0
free-will-of-choice 0 points ago +1 / -1

cannot make sense

That implies "can-not(hing) make sense" aka ignorance of perceived everything for suggested nothing. Making sense implies ignoring to perceive everything through ones senses. You read and chose to respond to something you sensed; while suggesting that it cannot make sense.

We are being manipulated to behave like this...to ignore perception; to ignore senses, and to view anything suggested through a conflict (reason). No other one can change your consent to being manipulated like; only ones own choice can do that. I cannot give you understanding; I can try to point out the deception of suggested information; while making it uncomfortable for others to keep ignoring perceived inspiration; but alas....free will of choice is upon oneself.

I have to assume

As form (life) within flow (inception towards death) one exists within constant change; which means one can only assume; never define.

you are doing this intentionally

I respond as choice to balance for self sustenance; because I "need" to; not because I "want" to suggest information to others. I instead use others as inspiration to adapt to.

You on the other hand are making the choice to "want" suggested information over the "need" of adapting to perceived inspiration, and I can only point it out; not change your own choice for you.

to aggressively forum slide

This aggression you perceive from suggested information represents the conflict of reason (want vs not want). It ignores need (respond to balance) for want (imbalance). I simply adapt to whatever is on the front-page: followed by however others adapt to it. Neither do I offer (starting threads); not do I judge (no up/down votes), and mostly I don't even read which forum or usernames I respond to.

You can utilize this by throwing at me whatever inspires you; and I will take it apart by putting it into my understanding of natural law; while pointing out the suggested corruptions of our parasitic few; which in return grows my own understanding. You can also ignore it; be offended; trying to attack the source of information you don't want or lack to understand etc. It's your free will of choice.

0
free-will-of-choice 0 points ago +1 / -1

It's what one shapes out of it; not what others want it to be. I adapt to what inspires; you try to find meaning in information suggested by others; hence the conflict (want vs not want) towards the suggested.

Ask yourself...does nature offer your perceiving senses information without meaning? If not..does it suggest information?

0
free-will-of-choice 0 points ago +1 / -1

life force vs flow versus form

Question flow (inception towards death) representing force of velocity (forward movement), and form (life) representing force of resistance (choice based adaptation to balance).

Afterwards; question if ongoing flow causes a momentum that represents the balance; within which temporary form has the choice to perceive; to adapt; to grow...

After that...question why you suggest a "versus" (imbalance) within a perceived balance?

One reason One is never shown to be equal or not equal to One is that?

Shown implies suggested information; which for choice represents want vs not want; hence ignoring perceived everything for suggested nothing. Your example of equal (want) vs not equal (not want) represents the conflict of reason caused by consenting to suggested information (thought education).

As for equality...ALL represents ONE in energy; while each ONE within ALL represents a self differentiation of energy into potentiality (loss through flow) and potential (growth of form). The parasites suggest the opposites by trying to shape us equal as to destroy the differentiation (through miscegenation); which in return corrupts our perception of differences (communicated inspiration).

All the differences one perceives are used to inspire one to sustain self by resisting as form within flow (balancing by choice).

flow (not life)

What if life (form) exists within the momentum (balance) of flow? What are the implications of calling something (form) within everything (flow)...nothing (not life)?

flow when not taught in classrooms (not flow) LIFE begins to permeate into reality

Flow represents the foundation for all form; and the majority of us chooses to ignore it for the suggestions of other form. As being alive; you cannot perceive your inception and your death; because you are balancing as form in-between the momentum of flow. Yet; you can easily understand your own beginning (inception) and end (death) by adapting to what you perceive through the responses to others being moved.

This is how form can perceive everything within momentum of flow; yet only comprehend the flow causing it. Growing this comprehension is why one perceives movement as inspiration to respond to. Comprehending to represent ONE within ALL aka form within flow; choice within balance; temporary within ongoing; potential within potentiality; growth within loss; chaos within order; magnetic resistance within electric velocity represents self discernment.

Only after growing self discernment can one further comprehend that ALL represents ONE in energy; after which one has a foundation to build assumption upon; because the only thing that cannot change within constant change are the rules that define how change operates; which represent the laws of nature for the responding form within. Perception and comprehension have to put into balance first aka kept within momentum by adaptation to perceived inspiration.

thank you

Thank you for the inspiration.

0
free-will-of-choice 0 points ago +1 / -1

I remember all kinds of shit from the 50s on

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"...

0
free-will-of-choice 0 points ago +1 / -1

ONE form within ALL flow. Everything you perceive represents a differentiated ONE (form) out of a differentiating ALL (flow). Inspiration can only be communicated by the movement (flow) of perceived differences (form).

Question "one person" by person (per sonos aka by sound) first aka what does it imply to be ONE resound to ALL sound? What does another resound represents for ONEself within ALL perceived sound?

