I am no expert on block universes, so my answer to you may not be of help at all. What I do have to say though is that I can empathise with the whole experience of reading some books and getting in a depressed state over it. It used to happen to me fairly frequently but I have got to the point where I can read a book and stand back and see it as just one point of view.

From what you have said about the block universe in your thread it sounds hypothetical and rather far fetched. Of course time is mysterious and there are a number of threads which are currently active at the moment.

The idea that you will not experience the future because you will be another person seems a bit nonsensical because we can say that we are the same person as in the past despite changes. Memory links past and present. I can remember my first day at school. In a sense it is just as true to say that I am that same person as to say that I am a different person.

But if I have not helped your thinking I certainly hope that I have not made you feel even more depressed. Really, what I am trying to say Is that I have got depressed about philosophy ideas (and religious ones) and have found later that I was building certain views way beyond proportion. Each book is only one person's perspective.

I can see that you have made an interesting comparison between Plato and Camus, pointing to the paradox of the meaningful or meaningless life.

Perhaps we can live that paradox creatively by constructing our own meaning. We can spend all our time searching for reality or feel that we have grasped it and give in to despair, or perhaps juggle this balance delicately. We could spend our entire lives hoping for ultimate answers or lie in bed all day, feeling so disheartened by the answers we have found. We have both options but in the meantime perhaps it is worth reflecting on some of the worst truths we have discovered, acknowledging where we have arrived, with an openness to finding the pathways to the sun, or to quote Daft Punk's song Get Lucky, '...to reach for the stars.'

Perhaps it is a bit like being in a maze with dead ends and possible exits. Of course I am living the life of the searcher in quest of truth. It is about emotional and psychological searching too, about not giving in to the depression of meaningless or groundless flight
into the elation of grasping for wondrous truths.

I like your thread discussion but do agree with the last response, being unsure about the way in which the subject matter of our consciousness can be verified on an empirical basis.

I do have experiences of tuning into other dimensions and patterns which seem to be pointing towards unknown dimensions, but how can I know if the thoughts are real or my own fantasies, even if it is abstract thought rather than images?

We have Kant with his picture of transcendent truths which can be perceived by the law of reason. Alternative we have Bohm's idea of an implicate order beyond the explicate order. Similarly, we have Jung's idea of the collective unconscious or the adventures of travellers on the astral plane. Are they completely different matters or are they the same exploration using different terminology?

Generally, it seems that the idea of reason is seen as more objective and supreme as opposed to images by the philosophers. But surely this comes down to the way in which words are the main tool of the philosophers whereas images are more the subject of the arts. However, I am not sure images and symbols are not important too , especially if they can be translated into words.

However, the main issue is that we can access other worlds and dimension containing patterns and abstraction but it is hard to know if these are real. Of course there have been writers who spoke of hidden, alternate realities, such as Emmanuel Swedenborg and Rudolf Steiner, who I doubt would not be given much credibility on this site, but as with their writings are we not journeying towards the esoteric. However, I would not be against the esoteric but from my experience of this site so far it seems to verge into a taboo territory.

That is a totally inadequate interpretation of Beyond Good and Evil. From your response I wonder if you have even read the book as what you are saying sounds like a projection of your own thoughts.

If that is the yes and no approach you want I do not think that you will develop much of a philosophical point of view.

I am quite that your method was not what Einstein meant in the quotation you gave. He was saying how people try to get too bound up into theories in their writing, not saying that we should reduce everything to yes and no.

Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil offered to you to reduce to a yes and no scrutiny.

I don't think you like my communication much, so I will keep it brief.

I am stuck in England's second lockdown. I will say that lockdown and social distancing is a soliptist universe, crawling into bed, reading a philosophy website. It all feels unreal, communication with characters like The Mad Fool, Darkneos and Hippyhead. Threads about reality and masturbation ethics.

If only it was a dream....? But I am trapped in my own sensory reality of lying in bed, reading my phone, just like you are trapped in your private universe.

For most philosophical questions I do not think it would be possible to come up with yes or no answers.

Only really basic questions like is it raining at the moment could be answered in such a basic way. Even then, the answer could change within a minute. For some questions we could make some answers like yes or no, based on the development of knowledge. For instance, if we were asked if the world was flat or round. It all depends on our knowledge limits.

The main problem with yes and no questions in philosophy is that we are not even talking about physical reality. Questions about the existence of God, what is real, the relationship between mind and body, how we should live and most of the issues are complex and require contemplation.

