Hegelian dialectic, or problem, reaction, solution. This method basically involves fabricating or intensify a problem, offering a draconian solution, then settling for a “compromise” that nevertheless furthers the intended goal.
[ - ] Dingo 1 point 9 monthsSep 9, 2024 11:06:30 ago (+1/-0)
Suggestion Consent
The SORCERER (one who sorts by "supernatural" means) "spells out" that which is "cast(e)" only upon consent of the listener (i.e. the "ENCHANTED"). WIZARDS reject such incorrect sortings and "cast" other becomings through "natural" means.
Sorcerer/source aka all perceivable + wizard/wise/weid - "to see" aka ones perception + magic/magh - "to be able" implies having the free will of choice to artificially influence others with suggested to ignore perceivable.
The suggested words "sorcerer" + "wizard" + "magic" imply crafted spells (spell-craft) cast upon the consenting reader/listener, and without self discernment; reading and listening influences one artificially to ignore nature.
As for sorting/sort/ser - "to line up"...that implies nature lining up each ones life from inception towards death aka upping temporary growth within ongoing loss.
Edit: Before another can spell a suggestible word...a LETTER is required aka ones consent LETTING others shape words into spells.
sorcery (n.) c. 1300, sorcerie, "witchcraft, magic, enchantment; act or instance of sorcery; supernatural state of affairs; seemingly magical works," from Old French sorcerie, from sorcier "sorcerer, wizard," from Medieval Latin sortiarius "teller of fortunes by lot; sorcerer," literally "one who influences fate or fortune," from Latin sors (genitive sortis) "lot, fate, fortune" (see sort (n.)). also from c. 1300
The root to the word sorcerer is "ser" which means "to line up".
The battle at hand is WIZARDS vs SORCERER for the minds of the ENCHANTED. Many are sorcerers but believe they are wizards.
Note the word ENCHANTED just goes back to the original word you used "consent". Magic isn't what disney executives want us to believe. CONSENT is the secret sauce of sorcery, magic and alchemy.
The word BELIEVE = CONSENT in this way also.
What is your primary belief? The one that all other "facts" are derived from? I'm sure you have one, like all of us. I suspect one of the great problems is not so much that peoples "primary belief" don't line up, but that most people have MORE THAN ONE belief, which leads them to paradox and sin.
sorcery (n.) c. 1300, sorcerie, "witchcraft, magic, enchantment; act or instance of sorcery; supernatural state of affairs; seemingly magical works," from Old French sorcerie, from sorcier "sorcerer, wizard," from Medieval Latin sortiarius "teller of fortunes by lot; sorcerer," literally "one who influences fate or fortune," from Latin sors (genitive sortis) "lot, fate, fortune" (see sort (n.)). also from c. 1300
The root to the word sorcerer is "ser" which means "to line up".
The battle at hand is WIZARDS vs SORCERER for the minds of the ENCHANTED. Many are sorcerers but believe they are wizards.
Note the word ENCHANTED just goes back to the original word you used "consent". Magic isn't what disney executives want us to believe. CONSENT is the secret sauce of sorcery, magic and alchemy.
The word BELIEVE = CONSENT in this way also.
What is your primary belief? The one that all other "facts" are derived from? I'm sure you have one, like all of us. I suspect one of the great problems is not so much that peoples "primary belief" don't line up, but that most people have MORE THAN ONE belief, which leads them to paradox and sin.
Aka one within (life) flow (inception towards death).
The root to the word sorcerer is "ser" which means "to line up".
Line (inception towards death) implies source of upcoming (life). The trick with suggested "sorcerer" and "wizard" is to attach it to another, instead of using it to discern self as wizard (to perceive) within sorcerer (perceivable).
All perceivable is the source of each ones perception...suggested labels tempt one to ignore that, and ignorance distracts ones from source (sorcerer) and from being wise (wizard).
The battle at hand is WIZARDS vs SORCERER for the minds of the ENCHANTED
That battle within ones mind is called reason/logic, and it's shaped by ones consent (want or not want) to suggested, while ignoring perceivable (need). Choosing either want or not want establishes a conflict of reason (want vs not want) about an artificial suggestion, and during an implied natural balance (need/want) for each ones free will of choice.
Need and want are not in conflict with each other...one needs to resist wanted temptations. Want versus not want implies reasoning against others about temptations.
Nature offers ALL perceivable to each ONEs perception...any suggestion by another tempts one to ignore that. One cannot give to another, without ignoring that nature already gave ALL there was to give.
