"You cannot maintain human function at the highest levels"

Gesundheit2
By Gesundheit2 in Spirituality, Consciousness, Awakening, Mysticism, Meditation, God,
A recent quote from Leo in the most recent discussion about Ralston's views on psychedelics. The claim here is that high consciousness and human functionality are somehow antithetical to each other. It is an absurd thing to claim, and I'm not exactly sure why nobody is calling out this nonsense, and kind of shocked that Leo is still broadcasting this idea. So without more introductions or any further ado, let's dig right into it. Here are my thoughts: Let's assume that it is true that the more conscious you get the less functional you become as a human being. Well, that means that this alleged "high consciousness/God state" does not include human functionality, which is at the very least extremely suspicious to me. Next, and on the same note, let's say it is true and we don't really have a say in the matter and we don't understand why it has to be this way because we are stupid humans with limited minds and ultimately because we are "not awake". So to me it sounds like this alleged "high consciousness/God state" comes at a price, so that means it needs resources, like brains and ATP and all that. Basically, what that means is that there are physical brains that control the states and functionalities of consciousness. And these physical brains are the ground for consciousness. There is no consciousness without a brain. Next, and on the same note again, let's say that we are stupid humans again and we don't understand how we are fooling ourselves into believing in brains when in fact all that there is is consciousness. If that was truly the case, then why would God have this limitation? Why couldn't God be completely functional as a human while at the same time be God-realized? Limitation is inherent to form, and God is allegedly infinite formlessness, so why would finite form control infinite formlessness? How could it? I thought God the formless creates all forms with all the limitations, not the other way around. To me, this only means that it is actually the other way around, and that God lives inside the physical brain. Let's say that we have 100 ATP particles in total (random number) that the brain is using to function and produce (1) consciousness and (2) human functionality. If that is true, then these two functionalities (1) are inherently merely physical brain functions (2) they share the same limited resources (3) therefore are limited/finite functionalities (4) therefore consciousness cannot be infinite, but rather a contemporary symptom of a physical brain. Consciousness can't be truly infinite if it requires energy or anything else. It could only be truly infinite if it was self-sufficient, which it doesn't seem to be the case at all. In fact, there are more evidence that it is not self-sufficient than evidence that it is. Now, more to debunking the myth directly. In my experience, the more conscious I become the more functional I become as a human, so my experience so far actually seems to contradict and defy the claim that "I cannot maintain human function at the highest levels". It actually doesn't make any logical sense why high consciousness would contradict human functionality. Like seriously, why would it? This question becomes especially prominent when you hear claims of Absolute Love, Freedom, Intelligence, and all that. Like anyone can basically intuit that these things would only contribute and amount to more functionality, not less. You don't need to think so hard or be sophisticated. It doesn't take much wisdom or experience to see that actually less consciousness = less functionality. You are least functional when you are asleep, and someone is least functional when they are in a coma. That's low consciousness, not high at all. Even a child can attest to this. I'm sure I left out some thoughts and that I haven't said everything that I wanted to say. I don't know how anyone could mentally masturbate their way out of what I said here, to me it seems pretty solid and concrete at least for now. But I am open to updating my thoughts if there are more convincing ones out there. Thanks for reading, and I hope that you will find this at least somewhat beneficial.
  • 45 replies