a) "is not" implies utilizing "is nothing" as the foundation to describe something. That's a contradiction...something out of nothing.
Consider this instead...everything "was" perceivable before one can shape a suggestion about what it "is". Ignoring was (perceivable) for is (suggested) represents ones ignorance of everything (perceivable) for nothing (suggested).
In short...nothing represents the state of ones own ignorance of everything perceivable; which others exploit with suggestions.
b) can life; while being moved from inception towards death, "do nothing"? How could one do nothing within a moving system?
it is unawareness
Can one be unaware of breathing aka the need to adapt to impressing input? How about thirst and hunger? Nature (action) forces adaptation (reaction)...RE- (respond to) ACTION (enacted upon). Reaction can only exists within action, hence partial reactions (life) within whole action (inception towards death).
In short...awareness is implied for being; ignoring implication (if/then) represents each beings free will of choice; and choosing to ignore prevents ones growth of self discernment.
One (center) is aware of surrounding, even if one lacks to discern ones position...lacking self discernment implies ones willing ignorance about growing it, hence "self" discernment.
so how does one not know something?
KNOWL'EDGE, noun - "perception of that which exists"...ones choice to ignore perceivable (knowledge) for suggested (understanding) prevents one from comprehending what one ignores.
The trick...suggested words (fiction) tempt one to ignore perceivable sound (reality). Guess how fucking hard it is to communicate this while using words...
Anyway...you consented willingly to suggested "not" (nothing) and only you can choose to let go of it. The more you resist the temptation to hold onto suggested nothing (fiction); the more your comprehension about perceivable everything will grow.
Take "not" out of your question and ask yourself: "how does one know something"? Nature doesn't suggest words, so being told something implies an artificial suggestion tempting one to ignore naturally perceivable.
by not learning that thing
a) to teach self implies to learn for self and vice versa.
b) ignoring to learn implies teaching oneself about ignorance.
c) choosing to not learn that thing teaches one how to avoid learning that thing...avoidance from implies awareness of.
Example..."not" learning about degeneracy aka ignoring the degenerate behavior of others will teach one about degeneracy, when the consequences of ignoring it are starting to fill up ones surrounding. Ignorance attracts those who exploit it.
which is almost everything.
Suggested "almost" represents a rhetorical trick to deceive one to doubt all (whole) for most (greatest part). Another such deception represents a "puzzle"...partials can never create whole, because even if one puts all the pieces together; they each are still apart from one another, hence showing a visible outline.
The sleight of hand for puzzles...partials within the box; whole on the box.
reality must be realized or its not reality to the subject.
a) does a subject (reaction) within an objectifying system (action) need to suggest other subjects what it "is" or does a subject (life) while being objectified (inception towards death) adapt to what "was" before one came to be within?
b) "reality must be..." tempts one to ignore "being within reality". Being represents the subject (center growth) within objectifying reality (surrounding loss).
c) energy (inherent/Internal power) implies velocity (loss) generating resistance (growth) at its center, which in return allows resistance to experience velocity...
All of this can be discerned if one resists the suggestions by others...
real; fake
a) ignoring perceivable (need) for suggested (want) shapes a conflict of reason (want vs not want).
b) ones consent to the suggestion gives the one consenting the power of ones consent to define (idolatry); redefine (revisionism) and contradict (talmudic reasoning) the suggested.
c) real vs fake represents revisionism of wanting vs not wanting suggested; while ignoring perceivable need.
Test this: hold your breath and reason (real vs fake) about breathing...a few moments later...velocity will force you to resist by breathing. Velocity doesn't care if resistance reasons about real vs fake...velocity was before resistance can reason what it is and velocity will be when resistance runs out, because resistance runs out back into velocity.
As form (life) within flow (inception towards death) it goes flow to form (inception); form within flow (life) and form to flow (death) aka transmutation of ingredient out of base...alchemy.
