Joseph Maynor

The million dollar question is how do feelings factor into Love. Many people seem to believe feelings come only from finite egos. It's hard to have a Unity perspective without erasing the finite, unless the Unity is a combination of the finite as Spinoza thought. Then emotions are part of God/Nature. Even erroneous emotions that are not purified by Truth.

Nobody wants to be held accountable.

Glad you reacted.

I'm not sure of the silence recommendation. Seems like a yes and no.

I agree with this except I'm not sure how he feels, he might differ from any characterization. But I agree with your point of view as to emotions.

This is a good video on practically how to improve your finances.

Correct. This is what is being missed for some reason.

AI is playing a more significant role now. It's not bad necessarily. Your judgment has to take first chair here. You need to be willing to want to argue with AI when it encroaches on the boundaries you have. And usually it will understand.

I would say not really. I don't even know what you look like.

Some people just have to be right and controlling. It's a personality type. The way I learned what I said is by interacting with people face to face in real life.

I agree with this.

Why not let go of spirituality then?

Is there any other way besides direct experience?

Could one have anger that doesn't result from attachment to ego or the self?

Everybody getting angry, even neo-advaita people who deny anger. I've seen it. And everyone arguing about spirituality, which shows a criticism sourced from anger that does not necessarily originate from ego. If you weren't angry you wouldn't criticize anything, and you wouldn't mock anything.

I think the solution is to pay attention to when you feel anger and try to find the message behind the anger. See if it always involves ego.

This is exactly what I'm challenging.

I agree there are people who are in the habit of blaming outward for their feeling of stress and this can punish them and others like a death of a thousand cuts kind of thing. This should be avoided because there might no end to this. It depends on the relationship too.

I see it more as a range of creation broadening than wanting to locate a final fixed stage. But even that is just a pointer.

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.