You make some important points and the issue of whether it is biological may be an important one. The primacy of biology may be so central to ideas of essentialism, including the basis of nature and nurture in thinking about free will and even ideas about what is gender. At times, the emphasis on biology may be so strong, as suggested by @Gnomon in his argument about the nature of the division between 'soft' and 'hard' science'. Mental states may be reduced to biology, which may end up with the nature of human imagination being dismissed or seen as a mere 'add on' feature in the nature of consciousness rather than imagination being seen as the an essential aspect, as realised in the numinous states of meditation and artistic creativity.

I have read Nagel' s writing on, 'The View From Nowhere', and found it helpful in thinking of the nature of awareness. It may go back to the epistemological limits of Kant, but in a more specific way. It is not possible to stand outside of consciousness in understanding. In other words, the capacity of 'mind' and the whole scope and nature of mental states may be inherent in the process of philosophical understanding. It may be asked, to what extent is self awareness, both introspection and taking on board more objective measures, essential to all philosophical understanding, even those related to the interpretation of scientific evidence and its role in human understanding?

Your question above is an interesting one because it does involve the one of what constitutes a 'mind'. One interesting discussion may be Gilbert Ryle's analysis of the idea itself and he argues that it may be 'a category mistake', based on the thinking of Descartes.

The problem which I see with this is the reductive thinking which became apparent in the thinking of the pop writing of Daniell Dennett, of 'consciousness as an illusion', which may have become extremely influential in the the understanding of the nature of consciousness and 'mind'. It is extremely reductive and the issue may be that it leaves out the reflective nature of 'mind' as agency, which was also apparent in the determinist psychology of BF Skinner.

The idea of 'mind' may be seen on the basis of behaviour , but also involves inner experience. The distinction between the inner and outer may be an important one, although it is somewhat blurry at times. Also feel free to suggest what you would list as the characteristics of 'mind', which may be important at this time as human intelligence is facing the competition of artificial intelligence. Here, I would argue that the idea of intelligence is a question in the concept of mind. This involves the nature of sentience and its role in human mental and emotional states, as opposed to 'mind' as pure reasoning intelligence.

I have read your initial post and the one you just read, although connecting with some of the links is difficult, or sometimes is difficult to enlarge on my phone. Sometimes, this limits my own responses and I am still inclined towards 'paper books', but realise that the web is a source of so many ideas.

The distinction between hard and soft science is a particularly important area, especially in what may emerge as the 'hard problem of consciousness'. Hard is often equated with science and the understanding of the brain, especially cognitive science.

I remember once weiting in a student essay about the debate as to whether psychology is a science or art. I was inclined to the position that the emphasis upon it being science was limited because if ignores the artistry and metaphysical imagination in inherent conceptions at the core of psychology. I later did some courses which were science based in nursing and saw the limitations of psychology being seen as 'hard science, and this issue may arise in approaches to the nature of 'mind' and consciousness.

I am not wishing to ignore your post previous to the one above. I am simply just going through the replies and the only reason I replied to @180 Proof's post first was because I have more regular interaction with him and it was mainly on this basis that I started the post. I see all posts as being important and do wish to pay attention to them and, besides, the thread topics are for general interaction and not simply dialogue with me.

My software of my phone makes quoting difficult but I am trying to engage fully and hope that your ideas, and everyone else's are appreciated. I will look at your initial response to me now, as I am out in a quiet space.

I am interested by the way in which Sheldrake develops his ideas to explain past life memories. It is consistent with the understanding of past lives by some Buddhist thinkers in which there is more of an underlying continuity of past life forms as opposed to concrete entities and in line with the fluid conception of self. The mistake which some people may make in querying past lives is to think it involves the specific stream of narrative personal identity, or the ego consciousness.

The general understanding is consistent with the relationship between a person and 'other minds', including ancestors and other living people. It is likely to involve a web of system interconnections. This would link with the idea of a collective unconscious, or to choose another philosophical term, intersubjective relationships in nature. It involves the evolution of consciousness in nature.

