Philosophy Discussion Forums

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑February 17th, 2023, 9:16 am

JackDaydream wrote: ↑February 16th, 2023, 2:25 pm Intuition may be an undervalued aspect of thought, and it features so strongly in many individuals' lives, ranging from the distinct sixth sense aspects of premonitions to the stream of inner narratives within daily experience. Some thinkers, including Plato, saw it as a form of 'divine' guidance and spoke of it as being the daimon as the ongoing highest awareness for negotiating how to act. That is not to say that there cannot be many opposing thoughts, and, for this reason, many may challenge the idea of the concept of the daimon. Nevertheless, that does not mean that the idea of intuition as an overseeing approach is not fairly reliable if one can tune into it.

As your conversation turns in this direction — an interesting direction, IMO — I am wondering why neither of you has mentioned the subconscious, unconscious or nonconscious mind? [Or whatever we want to call it.]

Intuition emerges from the nonconscious mind, as I understand it. Its slight air of mystery reflects its outside-awareness source, I think. But it still represents the output — is that a good word for it? — of the greater part of our minds, so I suppose we shouldn't be surprised when it is sometimes more successful than our conscious minds are.

I suppose the only surprising thing is ... that we find all this surprising. We have a long history, I think, of ignoring the nonconscious mind, or pretending it doesn't exist, or that it is some kind of alien presence in our minds that we must always oppose, lest it overwhelm us. Freud didn't help with his monstrous and scary id... Fairy stories and nonsense, IMO.

The nature of the unconscious, subconscious and unconscious is particularly relevant to the understanding of intuition. It may be looked at on the level of aspects of brain consciousness, especially in the split between the left and the right side of the brain. However, in my reading on the topic, this is believed to be far less clear than supposed by early researchers. Also, with the idea of the subconscious, it may be about the storage of memories because at any given moment in time it is only possible to focus on a number of connections of thought and memory. However, according to what is brought up in the moment it is possible to link with images and thoughts from the past as a source of the process of intuition and imagination.

Beyond the structural roots of ideas in the mind, both Freud and Jung looked at the depths of the subliminal mind. I actually find Freud's model of id, ego and superego to be fairly helpful for thinking of the organisation of mental states and experiences. Id seems to be the nature of raw psychic energy, the superego as like the inner "father' or 'policeman' and the ego as the conscious navigation in between in the conscious experience. Even though Freud and Jung fell out on a long term basis over the understanding of religious experience and Freud's criticism of Jung's leanings towards the occultism and supernaturalism, Freud's whole understanding of dreams was based on an intermingling of intuitive and imaginative connections, similar to surrealism, even if it did focus a lot on sexuality. Freud was extremely interested in mythology. I did go to the Freud Museum in London once and it was one of Freud's former homes and, on display there were many mythical figurines which Freud kept on his desk.

But, the mythic nature of imagination was paid so much attention to by Jung. It was important to the development of work on the nature of comparative mythology by Joseph Campbell. Jung's whole development of the idea of the four functions: sensation, feeling, intuition and rationality, was important to how he saw unconscious and conscious processing. Also, his concept of the collective unconscious took it as making connections to a source beyond the individual mind. His dialogue with the theologian, Victor White makes a potential connection with the idea of the collective unconscious and 'God', as conveyed in the title of Victor White's book, 'God and the Unconscious'.

JackDaydream wrote: ↑February 16th, 2023, 2:25 pm

Fanman wrote: ↑February 16th, 2023, 1:48 pm

JackDaydream wrote: ↑February 14th, 2023, 6:22 pm

Fanman wrote: ↑February 14th, 2023, 4:17 pm We can attempt to qualify and quantify what is supernatural. But the irony is that it can only be recognised where there is a lack of human understanding. Where rationality ends, the supernatural begins.

The tension between 'rationality' and the 'supernatural' may be underplayed in philosophy as there is so much emphasis on rationality. This may leave out other aspects of human knowing, especially intuition and experiential aspects of life which defy conventional logic. Many people only experience life in the way described by the philosophy of realism, although, based on interaction which I have had with many diverse individuals, I have found that a lot do have experiences which they find 'unusual' of all kinds, which they often don't talk about. Such experiences may be psychic ones or even of encounters with spirit guides.

Well put, I feel a sense of accord with this; in philosophy (or how I have experienced it), there is a tendency to focus on the empirical - That is understandable because if people can show that what they believe, feel or experience; has a solid foundation, it provides them with a justification - feelings like intuition and experience; are rejected out of hand - In my view, intuition is a valid mode of understanding and even knowing.

