the All Precievable cannot be deceived, but my perception can be. I am not all Precievable.
a) "the all" contradicts itself, because THE implies a specification like for example "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly". ALL implies whole for each particular/species/specific within.
Few suggest THE-ism to distract many from discerning self within all perceivable.
b) "cannot be" implies suggested NOT (nihil-ism; nihilo; nothing) tempting one to ignore CAN (to be able) BE (being), hence ones perception being enabled by all perceivable.
One cannot discern self as long as NOT contradicts CAN...others suggest NOT to corrupt what one CAN do.
c) "my perception" implies one claiming self as MY, while being moved within all perceivable. Motion cannot be held onto...those within can be tricked to hold onto self (my) and each other (ours), while ignoring motion.
Being implies temporary unit (life) during ongoing procession (inception towards death) aka a current to draw from, not a currency to hold onto...
d) "i am" implies to define/diffinire/finis (bind) ones FREE will of choice by trying to affix a solid unit (life) during liquid procession (inception towards death).
Doing that implies ones lack of self discernment, while ignoring that all moves each one.
Few suggest definitions (deaf phoneticians) to tempt many to hold onto affix brands/idols/beliefs/information/words etc. while ignoring perceivable sound (phonic).
Suggested words (spell-craft) contradict perceivable sound IF one chooses to hold onto them.
you are just on a different level
a) Just (balance) generates odds (choice). Consenting to the suggested choices by others tempts ones choice at odds against others.
b) Same (all perceivable) generates differences (ones perception)...consenting to suggested tempts many on a level under few. It's called a "pyramid scheme"...
Nature doesn't.
Nature DOES (action); each one within RE-DOES (reaction). Few suggest NOT to tempt consenting many into a conflict of reason (does vs doesn't) against each other, while ignoring everything natural (perception) for artificial nothing (suggestion).
what nature might tell us
a) Nature doesn't TELL; verb - "speak, talk, say; count, reckon"...nature moves sound. Few within tempt many with spell-craft; talk shows; soothsaying; accountability and estimations/accounting/reckoning to ignore nature.
b) Nature differentiates all (whole) into each one (partial)...few suggest pluralism (us) to tempt many together, which in return permits few to remain apart.
For example "e pluribus unum" (out of many;one) aka United States aka US...few suggest US to equalize differences among many.
c) Nature implies an ongoing flow of perceivable inspiration for each ones formed perception to draw from. Few within nature utilize suggested information to tempt many to hold onto artificial form, while ignoring natural flow.
If you say that I'm on a different level, then that implies me drawing from perceivable inspiration, while you hold onto suggested information....that's a burden upon you, that I don't carry.
nature's fault
Fault implies fall...being implies rising (life) during fall (inception towards death) of nature.
Few distract many from FALLING with FAILING...the former implies status quo of being enabled to rise, while the latter tempts being to blame self or each other for faults.
Ones ignorance becomes the foundation for finding faults among others...
a false statement
Reason (true vs false) implies a state of mind (statement) in perpetual conflict/imbalance/ignorance...
Nature generates implication (if/then) aka balance for choice to draw from.
Ones consent to HOLD onto any suggestion implies stillness within self aka self deception.
Massively and to almost no end
a) Only one (life) can experience beginning (inception) and end (death)....all implies foundation (motion) for beginning and end (momentum) of each one (matter).
Few suggest CONTINUE aka CON (together) TENET (to hold) to trick many to hold onto anything suggested as to escape everything perceivable moving towards death.
b) The deception isn't massive...the masses deceive each other to view all perceivable through the narrow lens of suggestions by few.
In "They Live" a fight breaks out about putting on the glasses to see. In reality...the glasses (suggested information) establish the conflict (reason/logic) which prevents one from seeing (perceivable inspiration).
most people believe is science is actually programing
Science/scio - "to know" implies ones perception within all perceivable. Suggested scientism tempts ones consent to hold onto the suggestions by another, while ignoring perceivable.
I cannot suggest what IS without tempting you to ignore what WAS perceivable...it's on you to discern self within WAS by resisting the temptation of IS aka adapt to perceivable inspiration, while resting the temptation to hold onto suggested information.
Sound was before word is...the former cannot be held onto; while the latter is perpetuated by mercantilism aka selling (suggestion) and buying (consent) aka a binding contract.
Tldnr, but, I think, in writing and English sentence, the subject, All, in this case should have a nessesary preposition or the word All could he misunderstood in the context.
What could ALL be subject to? What if all implies auxiliary cause for each subjected effect within?
in this case should have a necessary preposition
How is encasing/confining/restricting something a necessity? How could ALL be encased/confined/restricted by anyone within?
the word All could he misunderstood
What if all implies sound...within which one can shape words? What if few suggest the word "all" to distract many from the implication of being within all sound?
in this case...in the context
Who put the word "all" into a case or a context? How could ALL be put into anything?
I think you read into stuff too much.
a) If one exists within all of nature, then one can handle all offered...
b) What if few tempt many into a conflict of reason (too little vs too much) to distract from ones potential within all offered?
c) Could your choice to think in CASES and CONTEXTS restrict your thinking capacity?
d) To read implies ones consent to suggested writing, while ignoring that all perceivable doesn't write anything for ones perception.
