Will the real Jew please stand up!
Post by R***@hotmail.comThe Brothels are alive with the sound of humping,
And every little lady working there has fun,
They will hump by the rhythm of a joyful trick,
They will hump very happy with a big big dick,
They will hump in the day and again at night,
They will hump with any man that doesn't want to fight,
The Brothels are alive with the sound of humping,
And when you go in you can hump too.
http://youtu.be/M7pxbCAHyi4
The Brothels are alive with the sound of humping, {@1: Sup: 66 (#66);
Ego: 3 (#3)}
And every little lady working there has fun, {@2: Sup: 3 (#69); Ego: 4 (#7)}
They will hump by the rhythm of a joyful trick, {@3: Sup: 39 (#108);
Ego: 10 (#17)}
They will hump very happy with a big big dick, {@4: Sup: 56 (#164); Ego:
36 (#53)}
They will hump in the day and again at night, {@5: Sup: 62 (#226); Ego:
73 (#126)}
They will hump with any man that doesn't want to fight, {@6: Sup: 12
(#238); Ego: 20 (#146 - I AM NOT A LAND-GRABBER {%15})}
The Brothels are alive with the sound of humping, {@7: Sup: 78 (#316);
Ego: 3 (#149)}
And when you go in you can hump too. {@8: Sup: 32 (#348 - *SEE* *KANT'S*
*IDEA*: @348); Ego: 11 (#160)}
IMMANUEL KANT'S (1783 - *APRIORITY* *TO* *FRENCH* *REVOLUTION*)
PROLEGOMENA TO ANY FUTURE METAPHYSICS THAT WILL BE ABLE TO PRESENT
ITSELF AS A SCIENCE" FOR FACILITATING #492 - AUTONOMOUS FREE WILL / #390
- SOVEREIGNTY DYNAMIC BY #391 - HOMOGENEOUS REGARD FOR #902 - RULE OF
LAW IN SUSTAINABILITY OF THE IDEA @329 APPLICABLE TO #390 - BRITISH
CROWN (CALENDAR (NEW STYLE) ACT 1750 / ROYAL ASSENT: 27 MAY 1751) /
AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE (4 JULY 1776)} WHICH IS COMPLIANT WITH
JURISPRUDENCE AS A CAPACITY TO FRAME LEGISLATION DEFINING PROTECTIONS
AGAINST AUTONOMY IT BECOMES IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF #343 - RIGHTS OF
SUCCESSION (TELOS), A TREASONOUS TRANSGRESSION AGAINST THE DIGNITY ROYAL
AS SUI JURIS / MEMBRUM VIRILE #390 - SOVEREIGN ENTITLEMENT.
PROLEGOMENA SECTION #54 AS IDEA: @348: "This then is the *statement*
*and* *solution* *of* *the* *whole* *antinomy* *in* *which* *reason*
*finds* *itself* *entangled* *in* *the* *application* *of* *its*
*principles* *to* *the* *sensible* *world*, and of which the former (the
mere statement) even by itself would already be of considerable benefit
toward a knowledge of human reason, even if the solution of this
conflict should not yet fully satisfy the reader, who has here to combat
a natural illusion that has only recently been presented to him as such,
after he had hitherto always taken that illusion for the truth. One
consequence of all this is, indeed, inevitable; namely, that since it is
completely impossible to escape from this conflict of reason with itself
as long as the objects of the sensible world are taken for things in
themselves – and not for what they in fact are, that is, for mere
appearances – the reader is obliged, for that reason, to take up once
more the deduction of all our cognition a priori (and the examination of
that deduction which I have provided), in order to come to a decision
about it. For the present I do not require more; for if, through this
pursuit, he has first thought himself deeply enough into the nature of
pure reason, then the concepts by means of which alone the solution to
this conflict of reason is possible will already be familiar to him, a
circumstance without which I cannot expect full approbation from even
the most attentive reader." [page 99]
— GNOSIS EX MACHINA {#2184}: @6 - PRINCIPLE OF ENQUIRY {#364}; @7 -
PRINCIPLE OF CONTRADICTION {#312}; @8 - PRINCIPLE OF SYNCRETIC
SUCCESSION {#273}
(c) 2018 Dolf Leendert Boek, Revision: 21 December, 2018
Q. #41 - TO BE OR #81 - NOT TO BE THAT IS THE #364 - QUESTION?
— INTELLECTUS AS GENITIVE VOLUNTĀTIS —
"TO BE SURE, TO BE SURE.
A THINKING PROCESS.
