In some ways true, but the more evolved one is consciously, the better we are at overriding subconscious urges. For example, the maturation process for children involves learning to overcome the Id. Some psychotherapy is all about learning to recognize childhood trauma and then consciously training to override it.
When we notice...that's when we have the power to choose.
So ignorance isn't a choice? Just happenstance? How could ones senses not notice being moved at any moment of ones existence? What powers sense (awareness; perception)?
Reasoning (better vs worse) diminishes choice, because it focuses on outcomes through the lens of conflict. Implication (if/then) focuses on origin without a conflict.
Others suggest outcomes (progressivism) to tempt one into conflicts (of reason).
Being aware is a tool that allows us more choices.
a) once again reasoning (more vs less); plus suggested collectivism (more choices) tempting one to ignore one's only free will of choice.
b) nature already offers everything (perceivable) to each ones awareness (perception), and to be aware of implies to be different from, hence different (choice) within same (balance).
c) tool aka instrument aka IN (being within) STRUERE (to spread) MENT (mind/memory) aka being within (life) spread (inception towards death) of mind/memory (momentum).
Momentum implies memory of motion, because only within momentum can ongoing (inception towards death) establish temporary (life)...MEM'ORY, noun - "exemption from oblivion" aka exemption (living) from oblivion (process of dying)....at least momentarily.
d) allow aka ALL (whole) LOW/LOCAL (partials)...one implies lower than all; all implies circumference for each local one, hence one being center (perception) of surrounding (perceivable).
Others tempts one with their suggested choices to ignore ones singular free will of choice. Consent tempts one to get lost in surrounding choices, while ignoring how to be choice at center of balance.
Furthermore; consenting (want or not want) to suggested tempts one into a conflict of reason (want vs not want) aka imbalance, which further distracts one from perceivable balance.
Many people on this forum use energy to convince other's of their opinion.
a) FO'RUM, noun - "a public place, where causes were judicially tried, and orations delivered to the people; also, a market place"...consent (buying) meets suggestions (selling)...opinions suggested; become opium for ones consent.
On a bigger scale...the consent (want or not want) of the many, sets the suggesting few as the happy merchants of temptation. If many ignore all nature offers; then a few will become the substitute merchant for nature...selling perceivable (reality) in disguise of suggested (fiction).
The disguise of suggested implies both the ignorance of the many and the "chutzpah" of the few wielding the "art of the deal".
b) "convince" tempts one to blame others; "consent" implicates self. If one tries to convince others about their consent, they will deny self implication, while blaming one for whatever sticks...anything to shirk response-ability onto another.
Choose a side
a) a suggested side shaped by the choice of another.
b) a side within imbalance aka within a conflict of reason...want vs not want; true vs false; us vs them; agree vs deny; believe vs disbelieve, good vs bad; hamas vs jews etc.
c) being choice implies within balance (need/want). Motion implies both need to resist and want to ignore resisting for those within. It ain't a conflict against others; but a struggle for the sustenance of self aka "Mein Kampf/my struggle".
How to distract one from my struggle? Suggest an idol (Hitler) and make "Mein Kampf" about him.
in reality the real choice is walking away and not choosing.
Suggested "away" tempts one to ignore being (life) within way (inception towards death)...each choice adapts to being moved. One cannot walk away within a way.
If energy (internal/inherent power) is the foundation of everything within, then AWAY (absent) implies ones ignorance thereof aka being absentminded...
Try using implication before thinking: "if all implies one in energy; then....".
an artificially created ultimatum
a) ignoring natural (perceivable) establishes artificial (suggested). Nature gives (sound) and those within take and repack it (words) to get what's given without sharing.
b) suggested creationism (out of nothing) tempts one to ignore perceivable transmutation (partials within whole).
c) suggested progressivism (ultimate) tempts one to seek furthest (suggested outcomes), while ignoring nearest (perceiving origin).
What's nearer? That which is perceivable or that which others suggest will be or was?
a choice to give energy and attention to that cause
Cause (velocity) gives (inception) and takes (death) effect (resistance)...resisting sustains self (life) during give/take balance by choosing need to adapt to given or want to consent to taken.
If I choose to ignore you, what power do you have over me?
Your consent to suggested nihilism, since ignorance implies ones denial of perceivable, when choosing to ignore suggested. That -ism can be shaped by my suggestions to steer your already consenting choice.
Furthermore; claiming "me; myself and I" shapes every ONE else into a "you". So "I choose to ignore you" implies anyone can take the place of "you", without drawing suspicion when making suggestions.
That's the trick underneath you/jew. That's why a so called jew utilizes this brand to masquerade as any "you" a "me" categorizes the world as.
A claim (me) seeks to obtain a debt (you)...
