Once we consent; those who made the offer, gain the false authority to act in the name of (in nomine) the words; brands; idols (time, past, present, future, and everything build upon them), which allows them to define/redefine them at their will. Meanwhile those who consented by free will of choice to believe/not believe the offer; will be within the conflict of reason (truth versus false), which a) represents control over both sides of every conflict, since all conflicts of reason are defined by consent to the contract of belief (off/consent under the laws of nature), and b) they maintain these conflicts of reason by constant suggestion of contradictions to both sides (truth/false).
Ah, yes. We can consent to things we don't fully understand because we were tricked into consenting to them. That sure sounds like what "consent" means to me. If they actually gave a shit about our free will and our consent there would be no tricks. They simply seek dominance over others.
ALL equals electric motion; ONE equals magnetic sustenance. ALL (potentiality) represents the base of each ONE (potential) within. It's not so much cycles of life as it is frequency (a sinus curve) going in an out of base.
magnetic sustenance?
ALL is ONE in energy (potentiality); snip , while also creating the need for cooling (liquid).
I see a lot of knowledge and statements here but I don't exactly see an end meaning or a general conclusion you're intending to convey from the various concepts you're talking about.
Don't fall for the heliocentric lie versus flat earth truth conflict of reason....
I intended to convey that simply learning about flat earth was my catalyst for thinking time is an illusion, I was not trying to convey my belief in one system or the other.
Our consent to ignore reality; creates their tools to suggest fiction.
I agree with everything except this. Consent to ignore. That doesn't make sense to me. You cannot consent to something which you do not understand, thats why children cannot consent to sex. They cannot comprehend what it is, what it means, etc. If you do not understand that everything is one and one is everything how can you consent to being part of this system? How can you choose to, as you put it, "overcome the temptation of selfishness" when the parasites hide the truth? I feel as if my wording isn't as exact as I want it to be but I think theres enough here to go on, to you understand what I mean?
Thanks for the reply, I'll have to ponder that.
Notice also that those who push flat earth are as aggressive as the NASA liars in getting you to believe their offered information. This isn't about who's right or wrong; it's about them farming consent to get you into the conflict of reason; into choosing a side within a fictitious conflict.
Well, I have to admit that I have been on the side of the flat earthers in this discussion/debate. Elsewhere in the overall thread. I originally simply intended to just present the flat earth side because no one else really had, but I let myself get sucked into the (us vs them) discussion / debate.
No value tops evaluation
In order for the potential of value of evaluation to be fully realized one must expand comprehension (via experience) otherwise one's compreshension of ALL is small & limited and so too the available options one can evaluate against.
For example, if you've never seen an aurora borealis lightshow this is not apart of your evaluatable options. If you've never released your seed into a woman after an hour of passionate intimacy this is also not apart of your evalutable options.
A man who has never experienced these; who does not have/comprehend these options has lesser value (in their evalutation potential), no ? Despite both of the individuals having the ability to evaluate - one has more options; more experience and comprehension to base the evalution from.
Not trying to convey any specific point, just seeing if you concurr more or less, and perhaps elude to the implication: if free will to evaluate is our highest value then we should use action (to cause experience) to increase the foundation of what we can evaluate against. To use a money analogy, evaluation is the spending of one's credit card while our life's experiences is our credit limit.
(post is archived)