Joseph Maynor

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

Last year I gave all my books away. I had a library that consisted of hundreds (if not a thousand) philosophy, science, and art books. I gave them all way. I used to be swimming in books; but now it's hard to find a single book around me. Books are great when you're in the filling your cup stage of Personal Development. But when you hit your emptying your cup stage of Enlightenment, books are a serious distraction. But remember, you gotta fill your cup before you empty your, that's the paradox that is personal development. So, depending on where you are on the Path, some of you should be devouring books and some of you should be doing something else. We're not all at the same stage in our Personal Development. Personal Development is a circle, you have the filling of the cup stage and the emptying of the cup stage. You gotta know where you are at in that process. It's like seeing one of those "you are here" signs in a park that lets you know where you're at. You need to find that for own personal development. Where are you now?

Here's the thing: your entire life is personal development. The only difference between those of us who study and practice personal development and the rest of the people running around, is we take 100% responsibility for our personal development. We push ourselves to grow. Not everybody does that. So, whatever reason you have for pushing yourself to grow is less important than the fact that you're the kind of person that pushes himself/herself to grow. So, people vary in the degree to which they push themselves to grow. There's a spectrum on that issue. People that are masters at personal development have years under their belts of pushing themselves to grow. I've basically been pushing myself to grow since my mid-teens. In my 20's, I was pushing myself to grow. In my 30's, I was pushing myself to grow. Now I'm 40, and still pushing myself to grow. So, that pushing yourself to grow is really the golden egg in the field of Personal Development. You either have that or you don't. It's like love for Truth in that sense, you either have that or you don't. For Enlightenment, love of the literal truth is the golden egg.

I would say yes and no. I spent basically my 20's studying Science and my 20's and 30's studying Philosophy. I wouldn't have the conceptual understanding I do today had I not done that. Sure, I may have become Enlightened, but would it be Enlightened Stage Coral? Probably not. So, your education matters in Personal Development. You gotta have quite a conceptual understanding to make it to Stage Yellow and above. Now, for Enlightenment, conceptual understanding is useful in that it can help you empty your cup of ideas because you know fully what ideas are. Nothing is more sad than someone parading around a bunch of ideas in Enlightenment Work and not even realizing it. Because of the fact that I've spent so much of my life working on my conceptual understanding, I have a keen sense of what Thoughts are and what they aren't -- and this helps me, paradoxically, empty my cup for Enlightened Stage Coral Work: where the focus is on seeing and emptying your cup of the illusions of Thought and Experience.

Seeing that Maya is an illusion is not merely based on Thought. This is what Stage Turquoise doesn't understand. Seeing and Thinking are two different things. You can come to see through an illusion. That doesn't have anything to do with Thinking or ideas.

George Carlin is speaking in half-truths which is why he's doing comedy and not real truth telling. Interpreting George Carlin as telling the unbridled truth is a mistake. The unbridled truth is not funny, it's scary. Everything is bullshit is a half-truth at best.

What if there is no human mind? The idea that there's a deceptive mind is bullshit. Leo's too irritated in his video. There's no need to be irritated at bullshit. See, that irritation speaks volumes. In fact, seeing through Maya just is seeing through the deepest kind of bullshit. But -- clinging to Maya being a different way than it is actually is clinging to a Thought fantasy. This is why a lot of people talk about problems with 'shoulding' in Enlightenment Work. The Egoic self has preferences about Maya and wants Maya to be a certain way and not be another way. But that's just clinging to Thought about Maya rather than letting Maya just be the illusion that it is.

Maya is full of shit. But that’s not a bad thing, it’s just the way things are. If you’re irritated at Maya being full of shit, you’re still clinging to Maya being different than it actually is. That’s clinging to a Thought about Maya being somehow bad for wrong for being an illusion. See the subtle moral play? If you’re irritated at Maya being an illusion, you’re not accepting what is.

Is what works synonymous with what’s true? Is what works synonymous with what’s real? Can Thought replace seeing what’s actually there? Can Thought replace seeing what’s not actually there? What’s illusory?

