Thanks for your reply.
Yes, I try to keep a balance and I realise there are limits to how much it is possible to read, because I have to do other things as well. Recently, I listened to much less music because books have taken over. Fortunately, I don't have a television, because most of my friends say they spend so much time watching it. I think that my time on this site is giving me some idea about what texts in philosophy are essential, although we probably all have ones which really appeal to us individually.

I do believe that it important to be able to write from one's own angle, because it is authentic. At least, this site does give scope for us to experiment in such a way. When there is no possibility of this, having to write just seems so dull and monotonous. When I was doing studies for training in nursing the way we were expected to write was so dry and it was like everyone's work was almost identical. I think that I managed to squeeze some bits that were from the personal in at times, but I had to be careful.

It is so good to read all the different writers on this site, because it does seem that most have their own style, which comes through regardless of what is being discussed. It would be so boring if all different people writing sounded identical, even if they wrote like Kant or Wittgenstein. I probably would not rush to my phone to read them as soon as I get up in the morning.

I am impressed by your poem. Also, I am interested that you have come across 'A Band of Outsiders' because not many people I know follow such music. I really like the Brian Johnson Massacre.

Just in case anyone is confused by the comment above, the new thread which was started by Apollodurus, is not meant to be to replace this one of mine, meaning this one is discontinued. I think that the idea of a separate thread is because in the last few days a political discussion has been dominating, so it probably required a separate thread.

So, any further discussion of the mysteries of philosophy is welcome here, because I don't think that they have really been solved yet. As this thread is long, and people, especially new forubm members, may not wish to go back to the beginning, the three central mysteries which I pointed to were the existence of God, free will and life after death. In discussions of them, one theme which emerged was that of trying to understand and explain the nature of consciousness.

I can relate to your thread because I do wonder about the psychology of using this forum and discussing philosophy. I would imagine that people come with many different motives. Personally, I have been using the forum almost daily ever since I discovered it last September. I do it partly because I have hardly anyone who I can talk to about philosophy. Also, I have been doing it so much during lockdown to try to avoid complete isolation. So, I can relate to you idea of it being like a 'fortress', and I really don't want how I would have got through January and February without it.

But, apart from the interaction, I do feel that writing and reading on it has enabled me to work out where my own views lie. I think that previously I used to read books, but not really integrate them with the my own development of ideas. I was aware of inconsistencies in some of the views I had but because I had no one to talk to about them, it was hard to formulate them.

Some of the time, I am sure I write posts which no one ever reads but it still feels better putting them down in notebooks and putting them away in drawers. I even see the threads as being a bit like drawers full of notebooks. Sometimes, I do go into the archived threads and find oneswhich are written before I joined, and they are fascinating. But, I do find using the site and writing threads as being a bit addictive. But, it is the only forum I have ever used, and I am not really sure if there are any others I would wish to join. I do feel that the various writers here are so unique.

The addictive part is that I find that when I wake up in the night I start logging on to see what is happening on the site, almost like as if it is some kind of reality television show. I often write answers to posts, lying in bed. Once, I even flooded my mum's bathroom, because I left the tap on accidentally when I was writing a reply to someone. But, when I am at my mum's house, she gets really annoyed when she keeps seeing me 'fiddling around on the phone', as she describes it. A couple of times, she has even tried to take my phone from my hands, when she sees me typing away and wants my attention.

I do think that it is worth trying to not limit interpretations of texts just to their historical contexts. In some ways, all ideas are interlinked and thinking about ideas can be so much richer and imaginative if looked at in this way. I like seeing parallels in ideas which I so different, such as between Jung and Nietzsche. I believe that it is important to be aware of the contexts in which specific ideas developed, but it is also important to not become too narrow in interpretation because it may be that combining certain ideas from very different historical context, or even from different disciplines, may give birth to new ideas and perspectives.

One of the concerns which I have about transhumanism is that if people are enabled to live for way beyond the natural lifespan is what effect this would have on the environment. Of course, even now we can have medication and surgery which extends our lives a lot longer than if they weren't available. However, if we were to extend it on a far greater level thre population would become so large and there would be such a demand for resources, that life may become unbearable. Also, we are in danger of running out of petroleum and, the lifestyles we are living are damaging the planet, especially the climate.

I am also unsure about ideas such as having head replacements. I have come across people having new heads put on their teddy bears, but I am not sure how it would work with humans. Of course, we are not used to it, and if we think about life as we know it, probably many aspects of our lives would have only have been science fiction about 50 to 100 years ago. But, in some ways, the ideas of transhumanism almost seem like trying to create the 'mythical' beings like the Nephilim and humans of Atlantis, who were said to live for about 300 years.

