I will try not to drown in the deep seas of the unconscious mind which I wish to explore. — Jack Cummins

You can't drown in "the deep seas of the unconscious mind" because YOU are the deep sea. This isn't Freud. My theory is that "I" exist in the unconscious. Not Freud's SUBconscious sea of unutterable wishes, but my sea of enormous back-office operations where I exist outside the view of my front-office public relations staff, spies (observed sensory input), and all the public stuff. The front office (consciousness) isn't writing this. The public relations people are watching this as it goes up on the screen. The big Composition Group in the back office is putting the ideas together and sending it out to a transmission desk where fingers are instructed to hit the right keys.

I live in the unconscious, but I can't consciously observe my unconscious self because I am not exterior to it. I am in it, the interior. What goes on here can't be observed by the front office - conscious mind. The front office gets its marching orders from back here, not the other way around.

In my humble (maybe quite mistaken) opinion, we (front office consciousness) give ourselves too much credit. We tend to think we are in charge. We have a little control, but it's the back office that does the heavy lifting, major decision making, decides on priorities (like ending up at our favorite pub even though we said we would be home at 21:00. The back office decides how much risk to take, or not, often before the front office even knows it will soon be doing something it didn't plan on.

How can you tell whether what you are reading or hearing me say is coming from the unconscious or the conscious mind? You can't. The flow of instructions from the massive unconscious back office to the small conscious front office is seamless. What you see and hear is coming from the real me (the real person).

That's my theory, none of which should suggest that we can't drive ourselves crazy. There have been some pretty ugly conflicts in my back office which disrupted business for years on end. I just couldn't quite get my several idealist / realist / dreamy / pragmatist political parties to cooperate. So I was often working at cross purposes with myself.

Peace has reigned between my ears now for... maybe 8 years. Age and circumstances I wasn't in charge of brought me to retirement and living happily alone again. If I could take "where I am now" back to the time I was 30, say, "I could have been somebody -- I could have been a contender" (as Marlon Brando said in On the Waterfront 1954). Oh well...

So, ONE OF THE TASKS OF PSYCHOTHERAPY OR SELF-ANALYSIS is to learn how our minds actually are working--especially if they don't seem to be working all that well.

Happy, fully functioning, highly productive, sophisticated people can, I suppose, get along just fine without thinking about how their fucking splendid brains work. Most of us, though, find there are problems upstairs that have to be dealt with.

So question, @Jack Cummins: Why couldn't I figure all this out when I was 30?

That's my theory — Bitter Crank

An amazing, wonderful, possibly more accurate than you yourself suppose, theory! :up:

Peace has reigned between my ears now for — Bitter Crank

Congratulations! Ah...peace...the most wanted, rarest among rarest, "piece of art"...people are willing to pay a fortune for it...if only it were available.

So, ONE OF THE TASKS OF PSYCHOTHERAPY OR SELF-ANALYSIS is to learn how our minds actually are working--especially if they don't seem to be working all that well. — Bitter Crank

This information is for the "front office", right?

Why couldn't I figure all this out when I was 30? — Bitter Crank

Because the "front office" was overwhelmed in a manner of speaking.

I am glad to see that you have joined into the thread discussion.

I believe that the significant of Freud for philosophy as well as philosophy cannot be ignored.

He is mostly talked about for his views on sexuality. These could be seen as sexist and the whole idea of the Oedipus complex is open to question. I would argue that despite the limitations of his view his thinking at least sparked off a lot of debate in this area.

I would suggest that the role of a thinker is not necessarily to come up with a completely coherent answer but to sketch out a panorama for questioning. I think Freud did this in many areas and that his writings such as Totem and Taboo, Civilisation and its Discontents, as well as Origins of the Uncanny were extremely unique pieces of writing with contributions to make to psychology, the philosophy of religion and many diverse fields of thinking.

I developed the thread because I think Freud's ideas, especially ideas such as the conflict between Eros and Thanatos, as well as his whole picture of the mind and unconscious processes is worthy material for philosophical debate.

