I am not sure about the actual construction of metaphysics any longer. I think that when I first began thinking about philosophy, which was before I began questioning the existence of God, my own starting point for my own argument was from thinking about God. During my experience of questioning religious beliefs, I began thinking from a psychological point of view. I began to frame my own thoughts around actual supernatural entities. — Jack Cummins

I think most people tend to go through phases when they examine their own beliefs in metaphysical realities. Personally, I never reached a point of total metaphysical negation or nihilism. Any arising doubts were instinctively met with counter-arguments to the effect that even if no personal God existed, the existence of Truth, Goodness, Beauty, Order, and Justice would still have to be admitted. After all, the visible universe is undeniably constructed in an ordered, logical fashion, that could be accidental but could equally suggest some form of creative intelligence behind it, etc. While my conception of God alternated between a personal and non-personal Deity or Ultimate Reality, it never became atheism as such.

Regarding Plato’s “ideas” or “forms” I think it is ironic that one of Plato’s most fundamental concepts has stirred so much controversy. Obviously, different thinkers have interpreted the Platonic “ideas” or “forms” in different ways. Jung’s archetypes can help us explore what Plato meant by “ideas”. However, Jung developed his theory of the archetypes in the context of psychoanalysis. Personally, I tend to find Plotinus closer to Plato.

What Plato was trying to show was that consciousness or mind tends to organize experience according to certain patterns. It stands to reason that if there is a higher consciousness, mind, or intelligence that creates the invisible world of spirit as well as the visible world of matter, it would do so according to similar patterns.

The problem that Platonism seeks to solve is how the absolute unity of spirit becomes the multiplicity of thought and matter.

Do abstract ideas such as “man”, “woman”, “horse”, “house”, etc. exist on a higher plane from which they are copied into the physical world? I think that put this way the question tends to complicate the issue and give rise to misunderstandings even though, on one level, it points in the right direction.

To simplify things, it would be helpful to go beyond those “forms” and focus on what they ultimately consist of, i.e., basic things like “color”, “number”, size, distance, etc. These would be the actual “forms” contemplation on which leads to direct experience of consciousness itself.

It would be difficult (though perhaps not impossible) to conceptualize this any further. And nor is there any need to. Practice and direct, personal experience is the only way to reach that place of which thought can only give us an indirect hint. But once that place has been reached, even momentarily, as Plotinus is said to have done more than once in his lifetime, it becomes clear that consciousness or intelligence is what we essentially are, where we come from, and where we ultimately return to.

So you are not impressed by Gaugin's painting or his title? — Jack Cummins

I took the title as a whole, in relation to the painting - as a critique of industrial society, by a man who ran away - leaving behind a wife and five children, to the South Pacific to paint. The guy is a monster and, based on this painting - he's not very good, really. He's a depressive in paradise, making self justifying statements of his art.

Contrast this with Henri Rosseau's painting, similar subject - much cleaner lines, more vivid colours, wit and humour with the animals in the undergrowth. I see none of that in Gaugin's painting. It doesn't pull the eye anywhere in particular - as if to tell the story. It's daubed across the canvas in a haphazard manner. The figures stand in disproportion to each other, in a barely discernible landscape. No, the best I can say for it is that it would complement the colours in my bathroom.

I admit that I sometimes reflect on your set of questions: What do I want? What am I doing? and Who Am I? When you was a teenager I used to spend so much time dwelling on who am I and I remember going to a church youth club day event on the topic. Identity construction was so central and I can remember wearing badges of all my favourite rock bands. What am I doing is a question I frequently ask myself still. I do think that it is worth asking what do I want because it is possible to act blindly without enough attention to one's real intent. I do find that the clearer I am in my focus helps some kind of pursuit of goals because I have found that sometimes if I am not aware of what I really want I get such a random assortment of life experiences

Your goals are connected to ego concerns and I think we have to be aware of them. I think that Gaugin's goals are important for reflection too, but I am inclined to spend a lot of time reflecting. I think it is possible to spend too much time reflecting. I am also aware that I am better at reflection after events than reflection in action.

