I see insults as being the worst aspect of debate, because it seems to be going beyond that, to personal attacking of someone. Once a person goes off into insulting, I usually dismiss what the person is saying, because it seems that they are going outside of rational exploration of ideas.

The whole question of shared existence is a very important aspect of knowledge and the way we go about our individual searching. This is where the relativism of our times gets particular complex.

Yesterday, I was chatting to someone who is Muslim and is married to a Christian. He was saying that if they have children, he does not think that it will be difficult to bring them up with this combination of beliefs. As he spoke, I was thinking that if I was brought up such a combination of beliefs I would be rather confused. However, the way in which my friend described the way he saw it was of how it is possible to assemble the parts we find helpful from various belief systems.

After that conversation, I was wondering whether we are in the position of doing that in our current time and to what extent does that work? Does it mean that we choose what we like and reject the rest? Surely, we need to go beyond what we like and dislike. However, even if we go beyond that, it still means that we are building up our ideas from the fragments of a relativist culture. Even I, who was brought up within Catholicism as a child, have to admit that I went on to develop my own ideas, and am still doing so, in this context. I think that the whole way we approach the big questions must be so different from when people spent their lives embracing one shared worldview. Of course, there were probably divergences and some meeting of different beliefs, but not to the extent of the present time. So, even though we are in shared belief systems in certain ways, we are more likely to go solo in our journeying.

You are quite right to query my use of the word 'solved' and, strangely, I don't think that anyone has done so far. I am turning it into the language of detective games. It must stem back to my childhood games and reading of 'The Famous Five' books.

Aside from solving philosophy mysteries, I went out exploring to see what has reopened, and I managed to buy a Peter Gabriel compilation in a record shop. I haven't played it yet, but it may help with contemplation. The whole idea of contemplation is much calmer in tone, whereas solving does seem to arise from anxiety for answers, or existential anguish.

You are probably correct to speak of 'subjective monotony' as it is the opposite to the contemplation of the mysterious. In life, there can be gravitational between the extremes. Perhaps the search within philosophy is about seeking to escape from this monotony. How and in what way the mysterious is solved is likely to have on outcome on us. It may be that if the answers arrived at dispelled the mysterious altogether we would feel more trapped in the subjective monotony than ever.

Your question does bring me back to a question which came up in my thread on Jung and God, which is whether the whole expression of our consciousness is the actual revelation of mysteries as revealed by 'God'. In that thread, I ended up exploring the whole paradox of belief in God, or the opposite. It certainly involves the question of God's existence, but probably involves so much more, especially the whole nature of consciousness, ranging from our own to the cosmic.

However, I think that when we touch upon this whole realm it so difficult because we are looking at the most complex mystery of all. The mystics have stood in awe, and philosophers have talked themselves into convoluted knots. But, it is indeed so complex, and covers the entire history of philosophy, ranging from the popular texts to the most esoteric .It is probably easier to consider consciousness itself, aside from whether we choose to speak of it as being derived from 'God'.

The underlying source of consciousness seems to me to be mysterious, or awesome, whether we call it God or refer to it in any other terminology. I am just surprised that some people don't see this as a mystery, or mysterious at all.

I think that you make some extremely good points and your posts are worth reading but the matter is not straightforward. The seeker may sometimes find truths directly, as expressed in the Van Morrison song title, 'No method, No Guru, No Teacher.'

However, I imagine that most people who seek to explore the mysteries of life, some kind of training is important. It is possible to get lost in one's own thoughts or in books. I do believe that the ideas of others provide us with some useful parameters, but we still need to explore these in our own individual consciousness. I don't think that we are meant to be mere reading machines. It involves the whole balance between the direct and indirect ways to knowledge and understanding. This was explored well in the song by The Waterboys, 'The Whole of the Moon.'

I think that it is a mixture of both reading others thoughts and inner knowledge. As it is, most people don't even read the ideas of the wise ones.

I do agree really, but just think that, aside from the politicians' biases, we need to go about the quest with a certain amount of balance. However, I am all in favour of understanding the inner world, and I have decided to go outside for a bit, while it's not raining, and start reading, 'A Vision, by W B Yeats. I have been wanting to read it for some time, so I won't procrastinate any longer.

