I enjoy the exploratory aspect of your threads. And admire how you attempt to respond to each participant. If you are under personal stress, then is it wise to put further pressure on yourself? I know there is a plus side - a release of thoughts in writing and engaging with others with similar interests. However, when it comes to the big topics like 'Idealism', then it can become increasingly messy.
I have sympathy with seeing how things go in a discussion and was inspired to read more. Still pondering 'metaphysical imagination'. Thanks for all your effort but remember to breathe and chill :cool:

The thread was intended to explore the debate over idealism, but with reference to semantics.
— Jack Cummins
What "debate"? You haven't even stated the proposition in contention we're supposed to either be for (thesis) or against (antithesis). Please clarify ... — 180 Proof

I am totally bemused by the turn of events. However, I don't think Jack's intention was to start a 'for and against' debate. His style is exploratory. A follow-up to certain books he is reading.

The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy':

'The word was first used by Liebniz, for Plato's ontology, to contrast with Epicurus's materialism.' — Jack Cummins

Lame definition. Btw, I'm Epicurean ... about (instantiated) "ideas". See here .

from a 2022 thread Speculations in Idealism ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/715277

Thanks. :cool:

Oh, we have crossed posts... it's all good :smile:

The term 'surreal' in my updated title is a way of seeing ideas and symbols as being a potential shift from metaphysics as absolutes, to the scope of a tentative notion of the metaphysical imagination.

View Answer — Jack Cummins

Accepted Answer — Jack Cummins

What?!
Why? Eh? :chin:

Does this mean the question: How 'Surreal' are Ideas?' has been answered to your satisfaction?
Or indicates your wish to end the thread, or your participation in it?

The 'Accepted Answer' was not of my own doing. It is an automated part of the digital software of the forum. I am not sure how it works and why it was generated on my post. Perhaps, some artificial technology decided my answer was correct, when I was only stating uncertainty of my questions and my own weaknesses.

It is even possible that artificial intelligence will be the new realm of 'spirits' taking over the role once projected onto and enacted by the 'gods.

Hmm. I thought perhaps you had been meddling with the OP, pressed a button to change the thread's category to 'Question' or something like that. I wonder if there is someone about who can explain how 'accepted answer' works? God, are you there? :pray:

I wonder if there is someone about who can explain how 'accepted answer' works? God, are you there? — Amity

I don't want to derail this very interesting OP but after reading your question, I believe I can help you, Amity.

My first OP in this forum was a "question" because I didn't know how categories worked then! :smile:
As much as I recall, once the question is posted, it is needed to select an answer from the users to keep the thread going on. A message appeared in the bottom saying (my memory is not very precise in this case, and maybe I am wrong): 'Please select an answer or change the topic to another category.' 

I can't remember if I was the one who did it, or as Jack points out, it is the software that does the selection, actually.

However, I do not believe that 'accepted answer' follows a pattern of quality.

I have had the 'Accepted Answer' come up in several threads at some points. I have wondered if I had jolted my phone while balancing it in my hand. If anything, the mystery may show the arbitrary nature of automated information in sifting ideas discerningly. It may point to the danger of relying too much on technology as a means of 'truth'.

I wonder if there is someone about who can explain how 'accepted answer' works? God, are you there?
— Amity

I don't want to derail this very interesting OP but after reading your question, I believe I can help you, Amity. — javi2541997

Heaven be praised :smile:

However, I do not believe that 'accepted answer' follows a pattern of quality. — javi2541997

I know. I mean who does this AI guy think he is they are :roll:
Seeing as how you're here, javi, good to see ya' - I wonder if you have any thoughts on 'metaphysical imagination'. What it means to you? Or anything else you'd care to add or comment on...the surreal wonder of language/s? Where your creative ideas stem from...

Seeing as how you're here, javi, good to see ya' - I wonder if you have any thoughts on 'metaphysical imagination'. What it means to you? Or anything else you'd care to add or comment on...the surreal wonder of language/s? Where your creative ideas stem from... — Amity

It's good to see you too, Amity. Thanks for allowing me to share my ideas.

