NON (no; not; nothing; nothingness) SENSE (to perceive perceivable).
a) how can you read something with your senses; think about something perceived by your senses; direct a response to something perceived by your senses and suggest it the perceived as "nonsense" with no senses; while not sensing?
b) what represents the origin of "nothing"?
yes i can (perceive your own inception and death)
a) yes (want) implies versus no (not want) aka a a conflict of reason; caused by consent to suggested information (want) over perceivable inspiration (need). Take breathing for example...you don't need to consent to it; you are forced to adapt to it.
b) can you explain your inception from your point of view and also how could you perceive that which hasn't happened to you yet (death)?
As the perceiving within all perceivable ones position of thinking can only be under the input.
spoken or written words that have no meaning or make no sense.
a) the suggested word was shaped out of perceivable sound. How can a response to origin have a yes vs no meaning without ignoring the predefined meaning from origin?
b) "no meaning; no sense"...a suggested explanation build upon the foundation of nothing. One can't even read "nothing" without being one thing within everything; hence responding in ignorance when suggesting nothing.
c) what has the enacting nature ever spoken or written to the reactions within?
pretty straight forward
Is there an alternative to "straight forward" for the living within the process of dying?
why?
a) self sustenance represents the foundation of why, since both action and reaction coexist as the internal power of energy.
b) to suggest "i can" tempts others to ask "can you?" Simultaneously; any response can be utilized for inspiration aka adaptation to behavior teaches about origin.
you have admitted your communication philosophy
a) choice vs choice (agreement vs disagreement) represents miscommunication (hence conflict); which adaptation as choice to perceivable balance (need/want) represents communication.
From a different perspective...as an INSANE (in sanus; within sound) PERSON (per sonos; by sound) adaptation to perceivable origin represents resonance (need); while ignoring it for suggestions by others represents dissonance (want). To communicate with a system offering sound requires response to sound aka resonance, and constant adaptation as choice to sound represents frequency.
b) before I can admit any suggestions by others; I need to submit to what's impressed upon me (perceivable). So everything is already here; further admission isn't required; yet tempted as consent towards the suggestions by others.
c) where did I consent to suggested philosophism under the umbrella of suggested scientism? I call out the contract law (consent to suggestion aka choice to choice) underneath all suggested -isms. This doesn't prevent those who already consented to an -ism to view it as such though; but that represents their free will of choice.
Really??
Is there an alternative to reality; because fiction can only exist within ignored reality?
What is the point in communicating with someone (you) who doesn't give a shit about what others are trying to say?
a) point implies your want for suggested outcomes; when living implies adaption to ongoing origin as to resist the outcome (dying).
b) adapting to perceivable inspiration; while resisting the temptation to allow others to define reality with their suggestions implies concern about both perceivable and suggested; hence balancing in-between as free will of choice.
c) what if you want confirmation from others about whatever you suggest to them; while I can read how the origin uses you to express itself; hence inspiring me to sustain my self (need) through adaptation?
It would be like speaking to a brick wall
There's an entire episode of Adventure Time (Jake the Brick); where the sidekick of the hero shapes himself into a brick; just to experience a day inside a wall...lots of inspiration in perspective. And if you think that just some random cartoon scenario; how about Tavistock's finest...Pink Floyd "The Wall" aka "All in all you're just another brick in the wall". How about the brick road to wonderland or the Berlin wall?
That being said; "speaking to a brick wall" sounds like a thing a mason would do...
bye bye brick wall
When you suggest masonry for pretty much free and still nobody wants it...
do you understand
Understanding implies standing under the suggested information by others; which tempts one to ignore growing comprehension of perceivable inspiration.
lol ok... good for you... because the rest of your statement is just nonsense to me.
yes i can - speak for yourself.
peace out
a) how can you read something with your senses; think about something perceived by your senses; direct a response to something perceived by your senses and suggest it the perceived as "nonsense" with no senses; while not sensing?
b) what represents the origin of "nothing"?
a) yes (want) implies versus no (not want) aka a a conflict of reason; caused by consent to suggested information (want) over perceivable inspiration (need). Take breathing for example...you don't need to consent to it; you are forced to adapt to it.
b) can you explain your inception from your point of view and also how could you perceive that which hasn't happened to you yet (death)?
you're over-thinking-it...
pretty straight forward.
why?
you have admitted your communication philosophy:
Really??
What is the point in communicating with someone (you) who doesn't give a shit about what others are trying to say?
It would be like speaking to a brick wall.
bye bye brick wall <-- do you understand this? (∗･‿･)ﾉ
As the perceiving within all perceivable ones position of thinking can only be under the input.
a) the suggested word was shaped out of perceivable sound. How can a response to origin have a yes vs no meaning without ignoring the predefined meaning from origin?
b) "no meaning; no sense"...a suggested explanation build upon the foundation of nothing. One can't even read "nothing" without being one thing within everything; hence responding in ignorance when suggesting nothing.
c) what has the enacting nature ever spoken or written to the reactions within?
Is there an alternative to "straight forward" for the living within the process of dying?
a) self sustenance represents the foundation of why, since both action and reaction coexist as the internal power of energy.
b) to suggest "i can" tempts others to ask "can you?" Simultaneously; any response can be utilized for inspiration aka adaptation to behavior teaches about origin.
a) choice vs choice (agreement vs disagreement) represents miscommunication (hence conflict); which adaptation as choice to perceivable balance (need/want) represents communication.
From a different perspective...as an INSANE (in sanus; within sound) PERSON (per sonos; by sound) adaptation to perceivable origin represents resonance (need); while ignoring it for suggestions by others represents dissonance (want). To communicate with a system offering sound requires response to sound aka resonance, and constant adaptation as choice to sound represents frequency.
b) before I can admit any suggestions by others; I need to submit to what's impressed upon me (perceivable). So everything is already here; further admission isn't required; yet tempted as consent towards the suggestions by others.
c) where did I consent to suggested philosophism under the umbrella of suggested scientism? I call out the contract law (consent to suggestion aka choice to choice) underneath all suggested -isms. This doesn't prevent those who already consented to an -ism to view it as such though; but that represents their free will of choice.
Is there an alternative to reality; because fiction can only exist within ignored reality?
a) point implies your want for suggested outcomes; when living implies adaption to ongoing origin as to resist the outcome (dying).
b) adapting to perceivable inspiration; while resisting the temptation to allow others to define reality with their suggestions implies concern about both perceivable and suggested; hence balancing in-between as free will of choice.
c) what if you want confirmation from others about whatever you suggest to them; while I can read how the origin uses you to express itself; hence inspiring me to sustain my self (need) through adaptation?
There's an entire episode of Adventure Time (Jake the Brick); where the sidekick of the hero shapes himself into a brick; just to experience a day inside a wall...lots of inspiration in perspective. And if you think that just some random cartoon scenario; how about Tavistock's finest...Pink Floyd "The Wall" aka "All in all you're just another brick in the wall". How about the brick road to wonderland or the Berlin wall?
That being said; "speaking to a brick wall" sounds like a thing a mason would do...
When you suggest masonry for pretty much free and still nobody wants it...
Understanding implies standing under the suggested information by others; which tempts one to ignore growing comprehension of perceivable inspiration.
you sound like a bot rambling on about key words:
"apple"