I'm not too much of a follower myself. You can't learn the secrets of this world by simply one person. You have to learn from multiple individuals of multiple different backgrounds. Finding the extraordinary individual is difficult. By creating followers, they can lead them. That's my best assumption. Hit the follow, like and subscribe button for me. That's exactly what they say. Don't do that for me, block me if you'd like. It's your decision.
Comments (10)
sorted by:
a) that's because a secret implies withheld information as suggested by others; to which you already consented...otherwise you wouldn't want suggested secrets from others.
Meanwhile; this "perceivable" world doesn't communicate in secrecy, it moves everything to communicate inspiration towards perceiving senses. The illuminated simply adapt to the perceived source of light; while struggling to resist the suggested darkness.
"exit light" (exit comprehension) "enter night" (enter ignorance) "take my hand" (consent to suggestion) "we're off to never-, neverland" (diminished growth potential).
b) person aka per sonos (by sound). Each ONE represents by ALL sound perceived.
"from" implies by their suggested information; "through" implies utilizing others within balance as perceived inspiration (need) or suggested information (want). To learn implies to teach self and vice versa aka growing comprehension by adaptation to perceived. Others represent tools used for the growth (need) of comprehension of for diminishing it (want).
What if collective balance represents the background; foundation; source of every individual choice within? Before you fall for the temptation of what individuals suggest; consider what individualizes them?
Of course; because one has to ignore the highest value in all perceivable existence...ones choice of evaluation.The one you're suggested to look for represents the one you want to put over yourself; the one you can shirk responsibility of choice onto; while following him towards death.
Life is tempted to follow; yet demanded to resist being moved; hence choice within balance.
The few suggest creationism (out of nothing); while using idolatry (suggested meaning to worship) to sell it to the consenting many who are tempted into ignorance.
"hit like & subscribe" represents allegory for "choose want & submit"
I know some people think you're a bot. And if you are, that's okay by me. Questioning and thinking is the goal here.
The sleight of hand: "I am whatever you say I am...if I wasn't, then why would I say I am?" implies that the suggestions of others cannot define who you are; unless you consent to them. What others suggest you are; represents a label upon what's being perceived beforehand.
I was before you can suggest what I am...so why would I consent to ignore the perceived (inspiration) for the suggested (information); which would give others to power to define what I am.
What's interesting about the "bot" label; is that those suggesting it are diminishing themselves under technology. They also accuse me of being too different; while accusing others of being NPC's aka same acting order followers.
As for yourself...it doesn't matter what I am; but what you choose to shape out of it for the sustenance of self. Not as responses to me or others; but as your expression of self within everything.
Quests towards goals imply outcome orientation. Is life outcome oriented (towards death) or the resistance to being moved towards predefined outcome (death) for the sustenance of self?
What if your origin (balance) represents the solution to every answer (choice), and you the expression within (growth or loss)?
As for thinking...can you choose to not think in response to perceived input? Can that which is moved choose to not respond to movement...or does that represent self corrupting ignorance?
"As for thinking...can you choose to not think in response to perceived input?"
Being married, you learn to master this.
So you're still a follower, just of multiple people?
Why is everything about following and relying on somebody else?
Why can't we simply think for ourselves, and accept when told we're feeling instead of thinking?
The whole reason school teaches you science and write papers is so you're able to understand on your own.
An expert isn't always right.
Someone putting together a word salad that gets you excited isn't necessarily telling you the truth.
Are you attempting to make me a leader? Don't know if I can do that. It's difficult, and I find the treasure in the unsung heros.
Sounds like you are able to listen. A great skill that will get you far. Nobody listens, the mind works 10 times faster than a person speaks. While you are talking, most are thinking what they are going to say next. Listening is a great attribute to have, it's rare. Also, if you seek wisdom, read proverbs.
Everything is perceived; not suggested by others within. Life perceives being moved from inception towards death; hence being the formed choice within the momentum (balance) of that ongoing flow.
Choice within balance implies the need to resist the temptation to want to ignore resisting.
Choice doesn't need to rely on the suggested choices of others; it needs to respond to balance (need/want); while resisting the suggested imbalance (want vs not want) by the choices of others.
