With the history of religion, which emerged after magic, there were ideas of coercion and sacrifice. Even in Christianity, Jesus represents 'the sacrificial lamb', to atone for human 'sin'. With diversity, which may have preceded this, there is the possibility of a future return to diversity in the aftermath of so much which has occurred in human history, although from the way the world looks at present there is an extremely long way for this to happen. There may be small steps but if it is likely to be thwarted by hierarchies of power, which represent the interests of the elite.

It could be argued that 'God' is consciousness, but this has been seen in an anthropomorphic way. Both theists and atheists may be talking about 'ultimate reality', but this way it is named and described are so different, as a source of arguments and perspectives.

I wonder how similar animism and panpsychism is. There is some challenge to the idea that matter and mind are separate in the notion of quantum entanglement. But, that is physics, but as part of 'modern' metaphysics. The 'modern', or 'postmodern' ways of matter as solid and primary, objective 'reality' are challenged. Even en the notion of the intersubjective realm involves a complex weaving in between outer and inner perspectives in thinking of the nature of symbolic structures.

Your point about whether myth is like Plato's realm of ideas is interesting because it does raise the question of another realm, of archetypes. These could be seen as separate from human consciousness and transcendent. However, these evolve alongside culture as symbolic aspects of culture. Humans realise the human imagination and contribute to it, as aspects of the dreaming mind, as part symbolic reality, but whether it exists as an independent realm, as qualia, is a good question.

I am sure that you are correct to suggest that how people live and social organisations of power have a significant role. In particular, the patriarchy played an important role, especially with the suppression of women. Similarly, racism suppressed ideas of the Orient. The dynamics between power and belief are complex and interact. Ideas of gods and God may be used to protect power structures and, similarly, analysis of such beliefs may influence the nature of social systems.

I do agree that religious perspectives are more inclined to looking within. Putting it together with life in the outer world is where it gets messy. Ultimately, the two should work together, but they frequently become separated so much and become so hollow.

Jesus recognised this when he criticised the superficial hypocrisy of the Pharisees. The Gnostics, who looked at inner or symbolic interpretations of the life of Jesus were outlawed as heretics. Their accounts are so different, including suggestions of Mary Magdalene as Jesus' partner. This is so different from the conventional ideas about sexuality within Christianity, which were based on the ideas of the Paul.

Also, in many ways spiritual ideas underlying many religions involved shared views of wisdom, even though there have been so many rifts between the different religions and traditions within these religions.

It is definitely true that a lot of religious beliefs have been a factor of toxicity, especially in the development of war. But, this may something about the human nature and mass psychology as much as the ideas of the leaders. If the teachings of Christ or the Buddha had been followed fully, it should have led to less war as opposed to creating it. In particular, the culture of Christendom is so opposed to the Biblical teachings themselves, especially in the development of material wealth as opposed to the Gospel teachings.

As it is, humanity is made up of so many diverging traditions and there is so much conflict and war. It is not clear that mere loss of belief in spiritual reality will lead to a more peaceful one necessarily. If only it was that simple and the problem may be fundamentalism in general. There is religious fundamentalism and even atheistic fundamentalism. A lot is about concrete, dogmatic thinking.

If people are more able to understand the symbolic dimension it can be a source of wisdom, and does not have to come down to belief in God. Spirituality is not dependent on gods or God, but about self-awareness and wisdom within. The inner psyche may be a starting point for transformation of consciousness, which may lead to greater understanding of others ' needs and of all living beings.

Yes, the contrast between logos and mythos is an area discussed in previous threads. The problem which I see is if people treat mythos as though it were logos, unable to differentiate this at all. Many conventionally religious people are inclined to do this and it took me some time to be able to do so.

