book is seen as a literary classic, I wonder to what extent the quote has been looked at as a philosophy statement. If anything, I saw it as having a Nietzschian feel or criticism of ideas of morality.

The role of religion has played such a significant role in ideas of morality. Here, the dialogue may come down to the politics of religion, which was Nietzsche's starting point for the critique of morality and of going 'Beyond Good and Evil'.

Of course, the side-issue would be the way ij which Nietzsche's ideas were made into potential for Nazi ideas, independently of how he intended them to be interpreted. If anything, the history of philosophy has been filled with racist and sexist comments. It may have been that awareness of historical issues of racism and sexism gave rise to the movement of political correctness and wokeism.

Lawmakers and policy makers do have a big role to play in defining what is acceptable. If anything, there may be a reverse of this happening with objections to 'politically correct' views currently, with a potential for expression of hatred, as a backlash.

I do agree with your distinction between ethics and politics, or their underlying foundation. Nevertheless, the two may be blurred so much in the experience of life, especially in social systems and organisations.

Generally, I see political correctness as being 'over the top'. However, I am inclined to try to use language with a certain amount of sensitivity. That is probably because I have seen language used against people with mental health problems and LGBTIQ issues in a hurtful way. However, that is more in the context of real life social interaction and personal insults. Where it gets complicated is with artists like Eminem who used the term 'nigger' and some people took objection. It may depend on context as to whether it matters and, motives. For example, many gay people have used the word 'queer' to affirm a positive identity.

I also think that Cormac McCarthy's book is one of the Great American novels. I was rereading it when I came across his view of moral law. I am aware that @Tom Storm sees the view as an artistic statement, and it is, but it may also be an observation of lived experience of social life.

I admit that I juxtaposed a strange combination of sources in writing the thread. As far as the charity shop worker's comment goes, I was left wondering about the member of staff was expressing her view or a policy of the charity itself. Independently of which is the case, the particular view was one which I have come across in many aspects of life, especially in relation to music artists.

I have seen various people cast aside 70s album compilations aside for having a track by Gary Glitter, or even the Glitterband, which did not include him, as a matter of principle. I was a bit stuck myself as I had albums by Lostprophets and simply didn't wish to listen to them any longer after the lead singer, Ian Watkins, was convicted of child sex abuse.

It does depend how far one wishes to go or achieve, and the divide between the nature of censorship between the political right and the political left roots of political correctness is an interesting area of contrast. That is because the moral right sees it as being necessary in order to prevent sexual immorality and violence, with the assumption being that a person viewing certain material is likely to engage in these as a result. This is a rather dubious argument. In contrast, the political left does not come from such particular logic or rationale. It is more based on avoidance of upsetting those who are are in so-called minority positions.

I don't see why Cormac McCarthy's ideas should be dismissed as simply 'a novel'. That seems to involve compartmentalism, as if academic philosophy is supreme. So many ideas are pursued in fiction and distinguished philosophers, including Sartre and Camus, used both fiction and philosophy. As for the bleakness of Cormac, he does represent the post-apocalyptic genre. It is grim, but it may involve fiction as raising critical questions about culture rather than as mere entertainment.

As for my own post being about censorship as opposed to wider questions of political correctness, I would argue that political correctness is about censorship but other aspects too, such as choice of language. My working definitely of political correctness would be about the attempt to convey ideas in such a way that it does not cause offence, especially in relation to ideas of difference, such as race and gender.

One key difference between political correctness and the 'moral right' may be about angle and emphasis. Ideas such as pornography being wrong were based more on ideas of 'moral purity' as opposed to attempts to remove ideas which may be perceived as problematic in relation to marginalised groups. It may not be a complete distinction though, because pornography may be seen as treating women as sexual objects, which is not simply about purity but also about the subordination of women.

Even the pope has made a shift in his thinking in his ideas of gender, from what I have read in recent news. He sees gender transitions as problematic as blurring the distinction between the sexes, but has suggested that homosexuality is acceptable. That is a shift from the Catholic Church's previous attitude towards gay issues. It may reflect the awareness of the priesthood as having a shadow, with so many priests in the closet and issues of abuse.

