Life and friction are one. Life in its simplest is movement. The logos is alive. The circle is idealy perfect. The fractal is perfect. The domain is infinite. The infant fractal circular reasoning is the logos in each individual Christian soul.
a) Can you feel my fist in your face? No? That's because I have the free will of choice to resist the temptation of friction. One implies apart from one another...only within all (motion) can each one (matter) be apart from one another.
b) Try to apply "and" to God...singularity and what else? Energy and what else? Motion and what else? All and what else?
c) Notice what each mother experiences while giving birth to an off-spring...friction > relief by anointment. That's how life perpetuates by friction (inter-course) and relief (off-spring).
Sex by friction implies lust; sex for relief implies sex/seco - "to divide"...one needs to let go of what one wants to hold onto. There's free will of choice at work in-between need/want (balance).
Life in its simplest is movement.
Movement implies "moving mind"...the process of dying implies motion; the living mind/body within implies matter.
Motion (singularity) generates matter (each single unit)...matter naturally separated from one another has the free will of choice to artificially join one another. That's how simple becomes complex, which makes it more and more complex to simply let go of what one willingly holds onto like words; definitions; meanings; idols/ideals; beliefs; names/numbers etc.
The logos is alive
Logos tempts the incorporation of life aka in-corpus-oration aka tempting the living body into a mental debt by holding onto the oration by another.
Oration implies the articulation (words) of nature (sound) aka spell-craft. God implies sound/sanus (entire; whole; all) generating each instrument (mind structured within).
a) Logos allows others to shape physical (ldols) to tempt one to hold onto mental (ideal)...it's ones consent to idolatry and idealism which shapes a circle inside (logic) and outside (reason) oneself.
Nature shapes each being (life) within a line (inception towards death)...which one cannot hold onto, since all moves through one.
b) Only within a line can a circle be shaped by combining beginning and end aka ouroboros eating its own tail, which is what reason does to anyone willingly holding onto one side, which causes friction against the other.
Example...holding onto truth sustains the friction against lie. Letting go of truth prevents lie from having a foundation to attach to.
c) Why did Dante use the description "nine circles of hell"? Notice furthermore that in the Divine Comedy...the soul follows death on a linear path through the nine circles of hell.
The domain is infinite.
Only during ongoing dominance (inception towards death) can one be temporary free (life) aka free (choice) dom (balance).
fractal circular reasoning
Circular reasoning implies fractal vs fractal. Only linear procession allows fractal potential to be free from one another. VS aka versus/verto - "to turn" implies ones free will of choice choosing to turn from linear into circular by turning against one another.
individual soul
Soul/sole implies "one and only"; individual implies "divided within two)...individual contradicts soul.
If God implies one, then what is two...double God? Notice that suggested individualism is described as an ideology... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualism aka an idea mentally circulated.
Fractal aka fract (to fracture) al (all)...only within all can there be more or less of each one. Furthermore...the fracture of all implies the fracture of singularity into each fractal unit.
Within all of energy...each power implies an energized fractal.
Fractals do not contradict themselves
guywholikesDjito2024 as one singular being using pluralism (fractals; themselves) establishes the contradiction between what all does, and what one describes to another it does not.
Does vs doesn't mutually contradict one another...no matter which side one chooses to hold onto.
You contradict reality
Re (to response) al (all)...no contradiction in that. It's branding one as "you" which establishes the contradiction aka YOU vs ME, which isn't a response to all (real) but a fictitious conflict among one another.
But not for long
a) Not contradicts for...everything forwards each thing; nothing denies that.
b) Length implies a measurement taken, while ignoring all given by ongoing motion. How could life take a measurement if it cannot take its own inception or death as extremes to measure within?
You will lose
You vs me implies a circular conflict...loss (inception towards death) generating the growth of will (life) implies linear procession.
Nothing is being destroyed by any fractals, you word worshiper.
only within all can there be more or less of each one.
Okay kamala harris.
Furthermore...the fracture of all implies the fracture of singularity into each fractal unit.
Citation needed.
Within all of energy
Is that grammatically correct?
each power implies an energized fractal.
Is that a real world thing or a part of this made up word game?
establishes the contradiction between what all does, and what one describes to another it does not.
Nope.
Does vs doesn't mutually contradict one another...no matter which side one chooses to hold onto.
a) Establishes vs doesn't establish and b) matter vs no matter mutually contradict one another...no matter which side one chooses to hold onto. There now you killed your worldview.
Re (to response) al (all)...no contradiction in that.
Stop using your word games to interpret my comments. You're the only one obsessed with doing word games.
It's branding one as "you"
Oh, then what other word do you propose we use then? If the term "you" is SO BAD, then make a new word.
which establishes the contradiction aka YOU vs ME, which isn't a response to all (real) but a fictitious conflict among one another.
Ficticious vs real implies conflict. There now you have killed your worldview (again). Stop playing word games, they contradict themselves.
Not contradicts for...everything forwards each thing; nothing denies that.
Do you have a dictionary source for that?
b) Length implies a measurement taken, while ignoring all given by ongoing motion. How could life take a measurement if it cannot take its own inception or death as extremes to measure within?
