presented an argument against free will
If one consents by free will of choice to any suggestion presented by another, then one shapes an argument against one another, while ignoring ones free will of choice.
An argument implies one side versus another side aka turning against one another aka binding free will of choice into imbalance instead of being free will of choice within balance.
Is it possible to 'escape' the sting of the conclusion of this argument?
The arguing mind (argument) represents the self inflicted conclusion, because one already concluded to choose a side to argue from.
Only in-between sides does one wield the possibility aka potential aka essence within all of free will of choice....choosing any side binds free will of choice to it until ones chooses to let go. Few suggest both sides of any argument to trick many into a dual/duel against one another called "reason".
The Matrix is not something we have just discovered.
Aka there's nothing new (neo) under the sun...
People were aware of consciousness
a) Each person can become aware of being per (by) sonos (sound)...while a plural (people) confines singular (person) into a lack of self awareness.
b) Con (together) scio (to perceive)...the former implies a synthesis; the latter analysis. Few suggest a collective consciousness aka gestalt intelligence aka hive mind aka consensus to tempt many into ignoring that each ones perception can only work within singularity (all perceivable).
The separation of all (perceivable) into each one (perception) implies an analytical process allowing each one to become aware of all...or be deceived by one another, depending on each ones free will of choice.
infinite dimensional
Di (to divide) mens (mind) ion (action) al (all) aka all action dividing into each ones reacting mind aka infinite (perceivable) dividing into finite (perception).
As you can see at one level
Any added level buries ones sight deeper into ignorance. Level implies balance; being implies choice in-between balance, while any added level imbalances choice. Setting levels on top of a central position implies an inverted pyramid, which buries the all seeing eye.
another level
If level implies balance, then how could there be another balance for ones choice? Balance implies before choice, while another implies after one...
you're connected to another
Which power came first...that which sets one apart from one another or ones choice to connect together with another?
a capacity to connect with the entire universe.
What if entire (motion) generates capacity (momentum) for each partial (matter)? What if another partial suggests a connection to shortcut ones capacity?
articulate this truth
What if artifice can only be shaped within nature? What if suggested words represent the articulation of perceivable sound within nature?
What if both truth and lie represent artificial, while only change implies natural? What's true about change, and what's a lie about change?
Different philosophers
Philo (to love) sophy (knowledge). If one chooses love (philo), then one shapes a conflict against hate (miso)...a conflict within which different sides are equalizing each other.
What if few suggest philo (love) and miso (hate) to distract one from being at the edge (choice) of known (balance)? What if choosing a side imbalances choice?
Sleight of hand: https://genius.com/Aerosmith-livin-on-the-edge-lyrics
secret to humanity
Secret/seco - "to divide" + hu/hue - "color" aka light generating spectrum to divide each ray from one another. That's how the hue of man comes into being, while being forwarded within the division of light into a visible spectrum.
understand who we are
To understand implies "standing-under" aka student under teacher; many under few; followers under leader; voters under representative; commonwealth under sovereign; slaves under master aka ones choice within a consensus under a chosen ones suggestion.
Few suggest WE to tempt many together... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_we
where we came from, and where we're going
Came from motion into matter; going from matter into motion...the entire process implies transformation aka a transfer of form (life) within action (inception towards death).
In short: Matrix implies where one shapes within, while Plato's Cave implies where one confines self within, while permitting others to shape from outside.
a) The cave represents ones mind shaped by the suggested information from others into becoming a prison for ones imagination. One can always step out of suggested fiction into perceivable reality...if one is strong enough to choose not being a willing slave to another.
b) The Matrix story represents reality dressed in fiction with an additional deception...neo (new). Matrix simply implies mother (nature) and matter (being) divided from one another within motion, which represents the "trinity hack" which the movie uses to sell the awakening process as something new (neo)...the viewers buying into this are selling themselves into a confinement aka themselves as intelligent machines into a simulated reality.
Furthermore...Morpheus (the maker of shapes) represents each awakened being; while the copies of Agent Smith represent the ignorance of the masses fighting something they believe to be new (neo). The copies (suggestion) try to destroy the original (perception); because it looks different from them...like a new threat.
