Carl-Richard

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?

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