a) what if nature sets apart sound (perceivable) and resonance (perceiving) as to be able to communicate inspiration for adaptation?
b) what if others suggest information to tempt one (singular) to compose (plural), hence to accumulate debt of information?
Ayh tend to focus on the technology
TECHNOL'OGY, noun [Greek. art, and word or discourse.] - "a description of arts; or a treatise on the arts" aka artificial suggestion to tempt one to ignore naturally perceivable.
use "ayh" for "I"
"Ayh am whatever jew say ayh am; because if ayh wasn't, then why would ayh say ayh am?"
to subtly condition those who hate
The condition of love (want) vs hate (not want) implies ignorance of being choice within balance (need/want). One doesn't need to love or hate breathing; thirst or hunger, one needs to adapt to motion, while being tempted with emotions.
distrust
Same trick...trust vs distrust represents a rebranding of wanting vs not wanting the suggestion of another; while ignoring the need to adapt to perceivable.
redirect my efforts
What if RE (response to) DIRECT (being directed by) represents the effort of adaptation as reaction (living) within enacting (process of dying) aka the struggle to resist temptation?
Want of suggested outcome tempts one to ignore the need to adapt to perceivable origin.
a social network so perfect
a) comprehension represents the network of one (perceiving) within oneness (perceivable). It's ones comprehension that spreads out from center into the surrounding like the roots of a seed into soil.
b) suggested society (togetherness) tempts "one" to ignore perceivable apartheid aka being partial (living) within whole (process of dying); hence struggling to sustain apart while being dissolved back to base whole.
The few suggest the many to be "social animals"; yet animation (enacting) sets itself apart (reaction). Each one of the many represents a partial reaction (form) within the momentum (balance) of the enacting whole (flow).
c) perfection (whole) self differentiates into imperfection (partial) aka from loss (process of dying) into growth (living).
The few suggest progressivism to tempt the many to seek outcomes (perfection), while ignoring to sustain self (imperfection). The rhetoric used goes "seeking order out of chaos"...an inversion of being temporary chaos (living) struggling to sustain self momentarily (momentum aka the ever changing moment) within the ongoing natural order (process of dying).
where free-will-of-choice has no downvote button
a) that would imply restricting the choices of others to not fall for suggested temptation...up vs down-vote aka agreement vs disagreement aka wanting vs not wanting suggested information.
For oneself that represents ignoring to express self (need) for repressing others (want).
Furthermore; one needs to resist the temptation to consent to suggested voting; while simultaneously resist both those who voted for or against oneself. Only if one resists temptation (suggested) can one grow within inspiration (perceivable).
b) the few suggest buttons to push to tempt the many to ignore the perceivable origin of being (life) pushed by (inception towards death) aka impression (loss) for expression (growth)...ones choice in-between represents compression (comprehension) of impressing (perceivable inspiration) for expression (growth potential).
Sleight of hand (Madonna - "Push")...
"Every move I make (to see the other point of view)"..."Every step I take (when there's nothing else to do)"
"Every thing I do (I think I know it all)"..."It's all because you push me"
That was written from the perspective of the living about the process of dying, and then neatly clothed in allegory; symbolism and much audio-visual spectacle suggested repeatedly (frequency of suggestion aimed at frequency of resistance)...hence mimicking the perceivable push by pushing others with suggested temptation.
Both "I" + "ayh" as well as "you" + "jew" represent suggested phonetics upon perceivable sound.
The few use suggestion upon perceivable as AL'LEGORY, noun [Greek other, to speak, a forum, an oration.] - "a figurative sentence or discourse, in which the principal subject is described by another subject resembling it in its properties and circumstances".
Nature doesn't speak; it doesn't orate words...it communicates perceivable sound, out of which choice can shape suggestible words. If one consents to words over sound; than others can define; redefine and contradict the predefined meaning of sound with words as an allegorical overlay...shaped by the will of those suggesting for the will of those consenting.
Phonetics; numerology (gematria); rhetoric; reason; secrecy; symbolism; information; languages etc. are all shaped by the choice of the few as a suggested overlay upon the perception of the consenting many.
a) only direction (inception towards death) for every reaction (life)
b) ITERA'TION, noun [Latin iteratio.] - "repetition; recital or performance a second time" aka initiation of sound (process of dying) to repetition thereof (living). Furthermore; ITERA (repetition) -ATION (through action) implies reaction (living) to enacting (process of dying).
