Same trick underneath all the fluff... ignore 1 (natural reality) for consent to suggested 0 (digital fiction) aka ignore balance for suggested choices aka ignore natural order for suggested orders aka ignore everything for suggested nothing aka ignore adaptation for suggested stagnation aka ignore perceived inspiration for suggested information aka ignore need for suggested want.
Friendly reminder that choice represents the response to balance (need/want)...not to suggested choices by others; which represents the temptation to ignore need/want (balance) for want versus not want (imbalance).
The issue isn't him; but your choice of consent to anything suggested. You already consented to him as the source of information you not want; which under natural law represents your choice of want over need. Not want does not represent need...want vs not want represent a conflict (reason) caused by consent to the same suggestion; while ignoring need.
Ask yourself how you have access to what is suggested to you? In this case MSM through technology; both consented to by your free will of choice to be able to then judge the suggested idol "Martine Rothblatt".
MSM shows you 24/7 that it's irrelevant what kind of truths; lies and contradictions to both they offer; so long as viewers consent to reason (want vs not want) about the suggested. They could eat a baby on livestream; while discrediting it afterwards by putting a pixel over the picture; while claiming it's a deepfake.
In the Allegory of the Cave it doesn't matter what is suggested; only that the onlookers consent to suggested information over perceived inspiration.
Did I nail it? Tell me I nailed it...I so nailed it.
Eye of the beholder aka your choice represents evaluation of everything offered. You nailed whatever you choose to nail and don't need anyone else to tell you that you did. Choice represents response to balance; therefore choice represents responsibility over choosing. That responsibility cannot be shared; only ignored.
What if perception (knowledge) represents the same for all; yet comprehension (understanding) is different for each one?
Also...does nature offer text to our perception; or does someone within nature used choice to shape text out of what nature offered? Did you use choice upon perceived or upon text suggested by others?
"suggested by others" cannot really be in this model. It is "perceived as suggested by others".
Some claim pink is not existing objectively. Really ? Which color exist objectively ?
Japanese were not recognising difference between green and blue [please not comment this example ok ?]
"suggested by others" cannot really be in this model. It is "perceived as suggested by others".
This is where one needs self discernment about ones position. You perceive as ONE from ALL aka as form (life) from flow (inception towards death) aka as within nature from what moves nature. Perception represents senses responding to movement. A schnoz requires moving smell to sense it...
Now ask yourself...if others within nature suggest you something; then where do they got it from? They perceived it from the same nature as you do; but their suggested explanation represents a parasite to the perceived. You perceive inspiration for your choice to respond to; others choose to shape out of perceived inspiration affixed information (words aka idolized meaning); which they then choose to suggest to you.
That's not perceived inspiration; but the temptation of suggested information.
Form a simpler perspective...nature offers choice what's needed; others suggest choice what isn't needed aka wants aka temptations aka choices.
Even simpler...nature offers order; others suggest orders.
Before you make a choice (want vs not want) upon anything suggested; you make a choice within balance (need/want) upon perceived.
Some claim pink is not existing objectively. Really ? Which color exist objectively ? Japanese were not recognizing difference between green and blue [please not comment this example ok ?]
What if as form within flow; we represent the subjective response of form to objective flow? Choice can only ever assume within balance; because balance (momentum) is defined as the response to being moved. Motion causes momentum aka velocity (flow) causes its own resistance (form).
What if pink; green and blue don't need to be branded for our choice to respond to them? What if all differentiation is needed for one to perceive inspiration to respond to for ones self sustenance?
If I lack comprehension about what others perceive (pink; green; blue); then what if the differences in comprehension is what I need to use as inspiration to grow my own comprehension? If we sit together and you start segregating the green from the blue gummi bears; then I perceive different behavior as inspiration. I don't need you to tell me why you did it; which would represent a temptation to ignore perceived inspiration for suggested information by you. What if I believe you and you start suggesting me that the gummi bears told you to segregate them; because there's a race-war brewing? See how my ignorance can tempt you to exploit me; which in the process tempts you to exploit others until we have the shlomo shit show of today?
The problem is while 3rd party information is indeed less valuable it is also faster way of learning than using only your own perception of nature from the beginning without middleman :( I maybe understand your point but it wouldn't work for me.
Such castle can be recognised as both stronghold and prison. Both definitions true.
