Joseph Maynor

Not being assertive and not telling the truth is being full of shit. Most people are full of shit to a greater or lesser extent. That’s why it’s so refreshing you meet a genuinely assertive person, even if they disagree with you. I don’t even expect people to be on the level anymore. It’s too high of a standard to assume is the norm. What I do try to do is not be full of shit myself. I’m working on being assertive, telling the truth, and talking with the same voice no matter which context I’m in or who I’m talking to.

I write all over my books with a pen. My books are loaded with underlinings, notes in the margins, circled passages. And I read every book at least twice. Actually I don’t have any books anymore since I gave them all away last year, but that’s what they used to look like when I read and had books.

This is a great question. Purpose is a desire of Ego to try to improve reality to its advantage. Every system seeks some kind of purpose if you think about it. The human Egoic self is able to consider purpose using language which takes purpose to another level. So you have what I call small life purpose and big life purpose. Small life purpose is you getting your own little life handled. Big life purpose is you doing something for the wider world. But either way, notice that purpose is a feature of Ego. That doesn’t mean purpose is bad, just don’t neurotically cling to it. Purpose will happen whether you want it to or not since we all have Ego in our Experience. You gotta be kinda touch and go with purpose. On the one hand you wanna cultivate purpose, on the other hand you wanna let purpose go. It’s a subtle paradox.

In what sense? I need detail man. There's a dearth of subtle thinking on the Forum. Any bum off the street can say boo or hooray to anything! It's the intelligent man that provides detail for what he concludes. Subtle, detailed thinking is a virtue and a sign of being at Tier-Two on the Spiral.

Yeah? Prove it on yourself first and then come tell us about that.

I'm going to develop a course at some point for helping people find their list of authentic actual problem situations in their own life. But here's my list for what it's worth: # MY MACRO-LEVEL ACTUAL PROBLEM SITUATIONS {} Practice frugality. Keep theory to a minimum in Journal Vol. 9. Nip distractions in the bud. Nip addictions in the bud. Become a vegan. Implement list of 'New Rules'. Do more cardio exercise. Do more weight training. Adequate income. Adequate savings for retirement. Take better care of my appearance. Complete a schedule everyday. Sleep 12 pm - 8 am daily. Obtain fast and reliable technology for my home office.

This is my current stack of cognitive supplements: (I take these every day) Rhodiola Huperzine A Ginko Biloba L-Tyrosine L-Tryptophan 5-HTP PQQ Choline Bacopa Glucuronolactone Inositol Alpha GPC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nootropic

You would only know that if you could rattle off your actual problem situations in life for us. It's by fully knowing your actual problem situations in life that you can see distractions in high-relief. Otherwise you stand no chance in having the awareness to stop distractions in any kind of tough-handed way. The mind will rationalize any distraction in the moment. The only way you can see through that rationalization is to know what your actual problem situations are such that you can memorize and list them 1, 2, and 3.

I had an English teacher in 10th grade in high school where I realized, I'm a liberal. In that class, I realized that I'm a liberal. Green has to have something like that. There's gotta be something that kinda turns you into a liberal. If you never realized you're a liberal, you've never made it to Green. Am I a liberal today? No, because I'm at Stage Coral not Green. But I had to pass through Green see.

Ok. Good question. Orange to Green came to me because I had some things that were wrong with me in my sophomore year in high school that made me sympathize with the underdog. And I also realized that I would fight for the underdog. And I think this is essential to Green. You have to identify with the underdog to some extent to be Green. If you can't do this, you're not at Green. It's almost like Green is born with the potential for a super empathy that can be extended to others because they know that they are flawed themselves. Orange doesn't acknowledge their flaws, they choose to ignore them. Orange is not open about their flaws, they hide them. Green will admit their flaws. Green is much more conscious than Orange.

Care to support your conclusory statement? I get that you feel good that you made a point, but the question is it a unique point?

Orange is much more shallow than Yellow. Orange is like a myopic Yellow. Yellow sees through Orange and Green and realizes that your life isn't reducible to anything. In fact, your life is the center of everything. Ok, so we start from that premise at Yellow that your life is the center of everything. This is something that Stage Green is too falsely modest to admit, but it's true.

Turquoise is kinda goofy but they don't see it. Turquoise thinks helping others is the best way to spend your time in life. Turquoise doesn't realize fully that you are the only thing that actually exists.

