All perceivable was given to each ones perception...trying to yield more that ALL offers through suggested questions and answers by others, yields self to others, while permitting others to reap what one willingly yields.
Balance can only exist within motion. Being in-between implies as choice within balance of motion. A being cannot settle; while being (life) moved (inception towards death). Ones consent to hold onto the suggested information by another establishes a fictitious "settlement" within the motion of reality.
try to understand this balance
To understand implies ones choice "standing-under" the choice of another. Doing that ignores perceivable balance for suggested imbalance. That's also how a chosen one tricks ones choice to imbalance self by choosing to stand-under another.
Color implies the spectrum of visible light, as perceived by each ray within. How does it feel to be a ray (matter) within the visible spectrum (momentum) of light (motion)?
How could what another suggests "is" represent ones RE-sponse to ALL that "was" perceivable? What if to be implies as the RE within the AL of reality, and what if ones consent to what others suggest is implies fiction?
That you happen to be in a situation where, unavoidably, you must wager on what the true nature of reality is. Wager optimistically or pessimistically. It's up to you. There's no answer for now.
To be implies choice within balance; to wage implies choosing to hold onto a side...thereby establishing imbalance. Being implies as choice within the balance of reality...waging contradicts real choice for fictitious chance, hence establishing imbalance for choice.
what the true nature of reality is
a) Reality WAS and now implies ones RE-sponse to ALL. What another suggests IS establishes a fictitious conflict of reason aka is vs isn't or true vs false. If one positions self into a fictitious conflict by consenting to the suggestions of another, then one ignores to re-spond to all (re-al).
b) How about this...nature aka NATive/nurtURE aka nurturing (inception towards death) natives (life). An internal separation of action/reaction aka balance/choice aka velocity/resistance aka all/one.
there's no answer
To question aims TOWARDS answers...both tempt one to ignore being (life) within solution (inception towards death). Suggested questions and answers tempt ones perception to ignore perceivable origin (reality) for suggested outcomes (fiction).
To ignore implies ones de-nial (nihilo; nothing), hence ones use of "no" when answering each others questions.
a) Reality WAS perceivable before ones perception comes into being...suggesting what IS implies fiction. Why? Reality moves all perceivable and each ones perception apart, while suggestion tempts consent to hold onto, thereby shaping fiction (information) within reality (fiction).
b) True implies versus false...a fictitious conflict shaped by ones consent (true or false) to a suggestion, while ignoring perceivable reality.
Always wondering
One (life) can only wonder/wander within the way (inception towards death) of all.
Reality is an objective absolute. Your senses take in information, THEN you form concepts. It’s perception, THEN conception. Not either or, and not neither.
[ - ] I_am_baal 1 point 2 monthsFeb 24, 2025 22:44:21 ago (+1/-0)
I believe the substrate of reality is consciousness, that it's all just an extension of yourself that happens to line up perfectly with a few billion other people's reality projections.
I believe the substrate of reality is consciousness
a) To believe makes oneself into the substrate of what another suggest one to believe. Reality doesn't require belief (holding onto); it forces adaptation (letting go of) to change.
b) Conscious aka perceiving (scio) together (con) contradicts all perceivable separating into each ones perception. One can only perceive if what one perceives exists separate from one. Reality aka the natural order implies that ongoing process of separation, which ones consent to suggestion tempts one to ignore/deny.
it's all just an extension of yourself
Only within all can each one extent outwards. Ex (outwards) tens (to stretch) ion (action)...being implies the outwards stretching reaction (life) within inwards action (inception towards death).
to line up
Being implies curve (life) within line (inception towards death) aka temporal growth within eternal loss. Few tempt many to line up with the suggested party-line aka main-stream aka flow of currency etc. Doing that prevents the curve from growing aka "flattening the curve" aka "the nail that sticks out gets hammered down".
other projections
Pro (forwards) ject (to throw) ion (action)...action (inception towards death) throws reactions (life) forwards. It's not other (two), but whole (one) separating into partials (ones).
The natural order throws each being within apart from one another, hence each being representing chaos/khaos/ghieh - "be wide open". Few suggest "order out of chaos" to distract many from being "chaos within order".
[ - ] I_am_baal 1 point 2 monthsFeb 25, 2025 12:30:49 ago (+1/-0)*
Each spatial dimension consists of an infinite number of the spatial dimensions below. A point consists of 0 spatial dimensions. A line is a 1 dimensional construct made of an infinite number of 0 dimensional points. A 2D plane is an infinite number of 1d lines. a 3D space consists of an infinite number of 2D planes. A 4D space consists of an infinite number of 3D spaces. The animated tesseracts that you see use time as the 4th dimensional coordinate, and so they move, but from a 4th dimensional perspective, there is no motion. You can see every frame at once so to speak. 5D consists of an infinite number of 4D slices and can be thought of as the space containing all parallel timelines. If you were to move through 5D space from a 4D perspective, all aspects of observable reality could shift from your perspective. Your table could physically change size and shape as you move through parallel realities where you or the manufacturer made different decisions relative to your original reality. Any aspect of the past and present could change (this is what causes the mandela effect according to my model.)
Tesser/tessera (four) + act (action). To be implies ones perspective from within a six sided cube (left/right + up/down + front/back). Understanding implies "standing-under", hence ignoring ones position within a cube of six, by one standing under another one, hence taking "two" out of six...a tesseract.
