a) same one way (inception towards death); different perspectives within (life), hence ANOTH'ER, adjective - "not the same; different".
b) sound implies sameness; every saying (words) shaped within represents a difference. Shaping itself represents a different reaction within the same, enacting mold, hence SHAPE, verb - "to mold or make into a particular form", hence flow (whole) using momentum (mold) to shape form (partial).
This allows the partial (choice) to reshape (respond to formed shapes) within mold (balance).
Only when the 'will' and its choices are the same thing can the map no longer be confused with the territory.
a) FREE implies within dominance; WILL represents "want" within implied need, OF implies out of, and CHOICE implies within balance.
b) free will of choice represents different reactions, within the same enacting balance.
c) a thing implies a partial within a whole, hence differentiated (living) by momentum of wholeness (process of dying).
d) choice representing the temporary want (will) within the ongoing need (balance) implies being temporary disorder within ongoing order, hence CONFUSION, noun - "disorder; irregularity, want of order". Resisting the temptation thereof represents the status quo of adaptation from disorder (living) within order (process of dying).
e) every map suggested tempts oneself and others to ignore the perceivable territory at any moment. The map itself, just like every picture, represents a "captured moment" and capturing it implies ones choice to mentally consent to the suggested information, hence saving it within conscious memory as the representation of presented.
It's not about the physical map itself or shaping it, but each ones choice to consent to the suggestion thereof aka the suggestion of artificial within natural, and artificial (in opposition to natural) represents each ones choice to ignore perceivable for suggested.
The map isn't the issue, since the natural order dissolves it. It's ones choice to hold onto the suggested meaning thereof, which represents the artificial aka ones willing ignorance of natural.
territory-relation; alfred korzybski...
"the map is not the territory"...represents a "kosher" suggestion of vetted information. Why? Because the "is not" tempts others into the conflict of reason (is vs is not).
How could one discern between perceivable (territory) and suggested (map), if one consents to reason (is vs is not) within the controlled environment of a suggestion (nothing)?
The map "is" the territory, because each partial represents the whole.
The map "is not" the territory, because each partial can choose to ignore the whole for another partial.
Both choices (is or is not aka want or not want) tempt one to ignore ones position as choice within balance (need/want)...at the center, busy balancing, not inside a conflict with other choices.
He thought that certain uses of the verb "to be", called the "is of identity" and the "is of predication", were faulty in structure.
To be (partial) implies within that which is (whole). Therefore, one (being) can only shape within that which already is, hence drawing from (abstract) genuine (generated).
Predication (affirmation) represents the deception, since to be cannot affirm what is, without ignoring that everything was before one can choose to shape an affirmation about it. If I suggest "you exist", then that implies that I perceived you before I can suggest you that "you exist". Your consent to my suggestion shapes the distortion of abstract within genuine.
Thank you for your considerations. I find them all to be true-isms with reservations, and you impress with your Herculean forays into the subject.
If you'd allow me to digress in the name of progression.
If I'm accused of being anti-semite, I would say, 'Bring me this Semite'.
And I might be seen as anti-semantic if I say, 'Show me this 'will'.'
Is there a middle? A tourus vector? :)
The Will as ego projection is what most discuss when the subject is breached.
You seem to critique this. As do I.
You have meditated on the subject and find it a selective point out of the all. (map of the terrain - kek)
I offered the Map/Terrain deposition as introduction to another.
'If the map is not the terrain, then what 'is' the terrain? And what the answer gives us. Or what it does not give us is the answer in words. Here we arrive at the is/is not dichotomy and every other dichotomy involved with words.
Words themselves are divisions of the all and are a 'left-brained' way of interpreting as map of the terrain.
The old philosphical chestnuts 'To do is to be' and 'To be is to do' has no mention of the word 'will' as in 'Do what thou wilt'.
In religion, the ego will is sublimated until the symbolic angel/angle is 'seen' or 'wrestled with' and defeated, so to say in words.
The exaltant religions give 'free will' as they enslave their passions to repeat.