Hmm. It is clearly a tough philosophical topic. I guess it can be crossed with science or neurological facts. So, if you don't really mind—or Jack, since this is his thread—I would like to share my opinion, quoting and understanding Haruki Murakami.

Murakami is an excellent novelist. He came to Spain because he was awarded a prize for literature. Debating with some fans, he stated: I think there is in our consciousness a hidden room. In this room, it is where our real selves live and create art. Sometimes it is difficult to enter it; others leave it. I imagine this room as dark or poorly lit, like a train station at night or a pit.

After reading the words by Murakami, I had a deep thought about myself. It is true that there could be a hidden room for our dreams, imagination, creative process, etc. But I didn't get why Murakami stated that this door is 'hidden' (hidden from who or what?). What I learnt is that consciousness could hold a secret (rather than hidden) location where our ideas flourish. I agree with Murakami that it is difficult to join these locations. Well, what he actually said is that it is difficult to be aware when we are in our creative room, hidden from the rest.

A few months later, I came to the conclusion that there could be three rooms for surreal or real ideas, dreams, etc. It is more normal to have a single tangible room. A second room where the tangible and unreal could be blurred (our dreams), and a third door, the one Murakami mentioned as the source of our creative thoughts, apparently.

It's hard to know how ideas are constructed. — Jack Cummins

This is a major question of mine.

I am fascinated by the irony that right now, I am using ideas (such as "mind-dependent," "objective," "idealism", "dualism"...) to seek out what an idea is.

What materials am I manipulating right now as I ask this question? I have no idea, yet I have the idea that I have no idea.

Possible explanations have ranged from eternal platonic forms, to illusory emergent functions of language. No explanations are the least bit satisfactory.

When discussing ideas, I don't see how to avoid an immaterial type substance (forget dualism for a minute - I just needed another word for material so I didn't have to say "an immaterial type of material" but that is what I meant). An idea, whatever it is, wherever it sits in the universe, cannot, by definition, have a body (at least not a material one). If I teach you what my idea of a triangle is, and you take away the idea of a triangle and teach it to some other mind, the idea may never have resided apart from a mind (unlike a platonic form), but it can't be said that my triangle is any different than yours. Two ideas if they are two ideas of a triangle, are really one and the same idea - they must be identical (or you would not have the idea). This is physically impossible.

But at the same time, when discussing anything, I don't see how to avoid a material type substance. What does "exist" mean anymore if we say an idea exists without a body?

Lodging all of this discussion into brain functions, language functions, epiphenomena, compatibilist discussions does me absolutely no good, because they eliminate the immateriality aspects - it just never accounts for the objectivity of the fact that everywhere, every time, regardless of anything, if there is a triangle, there are three sides, identical always. A materialist explanation never accounts for the idea itself and we are left where we start - what just happened when I used an idea to make something happen? We have to leave the idea intact to finish any satisfactory explanation, because the explanation itself is an idea. Otherwise, we have this idea that ideas don't exist, and the irony smacks us in the metaphorical (not material) face.

Surreal is a good word for the title.

So, if you don't really mind—or Jack, since this is his thread—I would like to share my opinion, quoting and understanding Haruki Murakami. — javi2541997

I understand Jack to encourage all and any participants with a relevant view. He talked earlier of a 'collaboration'. I like that spirit of discussion where we can learn, even be inspired...

Murakami is an excellent novelist. He came to Spain because he was awarded a prize for literature. Debating with some fans, he stated: I think there is in our consciousness a hidden room. In this room, it is where our real selves live and create art. Sometimes it is difficult to enter it; others leave it. I imagine this room as dark or poorly lit, like a train station at night or a pit. — javi2541997

Thanks for sharing this. Were you there? I've read or listened to Murakami and yes, he has interesting things to say about himself and his writing. His creative use of metaphors. A metaphysical imagination, perhaps? Surreal ideas.

What I learnt is that consciousness could hold a secret (rather than hidden) location where our ideas flourish. I agree with Murakami that it is difficult to join these locations. Well, what he actually said is that it is difficult to be aware when we are in our creative room, hidden from the rest. — javi2541997

In what sense did he mean 'aware' - fully conscious of the world around? The creative space being the layer below. The 'hidden' subconscious or unconscious. So, when in writing mode, you are in a flow of ideas and images desiring no interruptions from daily life. "Time for tea, dear!"

