Your word games got you again. You keep missing the point of what people are saying because of an obsession with words. You look at a vase and obsess over the surface of the vase, you are tempted to ignore what's INSIDE the vase.
a) Motion > momentum > matter...momentum implies the vessel (vase) for matter (flower) within motion (nature).
b) What's INSIDE the vase implies matter (suggested information); ones INSIGHT originates from the momentum of motion (perceivable inspiration)...insight has to be drawn by self (analysis); inside is drawn by others (synthesis).
Only within motion can a vase be shaped and a flower grown, and only within motion can a vase be shattered and a flower be cut.
Ignoring to be a vessel with INSIGHT for wanting INSIDE information about a vase...that implies a vasectomy aka vas (vessel) ectomy (to cut out).
It's circular thinking (logic) turning into conflict (reason), which tempts ones free will of choice towards a SIDE, while SIGHT implies linear thinking.
word games got you again. You keep missing the point
Game implies to gamble aka to take a chance by giving choice. Chance implies towards outcome; choice implies in response to origin.
Point implies "end of sentence"...being implies life sentenced from inception towards point of death. Gambling corrupts ones sentience/sentence by inverting perceivable origin with suggested outcomes.
In short...If you write "point"; then you choose to play a game of chance by risking point (death) of sentence (life).
Try this...hold your breath and make a point, then wait a minute or so until you're being forced to let go of what you#re holding onto. If nature continues to move, then why are you trying to make points within it?
What comes first...point or line?
what people are saying
Just as saying (articulation of sound) implies a synthesis; so does people (collective body of persons)...what I'm doing is analyzing the nature of it aka the sound which separates each person (per sonos; by sound) from one another.
Whatever others are saying implies an artifice shaped during the ignorance of nature.
Your word games got you again. You keep missing the point of what people are saying because of an obsession with words. You look at a vase and obsess over the surface of the vase, you are tempted to ignore what's INSIDE the vase.
a) Motion > momentum > matter...momentum implies the vessel (vase) for matter (flower) within motion (nature).
b) What's INSIDE the vase implies matter (suggested information); ones INSIGHT originates from the momentum of motion (perceivable inspiration)...insight has to be drawn by self (analysis); inside is drawn by others (synthesis).
Only within motion can a vase be shaped and a flower grown, and only within motion can a vase be shattered and a flower be cut.
Ignoring to be a vessel with INSIGHT for wanting INSIDE information about a vase...that implies a vasectomy aka vas (vessel) ectomy (to cut out).
It's circular thinking (logic) turning into conflict (reason), which tempts ones free will of choice towards a SIDE, while SIGHT implies linear thinking.
Game implies to gamble aka to take a chance by giving choice. Chance implies towards outcome; choice implies in response to origin.
Point implies "end of sentence"...being implies life sentenced from inception towards point of death. Gambling corrupts ones sentience/sentence by inverting perceivable origin with suggested outcomes.
In short...If you write "point"; then you choose to play a game of chance by risking point (death) of sentence (life).
Try this...hold your breath and make a point, then wait a minute or so until you're being forced to let go of what you#re holding onto. If nature continues to move, then why are you trying to make points within it?
What comes first...point or line?
Just as saying (articulation of sound) implies a synthesis; so does people (collective body of persons)...what I'm doing is analyzing the nature of it aka the sound which separates each person (per sonos; by sound) from one another.
Whatever others are saying implies an artifice shaped during the ignorance of nature.
Why is it that a jew can write this for millions of gentiles to hear, but the implication remains ignored?