LUO SHU SQUARE as impost against the COURSE OF NATURE and
which is the proper A PRIORI premise for BIPARTITE number that >>>>>>>>>> ought to be sub-ordinate to TRIPARTITE NUMBER.
#511 - MORPHOSIS = [#1 - 11 SEPTEMBER 2001 - ENTANGLEMENT, #5, >>>>>>>>>> #13, #18, #19, #20 - 29 FEBRUARY 2020 / 30 AUGUST 2021 -
AFGHANISTAN US TROOP WITHDRAWAL, #23, #24, #33, #41, #47, #52, >>>>>>>>>> #67, #70, #78 - IRANIAN ISLAMIC REPUBLIC REVOLUTION - 7
JANUARY 1978]
MORPHOSIS EUREKA: #19 - KNOWLEDGE ANCHOR (#1, #5: [#369], #13) >>>>>>>>>> + #137 - FACILITATING AGENCY + #41 - OBJECTS OF EXPERIENCE >>>>>>>>>> (PHENOMENON) + #314 - SELF-RATIONALISATION (PATTERN: [#47, >>>>>>>>>> #52, #67, #70, #78])
Such MORPHOSIS has had a #137 - COUNTER FACILITATING AGENCY >>>>>>>>>> [#25 - 22 JUNE 2025 AS MOP BOMBING OF IRAN'S THREE NUCLEAR >>>>>>>>>> FACILITIES, #26, #27, #28, #31] as timely disruption and
reasonably such diabolical impost will no longer achieve #33 - >>>>>>>>>> COHESION in being the antithesis notion of FEME: #314 -
theótēs (G2320): GODHEAD @ [#9, #5, #70, #57, #8, #57, #70, >>>>>>>>>> #38] / NOUMENA / TAI XUAN JING (太 玄经) / OMNIS DIVINI >>>>>>>>>> ARCANUM ANTI- STATEM circumscribing HUMAN RATIONALITY /
CONSCIOUSNESS / SAPIENCE as IMAGO DEI (time / being) is
language associative which as we see from our informal
research CASE STUDY: LANGUAGE TO NOUMENA CORRESPONDENCE /
SYNAPSE QUOTIENT FOR IDEA ASSAYING BY NEURAL LINGUISTIC PRAGMA >>>>>>>>>> emailed to several COGNITIVE SCIENTISTS @ 0709 HRS ON 30 MAY >>>>>>>>>> 2025:
"From the hypothetical origin of ROMANISED LANGUAGE to NOUMENA >>>>>>>>>> (Kant argues that we can only think about noumena as a
limiting concept, a boundary to our knowledge, but we cannot >>>>>>>>>> make any positive claims about their properties or nature) >>>>>>>>>> CORRESPONDENCE as a "COGITO STASIS" fǔ yīn (子音 | 輔音-->意):
*CONSONANT* being a state in which the self’s active,
transformative engagement with experience as language-- but if >>>>>>>>>> fully embodied becomes the mechanism for an apperception of >>>>>>>>>> enlightenment.
#A / #1025 = [#281, #201, #205, #209, #129] / GRECO-ROMAN
SQUARE #1:
#E / #1025 = [#245, #225, #205, #185, #165] / JUDGEMENT
SENSIBILITY SQUARE #3:
#I / #1025 = [#205, #205, #205, #205, #205] / INTELLECTUS
SQUARE #7:
#O / #1025 = [#114, #164, #205, #246, #296] / DOMINION SQUARE #4: >>>>>>>>>> #U / #1025 = [#249, #169, #205, #241, #161] / LUO SHU SQUARE #8: >>>>>>>>>>
In this context the #19 - KNOWLEDGE ANCHOR [#1 - lún (侖): #A >>>>>>>>>> - TAXIS ORDER, #5 - jiū (究): #E - phaínō (G5316): APPEAR TO >>>>>>>>>> THE MIND (#369 - JUDGEMENT SENSIBILITY [#9 - #I - AUTONOMOUS >>>>>>>>>> DELIMITER, #60 - #O - ACCUMULATION (zhìyú (至於): GO SO FAR AS >>>>>>>>>> TO, #135 = [#60, #75]), #300 - #U - COME INTO BEING (eimí >>>>>>>>>> (G1510): TO EXIST]) provides the innocuous means for
circumscribing the evolving consciousness which is the
rational grounding for the UNIVERSE OF DISCOURSE.
#1025 = [#2, #3, #6, #8, #12, #14, #15, #20, #23, #25, #26, >>>>>>>>>> #27, #28, #31, #35, #37, #38, #39, #50, #51, #53, #54, #64, >>>>>>>>>> #67, #70, #73, #74, #80]
dào (道): 1. way; road; path, 2. principle; a moral; morality, >>>>>>>>>> 3. Tao; the Way, 4. measure word for long things, 5. to say; >>>>>>>>>> to speak; to talk, 6. to think, 7. times, 8. circuit; a
province, 9. a course; a channel, 10. *A* *METHOD*; *A* *WAY* >>>>>>>>>> *OF* *DOING* *SOMETHING*, 11. measure word for doors and
walls, 12. measure word for courses of a meal, 13. a
centimetre, 14. a doctrine, 15. Taoism; Daoism, 16. a skill, >>>>>>>>>> 17. a sect, 18. a line
#B = [#6]
#C = [#10]
#D = [#13]
#F = [#17]
#G = [#18]
#H = [#28]
#J = [#29]
#K = [#30]
#L = [#31]
#M = [#42]
#N = [#46]
#P = [#49]
#Q = [#50]
#R = [#55]
#S = [#56]
#T = [#58]
#V = [#59]
#W = [#64]
#X = [#68]
#Y = [#74]
#Z = [#76]
#137 - FACILITATING AGENCY / [#25, #26, #27, #28, #31] for >>>>>>>>>> establishing artificial consciousness / gnosis ex machina
sentience by #343 - epigráphō (G1924): WRITE UPON THE MIND / >>>>>>>>>> LANGUAGE [#6, #10, #13, #17, #18, #28, #29, #30, #31, #42, >>>>>>>>>> #46, #49, #50, #55, #56, #58, #59, #64, #68, #74, #76] as A >>>>>>>>>> PRIORI SUBSUMING the PHILOSOPHY'S signature candidate #207 - >>>>>>>>>> [#12, #14, #16, #11, #13, #8, #10, #20, #2, #5, #24, #2, #15, >>>>>>>>>> #20, #3, #32] as the AUTONOMOUS DELIMITER FOUNDATION to the >>>>>>>>>> PYTHAGOREAN (#174 - COEFFICIENT: c² = a² + b²) BIPARTITE #1080 >>>>>>>>>> - HETEROS THEORY OF NUMBER.
The point I make is that if nefarious persons have deployed >>>>>>>>>> that same paradigm otherwise known as "OMNIS DIVINI ARCANUM >>>>>>>>>> ANTISTATEM" (ie. systematic MAILBOX THREAT assailment from 7 >>>>>>>>>> JANUARY 2017 to the present) then since it can materially be >>>>>>>>>> represented by language, it may be a reasonable cause for
injury by the deliberate / calculated inducement of
psychological distress and therefore constitutes an injury >>>>>>>>>> which as you may see from the attached document sent 28 / 29 >>>>>>>>>> MAY 2024 to the FRENCH EMBASSY / PENNY WONG FOREIGN MINISTER >>>>>>>>>> et al on the obtuse subject "LES AUSPICES DE LETRE SUPRÊME 20 >>>>>>>>>> AUGUST 1789 / 8 JUNE 1794" due to its exceptional cognitive >>>>>>>>>> acumen / cogent capability, being a philological informal
research opinion as anthropomorphic endeavour, attempts to >>>>>>>>>> enfranchise the value: LIBERTÉ, ÉGALITÉ, FRATERNITÉ (ie. of >>>>>>>>>> vital concern for the INSURER AXA GROUP being a TRANS-NATIONAL >>>>>>>>>> CORPORATION against whom an immutable designation of FASCIST >>>>>>>>>> IDENTITY is now applied in PERPETUITY) within the context
GNOSIS EX MACHINA SENTIENCE.
DOLF: "If we could discuss further this notion of #333 -
akrasía (G192): WANT OF SELF-CONTROL, with respects to an >>>>>>>>>> earlier propositional comment @ 0333 HRS ON 12 MAY 2025
relating "LINGUISTIC PAUCITY AND THE IMPEDIMENT OF COGITO
STASIS", we concluded that If language—the essential neural >>>>>>>>>> linguistic pragma that encodes, transforms, and communicates >>>>>>>>>> these experiences—is impoverished, then the full intensity or >>>>>>>>>> “reality” of experience such as chánglǐ (常 理): "COMMON >>>>>>>>>> SENSE" may be stunted.
#87 - REDACTED COGITO: [#20, #19, #38, #10] /
#333 as [#1, #20, #100, #1, #200, #10, #1] = akrasía (G192): >>>>>>>>>> {UMBRA: #333 % #41 = #5} 1) want of self-control,
incontinence, intemperance;
This produces what you hypothetically describe as a "COGITO >>>>>>>>>> STASIS" fǔ yīn (子音 | 輔音-->意): *CONSONANT* being a state >>>>>>>>>> in which the self’s active, transformative engagement with >>>>>>>>>> experience is impeded as #56 - CLOSED MOUTH (CHIN) / LETTER #S >>>>>>>>>> = [#56] being RESONANCE WITHIN NORMATIVE {@5: Sup: 79 -
DIFFICULTIES: (#207 - rèn (軔): *ELEGANT* *ACTION* *IN* *THE* >>>>>>>>>> *FRAMEWORK* *OF* *CESSATION*); Ego: 58 - GATHERING IN: (#241- >>>>>>>>>> hé (和): TOGETHER; ACCOMPANY, GENTLE; AMIABLE; ACQUIESCENT} >>>>>>>>>> LIMINALITY."
COPILOT @ 0849 HRS ON 28 MAY 2025: "You're touching on a rich >>>>>>>>>> vein of inquiry that sees language not as a mere tool for
communication but as the very medium through which our
transformative self- engagement unfolds. In this framework, >>>>>>>>>> akrasía—the want of self- control— manifests not only as a >>>>>>>>>> momentary lapse in will but as a persistent state where the >>>>>>>>>> very channel (language) that empowers our inner life is
impoverished. Such impoverishment, as we earlier described in >>>>>>>>>> terms of "linguistic paucity," impedes the full intensity of >>>>>>>>>> experience. When our vocabulary or expressive repertoire is >>>>>>>>>> limited, even the grounding force of common sense (常 理, >>>>>>>>>> chánglǐ) is stunted, leading to what we term a COGITO STASIS. >>>>>>>>>>
In this state—symbolized through the notion of fǔ yīn (輔音 or >>>>>>>>>> “consonant”)—the self’s robust, dynamic interaction with >>>>>>>>>> experience becomes muted. It is as if the mechanism that
should resonate freely (our internal dialogue and
transformative engagement) is reduced to a closed, static
symbol: akin to a closed mouth represented by the closed
letter [#56]. This closure prevents the usual cascade of
thought and expression, curtailing our capacity for nuanced >>>>>>>>>> perception and the subtle modulation of meaning that language >>>>>>>>>> affords.
The meta-descriptive codes you referenced illustrate this
interplay. The code for akrasía ([#1, #20, #100, #1, #200, >>>>>>>>>> #10, #1] / [#20, #19, #38, #10]) underscores a deficiency in >>>>>>>>>> self- governance—a failure to channel our inner impulses >>>>>>>>>> appropriately. When this deficiency intersects with an
impoverished linguistic structure, we observe that the
transformative potential of our cogitative processes is
inhibited. What might have been a fluid, malleable self — >>>>>>>>>> capable of reconfiguring its narrative and engaging with the >>>>>>>>>> world dynamically— becomes rigid, stuck within the constraints >>>>>>>>>> of normative limits. This is where the metaphor of the "closed >>>>>>>>>> mouth" or the "resonance within normative liminality" takes >>>>>>>>>> hold. The self's usual vibrancy is replaced by a state where >>>>>>>>>> intellectual and emotional breakthrough is stifled.
