transvaluation of all values
a) everything perceivable represents value; each one perceiving it from within represents evaluation.
b) whole value (process of dying) transmutes itself into each partial evaluation (life)
c) others suggest values (plural) to tempt one (partial) to ignore perceivable value (whole).
d) consenting to suggested values gives those suggesting the power to "transmute" the "evaluation" of oneself, hence gaining control over the "trans-evaluation of all suggested values".
destroy nature to preserve it
Nature represents the process of dying for everything within, hence both the generator (inception) and destroyer (death)...those within need to preserve self while being destroyed, hence re-generation.
The few tempt the many to willingly ignore regeneration, which in return allows the few to steer the many with hope (generation) and fear (destruction).
development allow government
Aka ones developed mind (through suggested information) allows (consents to suggested) control of mind by others.
william
Whenever "WILLIAM" is being suggested within a narrative, consider it to imply "WILL I AM", hence ones free will of choice. In context...suggested Darwinism subduing; directing; exploiting; abusing; mocking; binding; corrupting etc. free will of choice.
What does it mean?
Suggestion tempts one to ignore predefined meaning (perceivable). Whatever suggestible another offers can only be shaped within; out of and in response to perceivable. For example...suggested words out of perceivable sound. It's on oneself to discern that.
I have no idea.
IDE'A, noun [Latin idea; Gr. to see, Latin video.] implies perceivable, "idealism" implies suggested. Everyone perceives everything perceivable...others shape suggestions to tempt one to ignore perceivable.
to mess with our sense of reality
a) ones consent to suggested puts the suggested as an overlay over perceivable. If one consents to suggested "life sucks", then the perceivable reality will be viewed through the lens of the suggested fiction "life sucks"...this state of mind corrupts ones views and reactions within reality, which then corrupts the consequences of ones corrupt reactions within reality, as steered through the suggested fiction by others.
b) suggested "our" (plural) tempts the perceiving "one" (partial) to ignore perceivable "oneness" (whole).
they started centuries ago
a) one can only exist "now"...not before or after. Ignorance about that among the many allows the few to shape that which is with suggestions about what was or will be.
b) CENTURY, noun - "a hundred; any thing consisting of a hundred parts"...the few suggest counting to corrupt the mind/memory of each "one" of the many with addition, subtraction; division and multiplication aka MATH, noun -"a mowing; as in aftermath" problems tempting one to seek suggested solutions.
Meanwhile within perceivable reality...every temporary problem (living) exists within an ongoing solution (process of dying), which implies addition (inception); subtraction (death); multiplication (intercourse for offspring) and division (being partial within whole)....of ONEself.
a) anything suggested contradicts everything perceivable, because shaping a suggestion tempts one to ignore the perceivable origin; within which one shapes suggestions.
b) perceivable (inception towards death) generates perceiving (life) through "forward" motion...no conflict. Ignoring perceivable (need) for suggested (want) tempts one into a want vs not want conflict of reason.
In short...perceivable FOR perceiving, or perceiving CONTRA perceiving over suggested.
contrarians
Reasoning (wanting vs not wanting suggested)
I'm against whatever the thing is
It doesn't matter if one wants suggested or not want it, each choice puts one against the other. Those reasoning don't realize their choices (want or not want), because they're busy reasoning against each other about whatever "thing" suggested.
Meanwhile; the suggesting few keep rebranding want vs not want into true vs false; right vs wrong; yes vs no; good vs bad; us vs them; left vs right; nationalism vs internationalism; rich vs poor; soccer vs football; deist vs atheist; hetero vs homo; anime vs manga; upvote vs downvote; week vs weekend; jew vs gentile; social vs asocial; black vs white; pro-life vs pro-choice; gasoline vs diesel; first world vs third world; vanilla vs chocolate; on vs off; past vs future; min vs max; small vs large; cops vs robbers...endless dualism.
a) living within the process of dying implies being resistance (slow) within velocity (fast)...fasting inspires resistance.
b) it's not about wanting or not wanting food, but about getting inspired to resist the ongoing need of hunger, which wanted or not wanted food tempts one to ignore.
explain why you do what you do
a) EX (expression of life) within the PLAIN (inception towards death) of existence...what else is there and why would one ignore it?
b) not doing...being done by (process of dying) while struggling to redo self (living).
