Whatever could not be as part, whole, equivalence, uniqueness, limit, link, influence, sensation, origin, derivative, rule, condition, intent and fulfillment could not be unity.
Could you rephrase this statement in a better way?
2007-01-17 15:59:55 · 27 answers · asked by The Knowledge Server 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
All is one.
2007-01-17 16:02:51 · answer #1 · answered by Answerer 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Whatever could not be either as a part or whole or equivalence or uniqueness or limit or link or influence or sensation or origin or derivative or rule or condition or intent or fulfillment could not be unity.
The confusion stays...
2007-01-21 03:28:28 · answer #2 · answered by plato's ghost 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Unity has nothing to do with wholeness. If but a part existed of the unity, the part still holds the integrity of the unity. Regardless of the perspective, whether objective or subjective, whether limited or omniscient, the uniqueness of a unity will always shine, definitively - for unity is linked to sensation's origins...and is influenced and ruled by no equivalent... In full, when evenly derived the wholeness of a unity is but a part of its luster.
2007-01-17 17:31:30 · answer #3 · answered by Hammerhead 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Rewrite it to be active and positive voice:
Unity is part, whole, equivalence, uniqueness, limit, link, influence, sensation, origin, derivative, rule, condition, intent and fulfillment.
2007-01-17 16:05:57 · answer #4 · answered by fdm215 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
part- part of a whole
whole - the united matter
equivalence - essential for unity
uniqueness- essential for the united group
limit- relationship among the parts of the whole.
link - reason being united.
influence - interaction about the equivalence
sensations- compromise of the equivalence
origin- does not bother the unity.
derivative - idea of being united
rule - differ from house to house
condition- common with in the limit
intent - result of derivative
fulfillment- success of being united
2007-01-17 22:01:49 · answer #5 · answered by rk 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not that I quite understand the statement... but can suggest the following format
Unity cannot be unless there is part, whole.............. intent and fulfillment.
2007-01-17 16:33:01 · answer #6 · answered by small 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How about this
Whatever could not be useful to the individuals in the group, cannot be useful to the group as a whole.
2007-01-17 16:09:32 · answer #7 · answered by xengold 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The effects society had on women in the 1920's
2016-05-24 02:22:03 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Unity is greater than the sum of it's parts.
2007-01-17 16:12:19 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Alpha and Omega
2007-01-17 17:11:31 · answer #10 · answered by Zezo 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
whatever could be or whomever it may be if they doesn't involve in ur happiness, sadness, etc until and unless they share or u share there could be no unity
2007-01-17 16:22:14 · answer #11 · answered by yap 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