• -- COCK-A-DOODLE DOO IN FEDERAL PARLIAMENT {FOXING BY GAUCHE BRUTALISM}

    From Fran@21:1/5 to Fran on Mon Jun 14 16:12:59 2021
    XPost: aus.politics, uk.legal, aus.legal
    XPost: alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic

    — COCK-A-DOODLE DOO IN FEDERAL PARLIAMENT {FOXING BY GAUCHE BRUTALISM}

    (c) 2018 Dolf Leendert Boek, Revision: 24 August, 2018

    We still have more machinations and intrigues of politics to go until
    they settle down in the roost.

    Clearly the people need to be governed...

    ...rather than civil disintegration by toxicity of Social Media Networks mobilisation becoming the democratic impetus and norm.

    And one scenario is by what means can the status quo be retained without
    any parties 🎉 losing credibility and vitality because of one thing you
    can be assured of, there will be rigorous analysis, many words spoken,
    some considerations of insinuations including perhaps invective directed towards accountability before the roost is secure, the foxing by gauche brutalism is gone and the squawking quelled.

    YOUTUBE: “Chicken Run”

    <https://youtu.be/1jzgBgFqr_s>

    So don’t write any brutus epitaph too soon.

    - dolf

    Initial Post: 23 August 2018

    On 14/6/21 13:37, Fran wrote:
    On 14/06/2021 8:37 am, Dechucka wrote:

    Nope shot bigger things. Huge fox around my chook yard unfortunately
    died of steel poisoning last night, is that OK?


    Well done that man!  I've bought you a virtual drink of your choice.


    -- 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: 14 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]

        #219 - GLOBUS CRUCIGER AS NOUMENON RESONANCE FOR 14 JUNE 2021 as
    [#6, #10, #2, #200, #1] /
            - GLOBUS CRUCIGER AS NOUMENON RESONANCE FOR 14 JUNE 2021 #250 as [#2, #5, #2, #200, #1, #600] /
        #308 - GLOBUS CRUCIGER AS NOUMENON RESONANCE FOR 14 JUNE 2021 as
    [#30, #5, #2, #200, #10, #1, #20, #600] /
    #265 - *KEY* as [#6, #50, #2, #200, #1, #6] = bârâʼ (H1254): {UMBRA:
    #203 % #41 = #39} 1) to create, shape, form; 1a) (Qal) to shape,
    fashion, create (always with God as subject); 1a1) of heaven and earth;
    1a2) of individual man; 1a3) of new conditions and circumstances; 1a4)
    of transformations; 1b) (Niphal) to be created; 1b1) of heaven and
    earth; 1b2) of birth; 1b3) of something new; 1b4) of miracles; 1c)
    (Piel); 1c1) to cut down; 1c2) to cut out; 1d) to be fat; 1d1) (Hiphil)
    to make yourselves fat;

    As we’ve said previously that our intention is to provide a capability
    for referencing the lexicon resource so as to cognise the meta logic
    derived stasis as then a means for nomenclature based classification as essential to appropriate reasoned action.

    Since we can redact any speech to its metalogic syllogism as it’s
    conception of *REALITY*, it ought to be possible to naturally intuit its meaning by use of the transcriptase dialectic element which accompanies
    its quality as then a magnitude attribute or a quantity property.

    That these discrete “metalogic syllogism as it’s conception of reality” in being informally termed quantum might be viewed as enterprise actions
    by an #491 - agency which are then equivalently considered as
    productivity gains in being requisite to disjunctive proposition problem resolution.

    There is firstly a need to visualise the YANG (NATURE) SUPERNAL (ie. exceptional quality or extent) characteristic of the problem relative to
    the YIN (AMALGAM) SYNCRETIC disposition of the anthropology.

    Secondly the lexicon or metalogic quantum with any ONTIC grounding ought
    to enable an assaying against any scenario for the possibility of
    attributed resonance.

