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.
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.
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?