a) EN'ERGY, noun (Gr. work) - "internal or inherent power"...where else could anything EX (proceeding from)?
b) -ist (exist) implies ones consent to suggested -ism (existentialism). Perceiving EX implies within; out of; proceeding from perceivable.
competing agendas
COM (together; with) contradicts AGEN (action aka setting apart). Action (inception towards death) sets reactions (life) apart from one another. It's only those reactions which wield a free will of choice to COMe together, by for example consenting to suggested COMmunism.
bound by "plausible deniability" when they interact with us.
a) What if buyer (consent) can be tricked to bind self to product sold (suggestion), while ignoring merchant selling?
In other words...why do believers (buyers) bind themselves to "patris et filii et spiritus sancti" (product), while ignoring "in nomine" (merchant selling in the name of product)?
Religion (Latin religio) - "to bind anew"...ones free will of choice has to submit (Islam) for that new bond.
b) What if de-nial (Latin nihilo; nothing) implies ones consent to suggested nihil-ism...could that be plausible?
They communicate directly to your monologue
a) COM (together; with) contradicts mono (one and only)
b) Direction (inception towards death) sets reactors (life) apart from one another.
c) LOGUE (logic; reasoning against another) contradicts MONO (being one apart from one another)
monologue, can manipulate
How could MONO (singular) be MANI (plural) without ignoring ONEself for others?
random
What if few suggest without a course (random) as the inversion of being (life) within a course (inception towards death) aka choice (free) within balance (dom).
Random contradicts freedom.
the behavior of animals
Being (life) within animation (inception towards death) cannot have/hold onto/possess anything without ignoring/denying everything moving.
If one consents to "have"; then one ignores everything perceivable for suggested nothing, hence establishing "have nots".
Most people only interact
a) Interact aka internal action implies each ones reaction inside of action.
b) Action (sound) sets reactions (person; per sonos; by sound) apart from one another...others suggest pluralism (most people) to distracts singular (one) from discerning self.
anti-human
Hue (color) of man implies light establishing visible spectrum of light internally for each ray of light within.
Ignoring to be apart from one another by consenting to be mixed together implies ones anti-hue-man stance. If rays of light aim against each other; then they're reflecting; blending each other and casting shadows around...sounds familiar?
animals & are very picky about their associations
Because animation (inception towards death) causes being (life) to be apart from one another, hence disassociated aka unbound aka as FREE will of choice.
the positive ones...
...ignore being singular (one), while fighting others within a conflict of reason (positive vs negative). Ones consent to suggested the-ism tempts one into such a conflict of reason.
If ONE; then position (life) within negation (inception towards death) aka positioned to rise during procession of fall.
a) EN'ERGY, noun (Gr. work) - "internal or inherent power"...where else could anything EX (proceeding from)?
b) -ist (exist) implies ones consent to suggested -ism (existentialism). Perceiving EX implies within; out of; proceeding from perceivable.
COM (together; with) contradicts AGEN (action aka setting apart). Action (inception towards death) sets reactions (life) apart from one another. It's only those reactions which wield a free will of choice to COMe together, by for example consenting to suggested COMmunism.
a) What if buyer (consent) can be tricked to bind self to product sold (suggestion), while ignoring merchant selling?
In other words...why do believers (buyers) bind themselves to "patris et filii et spiritus sancti" (product), while ignoring "in nomine" (merchant selling in the name of product)?
Religion (Latin religio) - "to bind anew"...ones free will of choice has to submit (Islam) for that new bond.
b) What if de-nial (Latin nihilo; nothing) implies ones consent to suggested nihil-ism...could that be plausible?
a) COM (together; with) contradicts mono (one and only)
b) Direction (inception towards death) sets reactors (life) apart from one another.
c) LOGUE (logic; reasoning against another) contradicts MONO (being one apart from one another)
How could MONO (singular) be MANI (plural) without ignoring ONEself for others?
What if few suggest without a course (random) as the inversion of being (life) within a course (inception towards death) aka choice (free) within balance (dom).
Random contradicts freedom.
Being (life) within animation (inception towards death) cannot have/hold onto/possess anything without ignoring/denying everything moving.
If one consents to "have"; then one ignores everything perceivable for suggested nothing, hence establishing "have nots".
a) Interact aka internal action implies each ones reaction inside of action.
b) Action (sound) sets reactions (person; per sonos; by sound) apart from one another...others suggest pluralism (most people) to distracts singular (one) from discerning self.
Hue (color) of man implies light establishing visible spectrum of light internally for each ray of light within.
Ignoring to be apart from one another by consenting to be mixed together implies ones anti-hue-man stance. If rays of light aim against each other; then they're reflecting; blending each other and casting shadows around...sounds familiar?
Because animation (inception towards death) causes being (life) to be apart from one another, hence disassociated aka unbound aka as FREE will of choice.
...ignore being singular (one), while fighting others within a conflict of reason (positive vs negative). Ones consent to suggested the-ism tempts one into such a conflict of reason.
If ONE; then position (life) within negation (inception towards death) aka positioned to rise during procession of fall.