I only use it as a reference to ongoing revisionism; which I then wholesale undermine by questioning the perceived origin (sound); the suggestions (words) were shaped out of; hence IN'TEREST, verb transitive [Latin inter and esse.] aka internal essence (to be); which implies out of; by; within and therefore in response to.
exploring the etymology of each word tends to ignore the colloquial meaning they have acquired
COLLOQUIAL, adjective - "pertaining to common conversation"
a) the origin of perceivable represents common (flow); those within perceiving it represent differentiation (form). The verses one shapes come out of the same sound. Form (life) represents a differentiated ingredient out of the same base flow (inception towards death).
b) the growth of life implies expansion within energy after energy self differentiated aka from flow (loss) into form (growth).
c) ACQUI'RE, verb transitive (Latin acquiro, ad and quaero to seek, that is to follow, to press, to urge; acquiro signifies to pursue to the end or object; Heb. to seek, to make towards, to follow.)...which ignores that life doesn't follow towards the end (death); but is moved; hence representing the temporary resistance (life) within ongoing velocity (inception towards death).
Life isn't outcome oriented; the few suggest progressivism to tempt the many into following orders instead of being the resistance to the natural order. Life represents a response to origin; to being moved.
d) suggested words don't have a meaning (fiction); they tempt to ignore the perceived sound (reality) the words were shaped out of by responding choice. "insane person" represents a suggested meaning; while "in sanus" (within sound) + "per sonos" (by sound) represents perceivable meaning aka being within; by; out of and therefore in response to sound; hence having the choice of resonance (to perceived) or dissonance (to suggested).
The colloquial acquisition of meaning for "insane person" represents domestication to consent to suggested collectivism; which is then being used by the few to wield as an accusation against anyone who stands out from the domesticated many. The many consenting to what the few suggest "insane person" means is what is being utilized to further enslave them; domesticate the will; corrupt their memory; and restrict their comprehension away from the perceivable reality.
This results in a lot of off-topic word salad that doesn't add anything of relevance to the conversation
a) "adding" implies the want for more; while ignoring the need to adapt to "everything" perceivable one already got. One cannot add to reality; one can only express what's already there.
The deception here represents the suggestion of creationism (out of nothing); which ignores transmutation (out of everything); hence flow to form (inception); form within flow (life), and form to flow (death). Try "adding" a new though into reality without shaping it out of already perceivable...creation cannot exist for those perceiving; since they exist within the perceivable.
b) on vs off (another want vs not rebranding) ignores that there's no off within energy...both ongoing (flow) and temporary (form) coexist within energy as the power of velocity (loss) and the power of resistance (growth).
c) TOP'IC, noun [Gr. place; Latin topicus, topica.] - "any subject of discourse or argument" ignores that having the choice to argue implies being subjected to balance (need/want); hence existing at the center of it as the responding choice.
Furthermore; arguing (want vs not want reasoning) represents the ignorance of balance; hence putting oneself within an imbalance (versus conflict among choices). What one is reasoning (want vs not want) about are the suggestions of the few; who use them to divide the many into reasoning among each other.
d) how could I breach the suggested word; consented to by all those reasoning against each other about its meaning; as to describe the perceived origin of every word (sound shaped by choice)?
What are the implications (if/then) of the few suggesting words to deceive the many to reason (want vs not want) about their meaning; while ignoring the need to adapt as choice to perceived sound within balance (resonance/dissonance)? Could it be that those who consent to suggested words; perceive any mentioning of perceived sound as "word salad"?
If this is just a playground for developing your own style of long-winded discourse, then I suppose it doesn't matter.
a) I adapt to perceived inspiration, as to grow my comprehension of perceived; which requires my free will of choice to resist want (suggested information) for need (perceived inspiration). What others do with this represents their free will of choice.
b) adaptation to inspiration represents the growth of resistance (form) within velocity (flow); hence sustaining "matter" within immaterial.
c) what you view as long winded represents an expression of limited form tapping into infinite flow for inspiration. I do this all on the fly; every response unique; drawing connections between as many things as possible; while letting my consciousness roam free. If others adapt to any of this; then I can refocus on that; other than that I'm done with adaptation the moment I click save. I don't write this for others; but for the sustenance of self; which grows my ecosystem; which in return benefits all those around me.
feedback
There's only one source for food (flow to form); and form vs form (agreement vs disagreement) only leads to starvation; since both are ignoring the only infinite source of food. Look around you and ask yourself how the few can set up world wide famines without the mass ignorance of the many? Reasoning doesn't represent feedback; but wasting each others lunch; while the parasitic few accumulate the world wide food supplies away from the many. Maybe instead of wanting feedback; you should consider exchanging "feetback"...a kick in the ass every once in a while could inspire self sustenance.
I suggest you try a different approach
a) suggestion (want or not want) ignores perception (need)
b) as form within flow everything perceivable represents a difference; yet the suggestions of others tempt one to ignore it for sameness.
c) APPROACH, verb - "to drive, move, or press toward"...that represents the want for outcome (towards death); while ignoring adaptation to origin (for the sustenance of life). I'm busy within momentum; so the suggestion to approach death doesn't tempt me right now.
the majority of people skipping past your comments as soon as they see your username
"free-will-of-choice detected...everyone...deploy ignorance!" Hilarious; yet the consequences of individual ignorance are collectively shared in a balance based system.