Suggested "a second time" tempts ignorance of being ones (partial) within oneness (whole). There's only whole energy (internal power) and everything else as partials within.
c) "ayh" represents your reaction to suggested "I"; the latter representing a misdirection from being redefinition (partial) within predefined (whole).
you and jew sound nothing alike
a) what does nothing sound like? What if one can be tempted to ignore everything (perceivable sound) for nothing (suggested words) when consenting to use the latter over the former?
b) what was that about "no J in hebrew?" and just like that one gets yew/you. But wait...how to pronounce W? Double U. Hold your horses...there ain't no double within oneness (energy). Which brings one to yeu/you.
And finally...E/O aka VOWEL, noun - "a sound uttered by simply opening the mouth or organs; as the sound of a, e, o". Hit me up with the good stuff; Amy... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paAk-uPHTP4
c) suggested alike ignores perceivable apart aka different partials (living) within same whole (process of dying). Everything perceivable represents moving differences (inspiration); shaping those differences alike (information) implies by free will of choice.
If one views other ones as alike, then only by ignoring differences.
d) you wrote that you use "ayh" because it tempts those who hate it to respond. Those others are tempted to defend the suggested norm "I" against suggested contradiction "ayh". You are in the process of comprehending that others can be tempted by suggested contradictions to their belief systems.
It's fun to fuck around with the ignorance of others; but the real struggle represents resisting the temptation thereof; while growing out of ones own ignorance. Your consent (not want) to the suggested norm "I" (want) puts you into a conflict of reason with others (I vs ayh), both sides are being divided against each other by the suggestion of a 3rd party outside the conflict of reason.
Take all the other ones away and ask yourself why would you declare yourself to be an "I" without doing in response to others? Nature doesn't give a fuck if those within define themselves as "I" or "ayh" or "lbgtp-gender fluid". Why? Because nature represents the only IDEN'TITY, noun "sameness" for every differentiation within.
One (living) within oneness (process of dying) implies diversity within equality. It's called identity politics; because the few govern the minds of the many with suggested sameness; hence domesticating them to adhere to a norm, to the mainstream; to follow orders; to march in lockstep, to pretend to be together as one big happy family (e pluribus unum aka out of many; one).
e) as a "me"...who could I blame but a "you"? To blame another implies shirking response-ability (choice) onto others. Who wears being blamed as the cloak of persecution? The few; the jew; the you.
If a "me" can only blame a "you", then what more efficient way to exploit the ignorance of a "me" by pretending to be a "you"...a jew?
existing identities
a) one cannot perceive sameness (identity) only differences (diversity), because that what perception within motion communicates (moving differences aka inspiration). Ignoring this for suggested information is where the mind-fuckery gets ya. Only within my memory can I pretend that differences are the same, no matter how much reality (perceivable) contradicts fiction (suggested).
b) notice that the so called jews switch identities on the fly to the point where even the term "jew" has countless contradicting definitions. Meanwhile; the many are struggling to define their own identities to the point of desperately wanting to hold onto black and white color coding.
c) nature doesn't require those within to introduce themselves, because nature represents the introduction for everything within. It's on each one within to find ones fucking place aka self discernment. Others ruthlessly exploit the lack thereof by suggesting identities.
no sir
Once again using "no" to negate the suggested information of others, instead of adapting to perceivable inspiration. Can those within natural law negate it (suggested no)? How? Do those within natural need to affirm it (suggested yes)? Why?
Take suggestion out (both yes and no) and there's enacting force (process of dying) upon reacting force (living). Neither affirmation; nor negation...just adaptation.
ayh defended you
Suggested defense implies versus offense (a conflict). How is it a defense if your suggestion tempts me into a conflict (reasoning)?
The process of dying isn't offending the defending life within...it represents the impressing foundation (loss) for internal expression (growth)...both coexisting within balance (momentum), not fighting against each other.
this is a knock in the wrong column
a) wrong implies versus right. Once again a conflict of reason (agreement vs disagreement) in ignorance of implication (if/then).
b) the support (column) for form (life) implies flow (inception towards death). The process of dying represents the generator for every living reaction within.
Ask yourself if you are being tempted to build support out of suggested information; while ignoring the ongoing foundation of perceivable inspiration, out of which you could build everything offered?
Are you being tempted to build sandcastles (suggestion) at the beach (perceivable) and if you look around...are those sandcastles being destroyed over and over again, while you are trying to hold onto fleeting remains of what once was?
