With photos, there is possibly the most 'clinically objective' image representation of visual reality possible. However, there are some variables, such as lighting, photographic techniques and, more so recently, modifications not simply by airbrushing but by apps for adjustment.

However, in the phenomenology of art, there is a difference by rendering an image, or of copying, of a photograph and human drawing and painting. This may be where qualia and perception come in. If a group of people sit together and draw a person there are likely to be so many differences in the picture produced. It may come down to artistic ability but also due to perception itself, with so much being interpretative as opposed to 'photorealism'.

However, it is a muddy area as some strive to copy in such a way as to resemble photorealism, especially if photographs are used as part of the research and details copied from photos. Currently, graphic art and its incorporation of humans blur the boundaries. Also, there is the movement of supperealist painting, which attempts to make art which looks more 'real' than photography.

In addition, the familiarity with certain art and photography may influence human perception itself. Artists study art to improve their visual imagination. Also, the he exposure to photorealism informs the basis of the visual imagination is one influential aspect of visualisation alongside the neuroscientific aspects of perception, with the brain and eyes being the physical wiring for picturing 'reality'.

There is the question of the innate differences of biology, which may involve thinking, as noted by @Hanover, and the role of cultural assumptions and the dynamics of power relationships. It may be complicated.

Mary Midgely's comment about the way women don't put each other down, may be about female psychology. Or, it may be about the situation of females in philosophy and their precarious situation in a male dominated profession in the institution of philosophy at the time, as if being there itself was a 'privilege' and a shared respect for one another as it may be problematic to argue that females never put other females down, such as in situations where they are competing against one another.

The dynamics of institutions involves power relationships and ideas about gender. Even recently, I read of a situation in the news in which a woman applied for a high position in an organisation and was rejected. When she sought feedback, she was told that the reason why she had not been given the job she was told that it was because she had not 'put enough effort into her appearance'. The woman claimed that what this amounted to was she had not worn make up. It reminded me of how the most successful woman I knew in philosophy, a professor and well known figure in medical ethics, who was a tutor, was adored by male students for her sexual attractiveness. I won't name her, just in case she were to read this online forum, but I wonder if she would have risen to fame if she had not been so attractive.

What I am arguing is that gender relationships are not simply about misogyny but about stereotypes. In the twentieth first century the situation may have changed to the point where there is more bias against males in some contexts. For example, what I have found when looking for accommodation is that so many adverts say, 'females only', which may mean some difficulty for males in finding 'a room of one's own'.

The addition of the poll about shifts the focus of the thread, to the issues of relationships between women and men. Also, I only just saw the link to a reference to the Virginia Wolf's 'A Room of One's Own' because the blue of the link words didn't show on my 'night time' mode on my phone.

I have read the book by Woolf and her writing and her writing was extremely influential in giving women a separate identity and voice in philosophy. At one point, in some Christian understanding, when there was a belief in the 'soul', there was speculation that women did not have souls, although I don't know how widespread that was. But public thought and philosophy was the domain of male power.

So much has shifted since Midgely, in the twentieth first century, and women are not dependent on men and in the public sphere with strong voices. When I mentioned to a female friend that there are so many males and not many females writing on the philosophy site she replied, 'They have better things to do than write on philosophy forums'. This conveyed an image of men alone in their rooms reading and writing philosophy, with women being out in the public sphere of interaction. Philosophy itself may have become marginalised, as seen as too abstract and removed from public life.

It may be about 'containment' of the body and the environment. My own understanding with my room, and the nature of 'clutter' may be as important as the sense of 'body' and its boundaries. The physiological aspects of body may be the starting point for the wider sphere of containment, ownership and influence.

The idea of carrying ' another person in the body' relates to the philosophy of transgenerism, and gender dysphoria, although this may be a little different from the ideas expressed by Mary Midgely as such. The idea of masculinity as privilege may relate to gender dynamics of power, as identified in feminism. The crossover between feminism and the postmodern critique of gender may be important .

Privilege itself may involve material or psychological aspects. Material satisfaction may be a comfort, just as masculinity may be privilege. The material and social aspects of comfort and priviledge may have some parallel in the dynamics of power.