However, it is difficult though, not just about the existence of God but areas such as the ideas like the fall of the angels and humanity. I was definitely brought up to believe in this and even now see it as standing for something possibly 'real' because there is a lot that is unknown about ancient history. At one stage, I read writers like Graham Hancock and some of this may be mythic but the idea of the Nephilim race is one which I find intriguing. I have come across the idea that in thinking of evolution this was a process in which humans slept with apes.

Some of the ideas are likely to be symbolic but the correspondences between the planets and early gods is important in thinking of the ancient worldviews. Sometimes, people assume that ancient people were 'primitive' but cultures like Egypt and Rome were extremely advanced.

I enjoy mythic fiction, including Marion Zimmer Bradley and Bernard Cornwell. Being half Irish by descent, I am particularly interested in Celtic and British legends, including those in the Magbinon, Arthur and those surrounding Glastonbury. Tolkien also presents a fascinating journey into the mythic imagination.

I will explore Seyedd Hossain because I haven't come across him. It does seem that we have read some of the same authors, Huston Smith, Gary Lachman, James Hillman and James Hillman. I don't think that James Hillman is that well known as you are the first person I have come across who has and I find him to be a very good writer. I also find Edward Edinger's , 'Ego and Archetype very helpful, as well as the writings of Mircea Eliade.

It is a very large topic, as you say. I first became interested in when my school English teacher encouraged reading on the topic. A few years ago I did a term long course on mythology as well as an evening class on anthropology. I would like to study more anthropology and have done some reading of Levi Strauss, as well as Mary Douglas's 'Purity and Danger'. The culture assumptions of the sacred and taboo are important in thinking of ideas about good and evil.

The issues of ideologies in relation to myth is a good question. That is especially in relation to 'a kind of wasteland of shattered of shattered or diminished cultures'. It involves the idea of meaning, hope but may be a little different from worldviews in which an entirely different stance was taken. Some of these were utopian and some built upon differing metaphysics entirely, such as resurrection of the dead.

The question, or issue, may also be about what is an explanation, which may be answered so differently. It could come down to a 'supernatural deity', a material cause or some kind of psychological intermediate. Historical origins may be important but it may also be about origins in terms of causes, or how these are understood, involving both logical explanations and metaphors or symbolic dimensions of thinking.

The concept of 'God' or ''gods' is interesting. It is worth considering to what extent it represents 'a higher reality' as such, or a tool in human understanding? This may be an issue which spans psychology and anthropology, as well as philosophy. It may go back to core basics of metaphysics, and how these are constructed by human beings.

I am sure that the issue of hows and whys of religious thinking have been explored on so many threads. One major aspect may the psychology of religion, and why do people seek to attribute so much to gods or God?

Of course, it could be turned around, as into the question of whether psychological aspects are a question of higher metaphysics? I see it as very complex, but I am probably someone who overthinks. This relates back to your query about 'names' for the same thing', because it may be a matter of language and framing in human explanations.

It is not that I don't appreciate your position of moral naturalism. As far as the relationship between ethics and religion (including esotericism) the two evolved together. Even though Aristotle's approach was more naturalistic than that of Plato it still had spiritual foundation.

Ethics still matter with or without religion and there is a danger of Dostoevsky's idea that without God 'everything is permissible.' At the present time of relativism there is such a mixture of overlapping worldviews.

I find the Buddhis perspective interesting as it is neither materialistic or with a literal anthromorphic deity. The middle way may be a way beyond so much of the false ways of ethics based on guilt tripping,Also, the middle way is also in the context of the overall emphasis on compassion, which is a about respect for people and all life.

It is true that perfectionism is more about salvation, whereas ethics is about social action. With esotericism, I wonder to what extent it is focused on salvation or deeper aspects of life and ethics. One aspect of this was the way in which the esoteric was often for an inner circle within a religion whereas there were less strict moral guidelines for the wider group.

I am not sure that the esoteric is simply about personal salvation as such. In particular, the idea of karma is not simply about personal gain through moral action. Some may say it is, but it may be more about a deeper understanding of causality, as in the principle of 'As you sow, so shall you reap'. This is because the idea of rebirth is not necessarily about continuity of the 'self' or ego. It may be seen as being about the future lifeforms and the ethical principles regarding concerns of future generations.