Oh, so you OVERSTAND? What are you a 5%er? I understand a tesseract somewhat conceptually, but I have a tough time fully visualizing it---even with computer generated approximations of how the human eye might perceive it.
To be implies in-between over/under, hence balancing as choice during motion. Others suggest one to choose a side (over or under), which establishes a conflict of reason (over vs under), which imbalances ones choice...IF one consents willingly.
I understand a tesseract somewhat conceptually
Concept implies grasping (cept) together (con)...being implies separation from one another, hence having the opportunity to grasp each other. Grasping implies the temptation (want) to ignore resisting (need). Hence the "hands off the apple" story about taking on sin.
If you let go of a suggested concept; then you wouldn't stand-under (understand) another, and therefore be able to see through your own eyes the cube (left/right + up/down + front/back) that cannot be conceptualized aka grasped together.
What happens if you try to grasp any of the six sides while standing? You lose balance and fall.
but I have a tough time fully visualizing it
Because you aren't and can never be "full"...only a partial (perception) within whole (perceivable). The suggested tesseract animation... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesseract tempts you to visualize, thereby mentally hold onto a temporary one (small cube) within a moving all (large cube)...while watching it from the outside, which prevents you from discerning self to be within.
Suggestion prevents self discernment as one (perception) within all (perceivable). Suggestion implies jewish artifice...a trick; the foundation of deceiving perception by tricking ones choice to give consent to a chosen ones suggestion. Also the foundation for mercantilism; religion and any visual concepts.
approximations of how the human eye might perceive it
Approx/approve implies ones consent to a SUGGESTION by another, hence holding onto something, while ignoring that all perceivable moves through ones perception and cannot be held onto. Approximating information prevents one from adapting to inspiration.
[ - ] Merlynn 1 point 2 monthsFeb 25, 2025 07:30:30 ago (+1/-0)
Reality is what is. For example,a man shoots another man. This is what happened. Anything else is your biases and views place upon it. Did the man deserve to be shot? Was the shooter a hero or a villain for shooting him? These are moral questions and have nothing to do with the simple reality of one man shot another. Those are simply our opinions on what happened.
To know implies perception; to fantasize implies suggestion...both we (pluralism) and don't (nihilism) imply suggestions. Notice also that we (more than one) contradicts only (one and only).
a) Willingly carrying around -isms to brand others with...that tires one. Choosing to let go of what one holds onto...that invigorates one.
b) Intellect/intelligo - "to understand" implies ones consent to stand-under suggested intellectualism, hence willingly taking on the burden of carrying an -ism around.
c) Ignoring genuine (perception) for pseudo (suggestion) requires ones consent by free will of choice.
a) Sound moves and cannot be "fixed". Words tempt one to mentally hold onto "meaning", while ignoring sound. Therefore fix/ firus/figo - "to establish immovably" implies ones ignorance of being moved.
b) Prefix implies perceivable sound before (pre) one affixes (fix) suggested words, and suffix implies ones consenting submission (sub) to suggested words when affixing (fix) them mentally.
narrate
To narrate implies "relating particulars", which sound (whole) does by producing instruments (partials). Sound sets instruments apart from one another; words imply letters put together...aka ones consent LETTING others craft spells.
psychosis
Aka psyche (animating spirit) osis (a state of disease)...sound animates inspiration; holding onto words establishes dis-ease. One cannot hold onto the spirit of animation; only let it pass through one.
your
Where do I claim possession of what I'm writing about? Where do I define meaning?
does not change
Being (life) within change (inception towards death)...that's what one de-nies (nihilo; nothing) when consenting to suggested nihil-ism.
Implies (in-folds) perception within, suggesting something beyond what is explicitly stated. One perceives implication through presence (being) rather than mere words, which seek to fix meaning in place. Implication moves like sound, while words attempt to capture and contain.
Over
To be "over" implies position above (superior, control) or beyond (exceeding, surpassing). Yet, sound neither rises nor falls—it permeates. "Over" tempts one into hierarchy, an illusion formed by perception rather than inherent reality.
Reason
Ratio—measuring, dividing, comparing. To reason is to break sound into parts, seeking to hold onto meaning instead of letting perception flow. Reason fixes; implication moves. Reason analyzes; implication is. Sound is reason-less yet fully realized.
Implicationoverreason means to follow what others imply instead of reason. Your very name means to listen, obey, and ignore the truth.
a) Im (within) plica (to fold) tion (action) aka folding/bending of reactions (perception) within action (perceivable).
b) Not folding on top of each other, but bending apart from one another aka light (motion) generating spectrum (momentum) to bend rays (matter) from one another.
c) Implication implies...if/then, hence if perception, then within perceivable.
Implies (in-folds) perception within, suggesting something beyond what is explicitly stated
a) Perception (effect) implies perceivable (cause)...suggestion implies effects affecting each other, while ignoring perceivable cause.
b) Only within implicit (cause) can there be explicit (effects). Stating explicitly implies to one another (suggested), while ignoring all (perceivable).
words, which seek to fix
Suggesting a word draws consent, hence tempting ones "free" will of choice to bind itself to another, when falling for a temptation. What you perceive as seeking implies your ignorance of suggested words being shaped within perceivable sound, hence as temporary shapes within ongoing motion. Whatever one sets into motion...moves towards whatever stands in the way. Giving consent and holding onto suggested meaning implies "standing in the way" of perceivable nature.