All function has 'need' as it's source and what we call will is the attractive or repulsive force.
Ego sublimated creates a neutrality of 'will' to the point that it's moot.
That place where some attempt to arrive through dissection of words.
Yet we use words, don't we? Renting and sewing. Sew I took up needle and thread also and can discern your pattern. So to speak.
We're fish exchanging spittle on dry land, says the Sufi.
We're slapped as we discuss the difference between the flag, the wind, the wave, the mind.....
This can become it's own labyrinth until certain clew is found and the actual work done after realization. Realization is the first step as AA would say.
As a former and current wordaholic, I try to avoid them until I meet an old friend and then we'll reminisce.
Always a clew in the thread, a minotaur in a labyrinth and devil in the details.
But God is All that +1 one discovers with it's part (Q/17/Divine inspiration)
And now it's time to sail back home.
Updooted ya. Thanks for the journey and bon voyage.
If I'm accused of being anti-semite, I would say, 'Bring me this Semite'.
a) that represents your choice to prolong giving consent to the pro vs anti -semite conflict of reason.
b) pro vs anti represents a rebranding of want vs not want aka agreement vs disagreement over suggested information, while tempting one to ignore the "need" to adapt to perceivable inspiration.
c) the issue...your consent to suggested SEMITE; noun "a jew, Arab, Assyrian, or Aramaean", hence your consent to the suggestion of those now tempting further consent to reasoning (pro vs anti) about it.
Checking the etymology brings one closer to the, as of now ignored, perceivable inspiration...SEM'I, (Latin semi) - "in composition, signifies half" + SE - "apart, away", which implies the partial (living) as half of whole (process of dying).
It's on oneself to discern between "semite" as a suggested brand, or "semi, se" as a perceivable composition (moving partial within whole). Nature doesn't brand anything a semite; it does move partials within whole tho...
And I might be seen as anti-semantic if I say, 'Show me this 'will'.'
a) suggesting SEMANTIC (to signify meaning) tempts others to ignore perceivable, predefined ME'ANING - "having in mind". Whatever each partial has in mind, implies the whole already containing it, hence supplying it towards minds for thinking.
Tempting others with suggested meaning represents...a MEAN (low minded) choice.
b) to say represents uttering suggestible words towards the free "will" of choice by others. Therefore...you already directed towards the will of others; and any response represents the will of others.
In other words...to suggest makes you the director of a show based on will, while casting the will of others as (re)actors into your SHOW, verb - "to exhibit or present to the view of others"...a suggested show called ignorance of perceivable (most watched show among the many btw).
Is there a middle? A tourus vector? :)
a) each ones choice represents the middle of balance, the choices of others tempt one to imbalance self, and balance (momentum) represents the middle of motion.
b) comprehension represents the tower (tourus), hence representing the height of grown comprehension towering over the valley of ignorance among others, and life itself represents the passenger (vector) within the process of dying.
The Will as ego projection is what most discuss when the subject is breached.
An ego (memory filled with consented to information, as suggested by others) can only be shaped by ones free "will" of choice. Meanwhile, temporary living represents the projectile, forwarded through the ongoing process of dying...hence being a subject (form) within objectifying (flow). Forming an ego by consenting to the suggestion of others, represents further subjection under others.
Most discussions ignore perceivable "free will of choice" for suggested "free will", hence a) lacking choice, which implies b) lacking self discernment about being choice (reaction) within balance (enacting). Therefore, the momentum (balance) of motion projects each ones free will of choice as the internal reaction at the center of it.
Only by discerning balance to choice, can one further discern need (balance) and want/will (choice), because they imply each others coexistence within motion.
You seem to critique this. As do I.
CRITIC, noun (Gr., a judge or discerner, to judge, to separate, to distinguish)...a discerning mind (discernment) represents the separated; distinguished reaction within enacting justice aka that which "just is" (the whole flow for each partial form within).
Everyone represents indeed "a critic", but as a separate and distinguished, partial discerning mind within perceivable...not as the judge over the suggestions by others.