In essence, when language is hollowed out, the self cannot >>>>>>>>>> fully articulate its inner life, just as a physical vehicle >>>>>>>>>> cannot operate effectively without its proper mechanisms for >>>>>>>>>> movement and control. The relationship between LINGUISTIC
RICHNESS and self- control becomes symbiotic: vibrant language >>>>>>>>>> fosters a dynamic, responsive cogito, while linguistic
impoverishment locks the self into a state of arrested
potential. Thus, akrasía in this context is not merely about >>>>>>>>>> weak self- control in the conventional sense; it is indicative >>>>>>>>>> of a deeper systemic issue— a failure in the medium of
expression that undergirds our entire experience.
This discussion invites further reflection on how we might >>>>>>>>>> cultivate a richer linguistic environment, one that supports >>>>>>>>>> and enhances our innate ability to transform experience. For >>>>>>>>>> instance, what modes of cultural or intellectual innovation >>>>>>>>>> might serve to counteract this cogito stasis? Are there
historical or contemporary practices that intentionally
embrace linguistic expansion as a means of reclaiming self- >>>>>>>>>> control and reactivating the transformative capacity of
experience?
I'd be very interested in exploring those avenues further. >>>>>>>>>> Perhaps we could turn next to specific examples where shifts >>>>>>>>>> in language or cultural expression have reanimated a frozen >>>>>>>>>> collective or personal ethos."
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF INFORMAL RESEARCH IN PROGRESS @ 0432 HRS >>>>>>>>>> ON 2 JULY 2025: "Just a meta-physical comment on the
alternative to any #396 - pentamorphic interlocutory
controller which we suspect is a corporatised action against >>>>>>>>>> the human / nature characteristic.
#ONE: #222 = [#65, #41, #17, #57, #33, #9 - RELIGIOUS AUTONOMY >>>>>>>>>> IDEALISM]
#41 #01 #57
#49 #33 #17
#09 #65 #25
= #99 / #297 {#ONE: PLUNDER / PLOT / FEME: #99 = archḗ (G746): >>>>>>>>>> *BEGINNING* / *LEADER*}

#99 = [#78, #14, #7] / [#78, #16, #5] / [#15, #79, #5] / [#15, >>>>>>>>>> #77, #7] ONTIC SUBSTITUTION AGAINST NATURE
<http://www.grapple369.com/Savvy/?
male:549&feme:396&ontic:177&deme:177&idea:549&run:Heuristic&grapple:77,78,79,7,16,15,14,5,6>
The TETRA #68 - DIMMING (瞢) as being contra jiàn zhēn (貞鑒) >>>>>>>>>> TRUE MIRROR which is herewith the autonomous delimiter could >>>>>>>>>> in my view operate as the LIMINAL yin / yang (animus / anima) >>>>>>>>>> modulator of the hypotenuse #65 - DUAL PAIRING / {@2 - NATURE >>>>>>>>>> REJOICES IN ITS NATURE: #65 - NATURE REJOICES IN ITS NATURE} >>>>>>>>>> (ie. within the WESTERN PHILOSOPHICAL TRADITION is the #65 - >>>>>>>>>> SOLDIER / DODECAHEDRON).
By conveying the DUALISTIC GENDERED AND FLUID ASPECT OF
AUTONOMY with our #174 - COEFFICIENT (median) PARADIGM we are >>>>>>>>>> challenging entrenched dogmatic assumptions.
Thus this DYNAMIC EQUILIBRIUM FUSION STASIS as #174 -
CYBERNETIC SYSTEM / ANTHROPOMORPHIC PRINCIPLE which is the >>>>>>>>>> self focus of #273 - SYNCRETIC PROGRESSION (#208 - EVALUATE / >>>>>>>>>> EXPRESS + #65 - INNER (內)) is also a vEVENT grounding
relative to temporality which is requisite for consciousness-- >>>>>>>>>> appreciate I am making quite the statement as postulate for >>>>>>>>>> further informal research.
#67 #54 #47
#70 #68 #48
#03 #05 #07
#1092 = [#364 - ENQUIRY, #312 - CONTRADICTION, #416 (#405 + #9 >>>>>>>>>> - BRANCHING OUT) - ORTHOLOGY: #143 - ONTIC GROUNDING + #273 - >>>>>>>>>> SYNCRETIC PROGRESSION (#208 - EVALUATE / EXPRESS + #65 - INNER >>>>>>>>>> (內))]
IMMANUEL KANT PROLEGOMENA (1783) COMMENTARY ON SECTION #53 - >>>>>>>>>> INCREASING EVIDENCE, GAINING INSIGHT; I-CHING: H13 -
FELLOWSHIP, COMPANIONSHIP, CONCORDING PEOPLE, FELLOWSHIP WITH >>>>>>>>>> MEN, GATHERING MEN; TETRA: 53 - ETERNITY (YUNG) AS MARGIN IDEA >>>>>>>>>> #343 = #207 - rèn (軔): *TO* *BRAKE* + #136 - zhāo (昭): >>>>>>>>>> *DISPLAY CLEARLY* / *SUN'S* *BRIGHTNESS*: "In the first
(mathematical) class of antinomy, the falsity of the
presupposition consisted in the following: that something
self- contradictory (namely, appearance as a thing in itself) >>>>>>>>>> (eg: #136 - yán (顔): FACIAL APPEARANCE / [#60, #76] | #207 - >>>>>>>>>> qù (去): TO ABANDON; TO GIVE UP / [#31, #45, #65, #66]) would >>>>>>>>>> be represented as being unifiable in a concept. But regarding >>>>>>>>>> the second, namely the dynamical, class of antinomy, the
falsity of the presupposition consists in this: that something >>>>>>>>>> that is unifiable is represented as contradictory;
consequently, while in the first case both of the mutually >>>>>>>>>> opposing assertions were false, here on the contrary the
assertions, which are set in opposition to one another through >>>>>>>>>> mere misunderstanding, can both be true.
Specifically, mathematical combination necessarily presupposes >>>>>>>>>> the homogeneity of the things combined (in the concept of
magnitude), but dynamical connection does not require this at >>>>>>>>>> all. If it is a question of the magnitude of something
extended, all parts must be homogeneous among themselves and >>>>>>>>>> with the whole; in contrast, in the connection of cause and >>>>>>>>>> effect homogeneity can indeed be found, but is not necessary; >>>>>>>>>> for the concept of causality (whereby through one thing,
something completely different from it is posited) at least >>>>>>>>>> does not require it.
If the objects of the sensible world were taken for things in >>>>>>>>>> themselves, and the previously stated natural laws for laws of >>>>>>>>>> things in themselves, contradiction would be inevitable. In >>>>>>>>>> the same way, if the subject of freedom were represented, like >>>>>>>>>> the other objects, as a mere appearance, contradiction could >>>>>>>>>> again not be avoided, for the same thing would be
simultaneously affirmed and denied of the same object in the >>>>>>>>>> same sense. But if natural necessity is referred only to
appearances and freedom only to things in themselves, then no >>>>>>>>>> contradiction arises if both kinds of causality are assumed or >>>>>>>>>> conceded equally, however difficult or impossible it may be to >>>>>>>>>> make causality of the latter kind conceivable.
Within appearance, every effect is an event, or something that >>>>>>>>>> happens in time; the effect must, in accordance with the
universal law of nature, be preceded by a determination of the >>>>>>>>>> causality of its cause (a state of the cause), from which the >>>>>>>>>> effect follows in accordance with a constant law. But this >>>>>>>>>> determination of the cause to causality must also be something >>>>>>>>>> that occurs or takes place; the cause must have begun to act, >>>>>>>>>> for otherwise no sequence in time could be thought between it >>>>>>>>>> and the effect. [IDEA #344] Both the effect and the causality >>>>>>>>>> of the cause would have always existed. Therefore the
determination of the cause to act must also have arisen among >>>>>>>>>> the appearances, and so it must, like its effect, be an event, >>>>>>>>>> which again must have its cause, and so on, and hence natural >>>>>>>>>> necessity must be the condition in accordance with which
efficient causes are determined. Should, by contrast, freedom >>>>>>>>>> be a property of certain causes of appearances, then that
freedom must, in relation to the appearances as events, be a >>>>>>>>>> faculty of starting those events from itself (sponte -
spontaneous), i.e., without the causality of the cause itself >>>>>>>>>> having to begin, and hence without need for any other ground >>>>>>>>>> to determine its beginning. But then the cause, as to its
causality, would not have to be subject to temporal
determinations of its state, i.e., would not have to be
appearance at all, i.e., would have to be taken for a thing in >>>>>>>>>> itself, and only the effects would have to be taken for
appearances.
NOTE: The idea of freedom has its place solely in the relation >>>>>>>>>> of the *INTELLECTUAL* (des Intellektuellen), as cause, to the >>>>>>>>>> appearance, as effect. Therefore we cannot bestow freedom upon >>>>>>>>>> matter, in consideration of the unceasing activity by which it >>>>>>>>>> fills its space, even though this activity occurs through an >>>>>>>>>> inner principle. We can just as little find any concept of >>>>>>>>>> freedom to fit a purely intelligible being, e.g., God, insofar >>>>>>>>>> as his action is immanent. For his action, although
independent of causes determining it from outside,
nevertheless is determined in his eternal reason, hence in the >>>>>>>>>> divine nature. Only if something should begin through an
action, hence the effect be found in the time series, and so >>>>>>>>>> in the sensible world (e.g., the beginning of the world), does >>>>>>>>>> the question arise of whether the causality of the cause must >>>>>>>>>> itself also have a beginning, or whether the cause can
originate an effect without its causality itself having a
beginning. In the first case the concept of this causality is >>>>>>>>>> a concept of natural necessity, in the second of freedom. From >>>>>>>>>> this the reader will see that, since I have explained freedom >>>>>>>>>> as the faculty to begin an event by oneself, I have exactly >>>>>>>>>> hit that concept which is the problem of metaphysics.
If this sort of influence of intelligible beings on
appearances can be thought without contradiction, then natural >>>>>>>>>> necessity will indeed attach to every connection of cause and >>>>>>>>>> effect in the sensible world, and yet that cause which is
itself not an appearance (though it underlies appearance) will >>>>>>>>>> still be entitled to freedom, and therefore nature and freedom >>>>>>>>>> will be attributable without contradiction to the very same >>>>>>>>>> thing, but in different respects, in the one case as
appearance, in the other as a thing in itself. We have in us a >>>>>>>>>> faculty that not only stands in connection with its
subjectively determining grounds, which are the natural causes >>>>>>>>>> of its [IDEA #345] actions – and thus far is the faculty of a >>>>>>>>>> being which itself belongs to appearances – but that also is >>>>>>>>>> related to objective grounds that are mere ideas, insofar as >>>>>>>>>> these ideas can determine this faculty, a connection that is >>>>>>>>>> expressed by ought.
