I do have some Nick Cave and Leonard Cohen, and they are extremely dark. I listen to jazz, but more alternative jazz and acid jazz. I think that music has to be chosen carefully according to mood. That can be complicated because in darker moods, sometimes somber music can help and other times make it worse. I know that some people think Leonard Cohen is music to commit suicide to. I think that in some ways, it can work in the opposite, and be a way of transmuting despair, but it is so subjective.

Diagnosis of mental illness is complex and I do think that there is a danger of it becoming a form of social control. For example, black people are more likely to be diagnosed as paranoid and this has been evident in research. Also, women are more likely to be diagnosed as having borderline personality disorder whereas men as having antisocial personality disorder.

As far as people being said to hear voices, I think that there is a danger of people being misinterpreted. I knew someone who used to speak out loud to himself and had difficulty explaining this, because he maintained that he was merely ventilating his thoughts externally, not hearing voices. Aside from voices, the whole area of delusions is subject to social interpretation.

When I worked in acute psychiatry, patients used to be held down and restrained. Of course, in many situations this was because the people were becoming aggressive. However, they were often restrained if they were refusing medication. I found this whole aspect of control and restraint of people to be extremely difficult. That is the main reason why if I work in mental health in the future, I don't wish to work in acute psychiatry settings.

One rather unfortunate aspect of psychiatry is the whole stereotype of people with mental health problems being seen as potentially violent. Of course, some people do become aggressive in response to their distress. However, it is unfortunate that the media often focus upon this, while many individuals who hear voices, or who are diagnosed as psychotic, are not violent or aggressive at all.

I am afraid that even though I love classical literature I can't relate to classical music at all. The closest I get to classical is prog rock. But on the subject of collapse, I do think that the remaining record shops are likely to collapse, which will be a great shame. It is not just a matter of being able to buy records though, as record shops are also a whole cultural or countercultural experience.

Okay, I will try reading a bit of that philosophy. The one advantage we have over the Romans though is that they did not have all the wonderful music we have to collapse with. The Doors may definitely help.

I think that you do not realise the full impact that the pandemic has had on people. Obviously, it is variable according to location and personal circumstances. I had to move twice but I see myself as lucky because when I am walking around the streets in London I see countless numbers of people lying in sleeping bags in corners. There was a homelessness problem before but it has worsened dramatically. I am also aware of families living in a bedsit units because they cannot afford more than one room.

It is hard to know what is going to happen long term, but I think that all the events of the last year are going to be very far from a 'blip', and, potentially the pandemic could go on for a very long time with many waves and countless new variants.

Individuals will vary in how they are affected, in daily life and in mental health. Of course, I do think that with any changes which come economically, or otherwise, we do have some choices in what we make of it. It is a bit like your thread about whether the worst things in life ever happened. My own take on that is that I am inclined to look to the future and dwell on the worst possible scenarios. That can be destructive, but it does allow for a certain amount of planning to try to prevent them. However, thinking about all these possibilities does stop enjoyment.

Nevertheless, in spite of everything, I have to admit that I would probably not have ever used this site as much as I have done, if had not been forced to stay at home, and I do feel that I have learned a lot from the interaction. But, I am looking forward to some easing of lockdown, and will have to avoid the temptation not to go overboard and stay out until midnight every night.

I am wondering what impact the whole cost of the pandemic and all of its aftermath will have economically. I fear a far deeper division between the rich and the poor, with many being plunged into extreme poverty. It is far too early to predict fully because we don't know to what extent life will resume after lockdown. Further businesses may collapse and government funds are going to become exhausted at some point. Of course, it will be different in various parts of the world, but it is on that level that I could see the beginning of a big collapse.

Consumer materialist culture has been crumbling before that, but it could be that the infrastructure will shatter really. I am not saying that I think that consumer materialism is wonderful, but we are so reliant on and most of lack the resources and skills to live in a completely different way. Personally, I am very open to alternative forms of economics, such as that proposed by Schumacher in 'Small is Beautiful,' but it is hard to know how they would work in practice. I would love to live in smaller communities but we are so accustomed to shops, Wifi and other aspects of Western life that I am not sure how we could all become new age hippies overnight.