THE MIND TO ACCESS.
TAKES SOME TIME.
FOR THE SUBLIME {@379 / @350 - SEE KANT'S PROLEGOMENA IDEA}.
AND AGES ENDURE."
YOUTUBE: "To Be Or Not To Be - Hamlet - David Tennant (HD)"
IMMANUEL KANT'S (1783 - *APRIORITY* *TO* *FRENCH* *REVOLUTION*)
PROLEGOMENA TO ANY FUTURE METAPHYSICS THAT WILL BE ABLE TO PRESENT
ITSELF AS A SCIENCE" FOR FACILITATING #492 - AUTONOMOUS FREE WILL / #390
- SOVEREIGNTY DYNAMIC BY #391 - HOMOGENEOUS REGARD FOR #902 - RULE OF
LAW IN SUSTAINABILITY OF THE IDEA @329 APPLICABLE TO #390 - BRITISH
CROWN (CALENDAR (NEW STYLE) ACT 1750 / ROYAL ASSENT: 27 MAY 1751) /
AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE (4 JULY 1776)} WHICH IS COMPLIANT WITH
JURISPRUDENCE AS A CAPACITY TO FRAME LEGISLATION DEFINING PROTECTIONS
AGAINST AUTONOMY IT BECOMES IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF #343 - RIGHTS OF
SUCCESSION (TELOS), A TREASONOUS TRANSGRESSION AGAINST THE DIGNITY ROYAL
AS SUI JURIS / MEMBRUM VIRILE #390 - SOVEREIGN ENTITLEMENT.
PROLEGOMENA SECTION #56 - GENERAL NOTE TO THE TRANSCENDENTAL AS IDEA:
@350: "The objects that are given to us through experience are
incomprehensible to us in many respects, and there are many questions to
which #2184 - *NATURAL* *LAW* [IDEA: @349] carries us, which, if pursued
to a certain height (yet always in conformity with those laws) cannot be
solved at all; e.g., how pieces of matter attract one another. But *IF*
*WE* *COMPLETELY* *ABANDON* *NATURE*, *OR* *TRANSCEND* *ALL* *POSSIBLE*
*EXPERIENCE* *IN* *ADVANCING* *THE* *CONNECTION* *OF* *NATURE* *AND*
*SO* *LOSE* *OURSELVES* *IN* *MERE* *IDEAS*, *THEN* *WE* *ARE* *UNABLE*
*TO* *SAY* *THAT* *THE* *OBJECT* *IS* *INCOMPREHENSIBLE* *TO* *US* *AND*
*THAT* *THE* *NATURE* *OF* *THINGS* *PRESENTS* *US* *WITH* *UNSOLVABLE*
*PROBLEMS*; for then we are not concerned with nature or in general with
objects that are given, but merely with concepts that have their origin
solely in our reason, and with mere beings of thought, with respect to
which all problems, which must originate from the concepts of those very
beings, can be solved, since reason certainly can and must be held fully
accountable for its own proceedings.
Because *THE* *PSYCHOLOGICAL*, *COSMOLOGICAL*, *AND* *THEOLOGICAL*
*IDEAS* *ARE* *NOTHING* *BUT* *PURE* *CONCEPTS* *OF* *REASON*, which
cannot be given in any experience, the questions that reason puts before
us with respect to them are not set for us through objects, but rather
through mere maxims of reason for the sake of its self-satisfaction, and
these questions must one and all be capable of sufficient answer – which
occurs by its being shown that they are principles for bringing the use
of our understanding into thoroughgoing harmony, completeness, and
synthetic unity, and to that extent are valid only for experience,
though in the totality of that experience. But although an absolute
totality of experience is not possible, nonetheless the idea of a
totality of cognition according to principles in general is what alone
can provide it with a special kind of unity, namely that of a system,
without which unity our cognition is nothing but piecework and cannot be
used for the highest end (which is nothing other than the [IDEA: @350]
system of all ends); and here I mean not only the practical use of
reason, but also the highest end of its speculative use.
Therefore the transcendental ideas express the peculiar vocation of
reason, namely to be a principle of the systematic unity of the use of
the understanding. But if one looks upon this unity in the manner of
cognition as if it were inhering in the object of cognition, if one
takes that which really is only regulative to be constitutive, and
becomes convinced that by means of these ideas one’s knowledge can be
expanded far beyond all possible experience, hence can be expanded
transcendently, even though this unity serves only to bring experience
in itself as near as possible to completeness (i.e., to have its advance
constrained by nothing that cannot belong to experience), then this is a
mere misunderstanding in judging the true vocation of our reason and its
principles, and it is a dialectic, which partly confounds the use of
reason in experience, and partly divides reason against itself.
