Do you know why...because people like to say NASA. https://pic8.co/sh/nrEXy1.jpg

Admittedly, i dont know where we are or what put us here, why we are here or even what we are.

How could one discern self if one (singular) thinks in suggested terms like "we" and "us" (plural)?

Giving that up

Can one give up reality or is one struggling with the temptation to want to hold onto things within reality? What if ones struggle to resist "want" represents "need"?

that cuts us from our truth

What if one (perceiving) can only exist within need (perceivable); while ones choice to want (truth) or not want (lies) suggested, shapes a layer of ignorance around oneself? Within this ignorance, the conflict of reason (want vs not want) tempts one to feel as if lies are cutting one off from truth; because whatever truth one holds onto is being constantly contradicted by more and more lies? Meanwhile, those who utilize lies are getting more and more agitated by the fanatical obsession of the opposition to hold onto truths, no matter how often they are being contradicted.

Both sides within reason are feeding upon each other.

I cant offer answers, just the truth i know

a) a question implies ones want for suggested outcomes, hence a "quest" forwards aka the allegory of the hero's journey to save the day. An answer represents both ones want for more than the quest and the power of others to direct quests with suggested outcomes. It's the hero's want to journey that gives the villain the power to set up the tribunals along the way, hence exploiting temptation (want) by suggesting more and more and more....

b) the process of dying represents the perceivable offer; living within represents the perceiving response-ability (choice).

But wait...OF'FER, verb [Latin offero; to bring.] - "to bring to or before; hence, to present for acceptance or rejection"...if one hold ones breath and chooses to accept (want) or reject (not want) breathing...does that prevent the need to adapt to the process of dying forcing the living to breathe?

Just because one has the free will of choice to want or not want an offer, doesn't mean one can shirk response-ability within need without consequences. The many keep ignoring that perceivable need for suggested offers by the "happy merchant" few.

c) KNOWL'EDGE, noun - "perception of that which exists" + TRUTH, noun - "conformity of words to thoughts, which is called moral truth"...are you really perceiving words or are others tempting you with suggested words to ignore perceivable sound? Does nature really CONFORM, adjective - "assuming the same form" or does it differentiate whole (process of dying) into each partial (living)?

but people don't want it

Hence reacting within the conflict of reason (want vs not want) to what you want from them. Neither of you considers "need" when reasoning about want vs not want.

Both sides reasoning have consented to suggested moralism, hence suggested rules of behavior based on reasoning aka agreement vs agreement; good vs bad; true vs false; belief vs disbelief etc. What both are willingly ignoring is ones free will of choice in-between both the conflict of reason (choice of wanting versus choice of not wanting suggested) and before that...as choice in-between need (perceivable) or want (suggested).

What both sides within reason are trying to do is to get others to choose their side over the other. What neither sides comprehends is that consent to reason over suggested binds both sides against each other within reason until each one within chooses to resist consenting.

They oppose the obvious truth with such ignorant veracity

a) VERAC'ITY, noun [Latin verax, from verus, true.] - "habitual observance of truth"...are they really opposing the obvious truth or do they view as obvious truth what you view as obvious lies?

b) are the few reasoning about true vs false with the many? Ever heard a rothschild reasoning about obvious truth vs obvious lies with anyone? Listen to jacob rothschild talk and you'll notice that he suggests with solemnity and as a merchant he dictates the prices for the information he sells. Haggling over prices (reasoning) is for those who already consented to the offer and they're haggling among themselves, while the merchant gains the profits.

c) perceivable change (need) contradicts every suggested truth (want) and lie (not want)...are you ignoring this? If you hold onto a truth, change will change aka loosen up your hold. Try holding onto life and notice what the change from inception towards death will do to it...

it makes me lose hope

Both hope (want) and fear (not want) represent reactions to suggested outcomes, which tempt one to ignore the need to adapt to perceivable origin. When was the last time you chose to invest hope or fear into breathing? Now hold your breath and wait until you notice that the death you fear and hope to avoid is only ever a moment away.

Ones fear to loose represents ones ignorance about being growth (living) within loss (process of dying). You will loose everything, but until that moment you represent the free will of choice to grow within everything. Others tempt you to ignore this by suggesting you to be afraid of loss, while investing hope in suggested growth outside your reach, outside the perceivable moment (um of motion).

we are all on the same side.

