Carl-Richard

What about armed robbery?

The sanctity of the soul.

This is your main assumption. Here is a couple of points: There is a difference between revolutionizing science and practicing "normal science" (intraparadigmatic science), between creating the formulas and using the formulas, between being an innovator and a technician. Your focus and vision is completely different. There is a trade-off in both attention and ability. For example, you're less likely to be a brilliant science communicator when you're a brilliant holistic scientist. It boils down to personality traits and focus. It's the difference between Neil deGrasse Tyson and Albert Einstein. The Cartesian-Newtonian worldview is sticky, because it is reinforced by common sense analytical thinking, and unless you deliberately spend time questioning those assumptions (which only some philosophers, mystics and revolutionary scientists do), your mind will not pierce that veil. The collective manifestation of this is the neopositivist spectre that has been haunting science for a century. Epistemology does not need to be questioned for it to be programmed into your mind, and if you don't do the work, you will soak up the average cultural backdrop, which is non-holistic. It's perfectly possible for an analytical thinker to manipulate the formulas in QM, work on specializing himself as a technician in his little niche, and not ask too many questions about the bigger picture (in fact, he won't have time to do anything else). At the end of the day, being a scientist is a profession. Everybody needs to work to survive, and survival is extremely streamlined: it takes shortcuts and minimizes information processing to save resources. Survival does not breed construct-awareness, and surviving as a career scientist does not make you construct-aware.

It might not be too bad, but it's certainly not perfect.

This one initiated the change in trajectory of my life 5 years ago.

All of those are deeply metaphysical ?

@FlyingLotus There is no point in talking to someone who isn't coming from a place of openmindedness and willingness to learn. I've already said too much.

We're not talking about books. We're talking about a very specific book that represents a well-established discipline with real-life impact and empirical evidence to show for it. In what way are all these smart and driven people wasting their time?

Why?

Then educate yourself. https://www.amazon.com/Community-Psychology-Pursuit-Liberation-Well-Being/dp/1137464097#

Survival vs Truth.

Only if you value truth more than life.

The most legendary Symphonic Black Metal song in history.

Locked for low quality.

Ah. My theory (not a ToE, more like a wide-reaching mechanism) goes like this: mental attachment leads to circularity of thought, magnifying dysfunctional cognitive patterns, which adds a positive feedback loop on all sources of stress, which then ties into the diathesis-stress model (genes+environment=illness). Basically, mental attachment (remedied by spiritual practice) modulates the frequency of all mental activity, and decreased frequency leads to a general dampening of illness. I also think that increased frequency is what leads to the cascading effect that catapults one into psychosis, and if the frequency is diminished, full-on psychotic breaks can possibly be prevented. The downside is that it doesn't directly address the psychotic content of the thought (though maybe indirectly if stress is indeed a component).

The impulse of wanting to unify gravity and QM (derive them from the same substrate) is realized in mysticism: Everything is Consciousness. Its expressions are fragmented, but its basis is unified. That is my hunch with a potential unified theory as well: even though the substrate is the same, the expressions are fragmented

Can you elaborate on what you mean by this? I have some ideas around the relationship between attachment and mental illness as well.

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?