Notice that Pinoccio lying is symbolized by the budding of a tree aka growth...why is it that for the wooden to become real; its growth has to be prevented? Where is the truth in preventing growth?
Notice that Gepetto/yâsaph/yehôsêph/Iōsḗph/yosef crafts "puppets"...
Crafting (suggestion) puppets (consent) within reality (perception) by preventing growth...where's the lie in that?
“debunkbot” can turn even hardcore conspiracy theorists into budding skeptics
Suggested skepticism is about casting doubt/duo - "two" within another ONE by tempting a conflict of reason, where one has to choose between two sides.
The longer one reasons, the more doubtful one becomes about suggested.
It makes you look young
Ain't seeing it... https://img.gvid.tv/i/3ETgxuav.jpg + https://img.gvid.tv/i/3bm1RfYj.jpg
bended the rules a little...to not lie under any circumstances
a) Doesn't circum/circle imply fully bend?
b) Does being alive imply ones stance within a circle or within a line (inception towards death)?
Sleight of hand: https://genius.com/Elton-john-circle-of-life-lyrics
- In the circle of life
- It's the wheel of fortune
- It's the leap of faith
- It's the band of hope
- TIL WE FIND OUR PLACE
- ON THE PATH UNWINDING
to always speak the truth
Sound was before speech can be shaped within...
outcome...
...implies origin. The former tempts want; the latter implies need.
a) Bundesrepublik aka bund/bond/bondage... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Jewish_Labour_Bund
b) Distortion (suggestion) of vision (perception) GERMIN-ates seeds of disease.
betcha it'd be worth more later
a) Does life get more worthy later if one waits?
b) Can one BEt without pledging BEing?
c) Does laying a wAGEr stakes AGE of life?
d) Boy/boie - "servant, commoner, knave"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/boy#etymonline_v_15693
Play/plight/pledge...
interact with it in some way.
Enacting way (inception towards death) internally differentiates reacting positions (life)...observe (to hold onto) tempts one to ignore this differentiation aka setting apart from one another.
To observe implies to look at something aka to lock onto it aka to FOCUS on a POINT of convergence, while ignoring ones life sentence being moved towards point of death.
This ignored motion implies a generating power (velocity) increasing the effects of ones focus upon a point of convergence, while diminishing ones power (resistance).
In short...few suggest "look here" to tempt many to burn their resistance when consenting to focus on it.
Notice that the foundation of attention aka ad (towards) tendere (to stretch) implies life being stretched from inception towards death...few tempt many to give attention, which each one needs to resist to sustain life.
particle
Partials (each ones perception) can only exist during whole (all perceivable). During implies a moving whole (inception towards death) setting partials (life) apart from one another.
messes up
Partials looking/locking at each other/with each other are messing/massing up being differentiated from one another.
Few control MANY by AMASSING aka e pluribus unum (out of many one)...which messes up each partial one (singular) among many (plural).
How could that even be
Being implies odd (choice) during even (balance)...asking each other "how could that EVEN BE" tempts one at odds with another, hence imbalance.
This imbalance is called "reason/logic"...and it messes up many for the benefit of few.
does anybody have an answer
Nature implies solution (inception towards death) to each problem (life) within...a question/quest towards answers tempts one to ignore being within origin.
Why would any of this even be going on?
Steady (motion) generates even (momentum) for odds (matter)...that's why.
Science does not explain
a) Science/scio - "to know" implies ones perception within all perceivable...suggested scientism tempts one to ignore that by consenting to the suggested.
b) Being implies ex-plain aka expressed growth (life) during plain loss (inception towards death)...seeking for explanations from one another establishes friction (conflicts of reason) among expressed growth, hence grinding it down into loss.
That's why few mix many together...to trick them to grind each other to dust.
For ever implies multiplying forward, back ever implies dividing backward
Ever aka always aka way of all implies forwards...each TEMPORARY one within implies backwards.
Forwarding (inception towards death) divisions (life)...
Con-tra-dicts?
Con-dicere (speaking together) aka suggested words meeting con-sent, thereby contradicting being send apart from one another.
That's why suggestion contradicts perception...since nature doesn't utter words by putting letters together. It's ones consent LETTING others shape LETTERS into words with attached meaning.
within" implies "temporary one con-", in:
ONE (apart) + CON (together with)...there's the contradiction tempting ignorance. Once one sees it, and lets go of "con" it implies "temporary one within ongoing all".
"Each temporary one dies within ever forwarding all"...Inception implies death
Life needs to resist the temptation to view coming into being (inception) as getting moved out of being (death) or else life's gonna be a lot shorter.
Self discernment is about ones living position within process of dying.