Many are sorcerers but believe they are wizards
a) To believe implies ones consent to the suggestion of another, which puts one under a spell aka within (en) an uttered song (chant).
b) One (singular) cannot be many/they (plural)...without ignoring self. Few suggest pluralism to tempt many together aka e pluribus unum (out of many; one) or tikkun olam (healing the world by bringing together) or abrahamism (father of multitude) etc.
Another layer of deception to that...to believe/consent implies by choice. Ones choice (odd) can only exist within all balance (even).
Trying to equate words tempts one to ignore that sound was equal before odd words could be shaped within it.
What is your primary belief?
Secondary (life) within primary (inception towards death)...to believe/ga-laubon - "to hold dear, esteem, trust" tempts one to ignore being alive during a moving procession, hence not being able to hold onto perceivable. To believe implies ones desire to hold onto suggested, which others are exploiting by offering suggested temptations for the price of ones consent.
The one that all other "facts" are derived from?
All is one in EN'ERGY, noun [Gr. work.] - "internal or inherent power"...facts (suggested information) tempt one to ignore de rivo (from stream) aka perceivable inspiration.
Information requires ones consent to hold onto it; while inspiration inspires one to draw from it..the former implies fiction; the latter reality aka ones REsponse to ALL.
I'm sure you have one
a) All (whole) has each one (partials)...to have implies ones choice to hold onto aka to want to posses. Potential (life) within a process (inception towards death) cannot hold possessions.
Form within flow cannot hold onto form without burdening self, while drowning faster within flow.
b) The ongoing process of dying (inception towards death) implies the "insurance" for ones temporary life.
like all of us
a) All implies same; one implies different from one another...suggestion tempts alike consent from many to few.
Solution (inception towards death) generates problems (life)..it's problematic for life to resist being dissolved by death. Few tempt many to seek solutions to problems, hence destroying life by chasing after death...a simple inversion, hidden underneath spell-craft.
primary belief" don't line up
Line (inception towards death) implies primary; each one within implies secondary (Latin seco; to divide)...believing the suggestion of another implies a third party (suggestion) in-between primary (perceivable) and secondary (perception).
Temporary growth (life) during ongoing loss (inception towards death) implies a wave within a line...reason/logic implies a circular conflict. That's geometry aka geomancy.
most people have MORE THAN ONE belief
a) Each singular ONE consented to believe in suggested pluralism (most; people; more than)...
b) If all is one in energy, then can there be more than energy? If one exists within all, then can one be more than one? If energy implies one, then what's two?
Can you show me TWO in nature without counting different ONEs (partials) within ALL (whole) together?
which leads them
A follower chooses what leads...doing so tempts one to ignore being (life) moved (inception towards death). That's why blaming the leaders cannot work.
Velocity (inception towards death) generates resistance (life)...resistance struggles with the temptation to ignore resisting aka within the path of least resistance. That's why going with the flow aka following leads implies the easy way out.
If one adapts to perceivable inspiration, then one can draw from infinity. In other words...each one can draw different perspectives out of the same source, unless ignored for words aka suggested definitions aka definite - "to affix"...sound moves.
If one ignores sound for words, then the efforts of others to describe sound look like a wall of text. If one resists words, then any effort made by others within sound inspires one to discern self.
Hegel did offer a concept called the dialectic, it is a mechanistic principle of argument. That you have a different definition in mind is irrelevant. Hegel's dialectic is real, is perfectly definable, and has existed since the 19th century.
I know he did. And it's not really any different from Plato's discussion of dialectic in the Meno. It addresses the same problem. Hegel didn't really come up with anything new, but his strength was in ordering philosophy up to his time. How is thinking everyone is an ignorant asshole working out for you?
The same way being an easily threatened asshole is working for you. It's just a natural response, so you get used to it in time. I responded exclusively to what you wrote, not what you secretly knew, princess.
[ + ] Indoctrinated_USA
[ - ] Indoctrinated_USA 2 points 9 monthsSep 9, 2024 13:40:39 ago (+2/-0)
Your definition is the common, but incorrect, social media iteration.
[ + ] GreatSatan
[ - ] GreatSatan 0 points 9 monthsSep 9, 2024 17:06:46 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Indoctrinated_USA
[ - ] Indoctrinated_USA 0 points 9 monthsSep 9, 2024 20:49:44 ago (+0/-0)
I got a degree.
[ + ] ImplicationOverReason
[ - ] ImplicationOverReason 1 point 9 monthsSep 9, 2024 09:00:41 ago (+1/-0)
Suggestion
Consent
An inversion of solution (all perceivable) generating reactive (ones choice) problems (ones perception).
Consenting to any suggestion not only ignores perceivable, but makes the suggested a problem for one.
