You speak of the architect as a fantasist dangerous to authority and I wonder where the Freemasons lie in that picture because I understand that they began in the building trade. It makes me wonder about the whole nature of the symbolic within building design and the imagery underlying traditions, including the esoteric.

It is interesting that you speak of escaping outwards to reality. I am not convinced that the outer or inner aspects of life are more real. I think that most Western philosophy assumes that the world around us the supreme aspect. I am not saying that I reject this and my main frame of reference is that too. However, I think it is complicated and I do think that the symbolic world, or even 'spiritual' is often undervalued. The quotes you give are by people who do seem to value imagination and it is interesting to know that Einstein does because sometimes it seems that fantasy and imagination are seen as the realm of the arts.

However, going back to your idea of escaping outwards, it does seem that the arts and music are a form of going outwards, because the ideas and vision are made manifest in life. I remember having a college tutor who said that ideas do not exist if they remain in our minds rather than being expressed and shared in some form.

I do think that we are constantly living fantasies and many people don't stop and think about that. Life is constant myth making. When I was studying art therapy, I had person therapy with a Jungian therapy. I am usually some one who dreams a lot and remember my dreams. However, a strange thing happened. My dreams seemed to disappear and, instead, all sorts of dramas happened in my waking life. In discussion, with the therapist, we explored how it seemed as if what was emerging was symbolic manifestation in real life experiences. Perhaps, some forms of therapy focus too much on the archetypal dramas of dreams while the mythic is so evident in what happens to us in our life experiences.

Thanks for the further details of Scheler's ideas. It does seem that the themes on the various threads overlap frequently. I am also quite interested in your new thread, but I have a book with a few chapters on Dennet, so I may have a look at that first. It is sometimes hard to find the time to write informed comments to other people's thread discussions.

There is a big difference between wishing and willing. It makes sense that it is in earlier and later life that most people stuck with wishes. It probably is about awareness of what is possible. I wonder if it is also about strength of ego consciousness, with willing being so much stronger than mere wishing.

I imagine that differences lie with how we are socialised and it seems likely that play is a big factor. I have heard that some children believe in fairies and witches as children. They probably get to a stage where they don't believe in these. Personally, I was never encouraged to believe in such ideas at all, but I was encouraged to play fantasy games. I used to pretend to be various rockstars, and I stopped such games when I was about 12. I didn't go on to wish to become a rockstar, which is probably a good thing because I can't sing very well. But, certainly rock music has remained at the centre of my narrative of life.

It is interesting to think about how some people go onto muddle their fantasies with real life. I have heard stories of people who seem to think that the characters in soap operas are real rather than actors. I have heard that the actors get antagonised for what they have done within the stories.

The clear example of people becoming confused where real life and fantasy can be distinct is when people become psychotic. I had a friend who thought that one particular female singer was talking to him personally in her songs. He used to write letters to her and take these to her fan club in person. I have come across people who were convinced that they were going to have romances with famous people. My psychotic friend who used to think the singer was communicating with in her songs, used to phone up his mother and tell her off if his records jumped because he thought that she was interfering with them psychically.

I wonder how much is magical or wishful thinking, but, of course, they are a bit different. With wishful thinking we may wish for certain things to be true to the point where we believe they are. Possibly, most of us can get carried away with certain fantasies, but it is probably the point at which a person gets too carried away that makes people realise that someone 'has lost the plot'. It can be quite difficult to burst someone's little bubble. In psychiatry, the way a person's 'delusions' are often challenged is by it being explained that others do not see things in the same way. When I come across people with psychotic ideas, I often wonder if some magical thinking developed during an earlier developmental stage. However, it does seem that people often have periods of stability, with episodes of delusion. However, it may be that becoming withdrawn and becoming too immersed in fantasies which leads people to the dangerous position of muddled thinking.

The book which you refer to sounds interesting and the quote which you give. It seems useful to think about fantasy in relation to the what is considered to be real. Many people may consider fantasy as the 'unreal' because it is in the mind primarily, but fantasy can be seen as symbolic structures for making sense of what appear to be facts.

You suggest that 'when you get older you start losing the ability of dream/having fantasies'. I know that I fantasise in the same way that I did when I was a child. So, I wonder to what extent most adults change from the kind of fantasy life they developed as children and adolescents. I would guess that it probably depends on whether they changed their whole approach to thinking. I wonder if it depends on whether they follow an arts based perspective or another one. I also do question whether many try to live a life of embodied fantasy in real life rather than in their own minds. Perhaps, the ones who indulge in fantasy most, are those who have a less fulfilling life.