You have meditated on the subject
ME'DIATE, adjective [Latin medius, middle.]...as choice one represents the mediating subject within the medium (balance/momentum) of objectifying motion. What I mostly did was resisting the temptation to ignore this by subjecting myself to consent; believe or reason about what others are suggesting me about the perceivable world.
Less noise (samsara)...more sound-minded.
'If the map is not the terrain, then what 'is' the terrain?
All that was before one can choose to react within, while being moved by it. Balance represents the terrain of choice, while choice represents the center of the terrain, with the temporary opportunity to map out (consciously perceiving) uncharted (lack of comprehension) territory (perceivable inspiration).
And what the answer gives us.
Answers represent reactions to suggested quests (want of outcome), living represents the perceiving problem within the perceivable solution, and each one (perceiving) already got access to everything (perceivable).
Suggested "us" (plural) tempts the perceiving one (singular) to ignore perceivable oneness (whole including partials).
Or what it does not give us is the answer in words.
All sound is given...waiting for others to shape answers out of suggestible words only ignores perceivable sound. Suggested "nothing" represents ones justification to ignore perceivable "everything". Denying sound represents dissonance within self, by willingly ignore to resonate with it.
is/is not dichotomy and every other dichotomy involved with words.
a) same trick...all words are suggested, ones consent to anything suggested represents wanting vs not wanting it. That's the foundation for every dichotomy aka suggested dualism aka tempting one to ignore oneself within balance (need/want) for a one vs one conflict (want vs not want) with other ones.
b) "is not" represents ones choice to ignore everything that is (perceivable inspiration) for that which is nothing (suggested information).
c) DICHOTOMY, noun [Gr., a division into two parts; to cut.]...two implies ones choice to count other ones with the suggested label "two". Take anything you believe to represents "two" and notice that each "one" has to exist at a different position (as partial within whole) for you to be able to perceive moving differences.
It's others who suggest "sameness" and "stillness; rest; cessation of motion" and they utilize mass fabrication of likeness (uniformity for example) to tempt the consenting many to consent to suggested sameness (e pluribus unum aka out of many, one).
Words themselves are divisions of the all
Balance divides; choice responses from the center of division. Sound (need) was before words (want or not want) can be...it's a choice.
left-brained
Left/right implies center choice. Brain (aka matter) implies within momentum (balance), hence choice.
way of interpreting
INTER'PRET, verb transitive [Latin interpretor, from interpres.] aka INTER (being internal) + PRESS (pressure; to urge with force aka forcing into)...the process of dying (whole) forces living resistance (partial) internally, which implies life being moved from inception towards death aka directed one way aka being (life) within direction (inception towards death).
The old philosphical chestnuts 'To do is to be' and 'To be is to do' has no mention of the word 'will' as in 'Do what thou wilt'.
a) to do implies being done by.
b) to be implies redoing while being done.
c) "do what thou will" tempts one to ignore what one needs will for.
In religion, the ego will is sublimated until the symbolic angel/angle is 'seen' or 'wrestled with' and defeated, so to say in words...
...while ignoring that the foundation of RELIGION; noun (Latin religio) - "to bind anew" represents giving up self (choice), while submitting to (choice) of others.
Choosing represents balancing (need or want) by "angling" within direction (forwards). Point (life) within line (inception towards death) meets corners aka external points aka angles/angels (guardian or despair).
The exultant religions give 'free will' as they enslave their passions to repeat.
Ones choice to consent to be bound anew (religio) to the suggesting choices of others, represents the contract law for self imposed slavery by willingly ignoring to be "free" will of choice within the "dom"inance of balance aka free (living) within dom (process of dying).
If the many (partials) ignore everything (whole) perceivable given to them, then the few gain the power to give or not give anything suggestible, which the few then utilize to further and further restrict the ignorant (partials) from what they're ignoring (whole).
Example...responsibilities in reality willingly ignored for the "call of duty" within fiction.
All function has 'need' as it's source and what we call will is the attractive or repulsive force.
