I realise that you believe that art is about beauty. However, your discussion of this in relation to the this seems to be mainly abstract. So, I am just wondering which artists or works of art can be seen as measuring up to this quality?

Your question as to why the rehabilitation model which is adopted with people who self harm is not applied to those who harm others touches upon debate within forensic psychiatry. I have worked in the mental health system and it is a complex matter differentiating between whether a person has harmed others as a result of underlying mental illness or not.

In many cases, it is clear that a person who has killed another has done so on account of being unwell mentally. In particular, if there are obvious signs of psychosis, such as the person hearing voices. The person may have command hallucinations to kill someone. Or, they might have paranoid delusions which lead to the person to attack and kill another.

In some cases, the signs of mental illness may not be picked up initially. For this reason, there is usually some input from psychiatrists within prisons to try to ensure that the underlying signs of mental illness are not missed. This is about looking for psychosis but other mental illnesses too.

One important area within psychiatry relevant to your question is the whole idea of personality disorders,The label is in itself contentious and can be analyzed critically from a sociological or philosophical angle. However, for the current purpose I am speaking of the idea of personality disorders as depicted within the psychiatric model. There are various recognised personalities disorders or traits, and it could be seen as a spectrum. However, two differences are between the idea of borderline personality disorder and antisocial personality disorder.

The main difference between the borderline personality disorder and antisocial personality disorder is based on the extent to which the person has difficulty with the self or others. The individual with a borderline personality disorder often has difficulty with emotional regulation, suicidal and self harm intentions, and difficulties with impulsive behaviour. These people are often the ones who present in acute psychiatric admissions.

The people with antisocial personality disorder are often those within the forensic psychiatric institutions, such as Broadmoor. I have a little experience of working within forensic psychiatry, but more in step down services for individuals at a later stage of recovery but I would not feel that I have sufficient knowledge to speak with any authority on the subject of antisocial personality disorder. The one thing which I would say is that even within forensic psychiatry is that there is a lot of overlap between recognised disorders in the persons who present. Some people have a history of self harm and harming others. Also, some people have a mixture of psychosis, alongside other difficulties.

One main element which is of critical importance in determining whether a person should be in prison or in a mental health establishment is whether or not they are seen as suffering from a treatable mental illness. Usually, this involves medication alongside psychological therapies. I do not think that the differentiation between mental illness, or lack of it, in a person who harms others is absolute and I have simply tried to sketch an outline of this very complex area within psychiatry.

In some hospitals, alcohol gel gets removed because people do literally drink it if they are desperate with alcohol cravings.

I have seen in a number of news items that the abuse of alcohol has escalated beyond all proportion in the time of the pandemic, so that is going to be another problem which will have to be addressed in the aftermath too.

The difficulty in an open political discussion is that politics is so loaded in its history, biases and emotive stances. It can soon become an arena in which people attack one another.

You say that it's about being 'willing to take others' ideas into consideration so as to come to a better understanding of the world? I would say that is an area which is not limited to politics alone, but about taking on into account ideas from many disciplines.

You suggest that 'if literally everyone stayed at home for two weeks the virus would die out'. It is a pity that it is not that simple. I am sure that people would do this if that was the case, although I don't see how hospitals could close. I think that you are overlooking the fact that the virus is a living entity and cannot be controlled in any easy way.

But that is just taking philosophy from a Marxist approach. There are many different angles and ways of seeing life, death and the universe. Surely, to try to overthrow philosophy from a view of Marx, which he himself challenged, would be a very narrow perspective.

So are you actually suggesting that philosophy should end as an endeavour? Surely, Marx changed his view because he saw the importance of thinking rather than simply acting. Also, philosophy is more than just about politics.

I am certainly not wishing to undermine the success of finding four vaccines, and I am certainly hoping for the best. We still have to hope that the world inequalities are addressed to see that certain countries are not missing out. It may be that this pandemic is a way of transcending inequality on a wide scale.

