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.

The bus has been involved in a crash. I think that I saw a motorbike coming along in the mirror. But, I think that there is only a dent, and no one hurt, and just a few people a bit shaken up.

I tried to create a link but couldn't do it because I think that I would probably need a mouse, to save it to my device.However, I don't know if anyone would wish to look at my thread again anyway. It is only 4 pages long, but for anyone who is interested it is called 'Sigmund Freud: The Great Philosophical Adventure.' I am hoping that your own thread is successful, and it may go further than mine did because there are a number of new members to the forum.

Thanks for adding the poem, which adds variety to the thread. Your poem rhymes as well, which is almost unusual these days.

I think that the way in which a book doesn't always focus on a specific research question can be frustrating. At times, I have kept looking for books which answer one I looking for and can't find it. But, of course, it often opens up further ways of looking and thinking, and often the initial area of questioning gets so much wider.

Ideally, I like to have time to spend reading a book at leisure. Sometimes, when it needs to be read for a specific purpose quickly, it seems to spoil it, especially if it involves too much skim reading, although sometimes this does seem to be a way of drawing out the main ideas quickly. Reading is a wonderful experience, but can take up a lot of time, so I think that it needs to be a combination of processes, depending on whether it is for specific ideas, or whether it is simply for the value of the book in it's own right.

Are you really on the mods' black list? I have not abandoned the thread, but just having a breathing space. I am also trying to keep the thread on topic, as someone suggested that there was enough material being discussed for about 6 threads. But, I will look at your link on transpersonal experience, and you are definitely a fan of internet research. I have a number of books on transpersonal philosophy and may even create a thread on it at some point, but I am sure that many may oppose such a thread.

At the moment, I am considering possible areas to add to this thread, rather than remain stuck on difficult page 13. I may find something to add to it tomorrow.

I think that some people are beginning to prefer summarised idea, such as those in Wikipedia. However, while it can be useful to find such summaries it is worth looking at actual texts, including electronic and paper books. I believe that it is worth looking at all possible options. But, I must say that I still like grovelling in corners of shops, looking through rows and piles of books, and often feel that I can find exactly what I am looking for in that process.

Looking at books in shops and libraries seems to me to be part of the research process. But, I think that we can blend all the possibilities, but, hopefully, with a view to gaining meaningful knowledge. I believe that we all come from slightly different perspectives on this. Personally, I only use Wikipedia as a basic overview, and find it useful as a starting point. However, I prefer to go off and find books because they feel more intimate and more meaningful in a deeper sense.

I won't go into much detail because I don't wish to derail the thread but I think that evidence practice can be very shallow. On a short course I did, there was an emphasis on backing up ideas with evidence, which could include anyone's ideas which were in a published text. Due to the word limit of the essay, there was no room for discussion of the quality of the evidence, which I thought made entire mockery of the idea of evidence.

Going back to evidence based practice, I think that more research is being done into cognitive behavioral approaches than psychodynamic ones, but that is partly because these receive more funding. But, underlying this, one of the reasons is that psychodynamic approaches, such as those based on Freud, are not favoured is because they are not seen as cost effective.

I know a number of people who are training to become clinical psychologists, and some who are qualified ones. In England, it is extremely competitive and takes a long time, involving a masters, experience of working as a psychology assistant and doing a doctorate. I often ask people I know about their training and it seems to vary so much from those programs of training which are experimental to those which are psychodynamic or cognitive behavioral. It is such a mixture of approaches, as diverse as philosophy, but with some emphasis on evidence based practice.

I do believe that the roots of psychology and philosophy were often more joined, as in thinkers such as William James. I think that an important link in the separation was psychiatry. I have discussed the ideas of Freud and Jung with a number of psychiatrists. I found that most senior psychiatrists had some affinity with Freud, although that varied, but as part of their registrar training they did psychodynamic clinical work. However, I did mention Jung to some junior psychiatrists and was rather startled to discover that they had not even heard of him. This is probably because they came from a science background, and there is a division between psychology as a science or an art. Generally, I think that approaches to psychology as an art, as opposed to that of a science, place more emphasis on the ideas of Freud.

I often like to think that I am not afraid of death, and the worst form of death I can imagine is suicide. That is because it would be a life ended in despair and I have known several people who have committed suicide. As far as fear of death is concerned, any of us could die suddenly, such as getting knocked over by a car, but, for most of us, death is not imminent.

So, I do wonder how different it is when one knows that one is likely to die very soon. Even though I may say, with some bravado, that I am not afraid of death, if I was told that I was terminally ill, I wonder if my attitude would change, and I wonder if I would become extremely afraid. I am not sure whether the fear would entail existential anxiety about unresolved questioning about life after death, fear of ceasing to exist, or any others. What I am trying to say is that we may not know really whether we fear death until it looms before us in an immediate way.

I don't regard myself as psychologist, especially as I am not a professional clinical psychologist. My background is mainly in psychiatric nursing but I have done some psychotherapy and art therapy training. But, I am not working at present and try to read as widely as possible, including philosophy, just to have the best understanding of life.

I have read a fair amount about Freud but don't claim to be an expert at all. Anyone on this site who has an expertise in Freud's ideas may contribute far more than I have done.

When I was undertaking art therapy training, I did have some personal therapy which involved lying on the couch, and it was incredibly wierd. Lying down in itself alters perspective and dreams go against reason, and this is captured within surrealism. Dreams can be so strange and defy logic. A few days ago, I dreamt that threads on this site were lying on my floor as great reams of paper.

I think that Freud is out of fashion at the moment, but that may change, because ideas fluctuate so much. I think that what sometimes gets missed is that all these theories are only models. When they get taken too concretely the potential insights from them.

I think that there are probably differences of opinion about Freud's ideas within philosophy. Personally, I think that his ideas and Jung are very useful, but I do have a lot of sympathy with psychodynamic thinking really because I do have some background training in this approach. I don't believe that I write as an apologist or propagandist. I just am aware that this is a philosophy site so I try to think of ideas in the context of this, even though I am interested in the borders between the two disciplines.

I can also see the basis of so many criticisms of both Freud (and Jung). Basically, I think that Freud's ideas are useful but see them as having partial but not a full knowledge. This is because I prefer to integrate many diverse ideas about psychology, including the ideas of the cognitive behavioral thinkers.