[ + ] Dingo
[ - ] Dingo 1 point 9 monthsSep 9, 2024 11:06:30 ago (+1/-0)
Consent
The SORCERER (one who sorts by "supernatural" means) "spells out" that which is "cast(e)" only upon consent of the listener (i.e. the "ENCHANTED"). WIZARDS reject such incorrect sortings and "cast" other becomings through "natural" means.
[ + ] ImplicationOverReason
[ - ] ImplicationOverReason 0 points 9 monthsSep 9, 2024 11:57:54 ago (+0/-0)*
The suggested words "sorcerer" + "wizard" + "magic" imply crafted spells (spell-craft) cast upon the consenting reader/listener, and without self discernment; reading and listening influences one artificially to ignore nature.
As for sorting/sort/ser - "to line up"...that implies nature lining up each ones life from inception towards death aka upping temporary growth within ongoing loss.
Edit: Before another can spell a suggestible word...a LETTER is required aka ones consent LETTING others shape words into spells.
[ + ] Dingo
[ - ] Dingo 2 points 9 monthsSep 9, 2024 12:52:08 ago (+2/-0)
c. 1300, sorcerie, "witchcraft, magic, enchantment; act or instance of sorcery; supernatural state of affairs; seemingly magical works," from Old French sorcerie, from sorcier "sorcerer, wizard," from Medieval Latin sortiarius "teller of fortunes by lot; sorcerer," literally "one who influences fate or fortune," from Latin sors (genitive sortis) "lot, fate, fortune" (see sort (n.)). also from c. 1300
The root to the word sorcerer is "ser" which means "to line up".
The battle at hand is WIZARDS vs SORCERER for the minds of the ENCHANTED. Many are sorcerers but believe they are wizards.
Note the word ENCHANTED just goes back to the original word you used "consent". Magic isn't what disney executives want us to believe. CONSENT is the secret sauce of sorcery, magic and alchemy.
The word BELIEVE = CONSENT in this way also.
What is your primary belief? The one that all other "facts" are derived from? I'm sure you have one, like all of us. I suspect one of the great problems is not so much that peoples "primary belief" don't line up, but that most people have MORE THAN ONE belief, which leads them to paradox and sin.
[ + ] Dingo
[ - ] Dingo 1 point 9 monthsSep 9, 2024 12:56:57 ago (+1/-0)
c. 1300, sorcerie, "witchcraft, magic, enchantment; act or instance of sorcery; supernatural state of affairs; seemingly magical works," from Old French sorcerie, from sorcier "sorcerer, wizard," from Medieval Latin sortiarius "teller of fortunes by lot; sorcerer," literally "one who influences fate or fortune," from Latin sors (genitive sortis) "lot, fate, fortune" (see sort (n.)). also from c. 1300
The root to the word sorcerer is "ser" which means "to line up".
The battle at hand is WIZARDS vs SORCERER for the minds of the ENCHANTED. Many are sorcerers but believe they are wizards.
Note the word ENCHANTED just goes back to the original word you used "consent". Magic isn't what disney executives want us to believe. CONSENT is the secret sauce of sorcery, magic and alchemy.
The word BELIEVE = CONSENT in this way also.
What is your primary belief? The one that all other "facts" are derived from? I'm sure you have one, like all of us. I suspect one of the great problems is not so much that peoples "primary belief" don't line up, but that most people have MORE THAN ONE belief, which leads them to paradox and sin.
[ + ] ImplicationOverReason
[ - ] ImplicationOverReason -1 points 9 monthsSep 9, 2024 14:27:39 ago (+0/-1)
Aka one within (life) flow (inception towards death).
Line (inception towards death) implies source of upcoming (life). The trick with suggested "sorcerer" and "wizard" is to attach it to another, instead of using it to discern self as wizard (to perceive) within sorcerer (perceivable).
All perceivable is the source of each ones perception...suggested labels tempt one to ignore that, and ignorance distracts ones from source (sorcerer) and from being wise (wizard).
That battle within ones mind is called reason/logic, and it's shaped by ones consent (want or not want) to suggested, while ignoring perceivable (need). Choosing either want or not want establishes a conflict of reason (want vs not want) about an artificial suggestion, and during an implied natural balance (need/want) for each ones free will of choice.
Need and want are not in conflict with each other...one needs to resist wanted temptations. Want versus not want implies reasoning against others about temptations.
