info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
— MY TRIP TO NORTH KOREA SO AS TO CHAT WITH KIM JONG UN, OUR ENJOYMENT OF WAGNER OPERA AND DISCUSSIONS ON HIS FORTH COMING MEMOIR: THE ART OF DICTATORSHIP IN THE SLAUGHTER OF THE YOUTH
0 views
Skip to first unread message
dolf
May 31, 2019, 5:39:38 PM5/31/19
to
— MY TRIP TO NORTH KOREA SO AS TO CHAT WITH KIM JONG UN, OUR ENJOYMENT OF
WAGNER OPERA AND DISCUSSIONS ON HIS FORTH COMING MEMOIR: THE ART OF
DICTATORSHIP IN THE SLAUGHTER OF THE YOUTH
(c) 2019 Dolf Leendert Boek, Revision: 1 June, 2019
IMMANUEL KANT’S PROLEGOMENA (1783) SECOND SECTION OF THE HIGHEST PRINCIPLE
OF ALL SYNTHETIC JUDGMENTS AS IDEA @A157: “OF THE SYSTEM OF PRINCIPLES OF
THE PURE UNDERSTANDING [IDEAS: @A154 / @B193] It is therefore given: that
if one must go outside a given concept to compare [IDEAS: @A155 / @B194] it
synthetically with another, then a third thing is needed, in which alone
the synthesis of two concepts can originate. But what is then this third
thing, the medium of all synthetic judgments? . . .
If a cognition is to have *OBJECTIVE* *REALITY*, i.e., if it is to relate
to an *OBJECT* and to have significance and sense in that *OBJECT*, then
the *OBJECT* must be able to be given in some way.
Without this, concepts are empty, and though one has indeed thought with
them, one has in fact cognized [IDEA: @196] nothing through this thinking,
but has merely played with representations.
To give an *OBJECT* – if this is not to mean giving it again only
mediately, [IDEA: @A156] but exhibiting it immediately in intuition – is
nothing other than to relate a representation of it to experience (whether
actual or indeed possible). Even space and time, as pure as these concepts
are of everything empirical, and as certain as it is also that they are
represented fully a priori in the mind, would nonetheless be without
*OBJECTIVE* *VALIDITY* and without sense and significance, if their
necessary use were not directed upon the *OBJECTS* *OF* *EXPERIENCE* –
indeed, their representation is a mere schema that is always related to the
reproductive imagination, which calls forth the *OBJECTS* *OF* *EXPERIENCE*
without which they would have no significance; and thus it is with all
concepts, without distinction.
The possibility of experience is then what gives *OBJECTIVE* *REALITY* to
all our a priori cognitions. Now experience rests on the synthetic unity of
the appearances, i.e., on a synthesis according to *CONCEPTS* *OF* *AN*
*OBJECT* *OF* *APPEARANCES* *IN* *GENERAL*, without which it would not even
be cognition, but a rhapsody of perceptions, which in no context would
agree together according to the rules of a thoroughly connected (possible)
consciousness, hence also not for the transcendental and necessary unity of
apperception.
Experience therefore has principles of its form underlying it a priori,
[IDEA: @B196] namely universal rules of unity in the synthesis of the
appearances, whose [IDEA: @A157] *OBJECTIVE* *REALITY* as necessary {#287 -
STATES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION} conditions can always be pointed to in
experience, indeed, even in its possibility. Outside this relation,
however, synthetic a priori propositions are completely impossible, since
they have no third thing, namely, no pure *OBJECT*, upon which the
synthetic unity of their concepts could establish *OBJECTIVE* *REALITY*.
Although we cognize a priori in synthetic judgments so much about space in
general, or the figures that the reproductive imagination inscribes in it,
that we actually require no experience thereto at all; nonetheless, this
cognition would amount to nothing but preoccupation with a mere brain
phantom, were it not that space is to be regarded as a condition of the
appearances that constitute the stuff of outer experience; in consequence,
these pure synthetic judgments relate (albeit only mediately) to possible
experience, or rather to the *POSSIBILITY* *OF* *EXPERIENCE* *ITSELF*,
*AND* *GROUND* *THE* *OBJECTIVE* *VALIDITY* *OF* *THEIR* *SYNTHESIS* upon
that alone.
