info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
-- A SUMMARY ON TRANSMUTATION (AUGMENTED / AMELIORATED) OF ANY UNIVERSE OF DISCOURSE BEING UNITY OF APPERCEPTION
2 views
Skip to first unread message
dolf
Mar 8, 2020, 1:11:37 AM3/8/20
to
-- A SUMMARY ON TRANSMUTATION (AUGMENTED / AMELIORATED) OF ANY UNIVERSE
OF DISCOURSE BEING UNITY OF APPERCEPTION
We might then consider that our notion of a STATIC LIMITED {ie. #9} TERM
of #51 - CONSTANCY (CH'ANG) is that which the Greek philosophers (c.
700 BCE) considered as χημεία (khēmeía) (cast together or pour together
or 'today we say') and tried to rationalize by the term 'atomos' meaning
indivisible:
41 57 1
46 51 9
45 27 10
As equivalent to a philosophical science of ALCHEMY, where it was
speculated, that such a substance could be augmented and transmuted into
another notion such as our DYNAMIC LIMITED {ie. #9} TERM of #46 -
ENLARGEMENT (K'UO), which has either a partial or no resemblance to the
previous substance:
9 41 57
45 46 1
32 27 10
Since we are aware of the meta-descriptor elements are the impetus for
change are an SYNCRETIC: {Amalgam} of a #81 - UNIVERSE OF DISCOURSE, it
is then the theoretically possible that our neural linguistic
apperception could be ameliorated in the reverse manner.
χημεία (khēmeía)@[χ, {@1: Sup: 33 - CLOSENESS: MI (#33); Ego: 33 -
CLOSENESS: MI (#33)}
η, {@2: Sup: 41 - RESPONSE: YING (#74); Ego: 8 - OPPOSITION: KAN (#41)}
μ, {@3: Sup: 81 - FOSTERING: YANG (#155); Ego: 40 - LAW/MODEL: FA (#81)}
ε, {@4: Sup: 5 - KEEPING SMALL: SHAO (#160); Ego: 5 - KEEPING SMALL:
SHAO (#86 - I AM NOT A ROBBER OF FOOD {%10})}
ι, {@5: Sup: 15 - REACH: TA (#175 - I AM NOT A TRANSGRESSOR {%22}); Ego:
10 - DEFECTIVENESS, DISTORTION: HSIEN (#96)}
α] {@6: Sup: 16 - CONTACT: CHIAO (#191 - I DO NOT STEAL THE SKINS OF THE
SACRED ANIMALS {%32}); Ego: 1 - CENTRE: CHUNG (#97)}
MALE: @175 + @191 = #366
FEME: @86 = #86
ONTIC CHECKSUM TOTAL: #452
<http://www.grapple369.com/Grumble/grumble.html?idea:{175}&idea:{191}&idea:{366}&idea:{86}&idea:{452}>
T'AI HSÜAN CHING {POLAR OPPOSITIONS / INTERPLAY OF OPPOSITES} [4 BCE]:
UMBRA: #452 % #41 = #1 - To Guide with Names, Reason's Realisation;
I-Ching: H58 - Joy, Open, Lake; Tetra: 24 - Joy;
THOTH MEASURE: #1 - Oh thou of long strides, who makest thine appearance
in Annu; I am not a doer of wrong.
#VIRTUE: If it is Center (no. #1), then yang begins.
#TOOLS: With Center (no. #1), it begins.
#POSITION: If it is Response (no. #41), then yin is born.
#TIME: With Full Circle (no. #2), it wheels back.
#CANON: #45
ONTIC_OBLIGANS_45@{
@1: Sup: 1 - CENTRE: CHUNG (#1); Ego: 1 - CENTRE: CHUNG (#1),
@2: Sup: 2 - FULL CIRCLE: CHOU (#3); Ego: 1 - CENTRE: CHUNG (#2),
@3: Sup: 43 - ENCOUNTERS: YU (#46); Ego: 41 - RESPONSE: YING (#43),
@4: Sup: 45 - GREATNESS: TA (#91); Ego: 2 - FULL CIRCLE: CHOU (#45 -
I AM NOT A DOER OF WRONG {%1}),
Male: #91; Feme: #45
} // #45
#451 as [#1, #80, #70, #20, #100, #9, #50, #70, #40, #1, #10] /
#505 as [#1, #80, #70, #20, #100, #10, #9, #5, #10, #200] /
#233 as [#1, #80, #5, #20, #100, #10, #9, #8] = apokrínomai (G611):
{UMBRA: #40 as #452 % #41 = #1} 1) to give an answer to a question
proposed, to answer; 2) to begin to speak, but always where something
has preceded (either said or done) to which the remarks refer;
χυμεία (khumeía)@[χ, {@1: Sup: 33 - CLOSENESS: MI (#33); Ego: 33 -
CLOSENESS: MI (#33)}
υ, {@2: Sup: 28 - CHANGE: KENG (#61); Ego: 76 - AGGRAVATION: CHU (#109)}
μ, {@3: Sup: 68 - DIMMING: MENG (#129); Ego: 40 - LAW/MODEL: FA (#149)}
ε, {@4: Sup: 73 - ALREADY FORDING, COMPLETION: CH'ENG (#202); Ego: 5 -
KEEPING SMALL: SHAO (#154)}
ι, {@5: Sup: 2 - FULL CIRCLE: CHOU (#204); Ego: 10 - DEFECTIVENESS,
DISTORTION: HSIEN (#164)}
α] {@6: Sup: 3 - MIRED: HSIEN (#207); Ego: 1 - CENTRE: CHUNG (#165)}
<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/χημεία>
KANT too, perhaps following this unmistakable *HINT* *OF* *LANGUAGE*,
*FOUND* *A* *KIND* *OF* *JUDGMENT* *IN* *WHICH* *THE* *CASUS* *ITSELF*
*WAS* *MANIFESTLY* *DECIDED* (ie. *CASUS* *DATAE* *LEGIS*), although the
rule under which the fallen case fell was still to be found, and would
eventually deny itself entirely to man's power to say. To this type of
judgment, he devoted the most heroic of his works, which he called a
critique of the power of judgment, KRITIK DER URTEILSKRAFT. There *THE*
*WILL* *TO* *JUDGE* *SEEMS* *TO* *RUN* *UP* *AGAINST* *ITS* *OUTER*
*LIMITS*. In what sense indeed is there still a 'Judgment," that is, a
saying of law, when the supposed "law" withdraws into ineffability?
