assuming we all believe the same things
Beliefs tempts differences to assume likeness while ignoring sameness of origin.
how forums are supposed to work
Forum/foras - "outside" aka a public gathering outside the private realm of insight.
Why are we allowing...
Allowance implies all of nature validating each being within by admission...few distract from that by tempting many to seek allowance from representatives among other beings.
As long as one seeks allowance from another, so long does one deny being given free will of choice as allowance within nature. What's the opposite of allowance? Denial...
half of
What halfs a being? Choosing a side...
half of people don't maintain an internal logic
What's logic based upon? Choosing a side...
Force (inception towards death) inspires diversity (life) to resist mixing...few mix many together to throw inspiration into confusion.
Cognitive dissonance is the mental stress
CO(gnitive) implies together; DIS(sonance) implies apart...artificially putting together what nature sets apart establishes stress/stringere - "to draw tight".
something that made you hold your belief even more?
Odds. Believing implies holding onto odds to achieve even. That's gambling.
One of the things I pitched overboard was the idea that everyone else was like me.
a) The CON in consciousness implies likeness; the SCIOUS in consciousness implies difference. It's putting con + scious together which corrupts natural difference with artificial likeness.
b) Ideas can only be shaped onboard as suggestible information held within memory. Overboard implies into the ocean of perceivable inspiration...which cannot be held onto by a vessel navigating within it.
I believe this phenomenon is related to one called "egosyntonicity"
Ego implies mind holding self within possession, while ignoring the potential of expressing self. Freud and his ilk shape an outside consensus to gain access to the possessive memory (ego). This access is being given by willing belief aka by ones free will of choice holding onto a physical idol or mental ideal.
The SYN in egosyntonicity refers to the consensus within others; while the EGO in egosyntonicity refers to ones own mind holding onto the idea of consensus.
It's consenting to suggested idealism which establishes a consensus aka a relation, which makes any idealistic thought relative aka Einsteins relativism. Freud then uses psychoanalysis upon the synthetic relations of ideas...which those holding onto ideas cannot perceive.
the functioning of a certain type of human consciousness.
To ascertain (affix) any type (form) contradicts its function within flow, while shaping a CONsciousness. Form can only function within flow while apart from one another.
The basic idea is...
The base was before any idea can be shaped.
rationality vanishes when the conclusion threatens to kick your ego right in the nuts.
The ION within conclusion represents nature moving on...to conclude implies a being shutting (clude) itself off from nature by artificially joining together (con) with others.
Rationality implies beings artificially reasoning against one another by joining together, while ignoring that nature sets each being apart from one another.
Nature doesn't vanish if a being chooses to ignore it for artifice; yet artifice tricks a being to believe that nature vanishes...if held onto, hence the need to let go aka pitch overboard.
a belief that contradicts
There has to be first a division between that which can be believed and the being enabled to believe...it's believing which contradicts division.
Belief perseverance aka conceptual conservatism
If nature divides each being within from one another, then perseverance cannot be shared. Few suggest many that perseverance can be shared, which establishes a mental concept called "consensus", which represents the -ism within conservatism.
Joining a consensus by giving consent to a suggested -ism represents believing. It's ones belief which is being conserved within a conceptual consensus with others, thereby tricking each member to believe in the perseverance of the sum....no matter how many members get destroyed while trying to hold the consensus together.
How Do We Get Rid of Poor People AS A WHOLE?
a) Within whole...a partial cannot be poor unless ignoring whole. The etymology of poor/pere - "to produce" implies whole producing partial.
Rich on the other hand comes from the root of reg - "to move within a straight line", which implies whole moving each produced partial (life) within a straight line (inception towards death).
In nature there's no circular conflict in-between rich vs poor...only the production (poor) of each being within a straight line (rich).
b) Rid/reudh - "to clear; save; set free"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/rid Nature gets rid (inception towards death) of being (life).
c) A people cannot be whole...only a sum of partials within whole. It's person aka per sonos (by sound) which implicates sound/sanus - "entire; whole; all" for each particular mind structured within (in-stru-ment).
TheMafia blocking free-will-of-choice...
everything is fake narrative
To narrate implies "relating particulars" aka carrying parts together. Nature doesn't narrate...it particulates being.
Narration represents fake; particularization implies real. That's how a jew controls the narrative by artificially narrating nature to gentiles.
win
Tempting two losers to fight each other, then declaring one the winner over the other, while distracting both from having lost by fighting...that's how winning works.
Head or tails? Betting on either pledges ones choice to the coin maker, and coin/cuneus - "a wedge" implies a jew wedging itself in-between conflicting gentiles.