I think that your suggestions of suggesting that older people should lie down and just allow for younger people to thrive would be asking for them to become martyrs. Also, you speak of all over 50s and that would mean a significant proportion of the population. Most people at 50 are working and may live for 30 or 40 more years. If an ideology that the older people should just be allowed to get sick and died had developed during the pandemic it would have been one of ageism. Also, it would have been in complete opposition to the life instincts of people.

I do see positives in Christianity, and I do go to church with one friend at times, but sometimes I do find this difficult. I once went to a Quaker meeting and found that very positive. I may try that again. Sitting in silence, with people speaking when inspired, is an interesting contrast to the rituals of Catholicism.

The question of negative emotions is interesting. I find guilt to be the most difficult to handle, and probably fear. I do find that rage and jealousy can be turned into pleasure through rock and metal music. I do think that each one of us has a history of emotional scars and probably pleasant ones too. I think that we can work to reframe them, to some extent.

One thing which I do wonder is if emotions we experience are not just ones arising in the individual psyche, but the collective one too. Even with my own demons related to the negative side of religion, I sometimes feel that it goes much deeper than my own experience and I am actually dealing with the dark side, or shadow in Jungian language, of Christianity. I am also thinking about the dark aspects which can arise in mystical experience, and that is why I can relate to the idea of the dark night of the soul.

When I studied art therapy I did find it beneficial to do drawings of my own inner monsters and gargoyles. Also when I went to creative writing classes I experimented with writing from the point of view of being a fallen angel. So, I do think that we can work with the negative symbolic experiences and emotions in a creative way, and that can be a way of healing the wounds.

I didn't think that you meant that one should just abandon pleasure arbitrarily. I think that what happens when I read these sort of ideas they collude with my own Catholic guilt. My own guilt makes me think that I should give up all forms of pleasure as a punishment for my many imperfections. I also know quite a few people who get into that form of thinking at times.

When I spoke about the time when I did try to live some kind of ascetic life, it was at the time I was questioning religion and searching for truth. However, I was also speeding on 'Pro Plus' caffeine tablets, so a bit chaotic. However, I did come out of the dark tunnel. I do have lapses of feelings of guilt and depression, but usually only brief dark nights of the soul, often if I can't sleep.

Probably, the reason why I wrote the reply which I wrote is because I do think that the whole emphasis on striving to overcome pleasure is one that can be so easily misconstrued. I think that I came to the verge of mental illness over it, but probably just managed to think my way out of it on the excess caffeine. However, I have seen quite a few people who have gone down that direction into full episodes of mental illness.

So, what I am saying is that guilt and self hatred, combined with an emphasis on overcoming pleasure can be extremely toxic. Getting back to churches and monks, I do believe that the reason people were meant to sit and kneel on hard surfaces was because it is uncomfortable. And, the idea idea of lent involved an emphasis on fasting and purging oneself.

I do feel that what you have said about denial of pleasure as the path to truth is so wrong. Not on the basis of Plato, but when I was going to a fundamentalist church, I began to try to live in the way that you describe and it brought me to a state of deep depression and despair.

My own experience of wishing to sacrifice pleasure in favour of truth at one stage in my life brought me to the point in life where I felt that there was no point in getting out of bed at all. I found that the experiences of trying to deny myself all pleasure simply brought me misery and hell as 'truth'. I would say that it was not a form of 'healing' truth at all. In fact, it felt like the opposite of truth.

You will probably say that that is because I am looking at it from the wrong perspective and should not have felt negative, but I am simply describing the way it worked out when I tried the ascetic path for a few weeks when I was studying, In contrast, when I have some pleasures, I feel able to think and function positively, and explore creativity. Have you abandoned all physical pleasures? What would living without pleasure be? Would it be just spent reading and meditating all day, although I expect one would still be expected to work?Presumably, any form of sexual pleasure would be completely out of the question, and any other forms of enjoyment. I am really not sure that would be the way to finding any kind of truth. You may feel that I am exaggerating but I am trying to think through what the life of sacrificing pleasure would be in the full sense, and it is probably how some monks have lived.

Success may also be an attitude of mind towards achievement and, this involves the basis from which we decide whether we are successful or not.

I have just read your post again and you are asking at the end about how you would approach your own experience. Of course, I don't know if you are speaking on the basis of having experienced any mystical states or with a view to potential opnes. If they are ones you have already experienced only you can decide whether you are able to describe them or not, and if they are ones you may have you will have to wait and see.

One thing I would like to be able to do better is draw and paint the images I see on the borderline before I get to sleep. I haven't managed it really, but I wish to work to be able to do so. However, I can describe the experience, but that is probably because it is not emptiness.If anything, I don't value emptiness that greatly and see it more as creative block, but that is purely my own subjective view.

