- PRESCRI'BE, verb [Latin proescribo, to write before.] - "to direct at; to set authoritatively for direction".
Life can only be directed from inception towards death. Sustaining health while alive implies ones resistance within origin. Others suggest MEDICUS (to cure) MENTIS (mind/memory) to tempt one with wanted outcomes to ignore the need to resist origin.
Suggestion tempts implication (if/then) to mislead perception...if one consents to suggested over perceivable.
TI'TLE, noun [Latin titulust.] - "an inscription put over any thing as a name by which it is known" aka an inscription (suggested information) over what is known (perceivable inspiration).
won't be able to afford it
- AFFO'RD, verb -"to send forth"...to be (life) implies being send forth (inception towards death), hence being enabled by to exist within. "won't" (will not) is being suggested by others to tempt one to ignore being "will" (free will of choice) within "everything" (perceivable).
a) the few suggest convenience stores to shape commodities out of inconvenienced buyers by tempting buyers to sell their independence for dependency to the sellers.
b) nature sets "free" will of choice by dividing whole (living) into partial (process of dying)...the only price one pays represents the consequences of ones choices.
without a source
a) what if perceivable inspiration represents the only source for every suggested information?
b) what if one (perceiving) exists "within" the source (perceivable), while others tempt one to ignore that for suggested "without"?
getting the pianowire concerto.
Taking out those suggesting pills doesn't tackle those who want a pill for every problem? Resisting temptation represents an expression, while falling for temptation represents a repression, hence swallowing pills to feed the black hold inside of them.
Zero is a concept to describe a state of being of nonexistence while suggesting the possibility of future or past existence.
a) can one exist outside of perceivable "now" and what if the center of perceivable now represents each perceiving "one"?
b) what if others suggest both past and future to lure oneself away from the center, as well as zero as the inversion of one (self) as the center?
c) notice that I asked about "perceivable" nature, while you answered with "suggesting" possibilities. Does consent to suggested (fiction) tempt one to ignore perceivable (reality)?
this is philosophy, not science. science is perceiving.
a) SCI'ENCE, noun [Latin scientia, from scio, to know.] + KNOWL'EDGE, noun - "perception of that which exists"...so indeed science represents communication between perceivable (whole) and perceiving (partial).
b) if one consents to suggested "scientism", hence perceivable science suggested by others, then one ignores perceivable (inspiration) for suggested (information). Guess who gains the power to define, redefine and contradict the suggested information if ones consents to the suggestion thereof?
c) PHILO (to love) SOPHY (knowledge) represents the "pursuit of knowledge". What if knowledge perceivable origin, while love/pursuit represents ones choice to "want" to love/pursue suggested over the "need" to adapt to perceivable?
d) how can anything within everything perceivable "not" represent knowledge (perceivable). How could a suggestion be shaped without utilizing the perceivable foundation to shape it within; out of and in response to?
by spheres i mean spheroids
a) SPHAIRA (surrounding) + OEIDES (form)....what if the surrounding of form (life) implies flow (inception towards death)? What if others can distract one from comprehending this by suggesting them SPHEROIDS (body resembling, but not identical with), hence a suggested substitute for the perceivable origin?
b) what if a partial (perceiving) cannot define the meaning of whole (perceivable) by making suggestions about it towards others. What if the perceivable whole represents the "pre-defined" meaning, allowing the partials perceiving it from within to "re-define" themselves?
Example: to suggest "life means..." ignores that whatever one suggests life means, will be changed by the ongoing process of dying.
What the fk is the rest of what you are saying?
a) what if one can be tempted to reason over forms suggested by others (flat vs heliocentric), while ignoring ones perspective as the perceiving one within perceivable or the one consenting to stand under (understanding) what others are suggesting?
Everything perceivable represents the surrounding for each perceiving one, and everything suggested, by others surrounding oneself, aims at ones consent from the center.
b) REST, noun [Latin resto] - "cessation of motion"...where is the cessation of motion for life, while being moved from inception towards death?
