this is like saying "breathing represents a human being"

a) nature impresses (inception towards death) for expression (life), hence breathing.

b) does nature utter suggested words (saying) or does it communicate perceivable sound? Could those within nature deceive each other with suggested words to ignore perceivable sound?

Could suggested "insane person" tempt one to ignore perceivable "in sanus" (within sound) and "per sonos" (by sound), hence being within and by sound?

c) RE (response to) PRESENT (presented by), hence response of perceiving (partial) within perceivable (whole).

d) HU'MAN, adjective [Latin humanus; Heb. form, species.] implies AN'IMAL, noun [Latin anima, air, breath, soul.] aka flow (inception towards death) animating form (life).

e) what if breathing represents material form adapting spiritually to immaterial flow?

Nope, it's a very tiny insignificant part of it.

a) part implies each "one" partial within the "oneness" of whole. No matter how tiny or big, it still represents the UNIT (Latin unitas; unus) of "one".

b) temporary form (life) represents the SIGN, noun - "something by which another thing is shown or represented" within ongoing flow (inception towards death).

c) the few suggest signs (plural) to tempt each one (singular) of the many into a conflict of reason (significant vs insignificant), hence tempting one to ignore expressing perceivable origin.

Sleight of hand from Ace of Base: "I saw the sign, and it opened up my eyes...No one's gonna drag you up to get into the light where you belong...But where do you belong?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqu132vTl5Y

d) yep (agreement) vs nope (disagreement) implies ones consent to the suggestion of another, hence tempting one into a conflict of reason. Consider applying this to breathing...does it matter if one agrees (want) or disagrees (not want) or is one forced (need) to breathe nonetheless, hence to adapt to perceivable origin?

e) does your suggested "nope" prevent ones free will of choice from making choices or does it tempt one to ignore ones own choice within perceivable for the suggested choices of others?

Your point?

A point implies suggested outcome tempting those within motion to ignore resisting perceivable origin. Inception towards death aka ongoing motion generates each "life-sentence". Death represents the predefined point to each life sentence...living implies ones need to resist that, hence to prolong the sentence (self sustenance)...not to make points.

In short...others suggest points to tempt one to ignore perceivable line.

everything you've listed

How could one-thing (partial) within everything (whole) list everything? If there's more than what I've listed, then why do you brand it "everything"? All suggested words are tempting one to repress self from drawing out of perceivable sound, hence to express self as perceiving resonance within perceivable sound. Self repression represents dissonance, hence the ignorance of perceivable sound for consent to suggested words.

Those who adapt to perceivable sound represent PHONETICIANS (from phonics, sound), while those who consent to suggested word-based "definitions" represent DEAF PHONETICIANS.

It is also "current world order"

If natural order represents current, then there's only perceivable "now" (momentum of motion)...suggested old (past) vs new (future) tempt one to ignore that. Furthermore..."new, néwos, now", hence revisionism at play.

Each one represents the consequence of all that was, the expression within all that is, and the free will of choice to shape the consequences for all that will be...holding onto what was, while considering what will be, tempts one to ignore what is. The few suggest what was (his-story; nostalgia etc.) and what will be (science-fiction; progressivism; hope/fear; religion; politics etc.) to tempt the many to ignore what is (everyone within the momentum of everything).

It is also current human behavior

a) everything "was" (perceivable) before anyone within can shape a suggestion to one another about what it "is".

b) suggested behavior aka being (be) + having (hav) tempts one to ignore that being cannot have; possess; hold onto anything unless ignoring to be temporary growth (life) within ongoing loss (inception towards death).

c) suggested BEHA'VE, verb - "to restrain; to govern; to subdue" tempts one to ignore being "free" will of choice within the "dom"-inance of balance, hence the free center (living) surrounded by dominance (process of dying).

The center (resistance) of dominance (velocity) has to be free to choose between resisting (need) and following (want), because growth within loss requires resistance, while tempting with ignorance thereof. Go on a treadmill to experience the need to resist wanting to stop running.

