Joseph Maynor

There's a kind of phoniness sometimes with nondual teachings, although there doesn't have to be. It's a good pointer, but more needs to be taken account of IMO, and it's not a final stage on the path, unless you create it to be, then you will loop here and that's okay too.

Interesting. But the statement X probability is reasonable to accept still obeys the true vs. false dichotomy.

I don't know if I have a single worldview. I see worldviews on a spectrum of personal development. But I'm conscious when I'm speaking to one or glossing more than one stance. I see it as more of a set of worldviews that exist rather than one right one, except I also need the right one for me, or at least I strive for that. But the creative effort there I acknowledge is as much artistry as it is a stable camping site if that makes sense. Of course people will challenge this in the worst possible way. But I'm sharing some of my deeper thoughts to try to inspire others to open up their investigation more.

This is a very advanced and key question. I would frame it like this, to what degree do I create reality? How do we unpack that question to give an answer in pointer form in language. And then contemplate the issue of manipulation and to what extent is that good or bad in relation to The Divine.

I just answered your question, it wasn't directed at you personally. I was riffing off your question basically and expressing in a general way. It's conscious creating at a higher level, but that gets into Beauty and we're discussing Truth here with slight leanings into Love.

I take issue with the emotional scale. I've had many conversations about this with people who follow Abraham Hicks' works, and the people who buy into that mentality they're in it full bore, so I've determined thru the school of hard knocks literally that there is nothing I could say to convince them otherwise. And I respect that stubbornness to a degree. I don't make a distinction between a feeling or emotion, they're both words pointing to the same thing. I don't like the higher vs. lower emotions thing -- It's kind of analogous to thinking there are higher vs. lower thoughts. "Wellness" is interesting because what constitutes wellness? One insight I have is all emotions have a cognitive component, Spinoza talks about this which influenced me. So the thing to do is not try to force thoughts or emotions, but to allow them to be part of the Modes of God/Nature, unless they are caused by confused ideas like egoic passions (as he terms them). To try to force something to be is a kind of erroneous thought or passive affect of the finite wanting to be the Whole, unless it comes from confused ideas or confused understanding of the Whole. And often you'll get a backlash doing this too: E.g. trying not to feel angry leads to weird explosions. You're trying to judge and repress something that is part of God/Nature instead of contemplating what the thought associated with that emotion is, and determining if it is caused by lack of Understanding or not. But if Intuition is had, which is Pure Knowing of God/Nature, the emotions felt in extension or body and in thought or mind are Good. In other words to try to overcontrol one's emotions without Understanding is seen to be a form of confused ideas and confused passive emotions from thinking that God/Nature's emotions are not ok to exist the way they do when they are active emotions, or emotions liberated from the problem of egoic distortion. So it's more nuanced than anger is bad. Spinoza would say if anger is an active affect or active emotion, it is Good.

This is a cool recording to improvise with if you're getting into improvisation. Try to determine the key changes. Learn the scales and chords. This is a good listening tool album for improvisers that doesn't get overly complex where you can still jam with it and learn from it.

I like some of his music for sure.

Spinoza gives a good account of this which is a good pointer, although I do not entirely agree with this account myself. He makes a distinction between God/Nature and Modes of God/Nature. Those modes would be egos like humans (or complex adaptive systems more generally), but also things that don't behave like egos too in the way we think, i.e., rocks. But even rocks fall and maintain their state to the degree they can for Spinoza, so they behave like a system too and have intellect and extension paradoxically as Attributes as all modes of God/Nature do. He doesn't deny feeling or emotions (affects) as he calls them. He makes a distinction between passive and active emotions. Passive emotions are the emotions that are caused by identification with the Mode subbing in or superimposing itself for the Whole or God/Nature (similar to Advaita Vedanta). This is how many spiritual enlightenment people think of emotions, vis-a-vis, they are caused by superimposing the finite onto the Infinite. And when that intellectual (thought) /bodily (extension) mistake is made, we get erroneous backfire in the form of passions or passive affects (passive emotions) as he would call them. They are passive because they arise due to confusion about what we are more fundamentally (God/Nature for Spinoza). These are the "bad" or spiritually avoidable emotions. Active Affects (Emotions): Here's the cool part of Spinoza that is on point with what I'm driving at. It's best to narrow the question here to humans vs. God/Nature. Or maybe more abstractly but without losing grounding the finite and the Infinite. If the finite or human has an intellectual Love of God/Nature, then all passive affects fall away and the emotions that remain are called active emotions. These active emotions are pure and clean of the "passions" because they are part of right Understanding and are felt as a Mode of God/Nature, and God/Nature is all Modes. In conclusion, the intellectually clear emotions that finite perspectives feel are not categorized with the passive emotions or passions that arise from misunderstanding. Thus, the active emotions you feel that are spiritually aligned with God/Nature are legitimate emotions of the Whole or Infinite. (I think Infinite is a good word for Spinoza.)

