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) 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).