Nature offers ALL perceivable to each ONEs perception...any suggestion by another tempts one to ignore that. One cannot give to another, without ignoring that nature already gave ALL there was to give.
a) To believe implies ones consent to the suggestion of another, which puts one under a spell aka within (en) an uttered song (chant).
b) One (singular) cannot be many/they (plural)...without ignoring self. Few suggest pluralism to tempt many together aka e pluribus unum (out of many; one) or tikkun olam (healing the world by bringing together) or abrahamism (father of multitude) etc.
Another spell: execute/exequor/exsequor aka sequor - "to follow"... https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/execute
a) Ones consent to a suggestion tempts one to follow (execute) from a submissive (subordinate) position. Ones free will of choice executes consent...
b) Dis (apart) + ney/nay (not ever)...
- https://www.etymonline.com/word/dis-#etymonline_v_11366
- https://www.etymonline.com/word/nay#etymonline_v_2339
Another layer of deception to that...to believe/consent implies by choice. Ones choice (odd) can only exist within all balance (even).
Trying to equate words tempts one to ignore that sound was equal before odd words could be shaped within it.
Secondary (life) within primary (inception towards death)...to believe/ga-laubon - "to hold dear, esteem, trust" tempts one to ignore being alive during a moving procession, hence not being able to hold onto perceivable. To believe implies ones desire to hold onto suggested, which others are exploiting by offering suggested temptations for the price of ones consent.
All is one in EN'ERGY, noun [Gr. work.] - "internal or inherent power"...facts (suggested information) tempt one to ignore de rivo (from stream) aka perceivable inspiration.
Information requires ones consent to hold onto it; while inspiration inspires one to draw from it..the former implies fiction; the latter reality aka ones REsponse to ALL.
a) All (whole) has each one (partials)...to have implies ones choice to hold onto aka to want to posses. Potential (life) within a process (inception towards death) cannot hold possessions.
Form within flow cannot hold onto form without burdening self, while drowning faster within flow.
b) The ongoing process of dying (inception towards death) implies the "insurance" for ones temporary life.
a) All implies same; one implies different from one another...suggestion tempts alike consent from many to few.
b) Few (chosen ones) suggest pluralism (us) to tempt many together aka to UNITE the STATES of "we the people" etc. Why? So that few can remain apart... https://www.amazon.com/People-Apart-Europe-1789-1939-History/dp/0198219806
Solution (inception towards death) generates problems (life)..it's problematic for life to resist being dissolved by death. Few tempt many to seek solutions to problems, hence destroying life by chasing after death...a simple inversion, hidden underneath spell-craft.
Line (inception towards death) implies primary; each one within implies secondary (Latin seco; to divide)...believing the suggestion of another implies a third party (suggestion) in-between primary (perceivable) and secondary (perception).
Temporary growth (life) during ongoing loss (inception towards death) implies a wave within a line...reason/logic implies a circular conflict. That's geometry aka geomancy.
a) Each singular ONE consented to believe in suggested pluralism (most; people; more than)...
b) If all is one in energy, then can there be more than energy? If one exists within all, then can one be more than one? If energy implies one, then what's two?
Can you show me TWO in nature without counting different ONEs (partials) within ALL (whole) together?
A follower chooses what leads...doing so tempts one to ignore being (life) moved (inception towards death). That's why blaming the leaders cannot work.
Velocity (inception towards death) generates resistance (life)...resistance struggles with the temptation to ignore resisting aka within the path of least resistance. That's why going with the flow aka following leads implies the easy way out.
[ + ] Dingo
[ - ] Dingo 1 point 9 monthsSep 9, 2024 14:37:54 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] ImplicationOverReason
[ - ] ImplicationOverReason -1 points 9 monthsSep 9, 2024 14:50:32 ago (+0/-1)
If one ignores sound for words, then the efforts of others to describe sound look like a wall of text. If one resists words, then any effort made by others within sound inspires one to discern self.
[ + ] VitaminSieg
[ - ] VitaminSieg -1 points 9 monthsSep 9, 2024 13:36:20 ago (+1/-2)
[ + ] Indoctrinated_USA
[ - ] Indoctrinated_USA 2 points 9 monthsSep 9, 2024 13:43:59 ago (+2/-0)
That you have a different definition in mind is irrelevant.
Hegel's dialectic is real, is perfectly definable, and has existed since the 19th century.
[ + ] VitaminSieg
[ - ] VitaminSieg 1 point 9 monthsSep 9, 2024 23:40:56 ago (+1/-0)
How is thinking everyone is an ignorant asshole working out for you?
[ + ] Indoctrinated_USA
[ - ] Indoctrinated_USA 1 point 9 monthsSep 10, 2024 03:19:21 ago (+1/-0)
It's just a natural response, so you get used to it in time.
I responded exclusively to what you wrote, not what you secretly knew, princess.