If one exists within the momentum of motion (balance), then what if each one represents the center of balance...free will of choice? Could others exploit this by tricking choice to consent to suggestions offered by the choice of others?
multiple things could be the center
a) why do you attach MULTIPLY (to increase in number) when things implies each ONE (partial divided within whole)? Also; NUM'BER, noun -"the designation of a unit" + U'NIT, noun [Latin unus, unitas, unity.] - "one".
b) what if each "one" thing (living) represents the center of everything (process of dying)? What if everything doesn't represent the multiplication of each thing, but the division of oneness (whole) into each one (partial)?
What if one perceives addition (inception); subtraction (death); multiplication (intercourse for offspring) and division (being partial within whole), while others suggest MATH, noun -"a mowing; as in aftermath" to distract "one" with a center based on "zero", hence the suggested inversion of perceivable?
center of mass
What if form (material) represents the center of flow (immaterial), while choice of material (reaction) represents the center of immaterial (balance aka enacting momentum)?
geometric center
GEO (earth) METRIC (to measure)...who is measuring but oneself at the center, and who is suggesting one to COUNT and measure? https://pic8.co/sh/1rIGYa.jpg
Does one need to MEASURE, noun - "the whole extent or dimensions of a thing" or adapt as the partial within the whole?
english please, save the science talk for MIT.
a) English represents Pig-Latin, an ongoing revisionism of language to domesticate slaves by allowing their masters to communicate underneath language. Be it through numerology (gematria); phonetics (sound underneath words); rhetoric (reasoning about suggested meaning), inversion (suggested over perceivable), contradiction (talmudic reasoning to divide into conflicts of reason and conquer comprehension with understanding aka standing under suggested information) etc.
Notice that English was robbed of all natural connotations for suggested theism aka THE -ism?
b) the MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) implies TECHNOL'OGY, noun [Gr. art, and word or discourse.]; hence ARTIFI'CIAL, adjective - "in opposition to natural"...in other words...suggested fiction (words) over perceivable reality (sound) established (institute) by choice (suggestion) towards choice (consent) contract law...the inversion of balance (enacting) to choice (reaction) natural law.
What's the solution then?
Being moved from inception towards death dissolves life...unless resisted. Therefore; the process of dying represents the solution for every living problem within.
What can an individual do about any of this?
If the whole (process of dying) represents loss, then the singular (living) implies growth within loss through resistance.
do about
ABOUT', preposition - "around, on the exterior; with the sense of circularity"...what if the exterior (process of dying) requires adaptation by the interior (living)? What if the about does you? What if others suggest you to reason about (exterior), while you willingly ignore to sustain yourself within (interior)?
All people have to do is say no and not participate.
Is this what one perceives in nature? Breathing; thirst; hunger; shelter, the process of dying itself..."say no and not participate"? How could life not participate, when living implies as a partial among other partials and within whole?
What is it that saying "no" negates or attempts to negate? If one says no to a rapist, then does one try to negate a contract of behavior, the rapist chose to break? What if the rapist never consented to such a contract of behavior.
Where does the notion originate "I will not do what I can do"?
"Oh no; Vaxxie, you heart is full of holes...your face to face...with the jew who sold the world"
what aliens?
A'LIEN, adjective [Latin alius, another.]...every other one besides oneself represents another (alien).
We can't leave Earth.
Consenting to suggested fiction allows one to travel "till infinity and beyond". Meanwhile; those who aren't being tempted away into immaterial are being tempted by suggested materialism to hold onto material (earth).
What both are being tempted to ignore...to be implies in-between material (life) and immaterial (inception towards death), hence temporary growth (living) within ongoing loss (process of dying).
- IMPLANT', verb [in and plant, Latin planto.] - "to set, plant or infix for the purpose of growth" + A'LIEN, adjective [Latin alius, another.]
Everything set for growth (implant) implies into another (alien), hence growth into loss; seed into soil; temporary into ongoing etc.
acting as a stooge for
If one "acts" under direction of another, then that implies ones "reaction" to being directed.
to accept...to subvert
To accept (suggested information) subverts (turns one from the foundation) of perceivable inspiration.