Probably in the midst of an extreme mystical experience a person would be so absorbed that that wouldn't be the moment to describe it. One thing that strikes me is the importance of choice and whether the person wishes to communicate the experience to others or not. Metaphysical poets, such John Donne, chose to write poetry and some may wish to create art about it.

But, I do believe that it all comes down to a mixture of motivation and ability to convey a certain experience to others. I am aware that I see communication of peak experiences as important, but that is probably because my own searching is bound up with my own quest for creativity. Many people may be coming from a different angle and not see communication of the experience as important, and settle for speaking of the ineffable. So, it is what works for each person.

I think that the reductionist model of psychology developed by B F Skinner has played a critical role in the current thinking about mental states, because it was a view which saw mind as illusory. It is probably hard to see mind and body as separate because they are bound together in an intricate way.

Certainly, we know that mental states are altered by chemicals, and how medication can be the main way for treating affective and psychotic experiences. However, it would seem to me to be a problem if the slant is focused on the brain alone, with the subjective inner experience being left out of the picture. While mental states are affected by the brain, the subjective meanings of experience are also important too. Cognitive behavioral theory recognises this but, of course, cognition still involves brain processes.

However, the key issue is the capacity for reflection and it would seem to me that, while reflective consciousness is dependent on a brain it does calls for a less reductionist perspective on the understanding of mind. This would probably involving more of a holistic one, or a wider view, such as that advocated in the systems view of reality, such as that suggested by Fritjof Capra, who sought to go beyond the determinsm of the Cartesian-Newtonian paradigm of reality.

I am not sure that Plato's ideas can be applied so easily to the life which many are expected to lead. You speak of the idea of striving not to be an animal. Perhaps, we have more the situation that we are expected to operate like machines. Certainly, when I have been working I felt that so much demands were placed on me that I ended up with stress and insomnia. I think that mindfulness is needed to help us balance our own physical and mental wellbeing and clarity of thinking.

I think that the quest for knowledge is so different in the time of Plato in this information age. I am not saying that Plato's ideas aren't important but that he was writing in a different time in history. The ancient teachers were aware of wisdom which is valuable but their ideas need to be seen in their historical context rather than in isolation. I don't think that it would be particularly helpful to expect a person to seek objective knowledge through detachment from sensory experiences now. Even Buddhism stressed the middle way. It seems to me that the biggest challenge of our time is not to go beyond the sensory but beyond the robotic level.

The challenge is not necessarily about finding objective truth but about increasing consciousness, and critical awareness, to see through the murkiness of the bombardment of information we have available before us. I suppose the pleasures available on the internet are a possibile source of distraction for some. Many people I know find that they spend so much time watching television. I prefer listening to music, but I think I would probably go crazy if I could not relax by listening to it.

On what basis do you think that it is pursuit of pleasure that makes us mistake our opinions for truth? I am not sure that the two are related in that way necessarily. Inflated sense of self is likely to be involved, but that could occur independently of pleasure. It may be that the pursuit of the denial of pleasure could lead to a sense of self righteousness, and, indirectly, to an inflated idea of one's perception of truth, so it is complex indeed.

If anything, it could be that awareness of one's own sensory pleasures allows for a more balanced perspective of self awareness. In some ways, we can only follow the path to greater conscious awareness, and that may be a more humble endeavor. Of course, we may wish to grasp 'truth', but that does depend on a whole set of epistemological and metaphysical assumptions, which are very difficult to establish.

Most people who search for truth, settle for the claims of known thinkers and teachers. To set out to search for 'truth' independently from reliance on established teachers, may involve a path with likely loss of everyday pleasure, but it would probably be more than that, and be a whole experience of going beyond the life that most people lead and not merely about self renunciation. I wonder if this is what you mean really in your thread introduction, but it is it may be that the discussion is a bit too esoteric to work properly on a thread of this site.

Perhaps it is a matter of many people needing a better understanding of pleasure. The people who are caught up in acts such as genocide are not necessarily the ones who are likely to be looking for truth.

However, it is complex because as I understand the picture of Hitler, he was interested in some spiritual teachings related to purity. However, he ended up with a whole emphasis on purging the world of people who he saw as less 'pure'. Even those who quest for 'truth' may make atrocious mistakes.

It could be that rather than intentional sacrifice of pleasure being needed, as the starting point for the quest for truth, that the actual experience of its absence will lead individuals in that direction naturally. In other words, the misery of many individuals in our turbulent times may be enough to trigger the pursuit. Many are facing hardship as the comforts and pursuits of pleasure they have been used to are vanishing around them rapidly. Of course, I am not suggesting that all would follow this path, but it may be that certain individuals make the connection with some kind of deeper searching.