I am glad that you have joined in the discussion on relativism and pluralism, and the question of how they are distinguishable. Your points are useful for considering this.

I hope that you are right that I am worrying unnecessary over totalitarianism coming. I may be reading too much news on my phone. However, when I was at King's Cross station and it was patrolled by police, carrying machine guns, it did feel like some kind of post apocalyptic dystopian world.I do believe that life is becoming increasingly virtual and apps to do most things seems to be happening, as well as cashless transactions as the new norm.

But, I do certainly worry about where history is going. This probably goes back to anxiety about 'The Book of Revelation' in The Bible. However, even though I stopped reading that on a literal level, climate change and energy resources do seem to point to possible disaster scenarios for the human race.

I am aware of having the freedom of speech to even create a thread of this kind on an online site.

I do agree that there have been major moments in history when there have been dramatic curbs on freedom before. I just see the present time as being one of such a sweeping kind. Of course, as you pointed out, we have been in a period of global medical emergency. Everyone, including the politicians, are shaken up. I think my concern is that changes made in the aftermath will be on a long term basis. Certainly, from my point of view of watching news yesterday in England I felt that life after lockdown may be far worse than during lockdown.

However, my concern about totalitarianism does come in the context of being worried about what way history will go. But, that does include ecological issues and nuclear weapon developments.

If you(Synthesis)think that the collapse already happened, what was it? As it is, we have experienced a horrible year, with both the pandemic itself and the lockdowns. I am not sure that would be actual collapse, but it difficult to predict what is going to happen next.

I think that I had noticed a lot of changes prior to that, with people being expected to perform and behave almost like robots. I think that we are gradually becoming dehumanised and even changing as individuals. I am wary of changes which may come, especially biometrics, but I am thinking that potential collapse would be something resembling almost the end of civilisation as we know it. Totalitarianism may be the start of this.

One thing that I fear may happen is a gradual spread into widespread poverty, in the aftermath of the pandemic, alongside a general move towards totalitarianism. The two could almost exist alongside one another. But, it is hard to know what is going to happen, because life is so unpredictable and we don't want what other events are going to take place in the world. We can fear one thing, and something else entirely happens.

You are probably right to say it 9/11 may have been the start of a whole change in culture in the USA and possibly other countries. But, what I am thinking is so strange is that terrorism seems to not be mentioned at all as a threat to be dealt with. Perhaps, it still seen as a potential problem behind the surface, but it seems to have become hidden.

I do agree with what you are saying, but I think that most people are blind to the collapse that is taking place. Most people I know are just swept along with the news and public opinion, with little critical awareness.

I think that Covid restrictions are part of it but not the whole picture. I am not in favour of being paranoid, but just wonder about people being able to live in a way which is bearable rather than under coercive and oppressive regimes.

I know that it may seem all a bit abstract, but I have no idea where you are living in the world.

I am living in a part of the world where extreme restrictions have been in force mostly for a year . The way I see it from where I am living is that possible measures, such as only being allowed into cafes, pubs, social venues and non essential shops may put some people into a state of permanent exclusion from the whole fabric of social life. I have a smartphone, but not everyone does. The ideas I am talking about are not definite, and they only apply to one country, but it really does make me wonder what is in our midst. I do worry about a whole culture of control, coercion and inequality. I am hoping that it is only my fear, and not something which is going to turn into a daily reality of oppression for many people.

I am not wishing to come to any firm conclusions, but just have so many questions about where we are going with information and the whole issue of social control. As far as I see, there are many different possibilities, but I am just wary of what may happen.

I do appreciate Graves, Borges and Graves l do have read Jung and have found him worthwhile, but would not wish to put him on a pedestal. I am particularly aware of aspects of his work which are open to critical attack, especially his failure to speak against the ideas of Nazi Germany at a critical time in history.

To what extent do you think that many people do have an understanding of sensitive information. I am thinking of details about health and mental health, and I have seen so much insensitive use of personal information. I think that so much education is needed and if data was just available to people arbitrarily, it could lead to prejudice and discrimination.

I am very wary of biometrics. It seems that it may give people, with so little understanding of sensitive information, the potential for abuse of power.

Yes, I want to know, in the here and now. I don't wish to have to spend time searching in the foggy mist. To some extent, it can be worthwhile, but if the truth cannot be found it could be futile, despite my enjoyment of reading the rich and imaginative insights offered by Jung.