Is it OCD?
a) suggested "obsessive-compulsive disorder" tempts one to ignore perceivable...being compelled (driving force) by the natural order (inception toward death), while struggling to resist it (life).
b) OBSESS', verb - "to besiege; blocking up; occupy"...the temporary living cannot besiege, block or occupy the ongoing process of dying. Others can suggest one to obsess over trying it tho...
c) would you call adaptation to breathing; thirst; hunger and lack of shelter "compulsive" behavior, since life keeps responding to it from inception until death?
d) what if temporary chaos (living) within the ongoing natural order (process of dying) can be suggested to -DIS (dismiss; divide from) aka to ignore the growth of self discernment?
Are you a heavy user of psychoactive drugs?
a)I don't even drink alcohol, and the last time I dabbled with drugs was decades ago, during my teen years. A mind under the influence was never my thing.
b) how could PSYCHO (Greek psykhē) - "soul; spirit; mind" be inactive when it implies adaptation to being moved? Even an ignored psyche exist in response to constant activity.
c) living implies being used by the process of dying, hence only able to RE (respond to) USE (being used by).
my initial suspicion that you were a bot
a) who suggested you to dehumanize others as "bots" and who benefits from you casting suspicion among others?
b) what if both temptations could be avoided by comprehending that only the process of dying "initiates" everything living within? Inception represents ones initiation into life. One cannot initiate...one represents the initiated reaction, hence having free will of choice.
c) your consent to suggested "bot" shapes everyone else into a suspect of being or not being a bot...your choice represents the issue, not what others are or aren't. Others ruthlessly exploit your choice with suggestions.
d) BOT; from ROBOT (Latin roboro, from robur, strength)...why would the few suggest the many to dehumanize each other with the term "bot", when it implies strength? Could it be that resisting the suggested temptations by others represents ones strength?
there are enough random errors
a) call them out. If it's grammar related...I'm a lazy cunt, so whatever you throw at me, I most likely already caught myself stubbornly ignoring before. Anything else helps me comprehend more about both perspectives (writer/reader), so by all means...
b) ER'ROR, noun [Latin error from erro, to wander.], while being moved from inception towards death, life can either follow along or choose to wander. The latter implies the need to resist wanting the former.
Also; consider the relation between ERROR (to wander) and SPACE (Latin spatium, spatior, to wander)...
c) RAN'DOM, noun - "course without direction"...how could a vessel (life) in motion (inception towards death) be on course without direction?
Consider if RAN (running fast aka velocity) generates DOM (dominance aka the momentum of motion for those within)? What exists within the momentum of velocity (process of dying)...resistance (living).
unique
There ya go...UNI (Latin unus; one) aka the one within all, the choice within balance; the form within flow; the partial within whole; the perceiving within perceivable; the potential within potentiality; the resistance within velocity, the living within the process of dying...a unique experience.
Now ask yourself why the many (plural) are following the suggested orders of the few chosen ones (singular)? Why does unique stand out from the norm? Why are perceivable differences viewed as threats to suggested sameness?
style
STYLE; noun (from Teutonic stellen; to set or place)...does life being set into the process of dying represent "sameness" or "difference"?
Dare I say that the status quo represents ones style...even when ignored?
I think you are a human
HU'MAN, adjective [Latin humanus; Heb. form, species.] + AN'IMAL, noun [Latin anima, air, breath, soul.]...hence animated (inception towards death) form (life).
monomaniacally
a) MONO (one) PHONIC (within sound), hence representing an IN (within) SANUS (sound) PER (by) SONOS (sound).
Ask yourself who suggests you mono; stereo; dolby and surround sound as distractions from the aforementioned?
b) MANIA; from root MENTIS; MENS - "mind; to think"
"In the real time world no one sees her at all...They all say she's crazy"
"All the while you're stuck between...What's will and what will be"
"On the ice filled line of sanity...It's a place most never see"
"It's a hard won place of mystery...You can touch it but can't hold it"
"Changing moment into light...She has danced into the danger zone"
"She's a maniac; maniac on the floor"
Try using your mind to think about the implications of that...
What is your goal, though?
"...we will still direct thought towards different fantastic theories which will appear to be progressive. For it was by the word "progressive" that we have successfully turned the brains of the stupid Goys. There are no brains among the Goys to realize that this word is but a cover for digression...progress, being a false conception, serves to conceal the truth so that nobody may know it except ourselves; God's elect; who are its guardians."
