So by definition, a definition is a deaf phoenician, or is it the other way around?
If words can't define, you would counter your own attempts? :)
Like words, all literal/exoteric transliterations of esoteric subjects have their limits.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archon_(Gnosticism)
The linked explanation is no exception (exoteric as esoteric) though it comes closer to the earlier concept.
So by definition, a definition is a deaf phoenician, or is it the other way around?
If words can't define, you seem to counter the purpose of your diatribe.
Like words, all literal/exoteric transliterations of esoteric subjects have their limits.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archon_(Gnosticism)
The linked explanation is no exception (exoteric as esoteric) though it comes closer to the earlier concept.
So by definition, a definition is a deaf phoenician, or is it the other way around?
If words can't define, you seem to counter the purpose of your diatribe.
Like words, all literal/exoteric transliterations of esoteric subjects have their limits.