Some people may grow up with vestiges of past lives. I read, 'Past Lives, Past Masters', by Andrew Weiss, in which he, with no previous belief in reincarnation undertook the hypnotherapy of a patient. It involved the revelation of detailed memories from past lives, leading Weiss to consider the nature of past lives seriously. He ends up concluding that it was unclear if it was based on actual lives lived by the woman and himself or the tapping into the collective unconscious.

I am not sure why the idea of the collective unconscious is rejected by so many. It is at the juncture of 'science and spirituality', as you suggest, and this may be where it seen by many as problematic. I am extremely influenced by Carl Jung's ideas, as you and others on the site may be aware. I don't know why the ideas of Jung are seen as pseudoscience because they give a more flexible idea of 'mind' than many other approaches.

Jung draws upon ideas which may be seen as 'supernatural', which was the objection of Freud, but he does also draw upon ideas of biological naturalism. The idea of the collective unconscious is neither completely biological materialism or idealism, possibly fusing them in a complex way and drawing upon the Platonic idea of archetypes. I found the writings of Anthony Stevens helpful here because he traces such ideas in relation to biology as opposed to some 'supernatural' thought.

Even the idea of the supernatural is open to critical scrutiny, as argued by the biologist, Lyall Watson, in his 'Supernature', who sees the whole approach of extrasensory perception as being problematic when seen as 'paranormal', as opposed to being about the complexity of 'minds' in nature.

Having read your post and the linked one, I would say that I am definitely in favour of reasoned arguments and that is why I read philosophy rather simply books in the 'mind, body and spirit category', which often come with a lack of rigour in thinking.

The area of reason, a priori logic, in conjunction with a posteri logic, evidence, the evidence of empiricism by Kant, is extremely complex. The difficulty may be about putting the two together, which is where speculation comes in. To argue on the basis of one's own experience in making the link is weak and may be contrasted by evidence based knowledge, but even this comes with bias and the critical role of observer in experiments and research. This is where the interpretative leanings, especially in relation to materialism and idealism come in.

I know that you don't subscribe to this clear division and are well read in the approach of substance dualism. This is one way of seeing it of various options, including non dualism and pansychism. I do have a certain amount of sympathy for panpsychism in its argument for rudimentary consciousness underlying all matter and for non dualism, as mind and matter being entwined in a complex interface. This would also go hand in hand with phenomenology, especially the role of intentionality which is at the basis of the role of human consciousness in the overall scheme of understanding.

It is probably true that many people are not interested in neuroscience in their daily lives and beliefs. It is the area of both those who are interested in psychology and philosophy mainly, which is only a certain 'minority', although it does seem that psychology is becoming one of the most popular subjects for study. It is often a choice for both self knowledge and career pathways.

Subjectivity is often the area of psychotherapy and there may be an important aspect in research. However, one's own mind is not possible without some basis in subjectivity. Feedback from others may be useful to some extent in gaining some objectivity through others' perceptions.

It may even lead to an understanding of one's own blindspots but the ego may stand in the way and allow for limited insight into mind and self as a doorway of self awareness and the layers of subconscious which may be masked by the nature of the persona. This may go into the territory of social psychology and and awareness of social processes, including the dynamics of projection.

My question arises because neuroscience has changed the thinking of mind completely. There was so much more of a unity between philosophy and psychology prior to major developments in the twentieth century, in psychiatry as well as psychology. There had been so much mystification about mental states and even attributing mental.illness to 'demon possession. Ideas of biochemistry of the brain and CT scanning changed so much.

So, it may be getting to the point where science almost makes the pictures of nervous system explain everything, with philosophical issues getting missed. Some of the central conceptual issues may still remain at the underpinning of different approaches and cognitive models are often seen as far more accurate theories as opposed to the psychodynamic thinkers. The crossovers between the approaches may be important as well as the empirical approach of evidence.
.

What do you expect from me as I am a psychonaut, so I see myself and others as being spirit. What may make matters worse from your critique of me I do have some sympathy with the idea of a subtle body, or astral body. This is based on some experiences of astral projection, although I realise that such experiences are not to be taken as literally 'out of body', with the body as a container..Nevertheless, I think that there is some 'truth' in the idea of chakras, but it may be a kind of symbolic realm, as opposed to the causal order of the material world.

