Statutes are not laws.
(media.scored.co)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (9)
sorted by:
Part a) Natural L(and) A(ir) W(ater) implies singular...others suggest pluralism (laws) to distract singular (one) from it.
Issue: The text attempts to redefine the acronym LAW as "Land, Air, Water" and then claims it implies singularity. This interpretation is not standard or widely accepted. Lack of Coherence: The connection between natural elements (land, air, water) and the concept of law (a rule or set of rules) is not logically explained. The leap from "natural LAW implies singular" to "others suggest pluralism (laws) to distract singular (one) from it" is unsupported and confusing.
Part b) STATUARY, noun - "representatives of reality" implies each one within reality responding (perception) to presented (perceivable) instead of to the fictitious suggestions by another...like laws for example.
Issue: Statuary typically refers to statues collectively, not "representatives of reality." Misuse of Terms: The text misinterprets "statuary" and conflates it with philosophical concepts of perception and reality. The leap to suggesting laws are fictitious and unrelated to perception lacks a clear argument.
Part c) Code implies "collection of"; being implies set apart within. If one consents to suggested code; then one becomes a part within a collection of another.
Issue: While "code" can refer to a collection of laws or rules, the statement "being implies set apart within" is vague and unclear. Logical Leap: The conclusion that consenting to a code makes one "part within a collection of another" is not logically derived from the premises. The relationship between "code" and individual autonomy is not clearly articulated.
Part d) Suggested "joint resolution" tempts one to ignore that each one's REsponse (life) to SOLUTION (inception towards death) is unique; different; apart from one another.
Issue: The text introduces terms without clear definitions or context, such as "REsponse" and "SOLUTION." Ambiguity: The argument that a "joint resolution" tempts individuals to ignore their unique responses is not substantiated. The connection between these abstract terms and the idea of individual uniqueness is unclear and poorly explained.
Part e) RE (reaction) SOLU (solve) TION (action) aka action (inception towards death) separating into reactions (life). This is one...RE This is all...TION This is what all does to each one...SOLU RE (matter) SOLU (momentum) TION (motion).
Issue: The text attempts to break down the word "RESOLUTION" into separate parts with new meanings (RE, SOLU, TION), which is not a standard linguistic or logical approach. Misinterpretation: The reinterpretation of these parts to mean "reaction, solve, action" and then applying them to philosophical concepts (life and death) is arbitrary and lacks justification. Confusion: The final breakdown into "matter, momentum, motion" does not logically follow from the previous reinterpretations and adds to the overall confusion.
Summary The text fails to provide clear definitions, logical consistency, and coherent arguments. It reinterprets words and concepts in unconventional ways without sufficient explanation or justification, resulting in a collection of statements that do not make sense together. This leads to the overall perception of gibberish.
Definite implies affixed...nature moves. Those within trick each to affix (word) that which moves (sound).
Check this out... https://www.etymonline.com/word/acronym#etymonline_v_5069
"With the exception of cabalistic esoterica and acrostic poetry, this way of forming words was exceedingly uncommon before 20c."...what are the odds that a certain cabal still operates esoteric (internal suggestion) by distracting others from exoteric (external perception)?
There has to be land, air and water for anyone within to be able to suggest rules of conduct to one another...otherwise how could being exist without balancing on land; breathing air and being solid (life) within fluid (inception towards death) of water?
Implication (if/then) is based on motion aka perceivable inspiration...those who ignore that are being tempted to claim suggested information as truth; faith; definition; meaning etc.
If EN'ERGY, noun (Gr. work) - "internal or inherent power"; then everything else within, hence ones (partials) within oneness (whole).
If energy doesn't imply singularity; then what's one energy plus one energy? What's more than energy? How does one measure two energy?
Sleight of hand for those with eyes to see..."all for one and one for all" aka "there can be only one" aka "alone aka all(in)one".
a) Interpret implies PRE (before) INTER (within) aka being (life) within forwards (inception towards death)
Few trick many to accept suggestion (word) as interpretation for perception (sound) aka fiction for reality.
b) Few sell suggestions; many buy into them...which establishes a widely accepted standard aka "that which is established by sovereign power as a rule or measure by which others are to be adjusted".
Another word for "widely accepted standard"...slavery.
a) Loss (inception towards death) generates growth (life)...there's no lack of anything within all, only lack of self discernment within each one.
b) Coherence implies "union of parts of the same body, or a cleaving together of two bodies"...being implies apart from one another, hence a partial within whole.
Furthermore...union/unitas/unit/unus - "one". Few suggest united states aka e pluribus unum (out of many; one) to mix many different ONES together, while each ignores being apart from ONE another.
