Language provides clarity with definitions.
If we have no clarity, no definitions and no boundaries we cannot define ourselves and cannot communicate with others of matters of interest.
I am therefore asking. What is your understanding or defintion of
A nation
A nationality
A country
A people
A race
A state
Taking this one step further once we have reached consensus in the above defintions which nation/country/state/people today can define themselves appropriately according to set and defined criteria?
In an era where a woman can have a penis and a man can be pregnant it is language that will save or destroy us.
Go !
I am inviting u/free-will-of-choice to join in the debate.
a) everything (perceivable) is provided for everyone (perceiving) within.
b) lack of clarity represents opportunity to grow comprehension within perceivable loss (predefined)
c) the process of dying predefines everything living within it. Those within represent RE (response to) DEFINE (being defined by)
d) DEFINE, verb - "to end, to limit, from finis, end"; hence inception predefines death for the life in-between aka balance (inception/death) represents the limitation for choice (life) to react.
e) all languages represent suggested information (fiction) as the overlay upon perceivable inspiration (reality).
a) if implies then....IMPLY', verb [Latin implico; in and plico, to fold.] - "to infold or involve; to wrap up; to contain in substance or essence" aka if substance (living) then within essence (process of dying).
b) suggested "we" (collectivism) tempts to ignore being "one" (perceivable apartheid). Without the consent of "one" to the suggested umbrella "we"...one doesn't become a "part" of we, one remains a partial (living) within whole (process of dying).
Ask yourself why the chosen "ones" (partial) suggest the consenting "many" (collective)...e pluribus unum (out of many; one)? The few suggest unity; while each one of the many ignores UNITY (Latin unitas; unus; one). The few utilize suggestion to merge the many into compound interest.
c) suggested "no" (nothing) tempts one (perceiving) to ignore "everything" (perceivable) and consenting to "no" puts one into conflict against "yes" among all the other consenting ones.
Yes vs no represents the rebranding of wanting vs not wanting suggested (information); while ignoring the need to adapt to perceivable (inspiration) and all these rebranded conflicts are called "reasoning" aka division through suggestion of definition aka divide (perceiving from perceivable) and conquer (within suggested).
Ones consent to the suggestion of "no; not; nothing; nothingness" represents ones ignorance of everything perceivable (aka predefined reality), and those who ignore are willingly repressing their growth expression of comprehension.
Impressing (perceived) to compressing (comprehension) for either expression (growth) or repression (loss).
Being "free" will of choice implies at the center of "dom"inating balance aka free-dom aka temporary free (living) bound within ongoing dominance (process of dying).
a) each one can grow self discernment about being apart (living) within whole (process of dying). The more discernment one grows; the more comprehension (potential) of perceivable (potentiality) can be utilized for self sustenance.
b) set aside the suggested "we" + "not" + "our" by choosing to do so, then allow yourself to question the foundation of choice (balance) as the predefined limit (definition) for being free will of choice. Others can write this down for you; but only oneself can choose to grow self discernment.
Wanting the suggested definitions (information) by others tempts one to ignore the need to grow self discernment within predefined (perceivable inspiration).
Balance (enacting) to choice (reaction) represents the communication of inspiration (perceivable) to adaptation (perceiving). Choice to choice represents miscommunication in ignorance of communication.
Hold your breath and shut your mouth. What comes first...the need to breathe (adaptation) or the want to speak (temptation)? Which one can you resist?
If all represents one in energy; then others represent temporary moving differences (inspiration) within constant motion (temptation) to each other. It represents ones free will of choice to utilize others as inspiration (need) for resistance or being tempted (want) by them, while ignoring to resist.
Everything you (living) perceived represents temptation (process of dying); yet your perspective (perceiving moving differences) represents inspiration communicated to you as to inspire you to resist (living) temptation (dying).
a) matter (living) within immaterial (process of dying).
b) IN'TEREST, verb [Latin inter and esse.] aka being within (living) essence (process of dying) implies resistance (reaction) within temptation (enacting).
Asking for suggested outcomes (answers to questions) tempts one to ignore being problem (living) within solution (process of dying). Nature already gives everything to everyone at every moment.
a) to understand implies standing under what others are suggesting; while ignoring to grow comprehension within perceivable.
b) the few suggest INTEL'LIGENCE, noun (Latin intelligentia, from intelligo, to understand) to tempt the many to ignore KNOWL'EDGE, noun - "a clear and certain perception of that which exists", which when consented to allows the few to define; redefine, and contradict the suggested at will.
NATION; noun - "a people" which implies each one of them, not collectively consenting to the brand "nation" as suggested by others.
The -ality implies ones consent to the suggested "nation" by others, while ignoring being a partial (expression) within whole (impression); which would represent the grow of resistance required to sustain a people (nation).
COUNT (to number aka designation of a unit; from Latin unus, one). To be (one) implies within (oneness), so wherever one resides one is. Others suggest counting (accumulation of units) to tempt one (perceiving) to ignore oneness (perceivable).
The perspective of the living implies from the center of a self differentiating process of dying. The temptation to count (accumulation of differentiated) needs to be resisted https://pic8.co/sh/FglLMk.jpg because perceivable differences represents communicated inspiration for adaptation.
"people" perceived implies each PER (by) SONOS (sound) within aka each partial instrument within whole sound, while "people" suggested represents the accumulation of animals aka the merging of animation instead of partial expression, hence the POPULOUS - "the vulgar; the mass of illiterate persons, the commonalty; the gentiles; the goyim; the plural in ignorance of singular"
RACE, noun [Latin radix; radius; ray, radiate, etc.] aka ones expressed growth (living) within the impressing loss of oneness (process of dying). Nature self differentiates; each differences within needs to struggle to sustain apartheid before being dissolved back to origin.
The parasitic few tempt the many to ignore apartheid by suggesting them to merge together (e pluribus unum); "united" states; "united" nations; european "union" aka "We Are The World"..."There comes a time when we heed (consent) a certain call (suggestion)"..."When the world must come together as one"
If all represents one in EN'ERGY, noun [Gr. work.] - "internal or inherent power", then the internal power implies a balance between action/reaction aka flow-state (process of dying) and form-state (living).
Suggestion represents affixed condition; perception implies liquid condition. Consenting to suggested (affixed information) tempts one to ignore perceivable (liquid inspiration).
IN (within) FORM (formed by) -ATION (through action) or IN (within) SPIRIT (Latin spiro; to breathe aka adaptation as reaction to enacting) -ATION (through action)...it's ones free will of choice within balance to choose need (perceivable) or want (suggested). Everyone shares the consequences of each ones choices.
That's the corruption within the line of thinking...
a) that's the line (process of dying) + that's thinking (living)...others tempt you with suggested consensus to reach the end of the line.
b) agreement (want) implies versus disagreement (not want). Why? Because the choice to agree (want) or disagree (not want) with suggested can only be made within perceivable balance (need/want), and so want vs not want (imbalance) already implies the ignorance of need (perceivable) for want (suggested).
c) DEFINE (limit) -ATION (through action)...the choice one makes to agree or disagree with others implies "reaction" to each other within an enacting system (balance aka the momentum of motion aka the perceivable ever changing moment).
From a different perspective...the few suggest "actors" to tempt the many to react (monkey see; monkey do). Those with eyes to see will notice the sleight of hand and its implication...if an "actor" has a "director" then that implies being "reactor", which then allows further comprehension about reaction (life) within direction (inception towards death) aka partial reactors (living) within whole generator (process of dying).