I am replying to others' response and please don't think that I am ignoring yours. I just need to think about it, so I will get back to you in a day or two, because I am trying to think how I see Plato's ideas and, I am reading Plotinus currently.

Your comment relates to the context in which I viewed and thought about the painting of Gaugin earlier this week. It was in an article called, Art & Morality: A Bittersweet Symphony' by Jessica Logue in 'Philosophy Now' (April/ May 2021) It was looking at the relationship between art and personal morality. Despite showing the painting by Gaugin, there was only passing reference to him but looked at judgements we make about art and its relation to the personal lives of those who created it.

One of the people it focuses upon is Kurt Cobain, the singer from Nirvana, who killed himself. It asks how we view his life and suicide in connection with his artistic legacy. The author is asking to what extent can certain lifestyles and acts be justified in the context of the artistic and creative process?

I would definitely not go as far as your suggestion that Gaugin was a 'monster'. I don't know enough about his life to be able to say that why he left his wife and children. But, my intuition is that there was probably something really wrong in the marriage to lead him to make that decision. But, I think that the topic of how authenticity is played out in the artistic pursuit is important to ask. We can ask to what extent the artistic pursuit be followed above all else? How far should one go?

We can ask to what extent the artistic pursuit be followed above all else? How far should one go? — Jack Cummins

Watch the movie "Bullets Over Broadway". It asserts that a true artist is willing to die for his or her art.

But, my intuition is that there was probably something really wrong in the marriage to lead him to make that decision. — Jack Cummins

My knowledge is fairly scant but I understand he attacked the beliefs of his wife's family. Probably religious beliefs. I don't know anymore than that. 'Monster' was maybe a bit much; but still, they had five children - and his wife was supporting him, until he ran off to the south pacific.

I think that's important context, that illustrates the meaning of the work. He paints this unspoilt paradise, and titles it to cast aspersions on the life he left behind. Then, it's not very good. The blues and browns are indicative of depression - and it's as if he's poised to learn the lesson that wherever you go, you take yourself with you. But he hasn't learnt it yet, or perhaps ever. He's turned paradise into hell - and perhaps, thus we see the central figure reminiscent of the damned in Botechelli's painting based on Dante's Inferno.

I've looked at some of his other works, and they're better than this, but still, the compositions are unwieldy, and I see the same weird disjointedness between figures or objects in his paintings over and again. He maybe enjoyed painting, but I don't think he's very good at it. It would have been a good hobby for him, but if there were ever a case of "don't give up the day job" - this is that.

No problem at all. I've got lots of things to do myself, so take as much time as you want. No rush whatsoever.

Your goals are connected to ego concerns and I think we have to be aware of them. — Jack Cummins

I've never been able to reflect on 'we' I don't really know who 'we' is, but I am somewhat acquainted with myself - as per the ancient Greek injunction 'Know Thyself.'

Actually, even though I use the term we fairly often I can't really say that I feel any real connection with 'we'. I suppose that I use the term to speak of being part of humanity, but in practice I don't really feel any collective sense of belonging. In the real world, it often seems like war between the many competing egos.

I have just realised that I have replied to the majority of people who have written comments to my thread post and I had left you out.I thank you for your contribution, and your writing style and angle is always is so unique, speaking more from intuition.

We have our lives. It includes varying levels of suffering compared to other people who are alive.
And we struggle with ourselves.
I have no idea what is going on.

I completely agree that suffering is a big part of human existence. I think that the particular questions Gaugin raises, especially the one of what we are do affect the way we cope with the suffering. I believe that the more insignificant feel on a cosmic level means that we place more emphasis on the mundane aspects of our lives. However, I am sure it has worked in the opposite way when people were often encouraged to put up with suffering, without complaining too much because they would be rewarded in the afterlife.

