XPost: uk.legal, alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh XPost: alt.atheism

-- (DRAFT) INFORMAL RESEARCH NOTES ON A PLAUSIBLE NOEMA SCENARIO [#230 - WICKED, #232 - KNIFE / WEAPON, #249 - SATOR (#38), #228 - ONTIC LIMIT / WITNESSING TRAVESTY AS REPROACH, #237 - DEME LIMIT / USE OF FORCE] RELATED
TO RAMPAGE KILLING EVENTS

In our informal research as self education, the meta-descriptive
aggregation of concepts of mind most likely has some relevance to the philosophical concept of intentionality. But what we have recognised from
our memeBrain prototypes, is that the #451 - PRAXIS OF RATIONALITY and its dynamic problem resolution pairing only occurs by being couched with a
preamble for which we have a desire to examine if the resolution idea has recurrence as then a criteria for its attainment as pairing action being a function of mind.

For want of a better term, we might consider this dá dào (達到): to reach; to
achieve; to attain

<http://www.grapple369.com/Savvy/?run:Mystery&glyph:達>

dá (達): 1. to attain; to reach, 2. Da, 3. intelligent proficient, 4. to be open; to be connected, 5. to realize; to complete; to accomplish, 6. to display; to manifest, 7. to tell; to inform; to say, 8. illustrious; influential; prestigious, 9. everlasting; constant; unchanging, 10.
generous; magnanimous, 11. commonly; everywhere, 12. arbitrary; freely come
and go

<http://www.grapple369.com/Savvy/?run:Mystery&glyph:到>

dào (到): 1. to arrive, 2. arrive; receive, 3. to go, 4. careful, 5. Dao

APPRAISAL #9: It offends the ear but sets the toe on track. (到耳順止)
The matter will go right. (事貞)
FATHOMING #9: Offended ears, compliant toes (到耳順止)
MEANS: Contrary talk makes for obedient conduct. (逆聞順行也)

dào (到): 1. to arrive, 2. arrive; receive, 3. to go, 4. careful, 5. Dao

ěrshùn (耳順): 1. an obedient *EAR*, 2. pleasing to the ear

zhǐ (止): 1. to stop; to halt, 2. until; to end, 3. Kangxi radical 77, 4. only, 5. to prohibit; to prevent; to refrain; to suppress, 6. to remain in
one place; to stay, 7. to rest; to settle, 8. deportment; bearing;
demeanor; manner, 9. a particle at the end of a phrase, 10. foot

shì (事): 1. matter; thing; item, 2. to serve, 3. a government post, 4.
duty; post; work, 5. occupation, 6. cause; undertaking; enterprise; achievement, 7. an accident, 8. to attend, 9. an allusion, 10. a condition;
a state; a situation, 11. to engage in, 12. to enslave, 13. to pursue, 14.
to administer, 15. to appoint, 16. a piece

zhēn (貞): 1. virtuous; chaste; pure, 2. loyal, 3. divination, 4. chastity, 5. to divine, 6. auspicious, 7. upright, 8. lower part of the trigrams in
the Yijing, 9. four

We want to explore whether achieving this goal as the #451 - PRAXIS OF RATIONALITY and its dynamic problem resolution pairing, actually involves
the two concepts that have been central to Husserl’s internalist interpretation of intentionality: the concept of a noema (plural noemata)
and the concept of epoche (i.e., bracketing) or phenomenological reduction.
By the word ‘noema,’ Husserl refers to the internal structure of mental acts. The phenomenological reduction is meant to help get at the essence of mental acts by suspending all naive presuppositions about the difference between real and fictitious entities (on these complex phenomenological concepts, see the papers by Føllesdal and others conveniently gathered in Dreyfus (1982). For further discussion, see Bell (1990) and Dummett (1993).

#169 as [#50, #70, #8, #40, #1] /
#470 = #451 - PRAXIS OF RATIONALITY + #19 - FOLLOWING (TS'UNG) as [#50,
#70, #8, #40, #1, #300, #1] = nóēma (G3540): {UMBRA: #169 % #41 = #5} 1) a mental perception, thought; 2) an evil purpose; 3) that which thinks, the
mind, thoughts or purposes

APPRAISAL #3: Men do not attack him. (人不攻之)
They are drawn to follow. (自然證)
FATHOMING #3: That men do not attack him (人不攻之)
MEANS: This, in itself, is proof of Virtue's power. (自然證也)

rén (人): 1. person; people; a human being, 2. Kangxi radical 9, 3. a kind
of person, 4. everybody, 5. adult, 6. somebody; others, 7. an upright
person

bù (不): 1. not; no, 2. expresses that a certain condition cannot be achieved, 3. as a correlative, 4. no (answering a question), 5. forms a negative adjective from a noun, 6. at the end of a sentence to form a
question, 7. to form a yes or no question, 8. infix potential marker

gōng (攻): 1. to attack; to assault, 2. to discredit; to impugn; to criticize, 3. to remedy; to cure, 4. to work at; to handle, 5. workmanship; expertise, 6. exaction by the state, 7. sturdy; strong, 8. to govern; to administer, 9. Gong

zhī (之): 1. him; her; them; that, 2. used between a modifier and a word to form a word group, 3. to go, 4. this; that, 5. genitive marker, 6. it, 7.
in, 8. all, 9. and, 10. however, 11. if, 12. then, 13. to arrive; to go,
14. is, 15. to use, 16. Zhi

zìrán (自然): 1. nature, 2. natural, 3. of course; certainly; naturally

zhèng (證): 1. proof, 2. to prove; to demonstrate; to confirm; to give evidence, 3. to advise against, 4. certificate, 5. an illness, 6. to accuse

In fact, commentators have been unable to achieve consensus on exactly what
a noema is. In a recent survey, David Woodruff Smith distinguished four different schools of thought. On one view, to say that the noema is the intentional object of an act of consciousness is to mean that it quite literally is an object. Husserl's student Roman Ingarden, for example, held that both ordinary objects, like chairs and trees, and intentional objects, like a chair precisely as it appears to me, or even a fictional tree,
actually exist, but have different "modes" of existence.

An alternative view, developed primarily by Aron Gurwitsch, emphasizes the noema of perceptual experience. Most ordinary objects can be perceived in different ways and from different perspectives (consider looking at a tree
from several different positions). For Gurwitsch, what is perceived in each such act is a noema, and the object itself—the tree, say—is to be understood as the collection or system of noemata associated with it. This
view has similarities with phenomenalism.

Robert Sokolowski, alternatively, holds that a noema is just the actual
object of perception or judgment itself, considered phenomenologically. In other words, the noema of the judgment that "this chair is uncomfortable"
is neither an entity (the chair considered as uncomfortable) which exists
in addition to the chair itself (but with a different mode of
existence)—the Ingarden view; nor is the noema of such a judgment
identified with a particular tactile perception of the chair—which along
with other perceptions constitutes the chair as such—the Gurwitsch view.
For Sokolowski, the noema is not a separate entity at all, but the chair
itself as in this instance perceived or judged. This seems consistent with Husserl's emphasis on the noema as the "perceived as such…remembered as such...judged as such..."

Analytic philosopher Dagfinn Føllesdal, in an influential 1969 paper,
proposed a Fregean interpretation of the noema, which has been developed extensively by Ronald McIntyre and David Woodruff Smith. This school of
thought agrees that the noema is not a separate entity, but rather than identifying it with the actual object of the act (of perceiving, judging, etc.), phenomenologically understood, this view suggests that it is a
mediating component of the act itself. It is what gives the act the sense
it has. Indeed, Føllesdal and his followers suggest that the noema is a generalized version of Gottlob Frege's account of linguistic meaning, and
in particular of his concept of sense (Sinn). Just as Frege held that a linguistic expression picks out its reference by means of its sense, so
Husserl believed that conscious acts generally—not merely acts of meaning
but also acts of perception, judgment, etc.—are intentionally directed
toward objects by means of their noemata. On this view, the noema is not an object, but an abstract component of certain types of acts.

Sokolowski has continued to reject this approach, arguing that "(t)o equate sense and noema would be to equate propositional and phenomenological reflection. It would take philosophy simply as the critical reflection on
our meanings or senses; it would equate philosophy with linguistic
analysis." Robert C. Solomon attempted to reconcile the perception-based interpretation of the Gurwitsch school with the Fregean interpretation of
noema as sense, suggesting that while "(i)t has now become virtually
axiomatic among phenomenologists that the Sinne [senses] of experience
stand independent of the Bedeutungen [meanings] of linguistic expressions.
It has become all but axiomatic among analytic philosophers that there is
no meaning apart from language. It is the concept of the noema that
provides the link between them. The noema embodies both the changing phases
of experience and the organizing sense of our experience. But these two 'components' are not separable, for all experience requires meaning, not as
an after-the-fact luxury in reflective judgements but in order for it to be experience of anything." <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noema>

TETRAD MENTIONS OF [rì (日): *SUN*] @ [

#1 - WHAT FASCISM IS,
#5 - GREATEST INVENTION OF STATE,
#13,
#18 - HIJACK THE ANZAC 2018 CENTENNIAL,
#19 - DISRUPTION OF THE NOEMA?, <-- morphosis scenario [#230, #232, #249,
#228, #237] @ CHRISTCHURCH MOSQUE SHOOTINGS ON 15 MARCH 2019
#20,
#23,
#24,
#33,
#41,
#47,
#52,
#67,
#70,
#78]

<http://www.grapple369.com/Savvy/?run:Mystery&glyph:日>

#38 - JUPITER PRINCIPLE (#549 - DEME FOR morphosis = #38 (* IMMATERIAL INCLUSION) + #511: @SUM(TETRAD MENTIONS OF [rì (日): *SUN*]))

#1 #52 #20 #78
#70 #23 #33 #18
#47 #5 #38 #19
#24 #67 #13 #41

BING CHAT GPT @ 0836 HRS ON 21 APRIL 2024: "During the CHRISTCHURCH MOSQUE SHOOTINGS ON 15 MARCH 2019, the perpetrator, Brenton Tarrant, was dressed
in *MILITARY*-*STYLE* *CAMOUFLAGE* *CLOTHING*. He also wore a full tactical vest with front pockets containing at least seven fully loaded .223
magazines and carried a bayonet-style *knife* in a scabbard. His attire
allowed him to carry numerous magazines and move with ease during the
attacks. Tarrant’s actions that day resulted in a tragic loss of life and left an indelible mark on New Zealand’s history."

BOER WAR MEMORIAL ANTAGONISM AS IMPLICIT ROMAN CATHOLIC CRIME AGAINST THE COMMONWEALTH (CAESAROPAPISM)
PENTECOST SUNDAY AS JUPITER (#38 - SATOR / #33 - TENET / #34 - ROTAS)
PRINCIPLE

[#38 - 8 JUNE 1930, #35 - 24 MAY 1931, #33 - 15 MAY 1932, #37 - 4 JUNE
1933, #34 - 20 MAY 1934]

[#38 - 8 JUNE 2014, #35 - 24 MAY 2015 (KNIGHTS TEMPLAR RENEWED), #33 - 15
MAY 2016 (IRREGULAR VIETNAM CORPSE INTERMENT IN RAAF WWII CEMETERY), #37 -
4 JUNE 2017 [TARGETED ATTACKS / SLANDER], #34 - 20 MAY 2018 (WWI CENTENNIAL HIJACKING)]

[#38 - 8 JUNE 2025, #35 - 24 MAY 2026, #33 - 16 MAY 2027, #37 - 4 JUNE
2028, #34 - 20 MAY 2029]

EASTER SUNDAY occurs between the TETRA / RANGE dates #21 - 22 MARCH through
#28 - ANZAC DAY: 25 APRIL (whereas PENTECOST SUNDAY as 49 days thereafter occurs within ranges #31 - 10 MAY through #39 - 13 JUNE) within the
Gregorian calendar and may be the 81st through 115th day of common years or 82nd through 116th day of leap years.

<http://www.grapple369.com/Groundwork/Lawyer%20Notes%2020240409%20%28public%29.pdf>

GRAPPLE (309, 332)@[34, 22, 54, 31, 63, 5, 61, 60, 2] PROTOTYPE

<http://www.grapple369.com/Savvy/?date:2024.4.21&time:8.36&heuristic>

{@9: Sup: 8 - OPPOSITION: KAN (#309); Ego: 2 - FULL CIRCLE: CHOU (#332)}

TELOS TOTAL: #332
DEME CHECKSUM TOTAL: #549

#1770 - DEME CHECKSUM TOTAL: #549 as [#40, #70, #100, #500, #800, #200,
#10, #50] = mórphōsis (G3446): {UMBRA: #1920 % #41 = #34} 1) a forming, shaping; 2) form; 2a) the mere form, semblance; 2b) the form befitting a
thing or truly expressing the fact, the very form;

#556 - ONTIC CHECKSUM TOTAL: #230 as [#8, #4, #10, #20, #8, #200, #1, #300,
#5] = adikéō (G91): {UMBRA: #840 % #41 = #20} 1) absolutely; 1a) to act unjustly or wickedly, to sin,; 1b) to be a criminal, to have violated the
laws in some way; 1c) to do wrong; 1d) to do hurt; 2) transitively; 2a) to
do some wrong or sin in some respect; 2b) to wrong some one, act wickedly towards him; 2c) to hurt, damage, harm;

We already have a meta-description of #237 - USE OF FORCE associated to the [#0, #40, #41, #81, #30] template prototype but the consideration is
whether we can deduce some metalogic axioms from our NOEMA SCENARIO [#230 - WICKED, #232 - KNIFE / WEAPON, #249 - SATOR (#38), #228 - ONTIC LIMIT / WITNESSING TRAVESTY AS REPROACH, #237 - DEME LIMIT / USE OF FORCE] where
the use of an object knife for instance, is both an engendering nature:
#237 - #230 = #7 and a strategic grounding action #237 - #232 = #5 which is
an atrocity consequential to the autonomy: #237 - #228 = #9 but also the general populace: #249 - #237 = #12...

But just how elastic and vital are these meta logical premises that a
specific category #258 might provide a #30 - BOLD RESOLUTION to #228 - ATROCITY?

HETEROS PROTOTYPE #SEVEN (#117 / #351)

47    7    63
55   39    23
15    71    31

71
118
141
204
243
258 <-- ****
313
344
351

#1721 - MALE CHECKSUM TOTAL: #258 as [#200, #800, #500, #100, #70, #50, #1]
= sṓphrōn (G4998): {UMBRA: #2450 % #41 = #31} 1) of a sound mind, sane, in one's senses; 2) curbing one's desires and impulses, self-controlled, temperate;

#472 - MALE CHECKSUM TOTAL: #258 as [#20, #100, #10, #40, #1, #300, #1] /
#741 - MALE CHECKSUM TOTAL: #258 as [#20, #100, #10, #40, #1, #300, #70,
#200] = kríma (G2917): {UMBRA: #171 % #41 = #7} 1) a decree, judgments; 2) judgment; 2a) condemnation of wrong, the decision (whether severe or mild) which one passes on the faults of others; 2b) in a forensic sense; 2b1) the sentence of a judge; 2b2) the punishment with which one is sentenced; 2b3) condemnatory sentence, penal judgment, sentence; 2c) a matter to be
judicially decided, a lawsuit, a case in court;
 
#718 - MALE CHECKSUM TOTAL: #258 as [#1, #30, #8, #9, #70, #400, #200] = alēthḗs (G227): {UMBRA: #256 % #41 = #10} 1) true; 2) loving the truth, speaking the truth, truthful;

We need to be mindful where the #237 is itself a LIMIT as a DEME boundary
(ie. excluding for the moment either its usage by selection or aggregated extension) such that the #237 - USE OF FORCE associated with the BIPARTITE PROTOTYPE #228 - WITNESSING TRAVESTY AS REPROACH is entirely a systemic
product of ONTIC moral proscription abandonment for rightful action and a steeping effect of the prototype artifice itself, such that water finds its
own course which is here biased by conformity with the patterning imposed
by the immaterial elements @1 / @5 as then a fixed mindset which cannot
change?

It will always find some self justification but the problem is the paradigm
as the foundation of belief and being.

We see the resolution of the problem is firstly a metalogic quantification
of the human being and not chasing after endless self justification by
such.

We cannot be shallow here given there is already conveyed a viable
metalogical proposition of a BIPOLAR REALITY (ie. not a medical diagnosis
but a paradigm of action: #365 - YANG: LUO SHU / #364 - YIN: T'AI HSUAN + fusion)...

Thus whilst the principle of a specific category #258 might provide a #30 - bold resolution to atrocity #228 we must understand that informal research postulations may be made upon certain assumptions which from case studies
do not hold true.

For instance whilst the HETEROS PROTOTYPE #SEVEN (#117 / #351) has an equivalent locus to the BIPOLAR REALITY as LUO SHU PROTOTYPE #THREE (#117
/ #351) in possessing a meta descriptor of #75 - FAILURE (SHIH) - 𝍐失 = #526 as COGITO: [#58, #27, #27, #49, #46] that our #364 - YIN: T'AI HSUAN
assay of an array ONLY makes an artifice metalogic assertion: [#9 - vCORAL,
#8 - vCYAN, #1 ... #7 - CAUSALITY] where the #65 - INNER (NEI) / H54 - MARRIAGEABLE MAIDEN, CONVERTING THE MAIDEN is then the CENTRE or AUTONOMOUS DELIMITED PRINCIPLE with a PRINCIPLE OF MATERIALITY associated to #75 -
FAILURE (SHIH) and in its SPIRAL ASSAY also includes #228 and thus there is
no in-equitability of paradigm consequence.

COURSE OF NATURE

57    56    49
66    65    58
75    74    67
       
74       
131       
189       
238       
303       
378       
444       
511 <-- @SUM(TETRAD MENTIONS OF [rì (日): *SUN*])      567       

<https://www.grapple369.com/nature.html>

WHICH MIGHT RELY ON A SPIRAL ASSAY ARRAY TO MEDIATE AGAINST THE BIPARTITE HYPOSTASIS:

[#57, #56, #49, #58, #67, #74, #75, #66, #65]

[#57, {@1: Sup: 57 - GUARDEDNESS: SHOU (#57); Ego: 57 - GUARDEDNESS: SHOU (#57)}
#56, {@2: Sup: 32 - LEGION: CHUANG (#89); Ego: 56 - CLOSED MOUTH: CHIN
(#113)}
#49, {@3: Sup: 81 - FOSTERING: YANG (#170); Ego: 49 - FLIGHT: T'AO (#162)}

#58, {@4: Sup: 58 - GATHERING IN: HSI (#228 - I HAVE NO UNJUST PREFERENCES {%40}); Ego: 58 - GATHERING IN: HSI (#220 - I CURSE NOT A GOD {%38} / I
CURSE NOT A GOD {%38})} <-- ****

#67, {@5: Sup: 44 - STOVE: TSAO (#272); Ego: 67 - DARKENING: HUI (#287)}
#74, {@6: Sup: 37 - PURITY: TS'UI (#309); Ego: 74 - CLOSURE: CHIH (#361)}
#75, {@7: Sup: 31 - PACKING: CHUANG (#340); Ego: 75 - FAILURE: SHIH (#436)} #66, {@8: Sup: 16 - CONTACT: CHIAO (#356); Ego: 66 - DEPARTURE: CH'U
(#502)}
#65] {@9: Sup: 81 - FOSTERING: YANG (#437); Ego: 65 - INNER: NEI
(#567)}

So whilst we might easily extrapolate the paradigm of action: #365 - YANG:
LUO SHU / #364 - YIN: T'AI HSUAN) to domestic violence being likewise #228
- TRAVESTY as occurring within an optimal state of FUSION (ie. MARRIAGE),
ours is only an INFORMAL RESEARCH proposition and we are not qualified to
make any #491 - AGENCY (ie. which is why they are established) or ONTIC JURISPRUDENCE statements.

<http://www.grapple369.com/images/Hitler%20Claim%20to%20Science.jpeg>

LUO SHU PROTOTYPE #THREE (#117 / #351)

30    75    12
21    39    57
66    3    48
       
3       
33       
90       
102       
141       
207       
228 <-- ****     
276       
351       

This is then a hypothetical assumption about this "the BIPOLAR dynamic of
LUO SHU SQUARE / COURSE OF NATURE pairing (ie. #365 - YANG / #364 - YIN =
#729 = 9x9x9 as morphology of being) as adverse state occurs by an artifice impetus of a BIPARTITE HYPOSTASIS fusion..."

The question is on the #231 - JUXTAPOSITION CONTROL within the BIPARTITE HYPOSTASIS and whether such is the holding capacity and the immaterial
elements @1 / @5 is then both impetus and anchor.

From our metalogic assertion: [#9 - vCORAL, #8 - vCYAN, #1 ... #7 -
CAUSALITY] we also make the observation of categories #230 and #297 with
the later the sum for BIPARTITE NUMBER PROTOTYPE #ONE and the COURSE OF
NATURE deploying the same assay method for PROTOTYPE #ONE / #NINE as claim
to JEWISH / CHRISTIAN IDENTITY being SOMETHING SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT TO
THE ECCLESIASTICAL PRECEDENCE CLAIMS MADE BY THE @1 - #297 / @5 - #333 - VATICAN CITY-STATE

COURSE OF NATURE #ONE

77    78    79
5    6    7
14    15    16

15
92
99
178
184
198
203
219
297 <-- ROMAN PROTOTYPE

[#15, #77, #7, #79, #6, #14, #5, #16, #78]

COURSE OF NATURE #NINE

23    24    25
32    33    34
41    42    43

42
65
99
124
157
198
230 <-- ****
273
297 <-- ROMAN PROTOTYPE

[#42, #23, #34, #25, #33, #41, #32, #43, #24]

The baying for blood "BRING HIM OUT" belongs to the same class of statement
as "CRUCIFY HIM" or "DEATH TO AMERICA" / "DEATH TO ISRAEL".

"EXCEPT IT BE FOR THIS ONE VOICE, THAT I CRIED STANDING AMONG THEM,
TOUCHING THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD I AM CALLED IN QUESTION BY YOU THIS
DAY.

