XPost: aus.politics, uk.legal, aus.legal
XPost: alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic

On 13/6/21 11:56, Fran <f2r2a3@loonynutters.com> wrote:

On 12/06/2021 8:53 pm, Daniel65 wrote:

Fran wrote on 30/5/21 6:47 pm:

-- MOTHERS, SONS, #291 - SOIL AND 1934 AS THE YEAR OF THE REICH BEING
RECURRENT THEMES WITHIN IRISH MYTHS OF ANZACS

Gee Whiz!! Does Dolf really expect us to believe (the real) Fran would
post over 800 lines of gibberish in reply to her twenty-one line post!!

:-)))

-- MEETING THE NEED BY #491 - AGENCY FOR DISJUNCTIVE PROPOSITION PROBLEM RESOLUTION AS PROOF OF CONCEPT FOR IDEA TRANSMUTATION (AUGMENTATION / AMELIORATION) FOR ANY #81 - UNIVERSE OF DISCOURSE BEING #54 - UNITY OF APPERCEPTION
(c) 2021 Dolf Leendert Boek, Revision: 8 June, 2021

This is the proof of concept in meeting the need by #491 - AGENCY for *DISJUNCTIVE* proposition problem resolution by creating a metalogic
SCENARIO which demonstrates our Case Study as "fire evacuee" -->
"something terrible happened" change dynamic to the static autonomous
delimiter being a real world example diligently obtained from an
Internet based testimony during the Gippsland East bush fires last of
December 2019

<https://www.grapple369.com/?scenario>

IMMANUEL KANT'S (1783) PROLEGOMENA WITHIN SECTION #43 - ABSOLUTE
NEGATION, IT'S UNIVERSAL APPLICATION; I-CHING: H50 - THE CAULDRON,
HOLDING; TETRA: 44 - STOVE (TSAO) ON IDEA @330 - OUR USAGE OF TEMPORAL HRUMACHIS (vCYAN / vCORAL) AS ENTELECHY AND HEURISTIC FOR RESOLUTE
DUNAMIS: The formal distinction of syllogisms {ie. EXHIBITING A SYNERGY
AS #5 - HARMONY BETWEEN THE TWO *TRINOMINAL* YIN / YANG META-LOGIC CONTEXTS:

YIN SYNCRETIC (AMALGAM)

AND

YANG NATURE (EGO)} necessitates their division into categorical,
hypothetical, and *DISJUNCTIVE*. Therefore the concepts of reason based thereupon contain first, the idea of the complete subject (the
substantial), second, the idea of the complete series of conditions, and
third, the determination of all concepts in the idea of a complete sum
total of the possible.

In *DISJUNCTIVE* judgments we consider all possibility as divided with
respect to a certain concept.
THAT WE MIGHT VIEW A *CATASTROPHIC* *EVENT* AS KNOWN SCENARIO IN TERMS
OF A *DISJUNCTIVE* PROPOSITION?

YANG SUPERNAL (NURTURE)
A BUSH FIRE EVENT

(?)
|

(?) <-- PROBLEM RESOLUTION --> (?)

|
(?)

YIN EGO (NATURE)
OUR REALITY

Thusly the PROBLEM RESOLUTION INVOLVES A PROBABILITY IN VARYING THE
SUPERNAL (IT'S ATTENUATION) UNTIL IT REACHES ITS PROPER NATURE / NURTURE PAIRING STASIS ...

<https://www.grapple369.com/Case%20Studies/FIRE%20EVACUEE-20191230-2313-HRS.json>

The ontological principle of the thorough going determination of a thing
in general (out of all possible opposing predicates, each thing is
attributed one or the other), which is at the same time the principle of
all *DISJUNCTIVE* judgments, founds itself upon the sum total of all possibility, in which the possibility of each thing in general is taken
to be determinable. The following helps provide a small elucidation of
the above proposition: That the act of reason in *DISJUNCTIVE*
syllogisms is the same in form with that by which reason achieves the
idea of a sum total of all reality, which contains in itself the
positive members of all opposing predicates.

*THE* *FIRST* *IDEA* *WAS* *PSYCHOLOGICAL*, *THE* *SECOND*
*COSMOLOGICAL*, *THE* *THIRD* *THEOLOGICAL*; *AND* *SINCE* *ALL* *THREE*
*GIVE* *RISE* *TO* *A* *DIALECTIC*, but each in its own way, all this
provided the basis for dividing the entire dialectic of pure reason into
the paralogism, the antinomy, and finally the ideal of pure reason –
through which derivation it is rendered completely certain that all
claims of pure reason are represented here in full, and not one can be
missing, since the faculty of reason itself, whence they all originate,
is thereby fully surveyed." [CAMBRIDGE TEXTS IN THE HISTORY OF
PHILOSOPHY, Kant's Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, IDEA: @330,
pages 82-83]

SUCH DOES NOT PRESUPPOSE THAT either the SUPERNAL (NURTURE) of the
problem or the EGO (NATURE) (@1 - SELF + #491 - AGENCY) as then the anthropocentric impetus for the #421 - CAUSE OF REASON (ie. FACILITATORS
/ ARBITRATORS TO #492 - VOLUNTARY FREEWILL AND #75 - FAILURE (SHIH) DETERMINATION) are absent of logical cohesion as coherence expressed by
the entirety of the syllogism being then actionable by tasks of #27 -
DUTIES.

But that by the apparatus as to the SUPERNAL (NURTURE) of the
catastrophe having a juxtaposition (or supposition as hypothetical)
against the EGO (NATURE) of the anthropology, we then have a logical
means to convey the nature of the problem as a differentiated logical proposition.

Our starting point would be:

1) Catastrophe Theory

2) Bifurcation Theory

3) Chaos theory

The branch of mathematics dealing with *DYNAMICAL* systems which can
undergo abrupt irreversible qualitative changes due to a tiny change in parameters.

From Ancient Greek καταστροφή (katastrophḗ), from καταστρέφω
(katastréphō, “I overturn”), from κατά (katá, “down, against”) + στρέφω
(stréphō, “I turn”)...

That our embryonic conceptions of such a reality more properly belongs
within those faculties of knowledge...

Nevertheless given [JAMES 3:4-6] comment on the COURSE-trochos of NATURE-genesis:

#665 as [#40, #5, #300, #1, #3, #5, #300, #1, #10] = metágō (G3329):
{UMBRA: #1149 % #41 = #1} 1) to transfer, lead over; 2) to direct;

It thereby suggests a TRINOMIAL concept which is derived by the notion ᾰ̓́γω (ágō): To weigh down a scale by a certain amount, to have a certain
weight

HAS AN ONTIC_OBLIGANS_45@{
   @1: Sup: 1 - CENTRE: CHUNG (#1); Ego: 1 - CENTRE: CHUNG (#1),
   @2: Sup: 2 - FULL CIRCLE: CHOU (#3); Ego: 1 - CENTRE: CHUNG (#2),
   @3: Sup: 43 - ENCOUNTERS: YU (#46); Ego: 41 - RESPONSE: YING (#43),
   @4: Sup: 45 - GREATNESS: TA (#91); Ego: 2 - FULL CIRCLE: CHOU (#45 -
I AM NOT A DOER OF WRONG {%1}),
   Male: #91; Feme: #45
} // #45

G3329@{
   @1: Sup: 40 - LAW/MODEL: FA (#40); Ego: 40 - LAW/MODEL: FA (#40),
   @2: Sup: 45 - GREATNESS: TA (#85); Ego: 5 - KEEPING SMALL: SHAO (#45
- I AM NOT A DOER OF WRONG {%1}),
   @3: Sup: 21 - RELEASE: SHIH (#106); Ego: 57 - GUARDEDNESS: SHOU
(#102 - I AM NOT RAPACIOUS {%4}),
   @4: Sup: 22 - RESISTANCE: KE (#128); Ego: 1 - CENTRE: CHUNG (#103),
   @5: Sup: 25 - CONTENTION: CHENG (#153); Ego: 3 - MIRED: HSIEN (#106),
   @6: Sup: 30 - BOLD RESOLUTION: YI (#183); Ego: 5 - KEEPING SMALL:
SHAO (#111),
   @7: Sup: 6 - CONTRARIETY: LI (#189); Ego: 57 - GUARDEDNESS: SHOU
(#168 - I AM NOT THE CAUSE OF WEEPING TO ANY {%26}),
   @8: Sup: 7 - ASCENT: SHANG (#196 - I AM NOT ONE OF LOUD VOICE
{%37}); Ego: 1 - CENTRE: CHUNG (#169 - I TROUBLE MYSELF ONLY WITH MY OWN AFFAIRS {%18}),
   @9: Sup: 17 - HOLDING BACK: JUAN (#213); Ego: 10 - DEFECTIVENESS, DISTORTION: HSIEN (#179),
   Male: #213; Feme: #179
} // #665

THE POSTULATION IS THAT THE RUDDER FOR ACTION PROPERLY HAS AN ONTIC
GROUNDING RATHER THAN MERELY BEING A DISPOSITION OF SENSIBILITY AND THIS
IS CONVEYED BY THE COMPLEX ONTIC NATURE OF THE WORD #665 - metágō
(G3329) to direct WHICH IS ITSELF LADENED WITH AN ONTIC PREMISE:

#45 - I AM NOT A DOER OF WRONG {%1}
#102 - I AM NOT RAPACIOUS {%4}
#168 - I AM NOT THE CAUSE OF WEEPING TO ANY {%26}
#196 - I AM NOT ONE OF LOUD VOICE {%37}
#169 - I TROUBLE MYSELF ONLY WITH MY OWN AFFAIRS {%18}

= #680

#551 - SECTION III OF QUEEN VICTORIA'S LETTERS PATENT as [#4, #400, #50,
#1, #40, #5, #50, #1] /
#669 as [#4, #400, #50, #1, #200, #9, #5] /
#680 as [#4, #400, #50, #8, #200, #8, #10] /
#885 - SECTION IX OF QUEEN VICTORIA'S LETTERS PATENT as [#4, #400, #50,
#1, #10, #50, #300, #70] = dýnamai (G1410): {UMBRA: #506 % #41 = #14} 1)
to be able, have power whether by virtue of one's own ability and
resources, or of a state of mind, or through favourable circumstances,
or by permission of law or custom; 2) to be able to do something; 3) to
be capable, strong and powerful;

SECTION III: (#551 as #44 - STOVE: TSAO / #125 - *CUP* / *BOWL* as #38 - FULLNESS: SHENG): #551 - TO BE JOINED, BE ADDED TO; TO COME OR GO FORTH
(WITH PURPOSE OR FOR RESULT); TO CAUSE OTHERS TO POSSESS OR INHERIT; TO
APPEAR, BE RECOGNISED; TO RAISE UP, CONSTITUTE; TO CAUSE TO STAND, SET, STATION, ESTABLISH; HEAD, DIVISION, COMPANY; CHIEF, HEAD (OF MAN, CITY,
NATION, PLACE); PERMISSION; ABILITY OR POWER TO STAND; WILL, COUNSEL,
PURPOSE; OF MEN APPEARING IN PUBLIC; TO BE ABLE, HAVE POWER WHETHER BY
VIRTUE OF ONE'S OWN ABILITY AND RESOURCES, OR OF A STATE OF MIND, OR
THROUGH FAVOURABLE CIRCUMSTANCES, OR BY PERMISSION OF LAW OR CUSTOM; PUT
FORTH POWER; TO DISPLAY ONE'S ACTIVITY, SHOW ONE'S SELF OPERATIVE;

SECTION VIII (#808 as #62 - DOUBT: YI / #224 - *COIN* as #5 - KEEPING
SMALL: SHAO): #808 - REQUIRE / TO SHOW ONESELF PURE, JUST, KIND /
DEVOTED / TO APPOINT ONE TO ADMINISTER AN OFFICE; TO SET DOWN AS,
CONSTITUTE, TO DECLARE, SHOW TO BE;

SECTION IX (#885 as #77 - COMPLIANCE: HSUN / #239 - *TOOL* *OF* *IRON*
as #15 - REACH: TA): #885 - THAT WHICH HAS BEEN DEEMED RIGHT SO AS TO
HAVE FORCE OF LAW; WHAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED, AND ORDAINED BY LAW, AN
ORDINANCE / TO BE WELL PLEASED, TO BE CONTENTED AT OR WITH A THING / TO
MARRY, TO BE GIVEN IN MARRIAGE

THE IDEA *TEMPLATE* *FOR* *QUEEN* *VICTORIA’S* *LETTERS* *PATENT* DATED
29 OCTOBER 1900

@84, {@13: Sup: 1 - CENTRE: CHUNG (#501 - *PURSUIT* *OF* *HAPPINESS*);
Ego: 3 - MIRED: HSIEN (#82)}
@86, {@14: Sup: 6 - CONTRARIETY: LI (#507); Ego: 5 - KEEPING SMALL: SHAO
(#87)}
@200, {@15: Sup: 44 - STOVE: TSAO (#551); Ego: 38 - FULLNESS: SHENG
(#125)} <-- SECTION III
@186, {@16: Sup: 68 - DIMMING: MENG (#619); Ego: 24 - JOY: LE (#149)}
@191, {@17: Sup: 16 - CONTACT: CHIAO (#635); Ego: 29 - DECISIVENESS:
TUAN (#178)}
@200, {@18: Sup: 54 - UNITY: K'UN (#689); Ego: 38 - FULLNESS: SHENG (#216)} @84, {@19: Sup: 57 - GUARDEDNESS: SHOU (#746); Ego: 3 - MIRED: HSIEN (#219)} @86, {@20: Sup: 62 - DOUBT: YI (#808); Ego: 5 - KEEPING SMALL: SHAO
(#224)} <-- SECTION VIII
@177, {@21: Sup: 77 - COMPLIANCE: HSUN (#885); Ego: 15 - REACH: TA
(#239)} <-- SECTION IX
@140] {@22: Sup: 55 - DIMINISHMENT: CHIEN (#940 - *TRUTHS*); Ego: 59 -
MASSING: CHU (#298)}

SECTION X (#940 as #55 - DIMINISHMENT: CHIEN / #298 - *ROCK* as #59 -
MASSING: CHU): #940 - TO INSCRIBE, SIGN / TO COMMUNICATE, IMPART / THE
(WATCH OR) KEEPER OF THE HOUSE / TO PERSEVERE IN ANYTHING AS A STATE OF MIND




PROLEGOMENA
IMMANUEL KANT too, perhaps following this unmistakable *HINT* *OF*
*LANGUAGE*, *FOUND* *A* *KIND* *OF* *JUDGMENT* *IN* *WHICH* *THE*
*CASUS* *ITSELF* *WAS* *MANIFESTLY* *DECIDED* (ie. *CASUS* *DATAE*
*LEGIS*), although the rule under which the fallen case fell was still
to be found, and would eventually deny itself entirely to man's power to
say. To this type of judgment, he devoted the most heroic of his works,
which he called a critique of the power of judgment, KRITIK DER
URTEILSKRAFT. There *THE* *WILL* *TO* *JUDGE* *SEEMS* *TO* *RUN* *UP*
*AGAINST* *ITS* *OUTER* *LIMITS*. In what sense indeed is there still a "Judgment", that is, a saying of law, when the supposed "law" withdraws
into ineffability?

Had we *LISTENED* *TO* *THE* *HISTORY* *OF* *THE* *WORD*, briefly told
at the outset, this last difficulty would not have come as a surprise. [VANDERBILT LAW REVIEW Vol. 48:987-988]

So there is need to discuss something that perhaps belongs to the
providence of METALOGIC AS THE STUDY OF THE METATHEORY OF LOGIC which is entirely outside my present scope of experience (in needing
substantially more research) and thusly there is immediately a
semantical failure.  But what we wish to convey is both a conceptual
STATIC OR DYNAMIC LIMITED {ie. #9} TERM that has a dialectic relativity
to the UNLIMITED {ie. #72} realm as the world of action.

SEE ALSO: "IDEA TRANSMUTATION (AUGMENTATION / AMELIORATION) FOR ANY #81
- UNIVERSE OF DISCOURSE BEING #54 - UNITY OF APPERCEPTION"

<https://www.grapple369.com/Groundwork/Idea%20Transmutation.pdf>

PROPOSITIONAL DELIMITER RELATIVE TO THE AUTONOMOUS PRINCIPLE:
We have said previously that there must be caution given here over such
a notion as the word #24 - JOY (LE) which is a delimited term as being a determination of the limits or boundary line in it's being something and
so we'll have to convey a neural linguistic technique for the
spontaneous determining of a conceptual limit relative to the unlimited
realm as the world of action.

METALOGIC IS THE STUDY OF THE METATHEORY OF LOGIC. Whereas logic studies
how logical systems can be used to construct valid and sound arguments, metalogic studies the properties of logical systems. Logic concerns the
truths that may be derived using a logical system; metalogic concerns
the truths that may be derived about the languages and systems that are
used to express truths.

The basic objects of metalogical study are formal languages, formal
systems, and their interpretations. The study of interpretation of
formal systems is the branch of mathematical logic that is known as
model theory, and the study of deductive systems is the branch that is
known as proof theory. [<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metalogic>]

We might readily see there is sense of #24 - JOY (LE) but its attainment
is entirely a subjective proposition especially given the notion: "ONE
MAN'S PLEASURE IS ANOTHER MAN'S POISON" and so we'll instead consider
some other PROPOSITIONAL DELIMITER such as #51 - CONSTANCY (CH'ANG) but
which we'll nuance for our present example as the need for COMPLIANCE in
being a concern for #27 - DUTY purveying some beneficial ACTION related
to CALAMITY, but being distinct to another PROPOSITIONAL DELIMITER of
#77 - COMPLIANCE (HSUN)...

YOUTUBE: "André Rieu - Ode to Joy (All men shall be brothers)"

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9dLGDCdg3g>

LET ME SAY CATEGORICALLY, THAT *THERE* *IS* *NO* *SUBSTITUTE* *FOR* *AN* *OPINION* *FROM* *AN* *EXPERT* WITHIN ANY PARTICULAR SAPIENT FIELD OF
HUMAN ENDEAVOUR.  THIS #1364 - PARADIGM POSSESSES THE CAPACITY FOR AN INCLUSION OF ANY KNOWLEDGE SPHERE AS RELIANCE UPON THE SAPIENT EXPERTISE
AS FACULTY KNOWLEDGE OF OTHERS.

FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES WE CAN CONTENT OURSELVES WITH THE IGNORANT POSTULATIONS OF STUPIDITY.

Our concern then is to convey some functional considerations over any
veracity so as to engender this #1364 - paradigm as a tool for the
assistance of any expert within any particular sapient field of human endeavour.

That in making a nomenclature consideration of #45 - METHODOLOGY the
#CENTRE of value PROPOSITION is that any DELIMITER is relative to the AUTONOMOUS PRINCIPLE, thereby as a METATHEORY OF LOGIC is a stratum as dialectic of meta-descriptor prototypes which always precedes it.

#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
#9 - PROPOSITIONAL DELIMITER RELATIVE TO THE AUTONOMOUS PRINCIPLE

Whereas the SAPIENT OPINION FROM AN EXPERT and those of the IGNORANT POSTULATIONS OF STUPIDITY might both direct themselves to the same PROPOSITIONAL DELIMITER, the dialectic of meta-descriptor prototypes can
yield entirely different results which may be vital or may not satisfy
our contingent need for a STATIC conception with an inclusion of any
ONTIC EPISTEMOLOGICAL PREMISE with deference to the resultant CATEGORY
OF UNDERSTANDING such as for example #432 - DEVOID OF TRUTH OR USELESS
which is then associated to our STATIC conception.

OUR EDUCATIONAL EXAMPLE IS AN OBSERVATION FROM A FIRE ZONE EVACUEE.

FIRE EVACUEE @ 2313 HOURS ON 30 DECEMBER 2019: "Another year, same fun
times being had,

Everythings packed, cars loaded, and we evacuate tomorrow morning,
Pretty *RED* glow out the lounge window tonight. Fire is due here late
tomorrow morning, have done all i can, unfortunately no water to fight
the fire, so no use staying.

Don't hold out much hope this time i'll be returning to the house, the
ground and bush is so dry,

With a bit of luck the wind wont come up and i'll be back on here
tomorrow, If not, will be back one day,

To all have a great New year."

And the SPIRAL SELECTOR@{NATURE: (EGO)} prototype provides the following result:

As the GRAPPLE [#41, #57, #1, #9, #10, #27, #45, #46, #51] PROTOTYPE
which conveys

[#41, {@1: Sup: 41 - RESPONSE: YING (#41); Ego: 41 - RESPONSE: YING (#41)}
#57, {@2: Sup: 17 - HOLDING BACK: JUAN (#58); Ego: 57 - GUARDEDNESS:
SHOU (#98)}
#1, {@3: Sup: 18 - WAITING: HSI (#76); Ego: 1 - CENTRE: CHUNG (#99)}
#9, {@4: Sup: 27 - DUTIES: SHIH (#103); Ego: 9 - BRANCHING OUT: SHU (#108)} #10, {@5: Sup: 37 - PURITY: TS'UI (#140 - I DEAL NOT FRAUDULENTLY {%14}
/ I AM NOT AN EAVES-DROPPER {%16}); Ego: 10 - DEFECTIVENESS, DISTORTION:
HSIEN (#118)}
#27, {@6: Sup: 64 - SINKING: CH'EN (#204); Ego: 27 - DUTIES: SHIH (#145)}
#45, {@7: Sup: 28 - CHANGE: KENG (#232); Ego: 45 - GREATNESS: TA (#190)}
#46, {@8: Sup: 74 - CLOSURE: CHIH (#306); Ego: 46 - ENLARGEMENT: K'UO
(#236)}
#51] {@9: Sup: 44 - STOVE: TSAO (#350: *TO* *PRESERVE*, *GUARD* *FROM* *DANGERS*); Ego: 51 - CONSTANCY: CH'ANG (#287)}

MALE: @140 = #140

ONTIC CHECKSUM TOTAL: #140 as [#5, #40, #1, #4, #40, #10, #600] / #45 as
[#1, #4, #40] = ʼâdam (H119): {UMBRA: #0 as #45 % #41 = #4} 1) *TO* *BE* *RED*, *RED*; 1a) (Qal) ruddy (of Nazarites); 1b) (Pual); 1b1) to be
rubbed red; 1b2) dyed red; 1b3) reddened; 1c) (Hiphil); 1c1) *TO*
*CAUSE* *TO* *SHOW* *RED*; 1c2) to glare; 1c3) *TO* *EMIT* (*SHOW*)
*REDNESS*; 1d) (Hithpael); 1d1) to redden; 1d2) to grow red; 1d3) to
look red;

#350 as [#50, #90, #200, #10] /
#351 - ROMAN GOVERNANCE BINOMIAL STASIS PROTOTYPE #SEVEN as [#50, #90,
#6, #200, #5] /
#390 - *CROWN* as [#50, #90, #200, #10, #600] /
#260 as [#200, #50, #10] = nâtsar (H5341): {UMBRA: #0 as #340 % #41 =
#12} 1) to guard, watch, watch over, keep; 1a) (Qal); 1a1) to watch,
guard, keep; 1a2) *TO* *PRESERVE*, *GUARD* *FROM* *DANGERS*; 1a3) to
keep, observe, guard with fidelity; 1a4) to guard, keep secret; 1a5) to
be kept close, be blockaded; 1a6) watchman (participle);

Since the #491 - AGENCY operation is in my informal view a utilitarian
function as organisational philosophy often involving some derivation as
the #277 - RIGHT TO PLACE A TEST / #237 - USE OF FORCE relative to the ANTHROPOLOGY within the context of #205 - PRINCIPLE OF PERSISTENT
SUBSTANCE and #164 - PRINCIPLE OF MATERIALITY.

However we notice that with such terms as ontological pacifist or ontic jurisprudence that the faculties of knowledge are not fully quantified.
And so consequentially utilitarianism considers that actions are right
if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority.  It conveys a
provisional doctrine that an action is right in so far as it promotes
happiness {ie. the notion of #24 - JOY (LE) which is CENTRAL to the
OBLIGATING NORM / *NORMA* *OBLIGANS*}, and that the greatest happiness
of the greatest number should improperly be the guiding principle of
conduct.

And so utilitarianism has been criticised for focusing on the
consequences rather than the motive or intrinsic nature of an action.
The solution to this is perhaps given by YANG HSIUNG's approach to his
less or more structure:

#VIRTUE,
#TOOLS,
#POSITION,
#TIME

As the determination given of any particular ONTIC_OBLIGANS:

    #VIRTUE: With Contrariety (no. #6), internal contradiction.
    #TOOLS: Enlargement (no. #46) means external opposition.
    #POSITION: As to Watch (no. #63), it is the apparent.
    #TIME: As to Darkening (no. #67), it is the indistinct.
    #CANON: #182

We might then consider that there ought to be a specialist field of
BAYESIAN THEORY which we'll term UTILITARIAN PROBABILITY that deals
expressly with the essentiality of the ONTIC premise as the impetus to
any "motive or intrinsic nature of an action".  Within our introductory example as our conception of a PROPOSITIONAL DELIMITER RELATIVE TO THE AUTONOMOUS PRINCIPLE we considered a STATIC LIMITED {ie. #9} TERM of #51
- CONSTANCY (CH'ANG) which we had nuanced to accommodate the need for COMPLIANCE in being a concern for #27 - DUTY purveying some beneficial
ACTION related to CALAMITY.

But now we want to consider a new condition as a neural linguistic
conception conveying an urgency "THEN SOMETHING TERRIBLE HAPPENED. SO
WHERE CAN WE ESCAPE TO NOW?"

Which has emanated from the UNLIMITED {ie. #72} realm as the world of
action as to then impose a morphological condition onto our previously
STATIC LIMITED {ie. #9} TERM of #51 - CONSTANCY (CH'ANG) and the result
is a DYNAMIC LIMITED {ie. #9} TERM that has not only a different
dialectic as AUTONOMOUS condition which we have to contend with, but now
has different demands placed upon the consideration of any UTILITARIAN PROBABILITY that deals expressly with the essentiality of the ONTIC
premise as the impetus to any "motive or intrinsic nature of an action".

And lastly the #CENTRE of value PROPOSITION as the DELIMITER which is
relative to the AUTONOMOUS PRINCIPLE has a different focal context of
#46 - ENLARGEMENT (K'UO): "...WHATEVER SECURITY HE BUILDS IS LIKELY TO
COLLAPSE UNDER PRESSURE, JUST AS THE PHYSICAL STRUCTURE CONSTRUCTED ON A
FAULTY FOUNDATION IS SURE TO COLLAPSE." [The Canon of Supreme Mystery
published 4 BCE, p 291]

A DRAFT COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE FOLLOWING URL:

<https://www.grapple369.com/Groundwork/Disjunctive%20Proposition.pdf>

Initial Post: 8 June 2021

--
YOUTUBE: "The Meerkat Circus"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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