FUNC'TION, noun [Latin functio, from fungor, to perform.] - "discharge"...each one represents the FUNGUR within the -TION aka discharged (loss) with the response-ability to recharge (growth).
Ego sublimated creates a neutrality of 'will' to the point that it's moot.
NEUTRAL, adjective [Latin neuter.] - "not engaged on either side" + MOOT, verb transitive [Latin contra.] - "to debate; to discuss; to argue for and against"
a) willing an ego (accumulating suggested information within memory) implies ones choice of want (suggested) over need (perceivable), hence engagement aka ENGAGE (liable for a debt to a creditor) MENT (mind/memory). Willing/wanting suggested represents ones believe in it aka ones CREED (belief in; consent to) to the suggesting others; while taking on the suggested as DEBT (contracted burden).
b) choosing want over need shapes want vs not want among all those who also ignore need, hence establishing the CONTRA (imbalance) within FOR (balance).
That place where some attempt to arrive through dissection of words.
Those who choose to want (words) are tempted (want) by their lack of resistance (need) to want more. Inception represents arrival; death represents departure (back into wholeness)...the momentum within represents the place for life to be.
Yet we use words, don't we?
HAB'IT, noun [Latin habitus, from habeo, to have to hold]...very easy to hold onto temptation, very hard (living) to let go by resisting temptation (dying). The more one holds onto, the faster ones resistance diminishes...others brand temptation with words to make it easier to hold onto, hence requiring as little effort as continuing consent to believe in the suggested meaning thereof.
Renting and sewing.
a) RENT, noun - "a fissure; a break or breach made by force, torn asunder; split or burst by violence"...that represents living within the process of dying, hence being set apart within the whole.
b) SEW, verb - "to unite; fasten together"...that represents ones choice to ignore perceivable (apartheid) for suggested (togetherness).
needle and thread
NEED of THREAT (process of dying) to resist want for sustenance of self (living) aka loss inspiring growth.
We're fish exchanging spittle on dry land, says the Sufi.
Form (life) needs to adapt to flow (inception towards death) to sustain self, hence recharging form (growth) through resisting flow (inception). Ignoring this dries form out, while spending remaining resistance among other form.
We're slapped as we discuss the difference between the flag, the wind, the wave, the mind...
Aka reasoning as the self inflicted conflict among differences, while ignoring that perceiving moving differences represents perceivable inspiration for adaptation....why the need to adapt? To sustain temporary differences (living) within ongoing sameness (process of dying).
If everything perceivable would be the same, then why would one struggle to sustain self?
Realization is the first step
a) REALIZA'TION, noun [from realize.] - "the act of realizing or making real"...-TION already implies the enacting reality. Ones choice to resist suggested fiction, would grow ones discernment about being the reaction (living) within realization (process of dying), hence the reaction within generation.
b) the first step to be represents "become" aka come (process of dying) to be (living).
As a former and current wordaholic, I try to avoid them until I meet an old friend and then we'll reminisce.
REMINIS'CENCE, noun [Latin reminiscens, reminiscor, Gr. memory.]...that's where the masons of free (will) are building walls of ignorance through suggested words, ones consent cements into place, brick by brick.
clew in the thread
CLUE (inspiration) in the THREAT (process of dying)
I understand the difference between superstition, numerology, semantics and gematria. They can be seen as levels of understanding.
Crowley was a fine example of how such forays can lead to madness, due to the infinite complexity that unfolds. Seeking, one can find most any conjecture confirmed and this in a magician, leads to a god complex in control.
I've developed a quip 'They aren't wrong'. This insinuates that the information is 'correct' in the way presented, but is missing something vital.
100 people will see something different in any one 'clue'.
Clew: A supposed ball of yarn or thread by which one could navigate the Labyrinth.
Disambiguation: Clue - origin: clew
Used in a sentence:
Knowing that the clew leads to the Minotaur, not out of the labyrinth, Daedelus fashioned wings for his son so he could fly OVER the whole grid
and see it from 40,000 ft.
This carries its own warning of flying 'too close to the sun'.
