A suggestion to deal with the banning crisis

[Mu_]

9 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

I hope this isn’t taken the wrong way and I don’t want to be banned, but the above statement raises a big red flag for me for several reasons including but not limited to the following: not everybody shares the same meaning for the word ‘God’.  And actually the word ‘God’ is optional anyway.  If you’re coming from Ego you’re gonna think of the word ‘God’ as pointing to something ‘out there’ and not ‘in here’.  The above quote also sounds like very characteristic of Stage Blue thinking to me.  Are you trying to protect people from misleading ideology?  That sounds like religion to me.  Anyway, it seems out of character for a Stage Green, Yellow, or Turquoise person.  The Green person would value the diversity, the Yellow person would be interested in discussing the matter extensively, and the Turquoise person would try to help the person on their path very gently and compassionately.  But this banning idea sounds very Stage Blue, very ideological, very rigid to me.  It’s also kind of heartless.  Put yourself in the shoes of someone getting banned for disagreeing with you.  There needs to be more empathy there which seems to be conspicuously absent, which actually surprises me with your new video on ‘Love’ where you talk about being compassionate and loving.  It’s one thing to talk about love and compassion, anybody can do that.  But do you practice love and compassion?  See, the practice is what’s actual.

Thats also a very good point, but its also true that you can keep on loving blue and red and they remain destructive in some area's and maybe its best to let blue and red be over there and not in a discussion of a particular nature that is gonna trigger them or that they will unconsciously turn into a aggressive debate.  Man that sounds higher then though, but it is so not, haha.  All that said, I dont see in red blue actually, but I get the metaphor and perhaps its best up to a point to love and guide and point, but then when the hand that your helping keeps lashing out and cutting you, you may need to remove or ban....

[Mu_]

10 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Why the thought control in the first instance though?   That's the elephant in the room here.  Look, if somebody's trolling or otherwise violating the basic forum guidelines, that's a different issue.  But what Leo and you seem to be talking about is banning people who disagree with Leo's opinions about metaphysics.  That's religion bud.  It's religion that turns metaphysics into an ideology that people wanna fight for.  Leo shouldn't be clinging to any ideology at all.  And this isn't a moral should.  It's a should that comes from realizing that clinging to ideology is an illusion, it's Maya.  It's pointless suffering.  You thinking you've got metaphysics figured out and clinging to that is you being stuck in Ego, stuck in Samsara, stuck in Thought.  Remember, what reality actually is has nothing to do with Thought or Experience.  Don't cling to Thought, don't cling to Experience.  Just detach and watch this stuff and try to help others on their paths, wherever they are on their path.  And try to learn from people to try to advance on your path.  But I welcome diversity personally.  I want the people on here who disagree with me.  As long as you're not an abusive troll, I have no problem with you.  And the few truly abusive trolls on here seem to have nine-lives too, which is paradoxical.

 

Edited October 12, 2018 by Mu_

[Joseph Maynor]

This is my final comment on this Forum drama, which has been revealing to me and therefore not useless.  I do think people reveal themselves in times of crisis, so I’m always happy to see the difference between talk and actuality in people.  I’m going through this with someone else too in my life right now where I realized so much about them due to a pending crisis.  You start to see glimpses of the actual person and it can be scary because you see how the person actually is and how they conceal that most of the time.  

But here it is, this is what I wanna end with: Be the change you wanna see in the world.  Let’s say you’re a drinker and pot smoker.  You lecturing someone else about drinking alcohol is gonna have no force and effect with that person because they can see the disconnect between what you say and what you actually do.  But let’s say you kicked drinking alcohol yourself 100% and you compassionately try to assist someone else struggling with alcoholism, that’s gonna be taken very differently by that person.  Ditto for Enlightenment.  You gotta actually live Enlightenment to effectively teach it.  Talk needs to mirror actuality to create true credibility.

