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 will always be correct in half a sense due to the duelist nature of words.
a) artifice of words can only be shaped within nature of sound.
b) sound offers oneness (whole) to each one (partial)...suggested words tempt ones consent to agree or disagree with the offer. In other words...sound flows through each one, no matter if one agrees or disagrees, while each formed word one agrees or disagrees to hold onto, while ignoring the ongoing flow of sound.
It's ones consent to hold onto a suggestions, which establishes the dual-ism within perceivable oneness.
c) suggesting "will always be" tempts one to ignore that all way establishes each ones being with a will. Consenting to the former establishes the dualism of always vs never, while adapting to the latter implies different beings (partials) within same way (whole).
Ones consent implies free "will" of choice, hence utilizing ones will to ignore all perceivable way, when submitting to the suggested will of another.
correct
Consenting to dualism establishes correct versus incorrect reasoning, which tempts one to ignore implication of CORRECT (to set straight) and IN (being within aka life) CORRECT (set straight aka being moved from inception towards death).
Straight (inception towards death) generates curves (living growth within loss)...
You're performing a sematic trick
a) form (life) implies per (by) flow (inception towards death). Others suggest perform to distract consenting form from perflow.
b) semantics represents idolatry aka labeling form within flow, while tempting each other to ignore flow (sound) for form (word), when consenting to hold onto the suggested meaning/definition/brand/idol/symbolism/information etc.
c) the foundation of trick implies folding (information) the unfolding (inspiration) by tempting others to consent to hold onto the folded... FOLD (inclosure for sheep), hence the wool of ignorance over ones eyes.
Nature unfolds oneness (whole) into ones (partials)...others fold ones into two; three; four etc.
COUNT (collecting units) generates ACCOUNT (registry of a debt or credit), hence ones creed (consent) putting one into debt (uphold information) to others (suggestion). Those others can then put the NEEDLE (perceivable need) to the RECORD (suggested want) which sets the record straight.
DISC (width of aperture aka growth potential) + JOCKEY (a cheat; one who deceives or takes undue advantage in trade).
it still serves a long-winded (to you a wall) purpose
a) being implies short (life) within long (inception towards death) + winded (growth within loss aka resistance) within straight (velocity).
c) PUR'POSE (that which a person sets before himself as an object to be reached)...person aka per sonos (by sound) implies sound as the origin "for being", hence whole existing "be-fore" each partial being.
PURPOSE aka Latin PRO (before) PONO (setting; placement), then memory (ment) of ones position (place) implies momentum of motion...not suggested outcomes, others objectify as trinkets to tempt one to subjectify self to suggested progressivism.
d) masons of free (will of choice) utilize suggested information as bricks and ones consent as mortar to build walls of ignorance within ones mind/memory. For the masonic few; the ignorance of the many represents a "wailing wall", a wall a chosen one faces; laments; mourns; bewails; while filling the cracks with more and more suggested prayers. Even fertilizing the wall (davening) or holding a hand against it is utilized to prevent it from collapsing.
deeper insight
Consenting to hold onto suggested information buries ones sight deep under it, while permitting others to layer more information upon it. Ones perception within perceivable implies center within surrounding; expression within impressing; resisting temptation within velocity of inspiration aka interior at the surface of exterior aka perceivable represents the outermost boundary (surface) for each ones perception within.
In short...limited sight (life) within unlimited surface (inception towards death). Others tempt one to understand aka to stand (deep) under another.
the limitation of words
Aka ones consent to suggested THE-ism limiting one to the authority of another suggesting words. Resisting the temptation of suggestion allows one to draw all perceivable sound from each suggested word.
Words don't limit sound...one limits self when ignoring sound for words.
Words are not an infinite offer. That would be the inspiration behind the words.
Using "not" implies ones consent to suggested nihilism (nothing) while ignoring everything perceivable. Suggestion doesn't represent an offer; it represents the temptation for one to ignore that only perceivable offers.
Merchants of temptation trick one into a trade (suggested for consent)...consenting (want or not want) to suggested tempts one to ignore perceivable offer (need). Afterwards not wanting "offends" ones wanting. That's how the few invert offer (perceivable) into offense (suggestion), which tempts the many into conflicts (reason) against one another.