Had we *LISTENED* *TO* *THE* *HISTORY* *OF* *THE* *WORD*, briefly told
at the outset, this last difficulty would not have come as a surprise.
[VANDERBILT LAW REVIEW Vol. 48:987-988]
So there is need to discuss something that perhaps belongs to the
providence of METALOGIC AS THE STUDY OF THE METATHEORY OF LOGIC which is
entirely outside my present scope of experience (in needing
substantially more research) and thusly there is immediately a
semantical failure. But what we wish to convey is both a conceptual
STATIC OR DYNAMIC LIMITED {ie. #9} TERM that has a dialectic relativity
to the UNLIMITED {ie. #72} realm as the world of action.
PROPOSITIONAL DELIMITER RELATIVE TO THE AUTONOMOUS PRINCIPLE:
We have said previously that there must be caution given here over such
a notion as #24 - JOY (LE) which is a delimited term as being a
determination of the limits or boundary line in it's being something and
so we'll have to convey a neural linguistic technique for the
spontaneous determining of a conceptual limit relative to the unlimited
realm as the world of action.
METALOGIC IS THE STUDY OF THE METATHEORY OF LOGIC. Whereas logic studies
how logical systems can be used to construct valid and sound arguments,
metalogic studies the properties of logical systems. Logic concerns the
truths that may be derived using a logical system; metalogic concerns
the truths that may be derived about the languages and systems that are
used to express truths.
The basic objects of metalogical study are formal languages, formal
systems, and their interpretations. The study of interpretation of
formal systems is the branch of mathematical logic that is known as
model theory, and the study of deductive systems is the branch that is
known as proof theory.
We might readily see there is sense of #24 - JOY (LE) but its attainment
is entirely a subjective proposition especially given the notion: "ONE
MAN'S PLEASURE IS ANOTHER MAN'S POISON" and so we'll consider some other
PROPOSITIONAL DELIMITER such as #51 - CONSTANCY (CH'ANG) but which we'll
nuance for our present example as the need for COMPLIANCE in being a
concern for #27 - DUTY purveying some beneficial ACTION related to
CALAMITY, but being distinct to another PROPOSITIONAL DELIMITER of #77 -
COMPLIANCE (HSUN)...
LET ME SAY CATEGORICALLY, THAT *THERE* *IS* *NO* *SUBSTITUTE* *FOR* *AN*
*OPINION* *FROM* *AN* *EXPERT* WITHIN ANY PARTICULAR SAPIENT FIELD OF
HUMAN ENDEAVOUR. THIS #1364 - PARADIGM POSSESSES THE CAPACITY FOR AN
INCLUSION OF ANY KNOWLEDGE SPHERE AS RELIANCE UPON THE SAPIENT EXPERTISE
AS FACULTY KNOWLEDGE OF OTHERS.
FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES WE CAN CONTENT OURSELVES WITH THE IGNORANT
POSTULATIONS OF STUPIDITY.
Our concern then is to convey some functional considerations over any
veracity so as to engender this #1364 - paradigm as a tool for the
assistance of any expert within any particular sapient field of human
endeavour.
That in making a nomenclature consideration of #45 - METHODOLOGY the
#CENTRE of value PROPOSITION is that any DELIMITER is relative to the
AUTONOMOUS PRINCIPLE, thereby as a METATHEORY OF LOGIC is a stratum as
dialectic of meta-descriptor prototypes which always precedes it.
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
#9 - PROPOSITIONAL DELIMITER RELATIVE TO THE AUTONOMOUS PRINCIPLE
Whereas the SAPIENT OPINION FROM AN EXPERT and those of the IGNORANT
POSTULATIONS OF STUPIDITY might both direct themselves to the same
PROPOSITIONAL DELIMITER, the dialectic of meta-descriptor prototypes can
yield entirely different results which may be vital or may not satisfy
our contingent need for a STATIC conception with an inclusion of any
ONTIC EPISTEMOLOGICAL PREMISE with deference to the resultant CATEGORY
OF UNDERSTANDING such as for example #432 - DEVOID OF TRUTH OR USELESS
which is then associated to our STATIC conception.
OUR EDUCATIONAL EXAMPLE IS AN OBSERVATION FROM A FIRE ZONE EVACUEE.
FIRE EVACUEE @ 2313 HOURS ON 30 DECEMBER 2019: "Another year, same fun
times being had,
Everythings packed, cars loaded, and we evacuate tomorrow morning,
Pretty *RED* glow out the lounge window tonight. Fire is due here late
tomorrow morning, have done all i can, unfortunately no water to fight
the fire, so no use staying.
Don't hold out much hope this time i'll be returning to the house, the
ground and bush is so dry,
With a bit of luck the wind wont come up and i'll be back on here
tomorrow, If not, will be back one day,
To all have a great New year."