To some extent, science may have taken such a stronghold, that philosophy is seen as of less importance. However, the ideas of science and scientific models may rest on philosophy assumptions and even physics, as 'hard science' may rest on the metaphysical imagination. In particular, quantum physics breaks down the basics of hardcore materialistic approaches of scientific models, leading to scientific ideas and, even paradigms, being models as opposed to absolutes of objective and rational understanding.

The distinction between belief and knowledge may involve the epistemological basis of ideas. It may embrace the evidence of the senses, cultural ideas and evidence. All of these may be important in philosophy understanding Each person may incorporate aspects of this in thinking and the interplay may lead to the differences between subjective and objective knowledge. Knowledge is bound to objective criteria for understanding whereas belief may involve subjectivity. However, the interplay between the objective and subjective may mean that the nature of belief and knowledge remains fluid in human understanding.

I have looked at your link and it may reveal aspects of human understanding and the complexities of gender in this. Adolescence is a particularly difficult time for many, as it involves the complexity of conflicts about sexuality. In relation to Descartes' cognito, it may involve the reflective aspects of human identity and consciousness. It also goes back to Sartre's understanding of self-consciousness, which involves reflective understanding, including the experience of 'body'.

Feminism has been an important foundation for thinking, as well as postmodernism. Domestics may involve so much, especially chores and the how gender is manifest. It may involve the basic questions of gender, essentialism and science and how these come into play in philosophical assumptions. I wonder to what extent the thread is about core issues of values, especially in relation to gender in relationships and social discourse. To what extent is a matter of philosophy or involve wider social aspects of politics, especially in regard to the basis of the idea of gender?

It could also be asked to what extent is feminism an entire critique of philosophy?

I notice that you highlight the word 'decide' between the idea of 'natural' and 'supernatural' and this dichotomy may be ab important area for debate. I have already spoken of the way in which Lyall Watson speaks of how some aspects of life, perception of extrasensory perception may be viewed as 'supernatural' erroneously, with the nature of perception and its extrasensory being wider.

The main basis of my own views are based on personal experience and I realise that these are limited as anecdotal evidence..
In understanding the nature of mind and consciousness, it may come down tje pros and cons of the experimental methodologies, both quantitative research and narrative description of qualitative research..

It may not be unclear as to how the dialogue between evidence based understanding and ideas of the nature of ''mind'and consciousness come into play. Ideas of consciousness and mind rest on both psychological and philosophy assumptions
.thinking of 'mind' involves psychology and philosophy, especially in relation to multidisciplinary perspectives.

. This area of rbecause the concepts and assumptions of the nature of 'mind' are of significance here. The ideas of the nature of mind and consciousness may not of significance here. How do you see the idea of intentionality as an aspect of psychology and philosophy?

The question as to whether 'mind' is 'natural' or 'supernatural' may be of significance but the division between natural and supernatural may not be clear. I have mentioned this in relation to Lyall Watson' s critique that the concept of the 'supernatural', and whether it comes down to the paranormal or aspects of the dichotomy of sensory perception.

I do wonder to what extent spiritual and religious concepts come into play in this area of thinking. I am definitely aware of a Catholic guilt complex which spurred me into rethinking..So, I try to look.beyond the ideas of religious thinking. I certainly question the dogmatiism of religious thinking and 'souls', especially in relation to ideas of heaven and hell in the afterlife. These are so fear based.

Kant may have been confounded by the dogmatic assumptions of Christian thinking. It could be argued by the whole basis of Christianity and atheism come down to the issue of sexuality, as this may be the most pertinent area of mind and body. It is the issue underlying Kant's perspective on pleasure and duty, and t
he treatment of human beings as ends.

Ideas of the 'supenrmatual', its absence or not, and naturalism may be be dependent on philosophical assumptions, especially the debate between the metaphysical and the moral..I am far from the most traditional of thinkers, because I am open to diversity in the expression of human sexuality

You may question why I think introducing the nature of sexuality into the debate about 'mind'. The reason why I do so is because the dichotomy between body and mind in philosophy may involve 'sexuality', as a key link.
.

