because some things are just not salvageable. The system is like a sinking ship, you can try and dump the water out but eventually the whole thing will capsize on you and take you down with it.
A social, economic, or political organizational form.
So, what exactly do you mean? Individualism, collectivism, capitalism, socialism or representative republic, democracy, monarchy, presidential union and so on.
a) What if all meaning is suggested by few to tempt many to respond alike, while reasoning against each other about it?
b) What if meaning/intention/having in mind implies ones consent to hold onto suggested information, while ignoring perceivable inspiration?
what exactly do you mean? At least specify...
This want for exactitude and specification implies tikkun olam (healing the world by bringing together) aka trying to affix meaning, while ignoring that nature moves.
Definite/define - "to affix"...hence "the system is broken and needs to be fixed."
That's the trick...a jew suggests a system (word) to tempt gentiles to try to affix it (definition), while ignoring that nature (sound) sets apart each one within.
which
a) Perception is mandatory; suggestion is optional...asking which, while waiting for a suggested answer, tempts one to ignore mandatory adaptation to perceivable.
Logical Structure: The structure of an implication can be represented as:
If P (antecedent), then Q (consequent).
This means that whenever P is true, Q must also be true.
However, if P is false, Q can either be true or false without affecting the truth of the implication.
Truth Values: The truth table for implications shows that the only time an implication is false is when P is true and Q is false. Thus:
True → True = True
True → False = False
False → True = True
False → False = True
Conflict Within Implication
The conflict within implication arises from several factors:
Ambiguity in Antecedents: The antecedent may not always clearly define the conditions under which the consequent holds. For example, “If it rains, then the ground will be wet” assumes that rain is the only factor affecting ground wetness, which may not always be true.
Overgeneralization: Implications can lead to overgeneralizations where specific cases are treated as universally applicable. For instance, saying “All birds can fly” implies that if something is a bird (P), it must fly (Q). However, this ignores exceptions like ostriches or penguins.
Contextual Factors: The context in which implications are made can alter their validity. A statement might hold true in one scenario but fail in another due to different influencing factors.
Reactions and Consequences: When considering actions and their reactions (as suggested by “ATION”), implications often involve predicting outcomes based on certain actions. Here lies a conflict because human behavior and reactions are unpredictable; thus, even well-structured implications may not yield expected results.
What Does ATION Implicate?
The suffix “-ation” typically indicates a process or action related to a verb. In this context:
It implicates reactions or consequences stemming from actions.
For example:
“Creation” implies bringing something into existence.
“Reaction” implies responding to an action or stimulus.
This highlights how actions lead to various outcomes or reactions—further complicating the straightforward nature of logical implications.
Conclusion
In summary, conflicts within implication arise from ambiguities in antecedents, overgeneralizations about universality, contextual variations affecting truth values, and unpredictable human reactions to actions implied by “-ation.” Understanding these nuances helps clarify how implications function logically while recognizing their limitations in real-world applications.
Top 3 Authoritative Sources Used in Answering this Question
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
A comprehensive resource providing detailed entries on various philosophical topics including logic and implications.
Cambridge Dictionary
Offers clear definitions and explanations of terms related to logic and reasoning which help clarify concepts like implication and its components.
Introduction to Logic by Irving M. Copi
A foundational text on logical reasoning that discusses implications extensively along with their structures and conflicts in detail.
This means that whenever P is true, Q must also be true.
a) Who defines meaning? Who holds onto truth? Who wields the free will of choice to lie?
b) How does implication define (affix); when it implies ATION (action; motion)?
c) How could one hold onto implication (if/then) if it moves?
d) How could one lie without another holding onto truth?
The Nature of Implication...Logical Structure
What if one can only structure (matter) within nature (motion)? What if reasoning (logic) about structure (suggestion) tempts one to ignore nature (perceivable)?
