I am pleased that you are not suggesting that individuals should be proficient in all areas, but have connections with other areas and awareness.

When you speak of structures, which I am interpreting to cover the wide range of institutions and aspects of society, I feel that one critical aspect of this power structures. Based on my experience in nursing and medicine these seem to be hierarchical. The problem as I see it is that the awareness and connections made by people at the lower levels of the hierarchy are not necessarily incorporated at the level of decision making.

when I was working I felt that I had some slight influence. Of course, I had interaction with others on a day to day basis and tried to have awareness and connection to all fields. For example, I had example I worked alongside students coming from Universities, so this meant that I gained knowledge from them and hopefully they gained some from me. But, even then, the dialogue seemed limited because so much was about following policies and the agenda set by people at the top of the power structure.

To some extent, I feel, especially while I am not working that I am not really part of any structures and do not have any influence of any significance. Many other people also feel marginalised. So , I would say that personally, I hold onto the value of creativity and awareness, my ideas or so called creative quest barely counts within the framework of structures which exist. Of course, I think that the structures should change but no one cares what I think at all. But, saying that I am wondering if there is a danger of thinking that one's own influence does not matter because perhaps it does count, because there are many dimensions of existence.

I think that I am just having difficulty conceiving of structures and perhaps the existing structures are collapsing. Perhaps the important structures are online, and this forum can be seen as one. So, your categorical could be relevant for considering the threads and posts too. So, we should probably look for awareness and connections in the many discussions we have rather than being locked into our views, and I would say that listening to other perspectives may be a way of enhancing creativity and exchange.

I think that missed opportunity do say a lot about free will because being fixed in the moment often means that we are inclined to follow determine pathways, restricting the exploration of the infinite possible alternative, paths, which would open up unconditioned freedom.

Yes, I will call it a day as well, but I want imagination in philosophy but I want the fantasy to stay in fantasy and science fiction.

I am not a big fan of Alice in Wonderland and prefer the more futuristic aspects of fantasy and steampunk. I am not trying to be contradictory, but I would say that crossovers of disciplines and genres are exciting territories.

I do agree that the inner life can enable us to keep hold of a sense of purpose, because it is too easy to get overwhelmed by the path of reason, as it often seems to lead to deadend.

I do not wish to go down an Alice in Wonderland philosophy path but I think that the present path of reason is often arriving at antinatalism and nihilism.

In the article I mentioned, Colin Wilson spoke not simply of the left side of the brain, but the integration of the two saying,
'The left-right view of the human entity gives altogether firmer grounds for optimism about man's future. It suggests that our real trouble is not that we are at the mercy of sinister dark forces, but that we are enfeeebled by a completely unjustified lack of self- confidence.'

In my current room I try to tidy up for about half an hour a day. The problem when I was working I only tidied up for about half an hour a week.

Healthy living is important. I try to work on it and one of the people I am living runs healthy living workshops and says I eat too much fast food. I try to pay attention to avoiding bad ingredients, such as too much sugar and fat in food, but I don't wish to spend too much time in the kitchen because there is reading and writing to be done.
But yes maybe 3 times a week for this is a good idea.

My goal of keeping my room tidy might seem a pretty one, but I do have some grander hopes too. But sometimes the basics like keeping a room tidy, which I find difficult, are important because when my room gets really chaotic I find it affects other aspects of life too. With New Year, I see it as getting back to the basics, in order reach the heights as well.

I have just said to the Madfool that I do believe that the world of the imagination should not be dismissed by philosophers.

I pointed to the importance of left brain thinking and as I read your post I am thinking how spiritual teachers spoke of the left and right path. The left was seen as fraught with dangers. In particular, the use of drugs for intoxication were forbidden.

However, in philosophy, perhaps we need some left brain thinking, and I am not talking about intoxication. It could be that philosophy has gone too far in right brain reason and that it needs some left brain thinking to restore balance.

I think that fantasy is one of the most central aspects of life. I am talking about daydreaming, but also fantasy as a source for developing ideas and images. I believe in the importance of what Jung described as active imagination. It is a source for the arts and my reference to inner space is based on my interest in science fiction and fantasy writing.

There is much discussion in philosophy about the tension between emotion and reason. However, I see the tension between fact and imagination as just as important. I do not believe that truth is simply about facts, partly because it is possible to build up facts to support our views. I believe that fantasy and imagination are central to thinking.

