You write too much making yourself organic bullshit generator
What if I write for the sustenance of self and not for others?
person who just uses not proper words
Show me where nature uses words to communicate to our perception? Why is it that other lifeforms can perceive; comprehend and act upon "grass" without anyone telling them that it's properly called "grass"?
uses really symbolism
How can I use symbol-ISM; while calling out all -isms as suggestions towards the ignorance of free will?
SYM'BOL, noun [Latin symbolum; Gr. with, and to throw; to compare.] Form is "with"in flow; flow "throws" form into its momentum; form "compares" itself to perceived inspiration by flow.
but in text not in symbol or graph
So you want pictures and less text? Are you a smartphone user?
(try dia)
DIA, - "Greek, a prefix, denotes through"...as form I already act "through" flow.
those things you promote
Look at my post count (0)...I don't offer; I adapt to inspiration for the sustenance of self.
shallow part of reality despite its worth
ALL value is predefined within flow; while the ONEs within form hold the temporary free will of choice to evaluate it ALL.
promoting individualism
Consenting to the suggested -ism; deceives the individual ONE to ignore free will of choice for the suggestion (-ism) made by the free will of another ONE.
Free will of choice does not equal individual-ISM; it represents the sole authority over ONEself (form) within ALL (flow), and consenting to any suggested -isms ignores that.
Solipsism is probably wrong...
Yet another -ism you consented to; while propagating it to others (even when in doubt about it). Ask yourself this...does nature offer "wrong" information to our senses?
independent
INDEPEND'ENT, adjective [in and dependent.] - "not dependent; not subject to control"...as life (form) are you not subjected to the movement from inception towards death (flow)?
unwanted things
Want represents the choice to ignore need (sustenance of life) for temptation luring towards death. Does it matter if life does "not want" death for death to reclaim life?
it is rather wrong to claim "all in one"/"all is one"...
Correct; which is why I state to use implication (if/then) over reason (true vs false). When you say "wrong" you imply believing in "true"; which is why you judge what others write through the conflict of reason (true vs false).
Try implication and stay clear of reason and you will not find yourself in a conflict. So if "ALL is ONE in energy"; then everything moves...now adapt to what this inspires you to do and keep using implication (if/then) over reason (true vs false).
What if I write for the sustenance of self and not for others?
Then why here ? (in some internet forum,instead in some notebook). Why this ?
Show me where nature uses words to communicate to our perception?
I don't "need" to. I'm just saying you use words for describing other words perhaps describing picture having sense (or not). Nature is more efficient.Usually.
DIA, - "Greek, a prefix, denotes through"...as form I already act "through" flow.
So you want pictures and less text? Are you a smartphone user?
Fan of not complicating messages rather. But maybe it looks things you do are not messages at all...
which is why I state to use implication (if/then) over reason (true vs false)
Well then... If it isn't logical it is like we speaking each other "other languages" and at least I (cannot know sure things about you) was believing there is one language used by both of us. Our attempt fo communication was probably almost "mistake" - from side of result,not from side of situation where it looked justified.
implication (if/then) over reason (true vs false).
For my view they are the same unfortunately. Other languages & wrong words probably as I stated.
if something then {} implies for me "something is a condition having to be true or false. If - then not allows even for blurred logic,not mentioning abandoning logic at all. Unless you are telling about RELATION: A binded/linked to B instead. Then that would be OK (except the fact you use other words than other making your language other than used by others - so not compatible).
Relation is less complicated and allow indeed structures which are not having to be related to formal logic only. However likewise your text - it is harder to decode and thus understand if there is anything to decode and understand.
Ask yourself this...does nature offer "wrong" information to our senses?
No however senses are only "good enough" not perfect in decoding those information. "Blaming" peripherals not nature not changes too much situation.
INDEPEND'ENT, adjective [in and dependent.] - "not dependent; not subject to control"...as life (form) are you not subjected to the movement from inception towards death (flow)?
Had I said about me or "things" ? Movement is oficially change of form but is anything moving or we are "ordering just some photos" ? Is schrodinger cat objectively alive or dead ? Maybe just become concordant to our "reality" instead and that is the answer ?
