One of the complexities which I see with trying to evaluate Jung's perspective is that he is drawing upon his own dreams and visionary experience and interpretations of various writers. The effect which I believe that has it makes his writing rich to read and certain ideas stand out.

However, it seems to me that it makes it difficult to analyse them in the exact way which is often done within philosophy. Also, he compresses so much detail and has written so much that it would be a lifetime's work trying to analyse it. But, I still wish to explore his writings, and I found reading 'The Red Book' very interesting. Also, I did manage to have brief access to a very rare book of his, 'The Visions Seminars' and that showed more of his personal visionary experience.

His personal experience of the numinous is so much more evident in writings which were outside of his 'Collected Works'. But, 'Answer to Job' seems to be more on that level, and I believe that he was in a fairly intense state of mind as he wrote it. But I do think that in many ways, his writings fall in the category of 'supernatural' revelations, although outside of the mainstream Christian tradition.

It may be that some aspects of certain experiences are beyond speech. However, I think that there is a danger of even taking Lao Tzu too literally, and Taoism is only one perspective. Please don't think I am wishing to undervalue the wisdom of Lao Tzu, or your view. It may be that at some stage in my life I have some experience which will lead me to agree with you.

I think that you are correct to see the term mysticism as a term which can be applied and interpreted in different ways. No one has exclusive claim on the term, or right to say whether or not the term should be used.

There is the whole question of whether Jung was or wasn't a mystic. He was specifically interested in Taoism, but also in many other esoteric ideas. He did not like the term mystic, but was often labelled as one. I think that it is partly a problem of labels and choice of words.

Generally, I think that the use of the word, mystic, itself only matters for ideas being communicated clearly. It goes beyond word categorisation really and is about the ideas stemming and underlying the words. However, it is such a complex area because it is about experiential reality and probably every person has their own unique understanding. No wonder people often speak of the ineffable. Perhaps the people who choose not to describe it know intuitively that they would get tangled up in knots trying to put it all into words and concepts. It may be that the poets and other creative writers were the most accomplished in translating it into language which could be grasped by others.

But, aren't most aspects of life a bit strange. I am coming from the perspective of seeing absurdity in life generally. However, I also come with a bias towards the arts and from my viewpoint people who are only interested in sport, cooking, and the mundane aspects of existence are really strange. It"s a bit like the quote from the Doors' song, ' People are strange when you're a stranger.'

Okay, so I probably come from a completely different perspective because I am particularly interested in peak experiences. I may start a thread on this, but I may wait a bit because it may not be too great if it was running at the same time as yours. But I am definitely not into pragmatism. I do not find that 'meat and potatoes' philosophy makes much sense to me.

I have just thought that one of my favourite books, 'The Outsider' by Colin Wilson is relevant to your discussion because it looks at those on the edge or in the margins, including some existential philosophers, such as Camus and Nietzsche. It also includes many other famous creative individuals. The main theme is that the outsider sees differently.

This has special bearing on philosophy because it is likely that those who pursue philosophy may see life a bit differently as a result. Of course, there are so many different thinkers within philosophy and some are more within conventional perspective than others. Conventions change, as well. One other aspect, is that any perception of strangeness is dependent on how 'normality' is defined.

I am also aware that your introduction is also about war. I'm thinking that this may tie in with the way in which people who are seen as 'different' , or may be seen as the enemies. This may give rise to war. We may even have war within ourselves, between clashing aspects of our personalities.

I think that Freud has some bearing, but of course he was a psychoanalyst primarily and was writing a long time ago. I think that your topic is interesting but I will leave it for now, as I am waiting for a bus. I may join in again at some point. But welcome to the forum and hope you have some fun in exploring strangeness and its relationship with philosophy.

It is interesting to hear that you do art because I draw and paint. I don't compose but I love music and the more alternative it is the better, including metal and punk.

However, I have thought of a book relevant to what your debate, 'The Origins of the Uncanny' by Freud, which looks at the unfamiliar and taboos. Of course, many people regard Freud as strange...

My own understanding of strangeness comes down to that which is unusual or outside the mainstream. On that basis, I see strangeness as an exciting area, especially within art. It may be that what is now commonplace was perceived as shocking or strange by many when first conceived.

Reading through your post, your whole question comes down to strange. How do you perceive strangeness? Is being strange necessarily a negative attribute? Or, perhaps it is more interesting than conformity?