It would be your science ‘in here’ rather than science as objectively understood ‘out there’. I’ve written about this extensively in my Journals. Here’s one example from my Journal Vol. 7: (Keep in mind that when I wrote this I was coming from a Stage Turquoise perspective. My views on this today are a bit different. For example, today I think you can know being through seeing, which is different than knowing being through Thinking. So, "need to know being" isn't really a vice after all like I once thought it was.) HOW CAN ENLIGHTENMENT HELP TIER-ONE SCIENCE? --LEMME REVIEW THE ‘FRAMEWORK OF TIER-TWO SCIENCE’ Tier-One Science goes like ham, eggs, and cheese with Tier-One Epistemology and Tier-One Metaphysics. Enlightenment is hostile to Tier-One Philosophy because Tier-One Philosophy defines Truth in terms of [Conceptually] True, Justified, Beliefs about Reality. Tier-One Metaphysics tells us about Reality by providing us with [Conceptually] True, Justified, Beliefs about Reality. Tier-One Philosophy assumes the 'Paradigm of Paradigms or No paradigms'. Enlightenment is about the transcendence of all Paradigms. So, in that sense, Enlightenment is hostile to Tier-One Philosophy. That's why I had to create and develop the Framework for Tier-Two Conceptual Understanding -- I needed a conceptual system in my Conceptual Understanding that Enlightenment is not hostile to. Enlightenment is hostile to the Paradigm of Tier-One Conceptual Understanding: including Tier-One Science, Tier-One Philosophy, Tier-One Epistemology, Tier-One Metaphysics. Tier-One Science is actually based in Pragmatism. The problem is that Tier-One Science also wants to have a stranglehold on 'Knowledge' and to tell us what's 'True'. Tier-One Science is a set of useful Frameworks masquerading as Conceptual Truths. And I think Tier-One Science will always function this way, as a byproduct of business, university, and government money and as a career for researchers that are financed by that money. Tier-One Science will always be an institution of pragmatic results masquerading as Truths. So, I don't really think Enlightenment is gonna have much of an effect on Tier-One Science directly -- although it will indirectly because a new Framework will have to emerge that doesn't presuppose 'need to know BE-ing'. I think eventually what will happen is that Tier-One Science will become much more interested in useful Frameworks rather than true Paradigms. This will happen indirectly by Enlightenment -- because Enlightenment will prefer Tier-Two Conceptual Understanding -- and the Paradigm of Conceptual Truth will eventually be forced to be seen as unsustainable -- it will die on the vine. This will drag down the Paradigm of Tier-One Conceptual Understanding as a whole in the long-term, as it's unsustainable because of it's implicit and explicit 'Need to know BE-ing'. Basically, Tier-One Science will become more focused on what works than what's true -- and it won't lay claims to Conceptual Truth as much -- it will transition from true Paradigms to useful Frameworks. So, what's Tier-Two Science? It's just a label I made up for Tier-Two Conceptual Understanding. I think it's a useful label because it tracks Tier-One Science and lets us see the difference between the Paradigm of Tier-One Conceptual Understanding and the Framework of Tier-Two Conceptual Understanding. Lemme lay out the Tier-Two Framework now: Each Perspective has a Conceptual Understanding containing unique conceptual systems -- and those unique Conceptual Understandings corresponding to Perspectives are Complex Adaptive Systems with Egos of their own. So, each Perspective has a unique Conceptual Understanding that has an Ego of its own. And those Conceptual Understandings are each uniquely evolved systems. No two Conceptual Understandings, taken as a whole, are equal -- that would be impossible. So, while Tier-One Science is concerned with knowing BE-ing'out there', as well as pragmatic results -- Tier-Two Science is only focused on my more or less useful conceptual systems 'in here'. Nothing means squat unless it means something to me at Tier-Two Conceptual Understanding. This is because I'm no longer looking 'out there' for Truth. I've become aware of my own unique Conceptual Understanding and the unique Conceptual Understanding of Other Perspectives. I'm not looking for Conceptual Truth about BE-ing at Tier-Two Conceptual Understanding. That's why I say, Tier-Two Science is me picking apples from the trees of Tier-One Science, but then baking them into my own Tier-Two Science pies. Tier-Two Science is concerned 'in here' with my Science, my Knowledge, my Useful Conceptual Systems -- it's not concerned with finding [Conceptually True], Justified, Beliefs about 'Reality'. That Paradigm of Tier-One Conceptual Understanding dies on the vine when you hit Enlightened Stage Turquoise

I had my second Dark Night of the Soul when I realized that all Thought and Experience has nothing behind the scenes. I also realized that I exist all alone and basically lose myself in Ego the same way some couch potato loses themselves in TV, as a way to distract myself away from reality, from what is true. Egos want Enlightenment until they realize Enlightenment is what ultimately takes Ego away from you. And this is more than the Egoic self -- Ego is larger than the Egoic self. Ego also includes external reality and other beings. Yeah, Ego dies in Enlightenment Work. That's the elephant in the room that no Spiritual Ego wants to accept. And when your Ego dies as a Spiritual Ego, it is a big wham-o. It's like grieving the death of all Thought and Experience. But in that death comes awareness of what actually exists, which is the true Self. When Maya dies and the true Self is all that's left, that's when you'll discover what God is. And that will be a cognizance of a new life, a different life than you thought you had before. When one door closes another door opens.

There's some truth to this. Lemme support this with a reason so I don't make just a conclusory statement myself. Reason: It's Egoic selves that need therapy. It's Egoic selves that want to manipulate reality to be to their liking. And it's Egoic selves that get frustrated when reality is not to their liking.

What makes you different from all other people? Instead on focusing on the external issue of the difference between "this and that", you should focus on the internal issue of the different between "me and that". You're looking externally for an answer that can only be found internally.