No eating without crops more like.

That implies idolizing the crop; instead of each ONEs responsibilit to sustain self by fertilizing the surrounding. This is how you get "Children of the Corn" and the horror it leads to.

If it's perceived behavior, it's only the perceptions of onlookers and they're only seeing afterimages.

IM'AGE, noun [Latin imago.] - "a representation or similitude of any person or thing, formed of a material substance". Form represents a re image of flow.

If I let myself be defined by something as paltry as death I'd've given up this gig a long time ago...

Need implies sustenance of life; want implies the ignorance thereof; hence being tempted towards death. We are deceiving ourselves to ignore this by reasoning about wanting vs not wanting death; which both are defined by death; hence ignorance of life. Try giving up breathing to understand that balance dominates free will of choice (free-dom). If you're defined by your wants then you're defined by death; while the ignorance of need will tempt you to endlessly justify what you want vs what you don't want. This would be an annoying issue on itself; but now we have the parasitic few ruthlessly exploiting just that with suggestions (towards both want and not want) and contradictions (towards both want and not want); and on top of that we also have an ignorant majority hostile to each other; while ignoring the existence of the few as-well.

driven by a need to taste them all.

That represents the justification for wanting to taste. Notice that real hunger first tempts with endless wanted tastes; then diminishes taste altogether into naked need for anything processable. Dedicated fasting represents a ritual to relearn the balance between hunger (need) and taste (want). This isn't about taking taste from you; but about you corrupting taste by tasting too much; while being tempted to want even more.

Does nature need reverence? Does balance?

Balance represents the predefined value of need/want for the responding choice of evaluation thereof. Your question implies balance having choice. Balance does not need to choose; since it already represents ongoing balance; it's temporary choice that needs to balance by choosing.

Does nothing?

Classic contradiction in terms...doing (implies something) nothing (implies ignoring something).

PIE dew can also be read as "to show favor" so consider that when choosing need over want and benefiting from it, what we are really doing is showing favor to ourselves.

Not "our" selves; but ONEs self sustenance within ALL; which implies the self sustenance of the ONEness of ALL. Choice does not respond for balance or for other choices; but in response to balance; which grows potential of choice; which then benefits others. The favor was already given...from ALL to ONE aka temporary participation within conscious existence. Re-turning that favor simply re-presents re-sponding to it by choice; hence re-sponsibility. Meanwhile among humanity: "witness my benevolence...I recycle".

If there is natural law, then there must be natural outlaws, and thus natural coppers to go apprehend them, and natural courts in which these natural criminals can be naturally tried, and natural prisons to naturally hold 'em.

a) natural law (flow) is defined for those within (form); so it ain't out-law; but ignorance of being within law.

b) flow represents velocity; hence the force of law; which the parasitic few are inverting by suggesting law enforcement (law enforced upon mind aka suggestion of ignorance).

c) "free" will of choice is already apprehended within the "dom"inance of balance (free-dom). The parasitic few inverted this by sentencing to life imprisonment (imprison the mind) aka SEN'TENCE, noun [from Latin sententia, from sentio, to think.]

d) trying implies what? Free will of choice; while a court (jurisdiction) implies the legal (natural law) power (resistance) of authority (choice) of doing justice (mimicking flow); yet not upon each other; but in response to balance for the sustenance of self.

to figure a way out

Consider the implication of figuring a way out of living life? What if the parasitic few simply suggest escapism to deceive one to ignore the only moment(um) ONE can exist within ALL?

back to liberty

LIB'ERTY, noun [Latin libertas, from liber, free.] aka the status quo of choice (free) within balance (dominance). The parasitic few are suggesting choices as paths towards (mimicking loss of flow) freedom; yet consenting to any suggested choice implies ignoring ones free will of choice to respond to dominance of balance. Which choice to freedom? ONEs free will of choice. Sleight of hand..."Back to life, back to reality"..."Back to the here and now".

New needs are coming in daily, and it demands flexible feet to keep pace with the developments. Reckon you're fast enough? I know I am.

Hierarchy of need aka fruits of ones labor aka exponential growth aka attracting others.

And where do growth and loss come from? From movement!

Energy to flow (loss) to momentum (balance) to form (growth).

Growing into all requires that one first grow into the kind of seed that grows into all, instead of the mundane kind that grows into soil.

ALL represents the soil for each ONE seed within. Others represent the temptation to uproot ONEself; or the inspiration to grow ONEself...depending on choice of response to balance (need/want).

"internal alchemy"

We (ONEs) are within ongoing transmutation out of base (ALL).

If there's inherent power, it's probably what some of this movement stuff is using to get along.

Flow and form together represent the inherent power of energy aka loss/growth aka velocity/resistance etc.

are hot dogs sandwiches?