Spirit doesn't respond to a turn
Ones response to spirit can make turns in-between inhaling and exhaling. Filling belly/chest and lungs allows all kinds of opportunities for vibration/compression/eddying mass aka turning/bending into a vortex etc.
Spirit turns fro, and turns back. Exhale and inhale, enact and react?
Enacting breath (momentum) of God (motion) into reacting spirit/spiro - "to breathe" (matter).
The issue here is suggested spiritualism which tempts believers to hold onto THE SPIRIT, while ignoring that breathing can't be held onto...for long...until needing to let go of.
Another rhetorical trick used for spirit is "soul", which also tempts one to claim it, while ignoring SOLE...how does one claim one and only?
The spirit you describe as "turning fro and back" implies matter; while the directed spirit implies the momentum (breath) of motion (God). Ones choice "turns" incoming spirit within the formed vessel of matter...or however else one chooses to blow it.
Then, for ever and back ever implies tempos (times) multiply forward, and multiply back (divides)
a) Ever forwarding (inception towards death) temporal reactions backwards (life)
b) Ever forwarding divides from all into ones, motion into matter; action into reactions etc.
Temporal backwards reactions multiply through each other (intercourse for off-spring) in-between addition (inception) and subtraction (death).
Velocity changes, implication adapts
Velocity implies constant change, which resistance adapting within perceives as implication (if/then)...unless ignored for suggested temptations, which establish reason (versus aka turning against one another).
Stretching partials (contemporaries) increases, and can decrease, partials
Hence living (increase) within process of dying (decrease), while wielding the free will of choice to increase or decrease oneself and one another.
distinguished... scientist
-ist (scientist) implies ones consent to suggested -ism (scientism) aka many consenting alike, while ignoring to be distinguished from one another.
distinguished + laureate/laurel - "emblem of distinction"
Each distinguished (different), yet THEY JOIN (alike)...
participants
What happens to distinguished parts if joined together?
Blum
jewish (Ashkenazic): artificial name from German Blume, Yiddish blum ‘flower’
Two flowering jews and a green brian/briar (heath aka heathen/pagan) invoking a demon (a ghoul/algol)...nothing to see here.
a) Algol aka a ghoul (demon)... https://www.etymonline.com/word/Algol#etymonline_v_8143
Why demon? Because dai-mon - "divider; provider"...division provides potential.
b) Rhythm/rhyme/rhein/sreu - "to flow"...awareness implies form (ones perception) adapting to flow (all perceivable)...not to the suggested artifice by one another.
international banking
a) Intern aka within, hence "central" banking.
b) Choice implies center of balance...if ones choice selects a chosen ones suggestion, then one imbalances self off-center.
c) The allies fought against the...axis/axon/aksah - "beam of balance".
In December 1998, Philip Zelikow, Ashton Carter and John Deutch (all jewish) authored a report for Foreign Affairs titled Catastrophic Terrorism: Tackling the New Danger.
Before that, in 1986, there was a book called 'Terrorism: How the West Can Win' by Benjamin Netanyahu... https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2677710-terrorism
The same Netanyahu who published 'International Terrorism: Challenge and Response' in 1982... https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7143806-international-terrorism
Spirit, into your (All)
All through spirit into one...
Which self is first (original)?
a) All implies first; each one implies second/seco - "to divide"
b) All implies first (inception) and last (death) for each one (life) within.
forever and ever back
Forever and ever implies multiplying forward; while back implies a division...a contradiction.
In reality...forwards (motion) and backwards (matter) are balanced (momentum). The position of being implies backwards within forwarding origin.
Then, forever and ever back.
If "forever and ever back"; then no forwarding of temporal being.
Responsible
Aka reaction (re) enabled (ible) by sponsoring (spons) action.
If each temporary one within, then each one contemporary...
CON (together) contradicts ONE (apart from one another).
Suggesting each one dies ignores
a) Suggestion tempts one to ignore by consent. Few are suggesting to gain consent by many aka the allegory of the vampire asking for permission to enter.
To ask another implies the temptation to ignore perceivable all for a suggestion by another one...that requires resistance.
b) Inception implies death for ones perceiving life, because all perceivable moves, hence directing input through one, which diminishes ones resistance through velocity.
spirit returning (turning fro and back
Spirit doesn't respond to a turn; ones response implies the turn within directed spirit, and as a reacting choice within an enacting balance, one struggles fro and back to sustain self.
