Joseph Maynor

@Fidelio Fidelio wrote " 3 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said: @Prabhaker Dude. I love your honesty! It is refreshing! The irony here is thicker than lead soup on Pluto." Fidelio! Care to elaborate on your conclusory statement that lacks any reasons in support? Let's discuss your claim. Gotta give me some grounds to attack first, or what you say is purely rhetorical. It's like name-calling. Give us some reasons for your conclusion, please. I don't know what you are trying to say by what you wrote, frankly.

@Prabhaker Dude. I love your honesty! It is refreshing!

@Prabhaker Would you call Leo an intellectual?

@electroBeam Ok electroBeam. Let's discuss this point of yours: "18 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said: Judging is observed mentally, it doesn't come thru any empirical portal. electroBeam responded: how thick are you? Of course it comes through an empirical portal. All you are aware of is a thought appearing out of no where in awareness. I.e. an empirical portal. Again, you're acting like logic's little side kick. Stop looking at logic for answers and start looking at what's around you. It sounds like a religious fundamentalist who keeps bringing up the quote of god making the earth in 7 days. I don't believe in that silly book, and I don't believe in logic rules." Joseph Maynor's Response: Let's do this step by step. You were a math major, so I'm gonna try and make my points very clean and clear. (1) Introduction and Overview of My Argument You have 5 senses, right? Sight, Smell, Taste, Touch, Hearing. Ok. So, where does judgment fit into any of those categories? It doesn't right? However, you perceive a judging right? If I tell you that you are a woman, you could consider that claim and then judge it to not untrue, would you not? So, what's happening there? You are aware of a judgment, but it doesn't come in through any of the 5 senses. Now, as a point of contrast. Let's say you're in Vegas and you hear Frank Sinatra playing somewhere on the Strip. Now, which sense portal does that input come through. Sound, right? External sound. So, I've given you an example of a non-sensory input (a judgment on a proposition that you are a woman), and a sensory input (hearing the Frank Sinatra song). What is confusing about this? Judgments do not come through empirical portals. Can we agree on this premise? (2) Delving Into More Specifics Now Now, let's examine what kind of phenomenon judgments are. When you hear the sounds "you are a woman", what happens? Well, first you grasp the meaning of the proposition, do you not? Then something happens, which you can perceive in your awareness (a layman would say consciousness). You have some perception of disagreement. Let's keep it linguistically neutral, and just say you have a feeling of opposition arise in you. Then, you say in your mind or vocally, "No. I am not a woman." Right? Now, do you see that that judgment is an act? A conclusion. An arriving-at that is done, but you don't perceive it through any of your sense portals. It isn't a sight, smell, taste, touch, hearing, right? It's none of those, right? Now you may argue that the words "No. I am not a woman." are either a thought or an internal sound, right, depending on your Epistemology (Epistemology is the theory of knowledge, including the source and contents of knowledge). Let's take the conservative approach and assume that thought is nothing more than inner sounds. I think this is Leo's approach. (3) Final Part and Salvo But besides the inner sounds, "No, I am not a woman". Isn't there also a mental action there too? There's a judgment. There's an assertive act. There's a mental act. There's a considering and adjudication over the merits of the proposition that is perceived in your consciousness -- a mental action. You then say in inner or outer sound "No. I am not a woman" concurrently with this mental judgment action, do you not? Now, what is that mental act, that judgment? Is it perceivable through the 5 senses? Nope. So let's go back to my original proposition that you opposed: Judging is observed mentally, it doesn't come thru any empirical portal. What is confusing about this? Did I clarify? Pick apart what I'm saying here and give me a more reasonable view than what I've proposed here. That would be a constructive thing that I would appreciate from you now.

