perceptible sound as the foundation for every suggested word shaped out of it.
Here is an interesting point and one that has been studied. Many simple words are intuitive even if you do not speak the language...
Assuming you do not know Japanese, which of these words with zero relationship to any European language means "yes" and which "no"?
hai (pronounced as "high")
or
iieh (pronounced as ee-yeh)
There have even been studies on made up words compared to shapes that have proven sub-lingual "proto-language" across cultures. "Kiki and bouba" make people think of spiky and round.
c) what if nature sets "free will of choice" as the center of the operating system (balance); while other choices are suggesting programs (written information) to domesticate free will of choice by tempting it to consent to suggested information over perceivable inspiration?
Nature sets "reproduction and consumption with least effort" as the center of animal operating systems... the most effective "suggested programs" otherwise known as "persuasion" are ones based on the knowledge of the central drives of animal "operating systems".
In nature it is obvious why maximizing energy intake while minimizing energy output is the central drive, it is survival. But humans, despite possessing higher, abstract drives, are still governed by the simple animal ones. Social cohesion is another drive.
Propaganda, manipulation, persuasion etc. that are effective are all created to activate these animal drives and bypass higher reason.
"Free will of choice" is an anomaly in nature and is a higher motivation since there is no evolutionary reason for it.
Also, "balance" is nearly the opposite of free will... outside of human influence, natural systems tend towards balance or equilibrium, this includes predation and cycles of drought or starvation such that the species in the system reach equilibrium. Free will of choice is at odds with this, it is how humans tipped the natural balance and invented agriculture, irrigation and all other technologies that prevent us from being at the will of nature. It is why we have unbalanced the natural world.
Perceivable inspiration (need) over suggested information (want) and you resist the temptation of feeling to neglect anything. Also a "point" implies the end of a sentence...what are the implications of suggesting points among perceivable "life" sentences?
Many simple words are intuitive even if you do not speak the language
IN (within) TUI (tueri; to look at) -TION (through action) aka reaction within enacting aka perceiving within perceivable. Anyone using any suggested language can be utilized and adapted to as perceivable inspiration.
As an example...I designed my life around martial arts and to break the defense of others to the aforementioned condition; I resist the temptation of the young ones wanting me to teach them the names of all the moves or even what the particular martial arts is called. Instead I express momentum; which inspires them to adapt; which both teaches them how to learn it for themselves and inspires me to adapt to any imbalance I perceive in their reactions.
I always caught flack from other teachers about how I'm able to grow skills within their students without much talking; because they all want their students to "stand under" them as teachers, while I use anyone I spar with as inspiration for growth; not as student or opponent.
Assuming you do not know Japanese
Enough to comprehend the suggested "Japan" brand over "Nippon" or German over Deutsch.
which of these words with zero relationship to any European language means "yes" and which "no"?
Neither, since perceivable sound doesn't suggest yes (want) or no (not want) meaning; instead it communicates constant change towards perceiving senses. Perceiving within perceivable implies the relation aka being related to enacting; hence the reaction within enacting.
A "ship" also represents a temporary vessel (form) within ongoing motion (flow). The suggested ownership; leadership; stewardship; relationship etc. all have the sleight of hand for those with eyes to see right in it. Same with banking (river banks) and the water allegories (liquidity; currency; keeping afloat and so on).
hai or iieh
These represent reactions to a suggestion, so the one suggesting restricts the ones shaping their reactions in accordance.
"Would you like me to hit or kick you?" This represents suggestion used to restrict choice within perceivable balance.
studies
Only the ones studying are adapting to perceivable inspiration; not the ones subjecting themselves to suggested information (studies). The many are tempted to idolize what others are achieving; while ignoring the effort of ones growth within all. This is how generations can be tempted to ignore effort for want of suggested achievements within video-games.
sub-lingual "proto-language" across cultures
a) CULTIVA (to advance the growth within) -TION (through action) aka reacting growth within enacting loss aka being subjected (form) to objectifying (flow).
b) PROTO (before)...before word comes choice within sound; before sound comes response to motion; before motion comes ENERGY (internal power aka loss/growth; action/reaction; velocity/resistance; flow/form, ALL/ONE)
"Kiki and bouba"
Blonde and Black (gotta thank jewish suggestions for that).
spiky and round
Morgenstern.
Nature sets "reproduction and consumption with least effort"
NATURE, noun [Latin born, produced]...there's the PRODUC (produced by nature) -TION (through action). Now ask yourself if reaction consumes action; if growth consumes loss; if temporary consumes ongoing; if form consumes flow; if living consumes dying; if ingredient consumes base; if ONE consumes ALL?
As for effort...living within the process of dying aka responsibility within temptation aka temporary chaos within ongoing natural order...that demands adaptation; struggle; effort. The so called "path of least resistance" represents ignoring to be the resistance within the path of velocity.
the center of animal operating systems
ANIMAL (animation) implies through action; hence causing a reaction...HUMAN ( form) out of ANIMAL (flow) aka animated form out of animating flow, and comprehending this allows further comprehension about how form reacts within flow aka as choice at the center of balance (momentum of motion).
