Question for Flat Earthers: do ya'll believe there is an "edge" - and that the "arctic wall" that is blocked by the military, or do they believe that there is no edge - - just billions of miles of ocean into foreverness?
Just curious... if you are all in agreement on this one or now... :)
that would be new - everyone believing something different, and yet everyone is correct! there is a wall.... and not a wall!! :)
maybe in philosophy 101... that's two rooms down.
If one represents the perceiving center of all perceivable; then one cannot perceive anything "new"; only everything already perceivable.
a) believing implies consenting to the suggestions of others; while ignoring perceivable.
b) if one agrees with another one over suggested; than one is being tempted to ignore perceivable differences for suggested sameness; hence suggestion requiring agreement; while perception requires adaptation.
Correct vs incorrect represents a rebrand of wanting vs not wanting suggested information; while ignoring the need to adapt to perceivable inspiration.
Apply correct (want) vs incorrect (not want) to breathing (need) and it implies ignorance of need; while reasoning about want vs not want.
What does choice at the center of a balance based system require defense (wall) for? What if ignoring balance causes harm (imbalance)? Furthermore...does living within the process of dying represent security or danger to those living?
That represents consent to suggested scientism; hence submission of will within perceivable to suggesting will of others.
OK... you have convinced me you have solid handle on the English language. good job there.
BUT you still haven't convinced me that the existing general physics model is broken to the point that Earth is actually "flat" (whatever that means?!)
ps. have yall managed to come to a consensus on what "flat" means yet? flat forever, or flat as in we live in a "pleasantville dome" flat. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The solid suggestion of words tempts one to ignore the liquid perception of sound.
~Asher Zvi Hirsch Ginsberg aka Ahad Ha'am aka founder of cultural Zionism
a) CONVINCED - "persuaded in mind" represents the temptation to be persuaded to consent to the suggested information by others; while ignoring to adapt to perceivable inspiration.
b) it ain't me who could convince you of anything; it's your free will of choice to be convinced by whatever others are suggesting you, and the parasitic few ruthlessly exploit this weakness among the host many by means of suggestion.
a) life came apart (partial out of whole). The parasitic few suggest the inversion...e pluribus unum (out of many; one)
b) agreement (consent) implies versus disagreement...a conflict (called reason) caused by consent to suggested (information) over perceivable (inspiration). If one chooses want (suggested) over need (perceivable); then one causes the want vs not want conflict of reason with all those reasoning against each other about the suggested.
c) the parasitic few suggest "consent" as to tempt the many to agree to each other having consent within conflicts of reason. Why? Because the parasitic few require reduced resistance from the many as to be able to parasitically exploit them, and the many being divided against each other (reasoning) does just that. One can't resist temptation; when one already consented to reason against anyone over suggested temptations.
Example...consent to reason about suggested "abortion" represents the battery which keeps the abortion racket going. The sleight of hand for those with eyes to see...while the many are reasoning over suggested pro-life vs pro-choice; they ignore perceivable...life equals choice.
You chose to ignore that which perceptibly "exists" for that "model" which others suggested you to form out of. You represent form (life) out of flow (inception towards death) and the mold for your reacting choice represents enacting balance...not the choices of others.
The suggested term "general" is tempting you to view those suggesting it as the generator; when their suggesting choice implies them to represent reactors to generation aka reaction (living) within enacting (process of dying).
Nature ain't a model; it ain't a copy but the origin for all within; it ain't representation but impressing (enacting) for expression (reaction), and it ain't broken; it represents the ongoing natural order (process of dying) which "breaks" itself through differentiation into temporary chaos (living)...hence the struggle for chaos to sustain itself within order.
The parasitic few suggest the inversion thereof...seeking order out of chaos (ordo ab chao)
a) being partial (perceiving) within whole (perceivable) implies being lack of comprehension within predefined meaning. One cannot define; only adapt to perceivable (reality) or ignore it for suggested (fiction). One exists within a predefined system, with the opportunity to grow comprehension thereof.
b) FLAT, adjective [Latin latus, broad.] - "having an even surface, without risings or indentures; horizontal; level; without inclination"...that tempts one to ignore being growth (living) within loss (process of dying), hence odds (choice) within even (balance).
BROAD, adjective [Latin gradior] - "wide; extended in breadth, or from side to side" aka life extended from inception towards death.
That tempts one to ignore that all form represents temporary within the ongoing flow. The parasitic few suggest FOR (forwards) EVER (at all times; always; continually) as the sleight of hand; because it implies (if/then) those temporary resisting (living) the forwards motion (process of dying). "forwards" tempts the many to want to go forwards (suggested progressivism); which implies ignoring to be the resistance inside forwards velocity.
a) the cupola (dome) raised over the middle requires self discernment, hence being the middle (choice) at the center of the cupola (balance).
b) the "small hats" are wearing a kippah (kuppel; dome) while resisting underneath it.
c) PLEASANT (agreeable) VILLE (a tenure of lands and tenements by base services) aka suggestion (base service) tempting (tenure; to hold onto) consent (agreement) aka choice (consent) to choice (suggestion) contract law.
The "versus" implies a conflict of reason aka wanting vs not wanting suggested "model" of perceivable. A conflict implies imbalance (want vs not want) in ignorance of being choice at the center of balance (need/want) aka perceivable (need) or suggested (want).
It's irrelevant which sides the many consent to; or what the few are suggesting...only consent to suggested over perceivable gives the few control over the consenting many who ignore reality for fiction.
In simple...the few suggest an "outside" to tempt the many to ignore being at the center of inside; hence tempting them off-center. Choice represents the formed center; balance the momentum of the outside flow.