Carl-Richard

It's weird, because when we're talking about for instance covid19, nobody bats an eye when you mention DNA, RNA, viral load, gain of function research, evolutionary escape etc., but somehow when it comes to social issues, academic words suddenly become extremely problematic. Also, where did all the people go who love to say "listen to the scientists!" while furthering transphobia by misappropriating biological terms like "chromosomes", "reproductive organs" and "sex hormones"? This has nothing to do with words, but everything to do with values.

If you choose to help poor people, does that mean you're hurting rich people?

Those are academic terms used in legitimate fields of research and the sociopolitical efforts associated with them. It's not something out of Twitter. It's created by dedicated people who work closely with the issues at hand. I doubt you have any problems with the jargon coming from the hard sciences, so I don't see the problem here.

What is your point? Should we stop caring about systemic racism?

You trust yourself

19th century phrenology teaching about "the inferior cranial anatomy of the black man" as a justification to keep them as slaves was a racial thing yes.

Was slavery a racial thing? Who made it a racial thing?

"Real" and "unreal" is connected and ultimately one and the same. There is no difference really from an absolute perspective. The reason why non-dualists tend to say "nothing is real" is because people tend to claim the opposite, and the non-dualist is trying to point you towards dissolving the duality between "real" and "unreal". If you can hold "real" and "unreal" both at the same time, then the job is done. QM is not inherently confusing and hard to understand. It only becomes so when you try to reconcile the insights of QM with the old paradigms of classical mechanics and common sense everyday phenomena. QM and mysticism are similar because they go against analytical thinking and point towards holistic thinking (systems thinking), and most people are not used to thinking holistically. You keep denying that the fathers of QM were fans of mysticism. Even Einstein, who mostly disagreed with the Copenhagen interpretation, was into god damn Spinozism, which is as non-dual as it gets. Not coincidentally, he invented the "theory of relativity", which again parallels the relational aspects uncovered by QM and mysticism. Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg all had proper education in physics. They made fucking physics. Besides, who are you going to trust: the monkeys that type out the calculations or the people who invented the formulas?

It's mainly based on the story of Jesus, but it applies generally to all religions. It's not like Christianity didn't struggle to gain popularity, That is a part of the fight for survival, which is what corrupted it even more. The religious concept of faith was literally invented by St. Augustine in the 4th century. It explicitly and deliberately places doctrine over experience (dogmatism over mysticism): https://www.classics.ox.ac.uk/invention-faith-pistis-and-fides-early-churches-and-later-roman-empire

Basically how religion started is that some mystics came and said "can't you see how I'm experiencing God right now?", and the people we're like "not really, but you seem like a cool guy, so we'll try to write down what you're saying in this book here and spread it around", not realizing that words and models are limited and God is unlimited. Then when people scratch their head because they don't seem to get a taste of God by following the scriptures, they invent the idea of "faith", that God can indeed not be directly experienced, but that devotion to your own idea of God inside your head is the right path to go. Then when these ideas change and clash with eachother over time, you get different churches and lineages, and these fight for survival and only the most selfish wins. Ta-da!

There is no difference from an absolute perspective, but from a relative perspective, there is a difference. This insight is illustrated by the Yin-yang symbol: Yin and Yang are two parts that make up a whole. From one perspective, Yin and Yang are different, but from another perspective, they're the same. Why? Because Yin and Yang can only be defined relative to eachother, and this means that they're dependent on eachother in order to exist. In order to exist as two, they have to simultaneously be one. Their difference is "relative" and their relationship is "absolute". So it's both two and one, different and the same, relative and absolute, depending on which perspective you take. From a "relative perspective", differences exist, but from an "absolute perspective", there are no differences.

MDG is in many ways Ap's cooler little brother.

BIPOC who experience financial problems experience different challenges than white people who experience financial problems.

By taking a course in Community Psychology, which is where I learned about the concept . "Black, Indigenous and people of color." You could expand it to include every marginalized group (e.g. LGBTQ+, refugees, immigrants, people experiencing homelessness, financial problems etc.).

Yas

@Bernardo Carleial Ah what a fun coincidence. I just watched this video which mentions Animals as Leaders : And to complete the circle, Frank Zappa was an Allan Holdsworth fan like I mentioned earlier, and I believe Tosin Abasi is as well

It's worse than that. What we're dealing with is something akin to the DISC: https://theportal.wiki/wiki/The_Distributed_Idea_Suppression_Complex_(The_DISC) A headless hydra is the most dangerous when you consider it harmless. In less fancy terms, science, like all things, is corrupted by survival. You can't point to one person or one institution, because everybody is doing it.