And the SPIRAL SELECTOR@{NATURE: (EGO)} prototype provides the following
result:
41 57 1 #99 +
46 51 9 #106 = #205 +
45 27 10 #82 = #287
As the GRAPPLE [#41, #57, #1, #9, #10, #27, #45, #46, #51] which conveys
[#41, {@1: Sup: 41 - RESPONSE: YING (#41); Ego: 41 - RESPONSE: YING (#41)}
#57, {@2: Sup: 17 - HOLDING BACK: JUAN (#58); Ego: 57 - GUARDEDNESS:
SHOU (#98)}
#1, {@3: Sup: 18 - WAITING: HSI (#76); Ego: 1 - CENTRE: CHUNG (#99)}
#9, {@4: Sup: 27 - DUTIES: SHIH (#103); Ego: 9 - BRANCHING OUT: SHU (#108)}
#10, {@5: Sup: 37 - PURITY: TS'UI (#140 - I DEAL NOT FRAUDULENTLY {%14}
/ I AM NOT AN EAVES-DROPPER {%16}); Ego: 10 - DEFECTIVENESS, DISTORTION:
HSIEN (#118)}
#27, {@6: Sup: 64 - SINKING: CH'EN (#204); Ego: 27 - DUTIES: SHIH (#145)}
#45, {@7: Sup: 28 - CHANGE: KENG (#232); Ego: 45 - GREATNESS: TA (#190)}
#46, {@8: Sup: 74 - CLOSURE: CHIH (#306); Ego: 46 - ENLARGEMENT: K'UO
(#236)}
#51] {@9: Sup: 44 - STOVE: TSAO (#350: *TO* *PRESERVE*, *GUARD* *FROM*
*DANGERS*); Ego: 51 - CONSTANCY: CH'ANG (#287)}
MALE: @140 = #140
ONTIC CHECKSUM TOTAL: #140 as [#5, #40, #1, #4, #40, #10, #600] = ʼâdam
(H119): {UMBRA: #1 as #45 % #41 = #4} 1) *TO* *BE* *RED*, *RED*; 1a)
(Qal) ruddy (of Nazarites); 1b) (Pual); 1b1) to be rubbed red; 1b2) dyed
red; 1b3) reddened; 1c) (Hiphil); 1c1) *TO* *CAUSE* *TO* *SHOW* *RED*;
1c2) to glare; 1c3) *TO* *EMIT* (*SHOW*) *REDNESS*; 1d) (Hithpael); 1d1)
to redden; 1d2) to grow red; 1d3) to look red;
#350 as [#50, #90, #200, #10] = nâtsar (H5341): {UMBRA: #23 as #340 %
#41 = #12} 1) to guard, watch, watch over, keep; 1a) (Qal); 1a1) to
watch, guard, keep; 1a2) *TO* *PRESERVE*, *GUARD* *FROM* *DANGERS*; 1a3)
to keep, observe, guard with fidelity; 1a4) to guard, keep secret; 1a5)
to be kept close, be blockaded; 1a6) watchman (participle);
In our introductory example as our conception of a PROPOSITIONAL
DELIMITER RELATIVE TO THE AUTONOMOUS PRINCIPLE we considered a STATIC
LIMITED {ie. #9} TERM of #51 - CONSTANCY (CH'ANG) which we had nuanced
to accommodate the need for COMPLIANCE in being a concern for #27 - DUTY
purveying some beneficial ACTION related to CALAMITY.
But now we want to consider a new condition as a neural linguistic
conception conveying an urgency "THEN SOMETHING TERRIBLE HAPPENED. SO
WHERE CAN WE ESCAPE TO NOW?"
Which has emanated from the UNLIMITED {ie. #72} realm as the world of
action as to then impose a morphological condition onto our previously
STATIC LIMITED {ie. #9} TERM of #51 - CONSTANCY (CH'ANG) and the result
is a DYNAMIC LIMITED {ie. #9} TERM that has not only a different
dialectic as AUTONOMOUS condition which we have to contend with, but now
has different demands placed upon the consideration of any UTILITARIAN
PROBABILITY that deals expressly with the essentiality of the ONTIC
premise as the impetus to any "motive or intrinsic nature of an action".
And lastly the #CENTRE of value PROPOSITION as the DELIMITER which is
relative to the AUTONOMOUS PRINCIPLE has a different focal context of
#46 - ENLARGEMENT (K'UO): "...whatever security he builds is likely to
collapse under pressure, just as the physical structure constructed on a
faulty foundation is sure to collapse." [The Canon of Supreme Mystery, p
291]
.jackNote@zen: 3, row: 8, col: 6, nous: 52 [DATE: 2020.1.18, TIME: 19:50
hrs, SUPER: #348 / #50 - Fantasies of Avoiding Death, Value of Life;
I-Ching: H2 - Pure Yin, Passive Principle / Earth, Field, The receptive,
Acquiescence, The flow; Tetra: 77 - COMPLIANCE (HSUN), EGO: #444 / #52 -
So What?, Returning to the Origin; I-Ching: H45 - Gathering,
Congregation, Clustering, Gathering together (massing), Finished; Tetra:
61 - EMBELLISHMENT (SHIH)]
Then something terrible happened. {@1: Sup: 79 - DIFFICULTIES: NAN
(#79); Ego: 9 - BRANCHING OUT: SHU (#9)}
So where can we escape to now? {@2: Sup: 70 - SEVERANCE: KE (#149); Ego:
32 - LEGION: CHUANG (#41)}
ONTIC CHECKSUM (none)
This time the SPIRAL SELECTOR@{NATURE: (EGO)} prototype provides the
following AUGMENTED result:
9 41 57 #107 +
45 46 1 #92 = #199 +
32 27 10 #69 = #268
As the GRAPPLE [#9, #41, #57, #1, #10, #27, #32, #45, #46] it now
conveys this condition:
[#9, {@1: Sup: 9 - BRANCHING OUT: SHU (#9); Ego: 9 - BRANCHING OUT: SHU
(#9)}
#41, {@2: Sup: 50 - VASTNESS / WASTING: T'ANG (#59); Ego: 41 - RESPONSE:
YING (#50)}
#57, {@3: Sup: 26 - ENDEAVOUR: WU (#85); Ego: 57 - GUARDEDNESS: SHOU (#107)}
#1, {@4: Sup: 27 - DUTIES: SHIH (#112); Ego: 1 - CENTRE: CHUNG (#108)}
#10, {@5: Sup: 37 - PURITY: TS'UI (#149); Ego: 10 - DEFECTIVENESS,
DISTORTION: HSIEN (#118)}
#27, {@6: Sup: 64 - SINKING: CH'EN (#213); Ego: 27 - DUTIES: SHIH (#145)}
#32, {@7: Sup: 15 - REACH: TA (#228 - I HAVE NO UNJUST PREFERENCES
{%40}); Ego: 32 - LEGION: CHUANG (#177 - I AM NOT GIVEN TO CURSING {%29})}
#45, {@8: Sup: 60 - ACCUMULATION: CHI (#288); Ego: 45 - GREATNESS: TA