I know that you find Taoism useful, and think that mysticism can have too much baggage. However, don't you wish to go beyond a 'meat and potatoes' philosophy as you put it ? I am thinking about Maslow's highest stage on the hierarchy of needs, self actualization? I would say that it may be possible to cope without some of the lower needs being met, although there are limits, through some peak experiences. But, I do agree that the word mysticism can be problematic in some ways.

I remember when you spoke of the 'creative nothing' you saw it as a starting point for creativity. So, nothing may be like a void of potential and possibilities.Perhaps it is the unconscious.

I am not sure that such animosity is particularly helpful. However, I do believe that people do need to speak out against social evils rather than just accept them as the norm.

I think that you are speaking of the horrors of life, which is a little different from finding truth, philosophically, or is it? We have moved into an era of post truth, especially after post modernism, as suggested by Michael Kakutani in, 'The Denial of Truth',(2018). He suggests that some individuals tried to 'whitewash entire chapters of history' alongside exploiting 'the postmodernist argument that all truths are partial.'

I do agree that access to food, medicine and electricity are essential. I would add housing because we are talking about Maslow's basics on the hierarchy of needs. Once those go, for so many people, we are talking about a very dire situation.

I am also wary of the collective, especially the destructive capacity of the herd. The only reason why I chose the word collective is because we are talking about global and national issues. Perhaps we need some truly inspiring individuals to arise in the midst. I am probably talking about prophets or visionaries, who are able to go deeper and beyond the surface of political agendas.

Yes, I sometimes wonder what could happen and it is hard to see through the political cracks in the pavement. It is sometimes just hard to know what is going on beneath the surface of news headlines, because as the sociologists have stressed, news is manufactured. We may not know what is going on behind the scenes exactly. It seems that there is a lot of confusion, but there may be aspects which are not revealed too.

I hadn't come across that quote from Gramsci and I wrote a thread on pessimism vs optimism. So thanks for the great insight offered by Gramsci:
'Pessimism of the intellect. Optimism of the will.'

I think that there is a danger of trying to make mysticism into a neat and tidy term. For some people this may work, but the problem is that the mystical experiences of individuals vary so much as well as the attempts to understand them.Some of those who have experienced mystical states have been those who explored philosophies which are obscure. Also, some of the literature is not easy to read. One book which I have, but not managed to read, is W B Yeats" 'A Vision', but I am determined to do so, at some point.

It was brave of you to share your experience. Your experience must have been just before you found this site I do believe that it is often the harshest things in life which bring about transformation. I have seen some literature on mysticism which seems to ignore this, and almost treat mystical states as if they were add on extras to the comforts of life. However, there is the tradition of mysticism which sees it in the context of 'the dark night of the soul.'

But, of course, I would not be wishing to denigrate the mystical experience of anyone, but do think that as your testimony suggest, the mystical experience arising from suffering is important.

Your detailed discussion of the many potential facets of totalitarianism is useful because it is a complex area and not just one idea. While it is possible to see potential threats, let's just hope that the threats are only that. Let's just hope that the good of many is protected and that systems which emerge do not bring too much suffering.

I think really that I would rather worry rather than become indifferent. It's also about balancing the personal worries and the wider collective ones. It is sometimes easier to see our own little world under the microscope and probably the turbulence of our time is a wake up for most of us. Rather than just hearing of historical atrocities and ones in far away countries, so many throughout the world have been shaken up by life being so dramatically. I realise that the leaders must be struggling and are probably just trying to think of all options.

Okay, I will have a read of The Tao te Ching tomorrow evening. It is true that there are not that many philosophies or religions which can be read in an hour. So, it is strange that I have missed this little one, considering all the piles of books I accumulated from an esoteric bookshop in Central London a few years ago.

Oh, I am talking of the I Ching. Initially, when I read your thread I thought that The Tao de Ching was another book, and then I came to the conclusion that your thread was about the I Ching. So I feel extremely foolish. I have not read the Tao de Ching, in that case.

Yes, I will try not to worry too much about totalitarianism, but I do fairly frequently, because that is my disposition. But what strikes me when I have made remarks to people in conversations recently about totalitarianism, is that many people don't seem to be perturbed by it. I think that we may be moving towards a culture of indifference.

Obviously the whole area of mysticism in Hinduism and Buddhism is a very complex one and it is not as if I am from one of these traditions. I just read widely, and there is probably some truth in the common notion that a little knowledge is a bit dangerous. So, I will wait to see what happens in the thread as it so new.

Thanks for the link to The Tao de Ching. I may put one latecomer entry, probably on Hexagram 23. I often used to get that hexagram, or it might not have been that I really got it more than other ones, but it always used to stand out for me.

