Same trick as always...make suggestion towards consent (in this case obedient listeners); after which free will of teacher controls ignorance of free will among students; which he uses to fill them up with suggested information. Just filling up that conscious memory to restrict its needed adaptation to inspiration.
There's no difference between an idol on a stage and the cult of personality worshiping it and this chain of command of students under teachers.
One guy talking for an hour to an audience that isn't even shown represents the allegory for the few controlling the ignorance of the many through suggestion.
What is implied for any suggested topic to be discussed? A consenting audience, and consent represents both wanting and not wanting the suggested topic. Those who suggested the topic thereby caused a division aka the conflict of reason aka want vs not want of suggested.
This division represents the intent for all suggested information. How could this be? Because the nature we live in doesn't suggest information; it moves everything within to communicate inspiration towards choice of reaction. All suggested information represents the temptation to ignore perceived inspiration.
As for crazy...those who believe the suggested will call those who do not believe it "crazy" and vice versa. It's the same conflict of want vs not want underneath every suggested information. All those in conflict (reasoning about want vs not want) are controlled by the few who made the suggestion and gained the consent of the many to it.
The issue here isn't about reasoning what technology the few use to control the many; it's the ignorance of the many towards using their choice in response to this system (balance); while resisting the suggested choices of others. How does one communicate this without being perceived as the one making suggestions?
topic
TOP'IC, noun [Gr. place; Latin topicus, topica.] - "principle of persuasion". In other words a temptation aka choice of want over need. Ask yourself...does reality need to be discussed or does reality demands response from all within nonetheless? Is choice defined by perceived balance (need) or by suggested choices of others (want)? Does choosing want over need causes want vs not want (conflict of reason)?
Can one respond to reality without representing the expression thereof to all others? Also notice the demon (spirit) within demonstration; an allegory for adaptation (spiro; to breathe) aka the fundamental expression of form (life) within flow (inception towards death).
Same trick as always...make suggestion towards consent (in this case obedient listeners); after which free will of teacher controls ignorance of free will among students; which he uses to fill them up with suggested information. Just filling up that conscious memory to restrict its needed adaptation to inspiration.
There's no difference between an idol on a stage and the cult of personality worshiping it and this chain of command of students under teachers.
One guy talking for an hour to an audience that isn't even shown represents the allegory for the few controlling the ignorance of the many through suggestion.
Same trick as always...make readers think people who discuss topics like this are crazy.
What is implied for any suggested topic to be discussed? A consenting audience, and consent represents both wanting and not wanting the suggested topic. Those who suggested the topic thereby caused a division aka the conflict of reason aka want vs not want of suggested.
This division represents the intent for all suggested information. How could this be? Because the nature we live in doesn't suggest information; it moves everything within to communicate inspiration towards choice of reaction. All suggested information represents the temptation to ignore perceived inspiration.
As for crazy...those who believe the suggested will call those who do not believe it "crazy" and vice versa. It's the same conflict of want vs not want underneath every suggested information. All those in conflict (reasoning about want vs not want) are controlled by the few who made the suggestion and gained the consent of the many to it.
The issue here isn't about reasoning what technology the few use to control the many; it's the ignorance of the many towards using their choice in response to this system (balance); while resisting the suggested choices of others. How does one communicate this without being perceived as the one making suggestions?
TOP'IC, noun [Gr. place; Latin topicus, topica.] - "principle of persuasion". In other words a temptation aka choice of want over need. Ask yourself...does reality need to be discussed or does reality demands response from all within nonetheless? Is choice defined by perceived balance (need) or by suggested choices of others (want)? Does choosing want over need causes want vs not want (conflict of reason)?
Thank you for the demonstration.
Can one respond to reality without representing the expression thereof to all others? Also notice the demon (spirit) within demonstration; an allegory for adaptation (spiro; to breathe) aka the fundamental expression of form (life) within flow (inception towards death).