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.

Air has particles and, glass is not invisible, but is merely transparent, or we would walk through it accidentally, and knock over any empty glasses. I am talking more about the way in which at the present time, neuroscience can detect the underlying basis of brain processes but cannot see the specific images and ideas within our consciousness, because they are invisible to other minds.

When you speak of the non physical, which you do fairly frequently, I often wonder if what you mean is the invisible. For example, so cannot be seen, including processes underlying life, including the transmission of ideas electronically on this site. We can see our devices and the words on the screen, but cannot see the way it all happens. It involves signals, which have a physical basis but it does involve transmission which is invisible, and I believe that this applies to thoughts. They involve the physical brain and chemicals, but what takes place involves processes which are not visible. It also makes me think of Hegel's specific phenomenology.

I think that the ideas of angels and demons is extremely interesting indeed. I may end up being accused of going off topic, or even 'tripping' again, but angels and demons is central to the Bible, especially as messengers from God. They figure strongly in both Testaments. In this way, I do believe that they can be seen as figures from the unconscious.

However, some people, including Emmanuel Swedenborg, have thought of the angelic kingdom as an actual realm of existence, including the fall of the angels. I was taught this idea, which definitely has a basis in Milton's writings, but I am not sure if there is much evidence for it in the Bible. I believe that some people think that the account of Genesis describes a 'fall' which implied that human beings were thrown into a different form of existence. I am familiar with the idea of people being thrown into a state of mortality itself, as opposed to immortality in some descriptions of the Biblical story of the fall, connected with eating from the 'tree of knowledge.'

I just looked at the paper you linked in, or part of it, because the text was so small on my phone. What I thought was interesting in was the idea of the hidden. Many think that the idea of the hidden is philosophically ridiculous. In the paper, the idea is that it is 'the powers of darkness' which obscure and make certain aspects appear hidden, which is an unusual slant for thinking about. It reminds me of William Blake: 'If the doors of perception were cleansed everything would appear to man as it is, infinite.'

I did art based on the 'Book of Revelation' when I was on an art therapy course. I am better at drawing devils than angels really, and Blake said that Milton was 'in the devil's party without knowing it' because he was better at describing the demonic rather than angelic.

But, the idea of 666 and the idea of the antichrist has been drawn upon so much within heavy metal symbolism. I read Marilyn Manson's autobiography and he said that he went through a stage in which he really thought that he was the Biblical antichrist. However, Manson also read Jung's writings and came to the conclusion that the idea of the antichrist was symbolic. But, I find a lot of Marilyn Manson's music a bit too much to listen to. I prefer a track by The Inspiral Carpets, 'The Beast Inside', which states that, 'A man is no man if he has no beast inside.'

The fact remains that the idea of 666 has been a puzzle for many, with attempts made to equate it with specific individuals, and a lot of superstition around the number. Similarly, there is so much superstition around the idea of the number 13, as Judas was the 13th apostle, and this thread may end on page 13, as symbolically significant. The Book of Revelation has lead to so much speculation, especially with ideas such as the first and second beast.

I think that Freud is an extremely important thinker and I even created a thread on his ideas about 6 months ago. Generally, he made such an important contribution to culture, and brought sexuality into focus. But, a lot of people, especially feminists, disagreed with the idea of the Oedipus complex. In addition, a lot of philosophers think that the models of both Freud and Jung are not compatible with current scientific knowledge.

However, my own view is that Freud is worth reading, and makes important contributions to the thinking about the life and death instincts, as well as contributing to discussion about religion. Personally, I regard his, 'Origins of the Uncanny', as well as, 'Totem and Taboo' as important.

Nevertheless, it may be that many philosophers, and mainstream psychologists, do not rank him highly. But, I did courses in psychotherapy and art psychotherapy a few years ago, in which the opposite perspective holds and, Freud remains as the king.

I think that we can think about dividing the mind into parts, such as done by Freud and Jung, but it is important to remember the they are only ways of looking at it. They are conceptual categories and nothing more.

I think that a book title which fits your thread is "The Divided Self, ' by R D Laing which looks at the way people experience splits in their experience on account of the mixed messages in socialisation, especially in the family. The splits can result in breakdowns, so it is likely that we don't want the mind divided up too much on an experiential level, because it is a way towards fragmentation of the self.

