Joseph Maynor

Good to see you on here man!

Interesting. So what you are proposing is that I am a thought in some sense entirely? But how would you know this? It would seem as though this would need to start with you first. You would have to know you are a thought, and then the issue would become moot at that time.

@Mellowmarsh Hey. I'm curious about how you feel about the mentality of "there is no . . . .(blah blah blah)".

Who or what is losing anything and everything?

I love using humor now in situations where people are all serious about trying to one-up each other. This could be used for anyone, including family. It's a paradigm shift of: we're friends first and the expectation is that we will disagree with each other. Many people have this paradigm reversed: We can only be friends if we agree with each other, or you have to agree with me, or vice versa. No we're friends first, and it is assumed that we will disagree with each other. It's really a way of elevating Love and practicing it. So, now I apply this to basically everyone and it calls on using humor somewhat strategically, which brings people together. This can be overdone too though, but it's fun to experiment with. It's rewarding and different to be able to relate with people who you have little in common with, especially if you're kind of a top-heavy person who is stuck in your own mind a lot. You want the world to mirror your mind without realizing that, and that is controlling and limiting when it comes to relationships, openness, and Love. Many people I see on here already do this which is amazing to me to see because it took me a long time to get it.

Try to locate the groupthink in mathematics.

I feel like when irrational numbers and complex numbers arrived, mathematics became open to the question of yes it works, but is it true? True in the sense of direct experience? (although it was the Pythagorean theorem that made irrational numbers appear real (due to the hypotenuse of the right triangle diagram). And irrational numbers today are considered "real numbers" in mathematics. Are complex numbers true in the sense of direct experience? Not really (or not maybe?), but by implication, creation, tradition, and application, they are useful -- even though they so very different from real numbers. Complex numbers or imaginary numbers (as they are called) seem to supplement an existing language (or artform) of real analysis into a valuable but strange area of complex analysis which is at best a tangential "grounding" in what we might call direct experience. It seems to be the same issue as to whether a 4D "object" exists in geometry. Even if no, it could still be valid mathematics. Math is definitely weird.

Definitely. I can't believe how many meanings the term "the ego" has. Yes. This is what I try to avoid by getting clear about terms. This is what philosophers try to do at the outset, but sometimes concepts are so nebulous that it's next to impossible to define them completely. Pointers and examples can sometimes help, but we crave definitions the most. This is what I tend to call "persona" sort of in the Jungian sense. One sense in which I tend to use "ego" is to refer to the self with a lower case 's'. It is the i am not the I AM. The other sense I tend to use "ego" is in a Jungian sense in contrast to the "shadow"; which are the qualities you prefer to associate with the i am. In this sense people with rigid egos tend to lack integration, are more rigid and less loving, more selfish, more morally self-righteous, and more judging of others in a way that separates instead of brings people together. Basically the bigger the ego the less Love generally. And people with big, rigid egos will often deny that they have an ego (not making this up), so their ego is operating entirely unconsciously which can make them very difficult to relate with, because once their ego gets triggered they lack the self-awareness to rein it in as fast because it just feels right to them to react the way they do. If it feels right it is right because they are completely unconditioned -- in their own mind (of course). Predictably, they may deny they have a mind or that there is a separate self or any self there at all too, or that anyone is here at all. They may even deny facts exist. If you bring this up to them, it is you who have the ego and who are projecting!

@Salvijus It's stated very well in your signature. I can't improve on that.

Some people seem to use the term "the ego" in a sense of a veiling of what is True which has a corruptive quality. Like the cliche of no separate self with the neo-advaita people who see that separate self as not only an illusion but the source of suffering. So it's a false self. It's a false i.

I just don't know. I don't know what sense people are using the term it has so many definitions.

What is the ego?

What would the ego not hiding from itself be?

You can disagree, but in a mature way that maintains relationship. It's amazing how this is lost on some people who have been on the path for a long time. Instead of fighting with people about spirituality, I'm more curious now as to what people are thinking and doing. I might ask a question.

@Someone here How would you describe absolute originality?

I already know "his" answer.

What do you think about the no separate self neo-advaita thought?

Is this a thought, feeling, intuition, or not even?

How would you describe an insight?

How much energy does it take to do spirituality for years and years? Isn't the energy the same, but only how it is directed different? It seems the energy is the same, only the subject matter to which it is directed is different. Think about sitting under a tree meditating all day. Interestingly enough, that takes a lot of energy in the discipline it takes to do that. Elon Musk wouldn't have the energy to sit under a tree and meditate all day long.

Looking at everything as performance art is an interesting paradigm shift. When I went to the Dickens Fair a few days ago which is an immersive performance art event of Victorian era England set on Christmas Eve at 7 pm, what surprised me is how the distinctions we make nowadays were not really made back then. Artistry wasn't really so specialized. Performers were comedians, orators, musicians, tradesmen, hecklers, intellectuals -- all wrapped in one in many cases. It was more human, social and holistic than it is today. Then again this was an event, but it made me realize through specialization, we lost something magical. We lost the performance art aspect of life and community where everyone participates. The joy of this too.

I wonder how much control people have over what they do. It could just be easy and natural for them to do those things like it is easy and natural for us to do spirituality for years and years. We assume they are grinding or pushing themselves. Some people just have a lot of energy and desire to work. We assume they are suffering, but if they were, wouldn't they just stop? Maybe that's their path of least resistance oddly enough.

How would big or giant ego be defined? As opposed to a small or tiny ego?