Recently my intuition was screaming at me not to do something; I was on the verge of communicating that I would not be. I even wrote an email. But I decided to listen to my rational mind and went ahead. Things turned into a literal disaster, and of course, I said, I should have listened to my intuition. I’m sure that occurs in many individuals, and I took that as a validation of my intuition. I now pay more attention to my intuition.

Experience is how we learn and one of the main ways we communicate with the world around us. So I do not dismiss the experiential aspect of knowing.

Intuition may be an undervalued aspect of thought, and it features so strongly in many individuals' lives, ranging from the distinct sixth sense aspects of premonitions to the stream of inner narratives within daily experience. Some thinkers, including Plato, saw it as a form of 'divine' guidance and spoke of it as being the daimon as the ongoing highest awareness for negotiating how to act. That is not to say that there cannot be many opposing thoughts, and, for this reason, many may challenge the idea of the concept of the daimon. Nevertheless, that does not mean that the idea of intuition as an overseeing approach is not fairly reliable if one can tune into it

I can definitely relate to the idea of going against a sense of intuition in sending emails and saying things in the heat of the moment which don't seem intuitively right with disastrous consequences. It can be so easy to silence one's intuition in a foggy state of mind. Also, I often find that when I listen to what others advise rather trusting my own 'inner voice' this is inclined to happen more. If anything, reflection offers a space for discernment of intuition and giving value to the importance of the inner realm of the intuition as a valid aspect of experience and wisdom.

I agree. And what you say brings to mind the head or heart dichotomy. It is difficult for me to articulate the feeling of intuition precisely - like an intelligent feeling that knows the right thing to do. I know what you mean about listening to others' advice rather than following our inner voice. After we make a mistake, the clarity of what we should or could have done becomes apparent. I think that it has a lot to do with emotional intelligence. Considered in some doctrines, a person has a spirit or soul. If we do, perhaps intuition is how the platform of mind interprets its capabilities.

Fanman wrote: ↑February 17th, 2023, 3:03 pm

JackDaydream wrote: ↑February 16th, 2023, 2:25 pm

Fanman wrote: ↑February 16th, 2023, 1:48 pm

JackDaydream wrote: ↑February 14th, 2023, 6:22 pm

The tension between 'rationality' and the 'supernatural' may be underplayed in philosophy as there is so much emphasis on rationality. This may leave out other aspects of human knowing, especially intuition and experiential aspects of life which defy conventional logic. Many people only experience life in the way described by the philosophy of realism, although, based on interaction which I have had with many diverse individuals, I have found that a lot do have experiences which they find 'unusual' of all kinds, which they often don't talk about. Such experiences may be psychic ones or even of encounters with spirit guides.

Well put, I feel a sense of accord with this; in philosophy (or how I have experienced it), there is a tendency to focus on the empirical - That is understandable because if people can show that what they believe, feel or experience; has a solid foundation, it provides them with a justification - feelings like intuition and experience; are rejected out of hand - In my view, intuition is a valid mode of understanding and even knowing.

Recently my intuition was screaming at me not to do something; I was on the verge of communicating that I would not be. I even wrote an email. But I decided to listen to my rational mind and went ahead. Things turned into a literal disaster, and of course, I said, I should have listened to my intuition. I’m sure that occurs in many individuals, and I took that as a validation of my intuition. I now pay more attention to my intuition.

Experience is how we learn and one of the main ways we communicate with the world around us. So I do not dismiss the experiential aspect of knowing.

Intuition may be an undervalued aspect of thought, and it features so strongly in many individuals' lives, ranging from the distinct sixth sense aspects of premonitions to the stream of inner narratives within daily experience. Some thinkers, including Plato, saw it as a form of 'divine' guidance and spoke of it as being the daimon as the ongoing highest awareness for negotiating how to act. That is not to say that there cannot be many opposing thoughts, and, for this reason, many may challenge the idea of the concept of the daimon. Nevertheless, that does not mean that the idea of intuition as an overseeing approach is not fairly reliable if one can tune into it

I can definitely relate to the idea of going against a sense of intuition in sending emails and saying things in the heat of the moment which don't seem intuitively right with disastrous consequences. It can be so easy to silence one's intuition in a foggy state of mind. Also, I often find that when I listen to what others advise rather trusting my own 'inner voice' this is inclined to happen more. If anything, reflection offers a space for discernment of intuition and giving value to the importance of the inner realm of the intuition as a valid aspect of experience and wisdom.