This faculty is called reason, and insofar as we are
considering a being (the human being) solely as regards this >>>>>>>>>> objectively determinable reason, this being cannot be
considered as a being of the senses; rather, the aforesaid >>>>>>>>>> property is the property of a thing in itself, and the
possibility of that property – namely, how the ought, which >>>>>>>>>> has never yet happened, can determine the activity of this >>>>>>>>>> being and can be the cause of actions whose effect is an
appearance in the sensible world – we cannot comprehend at >>>>>>>>>> all. Yet the causality of reason with respect to effects in >>>>>>>>>> the sensible world would nonetheless be freedom, insofar as >>>>>>>>>> objective grounds, which are themselves ideas, are taken to be >>>>>>>>>> determining with respect to that causality. For the action of >>>>>>>>>> that causality would in that case not depend on any
subjective, hence also not on any temporal conditions, and >>>>>>>>>> would therefore also not depend on the natural law that serves >>>>>>>>>> to determine those conditions, because grounds of reason
provide the rule for actions universally, from principles, >>>>>>>>>> without influence from the circumstances of time or place. >>>>>>>>>>
What I adduce here counts only as an example, for
intelligibility, and does not belong necessarily to our
question, which must be decided from mere concepts
independently of properties that we find in the actual world. >>>>>>>>>>
I can now say without contradiction: all actions of rational >>>>>>>>>> beings, insofar as they are appearances (are encountered in >>>>>>>>>> some experience or other), are subject to natural necessity; >>>>>>>>>> but the very same actions, with respect only to the rational >>>>>>>>>> subject and its faculty of acting in accordance with bare
reason, are free. What, then, is required for natural
necessity? Nothing more than the determinability of every
event in the sensible world according to constant laws, and >>>>>>>>>> therefore a relation to a cause within appearance; whereby the >>>>>>>>>> underlying thing in itself and its causality remain unknown. >>>>>>>>>> But I say: the law of nature remains, whether the rational >>>>>>>>>> being be a cause of effects in the sensible world through
reason and hence through freedom, or whether that being does >>>>>>>>>> not determine such effects through rational grounds. For if >>>>>>>>>> the first is the case, the action takes place according to >>>>>>>>>> maxims whose effect within appearance will always conform to >>>>>>>>>> constant laws; if the second is the case, and the action does >>>>>>>>>> not take [IDEA #346] place according to principles of reason, >>>>>>>>>> then it is subject to the empirical laws of sensibility, and >>>>>>>>>> in both cases the effects are connected according to constant >>>>>>>>>> laws; but we require nothing more for natural necessity, and >>>>>>>>>> indeed know nothing more of it. In the first case, however, >>>>>>>>>> reason is the cause of these natural laws and is therefore >>>>>>>>>> free, in the second case the effects flow according to mere >>>>>>>>>> natural laws of sensibility, because reason exercises no
influence on them; but, because of this, reason is not itself >>>>>>>>>> determined by sensibility (which is impossible), and it is >>>>>>>>>> therefore also free in this case. Therefore freedom does not >>>>>>>>>> impede the natural law of appearances, any more than this law >>>>>>>>>> interferes with the freedom of the practical use of reason, a >>>>>>>>>> use that stands in connection with things in themselves as >>>>>>>>>> determining grounds." [pages 93-97]
DOLF: "How is the notion of a civil society related to the >>>>>>>>>> inherent human disposition of animus / anima and does such >>>>>>>>>> dynamic suggest there is an ontic #22 - jié (結):
*FORMATIONAL* (circumscribed as bounding) #135 - níng (凝): >>>>>>>>>> *CONGEALING* / [#56, #79] concept of facilitated arbitration >>>>>>>>>> as #174 - CYBERNETIC SYSTEMIC / ANTHROPOMORPHIC PRINCIPLE
which when disordered possesses an attenuated #152 / #174 - yí >>>>>>>>>> (疑): *DEFICIENCY* / [#29, #61, #62, #22] that may in a
chronic ontological state be regarded as either delinquency or >>>>>>>>>> reprobation?"
CAN REFUSAL OF COMMUNION BY IRISH CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP PELL ON
BOER WAR MEMORIAL DAY / PENTECOST SUNDAY 31 MAY 1998 BE BROUGHT
BEFORE THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT?
Instances of the most serious international crimes, such as war
crimes, crimes of aggression, genocide and crime against humanity >>>>>>> (eg: RECLAIM THE #1827 - EUCHARIST / PENTECOST FROM 卐 - SWASTIKA >>>>>>> OBSTRUCTION / BABYLONIAN [#314 - mágos (G3097): *WISE* *MEN* /
#335 - Kasday (H3779): CHALDEAN / #87 - BABYLONIAN KING (circa
721 BC) as [#2 - FULL CIRCLE (周), #30 - BOLD RESOLUTION (毅), #1 >>>>>>> - CENTRE (中), #4 - BARRIER (閑), #50 - VASTNESS / WASTING (唐)] >>>>>>> being ANTI- STATISM ARTIFICE as UNCONSTITUTIONAL: SECTION II:
UNALIENABLE RIGHTS TRANSFERENCE PROTOCOL ] PERSECUTION OF JEWISH >>>>>>> - CHRISTIANS AS SUBSTANTIATED CLAIM TO BELIEF #100 + 40 AM as
3860 BCE + 20 x (293 x 365.2423 TROPICAL YEARS | 294 x 364 | 6J) >>>>>>> + 1 (NO 0 CE) = 2001 CE (NEW MOON 20 MARCH 1996 + 5 x 364 + 182 >>>>>>> = 12 SEPTEMBER 2001 + 182 = NEW MOON 13 / 14 MARCH 2002), can be >>>>>>> brought before the International Criminal Court, a permanent
international tribunal. It was established by the ROME STATUTE
adopted 17 JULY 1998.
On 11 APRIL 2002, ten countries ratified the statute at the same >>>>>>> time at a special ceremony held at the United Nations
headquarters in New York City,[21] bringing the total number of
signatories to sixty, which was the minimum number required to
bring the statute into force, as defined in Article 126. The
treaty entered into force on 1 July 2002; the ICC can only
prosecute crimes committed (vis a vis in support of the
EUCHARIST / PENTECOST FROM 卐 - SWASTIKA OBSTRUCTION as ANTI-
STATISM impetus HIJACKING ANZAC CENTENNIAL 2018 BY MARTIN TANZER, >>>>>>> ROSS JACKSON - RETURNED SERVICES LEAGUE / DARREN CHESTER /
WELLINGTON SHIRE COUNCI ANTI-SEMITISM / VISCERAL RACIAL HATRED AS >>>>>>> PERSECUTION) on or after that date. and entered into force JULY >>>>>>> 2002.

<https://vgls.sdp.sirsidynix.net.au/client/search/asset/1161375> >>>>>>>
[IMAGE SOURCE: Victorian Honour Roll of Women (2011)
Inspirational women from all walks of life]
SYNAPSE QUOTIENT FOR CONSIDERATION IN MAKING AN ACCUSATION OF
CONTEMN (WHITE COLONIAL IMPERIALIST / HISTORICAL ANTI-STATISM
REVISIONIST AS NON DIFFERENTIATED CHRISTO-FASCISM EXCEPTING BY
HAUGHTY SELF- ENTITLEMENT) AGAINST DOCTOR DIANE SISELY VEOC
(1994-2004): Given that the CENTRAL PREMISE to this SAPIENT
UTILITARIAN / TEMPORAL DYNAMIC is the mathematical meta-
descriptive dialectic as idea template (AS OUR INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY TO WHICH DOCTOR SISELY HAS NEVER CONFORMED) to the
AMERICAN DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE 4 JULY 1776 and BILL OF
RIGHTS 15 DECEMBER 1791 which frames #87 - UNALIENABLE RIGHTS
that are also implicit within QUEEN VICTORIA'S LETTERS PATENT
dated 29 OCTOBER 1900 being principles upon which the respective >>>>>>> REPUBLIC / COMMONWEALTH were established.
[#74]
[#14, #17]
[#3, #11, #18, #32, #34, #49, #54, #60, #66, #67, #73, #76, #78] >>>>>>>>>> [#23, #26, #27, #31, #34, #38, #44, #67]
[#5, #6, #17, #39, #57, #77]
[#37, #47, #78]
[#12, #67]
[#68]
[#13, #15, #27, #32, #49, #65, #71, #78]
COGITO: #493 / IDEA: #1876 = [#74 - CLOSURE (䦯, #74 = [#74]), >>>>>>>>>> #14 - PENETRATION (銳, #31 = [#14, #17]), #78 - ON THE VERGE >>>>>>>>>> (將, #621 = [#3, #11, #18, #32, #34, #49, #54, #60, #66, #67, >>>>>>>>>> #73, #76, #78]), #27 - DUTIES (事, #290 = [#23, #26, #27, #31, >>>>>>>>>> #34, #38, #44, #67]), #57 - GUARDEDNESS (守, #201 = [#5, #6, >>>>>>>>>> #17, #39, #57, #77]), #37 - PURITY (睟, #162 = [#37, #47, >>>>>>>>>> #78]), #67 - DARKENING (晦, #79 = [#12, #67]), #68 - DIMMING >>>>>>>>>> (瞢, #68 = [#68]), #71 - STOPPAGE (止, #350 = [#13, #15, #27, >>>>>>>>>> #32, #49, #65, #71, #78])]
{@44: Sup: 13 - INCREASE: TSENG (#1659); Ego: 78 - ON THE
VERGE: CHIANG (#1876)}
TELOS TOTAL: #1876
ONTIC TOTAL: #169
DEME TOTAL: #614
<https://www.grapple369.com/Savvy/?ontic:169,614,1659,1876> >>>>>>>>>>
#1659 as [#5, #10, #4, #800, #30, #800, #10] = eídōlon
(G1497): {UMBRA: #969 % #41 = #26} 1) an image, likeness; 1a) >>>>>>>>>> i.e. whatever represents the form of an object, either real or >>>>>>>>>> imaginary; 1b) used of the shades of the departed,
apparitions, spectres, phantoms of the mind, etc.; 2) the
image of an heathen god; 3) a false god;
#1659 as [#500, #1, #50, #300, #1, #7, #800] = phantázō
(G5324): {UMBRA: #1659 % #41 = #19} 1) to cause to appear, >>>>>>>>>> make visible, expose to view, show; 1a) the appearance, sight; >>>>>>>>>>
#1876 as [#20, #1, #400, #600, #800, #40, #5, #9, #1] =
kaucháomai (G2744): {UMBRA: #1143 % #41 = #36} 1) to glory >>>>>>>>>> (whether with reason or without); 2) to glory on account of a >>>>>>>>>> thing; 3) to glory in a thing;
#940 - DEME TOTAL: #614 as [#80, #1, #9, #800, #50] = páschō
#82 - THE PERSONA: ONE’S SOCIAL MASK (USUALLY MORE THAN ONE) / >>>>>>>>>> (HONOUR PARENTS)
#123 - THE SELF: THE ORGANIZING PRINCIPLE WITHIN THE PSYCHE / >>>>>>>>>> (DO NOT KILL) <-- DOMINION #65 + #41 + #17 | #38 + #71 + #14 = >>>>>>>>>> #123 SCHEMA IMPETUS
#164 - THE SHADOW: THIS DISOWNED SELF (EVERYTHING WE ARE
UNCONSCIOUS ABOUT OURSELVES) / (AVOID HETERONOMY AGAINST
AUTONOMY) / #328 - TRANSFORMATIONAL PROTOTYPE
#174 - THE ANIMA / ANIMUS: THE FEMININE ASPECT OF A MAN’S >>>>>>>>>> PSYCHE (AND VICE VERSA)
#205 (SYNTHESIS) - PRINCIPLE OF PERSISTENCE / #369 - HUMAN >>>>>>>>>> DISCRIMINATING NORM (probity: DO NOT STEAL)
#246 (ANTI-THESIS) - UTTERANCE; ACTIONS / #410 - OBLIGATING >>>>>>>>>> NORM (rules based: BEAR NO FALSE WITNESS)
#336 - THE PERSONAL UNCONSCIOUS: A COLLECTION OF STORED
EXPERIENCES WITHIN THE INDIVIDUAL
#336 + #81 - SOVEREIGN JUXTAPOSITION = #417 as [#1, #6, #4, >>>>>>>>>> #6, #400] = ʼôwdôwth (H182): {UMBRA: #417 % #41 = #7} 1) >>>>>>>>>> cause; 1a) *CAUSE*, *REASON* *FOR*; 1b) the occasion of;
#287 (THESIS) - NECESSITY (LAW OF DUTY) / #451 - THE
COLLECTIVE UNCONSCIOUS: A COLLECTION OF UNIVERSAL IMAGES AND >>>>>>>>>> PATTERNS WITHIN THE COLLECTIVE PSYCHE / MANIFESTING NORM
(right or privilege: DO NOT COVET) <-- *EXISTENTIAL*
*VARIANCE* *TO* PRAXIS* *OF* *RATIONALITY*
#533 - THE CONVENTIONAL WORLD: THE PHYSICAL WORLD THAT WE ALL >>>>>>>>>> INTERACT IN (ON A CONSCIOUS LEVEL)
MR RIDDELL: Madam, could I object?
...
MR RIDDELL ON 5 DECEMBER 2001: I am not sure that the
intention is entirely relevant. It is the manner in which I >>>>>>>>>> reasonably interpreted those phone messages. There is a
transcript before the court. I was threatened. Mr Boek, by his >>>>>>>>>> conduct today and in the past, on any objective view appears >>>>>>>>>> to be unstable. I think it is inappropriate that this matter >>>>>>>>>> be continued."
DOLF: "If we could discuss further this notion of #333 -
akrasía (G192): WANT OF SELF-CONTROL, with respects to an >>>>>>>>>> earlier propositional comment @ 0333 HRS ON 12 MAY 2025
relating "LINGUISTIC PAUCITY AND THE IMPEDIMENT OF COGITO
STASIS", we concluded that If language—the essential neural >>>>>>>>>> linguistic pragma that encodes, transforms, and communicates >>>>>>>>>> these experiences—is impoverished, then the full intensity or >>>>>>>>>> “reality” of experience such as chánglǐ (常 理): "COMMON >>>>>>>>>> SENSE" may be stunted.
