I think that steampunk fiction has emerged as the new offshoot where cyberpunk was going. So, perhaps we will see people with steam engines attached and clock parts, not just robots, walking the streets of our post apocalyptic future.

But on a serious level, I believe that eugenics is already on it's way.

I feel that you are missing the historic basis of the word 'defect' being applied to gay people, or any particular group of people.

I don't think that perspective on the view of mind and matter is unique to Marcuse. It is a whole tradition of thinking, especially the transpersonal tradition of psychology. It is simply that within psychology that this whole perspective has been dismissed by those intent on claiming that psychology is a science, like the other hard sciences.

Why do you feel the need 'to take off' suddenly after creating a number of threads?

I never read the thread but I would say that the very word 'defect' is open to criticism because it makes a value judgement about normality and acceptability.

Personally, I'm inclined to think that the way quantum physics is going gives far more scope for imagination than many other sciences, including the scientific disciplines. I am talking mainly of psychology, especially when it is being pursued by those who are determined to claim that it is a science.

The quantum physicists do break down the division between the material and the immaterial. In some ways, this allows for a view of life of energy, which corresponds which is the idea of the Tao ,as Fritjof Capra argued. The idea of the Tao is so unlike the anthropomorphic images of the force behind the universe. It is one which is free from the more dogmatic associations people have felt oppressed by in mainstream religious traditions.

Perhaps there are robots walking around now and we don't even know it. Also, Guirjieff stressed that many human beings live in a robotic state of consciousness and that we need to wake up.

That's fine, because some areas have been explored so much. It is probably interesting when the discussions go in new directions, because philosophy is recurrence of ideas, with new twists and turns.

Thanks for your links to discussions in older threads. They are a little before I joined the forum . I do understand that people who have put forward ideas into other threads probably don't wish to repeat themselves.

I will look at the links but do wish for some kind of interactive discussion, even if it my discussion is only of interest to newer members of the forum.

I definitely would not advocate that people just hold on to mainstream religious beliefs, especially in countries where there are low education standards.

I already have spent a long time thinking through the beliefs which were taught to me as a child in Roman Catholicism. I am not specifically wishing to try to replace any views which I see as materialistic within science. I think that I am more inclined to the extremes of the religious and spiritual, or of scientific materialism.

My own personal interest in the question is not my single quest, as I am very concerned about the present and future of humanity. Really, I am just in favour of critical enquiry within philosophy.

I would say that while metaphysical and epistemological points of view should be not seen as philosophical ends they are implicit in most systems of belief, including those in psychology and even political views. I would say that it is worth looking behind the surface of all views because these assumptions are at the core of all systems of values and ideas. For example, I would say that many adopt determinist belief systems because they are popular and mainstream, and they may not have really examined the underlying premises in much detail or depth.

I would say that the term 'legitimacy' could be used and abused politically as an idea of entitlement, backed up within a legal framework. It is one of those slippery words which could be used to back up claims for what a person in some authority wanted to enforce. It could be used as a subtle form of rhetoric when there is no solid, underlying argument.

I think that it is possible that your underlying feeling that you are selfish and undeserving may be contributing to your ongoing health problems, especially sleep. Perhaps you need to reframe your thinking rather than thinking about gene therapy etc. I would say that you are entitled to the resources as much as anyone else.

I do think that you are right to point to the way in which energy, and relativity, is an important aspect in the way of thinking on the spectrum in between duality. I would say that the quantum physicists are leading the way in questioning a materialist, mechanistic understanding of the world.

I am glad that my thread is helpful. I am grateful for you and all the other people who engage with me. I must say that I have found using this site as one of the best ways of coping with lockdown. I never that that I would spend so much time doing things online.

I am glad that your grandson is going to have counselling. So many are struggling mentally. One thing I found helpful is some techniques of mindfulness meditation, especially ones which are focused on watching thoughts, which is a way of shifting away from following negative ones too much.

But, ultimately, I don't believe that we are designed to isolate in the way we are having to.

I have also found that thinking about the topic about disasters and the state of the planet to be useful. Sometimes, I get demoralised about the possibility of change, so it is useful to engage with others about the topic as it aids thinking positively.