There's a huge difference between Green and Yellow. Yellow realizes that nobody owes you shit in life. Yellow also realizes that what you work on is what you improve in life. Yellow is all about 100% responsibility for creating the life that you want. Yellow realizes most people are stupid and lazy. Any kind of whining at Stage Yellow is eschewed. If someone is whining, there not at Stage Yellow. Yellow doesn't whine about their life, they're in control over their life. Yellow is that much smarter than 90% of people around. Green is smart but impractical, which Yellow and then Turquoise remedies. Green realizes most people are full of shit but hasn't really found their own unique voice yet. Once Green hits Yellow, Green starts to get their head screwed on tight. Yellow has the experience to know that reality is a sea of competing interests. The question is where do I fit into that sea of competing interests for Yellow. Yellow doesn't whine, Yellow pragmatically tries to solve their own problems and also starts to see the Thinking Big element of Life Purpose Work by trying to help others. Yellow has an abundance to their personal development where they can really start to help others. I think what separates Yellow from most people is Yellow is 10 steps ahead of most people. Yellow sees most of the ways that people are full of shit. Yellow sees problems before they become big. Yellow sees the limitations of Green. Talk and openeness have their limitations. Yellow realizes the relevant question is what are you doing in this scene. Are you trapped or are you strategically moving your piece. Yellow is not trapped. Yellow is strategically moving their piece in life.

I look back to what I was doing as a teen. I think one of the best personal development things to do as a teen is be one of the people who want to go to college. Be one of the people who want to make a future for themselves. Be one of the people who wants to have money and be well put together later in life. Start exercising in some way, whether it's weightlifting, martial arts, etc. Turn the TV off and read. I had this crappy black and white TV when I was a teen, so I would read instead, which I think really benefited me. Finally, develop some interests. When I was a teenager I used to love working on cars and I would repair my own car and all my friends' cars too. This was back in the day where you could actually repair your own car. But the point is I had interests. Be one of the people that actually does good in school. I mean, you get good grades. Don't kiss ass to get good grades. But earn the grades through your own diligent work.

Yeah, this is interesting. I like this. There's a paradox here that has to be fully appreciated as to both of its horns, as follows: On the one hand think about how much of your life looking back on it was you imagining versus you being cognizant of what was actually there in your Experience. In fact, we might say that a good chunk of your life was you being lost in fantasy about what might be versus what actually is the case for you. And we all do it -- don't think I'm singling you out here. That's all of our pasts -- how much of it was fantasy and how much of it was literal? And we can't pooh pooh the fantasy, it was what it was -- it doesn't make sense to think reality should have been any different than it actually was for us. To think otherwise would just be a Thought versus what was actually the case. On the other hand, and here's why I say your question is brilliant: Clinging to actuality is just as bad as clinging to Thought. Lemme say it a different way -- Maya is part of what's here; illusion is part of what's here. Thought is part of what's here. For you to think you're gonna prohibit Thought from being here is you trying to control reality to your preference. So, let's look at the horns of the paradox: Thought is here; actuality is here. You don't want to neurotically cling to either. And your existence will be an admixture of both. And that's what is; that's not something to think should be otherwise. To think reality should be otherwise is clinging to Thought.

Here's the paradox. On the one hand you see that you're not living up to some Thought that you have about what you should be doing. But on the other hand, doesn't everything you do in the moment feel totally right for you too? It's those moments that you can be totally honest with yourself in the moment that make you feel the best, even if it goes against your self-interest.

Nobody's at Purple.

Care to define what “having healthy purple” means?

Two Stage Orange people argue over who has the biggest tool. Two Stage Green people argue over who feels most guilty for having the biggest tool.

I’m not gonna play your Stage Green game of seeing who has the most fake modesty. Been there done that.

Thinking big vs. thinking small in Life Purpose WorK — and appreciating both horns of this fork.

Enlightenment is seeing through the bullshit of reality and being able to separate what appears to be there from what’s actually there.

It’s ironic that you’re looking for a master when this Forum is full of them.

Yeah, cool. I like your provocation. That's good. We need people who really love the literal truth and that push the rest of us. Ok. So, first we have to address what metaphysics, ontology, and epistemology are. Metaphysics is the subject label and category that deals with the issue of what is real. Ontology is the subject label and category that deal with the set of things that are real. Epistemology is the subject label and category that deals with the issue of what can be known and what is unknowable. Ego is taking the illusion of Thought and Experience for granted. The Egoic self is just a small subset of Ego though, as Ego casts a much wider net than the Egoic self. 1. Is there some reality to observe? (I would say yes): Well, this is tricky. You're presupposing some concept of reality, What do you think reality is? Gimme a paragraph. 2. Can we observe it as real as it is? (I would say no, but we can observe it to different degrees) This is an interesting question. Good job. The issue is what's the reality that we're looking at. We have to have some foundation to stand on to say something is an illusion. So, you gotta find that foundation; and it's there it's a foundation that comes from seeing not through thinking though. 3. If you say No/No I would like to ask you about this: How is it possible to write a sentence on a piece of paper, drop it and go away... AND someone you did not know find it and read what you wrote? Good insight. What you're gonna find is that all that stuff is just different Experience "in here" as opposed to being qualitatively different things "out there". If that happened for you, it would all be Experience. And people don't always understand the same Thought as you do when they read your sentences. This highlights the issue of interpretation, which the Post-Modernists like Gadamer dealt with. The issue of, you and I read the same sentence, and we get two different meanings which depends on many more variables than the meaning of the words alone. Video on point to watch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Georg_Gadamer