Instead of machine translating from some alien language can you use English?
A'LIEN, adjective [Latin alienus, from alius, another.] Does nature use English to communicate itself to us or does "another" one within nature suggests English to us; in exchange for us believing what they proclaim it describes?
I can help you out
Adapt to whatever inspires for the sustenance of self; which then in return inspires others to do the same.
So needlessly complex
If nature only uses motion to communicate inspiration to our senses; then imagine what a complex clusterfuck suggested languages in ignorance of motion could cause to those who consent to believe it?
Nature simply is. We find patterns. There is only figurative exchange.
adapt ... sustenance of self
Do you need sustenance? Maybe you are doing this to find the few that can understand your convoluted grammar?
about consenting to believe in spoken languages ignorant of natural somethings
Yes, I know you have a point. I've experimented extensively with linguistics via NLP and a number of talking therapeutic techniques.
I fancy myself developing a form of language where concepts are expressed and then they are merged, I realize that structure is not that far off from Sanskrit. Even if I explain it there is no chance of adoption.
So what's your deal then? Are you looking for certain people? Or just linguistically trolling?
SIM'PLE, adjective [Latin simplex; sine, without and plex, plica, doubling, fold] - "single; consisting of one thing"
NATURE, noun [Latin from nature born, produced]
Nature represents energy aka ALL is ONE in energy, so energy represents the source of ALL information for the ONES within; but energy is producing within itself; between its two main states...flow and form.
If you apply motion to energy it causes momentum; within which ongoing flow segregates into temporary form aka ALL potentiality into ONE potential. That's where we are; within the moment(um) of motion as form within flow.
We find patterns.
PAT'TERN, noun - "an original or model proposed for imitation"
Correct...form mimics from flow. If flow is applied to information (potentiality); then the potential within perceives it as inspiration...as moving information that inspires adaptation.
The "finding" aspect is not within what we perceive (which is ALL at any given moment), but what ONE comprehends of it. Perception represents input of inspiration; comprehension represents choice based processing of perceived inspiration into comprehended information.
This can only happen if ONE chooses to adhere to ALL (form to flow); not if ONE chooses to believe another one (form to form). We have a parasite exploiting this by inverting it through suggestion...they trick us to consent to ignore ALL for the suggestions of other ONEs.
There is only figurative exchange.
FIG'URE, noun. [Latin figura, from figo, to fix or set.]
That represents you perceiving form within flow; while ignoring the flow. You're tricked to only comprehend the communication (exchange) between form and form; which is where the parasites acts as the happy merchant of temptations.
That which is set into form (by flow) represents figurative exchange; that which sets (flow); communicating itself to those within (form); represents the fundamental communication out of source (energy). Physically we exchange figuratively among form; mentally we need to adhere to the perceived input (flow to form) to be able to sustain form within flow.
Do you need sustenance?
As form within flow "self sustenance" defines need; while the pull of flow upon form represents want (temptation). Form within flow acts within balance (momentum of motion); which is why we have free will of choice between need (self sustenance) or want (ignorance thereof).
Form responses to flow; hence form choosing need over want (life over death) representing ONEs responsibility over self within ALL. Stand still and flow will teach form what's needed (water; food; shelter). No patience? Hold your breath and wait until you comprehend that need over want; life over death represents a collective impulse (survival instinct) that demands adaptation as form to flow.
Maybe you are doing this to find the few that can understand your convoluted grammar?
Comprehension represents ONEs own effort in adherence to ALL. Another ONE (me) cannot offer comprehension. What you make out of this is based on your choice to either believe/not believe (reason) the information you perceive; or to adapt to the inspiration ALL is offering to each ONE. I try to adhere to the latter.
I've experimented extensively with linguistics via NLP and a number of talking therapeutic techniques.
You want information; you need inspiration. The parasites suggest information in exchange for consent by "believing"; which in return corrupts comprehension and thereby perception of inspiration.
Everything offered to you by other ONEs (form) represents the temptation for you to ignore that ALL (flow) represents the source of ALL information. All the other ONEs represent inspiration to you, but your choice (need or want) defines how you process the input, and the parasites act as a substitute input by suggesting us endless information.
Flow communicates to form on instinctive level (simple), which is why other form suggests endless complexity to trick us to ignore to adhere to simplicity. Education represents domestication of ignorance. You cannot figure out what they're offering you by consenting to what they're offering you. The comprehension you're missing can only come from adaptation to inspiration; not from believing information.
Form does not need to believe flow; form needs to adapt to flow; because form is within flow...out of flow.
I fancy myself developing a form of language where concepts are expressed and then they are merged, I realize that structure is not that far off from Sanskrit.
Good start. You're looking for a less corrupt form of communication...the corruption represents us using languages to proclaim form within flow, because it ignores flow. We perceive; we brand; we believe it to be true/false; we ignore that flow will change it; we reason (truth versus false) within form; while ignoring flow.
We as form are "expressed" by flow, what you need to "develop" is your comprehension about what flow is offering to form...infinite potentiality to finite potential.