Since then experience, as empirical synthesis, is in its possibility the
single type of cognition that gives reality to every other synthesis, as a
[IDEA: @B197] priori cognition the other synthesis also has truth
(*AGREEMENT* *WITH* *AN* [IDEA: @A158] *OBJECT*) only in that it contains
nothing more than what is necessary for the synthetic unity of experience
in general.
The highest principle of all synthetic judgments is then: *EVERY* *OBJECT*
*FALLS* *UNDER* *THE* *NECESSARY* *CONDITIONS* *OF* *THE* *SYNTHETIC*
*UNITY* *OF* *THE* *MANIFOLD* *OF* *INTUITION* *IN* *A* *POSSIBLE*
*EXPERIENCE*. Synthetic a priori judgments are possible in this way: if we
relate the formal conditions of a priori intuition, the synthesis of the
imagination, and its necessary unity in a transcendental apperception to a
possible cognition of experience in general and say: the conditions of the
possibility of experience in general are at the same time the conditions of
the possibility of the *OBJECTS* *OF* *EXPERIENCE*, AND FOR THAT REASON
HAVE *OBJECTIVE* *VALIDITY* in a synthetic judgment a priori. [pages 179 to
180]
CAVEAT: Once again I am only proffering an informal opinion from my causal
infatuation as metaphysical faculty of endeavour and as such I am entirely
reliant upon the sapient expertise of others to provision its potential
utility and material merits.
And thusly before we return to the actual contents of our letter of 8
November 2017 made to the STATE / FEDERAL ATTORNEY GENERAL and FEDERAL
SENATOR PENNY WONG as our *OBJECTS* *OF* *EXPERIENCE* we need cohere from
the context of the *OBJECTIVE* *REALITY* which is the underlying
anthropological cosmogonic principle basis to sapience itself and a
metastasised premise to identity as the POINT OF REFERENCE AS PERSPECTIVE
so that intelligence should not submit to ignorance which is here the
problem in relation to any further as future *POSSIBILITY* *OF*
*EXPERIENCE* *ITSELF*, *AND* *GROUND* *THE* *OBJECTIVE* *VALIDITY* *OF*
*THEIR* *SYNTHESIS*.
And to do so we are going to consider the example of the immateriality /
materiality as the notion of 'DUCK QUACKS' comment made at the beginning of
this PART 4 of our FILING submission and whether there is any factuality to
it and the originating document which was a 12 MAY 2017 statement as DIARY
ON MY TRIP TO NORTH KOREA SO AS TO CHAT WITH KIM JONG UN, OUR *ENJOYMENT*
*OF* *WAGNER* *OPERA* AND DISCUSSIONS ON HIS FORTH COMING MEMOIR: THE ART
OF DICTATORSHIP IN THE SLAUGHTER OF THE YOUTH. One could argue that since
I've never been to North Korea that no rationality can be applied to the
claim that it contains any factuality beyond conveying objects of
experience.
On 28 MAY 2017 we summarised this within the broader conception "WHAT IS
COGNITIVE WITHIN MIND WHEN AN AUTONOMOUS PARADIGM IS A MIRRORED AUTONOMOUS
PROTOTYPE OF EACH OTHER'S SOVEREIGN AUTONOMY" by giving a partial
explanation as follows. We have from time to time expressed the COGNITIVE
process using several metaphors:
a) The traversal of the temporal continuum is like driving down the highway
whereby one will observe relativity through bi-directional markers as that
which you pass in the opposite direction and that which you overtake.
