"Need implicates (if/then)...reasoning (want vs not want) tempts one to ignore that." So what? how is that bad?
Versus/verto - "to turn", hence turning bad and good against one another, no matter which side one chooses.
Example: water vs wine represents want vs not want, while ignoring need...thirst.
Non sequiturs. You yourself use words, so you are "distracting" too.
Indeed, hence the fucking issue of constant miscommunication, and the attempts of breaking words apart. The issue...suggested words tempt one to ignore perceivable sound. Like for example the words "insane person" tempting one to ignore being in sanus (within sound) and per sonos (by sound).
Sound moves and cannot be held onto...words are shaped within sound, while tempting one to hold onto definition, which shapes one into a DEAF PHONETICIAN.
Why do you believe this?
To believe implies holding onto something suggested, which in return contradicts ones perception of all perceivable moving through one. Dictate/deik (to show) implies what others are showing (suggesting) for one to behold (consenting).
The phrase "the show must go on" refers to nature continuing to move, while one beholds what others are showing.
You shouldn't...and you should...
Should vs shouldn't...another conflict of reason based on ones circular thinking. Others suggesting either side contradicts ones FREE will of choice...if one consents. Nature doesn't suggest what one should or shouldn't...it generates free will of choice, while forcing adaptation (life) to balance (inception/death).
Didn't say a thing about energy.
What do you think differentiates everything into each thing, while supplying the potential to shape speech within sound? Energy implies the cause for each effect within
Hivemind?
Collective consciousness; mental coalescence; group think; universal mind; egregore; gestalt psychology; students under teacher; followers under leader; many under few; slaves under master; commonwealth (gentiles) under sovereign (jew) etc.
Sound separates into each instrument aka mind (ment) structured (stru) within (in)...words suggested by few tempt many to think alike, hence utilizing words as the common denominator for communication.
Nature doesn't make common (together)...it generates unique units apart from one another.
please make a megathread and post
About free-will-of-choice...Post Score (0) Comment Score (13416). Nature already offers everything (perceivable) to each one (perception)...offering suggested posts to one another denies that.
Choice needs to adapt to balance, while resisting the temptation of each others suggested choices.
"Inception sentences life towards POINT of death...there's no other point for life."...No it doesn't.
a) No/not/nothing implies suggested nihil-ism (nihilo; nothing) tempting ones de-nial of everything perceivable for suggested "nothing". The foundation of nothing is based on creatio ex nihilo... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatio_ex_nihilo
"Cause it's the deepest impulse of the jewish soul to pull at the very fabric of life until there's nothing left but a thread; they want nothing but nothingness; nothingness without end"... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRUjy1Dhx-k
b) If inception, then of life. If living, then while dying. If sentenced, then sentience. If sentence, then end of sentence, hence being send towards point.
Put a pen on paper; then draw a line. Starts with a point; ends with a point. Now notice that you're breathing while drawing, hence drawing in breath. Being able to do that implies ones susceptibility to sensation aka sentience during ones life sentence. Your mind tricks you to believe that putting a pen on paper starts with a point, when your life was already sentenced...
c)Seriously? You believe rebutting kills people?
Killing implies "taking" life...rebutting implies willingly "giving" up living by mutually attacking each other within a conflict of reason.
Example...boxing. Two boxers go into the ring; the one losing less is declared winner. It's loser vs loser, while ignoring that the winner is declared by a non-combative 3rd party. Now exchange boxing with rebutting each other within any conflict of reason...
Can you give me an example where reasoning ended the conflict? Like...yes vs no; true vs false; belief vs disbelief; love vs hate; rich vs poor; us vs them; me vs you; agree vs disagree; upvote vs downvote; left vs right; white vs black; soccer vs football; mcdonalds vs burger king; coke vs pepsi; old vs young etc. Which of those has mankind dissolved by reasoning?
The fact i am alive DESTROYS your claim
The ACT in fact implies natures action, the FAC (factus) implies reactions within nature. Action cannot be held onto...reacting to one another tempts one to ignore that, which is why claiming a fact implies fiction.
The claim wasn't me describing a moving nature that cannot be held onto from the perspective of FREE will of choice, but your claim of I AM aka je suis (jesus).
Alive implies each one living (live) within all (al)...I AM implies one potential taking possession over self, while ignoring all procession. That also represents ones de-nial aka NAIL of being moved across aka A CROSS all.
