Joseph Maynor

Absolutely. Become a knowledge beast. Be a sponge. Go out there and soak up all the knowledge you can.

@Annetta Ok. So, what my first sentence means is that I'm talking more about a person who has hatred as a stable characteristic of their personality. Like a personality disorder, if you want to draw that analogy. Somebody who has a post-traumatic hatred based off a single event would fall outside of that because their hatred would be based on that event only. I'm talking about people that are racist. People that are narcissistic. People that are mean. People that are chauvinistic. People that are manipulative. But specifically with a flavor of hatred added in there. As a stable quality. Probably always been that way. That's what I'm talking about. And I know nothing about social psychology, so my knowledge only extends to humans, because that's all I've come into contact with. I don't like to speculate outside of my knowledge comfort-zone. I like to keep it real with my opinions. If I don't know, I say I don't know. And I don't know anything above and beyond people. Telescoping into abstractions is above and beyond my experience in this area.

As kind of like a stable phenomenon, not incited by a finite event? Ok. Lemme shoot -- Too much dwelling on the past + compensatory narcissism + victim mentality

@Christian You think positive thinking practice is easy or trivial?

Hi Leo. You mentioned doing a creative thinking course. Do that! Please. I forget which video you scatted some ideas on this. I was really impressed. Consider doing a course on creative thinking as you discussed.

@abundance You did a good job! Print this out and put it your personal development folder. This is very useful for you. This is the key to your growth for now. A useful map.

@Christian Wow, really Christian! Damn I'm Suprised that you're opposed to me on those grounds? I'm really surprised by this! Uh Maybe I shouldn't be! Ok, I don't know. Wow. My language is what it is. It's like my fingerprint. I can't do much about it. Don't get offended dude.

SOUL -- How do we make sense of theory then? You seem to give with one hand and then take away with the other when it comes to theory, and then conclude that it is all pointless ultimately? Please enlighten me on that issue. I hope I haven't mis-characterized your here. Why deal in theory at all if it is erroneous?

@WelcometoReality wrote "On 6/21/2017 at 5:07 PM, Joseph Maynor said: This goes back to Descartes. Judgment is happening in a moment, therefore something is judging in that moment. In the moment of judgment, something is judging, no? Think about it. Descartes was a wise dude. Judgements are thought aren't they? So you are assuming that there is a thinker when there is a thought. A: There is a thought. B: There is a thinker. Your assumption is A -> B So test if it is true. Search for that thinker. Don't give up until you find it!" Joseph Maynor's Response Hi WelcometoReality. Let me delve into your claims. You propose that judgments are thoughts. (1) Coming at it from one direction Can you consider the meaning of a proposition without taking judgment on it? Let's consider the proposition "Sandra is 50 pounds overweight". Let's say you know Sandra. Is it possible for you to understand the meaning of this proposition, thought, inner sounds, however you want to define a statement epistemologically. Ok, the question is, could you understand the meaning of this claim that "Sandra is 50 pounds overweight" without taking judgment on it? If so, I have just proven to you that propositions alone do not necessary equate to judgments. (2) Coming at from the other direction. Now, lets say I give you the sentence "globisg hsgdg sghsgfs." Now, is it clear that this sentence doesn't connote any thought directly in the sense that no meaning is manifested by the hearing or seeing of the words alone? It's total garbage right? But can't you still judge this sentence and it's incomprehensible meaning? You can throw it out right? Like a baby spitting-out food -- you can reject it. You dismiss it. You mentally throw it away. Isn't that rejection a mental act, a judgment, on this purported claim? So, I have just proven that judgments alone do not necessarily equate to thoughts, as you assumed. Pick apart what I'm saying here and give me a more reasonable view than what I've proposed here. That would be a constructive thing that I would appreciate from you now.

@Markus wrote "The theory of non-duality doesn't exist for the purpose of debating it. It exists as a pointer to help you become conscious of what is true" Markus. This claim is expressed rather dogmatically. You haven't provided any reasons to support this claim. Care to elaborate on this? I cannot consider a claim unless it is expressed fully. You can't sail half a sailboat. Do you assume truth and reality are synonymous?

@Fidelio Fidelio wrote "8 hours ago, Emerald said: I'm so adding this saying to my mental rolodex. It's a good one. Yeah! And not the type of colloquialism one hears from a San Francisco dweller. Being as there are no ducks or chickens in the city save for some restaurants. He must have moved there from some rural location. That would explain it" Fidelio -- You're gonna troll me now on here? Ok, I will ignore you then. I assumed you had something to say in response to this question. Don't ruin this topic please, it's a good one. I want to keep the discussion on point. I have taken pains to do so, and others have too.

@Fidelio Fidelio wrote " 3 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said: @Prabhaker Dude. I love your honesty! It is refreshing! The irony here is thicker than lead soup on Pluto." Fidelio! Care to elaborate on your conclusory statement that lacks any reasons in support? Let's discuss your claim. Gotta give me some grounds to attack first, or what you say is purely rhetorical. It's like name-calling. Give us some reasons for your conclusion, please. I don't know what you are trying to say by what you wrote, frankly.