With photos, there is possibly the most 'clinically objective' image representation of visual reality possible. However, there are some variables, such as lighting, photographic techniques and, more so recently, modifications not simply by airbrushing but by apps for adjustment.

However, in the phenomenology of art, there is a difference by rendering an image, or of copying, of a photograph and human drawing and painting. This may be where qualia and perception come in. If a group of people sit together and draw a person there are likely to be so many differences in the picture produced. It may come down to artistic ability but also due to perception itself, with so much being interpretative as opposed to 'photorealism'.

However, it is a muddy area as some strive to copy in such a way as to resemble photorealism, especially if photographs are used as part of the research and details copied from photos. Currently, graphic art and its incorporation of humans blur the boundaries. Also, there is the movement of supperealist painting, which attempts to make art which looks more 'real' than photography.

In addition, the familiarity with certain art and photography may influence human perception itself. Artists study art to improve their visual imagination. Also, the he exposure to photorealism informs the basis of the visual imagination is one influential aspect of visualisation alongside the neuroscientific aspects of perception, with the brain and eyes being the physical wiring for picturing 'reality'.

There is the question of the innate differences of biology, which may involve thinking, as noted by @Hanover, and the role of cultural assumptions and the dynamics of power relationships. It may be complicated.

Mary Midgely's comment about the way women don't put each other down, may be about female psychology. Or, it may be about the situation of females in philosophy and their precarious situation in a male dominated profession in the institution of philosophy at the time, as if being there itself was a 'privilege' and a shared respect for one another as it may be problematic to argue that females never put other females down, such as in situations where they are competing against one another.

The dynamics of institutions involves power relationships and ideas about gender. Even recently, I read of a situation in the news in which a woman applied for a high position in an organisation and was rejected. When she sought feedback, she was told that the reason why she had not been given the job she was told that it was because she had not 'put enough effort into her appearance'. The woman claimed that what this amounted to was she had not worn make up. It reminded me of how the most successful woman I knew in philosophy, a professor and well known figure in medical ethics, who was a tutor, was adored by male students for her sexual attractiveness. I won't name her, just in case she were to read this online forum, but I wonder if she would have risen to fame if she had not been so attractive.

What I am arguing is that gender relationships are not simply about misogyny but about stereotypes. In the twentieth first century the situation may have changed to the point where there is more bias against males in some contexts. For example, what I have found when looking for accommodation is that so many adverts say, 'females only', which may mean some difficulty for males in finding 'a room of one's own'.

The addition of the poll about shifts the focus of the thread, to the issues of relationships between women and men. Also, I only just saw the link to a reference to the Virginia Wolf's 'A Room of One's Own' because the blue of the link words didn't show on my 'night time' mode on my phone.

I have read the book by Woolf and her writing and her writing was extremely influential in giving women a separate identity and voice in philosophy. At one point, in some Christian understanding, when there was a belief in the 'soul', there was speculation that women did not have souls, although I don't know how widespread that was. But public thought and philosophy was the domain of male power.

So much has shifted since Midgely, in the twentieth first century, and women are not dependent on men and in the public sphere with strong voices. When I mentioned to a female friend that there are so many males and not many females writing on the philosophy site she replied, 'They have better things to do than write on philosophy forums'. This conveyed an image of men alone in their rooms reading and writing philosophy, with women being out in the public sphere of interaction. Philosophy itself may have become marginalised, as seen as too abstract and removed from public life.

It may be about 'containment' of the body and the environment. My own understanding with my room, and the nature of 'clutter' may be as important as the sense of 'body' and its boundaries. The physiological aspects of body may be the starting point for the wider sphere of containment, ownership and influence.

The idea of carrying ' another person in the body' relates to the philosophy of transgenerism, and gender dysphoria, although this may be a little different from the ideas expressed by Mary Midgely as such. The idea of masculinity as privilege may relate to gender dynamics of power, as identified in feminism. The crossover between feminism and the postmodern critique of gender may be important .