I cannot see why you would seek questions which are simply yes or no. The human imagination can do so much more. Any attempt at a mere yes or no would be about simplification to the point of the ridiculous.

You say that there are so many theories and I cannot see why this is a problem. We can learn to navigate this world and find out own position. I cannot see why yes and no answers would give comfort. It seems as ridiculous as barracading oneself in a room for life as a means of safety.

Surely, we need to take risks and develop full answers, rather than look for the most basic answers. The basic questions requiring yes and no world short circuit exploration and the imaginatiion which are at the heart of the philosophical journey.

I see that that there have been quite a few responses to the thread in the last few days, which I am glad about because I do think that the tensions between the life of the body and the head is a real one.

I think I must have been erring on the side of hedonism this afternoon because a boy who just moved into the room next to mine knocked on my door and asked me to turn my music down. This hasn't happened to me in years and it is only 5pm.
He must be of the Appollan tradition with me being more of a Nietzschean.

Seriously though, I do think that the main issue is enjoyment without hurting others. That was my main issue when I started the thread after being a bit perplexed by the comments on the masturbation ethics thread. The comments on this thread have been very open minded. I was half expecting that the comments would be of a condemning nature, but perhaps the more puritanical were put off by my title.

As for Jim Morrison, I do like most of the Doors music but I think the most interesting album is An American Prayer, because it is his existential poetry. And of course there have been so many other shamanic musicians, ranging from Lou Reed, David Bowie and so many others. Of course they were not philosophers as such but have an influence on culture. I don't believe that cultural movements, ranging from art, music and literature can be detached from the world of philosophy.

So, we may wonder what the future will bring. Will the philosophers remain in the academic world of the head, or be engaged in the experimental sensory quest, or be able to combine the two?

Perhaps rather than a computer being God, the computer is made in the image of God. Or perhaps I am evolving a new computeromorphism.

By the way, I had imagined you more as a school teacher than as an IT person. Having worked in mental health care mostly, perhaps you were involved in working with the computer packages I was using, but I am in England and I don't know if you are. I used to get really angry when the packages' behaviour. It was like some divine being was playing tricks. Sometimes the packages would stick or a whole page I had written would vanish into limbo. There was this to cope with and patients banging on the office windows, desperate for attention.

Also, we had a few patients smashing computers. I remember being in the process of giving out medication and a man leaned over the medication counter and pushed the computer to the floor. Perhaps it was his anger towards God.

I have not come across Christopher Hichens but I do like the analogy between miracles and computer technology in general.

I think that many people who reject the idea of the supernatural get frustrated with computer software and systems not seeing any links with how the makers are a bit like God. I once had a friend who,in a state of relapse of psychotic illness was banging his head repeatedly, saying 'God is a computer.' That was at the time I was questioning religious experiences deeply and even though my friend was unwell I could see the point he was making.

I think that we are beginning to take digital technology for granted, not seeing how some of it verges on the miraculous itself. We expect Wifi to be working and moan if is not fast enough. We expect the books we want to be downloaded at the flick of a switch.

I sometimes think we sit back on our devices expecting divine answers to appear on our devices has some relationships to Moses reading on tablets. If there is a God perhaps 'they' communicate the miraculous in digital form.

I am not sure if what I am saying is what you were saying, but at least you have a first response to your thread.

The field of post traumatic stress disorder is interesting. I have come across a few people who feel that they have it and it is sometimes gets mistaken for borderline personality disorder. In fact, one of the tutors on my art therapy course thought that complex post traumatic stress disorder would be better for what is regarded as borderline personality disorder. To some extent I agree but I am not sure that there is not a subtle difference. Whatever the labels, severe stress does terrible things to us.

Really, even though I am writing about Freud and arguing against Darkneos's dismissal of Freud I think that various schools of thought can contribute to the understanding of various conditions. I am sure that Freud would not be opposed to neuroscience and in his time hypnotherapy was fashionable so he went down that route.

Understanding is an open quest and can learn from the various competing disciplines and fields of thought. I think philosophy needs to engage in this way rather than thinkers becoming too rigid, fixed and attached to any one way of thinking. The philosopher needs to be able to do mental gymnastics to stay adrift in the rocky slopes of our times.

