a) The bet was made...not (Latin nihilo; nothing) aka suggested nihil-ism and ones consent to de-nial perceivable (everything) for suggested (nothing).
b) If it's "only"; then why do you divide it into winning vs losing?
The trick...whatever others suggest tempts one to want or not want aka agree or disagree aka believe or disbelief aka confirm or deny etc. Choosing either side tempts one into a conflict of reason (want versus not want; agree vs disagree etc.); while permitting those making the suggestions the control over both sides.
Choosing to want or not want suggested tempts one to ignore being want (life) within need (inception towards death) of perceivable. There's no conflict within perceivable, only underneath the spell of suggestion.
From a different perspective...choice can only exist within balance (need/want); choosing want over need imbalances (want vs not want) choice.
a) The bet was made...not (Latin nihilo; nothing) aka suggested nihil-ism and ones consent to de-nial perceivable (everything) for suggested (nothing).
b) If it's "only"; then why do you divide it into winning vs losing?
The trick...whatever others suggest tempts one to want or not want aka agree or disagree aka believe or disbelief aka confirm or deny etc. Choosing either side tempts one into a conflict of reason (want versus not want; agree vs disagree etc.); while permitting those making the suggestions the control over both sides.
Choosing to want or not want suggested tempts one to ignore being want (life) within need (inception towards death) of perceivable. There's no conflict within perceivable, only underneath the spell of suggestion.
From a different perspective...choice can only exist within balance (need/want); choosing want over need imbalances (want vs not want) choice.