Privilege itself may involve material or psychological aspects. Material satisfaction may be a comfort, just as masculinity may be privilege. The material and social aspects of comfort and priviledge may have some parallel in the dynamics of power.

To some extent, science may have taken such a stronghold, that philosophy is seen as of less importance. However, the ideas of science and scientific models may rest on philosophy assumptions and even physics, as 'hard science' may rest on the metaphysical imagination. In particular, quantum physics breaks down the basics of hardcore materialistic approaches of scientific models, leading to scientific ideas and, even paradigms, being models as opposed to absolutes of objective and rational understanding.

The distinction between belief and knowledge may involve the epistemological basis of ideas. It may embrace the evidence of the senses, cultural ideas and evidence. All of these may be important in philosophy understanding Each person may incorporate aspects of this in thinking and the interplay may lead to the differences between subjective and objective knowledge. Knowledge is bound to objective criteria for understanding whereas belief may involve subjectivity. However, the interplay between the objective and subjective may mean that the nature of belief and knowledge remains fluid in human understanding.

I have looked at your link and it may reveal aspects of human understanding and the complexities of gender in this. Adolescence is a particularly difficult time for many, as it involves the complexity of conflicts about sexuality. In relation to Descartes' cognito, it may involve the reflective aspects of human identity and consciousness. It also goes back to Sartre's understanding of self-consciousness, which involves reflective understanding, including the experience of 'body'.

Feminism has been an important foundation for thinking, as well as postmodernism. Domestics may involve so much, especially chores and the how gender is manifest. It may involve the basic questions of gender, essentialism and science and how these come into play in philosophical assumptions. I wonder to what extent the thread is about core issues of values, especially in relation to gender in relationships and social discourse. To what extent is a matter of philosophy or involve wider social aspects of politics, especially in regard to the basis of the idea of gender?

It could also be asked to what extent is feminism an entire critique of philosophy?

I notice that you highlight the word 'decide' between the idea of 'natural' and 'supernatural' and this dichotomy may be ab important area for debate. I have already spoken of the way in which Lyall Watson speaks of how some aspects of life, perception of extrasensory perception may be viewed as 'supernatural' erroneously, with the nature of perception and its extrasensory being wider.

The main basis of my own views are based on personal experience and I realise that these are limited as anecdotal evidence..
In understanding the nature of mind and consciousness, it may come down tje pros and cons of the experimental methodologies, both quantitative research and narrative description of qualitative research..

It may not be unclear as to how the dialogue between evidence based understanding and ideas of the nature of ''mind'and consciousness come into play. Ideas of consciousness and mind rest on both psychological and philosophy assumptions
.thinking of 'mind' involves psychology and philosophy, especially in relation to multidisciplinary perspectives.

. This area of rbecause the concepts and assumptions of the nature of 'mind' are of significance here. The ideas of the nature of mind and consciousness may not of significance here. How do you see the idea of intentionality as an aspect of psychology and philosophy?

The question as to whether 'mind' is 'natural' or 'supernatural' may be of significance but the division between natural and supernatural may not be clear. I have mentioned this in relation to Lyall Watson' s critique that the concept of the 'supernatural', and whether it comes down to the paranormal or aspects of the dichotomy of sensory perception.

I do wonder to what extent spiritual and religious concepts come into play in this area of thinking. I am definitely aware of a Catholic guilt complex which spurred me into rethinking..So, I try to look.beyond the ideas of religious thinking. I certainly question the dogmatiism of religious thinking and 'souls', especially in relation to ideas of heaven and hell in the afterlife. These are so fear based.

Kant may have been confounded by the dogmatic assumptions of Christian thinking. It could be argued by the whole basis of Christianity and atheism come down to the issue of sexuality, as this may be the most pertinent area of mind and body. It is the issue underlying Kant's perspective on pleasure and duty, and t
he treatment of human beings as ends.

Ideas of the 'supenrmatual', its absence or not, and naturalism may be be dependent on philosophical assumptions, especially the debate between the metaphysical and the moral..I am far from the most traditional of thinkers, because I am open to diversity in the expression of human sexuality

You may question why I think introducing the nature of sexuality into the debate about 'mind'. The reason why I do so is because the dichotomy between body and mind in philosophy may involve 'sexuality', as a key link.
.

