"Dolf the dolt fails Turing test" [BARRY OGRADY]
Let me repeat it for you Barry: "Irish impious (catholic or atheist)
dogs such as Barry OGRADY make ANZAC day a day to forget!"
The foremost atheist Philosopher of our age, Alain de Botton, a Swiss
writer, philosopher, television presenter entrepreneur and atheist
recently launched his new book ‘Religion for Atheists’ and no atheists
are interested in talking about it, including all the ones who eagerly
embraced Dawkin's even more enthusiastic endorsement of atheist Gods he
claims ‘came into being’ (sic).
From his book launch he conceded: "A few years ago it struck me that
there is a resource that is a provider of Wisdom, and consolation, and
an ethical framework, and it's rather fascinating and has dominated the
mental landscape of human beings for thousands of years I'm thinking, of
course, of religion.”
The problem is according to Australia's most celebrated atheist Phillip
Adams, who in “The Atheist Delusion”, warns militant atheists against
misplaced arrogance and hubris.
It is Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) who was perhaps the greatest
philosopher of the 20th century and we are challenged to comprehend how
he could have been a life-long Nazi. [McCumber 1999:1] From his
inception in 1927 with his magnum opus: “Being and Time” he clearly
established himself as a foremost and important philosopher, but later
betrayed his philosophical contributions and finished up until his death
in 1976 as a contemptible apologist, first for Nazism and later for himself.
That his work on “Being and Time”, for all its achievements, is no
innocent piece of philosophy. Although some have argued that it may not
have directly encouraged Nazism, it clearly leaves Heidegger open to
such an accusation. For in “Being and Time”, intelligibility is subject
to the world: I can understand nothing that is not within the horizons
of my world. Escape from this world is achievable not through critical
reason but only in a mute and mystified “resolve”. [McCumber 1999:3]
Yet for much of the Western world, the difficulty of Heidegger's thought
was for many years held to be almost insuperable in the medium of a
foreign language, especially English. That this opinion is no longer so
widely held can be seen both from the rapidly increasing number of
translations of Heidegger's works and from the interest of a growing
readership. There are signs moreover, that as a preeminent thinker of
our age, Heidegger may be of interest to many who do not claim to have a
wide knowledge of traditional metaphysics or whose concern with him may
not be primarily philosophical at all.
Such readers have a certain advantage in bringing an open mind to a new
problem, but they also have special difficulties in grappling with
Heidegger. [King 2001:xviii]
However as Gadamer (1976) suggests when the layman wonders what
philosophy really is, he has the idea that philosophising means
defining, and taking responsibility for the need to define, the concepts
in which all men think as homo[ios] sapien[tal]. Since as a rule we do
not see this happen, we have helped ourselves by means of a doctrine of
implicit definition.
In reality, however, such a “doctrine” is a mere verbalism as is the
neologism starting with the German word: Dasein--which is not another
name for ‘consciousness’, ’subject’, or ‘human being’. Heidegger
introduces a vocabulary that challenges the reader [Stambaugh
2010:xviii]. To say nothing of the Hebrew word: Dashen {(#4 - Daleth;
#300 - Shin; #50 - Nun = #354 / #390 as H1878) specifically to anoint;
figuratively to satisfy; denominatively (from H1880 ) to remove (fat)
ashes (of sacrifices):—accept, anoint, take away the (receive) ashes
(from), make (wax) fat}. For to call a definition implicit obviously
means one finally comes to notice, on the basis of a number of sentences
that someone has spoken. And he or she was thinking something
unambiguous by means of using a concept. In this respect, philosophers
are no different from other men, for other men too are in the habit of
thinking definite things and avoiding contradictions. The lay opinion
appealed to here is in fact dominated by the doctrine that universals or
general ideas are mere names without any corresponding reality as
nominalistic tradition of recent centuries, in considering linguistic
reproduction as a kind of application of signs. It is obvious that
artificial signs need an organisation and arrangement that excludes any
ambiguity. Thus the demand arises that the illusionary problems of
“metaphysics” must be unmasked by establishing the univocal use of
language. [Gadamer 1971:125-126]
In his scheme to refresh philosophy, Heidegger, like Hegel (1770-1831),
draws upon the earthy roots of his language and dialect. So a promising
way of achieving this refreshment would be the exercise of translating
