So you agree with me that the etymology of beast isn't astute being?
You used etymology as a synthesis of etymo (actual) + logy (logic) which shaped circular conflicts within your mind (agree vs disagree + is vs isn't).
I analyzed etymo+logy in a linear sense (if > then), therefore without choosing a side within a conflict, which allows me to see that one has to be astute to be able to shape the word "beast".
Logos (word) > logic (circular thinking) > reason (turning against one another) tempts one to ignore foundation (sound) for surface (word).
you twist the topic through word etymology and what you imply from them
The twist is within your view of etymo (actual) + logy (logic) as a synthesis. Logic implies circular thinking, which contradicts the actual linear procession of nature and it's implication (if > then).
I take words apart to try to dissolve the circle (contradiction) within the minds of those who cannot think straight.
did you grasp what was said
Sound moves and cannot be grasped...few shaping artificial words within natural sound to tempt many to grasp; seize; take possession of implies spell-craft for spell-binding.
I resist the temptation of grasping, which allows me to see how what was said besmirches the surface of the sound foundation underneath.
The Great Vowel Shift, you twist it into vow + El
The implies theos (God) as in theism (belief in a god).
Stuffing implies synthesis (together); implicating implies analysis (apart)...nature sets each native apart from one another; few artificially stuff many together.
Perceivable inspiration moves through ones mind...suggested information stuffs ones mind if held onto.
Stuffing drags one down with burden; implicating lifts one up by unburdening stuff.
You're not avoiding circular conflict in your mind by following an if > then sequence. A linear progression in nature wraps back around itself in the shape of a spiral. Your attempt at taking words apart to try to dissolve a contradiction is an attempt at logical thinking. You often appeal to the etymology of words, and often link to the etymonline.com website to back up what you say. You're not consistent with your use and appeal to that website. You're creating your own construct of what a word means and end up in the same circularity trap you're trying to avoid. By avoiding taking a side and choosing not to take a side, you create another layer of agree vs disagree and is vs isn't. You're saying your etymology for beast is, and mine isn't. You ended up engaging in exactly what you're trying to avoid.
It's obvious you didn't grasp what was said, and you didn't grasp the phrase what was said either. I didn't utter any sound of those words to you. Did you read it out loud or something like that?
When I said The Great Vowel Shift, this is what I was referring to https://stephaniehuesler.com/2024/11/17/history-undusted-the-great-vowel-shift/. A time period in history where the words changed, as in their spelling. You can give me your opinion of if > then dissection of the etymology, but you've not presented anything worthwhile to interact with.
I didn't say stuffing, I said you're making stuff up through your implications. Instead of dealing with what I wrote, you twist what I said into stuffing and imply something that is far different than what stuff means in the context I said it. Instead of avoiding circularity and helping dissolve the contradiction in the minds of those who cannot think straight, you expose your shortcomings in reading comprehension.
Void aka emptiness implies ones denial of perceivable (natural) for suggested (artificial). Nature implies fullness aka the ongoing fall (inception towards death) for each temporal rise (life).
by following an if > then sequence
Effect (life) needs to resist the wanted temptation to follow cause (inception towards death)...it's few who utilize suggestion to tempt a consensus of many to follow.
Implication (if > then) implies adaption to linear procession...not following along. For this to make sense requires ones self discernment as resistance within velocity...the latter tempting the former to ignore resisting.
A linear progression in nature wraps back around itself
Only within a line can a circle be shaped...try it. Pro (forwards) gress (to walk) ion (action)...action moving forwards allows reaction to walk for example in circles.
Wrap/wer - "to turn; bend"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/wrap TO implies the natural delineation; TURN represents the artificial circle shaped within it.
in the shape of
Only within flow (inception towards death) can form (life) be shaped...mentally (ideal) and physically (idol) holding onto a shape like a circle tempts form to ignore flow.
spiral
Spir (to twist) al (all) aka few putting the spin on many aka inversion.
Your attempt at taking words apart
I resist the temptation of holding letters; words; meaning together in synthesis by analyzing each apart from one another.
Meaning...a measure taken within mind while ignoring given.
Words...articulation shaped within natural sound.
Letters...ones consent "letting" another suggest "letters".
to dissolve a contradiction is an attempt at logical thinking
Synthetic thought TURNS one away from analytical thought, hence shaping a mental (logic) and physical (reason) circle about spoken words (logos).