Then why here ? (in some internet forum, instead in some notebook). Why this?
Adaptation to inspiration. I try to do it in all aspects of my life; but a somewhat less restricted location within the web of control allows me access the subversive suggestions of the few; the self destructive ignorance of the many, and endless different states of potential (comprehension) in-between.
I don't "need" to.
Choice defined by balance of form withing flow. The temporary existence of form within ongoing flow defines need (self sustenance through adaptation by choice of action); while the pull of flow upon form represents the temptation (our wants) to ignore the need to struggle for sustenance.
I'm just saying you use words for describing other words perhaps describing picture having sense (or not). Nature is more efficient.Usually.
I use older definitions of words to show the corruption since then; while also putting it into the perspective of natural law (flow upon form); which doesn't use words to express itself. The efficiency represents our senses perceiving movement (flow upon form); which a) demands us to react (adaptation) and b) inspires us to sustain ourselves by teaching/learning ourselves to mimic how form reacts within flow aka 'monkey see; monkey do'.
Usually represents not a flaw of what nature offers (perception); but the choice based response to it within us (comprehension). As form within flow you represent ONE (potential) within ALL (potentiality), and ALL is offered to you (perception); but your choice (free will) defines how much of it you understand (comprehension). Form represents a response to flow (the momentum of motion); and that makes your choice of action within (free will) your responsibility over ONEself within ALL.
DIAGRAM, noun [Gr., to write.] - "demonstrating the properties of". That represents an allegory for us...form within flow. Form (potential) demonstrates the property of flow (potentiality). We are the ones who "app"ly choice of action upon perceived inspiration to build comprehended information.
When you put a seed into the ground; it already carries the design to grow into a tree; into a forest; into a self sustaining ecosystem. We represent the tool of choice in use as form within flow.
Fan of not complicating messages rather.
Simplicity over complexity. The problem with communication is that we are deceived to consent to use words; to describe a system that does not use words to express/describe itself, and our ignorance thereof is what corrupts our comprehension about how this system works (flow upon form). Our consent to believe the suggested words of others is what endlessly piles up complexity upon our simple (instinctive) communication as form to flow (resonance).
But maybe it looks things you do are not messages at all...
Correct. I do not offer information (affixed assumptions); I adapt to inspiration (things that move). That's my free will of choice. What you do with what I write represents your choice...the want to believe information; or the need to adapt to inspiration.
I cannot make that choice for others: I can write down to not believe me; to use need over want; to use implication (if/then) over reason (true vs false) and inspiration over information, but that doesn't change the comprehension of others...only their own free will of choice can.
Well then... If it isn't logical it is like we speaking each other "other languages" and at least I (cannot know sure things about you) was believing there is one language used by both of us.
LOG'IC, noun [Latin id; Gr. from reason, to speak.]. Reason represents the conflict between truth versus false. Nature neither offers false information to our perception; nor does it proclaim what truth is; instead it communicates movement to our senses, which we perceive as inspiration. Nature doesn't brand this inspiration as information. "grass" is what it is; because it acts like it does as form within flow; not because we call it "grass", and no otehr life form requires the word "grass" to perceive; comprehend and act upon it.
The conflict of reason (true vs false) originates from us consenting to believe that the words offered by others represent "truth"; which then a) makes anyone who chooses to not believe it into the opposition (liar), and b) it allows those who offer words to act in the name of them; to contradict both believers and non-believers of true/false within the conflict of reason.
Me pointing out the revisionism in language is how they corrupted your consented to truth by changing it, which causes more and more conflicts of reason with each suggested change. It's simply divide and conquer through suggestion.
Words do not represent communication; but the temptation for us to affix form within flow; which corrupts our comprehension of the ongoing flow the moves the temporary form. Languages represent the suggested spell-craft of the few to deceive the many into ignoring natural law (flow upon form).
Our attempt of communication was probably almost "mistake"
Look away from the screen...I'm not there. We didn't communicate; our senses are deceived by suggested technology to emulate communication and the few are offering us all the tools to mimic reality with...endless information to mimic inspiration; up/downvote for choice; emojis for emotions; avatars for identity; friend-lists for unity; instant messaging for senses; input devices for adaptation etc.
