My older brother and I were discussing a similar topic the other night. He maintained that any inspired spiritual epiphany, triggered by psychedelics or other means, must viewed with "critical thinking" or one may become delusional. He is a very left-brained fellow.

My stance was that one cannot view the higher, more expanded levels of consciousness from a subject-object dichotomy. You just cannot be having the experience of Omniscience, Unification, Oneness, Nirvana or whatever you want to call it... and simaltaneosly observe the immersion, the subjective soul eclipsing with the Oversoul, with rational thought. Or really any degree of thought, for that matter. Not at least, until after you come down from the peak experience, from being in high as a kite mode.

Then, I can see the value of critical reasoning and introspection. But too much of this quality will keep one from merging into a greater field of consciousness. The web of interconnection. Because... when you divide your attention between observing the phenomenon instead of actively taking the bold step of full immersion, you are essentially like a kitten chasing it's tail.

You have to choose one or the other. To experience the Clear Light of the Void is to pass through ego-death and so, release one's predilection for observations made by a separate self, along the way. Awareness is still retained without ego fixation but without our ordinary thought loops and thought forms. I do maintain that such lucid moments, such peak experiences, are of immense value for our development and transformation.

ok fine
0 = -1 + 1
0 = -2 + 2
0 = -3 + 3
ad infinitum

is that a better representation of duality being divided out of nothingness?


also afaik -1/0 is negative infinity and 1/0 is positive infinity.. how would they not cancel each other out?

Regarding the belief in certain insights more so than others, I don't think I've ever had an idea that couldn't possibly be true. If my mind can imagine it, then it is possibly true to me. I simply don't have time to run with all of the great ideas that I have while on psychedelics.

I think that we throw out some psychedelic ideas not because we don't recognize them as legitimate, but rather because we recognize that there is not enough life time to fully entertain every legitimate idea. My insights often relate to spacetime and physics. I could dedicate my life to creating an entirely new physical worldview based on these insights, but I simply don't have time. In terms of physics and the sciences, I would be starting from scratch. I am probably not smart enough to turn such an insight into an alternative physical theory, but it is certainly possible. The thing about physical theories is that they are just models of objective reality. We could construct an endless array of physical models that provide different interpretations of reality while all making the same verifiable predictions, but the predictions matter far more than the unutilizable aspects of the interpretation.

We let go of the more far out ideas because they are relatively difficult to integrate into our currently existing knowledge-base and, in the meantime, there are plenty of other ideas that are more practical and applicable in our everyday lives. The ideas that are more fit get integrated into our lives, while the more eccentric ideas simply cannot compete for the mental resources needed to survive.

That's one theory which I'm sure is at least partially relevant to us all.

Another question would be why some psychedelic ideas are harder to grasp and remember than others.
Another question would be why some people take psychedelic experiences very seriously, while others seem to use psychedelics recreationally.

All of these questions factor in to how we use (or don't use) our psychedelic experiences, but we are all different in this respect. We are all probably far more different than we seem to be. Having each grown up under different conditions, the inner workings of the mind are completely custom grown to work with each of our individual lives and histories. That we can agree on anything is a miracle in itself.


Regarding the number of fingers being relative, "10" is 2 in binary and 3 in trinary. If I consider the types of fingers that I have, there seem to be only 5 (or 2 depending on the finger taxonomy I use). If I define fingers by their function, then when I curl my hands into fists, I seem to have no fingers at all until I decide to unclench my hands. I sometimes work as a tutor at an elementary school and know children who have trouble doing math with numbers below 10. Quantities are not at all an obvious notion. We forget how much training is required to understand the concept of numbers and the laws pertaining to the various numerical operations. There is an age before which we don't know 10 from 2. The mind of child is extremely nonlinear, much like that of a person who is tripping. Nothing makes sense until we are trained to believe that it does. There is no such thing as logic until our primordial operating system is upgraded with the accepted tools of culture.

Actually False to myself. I must have completely misread your post yesterday.

I though you had 0 = infinity and 0 = -infinity.

What you wrote is perfectly true. My bad.

