I've been saying for a long time that the people you meet could be living in any of a dozen entirely separate reality bubbles. This is a direct result of the intentionally confused and contradictory information we receive from various news outlets. It's divide and conquer on a mass mind control level. Just ask someone whether they believe the virus was man-made or natural, and if man-made was it intentionally or accidentally leaked? The realities that stem from those three conditions are entirely separate realities that a person may believe in. These basic level beliefs form the foundation of the reality they're living in. And that's just the question of the origin of the virus. You might ask the person next, do you believe the cable news networks always tell the truth, perhaps sometimes accidentally lie, or do they lie continuously and intentionally? Those are three separate realities that a person may be living in again. These basic level beliefs are foundational beliefs and are very hard to change. Another person will not be able to change a foundational belief held by someone else. We may as well be living on 12 different planets. They are truly separate realities existing in the same space at the same time.
The 20th Century is filled with global alternate realities: Czarist Russia> Soviet Union. Chinese Emperor >Mao's China, Prussian Reich>Nazi Germany. U.S. Depression>FDR's New Deal.. In each case, there was a rise and fall as each one failed. The cost??? millions and millions of lives-we just have to find a better way to remember HISTORY...
And Johnson's "Great Society", which seemed to have a good chance of getting snuffed out back during the "Contract With America" days, but has quietly crept back even bigger.
a) question why suggested his-story always leaves out the main (re)actor of ALL reality...ONEself?
b) remember implies response to memory...what if the conscious memory needs to used like a ram (temporary storage of information for constant adaptation to perceived inspiration, and not like a hard-drive (accumulation of suggested information until capacity)?
c) what if one can be tricked to ignore that which is (reality) for memories of that which was (fiction) by simply suggesting it aka nostalgia; his-story; captured moments (pictures); motion pictures aka 0 (suggested information) over 1 (perceived inspiration)?
a. at 76 YO, I remember all kinds of shit from the 50s on; b. memory is also contained in books TBS it must be an impartial rendering of actual events; c. We are going to have to have faith based society (in God) where 'just the facts, maam' is a guiding principle. Any revisions should not be based on one editor.
I know, I'm still an idealist and Lord knows humans are so far from perfection that they are mere confection upon this planet..
If you remember the birth of your son while standing next to him; that implies ignoring that which is (your son) for that which isn't (his birth) aka ignoring perceived reality (inspiration) for suggested fiction (information). Ask yourself why would you remember (respond to memory) instead of responding to whatever your son inspires you to respond to? This represents ones choice of want (temptation) over need (response ability).
You even call it "all kinds of shit; when referring to the information you consent to store within your conscious memory. It is also that information we consent to pollute our memory with that causes the ego; the internal monologue based on upheld information; while ignoring to adapt to ongoing inspiration.
This is why the parasitic few represent "happy merchants" aka those who suggest temptation for the price of consent.
memory is also contained in books
All suggested information; all words shaped by the choice of others out of perceived inspiration to suggested those who consent to it to ignore perceived inspiration for suggested information.
Nature doesn't need to be unlocked and stored as information; each ONE within ALL needs to grow ONEs comprehension of ALL perceived. This is about your growth; not about collectively wasting our existence to rebuild the "Library of Alexandria" and the "Tower of Babel" over and over again.
A world of lies represents the response to a world that ignores perceived change (inspiration) for suggested truth (information)...only if the many consent to the affixed (information); while ignoring the ongoing (inspiration) can they few contradict (lie) the suggested (truth) at will.
an impartial rendering of actual events
Two tests for this...a) the game Telephone; Chinese whispers; Stille Post...make a line out of a group; whisper information to the first and let them whisper it to each other until you get a completely different information at the end. Why? Because choice can shape suggested information at will and the temptation to do so (whispering) will always corrupt suggested information. Why is that? Because choosing want (information) over need (inspiration) as form (life) within flow (inception towards death) implies ignoring self sustenance of choice within balance (need/want) for the suggested choices of others (want vs not want) aka imbalance through ignorance of balance.
b) a goal at a soccer game...afterwards ask the shooter; the goalie; the players; the trainers and the onlookers about what just happened and they will each suggest a different understanding of the same perceived event. Why? Because flow (ALL) differentiates itself into individual form (ONEs) to be able to communicate inspiration to each ONE as to get them to respond to balance for self sustenance. If everything percieved would be the same; then what would inspire form to struggle for sustenance within the momentum of flow? Hence the need for differentiation; hence us each representing a different ONE (comprehension) out of the same ALL (perception) aka temporary growth potential out of ongoing loss of potentiality.
