What if choice is bound to balance (need/want); not to the choices of others (want vs not want)? What if nature doesn't speak truth; but offers sound towards perceiving senses? What if the conflict between true (want) versus false (not want) represents division caused among the many by the suggestions of the few?
If the many wouldn't first consent to believe suggested information to be truth; could the few wield lies upon them?
Right speech and right action
Go outside and wait...when will nature "speak" to you? While you're waiting; notice the need to "react" to thirst; hunger and lack of shelter.
the bare minimum
What if ONE represents the bare minimum within ALL?
Now apply the same to the proclamation of truth...nature doesn't define truth; that's why others can exploit those who do through suggestion of lies. Something doesn't exist because one calls it true (want) or false (not want); but because it's being moved by nature (need). We each represent a response to perceived movement (constant change); not to affixed states suggested to us (true vs false).
Adaptation to suggested nothing (not) doesn't define comprehension (understanding); adaptation to perceived inspiration from everything does.
You can always just up or down vote.
That represents the conflict of reason (want vs not want); caused by consenting to suggested information (want) over perceived inspiration (need). I neither offer (no threads started); not judge (no up/down-votes given); hence representing free will of choice in response to balance.
LIKE, adjective - "equal in quantity, quality or degree". Each ONE within ALL represents a differentiation (form) out of the same (flow) aka form (life) out of flow (inception towards death).
The parasitic few suggest unity to shape the ignorant many alike (hence uniformity; miscegenation; globalism; chain of command etc.). What the many ignore is U'NITY, noun [Latin unitas.] - "the state of being one; oneness". We each represent ONE within ALL and ALL represents ONE in energy. Suggested togetherness implies the ignorance of ONEness.
In short...before choice "I like you" exists response ability "I am out of".
You were supposed to throw her into the harbor out of protest. You weren't listening to the tour?
Maybe "She" had a teabag as well.
We have an obligation to speaking truth. Right speech and right action (to borrow a phrase from Sacha Stone) are essential and the bare minimum IMHO.
What if choice is bound to balance (need/want); not to the choices of others (want vs not want)? What if nature doesn't speak truth; but offers sound towards perceiving senses? What if the conflict between true (want) versus false (not want) represents division caused among the many by the suggestions of the few?
If the many wouldn't first consent to believe suggested information to be truth; could the few wield lies upon them?
Go outside and wait...when will nature "speak" to you? While you're waiting; notice the need to "react" to thirst; hunger and lack of shelter.
What if ONE represents the bare minimum within ALL?
There are no lies in nature, that’s why lies never survive
Now apply the same to the proclamation of truth...nature doesn't define truth; that's why others can exploit those who do through suggestion of lies. Something doesn't exist because one calls it true (want) or false (not want); but because it's being moved by nature (need). We each represent a response to perceived movement (constant change); not to affixed states suggested to us (true vs false).
You seem to not be able to understand my post. Less is more so don’t try so hard. You can always just up or down vote.
Adaptation to suggested nothing (not) doesn't define comprehension (understanding); adaptation to perceived inspiration from everything does.
That represents the conflict of reason (want vs not want); caused by consenting to suggested information (want) over perceived inspiration (need). I neither offer (no threads started); not judge (no up/down-votes given); hence representing free will of choice in response to balance.
I like you
LIKE, adjective - "equal in quantity, quality or degree". Each ONE within ALL represents a differentiation (form) out of the same (flow) aka form (life) out of flow (inception towards death).
The parasitic few suggest unity to shape the ignorant many alike (hence uniformity; miscegenation; globalism; chain of command etc.). What the many ignore is U'NITY, noun [Latin unitas.] - "the state of being one; oneness". We each represent ONE within ALL and ALL represents ONE in energy. Suggested togetherness implies the ignorance of ONEness.
In short...before choice "I like you" exists response ability "I am out of".
But MSNBC says "if we all comply we can get our freedoms back" lol I never heard of ASKING FOR FREEDOM. LOL LUDICROUS!
Punch her in the face and spit on her hair.
I don't understand the relevance of her being female. Does it upset you more when women tell you what to do?
No, you seem to be harping on that detail though. I was just trying to recreate the scenario.
Because females are dumber and more compliant. If you ever had them in your apartment for a first date youd know that.
What's blocking your understanding?