Perhaps reason and fantasy correspondence with the distinction between right and left brain thinking. In an article called, 'The Laurel and Hardy Theory of Consciousness, ' (1979) Colin Wilson, who drew upon the research of Ornstein, spoke of the left hemispheres as the 'other self.' He spoke of the 'exciting' implications of this, saying, 'the powers of that "other self" are far greater than we realise, and yet that they might nevertheless be accessible to consciousness control.' So, perhaps we need to tap into these powers.

I do believe that philosophy should not be about encouraging reason alone.

I made resolutions a few times and ended up breaking them in a few days.I made one last year and broke it within about a week, but I do feel that I made some progress in a couple of areas of life. I think this year as we enter the new year I see it as more of a time to reflect on general areas for improvement. But rather than one specific resolution I just wish to achieve focused improvements in a few areas, including keeping my room as tidy as possible.

Happy New Year,
Jack

I do agree that the interaction between the outer and inner life is complex,. However, at the same I do believe we have distinct inner lives, even if the inner life is influenced by the outer world. You speak of it the two realms as being a focus of study. I would agree but also see the inner world as a source of fantasy, and I am thinking of the realms of exploration of consciousness which does happen in these dimensions.

I mentioned the way in which we are in bodily existence to @unenlightened and I believe that the way in which we exist as bodies is an important interface for distinguishing between the inner and outer aspects of reality. I have found a relevant quote from a Buddhist writer, Geshe Kelsang Gyatso. He says, 'If we correctly identify and negate the inherently existent body, the body that we normally see, and meditate on the mere absence of such a body with strong concentration, we shall feel our normal body dissolving into emptiness,'

If I start to meditate, or even just sit quietly I can grasp something of this emptiness. Also, when I have tried meditation, although I mostly improvise on various techniques, I do find that sometimes I can begin to voyage into inner space. It seems to me that this dimensions of experience is so different from experience in the external world.

If you believe that the chair and objects around you are animated this might mean that you are a panpsychist. I do not believe that objects around me are animated as such but I do feel that there are energy connections, but they may proceed from us, as conscious beings. Here, I am talking about the meaningful connections, or synchronicities, which involve objects. I am talking about books or CDs which sometimes almost fall off the shelves meaningfully at critical times.

I agree that the distinction between outer and inner reality is not absolute. Even when we are alone we can perceive the outer reality of our own body. However, the most simple way of thinking about inner reality is about shutting our eyes and being in silence. Of course, even then, we have memories of sensory world. However, I do believe that there is a significant inner world and an example of this would be the realm of dreams and imagination.

The quote I offered was from a modern text but I do believe that the reality of the inner world has existed for all human beings at all times.

Extra: Bearing in mind your question, I have added 'Inner Space' to my title because that is probably how I view inner reality.

Yes, that is the true extent of the question of the possibility of immortality. It depends on belief in a soul, or spirit. It is hard to define these terms exactly.

However, the biggest problem in trying to find evidence seems to come down to the way in which consciousness is dependent on the existence of a brain. Also, it is hard to imagine existence without a body.

Of course, traditional Christian views spoke of the idea of the resurrection of the body, although people the idea of the resurrection body of St Paul was a spiritual body.

In Eastern philosophy the idea of reincarnation is seen to follow, so it does not suggest the idea of existence without a body except in terms of a short period, such as that described in The Tibetan Book of the Dead. Also, some Eastern philosophy implies the idea of initiation, and this suggests an idea of a spiritual body.

So, we are left with the possibility of the existence of a spiritual body. However, it is hard to define the spiritual body. I am sure that many neuroscientists would say that there is no such thing as a spiritual body, and dismissed the notion of spirit altogether. However, perhaps they are mistaken because the animating force has to be present for life as opposed to death to exist. Of course, this ceases to exist, as far as we know, at death. But there is a possibility that on an invisible level some aspect of this spark continues to exist on an invisible level, beyond death.

It does involve one central mystery: what is spirit?

Yes, I am not sure that I like the word spiritual. It used to make sense to me, but not any longer. Perhaps our consciousness is changing.

I can see what you mean that my experience was more of an unusual experience than an actual near death experience, but perhaps what you are saying about my experience is true of near death experiences too, because the individuals did not die in the permanent sense.

However, it is interesting if you are saying that near death experiences are not identical but similar.

Personally, I am also fascinated by the whole area of out of body experiences too.

