Posts by Kenneth Peterson5

Edward Flores4 said:Basically... this online community isn't real life, and it’ll never be a substitute for the real deal. People who can't wrap their heads around that constantly end up spinning these wild conspiracy theories about "moderator conspiracies" or members targeting their "identity"—usually claiming people are just trying to "assert dominance." Or, in the absolute worst cases—looking at you, Alim—they actually believe everyone else is just intimidated by their infinite wisdom and all-encompassing knowledge..

placidharbor7 said:But honestly? Neither the pigs nor the pearls even matter when you consider the absolute impossibility of someone who isn't awake being able to recognize someone who IS.

briskraven28 said:🤣😍

placidharbor7 said:Once you're truly Awake, there aren't any qualities or labels left—nothing except for whatever you choose to project onto him, The Seeker of Truth.

placidharbor7 said:It’s actually quite simple; you fight a lie with another lie. For a true Seeker, it's enough just to cast aside the debunked lie and embrace the new one.

For a true Master, it’s enough to then nudge that Seeker toward transcending their own thought processes altogether.

AWAKENING doesn't follow rules, even though it does have a certain nature.

briskraven28 said:Look, Kenneth Peterson5, I am no Master—nor am I John—but I find the question intriguing enough to attempt an answer... by posing a question of my own;
how can any individual claiming to be "awakened" identify a lie if they lack the awareness that they are deceiving themselves? By the very "nature" of this supposed "awakening," wouldn't lie and truth be nothing more than non-existent categories?

Kenneth Peterson5, do throw in a smiley face or something—just to prove you’re actually a human being made of flesh and blood.
Ta-ta! 😁

briskraven28 said:Look, Kenneth Peterson5, I am no Master—nor am I John—but I find the question intriguing enough to attempt an answer... by posing a question of my own;
how can any individual claiming to be "awakened" identify a lie if they lack the awareness that they are deceiving themselves? By the very "nature" of this supposed "awakening," wouldn't lie and truth be nothing more than non-existent categories?

Kenneth Peterson5, do throw in a smiley face or something—just to prove you’re actually a human being made of flesh and blood.
Ta-ta! 😁

briskraven28 said:Look, Kenneth Peterson5, I am no Master—nor am I John—but I find the question intriguing enough to attempt an answer... by posing a question of my own;
how can any individual claiming to be "awakened" identify a lie if they lack the awareness that they are deceiving themselves? By the very "nature" of this supposed "awakening," wouldn't lie and truth be nothing more than non-existent categories?

Kenneth Peterson5, do throw in a smiley face or something—just to prove you’re actually a human being made of flesh and blood.
Ta-ta! 😁

Edward Flores4 said:Look, I hate being the one to kill the vibe and derail the drama here, but I didn't say anything "on behalf of anyone." I brought you two (jademarlin26 and silentcyclist3) into this strictly because you were part of the communication chain—basically, you were the ones who asked a perfectly valid question and received an absolutely brain-dead response in return.

Bringing up "advocacy" is just a cheap tactic to dodge a legitimate point; it’s an attempt to shift the spotlight away from the actual issue at hand.

To be honest, that insinuation caught me a little off guard, too—mostly because I'm not actually defending anyone here (which would be what advocacy implies), I'm just calling out the author of those nonsensical statements.

Everything I said was strictly from my own perspective. I'm just fed up with how often this community fails to call out blatant stupidity—like when someone claims that "critical thinking" is just a sign of "immaturity" or straight-up "infantilism."

It was entirely predictable that people making those kinds of claims would feel the need to rationalize my approach. When people refuse to offer an explanation, it's usually because they don't have an argument to begin with. I just feel this nagging obligation to point out the elephant in the room, especially when everyone else is pretending they don't see it.

So much for all that promised heart from the "lawyers" whose services nobody asked for—least of all the people they're supposedly representing. 😁

amberviper said:Have you ever even stopped to consider how animals react when their entire life situation shifts? You haven't!
When we move an animal from one territory to another, they go through that exact same process until they finally acclimate. It’s how they process stress. If an animal has formed an "emotional" bond with a person, they’re going to react to that separation with that kind of intense stress, and it isn't some calculated choice on their part...

Jerry Green59 said:No, you definitely aren't going to make a masterpiece out of this.

The warning is pretty straightforward: don't take advice at face value—especially when it's based on a single data point or some incredibly thin information.

Lawrence Robinson5 said:But wait, isn't that a bit off? I mean, weren't there actual pilots flying those planes? Who’s really pulling the strings then—God? Fate? Some cosmic force? 😁

To me, this sounds like the mindset of someone who feels small—someone who believes they aren't even in the driver's seat of their own life because everyone else is calling the shots.
But here’s the thing: what if "average people" didn't exist? What if there were just three geniuses left on the entire planet? How would anyone even know they were special? And who exactly would they be working for?
We really shouldn't sleep on the power of the average person. Every single opinion we hold exists because it was shaped in response to someone else's perspective—so when you look at it that way, there isn't really a difference in value between a genius and an ordinary guy.

mistyfox812 said:I think there are two big things at play here (I’ll call them dialectical and phenomenological, just for the sake of argument).

The first part is basically practicing opposites. Once I’ve sat with my own opinion on something, I try to start from the assumption that everything is actually the exact opposite of what I think—just to see if that counter-argument actually holds water.
Most of the time, it does. 😁
(Actually, 😉 Borges used to be super clever and had a blast with this kind of thing—looking at stuff from the weirdest possible angles in his stories.
)

But man, that can lead you straight into total relativism. And total relativism usually just turns into this lazy sophistry where people decide "well, it's whatever I want it to be."

Think about it: it gives you this sense of freedom in your thinking, being unattached to your own biases (which feels great), but at the same time, it makes you unattached to the truth (which leads to that empty "anything goes" mindset).

The second part—the thing that should act as an anchor to steady all that wild, "could-be-anything" relativistic freedom—is basically hitting the pause button on your thoughts. It’s about observing without overthinking and just acknowledging reality for what it is. What is, is. There’s no "choice" involved; it just is how it is. 🙂 Truth binds us together, so yeah, truth provides that connection.

You need both of these moments to actually move forward. It’s like walking: you’ve gotta have one foot planted firmly on the ground while the other one stays free to take that next step.

🤷