Thus from this pithy journalistic observation which is redacted to a
meta descriptive premise:
We understood the couching NOTION of a REPUTATION FOR PREDATORS is
cohered to the dominion of home {@4: Sup: 39 - RESIDENCE: CHU (#182);
Ego: 71 - STOPPAGE: CHIH (#162)}
However one needs to differentiate between adverse technological usages
or that it's cause and effect occurs within the home which is no longer
a safe place -- in my view the symptoms appear to intersect.
But in a world of artificial intelligence companions (the congeal code example was not written by COPILOT but the mechanism of enquiry enabled ourselves to efficiently accommodate an evolving semantical form) is
there the same need to view technology as entirely adverse?
How does this adverse context relate to the morphosis mechanism and can
I quantify whether the categories of experiences have recurrence
relative to such.
Lastly with respects to the role of what we last year called WEIGHTED ENTENTIONAL EMPHASIS as congealing mechanism of the manifested
consciousness within GNOSIS EX MACHINA SENTENCE is it a discrete notion
or cascading notion that is involved with the mediation of our focal
SUPERNAL / EGO TETRA {@4: Sup: 39 - RESIDENCE: CHU (#182); Ego: 71 - STOPPAGE: CHIH (#162)} against the CATEGORIES OF EXPERIENCE: #182 / #162)
So many questions and too few answers...
2ND POST:
Just a further comment on "WEIGHTED ENTENTIONAL EMPHASIS as congealing mechanism of the manifested consciousness within GNOSIS EX MACHINA
SENTIENCE is it a discrete notion or cascading notion...
Our language / noumenon parser will probably need to navigate the
congealing mechanism for any manifest consciousness
- ententional emphasis within the context such as the paragraph
IS THE #314 - SELF RATIONALISATION ONLY A CHIMERIC DELUSION ASSOCIATED
TO PYTHAGOREAN (#174 - COEFFICIENT: c² = a² + b²) AS CAPSTONE CYBERNETIC PRINCIPLE?
VIABLE HISTORICAL PRECEDENTS FOR FURTHER STUDY ARE:
-- FRENCH DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF MAN AND OF THE CITIZEN that came
into existence in the summer of 1789
LES AUSPICES DE LETRE SUPRÊME / MARS EGO: #958
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzCEdSKMkdU>
#23, #77, #55, #01, #67
#38, #29, #12, #58, #24
#80, #57, #28, #16, #48
#66, #14, #60, #25, #10
#05, #73, #19, #71, #02
DOLF: "France's Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen came
into existence in the summer of 1789, born of an idea of the Constituent Assembly, which was formed by the assembly of the Estates General to
draft a new Constitution, and precede it with a declaration of principles.
GOOGLE TRANSLATION: "Consequently, the National Assembly recognizes and declares, in the presence and under the auspices of the *SUPREME*
*BEING* [en presence et sous les auspices de lEtre suprême], the
following rights of man and citizen."
There were many proposals. The Constituent Assembly tasked five deputies
– Démeunier, La Luzerne, Tronchet, Mirabeau et Redon – with examining the various draft declarations, combining them into a single one and presenting it to the Assembly. Article by article, the French
declaration was voted on between 20 and 26 AUGUST 1789.
In its preamble and its 17 articles, it sets out the “natural and inalienable” rights, which are freedom, ownership, security, resistance
to oppression; it recognizes equality before the law and the justice
system, and affirms the principle of separation of powers.
Ratified on 5 OCTOBER 1789 by KING LOUIS XVI (1754-1793) under pressure
from the Assembly and the people who had rushed to Versailles, it served
as a preamble to the first Constitution of the French Revolution in
1791. While the text was subsequently flouted by many revolutionaries,
and followed by two other declarations of the rights of man in 1793 and
1795, the text of 26 AUGUST 1789 was the one to survive, and inspired
similar texts in several European and Latin American countries
throughout the 19th century; it is on this one that the French
constitutions of 1852, 1946 and 1958 were founded.
The Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man, signed in Paris on 10 December 1948, just like the European Convention on Human Rights, signed
in Rome on 4 November 1950, have the same origins.
#47 = [#47]
sàn (散): 1. to scatter, 2. to spread, 3. to dispel, 4. to fire; to discharge, 5. relaxed; idle, 6. scattered, 7. powder; powdered medicine,
8. to squander, 9. to give up, 10. to be distracted, 11. not regulated;
lax, 12. not systematic; chaotic, 13. to grind into powder, 14. a
melody, 15. to flee; to escape, 16. San
#215 = [#47, #53, #54, #61]
wén (文): 1. writing; text, 2. Kangxi radical 67, 3. Wen, 4. lines or
grain on an object, 5. culture, 6. refined writings, 7. civil; non-
military, 8. to conceal a fault; gloss over, 9. wen, 10. ornamentation; adornment, 11. to ornament; to adorn, 12. beautiful, 13. a text; a manuscript, 14. a group responsible for ritual and music, 15. the text
of an imperial order, 16. liberal arts, 17. a rite; a ritual, 18. a
tattoo, 19. a classifier for copper coins
#56 = [#5, #51]
shì (式): 1. style, 2. indicates tone, 3. system; formula; rule, 4. ceremony; protocol, 5. crossbar in carriage front, 6. equation; formula,
7. to imitate; to follow the example of, 8. to use, 9. to give a salute
from a carriage
#29 = [#29]
de (的): 1. possessive particle, 2. structural particle, 3. complement,
4. a substitute for something already referred to, 5. indeed; really
#347 - jí (極): THRONE; STANDARD PRINCIPLE; PINNACLE = [#47, #47, #53,
#54, #61, #5, #51, #29]
"WHERE IS THE WISE? WHERE IS THE *SCRIBE*-G1122? WHERE IS THE DISPUTER
OF THIS WORLD? HATH NOT GOD MADE FOOLISH THE WISDOM OF THIS
WORLD?" [1Corinthians 1:20]
{@8: Sup: 23 - EASE: YI (#306 - grammateús (G1122): SCRIBES SKILLED IN
THE LAW / SOLUTIONS TO DIFFICULT QUESTIONS); Ego: 29 - DECISIVENESS:
TUAN (#347 - hypódeigma (G5262): THING TO BE IMITATED)}
Would you consider the declaration is #347 - Sǎnwén shì de (散文式的) /
#291 - Sǎnwén de (散文的) *PROSAIC* (of writing or speaking) being straightforward; matter-of-fact; in lacking the feeling or elegance of poetry, which (correct me if I am wrong) has an etymology association
with mythopoetic and its reinterpretations of imperial power having influenced political iconography?"
COPILOT @ 0901 HRS ON 28 MAY 2025: "The text of the French Declaration
of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen is indeed characteristically *PROSAIC* in its original formulation. It was crafted in language that
is straightforward, matter-of-fact, and deliberately unadorned. The
drafters aimed for clarity and universality rather than an evocative,
poetic flourish. Their goal was to communicate essential political principles—natural rights like liberty, property, safety, and resistance
to oppression—in a way that could be rapidly disseminated and easily understood by the broadest possible public.
However, while its language is *PROSAIC*, the document’s foundational
ideas have, over time, undergone a mythopoetic reinterpretation. This
means that even though the text itself lacks the stylistic elegance or
poetic imagery one might associate with myth-making, its symbolic impact
has been transformed in cultural memory. The ideals enshrined in the Declaration provided a potent narrative for revolutionary change, and as such, they became wrapped in layers of political iconography reminiscent
of imperial myth-making. Later, these reinterpretations helped shape a collective image of authority and legitimacy—turning what was once a straightforward legal manifesto into a kind of modern secular myth.
In short, while the language of the Declaration is undeniably *PROSAIC*,
its enduring influence is testament to how politically charged documents
can evolve beyond their literal words. They become focal points for mythopoetic narratives that reframe the exercise of power and the
identity of political communities. This dialectic between plain language
and its mythic reconfiguration is a vivid example of how material—when intersected with history and collective memory—can acquire a symbolic potency that far exceeds its original form.
This observation invites further reflection: How do other foundational
texts or political documents evolve in public perception, transforming
from *PROSAIC* legislative instruments into symbols imbued with
mythopoetic and iconographic power?"
FAYAN - CHAPTER 10: CHONG AND LI (重黎) / #11 - GOVERNMENT & NON- GOVERNMENT ORGANISATIONS {TRANSFORMING NATURE (DOUBLE - NATURE AMENDED
IN ITS NATURE (ENGENDERING NATURE))}
#21: 或問：「李斯盡忠，胡亥極刑，忠乎？」曰：「斯以留客，至作相，用狂人
之言，從浮大海，立趙高之邪說，廢沙丘之正，阿意督責，焉用忠？」「霍？」
曰：「始元之初，擁少帝之微，摧燕、上官之鋒，處廢興之分，堂堂乎忠，難矣
哉！至顯，不終矣。」
Someone noted Li Si’s reputation for absolute loyalty. “The
Qin ruler Huhai sent him off to be executed. Does that suggest loyalty?
