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.
Another thread successfully derailed! Congratulations deep state operative! No, I don't care what coloured hat you wear, as your brains are made of feces, brimming with e-coli.
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.
Another thread successfully derailed! Congratulations deep state operative! No, I don't care what coloured hat you wear, as your brains are made of feces, brimming with e-coli.