Yes indeed. It's a conundrum. Where any events tend to shape the same. Until it becomes formulation. Ominously. But in reality has hardly differed. Of course they used mythology to obscure it. It gives it another layer of possibility when in fact it's simple repetition from where it was drafted. The destruction of Babylon among the countless after. Replayed throughout the battlefield until even on advancement becomes applied. As that sense of future engagement.
CONUNDRUM, noun - "conceit" + CONCEIT, noun - "to take or seize"
"yes" implies vs no...which represents ones choice to want (yes) vs not want (no) what another suggested. That represents the self inflicted conundrum for ones perspective.
It doesn't matter if one chooses to want (agreement) or not want (disagreement) what another suggests, only that one ignores perceivable (need) for suggested (want)...that choice of want over need represents the conceit within conundrum aka taking the suggested instead of adapting to the perceivable offered.
Hold your breath and wait...agreement (want) or disagreement (not want) are irrelevant to being forced to adapt (need). Perceivable nature doesn't represent a yes or no proposition, but the enacting whole to each ones reacting partial. Willingly ignoring perceivable for suggested only puts oneself into a conundrum.
Where any events tend to shape the same.
SHAPE, verb - "to mold or make into a particular form"...it's flow (whole process of dying) which molds (momentum) form (partial living) aka ongoing sameness shaping temporary differences through self differentiation by momentum (balance in motion). As the temporary difference within the momentum (balance) of ongoing sameness (motion)...one represents choice.
Others suggest sameness (e pluribus unum aka out of many; one) to tempt one to ignore apartheid (being partial within whole) aka being one difference within the momentum of all sameness.
Until it becomes formulation
To be implies being formed (reaction) through -ation (action)...hence coming (advancing within) flow.
Ominously
OM'INOUS, adjective [Latin ominosus.] - "foreboding or presaging evil"
That once again represents ones want (good) vs not want (evil) of suggested outcome. Meanwhile...as choice within need (perceivable) or want (suggested) balance, one needs to resist origin (process of dying) for the sustenance of self (living) before reaching predefined outcome (death).
Death doesn't represents evil, it represents ongoing loss (inception towards death) generating temporary growth (life) aka the opportunity for one to exist as partial within whole. Others suggest good vs evil to distract one from the need to resist the solution (process of dying) of every problem (living).
in reality has hardly differed
The reality one perceives represents moving differences aka communicated inspiration for each one to sustain self aka sustaining apartheid by adapting to perceivable differences.
The few suggest sameness to tempt the many to respond "alike", while both pretending to be the same and ignoring the perceivable differences that would inspire them to sustain themselves apart from one another.
This ain't a sophisticated trick, but simply suggested information (fiction) as the inversion of perceivable inspiration (reality). The few simply suggest the many to do the opposite of perceivable reality. Within reality (living within the process of dying) the many represent resistance (living) within temptation (dying), yet ignoring this allows the few to tempt the many without much resistance.
Of course they used mythology to obscure it.
Being within (life) course (inception towards death) implies perceiving moving differences as inspiration for adaption. One can only adapt by choice (need/want) and so the need to adapt to perceivable can be tempted with the want for suggested.
The issue isn't about what the few are suggesting; but that each one of the many willingly consents to suggested over perceivable. There's only one origin for everything (flow) and it ain't all the other ones around oneself (form).
It gives it another layer of possibility when in fact it's simple repetition from where it was drafted.
a) the few utilize spell-craft to tempt the many to ignore perceivable (sound) for suggested (words), which when consented to allows the few to define (idolatry); redefine (revisionism) and contradict (talmudic reasoning) the suggested (word) as an overlay for the perceivable (sound). In other words...the few brand the moving system with affixed labels to trick the many to ignore the moving system (perceivable inspiration) for the affixed labels (suggested information).
b) draft represents the velocity of motion, while repetition represents frequency of adaptation by resistance (living) within velocity (process of dying).
The destruction of Babylon among the countless after
Look at the TALMUD; noun - "instruction"...mishnah (ongoing) + gemara (temporary) aka perceivable + suggested.
If one comprehends this, then it becomes irrelevant what information is written in either suggested partial, only that the whole represents perceivable inspiration. Those instructed through the talmud a) repeat the temporary so long until the ongoing is comprehended, and b) it teaches them to exploit all those who reason about the temporary by suggesting them to ignore the perceivable. This is how the gemara is utilized to suggest the continued babylon to those who want to build their towers, while the mishnah represents the foundation of protection from fall after fall.
Also...COUNT, verb - "to number" represents the suggested temptation to ignore perceivable NUM'BER, noun - "the designation of a unit" + U'NIT, noun [Latin unus, unitas, unity.] - "one" aka being ONE (living); designated within ONEness (process of dying), hence alone aka ALL(in)ONE...for all represents one in energy.
TWO, adjective [Latin duo.] - "one and one"...each one needs to be apart from one another as to be perceivable. Two doesn't represent a perceivable state, but suggested dualism aka togetherness as the inversion of apartheid.
even on advancement
Even a self restricted mind (ment; mentis; memory) is being advanced from inception towards death; hence existing within the constant flow of inspiration as the perceivable input for adaptation (need) or accumulation (want).
sense of future
Sensing implies perceivable origin (enacting) as perceiving consequence (reaction)...one doesn't sense outcome; one shapes self within origin before reaching predefined outcome. Others suggest wanted outcomes (progressivism) to tempt one to ignore the need to adapt to perceivable origin.
That want for suggested outcomes represents the temptation to build the tower of babel with suggested information. Meanwhile; the outcome for life is predefined at inception as death, which implies being alive to represent the need to resist wanted temptations.