Yes, the transmission of the virus is known to occur on surfaces. This is complex because we can't see it and how much can one keep disinfecting and know how much is enough. I have known people with obsessive compulsive disorder and they end up wasting for hours on end. Perhaps it is about getting the right balance. I tend to be just as careful as I can possibly be but not to a ridiculous extent, and as far as I know I have not had the virus and I was having to travel on busses to work daily in the first couple of months of the virus. I am a big fan of wipes because they aren't too sticky.

I do think that this is all interrelated to economics and climate change. It certainly gives a chance to address the problems of the largest businesses and the effects they are having on the ecosystem. So, while I remain sceptical about many of the underlying problems, it could be that we are on the brink of some revolutionary change and transformation.

I think that you make an important point about the need for 'a new understanding of the world.' Of course, this is not unique to art, and definitely applies to philosophy. But I do believe that art and the arts are one place where this can take place. You speak of the 'need to focus on the essence of what it means to be human' and I completely agree.

I do not see the question of art and influence as being entirely separate from the one in the thread of where are we going? Remember, I am not talking about visual art alone but about all the arts. I would also see philosophy as an art in its own right. I believe that we need to find new ways of seeing.

I would encourage you to think about exploring your ideas which you have not shared, especially as you feel that you have "no prospects'.

Unfortunately, if we don't share our ideas they remain trapped in our heads. I remember a college tutor saying that idea don't exist if they are not communicated and I thought this was going too far, but I could see his point.

I do believe that we have to find the right arena to share, but sometimes, life involves taking risks. Obviously, we have to weigh them up and you are entitled to keep your ideas to yourself, but oneday you might look back with some what if questions.

I think that you are right to point to the way in which you point to the way in which the philosophy of disasters involves ethics.

The only thing which I would query is 'an ethics' because that sounds a bit too fixed, as if it may be prescriptive rather than dialogue about ethical issues.

I think that it is far too early to say that the scientific response to the pandemic has been good. We don't know to what extent the vaccine is going to solve the problem, especially in the light of mutant strains. We could be looking at a situation in which the virus is around for a very long time to come, possibly years or decades. I am also not sure that all the advice being given is correct.

Here, I will give an example I found out about today. I discovered that someone I know who has not been out or mixed with anyone for a long time has tested positive for the virus. She reckons that she must have caught it from food left outside her doors. So, this does raise questions about whether the transmission is really human to human, or far more complicated. I realise that this I have given only one example but it does raise questions about the whole emphasis being on social distancing, as if it solves the whole problem.

The key thing which I see about the whole current pandemic is that we are still dealing with the unknown. As it is, for many people the whole life that they have known has stopped and people are still dying in multitudes. I would say that we are far from being able to think about any success of science.

Certainly, let us hope that the disaster has woken us up to the whole threat of disasters. But, of course it is not the first. There have been earthquakes, terrorist attacks, the Grenfell tower fire in London, and many more. Unfortunately, it seems that thinking often occurs in the aftermath.

In a thread a few days ago I was saying how life in our present culture has become too pressured, especially in the workplace. People are being expected to perform as if they are machines. The category of your post which I think that this fits into is : 'to hold something in place'. That would be about maintaining stability.

But what I was saying in the context in which I was writing is that if there is too much pressure it can make things break apart on a personal or collective level. On the personal level, the result can be physical and mental illness. On the collective level, it can be about collapse and reaching breaking point. Our culture may have reached breaking point, and perhaps Covid_19 is the outer expression of a deeper sickness at the core of our culture.

On face level, I think your thread probably appears as if it one which favours self-centred thinking but I do believe that there is so much fear and moral panic.

I go out wearing a mask and do socially distance but I think that there is a lot of ritualistic thinking going on, as well as a whole level of demoralisation behind the surface. I certainly feel that way. I have not worked for over 6 months and cannot properly even begin to look for work because of restrictions.