AND WHEN FELIX HEARD THESE THINGS, HAVING MORE PERFECT KNOWLEDGE OF THAT
WAY, HE DEFERRED THEM, AND SAID, WHEN LYSIAS THE CHIEF CAPTAIN SHALL COME
DOWN, I WILL KNOW THE UTTERMOST OF YOUR MATTER." [Acts 24:21-22]

<http://www.grapple369.com/Savvy/?date:2024.4.13&time:15.20&heuristic>

From the time window of the BONDI MASSACRE vEVENT we determined a viable prototype {@9: Sup: 68 - DIMMING: MENG (#367); Ego: 8 - OPPOSITION: KAN
(#230)}

#959 - FEME CHECKSUM TOTAL: #230 as [#5, #4, #10, #800, #20, #70, #50] = diṓkō (G1377): {UMBRA: #1634 % #41 = #35} 1) to make to run or flee, put to flight, drive away; 2) to run swiftly in order to catch a person or thing,
to run after; 2a) to press on: figuratively of one who in a race runs
swiftly to reach the goal; 2b) to pursue (in a hostile manner); 3) in any
way whatever to harass, trouble, molest one; 3a) to persecute; 3b) to be mistreated, suffer persecution on account of something; 4) without the idea
of hostility, to run after, follow after: someone; 5) metaph., to pursue;
5a) to seek after eagerly, earnestly endeavour to acquire;

We identified #230 as a likely action / temporal cohesion occurrence and switched from FEME / IDEA to the supernal MALE noumenon redaction:

#880 - MALE CHECKSUM TOTAL: #230 as [#20, #400, #50, #400, #10] = kᵉthôneth (H3801): {UMBRA: #870 % #41 = #9} 1) tunic, under-garment; 1a) a long shirt-like garment usually of linen;

#654 - MALE CHECKSUM TOTAL: #230 as [#1, #3, #1, #80, #8, #200, #1, #50,
#300, #10] = agapáō (G25): {UMBRA: #886 % #41 = #25} 1) of persons; 1a) to welcome, to entertain, to be fond of, to love dearly; 2) of things; 2a) to
be well pleased, to be contented at or with a thing;

Which gave viable meta-logical pairings:

Male: #230; Feme: #232
Male: #230; Feme: #249

Male: #237; Feme: #228

Which gave viable meta-logical pairings:

Male: #230; Feme: #232
Male: #230; Feme: #249

Male: #237; Feme: #228

42 16 65
64 41 18
17 66 40

66
108
126
191
232
249

44 4 60
52 36 20
12 68 28

68
112
132
192
228

H3801@{
{@1: Sup: 20 - ADVANCE: CHIN (#20); Ego: 20 - ADVANCE: CHIN (#20)},
{@2: Sup: 15 - REACH: TA (#35); Ego: 76 - AGGRAVATION: CHU (#96 - MALE
DEME IS UNNAMED {%33})},
{@3: Sup: 65 - INNER: NEI (#100 - MALE DEME IS UNNAMED {%3}); Ego: 50 - VASTNESS / WASTING: T'ANG (#146 - I AM NOT A LAND-GRABBER {%15})},
{@4: Sup: 71 - STOPPAGE: CHIH (#171 - I AM NOT UNCHASTE WITH ANY ONE
{%20}); Ego: 6 - CONTRARIETY: LI (#152)},
{@5: Sup: 66 - DEPARTURE: CH'U (#237 - MALE DEME IS UNNAMED {%17}); Ego:
76 - AGGRAVATION: CHU (#228 - I HAVE NO UNJUST PREFERENCES {%40})},
Male: #237; Feme: #228
} // #876

Thus upon that premise, I concluded the notions [#230, #232, #249] may
provide a suitable workable IDEA dialectic as conjectural motive
occasioning the need to mediate #237 - USE OF FORCE associated with the BIPARTITE PROTOTYPE #228 - WITNESSING TRAVESTY AS REPROACH ...

Also I was aware #232 - knife

#230 as [#20, #8, #200, #2] / [#8, #200, #2, #20] /
#232 as [#2, #8, #200, #2, #20] = chereb (H2719): {UMBRA: #210 % #41 = #5}
1) sword, knife; 1a) sword; 1b) knife; 1c) tools for cutting stone;

As being entirely congruous notions and consistent with past informal
research interests

But there is a need to be mindful where the #237 is itself a LIMIT as a
DEME boundary (ie. excluding for the moment either its usage by selection
or aggregated extension) such that the #237 - USE OF FORCE associated with
the ONTIC boundary and BIPARTITE PROTOTYPE #228 - WITNESSING TRAVESTY AS REPROACH is entirely a systemic product of ONTIC moral proscription
abandonment for rightful action and a steeping effect of the prototype
artifice itself, such that water finds its own course which is here biased
by conformity with the patterning imposed by the immaterial elements @1 /
@5 as then a fixed mindset which cannot change?

#1537 - DEME CHECKSUM TOTAL: #549 as [#40, #70, #100, #500, #800, #9, #8,
#10] /
#1580 - DEME CHECKSUM TOTAL: #549 as [#40, #70, #100, #500, #70, #800] = morphóō (G3445): {UMBRA: #1580 % #41 = #22} 1) to form;

WITHIN CHINESE HAN OMEN LITERATURE SOLAR ECLIPSES OFTEN WERE CONSIDERED TO PORTENDED USURPATION OF THE ROYAL POWER (YANG):

- TOTAL SOLAR ECLIPSE (NOUS: #44; #393; #404 - *PERIHELION*; #489 -
*PARTING* *OF* *WAYS* *POEM*): 20 MARCH 2015 (AEST)

|- 20 ΜΑRCH 2015 - TOTAL SOLAR ECLIPSE
|- 19 YEARS AS TEMPORAL HEURISTIC CONSCIOUSNESS ANCHOR
|- WED 20 MARCH 1996 / NEW MOON 21 MARCH

WED 20 MARCH 1901 / NEW MOON 21 MARCH WHEN THE COMMONWEALTH IS ALIGNED TO
400 YEARS CENTENNIAL OF DUTCH DISCOVERY 26 OCTOBER 1616 RENDERS

- TOTAL SOLAR ECLIPSE (NOUS: #36 - *ANZAC* *DAY*; #298 <--- GOOD FRIDAY AGREEMENT IRISH CATHOLIC ENCLOSURE OBSTRUCTION, #325, #373 - *APHELION*
#393): 3 JULY 2019 (AEST)

- TOTAL SOLAR ECLIPSE (NOUS: #44; #297, #325, #342 - *PERIHELION*, #383 - *JOIN* *ME* *IN* *DEATH* *LYRIC* / HITLER's BIRTHDAY): 20 APRIL 2023 (AEST)
- EXMOUTH

CONCLUDING AUGUSTI NUMEN / TREASON EVENTS WILL OCCUR AS EASTER SUNDAY ON
#44 - 20 APRIL 2025 AND PENTECOST SUNDAY ON #38 - 8 JUNE 2025.

- TOTAL SOLAR ECLIPSE ON 8 (UTC) / 9 JUNE 1918 (AEST) [During World War I:
28 JULY 1914 to 11 NOVEMBER 1918]

- TOTAL SOLAR ECLIPSE ON 13 (UTC) / 14 NOVEMBER 2012 (AEST) - KING CHARLES
III ACTUAL BIRTHDAY

KING CHARLES III BIRTHDAY HOLIDAY ON #68 - 9 JUNE 2025 AND #38 - 8 JUNE
2026.

"In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds-G3540 of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the
image of God, should shine unto them." [2Corinthians 4:4]

"Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself
against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every
thought-G3540 to the obedience of Christ;" [2Corinthians 10:5]

"But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds-G3540 should be corrupted from the simplicity that
is in Christ." [2Corinthians 11:3]

Secondly as a conception of ENTENTIONAL whether the expression of a notion within the PARAGRAPH meets the criteria of pertaining to entention or to objects that have entention as an attribute. Ententional phenomena are teleological – the class of phenomena constituted by their relation to something absent, e.g. function, purpose, value...

To illustrate this point, if we apply a memeBrain parsing to the first two paragraphs within our "CASE STUDY ON PSYCHOSOMATIC PHENOMENON BY TEMPORAL ASSOCIATIVE CAPACITY TO INTUIT NEURAL LINGUISTIC PRAGMA AS MENTAL
DESCRIPTION" which relates to "the philosophical notion of psychosomatic phenomenon [which] is predominantly understood in terms of a physiological psychological condition that leads to physical symptoms"

<http://www.grapple369.com/x-files/CASE%20STUDY%20Gnosis%20Ex%20Machina.pdf>

In that the INTENTIONALITY of the CONTROLLED EXPERIMENTS through BRAIN MANIPULATION is expressed within the congruence of two paragraphs as:

It concerns the brain cells, {@10: Sup: 7 - ASCENT: SHANG (#285); Ego: 50 - VASTNESS / WASTING: T'ANG (#385)}
structures, {@11: Sup: 54 - UNITY: K'UN (#339); Ego: 11 - DIVERGENCE: CH'A (#396)}
components, {@12: Sup: 40 - LAW / MODEL: FA (#379); Ego: 71 - STOPPAGE:
CHIH (#467)}

#855 - MALE CHECKSUM TOTAL: #379 as [#3, #5, #3, #400, #40, #50, #1, #200,
#40, #5, #50, #8, #50] = gymnázō (G1128): {UMBRA: #1301 % #41 = #30} 1) to exercise naked (in a palaestra or school of athletics); 2) *TO* *EXERCISE* *VIGOROUSLY*, *IN* *ANY* *WAY*, *EITHER* *THE* *BODY* *OR* *THE* *MIND*;

However is the conception of ENTENTIONALITY obtained by a single paragraph parsing without being couched by preamble of 9 span segments :

It concerns the brain cells, {@3: Sup: 13 - INCREASE: TSENG (#85); Ego: 50
- VASTNESS / WASTING: T'ANG (#183)}
structures, {@4: Sup: 60 - ACCUMULATION: CHI (#145); Ego: 11 - DIVERGENCE:
CH'A (#194)}
components, {@5: Sup: 46 - ENLARGEMENT: K'UO (#191 - I DO NOT STEAL THE
SKINS OF THE SACRED ANIMALS {%32}); Ego: 71 - STOPPAGE: CHIH (#265)}

#674 - MALE CHECKSUM TOTAL: #191 as [#6, #1, #7, #50, #10, #600] = ʼôzen (H241): {UMBRA: #58 % #41 = #17} 1) *EAR*, as part of the body; 2) ear, as organ of hearing; 3) (subjective) to uncover the ear to reveal; the
receiver of divine revelation;

#118 - MALE CHECKSUM TOTAL: #191 as [#50, #2, #50, #10, #6] = bîyn (H995): {UMBRA: #62 % #41 = #21} 1) to discern, understand, consider; 1a) (Qal);
1a1) to perceive, discern; 1a2) to understand, *KNOW* (*WITH* *THE*
*MIND*); 1a3) to observe, mark, give heed to, distinguish, consider; 1a4)
to have discernment, insight, understanding; 1b) (Niphal) to be discerning, intelligent, discreet, have understanding; 1c) (Hiphil); 1c1) to
understand; 1c2) to cause to understand, give understanding, teach; 1d) (Hithpolel) to show oneself discerning or attentive, consider diligently;
1e) (Polel) to teach, instruct; 2) (TWOT) prudent, regard;

According to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the philosophical [dá rén (達人): PERSON WHO TAKES THINGS PHILOSOPHICALLY] concept of INTENTIONALITY is the power of minds and mental states to be about, to represent, or to stand for, things, properties and states of affairs. To say of an individual’s mental states that they have intentionality is to say that they are mental representations or that they have contents.

<http://www.grapple369.com/Savvy/?run:Mystery&glyph:人>

rén (人): 1. person; people; a human being, 2. Kangxi radical 9, 3. a kind
of person, 4. everybody, 5. adult, 6. somebody; others, 7. an upright
person

Furthermore, to the extent that a speaker utters words from some natural language or draws pictures or symbols from a formal language for the
purpose of conveying to others the contents of her mental states, these artifacts used by a speaker too have contents or intentionality. ‘Intentionality’ is a philosopher’s word: ever since the idea, if not the word itself, was introduced into philosophy by Franz Brentano in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, it has been used to refer to the puzzles
of representation, all of which lie at the interface between the philosophy
of mind and the philosophy of language.

1. WHY IS INTENTIONALITY SO-CALLED?
Contemporary discussions of the nature of intentionality are an integral
part of discussions of the nature of minds: what are minds and what is it
to have a mind? They arise in the context of ontological and metaphysical questions about the fundamental nature of mental states: states such as perceiving, remembering, believing, desiring, hoping, knowing, intending, feeling, experiencing, and so on. What is it to have such mental states?
How does the mental relate to the physical, i.e., how are mental states
related to an individual’s body, to states of his or her brain, to his or
her behavior and to states of affairs in the world?

Why is intentionality so-called? For reasons soon to be explained, in its philosophical usage, the meaning of the word ‘intentionality’ should not be confused with the ordinary meaning of the word ‘intention.’ As indicated by the meaning of the Latin word tendere, which is the etymology of ‘intentionality,’ the relevant idea behind intentionality is that of mental directedness towards (or attending to) objects, as if the mind were
construed as a mental bow whose arrows could be properly aimed at different targets. In medieval logic and philosophy, the Latin word intentio was used
for what contemporary philosophers and logicians nowadays call a ‘concept’ or an ‘intension’: something that can be both true of non-mental things and properties—things and properties lying outside the mind—and present to the mind.

2. INTENTIONAL INEXISTENCE
Contemporary discussions of the nature of intentionality were launched and
many of them were anticipated by Franz Brentano (1874, 88–89) in his book, Psychology From an Empirical Standpoint, from which I quote two famous paragraphs:

Every mental phenomenon is characterized by what the Scholastics of the

[continued in next message]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: uk.legal, alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh XPost: alt.atheism

ADDED LINK

-- (DRAFT) INFORMAL RESEARCH NOTES ON A PLAUSIBLE NOEMA SCENARIO [#230 - WICKED, #232 - KNIFE / WEAPON, #249 - SATOR (#38), #228 - ONTIC LIMIT / WITNESSING TRAVESTY AS REPROACH, #237 - DEME LIMIT / USE OF FORCE] RELATED
TO RAMPAGE KILLING EVENTS

(c) 2024 Dolf Leendert Boek, Published: 20 April 2024

In our informal research as self education, the meta-descriptive
aggregation of concepts of mind most likely has some relevance to the philosophical concept of intentionality. But what we have recognised from
our memeBrain prototypes, is that the #451 - PRAXIS OF RATIONALITY and its dynamic problem resolution pairing only occurs by being couched with a
preamble for which we have a desire to examine if the resolution idea has recurrence as then a criteria for its attainment as pairing action being a function of mind.

For want of a better term, we might consider this dá dào (達到): to reach; to
achieve; to attain

<http://www.grapple369.com/Savvy/?run:Mystery&glyph:達>

dá (達): 1. to attain; to reach, 2. Da, 3. intelligent proficient, 4. to be open; to be connected, 5. to realize; to complete; to accomplish, 6. to display; to manifest, 7. to tell; to inform; to say, 8. illustrious; influential; prestigious, 9. everlasting; constant; unchanging, 10.
generous; magnanimous, 11. commonly; everywhere, 12. arbitrary; freely come
and go

<http://www.grapple369.com/Savvy/?run:Mystery&glyph:到>

dào (到): 1. to arrive, 2. arrive; receive, 3. to go, 4. careful, 5. Dao

APPRAISAL #9: It offends the ear but sets the toe on track. (到耳順止)
The matter will go right. (事貞)
FATHOMING #9: Offended ears, compliant toes (到耳順止)
MEANS: Contrary talk makes for obedient conduct. (逆聞順行也)

dào (到): 1. to arrive, 2. arrive; receive, 3. to go, 4. careful, 5. Dao

ěrshùn (耳順): 1. an obedient *EAR*, 2. pleasing to the ear

zhǐ (止): 1. to stop; to halt, 2. until; to end, 3. Kangxi radical 77, 4. only, 5. to prohibit; to prevent; to refrain; to suppress, 6. to remain in
one place; to stay, 7. to rest; to settle, 8. deportment; bearing;
demeanor; manner, 9. a particle at the end of a phrase, 10. foot

shì (事): 1. matter; thing; item, 2. to serve, 3. a government post, 4.
duty; post; work, 5. occupation, 6. cause; undertaking; enterprise; achievement, 7. an accident, 8. to attend, 9. an allusion, 10. a condition;
a state; a situation, 11. to engage in, 12. to enslave, 13. to pursue, 14.
to administer, 15. to appoint, 16. a piece

zhēn (貞): 1. virtuous; chaste; pure, 2. loyal, 3. divination, 4. chastity, 5. to divine, 6. auspicious, 7. upright, 8. lower part of the trigrams in
the Yijing, 9. four

We want to explore whether achieving this goal as the #451 - PRAXIS OF RATIONALITY and its dynamic problem resolution pairing, actually involves
the two concepts that have been central to Husserl’s internalist interpretation of intentionality: the concept of a noema (plural noemata)
and the concept of epoche (i.e., bracketing) or phenomenological reduction.
By the word ‘noema,’ Husserl refers to the internal structure of mental acts. The phenomenological reduction is meant to help get at the essence of mental acts by suspending all naive presuppositions about the difference between real and fictitious entities (on these complex phenomenological concepts, see the papers by Føllesdal and others conveniently gathered in Dreyfus (1982). For further discussion, see Bell (1990) and Dummett (1993).

#169 as [#50, #70, #8, #40, #1] /
#470 = #451 - PRAXIS OF RATIONALITY + #19 - FOLLOWING (TS'UNG) as [#50,
#70, #8, #40, #1, #300, #1] = nóēma (G3540): {UMBRA: #169 % #41 = #5} 1) a mental perception, thought; 2) an evil purpose; 3) that which thinks, the
mind, thoughts or purposes

APPRAISAL #3: Men do not attack him. (人不攻之)
They are drawn to follow. (自然證)
FATHOMING #3: That men do not attack him (人不攻之)
MEANS: This, in itself, is proof of Virtue's power. (自然證也)

rén (人): 1. person; people; a human being, 2. Kangxi radical 9, 3. a kind
of person, 4. everybody, 5. adult, 6. somebody; others, 7. an upright
person

bù (不): 1. not; no, 2. expresses that a certain condition cannot be achieved, 3. as a correlative, 4. no (answering a question), 5. forms a negative adjective from a noun, 6. at the end of a sentence to form a
question, 7. to form a yes or no question, 8. infix potential marker

gōng (攻): 1. to attack; to assault, 2. to discredit; to impugn; to criticize, 3. to remedy; to cure, 4. to work at; to handle, 5. workmanship; expertise, 6. exaction by the state, 7. sturdy; strong, 8. to govern; to administer, 9. Gong

zhī (之): 1. him; her; them; that, 2. used between a modifier and a word to form a word group, 3. to go, 4. this; that, 5. genitive marker, 6. it, 7.
in, 8. all, 9. and, 10. however, 11. if, 12. then, 13. to arrive; to go,
14. is, 15. to use, 16. Zhi

zìrán (自然): 1. nature, 2. natural, 3. of course; certainly; naturally

zhèng (證): 1. proof, 2. to prove; to demonstrate; to confirm; to give evidence, 3. to advise against, 4. certificate, 5. an illness, 6. to accuse

In fact, commentators have been unable to achieve consensus on exactly what
a noema is. In a recent survey, David Woodruff Smith distinguished four different schools of thought. On one view, to say that the noema is the intentional object of an act of consciousness is to mean that it quite literally is an object. Husserl's student Roman Ingarden, for example, held that both ordinary objects, like chairs and trees, and intentional objects, like a chair precisely as it appears to me, or even a fictional tree,
actually exist, but have different "modes" of existence.

An alternative view, developed primarily by Aron Gurwitsch, emphasizes the noema of perceptual experience. Most ordinary objects can be perceived in different ways and from different perspectives (consider looking at a tree
from several different positions). For Gurwitsch, what is perceived in each such act is a noema, and the object itself—the tree, say—is to be understood as the collection or system of noemata associated with it. This
view has similarities with phenomenalism.

Robert Sokolowski, alternatively, holds that a noema is just the actual
object of perception or judgment itself, considered phenomenologically. In other words, the noema of the judgment that "this chair is uncomfortable"
is neither an entity (the chair considered as uncomfortable) which exists
in addition to the chair itself (but with a different mode of
existence)—the Ingarden view; nor is the noema of such a judgment
identified with a particular tactile perception of the chair—which along
with other perceptions constitutes the chair as such—the Gurwitsch view.
For Sokolowski, the noema is not a separate entity at all, but the chair
itself as in this instance perceived or judged. This seems consistent with Husserl's emphasis on the noema as the "perceived as such…remembered as such...judged as such..."

Analytic philosopher Dagfinn Føllesdal, in an influential 1969 paper,
proposed a Fregean interpretation of the noema, which has been developed extensively by Ronald McIntyre and David Woodruff Smith. This school of
thought agrees that the noema is not a separate entity, but rather than identifying it with the actual object of the act (of perceiving, judging, etc.), phenomenologically understood, this view suggests that it is a
mediating component of the act itself. It is what gives the act the sense
it has. Indeed, Føllesdal and his followers suggest that the noema is a generalized version of Gottlob Frege's account of linguistic meaning, and
in particular of his concept of sense (Sinn). Just as Frege held that a linguistic expression picks out its reference by means of its sense, so
Husserl believed that conscious acts generally—not merely acts of meaning
but also acts of perception, judgment, etc.—are intentionally directed
toward objects by means of their noemata. On this view, the noema is not an object, but an abstract component of certain types of acts.

Sokolowski has continued to reject this approach, arguing that "(t)o equate sense and noema would be to equate propositional and phenomenological reflection. It would take philosophy simply as the critical reflection on
our meanings or senses; it would equate philosophy with linguistic
analysis." Robert C. Solomon attempted to reconcile the perception-based interpretation of the Gurwitsch school with the Fregean interpretation of
noema as sense, suggesting that while "(i)t has now become virtually
axiomatic among phenomenologists that the Sinne [senses] of experience
stand independent of the Bedeutungen [meanings] of linguistic expressions.
It has become all but axiomatic among analytic philosophers that there is
no meaning apart from language. It is the concept of the noema that
provides the link between them. The noema embodies both the changing phases
of experience and the organizing sense of our experience. But these two 'components' are not separable, for all experience requires meaning, not as
an after-the-fact luxury in reflective judgements but in order for it to be experience of anything." <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noema>

TETRAD MENTIONS OF [rì (日): *SUN*] @ [

#1 - WHAT FASCISM IS,
#5 - GREATEST INVENTION OF STATE,
#13,
#18 - HIJACK THE ANZAC 2018 CENTENNIAL,
#19 - DISRUPTION OF THE NOEMA?, <-- morphosis scenario [#230, #232, #249,
#228, #237] @ CHRISTCHURCH MOSQUE SHOOTINGS ON 15 MARCH 2019
#20,
#23,
#24,
#33,
#41,
#47,
#52,
#67,
#70,
#78]

<http://www.grapple369.com/Savvy/?run:Mystery&glyph:日>

#38 - JUPITER PRINCIPLE (#549 - DEME FOR morphosis = #38 (* IMMATERIAL INCLUSION) + #511: @SUM(TETRAD MENTIONS OF [rì (日): *SUN*]))

#1 #52 #20 #78
#70 #23 #33 #18
#47 #5 #38 #19
#24 #67 #13 #41

BING CHAT GPT @ 0836 HRS ON 21 APRIL 2024: "During the CHRISTCHURCH MOSQUE SHOOTINGS ON 15 MARCH 2019, the perpetrator, Brenton Tarrant, was dressed
in *MILITARY*-*STYLE* *CAMOUFLAGE* *CLOTHING*. He also wore a full tactical vest with front pockets containing at least seven fully loaded .223
magazines and carried a bayonet-style *knife* in a scabbard. His attire
allowed him to carry numerous magazines and move with ease during the
attacks. Tarrant’s actions that day resulted in a tragic loss of life and left an indelible mark on New Zealand’s history."

BOER WAR MEMORIAL ANTAGONISM AS IMPLICIT ROMAN CATHOLIC CRIME AGAINST THE COMMONWEALTH (CAESAROPAPISM)
PENTECOST SUNDAY AS JUPITER (#38 - SATOR / #33 - TENET / #34 - ROTAS)
PRINCIPLE

[#38 - 8 JUNE 1930, #35 - 24 MAY 1931, #33 - 15 MAY 1932, #37 - 4 JUNE
1933, #34 - 20 MAY 1934]

[#38 - 8 JUNE 2014, #35 - 24 MAY 2015 (KNIGHTS TEMPLAR RENEWED), #33 - 15
MAY 2016 (IRREGULAR VIETNAM CORPSE INTERMENT IN RAAF WWII CEMETERY), #37 -
4 JUNE 2017 [TARGETED ATTACKS / SLANDER], #34 - 20 MAY 2018 (WWI CENTENNIAL HIJACKING)]

[#38 - 8 JUNE 2025, #35 - 24 MAY 2026, #33 - 16 MAY 2027, #37 - 4 JUNE
2028, #34 - 20 MAY 2029]

EASTER SUNDAY occurs between the TETRA / RANGE dates #21 - 22 MARCH through
#28 - ANZAC DAY: 25 APRIL (whereas PENTECOST SUNDAY as 49 days thereafter occurs within ranges #31 - 10 MAY through #39 - 13 JUNE) within the
Gregorian calendar and may be the 81st through 115th day of common years or 82nd through 116th day of leap years.