Everything one perceives represents "animal human" (animated form); yet the suggestion of "Animal" and "Human" tempts one to ignore that.
persuasion
Implies as choice suggesting information towards consenting choice of another; which ignores being urged as form (living) by flow (dying); hence being forced to adapt by impressing motion (perceivable as inspiration).
the central drives
The center represents the temporary form (choice) within the momentum (balance) of the ongoing drive (flow). You are being driven from inception towards death; while resisting as life within. Your movement (choice) is confined to balance (need/want), so you can only react to being driven by.
it is survival
Yet one can fully comprehend not being able to survive all perceivable. Suggested survival tempts one to want to survive suggested outcomes; which in return tempts one to ignore resisting perceivable origin for the sustenance of life; while growing resistance within the temptation of dying.
Living doesn't represent surviving dying, it represents growing life within the process of dying. "Survival of the fittest" the few suggest; yet ask the fittest boxers about the implication of ignoring needed defense for suggested offense? I have experienced enough martial artists (art of war) who destroyed themselves by consenting to the suggested competitions; without realizing that their defense represents the choice to resist the temptation of suggested offense.
Social cohesion
That represents suggested unity (togetherness) by the few to tempt the many to ignore perceivable unitas (the state of being one; oneness). The few suggest equality as the goal of diversity; which tempts the many to ignore being diverse (different) out of equal (sameness) aka differentiated form (living) out of equal flow (dying).
Cohesion as suggested tempts attraction to each other (choice to choice); which ignores perceivable cohesion (balance to choice). Male and female don't need to be attracted to each other; they need to sustain self by individual adaptation (choice) to collective origin (balance) for perpetuation of self (offspring); while resisting the want of attraction to each other (lust).
Sex as suggested represents lust (fornication); which tempts one to ignore perceivable SEX, noun [Latin sexus; seco, to divide.] - "the distinction between male and female" aka the adaptation to the origin which self differentiates oneness into ones aka wo(mb)man into man and fe (minine)males into males.
Propaganda, manipulation, persuasion etc. that are effective are all created to activate these animal drives and bypass higher reason.
a) "propaganda, manipulation, persuasion" represents suggested information; which implies ones willing consent to ignore perceivable inspiration for it.
b) ignoring need (perceivable) for want (suggested) causes the want vs not want conflict of "reason"; which those who make the suggestions can then rebrand into higher (want) vs lower (not want) or human (want) vs animal (not want)
c) suggested creationism (want) ignores perceivable transmutation (need). Try creating a new thought without shaping it out of already perceivable ingredients? One cannot perceive creation within perceivable transmutation. Being perceiving implies transmuted out of perceivable, hence a reaction within enacting.
d) reason represents imbalance (choice vs choice about suggested) in ignorance of being choice within perceivable balance.
e) pro-life vs pro-choice represents reasoning about suggested "abortion"; which ignores perceivable "life equals choice". The parasites rebranded want vs not want into pro-life vs pro-choice as the sleight of hand for those with eyes to see. "I use my choice to choose life over choice while being alive" vs "I use my choice to choose choice over life while being alive"...that's like a litmus test for ignorance and yet the many still ignore this.
"Free will of choice" is an anomaly in nature and is a higher motivation since there is no evolutionary reason for it.
a) How does one reason without free will of choice? Who is one reasoning against if not the choices of others? What motivates living more than being within dying? Doesn't living represent a derivation (anomaly) from the natural order of dying?
b) EVOLU'TION, noun [Latin evolutio.] - "the act of unfolding". Action (perceivable) unfolding into reaction (perceiving); balance unfolding into choice; flow unfolding into form; ongoing unfolding into temporary; potentiality unfolding into potential; loss unfolding into growth; dying unfolding into living; impression unfolding into expression; velocity unfolding into resistance; electric unfolding into magnetic; male unfolding into female (let it rib; adam); ALL unfolding into each ONE.
c) "there is no" represents the suggested ignorance of "there's all" perceivable.
"balance" is nearly the opposite of free will
Choice represents the coexisting opposite within balance aka the reaction within action. Self differentiation of base (energy) into opposite ingredients (loss/growth aka flow/form aka balance/choice) represents the cause.
Choice implies being at the center of balance to choose from. Choosing within imbalance (wanting vs not wanting the suggestions of others) comes after making the choice within balance aka want (suggested) over need (perceivable).
Reason (want vs not want) tempts choice to view perceivable opposites as conflicts (versus), while ignoring them to represent coexistence within balance. Need/want aren't fighting with each other; choice is struggling to balance within them.
outside of human influence
HUMAN (form) + IN (within) FLUENCE (flow)...that implies being inside (living) the impressing outside (dying). How could you (form) perceive the consequences of motion without being with-in-fluence (flow)?
natural systems tend towards balance or equilibrium
Nature represents the same (equality) differentiating (diversity) itself from base (balance) to ingredient (choice).
Flow towards (velocity) causes momentum (balance) for responding (choice) form (resistance).
such that the species in the system reach equilibrium
a) being within a system implies being the form within the momentum of the flowing system.
b) SYS'TEM, noun [Latin systema; Gr. to set.] - "an assemblage of things adjusted into a regular whole"...flow represents the whole; self differentiation through momentum represents the assemblage of form within flow".
c) HU'MAN, adjective [Latin humanus; Heb. form, species.] implies out of AN'IMAL, noun [Latin animal from anima, air, breath, soul.] aka animated form out of animating flow; hence the need to adapt by breathing.