At the heart of it all, there is just no possible end in sight. I plan to get the vaccine whenever I am able but felt so miserable reading in the news yesterday that the vaccine will not bring any end to social distancing. The news article even suggested that the vaccine program might be a bad thing because it might mean that people stop thinking that they need to distance any longer. With the current approach of policy makers it is hard to see any hope for a way out of the situation. Is it any wonder that people are feeling depressed and unwell mentally?

One matter which I think has not been addressed by policy makers is whether social distancing is really stopping the virus? In particular, today I heard of one person I know who has tested positive and she not been out or mixed with any other people in ages. She thinks that she must have contracted it through food delivered outside the door. So, it is questionable whether the virus is just about human transmission through contact with others or other sources, such as food.

I will also add that the person I am speaking about had shielded, because she was seen as vulnerable, and she is not even particularly ill.

The problem is that in dealing with the virus we are dealing with an unknown variable.

I have been reading in the news about the way in which some countries are facing being given poorer quality vaccines, or none at all. So, let's hope that it is addressed. It might be the point on which the world has to, or can, unite together.

What do you think of Nietzsche's idea of eternal recurrence? It is something that I do wonder about at times. Perhaps in aeons of time I will be writing this post once again, if everything is repeated in cycles.

The only problem I would see with the idea is, would it be exactly the same? Any slight difference would alter everything. Would the exact same individuals exist or not? For that reason, I think that the idea of eternal recurrence may be more of a symbolic truth, rather than a literal one. But it does give scope for speculation as we look into the abyss. Perhaps the idea of the eternal recurrence symbolises possibilities, and seeing beyond the moment into eternity.

In South London, during a previous time in between lockdowns, I saw on many occasions groups of school pupils, and they looked about 16 years old at least, crowding onto busses and inside shops and not a mask in sight. At this time, which was before the time of the new strain of the virus, so many people were wondering why the infection rate was rising tremendously and I believe this was a large part of the problem.

But of course, it would be wrong to just blame the school children. Also, a lot of adults were not sticking to rules and I also believe that people having to live in overcrowded living conditions was and still is a stumbling block in enabling people to socially distance to bringing the infection rate down properly.

I googled the idea of four dimensionalism. The problem is that there are so many theories and we all dip in and out of them as we choose.

But what I would say is that I definitely believe that there are more that there are 4, 5 or more dimensions. I would say that the fourth dimension involves time. I have had discussions on various threads about other dimensions. So, you say that the four dimensionalism you are familiar with would reject synchronicity as an idea.

I would be inclined to think that synchronicity as Jung understood it was based more on a 3 dimensional perspective because he was writing a long time ago, so did not have the knowledge that we have access to, especially the ideas of quantum physics. In particular, if you read his autobiography he tends to understand premonitions in this way. When I first read his writings, I found his idea of synchronicity helpful but if I really think about I probably think that premonitions involve accessing ideas in another dimension, although I have not formulated it in this way until writing it this way. However, it is probably about seeing patterns in nature.

Today, I was reading Fritjof Capra's systems view and he speaks about self-fulfilling prophecy in terms of self-balancing feedback as recognised within cybernetic. He speaks of the nature of this in terms of a 'circular nature of such self-reinforcing, "runaway" feedback loops.

Capra's ideas are useful for considering disasters, especially at the level of deep ecology. He sees the interconnected relationships between living systems. He also draws upon the ideas of many thinkers, including chaos theory and James Lovelock's idea of planet earth as a living being, Gaia. One important conclusion which he comes to is that,
'Reconnecting with the web of life means building and nurturing sustainable communities in which we can satisfy our needs and aspirations without diminishing the chances of future generations.'

Just to add to the discussion regarding toilets f, my friend who used to make paintings on the theme of urinals, did this making the walls and structure of the room like temples. He spoke of how he imagined sacred, esoteric rituals taking place in such places in the middle ages, probably based on paganism.

But it is worth saying that he began making this art while in therapy. His work was based on his own struggle with Catholic views on sexuality. and how especially the idea of hell had affected his mental health His work probably fell into the tradition of 'outsider art'.