I know that this is a major aspect of philosophy and, if any of us could know with absolute certainty it would make so much in life simple. Perhaps, it would be too simple as if 'answers' to the biggest questions and existential dilemmas of life could be found, as looking for answers from the 'heavens' or authoritative guides and guidelines, as definitive absolutes.

It also leads me to think about how I hesitated in answers in primary school, wishing to be 'certain' of answers before volunteering answers at school. It raises the whole issue of doubt and how the spectrum of doubt and certainty exist in life and so many questions of philosophy.

I also wonder about the extent to which doubt and certainty are desired. Would I like all the answers to personal life and the existential questions of life to appear in the clouds as absolutes, Or, would it shortcut the philosophy quest, and the whole phenomenon of knowing and unknowing? T
To what extent is 'unknowing' the important variable for all philosophical exploration and innovation?

The concept of intuition in the gap between rational knowledge and the sensory basis of empiricism may have been a wide area opened by Kantian thinking. Intuition may be important but open to scrutiny, especially in relation to clarity. It may be obscured by factors in socialisation, as well as fear and fantasises. Intuition may be a way of going beyond logic, but it may also be clouded by fears and fantasies. So, it may be an important aspect in the conception.of ideas and ideals but require more substantial basis in knowledge and evidence.
.

I wonder to what extent you see death as the elimination of suffering and the idea of 'resting in peace'?. In a way, this may be similar to the concept of 'nirvana', although it may be unclear in some perspectives of Eastern philosophy as to.whether 'Nirvana' is a temporary or permanent state..

So, in thinking about your question, I am.left wondering about the nature of unconsciousness and nothingness as 'comfort'. Sleep may be seen as 'rest', as comfort and potential rejuvenation. However, it may be seen differently as an end with no further conscious experience.

It could be asked what are theories?.lThey may involve theories and evidence in understanding.The biggest danger may be where theories and models may taken as absolutes as opposed to representations of ideas and understanding in the human 'mind".The concept of 'mind' may be limited. but this may also apply to the theories and models related to the nature of 'mind', mental states and consciousness.

Your text may be a fairly old one but may signify the role of Rome and Catholicism in ethical and political thinking. I am living in England and wonder to what extent what you are saying comes down to religious fundamentalism in its many forms. The dichotomy of religious beliefs and fundamentalist ideologies may be a strong factor in Amercaj politics and of so many other perspectives. In particular, the dialogue between religious perspectives and thinking may be important, especially where religious, and moral teachings are established.

I don't live in America, so I wonder about the limits of the questioning in relation to both fundamentalism and Catholicism in.America?.Are you interested in American politics alone or the wider scope of politics on a global level?. Also, to what extent may the relationship between politics and religion be considered, and religious thinking in conservative, or traditional thinking of the social order?.

I am sorry if you see me as not making 'good' arguments. I wonder what are the essentials for making 'good' arguments in relation to understanding the nature of 'mind'. Even the idea of 'good' is a value judgement, although I would presume that your idea is based more on the basis of the concept of 'truth', especially in relation to accuracy.

I am not sure to what extent each of us comes from an entirely different basis of motivation and logic. I am certainly opposed to mystification of ideas. If anything, the nature of conceptual and psychological understanding may be important. For example, I know that my own psychological issues with Christian philosophy stem from issues of sexuality. This takes it back from the philosophical issues to the psychological ones. In this respect, I see the area of psychology and philosophy as being of equal importance..I am not sure to what extent each is primary and psychology or philosophy as the key area for debate. To what extent do you see the nature of psychology or philosophy as as the foundation for thinking?

The whole nature of ambiguity may arise in thinking about the idea of 'mind'. It may be the very nature of ambiguity which is a problem in psychological and philosophical understanding. It may be a wish to put 'reality' and ideas into boxes, when there are so many inherent problems. I hope that in acknowledging the nature of ambiguity of this I am not seen as the antiphilospher, or, perhaps, I should stand as the antiphilospher, as seeing the problematic and blurry areas of philosophy, especially the nature of 'mind'. Each person may experience 'mind' and try to come up with valid explanatory logic, for better or worse.