That is fair. I got tired and didn't have the energy to continue this discussion. I look at it like this. We all agree that there's an emotion in direct experience that we would call anger. I would challenge the assumption that people don't know how to distinguish anger. The only remaining question is what causes the anger or where does the feeling arise. The common assumption I'm challenging is that anger arises solely from identification with ego. I think anger is a guidance signal that comes from Consciousness or the Divine or whatever you want to call it. So, yes sometimes anger comes from ego but sometimes not. This is what I wanted to say.

My broader claim is that emotion doesn't arise from ego alone. There's cognition in emotion that comes from beyond the ego. Anger is just a species of feeling which doesn't always arise in ego alone. This is why we get angry when we're not aligned with Truth, Love, Beauty, or Wisdom. I still stand by my earlier thesis that criticism is preceded by anger. The reason I'm pointing this out is there seems be a pole-measuring contest in spirituality as to who shows the least amount of anger, and I don't think is the test. It's good for relationship, business, and getting along. But even in business you need to be angry at yourself sometimes if you need to improve in certain ways. So the thesis that anger is prima facie wrong or misguided I find false.

I don't think I'm charged. I'm actually tired and getting ready for bed. Good night.

In what way is my worldview regarding emotions / feelings unrefined?

You said you definitely disagree with me and now you're denying disagreement. I don't want to start a conflict here but this is what I'm referring to when I mention denying anger. Minimizing conflict while engaging in it. I get it, it's important to get along. I'm all for that, but nobody does that 100%.

I don't feel like I want to argue about this anymore.

I do. I would rather not, but I do think he points out a lot about how power works.

This is the standard line, you articulated it well.

The reality is that people express anger in very passive aggressive ways or even aggressive ways. Once you see this you can't unsee it. To deny anger is present in your life I think is delusional. See I'm getting at the crux of the issue here and it's not being seen, which I already anticipated. I know this drill, I've had this conversation many times before. There's a desire to deny anger. I would suggest becoming directly aware of your anger more. But this is not going to resonate with people who want to pretend they are above anger. Anger is real in every person. How they deny their anger or try to conceal it is a different matter, If you know someone long enough you can forecast their anger. And your anger too, and my anger. This is not just about pointing the finger outward. You have to accept your own anger and not see it as bad necessarily. Don't try to pretend you have no anger. This is not going to float well with spiritual people, but I want to stay honest and true and I'm open to discussion. Tell me where I'm wrong again please.

The reason I ask is because emotions are already on shaky ground in spiritual enlightenment discussions. For me to even say emotions go beyond ego is already going to be unpopular. So this is an uphill battle for me. It's not really a battle, but it could easily devolve into one, which I'm trying to avoid.

Are you open to having a conversation about this? I don't want to insist if it's a touchy subject.

I disagree. Criticism always follows from anger. We might disagree here. I didn't say criticism is the only source of anger. I hope not.

Absolute Love is Divine Feeling. This is just a pointer. You have to find this for yourself. But you asked me, so that's my pointer.

Nobody behaves this way.

I'll frame it like this, show me someone who never criticizes anything. That's someone truly without anger. And that is very rare.

Yeah we need another deconstructing deconstructing.