I do not believe that the picture you have is wide enough in its scope. One writer, who you may well have heard of, is Fritjof Capra. I came across his systems theory when I was a student, while doing a module on economic ethics. His thinking has influenced my own understanding, especially ecology.

I have been looking at his book 'The Web of Life: A New Synthesis of Mind and Matter' (1996). He sees all systems as related networks and interdependent. He also does not believe that physics should be seen as the dominant science and draws upon the idea of Gaia from James Lovelock, the cybernetic theory of Gregory Bateson and many other thinkers. He summarises the systems view as one in which: 'Nature is seen as an interconnected web of relationships, in which the identification of specific patterns as "objects" depends on the human observer and the process of knowing.'

One point which I would make here is that you speak of the lack of purpose in the universe and I would say how can we know? Really, we all probably project our fantasised views of how life works onto the universe. It is much bigger than us and the concerns of our human egoism.

I won't go on any longer about the ideas of Capra because I would imagine you may be aware of his outlook, although not all people who read your thread are likely to have read his work? What do you make of the systems view and the perspective of deep ecology? I also find Rupert Sheldrake's idea of morphic resonance helpful. He speaks of the underlying invisible patterns behind nature.

With all these theories, it is hard to know how much truth they present. I am certainly not a biologist or physicist and, apart from philosophy, I suspect that your specialist are is history. What I do think though, is that while we are not likely to know the answers fully, the biggest danger is the route of nihilism because then we become just like the people who are indifferent. We would just give up. Personally, I read and question deeply but my ideas shift around quite a bit.

Your starting point was the question of utopia vs. dystopia. I believe that it is not possible to create an actual utopia but I still believe that it is better to focus on what possible changes can be made for the better rather than collapse into nihilism. I, and many others I know, have got into states of depression about life, death and where we are going. I can even relate to death metal music but I do try to rise beyond all this.

I am all in favour of art as a means of provoking and being about the unexpected. I do believe at that level it has the power to bring about change. The only thing which I would say is that I don't just see it as being about an end result. It is a process as well and the whole experience of making art the art is a process of changing consciousness.

In speaking of this I am speaking of the change it may bring to the individual as well as on a social level. This can include the therapeutic use of the arts or about the way it brings a change in the state of the mind of the creator.

I would suggest that you are right to suggest that art should provoke but of course the effects cannot be judged in terms of the reaction of the viewer as well. What is new to some may be old to others. Ultimately, I believe in the role of art in bringing change but I do not wish to be making judgements about any art being inferior even if it is seen as a repetition of the past or less provoking. I would not want to step into the role of being an art critic.

On another thread I had just written a post about the whole question of the nature of causes because I believe that it is extremely complex. The context of the discussion had been about the nature of self -fulfilling prophecy. I had suggested that I believe that causality is not simply about what occurs in action and that I believe that it involves thought and intentionality.

I spoke of the idea of karma, which is of course in it's most basic idea about cause and effect, but I would believe that it involves consciousness on some level. The simplistic explanation has been about punishment and reward but I would say that it is a lot more complicated than that.

I also referred to the law of attraction as expressed in the ideas of Esther and Jeremy Hicks and many other authors. The law of attraction is about how we can create manifestation in life according to our intentions. It is not in itself straightforward because we are dealing with the subconscious mind, which may incorporate conflicting wishes.

I do believe that the laws of causality are complex, whether one approaches it from a scientific angle or a mystical one. I do not think I understand it in any depth, but I definitely believe that it involves consciousness and intention. I do believe that both karma and the law of attraction offer insight and that while they are apparently different, the two might be interconnected in some way.

The way in which ideas began as instincts and became more sophisticated is interesting. Of course, it does still leave questions about the where these stemmed from, such as whether there are objective archetypes behind the underlying ideas, even at the instinctual level. In evolutionary terms it could be biologically based but it becomes more complex when it is about the ideas which emerged in civilisation and philosophy.

