The whole world of philosophy described in the Greek world, teachings of Jesus and Buddha is so different to that of our times, especially the holy book. I think that in these traditions there was some kind of emphasis on there being mysteries. There were attempts to answer them but probably in a less definitive way. I am not saying that we should wish to go back, because I am sure that we have many advantages, but I do think that, in our current time, it has become too much of an emphasis on theories, as opposed to wisdom.

I am not sure about cosmic radiation, but I am inclined to the surrealist emphasis on dreams. The Buddhists spoke of our usual waking reality as being 'maya', or illusion. That may be more of a metaphorical truth, but it is an interesting approach.

The times of the Early Church were extremely interesting, and probably very heated because there was the whole over what was seen as Gnostic. My understanding was that even though Gnostic thinking was open to opposition there is some indication that Origen himself was Gnostic. However, I believe that the whole era of the Early Christian Church were full of controversy, especially the way in which earlier ideas were integrated with Christian ideas, particularly those developed by Paul's tradition. But, it does seem that Augustine and Aquinas incorporated Plato and Aristotle.

I am sure that it is possible to imagine that the universe can be any shape at all. As for myself, I frequently wake up in the morning, dreaming that I have been reading and writing posts on this site, which don't exist. Life is becoming more and more surreal...

I just think that the information age makes it so easy to gather so much potential knowledge but there is so much it is like a philosophy supermarket. We can gather and hoard it on our devices, but, perhaps may be in danger of consuming it, like junk food, without gaining any underlying wisdom. I think that this may be the challenge before us, as we can access Wikipedia on our phones and share links so easily. However, it can also be extremely exciting...
,

You say that 'knowledge was never intended for the masses', but the way I see is that we have so much information available. It can be overwhelming, but it does give us scope. It is hard to know what the consequences will be, and perhaps this will be asked in retrospect historically, if humanity survives...

I think that it is not simply a matter of whether we can solve the mysteries, but to what extent? I think that it is inevitable that we wonder about the existence of God, and whether there is life after death and, probably most human beings have asked the questions. It could be that some people just grow up in a secular context and don't see the relevance, of course.

Generally, I believe that the metaphysical questions of philosophy are about finding explanations and giving us a framework to for finding meaning, and that both aspects are important. Some reductionist philosophies may provide explanations but don't give any basis for mythic structures. Of course, it may be that people can create their own, but that can be difficult. In contrast, some religious or mystic philosophies can be seen as more romantic, and inadequate for providing causal explanations. So, it is an art of juggling this to come up with systems of thinking which work for us individually.

As you can imagine from my various threads and posts, I dwell on these matters a lot, whereas many don't agonise in quite the way which I do. But, I most certainly would not give up exploring or suggest that anyone should not bother trying to look at the questions, just because they are difficult. I would go as far as to say that it is this searching which is central to my own values, and if I stopped thinking about such issues, I would probably not have a reason to get out of bed each day.

I don't know if my answer is of any help to you, but, personally, I wouldn't give it up? What are you going to replace it with?

There is a possible tension between mere explanatory metaphysics and ones which are bound up with making life meaningful. I think that some more reductionist philosophies fall into that category whereas many of the mystic philosophies went beyond that in providing knowledge in a way which offered meaning or mythic structure. I am sure that many of our time view the mystics as being mere romantics. On the other hand, some of philosophies of our time, especially those interconnected with the physical sciences are so reductive that they do provide any deeper sense of meaning for many.

I am not sure that there is any easy resolution for this problem because we wish to find answers which work on both levels. It is possible that some may be able to find meaning within reductionist philosophies and some can find causal explanations within the mystical. However finding the balance, from my point of view, is part of the art of metaphysics, because it is about explanations, but concepts are interconnected with our way of seeing reality.

I think that the availability of knowledge and its transmission is complex, because some of it was the preserve of certain authorities, especially the church or various churches. So, while knowledge may have been preserved, whether it was available to wider circles until much later times is questionable.

I think that joy is a great topic which probably gets left out of philosophy as a topic, with a whole emphasis on happiness as something to be achieved as a lasting state. That may be hard to achieve for many, but we can have moments of joy, even if they are only fleeting ones.

Also, perhaps philosophy becomes too heavy at times. This can include the angst and searching for answers. Also, the whole stressful dimensions of people trying to argue that their views are right in a dogmatic or competitive way. This may take us beyond the experience of the potential joy of philosophy.

I am just starting to read Plotinus and I do agree that Plato and Aristotle were essential. So many of the metaphysical questions are very hard to answer. Really, one writer who I find extremely helpful is Rudolf Steiner, but I think that he is a writer who is probably not considered to be of much importance within mainstream philosophy, and probably by most people who use this site. However, I find his writings, and those of Ken Wilber to be wider in scope, in contrast to those which are reductionist.