I am not disputing valid inferences and terms but it is so complex, involving logic and linguistics. The complexity of this may be why a site such as this are needed when the basics and minor aspects are both important in the grasp and understanding of 'mind', including its experiential and theoretical nature.

What is the basis of good argument and I wonder about its linguistics and grammar. One aspect which I wonder about in your writing is your use of italics and sentence breaks, as they may lead to ambiguities. I am not sure if these are intentional and about the limits of logic and language? Generally, in the understanding of the nature of understanding of 'mind', I wonder about language and its limit. Wittgenstein may have recognised the limits of language but this may be so germane in the understanding of 'mind' and consciousness' and pinning these down to logic and science...

You make some important points and the issue of whether it is biological may be an important one. The primacy of biology may be so central to ideas of essentialism, including the basis of nature and nurture in thinking about free will and even ideas about what is gender. At times, the emphasis on biology may be so strong, as suggested by @Gnomon in his argument about the nature of the division between 'soft' and 'hard' science'. Mental states may be reduced to biology, which may end up with the nature of human imagination being dismissed or seen as a mere 'add on' feature in the nature of consciousness rather than imagination being seen as the an essential aspect, as realised in the numinous states of meditation and artistic creativity.

I have read Nagel' s writing on, 'The View From Nowhere', and found it helpful in thinking of the nature of awareness. It may go back to the epistemological limits of Kant, but in a more specific way. It is not possible to stand outside of consciousness in understanding. In other words, the capacity of 'mind' and the whole scope and nature of mental states may be inherent in the process of philosophical understanding. It may be asked, to what extent is self awareness, both introspection and taking on board more objective measures, essential to all philosophical understanding, even those related to the interpretation of scientific evidence and its role in human understanding?

Your question above is an interesting one because it does involve the one of what constitutes a 'mind'. One interesting discussion may be Gilbert Ryle's analysis of the idea itself and he argues that it may be 'a category mistake', based on the thinking of Descartes.

The problem which I see with this is the reductive thinking which became apparent in the thinking of the pop writing of Daniell Dennett, of 'consciousness as an illusion', which may have become extremely influential in the the understanding of the nature of consciousness and 'mind'. It is extremely reductive and the issue may be that it leaves out the reflective nature of 'mind' as agency, which was also apparent in the determinist psychology of BF Skinner.

The idea of 'mind' may be seen on the basis of behaviour , but also involves inner experience. The distinction between the inner and outer may be an important one, although it is somewhat blurry at times. Also feel free to suggest what you would list as the characteristics of 'mind', which may be important at this time as human intelligence is facing the competition of artificial intelligence. Here, I would argue that the idea of intelligence is a question in the concept of mind. This involves the nature of sentience and its role in human mental and emotional states, as opposed to 'mind' as pure reasoning intelligence.

I have read your initial post and the one you just read, although connecting with some of the links is difficult, or sometimes is difficult to enlarge on my phone. Sometimes, this limits my own responses and I am still inclined towards 'paper books', but realise that the web is a source of so many ideas.

The distinction between hard and soft science is a particularly important area, especially in what may emerge as the 'hard problem of consciousness'. Hard is often equated with science and the understanding of the brain, especially cognitive science.

I remember once weiting in a student essay about the debate as to whether psychology is a science or art. I was inclined to the position that the emphasis upon it being science was limited because if ignores the artistry and metaphysical imagination in inherent conceptions at the core of psychology. I later did some courses which were science based in nursing and saw the limitations of psychology being seen as 'hard science, and this issue may arise in approaches to the nature of 'mind' and consciousness.

I am not wishing to ignore your post previous to the one above. I am simply just going through the replies and the only reason I replied to @180 Proof's post first was because I have more regular interaction with him and it was mainly on this basis that I started the post. I see all posts as being important and do wish to pay attention to them and, besides, the thread topics are for general interaction and not simply dialogue with me.

My software of my phone makes quoting difficult but I am trying to engage fully and hope that your ideas, and everyone else's are appreciated. I will look at your initial response to me now, as I am out in a quiet space.

