b) Conspiring aka breathing (spire) together (con).
c) Bigger than aka suggesting that anything could be bigger than perceivable.
fiat being backed by
Latin FIAT - "let it be done" from root BHEUE - "to be" implies being letting it be done by another when consenting to for example a suggested currency.
backed
Living implies being backed by inception and fronted by death...anything others are suggesting tempts one to seek backing upfront, hence ones consent TOWARDS a suggestion.
Suggestion has to be artificially build up before one, while perceivable continuously moves through ones perception from origin aka from motion, through momentum (inception towards death) into matter (life).
Living implies being backed by inception and fronted by death...
To explore the statement “Living implies being backed by inception and fronted by death,” we need to break down the concepts of living, inception, and death.
Defining Living
Living can be understood as the state of being alive, characterized by growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death. It encompasses not only biological processes but also psychological experiences and social interactions. The essence of living is often tied to consciousness and self-awareness.
Exploring Inception
Inception refers to the beginning or initiation of something. In a broader philosophical context, it can symbolize the moment when life begins—whether that be at birth or through significant life events that shape an individual’s identity and purpose. In the context of dreams as explored in Christopher Nolan’s film “Inception,” it represents the idea that our perceptions of reality can be influenced or constructed through our subconscious mind.
In this sense, inception can also relate to personal beginnings—new thoughts, ideas, or phases in life that propel individuals forward into new experiences. It suggests that living is inherently linked to these moments of creation or awakening.
Understanding Death
Death signifies the end of life; it is a natural conclusion to biological processes. However, philosophically speaking, death can also represent a transition—a point where one’s existence in one form ceases but may lead to another form or state of being (as seen in various cultural beliefs about afterlife or reincarnation).
The concept of being “fronted by death” implies an awareness of mortality that influences how individuals live their lives. This awareness often drives people to seek meaning and fulfillment during their lifetime.
Alive implies free (choice) and partial, hence partially living within whole process of dying.
b) To define implies to affix something, while living implies temporary matter (life) within momentum (inception towards death) of ongoing motion.
c) Few suggest definition-ism... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitionism to tempt many to hold onto (consent) fiction (suggested) while ignoring that reality (perceivable) moves.
To explore the statement
EX (out of) PLUERE (flow), hence ex (life) pluere (inception towards death). Also; each ones state of mind (statement) within all is differentiated from one another...until many consent to hold onto suggestions by few, which equalizes differences.
being alive, characterized by...AND continual change preceding death
What if this continual change implies the ongoing process of dying as the origin of each temporary life within? AND implies an addition to, instead of the origin thereof...could that corrupt ones perspective?
social interactions
Interaction implies being reacting internally within action, and requires a setting apart of being to be able to react differently to the same action...few suggest social-ism to tempt many together, while ignoring to be a part within whole and apart from one another.
essence of living is often tied
Coming into being (essence) implies a setting apart (off-spring) aka a setting free (will of choice)...few suggest religion (Latin relgio; to bind anew) to tie the knot around many.
Inception refers to the beginning or initiation of something
Inception to life to death also implies matter within momentum of motion, hence essence coming in and out of origin.
In a broader philosophical context
a) Context contradicts broad aka con (together, with) texere (to weave)...few suggest context to weave narratives for many to bind themselves to.
b) Phi-LO-sophical implies LOgic aka a conflict of reason; confining one within two sides, while ignoring that being choice within balance implies free-dom, hence being set free (life) during dominance (inception towards death) aka free to live ones life, while dying.
it can symbolize the moment when life begins
Few suggest symbolism to tempt many to hold onto it, while ignoring that such a captured moment (symbolized by a picture taken)...implies an ongoing MOMENTum of motion.
shape an individual’s identity and purpose
a) Individual implies "within two", which contradicts being one (partial) within oneness (whole)...there can be only one. Few suggest dual-ism to tempt one to ignore self for another ones suggestion.
b) Identity/identic implies the same...being implies differentiated by one another within the same all. Few suggest Identitarianism/idealism to equalize differences among many aka hammering down the largest nail etc.
c) Few suggest progressivism to tempt many to seek purpose in outcome, while ignoring duty (resistance) during origin (velocity), hence the path of least resistance implying ones temptation to ignore resisting, while following suggested purposes towards DEATH.