That represents the suggested inversion of each different one (form) being at the center (choice) of sides (balance) within sameness (flow). For life (choice)...inception and death (balance) represent the sides and those aren't in conflict with each other.

In short...you represent one not we, partial not all; different not same; and center not side. Use implication (if/then) to discern that for yourself. Only if one comprehends this, can one further comprehend that partial represents whole; that difference represents sameness, that center represents sides (balance) and that togetherness (want) represents the choice to ignore oneness.

TOGETHER aka TOWARDS GETTING tempts one to ignore being within everything already in existence.

the idea of space

• SPACE, noun (Latin spatium, space; spatior, to wander)
• A'LIEN, adjective (Latin alienus, from alius, another)

Being "one" able to "wander" implies wandering (space) among another (aliens) and since flow (inception towards death) doesn't identify form (life)...since IDEN'TITY, noun - "sameness" ; while form implies difference...form (life) within flow (inception towards death) represents an unidentified flying object (UFO).

As for "black holes" and "big bang"...written by the same perverts who suggest "nuclear bombs" (from NU'CLEUS, noun [Latin a nut.]) between "fat-man" and "little boy"...

You can use logic...

LOG'IC, noun [Latin id; Gr. from reason, to speak.]...reasoning (wanting vs not wanting) over the spoken suggestions by others will keep both sides within perpetual conflict.

Agreement vs disagreement or want vs not want or belief vs disbelief or true vs false or flat vs heliocentric...whatever side one chooses, one is stuck reasoning against the opposition. That's the mental prison the many put themselves into when consenting to the suggestions of the few.

Meanwhile...perceivable nature doesn't speak; it doesn't utter words; it doesn't brand anything; it doesn't reason...it represents order; balance; sound; differentiation; flow etc.

if the earth is a plane, that they couldn't have played with the letters like that

a) did the perceivable plane exist before one can suggest the letters "PLANE" as a description thereof?

b) what if suggested words tempt one to ignore perceivable sound?

Could the few suggest "insane person" to tempt the many to ignore "in sanus" (within sound) + "per sonos" (by sound)?

c) does perceivable nature brand itself or do those within nature suggest brands to each other to gain control over the definitions of those brands? What if those who adapt to perceivable sound represent PHONETICIANS (from phonics; sound), while those consenting to suggested definitions (words) represent DEAF PHONETICIANS?

d) what if consenting to suggested (words) over perceivable (sound) gives those suggesting the power to define (idolatry); redefine (revisionism) and contradict (talmudic reasoning) the suggested definitions at will?

there's no reason

a) No implies versus Yes...a conflict of reason.

b) what if the few suggest no, not, nothing...to tempt each perceiving one of the many to ignore perceivable everything?

How does one sell nothing? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQnaRtNMGMI By choice (suggestion) towards choice (consent) contract law.

believe

If you are being lied to on such a scale, why would you continue to "believe" the suggestions of others?

knowledge

• KNOWL'EDGE, noun - "perception of that which exists"

a) could the suggestions of others tempt you to ignore perceivable? How?

b) which one do you perceive and which one is being suggested to you....PLANE + PLANET?

Bonus...if they just added a "T"; where did they took it from? If you add a T to NASA, you could shape S A T A N, but how did they got the T from NASA?

"T minus 9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1..."

wish I could understand

That represents the issue...wanting (wish) to stand under (understand) suggested information, instead of the need to grow (comprehension) within perceivable inspiration.

As long as you choose to want to understand, you will "stand under" those who suggest you what reality means...that's all fiction. Perceivable reality exists before anyone within can shape a suggestion about it. There is sound before a word can be shaped within, there is symmetry before symbolism can be shaped within, and there is flow (inception towards death) before form (life) can be shaped within.

Choosing want (suggested information) over need (perceivable inspiration) represents the foundation for "ignorance" and ignoring perceivable implies lack of self discernment within perceivable and lack of comprehension about perceivable, and since ignorance represents ones free will of choice (want over need)...it's willingly.

Only oneself can choose to grow self instead of standing under others.

Thanks for your input anyway.

Thanks for the inspiration.

it is beyond me.