Thank you for your post, as it does seem that you have read widely on the topic of the idea of the middle way. Some popular authors may have presented it far too superficially.

The Buddha, like Jesus Christ, are figures of certain ideals. So much would have been different completely if their ideas had been written by them as opposed to by others. As it is so much is attributed to them or projected onto them. With Buddha, like Christ, this has meant that many different traditions within Buddhism have emerged rather than one set of definitive interpretations.

The 'middle way' can be seen as the tension between opposites, of ideas of 'good' and and 'evil'. It may be more of a symbolic concept because it may be realised in so many differing ways. Schumacher made a specific interpretation in 'Small is Beautiful' in which he looked at the emphasis on capitalist growth and the socialist concern for needs. He saw the idea of the 'middle way' as offering a way of balancing of the extremes in a positive way.

One relevant book which is useful in thinking about wholeness is, 'The Wisdom of Imperfection', by Rob Reece. He links Bufdhism and its idea of enlightenment with Jung's idea of wholeness. Jung spoke of the emphasis on moral perfection within the Judaeo-Christian tradition( it would apply to Abrahamic religion in general). It led to the accumulation of a shadow, as a dark side of the repressed and suppressed aspects of human nature. This involves a tension between 'good' and 'evil', which needs to be balanced to combat the destructive aspects of human potential and power. He spoke of this in the form of nuclear warfare, but it applies to both individual psychology and humanity on group levels.

The concept of compassion may not be straightforward. That is because it involves moral feelings as well as ethical ideals. Part of the dilemma may involve aspects of moral judgmentalness. It involves the distinction between the act and the person committing a moral action. It comes down to the dichotomy of ends, or consequence of actions, as opposed to motivation and intentionality.

With compassion, it may go beyond rationality, to empathy. The idea of 'love your neighbour as yourself' may involve this. Part of the problem may be that each person has so many neighbours, which may bring the question back to Kant's categorical abstract.

However, that is still abstract and it may be queried whether compassion may override this. There are universal principles of rationality. Nevertheless, the existential aspects of embodied existence may make the idea of compassion go beyond the mere principles of reason alone.

My own perspective on ethics is that the integration of reason, emotion and the instinctive aspects of life are important. However, there may be so many juxtapositions In the search for balance. Imbalance and error may be important here in resets and human endeavours towards wholeness, as opposed to ideas and ideals of perfection.

One argument which I found important is James Hillman's idea that the idea of suicide is related to a wish for transformation. Having experienced suicidal ideas, I am inclined to the view that the frontier of suicide involves a wish for transformation. Suicide is final whereas so much experimentation in life offers up areas of potential, beyond the finitude of death as an absolute extinguisher of creative possibilities.

Thanks for your reply and it does seem to involve the ambiguity over ideas of good and evil. Of course, the Buddha was writing prior to ideas of Nietzsche and Jung, which throw absolutism of good, evil and ethics open.

I wonder how compassion fits into the picture. That is because it involves a certain amount of distancing from moral absolutes and ethical ideas. However, compassion is not merely abstract, detached from moral feeling and issues of practical ethics.

We are all going to die and be dead for eternity. The question is whether to speed it up or wait until death comes of it's own accord. The difference may come down to deliberation in destruction. So many aspects of life, especially diet and lifestyle may be important factors.

The idea of committing suicide is not simple. That is because some self-harm and survive, whereas others may make acts of self-harm and survive. It is about the juggling of risk in the tension between life and death existentially.

I wish to add that ideas of Buddhist ethics have been introduced into concerns about the future, such as in EF Schumacher's 'Small is Beautiful'. This is a critique of values. The idea of economic growth is open to question, especially in relation to consumer materialism.