The concept of spirit is important although Hegel's idea of it as imminent is an important contribution. The idea of spirit is a often associated more with religious viewpoints but the idea of 'manifestation' is a relevant concept because it implies something as a source of life, and that may be the central basis of belief in 'God', but not necessarily in the form of the anthromorphism. It is more along the lines of the anthropic principle.

The idea of radio broadcast is important and it is as if the brain and senses are the machinery of consciousness. It does go back to the issue of whether the brain and nervous system are a filter as in Bergson' s thinking, which was drawn upon by Aldous Huxley in 'The Doors of Perception'.

I have read Sheldrake and found his approach interesting with the idea of morphic fields as a memory underlying nature. At the time of reading his writing I did think his perspective would be a foundation for belief in reincarnation, even though I am unsure if Sheldrake would go that far.

The dialogue between Buddhism and neuroscience is also important and I understand that the debate about physicalism and idealism exists within Buddhist thought. It is probably hard to ignore the basis of physical embodiment in the scientific sense because so much about the brain, with the main issue being whether mind can be reduced to brain entirely. The consciousness may have a certain transcendent nature.

It is not that I don't see the body as essential to existence. After writing the thread I have become physically unwell, with a sore throat and possibly a fever. It would be a mistake to separate such bodily illness from mind. Dualism may be an illusion, but it does come down to whether mind or matter is primary and Sartre's 'Being and Nothingness' does describe the centrality of body for being.

Disembodied existence most probably doesn't make sense in many ways, although at times I am not certain of this. I do believe that ghosts are disturbances in energy fields rather than the literal souls. However, there does appear to be an essential lifeforce, like the spark of consciousness or animation. Of course, this is not unique to human beings, but mind as in reflective consciousness separates humans. It is bound up with language and this gives rise to ideas, although it is possible that the ideas exist independently of human consciousness. That is debatable though, as indicated in the recognised question as to whether there is a sound of a tree falls and no one is around to hear it.

That's useful to know as I was reading, 'The Language Instinct'. It may show my weakness based on reading about Pinker's ideas and attempts to put ideas into categories, especially thinkers such as Pinker and Dennett. I hope that this does not mean that my entire thread will be dismissed because as far as I see it the question of what is inherited as 'mind', is a central area of thinking underpinning all psychological theories.

The argument could definitely be used to support religious beliefs. Strangely, Tipler said that he wasn't convinced of the existence of God. It seems like it was all about thinking of physics and the nature of possibilities.

One book which I read a couple of years ago was Frank Tipler's ' The Physics of Immortality'. In this, the author argued that a resurrection could be simulated, through means of a computerised artificial intelligence. It drew upon Teilhard de Chardin's idea of the 'omega point', as signifying both God and eternal life. There is some ambiguity in the book as to whether such a resurrection would involve an actual computer or not, with 'God' almost being the absolute 'computer'.

However; the author, in spite of his arguments says that he isn't really convinced of the actual reality of an afterlife in simulated form. He also suggests that the 'resurrection' would probably be very different from that imagined by many religious believers. I found it an interesting read, at least.

There is so much conflict about what an afterlife may consist of within various traditions and a lot may be projections of fear or fantasies of bliss, especially in the division between heaven and hell. Ideas may be based on near death experiences and other altered states of consciousness, which may have been inspiration for 'The Tibetan Book of the Dead', and similar texts.

However, apart from that there is so much conflict between beliefs about the role and existence of the body. In Christianity there is a conflict in the belief in immortality of the soul, going back to Plato's thinking, and the idea of the resurrection of the body on the Day of Judgment. There is also some fuzziness around the concept of the 'body' in the New Testament, with emphasis being upon the resurrection of the body being physical and St Paul speaking of a resurrection body as spiritual. This may suggest that the mind-body question has been an enduring philosophy problem.