In short...the many are being deceived to ignore that they each perceive the same; yet understand it differently. Growing this comprehension is being done by choice based adaptation to perceived (inspiration)...not by consent to suggested (information).
If we are within motion; I cannot use affixed words to suggest the meaning of ongoing motion to you; without tempting you to ignore perceived (reality) for suggested (fiction); which afterwards would give me the power to control through my suggested meaning (fiction) your understanding of perceived meaning (reality).
How is it that every other life-form can perceive; adapt to and comprehend "grass" without anyone telling them that it's called "grass"? A moving nature does not communicate itself with labels; but as movement through inspiration to all within; which is what all the other life-forms adapt to.
We are going to have to have faith based society (in God)
Faith towards God you say; but you didn't consent to God, but to those who suggested "God" to you "in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti" aka "in the name of". Those are the same who suggest you that "in the beginning was the word..."; yet you can easily understand that perceived sound comes before choice can shape words out of it.
The few suggest creationism (out of nothing) to deceive the many to ignore transmutation (out of everything) aka flow to form (inception); form within flow (life); form to flow (death) aka ONEs transmutation out of base ALL (simple alchemy).
One cannot perceive creation...everything suggested as "new" was shaped out of everything already in existence. One cannot shape thought without responding to perceived input first. The origin of "new" represents "nu" aka now; which implies the every changing moment of existence aka the momentum of ongoing flow where temporary form can exist as choice based response to balance.
All of this can be understood; yet our beliefs are restricting our understanding of perceived inspiration in favor of suggested information. Take ones fundamental needs...(water; food; shelter)...does one need to believe in any of them or adapt as choice to balance (need/want) anyway?
Even simpler...does breathing require believing? If not...then reconsider SPIR'IT, noun [Latin spiritus, from spiro, to breathe, to blow. The primary sense is to rush or drive.] aka forms adaptation to flow. After understanding that; question if patris (ALL) et filii (ONE) et spiritus sancti (adaptation as ONE to ALL) is being suggested to hide the perceived inspiration (from within spirit) under suggested information (from within form)?
a guiding principle
Life being moved from inception towards death...is it outcome oriented or maybe balance oriented until predefined outcome? What if the few suggest progressivism to deceive the many to choose to go with the flow instead of resisting it as form? By seeking outcomes; wanting achievements; trying to reach goals; putting hope towards etc. Always the suggestion of that which isn't (imbalance) for that which is (balance) aka the suggested inversion (suggested fiction) of perceived reality.
not be based on one editor.
What if being ONE within ALL implies the ONEness of ALL (energy)? What if ALL perceivable reality is based on the ONEness of energy self segregating into flow (loss) and form (growth) for internal self sustenance? What if ED'IT, verb transitive [from Latin edo, to publish; e and do, to give.] implies flow to form; not form to other form; while ignoring flow?
humans are so far from perfection
HU'MAN, adjective [Latin humanus; Heb. form, species.] + AN'IMAL, noun [Latin animal from anima, air, breath, soul.]...what if one represents form (human) animated (animal) by flow? And it only took the suggestion of two words (human vs animal) to deceive us to ignore balance for imbalance?
Perfection implies want for outcome; while ignoring need to respond to origin (balance). The parasitic few suggest us to want order out of chaos; for which we ignore being temporary chaos (form) out of ongoing order (flow).
upon this planet...
PLANE, noun [from Latin planus.] - "an even or level surface" + PLAN'ET, noun [Latin planeta; Gr. wandering, to wander]. Let me just quickly start my "plane" to fly over some curves; while keeping the "horizon" "level"...
could be living in any of a dozen entirely separate reality bubbles
Question if each ONE perceives ALL; yet lacks comprehension of what it means? Question if being ONE within ALL represents temporary growth potential (form aka life) within ongoing loss of potentiality (flow aka inception towards death)?
information we receive
What if ALL communicates itself to each ONEs perceiving senses within as inspiration; while all the other ONEs tempt us to ignore this for suggested information?
What if ONEs comprehension is being grown by choice based adaptation to ALL perceived...not by consenting to information suggested by another ONE?