One important aspect of Buddhist ethics may be seen as a breakaway from the authoritarian ethics of many forms of religious thinking. It is not necessarily a secular form of materialism but about the scope of widest thinking. I am not trying to suggest that Buddhism is the one and only way of thinking, but looking to see it, and its metaphysical foundation. It is in that context that I am asking about the idea of the 'middle way' and to what extent is it useful in thinking about ethics?

I am glad that you think that there will be enough people around for a New Renaissance. Nevertheless, I do think that there is likely to be a lot of population reduction through many factors, from war and inequalities. Of course, this is not the first time and the ability to cope with change is questionable.

You say about learning to adapt without I-phones and relying on supermarkets, but I am not sure that many could. That is because most people don't have sources of local food. Also, it is becoming difficult to access so much from money to medical care without doing it online. Life for many is becoming more and more fragile. Theoretically, technology should be enabling greater self sufficiency but it is doing the opposite of creating so much dependency.

A lot of fragility comes from inequality in mass society, with those at the higher scale being able to access comforts and those at the bottom often left with nothing. The lack of community in the Western world may be a critical factor too. In parts of the world, such as the third world, people may be able to cope through sharing and group support. But, in the first world the nature of how individualism has developed means that many suffer in isolation.

The problem comes down to the nature of the 'mass' society and consumer materialism. New economists, such as Schumacher pointed to the need for smaller and local resources but the opposite seems to be happening. The pandemic may have taught some lessons and in England there is some development of community hubs. Some have had a chance for a rethink, but it is so variable and political leaders make tough choices over resources.

I hope to participate as both reader and writer in the literary activity of December 2024, as long as no horrific 'black swans' deter me from that direction. I am hoping that it will be fun and a bit of a break but also complementary to philosophy too. It will be great if loads take part, although will keep us all busy over the holiday period.

There is often a tendency to retro romanticism about the past, whether it is the sixties or the 'golden age' of ancient history. Plato's idea of abdiogenesis was based on the idea that something had been lost which needed to be remembered. A similar idea is involved in the Christian concept of the 'fall'.

Thinking about the future is so uncertain as unknown possibilities. They involve comparison with the past as a way of framing. How we frame all of this may make a difference in how we choose to live in making critical decisions of what comes next. That is if humans have any role in intentionality in the larger scheme. The humans are only part of the larger system but through consciousness have some freedom in shaping their destiny and the nature of all life on Planet Earth.

The will to power can have such an impact, especially in politics. It involves the ego's attempt to assert itself as master. Ego is needed as an aspect of narrative identity. However, it can be brutal and social ethics involves a deeper sense of responsibility.

Projection is happening in all spheres of the social system and, to some extent, it is hard to withdraw all projections. The current backlash against trans and so much of the debate about what a 'real woman' is related to projection. The scapegoats for projection change and shift, whether it is gay people, the unemployed or the mentally ill. The roots of prejudice, including racism and sexism stem from projections of otherness. It involves splitting of good and evil in childhood development as argued by Melanie Klein. It is a central factor in social conflict and as a source which generates war, including religious wars.

I did read your other thread and it will be an interesting experiment. My only concern would be about its competitive nature and the war of egos. There has been so much of that in the creative writing competitions/activities.

The problem which I see with philosophy essays on a forum such as this as they are too formal. Having written essays for courses, there is so much of having to go to source material and provide academically acceptable referencing. Some of this is done by links currently, but this comes with risks of online viruses. I am wary of links and use them sparingly (but I won't groan about anxiety about the health of my phone).

There is also the question as to how much people wish to log in and read essays on the forum. There may be a tension between chit chat and formal essays. I am inclined for something in between. I do read essays and books anyway but that is aside from forum. There are many here who take philosophy seriously as a creative endeavour but I am not sure that essay presentation is central to forum interaction. Some might be useful but I see the forum as a general sounding board for ideas rather than the best platform for essays. They would take up so much space and if it all became too academic it might deter from the creative process of exchanging the ideas as the raw materials of philosophy.

