Aka consent (want versus not want) to the suggested information by another. The versus represents the ad-vers-ary aka reasoning about suggested information (fiction); while ignoring perceivable inspiration (reality).
You don’t think reasoning is innate, and comes from within? I would refer to reasoning as the (attempted, and usually failed) logical process to deduce/understand.
I agree that it is largely/heavily influenced by the words of others, many not engaging in reasoning (falsehood, instead), however surely some of them are?!
Can no one reason at all? Is reasoning not involved in piercing the veil of what we observe in perceivable reality. Much of what we perceive/see is not what is, and reasoning/deduction is required to understand what is happening further - right?
You don’t think reasoning is innate, and comes from within?
a) everything comes "through" within; hence everything is being impressed (perception); compressed (comprehension) and then, depending on choice, expressed (growth) or repressed (loss).
b) IN'NATE, adjective [Latin innatus, from innascor; in and nascor, to be born.]...to be (perceiving) implies out of (perceivable); hence being form (life) out of flow (inception towards death).
c) REASON, noun (Greek; to say or speak, whence rhetoric) implies reaction by choice to enacted balance (need/want).
I would refer to reasoning as the (attempted, and usually failed) logical process to deduce/understand.
a) living implies being processed within dying; hence representing the temporary resistance to ongoing velocity.
b) life as the temporary within the ongoing can only "attempt", hence the struggle to growth within loss.
c) understanding represents "standing under" suggested information; hence consenting to want or not want what others are suggesting; while ignoring the need to adapt to perceivable inspiration.
d) to deduce (draw from) implies growing comprehension (compressed within) out of perceivable (impressed upon). The ongoing flow (inception towards death) represents the only source for recharge for the temporary form (life) within.
I agree that it is largely/heavily influenced by the words of others, many not engaging in reasoning (falsehood, instead), however surely some of them are?!
a) agreement vs disagreement; true vs false; good vs bad; believing vs not believing; capitalism vs communism; pro-life vs pro-choice; coke vs pepsi etc. all represent the rebranding of wanting vs not wanting the suggested information by others.
b) choice can only exist at the center of balance; hence as responding form within the momentum (balance) of enacting flow. That momentum represents the ever changing moment one has to adapt to.
c) choice at the center of perceivable balance (need/want) is tempted to ignore this for the suggested imbalances (want vs not want) from others.
d) underneath every suggestion operates choice (consent) to choice (suggestion) contract law aka the inversion of perceivable balance (action) to choice (reaction) natural law.
e) all words are shaped and suggested by choice to choice. Nature does not offer suggested information; it moves everything; which the senses within perceive as inspiration for adaptation. Therefore; one perceives sound before suggested word.
f) thinking in words represents misusing memory (mind) to accumulate suggested information; which then constantly tempts one to remember aka to respond to memory filled with fiction instead of to perceivable reality. If you look at your child and remember his birth; then you ignore that which is (your child) for that which was (memory of his birth). Now reconsider what others could tempt you to ignore with nonstop suggested information?
g) take breathing; thirst and hunger as the perceivable foundation of adaptation. What would you reason (want vs not want) about? Does it matter if you want or not want to breath? Are you corrupting your comprehension by keep ignoring the need to breathe? How easy is it to tempt one to reason about wanting vs not wanting suggested "taste"; while ignoring perceivable "hunger"? Now we suddenly have suggested convenience stores; yet a majority in ignorance about how to grow food and just like that an inconvenience store can utilize supply chain issues to weaponize hunger for all those who want convenience.
Can no one reason at all?
Everyone has the free will of choice to ignore perceivable (need) for suggested (want) and falling for the temptation of the latter causes the imbalance; the conflict; the reasoning (want vs not want). There's no restriction upon choice unless consented to the suggested choices of others, and so the host weakness of ignoring perceivable (inspiration) tempted the parasitic response of suggestion (information) as weaponized temptation.
Being "free" will of choice at the center of "dom"inating balance represents free-dom. All restriction upon freedom are caused by choosing want (suggested) over need (perceivable).
Living represents the struggle to resist the temptation of dying...for that one requires response-ability (choice).