I was impressed by your piece of writing and The Mad Fool's comments on it.

I am pondering your question about why you could not have come to your present conclusion at age 30.I think it is possible that if you had entered therapy your self understanding may have been speedier but there is only a possibility.


When I spoke of drowning in the sea of unconsciousness I was free associating in the playfully in the spirit of Freudian analysis.
However, I think it is possible to drown in the sea of unconsciousness. This happens when people become psychotic. There again, Freud did suggest that dreams are a psychosis we all experiences and of course the realm of dreams is central to Freud's thinking.

You mention going down to the pub as a direction you took and we could say that getting drunk is the most common means of drowning in the sea of unconscious. I have literally got lost a few times by going out to the pub as a reading venue and having a few too many drinks and getting lost, getting on the wrong bus home.

It is interesting when you say about the risks we take and how we look after ourselves. I sometimes think that my subconscious and ego play meaningful tricks on me, but almost with an underlying purpose but in analysing this I would draw upon Jung's ideas.

I will leave Jung alone for now having generated possible fictions about details of their meal together...But actually I think I remember the account a bit wrong and Freud did not swallow a fishbone but ate a fish meal and fainted. I will say no more about this obscure, surreal tale.

He is mostly talked about for his views on sexuality. These could be seen as sexist and the whole idea of the Oedipus complex is open to question. I would argue that despite the limitations of his view his thinking at least sparked off a lot of debate in this area. — Jack Cummins

If I must say something on Freud and the Oedipus complex it's that the whole idea makes sense, at whatever level it does, even if not to everybody. This is either a sign of Freud's genius or evidence that all is not well, if one isn't, even in the slightest sense, "adventurous".

I would suggest that the role of a thinker is not necessarily to come up with a completely coherent answer but to sketch out a panorama for questioning. — Jack Cummins

That, sir, seems to be the true end of everything and anything we've done, we do, and ever will do but, I fear, for the wrong reasons.

Eros and Thanatos — Jack Cummins

I'm too ignorant to question the premise therein but I wonder, in my own small way, whether or not, the human mind, the greatest mystery of all, can be reduced to, may I say, a dance between sex and death. I suppose, despite how superficial it appears, between the lovers' bed and the death bed, a deep, perhaps disturbing but nevertheless profound, truth is waiting to be discovered. I don't know.

I will bear in mind the possibility of links but I am not a big fan of them and rarely open them on other people's threads.

Really, my quest is about the territory of the imagination. I visited the Freud museum in Hampstead several years ago and that inspired me looking at Freud's desk and the statues he had of mythological figures. I think his journey was about mythical dimensions.

I will probably see what happens on this thread in the next couple of days but want to exist a bit in the physical world before London's second lockdown begins. I don't want to only exist in a room using my phone and do feel a bit overwhelmed by the prospect of lockdown because it seems that life as we know it is becoming part of the mythical past. — Jack Cummins

Good morning. I wish I could undo all my comments and get in line with your intended purpose. I listened to a lecture about Freud last night and was shocked by the professor's absolute enthusiasm for him. To be fair he does have a problem with the ladies but I guess we should not take him out and hang him because his source of information is the same as the source for democracy. And In his favor, he did not see homosexuality as a mental illness and he tried to decriminalize. The Greeks accepted homosexuality and his information comes from them.

Do you know which mythological figures he had on his desk? They are evidence of his sources of information.

The term hysteria comes from the Greek word hysterika, meaning Uterus. In ancient Greece it was believed that a wandering and discontented Uterus was blamed for that dreaded female ailment of excessive emotion, hysteria. The disease's symptoms were believed to be dictated by where in the body the offending organ roamed. It was not religious belief but a social belief. https://academic.mu.edu/meissnerd/hysteria.html — academic.mu.edu

Please explain your last comment about becoming part of the mythical past. I do believe the past is being resurrected and this is the process of entering a New Age, but would such a resurrection relate to what Freud said? Greeks and their democracy goes with a concept of reincarnation.

