I am inclined to spend loads of time thinking about questions, but in writing I think it is important to experiment with lines of thinking. Certainly, I am not trying to say that I have the answers. But I am open to you raising any questions which really stand out because these forum debates do allow for such useful dialogue, so much more than thinking alone.

I just saw your comment to Athena about myths. This is a fascinating area, touched on briefly so far. It will be interesting to hear Athena's view, but I think it would be helpful if you spoke a bit more about the myths you grew up with, because I was mostly brought up with the Christian ones, so I am interested in your experience.

I am sorry if it appears that the discussions seem to focus on Christianity. That is certainly not my intention and I would like it to involve many other traditions. I am interested in the whole area of comparative religion, but more familiar with Christianity because that is the background in which I was raised. I would love people to discuss the other religions and atheist perspective, because this dialogue would be fantastic. Feel welcome to input any ideas of your own because I have certainly not wished to create a thread which is focusing completely on Christianity.

I think that most people who do just adhere to religious beliefs still believe in the existence of evil but they do not see it in exactly the same way, as the devil, but real, nevertheless. It does seem that most secular philosophers still see a basic duality between good and evil. Mill saw human beings as having higher and lower pleasures. T Huxley, who was an agnostic saw conflict and destructiveness as problems.

In the psychoanalytic perspective saw the tension between Eros and Thanatos. These were the life and death forces, but, to some extent to some extent his whole notion of the death instinct seems a bit like evil because it is about destructiveness. He sees life as being about instincts, with the superego being like conscience, with ego mediating between the two.
Perhaps complexes are like inner demons.

Jung certainly saw complexes as being like demons arising from the unconscious. Of course, I am aware that whether to rank Jung as falling into the religious or secular is highly debatable in itself because he wrote so much about religion and evil, and in some places he writes as if he is outside of religion and critical of it, but, at times, he writes as though he is coming from a religious perspective, as expressed in his famous interview quote, 'I don't believe in God, I know.' In some ways, he seems to come from a Gnostic perspective. He was involved in a lot of dialogue with a theologian, Victor White, about the whole problem of evil. Essentially, he seemed to side with the view of evil as a real force, as in contrast to one Christian perspective that evil is simply the absence of good. This was all documented by White in a book, 'God and the Unconscious.'

However, my main point is that it is not necessary to believe in God in order to believe in the existence of evil. That is not to say that all philosophers in the secular tradition necessarily believe in the existence of evil as a force. It is an area worth researching. I would be surprised if many believe in literal demons. Probably a lot of esoteric Eastern philosophers do believe in them. I know that many in the theosophical tradition do.
.

I know that many people believe in four, of five dimensions, at least. The fourth includes time and there is the one of intersubjective experience, as well as the imagination. Carl Jung spoke of the importance of dreams and those coming from the collective unconscious. I do believe that the idea of the collective unconscious is useful for thinking about as a source from which images and stories evolve.

I am not sure if you are taking me too literally, in talking about art leading into other dimensions. With or without, I do feel as if there are other dimensions. It could be the idea of parallel universes spoken by scientists. However, I do believe that there are other dimensions, which do exist and it is from this that ideas and images arise in the first place. I do think that the mythical ideas arise on this level.

I think it would be a very limited philosophy if it was just about telling people what they should do. Philosophy is the whole history of analysis, and is needed for looking at assumptions arising in science. At it's best, philosophy is not about moralising but about looking beneath the surface of all views.

You suggest that conscious evolution is not possible for society but for the individual. Perhaps what may be true is that in past times it was only possible for rare individuals to explore conscious evolution. It could be that with education and technology, that it is becoming possible for more and more people to begin and pursue this possibility. Of course, it is far more than just a matter of having information. It requires a lot of time and energy. I do wonder if the period of self-isolation for great numbers at the present time could give rise to many going in that direction, as a possibility.

My discussion of Jung's ideas about anima and animus was not meant to be a discussion of gender, as construed in the modern world. Jung's ideas were never developed in that context at all, but more in the context of ideas such as Taoism, Plato and other philosophers. He was speaking of the psyche in a philosophical sense.

