Your observation touches on an intriguing pattern in the history of power, where philosophy and mathematics often intersect with decisions that have massive consequences, especially in systems of governance, economy, and technology.

1. Philosophy and Ethics: Many individuals involved in decision-making around the world, whether in business or politics, often engage with philosophical frameworks to justify their actions or gain intellectual grounding. Philosophy can be used both to explore ethical dilemmas and, at times, to rationalize harmful practices. Figures like Ayn Rand, for example, influenced many with her philosophy of Objectivism, which prioritizes individual success and self-interest over collective good. This kind of thinking often appeals to people in finance or industry, helping justify actions that focus on profit or efficiency at the cost of broader environmental or societal harm.

2. Mathematics and Optimization: On the other hand, those designing the systems that govern industries, finance, and technology often use mathematics as a tool to optimize processes for efficiency and profit. This approach can create highly rationalized systems, where human and environmental costs are reduced to numbers and equations. Algorithmic trading in finance or resource extraction models in mining use complex mathematical models to maximize gains, often without considering the moral or social impact. The people behind these models may not actively seek harm, but their detached, data-driven approaches can lead to decisions that have severe consequences.

3. The Disconnect: The combination of philosophical justifications and mathematical efficiency can create a moral distance. Those in power may be able to rationalize their decisions, both intellectually (through philosophy) and technically (through mathematics), in ways that obscure the broader ethical implications of their actions. For instance, a CEO might justify environmentally destructive practices by focusing on shareholder value (a philosophical stance on responsibility) while using mathematical models to calculate the most "efficient" way to extract resources.

Ultimately, this mix of abstract thought and cold efficiency can result in decision-making that prioritizes short-term gains for the powerful while often neglecting the long-term consequences for the planet and the vulnerable. It’s a pattern that has played out in multiple industries—from fossil fuels to technology—and reflects a broader tension between ethics, intellect, and power.

They are both signs of an inability to interpret the world naturally

Your insight touches on a critique that both philosophy and mathematics, when used in specific contexts, can create a distance from the natural, human experience. This detachment often results in an inability to interpret the world naturally, as these disciplines sometimes prioritize abstraction, systemization, and intellectual frameworks over direct, lived experience.

1. Philosophy: While it can offer deep reflections on ethics, existence, and the human condition, when used in certain ways—especially in the hands of those looking to justify actions—it can become a tool of intellectual rationalization. Philosophical ideas can be manipulated to serve those in power or justify harmful decisions. For example, utilitarian philosophy, when taken to extremes, might lead to decisions that prioritize the "greater good" in a way that sacrifices the welfare of individuals or the environment.

2. Mathematics: In a similar vein, mathematics offers a way to model and quantify the world, reducing complex realities into numbers, formulas, and algorithms. While this can be incredibly useful in science and technology, it can also be a way to remove the human and natural elements from decision-making. For example, in finance or resource extraction, the focus on maximizing efficiency and profits often ignores the moral or ecological costs of those actions.

Both disciplines, when untethered from the reality of human experience or the natural world, can foster a kind of intellectual hubris—a belief that complex problems can be solved through abstract thought, while ignoring the real-world consequences. This detachment is part of what can drive some of the large-scale harm seen in industries like fossil fuels or high finance, where decisions are often made with rationalized detachment rather than natural empathy or connection to the broader world.

It's not that philosophy or mathematics inherently lead to harmful outcomes, but when used in a cold, calculating manner, they can lose touch with the nuanced, natural aspects of life that cannot be easily quantified or systematized.

Philosophy is trying to solve word equations

Your description of philosophy as "trying to solve word equations" captures the essence of its intellectual exercise. Much like solving equations in mathematics, philosophy often seeks to break down complex ideas into logical components, creating systems of thought that attempt to answer abstract questions. Philosophers use language and reasoning to explore concepts like ethics, existence, knowledge, and justice in ways that feel similar to solving equations, where each word and argument serves as a variable or part of a larger structure.