Your essential argument seems to be most in line with the material reductionist. It is compatible with the behaviourist approach of B F Skinner. You do appear to believe that the neuroscientists have the final word. When you say that the 'mind' does not exist you are making an assertion about the mind and body problem of philosophy, a huge a whole branch of philosophy in itself and yet you write as if you can sum the whole field up in a couple of sentences.

Also, in your approach to post traumatic syndrome and its healing you say that the experiences come down to a rewiring of the brain. Of course, the brain is involved in all human experiences but once again you are being completely reductionist. You say that 'tricky part' involves more than 'a nip and a tuck'. Indeed, that is the problem as the repair of human suffering is complex.

As you are so opposed to Freud's ideas what do you believe the answer is for working with life experiences of the past ? You say that talk therapy was not new and I am not sure if you are dismissing it at all or not. I would say that it can help depending on the approach of the therapist. I have been in therapy for personal issues and as part of an art psychotherapy course and would say it can be hinder or help. I believe that this applies to all therapy, including person centred, psychodynamic, Gestalt or cognitive behavioral techniques. There are many therapists with bad attitudes who have absolutely no connection with the ideas of Freud.

All in all, you argue that the 'what was termed the mind is just the brain' , dismissing the 'personality, behaviour, emotions, everything''. In saying this you are dismissing the essence of what it means to be a human being. Do you believe we are just brains? You are looking at the hardware of human existence and wishing to look at nothing beyond this. But, more than anything you need to realise that your dismissal of the mind, and the subconscious of Freudian thought , involves debate around the philosophy of mind which is a whole branch of philosophy and cannot be written away in a couple of sentences.

On a diversion from Freud I am wondering if you have read The Doors of Perception/ Heaven and Hell, and I believe that he used Mescalin when he was dying.

I will read the Freud links as the point I was interested in him was his views on the life and death instincts. I think that part of his work may be the most interesting. The structure of id, ego and superego are also unique and useful I believe.

After all, in assessing Freud it does not have to be about an all encompassing rejection or acceptance of everything he said. That applies to all thinkers too. We do not want to be philosophical robots.

I think you were responding to me while I was responding to you.

I am glad that you can see that Freud's ideas do not have to be seen as attacking gay people.

The only thing to bear in mind when speaking of Freud's views in relation to religion is that he wrote a vast amount on religion himself. He was not a believer in God but he did give credit to the oceanic feeling.

I think one of the problems we have with Freud is that in his role as psychiatrist/ psychologist/ psychiatrist is that he did step outside of his role and that is where he goes into philosophy.

Nowadays, at least the roles of different professionals is marked out because the fuzziness of roles can become problematic. While Freud can be seen as a great writer and that is the main strength I would attribute to him, I think that no one today could get away with jumping around areas of thought as he does.

I think that even philosophers have to be careful about this. The main problem is that it could undermine the importance of what is being said.
But I am not wanting a philosophy put in a box.

I see you have written another post while I am writing this. Yes, a cure for post traumatic disorder would be good. I will be very surprised if a psychedelic gets prescribed, even CBD is being frowned upon by many. In my antipsychiatry voice I would say that psychiatry is far more in favour of antipsychotics for post traumatic disorder than psychedelics because visionary healing is not valued enough.

You mention the creative arts and I don't know whether you noticed that The Mad Fool created a thread on this in response to a discussion he had with me.

You should be able to find it, if you are interested, by just scrolling down the page because it was active yesterday.

I agree with you that it is hard to see how issues like post traumatic syndrome can be accounted for without the idea of the subconscious.

Psychiatrists have not dismissed the tradition of psychoanalysis as many undertake training in psychodynamic therapy. Many are progressing thinkers, go beyond sexism and homophobia. Of course psychiatry does use drugs, but most do recognise the importance of the subconscious and the past, especially relevant for both post traumatic syndrome and borderline personality disorder.

Of course psychiatry can come under attack. The whole anti antipsychiatry tradition questioned some of the labelling of disorders.

[
I have never denied that Freud's ideas are without weaknesses. You gave links with some articles but as for your own argument it is mere opinion.

It is impossible to say what would have happened in the world of psychology if Freud had never existed.

I don't think psychology has been too badly damaged by Freud. It is thriving amidst the social sciences. Clinical psychology is a sought career for many, with fierce competition.

I think Freud's ideas do reflect the prejudices of his times but would say that I am not so sure that he was really against gay issues because he spoke of the dangers of repression.