It is so hard to disentangle what appears to be totalitarianism from what really is. Democracy is questionable, as to what extent we feel represented, truly. As for encroachments upon personal liberty, what I fear is that in the last year we have been so used to the need for such curbs. I am not wishing to undermine the pandemic, but what I see is that the need for encroachments becoming a basis for introducing subtle forms of control under the guise of protective health measures.

It is interesting to think about the role of mindless pleasures, such as the internet, and to what extent they would blind us. Of course, we all seek pleasures but it does seem worrying if this could stand in the way of critical awareness.

It is interesting to wonder to what extent current thinking about mind and other aspects of philosophy is the ultimate one. It may be that there is a lot of arrogance about claims to understanding, and this may be perceived in retrospect ,if humanity survives long enough.

Personally, I find the philosophy of mind to be one of the most interesting areas. I think that there are so many unanswered questions about consciousness. I have worked in mental health care but don't know if I wish to do so in the future, as the medical model seems so limited. Even the nursing model seems so restricted to the bottom layers of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, rather than creative pursuits and self actualization.

Your reply is useful, but one problem which I see is the theoretical one and the practical one. Most of us have read George Orwell. However, to what extent would it all be so different if it were to become an actual reality?

Yes, it is hard to know if totalitarianism is a threat or a fear, and to what extent it could translate into a living reality.

Your comment is interesting, but I do think that if my question is seen as worth discussing, the implications on an international level will need to be explored by people in different countries. I am not really sure if my fears are related to the picture which I am seeing in England or on a wider scale. So, it will be interesting to see what people in America think.

I do think that we may be going into a form of totalitarianism, but not a complete one. I am interested to know what form you think that this would take.

Do you think so? I am really not sure of this at all. Even before the pandemic I felt that the system was becoming more oppressive, and apart from sitting in a room, writing on this site, I am not aware of having much freedom at all. Of course, I am aware of pandemic restrictions, but wish to see beyond that. I am worried that we are going to be put into restrictions under the guise of the pandemic, which go way beyond it.

I have done a bit more thinking on the paradox of theism and atheism, as well as reading the interaction between you and @180 Proof. I can see that, to a large extent, we are in the position of talking about both the theist and the atheist striving to find the 'truth' , and making claims about it. The paradox of this is one which makes sense to you and I, because we seem to be happy sitting on the fence. I think that Jung seems to be in this position, more or less, although, unfortunately, we can't really ask him to clarify.

I think what it does come down to is whether it is possible to answer the question of the ultimate reality absolutely. I think that @180 Proof seems to be suggesting that knowing ultimate reality, such as God is rather futile. However, I am aware that many have strived to do so. I am interested in exploring the possibilities but I think that it is so hard to grasp fully. I think that it is partly a matter of language but also about limitations of conception, and the two are connected because we think in language. Of course, there is mathematics, which is not my favourite area, and images.

Jung is interesting in images and symbols in particular, in dreams or in the arts. So, for Jung symbolic ways of understanding truth about reality was important too, especially the idea of archetypes, especially those within religious experience. Another aspect which I do see as essential to the Jungian view is his whole interest in Eastern philosophy, especially Taoism. The understanding of God in Taoism is different from that described by many Christian thinkers. However, I have not much theology, because what I tried reading I found a bit insular and not approaching the wider philosophical picture.

I am glad you replied, but I would rather discuss ultimate reality tomorrow as I am getting ready for bed. So, I will read what you wrote and reply then. I love' An American Prayer' album by Jim Morrison.

Perhaps I am just thinking too much. Anyway, I think that you were lucky to be able to study philosophy at school. I only got to do religious studies and we only got to study Christianity and no comparative religion at all. I was still very Catholic after I left school, but I believe that many of those at my school had stepped outside that perspective, and they probably have not read Jung.

I see your point but I am not sure if paradoxes in ideas are the same as in daily life. After all, ideas are mental constructs. However, in saying that, I might be reducing the notion of God to an idea. But, of course, that would depend on the nature of God, and may be incompatible with certain ways of seeing the ultimate reality, but it could fit with such an understanding as the Tao.

