I think that I am staring into the sun, in the metaphorically sense, right now, unable to sleep, churning thoughts. But, of course, I am blind to my own mind in itself, only seeing my own little narrow set of images and thoughts. So,I am able to see the downside of introspection. But, I do believe that the mind does have an important role because we are able to think. It is probably important to cultivate a certain amount of mental training, and be able to cultivate a deeper sense of awareness. But, of course, the most we can arrive at is certain ideas about why we others, and various life forms exist. These ideas are our perceptions and perspective, and are only partial.

I think that introspection is becoming a lost aspect of philosophy. Of course, the empirical investigation, including the scientific aspects of existence are important. But, I do believe that we should not ignore our own minds as part of the source for knowledge and reflection.

Thanks for the link and I will look at it tomorrow.

The question is how much are we confabulating? Sometimes, even the most sophisticated philosophy arguments seem contrived. I am not trying to make a mockery of rationality. I do see it as being extremely important, but I just feel extremely aware of how uncertain we are, as Wittgenstein was, and how even our very existence is a bit of a puzzle.

You ask me to 'stop wondering and just do it', but the question is what do we do other than wonder. I am about to go out to the shops, to buy some food, but I am not sure that wondering about the human condition is low on the scale of priorities. Even within relationships, the best moments can be about philosophical contemplation

How do we separate how we see it from 'how it is'? I am not sure that we are able to step outside of personal, or intersubjective reality, in order to see from a truly objective, or so-called correct viewpoint, beyond interpretation.

You trace the idea of causes back to a 'wall', but what lies behind the wall? I am speaking about origins, but also what lies behind mind and matter. I am question veneers, causation, what lies behind the paradox of mind and matter, and I am not really looking for a textbook or Wikipedia explanation. I believe that it is so much more complex, but I do believe that it is the subject matter of philosophy, even though I know that many detest the idea of mystery.

I think that the idea of we made it up does raise the question of how we make things up, because I am not presuming that we are mere liars. I am asking about any underlying source from which all of this begins to take place.

I remember sitting outside on a bench at about 5am, waiting for the cafe to open when I had lost my keys. It was Sunday morning, and I don't know if I would have been able to contact my landlord. I felt so alone in the universe. The owner of the cafe appeared startled to have someone waiting outside at 8am. I had prayed about finding my keys and felt like I was blessed by the hands of some divine power when the owner handed me the keys to my bedsit. But, of course, that is only my personal perspective on providence, luck and destiny, but I do see it as being interconnected with the question of any underlying power beyond us, on an individual level, and as part of causation and design behind our lives

I believe that immanence is important, because that was stressed in Gregory Bateson's, 'Ecology of Mind', even though he was an anthropologist, but has contributed to philosophy discourse.

But, I cannot accept that philosophy is able to overlook the developmental aspects of life and existence. That would be about stepping into the nature of the timeless aspects of existence, which may or not exist.

I am aware that certain ideas, especially the idea of the soul, are seen as problematic, but I don't think that enables the idea of existence to be written off. I think that I exist, and that you do too, but I am left wondering why, and whether there is any purpose behind our lives, beyond the meanings which we find for ourselves.

The question of whether we could hire a detective or not is interesting insofar as it raises the question of mysteries. Having spoken of philosophical mysteries on a previous thread, I think that the idea of mystery in philosophy is considered open to criticism. But, in attacking the idea of mystery, philosophers may be in the danger of refusing to see behind surfaces. How much is evident in daily reality, and how much is hidden, and goes much deeper. I certainly question any philosophies which are restricted to the superficial, because even on the basis of my own empirical observations, there is so much which lies beneath surfaces, facades and the exterior aspects of life.

I do agree that our life experiences is extremely restrictive, especially our lifespan, as well as the social contexts of our experiences. Our perspectives on human life are extremely restricted. But, I believe that many who look to the ideas of our times, including the ideas of thinking in science, also fail to recognize the narrow lens of focus. I am certainly not wishing to push aside the advances in thinking. But, on the other hand, I do think that it would be extremely restrictive if philosophy of our times becomes focused on specific arguments.