If I'm presented with two choices, am I smart enough, and do I have enough awareness, to choose a third or fourth choice?
a) suggested collectivism tempts one to count others (pluralism); while ignoring self (singular aka partial within whole aka one within oneness). Ones consent to another one implies dualism (two), hence establishing the foundation for collectivism. That dualism implies RELIGIO - "to bind anew" or mercantilism (buying and selling) or contract law (consent to suggested), while ignoring natural law (adapt to perceivable).
b) each choice implies ones free will of choice..."there can be only one" aka "one for all and all for one".
c) consider "self" discernment...others can choose to give it to you; but you cannot take it without ignoring to discern "self". One cannot choose choices (plural) without ignoring to be choice (single).
Choosing another shapes "chosen ones", while ignoring "one's choice".
At what point do we choose to go along with something which leads...
a) by discerning self to be a life "sentence", one diminishes the temptation of suggested "points" (end of sentence) by others.
b) by discerning self to be one (singular); suggested pluralism (we) loses potential.
c) being discerning to be (life) directed (inception towards death) one can comprehend the need to resist the want to follow along.
You entire sentence implies the solution to the problems you seek answers for. Sleight of hand from the Rofschild-thread: "any poison which occurs in nature, has its remedy within 3 meters".
there might be other choices then the ones that were presented
Nature presents balance (momentum of motion aka moving differences aka perceivable inspiration) towards ones free will of choice...others within nature shape suggestions with their free will of choice to distract you from yours.
Indifference is a strong weapon during a time of great polarity and divisions.
a) division of whole into partials implies internal/inherent differentiation, hence energy.
b) electric (male; motion) generates magnetic (female; momentum) for electro-magnetic trans-mutation of form (life) within flow (inception towards death).
c) the only weapon (instrument of offense/defense) implies ones free will of choice aka "weapon of choice".
I enjoy how you break down words
Thanks; I break down what others build with suggested words within perceivable sound. Why? To make it harder for others to ignore sound (reality) for words (fiction).
Holding onto definitions (definite; affixed) tempts one to ignore being (instrument) within motion (sound).
Whole to partials implies the origin of "break". Being implies apart from one another as broken partial (growth aka form) within unbroken; sound; entire; whole (loss aka flow). This can be discerned by self; not gained from others.
deeper thinking
Any suggested information one holds onto aka ones beliefs; ideas, all the -isms one consents to be part of; all the meanings and definitions one upholds within mind/memory, everything one reasons over....that's what buries ones thinking aka ones adaptation to perceivable inspiration.
In short...one ignores flow, when holding onto form. "falling" for temptations "sinks" one deeper...
I'm using to express
"to" aka towards implies the impressing motion (loss) using your expression (growth).
In some ways true, but the more evolved one is consciously, the better we are at overriding subconscious urges. For example, the maturation process for children involves learning to overcome the Id. Some psychotherapy is all about learning to recognize childhood trauma and then consciously training to override it.
So ignorance isn't a choice? Just happenstance? How could ones senses not notice being moved at any moment of ones existence? What powers sense (awareness; perception)?
Reasoning (better vs worse) diminishes choice, because it focuses on outcomes through the lens of conflict. Implication (if/then) focuses on origin without a conflict.
Others suggest outcomes (progressivism) to tempt one into conflicts (of reason).
a) once again reasoning (more vs less); plus suggested collectivism (more choices) tempting one to ignore one's only free will of choice.
b) nature already offers everything (perceivable) to each ones awareness (perception), and to be aware of implies to be different from, hence different (choice) within same (balance).
c) tool aka instrument aka IN (being within) STRUERE (to spread) MENT (mind/memory) aka being within (life) spread (inception towards death) of mind/memory (momentum).
Momentum implies memory of motion, because only within momentum can ongoing (inception towards death) establish temporary (life)...MEM'ORY, noun - "exemption from oblivion" aka exemption (living) from oblivion (process of dying)....at least momentarily.
d) allow aka ALL (whole) LOW/LOCAL (partials)...one implies lower than all; all implies circumference for each local one, hence one being center (perception) of surrounding (perceivable).
Others tempts one with their suggested choices to ignore ones singular free will of choice. Consent tempts one to get lost in surrounding choices, while ignoring how to be choice at center of balance.
Furthermore; consenting (want or not want) to suggested tempts one into a conflict of reason (want vs not want) aka imbalance, which further distracts one from perceivable balance.
a) FO'RUM, noun - "a public place, where causes were judicially tried, and orations delivered to the people; also, a market place"...consent (buying) meets suggestions (selling)...opinions suggested; become opium for ones consent.
On a bigger scale...the consent (want or not want) of the many, sets the suggesting few as the happy merchants of temptation. If many ignore all nature offers; then a few will become the substitute merchant for nature...selling perceivable (reality) in disguise of suggested (fiction).
