My phone battery may run out at any moment, but I definitely don't think that I am automaton. I think that there may be an unconscious, but I do wonder if it has some underlying principles. One of the first books which I read shortly after leaving school was, 'God and the Unconscious' by Victor White. That was a fairly complex book, and I was a bit upset when my mother told me she threw it away because it was tatty because the book, especially the title was my one of the biggest ideas which influenced me in thinking about some underlying force, whether it is called God, energy or the unconscious .

I think that the interest in philosophy, including debates in science, includes the whole spectrum of the layperson and the academic. I am not sure which has the most power in the current system, let alone the cultural and political aspects of the future.

Ultimately, I think that the purpose of such questions probably comes down to survival, individually and for humanity. Personally, I am just about surviving, but I have found the examination of self and life to be the important aspects of this quest.

I do agree that the way in which philosophy survives in the technology of our times opens up questions and many more questions. Sometimes, I think that many look to Wikipedia as if it is a living philosopher. I do believe that almost anyone can go into it and edit. Of course, this site gives us the scope for expressing our views. Otherwise, I would probably just be reading alone in my room. So, it is hard to see directions, for better or worse, and the whole spectrum of artificial intelligence and how all this will lead to results in the world of ideas. I think it such an unknown realm, daunting and exciting, which is why I raise it, as a way of thinking beyond deadends.

I am not sure to what extent science stands out or is the dominant paradigm. There is a whole thread devoted to the praise of science, but apart from whether we praise science or not, it does seem to come down to how this is viewed and evaluated within knowledge and its practical applications in life.

I am not convinced that the idea of energy within quantum physics is not worthy of greater philosophical speculation. I think that your discussion of all these areas are so open up ideas for exploration, even though I can't always access the links you provide, which is probably due to signals, an aspect of reality which on which we are starting to rely upon. However, I think that the point which you make about the role of the observer, which is recognised in the physics of relativity is extremely important, and I do wonder to what extent this ideas has been incorporated as a basis, or aspect, of the underlying premises of philosophy.

Thanks for your ongoing participation. What I am wondering about is what is energy exactly. I am sure that there is the formula, as expressed in physics. However, I wonder if even this is limited because it is about formulas and models. I am not trying to be awkward, but all models seem to be models. I think that we need to refine and develop them. I am also aware that you are probably in a different part of the world, so that you are probably awake when I am sleeping, which probably means that we have delayed responses. I wake up and see your ideas and by the time I have drunk a couple of coffees you have probably gone to bed. However, I do appreciate the ideas which you have contributed to this thread discussion.

I have read read some of Kahneman's book, but not all of it. I think framing of life and reality is important, although I am not sure that idea has not been discovered before.

As for mystery, I am not sure to what extent it can be ruled out or incorporated. I am definitely in favour of demystification, and not just speaking of the ineffable or the unknown. However, I do think that each of us, and the various models of thinking are so limited. I really see it as being more of an adventure, in which any of us can search in life and in ideas, in order to look for the most innovative ways of seeing, in science, arts and all disciplines. It is partly about individual perception of reality, but this is not entirely separate from the cultural pursuit of knowledge.

The question of practical really and philosophy is an interesting slant. I have to admit that I am so much more philosophical than practical, relying on microwave meals and watching my piles of washing accumulate, because I am so busy reading my books and writing on this site. That may seem a bit trite but I do think that the way in which we juggle the practical and the philosophical is an important aspect of life.

It comes down to the way we live our lives. I do believe that many push the questions of life out to the picture, or settle for the easiest answers, while focusing on the practical realities of life. I think that Western culture is going in the direction of focusing on practical tasks, but I wonder if there will some kind of resurgence. It may even be happening now, because the pandemic has turned so many lives upside down. I am really saying that people may think that they don't need to think about the big questions, but I am not convinced that we have reached that deadend completely.

I see your point about the hollow men as being those who have been through trauma, but I see it as being more metaphorical, in ways which apply to us all in some ways.

I am definitely not asking for any final answers because we don't know the future, but can think of it as a speculative area. I do think it applies to other areas of thought including the arts and humanities.

One obvious example to me although it may be remote from the topic of philosophy is about music. I know so many people who barely listen to music beyond the 80s, or beyond the time of Oasis and Blur. I know people who are in their teens who come from that perspective. It is based on the idea that most of what can be created has already been done before.

I am sure that philosophy is far more complex than rock and pop music, but we have had the rise of postmodernism and beyond, so I am interested in what comes next and, what can the future bring? Will it be novelty, or more synthetic forms of understanding?

Sometimes this site is like a battleground. I remember a few weeks ago when I couldn't sleep and I looked at my phone and found a heated debate going on in a thread I had created. I wondered what is going on here?