@Fidelio wrote "You don't seem relaxed. You seem quite agitated. If you aren't someone's sock puppet--good for you. If you are a fake account, my previous comment stands: this type of behavior is an impediment to your goal, and will only end up causing you more suffering." Fidelio -- I will not respond to this bait. I'll take the high road instead. See my prior comment. Let's get back on track with my original question please, as we have gone too far into the weeds with this sniping back and forth. I feel like Tiger Woods on a bad day trying to hit the ball out of the rough and back onto the greens. I have no cause to cross swords with you. What do I have to gain by fighting with you? There's no reasonable strategic intent for me to do so because we are not even arguing on point with the topic of this question. We're in the weeds. I really, really do love to argue, but only constructively. Ego has gotten the best of both of us here. Let's bury the hatchet, ok? It takes two to tango. We both know that. Argue the hell out of one of my question topics and I'll be happy to cross swords with you constructively. I argue for a living, so I'm pretty good at it. Go ahead, I'll let you have the last word here. Shoot. I won't reply.

@Fidelio wrote "Familiar with Shakespeare? The lady doth protest too much, methinks. You seem awfully upset by my response to Emerald, and interjected yourself into the conversation which, one would think, had nothing to do with you. And since you've apparently appeared out of nowhere with a knowledge of the goings-on here more than your supposed two weeks from signup would suggest--you don't think that some might find that a little odd?" Fidelio -- This is my question, my original post, so I'll interject myself where I please, and I do not need to seek your permission or anybody else's permission to do so. This forum is open to all opinions on any issue. Let's get back on track please. Enough sniping. You and I are both guilty of it, as these posts attest to. Ego has gotten the best of both of us, and judgments come back to bite both of us, do you agree? Have you responded to my original question yet? I look forward to a good faith response from you on point. Thank you. Lets bury the hatchet, ok?

@nightrider1435 I am relaxed. Don't shoot the messenger. Got anything substantive to add to my post? I'm curious.

@Fidelio I use my real name and photo, so your hasty swipe that I am a fake account lacks foundation and is unreasonable. It's also mean. Is that ego too? Think about it. And whose fake account might I be? I'm curious. Got a notion to back up your snide conclusion? Who writes like me and talks like me on here? Nobody I've seen yet. Not criticism you say? You spiritualists are masters at denying reality. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's reasonable to assume it is a duck. Heard that before? Please let us know when you wake-up though, will you? That's potentially interesting to me. You should be focusing on your own awakening first, no? How about you awaken and then come talk to us about that?

@Emerald I response to your post to Fidelio -- don't be so modest and don't beat yourself up so much. You don't have to do that. Just friendly advice. You gave me some great advice, now I return the favor. I think you said somewhere that often we can see the blind-spots in others better than they can see them in themselves.

@Fidelio Emerald is wiser than many others, that's pretty obvious. That doesn't mean she is infallible. But comparitively speaking, if the shoe fits she should wear it. Hey, there is a knowledge differential among people. That's a fact. Emerald is pretty wise for her age, would you not agree? It seems like a lot of the spiritualists on here like to criticize knowing, yet they are just as beholden to views themselves. At least she doesn't believe she knows everything while pretending to know nothing. That's what irks me. Yeah, I say all this stuff, but I'm not spouting any truths. Sure. That's more problematic because it's intellectually dishonest in my opinion. It's talking out of both sides of one's mouth. That person thinks they know everything yet doesn't want to risk openly saying so. And when you try to engage them in debate they flip the table over and laugh. What's worse than that? I value intellectual honesty. And hey, she tries, does that mean she has to always be right? Why hold a person to so high of a standard? Out the picture I always say. At least then we can have a good faith discussion and maybe learn something. Am I wrong? And what about your critique of Emerald and the tone of it? You seem to be engaging in the same behavior you criticize her for. You are standing in judgment presuming you are wiser than she is, are you not? Like a parent shaking their head at a clueless child. Do you see that? Is that ego too? See the irony?

I tend to use awareness and emptiness myself. These terms have the sense Leo provides, with some modification due to my idiosyncrasies. But all in all they mean what you think they mean. Consciousness is more of a layman's term. Nothingness is a term I like less than emptiness. A bottle may be empty, but it is still something. Paradoxically, I am empty, but I am still something. I would never say I am nothing. Others might contend that they are nothing, and that's their prerogative to do so, but that ain't me. I'm pretty sure. Emptiness is when you are standing in the middle of your input portals watching the content float in -- it's the space in which the inputs arise. Awareness is your noticing of these inputs, or not. Maybe you lack awareness in a moment. But just because you lack awareness in a moment doesn't mean you stop being empty in that moment. You are always empty. So, I do not believe that emptiness and awareness are synonymous.