Peace

You are right. I don't really disagree with the fact that there is a binary world. I suppose it can simply be difficult to see through the paradox of the coexistence of binary reality and relativistic reality.

It's interesting that when Primordium raised this question he/she made no reference to truth, but most of the responses have been pitched in terms of truth.

It would be good to know whether anyone has tried to (and had any luck in) drilling into the concept of truth while journeying.

Because whatever else 'truth' is, it is also a concept, right? One that can't just be taken for granted. Put another way, don't we just beg the question when we argue over whether truth is or is not relative, and so forth? Don't we need to clarify what this x is that may or may not be relative?

I liked the PKD quote:

To bump an old thread:

By my lights the prevailing representationalist epistemology/ontology in which we conceive ourselves as looking out at an objective world from discrete individual selves makes it difficult to integrate many experiences. Psychedelic experiences especially, because there it becomes more clear how "knowing is a matter of part of the world making itself intelligible to another part" and how "We are part of the world in its differential becoming." It is instructive to think about the ways in which the very language that I'm using implies representationalism. ( 'world-view', 'by my lights', experience as separate from self, etc. )

There is serious work in philosophy to get away from this problematic world-view.

The quotes above are from this essay by a theoretical physicist interpreting Bohr's philosophy-physics in this light.

http://humweb.ucsc.edu/f...d/barad-posthumanist.pdf

http://humweb.ucsc.edu/f...d-meeting1996article.pdf

Just wanted to jump in and clear out some misunderstandings here.

-∞ + ∞ do not, in general, equal zero. Infinities may or may not cancel each other out this way. The reason is that -∞ and ∞ are not numbers in any usual sense, but limiting values used to describe the behaviour of quantites, or more precisely the tendency of a quantity under certain circumstances. Still not convinced? Either read some math, or take a look at the following example following this false premise, i.e assuming -∞ + ∞ = 0, leading to a contradiction.

1 = 0 + 1 = (-∞ + ∞) + 1 = -∞ + (∞ + 1) = -∞ + ∞ = 0

This is clearly false.

It is also not true that -1/0 = -∞ nor that 1/0 = ∞. These are simply undefined fractions. How would you divide 1 apple among 0 people? Doesn't make sense. What is true, however, is that -1/x and 1/x approaches -∞ and ∞, respectively, as x approaches 0.

And to Global:

Truth is not relative. That does't make the slightest bit of logical sense, and it would require the ordinary definition of truth to be senseless. I don't understand where you can get this from. For example, would you say it is relative which of the following statements are true?

A: You have 10 fingers.
B: You do not have 10 fingers
C: If you are in Oslo, you are in Norway
D: Either you have 10 fingers, or you do not have 10 fingers

I could go on with examples like this. Furthermore, if truth is relative, then the statement "truth is relative" is also relative, and so on. And what do you mean to say that it is relative anyway? That it is neither false nor true? Both at the same time? In varying degrees? It just doesn't make any sense. Either something is true, or it is not. It certainly cannot be both, or a bit of one and a bit of the other. If you still insist on disagreeing, you have left logic completely behind, in which case I would say this is a good incentive to ask you to put your feet back on earth

well they are if you define them as equivalent.

for example if you define positive infinity as all integers greater than zero, and negative infinity as all integers smaller than zero.

but the reason this isn't true in conventional mathematics is because you can subtract an infinite amount of integers (aka infinity) from any given infinity (as it can be infinitely quantified).

so in that sense ∞ - ∞ = ∞ (say for example you subtract only numbers ending in .5 from infinity, you still have an infinite amount, i.e. two different infinities divided from each other - from the latter infinity you can thus subtract only odd numbers, and be left with two More infinities: ∞ - ∞ = ∞ - ∞ - ∞ = ∞)

but that doesn't really relate to my original statement, which was within the context of duality (Which implies an equivalent about of negative and positive).

also my demonstration wasn't using conventional mathematics, so much as using the symbols to elaborate on philosophical ruminations.

good to see you again, citta.

i do wish you would post moar.