~Protocol 13
Why do you perceive the world as outcome oriented (towards suggested goals), when life can only move towards death? What if I adapt to perceivable origin instead of chasing after suggested goals like the majority willingly does?
What if one can gain access to more and more of everything perceivable; if one chooses to resist the temptation of wanting to reach and hold onto what others are suggesting?
If soccer is about goals...why are they keep playing after winning? How many gamblers stop once they win, and in that regard...why does the house always wins?
Why would choice require goals (want), when its foundation represents balance (need)?
Let me finish with Occam's Razor...if the world surrounding self becomes too complex (suggested information), could it be that oneself chooses to ignore the simplicity of it (perceivable inspiration)?
directionally accurate
- AC'CURATE, adjective [Latin accuratus.] - "free from failure"...oneself (life) represents the free will of choice to fail over and over again while directed (inception toward death).
well known and documented
How could one know aka KNOWL'EDGE, noun - "perception of that which exists" when one ignores perceivable for suggested, hence DOC-U-MENT (dock your mind)?
what makes discernment so critical.
CRITIC, noun [Greek; to separate, to distinguish.]...if "everyone's a critic", then one needs to grow discernment about what separates/distinguished one from one another.
what is diversion
Ignoring (life) perceivable direction (inception towards death) for suggested directions.
what is a limited hangout
Temporary living within the ongoing process of dying.
what is total bs to poison the well.
a) suggested information represents the poison; choice (consent) to choice (suggestion) contract law represents the vector and ones memory represents the well.
b) shit from bulls represents fertilizer..."bs" is being suggested to distract one from that.
No suggestions (no posts); no judgements (no up/down-votes)...instead adaptation to perceivable for balance.
Only nature offers...everything within reacts...either in response (need) or in ignorance (want) when consenting to one another.
- ME'ANING, participle - "having in mind; intending; signifying"
a) is there a difference between perceivable and suggested input towards mind/memory?
b) is there free will of choice in-between perceivable and suggested input towards mind?
c) if one doesn't consent to what others are suggesting, then would ones mind be empty?
d) what comes first for memory...binary input (suggestion) or energy foundation (perceivable)?
e) is there a difference between "having in mind" and "going through mind"?
f) can one define meaning without suggesting "definitions" to another?
g) can you describe the meaning of sound; out of which you shape the words to describe meaning?
h) what's the meaning of nothing?
i) can one negate perceivable input? How?
j) does it matter to reason (yes vs no) about breathing or will one be forced to adapt no matter the chosen/agreed upon meaning?
k) is there any suggested meaning that others aren't reasoning over...if not...isn't it MEAN that all MEANing results in conflict?
l) what if ones disagreement implies ones want of agreement from others, hence MEAN, adjective - "wanting dignity of mind; low minded; base; destitute of honor; spiritless"?
m) if yes means yes, then why the choice of "no"?
n) does putting a point behind your sentences stop others from continuing?
Let's see how "questionable" you are...
a) how can one exist without being "in-between and among" others?
b) how can one consent by choice to a suggestion by the choice of another without putting ones free will of choice "under" that of another?
c) "is not"...what within perceivable everything "is nothing"?
d) how can one consent to suggested without ignoring perceivable?
e) how could one "comprehend" perceivable if one consents to suggestions by others about perceivable? Can one comprehend breathing by consenting to what others are suggesting about breathing or does one need to breathe to comprehend breathing?
no...doesn't...is not
a) three times you suggested negation (no)...where did I suggest affirmation (yes)?
b) how can there be a conflict of reason (yes vs no) without the consent of both sides?
Understanding implies ones consent to "stand under" the suggested information by another.
Insane aka IN (being within) SANUS (perceivable sound)...
The game represents "suggested information", the work represents "perceivable inspiration"...
That being said...if one thinks in words, then one already lost.
Greeks: give circumference
Rabbis: take by circumcision
Wagner Raises the Dead
A suggested inversion of escorting the dead to Valhalla (Valkyrie) aka https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2RiOhYpRFc
Why bother typing this?
If nature impresses, then those within need to express...
There’s no point, right?
Consenting to suggested outcomes tempts one to put a point in front of ones life SEN'TENCE, noun [from Latin sententia, from sentio, to think.]