@Emerald Haha. I love writing.

I'm new on here. But you're welcome! Thank you for such a heart-warming post! Happy growing! We are lucky. And we should thank Leo for building this forum. If you build it, they will come! And many have, newbies, intermediates, and advanced alike, from all over the world. Now that's a pooling of talent right there. This forum is rich indeed. William Covey's 6th Habit is Synergy. And that's what's possible here. It's pretty amazing, and I'm excited to be a part of it. We might learn more than we could ever learn on our own here, due to the pooling of resources and efforts. And others might goose us in ways that we would never goose ourselves, since we all suffer from self-protecting instincts. We all have blind-spots, and unless someone has the courage to help us see them, we are doomed to err on them. So, synergy had great value, and that value is reflected here, all to our benefit. This forum can be a gold-mine if used wisely.

@Emerald I feel that way about Leo's videos since I've watched them all, some multiple times. And you are so on point, I totally need to take action now. I pretty much have the theory wired now. Everything else theory wise is just a luxury for me. What I need to be doing is increasing awareness and taking action. I need to be working on practical personal development now. Hiding out in theory is an addiction and distraction, but it does help too. But I think I've got the bulk of the help that theory can give me now. What I need to do now is actually optimize my schedule and actions to align with my life purpose, which I have already been doing. Thanks for the reminder. You are wise. I'm still gonna watch all your videos, but I will pace myself. There's still a bunch of personal development work that I need to do, but it's practical work not theoretical work. I'm at that stage, I think. It means so much to me to hear this from another person. It's reinforcing. I like your understanding and appreciation of Taoism concepts. I've studied Taoism on my own and have traveled to China and Taiwan and saw Chinese Philosophy practiced in action. It had an effect on me. The three teachings: Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism. And then you can add Neo-Confucianism and Mohism to that. Chinese Philosophy is awesome, and so practical. The Chinese didn't get so transfixed by idealism as the Indian Philosophers did. Even Taoism, as abstract as the theory is, is meant to be very practically applied in daily life. And you see that when you travel to China and Taiwan, especially Taiiwan.

@Prabhaker what do you think of Leo's video on positive thinking? It's one of my favorite videos of his. Maybe read the transcript of the video, One is posted for it. I'm curious. I'm getting good results from practicing the tips in that video. I look forward to your response. Positive thinking is one of my best new personal development hacks. But maybe I'm mistaken. Check it out!

@saish No. in one of his videos Leo talked about doing a creative thinking course. Maybe it got shelved. I hope not. I'll pay good money for that one.

Yeah. I wanna purchase the creative thinking course! That's the one I want. When is that one coming out? I sound like one of my own clients. Gimme Gimme Gimme! Now now now! Remember that one Leo? What's the status on that one? I'm sure he's got plenty to do, so I don't wanna seem pushy.

@Telepresent What do you think about my paragraph 5, the final paragraph in my original post. The point about Descartes was kind of a side point. More of a touch of history to build context.

@electroBeam I'm looking at his massive content of thought, over 300 videos where he espouses thousands of propositions and such. But let's not get distracted from the issues-at-hand. I don't wanna turn this into a side-show debate or lose focus. Let's return to the issues in my post. I'll address your recent post tomorrow, I notice you took the time to do a good one. And I appreciate that. I want to consider it carefully. I respect everyone here. I don't argue for argument's sake, I argue to improve my life. There's a key difference. A value I try to live by. I'm not stirring-the-coop merely to goose the hens, I'm trying to gain insights to improve my life and thinking. And it's happening! Slowly. I really do appreciate your responses to my question. Let's grow together. My mission is growth. I'm big-time into it! Please re-read my original post again. I think I made some pretty damn good points! Especially the last paragraph. Read that one again. The very last paragraph: Paragraph 5. Ring any bells?