Watching the Matrix (nature) from the perspective of Morpheus (being) shows Agent Smith (slaves) chasing an imaginary Neo (shadow).
old name
Notice that your use of "old" shapes the existence of "new" within your mind...that's Neo chased by endless hordes of old lies others are holding onto. You feel like a bulletproof superman because you don't believe their old lies, and you react so much quicker thanks to not holding onto lies.
You are tricked to fight endlessly reproduced slaves about what is vs isn't real, yet while fighting...both you (neo) and the slaves (agent smith) are ignoring the same old nature (matrix).
- Mer - "to rub away, harm; die"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/*mer-
- Maid - "virgin; unmarried"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/maiden
Being unmarried implies not joined together, but apart from one another, hence MER (inception towards death) MAID (life). Virgin implies generated (gin) virility (vir) aka the separation of man and wo(mb)man from one another to allow intercourse in-between one another for off-spring through one another.
his belief that aliens walk among us and are right here with us, but we do not know who they are
a) Believing implies holding onto...doing that prevents one from seeing knowledge moving through one.
b) Being implies native within nature and foreign to one another, hence alien/alius - "another". The freedom to wander among one another represents space/spatior - "to wander".
c) If one joins a pluralism (us; we); then one walks among one another aka aliens.
d) Morpheus/morphΔ - "form, shape, figure"...only within flow (inception towards death) can form (life) be shaped. Another tempts one to ignore figuring this out for self.
- Channel name: Psychology Simplified
- Search term: jew
This channel has no content that matched "jew."
I've been under the impression that evil things occur in this world because God gave us free will.
Free will of choice can only operate in-between over/under aka as above/so below aka at the center of balance....others suggest good vs evil to tempt choice into imbalance aka against one another.
Good or evil implies a measurement TAKEN (possession) while ignoring God GIVEN (impression) choice. Given implies knowledge (perception); taking implies forbidden knowledge (suggestion).
I do agree
Agree implies versus disagree aka a conflict binding free will of choice into imbalance against one another.
God has seen past present and future
God implies delineation given...suggested past; present and future implies measurements taken. One cannot take without ignoring given.
While alive (present)...one cannot perceive ones inception (past) or death (future). Others suggest past and future to invert PRESENCE into PRESENT...the former implies ones essence within motion, while the latter represents an affixed position.
would that HAVE to mean free will doesn't exist?
Free cannot "have"; hold onto "meaning" or "do nothing (doesn't)" without contradicting itself aka without binding itself.
Others tempts free will of choice with nothing; meaning and things to have into taking a chance...for the price of given choice.
Neither having; meaning, nor doing nothing represents a natural state, but artificial descriptions to distract from nature...only ones free will of choice can discern the difference between reality (perception) and fiction (suggestion).
Where did God declare it?
De (to divide) clare (to clear) aka clarity by division/divination of all (perceivable) into each one (perception).
The Bible...
...binds clarity within covers if consented (to read) to the suggestion (to author) thereof.
God implies the sound within which speech can be shaped; the line within which words can be drawn, and the giver of choice to bind and cover oneself within books by another.
fact...
...implies F (icticious) ACT (action). God implies action; anything within a reaction to either God or one another depending on ones free will of choice. Action sets reaction free...fact binds reaction to one another if held onto.
numbered all
Name/number/nombre implies the designation of a unit/unus/uni - "one"....there can be only one aka all (singularity) and each one (singular unit) within aka God (all father) and each Christ (anointed one).
Note that free will is not the same as the ability to make choices
a) To note implies "to mark"...which tempts ones free will of choice to take notice by marking self, both of which are confining ones free will of choice to another.
b) God implies same...each being within implies a differentiation aka divination from one another. It's the markings suggested as notes by others which equalizes differences by making alike.
God creates people
God implies all (sound) for each one (person aka per sonos; by sound) within...few suggest creationism and pluralism to tempt many to ignore God.
If God could create, then that implies more than God...that's a contradiction of the one and only God. All generating each one within implies a transference (inception towards death) of essence (life) aka not a creation, but a transformation aka a transfer (momentum) of form (matter) within action (motion).