The suggestion you make about the importance of a marriage between rationality and instincts raises some important areas for considering too. How do we balance these on a personal and collective level ?, I would say that it is not easy to achieve balance.

I do have an interest in Nietzsche's writings, but I have to admit that when I read them I get caught up in their literary merits and sometimes lose focus on the actual arguments he is proposing. I also believe that Nietzsche struggled deeply and became unwell mentally. I am not sure what happened to him eventually and not sure if he committed suicide.I might be wrong in thinking he did, but I definitely remember reading about his tortured life.

I am extremely influenced by Jung and he spoke of the importance of integrating bodily sensations, emotions, rationality and intuitions in order to achieve wholeness. I do believe that there has been some academic debate on the dialogue between the ideas of Nietzsche and Jung. This is an area I find interesting and would like to read more on in the future.

But I do think that if the balance is not right people get sick emotionally and mentally. I would say that cultural progress has probably gone too far towards Apollo rather than Dionysus. In particular, I think that life has become too pressured. In the last five years , I have thought that this was happening more and more, especially in the workplace. I felt that something was going to break and it has done, because now we have the pandemic. But I believe that there were many signs of collapse before.

One aspect which I do wonder about at times is whether the pandemic has occurred as an evolutionary balancing factor. Perhaps, the planet as a living system could not sustain the lifestyle which the developed nations have become accustomed to for much longer. Obviously, the pandemic doesn't provide long term solutions to problems, such as oil, but it may have been about a breaking point having been reached. Of course, I realise that I may be trying to see meaning in events which may be random and not connected.

Perhaps Jung did say that synchronicity was about patterns and not causes but I still think that the whole idea did have implications about causality. I am planning to look at the thread on causality to widen my own very limited understanding of this complex matter, but I am trying to reply to a couple of comments on other threads firstly

I guess that the issue of causality relevant to this thread is about the way in which events in life and the world become manifest. I am also interested in the whole idea of self-fulfilling prophecy, so I will get back to you if I come up with any further insights on my travels on the various threads.

If there are yes or no answers to most philosophy questions, it does not mean that we are able to know them with certainty. The most obvious example here is the question of life after death. That is really a yes or no, more or less, but it is simply that we don't know for certain while we are alive. I don't think that the computers can even help us, except providing a search engine of books and articles.

I would say that synchronicity is more than paradoelia. I do believe that it is one aspect of causality at an invisible level. I do believe that what happens in the individual and collective aspects of life cannot just be explained in terms of physical causes. I am not wishing to undermine the role of actions at all but I do believe that thought has power too, especially on the level of the mass psyche of humanity.

After thinking about the possibility of mankind's annihilation yesterday evening I felt really sad. But the whole question of annihilation as a goal that is a good question.

I used to believe in life after death. I often wonder about personal death as an eternal sleep and it seems better than some traditional ideas about eternal life. But the idea of annihilation of the human race seems a different matter. I certainly believe that there is an inherent tendency towards life and death, as expressed in Freud's conception of the forces of Eros and Thanatos.

But I would wonder about the philosophy of the writing you are speaking about. I think that such nihilism, alongside the whole philosophy of antinatalistism, might be symptomatic of the negativity underlying the current fragmentation of our culture. I have thought about the end of the world in terms of nothing forever. Of course, there may be other universes that have or might have some life on them. But if the material structure of the universe ceased to exist would there be anything or nothing? What is annihilation? Is it the end of the spark of consciousness?

I did not take your comment as s personal question. If anything, it helped me to reflect on how I have been writing almost on a manic level.It is the first forum I have been on and I only joined in September and I have been writing so many posts and threads. I think that I need to slow down a bit, and I would imagine that you are being more cautious.

Philosophy is about reflection in many ways. You speak of the question or questions raised by this post as being yes or no. I think it is very hard to find yes or no answers in philosophy. Is this fortunate or unfortunate?

I am sorry that you are finding my post as being not specific enough. Apart from the current discussion which is about ideas and whether they are objective truths, and whether they are based on reason, I would point to another specific question.