(#222)}
#46] {@9: Sup: 25 - CONTENTION: CHENG (#313); Ego: 46 - ENLARGEMENT:
K'UO (#268)}
MALE: @228 = #228
FEME: @177 = #177
<http://www.grapple369.com/Grumble/grumble.html?idea:{228}&idea:{177}&idea:{405}>
ONTIC CHECKSUM TOTAL: #405 as [#5, #50, #20, #300, #30] = kâshal
(H3782): {UMBRA: #12 as #350 % #41 = #22} 1) to stumble, stagger,
totter; 1a) (Qal); 1a1) to stumble; 1a2) to totter; 1b) (Niphal); 1b1)
to stumble; 1b2) to be tottering, be feeble; 1c) (Hiphil); 1c1) *TO*
*CAUSE* *TO* *STUMBLE*, *BRING* *INJURY* *OR* *RUIN* *TO*, *OVERTHROW*;
1c2) to make feeble, make weak; 1d) (Hophal) to be made to stumble; 1e)
(Piel) bereave;
H3782@{
@1: Sup: 5 - KEEPING SMALL: SHAO (#5); Ego: 5 - KEEPING SMALL: SHAO
(#5),
@2: Sup: 55 - DIMINISHMENT: CHIEN (#60); Ego: 50 - VASTNESS /
WASTING: T'ANG (#55),
@3: Sup: 75 - FAILURE: SHIH (#135); Ego: 20 - ADVANCE: CHIN (#75),
@4: Sup: 51 - CONSTANCY: CH'ANG (#186 - I AM NOT ONE OF INCONSTANT
MIND {%31}); Ego: 57 - GUARDEDNESS: SHOU (#132),
@5: Sup: 81 - FOSTERING: YANG (#267); Ego: 30 - BOLD RESOLUTION: YI
(#162),
Male: #267; Feme: #162
} // #405
--
YOUTUBE: "The Meerkat Circus"
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-7OuqWi4vQ>
SEE ALSO AS RELATIONSHIP: *INVALIDATING* {Perennial philosophy (HETEROS
{#390 - ROBBERS} v’s HOMOIOS {#391 - STEWARDS OF GOD’S HOUSE} THEORY OF
NUMBER) as universal of right and wrong...} *THE* *ORTHODOX* *AND*
*ROMAN* *CATHOLIC* *CHURCH'S* *CLAIM* {#390 as 1, #100, #80, #1, #3, #5,
#200 as harpax (G727): {#11 as #242} 1) rapacious, ravenous; 2) a
extortioner, a robber} *TO* *JUBILEE2000* *AS* *BEING* *DELUSIONAL*
*AND* *FRAUDULENT*
Private Street on the edge of the Central Business District dated 16th
May, 2000 - This report is prepared in response to a TP00/55 as a Notice
of an Application for Planning Permit
<http://www.grapple369.com/jubilee2000.html>
SEE ALSO: HYPOSTASIS AS DAO OF NATURE (Chinese: ZIRAN) / COURSE (Greek:
TROCHOS) OF NATURE (Greek: GENESIS) [James 3:6]
Chinese HAN Dynasty (206 BCE - 220CE) Hexagon Trigrams to Tetragram
assignments proposed by Yang Hsiung (53BCE - 18CE) which by 4BCE
(translation published within English as first European language in
1993), first appeared in draft form as a meta-thesis titled T'AI HSUAN
CHING {ie. Canon of Supreme Mystery} on Natural Divination associated
with the theory of number, annual seasonal chronology and astrology
reliant upon the seven visible planets as cosmological mother image and
the zodiac.
It shows the ZIRAN as the DAO of NATURE / COURSE-trochos OF
NATURE-genesis [James 3:6] as HYPOSTASIS comprising #81 trinomial
tetragrammaton x 4.5 day = #364.5 day / year as HOMOIOS THEORY OF NUMBER
which is an amalgam of the 64 hexagrams as binomial trigrams / 81 as
trinomial tetragrammaton rather than its encapsulated contrived use as
the microcosm to redefine the macrocosm as the quintessence of the
Pythagorean [Babylonian] as binomial canon of transposition as HETEROS
THEORY OF NUMBER.
<http://www.grapple369.com/nature.html>
The Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities No. 43 of Act 2006
defines a "PERSON MEANS A HUMAN BEING” and the question is, if it is
permissible to extend this definition to be a "PERSON MEANS A HUMAN
BEING AS A CONSCIOUS REALITY OF HOMO[iOS] SAPIEN[T] WHO IS INSTANTIATED
WITHIN THE TEMPORAL REALITY AS THEN THE CAUSE FOR REASONING AND
RATIONALITY."
That my mathematical theoretical noumenon defines the meta-descriptor
prototypes which are prerequisite to the BEING of HOMO[iOS] SAPIEN[T] as
EXISTENCE / *OUSIA*.
<http://www.grapple369.com/Grumble.zip> (Download resources)
After all the ENNEAD of THOTH and not the Roman Catholic Eucharist,
expresses an Anthropic Cosmological Principle which appears within its
geometric conception as being equivalent to the Pythagorean
TETRAD/TETRACTYS.
OF DISCOURSE BEING UNITY OF APPERCEPTION
We might then consider that our notion of a STATIC LIMITED {ie. #9} TERM
of #51 - CONSTANCY (CH'ANG) is that which the Greek philosophers (c.
700 BCE) considered as χημεία (khēmeía) (cast together or pour together
or 'today we say') and tried to rationalize by the term 'atomos' meaning
indivisible:
41 57 1
46 51 9
45 27 10
As equivalent to a philosophical science of ALCHEMY, where it was
speculated, that such a substance could be augmented and transmuted into
another notion such as our DYNAMIC LIMITED {ie. #9} TERM of #46 -
ENLARGEMENT (K'UO), which has either a partial or no resemblance to the
previous substance:
9 41 57
45 46 1
32 27 10
Since we are aware of the meta-descriptor elements are the impetus for
change are an SYNCRETIC: {Amalgam} of a #81 - UNIVERSE OF DISCOURSE, it
is then the theoretically possible that our neural linguistic
apperception could be ameliorated in the reverse manner.