Edited October 12, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[now is forever]

@Joseph Maynor well it could make up a good example... but it would be hard on addicts.

update: thanks for update 

Edited October 12, 2018 by now is forever

[Joyboy]

But Leo...in nonduality, 'you're not god' is the same 'you're god'. So what's your problem about that and also about the ignorant of someone saying that. Are we here to learn and be the best version of ourselves? Purify the ignorant instead of dismiss/disallow it.
And i'm pretty sure I'm not g o d. (hope I won't be banned after this post :v)

[Torkys]

@Leo Gura When I referred to open-mindedness, I didn't (only) refer to you. I am not saying that skepticism and non-duality can't give an existential level of certainty - I actually think the opposite is true. However, for those of us further away from comprehending non-duality a healthy dose of open-mindedness and skepticism of our own ideas in necessary. Non-duality and skepticism turned into a dogma isn't true non-duality and skepticism - which is why I allowed @egoless to open my mind to the possibility duality and Christianity being true but not allowing it to become a dogma.

Until we have done our research, we don't know who or what to trust - as you said, not even you. The only thing I tried to say with "@egoless's ban is unjustified" is that it retards our growth if we know how to handle other perspectives which I assume most of us can.

I support the idea of a speculative sub-forum.

[now is forever]

wasn’t the initial question about splitting off philosophy and speculative science? or changing something so the threads don’t get closed?

in general splitting off forms splitter groups, and onesided discussion but not splitting off results often in hijacking. even though it can be fuel, it often goes off topic just running wild, without results to the actual question. 

maybe it could be interesting to tell people to open a new topic if that goes far far overboard, instead of closing some of them. 

going free and wild is very productive though 

Edited October 12, 2018 by now is forever
productive in sense of insights for everyone.

[Joseph Maynor]

6 hours ago, Torkys said:

@Leo Gura When I referred to open-mindedness, I didn't (only) refer to you. I am not saying that skepticism and non-duality can't give an existential level of certainty - I actually think the opposite is true. However, for those of us further away from comprehending non-duality a healthy dose of open-mindedness and skepticism of our own ideas in necessary. Non-duality and skepticism turned into a dogma isn't true non-duality and skepticism - which is why I allowed @egoless to open my mind to the possibility duality and Christianity being true but not allowing it to become a dogma.

Until we have done our research, we don't know who or what to trust - as you said, not even you. The only thing I tried to say with "@egoless's ban is unjustified" is that it retards our growth if we know how to handle other perspectives which I assume most of us can.

I support the idea of a speculative sub-forum.

The elephant in the room is not being addressed at all in all this talk — namely, the you who’s taking offense in the first place.  For one to take offense one must be triggered.  That’s the real issue.  What’s causing that triggering?  That’s the real question.  When we lash out externally it’s because we’re projecting our internal issues outward.  “Lemme tell you who you are” is really “lemme tell you who I am.”  You gotta see this in yourself which takes mindfulness and high-consciousness.  This is why watching ourselves deal with conflict is so instructive and is a great self-teaching moment.  Most people never stop and say, “it’s me — the problem is me.  What am I doing?”

Edited October 12, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[Erlend K]

On 11.10.2018 at 1:51 PM, Leo Gura said:

People who start claiming nonsense like, "You are not God" will be banned. There is not going to be any discussion tolerated on this matter because it is pure ignorance spoken by a devilish ego.

 

This sort of dogmatism doesn't seem fruitful.

Defining attributes of "God", with a capital C, include omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence.

By asserting "I am God" you either profess these attributes, or you have simply appropriated the word "God" into your own private language game.

It's like stating "I am a turtle", and by "turtle" I mean "man in his early 30's". This is a hopelessly confusing way of communicating my gender and age. Insisting on this conceptualization of "turtle" only begets miscommunication.

Most of the great contemplative traditions, including Buddhism, dissent from your "You are God" maxim.

[lmfao]

10 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

The elephant in the room is not being addressed at all in all this talk — namely, the you who’s taking offense in the first place.  For one to take offense one must be triggered.  That’s the real issue.  What’s causing that triggering?  That’s the real question.  When we lash out externally it’s because we’re projecting our internal issues outward.  “Lemme tell you who you are” is really “lemme tell you who I am.”  You gotta see this in yourself which takes mindfulness and high-consciousness.  This is why watching ourselves deal with conflict is so instructive and is a great self-teaching moment.  Most people never stop and say, “it’s me — the problem is me.  What am I doing?”