Few are tempting many with suggested spiritualism to consent and hold onto "spirit" as a possession, all while ignoring that breathing implies the need to let go.
implies multiplying tempo
a) Implication (if/then) requires the same velocity so that different resistances within can utilize it to discern self.
b) If all is one in energy, then multiplication can only happen after the division of all (whole) into ones (partials), because only then can intercourse for off-spring multiply being.
c) Tempo/temporal/ten - "to stretch" implies ones free will of choice to balance (increase/reduce) different forms of resistance during the same flow of velocity.
Only within the momentum of motion can matter stretch...stretching partials cannot increase or decrease whole.
Then, dying implies living: discerning self...
...if one chooses to discern self by adapting to perceivable, while resisting consent to suggested.
Jesus Christ.
Accepting death by the hands of others doesn't quite trigger the "will over respiration" achievement...
All shows All
To show implies to perceive, hence by one within all. All cannot perceive all, because perception implies differentiation of all into ones.
What is "each different self"?
Temporal within ongoing passing through one another aka sprouting/germination/offspring...
how could one perceive death coming out?
What comes out of the process of dying? Each living one coming to be within. All perceivable implies "input" coming out of process of dying; each ones perception implies living within.
Who requires or wants?
a) One who needs wants to ignore it.
b) One who responds to seeking (re-quire) aims at suggested outcomes, while ignoring perceivable FOUNDation, hence "seek an you shall find".
Does resistance process life?
Living implies resisting the process of dying, which tempts one to ignore resisting. Resistance implies ones re-sponding stance within velocity as choice within balance.
Does each one cease? Then, all would be lost.
a) Loss generates growth ; growth re-generates during loss.
b) Motion (all) utilizes momentum to generate matter (one)...only matter coming to be within momentum experiences growth (living) during loss (dying).
c) All implies generation of loss (action) and growth (reactions) internally. Only growth experiences loss.
d) Where would all lose ones to? Only ones can lose themselves within all.
e) All would be contradicts one being will.
"chasing after death" What else?
Utilizing guide to grow life, while others chase after death. To guide implies to direct...nature directs being; being reacts (life) to direction (inception towards death) by resisting the temptation thereof.
Then, the dying process represents transformation...
...of living.
How could a dying outcome represent or perceptibly come out?
a) Because each one comes out alive into the process of dying, before being moved back into it...
b) Having perception implies that one came out of perceivable...circumference (motion) generates center (matter).
Then, flow and resist, free and dominated
Form resisting dominating flow by free will of choice.
What if loss of form is partial?
If loss of form is partial, then WHOLE could grow...which contradicts whole. This line of thinking is based on ones consent to creationism, which suggests the whole creation and then some aka one creator added to all creation.
In reality...ONEs addition (inception); subtraction (death); multiplication (intercourse for off-spring) and division (whole into partials) can only operate within ALL.
One could die forever.
Each temporary one dies within ever forwarding all.
forever and ever
That implies multiplying "ongoing", while ignoring that only temporal can be multiplied within ongoing by division.
In that line of thinking...addition (living) during subtraction (dying).
Perceptive. Dying
Just because perceivable implies dying, doesn't mean that ones living perception has to ignore itself for it.
Then, for ever, and ever (back).
Temporal matter forwards and back (choice) within momentum (balance) of ongoing motion.
saudi
Saudi/Sa'ud from Arabic sa'd - "happiness"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/Saudi
Only a jew can make spells like this work...
central bank
Aka central (jewish suggestion) bank (gentile consent)...
Then, (say) forever.
Ever forwards implies ongoing motion...being implies temporal matter.
What of creation out of All?
That implies transformation of partials within whole aka chemistry of all (alchemy). Shaping anything implies transforming aka alternation of differences within same source, which can be perceived...creating anything a) implies out of nothing and b) tempts one to ignore everything perceivable.
Suggested creationism also adds the creator, while transformation implies a flowing process aka male (motion) through female (momentum) transformation (matter)...hence being (life) implying a transfer (inception towards death).
So rocks affirm being. Do humans?
Hue of man implies visible spectrum (momentum) of light (motion) for rays (matter) within. Branding oneself a human tempts one to ignore this process...a process inspiring self discernment.
Another branding issue...noun (rock) over verb (to rock). What does moving backward and forward imply? Alternation aka balancing as choice.
Few imbalance many with suggestion into circular reasoning...the suggested tempts one to incline towards sides, hence alternating, while circular logic/reasoning confines one within a ring. That process is hidden underneath the rhetoric ROCK & ROLL. There's way more geomancy at play about cutting corners and circling the square, but the gist of subversion (turning under) is rocking and rolling.
Then, firming. Forms firm
Flow forms...form struggles to sustain self within flow by resisting temptation. Resistance is fertile, hence can be grown. Wanting to holding onto formed growth implies the temptation one needs to resist.