His ideas can be used in many ways as with most thinkers.

I am not a scientist and I have no idea if you are and I do not think that scientists should have monopoly on claims to truth? Even scientists are affected by the participation observer bias.

What about the arts? Perhaps psychoanalysis fits more into this than any other perspective. The psychoanalytic tradition is not Freud alone but a whole heritage, including Jung, Melanie Klein and Walter Bion, to name just a few. Are you dismissing Freud or the worth of the whole field of psychodynamic psychotherapy? It still exists and has not been overthrown by cognitive behavioral therapists entirely.

You have dismissed the subconscious and dreams? Perhaps you would like to propose a model for understanding the mind. You seem to have faith in neuroscience but is that the be all and end all? Will you be wishing for philosophy itself to become a mere footnote to add to an all encompassing brain science.

Yes, I see what you are saying and I think there is a relationship between rebelling and experimentation . To some extent experimenting can be seen as a form of rebellion unless a person is brought up in an extremely libertarian environment.

However, I am not sure that experimentation is simply about rebellion entirely. Certain types of music such as nu metal, punk and emo are rebellion but not only that. They represent a new way of revisioning the inner world. This is especially true also of the whole psychedelic experiment. Sexual experimentation is not just about rebelling but finding creative pathways.

Also, not all experimentation is wonderful. People can end up with drug addictions. Of course all experiences are learning ones ultimately.

Finally, I will say that the philosophers who have experimented are not necessarily superior to those who have not. Some individuals paths in life seem to be so straight and narrow and yet they go on to develop fantastic philosophical insights.

However, I have to admit that I usually side more with philosophers who have both experimented and rebelled. But the ones who do not need to go down these pathways probably have an easier life.

I can see that you are providing evidence for your ideas and I do give you credit for that.The one bit I would question the most is the idea of discrediting the unconscious.

My questioning about discrediting the subconscious or unconscious is from a theoretical stance though. I am wondering is if we see the unconscious as a mere background process, I am left wondering if that would mean that sleep(and dreams) would be regarded as unnecessary. What would happen if we were awake constantly? I have experienced many sleepless nights and have felt absolutely terrible. I am not convinced that sleep is a mere rest for the body and do believe that dreaming is essential.I would suggest that it allows for some kind of synthesis of conscious experience.

I am not a biologist but do believe that the nervous system is complex. I am not sure that the brain itself is the only aspect of consciousness and the only way I can back this up is with reference to the limbic system and the parasympathetic nervous system.

Regarding biases I am inclined to think that rather that certain biases rather than him creating them he had certain views because he was affected by the prejudices of a former time. What I believe he did was about bringing sexuality into an open forum. The ideas he expressed provided a forum for discussion and this in itself has been a starting point for positive developments to further the awareness of women's rights and gay rights.

I am certainly not saying that Freud was without many weaknesses and I do acknowledge that you are getting into critical discussion. I certainly hoped that would happen and would not want Freud put on a pedestal. But I do believe that, as you say, he was not the only person exploring the many of the psychological ideas in his writings, but I would still say that his writings are a useful resource and I do believe it is not sufficient to simply dismiss him as 'a quack'.

Okay, your case of homelessness is an extreme reality but unfortunately this could be the grim reality for many, including many who do wish to find work.

Of course it brings us back to the real basics of the human condition. We are so used to the 'comforts', to quote Darkneos and what will happen to those individuals, philosophers or not, who are brought to harshest physical conditions ? I am inclined to think that some will survive and others will crumble. I like to think that I am solid but we all have our limits.

Is physical or psychological suffering worse? Also, what happens when someone experiences a profound degree of both at the same time?

I agree with the spirit of what you are saying but would not want to become homeless. I have moved twice this year and I am grateful to have accommodation. If I had to sleep out in the streets, especially in winter, and scavage for food I think I would be too drained to draft ideas for philosophy.

There is also the question of what we consider as work. Some people are out of work but contributing through caring roles or creative pursuits. While we need money to survive, is work simply about doing tasks for which we get paid?

I am glad you are still involved in the thread and engaging with the various comments. I went off in a bit of a diversion with The Mad Fool, into the realm of art therapy. One idea leads to another and it is all interconnected.

To some extent I do stand by my belief that experiences go beyond words, and that has led us both into a diversion into art therapy. But that does not to say that we should not be doing our best to find the words we need.