@Joseph Maynor Yeah I agree. If I was in Leo's position I could see motivation not fuelled by offence/annoyance to what he does. Leo was wrong to say he'd ban people purely for saying "You are not God", but I'd understand if he wants to ban people who are very argumentative and arrogant in their discussions because thats toxic.

[Forestluv]

@Joseph Maynor I think your ideas work well in debate-style environments to keep order. Roberts Rules of Order type of thing. As you said, egos can get out of control. Yet, when the conscious level of conversation elevates it becomes more about exploring ideas than being right. Here, the need to control for order lessens. For example, Emerald and I have different perspectives on gender - because we have different life histories. Conversations with her are about exploring and learning -not about being right or proving points. The conversations naturally flow and there isn’t a need for rules to control for order.

IMO debate-style conversations are not conducive for learning and raising consciousness. At best, they are neutral to slightly beneficial. At worst, they are counter-productive. I’m in favor of encouraging exploration.

[now is forever]

4 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

What bothers me the most, and I would never ban anybody for this but I would give some very public spankings, are people who make a lot of conclusory statements and never provide any support for their claims, whether they be anecdotal or otherwise.  These people just drop their harsh opinions everywhere and have no interest in discussion.  It's a disease.  There's only a small handful of people who watch their conclusions and their reasons for their conclusions like a hawk.  Most Egos do not want their conclusions challenged or demands made for detail and support for their claims.  But I find the more self-aware I become, the more I see that as a very neurotic need to "feel right" but without earning it, without proving it.  I feel like asking people -- prove it, either by your own observation or experience, anecdotes, evidence, detail or something -- but support your conclusions.  When you become sensitive to this, you can't unsee it.  Everything you say should be backed up by something.  And you gotta police yourself here and not force others to write you a ticket for it.  I think the best sort of ethos we can have on the Forum is don't say something unless you can back it up.  No more rhetorical turns of phrase being bandied about without any intention to discuss them, and asserted as if they were bald-faced facts.  People differ in how often they use rhetoric too.  Some people use rhetoric much more so than others do, and you can come to spot those people.  There exists a spectrum between extreme "straight-shooters" and extremely manipulative communicators.  I think the moderators should push back on these kinds of conclusory statements with, "Oh yeah?, give us a little more detail, evidence, support for your conclusion/claim."  People need to become much more mindful of their judgments and the foundations or bases for their judgments.

that’s kind of nonsense, i back up my conclusions by being an artist - i back it up with my life so should i always tell my lifestory when i post something.

that’s the facts discussion again. there are no facts for emotions, the emotion/motivation is the fact.

Edited October 13, 2018 by now is forever

[Joseph Maynor]

2 hours ago, now is forever said:

that’s kind of nonsense, i back up my conclusions by being an artist - i back it up with my life so should i always tell my lifestory when i post something.

that’s the facts discussion again. there are no facts for emotions, the emotion/motivation is the fact.

You’re free to disagree with me.  No skin off my back.  And I’m free to disagree with you.  I write what I write because it’s true to my experience.  If it doesn't resonate with you, so be it.

I dislike your use of the word ‘nonsense’ though and I think it’s rhetorical and a bad habit.  What I wrote has sense, you just disagree with it.  That’s a different issue than lack of sense.

Edited October 13, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[now is forever]

10 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

You’re free to disagree with me.  No skin off my back.  And I’m free to disagree with you.  I write what I write because it’s true to my experience.  If it doesn't resonate with you, so be it.

I dislike your use of the word ‘nonsense’ though and I think it’s rhetorical and a bad habit.  What I wrote has sense, you just disagree with it.  That’s a different issue than lack of sense.

what i was referring to @Joseph Maynor is that creativity gets cut if you have to back up everything that’s written. because a lot of times it’s just lifexperience or about personal problems and people are still in the learning process. by asking questions in the process, people start to go deeper into the topic and if sceptic about their own statement overthink and change direction, but if you cut this process from the start, you cut the natural flow.

no boundaries was the thought.

