At the moment I am reading 'The Matter With Us: ' by John Rawles, and he suggests,
'In the beginning was the Big Bang. The Big Bang is, of course, a metaphor. It is a metaphor for the moment when the whole mass of the universe exploded from an infinitesimally small point, whose density was infinitely great, and temperature unimaginably hot. The '"Big" of Big Bang is therefore symbolic, representing not size but important...The Bang, too, is metaphorical, because a Bang is a sound, a pressure wave transmissable through a gas, which can be heard at a distance as a sudden noise.' I think that the idea of the Big Bang being seen as symbolic is worth thinking about rather than seeing at a literal reality in the way which people often thought of the creation story.

Of course, I realise that your question is really looking more at the underlying causation. In his analysis, Rawles is looking at the scientific method is a human construction and he also queries the way we think about causation in itself, and he suggests that cosmology can become too concrete.

My rule is to go beyond the dictionary definitions of words and look at the subtext of written rules rather than the literal words individually. There may be hidden narratives and rhetoric behind what is being stated.

Your words puzzle me. Perhaps we should have a rule of writing invisible words, words which are not spoken and images which vanish, leaving no marks.

We are probably entrenched in layers and layers of rules and even the most disobedient people are obeying some kind of rhetoric of rules. Even writing sentences involves following of certain rules. In order to go beyond rules entirely, we might need to go beyond the spectrum of human meanings entirely.

Rules may exist in order to be broken. They are guidelines but rigid adherence to rules may undermine the principles behind them. Therefore, I refuse to adhere to the rules of your game.

I am sure that most times can be seen as strange, even though I think that ours are particularly strange. As for posting, I saw the earlier message from @Banno saying not to post, and that seemed a contradiction outrightly, and, before I read your reply, it had the effect of making me wish to write something. But, I am confused and don't know if he will see this kind of interaction as useless or useful for whatever he is trying to achieve.

If a God exists, the one question which I would ask is why do some people experience so much more suffering than others? Is it simply unfair? Or, is it that suffering stretches us? Suffering may lead us to draw upon inner resources and develop consciousness in a way which would not occur if our lives were more comfortable.I wonder if my question may stand independently of whether there is a God to answer it.

This is a very strange thread but, perhaps, it meets the strangeness of the times in which we live.

I found this thread and I am just putting my current groan into it as a means of ventilation. I developed blurred vision in one eye and went to the optician last week and have inflammation and fluid behind the left eye. I have been referred to an eye consultant, but the appointment is not until Tues 31st. I can still see to read but I am trying to keep reading and writing to a minimum, which is why I am hardly writing on the forum. But, I am extremely stressed and afraid because I regard reading and writing as essential aspects of life.I do have some underlying vision problems, possibly genetic disorder, Coates' disease, which is rare but more common in infants.

Anyway, I have looked at the thread and see that a lot of people here do have a certain amount of difficulties. It is probably good to have this thread as while philosophy is important we are not disembodied beings, and we need to approach life, and ourselves, holistically.

I think that Sonic Youth's 'Daydream Nation' is a wonderful album. I think that the late 80s was a great time for music and I love The Fall. But, I am also a big fan of psychedelic music, which had its roots in the 60s and the Beatles. But, as you suggest there is so much of it. I like a lot of prog psychedelia too, including Hawkwind and Gong.

I think that you need to consider what you mean by delusional thinking. I come from a background in mental health care and I am sure that your understanding of delusional thinking would not fit into the psychiatric model.

As far as the left and right brain hemispheres are concerned, I think that Gilchrist's ideas on the need to balance the left and right hemispheres, to incorporate logic, feeling and imagination are important. But, surely, with the best epistemological methods 'truth' is subjectively realised, and it is hard to come to a universal understanding of truth. For example, for some people the idea of God makes sense whereas for others that is a form of absurd reasoning. Our knowledge does seem connected to so many factors in our individual lives.

In response to your query about how it is possible to convince someone to act in a way which is 'good' without the idea of God, I think that it is about appealing to the person's better nature. In many ways it is just about removing all the fear involved in religion based on divine wrath and punishment. In some ways it may be simpler to explain according to reason, as well as to emotive and intuitive aspects of the picture. Personally, I grew up with discussion about what constituted sin and in a lot of ways the focus was on petty matters rather than the essentials of morality and ethics.