If many are mixed together; then few can remain apart... https://www.amazon.com/People-Apart-Political-History-1789-1939/dp/0199246815
a) Nature sets itself apart...those within suggest in the name of EL that MENTS (mind/memory) are connecting with suggested information, while ignoring that perceivable inspiration moves through each ones mind/memory.
Inspiration cannot be held onto...one draws from it or ignores to do so, while attempting to hold onto information defined (idolatry); redefined (revisionism) and contradicted (talmudic reasoning) by others.
b) Between implies being (choice) in-between (balance) aka as matter within momentum of motion.
Someone's getting conned again....con (together; with) cept/capere (to take). Natural law cannot be taken by any being within, nor can any being be more than one within all of natural law.
Only nature gives (inception) and takes (death) from those within (life).
a) Everything WAS perceivable before anyone within can suggest what it IS.
b) Logic implies a conflict of reason, hence IS vs IS NOT. Reason contradicts implication (if/then), which is why few tempt many to reason against each other over suggested information, while ignoring to adapt by oneself to perceivable inspiration, which implicates everything one hasn't discerned yet.
c) Explain implies expression (life) within plain/plane (inception towards death) aka odd (choice) within even (balance).
Waiting for suggested explanations by another tempts ones expression to repress self.
Sleight of hand from Madonna: "express yourself; don't repress yourself...and I'm not sorry...it's human nature"
One can only exist "now" aka within perceivable moment(um) of motion. Any leaping or "passover" tempts one to ignore ones position at center (perception) of circumference (perceivable).
Few celebrate passover by tempting many (life) to pass over (inception towards death)...aka suggested progressivism.
Can one be plural? According to the Spice Girls "2 become 1" so plural to singular seems to be a widely accepted standard (73 million views on jewtube). "Say you believe it"...
Now let's invert that shit...how does one become two? Intercourse for off-spring maybe? But that's another ones life...not two? Wheres the perceivable plural?
Can you show me TWO without me being able to discern each ONE thereof? Do you realize that nature differentiates each part within, and that thereby each part exist at a different position from one another?
a) Who collects statues?
b) TYPE, verb - "to prefigure; to represent by a model or symbol beforehand" aka to prefigure a suggested idol before handing it towards ones consenting free will of choice.
Few utilize typecasting to tempt many into idolatry, and look how easy casting such a spell is..."whats your type?"
How could anything within reality not be a representative thereof? Are you aware that fiction (suggestion) requires ones ignorance of reality (perception)?
a) TERM, noun (Latin terminus, a limit or boundary)...what if one can only be free (choice) within a boundary (balance)?
Why do few suggest many to "push it to the limit"?... https://genius.com/Paul-engemann-scarface-push-it-to-the-limit-lyrics
b) What if one can only reuse (life) while being used (inception towards death)? In other words...what if one can only react to being enacted upon?
a) PHI (physic) LO (logic) SOPH (love)
Physis (nature) and phyein (to bring forth) implies all perceivable bringing forth each ones perception. Logic implies ignoring perceivable for reasoning (love vs hate) about suggested.
Can't have LOVE without EVOL...Diana Ross tells you all about turning love upside down... https://genius.com/Diana-ross-upside-down-lyrics
b) Reality doesn't shape con-cepts; it sets all perceivable apart into each ones perception. Fiction shaped within reality requires ones consent taking (cept) and coming together (con) with the suggestions of another, which one then holds within memory, while ignoring how reality moves on.
a) If perception implies reality; then suggestion implies fiction...if one consents to it.
b) Plural (laws) implies fiction; singular (law) implies reality...there can be only one natural law for each one within.
How could a mind (ment) in conflict (argue) be clear? How could ones mind/memory within all lack anything?
If one consents to a suggestion "referred" by another, then one establishes a bond/a contract/a code aka religion (Latin religio; to bind anew). Doing so contradicts ones FREE will of choice.
...to one lacking self discernment. If one discerns self; then one discerns being apart from one another, hence being able to perceive moving differences aka perceivable inspiration for one to sustain self as partial (life) during whole (inception towards death).
A partial can only exist within whole.
Premise implies proposition (suggestion) to follow (consent) aka suggested progressivism tempting one (life) towards outcome (death), while ignoring perceivable origin.
Fiction (words; suggested information) can only be derived from reality (sound; perceivable inspiration).
a) Articulation aka artificial (suggested words) tempts one to ignore natural (perceivable sound).
b) Individual implies "within division" aka one within two...being implies separation of oneness (whole) into ones (partials).
c) Suggested autonomy (self taking in) inverts perceivable autarky (self warding off).
Example...suggested appetite tempts one take into self; perceivable hunger inspires one to ward off self. Go into any supermarket and try to find one warding off hunger among many consuming for appetite...