Nature doesn't shape words by putting letters together...it moves sound by setting waves apart from one another.
a) "the all" contradicts itself, because THE implies a specification like for example "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly". ALL implies whole for each particular/species/specific within.
Few suggest THE-ism to distract many from discerning self within all perceivable.
b) "cannot be" implies suggested NOT (nihil-ism; nihilo; nothing) tempting one to ignore CAN (to be able) BE (being), hence ones perception being enabled by all perceivable.
One cannot discern self as long as NOT contradicts CAN...others suggest NOT to corrupt what one CAN do.
c) "my perception" implies one claiming self as MY, while being moved within all perceivable. Motion cannot be held onto...those within can be tricked to hold onto self (my) and each other (ours), while ignoring motion.
Being implies temporary unit (life) during ongoing procession (inception towards death) aka a current to draw from, not a currency to hold onto...
d) "i am" implies to define/diffinire/finis (bind) ones FREE will of choice by trying to affix a solid unit (life) during liquid procession (inception towards death).
Doing that implies ones lack of self discernment, while ignoring that all moves each one.
Few suggest definitions (deaf phoneticians) to tempt many to hold onto affix brands/idols/beliefs/information/words etc. while ignoring perceivable sound (phonic).
Suggested words (spell-craft) contradict perceivable sound IF one chooses to hold onto them.
a) Just (balance) generates odds (choice). Consenting to the suggested choices by others tempts ones choice at odds against others.
b) Same (all perceivable) generates differences (ones perception)...consenting to suggested tempts many on a level under few. It's called a "pyramid scheme"...
Nature DOES (action); each one within RE-DOES (reaction). Few suggest NOT to tempt consenting many into a conflict of reason (does vs doesn't) against each other, while ignoring everything natural (perception) for artificial nothing (suggestion).
a) Nature doesn't TELL; verb - "speak, talk, say; count, reckon"...nature moves sound. Few within tempt many with spell-craft; talk shows; soothsaying; accountability and estimations/accounting/reckoning to ignore nature.
b) Nature differentiates all (whole) into each one (partial)...few suggest pluralism (us) to tempt many together, which in return permits few to remain apart.
For example "e pluribus unum" (out of many;one) aka United States aka US...few suggest US to equalize differences among many.
c) Nature implies an ongoing flow of perceivable inspiration for each ones formed perception to draw from. Few within nature utilize suggested information to tempt many to hold onto artificial form, while ignoring natural flow.
If you say that I'm on a different level, then that implies me drawing from perceivable inspiration, while you hold onto suggested information....that's a burden upon you, that I don't carry.
Fault implies fall...being implies rising (life) during fall (inception towards death) of nature.
Few distract many from FALLING with FAILING...the former implies status quo of being enabled to rise, while the latter tempts being to blame self or each other for faults.
Ones ignorance becomes the foundation for finding faults among others...
Reason (true vs false) implies a state of mind (statement) in perpetual conflict/imbalance/ignorance...
Nature generates implication (if/then) aka balance for choice to draw from.
STILL; adjective - "motionless, stable, fixed, stationary" contradicts nature (inception towards death) moving beings (life).
Ones consent to HOLD onto any suggestion implies stillness within self aka self deception.
a) Only one (life) can experience beginning (inception) and end (death)....all implies foundation (motion) for beginning and end (momentum) of each one (matter).
Few suggest CONTINUE aka CON (together) TENET (to hold) to trick many to hold onto anything suggested as to escape everything perceivable moving towards death.
b) The deception isn't massive...the masses deceive each other to view all perceivable through the narrow lens of suggestions by few.
In "They Live" a fight breaks out about putting on the glasses to see. In reality...the glasses (suggested information) establish the conflict (reason/logic) which prevents one from seeing (perceivable inspiration).
Science/scio - "to know" implies ones perception within all perceivable. Suggested scientism tempts ones consent to hold onto the suggestions by another, while ignoring perceivable.
I cannot suggest what IS without tempting you to ignore what WAS perceivable...it's on you to discern self within WAS by resisting the temptation of IS aka adapt to perceivable inspiration, while resting the temptation to hold onto suggested information.
Sound was before word is...the former cannot be held onto; while the latter is perpetuated by mercantilism aka selling (suggestion) and buying (consent) aka a binding contract.
Tldnr, but, I think, in writing and English sentence, the subject, All, in this case should have a nessesary preposition or the word All could he misunderstood in the context.
I think you read into stuff too much.
What could ALL be subject to? What if all implies auxiliary cause for each subjected effect within?
How is encasing/confining/restricting something a necessity? How could ALL be encased/confined/restricted by anyone within?
What if all implies sound...within which one can shape words? What if few suggest the word "all" to distract many from the implication of being within all sound?
Who put the word "all" into a case or a context? How could ALL be put into anything?
a) If one exists within all of nature, then one can handle all offered...
b) What if few tempt many into a conflict of reason (too little vs too much) to distract from ones potential within all offered?
c) Could your choice to think in CASES and CONTEXTS restrict your thinking capacity?
d) To read implies ones consent to suggested writing, while ignoring that all perceivable doesn't write anything for ones perception.
Nature doesn't shape words by putting letters together...it moves sound by setting waves apart from one another.