INSTRUC'TION, noun [Latin instructio.] - "the act of teaching or informing the understanding in that of which it was before ignorant; information"
What if nature doesn't offer information; but moves all within for perceived (knowledge) inspiration; which our choice of reaction transmutes into comprehended (understanding) information?
What if choice chooses to ignore to react (to balance); and instead consents to suggested choices of others for "instruction"? What if choice reacting to balance represents the choice of need; while falling for the suggestions of others represents choice of want? What if choosing to want suggestion; deceives one into a conflict against those that don't want the suggested?
What if this conflict (want vs not want; while ignoring need) represents reason (division by suggestion) And what if the talmud is used to suggest its followers to use implication (if/then) over reason (want vs not want; good vs evil; true vs false).
In short...what if nature doesn't instruct; but inspires to react and what if the parasitic few use the suggested talmud to exploit the ignorance of the many thereof?
What if talmudic reasoning represents a farming tool for all the conflicts of reason among the many; by endlessly suggesting them contradictions to whatever they reason about aka feeding the ignorant cattle justifications to stay ignorant?
INSTRUC'TION, noun [Latin instructio.] - "the act of teaching or informing the understanding in that of which it was before ignorant; information"
What if nature doesn't offer information; but moves all within for perceived (knowledge) inspiration; which our choice of reaction transmutes into comprehended (understanding) information?
What if choice chooses to ignore to react (to balance); and instead consents to suggested choices of others for "instruction"? What if choice reacting to balance represents the choice of need; while falling for the suggestions of others represents choice of want? What if choosing to want suggestion; deceives one into a conflict against those that don't want the suggested?
What if this conflict (want vs not want; while ignoring need) represents reason (division by suggestion) And what if the talmud is used to suggest its followers to use implication (if/then) over reason (want vs not want; good vs evil; true vs false).
In short...what if nature doesn't instruct; but inspires to react and what if the parasitic few use the suggested talmud to exploit the ignorance of the many thereof?
What if talmudic reasoning represents a farming tool for all the conflicts of reason among the many; by endlessly suggesting them contradictions to whatever they reason about aka feeding the ignorant cattle justifications to stay ignorant?