I am glad that someone else on the forum wonders about the what ifs rather just what is. Generally, I think that a lot of people I know in life don't have much patience with the what ifs. I love the imagination and the arts which is all about that. I think that is probably because my mum used to act in plays, so she encouraged me to imagine all kinds of things when I was playing as a child. She also used to like writing, and she used to write song lyrics and someone used to put tunes to them and sing them, along with a guitar for her, and record them on cassettes. Generally, I see creativity as an essential aspect of life and philosophical thinking.

It is interesting that you speak of certain texts being embedded in your subconscious. I have wondered about this, but not sure that whether this happens when we skim through them. It would probably depend how subliminal perception works, but my understanding is that in advertising this happens by certain images stimulate parts of fantasy, and the need to have certain objects in relation to this fantasy. So, I wonder how the subliminal works in our reading. It may mean that we are able to gain some of an overriding picture of a certain author. However, when we do skim ideas, the danger which I see is that it may be like being in a conversation with someone and not really listening attentively to what they are saying. However, I do feel that I seem automatically to skim read at times, almost looking at a paragraph or a page in one go, and I do get the impression that some of the ideas are absorbed in some way.

I have probably been guilty of reading certain texts and missing important parts. Funnily enough, part of the reason I began reading parts of certain texts was because when I was a student I was encouraged to do this. It was tutors pointing to what they saw as key chapters. However, when I read philosophy books now, I do like to read all the chapters, but I probably read some of them too quickly. I often take a book out with me and don't come home until the have finished it. I am sure that certain books really deserve much more analysis, but the problem is that there are just so many important books to get through.

Really, I found 'Finnegan's Wake' almost completely unreadable. I spent a couple of hours skimming through it. I mainly wish to read it because I found 'The Portrait of a Artist as a Young Man' and 'Ulysses' to be fantastic. I am also interested in the whole idea of a stream of consciousness, going back to William James, although the two writers use it so differently.

I have to admit that I do skim read sometimes, especially science, which may mean that I get some ideas out of context. I try to make sure that I get to grips with the main idea, and don't miss important parts, but I may end up leaving out some central parts. However, it is sometimes not easy to understand some aspects of technical detail unless one has the necessary science knowledge, and I come more from an arts background.

I just wish to prevent the thread becoming derailed by people's personal disagreements, by asking people about the role which reading has within their pursuit of philosophy. Of course, reading is only a means of communication of ideas, so the exploration of reading is really part of the process of becoming aware of the established thinkers from the past as a basis for developing our own ideas and understanding.

I have only read a little Deepak Chopra, but I have a friend who thinks he is wonderful. However, discussion of quantum physics can be like 'word salad'. But, my best recommendation for word salad is James Joyce's, 'Finnegan's Wake', but it is meant to capture the whole idea of the stream of consciousness.

I don't usually remember the novels unless they are outstanding. With the non fiction, I usually remember the ones which seem really important and try and read them again at some point. But, I have probably always read that amount of books, and I have a few eye problems, which may be from eyestrain, so try not to read too much late at night.

My view is that mornings are for reading, afternoons for doing important activities and evenings for relaxing to music, but, of course I like the heavy stuff whereas you like the classical.

I think that you are right to stress the danger of reading so much that one can become lost from
'rational discourse'. If I have been reading a lot I sometimes find that I bring unusual words into conversation and people look a bit puzzled and I have to remember not to do this. But, in the house I am living in I am the only one whose first language is English, so I am getting practice at trying to speak as simply as possible.

I think that it can be helpful having guidelines for writing but I prefer room to maneuver. While studying there were just so many rules and regulations, that there seemed to be no scope for creativity. I like a blank white space on a paper or a screen and the potential it has rather than being given too much structure. At one stage, I used to write morning pages, as suggested by Julia Cameron in, 'The Artist's Way', which was to write 3 pages of thoughst as soon as possible each morning. I did this for about a year and I felt that it was a really helpful practice for reflection.

I am probably not systematic enough in my reading. I have started a collection of writings on Plotinus, Sartre's 'Being and Nothingness,' and reading several other non fiction ones, and about 3 novels. I have downloaded so many books, about 1500 on my Kindle and I got a free tablet with my phone. I worked out how to download on that and discovered recently that I can't download any more because it has its maximum amount of large files. Fortunately, the majority of the books I got were free. But, I am trying to get through some of my paper books as well. I like to read about 5 books a week, but it does depend on how big they are and what they are. Some books can be read in one sitting, whereas others have to be read slowly.