Resist "yond" and embrace "being"....

nature worked to get us here

a) If EN'ERGY, noun [Gr. work.] - "internal or inherent power", then "here" implies as formed growth (life) within the momentum (balance) of flowing loss (inception towards death), hence representing the internal powers of loss (velocity) and growth (resistance) in balance with each other. Why? For the sustenance of energy, which internally differentiates itself from ongoing whole (loss) into temporary partial (growth) through momentum (balance of motion).

b) suggested "us" (plural) tempts each "one" (singular) to ignore being partial (perceiving ones) within whole (perceivable oneness). Others suggest togetherness as the inversion of perceivable apartheid.

Sleight of hand..."all for one and one for all" or "there can be only one" or "alone" aka ALL(in)ONE or "Arbeit macht Frei" aka WORK (energy) will set you FREE (free will of choice). Choice represents the reacting power within balance (momentum of motion) as the enacting power, and since action generates reaction....it goes different reactors (living) within same generator (process of dying).

The few tempt the many to ignore this by suggesting "actors" under "directors", hence tempting the many to consent to mimic suggested acting, instead of reacting to perceivable.

I believe by forcing nature's hand

a) to believe implies ones consent to the suggestions of another, while ignoring to adapt to perceivable. Choice (consent) to choice (suggestion) contract law represents the inversion of balance (perceivable) to choice (perceiving) natural law.

The industrialization of contract law for mass population control is called RELIGION; noun (Latin religio) - "to bind anew". The natural bond represents balance/choice, while choice/choice represents artificially binding oneself to another.

b) living within the process of dying implies within the force of ongoing velocity, and as the force of temporary resistance, hence each ones struggle (Mein Kampf) to resist (living) temptation (process of dying).

The few suggest orders to tempt the consenting many to follow, while each one of the many ignores to be the resistance within the perceivable natural order.

produce outcomes that we didn't intend and can be our destruction

a) wanting vs not wanting suggested outcomes tempts one to ignore the need to adapt to perceivable origin.

b) inception predefines death as the outcome of life.

c) life represents the reaction (resistance) to enacting origin (velocity)...others tempt one to ignore this for suggested outcomes, which when consented to, gives others the power to shape ones hope/fear towards outcomes.

d) to be (growth) implies within (loss). The few suggest the many to seek order out of chaos, which represents the inversion of being temporary chaos (growth) within ongoing order (loss).

others may feel differently

a) "others" implies different from oneself. One can only perceive moving differences (perceivable inspiration for adaptation)...others suggest sameness as the inversion thereof...e pluribus unum (out of many, one) or tikkun olam (healing the world by bringing together) or equality (sameness) through diversity (difference) or united states; united nations, european union; uniformity etc.

b) feelings aka EMO'TION, noun [Latin emotio; emoveo, to move from.] tempts one to ignore being (living) moved by (process of dying). The few utilize suggestion of for example fear/hope to evoke emotions among the many.

it may seem to some that living is chaos, it is not.

a) suggested "is is nothing" tempts one to ignore being the perceiving (partial) within perceivable everything (whole).

b) only within ongoing natural order (velocity) can there be balance (momentum) for temporary chaos (resistance within velocity) to have "free" will of choice within the "dom" inance of balance aka free-dom.

c) the few suggest creationism (out of nothing) to tempt the many to ignore perceivable transmutation (out of everything) aka flow to form (inception), form within flow (life) and form to flow (death)... temporary ingredient (chaos) within, out of and in response to ongoing base (order)...basic alchemy.

The process of dying represents the ongoing need, each one living within represents the temporary choice to want to ignore need, hence being choice at the center of perceivable balance (need/want), which the few tempt through suggestion towards imbalance (want vs not want).

In short...motion represents order, any reaction within represents chaos with the choice to adapt to (need) or ignore (want) order.

From a different perspective...the few suggest "insane person" to tempt the many to ignore "in sanus" (within sound) and "per sonos" (by sound) aka being within; by, out of and in response to perceivable sound as the choice of resonance (need) or dissonance (want).