Infinite is a non-understandable term in reference to things that exist.
a) "non" implies ones consent to suggested nihilism, hence ones submission to "stand under" another. If one resists self repression, then one can express self by compressing (comprehension) impressing (perceivable). Solid (life) can only compress within momentum (inception towards death) of fluid, by resisting it...not by yielding to other solids.
b) REF'ERENCE - "a sending, dismission or direction to another for information" tempts one to ignore being (life) directed (inception toward death) within inspiration.
c) "things that ex-ist" implies finite expressions. Infinite impression inspires ones growth of self discernment through adaptation to implication (if/then)...adapting implies as free will of choice.
That's the moment where finite ignores infinite, while getting lost in thought.
Consider that Inspiration precedes expression.
a) suggested PRECEDE (lead the way) aka PRE (before) CEDERE (to yield) tempts one to ignore that inspiring expression implies ones resistance.
b) consideration (to fix the mind on) tempts one (solid) to ignore inspiration (fluid). Ones consent to the suggestions by others shape affixed information, which one then fixes ones mind on.
c) IN (being within) SPIRIT (Latin spiro; to breathe aka adaptation of solid to fluid) TION (action aka fluid for solid reactions).
It's written that In the beginning was 'the' word...
a) writing symbols (information) copies symmetry (inspiration). Center cannot write without surrounding to write within, about and in response to.
b) generation (motion) establishes beginning (inception) and end (death) within its momentum as reactions to source. Beginning and end represent limitations inside an unlimited source.
c) "in the...was..." implies inside of outside, so outside was before the-ism could be suggested inside.
d) without outside (balance) no inside (choice). Sound (whole) doesn't require choice; instrument (partial) does...otherwise being couldn't prepare (instruo) mind (ment) to play and "all work an no play makes jack a dull boy".
not one...but that which inspires all subsequent
Oneness of sound inspires each one subsequent instrument (prepared mind) and sequence (natural order of succession arranging minds) implies motion. Whole moves; partials react to being moved.
Others suggest BUT (except; besides; unless) to distract from oneness; whole (sound); energy (internal/inherent power). Use implication to discern that...if energy; then "except; besides; unless"...what else?
subsequent equals defining
How could a substance within sequence define abstract sequence? What if substance can only discern self; which in return allows exponential growth within abstract, hence comprehending more and more about perceivable abstract before losing ones stance (growth) to it (loss), hence being reabsorbed into it?
I can read the writing on this wall plainly
Plain (inception towards death) doesn't put a wall before existence (life)...choosing to ignore perceivable plain for suggested plans (or planets) build a wall of ignorance within ones mind/memory.
As long as one reads; so long does one binds self to the writing of another.
I do understand...
...yet while standing-under I ignore being (life) done by (inception towards death).
motive and context
Motion (motive) sets itself apart (from whole into partial); choosing to weave together (context) tempts one to ignore self for others.
Context (suggested) tempts one to ignore motive (perceivable).
Others suggest motive to mean "incite to action", which tempts one to ignore that motion (action) incites ones reaction. Ones consent to suggested motive permits others to suggest context.
consistent if not repetitive
Velocity (consistent loss) generates resistance (growth)...resisting implies frequency (repetition) of choice. Resistance is fertile...unless ignored.
Same (inception towards death) offers difference (life)...resisting sameness; grows difference. Resist nihilism (not) and reading the same will inspire one to adapt differently. The more one does that; the more inspiration one will draw from what before seemed like the same information.
How often can you say "word" before noticing sound underneath? If you run out of breath, then the word disappears, yet you still draw in from sound...
a theory that i 'get' but don't exactly share
a) if each one got perception; then perceivable was shared onto each one.
b) EXACT (precise; not different in the least)...being implies one different from one another. Others suggest exact to tempt many ones to conform to rules, while ignoring that nature sets apart aka differentiates.
c) don't aka doing nothing...care to elaborate how that works?
map is not the territory
a) all is one in energy
b) MAP (representation of the surface) + TERRITORY (domain) represents ones free will of choice (to represent surface) within dominance of balance (as the surrounding domain of centered choice).
c) ...is not. Can you put any perceivable inspiration before "is not" or only suggested information?