Yes, Freud got penis envy wrong; it's a problem for us guys--we all have one, but envy others. We at least make comparisons whenever we get the chance. Even guys with enormous penises aren't always satisfied; as one well endowed guy confessed, "they attract too much attention". — Bitter Crank

For women, back in the day, it was the size of our breast. The bigger the better, and this led to enlarging our breast with surgery if we were not well endowed. I think we can say in the whole animal world there is an instinctive reaction to the features that define if we are male or female. The male peacock
struts his feathers, humans focus on the penis and breast. It can be hard to not look at the features that define our sexuality.

If I must say something on Freud and the Oedipus complex it's that the whole idea makes sense, at whatever level it does, even if not to everybody. This is either a sign of Freud's genius or evidence that all is not well, if one isn't, even in the slightest sense, "adventurous". — TheMadFool

A problem I have with Freud and Oedipus is there is not an equal story for females. It is normal for the mother and daughter to clash and for jealousy to become a problem that drives the daughter from the house. This is far more complex than two women competing for the favored position with the male head of household. While some women count on their daughters to be caregivers, typically they do not get along. In the East, typically the old mother goes to the son's home, not the daughters. Having to depend on a daughter or son can be extremely trying for all involved. The Biblical advice that the young go their own way seems well suited to our nature.

I will try not to drown in the deep seas of the unconscious mind which I wish to explore. — Jack Cummins


You can't drown in "the deep seas of the unconscious mind" because YOU are the deep sea. This isn't Freud. My theory is that "I" exist in the unconscious. Not Freud's SUBconscious sea of unutterable wishes, but my sea of enormous back-office operations where I exist outside the view of my front-office public relations staff, spies (observed sensory input), and all the public stuff. The front office (consciousness) isn't writing this. The public relations people are watching this as it goes up on the screen. The big Composition Group in the back office is putting the ideas together and sending it out to a transmission desk where fingers are instructed to hit the right keys. — Bitter Crank

Psilocybin and other psychedelic drugs can give us an interesting view of our consciousness and subconscious. Some have argued natural psychedelics played a role in making humans different from other animals. This is outside of a discussion of Freud but I had to mention it when the subject became the "deep sea" and possibility of drowning.

Also when our ego splits the "office consciousness" is not possible because different aspects of a personality are arguing about who will be in control. Schizyophernia can distract the person in the office. As one woman said, it is hard to stay on task when the boss has an elephant's trunk.

It's apparent Freud has had great influence, but I'm not much of a fan. He seems to me to have been overly concerned with those instances where a cigar isn't just a cigar. That sex plays a huge role in our lives is also apparent, but it's impact might be less dramatic and fascinating in other times and cultures than it was for him, a child of fin de siecle, (19th century) Vienna. Less importance, too. But as we of European heritage think and have thought sex, or its repression, is of such significance, he has some points to make.

As for Jung, from what I know of him the scope of his thinking was much broader, but his fascination with the paranormal, alchemy, and the veritable catch-all of the "collective unconscious" makes me leery of his conclusions.

and the veritable catch-all of the "collective unconscious" makes me leery of his conclusions. — Ciceronianus the White

I completely understand how you could feel that way just from a surface understanding.

When I combine it with the understanding of a 'bridge' between instinct, induction, abduction, deduction, the interplay that takes place in a species specific semiosphere, and how this epigenetically feeds back down to the organism, a collective unconscious makes perfect sense to me.

and the veritable catch-all of the "collective unconscious" makes me leery of his conclusions. — Ciceronianus the White


I completely understand how you could feel that way just from a surface understanding.