Implication moves like sound
Sound implies same motion; instrument implies differentiation of matter within. Suggested words tempt "alike" consent from those who fall for spell-craft.
words attempt to capture and contain
Anything put into motion tempts anything else to hold onto it...it's each ones free will of choice to capture suggested, while containing self from perceivable. Suggested information can be held within mind/memory; but only while ignoring that perceivable inspiration cannot be held onto, since it moves.
To be "over" implies
To be implies towards (inception towards death) being (life) aka matter WITHIN motion. Ignoring this for any suggestion by another...positions another over, and oneself under aka slave selecting master.
Few trick many to believe that masters enslave, which inverts reality, where if many ignore, then few exploit ignorance. Ignorance has to be willingly chosen first for others to be permitted to exploit. It's ones choice who selects a chosen ones suggestion...thereby submitting self, while empowering another.
Yet, sound neither rises nor falls—it permeates.
Sound permeates the rise (living) and fall (dying) of each instrumental being within. Few suggest many that sound passes through without displacement, which in return tempts the instrumental being to ignore self dis-cern-ment of dis-place-ment aka hence each mind/memory by divided from one another, hence permitting each one perception of all perceivable.
"Over" tempts one into hierarchy
Giving consent to a suggested temptation permits another to layer suggested information above one, hence establishing levels of hierarchy.
Hierachy aka hiera (sacred rite) + arkhein (to lead) implies each ones sacred (life) rite of passage (inception towards death). Not being lead by another, but sprouting forth as one (temporary growth of matter) within all (ongoing loss of motion).
an illusion formed by perception rather than inherent reality
a) Flow (all perceivable) trans-forms (ones perception)...holding onto each others suggested in-form-ation makes all perceivable in-spirat-ion elusive to ones perception.
b) Illus-ion...ion implies all moving action; illus implies ones stagnating reaction...if one willingly chooses to hold onto that which moves.
c) Real implies ones response (re) to all (al) aka inherent RE within extrinsic AL.
Reason...Ratio—measuring, dividing, comparing
Which one does against one another, while ignoring implication aka if one, then within all. Before one can measure; divide or compare each other...all separates one from one another.
To reason is to break sound into parts
Being implies partial instruments; broken apart from one another, within whole sound. Reason implies partial instruments joining each other within mutual conflict about suggested words, while ignoring perceivable sound.
seeking to hold onto meaning instead of letting perception flow
a) Suggestions tempt one to seek outcomes, which in return tempts form (life) to ignore flowing (inception towards death) origin.
b) Holding onto meaning implies ones consent to a suggested definition, which makes one a DEAF PHONETICIAN aka deaf to sound.
Reason fixes; implication moves.
Implication solidifies being; reason dissolves being. The foundation for trying to fix that which moves is called tikkun olam (healing the world by bringing together) aka the equalization of differences by artificially mixing together that which nature sets apart from one another.
Reason analyzes; implication is
Implication was perceivable before reason can analyze what is suggested.
Sound is reason-less yet fully realized.
Sound was whole before each partial comes into being (re) within (al). Empty vs full implies a conflict of reason among partial who ignore to discern self within whole.
Implicationoverreason means
Suggesting meaning tempts one to reason against each other instead of adapting to the implication of being one within all. Implication passes over those who reason.
to follow what others imply instead of reason
To follow implies reasoning aka wanting vs not wanting to reach suggested outcome, while following the lead of others. Notice that when one chooses to follow a leader, one faces those who don't follow in conflict...that's how reason works. Whatever one believes positions one against the non-believers...choose left and you'll have to fight right...your love breeds hate in others and vice versa etc.
Your very name
Name/nombre/number - "designation of a unit", hence unitas/unus - "one". A name one cannot claim (yours) without ignoring oneself within all. ImplicationOverReason isn't a name unless one chooses it to be. Those who utilize implication (if/then) can freely draw inspiration from it; while those who reason (vs) are gonna fight each other over it.
ignore the truth
Choosing truth (want) or lie (not want) ignores change (need)...applying change to truth or lie changes one into the other and vice versa.
There's no truth in nature, unless one chooses to hold onto a truth, which in return permits others to lie. The resulting conflict (truth vs lie) is called reason, which tempts one to ignore the implication of change. If holding onto during change, then...?
Either you have spent so much time reading AI written trash, or you just use AI and copy/paste.
You're ridiculous.
Some key things to look for when analyzing AI generated responses:
Overly structured phrasing with recursive breakdowns.
You do this with every single comment.
Heavy reliance on etymology without clear real-world application.
You miss the implication most times, the etymology is correct, because it's easy to pull the info from the internet. Applying the word to the subject in question is your weakness, also a huge weakness for AI.
A tendency to sound profound while sometimes lacking practical clarity.
You can define the words just fine, but lack any nuance. You also get completely lost in double meanings or idioms.
I'm really tired of this trash, but further engagement just feeds the beast.
Either you have spent so much time reading AI written trash, or you just use AI and copy/paste.
Neither. I write down everything off the cuff besides links to dictionaries; etymology; music lyrics and quotes. I adapt to perceivable inspiration, hence being able to draw from the eternal source for as long as I choose to do so. What I see are contradictions within the information others suggest to each other, which I take apart to a) learn more about how it was shaped together and b) to work on the ignorance of others by making it harder to ignore, hence taking apart what others hold onto to justify ignorance.
You're ridiculous.
That's in the eye of the beholder aka the being holding onto the brands it attaches to another. Or like Eminem put it..."I am whatever you say I am" from a song called THE WAY (inception towards death) I AM (life).