God implies motion; Spirit implies momentum, Christ implies matter...suggested creationism aka creatio ex nihilo puts "nothing" aka nihil-ism to the mix, which tempts ones de-nial of everything perceivable.
If one wishes to claim that a person's choices being predetermined entails that they are not morally accountable...
Claiming contradicts FREE will of choice. If one claims, then one generates denial. If one holds onto, then one binds self. If one takes into possession, then one gets possessed. If one counts, then one becomes accountable to accountants.
To wish implies "to want" while ignoring need aka wishing for more than all God offers...that's denial, which generates fulfillment (filling the mind) aka the burden of sin/syn (together with, jointly; alike).
like free will
Free implies apart from one another aka differentiated from one another aka anointed (christened) from one another....others suggest likeness to destroy differences.
Matter (life) within motion (inception towards death) has to be separated from one another to reduce friction against one another. Christ (anointed one) implies the lubrication of each matter aka of each seed within s-oil.
Round Table: Free will, does it exist?
a) Round implies a shape confining free will of choice. Using the round table for discussion should also ring alarm bells in terms of conspiracy, since it was Rothschild agent Cecil Rhodes who set up the Round Table Movement in Britain to orchestrate WWI, out of which came for example the Royal Institute of International Affairs (1920); the Council on Foreign Relations (1921); the Bilderberg Group (1954) and the Trilateral Commission (1972).
b) Does implies DO (to do) ES (essence) aka action doing reaction aka choice reacting to an enacting balance.
c) IT implies the third person, which distracts one from second/seco - "to divide"...only within a divide can there be choice.
All sets each one within free by division aka divination.
d) Exist aka EX (to express) IST (to consent to an -ism) STENCE (to stand)
Ex implies ones expressing choice within impressing balance, while stance implies balancing as choice, as in...to stand requires one to balance in-between left/right + front/back + up/down, which implies adaptation by free will of choice.
It's the IST (ex-ist) which tempts one into imbalance by tricking choice to hold onto a side within an ISM (existential-ism). Consenting to any suggested -ism also inverts ones choice into a chosen one.
-ist implies consent given; -ism implies a suggested consensus...it's a racket by few to tempt many together by sacrificing free will of choice.
d) FREE implies within dominance, WILL (want) implies within need; OF implies out of; within; in response to, and CHOICE implies within balance.
Few suggest "free will" without choice as to tempt many into sacrificing one choice by consenting to a liberty offered by a chosen one.
We can have a discussion on whether or not free will exists.
a) We (pluralism) confines one (singular)...if consented to by free will of choice.
b) Whether or not implies suggested creationism aka creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothing)...only within everything can each thing wield free will of choice.
c) Discuss aka dis (to divide apart) quatere (to shake) implies a separation from one another....not turning against one another (weather or not) in conflict. Discussion implies analysis...taking a side within a discussion implies a synthesis. That's why no discussion among many can ever lead to more than more conflict among them.
every action we do is predetermined
a) Every implies action; each implies re-action aka responding to being enacted upon. All nature acts; each being within reacts to either to natural (perceivable) or artificial (suggested). How does one react? By free will of choice.
b) We aka the royal we aka the majestic plural aka nosism... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_we That's a trick by few to collectivize many together aka tempting each ones free will of choice into a binding consensus within one another. That's also the origin of commonwealth under a sovereign.
c) Choice (free) can only come into being within balance (dominance)...that's the origin of free-dom aka dominance (inception towards death) setting free (life). That's the predetermination for each ones free will of choice...which one ignores when consenting to suggested terms by another.
If one consents to any suggested terms, then the chosen one suggesting can a) shape the terms by free will of choice, and b) utilize the predetermination of nature against the ignorant being who willingly chose to follow artificial terms.
Notice the jewish rite of Kol Nidre aka "repudiating all vows, and prohibitions, and oaths, and consecrations, and konamei and kinusei and synonymous terms, that we may vow, or swear, or consecrate, or prohibit upon ourselves"... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kol_Nidre
This day of atonement is utilized to set free will of choice free from any self imposed boundaries...gentiles using "free will" without choice are willingly ignoring the choice to set oneself free from bondage to jewish contracts.
our brain is wired
Wire/wei - "to turn"...that implies self confinement aka turning within self (logic) and against another (reason). Only during delineation (input towards output) can a brain come into being. It's ones consent to suggested pluralism (our), while mentally taking possession of it, which tricks ones brain into self confinement.
environment around us
En (within) viron (circle) ment (mind)... once again self confinement by shaping a mental circle, while ignoring physical (life) delineation (inception towards death).
