Joseph Maynor

Member
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    15,039

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Joseph Maynor

  4. Posted · Edited by Joseph Maynor

    @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?

  6. Posted · Edited by Joseph Maynor

    @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.  

  8. Posted · Edited by Joseph Maynor

    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.  

  9. Posted · Edited by Joseph Maynor

    @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?  

  10. Posted · Edited by Joseph Maynor

    @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!

  11. Posted · Edited by Joseph Maynor

    @Leo Gura Zen-stick slap?  What am I, an ornery child Leo?  One who writes really well for his age, perhaps haha.  I beg your pardon Leo!  That's not an argument nor is it persuasive.  That's ok.  You seem to have no problem advancing arguments when they serve your lofty claims and conclusions.  Sounds like something that a religious person would say when their cherished beliefs are challenged.  It's in the book!  Go read the book!  See, right there, it says in the book!  God created the Earth 4000 years ago, see, the book!  Well sir, we have evidence that the Earth is billions of years old.  Zen-stick slap!  Ok, I guess that's like the Chan master's punch in the face, I get it.  Oy vey, the irony! Ok Leo, maybe I should take your word for it then. The master has spoken, I stand corrected now!  Zen-stick slap?  Gimme a break!  How arrogant and dogmatic a response from you!  I thought you were supposed to be "Mr. Openminded"!  I would have expected such a response from a religious  fanatic, not the one Leo Gura.  Go read yer bible sonny!  Well, I've done that daddy, and . . . Well, then GO read it again!  Yes sir, because you says so, I'z will.  Guud!  I hope you welcome diverse views on this forum Leo besides your own.  We don't all swallow-down your epistemology like tablets from Moses.  I quite disagree with your views on epistemology in fact, if you care to ever have them challenged.  Maybe you don't!  If that's the case, I'll deal with other issues on here.  After all, this is YOUR forum, and I respect that.  

  14. Posted · Edited by Joseph Maynor

    @Prabhaker Doesn't it make sense to draw a distinction between the individual ego and the social ego?  Seems like you are referring to the social ego.  My current understanding is that the social ego is societal in nature, and everything else is the individual ego.  I realize these distinctions may be more or less problematic (or more or less useful depending on which lens you are looking thru for which purpose).  I'm sort of a newbie with all this stuff, but not really too.  Please correct my thinking if you see it differently.

  15. Posted · Edited by Joseph Maynor

    (1) For example, yes your body changes as you age, but not by much.  If I cut one of your fingers off, it will stay cut-off for the rest of your life.  And yes your personality changes, but not by much.  And your ideas change, but many do not.  And your memories, even those seem to have a certain quasi-fixed pattern to them, do they not?  Doesn't there seem to be a core of you-ness there even if we get rid of the idea that you are an unchanging-thing?  

    (2) And what about the judger?  Doesn't that seem to be the same for you over time?  And what assesses and determines what you are in a moment?  A judger, a you.  Aha!  The elephant in the room.  And what is considering non-duality and the reasonableness of that theory?  A judger.  Oops, again, a you!  You can't evade the judger.  It's always there, unless you are asleep or dead.  Of course, you can turn the judger off in a moment, you know that, but you can't keep it turned-off forever.  Eventually you have to arrive at conclusions, you have to determine the reasonableness of propositions.  That's part of your life too, is it not?

    Just because you are not an unchanging-thing, do we need to throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater and assume there is no you-ness to you at all?  And what is coming to that conclusion?  You!  Damn!  See how I did that!  You see, I'm not engaging in mere logic-chopping here.  

    You are determining/judging that there is no you!  Do you see the contradiction here?  Your judgment that there is no you is not determined by empirical observation or even awareness alone.  There is a judgment, a deliberative act, on a thought in a moment: the thought that you do not exist.  And that implies a something that is judging, some form of you-ness.  And judgment is an act in a moment.  You deliberate and then determine whether a proposition is reasonable to accept or not.  Am I wrong?  What is doing that?  Is this some kind of illusion?  Ok, well, what is arriving at the conclusion that that proposition -- that the judger and/or judgment is an illusion -- is reasonable to accept?  Aha!  Do you see the slippery slope here?  Something is arriving at that conclusion too.  Judgment is taking place even there, is it not?  Even when we consider the proposition that "everything is Maya", a judgment is taking place -- an act of deliberation and judgment is being arrived at by something.