χημεία (khēmeía)@[χ, {@1: Sup: 33 - CLOSENESS: MI (#33); Ego: 33 -
CLOSENESS: MI (#33)}
η, {@2: Sup: 41 - RESPONSE: YING (#74); Ego: 8 - OPPOSITION: KAN (#41)}
μ, {@3: Sup: 81 - FOSTERING: YANG (#155); Ego: 40 - LAW/MODEL: FA (#81)}
ε, {@4: Sup: 5 - KEEPING SMALL: SHAO (#160); Ego: 5 - KEEPING SMALL:
SHAO (#86 - I AM NOT A ROBBER OF FOOD {%10})}
ι, {@5: Sup: 15 - REACH: TA (#175 - I AM NOT A TRANSGRESSOR {%22}); Ego:
10 - DEFECTIVENESS, DISTORTION: HSIEN (#96)}
α] {@6: Sup: 16 - CONTACT: CHIAO (#191 - I DO NOT STEAL THE SKINS OF THE
SACRED ANIMALS {%32}); Ego: 1 - CENTRE: CHUNG (#97)}
MALE: @175 + @191 = #366
FEME: @86 = #86
ONTIC CHECKSUM TOTAL: #452
<http://www.grapple369.com/Grumble/grumble.html?idea:{175}&idea:{191}&idea:{366}&idea:{86}&idea:{452}>
T'AI HSÜAN CHING {POLAR OPPOSITIONS / INTERPLAY OF OPPOSITES} [4 BCE]:
UMBRA: #452 % #41 = #1 - To Guide with Names, Reason's Realisation;
I-Ching: H58 - Joy, Open, Lake; Tetra: 24 - Joy;
THOTH MEASURE: #1 - Oh thou of long strides, who makest thine appearance
in Annu; I am not a doer of wrong.
#VIRTUE: If it is Center (no. #1), then yang begins.
#TOOLS: With Center (no. #1), it begins.
#POSITION: If it is Response (no. #41), then yin is born.
#TIME: With Full Circle (no. #2), it wheels back.
#CANON: #45
ONTIC_OBLIGANS_45@{
@1: Sup: 1 - CENTRE: CHUNG (#1); Ego: 1 - CENTRE: CHUNG (#1),
@2: Sup: 2 - FULL CIRCLE: CHOU (#3); Ego: 1 - CENTRE: CHUNG (#2),
@3: Sup: 43 - ENCOUNTERS: YU (#46); Ego: 41 - RESPONSE: YING (#43),
@4: Sup: 45 - GREATNESS: TA (#91); Ego: 2 - FULL CIRCLE: CHOU (#45 -
I AM NOT A DOER OF WRONG {%1}),
Male: #91; Feme: #45
} // #45
#451 as [#1, #80, #70, #20, #100, #9, #50, #70, #40, #1, #10] /
#505 as [#1, #80, #70, #20, #100, #10, #9, #5, #10, #200] /
#233 as [#1, #80, #5, #20, #100, #10, #9, #8] = apokrínomai (G611):
{UMBRA: #40 as #452 % #41 = #1} 1) to give an answer to a question
proposed, to answer; 2) to begin to speak, but always where something
has preceded (either said or done) to which the remarks refer;
χυμεία (khumeía)@[χ, {@1: Sup: 33 - CLOSENESS: MI (#33); Ego: 33 -
CLOSENESS: MI (#33)}
υ, {@2: Sup: 28 - CHANGE: KENG (#61); Ego: 76 - AGGRAVATION: CHU (#109)}
μ, {@3: Sup: 68 - DIMMING: MENG (#129); Ego: 40 - LAW/MODEL: FA (#149)}
ε, {@4: Sup: 73 - ALREADY FORDING, COMPLETION: CH'ENG (#202); Ego: 5 -
KEEPING SMALL: SHAO (#154)}
ι, {@5: Sup: 2 - FULL CIRCLE: CHOU (#204); Ego: 10 - DEFECTIVENESS,
DISTORTION: HSIEN (#164)}
α] {@6: Sup: 3 - MIRED: HSIEN (#207); Ego: 1 - CENTRE: CHUNG (#165)}
<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/χημεία>
KANT too, perhaps following this unmistakable *HINT* *OF* *LANGUAGE*,
*FOUND* *A* *KIND* *OF* *JUDGMENT* *IN* *WHICH* *THE* *CASUS* *ITSELF*
*WAS* *MANIFESTLY* *DECIDED* (ie. *CASUS* *DATAE* *LEGIS*), although the
rule under which the fallen case fell was still to be found, and would
eventually deny itself entirely to man's power to say. To this type of
judgment, he devoted the most heroic of his works, which he called a
critique of the power of judgment, KRITIK DER URTEILSKRAFT. There *THE*
*WILL* *TO* *JUDGE* *SEEMS* *TO* *RUN* *UP* *AGAINST* *ITS* *OUTER*
*LIMITS*. In what sense indeed is there still a 'Judgment," that is, a
saying of law, when the supposed "law" withdraws into ineffability?
Had we *LISTENED* *TO* *THE* *HISTORY* *OF* *THE* *WORD*, briefly told
at the outset, this last difficulty would not have come as a surprise.
[VANDERBILT LAW REVIEW Vol. 48:987-988]
So there is need to discuss something that perhaps belongs to the
providence of METALOGIC AS THE STUDY OF THE METATHEORY OF LOGIC which is
entirely outside my present scope of experience (in needing
substantially more research) and thusly there is immediately a
semantical failure. But what we wish to convey is both a conceptual
STATIC OR DYNAMIC LIMITED {ie. #9} TERM that has a dialectic relativity
to the UNLIMITED {ie. #72} realm as the world of action.
