Is it reduction to acknowledge letters used to shape words? Is it reduction to acknowledge perceivable sound underneath suggestible words?
etymological...reasoning with yourself in a form of self-debate
a) Reasoning implies a conflict against others; hence choosing a side, which brands everyone else as ones opposite. For example...agree vs disagree; true vs false; belief vs disbelief; yes vs no; me vs you; us vs them etc.
One cannot choose a side within any conflict of reason without opposing others.
b) Notice that YOURself implies a conflict of reason...MYself vs YOURself.
The foundation for this...nature designates units (Latin unitas; unus; one) aka each one's self. If one chooses to claim self as "me; myself or I"; then one brands every other one as "YOU".
ME generates YOU. Nature implies oneness (whole) generating ones (partials). Ones claim over self (me) implies self possession, which in return permits another (you) to establish demonic possession aka dai-mon - "divider; provider" by dividing one into a conflict of reason against others through provided suggestions.
If one consents to a suggestion (want or not want); then one establishes a conflict of reason (want versus not want).
c) Reason implies form vs form; implication implies form (life) within flow (inception towards death).
Few suggest inFORMation to tempt many to ignore perceivable inSPIRation. Latin spiro (to breathe) implies forms adaptation to flow aka life adapting to being moved from inception towards death aka reaction (exhale) adapting to action (inhale).
generally understood definition
a) Definite (fixed) contradicts tion (action aka motion). Ones consent to suggested information implies ones free will of choice holding onto a definition, while ignoring perceivable inspiration...which one cannot hold onto, since it moves. Hold onto your breath to discern that for self.
The trick...suggested definition aka DEAF PHONETICIAN tempts one to ignore perceivable PHONIC (sound; entire aka all perceivable offered to each ones perception).
b) Understand implies "standing under" aka ones consent submitting self to the suggestion of another, while ignoring to stand up/rise/sustain self within KNOWL'EDGE, noun - "perception of that which exists".
c) Being implies reactor (life) within generator (inception towards death) aka reaction within action aka form within flow aka matter within motion.
Few collectivize many into "gentiles" by tricking each one to react to suggestions by few instead of perceivable generation. If reactor ignores generation; then it ignores re-generation of self.
In other words...suggested "actors" under "directors" tempts one to ignore being directed (inception towards death) reactors (life).
Simply suggesting the word "actor" inverts reality, where matter reacts to enacting motion...if one consents to suggested, which ignores perceivable.
with your own "devil's advocate" (contrarian perspective)
a) If one exists (life) WITHin (inception towards death); then that implies a separation by motion into matter....matter cannot own anything within motion.
Few utilize suggestion to tempt many to CLAIM ownership by consent aka to buy into what few are selling aka to take into possession aka to avow; to confess; to belong etc.
b) Reason implies contrary (versus); which contradicts implication (if/then).
There's no conflict within implication...if motion; then matter + if balance; then choice + if whole; then partials + if all; then ones + If inception towards death; then life etc.
Nature doesn't reason...it moves; which implies those being moved. It's those within nature who choose to ignore perceivable for each others suggestions, who are reasoning against one another over the suggested while ignoring implication of all perceivable.
This is the foundation for the great work of masonry...hiding reality (perceivable inspiration; implication) underneath fiction (suggested information; reason).
c) Advocate aka ad (towards) vocare (to call) implies suggested progressivism tempting ones consent forwards, while ignore that perception (life) needs to resist wanted temptations within perceivable (inception towards death).
Life cannot consent to suggested progressivism without destroying itself...yet few can suggest progressivism to tempt many to willingly destroy each other.
to find a truth
Consenting to suggested information implies wanting (truth) or not wanting (lies) it; while ignoring perceivable need (change).
Applying change to truth changes it into a lie and vice versa. Take for example "I AM"...that's a truth suggested during change (inception towards death), hence moving towards becoming a lie...no matter how hard one tries to hold onto ones life.
In short...suggested words contradict perceivable sound. The former tempts one to hold onto it as truth; which permits others to use contradiction as lies, while perceivable sound simply changes aka moves.
you may not have been previously aware of without exploring your own logical constructs.
What if one uses implication (if/then) instead of logic/reason aka logos/words?
What if one is aware of perceivable sound as the foundation of any suggestible words shaped within?
What if suggested information tempts one to own it; while perceivable inspiration sets each one within as FREE will of choice?
What if consenting by free will of choice binds one to the suggestions of another aka religion (Latin religio; to bind anew)?
What if nature doesn't CON (together; with) STRUCT (building matter)...but instead sets matter (life) apart from one another within motion (inception towards death)?