<http://www.grapple369.com/Groundwork/Lawyer%20Notes%2020240409%20%28public%29.pdf>

GRAPPLE (309, 332)@[34, 22, 54, 31, 63, 5, 61, 60, 2] PROTOTYPE

<http://www.grapple369.com/Savvy/?date:2024.4.21&time:8.36&heuristic>

{@9: Sup: 8 - OPPOSITION: KAN (#309); Ego: 2 - FULL CIRCLE: CHOU (#332)}

TELOS TOTAL: #332
DEME CHECKSUM TOTAL: #549

#1770 - DEME CHECKSUM TOTAL: #549 as [#40, #70, #100, #500, #800, #200,
#10, #50] = mórphōsis (G3446): {UMBRA: #1920 % #41 = #34} 1) a forming, shaping; 2) form; 2a) the mere form, semblance; 2b) the form befitting a
thing or truly expressing the fact, the very form;

#556 - ONTIC CHECKSUM TOTAL: #230 as [#8, #4, #10, #20, #8, #200, #1, #300,
#5] = adikéō (G91): {UMBRA: #840 % #41 = #20} 1) absolutely; 1a) to act unjustly or wickedly, to sin,; 1b) to be a criminal, to have violated the
laws in some way; 1c) to do wrong; 1d) to do hurt; 2) transitively; 2a) to
do some wrong or sin in some respect; 2b) to wrong some one, act wickedly towards him; 2c) to hurt, damage, harm;

We already have a meta-description of #237 - USE OF FORCE associated to the [#0, #40, #41, #81, #30] template prototype but the consideration is
whether we can deduce some metalogic axioms from our NOEMA SCENARIO [#230 - WICKED, #232 - KNIFE / WEAPON, #249 - SATOR (#38), #228 - ONTIC LIMIT / WITNESSING TRAVESTY AS REPROACH, #237 - DEME LIMIT / USE OF FORCE] where
the use of an object knife for instance, is both an engendering nature:
#237 - #230 = #7 and a strategic grounding action #237 - #232 = #5 which is
an atrocity consequential to the autonomy: #237 - #228 = #9 but also the general populace: #249 - #237 = #12...

But just how elastic and vital are these meta logical premises that a
specific category #258 might provide a #30 - BOLD RESOLUTION to #228 - ATROCITY?

HETEROS PROTOTYPE #SEVEN (#117 / #351)

47    7    63
55   39    23
15    71    31

71
118
141
204
243
258 <-- ****
313
344
351

#1721 - MALE CHECKSUM TOTAL: #258 as [#200, #800, #500, #100, #70, #50, #1]
= sṓphrōn (G4998): {UMBRA: #2450 % #41 = #31} 1) of a sound mind, sane, in one's senses; 2) curbing one's desires and impulses, self-controlled, temperate;

#472 - MALE CHECKSUM TOTAL: #258 as [#20, #100, #10, #40, #1, #300, #1] /
#741 - MALE CHECKSUM TOTAL: #258 as [#20, #100, #10, #40, #1, #300, #70,
#200] = kríma (G2917): {UMBRA: #171 % #41 = #7} 1) a decree, judgments; 2) judgment; 2a) condemnation of wrong, the decision (whether severe or mild) which one passes on the faults of others; 2b) in a forensic sense; 2b1) the sentence of a judge; 2b2) the punishment with which one is sentenced; 2b3) condemnatory sentence, penal judgment, sentence; 2c) a matter to be
judicially decided, a lawsuit, a case in court;
 
#718 - MALE CHECKSUM TOTAL: #258 as [#1, #30, #8, #9, #70, #400, #200] = alēthḗs (G227): {UMBRA: #256 % #41 = #10} 1) true; 2) loving the truth, speaking the truth, truthful;

We need to be mindful where the #237 is itself a LIMIT as a DEME boundary
(ie. excluding for the moment either its usage by selection or aggregated extension) such that the #237 - USE OF FORCE associated with the BIPARTITE PROTOTYPE #228 - WITNESSING TRAVESTY AS REPROACH is entirely a systemic
product of ONTIC moral proscription abandonment for rightful action and a steeping effect of the prototype artifice itself, such that water finds its
own course which is here biased by conformity with the patterning imposed
by the immaterial elements @1 / @5 as then a fixed mindset which cannot
change?

It will always find some self justification but the problem is the paradigm
as the foundation of belief and being.

We see the resolution of the problem is firstly a metalogic quantification
of the human being and not chasing after endless self justification by
such.

We cannot be shallow here given there is already conveyed a viable
metalogical proposition of a BIPOLAR REALITY (ie. not a medical diagnosis
but a paradigm of action: #365 - YANG: LUO SHU / #364 - YIN: T'AI HSUAN + fusion)...

Thus whilst the principle of a specific category #258 might provide a #30 - bold resolution to atrocity #228 we must understand that informal research postulations may be made upon certain assumptions which from case studies
do not hold true.

For instance whilst the HETEROS PROTOTYPE #SEVEN (#117 / #351) has an equivalent locus to the BIPOLAR REALITY as LUO SHU PROTOTYPE #THREE (#117
/ #351) in possessing a meta descriptor of #75 - FAILURE (SHIH) - 𝍐失 = #526 as COGITO: [#58, #27, #27, #49, #46] that our #364 - YIN: T'AI HSUAN
assay of an array ONLY makes an artifice metalogic assertion: [#9 - vCORAL,
#8 - vCYAN, #1 ... #7 - CAUSALITY] where the #65 - INNER (NEI) / H54 - MARRIAGEABLE MAIDEN, CONVERTING THE MAIDEN is then the CENTRE or AUTONOMOUS DELIMITED PRINCIPLE with a PRINCIPLE OF MATERIALITY associated to #75 -
FAILURE (SHIH) and in its SPIRAL ASSAY also includes #228 and thus there is
no in-equitability of paradigm consequence.

COURSE OF NATURE

57    56    49
66    65    58
75    74    67
       
74       
131       
189       
238       
303       
378       
444       
511 <-- @SUM(TETRAD MENTIONS OF [rì (日): *SUN*])      567       

<https://www.grapple369.com/nature.html>

WHICH MIGHT RELY ON A SPIRAL ASSAY ARRAY TO MEDIATE AGAINST THE BIPARTITE HYPOSTASIS:

[#57, #56, #49, #58, #67, #74, #75, #66, #65]

[#57, {@1: Sup: 57 - GUARDEDNESS: SHOU (#57); Ego: 57 - GUARDEDNESS: SHOU (#57)}
#56, {@2: Sup: 32 - LEGION: CHUANG (#89); Ego: 56 - CLOSED MOUTH: CHIN
(#113)}
#49, {@3: Sup: 81 - FOSTERING: YANG (#170); Ego: 49 - FLIGHT: T'AO (#162)}

#58, {@4: Sup: 58 - GATHERING IN: HSI (#228 - I HAVE NO UNJUST PREFERENCES {%40}); Ego: 58 - GATHERING IN: HSI (#220 - I CURSE NOT A GOD {%38} / I
CURSE NOT A GOD {%38})} <-- ****

#67, {@5: Sup: 44 - STOVE: TSAO (#272); Ego: 67 - DARKENING: HUI (#287)}
#74, {@6: Sup: 37 - PURITY: TS'UI (#309); Ego: 74 - CLOSURE: CHIH (#361)}
#75, {@7: Sup: 31 - PACKING: CHUANG (#340); Ego: 75 - FAILURE: SHIH (#436)} #66, {@8: Sup: 16 - CONTACT: CHIAO (#356); Ego: 66 - DEPARTURE: CH'U
(#502)}
#65] {@9: Sup: 81 - FOSTERING: YANG (#437); Ego: 65 - INNER: NEI
(#567)}

So whilst we might easily extrapolate the paradigm of action: #365 - YANG:
LUO SHU / #364 - YIN: T'AI HSUAN) to domestic violence being likewise #228
- TRAVESTY as occurring within an optimal state of FUSION (ie. MARRIAGE),
ours is only an INFORMAL RESEARCH proposition and we are not qualified to
make any #491 - AGENCY (ie. which is why they are established) or ONTIC JURISPRUDENCE statements.

<http://www.grapple369.com/images/Hitler%20Claim%20to%20Science.jpeg>

LUO SHU PROTOTYPE #THREE (#117 / #351)

30    75    12
21    39    57
66    3    48
       
3       
33       
90       
102       
141       
207       
228 <-- ****     
276       
351       

This is then a hypothetical assumption about this "the BIPOLAR dynamic of
LUO SHU SQUARE / COURSE OF NATURE pairing (ie. #365 - YANG / #364 - YIN =
#729 = 9x9x9 as morphology of being) as adverse state occurs by an artifice impetus of a BIPARTITE HYPOSTASIS fusion..."

The question is on the #231 - JUXTAPOSITION CONTROL within the BIPARTITE HYPOSTASIS and whether such is the holding capacity and the immaterial
elements @1 / @5 is then both impetus and anchor.

From our metalogic assertion: [#9 - vCORAL, #8 - vCYAN, #1 ... #7 -
CAUSALITY] we also make the observation of categories #230 and #297 with
the later the sum for BIPARTITE NUMBER PROTOTYPE #ONE and the COURSE OF
NATURE deploying the same assay method for PROTOTYPE #ONE / #NINE as claim
to JEWISH / CHRISTIAN IDENTITY being SOMETHING SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT TO
THE ECCLESIASTICAL PRECEDENCE CLAIMS MADE BY THE @1 - #297 / @5 - #333 - VATICAN CITY-STATE

COURSE OF NATURE #ONE

77    78    79
5    6    7
14    15    16

15
92
99
178
184
198
203
219
297 <-- ROMAN PROTOTYPE

[#15, #77, #7, #79, #6, #14, #5, #16, #78]

COURSE OF NATURE #NINE

23    24    25
32    33    34
41    42    43

42
65
99
124
157
198
230 <-- ****
273
297 <-- ROMAN PROTOTYPE

[#42, #23, #34, #25, #33, #41, #32, #43, #24]

The baying for blood "BRING HIM OUT" belongs to the same class of statement
as "CRUCIFY HIM" or "DEATH TO AMERICA" / "DEATH TO ISRAEL".

"EXCEPT IT BE FOR THIS ONE VOICE, THAT I CRIED STANDING AMONG THEM,
TOUCHING THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD I AM CALLED IN QUESTION BY YOU THIS
DAY.

AND WHEN FELIX HEARD THESE THINGS, HAVING MORE PERFECT KNOWLEDGE OF THAT
WAY, HE DEFERRED THEM, AND SAID, WHEN LYSIAS THE CHIEF CAPTAIN SHALL COME
DOWN, I WILL KNOW THE UTTERMOST OF YOUR MATTER." [Acts 24:21-22]

<http://www.grapple369.com/Savvy/?date:2024.4.13&time:15.20&heuristic>

From the time window of the BONDI MASSACRE vEVENT we determined a viable prototype {@9: Sup: 68 - DIMMING: MENG (#367); Ego: 8 - OPPOSITION: KAN
(#230)}

#959 - FEME CHECKSUM TOTAL: #230 as [#5, #4, #10, #800, #20, #70, #50] = diṓkō (G1377): {UMBRA: #1634 % #41 = #35} 1) to make to run or flee, put to flight, drive away; 2) to run swiftly in order to catch a person or thing,
to run after; 2a) to press on: figuratively of one who in a race runs
swiftly to reach the goal; 2b) to pursue (in a hostile manner); 3) in any
way whatever to harass, trouble, molest one; 3a) to persecute; 3b) to be mistreated, suffer persecution on account of something; 4) without the idea
of hostility, to run after, follow after: someone; 5) metaph., to pursue;
5a) to seek after eagerly, earnestly endeavour to acquire;

We identified #230 as a likely action / temporal cohesion occurrence and switched from FEME / IDEA to the supernal MALE noumenon redaction:

#880 - MALE CHECKSUM TOTAL: #230 as [#20, #400, #50, #400, #10] = kᵉthôneth (H3801): {UMBRA: #870 % #41 = #9} 1) tunic, under-garment; 1a) a long shirt-like garment usually of linen;

#654 - MALE CHECKSUM TOTAL: #230 as [#1, #3, #1, #80, #8, #200, #1, #50,
#300, #10] = agapáō (G25): {UMBRA: #886 % #41 = #25} 1) of persons; 1a) to welcome, to entertain, to be fond of, to love dearly; 2) of things; 2a) to
be well pleased, to be contented at or with a thing;

Which gave viable meta-logical pairings:

Male: #230; Feme: #232
Male: #230; Feme: #249

Male: #237; Feme: #228

42 16 65
64 41 18
17 66 40

66
108
126
191
232
249

44 4 60
52 36 20
12 68 28

68
112
132
192
228

H3801@{
{@1: Sup: 20 - ADVANCE: CHIN (#20); Ego: 20 - ADVANCE: CHIN (#20)},
{@2: Sup: 15 - REACH: TA (#35); Ego: 76 - AGGRAVATION: CHU (#96 - MALE
DEME IS UNNAMED {%33})},
{@3: Sup: 65 - INNER: NEI (#100 - MALE DEME IS UNNAMED {%3}); Ego: 50 - VASTNESS / WASTING: T'ANG (#146 - I AM NOT A LAND-GRABBER {%15})},
{@4: Sup: 71 - STOPPAGE: CHIH (#171 - I AM NOT UNCHASTE WITH ANY ONE
{%20}); Ego: 6 - CONTRARIETY: LI (#152)},
{@5: Sup: 66 - DEPARTURE: CH'U (#237 - MALE DEME IS UNNAMED {%17}); Ego:
76 - AGGRAVATION: CHU (#228 - I HAVE NO UNJUST PREFERENCES {%40})},
Male: #237; Feme: #228
} // #876

Thus upon that premise, I concluded the notions [#230, #232, #249] may
provide a suitable workable IDEA dialectic as conjectural motive
occasioning the need to mediate #237 - USE OF FORCE associated with the BIPARTITE PROTOTYPE #228 - WITNESSING TRAVESTY AS REPROACH ...

Also I was aware #232 - knife

#230 as [#20, #8, #200, #2] / [#8, #200, #2, #20] /
#232 as [#2, #8, #200, #2, #20] = chereb (H2719): {UMBRA: #210 % #41 = #5}
1) sword, knife; 1a) sword; 1b) knife; 1c) tools for cutting stone;

As being entirely congruous notions and consistent with past informal
research interests

But there is a need to be mindful where the #237 is itself a LIMIT as a
DEME boundary (ie. excluding for the moment either its usage by selection
or aggregated extension) such that the #237 - USE OF FORCE associated with
the ONTIC boundary and BIPARTITE PROTOTYPE #228 - WITNESSING TRAVESTY AS REPROACH is entirely a systemic product of ONTIC moral proscription
abandonment for rightful action and a steeping effect of the prototype
artifice itself, such that water finds its own course which is here biased
by conformity with the patterning imposed by the immaterial elements @1 /
@5 as then a fixed mindset which cannot change?

#1537 - DEME CHECKSUM TOTAL: #549 as [#40, #70, #100, #500, #800, #9, #8,
#10] /
#1580 - DEME CHECKSUM TOTAL: #549 as [#40, #70, #100, #500, #70, #800] = morphóō (G3445): {UMBRA: #1580 % #41 = #22} 1) to form;

WITHIN CHINESE HAN OMEN LITERATURE SOLAR ECLIPSES OFTEN WERE CONSIDERED TO PORTENDED USURPATION OF THE ROYAL POWER (YANG):

- TOTAL SOLAR ECLIPSE (NOUS: #44; #393; #404 - *PERIHELION*; #489 -
*PARTING* *OF* *WAYS* *POEM*): 20 MARCH 2015 (AEST)

|- 20 ΜΑRCH 2015 - TOTAL SOLAR ECLIPSE
|- 19 YEARS AS TEMPORAL HEURISTIC CONSCIOUSNESS ANCHOR
|- WED 20 MARCH 1996 / NEW MOON 21 MARCH

WED 20 MARCH 1901 / NEW MOON 21 MARCH WHEN THE COMMONWEALTH IS ALIGNED TO
400 YEARS CENTENNIAL OF DUTCH DISCOVERY 26 OCTOBER 1616 RENDERS

- TOTAL SOLAR ECLIPSE (NOUS: #36 - *ANZAC* *DAY*; #298 <--- GOOD FRIDAY AGREEMENT IRISH CATHOLIC ENCLOSURE OBSTRUCTION, #325, #373 - *APHELION*
#393): 3 JULY 2019 (AEST)

- TOTAL SOLAR ECLIPSE (NOUS: #44; #297, #325, #342 - *PERIHELION*, #383 - *JOIN* *ME* *IN* *DEATH* *LYRIC* / HITLER's BIRTHDAY): 20 APRIL 2023 (AEST)
- EXMOUTH

CONCLUDING AUGUSTI NUMEN / TREASON EVENTS WILL OCCUR AS EASTER SUNDAY ON
#44 - 20 APRIL 2025 AND PENTECOST SUNDAY ON #38 - 8 JUNE 2025.

- TOTAL SOLAR ECLIPSE ON 8 (UTC) / 9 JUNE 1918 (AEST) [During World War I:
28 JULY 1914 to 11 NOVEMBER 1918]

- TOTAL SOLAR ECLIPSE ON 13 (UTC) / 14 NOVEMBER 2012 (AEST) - KING CHARLES
III ACTUAL BIRTHDAY

KING CHARLES III BIRTHDAY HOLIDAY ON #68 - 9 JUNE 2025 AND #38 - 8 JUNE
2026.

"In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds-G3540 of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the
image of God, should shine unto them." [2Corinthians 4:4]

"Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself
against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every
thought-G3540 to the obedience of Christ;" [2Corinthians 10:5]

"But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds-G3540 should be corrupted from the simplicity that
is in Christ." [2Corinthians 11:3]

Secondly as a conception of ENTENTIONAL whether the expression of a notion within the PARAGRAPH meets the criteria of pertaining to entention or to objects that have entention as an attribute. Ententional phenomena are teleological – the class of phenomena constituted by their relation to something absent, e.g. function, purpose, value...

To illustrate this point, if we apply a memeBrain parsing to the first two paragraphs within our "CASE STUDY ON PSYCHOSOMATIC PHENOMENON BY TEMPORAL ASSOCIATIVE CAPACITY TO INTUIT NEURAL LINGUISTIC PRAGMA AS MENTAL
DESCRIPTION" which relates to "the philosophical notion of psychosomatic phenomenon [which] is predominantly understood in terms of a physiological psychological condition that leads to physical symptoms"

<http://www.grapple369.com/x-files/CASE%20STUDY%20Gnosis%20Ex%20Machina.pdf>

In that the INTENTIONALITY of the CONTROLLED EXPERIMENTS through BRAIN MANIPULATION is expressed within the congruence of two paragraphs as:

It concerns the brain cells, {@10: Sup: 7 - ASCENT: SHANG (#285); Ego: 50 - VASTNESS / WASTING: T'ANG (#385)}
structures, {@11: Sup: 54 - UNITY: K'UN (#339); Ego: 11 - DIVERGENCE: CH'A (#396)}
components, {@12: Sup: 40 - LAW / MODEL: FA (#379); Ego: 71 - STOPPAGE:
CHIH (#467)}

#855 - MALE CHECKSUM TOTAL: #379 as [#3, #5, #3, #400, #40, #50, #1, #200,
#40, #5, #50, #8, #50] = gymnázō (G1128): {UMBRA: #1301 % #41 = #30} 1) to exercise naked (in a palaestra or school of athletics); 2) *TO* *EXERCISE* *VIGOROUSLY*, *IN* *ANY* *WAY*, *EITHER* *THE* *BODY* *OR* *THE* *MIND*;

However is the conception of ENTENTIONALITY obtained by a single paragraph parsing without being couched by preamble of 9 span segments :

It concerns the brain cells, {@3: Sup: 13 - INCREASE: TSENG (#85); Ego: 50
- VASTNESS / WASTING: T'ANG (#183)}
structures, {@4: Sup: 60 - ACCUMULATION: CHI (#145); Ego: 11 - DIVERGENCE:
CH'A (#194)}
components, {@5: Sup: 46 - ENLARGEMENT: K'UO (#191 - I DO NOT STEAL THE
SKINS OF THE SACRED ANIMALS {%32}); Ego: 71 - STOPPAGE: CHIH (#265)}

#674 - MALE CHECKSUM TOTAL: #191 as [#6, #1, #7, #50, #10, #600] = ʼôzen (H241): {UMBRA: #58 % #41 = #17} 1) *EAR*, as part of the body; 2) ear, as organ of hearing; 3) (subjective) to uncover the ear to reveal; the
receiver of divine revelation;

#118 - MALE CHECKSUM TOTAL: #191 as [#50, #2, #50, #10, #6] = bîyn (H995): {UMBRA: #62 % #41 = #21} 1) to discern, understand, consider; 1a) (Qal);
1a1) to perceive, discern; 1a2) to understand, *KNOW* (*WITH* *THE*
*MIND*); 1a3) to observe, mark, give heed to, distinguish, consider; 1a4)
to have discernment, insight, understanding; 1b) (Niphal) to be discerning, intelligent, discreet, have understanding; 1c) (Hiphil); 1c1) to
understand; 1c2) to cause to understand, give understanding, teach; 1d) (Hithpolel) to show oneself discerning or attentive, consider diligently;
1e) (Polel) to teach, instruct; 2) (TWOT) prudent, regard;

According to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the philosophical [dá rén (達人): PERSON WHO TAKES THINGS PHILOSOPHICALLY] concept of INTENTIONALITY is the power of minds and mental states to be about, to represent, or to stand for, things, properties and states of affairs. To say of an individual’s mental states that they have intentionality is to say that they are mental representations or that they have contents.

<http://www.grapple369.com/Savvy/?run:Mystery&glyph:人>

rén (人): 1. person; people; a human being, 2. Kangxi radical 9, 3. a kind
of person, 4. everybody, 5. adult, 6. somebody; others, 7. an upright
person

Furthermore, to the extent that a speaker utters words from some natural language or draws pictures or symbols from a formal language for the
purpose of conveying to others the contents of her mental states, these artifacts used by a speaker too have contents or intentionality. ‘Intentionality’ is a philosopher’s word: ever since the idea, if not the word itself, was introduced into philosophy by Franz Brentano in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, it has been used to refer to the puzzles
of representation, all of which lie at the interface between the philosophy
of mind and the philosophy of language.

1. WHY IS INTENTIONALITY SO-CALLED?
Contemporary discussions of the nature of intentionality are an integral
part of discussions of the nature of minds: what are minds and what is it
to have a mind? They arise in the context of ontological and metaphysical questions about the fundamental nature of mental states: states such as perceiving, remembering, believing, desiring, hoping, knowing, intending, feeling, experiencing, and so on. What is it to have such mental states?
How does the mental relate to the physical, i.e., how are mental states
related to an individual’s body, to states of his or her brain, to his or
her behavior and to states of affairs in the world?

Why is intentionality so-called? For reasons soon to be explained, in its philosophical usage, the meaning of the word ‘intentionality’ should not be confused with the ordinary meaning of the word ‘intention.’ As indicated by the meaning of the Latin word tendere, which is the etymology of ‘intentionality,’ the relevant idea behind intentionality is that of mental directedness towards (or attending to) objects, as if the mind were
construed as a mental bow whose arrows could be properly aimed at different targets. In medieval logic and philosophy, the Latin word intentio was used
for what contemporary philosophers and logicians nowadays call a ‘concept’ or an ‘intension’: something that can be both true of non-mental things and properties—things and properties lying outside the mind—and present to the mind.