Back to dissolve...nature implies a solvent (inception towards death) generating each division (life) within aka the natural solution to each native problem.
Only nature thrusts towards (inception towards death) which allows each native to re (respond) ject (to throw)...I try to break artificial etymology and words apart to dissolve the distortion.
Appeal vs rejection is only a conflict among natives if nature is being ignored and versus/verto (to turn) implies logy (circular thinking).
often link to the etymonline.com website to back up what you say
a) It's called a "link" to tempt those within the world wide web into artificially chaining together what nature divides from one another.
Notice also link/khlink - "to bend, turn"...once again shaping a circle.
b) Only nature fronts (inception) and backs (death) being (life)...few suggest "backup" to invert frontup and backdown.
You're not consistent with your use and appeal to that website
Con (together) sta (to stand)...being implies standing apart from one another. You seek consistency; I represent free will of choice aka variability aka adaptation to change.
You're creating
Creation implies out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo) which represents the jewish inversion of the transformation (transfer of form within action) of each within all.
"The Tree of Life, or Etz haChayim (עץ החיים) in Hebrew, is a mystical symbol used in the Kabbalah of esoteric Judaism to describe the path to HaShem and the manner in which he created the world ex nihilo (out of nothing)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatio_ex_nihilo
All perceivable transforms each ones perception...few "create" suggestion to transform the consensus of many.
your own
FREE will of choice cannot own (take into possession) without ignoring being set free within given procession.
By avoiding taking a side and choosing not to take a side, you create another layer of agree vs disagree and is vs isn't.
How does one choose a side? By free will of choice. What generates choice? Balance. Where is choice situated in balance? IN-BETWEEN...not on either side, which represents the imbalance of choice.
Holding onto either SIDE distorts ones SIGHT in-between.
Try this...if you stand and lean to either side; then you fall. Why? Because balancing implies ones choice in-between...not ones choice holding onto either side.
You're saying your etymology for beast is, and mine isn't
I break etymology apart to show that nature WAS (need) before a native can argue about what IS (want) or ISN'T (not want) artificial.
I didn't utter any sound of those words to you
Sound/sanus (entire; whole; all) implies the foundation for each one within to articulate words...not just the noise one utters for another to hear.
You holding a SUM OF THINGS (something) together establishes friction among things, hence making a noise, which distracts you from discerning self as an instrument within the sound of silence.
Sound moves, which divides each thing within apart from one another...summoning things together orchestrates noise to harm one (harmony) by putting ones together (symphony).
When I said The Great Vowel Shift, this is what I was referring to...history
a) Nature moves...few suggest history to tempt many to store matter (information) while ignoring motion (inspiration).
b) The manipulation of oral and written is based on jewish law aka phonetic for few; littera vocalis (vocal letter) as didactic instruction (talmud) for many. That's where The Great Vowel Shift chapter of history fits into just like changing Latin to Pig Latin (english).
Why the effort? To shape DEAF PHONETICIANS (definitions) aka many deaf to sound while bound to words like an insane (in sanus; within sound) person (per sonos; by sound).
you've not presented anything worthwhile to interact with.
I re-present the internal re-action of all worthwhile action...using "not" (nihilo; nothing) implies ones de-nial of all for one another.
If you look at my profile you see Comment Score (16033) Post Score (0)...only nature offers; which allows each native to respond to what nature offers or not.
I didn't say stuffing, I said you're making stuff up
Nature moves which a verb (stuffing) denotes; making stuff up implies a made up noun aka an artifice shaped within nature. I try to describe the verb; while taking the nouns and adjectives apart.
Ex (out) pose (position)...ones outwards position implies coming (inception towards death) short (life) within, hence the struggle to sustain length of duration.
How does one choose a side? By free will of choice. What generates choice? Balance. Where is choice situated in balance? IN-BETWEEN...not on either side, which represents the imbalance of choice.
Holding onto either SIDE distorts ones SIGHT in-between.
Try this...if you stand and lean to either side; then you fall. Why? Because balancing implies ones choice in-between...not ones choice holding onto either side.
Have you ever seen an acrobatic or circus performer do an act where they balance on a board atop some kind of can or cylinder? They balance by putting both feet out to the sides and adjusting as necessary to stay balanced. Your idea of balanced is not engaging in either side, but hopping off entirely. You're not in the middle of a set of binary choices if you reject both sides and make up your own side and hold onto that. Your rejection of the two choices isn't a balanced position.
