It's a song co written by one famous writer, Moorcock, based on the eternal champion character (or condition).
It is one of those fantasy archetypes that expresses a dark side of the human condition which this song expresses nicely, although i'm not a fan of the victimistic world view.
The intro and the first 2 sentences are quite magical though.
Reality moves...holding onto anything shapes fantasy, while building arches among types.
a dark side of the human condition
Being implies in-between light (discernment) and dark (ignorance)...suggestion tempts ignorance of perception.
victimistic world view.
That view within self represents circular logic, which outwards turns against others as conflicts of reason (perpetrator vs victim)...hence victim/vicis - "to turn".
Is that so? That implies that both you and i are among the "few" who "shape artificial", then. Don't worry.
within implication
Okay so that is clearly not reality, because despite your assertion that true and false are "conflicts of reason" and therefore are "bad" things, you believe that "muh reason conflictzzzz" is TRUE. So you are doing the very same reason conflict you claim you avoid.
a) Questioning tempts others onto a "quest" towards suggested outcomes, while ignoring perceivable origin.
Nature doesn't answer questions...it offers the ongoing solution (inception towards death) for each temporary problem (life).
b) One needs to resist the wanted temptation to ignore what WAS perceivable for what IS suggested; otherwise another gains ones permission to shape what IS to obfuscate what WAS.
That implies that both you and i
Free will of choice implies "alone" aka all (in) one, hence each ones choice at the center of all balance, while struggling to resist the temptation of each other to bind self.
You and I tempt ONE to ignore self for others, hence i am (je suis; jesus) and you (phonetic jew).
Chosen one implies the inversion of ones choice...viewing self as part of few implies an artificial distortion of being one within all aka partial within whole.
Okay so that is clearly not reality
Real implies ones response (re) to all (al) perceivable...consenting to suggested distorts ones clarity.
your assertion that true and false are "conflicts of reason" and therefore are "bad" things,
Assert/adserere - "to join together"...contradicts being apart from one another, hence being enable to wield FREE will of choice.
Implication (if/then) doesn't join together like reason, but separates if (action; motion; flow) and then (reaction; matter; form) from one another.
you believe that "muh reason conflictzzzz" is TRUE
Utilizing implication within a moving system allows one to notice contradictions shaped by holding onto something (mentally or physically).
If reason; then versus/verto - "to turn" which contradicts being (life) straightened (inception towards death).
you are doing the very same
a) Being implies difference (life) during sameness (inception towards death). Few equalize differences by tempting many to react alike one another.
b) Only nature does...each being within re-does self, while being (life) done (inception towards death).
For example...few suggest actors under directors to distract many from reacting to being (life) directed (inception towards death).
conflict you claim you avoid
Only those within a conflict lay a claim to a side...free will of choice operates in-between (life) sides (inception/death)...neither of which can be held onto, hence others shaping conflicts of reason by tempting choice with artificial sides like yes vs no, true vs false; he vs she; me vs you; us vs them; belief vs disbelief; pro vs contra; agree vs disagree; left vs right; up vs down; front vs back; football vs soccer; liberal vs conservative; poor vs rich; mcdonalds vs burger king; beauty vs ugly; britney spears vs christina aguilera; trump vs biden; ukraine vs russia; jews vs gentiles; black vs white; red vs blue; smacks vs frosties; vanilla vs chocolate; coffee vs tea; nationalism vs internationalism; communism vs capitalism; christianity vs islam; orthodox vs catholic; wahabi vs sunni; individual vs collective; bourgeois vs proletariat; winning vs losing etc.
Each of those conflicts of reason represents a rebranding of want vs not wanting suggested, while ignoring perceivable need.
Not for answers from others...but to dismantle the contradiction of both questions and answers within the natural solution of any problems.
destroys itself
Only during destruction (inception towards death) can one build (life)...it's holding onto words build by others which tempts one to ignore self destruction.
Give up
Only nature gives (inception) and takes (death) aka anode/anahodos (up the way) + cathode/katahodos (down the way) aka living within process of dying aka as above/so below.
