Your statement about, 'those who see everything as animated and those who are are believing that things are only matter, have very different consciousness' is profound, because it encompasses questions of consciousness, ranging from dualism and panpsychism. Perhaps, it would even be worth you starting your own thread, because this one may be on its last legs now, because newer ones are being created daily.

However, what I think is especially interesting in your statement is how the views are bound up with consciousness itself. I do believe that in many metaphysical discussions the actual role of consciousness, and its role in perception, is ignored in its distinct role, in the generation of our ideas about reality. It possibly goes more into the scope of phenomenology rather than metaphysics. Of course, all these fields overlap, in an extremely complex way.

I am certainly not trying to suggest that you should try to answer it, or create a thread, but I hope that I have at least drawn out your question for potential further consideration by you, or others, rather than letting it got lost and buried amongst the buried aspects and threads on the site.

Thanks, I have never been list orientated but I may need one for reading because I leap from book to book. I sometimes have too many books on the go at once. I have not had CBT, but do find reading the techniques helpful, because it does seem as if it is like philosophy technique on a practical and personal basis. Anyway, I will log off, as I was planning to try and stay off this site today, but as you can imagine seeing that someone had created a thread on Jung drew me in...

I will give you a quick reply because I am still outside, but can follow it further later if you are interested. Jung's ideas which may be described in some psychology books focus on the integration of opposites in the personal life. However, if you look into the larger body of his writings, especially 'Answer to Job', he spoke he spoke in depth about what is repressed on a collective level. He looks at the way in which striving for perfection in the development of Judaeo-Christian culture society, has been at the cost of a repression of the capacity for collective evil, as a shadow. He sees this as an unconscious aspect underlying the development of nuclear weapons, and the power which this poses for humanity, as the potential for mass destruction.

Personally, I think that one of the central ideas of his idea of self which is particularly relevant to the philosophy of self is the collective unconscious. It is an idea which some may regard as rather abstract.( I am afraid that I am not able to give a quote to define it at this moment because I am not indoors with my books). However, the concept of the collective unconscious is a key aspect of his psychology, because the personal and collective unconscious are linked, as apparent in dreams.

His underlying understanding of self is definitely about individuation, which is about making the unconscious more conscious. This involves greater awareness of repressed aspects of consciousness, which are viewed as inferior, within the socialisation process. That is usually the shadow. In this way people gain greater awareness of opposites in the psyche: good and evil, as well as men becoming more conscious of the feminine, and women of the masculine as projected onto others in relationships, or within their own psychology. Apart from that his model incorporates the ideal of people gaining fuller self integration through the four aspects of feeling, reason, sensations and intuition.

Edit- I was writing outside and I realise now that you did not create the thread.


I wrote thid response to Alexandros and the later one as if he was the creator of the thread, so I apologise for any misunderstanding of intent. So, I have updated this as a result.

I will engage in discussions about Jung at some point, but busy today. I created a thread on Jung's ideas on God a few weeks ago, which you can find if you scroll back a few pages. You may not be interested in his ideas on religion but my discussion goes into some ideas relevant to the self, including the shadow. I actually wrote a dissertation on his idea of the shadow as part of my studies at university.

I definitely think that you need to suggest an area of thought, or a specific question in addition to the video, as Jung's idea of the self is wide, because he wrote volumes on the subject. As you are new to the forum, I wish you all the best. I will catch up with your thread when I have a moment.

You are only just beginning to make a known presence on the site. I burst onto this site 8 months ago and have been involved in probably more conversations than I should have got involved in, or started. I have created about 15 threads so far. So, I am trying to slow down, but I have just noticed that a thread on Jung has been started, so I will probably not be able to resist getting involved in that one. At least, it will deter me from creating a new thread for a bit, and I am still involved in my mysteries thread. I wish you the best for the discussion in the Buddhist epistemology thread.

I plan to read Bergson and many others. I have read some Russell. I am trying to find more time to catch up with my reading, so that I can talk through my ideas on the basis of knowledge. Coping with all the negatives: boredom, suffering etc is hard. I do find this site helpful. I struggle with stress more than boredom. I am trying to find a job and my mum is not very well. When I visit my mum she gets so cross when I am busy writing answers on this site on my phone. However, if life was too easy we probably would not end up searching for philosophies to make sense of it all.

I am still reading your posts and this thread with interest, but,sometimes, I find it better to keep a low profile and be a little cautious about what I say. I try to find safe corners, because I am trying to work through my ideas. But, I am sure that I will interact with you and @3017amen, in this or other threads, because I am extremely interested in metaphysics and mysticism. I am also trying to catch up on my reading, so that I can back up what I am saying with knowledge, rather than wild thoughts.

I do not see an absolute distinction between theory or wisdom, and I think that your distinction between that your suggestion of wisdom as including mastery is useful for thinking of this. My suggestion about 'having theories' as not including wisdom is connected to the way in which such information does not really offer any underlying sense of values. It is not that I am wishing to say that philosophy should give a set of morals. In fact, I would say that even though Nietzsche opposed conventional morality, he offered a world view, even if some may not have liked it.

So, when I speak of a lack of wisdom, I am talking about some of the postmodern writers specifically and how it does not give any underlying source for inspiration. There is deconstruction and nothing arising in the collapse. Of course, we may turn to the arts, and I think that for many arts and literature have filled a void which has arisen within philosophy. In some ways, philosophy is becoming more like an offshoot of science, but I am not sure that is completely true because there are probably so many people who are developing ideas. However, there is so much information on the internet, but I am not sure that just finding the bare information is going to provide a basis for values and mastery. Perhaps, we need less rather than more, or it may be that we need to select carefully and pursue ideas more intimately. But, I think this is difficult in the information age.

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.