They utilize technology within their transhumanism agenda; which aims at exchanging our comprehension of 1 (the natural reality) with 0 (their digital controlled fiction).
"implication (if/then) over reason (true vs false)"...For my view they are the same unfortunately.
Because you use implication upon reason aka from within the conflict. Try to sue implication before consenting to the conflict of reason (true vs false). We don't need true or false information; we need to adapt by if/then to inspiration from perceived movement. Train this; it takes a while; but you will soon be able to prevent engaging in most of the conflicts suggested to you.
Your belief in truth is what causes lies; neither exist as states within flow.
if something then {} implies for me "something is a condition having to be true or false
If inception; then death...so what is life in-between.True or false? Where is the conflict between inception and death? If you say "life equals truth", then you affixed a temporary state; which ignores ongoing movement, and the change resulting from that movement will make your truth into a lie when you're death.
Now while you consent to believe that life equals truth; I can simply take a life to contradict you, but why not suggest another one that death is truth, and then sit back and watch you both reason (true versus false) about life vs death, while I exploit the shit out of both of your ignorance? That's what our parasites are doing to mankind as a whole.
CONDITION, noun [Latin, to build or make, to set in order, to send.]...what if the order form sets its actions into represents flow aka constant change? A condition represents something that expresses itself within movement, which others (form) within movement (flow) need to adapt to; not affix with words (true/false).
Question being form (life) within flow (inception towards death). Keep trying to disprove it; until you fully comprehend this; which represents gaining self discernment (as ONE within ALL). You consenting to believe me offering this; does not represent ONE comprehending ALL perceived; but ONE submitting to the suggestions of another ONE; while ignoring ALL.
If - then not allows even for blurred logic,not mentioning abandoning logic at all.
ALLOW', verb transitive [Latin loco, to lay, set, place.]. That's you as form set into flow; which is why you have a free will of choice to evaluate ALL offered. You wouldn't abandon reason (true vs false); you would choose to let go of self imposed restriction upon comprehension. You "want" to believe in true/false; that was your free will of choice, and others were suggesting you what to believe to be true/false, which they did to control you.
When you let go of restrictions, your consciousness will start to directly adapt to flow without being held back by your self imposed rules (beliefs).
Unless you are telling about RELATION: A binded/linked to B instead. Then that would be OK (except the fact you use other words than other making your language other than used by others - so not compatible).
The "relation" of form within flow represents the momentum of motion aka a response within the same. Each of us represents ONE (form) within ALL (flow) and ALL is ONE in energy. Comprehending the former represents gaining self discernment (which you need to do yourself by your own choices), and the latter requires the former to be comprehended.
Relation is less complicated and allow indeed structures...
You (form) can act; because you represent a reaction to flow. That's the structure that allows you to perceive; choose; comprehend and act upon.
You have problems comprehending this because others suggest you RELA'TION, noun [Latin relatio, refero.] - "narrative of facts". They suggested words as a description for this system to you, and want you in return to believe them. To believe their suggestions requires you to choose (by free will) them (ONE) over this system (ALL). Consent to suggestion invites the parasite; which corrupts your comprehension aka makes this system complicated to understand.
it is harder to decode and thus understand if there is anything to decode and understand.
Try to view it as inspiration; instead of chasing after the truth for wanted information.
No however senses are only "good enough" not perfect in decoding those information.
If no false; then no true. "good enough" ignores that ALL value is predefined; and that the ONEs within represent the temporary chocie to evaluate it. "perfect" ignores being potential within potentiality. perfection wouldn't allow change; balance; choice and the segregation of ALL into ONEs within itself (energy).
senses represent input of inspiration through movement; while the responsibility of chocie (adaptation) is up to us, and depending on chocie (need or want) we build our comprehension (potential) out of ALL perceived (potentiality).
"Blaming" peripherals not nature not changes too much situation.
