For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
You spent months trying to prevent your thread from disappearing altogether by posting passive-aggressive little bumps. Now Fairy and Phil7878786 are showing interest, instead of engaging them you just whine at them.
You really are a huge cretin. Seeds was on your side there and he was accusing Philpot98989898 of Dunning-Kruger. There's something seriously wrong with your reading and comprehension skills.peacegirl wrote: ↑Thu Dec 04, 2025 2:22 pmThus is not the Dunbung-Kruger effect which is an easy cop out. This author knew what he was talking about but if you are already sure he didn’t, how in the world can his discovery be made known if this group is supposed to be the cream of the crop? seeds wrote: ↑Thu Dec 04, 2025 12:35 pmUh-oh, peacegirl, now you've done it,...peacegirl wrote: ↑Thu Dec 04, 2025 11:56 am
WTF?!! This is not doctrine. The use of grammar is subjective as far as punctuation and syntax. As long as what is being expressed is understood, that is all that is necessary for clear communication from one individual to another. Yes, there are nuances in language depending on context but the human race has done pretty well in making their intentions through their words known. No, it’s not the book that’s bullshit. It’s you coming off that your garble of bullshit makes any sense.
...the forum's shining exemplar of the Dunning-Kruger Effect (of which there are many on this site) is going to give you a piece of his mind.
Just try to remember the old adage...
"...Never mud-wrestle with a pig. You'll both get dirty, but the pig will enjoy it!..."
_______
What does "consciousness awareness" even mean in relation to this discovery? You're just guessing.Fairy wrote: ↑Thu Dec 04, 2025 2:22 pmMaybe it’s all just different states of consciousness awareness and perspectives it explores.
You're out the door, Fairy. ! I can't talk to someone who calls me a tyrant. For what? Because you can't deal with the fact that you don't know what this book is about? You don't even have a clue.
Fiary and this Phil guy? They weren't curious at all. They are on the attack. I did not ask you to read my bumps, okay? Fairy called me a tyrant. No, I don't play these games of aggression and one-upmanship. It's a power grab to keep one's power in the group. It's a built-in structure in these types of forums that makes it hard to penetrate. I do understand why people are so skeptical. Most people who make extraordinary claims are proven wrong. But that doesn't make him wrong. You have to explore every claim carefully, not make assumptions, which you have done based on flimsy reasons at best! Unfortunately, you have made up your mind, so there's no point in talking to you. You'll just refer back to tautologies that you feel are useless and that he used those three words synonymously that you disliked, throwing out his whole book on that basis alone. Very myopic.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Dec 04, 2025 2:24 pmYou spent months trying to prevent your thread from disappearing altogether by posting passive-aggressive little bumps. Now Fairy and Phil7878786 are showing interest, instead of engaging them you just whine at them.
You never learned to accept that you have any role in your own failures. Don't bother replying to this, it isn't the beginning of a new conversation.
This discovery is in relation to awareness. Discovery is a transient appearance of awareness. Here today, gone tomorrow.
Emptiness? It is far from emptiness. You are right that if something has been discovered, it must have already first existed. AND IT DID, but we didn't know how to recognize its existence to be able to use it for our benefit.Fairy wrote: ↑Thu Dec 04, 2025 4:23 pmThis discovery is in relation to awareness. Discovery is a transient appearance of awareness. Here today, gone tomorrow.
If something has been discovered, it must have already first existed, nothing belongs to noone.
You’re simply trying to sell emptiness to emptiness. More commonly known as selling ice to an Eskimo.
It wasn’t personal, tyranny is the energy of this entire thread, it’s disgusting, but if the costume fits, then wear it. It’s your role you’re playing in your drama you’re creating for yourself, the one you deny playing.peacegirl wrote: ↑Thu Dec 04, 2025 4:21 pmFiary and this Phil guy? They weren't curious at all. They are on the attack. I did not ask you to read my bumps, okay? Fairy called me a tyrant. No, I don't play these games of aggression and one-upmanship. It's a power grab to keep one's power in the group. It's a built-in structure in these types of forums that makes it hard to penetrate. I do understand why people are so skeptical. Most people who make extraordinary claims are proven wrong. But that doesn't make him wrong. You have to explore every claim carefully, not make assumptions, which you have done based on flimsy reasons.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Dec 04, 2025 2:24 pmYou spent months trying to prevent your thread from disappearing altogether by posting passive-aggressive little bumps. Now Fairy and Phil7878786 are showing interest, instead of engaging them you just whine at them.
