Please provide your personal view on an ideal future set over the next 20-25 years.
If you could 'reasonably' have a future of your liking without ignoring the past which cannot be changed, and keeping in mind that you are god and cannot change things are will either. What would your ideal future look like?
Feel free to go further too, but first flesh out that 20-25 years.
This doesn't have to be too practical either, and as long as it is technically possible, feel free to include those ideas, but I am interested in hearing all your various views on an ideal future.
Preferably go into detail on any systems that change from today
I like that I am a target of your Botting attempts....it's kinda nice to feel stalked....thanks for nothing
Is there any mistake in what I wrote? Is there any lie; deceit or contradiction in what I wrote? How could one be targeted by nothing?
Have you ever perceived anything but "now"? How could anytime from now be future, when one still exists within now?
More like a big helping of non-sequitors....My statement has nothing to do with your assessment of gramatical etymological relationships...I am asking about a hypothetical future where you can define new terms that have yet to be established which is not something a bot like you can do.
;)
a) Can one follow (sequi) nothing (non)?
b) If being (life) within (inception towards death) follows along, then...less of being.
c) What if suggested past; present; future isn't a sequence to follow, but ones presence as resistance within velocity?
d) What if the path of least resistance implies being (life) ignoring to resist path (inception towards death)?
e) What if seeking help from others distracts one from being (life) within delivery (inception towards death)? What if there's a difference between natural assistance (perceivable inspiration) and artificial assurance of assistance (suggested information)?
a) Three sentences; each utilizing "nothing" as the foundation to argue from. Why?
b) What if nothing (Latin nihilo) implies suggested nihilism by others and ones consent to denial perceivable when consenting?
c) If one denies; would one be aware thereof?
a) yours vs mine implies a conflict of reason over ownership.
b) what if suggested state (to fix) and assess (to fix amount) tempt one to ignore that MENT (mind/memory) implies momentum of ongoing motion, hence a tool to process flow-state input (perceivable inspiration)?
c) Notice memory loss within elderly? Can memories be yours or mine if outside (inception towards death) dissolves inside (life)? What if one is being tempted to want to hold onto memories (information); while ignoring the need to let go of continuous input (inspiration)?
Notice the child-like relieve among elderly when the burden of holding onto memories is being lifted from them, then notice the industrialized burdening of youth with suggested information to memorize (education)...
What's the relation (connection) between ships (solid vessels apart from one another)? Its water aka fluid (inception towards death) outside solid (life) vessels.
ETYMOS (actual aka perceivable) + LOGIC (fictional aka suggested)...the former is being utilized to contradict the latter.
a) ...to seek answers (suggested), which ignores solution (perceivable) to problems (perception).
b) "ask and you'll shall receive" tempts one to want to receive answers from others, yet without asking one (perception) already receives all (perceivable), so the rhetoric is simply used to distract from that.
Mankind permits itself to be tricked to seek from one another (suggested information), more than reality offers (perceivable inspiration).
c) What if ones claim to hold onto self (me; myself and I) tempts one to view other ones as "YOU"? What if this behavior results into a mine vs yours conflict of reason?
HYPO (beneath; under) THESIS (proposition aka suggestion)...consenting to any suggestion places oneself under another. Asking for hypothesis tempts others to answer a pyramid scheme by consenting to a place themselves under a chain of command. The more are consenting to submit under; the higher those suggesting are permitted to rise above them.
Meanwhile in reality...being implies presence (life) within absence (inception towards death). Consenting to hold onto past memories or shape hypothetical futures within ones mind/memory, permits others to shape present, while oneself ignores to express presence.
a) YOU aka ye - "second person" represents suggested spell-craft tempting the only one to ignore self for others instead of discerning self as PERSON (per sonos; by sound), which implies SEC (seco; to divide) aka a division of sound (entire) and each one instrument (partial) by sound.
b) two does not exist within nature. Each one partial implies whole "too", because only within whole can there be partials.
Sleight of hand for those with eyes to see...U2 aka YOU (divided by sound) TOO (in addition).
Being one implies addition (inception); subtraction (death); multiplication (intercourse for offspring) and division (being partial within whole).
c) If bot; then why address as second person (you)? If person; then why address as bot...unless wanting to dehumanize another?
tl; dr: Thanks for inspiring with your presence, and may you resist that which is yet to be (future) for being within that which is.