I was actually thinking those exact thoughts earlier today. It's tricky, because meanwhile Ap is the most advanced party imo (I voted for them this election ), they have an obvious populist bent as well, which is not surprising for one of the most popular parties in Norwegian history.

God is also an ant, a sperm, a bacteria, a virus.

For a start, God is not human. It's only humans that value humans over non-human things.

The concept of a particle is a remnant of the outdated Cartesian-Newtonian paradigm of determinism, causality and locality. The discovery of the quantum realms obviously shattered these notions, and this lead to the Copenhagen interpretation of QM (Bohr and Heisenberg), which views what was previously thought of as particles as "probabilities of interconnections", where the "interconnection" is the relationship between "the observer" and "the observed". In other words, it's the probabilities of a scientist measuring something. However, Einstein was not satisfied with such a view and instead argued that this interpretation was only evidence that the models were incomplete and that they would sooner or later be replaced by deterministic/particle-friendly models in the future (which lead to the Bohr-Einstein debates), but as far as we've seen, this is not the case. The Copenhagen interpretation remains as the most parsimonious and comprehensive interpretation of QM. The concept of a "particle" only remains as a metaphysical artefact that pays homage to the fathers of classical mechanics and serves to satisfisfy our common sense conceptions of everyday phenomena. In fact, it's the Copenhagen interpretation that historically lead to the drawing of parallels between mysticism and QM, because both emphasize the relational nature of reality (how reality consists of relationships between things; interconnections). Bohr and Heisenberg were both interested in actual mysticism, and Fritjof Capra wrote "the Tao of Physics" based on the Copenhagen interpretation and his correspondence with Heisenberg. The Taoist "Yin-Yang" symbol is of course the symbol that displays the interconnection between two parts (a "duality") and how two parts make up a whole ("non-duality"). So the relationship between "the observer" and "the observed" in QM and "Yin" and "Yang" in Taoism is the perfect encapsulation of how QM and mysticism are indeed interconnected.

The more inclined you are towards having mystical experiences, the more inclined you are to meditate, because having early mystical experiences gives you more motivation to meditate, which leads to a lesser feeling of effort while also putting in a lot of work. So it creates a kind of split distribution where it's mostly awakened people who speak about the amazing benefits of meditation, and it creates a breakdown in communication for the average seeker. The seeker in the middle of the distribution (the average seeker), who lacks the intense internal motivation of the natural-born mystic, underestimates the level of work that goes into meditation, and they feel let down by the lack of carrots, and they're more likely to give up early. The majority of the people who're not awake never took up meditation to begin with, but those numbers also contribute to the low amount of awakened people in the population, so the average seeker is then forced to conclude that awakening is largely nature over nurture. However, what is often overlooked is that the natural-born mystic had to meditate thousands of hours for them to realize their full potential. What if an average seeker decided to put in the same amount of hours? Who is to say they wouldn't see drastic results? How can you make conclusions about something you most likely haven't tried yet?

What happens when you love something? Your experience of it sharpens. Love is reality.

Let me clarify: I'm using a constructivistic definition of context (used in systemic communication theory). Context is your interpretative framework. It's something you create and bring to the conversation. It doesn't exist out there in the world as an objective "background" behind which events happen. Different situations ("context markers") can trigger different contexts, but those are also dependent on context (how you interpret them). So when I say "language-mediated context", I mean the way in which you communicate your interpretative frameworks using language. When you ask "show me the context of existence as a whole" while implying that it's impossible, you're referring to the fact that reality itself is pre-interpretative. In other words, reality as a whole does not need to be interpreted for reality to exist, because interpretation implies a relationship between subject (the interpreter) and object (the interpreted object), and since reality is Absolute Wholeness, it's self-sustained and self-created: it creates its own context, its own interpretation. On the flipside, our context (as limited beings) is created as the result of a relationship between things, and that is why speech is not truth (because speech is relative/relational and truth is absolute). If I'm making zero sense it might be because it's very late and that I sort of gambled on the choice of terminology regarding context (sorry)

Well, now you're actually pointing towards something absolute (The Absolute), which indeed can only be pointed towards using language-mediated context, but which nevertheless represents the concept of wholeness: melting all relationships, perspectives, subjects, objects, frameworks, contexts into One. Still, we're only speaking about it, and speech isn't it. Even so, wholeness is inherent in relationship. The relation between two parts makes up a whole (Yin-yang).