@Prabhaker Dude. I love your honesty! It is refreshing!

@Prabhaker Would you call Leo an intellectual?

@electroBeam Ok electroBeam. Let's discuss this point of yours: "18 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said: Judging is observed mentally, it doesn't come thru any empirical portal. electroBeam responded: how thick are you? Of course it comes through an empirical portal. All you are aware of is a thought appearing out of no where in awareness. I.e. an empirical portal. Again, you're acting like logic's little side kick. Stop looking at logic for answers and start looking at what's around you. It sounds like a religious fundamentalist who keeps bringing up the quote of god making the earth in 7 days. I don't believe in that silly book, and I don't believe in logic rules." Joseph Maynor's Response: Let's do this step by step. You were a math major, so I'm gonna try and make my points very clean and clear. (1) Introduction and Overview of My Argument You have 5 senses, right? Sight, Smell, Taste, Touch, Hearing. Ok. So, where does judgment fit into any of those categories? It doesn't right? However, you perceive a judging right? If I tell you that you are a woman, you could consider that claim and then judge it to not untrue, would you not? So, what's happening there? You are aware of a judgment, but it doesn't come in through any of the 5 senses. Now, as a point of contrast. Let's say you're in Vegas and you hear Frank Sinatra playing somewhere on the Strip. Now, which sense portal does that input come through. Sound, right? External sound. So, I've given you an example of a non-sensory input (a judgment on a proposition that you are a woman), and a sensory input (hearing the Frank Sinatra song). What is confusing about this? Judgments do not come through empirical portals. Can we agree on this premise? (2) Delving Into More Specifics Now Now, let's examine what kind of phenomenon judgments are. When you hear the sounds "you are a woman", what happens? Well, first you grasp the meaning of the proposition, do you not? Then something happens, which you can perceive in your awareness (a layman would say consciousness). You have some perception of disagreement. Let's keep it linguistically neutral, and just say you have a feeling of opposition arise in you. Then, you say in your mind or vocally, "No. I am not a woman." Right? Now, do you see that that judgment is an act? A conclusion. An arriving-at that is done, but you don't perceive it through any of your sense portals. It isn't a sight, smell, taste, touch, hearing, right? It's none of those, right? Now you may argue that the words "No. I am not a woman." are either a thought or an internal sound, right, depending on your Epistemology (Epistemology is the theory of knowledge, including the source and contents of knowledge). Let's take the conservative approach and assume that thought is nothing more than inner sounds. I think this is Leo's approach. (3) Final Part and Salvo But besides the inner sounds, "No, I am not a woman". Isn't there also a mental action there too? There's a judgment. There's an assertive act. There's a mental act. There's a considering and adjudication over the merits of the proposition that is perceived in your consciousness -- a mental action. You then say in inner or outer sound "No. I am not a woman" concurrently with this mental judgment action, do you not? Now, what is that mental act, that judgment? Is it perceivable through the 5 senses? Nope. So let's go back to my original proposition that you opposed: Judging is observed mentally, it doesn't come thru any empirical portal. What is confusing about this? Did I clarify? Pick apart what I'm saying here and give me a more reasonable view than what I've proposed here. That would be a constructive thing that I would appreciate from you now.

@Fidelio wrote "You don't seem relaxed. You seem quite agitated. If you aren't someone's sock puppet--good for you. If you are a fake account, my previous comment stands: this type of behavior is an impediment to your goal, and will only end up causing you more suffering." Fidelio -- I will not respond to this bait. I'll take the high road instead. See my prior comment. Let's get back on track with my original question please, as we have gone too far into the weeds with this sniping back and forth. I feel like Tiger Woods on a bad day trying to hit the ball out of the rough and back onto the greens. I have no cause to cross swords with you. What do I have to gain by fighting with you? There's no reasonable strategic intent for me to do so because we are not even arguing on point with the topic of this question. We're in the weeds. I really, really do love to argue, but only constructively. Ego has gotten the best of both of us here. Let's bury the hatchet, ok? It takes two to tango. We both know that. Argue the hell out of one of my question topics and I'll be happy to cross swords with you constructively. I argue for a living, so I'm pretty good at it. Go ahead, I'll let you have the last word here. Shoot. I won't reply.

@Fidelio wrote "Familiar with Shakespeare? The lady doth protest too much, methinks. You seem awfully upset by my response to Emerald, and interjected yourself into the conversation which, one would think, had nothing to do with you. And since you've apparently appeared out of nowhere with a knowledge of the goings-on here more than your supposed two weeks from signup would suggest--you don't think that some might find that a little odd?" Fidelio -- This is my question, my original post, so I'll interject myself where I please, and I do not need to seek your permission or anybody else's permission to do so. This forum is open to all opinions on any issue. Let's get back on track please. Enough sniping. You and I are both guilty of it, as these posts attest to. Ego has gotten the best of both of us, and judgments come back to bite both of us, do you agree? Have you responded to my original question yet? I look forward to a good faith response from you on point. Thank you. Lets bury the hatchet, ok?