Blame always represents ignorance of self sustenance. I point out the contradictions between believed information and perceived inspiration to strip ignorance of its tools to hide behind.
Had I said about me or "things" ?
Doesn't form within flow imply coexistence? You; me and things all represent form within flow.
Movement is officially change of form but is anything moving or we are "ordering just some photos" ?
Information (energy) cannot be communicated to consciousness (form) without movement (flow). What form chooses to reorder out of flow (the natural order) represents ONEs transmutation out of ALL.
Is schrodinger cat objectively alive or dead ?
Object (form) implies subjected to (flow); which implicates constant change, so if "Schrödinger's Cat"; then inception/death (flow) and life (form)...coexistence.
Maybe just become concordant to our "reality" instead and that is the answer ?
Adaptation to inspiration (ONE to ALL) instead of consent to suggested information (ONE to ONE). The answer (response) to flow is form...we need to adapt to the question; to the ongoing flow of information, and then choose to form; to be the responding answer.
Choice of want over need aka ignorance of need.
What if I write for the sustenance of self and not for others?
Show me where nature uses words to communicate to our perception? Why is it that other lifeforms can perceive; comprehend and act upon "grass" without anyone telling them that it's properly called "grass"?
How can I use symbol-ISM; while calling out all -isms as suggestions towards the ignorance of free will?
SYM'BOL, noun [Latin symbolum; Gr. with, and to throw; to compare.] Form is "with"in flow; flow "throws" form into its momentum; form "compares" itself to perceived inspiration by flow.
So you want pictures and less text? Are you a smartphone user?
DIA, - "Greek, a prefix, denotes through"...as form I already act "through" flow.
Look at my post count (0)...I don't offer; I adapt to inspiration for the sustenance of self.
ALL value is predefined within flow; while the ONEs within form hold the temporary free will of choice to evaluate it ALL.
Consenting to the suggested -ism; deceives the individual ONE to ignore free will of choice for the suggestion (-ism) made by the free will of another ONE.
Free will of choice does not equal individual-ISM; it represents the sole authority over ONEself (form) within ALL (flow), and consenting to any suggested -isms ignores that.
Yet another -ism you consented to; while propagating it to others (even when in doubt about it). Ask yourself this...does nature offer "wrong" information to our senses?
INDEPEND'ENT, adjective [in and dependent.] - "not dependent; not subject to control"...as life (form) are you not subjected to the movement from inception towards death (flow)?
Want represents the choice to ignore need (sustenance of life) for temptation luring towards death. Does it matter if life does "not want" death for death to reclaim life?
Correct; which is why I state to use implication (if/then) over reason (true vs false). When you say "wrong" you imply believing in "true"; which is why you judge what others write through the conflict of reason (true vs false).
Try implication and stay clear of reason and you will not find yourself in a conflict. So if "ALL is ONE in energy"; then everything moves...now adapt to what this inspires you to do and keep using implication (if/then) over reason (true vs false).
Then why here ? (in some internet forum,instead in some notebook). Why this ?
I don't "need" to. I'm just saying you use words for describing other words perhaps describing picture having sense (or not). Nature is more efficient.Usually.
It was about app.Those app: http://dia-installer.de/index.html.en example of useful tool :)
Fan of not complicating messages rather. But maybe it looks things you do are not messages at all...
Well then... If it isn't logical it is like we speaking each other "other languages" and at least I (cannot know sure things about you) was believing there is one language used by both of us. Our attempt fo communication was probably almost "mistake" - from side of result,not from side of situation where it looked justified.
For my view they are the same unfortunately. Other languages & wrong words probably as I stated.
if something then {} implies for me "something is a condition having to be true or false. If - then not allows even for blurred logic,not mentioning abandoning logic at all. Unless you are telling about RELATION: A binded/linked to B instead. Then that would be OK (except the fact you use other words than other making your language other than used by others - so not compatible).
Relation is less complicated and allow indeed structures which are not having to be related to formal logic only. However likewise your text - it is harder to decode and thus understand if there is anything to decode and understand.
No however senses are only "good enough" not perfect in decoding those information. "Blaming" peripherals not nature not changes too much situation.