“Being and Time” into the Anglo-Saxon language. Or perhaps into the
Welsh or Gaelic idioms. Or for that matter, into Hebrew with its
association to the earliest Semitic tongue and most probable origin of
language. [King 2001:xv]
How then did Heidegger's publication in 1927 of “Being and Time”, and in
1929 with his provocative book on Kant's “Critique of Pure Reason” in
his treatise on “Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics” or his 1939
lectures: “On the Essence of Language: The Metaphysics of Language and
Essencing of the Word” in relation to the German Lutheran theologian and
philosopher Johann Herder's 1772 treatise: “On the Origin of Language”,
lead to the German Reich policy on the genocidal annihilation and
nullification of Judaism as the absence of being? Herder (1744-1803) was
the progenitor of the volkgeist (“Spirit of the people”) conception and
had advanced a cultural superiority by the injunction: “Spew out the
ugly slime of the Seine. Speak German, O You German.” Yet whilst he
supported the French Revolution (1789–1799), his anti-authoritarianism,
anti-militarism, and borderless humanitarianism values would generally
have caused him to find the subsequent acts of political domination, war
and empire which make up the vast bulk of these “great” deeds and events
of history as not just morally unedifying, but morally repugnant.
[Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy 2007]
Heidegger was struggling to distance his thought from the prevailing
neo-Kantian tendency in German philosophical circles of the time, and
this resulted in a highly original interpretation of Kant (1724-1804).
From the standpoint of the development of Heidegger’s own endeavour,
his book: “Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics” is of pivotal importance
because it takes up and extends a number of themes suggested in “Being
and Time”, in particular the problem of how Heidegger proposed to enact
his “destruction” of the metaphysical tradition and of what role his
reading of Kant would play in that project. It’s this problematic about
Kant’s Categories as it relates to Being in traditional metaphysics and
the phenomenon of time which accounts for what some have called the
“violence” of Heidegger’s interpretation as even he unequivocally
acknowledged in the preface to his 1950 edition. [Taft 1997:xii, xx]
Nous: #20
Time:
Date: 2012.11.7
Torah: #5 #1 #1 %81 = #7
Dao: Left without Language, Different From the Vulgar
Tetra: #50 - Vastness/Wasting
I-Ching: H33 - Withdrawal
Latin: Auxiliator {Hidden God} Alt: Yaliel {Thankful of God's Presence} {
1. PROTECTS ALL THOSE WHO SEEK THE TRUE LIGHT
2. PEACE TREATIES
3. DIPLOMACY & AMBASSADORS
4. Aphruimis
}
Ram {Elevated; sublime}
-
http://www.grapple369.com/grapple.html?zen:5,row:6,col:7
Heidegger asks, “What is the human being?” If I speak, so therefore I
am. It is through and in the being, human language comes into being and
vice versa; in the coming into being of language the human being “is”
the human being. [Gregory 2004:87] How then was any one of Jewish
descent considered as less than human after the 7 November 1938
assassination of Ernst vom Rath, the third Secretary of the German
Embassy in Paris by his reputed 17yo homosexual companion, a German born
Polish Jew named Herschel Grynszpan. As the impetus for Kristallnacht
within days following and the beginning of the Final Solution as
Holocaust--Where was God? I do not desire to participate in the attitude
of silence as others have promulgated to this very time, and neither do
I consider subterfuge in the use of language as the only applicable and
acceptable answer to such questions: “Vous êtes sur un site francophone.
Yez la politesse et la correction de vous exprimer en français.”
This then relates to a little anecdote about my activities as timely
actions over the siege in Toulouse, France on 21-23 March 2012 in
relation to the earlier massacre of three paratroopers (ethnic and
muslim), school children and a Jewish Rabbi by an Islamic extremist.
Whilst enjoying a walk, I made some appraisals of the most probable
cause of the event before it was disclosed as public news. In that the
7 murders which occurred as terrorist activity were in part being
attributed to abuses as starvation of Palestinian children due to an
inability by the menfolk to pursue their livelihoods because of a
confiscation of their tools of trade at border crossings in Israel. And
as a consequence of my comments, as actions of goodwill and regard to
European friends, I found my words as ideas (unity of being, dignity and
discrimination by the State versus the animalistic behaviour of the
perpetrators) being uttered from the mouths of the French President
Nicolas Sarkozy and a Jewish Rabbi in Israel which were subsequently
reported on the news.
