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.

Yes, I can be happy knowing so little too, and I do still enjoy sitting and reading philosophy books...

I do agree that insight wisdom is the most essential aspect of philosophical exploration. This probably goes beyond the surface of philosophical discussions. Each person probably has to make the quest in a unique way, and draw upon the ideas of others where it seems fit. Perhaps the usefulness of the joined pursuit should not be about proving points, but about mutual sharing of ideas.

I do agree with your earlier argument about 'conspicuous absences' in metaphysics. It does make one wonder how it all happened that certain ideas were often treated as more real than anything else? It almost seems like the history of philosophy can be seen as a great deflated balloon. And the problem is that we wish for answers and wish for grand meanings.

Some may wish to believe in God and others don't. Ultimately, we choose what to believe. Ultimately, we only have to find answers to these questions which satisfy us, but when the ideas are discussed it becomes more complicated, because there is lack of consensus.

I stumbled across Talbot's book by chance in one of the few shops that were selling books during lockdown. However, I had read Bohm's, 'Wholeness and the Implicate Order' previously. When reading that, I had thought more about the implicate order as, perhaps, being like Plato's forms. It seemed to me that what is apparent in the explicate order stems from a non tangible basis.

I can see your point of view, but I am not sure that the three big philosophy questions can just be neatly swept away, after all the centuries of discussion. I also wonder to what extent it all comes down to word games. My understanding is that philosophy in the twentieth century began to just try to focus on analysis of language. However, I did not think that this meant that was because that was all that there was, as if all the underlying problems had been solved.

I am not sure that your arguments work. Proving that penises exist is so much easier than talking about God, because there is clear evidence. As for free will, the idea of giving money freely or at gun point is too extreme, because most of the real life scenarios would be far more subtle.

I do agree that physicalism ought to be avoided. I am not a physicist, so may be going into a territory for which I am not fully able to explore. I find the idea of the holographic universe interesting, but I am describing it with a view to weaknesses in it being raised.

I agree that the world and its possibilities seem to be changing rapidly. The only question is whether we can keep up in our theories and philosophy. We need to have expansive minds.

I am not sure. We all see parts and wholes, and I not sure where one ends and another begins, because it seems to be about framing and perspectives.

I do believe in following up to date ideas and realise that the theory I wrote about was 1991. The only one thing which I do wonder about is that by focusing on the latest discovery is whether we limit our horizons. I am all in favour of the new, but just try to not be too restricted, because sometimes what is currently popular may be so, with some deeper vision being lost or ignored.

I do agree that my post may be too vague. But, as far as I can see we are in a Tower of Babel anyway. I can empathise with your dislike of psychotherapy, and do prefer reading philosophy. Really, I don't like being told what to think at all, and prefer to read widely and come to the most informed conclusions, even though I am not sure that there are clear answers. Sometimes, it seems that it is more about dismissing those which have obvious weaknesses.

Yes, I believe that 'getting dirty' in the sense of going beyond the pleasing perspective in trying to find a correct picture of reality may be necessary. It may be that truth is not equatable with a perspective which suits our aesthetics. We may have to take on board the ugly and unfamiliar in our grasp for truth. Of course, many are not prepared to go in this direction. We cannot tell anyone what to think or believe, but analysis may reveal what perspectives are shallow and inadequate for understanding. It probably is about all of us being prepared to go outside of our familiar territories, into the unknown.

I am not aware of Michael Talbot straying into questionable areas, such as astral projection. I am wary of these. I have been reading,'The Elegant Universe' by Brian Greene, which looks at the idea of superstrings. I am in favour of looking at the most accurate theories available to us.
,

You are quite right to distinguish conceptual, epistemological, metaphysical and existential aspects of exploration. We probably all juxtapose these uniquely. However, I do believe that there has to be some way of going beyond the subjective dimension. I am not saying that there are clear objective truths, but perhaps there are certain parameters. I don't think that this is new, but our perspective is restricted if it is only about finding a viewpoint which is satisfactory from our psychological point of reference.

I notice your edit about the 'distacefulnress' of existence. So, one question is whether we are trying to construct ways of making sense of this, although I would imagine that some of find life more distaceful than others. It is not as if life gives us equal measures of joy and this may play a part in the explanations we find, to make sense of it all. I certainly know that my perspective shifts according to my personal circumstances and degree of happiness.

I do believe that 'partipating" is important rather than a detached searching. I certainly don't wish to give up asking meaningful questions, perplexed by mystery. We are in this life together and a better understanding seems worthwhile, and it may not even be as mysterious as some people believe.

I agree that 'indoctrinated belied' and 'emotional bias' are important and complex. However, even putting those aside, I am not sure that we can solve all the mysteries.

I do agree that ' 'every answer opens more questions' . So, where do we go next? Do we have to just come up with infinite questions?

Of course, I would prefer that we come up with the best rational answers. However, it appears to me that these complex questions come shrouded in a veil of mystique, going back into the distance of philosophical questioning. I would certainly like to break through into greater clarity of thinking. So, I would like to see thinking which strives towards demystifying these ideas, but not about shallow attempts to answer the most perplexing questions.

I am adding Bohm's evaluation, as expressed by Talbot: 'Bohm does not believe any theory is correct in an absolute sense, including his own. All are approximations of the truth, finite and indivisible.'

