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.
How could free-will-of-choice dispel bondage like religion/religio - "to bind anew" without repeatedly choosing to resist the temptation of what others put together?
If being implies resistance (life) during velocity (inception towards death), then can one adapt to change without repeating?
keeps breaking
Which one...keep holding onto or breaking apart? Another contradiction out in the open for those with eyes to see. Why do I get the flack for describing that to others?
like religion/religio - "to bind anew" without repeatedly choosing to resist the temptation of what others put together?
CONTRADICTION FOR ALL WITH EYES TO SEE: "Repitition tempts people" "Free will of choice repeats choosing"
A) Repetition tempts one
B) Free will of choice repeats choosing
If being implies resistance (life) during velocity (inception towards death), then can one adapt to change without repeating?
So you admit that your word analysis binds you. ADMIT IT. ADMIT IT. ADMIT IT. ADMIT IT. ADMIT IT.
Which one...keep holding onto or breaking apart? Another contradiction out in the open for those with eyes to see.
Not "holding onto". This means that you analyzed the word "analysis" repeatedly.
Not a contradiction. You KEEP doing an ACTION. You are not keeping the thing that is broken apart. You are keeping the action, not the thing. The action is "breaking apart". The thing is broken but the action is kept.
The thing is ONLY being broken apart. Not any contradictions.
One cannot bind others, hence only wielding ones free will of choice to bind self to others, when consenting to a suggestion. Circular logic represents the bond within self, while reasoning implies bondage to one another.
Both sides of any conflict of reason are holding onto VERSUS. Pro-life vs pro-choice are bound to one another, which in return permits suggested abortion to continue. Without consent of either side...abortion couldn't continue.
Furthermore...life implies choice and vice versa, so the branding pro-life vs pro-choice represents deliberate mockery of ignorance. Like which side do you choose while being alive...life or choice?
Children perish on industrial scale within nature because the arbiter of reason refuse to discontinue the artificial battle against each other. Any so called war represents few setting the stage for many to mutually destroy each other within conflicts of reason about "nothing", while ignoring everything else.
Notice that simply increasing or decreasing the price of Pokemon cards is enough temptation for many to reason against each other mentally and physically...
Repetition tempts people...
...to make the same mis-takes aka taking a miss. Choosing is about adaptation to change, not about taking (and thereby missing) sides.
If one applies change to truth, then it becomes a lie and vice versa. Each side tempts one to mis-take it, while ignoring change given.
Free will of choice repeats choosing
Is it repetition if one adapts on the fly to perceivable inspiration or is it repetition to hold onto suggested information, while reasoning from two sides about it, while switching once in a while?
If being implies difference (perception) during sameness (perceivable), then ignoring that for the likeness of suggestion becomes quickly repetitive...
Does being different, while responding alike influences ones perception of repetition?
I can describe how coming into being implies ones admission, yet that doesn't change your perception, while viewing admission vs denial in conflict with one another.
This means that you analyzed the word "analysis" repeatedly
Meaning implies synthesis aka ones consent holding onto the suggested meaning by another. Mean/mena - "to signify" implies suggested symbolism aka sign language.
How could one discern this without using analysis? What if self discernment implies an analysis of oneself within all; instead of a synthesis with one another? Especially a conflicting synthesis like reason...
You KEEP doing an ACTION
Choice implies re-action, hence responding by choice to balance enacted upon one. Only within balance can there be choice, and only within motion can there be balance (momentum) for choice (matter)...neither of which can be kept.
Free will of choice implies each ones response-ability.
You are not keeping the thing that is broken apart.
Whole gives partial being by breaking apart aka energy (internal/inherent power). Let's go with the christian apple of sin allegory...keeping hold of the apple (of knowledge) makes it spoil faster, hence not just the physical worm habitat within ones hand, but also the perceivable knowledge moving through ones mind, which thereby spoils ones being faster.
Why is it called "forbidden knowledge"? Because perceivable knowledge is given freely, while bidding implies asking to receive from one another. The snake represents the forked tongue of suggested words uttered within perceivable sound.
You are keeping the action, not the thing.
Action cannot be kept...keeping implies things reacting to one another, while ignoring everything acting.
The action is "breaking apart". The thing is broken but the action is kept.
Breaking implies an ongoing process...putting together implies the waste of temporary potential during an ongoing process. The issue...holding onto wastes potential exponentially within a moving process.
If one could keep self as "me; myself or I"; then one wouldn't die? Do you see a contradiction in that? If one cannot keep self, since living implies dying, then why would one think one could keep anything else?
Notice that intercourse for OFF-SPRING implies a letting go, not a holding onto...if the perpetuation of self through another is based on letting go, then why reason about holding onto any side within self destructive conflicts?