I know that this is a major aspect of philosophy and, if any of us could know with absolute certainty it would make so much in life simple. Perhaps, it would be too simple as if 'answers' to the biggest questions and existential dilemmas of life could be found, as looking for answers from the 'heavens' or authoritative guides and guidelines, as definitive absolutes.

It also leads me to think about how I hesitated in answers in primary school, wishing to be 'certain' of answers before volunteering answers at school. It raises the whole issue of doubt and how the spectrum of doubt and certainty exist in life and so many questions of philosophy.

I also wonder about the extent to which doubt and certainty are desired. Would I like all the answers to personal life and the existential questions of life to appear in the clouds as absolutes, Or, would it shortcut the philosophy quest, and the whole phenomenon of knowing and unknowing? T
To what extent is 'unknowing' the important variable for all philosophical exploration and innovation?

The concept of intuition in the gap between rational knowledge and the sensory basis of empiricism may have been a wide area opened by Kantian thinking. Intuition may be important but open to scrutiny, especially in relation to clarity. It may be obscured by factors in socialisation, as well as fear and fantasises. Intuition may be a way of going beyond logic, but it may also be clouded by fears and fantasies. So, it may be an important aspect in the conception.of ideas and ideals but require more substantial basis in knowledge and evidence.
.

I wonder to what extent you see death as the elimination of suffering and the idea of 'resting in peace'?. In a way, this may be similar to the concept of 'nirvana', although it may be unclear in some perspectives of Eastern philosophy as to.whether 'Nirvana' is a temporary or permanent state..

So, in thinking about your question, I am.left wondering about the nature of unconsciousness and nothingness as 'comfort'. Sleep may be seen as 'rest', as comfort and potential rejuvenation. However, it may be seen differently as an end with no further conscious experience.

It could be asked what are theories?.lThey may involve theories and evidence in understanding.The biggest danger may be where theories and models may taken as absolutes as opposed to representations of ideas and understanding in the human 'mind".The concept of 'mind' may be limited. but this may also apply to the theories and models related to the nature of 'mind', mental states and consciousness.

Your text may be a fairly old one but may signify the role of Rome and Catholicism in ethical and political thinking. I am living in England and wonder to what extent what you are saying comes down to religious fundamentalism in its many forms. The dichotomy of religious beliefs and fundamentalist ideologies may be a strong factor in Amercaj politics and of so many other perspectives. In particular, the dialogue between religious perspectives and thinking may be important, especially where religious, and moral teachings are established.

I don't live in America, so I wonder about the limits of the questioning in relation to both fundamentalism and Catholicism in.America?.Are you interested in American politics alone or the wider scope of politics on a global level?. Also, to what extent may the relationship between politics and religion be considered, and religious thinking in conservative, or traditional thinking of the social order?.

I am sorry if you see me as not making 'good' arguments. I wonder what are the essentials for making 'good' arguments in relation to understanding the nature of 'mind'. Even the idea of 'good' is a value judgement, although I would presume that your idea is based more on the basis of the concept of 'truth', especially in relation to accuracy.

I am not sure to what extent each of us comes from an entirely different basis of motivation and logic. I am certainly opposed to mystification of ideas. If anything, the nature of conceptual and psychological understanding may be important. For example, I know that my own psychological issues with Christian philosophy stem from issues of sexuality. This takes it back from the philosophical issues to the psychological ones. In this respect, I see the area of psychology and philosophy as being of equal importance..I am not sure to what extent each is primary and psychology or philosophy as the key area for debate. To what extent do you see the nature of psychology or philosophy as as the foundation for thinking?

The whole nature of ambiguity may arise in thinking about the idea of 'mind'. It may be the very nature of ambiguity which is a problem in psychological and philosophical understanding. It may be a wish to put 'reality' and ideas into boxes, when there are so many inherent problems. I hope that in acknowledging the nature of ambiguity of this I am not seen as the antiphilospher, or, perhaps, I should stand as the antiphilospher, as seeing the problematic and blurry areas of philosophy, especially the nature of 'mind'. Each person may experience 'mind' and try to come up with valid explanatory logic, for better or worse.