The conflict within implication arises
a) What if fall (antecedent) generates rise (consequent)?
b) What if "within" implies as partial within whole? How could there be a conflict in-between partial and whole, when each partial implies a part of whole?
Could partials in conflict with one another ignore whole?
The antecedent may not always clearly define the conditions under which the consequent holds.
What if antecedent moves (inception towards death), which prevents consequent (life) from holding onto?
Does a suggested definition tempt ones consent to hold onto it? What if letting go of suggested would clear up ones perception?
saying “All birds can fly” implies...
a) Only within all can one say to one another.
b) Suggested collectivism (all birds) tempts one to ignore each one bird within all aka a differentiation/separation from one another.
if something is
IF everything was perceivable; THEN one can suggest to one another what is. Consenting to the latter establishes a conflict of reason (is vs isn't).
exceptions like ostriches or penguins
Why are exceptions alike? Why can one perceive differences among ostriches and penguins? What is the rule...same; different or alike?
The context in which implications are made
a) If there's an origin; then context can be made within.
b) Implication implies being within (im) fold (plica) of action (ation)...it deosn't require context; it offers each one within the foundation for self discernment.
Consenting to context corrupts self discernment.
If it rains, then the ground will be wet
If it's about rain; then why inject "will be" aka being will?
When considering actions and their reactions
a) There can be only action (motion) and reactions (matter), hence a setting apart of oneness into ones.
b) Con-side implies "siding together"; being implies in-between (life) sides (inception/death).
implications often involve predicting outcomes
What if the one predicting outcomes ignores the implication of being moved from inception towards death within origin?
Could a prediction invert ones sight from origin towards outcome?
“-ation” typically indicates a process or action related to a verb.
Action cannot relate to anything, only reactions can relate to one another. Process (action) exists before differentiation (reactions).
Typical implies symbolic...how does one symbolizes action/motion without contradicting action/motion with an affixed symbol/idol/brand/truth/definition etc.?
The context in which implications are made can alter
If implication is made within motion, then what could motion alternate with?
“Creation” implies bringing something into existence.
Show me creation without transformation aka bring something into existence without transforming it within/out of and in response to everything that already exists...
“Reaction” implies responding to an action or stimulus.
An as oppose to another? If action/motion is one stimuli; then what other stimulates reactions?
actions lead to various outcomes or reactions
If one can react by choice; then one lives within the process of dying, which further implies the only outcome of each living reaction...the enacting process of dying, hence back to same origin.
There's no variety in outcome, because coming out of being implies from variety back into same origin.
logical implications
A contradiction in terms aka imbalance (logic) balance (implication).
helps clarify how implications function logically while recognizing their limitations in real-world applications
Implication implies setting apart IF and THEN...to apply implies joining together, which is why applying reason contradicts implication.
Authoritative Sources
There can be only one source for each effect...
Offers clear definitions
Only motion offers clarity; affixed definitions obscure it.
What if being implies placed response (life) within need (inception towards death)? What if waiting for any replacement tempts one to ignore that?
our only hope
a) Our (plural) contradicts only (singular)...what if others suggest pluralism to tempt ONE to ignore self?
b) Hope (and fear) implies towards outcome; being implies in response to origin? What if others suggest outcomes to tempt one to ignore perceivable origin?
System implies "a whole compounded of parts"; which cannot work, because a moving whole sets partials apart from one another.
Few tempt many to consent to suggested systems called -ISMS, which nature; the moving whole, forces apart no matter how long the consenting many are holding onto it.
needs to be fixed
Aka tikkun olam (healing the world by bringing together), set into the consenting minds of gentiles by a suggesting jew. This mindset of "needing" to fix a moving system inverts reality...needing to move; wanting to affix.
Nature cannot be fixed...being can be tricked to ignore "to be" aka towards (inception towards death) being (life).
Being implies temporary chaos (life) within ongoing natural order (inception towards death)...few suggest -ISMS to tempt many to create order out of chaos by fixing together that which nature sets apart.