You've gotta work on your presentation. You say things, but you're not engaging what I say. You don't come across like you understand some kind of deeper meaning to words. If you put in as much effort to learning how to have a conversation as you do into your version of etymology you'd be able to engage people better.
So you agree with me that the etymology of beast isn't astute being?
You used etymology as a synthesis of etymo (actual) + logy (logic) which shaped circular conflicts within your mind (agree vs disagree + is vs isn't).
I analyzed etymo+logy in a linear sense (if > then), therefore without choosing a side within a conflict, which allows me to see that one has to be astute to be able to shape the word "beast".
Logos (word) > logic (circular thinking) > reason (turning against one another) tempts one to ignore foundation (sound) for surface (word).
Notice also logos/leg - "to collect; gather"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/*leg-#etymonline_v_52572 Sound moves and cannot be gathered...gathering words represents a distortion within sound.
The twist is within your view of etymo (actual) + logy (logic) as a synthesis. Logic implies circular thinking, which contradicts the actual linear procession of nature and it's implication (if > then).
I take words apart to try to dissolve the circle (contradiction) within the minds of those who cannot think straight.
Sound moves and cannot be grasped...few shaping artificial words within natural sound to tempt many to grasp; seize; take possession of implies spell-craft for spell-binding.
I resist the temptation of grasping, which allows me to see how what was said besmirches the surface of the sound foundation underneath.
Vowel/wekw - "to speak"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/vowel implies ones articulation within "the great vowel shift" of nature.
Stuffing implies synthesis (together); implicating implies analysis (apart)...nature sets each native apart from one another; few artificially stuff many together.
Perceivable inspiration moves through ones mind...suggested information stuffs ones mind if held onto.
Stuffing drags one down with burden; implicating lifts one up by unburdening stuff.
You're not avoiding circular conflict in your mind by following an if > then sequence. A linear progression in nature wraps back around itself in the shape of a spiral. Your attempt at taking words apart to try to dissolve a contradiction is an attempt at logical thinking. You often appeal to the etymology of words, and often link to the etymonline.com website to back up what you say. You're not consistent with your use and appeal to that website. You're creating your own construct of what a word means and end up in the same circularity trap you're trying to avoid. By avoiding taking a side and choosing not to take a side, you create another layer of agree vs disagree and is vs isn't. You're saying your etymology for beast is, and mine isn't. You ended up engaging in exactly what you're trying to avoid.
It's obvious you didn't grasp what was said, and you didn't grasp the phrase what was said either. I didn't utter any sound of those words to you. Did you read it out loud or something like that?
When I said The Great Vowel Shift, this is what I was referring to https://stephaniehuesler.com/2024/11/17/history-undusted-the-great-vowel-shift/. A time period in history where the words changed, as in their spelling. You can give me your opinion of if > then dissection of the etymology, but you've not presented anything worthwhile to interact with.
I didn't say stuffing, I said you're making stuff up through your implications. Instead of dealing with what I wrote, you twist what I said into stuffing and imply something that is far different than what stuff means in the context I said it. Instead of avoiding circularity and helping dissolve the contradiction in the minds of those who cannot think straight, you expose your shortcomings in reading comprehension.
Void aka emptiness implies ones denial of perceivable (natural) for suggested (artificial). Nature implies fullness aka the ongoing fall (inception towards death) for each temporal rise (life).
Effect (life) needs to resist the wanted temptation to follow cause (inception towards death)...it's few who utilize suggestion to tempt a consensus of many to follow.
Implication (if > then) implies adaption to linear procession...not following along. For this to make sense requires ones self discernment as resistance within velocity...the latter tempting the former to ignore resisting.
Only within a line can a circle be shaped...try it. Pro (forwards) gress (to walk) ion (action)...action moving forwards allows reaction to walk for example in circles.
Wrap/wer - "to turn; bend"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/wrap TO implies the natural delineation; TURN represents the artificial circle shaped within it.
Only within flow (inception towards death) can form (life) be shaped...mentally (ideal) and physically (idol) holding onto a shape like a circle tempts form to ignore flow.
Spir (to twist) al (all) aka few putting the spin on many aka inversion.
I resist the temptation of holding letters; words; meaning together in synthesis by analyzing each apart from one another.
Dis (to divide) solve (to loosen) implies analytical thought...contra (against) dic (to speak) tion (action) implies synthetic thought.
