Yes, language is required, the living are meant to associate sound with symbol or spur. However, so is the state of language-less-ness. It's good to be language-less and go into language than it is to think language without knowing language-less-ness.

I would treat death as a step and not a stop.

No, it is just a step unto a far plane.

A more advanced view of death can be achieved, as with Da'at in kaballah. Under the name Da'at, death is first to be known it's 'step' value, rather than ceasing and rebirth. In theory Da'at is a sharper understanding of death and may be wiser in some situations. However, death in it's placid and not lucid form is the only knowledge that counts.

A simulation is a state where what is, is not what it seems, but is the result of a higher power(such as an engine or computer).

Truth comes from the realm of facts and it's what is considered directly fact whereas Lie is what is less than or indirectly fact.

I have lived over a year - fact.
I have lived hundreds of years - lie.
I might live to a hundred - indirectly fact.

Space is eight dimensional because planets and stars and other space phenomenon are suspended or trickling down like a stock exchange. Plotting a route in space using a 4D mind is partial, you'll note the planet sphere at one angle - you'll note the path between two stars - but noting is weak in comparison to knowing for knowing the whole of space would be different.

Space is not a puzzle, it is a complete image. Planes, sides, polarity can be registered but so too can level (such as with space phenomenon suspension), rigor (such as with how gravity is manifest) and other dimensions. Don't void what is visible as non dimensional, basically the full image of space is dimensional.

Whereas Varde is well known for a less number of posts.

Minds can be divided from a intrapersonal (among the populus of others) degree, it cannot be from ones own perspective. Per se, the zone of seeing is non conventional - doesn't move per our own discomfort-m - but when imagining unto another, it can be divided into sectors. You can even do yourself via an intrapersonal-outlook. Mind can be divided, but not personal experience of mind.

Nor can it be divided evenly, only through sectors and sphering can a even mind division be achieved.

Thinking about having gay sex recently, changed my mind after reading this thread. Should I? Might I contract monkeypox? If truth was the determiner of this fact about a gay plague, wouldn't that be a false interdiction of chance where it(monkeypox) must be contracted and then passed on? Is it the sexual event that spurs it, or why it spread originally? Do penises and arses create it, or, well, do gay monkeys?

What I'm trying to say is monkeypox isn't because of gay sex, but gay sex is real dirty and can be easily contracted during intercourse. The only truthful review of such post that gays may contract monkeypox easier, but it isn't to say gay sex is the proprietor, that's false. Be careful if you are a monkey and are going to have gay sex.

Perhaps it is not directly A. What is meant by A? His form, his composure?

I think we are identified by our pulse, thus A is the man is wrong by your standard of A(being his presence). Having the presence of a man is equal to taking his head- you have his head, metaphorically.

Identity seems to be stringently the pulse as it identifies all of a bio.

A product is either delegated to you because it ought be yours by matter of chance's favour or you gained it due to you passing whatever test it was, at the time.

You either deserve it and don't have it or deserved it and do have it.

Deserve means, if there is a moderator, a product is rightly yours (even though you may not get what's rightly yours), or, if there is no moderator, you are in 'pole position' for it's rights.

It seems to be a past and present tense word without a future tense...

.https://i.ibb.co/bQM4KRk/Tumblr-l-34255278295980.jpg

This art took a lot of skill and an amount of luck.

Luck is also an attribute, such as having a good idea ~pop into your mind. Have many artists drew something without prior experience with art/craft?

Art is not the word art itself but somewhere direct between that word and no word at all(an off-shot definition).

Art is not a painting, nor a song, but somewhere between both and neither.

Art does take skill(to make), technique(for originality) and craft(to make at-all), but above all, skill, as technique is a skill controller and craft is a skill disc.

What one learns in Buddhism is akin to art.

Picture looking around, art is the heat of that moment if, you, the looker, is thinking creatively; so what I ask is the art of looking around?(it can be different).

Yes but the insight is not as pure as one may think?

Do you, per se, perform better mentally on E?

Yes you do, but you have a weaknesses that makes it easy and equally fair for competitors to retaliate.

Consciousness is awareness and alertness that's not the experiencer, nor the I.