I am interested by the way in which Sheldrake develops his ideas to explain past life memories. It is consistent with the understanding of past lives by some Buddhist thinkers in which there is more of an underlying continuity of past life forms as opposed to concrete entities and in line with the fluid conception of self. The mistake which some people may make in querying past lives is to think it involves the specific stream of narrative personal identity, or the ego consciousness.

The general understanding is consistent with the relationship between a person and 'other minds', including ancestors and other living people. It is likely to involve a web of system interconnections. This would link with the idea of a collective unconscious, or to choose another philosophical term, intersubjective relationships in nature. It involves the evolution of consciousness in nature.

Some people may grow up with vestiges of past lives. I read, 'Past Lives, Past Masters', by Andrew Weiss, in which he, with no previous belief in reincarnation undertook the hypnotherapy of a patient. It involved the revelation of detailed memories from past lives, leading Weiss to consider the nature of past lives seriously. He ends up concluding that it was unclear if it was based on actual lives lived by the woman and himself or the tapping into the collective unconscious.

I am not sure why the idea of the collective unconscious is rejected by so many. It is at the juncture of 'science and spirituality', as you suggest, and this may be where it seen by many as problematic. I am extremely influenced by Carl Jung's ideas, as you and others on the site may be aware. I don't know why the ideas of Jung are seen as pseudoscience because they give a more flexible idea of 'mind' than many other approaches.

Jung draws upon ideas which may be seen as 'supernatural', which was the objection of Freud, but he does also draw upon ideas of biological naturalism. The idea of the collective unconscious is neither completely biological materialism or idealism, possibly fusing them in a complex way and drawing upon the Platonic idea of archetypes. I found the writings of Anthony Stevens helpful here because he traces such ideas in relation to biology as opposed to some 'supernatural' thought.

Even the idea of the supernatural is open to critical scrutiny, as argued by the biologist, Lyall Watson, in his 'Supernature', who sees the whole approach of extrasensory perception as being problematic when seen as 'paranormal', as opposed to being about the complexity of 'minds' in nature.

Having read your post and the linked one, I would say that I am definitely in favour of reasoned arguments and that is why I read philosophy rather simply books in the 'mind, body and spirit category', which often come with a lack of rigour in thinking.

The area of reason, a priori logic, in conjunction with a posteri logic, evidence, the evidence of empiricism by Kant, is extremely complex. The difficulty may be about putting the two together, which is where speculation comes in. To argue on the basis of one's own experience in making the link is weak and may be contrasted by evidence based knowledge, but even this comes with bias and the critical role of observer in experiments and research. This is where the interpretative leanings, especially in relation to materialism and idealism come in.

I know that you don't subscribe to this clear division and are well read in the approach of substance dualism. This is one way of seeing it of various options, including non dualism and pansychism. I do have a certain amount of sympathy for panpsychism in its argument for rudimentary consciousness underlying all matter and for non dualism, as mind and matter being entwined in a complex interface. This would also go hand in hand with phenomenology, especially the role of intentionality which is at the basis of the role of human consciousness in the overall scheme of understanding.

It is probably true that many people are not interested in neuroscience in their daily lives and beliefs. It is the area of both those who are interested in psychology and philosophy mainly, which is only a certain 'minority', although it does seem that psychology is becoming one of the most popular subjects for study. It is often a choice for both self knowledge and career pathways.

Subjectivity is often the area of psychotherapy and there may be an important aspect in research. However, one's own mind is not possible without some basis in subjectivity. Feedback from others may be useful to some extent in gaining some objectivity through others' perceptions.

It may even lead to an understanding of one's own blindspots but the ego may stand in the way and allow for limited insight into mind and self as a doorway of self awareness and the layers of subconscious which may be masked by the nature of the persona. This may go into the territory of social psychology and and awareness of social processes, including the dynamics of projection.

My question arises because neuroscience has changed the thinking of mind completely. There was so much more of a unity between philosophy and psychology prior to major developments in the twentieth century, in psychiatry as well as psychology. There had been so much mystification about mental states and even attributing mental.illness to 'demon possession. Ideas of biochemistry of the brain and CT scanning changed so much.

