Undo cuttable behavoir
Yellow: remove object from behaviour by noting it fault. Blue: remove from dreams (always contrary material?) Red: (2 reds) remove the nonverbal gummy so that unnote.
It is strange that history hasnt recognized the removal of possible behaviours in our behaviour. Perhaps some should not know that they repeat behaviour of others?
Antigaity: namely in hypnogogue' moment, jerk over. But what motivates this? Only what you can or also what fascinates?
Are we so shrill?
Eternal recurrency? Namely if fit you do not need that jemeinigkeit(intelligence repeating uneffectively? (meaning, it is quantitative and not qualitative (unless will) because some patterns may repeat in imagination? Or is it unique? not fleasure but gesture, where gesture is done at faceyellow? Are we removing ok?) again. I have this from ratio, not from eternal recurrency.
Do we repeat colours? Not in hermeneutical-epistemologically; if quantitative (more colours repeating) but indeed if qualitative it means some may be double thick? Or is this also quantitative? In concentrating one does not 'redraw' but is effectively on the case.
One can cut, but is this because quantitative is always unique? (math)
Ontology is a sense but it never completes. It is between current formation where recurrent means ontology. But recurrent: quantitatively.
Perhaps colour is ontology, so it is always at our organs, which is somewhat portrayal' of science. However we are already reading brains, but this is .. I
"hermenautical-epistemologically" if new form: ontology for a moment and is it at that next instance ? No, no time here, which has no .. Interpretative: "colors", but at different not initializable moments, and thus if it where we would have pure sickness. We need tears or forms of anger?
Namely on fault, we have that all, so no ontology.
Note: if you see back, that is an ontology of a first instance as a memory. (3-2), if complete, one can tongue veilfail truly deeply for a years' metamorphosis, ontology can be swept away into a seating epistemology. 3 anxieties? grey: forth, not forth, differently 2: two of three . A bit sick but forth and notforth both means an active ontology. With memory one can see at that instance of life where one does not have sophistic- (feet bodily) mystical but a sophistic-undasein and therefor, if one can take that ontology up again by noting which memory is related for that to complete both? Your '2' of three. At tear here? Meaning of two instances of ontologies: two times a undo of part of the tear: this becomes colour.
However, one needs telesis to have built up preunhermeneutical, which is telic, because if it is completed, no ontology but epistemological actions? Need not carf but gheisture(gheisha).
In the beginning one can only stand a tork (torsion). If completed one has a active knife and can return for next?
penkook & geishabuy
Thus, if some lessons are learned in between first telic accumulation and then related to its place, a side note: still is black of rebus unconscious (first), and thus one has intelligence (second possibility with a colour), and thus by repeating a colour and repeating the colour again for ratio because of quantum instance. Say red: has possible telic forms and a second red, smaller because it, without need is its proper uniqueness and because of quantum, one only needs two.
No ontologies here, only epistemologies, and perhaps here starts our finding an answer to what is the enclosure of evolution. What is our ultimate thinkable environment?
And thus ontologies can stay longer in tact, but never get part of evolution?
Perhaps ontologies are all we can repeat? Dasein cannot repeat this but is this phenomenon and so gets delineated to the first powers of colours and shall be in the liver.
Red and quantum and biparty? The second is healthy.
note Note on consciousness: it can repeat at spike, an old tenure will quantum and perhaps thats the reason people call a word like an existentiality, however this is sein and perhaps there is something added to this sein (a second object for intelligence). One keeps will. 2 forms, and 4 possible ways not for me to smear but for you to think. 3 anxiety forms? forth not forth something else (people throw this away?)
Concentration, concentration(2nd), security: a diseased: which first.
2: two of three, or 3, 3 of 1, or 3: all three. All this quantum parable.
One wants a spike for making total telic part of evolution, however those three are faulty here because they can not spike but are repeating ontologies. Perhaps: 2 sein in evolution and then epiphenomena related, this does not help over the mystic decontinuity (meaning language here has its again).
But also this is a peri-epistemological heel. One can fish this from evolutionary? Your brain.
--> between two breaths of equal episteme one can unfish that which you have behaved.