I bet
That's gambling aka giving up choice by taking chance aka forfeiting choice as a pledge to another.
never
Aka NOTHING (n) EVERYTHING (ever)...a contradiction in terms.
camping
- Camp now..."open field, level space"
- Camp before... "contest, battle, fight, war"
The meaning of "camp" was changed in the 15c... https://www.etymonline.com/word/camp
As free will of choice one operates within an open field, level space, while needing to resist the wanted temptation of contests, battles, fights, and wars.
Anyway...I'm an early bird, so camping with others was mostly me being busy out in the woods, while the rest was snoring in their tents. Even on schooltrips I got reprimanded for sitting at the lake fishing instead of being at camp for head count.
People attach meaning to words.
a) A person uses free will of choice to attach self (singular) to a people (plural)...attachment restricts free will of choice. Few suggest artificial pluralism to distract many from natural singularity.
There can be only one.
b) Attaching implies synthesis (putting together)...to put anything together requires each thing to be divided apart (analysis) from one another.
Few invert natural analysis with artificial synthesis to shape attachment among many called "consensus".
c) Meaning implies a measure taken by ones mind from what the mind of another suggested. Being implies all perceivable moving through each ones perception...a being cannot hold onto perceivable without ignoring that all moves.
Meaning implies possession...being implies potential within procession. Few suggest meaning to burden the potential of many with possession.
d) Sound generates in-stru-ment (mind structured within)...only after that can an instrument shape a word, which represents spell-craft.
Words are shaped by LETTERS aka by ones choice LETTING a chosen one shape words. You represent the letter of any word others are shaping for you to use for communication.
Sound cannot be described by words without distracting instrument (perception) from natural (perceivable) with artificial (suggested).
Nature divides being...few suggest words to distract many from division with labels attached to mind.
Heidegger
a) DASEIN aka DA (there) SEIN (being) implies a beings perception of perceivable differentiation from one another as here (me) and there (you).
The issue...if a being labels "here" and "there", then it ignores the ongoing motion which divides each temporary being from one another.
If motion implies singularity, then each single unit of matter within cannot be "here" or "there"....only in-between aka as above/so below.
From a different perspective...if form (life) within flow (inception towards death), then simultaneous perception of living/dying from in-between. If ones mind attaches "here" to living and "there" to dying, then one mentally ignores physical procession.
b) "Heidegger's magnum opus, Being and Time (1927), is widely considered one of the most significant works of modern philosophy."
"This question (of being), he believed, had been neglected or obscured throughout the history of Western philosophy"
Who defines his work as significant philosophy, while ignoring him describing philosophy as neglected and obscured? Where does the signal come from...perceivable or suggested?
Heidegger or something
Heidegger's DASEIN implies one thing (sein) among (da) another thing (dort)...a separation from one another. Something aka "sum of things" implies a unification together.
Few suggest unification (synthesis) to distract many from separation (analysis).
This is extremely borish.
IS implies versus ISN'T...that conflict of reason represents mental confinement. You holding onto one extreme while fighting the other...makes whatever I describe from outside seem borish.
FREE will of choice will be perceived as uncultivated by a mind bound to extremes. Why does analyzing this doesn't feel borish to me?
Which AI can adapt to perceivable inspiration on the fly? AI is based on regurgitating suggested information to tempt users to ignore adaptation.
There's two definitions of "necessary."
Definition implies division (de) of finite (finit) within action (ion) aka division of finite (life) within action (inception towards death).
What's the opposite of necessary? Dispensable aka necessity (inception towards death) enabling division (life) aka the necessary process of dying making each life within dispensable.
tl;dr...There can be only one need (nature) for any want (being) within.
One delineates a requirement the other an inevitability
Delineation implies from origin towards outcome aka linear motion. Requirement implies the inquiring mind responding to being (life) moved from origin (inception) towards outcome (death).
Inevitability implies outcome orientation by ones inquiring mind, while ignoring origin. Inevitability implies avoidance of response-ability aka ignoring origin for outcome.
Avoidance tempts one into confrontation against another, hence into a circular conflict (confront vs avoid) while ignoring linear delineation (inception towards death) of being (life).
You're sort of waffling between the two,
Choice (life) operates IN-BETWEEN balance (inception/death)...inclining to one of two sides imbalances choice.
Notice that while alive...one cannot perceive ones inception or death. Nature offers SIGHT...few suggest SIDE to tempt many to lose former within conflict for latter.
a distinction between the two.
Distinction implies apart from ONE another...two implies ONE ignoring apartheid by counting together ONE + ONE.
How does nature inspire being to count together? How could a being count together without nature setting apart first?
I forced your hand and picked one.
Manually (manus; hand) picked one by choice. Only within balance can there be choice, and only the force of motion generates balance (momentum) for choice (matter).
There's a natural force dividing each being from one another, before a being can choose to artificially force each others hand.
the person you were responding to was using that form
Person aka per sonos (by sound) implies flowing sound forming instrument (mind structured within).