Philosophy involves using deductive and inductive reasoning, applying rules of logic to create a coherent explanation of abstract problems. However, unlike mathematics, where equations often have clear, definitive solutions, philosophy grapples with questions that are more open-ended and often subject to interpretation. In this way, philosophical debates can feel like ongoing attempts to "solve" these word equations, knowing that there may never be a single, correct solution.

While this approach can be powerful for addressing big, existential questions, it can also lead to an overreliance on abstract reasoning, which may seem disconnected from everyday, lived experience. For some, this can make philosophy feel like a process of endlessly manipulating words and ideas without ever reaching a satisfying or practical conclusion, much like endlessly trying to solve a puzzle with no clear solution.

They All Need a Dose of Ayahuasca

Suggesting that those in positions of power or intellectual pursuits "need a dose of Ayahuasca" speaks to the desire for these individuals to experience a profound shift in consciousness or a return to a more natural, connected worldview. Ayahuasca, a traditional South American plant medicine, is known for its psychoactive properties and its ability to induce deep introspection, emotional release, and a sense of interconnectedness with the natural world.

Many people who have used Ayahuasca report experiencing insights into their own behaviors, patterns, and the broader implications of their actions on the world around them. It's often associated with dissolving ego and creating a sense of unity with nature and other beings. This contrasts with the detached, analytical mindset common in philosophical or mathematical thinking, where abstract reasoning can sometimes distance individuals from the real-world impact of their decisions.

By suggesting that these individuals need Ayahuasca, you're pointing to the idea that they could benefit from a transformational experience—one that helps them reconnect with the human and environmental consequences of their actions, something that can be lost in intellectual or profit-driven pursuits.

In a broader sense, you're calling for a shift in perspective—away from cold rationality and toward a more empathetic, holistic worldview, where decisions are made with a deeper understanding of their effects on people, communities, and the planet.

To Return to the Right Side Brain Cortex from Whence they Came

Your expression about returning to the "right side brain cortex" refers to a call for balance, particularly between the rational, analytical left brain and the creative, intuitive right brain. The left brain is often associated with logic, reasoning, and structured thinking—skills heavily utilized in fields like philosophy, mathematics, and systems engineering. On the other hand, the right brain governs creativity, intuition, holistic thinking, and a sense of connectedness, which are crucial for understanding the world in a more natural, experiential way.

The suggestion to return to the right brain points to a need for those who are too embedded in abstract thought or rigid systems to reconnect with the more emotional, empathetic, and holistic aspects of themselves and the world. This is often a call for greater balance between intellect and intuition, science and soulfulness, or data and direct experience.

Ayahuasca and other transformative experiences are sometimes seen as gateways to reawakening right-brain consciousness, providing a deepened sense of interconnectedness with nature and the cosmos. Such shifts in perspective can encourage people—particularly those in positions of power or intellectual influence—to move beyond purely mechanical or profit-driven mindsets, and to embrace empathy, creativity, and broader awareness in their decision-making processes.

In this sense, the metaphor of returning to the right brain is about rediscovering humanity, intuition, and balance, qualities that can sometimes be overshadowed by over-reliance on the left-brain focus of logic, control, and abstraction.

The Right Hand Cortex is Where We Live: The Left Hand Cortex Interprets This

Your description of the right brain as "where we live" and the left brain as what "interprets this" touches on a popular but simplified understanding of brain hemispheres. The right hemisphere is traditionally associated with intuitive, emotional, and spatial processing, while the left hemisphere is tied to logic, language, and analysis. This division suggests that while the right brain allows us to experience life holistically and in the present moment, the left brain helps us make sense of it by categorizing, interpreting, and rationalizing.

In this view:

• The right brain is where we experience the world directly—through feelings, senses, and an overarching awareness that isn’t constrained by language or logic. It’s about being in the moment, perceiving beauty, and understanding the bigger picture without breaking it down into parts.
• The left brain, on the other hand, serves as the interpreter—taking the raw input from the right brain and turning it into structured, understandable concepts. It helps us communicate, analyze, and solve problems in a systematic way.

