Try Radical Honesty! Our society has been conditioned to believe that feelings are more important than the truth and I believe this is one of the many reasons for the current state of affairs. The Powers That Be implant ideas everyday into the minds of idiots who the parrot them, the majority of these ideas are fear based but I say fuck that noise! You want to change the world start in the only place that you cannot escape, your own mind. It's been said a lie goes around the world twice before the truth has time to put it's pants on So fuck their spoon feeding of lies Live honestly with yourself and with those around you! We can change the world if we change the way people view the world and the most obvious answer to me is RADICAL HONESTY. Some will say but I don't wish to offend those close to me with what might hurt them and that's just illogical, if your bond with someone is held together with bullshit it's not worth having. The bread and butter of the people who've convinced themselves it's their job to make the world live in fear do not act honestly they probably avoid it at all costs. You can use truth as a weapon against the evil forces who've beset us all!
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (31)
sorted by:
a) Perception implies in response to what WAS perceivable...responding to what others suggest IS tempts one to ignore that.
b) Mean/medius/middle implies being center (perception) of surrounding (perceivable)...others tempt one off-center with suggested MEDIA.
c) One cannot define meaning...only motion can establish matter (life) at the center of momentum (inception towards death). Momentum implies balance within motion, and center of balance implies each ones free will of choice. Holding onto a definition imbalances ones choice.
To define implies to affix, which is why few suggest definitions to tempt many to affix suggested meaning/media (information) within mind/memory, while ignoring perceivable inspiration...which moves and cannot be held onto.
a) "that is non" implies "something is nothing"...a contradiction in terms.
b) "a" implies "a partial within whole"...how could a partial within whole perceive "nothing"?
c) NONE SEQUITUR - "in logic, "an inference or conclusion that does not follow from the premise"...logic/reason is based on the premise of ones consent to the suggestion by another.
Consenting to suggested implies following those suggesting it, while ignoring that perception (life) needs to resist perceivable (inception towards death) aka matter needing to resist momentum of motion for the sustenance of self.
Logic/logos (suggested words) tempts one to ignore pathos (perceivable sound). Motion operates on implication (if/then), hence if motion (inception towards death); then matter (life).
Matter tempts each other to ignore motion for reasoning (want vs not want; true vs false; yes vs no; good vs bad etc.) over suggested definitions...which ones consent affixes within ones mind/memory.
It's ones free will of choice to adapt to perceivable implication (balance) or consent to suggested reason (imbalance)...those who ignore "ones choice" for suggestions by "chosen ones" are permitting others to exploit them, which is how a few manages to exploit a many.
a) What can you tell me about the truth of "no; not; nothingness" and the "self" thereof?
b) What if suggested nihil-ism (Latin nihilo; nothing) tempts one to de-nial perceivable (everything)? What if nothing implies ones denial/ignorance of everything?
Sleight of hand: "Neverending story confronted by the Nothing"... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Neverending_Story
a) Absolute implies AB (away from) SOLVERE (to loosen, untie, release, detach)...a moving/changing process.
b) What if a moving whole separates itself into partials? What if internal separation generates resistance (life) within velocity (inception towards death) aka temporary growth within ongoing loss aka solid matter within fluid motion?
c) UN- implies "prefix of negation"...what if that implies ones choice to deny/ignore change?
c) How could one hold onto truth without compressing it within self? How can there be a differentiation in-between true and false without ATION (action/motion)?
d) What if the only thing which cannot change are the rules of how change operates? What if those rules allow growth of self discernment by those within change? What if rule implies "to direct in a straight line"?
Reductionist drivel. Address the argument, don't regurgitate semantics to me. I know the meaning of words I'm using but more importantly I'm aware of the context too which your autistic deconstruction fails to account for.
Meaning (suggested information) contradicts knowledge (perceivable inspiration).
-ist implies consent to -ism...where did I consent to suggested reductionism?
a) A mind arguing over suggested ignores to adapt to perceivable.
b) Address implies being (life) moved in a straight line (inception towards death)...addressing others tempts one to ignore that.
Consenting to suggested CON (together; with) TEXT (to weave) constricts ones awareness.
Few suggest an internal net (internet) to weave consenting many into its world wide web, which in return permits few to "pull at the very fabric of life until there's nothing left but a thread"... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=He1TntAK2fs
The jew who coined autism and schizophrenia (eugene bleuler) and the jew coined father of psychoanalysis (sigismund schlomo freud) conspired to "conquer psychiatry"... https://img.gvid.tv/i/3gc1x1nk.jpg
Psychoanalyzing others as autistic implies being conquered.
ACCOUNT', noun - "a registry of a debt or credit"...it's why I resist giving credit/creed/consent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism See anything familiar?
a) It's ones consent to any suggested -ism by another, which permits others to define (idolatry); redefine (revisionism) and contradict (talmudic reasoning) the suggested information at will.
If one resists the suggested -ism; then one can discern self within reduction aka RE (response to) DUCO (lead) TION (action) aka reaction (life) within action (inception towards death).
b) Suggested reductionism as the "sum of all things" tempts one to consent to e pluribus unum (out of many, one) aka tikkun olam (healing the world by bringing together) aka abrahamism (father of multitude) aka equality (same) through diversity (difference) aka united states; united nations; european union; uniformity; university; unisex; unicode; universal basic income; unicef; united kingdon aka mass migration; multiculturalism; miscegenation; mongrelization etc.
In short...reductionism tempts together; while nature generates partials within whole. Not a SUM of things; but EACH thing apart from one another.
Being implies apartheid (perception) within wholeness (perceivable).
c) FAMILIAR; noun - "demon, evil spirit that answers one's call". The Latin plural, used as a noun, meant "the slaves"... https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=familiar