I agree. And what you say brings to mind the head or heart dichotomy. It is difficult for me to articulate the feeling of intuition precisely - like an intelligent feeling that knows the right thing to do. I know what you mean about listening to others' advice rather than following our inner voice. After we make a mistake, the clarity of what we should or could have done becomes apparent. I think that it has a lot to do with emotional intelligence. Considered in some doctrines, a person has a spirit or soul. If we do, perhaps intuition is how the platform of mind interprets its capabilities.

The juggling of head and heart in making decisions is difficult at times, both in quick and short term decisions, especially as the two overlap,with thoughts about feelings and feelings about thoughts. It sometimes seems to be a learning curve based on ways of operating in the past, which forms intuition. I often find that I get repeated outcomes to various acts and it almost makes it feel like synchrodestiny, a term which Derek Chopra uses.

The choice of the different terms of soul, mind, spirit and self, although overlapping are so different in assumptions. Soul and spirit are so less used now, with self being the main one used in philosophy discussions, bringing so much down to the social context. Soul may be important for thinking of the core and depths of one's being as the various interfaces between mind and body, thought and feelings, because there do appear to be some divisions even though they are not literal and along a spectrum. The idea of the soul may be important for the value of the inner world and I always liked the Spandau Ballet song, 'Gold', which had the line, 'Always believe in your soul, you're indestructible'.

Fanman wrote: ↑February 17th, 2023, 3:03 pm what you say brings to mind the head or heart dichotomy.

Isn't this 'dichotomy' not a binary thing at all, but a spectrum/process of weighing/balancing disparate contributions, to reach a decision?

I think "head or heart" in your text simply reflects the disparate nature of the various contributions.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑February 18th, 2023, 8:49 am

Fanman wrote: ↑February 17th, 2023, 3:03 pm what you say brings to mind the head or heart dichotomy.

Isn't this 'dichotomy' not a binary thing at all, but a spectrum/process of weighing/balancing disparate contributions, to reach a decision?

I think "head or heart" in your text simply reflects the disparate nature of the various contributions.

I agree. It isn’t a binary thing. I suppose what I’m trying to articulate is the difference between decisions based on cognition (logic and rationality) and decisions based on feeling. They do work together, as we do weigh- up both before acting, but some people act more on one aspect than the other. And I think that some people are also more balanced in that respect. As you say, there is a spectrum.

Fanman wrote: ↑February 17th, 2023, 3:03 pm what you say brings to mind the head or heart dichotomy.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑February 18th, 2023, 8:49 am Isn't this 'dichotomy' not a binary thing at all, but a spectrum/process of weighing/balancing disparate contributions, to reach a decision?

I think "head or heart" in your text simply reflects the disparate nature of the various contributions.

Fanman wrote: ↑February 18th, 2023, 11:25 am I agree. It isn’t a binary thing. I suppose what I’m trying to articulate is the difference between decisions based on cognition (logic and rationality) and decisions based on feeling. They do work together, as we do weigh-up both before acting, but some people act more on one aspect than the other. And I think that some people are also more balanced in that respect. As you say, there is a spectrum.

You say you agree, but then you seem to re-present your former sentiments in a different but equivalent form. It is a spectrum, maybe even a multidimensional spectrum. And yet, you return to comparing "logic and rationality" with "feeling". This is like comparing apples and Higgs Bosons. I.e. there is no comparison, no point of similarity on which to base further reasoning.

Many or most of the factors we consider in reaching a decision are part-logic and part-feeling. There are probably other distinctions involved too, and they are almost certainly inextricably mixed up with logic, feeling and other stuff.

It may seem as though I'm being pedantic, or something like it, but I'm not. Or at least, not intentionally. By adopting simplistic thinking, we compromise any conclusions we may see fit to reach. I commented initially on your choice of the term "dichotomy", where di- means two: a binary comparison. If we over-simplify our reasoning, we get over-simple results — i.e. incorrect or misleading results.

The factors that contribute to our decisions are many, and of many types, natures, or styles. I think this is the core point I offer...

JackDaydream wrote: ↑February 17th, 2023, 4:14 pm

Fanman wrote: ↑February 17th, 2023, 3:03 pm

JackDaydream wrote: ↑February 16th, 2023, 2:25 pm

Fanman wrote: ↑February 16th, 2023, 1:48 pm

Well put, I feel a sense of accord with this; in philosophy (or how I have experienced it), there is a tendency to focus on the empirical - That is understandable because if people can show that what they believe, feel or experience; has a solid foundation, it provides them with a justification - feelings like intuition and experience; are rejected out of hand - In my view, intuition is a valid mode of understanding and even knowing.