This problem may be partly resolved by the idea of reincarnation in Eastern thought, because the 'afterlife' is only a temporary state of 'disembodiment', while the astral body exists prior to the new physical body. However, even within the various systems of Eastern thought there is a fuzziness, especially around the concept of 'Nirvana', as to whether it is a temporary or permanent release from the cycle of rebirth.

The biggest problem is that it is so speculative, with no real clear evidence, which is why so many people do not believe in an afterlife at all, especially in the dominance of physicalism.

The duality of life is central to all life and progression. Even with the mythic account in Genesis of the fall, the 'sin' was necessary for the unfolding of history itself. Evil as well as good are aspects of the very existence of life.

The issue of perfection as emphasised in Christianity may be contrasted by the idea of the 'middle way' in Buddhist ethics. However, it is an inevitable that human beings may go to extremes in searching. Balance is not found easily, without lived experience of mistakes made. This may be an unfortunate aspect of life, with people experiencing so much suffering on account of their own or others' mistakes.

The tension between order and chaos is complicated in politics. Anarchism and utopianism may sit together or apart from one another. Even the division between capitalism and socialism is far from straightforward and Marxism may shown the ridiculous nature of this based on Marx's idea that oppression is a positive in the way it will lead to uprising.

The nature of conformity vs rebellion is a central theme underlying religious systems and political ones, and where ethics arises in this. It can even be asked, to what extent are ethics and politics complementary or in opposition? Politics may be based on ideals of goodness or or on the basis of protection of self interest. I guess that rebellion may be about self interest or the search for justice.

Also, you mention pirates and witches. Such ideas and examples show the way in which people are viewed. In the past, there were witch hunts, which may have had variable concepts of what constitutes a 'witch'. Outlaws and rebels may be treated in various ways and may often become scapegoats. There is so much projection of 'evil' onto others and this may involve the tensions between opposites in oneself.

Your way of thinking of the idea of rebellion is interesting because it is so different from the political one. As a child, I definitely saw rebellion as being about the nature of good and evil. I was brought up as a Catholic and while adopting that approach and being 'confirmed' at age 11, before I had begun to think of questioning, I saw the idea of rebelling as being equated with sin. I was brought up with the idea of the 'fall of the angels', and the consequent fall of humanity from a state of innocence and grace.

My shift in the way I saw rebellion came while studying sociology 'A' level and especially the topic of 'deviance' and the way in which the label of being a deviant often marks a career of deviant behaviour. It was while studying this that school friends of mine, who were not studying sociology, began telling me that I was a deviant.

The aesthetic aspect of ideas of rebellion are also an important aspect. I am aware of a battle within myself over order and chaos. When I make art I do this in a precise detail as opposed to some who make more chaotic art. On an art based course, someone saw my art as being about control and order. The funny aspect is that I am untidy and chaotic in daily life, even when I try to keep things tidy. The balance between order and chaos is intricate and even chaos theory in physics sees an emergent order from chaos and the rave music makers drew upon this. In music, the tension between chaos and order is so strong and even in punk culture there is designer punk, which is a marketed hype and so different from the original punk mode of expression.

I think that it is problematic to try to describe oneself as being or not being an existentialist. Having read the ideas of some of the writings, such as Camus, Nietzsche and Sartre, I embrace some aspects of the philosophy, possibly the nature of existentialist anxiety, but I wouldn't go as far as to define myself as an existentialist, anymore than I embrace aspects of Buddhism but don't call myself a Buddhist.

Labels of philosophical thinking are useful for navigating ideas but not in a boxed way. I am often left perplexed by equal opportunities parts of forms, asking about religion. I often end up ticking the 'other' box and thinking that an essay would be more appropriate. It may be that the spirit of existentialism is opposed to boxes and labels, in the pursuit of freedom itself.

One important perspective in thinking of this topic is that of Owen Jones, in, 'The Establishment: And How They Get Away With it' (2015). The idea of the establishment may be an important assumption underlying that of rebellion and it suggests that there is more to the idea of the establishment as a mere conspiracy. Jones argues that it involves 'shared economic interests and common mentalities' as 'an organic, dynamic system. He is writing with specific reference to Britain but it is likely that his general perspective applies to many other nations.