Thank you for your link to the ideas of Northoff. I think that you raise many good points in your comment. So far, I have not had any reference to the ideas of philosophers, such as Dennet. I have read him briefly, but was not inspired by him, because I find him too materialistic.

I would say that I really created this thread because it appears to me that there are many hard materialists on one hand, and on the other, a tradition which emphasises the 'mind'. I would say that I dislike the word mind, but brain seems a bit limited. So, really I was just asking the question because it seems that many philosophers are diametrically opposed on the subject of mind, and the material world. I am not saying that it is more important than the questions of living, but just an implicit assumption beneath the surface. So, I am raising it as one for the starting point about clarity for thinking.

When I spoke of our limited human view I was not speaking of seeing through the eyes of another but more of the limits of possible knowledge in virtue of our ability to know the ultimate truths.
As Barry Stroud argues, (in the book I cited in my previous post to you): '...whatever we human beings come to know is from a human point of view. There is no other point of view from which human beings could know anything.'

The one other point I will clarify about higher states of consciousness is that what I am talking about is not necessarily free from egocentricity or dependent upon it. I am referring more to what Abraham Maslow spoke of as peak experiences.

I have a strong interest in mental illness and have worked in the mental health care, so I am interested in your view. I feel that what you saying is approaches the idea of mental illness is rather abstract and I don't get much of a feel of the people who are affected and helping them as individuals.

You speak more in terms of the importance of mental health for society which Is rather vague and, from my perspective, a bit meaningless. Also, it is unclear where you are coming from. Is it America? I say that because I am in England and the system you are describing does not sound the one that I am familiar with.

I also feel that you have not really asked a question. As you are new to the forum, I would say that people are more likely to engage with you if you do. I would say that this would probably be more important than just writing more about what reforms should be made.

I hope that you enjoy participating in the forum discussions.

I will just say that I haven't used any drugs in a very long while. The psychedelic experimentation I referred to was when I was a student.

Yes, I did wonder if I was coming from a rather different angle from you. I would imagine that I do not adhere to idealism in a conventional sense at all, especially to the ideas of Berkeley. I am sorry if I did not seem to have looked at the arguments which you had given. I will give them another read. It is simply that I have read a lot of people's views in the last few days and was trying to put my own thoughts together.

I do agree with you in wishing to go beyond the position of Cartesian dualism, as well as the division between the material and the physical and non material realms. At the time of writing I am thinking that perhaps it is better to see these as two poles on a continuum. Of course, my view may alter a bit but, certainly I do think the idea of a continuum works better than dualism.

I would say that I do think that you are correct to physical and mental are vague terms used to highlight features of certain aspects of reality'. This is going beyond the dichotomy of dualism and in the process previous to this, I have been reflecting on the idea of the perspective of the ego, in response to@Gus Lamarchs philosophy of egoism.

As I have been writing today, the thought that I am having is of the way in which consciousness oscillates between the physical and the mental, with the ego spanning the space between, incorporating the fuzzy areas including instincts and emotions. One possible way of seeing through the apparent philosophical problem is to see the physical and mental as a continuum which we can access in our experiences.

I can say your understanding of the philosophy of egoism to the consideration of the way in which we experience the ego. Even though I have sympathy with Hinduism and Buddhism, I do believe one of the problems of Eastern philosophy, as well as Western forms of religion, is that the ego is underplayed. This is especially true when people think that they are overcome the needs, including the instincts.

Even though I do meditate, using a mixture of methods, including some mindfulness techniques, I do not believe that it's helpful to think in terms of overcoming the ego. I do believe that many people think that they can switch off the ego, but I would say that they are probably deluding themselves.

I would also say that it is at the level of the ego that we experience the way in which mind and body are interconnected in an intricate way. The perspective of ego is one which cannot split the two apart. The physical needs are combined with goals and aspects of social and cultural ones.

It does all come down to perspective and in this respect I bring in the ideas of Nietzsche, who has influenced the development of your own ideas on egoism. During the weekend, I was reading a book called 'Knowledge From a Human Point of View' , by Ana-Maria Cretu, which has a chapter , 'Nietzsche's Epistemic Perspectivism', by Stephen D. Hales. In this, the author includes Nietzsche's emphasis on the role of instincts and pleasure. Also, he describes how Kant and Plato can be seen as placing an emphasis on 'otherworldliness' and,
'Instead of absolute truths and partially objective knowledge of a supra-empirical world, Nietzsche offers a vision of partial, fragmentary, perspectival knowledge.'