Versus turns things against one another, thereby contradicting each things in-between stance within everything.
Inception and death aren't "things", but the momentum of motion for each matter within. While alive, one cannot perceive ones inception or ones death, hence being temporarily in-between an ongoing separation.
doesn't
Aka does nothing...ones artificial denial of everything natural doing each thing within.
One can only turn (versus/verto) within motion...does nothing contradicts that, hence ones mind turning in circles (logic), while eating itself (ouroboros).
You have chosen side
Choosing (life) a side (inception/death) ignores ones sight, hence the separation of all perceivable into each ones perception...a moving transfer; not a keeping hold of any side.
admit
Admit/admittere (to send), hence life being send from inception towards death...not a conflict of reason (admit vs deny) among beings.
Admit it. Admit it!!
Aka frequency of repetition to tempt free will of choice to bind itself by consenting to a suggestion. Without consenting to either side (admit or deny)...one remains free from one another.
a) AND implies the temptation to choose a side within a conflict of reason (true vs false).
b) True vs false implies want vs not want, while ignoring need aka needing to resist wanted temptation.
c) Nature neither supplies true nor false information...is supplies inspiration by change.
Being implies within (in) spirit (spir) of action (ation)...reasoning tempts one to ignore that.
that statement is true
Stance (state) of mind (ment) implies within motion, hence being enabled to respond to input...true or false implies holding onto what others tempted (suggestion) one to put (consent) into mind.
It's a song co written by one famous writer, Moorcock, based on the eternal champion character (or condition).
It is one of those fantasy archetypes that expresses a dark side of the human condition which this song expresses nicely, although i'm not a fan of the victimistic world view.
The intro and the first 2 sentences are quite magical though.
More cock...
Reality moves...holding onto anything shapes fantasy, while building arches among types.
Being implies in-between light (discernment) and dark (ignorance)...suggestion tempts ignorance of perception.
That view within self represents circular logic, which outwards turns against others as conflicts of reason (perpetrator vs victim)...hence victim/vicis - "to turn".
How? Why? Don't use implications. Don't break words apart.
Do vs don't implies a artificial conflict of reason, which tempts one to ignore natural implication (if/then). There's no conflict within implication.
As for why? If many ignore natural for artificial; then few can shape artificial within natural to control many.
Nature "breaks" beings apart from one another...artificial words tempt many together under the crafted spells by few.
Is that so? That implies that both you and i are among the "few" who "shape artificial", then. Don't worry.
Okay so that is clearly not reality, because despite your assertion that true and false are "conflicts of reason" and therefore are "bad" things, you believe that "muh reason conflictzzzz" is TRUE. So you are doing the very same reason conflict you claim you avoid.
a) Questioning tempts others onto a "quest" towards suggested outcomes, while ignoring perceivable origin.
Nature doesn't answer questions...it offers the ongoing solution (inception towards death) for each temporary problem (life).
b) One needs to resist the wanted temptation to ignore what WAS perceivable for what IS suggested; otherwise another gains ones permission to shape what IS to obfuscate what WAS.
Free will of choice implies "alone" aka all (in) one, hence each ones choice at the center of all balance, while struggling to resist the temptation of each other to bind self.
You and I tempt ONE to ignore self for others, hence i am (je suis; jesus) and you (phonetic jew).
Few are selected by many coming together, which in return permits each chosen one to remain apart... https://www.amazon.com/People-Apart-Europe-1789-1939-History/dp/0198219806
Chosen one implies the inversion of ones choice...viewing self as part of few implies an artificial distortion of being one within all aka partial within whole.
Real implies ones response (re) to all (al) perceivable...consenting to suggested distorts ones clarity.
Assert/adserere - "to join together"...contradicts being apart from one another, hence being enable to wield FREE will of choice.
Implication (if/then) doesn't join together like reason, but separates if (action; motion; flow) and then (reaction; matter; form) from one another.
