a) Wanting to hold onto tempts one to ignore needing to let go of.
b) Happy vs sad implies a rebranded conflict of reason aka wanting to hold onto vs not wanting to let go...both sides distract from needing to let go.
free yourself from the weight of other people judgements
How others judge is irrelevant...ones consent to any suggested judgement burdens ones mind, because consent binds one to suggested, hence constricting ones FREE will of choice.
the suffering
Suffer aka sub (under) bher (to carry) implies the burden one takes on self when carrying along the suggestions by another, while resisting to let go.
the perception of reality...
...can be ignored for the suggested fictions of others. Perception of perceivable implies reality; consenting to suggested implies fiction.
desires in life...
...tempt one out of it, hence towards suggested outcome (death), while ignoring perceivable origin aka the generator for living reactions.
rediscovering simple pleasures...
...implies others tempting one with pleasures into a conflict of reason (simple vs complex), while ignoring that nature doesn't cover anything, but reveals all perceivable through each ones perception.
health
Suggested health/hal - "whole" tempts one to ignore being a partial (perception) within whole (perceivable). Consenting to suggested health tempts one to seek/sick it...hence suffering.
the relationship between will and intellect
Ships don't have relations...unless counting pirates taking over. Will implies free (free will of choice), which intellect/inteligo - "to understand" inverts by tempting ones choice to "stand under" a chosen ones suggestion.
detachment of desires and acceptance of suffering
Within a moving nature one desires to hold onto anything moving by...ones acceptance or denial thereof doesn't stop nature from moving. Few tempt many to ignore perceivable reality for willingly accepting (want) or denying (not want) suggested artifice, which many attach to their minds by consent.
life is a work of art
a) All WAS working before each life within can suggest each other what it IS.
b) Artifice (suggested information) can only be shaped within nature (perceivable inspiration)...the former tempts one to hold onto it, while the latter can't be held onto, since it moves.
schopenhauer
Schopen (Dutch schop) - "to kick" + Hauer (German hauen) - "to hit", hence a kicking and hitting bear (arthur/arktos/arth).
Keeping a little distance from Schopenhauer makes life more bearable...
[ + ] Smedleys_Butler
[ - ] Smedleys_Butler 0 points 6 monthsDec 17, 2024 15:28:57 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] ImplicationOverReason
[ - ] ImplicationOverReason -1 points 6 monthsDec 17, 2024 13:01:34 ago (+0/-1)
a) Wanting to hold onto tempts one to ignore needing to let go of.
b) Happy vs sad implies a rebranded conflict of reason aka wanting to hold onto vs not wanting to let go...both sides distract from needing to let go.
How others judge is irrelevant...ones consent to any suggested judgement burdens ones mind, because consent binds one to suggested, hence constricting ones FREE will of choice.
Suffer aka sub (under) bher (to carry) implies the burden one takes on self when carrying along the suggestions by another, while resisting to let go.
...can be ignored for the suggested fictions of others. Perception of perceivable implies reality; consenting to suggested implies fiction.
...tempt one out of it, hence towards suggested outcome (death), while ignoring perceivable origin aka the generator for living reactions.
...implies others tempting one with pleasures into a conflict of reason (simple vs complex), while ignoring that nature doesn't cover anything, but reveals all perceivable through each ones perception.
Suggested health/hal - "whole" tempts one to ignore being a partial (perception) within whole (perceivable). Consenting to suggested health tempts one to seek/sick it...hence suffering.
Ships don't have relations...unless counting pirates taking over. Will implies free (free will of choice), which intellect/inteligo - "to understand" inverts by tempting ones choice to "stand under" a chosen ones suggestion.
Within a moving nature one desires to hold onto anything moving by...ones acceptance or denial thereof doesn't stop nature from moving. Few tempt many to ignore perceivable reality for willingly accepting (want) or denying (not want) suggested artifice, which many attach to their minds by consent.
a) All WAS working before each life within can suggest each other what it IS.
b) Artifice (suggested information) can only be shaped within nature (perceivable inspiration)...the former tempts one to hold onto it, while the latter can't be held onto, since it moves.
Schopen (Dutch schop) - "to kick" + Hauer (German hauen) - "to hit", hence a kicking and hitting bear (arthur/arktos/arth).
Keeping a little distance from Schopenhauer makes life more bearable...