I finished reading the writings of Plotinus yesterday. On an intuitive level, they make sense to me, but I can see why a lot of people find that ideas, such as the soul and the One are problematic.

I do come with an appreciation of the idea of the Forms, but, once again, with certain critical reservations. I know that Aristotle, was critical of the idea, because he could not see how they could be measured. I do think that Jung's ideas about archetypes is useful for considering the whole area of thought. You say that he was coming from a psychoanalytic approach, and, of course, that is true, but you must bear in mind that he had such an in depth knowledge of ideas, especially of aspects of Western and Eastern religion. He was a writer who went far beyond psychology, and into the realm of philosophical discussions.

If I am honest, I read writings of Plato and Plotinus but I find it difficult to come up with a clear acceptance or rejection, although, at some point, I may come to such a position, in the context of thinking about them in connection with other areas and aspects of philosophy.

I don't think our "humanity" is as mysterious as we make it sound. We are pretty much a product of our environment, conditioned, and predictable. And we have yet to learn what it means to be be a "human", as that word suggests.

I do come with an appreciation of the idea of the Forms, but, once again, with certain critical reservations. I know that Aristotle, was critical of the idea, because he could not see how they could be measured. I do think that Jung's ideas about archetypes is useful for considering the whole area of thought. You say that he was coming from a psychoanalytic approach, and, of course, that is true, but you must bear in mind that he had such an in depth knowledge of ideas, especially of aspects of Western and Eastern religion. He was a writer who went far beyond psychology, and into the realm of philosophical discussions. — Jack Cummins

Yes, Jung introduced some interesting concepts like synchronicity and also the use of techniques like “mandalas” as tools for re-focusing or re-centering and re-connecting the mind which I find very interesting, as well as dream analysis and interpretation. Incidentally, such techniques can also be found in Platonism and in Ancient Greek religion in general (as well as in Christianity and other Western traditions).

If I’m not mistaken, I think he says somewhere that each person must follow the path prescribed by the spiritual tradition of his or her own culture, which I tend to agree with and I think that’s what I’ve been doing or trying to do myself.

Jung was prepared to look into paranormal experiences for which reason I much prefer Jung to Freud, for example. But as you say, Jung was extraordinarily well-read and you need to be nearly as well-read and learned as him to fully understand his teachings in all their complexity. His published writings are about twenty volumes and a good few are still unpublished.

But I’ve got nothing against Jung. I’m just saying that, personally, I find Plotinus and other Platonists easier to assimilate and put into practice than Jung. For me, Plotinus would be the core of spiritual teachings and practice and Jung something to be explored as an intellectual support for Plotinus in the case of those who feel the need or have the time for it. But this is just my personal opinion.

I think that it is important to ask to what extent human beings are a product of the environment and predictable. It goes back to the nature vs nurture argument. I think that genetics comes into the picture as well. We can ask are criminals born or made? I think that it is complex mixture and experiences which people have can have such a detrimental effect in shaping how we become. But, I do think that some individuals seem to have the ability to rise above so many factors which are going against them, and I see this as an ideal worth aiming towards, because it can even be tempting to give up in the face of too much stress and oppressive life circumstances.

This is connected to learning to become human. I think that it is important to have ideals and dreams. I believe that if we don't strive towards the highest possible ones it is easy to be dragged to the lowest ones. I think it is worth thinking about people who have strived to be the best examples, such as Ghandi.

I think that it is important to ask to what extent human beings are a product of the environment and predictable. It goes back to the nature vs nurture argument. I think that genetics comes into the picture as well. We can ask are criminals born or made? I think that it is complex mixture and experiences which people have can have such a detrimental effect in shaping how we become. But, I do think that some individuals seem to have the ability to rise above so many factors which are going against them, and I see this as an ideal worth aiming towards, because it can even be tempting to give up in the face of too much stress and oppressive life circumstances.