When I combine it with the understanding of a 'bridge' between instinct, induction, abduction, deduction, the interplay that takes place in a species specific semiosphere, and how this epigenetically feeds back down to the organism, a collective unconscious makes perfect sense to me. — Mapping the Medium

Edward T. Hall wrote of culture as group consciousness and subconsciousness. An example of our cultural subconscious is it is taboo to think about cannibalism. We might read of it being something "those people" do but there is a concern for the person who thinks of doing it in our culture.
If a person shared thoughts with us about participating in cannibalism, we might pull away. Thinking about cannibalism is not the only taboo. Thinking about being gay was also taboo, preventing some from realizing their homosexual feelings, and why they struggled to be "normal", leading them to enter marriages they didn't work for them. Our more open discussion of homosexuality today, resolves the problem created when homosexuality is taboo and something we must not think about.

A problem I have with Freud and Oedipus is there is not an equal story for females. It is normal for the mother and daughter to clash and for jealousy to become a problem that drives the daughter from the house. This is far more complex than two women competing for the favored position with the male head of household. While some women count on their daughters to be caregivers, typically they do not get along. In the East, typically the old mother goes to the son's home, not the daughters. Having to depend on a daughter or son can be extremely trying for all involved. The Biblical advice that the young go their own way seems well suited to our nature. — Athena

I was/am under the impression that the Oedipus complex is perfectly mirrored in father-daughter relationship. Did Freud slip up or did he think it too obvious to mention or, it gets interesting, he couldn't, like all men, figure out what women were all about? With Freud having left us a long time ago, the question is probably going to remain forever unanswered unless, of course, there's a Sherlock Holmes or a Hercule Poirot in our midst we could press into our service to deduce the truth. Mind you, this is all pure speculation. I haven't read Freud save for the wikipedia entry and that too very superficially.

As for the east-west divide on this issue, I feel it all turns on where countries and their people are on the graph of so-called civilization, civilization defined by the west. As the east plays catch-up with the west, we see an erosion of "eastern values" and the spread of western culture. I suppose there's an equal but opposite flow of "material". Anyway, the point is we'll probably reach some kind of equilibrium with the best of both worlds. This is me going off on a tangent.

I think that the Oedipus complex makes sense in the grand scheme of mythology even if it does offend some people. I do believe that most myths and dreams can appear as ridiculous if taken out of the symbolic level.

The symbolism of myths and dreams do contain a level of relevance for understanding the battles which exist in our own life dramas, even though we often prefer to deny this. We like to believe that our own psychological issues are based on reason but the truth is probably very different.

I think that you are right to say that sex and death are two major themes of the inner life , but I do think that questions about religion too. The reason why I would say this beyond my own anxiety about religious questions is based on how religious materialism features so strongly in psychotic illness.

Regarding your comment about my suggestion that the philosopher's task is not to find ultimate answer to questions, I think that what I am saying is that I reject absolutist arguments in general. I am a bit suspicious of anyone who claims to know the full truth. I do see the various pictures or models of truth as relative in some ways. I think we are all entitled to our views and no one should claim that theirs is superior.

But extreme relativism is rather wishy washy and can end with absolute lack of commitment to any belief in particular. In that sense, I would argue more for pluralism in which the various models can be weighed up and slotted in to place, almost like the jigsaw puzzle metaphor which was created on another thread.

Bringing this back to where Freud fits in I would say that sometimes philosophers talk as if the world can be viewed in a straightforward logical matter. But I think that this is not true because reality contains symbolic truths arising from the unconscious.

Thanks for your reply. I am pleased to say that I think that this current post has at least survived as far as puberty as it forms 2 pages now. I am grateful for your contributions and those of others in the last few days. At least it shows that Freud has not been dismissed and I am glad that people are thinking about his views about sex and life in general.

You asked me about my thoughts on the world as we know it becoming part of the mythical past. I would say that I do wonder whether we are at endpoint of civilisation or a new beginning. I will say that I created a thread on whether we were on the verge of cultural collapse, which was last active 19 days ago. I don't know if you are aware of this thread and you might be able to contribute to this discussion.

I will also say that I managed to download the book Thinking Fast and Slow, so hopefully I will manage to read it at some point while I am in the limbo land of England's second lockdown.