Is it reduction to acknowledge letters used to shape words? Is it reduction to acknowledge perceivable sound underneath suggestible words?
a) Reasoning implies a conflict against others; hence choosing a side, which brands everyone else as ones opposite. For example...agree vs disagree; true vs false; belief vs disbelief; yes vs no; me vs you; us vs them etc.
One cannot choose a side within any conflict of reason without opposing others.
b) Notice that YOURself implies a conflict of reason...MYself vs YOURself.
The foundation for this...nature designates units (Latin unitas; unus; one) aka each one's self. If one chooses to claim self as "me; myself or I"; then one brands every other one as "YOU".
ME generates YOU. Nature implies oneness (whole) generating ones (partials). Ones claim over self (me) implies self possession, which in return permits another (you) to establish demonic possession aka dai-mon - "divider; provider" by dividing one into a conflict of reason against others through provided suggestions.
If one consents to a suggestion (want or not want); then one establishes a conflict of reason (want versus not want).
c) Reason implies form vs form; implication implies form (life) within flow (inception towards death).
Few suggest inFORMation to tempt many to ignore perceivable inSPIRation. Latin spiro (to breathe) implies forms adaptation to flow aka life adapting to being moved from inception towards death aka reaction (exhale) adapting to action (inhale).
a) Definite (fixed) contradicts tion (action aka motion). Ones consent to suggested information implies ones free will of choice holding onto a definition, while ignoring perceivable inspiration...which one cannot hold onto, since it moves. Hold onto your breath to discern that for self.
The trick...suggested definition aka DEAF PHONETICIAN tempts one to ignore perceivable PHONIC (sound; entire aka all perceivable offered to each ones perception).
b) Understand implies "standing under" aka ones consent submitting self to the suggestion of another, while ignoring to stand up/rise/sustain self within KNOWL'EDGE, noun - "perception of that which exists".
Understanding (suggested information) contradicts knowledge (perceivable inspiration).
c) Being implies reactor (life) within generator (inception towards death) aka reaction within action aka form within flow aka matter within motion.
Few collectivize many into "gentiles" by tricking each one to react to suggestions by few instead of perceivable generation. If reactor ignores generation; then it ignores re-generation of self.
In other words...suggested "actors" under "directors" tempts one to ignore being directed (inception towards death) reactors (life).
Simply suggesting the word "actor" inverts reality, where matter reacts to enacting motion...if one consents to suggested, which ignores perceivable.
a) If one exists (life) WITHin (inception towards death); then that implies a separation by motion into matter....matter cannot own anything within motion.
Few utilize suggestion to tempt many to CLAIM ownership by consent aka to buy into what few are selling aka to take into possession aka to avow; to confess; to belong etc.
b) Reason implies contrary (versus); which contradicts implication (if/then).
There's no conflict within implication...if motion; then matter + if balance; then choice + if whole; then partials + if all; then ones + If inception towards death; then life etc.
Nature doesn't reason...it moves; which implies those being moved. It's those within nature who choose to ignore perceivable for each others suggestions, who are reasoning against one another over the suggested while ignoring implication of all perceivable.
This is the foundation for the great work of masonry...hiding reality (perceivable inspiration; implication) underneath fiction (suggested information; reason).
c) Advocate aka ad (towards) vocare (to call) implies suggested progressivism tempting ones consent forwards, while ignore that perception (life) needs to resist wanted temptations within perceivable (inception towards death).
Life cannot consent to suggested progressivism without destroying itself...yet few can suggest progressivism to tempt many to willingly destroy each other.
Consenting to suggested information implies wanting (truth) or not wanting (lies) it; while ignoring perceivable need (change).
Applying change to truth changes it into a lie and vice versa. Take for example "I AM"...that's a truth suggested during change (inception towards death), hence moving towards becoming a lie...no matter how hard one tries to hold onto ones life.
In short...suggested words contradict perceivable sound. The former tempts one to hold onto it as truth; which permits others to use contradiction as lies, while perceivable sound simply changes aka moves.
What if one uses implication (if/then) instead of logic/reason aka logos/words?
What if one is aware of perceivable sound as the foundation of any suggestible words shaped within?
What if suggested information tempts one to own it; while perceivable inspiration sets each one within as FREE will of choice?
What if consenting by free will of choice binds one to the suggestions of another aka religion (Latin religio; to bind anew)?
What if nature doesn't CON (together; with) STRUCT (building matter)...but instead sets matter (life) apart from one another within motion (inception towards death)?