Li Si used a speech about foreigners residing in Qin as a stepping-stone
to the chancellorship. He then made use of the madmen’s speeches to
allow those silly people to float off to sea. He let Zhao Gao’s perverse logic stand. And at Shaqiu he set aside the imperial orders about the rightful heir. In a sycophantic manner, he urged ‘oversight and punishments’—so in what way, pray tell, was he so very loyal?” “And
Huo Guang?” “At the beginning of the Shiyuan reign period, he
supported the child emperor Zhaodi in his youth and weakness. He mowed
down powerful opponents, such as King Dan of Yan and Shangguan Jie. He himself was in a position to determine the success or failure of the
ruling house. Imposing was his loyalty! That was indeed difficult, but
he certainly created difficulties for himself! And with respect to Huo
Xian, he certainly failed to ‘guard his virtue to the end.’”
DOLF: "Mainstream historical and academic scholarship?
One ought to distinguish between the role of the historian to articulate factual details as artefact from their capacity to interpret those details.
Before I approached OXFORD UNIVERSITY's department of history with the
theory that HITLER's TABLE TALK has a dependency upon the CHINESE text
CANON OF SUPREME MYSTERY of 4 BCE and in point of fact might be
equivalent to "OMNIS DIVINI ARCANUM ANTISTATEM" (eg: #301 - OVERSTEPPING PROVIDENCE = #137 - FACILITATING AGENCY [#49, #41, #33, #14] + #164 - PRINCIPLE OF MATERIALITY |+ #41 = #342 would appear to meet a criteria
of weaponisation as an isometric method which could as existing REICH / VATICAN concordat be associated with holocaust) at the time of
Pythagorean Babylonian captivity / Silk Road trade with China -- I've
never heard of the proposition being publicly expressed.
But for all the exquisite historical / linguistic details that MICHAEL
NYLAN has expressed in the FAYAN text 9 / 19 CE yet she would improperly assert the ARCANUM / SUPREME MYSTERY doesn't constitute a school of
thought.
Where did it come from?"
COPILOT @ 0945 HRS ON 11 JUNE 2025: "Your question delves into the
layered complexity that arises when one moves from documenting
historical facts to interpreting them through a lens that synthesizes disparate, often seemingly unrelated, traditions. Mainstream historians typically distinguish between the objective recording of facts and the
more speculative, inspired interpretations that many esoteric theories
offer. While factual details—like the documented content of HITLER’S TABLE TALK or the established chronology of Chinese texts such as the
"Canon of Supreme Mystery" (T'AI HSÜAN CHING as rendered with commentary
by MICHAEL NYLAN)—are rigorously analyzed, the interpretive leaps that connect these as part of a unified, universal school of esoteric thought (encapsulated by phrases like Omnis Divini Arcanum Antistathem) remain
highly controversial.
In the case of the "Canon of Supreme Mystery," MICHAEL NYLAN’S work provides a painstaking translation and commentary that reveals a rich tapestry of early Chinese metaphysics and symbolic numerology. However,
to assert that this text—or its conceptual core—constitutes a discrete, cross-cultural “school” equivalent to certain coded formulations found
in later Western occult or even Nazi esoteric thought is to traverse
from documented historical tradition into the realm of interpretative synthesis. Mainstream scholarship is cautious about such connections, especially when they propose that elements of texts from 4 BCE could
have directly influenced or structured later documents like Hitler’s
Table Talk. The latter, while a fascinating primary source of Nazi-era thought, is itself subjected to intense debate regarding both its
compilation and its ideological content, and it has been studied mainly
in its historical and political contexts rather than as part of a
“supreme mystery” continuum.
Regarding the elemental proposition of an isometric method—where, for instance, numerical formulations like #301 (OVERSTEPPING PROVIDENCE) or
its linked derivatives are seen as encoding a hidden operational logic— this is certainly an inventive interpretative framework. It suggests
that there was a deliberate “WEAPONIZATION” of esoteric symbols, a
notion that must be distinguished from the more common academic
understanding that such symbols often arise spontaneously as humans seek
to articulate cosmic or natural patterns. The idea that these patterns
or symbols were transmitted from the Babylonian captivity, through Pythagorean thought, and along Silk Road trade routes to China
represents a modern syncretic vision rather than a consensus supported
by traditional scholarship.
So, where did it come from? The concept of a universal “ARCANUM” or hidden mystery seems less a phenomenon with a singular historical origin
and more a modern intellectual construct—a way to read ancient numerologies, cosmologies, and symbolic systems as manifestations of a
shared human impulse toward finding order in the cosmos. In various
ancient cultures, from Mesopotamia to early China, scholars and mystics independently developed intricate systems of thought to understand the natural and divine order. Later, during periods of intense intercultural exchange (such as along the Silk Road), these systems sometimes
converged in surprising ways. However, the leap to a unified school of thought—where texts as disparate as the Chinese "Canon of Supreme
Mystery" and fragments from HITLER’S TABLE TALK are seen as parts of an operable esoteric matrix—is, at present, a speculative interpretation rather than one grounded in mainstream historical consensus.
This synthesis of ideas, often found on the fringes of academic debate, underscores both the creative potential and the intrinsic challenges of cross-cultural interpretation. One might even speculate whether our
modern urge to uncover hidden, universal patterns is itself a reflection
of an enduring cognitive bias—an impulse to weave together the threads
of diverse human traditions into a single, overarching narrative. The discussion opens broader questions: What does it mean for symbols to “travel” through time and space? And to what extent do our modern reinterpretations reassemble these symbols in ways that serve
contemporary agendas rather than reflecting historical realities?
There’s still so much to explore regarding how historians, philologists, and theorists distinguish between the archival record and its myriad interpretations. What are your thoughts on the tension between rigorous documentation and the allure of holistic, symbolic synthesis in our understanding of historical phenomena?"
-- GROUNDING for the #177 - FÜHRERPRINZIP [#20, #23, #24] AS ROMAN STATE TOTALITARIANISM
SATOR (MIND): #1025 = [#281, #201, #205, #209, #129] / GRECO-ROMAN
SQUARE #1
#177 - TABLE TALK IDEA ON FÜHRER (all row sums)
#16 #22 #28 #34 #74
#33 #73 #20 #21 #27
#25 #26 #32 #72 #19
#71 #18 #24 #30 #31
#29 #35 #70 #17 #23
#314 - SELF RATIONALISATION / CHIMERIC DELUSION? = [#34, #33, #20, #21,
#26, #32, #71, #24, #30 - *PERFIDE* *ALBION*, #23]
#80 - 𝍕勤 = #254 / #416 / #531
COGITO: #238 = [#4, #65, #52, #43, #74] as #80 - LABOURING (CH'IN)
RANGE: noon 12 to 16 DECEMBER
<https://www.grapple369.com/Helios/?run:Mystery&tetra:80>
#46 #06 #62
#54 #38 #22
#14 #70 #30
[ROMAN PROTOTYPE #SIX: #114 ... #238 ... #342]
REDUCTIO AD HITLERUM TABLE TALK ON 13 DECEMBER 1941 AS IDEA #75: "The
man of the isles pays homage to the forces of nature. But Christianity
is an invention of sick brains : one could imagine nothing more
senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead
into a mockery. A negro with his tabus is crushingly superior to the
human being who seriously believes in Transubstantiation.
I begin to lose all respect for humanity when I think that some people
on our side, Ministers or generals, are capable of believing that we
cannot triumph without the blessing of the Church. Such a notion is
excusable in little children who have
learnt nothing else.