To say that psychoanalysis goes beyond words I am pointing at levels of reality which may be about evolutionary aspects of nature prior to the human level, namely the instinctual level of emotion.

Despite the mystics' claim of transcendent levels of awareness beyond words, I go back a bit on what I appear to have been arguing and say that as philosophers we need to find the best possible words to express our point of view. I am not sure if this means that logic is primary or whether it could include thinking about emotions and other instincts and drive from the position of reason.

I am interested to know a bit more about the evidence you speak of to show that there is no subconscious.

I was fairly impressed in some ways by the little critique you wrote on Freud's lack of evidence on your previous post, although your claims were lacking in clear evidence. If you are that convinced of the supremacy of evidence based research you need to be able to cite it. Were you coming from a psychological angle. This was not clear and while philosophy can draw upon psychology and psychoanalysis the various lines of thought need to be spoken of with clarity.

You moved from a position of lack of evidence to a claim that philosophy was not necessary to the conclusion that Freud was a quack. This was a rather sweeping opinion.

I know that you are talking about whether art therapy is a placebo or not but I am curious about your own experience of the therapy. I am not talking about it in an official sense as something you have been practised or being given as an official treatment, but about your own experience of art and art making.

Obviously, this is a philosophy website so is not necessarily about personal disclosure and people are not expected to divulge aspects of their personal experience. However, I am just curious because I was drawing upon my own experience of art therapy to back up my own thinking around the psychoanalytic ideas of Freud.

At one point I did plan to become an art psychotherapist. In some ways, I regret not finishing this particular training but the training was extremely expensive, especially as you were required to pay for personal therapy for the entire duration of the course. There are not many jobs in art therapy and I became a bit disillusioned about its benefits. However, I continue to take an interest in it and do try to find opportunities to do my own art and be involved in art groups as well as creative writing activities.

I would say that one does not have to go as far as art therapy as a curative option. The expressive arts in general have always been a central part of human culture.

Yes, it is all about balance and moderation and all the states in between. I am certainly not wanting to advocate a path towards self destruction in the pursuit of finding answers to the great questions and mysteries of life.

I do enjoy time sitting down reading and would not want to be out on a 'Walk on the Wild Side'
constantly. In spite of inspiration from Jim Morrison and the other rock stars I spent most of my time at University living a very mundane existence. I only began exploring other limits after life began kicking me down and I began using pleasure as a basic life support, resuscitate technique. To some extent, it worked.

My first experiences of experimentation were taking caffeine tablets, especially for writing essays late at night. I found that they to think clearly. But they were a bit addictive and I used to feel terrible the next day, worse than drinking alcohol.

But as a thinking tool and pleasure I recommend the more controlled dose of caffeine in coffee. And for philosophical conversations or for relaxed reflection a glass of wine or two. But I would not want wine on a daily basis. As for coffee, I need it every single day as the ultimate philosophy tonic.

I was not intending to imply that experimentation should be for mere selfish ends. Perhaps a lot of people do.

If anything there is so much pain to experience and pleasure can be a pathway to healing. I would not necessarily suggest that many do not stop at that point, but that is where my question has to be seen in the context of the quest of philosophy.

I guess that my own slant on this comes from my own reading about the lead singer of The Doors, Jim Morrison. He explored sex, drugs and rock'n'roll to the extreme, in order to 'Break On Through To The Other Side'. Jim Morrison was extremely interested in philosophy, taking a particular interest in philosophy. Before I ever went to University I found a list of books he had on his bookshelf and went out to read them. These included Keroac's On the Road, Colin Wilson's The Outsider and Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil.

Am I confessing to having Jim Morrison as my philosophy mentor? Oh dear, what am I saying but I do find the music of The Doors to be so inspiring. I also have to say that I have found some of the most famous music stars' lyrics as part of my own philosophy journey, including the lyrics of U2, and I am awaiting the release of the first album by Bono's son's group, Inhaler.

I suppose I am just see philosophy as part of the healing, shamanic journey and interrelated to the arts. But of course I am not part of the real academic world of philosophy, perhaps I am just playing around with the jumble of fragments of life.

Having created this thread late last night, I have been thinking that one might wonder why the philosophers might be any different from any other group of people with regard to personal experimentation.

In this respect I would say that in many ways the philosopher might be the one who can detach from the senses, and may be able to come to a knowledge of the world through the process of thought. Nevertheless, I would ask whether the philosopher might need to quest further and take the shamanic journey to the underworld and to reach alternate states of consciousness, in order to arrive at certain truths?

