Armillary sphere
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (37)
sorted by:
You believe that you are correct. "Reasoning conflicts are circular" IMPLIES THAT YOU ARE ALREADY THINKING IN CIRCLES.
To obscure, obfuscate, and ARTIFICIALLY prop up their superflous word analysises. Instead of rebut and defend, you choose to tinker with words like a child first knowing abt language.
And then you believe things to be true that make it so that you never face the fact that your beliefs are not correct. That they are a scam.
Yes, a scam.
Your worldview is not based on "intellectual growth", but based on stupidity and constant denial.
Freewill of choice: "My word analyses are true because they are true. I can't give you anything though, only use circular reasoning. I criticize you for being circular all while i myself am circular."
To believe implies choosing to hold onto a suggestion by another, while ignoring that nature moves, and therefore cannot be held onto.
Using implication (if/then) over reason (correct vs incorrect) allows one to notice for example...in (within) cor (heart) rect/reg (to move in a straight line), hence life being moved from inception towards death.
Implication derives from motion...a circle implies a shape within motion. Holding onto shapes tempts one to ignore being (life) moved (inception towards death).
Holding onto implies by ones free will of choice...letting go implies nature forcing adaptation from being. Try holding your breath for a while until nature forces you to let go.
Words imply a synthesis between suggested word and consenting letter aka ones choice LETTING a chosen one shape words by suggestion. This represents spell-craft.
Being implies apart from one another aka analysis (life) during thesis (inception towards death).
a) Using implication (if/then) prevents ones free will of choice from entering a conflict of reason (vs).
b) Only withing balance (inception/death) can there be (life) choice...conflict implies imbalance for choice; no matter which sides ones chooses.
c) Confirm vs rebut and attack vs defend tempt both sides to consent to versus/verto - "to turn", hence turning against one another.
Only within sound can words be shaped. Few trick many with definitions to become DEAF PHONETICIANS aka deaf to phonics (sound).
Nature doesn't shape words...it moves instruments apart from one another within sound. Instruments implies "minds structured within" and sound/sanus implies "entire; whole; all"
Sound allows knowledge...words tempt understanding aka standing-under those who suggest the meaning of words.
a) Belief vs disbelief aka true vs false aka me vs you aka fact vs fiction aka correct vs incorrect...choosing either side binds ones free will of choice.
b) No/not/nothing is based on creatio ex nihilo... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatio_ex_nihilo and represents suggested nihil-ism (nihilo; nothing) tempting ones de-nial of perceivable for suggested.
Nothing isn't in conflict with everything...it's each things free will of choice to deny everything perceivable when consenting to suggested "nothing"... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQnaRtNMGMI
Yes vs no cheats oneself out of balance.
a) Mine vs yours tempts one to ignore that potential (life) during procession (inception towards death) cannot take into possession without destroying each other.
b) Nature WAS perceivable before each being within can suggest what it IS.
c) Not (nothing) implies the inversion of nature (everything).
Only during loss (inception towards death) can there be growth (life)...intellect/intelligo - "to understand" implies standing under one another, which suppresses growth.
Sleight of hand by Madonna: "express yourself; don't repress yourself...and I'm not sorry...it's human nature"
CON implies "together"...DE implies "divided; apart".
a) Free + will have to separated from one another; otherwise one couldn't be free from one another.
b) MY and TRUE tempt free will of choice to claim for self (my) while holding onto a side (true)...both of which bind free will of choice to others (you + false).
c) Analyzing the synthesis of words allows one to perceive the thesis of moving sound.
All (perceivable) was given to each one (perception)...giving and taking each others suggestions tempts one to ignore that.
Only nature gives (inception) and takes (death) from being (life).
Critic/krinein - "to separate"...https://www.etymonline.com/word/critic hence every ONE being a critic to ONE another.
If one chooses to claim self as "me; myself or I", then every other one becomes a YOU (phonetic jew).
You believe this statement is "CORRECT". This implies that u/free-will-of-choice is the one with circular reasoning. Not me.
If you did not, then why are you saying it? Is it TRUE? Or is it a guess?
If you show a contradiction; then I would rip apart what I said...since I'm not holding onto it. Implication allows one to adapt on the fly to inspiration; instead of reasoning against one another about the correctness vs incorrectness of believed information suggested by one another.
A circle represents a potential (matter) within an implied process (motion)...using implication to define (is circular) contradicts motion.
Why put nothing (not) before something (me) one holds onto?
I utilize sound to take apart what others are saying...others judge that from within a did vs didn't conflict of reason. Taking apart what others are saying makes it harder for others to hold onto any side within the confines of circular logic.
Then again...ignorance is bliss, and the path of least resistance implies the temptation to ignore resisting.
What does free-will-of-choice ignore? How is resisting admission and denial to remain free based on ignorance?
Neither a true vs false conflict of reason, nor guessing an outcome; but simply adaption to perceivable origin.
To know implies ones perception within all perceivable...guessing what suggested means tempts one to ignore that, while establishing conflicts of reason against others.
How about this...if the process of dying is true, then would living within be false, since living implies the opposite of dying?
What if living (growth) within the process of dying (loss) implicate each other, while reason (true vs false) corrupts ones self discernment with whatever another pulls out of his ass?
Artificial, anti-nature "instead of".
Nature implies "As well as".
The natural way is "inspiration AS WELL AS reasoning against one another". One can do "imply" and "reasoning".
You are already tempted by your worldview, to ignore resisting the temptation to believe that "reason and implication conflict." They don't.
u/free-will-of-choice ignores the natural, PERCIEVABLE knowledge that there is no conflict between implication and reason.
It is based on ignorance of the fact that resisting admission and denial is resisting nature. Resisting those two is resisting growth. People admit and deny things regularly, because nature makes them do that. Your resistance to nature (reason) implies that your worldview is artificial.
Just accept the NATURAL way of admission and denial.
Adapt to the percivable origin, then. It is PERCIEVABLE that Reasoning and Implication DON'T contradict. You have been TEMPTED into an ARTIFICIAL, ANTI-NATURE thing , reason and implication supposedly "contradicting".
Artificial tells you "Reason and implication contradict". Nature implies that those two don't.
Living within what or where?
Believing that "Reason and implication contradict." corrupts ones self discernment. Believing that "Reason corrupts." is what corrupts ones self discernment.
And reason is not in conflict with implication or word analysis.
a) Then why put NOTHING in-between reason and implication? What does nothing imply? If nothing, then...?
b) Hold your breath and reason about the true vs false of breathing? Will reasoning resolve the conflict before implication (if wanting to hold onto, then needing to let go) force one to adapt?
Does natural force give a flying fuck about the true or false reasoning of those forced (inception towards death) into being (life)?
Why put "nothing" in between "nothing" and "everything"?
"I should breathe" is TRUE. IF i don't breathe THEN i get goned. I'M USING IF/THEN!! This IMPLIES that Reason and Implication DON'T conflict.
It does. It will resolve the conflict. Because reason is natural. Nature forces one to reason. Nature forces one to breathe.
See? You are questioning me. Sending me on a quest. Both reason and implication imply that your word analysis is AGAINST NATURE. Artifical.
It is natural for one to reason. Reasoning grows oneself. It is artifical and anti-nature to use word analysis.