XPost: soc.culture.pacific-island, alt.culture.african, alt.fan.countries.ghana XPost: alt.politics.africa

-- WHAT IS BREXT?

(c) 2019 Dolf Leendert Boek, Revision: 9 March, 2019

Nous: #24
Time: 23:15 hrs
Date: 2019.3.9
Torah: [#10, #2, #40]@{
@1: Sup: 10 (#10); Ego: 10 (#10),
@2: Sup: 12 (#22); Ego: 2 (#12),
@3: Sup: 52 (#74); Ego: 40 (#52),
Male: #74; Feme: #52
} // #52

Dao: Important Distinctions, Trouble from Indulgence
Tetra: #18 - Waiting
I-Ching: H5 - Waiting, Delay, Attending, Waiting, Moistened, Arriving

Latin: Operator {Word which produces all things} Alt: Eriel
{Watchfulness of God} {

1. GENERATION OF BEINGS & PHILOSOPHICAL KNOWLEDGE
2. PROTECTS & REGENERATES, LEADS TO INNER HARMONY
3. PHENOMENA OF NATURE
4. Thopibui
}

Solar Eclipse: 9 March 1997 (AEST) / Solar Eclipse: 3 November 2013 (AEST)

Prototype: *HOMOIOS* {#250 / #354} / HETEROS {#280 / #369} / TORAH {#280
/ #369}

<http://www.grapple369.com?zen:4,row:9,col:8,nous:24&idea:{m,150}&idea:{f,198}&idea:{m,250}&idea:{f,354}&PROTOTYPE:HOMOIOS>

.jackNote@zen: 4, row: 9, col: 8, nous: 24 [Date: 2019.3.9, Time: 23:15
hrs, Super: #250 / #36 - Natural Reversals, 'Secret' Explanation;
I-Ching: H4 - Juvenile Ignorance, Youthful Inexperience, Enveloping, The
young shoot, Discovering; Tetra: 12 - Youthfulness, Ego: #354 / #24 -
Important Distinctions, Trouble from Indulgence; I-Ching: H5 - Waiting,
Delay, Attending, Waiting, Moistened, Arriving; Tetra: 18 - Waiting]

We have a busy time today doing something that I rarely do upon the #364
- Sabbath day and that is working on document preparation which plans
the demise of others as it seems to be a #312 - contradiction and so we
need some #273 - syncretistic mechanism to facilitate a favourable outcome.

And do that I thought to consider (this is a spontaneous comment and
subject to revision) the question on WHAT IS BREXIT?

IS IT REALITY?
OR AN *OBJECT* OF REALITY?
ONLY A CHIMERA OR MIRROR OF REALITY?
OUR IMPETUS AS *OBJECTIVE* FOR REALITY?

Europeans would readily agree that such four corners of dialectics
whether GEORG HEGEL’s @1 - Thesis; @2 - Anti-thesis; @3 - Synthesis; @4
- Progression or KARL MARX’s @1 - Progression; @2 - Synthesis; @3 - Anti-thesis; @4 - Thesis that there is no end of idealism or argument
and which may lead to disastrous consequences with the world being
turned upside down.

[B, {@1: Sup: 2 (#2); Ego: 2 (#2)},
R, {@2: Sup: 11 (#13); Ego: 9 (#11)},
E, {@3: Sup: 16 (#29); Ego: 5 (#16)},
X, {@4: Sup: 49 (#78); Ego: 33 (#49)},
I, {@5: Sup: 58 (#136); Ego: 9 (#58)},
T] {@6: Sup: 15 (#151: SEE TRANSITION POINT AS IDEA: @A149 WITHIN
IMMANUEL KANT’S PROLEGOMENA); Ego: 38 (#96)}

YOUTUBE: "The Master and Insanity (Doctor Who)

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0RvDZFN71A>

IMMANUEL KANT’S PROLEGOMENA (1783) THE TRANSCENDENTAL DOCTRINE OF THE
POWER OF JUDGMENT (OR ANALYTIC OF PRINCIPLES) SECOND CHAPTER ON SYSTEM
OF ALL PRINCIPLES OF THE PURE UNDERSTANDING: “[IDEAS: @A148 / @B187] In
the previous chapter we have considered the transcendental power of
judgment according only to the general conditions under which alone is
entitled to use the pure concepts of the understanding for synthetic
judgments. Our task now is to exhibit, in systematic connection, the
judgments that the understanding actually achieves a priori under this
critical provision, in which our table of categories must, without
doubt, give us natural and sure guidance. For the relation of these
categories to possible experience is exactly that which must constitute
all pure a priori cognition of the understanding, and for that reason
their relation to sensibility in general will exhibit, completely and
[IDEA: @B188] in a system, all the transcendental principles for the use
of the understanding.

A priori principles bear this name not only because they contain in
themselves the grounds for other judgments, but also because they are
not themselves grounded in higher and more general cognitions. This
[IDEA: @A149] property does not, however, exempt them from all proof.

For although such a *PRINCIPLE* *CANNOT* *BE* *TAKEN* *FURTHER*
*OBJECTIVELY*, but underlies all cognition of its *OBJECT*, this does
not at all prevent its being possible or even necessary to create a
proof from the *SUBJECTIVE* *SOURCES* *OF* *THE* *POSSIBILITY* *OF* *A* *COGNITION* *OF* *AN* *OBJECT* *IN* *GENERAL*, for otherwise the
proposition would, for all that, carry the highest suspicion of being a
purely fraudulent assertion.

Second, we will limit ourselves merely to those principles that relate
to the categories. The principles of the Transcendental Aesthetic,
according to which space and time are the conditions of the possibility
of all things as appearances, together with the restriction of these
principles – namely, that they cannot be related to things in themselves
– thus do not belong to the field of investigation we’ve picked out.

Equally, mathematical principles do not make up any part of this system,
since they are drawn only from intuition and not from the pure concepts
of the understanding; nonetheless, the possibility of such principles,
[IDEA: @B189] since they are still synthetic a priori judgments, will necessarily find a place here, not indeed in order to prove their
correctness and apodeictic {ie. *CLEARLY* *ESTABLISHED* *BEYOND*
*DISPUTE*} certainty, of which they have no need at all, but only to
make comprehensible, and to deduce, the possibility of such evident
cognitions a priori.” [pages 177 to 178]

STATES OF EUROPEAN UNION
#1 - Principle of Enquiry;
#2 - Principle of Contradiction;
#3 - Principle of Syncretic Progression;
#4 - Principle of Materiality
#5 - Discriminating Norm {Principle of Enquiry}
#6 - Obligating Norm {Principle of Contradiction}: Binomial stasis
nomenclature
#7 - Manifesting Norm {Principle of Syncretic Progression}

FUNCTION OF EUROPEAN UNION
#8 - Transformational Principle {Transforming Nature / #5 - Act of Nature}
#9 - Ontological Principle {Autonomous Nature / #6 - Form of Nature}

*OBJECTIVE* OF EUROPEAN UNION
#10 - Sovereign Principle {Totality of Nature / #7 - Engendering Nature}

So firstly we need to consider what is reality?

And the answer which I would consider is that it is constituted by a metastasised characteristic of identity or persona.

Whereas a ring on one’s finger is an *OBJECT* of reality.

How is such stasis of reality achieved as CONCORDIA?

BINOMIAL APPARATUS:
@1 <--- INNER MAIDEN / MARRIAGEABLE MAIDEN {#64 = 8 x 8 as #260 MAGIC SUM}
@5 <--- ANCHOR {PRINCIPLE OF MATERIALITY PROTOTYPE}
#65 - *SOLDIER* {@1 RETENTION + #64 ELEMENTS}
#175 - *MARRIAGE*

G4074@{
   @1: Sup: 80 (#80); Ego: 80 (#80),
   @2: Sup: 4 (#84 - I AM NOT A MAN OF VIOLENCE {%2}); Ego: 5 (#85),
   @3: Sup: 61 (#145); Ego: 57 (#142),
   @4: Sup: 80 (#225); Ego: 19 (#161 - I AM NOT A TELLER OF LIES {%9}),
   @5: Sup: 4 (#229); Ego: 5 (#166 - I AM NOT SLUGGISH {%11}),
   Male: #229; Feme: #166
} // #490 + @1 AS *CARDINAL* *PRINCIPLE* *OF* *RETENTION* = #491

T'AI HSÜAN CHING {POLAR OPPOSITIONS / INTERPLAY OF OPPOSITES} [4 BCE]:

UMBRA: #755 % #41 = #17 - Politics; I-Ching: H54 - Marriageable
Maid/Maiden, Converting the Maiden; Tetra: 65 - Inner;

THOTH MEASURE: #17 - Oh Aati, who makest thine appearance at Annu; I am
not one of prating tongue.

    #VIRTUE: With Holding Back (no. #17), to have fears.
    #TOOLS: Guardedness (no. #57) means to be impregnable.
    #POSITION: With Compliance (no. #77), orders upheld, but
    #TIME: With Contrariety (no. #6), mutual opposition.
    #CANON: #157

ONTIC_OBLIGANS_157@{
   @1: Sup: 17 (#17); Ego: 17 (#17),
   @2: Sup: 74 (#91); Ego: 57 (#74),
   @3: Sup: 70 (#161 - I AM NOT A TELLER OF LIES {%9}); Ego: 77 (#151),
   @4: Sup: 76 (#237); Ego: 6 (#157 - I AM NOT ONE OF PRATING TONGUE
{%17} / I HAVE NO STRONG DESIRE EXCEPT FOR MY OWN PROPERTY {%41}),
   Male: #237; Feme: #157
} // #157

#490 as [#80, #5, #300, #100, #5] = Petros (G4074): {UMBRA: #16 as #755
% #41 = #17} 1) one of the twelve disciples of Jesus;

"AND I SAY ALSO UNTO THEE, THAT THOU ART PETER {#490 as [#80, #5, #300,
#100, #5] = Petros (G4074): Peter}, AND UPON THIS ROCK I WILL BUILD MY
CHURCH; AND THE *GATES* {

@1 - #33 [#1 {#99 / #297 - ANKH / ROMAN} / #6 {#123 / #369 - TORAH & 114
/ #342 - ANKH / ROMAN} - *SHARE* *THE* *SAME* *ANCESTOR*]
@5 - #77 [#5 {#111 / #333 - ANKH / ROMAN} / #5 {#114 / #342 - TORAH} - *PROTECT* *EACH* *OTHER* {Latin: CANONICUS ‘according to rule’}]

= #100 - *WHAT* *IS* *TRUTH*? AS THE ESTABLISHING OF A #231 -
JUXTAPOSITION CONTROL

#473 as [#40, #400, #1, #2, #30] = 'abal (H56): {UMBRA: #0 as #33 % #41
= #33} 1) to mourn, lament; 1a) (Qal) to mourn, lament; 1a1) of humans;
1a2) of inanimate objects (fig.); 1a2a) of *GATES*; 1a2b) of land; 1b) (Hiphil); 1b1) to mourn, cause to mourn (fig.); 1c) (Hithpael); 1c1) to
mourn; 1c2) play the mourner;

#473 as [#20, #3, #50, #400] = gannah (H1593): {UMBRA: #1 as #58 -
Political Reversal, Adaptation to Change; I-Ching: H43 - Resolution, Displacement, Parting, Break-through; Tetra: 29 - Decisiveness % #41 =
#17} 1) garden, orchard;

#473 as [#6, #400, #7, #2, #8, #10, #40] = zabach (H2076): {UMBRA: #2 as
#17 % #41 = #17} 1) to slaughter, kill, sacrifice, slaughter for
sacrifice; 1a) (Qal); 1a1) to slaughter for sacrifice; 1a2) to slaughter
for eating; 1a3) to slaughter in divine judgment; 1b) (Piel) to
sacrifice, offer sacrifice;

} OF HELL SHALL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST IT." [Matthew 16:18 (KJV)]

TRINOMIAL APPARATUS:
@1 <— #492 - VOLUNTARY FREEWILL {#369 - DISCRIMINATING NORM / #123 - JUDGMENT SENSIBILITY (3x3 - CENTRE INTERLOCK)}
@5 <— #205 - PRINCIPLE OF PERSISTENT SUBSTANCE {#873 - PROBITY OF THE
DIGNITY ROYAL}
@491 <— #491 - PRINCIPLE OF CONTINUITY
@164 <— #3273 - PRINCIPLE OF MATERIALITY

@123 - JUDGMENT SENSIBILITY AS #2188 - AUTONOMOUS PRINCIPLE OF COHESION
(#273 - SYNCRETIC PROGRESSION)

THUSLY: 3 x 1091 + @1 (1) - HOMOGENEOUS + @2 (1) - HETEROGENEOUS + @3
(1) - TORAH = 3 x #1092 IS STILL IN HARMONY / EQUILIBRIUM WITH THE #2184
- ANTHROPOCENTRIC COSMOGONIC PRINCIPLE AS CONSTITUTION OF STATE / PROVINCE

1) DEMIURGE OF NATURE {4 x #364 + #371 = #1827}

@1 - FASCIST MOVEMENT IS A SPONTANEOUS RETURN TO THE TRADITIONS OF
ANCIENT ROME [ADOLF HITLER'S TABLE TALK IDEA: @1 ON SATURDAY 5 JULY 1941]

@5 - ROMAN EMPIRE GREAT POLITICAL CREATION OF STATE [ADOLF HITLER'S
TABLE TALK IDEA: @5 ON 21-22 JULY 1941]

H3632@{
   @1: Sup: 20 (#20); Ego: 20 (#20),
   @2: Sup: 50 (#70); Ego: 30 (#50),
   @3: Sup: 60 (#130 - I AM NOT EVIL MINDED {%3}); Ego: 10 (#60),
   @4: Sup: 9 (#139 - I HAVE NOT SLAUGHTERED THE SACRED ANIMALS {%13}); Ego: 30 (#90),
   @5: Sup: 4 (#143); Ego: 76 (#166 - I AM NOT SLUGGISH {%11}),
   Male: #143; Feme: #166
} // #490 + @1 AS *CARDINAL* *PRINCIPLE* *OF* *RETENTION* = #491

T'AI HSÜAN CHING {POLAR OPPOSITIONS / INTERPLAY OF OPPOSITES} [4 BCE]:

UMBRA: #90 % #41 = #8 - Worth of Water, Easy By Nature; I-Ching: H48 -
The Well, Welling; Tetra: 40 - Law/Model;

THOTH MEASURE: #8 - Oh thou of fiery face, whose motion is backwards; I
am not a robber of sacred property.

    #VIRTUE: Opposition (no. #8) means recklessness.
    #TOOLS: Ritual (no. #48) means squareness the correspondence
between word and deed.
    #POSITION: With Departure (no. #66), leaving the old, but
    #TIME: With On the Verge (no. #78), coming to a new start.
    #CANON: #200

ONTIC_OBLIGANS_200@{
   @1: Sup: 8 (#8); Ego: 8 (#8),
   @2: Sup: 56 (#64); Ego: 48 (#56),
   @3: Sup: 41 (#105); Ego: 66 (#122),
   @4: Sup: 38 (#143); Ego: 78 (#200 - I AM NOT A ROBBER OF SACRED
PROPERTY {%8}),
   Male: #143; Feme: #200
} // #200

#490 as [#20, #30, #10, #30, #400] = kaliyl (H3632): {UMBRA: #3 as #90 %
#41 = #8} 1) entire, all, perfect adv; 2) entirety subst; 3) whole,
whole burnt offering, *HOLOCAUST*, entirety;

"THEY SHALL TEACH JACOB THY JUDGMENTS, AND ISRAEL THY LAW: THEY SHALL
PUT INCENSE BEFORE THEE, AND WHOLE {#490 as [#20, #30, #10, #30, #400] =
kaliyl (H3632): perfect} BURNT {#490 as [#20, #30, #10, #30, #400] =
kaliyl (H3632): perfect} SACRIFICE UPON THINE ALTAR." [Deuteronomy 33:10
(KJV)]

#65 - *SOLDIER* (MARS: PRIAPUS / PHALLUS)

#1827 = 4 x #364 + #371 - ROMAN CATHOLIC LITURGICAL CALENDAR 2ND VATICAN COUNCIL / SAINT ANDREWS #371 - 30 NOVEMBER CAUSE CÉLÈBRE FIVE YEAR CYCLE

#175 - *MARRIAGE* (VENUS: HYMENIALISM)

#1827 = [#5, #400, #600, #1, #100, #10, #200, #300, #10, #1, #200]
eucharistia / ευχαριστιας (G2169): 1) Thanksgiving; 2) *EUCHARIST*; 3)
*TARGETED* *SINCE* *REFUSAL* *OF* *COMMUNION* upon PENTECOST SUNDAY 31
MAY 1998 AND 11 JUNE 2000.

2) COURSE-trochos OF NATURE-genesis {6 x #364 = #2184 as ANTHROPOCENTRIC COSMOGONIC PRINCIPLE}

@1 {#451 - INCEPTION} +
@2 {#41 - AN ETHICAL / MORAL PRESCRIPTION “HAS TO CARRY ABSOLUTE [#41 - *ONTIC* X n] NECESSITY WITH IT” WHICH IMPLIES A TRINOMIAL WORLDVIEW} EQUALS

@3 {#492 - VOLUNTARY FREE WILL IN THE EXERCISE OF THE INTELLECTUS AS
GENITIVE VOLUNTĀTIS: #205 - *PRINCIPLE* *OF* *THE* *PERSISTENCE* *OF* *SUBSTANCE* ☯️ / ✡️ #164 - *PRINCIPLE* *OF* *MATERIALITY* = #369} +

@4 {#123 - JUDGEMENT SENSIBILITY} EQUALS

@10 {#615 - TO PRONOUNCE JUDGMENT AND TO SUBJECT TO PROCEDURES / #41 =
#15 {#113 as [#6, #5, #2, #50, #10, #600] = ben (H1121): {UMBRA: #6 as
#113 % #41 = #31} 1) *A* *MEMBER* *OF* *A* *GUILD*, *ORDER*, *CLASS*}}

THUS THE MECHANICS OF BREXIT IS ENTIRELY METEMPIRICAL AS ONTIC PROCESS {

@492 - VOLUNTARY FREEWILL {@369 / @123 (#3 x #3 - CENTRE INTERLOCK)}
@205 / #873
@82 / #491
@164 / #3273
@123 / #2188

@41 / #113 - EMANATION FUNCTION

} IS ENTIRELY MATHEMATICAL AND PERSISTENT AS WRITTEN AGREEMENT WHICH IN
MY HUMBLE OPINION IT IS THEREBY A ROBUST AND VITAL IMPETUS FOR THE
EUROPEAN UNION ACHIEVING THE REALITY AS SAPIENT ECONOMY.

IMMANUEL KANT’S PROLEGOMENA (1783) SECOND SECTION OF THE HIGHEST
PRINCIPLE OF ALL SYNTHETIC JUDGMENTS AS IDEA @A157: “OF THE SYSTEM OF PRINCIPLES OF THE PURE UNDERSTANDING [IDEAS: @A154 / @B193] It is
therefore given: that if one must go outside a given concept to compare
[IDEAS: @A155 / @B194] it synthetically with another, then a third thing
is needed, in which alone the synthesis of two concepts can originate.
But what is then this third thing, the medium of all synthetic
judgments? . . .

If a cognition is to have *OBJECTIVE* *REALITY*, i.e., if it is to
relate to an *OBJECT* and to have significance and sense in that
*OBJECT*, then the *OBJECT* must be able to be given in some way.

Without this, concepts are empty, and though one has indeed thought with
them, one has in fact cognized [IDEA: @196] nothing through this
thinking, but has merely played with representations.

To give an *OBJECT* – if this is not to mean giving it again only
mediately, [IDEA: @A156] but exhibiting it immediately in intuition – is nothing other than to relate a representation of it to experience
(whether actual or indeed possible). Even space and time, as pure as
these concepts are of everything empirical, and as certain as it is also
that they are represented fully a priori in the mind, would nonetheless
be without *OBJECTIVE* *VALIDITY* and without sense and significance, if
their necessary use were not directed upon the *OBJECTS* *OF*
*EXPERIENCE* – indeed, their representation is a mere schema that is
always related to the reproductive imagination, which calls forth the
*OBJECTS* *OF* *EXPERIENCE* without which they would have no
significance; and thus it is with all concepts, without distinction.

The possibility of experience is then what gives *OBJECTIVE* *REALITY*
to all our a priori cognitions. Now experience rests on the synthetic
unity of the appearances, i.e., on a synthesis according to *CONCEPTS*
*OF* *AN* *OBJECT* *OF* *APPEARANCES* *IN* *GENERAL*, without which it
would not even be cognition, but a rhapsody of perceptions, which in no
context would agree together according to the rules of a thoroughly
connected (possible) consciousness, hence also not for the
transcendental and necessary unity of apperception.

Experience therefore has principles of its form underlying it a priori,
[IDEA: @B196] namely universal rules of unity in the synthesis of the appearances, whose [IDEA: @A157] *OBJECTIVE* *REALITY* as necessary
{#287 - STATES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION} conditions can always be pointed
to in experience, indeed, even in its possibility. Outside this
relation, however, synthetic a priori propositions are completely
impossible, since they have no third thing, namely, no pure *OBJECT*,
upon which the synthetic unity of their concepts could establish
*OBJECTIVE* *REALITY*.

Although we cognize a priori in synthetic judgments so much about space
in general, or the figures that the reproductive imagination inscribes
in it, that we actually require no experience thereto at all;
nonetheless, this cognition would amount to nothing but preoccupation
with a mere brain phantom, were it not that space is to be regarded as a condition of the appearances that constitute the stuff of outer
experience; in consequence, these pure synthetic judgments relate
(albeit only mediately) to possible experience, or rather to the
*POSSIBILITY* *OF* *EXPERIENCE* *ITSELF*, *AND* *GROUND* *THE*
*OBJECTIVE* *VALIDITY* *OF* *THEIR* *SYNTHESIS* upon that alone.

Since then experience, as empirical synthesis, is in its possibility the
single type of cognition that gives reality to every other synthesis, as
a [IDEA: @B197] priori cognition the other synthesis also has truth (*AGREEMENT* *WITH* *AN* [IDEA: @A158] *OBJECT*) only in that it
contains nothing more than what is necessary for the synthetic unity of experience in general.

The highest principle of all synthetic judgments is then: *EVERY*
*OBJECT* *FALLS* *UNDER* *THE* *NECESSARY* *CONDITIONS* *OF* *THE*
*SYNTHETIC* *UNITY* *OF* *THE* *MANIFOLD* *OF* *INTUITION* *IN* *A*
*POSSIBLE* *EXPERIENCE*. Synthetic a priori judgments are possible in
this way: if we relate the formal conditions of a priori intuition, the synthesis of the imagination, and its necessary unity in a
transcendental apperception to a possible cognition of experience in
general and say: the conditions of the possibility of experience in
general are at the same time the conditions of the possibility of the
*OBJECTS* *OF* *EXPERIENCE*, AND FOR THAT REASON HAVE *OBJECTIVE*
*VALIDITY* in a synthetic judgment a priori. [pages 179 to 180]

CAVEAT: Ignore any grammatical errors, as it was 0500 hours when I began writing this in bed and just after 0720 hours when I initially sent it.
Once again I am only proffering an informal opinion from my causal
infatuation as metaphysical faculty of endeavour and as such I am
entirely reliant upon the sapient expertise of others to provision its potential utility and material merits.

- dolf

The various PDF resources being essays as work in progress notations for
the prospect of producing a viable syncretism with Immanuel Kant's
Ground Work for the Metaphysics of Morals are now available within the directory:

<http://www.grapple369.com/Groundwork/>

Initial Post: 9 March 2019

SUBJECT WAS: WHETHER A HABIT IS GOOD OR BAD, TIME NOURISHES IT

On 9/3/19 6:39 am, fool for Christ wrote:> "Whether a habit is good or
bad, time nourishes it, just as wood feeds a

fire. Thus, so far as we can, we should cultivate and practice what is
good, so that it becomes an established habit operating automatically and effortlessly when required. It was through victories in small things that
the fathers won their great battles."

St. Peter of Damaskos.

"A perverse man sows strife, And a whisperer separates the best of
friends." Proverbs 16:28

Draw nigh unto God and He will draw nigh unto you.

--


YOUTUBE: "The Meerkat Circus"

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-7OuqWi4vQ>

SEE ALSO AS RELATIONSHIP: *INVALIDATING* {Perennial philosophy (HETEROS
{#390 - ROBBERS} v’s HOMOIOS {#391 - STEWARDS OF GOD’S HOUSE} THEORY OF NUMBER) as universal of right and wrong...} *THE* *ORTHODOX* *AND*
*ROMAN* *CATHOLIC* *CHURCH'S* *CLAIM* {#390 as 1, #100, #80, #1, #3, #5,
#200 as harpax (G727): {#11 as #242} 1) rapacious, ravenous; 2) a
extortioner, a robber} *TO* *JUBILEE2000* *AS* *BEING* *DELUSIONAL*
*AND* *FRAUDULENT*

Private Street on the edge of the Central Business District dated 16th
May, 2000 - This report is prepared in response to a TP00/55 as a Notice
of an Application for Planning Permit

<http://www.grapple369.com/jubilee2000.html>

SEE ALSO: HYPOSTASIS AS DAO OF NATURE (Chinese: ZIRAN) / COURSE (Greek: TROCHOS) OF NATURE (Greek: GENESIS) [James 3:6]

Chinese HAN Dynasty (206 BCE - 220CE) Hexagon Trigrams to Tetragram
assignments proposed by Yang Hsiung (53BCE - 18CE) which by 4BCE
(translation published within English as first European language in
1993), first appeared in draft form as a meta-thesis titled T'AI HSUAN
CHING {ie. Canon of Supreme Mystery} on Natural Divination associated
with the theory of number, annual seasonal chronology and astrology
reliant upon the seven visible planets as cosmological mother image and
the zodiac.

It shows the ZIRAN as the DAO of NATURE / COURSE-trochos OF
NATURE-genesis [James 3:6] as HYPOSTATIS comprising #81 trinomial tetragrammaton x 4.5 day = #364.5 day / year as HOMOIOS THEORY OF NUMBER
which is an amalgam of the 64 hexagrams as binomial trigrams / 81 as
trinomial tetragrammaton rather than its encapsulated contrived use as
the microcosm to redefine the macrocosm as the quintessence of the
Pythagorean [Babylonian] as binomial canon of transposition as HETEROS
THEORY OF NUMBER.

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

The Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities No. 43 of Act 2006
defines a "PERSON MEANS A HUMAN BEING” and the question is, if it is permissible to extend this definition to be a "PERSON MEANS A HUMAN
BEING AS A CONSCIOUS REALITY OF HOMO[iOS] SAPIEN[T] WHO IS INSTANTIATED
WITHIN THE TEMPORAL REALITY AS THEN THE CAUSE FOR REASONING AND
RATIONALITY."

That my mathematical theoretical noumenon defines the meta-descriptor prototypes which are prerequisite to the BEING of HOMO[iOS] SAPIEN[T] as EXISTENCE / *OUSIA*.

<http://www.grapple369.com/Grapple.zip> (Download resources)

After all the ENNEAD of THOTH and not the Roman Catholic Eucharist,
expresses an Anthropic Cosmological Principle which appears within its geometric conception as being equivalent to the Pythagorean
TETRAD/TETRACTYS.

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