I am not disputing valid inferences and terms but it is so complex, involving logic and linguistics. The complexity of this may be why a site such as this are needed when the basics and minor aspects are both important in the grasp and understanding of 'mind', including its experiential and theoretical nature.

What is the basis of good argument and I wonder about its linguistics and grammar. One aspect which I wonder about in your writing is your use of italics and sentence breaks, as they may lead to ambiguities. I am not sure if these are intentional and about the limits of logic and language? Generally, in the understanding of the nature of understanding of 'mind', I wonder about language and its limit. Wittgenstein may have recognised the limits of language but this may be so germane in the understanding of 'mind' and consciousness' and pinning these down to logic and science...

You make some important points and the issue of whether it is biological may be an important one. The primacy of biology may be so central to ideas of essentialism, including the basis of nature and nurture in thinking about free will and even ideas about what is gender. At times, the emphasis on biology may be so strong, as suggested by @Gnomon in his argument about the nature of the division between 'soft' and 'hard' science'. Mental states may be reduced to biology, which may end up with the nature of human imagination being dismissed or seen as a mere 'add on' feature in the nature of consciousness rather than imagination being seen as the an essential aspect, as realised in the numinous states of meditation and artistic creativity.

I have read Nagel' s writing on, 'The View From Nowhere', and found it helpful in thinking of the nature of awareness. It may go back to the epistemological limits of Kant, but in a more specific way. It is not possible to stand outside of consciousness in understanding. In other words, the capacity of 'mind' and the whole scope and nature of mental states may be inherent in the process of philosophical understanding. It may be asked, to what extent is self awareness, both introspection and taking on board more objective measures, essential to all philosophical understanding, even those related to the interpretation of scientific evidence and its role in human understanding?

Your question above is an interesting one because it does involve the one of what constitutes a 'mind'. One interesting discussion may be Gilbert Ryle's analysis of the idea itself and he argues that it may be 'a category mistake', based on the thinking of Descartes.

The problem which I see with this is the reductive thinking which became apparent in the thinking of the pop writing of Daniell Dennett, of 'consciousness as an illusion', which may have become extremely influential in the the understanding of the nature of consciousness and 'mind'. It is extremely reductive and the issue may be that it leaves out the reflective nature of 'mind' as agency, which was also apparent in the determinist psychology of BF Skinner.

The idea of 'mind' may be seen on the basis of behaviour , but also involves inner experience. The distinction between the inner and outer may be an important one, although it is somewhat blurry at times. Also feel free to suggest what you would list as the characteristics of 'mind', which may be important at this time as human intelligence is facing the competition of artificial intelligence. Here, I would argue that the idea of intelligence is a question in the concept of mind. This involves the nature of sentience and its role in human mental and emotional states, as opposed to 'mind' as pure reasoning intelligence.

I have read your initial post and the one you just read, although connecting with some of the links is difficult, or sometimes is difficult to enlarge on my phone. Sometimes, this limits my own responses and I am still inclined towards 'paper books', but realise that the web is a source of so many ideas.

The distinction between hard and soft science is a particularly important area, especially in what may emerge as the 'hard problem of consciousness'. Hard is often equated with science and the understanding of the brain, especially cognitive science.

I remember once weiting in a student essay about the debate as to whether psychology is a science or art. I was inclined to the position that the emphasis upon it being science was limited because if ignores the artistry and metaphysical imagination in inherent conceptions at the core of psychology. I later did some courses which were science based in nursing and saw the limitations of psychology being seen as 'hard science, and this issue may arise in approaches to the nature of 'mind' and consciousness.

I am not wishing to ignore your post previous to the one above. I am simply just going through the replies and the only reason I replied to @180 Proof's post first was because I have more regular interaction with him and it was mainly on this basis that I started the post. I see all posts as being important and do wish to pay attention to them and, besides, the thread topics are for general interaction and not simply dialogue with me.

