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)?
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)?