No, it's about a fold. Yes, an aspect overgrasped or undergrasped.
Lets grasp women and grasp men:
First, a woman or a man is a kind. The "a" implying the "single". Mankind is single, but mankind has II specific pairs also. A women or a men is a
duality apart each.
So in basic...
A men: Being a appearance and manner.
A women: Being a appearance and manner.
It is that mankind has II specific pairs apart, basically, and basically those II pairs apart are each a pair (duality) also. The appearance and
manner are specific apart per basic II specific pairs that is a mankind.
Each and every, a men or a women, is, specifically and basically, a 'first and last', outside any additional series, and an 'original'. An
original is outside any image.
It is the manner that does things (outward/inward expressings: acts, behavors, thoughts, countenances, personalities, attitudes, works, hearings,
speakings, and the alike.) The manner makes and leaves an impression or mark how it might.
Like a pic of a posed woman... She left the impression of her manner having done a model pose. After you see the pic it doesn't mean or indicate her
manner is still doing modeling, though her manner may or may not have purposely left such the impression in the eye of the beholder how she wanted
And by way of the pic you see her look, not exact, but her look nonetheless. An image outside an original to be exact.
Mankind (single) is outside image being original. When you look at me, you dont see the original (me), you see the original mankind with just an image
of me. And me, being either the original look or the orginal manner. No person's manner is still, so you never see it at any time, though you see
what it left you to see, which can be deception like with the example about her manner that may have purposely left the impression that her manner is
still a current model or is for doing modeling still when it isnt the case which cant be told at any time either way.
Next time you look at a women or a men, know, you snared have not seen a 1st and last and original II them being present, but you see just an original
mankind present that is with its one specific pair (a women or a men) only broadcasting two tricked out images.
, specifically, be not a single I. You each be a 'double I' ('II': a look and manner) duality. So... You each be II... You each are
II... You each is II... You each II... You: II... II: You. A look is you a person and a manner is you a person. Which is greater? II
'd say the
manner (I) is, since it actualizes etc. Each time you say something your look looks different with your new, present, different, expressing manner. It
is why it's II'd say instead of I'd say. Well, if we're being technical. And who is to say you cant be technical?
So think about the popular
quote: "Let us make man in our image." Is the "our" implying more than a single "I"? Perhaps a 'double I' ('a look and manner') apart the
quote implied. Ha! So it's not "about" you, though it's concerning you.
Any questions? Any thoughts? Any see what I'm implying?
Or, is my implying manner outside your grasp since you see a '1st and last and original' me (a specific II apart) not