Had I said about me or "things" ? Movement is oficially change of form but is anything moving or we are "ordering just some photos" ? Is schrodinger cat objectively alive or dead ? Maybe just become concordant to our "reality" instead and that is the answer ?
Adaptation to inspiration. I try to do it in all aspects of my life; but a somewhat less restricted location within the web of control allows me access the subversive suggestions of the few; the self destructive ignorance of the many, and endless different states of potential (comprehension) in-between.
Choice defined by balance of form withing flow. The temporary existence of form within ongoing flow defines need (self sustenance through adaptation by choice of action); while the pull of flow upon form represents the temptation (our wants) to ignore the need to struggle for sustenance.
I use older definitions of words to show the corruption since then; while also putting it into the perspective of natural law (flow upon form); which doesn't use words to express itself. The efficiency represents our senses perceiving movement (flow upon form); which a) demands us to react (adaptation) and b) inspires us to sustain ourselves by teaching/learning ourselves to mimic how form reacts within flow aka 'monkey see; monkey do'.
Usually represents not a flaw of what nature offers (perception); but the choice based response to it within us (comprehension). As form within flow you represent ONE (potential) within ALL (potentiality), and ALL is offered to you (perception); but your choice (free will) defines how much of it you understand (comprehension). Form represents a response to flow (the momentum of motion); and that makes your choice of action within (free will) your responsibility over ONEself within ALL.
DIAGRAM, noun [Gr., to write.] - "demonstrating the properties of". That represents an allegory for us...form within flow. Form (potential) demonstrates the property of flow (potentiality). We are the ones who "app"ly choice of action upon perceived inspiration to build comprehended information.
When you put a seed into the ground; it already carries the design to grow into a tree; into a forest; into a self sustaining ecosystem. We represent the tool of choice in use as form within flow.
Simplicity over complexity. The problem with communication is that we are deceived to consent to use words; to describe a system that does not use words to express/describe itself, and our ignorance thereof is what corrupts our comprehension about how this system works (flow upon form). Our consent to believe the suggested words of others is what endlessly piles up complexity upon our simple (instinctive) communication as form to flow (resonance).
Correct. I do not offer information (affixed assumptions); I adapt to inspiration (things that move). That's my free will of choice. What you do with what I write represents your choice...the want to believe information; or the need to adapt to inspiration.
I cannot make that choice for others: I can write down to not believe me; to use need over want; to use implication (if/then) over reason (true vs false) and inspiration over information, but that doesn't change the comprehension of others...only their own free will of choice can.
LOG'IC, noun [Latin id; Gr. from reason, to speak.]. Reason represents the conflict between truth versus false. Nature neither offers false information to our perception; nor does it proclaim what truth is; instead it communicates movement to our senses, which we perceive as inspiration. Nature doesn't brand this inspiration as information. "grass" is what it is; because it acts like it does as form within flow; not because we call it "grass", and no otehr life form requires the word "grass" to perceive; comprehend and act upon it.
The conflict of reason (true vs false) originates from us consenting to believe that the words offered by others represent "truth"; which then a) makes anyone who chooses to not believe it into the opposition (liar), and b) it allows those who offer words to act in the name of them; to contradict both believers and non-believers of true/false within the conflict of reason.
Me pointing out the revisionism in language is how they corrupted your consented to truth by changing it, which causes more and more conflicts of reason with each suggested change. It's simply divide and conquer through suggestion.
Words do not represent communication; but the temptation for us to affix form within flow; which corrupts our comprehension of the ongoing flow the moves the temporary form. Languages represent the suggested spell-craft of the few to deceive the many into ignoring natural law (flow upon form).
Look away from the screen...I'm not there. We didn't communicate; our senses are deceived by suggested technology to emulate communication and the few are offering us all the tools to mimic reality with...endless information to mimic inspiration; up/downvote for choice; emojis for emotions; avatars for identity; friend-lists for unity; instant messaging for senses; input devices for adaptation etc.
They utilize technology within their transhumanism agenda; which aims at exchanging our comprehension of 1 (the natural reality) with 0 (their digital controlled fiction).