I am interested in the whole area and did get some debate going but generally I found that some of the members on this forum found the whole topic to be ridiculous. The reductionist materialist view seems to be very popular.

In the very last post I wrote I shared my most personal experience on the topic. I wrote it last because I did not want to voice it too publicly, because it is personal. It was just as my post was fading out that I wrote it, so it is possible that no one has read it at all. My post is called, What happens to consciousness when we die? and was last logged into 9 days ago, if you are interested and you could access it under the list of the viewed sites for this month.

I see that you have started your old thread. Someone mentioned it to me, because I began a thread on the subject of consciousness when we die less than a month ago. I have looked at some of your post but certainly not all of it as it is 21 pages long, and I read this site on my phone.

I did look at near death experiences and had dialogue with some current members in my post, but even though I keep an open mind, I cannot see much evidence for the afterlife and looking at some of the posts you have written it seems to be mere speculation. Do you think that there is a case for life after death?

It is interesting that you raise the question whether the Buddha was perfect, and this raises the inevitable underlying one which is what would be the perfect human being? Would it be the ascetic way, or would it be more about caring for others? Would it involve attachments, or be free of them?

I am inclined to think that there is no perfect human being. The teachers like the Buddha and Christ are the closest possible examples. There is so much mystery around the life of Christ, including the question of whether Mary Magdalene was his partner. When you speak of the Buddha leaving his family you are suggesting that this could be seen as a fault and I am not certain of this, because I am not sure that we are obliged morally to remain with the family into which we are born.

I realise that you come from a different background from me, and the society you come from is very family orientated. I come from one in which it is common to leave the family home in early adulthood. Also, I come from a very small family. Of course, I do see it as problematic if people are abandoned in old age, but some do not have any family, especially if they had no children.

On the subject of perfection, I would point to the way in which Jung suggested that Christianity emphasised the idea of perfection and he thought that the principle of wholeness was a better ideal. He was indicating that the ascetic life could give rise to lack of balance. An integrated personality was the goal.

I find the most interesting point that you make in your post addressed to me, because you have written many generally, is a recognition that art and spirituality were once one. I do wonder about this as an avenue for future exploration, but I am using both the term spiritual and art in a loose sense rather than in a strict one. However, my point is that the arts give a possible means by which to communicate the imagery or contents of the inner world. Also, it may be possible to use art as a means by which to channel aspects of higher dimensions of existence.

I have read 'Small is Beautiful' by Schumacher and was very impressed by it. I would love to see it put into practice but it is hard to know how this would be done in practice, but consumer materialist society is crumbling. This was happening prior to the pandemic and it is escalating and it is hard to know what will happen next, because a year ago we would have never expected the situation we are in now.

The possible harsh lessons which many of us will face is painful to think about, but let us just hope that it will bring some positive balance as well as the more grim ones. It just seems hard to predict at the moment.

This is an interesting area of discussion as the whole way in which law is sometimes seen as restrictive, while it can be protective too. The example of motorcycle helmets is a good one, and I have known someone who died of head injuries because he was not wearing a helmet.

It is questionable what would happen if some of the laws we had did not exist, such as rules against drink driving and using drugs. Would we be tempted to go and buy skunk weed if it was readily available in the supermarket and many of us end up with drug induced psychosis?

Perhaps we need some restrictions on us to protect us in exploring freedom. Of course, law is not straightforward and static, but evolves in the face of the complexities arising in legal cases.

I have just read what you have written about grief, and that is a very interesting about what grief says about the attachments one has? Is it the case that those who grieve, or appear to grieve for someone who has died means that they loved them more than someone who does not?

One interesting exploration of this is the protagonist in Albert Camus in The Outsider, who goes out and has sex following the death of his mother.

I think that grief is an extremely complex subject, as it is experienced differently and expressed differently from one person to person, and in various cultures. Some people have complicated grief reactions. Grief is a big topic, but it does offer an interesting view for thinking about attachments to other human beings.

The ideas you suggest are interesting, I am very open to them, but just not sure how they would work in terms of practical applications. Thinking about creativity in terms of process rather than end products sounds good but how would it be measured? In education, measurements are made as grades, and I see it as unfortunately this results in declarations under strict divisions between pass, or fail. Even when processes are measured it is often by looking at work which is viewed and assessed, so in some ways it is about looking at certain evidence only.