Notice that within all that I write; I seldom describe what something "is not". What if expressing everything that was prevents one from the temptation to suggest what something "is not"?
Are you trying to bring us together through an understanding?
I describe the contradictions of ones consent to suggested pluralism (us); collectivism (together) and conformism (understand) within perceivable reality...a reality that sets one apart from one another; which establishes the potential for self expression (need) or repression (want) depending on ones free will of choice.
Are you...?
From your perspective: "I am whatever you say I am...if I wasn't, then why would I say I am?"
From ones perspective: "the way (inception towards death) I (life) am"
Whatever another suggests to the question "are you?" tempts one to ignore that everything about the other was perceivable before the suggestion could be shaped.
Words would be only the spoken vehicle for this inspiration, not the inspiration itself
Few drive the vehicle of words; many are just in it for the ride. Most won't realize that sound drives them over a cliff unless resisted. A driver gets inspired to adapt to ongoing threats; while a passenger gets tempted to enjoy the surrounding passing by.
I will not downdoot you
Others suggest voting to tempt one to reason (updoot vs downdoot) against others; while ignoring free will of choice to sustain self.
DEFINE, verb (Latin to end, to limit, from finis, end) - "to mark the limit; to circumscribe; to bound" contradicts FREE.
Free will of choice binds itself to suggestions by others when consenting. Ask yourself who benefits...those bound to suggested definitions of words or those suggesting them? Can free will of choice exist without either binding self to suggestions or suggesting others to bind themselves?
Suggested creationism (out of nothing) is build upon suggested nihilism (nothing), which tempts one to ignore that nature produces from whole into partials aka from surrounding into center aka from external into internal aka from loss into growth aka from order into chaos aka...motion (male) to momentum (fe-male) to trans-form (off-spring).
are you compelled by the disruption...in your conscience?
Being conscious implies as partial among other partials (moving differences) aka disruption of whole into partials through the momentum of motion as the status quo for inspiration.
If everything were the same; then what would inspire one to express self? What would differentiate one from another? Hence internal differentiation aka disruption of ongoing order (inception towards death) into temporary chaos (life).
As for compel aka COM (together) PELLERE (to drive)...a distraction from impel aka being driven apart within whole.
It's ones consent to the suggestions by others which compels information together within ones mind/memory, which represents internal compartmentalization.
In short...anything contradicting motion stands out like sour thumb, and so I utilize it as inspiration to draw from. What contradicts motion the most? Those within holding onto anything.
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
a) artifice of words can only be shaped within nature of sound.
b) sound offers oneness (whole) to each one (partial)...suggested words tempt ones consent to agree or disagree with the offer. In other words...sound flows through each one, no matter if one agrees or disagrees, while each formed word one agrees or disagrees to hold onto, while ignoring the ongoing flow of sound.
It's ones consent to hold onto a suggestions, which establishes the dual-ism within perceivable oneness.
c) suggesting "will always be" tempts one to ignore that all way establishes each ones being with a will. Consenting to the former establishes the dualism of always vs never, while adapting to the latter implies different beings (partials) within same way (whole).
Ones consent implies free "will" of choice, hence utilizing ones will to ignore all perceivable way, when submitting to the suggested will of another.
Consenting to dualism establishes correct versus incorrect reasoning, which tempts one to ignore implication of CORRECT (to set straight) and IN (being within aka life) CORRECT (set straight aka being moved from inception towards death).
Straight (inception towards death) generates curves (living growth within loss)...
a) form (life) implies per (by) flow (inception towards death). Others suggest perform to distract consenting form from perflow.
b) semantics represents idolatry aka labeling form within flow, while tempting each other to ignore flow (sound) for form (word), when consenting to hold onto the suggested meaning/definition/brand/idol/symbolism/information etc.
c) the foundation of trick implies folding (information) the unfolding (inspiration) by tempting others to consent to hold onto the folded... FOLD (inclosure for sheep), hence the wool of ignorance over ones eyes.
Nature unfolds oneness (whole) into ones (partials)...others fold ones into two; three; four etc.
COUNT (collecting units) generates ACCOUNT (registry of a debt or credit), hence ones creed (consent) putting one into debt (uphold information) to others (suggestion). Those others can then put the NEEDLE (perceivable need) to the RECORD (suggested want) which sets the record straight.