    For example as a further consideration made of our “fire evacuee” —> “something terrible happened” informal research case study where #281 - *EVERYTHING* is reduced to ashes…

        #281 - GLOBUS CRUCIGER AS NOUMENON RESONANCE FOR 15 MAY 2021 as
    [#80, #1, #200] /
        #282 - GLOBUS CRUCIGER AS NOUMENON RESONANCE FOR 12 MAY 2021 as
    [#80, #1, #200, #1] /
        #299 - GLOBUS CRUCIGER AS NOUMENON RESONANCE FOR 12 MAY 2021 as
    [#80, #1, #200, #8, #10] /
        #341 - GLOBUS CRUCIGER AS NOUMENON RESONANCE FOR 15 MAY 2021 as
    [#80, #1, #200, #10, #50] /
    #492 - ONTIC PREMISE FOR VOLUNTARY FREEWILL as [#80, #1, #200, #1, #10,
    #200] = pâs (G3956): {UMBRA: #281 % #41 = #35} 1) individually; 1a)
    each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything; 2) collectively; 2a) some of all types;

        #281 as [#1, #80, #200] /
            #311 - GLOBUS CRUCIGER / NOUMENON RESONANCE FOR 14 JUNE 2021 as
    [#30, #1, #80, #200] /
    #287 - INTELLECTUS AS GENITIVE VOLUNTĀTIS as [#6, #1, #80, #200] =
    ʼêpher (H665): {UMBRA: #281 % #41 = #35} 1) ashes; 2) (CLBL)
    worthlessness (fig.);

    That if #281 - *EVERYTHING is reduced to ashes then such consideration
    of quantum has occurred and our scenario ought reflect it:

            H665@{
       @1: Sup: 30 - BOLD RESOLUTION: YI (#30); Ego: 30 - BOLD RESOLUTION:
    YI (#30),
       @2: Sup: 31 - PACKING: CHUANG (#61); Ego: 1 - CENTRE: CHUNG (#31),
       @3: Sup: 30 - BOLD RESOLUTION: YI (#91); Ego: 80 - LABOURING: CH'IN (#111),
       @4: Sup: 68 - DIMMING: MENG (#159); Ego: 38 - FULLNESS: SHENG (#149),
       Male: #159; Feme: #149
    } // #311

    #159 as [#2, #50, #7, #100] = nêzeq (H5143): {UMBRA: #157 % #41 = #34}
    1) injury, damage;

    #149 as [#6, #2, #6, #30, #100, #5] = bâlaq (H1110): {UMBRA: #132 % #41
    = #9} 1) to waste, lay waste, devastate; 1a) (Poel) to make waste; 1b)
    (Pual) devastated (participle);

    #113 - *PRINCIPLE* *OF* *ETHICAL* *ENGAGEMENT* (#45 - METHODOLOGY OF #68
    - RIGHTS) as [#1, #2, #10, #50, #10, #600] /
    #149 as [#30, #1, #2, #10, #6, #50, #10, #600] = ʼebyôwn (H34): {UMBRA:
    #69 % #41 = #28} 1) in want, needy, chiefly poor, needy person; 2)
    subject to oppression and abuse; 3) needing help, deliverance from
    trouble, especially as delivered by God; 4) general reference to lowest
    class;






    <https://www.grapple369.com/?zen:4,row:3,col:3>

    .jackNote@zen: 4, row: 3, col: 3, nous: 8 [DATE: 2021.6.14, SUPER: #315
    / #24 - Important Distinctions, Trouble from Indulgence; I-Ching: H5 -
    Waiting, Delay, Attending, Waiting, Moistened, Arriving; Tetra: 18 -
    WAITING (HSI), EGO: #311 / #8 - Worth of Water, Easy By Nature; I-Ching:
    H48 - The Well, Welling; Tetra: 40 - LAW/MODEL (FA)]

    IMMANUEL KANT'S (1783) PROLEGOMENA WITHIN SECTION #31 - MILITARY
    STRATAGEM, QUELLING WAR; I-CHING: H32 - PERSEVERANCE, ENDURANCE,
    DURATION, CONSTANCY; TETRA: 51 - CONSTANCY (CH'ANG) ON IDEA @314: "And
    so for once one has something determinate, and to which one can adhere
    in all metaphysical undertakings, which have up to now boldly enough,
    but always blindly, run over everything without distinction. It never
    occurred to dogmatic thinkers that the goal of their efforts might have
    been set up so close, nor even to those who, obstinate in their
    so-called sound common sense, went forth to insights with concepts and principles of the pure understanding that were indeed legitimate and
    natural, but were intended for use merely in experience, and for which
    they neither recognized nor could recognize any determinate boundaries,
    because they neither had reflected on nor were able to reflect on the
    nature and even [IDEA @314] the possibility of such a pure understanding.