I see both as sister analogies of extremes in both exoteric and esoteric adventures.
The clew did NOT lead out of the labyrinth and Daedalus 'realized' it.
His first step towards escape. He had knowledge of the minotaur first and that was all the difference.
Forest for the trees is the modern analogy.
How and why were specific letters formed and chosen and united to form words?
Spirit of the law vs letter of the law.
Meaning is spirit not letter. Letter divides, spirit unites.
Spirit precedes words....to understand the spirit behind becomes the SHIELD against deception through words.
.A fish can describe the ocean all day and die of thirst.
Another way of saying the same thing, perhaps:
Only when the 'will' and its choices are the same thing can the map no longer be confused with the territory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map%E2%80%93territory_relation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Korzybski
a) same one way (inception towards death); different perspectives within (life), hence ANOTH'ER, adjective - "not the same; different".
b) sound implies sameness; every saying (words) shaped within represents a difference. Shaping itself represents a different reaction within the same, enacting mold, hence SHAPE, verb - "to mold or make into a particular form", hence flow (whole) using momentum (mold) to shape form (partial).
This allows the partial (choice) to reshape (respond to formed shapes) within mold (balance).
a) FREE implies within dominance; WILL represents "want" within implied need, OF implies out of, and CHOICE implies within balance.
b) free will of choice represents different reactions, within the same enacting balance.
c) a thing implies a partial within a whole, hence differentiated (living) by momentum of wholeness (process of dying).
d) choice representing the temporary want (will) within the ongoing need (balance) implies being temporary disorder within ongoing order, hence CONFUSION, noun - "disorder; irregularity, want of order". Resisting the temptation thereof represents the status quo of adaptation from disorder (living) within order (process of dying).
e) every map suggested tempts oneself and others to ignore the perceivable territory at any moment. The map itself, just like every picture, represents a "captured moment" and capturing it implies ones choice to mentally consent to the suggested information, hence saving it within conscious memory as the representation of presented.
It's not about the physical map itself or shaping it, but each ones choice to consent to the suggestion thereof aka the suggestion of artificial within natural, and artificial (in opposition to natural) represents each ones choice to ignore perceivable for suggested.
The map isn't the issue, since the natural order dissolves it. It's ones choice to hold onto the suggested meaning thereof, which represents the artificial aka ones willing ignorance of natural.
"the map is not the territory"...represents a "kosher" suggestion of vetted information. Why? Because the "is not" tempts others into the conflict of reason (is vs is not).
How could one discern between perceivable (territory) and suggested (map), if one consents to reason (is vs is not) within the controlled environment of a suggestion (nothing)?
The map "is" the territory, because each partial represents the whole.
The map "is not" the territory, because each partial can choose to ignore the whole for another partial.
Both choices (is or is not aka want or not want) tempt one to ignore ones position as choice within balance (need/want)...at the center, busy balancing, not inside a conflict with other choices.
To be (partial) implies within that which is (whole). Therefore, one (being) can only shape within that which already is, hence drawing from (abstract) genuine (generated).
Predication (affirmation) represents the deception, since to be cannot affirm what is, without ignoring that everything was before one can choose to shape an affirmation about it. If I suggest "you exist", then that implies that I perceived you before I can suggest you that "you exist". Your consent to my suggestion shapes the distortion of abstract within genuine.
Thanks for the inspiration, I'm gonna put his book on my list... https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25457
Word
Thank you for your considerations. I find them all to be true-isms with reservations, and you impress with your Herculean forays into the subject.
If you'd allow me to digress in the name of progression.
If I'm accused of being anti-semite, I would say, 'Bring me this Semite'.
And I might be seen as anti-semantic if I say, 'Show me this 'will'.'
Is there a middle? A tourus vector? :)
The Will as ego projection is what most discuss when the subject is breached.
You seem to critique this. As do I.
You have meditated on the subject and find it a selective point out of the all. (map of the terrain - kek)
I offered the Map/Terrain deposition as introduction to another.
