You do serve an important purpose here. That's my belief.
But you, I and we need to use words, which both divide by defintion and unite by spirit. Don't we. You and I as seperate, yet identifying as we?
If the de-fining is moving away from the uniting spirit of words, then why sharpen your teeth with that aspect of language?
a,b,c,d,e - that's five de-finings of one point, that's pretty 'sharp'.
But it waffles on it's own point, going back and forth between A and not A....as is the nature of words that de-fine or 'make a point' out of the whole. You and I. We.
Here's one: "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"
Why choose the DE-fining, when REfining the spirit might work to better effect.
Refining by definiton here, as removing impurities.
Try a different kind of exercise. If A, then not A.
If one, then two as not one, then three as observer of two.
What would be four? Each as a new dimension............. And so on.
a) import implies from origin; purpose implies towards outcome. Being implies EX (expressing) PORT (to carry in form).
b) others suggest progressivism to tempt one towards outcome; while ones consent imports suggested into self (information), while ignoring perceivable (inspiration). Nature doesn't inspire one to reach outcome; but to adapt to origin.
c) SERVE (Latin servo; to keep), hence becoming a slave to others, when consenting to hold onto suggested. Meanwhile; inception towards death doesn't allow life to keep anything; "only" to utilize everything.
That's my belief
Belief tempts one to hold onto; "being life" needs to be let go of.
Others (Bon Jovi) suggest that "It's my life", while offering a sleight of hand for those with eyes to see..."this ain't a song for the broken-hearted; No silent prayer for faith-departed". Being implies departed within whole; hence broken by division into units.
But you, I and we need to use words
a) no other life-form shapes words out of sound to communicate.
b) agreeing (want) vs disagreeing (not want) with a suggested word; tempts one to ignore adaptation (need) to perceivable sound, hence ones consent to words shaping the conflicts of reason.
c) definite (affixed) contradicts -tion (motion)...it's ones consent to hold onto definitions, which affixes them within ones mind/memory.
d) what is it that one needs to describe to others with labels? Will a penis not find its way into a vagina without exchanged words? Isn't getting hard, and getting wet inspiration enough for intercourse?
e) consider this...if others cannot take words from one; can oneself resist using words from others? That represents ones inner struggle with outside temptation.
both divide by definition and unite by spirit
a) divide implies whole (oneness) into partials (ones), and unite implies UNIT (Latin unus; one). Others suggest dualism (both) and collectivism (unite) to distract one from discerning and sustaining self.
b) SPIR'IT, noun (Latin spiro) - "to breathe; air in motion; breath; animal excitement aka animation (motion) exciting mind/memory (momentum)" implies ones adaptation to that aka reaction (growth) adapting to action (loss).
Others suggest spiritualism (consisting of spirit); hence CONSIST (standing together; to be in a fixed or permanent state). That represents the inversion of spirit (adaptation to motion), and ones consent to the suggested -ism tempts one to hold onto; to affix it.
Don't we.
Aka suggested nihilism (doing nothing) and pluralism (we), tempting one (unit) to ignore being done by everything.
You and I as separate, yet identifying as we?
a) Identical (same) contradicts "you and I" (different). Ones consent to suggested identitarianism represents mass consensus, hence tempting each "different"one choosing "alike" to believe to be the "same".
b) Apartheid requires ones resistance; togetherness tempts one to submit to others; while ignoring to resist for sustenance of self.
c) Whole separates one (partial) from other ones (partials), which in return establishes each ones potential to grow self discernment or fall for the temptation of collectivism by hanging onto others.
d) ones claim over self (me; myself or I) shapes everyone else into a "you". Claiming self gives "yous" (jews) power of one. Why? Because each suggested CLAIM - "to call for; to ask or seek to obtain" is aimed at others, hence shaping other ones into "chosen ones".
If the de-fining is moving away from the uniting spirit of words, then why sharpen your teeth with that aspect of language?
a) suggested words (spell-craft) tempt one to consent to be spell-bound.
b) consenting to definitions (words) tempts one to ignore adapting (spirit) to motion (sound). Holding onto anything within a moving system tempts one to ignore being moved for that which one holds onto.