Of course we are all humans, and so have certain characteristics and needs in common. That commonality has consequences as it means that that there are certain things we do similarly. It seems dubious, though, to infer from that a murky collective body of archetypes, symbols and instincts which supposedly are part of the inherent structure of our brains. It's rather like inferring, as some have, that the fact that pyramids were constructed in Egypt and by the Mayans and Aztecs shows that ancient Egyptians found their way to the Americas, or that refugees from Atlantis traveled to Africa and Central America, or better yet that aliens taught us to make them. It makes far more sense, I think, to recognize that when people at a certain level of civilization wanted to build tall structures without the benefit of metals like iron and steel, they would rapidly understand that in order to do so in a manner which would avoid the structure falling over the base of the structure should be broad, and should become successively less broad the taller it was built.

Similarly, rather than speculating that there is such a thing as a collective unconsciousness with its mystic and mythical overtones buried in our minds, it would seem to me more reasonable simply to recognize that we're living organisms having certain characteristics existing and trying to live in an environment of which we're a part. There are certain things we must do as a result. One of those things is thinking, at least when we encounter a problem or situation we wish to resolve. Interacting with the rest of the world, we have similar experiences. Those experiences create habits, customs, language, laws, etc. We're better off studying those empirically than conjuring up Wise Old Man, or Mother, or Father, or Trickster, etc. in an effort to attribute them to some inherited unconscious.

I do believe that most myths and dreams can appear as ridiculous if taken out of the symbolic level. — Jack Cummins

:up: An altogether different ballgame. By the way I have no idea why we're discussing dreams all of a sudden. I'll play along; maybe we might strike gold or something like that. Anyway, if dreams possess symbolic content, who the hell has the key that'll aid us in their decipherment? Without the key, as Wittgenstein once remarked, "no course of action could be determined by a rule, because every course of action can be made out to accord with the rule." or thereabouts.

religious materialism features so strongly in psychotic illness. — Jack Cummins

What's "religious materialism"?

I think that what I am saying is that I reject absolutist arguments in general. I am a bit suspicious of anyone who claims to know the full truth. I do see the various pictures or models of truth as relative in some ways. — Jack Cummins

I'm probably mistaken but from where I stand there seems to be enough room in relativism for absolutism, given that these words are on the mark. The converse seems false.

extreme relativism — Jack Cummins

The punishment for murdering one person is the same as the punishment for murdering a million - death. Just felt like saying that. It appears that I've committed what in your view is a cardinal sin - speaking in absolute terms. Kindly shed some light on the nuances that have escaped my notice.

symbolic truths — Jack Cummins

I don't see how "symbolic truths" have to run contrary to logic and reason. If they do then, perforce, it's impossible to grasp them. We'll be like that dog I saw in a youtube video, cocking its head from side to side - seemingly perplexed - by what was on TV. It would be, simply put, beyond our ken so to speak.

I have wondered what humanity would be like if we separated the 'thinking' man from the 'feeling' man. Or even more so, exactly how much progress a thinking man could make without 'imagination'. Even the most brilliant logicians recognize the importance of imagination in our cognitive reasoning process. What would an individual man strive to be without looking up to a 'hero'? I don't think man can be separated from the myth, legends, storytelling, and symbols of his collective history, and I do think that aspect of primitive nature lives on in our cultures. It can be seen in our literature, movies, video games, sports, romance, traditions, and even our politics. I can't imagine a world without that richness, and I can't imagine people void of it in their approach to life. ... But that's just me. And the differences between each of us might just be how we fit in as characters in the ongoing story.

We may have myths, legends, stories and imagination without accepting the existence of a collective unconscious. Heroes, I think, incline us too much to hero-worship. But then, we tend to call most anyone a hero in these sad times.

But then, we tend to call most anyone a hero in these sad times. — Ciceronianus the White

With that statement, I couldn't agree more.

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 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. — Jack Cummins

And, in that same vein...

Am I man dreaming that I'm a butterfly or am I butterfly dreaming that I am a man — Zhuangzhi

Please enjoy the train ride...wherever it is that you're headed...don't bother replying to my posts...I'm convinced they are the incoherent speech of a raving lunatic — TheMadFool

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.