It is rather limited if people do view history as if people in the past were always in worse conditions. I don't think that approach was necessarily taken when I was taught history at school. There were difficult periods, such as th, but there were great civilisations in the past, especially the Romans, Greeks and Egyptians.

I do think that some people in philosophy circles tend to think of the history of ideas as if the progression of ideas is all progress, but, at the same time, many do appreciate thinkers of the past as having great value, especially Plato, but many others too. We are in the position to look back on the history of ideas but that doesn't make the ideas of our times any superior. Possibly, some scientists may think it does, including some psychologists.

When you compare history with anthropology it does seem to me that the two can be layed out similarly, one across time and the other across cultures geographically. However, I think that in some cases the sense of people viewing anthropology can be viewed with the same imperialistic bias. The West is sometimes viewed as more advanced.

So, you could ask to what extent are we able to look back on history and across cultures and not make assumptions about progress, and with an undercurrent of a sense of superiority? I think that some people are able to do this but, definitely, not everyone. To do so, doesn't just mean that the whole of the past are just evaluated relatively, but just not assuming that one's subjectivity, within time and culture is the supreme point from which to view all else.

It is quite interesting that you do paint because not that many people do. If you do get peak experiences while doing so that is important in it's own right, and you probably don't need to worry about shamanic techniques.

I see meditation as more of a process of attaining higher states of consciousness.I have also experimented a little with astral projection, or rather, I had some out of body experiences accidentally and decided to work with this more.

Art and the arts can be about self expression, but it can also be about entering into different states of consciousness and that is where it is more shamanic. The shamans did sometimes use stimulating herbs, but there are other ways to stimulate this including certain music.

I got up again, because I couldn't sleep, as usual.

One idea which I am familiar with about the gender of the soul is Jung's representation. Everyone has an anima and an animus side to the psyche, which is similar to the idea of yin and yang.The anima, which is the female aspect, is often projected by males onto females as lovers, and the animus, the male part in females is often projected onto males as lovers. This probably works a bit differently in gay and bisexual people. There is a similar idea to the anima in males expressed as the idea of the muse.

Independently of the whole question of world governance, I do think that there is a lot of recurrence between the ideas, as your equation show. Perhaps what is interesting is the whole division between the exoteric and the esoteric. Really, I have taken more interest in the esoteric side of religion than what the main leaders like the Vatican have to say. However, I think I am logging off for tonight because I am really tired, but if you write a reply to this, I will respond tomorrow.

Yes, I will probably interact with you again. It is easy to be up in the night on this site, and I often get up and read messages in the night, which is probably not a very good idea.

I do believe that everything is energy, which is consistent with the new physics and shamanism.I have read quite a bit about shamanism and the writings of Carlos Castaneda. I have heard that Castaneda's writings were probably fiction, but they still are an interesting perspective on reality.

I probably mean entering into mythic dimensions in the arts, in experiencing it or creating it. I read a lot of fiction, including fantasy and in listening to music, mostly alternative music. When I listen to music I usually lie in the dark and visualise to it. I have also experimented in trying to use what Jung describes as 'active imagination', in making art. That involves trying to find symbolism from the subconscious in drawing or painting, sometimes with music. I haven't done it recently but would like to do more of this.

I do agree that the central question is what happens when we die and I have engaged in discussion on that topic on this thread. Really, I see it as about the most important question in philosophy, more so than the existence of God, because if there is life after death it will affect us beyond this life, independent of whether or not there is a God.

I find it hard to come to a solid conclusion. So much does seem to involve the body and mind question in philosophy. I am interested in the whole issue of near death experiences but don't think they can be taken at face value because the person was not dead permanently.I would like to believe in reincarnation too, but just because I like the idea doesn't necessarily mean that I think it is necessarily true. What do you think about life after death?