How do these lie in the context of history, comparative religion and thinking which goes beyond the specific focus of materialistic perspectives of Western philosophy? I am not wishing to offer any simplistic solutions, but open up the area of debate, beyond the ideas which are in fashion in the first half of the twentieth century. Do we presume that we have reached the ultimate knowledge?

I do not answer any of the questions which I have raised purely in terms of theism and atheism. I think that people who wrote the Bible wrote from specific angles, with the best thinking that they could arrive at. I am certainly not wishing to come up with any easy solutions. It may be that the question which I am raising will be seen as not being relevant for philosophy. However, as far as I can see many of the philosophies need stripping. For a long time, arguments which stem from God have been seen as lacking. However, I would go a stage further, and say that many philosophies which deconstruct the religious philosophies may be inadequate too. The arguments against God look at reason, but they fail to grasp the intricacies of life, and how there is just so much that we are unable to explain.

Okay, maybe I am stuck in my thinking, but I am not sure that many other people are not stuck equally in their own perspectives. The question may be why does one thing happen rather than anything else. Is there any divine providence? When I lost my keys a few days ago, I really wondered if I had reached a deadend, and was startled when I found them. I know that this may seem to be a trivial example. But, it does lead me to wonder about the superficial aspects of life, and any meaning beyond this. How much is psychology attuned to our own chosen perspectives, and where does this lie in terms of any more objective perspectives on chance, fate and any purpose behind our daily lives?

I do agree that individuals' questions arise from their own personal lives and construction of meaning. I woke up earlier than usual on the last couple of days, and felt so miserable about how the majority on this site are focused on answering the questions of God's existence, on the basis of conventional reason. I see the nature of our existence, including the whys and the purpose as being much wider, but I am not sure that such discussion will be considered of much importance on this site at all.

I am sorry if you find my understanding of existence to be rather abstract, but I am coming from the position of being a living being, as I imagine that you are too. I also think that there are other lifeforms, and I would imagine that they have their own variable constructions of meanings. I am not intending to ask a ridiculous question, but I do wonder why we exist. Part of this comes down to the underlying ones about the existence of God, but, from my reading on this site, they are not clear at all. I am standing back from it all, and do have some anger, because I am not finding any worthwhile answers about the nature of existence, and purpose, at all.

I am not really wondering about sickness. But, I do believe that so much lies behind the superficial, including causation. How would you explain the question of why human beings, and any form of life, exist at all?

But, I believe that you are missing the question of what lies behind it all. Of course, we may have sickness, as well as health, but I pointing more to the basic questions of metaphysics and epistemology.

Interesting, but I am left wondering beyond this. We have the claims of Darwin about evolution, and we exist as individuals, in the real world, but I am not sure if this goes deep enough, in explaining why we exist at all.

I agree that anything can happen, and life is full of the unexpected. I am sure that my question may be regarded as ridiculous, and may have been addressed in threads on why is there anything rather than nothing. However, I am really writing this thread because there are many threads on the front page of the forum against the existence of God. There have been ones looking at the anthropic principle, but as far as I can see, so much of what lies behind existence remains unexplained.

I don't live in the U.S, so I am afraid that I don't know what the education is like there. I barely know what the English one is like currently like because I only have one or two friends with children. But, of course, it is important because the education we have shapes cognition and consciousness. I found some of my own boring, but some of it very good. I also think that family teaching is an important aspect, because early life affects what happens later in a big way.

I do agree that understanding emotions is extremely important. I wonder if you are suggesting that I am not putting my emotions into this. You must remember that this is online, and I am not even anonymous. But, I think it does all come down to context and, generally, when I am writing on this site, I am aiming to write philosophy. Real life is a bit different. But, I do believe that lack of emotion or too much can be a problem, but I think that it is about assessing what is relevant to any specific situation.