The distinctions you make about dividing our creative resources across industries sounds interesting, but I am not sure what it would entail exactly. If you mean thinking about classifying them in terms of creativity I would certainly say that the many industries involve creativity, and this is not exclusive to the arts. This thread has not considered this comparatison between art and other disciplines at all, so it is good that you raise it, and I would be interested to know whether those who argue that the arts lack creativity would extend this to other areas, including the sciences or engineering.

However, if by your idea of extending our creativity across these realms you mean that each person needs to be enabled to pursue the various branches, I think that it would depend on abilities. Some people are all rounders and some are not. Personally, I find that I perform badly if I am expected to be good at all things equally. When I was expected to study for about 11 subjects at school I found it overwhelming and did less well than when I was able to specialise later. I have found that we are being meant to be able to do more and more in work situations.

In particular, when looking for work, I have found that job descriptions (in nursing) are pages long, with duties ranging from the technical to domestic. I have looked at such job descriptions and thought how could any one person be expected to do all these things? Actually, it seems that one is expected to be highly proficient at all tasks , and the only thing which is not expected is being able to do art.

Going back to the divisions you make about popularity, originality, reliability,and accuracy, I think that they are useful for thinking about ideas but I do not know how they would be used for forming actual structures. This is because they are not static. Of all them, popularity is the most changeable. If one was seeking that in a pursuit and fashions changed would they swing completely in another direction according to fit the new popular?I would say that your categories are a useful guideline for thinking about how we think about our own work in any field, but that it would be less helpful if the categories are seen too concretely.

I think that we have a lot of work to do. The whole social questions, including problems like homelessness should not be about trying to enable the homeless person to think about being attached to basic needs. Ultimately, we are interconnected and the needs of everyone need to be addressed collectively. Perhaps it will need a shift in consciousness, and the underlying wisdom of impermanence could be a basis for this in order to address the problem of consumer based materialism.

Thanks, I will look out for it.

Being stripped back to deprivation of basic needs, such as fluids, does seem questionable indeed, but, all human beings, including those on the precipice of death, and are clinging to the basic attachment to life itself.

I have been reflecting on what you have said about suffering and impermanence and how it bears upon the whole question of attachment. What I have been thinking is that we should all realise that, in some senses, what we love will decay and die. Some of the people we love will die, as we will at some point and we will age and face inevitable loss. However, it does seem that some people have more than their fair share of loss and suffering, and I am wondering if this level of suffering goes beyond the matter of attachments.

What I am left wondering is about the extent of suffering and how far can people be pushed in the plight against attachment. Of course this is not simply a matter for philosophy as the reality is one faced in real life rather than just in writing philosophy discussions.

Personally, I think that the most ultimate forms of suffering I could be confronted with would be blindness or homelessness, as I said to Athena in response to her post.Of course, having pointed to my worst fears, I realise that it is hard to consider losses without them really happening. For all I know, I might cope with homeless and blindness, but hopefully not together, and fall apart on account of some lesser loss which I had never thought about at all.

However, thinking about attachment and life, including essentials like having a place to live, good health, sight and hearing, food, need for others and private space, I am left wondering how much can be seen as basic need and how much is about our attachment?

I think that the balance between right and left brain thinking is of supreme importance. It could be that this whole area is worthy of a thread in it's own right because it involves the whole way in which we process information and think.

I am sorry that you have been homeless. In terms of attachments, having somewhere to live is about the most basic. Homeless and blindness are my worst fears.

But I would say that cooking and cleaning are skills. On a funny side, I will admit how bad I am at them and how when I try to mop I seem to make the floor dirtier than it was in the first place. Somebody told me that I use too much water. Also, I tried to run a couple of cooking groups at work and got in a terrible mess. I got cake mix on the door and the group I was leading ending up making chocolate brownies which looked more like brownie lumps, and I don't know if they were ever eaten at all.

But on a serious level, I think that the need for others, and to be alone, are both important and are real basic needs, and not just attachments. I think there is a danger of certain basic needs just being seen as attachments rather than as essential needs.

I am sure that Buddhism does not actually suggest detachment. I think that the problem is people interpreting in a shallow way. I think that it is unfortunate that the shallow interpretations are upheld by many, and I would intend that in my post that such misconceptions can be explored and clarified, because they are complex.

I think that the biggest problem is when any group of people think that they are in a position to dictate how we should live our lives.