It's divide and conquer on a mass mind control level.
What if choice represents the response to balance (need/want); with need representing adaptation to perceived inspiration and want representing consent to suggested information?
What if choosing want over need (temptation of ignorance) aka suggested over perceived causes a conflict (imbalance) between those who want versus those who do not want the suggested? What if this conflict (want vs not want) is being branded by those making the suggestions as "reason"?
What if the parasitic few use suggestion (-isms) to cause division (reason) among the many; while a) perpetuating those conflicts by suggesting both sides endless contradictions to keep them reasoning (talmudic reasoning) and b) what if the few can at will rebrand want vs not want into for example good vs evil; true vs false; believing vs not believing; rights vs left; feminism vs patriarchy; poor vs rich; McDonalds vs Burger King; PC vs consoles; Christianity vs Islam; Republican vs Democrats and so on?
What if free will of choice exists as the response to balance; yet with the choice to ignore it for suggested imbalance? What if balancing requires responsibility of choice to struggle as form within flow; while ignoring balance for imbalance represents a constant temptation to fall for?
beliefs form the foundation of the reality they're living in.
What if to believe or to not believe represents choice submitting to suggested choice of others? What if the industrialization thereof is called RELIGION, noun [Latin religio, from religo, to bind anew]; while the original bond under natural law represents offer (balance) response (choice)?
What if ignoring (choice) the perceived foundation of existence (balance) can be tempted by means of suggestion (of choices)?
the question of the origin of
ALL perceived originates out of flow; all suggested was shaped by choice of responding form out of perceived origin, while tempting those who consent to suggested to ignore perceived in the process.
Question if nature represents the source of perceived sound, and if suggested words are being shaped by choice out of the source of perceived sound? What if words allow those who suggest them to define how those who consent to them perceive sound? What if the suggestion of "insane person" deceives those who consent to its meaning to ignore Insane (in sanus aka within sound) + Person (per sonos aka by sound)?
If I teach others words it civilizes them; yet if I teach a dog words it domesticates him? Question mass domestication through suggested meaning over perceived meaning under the brand "civilization"...
do they lie continuously and intentionally
What if a lie represents the contradiction of a suggested truth? What if true represents the rebranding of "want", and lie that of "not want"...both caused by consenting the same suggested information? What's the difference between reasoning true vs false and want vs not want? Question "need" over reasoning want vs not want?
Why does one consent to the suggestion that "truth" represents a conflict with "false"? Does nature offer false information to ones perceiving senses?
foundational beliefs and are very hard to change
What if ongoing change (perceived inspiration) is what beliefs (suggested information) ignore? What if setting a belief into ones conscious memory represents the self restriction of both perceived inspiration and the comprehension thereof?
Another person will not be able to change a foundational belief held
Because a belief is being held by free will of choice; while in ignorance of having free will of choice; since consenting to believe suggested choices of others aka will to will submission and shirking of responsibility as choice within balance.
separate realities existing in the same space at the same time.
What if ALL (flow) self segregates into individual ONEs (form) to allow temporary growth (form) out of ongoing loss (flow)?
What if SPACE, noun [Latin spatium, space; spatior, to wander.] implies being ONE wandering within ALL as choice within balance?
What if TIME implies constant movement (tick; tick; tick...) and not affixed states (past; present and future)? What if the few deceive the many to ignore being form (life) within the ever changing moment(um) of flow (inception towards death) by suggesting them to ignore that which is for that which was (past aka the self inflicted trauma of upheld loss within memory); that which is for that which might be (future aka the self inflicted trauma of hope and fear), and corrupting that which is (momentum) for that which isn't (presents aka the self inflicted trauma of stress aka imbalance)?
I appreciate your extended comments on my post. I'll have to be honest though, I can't seem to make sense of any of your sentences. You must be communicating using advanced modalities miles above my simple comprehension. Or perhaps you're not making enough effort to make it easily understood by the majority of your readers.
I had a similar experience attempting to read the book Transcendental Meditation. I tried for an hour or so to make sense of what the author was trying to convey, but eventually put the book down and never picked it up again.
For instance, consider this quote from Transcendental Meditation:
Pure, transcendent, unconditional states of bliss are most powerful Engines of Creation and Life Force Conduits.
