irrational self allows me to see more than I would be able to if the lense of rationality was there filtering everything and tossing away the strangeness to the bit bucket.
Are you familiar with Wittgenstein's 'movie life'? Or, in more sequitur to the Original Post, how bits of stray (read: irrational) data are available to order (read: rational) into valuable Form?
One universe is enough to bring about that question.
When I look at a flower, there are two parallel realities:
1) the flower;
2) the image of the flower in my mind.
No mystery, right? Now if the flower disappears but the image remains, does it mean there is a "parallel" flower?
Two parallel realities is the most common mode of our lives. Sometimes our spirit takes a leave from the body it is in charge of, as it happens in dreams, and has some adventures.
Spirit is not less real than matter. We should be absorbed more seriously with the question where our spirit shall go after the body is gone, rather than playing useless tricks with it.
From my various experiences with LSD I have often asked why we see the things we do...is it just purely imagination? Or do psychadelic drugs open our mind to the truth?
The truth of what?
The truth to what we like to call 'reality', really is.
Are there alternate realities, where the decision we didnt make in THIS universe, play out in others?
If those alternate realities are just decisions/people reshuffled, what would be the point of their existence?
What, in your view, is the point of this existence?
In my view, this existence is a trial version of the future better world. The point of it is the "natural" selection of souls eligible for the next level.
What, in your view, are the criteria for eligibility?
As in a better world people ought to enjoy greater freedom, then it seems necessary that they be driven by love and wisdom. Otherwise freedom would be destructive.
So what happens to the people whose souls aren't good enough to get to the future better world?
Justice according to their responsibility for 'being not good enough'
Will you expand on this please?
It sounds like you are saying if someone can't help (they are, for whatever reason, not responsible) being the way they are, then they will be judged less harshly than someone who out of free will behaves badly.
Is that what you are saying?