Oof... Salty loser... Spamming is not cool, mkay
(media.conspiracies.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (111)
sorted by:
If one doesn't affirm truth, one lies to oneself. To fail to make anything firm is to fail to be anything.
Since life is experienced in the present, an end is never something experienced. The All has no inception because all inception is within it, and so the All has no end. So One is free to follow All, and need not end just because one has an inception.
Originally, heresy did mean choice, all choices were heresies (sects, sections). Therefore not to choose is also a heresy. Whenever we speak, and whenever we don't, we will and define and choose. It's still a tenet even if it's not a doctrine.
a) How could a BEING fail to BE anything?
b) Being implies made form (life) by flow (inception towards death)...holding onto form by trying to affirm to one another, destroys form through friction, hence a conflict of reason (affirm vs denial). As long as one holds firm to either side, so long both sides are mutually destroying each other.
One DOES before one can choose to DOESN'T affirm (truth) or deny (lie)...being comes before choice. Affirmation and denial tempts ones choice to select the suggested choices of another aka shirking of response-ability.
Who is calling one a liar if one doesn't affirm truth to another?
Life implies essence...others suggest present/pre-sence to gain ones permission/consent/affirmation to define pre (before) aka the exterior/abstract of ones essence.
Experience aka ex per (expression by) implies an impressing into. Nature operates from impression (inception towards death) through expression (life)...pre-sent (before being send) implies the sleight of hand one ignores.
Few suggest many to express consent TOWARDS suggested in exchange for experience (XP), which inverts reality..."ex per" aka expression by origin.
What about "never" aka nothing ever? Can that be experienced? Why is nothing used as the foundation to deny (de-nihilo) an end of being?
Why did you put a THE before ALL? An adjective before ALL; before everything? Ad-ject (towards throwing) implies an ejection before aka an inception of an adjected ALL by an ejecting THE...
Only a partial (one) within whole (all) has a beginning (inception) and end (death) of being (life).
Partial implies temporal ; whole implies ongoing...separation (momentum) of whole (motion) into partials (matter) establishes beginning and end aka inception and death.
All directs (inception towards death) each one (life) within...which implies a separation of velocity into resistance. To follow implies the path of least resistance aka the temptation to go with the velocity towards death instead of resisting for the sustenance of life by adapting to the origin of inception.
Ones free will of choice struggles with needing to resist wanted temptation...following implies a temptation, hence others utilizing leaders calling followers to give consent/affirmation to suggested progressivism towards outcomes.
Another angle...temptation aka sin/syn - "synchrony" implies simultaneous with others aka following, while resistance implies ones resisting stance apart from others.
Need (inception towards death) generates want (life)...hence ones struggle to rise during fall.
Example...water or wine? Which one represents need? Neither...thirst does. Wanting or not wanting water or wine tempts one to ignore needing to resist thirst.
Because is the suggested inversion of cause (inception towards death) towards being (life) aka just (balance) generating odds (choice).
This requires self discernment, which one ignores when consenting to suggested "because". If one asks nature "why", then nature doesn't answer "because"...it simply moves cause towards being to inspire adaptation.
You may call this Gods' breath of life...which life needs to exhale, hence adapting to the process of dying.
a) Which one made the choice that suggested meaning changes origin (God)?
b) What if origin (all) offers choice (one), while choosing (ones choice) to shirk it onto another (chosen one) implies heresy?
b) Origin of choice implies balance...balance cannot be changed by choices within...choice within balance can only imbalance self...choosing to suggest imbalance tempts other choices to imbalance self.
What if many choose to ignore origin (perceivable balance) for each other (suggested choices), which establishes a chosen few in control over many followers?
ALL to ONE implies sect/seco - "to divide" aka a separation of whole into partials.
Consenting to suggested choices tempts back together aka e pluribus unum (out of many; one) or tikkun olam (healing the world by bringing together) aka abrahamism (father of multitude) etc.
Few can only remain apart if many are mixed together...which requires ones free will of choice to consent (send together).
What if the origin of not implies suggested nihil-ism (Latin nihilo; nothing) which tempts one to consent to de-nial perceivable for suggested? Thinking that one can "not choose" implies ones choice to consent to "nothing"...
What if even (balance) forces odds (choice) to adapt?
Notice how a child struggles to find the balance to stand up and walk, yet most adults ignore this struggle of choice adapting to balance when walking through their lives...
Only within balance of motion can matter wield choice (will)...define/definite (to affix) implies wanting to hold onto, while ignoring needing to let go.
How could choice be affixed (defined), when choosing implies reaction to balance?
What if few tempt many to ignore perceivable sound for suggested words, hence for DEAF PHONETICIANS (definitions) aka those deaf to phonics (sound)?
Could words like "insane person" be utilized to distract from sound like "in sanus (within sound) + per sonos (by sound)?
If one asks a hundred others to define "insane person"; then what are the odds of anyone bringing up "sound"?