Actually, I have more fights inside my own head than with other people. I am not sure if that is better or worse than disagreeing with others. Of course, online disagreement or even by texts is so different. I find it easier to fall out with friends by text than in real life, and on a couple of occasions, I felt that I had text wars. I am saying that having said that I have more fights and arguments with myself than others. However, I do believe that in many disagreements a lot of it comes down to projecting ideas or attitudes onto others, and attacking them on the basis of such projections..

I do agree with your likening of philosophy to painting but that is partly because I enjoy painting. But, about a week ago, in some thread or another, I said that philosophy without clear use of concepts and language is like trying to paint a picture with brushes which have been left soaking in dirty water. I do see it as being like painting pictures because it is a bit like creating new, unique pictures which are often just a little bit different from other ones from the past.

However, the whole way past and present come together is not just about seeing the newer ones as more accurate, but just about the picture in the present. I think that it is organic, and you speak of it with reference to thread creation. I am sure that each person would like to think that theirs is the best possible way of seeing. It is most likely about taking things apart and recreating them, or reframing questions and thoughts.

I am glad to see you back on the site because I had missed your presence in the last few months. I have to go out for an appointment this afternoon, but I am hoping to reply to you and the other people who have made comments later today.

I think that your question of how can we account for the arts and philosophy is extremely important in our understanding of reality. Ever since I began thinking about philosophy of reality, I have thought of this in connection with the idea of the collective unconscious. However, I am aware that Jung's idea has been seen as lacking in philosophy. I wonder if this could be because he did not explore it fully enough as a philosophical concept. He was rather blurry in seeing it as connected to metaphysics or as being an aspect of nature and biology.

One major query which I have is where do creative ideas come from? I know that Plato speaks of ideas of Forms, but even these seem like abstract entities. However, individuals have specific ideas and ways of seeing, which are experienced uniquely. I think that this is partly on a phenomenological level and I do plan to read more in this field, and I do wish to read Hegel's 'Phenomenology of Mind'. But, at the moment, my own understanding is that unique perception and creativity do seem to point to the possibility of reality being multidimensional.

Anyway, if you, or anyone else reply, I will look at it later in the day, because I have a medical appointment this afternoon (and I have some comments to reply to in the thread I started yesterday.)

I don't want to end up in hospital or in a grave yet, although I remember on the first week when I began working in a psychiatric hospital, I dreamt that I was a patient, lying in a dormitory bed. But, that aside, I think that it does happen that people lose touch with physical reality. I didn't know that you (Madfool) consider yourself as a physicalist, but presume that you mean that that is the most ultimate reality. I definitely think that it is primary and as the starting point for something more. But, I am not sure whether some underlying invisible causes come into play. I think that this is at the core of any understanding of reality.

I am glad that my thread has come back to life and replying to yours because it really goes back to the basic question. Some of the thread focused on reality and is it solid, even discussion tables and that is because in many ways we are are born into and die in a physical world. In some ways, we are even trapped in the physical world, because we have to use physical means to do things. Even as I communicate on this site, I am reliant on my phone and my fingers. I remember the time when I had a broken wrist, and it was the right one, I spent 6 weeks struggling to do most things because we rely on physical reality, and our bodies.

I think that the way I see it is whether that is all there is. I am not necessarily suggesting hidden realities, but going back to what you wrote earlier we are embodied, with an interior sense of self, but at the same time, part of something larger. So, understanding reality is complex, because there are different facets, and it depends on how we put them together in our understanding. Also, reality is infinite too.

I will write an answer a bit later this morning when I have got up and had breakfast. I often write replies lying in bed, which probably doesn't help me in writing ones of quality...

Okay, I will probably need to work harder if I want my threads to work. I think that a couple of people have suggested that often I am inclined to listen to others rather than put my own views forward. I think that is partly my own approach in life, but it is something which I need to work on.

I think that my own picture of reality is based partly on quantum reality, but I am probably also interested in the reality of the world within us too. I know that you don't dismiss the numinous aspect of life, especially in the realm of the arts, but I think that many people do miss the numinous side of life, whether they are religious or not. I do see this as being the essential aspect of reality.

Also, you say that it is hard to pin me down, but I think that is also true of reality too, because it is constantly changing. Also, in a way it includes everything, including every theory and every philosophy that exists at all.

I do think that each person is like a miniature part of the universe too, and that it goes back to the idea of the microcosm and the macroscom, which is a tradition going back to Plato. I think that many people nowadays don't recognize the value of the human being, or of a connection between the internal world and a larger reality. I think that is probably because people stopped believing in the idea of a 'soul'. I am not saying that there are not any problems with the idea of a soul, going back to dualism, but, at the same time it does seem to me that what has happened is that many people have come to disregard the interior universe and underplay its importance whatsoever.