Also...consenting to affirmation by another lowers ones resistance. Firming form together during flow burdens each ones resistance, while increasing the temptation to shirk response-ability to one another.
Notice how few tempt many to resist each other within conflicts of reason, which few hide under theaters of war...that's where "strength in numbers" originates from. Reasoning implies mutual destruction of resistance among many, which benefits a resisting few who sell temptations...
Call origin God
a) Origin implies an outpouring from, God implies a label upon...held within.
b) Consenting to a suggested label for origin permits another to speak in the name of (e nomine) of origin...hence contradicting perceivable origin with suggested labels.
c) Where does the call to label originate from? Perception or suggestion?
d) Notice Allah (phonetic; all law)...not a label, but an implication for each one within.
e) Notice God (phonetic, gad)... https://www.etymonline.com/word/gad#etymonline_v_1206 Doesn't following origin towards outcome imply "hurrying" along?
A pointed stick to drive oxen...aren't followers pointed towards outcomes? Doesn't consent stick to suggested information? Are the goys of this world not driven by progressivism? Look at what vaccines/vacca (cow) drove many to do to themselves and each other...
Sleight of hand for those with eyes to see: "olly olly oxen free"...a CATCH-phrase.
Then, firming. Forms firm.
A secondary shaping tempting each other to ignore process of origin.
Form (temporary growth) within flow (ongoing loss) implies free to form within dominion of flow. Affirming each other tempts an exchange of dominion over each other, hence forms consensual submission to another form.
Form/firmus/dher - "to hold firmly"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/firm#etymonline_v_5968
Holding firmly doesn't sustain form within flow longer...it diminishes the resistance used to hold firm, which others tempt one to do by consenting to hold onto suggested information.
Sustained denial of breathing represents death
Can you show an example where ones denial of breathing let to ones death?
What sustains denial is ones resistance to hold onto a temptation, which ignores the force of velocity (inception towards death) diminishing resistance (life)...unless resisted.
Breathing forever represents life
Breathing implies a reaction, hence re-present (response to presented)...forever implies ongoing action, which generates re-actions.
Action implies process of dying; reacting implies living...life can only react, hence few suggesting many to react to "actors" being "directed".
All identifies Himself
Without differentiation through female (momentum) into trans-form (matter)...male (motion) couldn't be discerned by each different self as same origin.
Differences identifying (equalizing; making same) each other implies self denial aka lack of self discernment...out of which one labels all with identities.
Self implies perpetuation of one through intercourse with another one into off-spring...a setting apart by giving away. Not something to hold onto and identify with. It's ones claim of possession as "me; myself or I" which corrupts ones line of thought and thereby ones line of perpetuation through another.
In short: all doesn't require self, since there's no other "all"...one requires self, since there are other ones within all to perpetuate self.
(only now can one perceive). Yes.
Yes vs no reasoning about suggested tempts one to ignore perceivable. One does not perceive a conflict within nature unless one chooses a side within an artificial shape...for which one ignores nature.
For example...holding a hand before ones perceiving eyes to establish a suggested conflict of reason between light vs dark. Many lack to comprehend that holding onto suggested information (dark) conceals ones sight within perceivable inspiration (light)...and few keep adding layers of concealment onto walls of ignorance, held "firmly" within ones consenting mind/memory.
Does death represent...
Does an outcome respond (re) to presented origin? What if a response (choice) can only operate in-between origin and outcome, hence from within a balance?
If there's only needed origin, then why would one require a choice to balance within wanted outcomes? Where's temptation without outcomes to tempt choice to fall for?
Does living represent (respond to presented) process of dying?
Why would one cease?
So that there can be growth (partial ones) during loss (whole oneness)...an internal balance of external energy.
Distinctions distinguish. What do you think about this?
That thoughts can be shaped "alike" if one consent to suggestions by others...which in return corrupts distinctions. Consent prevents one from distinguishing self....hence giving consent to another.
Then (with that origin), redundancy (redounding).
Redundancy of oneself when consenting to another, hence ignoring ones choice for a chosen ones suggestion. Origin simply generates more beings with the free will of choice to reduce themselves and each other...if they want to.
Free market capitalism...redundancy of products and consumers, hence wholesale through retail. Life just passing through, while chasing after death to get the next "stuff"...
does dying represent ceasing or becoming?
a) Dying (loss/action) implies living (growth; reaction)...a simultaneous process of differentiation (matter) within origin (motion).
b) Suggested "become" inverts perceivable "coming into being"...no other being can share self discernment with one another.
c) Cease/cedere/ked - "to yield". This implies ones reaction to yield to action...not the ceasing of action or the coming into being of reactions.
Then, flow in freedom, and resist in freedom.
