course of consideration

course of consideration:

As for the second course: which is the course of consideration, it is divided into several peoples on the basis of the differences of the owners of this path in regard to which consideration is related.

The first aspect: that the consideration in linguistic situations is the external situation, and the clarification of this is:

There is no problem that placing something on something outside is often indicative of something, for example, they place flags on the ground in places far apart between one farsakh and one farsakh, for example, to designate the heads of the farsakhs, or a flag is erected on a well to know the presence of the well here, and so on. In the section of linguistic situations also, it means putting something on something, i.e.: placing the word on the meaning in order to complete the connotation, except that the external situation is not really possible here, so there is this external situation as a consideration, i.e.: it is considered that the word was placed on the meaning, so it is completed.

He says: The subject is his and the subject is in the external situation, they may be plural in external existence, and they may be plural by analysis, not by external existence. Multiple according to the outer existence, and a flag may be erected on a land to denote the head of the farsakh, so the subject on it is the earth and the subject for it is the head of the farsakh, and they are united in the outer existence, multiple by analysis. It is considered a subject for it, so let what we are about be like this, by imposing the word “lion” for example as a subject, and the meaning used in it on its entirety and regardless of its identification and designation as a subject, and that meaning is the predatory animal as its subject, so the subject is multiplied and the subject is for him by analysis. And the situation here also has three pillars, so the first confusion and astonishment has arisen, which is: How did this situation become with two pillars? You knew that it also has three pillars, the ultimate in what there is: that there is a plurality between the subject for him and the subject on him by analysis, and this is what happens in many of the external situation resources as well. Thus, the answer to the second problem becomes clear as well, which is: that the meaning must be placed upon it, for you have known that the meaning, which is the predatory animal, is subject to it, and the subject upon it is the one used in it in its entirety. It has appeared: that the owner of this face can push these two problems. However, what is correct is that the origin of this aspect is nothing more than a mere tampering with words. And to clarify this: this aspect is supposed to have been considered in the linguistic situations

He says: The subject is his and the subject is in the external situation, they may be plural in external existence, and they may be plural by analysis, not by external existence. Multiple according to the outer existence, and a flag may be erected on a land to denote the head of the farsakh, so the subject on it is the earth and the subject for it is the head of the farsakh, and they are united in the outer existence, multiple by analysis. It is considered a subject for it, so let what we are about be like this, by imposing the word “lion” for example as a subject, and the meaning used in it on its entirety and regardless of its identification and designation as a subject, and that meaning is the predatory animal as its subject, so the subject is multiplied and the subject is for him by analysis. And the situation here also has three pillars, so the first confusion and astonishment has arisen, which is: How did this situation become with two pillars? You knew that it also has three pillars, the ultimate in what there is: that there is a plurality between the subject for him and the subject on him by analysis, and this is what happens in many of the external situation resources as well. Thus, the answer to the second problem becomes clear as well, which is: that the meaning must be placed upon it, for you have known that the meaning, which is the predatory animal, is subject to it, and the subject upon it is the one used in it in its entirety. It has appeared: that the owner of this face can push these two problems. However, what is correct is that the origin of this aspect is nothing more than a mere tampering with words. And to clarify this: this aspect is supposed to have been considered in the linguistic situations

He says: The subject is his and the subject is in the external situation, they may be plural in external existence, and they may be plural by analysis, not by external existence. Multiple according to the outer existence, and a flag may be erected on a land to denote the head of the farsakh, so the subject on it is the earth and the subject for it is the head of the farsakh, and they are united in the outer existence, multiple by analysis. It is considered a subject for it, so let what we are about be like this, by imposing the word “lion” for example as a subject, and the meaning used in it on its entirety and regardless of its identification and designation as a subject, and that meaning is the predatory animal as its subject, so the subject is multiplied and the subject is for him by analysis. And the situation here also has three pillars, so the first confusion and astonishment has arisen, which is: How did this situation become with two pillars? You knew that it also has three pillars, the ultimate in what there is: that there is a plurality between the subject for him and the subject on him by analysis, and this is what happens in many of the external situation resources as well. Thus, the answer to the second problem becomes clear as well, which is: that the meaning must be placed upon it, for you have known that the meaning, which is the predatory animal, is subject to it, and the subject upon it is the one used in it in its entirety. It has appeared: that the owner of this face can push these two problems. However, what is correct is that the origin of this aspect is nothing more than a mere tampering with words. And to clarify this: this aspect is supposed to have been considered in the linguistic situations