You have got a discussion going on art therapy anyway whereas I ended up writing one on sex, drugs, rock,'n,'roll etc. yesterday and so far no one is interested in the latter.

I would say that art therapy can be done from various perspectives. I would say it is a recognised profession and there have been individuals who have called themselves art therapists who have been stopped from practicing for this reason. In England there is a requirement to be registered with The British Association of Art Therapy. I began the journey to train which takes 2 to 3 years but unfortunately did not complete it. This training involves academic studies, clinical placement and undertaking personal therapy.

Having begun the journey to become an art therapist but not completeId it I would say that I remain interested in the field but an amateur nevertheless. In this respect, I have run creative art groups and have found that some individuals can participate for relaxation and making art. However, I would say that talking is often a part of this.

There is a whole body of research on art therapy.
Much is based on the whole tradition of psychotherapy, extending back to the thought of Freud, dare I say it, along with Melanie Klein. However, that does not mean that there are no other approaches because there are, including the person centred.

In England the professor is one which is used in schools and psychiatry hospitals, but in some other settings, such as hospices. However, it often receives less funding than therapies which are considered more cost effective, such as cognitive behavioral therapy.

On the level of healing, based on my own engagement, I found that the art making had some but not completely value. In some senses, I found that translating experience into images was helpful. The downside for me was that I took an interest in the art therapy because I was serious about making art and the need to produce 'good' quality art got in the way. I am not sure that the tension between therapy and making quality art has to exist

Since studying art I find that I am too inclined to
wish to analyse my art and this sometimes interferes with my creativity when I am making it, so subjectively I am not one hundred per cent a fan of it.


What I have found is that creative writing, especially fiction seems to have more of a transformative role for me, and I do not feel that the tension is so great between expression of emotions and writing well. Perhaps that goes back to what I said in the thread about Sigmund Freud, and of course it is my own subjective experience.

I have escaped from the drudgery of working too much for money even though landlords and others continue to want more money.

I like spending time writing on this site and exploring creative realms but one of my mother's friends made some comment about the fact that I was ' doing nothing'. I am busy reading, with ongoing writing and art projects along with philosophy but that counts for nothing in many ways in many people's eyes.

Some reading this site may see me as having an inflated ego, airing my views but that has to be seen in context. In many ways I am viewed as a complete failure, deserving to be thrown in the rubbish bin of society.

I stand by my right to philosophise. But my opinions and even the more credible thinkers are ranked lowly on the scale in the hierarchy of importance by those in power and the subservient masses.

Philosophy was i revered as mportant for ancient people but in the post apocalyptic society of today it is seen as mere esoterica.

If you are against Freud can you come up with a philosophical argument against hm to back it up because views need to be based on critical analysis rather than mere subjective attitudes and dislikes.

You probably know a very different set of philosophers from, me although I did not realise you said 'ought' at first. Philosophers are not pop singers, but it is interesting and an entirely different debate: the sexual and romantic appeal of the philosopher?

I see that you have written lengthy essays and I have absolutely no issue with your ideas or even you contribute to my thread as I don't want it to die just yet.

However, right at the start you said that you are no fan of Freud and I don't have any problem with that or any of your discussion. I am just wondering if other threads would be helpful for you, especially as you have expressed an interest in Egyptian civilisation. I am interested in it too but not very knowledgeable but I would recommend a thread started by Gus Lamarch about the cradle of civilisation.

In the meantime I am quite happy if you continue writing in this thread if you wish to do so.

I entirely agree that regular fantasies are an indication of what is deep in the heart and I think that it is a separate topic from masturbation. I can see no logical basis for seeing why the fantasies of those who confess to masturbation should be any the worse than those who stay clear of it . If anything it seems to be connected to a belief about sin.

The whole issue of sin is rooted in Catholic religion, which has its own shadow, including abuse of others and the act of masturbation is free of this entirely.

I do agree that it may be better if people can have relationships with others. But I am not convinced that is the reality for so many. Perhaps I may be bombarded against this but I would be surprised if all the people, including philosophers, have found a relationship or have one at all.

We may dream of finding the perfect partner but in the meantime, especially in the time of the pandemic, I would argue that masturbation can be an ethically acceptable outlet, innocent and free, accepting of our own sexuality, heterosexual, gay, bisexual, with no intent of harm to any living beings.

