Thanks for your extremely interesting reply. The question of good and evil in relation to the right and left is extremely important, even though I don't think Gilchrist looks at this clearly. But, one author who has done is Jonathan Black. I have read a couple of books by him, but don't think I have them any longer, to quote from directly. However, what he pointed to was the medical symbol of Caseusis, which has the two entwined snakes, which he says represent the left and right hand side of knowledge. He states how we have the accepted right side, which is mainstream knowledge and religion. The left side is the hidden, more dangerous knowledge of the esoteric, which has been regarded as 'evil' by many, and often referred to as the occult'.

I think that this whole dichotomy is interesting, and we have to think about how people who were regarded as psychic were often referred to as witches. But, there is a whole history of esoteric knowledge, ranging from the Kabbalah, Gnostic thinking, the Hermetic ideas, alchemy and many other traditions outside of the mainstream. These may be seen as 'evil' by some, but perhaps they are simply more dangerous because rather than people following the path of authority, it is about individuals following the path of inner knowledge. Gilchrist certainly does suggest that human beings can learn a lot from incorporating some ideas from Oriental thought, and that is happening in many ways in Western culture.

But, of course, I am not wishing to overlook the question of good and evil, but, I do think that this is complex, as you and others may realise, I come from a strong interest in Jung's ideas. The confrontation with good and evil is an extremely difficult aspect of individuation. There are many potential mistakes, and that is why the emphasis on the right as opposed to left path has been the stronger, more dominant one.

I am now replying to your response from a couple of days ago. I think that it interesting how one understands intellectualization in relation to reason. I probably take it to mean a rather restrictive use of reason. I think that the idea was discussed by Freud, amidst other processes, such as repression and subliminalisation. I believe that Freud's was critical of people trying to find rational explanations for their behaviour.

In the context of the way a supervisor suggested to me that I was inclined to use intellectualization, he actually told me that I approached 'everything in the head' and he went on to say that I seemed cut off from my emotions. I did not entirely agree with him really because I did find that many of the students had an approach to emotions which was rather artificial. In group workshops on the course some members, used to divulge stories and then go into floods of tears or ventilate extreme anger, shouting or screaming. I am not saying that none of it was genuine, but some of it seemed contrived and like a game. So, I do have queries about an approach which is just about emoting. I think that some members of the course, and even tutors were critical of me for being philosophical about life.

I actually didn't complete the art therapy training, but do still feel that I learned a lot in it. I definitely believe that art enables expression which cannot be put into words or conversations in many ways. I thought of that recently when a friend told me how she is not able to find the words to even think about her experiences recently. Apart from art therapy, I have known people who are having cognitive behavioral therapy, which often seems to me like a form of therapy involving a philosophy approach to life. But, it have heard people who are having CBT say that it goes a bit too far in that respect, and does not give enough scope in letting people ventilate about past experiences.

My reply may seem a bit too focused on therapy, and I didn't really write the thread with a view to thinking about therapy experience. It is just your reply, querying feelings, lead me to think about processing in a way which seemed best answered in connection with how those can be understood from various angles as touched upon within the psychotherapies.

I don't understand why John Locke was writing threads because he didn't write any replies to anyone's comments. This meant that he was not really involved in any dialogue or interaction on the forum.

Okay, its play on Russell, and I will try and read his essay, but in the context of a thread on God the title does play with more. Also, even though I say I am not wishing to justify my own position on the theist, atheist or agnostic question, I just read your other new thread and it does seem to be putting oneself into boxes. I do think that the existence of God is extremely important, but don't feel that the neat categories are particularly helpful. Personally, I find some people's ideas about God as restrictive, but I don't categorise myself as an atheist either. I don't even wish to adopt the title agnostic because it is saying that we cannot know. I just feel that all these categories are arbitrary and the power behind everything is far more complex, and defies them completely.

I realise that this may be seen more as a mystical rather than philosophical position. Also, I am not trying to say that the philosophy arguments are not worth talking about, but I think that some of the structures and frameworks of the philosophical arguments and, clear categories are a bit too narrow. I would not choose to say that we are speaking about 'the ineffable' because that can be a way of saying that we cannot find words to use at all, although I can see why mystics sometimes say this. I am really saying that I have some sympathy with certain ideas of theists and with some views of atheists and agnostics, but I prefer to use all those labels in a more flexible and expansive way.

