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.
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.
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!!