- INSU'RE, verb - "to ensure a person against loss"
a) as growth (life) within loss (inception towards death) one a) cannot be ensured without ignoring ones position and b) ones choice implies INDIF'FERENT, adjective [Latin indifferens.] - "neutral; not inclined to one side", hence within balance.
b) suggested INSURANCE (ensured against loss) COMPANY (united)...tempts one to ignore perceivable loss (process of dying) divides perceiving growth (living) into units (ones)...
Edit: a bomb implies explosion of whole into partial...what if that already happened to each one (life) within all (inception towards death)?
What if whole (process of dying) puts itself apart (inception) and back together (death) internally/inherently? What if the few tempt the many together with the fear of "exploding apart", which in return allows the few to sustain apartheid, while surrounded by the many?
Do those utilizing "diaspora" seem to be afraid of apartheid?
Another picture of a tweet?
a) could one see more underneath the suggestions of others? Could one express growth within self by channeling from underneath whatever others are suggesting?
b) if a picture represents a captured moment, then how could one utilize ongoing momentum?
you deserve
If DESERVE, verb - "to merit; to be worthy of; applied to good or evil", then is there merit outside the good vs evil conflict? What merit does a conflict represent?
low quality that you bring in here
a) what if low vs high represents ones suggestion upon perceivable quality? What about inherent/internal quality before suggestions are made upon it?
b) if life moves from inception toward death; then what brought life into motion? How could anyone within motion bring anything else into it?
I wish you had the capacity
a) what if ones want (wish) for suggested outcomes tempts one to ignore perceivable origin?
b) if reality contains everything within, then how could those within have capacity issues?
a picture of nothing...
Can one capture the moment of nothing, and if nothing is within motion to be captured, then how could it be nothing? What's the origin of nothing...perception or suggestion?
I wish you were gone from here, for real.
If one exists within a balance based system (choice in-between need/want balance), then what happens if one tries to get rid of what one doesn't want? Are 109 attempts to get rid off enough for one to question the consequences...
useful
What if only those (partial) within full (whole) can have the choice to use?
more anger
Sleight of hand: "I'm madly in anger with you...St. Anger around my neck". What if anger represents one choice to strangle self by blaming others for the consequences of ones choices?
that's the truth
What if true (want) vs false (not want) tempts one to ignore change (need)? Can you tell me something that is "truth" which nature doesn't change?
Your choice.
Can a reaction (choice) within enacting (balance) ever be yours?
a) ones ignorance of perceivable for suggested represents the protection (cover) for those suggesting.
b) suggested distracts from perceivable...blaming the distraction still represents ones consent to it.
That is all it ever was.
All (perceivable) was before anyone within can suggest to one another what it "is"...
TPTB must have
a) being implies as power of growth (life) within power of loss (inception towards death)...growing implies resisting (need) temptation (want) of loss.
b) "the" implies suggested THE-ism, while "that" implies a designated specification as suggested by others. Nature doesn't designate this or that...it designates each unit (one) as partial within whole.
c) HAVE, verb - "to posses; to hold in possession or power"...if one represents power of resistance, then one cannot posses/hold it; only resist loosing it by growing it, hence only resisting grows resistance, while only within loss can one grow.
must have a hell of a laugh
Does a clown laugh about his audience in secret with other clowns or does he masquerade drama underneath comedy to mock those who represent dramatized ignorance, while laughing about others?
From a different perspective...is it really: "look at how dumb they are" or could it be a voice behind a giant mirror going: "look at how dumb you are"?
compiled by averages
a) AV'ERAGE, noun - "a contribution to a general loss"...what does growth (life) contribute to loss (inception towards death)?
b) what if loss distributes (inception) and compiles (death) growth (life)?
c) what if consent of many to suggested money represents average (contribution to loss), which in return allows suggesting few to compile (collect) ?
Seemingly it conflicts with other data
a) how does nature appear (seem)...as perceivable or as suggested? If both, then as which one first?
b) how does nature communicate data (things given)...as perceivable inspiration or as suggested information? If both, then how does nature make suggestions?
c) was there a conflict in perceivable nature before oneself chose a suggested side? If so, then which conflict?
d) what generates "other" and where can other be generated? If energy represents one, then what represents other?
e) what comes first...being "with" others or being "within" nature?
