I like your idea of concepts as 'dried up metaphors', although it would probably offend some. I do think that some are people, including philosophers, are inclined to miss seeing that they are only constructed models, which are only representations of 'truth'.

I do believe that Plotinus is an important writer and I downloaded one of his works recently. The idea is a cosmic circle is important, and of the heart. That is because sometimes philosophy becomes too much time an intellectual pursuit, detached from life.

I was much more impressed by the set of questions you posed rather than the video you included. You ask many questions, which I am inclined to do, and about the whole nature of reality, which is the whole field of metaphysics. There is just so much to explore really, and I recall when I used to write essay plans that tutors often used to tell me that it would not be possible to cover so much in one essay. However, you may explore all the topics with many people, with no word limit and it could be a thread which grows and grows.

One of your questions which I believe is very interesting is that of what experiences are made of? This does seem to be the interface of mind and body, and it probably moves into the spectrum of phenomenology. However, it does seem to me to be at the centre of the mind and body question.

One aspect of it which I think is important is emotions because they involve a complex interaction between the physical and the mental. We know that there is such a physical basis for this, especially by the way that neurotransmitters work. This is central to the whole medical treatment of mood disorders through medication. However, the whole realm of mood goes so much beyond the physical as our thoughts affect our moods in such a profound way.

I could write more, but I will stop for now, because it depends how relevant the discussion is to the way the ideas and discussions in the thread evolve. I probably brought it up at this moment because so far there is some discussion of forms, as abstract ideas which we grasp, but our experiences are embodied. Possibly, it goes into the realm of archetypes, experienced by us, and the collective unconscious, but I will say no more because I probably talk about Jung too much, and I am aware that many people on this forum see the idea of the collective unconscious as being a dubious concept.

I just logged into this thread, which fizzled out about a week ago and saw the reference to Koch's book, which looks fascinating. I actually started this thread at the same time as the one on mysteries, but that has brought me back to thinking about the interrelationship between body and mind. I don't know why I brought the Sartre quote in, but I think that I had just been reading him that morning. I definitely agree that it is problematic to speak of minds without bodies. I may have spoken in such ways a few times, and I definitely think that some dualism has drifted in that direction.

Apparently, cassettes are making a comeback. I used to have some but they used to chew up sometimes, which used to be so stressful, so I hope this did not happen to the 2 favourite albums you mentioned.

I think that Oceansize are probably a bit underrated. I have heard some music by them in was fairly impressed. Also, I do have a compilation by Talk Talk, and think that they are treasured gem of a band, who got less attention than many other 80s bands in the time of electro.

The question is complex because we live in a world which is like a web, with effects which are like ripples. Also, your particular example is also complicated because while many people use weed to relax, there is a recognised link with cannabis and psychosis, especially with skunk weed. So, potentially, it may be about seeing the potential risks of psychotic Illness for the individual and, the effects of this on a wider scale.

There are probably overlaps between the questions raised in this thread and the one that was started on metaphysics today, mainly the whole questions surrounding consciousness. I do believe that perspective is so important and people view it so differently. For example, most neuroscientists see the experience of consciousness so differently from that of the mystics. However, there are convergence, such as those of the new physicists and mystics.

It probably depends on our basic perspective as to how we change our consciousness. In particular, the neuroscientists may prefer to use chemicals, such as tablets to aid people to relax, whereas those who see it from a more mystic angle may look towards mindfulness meditation, or other forms of meditation. It probably also depends on what we find helpful, and how we perceive what works for us probably influences the particular metaphysical conclusions which we come to. However, it definitely seems that some people gravitate more towards the search for the higher states of consciousness.

I can see that science is forceful in the way in which it provides evidence which cannot be ignored. However, there are probably biases, especially in what gets researched in the first place and it may be that it is possible to create evidence for certain ends. I have read some accounts how evidence is often manufactured by certain pharmaceutical companies, for their own benefits. So, while science is believed as knowledge, it is not value free or completely objective.

I do think that your idea of reasoning as philosophy works in many ways and it is likely that the use of reason has been important to human beings of all cultural traditions. However, I am not convinced that rationality is the only means of knowledge, but it became central to the philosophy of the enlightenment.