For better or worse, we have certain attachments and who has the right to stand as judge? Perhaps we need more people with compassionate understanding of attachments rather than philosophies which simply proclaim detachment as an end.

I think that part of the diminishing role of art is because people are beginning to want fast solutions, especially entertainment through television and on the internet. I am inclined to think that the loss of meaning in art began when popular art became part of consumer material society, with pictures being sold to be placed on the wall, almost becoming parts of furniture.

I see your point( Brett)about landscapes painted on Sunday afternoons, and this whole side of art does seem to deplete it of any meaning. On the basis of liking my drawings, many people asked me to draw their pets or their houses, and I did not take up the challenge, even when though they offered me money, because I had no meaningful way of making art based on the objects of their sentiments because it seemed at odds with the whole quest of my art. I tried to explain that to them but I don't think that they understood, because they saw drawing as a practical skill. The most I achieved was to be able to come up with pictures for my parents' living room walls, because this was not too limiting.

I think that the whole idea of art as products is part of the problem. This applies to other arts, including music and books, which is a whole area of commercial value. I don't think that most creative people do wish to work for money but they have to survive. Perhaps the best solution is a day job to support oneself, rather than relying on artistic work for a living, but this is complicated, especially as we are moving into a time of possible mass unemployment.

I would say that it is likely that art will be a minority interest. When I have been running art groups, I have found that a lot of adults think that making art is just for children. However, they do not think that about art, However, they do not seem to think this about playing sports, and I think that it is unfortunate that art is not seen as a means of enjoyment, expression and questing for meaning.

One other point which I would make is that some would say that philosophy is a minority interest and irrelevant. Should we be following the direction of the minority or be trying to rise above it?:I do believe that some of the original posters on this site are not saying simply that art is not creative but that it is worthless and, therefore, should not be pursued at all.This seems so nihilistic, and is in the spirit of discouraging creativity

What is the better creative replacement for art and the arts? I know that you (Brett) think that the state of mind(Zen) you experience is the answer, but surely to reduce all exploration to one answer is far too simplistic, and it should not be instead of the arts, and possibly the two states could be complementary. Art and spirituality are not enemies.

If the arts lack any creativity whatsoever, I am left wondering how one chooses to understand the term creativity, and I am not sure that it can just be reduced to the idea of 'originality' as some posters wish to cling, to rigidly as the supreme benchmark. It seems to me to be lopsided thinking and to try to say that art has no creativity, or potential for creativity.

Do you think that suffering is a 'pernicious lie' and that 'which we cherish the most is immune to damage, death and decay', because surely this contradicts the idea of impermanence.

However, I do like the idea of reason personified as 'a protagonist', although some might object to me saying 'like' because I am not sure if we are meant to be swayed by our likes, and I am perhaps following the path of attachments here, in the realm of ideas, and ignoring Reason's governing power.

Yes, that is a good point that we should not work upon attachments unless they are a problem. Personally, I have felt guilty about attachments and I have found it hard to hold onto the things to which I would like to. But, yes, if there is not a problem, why create one?

I would agree that there is a problem in viewing this life from the standpoint of future lives. Even if a person believes in future ones, surely this one should be the focus, because it is the life being lived rather than imaginary ones.

Yes, I think that attachments are complicated and each person's own set of them are unique. We probably have to negotiate the right balance in all areas of life.

Meaningful connections are fine, but sometimes they become more than this, or we would probably not have friendships or relationships at all, including sexual ones. Also, sometimes we want connections with others and this is not reciprocated and this leads to the negative side of attachments.

What can be particularly painful is rejection, but I am not saying that we cannot rise above the surface of the suffering However, in doing so, we might form attachments which are built on the original source of pain, making the glue of these new attachments more fixed, and less flexible. Of course, in some cases the rejection may make some fearful of connections and even solitude is a form of attachment, as well as a detachment, in a strange way.

Apart from formal education I would say that families are the beginning of the process of learning to think, rather than just being told what to think. My parents used to talk to me a lot and encourage me to think freely. When I was at school I was aware that had discussed so much that others had not been encouraged to think about.It is surprising that my parents never thought through their religious beliefs fully, as I have done, and chose to cling on to their original beliefs.

I would say that we have to connect with others before the attachments occur. Attachments don't arise out of nowhere. They have to have some basis from which to form in the first place. It is not possible to be attached to someone without a meaningful connection.