Psychedelic ponderings about religion, spirituality, and especially morality / ethics

Modern times involves an "awakening" to the tenets of amoralism. If God / the gods / the spirit of existence, or what have you, are basically fabrications, religion, the primary basis for morality and ethics, may have just been a hustle, and if religion was just a hustle, the foundation of our popular systems of ethics, and those ethics, come tumbling down.

There is also that people are waking up to the fallacy of knowledge, and instinctive logic. No-mind is placed upon a pedestal such that occasionally, presentness is taken to an extreme wherein thinking itself becomes taboo. If logic is bad, there is no reason to believe any such thing! That would be logic.

I am myself something of a moral relativist. I believe there are "superior" and "inferior" moral systems, if an aesthetic of morality is qualified: what works best by the majority, what works best selfishly, what works best by those closest to my heart. These qualifiers are subjective to what you the individual want.

I consider it fortunate that psychedelic drugs take the hearts of the users up into the sky, and imprint them with a love for a wide variety of beings, often existence - all sentient life.

There is to egotistical drugs, like meth and heroin, a tendency toward personal selfishness even at the expense of others. And there is a risk to psychedelic drugs, big heart drugs, the possibility of negligent accidents from losing touch with reality without taking precautions.

May safety conscious psychedelic usage inflate hearts and unify beings.

I consider the most objective "moral" systems for the majority of all sentient life, whether motivated by personal selfishness or love of a niche of beings like family members friends and romantic attachments, to be one of perfecting fairness and loyalty.

Fairness promotes a universal economy capable of militarily unifying all sentient life to defend every individual, in return for how much the individual defends all sentient life. According to fairness, the one who helps all sentient life the most receives the most pleasure, safety, and freedom, and the one who inhibits all sentient life the most receives in return whatever penalty they levied against all sentient life.

Culpability can be a tricky issue, but if new to fairness as a concept culpability has just begun - because otherwise the individual hasn't had the opportunity to respond to the scales. Anyone can burn off their "time" if they have enough military resources to counter-enclose the scales of justice.

Loyalty is because it is uncommon for creatures to love or be possessed by selfless intent toward all sentient life, common for beings to love friends and family members, and romantic partners - and because even heartless sociopaths are motivated to bond together. Without loyalty, all those niches would see no reason to form an alliance with fair interests, and they may even possess the military resources to overthrow fairness.

Because of experimentation with self initiation and psychedelic usage, and meditation, and introspection, my own emotional motivation is such that I only ultimately care whether a particular chess move is impersonal: whether it most assists all sentient life. Technically, it is possible for the most impersonal move to fly in the face of fairness and loyalty, but if basic quantities are intuited, this would present all sentient life's military, and all niches' militaries, with an objective selfish reason to distrust and counter-enclose my impersonal agenda.

To illustrate slightly further: A fair economy does not necessarily help all sentient life the most just because it provides them with objective motive to unify. Someone could get "what's fair," & more suffering exist than would exist in the long and then short term without that punishment, because of an ineffectiveness of the deterrential threshold of the system versus available moves. Suppose the punishment doesn't really help, but they deserved it according to fair economy.

And concerning scales of loyalty, What if it was fair to betray your friends and family, according to short sighted thinking? The majority of the sociopaths and regular people with regular love would prefer to enclose fairness and fair motivation than risk that, So unless they remained consistent after transitioning into a fair state of mind in behaving with loyalty towards their friends and families, unless they knew they would avoid betraying them, they wouldn't consent to be fair to begin with.

Alternatively, if consistently unfair, the whole universe might jump you at once. And this fact empowers them all if they do.

What if not all astral trip encounters of DMT beings are illusory, immortals and an akashic record permanently cataloguing all deeds exists, and culpability can be measured with process scried precision by well trained psychics? What if such superstition is a replacement placebo for religion?

If psychic powers were real, and you really could astral travel from maybe shrooming or ketamine usage, I'd seek to unify the military most capable of being trusted on scales of loyalty and fairness. A military that would not betray the one for the other, and that would evolve proof of trustworthiness of members as the main determinant as to whom inherited such powers as Psychic Abilities, Consciousness Expansion as a group resource, and even troops to command.