That's such a stretch with your comments

What if living represents ones struggle to extend (life) in a line (inception towards death), hence to stretch before being pulled back in?

I usually just downvote you and call you a bot

a) upvote (want) vs downvote (not want) represents a conflict of reason you put yourself into by consenting to suggested information, while ignoring the need to adapt to perceivable inspiration.

Ones choice exits within perceivable balance (need/want), only if one consents to the suggestions by others does one experience imbalance (want vs not want). Notice that voting is being suggested to you by others; and that free-will-of-choice responds without voting?

b) how recent have you decided to change your behavior into suggesting others to be "bots", hence dehumanizing your surrounding, and who but the parasitic few are benefiting from mass dehumanization, from denigrating others; from putting the artificial upon the natural, form labeling others; from passing judgements upon others?

c) how did the few manage to revise BOT; ROBOT (Latin robur; strength) into an insult? Should I be insulted by being called bot, by others lacking to comprehend the ongoing revisionism of words, or do I need to resist suggested labels nonetheless?

I am 99% sure you are a bot

Why then would you reason with something artificial? Why do you want assurance about what others are suggesting? Who suggested you PERCENT (by the hundred)? Does nature offer you less than everything perceivable? Why would one need to count to a hundred? Does any other life form suggest you counted numbers?

Or a person extremely high on drugs

Who runs the drug-trade...the few or the many? Who consents to take suggested drugs...the few or the many? What if your ignorance is being mocked with rhetoric like putting others "down" for being "high" on drugs? A deliberate contradiction for those with eyes to see.

What if suggesting "extreme" (outermost) implies ones lack of self discernment about being innermost (partial within whole; choice within balance; growth within loss etc.)?

just because you write things that are not easily understandable it doesn't make them intelligent.

a) INTEL'LIGENCE, noun (Latin intelligentia, from intelligo, to understand)

b) understanding implies ones choice to want to "stand under" what others are suggesting, while ignoring the need to express growth (comprehension) within KNOWL'EDGE, noun - "perception of that which exists".

In short...intelligence contradicts knowledge; understanding represents the inversion of comprehending. One can only discern this for self, not through others.

c) does living within the process of dying sounds "easy" or more like ones struggle for the sustenance of life within ongoing temptation? If you think breathing is easy; then how about changing your altitude to comprehend ones lack of putting in effort when judging something as easy?

it seem that you are delusional

What if mind/memory is being led within perceivable inspiration, while being tempted with suggested information into DELUSION, noun - "a misleading of the mind; being liable to the delusions of artifice".

Can you discern being liable within natural to resist artifice? Even if everyone else chooses artificial (suggested) over natural (perceivable)...oneself still remains liable for self discernment through free will of choice. Self discernment cannot be given by others.

No offense

Consider ongoing offense (inception towards death) generating temporary defense (life)....everything offends; everyone within needs to defend self. The suggestions of others tempt one to ignore defending...

That's stating the obvious with too much useless wording

a) suggested stating aka STATICS, noun - "branch of mechanics which treats of bodies at rest" tempts one to ignore perceivable dynamic, hence being within constant motion.

The trick...ones consent to suggested mechanic tempts one to only view the dynamic thereof, which allows others to prevent mechanic to move as to deceive the consenting ones to ignore the perceivable dynamic of existing as temporary growth within ongoing loss.

b) everyone (perceiving) is being used by everything (perceivable)...suggested "useless" tempts one to ignore that.

c) too much food vs too little food tempts one to ignore hunger...hence enough adaptation to still hunger momentarily.

divided from the masses

Nature represents the divider of whole (perceivable) into each partial (perceiving), those who ignore that are being tempted together by the suggestions of others.

Instead of viewing yourself divided from others, try discerning oneself as partial within whole, hence surrounded by other different partials of the same whole?

how complex you make it sound

What if perceivable sound represents simplicity; while suggested words represent complexity, hence tempting one to fill mind/memory with unnecessary information?