PROPOSITIONAL DELIMITER RELATIVE TO THE AUTONOMOUS PRINCIPLE:
We have said previously that there must be caution given here over such
a notion as #24 - JOY (LE) which is a delimited term as being a
determination of the limits or boundary line in it's being something and
so we'll have to convey a neural linguistic technique for the
spontaneous determining of a conceptual limit relative to the unlimited
realm as the world of action.
METALOGIC IS THE STUDY OF THE METATHEORY OF LOGIC. Whereas logic studies
how logical systems can be used to construct valid and sound arguments,
metalogic studies the properties of logical systems. Logic concerns the
truths that may be derived using a logical system; metalogic concerns
the truths that may be derived about the languages and systems that are
used to express truths.
The basic objects of metalogical study are formal languages, formal
systems, and their interpretations. The study of interpretation of
formal systems is the branch of mathematical logic that is known as
model theory, and the study of deductive systems is the branch that is
known as proof theory.
We might readily see there is sense of #24 - JOY (LE) but its attainment
is entirely a subjective proposition especially given the notion: "ONE
MAN'S PLEASURE IS ANOTHER MAN'S POISON" and so we'll consider some other
PROPOSITIONAL DELIMITER such as #51 - CONSTANCY (CH'ANG) but which we'll
nuance for our present example as the need for COMPLIANCE in being a
concern for #27 - DUTY purveying some beneficial ACTION related to
CALAMITY, but being distinct to another PROPOSITIONAL DELIMITER of #77 -
COMPLIANCE (HSUN)...
LET ME SAY CATEGORICALLY, THAT *THERE* *IS* *NO* *SUBSTITUTE* *FOR* *AN*
*OPINION* *FROM* *AN* *EXPERT* WITHIN ANY PARTICULAR SAPIENT FIELD OF
HUMAN ENDEAVOUR. THIS #1364 - PARADIGM POSSESSES THE CAPACITY FOR AN
INCLUSION OF ANY KNOWLEDGE SPHERE AS RELIANCE UPON THE SAPIENT EXPERTISE
AS FACULTY KNOWLEDGE OF OTHERS.
FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES WE CAN CONTENT OURSELVES WITH THE IGNORANT
POSTULATIONS OF STUPIDITY.
Our concern then is to convey some functional considerations over any
veracity so as to engender this #1364 - paradigm as a tool for the
assistance of any expert within any particular sapient field of human
endeavour.
That in making a nomenclature consideration of #45 - METHODOLOGY the
#CENTRE of value PROPOSITION is that any DELIMITER is relative to the
AUTONOMOUS PRINCIPLE, thereby as a METATHEORY OF LOGIC is a stratum as
dialectic of meta-descriptor prototypes which always precedes it.
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
#9 - PROPOSITIONAL DELIMITER RELATIVE TO THE AUTONOMOUS PRINCIPLE
Whereas the SAPIENT OPINION FROM AN EXPERT and those of the IGNORANT
POSTULATIONS OF STUPIDITY might both direct themselves to the same
PROPOSITIONAL DELIMITER, the dialectic of meta-descriptor prototypes can
yield entirely different results which may be vital or may not satisfy
our contingent need for a STATIC conception with an inclusion of any
ONTIC EPISTEMOLOGICAL PREMISE with deference to the resultant CATEGORY
OF UNDERSTANDING such as for example #432 - DEVOID OF TRUTH OR USELESS
which is then associated to our STATIC conception.
OUR EDUCATIONAL EXAMPLE IS AN OBSERVATION FROM A FIRE ZONE EVACUEE.
FIRE EVACUEE @ 2313 HOURS ON 30 DECEMBER 2019: "Another year, same fun
times being had,
Everythings packed, cars loaded, and we evacuate tomorrow morning,
Pretty *RED* glow out the lounge window tonight. Fire is due here late
tomorrow morning, have done all i can, unfortunately no water to fight
the fire, so no use staying.
Don't hold out much hope this time i'll be returning to the house, the
ground and bush is so dry,
With a bit of luck the wind wont come up and i'll be back on here
tomorrow, If not, will be back one day,
To all have a great New year."
And the SPIRAL SELECTOR@{NATURE: (EGO)} prototype provides the following
result:
41 57 1 #99 +
46 51 9 #106 = #205 +
45 27 10 #82 = #287
As the GRAPPLE [#41, #57, #1, #9, #10, #27, #45, #46, #51] which conveys
[#41, {@1: Sup: 41 - RESPONSE: YING (#41); Ego: 41 - RESPONSE: YING (#41)}
#57, {@2: Sup: 17 - HOLDING BACK: JUAN (#58); Ego: 57 - GUARDEDNESS:
SHOU (#98)}
#1, {@3: Sup: 18 - WAITING: HSI (#76); Ego: 1 - CENTRE: CHUNG (#99)}
#9, {@4: Sup: 27 - DUTIES: SHIH (#103); Ego: 9 - BRANCHING OUT: SHU (#108)}
#10, {@5: Sup: 37 - PURITY: TS'UI (#140 - I DEAL NOT FRAUDULENTLY {%14}
/ I AM NOT AN EAVES-DROPPER {%16}); Ego: 10 - DEFECTIVENESS, DISTORTION:
HSIEN (#118)}
#27, {@6: Sup: 64 - SINKING: CH'EN (#204); Ego: 27 - DUTIES: SHIH (#145)}
#45, {@7: Sup: 28 - CHANGE: KENG (#232); Ego: 45 - GREATNESS: TA (#190)}
#46, {@8: Sup: 74 - CLOSURE: CHIH (#306); Ego: 46 - ENLARGEMENT: K'UO
(#236)}
#51] {@9: Sup: 44 - STOVE: TSAO (#350: *TO* *PRESERVE*, *GUARD* *FROM*
*DANGERS*); Ego: 51 - CONSTANCY: CH'ANG (#287)}
MALE: @140 = #140
ONTIC CHECKSUM TOTAL: #140 as [#5, #40, #1, #4, #40, #10, #600] = ʼâdam
(H119): {UMBRA: #1 as #45 % #41 = #4} 1) *TO* *BE* *RED*, *RED*; 1a)
(Qal) ruddy (of Nazarites); 1b) (Pual); 1b1) to be rubbed red; 1b2) dyed
red; 1b3) reddened; 1c) (Hiphil); 1c1) *TO* *CAUSE* *TO* *SHOW* *RED*;
1c2) to glare; 1c3) *TO* *EMIT* (*SHOW*) *REDNESS*; 1d) (Hithpael); 1d1)
to redden; 1d2) to grow red; 1d3) to look red;
#350 as [#50, #90, #200, #10] = nâtsar (H5341): {UMBRA: #23 as #340 %
#41 = #12} 1) to guard, watch, watch over, keep; 1a) (Qal); 1a1) to
watch, guard, keep; 1a2) *TO* *PRESERVE*, *GUARD* *FROM* *DANGERS*; 1a3)
to keep, observe, guard with fidelity; 1a4) to guard, keep secret; 1a5)
to be kept close, be blockaded; 1a6) watchman (participle);
In our introductory example as our conception of a PROPOSITIONAL
DELIMITER RELATIVE TO THE AUTONOMOUS PRINCIPLE we considered a STATIC
LIMITED {ie. #9} TERM of #51 - CONSTANCY (CH'ANG) which we had nuanced
to accommodate the need for COMPLIANCE in being a concern for #27 - DUTY
purveying some beneficial ACTION related to CALAMITY.