I think that we need to learn from some of the greatest masters of wisdom.

You are most probably correct to say that contemplation is probably the meeting point between philosophy and meditation. We probably need to be involved with the ideas on an intimate internal way rather than just being able to cite the ideas in the books or Wikipedia. I do believe that contemplation is as important as analysis, because it goes beyond mere logic.

And, you are definitely right to say that we 'need to stop biting each other like vampires' because that goes against the whole point of the exploration and I can't see how this helps those who are biting or the vampires themselves. Perhaps those who become the vamps are the most needy and lost souls.

In your post, you ask about why we wonder. I believe that it interconnected with being human and the nature of consciousness. It is likely that wondering and the sense of mysteries led to most of the developments in civilisation, not just philosophy and religion, but the emergence of the arts and sciences.

As children we wonder so much, exploring our surroundings and looking up at the stars. I remember being so fascinated by time, and even though I didn't like maths, I was fascinated by Pythagoras's hypotenuse triangle because it seemed like it contained a hidden mystery. I think that a lot of people give up wondering as much once they get to adulthood. Many settle for conventional answers in religion and science, and move onto more tangible goals, but some keep on wondering endlessly, almost as if dreaming.

I am not completely sure why some people wonder more than others. It may be partly about values. The people who are more career oriented, for example, may gravitate more towards external achievements. It may also be that some individuals are less convinced by ideas which they have been taught, so they carry on wondering. It could be that for many people a less thorough exploration satisfies them until, at some point, life circumstances make them question further.

Personally, the reason why I keep wondering is because I feel that most of the explanations I have been told or read don't seem adequate, or fit together. I am sure that many people I know think that the reading and searching for an indefinite period of time is a waste of time, but I don't think that it is. I also see the whole process of wondering as an important aspect of creativity in its own right. If we stopped wondering at all life could become so mundane and hollow. And, as far as your question of the evolutionary value of wondering, I am inclined to think it acts as a general motivational factor in leading people to unique and creative solutions to all kinds of problems.

I am not dismissing the importance of your emphasis on searching for answers within, but just wondering about whether meditation is not the best practice for the time of lockdown. The reason why I say that is because I did spend some time meditating last night and found that the effect was that I had really bizarre dreams.

I am not saying that I can make generalisations from that completely. However, it did make me wonder if for those of us who have spent too much time in a solitary world during lockdown, whether it could be the opposite of what we need at the moment. Perhaps, we need at this time to stay anchored and grounded in daily life rather than becoming more withdrawn from it. I know that you suggest the path of wisdom is risky. I am not saying that I will not follow such a path, but proceed with caution because we probably need to keep as balanced as possible.

I also wonder how this relates to others' experiences because life has been anxiety provoking in the last year for many people. I wonder whether meditation is inclined to hinder or help this. However, I am sure that there are many possible differences in this.

Actually, in the last six months I think that I have probably spent too much time reading and not meditating as much as would be helpful. I am hoping to join a meditation group when I can find one, but I could probably do more by myself while waiting. I remember one thing which I used to find valuable was meditating in the night, when I could not sleep before going to work in the morning.

Its so hard to put the ego aside, because it keeps rearing its ugly head, and niggling away. I do feel that when I have taken an interest in meditation and the inner path I have often felt scorned by others. However, I am more inclined to make friends with people who are into searching, rather than those who just like to go out partying.

I thank you for your couple of posts. It is often easy to get caught up in spending too much time looking for answers through reading and, neglect the searching for wisdom within.

Your comment was very good and I particularly like, 'A philosophy thinking about the truth is like is just like a blind man thinking of the light'.

I spend so much time thinking and frequently beat myself up for not coming up with clearer answers, so it is reassuring to hear your idea that thinking about the truth is an impossibility. I find that every time I find each time l believe that I am gaining some clarity, the picture begins to fragment. I often feel like I am going round in circles and that is probably why I wrote this thread.

I definitely agree that, 'There is no wisdom without creativity'. While I do spend so much time wondering about the mysteries which I identified I would say that I see creativity as essential. When I read authors writing, it is not just the ideas which draw me to it but the artistry of the writing.