In querying the political motive of UNICEF workers in the street (Sale,
Victoria) that same day, I remarked that not even Kofi Annan would be
able to take the “King” of Syria (President Bashar al-Assad) out of my
hands--and indeed that is so today as Russia, China and America are all
indebted to my intellectual property associated to governance.
There was in response to my calculated statements as provocations made
towards the Republic of France (on alt.France) in their time of great
need, an attempt by some person (René Groumal) without any remorse or
apology, to falsely and slanderously characterise my public Internet
statements as being fascist or neo-nazi. I am categorically neither.
The source of my ideology as autonomic doctrines of unity, co-operation,
freedom and democracy are not derived from Adolf Hitler. But that my
prophet is Moses and therefore I am not anti-Semitic.
-
http://www.grapple369.com/Being_files/angel-clock.jpg

Governance (religion), angels and time, set in stone: Angel Solar Watch
(replica) 1582 CE Chartres Cathedral, France
anthropo- (comb. form)
human; of a human being: anthropometry.
• relating to humankind: anthropology. ORIGIN from Greek anthrōpos
‘human being.’
anthropic principle (noun)
the cosmological principle that theories of the universe are constrained
by the necessity to allow human existence
ORIGIN 1970s: anthropic from Greek anthrōpikos, from anthrōpos ‘human
being.’
In its ‘weak’ form the anthropic principle affirms that a universe in
which living observers cannot exist is inherently unobservable. ‘Strong’
forms take this line of reasoning further, seeking to explain features
of the universe as being so because they are necessary for human existence.
On 27/05/12 7:40 AM, Uirgil wrote:
- show quoted text -
How should we the Free, Celebrate this the Queen's Jubilee?
We are not free and endure human rights abuses from catholic dogs.
"We have Jesus on the cross
Your cold love put him there.
What is now your human loss?
Forever gone and despair."
What gives BroilJAB (
Design...@wmconnect.com) away is his unusual
capacity as a claimed atheist, to call the Pontiff holy when he is in
fact perverse.
It would appear that once again, we have mongrel catholic dogs engaged
in public campaigns of disinformation and vilification of the truth,
which diminishes our human rights.
dolf: “Wasn’t the Pope recently asked on: ‘Creationists need [for a]
Catholic vision’?”
BroilJAB (
Design...@wmconnect.com): “Lets hope the Holy Pontiff
sets many creationists back on the right path.”
Vurgil or Uirgit? (vur...@arg.erg / uir...@uirgil.ur): “It would be a
great improvement.”
dolf: “He knows Greedy!”
BroilJAB (
Design...@wmconnect.com): “From what I understand.”
Vurgil or Uirgit? (vur...@arg.erg / uir...@uirgil.ur): “Which is nothing!”
dolf: “Is it painful?
Very soon being Roman Catholic will be prima
facie proof of guilt in claims of crimes against the dignity of the
'Sovereign Autonomy' made under the Commonwealth of Australia.”
#20 / .jackNote@zen: 5, row: 3, col: 3, nous: 7 [Super: #397 / #46 -
Guiding Contentment, Moderation of Desire; I-Ching: H1 - Creative
Principle/Heaven; Tetra: 37 - Purity, Ego: #403 / #7 - Intentional
Reversal, Dimming Radiance; I-Ching: H12 - Stagnation; Tetra: 56 -
Closed Mouth] {Transforming Nature {DOUBLE: Form of Nature {Autonomous
Nature}}}
In relation to this notion of The Decade is the meaning of Yom Kippur as
a ritual of nullification held over a 10 day period commencing a new
Moon on 18 September 2001 (as my particular interest for synchronising
the centre of the Grapple Temporal / Noumenal Reality for a 5 day period
being #41 on 13 September 2001 as a centrifugal model comprising septet
#369 magic squares with the solar / lunar chronological cycle and
rational representation of PI / ENNEAD) and the Dead Sea Scroll
chronological principle which is a cosmological straight line--hence
transcendent--in having a starting point on the Equinox of Wednesday 20
March 1996 with a new Moon on Thursday 21 March for a base 7 Numbering
system intrinsic to the cosmogony as rational representation of PI.