'If the map is not the terrain, then what 'is' the terrain? And what the answer gives us. Or what it does not give us is the answer in words. Here we arrive at the is/is not dichotomy and every other dichotomy involved with words. Words themselves are divisions of the all and are a 'left-brained' way of interpreting as map of the terrain.
The old philosphical chestnuts 'To do is to be' and 'To be is to do' has no mention of the word 'will' as in 'Do what thou wilt'.
In religion, the ego will is sublimated until the symbolic angel/angle is 'seen' or 'wrestled with' and defeated, so to say in words.
The exaltant religions give 'free will' as they enslave their passions to repeat.
All function has 'need' as it's source and what we call will is the attractive or repulsive force.
Ego sublimated creates a neutrality of 'will' to the point that it's moot.
That place where some attempt to arrive through dissection of words. Yet we use words, don't we? Renting and sewing. Sew I took up needle and thread also and can discern your pattern. So to speak.
We're fish exchanging spittle on dry land, says the Sufi. We're slapped as we discuss the difference between the flag, the wind, the wave, the mind.....
This can become it's own labyrinth until certain clew is found and the actual work done after realization. Realization is the first step as AA would say.
As a former and current wordaholic, I try to avoid them until I meet an old friend and then we'll reminisce.
Always a clew in the thread, a minotaur in a labyrinth and devil in the details.
But God is All that +1 one discovers with it's part (Q/17/Divine inspiration)
And now it's time to sail back home.
Updooted ya. Thanks for the journey and bon voyage.
A good host offers a gift for your safe return.
https://www.scribd.com/document/398575567/230403079-Jesus-Christ-Sun-of-God-Ancient-Cosmology-and-Early-Christian-Symbolism-by-David-R-Fideler-pdf
a) that represents your choice to prolong giving consent to the pro vs anti -semite conflict of reason.
b) pro vs anti represents a rebranding of want vs not want aka agreement vs disagreement over suggested information, while tempting one to ignore the "need" to adapt to perceivable inspiration.
c) the issue...your consent to suggested SEMITE; noun "a jew, Arab, Assyrian, or Aramaean", hence your consent to the suggestion of those now tempting further consent to reasoning (pro vs anti) about it.
Checking the etymology brings one closer to the, as of now ignored, perceivable inspiration...SEM'I, (Latin semi) - "in composition, signifies half" + SE - "apart, away", which implies the partial (living) as half of whole (process of dying).
It's on oneself to discern between "semite" as a suggested brand, or "semi, se" as a perceivable composition (moving partial within whole). Nature doesn't brand anything a semite; it does move partials within whole tho...
a) suggesting SEMANTIC (to signify meaning) tempts others to ignore perceivable, predefined ME'ANING - "having in mind". Whatever each partial has in mind, implies the whole already containing it, hence supplying it towards minds for thinking.
Tempting others with suggested meaning represents...a MEAN (low minded) choice.
b) to say represents uttering suggestible words towards the free "will" of choice by others. Therefore...you already directed towards the will of others; and any response represents the will of others.
In other words...to suggest makes you the director of a show based on will, while casting the will of others as (re)actors into your SHOW, verb - "to exhibit or present to the view of others"...a suggested show called ignorance of perceivable (most watched show among the many btw).
a) each ones choice represents the middle of balance, the choices of others tempt one to imbalance self, and balance (momentum) represents the middle of motion.
b) comprehension represents the tower (tourus), hence representing the height of grown comprehension towering over the valley of ignorance among others, and life itself represents the passenger (vector) within the process of dying.
An ego (memory filled with consented to information, as suggested by others) can only be shaped by ones free "will" of choice. Meanwhile, temporary living represents the projectile, forwarded through the ongoing process of dying...hence being a subject (form) within objectifying (flow). Forming an ego by consenting to the suggestion of others, represents further subjection under others.
Most discussions ignore perceivable "free will of choice" for suggested "free will", hence a) lacking choice, which implies b) lacking self discernment about being choice (reaction) within balance (enacting). Therefore, the momentum (balance) of motion projects each ones free will of choice as the internal reaction at the center of it.
