Your argument for the existence of ideas as they are thought and expressed is an interesting one. It reminds me of what a tutor once said in a class 'Ideas don't exist unless they are expressed and are only in one's head'. Some people in the class were rather horrified by what the tutor said, but it may capture something of the intersubjective aspects of thoughts and ideas.

Apart from exchange of ideas in conversation and writing, however, there is the repetition of ideas throughout cultures and history. Even though there are many languages there is an almost universality of concepts, such as good, evil, morality and time. This may be down to innate ideas. Alternatively, it could be down to underlying factors in all human experiences of life.

What I mean by the idea of 'mere partial perspectives' are viewpoints which differ from one another and are relative. It may be that each human being's unique way of thinking reflects such partiality and relativity of knowledge and understanding.

It's possible that any confusion in my posts is on account of stress, because it can lead to muddled thinking. However, it would probably be going too far to describe me as 'psychotic' or 'deluded'.

If anything, I see it as arising in connection with muddles in the philosophy of ideas, going back to ancient thought. For example, I have some kind of resonance with Plato's theory of forms; this in itself is incongruent with so much of twentieth-first century thinking. The question for me would be whether both the ancients and philosophy after postmodernism, analytic philosophy and Wittgenstein, have mere partial perspectives? The same applies to the division between science and art, as well as between the secular and spiritual viewpoints...?

Your further clarification of Berkley's consideration of the tree in the forest is useful. It would be a human fallacy to think that it is only a person who is able to perceive sounds. This is likely to be an anthropocentric fault in philosophy. Language is the way humans process experiences, with the formation of concepts, but it does not mean that it the only possible way. For example, it is possible to form visual representations of ideas and this itself is likely to have come first in human culture, such as in symbolic representations.

To go beyond one's 'awareness' would be like becoming some -kind-of-all-knowing- mind-of-'God' state of consciousness. So much of everyday awareness is based on the consensus views of others as a means of confirmation. Even with a sense of mortality, it is based on the deaths of others and empirical observations, as opposed to the awareness of experiencing ultimate death itself.

I do plan to reply to the other responses. However, I am just changing my title question from 'real' to 'surreal' because I am thinking that may be more interesting. That is because it is a possible way of reframing ideas in the metaphysical imagination.. What do you think? Does it make sense, as opposed to seeing language and symbols in a concrete ways, or is just trying to avoid the nature of clear and critical thinking?

I am aware that 'real' is a human construct. This is the case whether one adheres to a philosophy of idealism or realism, or materialism. The concept of 'real' is a bit like that of 'truth' and may only be seen as definitive if seen from a standpoint of absolutist philosophies.

I am not sure that using the term 'thing' introduces any further clarity than the word 'reality'. When you say that the topic is verbal, I would argue that a lot of it comes down to language and its limits, as Wittgenstein suggested as constituting the 'limits of one's world'.

One of the main reasons why I gravitate towards the idea of non-dualism is because it makes a case for the two being conjoined. Also, panpsychism suggests different subtle degrees of consciousness than the classical mind-body arguments of dualism.

Also, I am aware that substance dualism is far less dualistic, but even that involves interpretation. That is why I go back to the initial issue, asked by Berkley, as to whether ideas are mind-dependent. I am also aware of the relevance of the perspective of phenomenology. But, even that doesn't explain consciousness itself and whether that is the source of both what is termed as mind and matter in the dualistic split of human thinking.

Thank you!

I definitely don't wish to derail my own thread by discussion of rioting. But, yes I fear what will follow. This is another 'What happens next...?' in real life dramas.

As far as catharsis and pleasure as an antidote, it is about the cathartic emotions on a symbolic as opposed to literal one. For example, I sometimes listen to'dark' music, such as metal, emo and goth which I find pleasure in as a form of release of angst. Some people take the view that the 'dark' aspects of the arts, like porn, is likely to generate 'dark' behaviour, such as violence. It may be that it would have some negative effects to one's mental health to indulge in dark entertainment always. However, it may be about balance, such as the need for both tragedy and comedy in drama. The symbolic expression of sex and violence in the arts is so different from its translation into such expression in human behaviour.

I can tell you how pleasure as an antidote to suffering works for me. It was during and after a period in which 3 friends of mine committed suicide that led me to the path of sex, drugs and rock'n'roll. It was part of the quest for understanding, but it was also part of my attempt to indulge in pleasure as the only way which I could see to cope with the misery of the tragedies of the deaths of my friends.

Your quote and inclusion of the Scottish perspective on the riots is interesting. My own one is that they express a lot that is going on in the political unconscious in the UK. It comes at a time of mixed fear and optimism with a change of government. The right may fear that so much may change while others are hoping for change, especially from poverty and 'the cost of living' crisis.