The disguise of suggested implies both the ignorance of the many and the "chutzpah" of the few wielding the "art of the deal".
b) "convince" tempts one to blame others; "consent" implicates self. If one tries to convince others about their consent, they will deny self implication, while blaming one for whatever sticks...anything to shirk response-ability onto another.
a) a suggested side shaped by the choice of another.
b) a side within imbalance aka within a conflict of reason...want vs not want; true vs false; us vs them; agree vs deny; believe vs disbelieve, good vs bad; hamas vs jews etc.
c) being choice implies within balance (need/want). Motion implies both need to resist and want to ignore resisting for those within. It ain't a conflict against others; but a struggle for the sustenance of self aka "Mein Kampf/my struggle".
How to distract one from my struggle? Suggest an idol (Hitler) and make "Mein Kampf" about him.
Suggested "away" tempts one to ignore being (life) within way (inception towards death)...each choice adapts to being moved. One cannot walk away within a way.
If energy (internal/inherent power) is the foundation of everything within, then AWAY (absent) implies ones ignorance thereof aka being absentminded...
Try using implication before thinking: "if all implies one in energy; then....".
a) ignoring natural (perceivable) establishes artificial (suggested). Nature gives (sound) and those within take and repack it (words) to get what's given without sharing.
b) suggested creationism (out of nothing) tempts one to ignore perceivable transmutation (partials within whole).
c) suggested progressivism (ultimate) tempts one to seek furthest (suggested outcomes), while ignoring nearest (perceiving origin).
What's nearer? That which is perceivable or that which others suggest will be or was?
Cause (velocity) gives (inception) and takes (death) effect (resistance)...resisting sustains self (life) during give/take balance by choosing need to adapt to given or want to consent to taken.
Your consent to suggested nihilism, since ignorance implies ones denial of perceivable, when choosing to ignore suggested. That -ism can be shaped by my suggestions to steer your already consenting choice.
Furthermore; claiming "me; myself and I" shapes every ONE else into a "you". So "I choose to ignore you" implies anyone can take the place of "you", without drawing suspicion when making suggestions.
That's the trick underneath you/jew. That's why a so called jew utilizes this brand to masquerade as any "you" a "me" categorizes the world as.
A claim (me) seeks to obtain a debt (you)...
a) suggested collectivism tempts one to count others (pluralism); while ignoring self (singular aka partial within whole aka one within oneness). Ones consent to another one implies dualism (two), hence establishing the foundation for collectivism. That dualism implies RELIGIO - "to bind anew" or mercantilism (buying and selling) or contract law (consent to suggested), while ignoring natural law (adapt to perceivable).
b) each choice implies ones free will of choice..."there can be only one" aka "one for all and all for one".
c) consider "self" discernment...others can choose to give it to you; but you cannot take it without ignoring to discern "self". One cannot choose choices (plural) without ignoring to be choice (single).
Choosing another shapes "chosen ones", while ignoring "one's choice".
a) by discerning self to be a life "sentence", one diminishes the temptation of suggested "points" (end of sentence) by others.
b) by discerning self to be one (singular); suggested pluralism (we) loses potential.
c) being discerning to be (life) directed (inception towards death) one can comprehend the need to resist the want to follow along.
You entire sentence implies the solution to the problems you seek answers for. Sleight of hand from the Rofschild-thread: "any poison which occurs in nature, has its remedy within 3 meters".
Nature presents balance (momentum of motion aka moving differences aka perceivable inspiration) towards ones free will of choice...others within nature shape suggestions with their free will of choice to distract you from yours.
a) division of whole into partials implies internal/inherent differentiation, hence energy.
b) electric (male; motion) generates magnetic (female; momentum) for electro-magnetic trans-mutation of form (life) within flow (inception towards death).
c) the only weapon (instrument of offense/defense) implies ones free will of choice aka "weapon of choice".
Thanks; I break down what others build with suggested words within perceivable sound. Why? To make it harder for others to ignore sound (reality) for words (fiction).
Holding onto definitions (definite; affixed) tempts one to ignore being (instrument) within motion (sound).
Whole to partials implies the origin of "break". Being implies apart from one another as broken partial (growth aka form) within unbroken; sound; entire; whole (loss aka flow). This can be discerned by self; not gained from others.
Any suggested information one holds onto aka ones beliefs; ideas, all the -isms one consents to be part of; all the meanings and definitions one upholds within mind/memory, everything one reasons over....that's what buries ones thinking aka ones adaptation to perceivable inspiration.
In short...one ignores flow, when holding onto form. "falling" for temptations "sinks" one deeper...
"to" aka towards implies the impressing motion (loss) using your expression (growth).