Joseph Maynor

Okay.

That's it right there. You're associating the mind with ego, and you're assuming there is something bad about ego. That's the logic. I'm not saying you're wrong, but what you say is understandable. That's good!

What is so bad about mind? Is there anything good about mind in your opinion?

This is why I tend to think that Love requires Truth but actually goes beyond it. It requires Embodiment not just Understanding. There's a necessary mystery with Love because it's about Relation and the magic of communion with Truth.

One aspect of Love is realizing that all finite perspectives are necessarily different, including our own. This doesn't mean that influence doesn't happen: We're all artists being influenced by other artists so to speak. Thus paradoxically, everything is both One and many. I think a lot of what makes someone insufferable is when we think they aren't the way we prefer. But then this creates suffering too, because we have an unrealistic expectation for how finite perspectives operate in the world. It's a moral expectation that things ought to be more like my finite taste prefers to be right and good.

Why does the body exist for you but the mind does not?

It's rare that someone even values Love in this work, let alone understand it.

I'm familiar with this neo-advaita account of Love. I don't agree with it, but It goes something like this: The Absolute is Love (which is Feeling). It is ego that takes us away from Love by introducing thoughts of a separate self, thoughts of "I" and "you" -- and the most important thing to realize is nothing is happening but This -- and this is not happening either. Nothing is right or wrong, good or bad. Those are just erroneous thoughts too. The point is to dismantle and deconstruct the thoughts and set them down, and a lot of time is spent doing this to others' writing or thoughts.

What kind of food do you like? I cook myself.

The no arguing and debating thing is groupthink. This is so selectively applied.

But who is this need arising for? You, right? Why is need seen as divorced from an "I"? What purpose does this reframe serve when need arises anyway?

Until there is, right?

What I mean is you have it. There is no 'I'. You're free.

If this were true, what would be the need to say it?

Regarding the spirituality angle: When it's a badge of honor to be seen as nonreactive, it's definitely easier to suck things up and take the higher road. However, once someone slips into a moral reframing, e.g., this person is no good for us or for for such and such, the nonreactivity turns to reactivity. This can show up as reactively schooling someone to be nonreactive.

I still feel like the issue of reactivity vs. nonreactivity is unclear to me, although it is clearer today than it was even a few years ago, and I am much less reactive than I used to be. It's definitely not as simple as be nonreactive. I find that often people who are obsessed with nonreactivity are reactive but they want to be seen as nonreactive as a kind of spiritual attainment. You can see this when they get triggered, and then the reaction is sometimes weirdly huge, even if it's done indirectly or passive aggressively. Everyone reacts. All I can say is I have improved in this area but it took a long time.

Regarding the reactivity blog post. I feel like nonreactivity is a great ideal, but we all react. Pay attention and honor your reactivity. But yes, reactivity allows others to get under your skin and a have a certain power over you. This is a nuanced topic that I've never seen anyone really deal with adequately.

Pacific Coast Highway is amazing! If you're in San Fran, do a little trip south to Pacifica. Beautiful. They have the world's most famous Taco Bell there on the beach. There are so many places I can recommend. https://www.roadtripusa.com/pacific-coast/ https://www.tripadvisor.com/Restaurant_Review-g32842-d1051970-Reviews-Taco_Bell_by_the_Sea-Pacifica_California.html

Why is the mind seen as a cause of not being free?

I'm sensing you don't like mind. You see it as a problem to be overcome.

This is similar to Spinoza's Epistemology: (different ordering though) 1. Intuition -- Consciousness of God/Nature in the Light of Eternity (Corrects both Reason and Sense Experience) 2. Reason -- Corrects Sense Experience 3. Sense Experience -- This is where the human ordinarily knows thru Thought and Extension, including emotions