I think that we have to go behind the facade of what was offered by religion and look to the possibilities of imagination. It is not simply about overthrowing religion, but finding connections with the deepest aspects of ourselves, including the numinous and the essential values for living.

I am very impressed by your list. I know about half of it. The main ones which I don't know are the 1950s and jazz. I do plan to listen to a lot more jazz, but just haven't managed to do so at the present.

Some of the artists which you mention, such as Bob Marley and the Police, I know mainly from compilations. I definitely love Bowie and I think that my favourite album by him is Aladdin Sane, but I do love all his early singles.

I notice that U2 get a mention, even though they are 1980s. They are probably one of my favourite bands and I do love the early albums', especially 'War'. You refer to the Travelling Wilburies; and I do love the first album. I think that Jeff Lynn and Bob Dylan are the only 2 still alive. I am a big Bob Dylan fan and one of my favourites of his is, 'Oh Mercy'. He is probably a better songwriter than singer really.

Rupert Sheldrake wrote a book called, 'The Sense of Being Stared At', which looks at the role which observation has on the observer. One aspect which may be relevant to your debate is the role of participant observation in the social sciences, with the idea being that one had to become part of some social structure in order to enter into the understanding of it from an outside, distanced point of view.

I would love to at some point, and I definitely think you should write a book too. But, it also depends on life circumstances and having a specific audience. For example, over the time I have been on the forum, I have got to the stage where I know who may respond to my threads, and who will probably not. However, that doesn't mean that there aren't any surprises and it is all completely predictable. But, I do see writing on the forum as useful practice. Perhaps, many of us here will write a book, including @TheMadFool, @180 Proof, and many others.

Your entry is extremely interesting from my own point of view, because I am interested in the whole history of esoteric traditions. I have read a certain amount on Gnosticism, mainly in connection with Jung's interest in the area. But, apart from Gnostic ideas having been suppressed, it does seem that Hermeticism, and movements like the Rosucrucians have been an underground hidden aspect behind the surface of religious philosophies. There are also particular individual thinkers like Emmanuel Swedenborg, who influenced Blake. One writer who I also believe is an extremely important one is Rudolf Steiner. I think that these thinkers are often suppressed and hidden from mainstream religion, but from philosophy too.

But what is 'emptiness' in an exact sense, in terms of our daily lived experiences?

I am wondering about the 'ultimate' reality of all realities. There have been a number of threads about understanding reality, including one of my own. If there is one 'reality' which is the 'truth' above all others, it does seem to me that is probably 'hidden'. If it is hidden does that mean that we are back to the idea of some underlying transcent reality, or the noumenon described by Kant. I believe that this has been spoken of already in this thread.

But, it does lead me to wonder if it is a fantasy entirely, and, perhaps, we even ask what is fantasy, and is there any basis for declaring it as any kind of reality, subjective or otherwise. So, what I am saying is that we may be up against the idea of absolutes and the other other possibility of absolute meaningless reality. Personally, I am not sure that one or other of the extremes is 'true', or meaningful, but this in itself does point to the questionable nature of ultimate meaning, especially the idea of 'ultimate reality' as a true ultimate. Of course, this does come down to the meaning of the idea of ultimate, and whether this corresponds to any actual ways of thinking and reality in terms of our known experiences.

I believe that it was Plato who spoke of the higher self, as the daimon. I think philosophy, including the Greek ideas is extremely important, and it is a way of making sense of both religion and science. Definitely, religious views are focused on being saved and, of course, haunted with the threat of eternal damnation. This the reason why I really wanted to think my way out of a religious point of view, and, on top of the idea of hell, it is frequently suggested that people should not question. Ideas are meant to be accepted through blind faith.

But, I do think that the social support in congregations does help people, and I think that this may be one of the real reasons that many people go to church. As a teenager, most of my life outside of studies was church based. I would say that I had a liberal education within Christianity. I went to a Catholic school and I studied at S. Martin's College in Lancaster after leaving school. I think that it was only really when I moved on to study in London that I began to explore other perspectives outside of religious ones, although I was interested in Hinduism while I was still going to so many church events.

