Carl-Richard

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The concept of a particle is a remnant of the outdated Cartesian-Newtonian paradigm of determinism, causality and locality.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).

Like Mooji would say: "Show me the one who makes the effort"

There is no algorithm, but effort and sudden enlightenment are also not contradictory.

?

This is not a troll post by the way lol. I'm genuinely fascinated by how extremely streamlined survival is and how little it has to do with acquiring accurate information about the world

The neural perspective is very narrow. While LSD might be friendly to individual neurons, what it can do to a person's behavior is more concerning, especially a young person. I'm talking from experience.

Genius

That is your context, your interpretative framework, not mine. All I'm doing is that I'm providing a context using language. <- This is also a context I'm providing using language. Now, if you ask "do you know that?", I will answer "All I'm doing is that I'm providing a context using language". It's more like saying "I'm speaking" than saying "I know". One is an action, a relative manifestation, another is a statement about an absolute. I make no such statement. All talk is relational. Relationships; the dance between perspectives; between subjects, objects, frameworks, contexts. -->this is not absolute<-- Oh trust me, I've been there. The only way out is compromise: speak because you're spoken to, not because you understand. Is the use of mind and concepts evidence of the attachment to said things?

Steve Jobs did not take LSD at 16 years old.

That is where meditation and contemplation comes in. Don't underestimate the power of these techniques. In fact, I would say to be careful with those as well. I managed to overwhelm myself with meditation alone.

Everything exists relative to an interpretive framework; a context. The context is never removed, only changed

I prefer "recontextualized".

The challenge is to balance survival and truth-seeking, because those two are largely antithetical to eachother. It's wise to get your foundational survival straight before trying to deconstruct your mind, and in an individualistic society, that includes things like finishing high school, becoming economically self-sustained and psychosocially integrated. Deconstructing a mind is tricky business, but it's even more tricky to deconstruct a mind that is still under construction.

High school is a bare minimum.

Very good. Continue with that. Here is my advice: finish school before taking any psychedelics. It's very easy to get other ideas otherwise.

What does your life look like atm?

Norway was very close to decriminalizing drugs earlier this year, but somehow the biggest left-leaning party decided to go against it. https://www.thelocal.no/20210417/norway-opposition-torpedoes-plan-to-decriminalise-drug-use/

That is a rough description of one aspect of it (the empirical aspect). Positivism is generally the idea that we can explain the world by formulating consistent natural laws, and that the only valid methods to do so are analytical reasoning and empirical observation. Post-positivistic thought emphasizes things like the limits and inconsistencies of such laws (which became rather apparent in QM btw), the relationship between the subject and the object in determining reasoning and observation (also QM related), the relation between the part and the whole (component-system), and the utility of other methods like introspection and transrational cognition. Posivitivism is analytic, linear, reductionistic, and virtually always mechanistic and atomistic, focused on parts/components/essence. Post-positivist thought is systemic, constructivistic, relational, non-linear, focused on complexity and holism.