inception can also relate to personal beginnings
Person aka per sonos (by sound) implies ones inception as instrument within sound. Sound was before any instrument can begin to use it...
the idea that our perceptions of reality can be influenced...It suggests that living is inherently linked
Aka suggesting a linked life to influence ones perception to ignore a flowing reality; setting forms apart from one another within.
a) Logic (conflict) contradicts bio (life)...hence life reasoning against other life aka "war".
b) There can be only only process...action aka motion. Only within motion can there be initiation (inception) and conclusion (death) of essence (life).
death can also represent a transition
Living within process of dying implies a trans-form-ation of essence within origin, hence flow to form (inception); form within flow (life); and form to flow (death).
an awareness of mortality that influences
That in-fluence implies formed mortal life within flowing process of dying. Aware/wer - "to perceive" is what few tempt many to ignore by influencing with suggested information.
This awareness often drives people to seek
Nature drives life towards death; hence inspiring resistance during temptation...seeking implies being tempted by outcomes to ignore the origin driving the living vessels forwards.
fulfillment
Ones mind/memory needs to process flowing inspiration, while resisting the temptation to fulfill with wanted information...few suggest information to tempt many to ignore inspiration aka holding onto inwardly, while ignoring outwardly awareness.
...to perceivable inspiration, while resisting the temptation of...
bot spam
...suggested information.
Labeling anything as "bot spam" affixes ones perspective onto the artificial label...nature moves; which inspires perspective to draw from change aka to adapt.
When I thank another for inspiration, then that isn't about how much (writing it) or less (copy and pasting it) labor others put into something, put simply for being a mediator (suggestion) within origin (perception)...which inspires me to labor.
a) The division (dis) of onward motion (course) cannot be destroyed...the divided (life) within onward motion (inception towards death) can be tempted against each other within conflicts of reason for mutual destruction.
b) What if me taking words apart that others hold together...makes confusion clearer to see?
c) What if I didn't consent to suggested objectivism by simply adapting as subject to perceivable origin?
Can one live without trying to reach objects? Can one subject self to whatever comes along? Does objectivism contradict adaptation?
The term "Petrodollar" has nothing to do with USD. The term simply means the revenue a country makes by selling oil.
People confuse it with how oil is priced (not sold).
Crude oil is priced in USD, regardless of the currency it is traded in. This gives the USD value. Basically, the USD is partially backed by a commodity which is unique among all currencies and effectively makes the USD the world's reserve currency.
So whenever someone gets excited about some country selling oil for Rupees or Rubles, it doesn't mean shit because the buyer still has to pay the equivalent of the price in USD.
Also, in the past, high oil prices would be bad for the US because they'd have to pay more for importing oil and that would increase the trade deficit.
These days, the US imports very little oil due to massive domestic production, so changes in the oil price have little impact on the economy.
The meme that the US would go to war over access to global oil has run its course because the US isn't dependent on oil exports anymore.
No, until a couple of months ago Saudi Oil was only sold for dollars, it wasn't just priced in dollars, that was what propped up the Dollar as the worlds reserve currency. That has just changed and the Petrodollar is dead.
Of course it was priced in USD. The Saudi's required payment in USD that was the point. Pricing is fungible just like oil, the whole point is that the Saudi's required Payment in USD. Pricing is irrelevant.
I'll quote you "So whenever someone gets excited about some country selling oil for Rupees or Rubles, it doesn't mean shit because the buyer still has to pay the equivalent of the price in USD."
When the Saudi's sell oil to the Indians they pay in Rupees for a price in Rupees not USD. The USD has no relevance in that transaction.
You seem to be living in the past prior to the BRIC's.
After rereading my comment to gain perspective, I should have clarified our previous engagement in the middle east. I still stand by my point and will add that the Bush family stood to make a great deal of money off the increased oil prices from the wars in the Gulf.
The holocaust.
And a foreign cartel of synagogue of Satan kike jews having monopoly power over the currencies of all White nations.
Same libertarian probably also thinks that BTC is backed by CPU cycles.
Jesus and Christianity. Since you asked.
a) Naming aka branding that which nature doesn't.
b) Conspiring aka breathing (spire) together (con).
c) Bigger than aka suggesting that anything could be bigger than perceivable.
Latin FIAT - "let it be done" from root BHEUE - "to be" implies being letting it be done by another when consenting to for example a suggested currency.