But, it is definitely true that once we step outside of religious views that morals are still important. In a way, morality can be seen as more important outside of religion because the focus is on life in the present, rather than about happiness in an afterlife.

I was reading one of your posts here about Abrahamic religions and it is true that these do involve the idea of evil being necessary in the overall scheme of things. If Satan did not exist there would be nothing to battle against. Also, if Lucifer had not been a fallen angel and not encouraged human beings to fall too, there would have been no history at all within the drama portrayed in the Bible.

Similarly, I used to wonder how paradise as envisioned after the resurrection at the end of the world would work. If evil had been cast into the abyss forever, it would be a static condition, and I am sure sure that the idea of bliss for eternity makes sense really.

You are probably right that I do tend to approach philosophy as a quest for 'ultimate answers' in the way that people approach religion. It probably goes back to how I used to see it as a unified quest when I was a student. I often make the assumption that other people come from this angle. So, I will try to bear in mind that philosophy is probably best not approached in that way, but I do find it hard to step out of the tendency to look for the 'ultimate' answers and truth.

I have just looked at my phone, having come home, and I would say that even though I started a thread on comparative religion, I am not suggesting that I think religious philosophies are the ultimate answers. I read widely and I am sure that many may see my own thinking as inadequate because I don't come across as having a particular overriding viewpoint. I am in the position of thinking that various traditions of philosophy and comparative religion are extremely interesting, and I am sure that many may object to me for such lack of one particular view. I am not trying to say that it is a matter of relativism entirely. However, I do come from the view that I do not believe that there is one ultimate viewpoint, within religious or secular thinking, and that pluralism has some relevance for thinking about varying perspectives about truth.

It agree that people often seem to 'jump through hoops' and 'bend over backwards' to fit ideas such as the problem of evil into their conceptions of religious truths. That is probably why I don't come to a clear perspective although I do think that I probably can relate to Eastern traditions and metaphysics more than Abrahamic religions points of view. But, my own Catholic background does affect me. But, I probably would not gravitate to atheism because I am not sure that life is mere chance and coincidence.

But, that may be because I find that my own life is full of 'Jungian synchronicities', although I am aware that it is about acausal principles and our own interpretation of meaning. But, if nothing else, it shows underlying patterns in life. Also, I am open to the idea of karma, but of course, this is about the subjective interpretations of events and how they appear related to our actions. But, this applies to causal factors in this life and karma is usually considered to be something related to past lives in Hinduism especially.

Anyway, I liked the video of puddles because I feel that I am often jumping from puddle to puddle, and it is sometimes hard to tell how deep or shallow the puddles are, especially those of our own questing for knowledge.

I try to have a certain amount of discipline to reading whether or not I consider it 'research ' as such. I probably try to use this site as a way of trying to guide me in reading about specific themes, including some of my own and other people's threads. It may be that my posts don't reflect this because often by the time I have done all the reading the thread is fading out. But, I definitely feel that this site helps my reading. I also wish that libraries were open again because it is difficult to find quiet reading spaces.

As far as being open minded it is not that I wish to remain that way always, but simply that there don't appear to be clear answers, but definitely some writers seem more useful than others. I have already said that I see Jung as my main mentor. But, I do find that I do often go round in circles at times, but, really, we have a lifetime to work out overall philosophies. Even when people come to specific conclusions, it doesn't mean that they will not revise and modify their thinking. I also think that the ideal is to have an entirely independent view, but I think that it is becoming harder to do this, because so many ideas have been thought out in detail and depth by so many people previously.

Actually, I do read some of the various writers, referred to by @Wayfarerincluding Ninian Smart, Eliade, Karen Armstrong and Huston Smith. I was also extremely impressed by Huxley's ' The Perennial Philosophy' which I read about 4 months ago, and that was partly what influenced me in thinking that there are underlying themes underlying the various religious traditions. My basic belief is that it is about achieving a sense of the transcendent or numinous, although it don't think it is necessary to believe in God to achieve such states of consciousness.

I have a couple of outstanding comments to reply to but will look at them tomorrow. In the meantime, feel welcome to continue any further discussion and I am particularly interested in Hermeticism, as an underlying system, which was inherent in certain religious perspectives.

It may be that my own mind is a bit too 'elastic', but it is probably because I have not found one perspective which I believe sums up the 'truth'. I read philosophy critiques as well as ideas within Christianity, Eastern philosophy and other viewpoints and, as far as I see, they all contribute partial pictures.