In thinking of the whole spectrum of knowing, Jung's model of the four functions can also be considered. These are: reason, sensation, feeling and intuition. Jung suggests that most people have a dominant function, and usually one or more which are barely developed at all. He sees the ideal as being able to make use of all four functions. Could it be that many Western thinkers have developed rational explanations, but with some lack of attention to the other three forms of experience?

I agree that the 'new age' ideas are not equatable with the Eastern philosophy traditions. Yes, it is a good question why I keep looking for 'answers'. I think it is just the way I am really, but I do have a sense of humour about it all, especially about how I once had a tutor who told me that he thought that I should start a religion...

I listened to some of the video, but not all of it because my mobile signal is a bit wobbly. However, in response to your whole series of questions, I just thought I might as well throw in a few thoughts from discussions which I have engaged in during the last few days.

I am sure that you remember me pondering the whole question of consciousness. In discussions with others, including @FrancisRay, we have been looking at the limitations of dualism. Generally, I think that I have been aware of some inadequacies in dualist thinking for some time. This has been explored by writers, such as David Bohm and Fritjof Capra. In particular, Capra speaks of rather than mind and body being separate, mind can be seen as being immanent in nature. At the moment, I plan to do more reading in the direction of non dualist perspectives on reality.

Yes, I do agree that there are certain amounts of overlap, and it may be a bit of an oversimplification to see the two perspective as being polarised, especially as there are so many different traditions and thinkers. It does seem that ideas of cross -fertilisation are emerging in so many thread at the moment, in the thread on mysticism, the one I created on mysteries and the one on esotericism. It seems like a general undercurrent on the site at present. In Western philosophy these ideas have often been cast outside.

I think that theosophy is a particularly interesting one, mainly because it challenged Western metaphysical ideas. Even though it has always been outside of most philosophical debate, it is interesting in the way that the Theosophical society had a purpose of trying to find links between the ideas of Christianity, Eastern philosophy, as well as the search for scientific knowledge. However, even though theosophy has not been respected highly within academic circles, I think that its influence cannot be ignored, mainly in the whole development of 'New Age', or 'Mind, body and spirit' movement within Western society.

This along with the ideas of Jung, Capra's 'The Tao of Physics', the Gnostic Gospels and many alternative thinkers have been so influential on a cultural level generally. On some level, they have been a challenge to philosophy, as well as some of the more traditional ideas within Christianity, and even some of the more standard models of science.

Surely, it would be rather futile to try to 'force' agreement. I think that it goes beyond people trying to deny scientific findings, but how we interpret the facts and make sense of them. Also, it does seem to me, that even though we may seek information and general frameworks for thinking, that we need to think through the ideas for ourselves individually.

Do you think that we may have got to a point in Western thinking where many are starting to look beyond, to other ideas, especially to those within Eastern traditions? Western philosophy owes so much to the Cartesian-Newtonian paradigm. However, after the shift to the new physics and systems approach to life, such as that described by Fritjof Capra, a different picture may be emerging.

Also, even on the this site, which is of course only a forum, but many people have read a fair amount, it does seem that some are going beyond Western ideas. I think that the reason for this is because so many individuals see some of the approaches within Western philosophy as being rather flat, and rather inadequate, for offering enough scope and depth for contemplation of the biggest questions.

Thanks, I plan to read more in the direction of non dualist philosophies, because it does seem to me that it may be a useful way forward in thinking.

You've already mentioned 'Graceland,' by Paul Simon in another thread. However, you might wish to think which music artists you find to be the most inspirational. Of course, it is so subjective and only yesterday, I was listening to a compilation by an 80s band, who I think are truly wonderful, The Icicle Works.

I think that it is a major problem when people try to impose their views on anyone else, whether it is a mystic vision, or any other. It is unfortunate that people get so carried away with their way of seeing that they think that it is applicable to everyone else.

I agree that music and the other arts do involve entering into states of consciousness resembling the mystics. Even here, we have a problem with people disagreeing about the right way of seeing. I can't relate to classical music and I know that some of the rock/metal that I listen to is not compatible with others' view. We are hearing or tuning into different experiences of 'reality'. However, I don't write or perform music, although I use music to inspire me when I make visual art.