I only use it as a reference to ongoing revisionism; which I then wholesale undermine by questioning the perceived origin (sound); the suggestions (words) were shaped out of; hence IN'TEREST, verb transitive [Latin inter and esse.] aka internal essence (to be); which implies out of; by; within and therefore in response to.
a) the origin of perceivable represents common (flow); those within perceiving it represent differentiation (form). The verses one shapes come out of the same sound. Form (life) represents a differentiated ingredient out of the same base flow (inception towards death).
b) the growth of life implies expansion within energy after energy self differentiated aka from flow (loss) into form (growth).
c) ACQUI'RE, verb transitive (Latin acquiro, ad and quaero to seek, that is to follow, to press, to urge; acquiro signifies to pursue to the end or object; Heb. to seek, to make towards, to follow.)...which ignores that life doesn't follow towards the end (death); but is moved; hence representing the temporary resistance (life) within ongoing velocity (inception towards death).
Life isn't outcome oriented; the few suggest progressivism to tempt the many into following orders instead of being the resistance to the natural order. Life represents a response to origin; to being moved.
d) suggested words don't have a meaning (fiction); they tempt to ignore the perceived sound (reality) the words were shaped out of by responding choice. "insane person" represents a suggested meaning; while "in sanus" (within sound) + "per sonos" (by sound) represents perceivable meaning aka being within; by; out of and therefore in response to sound; hence having the choice of resonance (to perceived) or dissonance (to suggested).
The colloquial acquisition of meaning for "insane person" represents domestication to consent to suggested collectivism; which is then being used by the few to wield as an accusation against anyone who stands out from the domesticated many. The many consenting to what the few suggest "insane person" means is what is being utilized to further enslave them; domesticate the will; corrupt their memory; and restrict their comprehension away from the perceivable reality.
a) "adding" implies the want for more; while ignoring the need to adapt to "everything" perceivable one already got. One cannot add to reality; one can only express what's already there.
The deception here represents the suggestion of creationism (out of nothing); which ignores transmutation (out of everything); hence flow to form (inception); form within flow (life), and form to flow (death). Try "adding" a new though into reality without shaping it out of already perceivable...creation cannot exist for those perceiving; since they exist within the perceivable.
b) on vs off (another want vs not rebranding) ignores that there's no off within energy...both ongoing (flow) and temporary (form) coexist within energy as the power of velocity (loss) and the power of resistance (growth).
c) TOP'IC, noun [Gr. place; Latin topicus, topica.] - "any subject of discourse or argument" ignores that having the choice to argue implies being subjected to balance (need/want); hence existing at the center of it as the responding choice.
Furthermore; arguing (want vs not want reasoning) represents the ignorance of balance; hence putting oneself within an imbalance (versus conflict among choices). What one is reasoning (want vs not want) about are the suggestions of the few; who use them to divide the many into reasoning among each other.
d) how could I breach the suggested word; consented to by all those reasoning against each other about its meaning; as to describe the perceived origin of every word (sound shaped by choice)?
What are the implications (if/then) of the few suggesting words to deceive the many to reason (want vs not want) about their meaning; while ignoring the need to adapt as choice to perceived sound within balance (resonance/dissonance)? Could it be that those who consent to suggested words; perceive any mentioning of perceived sound as "word salad"?
a) I adapt to perceived inspiration, as to grow my comprehension of perceived; which requires my free will of choice to resist want (suggested information) for need (perceived inspiration). What others do with this represents their free will of choice.
b) adaptation to inspiration represents the growth of resistance (form) within velocity (flow); hence sustaining "matter" within immaterial.
c) what you view as long winded represents an expression of limited form tapping into infinite flow for inspiration. I do this all on the fly; every response unique; drawing connections between as many things as possible; while letting my consciousness roam free. If others adapt to any of this; then I can refocus on that; other than that I'm done with adaptation the moment I click save. I don't write this for others; but for the sustenance of self; which grows my ecosystem; which in return benefits all those around me.
There's only one source for food (flow to form); and form vs form (agreement vs disagreement) only leads to starvation; since both are ignoring the only infinite source of food. Look around you and ask yourself how the few can set up world wide famines without the mass ignorance of the many? Reasoning doesn't represent feedback; but wasting each others lunch; while the parasitic few accumulate the world wide food supplies away from the many. Maybe instead of wanting feedback; you should consider exchanging "feetback"...a kick in the ass every once in a while could inspire self sustenance.
a) suggestion (want or not want) ignores perception (need)
b) as form within flow everything perceivable represents a difference; yet the suggestions of others tempt one to ignore it for sameness.
c) APPROACH, verb - "to drive, move, or press toward"...that represents the want for outcome (towards death); while ignoring adaptation to origin (for the sustenance of life). I'm busy within momentum; so the suggestion to approach death doesn't tempt me right now.
"free-will-of-choice detected...everyone...deploy ignorance!" Hilarious; yet the consequences of individual ignorance are collectively shared in a balance based system.