Free will of choice is at odds with this
a) because you (as free will of choice) chose to want suggested outcome (reaching equilibrium); which ignores the need as difference (diverse) to adapt to sameness (equal); hence as different choice to the same origin of balance (need/want).
b) ODD, adjective - "not even; not divisible into equal numbers". That ignores that the only NUMBER (designation of a unit; untias, oneness; state of being one) represents ONE within ALL aka difference within momentum sameness. One cannot perceive equal; only moving differences (perceivable inspiration required for the sustenance of ONEself).
it is how humans tipped the natural balance and invented agriculture, irrigation and all other technologies that prevent us from being at the will of nature.
Nature doesn't have will; it express you as the free will of choice within the dominating balance of the natural order. The living cannot prevent dying; only struggle to grow resistance as the living within the process of dying.
The technology suggested to each other for cultivation only tempts them to ignore cultivating themselves. Notice how the plandemic showed how easy a convenience stored can be made inconvenient, all based on exploiting dependency to suggested cultivation to those who ignore to cultivate themselves? Math doesn't solve problems; it tempts others to ignore solution.
Wanting to help others ignores needing to help self. Adapting to the need of self sustenance grows the fruits of ones labors; which helps others who also sustain self; yet also tempts one to help them; which tempts them to become dependent on other ones.
Suggested technology tempts to ignore perceivable nature, which in return allows the natural order to demolish those who ignore resisting it; which in return also destroys most of the suggested technology (minus what the suggesting few keep on the back-burner for the next civilization falling for the next suggested temptations).
It is why we have unbalanced the natural world
What if each one (temporary) represents the imbalance (choice of want) within all (ongoing) balance (impressing need for adapting choice)? All imbalance is caused by those within choosing to ignore balance. If you burn a forest down; it grows back, which represents temporary form re-balancing itself (finding level) within ongoing flow.
The many are consenting to the few suggesting them to curtail growth on every aspect of their existence. If enough of the many resist the suggested temptation to ignore growth; while resisting perceivable loss (dying) to grow themselves (living), then the few cannot prevent that without more and more of the many noticing the behavior of the few.
It's the few who cloak themselves underneath suggested environmentalism; while tempting the many to blame each other for destroying the environment. The suggested fear of running out of something is what grows the dependency of wanting it from others; which in return tempts to ignore the need to grow oneself; which would grow ones environment; ones ecosystem; ones expression of self within all perceivable. Everything one chooses to grow holds the potential of exponential growth; yet how few of the many are choosing to grow; which in return allows the few to accumulate all ignored growth; while curtailing the many from access to it.
The foundation of the happy merchant of temptation who utilize choice (suggestion) towards choice (consent) contract law represents the suggestion that the perceivable infinite is as finite as the perceiving finite within. This represents the foundation of supply and demand aka from supply (perceivable) demanding (comprehension) to supply (suggestion) towards demand (consent to want suggested).
You know, you have some good thoughts and points but you bury them is so much extraneous jargon that you have created for your own world view. That is why I thought you were a bot.
I mean, if it's your thing, I'm not downvoting you, at least you are active on this site, but your replies take the form of rambling off on tangential associations that are mostly nonsensical (to anyone other than yourself).
You seem to be interested in philosophical underpinnings of the world but have created a dogma for yourself whereby you answer yourself without curiosity or basis.
You know, you have some good thoughts and points but you bury them is so much extraneous jargon that you have created for your own world view.
a) want (good thoughts) vs not want (extraneous jargon) represents a conflict of reason caused by ignoring perceivable inspiration (need) for suggested information (want).
b) EXTRA'NEOUS, adjective [Latin extraneus.] - "foreign; not belonging to a thing; existing without"...how could the perceiving ONE within the perceivable ALL be foreign to, not belong within, and exist without everyone else?
c) J'ARGON, noun - "confused, unintelligible talk or language"...if perceivable sound exist underneath suggested words; then wouldn't the efforts to express perceivable sound by; while breaking apart the self imposed prison for expression (words aka suggested information), be viewed as confusing by those who ignore perceivable for suggested?
Notice also that "unintelligible" implies INTEL'LIGENCE, noun (Latin intelligo, to understand) aka standing under suggested information; hence reasoning (good thoughts vs extraneous jargon) about it.
d) what if ignoring perceivable inspiration for suggested information "buries" the former underneath the latter? And therefore, what if choice represents the grave-digger in that scenario? Slowly filling up memory with suggested information; while restricting access to perceivable inspiration required for sustenance of life through adaptation?
If I catch all those Pokemon; did I chose to sustain my life or did I chose to be tempted towards death by ignoring to sustain life? The sleight of hand goes "Gotta catch them ALL" implying every last ONE of them.
e) "you have created"...here your consent to suggested creationism tempted you to view me as the creator. I simply express my comprehension of what's already perceivable. I simply utilize the perceivable box of LEGO and shaped something different out of it, hence transmuting potentiality by means of potential. I didn't create LEGO; I represent an ingredient within it (the pointy one others try to avoid stepping on).
f) "your own world view"...everyone comprehends all perceivable differently; because each ONE (living) represents a difference within the same ALL (dying). Furthermore; being temporary (living) within ongoing (dying) implies ONE cannot "own" ALL, only temporarily utilize the ongoing; hence being growth within loss.
Ask yourself if I'm "locked" into my world view and therefore ignorant about what others are suggesting or if I'm challenging any aspect of what I'm talking over and over again (frequency of adaptation)? Flow; form; energy; one, all etc. I attack these states; I question their behavior; I utilize words while ripping their suggested meaning to shreds; I meticulously take apart any suggested word that inspires me to perceive the obfuscated motion underneath. I run into less and less topics that I can't put into my comprehension of natural law, while talking about them.
