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.
That's reasoning within your head only, while seeking others to confirm or deny information.
A re-definition doesn't provide answer.
a) nature provides solution...suggested answers and questions tempt one to ignore resisting (life) while being dissolved (inception towards death) within solution.
b) TION (action) doesn't DEFINE (affix) RE (reaction)...it sets it free (will of choice).
c) if you resist suggested definitions and re-definitions; then you'll sense the only solution.
To file the point.
Aka to store an ending within memory. That contradicts being...how could sentence (life) file point (death)? It's the ongoing process of dying which generates a temporary life sentence within storage; memory; momentum.
It's reasoning which tempts one to seek an end to conflict, while implication (if/then) goes on from the moment of inception to the moment of death. Reasoning represents the perpetuation of conflict, hence viewing the world in confronting opposites (dualism).
are you compelled by the disruption?
You view others as compelling disruptions...I represent free partial (life) impelled within dominant whole (inception towards death).
Only if one consents; can the suggestion of another disrupt one, at which point one compelled self to another.
2EyesOpen
Each one exists at a different position, while seeing a different perspective. Are you open to perceivable ONE (1) underneath suggested TWO (2)?
"Are you open to perceivable ONE (1) underneath suggested TWO (2)?"
You mean after parsing all those words of mine you didn't understand that was exactly my point and you unravel the one by going for the 'two' sides of every definition?
And that's why i say you're always half right. And won't downdoot the hair-splitting.
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.
That's reasoning within your head only, while seeking others to confirm or deny information.
a) nature provides solution...suggested answers and questions tempt one to ignore resisting (life) while being dissolved (inception towards death) within solution.
b) TION (action) doesn't DEFINE (affix) RE (reaction)...it sets it free (will of choice).
c) if you resist suggested definitions and re-definitions; then you'll sense the only solution.
Aka to store an ending within memory. That contradicts being...how could sentence (life) file point (death)? It's the ongoing process of dying which generates a temporary life sentence within storage; memory; momentum.
It's reasoning which tempts one to seek an end to conflict, while implication (if/then) goes on from the moment of inception to the moment of death. Reasoning represents the perpetuation of conflict, hence viewing the world in confronting opposites (dualism).
You view others as compelling disruptions...I represent free partial (life) impelled within dominant whole (inception towards death).
Only if one consents; can the suggestion of another disrupt one, at which point one compelled self to another.
Each one exists at a different position, while seeing a different perspective. Are you open to perceivable ONE (1) underneath suggested TWO (2)?
"Are you open to perceivable ONE (1) underneath suggested TWO (2)?"
You mean after parsing all those words of mine you didn't understand that was exactly my point and you unravel the one by going for the 'two' sides of every definition?
And that's why i say you're always half right. And won't downdoot the hair-splitting.