Enjoy the train ride...truth seeker...bon voyage!

You asked me about my thoughts on the world as we know it becoming part of the mythical past. I would say that I do wonder whether we are at endpoint of civilisation or a new beginning. I will say that I created a thread on whether we were on the verge of cultural collapse, which was last active 19 days ago. I don't know if you are aware of this thread and you might be able to contribute to this discussion.

I will also say that I managed to download the book Thinking Fast and Slow, so hopefully I will manage to read it at some point while I am in the limbo land of England's second lockdown. — Jack Cummins

Please PM me the link to your other thread.

I wish everyone would become familiar with fast and slow thinking. There are YouTubes on the subject. The explanation of why we make bad decisions is discouraging. We can make better decisions but we have to stop and methodically think about them. That is no fun. We take great pleasure in deciding on things based on how we feel. We think we are choosing for our happiness but unless we do the methodical thinking, down the road we can realize our judgment was wrong. Freud was not wrong but his understanding of this was inadequate. He had none of the tools such as brain imaging that we have today. With today's tools, I think Freud would be in 7th heaven.

I think Freud was distracted by "sex". I need to go on to whatThe Mad Fool said because I think much is more about power than sensual gratification. Making bad decisions comes with a sense of pleasure and a feeling of power. I am horrified by the risky behaviors of some in my family. A common problem is short term thinking or doing something for the fun of it while ignoring the possible consequences. You know, having the highest calorie drink on the menu because you know it will taste good, and ignoring the possible health problems of this choice. The pandemic is demonstrating what is wrong with that thinking, while people are carrying guns to protect their liberty to do as they please, and marching around their guns gives them a wonderful sense of power! It is not all about sex although carrying a gun and risky behavior can have sex appeal. The alpha male does get the females but I don't think he is choosing his behaviors with sexual gratification on his mind.

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.

Of course we are all humans, and so have certain characteristics and needs in common. That commonality has consequences as it means that that there are certain things we do similarly. It seems dubious, though, to infer from that a murky collective body of archetypes, symbols and instincts which supposedly are part of the inherent structure of our brains. It's rather like inferring, as some have, that the fact that pyramids were constructed in Egypt and by the Mayans and Aztecs shows that ancient Egyptians found their way to the Americas, or that refugees from Atlantis traveled to Africa and Central America, or better yet that aliens taught us to make them. It makes far more sense, I think, to recognize that when people at a certain level of civilization wanted to build tall structures without the benefit of metals like iron and steel, they would rapidly understand that in order to do so in a manner which would avoid the structure falling over the base of the structure should be broad, and should become successively less broad the taller it was built.

Similarly, rather than speculating that there is such a thing as a collective unconsciousness with its mystic and mythical overtones buried in our minds, it would seem to me more reasonable simply to recognize that we're living organisms having certain characteristics existing and trying to live in an environment of which we're a part. There are certain things we must do as a result. One of those things is thinking, at least when we encounter a problem or situation we wish to resolve. Interacting with the rest of the world, we have similar experiences. Those experiences create habits, customs, language, laws, etc. We're better off studying those empirically than conjuring up Wise Old Man, or Mother, or Father, or Trickster, etc. in an effort to attribute them to some inherited unconscious. — Ciceronianus the White

You missed the hundredth monkey theory. That being when enough monkeys know of something, that knowledge is in our universe and can be received by other monkeys even though there is no contact between the groups of monkeys. However, Jung and Joseph Campbell spoke of spontanious awareness of knowledge, which is like the voice of God speaking to Moses and hundreds of others who heard the voice of a god and I don't believe gods speak to people. However, we do have the concept of a tipping point. I think that is like a pandemic. When enough people have a virus or a thought, it spreads to just about everyone.

I was not aware that I was speaking of a mystical power when I mentioned cultures have a consciousness and subconsciousness. I don't think we can mediate about become aware of what is in the consciousness or subconsciousness unless it is our own thought, but rather is would unlikely to not be aware of cultural consciousness and we would not be aware of what our culture has made it taboo to think about.

