a) how could one grow (within perceivable) if one chooses to understand (stand under suggested)?
b) if everything (perceivable); then nothing (suggested)
c) implication (if/then) or reason (want vs NOT want)...your choice. Let's apply it...if living; then dying or want living vs not want dying. Which one contradicts itself?
The game runners
Are the few running or do they suggest the many where to run towards (progressivism)? What if consenting to a suggested game implies being played by others within perceivable?
STOP reacting
Can reaction (living) STOP (cessation of motion) within enacting (process of dying)?
Once you GET IT
What if each one being able to perceive already got everything perceivable to choose within?
to break this cycle
What if consent to suggested collectivism (togetherness); while ignoring perceivable apartheid (being partial within whole) represents a self imposed KIKE; noun - "circle; ring (ouroboros); a visible sign (imbalance) of an invisible bond (choice to choice contract law)"?
What if the many ignore being (living) within (process of dying), which allows the few to lure them into a self destructive cycle (not want); which in return tempts them to "want" to break out?
What if want vs not want represents the self destructive cycle (imbalance); which tempts one to ignore being choice at the center of balance (need/want)?
youl'll stop watching, posting and reacting to shit
Can the perceiving within perceivable ever stop falling for the tempting suggestions by others? What if resisting (perceivable need) temptation (suggested want) grows resistance (living) within temptation (process of dying)?
Does it matter what others are suggesting or does each ones resistance to whatever others are suggesting represents the sustenance of matter (living) within immaterial (process of dying)?
a) how could one grow (within perceivable) if one chooses to understand (stand under suggested)?
b) if everything (perceivable); then nothing (suggested)
c) implication (if/then) or reason (want vs NOT want)...your choice. Let's apply it...if living; then dying or want living vs not want dying. Which one contradicts itself?
Are the few running or do they suggest the many where to run towards (progressivism)? What if consenting to a suggested game implies being played by others within perceivable?
Can reaction (living) STOP (cessation of motion) within enacting (process of dying)?
What if each one being able to perceive already got everything perceivable to choose within?
What if consent to suggested collectivism (togetherness); while ignoring perceivable apartheid (being partial within whole) represents a self imposed KIKE; noun - "circle; ring (ouroboros); a visible sign (imbalance) of an invisible bond (choice to choice contract law)"?
What if the many ignore being (living) within (process of dying), which allows the few to lure them into a self destructive cycle (not want); which in return tempts them to "want" to break out?
What if want vs not want represents the self destructive cycle (imbalance); which tempts one to ignore being choice at the center of balance (need/want)?
Can the perceiving within perceivable ever stop falling for the tempting suggestions by others? What if resisting (perceivable need) temptation (suggested want) grows resistance (living) within temptation (process of dying)?
Does it matter what others are suggesting or does each ones resistance to whatever others are suggesting represents the sustenance of matter (living) within immaterial (process of dying)?