How many words have those within nature spoken to each other? Unaccountable amounts! How many words has nature spoken to those within? None!

In short...sound implies simple; words represent complex".

bet you don't even know what this means. But it's a cool word to make you sound intelligent - inception. Make it "towards death" and now it's philosophical.

a) motion predefines meaning for those within.

b) ME'ANING, participle - "having in mind"...hence enacting input through reacting memory. It's on oneself to discern between perceivable input (inspiration) and suggested input (information).

c) if one discerns to be alive, then "inception towards death" implies the moving surrounding for ones life at the center. Those who lack self discernment are being tempted by the suggestions of others to view beginning (inception) and end (death) as divided states, instead of the whole motion dividing into each partial within.

d) notice that while being alive, one cannot perceive ones inception (beginning) and death (end), hence existing within the momentum (balance) of motion. Perceiving how others come in and out of existence allows one to discern self as the center by adapting to ones surrounding?

now it's philosophical

a) the few suggest SOPH-ism to tempt the consenting many into a PHILO (to love) vs MISO (to hate) conflict of reason.

b) perceivable SOPHOS (learned) implies ones growth of comprehension within perceivable...not ones understanding of suggested.

The few suggest students (follower) under teachers (leader) to tempt one to ignore that perceivable represents the only source for each perceiving one within to teach/learn self, and discerning self as being within a moving source implies ones need to resist it...not to follow others.

no, it doesn't

Implies "nothing; it does nothing"...a contradiction of being (life) done by everything (inception towards death).

It may seem poetic to write the word "life" after you've written "death" but it is not logical in your statement.

a) the state of an ignorant mind represents LOG'IC, noun - "reason", hence being within a conflict (yes vs no). If one resists reason for implication (if/then), then one can discern that living implies the need to resist the process of dying, hence life being processed within motion from inception towards death aka forwards motion (velocity) generating momentum (balance) for resistance (choice) within.

b) suggested poetic (composed aka set together) tempts one to ignore being set apart, hence representing perceiving (partial) within perceivable (whole).

Not all.

Aka NOTHING (not) EVERYTHING (all)...yet another contradiction.

this place is a place of people who resist.

a) reasoning against others about the suggestions of the few represents spending resistance (hence being harvested for loosh). Resisting the temptation of suggested (fiction) while adapting to perceivable (reality) allows one to grow resistance (living) within temptation (dying).

b) this place (not suggested forum, but perceivable momentum) offers each one response-ability (free will of choice), hence the choice to resist (need) or ignore (want) resisting. Reasoning (want vs not want) implies that one already made the choice to ignore resisting, while ignorance implies lack of discernment; lack of comprehension; lack of resistance; lack of awareness etc.

You wrote so many words

13171 right now...by simply using perceivable inspiration to draw expression from, instead of reasoning with others about suggested words.

That's pathetic

Logos (suggested words) tempts Pathos (suffering)...

You only waste my time.

What if one can utilize others as perceivable inspiration, instead of "wasting time" by misusing them for suggested information? Are others responsible for ones lack of effort, for ones misplaced choices?

you always write on some posts with similar comments.

Each comment represents a different expression, since I adapt on the fly to whatever inspires me. Frequency of repetition increases resistance within velocity (from the energy perspective), but each repetition implies a different reaction within the same action.

As for always...one exists within ALL WAY, others suggest "always" to tempt one to ignore self as the temporary within the ongoing.

I decided to expose you

What did I conceal that inspired you to expose it?

if you bring low quality, expect a reaction from me.

What if it's your free will of choice to evaluate things as low (not want) or high (want) quality? What if I adapt to needed value (perceivable) while resisting whatever others evaluate (suggested) as high or low?

What if one doesn't need to expect reactions from others; but needs to be the reaction (choice) within enacting whole (balance)?