One person, Possiblility, pointed to a criteria for evaluating ideas: originality, accuracy, popularity, comprehensibility? You can read her post if you scroll back this thread. However, the question is whether originality is the most important standard for viewing the importance of ideas or one of the other measures? I found this to be a useful question to think about.

Yes, I do think that your whole debate on originality, comprehensability, relatability, popularity and accuracy is important to. I was thinking about it in relation to a comment I received in the thread on original ideas, and was planning to recommend that the poster scrolls back and reads what you wrote there. But, here, in the discussion of the arts, I would say that popularity is the one which is most related to making money and that should not be the most important way of evaluating art. I would say that this does happen a lot in the way that music and books are often viewed in terms of charts or best sellers. I can remember, mainly as a teenager, getting so concerned about where my favourite bands were in the singles and album charts.

I definitely think that art cannot be reduced to monetary value. I probably don't think in terms of the importance of popularity and money ranking that much at all, but more about how the individual artists and the arts can survive and flourish. I am worried that the arts will get pushed out of being considered as important. While I do have friends who are interested in expression in the arts, most of the people I interact with do seem to think that they are insignificant, and that matters such as sport are far more important. I can see that this is probably coming back to the whole popularity issue, aside from monetary value.

I do believe that meaningfulness is beyond monetary value but sometimes get demoralised by the way culture is going. We live in a very materialistic culture, although the pandemic may be a wake up call to challenge it. I am just hoping that the arts can be a leading force and that culture does not collapse. The reason why I am saying about culture collapsing is because I was having a discussion about this with Gus Lamarch in the thread 'Suicide of Mod' yesterday. He was suggesting that we are seeing a degeneration, which is equal to the collapse of the Roman empire. However, he does suggest that revolutionary thinking can possibly prevent this, to some extent. I am hoping that art can be a main way forward as a revolutionary force.

Yes, I think that the whole petroleum problem is the biggest one. Anyway, I have a couple of other replies from you on other threads. I will look at them tomorrow because my eyes and brain are tired out for today.

I definitely see signs of decadence. Often, the signs of decadence come from religious parts of the population, but obviously we are speaking in a much wider sense. There is so much fragmentation in all aspects of life and it is becoming much more pronounced.

I find your historical picture and would imagine that have probably studied history in some depths. My own background is more a mixture of philosophy and psychology. So, you are probably more versed in the idea of cycles. I definitely believe that there are cycles and probably the way I had conceived cycles was more along the lines of the Hindus. I have even thought in terms of the astrological age cycles, such as the transition from the age of Pisces to Aquarius.

I definitely don't think that what we are seeing is just like the end of the middle ages. I would say that it is equal to the fall of Rome, if not more.The reason I say possibly more, is the whole climate concern and whether the earth could become uninhabitable.

I am just hoping that the whole pandemic might be a wake up call, to enable people to be more aware and revolutionary in thinking. I do wonder if it might be our last chance.

I would say that there is definitely a clear relationship between action and results. However, what I wonder about is the role of intentionality and consciousness in determining events. I am not convinced that causation only occurs on the physical level. I do believe that it is much more complex. Here, I wonder about Jung's notion of synchronicity. He is speaking of meaningful coincidences. Of course, it is we the subjects who perceive the meaningful coincidences.

The question is do the perceived coincidences exist only in our minds? Could it be that more like the way described by the physicist David Bohm suggested in his idea of the implicate and explicate order? If change occurs in the implicate order we could be seen as seeing patterns played out in the explicate order, of manifestation in life. But, on the other hand, our consciousness might also have a basis in the implicate order, and therefore have an active, determining influence too.

I think that you are partly right, but I would say that we are driven by our animal sides and rational aspects, with emotions as somewhere in between. Jung spoke of how we had neglected the animal aspects of our being and how religious and spiritual teachings had spoken in terms of a false dichotomy between lower and higher aspects of human nature.

