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.
Have you ever seen an acrobatic or circus performer do an act where they balance
a) One cannot see action...because ones sight implies a reaction to all given to it.
b) Performing (by form) implies within flow. Few suggest performance to distract many from sustenance through flow aka adaptation to natural animation.
c) Acro (to rise up) bat (to go) aka nature going (inception towards death) allowing native to rise up (life). Living in-between inception/death implies as choice within balance.
A jew as director of performance tempts gentiles into circular (circus) confinement (tent) to misdirect from sustenance.
They balance by putting both feet out to the sides and adjusting as necessary to stay balanced.
a) Holding ones breath while balancing quickly shows that the so called "balance act" is optional, and that only the primary force of natural animation directs necessity through secondary adaptation by each native.
b) Nature (cause) implies singularity for each single native (effect) within..."both" represents an artificial measurement taken into possession by consenting to suggested dualism aka an AFFECT (suggestion) distracting EFFECT (perception) from CAUSE (perceivable).
Can you show me an example for BOTH (dual) without each ONE (singular) having a different position from one another?
Your idea of balanced is not engaging in either side, but hopping off entirely.
a) Idea implies mentally holding onto thereby imbalancing ones choice. Few suggest idealism and idolatry to tempt a consensus among many as imbalance for choice mentally and physically.
b) Not (nihilo; nothing) implies ones de-nial of everything perceivable for suggested nihil-ism. Another imbalance.
c) En (within) gage (pledge) ment (mind) implies ones consent to a suggestion of another, which artificially binds ones FREE will of choice. You may heard of engagement under the name of re (to respond) ligio (to bind) aka religion, which requires ones pledge (faith) to enter.
Being implies en-breach-ment, hence being given a break to think freely.
d) One cannot hop off entirely...only within entire (whole) can one (partial) hop aka spring forth. Few suggest an on vs off conflict to confine the minds of many into a circle while using the hope of getting out or the fear of not getting out as enticement to continue fighting each other.
You're not in the middle of a set of binary choices if you reject both sides
a) Binary implies ONES lack of self discernment within singularity. Another set a binary into your singular mind by tricking you with optional choices to ignore your secondary choice within natures primary balance.
b) One can only reject optional sides...primary (inception towards death) moving through secondary (life) implies INJECTION.
c) Life in-between inception/death isn't binary, but singular motion moving through each single unit of matter. Optional sides tempt one to incline away from ones natural position in the middle as choice within balance.
Optional sides tempt ONES CHOICE to consent to the suggestion of a CHOSEN ONE. By choosing another one inverts ones choice.
d) Example: if another suggests food; then ones secondary choice faces the option of want or not want, while ignoring the primary need...HUNGER.
make up your own side and hold onto that
Free will of choice cannot hold onto any SIDE without establishing imbalance....it's balancing in-between as choice which sustains ones SIGHT.
Consider the artificial want to hold onto and the natural need to let go of through for example "inter-course for off-spring" aka be fruitful and multiply. And where does one plant the seed? In-between the soil!
Your rejection of the two choices isn't a balanced position.
What's TWO all; everything; entire; whole; motion; cause; action; origin; energy; God? From one to another one...what's the binary of singularity?
Can you offer two choices to me without aiming at ones free will of choice to choose in-between? How could one offer two to another one without contradicting singularity?
What if second isn't two, but seco - "to cut; divide" aka the internal division of each one from one another?
Therefore action (work) presenting reaction (employment) aka EMPLOY=IMPLY....that's why I freely choose to represent implication to those bound to reason.
You say things, but you're not engaging what I say.
Sound doesn't engage...it disengages each instrument within from one another. Few orchestrate many instruments together with spell-craft aka with the articulation of words within natural sound.
I adapt to everything (cause) dividing each thing (effect) from one another...you permitted another to affect you with nothing (not) which you willingly hold together by consenting to suggested nihilism, hence writing "you're not". How could anything within everything be nothing?
You don't come across like you understand some kind of deeper meaning to words.
a) Being implies coming (life) across (inception towards death)...coming across one another implies double-crossing (union jack aka jacking unity).
b) Understanding implies "standing under" hence the deepening (submission). Being implies in-between aka as above/so below, which is why one has the free will of choice to heighten or deepen ones situation.
c) Only within sound can a word be shaped...holding onto the meaning of the latter/letter drowns one within former.
learning how to have a conversation
Con (together) vers (to turn) implies war...which is good for absolutely nothing.
Ooh, war
Is an enemy to all mankind
The thought of war blows my mind
Here's any example for converse from mathematic (math-a-magic)..." In mathematics, an opposite proposition; thus, after drawing a conclusion from something supposed, we invert the order, making the conclusion the supposition or premises, and draw from it what was first supposed. Thus, if two sides of a triangle are equal, the angles opposite the sides are equal: and the converse is true; if these angles are equal, the two sides are equal."
It's a trick to turn many against one another by inverting the natural order.