I definitely agree that Sartre is poetic. I discovered that when I began reading 'Being and Nothingness' recently. Perhaps this is because his writings are coming from a deeper level of experience. But, I am sure that not everyone can relate to prose, so it probably comes down to some common language, or some shared experience of a particular angle of perception.

I just think that your point of view would be clearer if you suggested a better view or model, rather than simply looking for weaknesses in the determinist view in the way you are doing.

I just think that you are exaggerating the extremes of determinism or non determinism.

I think that you are really trying to point to the weaknesses in determinism, but it is just a little confusing, because in some ways you are trying to go through the steps of determinist views, in perhaps a slightly caricaturist way.

So, you are suggesting that all our meanings are determined. I think that I follow your basic argument, but I am not sure that it is any more objectively valid than less determinist viewpoints.

But surely owning or disowning determinism, or any other system only makes sense in the context of any particular framework of meanings.

I read your thread introduction now and I am not convinced about your basis, 'Everything is as it is determined to be'. This seems too simplified, and on what basis is that determined? I think that needs to be explored more, before you go on to the wider exploration of objective truth.

I think that you make a good point, because, in most instances, we are not just looking for abstract truths, but ones which serve a purpose in helping us to understand our lives, and help us in the messiness of this. That is probably where those who see it from a religious perspective, or some kind of spiritual vision, usually believe that we can find some way of seeing and becoming part of the flow of the universe.

It may be that the extent to which we perceive ourselves as having such a connection is part of the reason why some people prefer a spiritual viewpoint, while others do not. However, whatever way, life can be extremely difficult, aside from looking for answers about ultimate truths. But, it seems likely to me that an essential aspect of any mystical viewpoint is connected to it having some kind of "healing' aspect, even though this may remain as subjective. Perhaps the subjective, personal healing element makes it easier to express their ideas in poetry sometimes, rather than as in the more abstract, rational form of philosophical arguments.

You may also wish to speak about why you find the album to be important for you. I think that there is also a distinction to be made between what is a 'perfect' album, and that which is so important on a personal level. But, I leave that open for you to think about...

Your question of what is everything is interesting. There is so much which we cannot explain. We have many grand theories and systems thinking, which tries to find ways of providing structures or frameworks. However, it does seem that our scope of understanding is limited. It may be a mixture of looking for explanations through the sciences, rational understanding, and searching for wisdom within oneself.

Some of the esoteric writers came up with answers, but as you realise their claims to exclusive truths were open to question. Nevertheless, some of the most esoteric writers, such as Rudolf Steiner, were seeking to explore the search, or attempt, to understand everything, insofar as that is possible for a human being. I am aware that is probably more in the area of spirituality, which is so unique and to each person.

Some might argue that the term, spiritual, is a cop out but, it does appear to me that it represents the boundary where we move into the subjective experience of truth. Philosophy, as a discipline, is more able to consideration to the more objective aspects of truth. However, individuals argue about this and, most are also wishing to find the ultimate truths on an objective level, so it is a complex web.

I definitely agree in embracing the reflection of not being mind or body, entirely. I have read some writing of Osho. I am in agreement about studying the whole of philosophy, rather just exploring aspects which we prefer. With regard to your comment that many people do not bother with the ideas they the mystics in this age, what I think is happening is that people are starting to look at ideas on a more superficial level.

However, as you say, certain truths, which you describe as being mystic, if discussed fully on a forum may cause a scandal because they are dismissed so often. I really prefer the idea of esoteric to mystic, and there is a thread on the esoteric. However, that is mainly aimed at the idea of there being an inner circle ,rather than a discussion about the truth of ideas as such, which are the mysteries. It may be that discussion, of esoteric knowledge is too complex for forum discussion, because it lacks intimate connections between individuals.

I actually find it so much easier to read than watch discussions on television or on YouTube. The one thing which I would query is that you say things have changed so much since Huxley, and presumably you mean that it is our understanding of 'reality' which is changing. I do agree that dualism is being rejected gradually. However, there is so much of a tendency towards reductive materialism. One perspective which I find useful is the systems view of Fritjof Capra. Rather than seeing mind and body he sees them as interconnected , with mind being imminent in nature.