This is connected to learning to become human. I think that it is important to have ideals and dreams. I believe that if we don't strive towards the highest possible ones it is easy to be dragged to the lowest ones. I think it is worth thinking about people who have strived to be the best examples, such as Ghandi. — Jack Cummins

I think If we put aside all conceptual debates, the authority we attribute to the views of “experts”, learn to observe without the lens of acquired knowledge, and build the capacity to face facts even if they are unpleasant, then it should be obvious that we are nothing but a bundle of experiences. We are conditioned through and through by these experiences, not only psychologically but also biologically. Essentially the human mind has become a trash can, wherein by the general consensus known as society. we have agreed to shape and mold ourselves ideologically, practically, politically, morally, economically etc. This shaping/molding mostly doesn’t factor in what is right, good, just, virtuous, and beautiful. except as a passing reference or a footnote when its convenient and profitable to do so, but rather this programming has self-interest, profiteering , competition, violence, uglification etc. as it’s bedrock. So this is the humanity we are talking about aren’t we? A rather simple and easy observation.

You say' 'the human mind has become a trashcan.'
I think it is up to us to try to stop that from happening. We are constantly bombarded with all kinds of information on television, newspapers and the internet. Some of it tells of human beings behaving in horrific ways, and humanity is so large that is easy to end up feeling of complete insignificance.

However, I think that it is possible to go beyond all of that. I have times when I feel useless and I am sure that I have plenty of vices. Despite that, I do hold on to the quest to try and cultivate my mind through trying to cultivate my mind, through thinking,reading and writing, as well as interacting with people. Sometimes, I find groups the hardest aspect of life because group dynamics are so complex. But, ultimately, I believe that each one of us has to take responsibility for our life or destiny and I am determined to prevent my mind from becoming a 'trashcan.'

I am not sure that I would agree with Jung that we should follow the path of our own culture. I think that I remember coming across that idea in his writings somewhere, but as he wrote volumes, I would not be able to locate it easily. My understanding of his basic argument was that there is a danger of people in the West turning to those of the East, and getting in a bit of a mess because the ideas are based on a different set of metaphysical assumptions. I can see his argument, but wonder if it made more sense in the climate of the time he was writing because, he was writing in a time in which Christianity was the prevailing system of thought, but I think that the underlying thought of our cultural epoch is so fragmented anyway. I think that we need philosophy to try to put it together again.

I have found Jung to be my own mentor really, but I do agree that we need to read so much to even understand him. I see his writings as the starting point, for going beyond, into many diverse areas. I did find Plotinus inspiring really, and will probably go back to him, as I charged my way through ideas which called for far more reflection and analysis. But, I do read many writers from all kinds angles. One writer who I have read a few books by, and I find extremely interesting is Rudolf Steiner. I have only come across one person referring to him apart from me, but I do believe that he was an important systemic thinker who has not been given enough attention within philosophy.

Humanity is defective and aberrant to the natural order of things. The future just involves more and more programmed social behavior, where people will become less and less free and not even realize it because they have been manipulated into accepting servitude. — darthbarracuda

Democracy is a shared consciousness and shared power. I believe it is possible we have greatly increased our shared consciousness and that we are at a point of developing a new consciousness
based on science and histroy. We may be entering a new age that is a high-tech reality and one of peace and the end of tyranny. But then what are we to do with ourselves if we don't need to work from sun up to sun down?

You speak of labor-intense societies. A high-tech society is not labor-intensive.

You say' 'the human mind has become a trashcan.' — Jack Cummins

You say' 'the human mind has become a trashcan.'
I think it is up to us to try to stop that from happening. We are constantly bombarded with all kinds of information on television, newspapers and the internet. Some of it tells of human beings behaving in horrific ways, and humanity is so large that is easy to end up feeling of complete insignificance.