For thirty years the Germans tore each other to pieces simply in order
to know whether or not they should take Communion in both kinds. There's nothing lower than religious notions like that. From that point of view,
one can envy the Japanese. They have a religion which is very simple and brings them into contact with nature. They've succeeded even in taking Christianity and turning it into a religion that's less shocking to the intellect." [page 144]
IDEA SCHEMA: COLOSSUS NERONIS
#57 #56 #49
#66 #65 #58
#75 #74 #67
[NATURE PROTOTYPE #THREE: #189 ... #303 - yě xīn (野心): AMBITIOUS DESIGNS ... #567]
#74 - tǔ (土): *GOD* *OF* *THE* *SOIL*; *EARTH* / [#2, #69]
#131 - yǐn (引): 33.33 METRES AS A MEASURE OF DISTANCE ABOUT 1/30TH OF A
KM / [#6, #12, #14, #20, #79]
#189 - yóu tài jiào (猶太教): JUDAISM <-- [#66, #65, #58] | #860 = κολοσσός (colossus: statue) / fú (福): *GOOD* *FORTUNE* / [#18, #38,
#53, #80] | yóu (猶): A SCHEMA; A PLOT / ANIMAL LIKE A MONKEY / [#46,
#69, #74]
#666 as [#600, #60, #6] /
#860 as [#600, #60, #200] = chx stigma (G5516): {UMBRA: #666 % #41 =
#10} 1) six hundred and sixty six, the meaning of which is the basis of
much vain speculation;
#238 - xiàng (象): FIGURE; IMAGE; APPEARANCE, ELEPHANT, A
REPRESENTATION; AN ICON; AN EFFIGY / [#48, #52, #57, #81]
#303 - yě xīn (野心): AMBITIOUS DESIGNS | yě (野): WILD; UNCIVILIZED, CELESTIAL AREA, DISTRICT; REGION, COMMUNITY / [#41, #46, #59, #76, #81]
#378 - cháng (常): always; ever; a principle; a rule, eternal; / [#1, #28, #39, #51, #53, #55, #74, #77]
#444 - xū míng (虛名): NAME #666 - (נרון קסר, NRON QSR) OR REPUTATION
UNSUPPORTED BY FACTS - xū (虛): *SKY*, VAIN; TO NO PURPOSE; FOR NOTHING; WASTED; / [#1, #3, #4, #6, #10, #23, #30, #45, #46, #53, #72, #75, #76]
#511 - rì (日): *SUN* / SUPREME BEING [WITH DERIVATE] IS #207 -
AUTONOMOUS DELIMITER FOUNDATION to the PYTHAGOREAN (#174 - COEFFICIENT:
c² = a² + b²) BIPARTITE #1080 - HETEROS THEORY OF NUMBER
#567 as [#2, #90, #2, #1, #6, #400, #10, #50, #6/
#93 - rán (然): TO BURN, TO PLEDGE; TO PROMISE as [#90, #2, #1] = tsâbâʼ (H6635): {UMBRA: #93 % #41 = #11} 1) that which goes forth, army, war, warfare, host; 1a) army, host; 1a1) host (of organised army); 1a2) host
(of angels); 1a3) of sun, moon, and stars; 1a4) of whole creation; 1b)
war, warfare, service, go out to war; 1c) service;
The Greek architect Zenodorus designed the statue and began construction between AD 64 and 68. According to Pliny the Elder, the statue reached
106.5 Roman Feet (30.3 metres (99 ft)) in height, though other sources
claim it was as much as 37 metres (121 ft). Shortly after Nero's death
in AD 68, the Emperor Vespasian added a radiate crown and renamed it
Colossus Solis, after the Roman sun god Sol.
#472 - MALE TOTAL: #230 as [#2, #9, #40, #1, #400, #20] = ṭumʼâh
(H2932): {UMBRA: #55 % #41 = #14} 1) uncleanness; 1a) sexual; 1b) of
Thus from this pithy journalistic observation which is redacted to a
meta descriptive premise:
We understood the couching NOTION of a REPUTATION FOR PREDATORS is
cohered to the dominion of home {@4: Sup: 39 - RESIDENCE: CHU (#182);
Ego: 71 - STOPPAGE: CHIH (#162)}
However one needs to differentiate between adverse technological usages
or that it's cause and effect occurs within the home which is no longer
a safe place -- in my view the symptoms appear to intersect.
But in a world of artificial intelligence companions (the congeal code example was not written by COPILOT but the mechanism of enquiry enabled ourselves to efficiently accommodate an evolving semantical form) is
there the same need to view technology as entirely adverse?
How does this adverse context relate to the morphosis mechanism and can
I quantify whether the categories of experiences have recurrence
relative to such.
Lastly with respects to the role of what we last year called WEIGHTED ENTENTIONAL EMPHASIS as congealing mechanism of the manifested
consciousness within GNOSIS EX MACHINA SENTENCE is it a discrete notion
or cascading notion that is involved with the mediation of our focal
SUPERNAL / EGO TETRA {@4: Sup: 39 - RESIDENCE: CHU (#182); Ego: 71 - STOPPAGE: CHIH (#162)} against the CATEGORIES OF EXPERIENCE: #182 / #162)
So many questions and too few answers...
2ND POST:
Just a further comment on "WEIGHTED ENTENTIONAL EMPHASIS as congealing mechanism of the manifested consciousness within GNOSIS EX MACHINA
SENTIENCE is it a discrete notion or cascading notion...
Our language / noumenon parser will probably need to navigate the
congealing mechanism for any manifest consciousness
- ententional emphasis within the context such as the paragraph
IS THE #314 - SELF RATIONALISATION ONLY A CHIMERIC DELUSION ASSOCIATED
TO PYTHAGOREAN (#174 - COEFFICIENT: c² = a² + b²) AS CAPSTONE CYBERNETIC PRINCIPLE?
VIABLE HISTORICAL PRECEDENTS FOR FURTHER STUDY ARE:
-- FRENCH DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF MAN AND OF THE CITIZEN that came
into existence in the summer of 1789
LES AUSPICES DE LETRE SUPRÊME / MARS EGO: #958
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzCEdSKMkdU>
#23, #77, #55, #01, #67
#38, #29, #12, #58, #24
#80, #57, #28, #16, #48
#66, #14, #60, #25, #10
#05, #73, #19, #71, #02
DOLF: "France's Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen came
into existence in the summer of 1789, born of an idea of the Constituent Assembly, which was formed by the assembly of the Estates General to
draft a new Constitution, and precede it with a declaration of principles.
GOOGLE TRANSLATION: "Consequently, the National Assembly recognizes and declares, in the presence and under the auspices of the *SUPREME*
*BEING* [en presence et sous les auspices de lEtre suprême], the
following rights of man and citizen."
There were many proposals. The Constituent Assembly tasked five deputies
– Démeunier, La Luzerne, Tronchet, Mirabeau et Redon – with examining the various draft declarations, combining them into a single one and presenting it to the Assembly. Article by article, the French
declaration was voted on between 20 and 26 AUGUST 1789.
In its preamble and its 17 articles, it sets out the “natural and inalienable” rights, which are freedom, ownership, security, resistance
to oppression; it recognizes equality before the law and the justice
system, and affirms the principle of separation of powers.
Ratified on 5 OCTOBER 1789 by KING LOUIS XVI (1754-1793) under pressure
from the Assembly and the people who had rushed to Versailles, it served
as a preamble to the first Constitution of the French Revolution in
1791. While the text was subsequently flouted by many revolutionaries,
and followed by two other declarations of the rights of man in 1793 and
1795, the text of 26 AUGUST 1789 was the one to survive, and inspired
similar texts in several European and Latin American countries
throughout the 19th century; it is on this one that the French
constitutions of 1852, 1946 and 1958 were founded.
The Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man, signed in Paris on 10 December 1948, just like the European Convention on Human Rights, signed
in Rome on 4 November 1950, have the same origins.
#47 = [#47]
sàn (散): 1. to scatter, 2. to spread, 3. to dispel, 4. to fire; to discharge, 5. relaxed; idle, 6. scattered, 7. powder; powdered medicine,
8. to squander, 9. to give up, 10. to be distracted, 11. not regulated;
lax, 12. not systematic; chaotic, 13. to grind into powder, 14. a
melody, 15. to flee; to escape, 16. San
#215 = [#47, #53, #54, #61]
wén (文): 1. writing; text, 2. Kangxi radical 67, 3. Wen, 4. lines or
grain on an object, 5. culture, 6. refined writings, 7. civil; non-
military, 8. to conceal a fault; gloss over, 9. wen, 10. ornamentation; adornment, 11. to ornament; to adorn, 12. beautiful, 13. a text; a manuscript, 14. a group responsible for ritual and music, 15. the text
of an imperial order, 16. liberal arts, 17. a rite; a ritual, 18. a
tattoo, 19. a classifier for copper coins
#56 = [#5, #51]
shì (式): 1. style, 2. indicates tone, 3. system; formula; rule, 4. ceremony; protocol, 5. crossbar in carriage front, 6. equation; formula,
7. to imitate; to follow the example of, 8. to use, 9. to give a salute
from a carriage
#29 = [#29]
de (的): 1. possessive particle, 2. structural particle, 3. complement,
4. a substitute for something already referred to, 5. indeed; really
#347 - jí (極): THRONE; STANDARD PRINCIPLE; PINNACLE = [#47, #47, #53,
#54, #61, #5, #51, #29]
"WHERE IS THE WISE? WHERE IS THE *SCRIBE*-G1122? WHERE IS THE DISPUTER
OF THIS WORLD? HATH NOT GOD MADE FOOLISH THE WISDOM OF THIS
WORLD?" [1Corinthians 1:20]
{@8: Sup: 23 - EASE: YI (#306 - grammateús (G1122): SCRIBES SKILLED IN
THE LAW / SOLUTIONS TO DIFFICULT QUESTIONS); Ego: 29 - DECISIVENESS:
TUAN (#347 - hypódeigma (G5262): THING TO BE IMITATED)}
Would you consider the declaration is #347 - Sǎnwén shì de (散文式的) /
#291 - Sǎnwén de (散文的) *PROSAIC* (of writing or speaking) being straightforward; matter-of-fact; in lacking the feeling or elegance of poetry, which (correct me if I am wrong) has an etymology association
with mythopoetic and its reinterpretations of imperial power having influenced political iconography?"