DISC (width of aperture aka growth potential) + JOCKEY (a cheat; one who deceives or takes undue advantage in trade).
a) being implies short (life) within long (inception towards death) + winded (growth within loss aka resistance) within straight (velocity).
c) PUR'POSE (that which a person sets before himself as an object to be reached)...person aka per sonos (by sound) implies sound as the origin "for being", hence whole existing "be-fore" each partial being.
PURPOSE aka Latin PRO (before) PONO (setting; placement), then memory (ment) of ones position (place) implies momentum of motion...not suggested outcomes, others objectify as trinkets to tempt one to subjectify self to suggested progressivism.
d) masons of free (will of choice) utilize suggested information as bricks and ones consent as mortar to build walls of ignorance within ones mind/memory. For the masonic few; the ignorance of the many represents a "wailing wall", a wall a chosen one faces; laments; mourns; bewails; while filling the cracks with more and more suggested prayers. Even fertilizing the wall (davening) or holding a hand against it is utilized to prevent it from collapsing.
Consenting to hold onto suggested information buries ones sight deep under it, while permitting others to layer more information upon it. Ones perception within perceivable implies center within surrounding; expression within impressing; resisting temptation within velocity of inspiration aka interior at the surface of exterior aka perceivable represents the outermost boundary (surface) for each ones perception within.
In short...limited sight (life) within unlimited surface (inception towards death). Others tempt one to understand aka to stand (deep) under another.
Aka ones consent to suggested THE-ism limiting one to the authority of another suggesting words. Resisting the temptation of suggestion allows one to draw all perceivable sound from each suggested word.
Words don't limit sound...one limits self when ignoring sound for words.
Using "not" implies ones consent to suggested nihilism (nothing) while ignoring everything perceivable. Suggestion doesn't represent an offer; it represents the temptation for one to ignore that only perceivable offers.
Merchants of temptation trick one into a trade (suggested for consent)...consenting (want or not want) to suggested tempts one to ignore perceivable offer (need). Afterwards not wanting "offends" ones wanting. That's how the few invert offer (perceivable) into offense (suggestion), which tempts the many into conflicts (reason) against one another.
a) "non" implies ones consent to suggested nihilism, hence ones submission to "stand under" another. If one resists self repression, then one can express self by compressing (comprehension) impressing (perceivable). Solid (life) can only compress within momentum (inception towards death) of fluid, by resisting it...not by yielding to other solids.
b) REF'ERENCE - "a sending, dismission or direction to another for information" tempts one to ignore being (life) directed (inception toward death) within inspiration.
c) "things that ex-ist" implies finite expressions. Infinite impression inspires ones growth of self discernment through adaptation to implication (if/then)...adapting implies as free will of choice.
That's the moment where finite ignores infinite, while getting lost in thought.
a) suggested PRECEDE (lead the way) aka PRE (before) CEDERE (to yield) tempts one to ignore that inspiring expression implies ones resistance.
b) consideration (to fix the mind on) tempts one (solid) to ignore inspiration (fluid). Ones consent to the suggestions by others shape affixed information, which one then fixes ones mind on.
c) IN (being within) SPIRIT (Latin spiro; to breathe aka adaptation of solid to fluid) TION (action aka fluid for solid reactions).
a) writing symbols (information) copies symmetry (inspiration). Center cannot write without surrounding to write within, about and in response to.
b) generation (motion) establishes beginning (inception) and end (death) within its momentum as reactions to source. Beginning and end represent limitations inside an unlimited source.
c) "in the...was..." implies inside of outside, so outside was before the-ism could be suggested inside.
d) without outside (balance) no inside (choice). Sound (whole) doesn't require choice; instrument (partial) does...otherwise being couldn't prepare (instruo) mind (ment) to play and "all work an no play makes jack a dull boy".
Oneness of sound inspires each one subsequent instrument (prepared mind) and sequence (natural order of succession arranging minds) implies motion. Whole moves; partials react to being moved.
Others suggest BUT (except; besides; unless) to distract from oneness; whole (sound); energy (internal/inherent power). Use implication to discern that...if energy; then "except; besides; unless"...what else?