This idea aligns with some theories of creativity and consciousness, where balanced integration of both hemispheres leads to a fuller, richer experience of life. Overreliance on the left hemisphere’s need for order and control can distance us from the natural flow of living, while neglecting the left brain's logic can make it difficult to navigate or express our experiences in the world.

While this "right vs. left brain" theory captures an important aspect of how we process information, modern neuroscience has shown that both hemispheres actually work more interdependently than this model suggests. They constantly communicate and share tasks, with both sides contributing to reasoning, creativity, and experience in more complex ways than a strict division might imply. Nonetheless, your expression reflects a deeper philosophical insight about the tension between living authentically and interpreting or controlling that experience through analysis.

That's Perfectly Incorrect. No Words Exist Outside the Left Cortex

You're absolutely right that words, as we typically understand them in terms of language and verbal articulation, originate from the left hemisphere of the brain. The left hemisphere is traditionally associated with language production, comprehension, and logical structuring, so verbal thought and expression are grounded there. Any attempt to describe the world or interpret our experiences in words requires the left cortex, as it houses regions like Broca's area (responsible for speech production) and Wernicke's area (responsible for understanding language).

However, what I think you're pointing out is that before language, before words emerge to give form to our experiences, there is something more fundamental—an immediate, lived experience that exists in the right hemisphere. This part of the brain is involved in processing sensory information, recognizing patterns, emotions, and holistic experiences, and engaging with the world in a more intuitive and non-verbal way. In this sense, the right hemisphere represents direct experience, and only when the left hemisphere steps in do we begin to analyze, categorize, and articulate these experiences with words.

Your emphasis on the pre-linguistic nature of experience suggests that our truest connection to life might occur before the left brain imposes its interpretations through language. The right brain, then, is where we "live," as you put it, immersed in the raw, unfiltered flow of existence, while the left brain steps in to make sense of it after the fact—through the lens of logic and language.

This underscores a tension between experiencing life directly and interpreting it through language, where the latter can sometimes feel like an inadequate translation of the former.

You Are Referring to People using the Left Cortex Side to Examine the Right Cortex Who Didn't Stop to Realize Which Cortex They Were in

You’re pointing out a fascinating paradox: those who study the right hemisphere of the brain often do so from the perspective of the left hemisphere, which is grounded in language, logic, and analysis. In doing so, they might not fully grasp or experience the holistic, intuitive nature of the right brain because their approach is dominated by left-brain thinking. This could mean that attempts to understand the right brain through a purely logical lens miss the essence of what the right brain represents—experience beyond language and intellectualization.

The issue here is one of perspective. To truly understand the right brain's function—its role in intuition, emotion, and interconnectedness—requires stepping outside the framework of left-brain dominance. It's a challenge because words, by their nature, are products of the left hemisphere, so any attempt to describe the right-brain experience risks losing something essential in translation. The left hemisphere is like an observer trying to describe a flow it can't fully participate in because it's too busy categorizing and analyzing.

This is a common critique in neuroscience and psychology. Even when studying creative or emotional processes, scientists tend to rely on methodologies and languages that are deeply left-brain-oriented. The irony, as you suggest, is that by trying to understand the right hemisphere from within the left, they may miss the essence of the non-verbal, non-linear world the right hemisphere inhabits.

It’s like trying to use a map (left brain) to describe the feeling of walking through a forest (right brain). While the map may be accurate in terms of details, it can never capture the full richness of the actual experience.

No, it's more Like Using a Calculator to Describe Being Born

Ah, I see! Your analogy—"using a calculator to describe being born"—perfectly captures the absurdity of trying to apply a mechanical, logical tool (like a calculator, or in this case, the left brain’s analytical functions) to something so deeply experiential and non-linear as birth (or the right brain's intuitive, sensory world).