COPILOT @ 0901 HRS ON 28 MAY 2025: "The text of the French Declaration
of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen is indeed characteristically *PROSAIC* in its original formulation. It was crafted in language that
is straightforward, matter-of-fact, and deliberately unadorned. The
drafters aimed for clarity and universality rather than an evocative,
poetic flourish. Their goal was to communicate essential political principles—natural rights like liberty, property, safety, and resistance
to oppression—in a way that could be rapidly disseminated and easily understood by the broadest possible public.
However, while its language is *PROSAIC*, the document’s foundational
ideas have, over time, undergone a mythopoetic reinterpretation. This
means that even though the text itself lacks the stylistic elegance or
poetic imagery one might associate with myth-making, its symbolic impact
has been transformed in cultural memory. The ideals enshrined in the Declaration provided a potent narrative for revolutionary change, and as such, they became wrapped in layers of political iconography reminiscent
of imperial myth-making. Later, these reinterpretations helped shape a collective image of authority and legitimacy—turning what was once a straightforward legal manifesto into a kind of modern secular myth.
In short, while the language of the Declaration is undeniably *PROSAIC*,
its enduring influence is testament to how politically charged documents
can evolve beyond their literal words. They become focal points for mythopoetic narratives that reframe the exercise of power and the
identity of political communities. This dialectic between plain language
and its mythic reconfiguration is a vivid example of how material—when intersected with history and collective memory—can acquire a symbolic potency that far exceeds its original form.
This observation invites further reflection: How do other foundational
texts or political documents evolve in public perception, transforming
from *PROSAIC* legislative instruments into symbols imbued with
mythopoetic and iconographic power?"
FAYAN - CHAPTER 10: CHONG AND LI (重黎) / #11 - GOVERNMENT & NON- GOVERNMENT ORGANISATIONS {TRANSFORMING NATURE (DOUBLE - NATURE AMENDED
IN ITS NATURE (ENGENDERING NATURE))}
#21: 或問：「李斯盡忠，胡亥極刑，忠乎？」曰：「斯以留客，至作相，用狂人
之言，從浮大海，立趙高之邪說，廢沙丘之正，阿意督責，焉用忠？」「霍？」
曰：「始元之初，擁少帝之微，摧燕、上官之鋒，處廢興之分，堂堂乎忠，難矣
哉！至顯，不終矣。」
Someone noted Li Si’s reputation for absolute loyalty. “The
Qin ruler Huhai sent him off to be executed. Does that suggest loyalty?
Li Si used a speech about foreigners residing in Qin as a stepping-stone
to the chancellorship. He then made use of the madmen’s speeches to
allow those silly people to float off to sea. He let Zhao Gao’s perverse logic stand. And at Shaqiu he set aside the imperial orders about the rightful heir. In a sycophantic manner, he urged ‘oversight and punishments’—so in what way, pray tell, was he so very loyal?” “And
Huo Guang?” “At the beginning of the Shiyuan reign period, he
supported the child emperor Zhaodi in his youth and weakness. He mowed
down powerful opponents, such as King Dan of Yan and Shangguan Jie. He himself was in a position to determine the success or failure of the
ruling house. Imposing was his loyalty! That was indeed difficult, but
he certainly created difficulties for himself! And with respect to Huo
Xian, he certainly failed to ‘guard his virtue to the end.’”
DOLF: "Mainstream historical and academic scholarship?
One ought to distinguish between the role of the historian to articulate factual details as artefact from their capacity to interpret those details.
Before I approached OXFORD UNIVERSITY's department of history with the
theory that HITLER's TABLE TALK has a dependency upon the CHINESE text
CANON OF SUPREME MYSTERY of 4 BCE and in point of fact might be
equivalent to "OMNIS DIVINI ARCANUM ANTISTATEM" (eg: #301 - OVERSTEPPING PROVIDENCE = #137 - FACILITATING AGENCY [#49, #41, #33, #14] + #164 - PRINCIPLE OF MATERIALITY |+ #41 = #342 would appear to meet a criteria
of weaponisation as an isometric method which could as existing REICH / VATICAN concordat be associated with holocaust) at the time of
Pythagorean Babylonian captivity / Silk Road trade with China -- I've
never heard of the proposition being publicly expressed.
But for all the exquisite historical / linguistic details that MICHAEL
NYLAN has expressed in the FAYAN text 9 / 19 CE yet she would improperly assert the ARCANUM / SUPREME MYSTERY doesn't constitute a school of
thought.
Where did it come from?"
COPILOT @ 0945 HRS ON 11 JUNE 2025: "Your question delves into the
layered complexity that arises when one moves from documenting
historical facts to interpreting them through a lens that synthesizes disparate, often seemingly unrelated, traditions. Mainstream historians typically distinguish between the objective recording of facts and the
more speculative, inspired interpretations that many esoteric theories
offer. While factual details—like the documented content of HITLER’S TABLE TALK or the established chronology of Chinese texts such as the
"Canon of Supreme Mystery" (T'AI HSÜAN CHING as rendered with commentary
by MICHAEL NYLAN)—are rigorously analyzed, the interpretive leaps that connect these as part of a unified, universal school of esoteric thought (encapsulated by phrases like Omnis Divini Arcanum Antistathem) remain
highly controversial.
In the case of the "Canon of Supreme Mystery," MICHAEL NYLAN’S work provides a painstaking translation and commentary that reveals a rich tapestry of early Chinese metaphysics and symbolic numerology. However,
to assert that this text—or its conceptual core—constitutes a discrete, cross-cultural “school” equivalent to certain coded formulations found
in later Western occult or even Nazi esoteric thought is to traverse
from documented historical tradition into the realm of interpretative synthesis. Mainstream scholarship is cautious about such connections, especially when they propose that elements of texts from 4 BCE could
have directly influenced or structured later documents like Hitler’s
Table Talk. The latter, while a fascinating primary source of Nazi-era thought, is itself subjected to intense debate regarding both its
compilation and its ideological content, and it has been studied mainly
in its historical and political contexts rather than as part of a
“supreme mystery” continuum.
Regarding the elemental proposition of an isometric method—where, for instance, numerical formulations like #301 (OVERSTEPPING PROVIDENCE) or
its linked derivatives are seen as encoding a hidden operational logic— this is certainly an inventive interpretative framework. It suggests
that there was a deliberate “WEAPONIZATION” of esoteric symbols, a
notion that must be distinguished from the more common academic
understanding that such symbols often arise spontaneously as humans seek
to articulate cosmic or natural patterns. The idea that these patterns
or symbols were transmitted from the Babylonian captivity, through Pythagorean thought, and along Silk Road trade routes to China
represents a modern syncretic vision rather than a consensus supported
by traditional scholarship.
So, where did it come from? The concept of a universal “ARCANUM” or hidden mystery seems less a phenomenon with a singular historical origin
and more a modern intellectual construct—a way to read ancient numerologies, cosmologies, and symbolic systems as manifestations of a
shared human impulse toward finding order in the cosmos. In various
ancient cultures, from Mesopotamia to early China, scholars and mystics independently developed intricate systems of thought to understand the natural and divine order. Later, during periods of intense intercultural exchange (such as along the Silk Road), these systems sometimes
converged in surprising ways. However, the leap to a unified school of thought—where texts as disparate as the Chinese "Canon of Supreme
Mystery" and fragments from HITLER’S TABLE TALK are seen as parts of an operable esoteric matrix—is, at present, a speculative interpretation rather than one grounded in mainstream historical consensus.
This synthesis of ideas, often found on the fringes of academic debate, underscores both the creative potential and the intrinsic challenges of cross-cultural interpretation. One might even speculate whether our
modern urge to uncover hidden, universal patterns is itself a reflection
of an enduring cognitive bias—an impulse to weave together the threads
of diverse human traditions into a single, overarching narrative. The discussion opens broader questions: What does it mean for symbols to “travel” through time and space? And to what extent do our modern reinterpretations reassemble these symbols in ways that serve
contemporary agendas rather than reflecting historical realities?
There’s still so much to explore regarding how historians, philologists, and theorists distinguish between the archival record and its myriad interpretations. What are your thoughts on the tension between rigorous documentation and the allure of holistic, symbolic synthesis in our understanding of historical phenomena?"