Read "Down and Out in Paris and London" by George Orwell to learn about how those with hunger live and die concealed from those with appetite.
a) DEAF PHONETICIAN implies one deaf to phonics (perceivable sound)...hence ignoring to be "within" for complaining about being "without" suggested words.
b) Clear implies "free from obstruction"...being implies free (will of choice) to obstruct self with suggested information; while ignoring the ongoing passage of perceivable inspiration....which cannot be obstructed by those within.
a) Where did I wrote "individual"? How could one discern self to be unique (different from one another), when one calls self individual/indivisible/inseparable aka within (in) two (dual)?
b) Exterior (perceivable) generates essence (perception)....others tempt one to ignore that for substance (suggestion), hence tempting ones consent to stand-under (sub-stance).
"I'm just following orders" ~Der ewige Goyim
What about jew? Does Israel (Hebrew yisra'el) - "he that strives with god" sound like a standard approach to follow or an atypical response to resist origin?
Should one follow or resist (life) origin (inception towards death)?
If logic implies a conflict of reason, then one can only approach friction among resistance, no matter which side one chooses to reason from.
Partials (ones perception) come to be by setting whole (all perceivable) apart...meaning implies partial consenting to suggestion by another partial, while holding onto it.
Notice TO aka towards, which implies motion aka change. If one changes meaning; then others get agitated about "reason".
Nature sets apart; I adapt to moving parts (inspiration) by writing about how few put them together (information) to fuck with the minds of many, who hold onto meaning, while ignoring change.
Sleight of hand: Golem/golum holding onto "muh precious"
a) Process of dying justifies living. For those living within, the process of dying "just is" (justice).
b) Loss generates growth...only during loss (motion) can there be growth (matter). Momentum (inception towards death) of motion generates matter (life).
c) Only within orderly (balance) can there be arbitrary (choice), hence living within the natural order of dying aka form within flow aka reaction within action aka partial within whole aka one within all etc.
Does life logically follow from inception towards death or could there be an implication like...if living, then needing to resist the wanted temptation to follow the process of dying?
Could it be that many are missing something fundamental when fighting each other within conflicts of reason/logic about suggested words/logos?
How is it that few lead, while many follow....yet many die way faster than few? Shouldn't leader reach outcome before follower?
There's only one way (inception towards death) for each one within (life) and it isn't a convent (assembly) but a dissembling of whole into partials.
Being one within all implies being within sufficient, hence alleviating living, while suffering the process of dying.
So you notice that I attempted to break down, yet you see the result of breaking down as collecting together?
Are you able to see the contradiction in what I attempted (breaking down) and what you see (collecting together)?
Why is it that many are controlled by few, yet only ever try to come together against few? How many are required against few? ONE implies separation...not collection. Others ones suggest collectivism to tempt ones choice to choose chosen ones suggestion, which in return collectivizes many under few.
a) All (perceivable) leads to one (perception)....suggestions mislead one towards others.
b) Hum sound while speaking words and notice how words become rapidly gibberish. Then notice that ongoing sound exists before temporary words can be shaped within.
The opposite of gibberish (suggested words) implies silence (perceivable sound)... https://genius.com/Simon-and-garfunkel-the-sound-of-silence-lyrics
tl;dr...Thanks for the inspiration.
In the realm where shadows play, Free will of choice guides our way. Your touch ignites a burning fire, Desire unleashed, climbing higher.
Eyes lock in a fierce embrace, Lust's raw power sets the pace. Every breath, a whispered plea, In this dance of ecstasy.
Fingers trace forbidden lines, Two souls entwined, no confines. With each kiss, a fevered start, Unleashing secrets of the heart.
a) Realm/real implies RE (ones reaction) within AL (all action).
b) Ones free will of choice shapes light (discernment) and darkness (ignorance), which casts rays and shadows upon others.
Way (motion) generates balance (momentum) for choice (matter) to respond to...others suggest progressivism (guiding towards) to tempt ones choice to imbalance self by ignoring origin.
Both imply the same origin for your life. What more guidance does one need to discern self?
Looking/locking implies narrowing sight within perceivalbe by focusing on suggested. "All seeing Eye" needs to resist looking/locking onto other ones.
Aka unleashed (inception towards death) desires (life)...wielding the free will of choice to fall for temptations.
Rising (life) during fall (inception towards death)...does that imply a conflict of reason (low vs high)?
Perceivable sound implies silent until the instruments (perception) within choose to make noise (suggestion).
Sleight of hand: "To the heart and mind, ignorance is kind...there's no comfort in the truth, pain is all that you'll find"... https://genius.com/George-michael-careless-whisper-lyrics
All perceivable FORwards ones perception...the suggestions by others tempt one to make a BID aka betting on outcome, instead of resisting being (life) forwarded (inception towards death) within origin.
Soul/sole...one and only aka ones perception within all perceivable only.
Aka ones consent entwining another ones suggestion.