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.
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.