For anyone who is still interested after I drove the bus into the wilderness yesterday, I just wish to mention the ideas about the 'Book of Revelation' by one writer, Robin Robertson, who is writing from a Jungian perspective. He suggests,
'The Book of Revelation has been all things to all people, a cornucopia of delight for scholars, theologians, crackpots, and madmen. It has never lost its magic power to arouse strong emotions; though we can read contradictory meanings into its words, the words continue to fascinate.'

I have read 'The Book of Revelation' more than any other book in the Bible, with a mixture of fear and fascination, and I am sure that many have done so as well. It is an extremely difficult book to understand. Robertson offers the following thought about it,
'Revelation is the last book in the New Testament of the Bible. It stands as a bridge between the record of the Bible and the unknown times ahead. It is a vision rather than a history, because it records a stage of consciousness which cannot yet be actualized in reality.'

Many people have tried to work out direct ways of thinking about John's vision, in imagining an apocalyptic scenario, but I think that the symbolic approach is an extremely helpful way for looking at it.

I will look at it tomorrow, as I am hoping that this thread is not finished immediately, because I do believe that it involves important questions about the history of Christianity and the way people think in our times, which may be regarded as a secular age.

I have just looked at the thread this evening, and I think that beliefs are complicated. Some go back to claims of authority, especially the Bible, whereas others are based on intuition. It is a complex matter, and I wish to look at these elements of thought as critically as possible.

I am sure that the Bible has some role in this aspect of thinking, but I don't wish to exaggerate this. I think that views about the Bible are important, but in the context of other ideas. No idea stands in isolation. Saying that, it is late at night, so I will look at the thread tomorrow, with a view to what can be carried forward, in thinking about the Bible, ideas, and the development of our own thinking.I could write off the debate about the Bible, but I am not convinced that this aspect of philosophy is settled permanently, so I am willing to pursue it further with other people.

Okay, I will look at your previous posts, because I wish to go forward but don't wish to go off on a magic bus. I will look further tomorrow because I think that I must have written more than about 10 posts, and I don't wish to write complete gobbledgook. I will read through my thread tomorrow morning, and read it with a fresh perspective.

I have to admit that I have only a very limited knowledge of liberation theology. I will look further at it in the book I have on contextual theology. But, I have probably written about the maximum number of posts I can really write in one day, so I will probably look at this discussion further tomorrow, to see where it is going and what is most relevant for thinking about.

I definitely don't wish to go beyond words, and enter the dimensions of the unspeakable. But, I I don't play tennis, so I need some kind of new net or boundary, because boundaries and naming is so difficult, especially in the realm of the sacred. How do we think of religious experience in connection to political correctness. Part of this would be about accepting everyone's views, but how would this come into play in the subjective interpretations, especially in the interpretations of the Bible?

How should be more philosophical? I am not entirely clear, as I do believe In looking from many viewpoints, reason and symbolic. Can we step outside of these entirely, and on what basis?

I do believe that the symbolic dimension is an important aspect of life which is sometime missed in the emphasis upon reason. Reason and imagination are both extremely important and not necessarily opposed to one another when viewing texts, such as The Bible, but it may be that reason needs to pay attention to the imagination and symbolic dimensions. Perhaps, imagination has to be taken into account fully in the interpretations of texts, especially those involving reasoning about the Bible.

I completely agree, and I do believe that any thinking about religious experience is connected to the experience of those individuals. Unfortunately, the Bible does not go into that much depth about the experiences of Moses, Jesus and Paul, amongst others. We may have to allow for imagination in filling in the gaps, and I do believe that these individuals may have been people who questioned in the way that we do. I do believe that the existential aspects of these thinkers may have been missed and that we have been encouraged to think of these people in such a way that it misses out essential aspects of their deeper searching and philosophical quests.

I think that philosophy will survive probably for as long as humanity does, even though it may be defined and redefined. I do believe that some think that metaphysics has passed its sell by date.However, this is in itself open to questioning, because as individuals, we are still stuck in the position of trying to make sense of our lives, for better or worse. I am not sure that the bigger questions are really redundant, because it may be hard to frame and contextualize our own lives without some relation to the wider aspects of life and the cosmic aspects of existence.

One aspect which I may introduce into this discussion is one book which I have read on a Jungian interpretation of 'The Book of Revelation'. I believe that the symbolic dimensions of life is such an important aspect of reality, but I am aware that is simply my perspective. Of course, I am aware that is my own view, and I am open to having that challenged. I may put in an entry based on that view tomorrow, but I make no definite plans, because while I have created the thread, I think that it goes beyond my own personal viewpoint. I wish to go with the flow, and I definitely wish to keep the discussion within the scope of philosophy.

