I think that the danger is probably in looking too hard for answers in the inner world. The process needs to involve a certain amount of spontaneity and reflection on others' points of view. But, personally, I do see some kind of meditation practice as important for bringing my mind to the right state of awareness in order to think with clarity.

The question is what is the truest state of being 'awake'?

I would say that inner space is an important arena for questioning. It can be a frightening world to explore and perhaps we need to touch base with others, as a way for avoiding the wastelands of subjectivity and difficulties we might find in searching for answers.

It is sometimes useful to search for answers within oneself, but also useful to compare with others and see our own exploration within its historical and cultural climate. The searching can be personal but also universal, because each person is confronted by the dilemmas of philosophy in some way.I do not believe that philosophy is a pure academic pursuit but one which draws upon the principles of reason and academic study, but it is also a personal search for meaning and truth.

I wish that I could find or offer easy answers but, unfortunately, it is not that simple and one question often leads to another. But, I am not saying it is all futile, and perhaps the philosophy quest is the most ultimate one in life, and the writings of the philosophers are the testimonies, nothing more and nothing less, and there is no one who can claim that their own inner truth is superior.

Yes, if we do not exist beyond death we will not know it, but if we do exist we will know. This spells out the extent of possibilities, except borderline states of consciousness, and future rebirth.

Perhaps the people who do not think about this matter at all are better off, and perhaps it would have been better if this thread had not been created.However, I am sure that some may worry about this alone, so, if nothing else, the thread may be an outlet for anxiety over this problem, which I see as possibly the hardest philosophy questions of all.

Its interesting that in your job that you were often seen as the 'tea lady' , when you probably did so much more. I think I was remembered in nursing jobs by patients for art more than anything else, to the point where a patient queried why I was giving medication to him, and he said, ' But, you're the art teacher,' My worst moments were when, in rehab hostels, I was expected to cook the supper, and sometimes my best resource was getting the patients to help, and technically I was correct, because psychiatric rehabilitation is meant to be about getting patients involved as part of the rehabilitation process.

I do think that power is a matter of perspective. At times, I feel that I am powerless, and other times, I realise that others seem almost unnerved by my power.

So, I would say that the whole question of creativity, in art and all aspects of life is a matter of perspective, with no absolutes, but a matter of framing. It involves conjuring up the imagination, rather than closing it down by focusing upon restrictions in a negative way.

I
I see your introspection illusions link and I do not want to become a navelgazer, or probably, in my case a shoegazer, because I am a bit of indie and psychedelic. I can see the dangers of focusing too much on the inner world. It is not even just about introspection and illusions but even, at its extremes, psychotic delusions.

I am not wishing that we should rely simply on the territory of our own introspection. If anything, I spend a lot of time going into the worlds created by other minds in the books which I read. But probably what I find, is that there is so much theorising, and ,somehow, I feel that we can get lost in the mazes, and lose touch with intuition as a source of wisdom.

I think that you make a good point. What happens after death is a mystery, even though some people think that they have definite answers. Whatever, this life is important and living it well, and perhaps this must be upheld, and I say this from the perspective of having agonised over the question of life after death endlessly. I wish that I knew the answer to the question of life after death but I am afraid that I do not know, and, for the present time, just try to accept this lack of knowledge.

One possible distinction which I can see between attachments and desires are that attachments may refer to the nature of our experiences of meeting desires. Loss of objects of desire may also be incurred, of course. However, that is perhaps another experience, separate from desire which may be about the fire for unquenched desires. They are connected but there are some subtle differences.

Thanks for the link and I am sure that the theory is a good framework but what I am interested in is a bit different. I am more interested in the experiential level of understanding in philosophy.I am not saying that theories for understanding the way we understand are irrelevant to this but do believe that we can look within as a source for knowledge and a more direct encounter.

Possibly, my approach is more in line with Eastern approaches to philosophy. I am not trying to say that we should not dialogue with others or understanding the history of philosophy. What I am saying is that the inner dimension, which some might dispute as existing in it's own right, is a source for imagination and connection with a certain kind of engagement with knowledge or self knowledge. But, I am not trying to suggest a withdrawn person struggling alone with the questions of philosophy, but drawing from intuition and imagination, which get forgotten and ignored sometimes.

I think that part of the complicated of understanding how inner and outer levels of experience work together is that while we may perceive others as aspects of outer reality, these others also experiencing their dialogue between inner and outer reality.

I think that the flow between inner and outer can be seen as flowing inwards and outwards. We take in information and generate it in our psyche.

Please note: As I was writing this, I received your link, which you think is relevant. Thanks for this, so I will look at it and reply at a later point.

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.