You do this with every single comment
Can you show me any AI that can on the fly adapt to perceivable inspiration, while taking apart suggested information? Try copy/pasting what I wrote to any AI with the command to continue in a likewise matter...ain't gonna happen. Whatever information AI is gonna regurgitate back to you will be filled with contradictions...which immediately stand out to me.
Where are the contradictions within what I wrote? Where are the lies? Where's the hidden agenda suggesting others what to do? Where are the rhetorical traps for others to fall into? Where are the restrictions an AI would have within my line of thinking?
Heavy reliance on etymology without clear real-world application
I freely take apart ETYMO, while others bind themselves to LOGY aka circular reasoning. The latter prevents others from having a clear perception of the real world, because they're busy applying consent to suggested fiction.
You miss the implication most times
YOU implies a conflict of reason (you vs me) MISS implies ones ignorance of all perceivable being offered to each ones perception. THE implies suggested the-ism tempting ones consent to submit to the authority of another. IMPLICATION implies if/then based on a moving foundation. MOST implies a conflict of reason (most vs least) TIMES implies suggested pluralism contradicting singular duration (inception towards death) of each being (life).
the etymology is correct
That implies correct vs incorrect reasoning aka LOGY about suggested ETYMO. While you are stuck within circular logic about what IS; I freely adapt to what WAS perceivable aka the sound within which others shape words; in response to which you reason about correct vs incorrect etymology.
because it's easy to pull the info from the internet
a) INFOrmation is pushed (suggested) towards your pull (consent)...I draw from perceivable inspiration, while resisting the temptation to pull what others are pushing.
b) Easy implies versus hard...another conflict of reason, which exists only in the mind/memory of those who hold onto a side. The free will of choice used to choose a side can only exist in-between (life) beginning (inception) and end (death)...not on either side.
Applying the word to the subject in question is your weakness
a) I draw strength from resisting the temptation to apply consent to suggested words. "Sticks and stones may break my bones But words shall never hurt me." (I copied and pasted that rhyme).
b) Question implies a quest towards a suggested outcome (answer), while ignoring that perceivable origin implies solution (inception towards death) to problems (life).
A tendency to sound profound while sometimes lacking practical clarity
a) Being implies instrument (partial) within sound (whole)
b) Consenting to the suggestions of one another tethers together, hence establishing tendencies towards each other.
c) One (perception) within all (perceivable) cannot lack anything...it's each ones free will of choice to clear ones mind within perceivable or obscure it with suggested. Most with eyes to see ignore sight (perception) for sight-seeing what others are showing (suggestion), hence transfixing perspective into a narrow channel of tell-a-vision.
You can define the words just fine
I take apart DEFINITION because sound moves instruments apart. You holding onto makes you a DEAF PHONETICIAN aka deaf to phonics (sound).
You also get completely lost in double meanings or idioms.
a) There can be only one...double of one implies one. Try to double energy and wake me up when you've achieved "two" energies.
b) Meaning implies your consent to a suggestion, which establishes a conflict of reason within your mind/memory aka a double of 1 vs 1. Nature doesn't offer meaning...it can only be shaped artificially aka in ignorance of natural. Nature moves things apart; things within attach meaning to other things in the attempt to hold them together aka to define (definition) them.
c) Idiom/idioumai - "to appropriate to oneself"...that's the opposite of what I do. To reason implies appropriating a side to oneself, while ignoring that implication (if/then) cannot be held onto since it implies motion aka move-ment (a moving mind).
As one within all...trying to idio (ones own) implies idiocy.
I'm really tired
Because instead of responding (re) to all (al), you chose to hold onto a side within a conflict of reason about suggestions by others. That's tiresome.
feed the beast
Beast implies being (be) astute (ast), which would allow one to discern that before feed (effect) there was hunger (cause). I adapt to perceivable inspiration, not to the suggested information "fed" to me.
Go be a nigger somewhere else.
If you are offended; then you chose to take an offer...trying to push others away doesn't lighten the burden one took upon self. "Shit; u kno wat? I gots to gets me sum melon, rite bout now, peace out"
[ + ] VitaminSieg
[ - ] VitaminSieg -2 points 2 monthsFeb 24, 2025 22:32:45 ago (+0/-2)
[ + ] ImplicationOverReason
[ - ] ImplicationOverReason 0 points 2 monthsFeb 25, 2025 03:17:08 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Trope
[ - ] Trope 0 points 2 monthsFeb 24, 2025 23:14:15 ago (+0/-0)
Be mindful of your own behavior and try to understand this balance. That’s what I’ve got so far.
[ + ] ImplicationOverReason
[ - ] ImplicationOverReason 0 points 2 monthsFeb 25, 2025 03:15:01 ago (+0/-0)
Balance can only exist within motion. Being in-between implies as choice within balance of motion. A being cannot settle; while being (life) moved (inception towards death). Ones consent to hold onto the suggested information by another establishes a fictitious "settlement" within the motion of reality.
To understand implies ones choice "standing-under" the choice of another. Doing that ignores perceivable balance for suggested imbalance. That's also how a chosen one tricks ones choice to imbalance self by choosing to stand-under another.
[ + ] TheOriginal1Icemonkey
[ - ] TheOriginal1Icemonkey 0 points 2 monthsFeb 24, 2025 23:23:03 ago (+0/-0)
That is reality.