Within flow all form represents a different potential; because differences are needed to inspire form to sustain itself within flow. Form transmutes out of flow (inception); form is being processed by flow (life) and form is being "merged" back into flow (death).
The linguistic structure you try to build is build within form instead on the foundation of flow. When the velocity of motion (flow) meets the resistance of momentum (form) it causes friction; vibration and resonance. ONEs choice of adherence to ALL represents resonance; ONEs choice of ignorance thereof represents dissonance. Consenting to believe the suggestions of other ONEs represents dissonance between ONEself and ALL.
So what's your deal then?
Foremost..adaptation to inspiration to build my comprehension (potential). Alongside that...resistance to temptation.
Are you looking for certain people?
I learned that this represents one of the temptations that needs to be resisted. I adapt to inspiration within text; while resisting to try to communicate with others through technology suggested by parasites who use it to mimic communication within fiction; while we ignore sense based communication within reality. Look away from the screen...I'm not there. We're not communicating. We fool ourselves to believe that we do; while using the suggested tools of those who destroy us through them.
Or just linguistically trolling?
I first use an old dictionary to show the contradiction in meaning of words defined by others, afterwards I use the oldest definitions (the ones where the natural connotations are still somewhat recognizable) and put it into the perspective of natural law (based on my potential/comprehension of it), and lastly I strip languages down; while pointing out the inversion and rhetorical tricks within.
I learned to not try to change someones mind (which would use suggestion); but to strip their choice of ignorance of tools to use to hide behind. For example...a believers beliefs become impotent when I start questioning offer/consent under natural law required for them to consent by free will of choice to believe.
My questions use implication upon the foundation used to build their beliefs. Their choice of ignorance cannot handle that contradiction with the use of beliefs, which is why they either become hostile; very careful in their responses to not make mistakes, or inspired to poke me with questions to find a weak-spot. For me that's all inspiration and I grow in comprehension when adapting to it.
Avoiding temptation implies that the desires of the body and mind are rooted in sin.
to strip their choice of ignorance of tools to use to hide behind
Most people are not capable of questioning their choices, beliefs, because of Gestalt theory. Without a firm grasp of the temporal nature of the human mind, and the relatively impotent control held by the conscious mind, you have very little chance of truly enlightening anyone.
And perhaps to your point, I refuse to teach such techniques except in person.
differences are needed to inspire form to sustain itself within flow
I still believe that form-focused thought creates a myriad of story... free of the homogeneity of flow. That perhaps our duty, in as much as existence itself can have a duty, is to revel in our constraints, and produce great works within them.
One/All
Is it wrong to take for granted that the scope of All is so grand that One|One vs One is no longer relevant? What connection to All would matter?
Instead of machine translating from some alien language can you use English? If you need some examples I can help you out. So needlessly complex ..
He just copy pastes from something like this.
A'LIEN, adjective [Latin alienus, from alius, another.] Does nature use English to communicate itself to us or does "another" one within nature suggests English to us; in exchange for us believing what they proclaim it describes?
Adapt to whatever inspires for the sustenance of self; which then in return inspires others to do the same.
If nature only uses motion to communicate inspiration to our senses; then imagine what a complex clusterfuck suggested languages in ignorance of motion could cause to those who consent to believe it?
Nature simply is. We find patterns. There is only figurative exchange.
Do you need sustenance? Maybe you are doing this to find the few that can understand your convoluted grammar?
Yes, I know you have a point. I've experimented extensively with linguistics via NLP and a number of talking therapeutic techniques.
I fancy myself developing a form of language where concepts are expressed and then they are merged, I realize that structure is not that far off from Sanskrit. Even if I explain it there is no chance of adoption.
So what's your deal then? Are you looking for certain people? Or just linguistically trolling?
Ever look at forgottenlanguages when it was up on reddit? Or the website proper.
No I haven't. What was it about?
SIM'PLE, adjective [Latin simplex; sine, without and plex, plica, doubling, fold] - "single; consisting of one thing"
NATURE, noun [Latin from nature born, produced]
Nature represents energy aka ALL is ONE in energy, so energy represents the source of ALL information for the ONES within; but energy is producing within itself; between its two main states...flow and form.
If you apply motion to energy it causes momentum; within which ongoing flow segregates into temporary form aka ALL potentiality into ONE potential. That's where we are; within the moment(um) of motion as form within flow.
PAT'TERN, noun - "an original or model proposed for imitation"
Correct...form mimics from flow. If flow is applied to information (potentiality); then the potential within perceives it as inspiration...as moving information that inspires adaptation.
The "finding" aspect is not within what we perceive (which is ALL at any given moment), but what ONE comprehends of it. Perception represents input of inspiration; comprehension represents choice based processing of perceived inspiration into comprehended information.
This can only happen if ONE chooses to adhere to ALL (form to flow); not if ONE chooses to believe another one (form to form). We have a parasite exploiting this by inverting it through suggestion...they trick us to consent to ignore ALL for the suggestions of other ONEs.