Free form within dom-inating flow aka free resistance within dominating velocity.
Few suggest freedom (free and dom put together) to distract many from the ongoing differentiation of dominance (balance) into free (choice), and more importantly each ones discernment of self as wielding FREE will of choice.
Consenting to suggested "freedom" permits others to offer "liberty" to those worthy thereof (willing slaves)...and just like that...international prison-industrial complex.
Another example...suggested "land of the free" tempts one to ignore being free within the land of dominance. This distinction can only be made through self discernment.
Can One pass through or to death?
Flow to form transformation (inception to life) + form to flow transformation (life to death). Transformation implies passing matter through momentum of motion.
The "gates" of inception and death imply matter coming in and out of motion, while being passed through momentum.
Look at a sinus curvature...inception and death are visible from outside. Now notice baseline continuing through one temporary sinus curvature after another...base implies the origin oneness aka all aka whole aka sound aka light aka energy etc.
There can be only one...one ongoing whole; each temporary one within.
From another angle of perspective...death tempting one to be afraid of loosing life. The issue...only during loss (inception towards death) can growth (life) have a perspective of what loosing feels like.
In short...death makes each partial whole again.
Then, you may call inspiring adaptation God's breath of life.
"you may call" contradicts inspiring adaption to God's breath of life, because it tempts ones consent to another one.
All inspires each one apart from one another...information tempts one to consent to others, hence coming together.
Then, implication inspires (All implies balance).
If one chooses to be inspired...agreeing or disagreeing with another tempts one to ignore that.
Does struggle or resistance or suffering or being imply death?
a) Not death (noun)...dying (adjective), which implies to live (verb).
b) One struggles/resists/suffers origin...YET...can freely choose to turn ones perspective within perceivable origin (need) towards suggested outcomes (want).
That's why the "call of duty" tempts many to march towards destruction, hence into war.
Thinking that one can "not choose" implies ones choice to consent to "nothing"
The issue is "thinking", hence revolving suggested information within ones consenting mind/memory. Perceivable inspiration moves through ones mind/memory and cannot be held onto, hence most artists complaining about loosing inspiration.
Then, One adapts forever.
Ever forwards (for ever) generates odd adaptations, hence adapting "backwards" to incoming origin.
If one moves ever forwards, then what would one react to? Moving forwards implies the path of least resistance, hence lessening of adaption by letting form get flown away.
Suggestion met resistance.
Notice that the end of the "nothing pitch" shows Seinfeld falling for the temptation to ignore further resistance.
Then, One wills and sounds and chooses
Sound implies entire...free will of choice implies each partial ones reaction within entire action. Suggested pluralism (we) collectivizes each into many...under few "chosen ones".
Then, call it an inspiration.
A "call" shapes suggested information, which tempts others to ignore perceivable inspiration. Inspiration doesn't call...all flows for one to draw from.
temporary forever
Ever forwards (motion) temporal (matter)...
Rhetoric/rethorike (art of influencing) from were (to speak) tempts form to turn within flow, hence from resistance into velocity. That's why rhetorical suggestion is used to invert directed perception.
Evidence indicates not all flow is towards death (endless flow).
a) Endless implies conclusion (end) through loss (less). In other words...putting form into flow ends form. How long form sustains being (life) ended (inception towards death)...that's on form to choose.
b) vidence/videre - "to see" implies perceivable...neither ones inception, nor ones death are perceivable by ones life. Notice that evidence is suggested to one another for confirmation...consenting to such permits others for example law enforcement based on evidence, which is staffed by...many following the suggested orders by few, hence not evidence based.
To make firm that one is a being is indeed to be something.
What comes first tho...being form or affirming self to be? Answer...flow.
To deny that one is a being is not to be something.
Notice that it requires the choice of a being to deny aka to de-nial (Latin nihilo; nothing)...
Saying "not to be" implies "nothing towards being"...which puts nothing before being something.
That's the foundation for suggested creationism aka everything out of nothing; into something. Reality implies everything transmuting each thing into something different from one another, with the free will of choice to deny aka to believe in nothingness.
Being affirms its being automatically without reference to free will of choice.
a) Auto implies flow; being implies form...auto generates balance; within which form wields choice. Only within the dominance of balance can there be free will of choice...free within dom.
b) Suggested "without" inverts being within perceivable. Without also suggests a lack of something, which tempts one to ignore that all perceivable required for each ones perception.
Whole cannot withhold anything from partials...partials imply the revelation of whole.
c) The RE in re-ference implies ones RE-sponse by free will of choice, hence re-ferre (to carry back).