So, do you think that the idea of the paradox of
theism and atheism is a bit way out? One problem which I have thought of is that it could end up pointing to 'paradox' as ultimate reality, and almost enthroning and inflating it to God-like status. You are not a religious believer, so may just see the idea as a bit absurd, but readers who are religious might be horrified with Madfool and I for such a suggestion.

That is our Easter revelation idea for anyone to contemplate if they log into this thread. The startling conclusion may remain lost and buried in this tomb, like an esoteric truth, or rise up for further critical evaluation, or condemnation. Happy Easter!

Yes, I am inclined to agree. Perhaps theism and atheism are like the two sides of the same coin. It just depends which side a person views it from. I think that we may be talking about the biggest paradox in philosophy.

It is questionable to what extent Jung can be seen as an 'explainer of everything'. I can see problems in some of the ways he tries to piece together the various models. It sometimes feels like he is forcing bits of a jigsaw puzzle into parts where they probably do not fit. The problem I am left with is wondering who can explain it all?. Can any one individual even attempt to do so? I would like to find such a person. However, I do think that Jung raises some very interesting areas for debate and reflection, but I do believe that the philosophers do tend to steer clear of him, and, perhaps, he is seen as creating tangents.

In a way, I think that you are right to say that Jung was not really sure whether he believed in God, but he said a lot more than that. He went into such depth in exploring religious experience, but just did not seem sure how far that should be interpreted. I wonder if his views shifted from time to time. My own perspective alters, but it may be that I have read too much Jung.

The question as to whether believing or not believing being a greater step towards freedom, is slightly different. I am not sure which position I prefer, but it is probably more important to think which is the most accurate. However, I do wonder if our own psychology does affect belief. The arguments for or against believing in God being so complec may mea that we can swing it one way or other according to some kind of subconscious preference.

It is interesting to read that you went to a Catholic school and that you weren't taught philosophy. It was not on the school curriculum but I had some fairly interesting teachers, including an English teacher who was interested in mythology and a physics teacher who was training to an acupuncturist. My sixth form tutor was not a Catholic and used to have long discussions with me about the 'Book of Revelation' in the Bible. I also found many interesting and fairly subversive books in the school library, and the school librarian told me that many of the books which I was reading were in a box which had been ordered by error.

I notice that you remarked about the obscurity of some of Jung's writing and I do think that does put some people off reading him. It reflects his wide reading life, and in many ways his writings fall within the scope of philosophy rather than psychology. However, that is also true of Freud in many ways. Some people describe Jung as a mystic, but I prefer to see hm as more of an esoteric thinker, because he was not trying to think about areas which many just gloss over. I think that what is significant about Jung was how he delved into ideas, such as those of Jacob Boehme, alchemy, Gnostic ideas and Eastern metaphysics. Many writers in the late twentieth century and in this one speak of such ideas but I think that he was radical for his time in touching upon all these traditions.

One aspect which I wonder about is whether inner speech is likely to translate into 'psychosis' if the person has little opportunity for dialogue with others. What I am saying is mere speculation, but based on my observation that a tendency towards withdrawal from social life, often precedes episodes of psychotic illness. It could even be like people being shut in darkened rooms beginning to see visual hallucinations.

However, there is also the whole social construction of mental illness, with the potential for people who perceive and think outside the norms being labelled as 'ill' and even outlawed. The creative bohemian outsiders may be misunderstood by many.

Socrates is an interesting role model for philosophy. It has already been pointed out that he was ugly and, as you pointed out, he didn't write books. However, he was prepared to die in defence of his quest for truth...

Yes, I think that I fantasise that I matter too, especially that I matter to the people who are significant to me. It makes life so more pleasant. I even sometimes have fantasy conversations, and these often are like rehearsals for the conversations which I have at some stage in real life.

The worst thing seems to me when the bubble is burst on pleasant fantasy, by harsh truths. In many ways I find that the inner world of imagination is as important as the facts of everyday existence, and the two seem interconnected. Also, even when life around oneself is collapsing it is possible to enjoy fantasy, within daydreams or through the transformational nature of entertainment and the arts. And, yes, I find that if I can keep my mouth shut, rather than blurring out all my inner mess, I can usually find some way of expressing myself in some worthwhile context.