Notice how often people drowning ignore adapting to water by trying to hold onto anything floating. There's this vid of old white dude trying to save young black dude from drowning and the younger drowns both of them by holding onto.
c) as to why sharpening teeth with articulation of words (fiction)...because fiction (words) can only be shaped within reality (sound), and if one comprehends the difference; then it's just another unit of inspiration to draw from.
a,b,c,d,e - that's five de-finings of one point, that's pretty 'sharp'.
a) ABC (Latin abecedary) aka "abracadabra".
b) five of one represents one counting other ones as five, hence consenting to suggested collectivism. Each different symbol is shaped within the same symmetry (formed partials within flowing whole).
c) being choice within balance implies "on the razor's edge"...that's sharp.
going back and forth between A and not A
a) "between" implies self as life in-between inception towards death; while "not" implies one ignoring everything (perceivable) for nothing (suggested).
A label (word) tricks one think it defines something; but underneath everything (sound) moves.
b) only while being (life) directed (inception towards death); can one freely (free will of choice) choose to wander (exchange; transform) around (up/down; left/right; back/forth).
the nature of words
The nature (perceivable) of words (suggested) implies ones ignorance of reality for fiction by consenting to suggested THE-ism (ones submission to authority of others).
Nature doesn't offer words; those within sound shape words to distract each other, which only works if ones consent to another ones offer, hence choice (consent) to choice (suggestion) contract law.
'make a point' out of the whole
Whole introduces (inception) partial sentence (life) towards point (death)...others suggest one to "make a point" (end of sentence) as to distract from ones life sentence, hence tempting those within "out of". A suggested inversion.
Here's one: "How many..."
Each one.
why choose the DE-fining, when REfining
a) being implies finite (growth) within infinite (loss)...choosing others implies ignoring infinite for finite, hence the scarcity racket.
b) as for REFINE (depurate; free from impurities)...that implies being (free will of choice) within pure (balance). Ones choices of want over need soils self within pure, until natural order (inception towards death) cleans up chaos (life).
to better effect
Cause (inception towards death aka value) generates best effects (life aka evaluation). The more one evaluates cause; the better ones effects will be.
Others utilize effect (suggested) to distract from cause (perceivable), which affects one if consented to.
removing impurities
Being implies within (im) that which is free from mixture (pure), while responding (re) to being moved.
The suggested word "remove" implies change of place; while being "re-move" implies ones place (life) within change (inception towards death), hence reacting (re) to it changing (move).
Without self discernment (position within change) the suggested words of others change ones position.
If A, then not A.
a) implication (if/then) implies motion...if nothing (not); then no motion.
b) not implies conflict of reason (everything vs nothing). Others suggest reasoning over suggested (words) to distract from implication within perceivable (sound).
If sound; then words. If words; then agreeing vs disagreeing with definitions. It's oneself that corrupts implication with reason and others suggest words (logos) to tempt reason (logic).
Georgia Guidstones: "let these be guidestones to an age of reason".
Each as a new dimension
a) new, néwos, now...there's only now (perceivable moment-um within motion) for those within, hence nothing new under the SUN; SOL; SOUL; SOLE (one and only) aka "there can be only one" aka "one for all and all for one" aka "alone"...ALL(in)ONE.
b) dimension aka DIS (apart) METIRI (to measure) ION (action) aka partial reactions measuring each other within whole action. Oneself represents DI (partial) within MENT (mind/memory/momentum) of ION (whole/motion).
learning to spell
SPELL - "a charm consisting of some words of occult power" aka temptation to conceal perceivable (sound) with suggested (words) by consent.
Sound implies simplicity; words shape complexity...one gets lost in complexity (suggested information) when ignoring simplicity (perceivable inspiration).
From your perspective...a wall of text. From my perspective...a drop of expressed inspiration; drawn from an infinite offer.
You will always be correct in half a sense due to the duelist nature of words.
You're performing a sematic trick, but it still serves a long-winded (to you a wall) purpose. While it does show deeper insight than most will give a word, it also unintentionally shows the limitation of words. Words are not an infinite offer. That would be the inspiration behind the words. Infinite is a non-understandable term in reference to things that exist.
Consider that Inspiration precedes expression.
It's written that In the beginning was 'the' word.....not one word, even tetragrammatron, lol, but that which inspires all subsequent (distinguishing/dividing/defining) words. Every one, every angel and daemon who have names, dancing on the head of finite pins.
I can read the writing on this wall plainly. I do understand the motive and context, given your name, and your consistent if not repetitive method to fit every statement as evidence of a theory that i 'get' but don't exactly share.
Are you trying to bring us together through an understanding? Words would be only the spoken vehicle for this inspiration, not the inspiration itself. Until then, they would tend to divide and con-fuse.