I came to the conclusion that there could be three rooms for surreal or real ideas, dreams, etc. It is more normal to have a single tangible room. A second room where the tangible and unreal could be blurred (our dreams), and a third door, the one Murakami mentioned as the source of our creative thoughts, apparently. — javi2541997

Interesting conclusion and fascinating how the magic number 3 always seems to arise when talking about consciousness. Even in some TPF short stories about dreams/houses, there are 3 levels connected by stairs; the dark basement, the full main living area, the attic where things are stored or people hide.

The 3 lines in meditative haiku verse. Metaphysical imagination? Realism. Idealism. Does it matter what label is used if there is a sensitive and sensible awareness that flows and captures a moment of time...I remember your simple poem which captivated readers in the TPF competition :sparkle:

Freud's 3 levels: the structure of mental life - id, ego, superego. The 3 levels of consciousness, the iceberg analogy - the conscious (visible tip of the iceberg), the preconscious (just below the surface), and the unconscious (vast submerged portion).
https://www.simplypsychology.org/unconscious-mind.html

***

Only a few of the many links:
https://eprints.glos.ac.uk/2393/ - with free download.

Helewise, Freya (2012) Boundless Venus: the Crossover of the Conscious and Unconscious in the Works of Haruki Murakami. Masters thesis, University of Gloucestershire.
Perhaps too academic - heavy reading at 122 pages! But the pdf allows you to skip to interesting parts.

***

https://owlcation.com/humanities/1Q84-Is-About-Portals-of-Consciousness

The novel, which is technically three books in one, holds together by what I call "portals of consciousness." Murakami is known for his works that play off ideas of intuition and psychic prowess. His readers are left wondering if the events in his stories are to be taken at face value as reality or if the events are about the characters losing their minds. The author pushes readers to think beyond what they expect of consciousness, that perhaps humans can do incredible things with their minds if they let themselves tap into the subdued parts of themselves.

Murakami’s books aren’t for everyone. They can be violent and sexually graphic. For other readers, Murakami might be too strange. 1Q84, like many of his works, can be better understood if you know a thing or two about psychologist Carl Jung. In fact, Murakami pens a unique chapter in the novel that briefly mentions Jung. It’s one of the last chapters called “Cold or Not, God Is Present.” (This is a play on the phrase “called or not, God is present.

***
Last but not least, an article written by Murakami himself. Quotes:

I want to open a window in their souls’: Haruki Murakami on the power of writing simply.
The master storyteller on finding a voice, creative originality and why he has never suffered from writer’s block.

Writing in a foreign language taught me to express thoughts and feelings with a limited set of words.

It is my belief that a rich, spontaneous joy lies at the root of all creative expression

I came across this line recently in the New York Times, written about the American debut of the Beatles: “They produced a sound that was fresh, energetic and unmistakably their own.” These words may provide the best definition of originality available. “Fresh, energetic, and unmistakably your own.”

Originality is hard to define in words, but it is possible to describe and reproduce the emotional state it evokes. I try to attain that emotional state each time I sit down to write my novels. That’s because it feels so wonderfully invigorating. It’s as if a new and different day is being born from the day that is today.
— Guardian - Murakami on the power of writing simply

In what sense did he mean 'aware' - fully conscious of the world around? — Amity

Good question.

According to Murakami, the third room is something secret. He admitted that the subconscious can often be unknown. He likes to explore this specific room in most of his novels, but I never thought he actually believed in the existence of this room. He couldn't explain with proper words what it feels like to be in the third room, but he claims that it exists, and he wonders if everything in the room exists as well, or if it is a hallucination. It was interesting to me to perceive that while he wished to explore this room, he also hesitated.
Adding to Murakami's point, I believe dreams and nightmares are real, although this only occurs when I am asleep. I assure you that while dreaming, I experienced full consciousness and encountered individuals and locations that are easy to know and remember. But every time I woke up, I realised it was all a dream, no matter how genuine it appeared. Perhaps Murakami refers to the third room as a mix of both. A more continuous experience where dreams and awakened moments are more plausible.