I didn't include you in my reply above, but you contributed well to the discussion on my thread and I would like my thread to continue because I do believe that what is reality is is a valid philosophy question.

I was pleased to see that you had put an entry in my thread, but, then disappointed that in wishing to respect my thread you wished for the discussion to move elsewhere. This keeps happening and ends up with my thread not continuing at all. In particular, my thread was going fine until @Banno suggested to @ Manuel that he started a new thread on metaphysics. This meant that became the replacement for my thread. I was a bit disappointed with the way my thread ended, and I am sure that @Banno believes that my whole thread and all my ideas are complete rubbish but I do wish to continue the discussion with energy and spirit too.

Of course, I could move to any threads which break off from mine, but I already wrote one in the metaphysics thread and no one replied to me. I would still like to continue discussion about reality with you or anyone else.

I think that part of the problem is that people are not accustomed towards philosophy, although there are probably more people interested than one would imagine. I know that if I see a book in a second hand or charity shop by some obscure writer and don't buy it at the time, if I go back a couple of days later it has usually gone. Also, when I go to libraries, often the books which I am looking for are out, so some people are interested.

But, I do think that if philosophy is to survive it will probably need a certain amount of demystifying to happen. Also, I think it would be too much for anyone to start reading writers like Spinoza and Wittgenstein without having read a certain amount of philosophy previously. It would be jumping in the deep end.

But, I guess we all try to do different things. I haven't had any lessons to drive a car whereas most people are desperate to do this.

But, yes, it does seem that Stephen Hawking was the best selling author that not many people read. I struggled my way through though. I think a lot of people wish to study science, but I guess that is partly related to career pathways.

But, it may be that philosophy will remain a minority interest but I do think that the issue is to what extent will it survive at all. I think that it partly depends if it can be a bit less abstract and obscure in some ways. But, even if a lot of people don't read it much I think that the questions will still remain as long as human beings survive.

I think that apart from the focus on science, the division between academic and popular is sometimes too absolute. When I go to shops the philosophy and science books are often grouped together under the category 'smart thinking'. These are mostly popular science books with some philosophy ones thrown in. If it is a bigger shop there are usually a few classics. I have found it much easier to get more academic books online. However, I often feel that sometimes the division between the academic and popular is still too strong because some of the philosophy ones in particular, seem to come from the perspective of imagining that readers have barely any knowledge or be written for specialised readers, and I looking for ones in between. Of course, reading the classic writers is often best, but it is useful to read others too.

I think that it is true that many turn to religious beliefs instead of philosophy. Perhaps this is because it is the easiest option. There are far more churches to go to than philosophy discussion groups. Yes, the philosophers like Nietzsche recognized this. Also, I know that in England I was not taught any philosophy at school, but was taught religious studies. It may be that some religious studies tutors go into philosophy but I went to a Catholic school and was not taught anything about any other religions at all, and had to read for myself. Also, the science I was taught did not touch the philosophy questions, or I would have probably found it interesting. But, I do think many people are left in a lot of confusion because what they have been taught is superficial.

Most people I know think that philosophy is from the past or is rather obscure, I think that this has been due to the way it has been in the hands of the academics. In England, this is particularly centralised in Oxford and Cambridge.

However, even though I feel that friends think that I am ridiculous reading philosophy books, and even more so for writing on this site, with do feel that it is sometimes possible to get into discussions about some of the questions at times. I think that philosophy has inherited a bad image though and we live in such an image conscious society. In a way, psychology is a bit trendy in I have lost count of the amount of people I have met in the last few years with psychology degrees.

But, I do think that part of the problem is that some of the writers, especially from the twentieth century did not write books which appealed to many people. I do believe that this needs to change. I also think that many people choose not to study it because they don't think that employers will be particularly impressed.

That is a bit reassuring because while I am aware that there are some who view philosophy and thinking outside of science it often feels that is not the dominant way of seeing. I am not just talking about people on the forum, but include bookshops sections which I visit and a few other sources, which place such an emphasis on neuroscience.

I don't believe that the sciences have all the answers, and I also think that the arts and literature have a lot to add. The reason I wrote this today was I was reading Iris Murdock' s writings on literature, and I do think that sources such as literature provide areas for exploring meaning. When the emphasis is on the physical sciences, above all else, it seems to me that philosophy becomes so flat.

I am definitely of the view that philosophy will always be of importance because, and I feel that it is useful to think about how science draws upon the arts. I do see keeping the emphasis on the various disciplines as being essential, or else thinking becomes so lopsided.

It is extremely important and hard, I do not to ask the right questions, because they form the basic framework for thinking. We are so lucky to have a forum which allows us to ask questions. At times, the questions which we ask are likely to involve repetition. But, I do think that all the new and subtle variations open up slightly different angles for thinking.