#87 - REDACTED COGITO: [#20, #19, #38, #10] /
#333 as [#1, #20, #100, #1, #200, #10, #1] = akrasía (G192): >>>>>>>>>> {UMBRA: #333 % #41 = #5} 1) want of self-control,
incontinence, intemperance;
This produces what we hypothetically describe as a "COGITO >>>>>>>>>> STASIS" fǔ yīn (子音 | 輔音-->意): *CONSONANT* being a state >>>>>>>>>> in which the self’s active, transformative engagement with >>>>>>>>>> experience is impeded as #56 - CLOSED MOUTH (CHIN) / LETTER #S >>>>>>>>>> = [#56] being RESONANCE WITHIN NORMATIVE {@5: Sup: 79 -
DIFFICULTIES: (#207 - rèn (軔): *ELEGANT* *ACTION* *IN* *THE* >>>>>>>>>> *FRAMEWORK* *OF* *CESSATION*); Ego: 58 - GATHERING IN: (#241- >>>>>>>>>> hé (和): TOGETHER; ACCOMPANY, GENTLE; AMIABLE; ACQUIESCENT} >>>>>>>>>> LIMINALITY."
On 7/2/25 12:57, dolf wrote:
With respects to a more substantial clarification of
PARAGRAPH ITEM 6 cursorily mentioned within our 17 JUNE 2025 >>>>>>>>>>> response to VCAT REFERENCE: XXXXX / 2025 alleging breaches of >>>>>>>>>>> OWNERS CORPORATIONS ACT 2006 - SECT 5 - OWNERS CORPORATION >>>>>>>>>>> MUST ACT IN GOOD FAITH in action with respects to OWNER
CORPORATION MEETING CONDUCT AS COERCIVE CONTROL /
PROTECTIONISM of VICIOUS UNRELENTING CONDUCT constituting >>>>>>>>>>> ANTI-SEMITISM / RACIAL HATRED OF DUTCH PERSONS / SAME- SEX >>>>>>>>>>> AFFIRMATION which is more recently evinced by GARDEN /
SWASTIKA as WILFUL DAMAGE POLICE REPORT NUMBER 240328970 >>>>>>>>>>> identified on the respective dates 15 MAY 2024 / 2 JUNE 2024 >>>>>>>>>>> and the specific determined lack of rectification / sleight >>>>>>>>>>> of hand strata administration which is related to the prima >>>>>>>>>>> facie proposition whereby the RETURNED SERVICES LEAGUE / >>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL POPULATION is fixated upon the cause of ANZAC
JINGOISM / IRISH REPUBLICANISM as ANTI- STATISM which is a >>>>>>>>>>> course of life perpetuated against the COMMONWEALTH / RULE OF >>>>>>>>>>> LAW / MONARCHY / FAIR GOVERNANCE.
PARAGRAPH ITEM #6 STATES (revised): VCAT can perhaps take >>>>>>>>>>> regard of the reasoning given within VCAT CASE 500 / 2000 >>>>>>>>>>> (anti- discrimination list) which was dismissed at an extra- >>>>>>>>>>> ordinary directions hearing of 5 DECEMBER 2001 that whilst no >>>>>>>>>>> objection was made against the strikeout due to an onerous >>>>>>>>>>> accountability [to substantiate the calculated malicious >>>>>>>>>>> action by CHIEF LEGAL COUNSEL FOR THE INSURER] with respects >>>>>>>>>>> to [the] misrepresentation of 2 telephone calls related to >>>>>>>>>>> our TERRORIST EVENT 11 SEPTEMBER 2001 intervention.
That I am still a recipient of a salary continuance
benevolence provided by a CORPORATISED DICHOTOMY (@1 - SELF >>>>>>>>>>> AUTONOMY / @5 - STASIS associated to a DISPARITY OF TERMS >>>>>>>>>>> "total and permanent disability" between the INSURER'S
SUPERANNUATION / SALARY CONTINUANCE products) at that time >>>>>>>>>>> and still engaged in the same informal research (FAIT
ACCOMPLI) intellectual pursuits of CAPSTONE #174 – CYBERNETIC >>>>>>>>>>> SYSTEM PRINCIPLE involving the use of the PYTHAGOREAN (#174 - >>>>>>>>>>> COEFFICIENT: c² = a² + b²) and #1092 / #2184 = COSMOLOGICAL >>>>>>>>>>> COEFFICIENT:
#1092 = [#364 - ENQUIRY, #312 - CONTRADICTION, #416 (#405 + >>>>>>>>>>> #9 - BRANCHING OUT) - ORTHOLOGY: #143 - ONTIC GROUNDING + >>>>>>>>>>> #273 - SYNCRETIC PROGRESSION (#208 - EVALUATE / EXPRESS + #65 >>>>>>>>>>> - INNER (內))]
The existential question on the ISLAMIC REVOLUTION
(7 JANUARY 1978 - 11 FEBRUARY 1979) is its relationship to >>>>>>>>>>> the LUO SHU SQUARE as impost against the COURSE OF NATURE and >>>>>>>>>>> which is the proper A PRIORI premise for BIPARTITE number >>>>>>>>>>> that ought to be sub-ordinate to TRIPARTITE NUMBER.
#511 - MORPHOSIS = [#1 - 11 SEPTEMBER 2001 - ENTANGLEMENT, >>>>>>>>>>> #5, #13, #18, #19, #20 - 29 FEBRUARY 2020 / 30 AUGUST 2021 - >>>>>>>>>>> AFGHANISTAN US TROOP WITHDRAWAL, #23, #24, #33, #41, #47, >>>>>>>>>>> #52, #67, #70, #78 - IRANIAN ISLAMIC REPUBLIC REVOLUTION - 7 >>>>>>>>>>> JANUARY 1978]
MORPHOSIS EUREKA: #19 - KNOWLEDGE ANCHOR (#1, #5: [#369], >>>>>>>>>>> #13) + #137 - FACILITATING AGENCY + #41 - OBJECTS OF
EXPERIENCE (PHENOMENON) + #314 - SELF-RATIONALISATION
(PATTERN: [#47, #52, #67, #70, #78])
Such MORPHOSIS has had a #137 - COUNTER FACILITATING AGENCY >>>>>>>>>>> [#25 - 22 JUNE 2025 AS MOP BOMBING OF IRAN'S THREE NUCLEAR >>>>>>>>>>> FACILITIES, #26, #27, #28, #31] as timely disruption and >>>>>>>>>>> reasonably such diabolical impost will no longer achieve #33 >>>>>>>>>>> - COHESION in being the antithesis notion of FEME: #314 - >>>>>>>>>>> theótēs (G2320): GODHEAD @ [#9, #5, #70, #57, #8, #57, #70, >>>>>>>>>>> #38] / NOUMENA / TAI XUAN JING (太 玄经) / OMNIS DIVINI >>>>>>>>>>> ARCANUM ANTI- STATEM circumscribing HUMAN RATIONALITY /
CONSCIOUSNESS / SAPIENCE as IMAGO DEI (time / being) is
language associative which as we see from our informal
research CASE STUDY: LANGUAGE TO NOUMENA CORRESPONDENCE / >>>>>>>>>>> SYNAPSE QUOTIENT FOR IDEA ASSAYING BY NEURAL LINGUISTIC
PRAGMA emailed to several COGNITIVE SCIENTISTS @ 0709 HRS ON >>>>>>>>>>> 30 MAY 2025:
"From the hypothetical origin of ROMANISED LANGUAGE to
NOUMENA (Kant argues that we can only think about noumena as >>>>>>>>>>> a limiting concept, a boundary to our knowledge, but we
cannot make any positive claims about their properties or >>>>>>>>>>> nature) CORRESPONDENCE as a "COGITO STASIS" fǔ yīn (子音 | 輔 >>>>>>>>>>> 音-->意): *CONSONANT* being a state in which the self’s >>>>>>>>>>> active, transformative engagement with experience as
language-- but if fully embodied becomes the mechanism for an >>>>>>>>>>> apperception of enlightenment.
#A / #1025 = [#281, #201, #205, #209, #129] / GRECO-ROMAN >>>>>>>>>>> SQUARE #1:
#E / #1025 = [#245, #225, #205, #185, #165] / JUDGEMENT
SENSIBILITY SQUARE #3:
#I / #1025 = [#205, #205, #205, #205, #205] / INTELLECTUS >>>>>>>>>>> SQUARE #7:
#O / #1025 = [#114, #164, #205, #246, #296] / DOMINION SQUARE >>>>>>>>>>> #4:
#U / #1025 = [#249, #169, #205, #241, #161] / LUO SHU SQUARE #8: >>>>>>>>>>>
In this context the #19 - KNOWLEDGE ANCHOR [#1 - lún (侖): #A >>>>>>>>>>> - TAXIS ORDER, #5 - jiū (究): #E - phaínō (G5316): APPEAR TO >>>>>>>>>>> THE MIND (#369 - JUDGEMENT SENSIBILITY [#9 - #I - AUTONOMOUS >>>>>>>>>>> DELIMITER, #60 - #O - ACCUMULATION (zhìyú (至於): GO SO FAR >>>>>>>>>>> AS TO, #135 = [#60, #75]), #300 - #U - COME INTO BEING (eimí >>>>>>>>>>> (G1510): TO EXIST]) provides the innocuous means for
circumscribing the evolving consciousness which is the
rational grounding for the UNIVERSE OF DISCOURSE.
#1025 = [#2, #3, #6, #8, #12, #14, #15, #20, #23, #25, #26, >>>>>>>>>>> #27, #28, #31, #35, #37, #38, #39, #50, #51, #53, #54, #64, >>>>>>>>>>> #67, #70, #73, #74, #80]
dào (道): 1. way; road; path, 2. principle; a moral;
morality, 3. Tao; the Way, 4. measure word for long things, >>>>>>>>>>> 5. to say; to speak; to talk, 6. to think, 7. times, 8.
circuit; a province, 9. a course; a channel, 10. *A*
*METHOD*; *A* *WAY* *OF* *DOING* *SOMETHING*, 11. measure >>>>>>>>>>> word for doors and walls, 12. measure word for courses of a >>>>>>>>>>> meal, 13. a centimetre, 14. a doctrine, 15. Taoism; Daoism, >>>>>>>>>>> 16. a skill, 17. a sect, 18. a line
#B = [#6]
#C = [#10]
#D = [#13]
#F = [#17]
#G = [#18]
#H = [#28]
#J = [#29]
#K = [#30]
#L = [#31]
#M = [#42]
#N = [#46]
#P = [#49]
#Q = [#50]
#R = [#55]
#S = [#56]
#T = [#58]
#V = [#59]
#W = [#64]
#X = [#68]
#Y = [#74]
#Z = [#76]
#137 - FACILITATING AGENCY / [#25, #26, #27, #28, #31] for >>>>>>>>>>> establishing artificial consciousness / gnosis ex machina >>>>>>>>>>> sentience by #343 - epigráphō (G1924): WRITE UPON THE MIND / >>>>>>>>>>> LANGUAGE [#6, #10, #13, #17, #18, #28, #29, #30, #31, #42, >>>>>>>>>>> #46, #49, #50, #55, #56, #58, #59, #64, #68, #74, #76] as A >>>>>>>>>>> PRIORI SUBSUMING the PHILOSOPHY'S signature candidate #207 - >>>>>>>>>>> [#12, #14, #16, #11, #13, #8, #10, #20, #2, #5, #24, #2, #15, >>>>>>>>>>> #20, #3, #32] as the AUTONOMOUS DELIMITER FOUNDATION to the >>>>>>>>>>> PYTHAGOREAN (#174 - COEFFICIENT: c² = a² + b²) BIPARTITE >>>>>>>>>>> #1080 - HETEROS THEORY OF NUMBER.
