You have come to a point in your journey when it is necessary to know the difference between words, and the intent behind the words. If I say to you, "Our journey together is not a matter of the destination so much as it is an experience of mind, body and spirit along the way," I have communicated to you a concept which is larger than the words themselves, yes? What is hoped is that you will know the intent of the speaker, rather than attempting to vivisect the words themselves.
You could say to me in return, "Ah, but what do you mean by mind, body and spirit? You imply there is a destination, but where would that be and how would I get there?"
All of these questions would only indicate to me that you have missed the point entirely, and that you are attempting to use words to obfuscate meaning, semantics to distract from the intent of the speaker. And while this is to be expected from those new to the path, it is nothing less than disrespectful to yourself when it becomes a habit of a more advanced seeker. It is the chatter of your self-importance, operating on behalf of your ego.
If you know the intent behind the speaker's statement, yet you choose to engage in wordplay, then what you are really doing is diverting attention away from the subject at hand. There are many reasons to do so, but the most common is a laziness of mind. It is always easier to argue at the level of words than to engage openly at the level of intent and spirit and forward-thinking. The second most common reason to divert attention in this manner is - quite simply - one's own self-importance. Playing with words and being thought of as clever holds more value for some than an actual exploration of the speaker's original intent.
It will always be possible to split words and divide particles, for energy is infinite, even its smallness. And yet, is there anything to be gained by doing so, or would far greater value be found through hearing and *seeing* what the speaker intended, rather than immediately allowing the internal dialogue to begin looking for ways to dispute it? If you are still at the core and examine what is intended, you will often discover that you don't really 'disagree' at all. It is merely a habit to do so, rooted in some program still operating in the consensus.
It is not a matter of whether you agree with me or not. That is altogether irrelevant. And yet, if the disagreement resides wholly in a dispute of words or terminology, the point is lost and the status quo of the consensus is maintained and all is right with the world.
...or is it?
So it is time to choose and to make a commitment of awareness to yourself and your journey. Do you want to discuss ideas and concepts of the infinite and eternal, or do you want to infinitely and eternally debate the fallacies of language until all that remains is the psychobabble of language itself?
Make the impeccable choice.
"In conflict theory, passive resistance is a rational response to demands that may simply be disagreed with. Passive-aggressive behavior can resemble a behavior better described as catty, as it consists of deliberate, active, but carefully veiled hostile acts..."