I know my name

a) One does not perceive (know) a noun (name)...one upholds a suggested noun upon perceivable. The name has to be given to something that existed beforehand without a name.

b) If a name is mine; then why are others required to give it to me? If others are not required to give me a name; then why would I require a name among others?

c) Can one claim self as "me; myself or I" without naming everyone else "you"?

d) Is there a difference between claiming for self and taking from another?

bob and proctor are two words

a) Hum, while saying "two" words...is it really two words or one sound?

b) Does two exist without one counting others? Where within nature can one perceive two?

c) Does all perceivable suggest each ones perception to count anything? How? How does nature shape a suggestion towards ones perception?

my parents give them to me

a) Where did my parents got the words to give from? How do I take a given word? Can one posses a word?

b) Explain the transaction of giving and taking among those within nature, and nature giving (inception) and taking (death) from each one (life) within...

that's an interesting question

Does being alive imply "within essence" (inter-esse) and is it a quest (question) towards an outcome or a struggle to sustain self within origin?

I believe if a person

If being implies by sound (per sonos); then is belief required for one to discern self?

look for the answer and you'll find it

a) What if an answer tempts one to wait for an outcome; while ignoring that ones origin implies solution (inception towards death) for ones problem (life)?

b) Why should life look forward, when it has sight (left/right; up/down; front/back) within origin?

simultaneously in three planes of understanding

a) What if there's only one plane (inception towards death) for each one within (life)?

b) What if similar (inception towards death) generates differences (life)?

c) What if ones understanding implies "standing-under" another ones suggestion by willing consent?

d) Where's the perceivable "three" without one choosing to count other ones as two, three...?

spiritual creatures

a) Spirit (Latin spiro, to breathe) implies partial (expression) adapting to whole (impression)...whole had to exist before partial came to be.

b) Suggested creationism implies "out of nothing", while being partial within whole implies "within everything".

c) How could ones perception perceive any creation, when all perceivable had to exist before ones perception came to be? One cannot have awareness of surrounding without surrounding generating ones awareness at center.

we have an intellect

Intellect (Latin intelligo; to understand) implies standing-under what another suggests. How could one have what another suggests one to submit to? That's like kissing the pimp hand while pretending to own it...aka a bitch on stockholm syndrome.

we live in physical...

Matter (life) can only live within momentum (inception towards death) of motion aka physical (matter) within mental (momentum) of spiritual (motion). Motion forces one to breathe; while momentum implies the perceivable moment one has to react by free will of choice to sustain matter...or ignore it.

because we lack awareness

Self discernment implies "being within cause", hence not lacking anything, but given access to everything. Ignorance/denial thereof can be discerned right back to ones free will of choice given by the internal balance (momentum) of everything (motion) given to each one (matter) within...unless further ignored/denied by each ones free will of choice.

Others tempt one to ignore/denial self discernment with suggested rhetoric like "because"...which inverts "cause towards being"...yet only ones consent by free will of choice to the suggested rhetoric by another establishes ignorance/denial.

we're totally locked

Total (perceivable) sets partial (perception) free (will of choice)...choosing to consent to the suggestions by another locks one within ones mind/memory, where one remembers and contemplates suggested information; while ignoring/denying perceivable inspiration.

we let things outside of us control us

Ones consent to the suggestion by another permits another to control from outside, what one puts inside self.

Perceivable inspiration goes through one and cannot be held onto; while suggested information tempts one to hold onto it within ones mind/memory; where it becomes simultaneously ones burden upon self and ones debt to another.

reacting to life

Process of dying acts; living reacts...reaction can be tricked to ignore action, for the reactions of one another.

Few suggest actors under directors to distract many from discerning self as reactors (life) within direction (inception towards death).

We are souls with a body. Most people are too distracted by everything to notice.