How can we know we are there? –In the room where dreams and life are merged– and could it be possible to know when we enter and when we leave the room?

But every time I woke up, I realised it was all a dream, no matter how genuine it appeared. Perhaps Murakami refers to the third room as a mix of both. A more continuous experience where dreams and awakened moments are more plausible. — javi2541997

Do you never have lucid dreams where you know you are dreaming and can sometimes control the way it progresses?
So, it can be seen as a mix of the real, the surreal - the conscious and the subconscious. A hybrid state of consciousness.

How can we know we are there? –In the room where dreams and life are merged– and could it be possible to know when we enter and when we leave the room? — javi2541997

I am not sure that there is a definite point of entry or exit between the 2 types of awareness from the subjective perspective. It is more of a slide or flight, to and fro, I think. I don't know.
However, objectively, a small study has apparently shown that: 'the unusual combination of hallucinatory dream activity and wake-like reflective awareness and agentive control experienced in lucid dreams is paralleled by significant changes in electrophysiology.' From: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2737577/

***

He admitted that the subconscious can often be unknown. He likes to explore this specific room in most of his novels, but I never thought he actually believed in the existence of this room. He couldn't explain with proper words what it feels like to be in the third room, but he claims that it exists, and he wonders if everything in the room exists as well, or if it is a hallucination. It was interesting to me to perceive that while he wished to explore this room, he also hesitated. — javi2541997

I think that if the 3rd room is his subconscious, then there is every reason to be wary of what ideas or images might surface. Perhaps that is why some people fear letting go, releasing their rational mind to explore the creative. Memories, emotive issues can be easily triggered by a single word.

Murakami no doubt has his demons transferred to fictional characters and settings. Seems open to explore them but perhaps there are even deeper shades or layers of darkness, beyond the walls, wells and tunnels he keeps secret.

Perhaps you - or others - have a similar experience of alternating mental states when immersed in the creative writing process? Surreal ideas?

Perhaps you - or others - have a similar experience of alternating mental states when immersed in the creative writing process? — Amity

OK. Perhaps I've gone too far and will stop now. Treading on personal lines a step too far. I know some are uncomfortable or not interested in sharing such experiences. This ain't the place for that.

One last thing, when I wrote 'alternating mental states', I was also thinking of 'altered states of consciousness'. What some creative artists (or anyone really!) practise to blunt the sharp edges or sharpen insight into life, physical or mental. To find their muse and ideas. Or simply to chill.
https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/booze-as-muse-writers-and-alcohol-from-ernest-hemingway-to-patricia-highsmith-1.2369720

Murakami thinks that 'rich, spontaneous joy' is the source of creative expression. He tries to attain a certain emotional state to invigorate and begin a new and different day. I wonder if he achieves this by his daily practice of running or swimming. Exercise producing an endorphin high? The energetic interaction of body and mind helping to generate ideas...time for a walk or wander...

How can we know we are there? –In the room where dreams and life are merged– and could it be possible to know when we enter and when we leave the room? — javi2541997

It's perhaps the effects of being/becoming increasingly aware that mean more...?

Bye for now - and thanks for the thoughts :sparkle:

The idea of surrealism comes from the belief that we deal with reality indirectly by pulling it apart into pieces. Maybe we can experience it more directly when the intellect is offline, as in dreams, or in poetry.

Ideas are pieces of something bigger, which is implied in the way that ideas are inextricably bound to materiality, as the idea of a horse is bound to particular manifestations. Look deep into matter, all the way down, and ideas are always there.

Sorry for the late reply, as I took a couple of days break from the site. I found your reply to be one which I could relate to. That is because the distinction between how ideas separate from the perspective of the physical is complex. That is because i ideas ars representations, based on experiences but not simply that. They are beyond our subjective interpretations. For example, people may have different ideas about morality, but the idea of morality exists beyond that.

Postmodernism deconstructed ideas to some extent, but not completely. The nature of constructed 'truth' may be a bit fuzzy, blurring facts and inner interpretation, making it surreal in many respects.