[CAMBRIDGE TEXTS IN THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY, IMMANUEL KANT'S
PROLEGOMENA (1783), pages 100 - 101]
PROLEGOMENA IDEA: @379: "There is still a great deal needed for a
learned gazette, however well-chosen [IDEA: @378] and carefully selected
its contributors may be, to be able to uphold its otherwise
well-deserved reputation in the field of metaphysics just as elsewhere.
Other sciences and areas of learning have their standards. Mathematics
has its standard within itself, history and theology in secular or
sacred books, natural science and medicine in mathematics and
experience, jurisprudence in law books, and even matters of taste in
ancient paradigms. But in order to assess the thing called metaphysics,
the standard must first be found (I have made an attempt to determine
this standard as well as its use). Until it is ascertained, what is to
be done when works of this kind must be judged? If they are of the
dogmatic kind, one may do as one likes; no one will for long play the
master over others in this without finding someone who repays him in
kind. But if they are of the critical kind, and indeed not with regard
to other writings but to reason itself, so that the standard of
appraisal cannot be already assumed but must first be sought: then
objection and censure are not to be forbidden, but they must be rooted
in tolerance, since the need is common to us all, and the lack of the
required insight makes an air of judicial decisiveness unsuitable.
But in order at the same time to tie this my defense to the interest of
the philosophizing community, I propose a test, which is decisive as to
the way in which all metaphysical investigations must be directed toward
their common end. This is nothing else than what mathematicians have
done before, in order to decide the merits of their methods in a contest
– that is, a challenge to my reviewer to prove in his own way any single
truly metaphysical (i.e., synthetic, and cognized a priori from
concepts) proposition he holds, and at best one of the most
indispensable, such as the principle of the persistence of substance or
of the necessary determination of the events in the world through their
cause – but, as is fitting, to prove it on a priori grounds. If he can’t
do this (and silence is confession), then he must admit: that, since
metaphysics is absolutely nothing with- out the apodictic certainty of
propositions of this sort, their possibility or [IDEA: @379]
impossibility would first, be fore all else, have to be settled in a
critique of pure reason, and hence he is obliged either to acknowledge
that my principles of critique are correct or to prove their invalidity.
Since, how- ever, I already foresee that, as heedlessly as he has
hitherto been relying on the certainty of his principles, still, now
that it comes down to a rig- orous test, he will not find a single
principle in the whole compass of metaphysics with which he can dare
come forward, I will therefore grant him the most favourable terms that
can ever be expected in a competition; namely, I will take the onus
probandi ('Burden Of Proof') from him and will have it put on me.
[CAMBRIDGE TEXTS IN THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY, IMMANUEL KANT'S
PROLEGOMENA (1783), pages: 129-130]
<
Loading Image...
>
@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 ☯️ #164} +
@4 {#123 - JUDGEMENT SENSIBILITY} EQUALS
@10 {#615 - TO PRONOUNCE JUDGMENT AND TO SUBJECT TO PROCEDURES / #41 = #15}
<http://www.grapple369.com/Groundwork/Sale%20Hospital%2020181219.pdf>
MECHANISM TO ACTIVATE AS TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION QUEEN VICTORIA'S {@66}
LETTERS PATENT 29 OCTOBER 1900 FOR AUSTRALIAN FEDERATION AND SECURING {@69}
THE AUTONOMY / SOVEREIGN DYNAMIC AS TRANSCENDENT JUXTAPOSITION PRINCIPLE
{@72}
IMMANUEL KANT'S PROLEGOMENA (1783 - *APRIORITY* *TO* *FRENCH*
*REVOLUTION*) IDEA @A145: "The schema of possibility is the agreement of
the synthesis of various representations with the conditions of time in
general (e.g., that opposites cannot occur simultaneously in one thing,
but only one after another), therefore the determination of the
representation of a thing to any time whatsoever.
The schema of reality is existence in a determinate time.
The schema of necessity is the existence of an object for all time.