FIG'URE, noun. [Latin figura, from figo, to fix or set.]
That represents you perceiving form within flow; while ignoring the flow. You're tricked to only comprehend the communication (exchange) between form and form; which is where the parasites acts as the happy merchant of temptations.
That which is set into form (by flow) represents figurative exchange; that which sets (flow); communicating itself to those within (form); represents the fundamental communication out of source (energy). Physically we exchange figuratively among form; mentally we need to adhere to the perceived input (flow to form) to be able to sustain form within flow.
As form within flow "self sustenance" defines need; while the pull of flow upon form represents want (temptation). Form within flow acts within balance (momentum of motion); which is why we have free will of choice between need (self sustenance) or want (ignorance thereof).
Form responses to flow; hence form choosing need over want (life over death) representing ONEs responsibility over self within ALL. Stand still and flow will teach form what's needed (water; food; shelter). No patience? Hold your breath and wait until you comprehend that need over want; life over death represents a collective impulse (survival instinct) that demands adaptation as form to flow.
Comprehension represents ONEs own effort in adherence to ALL. Another ONE (me) cannot offer comprehension. What you make out of this is based on your choice to either believe/not believe (reason) the information you perceive; or to adapt to the inspiration ALL is offering to each ONE. I try to adhere to the latter.
You want information; you need inspiration. The parasites suggest information in exchange for consent by "believing"; which in return corrupts comprehension and thereby perception of inspiration.
Everything offered to you by other ONEs (form) represents the temptation for you to ignore that ALL (flow) represents the source of ALL information. All the other ONEs represent inspiration to you, but your choice (need or want) defines how you process the input, and the parasites act as a substitute input by suggesting us endless information.
Flow communicates to form on instinctive level (simple), which is why other form suggests endless complexity to trick us to ignore to adhere to simplicity. Education represents domestication of ignorance. You cannot figure out what they're offering you by consenting to what they're offering you. The comprehension you're missing can only come from adaptation to inspiration; not from believing information.
Form does not need to believe flow; form needs to adapt to flow; because form is within flow...out of flow.
Good start. You're looking for a less corrupt form of communication...the corruption represents us using languages to proclaim form within flow, because it ignores flow. We perceive; we brand; we believe it to be true/false; we ignore that flow will change it; we reason (truth versus false) within form; while ignoring flow.
We as form are "expressed" by flow, what you need to "develop" is your comprehension about what flow is offering to form...infinite potentiality to finite potential.
Within flow all form represents a different potential; because differences are needed to inspire form to sustain itself within flow. Form transmutes out of flow (inception); form is being processed by flow (life) and form is being "merged" back into flow (death).
The linguistic structure you try to build is build within form instead on the foundation of flow. When the velocity of motion (flow) meets the resistance of momentum (form) it causes friction; vibration and resonance. ONEs choice of adherence to ALL represents resonance; ONEs choice of ignorance thereof represents dissonance. Consenting to believe the suggestions of other ONEs represents dissonance between ONEself and ALL.
Foremost..adaptation to inspiration to build my comprehension (potential). Alongside that...resistance to temptation.
I learned that this represents one of the temptations that needs to be resisted. I adapt to inspiration within text; while resisting to try to communicate with others through technology suggested by parasites who use it to mimic communication within fiction; while we ignore sense based communication within reality. Look away from the screen...I'm not there. We're not communicating. We fool ourselves to believe that we do; while using the suggested tools of those who destroy us through them.
I first use an old dictionary to show the contradiction in meaning of words defined by others, afterwards I use the oldest definitions (the ones where the natural connotations are still somewhat recognizable) and put it into the perspective of natural law (based on my potential/comprehension of it), and lastly I strip languages down; while pointing out the inversion and rhetorical tricks within.
I learned to not try to change someones mind (which would use suggestion); but to strip their choice of ignorance of tools to use to hide behind. For example...a believers beliefs become impotent when I start questioning offer/consent under natural law required for them to consent by free will of choice to believe.
My questions use implication upon the foundation used to build their beliefs. Their choice of ignorance cannot handle that contradiction with the use of beliefs, which is why they either become hostile; very careful in their responses to not make mistakes, or inspired to poke me with questions to find a weak-spot. For me that's all inspiration and I grow in comprehension when adapting to it.
Avoiding temptation implies that the desires of the body and mind are rooted in sin.
Most people are not capable of questioning their choices, beliefs, because of Gestalt theory. Without a firm grasp of the temporal nature of the human mind, and the relatively impotent control held by the conscious mind, you have very little chance of truly enlightening anyone.
And perhaps to your point, I refuse to teach such techniques except in person.
I still believe that form-focused thought creates a myriad of story... free of the homogeneity of flow. That perhaps our duty, in as much as existence itself can have a duty, is to revel in our constraints, and produce great works within them.
Is it wrong to take for granted that the scope of All is so grand that One|One vs One is no longer relevant? What connection to All would matter?