I think that you are right to suggest that 'philosophy is not superseded by science any more than a mother is superseded by her children'. Perhaps, the two can work alongside one another and philosophy have an important role in aiding with the interpretation of the facts emerging in the sciences.

Do you think that pleasure and truth should be seen as being in conflict with one another?This tension existed within Kant's philosophy, but it may have created a lot of difficulties for people. Of course, it is possible to differentiate between higher and lower pleasures, but even that is not absolute. I am not sure that pleasure has to be seen as an obstacle towards the finding of truth, and William Blake suggested that, 'Those who restrain desire do so because theirs is weak enough to be restrained.'

I am thinking how you(synthesis) spoke of the idea of the ineffable at some point in your discussion of the relative and the absolute thread. Obviously, our words and our thoughts are limited but I do believe that they are the best tools we have. The scientists don't say that they can't understand everything, so they might as well stop trying, and, of course, the scientists rely on language as much as other writers. As far as mysticism is concerned, I am drawn towards it by nature, but my inner philosopher reminds me to use words for critical thinking rather than to just remain perplexed by the mysteries.

However, we all probably have blindspots in our thinking, and, perhaps, even meditation can aid us to greater awareness, because words can emerge from the void of silence, a bit like @Madfools suggestion of the 'Burning Bush', referred to, in his recent post above, to me.

I don't see why science should be given the authority and power to answer all the big questions leaving philosophy like an abandoned vagrant sitting in the gutter. Also, the scientists have come a long way, but perhaps there is a lot left to discover, and who knows, perhaps philosophical thinking may inspire their searches.

I don't know why you seem to think that exploring the limitations of language is 'impossible'. You speak of the idea of taboos of people not wishing to discuss certain matters. I wonder if in some ways the whole idea of the 'ineffable' is a way of trying to avoid going too far in thinking.

I do believe that the question 'why is there something ?' is an important one, which leads onto another one: why did any form of life come into existence? Also, what triggered the evolution of human consciousness? I know that many people think it is all random and accidental, but we can also say that life and consciousness are so complex and intricate. If it is all random why did it all develop with such exquisite sophistication and inherent laws of nature? But, I don't think that there are any easy answers...

I sometimes think that the way religious and mystical writers speak of the 'ineffable' to be some lack of willingness to explore further. I am not sure if it is because they prefer to keep their thinking fuzzy. Obviously, each writer has an individual psychology, but I do think that the mystifying is language is a real problem in philosophy for the dialogue between science and religion, because writers from the two perspectives choose to use language in such different ways.

I think that this is particularly apparent in the philosophy of mind. The scientists often speak in the language of neuroscience and the religious speak of the soul. It seems to me that the idea of the soul seems to mystify the question of mind, while the neuroscientists seem to be talking in reductive terms. This is a matter which involves explanations, but I do wonder if the root of the differences really is about the whole way in which language is used to speak, with a possibility of too much mystification, or, alternatively a wish to remove any hint of mystery completely.

It seems that you are trying to see actions as 'good' and 'bad' and even if there are objective moral systems, it is likely that good and bad are own subjective interpretations of these. This could include our understanding morality but, also, our feelings about practical aspects of how a certain approach has certain effects in the world. It appear to me that we are the authors of our own understanding of what is good and bad, based on our own knowledge and experience. However, in many circumstances, it is not always that easy to divide into a distinction between the good and the bad because many actions can be seen as having a complex interplay of both.

Do you think that it depends on one's focus, as well? I think that it does, because on some days my thinking seems clearer. In understanding others writings, I find that I try to read something quickly and, then once again, more slowly. I have never done translation to know that process and, of course, it is not always clear if the way one interprets is exactly what the person who was writing had in mind. However, that probably needs one to be able to enter into the private universe of the writer, and we can only do that in our imaginary way.

I have hardly read any Parmenides, but I am inclined to think that the further removed from ordinary language that thinkers go, this is more inclined to mystify understanding. This seems to happen more within philosophical writing, where the abstract is often given preference. In literature, including poetry and fiction, even when there is emphasis on the symbolic, the descriptive has some link with the senses. When we are confronted with what appears to be ineffable, Ì believe that the starting point may be looking at one's experience, including the sensory, through mindful awareness and this may offer a gateway towards using language to understand what appears to be mysterious.

It probably depends on how one considers the idea of the ineffable. Is it beyond words at all, or just beyond a certain person's ability to articulate? Also, when someone says that they can't put some aspect of experience into words, perhaps they can push themselves further to find the words. The words may be descriptive rather than explanation, but the description may be the starting point for further enquiry, including some kind of grasp for explanation.