Of course, there is the end to the plans to deport illegal immigrants which the Conservative government had begun. Also, there may be issues around religion as opposed to skin colour, especially Islam. So much has changed since the time of Muslims being seen as potential terrorists but there may be remnants of this, just as the Antisemitism is being expressed. It involves scapegoating and at the core of catharsis. But, of course there is the dynamic of the counterprotests, which is the more left wing ventilation protest about so much misery and suffering.

Thanks for your reply because I have almost abandoned my thread in the last few days. That is because I am so stressed out as I found out this week that the place where I am living is probably going to be repossessed this week. I know that it is horrible (bed bugs) but I went through a repossession eviction a year and a half ago which was so stressful...

One of the ways which is see trajedy and pleasure is that pleasure may be an antidote to suffering. The quote you gave from@Wayfarer regarding hedonism is interesting. The issue of perfectionism in religion has often led to repressed pleasure.

Going back to Freud's ideas, catharsis involves sexuality but trauma too. It also involves the whole spectrum of love and hatred, with aggression sometimes being a source of cathartic pleasure.

I am wondering about this in relation to the outbreak of the current outbreak of riots in the UK. In some ways it is the opposite to the Brixton riots which were based on opposition to racism. Rioting may be the expression of deep anger and hatred, like the expression of primordial anger of the tribe in the form of cathartic aggression in real life as opposed to in the form of the arts.

Yes, poor Freud has been ignored here a bit. I see his thought as vital, especially as the art therapy course I did was based so much on his psychodynamic theory. A lot of people are put off his thinking, based on the emphasis he places on sexuality and the idea of the Oedipus complex. I see the Oedipus complex as rather restrictive and his viewpoint can be seen as sexist.

However, the emphasis he placed on sexuality had a profound influence on culture and dealing with the repression of sexual aspects of life. It may be central to pleasure itself and it would be hard to imagine trajedy without a sexual aspect. The nature of trajedy itself may be about the way in which sexuality causes conflict and potential destruction. His philosophy, which drew upon mythology, emphasised the tension between Eros and Thanatos, the life and death drives/instincts.

Also, the whole idea of catharsis was central to his perspective on therapy. The idea was that the ventilation of emotional expression is the road to 'cure'. This was based on his work with patients. The problem which I see is that it does not always follow that ventilation of emotions and traumatic experiences will lead to a cure and the CBT therapists see him psychodynamic therapy as placing too much emphasis on the past.

The other important idea in his work is that of sublimation, especially in expression of the arts. This is particularly relevant for thinking about the pleasure of trajedy. It is possible to channel the nature of the sexual into creativity. This also was suggested in Tantric philosophy. With suffering, in general, sublimation may enable transformation on a mythic and aesthetic level, and from what I have observed in the arts therapies, this is an area for reframing human experiences.

I am sure that Shakespeare( or whoever he was) was a great psychologist, as were the Greek playwrights. Of course, this was before philosophy and psychology became so divergent fields during the twentieth century. It is likely that they still unite in fiction and drama in spite of the academic division.

Nuttall does discuss Shakespeare, mainly focusing on 'King Lear', which was the Shakespeare play which I studied in most depth in English literature. Nuttall says,
'In 'King Lear' the game of death is played very hard_ even to the point of making us aware that all the stately signals of formality are frail, that the rules of language and hypothesis, which make it, still, a game and not death itself, are only temporary defenses...I have stressed the word "nothing" and the destruction of authoritative sequences. I do not believe that the play is morally nihilist. The words "good" and "evil" mean not less but more to one who has just watched King Lear'.

Certainly, I can remember that studying King Lear' at school opened up my philosophical imagination so much, especially in thinking about suffering and the nature of good and evil. Shakespeare's trajedies(and comedies) have probably had such a cultural influence in thinking, making him(or Francis Bacon or whoever wrote the plays) a significant philosopher as well as playwright.

I have discovered that Nuttall does draw refer to George Steiner's ideas, saying that Steiner suggested that the 'starkest suffering was 'hallowed" in trajedy'. Nuttall also quotes CS Lewis:
'Can we wholly avoid the suspicion that trajedy as Mr Steiner conceives it is our final attempt to see the world as it is not.'
In addition, Nuttall argues that tragedy may involve 'subliminal pain through the low magic of a formal usurpation, glorifying the inglorious.'

Trajedy may involve building pictures of good and evil. One interesting aspect of this which Nuttall points to is the question as to whether a tragedy is the whole picture or about happy or unhappy endings to stories.

