Please perfect your bot before you continue subjecting us to the free salad of words please??? Its so fucking annoying and says almost nothing. Didn't fall too far from the tree, huh?
If you address the natural (you) to complain about the artificial (bot) on yet another artificial system (www); then you want the artificial (bot) within the artificial (www) to behave more natural as to not break your suspension of disbelief.
Meanwhile...what if I represent natural adaptation to perceivable inspiration; while trying to break the artificial spell of suggested information, which makes it uncomfortable for others to ignore reality (perceivable inspiration) for fiction (suggested information)?
continue subjecting us
a) continuation (dying) is what subjects the temporary objectified (living) within.
b) suggesting in the name of others (us) ignores being the sole representative of one self (perceiving) within all (perceivable).
c) to consent to suggested information subjects yourself to the suggesting will of others. If you read and choose to respond; then you consent to whoever wrote it; hence subjecting yourself to suggested information; shaped by others. What you ignore is the need to resist that temptation for adaptation to perceivable inspiration.
salad of words
Does nature communicate sound towards the perceiving senses of those within in an disordered state? What if others suggest words to tempt one to ignore perceivable sound within the natural order; hence causing disorder through ignorance?
its so fucking annoying
Scenario a) someone suggests information; doesn't explain it, and you get fucking annoyed.
Scenario b) nature offers everything to your perceiving senses so that you can grow comprehension about it by adapting to it...would you get fucking annoyed at nature for your lack of comprehension; when everything perceivable is offered towards your free will of choice?
What if you are tempted to get fucking annoyed at others; while ignoring that the system sustaining you both represents the only origin for everything within? Those around you making suggestion do not represent the source of anything; but an expression of everything perceivable...your choice aka need (perceivable inspiration) or want (suggested information) shapes yourself within and others are tempting you to ignore need for want; hence destroying yourself with conflicts among those "fucking annoying" others.
says almost nothing
a) SAY; verb - "to utter in words"....what words has nature ever uttered?
b) how could the one perceiving within all perceivable perceive "nothing"? How could one thing (living) surrounded by everything (dying) experience nothing?
c) "almost" aka ALL MOST; which implies ONE LEAST. The latter (perceiving one) exists at the center of the former (perceivable all); which allows temporary growth (living) of the least within ongoing loss (dying) of the most.
d) if "nothing" isn't perceivable; then was it suggested to you and did you consent to that suggestion; hence perpetuating "nothing" within "everything" by tempting others to ignore the latter for the former; which brings me back to spreading the artificial (nothing) within the natural (everything).
Didn't fall too far from the tree, huh?
I ain't no fruit; I'm still the ONE seed within the soil of ALL, and the ripe fruits falling from the growth of the tree are utilized to distill nutrients to the process of growing. Instead of wasting your choice measuring ingredients within the cauldron of transmutation; why don't you question the foundation of alchemy...energy?
Those who seek proof ignore that everything perceivable is offered through constant change; which allows others to exploit such ignorance by suggesting affixed "truth" as proof; which can then be endlessly contradicted as "lie".
What does life prove and would that proof be disproved at death?
Please perfect your bot before you continue subjecting us to the free salad of words please??? Its so fucking annoying and says almost nothing. Didn't fall too far from the tree, huh?
If you address the natural (you) to complain about the artificial (bot) on yet another artificial system (www); then you want the artificial (bot) within the artificial (www) to behave more natural as to not break your suspension of disbelief.
Meanwhile...what if I represent natural adaptation to perceivable inspiration; while trying to break the artificial spell of suggested information, which makes it uncomfortable for others to ignore reality (perceivable inspiration) for fiction (suggested information)?
a) continuation (dying) is what subjects the temporary objectified (living) within.
b) suggesting in the name of others (us) ignores being the sole representative of one self (perceiving) within all (perceivable).
c) to consent to suggested information subjects yourself to the suggesting will of others. If you read and choose to respond; then you consent to whoever wrote it; hence subjecting yourself to suggested information; shaped by others. What you ignore is the need to resist that temptation for adaptation to perceivable inspiration.
Does nature communicate sound towards the perceiving senses of those within in an disordered state? What if others suggest words to tempt one to ignore perceivable sound within the natural order; hence causing disorder through ignorance?
Scenario a) someone suggests information; doesn't explain it, and you get fucking annoyed.
Scenario b) nature offers everything to your perceiving senses so that you can grow comprehension about it by adapting to it...would you get fucking annoyed at nature for your lack of comprehension; when everything perceivable is offered towards your free will of choice?
What if you are tempted to get fucking annoyed at others; while ignoring that the system sustaining you both represents the only origin for everything within? Those around you making suggestion do not represent the source of anything; but an expression of everything perceivable...your choice aka need (perceivable inspiration) or want (suggested information) shapes yourself within and others are tempting you to ignore need for want; hence destroying yourself with conflicts among those "fucking annoying" others.
a) SAY; verb - "to utter in words"....what words has nature ever uttered?
b) how could the one perceiving within all perceivable perceive "nothing"? How could one thing (living) surrounded by everything (dying) experience nothing?
c) "almost" aka ALL MOST; which implies ONE LEAST. The latter (perceiving one) exists at the center of the former (perceivable all); which allows temporary growth (living) of the least within ongoing loss (dying) of the most.
d) if "nothing" isn't perceivable; then was it suggested to you and did you consent to that suggestion; hence perpetuating "nothing" within "everything" by tempting others to ignore the latter for the former; which brings me back to spreading the artificial (nothing) within the natural (everything).
I ain't no fruit; I'm still the ONE seed within the soil of ALL, and the ripe fruits falling from the growth of the tree are utilized to distill nutrients to the process of growing. Instead of wasting your choice measuring ingredients within the cauldron of transmutation; why don't you question the foundation of alchemy...energy?
Thanks for proving my point
Those who seek proof ignore that everything perceivable is offered through constant change; which allows others to exploit such ignorance by suggesting affixed "truth" as proof; which can then be endlessly contradicted as "lie".
What does life prove and would that proof be disproved at death?