One needs to build (express growth); while resisting the temptation to want to hold onto (impressing loss) what one builds or what others suggest one to build.
Sleight of hand: sand mandalas (temporary growth within ongoing loss).
Yes indeed. It's a conundrum. Where any events tend to shape the same. Until it becomes formulation. Ominously. But in reality has hardly differed. Of course they used mythology to obscure it. It gives it another layer of possibility when in fact it's simple repetition from where it was drafted. The destruction of Babylon among the countless after. Replayed throughout the battlefield until even on advancement becomes applied. As that sense of future engagement.
"yes" implies vs no...which represents ones choice to want (yes) vs not want (no) what another suggested. That represents the self inflicted conundrum for ones perspective.
It doesn't matter if one chooses to want (agreement) or not want (disagreement) what another suggests, only that one ignores perceivable (need) for suggested (want)...that choice of want over need represents the conceit within conundrum aka taking the suggested instead of adapting to the perceivable offered.
Hold your breath and wait...agreement (want) or disagreement (not want) are irrelevant to being forced to adapt (need). Perceivable nature doesn't represent a yes or no proposition, but the enacting whole to each ones reacting partial. Willingly ignoring perceivable for suggested only puts oneself into a conundrum.
SHAPE, verb - "to mold or make into a particular form"...it's flow (whole process of dying) which molds (momentum) form (partial living) aka ongoing sameness shaping temporary differences through self differentiation by momentum (balance in motion). As the temporary difference within the momentum (balance) of ongoing sameness (motion)...one represents choice.
Others suggest sameness (e pluribus unum aka out of many; one) to tempt one to ignore apartheid (being partial within whole) aka being one difference within the momentum of all sameness.
To be implies being formed (reaction) through -ation (action)...hence coming (advancing within) flow.
That once again represents ones want (good) vs not want (evil) of suggested outcome. Meanwhile...as choice within need (perceivable) or want (suggested) balance, one needs to resist origin (process of dying) for the sustenance of self (living) before reaching predefined outcome (death).
Death doesn't represents evil, it represents ongoing loss (inception towards death) generating temporary growth (life) aka the opportunity for one to exist as partial within whole. Others suggest good vs evil to distract one from the need to resist the solution (process of dying) of every problem (living).
The reality one perceives represents moving differences aka communicated inspiration for each one to sustain self aka sustaining apartheid by adapting to perceivable differences.
The few suggest sameness to tempt the many to respond "alike", while both pretending to be the same and ignoring the perceivable differences that would inspire them to sustain themselves apart from one another.
This ain't a sophisticated trick, but simply suggested information (fiction) as the inversion of perceivable inspiration (reality). The few simply suggest the many to do the opposite of perceivable reality. Within reality (living within the process of dying) the many represent resistance (living) within temptation (dying), yet ignoring this allows the few to tempt the many without much resistance.
Being within (life) course (inception towards death) implies perceiving moving differences as inspiration for adaption. One can only adapt by choice (need/want) and so the need to adapt to perceivable can be tempted with the want for suggested.
The issue isn't about what the few are suggesting; but that each one of the many willingly consents to suggested over perceivable. There's only one origin for everything (flow) and it ain't all the other ones around oneself (form).
a) the few utilize spell-craft to tempt the many to ignore perceivable (sound) for suggested (words), which when consented to allows the few to define (idolatry); redefine (revisionism) and contradict (talmudic reasoning) the suggested (word) as an overlay for the perceivable (sound). In other words...the few brand the moving system with affixed labels to trick the many to ignore the moving system (perceivable inspiration) for the affixed labels (suggested information).
b) draft represents the velocity of motion, while repetition represents frequency of adaptation by resistance (living) within velocity (process of dying).
Look at the TALMUD; noun - "instruction"...mishnah (ongoing) + gemara (temporary) aka perceivable + suggested.
If one comprehends this, then it becomes irrelevant what information is written in either suggested partial, only that the whole represents perceivable inspiration. Those instructed through the talmud a) repeat the temporary so long until the ongoing is comprehended, and b) it teaches them to exploit all those who reason about the temporary by suggesting them to ignore the perceivable. This is how the gemara is utilized to suggest the continued babylon to those who want to build their towers, while the mishnah represents the foundation of protection from fall after fall.
Also...COUNT, verb - "to number" represents the suggested temptation to ignore perceivable NUM'BER, noun - "the designation of a unit" + U'NIT, noun [Latin unus, unitas, unity.] - "one" aka being ONE (living); designated within ONEness (process of dying), hence alone aka ALL(in)ONE...for all represents one in energy.
TWO, adjective [Latin duo.] - "one and one"...each one needs to be apart from one another as to be perceivable. Two doesn't represent a perceivable state, but suggested dualism aka togetherness as the inversion of apartheid.
Even a self restricted mind (ment; mentis; memory) is being advanced from inception towards death; hence existing within the constant flow of inspiration as the perceivable input for adaptation (need) or accumulation (want).
Sensing implies perceivable origin (enacting) as perceiving consequence (reaction)...one doesn't sense outcome; one shapes self within origin before reaching predefined outcome. Others suggest wanted outcomes (progressivism) to tempt one to ignore the need to adapt to perceivable origin.
That want for suggested outcomes represents the temptation to build the tower of babel with suggested information. Meanwhile; the outcome for life is predefined at inception as death, which implies being alive to represent the need to resist wanted temptations.
One needs to build (express growth); while resisting the temptation to want to hold onto (impressing loss) what one builds or what others suggest one to build.
Sleight of hand: sand mandalas (temporary growth within ongoing loss).