IN (within) FERTILE (able to produce abundantly), hence living (growth) within the process of dying (loss) aka produced potential within generating abundance.
Consenting to suggested -ITY (quality of being) tempts one to ignore being (evaluation) within quality (value).
WHO
a) ORGAN (instrument) -ATION (through action)...if the ongoing action represents sound, then the temporary reaction within implies resonance (need) or dissonance (want) by ones instrumental choice.
b) if perceivable sound represents health, then the perceiving instrument within struggles to remain healthy (resonance) while being tempted with sickness (dissonance).
c) if HEALTH (process of dying) then ORGAN (living)...if perceiving organ ignores perceivable health for suggested "healthcare" by others, then organ failure and sickness.
a) LGBT aka LESBIAN (lets be) GAY (happy) BI (to) TRANS (cross)...from inception towards death; hence while being alive.
b) revelation 9-11...REVEAL (to make known) -TION (through action), hence action (perceivable) towards reaction (perceiving).
a) showing the human underneath the animal, while dehumanizing with artificial...
b) the few suggested bigfoot and the many consented to reason about its existence for over half a century. Now the many are consenting to artificial suggestion (AI); while being kept within the ongoing conflict of reason, without discernment about being domesticated by suggestion; divided by reason, and farmed by consensus.
confuse...about...relation
- CONFUSE (to mix or blend things, so that they cannot be distinguished)
- ABOUT (around, on the outside)
- RELATION (connection between things)
Faith towards what others suggest represents the "relation" between suggesting one and consenting one; which tempts one to ignore "about" perceivable, hence "confusing" perceivable with suggested.
basic nutshell
NUT (life) within the SHELL (momentum) of BASE (motion), hence being moved from inception towards death...
path to Life
Being alive implies within the path towards death.
with art
Suggested ARTIFI'CIAL, adjective - "in opposition to natural" tempts one to ignore being (perceiving) within natural (perceivable).
...phila
a) consenting to want vs now want suggested tempts one to ignore the need to adapt to perceivable.
b) want vs not want can be rebranded into LOVE (-phile) vs HATE (-miso)...
a) consenting to suggested information (temporary) tempts one to ignore perceivable inspiration (ongoing).
b) as temporary (life) within ongoing (inception towards death) one can be tempted by temporary (suggested information) to ignore ongoing (perceivable inspiration).
c) nature sets itself apart from whole (perceivable) into each partial (perceiving)...others utilize suggestion (fiction) to tempt one to ignore perceivable (reality).
d) consenting to suggested (want or not want) tempts one to ignore adaptation to perceivable (need)...the resulting conflict (want vs not want) is called reasoning. The few utilize suggestion to divide the many into reasoning.
e) choice (consent) to choice (suggestion) contract law represents the inversion of balance (perceivable) to choice (perceiving) natural law aka reaction within enacting.
f) RELIGION, noun (Latin religio; to bind anew) represents being bound by consent to the suggested choices of others.
g) choice exists at the center of balance (need/want); others tempt one to ignore this for suggested imbalance (want vs not want).
a) who holds the trademark to "crimes against humanity"...the many or the few?
b) guilt vs innocence implies ones consent to suggested moralism, hence reasoning over it.
c) nature doesn't suggested definitions (limits), it designates (makes known) by setting itself apart, hence each one within wielding free will of choice to adapt to everything made known (perceivable inspiration).
In short...predefined (process of dying) generates re-definable (living).
What if ones perceiving evaluation shapes perceivable values, and what if the suggestions of others tempt one to ignore that, hence devaluating self, while obscuring values within ones surrounding?
a) CASINO (Latin casa) -"hut, cottage, cabin"...notice that a casino doesn't offer shelter, but tempts one to gamble layers of protection away.
b) what if blaming others represents shirking of response-ability (free will of choice) from self? Where does one seek shelter when blaming others?
c) how does a memory-hole work? How is memory leaking? Does holding onto suggested information within ones memory represent a "high-speed" operation or does perceivable inspiration imply the ongoing high velocity of input into memory?
d) how can anything be the "same as" if everyone (perceiving) within everything (perceivable) implies moving differences?
e) does it matter if one accepts (want) or denies (not want) perceivable hunger and thirst (need)?