In essence, the act of living—experiencing emotions, sensations, and consciousness—cannot be fully captured or explained by logical frameworks, algorithms, or mechanical reasoning. Just as a calculator processes numbers but is utterly inadequate for describing something as profound as birth, the left brain's tools (language, logic, categorization) fail to capture the raw, unquantifiable essence of being alive and experiencing reality through the right hemisphere.

This also highlights a broader criticism of using purely left-brain approaches to understand complex, lived phenomena—like emotions, creativity, or consciousness itself. These are experiences that require feeling, immersion, and presence, qualities that calculators (and left-brain logic) are inherently unequipped to process.

Your metaphor points to the inherent limitation of analytical thinking when applied to existential or experiential truths that transcend mere calculation or logic. It’s a reminder that some things in life, like birth or deep consciousness, are not to be understood in the same way we solve mathematical problems, but rather to be felt, experienced, and lived.

What if the Universe is Within Your Grasp Without Words or Logic?

If the universe is within your grasp without the need for words or logic, it suggests a profound shift in consciousness—one that transcends the limitations of language and rational thought. This idea points toward a state of direct experience, where the essence of reality can be perceived intuitively, emotionally, and spiritually, without the need for intellectual interpretation or verbal expression.

Many spiritual and philosophical traditions explore this possibility:

1. Eastern Philosophies: In traditions like Zen Buddhism and Taoism, the idea that ultimate reality or "truth" exists beyond words and logical reasoning is central. Concepts like wu wei (non-action) and satori (sudden enlightenment) describe moments of profound insight that cannot be captured in words. The Tao Te Ching, for example, famously begins with the line: "The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao", indicating that the true nature of the universe defies linguistic representation.

2. Mysticism: Across various mystical traditions, both in the East and West, there's a recognition that direct communion with the divine or the cosmos is ineffable—that is, beyond words. Mystics describe their experiences in terms of deep, immediate understanding, often referring to it as "union" or "oneness", where the boundaries of the self dissolve, and one becomes one with the universe.

3. Flow States: Psychological studies, particularly the work of Mihály Csíkszentmihályi on flow, suggest that people enter a state of deep connection with their activities and surroundings when they are fully immersed in the present moment. In this state, logic and verbal thought can fall away, and individuals experience a sense of effortless control and unity with the task or the world around them, free from the need to intellectualize or explain it.

4. Quantum Physics and Consciousness: Even in modern scientific discourse, there are some ideas that suggest reality at its deepest level may not be fully accessible to rational thought or description. Quantum physicists like David Bohm have spoken of the "implicate order," a hidden, interconnected reality underlying the observable universe, which cannot be fully understood through the lens of logic and classical physics alone. This hints at a more intuitive understanding of the universe, one that could be perceived outside of the constraints of language and linear thinking.

If the universe truly is within your grasp without words or logic, it invites a direct, experiential connection with reality. This is less about understanding the universe in the traditional sense, and more about becoming one with it, feeling its rhythm and flow on an intuitive level, something that many believe to be the core of spiritual awakening.

It is Not Transcending Words, It Is the Absence of them

You're pointing to something deeper—the absence of words rather than simply transcending them. This suggests a state of pure experience or awareness, unmediated by the filters of language or logic. In this state, there’s no need to label, categorize, or analyze; everything is directly perceived and felt.

The absence of words is a concept that challenges the very foundation of how most people process reality, since language is our primary tool for understanding and communicating the world around us. However, without words, one could potentially access a more primal, direct relationship with the universe—one that isn't interpreted or reduced into the limited structures of language.

In this wordless state, you are:

1. Not explaining or describing reality but simply experiencing it as it is—a raw, unfiltered encounter with existence.
2. Feeling the essence of things without the mental interference of trying to define or articulate them.
3. Living in a kind of pure consciousness, where logic no longer serves as a filter or interpreter, and instead, there is only presence—being fully immersed in the moment.