I don't see why we can't use language to remark on the limitations of our language. That would seem like saying we can't use our minds to think about our own mental limitations.

Perhaps, one of the problems is if thoughts which are expressed in language are taken too concretely when they are only representations. Art is another form of representation and part of the role of art therapy is because it gives another way of expression, without words. Music, without lyrics, of course, is another medium. Some people are more verbal than others and it seems likely that philosophers are probably more verbal in the way that they process experience. But, ultimately, surely language can only be a way of constructing models of experience or reality.

Are you not worried if you think that totalitarianism is here..? I feel that I am watching it arise and I am wondering if I am imagining it. When I think that it is happening, I start to question if I am buying into conspiracy theory thinking. But, certainly in England, I feel that the majority of people are oblivious to the possible signs. I am not sure how totalitarian it will become ultimately but I do believe that we are at some kind of crossroads, and it is hard to see what is coming next.

I think that your thread discussion may be clearer with that point made. But, of course, it may be that others see the implications differently. Many may see humans as the only conscious life forms, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they would interpret it to the conclusion which you come to.

Its not so much that I think that you are in favour of it, but I do believe that it is on it's way and I am extremely worried about it because I think it will be a life which will probably make the majority wish that they were dead. I see it as the end of humanity, in any meaningful sense.

I am not suggesting that people should not have debates but I just don't think that in speaking of the loss of freedom advocated I don't think people are considering fully what it would entail. Different people are currently experiencing different degrees of freedom and I think you do need to consider what dictatorship would mean for us and for future generations.

]

I think that you are missing the point that Nicholas was making. Surely, we need to hold onto the freedom to develop our human qualities. Reading through the thread, I am wondering if some of the people writing here are actually in favour of totalitarianism. Do you really wish to be completely controlled and have you thought what this would really be like?

I am inclined to think that the worthwhile discussion may be reflection upon the ontological point. If we are the only form of consciousness, what does that mean for us? Some may think it is of no importance while others may interpret it as having deep significance for how we view ourselves. Personally, while I do believe in respect for other life forms, I see the implication as one for seeing the value in each human being, in a world in which people are being seen as mere numbers.

Perhaps, we can go as far as saying that it appears that humanity is the most intelligent form of life in the universe, based on our present state of knowledge.

I am replying to your couple of posts previous to the last. When you suggested on what important idea stands out, I did reflect on what I thought about was that considering that I started this thread on religious beliefs, I have not in my own responses touched on the idea of God. I don't know if this is apparent to others, but I am asking myself about this. I have spoken about my own difficulties arising from my religious background and about the importance of looking at all religious perspectives, but I seem to stop there. I probably do believe in some divine power and I don't really believe that life or evolution is merely random, so in that sense I do believe in God.

In looking at religion , I think that there are big differences between that which is taken literally and that which is symbolic. It is hard to know how far to take this though, especially when reading the NewTestament. I don't really believe in the virgin birth of Jesus. I also struggle to know what to make of the miracles and the resurrection of Jesus. One idea which some hold to is the idea of the resurrection may have been of a spiritual body rather than a physical one. Perhaps, living with in a climate of thinking based on the Newtonian-Cartesian paradigm physical reality is stressed too strongly as the supreme reality. The Eastern thinkers have a more fluid picture.

I have a sympathy with theosophy and the ideas of Blavatsky. A few years ago I read the writings of Benjamin Creme, and I don't know if you have come across him. He was the founder of transmission meditation and I attended some workshops in this meditation. The meditation is based on the idea of levelling down the energies and the divine hierarchy. I am aware that the idea of a divine hierarchy is questionable in itself. One idea in Creme's teaching which I found interesting was that Jesus was only Christ during the time of his actual ministry. Creme thought that Jesus and the Buddha were both representations of the Christ consciousness.

For a while I was enthralled by Creme's ideas and read a number of his books. However, the biggest problem I found, and I think many other people saw too, was his belief that the Maitreya was living in East London and waiting to emerge. It also appears that he had been awaiting this emergency since 1977, and there were various sightings of him, especially one in Nairobi. However, Creme died in his 90s and Maitreya never made his expected emergence on a wider scale.

I see Creme's ideas as an example of spiritual teachings being interpreted too literally. He relied on what he believed were 'channelled' messages and he seemed to take them too literally. In contrast, to his waiting for Christ consciousness as the Maitreya appearing as a person perhaps Rudolf Steiner's idea of the Cosmic Christ which can be known in our own consciousness may be more helpful.