So, it may be getting to the point where science almost makes the pictures of nervous system explain everything, with philosophical issues getting missed. Some of the central conceptual issues may still remain at the underpinning of different approaches and cognitive models are often seen as far more accurate theories as opposed to the psychodynamic thinkers. The crossovers between the approaches may be important as well as the empirical approach of evidence.
.

What do you expect from me as I am a psychonaut, so I see myself and others as being spirit. What may make matters worse from your critique of me I do have some sympathy with the idea of a subtle body, or astral body. This is based on some experiences of astral projection, although I realise that such experiences are not to be taken as literally 'out of body', with the body as a container..Nevertheless, I think that there is some 'truth' in the idea of chakras, but it may be a kind of symbolic realm, as opposed to the causal order of the material world.

The concept of spirit is important although Hegel's idea of it as imminent is an important contribution. The idea of spirit is a often associated more with religious viewpoints but the idea of 'manifestation' is a relevant concept because it implies something as a source of life, and that may be the central basis of belief in 'God', but not necessarily in the form of the anthromorphism. It is more along the lines of the anthropic principle.

The idea of radio broadcast is important and it is as if the brain and senses are the machinery of consciousness. It does go back to the issue of whether the brain and nervous system are a filter as in Bergson' s thinking, which was drawn upon by Aldous Huxley in 'The Doors of Perception'.

I have read Sheldrake and found his approach interesting with the idea of morphic fields as a memory underlying nature. At the time of reading his writing I did think his perspective would be a foundation for belief in reincarnation, even though I am unsure if Sheldrake would go that far.

The dialogue between Buddhism and neuroscience is also important and I understand that the debate about physicalism and idealism exists within Buddhist thought. It is probably hard to ignore the basis of physical embodiment in the scientific sense because so much about the brain, with the main issue being whether mind can be reduced to brain entirely. The consciousness may have a certain transcendent nature.

It is not that I don't see the body as essential to existence. After writing the thread I have become physically unwell, with a sore throat and possibly a fever. It would be a mistake to separate such bodily illness from mind. Dualism may be an illusion, but it does come down to whether mind or matter is primary and Sartre's 'Being and Nothingness' does describe the centrality of body for being.

Disembodied existence most probably doesn't make sense in many ways, although at times I am not certain of this. I do believe that ghosts are disturbances in energy fields rather than the literal souls. However, there does appear to be an essential lifeforce, like the spark of consciousness or animation. Of course, this is not unique to human beings, but mind as in reflective consciousness separates humans. It is bound up with language and this gives rise to ideas, although it is possible that the ideas exist independently of human consciousness. That is debatable though, as indicated in the recognised question as to whether there is a sound of a tree falls and no one is around to hear it.

That's useful to know as I was reading, 'The Language Instinct'. It may show my weakness based on reading about Pinker's ideas and attempts to put ideas into categories, especially thinkers such as Pinker and Dennett. I hope that this does not mean that my entire thread will be dismissed because as far as I see it the question of what is inherited as 'mind', is a central area of thinking underpinning all psychological theories.

The argument could definitely be used to support religious beliefs. Strangely, Tipler said that he wasn't convinced of the existence of God. It seems like it was all about thinking of physics and the nature of possibilities.

One book which I read a couple of years ago was Frank Tipler's ' The Physics of Immortality'. In this, the author argued that a resurrection could be simulated, through means of a computerised artificial intelligence. It drew upon Teilhard de Chardin's idea of the 'omega point', as signifying both God and eternal life. There is some ambiguity in the book as to whether such a resurrection would involve an actual computer or not, with 'God' almost being the absolute 'computer'.

However; the author, in spite of his arguments says that he isn't really convinced of the actual reality of an afterlife in simulated form. He also suggests that the 'resurrection' would probably be very different from that imagined by many religious believers. I found it an interesting read, at least.

There is so much conflict about what an afterlife may consist of within various traditions and a lot may be projections of fear or fantasies of bliss, especially in the division between heaven and hell. Ideas may be based on near death experiences and other altered states of consciousness, which may have been inspiration for 'The Tibetan Book of the Dead', and similar texts.