Action (inception towards death) carries forwards, while carrying reactions (life) back to origin. How does one react? By choice. Preferred choice so far...ignorance of ones choice for adherence to choices of another.
To flow with All is to affirm All without reference to whether One has free will of choice or not.
a) To be within flow implies as FORM...af-FIRM-ing implies the choice of form after coming into being.
Before one can affirm...one was formed into being.
b) Does "or not" apply to origin (God)? Or could it be a suggested choice made afterwards?
Can one perceive...everything or nothing?
If one fails to affirm, when it is one's duty to flow with All, the lack of resonance with All identifies itself as the lie.
a) Ones duty (life) to flow (inception towards death) can't be interfered with ones choice of affirmation or denial.
Try to denial the flow of breathing...after learning quickly that flow dominates, ask yourself if affirmation to one another binds FREE will of choice during that dominance of a balanced process?
As for why flow is a balanced process...inhale/exhale.
b) Compare "duty to flow" with "identify/identic/idem (same)...same flow, different duty.
Few suggest equality through diversity to equalize differences among many, under the label "Identitarianism/idealism".
Nature simply differentiates each being from one another, which establishes ones struggle to resist (life) being equalized (inception towards death) again.
All identifies itself
If all implies God, then IT blasphemes HE...resisting the temptation to identify allows one to see that difference.
Then, say, life flows in the now.
Which implies sooth-sayer aka others who suggest one what to say. Anyone can perceive now; cause only now can one perceive.
Suggestion establishes an artificial distraction from that, which tempts many to ignore NOW for NEW...
which is why death is not life or experience but itself a suggestion.
Inception TOWARDS death implies a procession aka flow...death on itself implies a point within procession. It's ones consent to such a suggested point of death, which tempts one to ignore ones life sentence during procession aka living within process of dying.
In short...suggested noun (death) tempts one to ignore perceivable verb (dying).
Life and experience do not involve or evidence any end of being.
Again using "DO NOT" as the foundation to describe a living being. The conflict of reason between affirming vs denying prevents one to make an opposite point without invoking "nothing" aka ones denial/de-nihilo.
That's the nothingness spreading within the never ending story aka perpetuation of denial through reason.
If "The" means "All"
The-ism...a suggested authority by another, and also a corruption of male/female distinction (sex/seco; to divide).
What do you think about this...
- English: The sun; the moon
- Spanish: El Sol (male); La Luna (female)
- German: Die Sonne (female); Der Mond (male)
redundancy; otherwise, superfluity
Origin (God)...redundancy; otherwise, superfluity? Or were those shaped by a choice in ignorance of origin?
How could whole offer redundancy to partials within? How could origin offer otherwise? How could a flowing origin forming beings offer superfluity aka super flow aka beyond flow?
End and death are not stablished or firm or life.
Formed within flow implies within (life) balance (inception/death)...again you view end as point of death, while ignoring life sentence towards point of death within procession.
By affirming beginning (inception), while denying end (death) you are tricked to incline to one side, which imbalances your choice within natures balance. Same with reasoning...always inclining towards one side, while fighting the other.
Stablish implies stable aka even aka balanced aka in-between sides, hence in-between (life) beginning (inception) and end (death), while struggling as choice to balance within a moving processing aka living within process of dying aka growing during loss.
Then, say, One is free to flow with (adapt to) All, to resist temptation.
a) Saying in accordance to another contradicts ones free will of choice. Agreement among choice binds free will of choice, hence religion/religio - "to bind anew".
b) "free to flow" inverts flow towards formed being with free will of choice. Ignoring to resist implies shirking of response-ability...
then, say, One has inception, and One does not end.
a) How could one "has/have" inception, when ones life has passed through it? Having implies possessing aka ones choice of wanting to hold onto, while ignoring needing to let go.
b) Why would one say "does not" if everything flowing does ones form? Form within flow implies re-doing self, while being done by origin.
Yes, inspiring adaptation is God's breath of life.
a) Breathing doesn't require a YES vs NO conflict of reason...choosing to participate in such a conflict of reason about suggested information diminishes inspiration perceived.
In-SPIRIT-ation aka spirit/spiro - "to breathe".
b) Suggesting what IS tempts one to ignore that all perceivable WAS before one came to be within, hence breathing in response to origin.
In this case, me. Each One is free to choose.
a) Me; myself or I implies taking possession over ONEself, hence ignoring that all generates units/unus - "one" by setting whole apart from one another.
b) Saying aka suggesting that "one is free" tempts oneself and others to ignore that dominance was perceivable before one came to be free.
c) The rhetoric "case and point" is suggested by few to define end (death) while covering sentence (life). Making a case implies shaping a cover for information. This is about concealment aka concealing the minds of others with suggested spell-craft.