I am inclined to thinking about mysteries, as evident in a couple of threads which I have started. The tradition of mysteries goes back to the Greeks, including Plato. I am not saying that I think that we should stop at the point of the mysterious, but, really, after centuries of thinking Wittgenstein still points to uncertainty. I am all in favour of science, critical thinking, but, in many ways, philosophy goes round in circles. But, I take the point of an open mind can become a closed one is closed' and I don't wish to rule out any possible definitive answers.

As far as the idea of the shallow and the deep of the Perennial, I think that it is hard to know. I had a tutor who thought that I viewed depths of the mind which were not there at all. Some people believe in depths which are 'hidden' while others regard this as absurd. In such matters, so much is speculation.

I am replying to you together, because I think that you are both raising the question of underlying themes. I suppose that one major theme is the idea of God, and views about God vary so much according to our backgrounds. If one is a Christian one is usually accustomed to think of Christ as the Son of God. If one is a Muslim, Mohammed is seen as the main prophet. Or, if one is an raised as an atheist, the view is that there is no God.

However, some writers have tried to step outside of this, beyond relativism, and try to look beyond, including Huston Smith and Aldous Huxley. This can be about the idea of a 'perennial wisdom' or the underlying truth beyond religion. Huston Smith goes as far as seeing both atheism and theism as limited.

There are many themes within religious traditions and various traditions of thought, so it is extremely complex, but some thinkers do believe that knowledge of the ultimate is beyond any one particular tradition.

Yes, it may be that my thread discussion is a bit confusing. Really, I am interested in what we can learn from the comparative analysis of religion. This probably includes the themes and ideas which arise, and it is likely that certain themes resonate with each of us slightly differently. This is probably the mythic dimension, or esoteric aspect, in the sense of being about the 'inner' aspect of religious perspectives. It is more of a symbolic viewpoint, whereas in many traditional perspectives of religion, the main emphasis can often be far more about concrete, or literal answers about 'God, life after death and many other questions. Of course, that is a way of philosophy, but I come with a view to far more scrutiny and deeper analysis of beliefs, metaphysics, and all the assumptions underlying how we approach these areas.

Perhaps I am an upside down thinker, but, really, I don't have many 'comfort zones' at all in thinking. I certainly don't accept the views which I was taught within 'religious' education, especially Catholicism. On the other hand, I question all the philosophy perspectives, so enter into pluralism in the widest possible way. I read and draw upon ideas ranging from science, Hinduism, Buddhism and so many divergent perspectives and philosophy. So, I am likely to have a busy reading life, because I try to keep an open mind.

I read threads on various viewpoints and do have a strong interest in Jung, who looked at the mythic dimensions. But, I think that we probably formulate our own views out of a mixture of need for understanding, and many other aspects of our thinking. Some people find the answers which seem to satisfy them without looking outside of what they are taught in religious or other systems of thought which they receive in education. It is so variable, and some struggle so much more to find the ways of thinking. Personally, I am someone who has looked widely within science and religion, and I do believe that comparative religion, as well as other philosophy perspectives, are useful.

There are many threads on this site which do look at varying viewpoints, ranging from the Taoist to Buddhism, but, often, these are separate from the scope of philosophical analysis. So, in this particular thread, I am probably looking for analysis of how these ideas can be compared critically, in the overall formulation of a way of seeing life and philosophy.

I definitely believe in looking at all points of view critically, and believe that the fullest analysis of many perspectives enhances our thinking.

I believe that looking to perspectives outside of the frame of Western philosophy may enlarge our thinking. I am not simply wishing to point us back to a 'religious' point of view. Many of us may have struggled with traditional ways of seeing life in terms of a 'divine' plan, with all kinds of experiences of guilt. But, on the other hand, once we go beyond all 'spiritual' philosophies completely, we can go into a wasteland. But, I am not really trying to say what we ought to believe at all, but, merely look at the many possible perspectives, and, ultimately, I am not sure that there any definite, conclusive answers. But, I do believe that it useful to think about comparative aspects of religion, with a view to whether there are any ideas which seem to stand out beyond the confines of specific cultural conditioning and conventions.

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.