One can now see from all this what the schema of each category contains
and makes representable: the schema of magnitude, the production
(synthesis) of time itself in the successive apprehension of an object;
the schema of quality, the synthesis of sensation (perception) *WITH*
*THE* *REPRESENTATION* *OF* *TIME*, *OR* *THE* *FILLING* *OF* *TIME*;
*THAT* *OF* *RELATION*, *THE* *RELATION* *OF* *PERCEPTIONS* *AMONG*
*THEMSELVES* *AT* *ALL* *TIMES* (I.E., *ACCORDING* *TO* *A* *RULE* *OF*
*TIME*-*DETERMINATION*); *FINALLY*, *THE* *SCHEMA* *OF* *MODALITY* *AND*
*ITS* *CATEGORIES*, *TIME* *ITSELF*, *AS* *THE* *CORRELATE* *OF* *THE*
*DETERMINATION* *OF* *WHETHER* *AND* *HOW* *AN* *OBJECT* *BELONGS* *TO*
*TIME*. The schemata are therefore nothing but time-determinations a
priori in accordance with rules, and these refer in the order of the
categories to the time-series, the time-content, the time-order, and
finally the time-totality with respect to all possible objects. [pages
176-177]
THERE ARE THREE 'FROM TIME TO TIME' CLAUSES WITHIN THE LETTERS PATENT AS
THE ORDINANCE OF #451 - JUSTICE FACULTY WITHIN TRINOMIAL SAPIENT NOTION
#902 - RULE OF LAW
APPOINTMENT OF GOVERNOR GENERAL' AS ANTHROPOLOGIC HOMOGENEOUS PRINCIPLE
{@2184}:
And whereas We did on the 17th day of September, 1900, by and with the
advice {#492 - VOLUNTARY FREE WILL (LIBERTÉ {17 SEPTEMBER 1900}: #12 X
#41)} of Our Privy Council declare by proclamation that, on and after
the 1st day of January, 1901, the people of New South Wales, Victoria,
South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania and also Western Australia,
should be united {#391 - HOMOGENEOUS PRINCIPLES (FRATERNITÉ {29 OCTOBER
1900})} in a Federal Commonwealth of Australia:
#231 - JUXTAPOSITION CONTROL (ANKH BINOMIAL HETEROS / TORAH PROTOTYPES
OF THE PERENNIALIST ECONOMY)@{
@1: Sup: 81 (#81); Ego: 81 (#81),
@2: Sup: 78 (#159); Ego: 78 (#159),
@3: Sup: 72 (#231 - *AT* *THE* *GOING* *DOWN* *OF* *THE* *SUN*
*AND* *IN* *THE* *MORNING*); Ego: 75 (#234),
@4: Sup: 71 (#302); Ego: 80 (#314),
@5: Sup: 67 (#369 - #9 X #41); Ego: 77 (#391 - *ANTAGONISM* *WITH*
#902 - RULE OF LAW (EGALITÉ {9 JULY 1900}: #22 x #41 AS *ONTIC*
NECESSITY COMPRISING A SUBSET OF 21 CONSONANTS WITH #VOWELS OF SEMITIC
ORIGINS), #492 - VOLUNTARY FREE WILL (LIBERTÉ {17 SEPTEMBER 1900}: #12 X
#41), and #391 - HOMOGENEOUS PRINCIPLES (FRATERNITÉ {29 OCTOBER 1900})
OF QUEEN VICTORIA'S LETTERS PATENT TO THE FEDERATION OF THE AUSTRALIAN
COMMONWEALTH 1901),
@6: Sup: 60 (#429); Ego: 74 (#465),
@7: Sup: 58 (#487); Ego: 79 (#544),
@8: Sup: 53 (#540); Ego: 76 (#620),
@9: Sup: 45 (#585); Ego: 73 (#693),
Male: #585; Feme: #693
}
And whereas by the said recited Act {#902 - RULE OF LAW (EGALITÉ {9 JULY
1900}: #22 x #41 AS *ONTIC* NECESSITY COMPRISING A SUBSET OF 21
CONSONANTS WITH #VOWELS OF SEMITIC ORIGINS} certain POWERS, FUNCTIONS,
and AUTHORITIES were declared to be vested in the Governor General: And
whereas We are desirous of making effectual and permanent provision for
the office of Governor General and Commander in chief in and over Our
said Commonwealth of Australia, without making new Letters Patent on
each demise of the said office. Now know ye that We have thought fit to
constitute, ORDER, and DECLARE, and do by these PRESENTS CONSTITUTE
ORDER, and DECLARE, that there shall be a Governor General and Commander
in Chief (hereinafter called the Governor General) in and over Our
Commonwealth of Australia (hereinafter called Our said Commonwealth),
and that the person who shall fill the said office of Governor General
shall be FROM TIME TO TIME APPOINTED by Commission under Our Sign Manual
and Signet.