In that for 3 x 364 days = 1092 days there was a lunar/solar comparison
of 3 x 354 lunar years + 30 days = 1092 days. There are in a cycle of 5
x 364 days + 182 days (as a 1/2 cycle) two fragments in the Dead Sea
Scroll relics related to the 1st day of the 7th solar month as occurring
on 12 September 2001 and the 21st priestly course starting on Sunday 16
September 2001 which fragment also brings together an association of the
solar and lunar cycles which appear to have been a readily observable
phenomenon.
In that this has according to the Dead Sea Scrolls, a reprise in a 294 x
364 day years as 6 Jubilees or 293 x 365.2423 days (just short of the
tropical years, but technologically better than the Julian calendar of
365.25 days instigated in 45 BCE and reformed in 1582 CE (1751 CE in
British Empire) by the Gregorian calendar reforms due to an
intercalation error resulting in a lost of synchronicity comprising a
magnitude loss of one day every 128 years. This forms the basis for
arguing a metaphysical and cosmological origin of language as 22
elements of the Hebrew letters which is otherwise shown geometrically as
an indestructible object (atom) in the association of the 10 as Decade
(as Greek and Ennead as Egyptian notions) and counts (number) and the 22
letters as 3 horizontal (Mother letters), 7 vertical lines (Double
letters) and 12 diagonal lines (Single letters):
Kabbalistic Tree of Life
ATZILUTH {1st as “World of Emanation” also known as Olam Atzilut, עולם
אצילות in Hebrew}
BRIYAH {2nd as “World of Creation” also known as Olam Briyah, עולם בריאה
in Hebrew}
YETZIRAH {3rd as “World of Formation” also known as Olam Yetsirah, עולם
יצירה in Hebrew}
ASSIYAH {4th as “World of Action” also known as Olam Asiyah, עולם עשיה
in Hebrew}
-
http://www.grapple369.com/index_files/tree.gif
-
http://www.grapple369.com/index_files/yetziratic_wheel.png
This is Chaldean / Babylonian in Origins: Hebrew letters as described in
the “Sefer Yetzirah”
YETZIRAH as in “Making" is as opposed to BRIYAH as in "Creating"
Actually taking whatever matter that was created in the BRIYAH and
shaping it into the basic elements.
It is also possible to divide the number of days in 400 years in the
Gregorian calendar reforms as 146,097 days by 7 and that when made
divisible by 22 to obtain the remainder, and to arrange the Hebrew
letters in a pattern which has a remainder of #13 as being in the middle
of the Chinese 2 BCE published DAO TE CHING / I CHING division of the
year into 364.5 days and the Jewish Kabbalah equivalent which deployed a
magic square of #369 having a distinct mathematical property at centre
of #41 for the equivalent date of 13 September.