The thing is ONLY being broken apart
Being implies within...only within all can one come into being as partial within whole.
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.
OHHHH. So THAT'S why u/free-will-of-choice keeps breaking down the meaning of "analysis" REPEATEDLY. u/free-will-of-choice IS at(TEMPT)ing to bind u/guywholikesdjtof2024 to a suggestion!!!!
How could free-will-of-choice dispel bondage like religion/religio - "to bind anew" without repeatedly choosing to resist the temptation of what others put together?
If being implies resistance (life) during velocity (inception towards death), then can one adapt to change without repeating?
Which one...keep holding onto or breaking apart? Another contradiction out in the open for those with eyes to see. Why do I get the flack for describing that to others?
The "one" u/free-will-of-choice is the one binding. u/free-will-of-choice can't dispel bondage until u/free-will-of-choice reason.
CONTRADICTION FOR ALL WITH EYES TO SEE: "Repitition tempts people" "Free will of choice repeats choosing"
A) Repetition tempts one
B) Free will of choice repeats choosing
So you admit that your word analysis binds you. ADMIT IT. ADMIT IT. ADMIT IT. ADMIT IT. ADMIT IT.
Not "holding onto". This means that you analyzed the word "analysis" repeatedly.
Not a contradiction. You KEEP doing an ACTION. You are not keeping the thing that is broken apart. You are keeping the action, not the thing. The action is "breaking apart". The thing is broken but the action is kept.
The thing is ONLY being broken apart. Not any contradictions.
One cannot bind others, hence only wielding ones free will of choice to bind self to others, when consenting to a suggestion. Circular logic represents the bond within self, while reasoning implies bondage to one another.
Both sides of any conflict of reason are holding onto VERSUS. Pro-life vs pro-choice are bound to one another, which in return permits suggested abortion to continue. Without consent of either side...abortion couldn't continue.
Furthermore...life implies choice and vice versa, so the branding pro-life vs pro-choice represents deliberate mockery of ignorance. Like which side do you choose while being alive...life or choice?
Children perish on industrial scale within nature because the arbiter of reason refuse to discontinue the artificial battle against each other. Any so called war represents few setting the stage for many to mutually destroy each other within conflicts of reason about "nothing", while ignoring everything else.
Notice that simply increasing or decreasing the price of Pokemon cards is enough temptation for many to reason against each other mentally and physically...
...to make the same mis-takes aka taking a miss. Choosing is about adaptation to change, not about taking (and thereby missing) sides.
If one applies change to truth, then it becomes a lie and vice versa. Each side tempts one to mis-take it, while ignoring change given.
Is it repetition if one adapts on the fly to perceivable inspiration or is it repetition to hold onto suggested information, while reasoning from two sides about it, while switching once in a while?
If being implies difference (perception) during sameness (perceivable), then ignoring that for the likeness of suggestion becomes quickly repetitive...
Does being different, while responding alike influences ones perception of repetition?
Suggested admission to one another contradicts being ad (to) mittere (send)... https://www.etymonline.com/word/admit
I can describe how coming into being implies ones admission, yet that doesn't change your perception, while viewing admission vs denial in conflict with one another.
Meaning implies synthesis aka ones consent holding onto the suggested meaning by another. Mean/mena - "to signify" implies suggested symbolism aka sign language.
How could one discern this without using analysis? What if self discernment implies an analysis of oneself within all; instead of a synthesis with one another? Especially a conflicting synthesis like reason...
Choice implies re-action, hence responding by choice to balance enacted upon one. Only within balance can there be choice, and only within motion can there be balance (momentum) for choice (matter)...neither of which can be kept.
Free will of choice implies each ones response-ability.
Whole gives partial being by breaking apart aka energy (internal/inherent power). Let's go with the christian apple of sin allegory...keeping hold of the apple (of knowledge) makes it spoil faster, hence not just the physical worm habitat within ones hand, but also the perceivable knowledge moving through ones mind, which thereby spoils ones being faster.
Why is it called "forbidden knowledge"? Because perceivable knowledge is given freely, while bidding implies asking to receive from one another. The snake represents the forked tongue of suggested words uttered within perceivable sound.
Action cannot be kept...keeping implies things reacting to one another, while ignoring everything acting.
Breaking implies an ongoing process...putting together implies the waste of temporary potential during an ongoing process. The issue...holding onto wastes potential exponentially within a moving process.
If one could keep self as "me; myself or I"; then one wouldn't die? Do you see a contradiction in that? If one cannot keep self, since living implies dying, then why would one think one could keep anything else?
Notice that intercourse for OFF-SPRING implies a letting go, not a holding onto...if the perpetuation of self through another is based on letting go, then why reason about holding onto any side within self destructive conflicts?
Being implies within...only within all can one come into being as partial within whole.