Recently my intuition was screaming at me not to do something; I was on the verge of communicating that I would not be. I even wrote an email. But I decided to listen to my rational mind and went ahead. Things turned into a literal disaster, and of course, I said, I should have listened to my intuition. I’m sure that occurs in many individuals, and I took that as a validation of my intuition. I now pay more attention to my intuition.

Experience is how we learn and one of the main ways we communicate with the world around us. So I do not dismiss the experiential aspect of knowing.

Intuition may be an undervalued aspect of thought, and it features so strongly in many individuals' lives, ranging from the distinct sixth sense aspects of premonitions to the stream of inner narratives within daily experience. Some thinkers, including Plato, saw it as a form of 'divine' guidance and spoke of it as being the daimon as the ongoing highest awareness for negotiating how to act. That is not to say that there cannot be many opposing thoughts, and, for this reason, many may challenge the idea of the concept of the daimon. Nevertheless, that does not mean that the idea of intuition as an overseeing approach is not fairly reliable if one can tune into it

I can definitely relate to the idea of going against a sense of intuition in sending emails and saying things in the heat of the moment which don't seem intuitively right with disastrous consequences. It can be so easy to silence one's intuition in a foggy state of mind. Also, I often find that when I listen to what others advise rather trusting my own 'inner voice' this is inclined to happen more. If anything, reflection offers a space for discernment of intuition and giving value to the importance of the inner realm of the intuition as a valid aspect of experience and wisdom.

I agree. And what you say brings to mind the head or heart dichotomy. It is difficult for me to articulate the feeling of intuition precisely - like an intelligent feeling that knows the right thing to do. I know what you mean about listening to others' advice rather than following our inner voice. After we make a mistake, the clarity of what we should or could have done becomes apparent. I think that it has a lot to do with emotional intelligence. Considered in some doctrines, a person has a spirit or soul. If we do, perhaps intuition is how the platform of mind interprets its capabilities.

The juggling of head and heart in making decisions is difficult at times, both in quick and short term decisions, especially as the two overlap,with thoughts about feelings and feelings about thoughts. It sometimes seems to be a learning curve based on ways of operating in the past, which forms intuition. I often find that I get repeated outcomes to various acts and it almost makes it feel like synchrodestiny, a term which Derek Chopra uses.

The choice of the different terms of soul, mind, spirit and self, although overlapping are so different in assumptions. Soul and spirit are so less used now, with self being the main one used in philosophy discussions, bringing so much down to the social context. Soul may be important for thinking of the core and depths of one's being as the various interfaces between mind and body, thought and feelings, because there do appear to be some divisions even though they are not literal and along a spectrum. The idea of the soul may be important for the value of the inner world and I always liked the Spandau Ballet song, 'Gold', which had the line, 'Always believe in your soul, you're indestructible'.

I agree. And I was thinking along similar lines. Intuition (in my view) can be experienced based.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑February 18th, 2023, 12:46 pm

Fanman wrote: ↑February 17th, 2023, 3:03 pm what you say brings to mind the head or heart dichotomy.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑February 18th, 2023, 8:49 am Isn't this 'dichotomy' not a binary thing at all, but a spectrum/process of weighing/balancing disparate contributions, to reach a decision?

I think "head or heart" in your text simply reflects the disparate nature of the various contributions.

Fanman wrote: ↑February 18th, 2023, 11:25 am I agree. It isn’t a binary thing. I suppose what I’m trying to articulate is the difference between decisions based on cognition (logic and rationality) and decisions based on feeling. They do work together, as we do weigh-up both before acting, but some people act more on one aspect than the other. And I think that some people are also more balanced in that respect. As you say, there is a spectrum.

You say you agree, but then you seem to re-present your former sentiments in a different but equivalent form. It is a spectrum, maybe even a multidimensional spectrum. And yet, you return to comparing "logic and rationality" with "feeling". This is like comparing apples and Higgs Bosons. I.e. there is no comparison, no point of similarity on which to base further reasoning.

Many or most of the factors we consider in reaching a decision are part-logic and part-feeling. There are probably other distinctions involved too, and they are almost certainly inextricably mixed up with logic, feeling and other stuff.

It may seem as though I'm being pedantic, or something like it, but I'm not. Or at least, not intentionally. By adopting simplistic thinking, we compromise any conclusions we may see fit to reach. I commented initially on your choice of the term "dichotomy", where di- means two: a binary comparison. If we over-simplify our reasoning, we get over-simple results — i.e. incorrect or misleading results.

