Im not here to preach, but I do have thoughts on the subject. I’ll probably add some as time goes on, but what are your thoughts? I see a wide array across the different forums here, and I wonder if open discussion can bring us all any closer to Truth, Love, Beauty, Peace, and everything else our souls desire/require.
Please, speak as generally or as autistically hyper-focused as you want
I think All did that to allow choice - generally speaking, and [specifically, ultimately, and fundamentally,] the choice between seeking, or rejecting, re-union
Living naturally, these rightly align - would you agree? The issue for us, millenia removed from nature, seems to be this process of analysis you mention, and ultimately a choice (or perhaps more accurately, procession of choices from inception to death) to be made, no?
Hey, autists rise up - I think these existential questions are made painfully… important for them/us/you/me and the like. I see it as a broad pattern of behaviors - The kids who physically can’t function are something different, and I think it’s a crazy conspiracy that the two have been conflated, 50 years ago perhaps we’d be talking about “hermits” and “retards”… idk, that’s the shitty (?) part about using language to communicate, not only is “it” ever-shifting, but everyone has their own personal definitions for words. We choose to struggle to communicate, because, I believe, we recognize the alternative as far worse
Allow aka "all lowering" each one within. Dis-al-low implies the division of each one lowered within all.
Allow and disallow are not in conflict with one another...others suggest allow vs disallow to tempt ones choice into a conflict against one another.
a) Seeking implies suggested outcome...finding/found/foundation implies perceivable origin. "seek an ye shall find" tempts one to ignore that only within foundation can one seek outcomes.
It's also seeking which tempts one to ignore singularity (foundation) for plurality (outcomes aka all the stuff one has and hasn't found yet).
b) Re (to respond) ject (to throw)...being implies thrown (inception towards death) response (life).
c) Reunion implies each ones (uni) response (re) within action (ion)...not the coming together with one another as suggested by others as for example reunion celebrations.
Where's the self reflection in reuniting with others?
These implies plural...ones want within oneness of need implies singularity. It's your plural view, which contradicts alignment aka thinking straight. Instead you think circular (agree vs disagree) aka versus/vers - "to turn".
How could a turn be rightly aligned? Using implication (if/then) instead of reason (vs) realigns oneself to all, because it prevents one from turning against one another.
Millennia implies measurement taken aka a synthesis. Nature cannot be taken from...it moves (inception towards death) response (life) apart during an analytical process.
One cannot perceive a millennia...it's a suggested span (distance between two objects).
Since when is choice an aim (ultimate)? It's the response to being directed. Others utilize suggestions to tempt ones choice to aim consent at it.
Consent implies shooting blanks...it makes choice infertile by inverting it into chance.
One process (inception towards death) for each ones potential choice (life) within..."choices" implies ones choice consenting to suggested pluralism aka potential taking into possession.
How does one express potential when possession represses?
Question (a quest towards outcome) and answers (from others) tempt one to ignore solution (being dissolved within action). The pain represents the ignorance one feels when gaining answers to questions. No pain; no gain.
Suggested answers amount to nothing/nihilo (ones denial of perceivable) and any quest moves life towards death.
Aren't them, us, you and me different from one another? If one consent to the suggested labels them, us, you, and me, then does that shape alike consensus?
How many define self as them, us, you or me? How come that only oneself can see through that deception?
How could one (potential) within all (process) be me/mine (possession)?
Aka isolating the ones (jew) who don't fit the sum (gentiles)...nature isolates; artifice summates.
a) Definition aka deaf phonetician (deaf to sound) implies each ones choice to hold onto words, while ignoring that sound moves, and cannot be held onto. This ignorance permits others to shapeshift letters into words.
Letter implies one who LETS another shape words...
Shift implies each shifting choice within linear progression of all balance...the issue is shifting to hold onto one side over the other, while ignoring the process of separation.
b) Ones "parts with shit" during a process unless shaping a temporary congestion like as if by holding onto words that continue to lose their definitions.
Analysis sets apart; synthesis holds together...that's why others throw shit if one takes their definitions apart. It's like not wanting to let go, but simultaneously having too much already and so the projection begins.
TO implies towards aka to (inception towards death) ward (life)...living implies as warden within process of dying.
COM (together) contradicts UNI (apart from one another)...what could one communicate to another one, that all hasn't already set apart from one another?
Notice together (intercourse) apart (off-spring) implying a choice of needing let go during the temptation of wanting to hold onto. That's implies analysis of natural comm-unic-ation...it doesn't require me to communicate it to you as a synthesis, yet only oneself can discern the distinction between analysis (perception within perceivable) and synthesis (consenting to suggested).
Ones choice to posses self (I); hold onto (believe) and join others (we) increases ones struggle to sustain self apart from one another within all.
Letting go of COM (I; believe; we) allows UNION aka ones discernment about being a unit (uni) within all (ion).
If one joins we, then how could one alternate from one another? Recognize that contradiction....
If you had to say something of value, you would've made a post.
But your account is active to comment for 4 years, and you posted nothing...
So clearly, not even you believe in what you type... So stay quiet.
Station identification, the user you speak to has explained, in so many words, that he doesn't post because it's initiating, but he does comment because it's interaction. Finding the contradiction(s) in his walls of text is quite the labyrinth, and I perhaps defaulted on my attempt. When speaking about him I'm reminded to watch words carefully, but for now I'll just use what words flow, and see what happens about it if anything.
It's a topic about contribution.
If a user cannot contribute with a post, but brings these nonsensical comments, then they should be out of here, until they learn to communicate properly and contribute.
If you're going to defend the most obvious AI chatbot in here, then I suggest you bring your big guns, because I'm definitely bringing mine.