In that case, you.
Do I make a case when using implication (if/then)? What do I cover by using flow to implicate? Reason on the other hands confines both sides within a conflict...does implication (if/then) do the same or does it set inspiration towards free will of choice?
Ignoring origin represents imbalance.
Yet choice can only exist within balance...ignorance implies self-denial by consent to another. That's how all implies balance, while each one within can imbalance self if so chosen.
choosing All suffices
Suffice (to be enough or sufficient; to be equal to the end proposed) tempts one to ignore self aka the differentiated being; struggling from inception towards death with what choice is enough to sustain being.
Now consider suffer (allow to occur or continue, refrain from hindering, fail to prevent or suppress)...hence having FREE will of choice.
Life cannot hinder the process of dying; nor fail to prevent outcome (death), and many repressing self, while being suppressed by few...that's life for most alright.
Then, say, "not" implies
IF nothing, THEN...what could follow? Nothing contradicts everything flowing, yet it doesn't prevent flow, it implies forms denial of flow.
Getting "not" out of the vocabulary could help tremendously to prevent spell-craft to flourish, yet who is gonna give up denial? One could write a sophisticated treatise about the abolishment of nothing and many would just say "nah"...
Then, say, adapt. Adapt to One having no end.
If one adapts to having nothing, then...? Meanwhile...adaptation implies reaction adapting to action aka each thing adapting to everything.
If only nothing wasn't an option... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQnaRtNMGMI
Then, say, we will and sound out and choose. It's a tenet.
We aka suggested pluralism implies singular ones affirmation to another...that's a deal shaped through words; tempting one to ignore sound.
Original tenet/ten - "to stretch" implies being (life) stretched (inception towards death)...consenting to a suggested tenet implies holding onto aka contracting, hence suggestion being utilized by happy merchants of temptation as buying (consent) and selling (suggesting) through contracts.
Whatever tenet one suggests, the consent by another contradicts the stretch...while binding one to another ones string.
Pinocchio: "[singing] I got no strings to hold me do... [trips and falls down the stairs and gets his nose stuck in a hole; the audience laugh]"
Even and odds alternate and oscillate in life: endless respiration.
a) Odds alternate during even, hence even implying same, and odds differences.
b) Only within balance can choice oscillate backwards and forwards aka balancing.
c) RE implies temporary; TION implies ongoing...SPIRA implies temporary adaptation to ongoing.
d) Inhaling implies process of dying forced through living; exhaling implies living resisting process of dying by letting go...
a) Believing implies consenting to suggested information, while ignoring perceivable inspiration.
b) True vs false implies reasoning about suggested, while ignoring the implication of perceivable.
c) Com (together) plete (to fill) inverts being empty partial within full whole, hence having the opportunity of fulfillment.
To fail to make anything firm is to fail to be anything.
a) How could a BEING fail to BE anything?
b) Being implies made form (life) by flow (inception towards death)...holding onto form by trying to affirm to one another, destroys form through friction, hence a conflict of reason (affirm vs denial). As long as one holds firm to either side, so long both sides are mutually destroying each other.
If one doesn't affirm truth, one lies to oneself
One DOES before one can choose to DOESN'T affirm (truth) or deny (lie)...being comes before choice. Affirmation and denial tempts ones choice to select the suggested choices of another aka shirking of response-ability.
Who is calling one a liar if one doesn't affirm truth to another?
life is experienced in the present
Life implies essence...others suggest present/pre-sence to gain ones permission/consent/affirmation to define pre (before) aka the exterior/abstract of ones essence.
Experience aka ex per (expression by) implies an impressing into. Nature operates from impression (inception towards death) through expression (life)...pre-sent (before being send) implies the sleight of hand one ignores.
Few suggest many to express consent TOWARDS suggested in exchange for experience (XP), which inverts reality..."ex per" aka expression by origin.
an end is never something experienced
What about "never" aka nothing ever? Can that be experienced? Why is nothing used as the foundation to deny (de-nihilo) an end of being?
The All has no inception
Why did you put a THE before ALL? An adjective before ALL; before everything? Ad-ject (towards throwing) implies an ejection before aka an inception of an adjected ALL by an ejecting THE...
Because all inception is within
Only a partial (one) within whole (all) has a beginning (inception) and end (death) of being (life).
Partial implies temporal ; whole implies ongoing...separation (momentum) of whole (motion) into partials (matter) establishes beginning and end aka inception and death.
All has no end. So One is free to follow All
All directs (inception towards death) each one (life) within...which implies a separation of velocity into resistance. To follow implies the path of least resistance aka the temptation to go with the velocity towards death instead of resisting for the sustenance of life by adapting to the origin of inception.
