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.
b) only within all sound can each one word be shaped.
b) being (life) implies in-between before (inception) and after (death).
'two' sides of every definition
Two contradicts "definite", since it implies more than one.
splitting
The splitting of suggested words into contradicting definitions; tempts one to ignore that perceivable sound was split into each suggestible word by the person (per sonos; by sound) suggesting it.
I write about the whole (sound) others ignore for split partials (words).
always half...
Half contradicts ALL way. Internal doesn't represent half of external, but partial within whole. Each "one" partial is part of whole "oneness". Ones ignorance of self for suggested dualism is why the spell H'ALF, (one equal part of a thing) works.
There cannot be one partial equal to another partial; because each partial implies a different position within whole.
The numbers and letters are not 'equal to' the whole. They are minus one. The One who can re-member them. Remembering the source makes them return to 'wholesomeness'.
Until then, they divide by choosing one side of the definition.
DE-fining the spirit AS word will be shown to have mistakes inherent in language itself. As you know, better than you would admit.
Like explaining something (numbers and letters) within everything (whole) while using nothing (not) to do so? One chose to take suggested "not"; hence missing everything aka miss-take.
If one takes (suggested); then one misses (perceivable)...free will of choice.
minus one
Energy minus one equals? Can there be less energy inside whole energy?
they divide by choosing one side of the definition.
aka reasoning (wanting vs not wanting suggested).
DE-fining the spirit AS word will be shown to have mistakes inherent in language itself.
Hence me utilizing breathing; adaptation; reaction to enacting; free will of choice in-between balance etc.
It's using THE spirit that tempts others to hold onto suggested the-ism, and then spiritualism and so on.
Remembering the source makes them return to 'wholesomeness'.
Remembering tempts one to ignore being (life) in-between departure (inception) and return (death), hence apartheid resisting wholeness to sustain self.
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.
a) before pars (partial) exists whole.
b) only within all sound can each one word be shaped.
b) being (life) implies in-between before (inception) and after (death).
Two contradicts "definite", since it implies more than one.
The splitting of suggested words into contradicting definitions; tempts one to ignore that perceivable sound was split into each suggestible word by the person (per sonos; by sound) suggesting it.
I write about the whole (sound) others ignore for split partials (words).
Half contradicts ALL way. Internal doesn't represent half of external, but partial within whole. Each "one" partial is part of whole "oneness". Ones ignorance of self for suggested dualism is why the spell H'ALF, (one equal part of a thing) works.
There cannot be one partial equal to another partial; because each partial implies a different position within whole.
The numbers and letters are not 'equal to' the whole. They are minus one. The One who can re-member them. Remembering the source makes them return to 'wholesomeness'.
Until then, they divide by choosing one side of the definition.
DE-fining the spirit AS word will be shown to have mistakes inherent in language itself. As you know, better than you would admit.
Like explaining something (numbers and letters) within everything (whole) while using nothing (not) to do so? One chose to take suggested "not"; hence missing everything aka miss-take.
If one takes (suggested); then one misses (perceivable)...free will of choice.
Energy minus one equals? Can there be less energy inside whole energy?
aka reasoning (wanting vs not wanting suggested).
Hence me utilizing breathing; adaptation; reaction to enacting; free will of choice in-between balance etc.
It's using THE spirit that tempts others to hold onto suggested the-ism, and then spiritualism and so on.
Remembering tempts one to ignore being (life) in-between departure (inception) and return (death), hence apartheid resisting wholeness to sustain self.