I believe that looking for reliable information and accounts in history is extremely important. However, I don't think that it is an easy task because we are up against what remains suppressed in certain periods, as well as the biases of our own times. I wish to explore this, as far as I can within the limits. I do believe that it involves going beyond the superficial, and the information of the internet, which in itself involves biases of those who compile information, and I think that fuller effort is required.

We probably also have to recognise the potential limitations of our task, while exploring. I am sure that many people may think that looking at the aspects of religious experience and history are futile, but I do believe that this can apply to most other aspects of philosophy and aspects of human life and culture. It does come down to the need to make sense of our lives, and there is no one with the definitive answers, and we have to choose the paths of thought to include ot exclude for ourselves.

I definitely think that the facts of the Bible and history are an extremely useful aspect to this discussion. But, the religious experience, as explored in William James writings is extremely important. I have read some of James's writings and I think that the whole realm of religious experience is followed up by Ninian Smart, within comparative religion, and in the psychological experience of Jung. I also believe that the experiences of the idea of numinous experiences is important and one writer, Rudolf Otto, stressed the understanding of the numinous dimension of experience.

We could begin to think about the experience of Moses, amidst the burning bushes. Also, we may think about those who spoke of the having seen the risen body of Jesus. How do we begin to think about such experiences? Some may speak of delusions, but I think that this is far too much of a dismissal, because delusions usually refer to ideas which do not make sense on a collective level. In contrast, the ideas of Moses and of the resurrection, while open to question, have been valued and have been such an important aspect of historical development of ideas.

However, what I think is important is the breaking down of ideas: ontological questions of God's existence, historical aspects of religion, in relation to facts of history , and the experiences of individuals, including visions and revelation. I do believe that Christianity is only one aspect of this area of thought, but I do think that it is important in thinking about how the divergent aspects of thought come into play. However, I do believe that any full consideration involves thinking about these aspects, and the way they are juxtaposed. I think that we are left with a difficult task really, but I hope that philosophy can enter into this, rather than dismiss it.

You say that,
'The historical record does not stand or fail on whether these stories are believed to be a true and accurate account of what happened.' I think that many people do question the accuracy of such ideas, but I do believe that for many people the question of accuracies and inaccuracies of certain aspects of the Biblical narratives are important. We may have moved into a secular age, but not entirely, and I certainly believe that for many people the central ideas in The Bible, whether agreed with, or opposed, are at the centre of so much philosophical thinking. This probably includes ideas about Jesus, but also, so much thinking in the Bible, before his time as well.

I have drawn out the basic ideas, adding a couple of ideas of my own,although the article is much longer. Of course, the view of Reid is only one, so it will be interesting to see if anyone reads and challenges that view because I am sure that his perspective is open to criticism and challenge.

I think that we are back with an underlying philosophy problem. Some people appreciate the position of the idea of God, and Christ, as expressed in the Bible. Some appreciate a perennial wisdom underlying various religious perspectives, and others reject religious and spiritual philosophies at all. So, we are back to the central problem of objective vs subjective truth, as well as personal preferences.

We could question how much our own thinking about the Bible is based on our own subjective realities, and even what lies behind the subjective realities. How much is psychological, or is there a greater reality behind this?

I have just managed to look at the Les Reid article, so I will draw out the main ideas. He argues that 'statements and attitudes in the Bible are expressed in the Bible that are troublesome in themselves, without reference to facts and opinions derived from other sources.'.He also says that there are no agreed canons, in the interpretations. Reid suggested that, 'If the great spirit is really concerned about humanity, as it is claimed, then one would expect communications to be open, regular and clearly genuine. If there really was a benevolent spirit looking over us, its communication would be as clear as the sun in the sky'.

Reid also suggests that,'Yahweh is a biased God. As Hume pointed out(Enquiry S.10) Biblical assertions that Yahweh favoured one tribe over above the rest of humanity..' He also queried the change from the Yahweh of the Old Testament to the New Testament, whether it would mean that God is changing. His overall conclusion is that, 'The religious paradigm was a human invention and its central narratives are fictions.

I am aware that I looked at the discussion of the original article, so I will look at the review again. One idea which I am aware of is how Reid questions whether God is actually changing, which I am aware was one arising in the perspective of Jung in, 'Answer to Job'. But, here I am just laying out the ideas expressed by Reid, with a view to how they contribute to the debate about thinking of the Bible from a philosophy viewpoint.