2. INTENTIONAL INEXISTENCE
Contemporary discussions of the nature of intentionality were launched and
many of them were anticipated by Franz Brentano (1874, 88–89) in his book, Psychology From an Empirical Standpoint, from which I quote two famous paragraphs:

Every mental phenomenon is characterized by what the Scholastics of the
Middle Ages called the intentional (or mental) inexistence of an object,

[continued in next message]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: uk.legal, alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh XPost: alt.atheism

-- (DRAFT) INFORMAL RESEARCH NOTES ON A PLAUSIBLE NOEMA SCENARIO [#230 - WICKED, #232 - KNIFE / WEAPON, #249 - SATOR (#38), #228 - ONTIC LIMIT / WITNESSING TRAVESTY AS REPROACH, #237 - DEME LIMIT / USE OF FORCE] RELATED
TO RAMPAGE KILLING EVENTS

(c) 2024 Dolf Leendert Boek, Published: 20 April 2024

In our informal research as self education, the meta-descriptive
aggregation of concepts of mind most likely has some relevance to the philosophical concept of intentionality. But what we have recognised from
our memeBrain prototypes, is that the #451 - PRAXIS OF RATIONALITY and its dynamic problem resolution pairing only occurs by being couched with a
preamble for which we have a desire to examine if the resolution idea has recurrence as then a criteria for its attainment as pairing action being a function of mind.

For want of a better term, we might consider this dá dào (達到): to reach; to
achieve; to attain

<http://www.grapple369.com/Savvy/?run:Mystery&glyph:達>

dá (達): 1. to attain; to reach, 2. Da, 3. intelligent proficient, 4. to be open; to be connected, 5. to realize; to complete; to accomplish, 6. to display; to manifest, 7. to tell; to inform; to say, 8. illustrious; influential; prestigious, 9. everlasting; constant; unchanging, 10.
generous; magnanimous, 11. commonly; everywhere, 12. arbitrary; freely come
and go

<http://www.grapple369.com/Savvy/?run:Mystery&glyph:到>

dào (到): 1. to arrive, 2. arrive; receive, 3. to go, 4. careful, 5. Dao

APPRAISAL #9: It offends the ear but sets the toe on track. (到耳順止)
The matter will go right. (事貞)
FATHOMING #9: Offended ears, compliant toes (到耳順止)
MEANS: Contrary talk makes for obedient conduct. (逆聞順行也)

dào (到): 1. to arrive, 2. arrive; receive, 3. to go, 4. careful, 5. Dao

ěrshùn (耳順): 1. an obedient *EAR*, 2. pleasing to the ear

zhǐ (止): 1. to stop; to halt, 2. until; to end, 3. Kangxi radical 77, 4. only, 5. to prohibit; to prevent; to refrain; to suppress, 6. to remain in
one place; to stay, 7. to rest; to settle, 8. deportment; bearing;
demeanor; manner, 9. a particle at the end of a phrase, 10. foot

shì (事): 1. matter; thing; item, 2. to serve, 3. a government post, 4.
duty; post; work, 5. occupation, 6. cause; undertaking; enterprise; achievement, 7. an accident, 8. to attend, 9. an allusion, 10. a condition;
a state; a situation, 11. to engage in, 12. to enslave, 13. to pursue, 14.
to administer, 15. to appoint, 16. a piece

zhēn (貞): 1. virtuous; chaste; pure, 2. loyal, 3. divination, 4. chastity, 5. to divine, 6. auspicious, 7. upright, 8. lower part of the trigrams in
the Yijing, 9. four

We want to explore whether achieving this goal as the #451 - PRAXIS OF RATIONALITY and its dynamic problem resolution pairing, actually involves
the two concepts that have been central to Husserl’s internalist interpretation of intentionality: the concept of a noema (plural noemata)
and the concept of epoche (i.e., bracketing) or phenomenological reduction.
By the word ‘noema,’ Husserl refers to the internal structure of mental acts. The phenomenological reduction is meant to help get at the essence of mental acts by suspending all naive presuppositions about the difference between real and fictitious entities (on these complex phenomenological concepts, see the papers by Føllesdal and others conveniently gathered in Dreyfus (1982). For further discussion, see Bell (1990) and Dummett (1993).

#169 as [#50, #70, #8, #40, #1] /
#470 = #451 - PRAXIS OF RATIONALITY + #19 - FOLLOWING (TS'UNG) as [#50,
#70, #8, #40, #1, #300, #1] = nóēma (G3540): {UMBRA: #169 % #41 = #5} 1) a mental perception, thought; 2) an evil purpose; 3) that which thinks, the
mind, thoughts or purposes

APPRAISAL #3: Men do not attack him. (人不攻之)
They are drawn to follow. (自然證)
FATHOMING #3: That men do not attack him (人不攻之)
MEANS: This, in itself, is proof of Virtue's power. (自然證也)

rén (人): 1. person; people; a human being, 2. Kangxi radical 9, 3. a kind
of person, 4. everybody, 5. adult, 6. somebody; others, 7. an upright
person

bù (不): 1. not; no, 2. expresses that a certain condition cannot be achieved, 3. as a correlative, 4. no (answering a question), 5. forms a negative adjective from a noun, 6. at the end of a sentence to form a
question, 7. to form a yes or no question, 8. infix potential marker

gōng (攻): 1. to attack; to assault, 2. to discredit; to impugn; to criticize, 3. to remedy; to cure, 4. to work at; to handle, 5. workmanship; expertise, 6. exaction by the state, 7. sturdy; strong, 8. to govern; to administer, 9. Gong

zhī (之): 1. him; her; them; that, 2. used between a modifier and a word to form a word group, 3. to go, 4. this; that, 5. genitive marker, 6. it, 7.
in, 8. all, 9. and, 10. however, 11. if, 12. then, 13. to arrive; to go,
14. is, 15. to use, 16. Zhi

zìrán (自然): 1. nature, 2. natural, 3. of course; certainly; naturally

zhèng (證): 1. proof, 2. to prove; to demonstrate; to confirm; to give evidence, 3. to advise against, 4. certificate, 5. an illness, 6. to accuse

In fact, commentators have been unable to achieve consensus on exactly what
a noema is. In a recent survey, David Woodruff Smith distinguished four different schools of thought. On one view, to say that the noema is the intentional object of an act of consciousness is to mean that it quite literally is an object. Husserl's student Roman Ingarden, for example, held that both ordinary objects, like chairs and trees, and intentional objects, like a chair precisely as it appears to me, or even a fictional tree,
actually exist, but have different "modes" of existence.

An alternative view, developed primarily by Aron Gurwitsch, emphasizes the noema of perceptual experience. Most ordinary objects can be perceived in different ways and from different perspectives (consider looking at a tree
from several different positions). For Gurwitsch, what is perceived in each such act is a noema, and the object itself—the tree, say—is to be understood as the collection or system of noemata associated with it. This
view has similarities with phenomenalism.

Robert Sokolowski, alternatively, holds that a noema is just the actual
object of perception or judgment itself, considered phenomenologically. In other words, the noema of the judgment that "this chair is uncomfortable"
is neither an entity (the chair considered as uncomfortable) which exists
in addition to the chair itself (but with a different mode of
existence)—the Ingarden view; nor is the noema of such a judgment
identified with a particular tactile perception of the chair—which along
with other perceptions constitutes the chair as such—the Gurwitsch view.
For Sokolowski, the noema is not a separate entity at all, but the chair
itself as in this instance perceived or judged. This seems consistent with Husserl's emphasis on the noema as the "perceived as such…remembered as such...judged as such..."

Analytic philosopher Dagfinn Føllesdal, in an influential 1969 paper,
proposed a Fregean interpretation of the noema, which has been developed extensively by Ronald McIntyre and David Woodruff Smith. This school of
thought agrees that the noema is not a separate entity, but rather than identifying it with the actual object of the act (of perceiving, judging, etc.), phenomenologically understood, this view suggests that it is a
mediating component of the act itself. It is what gives the act the sense
it has. Indeed, Føllesdal and his followers suggest that the noema is a generalized version of Gottlob Frege's account of linguistic meaning, and
in particular of his concept of sense (Sinn). Just as Frege held that a linguistic expression picks out its reference by means of its sense, so
Husserl believed that conscious acts generally—not merely acts of meaning
but also acts of perception, judgment, etc.—are intentionally directed
toward objects by means of their noemata. On this view, the noema is not an object, but an abstract component of certain types of acts.

Sokolowski has continued to reject this approach, arguing that "(t)o equate sense and noema would be to equate propositional and phenomenological reflection. It would take philosophy simply as the critical reflection on
our meanings or senses; it would equate philosophy with linguistic
analysis." Robert C. Solomon attempted to reconcile the perception-based interpretation of the Gurwitsch school with the Fregean interpretation of
noema as sense, suggesting that while "(i)t has now become virtually
axiomatic among phenomenologists that the Sinne [senses] of experience
stand independent of the Bedeutungen [meanings] of linguistic expressions.
It has become all but axiomatic among analytic philosophers that there is
no meaning apart from language. It is the concept of the noema that
provides the link between them. The noema embodies both the changing phases
of experience and the organizing sense of our experience. But these two 'components' are not separable, for all experience requires meaning, not as
an after-the-fact luxury in reflective judgements but in order for it to be experience of anything." <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noema>

TETRAD MENTIONS OF [rì (日): *SUN*] @ [

#1 - WHAT FASCISM IS,
#5 - GREATEST INVENTION OF STATE,
#13,
#18 - HIJACK THE ANZAC 2018 CENTENNIAL,
#19 - DISRUPTION OF THE NOEMA?, <-- morphosis scenario [#230, #232, #249,
#228, #237] @ CHRISTCHURCH MOSQUE SHOOTINGS ON 15 MARCH 2019
#20,
#23,
#24,
#33,
#41,
#47,
#52,
#67,
#70,
#78]

<http://www.grapple369.com/Savvy/?run:Mystery&glyph:日>

#38 - JUPITER PRINCIPLE (#549 - DEME FOR morphosis = #38 (* IMMATERIAL INCLUSION) + #511: @SUM(TETRAD MENTIONS OF [rì (日): *SUN*]))

#1 #52 #20 #78
#70 #23 #33 #18
#47 #5 #38 #19
#24 #67 #13 #41

BING CHAT GPT @ 0836 HRS ON 21 APRIL 2024: "During the CHRISTCHURCH MOSQUE SHOOTINGS ON 15 MARCH 2019, the perpetrator, Brenton Tarrant, was dressed
in *MILITARY*-*STYLE* *CAMOUFLAGE* *CLOTHING*. He also wore a full tactical vest with front pockets containing at least seven fully loaded .223
magazines and carried a bayonet-style *KNIFE* in a scabbard. His attire
allowed him to carry numerous magazines and move with ease during the
attacks. Tarrant’s actions that day resulted in a tragic loss of life and left an indelible mark on New Zealand’s history."

BOER WAR MEMORIAL ANTAGONISM AS IMPLICIT ROMAN CATHOLIC CRIME AGAINST THE COMMONWEALTH (CAESAROPAPISM)
PENTECOST SUNDAY AS JUPITER (#38 - SATOR / #33 - TENET / #34 - ROTAS)
PRINCIPLE

[#38 - 8 JUNE 1930, #35 - 24 MAY 1931, #33 - 15 MAY 1932, #37 - 4 JUNE
1933, #34 - 20 MAY 1934]

[#38 - 8 JUNE 2014, #35 - 24 MAY 2015 (KNIGHTS TEMPLAR RENEWED), #33 - 15
MAY 2016 (IRREGULAR VIETNAM CORPSE INTERMENT IN RAAF WWII CEMETERY), #37 -
4 JUNE 2017 [TARGETED ATTACKS / SLANDER], #34 - 20 MAY 2018 (WWI CENTENNIAL HIJACKING)]

[#38 - 8 JUNE 2025, #35 - 24 MAY 2026, #33 - 16 MAY 2027, #37 - 4 JUNE
2028, #34 - 20 MAY 2029]

EASTER SUNDAY occurs between the TETRA / RANGE dates #21 - 22 MARCH through
#28 - ANZAC DAY: 25 APRIL (whereas PENTECOST SUNDAY as 49 days thereafter occurs within ranges #31 - 10 MAY through #39 - 13 JUNE) within the
Gregorian calendar and may be the 81st through 115th day of common years or 82nd through 116th day of leap years.

<http://www.grapple369.com/Groundwork/Lawyer%20Notes%2020240409%20%28public%29.pdf>



GRAPPLE (309, 332)@[34, 22, 54, 31, 63, 5, 61, 60, 2] PROTOTYPE

<http://www.grapple369.com/Savvy/?date:2024.4.21&time:8.36&heuristic>

[#34 {@1: Sup: 34 - KINSHIP: CH'IN (#34); Ego: 34 - KINSHIP: CH'IN (#34)}
#22 {@2: Sup: 56 - CLOSED MOUTH: CHIN (#90); Ego: 22 - RESISTANCE: KE
(#56)}
#54 {@3: Sup: 29 - DECISIVENESS: TUAN (#119 - MALE DEME IS UNNAMED
{%35}); Ego: 54 - UNITY: K'UN (#110 - MALE DEME IS UNNAMED {%30})}
#31 {@4: Sup: 60 - ACCUMULATION: CHI (#179 - MALE DEME IS UNNAMED {%0});
Ego: 31 - PACKING: CHUANG (#141 - MALE DEME IS UNNAMED {%31})}
#63 {@5: Sup: 42 - GOING TO MEET: YING (#221); Ego: 63 - WATCH: SHIH
(#204)}
#5 {@6: Sup: 47 - PATTERN: WEN (#268); Ego: 5 - KEEPING SMALL: SHAO
(#209)}
#61 {@7: Sup: 27 - DUTIES: SHIH (#295); Ego: 61 - EMBELLISHMENT: SHIH
(#270)}
#60 {@8: Sup: 6 - CONTRARIETY: LI (#301); Ego: 60 - ACCUMULATION: CHI
(#330)}
#2] {@9: Sup: 8 - OPPOSITION: KAN (#309); Ego: 2 - FULL CIRCLE: CHOU
(#332)}

TELOS TOTAL: #332

DEME CHECKSUM TOTAL: #549

#1770 - DEME CHECKSUM TOTAL: #549 as [#40, #70, #100, #500, #800, #200,
#10, #50] = mórphōsis (G3446): {UMBRA: #1920 % #41 = #34} 1) a forming, shaping; 2) form; 2a) the mere form, semblance; 2b) *THE* *FORM*
*BEFITTING* *A* *THING**OR* *TRULY* *EXPRESSING* *THE* *FACT*, the very
form;

#556 - ONTIC CHECKSUM TOTAL: #230 as [#8, #4, #10, #20, #8, #200, #1, #300,
#5] = adikéō (G91): {UMBRA: #840 % #41 = #20} 1) absolutely; 1a) *TO* *ACT* *UNJUSTLY* *OR* *WICKEDLY*, *TO* *SIN*; 1b) *TO* *BE* *A* *CRIMINAL*, *TO* *HAVE* *VIOLATED* *THE* *LAWS* *IN* *SOME* *WAY*; 1c) to do wrong; 1d) to
do hurt; 2) transitively; 2a) to do some wrong or sin in some respect; 2b)
to wrong some one, act wickedly towards him; 2c) to hurt, damage, harm;

We already have a meta-description of #237 - USE OF FORCE associated to the [#0, #40, #41, #81, #30] template prototype but the consideration is
whether we can deduce some metalogic axioms from our NOEMA SCENARIO [#230 - WICKED, #232 - KNIFE / WEAPON, #249 - SATOR (#38), #228 - ONTIC LIMIT / WITNESSING TRAVESTY AS REPROACH, #237 - DEME LIMIT / USE OF FORCE] where
the use of an object knife for instance, is both an engendering nature:
#237 - #230 = #7 and a strategic grounding action #237 - #232 = #5 which is
an atrocity consequential to the autonomy: #237 - #228 = #9 but also the general populace: #249 - #237 = #12...

But just how elastic and vital are these meta logical premises that a
specific category #258 might provide a #30 - BOLD RESOLUTION to #228 - ATROCITY?

HETEROS PROTOTYPE #SEVEN (#117 / #351)

47    7    63
55   39    23
15   71    31

71
118
141
204
243
258 <-- ****
313
344
351

#1721 - MALE CHECKSUM TOTAL: #258 as [#200, #800, #500, #100, #70, #50, #1]
= sṓphrōn (G4998): {UMBRA: #2450 % #41 = #31} 1) of a sound mind, sane, in one's senses; 2) curbing one's desires and impulses, self-controlled, temperate;

#472 - MALE CHECKSUM TOTAL: #258 as [#20, #100, #10, #40, #1, #300, #1] /
#741 - MALE CHECKSUM TOTAL: #258 as [#20, #100, #10, #40, #1, #300, #70,
#200] = kríma (G2917): {UMBRA: #171 % #41 = #7} 1) a decree, judgments; 2) judgment; 2a) condemnation of wrong, the decision (whether severe or mild) which one passes on the faults of others; 2b) in a forensic sense; 2b1) the sentence of a judge; 2b2) the punishment with which one is sentenced; 2b3) condemnatory sentence, penal judgment, sentence; 2c) a matter to be
judicially decided, a lawsuit, a case in court;
 
#718 - MALE CHECKSUM TOTAL: #258 as [#1, #30, #8, #9, #70, #400, #200] = alēthḗs (G227): {UMBRA: #256 % #41 = #10} 1) true; 2) loving the truth, speaking the truth, truthful;

We need to be mindful where the #237 is itself a LIMIT as a DEME boundary
(ie. excluding for the moment either its usage by selection or aggregated extension) such that the #237 - USE OF FORCE associated with the BIPARTITE PROTOTYPE #228 - WITNESSING TRAVESTY AS REPROACH is entirely a systemic
product of ONTIC moral proscription abandonment for rightful action and a steeping effect of the prototype artifice itself, such that water finds its
own course which is here biased by conformity with the patterning imposed
by the immaterial elements @1 / @5 as then a fixed mindset which cannot
change?

It will always find some self justification but the problem is the paradigm
as the foundation of belief and being.

We see the resolution of the problem is firstly a metalogic quantification
of the human being and not chasing after endless self justification by
such.

We cannot be shallow here given there is already conveyed a viable
metalogical proposition of a BIPOLAR REALITY (ie. not a medical diagnosis
but a paradigm of action: #365 - YANG: LUO SHU / #364 - YIN: T'AI HSUAN + fusion)...

Thus whilst the principle of a specific category #258 might provide a #30 - bold resolution to atrocity #228 we must understand that informal research postulations may be made upon certain assumptions which from case studies
do not hold true.

For instance whilst the HETEROS PROTOTYPE #SEVEN (#117 / #351) has an equivalent locus to the BIPOLAR REALITY as LUO SHU PROTOTYPE #THREE (#117
/ #351) in possessing a meta descriptor of #75 - FAILURE (SHIH) - 𝍐失 = #526 as COGITO: [#58, #27, #27, #49, #46] that our #364 - YIN: T'AI HSUAN
assay of an array ONLY makes an artifice metalogic assertion: [#9 - vCORAL,
#8 - vCYAN, #1 ... #7 - CAUSALITY] where the #65 - INNER (NEI) / H54 - MARRIAGEABLE MAIDEN, CONVERTING THE MAIDEN is then the CENTRE or AUTONOMOUS DELIMITED PRINCIPLE with a PRINCIPLE OF MATERIALITY associated to #75 -
FAILURE (SHIH) and in its SPIRAL ASSAY also includes #228 and thus there is
no in-equitability of paradigm consequence.

COURSE OF NATURE

57   56    49
66   65    58
75   74    67
       
74       
131       
189       
238       
303       
378       
444       
511 <-- @SUM(TETRAD MENTIONS OF [rì (日): *SUN*])      567       

#567 - ONTIC CHECKSUM TOTAL: #331 as [#2, #90, #2, #1, #6, #400, #10, #50,
#6] = tsâbâʼ (H6635): {UMBRA: #93 % #41 = #11} 1) that which goes forth, army, war, warfare, host; 1a) army, host; 1a1) host (of organised army);
1a2) host (of angels); 1a3) *OF* *SUN*, *MOON*, *AND* *STARS*; 1a4) of
whole creation; 1b) war, warfare, service, go out to war; 1c) service;

<https://www.grapple369.com/nature.html>

WHICH MIGHT RELY ON A SPIRAL ASSAY ARRAY TO MEDIATE AGAINST THE BIPARTITE HYPOSTASIS:

[#57, #56, #49, #58, #67, #74, #75, #66, #65]

[#57, {@1: Sup: 57 - GUARDEDNESS: SHOU (#57); Ego: 57 - GUARDEDNESS: SHOU (#57)}
#56, {@2: Sup: 32 - LEGION: CHUANG (#89); Ego: 56 - CLOSED MOUTH: CHIN
(#113)}
#49, {@3: Sup: 81 - FOSTERING: YANG (#170); Ego: 49 - FLIGHT: T'AO (#162)}

#58, {@4: Sup: 58 - GATHERING IN: HSI (#228 - I HAVE NO UNJUST PREFERENCES {%40}); Ego: 58 - GATHERING IN: HSI (#220 - I CURSE NOT A GOD {%38} / I
CURSE NOT A GOD {%38})} <-- ****

#67, {@5: Sup: 44 - STOVE: TSAO (#272); Ego: 67 - DARKENING: HUI (#287)}
#74, {@6: Sup: 37 - PURITY: TS'UI (#309); Ego: 74 - CLOSURE: CHIH (#361)}
#75, {@7: Sup: 31 - PACKING: CHUANG (#340); Ego: 75 - FAILURE: SHIH (#436)} #66, {@8: Sup: 16 - CONTACT: CHIAO (#356); Ego: 66 - DEPARTURE: CH'U
(#502)}
#65] {@9: Sup: 81 - FOSTERING: YANG (#437); Ego: 65 - INNER: NEI
(#567)}

#567 as [#1, #100, #300, #5, #40, #70, #50, #1] = artémōn (G736): {UMBRA: #1296 % #41 = #25} 1) a top-sail or *FORESAIL* *OF* *A* *SHIP*;

YOUTUBE: "1492 CONQUEST OF PARADISE (VANGELIS)"

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCynyt9z8CQ>

#567 as [#40, #20, #60, #1, #6, #400, #40] = kiççêʼ (H3678): {UMBRA: #81 % #41 = #40} 1) seat (of honour), throne, seat, stool; 1a) seat (of honour), throne; 1b) *ROYAL* *DIGNITY*, *AUTHORITY*, *POWER* (fig.);

#567 as [#300, #5, #30, #5, #200, #9, #8, #10] = teléō (G5055): {UMBRA:
#1140 % #41 = #33} 1) to bring to a close, to finish, to end; 1a) passed, finished; 2) to perform, execute, complete, fulfil, (so that the thing done corresponds to what has been said, the order, command etc.); 2a) with
special reference to the subject matter, to carry out the contents of a command; 2b) *WITH* *REFERENCE* *ALSO* *TO* *THE* *FORM*, *TO* *DO* *JUST*
*AS* *COMMANDED*, *AND* *GENERALLY* *INVOLVING* *THE* *NOTION* *OF* *TIME*, *TO* *PERFORM* *THE* *LAST* *ACT* *WHICH* *COMPLETES* *A* *PROCESS*, *TO* *ACCOMPLISH*, *FULFIL*; 3) to pay; 3a) of tribute;

So whilst we might easily extrapolate the paradigm of action: #365 - YANG:
LUO SHU / #364 - YIN: T'AI HSUAN to domestic violence being likewise #228 - TRAVESTY as occurring within an optimal state of FUSION (ie. MARRIAGE),
ours is only an INFORMAL RESEARCH proposition and we are not qualified to
make any #491 - AGENCY (ie. which is why they are established) or ONTIC JURISPRUDENCE statements.