Con/against fusion/bringing together
Choices.
I will not downdoot you, because of the half that is always 'right'. kek
You do serve an important purpose here. That's my belief.
But you, I and we need to use words, which both divide by defintion and unite by spirit. Don't we. You and I as seperate, yet identifying as we?
If the de-fining is moving away from the uniting spirit of words, then why sharpen your teeth with that aspect of language?
a,b,c,d,e - that's five de-finings of one point, that's pretty 'sharp'.
But it waffles on it's own point, going back and forth between A and not A....as is the nature of words that de-fine or 'make a point' out of the whole. You and I. We.
Here's one: "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"
Why choose the DE-fining, when REfining the spirit might work to better effect.
Refining by definiton here, as removing impurities.
Try a different kind of exercise. If A, then not A.
If one, then two as not one, then three as observer of two. What would be four? Each as a new dimension............. And so on.
Learning to spell and the spirit behind.
It's a start.
a) import implies from origin; purpose implies towards outcome. Being implies EX (expressing) PORT (to carry in form).
b) others suggest progressivism to tempt one towards outcome; while ones consent imports suggested into self (information), while ignoring perceivable (inspiration). Nature doesn't inspire one to reach outcome; but to adapt to origin.
c) SERVE (Latin servo; to keep), hence becoming a slave to others, when consenting to hold onto suggested. Meanwhile; inception towards death doesn't allow life to keep anything; "only" to utilize everything.
Belief tempts one to hold onto; "being life" needs to be let go of.
Others (Bon Jovi) suggest that "It's my life", while offering a sleight of hand for those with eyes to see..."this ain't a song for the broken-hearted; No silent prayer for faith-departed". Being implies departed within whole; hence broken by division into units.
a) no other life-form shapes words out of sound to communicate.
b) agreeing (want) vs disagreeing (not want) with a suggested word; tempts one to ignore adaptation (need) to perceivable sound, hence ones consent to words shaping the conflicts of reason.
c) definite (affixed) contradicts -tion (motion)...it's ones consent to hold onto definitions, which affixes them within ones mind/memory.
d) what is it that one needs to describe to others with labels? Will a penis not find its way into a vagina without exchanged words? Isn't getting hard, and getting wet inspiration enough for intercourse?
e) consider this...if others cannot take words from one; can oneself resist using words from others? That represents ones inner struggle with outside temptation.
a) divide implies whole (oneness) into partials (ones), and unite implies UNIT (Latin unus; one). Others suggest dualism (both) and collectivism (unite) to distract one from discerning and sustaining self.
b) SPIR'IT, noun (Latin spiro) - "to breathe; air in motion; breath; animal excitement aka animation (motion) exciting mind/memory (momentum)" implies ones adaptation to that aka reaction (growth) adapting to action (loss).
Others suggest spiritualism (consisting of spirit); hence CONSIST (standing together; to be in a fixed or permanent state). That represents the inversion of spirit (adaptation to motion), and ones consent to the suggested -ism tempts one to hold onto; to affix it.
Aka suggested nihilism (doing nothing) and pluralism (we), tempting one (unit) to ignore being done by everything.
a) Identical (same) contradicts "you and I" (different). Ones consent to suggested identitarianism represents mass consensus, hence tempting each "different"one choosing "alike" to believe to be the "same".
b) Apartheid requires ones resistance; togetherness tempts one to submit to others; while ignoring to resist for sustenance of self.
c) Whole separates one (partial) from other ones (partials), which in return establishes each ones potential to grow self discernment or fall for the temptation of collectivism by hanging onto others.
d) ones claim over self (me; myself or I) shapes everyone else into a "you". Claiming self gives "yous" (jews) power of one. Why? Because each suggested CLAIM - "to call for; to ask or seek to obtain" is aimed at others, hence shaping other ones into "chosen ones".
a) suggested words (spell-craft) tempt one to consent to be spell-bound.
b) consenting to definitions (words) tempts one to ignore adapting (spirit) to motion (sound). Holding onto anything within a moving system tempts one to ignore being moved for that which one holds onto.
Notice how often people drowning ignore adapting to water by trying to hold onto anything floating. There's this vid of old white dude trying to save young black dude from drowning and the younger drowns both of them by holding onto.
c) as to why sharpening teeth with articulation of words (fiction)...because fiction (words) can only be shaped within reality (sound), and if one comprehends the difference; then it's just another unit of inspiration to draw from.
a) ABC (Latin abecedary) aka "abracadabra".
b) five of one represents one counting other ones as five, hence consenting to suggested collectivism. Each different symbol is shaped within the same symmetry (formed partials within flowing whole).
c) being choice within balance implies "on the razor's edge"...that's sharp.
a) "between" implies self as life in-between inception towards death; while "not" implies one ignoring everything (perceivable) for nothing (suggested).