Form to flow represents resistance to velocity; which causes friction; vibration; resonance. That's the origin of (re)sound we need to communicate with; not through the substitute technology the few are suggesting us to ignore reality for. us looking at the screen represents 'the allegory of the cave'... https://www.thephilosophyman.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/An_Illustration_of_The_Allegory_of_the_Cave_from_Plato%E2%80%99s_Republic-768x324.jpg
Because you use implication upon reason aka from within the conflict. Try to sue implication before consenting to the conflict of reason (true vs false). We don't need true or false information; we need to adapt by if/then to inspiration from perceived movement. Train this; it takes a while; but you will soon be able to prevent engaging in most of the conflicts suggested to you.
Your belief in truth is what causes lies; neither exist as states within flow.
If inception; then death...so what is life in-between.True or false? Where is the conflict between inception and death? If you say "life equals truth", then you affixed a temporary state; which ignores ongoing movement, and the change resulting from that movement will make your truth into a lie when you're death.
Now while you consent to believe that life equals truth; I can simply take a life to contradict you, but why not suggest another one that death is truth, and then sit back and watch you both reason (true versus false) about life vs death, while I exploit the shit out of both of your ignorance? That's what our parasites are doing to mankind as a whole.
CONDITION, noun [Latin, to build or make, to set in order, to send.]...what if the order form sets its actions into represents flow aka constant change? A condition represents something that expresses itself within movement, which others (form) within movement (flow) need to adapt to; not affix with words (true/false).
Question being form (life) within flow (inception towards death). Keep trying to disprove it; until you fully comprehend this; which represents gaining self discernment (as ONE within ALL). You consenting to believe me offering this; does not represent ONE comprehending ALL perceived; but ONE submitting to the suggestions of another ONE; while ignoring ALL.
ALLOW', verb transitive [Latin loco, to lay, set, place.]. That's you as form set into flow; which is why you have a free will of choice to evaluate ALL offered. You wouldn't abandon reason (true vs false); you would choose to let go of self imposed restriction upon comprehension. You "want" to believe in true/false; that was your free will of choice, and others were suggesting you what to believe to be true/false, which they did to control you.
When you let go of restrictions, your consciousness will start to directly adapt to flow without being held back by your self imposed rules (beliefs).
The "relation" of form within flow represents the momentum of motion aka a response within the same. Each of us represents ONE (form) within ALL (flow) and ALL is ONE in energy. Comprehending the former represents gaining self discernment (which you need to do yourself by your own choices), and the latter requires the former to be comprehended.
You (form) can act; because you represent a reaction to flow. That's the structure that allows you to perceive; choose; comprehend and act upon.
You have problems comprehending this because others suggest you RELA'TION, noun [Latin relatio, refero.] - "narrative of facts". They suggested words as a description for this system to you, and want you in return to believe them. To believe their suggestions requires you to choose (by free will) them (ONE) over this system (ALL). Consent to suggestion invites the parasite; which corrupts your comprehension aka makes this system complicated to understand.
Try to view it as inspiration; instead of chasing after the truth for wanted information.
If no false; then no true. "good enough" ignores that ALL value is predefined; and that the ONEs within represent the temporary chocie to evaluate it. "perfect" ignores being potential within potentiality. perfection wouldn't allow change; balance; choice and the segregation of ALL into ONEs within itself (energy).
Blame always represents ignorance of self sustenance. I point out the contradictions between believed information and perceived inspiration to strip ignorance of its tools to hide behind.
Doesn't form within flow imply coexistence? You; me and things all represent form within flow.
Information (energy) cannot be communicated to consciousness (form) without movement (flow). What form chooses to reorder out of flow (the natural order) represents ONEs transmutation out of ALL.
Object (form) implies subjected to (flow); which implicates constant change, so if "Schrödinger's Cat"; then inception/death (flow) and life (form)...coexistence.
Adaptation to inspiration (ONE to ALL) instead of consent to suggested information (ONE to ONE). The answer (response) to flow is form...we need to adapt to the question; to the ongoing flow of information, and then choose to form; to be the responding answer.