However, I realise that others on the site may find my own point of view as being a bit strange, but I do feel entitled to my viewpoint and I don't really have a strong need to justify this to others, especially on this site. I am simply writing it down to say that it is possible to formulate philosophy about the question of God without the rigid definitions or choice of fixed categories. This can involve keeping an open, questioning mind.

I don't really consider myself as a theist, atheist or agnostic because I find all the labels to be b a little bit inadequate and restrictive. However, I am not really writing here to justify my own perspective on the issue of God. I am really more remarking on your title because all a long when you had your thread on praising science I thought that the title was rather ironic and I think that I made some comment in the post I wrote, saying that I didn't think that we needed to sing any hymns to science or praise because it did not request praise. You did write a reply to me but did not remark on that specifically. But here we go again, with the title in praise of atheism, and I notice that a couple of others have remarked on your title too.So perhaps we really need to build a temple, and compose some hymns for the thread.

I do plan to answer the couple of replies on this thread but not immediately. This is because I am in bed sick with a sore throat. I don't think it is Covid_19, but just the result of getting wet in the rain. But, I apologise for abandoning the thread which I started.

I wasn't aware that it went that far and I understood the thread was simply closed due to inactivity over the weekend. I can see that the a moderator seems to have moved the thread to the lounge.

To you or anyone else who replies, I will have to write a fuller response tomorrow. That is because I didn't go to bed last night because I lost my keys and sat outside on a bench for most of the night. Fortunately, when the cafe I was in yesterday opened at 8am my keys were there, which was a great relief. I was feeling okay when I wrote the thread, but, now, having been up all night has caught up on me. So, my consciousness is not in balance at all at the moment.

I tend to rationalise my own experiences a lot, but I have worked on this as far as possible, reading about emotional intelligence. I am also poor at physical tasks, which is not on Jung's list, so I try to give myself extra time to do them more mindfully and carefully.

But, it may be that Amen has not even logged onto a computer today, because people aren't on 24 hour call 7 days a week and have other things which they need to do in life besides use this site. It is not as if this thread is part of the agreed debate.

I believe that we need to try to incorporate the four functions which Jung describes: feeling, reasoning, sensation and intuition. Most people have a dominant and an inferior one. When I was on art therapy course I had a supervisor who told me that I tend to intellectualise too much, so I try to make sure that I try to pay attention to intuition, feeling and sensation as well.

That's interesting because I always got on better at drawing and writing and am extremely poor at most practical tasks. No one ever looked into this about me, but I have felt that it was connected to the left and right balance of the brain.

I think about the question of good art and bad art a lot. There may be certain standards, even ones deemed as professional, but it is extremely hard to claim them as objective, as opposed to subjective. I know that I think that U2 are a wonderful band, and I like so much alternative music, but I am sure that others would disagree. So , it does come down to the way the subjective is seen, in the context of wider socially agreed standards and measures of what is viewed as 'good'. This is an example in music but I believe that it goes beyond, in the arts and other aspects of cultural life.

If only it was simulation. As it is, I phone home to my mother and update her each evening, tidy up my bed, wash, stop looking at my phone before going to bed, and start the process again the next day. I think that I am starting to describe the absurdity described by Camus. No wonder I need this site, to structure meaning, and I don't even have the time for video games, preferring music on headphones before going to sleep, reflecting on the mixture of social dramas, or lack of them.

But, I don't play video games, or even have a way of playing them and I feel that I am on a quest daily, in real life interaction, this site, finding books and music, and so much more.

I do agree that the idea of loneliness, depression, and extreme suffering can be seen as potential grounds for suicide, but this may come in the context of us being encouraged and socialised to think of our worth according to these values. It is only one way of looking at life, and I am not even sure that the people who really get to the point of suicide do so on these grounds.

My own view is that interpersonal relationships and meanings change so much, and so any valuing of self in connection with these is arbitrary, and misses seeing one's life in a wider context, of the human quest.

This is an interesting new slant on the mind and body problem. Do we love a person for their mind or their body, and how do we separate the two? What I think is interesting here is how this connects to internet discussion, because we are able to connect on a mental level, but are unlikely to ever meet bodily. Most people here are anonymous and only a few have their photos on site.

I am not wishing to make light of your topic, but I do wonder how the role of body and mind lie in this spectrum. Is sexuality an aspect of body or mind? Where does eros and agape lie? Are they separate or interconnected? On what level do we meet as minds, or as bodies, with all kinds of sexual meanings, or other meanings of the idea of love?