VS
That's the sub-VERS-ion within a gentiles mind called logic/reason, which tempts gentiles to turn against each other within conflicts of reason about jewish suggestions.
Left VS right is based on gentile consent to suggested left-ism and right-ism by a jew...while choosing to ignore perceivable balance (right/left) within nature. It's the VS which imbalances ones consenting choice, when choosing to hold onto a side.
the system is working as intended and needs to be destroyed.
Underneath any suggested system WORKS perceivable natural aka an ongoing process of dying (loss) which generates temporary life (growth).
EN'ERGY, noun (Greek work) - "internal or inherent power"...a being is employed within work as the power of growth within the power of loss aka as reaction within action aka as one within all aka as partial within whole aka as choice within balance aka as resistance within velocity etc.
Work cannot be destroyed...only employment can be terminated.
Which one is it?
Only oneself can consent to what another suggest IS, while ignoring what WAS perceivable beforehand. Nature was moving before anyone within can choose to hold onto what is...doing that turns one away from nature (motion) and against each other (matter).
Davos
a) Davos (Latin tubus; ravine) - "to rob; to plunder"
When we eat we usually destroy the organism (Chaos)
a) All implies ongoing hunger; each one within a temporary organ being consumed; while struggling to sustain self during procession.
b) Suggested organism tempts one to organize aka to put consent and suggested together. Doing that tempts one to ignore that ones perception is the organ, set apart, within all perceivable.
c) Natural order establishes (inception) and destroys (death) chaos (life). Sustaining an establishment (stable mind) while being destroyed...that's chaotic; that's life.
Energy directs forwards...resistance (life) within velocity (inception towards death) can be directed to turn against each other, when ignoring origin.
Being implies forwarded resistance...others tempt resistance to turn against each other.
for the body (order)
FOR (order) THE (inversion aka suggested the-ism) BODY (chaos)
seeds that survive digestion
Digestion (life) implies procession (inception towards death)...hence inter-course allowing a seed of life to perpetuate self through another as off-spring during procession. Ones free will of choice struggles with planting the seed and tilling the soil...
un eaten
No such thing during ongoing consumption. Hunger doesn't waste food....appetite does.
Temet Nosche - Know Thyself
Nosche/gnosis/gno - "to know" aka to perceive perceivable.
Temet/töm-et - "letting be filled" aka consenting to suggested.
a) Cause moves; effect can choose to de-nial (nihilo; nothing) being moved.
b) Reason (do vs don't) contradicts implication (if/then).
c) Cause does; effects respond to being done aka redo.
will tell you who you are
Others suggest ones free WILL of choice what one wants or not wants to be, which tempts one to ignore that ARE implies being... https://www.etymonline.com/word/are
what does it matter when it's part of the same system
Motion implies same; matter implies different parts within same whole...a suggested system tempts alike consent from different partials, while ignoring same whole.
One joins others to be part of a system...that contradicts being set apart from one another within whole, hence being differentiated (life) during sameness (inception towards death).
forked political system
Being choice within balance implies prodded (press forwards); choosing among suggested choices implies two-prodded (forked) into a conflict of reason against others.
give as illusion of choice
Balance gives choice...taking choices (consenting to suggested) makes given balance illusive to ones choice.
All of our work is for the Creator's Honor
a) Generator (motion) Transformer (momentum) Reactor (matter)...that's how everything generates each thing. Suggested creationism inverts this into "something out of nothing".
b) EN'ERGY, noun (Gr. work) - "internal or inherent power" aka work internally differentiating employees.
Not "our work"; but each one employed within work + not "all of"; but all forwarding each one aka "all for one and one for all".
c) Suggested honorism tempts one to attach; all perceivable detaches each ones perception from one another. If each one honors all, then each different one responds alike to same.
Instead of giving anything...try being within everything given, while resisting the temptation to take.
we are using
All uses one; one reuses all...other ones suggest pluralism (we) to abuse ones consent.
gave us to live
Giving honor back ignores that giving (inception) and taking (death) happens simultaneously, and needs to be (life) resisted.