Where in my behavior do you view the want to "own"; to claim ownership over meaning, to prevent others from questioning anything I "created" or set into stone?
That is why I thought you were a bot.
a) try working on taking the "I" out of the information suggested towards you. Not just yourself as being targeted, but the other "I" who targets by suggestion. You are reading text on a screen; which can be written by anyone; anywhere, yet it tempts you to consent to a conflict between "I" and another "I"; which you are causing by consenting to whatever your read on the screen.
If you resist that temptation; then it doesn't matter who wrote it, only how you respond to what you perceive. In other words...kick the middle-man (suggestion) out of perception towards comprehension.
b) the more the parasitic few suggest how effective "artificial intelligence" is; the more are the many tempted to dehumanize each other by comparing natural comprehension vs artificial intelligence.
c) BOT; ROBOT (Latin roboro, from robur, strength.) aka ROBORA (strength) -TION (through action). You are being tempted to weaken yourself and others by suggesting strength within artificial over natural. Strength through action implies as reaction to enacting...not to other reactions.
if it's your thing
Being one thing within every thing implies being different within whole. Therefore; the whole first differentiates itself into differences (flow to momentum to form); which then allows each differences to perceive inspiration aka moving differences.
You need to adapt to these differences; yet are tempted to judge them against suggested likeness (the norm; the mainstream; the societal rules of behavior; the laws of men; moralism etc.) My behavior represents a different expression of the same source and you are being tempted to ignore the source; by judging; branding; idolizing; reasoning over the different ingredients. In return; that corrupts both your self discernment of being an ingredient and of course lacking comprehension about the only source itself.
I'm not downvoting you
Upvote (want) vs downvote (not want)...same conflict of reason utilized for division by suggestion. One doesn't need to vote among suggested choices; one needs to be the choice within all perceivable; while resisting the temptation of suggesting choices.
How is it that the parasitic few can show you the "clown world" of muppet politics based mass consent to voting; while simultaneously contradicting voting with "stolen elections" and "voter fraud", yet here you are feeling all so comfy to wield the suggested tools of voting upon others?
I simply point out how each one votes (by choice) and what one votes for (ignoring ones choice for another ones choice) aka choice (consent) to choice (suggestion) contract law...the inversion of perceivable balance to choice natural law.
at least you are active on this site
Frequency of adaptation to perceivable inspiration for growth of comprehension. It can be done anywhere.
your replies take the form of rambling off on tangential associations that are mostly nonsensical (to anyone other than yourself).
a) I don't reply to others; I use what others suggest to reply to the perceivable source. Agreement (upvote) vs disagreement (downvote) doesn't represent communication; but choice vs choice (imbalance) in ignorance of being choice within balance. One can utilize any medium to communicate with origin; yet one is tempted by each medium to ignore the perceivable origin for the suggestions of the medium.
b) "nonsense"...a classic contradiction of perceivable reality perpetuated as suggested fiction. "Nothing sensed" implies ignoring "everything perceivable by senses".
When you suggest nonsense (nothing sensed) to something you just read and chose to respond to; while using your senses, then you tempt others to agree with sensing nothing. You are being used to cultivate suggested "nothing" within perceivable "everything"; which has consequences for every last one within all. This represents the foundation of transhumanism aka the suggested 0 (information; nothing; fiction) over the perceivable 1 (inspiration; everything; reality).
you seem to be interested in philosophical underpinnings of the world
a) Philosophy (the love of wisdom) represents the temptation to want what nature offers; which ignores that growing oneself within all nature offers represents the "need" to adapt to it.
b) philosopism under the umbrella of scientism tempts the ignorant many to seek understanding (standing under) from the suggested information by others (the parasitic few suggesting the -isms). I resist that for adaptation to perceivable inspiration; freely available aka "making free will of choice available within everything perceivable".
c) INTEREST (inter + esse) aka within essence (to be) tempts one to ignore that "to be" implies "out of"; hence form (life) within flow (inception towards death).
Others suggested INFORMATION (from within form) to keep one from ignoring the perceivable outside source for the suggesting medium within. INSPIRATION (from within spirit) implies the adaptation from inside (form) to outside (flow), hence breathing (spirit).
To be within essence requires adaptation to exterior; yet one can only perceive interior being moved by exterior. What's missing is one growing comprehension of exterior cause by adaptation to interior effect; which can be corrupted by the tempting "special effects" of others.
d) an underpin implies resting upon; being affixed to. Reality is based on constant movement (dying) as the foundation for temporary re-movement (response to being moved aka living). Idolizing the perceivable moving sound for the suggested affixed words is what pin you under those suggesting them.
have created a dogma for yourself
a) again with the suggested creationism...a dogma upheld by your consenting faith.
b) DOGMA, noun [Greek, to think] ...how could one not think while being processed within impressing inspiration?
c) how could I express a moving system by suggesting settled opinion (dogma)? What if I challenge suggested information as the dogma of the many; as suggested to them by the few, by simply expressing the ignored origin...perceivable inspiration.
Does perceivable inspiration require the suggested opinion of those within? Look at the talmud...mishna (the rules) and gemara (the opinions about the rules). A method to train dealing with perceivable inspiration (from the same source) and suggested information (different reactions to the same source).