What the hell is that supposed to mean? To me it's a worthless word salad meant to sell books. I did however find this interesting gem among the quotes from this book:
A true religious person should not think that “my religion alone is the right path and other religions are false.” Other religions are also so many paths leading to the same domain of transcendental bliss. Likewise, no person should think “my perception of the reality is the only absolute reality, and all others’ are false”, because each human brain has its own unique way of perceiving the reality.
I've been saying for a long time that the people you meet could be living in any of a dozen entirely separate reality bubbles. This is a direct result of the intentionally confused and contradictory information we receive from various news outlets. It's divide and conquer on a mass mind control level. Just ask someone whether they believe the virus was man-made or natural, and if man-made was it intentionally or accidentally leaked? The realities that stem from those three conditions are entirely separate realities that a person may believe in. These basic level beliefs form the foundation of the reality they're living in. And that's just the question of the origin of the virus. You might ask the person next, do you believe the cable news networks always tell the truth, perhaps sometimes accidentally lie, or do they lie continuously and intentionally? Those are three separate realities that a person may be living in again. These basic level beliefs are foundational beliefs and are very hard to change. Another person will not be able to change a foundational belief held by someone else. We may as well be living on 12 different planets. They are truly separate realities existing in the same space at the same time.
The 20th Century is filled with global alternate realities: Czarist Russia> Soviet Union. Chinese Emperor >Mao's China, Prussian Reich>Nazi Germany. U.S. Depression>FDR's New Deal.. In each case, there was a rise and fall as each one failed. The cost??? millions and millions of lives-we just have to find a better way to remember HISTORY...
And Johnson's "Great Society", which seemed to have a good chance of getting snuffed out back during the "Contract With America" days, but has quietly crept back even bigger.
a) question why suggested his-story always leaves out the main (re)actor of ALL reality...ONEself?
b) remember implies response to memory...what if the conscious memory needs to used like a ram (temporary storage of information for constant adaptation to perceived inspiration, and not like a hard-drive (accumulation of suggested information until capacity)?
c) what if one can be tricked to ignore that which is (reality) for memories of that which was (fiction) by simply suggesting it aka nostalgia; his-story; captured moments (pictures); motion pictures aka 0 (suggested information) over 1 (perceived inspiration)?
a. at 76 YO, I remember all kinds of shit from the 50s on; b. memory is also contained in books TBS it must be an impartial rendering of actual events; c. We are going to have to have faith based society (in God) where 'just the facts, maam' is a guiding principle. Any revisions should not be based on one editor.
I know, I'm still an idealist and Lord knows humans are so far from perfection that they are mere confection upon this planet..
If you remember the birth of your son while standing next to him; that implies ignoring that which is (your son) for that which isn't (his birth) aka ignoring perceived reality (inspiration) for suggested fiction (information). Ask yourself why would you remember (respond to memory) instead of responding to whatever your son inspires you to respond to? This represents ones choice of want (temptation) over need (response ability).
You even call it "all kinds of shit; when referring to the information you consent to store within your conscious memory. It is also that information we consent to pollute our memory with that causes the ego; the internal monologue based on upheld information; while ignoring to adapt to ongoing inspiration.
This is why the parasitic few represent "happy merchants" aka those who suggest temptation for the price of consent.
All suggested information; all words shaped by the choice of others out of perceived inspiration to suggested those who consent to it to ignore perceived inspiration for suggested information.
Nature doesn't need to be unlocked and stored as information; each ONE within ALL needs to grow ONEs comprehension of ALL perceived. This is about your growth; not about collectively wasting our existence to rebuild the "Library of Alexandria" and the "Tower of Babel" over and over again.
A world of lies represents the response to a world that ignores perceived change (inspiration) for suggested truth (information)...only if the many consent to the affixed (information); while ignoring the ongoing (inspiration) can they few contradict (lie) the suggested (truth) at will.
Two tests for this...a) the game Telephone; Chinese whispers; Stille Post...make a line out of a group; whisper information to the first and let them whisper it to each other until you get a completely different information at the end. Why? Because choice can shape suggested information at will and the temptation to do so (whispering) will always corrupt suggested information. Why is that? Because choosing want (information) over need (inspiration) as form (life) within flow (inception towards death) implies ignoring self sustenance of choice within balance (need/want) for the suggested choices of others (want vs not want) aka imbalance through ignorance of balance.
b) a goal at a soccer game...afterwards ask the shooter; the goalie; the players; the trainers and the onlookers about what just happened and they will each suggest a different understanding of the same perceived event. Why? Because flow (ALL) differentiates itself into individual form (ONEs) to be able to communicate inspiration to each ONE as to get them to respond to balance for self sustenance. If everything percieved would be the same; then what would inspire form to struggle for sustenance within the momentum of flow? Hence the need for differentiation; hence us each representing a different ONE (comprehension) out of the same ALL (perception) aka temporary growth potential out of ongoing loss of potentiality.