Only by discerning balance to choice, can one further discern need (balance) and want/will (choice), because they imply each others coexistence within motion.
CRITIC, noun (Gr., a judge or discerner, to judge, to separate, to distinguish)...a discerning mind (discernment) represents the separated; distinguished reaction within enacting justice aka that which "just is" (the whole flow for each partial form within).
Everyone represents indeed "a critic", but as a separate and distinguished, partial discerning mind within perceivable...not as the judge over the suggestions by others.
ME'DIATE, adjective [Latin medius, middle.]...as choice one represents the mediating subject within the medium (balance/momentum) of objectifying motion. What I mostly did was resisting the temptation to ignore this by subjecting myself to consent; believe or reason about what others are suggesting me about the perceivable world.
Less noise (samsara)...more sound-minded.
All that was before one can choose to react within, while being moved by it. Balance represents the terrain of choice, while choice represents the center of the terrain, with the temporary opportunity to map out (consciously perceiving) uncharted (lack of comprehension) territory (perceivable inspiration).
Answers represent reactions to suggested quests (want of outcome), living represents the perceiving problem within the perceivable solution, and each one (perceiving) already got access to everything (perceivable).
Suggested "us" (plural) tempts the perceiving one (singular) to ignore perceivable oneness (whole including partials).
All sound is given...waiting for others to shape answers out of suggestible words only ignores perceivable sound. Suggested "nothing" represents ones justification to ignore perceivable "everything". Denying sound represents dissonance within self, by willingly ignore to resonate with it.
a) same trick...all words are suggested, ones consent to anything suggested represents wanting vs not wanting it. That's the foundation for every dichotomy aka suggested dualism aka tempting one to ignore oneself within balance (need/want) for a one vs one conflict (want vs not want) with other ones.
b) "is not" represents ones choice to ignore everything that is (perceivable inspiration) for that which is nothing (suggested information).
c) DICHOTOMY, noun [Gr., a division into two parts; to cut.]...two implies ones choice to count other ones with the suggested label "two". Take anything you believe to represents "two" and notice that each "one" has to exist at a different position (as partial within whole) for you to be able to perceive moving differences.
It's others who suggest "sameness" and "stillness; rest; cessation of motion" and they utilize mass fabrication of likeness (uniformity for example) to tempt the consenting many to consent to suggested sameness (e pluribus unum aka out of many, one).
Balance divides; choice responses from the center of division. Sound (need) was before words (want or not want) can be...it's a choice.
Left/right implies center choice. Brain (aka matter) implies within momentum (balance), hence choice.
INTER'PRET, verb transitive [Latin interpretor, from interpres.] aka INTER (being internal) + PRESS (pressure; to urge with force aka forcing into)...the process of dying (whole) forces living resistance (partial) internally, which implies life being moved from inception towards death aka directed one way aka being (life) within direction (inception towards death).
a) to do implies being done by.
b) to be implies redoing while being done.
c) "do what thou will" tempts one to ignore what one needs will for.
...while ignoring that the foundation of RELIGION; noun (Latin religio) - "to bind anew" represents giving up self (choice), while submitting to (choice) of others.
Choosing represents balancing (need or want) by "angling" within direction (forwards). Point (life) within line (inception towards death) meets corners aka external points aka angles/angels (guardian or despair).
Ones choice to consent to be bound anew (religio) to the suggesting choices of others, represents the contract law for self imposed slavery by willingly ignoring to be "free" will of choice within the "dom"inance of balance aka free (living) within dom (process of dying).
If the many (partials) ignore everything (whole) perceivable given to them, then the few gain the power to give or not give anything suggestible, which the few then utilize to further and further restrict the ignorant (partials) from what they're ignoring (whole).
Example...responsibilities in reality willingly ignored for the "call of duty" within fiction.