He sees the idea of the system, rather than power itself as being the issue. It is based on protecting the interests of those at the top of the hierarchy and connected to non- liberalism and values of individualism in the 'freedom' of the free-market economy. It is 'cemented by financial links and a "revolving door" culture: that is, powerful individuals gliding between the political, corporate and media worlds.' It goes beyond the power of specific political parties.

I find Jones' critique useful for understanding what appears to be happening in the real world. My own sense of rebellion seems bound up with a rejection of the values of neo-liberalism. However, it is not simply about economics but about an approach to life and being outside of the system. It may be why I cannot get a job and, even when I did I never really fitted into the corporate system. I think that this applies to many people too.

Some may see the 'establishment' as a mythic assumption and I have toyed with the idea of this but do see it as being something which does exist to a large extent. It is hard to know how far to go though, because I know that some believe that there is a 'government blacklist'. I am inclined to think that may not exist as such, although in this information age there is probably so much stored information about individuals anyway, which may be accessed by official bodies, especially with the aid of artificial intelligence.

From what I have seen, in England, obedience to authority, and authoritarianism is becoming the norm. Rebels as protestors, even with an important cause for justice, are viewed as troublemakers in the news. So much is about following policies, with little question.

The twentieth century had so much activism for the quest for liberation for women, black people and LGBTIQ people. Bertrand Russell and Peter Singer, as philosophers, were active in the causes of peace and justice. It seems that there has been a backlash in general, with those who question authorities and power being accused of being 'woke'.

It may be about swings backwards and forwards, and an overall despondency about the problem of climate change as such an immense problem. The idea that human beings have 'messed up' may curb the ethos of rebellion and lead to a wish for leaders and politicians to be able to provide solutions. Despondency may destroy the positive aspects of the spirit of rebellion.

MIlgram's study of obedience to authority was particularly striking in showing how people were willing to give electric shocks when ordered to do so. The blind following of orders may have so much dangers for the capabilities for human beings to be led to atrocities by following leaders, such as Nazism. This is also of significance for potential totalitarian regimes.

The philosophy of consciousness as an illusion and determinism also gives rise to a belief that there is no choice. The contrast to lack of free choice is critical thinking. Lack of consciously chosen ideas and subversity may be a juxtaposition. It is likely that each person's course of development of these aspects of thought run a slightly different course in life. The rebel may retire and the conformist may seek alternative ways of thinking and, it may be philosophy which enables this navigation in the best possible ways in seeing beyond ideologies and subtexts beyond generalisations and assumptions about the status quo, life and the world.

It was not my intention to focus on the psychosocial aspects of rebellion exclusively. In the outpost I mentioned Camus' idea of metaphysical rebellion which I have often found to be an interesting idea. One possibility is suicide, although it may be not be the most creative form of rebellion. Another form of metaphysical rebellion would be that of transhumanism because it is about going beyond the limits of biology.

Generally, I am interested in the philosophy of existentialism, which was developed in the tradition of romanticism. The existentialists were interested in the way in which individuals can create their own chosen destinies rather than being slaves to tradition and authorities. Rebellion, in its creative form may be about authenticity and finding one's 'true' self, rather than conformity to social conventions. This may have been the basis for bohemianism and artistic freedom of expression.

Another aspect may be Foucalt's criticism of ideas about ideas of 'normality' and power structures. This gave rise to the deconstruction of ideas of power and ideas of 'normality', which was important in sociological thinking and the understanding of the nature of the social construction of reality. Rebellion may involve inversions of social conventions and social change.

People who are in the most dire predicaments may have more reason to rebel. Those who are disadvantaged or treated badly may have difficulty seeing the principles behind rules. Also, children seeing lying and hypocrisy may have a less clear sense of moral integrity.