All human reasoning represents the gemara; as controlled through talmudic reasoning (suggestion of contradiction to both sides); while those controlling the reasoning of others are protecting themselves from the temptation thereof, by simply utilizing implication (if/then) in accordance to perceivable inspiration (the mishna; yet not the written one).
you answer yourself without curiosity or basis.
a) I still fall for the suggested dichotomy (division into two) of question vs answer; yet the more I resist it; the more I comprehend about being the ONE perceiving within ALL perceivable aka one in response to oneness. What if you view this as "answering yourself"; because you view if from within the division of two (question vs answer)?
b) how could one be without being out of all, source; base; cause; motion; energy etc.?
c) "curiosity kills the cat"...what if others utilize suggested information as temptation to exploit strong desire (curiosity) within those who ignore need (perceivable) for want (suggested)?
I neglected to reply to some of your points...
Here is an interesting point and one that has been studied. Many simple words are intuitive even if you do not speak the language...
Assuming you do not know Japanese, which of these words with zero relationship to any European language means "yes" and which "no"?
hai (pronounced as "high")
or
iieh (pronounced as ee-yeh)
There have even been studies on made up words compared to shapes that have proven sub-lingual "proto-language" across cultures. "Kiki and bouba" make people think of spiky and round.
Nature sets "reproduction and consumption with least effort" as the center of animal operating systems... the most effective "suggested programs" otherwise known as "persuasion" are ones based on the knowledge of the central drives of animal "operating systems".
In nature it is obvious why maximizing energy intake while minimizing energy output is the central drive, it is survival. But humans, despite possessing higher, abstract drives, are still governed by the simple animal ones. Social cohesion is another drive.
Propaganda, manipulation, persuasion etc. that are effective are all created to activate these animal drives and bypass higher reason.
"Free will of choice" is an anomaly in nature and is a higher motivation since there is no evolutionary reason for it.
Also, "balance" is nearly the opposite of free will... outside of human influence, natural systems tend towards balance or equilibrium, this includes predation and cycles of drought or starvation such that the species in the system reach equilibrium. Free will of choice is at odds with this, it is how humans tipped the natural balance and invented agriculture, irrigation and all other technologies that prevent us from being at the will of nature. It is why we have unbalanced the natural world.
Perceivable inspiration (need) over suggested information (want) and you resist the temptation of feeling to neglect anything. Also a "point" implies the end of a sentence...what are the implications of suggesting points among perceivable "life" sentences?
IN (within) TUI (tueri; to look at) -TION (through action) aka reaction within enacting aka perceiving within perceivable. Anyone using any suggested language can be utilized and adapted to as perceivable inspiration.
As an example...I designed my life around martial arts and to break the defense of others to the aforementioned condition; I resist the temptation of the young ones wanting me to teach them the names of all the moves or even what the particular martial arts is called. Instead I express momentum; which inspires them to adapt; which both teaches them how to learn it for themselves and inspires me to adapt to any imbalance I perceive in their reactions.
I always caught flack from other teachers about how I'm able to grow skills within their students without much talking; because they all want their students to "stand under" them as teachers, while I use anyone I spar with as inspiration for growth; not as student or opponent.
Enough to comprehend the suggested "Japan" brand over "Nippon" or German over Deutsch.
Neither, since perceivable sound doesn't suggest yes (want) or no (not want) meaning; instead it communicates constant change towards perceiving senses. Perceiving within perceivable implies the relation aka being related to enacting; hence the reaction within enacting.
A "ship" also represents a temporary vessel (form) within ongoing motion (flow). The suggested ownership; leadership; stewardship; relationship etc. all have the sleight of hand for those with eyes to see right in it. Same with banking (river banks) and the water allegories (liquidity; currency; keeping afloat and so on).
These represent reactions to a suggestion, so the one suggesting restricts the ones shaping their reactions in accordance.
"Would you like me to hit or kick you?" This represents suggestion used to restrict choice within perceivable balance.
Only the ones studying are adapting to perceivable inspiration; not the ones subjecting themselves to suggested information (studies). The many are tempted to idolize what others are achieving; while ignoring the effort of ones growth within all. This is how generations can be tempted to ignore effort for want of suggested achievements within video-games.
a) CULTIVA (to advance the growth within) -TION (through action) aka reacting growth within enacting loss aka being subjected (form) to objectifying (flow).
b) PROTO (before)...before word comes choice within sound; before sound comes response to motion; before motion comes ENERGY (internal power aka loss/growth; action/reaction; velocity/resistance; flow/form, ALL/ONE)
Blonde and Black (gotta thank jewish suggestions for that).
Morgenstern.
NATURE, noun [Latin born, produced]...there's the PRODUC (produced by nature) -TION (through action). Now ask yourself if reaction consumes action; if growth consumes loss; if temporary consumes ongoing; if form consumes flow; if living consumes dying; if ingredient consumes base; if ONE consumes ALL?
As for effort...living within the process of dying aka responsibility within temptation aka temporary chaos within ongoing natural order...that demands adaptation; struggle; effort. The so called "path of least resistance" represents ignoring to be the resistance within the path of velocity.
ANIMAL (animation) implies through action; hence causing a reaction...HUMAN ( form) out of ANIMAL (flow) aka animated form out of animating flow, and comprehending this allows further comprehension about how form reacts within flow aka as choice at the center of balance (momentum of motion).
Everything one perceives represents "animal human" (animated form); yet the suggestion of "Animal" and "Human" tempts one to ignore that.