Ask yourself...do you represent ONE within ALL? Do others represent each ONE within ALL? What doesn't represent being ONE within ALL? Also...represents implies responding (choice) to presented (perception).

0
free-will-of-choice 0 points ago +1 / -1

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?

0
free-will-of-choice 0 points ago +1 / -1

to remember HISTORY...

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)?

0
free-will-of-choice 0 points ago +1 / -1

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)?

1
free-will-of-choice 1 point ago +2 / -1

Transhumanism (a suggested belief system) aims to exchange 1 (perceived reality) with 0 (suggested fiction).

As form (life) within flow (inception towards death) one perceives inspiration (from within spirit); while being tempted to ignore it for suggested information (from within form) by others. Resisting that temptation represents forms resistance to the velocity of flow for temporary growth potential (form) within ongoing loss of potentiality (flow).

0
free-will-of-choice 0 points ago +1 / -1

another person...two realities

ANOTH'ER, adjective [one and other]; also A'LIEN, adjective [Latin alienus, from alius, another] + PERSON; noun - "per sonos (by sound)"

What if each form (life) within flow (inception towards death) represents ONE within ALL; and "another" to each other? What if ALL doesn't communicate "two"; but offers ONE the choice to count all others?

What if ONE can be deceive through suggestion of counting to ignore being ONE within ALL (self discernment); which afterwards would allow the growth of understanding towards ALL being ONE in energy? What if "we" represent "alone" aka ALL(in)ONE?

What if "reality" doesn't proclaim itself to be real? What if it moves all within to communicate perceived inspiration; which choice (need/want) can ignore for suggested information (fiction) by others? What if ignoring reality for fiction represents suggested information (want) over perceived inspiration (need)?

alternate

Question ALTERN'ATE, adjective [Latin alternatus.] - "one following the other" in regard to ONEs (form) transmutation out of ALL (flow) aka flow to form (inception); form within flow (life), and form to flow (death)?

Furthermore; question the positioning of form (choice) within the momentum (balance) of flow...does choice represent a response ability within balance, and could it be tempted to ignore balance (need/want) for suggested choices (want vs not want) aka balance (need) for imbalance (want)?

3
free-will-of-choice 3 points ago +3 / -0

Maybe I'm NOT insane?

Insane (in sanus aka within sound) + Person (per sonos aka by sound). Therefore; you represent the choice based response to being within perceivable sound (insane). On the other hand...nothing (NOT) cannot exist within everything. One cannot perceive nothingness; since perception implies in response to everything.

1
free-will-of-choice 1 point ago +1 / -0

violence against government

Govern (to control) + ment; from mens (mind) is caused by consent (choice of want over need) to suggestion (representative government). Any violence against mind control; while ignoring that consenting choice is causing it; will only end in self destruction.

Instead of going against mind control (government); learn/teach oneself how to control ones mind by choice of response to balance (need/want); instead of falling for suggested imbalance (want vs not want).

1
free-will-of-choice 1 point ago +1 / -0

All suggested information represents want; all perceived inspiration represents need. Choice represents response to balance (need/want), and resistance to the temptation of imbalance (want vs not want).

13
free-will-of-choice 13 points ago +13 / -0

One can believe that the universe is without cause, value or purpose...

Universe; from U'NITY, noun [Latin unitas.] - "the state of being one; oneness". The ONEness of ALL implies EN'ERGY, noun [Gr. work.] - "internal or inherent power" aka the power of internal balance between loss (flow) and growth (form); which implies the ONEs within ALL to represent form (life) within flow (inception towards death).

In short....

Cause equals energy to flow/form (balance) for responding choice of form within flow.

Flow represents ALL perceivable value within balance; form represents ONEs choice based evaluation thereof.

The purpose of an internal loss/growth balance represents self sustenance.

Believing implies ignoring adapting to perceived inspiration (choice of need for growth) for consent to suggested information (choice of want for loss).

it's all just an animating spirit that binds everyone and everything together.

Spirit; form spiro - "to breathe" implies forms adaptation to flow; hence being animated by flow; hence representing AN'IMAL, noun [Latin animal from anima, air, breath, soul.] + HU'MAN, adjective [Latin humanus; Heb. form] aka animated (animal) form (human).

The bond of form to flow represents offer/consent aka balance/choice; while parasites suggest RELIGION, noun [Latin religio, from religo, to bind anew] to bind choice through suggestion to other choices (want vs not want); while ignoring to respond to balance (need)

There is no proof either way

Because "way" implies from/to aka movement (flow); and therefore form within flow exists in response to constant change (neither true; nor false states), and the only thing that cannot change within constant change represents the rules (laws of nature) that define how flow operates; which the form within can only comprehend by adapting to the perceived consequences thereof; hence growing by choice based adaptation to balance.