I have read Plato's 'Republic' and 'Phaedo'. I do find overviews helpful and I reread Bertrand Russell's ' History of Western Philosophy' recently. I have been planning to start Iris Murdock's 'Existentialism and Mystics', ever since the thread on mysticism. So, I will be busy, and not enough hours in a day really, especially as I am applying for jobs as well. But, when I was working in the past, I used to try to read for a bit before going to work, because reading can be so meditational.

I probably don't wish to digress too much into the subject of light here, as I created a thread on the metaphysics of light. However, I do love reading on à kindle, which really has its own inner light.

It is hard to know what the first human words were, but it does seem that children begin saying mama and papa. I can remember as a child being given a notebook to draw in and filling it with squiggles from cover to cover, and telling my mum that I had been writing.

But, going back to first languages, I think that they may have been more sophisticated than we imagine, because there was Rome and Egypt. Obviously, we don't know what came before but the development of Sanskrit and other early alphabets and symbols does indicate high levels of thought. Cultures like the Aborigines also seem to be complex, and I do believe that anthropology is a very important field for thinking about the development of humanity.

It is hard to get the right balance between being swamped by information and thinking ones own thoughts and finding one's own writing voice. Really, it would be wonderful to be so captivated by another's way that it influenced the whole perception. I have seen books on how to write like Hemmingway, and it would be such an experiment to try to write like Nietzsche or Sartre, for example. It does seem that even on this forum we all have our own unique styles. I worry about churning out replies and threads in a samey way, like the familiar formula beats and chords of a Status Quo song.

Of course, if we did go blind or deaf we would have the options of learning braille and sign language, but I have seen them being used and, don't think it would be easy to learn them. I once attended a training course in which I was the only trainee in the room who was not deaf. There was an interpreter in the room translating what the course leaders and I said, and I think that I used a few words which the interpreters didn't know how to put into sign language. I also think that being proficient in braille to the point of being able to read philosophy books would be very hard indeed.

I see your point about containers and recordings, but I do see this as the best possible source for viewing the ideas of the past. I would love to be able to meet Kant, Kierkergaard, Sartre, with you and others on the forum, and discuss metaphysics, while drinking coffee, but as that is not possible, reading is the best option.

As it is, people are beginning to do things a bit differently now, with the internet and videos. But, I am a big fan of books, so I am glad I don't have to watch videos of all the most famous thinkers of the past, although it would be interesting to see what they really looked like, rather than how we imagine them.

It is interesting how you point out the role of interpretation and I see your point. Certainly, in another thread there is discussion about consciousness and it appears that this word has such different meanings for different people on the forum. So, it does depend on the frame of reference.

However, I think that we are able to develop the frames of reference. I can remember at age 16 reading Shakespeare's 'King Lear' and reading all kinds of ideas into it, which I can see now were ludicrous, because they were based on the ideas which came much later, so he would not have been aware of them. I was failing to understand within the Elizabethan world picture. So, it is about being able to step inside the viewpoint of the author as far as that is possible. The more we understand the context in which they are writing this makes it more possible. If we were studying the ideas of Lacan, for instance, the more familiar we are with postmodernism and psychoanalysis makes it more likely that we will make a more correct interpretation of what the writer is saying.

The biggest danger, of course, is that areas of thought become so specialised, relying on jargon. However, I do agree with the interpretation problem, however clearly we try to write. Some books are so ambiguous, and a most obvious one which we discussed about a month ago is Jung's 'Answer to Job'.

I do agree that this forum can be an alternative to the sheer academia of university, but with a certain amount of knowledge being of great importance. I think that it is a fine balance. On the last academic course I did, which was mandatory for work, every single point in writing had to be backed up by a published writer. As there was a strict word limit, and so much to cover, there was not even any room for discussion of the quality of the research being cited. The validity of the research was simply that it was published and that meant it counted as evidence. It seemed so ridiculous that I decided that I was never going to do an academic course again, and would write fiction instead as opposed to evidence based research.

When I get into discussions on the forum, I often become aware of great gaps in my knowledge. Some of the posts I look at are completely over my head. Even without evidence based research, there is just so much specialised knowledge. It is hard to juggle between getting a broad philosophy overview and following specific lines of thinking.I am more inclined to prefer to see the advantages and disadvantages of various perspectives, but I think that a lot of people on the site have preference for people who are committed to specific viewpoints.