Everything is energy; everything perceivable (form within momentum of flow) can be shaped by choice. Choose to rebrand a hot dog into a sandwich and there ya go; and if you think yourself of the Asian persuasion than consider resisting the temptation to make a sandwich out of a hot dog.

Of course nature can't be late.

Hard to miss being within (momentum).

Get to the implication of one and you've gotten to the implication of all the things.

The implication of ONE (being within ALL) represents finite; while the implication of ALL (energy) represents infinite. Finite cannot reach infinite; since it's already with-in-finite.

What's struggling got to do with breathing anyway?

Hold it or resist it...struggle on both sides; balance within.

Choosing to breathe i just choosing to keep living this particularly present "life" and all the subsequent choices that entails; it's far from mandatory.

Try to choose to not to breathe. The resulting dominance will put your choice back into place.

there's no wood left to whittle. Though if ever one needs to struggle, to that person I'd say: STRUGGLE!

A masturbation allegory?

What's twice as valuable as nothing and wears double the number of funny hats? It's 2 nothing

What's two for ONE who doesn't ignore everything perceived for nothingness suggested? Another suggestion.

I am the eggman.

Dr. Ivo Robotnik?

But if you're talking about self sustenance (little s) then really everything's way overkill.

ONEself within ALL implies ALL at disposal of each ONE. The overkill assumption stems from ONE trying to claim (want) ALL instead of using it (need).

Imagine: an animal that reshapes its whiskers according to a whim; not waiting for the seasons or anything!

Because they respond to balance; instead of suggested imbalances.

Well if you think there's no "do nothing" then I think you're not trying hard enough.

Trying and doing and every other reaction implies in response to the source of action (energy).

Perception doesn't come from the source. Perception comes from the senses.

Sense implies sensing aka perceiving moving input through senses.

Don't make the mistake of assuming contemplation when I speak a question.

Question about implies contemplation of observation...I presume?

Too many heavy words in that bit about brands.

Flow doesn't offer brands to form; form has to choose to ignore flow first when suggesting brands to others. ONE doesn't need any words to communicate with ALL.

"Civilization" is a Class XIV scam!

Civilizing those within through means of suggestion aka domestication of choice.

Building dams is only natural when beavers do it!

Once again a need/want (balance) issue.

Babbling indistinct sounds

Distinguishing represents growth potential; hence a skill to learn/teach.

resonant frequencies always reveal the weaknesses in the material

Great point...repetition of balance tempts imbalance.

Strictly speaking, the few are as susceptible to spell-craft as the many; they're just a little more practiced and marginally more difficult to flummox.

I come back to you once I figured out the layers of numerical encoding they utilize underneath ever suggested language. They are trained to perceived numbers underneath words; which makes it that much easier to cohesively demunize the many who babble idolatry all throughout their lives.

But what, go out and face them down, deflect their suggestions with pointed wit and poke holes in all their illusions with keen perception; cast them from their thrones and people keep coming up looking for orders.

Still the order out of chaos suggestion at play; and still the unquestioned weakness of ignorance within the many; tempting the next best few to exploit them even more viciously. The whole game of thrones represents suggested cult of personalities to put exchangeable faces before those wearing identities as masks in the background; while the faceless corporation racket then allowed the few to deceive the many to mask themselves (first through internet personas and now literally).

that's why I don't mess with that game - not my fight

Your resistance to their suggestions represents your resistance to the temptation of ignorance; the same ignorance that fuels the few vs many reasoning. Each one needs to resist ignorance (want over need) anyway; yet all the reasoning about suggested information drives the very choice of ignorance causing in into...well...ignorance. Tackling that ignorance would make suggestion impotent; yet the last thing the ignorant wants to tackle is his own ignorance, and so back into the game he goes.

Using information without touching suggested intent isn't some superpower.

That represents choosing to not want suggested intent; hence consent to suggestion; to reasoning about suggestion and to ignore need for want. How would you touch abortion without touching either pro-life or pro-choice? Wouldn't any choice imply pro-choice?

no matter how deeply one delves, the intent beneath these words is buried far too deep for anyone to find.

Intent represents want for outcome; choice represents need of response. Need sustains life; want tempts towards death. Intent is only buried under self imposed ignorance (want over need).

Selecting a location for the construction of a structure is also the act of selecting the non-selection of all other locations. Where one builds their house is a choice of how frequently they want to build it. Not building it close to water is going to require emulating a river somehow. Now rainwater catchment's a good place to go...

A choice within balance. As for non-selection...how could choice not select within balance?

Warming up's not about heat; it's about bloodflow (there's a word, eh?).

At first one realizes the suggested flow allegories by the few more and more often; which eventually leads to understanding about form (life) within flow (inception towards death) not being able to express anything without expressing it out of flow. Even ignorance implies what is ignored, and what ignoring represents the response to. As for heat...flow causes momentum; which causes form; which represents velocity meeting resistance; which causes heat.