The trick...suggested fiction (word) over perceivable reality (sound) aka spell-craft. Those adapting to sound represents PHONETICIANS (from phonics, sound), while those who ignore it for suggested words are being fooled by "definitions", hence representing DEAF PHONETICIANS.

nature has a pattern

PAT'TERN, noun - "an original or model proposed for imitation"...the whole differentiates itself into partials, which communicates the perceivable whole as moving differences (inspiration) to each perceiving partial.

Ones choice to adapt as partial to the perceivable inspiration by the whole; allows one to grow comprehension about perceivable exponentially...or one chooses to ignore it for suggested information by others, who then gain through ones consent the power to define (idolatry); redefine (revisionism) and contradict (talmudic reasoning) the suggested information at will.

beyond our perception

a) KNOWL'EDGE, noun - "perception of that which exists". Everyone "knows" (perceives) everything (perceivable), yet each one lacks comprehension about what the perceivable means, hence representing the temporary opportunity to grow (comprehension) within loss (perceivable inspiration) or ignore it for whatever the other dipshits are suggesting.

b) beyond implies BE (to be within) + YOND, adjective - "alienated in mind; gone wandering" aka to be within perceivable, while being alienated in mind/ gone wandering within suggested.

nature works on a framework of efficiency

Work implies energy (inherent/internal power); aka the origin of self sustenance, hence not efficiency (effect) but causality (cause)...being at the center (partial choice) of energy (whole balance); while struggling to sustain self represents the effect (living) of the cause (process of dying).

chaos does not exist

CHAOS, noun - "confusion; mixed mass; disorder"...hence ones ignorance (want) of ongoing order (need) represents temporary chaos, yet order always prevails.

damaged the natural

What if temporary chaos (living) cannot damage the ongoing natural order (process of dying)...only oneself by ignoring the need to resist the perceivable natural order for the want to follow suggested artificial orders?

to change the way nature works

• TO implies towards aka forward motion (velocity) aka constant change.
• CHANGE implies cause/effect aka action/reaction aka motion aka constant change.
• THE (that is) implies within all that was, hence the formed partial within the flowing (constantly changing) whole.
• WAY implies from/to aka through motion aka through constant change.
• NATURE (born; produced) implies born into/produced by hence delivery through constantly changing motion.
• WORKS (energy; internal/inherent power) implies whole (energy) partial (loss/growth), hence a differentiation of whole into partial through constant motion.

DIRECTED (inception towards death) EVOLVO (unfolding of life) -TION (though action)....nobel by descent.

Look at the hoodie...

• chasing (suggested outcome over perceivable origin aka want over need)

• having motion; not emotion (being moved by; not moving from)

• I moved on; I'm no longer interested (INTER; in-between + ESSE; to be); also Latin interesse - "compensation for loss".

Why others? So that one can discern self.

Why self? To establish the distinction of being.

Why whole? For partial expression.

Why partials? For the sustenance of whole.

Why "why"? Because without the temptation of questions, one cannot learn about response-ability within solution.

The Dao gives birth to unity

Aka the way gives birth to each one.

Unity gives birth to duality,

Aka one gives "miscarriage" to suggested dualism (reasoning)

Duality gives birth to trinity

Aka reasoning gives miscarriage to counting, hence accumulating things to reason about exponentially.

trinity

Father; mother; child doesn't represent three "together", but the perpetuation of oneself through another one (family "unit"), hence intercourse for off-spring. The inception of the child is being carried towards being born into apartheid, hence being set free (will of choice) from the bond with the mother. Raising the child implies letting go off dependency by growing independence...once again setting apart.

CONSTITUTE (to set) -TION (through action)...action (process of dying) setting reactions (living)....reading what others suggest tempts one to ignore the perceivable constitution of ones existence.

humans are way too obedient

a) HU'MAN, adjective [Latin humanus; Heb. form, species.]...partial (species; special) form (life) represents the resistance within whole flow (inception towards death).

b) suggested "trust" represents the tool for domesticating free will of choice, hence utilizing the family to train the child to obey (trust) suggested information. Starting with the name (a brand for the cattle); followed by reasoning (agreement vs disagreement) based on wanting vs not wanting suggested information; followed by counting (ignoring "one" self for counting other "ones" as two; three; four etc.); followed by spell-craft (words over sound); followed by sending them into the chain of command under representative authority of others for education and so on.

false authority

Author (process of dying) generating authorized (living)...reasoning about true vs false authority tempts one to ignore that.

when the leader is good

a) look at the track record of humanity...does any of it imply good leadership?

b) leading cause (inception towards death)...resisting effect (life).

fight for...build towards.