King David
David implies a suggested noun aka a brand upon; while King implies an addition (adjective) to a noun.
If nature moves, and few within suggest nouns and adjectives to tempt many to hold onto definitions (definite; to affix), then what about verbs denoting motion?
Hebrew Dawidh - "darling, beloved friend; beloved one" aka holding dear; wanting to befriend; loving vs hating...each contradicting motion.
Check this out... https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/davit aka "fishing the anchor"...suggestion fishes for consent; which anchors choice when given. Those suggesting are given consent, which implies Maghen Dawidh (shield of david)...
The system is working as intended and needs to be destroyed, and has always been since the fall of Ancient Rome.
How many beings (life) fall within the way of all (inception towards death)? Each one!
when faced with chaos one must learn to be chaotic
because some things are just not salvageable. The system is like a sinking ship, you can try and dump the water out but eventually the whole thing will capsize on you and take you down with it.
Order (inception towards death) generates chaos (life)...chaos (growth) struggles to sustain self within order (loss).
Chaos facing each other within conflicts of reason, about suggested information, ignores the natural order of perceivable inspiration.
Sleight of hand: Face/Off...
First tell us which system you are referring too, and then prepare for a few dozen follow up Questions.
That is a definition of a word. I however asked you WHICH system you are referring to.
So, what exactly do you mean? Individualism, collectivism, capitalism, socialism or representative republic, democracy, monarchy, presidential union and so on.
At least specify country you are talking about.
a) What if all meaning is suggested by few to tempt many to respond alike, while reasoning against each other about it?
b) What if meaning/intention/having in mind implies ones consent to hold onto suggested information, while ignoring perceivable inspiration?
This want for exactitude and specification implies tikkun olam (healing the world by bringing together) aka trying to affix meaning, while ignoring that nature moves.
Definite/define - "to affix"...hence "the system is broken and needs to be fixed."
That's the trick...a jew suggests a system (word) to tempt gentiles to try to affix it (definition), while ignoring that nature (sound) sets apart each one within.
a) Perception is mandatory; suggestion is optional...asking which, while waiting for a suggested answer, tempts one to ignore mandatory adaptation to perceivable.
b) https://www.etymonline.com/word/which
Perceivable implies same; perception implies different; suggestion implies alike.
No dummy. You are doing that. You are implying things. O.K, tard tard?
Things (plural) implies everything (singularity) aka a setting apart of whole...
Reasoning aka no vs yes; dummy vs smarty; you vs me; are vs aren't; doing vs don't; that vs this...tempts one to ignore implication (if/then).
Where's the conflict within implication?
ATION implicates what? Reactions...
The Nature of Implication
Conflict Within Implication
The conflict within implication arises from several factors:
What Does ATION Implicate?
The suffix “-ation” typically indicates a process or action related to a verb. In this context:
This highlights how actions lead to various outcomes or reactions—further complicating the straightforward nature of logical implications. Conclusion
In summary, conflicts within implication arise from ambiguities in antecedents, overgeneralizations about universality, contextual variations affecting truth values, and unpredictable human reactions to actions implied by “-ation.” Understanding these nuances helps clarify how implications function logically while recognizing their limitations in real-world applications.
Top 3 Authoritative Sources Used in Answering this Question
a) Who defines meaning? Who holds onto truth? Who wields the free will of choice to lie?
b) How does implication define (affix); when it implies ATION (action; motion)?
c) How could one hold onto implication (if/then) if it moves?
d) How could one lie without another holding onto truth?
What if one can only structure (matter) within nature (motion)? What if reasoning (logic) about structure (suggestion) tempts one to ignore nature (perceivable)?
a) What if fall (antecedent) generates rise (consequent)?
b) What if "within" implies as partial within whole? How could there be a conflict in-between partial and whole, when each partial implies a part of whole?