YOUTUBE: “DISTRACTIONS MOBILE PHONES (TRAFFIC ACCIDENT COMMISSION: 30 MAY
2019)”
<https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JCSWRRCB1Ek>
b) Making a reasonable supposition as a logical, probable and hypothetical
proposition, which is then predicated upon by a determined course of
affirmative action in the autonomous want of the intellect having a desire
{
#108 = #6, #40, #8, #40, #4, #10 = machmad (H4261): 1) desire, desirable
thing, pleasant thing / #108 = #6, #50, #8, #40, #4 = chamad (H2530): 1) to
desire, covet, take pleasure in, delight in; 2) desirableness,
preciousness; 1a) (Qal) to desire; 1b) (Niphal) to be desirable; 1c) (Piel)
to delight greatly, desire greatly
} to inform oneself through an inquisitive and deductive process of
elimination. In being descriptive of a natural aptitude as the rational
mind, practiced in acquiring knowledge and having explicit specification
within CATEGORIES OF UNDERSTANDING such as:
#384 = #5, #300, #10, #3, #6, #50, #10 as nasag (H5381): 1) to reach,
overtake, take hold upon; 1a) (Hiphil); 1a1) to overtake; 1a2) to reach,
attain to, cause to reach; 1a3) to be able to secure, reach, have enough;
THUS IF MY EXPERIENCE IS: "LA LA LA"
AND YOUR ONLY EXPERIENCE IS: "DA DA DA"
HENCE YOUR EXPERIENCE OF THE CONVEYED REALITY WILL NOT BE ACTUAL BUT ONLY A
SUBLIMATED COMPREHENSION:
- [with object] (in psychoanalytic theory) divert or modify (an instinctual
impulse) into a culturally higher or socially more acceptable activity:
libido must be sublimated into productive work activities.
- transform (something) into a purer or idealized form: attractive rhythms
are sublimated into a much larger context.
Whereby in terms of the WORD example the mind's phonetic apprehension can
become impeded and stressed as then either discordant or unknowing of any
word's entity (ie. as the manner by which you can distinguish a car exhaust
blow back as a sudden and an inexplicable bang from an earlier experience
of a bomb blast) is a priori and transitional towards it's final
comprehension by it's acceptable, customary and correct orthography as
CATEGORIES OF UNDERSTANDING.
That in my view, punctiliousness has an intrinsic phonetic correspondence
and is a functional cognitive characteristic which is intrinsic of the mind
and this process is not all unlike the initial starting point of this
chapter by its specific construction of meticulous narrative as neural
linguistic streaming and it's subsequent refinement until it was
satisfactory.
For example, if all but the first and last letters are scrambled and the
sentence is entirely ambiguous, you can still disambiguate the word and
fully comprehend the sentence, as Cambridge University researchers have
suggested:
"Taht in my veiw, psciiouelnunsts is an insniirtc phteinoc conrecoednprse
and fancounitl cvgiinote cartarseiichtc of mnid."
YOUTUBE: "Doctor Who - Journey's End - The Reality Bomb"
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvRSnDZvuuc>
--
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 “Saint Andrews” 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 HYPOSTATIS 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/Grapple.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
WAGNER OPERA AND DISCUSSIONS ON HIS FORTH COMING MEMOIR: THE ART OF
DICTATORSHIP IN THE SLAUGHTER OF THE YOUTH
(c) 2019 Dolf Leendert Boek, Revision: 1 June, 2019
IMMANUEL KANT’S PROLEGOMENA (1783) SECOND SECTION OF THE HIGHEST PRINCIPLE
OF ALL SYNTHETIC JUDGMENTS AS IDEA @A157: “OF THE SYSTEM OF PRINCIPLES OF
THE PURE UNDERSTANDING [IDEAS: @A154 / @B193] It is therefore given: that
if one must go outside a given concept to compare [IDEAS: @A155 / @B194] it
synthetically with another, then a third thing is needed, in which alone
the synthesis of two concepts can originate. But what is then this third
thing, the medium of all synthetic judgments? . . .
If a cognition is to have *OBJECTIVE* *REALITY*, i.e., if it is to relate
to an *OBJECT* and to have significance and sense in that *OBJECT*, then
the *OBJECT* must be able to be given in some way.
Without this, concepts are empty, and though one has indeed thought with
them, one has in fact cognized [IDEA: @196] nothing through this thinking,
but has merely played with representations.
To give an *OBJECT* – if this is not to mean giving it again only
mediately, [IDEA: @A156] but exhibiting it immediately in intuition – is
nothing other than to relate a representation of it to experience (whether
actual or indeed possible). Even space and time, as pure as these concepts
are of everything empirical, and as certain as it is also that they are
represented fully a priori in the mind, would nonetheless be without
*OBJECTIVE* *VALIDITY* and without sense and significance, if their
necessary use were not directed upon the *OBJECTS* *OF* *EXPERIENCE* –
indeed, their representation is a mere schema that is always related to the
reproductive imagination, which calls forth the *OBJECTS* *OF* *EXPERIENCE*
without which they would have no significance; and thus it is with all
concepts, without distinction.