That's the issue...suggested progressivism, hence the few pointing the finger at some fictitious outcomes, while the many marching headlong into self destruction by ignoring the perceivable origin.

Living within the process of dying implies the need to resist origin...not fighting forwards or building towards outcomes. Fighting against tempts one to ignore sustenance of self, while the want to build tempts one to ignore the need to shelter.

enough material to write a book.

a) how many books are available...how little does suggested information help the ignorant many to free themselves from consenting to what others suggest them?

b) isn't perceivable reality enough...does one really require more suggested fiction?

Expand on it.

How does one grow by "binding together" ones thoughts? Is it really ones "expression" to "impress" through printing?

those are all chapters

50 Chapters of genesis suggested, yet only "one" process of generation perceivable...motion (inception towards death).

integration of currency...was absolutely necessary

Each one represents the integer (life) within external current (inception towards death)...others suggest currency to tempt one to ignore that. The for living within the process of dying implies "resistance" by free will of choice.

a symbolic representation of value

Perceivable value (process of dying) generates perceiving evaluation (living)...action/reaction. Consenting to suggested values tempts one to devalue the evaluating self.

a tool of progression to a tool of oppression

Progression (process of dying) demands resistance (living)...others suggest progressivism to tempt one to consent to follow, while ignoring to resist.

I can't speak for everyone

The few suggest in nomine (in the name of) patris et filii et spiritus sancti...the many consent to the suggested.

would like have true freedom

Everyone represents "free" will of choice within the "dom" inance of balance (need/want)...even when ignored for suggested imbalance (want vs not want) aka true vs false reasoning.

but we choose this? I believe...

To believe implies choice (consent) to choice (suggestion) contract law, while ignoring balance (perceivable) to choice (perceiving) natural law. If one consent to the suggested choices of others; then one ignores ones own free will of choice.

Nature doesn't necessitate belief...it demands adaptation by choice.

a collective majority of the population of this planet would agree.

a) the few suggest collectivism to tempt each "one" of the many to ignore that the perceivable whole (process of dying) divides itself into each partial (living). To be implies ones struggle to sustain apartheid (living) within wholeness (process of dying).

b) agreement (want) vs disagreement (not want) ignores the need to adapt to constant change.

The world is run by “elected individuals”

The world is run by motion, those who ignore that are tempted to consent to suggested representation of government, instead of utilizing choice to govern (control) mind/memory (ment) for the sustenance of self.

Choice can only exist within the center of balance (momentum of motion)...one needs to use choice to balance within motion...not pretend to let others run.

collective interests in mind

What if the mind/memory needs to be used for adaptation to perceivable inspiration (like a ram), while being tempted to want to be misused for accumulation for suggested information (like a hard-drive)?

Whenever one consents to suggested information by others; those others set collected interest into ones consenting mind. Meanwhile, ones ignorance of perceivable for suggested allows those suggesting to "bank" the "currency" of thought; while also gaining the power to define (idolatry); redefine (revisionism) and contradict (talmudic reasoning) the suggested information at their will.

Maybe I”m alone

Being partial (living) within whole (process of dying) implies being one within oneness, hence "alone" aka ALL(in)ONE.

Sleight of hand: "all for one and one for all" or "there can be only one". If the many ignore to be the ones with choice, then the few become the "chosen ones".

for what reason

Suggested reason (want vs not want; true vs false; agreement vs disagreement; belief vs disbelief; rich vs poor, us vs them; black vs white; Big Mag vs Whooper) tempts one to ignore perceivable implication (if/then).

Motion defines implication, hence if set into motion (inception) then outcome (death)...a very helpful tool of self discernment for those within (life)...unless ignored for suggested conflicts of reason.

our actions and feelings

a) one can only react (living) to enacting (process of dying)...others suggest "actors" under "directors" to tempt one to mimic acting, while ignore to be reaction (life) within direction (inception towards death)..."the show must go on".

b) feelings aka EMO'TION, noun [Latin emotio; emoveo, to move from.] tempt one to ignore being (living) moved by (process of dying), hence in need to resist (growth) temptation (loss).

we've created

a) suggested "we" (plural) tempts "one" (singular) to ignore self.

b) suggested creationism (out of nothing) tempts one to ignore perceivable transmutation (out of everything), hence as temporary form (life) within ongoing flow (inception towards death) it implies flow to form (inception), form within flow (life) and form to flow (death)....transmutation of ingredient (growth) out of base (loss). Basic alchemy.