I like your comment about how a lot of the importance thinkers were misunderstood is reassuring for most of us, because, generally, I think people who are interested in philosophy are regarded as a bit eccentric. I read an article which suggested that Dostoevsky could barely tie his own shoelaces, although it is unclear whether it was true. But, I did wonder if he could have been dyspraxia. I believe that I am dyspraxia because I could never catch a ball and I am so poor at household tasks, like cleaning. Someone told me that I must have learning difficulties because I am so poor at practical tasks. I think that many people are too inclined to label others and not try to understand anyone who is a bit different.

I do agree that it is helpful to have threads which are based on specific ideas, and they probably work better than those which are just created from people's own opinions. Even if there is not one specific text being used, it is usually apparent if the person who is writing it has done any background research.

With philosophy, as it is about ideas, it is easy for people to think that they can say anything they wish to. However, in the twenty first century, it does seem to me that any serious discussion needs a certain amount of academic rigour.

I think that we do approach life and writers from different angles. Some people don't need to delve into books, and it probably also depends on whether we have any mentors in our lives. I think that Carl Jung and his idea of the collective unconscious, probably saved me, along with William Blake and, a few bands like U2 and REM.
But, of course, you have Lao Tzu to inspire you.

I wouldn't worry about getting the mods to delete the bit of disagreement you had on the thread, because it doesn't interfere too much with the flow of the discussion. You could go back and edit any of your own posts. If you ask for a all the discussion between you and Banno to be removed it may mean that they have to delete this whole thread. I don't want the entire thread to be deleted because there are comments which I plan to reply to during today.

Funnily enough, I have discussed which of these would be worse to lose with lots of people and found that many would much prefer to lose their sight, because that would mean that they were excluded from conversation. Personally, I would much prefer to lose sight than hearing, because I would not be able to read, write or do art. Also, it would be hard to live independently, doing basic things like getting dressed, going to the shops and doing all the mundane tasks that are involved in daily listening. I would miss talking, of course, and life without music would be terrible, but I probably would survive with the memories of my favourite music.

I think that we are probably best going for the authors which speak to us. I remember being on courses and having to read certain texts could be complete drudgery. In English literature at school, I had to read certain classics, some of which I could not relate to at the time. It put me off reading any novels for a few years and I only found my way back into fiction through reading cult fiction writers, like Irving Welsh and Philip K Dick, but, at some stage, I got round to more classical writers, including Jane Austen, who I detested when I had to read her for exams.

I don't really think that ideas are hidden, although at one point I noticed the amount of non fiction books on my shelf that had titles including the word 'secret'. I think that there is a danger of looking for answers in books entirel, when it is in front of us. I don't believe that our eyes are served well by staring at printed pages or computer screens constantly.

I sometimes feel that I should be reading Kant and Schopenhauer, and I have read portions of their writings. When I do read the philosophers I try to do so as if I was meeting them as individuals, as great minds to learn from. We can meet them without going out, but I try not to stay indoors. But, whether we stay inside or go out, read others' ideas or not, we are still alone with our own thoughts really, trying to sense of the world and how it all works.

I think that it has been a very useful discussion because consciousness is used so frequently on the forum and we all come from our own understanding of the idea, pand such different angles. I have found it really useful to read in this way.Of course, I think it would be far too much for you to put this all together in one thread. It would probably end up at creating a volume like Hegel's
'Phenomenology of Mind'. Besides, if the nature of consciousness was summed up in one thread, it would perhaps mean that the scope for it to be explored in many more might be lost..

The only difficulty which I have with your definitions are that they are a bit too precise and rigid. I understand that consciousness is a understood in different ways, ranging from the medical to far reaching ones, like Bucke's 'Cosmic Consciousness'.Even though you are wishing to establish a way of seeing it more clearly as a concept, I think that you may have made it too neat and tidy, with no blurry or hazy borders at all. We probably would not be able to agree fully on a definition at all on the forum. This is because trying to do so cannot be separated entirely from the questions about the nature of consciousness, which is one of the most central recurrent problems, or themes, within philosophy.

I just thought that in relation to your own questions, in connection to this one, we are probably all slightly different in the way in which we take in information. You are interested in the relationship between the eye and the brain, which is about processing information. I think that some people are more orientated towards sound, or possibly sound in conjunction with images. I know that some people find it far easier to watch television than read books. On the other hand, I know that I find it extremely difficult to concentrate on television, whereas I could spend all day reading and writing.

I am sure that it is true that we all come from biases in what we think and read. I am wishing to explore as widely but in doing so, it is easy to become lost. To just pursue all ideas without a commitment to any particular set of ideas could lead to a relativistic approach to knowledge.

