a) if language represents the articulation of sound; then that implies sound to represent the natural. Could others utilize artifice (suggestion) to distract from natural (perception)?
b) what if suggested "common" (belonging to more than one) tempts one to ignore that ONE cannot be more than ONE? What if counting represents suggested collectivism tempting one to ignore that nature sets itself apart from whole into each partial unit (Latin unus; one)?
c) what if suggested THE-ism implies ones consent to submit to the authority of another one?
artificial separation
Try to explain natural separation? If one, then separated from other ones. Where does separation originate? SEPARO (to part) -TION (through action) implies into partial reactions...
fall under the umbrella
a) an umbrella is designed to shelter those under it from what's falling from above...why does the suggested rhetoric "fall under the umbrella" invert that?
b) UMBREL'LA, noun ( Latin umbra, shade)...shade shelters from light. What if ones consent to suggested (shade) shelters one from perceivable (light)? What if others suggest umbrellas (-isms) to tempt one to shade (ignore) from enlightenment (comprehension)?
the umbrella of “semite”.
SEM'I - "in composition, signifies half"
H'ALF - "one equal part of a thing which is divided into two parts"
Could ONEs consent to the suggestion of another DIVIDE one into reasoning over suggested from two sides? Could that represent an internal division of ONE into half a units potential?
a) an umbrella is designed to shelter those under it from what's falling from above...why does the suggested rhetoric "fall under the umbrella" invert that?
You’ve got me thinking - but perhaps those distinct Ones who are most alike (Family) share a common umbrella for common protection.
Though admittedly the phrase “fall under the umbrella” does seem oxymoronic on its face - perhaps “gather” is more fitting than “fall”
Could ONEs consent to the suggestion of another DIVIDE one into reasoning over suggested from two sides?
Do you believe one can consider an idea without consenting to it? Or does the act of the ideas admittance to our mind imply a consent? I suppose it does in some sense
perhaps those distinct Ones who are most alike (Family) share a common umbrella for common protection
a) suggested "perhaps" (by chance aka effect of an unknown cause) tempts one to ignore being effect (life) within known cause (inception towards death) with knowledge representing perceivable input.
b) alike represents choice for different (life) within same (inception toward death). Being different (partial) within same (wholeness) implies ones struggle for apartheid, while resisting togetherness...hence intercourse with another one leading to "OFF-spring".
c) share implies "portion; partial"...being implies share (partials) within save (whole). Save implies "to deliver".
d) family (Latin famulus - "servant")...aka serving that which delivers as a channel for birth.
e) suggested common aka common-ism (communism) tempts one believe in "equal belonging", while ignoring BE (being within) LONG (length of direction) aka being short (life) within long (inception towards death) and also different (partials) within equal (whole).
It's on oneself to differentiate between suggested definition and discerning perceivable when hearing "belong". In this example "be" implies being, hence oneself...can others define oneself or does one need to discern self? Having grown that discernment allows one then to put self within "long/length/duration/path/motion etc.
f) fall of men (inception towards death) generates umbrella (life)...resistance represents shelter within velocity unless ignored.
Resisting grows resistance; temptation tempts ignorance of resistance. Temptations tempt one to "fall" for...
perhaps “gather” is more fitting than “fall”
a) fall segregates (inception to life); gather aggregates (life to death)...
b) each partial fits into whole, hence FIT, adjective - "becoming" aka coming to be...reasoning (more vs less) tempts one to ignore that.
Do you believe one can consider an idea without consenting to it?
a) to believe represents ones consent to the suggestion of another, hence religion (Latin religio; to bind) aka binding oneself willingly to the will of another.
b) IDEA - "that which is seen" implies perceivable, even when ignored for suggested idealism aka oneself viewing perceivable through the lens of suggested, hence "those with eyes to see and those watching through the looking glass".
c) suggested "without" tempts one to ignore being (life) within (inception towards death).
In short...need (letting go) or want (holding onto) aka adaptation (choice) to motion (balance) or consent vs denial conflict (imbalance)...free will of choice.
Suggested water and wine tempt ones consent; perceivable thirst forces ones adaptation.
Or does the act of the ideas admittance to our mind imply a consent?
a) consent here was given to suggested idealism and activism, hence tempting one to ignore seeing perceivable (idea) and re-acting to it.
b) ADMIT', verb (Latin admitto, to send) - "to suffer to enter"...entering (inception) implies ones (life) suffering (towards death). Motion implies admission for those within.