I think that this reminds us of our limited human view. Personally, I'm inclined to think that there are higher states of consciousness which we can access, but at the same time do believe that the perspective of realising and affirming the needs of the ego is essential too. I see this as being an important aspect of self awareness.

I am not wishing to contradict you. I am only saying that it is not a matter of scientists vs an opposite party. It always takes a while for the mainstream of society to catch up with the leading edge of science. Many people have been speaking of sustainabilty for the last two decades and it may be that many current problems, not just the pandemic, are a going to be a wake up call for change. But to frame it in an equation of science being true against ideology is too simplistic because there are many scientists, with many varying academic and political persuasions.

Despite you feeling disconcerted by what I wrote to you late last night, I am really concerned about the catastrophe which is likely to occur within the next couple of generations. I have been writing on that in another thread for a fortnight. I am wondering if what you are really trying to say is that the politicians are not listening enough to the findings of many of the scientists, especially on the climate and ecology. If that is, I am in complete agreement with you.

I have wondered at times if the physical world is illusory, as 'maya', described by the Hindus. If anything, it sometimes seems like we are suspended between the opposites of the dense matter. On a few occasions, I experimented with psychedelic substances and this did lead me to question the view that the physical world is the most absolute reality.

In particular, when I was amidst a crowd of people on the dance floor, I had the sensation that I was able to walk through other people's physical bodies as if I was beyond the physical world. I also looked in a mirror and, based on what I had read in others' accounts, expected to see myself as a monster of some kind. What I saw was all my surroundings in the mirror and I was just not there at all, but invisible. It was as if I had left my body completely.

Of course, many people would say, 'Well, you were on drugs", but it did make me perceive reality a bit differently. But, since then, I have worked with people who are psychotic and don't see my experience at face value, but I do feel that I did access an altered state of consciousness, and I have experienced some less intense altered states naturally too. I am not convinced that the physical world is unreal but I do have a certain amount of an openmindedness to thinking about the idealist viewpoint, but want to be careful to avoid philosophical delusion. I do wonder if there are different frequencies ranging from the material to the invisible.

I wonder if we had a situation of war now whether people would be in many countries would be prepared to sacrifice for the supposed greater good as occurred in the two world wars. Obviously, it would be completely wrong because of nuclear weapons. However, I think that it may also be different because Christianity is not as dominant as it was in the early Twentieth century.

I don't actually know anyone who has fought in a war but do wonder if the idea of life after death makes it easier. I am inclined to think that the majority of people would not be willing to be martyrs now. The reason that I say that is because, if anything, there appears to be such a dread of death in our culture. I think that this fear has been so apparent in the threat of the pandemic.

I have seen this among people who claim . to be religious too. When I have spoken with them there fear does not really seem to be about the fear of death of an afterlife, but the whole notion of death, as not existing. I would say that we are now entering a time when many people combine aspects of Christianity, and other philosophies, including nihilism. However, I would say that many people do not name the philosophies and many do not really think through the nature of their ideas fully, but hold contradictory beliefs at a subconscious level.

This may not have the implications for the thread of wars which were at the heart of fighting for Christendom and the mythological fight for Armageddon. Of course there was the conflict between Christianity and Islam, as well as the war against terrorism. Of courset, the underlying subtext may have been the fight over oil.

However, I would say that there are specific dangers of the lack of clear conscious beliefs on a collective level. The very lack of clarity of thought could lead to an unconscious mass destruction.

I am sorry if I come across as being disconcerting. I just like to think critically, but I am logging out for the night now, so you can continue your discussion with others, with no further interruptions from me.

I will have a think about how egoism fits into the picture overnight. It is way of thinking outside of the box of dualism.

That is an important point, the question of ought, because it comes down to values. These are central to any interpretation of what lies behind the surface. However, it may not be possible to just perceive science this in the constructs which arise in the politics alone, but within the wider sociological framework. It would seem that apart from political considerations, it would involve questions involving the sociology of knowledge.