I am inclined to be able to enter into the world picture of many thinkers, to the point where I can be swayed to the viewpoint, for some time. But, after a while I usually gravitate back to my former perspective, but probably it takes some really powerful thinker to lead me to longer term shifts. But, generally it probably involves seeing from different positions, as you speak of in many of your posts and threads, the wide and narrow, short and longer frames of reference. I believe this applies to our reading lives as much as any other aspects of thinking.

It is a bit like unwinding spirals, a constant search for treasures. I definitely feel that one area opens up so many more. The more I engage on this forum seems to leave me with new topics to think about and further avenues for reading. I have so many books to read and I often wonder about spending more time reading them rather than on this forum. The only problem which I end up with is that the reading life can be so lonely, because most of the people who I interact with on a daily basis read hardly at all, and definitely not philosophy books.

I like your idea of how the reading pursuit can sometimes become'frantic and promiscuous'. I often go out reading alone, having dates with my books. Being able to remember books, and process books is important and it is not easy. Sometimes, I find it best to read a book quickly and read it again more slowly. I definitely find that my concentration varies, but I find that I can concentrate on reading more than most practical tasks. I rarely write notes on books I am reading. I do feel that discussions which I have on this forum makes them come more to life so much more than when I do not converse with others about the ideas which I have read.

I have read some of your reading lists. I do read a lot about shamanism. I don't write down all the books which I read, especially fiction and when it is probably a good practice for thinking about them afterwards. Really, I enjoy writing fiction and before lockdown started I used to go to creative writing workshops and groups. I only began writing about philosophy after coming across this site during last autumn.

I am afraid that I am in the category of not being able to predict my life. I find that life seems to come in waves, but I think that this is my life of heavy duty karma. I feel that I have a lot to learn, but, certainly, I am convinced that there are no coincidences.

It is interesting that you spend long periods focusing on specific writers because I jump backwards and forwards reading them. I usually have about 3 novels and 5 non fiction on the go. I can't multitask with practical matters but I find dipping in and out of books sort of works for me. But your approach probably allows for more systematic order and focus.

I do agree that it is usually a series of events and experiences which motivates us to try to find new ways of seeing and thinking. This is because the process of repeated knocks or certain experiences is so much more profound for us because it can really throw us beyond our usual balance.

I do see the point of your analogy, although I think psychological change may be a bit more complicated than changing a bulb. Mind you, I have lived in places where the underlying electrical wiring is faulty to take the symbolism of your story a little bit further. Right now, one of the people in the house I live is taking the washing machine apart, trying to repair it, so maybe that is another metaphorical story for thinking about taking apart the broken in ourselves and in views, and probably locating the underlying source of the problem is the hardest part.

But you are probably right to say that we may be able to get in touch with something that is dormant in ourselves. We probably spend a lot of wasted time and energy looking widely for solutions, missing the most obvious ones.

Well most of my dreams don't come true so hopefully that dream won't come true. However, I do think that in some cases the more we dwell on possibilities we are in danger of creating self fulfilling prophecies. However, even when my worst fears do come true it is usually in a slightly different way from what I have imagined might happen. Generally, I feel that life can be hard to predict in an exact way.

It is interesting that you speak of going through different phases at different ages. Strangely, I went through my Nietszche phase before I really questioned my religious background. However, I have generally preferred to see him as more of a poet than take his ideas literally, especially the idea of superman. It seems to be so ego inflated.

As you know, I am into the rock and alternative music and that has been as much as my worldview in relation to psychological change. I would say that it was during one of my most difficult periods that I embraced nu metal music and began going to dark metal live music events. It was while I was studying art psychotherapy, and the whole psychodynamic approach to life.

I also wonder about my question in relation to having worked in mental health care. I have seen people who have been driven beyond their breaking point. I do believe that some people don't just find books and music to cope. Of course, this is complex because it does depend on genetics and support structures people have. I do believe that we all have our limits as to what would be too much to cope with in some ways.

I often think about worse possible scenarios. My own are becoming blind or becoming homeless. Either could happen because I do have some minor retinal abnormalities and securing long term accommodation in London is extremely difficult. I do wonder how I would cope if one of these two ever occurred. But, it is quite likely that neither will happen and if they did I would cope better than imagined. It can sometimes be the unexpected smaller things which can be the stumbling blocks.

I am not sure that we are best thinking too much about the worst possible things which could happen too much. But, I think that it is useful to be aware of them partly as a way of thinking about life and the minor setbacks in proportion, and probably being grateful that the worst have not happened and possibly never will. I also think that the underlying philosophy of CBT can be useful for reflecting on experience in a critical but positive way.