Implies as choice suggesting information towards consenting choice of another; which ignores being urged as form (living) by flow (dying); hence being forced to adapt by impressing motion (perceivable as inspiration).
The center represents the temporary form (choice) within the momentum (balance) of the ongoing drive (flow). You are being driven from inception towards death; while resisting as life within. Your movement (choice) is confined to balance (need/want), so you can only react to being driven by.
Yet one can fully comprehend not being able to survive all perceivable. Suggested survival tempts one to want to survive suggested outcomes; which in return tempts one to ignore resisting perceivable origin for the sustenance of life; while growing resistance within the temptation of dying.
Living doesn't represent surviving dying, it represents growing life within the process of dying. "Survival of the fittest" the few suggest; yet ask the fittest boxers about the implication of ignoring needed defense for suggested offense? I have experienced enough martial artists (art of war) who destroyed themselves by consenting to the suggested competitions; without realizing that their defense represents the choice to resist the temptation of suggested offense.
That represents suggested unity (togetherness) by the few to tempt the many to ignore perceivable unitas (the state of being one; oneness). The few suggest equality as the goal of diversity; which tempts the many to ignore being diverse (different) out of equal (sameness) aka differentiated form (living) out of equal flow (dying).
Cohesion as suggested tempts attraction to each other (choice to choice); which ignores perceivable cohesion (balance to choice). Male and female don't need to be attracted to each other; they need to sustain self by individual adaptation (choice) to collective origin (balance) for perpetuation of self (offspring); while resisting the want of attraction to each other (lust).
Sex as suggested represents lust (fornication); which tempts one to ignore perceivable SEX, noun [Latin sexus; seco, to divide.] - "the distinction between male and female" aka the adaptation to the origin which self differentiates oneness into ones aka wo(mb)man into man and fe (minine)males into males.
a) "propaganda, manipulation, persuasion" represents suggested information; which implies ones willing consent to ignore perceivable inspiration for it.
b) ignoring need (perceivable) for want (suggested) causes the want vs not want conflict of "reason"; which those who make the suggestions can then rebrand into higher (want) vs lower (not want) or human (want) vs animal (not want)
c) suggested creationism (want) ignores perceivable transmutation (need). Try creating a new thought without shaping it out of already perceivable ingredients? One cannot perceive creation within perceivable transmutation. Being perceiving implies transmuted out of perceivable, hence a reaction within enacting.
d) reason represents imbalance (choice vs choice about suggested) in ignorance of being choice within perceivable balance.
e) pro-life vs pro-choice represents reasoning about suggested "abortion"; which ignores perceivable "life equals choice". The parasites rebranded want vs not want into pro-life vs pro-choice as the sleight of hand for those with eyes to see. "I use my choice to choose life over choice while being alive" vs "I use my choice to choose choice over life while being alive"...that's like a litmus test for ignorance and yet the many still ignore this.
a) How does one reason without free will of choice? Who is one reasoning against if not the choices of others? What motivates living more than being within dying? Doesn't living represent a derivation (anomaly) from the natural order of dying?
b) EVOLU'TION, noun [Latin evolutio.] - "the act of unfolding". Action (perceivable) unfolding into reaction (perceiving); balance unfolding into choice; flow unfolding into form; ongoing unfolding into temporary; potentiality unfolding into potential; loss unfolding into growth; dying unfolding into living; impression unfolding into expression; velocity unfolding into resistance; electric unfolding into magnetic; male unfolding into female (let it rib; adam); ALL unfolding into each ONE.
c) "there is no" represents the suggested ignorance of "there's all" perceivable.
Choice represents the coexisting opposite within balance aka the reaction within action. Self differentiation of base (energy) into opposite ingredients (loss/growth aka flow/form aka balance/choice) represents the cause.
Choice implies being at the center of balance to choose from. Choosing within imbalance (wanting vs not wanting the suggestions of others) comes after making the choice within balance aka want (suggested) over need (perceivable).
Reason (want vs not want) tempts choice to view perceivable opposites as conflicts (versus), while ignoring them to represent coexistence within balance. Need/want aren't fighting with each other; choice is struggling to balance within them.
HUMAN (form) + IN (within) FLUENCE (flow)...that implies being inside (living) the impressing outside (dying). How could you (form) perceive the consequences of motion without being with-in-fluence (flow)?
Nature represents the same (equality) differentiating (diversity) itself from base (balance) to ingredient (choice).
Flow towards (velocity) causes momentum (balance) for responding (choice) form (resistance).
a) being within a system implies being the form within the momentum of the flowing system.
b) SYS'TEM, noun [Latin systema; Gr. to set.] - "an assemblage of things adjusted into a regular whole"...flow represents the whole; self differentiation through momentum represents the assemblage of form within flow".
c) HU'MAN, adjective [Latin humanus; Heb. form, species.] implies out of AN'IMAL, noun [Latin animal from anima, air, breath, soul.] aka animated form out of animating flow; hence the need to adapt by breathing.
a) because you (as free will of choice) chose to want suggested outcome (reaching equilibrium); which ignores the need as difference (diverse) to adapt to sameness (equal); hence as different choice to the same origin of balance (need/want).
b) ODD, adjective - "not even; not divisible into equal numbers". That ignores that the only NUMBER (designation of a unit; untias, oneness; state of being one) represents ONE within ALL aka difference within momentum sameness. One cannot perceive equal; only moving differences (perceivable inspiration required for the sustenance of ONEself).