Now guess who gets rid of surrounding environment by erecting at center while cutting off circumference during the rite of circumcision? Few are centralizing control by tricking many into a mental (logic) and physical (reason) environment.
being the inputs
Being implies pouring out (expressed reaction) while being put into (enacting impression). The process of dying implies input; living within implies output, hence being put in (inception) and out (death) of being (life).
humans have souls
a) Soul/sole implies "one and only" aka singularity...not plurality.
b) Hu/hue implies "color" aka spectrum (momentum) of light (motion) for each ray (matter) within. It's the light dividing into a spectrum through each ray within, which implies the soul aka the singularity moving through each singular unit.
Motion (inception towards death) implies the soul of each matter (life).
evidence for and against us just being our bodies
a) Few suggest for vs against as a conflict to distract many from nature FORwarding (inception towards death) A GAIN of being (life).
b) Evidence implies perceivable distinction from one another (analysis)...not suggested evidence shared with one another (synthesis). Synthesizing during analysis establishes "analysis paralysis"...few suggest pluralism (us; our) to tempt many into analysis paralysis by willingly joining a synthetic group, which confines each analytical being within a consensus.
The origin of artificially putting together what nature sets apart from one another is a game called "puzzle"...formerly known as "mosaic" aka mosaic law aka moses/mosheh - "to mosh; mash".
It's represents a puzzle...here are the chaotic pieces; now put them together to build the order. While playing this game for distraction one ignores that nature sets chaos (life) into order (inception towards death).
It's playing the game by putting pieces together which establishes confusion, which is what few sell chaos as. In reality...chaos/ghieh - "to be wide open; gap" implies the state of being aka of being set free from one another aka of being given a break.
Sweet, but I didn't use free-will-of-choice as a name for myself, but as an implication for each ones free will of choice. Notice how hard it is to attack free-will-of-choice without shooting oneself in the foot with contradictions...
Do you think you could come up with a definition of porn such that you could ban βpornβ on the forum and no one would ever be upset or take issue with your definition?
Definition/definite - "to affix"...that's the issue one takes. Nature moves and cannot be affixed; porn adapts to a moving nature hence representing a temptation luring one away.
As for porn/pornΔ/per - "to sell"...that's the temptation suggested (to sell) by another aiming at ones consent (to buy).
Thereβs no magic words you can say which will set everything in perfect order.
a) Sound implies order...words aka the articulation of sound are sold as magic to shape chaos among instruments (minds structured within).
b) Ordering everything tempts one to ignore that everything sets each thing within apart from one another.
The want to order everything is based on tikkun olam (repairing the world by bringing together) aka mosaic law. A mosaic (process of making patterns of inlaid work in hard materials) represents the game of PUZZLE which few tempt many to play to establish order out of chaos.
Free For All Posts/Threads
a) Only within all can one be free from one another.
b) A post (a fixed position) and a thread (to interweave; twist; turn) confines ones free will of choice...if consented to.
must be marked
A mark/merg - "boundary" binds ones free will of choice if taken by a being.
conspiracy is becoming mainstream. a fad probably. what does that mean?
Nature implies fluctuation aka ebb and flow aka rise and fall aka wax and wane aka ups and downs...few within fashion fads to trick many to seek and hold onto artificial meaning, while ignoring natural fluctuation.
Those who hold onto meaning are getting swept away by natural fluctuation aka towards the next artificial thing the mainstream offers to hold onto.
'root' in reality
Seed (life) within soil (inception towards death) branches as above/so below....few suggest fiction to tempt many into settlement aka into rooting the mind with logic (circular thinking) and reason (turning against another in conflict).
energetical vampires doing it to have competiton
John D. Rockefeller: 'Competition is a sin.' Few shape suggestions to tempt many into a consensus. Within the consensus many are in competition against one another, while inviting a vampire by holding onto the suggested. Energy cannot be held onto without harming self...consensus represents the mutual harm of self.