The possibility of experience is then what gives *OBJECTIVE* *REALITY* to
all our a priori cognitions. Now experience rests on the synthetic unity of
the appearances, i.e., on a synthesis according to *CONCEPTS* *OF* *AN*
*OBJECT* *OF* *APPEARANCES* *IN* *GENERAL*, without which it would not even
be cognition, but a rhapsody of perceptions, which in no context would
agree together according to the rules of a thoroughly connected (possible)
consciousness, hence also not for the transcendental and necessary unity of
apperception.
Experience therefore has principles of its form underlying it a priori,
[IDEA: @B196] namely universal rules of unity in the synthesis of the
appearances, whose [IDEA: @A157] *OBJECTIVE* *REALITY* as necessary {#287 -
STATES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION} conditions can always be pointed to in
experience, indeed, even in its possibility. Outside this relation,
however, synthetic a priori propositions are completely impossible, since
they have no third thing, namely, no pure *OBJECT*, upon which the
synthetic unity of their concepts could establish *OBJECTIVE* *REALITY*.
Although we cognize a priori in synthetic judgments so much about space in
general, or the figures that the reproductive imagination inscribes in it,
that we actually require no experience thereto at all; nonetheless, this
cognition would amount to nothing but preoccupation with a mere brain
phantom, were it not that space is to be regarded as a condition of the
appearances that constitute the stuff of outer experience; in consequence,
these pure synthetic judgments relate (albeit only mediately) to possible
experience, or rather to the *POSSIBILITY* *OF* *EXPERIENCE* *ITSELF*,
*AND* *GROUND* *THE* *OBJECTIVE* *VALIDITY* *OF* *THEIR* *SYNTHESIS* upon
that alone.
Since then experience, as empirical synthesis, is in its possibility the
single type of cognition that gives reality to every other synthesis, as a
[IDEA: @B197] priori cognition the other synthesis also has truth
(*AGREEMENT* *WITH* *AN* [IDEA: @A158] *OBJECT*) only in that it contains
nothing more than what is necessary for the synthetic unity of experience
in general.
The highest principle of all synthetic judgments is then: *EVERY* *OBJECT*
*FALLS* *UNDER* *THE* *NECESSARY* *CONDITIONS* *OF* *THE* *SYNTHETIC*
*UNITY* *OF* *THE* *MANIFOLD* *OF* *INTUITION* *IN* *A* *POSSIBLE*
*EXPERIENCE*. Synthetic a priori judgments are possible in this way: if we
relate the formal conditions of a priori intuition, the synthesis of the
imagination, and its necessary unity in a transcendental apperception to a
possible cognition of experience in general and say: the conditions of the
possibility of experience in general are at the same time the conditions of
the possibility of the *OBJECTS* *OF* *EXPERIENCE*, AND FOR THAT REASON
HAVE *OBJECTIVE* *VALIDITY* in a synthetic judgment a priori. [pages 179 to
180]
CAVEAT: Once again I am only proffering an informal opinion from my causal
infatuation as metaphysical faculty of endeavour and as such I am entirely
reliant upon the sapient expertise of others to provision its potential
utility and material merits.
And thusly before we return to the actual contents of our letter of 8
November 2017 made to the STATE / FEDERAL ATTORNEY GENERAL and FEDERAL
SENATOR PENNY WONG as our *OBJECTS* *OF* *EXPERIENCE* we need cohere from
the context of the *OBJECTIVE* *REALITY* which is the underlying
anthropological cosmogonic principle basis to sapience itself and a
metastasised premise to identity as the POINT OF REFERENCE AS PERSPECTIVE
so that intelligence should not submit to ignorance which is here the
problem in relation to any further as future *POSSIBILITY* *OF*
*EXPERIENCE* *ITSELF*, *AND* *GROUND* *THE* *OBJECTIVE* *VALIDITY* *OF*
*THEIR* *SYNTHESIS*.
And to do so we are going to consider the example of the immateriality /
materiality as the notion of 'DUCK QUACKS' comment made at the beginning of
this PART 4 of our FILING submission and whether there is any factuality to
it and the originating document which was a 12 MAY 2017 statement as DIARY
ON MY TRIP TO NORTH KOREA SO AS TO CHAT WITH KIM JONG UN, OUR *ENJOYMENT*
*OF* *WAGNER* *OPERA* AND DISCUSSIONS ON HIS FORTH COMING MEMOIR: THE ART
OF DICTATORSHIP IN THE SLAUGHTER OF THE YOUTH. One could argue that since
I've never been to North Korea that no rationality can be applied to the
claim that it contains any factuality beyond conveying objects of
experience.
