I am trying to say that we should not underestimate the ancients really. I am sure that they thought in very sophisticated ways and that they had thought out many of the concepts which we are really struggling with so desperately.

I just noticed your comment, 'Wittgenstein is psychedelic'. Taking the word psychedelic in it's true meaning, as simply mind expanding, I think that you have just recommend him to me, because, at this stage I have barely read his work at all.

So what you seem to be concluding is that they were aware of a problem. I just think that there awareness was different, on a subtle level. They did not have Darwin, Galileo and Wikipedia to assist them with information like we do. We can find words like panpsychism to express our ideas, so it is probably more about understanding basic worldviews which were so different from our own.

I am sure that some of them were aware of the problem on some level, as you have pointed out about Socrates. However, we have developed all the language and concepts to formulate these ideas, and our whole frames of reference are different. I also think we have to avoid seeing our ways of thinking as being superior necessarily. Okay, we have all the facts of science to help us but we may identify more problems, and it may be that the ancient people had a more holistic approach, and may have been more attuned to living with, rather than exploiting the natural world.

Perhaps the ancient philosophers didn't see the mind and body as split in exactly the same way as those of Western thinkers. It was probably Descartes who began the whole tradition of splitting mind and body. I am sure that there are some benefits of identifying the mind/body problem. However, it may not be the only possible way of seeing.

Perhaps it doesn't really matter whether we call it energy or God ultimately. It may be a choice of language more than anything else. Some of the new physicists, such as Fritjof Capra and Paul Davies saw parallels between ideas in the new physics and the understanding of God, as depicted in the Tao. I would imagine that it is not a matter how we label it as such, but whether it makes a difference in whatever else we go on to believe as a result of choosing to speak of energy, or of God.

I do agree that language is mysterious because it captures so much shared meaning. Sound is important too, and conveys so much beyond words, as in music. It is also interesting that we all like such different music. My favourite band of all time is probably U2 and I am aware that so many people can't bear them.

One thing I also find is that depending on how we are feeling can make the music sound different. I remember once when I had flu, all I wanted to listen to was pop, and it was if my ears were different physically. I can't relate to classical music, but I think that is probably more because I was not brought up with it. Most of us don't like the sound of our own voices, and they sound different in our heads to when they are recorded. However, the thing which also struck me as so mysterious as a child was how music is captured in grooves.

Of course, there are physical laws involved but the transmission of communication, especially in invisible forms seem to have a certain element of mystery. That is not because we cannot explain it, but the very fact that it is possible at all. It seems amazing that things work as they do so well and, as someone reminded me a couple of days ago we should not forget the basic principle of love, in the whole process of life.

Yes, I think that you capture how hard it is to understand the whole nature of experience. I think that people often say they understand to try to make the other feel better. I have seen people doing that in mental health care. It is important to try to understand others' experiences through listening, but it is too easy to say we understand when probably we only do in a shallow way. Sometimes it is as if really all bats.

That's fair enough, and I do agree that the about the parable of good the Samaritan being central. Just imagine a group of philosophers standing debating consciousness and ignoring the person lying down suffering on the floor beside them.

I do agree that some people have used Huxley's book to justify substances. I am surprised that you found it dull. I read it while I was at school and was so taken aback by it that I just couldn't stop talking about, and I am still doing it here.

I would imagine that you probably never believed in life after death because you weren't brought up in a religious background. I was taught to believe in heaven and hell as concrete truths, just like the alphabet or times tables. The possibility of going to hell is probably more scary than no life after death. Of course, the whole idea of hell was probably used in history in a very negative way, to frighten people.

However, I think that the idea of life after death has been one which has prevailed in history, within religions, including Judaism, Christianity and Hinduism. My understanding is that the Buddha was uncertain. One interesting area is not just whether it exists but what form it would take, with the possibility of reincarnation being so different to an eternity in heaven or hell. Also, within Christianity there does appear to be a discrepancy between whether after death one waits until a resurrection at the end of the world, or whether one exists as an immortal soul.

I first began reading on all the diverse views when I was set an essay at college, 'Is there life after death?' I continued reading and do find it a fascinating area within religious thinking. But, of course, we can find ourselves in heaven and hell in this life rather than this one. In particular, I think that Aldous Huxley's 'The Doors of Perception/ Heaven and Hell' is particularly interesting because it shows the whole dimension of entering into these states. His writing is based on his use of Mescalin, but these states have also been accessed by religious practices, such as meditation and fasting. Also, Huxley's view draws upon the perspective of Bergson in seeing the brain as filtering down of consciousness. This is different to the way most neuroscientists see consciousness, but I do think that it does provide an interesting alternative view.

Yes, I am sure that you are right that there is a lot of progress. It may be that we just need more synthetic understanding rather than simply more new ideas in the future.

Thanks for the link to Feuerbach. I will try to have a read of some of his ideas.

I am reading an ebook of 'Being and Nothingness' and it would probably be easier in a paper copy. I remember looking at the book in a library and thinking that it looked boring, but I am finding reading it to be a kind of meditative experience. But, I am taking the book slowly.

I think really one of the worst forms of nothingness I would see is if there is no life after death. I do think that this life is worth focusing upon, but it just seems that for some people that there is so much pain and suffering. If that is all there is, that seems so sad. However, I also see the possibility of extinction of humanity as an even worse form of nothingness, far worse than the thought of my own death.

I think that whether progress has been made in the progress of ideas. There is so little consensus in shared ideas and so much fragmentation. Some can make sense of it, but I think that many people are overwhelmed and drift more in the direction of light entertainment rather than asking deeper questions.

You ask me if I know Sartre. Strangely, I just began reading 'Being and Nothingness' this week. I am finding it hard work really. The one quote which seems to stand out for me so far is,
'Kierkergaard describing anguish in the face of what lacks characterises it as anguish in the face of freedom. But Heidegger, whom we know to have been greatly influenced by Kierkergaard considers anguish instead as the apprehension of nothingness.'

Personally, I think that the idea of nothingness is the worst possibility when contemplating the mysterious.

I do agree that it is often more subtle than outright insults. This is probably true in all levels of life beyond debates. There are backhanded compliments and all kinds of ways people use to put other people down. At least with insults, it makes it easier to identify, because they stand out, whereas with other more subtle attacks, it is possible to miss them, and, nevertheless, the experience of receiving them may have an insidious effect.

I am slightly changing the slant of your question because I wouldn't really want to be a bat, but I think that it is also interesting to to what extent we can really know what it is like to be another person. I am sure that we all try to practice empathy but, to what extent do we REALLY know others' inner worlds, because so much is filtered through our own personal perspective? We may think we understand others, but I am sure in many cases this understanding can be limited by our own experiences.

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.