Adaptation to inspiration allows one to build without being bound to what one builds, hence exponentially increasing the skill to build aka the skill to grow (living) within loss (process of dying).
a) what if nature sets apart sound (perceivable) and resonance (perceiving) as to be able to communicate inspiration for adaptation?
b) what if others suggest information to tempt one (singular) to compose (plural), hence to accumulate debt of information?
TECHNOL'OGY, noun [Greek. art, and word or discourse.] - "a description of arts; or a treatise on the arts" aka artificial suggestion to tempt one to ignore naturally perceivable.
"Ayh am whatever jew say ayh am; because if ayh wasn't, then why would ayh say ayh am?"
The condition of love (want) vs hate (not want) implies ignorance of being choice within balance (need/want). One doesn't need to love or hate breathing; thirst or hunger, one needs to adapt to motion, while being tempted with emotions.
Same trick...trust vs distrust represents a rebranding of wanting vs not wanting the suggestion of another; while ignoring the need to adapt to perceivable.
What if RE (response to) DIRECT (being directed by) represents the effort of adaptation as reaction (living) within enacting (process of dying) aka the struggle to resist temptation?
i have a dream, of a social network so perfect where free-will-of-choice has no downvote button on his posts
Want of suggested outcome tempts one to ignore the need to adapt to perceivable origin.
a) comprehension represents the network of one (perceiving) within oneness (perceivable). It's ones comprehension that spreads out from center into the surrounding like the roots of a seed into soil.
b) suggested society (togetherness) tempts "one" to ignore perceivable apartheid aka being partial (living) within whole (process of dying); hence struggling to sustain apart while being dissolved back to base whole.
The few suggest the many to be "social animals"; yet animation (enacting) sets itself apart (reaction). Each one of the many represents a partial reaction (form) within the momentum (balance) of the enacting whole (flow).
c) perfection (whole) self differentiates into imperfection (partial) aka from loss (process of dying) into growth (living).
The few suggest progressivism to tempt the many to seek outcomes (perfection), while ignoring to sustain self (imperfection). The rhetoric used goes "seeking order out of chaos"...an inversion of being temporary chaos (living) struggling to sustain self momentarily (momentum aka the ever changing moment) within the ongoing natural order (process of dying).
a) that would imply restricting the choices of others to not fall for suggested temptation...up vs down-vote aka agreement vs disagreement aka wanting vs not wanting suggested information.
For oneself that represents ignoring to express self (need) for repressing others (want).
Furthermore; one needs to resist the temptation to consent to suggested voting; while simultaneously resist both those who voted for or against oneself. Only if one resists temptation (suggested) can one grow within inspiration (perceivable).
b) the few suggest buttons to push to tempt the many to ignore the perceivable origin of being (life) pushed by (inception towards death) aka impression (loss) for expression (growth)...ones choice in-between represents compression (comprehension) of impressing (perceivable inspiration) for expression (growth potential).
Sleight of hand (Madonna - "Push")...
"Every move I make (to see the other point of view)"..."Every step I take (when there's nothing else to do)"
"Every thing I do (I think I know it all)"..."It's all because you push me"
That was written from the perspective of the living about the process of dying, and then neatly clothed in allegory; symbolism and much audio-visual spectacle suggested repeatedly (frequency of suggestion aimed at frequency of resistance)...hence mimicking the perceivable push by pushing others with suggested temptation.
Both "I" + "ayh" as well as "you" + "jew" represent suggested phonetics upon perceivable sound.
The few use suggestion upon perceivable as AL'LEGORY, noun [Greek other, to speak, a forum, an oration.] - "a figurative sentence or discourse, in which the principal subject is described by another subject resembling it in its properties and circumstances".
Nature doesn't speak; it doesn't orate words...it communicates perceivable sound, out of which choice can shape suggestible words. If one consents to words over sound; than others can define; redefine and contradict the predefined meaning of sound with words as an allegorical overlay...shaped by the will of those suggesting for the will of those consenting.
Phonetics; numerology (gematria); rhetoric; reason; secrecy; symbolism; information; languages etc. are all shaped by the choice of the few as a suggested overlay upon the perception of the consenting many.
a) only direction (inception towards death) for every reaction (life)
b) ITERA'TION, noun [Latin iteratio.] - "repetition; recital or performance a second time" aka initiation of sound (process of dying) to repetition thereof (living). Furthermore; ITERA (repetition) -ATION (through action) implies reaction (living) to enacting (process of dying).