Utilizing implication within a moving system allows one to notice contradictions shaped by holding onto something (mentally or physically).
If reason; then versus/verto - "to turn" which contradicts being (life) straightened (inception towards death).
a) Being implies difference (life) during sameness (inception towards death). Few equalize differences by tempting many to react alike one another.
b) Only nature does...each being within re-does self, while being (life) done (inception towards death).
For example...few suggest actors under directors to distract many from reacting to being (life) directed (inception towards death).
Only those within a conflict lay a claim to a side...free will of choice operates in-between (life) sides (inception/death)...neither of which can be held onto, hence others shaping conflicts of reason by tempting choice with artificial sides like yes vs no, true vs false; he vs she; me vs you; us vs them; belief vs disbelief; pro vs contra; agree vs disagree; left vs right; up vs down; front vs back; football vs soccer; liberal vs conservative; poor vs rich; mcdonalds vs burger king; beauty vs ugly; britney spears vs christina aguilera; trump vs biden; ukraine vs russia; jews vs gentiles; black vs white; red vs blue; smacks vs frosties; vanilla vs chocolate; coffee vs tea; nationalism vs internationalism; communism vs capitalism; christianity vs islam; orthodox vs catholic; wahabi vs sunni; individual vs collective; bourgeois vs proletariat; winning vs losing etc.
Each of those conflicts of reason represents a rebranding of want vs not wanting suggested, while ignoring perceivable need.
You know this is not correct because you have asked questions yourself. Give up your word analyses. Your word-analysis-ism destroys itself.
Not for answers from others...but to dismantle the contradiction of both questions and answers within the natural solution of any problems.
Only during destruction (inception towards death) can one build (life)...it's holding onto words build by others which tempts one to ignore self destruction.
Only nature gives (inception) and takes (death) aka anode/anahodos (up the way) + cathode/katahodos (down the way) aka living within process of dying aka as above/so below.
A.Free will of choice operates in between things, VS
B. it doesn't operate between those things at all.
You have chosen side a. Admit it. Admit it!!
Versus turns things against one another, thereby contradicting each things in-between stance within everything.
Inception and death aren't "things", but the momentum of motion for each matter within. While alive, one cannot perceive ones inception or ones death, hence being temporarily in-between an ongoing separation.
Aka does nothing...ones artificial denial of everything natural doing each thing within.
One can only turn (versus/verto) within motion...does nothing contradicts that, hence ones mind turning in circles (logic), while eating itself (ouroboros).
Choosing (life) a side (inception/death) ignores ones sight, hence the separation of all perceivable into each ones perception...a moving transfer; not a keeping hold of any side.
Admit/admittere (to send), hence life being send from inception towards death...not a conflict of reason (admit vs deny) among beings.
Aka frequency of repetition to tempt free will of choice to bind itself by consenting to a suggestion. Without consenting to either side (admit or deny)...one remains free from one another.
Songs such as this and it's origin show just how long this game has been playing
Perceivable knowledge
Free will of choice...center of perceivable balance, while being tempted with the roar of suggested sides from every direction.
For each look/lock represents a fresh choice.
For sight to see was always there.
For being implies....one (life) within sides (inception/death) of all aka a scar/sker - "to cut".
Potential (life) during procession (inception towards death) cannot take self (me) into possession; nor hold onto what others assure one can own.
Aka choice within balance being shaken by the suggested choices of others into imbalance...if consented to.
Cause saying binds free will of choice to words held within moving sound.
https://media.scored.co/scale/anmGraflBTCeWNyt.jpeg
a) AND implies the temptation to choose a side within a conflict of reason (true vs false).
b) True vs false implies want vs not want, while ignoring need aka needing to resist wanted temptation.
c) Nature neither supplies true nor false information...is supplies inspiration by change.
Being implies within (in) spirit (spir) of action (ation)...reasoning tempts one to ignore that.
Stance (state) of mind (ment) implies within motion, hence being enabled to respond to input...true or false implies holding onto what others tempted (suggestion) one to put (consent) into mind.