So much of current philosophy is about accuracy, based on scientific thinking. I am not saying that is not important but I do believe that what makes certain writers stand out as wisdom does also depend on the creativity of the work, such as the writing of Plato, Camus, or Nietzsche. What they do is create a specific vision or worldview. This draws me towards philosophical and other writing and, inspires me in my contemplation of the mysterious, as well as leading me forward in my own quest for creative expression.

It is probably a paradox. You can't have mind without body and vice versa, but probably as Sartre suggested, 'Existence precedes essence.'

I think that free will is a recurrent theme in philosophy, but probably in other related disciplines. In psychology, there is the nature vs nurture debate,which is interrelated, so it is central to philosophy and beyond.

I do collect books, but I do wish to see my reading and thinking being more than just a 'materialistic thirst for knowledge.' I don't think that philosophy counts as that much of a status symbol and most people I know are completely dismissive of my interest, and probably value sport and cars as being far more important. Generally, I have always been inclined towards philosophy and the mysterious. I used to be drawn to these areas in the library when I was at school, more than to the subjects which I was supposed to be studying. I don't know the limits of areas for questioning. I do find that the more time I spend on this forum seems to make me see new angles and subtle variations on the basic ones which I had originally.

I have read some of your thread on ontology. I can see that you are trying to understand consciousness. It is a complex problem. I ponder it and I think that many on the site do so. I don't think that there are any easy answers, even with the help of neuroscience.

One writer who I think is relevant is Fritjof Capra, who tries to see beyond the Cartesian model, and he draws upon the cybernetic theory of Gregory Bateson. Capra suggests that:
'According to the theory of living systems, mind is not a thing but a process_ the very process of life. In other words, the organizing activity of living systems, at all levels of life, is mental activity. The interactions of a living organism_ plant, animal, or human_ with its environment are cognitive, or mental interactions. Thus life and cognition become inseparably connected. Mind_ or, more accurately, mental process is imminent in matter at all levels of life.'

I am not saying that this solves the problem, but I find what he is saying to be helpful.

So are you advocating for a dualistic model?

I see the mysteries of philosophy as being part of my interest and quest, and do believe that exploration of fear is part of this too. It takes time and energy, but I think that it is worth the effort, reading and thinking about these ideas widely. I have been doing this since adolescence but more so in lockdown, and finding this site has definitely helped, because I used to read my books by myself, and, now, I am able to interact with others about the ideas.

I don't think the systems of the world are anywhere near perfect at all. In your thread about medical expertise, I simply was suggesting that England would be in a mess if we lost the NHS and the welfare state.

Actually, I frequently feel that the world is collapsing beneath my feet in many ways. I just don't want to be floating in space completely But I am prepared to live with a certain amount of mystery, existential and metaphysically. I believe in taking risks in exploring all kinds of ideas, and in self examination.

I wonder if it is possible to go beyond the labels because they may be only approximations and, may be inadequate.

I don't see how the researcher would benefit because knowledge of how the brain works does not result automatically into having command of it. We know what neurotransmitters are involved in depression, but that in itself doesn't mean that this will help in preventing depression. Knowledge or a model doesn't necessarily translate into proficiency which can override all other factors.

My own understanding of the ideas of Bohm and Talbot is that these writers are trying to overcome dualism and reductionist determinism. That is by seeing consciousness as being related or 'enfolded' in matter.

I think that we all face the tension between lack of knowledge or an assumption of knowing so much. Perhaps, the more inflated any of us become, in our sense of possessing great truth and knowiedge, is partly due to the fear of this collapsing and of realising our ignorance. So, it is probably about finding a careful balance.

It sometimes seems that people in our time act as if we are fortunate to be able to understand so fully, but it is hard to know what knowledge is yet to be uncovered. It is hard to predict, but who knows, what big omissions and gross errors will be found. Perhaps new paradigms of knowledge and science are yet to be discovered, rather just the filling in of detail.

Yes, I think that too many people have inflated egos, and this probably extends to people with a whole variety of beliefs and ideas.