The moral aspect of bed bugs is connected to assumptions about dirt. In a similar way, I understand moral panic as being involved in the example of Aids being about assumptions about gay sexuality. The moral aspect may involve moral judgements and generalised assumptions.

The advice about Covid-19 was helpful at times, although some of the contradictions and lack of clarity seemed to show that the leaders were so uncertain themselves.

As as writing about difficult experiences is concerned, there is philosophy of understanding it, therapeutic writing about it, as well as fiction and other creative writing about is as an art form. These are separate angles but may be blended effectively. There is fiction which explores philosophy ideas as well as creative fiction. The division between therapeutic and creative writing is a different approach but it is possible to do both.

Personally, I would love to write more fiction. Previous to finding this forum in lockdown, I used to go to writing groups and I have started doing so again. Often, I end up writing real life experiences and people often seem surprised, asking, 'Did that really happen?' I know that a lot of real authors blend personal experiences and fictive elements together. Such fiction probably is also a way of reframing difficult and tragic life events in a meaningful way.

It is very likely true that people don't want 'deep' entertainment all of the time. Generally, I want depth in general. For example, I do care what lyrics in music I listen to but I have moments when I listen to lighter 'pop' and alternative music. Generally, I am more needy of 'deep entertainment' when low in mood or having a lot of difficulty in life. It is a little like the House of Love's song 'The Beatles and The Stones', which says, 'The Beatles and the Stones put the V in Vietnam, made it good to be alone..'

The creative arts and entertainment have so many different purposes. It is true that we are oversaturated by them, which may lead to them being not as significant as they could be for many. They blur into the background of the stimuli of life experiences.

The idea of 'restful, contemplative art' is so different from what is considered as entertainment; which may be more about distraction. So much of consumer orientated materialist art as entertainment may be about a shallow form of catharsis, as switching off from real life as opposed to deeper consideration and contemplation of it. This may be an obstacle for those who want to make art and see art as inherent in everything. It probably means that the challenge for those who engage in arts is to enable an audience to participate in the art of seeing itself.

The dramas of news affect us as spectators but also impact on us so much. It as if the news tells us 'what is next' in many respects. In the time of the pandemic it was a case of watching news to see what was permitted with the changing guidelines. It was also the unveiling of tragedies of deaths throughout the world, with everyone being at risk potentially and responsible for action in not spreading the virus.

Even now, it is possible that there is a moral panic about contamination, even in conjunction with bedbugs rising. The bugs may be arising due to poor housing conditions and overcrowding, with many buying secondhand furniture. Nevertheless, there is still a certain amount of stigma attached to the problem and moral panic, with people being urged to have chemical sprays which are more probably more harmful than the bugs themselves. Sorry for going off in a rant about bed bugs and it is because a new infestation of them has occurred in the last few day in the shared house where I am living. They are unpleasant but the group of us have already had many chemical sprays and it is as if landlords can impose all kinds of regimes in accommodation to protect their property. Only 2 weeks ago I was rather shocked to find that CCTV cameras had been installed in the communal kitchen and I am not sure why. It feels rather Orwellian.

Being based in Britain it does feel like a question of what happens next with the change of government. There is so much poverty, concerns about the benefit system, healthcare and housing and uncertainty. The uncertainty of daily life and the future is throughout the world, especially with climate change. Also, with all the images of suffering in the news there is a danger of people becoming desensitised to it as if suffering is the new 'normal'.

The experience of personal dramas occurs within the context of this wider narrative. The outer dramas also interact with the inner life. Personally, I find that too much drama in real life gets in the way of creative activities, like creative writing and stories It can be as if the outer dramas consume too much inner energy. Of course, the challenge may be to be creative in channelling the difficulties of life into forms of art, but it not an easy task at all.

Saying that, a certain amount of humour may help in balancing the unpleasant aspects of life. In many respects, life may be a tragicomedy.

The idea of partaking in performance is important and that may be the appeal of so many shows, including live music. A lot of this may be becoming lost as people become immersed in digital media, in isolation as opposed to community participation.

With this in relation to trajedy, what may occur is that people participate in the experience of trajedy as if they are living and growing through it. In that way, one becomes the hero of trajedy. That is not to dismiss the individual who is alone reading, listening or looking at art, but some of the underlying process of transformation may be a little different than when it is done with the connectiveness in performance participation.

Thanks for your detailed response. The most striking aspect of what your post raises is how do the tragic in art and the art of living interact. What may be worrying is that in spite of the potential within art for catharsis and wisdom through artistic expression it may be not going in the right direction. That is because the tragic dramas are being externalised in life in so much conflict, especially so many devastating war situations. It is possible that news in the media is becoming the new tragic drama, rather than individuals' inner journeys taking them to the place of 'better', or ethical living. People may be becoming spectators of the tragic aspects of life through the cultural consumption of manufactured media news.