I am not talking about the kind of Asian 'mystical' stuff you are talking about portrayed in the media. I am speaking of serious meditation practices, such as those within Hinduism, Buddhism, or Sufism . I am also thinking of the whole tradition of esoteric Christianity. However,it may be that you are not wishing for such areas to be explored in the thread you have created, and are just wishing to explore what the idea.

You say that, 'Man makes his own hell in the world'. I do agree that many of the atrocities in history seem to reflect that. The question which I see is how can we act differently collectively, to try to climb out of the hells we create, and to stop creating them?

I have read the Tao Te Ching and looked at the lengthy thread on it, but did not participate because I don't have a copy of it currently. I am interested in Taoism, especially as developed by Jung. There is also Capra' book, 'The Tao of Physics' which was important in the leading the way in the exploration of mysticism arising from the findings of the new physics developed by Einstein.

I am wondering why you resist the idea of mysticism as being about heightened states of consciousness? I do not believe that we are able to touch upon these easily but I do see mystical states as being part of this spectrum. Maurice Bucke's book, 'Cosmic Consciousness' looks at specific individuals who reached illuminated states of consciousness, such as the Buddha, Jesus, William Blake and Dante. Of course, these were extemely rare individuals. I am aware that we cannot even attempt to compare ourselves to such important figures, but I do think that there is a whole range of potential mystical states, ranging from the the almost mundane states of bliss, to those of a more magnificent nature. It seems to a whole pathway of possible states of consciousness, more frequently touched upon within esoteric traditions.

In some ways, I think that the term mysticism is sometimes used in a derogatory way. It is also difficult to talk about sometimes because there is the whole experiential level, which is so subjective. I am currently reading a book on peak experiences by Colin Wilson, 'Superconsciousness: The Quest for the Peak Experience' (2019). In this, he says, ' What I learned from mystics and poets was that " everyday consciousness" is only one of many possible states, and that we become trapped in assuming that it is the only kind.' Colin Wilson, in his many books looked at the quest for heightened states of consciousness. He began first exploring this in his first book, 'The Outsider',in relation to the states of mind or creative writers and artists, who entered into certain states of mind as part of the creative process. Of course, mysticism is central to religious and spiritual quests, but I think that it is an idea which is relevant to the whole spectrum of peak experiences too.

I am inclined to think that it is hard to predict what is going to happen in Britain, as indeed other parts of the world. We still have a welfare system and the NHS, and I think that it would be if these were to collapse that Britain would collapse truly because people are reliant on them. I think that maintaining the NHS has been central to the whole process of restrictions, as a central focus being the NHS being not being overwhelmed. However, what has happened is that so much money has been spent through furloughs and many people being on benefits.

So, I think that a lot will depend on whether people are able to work again. If mass unemployment continues I fear that the welfare state would collapse altogether, bringing devastation and misery for multitudes. So, survival of the economy is central, because at the moment it is extremely difficult to find work. I suppose that we have been lucky to have a whole welfare state but if this were to collapse, I really don't know how countless people would survive at all.

One area of thinking which I see as relevant to your question is chaos theory. However, that involves randomness but with some underlying order, as well as feedback loops.

Perhaps life and our lives involve order emerging from chaos. We have the order of physical laws and the whole process of creation is the emergence of order from the possibilities of random order. While there is a general background of chaos, essential order is required for the development of the physical body as well as the organisation of social life. Perhaps free will, and freedom, can be seen as feedback loops because it is at this leve that consciousness comes into the picture of subjects participating in the process of creating order.

Another aspect to the consideration of chaos and order is that they are also constructs in our minds as well as, rather than just being aspects of the external world.

Your question makes sense to me because I can remember a time when I was really afraid of possible finding of truth in my searching. What if the truth I discovered was not bearable at all. At the time, I was hovering between Christianity and atheism and afraid of both possibilities. Was it surprising that I began reading in the direction of Eastern traditions.

My answer may seem absurd to some people, because finding the truth is sometimes seen as important above all else, especially in philosophy.My own feelings of fear of finding truth of Christianity were based on my guilt and fear of hell, while the prospect of atheism seemed to spell out cosmic insignificance. But, the point which I am making is not I was aware of feeling fearful of truth itself. I was looking for answers which would make life endurance.

I am still inclined to think that finding 'truth' when we are searching for answers to all the big questions is connected to our psychological motivations. For many aspects of this, it is not as if truth is revealed easily, so it may be that we often perceive and think what we find helpful to make life meaningful.