    Many a naturalist of pure reason (by which I mean he who trusts himself, without any science, to decide in matters of metaphysics) would like to
    pretend that already long ago, through the prophetic spirit of his sound
    common sense, he had not merely suspected, but had known and understood,
    that which is here presented with so much preparation, or, if he
    prefers, with such long-winded pedantic pomp: “NAMELY THAT WITH ALL OUR REASON WE CAN NEVER GET BEYOND THE FIELD OF EXPERIENCES.” But since, if someone gradually questions him on his rational principles, he must
    indeed admit that among them there are many that he has not drawn from experience, which are therefore independent of it and valid a priori –
    how and on what grounds will he then hold within limits the dogmatist
    (and himself ), who makes use of these concepts and principles beyond
    all possible experience for the very reason that they are cognized independently of experience. And even he, this adept of sound common
    sense, is not so steadfast that, despite all of his presumed and cheaply
    gained wisdom, he will not stumble unawares out beyond the objects of experience into the field of chimeras. Ordinarily, he is indeed deeply
    enough entangled therein, although he cloaks his ill-founded claims
    through a popular style, since he gives everything out as mere
    probability, reasonable conjecture, or analogy. [pages 65-66]

    Thusly we need to invoke a query setTimeout mechanism and perpetual
    action against any vEvent dialectic as stasis (ie. static moment) and
    aggregate any lexicon entries which match a given criteria, in then
    retaining them (ie. either as a STRONGS reference or TELOS filtered
    entity) for further appraisal opportunity against the dynamic of any
    scenario.

        #184 - GLOBUS CRUCIGER AS NOUMENON RESONANCE FOR 12 MAY 2021 as
    [#3, #10, #50, #70, #40, #1, #10] /
        #224 - *COIN* / GLOBUS CRUCIGER AS NOUMENON RESONANCE FOR 15 MAY
    2021 as [#3, #5, #50, #70, #40, #5, #50, #1] /
        #246 - GLOBUS CRUCIGER AS NOUMENON RESONANCE FOR 12 MAY 2021 as
    [#3, #10, #50, #70, #40, #5, #50, #8, #10] /
        #281 - GLOBUS CRUCIGER AS NOUMENON RESONANCE FOR 15 MAY 2021 as
    [#3, #5, #50, #70, #40, #5, #50, #8, #50] /
        #282 - GLOBUS CRUCIGER AS NOUMENON RESONANCE FOR 12 MAY 2021 as
    [#3, #10, #50, #5, #200, #9, #5] / [#5, #3, #5, #50, #5, #200, #9, #5] /
        #289 - GLOBUS CRUCIGER AS NOUMENON RESONANCE FOR 12 MAY 2021 as
    [#3, #5, #3, #5, #50, #8, #40, #5, #50, #70, #50] /
        #294 - GLOBUS CRUCIGER AS NOUMENON RESONANCE FOR 12 MAY 2021 as
    [#3, #5, #3, #5, #50, #8, #200, #9, #1, #10] - gínomai (G1096): {UMBRA:
    #184 % #41 = #20} 1) to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to
    be, receive being; 2) to become, i.e. to come to pass, happen; 2a) of
    events; 3) *TO* *ARISE*, *APPEAR* *IN* *HISTORY*, *COME* *UPON* *THE*
    *STAGE*; 3a) of men appearing in public; 4) to be made, finished; 4a) of miracles, to be performed, wrought; 5) to become, be made;

    YOUTUBE: "GREGORIAN / ANDRÉ RIEU - CONQUEST {ie. the overcoming of a
    problem or weakness} OF PARADISE"

    <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lub9L8v-_ec>

    <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vh6ozFFFVic>

    Most of this search / filter JavaScript coding already exists within the GNOSIS.boek {} module and we’re going to now situate it within the GNOSIS.scenario {} module and then deploy our moveable dialog concept
    for user interaction.

    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


    [continued in next message]

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Fran@21:1/5 to Fran didn't on Tue Jun 15 11:29:00 2021
    XPost: uk.legal, aus.legal, alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic

    On 14/06/2021 4:12 pm, Fran didn't write:
    — COCK-A-DOODLE DOO

    Yes Dolf, you are one very fine rooster (not).

    Go away and see your mental health care worker.

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