I would imagine that the whole way of seeing life was different between the earliest people and present day ones. I am sure that they were more practical because they had learned to approach life in that way. There are variations between people and I am one of the worst examples because I sit here writing about ideas and I rely on microwave food.

But I do believe that ideas are not just based on instincts alone. What about the role of art? We are not just concerned with bodily aspects of life, but at the same time it would be foolish to deny these. It is possible that in the original sense ideas were based on survival. It is also possible that the whole processing of ideas was different , as suggested by Julian Jaynes in 'The Origins of the Bicameral Mind.'

I would say that we need to be aware of the instincts, emotions and reason and that ideas occur on all these levels. If anything, perhaps the problem with Plato and Kant was that they made the whole problem of knowledge appear too mystical. However, on some level I would argue that there is still an archetypal and mythical dimension to human existence.

I would say that the positive side of the pandemic is that it makes us aware that we are all vulnerable. It can be transmitted as easily to the poor as the rich. It does seem that some ethnic groups, particularly Asians and Africans are worst affected. However, the whole pandemic has affected everyone on some level, and in that sense can be a wakeup call which can hopefully be a united one.

Yes, what happens to consciousness when you leave university? Perhaps you can end up behaving forever more in an afterlife of acting like a student. That is what I have probably ended up doing so far: living in student-like accommodation, reading books and writing etc. You can even be reincarnated onto another course. Perhaps, eventually you will reach Nirvana, which I have not managed so far, even when I was working. I don't know what Nirvana would entail here: having a family, becoming a professor?

In a post yesterday I was saying that it is very sad that people are starting to expect books, music and other works for free, without appreciating of the artists' need to make money to live.

However, what you are saying about community arts is very important. I do believe that children and adults should have access to being able to participate in art based activities. Just before lockdown I was attending a creative writing group at a library and had just discovered an art group, which I attended once, in a museum. These were free. I do believe that it is important that people, children and adults, are provided to have access to the arts. It is such an outlet for people and I hope that after the pandemic these groups will be part of culture. I would also hope that there is public funding for such activities, rather than them just having to be staffed by volunteers.

I have read a fair amount of dystopian fiction, but the idea of a society based on this would be problematic.That is not to say that the realisation of utopia is without problems too. I can see your point about entropy.I I read book 'Utopia by Thomas More' at some point, but I don't think it impressed me much because I can't remember it.

I probably do have utopian dreams, but I also can relate to dystopian and post-apocalyptic fiction more easily because they speak more about aspects of our times. I do see them as imaginary and do not think that they can be applied practically. But the one aspect which I wonder about is what effect the ideals do have upon us on a collective level, consciously and subconsciously? Do these dreams and fantasy scenarios have a self -fulfilling prophecy, or do they give us scope for a critical understanding of culture?

I can't possibly think that you would get banned. Even though I am not someone who advocates banning people I can see that the two people who were banned had enormous attitude problems, which you do not. I would imagine that the mods do put some careful thought into banning rather than doing it arbitrarily.

One seemed to think he was superior to almost all others on the site, practically wanting to change it completely and even suggested that he should edit articles. The other had many prejudices and I had a difficult night when I challenged him about his use of the word schizophrenia to imply someone who lacks rationality. He also was being very offhand with me on the day before he was banned, asking me how old I was. I know that the reasons why these 2 were banned was for different reasons but I thought that they were extremely difficult members.

I would object if you were banned. I think that the only problems that the mods might have with you or me is that we start a lot of threads. I really started the one on the arts this week to try to break down all the heated politics. We all get heated, and sometimes I feel heated and have to think before I write. I find lying on my bed and playing some music helps. I have also thought that if get too wound up I might avoid the site for a few days, but it is not easy because I have got into the habit of logging on to my phone.

The discussion on self-fulfilling prophecy was in the thread on disasters and where are we going.
I would be interested in the topic but I will log off for a few hours. That is because it is after midday and I am still in bed, because I have been lying in bed, busy reading and writing on this site. I can't stay in bed all day!