    This goes back to Descartes.  Judgment is happening in a moment, therefore something is judging in that moment.  In the moment of judgment, something is judging, no?  Think about it.  Descartes was a wise dude.

    (3) Just because you are not an unchanging-thing, doesn't imply there is no you.  That would commit the false-choice fallacy.  You could be something other than a non-changing thing.  Consider that possibility.  And you would have to ultimately make a judgment upon which one of these theories you believe (or have faith in believing) you are!  Something is judging, and that doesn't come in via any empirical portal.  Judgment is an act.  A deliberative act.  If you advance a proposition, you are asking something to consider it and ultimately judge it!

    (4) Now, let's say you retort -- Joseph, you're stuck in the rationalist paradigm dude!  Ok, so you're asking something to judge that proposition now.  Let's define the proposition P = Joseph is stuck in the rationalist paradigm.  So, you're asking something  to deliberate on P and come to a conclusion whether or not P is reasonable to accept.  See that?  You're petitioning that a conclusion be drawn, a judgment be made, an action be taken.  What takes that action in a moment?   This is something above and beyond mere awareness (including but not limited to empirical awareness).  Am I wrong?

    (5) Finally, what is deliberating about and judging my question here?  Is such an act taking place in your awareness?  An act of deliberation or judging?  Is this phenomenon mere awareness of a happening, like you are merely some kind of a fly-on-the-wall merely observing judging taking place?  Ok, well, what is arriving at that conclusion then?  See!

  16. Posted

    I've watched Leo's video on Law of Attraction as well.  

    I am very practical minded and follow procedures or rules very well.

    Can somebody give me a procedure for practicing law of attraction?  

    Like, let's assume I am going to be sitting down with pen in hand for 20 minutes per day to do law of attraction work, what would you advise me to do?

    I'm excited to hear your responses!  I want to start integrating in this practice because it "sounds good" although time will tell for me whether it works or not.  I'm willing to give it a college try.

  18. Posted · Edited by Joseph Maynor

    @Nahm I'm not sure.  I can't believe Leo's concept of enlightenment until I experience it for myself though.  But I have had an ego-death experience where I lost the concept of myself as a thing.  And I do practice being in nothingness and watching my input portals (thoughts and senses).  But I have not experienced the crack that Leo talks about where you lose your sense of self entirely.  And I'd be interested in hearing from anybody on here who has actually achieved Leo's sense of enlightenment fully.

  22. Posted · Edited by Joseph Maynor

    @Nahm I'm definitely not a fan of nonduality.  I don't accept duality either or the idea that one or the other has to be true (this is an example of a false choice fallacy).  But I have had an ego-death experience in the sense that I no longer cling to a notion and feeling of myself as a thing, and I do practice being in nothingness, meditation, and watching/monitoring my thoughts.  I do not believe all is one.  And I don't think Leo's concept of enlightenment is possible.  You can't lose your self entirely.  That's a fiction.  Maybe 85%, but not entirely.  And I would never believe that or espouse that unless I experienced it directly and firsthand myself first.  Otherwise it's a pipe-dream at worst and hypothesis at best.  And I don't mistake hypotheses for truths.  Until I experience the crack for myself, as Leo has referred to it as, I will continue to believe that Leo's  concept of enlightenment is a fiction.  Nobody else's testimony is really persuasive to me because I can't really climb into their mind and verify it for myself.  But I still keep an open mind and welcome testimony, naturally.  I never stop listening.  To believe it, I must first see it for myself firsthand, especially with something as radical as Leo's concept of enlightenment.  

  25. Posted · Edited by Joseph Maynor

    @Steph1988 I'm self employed.  Yeah, it's just an ideal.  I practice it at a percentage accuracy everyday.  I'm getting it locked in more and more each day.  Sometimes I do take a day off here and there.  I've pieced it together over time like building modules and then working them together so it's hard for me to say how long I've been doing it.  It was a gradual optimization process for me.  I started doing it this way in time blocks a couple of years ago when I got out of the paradigm of having everything scheduled down to the minute.