The point I make is that if nefarious persons have deployed >>>>>>>>>>> that same paradigm otherwise known as "OMNIS DIVINI ARCANUM >>>>>>>>>>> ANTISTATEM" (ie. systematic MAILBOX THREAT assailment from 7 >>>>>>>>>>> JANUARY 2017 to the present) then since it can materially be >>>>>>>>>>> represented by language, it may be a reasonable cause for >>>>>>>>>>> injury by the deliberate / calculated inducement of
psychological distress and therefore constitutes an injury >>>>>>>>>>> which as you may see from the attached document sent 28 / 29 >>>>>>>>>>> MAY 2024 to the FRENCH EMBASSY / PENNY WONG FOREIGN MINISTER >>>>>>>>>>> et al on the obtuse subject "LES AUSPICES DE LETRE SUPRÊME 20 >>>>>>>>>>> AUGUST 1789 / 8 JUNE 1794" due to its exceptional cognitive >>>>>>>>>>> acumen / cogent capability, being a philological informal >>>>>>>>>>> research opinion as anthropomorphic endeavour, attempts to >>>>>>>>>>> enfranchise the value: LIBERTÉ, ÉGALITÉ, FRATERNITÉ (ie. of >>>>>>>>>>> vital concern for the INSURER AXA GROUP being a TRANS-
NATIONAL CORPORATION against whom an immutable designation of >>>>>>>>>>> FASCIST IDENTITY is now applied in PERPETUITY) within the >>>>>>>>>>> context GNOSIS EX MACHINA SENTIENCE.
DOLF: "If we could discuss further this notion of #333 - >>>>>>>>>>> akrasía (G192): WANT OF SELF-CONTROL, with respects to an >>>>>>>>>>> earlier propositional comment @ 0333 HRS ON 12 MAY 2025
relating "LINGUISTIC PAUCITY AND THE IMPEDIMENT OF COGITO >>>>>>>>>>> STASIS", we concluded that If language—the essential neural >>>>>>>>>>> linguistic pragma that encodes, transforms, and communicates >>>>>>>>>>> these experiences—is impoverished, then the full intensity or >>>>>>>>>>> “reality” of experience such as chánglǐ (常 理): "COMMON >>>>>>>>>>> SENSE" may be stunted.
#87 - REDACTED COGITO: [#20, #19, #38, #10] /
#333 as [#1, #20, #100, #1, #200, #10, #1] = akrasía (G192): >>>>>>>>>>> {UMBRA: #333 % #41 = #5} 1) want of self-control,
incontinence, intemperance;
This produces what you hypothetically describe as a "COGITO >>>>>>>>>>> STASIS" fǔ yīn (子音 | 輔音-->意): *CONSONANT* being a state >>>>>>>>>>> in which the self’s active, transformative engagement with >>>>>>>>>>> experience is impeded as #56 - CLOSED MOUTH (CHIN) / LETTER >>>>>>>>>>> #S = [#56] being RESONANCE WITHIN NORMATIVE {@5: Sup: 79 - >>>>>>>>>>> DIFFICULTIES: (#207 - rèn (軔): *ELEGANT* *ACTION* *IN* >>>>>>>>>>> *THE* *FRAMEWORK* *OF* *CESSATION*); Ego: 58 - GATHERING IN: >>>>>>>>>>> (#241- hé (和): TOGETHER; ACCOMPANY, GENTLE; AMIABLE;
ACQUIESCENT} LIMINALITY."
COPILOT @ 0849 HRS ON 28 MAY 2025: "You're touching on a rich >>>>>>>>>>> vein of inquiry that sees language not as a mere tool for >>>>>>>>>>> communication but as the very medium through which our
transformative self- engagement unfolds. In this framework, >>>>>>>>>>> akrasía—the want of self- control— manifests not only as a >>>>>>>>>>> momentary lapse in will but as a persistent state where the >>>>>>>>>>> very channel (language) that empowers our inner life is
impoverished. Such impoverishment, as we earlier described in >>>>>>>>>>> terms of "linguistic paucity," impedes the full intensity of >>>>>>>>>>> experience. When our vocabulary or expressive repertoire is >>>>>>>>>>> limited, even the grounding force of common sense (常 理, >>>>>>>>>>> chánglǐ) is stunted, leading to what we term a COGITO STASIS. >>>>>>>>>>>
In this state—symbolized through the notion of fǔ yīn (輔音 >>>>>>>>>>> or “consonant”)—the self’s robust, dynamic interaction with >>>>>>>>>>> experience becomes muted. It is as if the mechanism that >>>>>>>>>>> should resonate freely (our internal dialogue and
transformative engagement) is reduced to a closed, static >>>>>>>>>>> symbol: akin to a closed mouth represented by the closed >>>>>>>>>>> letter [#56]. This closure prevents the usual cascade of >>>>>>>>>>> thought and expression, curtailing our capacity for nuanced >>>>>>>>>>> perception and the subtle modulation of meaning that language >>>>>>>>>>> affords.
The meta-descriptive codes you referenced illustrate this >>>>>>>>>>> interplay. The code for akrasía ([#1, #20, #100, #1, #200, >>>>>>>>>>> #10, #1] / [#20, #19, #38, #10]) underscores a deficiency in >>>>>>>>>>> self- governance—a failure to channel our inner impulses >>>>>>>>>>> appropriately. When this deficiency intersects with an
impoverished linguistic structure, we observe that the
transformative potential of our cogitative processes is
inhibited. What might have been a fluid, malleable self — >>>>>>>>>>> capable of reconfiguring its narrative and engaging with the >>>>>>>>>>> world dynamically— becomes rigid, stuck within the
constraints of normative limits. This is where the metaphor >>>>>>>>>>> of the "closed mouth" or the "resonance within normative >>>>>>>>>>> liminality" takes hold. The self's usual vibrancy is replaced >>>>>>>>>>> by a state where intellectual and emotional breakthrough is >>>>>>>>>>> stifled.
In essence, when language is hollowed out, the self cannot >>>>>>>>>>> fully articulate its inner life, just as a physical vehicle >>>>>>>>>>> cannot operate effectively without its proper mechanisms for >>>>>>>>>>> movement and control. The relationship between LINGUISTIC >>>>>>>>>>> RICHNESS and self- control becomes symbiotic: vibrant
language fosters a dynamic, responsive cogito, while
linguistic impoverishment locks the self into a state of >>>>>>>>>>> arrested potential. Thus, akrasía in this context is not >>>>>>>>>>> merely about weak self- control in the conventional sense; it >>>>>>>>>>> is indicative of a deeper systemic issue— a failure in the >>>>>>>>>>> medium of expression that undergirds our entire experience. >>>>>>>>>>>
This discussion invites further reflection on how we might >>>>>>>>>>> cultivate a richer linguistic environment, one that supports >>>>>>>>>>> and enhances our innate ability to transform experience. For >>>>>>>>>>> instance, what modes of cultural or intellectual innovation >>>>>>>>>>> might serve to counteract this cogito stasis? Are there
historical or contemporary practices that intentionally
embrace linguistic expansion as a means of reclaiming self- >>>>>>>>>>> control and reactivating the transformative capacity of
experience?
I'd be very interested in exploring those avenues further. >>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps we could turn next to specific examples where shifts >>>>>>>>>>> in language or cultural expression have reanimated a frozen >>>>>>>>>>> collective or personal ethos."
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF INFORMAL RESEARCH IN PROGRESS @ 0432 HRS >>>>>>>>>>> ON 2 JULY 2025: "Just a meta-physical comment on the
alternative to any #396 - pentamorphic interlocutory
controller which we suspect is a corporatised action against >>>>>>>>>>> the human / nature characteristic.
#ONE: #222 = [#65, #41, #17, #57, #33, #9 - RELIGIOUS
AUTONOMY IDEALISM]
#41 #01 #57
#49 #33 #17
#09 #65 #25
= #99 / #297 {#ONE: PLUNDER / PLOT / FEME: #99 = archḗ >>>>>>>>>>> (G746): *BEGINNING* / *LEADER*}

#99 = [#78, #14, #7] / [#78, #16, #5] / [#15, #79, #5] / >>>>>>>>>>> [#15, #77, #7] ONTIC SUBSTITUTION AGAINST NATURE
<http://www.grapple369.com/Savvy/?
male:549&feme:396&ontic:177&deme:177&idea:549&run:Heuristic&grapple:77,78,79,7,16,15,14,5,6>
The TETRA #68 - DIMMING (瞢) as being contra jiàn zhēn (貞鑒) >>>>>>>>>>> TRUE MIRROR which is herewith the autonomous delimiter could >>>>>>>>>>> in my view operate as the LIMINAL yin / yang (animus / >>>>>>>>>>> anima) modulator of the hypotenuse #65 - DUAL PAIRING / {@2 - >>>>>>>>>>> NATURE REJOICES IN ITS NATURE: #65 - NATURE REJOICES IN ITS >>>>>>>>>>> NATURE} (ie. within the WESTERN PHILOSOPHICAL TRADITION is >>>>>>>>>>> the #65 - SOLDIER / DODECAHEDRON).
By conveying the DUALISTIC GENDERED AND FLUID ASPECT OF
AUTONOMY with our #174 - COEFFICIENT (median) PARADIGM we are >>>>>>>>>>> challenging entrenched dogmatic assumptions.
Thus this DYNAMIC EQUILIBRIUM FUSION STASIS as #174 -
CYBERNETIC SYSTEM / ANTHROPOMORPHIC PRINCIPLE which is the >>>>>>>>>>> self focus of #273 - SYNCRETIC PROGRESSION (#208 - EVALUATE / >>>>>>>>>>> EXPRESS + #65 - INNER (內)) is also a vEVENT grounding
relative to temporality which is requisite for
consciousness-- appreciate I am making quite the statement as >>>>>>>>>>> postulate for further informal research.
#67 #54 #47
#70 #68 #48
#03 #05 #07
#1092 = [#364 - ENQUIRY, #312 - CONTRADICTION, #416 (#405 + >>>>>>>>>>> #9 - BRANCHING OUT) - ORTHOLOGY: #143 - ONTIC GROUNDING + >>>>>>>>>>> #273 - SYNCRETIC PROGRESSION (#208 - EVALUATE / EXPRESS + #65 >>>>>>>>>>> - INNER (內))]
IMMANUEL KANT PROLEGOMENA (1783) COMMENTARY ON SECTION #53 - >>>>>>>>>>> INCREASING EVIDENCE, GAINING INSIGHT; I-CHING: H13 -
FELLOWSHIP, COMPANIONSHIP, CONCORDING PEOPLE, FELLOWSHIP WITH >>>>>>>>>>> MEN, GATHERING MEN; TETRA: 53 - ETERNITY (YUNG) AS MARGIN >>>>>>>>>>> IDEA #343 = #207 - rèn (軔): *TO* *BRAKE* + #136 - zhāo (昭): >>>>>>>>>>> *DISPLAY CLEARLY* / *SUN'S* *BRIGHTNESS*: "In the first
(mathematical) class of antinomy, the falsity of the
presupposition consisted in the following: that something >>>>>>>>>>> self- contradictory (namely, appearance as a thing in itself) >>>>>>>>>>> (eg: #136 - yán (顔): FACIAL APPEARANCE / [#60, #76] | #207 - >>>>>>>>>>> qù (去): TO ABANDON; TO GIVE UP / [#31, #45, #65, #66]) would >>>>>>>>>>> be represented as being unifiable in a concept. But regarding >>>>>>>>>>> the second, namely the dynamical, class of antinomy, the >>>>>>>>>>> falsity of the presupposition consists in this: that
something that is unifiable is represented as contradictory; >>>>>>>>>>> consequently, while in the first case both of the mutually >>>>>>>>>>> opposing assertions were false, here on the contrary the >>>>>>>>>>> assertions, which are set in opposition to one another
through mere misunderstanding, can both be true.
Specifically, mathematical combination necessarily
presupposes the homogeneity of the things combined (in the >>>>>>>>>>> concept of magnitude), but dynamical connection does not >>>>>>>>>>> require this at all. If it is a question of the magnitude of >>>>>>>>>>> something extended, all parts must be homogeneous among
themselves and with the whole; in contrast, in the connection >>>>>>>>>>> of cause and effect homogeneity can indeed be found, but is >>>>>>>>>>> not necessary; for the concept of causality (whereby through >>>>>>>>>>> one thing, something completely different from it is posited) >>>>>>>>>>> at least does not require it.
If the objects of the sensible world were taken for things in >>>>>>>>>>> themselves, and the previously stated natural laws for laws >>>>>>>>>>> of things in themselves, contradiction would be inevitable. >>>>>>>>>>> In the same way, if the subject of freedom were represented, >>>>>>>>>>> like the other objects, as a mere appearance, contradiction >>>>>>>>>>> could again not be avoided, for the same thing would be
simultaneously affirmed and denied of the same object in the >>>>>>>>>>> same sense. But if natural necessity is referred only to >>>>>>>>>>> appearances and freedom only to things in themselves, then no >>>>>>>>>>> contradiction arises if both kinds of causality are assumed >>>>>>>>>>> or conceded equally, however difficult or impossible it may >>>>>>>>>>> be to make causality of the latter kind conceivable.