To think implies response to input; yet as choice that implies both perceived inspiration (need) and suggested information (want). Choice as the response-ability within balance is demanded to choose need over want; yet is tempted to choose want over need. Others exploit the ignorance of the former (need over want) by suggesting the latter (want over need), and consent to the suggestion of others represents choice (consent) to choice (suggestion) contract law; which is in ignorance of balance (offer) to choice (response) natural law.
That's the foundation for the whole "inversion" racket...want over need instead of need over want. Those who fall for it are corrupting the comprehension of perceived inspiration with the accumulation of suggested information within their mind (memory).
"accept when told" represents consent by choice to suggestion by choice of others; hence submission to the will of others; while ignoring the required will for the sustenance of self.
Feelings aka EMO'TION, noun [Latin emotio; emoveo, to move from.] ignores being moved by; hence being form (life) within flow (inception towards death). Both wanted and not wanted emotions are tempting one to into imbalance (want versus not want); while ignoring balance (need/want).
a) understanding represents standing under the suggested information by others; hence submitting to them; while ignoring ones own free will of choice. Those who want you to understand are domesticating your free will of choice through suggestion.
Under natural law...growing comprehension (compressed within one out of perceived all) is based on choice adapting to perceived balance; while resisting suggested choices by others.
b) to teach self equals to learn for self and vice versa.
c) SCI'ENCE, noun [Latin scientia, from scio, to know.] aka knowledge - "perceived inspiration" cannot be shared; for it's already offered at any moment to each ONE (form) within ALL (flow).
The parasitic few suggested scientism to invert perceived inspiration with suggested information. Besides the aforementioned contract law (choice to choice); their main tool of subversion represents suggested information (word) of perceived inspiration (sound).
These words "insane person" represent suggested meaning; which deceives those consenting to them to ignore the perceived meaning implied within "in sanus" (within sound) + "per sonos" (by sound) aka being within; by and therefore in response to perceivable sound as the choice based resonance (need) or dissonance (want) to it.
d) reason represents the want versus not want conflict; caused by consent to want or not want any suggested information. The parasitic few use suggestion (-isms) to cause division (reason) among the many; which allows them control over both sides of every conflict.
Whatever one reasons about is being defined only by those who suggested what you are reasoning about. Changing sides within reason doesn't change your position within imbalance (conflict) aka want vs not want...both ignore need.
The few not only define what the ignorant many are reasoning over; they redefine the sides of the conflict (from want vs not want to true vs false; believing vs not believing; capitalism vs communism; rich vs poor; right-wing vs left-wing; nationalism vs internationalism; McD vs Burger King; white vs black and so on. Furthermore; to keep the conflicts of reason going; they suggest contradictions to both sides (talmduic reasoning); thereby fueling the reasoning to sustain the suggestions that came before. Example..over half a century of pro-life vs pro-choice reasoning is what sustains the suggested "abortion" racket ever since, and the ignorant many also ignore the notice of liability within "pro-life vs pro-choice"..."life equals choice".
a) right implies versus wrong aka a conflict of reason (want vs not want imbalance); which is caused by consenting to ignore perceived need/want balance) for suggested moralism aka suggested restrictions upon behavior of choice; which ignores being "free" will of choice" in response to the "dom"inance of balance aka free-dom.
b) EXPERT', adjective [Latin expertus, from experior, to try.] - "taught by use" aka learning by doing aka responding as choice to perceived balance.
If one comprehends perceived sound; then whatever others shape by choice into suggestible words; still expresses the perceived sound to the one with eyes to see aka the one who chooses perceived (need) over suggested (want).
Objectively you need multiple opinions.
Where was the line from which film or series. So they have the council of 13 dun dun dun somewhere. It conducts strategic and counter intelligence. Obviously different opinions are submitted for decisiveness and any course of action. Anyhow they all shared a secular opinion, except for one of the council of 13. Who do you choose? In the series or film. It would've been complete nuclear disaster hadn't it been averted by the one opposing opinion. Chessy perhaps.
It is only by gaining multiple opinions that you can gain an understanding. Otherwise they all echo catastrophe. Pied piper follow little lemmings.