This (inception towards death) represents the automated system for those (life) perceiving it from within. If the living ignore to resist the ongoing process of dying; then others can suggest "progressivism"; hence outcome oriented systems mimicking automation.
job
EN'ERGY, noun [Greek. work.] - "internal or inherent power". That represents ones (living) employment within all (dying). A suggested JOB, noun - "an undertaking with a view to profit" tempts one (living) to ignore all (dying) for suggested outcomes by others. Suggested jobs tempt one to PROF'IT, noun [Latin profectus, proficio) - "to proceed forward, to advance" instead of resisting.
they refused to change their lies
Question if the many consented to believe (hold onto) suggested "truth"; which the ongoing system is contradicting; which in return allows the few to rebrand the consequences as "lies"?
a) nature doesn't communicate true or false information towards perceiving senses.
b) the temporary living cannot refuse the change of ongoing dying. The denial (refuse) happens among suggested information (want vs not want) after ignoring perceivable inspiration (need) and the choice used to ignore exists within a need/want balance aka the momentum of an ongoing system.
the guy who made the language
Let that sink in and allow yourself to question perceivable sound underneath suggested words? The few who suggest the languages for the many are crafting their spelling aka spell-craft.
society has been so fake
SOCI'ETY, noun - "a number of persons united" represents the inversion of UNITY; noun (Latin unitas) - "the state of being one; oneness"; hence NUMBER; noun - "the designation of a unit".
Nature segregates itself from ALL perceivable into each ONE perceiving it aka differentiation out of whole aka transmutation of ingredient (living) out of base (dying).
Society is being suggested to destroy differences; hence 'e pluribus unum' (out of many, one). Why? Because moving differences represents communicated inspiration towards perceiving senses and adaptation to perceivable inspiration grows comprehension of perceivable; which allows the finite (perceiving) to grow within the infinite (perceivable) offer. The few couldn't control the many if each of the many chooses to outgrow the few.
I scroll past his comments usually. I think it's a human, but assisted, in some way, like with one of those post-modern language generators. When he doesn't use it, like in his response below this, he's human sounding.
a) how about resisting the temptation to want to define others and instead adapting to the need to grow yourself; starting with self discernment about the who; were; what and why?
b) ask yourself if you put yourself down if you view suggested "bot" as "master"?
c) what if the many speak based on how the few want them to speak aka language as a controlled tool of miscommunication? How could one like me penetrate such an all encompassing deception without standing out from the consented to "norm" of social communication?
d) how would you communicate that the suggested word represents a deception to distract from the perceivable sound to those who already consented to the suggested word?
e) what would it take for you to allow yourself to question if nature communicates itself with words or if words are shaped by the choices of others out of perceivable sound, and then suggested to your choice for consent to ignore sound for words?
f) BOT; ROBOT; noun (Latin robur) - "strength". I do have strengths and weaknesses...
This (inception towards death) represents the automated system for those (life) perceiving it from within. If the living ignore to resist the ongoing process of dying; then others can suggest "progressivism"; hence outcome oriented systems mimicking automation.
EN'ERGY, noun [Greek. work.] - "internal or inherent power". That represents ones (living) employment within all (dying). A suggested JOB, noun - "an undertaking with a view to profit" tempts one (living) to ignore all (dying) for suggested outcomes by others. Suggested jobs tempt one to PROF'IT, noun [Latin profectus, proficio) - "to proceed forward, to advance" instead of resisting.
Question if the many consented to believe (hold onto) suggested "truth"; which the ongoing system is contradicting; which in return allows the few to rebrand the consequences as "lies"?
a) nature doesn't communicate true or false information towards perceiving senses.
b) the temporary living cannot refuse the change of ongoing dying. The denial (refuse) happens among suggested information (want vs not want) after ignoring perceivable inspiration (need) and the choice used to ignore exists within a need/want balance aka the momentum of an ongoing system.
Let that sink in and allow yourself to question perceivable sound underneath suggested words? The few who suggest the languages for the many are crafting their spelling aka spell-craft.
SOCI'ETY, noun - "a number of persons united" represents the inversion of UNITY; noun (Latin unitas) - "the state of being one; oneness"; hence NUMBER; noun - "the designation of a unit".
Nature segregates itself from ALL perceivable into each ONE perceiving it aka differentiation out of whole aka transmutation of ingredient (living) out of base (dying).
Society is being suggested to destroy differences; hence 'e pluribus unum' (out of many, one). Why? Because moving differences represents communicated inspiration towards perceiving senses and adaptation to perceivable inspiration grows comprehension of perceivable; which allows the finite (perceiving) to grow within the infinite (perceivable) offer. The few couldn't control the many if each of the many chooses to outgrow the few.
I scroll past his comments usually. I think it's a human, but assisted, in some way, like with one of those post-modern language generators. When he doesn't use it, like in his response below this, he's human sounding.
a) how about resisting the temptation to want to define others and instead adapting to the need to grow yourself; starting with self discernment about the who; were; what and why?
b) ask yourself if you put yourself down if you view suggested "bot" as "master"?
c) what if the many speak based on how the few want them to speak aka language as a controlled tool of miscommunication? How could one like me penetrate such an all encompassing deception without standing out from the consented to "norm" of social communication?
d) how would you communicate that the suggested word represents a deception to distract from the perceivable sound to those who already consented to the suggested word?
e) what would it take for you to allow yourself to question if nature communicates itself with words or if words are shaped by the choices of others out of perceivable sound, and then suggested to your choice for consent to ignore sound for words?
f) BOT; ROBOT; noun (Latin robur) - "strength". I do have strengths and weaknesses...