Nature doesn't have will; it express you as the free will of choice within the dominating balance of the natural order. The living cannot prevent dying; only struggle to grow resistance as the living within the process of dying.
The technology suggested to each other for cultivation only tempts them to ignore cultivating themselves. Notice how the plandemic showed how easy a convenience stored can be made inconvenient, all based on exploiting dependency to suggested cultivation to those who ignore to cultivate themselves? Math doesn't solve problems; it tempts others to ignore solution.
Wanting to help others ignores needing to help self. Adapting to the need of self sustenance grows the fruits of ones labors; which helps others who also sustain self; yet also tempts one to help them; which tempts them to become dependent on other ones.
Suggested technology tempts to ignore perceivable nature, which in return allows the natural order to demolish those who ignore resisting it; which in return also destroys most of the suggested technology (minus what the suggesting few keep on the back-burner for the next civilization falling for the next suggested temptations).
What if each one (temporary) represents the imbalance (choice of want) within all (ongoing) balance (impressing need for adapting choice)? All imbalance is caused by those within choosing to ignore balance. If you burn a forest down; it grows back, which represents temporary form re-balancing itself (finding level) within ongoing flow.
The many are consenting to the few suggesting them to curtail growth on every aspect of their existence. If enough of the many resist the suggested temptation to ignore growth; while resisting perceivable loss (dying) to grow themselves (living), then the few cannot prevent that without more and more of the many noticing the behavior of the few.
It's the few who cloak themselves underneath suggested environmentalism; while tempting the many to blame each other for destroying the environment. The suggested fear of running out of something is what grows the dependency of wanting it from others; which in return tempts to ignore the need to grow oneself; which would grow ones environment; ones ecosystem; ones expression of self within all perceivable. Everything one chooses to grow holds the potential of exponential growth; yet how few of the many are choosing to grow; which in return allows the few to accumulate all ignored growth; while curtailing the many from access to it.
The foundation of the happy merchant of temptation who utilize choice (suggestion) towards choice (consent) contract law represents the suggestion that the perceivable infinite is as finite as the perceiving finite within. This represents the foundation of supply and demand aka from supply (perceivable) demanding (comprehension) to supply (suggestion) towards demand (consent to want suggested).
You know, you have some good thoughts and points but you bury them is so much extraneous jargon that you have created for your own world view. That is why I thought you were a bot.
I mean, if it's your thing, I'm not downvoting you, at least you are active on this site, but your replies take the form of rambling off on tangential associations that are mostly nonsensical (to anyone other than yourself).
You seem to be interested in philosophical underpinnings of the world but have created a dogma for yourself whereby you answer yourself without curiosity or basis.
a) want (good thoughts) vs not want (extraneous jargon) represents a conflict of reason caused by ignoring perceivable inspiration (need) for suggested information (want).
b) EXTRA'NEOUS, adjective [Latin extraneus.] - "foreign; not belonging to a thing; existing without"...how could the perceiving ONE within the perceivable ALL be foreign to, not belong within, and exist without everyone else?
c) J'ARGON, noun - "confused, unintelligible talk or language"...if perceivable sound exist underneath suggested words; then wouldn't the efforts to express perceivable sound by; while breaking apart the self imposed prison for expression (words aka suggested information), be viewed as confusing by those who ignore perceivable for suggested?
Notice also that "unintelligible" implies INTEL'LIGENCE, noun (Latin intelligo, to understand) aka standing under suggested information; hence reasoning (good thoughts vs extraneous jargon) about it.
d) what if ignoring perceivable inspiration for suggested information "buries" the former underneath the latter? And therefore, what if choice represents the grave-digger in that scenario? Slowly filling up memory with suggested information; while restricting access to perceivable inspiration required for sustenance of life through adaptation?
If I catch all those Pokemon; did I chose to sustain my life or did I chose to be tempted towards death by ignoring to sustain life? The sleight of hand goes "Gotta catch them ALL" implying every last ONE of them.
e) "you have created"...here your consent to suggested creationism tempted you to view me as the creator. I simply express my comprehension of what's already perceivable. I simply utilize the perceivable box of LEGO and shaped something different out of it, hence transmuting potentiality by means of potential. I didn't create LEGO; I represent an ingredient within it (the pointy one others try to avoid stepping on).
f) "your own world view"...everyone comprehends all perceivable differently; because each ONE (living) represents a difference within the same ALL (dying). Furthermore; being temporary (living) within ongoing (dying) implies ONE cannot "own" ALL, only temporarily utilize the ongoing; hence being growth within loss.
Ask yourself if I'm "locked" into my world view and therefore ignorant about what others are suggesting or if I'm challenging any aspect of what I'm talking over and over again (frequency of adaptation)? Flow; form; energy; one, all etc. I attack these states; I question their behavior; I utilize words while ripping their suggested meaning to shreds; I meticulously take apart any suggested word that inspires me to perceive the obfuscated motion underneath. I run into less and less topics that I can't put into my comprehension of natural law, while talking about them.
Where in my behavior do you view the want to "own"; to claim ownership over meaning, to prevent others from questioning anything I "created" or set into stone?
a) try working on taking the "I" out of the information suggested towards you. Not just yourself as being targeted, but the other "I" who targets by suggestion. You are reading text on a screen; which can be written by anyone; anywhere, yet it tempts you to consent to a conflict between "I" and another "I"; which you are causing by consenting to whatever your read on the screen.