Could partials in conflict with one another ignore whole?
What if antecedent moves (inception towards death), which prevents consequent (life) from holding onto?
Does a suggested definition tempt ones consent to hold onto it? What if letting go of suggested would clear up ones perception?
a) Only within all can one say to one another.
b) Suggested collectivism (all birds) tempts one to ignore each one bird within all aka a differentiation/separation from one another.
IF everything was perceivable; THEN one can suggest to one another what is. Consenting to the latter establishes a conflict of reason (is vs isn't).
Why are exceptions alike? Why can one perceive differences among ostriches and penguins? What is the rule...same; different or alike?
a) If there's an origin; then context can be made within.
b) Implication implies being within (im) fold (plica) of action (ation)...it deosn't require context; it offers each one within the foundation for self discernment.
Consenting to context corrupts self discernment.
If it's about rain; then why inject "will be" aka being will?
a) There can be only action (motion) and reactions (matter), hence a setting apart of oneness into ones.
b) Con-side implies "siding together"; being implies in-between (life) sides (inception/death).
What if the one predicting outcomes ignores the implication of being moved from inception towards death within origin?
Could a prediction invert ones sight from origin towards outcome?
Action cannot relate to anything, only reactions can relate to one another. Process (action) exists before differentiation (reactions).
Typical implies symbolic...how does one symbolizes action/motion without contradicting action/motion with an affixed symbol/idol/brand/truth/definition etc.?
If implication is made within motion, then what could motion alternate with?
Show me creation without transformation aka bring something into existence without transforming it within/out of and in response to everything that already exists...
An as oppose to another? If action/motion is one stimuli; then what other stimulates reactions?
If one can react by choice; then one lives within the process of dying, which further implies the only outcome of each living reaction...the enacting process of dying, hence back to same origin.
There's no variety in outcome, because coming out of being implies from variety back into same origin.
A contradiction in terms aka imbalance (logic) balance (implication).
Implication implies setting apart IF and THEN...to apply implies joining together, which is why applying reason contradicts implication.
There can be only one source for each effect...
Only motion offers clarity; affixed definitions obscure it.
the system cant be destroyed needs to be replaced, thats our only hope.
What if being implies placed response (life) within need (inception towards death)? What if waiting for any replacement tempts one to ignore that?
a) Our (plural) contradicts only (singular)...what if others suggest pluralism to tempt ONE to ignore self?
b) Hope (and fear) implies towards outcome; being implies in response to origin? What if others suggest outcomes to tempt one to ignore perceivable origin?
one idea is creating a series of parallel societies with autonomy, in many levels, which acr independently from legacy systems and governments
what do you mean by human bias in this context?
System implies "a whole compounded of parts"; which cannot work, because a moving whole sets partials apart from one another.
Few tempt many to consent to suggested systems called -ISMS, which nature; the moving whole, forces apart no matter how long the consenting many are holding onto it.
Aka tikkun olam (healing the world by bringing together), set into the consenting minds of gentiles by a suggesting jew. This mindset of "needing" to fix a moving system inverts reality...needing to move; wanting to affix.
Nature cannot be fixed...being can be tricked to ignore "to be" aka towards (inception towards death) being (life).
Being implies temporary chaos (life) within ongoing natural order (inception towards death)...few suggest -ISMS to tempt many to create order out of chaos by fixing together that which nature sets apart.
That's the sub-VERS-ion within a gentiles mind called logic/reason, which tempts gentiles to turn against each other within conflicts of reason about jewish suggestions.
Left VS right is based on gentile consent to suggested left-ism and right-ism by a jew...while choosing to ignore perceivable balance (right/left) within nature. It's the VS which imbalances ones consenting choice, when choosing to hold onto a side.
Underneath any suggested system WORKS perceivable natural aka an ongoing process of dying (loss) which generates temporary life (growth).