Resist the temptation of using reason (true vs false opinion) within the court of public opinion, and utilize implication (if/then) instead...
If one uses implication to keep oneself clean of reasoning, then the filthy suggestions of others lose potency...
a) suggested (meat) represents the temptation within perceivable (hunger).
b) choice (consent) to choice (suggestion) represents the vector to make temptation poisonous.
c) resisting (need) temptation (want) represents ones free will of choice.
i'm actually terrified of this
a) one represents reaction (perceiving) within enacting (perceivable), hence the potential effect (reaction) within the actual cause (action).
b) your consent to suggested terrorism tempts you to be afraid of suggested outcomes, while ignoring the need to for your to resist perceivable origin.
c) both fear (not want) and hope (want) are aimed at suggested outcomes, which tempt one to ignore being in-between origin (inception) and outcome (death), hence still alive and kicking (resisting).
d) where did you came out of...suggested or perceivable? If you write "I'm...of this", then how could others define what "this" is when both of you still exist within it?
There is a good (~100%) chance
a) if good represents 100%, then bad doesn't exist...are you "actually" afraid or just ignorant of self imposed contradictions?
b) CHANCE, noun - "effect of an unknown cause"...what if one represents the effect (perceiving) within a known cause (perceivable)? What if self discernment of being effect (living) within cause (process of dying) has to be grown to comprehend that, and what if others can tempt one to ignore growth with suggested "chances" for already grown?
c) how many have to take a chance at gambling for you to realize that the few suggest gambling, because chance (effect of an unknown cause) cannot be, since being implies as effect within known cause?
I'll have to save that one.
That's the issue...suggested information tempts one to want to hold onto; while perceivable inspiration needs to be let go. Everything formed within a flow-state tempts one to save it...self sustenance implies the need to resist the want to save; to hold onto; to possess; to own etc.
ASCII (American Standard Code for Information Interchange)
- STANDARD, noun [Greek sort, kind] - "more loose than genus, particular nature" aka partial (life) generated within whole (inception towards death).
- CODE, noun - "collection or digest of laws" aka collecting that (life) which is put in order (inception toward death).
- FOR (forwards) aka within motion.
- INFORMATION aka IN (within) FORM (distinct appearance) -ATION (through action) aka form (life) within flow (inception towards death).
- INTER (internal; being within) CHANGE (to pass from one state to another) aka being living form passed from inception towards death.
As for American...O Say, Can You See?
Related to topic...American (Amerigo Vespucci) aka AM ERIC AN WASP aka AM (to be) ERIC (honored ruler) AN (only-begotten) WASP (white-anglo-saxon-protestant)... https://img.gvid.tv/i/72Y9vuZN.jpg
evil
live
love
evol (evil)
Notice @ as the A of Latin-a within the O of Latin-o...
No, they made us believe in...
a) who made you believe in no; not; nothing; nothingness?
c) can perceivable thirst and hunger be denied or will those perceiving it be forced to eat and drink? Do thirst and hunger represent a yes vs no conflict?
they made/make you believe
To believe represents ones consent to belief/disbelief the suggested information by others.
believe in literal anything
Ones consent to believe in suggested LIT'ERAL, adjective [Latin litera, a letter.] aka symbolism (suggested symbols over perceivable symmetry) gives others the power of ones consent for spell-craft (suggested words over perceivable sound).
Everything perceivable (inspiration) can be labeled; branded; marked etc. with suggested (information), but only oneself wields the free will of choice to ignore perceivable (reality) for consenting to suggested (fiction).
Why would it be a bad day for me? I couldn't give a fuck less about discord.
a) DISCORD, noun - "disagreement among persons or things"
b) good vs bad + giving a fuck vs not giving a fuck + more vs less represents your consent to reason with others over suggested information, hence you being tempted into a discord.
c) both agreement (want) and disagreement (not want) represent ones consent to suggested, while ignoring the need to adapt to perceivable. To ignore need for either want or not want, shapes the want vs not want discord called "reason".
@
AT, preposition (Heb; to come, to approach) - "direction towards" aka suggested progressivism (towards outcome) as the inversion of being resistance (life) within origin (inception towards death).
a) both (two) or each one?
b) CONCERN, verb (Latin, to separate, divide)...what if suggested "we" (plural) tempts "one" (singular) to ignore being separated; divided (partial within whole)?