a) everything implies perceivable, nothing represents ones choice to ignore perceivable for suggested.
b) suggesting what everything "is" tempts one to ignore that everything "was" before one could shape a suggestion about it...
c) to conspire requires another...everything sets itself apart from whole (process of dying) into each partial (living). Nature inspires, those within are tempted to conspire against each other.
d) suggested CON (together with) SPIRE (Latin spiro; to breathe) tempts one to ignore that breathing represents perceiving partial (living) adapting to perceivable whole (process of dying).
Spirit (breathing) represents ones reaction to the entire enacting system, which nature teaches through each "off-spring", hence from breathing through the mother to struggling to sustain self after sailing through the birth channel.
tl;dr...one cannot define what "is", because everything "was" before any definitions can be shaped. Consenting to any suggested definition tempts one into a conflict of reason (is vs isn't)...a fictitious conflict, a self imposed division; a mental hamster-wheel for ignorance; the playground for all deception and conspiracies.
a) everything implies perceivable, nothing represents ones choice to ignore perceivable for suggested.
b) suggesting what everything "is" tempts one to ignore that everything "was" before one could shape a suggestion about it...
c) to conspire requires another...everything sets itself apart from whole (process of dying) into each partial (living). Nature inspires, those within are tempted to conspire against each other.
d) suggested CON (together with) SPIRE (Latin spiro; to breathe) tempts one to ignore that breathing represents perceiving partial (living) adapting to perceivable whole (process of dying).
Spirit (breathing) represents ones reaction to the entire enacting system, which nature teaches through each "off-spring", hence from breathing through the mother to struggling to sustain self after sailing through the birth channel.
tl;dr...one cannot define what "is", because everything "was" before any definitions can be shaped. Consenting to any suggested definition tempts one into a conflict of reason (is vs isn't)...a fictitious conflict, a self imposed division; a mental hamster-wheel for ignorance; the playground for all deception and conspiracies.
There's a hole in the bucket, dear Charlie...
Is this another definition change?
Just another bot that needs banhammered.