In short...the many are being deceived to ignore that they each perceive the same; yet understand it differently. Growing this comprehension is being done by choice based adaptation to perceived (inspiration)...not by consent to suggested (information).
If we are within motion; I cannot use affixed words to suggest the meaning of ongoing motion to you; without tempting you to ignore perceived (reality) for suggested (fiction); which afterwards would give me the power to control through my suggested meaning (fiction) your understanding of perceived meaning (reality).
How is it that every other life-form can perceive; adapt to and comprehend "grass" without anyone telling them that it's called "grass"? A moving nature does not communicate itself with labels; but as movement through inspiration to all within; which is what all the other life-forms adapt to.
Faith towards God you say; but you didn't consent to God, but to those who suggested "God" to you "in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti" aka "in the name of". Those are the same who suggest you that "in the beginning was the word..."; yet you can easily understand that perceived sound comes before choice can shape words out of it.
The few suggest creationism (out of nothing) to deceive the many to ignore transmutation (out of everything) aka flow to form (inception); form within flow (life); form to flow (death) aka ONEs transmutation out of base ALL (simple alchemy).
One cannot perceive creation...everything suggested as "new" was shaped out of everything already in existence. One cannot shape thought without responding to perceived input first. The origin of "new" represents "nu" aka now; which implies the every changing moment of existence aka the momentum of ongoing flow where temporary form can exist as choice based response to balance.
All of this can be understood; yet our beliefs are restricting our understanding of perceived inspiration in favor of suggested information. Take ones fundamental needs...(water; food; shelter)...does one need to believe in any of them or adapt as choice to balance (need/want) anyway?
Even simpler...does breathing require believing? If not...then reconsider SPIR'IT, noun [Latin spiritus, from spiro, to breathe, to blow. The primary sense is to rush or drive.] aka forms adaptation to flow. After understanding that; question if patris (ALL) et filii (ONE) et spiritus sancti (adaptation as ONE to ALL) is being suggested to hide the perceived inspiration (from within spirit) under suggested information (from within form)?
Life being moved from inception towards death...is it outcome oriented or maybe balance oriented until predefined outcome? What if the few suggest progressivism to deceive the many to choose to go with the flow instead of resisting it as form? By seeking outcomes; wanting achievements; trying to reach goals; putting hope towards etc. Always the suggestion of that which isn't (imbalance) for that which is (balance) aka the suggested inversion (suggested fiction) of perceived reality.
What if being ONE within ALL implies the ONEness of ALL (energy)? What if ALL perceivable reality is based on the ONEness of energy self segregating into flow (loss) and form (growth) for internal self sustenance? What if ED'IT, verb transitive [from Latin edo, to publish; e and do, to give.] implies flow to form; not form to other form; while ignoring flow?
HU'MAN, adjective [Latin humanus; Heb. form, species.] + AN'IMAL, noun [Latin animal from anima, air, breath, soul.]...what if one represents form (human) animated (animal) by flow? And it only took the suggestion of two words (human vs animal) to deceive us to ignore balance for imbalance?
Perfection implies want for outcome; while ignoring need to respond to origin (balance). The parasitic few suggest us to want order out of chaos; for which we ignore being temporary chaos (form) out of ongoing order (flow).
PLANE, noun [from Latin planus.] - "an even or level surface" + PLAN'ET, noun [Latin planeta; Gr. wandering, to wander]. Let me just quickly start my "plane" to fly over some curves; while keeping the "horizon" "level"...
Question if each ONE perceives ALL; yet lacks comprehension of what it means? Question if being ONE within ALL represents temporary growth potential (form aka life) within ongoing loss of potentiality (flow aka inception towards death)?
What if ALL communicates itself to each ONEs perceiving senses within as inspiration; while all the other ONEs tempt us to ignore this for suggested information?