If you resist that temptation; then it doesn't matter who wrote it, only how you respond to what you perceive. In other words...kick the middle-man (suggestion) out of perception towards comprehension.
b) the more the parasitic few suggest how effective "artificial intelligence" is; the more are the many tempted to dehumanize each other by comparing natural comprehension vs artificial intelligence.
c) BOT; ROBOT (Latin roboro, from robur, strength.) aka ROBORA (strength) -TION (through action). You are being tempted to weaken yourself and others by suggesting strength within artificial over natural. Strength through action implies as reaction to enacting...not to other reactions.
Being one thing within every thing implies being different within whole. Therefore; the whole first differentiates itself into differences (flow to momentum to form); which then allows each differences to perceive inspiration aka moving differences.
You need to adapt to these differences; yet are tempted to judge them against suggested likeness (the norm; the mainstream; the societal rules of behavior; the laws of men; moralism etc.) My behavior represents a different expression of the same source and you are being tempted to ignore the source; by judging; branding; idolizing; reasoning over the different ingredients. In return; that corrupts both your self discernment of being an ingredient and of course lacking comprehension about the only source itself.
Upvote (want) vs downvote (not want)...same conflict of reason utilized for division by suggestion. One doesn't need to vote among suggested choices; one needs to be the choice within all perceivable; while resisting the temptation of suggesting choices.
How is it that the parasitic few can show you the "clown world" of muppet politics based mass consent to voting; while simultaneously contradicting voting with "stolen elections" and "voter fraud", yet here you are feeling all so comfy to wield the suggested tools of voting upon others?
I simply point out how each one votes (by choice) and what one votes for (ignoring ones choice for another ones choice) aka choice (consent) to choice (suggestion) contract law...the inversion of perceivable balance to choice natural law.
Frequency of adaptation to perceivable inspiration for growth of comprehension. It can be done anywhere.
a) I don't reply to others; I use what others suggest to reply to the perceivable source. Agreement (upvote) vs disagreement (downvote) doesn't represent communication; but choice vs choice (imbalance) in ignorance of being choice within balance. One can utilize any medium to communicate with origin; yet one is tempted by each medium to ignore the perceivable origin for the suggestions of the medium.
b) "nonsense"...a classic contradiction of perceivable reality perpetuated as suggested fiction. "Nothing sensed" implies ignoring "everything perceivable by senses".
When you suggest nonsense (nothing sensed) to something you just read and chose to respond to; while using your senses, then you tempt others to agree with sensing nothing. You are being used to cultivate suggested "nothing" within perceivable "everything"; which has consequences for every last one within all. This represents the foundation of transhumanism aka the suggested 0 (information; nothing; fiction) over the perceivable 1 (inspiration; everything; reality).
a) Philosophy (the love of wisdom) represents the temptation to want what nature offers; which ignores that growing oneself within all nature offers represents the "need" to adapt to it.
b) philosopism under the umbrella of scientism tempts the ignorant many to seek understanding (standing under) from the suggested information by others (the parasitic few suggesting the -isms). I resist that for adaptation to perceivable inspiration; freely available aka "making free will of choice available within everything perceivable".
c) INTEREST (inter + esse) aka within essence (to be) tempts one to ignore that "to be" implies "out of"; hence form (life) within flow (inception towards death).
Others suggested INFORMATION (from within form) to keep one from ignoring the perceivable outside source for the suggesting medium within. INSPIRATION (from within spirit) implies the adaptation from inside (form) to outside (flow), hence breathing (spirit).
To be within essence requires adaptation to exterior; yet one can only perceive interior being moved by exterior. What's missing is one growing comprehension of exterior cause by adaptation to interior effect; which can be corrupted by the tempting "special effects" of others.
d) an underpin implies resting upon; being affixed to. Reality is based on constant movement (dying) as the foundation for temporary re-movement (response to being moved aka living). Idolizing the perceivable moving sound for the suggested affixed words is what pin you under those suggesting them.
a) again with the suggested creationism...a dogma upheld by your consenting faith.
b) DOGMA, noun [Greek, to think] ...how could one not think while being processed within impressing inspiration?
c) how could I express a moving system by suggesting settled opinion (dogma)? What if I challenge suggested information as the dogma of the many; as suggested to them by the few, by simply expressing the ignored origin...perceivable inspiration.
Does perceivable inspiration require the suggested opinion of those within? Look at the talmud...mishna (the rules) and gemara (the opinions about the rules). A method to train dealing with perceivable inspiration (from the same source) and suggested information (different reactions to the same source).
All human reasoning represents the gemara; as controlled through talmudic reasoning (suggestion of contradiction to both sides); while those controlling the reasoning of others are protecting themselves from the temptation thereof, by simply utilizing implication (if/then) in accordance to perceivable inspiration (the mishna; yet not the written one).
a) I still fall for the suggested dichotomy (division into two) of question vs answer; yet the more I resist it; the more I comprehend about being the ONE perceiving within ALL perceivable aka one in response to oneness. What if you view this as "answering yourself"; because you view if from within the division of two (question vs answer)?
b) how could one be without being out of all, source; base; cause; motion; energy etc.?
c) "curiosity kills the cat"...what if others utilize suggested information as temptation to exploit strong desire (curiosity) within those who ignore need (perceivable) for want (suggested)?