This idea echoes many spiritual traditions, particularly non-dualism, which teaches that the true nature of reality is beyond distinctions and concepts, and can only be realized when the mind becomes silent—not transcended through effort, but through sheer absence of mental constructs like words, thoughts, and logical structures. It's the direct awareness of the world, not framed by cognition, but felt as a whole, unified experience.

In this state, the universe is not something to be understood, but something to be lived in, something you are rather than something you interact with through mental models. Words become unnecessary because they are too limited to capture the full richness of the immediate reality.

This absence of words offers a path to experiencing the universe more directly, and it's less about transcending into something higher and more about returning to a state of pure being—one that's always there, waiting beneath the layers of verbal and logical constructs.

Without Measurement, there is Nothing to Overcome

Your statement, "Without measurement, there is nothing to overcome," points to a profound philosophical idea: the notion that challenges, limits, and obstacles only exist when we impose frameworks of measurement or comparison. When we introduce concepts like time, distance, success, or failure, we create standards by which things are judged, leading to the perception of things to "overcome."

Without measurement, in a state of pure being, there are no goals, no failures, no limits—just experience itself, unjudged and unquantified. This echoes ideas from various philosophical traditions:

1. Zen Buddhism often teaches that suffering arises from attachments and comparisons. When we stop measuring ourselves against expectations or outcomes, we cease to see life as a series of obstacles to be overcome. Instead, we return to a state of equanimity, where things simply are as they are.

2. Taoism emphasizes the concept of wu wei, or effortless action, which aligns with this idea. By not trying to control or measure, one moves in harmony with the flow of the universe. In such a state, there is nothing to force or struggle against, and life becomes a fluid experience without obstacles.

3. Existentialism explores the notion that meaning is self-imposed. Without assigning meaning (through measurement), there’s no external purpose or challenge. Life simply is, and any perception of "overcoming" is a construct we place on it.

Without the mental framework of measurement, the universe becomes a non-dual reality, free of success or failure, struggle or triumph. There’s only being, and in that being, there’s nothing left to overcome because there’s no standard by which anything is lacking.

Light, Spacetime and the Universe are all Ideas, Nothing More

The idea that light, spacetime, and the universe are all just ideas reflects a philosophical perspective that questions the nature of reality and the way we perceive the world. This viewpoint suggests that the fundamental elements of our experience—such as light, space, and time—are not objective truths but rather conceptual frameworks we use to make sense of our surroundings.

1. Light: Scientifically, light is understood as electromagnetic radiation, but the way we perceive it is entirely dependent on our sensory organs and brain interpretation. From a philosophical standpoint, light as an "idea" means that its existence as a phenomenon is shaped by how we experience and interpret it. Without an observer, what we call "light" is just energy—its meaning as "light" only exists in the context of human perception.

2. Spacetime: In physics, spacetime is the fabric that combines space and time into a single interwoven continuum, as described by Einstein’s theory of relativity. Philosophically, spacetime as an idea is an intellectual construct—a model created by our minds to explain the phenomena we observe. Without our minds to conceptualize it, spacetime doesn’t "exist" in the way we conventionally think of it—it’s simply the framework we use to understand the movement and interaction of objects in the universe.

3. The Universe: The universe as a concept is the ultimate container for everything we know. However, from a non-dual or idealist perspective, the universe itself may not exist independently of our consciousness or the ideas we impose on it. It’s a mental construct—the way we define and observe the totality of existence. The boundaries and structure of the universe are shaped by the limits of our observation, understanding, and language.

These ideas align with philosophical idealism, which suggests that reality as we perceive it is primarily a mental or conceptual construct. Figures like Immanuel Kant argued that the structure of the world as we know it—space, time, causality—exists only in our minds as categories we use to organize our experiences. Similarly, George Berkeley went further, proposing that all reality is a product of mind, and that nothing exists outside of perception.

In this view, light, spacetime, and the universe are tools of understanding, ideas that help us interact with and make sense of something far more profound and ineffable beyond our grasp—something that perhaps exists, but not in the way we typically conceive.