Armillary sphere
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (37)
sorted by:
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.
a) Nature WAS perceivable before one can suggest what IS.
b) Only nature does...implication allows one to redo self; while reason tempts one to redo another in.
c) Well implies each ones will...as implies "as it where" aka as all was before each ones will comes into being.
The issue is using "as well as" to draw comparisons between implication and reason, while ignoring that reason draws together, while implication sets apart.
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.
To tempt other to utilize denial, hence putting a hold onto free will of choice. Everything sets each thing free...suggested nihil-ism tempts one de-nial of everything for nothing.
You put should vs shouldn't and true vs false before implication (if/then), then you put do vs don't in-between IF and THEN.
You used reasoning before and during implication.
Reason implies an artificial conflict contained within an implicating nature ignored. It's ones mind/memory reasoning which contains the suggested information by others, while ignoring perceivable inspiration moving through.
Which conflict has reason ever resolved? What if reason implies a mutual conflict among will aka a ring tempting choice contestants to destroy each other, while being declared winners or losers from outside the ring (logic)?
For example...if killing is good or bad, and reasoning can resolve that conflict, then why the continuance of killing on mass scale?
Or simpler...will boxing against each other ever dissolve the conflict of boxing?
a) What does a being reason with nature about? What could a partial being in conflict with whole about? How could effect be in conflict with cause?
b) If reason is natural; then what is artificial? What's the opposite of reason?
c) Because implies causing (inception towards death) being (life)...what's there to reason about?
The force of nature implies a separation of action into reaction aka of ongoing temptation into temporary resistance. The path (inception towards death) of least resistance (life) implies ones choice to ignore resisting, with ignorance implying the wanted temptation ones choice needs to resist.
If nature forces one, then why does one reason against other ones?
Hence forcing being into (in) breathing (spir) of action (ation)...force inspires adaptation, while tempting stagnation. It's on ones free will of choice to balance.
If inhale; then exhale, hence implying a passing through...not holding onto a side, while fighting the other within a conflict of reason.
Few suggest Star Wars where the "force" binds everything in the universe together...in reality everything forces each thing apart from one another to establish free will of choice. A simple inversion of reality with fiction, and many keep reasoning against each other over fiction, while ignoring reality.
You perceive what others suggest as questions or answers, while ignoring the implication of all perceivable giving each one perception by separation from one another.
I try to shape questions not to gain answers, but to steer any attempt to answer into a contradiction held onto by the one answering.
Free-will-of-choice adapts to perceivable ION instead of suggested QUEST aka need over want. If one reacts by choice, then nature acts balance upon one...any quest tempts away from choice, hence into imbalance.
It's taking possession over oneself as "me", which tempts one to ignore being send as potential (life) within procession (inception towards death).
For vs against implies artificial reasoning, which tempts one to ignore that nature forwards (inception towards death) a gain (life). If forwarded, then gaining momentum.
Noted. I grew up among the vulgate, so there's a potty mouth issue going on.
Do the living reason with the process of dying? If there's a conflict between living and dying, then how could it be resolved? What if the process of dying implies the foundation for the potential of living?
What comes first...nature generating one, or reasoning against one another?
What if many reasoning against each other view winning vs losing as growth, while ignoring that many in comparison to few seem to continue to lose civilizations; nations; cultures; races; languages; religions; lebensraum; wealth; homogeneity; trust; liberties; hope and so on over and over again?
If one reasons, then against one another. If one implicates, then while being forwarded as growth (life) during loss (inception towards death).
Another aspect to this...reason tempts both sides to fail, while failure inspires growth, yet only outside of reason, not within the confines thereof for the next round of failure.
a) Nature WAS before one came into being. Others suggest what IS to tempt ones natural perception to consent to artificial suggestion. It's consent holding onto suggested, which establishes artifice within nature.
b) Nature doesn't oppose artifice...beings within nature oppose each other over artifice by ignoring nature.
Putting anti before nature implies putting artificial before natural.
c) Holding onto synthesis (letters held together as words) establishes paralysis..analysis (letting go of what one holds onto by breaking it apart) allows revitalization, hence freeing oneself from self imposed burdens.
Example: suggested "insane person" tempts one to ignore perceivable in sanus (within sound) + per sonos (by sound)...those who ignore this will paralyze each other within a conflict of reason about being an insane person or not, while those who analyze it are allowed by sound to revitalize in-stru-ment, hence clearing up ones mind by letting the sound move through.