What if ONEs comprehension is being grown by choice based adaptation to ALL perceived...not by consenting to information suggested by another ONE?
What if choice represents the response to balance (need/want); with need representing adaptation to perceived inspiration and want representing consent to suggested information?
What if choosing want over need (temptation of ignorance) aka suggested over perceived causes a conflict (imbalance) between those who want versus those who do not want the suggested? What if this conflict (want vs not want) is being branded by those making the suggestions as "reason"?
What if the parasitic few use suggestion (-isms) to cause division (reason) among the many; while a) perpetuating those conflicts by suggesting both sides endless contradictions to keep them reasoning (talmudic reasoning) and b) what if the few can at will rebrand want vs not want into for example good vs evil; true vs false; believing vs not believing; rights vs left; feminism vs patriarchy; poor vs rich; McDonalds vs Burger King; PC vs consoles; Christianity vs Islam; Republican vs Democrats and so on?
What if free will of choice exists as the response to balance; yet with the choice to ignore it for suggested imbalance? What if balancing requires responsibility of choice to struggle as form within flow; while ignoring balance for imbalance represents a constant temptation to fall for?
What if to believe or to not believe represents choice submitting to suggested choice of others? What if the industrialization thereof is called RELIGION, noun [Latin religio, from religo, to bind anew]; while the original bond under natural law represents offer (balance) response (choice)?
What if ignoring (choice) the perceived foundation of existence (balance) can be tempted by means of suggestion (of choices)?
ALL perceived originates out of flow; all suggested was shaped by choice of responding form out of perceived origin, while tempting those who consent to suggested to ignore perceived in the process.
Question if nature represents the source of perceived sound, and if suggested words are being shaped by choice out of the source of perceived sound? What if words allow those who suggest them to define how those who consent to them perceive sound? What if the suggestion of "insane person" deceives those who consent to its meaning to ignore Insane (in sanus aka within sound) + Person (per sonos aka by sound)?
If I teach others words it civilizes them; yet if I teach a dog words it domesticates him? Question mass domestication through suggested meaning over perceived meaning under the brand "civilization"...
What if a lie represents the contradiction of a suggested truth? What if true represents the rebranding of "want", and lie that of "not want"...both caused by consenting the same suggested information? What's the difference between reasoning true vs false and want vs not want? Question "need" over reasoning want vs not want?
Why does one consent to the suggestion that "truth" represents a conflict with "false"? Does nature offer false information to ones perceiving senses?
What if ongoing change (perceived inspiration) is what beliefs (suggested information) ignore? What if setting a belief into ones conscious memory represents the self restriction of both perceived inspiration and the comprehension thereof?
Because a belief is being held by free will of choice; while in ignorance of having free will of choice; since consenting to believe suggested choices of others aka will to will submission and shirking of responsibility as choice within balance.
What if ALL (flow) self segregates into individual ONEs (form) to allow temporary growth (form) out of ongoing loss (flow)?
What if SPACE, noun [Latin spatium, space; spatior, to wander.] implies being ONE wandering within ALL as choice within balance?
What if TIME implies constant movement (tick; tick; tick...) and not affixed states (past; present and future)? What if the few deceive the many to ignore being form (life) within the ever changing moment(um) of flow (inception towards death) by suggesting them to ignore that which is for that which was (past aka the self inflicted trauma of upheld loss within memory); that which is for that which might be (future aka the self inflicted trauma of hope and fear), and corrupting that which is (momentum) for that which isn't (presents aka the self inflicted trauma of stress aka imbalance)?
I appreciate your extended comments on my post. I'll have to be honest though, I can't seem to make sense of any of your sentences. You must be communicating using advanced modalities miles above my simple comprehension. Or perhaps you're not making enough effort to make it easily understood by the majority of your readers.
I had a similar experience attempting to read the book Transcendental Meditation. I tried for an hour or so to make sense of what the author was trying to convey, but eventually put the book down and never picked it up again.
For instance, consider this quote from Transcendental Meditation:
What the hell is that supposed to mean? To me it's a worthless word salad meant to sell books. I did however find this interesting gem among the quotes from this book:
Emphasis added.
What about this...does one represent form (life) within flow (inception towards death)?
If so; then was this ever pointed out to you throughout education? If not; then try to explain why?
Does the word "one" in your sentence refer to one person or one example? And if it's an example, to which one are you referring?