The Beatles' 'White Album' and The Nine Inch Nails , 'The Downward Spiral is an extremely interesting combination.

Perhaps, the idea of the 'hidden' is metaphorical or symbolic.

I think that your point that 'our consciousness is open and we are all imprinted differently depending on our time in history' is important. I am not just going back to relativism, but about our perception of reality and , as we grasp for objectivity in exploring our consciousness and beyond. Some become mystics, and it is hard to know where to draw the line in interpretation, as we confront the ideas expressed in the various metaphors and models.

I will try to prioritise Plotinus, because I have been thinking he is important for a while. But, I am reading several books, writing and looking for work. Some times, there are just not enough hours in a day for thinking about it, and metaphysical thinking is not always easy, and I do find that my thoughts shift. It almost feels as if reality itself, beyond my own stream of consciousness, is changing.

I am not really in favour of talking about non tangible worlds. I am just looking at a Ralph Metzner's 'Opening to Inner Light: The Transformation of Human Consciousness', in which the author looks at the various metaphors which are common to most traditions. These include awakening and seeing beyond illusion. For example, in some traditions there is the idea of maya, or illusion, especially the idea that, 'Absolute beingness, is real; all else is illusion, mirage, flickering shadows, dreams.' However, Metzer sees this as a metaphorical way of seeing. Perhaps, all we have within any philosophy is metaphors and models as a means of trying to view our experiences, as we oscillate between the mundane or mystical interpretations.

I have read about Plotinus, and plan to read his writings in the near future. It is just so difficult to frame and give perspective to the ideas of the various writers. Obviously, there are big differences between concepts, but some of it comes down to the specific language they use. I believe it is important to look for the objective, but it is so hard when we live within our subjective realities. For example, you (Francis) interpret Lao Tzu, in a mystical way, whereas I have just been reading someone arguing for viewing his ideas in a non mystical way. Also, the beliefs we grew up with affect us deeply too, on some level.

So, it is difficult to know how far to go with certain ideas, so I try to keep a fairly open mind, until I reach further clarity. I wish to keep reading as widely as possible. I do also try to come to my own personal conclusions too, partly through discussion on this site, and through contemplation.

I really like Neil Young and he has just made so many albums that it is hard to hear them, and he can be extremely psychedelic, like in 'Mirror Ball'. I do like a lot of psychedelia, going back to bands like Roky Erikson and the Thirteen Elevators, The Grateful Dead, and I have a bit of a soft spot for Kula Shaker.I believe that the lead singer of Kula Shaker was influenced by Jainist philosophy.

That was quite a fairly good link you provided, thanks. I am not as knowledgable as I would like to be on physics but I am seeing it as an important area recently. I am impressed by @Enriques ideas, though I find them hard to grasp.

I was just reading a bit earlier that William Reich adopted a holographic understanding.

You are fortunate if you can manage to be so neat and tidy. I am trying to become more tidy because that is as essential as decluttering. The room I lived in staff accommodation I was in until last year ended like an exploding heap and I ended up with more or less no floor. I definitely try to get rid of books and music which is not important any longer...

I have only listened to the new Alice Cooper album once, so I would probably need to listen again to explain fully why I thought it was so good. However, what I was impressed with by my first one was that the vocals came over the music. I have found that in a lot of music made in the last few years so much, especially the vocals seem muffled.

I read the article and found it interesting, especially the discussion about poetry. What I thought was particularly interesting was the whole complexity of how concepts and images come together in thought processes. Certainly, I am aware that on a daily basis images, mainly visual ones and sounds are at the core of my stream of consciousness.

Poetry taps into the dimension of images and it seems probable that this is a key aspect of memory, including the development of earliest memory, alongside the development of language abilities in childhood. I also believe that songs probably have the same evocative power.

I ran some music groups with older adults who were in hospital with a variety of mental health issues, including dementia. It seemed to me that by playing the songs which they were familiar with from earlier stages of their life has such a stimulating effect on them. It is likely that was due to the way in which images, interconnected with long term memories are interconnected with
the nature of cognitive processes.

My answer to you comes after I received a reply on another thread that I seem focused on questions, and that, surely, answering them is more important. I am aware that I ask a lot of questions and look for answers, so I was interested in what you wrote, as I do believe that questions and potential answers are linked in such a complex way.

It does seem that potential answers are so dependent on what questions we ask. The forms which the question take are a way of framing and focusing. It also seems likely that the questions which we ask arise amidst the perspective and scope of our thinking. So, it is probably about the evolution of our questioning and answers arising together in an organic way. It may not that breaking down the parts of questions and answers and reformulating them is important in the development of our thought. On this basis, I would argue that the questions and answers are probably of equal importance.