[ + ] ImplicationOverReason
[ - ] ImplicationOverReason 0 points 2 monthsFeb 25, 2025 03:10:03 ago (+0/-0)
Color implies the spectrum of visible light, as perceived by each ray within. How does it feel to be a ray (matter) within the visible spectrum (momentum) of light (motion)?
Sound/sanus - "entire; whole; unbroken" aka ALL...to be implies "unique; partial; broken apart" aka ONE.
How could what another suggests "is" represent ones RE-sponse to ALL that "was" perceivable? What if to be implies as the RE within the AL of reality, and what if ones consent to what others suggest is implies fiction?
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO 0 points 2 monthsFeb 24, 2025 23:38:04 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] ImplicationOverReason
[ - ] ImplicationOverReason 0 points 2 monthsFeb 25, 2025 03:03:14 ago (+0/-0)
To be implies choice within balance; to wage implies choosing to hold onto a side...thereby establishing imbalance. Being implies as choice within the balance of reality...waging contradicts real choice for fictitious chance, hence establishing imbalance for choice.
a) Reality WAS and now implies ones RE-sponse to ALL. What another suggests IS establishes a fictitious conflict of reason aka is vs isn't or true vs false. If one positions self into a fictitious conflict by consenting to the suggestions of another, then one ignores to re-spond to all (re-al).
b) How about this...nature aka NATive/nurtURE aka nurturing (inception towards death) natives (life). An internal separation of action/reaction aka balance/choice aka velocity/resistance aka all/one.
To question aims TOWARDS answers...both tempt one to ignore being (life) within solution (inception towards death). Suggested questions and answers tempt ones perception to ignore perceivable origin (reality) for suggested outcomes (fiction).
To ignore implies ones de-nial (nihilo; nothing), hence ones use of "no" when answering each others questions.
[ + ] observation1
[ - ] observation1 0 points 2 monthsFeb 25, 2025 00:05:34 ago (+0/-0)*
[ + ] ImplicationOverReason
[ - ] ImplicationOverReason 0 points 2 monthsFeb 25, 2025 02:27:35 ago (+0/-0)
a) Reality WAS perceivable before ones perception comes into being...suggesting what IS implies fiction. Why? Reality moves all perceivable and each ones perception apart, while suggestion tempts consent to hold onto, thereby shaping fiction (information) within reality (fiction).
b) True implies versus false...a fictitious conflict shaped by ones consent (true or false) to a suggestion, while ignoring perceivable reality.
One (life) can only wonder/wander within the way (inception towards death) of all.
About/abutan - "on the outside"... https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=about
Others suggest aboutism to tempt one with outside (suggestion) to ignore to discern self at the inside (perception).
[ + ] 3Whuurs
[ - ] 3Whuurs 0 points 2 monthsFeb 25, 2025 03:22:54 ago (+0/-0)
Your senses take in information, THEN you form concepts.
It’s perception, THEN conception. Not either or, and not neither.
[ + ] Stonkmar
[ - ] Stonkmar 0 points 2 monthsFeb 25, 2025 04:45:20 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] GreatSatan
[ - ] GreatSatan 0 points 2 monthsFeb 25, 2025 06:18:36 ago (+0/-0)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Worlds
[ + ] albatrosv15
[ - ] albatrosv15 0 points 2 monthsFeb 25, 2025 08:21:54 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Lost_In_The_Thinking
[ - ] Lost_In_The_Thinking 0 points 2 monthsFeb 25, 2025 10:51:53 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] I_am_baal
[ - ] I_am_baal 1 point 2 monthsFeb 24, 2025 22:44:21 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] ImplicationOverReason
[ - ] ImplicationOverReason 0 points 2 monthsFeb 25, 2025 02:43:42 ago (+0/-0)
a) To believe makes oneself into the substrate of what another suggest one to believe. Reality doesn't require belief (holding onto); it forces adaptation (letting go of) to change.
b) Conscious aka perceiving (scio) together (con) contradicts all perceivable separating into each ones perception. One can only perceive if what one perceives exists separate from one. Reality aka the natural order implies that ongoing process of separation, which ones consent to suggestion tempts one to ignore/deny.
Only within all can each one extent outwards. Ex (outwards) tens (to stretch) ion (action)...being implies the outwards stretching reaction (life) within inwards action (inception towards death).
Being implies curve (life) within line (inception towards death) aka temporal growth within eternal loss. Few tempt many to line up with the suggested party-line aka main-stream aka flow of currency etc. Doing that prevents the curve from growing aka "flattening the curve" aka "the nail that sticks out gets hammered down".
Pro (forwards) ject (to throw) ion (action)...action (inception towards death) throws reactions (life) forwards. It's not other (two), but whole (one) separating into partials (ones).
The natural order throws each being within apart from one another, hence each being representing chaos/khaos/ghieh - "be wide open". Few suggest "order out of chaos" to distract many from being "chaos within order".
[ + ] boekanier
[ - ] boekanier 0 points 2 monthsFeb 25, 2025 04:03:37 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] I_am_baal
[ - ] I_am_baal 0 points 2 monthsFeb 25, 2025 12:08:51 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] TheBigGuyFromQueens
[ - ] TheBigGuyFromQueens 1 point 2 monthsFeb 25, 2025 01:20:38 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Merlynn
[ - ] Merlynn 1 point 2 monthsFeb 25, 2025 07:24:23 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] I_am_baal
[ - ] I_am_baal 1 point 2 monthsFeb 25, 2025 12:30:49 ago (+1/-0)*
[ + ] ImplicationOverReason
[ - ] ImplicationOverReason -1 points 2 monthsFeb 25, 2025 02:48:38 ago (+0/-1)
Tesser/tessera (four) + act (action). To be implies ones perspective from within a six sided cube (left/right + up/down + front/back). Understanding implies "standing-under", hence ignoring ones position within a cube of six, by one standing under another one, hence taking "two" out of six...a tesseract.