<http://www.grapple369.com/images/Hitler%20Claim%20to%20Science.jpeg>

LUO SHU PROTOTYPE #THREE (#117 / #351)

30    75    12
21    39    57
66    3    48
       
3       
33       
90       
102       
141       
207       
228 <-- ****     
276       
351       

This is then a hypothetical assumption about this "the BIPOLAR dynamic of
LUO SHU SQUARE / COURSE OF NATURE pairing (ie. #365 - YANG / #364 - YIN =
#729 = 9x9x9 as morphology of being) as adverse state occurs by an artifice impetus of a BIPARTITE HYPOSTASIS fusion..."

The question is on the #231 - JUXTAPOSITION CONTROL within the BIPARTITE HYPOSTASIS and whether such is the holding capacity and the immaterial
elements @1 / @5 is then both impetus and anchor.

From our metalogic assertion: [#9 - vCORAL, #8 - vCYAN, #1 ... #7 -
CAUSALITY] we also make the observation of categories #230 and #297 with
the later the sum for BIPARTITE NUMBER PROTOTYPE #ONE and the COURSE OF
NATURE deploying the same assay method for PROTOTYPE #ONE / #NINE as claim
to JEWISH / CHRISTIAN IDENTITY being SOMETHING SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT TO
THE ECCLESIASTICAL PRECEDENCE CLAIMS MADE BY THE @1 - #297 / @5 - #333 - VATICAN CITY-STATE

COURSE OF NATURE #ONE

77    78    79
5   6   7
14    15    16

15
92
99
178
184
198
203
219
297 <-- ROMAN PROTOTYPE

[#15, #77, #7, #79, #6, #14, #5, #16, #78]

COURSE OF NATURE #NINE

23    24    25
32    33    34
41    42    43

42
65
99
124
157
198
230 <-- ****
273
297 <-- ROMAN PROTOTYPE

[#42, #23, #34, #25, #33, #41, #32, #43, #24]

The baying for blood "BRING HIM OUT" belongs to the same class of statement
as "CRUCIFY HIM" or "DEATH TO AMERICA" / "DEATH TO ISRAEL".

"EXCEPT IT BE FOR THIS ONE VOICE, THAT I CRIED STANDING AMONG THEM,
TOUCHING THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD I AM CALLED IN QUESTION BY YOU THIS
DAY.

AND WHEN FELIX HEARD THESE THINGS, HAVING MORE PERFECT KNOWLEDGE OF THAT
WAY, HE DEFERRED THEM, AND SAID, WHEN LYSIAS THE CHIEF CAPTAIN SHALL COME
DOWN, I WILL KNOW THE UTTERMOST OF YOUR MATTER." [Acts 24:21-22]

<http://www.grapple369.com/Savvy/?date:2024.4.13&time:15.20&heuristic>

From the time window of the BONDI MASSACRE vEVENT we determined a viable prototype {@9: Sup: 68 - DIMMING: MENG (#367); Ego: 8 - OPPOSITION: KAN
(#230)}

#959 - FEME CHECKSUM TOTAL: #230 as [#5, #4, #10, #800, #20, #70, #50] = diṓkō (G1377): {UMBRA: #1634 % #41 = #35} 1) to make to run or flee, put to flight, drive away; 2) to run swiftly in order to catch a person or thing,
to run after; 2a) to press on: figuratively of one who in a race runs
swiftly to reach the goal; 2b) to pursue (in a hostile manner); 3) in any
way whatever to harass, trouble, molest one; 3a) to persecute; 3b) to be mistreated, suffer persecution on account of something; 4) without the idea
of hostility, to run after, follow after: someone; 5) metaph., to pursue;
5a) to seek after eagerly, earnestly endeavour to acquire;

We identified #230 as a likely action / temporal cohesion occurrence and switched from FEME / IDEA to the supernal MALE noumenon redaction:

#880 - MALE CHECKSUM TOTAL: #230 as [#20, #400, #50, #400, #10] = kᵉthôneth (H3801): {UMBRA: #870 % #41 = #9} 1) tunic, under-garment; 1a) a long shirt-like garment usually of linen;

#654 - MALE CHECKSUM TOTAL: #230 as [#1, #3, #1, #80, #8, #200, #1, #50,
#300, #10] = agapáō (G25): {UMBRA: #886 % #41 = #25} 1) of persons; 1a) to welcome, to entertain, to be fond of, to love dearly; 2) of things; 2a) to
be well pleased, to be contented at or with a thing;

Which gave viable meta-logical pairings:

Male: #230; Feme: #232
Male: #230; Feme: #249

Male: #237; Feme: #228

42 16 65
64 41 18
17 66 40

66
108
126
191
232
249

44 4 60
52 36 20
12 68 28

68
112
132
192
228

H3801@{
  {@1: Sup: 20 - ADVANCE: CHIN (#20); Ego: 20 - ADVANCE: CHIN (#20)},   {@2: Sup: 15 - REACH: TA (#35); Ego: 76 - AGGRAVATION: CHU (#96 - MALE
DEME IS UNNAMED {%33})},
  {@3: Sup: 65 - INNER: NEI (#100 - MALE DEME IS UNNAMED {%3}); Ego: 50 - VASTNESS / WASTING: T'ANG (#146 - I AM NOT A LAND-GRABBER {%15})},
  {@4: Sup: 71 - STOPPAGE: CHIH (#171 - I AM NOT UNCHASTE WITH ANY ONE {%20}); Ego: 6 - CONTRARIETY: LI (#152)},
  {@5: Sup: 66 - DEPARTURE: CH'U (#237 - MALE DEME IS UNNAMED {%17}); Ego:
76 - AGGRAVATION: CHU (#228 - I HAVE NO UNJUST PREFERENCES {%40})}, 
  Male: #237; Feme: #228
} // #876

Thus upon that premise, I concluded the notions [#230, #232, #249] may
provide a suitable workable IDEA dialectic as conjectural motive
occasioning the need to mediate #237 - USE OF FORCE associated with the BIPARTITE PROTOTYPE #228 - WITNESSING TRAVESTY AS REPROACH ...

Also I was aware #232 - knife

#230 as [#20, #8, #200, #2] / [#8, #200, #2, #20] /
#232 as [#2, #8, #200, #2, #20] = chereb (H2719): {UMBRA: #210 % #41 = #5}
1) sword, knife; 1a) sword; 1b) knife; 1c) tools for cutting stone;

As being entirely congruous notions and consistent with past informal
research interests

But there is a need to be mindful where the #237 is itself a LIMIT as a
DEME boundary (ie. excluding for the moment either its usage by selection
or aggregated extension) such that the #237 - USE OF FORCE associated with
the ONTIC boundary and BIPARTITE PROTOTYPE #228 - WITNESSING TRAVESTY AS REPROACH is entirely a systemic product of ONTIC moral proscription
abandonment for rightful action and a steeping effect of the prototype
artifice itself, such that water finds its own course which is here biased
by conformity with the patterning imposed by the immaterial elements @1 /
@5 as then a fixed mindset which cannot change?

#1537 - DEME CHECKSUM TOTAL: #549 as [#40, #70, #100, #500, #800, #9, #8,
#10] /
#1580 - DEME CHECKSUM TOTAL: #549 as [#40, #70, #100, #500, #70, #800] = morphóō (G3445): {UMBRA: #1580 % #41 = #22} 1) *TO* *FORM*;

WITHIN CHINESE HAN OMEN LITERATURE SOLAR ECLIPSES OFTEN WERE CONSIDERED TO PORTENDED USURPATION OF THE ROYAL POWER (YANG):

- TOTAL SOLAR ECLIPSE (NOUS: #44; #393; #404 - *PERIHELION*; #489 -
*PARTING* *OF* *WAYS* *POEM*): 20 MARCH 2015 (AEST)

|- 20 ΜΑRCH 2015 - TOTAL SOLAR ECLIPSE
|- 19 YEARS AS TEMPORAL HEURISTIC CONSCIOUSNESS ANCHOR
|- WED 20 MARCH 1996 / NEW MOON 21 MARCH

WED 20 MARCH 1901 / NEW MOON 21 MARCH WHEN THE COMMONWEALTH IS ALIGNED TO
400 YEARS CENTENNIAL OF DUTCH DISCOVERY 26 OCTOBER 1616 RENDERS

- TOTAL SOLAR ECLIPSE (NOUS: #36 - *ANZAC* *DAY*; #298 <--- GOOD FRIDAY AGREEMENT IRISH CATHOLIC ENCLOSURE OBSTRUCTION, #325, #373 - *APHELION*
#393): 3 JULY 2019 (AEST)

- TOTAL SOLAR ECLIPSE (NOUS: #44; #297, #325, #342 - *PERIHELION*, #383 - *JOIN* *ME* *IN* *DEATH* *LYRIC* / HITLER's BIRTHDAY): 20 APRIL 2023 (AEST)
- EXMOUTH

CONCLUDING AUGUSTI NUMEN / TREASON EVENTS WILL OCCUR AS EASTER SUNDAY ON
#44 - 20 APRIL 2025 AND PENTECOST SUNDAY ON #38 - 8 JUNE 2025.

- TOTAL SOLAR ECLIPSE ON 8 (UTC) / 9 JUNE 1918 (AEST) [During World War I:
28 JULY 1914 to 11 NOVEMBER 1918]

- TOTAL SOLAR ECLIPSE ON 13 (UTC) / 14 NOVEMBER 2012 (AEST) - KING CHARLES
III ACTUAL BIRTHDAY

KING CHARLES III BIRTHDAY HOLIDAY ON #68 - 9 JUNE 2025 AND #38 - 8 JUNE
2026.

"IN WHOM THE GOD OF THIS WORLD HATH BLINDED THE *MINDS*-G3540 OF THEM WHICH BELIEVE NOT, LEST THE LIGHT OF THE GLORIOUS GOSPEL OF CHRIST, WHO IS THE
IMAGE OF GOD, SHOULD SHINE UNTO THEM." [2Corinthians 4:4]

"CASTING DOWN IMAGINATIONS, AND EVERY HIGH THING THAT EXALTETH ITSELF
AGAINST THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD, AND BRINGING INTO CAPTIVITY EVERY
*THOUGHT*-G3540 TO THE OBEDIENCE OF CHRIST;" [2Corinthians 10:5]

"BUT I FEAR, LEST BY ANY MEANS, AS THE SERPENT BEGUILED EVE THROUGH HIS SUBTLETY, SO YOUR *MINDS*-G3540 SHOULD BE CORRUPTED FROM THE SIMPLICITY
THAT IS IN CHRIST." [2Corinthians 11:3]

Secondly as a conception of ENTENTIONAL whether the expression of a notion within the PARAGRAPH meets the criteria of pertaining to entention or to objects that have entention as an attribute. Ententional phenomena are teleological – the class of phenomena constituted by their relation to something absent, e.g. function, purpose, value...

To illustrate this point, if we apply a memeBrain parsing to the first two paragraphs within our "CASE STUDY ON PSYCHOSOMATIC PHENOMENON BY TEMPORAL ASSOCIATIVE CAPACITY TO INTUIT NEURAL LINGUISTIC PRAGMA AS MENTAL
DESCRIPTION" which relates to "the philosophical notion of psychosomatic phenomenon [which] is predominantly understood in terms of a physiological psychological condition that leads to physical symptoms"

<http://www.grapple369.com/x-files/CASE%20STUDY%20Gnosis%20Ex%20Machina.pdf>

In that the INTENTIONALITY of the CONTROLLED EXPERIMENTS through BRAIN MANIPULATION is expressed within the congruence of two paragraphs as:

It concerns the brain cells, {@10: Sup: 7 - ASCENT: SHANG (#285); Ego: 50 - VASTNESS / WASTING: T'ANG (#385)}
structures, {@11: Sup: 54 - UNITY: K'UN (#339); Ego: 11 - DIVERGENCE: CH'A (#396)}
components, {@12: Sup: 40 - LAW / MODEL: FA (#379); Ego: 71 - STOPPAGE:
CHIH (#467)}

#855 - MALE CHECKSUM TOTAL: #379 as [#3, #5, #3, #400, #40, #50, #1, #200,
#40, #5, #50, #8, #50] = gymnázō (G1128): {UMBRA: #1301 % #41 = #30} 1) to exercise naked (in a palaestra or school of athletics); 2) *TO* *EXERCISE* *VIGOROUSLY*, *IN* *ANY* *WAY*, *EITHER* *THE* *BODY* *OR* *THE* *MIND*;

However is the conception of ENTENTIONALITY obtained by a single paragraph parsing without being couched by preamble of 9 span segments :

It concerns the brain cells, {@3: Sup: 13 - INCREASE: TSENG (#85); Ego: 50
- VASTNESS / WASTING: T'ANG (#183)}
structures, {@4: Sup: 60 - ACCUMULATION: CHI (#145); Ego: 11 - DIVERGENCE:
CH'A (#194)}
components, {@5: Sup: 46 - ENLARGEMENT: K'UO (#191 - I DO NOT STEAL THE
SKINS OF THE SACRED ANIMALS {%32}); Ego: 71 - STOPPAGE: CHIH (#265)}

#674 - MALE CHECKSUM TOTAL: #191 as [#6, #1, #7, #50, #10, #600] = ʼôzen (H241): {UMBRA: #58 % #41 = #17} 1) *EAR*, as part of the body; 2) ear, as organ of hearing; 3) (subjective) to uncover the ear to reveal; the
receiver of divine revelation;

#118 - MALE CHECKSUM TOTAL: #191 as [#50, #2, #50, #10, #6] = bîyn (H995): {UMBRA: #62 % #41 = #21} 1) to discern, understand, consider; 1a) (Qal);
1a1) to perceive, discern; 1a2) to understand, *KNOW* (*WITH* *THE*
*MIND*); 1a3) to observe, mark, give heed to, distinguish, consider; 1a4)
to have discernment, insight, understanding; 1b) (Niphal) to be discerning, intelligent, discreet, have understanding; 1c) (Hiphil); 1c1) to
understand; 1c2) to cause to understand, give understanding, teach; 1d) (Hithpolel) to show oneself discerning or attentive, consider diligently;
1e) (Polel) to teach, instruct; 2) (TWOT) prudent, regard;

According to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the philosophical [dá rén (達人): PERSON WHO TAKES THINGS PHILOSOPHICALLY] concept of INTENTIONALITY is the power of minds and mental states to be about, to represent, or to stand for, things, properties and states of affairs. To say of an individual’s mental states that they have intentionality is to say that they are mental representations or that they have contents.

<http://www.grapple369.com/Savvy/?run:Mystery&glyph:人>

rén (人): 1. person; people; a human being, 2. Kangxi radical 9, 3. a kind
of person, 4. everybody, 5. adult, 6. somebody; others, 7. an upright
person

Furthermore, to the extent that a speaker utters words from some natural language or draws pictures or symbols from a formal language for the
purpose of conveying to others the contents of her mental states, these artifacts used by a speaker too have contents or intentionality.

[continued in next message]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: uk.legal, alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh XPost: alt.atheism

-- (DRAFT 3) INFORMAL RESEARCH NOTES ON A PLAUSIBLE NOEMA SCENARIO [#230
- WICKED, #232 - KNIFE / WEAPON, #249 - SATOR (#38), #228 - ONTIC LIMIT
/ WITNESSING TRAVESTY AS REPROACH, #237 - DEME LIMIT / USE OF FORCE]
RELATED TO RAMPAGE KILLING EVENTS

(c) 2024 Dolf Leendert Boek, Published: 20 April 2024

In our informal research as self education, the meta-descriptive
aggregation of concepts of mind most likely has some relevance to the philosophical concept of intentionality. But what we have recognised
from our memeBrain prototypes, is that the #451 - PRAXIS OF RATIONALITY
and its dynamic problem resolution pairing only occurs by being couched
with a preamble for which we have a desire to examine if the resolution
idea has recurrence as then a criteria for its attainment as pairing
action being a function of mind.

For want of a better term, we might consider this dá dào (達到): to reach; to achieve; to attain

<http://www.grapple369.com/Savvy/?run:Mystery&glyph:達>

dá (達): 1. to attain; to reach, 2. Da, 3. intelligent proficient, 4. to
be open; to be connected, 5. to realize; to complete; to accomplish, 6.
to display; to manifest, 7. to tell; to inform; to say, 8. illustrious; influential; prestigious, 9. everlasting; constant; unchanging, 10.
generous; magnanimous, 11. commonly; everywhere, 12. arbitrary; freely
come and go

<http://www.grapple369.com/Savvy/?run:Mystery&glyph:到>

dào (到): 1. to arrive, 2. arrive; receive, 3. to go, 4. careful, 5. Dao

APPRAISAL #9: It offends the ear but sets the toe on track. (到耳順止)
The matter will go right. (事貞)
FATHOMING #9: Offended ears, compliant toes (到耳順止)
MEANS: Contrary talk makes for obedient conduct. (逆聞順行也)

dào (到): 1. to arrive, 2. arrive; receive, 3. to go, 4. careful, 5. Dao

ěrshùn (耳順): 1. an obedient *EAR*, 2. pleasing to the ear

zhǐ (止): 1. to stop; to halt, 2. until; to end, 3. Kangxi radical 77, 4. only, 5. to prohibit; to prevent; to refrain; to suppress, 6. to remain
in one place; to stay, 7. to rest; to settle, 8. deportment; bearing;
demeanor; manner, 9. a particle at the end of a phrase, 10. foot

shì (事): 1. matter; thing; item, 2. to serve, 3. a government post, 4.
duty; post; work, 5. occupation, 6. cause; undertaking; enterprise; achievement, 7. an accident, 8. to attend, 9. an allusion, 10. a
condition; a state; a situation, 11. to engage in, 12. to enslave, 13.
to pursue, 14. to administer, 15. to appoint, 16. a piece

zhēn (貞): 1. virtuous; chaste; pure, 2. loyal, 3. divination, 4.
chastity, 5. to divine, 6. auspicious, 7. upright, 8. lower part of the trigrams in the Yijing, 9. four

We want to explore whether achieving this goal as the #451 - PRAXIS OF RATIONALITY and its dynamic problem resolution pairing, actually
involves the two concepts that have been central to Husserl’s
internalist interpretation of intentionality: the concept of a noema
(plural noemata) and the concept of epoche (i.e., bracketing) or phenomenological reduction. By the word ‘noema,’ Husserl refers to the internal structure of mental acts. The phenomenological reduction is
meant to help get at the essence of mental acts by suspending all naive presuppositions about the difference between real and fictitious
entities (on these complex phenomenological concepts, see the papers by Føllesdal and others conveniently gathered in Dreyfus (1982). For
further discussion, see Bell (1990) and Dummett (1993).

#169 as [#50, #70, #8, #40, #1] /
#470 = #451 - PRAXIS OF RATIONALITY + #19 - FOLLOWING (TS'UNG) as [#50,
#70, #8, #40, #1, #300, #1] = nóēma (G3540): {UMBRA: #169 % #41 = #5} 1)
a mental perception, thought; 2) an evil purpose; 3) that which thinks,
the mind, thoughts or purposes

APPRAISAL #3: Men do not attack him. (人不攻之)
They are drawn to follow. (自然證)
FATHOMING #3: That men do not attack him (人不攻之)
MEANS: This, in itself, is proof of Virtue's power. (自然證也)

rén (人): 1. person; people; a human being, 2. Kangxi radical 9, 3. a
kind of person, 4. everybody, 5. adult, 6. somebody; others, 7. an
upright person

bù (不): 1. not; no, 2. expresses that a certain condition cannot be achieved, 3. as a correlative, 4. no (answering a question), 5. forms a negative adjective from a noun, 6. at the end of a sentence to form a
question, 7. to form a yes or no question, 8. infix potential marker

gōng (攻): 1. to attack; to assault, 2. to discredit; to impugn; to criticize, 3. to remedy; to cure, 4. to work at; to handle, 5.
workmanship; expertise, 6. exaction by the state, 7. sturdy; strong, 8.
to govern; to administer, 9. Gong

zhī (之): 1. him; her; them; that, 2. used between a modifier and a word
to form a word group, 3. to go, 4. this; that, 5. genitive marker, 6.
it, 7. in, 8. all, 9. and, 10. however, 11. if, 12. then, 13. to arrive;
to go, 14. is, 15. to use, 16. Zhi

zìrán (自然): 1. nature, 2. natural, 3. of course; certainly; naturally

zhèng (證): 1. proof, 2. to prove; to demonstrate; to confirm; to give evidence, 3. to advise against, 4. certificate, 5. an illness, 6. to accuse

In fact, commentators have been unable to achieve consensus on exactly
what a noema is. In a recent survey, David Woodruff Smith distinguished
four different schools of thought. On one view, to say that the noema is
the intentional object of an act of consciousness is to mean that it
quite literally is an object. Husserl's student Roman Ingarden, for
example, held that both ordinary objects, like chairs and trees, and intentional objects, like a chair precisely as it appears to me, or even
a fictional tree, actually exist, but have different "modes" of existence.

An alternative view, developed primarily by Aron Gurwitsch, emphasizes
the noema of perceptual experience. Most ordinary objects can be
perceived in different ways and from different perspectives (consider
looking at a tree from several different positions). For Gurwitsch, what
is perceived in each such act is a noema, and the object itself—the
tree, say—is to be understood as the collection or system of noemata associated with it. This view has similarities with phenomenalism.

Robert Sokolowski, alternatively, holds that a noema is just the actual
object of perception or judgment itself, considered phenomenologically.
In other words, the noema of the judgment that "this chair is
uncomfortable" is neither an entity (the chair considered as
uncomfortable) which exists in addition to the chair itself (but with a different mode of existence)—the Ingarden view; nor is the noema of such
a judgment identified with a particular tactile perception of the
chair—which along with other perceptions constitutes the chair as
such—the Gurwitsch view. For Sokolowski, the noema is not a separate
entity at all, but the chair itself as in this instance perceived or
judged. This seems consistent with Husserl's emphasis on the noema as
the "perceived as such…remembered as such...judged as such..."

Analytic philosopher Dagfinn Føllesdal, in an influential 1969 paper,
proposed a Fregean interpretation of the noema, which has been developed extensively by Ronald McIntyre and David Woodruff Smith. This school of
thought agrees that the noema is not a separate entity, but rather than identifying it with the actual object of the act (of perceiving,
judging, etc.), phenomenologically understood, this view suggests that
it is a mediating component of the act itself. It is what gives the act
the sense it has. Indeed, Føllesdal and his followers suggest that the
noema is a generalized version of Gottlob Frege's account of linguistic meaning, and in particular of his concept of sense (Sinn). Just as Frege
held that a linguistic expression picks out its reference by means of
its sense, so Husserl believed that conscious acts generally—not merely
acts of meaning but also acts of perception, judgment, etc.—are
intentionally directed toward objects by means of their noemata. On this
view, the noema is not an object, but an abstract component of certain
types of acts.

Sokolowski has continued to reject this approach, arguing that "(t)o
equate sense and noema would be to equate propositional and
phenomenological reflection. It would take philosophy simply as the
critical reflection on our meanings or senses; it would equate
philosophy with linguistic analysis." Robert C. Solomon attempted to
reconcile the perception-based interpretation of the Gurwitsch school
with the Fregean interpretation of noema as sense, suggesting that while
"(i)t has now become virtually axiomatic among phenomenologists that the
Sinne [senses] of experience stand independent of the Bedeutungen
[meanings] of linguistic expressions. It has become all but axiomatic
among analytic philosophers that there is no meaning apart from
language. It is the concept of the noema that provides the link between
them. The noema embodies both the changing phases of experience and the organizing sense of our experience. But these two 'components' are not separable, for all experience requires meaning, not as an after-the-fact
luxury in reflective judgements but in order for it to be experience of anything." <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noema>

If we substitute *SUN* for *JAPAN* as our TETRAD MENTIONS OF [rì (日): *JAPAN*] and consider it is most likely a #135 + #102 + #168 + #215 =
#620 - metáthesis (G3331): {UMBRA: #770 % #41 = #32} 1) transfer: from
one place to another; 2) *TO* *CHANGE*; 2a) *OF* *THINGS* *INSTITUTED*
*OR* *ESTABLISHED* OF THE GERMAN REICH ITSELF AND THE USE OF THE
MOTORCAR AS AUTONOMY [+ #130 = #750 + #147 = #897] INNOVATION.