The surrealistic paintings, such as those of Dali, show the way in which the imagination interprets facts. It is a source for ideas and creativity. The idea of Plato's forms may be a bit too literalistic metaphysically. Nevertheless, there does appear to be an archetypal or mythic dimension. The surrealistic interpretation or deconstruction allows for a certain amount of playfulness in the way one relates to ideas.

:up:

Very well said. A refreshed you, back on form :sparkle:

As a passing thought, I like the reference to surrealism. The facticity of things at one level can obscure the fact of them at another. A clock or watch finds itself a symbol for the abstract concept of time, but materially it's a construction dependent on material and spatial contingencies and only arbitrarily related to its symbol. The fact of time is then both represented and obscured by its concrete symbolization. Art can bring these things together by deconstructing the concrete facticity in a way that frees the symbolic within. E.g. Dali's surrealist representations of clocks and watches as flowing and ubiquitous allow the symbolic to "leak through" the concrete, unifying both into a greater whole that's psychologically enriching.

The idea of surrealism comes from the belief that we deal with reality indirectly by pulling it apart into pieces. Maybe we can experience it more directly when the intellect is offline, as in dreams, or in poetry. — frank

Interesting to consider. And I wondered whether the 'intellect' was 'off-line' in surrealist writing.

From wiki, it seems there were 2 separate Surrealist manifestos. Imagine they literally fought over the rights to the term. I found this useful but that's only after a quick, superficial look:

Breton's 1924 Surrealist Manifesto defines the purposes of Surrealism. He included citations of the influences on Surrealism, examples of Surrealist works, and discussion of Surrealist automatism. He provided the following definitions:

Dictionary: Surrealism, n. Pure psychic automatism, by which one proposes to express, either verbally, in writing, or by any other manner, the real functioning of thought. Dictation of thought in the absence of all control exercised by reason, outside of all aesthetic and moral preoccupation.
[...]
Because Surrealist writers seldom, if ever, appear to organize their thoughts and the images they present, some people find much of their work difficult to parse. This notion however is a superficial comprehension, prompted no doubt by Breton's initial emphasis on automatic writing as the main route toward a higher reality. But—as in Breton's case—much of what is presented as purely automatic is actually edited and very "thought out". Breton himself later admitted that automatic writing's centrality had been overstated, and other elements were introduced, especially as the growing involvement of visual artists in the movement forced the issue, since automatic painting required a rather more strenuous set of approaches. Thus, such elements as collage were introduced, arising partly from an ideal of startling juxtapositions as revealed in Pierre Reverdy's poetry. — Wiki - Surrealism

[my emphasis]

So, it seems that the intellect is engaged and control is exerted in expressing/understanding any surreal experience. It is an interpretation of the images or ideas dis/uncovered in dreams or expressed in poetry. The expression of such 'indirect' realities might be 'surreal' in the sense of a bizarre combination of the 'real', concrete and the 'unreal' - unexpected, hallucinatory quality of dreams. How is this 'the real functioning of thought' (as underlined above) ?

The facticity of things at one level can obscure the fact of them at another. [...]

Art can bring these things together by deconstructing the concrete facticity in a way that frees the symbolic within. E.g. Dali's surrealist representations of clocks and watches as flowing and ubiquitous allow the symbolic to "leak through" the concrete, unifying both into a greater whole that's psychologically enriching. — Baden

[my bolds]

A lovely description. It sounds good. Who wouldn't want to be enriched, psychologically or otherwise?

I enjoyed the 'leaking through' - but, then, I saw it as 'dissolving' rather than combining...water seeping through concrete. Making it weak. How bizarre!
And then I wondered about the 'fact' of symbols. As well as being representations of ideas, can't they also be a 'fiction' in that they are dynamic and depending on cultural elements and imagination?

Not sure what you mean by 'facticity'...
Consider me confused :chin:

Good question... The facticity of something would be its features (set of facts) in context.

"Facticity' refers to the inherent features of entities in the world that are shared with others, such as objects, concepts, and experiences, shaping an individual's understanding and interactions within a public, shared world."