Example...boxing ring. Inside it's competition, yet only the owner of the ring has the power to decide which of the losers is going to be declared the winner. The owner represents the vampires suggestion; the ring represents logic turning into reason, and the damage done to one another represents the energy loss. To increase that energy loss...the vampire adds viewers around the ring.
It's just another example of emotions being placed above reason.
Reason implies above versus below aka a circular conflict, while motion implies linear procession. It's ignoring linear for circular which tempts emotion. Motion implies moving within; emotion implies moving out aka from within self outwards against another.
emotional reactance is the baseline
Motion implies the baseline (inception towards death) for any reactance (life) within...emotion implies reacting to one another while ignoring the baseline.
rationality is something our ancestors built on top of it.
One can only build in-between top and bottom...rationality tempts one to view both sides in conflict with one another.
the Hell scare
Both fear of hell and hope of heaven tempt one to ignore perceivable origin for suggested outcome, thereby permitting others to shape; illustrate; direct etc. outcomes.
In response to origin...heaven (to heave) implies ones growth, while hell/heil/hale/hel (whole; entire; all) implies all loss.
Being implies heaven (life) within hell (inception towards death)...both hope and fear tempts one to ignore that.
to be put in line under
Being (life) put in line (inception towards death) implies in-between aka as above/so below...not into an under vs over conflict.
a) It's jewish...not a slur (fucked up).
b) The word "fuck" stems from the German FUGE (masonic joint) and is based on the FUGGER family, who changed their name from FUCKER.
To distract from this banking families jewish connection in-between the Medicis and the Habsburgs...the word "fuck" became the NR.1 slur in the world. And of course the "masonic joint" is about freemasonry...
Disagreement implies versus agreement aka turning against one another based on circular logic...that's what the term kike/kikel - "circle" was designed to distract from.
It was a jewish comedian named Leo Calvin Rosten who made up the Ellis Island story about using a circle (kikel) instead of a cross. That's the same jew who defined chutzpah as "that quality enshrined in a man who, having killed his mother and father, throws himself on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan".
Slurs are suggested to one another...the substance of the word used as a slur has to be shaped first. The deception lies within the substance...not those deceiving each other with slurs aka with outside branding (idolatry).
As for discussion...few aren't discussing with many how to conspire against them. Few trick many to discuss conspiracy with one another, while ignoring few.
Discussing implies argument aka arguing minds...that's the deception.
a) Nature represents the solution taking answers out of ones possession...
b) Standing within nature implies balancing within motion, while in the process of falling down. The infant finds balance; the adult balances; the elderly lose balance...each within the same motion.
Sleight of hand: "now you see the light...stand up (life) for your right (inception towards death)".
We can free think
We implies a suggested pluralism tempting a free thinking singular being into a consensus controlled by others...derogatory words represent the tools used to establish such a consensus.
Notice the use of talmudic reasoning with the word "nigger" aka censoring it among white; advertising it for black, while luring both sides into a conflict of reason against one another...a circular (kikel; kike) conflict. Sounds like a conspiracy, right?
Btw...WorldStarHipHop aka THE "nigger" site on the web; owned by MediaLab AI Inc is run by a jew named Michael Heyward, just like the Hip Hop movement branding blacks as "Boyz n the Hood" + "Niggaz Wit Attitudes" + "Public Enemies" and a "Menace II Society" was jewish. Again..sounds like a conspiracy, right?
How could such conspiratorial malevolence be exposed if a free thinker is being moderated in speech?
you dodged the questions
Questionable wants answers; free-will-of-choice needs to adapt to solution, while resisting the temptation of both questions and answers.
gave no
All was given (perceivable) before each one (perception) comes into being.
proper replies
Proper/privus - "one's own"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/proper
a) Nature cannot be owned by any being within, and b) if one gives what one owns, then into the possession of another, while out of ones possession.
