Adapt into what origin? You're creating an oxymoron. Live to die. Quickly cut. Or die to live. Cut to survive. Neither, it's often simple technology paying him more for any attempt. It has outpaced the population funding it. Hence a bottleneck. It changing. In any event a few years later there will be another asshole like him no matter what. Humans will populate no matter what he decides. So if he's suggesting the bonfires, surely shouldn't he be their first offering?
But you feel there's some other urgency today. The weather is coming, and the sky is falling on our heads, because it's changing. It does anyway. No matter what he does. Our species will populate back on the Volcano anyway. Just be sure to drive an EV. It helps stop the Volcano. No, what?
If within motion (process of dying); then need for adaptation (living).
If within balance (action); then need for choice (reaction).
If within flow (inception towards death); then need for form (life).
If within perceivable (whole); then need for perceiving (partial).
Change your perspective from "adaptation into origin" to being within (living) therefore the adaptation to origin (process of dying).
You're creating an oxymoron
What if you consent to suggested creationism (implies out of nothing); while ignoring perceivable transmutation (implies out of everything)? How could one perceive anything without being within everything perceivable?
What if every suggested word tempts one to ignore perceivable sound; hence questioning "contrary signification" (oxymoron) of suggested meaning?
Live to die. Quickly cut. Or die to live. Cut to survive
Living to die represents the choice of the living to want suggested outcomes (aiming towards death); while ignoring the need to respond (as choice) to origin (balance) for the sustenance of life.
Die to live represents transmutation of flow (inception towards death) into form (life) aka from the ongoing into the temporary aka from whole into partial aka from base into ingredient.
Living represents response-ability (choice) within the momentum (balance) of temptation (dying) aka resistance (growth) within the momentum of velocity (loss). Both together (loss/growth in coexistence as balance) represent EN'ERGY, noun [Gr. work.] - "internal or inherent power".
Notice that the living cannot "survive" the process of dying, hence only temporary exist within the ongoing aka as growth within loss; as resistance within velocity; as response-ability (need) within temptation (want).
Also question if the temporary living can "quickly cut" the ongoing process of dying or only their own life short by willingly ignoring to fucking grow it?
Neither, it's often simple technology paying him more for any attempt
a) if one attempts the suggestions by others (technology); then one is tempted to ignore everything perceivable (inspiration) for the suggested (information).
b) check this out...TECHNOL'OGY, noun [Greek art, and word or discourse.] - "an explanation of the terms of the arts" aka artificial words suggested to tempt one to ignore; naturally, perceivable sound.
But you feel there's some other urgency today. The weather is coming, and the sky is falling on our heads, because it's changing.
Living within the process of dying implies being within constant change. It's all the suggested words; which tempts one to reason about affixed meaning (information); while ignoring to adapt to the perceivable flow of inspiration from all the moving differences perceived by ones senses.
Hold your breath and wait...the "urge" represents an impressing system; which those within adapt to by compression (inhale) and expression (exhale). Notice the urge to adapt when holding your breath...that's the enacting origin for your reactions; yet you're tempted by the suggested reactions from all the other ones to ignore that. They can even go so far as to suggest you to "put a mask over your nose and mouth"; while simultaneously reveal to you that "I can't breathe" leads to death.
That represents spiritual warfare by means of suggestion; hence SPIR'IT, noun [Latin spiritus, from spiro, to breathe]
shouldn't he be their first offering?
What can those perceiving offer, that wasn't already perceivable beforehand? Only if one ignores perceivable can other ones "offer" suggested.
do you think the numbers in his mind are in the hundreds? Thousands? Millions? Billions?
NUM'BER, noun - "the designation of a unit" + UNIT; noun (Latin unus) - "one".
What if each one of the few comprehends that all represents one in energy and that each one within all represents a partial (perceiving) within the whole (perceivable)? What if suggesting the counting of numbers tempts one to ignore oneself?
No, we don't need him.
Can the reactions (living) within an enacting system (process of dying) define "need" for each other or do they need to adapt to origin?
Adapt into what origin? You're creating an oxymoron. Live to die. Quickly cut. Or die to live. Cut to survive. Neither, it's often simple technology paying him more for any attempt. It has outpaced the population funding it. Hence a bottleneck. It changing. In any event a few years later there will be another asshole like him no matter what. Humans will populate no matter what he decides. So if he's suggesting the bonfires, surely shouldn't he be their first offering?
But you feel there's some other urgency today. The weather is coming, and the sky is falling on our heads, because it's changing. It does anyway. No matter what he does. Our species will populate back on the Volcano anyway. Just be sure to drive an EV. It helps stop the Volcano. No, what?
If within motion (process of dying); then need for adaptation (living).
If within balance (action); then need for choice (reaction).
If within flow (inception towards death); then need for form (life).
If within perceivable (whole); then need for perceiving (partial).
Change your perspective from "adaptation into origin" to being within (living) therefore the adaptation to origin (process of dying).
What if you consent to suggested creationism (implies out of nothing); while ignoring perceivable transmutation (implies out of everything)? How could one perceive anything without being within everything perceivable?
What if every suggested word tempts one to ignore perceivable sound; hence questioning "contrary signification" (oxymoron) of suggested meaning?
Living to die represents the choice of the living to want suggested outcomes (aiming towards death); while ignoring the need to respond (as choice) to origin (balance) for the sustenance of life.
Die to live represents transmutation of flow (inception towards death) into form (life) aka from the ongoing into the temporary aka from whole into partial aka from base into ingredient.
Living represents response-ability (choice) within the momentum (balance) of temptation (dying) aka resistance (growth) within the momentum of velocity (loss). Both together (loss/growth in coexistence as balance) represent EN'ERGY, noun [Gr. work.] - "internal or inherent power".
Notice that the living cannot "survive" the process of dying, hence only temporary exist within the ongoing aka as growth within loss; as resistance within velocity; as response-ability (need) within temptation (want).
Also question if the temporary living can "quickly cut" the ongoing process of dying or only their own life short by willingly ignoring to fucking grow it?
a) if one attempts the suggestions by others (technology); then one is tempted to ignore everything perceivable (inspiration) for the suggested (information).
b) check this out...TECHNOL'OGY, noun [Greek art, and word or discourse.] - "an explanation of the terms of the arts" aka artificial words suggested to tempt one to ignore; naturally, perceivable sound.
Living within the process of dying implies being within constant change. It's all the suggested words; which tempts one to reason about affixed meaning (information); while ignoring to adapt to the perceivable flow of inspiration from all the moving differences perceived by ones senses.
Hold your breath and wait...the "urge" represents an impressing system; which those within adapt to by compression (inhale) and expression (exhale). Notice the urge to adapt when holding your breath...that's the enacting origin for your reactions; yet you're tempted by the suggested reactions from all the other ones to ignore that. They can even go so far as to suggest you to "put a mask over your nose and mouth"; while simultaneously reveal to you that "I can't breathe" leads to death.
That represents spiritual warfare by means of suggestion; hence SPIR'IT, noun [Latin spiritus, from spiro, to breathe]
What can those perceiving offer, that wasn't already perceivable beforehand? Only if one ignores perceivable can other ones "offer" suggested.
What if each one of the few comprehends that all represents one in energy and that each one within all represents a partial (perceiving) within the whole (perceivable)? What if suggesting the counting of numbers tempts one to ignore oneself?