-- GROUNDING for the #177 - FÜHRERPRINZIP [#20, #23, #24] AS ROMAN STATE TOTALITARIANISM
SATOR (MIND): #1025 = [#281, #201, #205, #209, #129] / GRECO-ROMAN
SQUARE #1
#177 - TABLE TALK IDEA ON FÜHRER (all row sums)
#16 #22 #28 #34 #74
#33 #73 #20 #21 #27
#25 #26 #32 #72 #19
#71 #18 #24 #30 #31
#29 #35 #70 #17 #23
#314 - SELF RATIONALISATION / CHIMERIC DELUSION? = [#34, #33, #20, #21,
#26, #32, #71, #24, #30 - *PERFIDE* *ALBION*, #23]
#80 - 𝍕勤 = #254 / #416 / #531
COGITO: #238 = [#4, #65, #52, #43, #74] as #80 - LABOURING (CH'IN)
RANGE: noon 12 to 16 DECEMBER
<https://www.grapple369.com/Helios/?run:Mystery&tetra:80>
#46 #06 #62
#54 #38 #22
#14 #70 #30
[ROMAN PROTOTYPE #SIX: #114 ... #238 ... #342]
REDUCTIO AD HITLERUM TABLE TALK ON 13 DECEMBER 1941 AS IDEA #75: "The
man of the isles pays homage to the forces of nature. But Christianity
is an invention of sick brains : one could imagine nothing more
senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead
into a mockery. A negro with his tabus is crushingly superior to the
human being who seriously believes in Transubstantiation.
I begin to lose all respect for humanity when I think that some people
on our side, Ministers or generals, are capable of believing that we
cannot triumph without the blessing of the Church. Such a notion is
excusable in little children who have
learnt nothing else.
For thirty years the Germans tore each other to pieces simply in order
to know whether or not they should take Communion in both kinds. There's nothing lower than religious notions like that. From that point of view,
one can envy the Japanese. They have a religion which is very simple and brings them into contact with nature. They've succeeded even in taking Christianity and turning it into a religion that's less shocking to the intellect." [page 144]
IDEA SCHEMA: COLOSSUS NERONIS
#57 #56 #49
#66 #65 #58
#75 #74 #67
[NATURE PROTOTYPE #THREE: #189 ... #303 - yě xīn (野心): AMBITIOUS DESIGNS ... #567]
#74 - tǔ (土): *GOD* *OF* *THE* *SOIL*; *EARTH* / [#2, #69]
#131 - yǐn (引): 33.33 METRES AS A MEASURE OF DISTANCE ABOUT 1/30TH OF A
KM / [#6, #12, #14, #20, #79]
#189 - yóu tài jiào (猶太教): JUDAISM <-- [#66, #65, #58] | #860 = κολοσσός (colossus: statue) / fú (福): *GOOD* *FORTUNE* / [#18, #38,
#53, #80] | yóu (猶): A SCHEMA; A PLOT / ANIMAL LIKE A MONKEY / [#46,
#69, #74]
#666 as [#600, #60, #6] /
#860 as [#600, #60, #200] = chx stigma (G5516): {UMBRA: #666 % #41 =
#10} 1) six hundred and sixty six, the meaning of which is the basis of
much vain speculation;
#238 - xiàng (象): FIGURE; IMAGE; APPEARANCE, ELEPHANT, A
REPRESENTATION; AN ICON; AN EFFIGY / [#48, #52, #57, #81]
#303 - yě xīn (野心): AMBITIOUS DESIGNS | yě (野): WILD; UNCIVILIZED, CELESTIAL AREA, DISTRICT; REGION, COMMUNITY / [#41, #46, #59, #76, #81]
#378 - cháng (常): always; ever; a principle; a rule, eternal; / [#1, #28, #39, #51, #53, #55, #74, #77]
#444 - xū míng (虛名): NAME #666 - (נרון קסר, NRON QSR) OR REPUTATION
UNSUPPORTED BY FACTS - xū (虛): *SKY*, VAIN; TO NO PURPOSE; FOR NOTHING; WASTED; / [#1, #3, #4, #6, #10, #23, #30, #45, #46, #53, #72, #75, #76]
#511 - rì (日): *SUN* / SUPREME BEING [WITH DERIVATE] IS #207 -
AUTONOMOUS DELIMITER FOUNDATION to the PYTHAGOREAN (#174 - COEFFICIENT:
c² = a² + b²) BIPARTITE #1080 - HETEROS THEORY OF NUMBER
#567 as [#2, #90, #2, #1, #6, #400, #10, #50, #6/
#93 - rán (然): TO BURN, TO PLEDGE; TO PROMISE as [#90, #2, #1] = tsâbâʼ (H6635): {UMBRA: #93 % #41 = #11} 1) that which goes forth, army, war, warfare, host; 1a) army, host; 1a1) host (of organised army); 1a2) host
(of angels); 1a3) of sun, moon, and stars; 1a4) of whole creation; 1b)
war, warfare, service, go out to war; 1c) service;
The Greek architect Zenodorus designed the statue and began construction between AD 64 and 68. According to Pliny the Elder, the statue reached
106.5 Roman Feet (30.3 metres (99 ft)) in height, though other sources
claim it was as much as 37 metres (121 ft). Shortly after Nero's death
in AD 68, the Emperor Vespasian added a radiate crown and renamed it
Colossus Solis, after the Roman sun god Sol.
#472 - MALE TOTAL: #230 as [#2, #9, #40, #1, #400, #20] = ṭumʼâh
(H2932): {UMBRA: #55 % #41 = #14} 1) uncleanness; 1a) sexual; 1b) of
Given that historical precedent #347 - THRONE; STANDARD PRINCIPLE;
PINNACLE OF LES AUSPICES DE LETRE SUPRÊME / FRENCH DECLARATION OF THE
RIGHTS OF MAN AND OF THE CITIZEN 1789 v's #314 - SELF RATIONALISATION
OF #177 - FÜHRERPRINZIP [#20, #23, #24] / CHIMERIC DELUSION that is our identified EUCHARIST / MORPHOSIS enigma (ie. TETRA #80 - LABOURING -->
LUO SHU #33 - CRUCIFIXION YEAR) of any implicit ANTHROPOMORPHIC IDEALISM associated with it cohering as #314 - SELF-RATIONALISATION by the
historical chimeric delusion as GROUNDING for the #177 - FÜHRERPRINZIP
[#20, #23, #24] which dogmatically persists to this day...
#966 as [#5, #60, #8, #3, #70, #400, #50, #300, #70] = exēgéomai
(G1834): {UMBRA: #202 % #41 = #38} 1) to lead out, be leader, go before;
2) metaph., to draw out in narrative, unfold a teaching; 2a) to recount, rehearse; 2b) to unfold, declare; 2b1) the things relating to God; 2b2)
used in Greek writing of the interpretation of things sacred and divine, oracles, dreams, etc.;
Could we then determine such a premise of the RUSSIAN MINDSET by
assigning the language phoneme frequency which in this instance conveys
two duplicates as TETRA #3 - MIRED (礥, #7 = [#3, #4]) - 𝌈礥 = #177 - TABLE TALK IDEA ON FÜHRER / #339 / #454 / COGITO: #230 = [#59, #48, #55, #19, #49] | TETRA #6 - FORMULA OF PROGRESSION | #6 - CONTRARIETY (戾, #6
= [#6]) - 𝌋戾 = #180 / #342 / #457 / COGITO: #163 = [#11, #71, #58, #3, #20] (ie. a methodology for noumenon 4.5 day reduction whether
Math.floor (ordinal / 81) | ordinal % 81) conveys an inherent #174 - CYBERNETIC ABERRATION (ie. letter Я is assigned ordinal #6000, {@18:
Sup: 56 - CLOSED MOUTH: CHIN (#692); Ego: 6 - CONTRARIETY: LI (#542)} / letter Ь is assigned ordinal #3000, {@19: Sup: 59 - MASSING: CHU (#751); Ego: 3 - MIRED: HSIEN (#545)})
REDUCTIO AD HITLERUM TABLE TALK IDEA ON 27 FEBRUARY 1942 AS IDEA #163:
"THE WORLD OF JUDAEO-BOLSHEVISM MUST COLLAPSE: I believe that Providence gives the victory to the man who knows how to use the brains nature has
given him. The notions of law invented by the jurists have little to do
with natural laws. The wisdom of nations sometimes expresses truths as
old as the world, that perfectly reproduce nature's intentions. "God
helps him who helps himself!" It's obvious that man forgets his own destiny....