Thanks for admitting I wasn't wrong.
You vs me implies a circular conflict
No. One line crashing into another. Take two rectangular wood planks and put their smallest, thinnest side together. Do they magically make a circle or are they still linear?
loss (inception towards death) generating the growth of will (life) implies linear
Of course you'll lose against reality. Reality doesn't play those word games.
Life and friction are one. Life in its simplest is movement. The logos is alive. The circle is idealy perfect. The fractal is perfect. The domain is infinite. The infant fractal circular reasoning is the logos in each individual Christian soul.
a) Can you feel my fist in your face? No? That's because I have the free will of choice to resist the temptation of friction. One implies apart from one another...only within all (motion) can each one (matter) be apart from one another.
b) Try to apply "and" to God...singularity and what else? Energy and what else? Motion and what else? All and what else?
c) Notice what each mother experiences while giving birth to an off-spring...friction > relief by anointment. That's how life perpetuates by friction (inter-course) and relief (off-spring).
Sex by friction implies lust; sex for relief implies sex/seco - "to divide"...one needs to let go of what one wants to hold onto. There's free will of choice at work in-between need/want (balance).
Movement implies "moving mind"...the process of dying implies motion; the living mind/body within implies matter.
Motion (singularity) generates matter (each single unit)...matter naturally separated from one another has the free will of choice to artificially join one another. That's how simple becomes complex, which makes it more and more complex to simply let go of what one willingly holds onto like words; definitions; meanings; idols/ideals; beliefs; names/numbers etc.
Logos tempts the incorporation of life aka in-corpus-oration aka tempting the living body into a mental debt by holding onto the oration by another.
Oration implies the articulation (words) of nature (sound) aka spell-craft. God implies sound/sanus (entire; whole; all) generating each instrument (mind structured within).
Sleight of hand for those with eyes to see... https://genius.com/Simon-and-garfunkel-the-sound-of-silence-lyrics
a) Logos allows others to shape physical (ldols) to tempt one to hold onto mental (ideal)...it's ones consent to idolatry and idealism which shapes a circle inside (logic) and outside (reason) oneself.
Nature shapes each being (life) within a line (inception towards death)...which one cannot hold onto, since all moves through one.
b) Only within a line can a circle be shaped by combining beginning and end aka ouroboros eating its own tail, which is what reason does to anyone willingly holding onto one side, which causes friction against the other.
Example...holding onto truth sustains the friction against lie. Letting go of truth prevents lie from having a foundation to attach to.
c) Why did Dante use the description "nine circles of hell"? Notice furthermore that in the Divine Comedy...the soul follows death on a linear path through the nine circles of hell.
Only during ongoing dominance (inception towards death) can one be temporary free (life) aka free (choice) dom (balance).
Circular reasoning implies fractal vs fractal. Only linear procession allows fractal potential to be free from one another. VS aka versus/verto - "to turn" implies ones free will of choice choosing to turn from linear into circular by turning against one another.
Soul/sole implies "one and only"; individual implies "divided within two)...individual contradicts soul.
If God implies one, then what is two...double God? Notice that suggested individualism is described as an ideology... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualism aka an idea mentally circulated.
I didn’t feel it man, I did like the concept.
#ReignWithFire #LiveTheRevelation
Fractals do not contradict themselves. They make more of themselves.
You contradict reality. But not for long. You will lose.
Fractal aka fract (to fracture) al (all)...only within all can there be more or less of each one. Furthermore...the fracture of all implies the fracture of singularity into each fractal unit.
Within all of energy...each power implies an energized fractal.
guywholikesDjito2024 as one singular being using pluralism (fractals; themselves) establishes the contradiction between what all does, and what one describes to another it does not.
Does vs doesn't mutually contradict one another...no matter which side one chooses to hold onto.
Re (to response) al (all)...no contradiction in that. It's branding one as "you" which establishes the contradiction aka YOU vs ME, which isn't a response to all (real) but a fictitious conflict among one another.
a) Not contradicts for...everything forwards each thing; nothing denies that.
b) Length implies a measurement taken, while ignoring all given by ongoing motion. How could life take a measurement if it cannot take its own inception or death as extremes to measure within?
You vs me implies a circular conflict...loss (inception towards death) generating the growth of will (life) implies linear procession.
Nothing is being destroyed by any fractals, you word worshiper.
Okay kamala harris.
Citation needed.
Is that grammatically correct?
Is that a real world thing or a part of this made up word game?
Nope.
a) Establishes vs doesn't establish and b) matter vs no matter mutually contradict one another...no matter which side one chooses to hold onto. There now you killed your worldview.
Stop using your word games to interpret my comments. You're the only one obsessed with doing word games.
Oh, then what other word do you propose we use then? If the term "you" is SO BAD, then make a new word.
Ficticious vs real implies conflict. There now you have killed your worldview (again). Stop playing word games, they contradict themselves.
Do you have a dictionary source for that?
Thanks for admitting I wasn't wrong.
No. One line crashing into another. Take two rectangular wood planks and put their smallest, thinnest side together. Do they magically make a circle or are they still linear?
Of course you'll lose against reality. Reality doesn't play those word games.