You say that 'reality' fails as a concept. I can see that it is abstract, but are you dismissing the the term at all. I can see that explanations for many aspects of it are complex. However, I do think that the idea of reality works to encompass our experience and basis of knowledge.

I had a look at the blog you referred to and the arguments you suggested. I have to admit that I have only read Kant superficially. I have read some of Huxley's books, and have a copy of 'The Perennial Philosophy', but haven't read it. So, perhaps, I need to be more rather than less of a scholar. It is interesting that you seem to think that the perennial philosophy is the one which really works. If I may manage to read Huxley's book later this week, after I finish some of the other books which I am reading currently.

I do agree that we only have the 'capacity to peer into nature' so far. But if we were able to understand it all it would be like having the mind of a god. I think that the reason why it is so hard to go so far is that so much of life is invisible. We understand certain laws and I do think that the reason so much is unknown is due to the invisible aspects of reality.

Sorry to hear that your parents hated such music as U2. My mother regards, 'With or Without You' and, 'I Still Haven't Found What I am Looking For' as two of her favourite songs. I love most of U2's albums, possibly favouring the earlier ones, such as 'War' and 'The Unforgettable Fire'. Recently, I have started to really like, 'Pop'. But, one which I once played and found so essential during a time when I was feeling really depressed was 'Achtung Baby', especially the lyrics. But, I do think that Bono has such a wonderful voice.

I like so many bands,and I see the 'The Whole of the Moon', by the Waterboys as being an anthem for philosophical searching. I believe that it was really about Prince.

I still go to record shops like when I was a teenager, seeking new music. I am just sad that so many of the music shops have shut down because I used to spend so many time browsing on them and I think searching for music on the internet is just not the same at all.

In case you are interested, a couple who weeks ago, in another thread@Bitter Crank referred to a website called, 'Forgotten Books'. This showed, and has downloads of many extremely unusual books, especially some esoteric ones. I downloaded quite a few. I like to read these kinds of books, but I don't necessarily agree with all the ideas. But I find these ideas give me plenty to think about, as I believe that we can benefit from reading unusual ideas. After all, if we only read the perspective we agree with it would be like philosophical shoegazing.

I am just popping out now, but will read what you have written later, and look at your blogs and write a response to you later.

Gary Lachman is a pop writer, and was even drummer of the pop band, Blondie. However, what I think that he does so well is taking the ideas and writers out of the esoteric domain for larger audiences. However, my own understanding of the esoteric tradition would include Steiner, William Blake, Emmanuel Swedenborg, and I don't think that it is possible to talk about the esoteric without some mention of Madame Blavatsky.

I think that Bob Dylan is a wonderful artist. He is perhaps a better writer than a singer. My own funny experience was liking him while I was at school and hardly anyone knowing who he was because he was from an earlier era. I had his name scrawled across my school bag and someone in a different year group thought that was my name. But, I would say that albums like 'Blood on the Tracks', some of the earlier ones, as well as, 'Shot of Love, and, 'Oh Mercy, I see as outstanding, and they are like worldviews in their own right.

You refer to a few writers as esoteric, having said earlier that you are opposed to the idea of the esoteric. However, some of the ones you seem to be pointing to seem worth reading in my opinion. But I really don't understand how you define esoteric. It seems that you are referring more to those on the fringe or countercultural. If that is how you define it, isn't there a danger that you are reinforcing writing and ideas which are popular and rejecting those which are less conventional? Surely, it is partly about personal preference and taste. But I think that it would be so useful if you laid down some criteria and clarity for thinking about what esotericism entails.

I do agree that some of the most beautiful moments 'are when we actually connect' with others, and, it is probably these make life bearable. I also agree that some of the dead writers can be 'good friends' and it is probably on this level that we turn to read the great philosophers and other writers of the past. A few dead singers, such as Hendrix and John Lennon also offer some wisdom and friendship, as we face unknown answers, too.

As far as I can see there is a whole tension between being an individual and belonging. We live in a world where many are excluded and isolated even when they would long to be part of a larger group. We live in a very fragmented world, in which people are often seen as numbers, and are compelled rather than choose to find meaning on an individual level.

Of course, I am sure that this is so variable, but many are not embedded within communities as much as in earlier historical epochs. In this way, they are more likely to not supported in cultural systems of belief.