The factors that contribute to our decisions are many, and of many types, natures, or styles. I think this is the core point I offer...

I don’t believe that I did equivalently. But that could come down to semantics. I don't think it’s as cut and dry as you make it seem. As thoughts, as well as feelings, can be cloudy or misconceived. In my view, there can be a distinct difference between acting on what we know, via cognition, and what we feel, such as emotionally or intuitively. I agree with you in the sense that there is not a binary demarcation, as they both contribute to our actions simultaneously - as you say, part-logic and part-feeling. But in different individuals, there will be different ratios of that process. In my view, there can be a difference between acting on the reasoning of one’s head and feelings in one’s heart. And possibly (as I have experienced first-hand) a difference in outcome also. Simplistic thinking can also lead to accurate conclusions, where complexity is not necessary. But I think that in a topic such as this, our conclusions will be largely based on how we experience cognition, intuition and how they merge in our decision-making processes.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑February 18th, 2023, 12:46 pm It is a spectrum, maybe even a multidimensional spectrum. And yet, you return to comparing "logic and rationality" with "feeling". There is no comparison, no point of similarity on which to base further reasoning.

Many or most of the factors we consider in reaching a decision are part-logic and part-feeling. There are probably other distinctions involved too, and they are almost certainly inextricably mixed up with logic, feeling and other stuff.

It may seem as though I'm being pedantic, or something like it, but I'm not. Or at least, not intentionally. By adopting simplistic thinking, we compromise any conclusions we may see fit to reach. I commented initially on your choice of the term "dichotomy", where di- means two: a binary comparison. If we over-simplify our reasoning, we get over-simple results — i.e. incorrect or misleading results.

The factors that contribute to our decisions are many, and of many types, natures, or styles. I think this is the core point I offer...

Fanman wrote: ↑February 18th, 2023, 2:11 pm I don’t believe that I did equivalently. But that could come down to semantics. I don't think it’s as cut and dry as you make it seem. As thoughts, as well as feelings, can be cloudy or misconceived. In my view, there can be a distinct difference between acting on what we know, via cognition, and what we feel, such as emotionally or intuitively. I agree with you in the sense that there is not a binary demarcation, as they both contribute to our actions simultaneously - as you say, part-logic and part-feeling. But in different individuals, there will be different ratios of that process. In my view, there can be a difference between acting on the reasoning of one’s head and feelings in one’s heart. And possibly (as I have experienced first-hand) a difference in outcome also. Simplistic thinking can also lead to accurate conclusions, where complexity is not necessary. But I think that in a topic such as this, our conclusions will be largely based on how we experience cognition, intuition and how they merge in our decision-making processes.

Simplistic, not simple. As I tried to say, above, "If we over-simplify our reasoning, we get" ... "incorrect or misleading results."

Common English Errors wrote: Assuming that most of us already know how to use “simple”, let’s talk about what “simplistic” actually means and why it cannot be a substitute for “simple”. Google defines “simplistic” as: Treating complex issues and problems as if they were much simpler than they really are. link

Occam's Edge wrote: “Simplistic,” is defined as “too simple” and “not complete or thorough enough.” The adjective “simplistic” generally has a negative overtone generally meaning “overly simplified”. The important nuance being that it is characterized by extreme and often misleading simplicity. link

To draw a simple and stark distinction between logic and feeling is simplistic, IMO. Wasn't Einstein supposed to have said "A model should be as simple as it can be, but no simpler"? To make something simpler — and thereby clearer and easier to understand — is a valuable and rare skill. To go beyond what simplicity can achieve leaves behind something incomplete, even damaged (perhaps beyond repair).

When we are thinking — especially in this context of intuition — we resolve multiple inputs, ideas and premises, simultaneously. These inputs are not considered separately, as we might if they were truly 'distinct', but together, intermixed, as befits things that are connected, and not distinct. They are weighed together in our thoughts and thinking.

If we just pick out logic and feeling, we imply that our thoughts include only those two (apparently distinct) influences. If, on the other hand, we think and write as though there are many different styles of input, all mixed together, we get a little closer to what we're trying to discuss. Feeling and logic, yes, but also reason, belief, love, culture, loyalty, beauty, rationality, entertainment; maybe politics or religion...

To introduce into this complex and heady mix a "dichotomy" of feeling and logic is simplistic, IMO.

Pattern-chaser,

To introduce into this complex and heady mix a "dichotomy" of feeling and logic is simplistic, IMO.