What I am saying does worry me though, because I would like to believe that my own exploration is impartial. I have moved on from the big fear of theism vs atheism and like to think that I am more impartial now. However, as a general principle, I do wonder about when we search in the world of ideas and explanations, what if we discovered truth which was simply horrific, beyond all worst possibilities? Would we fight against it and seek untruths instead?

So do you think that it will be a downward spiral for England? I am definitely aware of austerity measures being introduced in the last few years. I hope that England is not really collapsing..

I remember getting to know a boy on a bus who came to England with his mother after his father was killed in the terrorism of Northern Ireland. Generally, the people I have known from Northern Ireland described it a bit like the way U2 do in the song, 'Where the Streets Have No Name.'

I think that England has been a very pleasant country to live in but it is changing dramatically. We are lucky to have a welfare state. I don't think that people will cope if life becomes harsh as people are not used to it.

I have not been to Ireland, despite having a father who was born there. He spoke highly of the country although he never went back there. Northern Ireland is very different though and the only people I have ever known from there seem fairly wounded by so much unrest there.

I found it interesting that you have just suggested the British understatement, because I have become aware that I am inclined to overstate my ideas generally, thinking of the extreme implications. I think that I probably do it for effect in conversations, hoping for a reaction and, often, I don't even get one. I wonder if the reason for my tendency to overstate is a stand against people understating. I don't like ideas or other aspects of life being watered down and weakened into insignificance. When I speak of overstating, I try not to exaggerate but just try to spell out details which I feel may be glossed over otherwise.

However, I don't think that I am intolerant and not sure that there is any connection between the two tendencies. Of course, I suppose it does depend what one is intolerant of, because I am simply meaning that I am tolerant of other people. Also, I do see humour as essential to life.

With your choice 1 of keeping all our freedoms or 2 of not doing so, I am unsure to what extent loss of further freedoms would address the pandemic. Even if we have all our personal information and medical history on open display on our phones, I don't see how it would stop any potential pandemic because viruses are invisible and unpredictable.

One of the arguments against digital passports etc is that it would give rise to a loss of the need for social distancing. Part of the idea in Britain behind Covid_19 passports was to enable pubs to operate without need for any distancing measures. I am sure that would to lead to a definite third wave because even if people have the vaccine and tests they can still catch it, especially if new variants arise.

Also, even if the ideas of digital passports or biometrics were introduced as a temporary measure, is it really likely that this would ever end? I can see the idea of passports for international travel being useful but if they were required just to go and buy a pair of shoes or trousers in a shop that would seem absurd. One idea which I have come across in Britain is the possibility of sugar tax, with restrictions on what food people can buy. I am in favour of healthy eating but I don't know that official restrictions would be pleasant for many. The idea behind it is that people who got Covid_19 got more sick if they were obese. Could it get to the point where people had to declare their weight on phone apps when they shop? Of course, I am being extreme but I am wondering what could happen eventually.

Also, bearing in mind that we are a long way from totalitarianism now, if that was a direction in the futue, would we even have the freedom to express ourselves on sites like this? Already, it does appear that there is a lot of surveillance of search engines, so we might not be as free as we would like to think that we are.

I certainly hope that totalitarianism is not coming. The point at which I wrote this thread was when I saw news of possible Covid_19 passports in Britain. However, it does appear that so many members of parliament are strongly against it, so it may not happen. The possible implications were as extreme as suggesting that all kinds of checks would have to be done to enter most places, including non essential shops.

Just imagine just wishing to go for a cup of coffee and having to have all these checks. It would also be so much of a nightmare for staff and I think that many people would just prefer to stay at home. Also, I am really not convinced that if people had all this data available that it would have any bearing on preventing the virus. However, I do think that everything is in such a state of confusion in Britain that it may result in draconian measures being introduced eventually.
However, in Britain what might also be going on is confusion over the exit from the EU. It has gone through officially, but when the vote for this took place it was in a pre Covid world, and as it is taking place at this particular point, it may be a big mess.

I can see your perspective on how collapses take place, especially the Roman empire. However, what I wonder about is whether Western civilisation would collapse in a similar way or not. That is because the various parts of it are probably extremely different, mainly in of the technology level of sophisticated we have reached. That is why I see economic growth as a possible starting point because it may mean that many people would lose access and may be excluded gradually.

I am not really sure to what extent I think that totalitarianism is coming. That would be more of an organised attempt at control and it does appear that we are in a position where governments are really confused. The worst scenario which I would imagine is one in which there was a strategic attempt to ensure that the ruling class and their lineage were protected, while life became worse and worse gradually for the less wealthy.