Synthetic thought TURNS one away from analytical thought, hence shaping a mental (logic) and physical (reason) circle about spoken words (logos).
Back to dissolve...nature implies a solvent (inception towards death) generating each division (life) within aka the natural solution to each native problem.
Appeal/appellere from ad (to) pel (to thrust)... https://www.etymonline.com/word/appeal
Only nature thrusts towards (inception towards death) which allows each native to re (respond) ject (to throw)...I try to break artificial etymology and words apart to dissolve the distortion.
Appeal vs rejection is only a conflict among natives if nature is being ignored and versus/verto (to turn) implies logy (circular thinking).
a) It's called a "link" to tempt those within the world wide web into artificially chaining together what nature divides from one another.
Notice also link/khlink - "to bend, turn"...once again shaping a circle.
b) Only nature fronts (inception) and backs (death) being (life)...few suggest "backup" to invert frontup and backdown.
Con (together) sta (to stand)...being implies standing apart from one another. You seek consistency; I represent free will of choice aka variability aka adaptation to change.
Creation implies out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo) which represents the jewish inversion of the transformation (transfer of form within action) of each within all.
"The Tree of Life, or Etz haChayim (עץ החיים) in Hebrew, is a mystical symbol used in the Kabbalah of esoteric Judaism to describe the path to HaShem and the manner in which he created the world ex nihilo (out of nothing)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatio_ex_nihilo
All perceivable transforms each ones perception...few "create" suggestion to transform the consensus of many.
FREE will of choice cannot own (take into possession) without ignoring being set free within given procession.
How does one choose a side? By free will of choice. What generates choice? Balance. Where is choice situated in balance? IN-BETWEEN...not on either side, which represents the imbalance of choice.
Holding onto either SIDE distorts ones SIGHT in-between.
Try this...if you stand and lean to either side; then you fall. Why? Because balancing implies ones choice in-between...not ones choice holding onto either side.
I break etymology apart to show that nature WAS (need) before a native can argue about what IS (want) or ISN'T (not want) artificial.
Sound/sanus (entire; whole; all) implies the foundation for each one within to articulate words...not just the noise one utters for another to hear.
Here's a sleight of hand... https://genius.com/Simon-and-garfunkel-the-sound-of-silence-lyrics
You holding a SUM OF THINGS (something) together establishes friction among things, hence making a noise, which distracts you from discerning self as an instrument within the sound of silence.
Sound moves, which divides each thing within apart from one another...summoning things together orchestrates noise to harm one (harmony) by putting ones together (symphony).
a) Nature moves...few suggest history to tempt many to store matter (information) while ignoring motion (inspiration).
b) The manipulation of oral and written is based on jewish law aka phonetic for few; littera vocalis (vocal letter) as didactic instruction (talmud) for many. That's where The Great Vowel Shift chapter of history fits into just like changing Latin to Pig Latin (english).
Why the effort? To shape DEAF PHONETICIANS (definitions) aka many deaf to sound while bound to words like an insane (in sanus; within sound) person (per sonos; by sound).
I re-present the internal re-action of all worthwhile action...using "not" (nihilo; nothing) implies ones de-nial of all for one another.
If you look at my profile you see Comment Score (16033) Post Score (0)...only nature offers; which allows each native to respond to what nature offers or not.
Nature moves which a verb (stuffing) denotes; making stuff up implies a made up noun aka an artifice shaped within nature. I try to describe the verb; while taking the nouns and adjectives apart.
Con (together) text (to weave)... https://www.etymonline.com/word/context that's the stuff you're stuffing together, which I unravel.
Ex (out) pose (position)...ones outwards position implies coming (inception towards death) short (life) within, hence the struggle to sustain length of duration.
Have you ever seen an acrobatic or circus performer do an act where they balance on a board atop some kind of can or cylinder? They balance by putting both feet out to the sides and adjusting as necessary to stay balanced. Your idea of balanced is not engaging in either side, but hopping off entirely. You're not in the middle of a set of binary choices if you reject both sides and make up your own side and hold onto that. Your rejection of the two choices isn't a balanced position.
You've gotta work on your presentation. You say things, but you're not engaging what I say. You don't come across like you understand some kind of deeper meaning to words. If you put in as much effort to learning how to have a conversation as you do into your version of etymology you'd be able to engage people better.