And?

Fanman wrote: ↑February 19th, 2023, 4:31 pm Pattern-chaser,

To introduce into this complex and heady mix a "dichotomy" of feeling and logic is simplistic, IMO.

And?

There is no "and". I have made my point as clearly and completely as I can. I have nothing more to offer on this sub-subject, unless you wish to discuss what's already been said?

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑February 20th, 2023, 10:56 am

Fanman wrote: ↑February 19th, 2023, 4:31 pm Pattern-chaser,

To introduce into this complex and heady mix a "dichotomy" of feeling and logic is simplistic, IMO.

And?

There is no "and". I have made my point as clearly and completely as I can. I have nothing more to offer on this sub-subject, unless you wish to discuss what's already been said?

I would have, but in my view, you didn’t reply to anything I stated in my last post (which I think had some substance) and only chose to highlight what my mistake in understanding (the word simplicity) was literally. I see value in the rest of what you've stated, and I think you expanded on what I said nicely, but I fear that further discussion would be just on the basis of who’s right and wrong. So, unfortunately, I'll end our discussion here.

Fanman wrote: ↑February 20th, 2023, 1:28 pm ...I fear that further discussion would be just on the basis of who’s right and wrong.

It needn't be so; it hasn't been so, so far. My original point was a simple one, and I have made it clearly and as well as I am able. Your misunderstanding of "simplistic" (not "simplicity"), was common and minor, not worth pursuing further.

My one and only point: there is more to it than only "feeling and logic". As I said, "Feeling and logic, yes, but also reason, belief, love, culture, loyalty, beauty, rationality, entertainment; maybe politics or religion...".

JackDaydream wrote: ↑February 13th, 2023, 1:00 pm I am writing this thread based on reading discussion in my own about the idea of 'God' and many other threads about trying to explain so many aspects of human experiences which defy conventional explanations. Ideas of 'magic' arose for explanations and even the term magic is context basis. In particular, the new atheist writer, Richard Dawkins, wrote a book, 'The Magic of Reality', which sees magic in the perception of nature rather than as in the idea of the 'supernatural'

I also read a book by the biologist Lyall Watson, 'Supernature', which sees aspects of experience which cannot be explained as related to aspects of nature which goes beyond conventional explanations, such as extrasensory experiences. This is so different from some spiritual perspectives which speak of disembodied spirits and a 'God' to fill in the gaps.

I am not trying to dismiss the idea of 'God' because it may be about trying to keep a wider open mind to the unknown and inexplicable. However, it may be important to hold onto reason in thinking, such as in David Hume's query and attempts to hold on to rationality in thinking about the nature of miracles. Similarly, there are many different ways of thinking about life after death and the resurrection of Jesus and the dead. To what extent is the idea dependent on the idea of ethereal bodies or going beyond the ideas and understanding of the laws of nature?

How much is tangled logic of the literal and the symbolic? It is a complex area, and as far as I can see a pretty complex area of philosophy, especially in the context of the debate between materialism and idealism, which may be present in many worldviews, including Christianity and Buddhism. In Christianity, the literal and the symbolic come into play in the original tension between the Christian Church and Gnostic perspectives.
As I understand there is also a tension between materialism and idealism in Buddhism, and Eastern perspectives, such as Hinduism raise interesting questions about the nature of reality.

It is an extremely complex area and I find Carl Jung's juxtaposition of different ideas important, especially the idea of synchronicity for seeing meaningful connections in experiences. So, in this thread I am raising questions about what is considered to be 'supernatural', witn a view to thinking of experiences which seem to defy conventional logic and ideas of 'nature'. To what extent are ideas of nature too restrictive? What do the religious explanations capture, which gets left out of the philosophy of naturalism? How may both ideas of religion and science be demystified? Also, how much is about 'out there' metaphysics and human beings' search to make sense of the nature of 'reality'?

Great topic.

In my experience, as background, if person 1 gives you their description of person 2, you learn more about person 1, than person 2 (especially if you are at least passably familiar with person 2).

This is because you can compare your own understanding of 2 to 1's stated understanding of 2 and thus learn how 1 looks at things.

Therefore when tasked with describing the undescribable, one gains insght into the describer (much more than what they are trying to describe). Thus the supernatural takes on the role of a void or mirror which has little intrinsic content, rather is made up mostly by subjective descriptions (musings).

It's a stupid title for what could be an interesting discussion of parapsychology! The supernatural is something some people believe in. The paranormal is what we call events that don't fit with natural laws.