I will resist until
What if will represents the want to spend resistance against others, which tempts one to ignore the need to grow resistance (living) within temptation (process of dying)?
What if adaptation to need implies resisting want?
when the end comes
What if inception towards death (velocity) exists as a whole for each partial life (resistance) within?
I will go without
If you (living) exist within (process of dying); then "with out" what, where, and why are you going?
regret
RE (respond to) GRET (grief; sorrow) implies ones choice to hold onto and to remember regretting...does one need to do that or is one tempted to want to do that?
a) doomed implies ones esteemed outcome, Black represents ones ignorance of perceivable origin when esteeming suggestible outcomes...
b) sure, while alive one can choose to esteem outcome (death)...but what about the choice to adapt to origin for the sustenance of life?
c) what if the few suggest DOOM to tempt the many to esteem to be doomed? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gEkNVq1ct0
d) consider if consenting to suggested DOOM could invert ones MOOD?
- VOTE, noun [Latin votum, voveo, to vow.] - "suffrage; the expression of a wish, desire, will, in regard to any measure proposed"
Before one can vote upon proposed (suggested), one responds to imposed (perceivable)...
reason.com
a) REASON always implies a conflict (agreement vs disagreement) over suggested information...if consented to.
b) consenting to suggested implies choice (consent) to choice (suggestion) contract law, hence COM, from COMMERCIAL (as the top level domain for the internal network).
driving society
Suggested society implies "togetherness", perceivable driving (inception towards death) implies apartheid (life).
metaverse
Velocity (inception towards death) generating resistance (life) implies being a turned (verse) middle (meta).
avoid outside air
"Stay ahead of the wind"... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GltdSC_5Zzw&themeRefresh=1
to progress together
"...we will still direct thought towards different fantastic theories which will appear to be progressive. For it was by the word "progressive" that we have successfully turned the brains of the stupid Goys. There are no brains among the Goys to realize that this word is but a cover for digression...progress, being a false conception, serves to conceal the truth so that nobody may know it except ourselves; God's elect; who are its guardians."
~Protocol 13
a) the blind masses get a little o/
b) TECHNOL'OGY, noun [Gr. art, and word or discourse.] - "an explanation of the terms of the arts" aka ARTIFI'CIAL, adjective - "in opposition to natural".
If natural (perceivable inspiration) is ignored for artificial (suggested information), then those suggesting become the masters for those consenting to be their slaves.
c) SUM'MIT, noun [Latin summitas, from summus, highest.] - "the utmost elevation"...as temporary growth (life) within ongoing loss (inception towards death) the highest elevation represents each ones evaluation (perceiving) of all value (perceivable). One ignores this when consenting to understand (stand under) the suggestions of others.
d) "in some way" represents the ignorance of the many about the perceivable way (inception towards death), hence "one" undetermined; uncertain (some) of self.
e) suggested will be (aka progressivism) represents the inversion of "being will" aka being the reaction within progress.
A reveal of method from the the protocols of the learned elders of zion (protocol 13)...
...we will still direct thought towards different fantastic theories which will appear to be progressive. For it was by the word "progressive" that we have successfully turned the brains of the stupid Goys. There are no brains among the Goys to realize that this word is but a cover for digression...progress, being a false conception, serves to conceal the truth so that nobody may know it except ourselves; God's elect; who are its guardians.
Think about that...."elected guardians of progress; directing those who DIGRESS, verb - "to depart or wander from the main subject"...
What If we all stop paying taxes all at once…
a) the few suggest to tempt each one of the many to consent, which in return gives the few control over the SUM, noun [Latin summa, simul, together] aka the "we"; the "all at once".
b) nature sets itself apart aka from whole (process of dying) into each partial (living), hence each "ones" struggle to sustain apartheid (living) within wholeness (dying)...consenting to to any suggestions by others tempts one to ignore this.
c) unison behavior of the many is based on ignorance, hence steered by the suggestions of the few who tempt them to follow orders instead of resisting the natural order....this ignorance is being taxed.
a) each one represents the evaluation (perceiving) inherent within the value (perceivable) of energy.
b) each one represents the want (choice) inherent within the need (balance) of energy.
c) each partial one represents a worker (reaction) inherent within the whole work (action) of energy.
d) each one represents a partial problem (living) inherent within the whole solution (process of dying) of energy.