But now we want to consider a new condition as a neural linguistic
conception conveying an urgency "THEN SOMETHING TERRIBLE HAPPENED. SO
WHERE CAN WE ESCAPE TO NOW?"
Which has emanated from the UNLIMITED {ie. #72} realm as the world of
action as to then impose a morphological condition onto our previously
STATIC LIMITED {ie. #9} TERM of #51 - CONSTANCY (CH'ANG) and the result
is a DYNAMIC LIMITED {ie. #9} TERM that has not only a different
dialectic as AUTONOMOUS condition which we have to contend with, but now
has different demands placed upon the consideration of any UTILITARIAN
PROBABILITY that deals expressly with the essentiality of the ONTIC
premise as the impetus to any "motive or intrinsic nature of an action".
And lastly the #CENTRE of value PROPOSITION as the DELIMITER which is
relative to the AUTONOMOUS PRINCIPLE has a different focal context of
#46 - ENLARGEMENT (K'UO): "...whatever security he builds is likely to
collapse under pressure, just as the physical structure constructed on a
faulty foundation is sure to collapse." [The Canon of Supreme Mystery, p
291]
.jackNote@zen: 3, row: 8, col: 6, nous: 52 [DATE: 2020.1.18, TIME: 19:50
hrs, SUPER: #348 / #50 - Fantasies of Avoiding Death, Value of Life;
I-Ching: H2 - Pure Yin, Passive Principle / Earth, Field, The receptive,
Acquiescence, The flow; Tetra: 77 - COMPLIANCE (HSUN), EGO: #444 / #52 -
So What?, Returning to the Origin; I-Ching: H45 - Gathering,
Congregation, Clustering, Gathering together (massing), Finished; Tetra:
61 - EMBELLISHMENT (SHIH)]
Then something terrible happened. {@1: Sup: 79 - DIFFICULTIES: NAN
(#79); Ego: 9 - BRANCHING OUT: SHU (#9)}
So where can we escape to now? {@2: Sup: 70 - SEVERANCE: KE (#149); Ego:
32 - LEGION: CHUANG (#41)}
ONTIC CHECKSUM (none)
This time the SPIRAL SELECTOR@{NATURE: (EGO)} prototype provides the
following AUGMENTED result:
9 41 57 #107 +
45 46 1 #92 = #199 +
32 27 10 #69 = #268
As the GRAPPLE [#9, #41, #57, #1, #10, #27, #32, #45, #46] it now
conveys this condition:
[#9, {@1: Sup: 9 - BRANCHING OUT: SHU (#9); Ego: 9 - BRANCHING OUT: SHU
(#9)}
#41, {@2: Sup: 50 - VASTNESS / WASTING: T'ANG (#59); Ego: 41 - RESPONSE:
YING (#50)}
#57, {@3: Sup: 26 - ENDEAVOUR: WU (#85); Ego: 57 - GUARDEDNESS: SHOU (#107)}
#1, {@4: Sup: 27 - DUTIES: SHIH (#112); Ego: 1 - CENTRE: CHUNG (#108)}
#10, {@5: Sup: 37 - PURITY: TS'UI (#149); Ego: 10 - DEFECTIVENESS,
DISTORTION: HSIEN (#118)}
#27, {@6: Sup: 64 - SINKING: CH'EN (#213); Ego: 27 - DUTIES: SHIH (#145)}
#32, {@7: Sup: 15 - REACH: TA (#228 - I HAVE NO UNJUST PREFERENCES
{%40}); Ego: 32 - LEGION: CHUANG (#177 - I AM NOT GIVEN TO CURSING {%29})}
#45, {@8: Sup: 60 - ACCUMULATION: CHI (#288); Ego: 45 - GREATNESS: TA
(#222)}
#46] {@9: Sup: 25 - CONTENTION: CHENG (#313); Ego: 46 - ENLARGEMENT:
K'UO (#268)}
MALE: @228 = #228
FEME: @177 = #177
<http://www.grapple369.com/Grumble/grumble.html?idea:{228}&idea:{177}&idea:{405}>
ONTIC CHECKSUM TOTAL: #405 as [#5, #50, #20, #300, #30] = kâshal
(H3782): {UMBRA: #12 as #350 % #41 = #22} 1) to stumble, stagger,
totter; 1a) (Qal); 1a1) to stumble; 1a2) to totter; 1b) (Niphal); 1b1)
to stumble; 1b2) to be tottering, be feeble; 1c) (Hiphil); 1c1) *TO*
*CAUSE* *TO* *STUMBLE*, *BRING* *INJURY* *OR* *RUIN* *TO*, *OVERTHROW*;
1c2) to make feeble, make weak; 1d) (Hophal) to be made to stumble; 1e)
(Piel) bereave;
H3782@{
@1: Sup: 5 - KEEPING SMALL: SHAO (#5); Ego: 5 - KEEPING SMALL: SHAO
(#5),
@2: Sup: 55 - DIMINISHMENT: CHIEN (#60); Ego: 50 - VASTNESS /
WASTING: T'ANG (#55),
@3: Sup: 75 - FAILURE: SHIH (#135); Ego: 20 - ADVANCE: CHIN (#75),
@4: Sup: 51 - CONSTANCY: CH'ANG (#186 - I AM NOT ONE OF INCONSTANT
MIND {%31}); Ego: 57 - GUARDEDNESS: SHOU (#132),
@5: Sup: 81 - FOSTERING: YANG (#267); Ego: 30 - BOLD RESOLUTION: YI
(#162),
Male: #267; Feme: #162
} // #405
--
YOUTUBE: "The Meerkat Circus"
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-7OuqWi4vQ>
SEE ALSO AS RELATIONSHIP: *INVALIDATING* {Perennial philosophy (HETEROS
{#390 - ROBBERS} v’s HOMOIOS {#391 - STEWARDS OF GOD’S HOUSE} THEORY OF
NUMBER) as universal of right and wrong...} *THE* *ORTHODOX* *AND*