TETRAD MENTIONS OF [rì (日): *SUN*] @ [

#1 - WHAT FASCISM IS,
#5 - GREATEST INVENTION OF STATE,
#13,
#18 - HIJACK THE ANZAC 2018 CENTENNIAL,
#19 - DISRUPTION OF THE NOEMA?, <-- morphosis scenario [#230, #232,
#249, #228, #237] @ CHRISTCHURCH MOSQUE SHOOTINGS ON 15 MARCH 2019
#20,
#23,
#24,
#33, <-- 2033 AS CENTENNIAL OF THE REICH'S CONCORDAT
#41,
#47,
#52,
#67,
#70,
#78]

<http://www.grapple369.com/Savvy/?run:Mystery&glyph:日>

#38 - JUPITER PRINCIPLE (#549 - DEME FOR morphosis = #38 (* IMMATERIAL INCLUSION) + #511: @SUM(TETRAD MENTIONS OF [rì (日): *SUN*]))

#1 #52 #20 #78
#70 #23 #33 #18
#47 #5 #38 #19
#24 #67 #13 #41 = #511 + #38 = #549

This may then provide an ECLIPSE grounding rationale for the
CHRISTCHURCH MOSQUE SHOOTINGS ON 15 MARCH 2019

#1537 - DEME CHECKSUM TOTAL: #549 as [#40, #70, #100, #500, #800, #9,
#8, #10] /
#1580 - DEME CHECKSUM TOTAL: #549 as [#40, #70, #100, #500, #70, #800] = morphóō (G3445): {UMBRA: #1580 % #41 = #22} 1) *TO* *FORM*;

— PARTING OF WAYS —
[Thoughts of 27 MARCH 1986]

"ANSWER THE PHONE WILL YA.
MY *DAUGHTER* IS IN THE STREET.
ANSWER THE PHONE WILL YA.
FLESH #115 - *BURNING* LIKE BLAZING #115 - *WHEAT*.

I WANT TO HEAR HER #115 - *SIGH*
ANSWER THE PHONE WILL YA.
I JUST DON'T WANT HER TO DIE.
*FOR* *GOD* *SAKE*, WILL YA.

{@9: Sup: 76 - AGGRAVATION: CHU (#492); Ego: 29 - DECISIVENESS: TUAN (#489)}

JUST ANSWER THE PHONE.
THERE'S NOT A #115 - *PLANE* IN SIGHT.
DON'T LEAVE HER ALONE.
WHAT CRIME THIS BLIGHT?

BLOWN GLASS IN ANY SHADE
AND EVERY WINDOW SILL.
DRAWN BY EMPATHY OF JADE. {@17: Sup: 63 - WATCH: SHIH (#839); Ego: 27 -
DUTIES: SHIH (#821)}
FOR THE THINGS WE HOLD STILL." {@18: Sup: 41 - RESPONSE: YING (#880);
Ego: 18 - WAITING: HSI (#839)}

YOUTUBE: "HANS ZIMMER - TIME (CYBERDESIGN REMIX) / ADELE - HELLO (3RD
VERSION) [AN EDGE MASHUP]"

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFMbKIGp6Lg>

WITHIN CHINESE HAN OMEN LITERATURE SOLAR ECLIPSES OFTEN WERE CONSIDERED
TO PORTENDED USURPATION OF THE ROYAL POWER (YANG):

- TOTAL SOLAR ECLIPSE (NOUS: #44; #393; #404 - *PERIHELION*; #489 -
*PARTING* *OF* *WAYS* *POEM*): 20 MARCH 2015 (AEST)

|- 20 ΜΑRCH 2015 - TOTAL SOLAR ECLIPSE
|- 19 YEARS AS TEMPORAL HEURISTIC CONSCIOUSNESS ANCHOR
|- WED 20 MARCH 1996 / NEW MOON 21 MARCH

WED 20 MARCH 1901 / NEW MOON 21 MARCH WHEN THE COMMONWEALTH IS ALIGNED
TO 400 YEARS CENTENNIAL OF DUTCH DISCOVERY 26 OCTOBER 1616 RENDERS

- TOTAL SOLAR ECLIPSE (NOUS: #36 - *ANZAC* *DAY*; #298 <--- GOOD FRIDAY AGREEMENT IRISH CATHOLIC ENCLOSURE OBSTRUCTION, #325, #373 - *APHELION*
#393): 3 JULY 2019 (AEST)

- TOTAL SOLAR ECLIPSE (NOUS: #44; #297, #325, #342 - *PERIHELION*, #383
- *JOIN* *ME* *IN* *DEATH* *LYRIC* / HITLER's BIRTHDAY): 20 APRIL 2023
(AEST) - EXMOUTH

"THIS WORLD IS A CRUEL PLACE {@1: Sup: 43 - ENCOUNTERS: YU (#43); Ego:
28 - CHANGE: KENG (#28)}
AND WE'RE HERE ONLY TO LOSE {@2: Sup: 61 - EMBELLISHMENT: SHIH (#104 - I
COMMIT NO FRAUD {%7}); Ego: 33 - CLOSENESS: MI (#61 - MALE DEME IS
UNNAMED {%22})}
SO BEFORE LIFE TEARS US APART {@3: Sup: 55 - DIMINISHMENT: CHIEN (#159);
Ego: 78 - ON THE VERGE: CHIANG (#139 - I HAVE NOT SLAUGHTERED THE SACRED ANIMALS {%13})}
LET DEATH BLESS ME WITH YOU. {@4: Sup: 80 - LABOURING: CH'IN (#239);
Ego: 1 - CENTRE: CHUNG (#140 - I DEAL NOT FRAUDULENTLY {%14} / I AM NOT
AN EAVES-DROPPER {%16})}

ONTIC CHECKSUM TOTAL: #383

CONCLUDING AUGUSTI NUMEN / TREASON EVENTS WILL OCCUR AS EASTER SUNDAY ON
#44 - 20 APRIL 2025 AND PENTECOST SUNDAY ON #38 - 8 JUNE 2025.

- TOTAL SOLAR ECLIPSE ON 8 (UTC) / 9 JUNE 1918 (AEST) [During World War
I: 28 JULY 1914 to 11 NOVEMBER 1918]

- TOTAL SOLAR ECLIPSE ON 13 (UTC) / 14 NOVEMBER 2012 (AEST) - KING
CHARLES III ACTUAL BIRTHDAY

KING CHARLES III BIRTHDAY HOLIDAY ON #68 - 9 JUNE 2025 AND #38 - 8 JUNE
2026.

"IN WHOM THE GOD OF THIS WORLD HATH BLINDED THE *MINDS*-G3540 OF THEM
WHICH BELIEVE NOT, LEST THE LIGHT OF THE GLORIOUS GOSPEL OF CHRIST, WHO
IS THE IMAGE OF GOD, SHOULD SHINE UNTO THEM." [2Corinthians 4:4]

"CASTING DOWN IMAGINATIONS, AND EVERY HIGH THING THAT EXALTETH ITSELF
AGAINST THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD, AND BRINGING INTO CAPTIVITY EVERY
*THOUGHT*-G3540 TO THE OBEDIENCE OF CHRIST;" [2Corinthians 10:5]

"BUT I FEAR, LEST BY ANY MEANS, AS THE SERPENT BEGUILED EVE THROUGH HIS SUBTLETY, SO YOUR *MINDS*-G3540 SHOULD BE CORRUPTED FROM THE SIMPLICITY
THAT IS IN CHRIST." [2Corinthians 11:3]

BING CHAT GPT @ 0836 HRS ON 21 APRIL 2024: "During the CHRISTCHURCH
MOSQUE SHOOTINGS ON 15 MARCH 2019, the perpetrator, Brenton Tarrant, was dressed in *MILITARY*-*STYLE* *CAMOUFLAGE* *CLOTHING*. He also wore a
full tactical vest with front pockets containing at least seven fully
loaded .223 magazines and carried a bayonet-style *KNIFE* in a scabbard.
His attire allowed him to carry numerous magazines and move with ease
during the attacks. Tarrant’s actions that day resulted in a tragic loss
of life and left an indelible mark on New Zealand’s history."

BOER WAR MEMORIAL ANTAGONISM AS IMPLICIT ROMAN CATHOLIC CRIME AGAINST
THE COMMONWEALTH (CAESAROPAPISM)
PENTECOST SUNDAY AS JUPITER (#38 - SATOR / #33 - TENET / #34 - ROTAS)
PRINCIPLE

[#38 - 8 JUNE 1930, #35 - 24 MAY 1931, #33 - 15 MAY 1932, #37 - 4 JUNE
1933, #34 - 20 MAY 1934]

[#38 - 8 JUNE 2014, #35 - 24 MAY 2015 (KNIGHTS TEMPLAR RENEWED), #33 -
15 MAY 2016 (IRREGULAR VIETNAM CORPSE INTERMENT IN RAAF WWII CEMETERY),
#37 - 4 JUNE 2017 [TARGETED ATTACKS / SLANDER], #34 - 20 MAY 2018 (WWI CENTENNIAL HIJACKING)]

[#38 - 8 JUNE 2025, #35 - 24 MAY 2026, #33 - 16 MAY 2027, #37 - 4 JUNE
2028, #34 - 20 MAY 2029]

EASTER SUNDAY occurs between the TETRA / RANGE dates #21 - 22 MARCH
through #28 - ANZAC DAY: 25 APRIL (whereas PENTECOST SUNDAY as 49 days thereafter occurs within ranges #31 - 10 MAY through #39 - 13 JUNE)
within the Gregorian calendar and may be the 81st through 115th day of
common years or 82nd through 116th day of leap years.

<http://www.grapple369.com/Groundwork/Lawyer%20Notes%2020240409%20%28public%29.pdf>

GRAPPLE (309, 332)@[34, 22, 54, 31, 63, 5, 61, 60, 2] PROTOTYPE

<http://www.grapple369.com/Savvy/?date:2024.4.21&time:8.36&heuristic>



[#34 {@1: Sup: 34 - KINSHIP: CH'IN (#34); Ego: 34 - KINSHIP: CH'IN (#34)}
#22 {@2: Sup: 56 - CLOSED MOUTH: CHIN (#90); Ego: 22 - RESISTANCE: KE (#56)} #54 {@3: Sup: 29 - DECISIVENESS: TUAN (#119 - MALE DEME IS UNNAMED
{%35}); Ego: 54 - UNITY: K'UN (#110 - MALE DEME IS UNNAMED {%30})}
#31 {@4: Sup: 60 - ACCUMULATION: CHI (#179 - MALE DEME IS UNNAMED {%0});
Ego: 31 - PACKING: CHUANG (#141 - MALE DEME IS UNNAMED {%31})}
#63 {@5: Sup: 42 - GOING TO MEET: YING (#221); Ego: 63 - WATCH: SHIH (#204)}
#5 {@6: Sup: 47 - PATTERN: WEN (#268); Ego: 5 - KEEPING SMALL: SHAO (#209)}
#61 {@7: Sup: 27 - DUTIES: SHIH (#295); Ego: 61 - EMBELLISHMENT: SHIH
(#270)}
#60 {@8: Sup: 6 - CONTRARIETY: LI (#301); Ego: 60 - ACCUMULATION: CHI
(#330)}
#2] {@9: Sup: 8 - OPPOSITION: KAN (#309); Ego: 2 - FULL CIRCLE: CHOU (#332)}

TELOS TOTAL: #332

DEME CHECKSUM TOTAL: #549

#1770 - DEME CHECKSUM TOTAL: #549 as [#40, #70, #100, #500, #800, #200,
#10, #50] = mórphōsis (G3446): {UMBRA: #1920 % #41 = #34} 1) a forming, shaping; 2) form; 2a) the mere form, semblance; 2b) *THE* *FORM*
*BEFITTING* *A* *THING**OR* *TRULY* *EXPRESSING* *THE* *FACT*, the very
form;

#556 - ONTIC CHECKSUM TOTAL: #230 as [#8, #4, #10, #20, #8, #200, #1,
#300, #5] = adikéō (G91): {UMBRA: #840 % #41 = #20} 1) absolutely; 1a)
*TO* *ACT* *UNJUSTLY* *OR* *WICKEDLY*, *TO* *SIN*; 1b) *TO* *BE* *A* *CRIMINAL*, *TO* *HAVE* *VIOLATED* *THE* *LAWS* *IN* *SOME* *WAY*; 1c)
to do wrong; 1d) to do hurt; 2) transitively; 2a) to do some wrong or
sin in some respect; 2b) to wrong some one, act wickedly towards him;
2c) to hurt, damage, harm;

We already have a meta-description of #237 - USE OF FORCE associated to
the [#0, #40, #41, #81, #30] template prototype but the consideration is whether we can deduce some metalogic axioms from our NOEMA SCENARIO
[#230 - WICKED, #232 - KNIFE / WEAPON, #249 - SATOR (#38), #228 - ONTIC
LIMIT / WITNESSING TRAVESTY AS REPROACH, #237 - DEME LIMIT / USE OF
FORCE] where the use of an object knife for instance, is both an
engendering nature: #237 - #230 = #7 and a strategic grounding action
#237 - #232 = #5 which is an atrocity consequential to the autonomy:
#237 - #228 = #9 but also the general populace: #249 - #237 = #12...

But just how elastic and vital are these meta logical premises that a
specific category #258 might provide a #30 - BOLD RESOLUTION to #228 - ATROCITY?



<http://www.grapple369.com/images/Papal%20War%20Commemorations%20Intellectual%20Property%20Theft%202.png>

HETEROS PROTOTYPE #SEVEN (#117 / #351)

47    7    63
55   39    23
15   71    31

71
118
141
204
243
258 <-- ****
313
344
351

#1721 - MALE CHECKSUM TOTAL: #258 as [#200, #800, #500, #100, #70, #50,
#1] = sṓphrōn (G4998): {UMBRA: #2450 % #41 = #31} 1) of a sound mind,
sane, in one's senses; 2) curbing one's desires and impulses,
self-controlled, temperate;

#472 - MALE CHECKSUM TOTAL: #258 as [#20, #100, #10, #40, #1, #300, #1] /
#741 - MALE CHECKSUM TOTAL: #258 as [#20, #100, #10, #40, #1, #300, #70,
#200] = kríma (G2917): {UMBRA: #171 % #41 = #7} 1) a decree, judgments;
2) judgment; 2a) condemnation of wrong, the decision (whether severe or
mild) which one passes on the faults of others; 2b) in a forensic sense;
2b1) the sentence of a judge; 2b2) the punishment with which one is
sentenced; 2b3) condemnatory sentence, penal judgment, sentence; 2c) a
matter to be judicially decided, a lawsuit, a case in court;

#718 - MALE CHECKSUM TOTAL: #258 as [#1, #30, #8, #9, #70, #400, #200] = alēthḗs (G227): {UMBRA: #256 % #41 = #10} 1) true; 2) loving the truth, speaking the truth, truthful;

We need to be mindful where the #237 is itself a LIMIT as a DEME
boundary (ie. excluding for the moment either its usage by selection or aggregated extension) such that the #237 - USE OF FORCE associated with
the BIPARTITE PROTOTYPE #228 - WITNESSING TRAVESTY AS REPROACH is
entirely a systemic product of ONTIC moral proscription abandonment for rightful action and a steeping effect of the prototype artifice itself,
such that water finds its own course which is here biased by conformity
with the patterning imposed by the immaterial elements @1 / @5 as then a
fixed mindset which cannot change?

It will always find some self justification but the problem is the
paradigm as the foundation of belief and being.

We see the resolution of the problem is firstly a metalogic
quantification of the human being and not chasing after endless self justification by such.

We cannot be shallow here given there is already conveyed a viable
metalogical proposition of a BIPOLAR REALITY (ie. not a medical
diagnosis but a paradigm of action: #365 - YANG: LUO SHU / #364 - YIN:
T'AI HSUAN + fusion)...

Thus whilst the principle of a specific category #258 might provide a
#30 - bold resolution to atrocity #228 we must understand that informal research postulations may be made upon certain assumptions which from
case studies do not hold true.

For instance whilst the HETEROS PROTOTYPE #SEVEN (#117 / #351) has an equivalent locus to the BIPOLAR REALITY as LUO SHU PROTOTYPE #THREE
(#117 / #351) in possessing a meta descriptor of #75 - FAILURE (SHIH) -
𝍐失 = #526 as COGITO: [#58, #27, #27, #49, #46] that our #364 - YIN:
T'AI HSUAN assay of an array ONLY makes an artifice metalogic assertion:
[#9 - vCORAL, #8 - vCYAN, #1 ... #7 - CAUSALITY] where the #65 - INNER
(NEI) / H54 - MARRIAGEABLE MAIDEN, CONVERTING THE MAIDEN is then the
CENTRE or AUTONOMOUS DELIMITED PRINCIPLE with a PRINCIPLE OF MATERIALITY associated to #75 - FAILURE (SHIH) and in its SPIRAL ASSAY also includes
#228 and thus there is no in-equitability of paradigm consequence.

COURSE OF NATURE

57   56    49
66   65    58
75   74    67

74
131
189
238
303
378
444
511 <-- @SUM(TETRAD MENTIONS OF [rì (日): *SUN*])
567

#567 - ONTIC CHECKSUM TOTAL: #331 as [#2, #90, #2, #1, #6, #400, #10,
#50, #6] = tsâbâʼ (H6635): {UMBRA: #93 % #41 = #11} 1) that which goes forth, army, war, warfare, host; 1a) army, host; 1a1) host (of organised
army); 1a2) host (of angels); 1a3) *OF* *SUN*, *MOON*, *AND* *STARS*;
1a4) of whole creation; 1b) war, warfare, service, go out to war; 1c)
service;



<https://www.grapple369.com/nature.html>

WHICH MIGHT RELY ON A SPIRAL ASSAY ARRAY TO MEDIATE AGAINST THE
BIPARTITE HYPOSTASIS:

[#57, #56, #49, #58, #67, #74, #75, #66, #65]

[#57, {@1: Sup: 57 - GUARDEDNESS: SHOU (#57); Ego: 57 - GUARDEDNESS:
SHOU (#57)}
#56, {@2: Sup: 32 - LEGION: CHUANG (#89); Ego: 56 - CLOSED MOUTH: CHIN
(#113)}
#49, {@3: Sup: 81 - FOSTERING: YANG (#170); Ego: 49 - FLIGHT: T'AO (#162)}

#58, {@4: Sup: 58 - GATHERING IN: HSI (#228 - I HAVE NO UNJUST
PREFERENCES {%40}); Ego: 58 - GATHERING IN: HSI (#220 - I CURSE NOT A
GOD {%38} / I CURSE NOT A GOD {%38})} <-- ****

#67, {@5: Sup: 44 - STOVE: TSAO (#272); Ego: 67 - DARKENING: HUI (#287)}
#74, {@6: Sup: 37 - PURITY: TS'UI (#309); Ego: 74 - CLOSURE: CHIH (#361)}
#75, {@7: Sup: 31 - PACKING: CHUANG (#340); Ego: 75 - FAILURE: SHIH (#436)} #66, {@8: Sup: 16 - CONTACT: CHIAO (#356); Ego: 66 - DEPARTURE: CH'U (#502)} #65] {@9: Sup: 81 - FOSTERING: YANG (#437); Ego: 65 - INNER: NEI (#567)}

#567 as [#1, #100, #300, #5, #40, #70, #50, #1] = artémōn (G736):
{UMBRA: #1296 % #41 = #25} 1) a top-sail or *FORESAIL* *OF* *A* *SHIP*;

YOUTUBE: "1492 CONQUEST OF PARADISE (VANGELIS)"

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCynyt9z8CQ>

#567 as [#40, #20, #60, #1, #6, #400, #40] = kiççêʼ (H3678): {UMBRA: #81
% #41 = #40} 1) seat (of honour), throne, seat, stool; 1a) seat (of
honour), throne; 1b) *ROYAL* *DIGNITY*, *AUTHORITY*, *POWER* (fig.);

#567 as [#300, #5, #30, #5, #200, #9, #8, #10] = teléō (G5055): {UMBRA:
#1140 % #41 = #33} 1) to bring to a close, to finish, to end; 1a)
passed, finished; 2) to perform, execute, complete, fulfil, (so that the
thing done corresponds to what has been said, the order, command etc.);
2a) with special reference to the subject matter, to carry out the
contents of a command; 2b) *WITH* *REFERENCE* *ALSO* *TO* *THE* *FORM*,
*TO* *DO* *JUST* *AS* *COMMANDED*, *AND* *GENERALLY* *INVOLVING* *THE*
*NOTION* *OF* *TIME*, *TO* *PERFORM* *THE* *LAST* *ACT* *WHICH*
*COMPLETES* *A* *PROCESS*, *TO* *ACCOMPLISH*, *FULFIL*; 3) to pay; 3a)
of tribute;

So whilst we might easily extrapolate the paradigm of action: #365 -
YANG: LUO SHU / #364 - YIN: T'AI HSUAN to domestic violence being
likewise #228 - TRAVESTY as occurring within an optimal state of FUSION
(ie. MARRIAGE), ours is only an INFORMAL RESEARCH proposition and we are
not qualified to make any #491 - AGENCY (ie. which is why they are
established) or ONTIC JURISPRUDENCE statements.



<http://www.grapple369.com/images/Hitler%20Claim%20to%20Science.jpeg>

LUO SHU PROTOTYPE #THREE (#117 / #351)

30    75    12
21    39    57
66    3    48

3
33
90
102
141
207
228 <-- ****
276
351

This is then a hypothetical assumption about this "the BIPOLAR dynamic
of LUO SHU SQUARE / COURSE OF NATURE pairing (ie. #365 - YANG / #364 -
YIN = #729 = 9x9x9 as morphology of being) as adverse state occurs by an artifice impetus of a BIPARTITE HYPOSTASIS fusion..."

The question is on the #231 - JUXTAPOSITION CONTROL within the BIPARTITE HYPOSTASIS and whether such is the holding capacity and the immaterial
elements @1 / @5 is then both impetus and anchor.

From our metalogic assertion: [#9 - vCORAL, #8 - vCYAN, #1 ... #7 -
CAUSALITY] we also make the observation of categories #230 and #297 with
the later the sum for BIPARTITE NUMBER PROTOTYPE #ONE and the COURSE OF
NATURE deploying the same assay method for PROTOTYPE #ONE / #NINE as
claim to JEWISH / CHRISTIAN IDENTITY being SOMETHING SUBSTANTIALLY
DIFFERENT TO THE ECCLESIASTICAL PRECEDENCE CLAIMS MADE BY THE @1 - #297
/ @5 - #333 - VATICAN CITY-STATE

COURSE OF NATURE #ONE

77    78    79
5   6   7
14    15    16

15
92
99
178
184
198
203
219
297 <-- ROMAN PROTOTYPE

[#15, #77, #7, #79, #6, #14, #5, #16, #78]

COURSE OF NATURE #NINE

23    24    25
32    33    34
41    42    43

42
65
99
124
157
198
230 <-- ****
273
297 <-- ROMAN PROTOTYPE

[#42, #23, #34, #25, #33, #41, #32, #43, #24]

The baying for blood "BRING HIM OUT" belongs to the same class of
statement as "CRUCIFY HIM" or "DEATH TO AMERICA" / "DEATH TO ISRAEL".

"EXCEPT IT BE FOR THIS ONE VOICE, THAT I CRIED STANDING AMONG THEM,
TOUCHING THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD I AM CALLED IN QUESTION BY YOU
THIS DAY.