I try to describe how nature works...you describe artificial responses among beings within nature.
What if
Implication (if/then) implies delineation. Reason (vs) implies circular confinement...if one chooses a side.
Deepak Chopra
Any influencer suggesting information distracts form (life) from flow (inception towards death). Holding onto any suggested information (form) distorts perceivable inspiration (flow).
Free will of choice needs to resist the wanted temptation to hold onto suggested information; definition; meaning; denotation; explanation; interpretation; connotation; illustration; translation; terminology; semantics; exegesis etc.
Why? Because holding onto binds free will of choice.
If you see a child rapist, they need to die
That's your measuring mind establishing a conflict of reason aka want (child) vs not want (rapist), while ignoring that within nature ...you; me; the child and the rapist need to die. Why?
it becomes necessary to remove
What if coming into being (be-come) and responding to be moved (re-move) necessitates motion?
What if coming into being (life) implies being removed (inception towards death)?
die unnecessarily
What's the necessity of dying?
It would cause a humanitarian crisis
a) Few suggest humanitarianism to distract many from being effect within cause by affection for one another.
b) Crisis implies a "turning point"...being implies delineation of life from inception towards point of death. Few suggest crisis-actors to shape turning points within the minds of many, like Turning Point USA for example.
if every...were destroyed
Flow (inception towards death) destroys any form (life) structured within. Few use destruction to make many afraid by tempting them to hold onto structures...physically (idols) and mentally (ideals).
Whatever is being destroyed...nature works as always. Structures merely represent shapes formed within flow aka transitory existence.
The US could certainly
Certain implies "affixed"...uniting states together tricks ones perception into certainty about a suggestion. Nature divides each state of being.
the bombing of Iran
Shifting the "center of world trade" from west to east...requires eyes on the east to distract the west.
A cover up and a pay off
Using free will of choice to pay...covers "free" will of choice under a payment aka debt.
jews in government today are the same
Only nature implies same; each being within implies difference. Gentiles are being tempted to respond alike which in return permits each jew to sustain apartheid.
A jew can only weave a cover to control the minds of gentiles if a gentile willingly accepts payment. It's this alike acceptance aka consensus, which mimics sameness and thereby feels like sameness to a gentile.
this story has circulated among the jews
a) Nature delineates being...a jew shapes stories to encircle gentiles mentally (logic) and physically (reason).
b) There's no "among the jews"...only each jew among (in the midst of) gentiles.
it (lust) certainly is one of the most powerful forces
Being implies choice; lust implies inclination. Choosing to incline tempts being off-center. That being said...most vs less implies inclination by choice.
knowledge was the one chosen to 'tempt'...
...tempt to be taken by given choice.
It happens as a cycle.
Happen implies "coming to pass by chance". Chance implies "taken by given choice".
What if choice was given during delineation, while taking a chance shapes a circle?
always inverting
There's only one way for each one within. Coming into being as one within all implies exterior (motion) delineating (momentum) interior (matter).
Interior holding onto exterior shapes a circle (vert) within (in) a line.
invert the meaning
Meaning implies "to measure". If one takes a measurement, then one inverts the measurable given. Notice that while alive...one cannot measure the length in-between ones inception and death.
cards
What's a card? A chart to navi (ship) gate (to move). What's a deck? A covering extending from side to side over part of a ship.
If motion (sea) > momentum (side to side) > matter (ship) then what does drawing a card from a deck imply for the navigator?
tarot
Instead of drawing cards from a deck...how about tarot/taraha (he rejected, put aside) or horah (he taught, showed) or torah (instruction)?
Tarot/torah...
The MASS of men lead lives of quiet desperation + MOST of the world is either asleep or dead
Nature doesn't amass (mass) or amount (most)...it fractions whole into partial.
The religious PEOPLE are, for the MOST part, asleep.
Religion aka religio (to bind anew) implies artificially binding together what nature sets free from one another. To enter religion requires ones free will of choice to join a chosen ones offer...thereby establishing the bondage.
not know
Not implies ones willing de-nial (nihilo; nothing) of everything known.
the instinctive pull of the transcendent. It’s an old observation.
a) Instinct implies within distinction from one another during transference, hence being (life) pushed (inception) and pulled (death) apart from one another.
b) Choosing to hold onto a side (old or new) during transference tempts one ob (towards) serve (servitude) to another.
The saints were the ones
The words "saints" and "ones" imply plurality...the implication of saint/sanctus (holy; whole) and one (one and only) implies singularity.
Few shape words to trick many into using them to lure each other's awareness to sleep by describing reality (sound) by artificial (words) means.
Consenting to a suggestion implies mental fusion, hence religion/religo - "to bind anew".
Disorder implies the division (life) of natural order (inception towards death).