You are not going to "start dying" just because you do something better.
a) Being implies living (temporary growth) within the process of dying (ongoing loss)...better vs worse reasoning implies growth turning against one another (want vs not want), while ignoring to resist (need) the temptation (want) of loss.
b) One cannot "do"...only respond to being (life) done (inception towards death) aka re-do life, while being done to death.
Wanting to be saved by suggested tempts one to ignore that? Whaaaat?
Nature moves all perceivable through each ones perception as "inspiration"...which one cannot hold onto, thereby save. Artifice implies suggested "information" tempting ones consent to hold onto it, thereby saving it within mind/memory, which is what instigates circular thinking (logic) inwards, turning into conflicts of reason outwards. While consenting to artificial information; one ignores natural inspiration.
Resist the temptation to analyze words, then.
Words imply a synthesis aka letters shaped into words aka ones consent LETTING another shape words. Choice needs to resist the wanted temptation of suggested choices, because choosing another choice shirks ones response-ability onto another, hence inverting ONES CHOICE into a CHOSEN ONES suggestion.
Grow by rebutting other ideas, concepts, beliefs, and defending your own.
a) FREE will of choice cannot "own", since it implies potential (temporary growth) set free within procession (ongoing loss). To own implies spending potential to take into possession, while ignoring that procession draws any potential spend. Form within flow cannot hold onto anything without diminishing each other.
b) Ideas, concepts, beliefs imply holding within self what others suggested one to take...that's poison injected by ones consent as the vector. It's the holding onto which establishes circular logic, and the resulting conflict of reason (confirm vs rebut) turning one against others.
Idealism suggested implies a temptation for ones consent to idolatry. Conceptualism tempts artificial concipere (taking together), while distracting from nature "giving apart". Belief aka being (be) carrying/desirous (lief/leubh) implies wanting to obtain and carrying along aka the temptation of sin.
I have grown.
Which conflict of reason have you grown out of?
"One cannot choose want without ignoring need"...Wow! How profound! Man realizes the obvious is obvious! /S
Now translate this to everything else...one cannot hold onto without letting go; hence wanting to hold onto tempting one to ignore needing to let go of. If this seems profound and obvious to you, then why defend holding onto "ideas, concepts, beliefs"? While you think about this...try holding onto your breath.
Why? What nature? Nature as in "the attributes of things" or "plants, animals, the outdoors" nature?
a) That which nurtues (ure) natives (nat) aka whole nurturing each native partial within aka action nurturing native reactions aka flow (inception towards death) nurturing native form (life) etc. Why? Because if cause then being, hence action causing being to come into effect.
b) Attribution of things implies everything (nurturing action) bestow each thing (native reaction) aka external attributing internal aka everything moving attributing matter to each thing being moved.
c) Plant/plat - "to spread" aka the spreading of all (whole) into each one (partial) aka separation from one another.
d) Animal/anima/ane - "to breathe" aka animation forcing animated matter (life) to inhale (inception) and exhale (death) aka inhaling spirit (temporary growth), while exhaling ghost (ongoing loss).
e) Being alive implies in-between entrance (inception) and exit (death), hence movable barrier aka door...re DO'OR die.
"Growth (life) can only exist within loss (inception towards death)"...What a sad view.
Sadness or happiness is in the eye of the beholder aka the being which holds onto a suggested view, while ignoring visual perception made possible as temporal growth during divine loss. In other words...your sadness aims at outcome, while being able to view is generated by origin. You're beholding outcome (artificial) over origin (natural), hence inverting (turning) from living towards dying.
The lake of fire is not on this earth.
a) Lake (inception towards death) of fire (life)...hence not "earth", but "hearth/heart" aka fireplace aka spark of life.
b) Can you describe the placement of "not" in relation to earth?
People go to their destiny AFTER death.
If "before" implies forwarded (inception towards death) being (life), then "after" implies aft/æftan - "from behind"...not destination, but origin. If before and after tempt one to ask "before or after what?", then one lacks self discernment as being forwarded from behind.
Suggested pluralism (people) tempts each singular one consenting to it to ignore self discernment. Nature doesn't generate "people", but each person aka per sonos (by sound) insane aka in sanus (within sound).
"We the people" implies suggested collectivism by few to amass many together, while speaking in the name of the collective.
"Also...ignoring perceivable for suggested implies the making of "graven" images aka idols/ideals."...Why? how is this related?
Perceivable generating perception implies "separation"...consenting to suggested implies "relation". What others are suggesting are IDEALS; ones consent holding onto shapes them into IDOLS. Holding onto puts ones "free" will of choice into the grave aka digging into the foundation (perceivable sound) to bury a dead body aka corpus oration (suggested words).