I am not sure why it bothers you that Fritjof Capra combines quantum physics, metaphysics and Taoism. I know that you really love Lao Tzu's writing, and I do still plan to read his writings, but it is just that I have so many books which I am reading at the same time.

I know that some of the metaphysics related to mysticism can be a bit abstract. However, bearing in mind what you said in your mysticism, I am wondering is what bothers you is the possible idea of hidden reality, or realities, beyond the manifest world?

Thanks for the link to the article by Hofstadter . I will read it tomorrow because I have just been so tired today.

I can't help but ask questions because it is as if they explode into my consciousness. I remember my history teacher at school telling me that I wrote in a rhetorical way. As for finding answers, it is as if I am on mythic quest, often crawling through shadowy wastelands. Rather than answers, I come across labyrinths, knots, crosses and spirals and, of course, gigantic question marks looming in front of me, which often makes it hard to sleep at night.

I created the thread and I don't mind Mondor writing in it. I invent them like notebooks for people to experiment with ideas. The idea of holographic reality is speculative, so I invite any into this little adventure.

I am constantly trying to get rid of clutter. Last year I had to move and sorting my room was so agonising. Most of the charity shops were shut. The experience really taught me that I need to prevent accumulating too much, but music is my lifeline, but I read about all the new music. The best new music I have heard this year is the new album by the seventies singer, Alice Cooper.

It does seem that so many people have stopped buying music, but mainly shuffle music on their phones or computers. I do download books but I find going out and looking for CDs in music basements to be so exciting. Mind you, I accumulate pile of them, to the point where they sometimes fall into my bed. I think that I am the CD king, or have CD disease. Some people seem to think that discs don't sound as good as vinyl, but it probably just depends on having the right speakers.

Just to clarify for you or others, in response to some of the discussion you had yesterday, my own understanding of Bohm's actual idea of the implications order is not as an actual entity as such. He is not an idealist like Berkeley, but just sees mind and body as being beyond duality. I don't think that means that mind or body are more real.

I am sure that there are limitations In our understanding of philosophy and I prepared to explored to explore the possibilities, with a view to the most accurate and deeper understanding of the mind. I am certainly not wishing to limit this, but open possibilities arising arising from the current understanding of mind.

Objective and subjective dimensions of truth are important ,but navigating this pathway may be extremely difficult.

There is so much questioning around questions and answers. How much is about objective or subjective truths?

I think that the human environment has changed so much,and it changes the whole context and scope of metaphysical questions.

Many believe that Kant was groundbreaking. I have spent a bit of time reading him, but do believe him to be more worthy than the attention given to him by many of the present time. However, I was reading the thread which I believe gave rise to the one which led you to start this one. Having read that one, I became aware of all possible complications and misinterpretations.

So, I am left asking how do we interpret him in the context of our time? I am not trying to create confusion, or dismiss his ideas because I believe that they were profound. I know that some find his ideas make so much sense to some, but I find it hard to frame them in the context of the thinking of our time. I would like to be able to see a way forward in being able to demystify his ideas rather than merely rejecting them, because I do believe that he was capturing important philosophical insights. I think that the idea of 'noumenal' reality is in some ways extraordinary within the scope of our present use of language, and scientific models of the construction of 'reality'.

I have read some writing by Dennett and believe that he is one of the most important philosophers of our time. I think that we need to continue to read writers such as him, but also to explore our own ideas, in response to important writers because the arguments are so complex. Some may wish to leave it in the hands of the academics, but that may leave most of us out of the picture. I do believe that our ideas about metaphysics are important too, and it can be a whole area of lively debate, rather than mere discussion by those who are believed to be the professional experts. After all, we are talking about the questions which are central to the whole existence of each of us.

I am interested to receive your reply and as you are aware I am a seeker trying to make sense of ideas. I keep coming across ideas about going beyond dualism or binary thinking. In many ways, some of the ideas are beyond my understanding, especially as I am not a physicist. I came across the idea of the holographic perspective of reality a few weeks ago, and in further aspects of my reading in the last few days. So, I am just pursuing it as an interesting area of exploration.

I am certainly wishing to go beyond dualism. Strangely, I began this thread just before I began the one on mysteries. I was feeling a bit frustrated because it was several hours before I got a reply on this, so I started the one on mysteries of philosophy. Strangely,I began getting a few replies on this thread and loads on the one on mysteries. However, my own reading and reflections in response to replies on my thread on mysteries have led me back to thinking beyond dualism. That is the direction of my thinking and reading currently, which is why I logged into this thread this morning. So, I am in favour of pursuing ideas beyond dualism, for any people who are interested.

I can't really listen to the whole video because it keeps cutting up where I am listening from. So, are you able to offer a summary of the argument or the ideas.

I will try to listen further to the video further. Who is the person speaking? Is it Dennett , because I am more of a reader than a watcher of You Tube?