Tuesday, February 17, 2015

... Wow, I should be ashamed. So just nepřekypuju activity. Probably burnout, in terms of my outpou

... Wow, I should be ashamed. So just nepřekypuju activity. Probably burnout, in terms of my outpourings and light reflection here on the blog. Sometimes I want so badly to say something, only then do I know that I'm here ... He said I'm tired of the stereotype! Each week is similar to the previous one scary too ... "In life you can not go back and do something else." - But at the moment I feel as if my life was tape what every Sunday erased and new plays, exactly the same record ... again stand out, maybe - maybe - I'm sure that i want to stand out (something about you that I deal with, because I have to deal with the clouds!), but I like to question things, ask questions that undermine it, in what you believe so strongly. Questions such as what you think. I am fascinated and shocked at the same time as the people around me so much riding on the ideas that they were repeated, as you are not able to accept cohesive that it should be different. Why are some people afraid to experiment in your head? Why are we confined ourselves? What would give us the wings and fins when we were afraid to use it anyway? Why some people are not willing to even talk about the fact that there is no bad luck and happiness that we ourselves maybe we're not saying that the earth does not revolve around the sun? Humanity is humanity and each of us is nothing for humanity, only for ourselves we have value. So why are afraid to think about more than the thought pieces on a chessboard? "You can not say that the oxidation number does not exist. Oxidation is just there! Without it, the elements ..." Why do you think there is space for us? Was not enough for us that we have for ourselves? Without us, the universe would gladly have done without, we only other fighters in a row. It's nice that we as humans are beast longing for knowledge that we are obsessed with the desire to explain everything, and write pigeonholed into formulas .. But what of the people, what of it? PS: Can I lose who I never had? Avis
"... The only ourselves to ourselves we value." - This is certainly a statement, which calls into question its veracity barely, still need to supplement (I believe) to the "self," nothing like "us" might understand (and thus wearing some value had a chance to admit), it is necessary to define the Law as that someone who may have this value - and it can not be, if we want to be "for cohesive themselves"; and the loneliness we can see only when we as loneliness scene. Take therefore cohesive do not think that each of us is destroying humanity. Rather, cohesive I commented on the fact "humanity" (not to be just such a sociologically / Research concept, which in itself says nothing?). And whether it is possible to lose someone you've never had - what does it mean to have someone? Can we have someone? We can not file with someone just flat? Because "mit" You can eat any thing - but having someone? Have someone "other"? But otherwise considerations super! Just put;-) (BTW those "truths of the repetition of" sure Quotes hard - yet he nevylovim address sources - from death is only the result of habit, such that each die one day, simply because we all do it. So: How about to decide to try - and again - just not to die?;-)
The last sentence, because if I lose the one I never ... I did not "have" in the rough, initial sense of owning ... That phrase could be necessary to transform cohesive "Can I lose the person with whom I've never been, who I had the chance "to win"? I think I deliberately used the word "have". The question cohesive should be so general that it was impossible to without thinking yes / no ... the word "have" to me fit into "illegal deal".;)
[3]: Avec plaisir ..: o) And it is especially perhaps even impossible to assume (given the nature of the text itself) that the word "have" should be understood in the "material" plane; and maybe i just threw me in an illegal deal such explanations that make it to this plane is the easiest cohesive way (s) simply "postponed". With what is offered cohesive "in the plate operations," it just sometimes not famous (at least in the case of my "explanation" is unquestionably true). If you now try to tackle cohesive the question in those forms in which the newly offered, then have no choice but to write that his intention lives up; then really can not answer a simple Yes / No. I might be alone (when you try to answer) started it (in fact, before I was in that he seemed to finally lost: o), the loss can be (or is it supposed to be?) The loss, which leads to the fact that " cohesive is lost, "perhaps even" nature "of such a (possible?) losses - but perhaps also because" who "is the one who actually losing. Or perhaps why did lose (if you are), but sometimes when "he" ..? But what do I know ..?
But it was, at least I'm so in my mood comes pretty good (s) simple postponement on another plane ... :) If I think about the questions in the last section and I'll try to answer them in one of my particular case, I was thinking about before in this lost and put generalize

No comments:

Post a Comment