If the death of God was really established as an ultimate truth, I am sure that you would have been able to talk about it in the main philosophy section rather than put it in the lounge. I am not saying that the case in favour of the existence of God is clearcut, but the argument for the death of God is complicated, involving consensus, as well as a framework for arguing for the death of God, beyond the ideas of Nietzsche.

I can see problems with the idea of God that you are describing, and that is if there is a God, and this being is a person, it would mean in a wider and deeper sense. You talk about the importance of the God as omnipotent but at the same time comparing this with the idea of being a good person, in terms of wishing to leave someone alone with their private thoughts.

Firstly, you are going by a colloquial sense of good and we cannot always assume that this is all inclusive. Secondly, if God is beyond us all, surely, God would understand the difficult nature of thoughts, so would not be completely judgemental. So, I think that you are trying to fit the idea of God into an anthropomorphic perspective. I think that these kind of problems though are some of the reasons why people do often reject the idea of God totally. There are two problems: the question of whether God is all powerful and, whether God is completely good. In trying to reconcile these problems with the idea of the existence of God, I believe that it would require an understanding of God as a source far beyond the scope of our level of thinking knowledge and understanding.

I believe that your idea of a creative arc does make sense, but the only thing which I believe that it misses is the way in which life circumstances play upon creativity. In some ways, musicians, artists and writers may incorporate aspects of life, including adverse factors and lack of popularity due to cultural trends. But, I do believe there may be severe challenges which really affect the creative spirit, and impinge upon any underlying arc, making the picture far more complex.

I think that some people believe that 'the new age' has passed, but, at the same time, I do believe that many people are becoming more conscious of social concerns and ideals. I think that it is about people waking up individually and the scale of this can have a real impact. It also involves people challenging older structures. But, I believe that the process does need to happen quickly, in relation to conflicts between nations and political factors, as well as ecological factors, and these are all interconnected. I am hoping that the shock of the pandemic will have some impact in helping people to wake up.

I think that you are really talking more about the ideals for civilisation because if, for example, you are talking about free health care, but with no taxes we are talking about ideals. This is not intended as a criticism of your thread, I just think that for your thread discussion to work you need to think about the difference between ideals and practice. I am idealistic myself, but I try to balance this with practical living. Also, I do think that any ideas about civilisation have to take into human weaknesses unfortunately. If people had the thoughts of others in mind most of the time it would be a very different world indeed.

I thought that Apollodorus is in England, and, as far I can see in England, accent is low down on the scale of importance, but I am in London, where people are from all over the world.

Generally, I read the outpost and as far as I can see it did not appear to reflect the class system as far as I can see, but, of course, it could be true of some remote parts. I think that the class system has broken down a lot because people are mobile through various factors, such as education. I think poverty can come to people from all backgrounds, and this has more of a real impact than class 'snobbery'

Also, I think that there may even be an underclass, of people who do not fit in at all, often comprised of people who are homeless, often with untreated mental health problems. However, what I am describing is in London mainly, but I have seen it where my mum lives in Bedford too, so I am thinking that what I am talking about is probably happening in other places as well.

I think that the idea of the shamanic journey is so interesting. The shaman is the archetypal healer, who voyages to the lower and upper world. What I think is so important here is that it gives a wider framework for considering the 'out of body experiences'. It is not just an experience for its own sake, but can be seen as part of the healing of fragmentation of the individual and the shaman is able to bring healing for others as well..

Welcome to the forum, and I am sure you will get replies which are more optimistic. Your question does give scope to think about what works and what does not. I think that the 4 suggestions you make are important, especially free health care. I live in England, where there is a welfare state, even though there are many people in poverty, but I do believe that it is important to have a system to prevent people being left in dire poverty. I think that housing is also essential. But, so much comes down to the social dynamics.

I wonder if the reason why you can't find a list of attributes for the best possible civilisation is because it depends on the attributes of the specific individuals within it. There is the question of best possible governments, forms of social order and general rules, but a lot comes down to the people in power, and other individuals. It does seem that there have been so many problems in civilisation, and utopia has never been achieved, but this may come down to human nature, and conflicts within social groups.

The writer who I believe may be useful for you to read is Simon Weil. I understand that she wrote about social concerns, oppression, liberty, love, and incorporate ideas from both Marxism and theology. She was writing in the first half of the twentieth century and died very young. I have only read small excerpts of her writing, but will try to do so, and she is on my long, reading list; there are just so many important authors and not enough days and hours to give each the attention which they truly deserve.

I have experienced many out of body experiences, and that makes it difficult to generalise. I am probably not in the position of thinking purely about how hard my own dualism would be.I have only begun to think about these experiences relation to the issue of dualism since using this site.