Well, I am at King's Cross station, having travelled from Bedford, my hometown, also the birthplace of John Bunyan, on my way to Tooting..

While sitting on the train I thought that part of the argument which I had been making about symbolic dimensions I am not sure if I can answer directly in terms of your reply at this stage, because it all comes down to the limitations of words.

This relates back to the art psychotherapy course which I was doing which looked at images because art therapy is about art making. This basis of art therapy is about the level of visual processing in the brain and how in some cases healing can exist at that level, beyond the limits of words.

Saying that, while I am extremely interested in art and love drawing, I think that my own mental processing is mainly verbal. At one point when I was in clinical supervision on the art psychotherapy course my supervisor said to me, 'You are full of words,' and I think that is true because I love words but I am not sure that is true for all. Recently a friend said to me, 'But you can find the words to articulate about things you go through whereas I can't ', and this made me think that for many, processessing of thought is not always primarily verbal.

So, what I am saying is that there are depths of experience reality which are not always about words, the tool of the philosophers. But of course I am interested in philosophy and the dialogue with psychoanalysis and how this all fits together, including where sensory perceptions and logic collide. I have downloaded a book by Lewis Carroll called Symbolic Logic. This might interested coming from the author of Alice in Wonderland.

I will get back to reading your thread again and I see that you have written one on the The Myth of Sisyphus, a fascinating book.

However, I must admit that sometimes while using this site I find it too easy to write responses too quickly without giving thorough care to reading comments as mindfully as I should. I wonder if this is just me, because I am getting so used to texting. Or, I wonder if it is about how easy it is becoming to just tap in answers unlike the pen and paper approach to writing. I wonder if this is just me or other people write too instantly on mobile devices?

Hello, I am afraid I don't know how to connect links on my phone. The way I find things is by going to the part of the sight showing search. You would probably find it by typing in the word, 'cultural' but it may vary depending on what device you are using.

I have managed to see your reply despite wearing a mask and the train jogging a lot.

But I really do want to read what you wrote properly and also I am a bit distracted by the whole thread on the ethics of masturbation this morning.

I definitely don't think your ideas are the rankings of a lunatic, but all of us can get carried away. I am sure I get lost in tangents and loops.
I want to write the clearly as possible and avoid too many typing errors and incomplete sentences which do not help philosophy

In the meantime, I would say that being expected to wear face coverings as a norm does feel like a surreal, severe restrictions on human life.

I am on a train wearing a mask so I will only write a short response at present because the mask makes my glasses steam up. I will read your full response again later.

But the main point I wish to make for now is that the reason why I was writing about dreams is that Freud's whole approach and methodology was about dreams.

I think that the reality of life is that many people have not found the relationship which they would like to have. Rather than seek other alternatives including shallow sexual encounters or prostitution surely masturbated is a best option.

Masturbation avoids the problem of safe sex. Also, at the present time of the pandemic we are almost prohibited from meeting others so masturbation is about the only uncomplicated form of sexual expression left open.

I see that some people have spoken of fantasies while masturbating and I would say that it is likely that those fantasies would likely be experiences anyway. Surely life cannot be about regulating people's fantasies but about ensuring that they treat other people with respect and cause no harm to others. Any prohibited on fantasy life in itself would be about thought control.

All in all, I would argue that masturbation is about one of the only free ways of sexual expression in a broken and an increasingly coercive world. Surely it should be accepted rather than anyone being made to feel guilty about it. It is about acceptance of one's own body and sexuality. In this way, it can be seen as a spiritual act.

I don't mind if other people are not interested in philosophy but do mind if they criticise me for my interest.

Actually, I think I have always managed to find people to converse with about philosophical questions from when I was about 10 or 11 years old. Most of the various friends I have found who take an interest in the subject do not read books on that nature.

But generally I do feel that a lot of people are quite prejudiced against the pursuit of philosophy as a serious interest. I get comments from various people I know implying that I should be spending my time more productively. A lot of the criticism seems to be against it on the basis that it does not add much to life, especially in material terms.
But I am not going to worry too much about other people's prejudices.

Finally, I would say that while a lot of people cannot be bothered with philosophy it can spark off some interesting conversations with strangers. I have been out reading books, libraries or coffee shops and people have started up talking in response to some book I am reading. In most cases I never ever seen the person again but often remember the conversation forever more.