Try to create a thought without shaping it out of already perceivable inspiration...one cannot live without living within the process of dying. One cannot move (up/down; left/right; forward/backward) without being moved (from inception towards death) by.

Freedom to me means the ability to choose what to do and when to do it at any given time. Do the options given to us by our society allow this?

One represents the free will of choice to "try" to do what (reaction) and when (now) one chooses to...choosing to want the allowance from the choices of others, puts one at liberty of their choices, while restricting oneself from ever trying.

Society represents the slave-system for those willingly ignoring to utilize their free will of choice to resist the natural order (inception towards death), hence following suggested orders (towards death) with less and less resistance. It's also mass ignorance, which shapes, maintains and agitates those few who mercilessly exploit if through suggested temptations. The ignorance of the many shapes the insolent reaction of the few, and the ignorance of the many represents the host vulnerability for the parasitic exploitation by the few.

Anyone can choose to step out of this...but only by oneself. The many want to shirk response-ability (choice) onto others, hence this ongoing clusterfuck for all those who try to grow self discernment among mass ignorance. One is always tempts to seek confirmation from others, instead of letting the consequences of ones choices be the implicating (if/then) inspiration perceived.

choice with only one logical and practical answer is not a choice

Suggested questions (wanting) and answers (wanting more) tempt one to ignore being temporary problem (living) within ongoing solution (process of dying), hence in need to sustain self by resisting wanted temptations. The few exploit this by suggesting the inversion thereof...seeking order out of chaos (ordo ab chao), when it's being chaos (living) within the natural order (process of dying), hence the struggle to sustain self.

Choice exists within balance (need/want)...others tempt one to want answers and questions, which when consented to, tempts one into reasoning (want vs not want) about them.

Example...the question "what to eat" and the suggested answer "whatever you want we got" tempts one to ignore the perceivable need...hunger. Adapt to hunger and the temptation of questions and answers becomes impotent, because adaptation to need grows resistance to want.

Who are we?

Suggested "we" tempts one to ignore growing self discernment about being partial within whole; growth within loss; temporary within ongoing; potential within potentiality; one within oneness; reaction within enacting; the center (choice) of everything (balance), the TRANS-muted form (life) within the FEMININE (momentum) of MASCULINE (flow).

As for what...all represents one in EN'ERGY, noun [Gr. work.] - "internal or inherent power"...those powers represents loss/growth aka process of dying/living. Sleight of hand for those with eyes to see...WORK (energy) will set you FREE (will of choice) aka "Arbeit macht Frei".

Why can’t we see what is happening?

Because the many ignore perceivable symmetry for suggested symbolism, they ignore perceivable sound for suggested words. Suggested "insane person" tempts one to ignore perceivable "in sanus" (within sound) and "per sonos" (by sound) aka being within; by, out of and in response to perceivable sound. It's spell-craft.

Those who adapt to perceivable sound represent PHONETICIANS (from phonics; sound), while those who ignore it for suggested words are fooled by the "definitions" of others, hence representing DEAF PHONETICIANS.

what we call

Nature doesn't brand anything with labels, those within tempt each other with suggested labels (words) to ignore the ongoing nature (sound). Motion differentiates itself from whole (perceivable) into partial (perceiving), hence communicating whole towards each partial as perceivable inspiration (moving differences). And what does differences inspire "one" to do? Sustaining self (apartheid) within everything (wholeness). The sustenance of self through others, teaches one to let go, hence intercourse for offspring.