Even implies everything...nothing tempts one at odds with even.
(u/Neo1, note I answer this in its own language.)
Evidence indicates not all flow is towards death (endless flow).
To make firm that one is a being is indeed to be something.
To deny that one is a being is not to be something.
Being affirms its being automatically without reference to free will of choice.
To flow with All is to affirm All without reference to whether One has free will of choice or not.
If one fails to affirm, when it is one's duty to flow with All, the lack of resonance with All identifies itself as the lie.
Then, say, life flows in the now.
Correct, Nothing and Never are not life or experience, which is why death is not life or experience but itself a suggestion.
Life and experience do not involve or evidence any end of being.
If "The" means "All", redundancy; otherwise, superfluity.
End and death are not stablished or firm or life.
Then, say, One is free to flow with (adapt to) All, to resist temptation.
Then, say, One has inception, and One does not end.
Yes, inspiring adaptation is God's breath of life.
In this case, me. Each One is free to choose.
In that case, you. If unshirking choice is no heresy, well.
Ignoring origin represents imbalance.
Then, say, choosing All suffices.
Then, say, "not" implies choosing nothing, which is a heresy (a shirking of responsibility).
Then, say, adapt. Adapt to One having no end.
Then, say, we will and sound out and choose. It's a tenet.
Even and odds alternate and oscillate in life: endless respiration.
a) Endless implies conclusion (end) through loss (less). In other words...putting form into flow ends form. How long form sustains being (life) ended (inception towards death)...that's on form to choose.
b) vidence/videre - "to see" implies perceivable...neither ones inception, nor ones death are perceivable by ones life. Notice that evidence is suggested to one another for confirmation...consenting to such permits others for example law enforcement based on evidence, which is staffed by...many following the suggested orders by few, hence not evidence based.
What comes first tho...being form or affirming self to be? Answer...flow.
Notice that it requires the choice of a being to deny aka to de-nial (Latin nihilo; nothing)...
Saying "not to be" implies "nothing towards being"...which puts nothing before being something.
That's the foundation for suggested creationism aka everything out of nothing; into something. Reality implies everything transmuting each thing into something different from one another, with the free will of choice to deny aka to believe in nothingness.
a) Auto implies flow; being implies form...auto generates balance; within which form wields choice. Only within the dominance of balance can there be free will of choice...free within dom.
b) Suggested "without" inverts being within perceivable. Without also suggests a lack of something, which tempts one to ignore that all perceivable required for each ones perception.
Whole cannot withhold anything from partials...partials imply the revelation of whole.
c) The RE in re-ference implies ones RE-sponse by free will of choice, hence re-ferre (to carry back).
Action (inception towards death) carries forwards, while carrying reactions (life) back to origin. How does one react? By choice. Preferred choice so far...ignorance of ones choice for adherence to choices of another.
a) To be within flow implies as FORM...af-FIRM-ing implies the choice of form after coming into being.
Before one can affirm...one was formed into being.
b) Does "or not" apply to origin (God)? Or could it be a suggested choice made afterwards?
Can one perceive...everything or nothing?
a) Ones duty (life) to flow (inception towards death) can't be interfered with ones choice of affirmation or denial.
Try to denial the flow of breathing...after learning quickly that flow dominates, ask yourself if affirmation to one another binds FREE will of choice during that dominance of a balanced process?
As for why flow is a balanced process...inhale/exhale.
b) Compare "duty to flow" with "identify/identic/idem (same)...same flow, different duty.
Few suggest equality through diversity to equalize differences among many, under the label "Identitarianism/idealism".
Nature simply differentiates each being from one another, which establishes ones struggle to resist (life) being equalized (inception towards death) again.
If all implies God, then IT blasphemes HE...resisting the temptation to identify allows one to see that difference.
Which implies sooth-sayer aka others who suggest one what to say. Anyone can perceive now; cause only now can one perceive.
Suggestion establishes an artificial distraction from that, which tempts many to ignore NOW for NEW...
Inception TOWARDS death implies a procession aka flow...death on itself implies a point within procession. It's ones consent to such a suggested point of death, which tempts one to ignore ones life sentence during procession aka living within process of dying.
In short...suggested noun (death) tempts one to ignore perceivable verb (dying).
Again using "DO NOT" as the foundation to describe a living being. The conflict of reason between affirming vs denying prevents one to make an opposite point without invoking "nothing" aka ones denial/de-nihilo.
That's the nothingness spreading within the never ending story aka perpetuation of denial through reason.
The-ism...a suggested authority by another, and also a corruption of male/female distinction (sex/seco; to divide).
What do you think about this...
Origin (God)...redundancy; otherwise, superfluity? Or were those shaped by a choice in ignorance of origin?
How could whole offer redundancy to partials within? How could origin offer otherwise? How could a flowing origin forming beings offer superfluity aka super flow aka beyond flow?
Formed within flow implies within (life) balance (inception/death)...again you view end as point of death, while ignoring life sentence towards point of death within procession.