Free will of choice represents ones key to resist "standing under"...which unlocks ones growth of comprehension.
a) how does one realize doing nothing (don't)?
b) does reality (perceivable) have to be realized or do those within (perceiving) need to resist wanted fiction (suggested)?
a) "is not" implies utilizing "is nothing" as the foundation to describe something. That's a contradiction...something out of nothing.
Consider this instead...everything "was" perceivable before one can shape a suggestion about what it "is". Ignoring was (perceivable) for is (suggested) represents ones ignorance of everything (perceivable) for nothing (suggested).
In short...nothing represents the state of ones own ignorance of everything perceivable; which others exploit with suggestions.
b) can life; while being moved from inception towards death, "do nothing"? How could one do nothing within a moving system?
Can one be unaware of breathing aka the need to adapt to impressing input? How about thirst and hunger? Nature (action) forces adaptation (reaction)...RE- (respond to) ACTION (enacted upon). Reaction can only exists within action, hence partial reactions (life) within whole action (inception towards death).
In short...awareness is implied for being; ignoring implication (if/then) represents each beings free will of choice; and choosing to ignore prevents ones growth of self discernment.
One (center) is aware of surrounding, even if one lacks to discern ones position...lacking self discernment implies ones willing ignorance about growing it, hence "self" discernment.
KNOWL'EDGE, noun - "perception of that which exists"...ones choice to ignore perceivable (knowledge) for suggested (understanding) prevents one from comprehending what one ignores.
The trick...suggested words (fiction) tempt one to ignore perceivable sound (reality). Guess how fucking hard it is to communicate this while using words...
Anyway...you consented willingly to suggested "not" (nothing) and only you can choose to let go of it. The more you resist the temptation to hold onto suggested nothing (fiction); the more your comprehension about perceivable everything will grow.
Take "not" out of your question and ask yourself: "how does one know something"? Nature doesn't suggest words, so being told something implies an artificial suggestion tempting one to ignore naturally perceivable.
a) to teach self implies to learn for self and vice versa.
b) ignoring to learn implies teaching oneself about ignorance.
c) choosing to not learn that thing teaches one how to avoid learning that thing...avoidance from implies awareness of.
Example..."not" learning about degeneracy aka ignoring the degenerate behavior of others will teach one about degeneracy, when the consequences of ignoring it are starting to fill up ones surrounding. Ignorance attracts those who exploit it.
Suggested "almost" represents a rhetorical trick to deceive one to doubt all (whole) for most (greatest part). Another such deception represents a "puzzle"...partials can never create whole, because even if one puts all the pieces together; they each are still apart from one another, hence showing a visible outline.
The sleight of hand for puzzles...partials within the box; whole on the box.
a) does a subject (reaction) within an objectifying system (action) need to suggest other subjects what it "is" or does a subject (life) while being objectified (inception towards death) adapt to what "was" before one came to be within?
b) "reality must be..." tempts one to ignore "being within reality". Being represents the subject (center growth) within objectifying reality (surrounding loss).
c) energy (inherent/Internal power) implies velocity (loss) generating resistance (growth) at its center, which in return allows resistance to experience velocity...
All of this can be discerned if one resists the suggestions by others...
a) ignoring perceivable (need) for suggested (want) shapes a conflict of reason (want vs not want).
b) ones consent to the suggestion gives the one consenting the power of ones consent to define (idolatry); redefine (revisionism) and contradict (talmudic reasoning) the suggested.
c) real vs fake represents revisionism of wanting vs not wanting suggested; while ignoring perceivable need.
Test this: hold your breath and reason (real vs fake) about breathing...a few moments later...velocity will force you to resist by breathing. Velocity doesn't care if resistance reasons about real vs fake...velocity was before resistance can reason what it is and velocity will be when resistance runs out, because resistance runs out back into velocity.
As form (life) within flow (inception towards death) it goes flow to form (inception); form within flow (life) and form to flow (death) aka transmutation of ingredient out of base...alchemy.