Nature makes the perfect form of technology.

a) suggested TECHNOL'OGY, noun [Gr. art, and word or discourse.] aka ARTIFI'CIAL, adjective - "in opposition to natural" tempts one to ignore perceivable natural.

b) nature represents the flow (inception towards death); those within represent the form (life).

c) the few suggest PER'FECT, adjective (Latin perfectus, perficio, to complete) aka e pluribus unum (out of many; one) or tikkun olam (healing the world by bringing together) as the inversion of nature (whole process of dying) setting itself apart (living partials).

d) the few suggest progressivism to tempt the many to want suggested outcomes like "perfection", while ignoring the need to adapt to perceivable origin for the sustenance of self.

grind destroys minds

a) what if the foundation of grinding represents living (resistance) within the process of dying (velocity), hence velocity (loss) meeting resistance (growth). This would imply that grinding not only destroys minds (death) but also sets (inception) minds.

b) if living within the process of dying, then need for temporary adaptation to ongoing motion. How does one adapt? By free will of choice. Therefore; choice implies FRE'QUENCY, noun - "a return or occurrence of a thing often repeated at short intervals" of resistance within velocity.

Who could do all that grinding without catching the actual drift?

It took me 2-3 comics to catch the drift of "Batman" as a child; everything afterwards represents industrialized exploitation of my nurtured addiction to wanting to see others fix or destroy stuff, instead of failing at the former or getting punished for the latter by myself. All the masquerade stuff plays on that shirking of response-ability (choice).

As for the Riddler...suggested questions (wanting) tempt one to choose suggested answers (wanting more), while ignoring to be the perceiving problem (living) within the perceivable solution (process of dying), hence the need to resist suggested temptation.

"As bats is fighting to prevent the chaos to spread, does he ignore the struggle within to resist holding onto that which he contains in his head?" The dark knight struggles within ignorance; hence closing himself off from the light of comprehension.

a) carrot (astral-projection) + Stick (picking yourself up by the bootstraps to make it happen or else)...both tools of domestication. The more one dangles the carrot, the less others want it, and the more one uses the stick, the less others fear it.

b) Fiction: "everything was shared collectively"..."we make it happen"..."for ourselves"...

Reality: whole (process of dying) divides itself into each partial (living), hence everyone representing a SHARE, noun - "a part; a portion; a quantity" of everything. Meanwhile; the sustenance of oneself implies ones struggle for apartheid (living) within wholeness (process of dying).

Others suggest togetherness as the inversion thereof aka "e pluribus unum" (out of many; one" or "tikkun olam (healing the world by bringing together" or "united states; united nations; european union, uniformity" or "equality (sameness) through diversity (differences) etc.

Suggested "we" (plural) tempts the perceiving one (singular) to ignore self.

Notice....resisting the temptation to consent to suggested vaccinations remains legal for everyone, while suggesting fear; hesitation; doubt among others about any aspect of vaccinations becomes illegal.

In short...the liberty to sustain self is offered, while the liberty to save others is being revoked.

accept the reality presented to them

a) PRES'ENT, adjective [Latin proesens; proe and sum, esse, to be.]...to be implies the presented (living) within the presentation (process of dying).

b) ACCEPT', verb [Latin accepto, from accipio, ad and capio, to take.] - "to take or receive what is offered" aka to take (suggested information) or receive (perceivable inspiration) what is offered...ones choice within the need to adapt or the want to take.

will be left to just study what we do

From the Baal HaTurim...a work dedicated to explaining words, phrases or even entire verses in the realm of remez (allusion), rather than in the realm of peshat (simple meaning of the verse)...aka suggested information upon perceivable inspiration.

ALLU'SION, noun - "a reference to something not explicitly mentioned; a hint; a suggestion, by which something is applied or understood to belong to that which is not mentioned, by means of some similitude which is perceived between them".

• Gematria (numerical value) - Every Hebrew letter has a numerical equivalent called its gematria.

• Roshei Teivot (initial letters) - The initial letters of the words in a phrase or verse (either in their respective order or as an anagram) often spell a word or phrase which may be used as the basis of a remez.

• Sofei Teivot (final letters) - Similar to roshei teivot, except utilizing the final letters of the words for the remez.

• Mispar (count) - An allusion is drawn from the number of words in a verse or the number of times a particular letter appears in a verse.

turns out most likely not to be true

Can you list (top 3 maybe) examples of "true" information that cannot be questioned by others aka real "truth" the many can totally rely on during the information warfare with the "lying" few aka the line of truth within the sands of lies?