EN'ERGY, noun (Greek work) - "internal or inherent power"...a being is employed within work as the power of growth within the power of loss aka as reaction within action aka as one within all aka as partial within whole aka as choice within balance aka as resistance within velocity etc.
Work cannot be destroyed...only employment can be terminated.
Only oneself can consent to what another suggest IS, while ignoring what WAS perceivable beforehand. Nature was moving before anyone within can choose to hold onto what is...doing that turns one away from nature (motion) and against each other (matter).
a) Davos (Latin tubus; ravine) - "to rob; to plunder"
b) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CHE_Davos_Flag.svg + https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine#/media/File:Flag_of_Ukraine.svg
a) All implies ongoing hunger; each one within a temporary organ being consumed; while struggling to sustain self during procession.
b) Suggested organism tempts one to organize aka to put consent and suggested together. Doing that tempts one to ignore that ones perception is the organ, set apart, within all perceivable.
c) Natural order establishes (inception) and destroys (death) chaos (life). Sustaining an establishment (stable mind) while being destroyed...that's chaotic; that's life.
Sleight of hand: https://genius.com/The-exploited-chaos-is-my-life-lyrics
Energy directs forwards...resistance (life) within velocity (inception towards death) can be directed to turn against each other, when ignoring origin.
Being implies forwarded resistance...others tempt resistance to turn against each other.
FOR (order) THE (inversion aka suggested the-ism) BODY (chaos)
Digestion (life) implies procession (inception towards death)...hence inter-course allowing a seed of life to perpetuate self through another as off-spring during procession. Ones free will of choice struggles with planting the seed and tilling the soil...
No such thing during ongoing consumption. Hunger doesn't waste food....appetite does.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/temet + https://venere.it/en/the-meaning-and-history-of-the-name-temet/
a) Cause moves; effect can choose to de-nial (nihilo; nothing) being moved.
b) Reason (do vs don't) contradicts implication (if/then).
c) Cause does; effects respond to being done aka redo.
Others suggest ones free WILL of choice what one wants or not wants to be, which tempts one to ignore that ARE implies being... https://www.etymonline.com/word/are
Motion implies same; matter implies different parts within same whole...a suggested system tempts alike consent from different partials, while ignoring same whole.
One joins others to be part of a system...that contradicts being set apart from one another within whole, hence being differentiated (life) during sameness (inception towards death).
Being choice within balance implies prodded (press forwards); choosing among suggested choices implies two-prodded (forked) into a conflict of reason against others.
Balance gives choice...taking choices (consenting to suggested) makes given balance illusive to ones choice.
a) Generator (motion) Transformer (momentum) Reactor (matter)...that's how everything generates each thing. Suggested creationism inverts this into "something out of nothing".
b) EN'ERGY, noun (Gr. work) - "internal or inherent power" aka work internally differentiating employees.
Not "our work"; but each one employed within work + not "all of"; but all forwarding each one aka "all for one and one for all".
c) Suggested honorism tempts one to attach; all perceivable detaches each ones perception from one another. If each one honors all, then each different one responds alike to same.
Instead of giving anything...try being within everything given, while resisting the temptation to take.
All uses one; one reuses all...other ones suggest pluralism (we) to abuse ones consent.
Giving honor back ignores that giving (inception) and taking (death) happens simultaneously, and needs to be (life) resisted.
David implies a suggested noun aka a brand upon; while King implies an addition (adjective) to a noun.
If nature moves, and few within suggest nouns and adjectives to tempt many to hold onto definitions (definite; to affix), then what about verbs denoting motion?
Hebrew Dawidh - "darling, beloved friend; beloved one" aka holding dear; wanting to befriend; loving vs hating...each contradicting motion.
Check this out... https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/davit aka "fishing the anchor"...suggestion fishes for consent; which anchors choice when given. Those suggesting are given consent, which implies Maghen Dawidh (shield of david)...
Anyway...thanks for the inspiration to write.