[ + ] TheBigGuyFromQueens
[ - ] TheBigGuyFromQueens 0 points 2 monthsFeb 25, 2025 03:17:07 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] ImplicationOverReason
[ - ] ImplicationOverReason 1 point 2 monthsFeb 25, 2025 03:36:46 ago (+1/-0)
To be implies in-between over/under, hence balancing as choice during motion. Others suggest one to choose a side (over or under), which establishes a conflict of reason (over vs under), which imbalances ones choice...IF one consents willingly.
Concept implies grasping (cept) together (con)...being implies separation from one another, hence having the opportunity to grasp each other. Grasping implies the temptation (want) to ignore resisting (need). Hence the "hands off the apple" story about taking on sin.
If you let go of a suggested concept; then you wouldn't stand-under (understand) another, and therefore be able to see through your own eyes the cube (left/right + up/down + front/back) that cannot be conceptualized aka grasped together.
What happens if you try to grasp any of the six sides while standing? You lose balance and fall.
Because you aren't and can never be "full"...only a partial (perception) within whole (perceivable). The suggested tesseract animation... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesseract tempts you to visualize, thereby mentally hold onto a temporary one (small cube) within a moving all (large cube)...while watching it from the outside, which prevents you from discerning self to be within.
Suggestion prevents self discernment as one (perception) within all (perceivable). Suggestion implies jewish artifice...a trick; the foundation of deceiving perception by tricking ones choice to give consent to a chosen ones suggestion. Also the foundation for mercantilism; religion and any visual concepts.
Approx/approve implies ones consent to a SUGGESTION by another, hence holding onto something, while ignoring that all perceivable moves through ones perception and cannot be held onto. Approximating information prevents one from adapting to inspiration.
[ + ] boekanier
[ - ] boekanier 1 point 2 monthsFeb 25, 2025 04:06:55 ago (+1/-0)*
[ + ] Merlynn
[ - ] Merlynn 1 point 2 monthsFeb 25, 2025 07:30:30 ago (+1/-0)
Hope that helps.
[ + ] boekanier
[ - ] boekanier 2 points 2 monthsFeb 25, 2025 01:12:58 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] ImplicationOverReason
[ - ] ImplicationOverReason -1 points 2 monthsFeb 25, 2025 02:51:05 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] Her0n
[ - ] Her0n 0 points 2 monthsFeb 25, 2025 18:48:08 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] ImplicationOverReason
[ - ] ImplicationOverReason 0 points 2 monthsFeb 26, 2025 02:14:52 ago (+0/-0)
a) Willingly carrying around -isms to brand others with...that tires one. Choosing to let go of what one holds onto...that invigorates one.
b) Intellect/intelligo - "to understand" implies ones consent to stand-under suggested intellectualism, hence willingly taking on the burden of carrying an -ism around.
c) Ignoring genuine (perception) for pseudo (suggestion) requires ones consent by free will of choice.
[ + ] Her0n
[ - ] Her0n 0 points 2 monthsFeb 26, 2025 12:06:08 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] ImplicationOverReason
[ - ] ImplicationOverReason 0 points 2 monthsFeb 26, 2025 14:47:00 ago (+0/-0)
Sound/sanus - "entire; whole; unbroken"... https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/sound
A word implies a partial shaped within full sound.
a) Sound moves and cannot be "fixed". Words tempt one to mentally hold onto "meaning", while ignoring sound. Therefore fix/ firus/figo - "to establish immovably" implies ones ignorance of being moved.
b) Prefix implies perceivable sound before (pre) one affixes (fix) suggested words, and suffix implies ones consenting submission (sub) to suggested words when affixing (fix) them mentally.
To narrate implies "relating particulars", which sound (whole) does by producing instruments (partials). Sound sets instruments apart from one another; words imply letters put together...aka ones consent LETTING others craft spells.
Aka psyche (animating spirit) osis (a state of disease)...sound animates inspiration; holding onto words establishes dis-ease. One cannot hold onto the spirit of animation; only let it pass through one.
Where do I claim possession of what I'm writing about? Where do I define meaning?
Being (life) within change (inception towards death)...that's what one de-nies (nihilo; nothing) when consenting to suggested nihil-ism.
[ + ] Her0n
[ - ] Her0n 0 points 2 monthsFeb 26, 2025 20:15:09 ago (+0/-0)
Implies (in-folds) perception within, suggesting something beyond what is explicitly stated. One perceives implication through presence (being) rather than mere words, which seek to fix meaning in place. Implication moves like sound, while words attempt to capture and contain.
Over
To be "over" implies position above (superior, control) or beyond (exceeding, surpassing). Yet, sound neither rises nor falls—it permeates. "Over" tempts one into hierarchy, an illusion formed by perception rather than inherent reality.
Reason
Ratio—measuring, dividing, comparing. To reason is to break sound into parts, seeking to hold onto meaning instead of letting perception flow. Reason fixes; implication moves. Reason analyzes; implication is. Sound is reason-less yet fully realized.