AND WHEN FELIX HEARD THESE THINGS, HAVING MORE PERFECT KNOWLEDGE OF THAT
WAY, HE DEFERRED THEM, AND SAID, WHEN LYSIAS THE CHIEF CAPTAIN SHALL
COME DOWN, I WILL KNOW THE UTTERMOST OF YOUR MATTER." [Acts 24:21-22]

GRAPPLE (367, 230)@[13, 30, 17, 45, 59, 42, 9, 7, 8] PROTOTYPE

<http://www.grapple369.com/Savvy/?date:2024.4.13&time:15.20&heuristic>



[#13 {@1: Sup: 13 - INCREASE: TSENG (#13); Ego: 13 - INCREASE: TSENG (#13)}
#30 {@2: Sup: 43 - ENCOUNTERS: YU (#56); Ego: 30 - BOLD RESOLUTION: YI
(#43)}
#17 {@3: Sup: 60 - ACCUMULATION: CHI (#116); Ego: 17 - HOLDING BACK:
JUAN (#60)}
#45 {@4: Sup: 24 - JOY: LE (#140 - I DEAL NOT FRAUDULENTLY {%14} / I AM
NOT AN EAVES-DROPPER {%16}); Ego: 45 - GREATNESS: TA (#105)}
#59 {@5: Sup: 2 - FULL CIRCLE: CHOU (#142); Ego: 59 - MASSING: CHU (#164)}
#42 {@6: Sup: 44 - STOVE: TSAO (#186 - I AM NOT ONE OF INCONSTANT MIND
{%31} / I AM NOT ONE OF INCONSTANT MIND {%31}); Ego: 42 - GOING TO MEET:
YING (#206)}
#9 {@7: Sup: 53 - ETERNITY: YUNG (#239); Ego: 9 - BRANCHING OUT: SHU
(#215 - I AM NEITHER A LIAR NOR A DOER OF MISCHIEF {%34})}
#7 {@8: Sup: 60 - ACCUMULATION: CHI (#299); Ego: 7 - ASCENT: SHANG (#222
- MALE DEME IS UNNAMED {%12})}
#8] {@9: Sup: 68 - DIMMING: MENG (#367); Ego: 8 - OPPOSITION: KAN (#230)}

TELOS TOTAL: #230
ONTIC CHECKSUM TOTAL: #541
DEME CHECKSUM TOTAL: #408

From the time window of the BONDI MASSACRE vEVENT we determined a
viable prototype {@9: Sup: 68 - DIMMING: MENG (#367); Ego: 8 -
OPPOSITION: KAN (#230)}

#959 - FEME CHECKSUM TOTAL: #230 as [#5, #4, #10, #800, #20, #70, #50] = diṓkō (G1377): {UMBRA: #1634 % #41 = #35} 1) to make to run or flee, put
to flight, drive away; 2) to run swiftly in order to catch a person or
thing, to run after; 2a) to press on: figuratively of one who in a race
runs swiftly to reach the goal; 2b) to pursue (in a hostile manner); 3)
in any way whatever to harass, trouble, molest one; 3a) to persecute;
3b) to be mistreated, suffer persecution on account of something; 4)
without the idea of hostility, to run after, follow after: someone; 5)
metaph., to pursue; 5a) to seek after eagerly, earnestly endeavour to
acquire;

We identified #230 as a likely action / temporal cohesion occurrence and switched from FEME / IDEA to the supernal MALE noumenon redaction:

#880 - MALE CHECKSUM TOTAL: #230 as [#20, #400, #50, #400, #10] =
kᵉthôneth (H3801): {UMBRA: #870 % #41 = #9} 1) tunic, under-garment; 1a)
a long shirt-like garment usually of linen;

#654 - MALE CHECKSUM TOTAL: #230 as [#1, #3, #1, #80, #8, #200, #1, #50,
#300, #10] = agapáō (G25): {UMBRA: #886 % #41 = #25} 1) of persons; 1a)
to welcome, to entertain, to be fond of, to love dearly; 2) of things;
2a) to be well pleased, to be contented at or with a thing;

Which gave viable meta-logical pairings:

Male: #230; Feme: #232
Male: #230; Feme: #249

Male: #237; Feme: #228

42 16 65
64 41 18
17 66 40

66
108
126
191
232
249

44 4 60
52 36 20
12 68 28

68
112
132
192
228

H3801@{
  {@1: Sup: 20 - ADVANCE: CHIN (#20); Ego: 20 - ADVANCE: CHIN (#20)},
  {@2: Sup: 15 - REACH: TA (#35); Ego: 76 - AGGRAVATION: CHU (#96 -
MALE DEME IS UNNAMED {%33})},
  {@3: Sup: 65 - INNER: NEI (#100 - MALE DEME IS UNNAMED {%3}); Ego: 50
- VASTNESS / WASTING: T'ANG (#146 - I AM NOT A LAND-GRABBER {%15})},
  {@4: Sup: 71 - STOPPAGE: CHIH (#171 - I AM NOT UNCHASTE WITH ANY ONE {%20}); Ego: 6 - CONTRARIETY: LI (#152)},
  {@5: Sup: 66 - DEPARTURE: CH'U (#237 - MALE DEME IS UNNAMED {%17});
Ego: 76 - AGGRAVATION: CHU (#228 - I HAVE NO UNJUST PREFERENCES {%40})}, 
  Male: #237; Feme: #228
} // #876

Thus upon that premise, I concluded the notions [#230, #232, #249] may
provide a suitable workable IDEA dialectic as conjectural motive
occasioning the need to mediate #237 - USE OF FORCE associated with the BIPARTITE PROTOTYPE #228 - WITNESSING TRAVESTY AS REPROACH ...

Also I was aware #232 - knife

#230 as [#20, #8, #200, #2] / [#8, #200, #2, #20] /
#232 as [#2, #8, #200, #2, #20] = chereb (H2719): {UMBRA: #210 % #41 =
#5} 1) sword, knife; 1a) sword; 1b) knife; 1c) tools for cutting stone;

As being entirely congruous notions and consistent with past informal
research interests

But there is a need to be mindful where the #237 is itself a LIMIT as a
DEME boundary (ie. excluding for the moment either its usage by
selection or aggregated extension) such that the #237 - USE OF FORCE
associated with the ONTIC boundary and BIPARTITE PROTOTYPE #228 -
WITNESSING TRAVESTY AS REPROACH is entirely a systemic product of ONTIC
moral proscription abandonment for rightful action and a steeping effect
of the prototype artifice itself, such that water finds its own course
which is here biased by conformity with the patterning imposed by the immaterial elements @1 / @5 as then a fixed mindset which cannot change?

Secondly as a conception of ENTENTIONAL whether the expression of a
notion within the PARAGRAPH meets the criteria of pertaining to
entention or to objects that have entention as an attribute. Ententional phenomena are teleological – the class of phenomena constituted by their relation to something absent, e.g. function, purpose, value...

To illustrate this point, if we apply a memeBrain parsing to the first
two paragraphs within our "CASE STUDY ON PSYCHOSOMATIC PHENOMENON BY
TEMPORAL ASSOCIATIVE CAPACITY TO INTUIT NEURAL LINGUISTIC PRAGMA AS
MENTAL DESCRIPTION" which relates to "the philosophical notion of
psychosomatic phenomenon [which] is predominantly understood in terms of
a physiological psychological condition that leads to physical symptoms"

<http://www.grapple369.com/x-files/CASE%20STUDY%20Gnosis%20Ex%20Machina.pdf>


[continued in next message]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: uk.legal, alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh XPost: alt.atheism

-- (DRAFT 4) INFORMAL RESEARCH NOTES ON A PLAUSIBLE NOEMA SCENARIO [#230
- WICKED, #232 - KNIFE / WEAPON, #249 - SATOR (#38), #228 - ONTIC LIMIT
/ WITNESSING TRAVESTY AS REPROACH, #237 - DEME LIMIT / USE OF FORCE]
RELATED TO RAMPAGE KILLING EVENTS

(c) 2024 Dolf Leendert Boek, Published: 20 April 2024

In our informal research as self education, the meta-descriptive
aggregation of concepts of mind most likely has some relevance to the philosophical concept of intentionality. But what we have recognised
from our memeBrain prototypes, is that the #451 - PRAXIS OF RATIONALITY
and its dynamic problem resolution pairing only occurs by being couched
with a preamble for which we have a desire to examine if the resolution
idea has recurrence as then a criteria for its attainment as pairing
action being a function of mind.

For want of a better term, we might consider this dá dào (達到): to reach; to achieve; to attain

<http://www.grapple369.com/Savvy/?run:Mystery&glyph:達>

dá (達): 1. to attain; to reach, 2. Da, 3. intelligent proficient, 4. to
be open; to be connected, 5. to realize; to complete; to accomplish, 6.
to display; to manifest, 7. to tell; to inform; to say, 8. illustrious; influential; prestigious, 9. everlasting; constant; unchanging, 10.
generous; magnanimous, 11. commonly; everywhere, 12. arbitrary; freely
come and go

<http://www.grapple369.com/Savvy/?run:Mystery&glyph:到>

dào (到): 1. to arrive, 2. arrive; receive, 3. to go, 4. careful, 5. Dao

APPRAISAL #9: It offends the ear but sets the toe on track. (到耳順止)
The matter will go right. (事貞)
FATHOMING #9: Offended ears, compliant toes (到耳順止)
MEANS: Contrary talk makes for obedient conduct. (逆聞順行也)

dào (到): 1. to arrive, 2. arrive; receive, 3. to go, 4. careful, 5. Dao

ěrshùn (耳順): 1. an obedient *EAR*, 2. pleasing to the ear

zhǐ (止): 1. to stop; to halt, 2. until; to end, 3. Kangxi radical 77, 4. only, 5. to prohibit; to prevent; to refrain; to suppress, 6. to remain
in one place; to stay, 7. to rest; to settle, 8. deportment; bearing;
demeanor; manner, 9. a particle at the end of a phrase, 10. foot

shì (事): 1. matter; thing; item, 2. to serve, 3. a government post, 4.
duty; post; work, 5. occupation, 6. cause; undertaking; enterprise; achievement, 7. an accident, 8. to attend, 9. an allusion, 10. a
condition; a state; a situation, 11. to engage in, 12. to enslave, 13.
to pursue, 14. to administer, 15. to appoint, 16. a piece

zhēn (貞): 1. virtuous; chaste; pure, 2. loyal, 3. divination, 4.
chastity, 5. to divine, 6. auspicious, 7. upright, 8. lower part of the trigrams in the Yijing, 9. four

We want to explore whether achieving this goal as the #451 - PRAXIS OF RATIONALITY and its dynamic problem resolution pairing, actually
involves the two concepts that have been central to Husserl’s
internalist interpretation of intentionality: the concept of a noema
(plural noemata) and the concept of epoche (i.e., bracketing) or phenomenological reduction. By the word ‘noema,’ Husserl refers to the internal structure of mental acts. The phenomenological reduction is
meant to help get at the essence of mental acts by suspending all naive presuppositions about the difference between real and fictitious
entities (on these complex phenomenological concepts, see the papers by Føllesdal and others conveniently gathered in Dreyfus (1982). For
further discussion, see Bell (1990) and Dummett (1993).

#169 as [#50, #70, #8, #40, #1] /
#470 = #451 - PRAXIS OF RATIONALITY + #19 - FOLLOWING (TS'UNG) as [#50,
#70, #8, #40, #1, #300, #1] = nóēma (G3540): {UMBRA: #169 % #41 = #5} 1)
a mental perception, thought; 2) an evil purpose; 3) that which thinks,
the mind, thoughts or purposes

APPRAISAL #3: Men do not attack him. (人不攻之)
They are drawn to follow. (自然證)
FATHOMING #3: That men do not attack him (人不攻之)
MEANS: This, in itself, is proof of Virtue's power. (自然證也)

rén (人): 1. person; people; a human being, 2. Kangxi radical 9, 3. a
kind of person, 4. everybody, 5. adult, 6. somebody; others, 7. an
upright person

bù (不): 1. not; no, 2. expresses that a certain condition cannot be achieved, 3. as a correlative, 4. no (answering a question), 5. forms a negative adjective from a noun, 6. at the end of a sentence to form a
question, 7. to form a yes or no question, 8. infix potential marker

gōng (攻): 1. to attack; to assault, 2. to discredit; to impugn; to criticize, 3. to remedy; to cure, 4. to work at; to handle, 5.
workmanship; expertise, 6. exaction by the state, 7. sturdy; strong, 8.
to govern; to administer, 9. Gong

zhī (之): 1. him; her; them; that, 2. used between a modifier and a word
to form a word group, 3. to go, 4. this; that, 5. genitive marker, 6.
it, 7. in, 8. all, 9. and, 10. however, 11. if, 12. then, 13. to arrive;
to go, 14. is, 15. to use, 16. Zhi

zìrán (自然): 1. nature, 2. natural, 3. of course; certainly; naturally

zhèng (證): 1. proof, 2. to prove; to demonstrate; to confirm; to give evidence, 3. to advise against, 4. certificate, 5. an illness, 6. to accuse

In fact, commentators have been unable to achieve consensus on exactly
what a noema is. In a recent survey, David Woodruff Smith distinguished
four different schools of thought. On one view, to say that the noema is
the intentional object of an act of consciousness is to mean that it
quite literally is an object. Husserl's student Roman Ingarden, for
example, held that both ordinary objects, like chairs and trees, and intentional objects, like a chair precisely as it appears to me, or even
a fictional tree, actually exist, but have different "modes" of existence.

An alternative view, developed primarily by Aron Gurwitsch, emphasizes
the noema of perceptual experience. Most ordinary objects can be
perceived in different ways and from different perspectives (consider
looking at a tree from several different positions). For Gurwitsch, what
is perceived in each such act is a noema, and the object itself—the
tree, say—is to be understood as the collection or system of noemata associated with it. This view has similarities with phenomenalism.

Robert Sokolowski, alternatively, holds that a noema is just the actual
object of perception or judgment itself, considered phenomenologically.
In other words, the noema of the judgment that "this chair is
uncomfortable" is neither an entity (the chair considered as
uncomfortable) which exists in addition to the chair itself (but with a different mode of existence)—the Ingarden view; nor is the noema of such
a judgment identified with a particular tactile perception of the
chair—which along with other perceptions constitutes the chair as
such—the Gurwitsch view. For Sokolowski, the noema is not a separate
entity at all, but the chair itself as in this instance perceived or
judged. This seems consistent with Husserl's emphasis on the noema as
the "perceived as such…remembered as such...judged as such..."

Analytic philosopher Dagfinn Føllesdal, in an influential 1969 paper,
proposed a Fregean interpretation of the noema, which has been developed extensively by Ronald McIntyre and David Woodruff Smith. This school of
thought agrees that the noema is not a separate entity, but rather than identifying it with the actual object of the act (of perceiving,
judging, etc.), phenomenologically understood, this view suggests that
it is a mediating component of the act itself. It is what gives the act
the sense it has. Indeed, Føllesdal and his followers suggest that the
noema is a generalized version of Gottlob Frege's account of linguistic meaning, and in particular of his concept of sense (Sinn). Just as Frege
held that a linguistic expression picks out its reference by means of
its sense, so Husserl believed that conscious acts generally—not merely
acts of meaning but also acts of perception, judgment, etc.—are
intentionally directed toward objects by means of their noemata. On this
view, the noema is not an object, but an abstract component of certain
types of acts.

Sokolowski has continued to reject this approach, arguing that "(t)o
equate sense and noema would be to equate propositional and
phenomenological reflection. It would take philosophy simply as the
critical reflection on our meanings or senses; it would equate
philosophy with linguistic analysis." Robert C. Solomon attempted to
reconcile the perception-based interpretation of the Gurwitsch school
with the Fregean interpretation of noema as sense, suggesting that while
"(i)t has now become virtually axiomatic among phenomenologists that the
Sinne [senses] of experience stand independent of the Bedeutungen
[meanings] of linguistic expressions. It has become all but axiomatic
among analytic philosophers that there is no meaning apart from
language. It is the concept of the noema that provides the link between
them. The noema embodies both the changing phases of experience and the organizing sense of our experience. But these two 'components' are not separable, for all experience requires meaning, not as an after-the-fact
luxury in reflective judgements but in order for it to be experience of anything." <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noema>

If we substitute *SUN* for *JAPAN* as our TETRAD MENTIONS OF [rì (日): *JAPAN*] and consider it is most likely a #135 + #102 + #168 + #215 =
#620 - metáthesis (G3331): {UMBRA: #770 % #41 = #32} 1) transfer: from
one place to another; 2) *TO* *CHANGE*; 2a) *OF* *THINGS* *INSTITUTED*
*OR* *ESTABLISHED* OF THE GERMAN REICH ITSELF AND THE USE OF THE
MOTORCAR AS AUTONOMY [+ #130 = #750 + #147 = #897] INNOVATION.

TETRAD MENTIONS OF [rì (日): *SUN*] @ [

#1 - WHAT FASCISM IS,
#5 - GREATEST INVENTION OF STATE,
#13,
#18 - HIJACK THE ANZAC 2018 CENTENNIAL,
#19 - DISRUPTION OF THE NOEMA?, <-- morphosis scenario [#230, #232,
#249, #228, #237] @ CHRISTCHURCH MOSQUE SHOOTINGS ON 15 MARCH 2019
#20,
#23,
#24,
#33, <-- 2033 AS CENTENNIAL OF THE REICH'S CONCORDAT
#41,
#47,
#52,
#67,
#70,
#78]

<http://www.grapple369.com/Savvy/?run:Mystery&glyph:日>

#38 - JUPITER PRINCIPLE (#549 - DEME FOR morphosis = #38 (* IMMATERIAL INCLUSION) + #511: @SUM(TETRAD MENTIONS OF [rì (日): *SUN*]))

#1 #52 #20 #78
#70 #23 #33 #18
#47 #5 #38 #19
#24 #67 #13 #41 = #511 + #38 = #549

This may then provide an ECLIPSE grounding rationale for the
CHRISTCHURCH MOSQUE SHOOTINGS ON 15 MARCH 2019

#1537 - DEME CHECKSUM TOTAL: #549 as [#40, #70, #100, #500, #800, #9,
#8, #10] /
#1580 - DEME CHECKSUM TOTAL: #549 as [#40, #70, #100, #500, #70, #800] = morphóō (G3445): {UMBRA: #1580 % #41 = #22} 1) *TO* *FORM*;

— PARTING OF WAYS —
[Thoughts of 27 MARCH 1986]

"ANSWER THE PHONE WILL YA.
MY *DAUGHTER* IS IN THE STREET.
ANSWER THE PHONE WILL YA.
FLESH #115 - *BURNING* LIKE BLAZING #115 - *WHEAT*.

I WANT TO HEAR HER #115 - *SIGH*
ANSWER THE PHONE WILL YA.
I JUST DON'T WANT HER TO DIE.
*FOR* *GOD* *SAKE*, WILL YA.

{@9: Sup: 76 - AGGRAVATION: CHU (#492); Ego: 29 - DECISIVENESS: TUAN (#489)}

JUST ANSWER THE PHONE.
THERE'S NOT A #115 - *PLANE* IN SIGHT.
DON'T LEAVE HER ALONE.
WHAT CRIME THIS BLIGHT?

BLOWN GLASS IN ANY SHADE
AND EVERY WINDOW SILL.
DRAWN BY EMPATHY OF JADE. {@17: Sup: 63 - WATCH: SHIH (#839); Ego: 27 -
DUTIES: SHIH (#821)}
FOR THE THINGS WE HOLD STILL." {@18: Sup: 41 - RESPONSE: YING (#880);
Ego: 18 - WAITING: HSI (#839)}

YOUTUBE: "HANS ZIMMER - TIME (CYBERDESIGN REMIX) / ADELE - HELLO (3RD
VERSION) [AN EDGE MASHUP]"

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFMbKIGp6Lg>

WITHIN CHINESE HAN OMEN LITERATURE SOLAR ECLIPSES OFTEN WERE CONSIDERED
TO PORTENDED USURPATION OF THE ROYAL POWER (YANG):

- TOTAL SOLAR ECLIPSE (NOUS: #44; #393; #404 - *PERIHELION*; #489 -
*PARTING* *OF* *WAYS* *POEM*): 20 MARCH 2015 (AEST)

|- 20 ΜΑRCH 2015 - TOTAL SOLAR ECLIPSE
|- 19 YEARS AS TEMPORAL HEURISTIC CONSCIOUSNESS ANCHOR
|- WED 20 MARCH 1996 / NEW MOON 21 MARCH

WED 20 MARCH 1901 / NEW MOON 21 MARCH WHEN THE COMMONWEALTH IS ALIGNED
TO 400 YEARS CENTENNIAL OF DUTCH DISCOVERY 26 OCTOBER 1616 RENDERS

- TOTAL SOLAR ECLIPSE (NOUS: #36 - *ANZAC* *DAY*; #298 <--- GOOD FRIDAY AGREEMENT IRISH CATHOLIC ENCLOSURE OBSTRUCTION, #325, #373 - *APHELION*
#393): 3 JULY 2019 (AEST)

- TOTAL SOLAR ECLIPSE (NOUS: #44; #297, #325, #342 - *PERIHELION*, #383
- *JOIN* *ME* *IN* *DEATH* *LYRIC* / HITLER's BIRTHDAY): 20 APRIL 2023
(AEST) - EXMOUTH

"THIS WORLD IS A CRUEL PLACE {@1: Sup: 43 - ENCOUNTERS: YU (#43); Ego:
28 - CHANGE: KENG (#28)}
AND WE'RE HERE ONLY TO LOSE {@2: Sup: 61 - EMBELLISHMENT: SHIH (#104 - I
COMMIT NO FRAUD {%7}); Ego: 33 - CLOSENESS: MI (#61 - MALE DEME IS
UNNAMED {%22})}
SO BEFORE LIFE TEARS US APART {@3: Sup: 55 - DIMINISHMENT: CHIEN (#159);
Ego: 78 - ON THE VERGE: CHIANG (#139 - I HAVE NOT SLAUGHTERED THE SACRED ANIMALS {%13})}
LET DEATH BLESS ME WITH YOU. {@4: Sup: 80 - LABOURING: CH'IN (#239);
Ego: 1 - CENTRE: CHUNG (#140 - I DEAL NOT FRAUDULENTLY {%14} / I AM NOT
AN EAVES-DROPPER {%16})}

ONTIC CHECKSUM TOTAL: #383

YOUTUBE: "HIM - JOIN ME IN DEATH (1999) / GREGORIAN WITH AMELIA
BRIGHTMAN - JOIN ME IN DEATH (2002), W / INTRO"

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDRxZVGlKSA>

CONCLUDING AUGUSTI NUMEN / TREASON EVENTS WILL OCCUR AS EASTER SUNDAY ON
#44 - 20 APRIL 2025 AND PENTECOST SUNDAY ON #38 - 8 JUNE 2025.

- TOTAL SOLAR ECLIPSE ON 8 (UTC) / 9 JUNE 1918 (AEST) [During World War
I: 28 JULY 1914 to 11 NOVEMBER 1918]

- TOTAL SOLAR ECLIPSE ON 13 (UTC) / 14 NOVEMBER 2012 (AEST) - KING
CHARLES III ACTUAL BIRTHDAY

KING CHARLES III BIRTHDAY HOLIDAY ON #68 - 9 JUNE 2025 AND #38 - 8 JUNE
2026.

