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.
Sound differentiates; hence those within sound being able to perceive moving differences with their senses and choose to resonate with (need) or cause dissonance within (want) it.
sound like a bot
That represents judging perceivable (sound) through the lens of suggested (bot).
rambling on
RAM'BLING - "roving; wandering; moving or going irregularly"...that represents the status quo for the temporary living (irregular) within the ongoing natural order of dying (regular).
key words
The parasitic few suggest words to "lock" comprehension towards perceivable sound away; while I use destabilization as the "key" to corrode the suggested words; while adapting to perceivable sound as to strengthen my resistance to the temptation thereof.
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"
Sound differentiates; hence those within sound being able to perceive moving differences with their senses and choose to resonate with (need) or cause dissonance within (want) it.
That represents judging perceivable (sound) through the lens of suggested (bot).
RAM'BLING - "roving; wandering; moving or going irregularly"...that represents the status quo for the temporary living (irregular) within the ongoing natural order of dying (regular).
The parasitic few suggest words to "lock" comprehension towards perceivable sound away; while I use destabilization as the "key" to corrode the suggested words; while adapting to perceivable sound as to strengthen my resistance to the temptation thereof.
A couple more weeks until harvest starts.