FUNC'TION, noun [Latin functio, from fungor, to perform.] - "discharge"...each one represents the FUNGUR within the -TION aka discharged (loss) with the response-ability to recharge (growth).
a) willing an ego (accumulating suggested information within memory) implies ones choice of want (suggested) over need (perceivable), hence engagement aka ENGAGE (liable for a debt to a creditor) MENT (mind/memory). Willing/wanting suggested represents ones believe in it aka ones CREED (belief in; consent to) to the suggesting others; while taking on the suggested as DEBT (contracted burden).
b) choosing want over need shapes want vs not want among all those who also ignore need, hence establishing the CONTRA (imbalance) within FOR (balance).
Those who choose to want (words) are tempted (want) by their lack of resistance (need) to want more. Inception represents arrival; death represents departure (back into wholeness)...the momentum within represents the place for life to be.
HAB'IT, noun [Latin habitus, from habeo, to have to hold]...very easy to hold onto temptation, very hard (living) to let go by resisting temptation (dying). The more one holds onto, the faster ones resistance diminishes...others brand temptation with words to make it easier to hold onto, hence requiring as little effort as continuing consent to believe in the suggested meaning thereof.
a) RENT, noun - "a fissure; a break or breach made by force, torn asunder; split or burst by violence"...that represents living within the process of dying, hence being set apart within the whole.
b) SEW, verb - "to unite; fasten together"...that represents ones choice to ignore perceivable (apartheid) for suggested (togetherness).
NEED of THREAT (process of dying) to resist want for sustenance of self (living) aka loss inspiring growth.
Form (life) needs to adapt to flow (inception towards death) to sustain self, hence recharging form (growth) through resisting flow (inception). Ignoring this dries form out, while spending remaining resistance among other form.
Aka reasoning as the self inflicted conflict among differences, while ignoring that perceiving moving differences represents perceivable inspiration for adaptation....why the need to adapt? To sustain temporary differences (living) within ongoing sameness (process of dying).
If everything perceivable would be the same, then why would one struggle to sustain self?
a) REALIZA'TION, noun [from realize.] - "the act of realizing or making real"...-TION already implies the enacting reality. Ones choice to resist suggested fiction, would grow ones discernment about being the reaction (living) within realization (process of dying), hence the reaction within generation.
b) the first step to be represents "become" aka come (process of dying) to be (living).
REMINIS'CENCE, noun [Latin reminiscens, reminiscor, Gr. memory.]...that's where the masons of free (will) are building walls of ignorance through suggested words, ones consent cements into place, brick by brick.
CLUE (inspiration) in the THREAT (process of dying)
I understand the difference between superstition, numerology, semantics and gematria. They can be seen as levels of understanding.
Crowley was a fine example of how such forays can lead to madness, due to the infinite complexity that unfolds. Seeking, one can find most any conjecture confirmed and this in a magician, leads to a god complex in control.
I've developed a quip 'They aren't wrong'. This insinuates that the information is 'correct' in the way presented, but is missing something vital.
100 people will see something different in any one 'clue'.
Clew: A supposed ball of yarn or thread by which one could navigate the Labyrinth. Disambiguation: Clue - origin: clew
Used in a sentence:
Knowing that the clew leads to the Minotaur, not out of the labyrinth, Daedelus fashioned wings for his son so he could fly OVER the whole grid and see it from 40,000 ft.
This carries its own warning of flying 'too close to the sun'. I see both as sister analogies of extremes in both exoteric and esoteric adventures. The clew did NOT lead out of the labyrinth and Daedalus 'realized' it. His first step towards escape. He had knowledge of the minotaur first and that was all the difference.
Forest for the trees is the modern analogy.
How and why were specific letters formed and chosen and united to form words?
Spirit of the law vs letter of the law.
Meaning is spirit not letter. Letter divides, spirit unites.
Spirit precedes words....to understand the spirit behind becomes the SHIELD against deception through words.
.A fish can describe the ocean all day and die of thirst.
https://www.scribd.com/document/398575567/230403079-Jesus-Christ-Sun-of-God-Ancient-Cosmology-and-Early-Christian-Symbolism-by-David-R-Fideler-pdf