Ones free will of choice struggles with needing to resist wanted temptation...following implies a temptation, hence others utilizing leaders calling followers to give consent/affirmation to suggested progressivism towards outcomes.
Another angle...temptation aka sin/syn - "synchrony" implies simultaneous with others aka following, while resistance implies ones resisting stance apart from others.
need not end
Need (inception towards death) generates want (life)...hence ones struggle to rise during fall.
Example...water or wine? Which one represents need? Neither...thirst does. Wanting or not wanting water or wine tempts one to ignore needing to resist thirst.
just because one has an inception
Because is the suggested inversion of cause (inception towards death) towards being (life) aka just (balance) generating odds (choice).
This requires self discernment, which one ignores when consenting to suggested "because". If one asks nature "why", then nature doesn't answer "because"...it simply moves cause towards being to inspire adaptation.
You may call this Gods' breath of life...which life needs to exhale, hence adapting to the process of dying.
Originally, heresy did mean choice
a) Which one made the choice that suggested meaning changes origin (God)?
b) What if origin (all) offers choice (one), while choosing (ones choice) to shirk it onto another (chosen one) implies heresy?
b) Origin of choice implies balance...balance cannot be changed by choices within...choice within balance can only imbalance self...choosing to suggest imbalance tempts other choices to imbalance self.
What if many choose to ignore origin (perceivable balance) for each other (suggested choices), which establishes a chosen few in control over many followers?
all choices were heresies (sects, sections)
ALL to ONE implies sect/seco - "to divide" aka a separation of whole into partials.
Consenting to suggested choices tempts back together aka e pluribus unum (out of many; one) or tikkun olam (healing the world by bringing together) aka abrahamism (father of multitude) etc.
Few can only remain apart if many are mixed together...which requires ones free will of choice to consent (send together).
not to choose is also a heresy
What if the origin of not implies suggested nihil-ism (Latin nihilo; nothing) which tempts one to consent to de-nial perceivable for suggested? Thinking that one can "not choose" implies ones choice to consent to "nothing"...
What if even (balance) forces odds (choice) to adapt?
Notice how a child struggles to find the balance to stand up and walk, yet most adults ignore this struggle of choice adapting to balance when walking through their lives...
we will and define
Only within balance of motion can matter wield choice (will)...define/definite (to affix) implies wanting to hold onto, while ignoring needing to let go.
How could choice be affixed (defined), when choosing implies reaction to balance?
What if few tempt many to ignore perceivable sound for suggested words, hence for DEAF PHONETICIANS (definitions) aka those deaf to phonics (sound)?
Could words like "insane person" be utilized to distract from sound like "in sanus (within sound) + per sonos (by sound)?
If one asks a hundred others to define "insane person"; then what are the odds of anyone bringing up "sound"?
even if it's not
Even implies everything...nothing tempts one at odds with even.
You need both a public and a private position
Private (ones perception) is positioned within public (all perceivable)...consenting to anything suggested establishes a corporate collective, which can invade privacy on a public scale.
be sovereign
So-vereign/so-viet/su-zereign/su-bvert...watch out what others suggest behind the SO... https://www.etymonline.com/word/so#etymonline_v_23801
on all fronts
Front/bhront/bhren - "to project, stand out" implies standing out (life) while being projected (inception towards death) into. Front implies ones home-stretch...
Reminder in the Midst of Diversions
a) Responding to mind/memory (re-mind) diverts one from input. Putting suggested information into ones mind/memory tempts one to hold onto and reflect upon it, while ignoring that perceivable inspiration moves through ones mind/memory, and cannot be held onto.
b) Ones choice operates in the midst of all balance...suggested choices imbalance one if selected as mediators.
to mask intent
Intent implies towards a purpose, being implies pose-pur aka position (life) put forwards (inception towards death).
Suggested intent aims at death, which tempts life to mask itself by ignorance.
ideals, which emphasize
Idealism or any other suggested -isms tempt ones consent to follow towards outcome, which for life implies death. Any suggested emphasis used to promote an -ism implies a deceit/an ensnaring of consent/a sales pitch to tempt buyers to sell out etc.
Perceivable emphasis aka em (within) bha (shine) implies being within light...shining forth, while struggling with casting shadows.
raises question
A quest towards outcome is raised by those following, accumulating themselves into a problem...within the ignored solution of natural law.
Look at the problem with the rise of the jewish question...
I refuse to be a thespian in this failure theater
TIE, verb - "bind so as to restrict movement; fasten so as to prevent escape"...gotta protect ya neck; kid.
Hook (suggestions by another) Line (all perceivable) Sinker (ones consent)