I see that you mentioned the writer Gary Lachman in one of your posts. I have read a number of books by him and was very impressed by him. He was in the band, Blondie, and married to the lead singer, Debbie Harry, as well. The books which I read by him were on Jung, Madame Blavatsky, Rudolf Steiner, Colin Wilson and one on secret teachers within the Western world. Have you read much in the esoteric tradition?

I don't like discussion to be like wars, as you probably know from my whole thread about people wishing to be right. I do see us as all experimenting with ideas and a certain point of argument seems important to tease out the ideas fully. However, when it all comes down to people becoming really defensive, I end up feeling rather demoralised and depressed. After all, we are just trying to use ideas to serve us and I don't like it to be the other way round. Of course, often religious people have seen the battle being about fighting for the ideas, especially in the Christian tradition it was often viewed as the war of good against evil.

The whole idea of transformation which I am talking about is ways we can work on ourselves, including meditations practices and seek out achieve states of peak experiences for ourselves, rather than just follow rituals.

When I attended Catholic church services there was more of an emphasis on the ecumenical movement between the Christian churches than with other religions in sermons.When at university, I attended services, I went to services in different denominations and encountered a lot of moral panic about the whole idea of the 'new age.' movement.

I am not sure what to make of the idea of a new world order. I do think that there are ideas around about world governance, and I am suspicious of these. It does sound like a whole picture of centralised control. One movement which I am aware of is that of Share International, which was founded by Benjamin Creme, and seemed to propose the idea of a one world government. Personally, I think that there is a lot going on behind the scenes which we don't know about and that worries me.

I wish to suggest that the main idea which I think is central in the individual mythical and spiritual pursuit is that of transformation.

I think that we are in constant stories, some made by others and those made by others. We can be oppressed by them, or transform them into our own stories of empowerment. The mythic dimension is tapped into by the religious but even science involves a certain amount of myth: the missing link of Darwin's theory, neuroscience and so much more. We are in a constant web of fictive truths and knots, trying to find our way within the maze. Sometimes, it is enough to make me just want to crawl under my duvet, but I do believe that we have to get up, and transform our own lives into the best possible stories, of our own making.

Which social truths are you thinking about? The reason I ask about that is because there are ones which are just about conformity. I definitely believe in communicating with others, and you say it's a bit like art, but I see art and the arts as one of highest forms of communication.

I do think that myths can resonate on an archetypal level. However, I do see the danger you speak of about how charismatic leaders can use mythic constructs for their own ends. It is extremely dangerous when myths or religious ideas become 'the opium for the masses'. In that sense, it is extremely important that we hold on to our ability to think for ourselves. Of course, it is easy to retreat into forms of religious thinking to obliterate painful awareness. I prefer to think that rather than being brainwashed we can enter into our own symbolic quests, the journey of the shaman. Of course, that does come with perils but it is about discovering our own mythic truths.

I agree that life is becoming harder and I, myself, find this because I am living in an overcrowded house. It does seem to me, and I think to some others that human civilisation may be coming to some atrocious brink. Personally, I struggle not to get really depressed about it. I do think it is best not to be fatalistic.

We don't know the future ultimately, but have to live our lives day by day, hoping and trying to work towards the best possible options and try to find more sustainable lifestyles, rather than thinking about population reduction. I have not brought anyone into the planet but it does seem that the earth will be inhabited by future generations. I would rather think and work towards their potential inheritance rather than non existence.

Surely, we should be looking for ways for balancing problems arising from overpopulation and,the consequent issues of managing resources, rather than just looking or hoping for some form of mass destruction and extinction. Obviously, we don't really know what is going to happen with future catastrophes, such as pandemics. However, reading your comment, it all makes the whole attempt to stop Covid_19 seem in vain.

What you are saying does make sense. I do believe that on a general people are similar. It does appear that most developing societies have developed some kind of spiritual beliefs, such as exemplified in religious beliefs of the Aboriginal people.Perhaps, this does show that there is some kind of innate need for some religious or spiritual belief system. It is also interesting to see how there are parallels and recurrence of themes in the various traditions of beliefs.