@nightrider1435 I am relaxed. Don't shoot the messenger. Got anything substantive to add to my post? I'm curious.

@Fidelio I use my real name and photo, so your hasty swipe that I am a fake account lacks foundation and is unreasonable. It's also mean. Is that ego too? Think about it. And whose fake account might I be? I'm curious. Got a notion to back up your snide conclusion? Who writes like me and talks like me on here? Nobody I've seen yet. Not criticism you say? You spiritualists are masters at denying reality. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's reasonable to assume it is a duck. Heard that before? Please let us know when you wake-up though, will you? That's potentially interesting to me. You should be focusing on your own awakening first, no? How about you awaken and then come talk to us about that?

@Emerald I response to your post to Fidelio -- don't be so modest and don't beat yourself up so much. You don't have to do that. Just friendly advice. You gave me some great advice, now I return the favor. I think you said somewhere that often we can see the blind-spots in others better than they can see them in themselves.

@Fidelio Emerald is wiser than many others, that's pretty obvious. That doesn't mean she is infallible. But comparitively speaking, if the shoe fits she should wear it. Hey, there is a knowledge differential among people. That's a fact. Emerald is pretty wise for her age, would you not agree? It seems like a lot of the spiritualists on here like to criticize knowing, yet they are just as beholden to views themselves. At least she doesn't believe she knows everything while pretending to know nothing. That's what irks me. Yeah, I say all this stuff, but I'm not spouting any truths. Sure. That's more problematic because it's intellectually dishonest in my opinion. It's talking out of both sides of one's mouth. That person thinks they know everything yet doesn't want to risk openly saying so. And when you try to engage them in debate they flip the table over and laugh. What's worse than that? I value intellectual honesty. And hey, she tries, does that mean she has to always be right? Why hold a person to so high of a standard? Out the picture I always say. At least then we can have a good faith discussion and maybe learn something. Am I wrong? And what about your critique of Emerald and the tone of it? You seem to be engaging in the same behavior you criticize her for. You are standing in judgment presuming you are wiser than she is, are you not? Like a parent shaking their head at a clueless child. Do you see that? Is that ego too? See the irony?

I tend to use awareness and emptiness myself. These terms have the sense Leo provides, with some modification due to my idiosyncrasies. But all in all they mean what you think they mean. Consciousness is more of a layman's term. Nothingness is a term I like less than emptiness. A bottle may be empty, but it is still something. Paradoxically, I am empty, but I am still something. I would never say I am nothing. Others might contend that they are nothing, and that's their prerogative to do so, but that ain't me. I'm pretty sure. Emptiness is when you are standing in the middle of your input portals watching the content float in -- it's the space in which the inputs arise. Awareness is your noticing of these inputs, or not. Maybe you lack awareness in a moment. But just because you lack awareness in a moment doesn't mean you stop being empty in that moment. You are always empty. So, I do not believe that emptiness and awareness are synonymous.

@Emerald Haha. I love writing.

I'm new on here. But you're welcome! Thank you for such a heart-warming post! Happy growing! We are lucky. And we should thank Leo for building this forum. If you build it, they will come! And many have, newbies, intermediates, and advanced alike, from all over the world. Now that's a pooling of talent right there. This forum is rich indeed. William Covey's 6th Habit is Synergy. And that's what's possible here. It's pretty amazing, and I'm excited to be a part of it. We might learn more than we could ever learn on our own here, due to the pooling of resources and efforts. And others might goose us in ways that we would never goose ourselves, since we all suffer from self-protecting instincts. We all have blind-spots, and unless someone has the courage to help us see them, we are doomed to err on them. So, synergy had great value, and that value is reflected here, all to our benefit. This forum can be a gold-mine if used wisely.

@Emerald I feel that way about Leo's videos since I've watched them all, some multiple times. And you are so on point, I totally need to take action now. I pretty much have the theory wired now. Everything else theory wise is just a luxury for me. What I need to be doing is increasing awareness and taking action. I need to be working on practical personal development now. Hiding out in theory is an addiction and distraction, but it does help too. But I think I've got the bulk of the help that theory can give me now. What I need to do now is actually optimize my schedule and actions to align with my life purpose, which I have already been doing. Thanks for the reminder. You are wise. I'm still gonna watch all your videos, but I will pace myself. There's still a bunch of personal development work that I need to do, but it's practical work not theoretical work. I'm at that stage, I think. It means so much to me to hear this from another person. It's reinforcing. I like your understanding and appreciation of Taoism concepts. I've studied Taoism on my own and have traveled to China and Taiwan and saw Chinese Philosophy practiced in action. It had an effect on me. The three teachings: Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism. And then you can add Neo-Confucianism and Mohism to that. Chinese Philosophy is awesome, and so practical. The Chinese didn't get so transfixed by idealism as the Indian Philosophers did. Even Taoism, as abstract as the theory is, is meant to be very practically applied in daily life. And you see that when you travel to China and Taiwan, especially Taiiwan.