I am not entirely clear about the purpose of your thread, whether it is about looking at the experiences themselves or what it means. I think that both are probably important.

I think that the idea of of hallucinogenic trips is important. One of my 2 LSD trips included me looking into the mirror and seeing the wall around me and the radiator. I was simply not there at all which lead me to think that I was out of my body

Huxley describes psychedelic experience with reference to Bergson's idea of 'mind as a reducing valve' and this is one possible interpretation, but I am sure that it is not absolute, and so many questions arise in connection to the way we think about the mind, in terms of altered states of consciousness.

The Oedipus complex is a complex and questionable idea. It has a basis in the mythical ideas of 'Oedipus Rex', but it is so hard to know on what level we can apply it to humanity. I don't know where we start to qualify it. This may be one of the problems arising in Freud's philosophy. He makes sweeping claims, which are so difficult to verify.

I have definitely had what appeared to be out of body experiences on a number of occasions, most often on the borderline of sleep. I can remember one in which I was flying around the room, and knowing that my body is lying on the bed.

The philosophy question which remains for me is whether such states are really what they appear to be, and supporting the idea of dualism, or whether they are illusory? I am aware that states of this are more likely to occur for me if I am under a lot of stress, have a raised temperature, or have not had much to eat and sleep.

I think that Klein's discussion of the processes of projective identification, as well as her idea of the depressive and schizoid position are important. Some people experience clinical depression or mental illnesses of a schizoid nature, but Klein sees the positions as being central to humans. However, this area is more about psychology than philosophy.

I have a thread on 'Jung's Ideas on God' if you are interested in looking at it, and it is only from a couple of months ago. I have not read very much of Lacan.

I am just following up the discussion about 'Totem and Taboo' briefly. I read the book a long time ago on a religious studies module. My understanding of the book was that it examines the way in which the taboos are projected onto the father, and onto leaders. It also explores the nature of guilt, especially in relation to the development of neurotiism.

I found the analysis of guilt in relation to the way people develop anxiety very interesting, but, personally, I think that there have been a lot of developments in psychology since the time of the book, and I find Jung's ideas on religion to have more substance than Freud. I think that Freud opened up areas of thought which have been developed much further.

The one aspect of Freud's thinking which I feel is not paid enough attention outside of psychotherapy is that of projection. I think that is because we all do in so many ways, and it can be a blindspot in social interaction. We see the faults in others, failing to see that this fault may lie within ourselves. It is hard to see our own faults and it is in connection with this need for self analysis that anyone training in psychotherapy is expected to undertake personal therapy. The nature of projection has been taken up further by later psychodynamic thinkers, especially Melanie Klein. It is an aspect of psychotherapy but I do think that the concept is worth thinking about in philosophy too, because projection occurs as a subconscious aspect of life and, it may often occur in the exploration and exchange of ideas.

I logged out once, but I am back. Obviously, you don't have to join the bus but I do try to see the lighter side of it all. I have my dark moments but I try to not take it too seriously, or myself too seriously, even if I do have my trippy 'psychonaut' days. As far as I can see we need some Doors' songs playing in the background for our journey, and theists and atheists all welcome aboard. I have a rather surreal sense of humour and, of course, I am a bit of a dreamer.

Goodnight to you and everyone else!

It makes me wonder about internet exchange because I know atheists and religious people who can spend time interacting. But, I will try to put in an entry tomorrow on Gnostic ideas, but I don't know if the bus will ride safely if everyone is in such heated conflict. We will wait and see, now that we have passed highway 13, and hope that we don't enter into apocalypse and post-apocalyptic wilderness.

I think that could be a song for the end of todays journeying!

I think that Gnostism is an interesting part of the debate. But, while there is serious debate, I think that we need to keep a certain amount of humour. On one of the threads of yours, which Baden said had turned into a circus, I thought that there was a funny side. Reading your discussion with various people was like the verses and Tim's as the chorus. But, I don't know if anyone else sees the funny side. But, we will see what happens on the magic bus next, because I think that philosophy is meant to be part fun as well as heavy exploration.

I think that we all could do with a glass of wine really. I am not sure how much further the thread will go, but I do wish to keep it as focused as it can possibly get, rather than Armageddon.

I read 'Totem and Taboo' a long time ago. I am about to log out because it is late at night where I am, but I will send you a further reply tomorrow.

We seem to have reached highway 14 safely. The bus driver is resting for tonight, and hope all the passengers rest safely.