Being implies RE (response to) JECT (ejected by; cast forth) within admission (motion).
In short...letting perceivable inspiration go through ones mind/memory, while resisting to hold onto suggested information represents resistance within temptation.
a) if language represents the articulation of sound; then that implies sound to represent the natural. Could others utilize artifice (suggestion) to distract from natural (perception)?
b) what if suggested "common" (belonging to more than one) tempts one to ignore that ONE cannot be more than ONE? What if counting represents suggested collectivism tempting one to ignore that nature sets itself apart from whole into each partial unit (Latin unus; one)?
c) what if suggested THE-ism implies ones consent to submit to the authority of another one?
Try to explain natural separation? If one, then separated from other ones. Where does separation originate? SEPARO (to part) -TION (through action) implies into partial reactions...
a) an umbrella is designed to shelter those under it from what's falling from above...why does the suggested rhetoric "fall under the umbrella" invert that?
b) UMBREL'LA, noun ( Latin umbra, shade)...shade shelters from light. What if ones consent to suggested (shade) shelters one from perceivable (light)? What if others suggest umbrellas (-isms) to tempt one to shade (ignore) from enlightenment (comprehension)?
Could ONEs consent to the suggestion of another DIVIDE one into reasoning over suggested from two sides? Could that represent an internal division of ONE into half a units potential?
You’ve got me thinking - but perhaps those distinct Ones who are most alike (Family) share a common umbrella for common protection.
Though admittedly the phrase “fall under the umbrella” does seem oxymoronic on its face - perhaps “gather” is more fitting than “fall”
Do you believe one can consider an idea without consenting to it? Or does the act of the ideas admittance to our mind imply a consent? I suppose it does in some sense
a) suggested "perhaps" (by chance aka effect of an unknown cause) tempts one to ignore being effect (life) within known cause (inception towards death) with knowledge representing perceivable input.
b) alike represents choice for different (life) within same (inception toward death). Being different (partial) within same (wholeness) implies ones struggle for apartheid, while resisting togetherness...hence intercourse with another one leading to "OFF-spring".
c) share implies "portion; partial"...being implies share (partials) within save (whole). Save implies "to deliver".
d) family (Latin famulus - "servant")...aka serving that which delivers as a channel for birth.
e) suggested common aka common-ism (communism) tempts one believe in "equal belonging", while ignoring BE (being within) LONG (length of direction) aka being short (life) within long (inception towards death) and also different (partials) within equal (whole).
It's on oneself to differentiate between suggested definition and discerning perceivable when hearing "belong". In this example "be" implies being, hence oneself...can others define oneself or does one need to discern self? Having grown that discernment allows one then to put self within "long/length/duration/path/motion etc.
f) fall of men (inception towards death) generates umbrella (life)...resistance represents shelter within velocity unless ignored.
Resisting grows resistance; temptation tempts ignorance of resistance. Temptations tempt one to "fall" for...
a) fall segregates (inception to life); gather aggregates (life to death)...
b) each partial fits into whole, hence FIT, adjective - "becoming" aka coming to be...reasoning (more vs less) tempts one to ignore that.
a) to believe represents ones consent to the suggestion of another, hence religion (Latin religio; to bind) aka binding oneself willingly to the will of another.
b) IDEA - "that which is seen" implies perceivable, even when ignored for suggested idealism aka oneself viewing perceivable through the lens of suggested, hence "those with eyes to see and those watching through the looking glass".
c) suggested "without" tempts one to ignore being (life) within (inception towards death).
In short...need (letting go) or want (holding onto) aka adaptation (choice) to motion (balance) or consent vs denial conflict (imbalance)...free will of choice.
Suggested water and wine tempt ones consent; perceivable thirst forces ones adaptation.
a) consent here was given to suggested idealism and activism, hence tempting one to ignore seeing perceivable (idea) and re-acting to it.
b) ADMIT', verb (Latin admitto, to send) - "to suffer to enter"...entering (inception) implies ones (life) suffering (towards death). Motion implies admission for those within.
Being implies RE (response to) JECT (ejected by; cast forth) within admission (motion).
In short...letting perceivable inspiration go through ones mind/memory, while resisting to hold onto suggested information represents resistance within temptation.