So make your choice

Choice represents the response to balance (need/want); not to the suggestions from others (want vs not want). All conflicts (dissonance) in this system are based on choice ignoring to respond to balance (resonance). It's is that ignorance (choice of want over need) of the many; that fuels the parasitic exploitation by the few through suggestion and "make your choice" represents such a suggestion.

Can one within all; form within flow; choice within balance...not make choices?

2
free-will-of-choice 2 points ago +2 / -0

As Atlas shrugged; alisa zinovyevna rosenbaum kvetches... https://pic8.co/sh/eP3YJp.jpg

1
free-will-of-choice 1 point ago +1 / -0

a one piece puzzle.

Spoiler alert...the ONE Piece represents each ONEs journey within ALL. Growing ONEs comprehension of ALL perceived represents the puzzle.

-1
free-will-of-choice -1 points ago +1 / -2

Whose orders do they follow?

Everyone who follows orders ignores the natural order of flow (inception towards death) for form (life). Form represents the resistance to the velocity of flow; which the parasitic few are corrupting by suggesting the many to consent to follow suggested orders instead of resisting the natural order of being moved towards death. Mankind is being tricked to want to go with the flow; to progress; to seek achievements; to hope for outcomes; to follow the party-line; to adhere to the mainstream; to just get on with it; to just do it; to livin la vida loca; till infinity and beyond etc.

The few are feeding the ignorant many back into flow; which represents transmutation out of base aka flow to form (inception); form within flow (life); form to flow (death).

-1
free-will-of-choice -1 points ago +1 / -2

which is given to us

That implies responding to origin.

hope

That implies ignoring to respond to origin for want of outcome aka ignoring that which is for the suggestion of that which isn't yet might be.

Now question that response implies by choice, and that choice originates out of balance; hence representing the responding choice.

1
free-will-of-choice 1 point ago +1 / -0

It's all about testing our ideas of the World, and if we find something that works, we have a 'model' for it and can use that to do useful things.

IDE'A, noun [Latin idea; Gr. to see, Latin video.] What if what you see aka sense aka perceive represents both inspiration for your growth and temptation for your loss of both mental/physical potential? What if reality represents a self sustaining system (internal loss/growth balance) that causes you as the free will of choice in response to that balance? What if your choice within balance (need/want) represents the consequence of growth/loss?

find new ways to make steel in better ways

a) what are you making better for aka towards which goal? Also consider being form (life) within flow (inception towards death)...is life outcome oriented if death is predefined at inception or is life balance oriented; hence representing a responding free will of choice?

b) what if everything needed to make steel and everything needed to make steel better already exists; which implies that one cannot create "new"; only transmute out of ALL existence; based on ONEs understanding thereof.

useful vs useless

Doesn't that imply choice of want vs not want evaluating it as such; while reasoning (versus conflict) with others who evaluate it as the opposite? What of ONE within ALL aka choice within balance cannot define value; only evaluate (ONEs choice) value (ALL balance)?

0
free-will-of-choice 0 points ago +1 / -1

Science has always been a process and never a conclusion.

SCI'ENCE, noun [Latin scientia, from scio, to know.] + KNOWL'EDGE, noun - "perception of that which exists". Perception implies being processed as form (life) by flow (inception towards death).

Nature communicates itself to all within by moving them; which we perceive as inspiration for our choice to respond to (adaptation). We each represent an insane (in sanus aka within sound) person (per sonos aka by sound) aka a response to perceived sound (resonance).

Why do we ignore this? Because the few misuse choice to shape words (idolized meaning) out of perceived sound; which they then suggest to the many who by consenting ignore perceived inspiration for suggested information. They call this spell-craft aka suggest fictitious meaning (words) to craft the spelling for reality among those who consent to it.

Every suggested word represents an affixed idol that deceives us to ignore being the temporary resistance (form) within the ongoing velocity (flow) of an energy based system.

1
free-will-of-choice 1 point ago +1 / -0

Every suggested information implies choice consenting to choice (to bind anew aka religio); which ignores adaptation to perceived inspiration (choice responding to balance).

Every suggested information represents the choice of wanting vs not wanting it (conflict of reason). Before one can choose between wanting or not wanting any suggestion; one makes a choice in response to balance under natural law aka need or want; with want representing the ignorance of need.

This ignorance is what the parasitic few are ruthlessly exploiting by means of suggesting want vs not want (conflict of reason). As in the age of reason on the Georgia Guidestones https://pic8.co/sh/ZFutkP.jpg

2
free-will-of-choice 2 points ago +2 / -0

via the Scientific Method, not by taking a vote

Both imply consent by free will of choice to suggestion by free will of choice from another aka will submitting to will; while ignoring what defines having a choice (being within response to balance).

view more: Next ›