*ROMAN* *CATHOLIC* *CHURCH'S* *CLAIM* {#390 as 1, #100, #80, #1, #3, #5,
#200 as harpax (G727): {#11 as #242} 1) rapacious, ravenous; 2) a
extortioner, a robber} *TO* *JUBILEE2000* *AS* *BEING* *DELUSIONAL*
*AND* *FRAUDULENT*
Private Street on the edge of the Central Business District dated 16th
May, 2000 - This report is prepared in response to a TP00/55 as a Notice
of an Application for Planning Permit
<http://www.grapple369.com/jubilee2000.html>
SEE ALSO: HYPOSTASIS AS DAO OF NATURE (Chinese: ZIRAN) / COURSE (Greek:
TROCHOS) OF NATURE (Greek: GENESIS) [James 3:6]
Chinese HAN Dynasty (206 BCE - 220CE) Hexagon Trigrams to Tetragram
assignments proposed by Yang Hsiung (53BCE - 18CE) which by 4BCE
(translation published within English as first European language in
1993), first appeared in draft form as a meta-thesis titled T'AI HSUAN
CHING {ie. Canon of Supreme Mystery} on Natural Divination associated
with the theory of number, annual seasonal chronology and astrology
reliant upon the seven visible planets as cosmological mother image and
the zodiac.
It shows the ZIRAN as the DAO of NATURE / COURSE-trochos OF
NATURE-genesis [James 3:6] as HYPOSTASIS comprising #81 trinomial
tetragrammaton x 4.5 day = #364.5 day / year as HOMOIOS THEORY OF NUMBER
which is an amalgam of the 64 hexagrams as binomial trigrams / 81 as
trinomial tetragrammaton rather than its encapsulated contrived use as
the microcosm to redefine the macrocosm as the quintessence of the
Pythagorean [Babylonian] as binomial canon of transposition as HETEROS
THEORY OF NUMBER.
<http://www.grapple369.com/nature.html>
The Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities No. 43 of Act 2006
defines a "PERSON MEANS A HUMAN BEING” and the question is, if it is
permissible to extend this definition to be a "PERSON MEANS A HUMAN
BEING AS A CONSCIOUS REALITY OF HOMO[iOS] SAPIEN[T] WHO IS INSTANTIATED
WITHIN THE TEMPORAL REALITY AS THEN THE CAUSE FOR REASONING AND
RATIONALITY."
That my mathematical theoretical noumenon defines the meta-descriptor
prototypes which are prerequisite to the BEING of HOMO[iOS] SAPIEN[T] as
EXISTENCE / *OUSIA*.
<http://www.grapple369.com/Grumble.zip> (Download resources)
After all the ENNEAD of THOTH and not the Roman Catholic Eucharist,
expresses an Anthropic Cosmological Principle which appears within its
geometric conception as being equivalent to the Pythagorean
TETRAD/TETRACTYS.
dolf
Mar 8, 2020, 1:13:06 AM3/8/20
to
-- A SUMMARY ON TRANSMUTATION (AUGMENTED / AMELIORATED) OF ANY UNIVERSE
OF DISCOURSE BEING UNITY OF APPERCEPTION
We might then consider that our notion of a STATIC LIMITED {ie. #9} TERM
of #51 - CONSTANCY (CH'ANG) is that which the Greek philosophers (c.
700 BCE) considered as χημεία (khēmeía) (cast together or pour together
or 'today we say') and tried to rationalize by the term 'atomos' meaning
indivisible:
41 57 1
46 51 9
45 27 10
As equivalent to a philosophical science of ALCHEMY, where it was
speculated, that such a substance could be augmented and transmuted into
another notion such as our DYNAMIC LIMITED {ie. #9} TERM of #46 -
ENLARGEMENT (K'UO), which has either a partial or no resemblance to the
previous substance:
9 41 57
45 46 1
32 27 10
Since we are aware of the meta-descriptor elements which are the impetus
OF DISCOURSE BEING UNITY OF APPERCEPTION
We might then consider that our notion of a STATIC LIMITED {ie. #9} TERM
of #51 - CONSTANCY (CH'ANG) is that which the Greek philosophers (c.
700 BCE) considered as χημεία (khēmeía) (cast together or pour together
or 'today we say') and tried to rationalize by the term 'atomos' meaning
indivisible:
41 57 1
46 51 9
45 27 10
As equivalent to a philosophical science of ALCHEMY, where it was
speculated, that such a substance could be augmented and transmuted into
another notion such as our DYNAMIC LIMITED {ie. #9} TERM of #46 -
ENLARGEMENT (K'UO), which has either a partial or no resemblance to the
previous substance:
9 41 57
45 46 1
32 27 10
for change by an SYNCRETIC: {Amalgam} of a #81 - UNIVERSE OF DISCOURSE,
it is then theoretically possible that our neural linguistic
0 new messages