Did I miss something? Wasn't there a medieval-ish warm period where Vikings farmed greenland and grapes grew in England? Wouldn't that have been a hotter global temperature?
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (23)
sorted by:
a) oneself represents center (perceiving) of surrounding (perceivable)...others suggest norms to tempt one to hold onto; which establishes a perpendicular intersection.
b) being center (life) of surrounding (inception towards death) implies a balance/level/horizontal foundation (loss) for choice/changing/vertical (growth) existence.
c) suggested norms rule those who consent to them.
d) choice requires balance...others suggest SQUARE, adjective - "parallel; even; leaving no balance" as the inversion thereof.
e) being alive; while being moved from inception towards death; represents parallel to those who ignore resisting.
f) the few suggest parallelism aka PAR'ALLEL, adjective (Gr. against or opposite) to tempt the many to ignore being curvature (temporary growth) within linear (ongoing loss).
Consenting to anything suggested tempts one to miss (ignore) everything perceivable...
Look into "hello" aka HEL (helsinki) O (odenma) aka the former north-pole...
People are incapable of taking in all stimulus of their environment. Not everything someone misses was something they necessarily perceived or were tempted by.
a) ENVIRON (to sourround) + MENT (mind/memory)...mind/memory can only exist at the center of surrounding input.
b) action (inception towards death) animates aka excites aka stimulates reactions (life). Only within action can one react.
c) being implies everything perceivable (whole) offered to everyone's perception (partial)...others suggest one to take wanted; while ignoring the needed offer.
d) being able to breathe implies being within breathable fluid...breathing isn't about taking this fluid; but about adapting to it flowing through one.
e) suggested "in-capable" tempts one to ignore being with-IN CAPABLE (able to hold or contain). Life (form) is being contained within inception towards death motion (flow).
That which is capable (whole) enables incapability (partials).
f) others suggest wanted stimuli like hamburger or fries to tempt one to ignore needed stimuli...hunger. It doesn't matter what one wants or not wants to eat; because one needs to adapt to hunger. One exists within the force of hunger (ongoing loss) as the resisting force (temporary growth).
Taking in food doesn't stop hunger forcing one to adapt by eating.
In short...suggested information overstimulates those who ignore perceivable inspiration for it. That's why choosing to take and hold onto tempts one to feel overburdened by all the incoming stimuli.
a) motion (inception towards death) represents ongoing temptation for temporary resistance (life) within. The "path of least resistance" represents a suggested temptation for one to ignore resisting.
b) to miss (failing to aim) is based on ones consent to aim at suggested outcomes; while ignoring that perceivable origin aims life from inception towards death, hence towards a predefined outcome...a discernible outcome for those who aren't willingly ignoring it.
c) consider if surrounding (inception towards death) projectiles center (life); hence it not being about aiming; but about what the momentum of the ongoing projectile (motion) generates...temporary resistance.
d) before one can direct aim at anything suggested; one is being directed by everything perceivable.
e) taking any "weapon" for aiming and realize that one utilizes ones "weapon of choice" before choosing to aim. Discerning this allows one to further comprehend that choice (reaction) can only exist within balance (action)...ones free will of choice represents the impact of projected (motion) balance (momentum).
f) allow yourself to discern the contradiction within writing "not everything" aka nothing/everything...where did you learn the behavior to describe everything by using nothing as the foundation?
g) can life (partial) miss being moved from inception towards death (whole)? If not; then partial cannot miss whole....why is that so hard to comprehend? Because suggested "if not" tempts one to reason (nothing vs everything) instead of adapting to implication (if/then).
tl; dr...all of the above one can choose to ignore, hence "dismiss".