In thinking of individualism, it is likely that that its historical development has often been about outer as opposed to inner ones. It has been primarily about materialistism and the concerns of ego. The other side to this would be about the development of human potential of each individual. There is an obvious link between the idea of individual and social transformation. With consumer materialism the idea of transformation may have got lost. One significant developed was transhumanism which is about technological innovation mainly as opposed to transformation of consciousness.

The idea of 'end times' and the 'end of the world' has always been a human concern, especially in Christendom. My original anxiety about the end of the world came in the context of Catholicism and reading the 'Book of Revelation' as an adolescent. I can also remember hearing rumours of writings stored in a vault at the Vatican regarding end times. I grew up with a fear of the apocalypse to come and going back to the early Christian's, they expected an imminent end of days.

However, what I found was that the idea of the end of the world existed outside the Christian context or the prophecies of Nostradamus. The threat of nuclear warfare meant that it was possible for human beings to unleash it. My understanding is that Reagan saw himself as preparing for Armageddon in the development of the arms race. The millennium and the one before this came with so many fantasised predictions. Then, there was talk of the end of the Mayan calendar in 2012 and the world continued.

However, in the last few years it does seem that there have been such stark developments, especially since and around the time of the pandemic. I have been wondering about this at the same time as questioning ideas of religion on this forum. Also, reading writings on 'the end of history' by Baudrillard and Fukuyama have made me wonder where history is going. The present news headlines which I have read about imminent Third World War by Putin's use of missiles and threat to the West, as well as the ongoing process of climate change make the idea of the end of the world seem as real in a secular context as in a religious one.

It is hard to know how much is alarmist and whether the media is hyping it up. At the same time, there is some underlying idea of a 'New World Order'. However, what this would entail is not exactly clear. Would it be a more harmonious relationships between nations? Or, would it be a form of totalitarian authoritarianism? All of these ideas form a subtext of human thought and it is likely that the mythical idea of the 'end times' has an influence on the shaping of history and how people live.

The problem with the confusion is that so much is not disentangled and the factors you speak of are so important. As far as politics, the issue of 'others' is central. The nature of projection is its core feature, with the idea of the 'enemy'. There is always an enemy to be attacked, with evil being projected onto Sadam Hussein or some other critical figure. It involves the attempt to destroy 'evil', and Hitler himself saw his own mission as being about this, eliminating the 'inferior', which he identified in Jews, homosexuals etc. Projection of 'evil' onto others is the main dynamic factor in war.

The news does focus on the sensations of 'evil' as well, because it sells. This means that those working for peace and just causes often go unnoticed. When I spend too much time reading news it can skew one's perception and be demoralising. Recently, my phone had some problems and not seeing horrific news headlines popping up on it for several days was extremely liberating. Doom and gloom can have such a detrimental mpact on mental wellbeing.

As far as what would one sacrifice to save the world, the secular beliefs may make the situation so different from any previous world wars. That is due to loss of belief in life after death. Soldiers, terrorists and martyrs may be spurred on by thought of a reward in an afterlife.

With the use of technology and computers, the biggest threat is probably cyber-attack and it is being used already. Misuseof data and its destruction can be lethal. Banks and hospitals rely on computers. When these go down so much fails, operations are cancelled and people cannot access money for the basics. The extent of a full-scale cyber-attack, or of many happening, may do as much damage as sophisticated weapons.

As far as an actual nuclear war, so many are fearful of the consequences. But, there is a danger of some 'crazy' leader. So it matters who is in power, especially as people become 'lazy' and 'lazy thinkers'. People in the West may have become too comfortable and complacent in their daily lives to think with clarity about the widest consequences of action and future generations. This is the likely reason why the problem of climate change has not been addressed at an earlier stage.