Same trick underneath all the fluff... ignore 1 (natural reality) for consent to suggested 0 (digital fiction) aka ignore balance for suggested choices aka ignore natural order for suggested orders aka ignore everything for suggested nothing aka ignore adaptation for suggested stagnation aka ignore perceived inspiration for suggested information aka ignore need for suggested want.
Friendly reminder that choice represents the response to balance (need/want)...not to suggested choices by others; which represents the temptation to ignore need/want (balance) for want versus not want (imbalance).
So you're saying Rothblatt is a psychopathic narcissist who gets off on the confusion he creates in the world around him?
e.g. it doesn't matter what he says as long as it gaslights as many people as possible so he can suck up all that juicy validation?
Did I nail it? Tell me I nailed it.
...
...
...
I so nailed it.
The issue isn't him; but your choice of consent to anything suggested. You already consented to him as the source of information you not want; which under natural law represents your choice of want over need. Not want does not represent need...want vs not want represent a conflict (reason) caused by consent to the same suggestion; while ignoring need.
Ask yourself how you have access to what is suggested to you? In this case MSM through technology; both consented to by your free will of choice to be able to then judge the suggested idol "Martine Rothblatt".
MSM shows you 24/7 that it's irrelevant what kind of truths; lies and contradictions to both they offer; so long as viewers consent to reason (want vs not want) about the suggested. They could eat a baby on livestream; while discrediting it afterwards by putting a pixel over the picture; while claiming it's a deepfake.
In the Allegory of the Cave it doesn't matter what is suggested; only that the onlookers consent to suggested information over perceived inspiration.
Eye of the beholder aka your choice represents evaluation of everything offered. You nailed whatever you choose to nail and don't need anyone else to tell you that you did. Choice represents response to balance; therefore choice represents responsibility over choosing. That responsibility cannot be shared; only ignored.
OMH u/free-will-of-choice answering with understandable text.
What if perception (knowledge) represents the same for all; yet comprehension (understanding) is different for each one?
Also...does nature offer text to our perception; or does someone within nature used choice to shape text out of what nature offered? Did you use choice upon perceived or upon text suggested by others?
"suggested by others" cannot really be in this model. It is "perceived as suggested by others".
Some claim pink is not existing objectively. Really ? Which color exist objectively ? Japanese were not recognising difference between green and blue [please not comment this example ok ?]
This is where one needs self discernment about ones position. You perceive as ONE from ALL aka as form (life) from flow (inception towards death) aka as within nature from what moves nature. Perception represents senses responding to movement. A schnoz requires moving smell to sense it...
Now ask yourself...if others within nature suggest you something; then where do they got it from? They perceived it from the same nature as you do; but their suggested explanation represents a parasite to the perceived. You perceive inspiration for your choice to respond to; others choose to shape out of perceived inspiration affixed information (words aka idolized meaning); which they then choose to suggest to you.
That's not perceived inspiration; but the temptation of suggested information.
Form a simpler perspective...nature offers choice what's needed; others suggest choice what isn't needed aka wants aka temptations aka choices.
Even simpler...nature offers order; others suggest orders.
Before you make a choice (want vs not want) upon anything suggested; you make a choice within balance (need/want) upon perceived.
What if as form within flow; we represent the subjective response of form to objective flow? Choice can only ever assume within balance; because balance (momentum) is defined as the response to being moved. Motion causes momentum aka velocity (flow) causes its own resistance (form).
What if pink; green and blue don't need to be branded for our choice to respond to them? What if all differentiation is needed for one to perceive inspiration to respond to for ones self sustenance?
If I lack comprehension about what others perceive (pink; green; blue); then what if the differences in comprehension is what I need to use as inspiration to grow my own comprehension? If we sit together and you start segregating the green from the blue gummi bears; then I perceive different behavior as inspiration. I don't need you to tell me why you did it; which would represent a temptation to ignore perceived inspiration for suggested information by you. What if I believe you and you start suggesting me that the gummi bears told you to segregate them; because there's a race-war brewing? See how my ignorance can tempt you to exploit me; which in the process tempts you to exploit others until we have the shlomo shit show of today?
hahaha... Got it maybe. At least in part.
The problem is while 3rd party information is indeed less valuable it is also faster way of learning than using only your own perception of nature from the beginning without middleman :( I maybe understand your point but it wouldn't work for me.
Such castle can be recognised as both stronghold and prison. Both definitions true.