Living implies being backed by inception and fronted by death...anything others are suggesting tempts one to seek backing upfront, hence ones consent TOWARDS a suggestion.
Suggestion has to be artificially build up before one, while perceivable continuously moves through ones perception from origin aka from motion, through momentum (inception towards death) into matter (life).
To explore the statement “Living implies being backed by inception and fronted by death,” we need to break down the concepts of living, inception, and death.
Living can be understood as the state of being alive, characterized by growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death. It encompasses not only biological processes but also psychological experiences and social interactions. The essence of living is often tied to consciousness and self-awareness.
Inception refers to the beginning or initiation of something. In a broader philosophical context, it can symbolize the moment when life begins—whether that be at birth or through significant life events that shape an individual’s identity and purpose. In the context of dreams as explored in Christopher Nolan’s film “Inception,” it represents the idea that our perceptions of reality can be influenced or constructed through our subconscious mind.
In this sense, inception can also relate to personal beginnings—new thoughts, ideas, or phases in life that propel individuals forward into new experiences. It suggests that living is inherently linked to these moments of creation or awakening.
Death signifies the end of life; it is a natural conclusion to biological processes. However, philosophically speaking, death can also represent a transition—a point where one’s existence in one form ceases but may lead to another form or state of being (as seen in various cultural beliefs about afterlife or reincarnation).
The concept of being “fronted by death” implies an awareness of mortality that influences how individuals live their lives. This awareness often drives people to seek meaning and fulfillment during their lifetime.
a) DE (completely) + FINERE (to bound, limit)... https://www.etymonline.com/word/define#etymonline_v_914
Alive implies free (choice) and partial, hence partially living within whole process of dying.
b) To define implies to affix something, while living implies temporary matter (life) within momentum (inception towards death) of ongoing motion.
c) Few suggest definition-ism... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitionism to tempt many to hold onto (consent) fiction (suggested) while ignoring that reality (perceivable) moves.
EX (out of) PLUERE (flow), hence ex (life) pluere (inception towards death). Also; each ones state of mind (statement) within all is differentiated from one another...until many consent to hold onto suggestions by few, which equalizes differences.
What if this continual change implies the ongoing process of dying as the origin of each temporary life within? AND implies an addition to, instead of the origin thereof...could that corrupt ones perspective?
Interaction implies being reacting internally within action, and requires a setting apart of being to be able to react differently to the same action...few suggest social-ism to tempt many together, while ignoring to be a part within whole and apart from one another.
Coming into being (essence) implies a setting apart (off-spring) aka a setting free (will of choice)...few suggest religion (Latin relgio; to bind anew) to tie the knot around many.
Inception to life to death also implies matter within momentum of motion, hence essence coming in and out of origin.
a) Context contradicts broad aka con (together, with) texere (to weave)...few suggest context to weave narratives for many to bind themselves to.
b) Phi-LO-sophical implies LOgic aka a conflict of reason; confining one within two sides, while ignoring that being choice within balance implies free-dom, hence being set free (life) during dominance (inception towards death) aka free to live ones life, while dying.
Few suggest symbolism to tempt many to hold onto it, while ignoring that such a captured moment (symbolized by a picture taken)...implies an ongoing MOMENTum of motion.
a) Individual implies "within two", which contradicts being one (partial) within oneness (whole)...there can be only one. Few suggest dual-ism to tempt one to ignore self for another ones suggestion.
b) Identity/identic implies the same...being implies differentiated by one another within the same all. Few suggest Identitarianism/idealism to equalize differences among many aka hammering down the largest nail etc.
c) Few suggest progressivism to tempt many to seek purpose in outcome, while ignoring duty (resistance) during origin (velocity), hence the path of least resistance implying ones temptation to ignore resisting, while following suggested purposes towards DEATH.
Person aka per sonos (by sound) implies ones inception as instrument within sound. Sound was before any instrument can begin to use it...
Aka suggesting a linked life to influence ones perception to ignore a flowing reality; setting forms apart from one another within.
Sign/sekw - "to follow"...https://www.etymonline.com/word/sign Really? How does reality signify life to follow towards death?
a) Logic (conflict) contradicts bio (life)...hence life reasoning against other life aka "war".
b) There can be only only process...action aka motion. Only within motion can there be initiation (inception) and conclusion (death) of essence (life).