Of course, it is hit and miss and sometimes involves asking stupid or the wrong ones. What I find it that I often ask one question and just get a few replies, but on a few occasions, the basis of the replies give me scope for asking another question, which often seems to make sense to more people. So, it does involve experimentation and improvisation. I also believe in taking risks and asking awkward questions, and asking the ones which many may wish to sidestep or avoid completely.

I did get extremely wound up, so I am about to go out. I must have read too much John Bunyan, and I am saying that because I grew up fairly near to your location, Bedford.

I've calmed down. I think that I see the idea of potential lack of 'solidity' more as basis for thinking and contemplating impermanence. However, I have been spending a bit too much time and energy focusing on my threads and the site in the last few days, so I think I will go out and take a bit of a break today and, maybe, tomorrow.

I think philosophy is about finding a basis for contemplation more than anything else. Also, I think it is important to keep all ideas and everything else in life in balance, to hold onto a certain amount of psychological 'solidity.'

I am glad to hear your reassurance because the whole idea got me really wound up when I saw it first thing today.

I will answer a bit later, because I just got really wound up reading something on another thread.

I have already replied in the lounge, but I am feeling so extremely irritated with your idea, and it seems that you are serious about trying to get implemented by placing it here.

I see the idea of setting up a system of counting the number of fallacies and trying to 'punish' people and even ban people as extremely worrying. Of course, the use of reason is important, but there is more to philosophy discourse than that, especially on a forum, because it is about people interacting with each other about ideas. That in itself is complex, involving power dynamics. I think that the forum would be ruined completely if exclusions and bannings were implemented too easily, especially on the basis of users' wishes for this to happen being met by moderators.

I am all in favour of logic and rationality, but I certainly don't wish to be part of a forum which is about looking for people's faults as a basis for ousting them. It would give certain people who are ranked as the judges too much power. I am not going to waste any more time on this, and you wil see what others think, and the moderators, but I feel that your suggestion is extremely negative.

I agree with your wider definition of lack of respect. However, I still believe that it would be very complex if moderators were in the process of seeking to eliminate people without some clear basis for doing so and, it could become very arbitrary and, potentially, discriminatory.

My point about the will to live was not meant in quite the way you interpreted and I certainly hope that I could live without this forum. I use it presently by choice. However, I would question a forum which was trying to detect logical fallacies. It would mimic institutions of education which reject certain people as 'failures' and it would become a culture of exclusion.

That is true, but it is only one way of seeing reality. I am not saying that you are wrong, but life and reality is more than gaseous exchanges. It is also about perspectives.

I am interested to know more about your ideas of limitations, including space and time, and how that relates to reality. Are you suggesting that these are the absolute boundaries?

I am a bit wary of your framework, because it seems to me that it would be a way of throwing out anyone who thinks or sees a bit outside of the box. I think that it would be the saddest possibility if people were thrown out of the forum simply because their arguments were seen as lacking. Would the moderators be the judges of expertise? Would those who were thrown out feel so demoralised and lacking any potential philosophical worth? If I was banned from the forum because I was seen as being beyond the scope of any possible thinking ability I think that I would lose the will to live entirely. Surely, ability is something which we can develop through engagement in discussion.

I think that any exclusion from the forum should be on the basis of lack of respect for other people. Anything more, would go beyond the spirit of philosophical exploration.

I think that your reflections on the nature of 'energy' based on your reading in Eastern metaphysics are extremely useful, and I do wonder about the possibility of such ideas being incorporated into Western philosophy. I do think that there are limitations of philosophy as a discipline. This probably means that certain ideas are excluded from mainstream thought, but I do believe that such ideas are probably understood more by some other worldviews, including shamanic perspectives.

Thanks for your reply, and it is a relief to hear that you feel that you see physics as you weakness. Sometimes, it seems as if those who have expertise in the sciences are coming from a certain expertise, or position of knowledge far beyond all others. I believe that it is complex. I think physics and other scientific understandings are models. I am not saying that with a view to undermining their importance because I believe that they offer incredible insights into nature and human nature, as well as the other aspects of reality, but even this knowledge is partial, in the understanding of reality in an ultimate way.

I am certainly in the position of seeing the whole question of God or the lack of God as central to my philosophy. I have looked at your thread several times, and only replying to it today, for the first time.

Partially, I am in agreement with you about agnosticism as a default position, but my only objection is labels because I see the whole area as being one of contemplation because I don't want to be put into a box. I am not sure if there is any higher power beyond us, but I don't categorical myself as agnostic because I think that it is too much of a category, implying certain limitations in whether there is a God, or underlying source, and I see it as being beyond a spectrum beyond the definitions of theism, atheism or agnosticism. I think that we need look beyond the categories which seem to arise religion and philosophy, in order to open to new ways of seeing the numinous, and trying to frame the many aspects of human experience.