Is reasoning not involved in piercing the veil of what we observe in perceivable reality?
a) the consequences of every reaction represent both inspiration and temptation to ones choice. Without others fighting each other within the hamster-wheel of reason; I would've had an even harder time to comprehend how a 3rd party could use suggestion to cause division (reason) among the consenting majority.
b) this isn't about reasoning good or bad (which in itself represents reasoning about reasoning); but about ones own growth of comprehension; growth of potential; growth of resistance; growth of self discernment; growth of efficiency as choice and so on.
c) the veil represents ones lack of comprehending all perceivable, and ignorance (choice of want over need) tempts more ignorance; hence further corrupting comprehension. Each one at the center of all represents an expressing ecosystem; yet that expression requires effort (struggle to grow within loss).
d) from a different perspective...the more one adapts to being moved; the more one comprehends about motion. Every word suggested represents an affixed meaning (information); tempting us to ignore the moving meaning (inspiration).
Much of what we perceive/see is not what is, and reasoning/deduction is required to understand what is happening further - right?
a) your reasoning about right (want) vs wrong (not want) is what causes you to ignore "everything" perceivable for suggested "nothing". As one thing within every thing; one cannot perceive no thing. Yes (want) vs no (not want) represents yet another rebranded conflict of reason; which ignores perceivable change (need).
b) all that is happening can only happen within momentum aka within the ever changing moment. Not suggested time (past; present and future); but perceivable time (tick; tick; tick...) aka ongoing momentum.
c) try utilizing need over want; perceivable inspiration over suggested information and implication (if/then) over reason (want vs not want) to stay clear of most deception; yet this requires frequency of choice; hence repeated adaptation to inspiration as to grow your comprehension thereof.
Reading; agreeing and understanding does not represent the growth of comprehension. You need to compress the impressed for expression; which you can also help teach yourself with breathing (Latin spiro; spirit; hence in-spirit-ation). Allow the impressing in by filling your chest to capacity; then compress it within your lungs; then express it all. Focus on the struggle of compressing; which will slowly grow your lung capacity and your comprehension (compression).
That being said...there are no suggested guides for self discernment. It has to be by yourself. If this helps you to discern; then because you chose to use it as inspiration; not because whatever I wrote; which for you represents suggested temptation.
SA'TAN, noun [Heb. an adversary]. Between inception and death...what represents the adversary to reality?
A: Belief
Aka consent (want versus not want) to the suggested information by another. The versus represents the ad-vers-ary aka reasoning about suggested information (fiction); while ignoring perceivable inspiration (reality).
You don’t think reasoning is innate, and comes from within? I would refer to reasoning as the (attempted, and usually failed) logical process to deduce/understand.
I agree that it is largely/heavily influenced by the words of others, many not engaging in reasoning (falsehood, instead), however surely some of them are?!
Can no one reason at all? Is reasoning not involved in piercing the veil of what we observe in perceivable reality. Much of what we perceive/see is not what is, and reasoning/deduction is required to understand what is happening further - right?
Awesome point about ad-vers-ary though...
a) everything comes "through" within; hence everything is being impressed (perception); compressed (comprehension) and then, depending on choice, expressed (growth) or repressed (loss).
b) IN'NATE, adjective [Latin innatus, from innascor; in and nascor, to be born.]...to be (perceiving) implies out of (perceivable); hence being form (life) out of flow (inception towards death).
c) REASON, noun (Greek; to say or speak, whence rhetoric) implies reaction by choice to enacted balance (need/want).
a) living implies being processed within dying; hence representing the temporary resistance to ongoing velocity.
b) life as the temporary within the ongoing can only "attempt", hence the struggle to growth within loss.
c) understanding represents "standing under" suggested information; hence consenting to want or not want what others are suggesting; while ignoring the need to adapt to perceivable inspiration.
d) to deduce (draw from) implies growing comprehension (compressed within) out of perceivable (impressed upon). The ongoing flow (inception towards death) represents the only source for recharge for the temporary form (life) within.
a) agreement vs disagreement; true vs false; good vs bad; believing vs not believing; capitalism vs communism; pro-life vs pro-choice; coke vs pepsi etc. all represent the rebranding of wanting vs not wanting the suggested information by others.