I, or ego, is one's control over 'the ethereal within', or sin- strength in the matter of ownership of a vessel.

The experiencer is the mind based and body driven perpetual tool of sense and ability(seeing/sight, pushing, etc.).

The three are often conflated.

In the whim of grace- gratitude- for the many things to be grateful for, otherwise null response to life(being gave/being alive)?

There is an external world, but it is immaterial, meaning that phenomena such as weight, color, reflex, etc(all material, henceforth 'illusions'), are physical sensations. The quddity of stars colliding is supreme logic, that to minds is a statistical event of which can be exemplified, giving what is an image, sensation.

Does a star weigh X, or, does a star project weight X as sensation?

The vex. An illusion of different centres.

Predictions are rationalized beliefs, when we can't recognize, understand or make any sense of something, that is the matter, but given we can, we can do science - one method of which is to predict, which again, is belief used rationally.

Ext implies int. Is there an internal being? If yes, then there is an external world, even if it is a matter of mind.

It is not situated in it's maker organic; it's non-physical but a physical sensation is present.

The universe has no weight, weight is a feeling.

What's physical is more rhythmic than matter, matter is a logical illusion.

We make our experiences; like a child, we push out of the mother, into the world.

What's external is linked to us directly, not separate, like a continued womb.

Child birth is a process of inauguration into int and ext system, and not a bipartisan int into ext system.

Breaking a leg seems more like pointless suffering than suffering and suffering shouldn't be generalized as these types of events.

Why is there a thing rather than another thing(I.e. nothing)?

1 probably always existed, there's probably proof of it(I'll have a sense of the matter).

If there was ever nothing, nothing logical could ever come from it.

If there was a young something, then progress is possible through maturing.

Imagine a blank space that suddenly deforms because of an addition. Thus may sound bizzare but blank space and addition is the most basic I can think of...

An analogous repetition: sperm(energy) meeting the egg(blank space).

Definitely not nothing though.

I imagine what comes first is, at least, 1D.

I think you are asking: Is our experience identical with those events? — Cuthbert

Definitely what I'm asking.

You provided the answer 'no', which I also believe.

I suggested that what our experience is, is a seismic pleasurable "magnitude"(for no use of a better term)- but heck do I know I've only stumbled on the idea earlier.

0 ness.

Is nothing, 0?

you don't agree. Why if we're lizards? I'm a little confused at what I wrote anyway...

Belief; if someone believes
Beliefs; if someone believes in things

Technically speaking, belief isn't pluralized in that context, only in the context of multiple parties.

Metaphorically the spring of belief is constant and is a singularity, where any fragmentation divides a singular, reducing belief and not multiplying it.

I have belief, I can also have belief in- the problem, is that beliefs means multiple belief when it assesses belief in. I believe in is different from I believe; both make sense but when regarded technically are different.

I believe I have made myself clear, it's among my beliefs.

I am always fine my friend. This is not wrath, this is discourse masculinity, debating.

Don't make any unnecessary sacrifices, be yourself. Literally, just relax and that stuff that YOU do. Let nature take it's course.

Perhaps it is insane in your eyes but I'm sure when I do philosophy, it is extremely my mind, moving backwards to orientate a subject matter around psychology. Thus, to me anyway, philosophy is that building using quddity process.

I will just leave then, I suppose, given it's a high risk for me to remain sane.

sorry to be the brainy 'sitting duck' here but retrograde means 'moving backwards' and ultra means 'an extremist'.

Other than that no word was made up in this thread, please explain yourself rather than well... your stomach grumbling in support of half eaten food.

Philosophy is an ultra-retrograde and sub ordinate reactive-process.

Ultra-retrograde: where a subject is thought about from multiple different depths using the active-brain.

Sub-ordinate: where a subject is filtered through self-psychoanalysis (psychology is a rank higher than philosophy.

I use philosophical thought based on not understanding, understanding data partially or misunderstanding- otherwise it becomes a psychology discussion.

Data becoming knowledge is a mental switch from philosophy to psychology.).

Reactive-process: read up.

I couldn't agree more with that, many would be surprised at how many people are racists simply because it's censored and therefore thought to be effective.