Yes, it is a good question whether it is my own question or one of our time. I am going to bed now as it is after 1am but if you or anyone else is interested I think that Kant and Descartes are essential for thinking about this. That is because they have been so central to the development of Western philosophy, but I am sure that this is only a starting point.

I just think that you need to avoid the creation of stereotypes and I am not convinced that you are going to really going to do any justice to the questions of truths of science in this way. As someone said earlier to you, the full story of Galileo and Darwin are not straightforward. To try to fit science into the fierce divisions of modern politics is going to create tense and unnecessary divisions.

Thank you, I will keep reading and thinking it through because I do see it as an important recurrent philosophical issue.

I created a thread as if it would involve some deep discussion over the weekend. In actual fact, I have probably created a topic that it would take a whole life to answer in any depth. But, it will keep me busy, and I am probably my own worst philosophical enemy in raising the question.

Of course, it is entirely up to you how if you wish to form your hypothetical discussion but I would think that to take it out of historical context is not going to be the most truthful way.I would have thought that the two examples you give about Newton and Darwin point to the complex politics of science. In doing so, I think you are going to create stereotypical extremes of arguments, just recasting science in the territory of all the heated conflicts of the politics of our present time.

I don't think that you can possibly explain the whole division between capitalism and socialism in one sentence. It is so much more complex. You say it depends on much the 'politicians can be corrupted' in the favour of the masses or in the accumulation of capital. I don't consider myself as a political expert at all but do not believe that the politicians, from their point of view see it as being 'corrupt' as such.

I don't come from a wealthy background, so was initially drawn to left wing politics, but then moved more in the direction of thinking about the ideas of the 'new economics' as suggested by Fritjof Capra and E. F. Schumacher. These thinkers point to the whole way in which need to go beyond the surface of the left and right, socialism and capitalism, to find ways beyond the basis of the consumer culture. I

t may involve a whole new way of thinking about money and also addressing the needs of ecology, but on a deeper level. Perhaps, we have got to the point of crisis, as many people are going to be plunged into poverty, where people have to unite rather than be caught in the conflict between capitalism and socialism. Perhaps, the distribution of the vaccine in the world may be about ending divisions which have been prevalent.

I do believe that there already has been so much politics underlying science historically and that this has been extremely complex. A large part of it has involved religious belief, especially Christianity. I don't see that you can possibly explore this question without an exploration of this.

Yes, I do see that the question I have raised is rather large. I was thinking how it is central to all philosophy and that is why I raised it. But as I read the various angles I felt my head exploding.

I even downloaded a book called 'The Deception of Materialistic Western Philosophy', by Julian Hamer. The font was so small on my Kindle( and enlarging it was not very helpful as I couldn't read a whole sentence properly) and I got a headache.The gist of the book, as much as I read, was that Western philosophy has reduced thinking to science. It suggested that a return to archaic ways of seeing was not helpful, but it did not seem to give a clear alternative in the conclusion.

Another person pointed to the importance of Greek philosophy, so I do plan to go further with that direction of thinking. I did read Hume at one point, but I had not thought of him directly in relation to this area of thought. I do believe that Kant's thinking is also important, but I have to admit I got a bit stuck as to whether Kant sees the transcendent as actually underlying the empirical order.

At this stage, I have not seen a really convincing argument beyond that of the Eastern thinkers, but that doesn't mean that does not mean that I am about to abandon the Western tradition of philosophy. I guess that I just plunged into deep water and have to learn to swim, because the question I have raised is very complex indeed.

I am hoping that the crisis of the current time may call for the best combination between capitalism and socialism. Consumer materialism is starting to collapse and this was happening before the beginning of the pandemic and is likely to increase more than ever now.

I feel that the battle between capitalism vs socialism needs to be transformed altogether to meet the needs of humanity in the widest possible sense.

Many may disagree with what I am about to say, pointing to the need to be extremely systematic, going through the various important thinkers and fields of thought. That seems to be the advice given to you.

I take a different approach and say start with the thinkers and aspects of philosophy which interest you. I believe that is the way to make it the most comprehensible and meaningful. Maybe, the rest of theoretical exploration can come at a later stage. But, in the meantime, perhaps you should follow your passions more and read what seems to really speak to you on a personal level, even it is not the texts which are the ones which are considered to be the essential classic works..