FACT, noun [Latin factum, from facio, to make or do.] + CHECK, verb - "to stop; to restrain; to hinder; to curb" implies she makes the facts (suggestion) and curbs them (contradiction)...everyone else just reasons (want vs not want) about them.
opposition to every claim
Suggested contradiction to every suggested claim others are reasoning over aka "talmudic reasoning"...control of reason by means of suggested contradiction.
Does "I know I'm always ruining the fun" sound like an opposition within a conflict or like someone situated outside, while holding all the power to mock those fighting?
Notice also how she starts with "Listen" aka choice (suggestion) towards choice (consent) contract law. Anyone listening therefore gives her the power of consent to allow her to define, redefine and contradict whatever she lists.
Ms. (unmarried) Mace (ensign of authority borne before magistrates, hence directed by a master)... a twice divorced blunt weapon of war wielded by others.
vs
Ms. (unmarried) Gadde aka GAD'DER, noun - "a rambler; one that roves about idly"...hence no resistance there.
no evidence at all that those pictures show the same person
a) PER (by) SONOS (sound) implies BY, preposition (Latin pressus) - "partial procession in motion, hence differentiation", while sound implies the whole origin aka sameness.
b) EV'IDENCE, noun [Latin evidentia, from video, to see.] implies perceivable by senses, while suggested "picture" implies through the lens of TECHNOL'OGY, noun [Gr. art, and word or discourse.], hence ARTIFI'CIAL, adjective - "in opposition to natural".
In short...artificial (suggested picture) tempts one to ignore natural (seeing perceivable), while giving those suggesting the power of consent to define, redefine and contradict the artificial at will.
no evidence at all that the person on the right is underage
The adhesive bandages represent a legal admission of concern about legal ramifications over showing underage nudity or showing nudity to underage viewers, hence a liability shield.
which option do you prefer?
OP'TION, noun [Latin optio, opto, to wish or desire.] implies ones choice of want over need, hence shirking response-ability (choice). I PREFER', verb [Latin proefero; proe, before, and fero, to bear or carry.] to keep bearing the response-ability (choice) to carry myself within balance by struggling to resist suggested want for perceivable need.
Bonus: "6:05 PM" (11) + "Feb 7" (9) for the 9/11 encoding, 33k likes, Paul Hookem (just like Saul did), and of course the rhetorical chutzpah to imply "you can cut the tits of a girl and pretend her to be a boy, but a mere bandaid is all it takes to legally define her as a girl in the court of public opinion".
explain it to me like I'm 5.
a) want to explain ignores need to express.
b) inception towards death represents the "plain" of existence...Yo Momma had to "press" your life into it.
the basic or most important part
a) why call the base (whole) a part?
b) least vs most implies a choice by a partial within a whole.
c) import (inception) and export (death) implies the partial (life) coming in and out of base.
the crucial element
CRUCIAL, adjective [Latin , a cross.] - "transverse; passing across; intersecting"...implies the meeting of ongoing (inception towards death) and adaptation (need/want) by temporary (life). The element implies ones MENT (mind/memory) utilized to adapt at the center of the cross.
synonym...essence
SYNONYM (same as another) ESSENCE (Latin esse; to be) ...being implies different from one another.
substance
SUB (below) STANCE (formed position within flow). Furthermore, BE LOW implies as partial (growth) within whole (loss) , hence with the opportunity to grow within loss.
core
a) what represents the core of motion?
b) if matter represents core, then what represents shell?
c) what if core represents each partial seed, while shell represents the whole soil?
d) CORE, noun (Latin , the heart)...does reaction represent the heart of action?
manifested as....does his choice of body matter?
a) manifestation implies from immaterial (action) into material (reaction).
b) action (balance) generates reaction (choice) through motion. Balance within motion represents momentum. Reaction (life) within momentum of action (inception towards death) perceives this as the ever changing "moment".
c) ask yourself what the whole would use choice for? The partial (matter) on the other hand requires choice to balance within the momentum of the whole (immaterial).
is not know
a) KNOWL'EDGE, noun - "perception of that which exists". What if everything is knowledge, while everyone within has the opportunity to grow comprehension about knowledge by adapting to it?
