"Don't talk, it's no use" Whatever you say, what you say will only be the signaling of what is the echo of it, the proof of an ignorance that we will not try to dig, as certainty will define better than yourself, the signals of your will. Have you ever taken the time to ask yourself if the action you are taking signaled something deeper, such as a message despite yourself, the sound of an intention, the expression of an image, the atmosphere of? a suspicion, directing what you are approaching towards the opposite of yourself, believing yourself to be the alert of a danger, that the identity of a reflection, that of being unique? You know, that famous feeling of not being heard at your true value, of being recognized by what is known about you, until it corresponds to the image that will resemble you. This same image left for and as is to recognize you, that of the remanence of a path passed in ignorance. Don't worry, like you, they'll understand. They didn't choose to be the design of their ideas, which are until they really look at themselves, not theirs. You never really asked yourself to be the emblem of an idea in spite of yourself, did you? To protect yourself from the gaze of others, to learn to recognize their features for what they are, the factual proof of the irremediable, the exemplary nature of who they are, the benchmark of the evidence of what defines them, to be the perfect manifestation of it. "Those there, you know" But did you ever allow yourself the time to ask yourself, if what they are, what you know how to notice from them, was only what you are of yourself, to be everything you know how to notice ? We can only recognize what we know, if we cannot distinguish it from the rest. The experience is the learning of the definition, to transmit is to recognize the confidence in what we define, to learn to recognize what we define. But if what we have been taught is only confidence in what we will not experience, confidence in what we learn, only comes back to the one who transmits it to us, right? So how can we certify what has been transmitted to us to be trusted, if the trust we grant only allows us to recognize the translation of an experience? Social codes are unconscious languages ??filled with signals and information useful for defining what is trust, through the experience of its movements in society. They are influenced by the experience of what guides the reading of his movements, by the confidence in what constructs them, the respect which approves them. Does trust transmit through what structures it, the sum of the experiences that define it? Because if the links transmitting the codes of its reason define the experience of its sharing, then the influence of what structures the reading of its codes, will guide the movement of what will be linked to it. The experience of imprisonment entails through the experience of disorientation the responsibility for reading confidence, as the responsibility of a freedom to experience the orientation of one's confidence by what will liberate it. The orientation of confidence is reading one's prison. So, is the reading of what we know transmitted by confidence in what influences the movements of our confidence, like biases? Imagine that what you know, is in fact only the design of a reflected shape to diffuse the light of an idea which is the bulb. Would you really know the message of its light and the intention of why it lights up, if the message of its intention to light up, is polarized by what comes between the path of its existence, and the gaze you poses on its broadcast? Would you really understand its message, to be read only by what you know, through the confidence that polarizes it, and not, by your intention to want to understand why it transmits a message, and therefore to define it by your own experience ? Would you not be in the presence of an evidence to recognize there, a paradox? Because how to understand the nature of a message, when the manifestation of its signal, is only read on your part through the confidence in the method which allows you to read it, the one that you have been taught , or that you mimicked out of confidence? Did you really give yourself the choice of that, not to learn the choice to be able to make a mistake? For if the function of a signal is to transmit, the message of its transmission is understandable only to those who speak the language. But then, how to speak the language that you do not master, that of induction, if your certainty can only be the proof of your knowledge, being able to be influenced by the environment and the confidence that you grant, in the agreed choices who are not left to you? If you do not conceive of being yourself locked into your own knowledge, how can you learn to know something other than what you know, if you do not accept the idea of ??being one yourself? Do not speak, it is useless, just accept being wrong on one thing, you know nothing, you just have to ask beyond what you have left to understand, by yourself.