Of course, you could look it as if, because of the nature of the equation presented, to be was to think. Or that thought in and of itself was being, and being was in and of itself thought. As a result, you couldn't really say that you were "being" without "thinking" (and as a result, no action would or could be performed without actually realizing, contemplating and accepting the resultant effects of that cause), just as you couldn't say that you were "thinking" unless you were completely, absolutely and without pause "being". In many ways, it would be like the saying, "if you understand the question, you already know the answer."
Re: Movement and rest. That's what it's all about.
Date: 2003-01-16 02:03 pm (UTC)