I agree.

I said in a different thread, philosophy is full of ledgers who's writing we do not instantly understand- charity is therefore a good moral standard.

Rather than claiming 'nonsense' or admitting you do not understand, it's perhaps wiser to be lenient and allow what is going to emerge naturally to emerge.

It does not mean be independant of critique, just have a good amount of charity- do not jump to critique.

Instilling petty fear ought be relinquished, to a side, rather than to the front, where it, as you say, blocks.

It's my Birthday *police sirens and party sounds".

It's seems only righteous that I mention I'll being doing nothing, which is subtracting from all possible things I could be doing on this day.

If I anoint the beginning of time, where there is supposedly 'nothing'- I've just subtracted from something that, in the present exists.

If I was subsiding around that time there's something other than what is apparently nothing... A paradox ensues.

No, far from it.

There's plenty of subjects that we consider abstract or nonsense that are completely normal/unexplored.

However, now we've addressed it a paradigm occurs where they are all now explored by 0.001%.

This isn't egghead philosophy, humankind is actually very beginner.

Perhaps we're scared to take jumps as we're too constrained by our youth and organization.

You're wrong.

Philosophy is filled with the sort of stuff you don't instantly understand, yes, you're being too harsh... I like the whip though, you may continue...

Imagination, intuition, reasoning/basic logic, are not used separate from each other, they all make up the philosophy process.

What you consider is writing philosophy, whereas I'm talking about thinking philosophically, which aren't the same.

What you suggest is that philosophy isn't broadband, that it is composed of separate parts and does not make sense, stand-alone. I, on the other hand, sense philosophy as a stand-alone, reactive-process.

EDIT: it might be a subliminal reactive-process.

No. Nothing, in the sense of nothingness the state, is a false term that prescribes definition where none is.

"It's nothing! Boooop!" He says as he squints two fingers together.

Philosophy isn't just imagination randomly, though it, and all that you mentioned, are included in the motor.

You never do philosophy lest you're reacting to phenom.

Try God, now try ...(nothing to think about). So it's not very far from philosophy at all.

I didn't really understand what you meant, sounded very inward and inane.

I'm the philosopher- not philosophy- what do you mean 'it uses...'; as far as I know philosophy ain't a being.

Good engineering exists.

You cannot imagine nor experience heating-up above a limit, your mind can only create the experience of a limited pain prior to dying or entering a overdriven state.

To be at the sun pinpoint as any sort of mind would evidentially result in death or with physicality melting away by some degree.

Thus, God exists, as the benefactor of good engineering.

Any clarity on our inability to take too much pain is but an example, others include: the stability concerning life-form, death, etc.

This quintessence is all interlinked, as is life as a whole. I'm saying this is because of one thing, the benefactor of good engineering.

You know what I mean?

The manifold we call experience links everything in such a way- and that linkage is ultimately good(the previous affirmations). There is something that connects us in an acceptable amount of security and power. We're not at risk, and how that works is God.

We were created by the negativity of something, rather than the positivity of nothing.

Try being vegan for non-ethical reasons- hate of cows.

Is it reason or rationality veganism appeals to?

Flies ought outlive humans and live very efficient lifestyles, hiving on waste. Their lives aren't very significant. Broadly speaking where all simulations are concerned, flies may not be popular elements but one such as myself may promote an opposite ideal. The fly represents habitual misconduct and is great to keep a population triggered by uncleanliness.

If this is a thread about utopia/distopia I agree with it, but beyond that...

It doesn't really matter if we want things to remain tact, wanting Earth to be a certain way is thinking of utopia/distopia, two entirely different conjectures, that do not meld.

In well ordered habitats, all suffering is rewarding, especially to apt minds; meaningless suffering, on the other hand, is super-effectively not rewarding and demoralizing- there are limits to how much one ought to suffer.

Death must exist to entertain killing in some video games, whether or not it must exist in material form is a different matter, but the fact death is material, is beneficent, again, to apt minds- who find homage in a closer sense of death.

Suffering in particular areas(such as vision) is good. The morbid downside of life is not suffering but how inconcise the universe is.