If conversation stops among natives; then does nature stop working? If you shape a circle (conversation) within a line (natural work); then could the shape shift your attention away from the one and only way of life?
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.
a) One cannot see action...because ones sight implies a reaction to all given to it.
b) Performing (by form) implies within flow. Few suggest performance to distract many from sustenance through flow aka adaptation to natural animation.
c) Acro (to rise up) bat (to go) aka nature going (inception towards death) allowing native to rise up (life). Living in-between inception/death implies as choice within balance.
A jew as director of performance tempts gentiles into circular (circus) confinement (tent) to misdirect from sustenance.
a) Holding ones breath while balancing quickly shows that the so called "balance act" is optional, and that only the primary force of natural animation directs necessity through secondary adaptation by each native.
b) Nature (cause) implies singularity for each single native (effect) within..."both" represents an artificial measurement taken into possession by consenting to suggested dualism aka an AFFECT (suggestion) distracting EFFECT (perception) from CAUSE (perceivable).
Can you show me an example for BOTH (dual) without each ONE (singular) having a different position from one another?
a) Idea implies mentally holding onto thereby imbalancing ones choice. Few suggest idealism and idolatry to tempt a consensus among many as imbalance for choice mentally and physically.
b) Not (nihilo; nothing) implies ones de-nial of everything perceivable for suggested nihil-ism. Another imbalance.
c) En (within) gage (pledge) ment (mind) implies ones consent to a suggestion of another, which artificially binds ones FREE will of choice. You may heard of engagement under the name of re (to respond) ligio (to bind) aka religion, which requires ones pledge (faith) to enter.
Being implies en-breach-ment, hence being given a break to think freely.
d) One cannot hop off entirely...only within entire (whole) can one (partial) hop aka spring forth. Few suggest an on vs off conflict to confine the minds of many into a circle while using the hope of getting out or the fear of not getting out as enticement to continue fighting each other.
a) Binary implies ONES lack of self discernment within singularity. Another set a binary into your singular mind by tricking you with optional choices to ignore your secondary choice within natures primary balance.
Primary (perceivable balance) > secondary (perceiving choice) > optional (suggested choices)
b) One can only reject optional sides...primary (inception towards death) moving through secondary (life) implies INJECTION.
c) Life in-between inception/death isn't binary, but singular motion moving through each single unit of matter. Optional sides tempt one to incline away from ones natural position in the middle as choice within balance.
Optional sides tempt ONES CHOICE to consent to the suggestion of a CHOSEN ONE. By choosing another one inverts ones choice.
d) Example: if another suggests food; then ones secondary choice faces the option of want or not want, while ignoring the primary need...HUNGER.
Free will of choice cannot hold onto any SIDE without establishing imbalance....it's balancing in-between as choice which sustains ones SIGHT.
Consider the artificial want to hold onto and the natural need to let go of through for example "inter-course for off-spring" aka be fruitful and multiply. And where does one plant the seed? In-between the soil!
What's TWO all; everything; entire; whole; motion; cause; action; origin; energy; God? From one to another one...what's the binary of singularity?
Can you offer two choices to me without aiming at ones free will of choice to choose in-between? How could one offer two to another one without contradicting singularity?
What if second isn't two, but seco - "to cut; divide" aka the internal division of each one from one another?
Sleight of hand for those with eyes to see... https://genius.com/Papa-roach-last-resort-lyrics
What if I don't reject two choices, but discern ones choice (matter) injected into balance (momentum) by motion?
EN'ERGY, noun [Gr. work.] - "Internal or inherent power"... https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/energy hence being within (en) work (ergy).
Therefore action (work) presenting reaction (employment) aka EMPLOY=IMPLY....that's why I freely choose to represent implication to those bound to reason.
Sound doesn't engage...it disengages each instrument within from one another. Few orchestrate many instruments together with spell-craft aka with the articulation of words within natural sound.
I adapt to everything (cause) dividing each thing (effect) from one another...you permitted another to affect you with nothing (not) which you willingly hold together by consenting to suggested nihilism, hence writing "you're not". How could anything within everything be nothing?
a) Being implies coming (life) across (inception towards death)...coming across one another implies double-crossing (union jack aka jacking unity).
b) Understanding implies "standing under" hence the deepening (submission). Being implies in-between aka as above/so below, which is why one has the free will of choice to heighten or deepen ones situation.
c) Only within sound can a word be shaped...holding onto the meaning of the latter/letter drowns one within former.
Con (together) vers (to turn) implies war...which is good for absolutely nothing.
Here's any example for converse from mathematic (math-a-magic)..." In mathematics, an opposite proposition; thus, after drawing a conclusion from something supposed, we invert the order, making the conclusion the supposition or premises, and draw from it what was first supposed. Thus, if two sides of a triangle are equal, the angles opposite the sides are equal: and the converse is true; if these angles are equal, the two sides are equal."
It's a trick to turn many against one another by inverting the natural order.
If conversation stops among natives; then does nature stop working? If you shape a circle (conversation) within a line (natural work); then could the shape shift your attention away from the one and only way of life?