Meanwhile...to reply implies by ones free will of choice. Why would one give away or trying to take into possession what nature gives for free?
language not available in this community
a) "Conspiracies.win: This is a forum for free thinking"...if others have the power to make not available what one freely thinks about, then others are conspiring against one.
b) Kike/kikel - "circle" + nigger/negra - "black" represent the main tools for deception aka circular thinking (logic) and the absence of light (ignorance) within a deceived being.
Linear thinking implies enlightenment, which circular logic blackens...
Nihilism implies a suggested -ism selling nothing (nihilo); a nihilist implies ones consent buying into suggested nothing, while denying (de-nihilo) everything perceivable.
Nihilism implies ones denial sold to one by another by tricking one to sell self out. One cannot be a nihilist without denying perception for suggestion aka reality for fiction.
Will implies "want"...only within need (balance) can one choose want or not want (imbalance). For choice to remain free (in balance) it has to resist the temptation of both sides (imbalance), because holding onto either binds free will of choice.
a) Definition/definite (to affix) binds free will of choice...if one chooses to hold onto it. Consenting to any definition establishes the inconsistencies based on semantics.
b) Balance generating choice implies linear procession...choosing to hold onto a side turns into a circular conflict.
If definite (affixed); then how could there be an other? What moves one apart from one another if affixed?
Free implies within dominance; will (want) implies within need; of implies out of; within; in response to; choice implies within balance.
Since only within limitation (inception towards death) one can be free (life)...the proof is in the pudding/putting.
As soon as one freely chooses to posses...one becomes possessed. Possession bind free will of choice.
Choice implies given; choosing to take tempts one to ignore that.
Suppression implies under (sup) the pressure (press) of action (ion) hence being given a free will of choice to react, which implies expression.
God implies total for each partial within...partials tempt one another into a has vs hasn't conflict to distract from total.
If a partial says that God HAS, then that implies a HASN'T, which contradicts the totality of God.
God implies total procession generating partial potential...HAS implies potential taking into possession, which establishes HASN'T aka a temptation for other potential to try to take out of possession. Meanwhile...the procession of God gives and takes any potential within in total disregard of any possession.
If everything was predestined, then each thing within wields the free will of choice to ignore that for random (chance over choice) nothingness (denial).
God implies unlimited need for each limited want/will within. What could totality want? Only partiality is tempted to want from one another, while ignoring the given need of totality.
We implies partials summoned together to mimic totality. If one (singular) consents to we (plural); then the one suggesting it becomes the chosen one aka the ruler of a summoned totality (consensus).
Cause implies effect...a linear procession. Ambhi (around) implies a circular shape. It's ones free will of choice ignoring sound for words (logos) which establishes an inwards (logic) and outwards (reason) circle.
Cause generates effect...words tempt affection.
Willing implies at odds (want vs not want), while ignoring to be in-between (choice) even (balance). A jew suggests relativism to tempt the mind of gentiles into alignment (order following), while shaping a circle inside (logic) and outside (reason) of it.
Both contradicts one. God implies oneness moving through each one within. It's the separation from all into each one which establishes the need of free will/want of choice among one another.
God implies dominance (cause; action; motion; need) setting free (effect; reaction; matter; want). Only at the center of dominance (inception towards death) can one be free (life).
God only gives (inception) and takes (death) difference potential (life) during the same process...withholding implies holding within a process.
Holding implies potential ignoring procession by holding possession aka religion...re (to respond) ligo (to bind).
To believe implies one holding another...perfect implies "complete" aka without separation from one another. Few suggest many to believe in completion aka in putting partials together to make whole again aka tikkun olam.
Science/scio - "to know" implies each ones perception within all perceivable...a show implies any suggestion by another tempting one to behold aka a being to hold onto by free will of choice. Holding onto anything shown transforms science (perception) into science-fiction (suggestion).
Energy implies the internal separation of motion into matter...AND tempts one to ignore the singularity of energy.
Energy and what else? God and what else? Action and what else? Cause and what else? Motion and what else? All and what else?
And/en - "in"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/and hence energy and anything within.
Soul aka sole (one and only), hence the one and only totality moving through each participating partial matter within.
If that, then this...a duality contradicting the singularity of soul/sole. If one chooses to hold onto this or that, then one sells ones soul.