b) choice can only exist at the center of balance; hence as responding form within the momentum (balance) of enacting flow. That momentum represents the ever changing moment one has to adapt to.
c) choice at the center of perceivable balance (need/want) is tempted to ignore this for the suggested imbalances (want vs not want) from others.
d) underneath every suggestion operates choice (consent) to choice (suggestion) contract law aka the inversion of perceivable balance (action) to choice (reaction) natural law.
e) all words are shaped and suggested by choice to choice. Nature does not offer suggested information; it moves everything; which the senses within perceive as inspiration for adaptation. Therefore; one perceives sound before suggested word.
f) thinking in words represents misusing memory (mind) to accumulate suggested information; which then constantly tempts one to remember aka to respond to memory filled with fiction instead of to perceivable reality. If you look at your child and remember his birth; then you ignore that which is (your child) for that which was (memory of his birth). Now reconsider what others could tempt you to ignore with nonstop suggested information?
g) take breathing; thirst and hunger as the perceivable foundation of adaptation. What would you reason (want vs not want) about? Does it matter if you want or not want to breath? Are you corrupting your comprehension by keep ignoring the need to breathe? How easy is it to tempt one to reason about wanting vs not wanting suggested "taste"; while ignoring perceivable "hunger"? Now we suddenly have suggested convenience stores; yet a majority in ignorance about how to grow food and just like that an inconvenience store can utilize supply chain issues to weaponize hunger for all those who want convenience.
Everyone has the free will of choice to ignore perceivable (need) for suggested (want) and falling for the temptation of the latter causes the imbalance; the conflict; the reasoning (want vs not want). There's no restriction upon choice unless consented to the suggested choices of others, and so the host weakness of ignoring perceivable (inspiration) tempted the parasitic response of suggestion (information) as weaponized temptation.
Being "free" will of choice at the center of "dom"inating balance represents free-dom. All restriction upon freedom are caused by choosing want (suggested) over need (perceivable).
Living represents the struggle to resist the temptation of dying...for that one requires response-ability (choice).
a) the consequences of every reaction represent both inspiration and temptation to ones choice. Without others fighting each other within the hamster-wheel of reason; I would've had an even harder time to comprehend how a 3rd party could use suggestion to cause division (reason) among the consenting majority.
b) this isn't about reasoning good or bad (which in itself represents reasoning about reasoning); but about ones own growth of comprehension; growth of potential; growth of resistance; growth of self discernment; growth of efficiency as choice and so on.
c) the veil represents ones lack of comprehending all perceivable, and ignorance (choice of want over need) tempts more ignorance; hence further corrupting comprehension. Each one at the center of all represents an expressing ecosystem; yet that expression requires effort (struggle to grow within loss).
d) from a different perspective...the more one adapts to being moved; the more one comprehends about motion. Every word suggested represents an affixed meaning (information); tempting us to ignore the moving meaning (inspiration).
a) your reasoning about right (want) vs wrong (not want) is what causes you to ignore "everything" perceivable for suggested "nothing". As one thing within every thing; one cannot perceive no thing. Yes (want) vs no (not want) represents yet another rebranded conflict of reason; which ignores perceivable change (need).
b) all that is happening can only happen within momentum aka within the ever changing moment. Not suggested time (past; present and future); but perceivable time (tick; tick; tick...) aka ongoing momentum.
c) try utilizing need over want; perceivable inspiration over suggested information and implication (if/then) over reason (want vs not want) to stay clear of most deception; yet this requires frequency of choice; hence repeated adaptation to inspiration as to grow your comprehension thereof.
Reading; agreeing and understanding does not represent the growth of comprehension. You need to compress the impressed for expression; which you can also help teach yourself with breathing (Latin spiro; spirit; hence in-spirit-ation). Allow the impressing in by filling your chest to capacity; then compress it within your lungs; then express it all. Focus on the struggle of compressing; which will slowly grow your lung capacity and your comprehension (compression).
That being said...there are no suggested guides for self discernment. It has to be by yourself. If this helps you to discern; then because you chose to use it as inspiration; not because whatever I wrote; which for you represents suggested temptation.
Thanks for the inspiration.