Where was "ancient Greece" within and could "modern Greece" still be within it?
the complexity of life to come
What if complexity (whole process of dying) differentiates into simplicity (partial living)? What if the simple come out of the complex; hence responding so simple minded when growing discernment within the complex offering of perceivable inspiration?
the whole body was filled with the whole soul, and they were in agreement
a) BOD'Y, noun - "the frame of an animal" aka animated form (life) being framed within animating flow (inception towards death).
b) agreement (want) implies versus disagreement (not want); hence in ignorance of adaptation (need). Does it matter if the living agree or disagree with the process of dying or do they need to adapt anyway?
this is not...
"this" implies something perceived; "is" implies within perceivable; "not" implies the ignorance of everything perceivable for the suggestion of "nothing".
To use "not" for comparison tempts one to ignore that every different partial (living) exists within the same whole (process of dying).
Consequences On The Soul, Spirit, And Life After Death
a) what if living represents the consequence of the process of dying?
b) what if spirit (Latin spiro; to breathe) represents adaptation of living (reaction) to the process of dying (enacted)?
c) what if mortal (living) represents the substance (soul) within immortal (process of dying)?
d) what if consenting to suggested VAC'CINE, adjective [Latin vaccinus, from vacca, a cow.] keeps one busy grazing with the rest of the cattle on more suggested information?
Where was "ancient Greece" within and could "modern Greece" still be within it?
What if complexity (whole process of dying) differentiates into simplicity (partial living)? What if the simple come out of the complex; hence responding so simple minded when growing discernment within the complex offering of perceivable inspiration?
a) BOD'Y, noun - "the frame of an animal" aka animated form (life) being framed within animating flow (inception towards death).
b) agreement (want) implies versus disagreement (not want); hence in ignorance of adaptation (need). Does it matter if the living agree or disagree with the process of dying or do they need to adapt anyway?
"this" implies something perceived; "is" implies within perceivable; "not" implies the ignorance of everything perceivable for the suggestion of "nothing".
To use "not" for comparison tempts one to ignore that every different partial (living) exists within the same whole (process of dying).
Is this us fighting for our right to die?
a) what if living represents the consequence of the process of dying?
b) what if spirit (Latin spiro; to breathe) represents adaptation of living (reaction) to the process of dying (enacted)?
c) what if mortal (living) represents the substance (soul) within immortal (process of dying)?
d) what if consenting to suggested VAC'CINE, adjective [Latin vaccinus, from vacca, a cow.] keeps one busy grazing with the rest of the cattle on more suggested information?