My software of my phone makes quoting difficult but I am trying to engage fully and hope that your ideas, and everyone else's are appreciated. I will look at your initial response to me now, as I am out in a quiet space.

I am interested by the way in which Sheldrake develops his ideas to explain past life memories. It is consistent with the understanding of past lives by some Buddhist thinkers in which there is more of an underlying continuity of past life forms as opposed to concrete entities and in line with the fluid conception of self. The mistake which some people may make in querying past lives is to think it involves the specific stream of narrative personal identity, or the ego consciousness.

The general understanding is consistent with the relationship between a person and 'other minds', including ancestors and other living people. It is likely to involve a web of system interconnections. This would link with the idea of a collective unconscious, or to choose another philosophical term, intersubjective relationships in nature. It involves the evolution of consciousness in nature.

Some people may grow up with vestiges of past lives. I read, 'Past Lives, Past Masters', by Andrew Weiss, in which he, with no previous belief in reincarnation undertook the hypnotherapy of a patient. It involved the revelation of detailed memories from past lives, leading Weiss to consider the nature of past lives seriously. He ends up concluding that it was unclear if it was based on actual lives lived by the woman and himself or the tapping into the collective unconscious.

I am not sure why the idea of the collective unconscious is rejected by so many. It is at the juncture of 'science and spirituality', as you suggest, and this may be where it seen by many as problematic. I am extremely influenced by Carl Jung's ideas, as you and others on the site may be aware. I don't know why the ideas of Jung are seen as pseudoscience because they give a more flexible idea of 'mind' than many other approaches.

Jung draws upon ideas which may be seen as 'supernatural', which was the objection of Freud, but he does also draw upon ideas of biological naturalism. The idea of the collective unconscious is neither completely biological materialism or idealism, possibly fusing them in a complex way and drawing upon the Platonic idea of archetypes. I found the writings of Anthony Stevens helpful here because he traces such ideas in relation to biology as opposed to some 'supernatural' thought.

Even the idea of the supernatural is open to critical scrutiny, as argued by the biologist, Lyall Watson, in his 'Supernature', who sees the whole approach of extrasensory perception as being problematic when seen as 'paranormal', as opposed to being about the complexity of 'minds' in nature.

Having read your post and the linked one, I would say that I am definitely in favour of reasoned arguments and that is why I read philosophy rather simply books in the 'mind, body and spirit category', which often come with a lack of rigour in thinking.

The area of reason, a priori logic, in conjunction with a posteri logic, evidence, the evidence of empiricism by Kant, is extremely complex. The difficulty may be about putting the two together, which is where speculation comes in. To argue on the basis of one's own experience in making the link is weak and may be contrasted by evidence based knowledge, but even this comes with bias and the critical role of observer in experiments and research. This is where the interpretative leanings, especially in relation to materialism and idealism come in.

I know that you don't subscribe to this clear division and are well read in the approach of substance dualism. This is one way of seeing it of various options, including non dualism and pansychism. I do have a certain amount of sympathy for panpsychism in its argument for rudimentary consciousness underlying all matter and for non dualism, as mind and matter being entwined in a complex interface. This would also go hand in hand with phenomenology, especially the role of intentionality which is at the basis of the role of human consciousness in the overall scheme of understanding.

It is probably true that many people are not interested in neuroscience in their daily lives and beliefs. It is the area of both those who are interested in psychology and philosophy mainly, which is only a certain 'minority', although it does seem that psychology is becoming one of the most popular subjects for study. It is often a choice for both self knowledge and career pathways.

Subjectivity is often the area of psychotherapy and there may be an important aspect in research. However, one's own mind is not possible without some basis in subjectivity. Feedback from others may be useful to some extent in gaining some objectivity through others' perceptions.

It may even lead to an understanding of one's own blindspots but the ego may stand in the way and allow for limited insight into mind and self as a doorway of self awareness and the layers of subconscious which may be masked by the nature of the persona. This may go into the territory of social psychology and and awareness of social processes, including the dynamics of projection.