I am not saying that you are wrong, but other people may see everything from an entirely different perspective. Having conversed with so many different viewpoints, I am just trying to make sense of it all.

I speak of mysteries, but each of us has a different understanding, and for some people such question are solvable and for others they are not. Here the biggest controversies lie in our midst and I don't think that there are any easy answers.

I am glad that some one else on the site finds Jung's work reading. He is on the fringe of psychology, but I do believe that he explores many philosophical questions, although in a unique way. Certainly, I have found his work makes a lot of sense, in exploring religious experience and in considering belief in God.

I just logged onto the 'Forgotten Books' website which you mentioned. I found it to be fascinating, as a way of gaining access to reading many rare books, and I have downloaded a few. It has some interesting esoteric ones. The philosophy ones are useful too. The only thing which I struggle with is working out which are dated and those which are relevant for all times. What I mean is the some aspects of psychology and philosophy seem to be based on models which are out of line with current science, whereas others seem to have ideas which are applicable universally. However, I do think that certain ideas which have a forgotten may still be worthwhile exploring.

One area which I think is relevant to your debate is the idea of the law of attraction. It is not simply about mind over matter, because the two are not easy to separate. However, what does come into the picture is intentionality, and of the role of our consciousness. The idea of the law of attraction, as advocated by Esther and Jeremy Hicks, and many other writers is of intention, on a conscious and subconscious level, having a determining effect in what becomes manifest in our external lives.

I just feel drawn to these areas of thought, and mainly read about them. I think that it is best to avoid using hallucinogenics, as far as possible. I have known people who have become extremely unwell mentally as a result of doing so. I read a lot about shamanism and mostly find that music is about the safest way of conjuring altered states of consciousness. I do believe that meditation is important too, and read writers, such as Gopi Krishna, on kundalini awakenings.

I find the whole exploration of the unfamiliar to be fascinating as part of the quest for creativity and healing. I keep an open mind towards all the many explorations of others, ranging from those of the religious mystics to those from diverse cultures, such as the vision quests of the North American Indians.

It is a while since I read Zaehner's book. However, I think it raises the question of whether one should seek certain states of consciousness, and how. It is also about potential dangers. Even though he was not writing about drugs specifically, Rudolf Steiner said, 'He who imagines that he can violently and forcibly climb into the higher worlds is greatly mistaken.' I also remember reading in Castaneda' s writings, the suggestion that the voyages to otherworlds come with potential dangers, especially of becoming lost, and unable to return to the ordinary world.

I think that the question is really how genuine the ones on hallucinogenics are? But, I am not sure that there are any absolute answers. However, in reading on the topic of mysticism, it does seem that the two contexts are different. One writer who explored this whole area was Aldous Huxley, especially in, 'The Doors of Perception/ Heaven and Hell'. However, his writings do lead to interesting questions about consciousness. He drew upon Bergson's idea of the brain being a 'reducing valve'. From that perspective, the mystic is able to see beyond the ordinary world, into the infinite. In shamanic cultures, this was often seen as voyages to the lower and upper worlds, as part of the quest for healing wisdom.

One important area is raised by an author Zaehner, in, 'Sacred and Profane Mysticism', is to what extent should the mystical states arrived at naturally, especially in a religious context, be distinguished from those achieved through the use of hallucinogenics? Can they be viewed as having a similar or completely different nature? The complexity of this is the way in which certain states have a chemical basis, but as Zaehner points out, the context is so different, with 'the profane' one occurring artificially, as opposed to naturally.

I have just spent about an hour on your link and will go back to it again as I think that it is excellent. You have put so much hard effort into it and I am very impressed.

I do some meditation but a bit haphazardly. I may go out and find a group when life begins again, because most things have been closed throughout the time I have use this site.

I have just been reading a book which I think is relevant to the thread: ' Perennial Philosophy, ' by Arthur Versluis. The author suggests that,
' Perennial philosophy points to individual spiritual experiences; and Platonism, Vedanta and Buddhism are based on direct individual realisations, on the experiential transformation and illumination of the individual.'

I think that the mystical experience can often be understood within such a framework.

I have read a few books by Carlos Castaneda and found them helpful, although I am not sure to what extent they are fictitious, as I have read some debate on this. Generally, I am interested in shamanism, which does involve exploring states of consciousness.

Even though I suggested to you that I am not a pragmatist, I think that this is not strictly true. I was really meaning more in a literal practical sense. However, my whole interest is in the idea of healing oneself and others, which definitely is about what works. I am interested in exploring ideas beyond conventional ones, but not just as abstract ones, so my own interest in mysticism and the esoteric is in that context. Also, I do believe that people who have accessed higher states of consciousness, such as many described by Bucke, which @Wayfarer referred to, did not stop at the mystical. The mystical experience is often a source for bringing some kind of healing vision to share with others.

I first began reading books on the mind, and philosophy, in early adolescence, because I was aware of so many questions and unexplored areas. I used to stop off in a local library on the way home from school, and my parents used to be worried where I was. Reading in corners in libraries and other places has become my mode of being. It is probably also about thinking about the corners of life, which are less remote from the main territories which we ordinarily inhabit.

I think that you are correct to suggest that philosophy is an attempt to make life less strange. While I have been going on about embracing the 'strange', it is important to recognise that philosophy can be a demystifying process, and a search for some clarity, amidst confusion. It can be about making the strange seem less puzzling.