I think nations require pschoanalysis just like indiividuals. We are the product of our history, but we may not know that history. Right now the US is in serious trouble because too few are aware of the history that made the US as it is. It was a terrible thing when our right to speak truth became confused with the freedom to say any damn thing we want to say, such as the pandemic should not concern us and should go on about our lives as though it did not exist and defending this right with guns and rebellion against majors. This problem is a failure of education. It is Satan on earth or a god punishing people for their sins.

Bottom line, I don't whink we have a disagreement but maybe a misunderstanding of culture and how history becomes culture, and the problem when a cultural value is known but not the history of the value. That makes a nature crazy just the same as something in a person's subconscious can make the person crazy.

Western culture is materialist and Eastern culture is not. Leading to the West developing technology, but India was a leader of math and gave us the zero, something essential to our own progress. Our cultures have a consciousness and an unconsciousness.

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?

It was a terrible thing when our right to speak truth became confused with the freedom to say any damn thing we want to say, such as the pandemic should not concern us and should go on about our lives as though it did not exist and defending this right with guns and rebellion against majors — Athena

I distinguish between legal rights and rights which are claimed, but not recognized in the law. "Rights" which aren't legal rights are what people think should be legal rights, but are not. For me, those are not rights, properly speaking.

The only legal right to free speech here in the U.S. arises from the fact the law prohibits government from restricting speech in most, but not all, cases. When people complain that their right to free speech is being restricted by anyone but the government, through laws or government agents, they refer to a right which isn't a legal right.

I would maintain, therefore, that there is no right to say anything we want. We may be, speak and act like idiots if we choose to do so, but there is no right to be an idiot. There is no law, however, which prohibits people from being, speaking and acting like idiots.

What the law does allow, though, is the use of the power of government to protect public health, safety and welfare, unless the law restricts the use of that power. So, the government can legally impose requirements (such as the wearing of masks) which would prevent people from exposing other people to harm if reasonably necessary, unless legal rights are violated which merit more consideration, have more weight. There is no such legal right; there is no legal right to refuse to wear masks, for example; nor is there a legal right not to be inconvenienced.

The concept of "rights" which exist but aren't recognized in the law seems to me to be a source not only of confusion and misunderstanding, but a source of exaggerated self-regard.

I was not aware that I was speaking of a mystical power when I mentioned cultures have a consciousness and subconsciousness. — Athena

I'm not saying you were. I think the concept of a collective unconscious has characteristics of mysticism.
But I don't think we can usefully speak of cultures have a consciousness and subconsciousness unless we do so metaphorically, and frankly don't know what is meant by that.

The only legal right to free speech here in the U.S. arises from the fact the law prohibits government from restricting speech in most, but not all, cases. When people complain that their right to free speech is being restricted by anyone but the government, through laws or government agents, they refer to a right which isn't a legal right. — Ciceronianus the White

You seem to speak in favor of authority over the people? I can not read any further until I express my objection to your understanding of our rights and i must state my understanding of the importance of freedom of speech.

Now I have to use the word God but I am not speaking of the Christian God. I am speaking logos and universal law.

Our liberty depends our human rights if they are formalized by law of not. Our democracy is about our God/nature given rights, not authority above the people.

Our liberty and democracy depend on God/nature's truth and our freedom of speech is about speaking truth. It is our duty to speak truth to authority and to combat ignorance. And on this day, I must say Trump and his followers are a horror to truth because they are living in denial of truth and their behavior leaves all of us either forced into denial or with a dread of what the pandemic is doing to us because their actions spread the virus and keep it out of control. If Trump understood and defended our democracy, he would not be using his power to silence people who say things he doesn't want to hear. A strong government is not in line with liberty and democracy. Liberty and democracy depend on individual authority and power. We have a culture for that or we do not.

People might think they have power, but the ultimate powers is with God/nutare. What you said maybe technologically correct, but I worry about the wisdom.