However, I think that it is possible to go beyond all of that. I have times when I feel useless and I am sure that I have plenty of vices. Despite that, I do hold on to the quest to try and cultivate my mind through trying to cultivate my mind, through thinking,reading and writing, as well as interacting with people. Sometimes, I find groups the hardest aspect of life because group dynamics are so complex. But, ultimately, I believe that each one of us has to take responsibility for our life or destiny and I am determined to prevent my mind from becoming a 'trashcan.' — Jack Cummins

You have expounded on a non-applicable meaning to what was said. In any case i think i have addressed your initial objections.

Are people who don't share your fears your people?

You have not really given an argument at all, other than say that what I am saying is 'non-applicable'. You are suggested in your previous post that 'we are nothing but a bundle of experiences' and that ' the human mind is a trashcan' which reduces human beings to insignificance. Surely, a person is more than that.

You have not really given an argument at all, other than say that what I am saying is 'non-applicable'. You are suggested in your previous post that 'we are nothing but a bundle of experiences' and that ' the human mind is a trashcan' which reduces human beings to insignificance. Surely, a person is more than that. — Jack Cummins

I din't refute what you were saying as there is no need to refute a starwman.

Nor did i notice any questions seeking clarification.

Okay, my question for clarification would be what is your basis for believing that we are merely 'a bundle of experiences' and that the 'human mind is a trashcan'? You have not provided a basis for this view or opinion?

Okay, my question for clarification would be what is your basis for believing that we are merely 'a bundle of experiences' and that the 'human mind is a trashcan'? You have not provided a basis for this view or opinion? — Jack Cummins

The basis is observation of facts. It's not a belief, it is so. Is there anything in you, or me, or anyone else that isn't a product of conditioning? Conditioning being your experiences, your knowledge, everything that has been dumped into you (the trash can analogy) since you were a baby. By your family, by the school system, by your work environment, by the beliefs and value you affiliate with, so on and so forth.

So as it stands a human is nothing but a bundle of all those dumpings. A bundle of experiences. How you think, act and react comes from all that. It's an easy observation, but may not be a pleasant one to discover we are this, hence the resistance. In order to soothe away this pain you may invent some belief of a different factor like soul etc.But that's just a belief.

But, we don't have things simply dumped into us, because we can work with them and interact with our experiences. Even now, as I am writing I am sifting and choosing words to focus on and explore. I don't see how that is mere conditioning? As the cognitive behaviourists suggest, experiences don't control us. It is our feelings about those experiences, and this can be worked with, in therapy, or by our own critical interpretation. We can shape our own reality.

I think that my phone battery is about to run out. So, if you write a response and I don't reply it is because I have to wait to get home and put it on the charger.

But, we don't have things simply dumped into us, because we can work with them and interact with our experiences — Jack Cummins

What you are calling "interract" is also called 'reactions'. The reactions are also predetermined by the particular conditioning. So the question then is can you face the facts as they are. That we are nothing but programmed reactions.

Like i said previously you cannot fall back into "the experts say", A critical exploration will reject that kind of authority, and see them as mere beliefs, which may or may not even be true. These theories are incomplete and evolving, thus cannot be trusted to give a complete picture. The only reliable tool you have is your own observation.

We can shape our own reality. — Jack Cummins

Yes. that's a popular and comforting belief, which chooses to ignore that the reality one shapes is based on one's own conditioning, and the aspirations that come out of such conditioning. A shaped reality is a subjective reality, and by definition isn't true reality.

I realise that a 'shaped reality is subjective', but as far as I can see that is what we are left with individually, to work with, for better or worse. You speak about conditioning, and aspirations and this leads me to think that we are back to the conundrum of free will. This all depends how you view it, whether it is viewed as human beings being lead by external causes or making choices as individual actors. The key aspect is reaction vs action. It is complicated, in terms of the focus. One thing which I wonder about is whether we can create free will, or gravitate towards it, through greater consciousness or awareness. What I am trying to say is that rather than just being robots of conditioning, perhaps through greater understanding and insight we are able to attain greater levels of freedom of choice.