You never learned to accept that you have any role in your own failures. Don't bother replying to this, it isn't the beginning of a new conversation.
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with You. You don’t exist. Existence is You.peacegirl wrote: ↑Thu Dec 04, 2025 4:29 pmEmptiness? It is far from emptiness. You are right that if something has been discovered, it must have already first existed. AND IT DID, but we didn't know how to recognize its existence to be able to use it for our benefit.Fairy wrote: ↑Thu Dec 04, 2025 4:23 pmThis discovery is in relation to awareness. Discovery is a transient appearance of awareness. Here today, gone tomorrow.
If something has been discovered, it must have already first existed, nothing belongs to noone.
You’re simply trying to sell emptiness to emptiness. More commonly known as selling ice to an Eskimo.
“I love you without KNOWING how, or when or from where. I love you simply without problems or pride: I love you in this way because I do not KNOW any other way of loving but this, in which there is no I or You so intimate that your hand upon my chest is my hand, so intimate that when I fall asleep your eyes close”
Your comment is an abstraction and wholly unrelated to anything I've tried to share. I never said anything was wrong with me or anyone else. Why change topics?Fairy wrote: ↑Thu Dec 04, 2025 4:37 pmThere’s absolutely nothing wrong with You. You don’t exist. Existence is You.peacegirl wrote: ↑Thu Dec 04, 2025 4:29 pmEmptiness? It is far from emptiness. You are right that if something has been discovered, it must have already first existed. AND IT DID, but we didn't know how to recognize its existence to be able to use it for our benefit.Fairy wrote: ↑Thu Dec 04, 2025 4:23 pm
This discovery is in relation to awareness. Discovery is a transient appearance of awareness. Here today, gone tomorrow.
If something has been discovered, it must have already first existed, nothing belongs to noone.
You’re simply trying to sell emptiness to emptiness. More commonly known as selling ice to an Eskimo.
Fairy wrote: ↑Thu Dec 04, 2025 4:49 pm“I love you without KNOWING how, or when or from where. I love you simply without problems or pride: I love you in this way because I do not KNOW any other way of loving but this, in which there is no I or You so intimate that your hand upon my chest is my hand, so intimate that when I fall asleep your eyes close”
Peacegirl: It sounds like the Course in Miracles. I do understand that we are ONE when seen in total perspective, but this alone has not stopped the killing, the maiming, and the misery that we find ourselves in.
Fiary: The story is never separated from the book.
Many authors appear, but there’s only ONE reader reading stories no one ever writ.
Peacegirl: I'm not sure what you mean by "there's only one reader." Why are you being so arcane? Just say you're not interested in reading the book, and that's okay with me.
Oh, but it was personal or you wouldn't have used that referent. Why the game playing, Fairy? You can make up your own story about me, but the costume doesn't fit.Fairy wrote: ↑Thu Dec 04, 2025 4:32 pmIt wasn’t personal, tyranny is the energy of this entire thread, it’s disgusting, but if the costume fits, then wear it. It’s your role you’re playing in your drama you’re creating for yourself, the one you deny playing.peacegirl wrote: ↑Thu Dec 04, 2025 4:21 pmFiary and this Phil guy? They weren't curious at all. They are on the attack. I did not ask you to read my bumps, okay? Fairy called me a tyrant. No, I don't play these games of aggression and one-upmanship. It's a power grab to keep one's power in the group. It's a built-in structure in these types of forums that makes it hard to penetrate. I do understand why people are so skeptical. Most people who make extraordinary claims are proven wrong. But that doesn't make him wrong. You have to explore every claim carefully, not make assumptions, which you have done based on flimsy reasons.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Dec 04, 2025 2:24 pm
You spent months trying to prevent your thread from disappearing altogether by posting passive-aggressive little bumps. Now Fairy and Phil7878786 are showing interest, instead of engaging them you just whine at them.
You never learned to accept that you have any role in your own failures. Don't bother replying to this, it isn't the beginning of a new conversation.
You’re not listening. You’re assuming! You have no understanding of this discovery so stop pretending!