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.
If/then (implication) implies motion as foundation. This and That represent definite adjectives, hence tempting one to define (affix) this or that as such (alike).
The more one chooses to define alike; the less one comprehends about being different (life) within sameness (inception towards death).
If that, this not this. if not this, then not that. If not that, then this.
All this represents misuse of implication (if/then) after consenting to suggested nihilism (not), hence putting self into a conflict of reason...
If half right, then half wrong.
...right versus wrong reasoning over suggested, while ignoring perceivable.
In short: instead of "if nothing; then nothing else" try "if everything; then each thing within"...
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.
If this then that. If that, this not this. if not this, then not that. If not that, then this.
If half right, then half wrong.
Ad nauseam.
If/then (implication) implies motion as foundation. This and That represent definite adjectives, hence tempting one to define (affix) this or that as such (alike).
The more one chooses to define alike; the less one comprehends about being different (life) within sameness (inception towards death).
All this represents misuse of implication (if/then) after consenting to suggested nihilism (not), hence putting self into a conflict of reason...
...right versus wrong reasoning over suggested, while ignoring perceivable.
In short: instead of "if nothing; then nothing else" try "if everything; then each thing within"...
All this represents misuse of implication (if/then) after consenting to suggested nihilism (not), hence putting self into a conflict of reason...
Thank you for finally coming full circle to MY point about what you do.
Every statement can be seen as conflict or as confluence.
Choices