SECTION VIII AS PRINCIPLE OF JUXTAPOSITION:
@1 - SOVEREIGNTY: SECTION VIII TO QUEEN VICTORIA'S LETTERS PATENT 29
OCTOBER 1900: #27 + #54 = #81
VIII - And We do hereby REQUIRE and COMMAND ALL OUR OFFICERS AND
MINISTERS, CIVIL AND MILITARY, AND ALL OTHER THE INHABITANTS of Our said
Commonwealth TO BE OBEDIENT, AIDING, AND ASSISTING unto Our said
Governor General, or, in the event of his death, INCAPACITY, or absence,
to such person or persons as may, FROM TIME TO TIME, under the
PROVISIONS OF THESE OUR LETTERS PATENT, ADMINISTER THE GOVERNMENT of Our
said Commonwealth.
SECTION IX AS PRINCIPLE OF CONTINUITY:
@5 - SUCCESSIVE PRINCIPLE: SECTION IX TO QUEEN VICTORIA'S LETTERS PATENT
29 OCTOBER 1900: #9 + #18 = #27
IX - And We do hereby reserve to Ourselves Our heirs and SUCCESSORS,
FULL POWER AND AUTHORITY FROM TIME TO TIME TO REVOKE, ALTER, OR AMEND
these Our Letters Patent, as to Us or THEM SHALL SEEM MEET.
The informal research into the TIME to TIME question which I have in
relation to knowledge pragmatics and the spacial dynamic of speech
itself which is evident by an arbitrary truncation of the text in @1,
@2, @3 segments:
MECHANISM TO ACTIVATE AS TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION QUEEN VICTORIA'S {@1:
Sup: 25 (#25); Ego: 53 (#53)}
LETTERS PATENT 29 OCTOBER 1900 FOR AUSTRALIAN FEDERATION AND SECURING
{@2: Sup: 13 (#38); Ego: 65 (#118)}
THE AUTONOMY /SOVEREIGN DYNAMIC AS TRANSCENDENT JUXTAPOSITION PRINCIPLE
{@3: Sup: 4 (#42); Ego: 27 (#145)
Is whether other proportions to % #41 / % #81 can be used or whether
this is only an ordinal construct or also a question of magnitude by any
designated length such as % 72 line length as an innate anthropogenic
capacity:
Could I for instance make an #2184 {#24 x #7 x #13 as either:
#6 x #364 - PRINCIPLE OF ENQUIRY
#7 x #312 - PRINCIPLE OF CONTRADICTION
#8 x #273 - PRINCIPLE OF SYNCRETIC SUCCESSION
} APPRAISAL of any intuited fluidity, capacity or propensity for truth
telling by deploying vEVENT categories #432 which conveys the
propositional factoid of a common ISOPSEPHIC {ie. isos meaning 'equal'
and psephos meaning 'pebble'; The Hebrew word for 'pebble' is tz'ror –
and it happens that this word also means 'bond'} association whereby the
propensity for violence increases where there is a lack of any truth
content as a depreciated integrity between persons:
#432 - VIOLENCE PROPENSITY as [#5, #80, #10, #300, #10, #9, #8, #10]
#432 - TRUTH QUOTIENT as [#40, #1, #300, #1, #10, #70, #10]
This category #432 as #5, #80, #10, #300, #10, #9, #8, #10 = epitithemi
(G2007): {#10 as #472} 1) in the active voice; 2) in the middle voice;
1a) to put or lay upon; 1b) to add to; 2a) *TO* *HAVE* *PUT* *ON*, *BID*
*TO* *BE* *LAID* *ON*; 2b) *TO* *LAY* *OR* *THROW* *ONE'S* *SELF*
*UPON*; 2c) *TO* *ATTACK* *ONE*, *TO* *MAKE* *AN* *ASSAULT* *ON* *ONE*;
[#5, {@1: Sup: 5 (#5); Ego: 5 (#5)}
#80, {@2: Sup: 4 (#9); Ego: 80 (#85)}
#10, {@3: Sup: 14 (#23); Ego: 10 (#95)}
#300, {@4: Sup: 71 (#94); Ego: 57 (#152)}
#10, {@5: Sup: 81 (#175 - I AM NOT A TRANSGRESSOR {%22}); Ego: 10 (#162)}
#9, {@6: Sup: 9 (#184 - I PUT NO CHECK UPON THE WATER IN ITS FLOW {%36});
Ego: 9 (#171 - I AM NOT UNCHASTE WITH ANY ONE {%20})}
#8, {@7: Sup: 17 (#201); Ego: 8 (#179)}
#10] {@8: Sup: 27 (#228 - I HAVE NO UNJUST PREFERENCES {%40}); Ego: 10
(#189)}
Tells me that a person might have loyalty and empathy with the person
whom assaulted me.