The Dionysian aspects of catharsis show how tragedy and ecstasy may be interconnected. I see this as being about the process of transmuting the darkness or finding the sublime within it. In some ways, this is similar to the quest of the shaman, who journeyed to underworld and upperworld regions. This involved the process of healing and art for the people by the shamans who may have been 'medicine men' or performers.

Of course, times have changed and what art satisfies is so variable. So much has changed with postmodern values and aesthetics. Also, there is so much choice with people to choose from the whole of history and global perspectives. It can be daunting or it can be an exciting adventure. It makes the search for what works to appeal to the depths of one's own life dramas and quest a personal quest. In previous times, what was considered as important in art, drama, literature and writing may have been more of a group quest whereas it is becoming interconnected with the pursuit of the inner life.

My understanding of the argument that Aristotle's picture of catharsis as being different from physicalism is that he came from a different worldview. Even though he brought the idealism down to the world of causes he was still basing his ideas on the ancient worldview primarily. The idea of catharsis and purgation of humours is so different to the understanding of physiology. It would involve balance through bloodletting. Such practice would not make sense today apart from for people who suffer from the blood disorder of polycythemia, who are often advised to donate blood.

Your understanding, based on Artaud, of drama as involving the some expression of savage aspects of life is consistent with Freud. It goes back to the ritualistic aspect of life, including religious rites. Drama performance, with the live element, is like a ritualistic celebration. It may involve some kind of channelling of taboo aspects of human nature in a socially acceptable form. It may also be an expression of anger at life's injustices as opposed to the celebration of the joyful aspects of life.

The books which you speak of sound interesting. It does seem that it is harder to get a glimpse of the nature of trajedy in the commercialised West. So much of drama and cinema is about sensation. I actually prefer going to see drama rather than watch films because it feels like a participation in the problem dealing with suffering, death and difficult emotions rather than superficial glamour. It is likely that the mythic depths are still present amidst the glamour, but some may get lost. That may be why fiction may still have an important role to play in dealing with existential experiences, because story remains the essential aspect.

What I find really useful about your post is that it looks not simply at the audience experience of art and trajedy but the process of art making and suffering. Artists and writers may be able to work with the raw material of suffering to create a profound vision. Audiences may be able to partake and participate in the masterpieces of this.

It is likely that the art of Van Gogh appeals to so many because he created a profound visual worldview amidst suffering. Of course, the life of a writer and artist may contribute to an enigma.

I studied art therapy and it does seem that the creative arts can be a way of living with suffering and the injustices of life. Both the making and appreciation of art forms may be a way of processing life experiences.

I have just seen your post and others, which I will look at properly tomorrow. However, what I do wish to say immediately is that the reference to Fuller, as opposed to Nuttall, on many occasions is a bad typo error. So, I apologise and will correct it in my outpost tomorrow morning. Thanks for pointing it out to me.

As I am aware that my summary of Nuttall's discussion may not have been full enough for critical discussion, I will add this quote on why the weakness of Aristotle's outlook as opposed to that of Nietzsche or Freud is that Aristotle's account, 'seemed to place its emphasis on form, and, on the palpable unreality of trajedy.' Nuttall goes on to suggest 'in frightening dreams the subject can as it were experience disaster without actually experiencing it'. He adds that tragedy is a way 'of practising for crisis'.

This seems important to me, with the tragic aspects of art being connected to the development of wisdom for living. However, I am sure that there are many levels of understanding the tragic in art, and that the ideas of Aristotle and so many philosophers contribute to this. Any thoughts on Nuttall's comparison between dreams and tragedy, or on the wider issue of tragedy, pleasure in art in connection with human suffering.

Part of the problem which I see with the idea of karma is when it is thought of as 'punishment' or 'reward'. This was a basis for justifying the caste system.

Really, the idea of karma means cause and effect, 'As you reap, so shall you show. ' in its esoteric sense, it involves cause and effect being complex, beyond physicality. This involves aspects of the depths of the subconscious. For example, I often do feel that I get bad consequences if I feel that I have acted in a way which I should not have done. Sometimes, it seems to be 'instant karma', like the John Lennon song. Nevertheless, my karma is probably connected to my subconscious and conscious awareness of mistakes.

The division between matter and spirit is an interesting one. It may involve the visible and invisible and it may not be completely distinct, with quantum physics showing this to be a fuzzy area, such as Davis Bohm' s idea of the indifference between the implicate and replicate order. It may be about processes itself in the nature of manifestation in nature and life.