By affirming beginning (inception), while denying end (death) you are tricked to incline to one side, which imbalances your choice within natures balance. Same with reasoning...always inclining towards one side, while fighting the other.
Stablish implies stable aka even aka balanced aka in-between sides, hence in-between (life) beginning (inception) and end (death), while struggling as choice to balance within a moving processing aka living within process of dying aka growing during loss.
a) Saying in accordance to another contradicts ones free will of choice. Agreement among choice binds free will of choice, hence religion/religio - "to bind anew".
b) "free to flow" inverts flow towards formed being with free will of choice. Ignoring to resist implies shirking of response-ability...
a) How could one "has/have" inception, when ones life has passed through it? Having implies possessing aka ones choice of wanting to hold onto, while ignoring needing to let go.
b) Why would one say "does not" if everything flowing does ones form? Form within flow implies re-doing self, while being done by origin.
a) Breathing doesn't require a YES vs NO conflict of reason...choosing to participate in such a conflict of reason about suggested information diminishes inspiration perceived.
In-SPIRIT-ation aka spirit/spiro - "to breathe".
b) Suggesting what IS tempts one to ignore that all perceivable WAS before one came to be within, hence breathing in response to origin.
a) Me; myself or I implies taking possession over ONEself, hence ignoring that all generates units/unus - "one" by setting whole apart from one another.
b) Saying aka suggesting that "one is free" tempts oneself and others to ignore that dominance was perceivable before one came to be free.
c) The rhetoric "case and point" is suggested by few to define end (death) while covering sentence (life). Making a case implies shaping a cover for information. This is about concealment aka concealing the minds of others with suggested spell-craft.
Do I make a case when using implication (if/then)? What do I cover by using flow to implicate? Reason on the other hands confines both sides within a conflict...does implication (if/then) do the same or does it set inspiration towards free will of choice?
Yet choice can only exist within balance...ignorance implies self-denial by consent to another. That's how all implies balance, while each one within can imbalance self if so chosen.
Suffice (to be enough or sufficient; to be equal to the end proposed) tempts one to ignore self aka the differentiated being; struggling from inception towards death with what choice is enough to sustain being.
Now consider suffer (allow to occur or continue, refrain from hindering, fail to prevent or suppress)...hence having FREE will of choice.
Life cannot hinder the process of dying; nor fail to prevent outcome (death), and many repressing self, while being suppressed by few...that's life for most alright.
IF nothing, THEN...what could follow? Nothing contradicts everything flowing, yet it doesn't prevent flow, it implies forms denial of flow.
Getting "not" out of the vocabulary could help tremendously to prevent spell-craft to flourish, yet who is gonna give up denial? One could write a sophisticated treatise about the abolishment of nothing and many would just say "nah"...
If one adapts to having nothing, then...? Meanwhile...adaptation implies reaction adapting to action aka each thing adapting to everything.
If only nothing wasn't an option... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQnaRtNMGMI
We aka suggested pluralism implies singular ones affirmation to another...that's a deal shaped through words; tempting one to ignore sound.
Original tenet/ten - "to stretch" implies being (life) stretched (inception towards death)...consenting to a suggested tenet implies holding onto aka contracting, hence suggestion being utilized by happy merchants of temptation as buying (consent) and selling (suggesting) through contracts.
Whatever tenet one suggests, the consent by another contradicts the stretch...while binding one to another ones string.
Pinocchio: "[singing] I got no strings to hold me do... [trips and falls down the stairs and gets his nose stuck in a hole; the audience laugh]"
a) Odds alternate during even, hence even implying same, and odds differences.
b) Only within balance can choice oscillate backwards and forwards aka balancing.
c) RE implies temporary; TION implies ongoing...SPIRA implies temporary adaptation to ongoing.
d) Inhaling implies process of dying forced through living; exhaling implies living resisting process of dying by letting go...
Then, (say) forever.
What of creation out of All?
So rocks affirm being. Do humans?
Then, firming. Forms firm.
Call origin God. "Or not" applies to rocks, which affirm being by being.
Sustained denial of breathing represents death. Breathing forever represents life.
Yes; then, All identifies Himself.
Yes.
Does death represent One ceasing (ending) or One becoming All (forever)? Why would one cease?
Distinctions distinguish. What do you think about this?
Then (with that origin), redundancy (redounding).
Then, does dying represent ceasing or becoming?
Then, flow in freedom, and resist in freedom.
Then, One passed through (from) inception. Can One pass through or to death?
Then, you may call inspiring adaptation God's breath of life.
Then, implication inspires (All implies balance).
Does struggle or resistance or suffering or being imply death? Now, do the few suggest death?
Then, "not" in the vocabulary implies choosing nothing.
Then, One adapts forever.
Suggestion met resistance.
Then, One wills and sounds and chooses.
Then, call it an inspiration.
Yes.
Then, spiration, backward and forward, temporary forever.