Consume Product

>Its the things that CANT be described which are inherently different.

a) Nature sets each thing within apart from one another, which makes each thing (effect) inherent within everything (cause).

b) Only while inherent can each thing describe everything extrinsic to one another.

c) Can't (can nothing) inverts that each thing within everything can/cunnan - "to know; have power to, to be able"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/can

Nothing represents the inversion of everything and it's based on the jewish suggestion of nihil-ism (nihilo; nothing), which tempts each consenting gentile into de-nial of everything perceivable.

>Describe the color blue.

The label BLUE represents the script (scribe)...me describing it to you implies the natural division (de) from one another. You consenting to my suggested description represents the artificial unification, which distracts you from natural division, while permitting me to exploit you.

As for color...light > spectrum > ray. That's how each ray within the visible spectrum of light can perceive each color differently.

>We will both agree that a thing is blue

a) Agreement implies to the suggested label "blue" onto which then comparisons can be drawn like "blue like water; sky; cookie-monster". Doing so tempts one to ignore that nature divides each thing from one another. Only while apart can labels be attached to and comparisons drawn together.

b) Nature WAS perceivable before a being can suggest what it IS. Consenting to what is tempts ones perception to ignore what was.

c) It's ones choice to agree or disagree which tricks ones perception to believe in BOTH aka two instead of one or the other one, which is based on the jewish suggestion of dual-ism, which inverts natural singularity.

d) As for WE... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_we aka jewish nosism aka using the plural pronoun "we" to refer to a singular subject aka oneself.

>you cannot know what I see

Seeing implies each ones different perception of all perceivable knowledge. Each being sees the same nature from a different position...it's consenting to any suggested description which shapes likeness by consensus.

The blind men (each ones perception) and the elephant (all perceivable)... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant That's how a jew tricks blind gentiles to fight each other over different suggestions about the same origin.

>Different species literally experience a different reality through their perceptions.

a) Only within singularity (whole) can there be differentiation (particle)....suggested pluralism (species; perceptions) tempts differences to think alike one another, while contradicting being differentiated from one another.

b) Real implies each ones response (re) to all (al) aka each ones different perception within all perceivable sameness.