It is questionable what will happen next and beyond. If many die, and possibly other life forms it will end up being a time of devastation and rethink, like in the genre of post-apocalyptic fiction. In some places, life may already be in the post-apocalyptic era, although there have been many previous catastrophic scenarios in history, such as in plagues.

What bothers me is there seems to be a lot of indifference, or maybe there is fear of the question. In particular, I notice that very few people have contributed to this thread so far whereas if it was one about qualia or a knotty problem of language it would probably be a long thread by now. This lack of interest in the topic may be because it is speculative, or because there are other threads on news and politics. But, I partly wonder if it is an area that people are trying to avoid thinking about because it is a philosophical blindspot to be feared. That is because such devastation, destruction and suffering may arise.

To some extent, dwelling on the issues of the thread too much can be toxic to one's own wellbeing. Each person has only so much power and influence. However, if there is imminent catastrophe, the survivors may be left thinking how could have gone differently. It is impossible to predict the extent of destruction and how many people and lifeforms will survive if there was a full-scale nuclear war. Any future generations of survivors may look back and have to consider mistakes in order to create a different kind of political and economic order.

The article is an interesting read and even though it is about American politics there is so much interaction globally. Elon Musk has been involved in the petition for another election in England. Of course, so many in this country are deeply unhappy with Keir Starmer's budget because it threatens economic growth. Despite a rhetoric of getting almost everyone back to work, it is likely that the budget will lead to far greater unemployment because more businesses are likely to get rid of workers or close down.

Generally, I agree that history is cyclical, I am just concerned that what is happening now may be the point of no return. If there is a Third World War it may be a major reset in which so many die throughout the world. It may be so extreme that those who are at the lowest economic scale are powerless to rebel. This is because there is such an increase in authoritarianism in so many places and AI is likely to protect the interests of the elite.

It is true that civilisations have always been on the verge of collapse. There has been the collapse of great empires, Egypt and Rome. However, the question is whether this is similar or different with climate change and nuclear weapons. It is impossible to predict what may happen because some aspects are beyond human control. The cosmos is larger than us. Weather may be affected by human life and abuse of nature. But there are wider patterns, such as potential ice ages and dangers like meteorites from out of space.

A lot does depend on whether history is linear or cyclical. The way in which the first and second world wars preceded a time of great change, especially the 1960s, is significant. It may be that there lows and highs in history and that is why it is hard to know if this is the end or part of a process of potential metamorphosis. I wonder if there may be cycles within spirals of evolution but, ultimately the larger picture is beyond our scope of epistemology because it is about the 'black swans' od future unknown variables.

It may be that so much in life and history was of great dramas, but so much has changed with technology. Nuclear weapons have been present in the last century and this one. For many years after ctitical incidents of Hiroshama, and a few others, they were seen as a deterrent. However, they are being used increasingly and it is not clear how far this will go and how the development of this will be affected alongside AI.

When you speak of how the increasing use of aids such as mobility scooters people don't need to be able to walk much, it shows how far people have begun to expect longetivity. But, this may not continue as life in the first world countries becomes impoverished and tougher. The first world countries may become like the third world gradually. It is likely that the flourishing of the first world was only possible due to the exploitation of the developing nations. The third world countries are also seeing a cost of living crisis. It comes down to the problem of energy resources and sustainability.

I wonder about the emergence of the 'mass mind' and how it has developed. It may be due to collective nihilism, especially in relation to so many social problems, especially climate change. Or, it may be generated by the media as the driven by the powerful elite. For some time, I have been questioning whether there are deliberate strategies for population reduction beneath the surface of politics. But, I don't wish to fall into conspiracy theory too easily. It may be so unconscious, with so many in powerful positions floundering to know what to do.

The danger of it all having a catastrophic effect could become a self-fulfilling prophecy, as the apocalyptic scenario or as a literal 'end of history'. There was the idea of the 'new age', but this fell flat. But, I am sure that so many people wish for peace and a better world...