What if productive vs useless represents want vs not want; just like rich vs poor? What if want implies consenting to a suggestion of others; which then causes the versus conflict (reason) between want vs not want?
Ask yourself...if you evaluate something as better or worse; did you define reality by choice; or did you evaluate a constantly changing reality? Look at suggested entertainment...doesn't your evaluation thereof (better or worse) automatically turns into a conflict of reason against those who chose the opposing side? Aren't all your evaluations of suggested entertainment a want vs not want choice for you?
What if the few use suggestion (want or not want) to cause that conflict (want vs not want) among the many?
No one should be exempt from misfortune. Its bad for humans not to suffer and struggle.
a) does inception(beginning) implies death (end) for life (choice within balance)?
b) is any life exempt from death?
c) doesn't life represent the resistance to being moved towards death; hence the struggle of survival by choice of adaptation?
d) what if that which moves life from inception towards death represents ongoing loss; while life represents temporary growth within?
e) "no one" implies you (as one) consenting to believe in suggested nothingness; while ignoring that as one within all you cannot perceive nothingness...or can you? How could one within everything perceive nothing?
better..bad
Can you respond to the reality around you without consenting to the suggested better vs worse and good vs bad conflict (reason)? What if you are outside interacting with other life-forms...if you evaluate them as good or bad; better or worse...will they reason with you; will there be a conflict?
These suggested terms represent an allegory for animated form aka life (form) animated by inception towards death (flow). How can flow causing momentum (balance); within which form (life with choice) exist; be a conflict? What if you ignore balance (need/want) for a suggested conflict (want vs not want to be harmed)?
What if those other life-forms don't intent conflict against you; but respond by choice to balance for the sustenance of self?
Interfere (to enter into)...what does that imply for free will of choice? How does one enter the choice of others? Could this be suggestion of choices towards choice? And doesn't suggestion imply consent by choice to suggestion by choice of others?
Now let's change perspective. If you go outside and a pigeon uses you for target practice; then that represents the pigeons choice...yet does it represent a suggestion? Without suggested meaning by the choice of others; is there still a conflict (want vs not want) or do you have to adapt to balance (need/want) anyway? Would reasoning about wanting vs not wanting what the pigeon is "providing" represent the needed way to adapt by choice?
What if the conflict (want vs not want) only exists within oneself when consenting to any suggestion by others; which then corrupts one to perceive reality through the lens of conflict (reason)?
What if we need to adapt to any circumstances; yet are tempted to ignore need for wanted or not wanted suggestions by others? Circumstances imply perceived movement; which our sense receive as inspiration aka pigeon does business; you see it; you respond. Adaptation.
Suggestion implies consent to affixed meaning (information); while ignoring adaptation to ongoing meaning (inspiration). The issue is that I can describe this; but only your choice; used upon inspiration (need) over suggested information (want or not want) can grow your understanding of this. Choosing to believe me does not represent understanding reality.
The issue is that all languages are suggested; hence us having such a headache communicating the self corrupting deception thereof. Real communication doesn't represents reasoning among choice (agree vs disagree over suggested information); but response as choice to balance aka resonance as choice with balance; as form with flow; as ONE with ALL etc.
What if productive vs useless represents want vs not want; just like rich vs poor? What if want implies consenting to a suggestion of others; which then causes the versus conflict (reason) between want vs not want?
Ask yourself...if you evaluate something as better or worse; did you define reality by choice; or did you evaluate a constantly changing reality? Look at suggested entertainment...doesn't your evaluation thereof (better or worse) automatically turns into a conflict of reason against those who chose the opposing side? Aren't all your evaluations of suggested entertainment a want vs not want choice for you?
What if the few use suggestion (want or not want) to cause that conflict (want vs not want) among the many?
a) does inception(beginning) implies death (end) for life (choice within balance)?
b) is any life exempt from death?
c) doesn't life represent the resistance to being moved towards death; hence the struggle of survival by choice of adaptation?
d) what if that which moves life from inception towards death represents ongoing loss; while life represents temporary growth within?
e) "no one" implies you (as one) consenting to believe in suggested nothingness; while ignoring that as one within all you cannot perceive nothingness...or can you? How could one within everything perceive nothing?
Can you respond to the reality around you without consenting to the suggested better vs worse and good vs bad conflict (reason)? What if you are outside interacting with other life-forms...if you evaluate them as good or bad; better or worse...will they reason with you; will there be a conflict?
He's a mentally ill philosopher from Flat Earth, inc.
He spams it everywhere he goes.
These suggested terms represent an allegory for animated form aka life (form) animated by inception towards death (flow). How can flow causing momentum (balance); within which form (life with choice) exist; be a conflict? What if you ignore balance (need/want) for a suggested conflict (want vs not want to be harmed)?
What if those other life-forms don't intent conflict against you; but respond by choice to balance for the sustenance of self?
Interfere (to enter into)...what does that imply for free will of choice? How does one enter the choice of others? Could this be suggestion of choices towards choice? And doesn't suggestion imply consent by choice to suggestion by choice of others?
Now let's change perspective. If you go outside and a pigeon uses you for target practice; then that represents the pigeons choice...yet does it represent a suggestion? Without suggested meaning by the choice of others; is there still a conflict (want vs not want) or do you have to adapt to balance (need/want) anyway? Would reasoning about wanting vs not wanting what the pigeon is "providing" represent the needed way to adapt by choice?
What if the conflict (want vs not want) only exists within oneself when consenting to any suggestion by others; which then corrupts one to perceive reality through the lens of conflict (reason)?
What if we need to adapt to any circumstances; yet are tempted to ignore need for wanted or not wanted suggestions by others? Circumstances imply perceived movement; which our sense receive as inspiration aka pigeon does business; you see it; you respond. Adaptation.
Suggestion implies consent to affixed meaning (information); while ignoring adaptation to ongoing meaning (inspiration). The issue is that I can describe this; but only your choice; used upon inspiration (need) over suggested information (want or not want) can grow your understanding of this. Choosing to believe me does not represent understanding reality.
The issue is that all languages are suggested; hence us having such a headache communicating the self corrupting deception thereof. Real communication doesn't represents reasoning among choice (agree vs disagree over suggested information); but response as choice to balance aka resonance as choice with balance; as form with flow; as ONE with ALL etc.