#0 MOD 22 = 22 [#TAU / #400] as 4000 BCE
#400 MOD 22 = 17 [#PE / #80]
#800 MOD 22 = 12 [#LAMED / #30]
#1200 MOD 22 = 7 [#ZAYIN / #7]
#1600 MOD 22 = 2 [#BETH / #2]
#2000 MOD 22 = 19 [#QOPH / #100]
#2400 MOD 22 = 14 [#NUN / #50]
#2800 MOD 22 = 9 [#TETH / #9]
#3200 MOD 22 = 4 [#DALETH / #4]
#3600 MOD 22 = 21 [#SHIN / #300]
#4000 MOD 22 = 16 [#'AYIN / #70] = #0 CE as HETEROS (MALE/FEMALE
MARRIAGE -- WHAT IS SIN & WICKEDNESS?) autonomic transformative
prototype and symbolic associator to the series #15 CE, #34 CE, #65 CE,
#111 CE, #175 CE, #260 CE, #369 CE ... #2000 Y2K
#4400 MOD 22 = 11 [#KAF / #20] = #400 CE
#4800 MOD 22 = 6 [#VAV / #6] = #800 CE
#5200 MOD 22 = 1 [#ALEPH / #1] = #1200 CE
#5600 MOD 22 = 18 [#TSADE / #90] = #1600 CE
#6000 MOD 22 = 13 [#MEM / #40] = #2000 Y2K / Equinox of DATE(1996,3,20)
+ (5 * 364) + 182 days = Wednesday DATE(2001,9,12) with Equinox of
Saturday DATE(2001,9,23) commencing the Sabbath year of 'oth cycle
-
http://www.grapple369.com/index_files/toth9.gif
#6400 MOD 22 = 8 [#CHET / #8]
#6800 MOD 22 = 3 [#GIMEL / #3]
#7200 MOD 22 = 20 [#RESH / #200]
#7600 MOD 22 = 15 [#SAMEK / #60]
#8000 MOD 22 = 10 [#YOD / #10]
#8400 MOD 22 = 5 [#HE / #5]
#8800 MOD 22 = 22 [#TAU / #400] as 8800 CE
In many instances, the Torah also uses words and phrases in ways that
cannot be understood in their literal sense. There are a number of very
obvious examples of this in the narrative of the Creation, for the
metaphysical events that took place at that time were far removed from
the natural order of the world we know today. They could not have been
accurately described in ways that we can understand, nor in language
that we can relate to. For example, the Torah tells us how God brought
the world into being through speech, when in fact He created the world
through a form of thought. When the Torah describes God's thought
process as speech, it makes it easier for us to grasp the idea on our
own level. [Copyright © 2001 by Rabbi Daniel Travis and
www.Torah.org]
dolf: “Fascist Dogs BroilJAB & Uergil discuss their creation denial!”
BroilJAB (
Design...@wmconnect.com): “The deviant creationists twist
and turn, twist the words of the faithful.
Sad it is to see them like this.”
Uergil (
Uer...@uer.net): “If there is any damnation, it is the nation
creationists inhabit.”
dolf: “Vurgil or Uirgit? (vur...@arg.erg / uir...@uirgil.ur)
Or is it now Uergil?
Creationist denial has its roots in German political theatre.
Numerological and mystic speculation was especially rife amongst German
Romantics and Naturphilosophien during the nineteenth century and grew
out of ancient teleological speculations concerning the harmonious
distribution of the heavenly bodies. Such speculation was by no means
confined to the celestial motions; in 1818 the Kantian mineralogist
Christian Weiss even argues for a link between aspects of
rhombic-dodecahedral crystal structure and the musical scale of tones!
However, such flights of imaginative fancy generally had little impact
upon the work of serious scientists; with one notable exception.
In 1766 Johann Daniel Titius von Wittenberg was preparing a German
translation of Charles Bonnet’s Contemplation de la Nature. To the
section on planetary motions he added a now famous footnote pointing out
that the radii of all the planetary orbits can be generated by the
following simple algorithm, where r is measured in astronomical units (1
AU = 1.496 x 1013 cm):
rn = 0.4 + 0.3 x 2n; n = 0,1,2…
This formula provided a striking approximation for the distance from the
Sun to the six then-known planets: Mercury {Measured: 0.39, Predicted:
0.4}, Venus {Measured: 0.72, Predicted: 0.7}, Earth {Measured: 1.00,
Predicted: 1.0}, Mars {Measured: 1.52, Predicted: 1.6}, Jupiter
{Measured: 5.20, Predicted: 5.2}, Saturn {Measured: 9.55, Predicted:
10.0}. Their measured distances from the Sun at the time of the Law’s
inception are indicated together with Titius’ predictions. [Rediscovery
of the Anthropic Principle, John Barrow & Frank Tipler, The Anthropic
Cosmological Principle, © 1996, p 221]
There is no more opportunity for repentance--and neither for forgiveness.
To hell with you!”
#21 / .jackNote@zen: 5, row: 3, col: 7, nous: 67 [Super: #313 / #24 -
Important Distinctions, Trouble from Indulgence; I-Ching: H5 - Delay;
Tetra: 18 - Waiting, Ego: #462 / #67 - Three Treasures; I-Ching: H10 -
Tread Carefully; Tetra: 48 - Ritual] {Autonomous Nature {MOTHER: Scales
of Liability}}