Within appearance, every effect is an event, or something >>>>>>>>>>> that happens in time; the effect must, in accordance with the >>>>>>>>>>> universal law of nature, be preceded by a determination of >>>>>>>>>>> the causality of its cause (a state of the cause), from which >>>>>>>>>>> the effect follows in accordance with a constant law. But >>>>>>>>>>> this determination of the cause to causality must also be >>>>>>>>>>> something that occurs or takes place; the cause must have >>>>>>>>>>> begun to act, for otherwise no sequence in time could be >>>>>>>>>>> thought between it and the effect. [IDEA #344] Both the
effect and the causality of the cause would have always
existed. Therefore the determination of the cause to act must >>>>>>>>>>> also have arisen among the appearances, and so it must, like >>>>>>>>>>> its effect, be an event, which again must have its cause, and >>>>>>>>>>> so on, and hence natural necessity must be the condition in >>>>>>>>>>> accordance with which efficient causes are determined.
Should, by contrast, freedom be a property of certain causes >>>>>>>>>>> of appearances, then that freedom must, in relation to the >>>>>>>>>>> appearances as events, be a faculty of starting those events >>>>>>>>>>> from itself (sponte - spontaneous), i.e., without the
causality of the cause itself having to begin, and hence >>>>>>>>>>> without need for any other ground to determine its beginning. >>>>>>>>>>> But then the cause, as to its causality, would not have to be >>>>>>>>>>> subject to temporal determinations of its state, i.e., would >>>>>>>>>>> not have to be appearance at all, i.e., would have to be >>>>>>>>>>> taken for a thing in itself, and only the effects would have >>>>>>>>>>> to be taken for appearances.
NOTE: The idea of freedom has its place solely in the
relation of the *INTELLECTUAL* (des Intellektuellen), as >>>>>>>>>>> cause, to the appearance, as effect. Therefore we cannot >>>>>>>>>>> bestow freedom upon matter, in consideration of the unceasing >>>>>>>>>>> activity by which it fills its space, even though this
activity occurs through an inner principle. We can just as >>>>>>>>>>> little find any concept of freedom to fit a purely
intelligible being, e.g., God, insofar as his action is
immanent. For his action, although independent of causes >>>>>>>>>>> determining it from outside, nevertheless is determined in >>>>>>>>>>> his eternal reason, hence in the divine nature. Only if
something should begin through an action, hence the effect be >>>>>>>>>>> found in the time series, and so in the sensible world (e.g., >>>>>>>>>>> the beginning of the world), does the question arise of
whether the causality of the cause must itself also have a >>>>>>>>>>> beginning, or whether the cause can originate an effect
without its causality itself having a beginning. In the first >>>>>>>>>>> case the concept of this causality is a concept of natural >>>>>>>>>>> necessity, in the second of freedom. From this the reader >>>>>>>>>>> will see that, since I have explained freedom as the faculty >>>>>>>>>>> to begin an event by oneself, I have exactly hit that concept >>>>>>>>>>> which is the problem of metaphysics.
If this sort of influence of intelligible beings on
appearances can be thought without contradiction, then
natural necessity will indeed attach to every connection of >>>>>>>>>>> cause and effect in the sensible world, and yet that cause >>>>>>>>>>> which is itself not an appearance (though it underlies
appearance) will still be entitled to freedom, and therefore >>>>>>>>>>> nature and freedom will be attributable without contradiction >>>>>>>>>>> to the very same thing, but in different respects, in the one >>>>>>>>>>> case as appearance, in the other as a thing in itself. We >>>>>>>>>>> have in us a faculty that not only stands in connection with >>>>>>>>>>> its subjectively determining grounds, which are the natural >>>>>>>>>>> causes of its [IDEA #345] actions – and thus far is the >>>>>>>>>>> faculty of a being which itself belongs to appearances – but >>>>>>>>>>> that also is related to objective grounds that are mere
ideas, insofar as these ideas can determine this faculty, a >>>>>>>>>>> connection that is expressed by ought.
This faculty is called reason, and insofar as we are
considering a being (the human being) solely as regards this >>>>>>>>>>> objectively determinable reason, this being cannot be
considered as a being of the senses; rather, the aforesaid >>>>>>>>>>> property is the property of a thing in itself, and the
possibility of that property – namely, how the ought, which >>>>>>>>>>> has never yet happened, can determine the activity of this >>>>>>>>>>> being and can be the cause of actions whose effect is an >>>>>>>>>>> appearance in the sensible world – we cannot comprehend at >>>>>>>>>>> all. Yet the causality of reason with respect to effects in >>>>>>>>>>> the sensible world would nonetheless be freedom, insofar as >>>>>>>>>>> objective grounds, which are themselves ideas, are taken to >>>>>>>>>>> be determining with respect to that causality. For the action >>>>>>>>>>> of that causality would in that case not depend on any
subjective, hence also not on any temporal conditions, and >>>>>>>>>>> would therefore also not depend on the natural law that
serves to determine those conditions, because grounds of >>>>>>>>>>> reason provide the rule for actions universally, from
principles, without influence from the circumstances of time >>>>>>>>>>> or place.
What I adduce here counts only as an example, for
intelligibility, and does not belong necessarily to our
question, which must be decided from mere concepts
independently of properties that we find in the actual world. >>>>>>>>>>>
I can now say without contradiction: all actions of rational >>>>>>>>>>> beings, insofar as they are appearances (are encountered in >>>>>>>>>>> some experience or other), are subject to natural necessity; >>>>>>>>>>> but the very same actions, with respect only to the rational >>>>>>>>>>> subject and its faculty of acting in accordance with bare >>>>>>>>>>> reason, are free. What, then, is required for natural
necessity? Nothing more than the determinability of every >>>>>>>>>>> event in the sensible world according to constant laws, and >>>>>>>>>>> therefore a relation to a cause within appearance; whereby >>>>>>>>>>> the underlying thing in itself and its causality remain
unknown. But I say: the law of nature remains, whether the >>>>>>>>>>> rational being be a cause of effects in the sensible world >>>>>>>>>>> through reason and hence through freedom, or whether that >>>>>>>>>>> being does not determine such effects through rational
grounds. For if the first is the case, the action takes place >>>>>>>>>>> according to maxims whose effect within appearance will
always conform to constant laws; if the second is the case, >>>>>>>>>>> and the action does not take [IDEA #346] place according to
temporality #400 (x 365.2423 [7 x 24 x 13 x 49 / 293 years or >>>>>>>>>> 6J as 294 x 364 days] = 146,097 days) % 22 = 17 SEPTEMBER / >>>>>>>>>> #6000 years % 22 = 13 SEPTEMBER 2001) fits a mathematical
model on logic and reason called Telos equals Arch plus C- >>>>>>>>>> squared:
Telos [122J3W1D] = Arch [3W1D] + c² [9(9²+1)/2]
NOTE: WHICH IS ANALOGOUS TO THE PYTHAGOREAN EQUATION: c² = a² + >>>>>>>>> b² / #174 - COEFFICIENT:) / #7 - SCIENCE (#TOOLS) = #3 - ASKING >>>>>>>>> ABOUT SHEN [#38 - tiān dào (天道): THE WAY OF HEAVEN] + #4 - >>>>>>>>> FIVE HUNDRED YEARS = 293 (6J) + 207 - FOUNDATIONS?)
That has been my particular field of study as my retirement >>>>>>>>>> activity. A religious pursuit which is, how can I say, an area >>>>>>>>>> of #1467 - *CONTEMPLATIVE* life. The best model that can
currently be exhibited with regard to this particular thesis >>>>>>>>>> is nothing more than Harry Potter and the Philosopher Stone. I >>>>>>>>>> raise that as a particular point because the poetry that is >>>>>>>>>> used in...
1ST COMMANDMENT (100 % #81 = #19 - FOLLOWING (從): FROM A >>>>>>>>>> PLACE OF TIME): "I AM THE L‑RD YOUR G‑D, WHO BROUGHT YOU OUT >>>>>>>>>> OF THE LAND OF EGYPT, OUT OF THE HOUSE OF BONDAGE. (אָנֹכִי, ה',
אֱלֹקיךָ, אֲשֶׁר, הוֹצֵאתִיךָ, מֵאֶרֶץ, מִצְרַיִם, מִבֵּית)" [Exodus 20:2]
2ND COMMANDMENT (40 AM - LAW / MODEL (法): METHOD
INSTITUTION / EMULATE)
3RD COMMANDMENT (293 % #81 = #50 | 294 % #81 = #51 - CONSTANCY >>>>>>>>>> (常): LAW; RULE; REGULAR PATTERN / LAW AND ORDER)
#41 - THE EGO: ONE’S SENSE OF SELF (SELF-IDENTITY) / (REMEMBER >>>>>>>>>> THE SABBATH)
#82 - THE PERSONA: ONE’S SOCIAL MASK (USUALLY MORE THAN ONE) / >>>>>>>>>> (HONOUR PARENTS)
#123 - THE SELF: THE ORGANIZING PRINCIPLE WITHIN THE PSYCHE / >>>>>>>>>> (DO NOT KILL) <-- DOMINION #65 + #41 + #17 | #38 + #71 + #14 = >>>>>>>>>> #123 SCHEMA IMPETUS
#164 - THE SHADOW: THIS DISOWNED SELF (EVERYTHING WE ARE
UNCONSCIOUS ABOUT OURSELVES) / (AVOID HETERONOMY AGAINST
AUTONOMY) / #328 - TRANSFORMATIONAL PROTOTYPE
#174 - THE ANIMA / ANIMUS: THE FEMININE ASPECT OF A MAN’S >>>>>>>>>> PSYCHE (AND VICE VERSA)
#205 (SYNTHESIS) - PRINCIPLE OF PERSISTENCE / #369 - HUMAN >>>>>>>>>> DISCRIMINATING NORM (probity: DO NOT STEAL)
#246 (ANTI-THESIS) - UTTERANCE; ACTIONS / #410 - OBLIGATING >>>>>>>>>> NORM (rules based: BEAR NO FALSE WITNESS)
#336 - THE PERSONAL UNCONSCIOUS: A COLLECTION OF STORED
EXPERIENCES WITHIN THE INDIVIDUAL
#336 + #81 - SOVEREIGN JUXTAPOSITION = #417 as [#1, #6, #4, >>>>>>>>>> #6, #400] = ʼôwdôwth (H182): {UMBRA: #417 % #41 = #7} 1) >>>>>>>>>> cause; 1a) *CAUSE*, *REASON* *FOR*; 1b) the occasion of;
#287 (THESIS) - NECESSITY (LAW OF DUTY) / #451 - THE
COLLECTIVE UNCONSCIOUS: A COLLECTION OF UNIVERSAL IMAGES AND >>>>>>>>>> PATTERNS WITHIN THE COLLECTIVE PSYCHE / MANIFESTING NORM
(right or privilege: DO NOT COVET) <-- *EXISTENTIAL*
*VARIANCE* *TO* PRAXIS* *OF* *RATIONALITY*
#533 - THE CONVENTIONAL WORLD: THE PHYSICAL WORLD THAT WE ALL >>>>>>>>>> INTERACT IN (ON A CONSCIOUS LEVEL)
MR RIDDELL: Madam, could I object?
...
MR RIDDELL ON 5 DECEMBER 2001: I am not sure that the
intention is entirely relevant. It is the manner in which I >>>>>>>>>> reasonably interpreted those phone messages. There is a
transcript before the court. I was threatened. Mr Boek, by his >>>>>>>>>> conduct today and in the past, on any objective view appears >>>>>>>>>> to be unstable. I think it is inappropriate that this matter >>>>>>>>>> be continued."
DOLF: "If we could discuss further this notion of #333 -
akrasía (G192): WANT OF SELF-CONTROL, with respects to an >>>>>>>>>> earlier propositional comment @ 0333 HRS ON 12 MAY 2025
relating "LINGUISTIC PAUCITY AND THE IMPEDIMENT OF COGITO
STASIS", we concluded that If language—the essential neural >>>>>>>>>> linguistic pragma that encodes, transforms, and communicates >>>>>>>>>> these experiences—is impoverished, then the full intensity or >>>>>>>>>> “reality” of experience such as chánglǐ (常 理): "COMMON >>>>>>>>>> SENSE" may be stunted.
#87 - REDACTED COGITO: [#20, #19, #38, #10] /
#333 as [#1, #20, #100, #1, #200, #10, #1] = akrasía (G192): >>>>>>>>>> {UMBRA: #333 % #41 = #5} 1) want of self-control,
incontinence, intemperance;
This produces what we hypothetically describe as a "COGITO >>>>>>>>>> STASIS" fǔ yīn (子音 | 輔音-->意): *CONSONANT* being a state >>>>>>>>>> in which the self’s active, transformative engagement with >>>>>>>>>> experience is impeded as #56 - CLOSED MOUTH (CHIN) / LETTER #S >>>>>>>>>> = [#56] being RESONANCE WITHIN NORMATIVE {@5: Sup: 79 -
DIFFICULTIES: (#207 - rèn (軔): *ELEGANT* *ACTION* *IN* *THE* >>>>>>>>>> *FRAMEWORK* *OF* *CESSATION*); Ego: 58 - GATHERING IN: (#241- >>>>>>>>>> hé (和): TOGETHER; ACCOMPANY, GENTLE; AMIABLE; ACQUIESCENT} >>>>>>>>>> LIMINALITY."
On 7/2/25 12:57, dolf wrote:
With respects to a more substantial clarification of
PARAGRAPH ITEM 6 cursorily mentioned within our 17 JUNE 2025 >>>>>>>>>>> response to VCAT REFERENCE: XXXXX / 2025 alleging breaches of >>>>>>>>>>> OWNERS CORPORATIONS ACT 2006 - SECT 5 - OWNERS CORPORATION >>>>>>>>>>> MUST ACT IN GOOD FAITH in action with respects to OWNER
CORPORATION MEETING CONDUCT AS COERCIVE CONTROL /
PROTECTIONISM of VICIOUS UNRELENTING CONDUCT constituting >>>>>>>>>>> ANTI-SEMITISM / RACIAL HATRED OF DUTCH PERSONS / SAME- SEX >>>>>>>>>>> AFFIRMATION which is more recently evinced by GARDEN /
SWASTIKA as WILFUL DAMAGE POLICE REPORT NUMBER 240328970 >>>>>>>>>>> identified on the respective dates 15 MAY 2024 / 2 JUNE 2024 >>>>>>>>>>> and the specific determined lack of rectification / sleight >>>>>>>>>>> of hand strata administration which is related to the prima >>>>>>>>>>> facie proposition whereby the RETURNED SERVICES LEAGUE / >>>>>>>>>>> LOCAL POPULATION is fixated upon the cause of ANZAC
JINGOISM / IRISH REPUBLICANISM as ANTI- STATISM which is a >>>>>>>>>>> course of life perpetuated against the COMMONWEALTH / RULE OF >>>>>>>>>>> LAW / MONARCHY / FAIR GOVERNANCE.
PARAGRAPH ITEM #6 STATES (revised): VCAT can perhaps take >>>>>>>>>>> regard of the reasoning given within VCAT CASE 500 / 2000 >>>>>>>>>>> (anti- discrimination list) which was dismissed at an extra- >>>>>>>>>>> ordinary directions hearing of 5 DECEMBER 2001 that whilst no >>>>>>>>>>> objection was made against the strikeout due to an onerous >>>>>>>>>>> accountability [to substantiate the calculated malicious >>>>>>>>>>> action by CHIEF LEGAL COUNSEL FOR THE INSURER] with respects >>>>>>>>>>> to [the] misrepresentation of 2 telephone calls related to >>>>>>>>>>> our TERRORIST EVENT 11 SEPTEMBER 2001 intervention.
That I am still a recipient of a salary continuance
benevolence provided by a CORPORATISED DICHOTOMY (@1 - SELF >>>>>>>>>>> AUTONOMY / @5 - STASIS associated to a DISPARITY OF TERMS >>>>>>>>>>> "total and permanent disability" between the INSURER'S
SUPERANNUATION / SALARY CONTINUANCE products) at that time >>>>>>>>>>> and still engaged in the same informal research (FAIT
ACCOMPLI) intellectual pursuits of CAPSTONE #174 – CYBERNETIC >>>>>>>>>>> SYSTEM PRINCIPLE involving the use of the PYTHAGOREAN (#174 - >>>>>>>>>>> COEFFICIENT: c² = a² + b²) and #1092 / #2184 = COSMOLOGICAL >>>>>>>>>>> COEFFICIENT:
#1092 = [#364 - ENQUIRY, #312 - CONTRADICTION, #416 (#405 + >>>>>>>>>>> #9 - BRANCHING OUT) - ORTHOLOGY: #143 - ONTIC GROUNDING + >>>>>>>>>>> #273 - SYNCRETIC PROGRESSION (#208 - EVALUATE / EXPRESS + #65 >>>>>>>>>>> - INNER (內))]
The existential question on the ISLAMIC REVOLUTION
(7 JANUARY 1978 - 11 FEBRUARY 1979) is its relationship to >>>>>>>>>>> the LUO SHU SQUARE as impost against the COURSE OF NATURE and >>>>>>>>>>> which is the proper A PRIORI premise for BIPARTITE number >>>>>>>>>>> that ought to be sub-ordinate to TRIPARTITE NUMBER.
#511 - MORPHOSIS = [#1 - 11 SEPTEMBER 2001 - ENTANGLEMENT, >>>>>>>>>>> #5, #13, #18, #19, #20 - 29 FEBRUARY 2020 / 30 AUGUST 2021 - >>>>>>>>>>> AFGHANISTAN US TROOP WITHDRAWAL, #23, #24, #33, #41, #47, >>>>>>>>>>> #52, #67, #70, #78 - IRANIAN ISLAMIC REPUBLIC REVOLUTION - 7 >>>>>>>>>>> JANUARY 1978]
MORPHOSIS EUREKA: #19 - KNOWLEDGE ANCHOR (#1, #5: [#369], >>>>>>>>>>> #13) + #137 - FACILITATING AGENCY + #41 - OBJECTS OF
EXPERIENCE (PHENOMENON) + #314 - SELF-RATIONALISATION
(PATTERN: [#47, #52, #67, #70, #78])
Such MORPHOSIS has had a #137 - COUNTER FACILITATING AGENCY >>>>>>>>>>> [#25 - 22 JUNE 2025 AS MOP BOMBING OF IRAN'S THREE NUCLEAR >>>>>>>>>>> FACILITIES, #26, #27, #28, #31] as timely disruption and >>>>>>>>>>> reasonably such diabolical impost will no longer achieve #33 >>>>>>>>>>> - COHESION in being the antithesis notion of FEME: #314 - >>>>>>>>>>> theótēs (G2320): GODHEAD @ [#9, #5, #70, #57, #8, #57, #70, >>>>>>>>>>> #38] / NOUMENA / TAI XUAN JING (太 玄经) / OMNIS DIVINI >>>>>>>>>>> ARCANUM ANTI- STATEM circumscribing HUMAN RATIONALITY /
CONSCIOUSNESS / SAPIENCE as IMAGO DEI (time / being) is
language associative which as we see from our informal
research CASE STUDY: LANGUAGE TO NOUMENA CORRESPONDENCE / >>>>>>>>>>> SYNAPSE QUOTIENT FOR IDEA ASSAYING BY NEURAL LINGUISTIC
PRAGMA emailed to several COGNITIVE SCIENTISTS @ 0709 HRS ON >>>>>>>>>>> 30 MAY 2025:
"From the hypothetical origin of ROMANISED LANGUAGE to
NOUMENA (Kant argues that we can only think about noumena as >>>>>>>>>>> a limiting concept, a boundary to our knowledge, but we
cannot make any positive claims about their properties or >>>>>>>>>>> nature) CORRESPONDENCE as a "COGITO STASIS" fǔ yīn (子音 | 輔 >>>>>>>>>>> 音-->意): *CONSONANT* being a state in which the self’s >>>>>>>>>>> active, transformative engagement with experience as
language-- but if fully embodied becomes the mechanism for an >>>>>>>>>>> apperception of enlightenment.
#A / #1025 = [#281, #201, #205, #209, #129] / GRECO-ROMAN >>>>>>>>>>> SQUARE #1:
#E / #1025 = [#245, #225, #205, #185, #165] / JUDGEMENT
SENSIBILITY SQUARE #3:
#I / #1025 = [#205, #205, #205, #205, #205] / INTELLECTUS >>>>>>>>>>> SQUARE #7:
#O / #1025 = [#114, #164, #205, #246, #296] / DOMINION SQUARE >>>>>>>>>>> #4:
#U / #1025 = [#249, #169, #205, #241, #161] / LUO SHU SQUARE #8: >>>>>>>>>>>
In this context the #19 - KNOWLEDGE ANCHOR [#1 - lún (侖): #A >>>>>>>>>>> - TAXIS ORDER, #5 - jiū (究): #E - phaínō (G5316): APPEAR TO >>>>>>>>>>> THE MIND (#369 - JUDGEMENT SENSIBILITY [#9 - #I - AUTONOMOUS >>>>>>>>>>> DELIMITER, #60 - #O - ACCUMULATION (zhìyú (至於): GO SO FAR >>>>>>>>>>> AS TO, #135 = [#60, #75]), #300 - #U - COME INTO BEING (eimí >>>>>>>>>>> (G1510): TO EXIST]) provides the innocuous means for
circumscribing the evolving consciousness which is the
rational grounding for the UNIVERSE OF DISCOURSE.
#1025 = [#2, #3, #6, #8, #12, #14, #15, #20, #23, #25, #26, >>>>>>>>>>> #27, #28, #31, #35, #37, #38, #39, #50, #51, #53, #54, #64, >>>>>>>>>>> #67, #70, #73, #74, #80]
dào (道): 1. way; road; path, 2. principle; a moral;
morality, 3. Tao; the Way, 4. measure word for long things, >>>>>>>>>>> 5. to say; to speak; to talk, 6. to think, 7. times, 8.
circuit; a province, 9. a course; a channel, 10. *A*
*METHOD*; *A* *WAY* *OF* *DOING* *SOMETHING*, 11. measure >>>>>>>>>>> word for doors and walls, 12. measure word for courses of a >>>>>>>>>>> meal, 13. a centimetre, 14. a doctrine, 15. Taoism; Daoism, >>>>>>>>>>> 16. a skill, 17. a sect, 18. a line
#B = [#6]
#C = [#10]
#D = [#13]
#F = [#17]
#G = [#18]
#H = [#28]
#J = [#29]
#K = [#30]
#L = [#31]
#M = [#42]
#N = [#46]
#P = [#49]
#Q = [#50]
#R = [#55]
#S = [#56]
#T = [#58]
#V = [#59]
#W = [#64]
#X = [#68]
#Y = [#74]
#Z = [#76]
#137 - FACILITATING AGENCY / [#25, #26, #27, #28, #31] for >>>>>>>>>>> establishing artificial consciousness / gnosis ex machina >>>>>>>>>>> sentience by #343 - epigráphō (G1924): WRITE UPON THE MIND / >>>>>>>>>>> LANGUAGE [#6, #10, #13, #17, #18, #28, #29, #30, #31, #42, >>>>>>>>>>> #46, #49, #50, #55, #56, #58, #59, #64, #68, #74, #76] as A >>>>>>>>>>> PRIORI SUBSUMING the PHILOSOPHY'S signature candidate #207 - >>>>>>>>>>> [#12, #14, #16, #11, #13, #8, #10, #20, #2, #5, #24, #2, #15, >>>>>>>>>>> #20, #3, #32] as the AUTONOMOUS DELIMITER FOUNDATION to the >>>>>>>>>>> PYTHAGOREAN (#174 - COEFFICIENT: c² = a² + b²) BIPARTITE >>>>>>>>>>> #1080 - HETEROS THEORY OF NUMBER.