Implicationoverreason means to follow what others imply instead of reason. Your very name means to listen, obey, and ignore the truth.
[ + ] ImplicationOverReason
[ - ] ImplicationOverReason 0 points 2 monthsFeb 27, 2025 07:29:47 ago (+0/-0)
a) Im (within) plica (to fold) tion (action) aka folding/bending of reactions (perception) within action (perceivable).
b) Not folding on top of each other, but bending apart from one another aka light (motion) generating spectrum (momentum) to bend rays (matter) from one another.
c) Implication implies...if/then, hence if perception, then within perceivable.
a) Perception (effect) implies perceivable (cause)...suggestion implies effects affecting each other, while ignoring perceivable cause.
b) Only within implicit (cause) can there be explicit (effects). Stating explicitly implies to one another (suggested), while ignoring all (perceivable).
Suggesting a word draws consent, hence tempting ones "free" will of choice to bind itself to another, when falling for a temptation. What you perceive as seeking implies your ignorance of suggested words being shaped within perceivable sound, hence as temporary shapes within ongoing motion. Whatever one sets into motion...moves towards whatever stands in the way. Giving consent and holding onto suggested meaning implies "standing in the way" of perceivable nature.
Sound implies same motion; instrument implies differentiation of matter within. Suggested words tempt "alike" consent from those who fall for spell-craft.
Anything put into motion tempts anything else to hold onto it...it's each ones free will of choice to capture suggested, while containing self from perceivable. Suggested information can be held within mind/memory; but only while ignoring that perceivable inspiration cannot be held onto, since it moves.
To be implies towards (inception towards death) being (life) aka matter WITHIN motion. Ignoring this for any suggestion by another...positions another over, and oneself under aka slave selecting master.
Few trick many to believe that masters enslave, which inverts reality, where if many ignore, then few exploit ignorance. Ignorance has to be willingly chosen first for others to be permitted to exploit. It's ones choice who selects a chosen ones suggestion...thereby submitting self, while empowering another.
Sound permeates the rise (living) and fall (dying) of each instrumental being within. Few suggest many that sound passes through without displacement, which in return tempts the instrumental being to ignore self dis-cern-ment of dis-place-ment aka hence each mind/memory by divided from one another, hence permitting each one perception of all perceivable.
Giving consent to a suggested temptation permits another to layer suggested information above one, hence establishing levels of hierarchy.
Hierachy aka hiera (sacred rite) + arkhein (to lead) implies each ones sacred (life) rite of passage (inception towards death). Not being lead by another, but sprouting forth as one (temporary growth of matter) within all (ongoing loss of motion).
a) Flow (all perceivable) trans-forms (ones perception)...holding onto each others suggested in-form-ation makes all perceivable in-spirat-ion elusive to ones perception.
b) Illus-ion...ion implies all moving action; illus implies ones stagnating reaction...if one willingly chooses to hold onto that which moves.
c) Real implies ones response (re) to all (al) aka inherent RE within extrinsic AL.
Which one does against one another, while ignoring implication aka if one, then within all. Before one can measure; divide or compare each other...all separates one from one another.
Being implies partial instruments; broken apart from one another, within whole sound. Reason implies partial instruments joining each other within mutual conflict about suggested words, while ignoring perceivable sound.
a) Suggestions tempt one to seek outcomes, which in return tempts form (life) to ignore flowing (inception towards death) origin.
b) Holding onto meaning implies ones consent to a suggested definition, which makes one a DEAF PHONETICIAN aka deaf to sound.
Implication solidifies being; reason dissolves being. The foundation for trying to fix that which moves is called tikkun olam (healing the world by bringing together) aka the equalization of differences by artificially mixing together that which nature sets apart from one another.
Implication was perceivable before reason can analyze what is suggested.
Sound was whole before each partial comes into being (re) within (al). Empty vs full implies a conflict of reason among partial who ignore to discern self within whole.
Suggesting meaning tempts one to reason against each other instead of adapting to the implication of being one within all. Implication passes over those who reason.
To follow implies reasoning aka wanting vs not wanting to reach suggested outcome, while following the lead of others. Notice that when one chooses to follow a leader, one faces those who don't follow in conflict...that's how reason works. Whatever one believes positions one against the non-believers...choose left and you'll have to fight right...your love breeds hate in others and vice versa etc.
Name/nombre/number - "designation of a unit", hence unitas/unus - "one". A name one cannot claim (yours) without ignoring oneself within all. ImplicationOverReason isn't a name unless one chooses it to be. Those who utilize implication (if/then) can freely draw inspiration from it; while those who reason (vs) are gonna fight each other over it.
Choosing truth (want) or lie (not want) ignores change (need)...applying change to truth or lie changes one into the other and vice versa.
There's no truth in nature, unless one chooses to hold onto a truth, which in return permits others to lie. The resulting conflict (truth vs lie) is called reason, which tempts one to ignore the implication of change. If holding onto during change, then...?
[ + ] Her0n
[ - ] Her0n 0 points 2 monthsFeb 27, 2025 09:34:27 ago (+0/-0)
You're ridiculous.
Some key things to look for when analyzing AI generated responses:
I'm really tired of this trash, but further engagement just feeds the beast.
Go be a nigger somewhere else.