The lack of truth and waste of time is conveyed by this category #432 as
[#40, #1, #300, #1, #10, #70, #10] = mataios (G3152): {#11 as #622} 1)
*DEVOID* *OF* *FORCE*, *TRUTH*, *SUCCESS*, *RESULT*; 2) *USELESS*, *OF*
*NO* *PURPOSE*;
[#40, {@1: Sup: 40 (#40); Ego: 40 (#40)}
#1, {@2: Sup: 41 (#81); Ego: 1 (#41)}
#300, {@3: Sup: 17 (#98); Ego: 57 (#98)}
#1, {@4: Sup: 18 (#116); Ego: 1 (#99)}
#10, {@5: Sup: 28 (#144); Ego: 10 (#109)}
#70, {@6: Sup: 17 (#161 - I AM NOT A TELLER OF LIES {%9}); Ego: 70 (#179)}
#10] {@7: Sup: 27 (#188); Ego: 10 (#189)}
So what methodology ought I then deploy to resolve such propensity
against any given narrative.
a) whole of narrative approach made against the #432 - GNOMIC IMPERATIVE
INSTRUCTION SET
b) a twining approach to the whole of narrative where the % #432
segmentation is made against the GNOMIC IMPERATIVE INSTRUCTION SET
c) Can then the propensity for a conditional vEVENT: #432 be said to
occur when the threshold criteria of probability associated to the
ONTIC_OBLIGANS such as @161 - I AM NOT A TELLER OF LIES {%9} is
sufficiently high as the requisite specific #41 - ONTIC necessity
CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE HOT ZONES which are transmitted and accumulated
by the narrative;
d) That such core sapient functions may have then applied a taxable as
transactional revenue opportunity which is shared between participating
#390 - SOVEREIGN nations.
HUME (died 25 August 1776, Edinburgh) had raised objections to the
notions of equality and congruence (among others) in geometry, which
objections appealed to experience (Treatise, i.ii.4.4, pp. 42–53),
thereby subjecting mathematics to experience, and whereby he also
*INCORRECTLY* rejected THE CONCEPTION THAT MATHEMATICS CONSIDERS ITS
OBJECTS INDEPENDENTLY OF THEIR EXISTENCE IN NATURE:
GNOSIS EX MACHINA {#2184}: @6 - PRINCIPLE OF ENQUIRY {#364}; @7 -
PRINCIPLE OF CONTRADICTION {#312}; @8 - PRINCIPLE OF SYNCRETIC
SUCCESSION {#273}
#2184 - (#390 + #312 + #390) = #1092 as ‘OTH CYCLE of 3 x #364 / 4 =
#273 - *MOMENT*
As an IDEA that the #2184 - NATURE AND SO TO SPEAK THE *LEGAL*
*CONSTITUTION* *OF* *THIS* *PROVINCE* *OUGHT* *REST* *ON* *COMPLETELY*
*DIFFERENT* *PRINCIPLES*, namely solely on the principle of #312 -
CONTRADICTION:
#364 - ADMITTANCE +
#312 - RESISTANCE {*WITHERED* *STATE* WREATHS* / RUSSIAN CONTRADICTIONS
ON NOVICHOK #274 - PERFUME POISONING} +
#728 - REACTANCE {8 x #91} +
#390 - BRITISH CROWN (CALENDAR (NEW STYLE) ACT 1750 / ROYAL ASSENT: 27
MAY 1751) / AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE (4 JULY 1776) +
#390 - *WREATHS* / ROBBERS / EXTORTION = #2184 {#24 x #7 x #13 -
PRIESTLY SERVICE DIVISIONS TO JERUSALEM TEMPLE FROM 1550 BCE - [LUKE 1:5]}
If this trinomial #NUMBER paradigm image of Jewish / Christian / DAOist
identity: #205 ☯️ #164 as empire governance occasioning #41 - ontic
necessity of moral prescriptions existed in 4 BCE {#81 = 17 to 21
December} then ISIS is defeated because they are only a binomial
{#ALLAH: 9-1-7-3-5 / #ALLAT: 8-2-6-4} methodology as notion of #NUMBER.
- 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: 21 December 2018
--
YOUTUBE: "The Meerkat Circus"
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.