@Leo Gura Yeah, we disagree on epistemological grounds. One day I wanna discuss those with you. Are you interested, or would you prefer not to? Not in this post, but later. Are you open to having your epistemological views challenged in general?

@Leo Gura What about all your thought Leo? You have like 300 videos containing thought. Why doesn't the charge of overthinking apply to you too? I'm curious. I wrote a couple of lines. You have published volumes of thought! Am I wrong? Are you asking us not to believe you? That sounds totally weird and odd to me. Thanks for responding though. And I admire your voluminous thought too. Were you hopelessly lost when you created your videos? Let's not have a double-standard here please. A single-standard is good enough for the two of us. You see -- consistency is a beast! Am I right? It's the oldest and most profound tool for refutation. You gotta be consistent with your own standard. If I am overthinking, then so are you, massively. Would you accept that Leo? Have you been hopelessly lost in thought yourself? Few people seem to want to address my points on their merits! I'm a bit surprised by that, I must say. I feel like the crazy uncle who feels sane.

Emerald. Just found out she has a YouTube channel "The Diamond Net". I'm gonna watch all her videos too! Wise and deep. My kinda guru.

So now rational debate is demonizing! Oy vey Truth! Do you really believe that? Have we gone back to Medieval Times here? I've watched all of Leo's videos, some many, many times. I'm still awaiting a rational response, a legit response, from you! I'm a good guy, I promise. I took the time to lay-out my points very carefully, clearly, and succinctly above, as you and others can read for yourselves. Everything is layed-out in the open on my end, I'm not hiding any balls. There's zero evidence of malevolent intent on my end. There's zero evidence of dogmatic claims or hand-waiving on my end. No demonizing, as you have insinuated, might I add without any foundation at all. That's 3 allegations you've made against me without providing a single reason to support them! Thanks Truth! I am still awaiting a good faith response from somebody on here. Hopefully I will get one! Nobody wants to engage in real argumentation because that's where we start to risk having to change our cherished beliefs. It's fear of having our golden assumptions unsettled, is it not? I lost that fear as a Philosophy major many years ago. Fear of arguing is the breeding-ground of dogma. Instead of following evidence to our conclusions, we settle what we want to believe first, and then try to shore-that-up the best we can with cardboard and chicken-wire. The problem is, you better hope nobody comes along and challenges your precious conclusions, or you may be left up a creek without a paddle. That's scary, I understand! But it's the breeding-ground of dogma too. And -- ironically -- Leo has spent plenty of time castigating religion over the same kind of dogmatic attitude! Am I wrong? Isn't what's good for the goose good for the gander here? Why the double-standard? I'm curious. Please enlighten me.

@electroBeam If there is no judger, then what are you doing in response to my question? Is judgment that mysterious? The mechanics of logic are different from the mechanics of the universe! Says who? You? Wow, that's a judgment there, is it not. See the irony? For a man who doesn't undestand that he judges, that sure is a doozy, is it not! Where's your evidence for that lofty conclusion? I have more evidence that I judge than you have of that claim, I kid you not! Judging is observed mentally, it doesn't come thru any empirical portal. What's so confusing about that? Please enlighten me. Calling my claim "silly" doesn't strengthen your argument at all. It's name-calling. But at least you provided *some* reasons for your conclusions, and I respect that. And what are the mechanics of logic, may I ask? I have a degree in Philosophy and I am entirely baffled by that claim. You seem to judge that proposition to be reasonable to accept pretty confidently, do you not? Do you even accept that you are making that judgment, or are you still confused about what the word judgment means? Let's get real ok?

@Truth You gave no reasons for your conclusions Truth! In other words, your conclusions lack any foundation. I expected more from you. Anybody can say -- is not, is too! That's not an argument. You gotta give reasons for your conclusions. Am I wrong? Otherwise you're dealing dogmatically here. We don't want to be stuck in Medieval Times in our discourse, at least I don't. Maybe others do, in fact, I'm beginning to scratch my head and wonder!