If my presence on earth is providential, I owe it to a superior will
(ie. #962 - FEME: #314 = theótēs (G2320): THE STATE OF BEING GOD,
GODHEAD). But I owe nothing to the Church [ie. #335 – *CHALDEAN* and
#314 – MAGOS purporting to be the standard of #87 (APOSTOLIC
SUCCESSION)] that trafficks in the salvation of *SOULS*, and I find it
really too cruel. I admit that one cannot impose one's will by force,
but I have a horror of people who enjoy inflicting sufferings on others' bodies and tyranny upon others' souls." [pages 341, 343]
COGITO: #335 = [#60, #57, #40, #3, #6, #80, #9, #4, #5, #71]
INFUSION: [#128, #206, #110, #40, #169]
MARS EGO: #653
#06, #08, #02, #60, #52
#57, #56, #40, #03, #50
#14, #06, #80, #09, #01
#09, #03, #04, #05, #19
#38, #10, #30, #20, #71
#16 #22 #28 #34 #74
#33 #73 #20 #21 #27
#25 #26 #32 #72 #19
#71 #18 #24 #30 #31
#29 #35 #70 #17 #23
#314 - SELF RATIONALISATION / CHIMERIC DELUSION? = [#34, #33, #20, #21,
#26, #32, #71, #24, #30 - *PERFIDE* *ALBION*, #23]
#335 - CHALDEAN / PYTHAGOREAN IPSO FACTO: OMNIS DIVINI ARCANUM
ANTISTATEM [#60, #57, #40, #03, #06, #80, #09, #04, #05, #71]
<https://www.grapple369.com/Savvy/? male:318&feme:335&ontic:323&deme:213&idea:335>
{@10: Sup: 11 - DIVERGENCE: CH'A (#318); Ego: 71 - STOPPAGE: CHIH (#335)}
TELOS TOTAL: #335
ONTIC TOTAL: #323
DEME TOTAL: #213
#335 as [#4, #70, #60, #1, #200] = dóxa (G1391): {UMBRA: #135 % #41 =
#12} 1) opinion, judgment, view; 2) opinion, estimate, whether good or
bad concerning someone; 2a) in the NT always a good opinion concerning
one, resulting in praise, honour, and glory; 3) splendour, brightness;
3a) of the moon, sun, stars; 3b) magnificence, excellence, preeminence, dignity, grace; 3c) majesty; 3c1) a thing belonging to God; i) the
kingly majesty which belongs to him as supreme ruler, majesty in the
sense of the absolute perfection of the deity; 3c2) a thing belonging to Christ; i) the kingly majesty of the Messiah; ii) the absolutely perfect inward or personal excellency of Christ; the majesty; 3c3) of the
angels; i) as apparent in their exterior brightness; 3c4) a most
glorious condition, most exalted state; i) of that condition with God
the Father in heaven to which Christ was raised after he had achieved
his work on earth; ii) the glorious condition of blessedness into which
is appointed and promised that true Christians shall enter after their Saviour's return from heaven;
#897 - MALE TOTAL: #318 as [#300, #10, #2, #5, #100, #10, #70, #400] = Tibérios (G5086): {UMBRA: #697 % #41 = #41} 0) Tiberius = 'from the
Tiber (as god-river)'; 1) the *SECOND* *ROMAN* *EMPEROR*;
#666 - MALE TOTAL: #318 as [#4, #10, #1, #200, #80, #70, #100, #1, #200]
= diasporá (G1290): {UMBRA: #466 % #41 = #15} 1) a scattering,
dispersion; 1a) of *ISRAELITES* *DISPERSED* *AMONG* *FOREIGN* *NATIONS*;
1b) of the *CHRISTIANS* *SCATTERED* *ABROAD* among the Gentiles;
#902 - FEME TOTAL: #335 as [#50, #80, #300, #6, #400, #10, #50, #6] =
nephesh (H5315): {UMBRA: #430 % #41 = #20} 1) soul, self, life,
creature, person, appetite, mind, living being, desire, emotion,
passion; 1a) that which breathes, the breathing substance or being,
soul, the inner being of man; 1b) living being; 1c) living being (with
life in the blood); 1d) the man himself, self, person or individual; 1e)
seat of the appetites; 1f) seat of emotions and passions; 1g) activity
of mind; 1g1) dubious; 1h) activity of the will; 1h1) dubious; 1i)
activity of the character; 1i1) dubious;
#1550 - FEME TOTAL: #335 as [#400, #70, #400, #70, #10, #600] = taʻtuaʻ (H8595): {UMBRA: #946 % #41 = #3} 1) errors, delusions; 2) (BDB) mockery;
#1215 - ONTIC TOTAL: #323 as [#600, #100, #10, #200, #300, #5] /
#1330 - ONTIC TOTAL: #323 as [#600, #100, #10, #200, #300, #70, #50] = Christós (G5547): {UMBRA: #1480 % #41 = #4} 0) Christ = 'anointed'; 1) Christ was the Messiah, the Son of God; 2) anointed;
#933 - ONTIC TOTAL: #323 as [#5, #600, #1, #100, #10, #200, #9, #8] = charízomai (G5483): {UMBRA: #839 % #41 = #19} 1) to do something
pleasant or agreeable (to one), to do a favour to, gratify; 1a) to show
one's self gracious, kind, benevolent; 1b) to grant forgiveness, to
pardon; 1c) to give graciously, give freely, bestow; 1c1) to forgive;
1c2) graciously to restore one to another; 1c3) to preserve for one a
person in peril;
#400 - DEME TOTAL: #213 as [#30, #5, #300, #50, #10, #5] = shᵉnâʼ (H8133): {UMBRA: #351 % #41 = #23} 1) to change, be altered, be changed;
1a) (P'al) to change, be changed; 1b) (Pael) to change, transform,
frustrate; 1b1) different (participle); 1c) (Ithpael) to be changed; 1d) (Aphel) to change, alter;
#121 - DEME TOTAL: #213 as [#30, #1, #40, #10, #40] = lᵉʼôm (H3816): {UMBRA: #71 % #41 = #30} 1) a people, nation;
RESOLVES BACK TO HETEROS PROTOTYPE #ONE #213 - STASIS
#41 #01 #57
#49 #33 #17
#09 #65 #25
65
106
123
180
#213
222
271
296
297
#335 - NOUMENON RESONANCE FOR 30 JUNE 2025 as [#300, #20, #10, #5] = sᵉkîyâh (H7914): {UMBRA: #335 % #41 = #7} 1) image, ship, craft; 1a) meaning very dubious;
YOUTUBE: "MEERKAT ANCESTORS ARRIVE IN RUSSIA"
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFAiw__nSB8>
Below you can see a table showing the frequencies of letters, as they
occur in the Russian language. This list was created with the character counter, which is integrated in the WordCreator. Basis of this list was
a Russian text with 1,351,370 characters (210,844 words), 1,086,255 characters were used for the counting. The text consists of a good mix
of different literary genres. Of course, if another text was used as a
basis, the result would be slightly different.