So, the facticity of a watch, from this perspective, is a combination of its material reality and what it represents socially and symbolically. One fact about it is it's a symbol for time. But the set of physical facts about it, that aspect of its "facticity" is not directly related to the concept of time. So in a way its facticity is less unified from a regular perspective than an artistic one that uses time metaphors to warp its physical characteristics.

Edit: So the surreal can be the more (psychologically) real and the "real" real relatively deficient.

As well as being representations of ideas, can't they also be a 'fiction' in that they are dynamic and depending on cultural elements and imagination? — Amity

Absolutely. :up:

As a result of this thread I have been reading about the surrealist movement as it encompasses a whole approach to the arts. It also has an important contribution to the philosophy of ideas, such as in the thinking of Andre Breton.

Part of the approach draws upon Freud's understanding of the unconscious and one aspect of this is the idea of automatic drawing and writing. This does involve the generation of ideas and symbols. Of course, this does relate to the whole tradition of fantasy and the unconscious, including James Joyce's idea of the 'stream of consciousness' and the writings of WB Yeats, including his ' A Vision'.

What the surrealists recognise is that the products of the imagination are not 'real' in a metaphysical sense. Many religious thinkers and writers took the ideas in a literal sense, which may have been a great error. I am not even sure to what extent William Blake thought of his angels and demons as symbolic or something more. The surrealists manage to deconstruct metaphysical literalism, recognising the human being juxtaposing images and words in creative experimentation.

Part of the approach draws upon Freud's understanding of the unconscious and one aspect of this is the idea of automatic drawing and writing. This does involve the generation of ideas and symbols. Of course, this does relate to the whole tradition of fantasy and the unconscious, including James Joyce's idea of the 'stream of consciousness' and the writings of WB Yeats, including his ' A Vision'. — Jack Cummins

There is a fun experiment which one can do as an artist. You take a blank canvas, an array of colours, and proceed to produce a painting, without any specific vision, no intent, goal, or plan. The artist can produce a very beautiful masterpiece in this way, simply forming things as one goes, in a method of pure spontaneity. Depending on how the artist's mind works, the piece produced may display a total lack of coherency, or great coherency, and this judgement might vary according to various observers. This is a significant demonstration concerning the nature of "coherency", which is the basic feature of an idea.

This produces the question of where, and what, is coherency. We tend to see coherency in a collection of symbols, but that is supposed to be a representation of the coherency within the mind. But the coherency in the mind is represented by the pattern in the collection of symbols. So we can look at one individual symbol, one particular aspect of the work, and ask whether there is coherency within the individual unit or aspect. If there is, and this coherency came from within the mind, then it would be need to be represented by distinct parts being related. But we've already found the fundamental aspect, the unit, as the symbol. And to be a unit it must have coherency. Therefore we need to conclude that there is coherency which inheres within the symbol itself. This is what we observe as natural beauty, the coherency which inheres within the medium as having a symbolic nature of its own. The paint has beauty even without the work of the artist.

I have done some experiments with blank paper (not canvas), while on art therapy course. Some people get very abstract to the point of incoherency. I am a little bit the other way and end up with more familiar subject matter of drawings, such as rock guitarists and punk rockers. It is probably about getting into the frame of consciousness for active imagination.

What I have found to be useful for more automatic drawing by myself is music. This can allow for a degree of altered consciousness for accessing the imagination, almost as lucid dreaming. The ideal would be to incorporate dream images but it can be difficult to remember the details but I would like to experiment with this more. The process of this, like dream journaling may lead to greater coherency of one's own inner symbolic narratives.

Dali's surrealist representations of clocks and watches as flowing and ubiquitous allow the symbolic to "leak through" the concrete, unifying both into a greater whole that's psychologically enriching. — Baden

Yea, I like poetry and any kind of art that barely makes sense because of that. Life dwells in that open space between facts, if you know what I mean.

Life dwells in that open space between facts — frank

Nicely put. :smile:

That's cool. I don't know much about the theory of surrealism, but I dig some of the art. And I think I understand Dali's watches, but why the elephants have super-long legs is beyond me, frankly. :smile: