I just watched a video explaining how LSD works. The explanation took the materialist perspective which says our bodies love to fill in the blanks within perception, which creates meaning. But if meaning is meaningless, just a thin coat of paint bridging two established portraits, then what is the materialist reason for us having evolved such a pointless faculty in the first place?
And asking that reminds me: Why is it okay to say that meaning does not exist objectively in the universe, yet reason does? Life evolves for a reason, materialists say, but only insofar as the purpose is survival and self-sustainability. No other reason than that. But isn’t that reasoning reason enough to conclude that reason—a thought process—transcends and includes life?
Sorry. That last sentence should have come with a warning: Do No Read While High.
Add to that belief of theirs the fact that math, numbers, logic, and reason are considered the invisible underpinnings of everything. Materialists, though they will never state this explicitly, believe in the transcending invisible—thought constructs and thought processes, which exist prior to the physical stuff to which they are giving life and form. Huh.
We’re not supposed to say what that is saying out loud because to do so would be to enter the realm of meaning. Materialists want cold, impersonal thought constructs to simply exist just because, but not the full force of consciousness. Not conscious intent. Not Spirit. Absolutely not God. This is magical thinking at its dullest.
And ironically, they are kinda right. But also definitely wrong. They are right that what underlies, permeates, and is reality is impersonal. But the impersonal contains the personal. The impersonal transcends and includes the personal. And the impersonal moment prior to and inclusive of all things is consciousness, not thought. Not logic. Not reason. Not math. Not a construct or a tool.
This impersonal consciousness we’re talking about is not a god—that’s a thought construct. God constructs may have a life of their own; they may be formless intelligences, archetypes. Or they may be ideas we plug our fears, uncertainties, and lack of relating into. God may be the drug of choice giving us a heartfelt high. God may be a lie. But then so is believing in reason for the sake of reason, divorced from what that means, because meaning so often is subjective and from there is a lie.
There is no deeper meaning than No-Thingness. There is nothing more personal than the ultimate transcending and including impersonal consciousness. That is us and we are that. That One. And so is all of our evolved and evolving reasoning.
Oneness is always self-evident, even in its self-absence.
Whoah. Trippy.