A label (word) tricks one think it defines something; but underneath everything (sound) moves.
b) only while being (life) directed (inception towards death); can one freely (free will of choice) choose to wander (exchange; transform) around (up/down; left/right; back/forth).
The nature (perceivable) of words (suggested) implies ones ignorance of reality for fiction by consenting to suggested THE-ism (ones submission to authority of others).
Nature doesn't offer words; those within sound shape words to distract each other, which only works if ones consent to another ones offer, hence choice (consent) to choice (suggestion) contract law.
Whole introduces (inception) partial sentence (life) towards point (death)...others suggest one to "make a point" (end of sentence) as to distract from ones life sentence, hence tempting those within "out of". A suggested inversion.
Each one.
a) being implies finite (growth) within infinite (loss)...choosing others implies ignoring infinite for finite, hence the scarcity racket.
b) as for REFINE (depurate; free from impurities)...that implies being (free will of choice) within pure (balance). Ones choices of want over need soils self within pure, until natural order (inception towards death) cleans up chaos (life).
Cause (inception towards death aka value) generates best effects (life aka evaluation). The more one evaluates cause; the better ones effects will be.
Others utilize effect (suggested) to distract from cause (perceivable), which affects one if consented to.
Being implies within (im) that which is free from mixture (pure), while responding (re) to being moved.
The suggested word "remove" implies change of place; while being "re-move" implies ones place (life) within change (inception towards death), hence reacting (re) to it changing (move).
Without self discernment (position within change) the suggested words of others change ones position.
a) implication (if/then) implies motion...if nothing (not); then no motion.
b) not implies conflict of reason (everything vs nothing). Others suggest reasoning over suggested (words) to distract from implication within perceivable (sound).
If sound; then words. If words; then agreeing vs disagreeing with definitions. It's oneself that corrupts implication with reason and others suggest words (logos) to tempt reason (logic).
Georgia Guidstones: "let these be guidestones to an age of reason".
a) new, néwos, now...there's only now (perceivable moment-um within motion) for those within, hence nothing new under the SUN; SOL; SOUL; SOLE (one and only) aka "there can be only one" aka "one for all and all for one" aka "alone"...ALL(in)ONE.
b) dimension aka DIS (apart) METIRI (to measure) ION (action) aka partial reactions measuring each other within whole action. Oneself represents DI (partial) within MENT (mind/memory/momentum) of ION (whole/motion).
SPELL - "a charm consisting of some words of occult power" aka temptation to conceal perceivable (sound) with suggested (words) by consent.
Check out the lyrics of "I Put a Spell On You"... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffB5ZwJ41AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMu0zGd2mXM
Sound implies simplicity; words shape complexity...one gets lost in complexity (suggested information) when ignoring simplicity (perceivable inspiration).
From your perspective...a wall of text. From my perspective...a drop of expressed inspiration; drawn from an infinite offer.
You will always be correct in half a sense due to the duelist nature of words. You're performing a sematic trick, but it still serves a long-winded (to you a wall) purpose. While it does show deeper insight than most will give a word, it also unintentionally shows the limitation of words. Words are not an infinite offer. That would be the inspiration behind the words. Infinite is a non-understandable term in reference to things that exist.
Consider that Inspiration precedes expression.
It's written that In the beginning was 'the' word.....not one word, even tetragrammatron, lol, but that which inspires all subsequent (distinguishing/dividing/defining) words. Every one, every angel and daemon who have names, dancing on the head of finite pins.
I can read the writing on this wall plainly. I do understand the motive and context, given your name, and your consistent if not repetitive method to fit every statement as evidence of a theory that i 'get' but don't exactly share.
I've broken it down to the letter and number, fren, and understand that the 'map is not the territory'. https://instituteofclinicalhypnosis.com/nlp/map-is-not-the-territory-nlp/
Are you trying to bring us together through an understanding? Words would be only the spoken vehicle for this inspiration, not the inspiration itself. Until then, they would tend to divide and con-fuse.
Con/against fusion/bringing together
Choices.
I will not downdoot you, because of the half that is always 'right'. kek