I am grateful for the internet. I have found discussion on this site so helpful during lockdown. My mother got really annoyed with me when I kept sitting writing answers over Easter. A few months ago, I flooded her bathroom when I was writing a comment, because I left a tap on. The water cascaded through the ceiling and made the light go out downstairs.

As for the idea of God permeating the internet, I first came across the idea from one of my friends who was having a psychotic episode. I remember him crouched down banging his head on the floor, stating. 'God is a computer', and it struck me as an interesting idea. Computers are currently at the heart of the network of communication for us.

I know that you say that understanding 'is beyond our capacity' and, of course, there are limits but without a certain amount, surely, we would be completely lost. It may be that we strive for too much knowledge, but thinking is central to the human condition. Perhaps we need a certain amount of insight rather than just endless information. I know that I sometimes read and think too much. That is probably where meditation comes in.

I came from a Catholic background which was quite liberal but left many questions unexplained. I explored these, but have come across people who became unwell mentally as a result of certain contradictions. I have a few friends who developed psychotic delusions of a religious nature. I think that philosophy helped me to disentangle knots in my thinking. However, unfortunately some people can be just as dogmatic in philosophical argument as the ones who are dogmatic in fundamentalist religion.

I agree with what you wrote about needing to feel part of something much larger, and perhaps this is what gets lost when we spend so much time logged onto digital devices. I was even reading today that it may contribute to 'brain fog', and I wonder about this. I don't think that we are designed to spend most of our time on computers and mobile phones.

I am not convinced of the logic that to understand one thing would result in knowing everything. If only.. I also think that it is just as easy to go insane from lack of knowledge rather than too much of it. We probably have so much information to process, but that is completely different from understanding.

I think what you are saying is essentially true and often gets missed in some circles of philosophical discussion. Personally, I was brought up as a Catholic However, I experienced some narrow forms of Christian ideas . These were ones which were very literalistic and contrary to any kind of genuine exploration, or certainly that was how I felt. However, it is true to say that sometimes philosophy can swing to the opposite direction, in a forceful way. It is easy to end up partaking discussion about the existence of God and end up thinking of some abstract search and lose sight of Jesus, and the whole message of love.

I would imagine that the big questions must be becoming increasingly difficult for children, with so much information available, especially on the internet. There is just so much, and I would imagine that parents, who are probably struggling to find beliefs, must have such a hard time showing their children through the maze. I am not sure whether some clear beliefs or the best option. I am sure that it varies so much.

B F Skinner thought that consciousness was illusory but if that was true how do we make sense of conscious awareness. What does appear to be more potentially accurate is the Buddhist idea that there is no self, because it does appear to be more of a construct of fleeting consciousness rather than as an actual entity in it's own right. The 'I' of awareness remains but as Ken Wilber, argued more as a witness.

As for the idea that there is no God, no life after death and no free will, it is possible to come up to that conclusion, but, on the other hand, it does not mean that we may never consider other possibilities. While the lack of clear evidence can be seen as perplexing, it does give scope for imaginative possibilities.

I am definitely not in favour of 'an ideal realm of abstract knowledge.' That would seem to be drudgery and not helpful for living. Really, I am probably fascinated by mystery. If we had all the answers clearly laid out, philosophy would not be fun any longer. Also, what would be left for us to discuss on this site?

I do agree that the mysteries which I have spoken about are not just abstract ones, but involve connections. The way we answer them is central to how we live. Without some need for such a pursuit, it may be tempting just to lie in bed all day. We need some underlying motivation and it is probably when we do not have it that life becomes hollow.

I think that you are right to emphasise the importance of reason. We may not always be completely rational, but, at the same time, it does seem that we need to exercise reason to make sense of life. Otherwise, it would be like being stuck in an endless fog.

If free will is the central problem of philosophy it does depend what it means, and it may come down to how we perceive ourselves to be free or not. When we are act and make choices, these are bound up so many causal factors. We are making choices in an external world of causes, and our own consciousness is a result of biological and other factors, so even though we make choices it is hard to say to what extent they are truly free. Saying we have free will or not seems to be more a matter of perception and perspective.

I know that you seem to question the idea of a holographic perspective, but do you think that the idea of an implicate order makes sense at all? I do believe that neuroscience is important but it does seem to end up becoming completely reductive.