The idea of the Gospel 'figure' of Jesus, and I say figure because it is narrative, was definitely a rebel as he saw the hollow aspects of adherence to rules, such as the behaviour of the Pharisees. Even though in Christendom there may be a return to hollow morality as behaviour of 'the herd', this is really not in accordance with the centre of Christian ethics. In some ways, he may have been more in line with Nietzsche's transvaluation of values and mere conformity to social rules and conventions. It is also unlikely that he would have been a capitalist, especially as he taught that , 'It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into the kingdom of heaven'.

I am sorry that my reply seemed confusing. It is not that I disagree with your argument about fighting injustice. It is just where the personal comes into it. Moral ideas may be part of it but ego plays a role too, but in variable ways. There is even attachment to ideas as being part of identity. That comes in with patriotic conformity, political and religious allegiances. Political views and angles involve one's personal circumstances and valued ideas.

Human beings aren't completely rational, although it may be important to strive for a rational basis of ethical concern and justice. Some of it may come down to the moral system which one has been socialised into, without questioning. Also, it is possible to rebel in the form of criminality, especially if one is in a marginalised position and feels unable to achieve goals through adhering to social norms.

The idea of authority does play a critical factor and authoritarianism. The nature of authoritarianism involves parents and other significant figures. Often, religious beliefs protect the power of authority. Religious ideas were bound up with the rise of the patriarchy. Often religious ideas are a way of mystifying the social order.

People are socialised with ideological assumptions as a subtext, and often the questioning of assumptions, and the social order is seen as dangerous. The whole nature of political philosophy involves looking behind the assumptions of political structures and ideological assumptions. This questioning in itself may be the beginning of rebellion.

I am glad that you appreciate the problematic area of conformity as being about fitting in rather than as a form of protest. There is a need for protest as a fight against injustice but the problem of conformity is about to what extent a person is able to be automated as opposed to unique. I once was in a work situation where I was in told that I simply needed to be almost identical to the person who I was replacing. I saw that as problematic because I was a different individual.

I have found that there is often an attempt to expect people to be so robotic. The example I gave above about the person I was replacing is often glossed over with the idea of transferability of skills. However, it does often mean a lack of value of individual uniqueness and individual voice, especially in corporate organisations. People are seen as numbers rather than the embracing of difference in abilities and in disposition.

Some people seem to be more able to be able to conform naturally. Certainly, I am not a blender and even when I wore a school uniform I always looked untidy. It is not just about rules but about roles too. It may come down to socialisation to some extent.

It is likely that the idea of rebellion for it's own sake without thought of morality and ends would be problematic. Freedom and flourishing are a goal of life for most people and the attempts to curb freedom are often the source of legitimate ideas of rebellion or protest.

The idea of human rights involves an understanding of protesting about lack of freedom. Law itself is a way of finding a reasoned approach for thinking about objections to injustice. The idea of the social contract is a basis for justice but there are often situations which involve the abuse of power. In that sense, the notion of rebellion or protest is a starting point for keeping the idea of freedom.or flourishing as a fluid area for change in connection with the variables of life.

Actually, the reason why I introduced the term 'antidestablishmentarian' was because it was a word made in 'Scrabble' by the facilitator of the creative writing group, as a prompt. We had some discussion about what it meant and whether it was about conformity, or the opposite.

It does seem bound up with ideologies, and is another ism, which can be generalised stances, of putting things into boxes, especially for labelling them as right or wrong. This happens so much in ideas of political correctness and black and white thinking.

Your question of whether a person rejects a 'system' or is rebelling due to personal status is important? Equally, this applies to conformity too. It is also questionable to what extent a person may able to discern their own motivations. The biggest test may be in the light of a change of circumstances and status. Will the rebel turn 'mainstream' after being given status and will the conformist stick to the norms after social downfall?

You make an important point about consumer culture and the making of the 'rebel', and this may be where postmodernism had a major role in the glamour of the rebel, ranging from David Bowie, John Lennon, Kurt Cobain and so many others, who represent anti heroes.

The glamour of rebellion may be seductive. However, there may be a difference between those who are into the glamour of romanticism as an end and those who challenge the cultural norms, although this may be clearly obvious or subtle.