One relevant area for considering is the idea within Frazer's book, ' The Golden Bough', is the development from systems of magic, religion and science. It appears that we have reached all these stages of thinking. Perhaps science has more to offer. However, as long as human civilisation continues to exist, which is contentious in it's own right, we could ask, where do we go from here, what comes next in the evolution of consciousness?

It is hard to know the motives of the writers of the Gospels because there is a lot of dispute about the sources. They were probably written and put together a long time after the time of Jesus's death.

I think that it is worth bearing in mind that this is a discussion forum, so all topics are approached as a matter of opinion. Hopefully, participants have read a certain amount and are giving their best, but it is not a specialised research project, so the discussion is primarily of ideas.

If you had read the various posts which I have written you would see that I am not advocating the Bible as the source for guiding life, but interested in thinking about the issues and questions surrounding religion. Also, my approach to looking at religious experience is one which appreciates the whole field of comparative religion.

Do you not think that part of the problem may be that the word 'soul' is open to critical examination, because it is not just a static entity. My understanding of Eastern thinking is of existence being comprised of layers, or subtle bodies. Identity is related to the ego, which would not survive but that doesn't mean that there is nothing else. The part which goes into the astral plane would probably be the astral body.

I have just looked at your link and the book looks extremely interesting. I have often thought that it was strange that just about all the near death experiences which I have come across are of heavenly realms, light and meeting with loved ones who had died previously. It would make sense for some to be of a hellish nature.

I believe that you are correct to see the New Testament as blending of many traditions, including the Egyptian and Sumerian. This probably isn't acknowledge enough and I don't believe that all the Old Testament writers saw themselves writing literal accounts. We have Psalms, accounts of exiles, and 'The Book of Job', which is like a drama.

I do think your emphasis on 'blending' is one than can be useful. It is more the language of the artist. It may be that philosophy can make use of blending as a concept for putting ideas together, rather than being just about refuting arguments.

Yes, I have some awareness that Buddhism is often seen in a very romanticized way. The idea of rebirth often appeals to many people, although I know that beliefs about rebirth differ. From my understanding, the Buddha was uncertain about rebirth. Of course, he did not write books and most of this is oral tradition, and there are many traditions of Buddhism, just as there are many Christian denominations.

You say about spending time reading the scriptures. I have known people who have attended all kinds of Bible study groups, or even read the Bible cover to cover. Even then, it comes down to interpretation. There are differences between the Gospels and a lot of speculation over who were the real authors, as it is likely that they were written long after the death of Jesus. Apart from anything else, there is the hold field of debates in theology and a lot of questions about how the Bible was put together. So, it is not such an easy task, because even the theologians have a lot of unanswered questions.

The term 'unseen' is one which can be interpreted in many ways, like 'hidden'. These terms can be used by a born again atheist like yourself. On the other hand, that is also the language of the mystical or esoteric philosophers. You might even be a 'mystical atheist.' That seems an interesting concept, like a born again atheist.

You are asking an extremely difficult question really, in asking about the value of myth. It all comes down to perspectives on truth: religious knowledge and myths as 'truth'? How do we evaluate it ultimately. In Kant's system of ideas we have a priori knowledge. Jung suggested 4 ways of knowing: sensation, rationality, feeling and intuition. Perhaps, it is much more even much more complex. Probably, each one of us will come to a slightly different conclusion but I am not saying that it can all be reduced to relativism. I am more of a pluralist, in seeing a picture of competing pictures of truths which we put together and try and make sense of, individually.I think that myths are important, personally, but I recognise that many do not regard the mythic perspective as of great importance.

Sorry for being obscure. What I am trying to say is that myth is a whole perspective or way of viewing experience, incorporating symbols. I am also saying that it is one way of trying to grasp 'truth.'

I think that you are right that the people who explore beyond the accepted norms are often those who have reason to do so, as you have shared in your personal experience. I was pushed to question and go searching through difficult circumstances too, mainly knowing 2 people while I was university, and1 a year later, who committed suicide. I do believe that it is only through truly painful life experiences that most individuals are inclined to really search, because as you have said in previous posts the majority of people would rather settle for the comforts of the norms.