"IN WHOM THE GOD OF THIS WORLD HATH BLINDED THE *MINDS*-G3540 OF THEM
WHICH BELIEVE NOT, LEST THE LIGHT OF THE GLORIOUS GOSPEL OF CHRIST, WHO
IS THE IMAGE OF GOD, SHOULD SHINE UNTO THEM." [2Corinthians 4:4]

"CASTING DOWN IMAGINATIONS, AND EVERY HIGH THING THAT EXALTETH ITSELF
AGAINST THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD, AND BRINGING INTO CAPTIVITY EVERY
*THOUGHT*-G3540 TO THE OBEDIENCE OF CHRIST;" [2Corinthians 10:5]

"BUT I FEAR, LEST BY ANY MEANS, AS THE SERPENT BEGUILED EVE THROUGH HIS SUBTLETY, SO YOUR *MINDS*-G3540 SHOULD BE CORRUPTED FROM THE SIMPLICITY
THAT IS IN CHRIST." [2Corinthians 11:3]

BING CHAT GPT @ 0836 HRS ON 21 APRIL 2024: "During the CHRISTCHURCH
MOSQUE SHOOTINGS ON 15 MARCH 2019, the perpetrator, Brenton Tarrant, was dressed in *MILITARY*-*STYLE* *CAMOUFLAGE* *CLOTHING*. He also wore a
full tactical vest with front pockets containing at least seven fully
loaded .223 magazines and carried a bayonet-style *KNIFE* in a scabbard.
His attire allowed him to carry numerous magazines and move with ease
during the attacks. Tarrant’s actions that day resulted in a tragic loss
of life and left an indelible mark on New Zealand’s history."

BOER WAR MEMORIAL ANTAGONISM AS IMPLICIT ROMAN CATHOLIC CRIME AGAINST
THE COMMONWEALTH (CAESAROPAPISM)
PENTECOST SUNDAY AS JUPITER (#38 - SATOR / #33 - TENET / #34 - ROTAS)
PRINCIPLE

[#38 - 8 JUNE 1930, #35 - 24 MAY 1931, #33 - 15 MAY 1932, #37 - 4 JUNE
1933, #34 - 20 MAY 1934]

[#38 - 8 JUNE 2014, #35 - 24 MAY 2015 (KNIGHTS TEMPLAR RENEWED), #33 -
15 MAY 2016 (IRREGULAR VIETNAM CORPSE INTERMENT IN RAAF WWII CEMETERY),
#37 - 4 JUNE 2017 [TARGETED ATTACKS / SLANDER], #34 - 20 MAY 2018 (WWI CENTENNIAL HIJACKING)]

[#38 - 8 JUNE 2025, #35 - 24 MAY 2026, #33 - 16 MAY 2027, #37 - 4 JUNE
2028, #34 - 20 MAY 2029]

EASTER SUNDAY occurs between the TETRA / RANGE dates #21 - 22 MARCH
through #28 - ANZAC DAY: 25 APRIL (whereas PENTECOST SUNDAY as 49 days thereafter occurs within ranges #31 - 10 MAY through #39 - 13 JUNE)
within the Gregorian calendar and may be the 81st through 115th day of
common years or 82nd through 116th day of leap years.

<http://www.grapple369.com/Groundwork/Lawyer%20Notes%2020240409%20%28public%29.pdf>

GRAPPLE (309, 332)@[34, 22, 54, 31, 63, 5, 61, 60, 2] PROTOTYPE

<http://www.grapple369.com/Savvy/?date:2024.4.21&time:8.36&heuristic>



[#34 {@1: Sup: 34 - KINSHIP: CH'IN (#34); Ego: 34 - KINSHIP: CH'IN (#34)}
#22 {@2: Sup: 56 - CLOSED MOUTH: CHIN (#90); Ego: 22 - RESISTANCE: KE (#56)} #54 {@3: Sup: 29 - DECISIVENESS: TUAN (#119 - MALE DEME IS UNNAMED
{%35}); Ego: 54 - UNITY: K'UN (#110 - MALE DEME IS UNNAMED {%30})}
#31 {@4: Sup: 60 - ACCUMULATION: CHI (#179 - MALE DEME IS UNNAMED {%0});
Ego: 31 - PACKING: CHUANG (#141 - MALE DEME IS UNNAMED {%31})}
#63 {@5: Sup: 42 - GOING TO MEET: YING (#221); Ego: 63 - WATCH: SHIH (#204)}
#5 {@6: Sup: 47 - PATTERN: WEN (#268); Ego: 5 - KEEPING SMALL: SHAO (#209)}
#61 {@7: Sup: 27 - DUTIES: SHIH (#295); Ego: 61 - EMBELLISHMENT: SHIH
(#270)}
#60 {@8: Sup: 6 - CONTRARIETY: LI (#301); Ego: 60 - ACCUMULATION: CHI
(#330)}
#2] {@9: Sup: 8 - OPPOSITION: KAN (#309); Ego: 2 - FULL CIRCLE: CHOU (#332)}

TELOS TOTAL: #332

DEME CHECKSUM TOTAL: #549

#1770 - DEME CHECKSUM TOTAL: #549 as [#40, #70, #100, #500, #800, #200,
#10, #50] = mórphōsis (G3446): {UMBRA: #1920 % #41 = #34} 1) a forming, shaping; 2) form; 2a) the mere form, semblance; 2b) *THE* *FORM*
*BEFITTING* *A* *THING**OR* *TRULY* *EXPRESSING* *THE* *FACT*, the very
form;

#556 - ONTIC CHECKSUM TOTAL: #230 as [#8, #4, #10, #20, #8, #200, #1,
#300, #5] = adikéō (G91): {UMBRA: #840 % #41 = #20} 1) absolutely; 1a)
*TO* *ACT* *UNJUSTLY* *OR* *WICKEDLY*, *TO* *SIN*; 1b) *TO* *BE* *A* *CRIMINAL*, *TO* *HAVE* *VIOLATED* *THE* *LAWS* *IN* *SOME* *WAY*; 1c)
to do wrong; 1d) to do hurt; 2) transitively; 2a) to do some wrong or
sin in some respect; 2b) to wrong some one, act wickedly towards him;
2c) to hurt, damage, harm;

We already have a meta-description of #237 - USE OF FORCE associated to
the [#0, #40, #41, #81, #30] template prototype but the consideration is whether we can deduce some metalogic axioms from our NOEMA SCENARIO
[#230 - WICKED, #232 - KNIFE / WEAPON, #249 - SATOR (#38), #228 - ONTIC
LIMIT / WITNESSING TRAVESTY AS REPROACH, #237 - DEME LIMIT / USE OF
FORCE] where the use of an object knife for instance, is both an
engendering nature: #237 - #230 = #7 and a strategic grounding action
#237 - #232 = #5 which is an atrocity consequential to the autonomy:
#237 - #228 = #9 but also the general populace: #249 - #237 = #12...

But just how elastic and vital are these meta logical premises that a
specific category #258 might provide a #30 - BOLD RESOLUTION to #228 - ATROCITY?



<http://www.grapple369.com/images/Papal%20War%20Commemorations%20Intellectual%20Property%20Theft%202.png>

HETEROS PROTOTYPE #SEVEN (#117 / #351)

47    7    63
55   39    23
15   71    31

71
118
141
204
243
258 <-- ****
313
344
351

#1721 - MALE CHECKSUM TOTAL: #258 as [#200, #800, #500, #100, #70, #50,
#1] = sṓphrōn (G4998): {UMBRA: #2450 % #41 = #31} 1) of a sound mind,
sane, in one's senses; 2) curbing one's desires and impulses,
self-controlled, temperate;

#472 - MALE CHECKSUM TOTAL: #258 as [#20, #100, #10, #40, #1, #300, #1] /
#741 - MALE CHECKSUM TOTAL: #258 as [#20, #100, #10, #40, #1, #300, #70,
#200] = kríma (G2917): {UMBRA: #171 % #41 = #7} 1) a decree, judgments;
2) judgment; 2a) condemnation of wrong, the decision (whether severe or
mild) which one passes on the faults of others; 2b) in a forensic sense;
2b1) the sentence of a judge; 2b2) the punishment with which one is
sentenced; 2b3) condemnatory sentence, penal judgment, sentence; 2c) a
matter to be judicially decided, a lawsuit, a case in court;

#718 - MALE CHECKSUM TOTAL: #258 as [#1, #30, #8, #9, #70, #400, #200] = alēthḗs (G227): {UMBRA: #256 % #41 = #10} 1) true; 2) loving the truth, speaking the truth, truthful;

We need to be mindful where the #237 is itself a LIMIT as a DEME
boundary (ie. excluding for the moment either its usage by selection or aggregated extension) such that the #237 - USE OF FORCE associated with
the BIPARTITE PROTOTYPE #228 - WITNESSING TRAVESTY AS REPROACH is
entirely a systemic product of ONTIC moral proscription abandonment for rightful action and a steeping effect of the prototype artifice itself,
such that water finds its own course which is here biased by conformity
with the patterning imposed by the immaterial elements @1 / @5 as then a
fixed mindset which cannot change?

It will always find some self justification but the problem is the
paradigm as the foundation of belief and being.

We see the resolution of the problem is firstly a metalogic
quantification of the human being and not chasing after endless self justification by such.

We cannot be shallow here given there is already conveyed a viable
metalogical proposition of a BIPOLAR REALITY (ie. not a medical
diagnosis but a paradigm of action: #365 - YANG: LUO SHU / #364 - YIN:
T'AI HSUAN + fusion)...

Thus whilst the principle of a specific category #258 might provide a
#30 - bold resolution to atrocity #228 we must understand that informal research postulations may be made upon certain assumptions which from
case studies do not hold true.

For instance whilst the HETEROS PROTOTYPE #SEVEN (#117 / #351) has an equivalent locus to the BIPOLAR REALITY as LUO SHU PROTOTYPE #THREE
(#117 / #351) in possessing a meta descriptor of #75 - FAILURE (SHIH) -
𝍐失 = #526 as COGITO: [#58, #27, #27, #49, #46] that our #364 - YIN:
T'AI HSUAN assay of an array ONLY makes an artifice metalogic assertion:
[#9 - vCORAL, #8 - vCYAN, #1 ... #7 - CAUSALITY] where the #65 - INNER
(NEI) / H54 - MARRIAGEABLE MAIDEN, CONVERTING THE MAIDEN is then the
CENTRE or AUTONOMOUS DELIMITED PRINCIPLE with a PRINCIPLE OF MATERIALITY associated to #75 - FAILURE (SHIH) and in its SPIRAL ASSAY also includes
#228 and thus there is no in-equitability of paradigm consequence.

COURSE OF NATURE

57   56    49
66   65    58
75   74    67

74
131
189
238
303
378
444
511 <-- @SUM(TETRAD MENTIONS OF [rì (日): *SUN*])
567

#567 - ONTIC CHECKSUM TOTAL: #331 as [#2, #90, #2, #1, #6, #400, #10,
#50, #6] = tsâbâʼ (H6635): {UMBRA: #93 % #41 = #11} 1) that which goes forth, army, war, warfare, host; 1a) army, host; 1a1) host (of organised
army); 1a2) host (of angels); 1a3) *OF* *SUN*, *MOON*, *AND* *STARS*;
1a4) of whole creation; 1b) war, warfare, service, go out to war; 1c)
service;



<https://www.grapple369.com/nature.html>

WHICH MIGHT RELY ON A SPIRAL ASSAY ARRAY TO MEDIATE AGAINST THE
BIPARTITE HYPOSTASIS:

[#57, #56, #49, #58, #67, #74, #75, #66, #65]

[#57, {@1: Sup: 57 - GUARDEDNESS: SHOU (#57); Ego: 57 - GUARDEDNESS:
SHOU (#57)}
#56, {@2: Sup: 32 - LEGION: CHUANG (#89); Ego: 56 - CLOSED MOUTH: CHIN
(#113)}
#49, {@3: Sup: 81 - FOSTERING: YANG (#170); Ego: 49 - FLIGHT: T'AO (#162)}

#58, {@4: Sup: 58 - GATHERING IN: HSI (#228 - I HAVE NO UNJUST
PREFERENCES {%40}); Ego: 58 - GATHERING IN: HSI (#220 - I CURSE NOT A
GOD {%38} / I CURSE NOT A GOD {%38})} <-- ****

#67, {@5: Sup: 44 - STOVE: TSAO (#272); Ego: 67 - DARKENING: HUI (#287)}
#74, {@6: Sup: 37 - PURITY: TS'UI (#309); Ego: 74 - CLOSURE: CHIH (#361)}
#75, {@7: Sup: 31 - PACKING: CHUANG (#340); Ego: 75 - FAILURE: SHIH (#436)} #66, {@8: Sup: 16 - CONTACT: CHIAO (#356); Ego: 66 - DEPARTURE: CH'U (#502)} #65] {@9: Sup: 81 - FOSTERING: YANG (#437); Ego: 65 - INNER: NEI (#567)}

#567 as [#1, #100, #300, #5, #40, #70, #50, #1] = artémōn (G736):
{UMBRA: #1296 % #41 = #25} 1) a top-sail or *FORESAIL* *OF* *A* *SHIP*;

YOUTUBE: "1492 CONQUEST OF PARADISE (VANGELIS)"

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCynyt9z8CQ>

#567 as [#40, #20, #60, #1, #6, #400, #40] = kiççêʼ (H3678): {UMBRA: #81
% #41 = #40} 1) seat (of honour), throne, seat, stool; 1a) seat (of
honour), throne; 1b) *ROYAL* *DIGNITY*, *AUTHORITY*, *POWER* (fig.);

#567 as [#300, #5, #30, #5, #200, #9, #8, #10] = teléō (G5055): {UMBRA:
#1140 % #41 = #33} 1) to bring to a close, to finish, to end; 1a)
passed, finished; 2) to perform, execute, complete, fulfil, (so that the
thing done corresponds to what has been said, the order, command etc.);
2a) with special reference to the subject matter, to carry out the
contents of a command; 2b) *WITH* *REFERENCE* *ALSO* *TO* *THE* *FORM*,
*TO* *DO* *JUST* *AS* *COMMANDED*, *AND* *GENERALLY* *INVOLVING* *THE*
*NOTION* *OF* *TIME*, *TO* *PERFORM* *THE* *LAST* *ACT* *WHICH*
*COMPLETES* *A* *PROCESS*, *TO* *ACCOMPLISH*, *FULFIL*; 3) to pay; 3a)
of tribute;

So whilst we might easily extrapolate the paradigm of action: #365 -
YANG: LUO SHU / #364 - YIN: T'AI HSUAN to domestic violence being
likewise #228 - TRAVESTY as occurring within an optimal state of FUSION
(ie. MARRIAGE), ours is only an INFORMAL RESEARCH proposition and we are
not qualified to make any #491 - AGENCY (ie. which is why they are
established) or ONTIC JURISPRUDENCE statements.



<http://www.grapple369.com/images/Hitler%20Claim%20to%20Science.jpeg>

LUO SHU PROTOTYPE #THREE (#117 / #351)

30    75    12
21    39    57
66    3    48

3
33
90
102
141
207
228 <-- ****
276
351

This is then a hypothetical assumption about this "the BIPOLAR dynamic
of LUO SHU SQUARE / COURSE OF NATURE pairing (ie. #365 - YANG / #364 -
YIN = #729 = 9x9x9 as morphology of being) as adverse state occurs by an artifice impetus of a BIPARTITE HYPOSTASIS fusion..."

The question is on the #231 - JUXTAPOSITION CONTROL within the BIPARTITE HYPOSTASIS and whether such is the holding capacity and the immaterial
elements @1 / @5 is then both impetus and anchor.

From our metalogic assertion: [#9 - vCORAL, #8 - vCYAN, #1 ... #7 -
CAUSALITY] we also make the observation of categories #230 and #297 with
the later the sum for BIPARTITE NUMBER PROTOTYPE #ONE and the COURSE OF
NATURE deploying the same assay method for PROTOTYPE #ONE / #NINE as
claim to JEWISH / CHRISTIAN IDENTITY being SOMETHING SUBSTANTIALLY
DIFFERENT TO THE ECCLESIASTICAL PRECEDENCE CLAIMS MADE BY THE @1 - #297
/ @5 - #333 - VATICAN CITY-STATE

COURSE OF NATURE #ONE

77    78    79
5   6   7
14    15    16

15
92
99
178
184
198
203
219
297 <-- ROMAN PROTOTYPE

[#15, #77, #7, #79, #6, #14, #5, #16, #78]

COURSE OF NATURE #NINE

23    24    25
32    33    34
41    42    43

42
65
99
124
157
198
230 <-- ****
273
297 <-- ROMAN PROTOTYPE

[#42, #23, #34, #25, #33, #41, #32, #43, #24]

The baying for blood "BRING HIM OUT" belongs to the same class of
statement as "CRUCIFY HIM" or "DEATH TO AMERICA" / "DEATH TO ISRAEL".

"EXCEPT IT BE FOR THIS ONE VOICE, THAT I CRIED STANDING AMONG THEM,
TOUCHING THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD I AM CALLED IN QUESTION BY YOU
THIS DAY.

AND WHEN FELIX HEARD THESE THINGS, HAVING MORE PERFECT KNOWLEDGE OF THAT
WAY, HE DEFERRED THEM, AND SAID, WHEN LYSIAS THE CHIEF CAPTAIN SHALL
COME DOWN, I WILL KNOW THE UTTERMOST OF YOUR MATTER." [Acts 24:21-22]

GRAPPLE (367, 230)@[13, 30, 17, 45, 59, 42, 9, 7, 8] PROTOTYPE

<http://www.grapple369.com/Savvy/?date:2024.4.13&time:15.20&heuristic>



[#13 {@1: Sup: 13 - INCREASE: TSENG (#13); Ego: 13 - INCREASE: TSENG (#13)}
#30 {@2: Sup: 43 - ENCOUNTERS: YU (#56); Ego: 30 - BOLD RESOLUTION: YI
(#43)}
#17 {@3: Sup: 60 - ACCUMULATION: CHI (#116); Ego: 17 - HOLDING BACK:
JUAN (#60)}
#45 {@4: Sup: 24 - JOY: LE (#140 - I DEAL NOT FRAUDULENTLY {%14} / I AM
NOT AN EAVES-DROPPER {%16}); Ego: 45 - GREATNESS: TA (#105)}
#59 {@5: Sup: 2 - FULL CIRCLE: CHOU (#142); Ego: 59 - MASSING: CHU (#164)}
#42 {@6: Sup: 44 - STOVE: TSAO (#186 - I AM NOT ONE OF INCONSTANT MIND
{%31} / I AM NOT ONE OF INCONSTANT MIND {%31}); Ego: 42 - GOING TO MEET:
YING (#206)}
#9 {@7: Sup: 53 - ETERNITY: YUNG (#239); Ego: 9 - BRANCHING OUT: SHU
(#215 - I AM NEITHER A LIAR NOR A DOER OF MISCHIEF {%34})}
#7 {@8: Sup: 60 - ACCUMULATION: CHI (#299); Ego: 7 - ASCENT: SHANG (#222
- MALE DEME IS UNNAMED {%12})}
#8] {@9: Sup: 68 - DIMMING: MENG (#367); Ego: 8 - OPPOSITION: KAN (#230)}

TELOS TOTAL: #230
ONTIC CHECKSUM TOTAL: #541
DEME CHECKSUM TOTAL: #408

From the time window of the BONDI MASSACRE vEVENT we determined a
viable prototype {@9: Sup: 68 - DIMMING: MENG (#367); Ego: 8 -
OPPOSITION: KAN (#230)}

#959 - FEME CHECKSUM TOTAL: #230 as [#5, #4, #10, #800, #20, #70, #50] = diṓkō (G1377): {UMBRA: #1634 % #41 = #35} 1) to make to run or flee, put
to flight, drive away; 2) to run swiftly in order to catch a person or
thing, to run after; 2a) to press on: figuratively of one who in a race
runs swiftly to reach the goal; 2b) to pursue (in a hostile manner); 3)
in any way whatever to harass, trouble, molest one; 3a) to persecute;
3b) to be mistreated, suffer persecution on account of something; 4)
without the idea of hostility, to run after, follow after: someone; 5)
metaph., to pursue; 5a) to seek after eagerly, earnestly endeavour to
acquire;

We identified #230 as a likely action / temporal cohesion occurrence and switched from FEME / IDEA to the supernal MALE noumenon redaction:

#880 - MALE CHECKSUM TOTAL: #230 as [#20, #400, #50, #400, #10] =
kᵉthôneth (H3801): {UMBRA: #870 % #41 = #9} 1) tunic, under-garment; 1a)
a long shirt-like garment usually of linen;

#654 - MALE CHECKSUM TOTAL: #230 as [#1, #3, #1, #80, #8, #200, #1, #50,
#300, #10] = agapáō (G25): {UMBRA: #886 % #41 = #25} 1) of persons; 1a)
to welcome, to entertain, to be fond of, to love dearly; 2) of things;
2a) to be well pleased, to be contented at or with a thing;

Which gave viable meta-logical pairings:

Male: #230; Feme: #232
Male: #230; Feme: #249

Male: #237; Feme: #228

42 16 65
64 41 18
17 66 40

66
108
126
191
232
249

44 4 60
52 36 20
12 68 28

68
112
132
192
228

H3801@{
  {@1: Sup: 20 - ADVANCE: CHIN (#20); Ego: 20 - ADVANCE: CHIN (#20)},
  {@2: Sup: 15 - REACH: TA (#35); Ego: 76 - AGGRAVATION: CHU (#96 -
MALE DEME IS UNNAMED {%33})},
  {@3: Sup: 65 - INNER: NEI (#100 - MALE DEME IS UNNAMED {%3}); Ego: 50
- VASTNESS / WASTING: T'ANG (#146 - I AM NOT A LAND-GRABBER {%15})},
  {@4: Sup: 71 - STOPPAGE: CHIH (#171 - I AM NOT UNCHASTE WITH ANY ONE {%20}); Ego: 6 - CONTRARIETY: LI (#152)},
  {@5: Sup: 66 - DEPARTURE: CH'U (#237 - MALE DEME IS UNNAMED {%17});
Ego: 76 - AGGRAVATION: CHU (#228 - I HAVE NO UNJUST PREFERENCES {%40})}, 
  Male: #237; Feme: #228
} // #876

Thus upon that premise, I concluded the notions [#230, #232, #249] may
provide a suitable workable IDEA dialectic as conjectural motive
occasioning the need to mediate #237 - USE OF FORCE associated with the BIPARTITE PROTOTYPE #228 - WITNESSING TRAVESTY AS REPROACH ...

Also I was aware #232 - knife

#230 as [#20, #8, #200, #2] / [#8, #200, #2, #20] /
#232 as [#2, #8, #200, #2, #20] = chereb (H2719): {UMBRA: #210 % #41 =
#5} 1) sword, knife; 1a) sword; 1b) knife; 1c) tools for cutting stone;

As being entirely congruous notions and consistent with past informal
research interests

But there is a need to be mindful where the #237 is itself a LIMIT as a
DEME boundary (ie. excluding for the moment either its usage by
selection or aggregated extension) such that the #237 - USE OF FORCE
associated with the ONTIC boundary and BIPARTITE PROTOTYPE #228 -
WITNESSING TRAVESTY AS REPROACH is entirely a systemic product of ONTIC
moral proscription abandonment for rightful action and a steeping effect
of the prototype artifice itself, such that water finds its own course
which is here biased by conformity with the patterning imposed by the immaterial elements @1 / @5 as then a fixed mindset which cannot change?

Secondly as a conception of ENTENTIONAL whether the expression of a
notion within the PARAGRAPH meets the criteria of pertaining to
entention or to objects that have entention as an attribute. Ententional phenomena are teleological – the class of phenomena constituted by their relation to something absent, e.g. function, purpose, value...

To illustrate this point, if we apply a memeBrain parsing to the first
two paragraphs within our "CASE STUDY ON PSYCHOSOMATIC PHENOMENON BY
TEMPORAL ASSOCIATIVE CAPACITY TO INTUIT NEURAL LINGUISTIC PRAGMA AS
MENTAL DESCRIPTION" which relates to "the philosophical notion of
psychosomatic phenomenon [which] is predominantly understood in terms of

[continued in next message]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)