[ + ] ImplicationOverReason
[ - ] ImplicationOverReason 0 points 2 monthsFeb 27, 2025 11:10:08 ago (+0/-0)
Neither. I write down everything off the cuff besides links to dictionaries; etymology; music lyrics and quotes. I adapt to perceivable inspiration, hence being able to draw from the eternal source for as long as I choose to do so. What I see are contradictions within the information others suggest to each other, which I take apart to a) learn more about how it was shaped together and b) to work on the ignorance of others by making it harder to ignore, hence taking apart what others hold onto to justify ignorance.
That's in the eye of the beholder aka the being holding onto the brands it attaches to another. Or like Eminem put it..."I am whatever you say I am" from a song called THE WAY (inception towards death) I AM (life).
Can you show me any AI that can on the fly adapt to perceivable inspiration, while taking apart suggested information? Try copy/pasting what I wrote to any AI with the command to continue in a likewise matter...ain't gonna happen. Whatever information AI is gonna regurgitate back to you will be filled with contradictions...which immediately stand out to me.
Where are the contradictions within what I wrote? Where are the lies? Where's the hidden agenda suggesting others what to do? Where are the rhetorical traps for others to fall into? Where are the restrictions an AI would have within my line of thinking?
I freely take apart ETYMO, while others bind themselves to LOGY aka circular reasoning. The latter prevents others from having a clear perception of the real world, because they're busy applying consent to suggested fiction.
YOU implies a conflict of reason (you vs me)
MISS implies ones ignorance of all perceivable being offered to each ones perception.
THE implies suggested the-ism tempting ones consent to submit to the authority of another.
IMPLICATION implies if/then based on a moving foundation.
MOST implies a conflict of reason (most vs least)
TIMES implies suggested pluralism contradicting singular duration (inception towards death) of each being (life).
That implies correct vs incorrect reasoning aka LOGY about suggested ETYMO. While you are stuck within circular logic about what IS; I freely adapt to what WAS perceivable aka the sound within which others shape words; in response to which you reason about correct vs incorrect etymology.
a) INFOrmation is pushed (suggested) towards your pull (consent)...I draw from perceivable inspiration, while resisting the temptation to pull what others are pushing.
b) Easy implies versus hard...another conflict of reason, which exists only in the mind/memory of those who hold onto a side. The free will of choice used to choose a side can only exist in-between (life) beginning (inception) and end (death)...not on either side.
a) I draw strength from resisting the temptation to apply consent to suggested words. "Sticks and stones may break my bones
But words shall never hurt me." (I copied and pasted that rhyme).
b) Question implies a quest towards a suggested outcome (answer), while ignoring that perceivable origin implies solution (inception towards death) to problems (life).
a) Being implies instrument (partial) within sound (whole)
b) Consenting to the suggestions of one another tethers together, hence establishing tendencies towards each other.
c) One (perception) within all (perceivable) cannot lack anything...it's each ones free will of choice to clear ones mind within perceivable or obscure it with suggested. Most with eyes to see ignore sight (perception) for sight-seeing what others are showing (suggestion), hence transfixing perspective into a narrow channel of tell-a-vision.
I take apart DEFINITION because sound moves instruments apart. You holding onto makes you a DEAF PHONETICIAN aka deaf to phonics (sound).
a) There can be only one...double of one implies one. Try to double energy and wake me up when you've achieved "two" energies.
b) Meaning implies your consent to a suggestion, which establishes a conflict of reason within your mind/memory aka a double of 1 vs 1. Nature doesn't offer meaning...it can only be shaped artificially aka in ignorance of natural. Nature moves things apart; things within attach meaning to other things in the attempt to hold them together aka to define (definition) them.
c) Idiom/idioumai - "to appropriate to oneself"...that's the opposite of what I do. To reason implies appropriating a side to oneself, while ignoring that implication (if/then) cannot be held onto since it implies motion aka move-ment (a moving mind).
As one within all...trying to idio (ones own) implies idiocy.
Because instead of responding (re) to all (al), you chose to hold onto a side within a conflict of reason about suggestions by others. That's tiresome.
Beast implies being (be) astute (ast), which would allow one to discern that before feed (effect) there was hunger (cause). I adapt to perceivable inspiration, not to the suggested information "fed" to me.
If you are offended; then you chose to take an offer...trying to push others away doesn't lighten the burden one took upon self. "Shit; u kno wat? I gots to gets me sum melon, rite bout now, peace out"
[ + ] paul_neri
[ - ] paul_neri 3 points 2 monthsFeb 24, 2025 23:06:59 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] boekanier
[ - ] boekanier 2 points 2 monthsFeb 25, 2025 05:40:58 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] con77
[ - ] con77 3 points 2 monthsFeb 25, 2025 02:54:42 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] boekanier
[ - ] boekanier 0 points 2 monthsFeb 25, 2025 04:05:12 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] con77
[ - ] con77 0 points 2 monthsFeb 25, 2025 09:16:55 ago (+0/-0)
Reading is not your strength hunh?
[ + ] boekanier
[ - ] boekanier 0 points 2 monthsFeb 25, 2025 09:55:08 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Sleazy
[ - ] Sleazy 0 points 2 monthsFeb 28, 2025 13:07:31 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Panic
[ - ] Panic 0 points 2 monthsFeb 25, 2025 09:49:56 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Belfuro
[ - ] Belfuro 4 points 2 monthsFeb 25, 2025 00:47:33 ago (+4/-0)
Our brains are remotes/antennas.
We grow our souls and feedback energy to our.. guides? Controllers?
We dream because we intercept broken reception /signals.