You will always be correct in half a sense due to the duelist nature of words. You're performing a sematic trick, but it still serves a long-winded (to you a wall) purpose. While it does show deeper insight than most will give a word, it also unintentionally shows the limitation of words. Words are not an infinite offer. That would be the inspiration behind the words. Infinite is a non-understandable term in reference to things that exist.
Consider that Inspiration precedes expression.
It's written that In the beginning was 'the' word.....not one word, even tetragrammatron, lol, but that which inspires all subsequent (distinguishing/dividing/defining) words. Every one, every angel and daemon who have names, dancing on the head of finite pins.
I can read the writing on this wall plainly. I do understand the motive and context, given your name, and your consistent if not repetitive method to fit every statement as evidence of a theory that i 'get' but don't exactly share.
I've broken it down to the letter and number, fren, and understand that the 'map is not the territory'. https://instituteofclinicalhypnosis.com/nlp/map-is-not-the-territory-nlp/
Are you trying to bring us together through an understanding? Words would be only the spoken vehicle for this inspiration, not the inspiration itself. Until then, they would tend to divide and con-fuse.
Con/against fusion/bringing together
Choices.
I will not downdoot you, because of the half that is always 'right'. kek
You will always be correct in half a sense due to the duelist nature of words. You're performing a sematic trick, but it still serves a long-winded (to you a wall) purpose. While it does show deeper insight than most will give a word, it also unintentionally shows the limitation of words. Words are not an infinite offer. That would be the inspiration behind the words. Infinite is a non-understandable term in reference to things that exist.
Consider that Inspiration precedes expression.
It's written that In the beginning was 'the' word.....not one word, even tetragrammatron, lol, but that which inspires all subsequent (distinguishing/dividing/defining) words. Every one, every angel and daemon who have names, dancing on the head of finite pins.
I can read the writing on this wall plainly. I do understand the motive and context, given your name, and your consistent if not repetitive method to fit every statement as evidence of a theory.
Are you trying to bring us together through an understanding? Words would only be a vehicle for this inspiration, not the inspiration itself. Until then, they would divide.
Choices.
I will not downdoot you, because of the half that is always 'right'. kek
You will always be correct in half a sense due to the duelist nature of words. You're performing a sematic trick, but it still serves a long-winded (to you a wall) purpose. While it does show deeper insight than most will give a word, it also unintentionally shows the limitation of words. Words are not an infinite offer. That would be the inspiration behind the words. Infinite is a non-understandable term in reference to things that exist.
Consider that Inspiration precedes expression.
It's written that In the beginning was 'the' word.....not one word, even tetragrammatron, lol, but that which inspires all subsequent (distinguishing/dividing/defining) words. Every one, every angel and daemon who have names, dancing on the head of finite pins.
I can read the writing on this wall plainly. I do understand the motive and context, given your name, and your consistent if not repetitive method to fit every statement as evidence of a theory.
Are you trying to bring us together through an understanding? Words would only be a vehicle for this inspiration, not the inspiration itself. Until then, they would divide.
Choices.
You will always be correct in half a sense due to the duelist nature of words. You're performing a sematic trick, but it still serves a long-winded (to you a wall) purpose. it shows the limitation of words, not an infinite offer. That would be the inspiration behind the word.
Consider that Inspiration precedes expression.
In the beginning was 'the' word.....not a word of course, but that which inspires all subsequent (distinguishing/dividing/defining) words.
I can read the writing on that wall. I do understand the motive and context, given your name, and your consistent if not repetitive method to fit every statement as evidence of a theory.
Are you trying to bring us together through an understanding? Words would only be a vehicle for this inspiration, not the inspiration itself. Until then, they would divide.
Choices.
But I can read the writing on that wall. I do understand the motive and context.
Inspiration precedes expression.
In the beginning was 'the' word.....inspiring all subsequent (divided) words.
Are you trying to bring us together through an understanding? Words would only be a vehicle for this inspiration, not the inspiration itself. Until then, they would divide.
Choices.