I can see what you are saying about standing poised on the shore, and, of all things I will admit that I never managed to swim and I hated even going into a swimming pool. But, on topic of emotions, I do believe that we do need to stand back and use reason to help us understand it. This is not merely about not drowning, which would probably happen to me if I went into the sea. Reasoning about emotions is a way of not recognizing them for what they are rather than being pulled along by them subconsciously.I see this as being central to the ability to reflect.

Thanks for your response, and I just hadn't replied because I answered ones from today. Your article link is useful because it is a study of the way the hemispheres function. It seems likely to me that each one of is wired slightly differently. It probably involves so much, ranging from genetics to the way we learn to behave. I am sure it is a complex mixture of the two because it probably involves pathway developments in the brain.

But, definitely I know of people who are left handed and struggled with being encouraged to use their right hand. My father experienced this. I am right handed and, when I broke my right wrist as an adult I had great difficulty. I tried writing with my right hand which did not work at all. But, I did experiment with drawing with my left hand and that did produce some interesting results, and I had read previously that drawing or painting with the less dominant hand is a useful way of getting in touch with aspects of subconscious experience.

I didn't mean to evade the question, but I am really looking two days after reading your posts. Of course, it could be that it is a blindspot of mine, because I do believe that we have them. The slightly complicated matter of what one feels is that we use words to describe experiences, so it does mean that it can be difficult to separate some aspects of feelings from the cause. Of course, we are talking in a fairly abstract way rather a specific one. Generally, I think that bodily sensations can be useful in identifying emotions and reason can be a way of understanding the whys. However, I do believe that all these aspects do need reflection on the processes, or otherwise, our consciousness can become a messy blur.

We are back with the question of opposites and the nature of continuum. I imagine that all the binary aspects remain as binaries, but in real life how we define, think and experience them is where our lives take us. We go on such interesting travels into the yin and yang of the real and the fantastic, which is probably a continuum in it own right within the most mysterious complicated knot of mind and body.

I think that the main thing to remember is that even though the structure of the brain has a basis in neuroscience, it is only a model. Gilchrist is suggesting that some pictures of the division between left and right are far too simplistic. Regarding your idea of the 'coach', it leads me to think of how the transpersonal philosopher, Ken Wilber, spoke of 'witness consciousness', which can be seen as the inner narrator reflecting upon the divisions, especially the right and the left, but probably other divisions, like degrees conscious vs subconscious.

I have juggled mixed messages. When I was about 18 or 19 I was reading Jung's ideas which were extremely esoteric and attending Christian youth meetings. In these meetings people used to speak of the occult messages in rock music, which were meant to be uncovered by playing the music backwards. The ultimate example was meant to be that if you play Led Zeppelin's 'Stairway to Heaven' backwards, you can hear the words 'Satan is God'. I can remember someone trying to tell me all kinds of books and music I was listening to, including my favourite 'Psychedelic Furs' albums were the work of the devil and being really distraught.

But, as I moved on I think that it can all be so simplistic, but it was all of this that lead me to question Christianity initially. And, I have read a lot in the esoteric traditions. But, there is dangerous knowledge and we only have to think of Aleister Crowley. Even the tarot has dangers. I have never used it but, once in a student hall of residence, a girl did a reading for me and she seemed alarmed by my reading. I wasn't really because I knew that I had a lot of difficulties to work through, but it ended up with me needing to reassure her because she was really worried about me.

I do think that people who spend time reading esoteric books, and following practices in them can become rather unbalanced. But, it probably depends on so many other factors. This morning, I was having a conversation with someone who pointed out to the need to listen to our bodies, and I realised that this was relevant to my thread.

I have thought about how this relates to one of your recent threads, which is the one on symmetry. Of course, it does involve the yin and the yang. However, Gilchrist does argue that there is a fundamental asymmetry to consciousness, with a need for a master. For me, this probably suggests the danger of getting lost in the quagmire of esoterica, but I suppose that there are so many philosophical dangers and red zones anyway.

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.