Okay, BELIEVED by some. I don't mean taken as in, someone grabbed hell and put it in a bag!!
Meaning implies ideal taken into memory as idol, hence grabbed (consented) and bagged (memorized). It's holding suggested information within memory, which hell/kel - "to cover" aka conceals perceivable inspiration from one. That concealment implies ones ignorance/denial...not towards one another, but within all.
You can avoid circular reasoning by logic and rebutting.
a) One (living) cannot avoid all (dying)...few utilize suggested information to establish a "void" within the mind of consenting many, who in return deny everything perceivable for suggested "nothing" (nihil-ism). This practice of shaping a void within another represents the making of a goyim/golem... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golem The master of such a golem is a kike/kikel - "circle" aka circular logic mastering the slave encircled within a void mind. A void mind filled to the brim with nothing... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQnaRtNMGMI
b) Logic doesn't avoid; it invites logos (suggested words) which binds the letter (free will of choice) to the shaper of crafted spells. God implies sound moving instruments apart; logos/logic/reason tempts instruments to shape words together...an inversion. Sound/sanus - "entire; whole; all" cannot be rebutted by anyone within.
No, the lake of fire is a place the unSaved go, after death, to face the outcome of their bad choice.
A suggestion build on the foundation of nihil-ism (nihilo; nothing), while ignoring everything (perceivable) moving each thing (perception) apart from one another.
Instead of reasoning against others about descriptions of things outside of oneself...how about utilizing implication (if/then) from within oneself? If lake, then formed within flow. If of; then out of and into. If fire, then heat within cold.
If oneself, then...formed (life) within flow (inception towards death); of action (balance) into reaction (choice); as heat (living) within cold (dying). Where is the conflict? Where are the sides to choose to hold onto? Where's the contradiction of motion in this straight line of thinking? Where's the circle?
No it doesn't.
Can you describe the origin of nothing (no) and doing nothing (does not)? And while you're at it...how can "it" be genderless within father time (he) and mother nature (she)?
People living all alone isolated from other people believe things, too.
a) Alone implies one and only..."people" contradicts that. All(in)one implies that there can be only one (whole) for each one (partial) within.
b) Believing things implies holding onto within mind/memory...how does one do that without words suggested by another to hold onto? What could memory hold onto without artificially labeling what nature moves through? Can you give me an example of a belief shaped without influence by another, and what shape one holds onto while believing it?
c) Iso implies "equal"; being implies differentiated from one another. One cannot perceive iso/equi/equal, because all perceivable moves each ones perception apart from one another, which allows each ones perception of perceivable differences. It's once again a jew who suggests mosaic law to tempt gentiles to put the pieces back together aka tikkun olam (repairing the world by bringing together) aka equality through diversity etc. A jew tempts gentiles to artificially "puzzle" together what nature sets apart, which also represents the foundation of applying words onto sound, and the attempt to accumulate information, while ignoring the flow of inspiration.
Versus/verto - "to turn", hence turning bad and good against one another, no matter which side one chooses.
Example: water vs wine represents want vs not want, while ignoring need...thirst.
Indeed, hence the fucking issue of constant miscommunication, and the attempts of breaking words apart. The issue...suggested words tempt one to ignore perceivable sound. Like for example the words "insane person" tempting one to ignore being in sanus (within sound) and per sonos (by sound).
Sound moves and cannot be held onto...words are shaped within sound, while tempting one to hold onto definition, which shapes one into a DEAF PHONETICIAN.
To believe implies holding onto something suggested, which in return contradicts ones perception of all perceivable moving through one. Dictate/deik (to show) implies what others are showing (suggesting) for one to behold (consenting).
The phrase "the show must go on" refers to nature continuing to move, while one beholds what others are showing.
Should vs shouldn't...another conflict of reason based on ones circular thinking. Others suggesting either side contradicts ones FREE will of choice...if one consents. Nature doesn't suggest what one should or shouldn't...it generates free will of choice, while forcing adaptation (life) to balance (inception/death).
What do you think differentiates everything into each thing, while supplying the potential to shape speech within sound? Energy implies the cause for each effect within
Collective consciousness; mental coalescence; group think; universal mind; egregore; gestalt psychology; students under teacher; followers under leader; many under few; slaves under master; commonwealth (gentiles) under sovereign (jew) etc.
Sound separates into each instrument aka mind (ment) structured (stru) within (in)...words suggested by few tempt many to think alike, hence utilizing words as the common denominator for communication.
Nature doesn't make common (together)...it generates unique units apart from one another.
