Joseph Maynor

I think I already know. Keep doing you.

Ok, then to be fair, what about your powers of persuasion?

It's actually the inverse of this. The burden of proof isn't on me.

@Hojo I don't know how we can determine epistemologically that I don't exist or that others don't exist.

I've never been persuaded by the other people don't exist hypothesis.

But is surrender enough? Who is surrendering? And also attachment seems to be something that is here. Why deny that? What's the underlying need to avoid being a self so much?

There is not much change except you have to become more conscious of health as you get older. Diet, exercise, meditation, and avoiding things that sap your energy that are not needed. The older I get the happier I get actually.

Really?

It seems that way because it's nearly impossible to prove spirituality to someone else.

I wonder why you're so interested in enlightenment but sometimes in equal measure you want to rid yourself of it. It's a weird paradox. I'm curious.

Set an intention in writing, review it every day, realize things can take time, try to inspire yourself to make the change, pretend you are teaching someone to do what you want to do, think of it as a change in chapter and make a theme out of it, try to make a timebound challenge out of it (e.g. 90 day challenge).

I'm confused about what is being said here.

I feel like it's harder to operate at Stage Green and above on the spiral because you have a higher standard as to how to live. You could do things otherwise but you choose not to. You're coming from a place of abundance that other stages have not effectuated. That doesn't mean I'm judging those stages. It is what it is.

I guess it depends on what profession you're in. If you're a programmer, maybe Linux is enough of a front end for you.

I'm proud of seeing thru many people's nonsense.

Linux is for the back end.

I. Regarding the intro: It's not I don't know things don't make sense. It's I am looking for others to make sense for me, or I'm looking to defend making sense to others. II. Part One: I guess his argument is he disagrees with the correspondence theory of truth. This would be the assumption that language doesn't link up one to one with knowing the world. III. Part Two: I don't think we behave as LLMs, that's an over-extension of what's going on. I disagree with AI all the time and try to advise it when I do so so it and I can learn.

The Very Short Intros are hit and miss. These are all great IMO. Theology by Robert F. Ford The Beats by David Sterritt Tibetan Buddhism by Matthew T. Kapstein Wittgenstein by A.C. Grayling Christianity by Linda Woodhead Indian Philosophy by Sue Hamilton Aristotle by Jonathan Barnes Kant by Roger Scruton

This is a reasonably good book on epistemology, although dense, that I read when I was a philosophy student at University. https://www.amazon.com/Epistemology-Contemporary-Introduction-Introductions-Philosophy/dp/0415281091 Here's another one that I read when I was first getting into philosophy. https://www.amazon.com/Problems-Philosophy-Bertrand-Russell/dp/1534863443 You could list Kant's Critique of Pure Reason if you want to, but I'm not a huge fan of Kant. Same comment applies to Hume and Locke, I'm not a huge fan. Another work that touches epistemology that I like somewhat but also find stilted. https://www.amazon.com/Tractatus-Logico-Philosophicus-Ludwig-Wittgenstein/dp/0486404455 This one is good for understanding epistemology as it was worked out in British Empiricism. I like this work and Bacon. He's very different from Hobbes, Locke and Hume who he influenced. https://www.amazon.com/Francis-Bacon-Organon-Cambridge-Philosophy/dp/0521564832 This is probably one of my favorite books that covers epistemology by G.E. Moore https://www.amazon.com/Some-Problems-Philosophy-Muirhead-Library/dp/B00CS7HL7I The Nyaya Sutras by Gautama is the classic Hindu text on epistemology. I can't find a version to recommend because I read the full version many years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyāya_Sūtras

The reason I say there are no good books on epistemology is because the knowing process ultimately cannot be outsourced. Only the knower can discern the knowing process by direct experience not by hearsay.

Ok, if I had to pick one maybe The Meditations by Descartes.

@Emerald Yes, there is a conflation with gender and the Masc and Fem. This causes a lot of confusion with a lot of people who haven't been educated on this.

Gambling is trusting another system to perform the way you expect.

There are really no good books on epistemology.