How could a substance within sequence define abstract sequence? What if substance can only discern self; which in return allows exponential growth within abstract, hence comprehending more and more about perceivable abstract before losing ones stance (growth) to it (loss), hence being reabsorbed into it?
Plain (inception towards death) doesn't put a wall before existence (life)...choosing to ignore perceivable plain for suggested plans (or planets) build a wall of ignorance within ones mind/memory.
As long as one reads; so long does one binds self to the writing of another.
...yet while standing-under I ignore being (life) done by (inception towards death).
Motion (motive) sets itself apart (from whole into partial); choosing to weave together (context) tempts one to ignore self for others.
Context (suggested) tempts one to ignore motive (perceivable).
Others suggest motive to mean "incite to action", which tempts one to ignore that motion (action) incites ones reaction. Ones consent to suggested motive permits others to suggest context.
Velocity (consistent loss) generates resistance (growth)...resisting implies frequency (repetition) of choice. Resistance is fertile...unless ignored.
Same (inception towards death) offers difference (life)...resisting sameness; grows difference. Resist nihilism (not) and reading the same will inspire one to adapt differently. The more one does that; the more inspiration one will draw from what before seemed like the same information.
How often can you say "word" before noticing sound underneath? If you run out of breath, then the word disappears, yet you still draw in from sound...
a) if each one got perception; then perceivable was shared onto each one.
b) EXACT (precise; not different in the least)...being implies one different from one another. Others suggest exact to tempt many ones to conform to rules, while ignoring that nature sets apart aka differentiates.
c) don't aka doing nothing...care to elaborate how that works?
a) all is one in energy
b) MAP (representation of the surface) + TERRITORY (domain) represents ones free will of choice (to represent surface) within dominance of balance (as the surrounding domain of centered choice).
c) ...is not. Can you put any perceivable inspiration before "is not" or only suggested information?
Notice that within all that I write; I seldom describe what something "is not". What if expressing everything that was prevents one from the temptation to suggest what something "is not"?
I describe the contradictions of ones consent to suggested pluralism (us); collectivism (together) and conformism (understand) within perceivable reality...a reality that sets one apart from one another; which establishes the potential for self expression (need) or repression (want) depending on ones free will of choice.
From your perspective: "I am whatever you say I am...if I wasn't, then why would I say I am?"
From ones perspective: "the way (inception towards death) I (life) am"
Whatever another suggests to the question "are you?" tempts one to ignore that everything about the other was perceivable before the suggestion could be shaped.
Few drive the vehicle of words; many are just in it for the ride. Most won't realize that sound drives them over a cliff unless resisted. A driver gets inspired to adapt to ongoing threats; while a passenger gets tempted to enjoy the surrounding passing by.
Others suggest voting to tempt one to reason (updoot vs downdoot) against others; while ignoring free will of choice to sustain self.
Do you respond by defining words by 'free' will, or are you compelled by the disruption it creates in your conscience?
DEFINE, verb (Latin to end, to limit, from finis, end) - "to mark the limit; to circumscribe; to bound" contradicts FREE.
Free will of choice binds itself to suggestions by others when consenting. Ask yourself who benefits...those bound to suggested definitions of words or those suggesting them? Can free will of choice exist without either binding self to suggestions or suggesting others to bind themselves?
Suggested creationism (out of nothing) is build upon suggested nihilism (nothing), which tempts one to ignore that nature produces from whole into partials aka from surrounding into center aka from external into internal aka from loss into growth aka from order into chaos aka...motion (male) to momentum (fe-male) to trans-form (off-spring).
Being conscious implies as partial among other partials (moving differences) aka disruption of whole into partials through the momentum of motion as the status quo for inspiration.
If everything were the same; then what would inspire one to express self? What would differentiate one from another? Hence internal differentiation aka disruption of ongoing order (inception towards death) into temporary chaos (life).
As for compel aka COM (together) PELLERE (to drive)...a distraction from impel aka being driven apart within whole.
It's ones consent to the suggestions by others which compels information together within ones mind/memory, which represents internal compartmentalization.
In short...anything contradicting motion stands out like sour thumb, and so I utilize it as inspiration to draw from. What contradicts motion the most? Those within holding onto anything.
yes, that
Are you compelled by the disruption?
Was that a yes or a no? A re-definition doesn't provide answer.
To file the point.