About free-will-of-choice...Post Score (0) Comment Score (13416). Nature already offers everything (perceivable) to each one (perception)...offering suggested posts to one another denies that.
Choice needs to adapt to balance, while resisting the temptation of each others suggested choices.
a) No/not/nothing implies suggested nihil-ism (nihilo; nothing) tempting ones de-nial of everything perceivable for suggested "nothing". The foundation of nothing is based on creatio ex nihilo... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatio_ex_nihilo
"Cause it's the deepest impulse of the jewish soul to pull at the very fabric of life until there's nothing left but a thread; they want nothing but nothingness; nothingness without end"... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRUjy1Dhx-k
b) If inception, then of life. If living, then while dying. If sentenced, then sentience. If sentence, then end of sentence, hence being send towards point.
Put a pen on paper; then draw a line. Starts with a point; ends with a point. Now notice that you're breathing while drawing, hence drawing in breath. Being able to do that implies ones susceptibility to sensation aka sentience during ones life sentence. Your mind tricks you to believe that putting a pen on paper starts with a point, when your life was already sentenced...
c)Seriously? You believe rebutting kills people?
Killing implies "taking" life...rebutting implies willingly "giving" up living by mutually attacking each other within a conflict of reason.
Example...boxing. Two boxers go into the ring; the one losing less is declared winner. It's loser vs loser, while ignoring that the winner is declared by a non-combative 3rd party. Now exchange boxing with rebutting each other within any conflict of reason...
Can you give me an example where reasoning ended the conflict? Like...yes vs no; true vs false; belief vs disbelief; love vs hate; rich vs poor; us vs them; me vs you; agree vs disagree; upvote vs downvote; left vs right; white vs black; soccer vs football; mcdonalds vs burger king; coke vs pepsi; old vs young etc. Which of those has mankind dissolved by reasoning?
The ACT in fact implies natures action, the FAC (factus) implies reactions within nature. Action cannot be held onto...reacting to one another tempts one to ignore that, which is why claiming a fact implies fiction.
The claim wasn't me describing a moving nature that cannot be held onto from the perspective of FREE will of choice, but your claim of I AM aka je suis (jesus).
Alive implies each one living (live) within all (al)...I AM implies one potential taking possession over self, while ignoring all procession. That also represents ones de-nial aka NAIL of being moved across aka A CROSS all.
a) Being implies living (temporary growth) within the process of dying (ongoing loss)...better vs worse reasoning implies growth turning against one another (want vs not want), while ignoring to resist (need) the temptation (want) of loss.
b) One cannot "do"...only respond to being (life) done (inception towards death) aka re-do life, while being done to death.
Nature moves all perceivable through each ones perception as "inspiration"...which one cannot hold onto, thereby save. Artifice implies suggested "information" tempting ones consent to hold onto it, thereby saving it within mind/memory, which is what instigates circular thinking (logic) inwards, turning into conflicts of reason outwards. While consenting to artificial information; one ignores natural inspiration.
Words imply a synthesis aka letters shaped into words aka ones consent LETTING another shape words. Choice needs to resist the wanted temptation of suggested choices, because choosing another choice shirks ones response-ability onto another, hence inverting ONES CHOICE into a CHOSEN ONES suggestion.
a) FREE will of choice cannot "own", since it implies potential (temporary growth) set free within procession (ongoing loss). To own implies spending potential to take into possession, while ignoring that procession draws any potential spend. Form within flow cannot hold onto anything without diminishing each other.
b) Ideas, concepts, beliefs imply holding within self what others suggested one to take...that's poison injected by ones consent as the vector. It's the holding onto which establishes circular logic, and the resulting conflict of reason (confirm vs rebut) turning one against others.
Idealism suggested implies a temptation for ones consent to idolatry. Conceptualism tempts artificial concipere (taking together), while distracting from nature "giving apart". Belief aka being (be) carrying/desirous (lief/leubh) implies wanting to obtain and carrying along aka the temptation of sin.
Which conflict of reason have you grown out of?
Now translate this to everything else...one cannot hold onto without letting go; hence wanting to hold onto tempting one to ignore needing to let go of. If this seems profound and obvious to you, then why defend holding onto "ideas, concepts, beliefs"? While you think about this...try holding onto your breath.
a) That which nurtues (ure) natives (nat) aka whole nurturing each native partial within aka action nurturing native reactions aka flow (inception towards death) nurturing native form (life) etc. Why? Because if cause then being, hence action causing being to come into effect.
b) Attribution of things implies everything (nurturing action) bestow each thing (native reaction) aka external attributing internal aka everything moving attributing matter to each thing being moved.
c) Plant/plat - "to spread" aka the spreading of all (whole) into each one (partial) aka separation from one another.
d) Animal/anima/ane - "to breathe" aka animation forcing animated matter (life) to inhale (inception) and exhale (death) aka inhaling spirit (temporary growth), while exhaling ghost (ongoing loss).
e) Being alive implies in-between entrance (inception) and exit (death), hence movable barrier aka door...re DO'OR die.