Living within process of dying implies a trans-form-ation of essence within origin, hence flow to form (inception); form within flow (life); and form to flow (death).
That in-fluence implies formed mortal life within flowing process of dying. Aware/wer - "to perceive" is what few tempt many to ignore by influencing with suggested information.
Nature drives life towards death; hence inspiring resistance during temptation...seeking implies being tempted by outcomes to ignore the origin driving the living vessels forwards.
Ones mind/memory needs to process flowing inspiration, while resisting the temptation to fulfill with wanted information...few suggest information to tempt many to ignore inspiration aka holding onto inwardly, while ignoring outwardly awareness.
tl; dr...great post. Thanks for the inspiration.
You just replied to bot spam.
...to perceivable inspiration, while resisting the temptation of...
...suggested information.
Labeling anything as "bot spam" affixes ones perspective onto the artificial label...nature moves; which inspires perspective to draw from change aka to adapt.
When I thank another for inspiration, then that isn't about how much (writing it) or less (copy and pasting it) labor others put into something, put simply for being a mediator (suggestion) within origin (perception)...which inspires me to labor.
It is clear that destroying discourse is your main objective.
a) The division (dis) of onward motion (course) cannot be destroyed...the divided (life) within onward motion (inception towards death) can be tempted against each other within conflicts of reason for mutual destruction.
b) What if me taking words apart that others hold together...makes confusion clearer to see?
c) What if I didn't consent to suggested objectivism by simply adapting as subject to perceivable origin?
Can one live without trying to reach objects? Can one subject self to whatever comes along? Does objectivism contradict adaptation?
Good luck with that.
Let me explain "Petrodollar" to you.
The term "Petrodollar" has nothing to do with USD. The term simply means the revenue a country makes by selling oil.
People confuse it with how oil is priced (not sold).
Crude oil is priced in USD, regardless of the currency it is traded in. This gives the USD value. Basically, the USD is partially backed by a commodity which is unique among all currencies and effectively makes the USD the world's reserve currency.
So whenever someone gets excited about some country selling oil for Rupees or Rubles, it doesn't mean shit because the buyer still has to pay the equivalent of the price in USD.
Also, in the past, high oil prices would be bad for the US because they'd have to pay more for importing oil and that would increase the trade deficit.
These days, the US imports very little oil due to massive domestic production, so changes in the oil price have little impact on the economy.
The meme that the US would go to war over access to global oil has run its course because the US isn't dependent on oil exports anymore.
No, until a couple of months ago Saudi Oil was only sold for dollars, it wasn't just priced in dollars, that was what propped up the Dollar as the worlds reserve currency. That has just changed and the Petrodollar is dead.
Why do you single out Saudi Oil when I did not?
Are you claiming that Saudi Oil isn't priced in USD?
The Bretton Woods agreement was that the Saudi's would sell their oil only for dollars.
The key word being 'sell' not 'priced', this required buyers to actually obtain dollars to buy the oil and established the PetroDollar.
Now that the Saudi's no longer require dollars for their oil, the petrodollar is history.
So, are you claiming that Saudi Oil isn't priced in USD?
Yes or no?
Of course it was priced in USD. The Saudi's required payment in USD that was the point. Pricing is fungible just like oil, the whole point is that the Saudi's required Payment in USD. Pricing is irrelevant.
I literally explained why the relevant part is the pricing, not the currency.
Are you retarded?
I'll quote you "So whenever someone gets excited about some country selling oil for Rupees or Rubles, it doesn't mean shit because the buyer still has to pay the equivalent of the price in USD."
When the Saudi's sell oil to the Indians they pay in Rupees for a price in Rupees not USD. The USD has no relevance in that transaction.
You seem to be living in the past prior to the BRIC's.
Wow.
Yes, haven't you been paying attention?
Yes. Which is why I included a link to a gas light in my reply. As in; you are gas lighting.
All true, but the wars over oil are now to protect Europe and their economy
Which war for oil is currently going on?
After rereading my comment to gain perspective, I should have clarified our previous engagement in the middle east. I still stand by my point and will add that the Bush family stood to make a great deal of money off the increased oil prices from the wars in the Gulf.
Yeah, well. That's why I wrote that this meme is outdated.
It's always good to remember the sins of our past because some young people were never exposed to the information.
I don't believe one currently exists