However, apart from that there is so much conflict between beliefs about the role and existence of the body. In Christianity there is a conflict in the belief in immortality of the soul, going back to Plato's thinking, and the idea of the resurrection of the body on the Day of Judgment. There is also some fuzziness around the concept of the 'body' in the New Testament, with emphasis being upon the resurrection of the body being physical and St Paul speaking of a resurrection body as spiritual. This may suggest that the mind-body question has been an enduring philosophy problem.

This problem may be partly resolved by the idea of reincarnation in Eastern thought, because the 'afterlife' is only a temporary state of 'disembodiment', while the astral body exists prior to the new physical body. However, even within the various systems of Eastern thought there is a fuzziness, especially around the concept of 'Nirvana', as to whether it is a temporary or permanent release from the cycle of rebirth.

The biggest problem is that it is so speculative, with no real clear evidence, which is why so many people do not believe in an afterlife at all, especially in the dominance of physicalism.

The duality of life is central to all life and progression. Even with the mythic account in Genesis of the fall, the 'sin' was necessary for the unfolding of history itself. Evil as well as good are aspects of the very existence of life.

The issue of perfection as emphasised in Christianity may be contrasted by the idea of the 'middle way' in Buddhist ethics. However, it is an inevitable that human beings may go to extremes in searching. Balance is not found easily, without lived experience of mistakes made. This may be an unfortunate aspect of life, with people experiencing so much suffering on account of their own or others' mistakes.

The tension between order and chaos is complicated in politics. Anarchism and utopianism may sit together or apart from one another. Even the division between capitalism and socialism is far from straightforward and Marxism may shown the ridiculous nature of this based on Marx's idea that oppression is a positive in the way it will lead to uprising.

The nature of conformity vs rebellion is a central theme underlying religious systems and political ones, and where ethics arises in this. It can even be asked, to what extent are ethics and politics complementary or in opposition? Politics may be based on ideals of goodness or or on the basis of protection of self interest. I guess that rebellion may be about self interest or the search for justice.

Also, you mention pirates and witches. Such ideas and examples show the way in which people are viewed. In the past, there were witch hunts, which may have had variable concepts of what constitutes a 'witch'. Outlaws and rebels may be treated in various ways and may often become scapegoats. There is so much projection of 'evil' onto others and this may involve the tensions between opposites in oneself.

Your way of thinking of the idea of rebellion is interesting because it is so different from the political one. As a child, I definitely saw rebellion as being about the nature of good and evil. I was brought up as a Catholic and while adopting that approach and being 'confirmed' at age 11, before I had begun to think of questioning, I saw the idea of rebelling as being equated with sin. I was brought up with the idea of the 'fall of the angels', and the consequent fall of humanity from a state of innocence and grace.

My shift in the way I saw rebellion came while studying sociology 'A' level and especially the topic of 'deviance' and the way in which the label of being a deviant often marks a career of deviant behaviour. It was while studying this that school friends of mine, who were not studying sociology, began telling me that I was a deviant.

The aesthetic aspect of ideas of rebellion are also an important aspect. I am aware of a battle within myself over order and chaos. When I make art I do this in a precise detail as opposed to some who make more chaotic art. On an art based course, someone saw my art as being about control and order. The funny aspect is that I am untidy and chaotic in daily life, even when I try to keep things tidy. The balance between order and chaos is intricate and even chaos theory in physics sees an emergent order from chaos and the rave music makers drew upon this. In music, the tension between chaos and order is so strong and even in punk culture there is designer punk, which is a marketed hype and so different from the original punk mode of expression.

I think that it is problematic to try to describe oneself as being or not being an existentialist. Having read the ideas of some of the writings, such as Camus, Nietzsche and Sartre, I embrace some aspects of the philosophy, possibly the nature of existentialist anxiety, but I wouldn't go as far as to define myself as an existentialist, anymore than I embrace aspects of Buddhism but don't call myself a Buddhist.

Labels of philosophical thinking are useful for navigating ideas but not in a boxed way. I am often left perplexed by equal opportunities parts of forms, asking about religion. I often end up ticking the 'other' box and thinking that an essay would be more appropriate. It may be that the spirit of existentialism is opposed to boxes and labels, in the pursuit of freedom itself.