Edited October 13, 2018 by now is forever

[Joseph Maynor]

2 hours ago, now is forever said:

what i was referring to @Joseph Maynor is that creativity gets cut if you have to back up everything that’s written. because a lot of times it’s just lifexperience or about personal problems and people are still in the learning process. by asking questions in the process, people start to go deeper into the topic and if sceptic about their own statement overthink and change direction, but if you cut this process from the start, you cut the natural flow.

no boundaries was the thought.

One of the problems that we have is too much creativity and not enough contemplation.  Truth is not art.  What's actual is not art.  Most people are averse to backing up anything they say which is a real problem.  Everything you say in Enlightenment Work should have an anchor in your own experience, and you should be able to say what that is if asked.  And most importantly, you should want to say what that is.  That's a value that has to be developed or otherwise attained.  This is what prevents talking out of one's ass.  I'm not saying you need to neurotically place premises before conclusions in some kind of mechanical way.  But I sh*t you not, I've observed this on the Forum -- and people will say things and have no desire to back them up at all, and that's a real problem.  I've observed the full extent of this problem.  

Edited October 13, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[now is forever]

@Joseph Maynor you could also say everything is art, everything is philosophy everything is perception everything is experience everything is emotions everything is everything. and it would be true.

but if people don’t contemplate enough - it just shows it’s a lack of this art.

Edited October 13, 2018 by now is forever

[Forestluv]

20 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Everything you say in Enlightenment Work should have an anchor in your own experience, and you should be able to say what that is if asked.  And most importantly, you should want to say what that is.  

I know you are very introspective and do a lot of self inquiry. I’m curious: from where do these *shoulds* arise? Are these *shoulds* objective and universal?

[Joseph Maynor]

20 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

I know you are very introspective and do a lot of self inquiry. I’m curious: from where do these *shoulds* arise? Are these *shoulds* objective and universal?

Should you get undressed before taking a shower?  Should you open your mouth before you take a drink of water?  Should you put your foot on the gas in order to make the car go?  Don't be averse to shoulds across the board, that's a Thought that's being clung to.  And we all should too, even now is forever is shoulding in his own way by challenging me.  Not all shoulds are moral shoulds.  One should know the relevant law as a lawyer before taking on a client that has a legal issue that requires knowledge of those laws.  One should have a degree in biology if they want to be a biology professor (I assume there are a few very tiny exceptions to this).  One should do self-observation work as part of their Enlightenment Work.  One should back up what they say in a critical context with evidence, detail, and/or support.  You saying is not or is too is easy, anybody can do that.  Substantiating what you say is a little bit higher level, and it's a virtue to be cultivated.  Most of all, it will get you mindful of your own B.S.  What's actual and what's art are like night and day -- two totally different things.  It's the literal-minded person not the artistically-minded person that has the advantage in progressing from Turquoise metaphysics to Coral metaphysics. 

Edited October 13, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[now is forever]

2 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Should you get undressed before taking a shower?  Should you open your mouth before you take a drink of water?  Should you put your foot on the gas in order to make the car go?  Don't be averse to shoulds across the board, that's a Thought that's being clung to.

maybe but you don’t have to. you could experience something though.

[Saumaya]

6 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Should you get undressed before taking a shower?  Should you open your mouth before you take a drink of water?  Should you put your foot on the gas in order to make the car go?  Don't be averse to shoulds across the board, that's a Thought that's being clung to.  And we all should too, even now is forever is shoulding in his own way by challenging me.  Not all shoulds are moral shoulds.  One should know the relevant law as a lawyer before taking on a client that has a legal issue that requires knowledge of those laws.  One should have a degree in biology if they want to be a biology professor (I assume there are a few very tiny exceptions to this).  One should do self-observation work as part of their Enlightenment Work.

Nice, haven't heard such clarity of thought in a while