On 28 MAY 2017 we summarised this within the broader conception "WHAT IS
COGNITIVE WITHIN MIND WHEN AN AUTONOMOUS PARADIGM IS A MIRRORED AUTONOMOUS
PROTOTYPE OF EACH OTHER'S SOVEREIGN AUTONOMY" by giving a partial
explanation as follows. We have from time to time expressed the COGNITIVE
process using several metaphors:
a) The traversal of the temporal continuum is like driving down the highway
whereby one will observe relativity through bi-directional markers as that
which you pass in the opposite direction and that which you overtake.
YOUTUBE: “DISTRACTIONS MOBILE PHONES (TRAFFIC ACCIDENT COMMISSION: 30 MAY
2019)”
<https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JCSWRRCB1Ek>
b) Making a reasonable supposition as a logical, probable and hypothetical
proposition, which is then predicated upon by a determined course of
affirmative action in the autonomous want of the intellect having a desire
{
#108 = #6, #40, #8, #40, #4, #10 = machmad (H4261): 1) desire, desirable
thing, pleasant thing / #108 = #6, #50, #8, #40, #4 = chamad (H2530): 1) to
desire, covet, take pleasure in, delight in; 2) desirableness,
preciousness; 1a) (Qal) to desire; 1b) (Niphal) to be desirable; 1c) (Piel)
to delight greatly, desire greatly
} to inform oneself through an inquisitive and deductive process of
elimination. In being descriptive of a natural aptitude as the rational
mind, practiced in acquiring knowledge and having explicit specification
within CATEGORIES OF UNDERSTANDING such as:
#384 = #5, #300, #10, #3, #6, #50, #10 as nasag (H5381): 1) to reach,
overtake, take hold upon; 1a) (Hiphil); 1a1) to overtake; 1a2) to reach,
attain to, cause to reach; 1a3) to be able to secure, reach, have enough;
THUS IF MY EXPERIENCE IS: "LA LA LA"
AND YOUR ONLY EXPERIENCE IS: "DA DA DA"
HENCE YOUR EXPERIENCE OF THE CONVEYED REALITY WILL NOT BE ACTUAL BUT ONLY A
SUBLIMATED COMPREHENSION:
- [with object] (in psychoanalytic theory) divert or modify (an instinctual
impulse) into a culturally higher or socially more acceptable activity:
libido must be sublimated into productive work activities.
- transform (something) into a purer or idealized form: attractive rhythms
are sublimated into a much larger context.
Whereby in terms of the WORD example the mind's phonetic apprehension can
become impeded and stressed as then either discordant or unknowing of any
word's entity (ie. as the manner by which you can distinguish a car exhaust
blow back as a sudden and an inexplicable bang from an earlier experience
of a bomb blast) is a priori and transitional towards it's final
comprehension by it's acceptable, customary and correct orthography as
CATEGORIES OF UNDERSTANDING.
That in my view, punctiliousness has an intrinsic phonetic correspondence
and is a functional cognitive characteristic which is intrinsic of the mind
and this process is not all unlike the initial starting point of this
chapter by its specific construction of meticulous narrative as neural
linguistic streaming and it's subsequent refinement until it was
satisfactory.
For example, if all but the first and last letters are scrambled and the
sentence is entirely ambiguous, you can still disambiguate the word and
fully comprehend the sentence, as Cambridge University researchers have
suggested:
"Taht in my veiw, psciiouelnunsts is an insniirtc phteinoc conrecoednprse
and fancounitl cvgiinote cartarseiichtc of mnid."
YOUTUBE: "Doctor Who - Journey's End - The Reality Bomb"
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvRSnDZvuuc>
--
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 “Saint Andrews” 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 HYPOSTATIS 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/Grapple.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
May 31, 2019, 7:00:45 PM5/31/19
to
FIREFIGHTERS RESCUE BABY DUCKS FROM STORM DRAIN
<https://www.clickorlando.com/news/orange-county-firefighters-rescue-baby-ducks-from-storm-drain>
Initial Post: 1 June 2019
0 new messages