Sadness or happiness is in the eye of the beholder aka the being which holds onto a suggested view, while ignoring visual perception made possible as temporal growth during divine loss. In other words...your sadness aims at outcome, while being able to view is generated by origin. You're beholding outcome (artificial) over origin (natural), hence inverting (turning) from living towards dying.
a) Lake (inception towards death) of fire (life)...hence not "earth", but "hearth/heart" aka fireplace aka spark of life.
Sleight of hand: "Deep inside; The pressure's high; Just to stay alive; Cause the heat is on"... https://genius.com/Glenn-frey-the-heat-is-on-lyrics
b) Can you describe the placement of "not" in relation to earth?
If "before" implies forwarded (inception towards death) being (life), then "after" implies aft/æftan - "from behind"...not destination, but origin. If before and after tempt one to ask "before or after what?", then one lacks self discernment as being forwarded from behind.
Suggested pluralism (people) tempts each singular one consenting to it to ignore self discernment. Nature doesn't generate "people", but each person aka per sonos (by sound) insane aka in sanus (within sound).
"We the people" implies suggested collectivism by few to amass many together, while speaking in the name of the collective.
Perceivable generating perception implies "separation"...consenting to suggested implies "relation". What others are suggesting are IDEALS; ones consent holding onto shapes them into IDOLS. Holding onto puts ones "free" will of choice into the grave aka digging into the foundation (perceivable sound) to bury a dead body aka corpus oration (suggested words).
Meaning implies ideal taken into memory as idol, hence grabbed (consented) and bagged (memorized). It's holding suggested information within memory, which hell/kel - "to cover" aka conceals perceivable inspiration from one. That concealment implies ones ignorance/denial...not towards one another, but within all.
a) One (living) cannot avoid all (dying)...few utilize suggested information to establish a "void" within the mind of consenting many, who in return deny everything perceivable for suggested "nothing" (nihil-ism). This practice of shaping a void within another represents the making of a goyim/golem... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golem The master of such a golem is a kike/kikel - "circle" aka circular logic mastering the slave encircled within a void mind. A void mind filled to the brim with nothing... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQnaRtNMGMI
b) Logic doesn't avoid; it invites logos (suggested words) which binds the letter (free will of choice) to the shaper of crafted spells. God implies sound moving instruments apart; logos/logic/reason tempts instruments to shape words together...an inversion. Sound/sanus - "entire; whole; all" cannot be rebutted by anyone within.
A suggestion build on the foundation of nihil-ism (nihilo; nothing), while ignoring everything (perceivable) moving each thing (perception) apart from one another.
Instead of reasoning against others about descriptions of things outside of oneself...how about utilizing implication (if/then) from within oneself? If lake, then formed within flow. If of; then out of and into. If fire, then heat within cold.
If oneself, then...formed (life) within flow (inception towards death); of action (balance) into reaction (choice); as heat (living) within cold (dying). Where is the conflict? Where are the sides to choose to hold onto? Where's the contradiction of motion in this straight line of thinking? Where's the circle?
Can you describe the origin of nothing (no) and doing nothing (does not)? And while you're at it...how can "it" be genderless within father time (he) and mother nature (she)?
a) Alone implies one and only..."people" contradicts that. All(in)one implies that there can be only one (whole) for each one (partial) within.
b) Believing things implies holding onto within mind/memory...how does one do that without words suggested by another to hold onto? What could memory hold onto without artificially labeling what nature moves through? Can you give me an example of a belief shaped without influence by another, and what shape one holds onto while believing it?
c) Iso implies "equal"; being implies differentiated from one another. One cannot perceive iso/equi/equal, because all perceivable moves each ones perception apart from one another, which allows each ones perception of perceivable differences. It's once again a jew who suggests mosaic law to tempt gentiles to put the pieces back together aka tikkun olam (repairing the world by bringing together) aka equality through diversity etc. A jew tempts gentiles to artificially "puzzle" together what nature sets apart, which also represents the foundation of applying words onto sound, and the attempt to accumulate information, while ignoring the flow of inspiration.