I wonder how different the atheism of substance dualism is from theism. I know that there have been threads on substance dualism and that I have engaged with you on the topic many times. At one point, I remember you comparing it with the difference between an Afro hairstyle and a bald head, an interesting analogy but I am not sure if it is that clearcut.

The difference may be theism often speaks of God as a being and nondualism with Being itself as the foundation of everything. I wonder about how different this really is and such theism and atheism as a different linguistic stance as opposed to an entire difference in metaphysics. In particular, even though Buddhism doesn't portray a specific 'God' the understanding of consciousness may be similar to ones that speak of the 'divine'. Ancient thinkers, such as Stoicism, thought in such a way rather than the dichotomy between theism and atheism which arises in the phllosophy of religion as it stands presently.

I guess it is very different when one is reading books, such as ones on non-dualism in the pursuit of philosophy as opposed to under the guidance of a 'guru'. It is important to remember the context, and how it was connected to ideas for application in spiritual searching and living as opposed to simply being about analytical issues.

I have gone back to reading Spinoza(not sure which translation on my Kindle), although I am finding it 'heavy weather). It may be that Spinoza was challenging the theism with which he was familiar. However, it still has to be recognised that he was writing in a historical period so different from the current one. This makes his correspondence with current thinking, such as neuroscience, mere speculation. Of course, it is possible to reframe his writings in such a way but that does mean acknowledging that it is interpretation, as is any use of a historic philosopher in thinking about issues of the current time.

Non-dualism is a fairly difficult perspective because it involves going beyond splits, or binary divisions. It is a bit like the title of the Waterboys' song, in trying to see, 'The Whole of the Moon'. It involves awareness of partiality in epistemology in trying to be aware of the 'other side' of perception.

I have been reading about Spinoza's philosophy and as far as I can see there is a lot of ambiguity over how his ideas are interpreted, especially the equation between God and nature and his idea that God was 'nothing other than the whole universe'. As an alternative to atheism it can be viewed as suggesting that 'God' is in every aspect of nature.

I am currently looking at a chapter by Varadara V. Raman, 'Thoughts on Deism and Pandeism', in , 'Pandeism: An Anthology of the Creative Mind' (ed Mapson and Perry.in which it is argued that, God,
'is there in the heart of grand supernova as in the singularities of dismal black holes. He is mutely present in every breath of Man as in every neuron fired in the brains. The Creator is into the Creation: In creatura creator. A crude analogy would be a playwright who writes a one-hero play and gets into its performance himself: not very common, but not impossible, especially for God. This is the God of pandeism.'

In that respect, the duality of nature and God can be seen as more consistent with non-consistent with spiritual non-dualism as opposed to the materialistic one. The choice of seeing nature/consciousness or God/consciousness may be the duality of choice inherent in human thinking.

The idea of a 'neutral theory' is an interesting one as being seen as objective. Kant thought that he was able to establish it by a priori logic. It does come down to the issue of whether there is an absolute 'truth' and the perennial philosophy is an interesting alternative to Kant because it involves pluralistic understanding based on intersubjective common principles.

However, the concept of a neutral theory may be still problematic because it is bound up with meanings and values. For example, the choice of the dual options of theism or atheism may come down to psychological and pragmatic concerns in choices of how to perceive the nature of 'reality'.

Thank you for reminding me of Lao Tzu's writings, because they do capture the descriptive issues of Tao. Sometimes, even though the concepts of theism and atheism and other positions are useful as a tool, they can become too rigid as ways of seeing. Indeed, transcendent and imminent can be seen as dualistic, which is the way human thinking involves splitting.

Labels are central to both theories and metaphysics, as ways of trying to analyse the way in which life works, as the aspects beyond physics. For many it may come down to science gradually, with philosophy almost as an apologetic appendage. Even science, founded in empirical knowledge is only descriptive understanding. Science and philosophy can become split, with so much validity being placed on the 'truth' of science when the abstraction of creating scientific theories and models involves the metaphysical and metaphorical imagination.

I do see the query as to whether materialism is a form of non-dualism, especially as that was my first thought when I became aware of more 'spiritual' forms of non-dualism. The mind-body problem is made so complicated by an apparent duality of mind and body, but a clear connection between the two.

I have read some of Damasio's writing and it is fairly well argued. It may be hard to entangle the underlying basis of the unity and know if there is an primary basis of mind and matter because they emerge together. It may come down to first causes and it is hard to know whether the matter arose from consciousness or vice versa. In a way, it may not be important as a tangent, although it can be seen as of importance in knowing whether there is any 'spirit' involved as an eternal source of consciousness.