Suggested "a second time" tempts ignorance of being ones (partial) within oneness (whole). There's only whole energy (internal power) and everything else as partials within.
c) "ayh" represents your reaction to suggested "I"; the latter representing a misdirection from being redefinition (partial) within predefined (whole).
a) what does nothing sound like? What if one can be tempted to ignore everything (perceivable sound) for nothing (suggested words) when consenting to use the latter over the former?
b) what was that about "no J in hebrew?" and just like that one gets yew/you. But wait...how to pronounce W? Double U. Hold your horses...there ain't no double within oneness (energy). Which brings one to yeu/you.
And finally...E/O aka VOWEL, noun - "a sound uttered by simply opening the mouth or organs; as the sound of a, e, o". Hit me up with the good stuff; Amy... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paAk-uPHTP4
c) suggested alike ignores perceivable apart aka different partials (living) within same whole (process of dying). Everything perceivable represents moving differences (inspiration); shaping those differences alike (information) implies by free will of choice.
If one views other ones as alike, then only by ignoring differences.
d) you wrote that you use "ayh" because it tempts those who hate it to respond. Those others are tempted to defend the suggested norm "I" against suggested contradiction "ayh". You are in the process of comprehending that others can be tempted by suggested contradictions to their belief systems.
It's fun to fuck around with the ignorance of others; but the real struggle represents resisting the temptation thereof; while growing out of ones own ignorance. Your consent (not want) to the suggested norm "I" (want) puts you into a conflict of reason with others (I vs ayh), both sides are being divided against each other by the suggestion of a 3rd party outside the conflict of reason.
Take all the other ones away and ask yourself why would you declare yourself to be an "I" without doing in response to others? Nature doesn't give a fuck if those within define themselves as "I" or "ayh" or "lbgtp-gender fluid". Why? Because nature represents the only IDEN'TITY, noun "sameness" for every differentiation within.
One (living) within oneness (process of dying) implies diversity within equality. It's called identity politics; because the few govern the minds of the many with suggested sameness; hence domesticating them to adhere to a norm, to the mainstream; to follow orders; to march in lockstep, to pretend to be together as one big happy family (e pluribus unum aka out of many; one).
e) as a "me"...who could I blame but a "you"? To blame another implies shirking response-ability (choice) onto others. Who wears being blamed as the cloak of persecution? The few; the jew; the you.
If a "me" can only blame a "you", then what more efficient way to exploit the ignorance of a "me" by pretending to be a "you"...a jew?
a) one cannot perceive sameness (identity) only differences (diversity), because that what perception within motion communicates (moving differences aka inspiration). Ignoring this for suggested information is where the mind-fuckery gets ya. Only within my memory can I pretend that differences are the same, no matter how much reality (perceivable) contradicts fiction (suggested).
b) notice that the so called jews switch identities on the fly to the point where even the term "jew" has countless contradicting definitions. Meanwhile; the many are struggling to define their own identities to the point of desperately wanting to hold onto black and white color coding.
c) nature doesn't require those within to introduce themselves, because nature represents the introduction for everything within. It's on each one within to find ones fucking place aka self discernment. Others ruthlessly exploit the lack thereof by suggesting identities.
Once again using "no" to negate the suggested information of others, instead of adapting to perceivable inspiration. Can those within natural law negate it (suggested no)? How? Do those within natural need to affirm it (suggested yes)? Why?
Take suggestion out (both yes and no) and there's enacting force (process of dying) upon reacting force (living). Neither affirmation; nor negation...just adaptation.
Suggested defense implies versus offense (a conflict). How is it a defense if your suggestion tempts me into a conflict (reasoning)?
The process of dying isn't offending the defending life within...it represents the impressing foundation (loss) for internal expression (growth)...both coexisting within balance (momentum), not fighting against each other.
a) wrong implies versus right. Once again a conflict of reason (agreement vs disagreement) in ignorance of implication (if/then).
b) the support (column) for form (life) implies flow (inception towards death). The process of dying represents the generator for every living reaction within.
Ask yourself if you are being tempted to build support out of suggested information; while ignoring the ongoing foundation of perceivable inspiration, out of which you could build everything offered?
Are you being tempted to build sandcastles (suggestion) at the beach (perceivable) and if you look around...are those sandcastles being destroyed over and over again, while you are trying to hold onto fleeting remains of what once was?
Adaptation to inspiration allows one to build without being bound to what one builds, hence exponentially increasing the skill to build aka the skill to grow (living) within loss (process of dying).