If god represents everything, why would one attach nothing (is not) to the perceivable knowledge from everything?
b) what if one is tempted to suggest to others what "is", while ignoring to adapt to everything perceivable that was, before one came to be?
Everything g-d does has a purpose
PUR'POSE, noun [Latin propositum, propono; pro, before, and pono, to set or place.]...purpose implies before one was set into it. Others suggest one that purpose represents wanted outcomes, which tempts one to ignore to adapt to perceivable origin.
If one represents reaction (life) within enacting (inception towards death), then reacting (perceiving) to enacted (perceivable) represents ones purpose...not consenting to suggested outcomes by others.
what is the purpose of choosing a particular
To be a particular within whole implies having free will of choice to react to the enacting whole.
race
RACE, noun [Latin radix; radius; ray, radiate etc.] implies ones growth (living) within loss (process of dying) aka the fruits of ones labors.
particular race
The growth of a partial within whole is based on ones struggle to sustain apartheid (living) within wholeness (process of dying). Others suggest one to come together, hence weakening ones resistance.
many different races
Consider if everything perceivable represents a different part of the whole, then consider if others suggest sameness to tempt one to ignore differences? Consider further if whole dividing into partial could generate moving differences, which those within perceive as inspiration for adaptation. If everything looks the same...why would life struggle to sustain itself within the process of dying? Yet if everything is different, then life gets constantly inspired to adapt, to react, to make choices, to experience different consequences from different choices.
Conscious awareness and self discernment require perceivable differences, yet can be corrupted with suggested likeness and sameness into ignorance.
competing for
If life is being moved FORwards from inception towards death, then why would one consent to compete "for" instead of struggling within to sustain self?
for dominance
If choice can only exist within balance, then what if "free" will of choice exists within the "dom" inance of balance aka free-dom? Could others choose to tempt choice to compete against each other for dominance, as to distract them from being choice (living) within dominance (process of dying)?
divides by zero
a) ZERO, noun - "cipher; nothing". Where in perceivable nature can one perceive that which standing by itself expresses nothing?
b) is there a division from perceivable to the ones perceiving it? If so, what divides whole (perceivable) into partial (perceiving)?
c) SPHERE, noun [Latin sphera.] - "a solid body contained under a single surface, which in every part is equally distant from a point called its center"...why is this "point" called its center and not the viewpoint of the one looking at it?
Furthermore...what represents the center of solid?
a) why use a partial (white) to describe the whole (god)?
b) what about graven images?
a) consenting to suggested or adapting to perceivable...it's a choice.
b) dā-, Proto-Indo-European root meaning "to divide, hence being the divided partial (living) within the dividing aka self differentiating whole (process of dying).
c) da (да) implies versus nyet (Нет) implies a conflict of reason, shaped by ones consent to want to confirm or deny suggested information, while ignoring the need to adapt to perceivable inspiration.
Hold your breath and contemplate the following..."does it matter if I confirm or deny breathing or will I be forced to adapt anyway?"
DEMON aka DAI (divider) MON (provider) tempts those divided and provided for to want to hold onto (possession), while ignoring the need to let go (resistance).
The process of dying (whole) divides into and provides for each one (partial) living within.
Credibility aka Credit; Creed represents ones consent to RELIGION, noun (Latin religio) - "to bind anew" aka ones consent to being bind anew to the suggestions of others.
To believe what others explain (consenting to suggested) implies one to repress self while submitting to what others express.
PSYCHE (breath, spirit, soul) + LOGIA (logic, conflict of reason)...reasoning about suggested tempts one to ignore adapting to perceivable.
In short...Logia destroys Psyche....if consented to.