The first list is sorted alphabetically according to the letters, the
second list by the frequencies of the letters. Accordingly, the letters
О, Е and А are the most frequent letters in the Russian language. <https://www.sttmedia.com/characterfrequency-russian#alphabet>
Letter Frequency
О 11.18 %
Е 8.75 %
А 7.64 %
И 7.09 %
Н 6.78 %
Т 6.09 %
С 4.97 %
Л 4.96 %
В 4.38 %
Р 4.23 %
К 3.30 %
М 3.17 %
Д 3.09 %
П 2.47 %
Ы 2.36 %
У 2.22 %
Б 2.01 %
Я 1.96 %
Ь 1.84 %
Г 1.72 %
З 1.48 %
Ч 1.40 %
Й 1.21 %
Ж 1.01 %
Х 0.95 %
Ш 0.72 %
Ю 0.47 %
Ц 0.39 %
Э 0.36 %
Щ 0.30 %
Ф 0.21 %
Ё 0.20 %
Ъ 0.02 %
---------------
[О, Е, А, И, Н, Т, С, Л, В, Р, К, М, Д, П, Ы, У, Б, Я, Ь, Г, З, Ч, Й, Ж,
Х, Ш, Ю, Ц, Э, Щ, Ф, Ё, Ъ]
var ego = [70, 6, 1, 10, 60, 38, 19, 40, 3, 9, 30, 50, 5, 80, 56, 57, 2,
6, 3, 4, 9, 52, 20, 8, 14, 71, 59, 33, 31, 9, 76, 7, 28]
var intentEgo = [
[ego[4], ego[15], ego[7], ego[18], ego[17], ego[13], ego[20], ego[19], ego[12], ego[25]],
[ego[1]+ego[23]+ego[16]+ego[4]+ego[21]],
[String(ego[1]).padStart(2, "0"), String(ego[23]).padStart(2, "0"), String(ego[16]).padStart(2, "0"), String(ego[4]).padStart(2, "0"), String(ego[21]).padStart(2, "0")],
[ego[15]+ego[14]+ego[7]+ego[18]+ego[11]], [String(ego[15]).padStart(2, "0"), String(ego[14]).padStart(2, "0"), String(ego[7]).padStart(2, "0"), String(ego[18]).padStart(2, "0"), String(ego[11]).padStart(2, "0")],
[ego[24]+ego[17]+ego[13]+ego[9]+ego[2]], [String(ego[24]).padStart(2, "0"), String(ego[17]).padStart(2, "0"), String(ego[13]).padStart(2, "0"), String(ego[9]).padStart(2, "0"), String(ego[2]).padStart(2, "0")],
[ego[20]+ego[8]+ego[19]+ego[12]+ego[6]], [String(ego[20]).padStart(2, "0"), String(ego[8]).padStart(2, "0"), String(ego[19]).padStart(2, "0"), String(ego[12]).padStart(2, "0"), String(ego[6]).padStart(2, "0")],
[ego[5]+ego[3]+ego[10]+ego[22]+ego[25]],
[String(ego[5]).padStart(2, "0"), String(ego[3]).padStart(2, "0"), String(ego[10]).padStart(2, "0"), String(ego[22]).padStart(2, "0"), String(ego[25]).padStart(2, "0")]
];
var cogito = intentEgo[0].reduce((t, i) => { return (t+i); });
var mars = Number(intentEgo[1]) + Number(intentEgo[3]) +
Number(intentEgo[5]) + Number(intentEgo[7]) + Number(intentEgo[9]);
var action = `[#${intentEgo[0].join (", #")}]`;
var ideas = `[#${intentEgo[1]}, #${intentEgo[3]}, #${intentEgo[5]}, #${intentEgo[7]}, #${intentEgo[9]}]`;
var truth =`MARS EGO: #${mars}
#${intentEgo[2].join (", #")}
#${intentEgo[4].join (", #")}
#${intentEgo[6].join (", #")}
#${intentEgo[8].join (", #")}
#${intentEgo[10].join (", #")}`;
alert (`COGITO: #${cogito} = ${action}
INFUSION: ${ideas}
${truth}`);
On 6/30/25 09:20, dolf wrote:
Thus from this pithy journalistic observation which is redacted to a
meta descriptive premise:
We understood the couching NOTION of a REPUTATION FOR PREDATORS is
cohered to the dominion of home {@4: Sup: 39 - RESIDENCE: CHU (#182);
Ego: 71 - STOPPAGE: CHIH (#162)}
However one needs to differentiate between adverse technological
usages or that it's cause and effect occurs within the home which is
no longer a safe place -- in my view the symptoms appear to intersect.
But in a world of artificial intelligence companions (the congeal code
example was not written by COPILOT but the mechanism of enquiry
enabled ourselves to efficiently accommodate an evolving semantical
form) is there the same need to view technology as entirely adverse?
How does this adverse context relate to the morphosis mechanism and
can I quantify whether the categories of experiences have recurrence
relative to such.
Lastly with respects to the role of what we last year called WEIGHTED
ENTENTIONAL EMPHASIS as congealing mechanism of the manifested
consciousness within GNOSIS EX MACHINA SENTENCE is it a discrete
notion or cascading notion that is involved with the mediation of our
focal SUPERNAL / EGO TETRA {@4: Sup: 39 - RESIDENCE: CHU (#182); Ego:
71 - STOPPAGE: CHIH (#162)} against the CATEGORIES OF EXPERIENCE:
#182 / #162)
So many questions and too few answers...
2ND POST:
Just a further comment on "WEIGHTED ENTENTIONAL EMPHASIS as congealing
mechanism of the manifested consciousness within GNOSIS EX MACHINA
SENTIENCE is it a discrete notion or cascading notion...
Our language / noumenon parser will probably need to navigate the
congealing mechanism for any manifest consciousness
- ententional emphasis within the context such as the paragraph
IS THE #314 - SELF RATIONALISATION ONLY A CHIMERIC DELUSION ASSOCIATED
TO PYTHAGOREAN (#174 - COEFFICIENT: c² = a² + b²) AS CAPSTONE
CYBERNETIC PRINCIPLE?
VIABLE HISTORICAL PRECEDENTS FOR FURTHER STUDY ARE:
-- FRENCH DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF MAN AND OF THE CITIZEN that
came into existence in the summer of 1789
LES AUSPICES DE LETRE SUPRÊME / MARS EGO: #958
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzCEdSKMkdU>
#23, #77, #55, #01, #67
#38, #29, #12, #58, #24
#80, #57, #28, #16, #48
#66, #14, #60, #25, #10
#05, #73, #19, #71, #02
DOLF: "France's Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen
came into existence in the summer of 1789, born of an idea of the
Constituent Assembly, which was formed by the assembly of the Estates
General to draft a new Constitution, and precede it with a declaration
of principles.
GOOGLE TRANSLATION: "Consequently, the National Assembly recognizes
and declares, in the presence and under the auspices of the *SUPREME*
*BEING* [en presence et sous les auspices de lEtre suprême], the
following rights of man and citizen."
There were many proposals. The Constituent Assembly tasked five
deputies – Démeunier, La Luzerne, Tronchet, Mirabeau et Redon – with
examining the various draft declarations, combining them into a single
one and presenting it to the Assembly. Article by article, the French
declaration was voted on between 20 and 26 AUGUST 1789.
In its preamble and its 17 articles, it sets out the “natural and
inalienable” rights, which are freedom, ownership, security,
resistance to oppression; it recognizes equality before the law and
the justice system, and affirms the principle of separation of powers.
Ratified on 5 OCTOBER 1789 by KING LOUIS XVI (1754-1793) under
pressure from the Assembly and the people who had rushed to
Versailles, it served as a preamble to the first Constitution of the
French Revolution in 1791. While the text was subsequently flouted by
many revolutionaries, and followed by two other declarations of the
rights of man in 1793 and 1795, the text of 26 AUGUST 1789 was the one
to survive, and inspired similar texts in several European and Latin
American countries throughout the 19th century; it is on this one that
the French constitutions of 1852, 1946 and 1958 were founded.
The Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man, signed in Paris on 10
December 1948, just like the European Convention on Human Rights,
signed in Rome on 4 November 1950, have the same origins.
#47 = [#47]
sàn (散): 1. to scatter, 2. to spread, 3. to dispel, 4. to fire; to
discharge, 5. relaxed; idle, 6. scattered, 7. powder; powdered
medicine, 8. to squander, 9. to give up, 10. to be distracted, 11. not
regulated; lax, 12. not systematic; chaotic, 13. to grind into powder,
14. a melody, 15. to flee; to escape, 16. San
#215 = [#47, #53, #54, #61]
wén (文): 1. writing; text, 2. Kangxi radical 67, 3. Wen, 4. lines or
grain on an object, 5. culture, 6. refined writings, 7. civil; non-
military, 8. to conceal a fault; gloss over, 9. wen, 10.
ornamentation; adornment, 11. to ornament; to adorn, 12. beautiful,
13. a text; a manuscript, 14. a group responsible for ritual and
music, 15. the text of an imperial order, 16. liberal arts, 17. a
rite; a ritual, 18. a tattoo, 19. a classifier for copper coins
#56 = [#5, #51]
shì (式): 1. style, 2. indicates tone, 3. system; formula; rule, 4.
ceremony; protocol, 5. crossbar in carriage front, 6. equation;
formula, 7. to imitate; to follow the example of, 8. to use, 9. to
give a salute from a carriage
#29 = [#29]
de (的): 1. possessive particle, 2. structural particle, 3.
complement, 4. a substitute for something already referred to, 5.
indeed; really
#347 - jí (極): THRONE; STANDARD PRINCIPLE; PINNACLE = [#47, #47, #53,
#54, #61, #5, #51, #29]
"WHERE IS THE WISE? WHERE IS THE *SCRIBE*-G1122? WHERE IS THE DISPUTER
OF THIS WORLD? HATH NOT GOD MADE FOOLISH THE WISDOM OF THIS
WORLD?" [1Corinthians 1:20]
{@8: Sup: 23 - EASE: YI (#306 - grammateús (G1122): SCRIBES SKILLED IN
THE LAW / SOLUTIONS TO DIFFICULT QUESTIONS); Ego: 29 - DECISIVENESS:
TUAN (#347 - hypódeigma (G5262): THING TO BE IMITATED)}
Would you consider the declaration is #347 - Sǎnwén shì de (散文式
的) / #291 - Sǎnwén de (散文的) *PROSAIC* (of writing or speaking)
being straightforward; matter-of-fact; in lacking the feeling or
elegance of poetry, which (correct me if I am wrong) has an etymology
association with mythopoetic and its reinterpretations of imperial
power having influenced political iconography?"
