a) what if to believe (consent to want suggested) shapes opposition (those who consent to not want suggested)?
b) what if the few use suggested information (complex) to tempt the many to ignore perceivable inspiration (simple)?
They flip flop
What if the few deliberately contradict (talmudic reasoning) both sides of the suggested information, which the many are reasoning against each other over...thereby controlling both sides of every conflict?
they used to enforce Christianity and now they attack it
a) the merchant who aggressively promotes sales, has to devalue whatever sold for the next promoted article.
b) those who want suggested can be suggested to let go as to tempt them to hold onto it harder (muh precious).
You have to kick back and forth both ideas
Does one really have to consent to agree vs disagree with suggested idealism?
where the sliver of truth is.
a) what if suggested true (want) vs false (not want) tempts one to ignore perceivable (need)...everything of it...like the whole thing?
b) how can it be that within ALL of perceivable reality, one has to struggle to find a "sliver of truth" among the suggestions of others?
c) if nature doesn't lie, then could those within suggest truth to exploit those who consent with lies?
d) if one holds onto something (truth) within a moving system, then could others exploit ones ignorance of motion by contradicting (lie) what one holds onto?
There are usually slivers of truth within every lie and lies within every truth
Or there's a foundation (perceivable) underneath everything build within (suggested), while those within can tempt each other to ignore the former (reality) for the latter (fiction).
Keep digging
If living within the process of dying represents temporary growth within ongoing loss; then what does suggesting other to "keep digging" imply? Digging down into growth or digging down into loss?
a) what if to believe (consent to want suggested) shapes opposition (those who consent to not want suggested)?
b) what if the few use suggested information (complex) to tempt the many to ignore perceivable inspiration (simple)?
What if the few deliberately contradict (talmudic reasoning) both sides of the suggested information, which the many are reasoning against each other over...thereby controlling both sides of every conflict?
a) the merchant who aggressively promotes sales, has to devalue whatever sold for the next promoted article.
b) those who want suggested can be suggested to let go as to tempt them to hold onto it harder (muh precious).
Does one really have to consent to agree vs disagree with suggested idealism?
a) what if suggested true (want) vs false (not want) tempts one to ignore perceivable (need)...everything of it...like the whole thing?
b) how can it be that within ALL of perceivable reality, one has to struggle to find a "sliver of truth" among the suggestions of others?
c) if nature doesn't lie, then could those within suggest truth to exploit those who consent with lies?
d) if one holds onto something (truth) within a moving system, then could others exploit ones ignorance of motion by contradicting (lie) what one holds onto?
Or there's a foundation (perceivable) underneath everything build within (suggested), while those within can tempt each other to ignore the former (reality) for the latter (fiction).
If living within the process of dying represents temporary growth within ongoing loss; then what does suggesting other to "keep digging" imply? Digging down into growth or digging down into loss?