Of course, rebellion does vary so much according to the culture and tradition one belongs to. The whole idea of 'the system' and 'establishment' is fluid. After postmodernism, an understanding of cultural and moral relativism, allows for more tolerance of differences, in theory at least, because there are cultural wars, even on this forum. There may be the left and right wing, the anarchists and utopians, as well as other forms of extremists, who may cast the 'opposite' opinion as being the rebellious one, according to the who is viewed as being in power.

It is interesting to think of the different meanings of rebels and rebellion. It does involve a lot about ethics and political frameworks. I am aware that you are in America and it is likely that ideas of rebellion vary from culture to culture, as do ideas of deviance.

In some ways, in any culture it is possible to be a rebellious through mere difference from the norm, as passive or active. The stance of criminals may often be seen as rebels but even then thers may be a difference between a rebel without a cause and one with a specific aim. The criminal may be viewed very differently from the conscious political activist.

With the criminal, there is the question of how much is choice, and whether a criminal is born or made, az it may come down to genetics or socialisation, or about freely chosen behaviour.

As far as political rebels, there are also major differences. Some may challenge engage in violence, such as terrorists and others may be non- violent, such as Gandhi. A person may choose to lay down their own life in the name of a cause, such as the Suffragettes and even Socrates was a martyr for his philosophical beliefs..If anything, in the twentieth first century, there is more of an emphasis on fighting for one's rights as opposed to dying for them.

Also, I am asking to what extent do you see yourself as a rebel? Or do you value conformity and sticking to rules? Even with law there is the question of complying with the letter or spirit of laws. How do you see this dichotomy between conformity and rebellion in your own value system and approach to life?

I am still inclined to think that volition in daydreaming and fantasizing is possible as an aspect which can be developed. It is not simply about whether one goes on to theoretical metaphysical analysis, but about the way in which one approaches thoughts and images. In particular, moral ideas may come into play. For example, I was brought up to believe that malicious thoughts were to be avoided, so if I am having such fantasies I am likely to try to avoid indulgence of such fantasies.

However, it is not clearcut, as suggested by the way Jungian view of archetypes and their power. It is not possible to always push aside 'unwanted',thoughts and fantasies. To fight the dark thoughts and fantasies may make them stronger. My understanding of the images of gargoyles in churches was about the attempt to rid the mind of evil. The 'shadow' aspects of consciousness may have some kind of autonomy and to wrestle with the images may not always work. So, mindfulness may be involved in trying not to exercise the feared fantasies, but not being carried away with it.

After all, to fantasise or daydream is different from action in itself and the scope of fantasy and daydreams may be important in the choices of actions in life. A person may daydream with passivity or some active reflectivity. Both dreams and daydreams may provide a background for reflection upon choices of actions in daily life.

I am glad that you relate the nature of dreams to the creative processes, as the relevance of dream experiences may have been so essential. This goes back to the role of mythic understanding and the creation of art and science. It may be about intuition and moments of insight.

The surrealists incorporated the nature of dreams into their art work. Personally, I have attempted to draw images from my dream experiences but getting the details of the images correct in the aftermath is extremely difficult. This may be why people experiment or attempt to achieve altered states of consciousness. Dreams are a doorway into the imagination and the crossover between the right and left hemispheres of consciousness.

The nature of volition in daydreaming may be more of a spectrum. It is possible to be extremely passive in the process or involved in an active way. This involves the extent of freedom in thinking itself and the processes of reflection. It may vary so much between individuals and at different times.

For example, I know that at some moments I seem to have more active control over my imagination than at other moments. Under stress, I find my negative imaginary fears seem to run wild. The bodlily processes may come into play and dreamless sleep may be important for thinking of the retreat of ego consciousness.

Your mention of 'daydreaming' is important as being connected to the imaginary aspect of dreaming but different. Daydreams are chosen which is so different from those which arise spontaneously during sleep. Will and volition enter into daydreams, although it is possible to have intrusive negative fantasies while waking.

The issue of conscious control is of importance though and some people have the ability to be able to navigate such experiences in the form of lucid dreaming. This may be an art, involving awareness that one is dreaming and be almost akin to meditation.