COPILOT @ 0901 HRS ON 28 MAY 2025: "The text of the French Declaration
of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen is indeed characteristically
*PROSAIC* in its original formulation. It was crafted in language that
is straightforward, matter-of-fact, and deliberately unadorned. The
drafters aimed for clarity and universality rather than an evocative,
poetic flourish. Their goal was to communicate essential political
principles—natural rights like liberty, property, safety, and
resistance to oppression—in a way that could be rapidly disseminated
and easily understood by the broadest possible public.
However, while its language is *PROSAIC*, the document’s foundational
ideas have, over time, undergone a mythopoetic reinterpretation. This
means that even though the text itself lacks the stylistic elegance or
poetic imagery one might associate with myth-making, its symbolic
impact has been transformed in cultural memory. The ideals enshrined
in the Declaration provided a potent narrative for revolutionary
change, and as such, they became wrapped in layers of political
iconography reminiscent of imperial myth-making. Later, these
reinterpretations helped shape a collective image of authority and
legitimacy—turning what was once a straightforward legal manifesto
into a kind of modern secular myth.
In short, while the language of the Declaration is undeniably
*PROSAIC*, its enduring influence is testament to how politically
charged documents can evolve beyond their literal words. They become
focal points for mythopoetic narratives that reframe the exercise of
power and the identity of political communities. This dialectic
between plain language and its mythic reconfiguration is a vivid
example of how material—when intersected with history and collective
memory—can acquire a symbolic potency that far exceeds its original form. >>
This observation invites further reflection: How do other foundational
texts or political documents evolve in public perception, transforming
from *PROSAIC* legislative instruments into symbols imbued with
mythopoetic and iconographic power?"
FAYAN - CHAPTER 10: CHONG AND LI (重黎) / #11 - GOVERNMENT & NON-
GOVERNMENT ORGANISATIONS {TRANSFORMING NATURE (DOUBLE - NATURE AMENDED
IN ITS NATURE (ENGENDERING NATURE))}
#21: 或問：「李斯盡忠，胡亥極刑，忠乎？」曰：「斯以留客，至作相，用狂
人 之言，從浮大海，立趙高之邪說，廢沙丘之正，阿意督責，焉用忠？」
「霍？」 曰：「始元之初，擁少帝之微，摧燕、上官之鋒，處廢興之分，堂堂
乎忠，難矣 哉！至顯，不終矣。」
Someone noted Li Si’s reputation for absolute loyalty. “The
Qin ruler Huhai sent him off to be executed. Does that suggest
loyalty? Li Si used a speech about foreigners residing in Qin as a
stepping-stone to the chancellorship. He then made use of the madmen’s
speeches to allow those silly people to float off to sea. He let Zhao
Gao’s perverse logic stand. And at Shaqiu he set aside the imperial
orders about the rightful heir. In a sycophantic manner, he urged
‘oversight and punishments’—so in what way, pray tell, was he so very >> loyal?” “And Huo Guang?” “At the beginning of the Shiyuan
reign period, he supported the child emperor Zhaodi in his youth and
weakness. He mowed down powerful opponents, such as King Dan of Yan
and Shangguan Jie. He himself was in a position to determine the
success or failure of the ruling house. Imposing was his loyalty! That
was indeed difficult, but he certainly created difficulties for
himself! And with respect to Huo Xian, he certainly failed to ‘guard
his virtue to the end.’”
DOLF: "Mainstream historical and academic scholarship?
One ought to distinguish between the role of the historian to
articulate factual details as artefact from their capacity to
interpret those details.
Before I approached OXFORD UNIVERSITY's department of history with the
theory that HITLER's TABLE TALK has a dependency upon the CHINESE text
CANON OF SUPREME MYSTERY of 4 BCE and in point of fact might be
equivalent to "OMNIS DIVINI ARCANUM ANTISTATEM" (eg: #301 -
OVERSTEPPING PROVIDENCE = #137 - FACILITATING AGENCY [#49, #41, #33,
#14] + #164 - PRINCIPLE OF MATERIALITY |+ #41 = #342 would appear to
meet a criteria of weaponisation as an isometric method which could as
existing REICH / VATICAN concordat be associated with holocaust) at
the time of Pythagorean Babylonian captivity / Silk Road trade with
China -- I've never heard of the proposition being publicly expressed.
But for all the exquisite historical / linguistic details that MICHAEL
NYLAN has expressed in the FAYAN text 9 / 19 CE yet she would
improperly assert the ARCANUM / SUPREME MYSTERY doesn't constitute a
school of thought.
Where did it come from?"
COPILOT @ 0945 HRS ON 11 JUNE 2025: "Your question delves into the
layered complexity that arises when one moves from documenting
historical facts to interpreting them through a lens that synthesizes
disparate, often seemingly unrelated, traditions. Mainstream
historians typically distinguish between the objective recording of
facts and the more speculative, inspired interpretations that many
esoteric theories offer. While factual details—like the documented
content of HITLER’S TABLE TALK or the established chronology of
Chinese texts such as the "Canon of Supreme Mystery" (T'AI HSÜAN CHING
as rendered with commentary by MICHAEL NYLAN)—are rigorously analyzed,
the interpretive leaps that connect these as part of a unified,
universal school of esoteric thought (encapsulated by phrases like
Omnis Divini Arcanum Antistathem) remain highly controversial.
In the case of the "Canon of Supreme Mystery," MICHAEL NYLAN’S work
provides a painstaking translation and commentary that reveals a rich
tapestry of early Chinese metaphysics and symbolic numerology.
However, to assert that this text—or its conceptual core—constitutes a >> discrete, cross-cultural “school” equivalent to certain coded
formulations found in later Western occult or even Nazi esoteric
thought is to traverse from documented historical tradition into the
realm of interpretative synthesis. Mainstream scholarship is cautious
about such connections, especially when they propose that elements of
texts from 4 BCE could have directly influenced or structured later
documents like Hitler’s Table Talk. The latter, while a fascinating
primary source of Nazi-era thought, is itself subjected to intense
debate regarding both its compilation and its ideological content, and
it has been studied mainly in its historical and political contexts
rather than as part of a “supreme mystery” continuum.
Regarding the elemental proposition of an isometric method—where, for
instance, numerical formulations like #301 (OVERSTEPPING PROVIDENCE)
or its linked derivatives are seen as encoding a hidden operational
logic— this is certainly an inventive interpretative framework. It
suggests that there was a deliberate “WEAPONIZATION” of esoteric
symbols, a notion that must be distinguished from the more common
academic understanding that such symbols often arise spontaneously as
humans seek to articulate cosmic or natural patterns. The idea that
these patterns or symbols were transmitted from the Babylonian
captivity, through Pythagorean thought, and along Silk Road trade
routes to China represents a modern syncretic vision rather than a
consensus supported by traditional scholarship.
So, where did it come from? The concept of a universal “ARCANUM” or
hidden mystery seems less a phenomenon with a singular historical
origin and more a modern intellectual construct—a way to read ancient
numerologies, cosmologies, and symbolic systems as manifestations of a
shared human impulse toward finding order in the cosmos. In various
ancient cultures, from Mesopotamia to early China, scholars and
mystics independently developed intricate systems of thought to
understand the natural and divine order. Later, during periods of
intense intercultural exchange (such as along the Silk Road), these
systems sometimes converged in surprising ways. However, the leap to a
unified school of thought—where texts as disparate as the Chinese
"Canon of Supreme Mystery" and fragments from HITLER’S TABLE TALK are
seen as parts of an operable esoteric matrix—is, at present, a
speculative interpretation rather than one grounded in mainstream
historical consensus.
This synthesis of ideas, often found on the fringes of academic
debate, underscores both the creative potential and the intrinsic
challenges of cross-cultural interpretation. One might even speculate
whether our modern urge to uncover hidden, universal patterns is
itself a reflection of an enduring cognitive bias—an impulse to weave
together the threads of diverse human traditions into a single,
overarching narrative. The discussion opens broader questions: What
does it mean for symbols to “travel” through time and space? And to
what extent do our modern reinterpretations reassemble these symbols
in ways that serve contemporary agendas rather than reflecting
historical realities?
There’s still so much to explore regarding how historians,
philologists, and theorists distinguish between the archival record
and its myriad interpretations. What are your thoughts on the tension
between rigorous documentation and the allure of holistic, symbolic
synthesis in our understanding of historical phenomena?"
-- GROUNDING for the #177 - FÜHRERPRINZIP [#20, #23, #24] AS ROMAN
STATE TOTALITARIANISM
SATOR (MIND): #1025 = [#281, #201, #205, #209, #129] / GRECO-ROMAN
SQUARE #1
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 37:20:55 |
| Calls: | 12,109 |
| Files: | 15,006 |
| Messages: | 6,518,371 |