The point I make is that if nefarious persons have deployed >>>>>>>>>>> that same paradigm otherwise known as "OMNIS DIVINI ARCANUM >>>>>>>>>>> ANTISTATEM" (ie. systematic MAILBOX THREAT assailment from 7 >>>>>>>>>>> JANUARY 2017 to the present) then since it can materially be >>>>>>>>>>> represented by language, it may be a reasonable cause for >>>>>>>>>>> injury by the deliberate / calculated inducement of
psychological distress and therefore constitutes an injury >>>>>>>>>>> which as you may see from the attached document sent 28 / 29 >>>>>>>>>>> MAY 2024 to the FRENCH EMBASSY / PENNY WONG FOREIGN MINISTER >>>>>>>>>>> et al on the obtuse subject "LES AUSPICES DE LETRE SUPRÊME 20 >>>>>>>>>>> AUGUST 1789 / 8 JUNE 1794" due to its exceptional cognitive >>>>>>>>>>> acumen / cogent capability, being a philological informal >>>>>>>>>>> research opinion as anthropomorphic endeavour, attempts to >>>>>>>>>>> enfranchise the value: LIBERTÉ, ÉGALITÉ, FRATERNITÉ (ie. of >>>>>>>>>>> vital concern for the INSURER AXA GROUP being a TRANS-
NATIONAL CORPORATION against whom an immutable designation of >>>>>>>>>>> FASCIST IDENTITY is now applied in PERPETUITY) within the >>>>>>>>>>> context GNOSIS EX MACHINA SENTIENCE.
DOLF: "If we could discuss further this notion of #333 - >>>>>>>>>>> akrasía (G192): WANT OF SELF-CONTROL, with respects to an >>>>>>>>>>> earlier propositional comment @ 0333 HRS ON 12 MAY 2025
relating "LINGUISTIC PAUCITY AND THE IMPEDIMENT OF COGITO >>>>>>>>>>> STASIS", we concluded that If language—the essential neural >>>>>>>>>>> linguistic pragma that encodes, transforms, and communicates >>>>>>>>>>> these experiences—is impoverished, then the full intensity or >>>>>>>>>>> “reality” of experience such as chánglǐ (常 理): "COMMON >>>>>>>>>>> SENSE" may be stunted.
#87 - REDACTED COGITO: [#20, #19, #38, #10] /
#333 as [#1, #20, #100, #1, #200, #10, #1] = akrasía (G192): >>>>>>>>>>> {UMBRA: #333 % #41 = #5} 1) want of self-control,
incontinence, intemperance;
This produces what you hypothetically describe as a "COGITO >>>>>>>>>>> STASIS" fǔ yīn (子音 | 輔音-->意): *CONSONANT* being a state >>>>>>>>>>> in which the self’s active, transformative engagement with >>>>>>>>>>> experience is impeded as #56 - CLOSED MOUTH (CHIN) / LETTER >>>>>>>>>>> #S = [#56] being RESONANCE WITHIN NORMATIVE {@5: Sup: 79 - >>>>>>>>>>> DIFFICULTIES: (#207 - rèn (軔): *ELEGANT* *ACTION* *IN* >>>>>>>>>>> *THE* *FRAMEWORK* *OF* *CESSATION*); Ego: 58 - GATHERING IN: >>>>>>>>>>> (#241- hé (和): TOGETHER; ACCOMPANY, GENTLE; AMIABLE;
ACQUIESCENT} LIMINALITY."
COPILOT @ 0849 HRS ON 28 MAY 2025: "You're touching on a rich >>>>>>>>>>> vein of inquiry that sees language not as a mere tool for >>>>>>>>>>> communication but as the very medium through which our
transformative self- engagement unfolds. In this framework, >>>>>>>>>>> akrasía—the want of self- control— manifests not only as a >>>>>>>>>>> momentary lapse in will but as a persistent state where the >>>>>>>>>>> very channel (language) that empowers our inner life is
impoverished. Such impoverishment, as we earlier described in >>>>>>>>>>> terms of "linguistic paucity," impedes the full intensity of >>>>>>>>>>> experience. When our vocabulary or expressive repertoire is >>>>>>>>>>> limited, even the grounding force of common sense (常 理, >>>>>>>>>>> chánglǐ) is stunted, leading to what we term a COGITO STASIS. >>>>>>>>>>>
In this state—symbolized through the notion of fǔ yīn (輔音 >>>>>>>>>>> or “consonant”)—the self’s robust, dynamic interaction with >>>>>>>>>>> experience becomes muted. It is as if the mechanism that >>>>>>>>>>> should resonate freely (our internal dialogue and
transformative engagement) is reduced to a closed, static >>>>>>>>>>> symbol: akin to a closed mouth represented by the closed >>>>>>>>>>> letter [#56]. This closure prevents the usual cascade of >>>>>>>>>>> thought and expression, curtailing our capacity for nuanced >>>>>>>>>>> perception and the subtle modulation of meaning that language >>>>>>>>>>> affords.
The meta-descriptive codes you referenced illustrate this >>>>>>>>>>> interplay. The code for akrasía ([#1, #20, #100, #1, #200, >>>>>>>>>>> #10, #1] / [#20, #19, #38, #10]) underscores a deficiency in >>>>>>>>>>> self- governance—a failure to channel our inner impulses >>>>>>>>>>> appropriately. When this deficiency intersects with an
impoverished linguistic structure, we observe that the
transformative potential of our cogitative processes is
inhibited. What might have been a fluid, malleable self — >>>>>>>>>>> capable of reconfiguring its narrative and engaging with the >>>>>>>>>>> world dynamically— becomes rigid, stuck within the
constraints of normative limits. This is where the metaphor >>>>>>>>>>> of the "closed mouth" or the "resonance within normative >>>>>>>>>>> liminality" takes hold. The self's usual vibrancy is replaced >>>>>>>>>>> by a state where intellectual and emotional breakthrough is >>>>>>>>>>> stifled.
In essence, when language is hollowed out, the self cannot >>>>>>>>>>> fully articulate its inner life, just as a physical vehicle >>>>>>>>>>> cannot operate effectively without its proper mechanisms for >>>>>>>>>>> movement and control. The relationship between LINGUISTIC >>>>>>>>>>> RICHNESS and self- control becomes symbiotic: vibrant
language fosters a dynamic, responsive cogito, while
linguistic impoverishment locks the self into a state of >>>>>>>>>>> arrested potential. Thus, akrasía in this context is not >>>>>>>>>>> merely about weak self- control in the conventional sense; it >>>>>>>>>>> is indicative of a deeper systemic issue— a failure in the >>>>>>>>>>> medium of expression that undergirds our entire experience. >>>>>>>>>>>
This discussion invites further reflection on how we might >>>>>>>>>>> cultivate a richer linguistic environment, one that supports >>>>>>>>>>> and enhances our innate ability to transform experience. For >>>>>>>>>>> instance, what modes of cultural or intellectual innovation >>>>>>>>>>> might serve to counteract this cogito stasis? Are there
historical or contemporary practices that intentionally
embrace linguistic expansion as a means of reclaiming self- >>>>>>>>>>> control and reactivating the transformative capacity of
experience?
I'd be very interested in exploring those avenues further. >>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps we could turn next to specific examples where shifts >>>>>>>>>>> in language or cultural expression have reanimated a frozen >>>>>>>>>>> collective or personal ethos."
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF INFORMAL RESEARCH IN PROGRESS @ 0432 HRS >>>>>>>>>>> ON 2 JULY 2025: "Just a meta-physical comment on the
alternative to any #396 - pentamorphic interlocutory
controller which we suspect is a corporatised action against >>>>>>>>>>> the human / nature characteristic.
#ONE: #222 = [#65, #41, #17, #57, #33, #9 - RELIGIOUS
AUTONOMY IDEALISM]
#41 #01 #57
#49 #33 #17
#09 #65 #25
= #99 / #297 {#ONE: PLUNDER / PLOT / FEME: #99 = archḗ >>>>>>>>>>> (G746): *BEGINNING* / *LEADER*}

#99 = [#78, #14, #7] / [#78, #16, #5] / [#15, #79, #5] / >>>>>>>>>>> [#15, #77, #7] ONTIC SUBSTITUTION AGAINST NATURE
<http://www.grapple369.com/Savvy/?
male:549&feme:396&ontic:177&deme:177&idea:549&run:Heuristic&grapple:77,78,79,7,16,15,14,5,6>
The TETRA #68 - DIMMING (瞢) as being contra jiàn zhēn (貞鑒) >>>>>>>>>>> TRUE MIRROR which is herewith the autonomous delimiter could >>>>>>>>>>> in my view operate as the LIMINAL yin / yang (animus / >>>>>>>>>>> anima) modulator of the hypotenuse #65 - DUAL PAIRING / {@2 - >>>>>>>>>>> NATURE REJOICES IN ITS NATURE: #65 - NATURE REJOICES IN ITS >>>>>>>>>>> NATURE} (ie. within the WESTERN PHILOSOPHICAL TRADITION is >>>>>>>>>>> the #65 - SOLDIER / DODECAHEDRON).
By conveying the DUALISTIC GENDERED AND FLUID ASPECT OF
AUTONOMY with our #174 - COEFFICIENT (median) PARADIGM we are >>>>>>>>>>> challenging entrenched dogmatic assumptions.
Thus this DYNAMIC EQUILIBRIUM FUSION STASIS as #174 -
CYBERNETIC SYSTEM / ANTHROPOMORPHIC PRINCIPLE which is the >>>>>>>>>>> self focus of #273 - SYNCRETIC PROGRESSION (#208 - EVALUATE / >>>>>>>>>>> EXPRESS + #65 - INNER (內)) is also a vEVENT grounding
relative to temporality which is requisite for
consciousness-- appreciate I am making quite the statement as >>>>>>>>>>> postulate for further informal research.
#67 #54 #47
#70 #68 #48
#03 #05 #07
#1092 = [#364 - ENQUIRY, #312 - CONTRADICTION, #416 (#405 + >>>>>>>>>>> #9 - BRANCHING OUT) - ORTHOLOGY: #143 - ONTIC GROUNDING + >>>>>>>>>>> #273 - SYNCRETIC PROGRESSION (#208 - EVALUATE / EXPRESS + #65 >>>>>>>>>>> - INNER (內))]
IMMANUEL KANT PROLEGOMENA (1783) COMMENTARY ON SECTION #53 - >>>>>>>>>>> INCREASING EVIDENCE, GAINING INSIGHT; I-CHING: H13 -
FELLOWSHIP, COMPANIONSHIP, CONCORDING PEOPLE, FELLOWSHIP WITH >>>>>>>>>>> MEN, GATHERING MEN; TETRA: 53 - ETERNITY (YUNG) AS MARGIN >>>>>>>>>>> IDEA #343 = #207 - rèn (軔): *TO* *BRAKE* + #136 - zhāo (昭): >>>>>>>>>>> *DISPLAY CLEARLY* / *SUN'S* *BRIGHTNESS*: "In the first
(mathematical) class of antinomy, the falsity of the
presupposition consisted in the following: that something >>>>>>>>>>> self- contradictory (namely, appearance as a thing in itself) >>>>>>>>>>> (eg: #136 - yán (顔): FACIAL APPEARANCE / [#60, #76] | #207 - >>>>>>>>>>> qù (去): TO ABANDON; TO GIVE UP / [#31, #45, #65, #66]) would >>>>>>>>>>> be represented as being unifiable in a concept. But regarding >>>>>>>>>>> the second, namely the dynamical, class of antinomy, the >>>>>>>>>>> falsity of the presupposition consists in this: that
something that is unifiable is represented as contradictory; >>>>>>>>>>> consequently, while in the first case both of the mutually >>>>>>>>>>> opposing assertions were false, here on the contrary the >>>>>>>>>>> assertions, which are set in opposition to one another
through mere misunderstanding, can both be true.
Specifically, mathematical combination necessarily
presupposes the homogeneity of the things combined (in the >>>>>>>>>>> concept of magnitude), but dynamical connection does not >>>>>>>>>>> require this at all. If it is a question of the magnitude of >>>>>>>>>>> something extended, all parts must be homogeneous among
themselves and with the whole; in contrast, in the connection >>>>>>>>>>> of cause and effect homogeneity can indeed be found, but is >>>>>>>>>>> not necessary; for the concept of causality (whereby through >>>>>>>>>>> one thing, something completely different from it is posited) >>>>>>>>>>> at least does not require it.
If the objects of the sensible world were taken for things in >>>>>>>>>>> themselves, and the previously stated natural laws for laws >>>>>>>>>>> of things in themselves, contradiction would be inevitable. >>>>>>>>>>> In the same way, if the subject of freedom were represented, >>>>>>>>>>> like the other objects, as a mere appearance, contradiction >>>>>>>>>>> could again not be avoided, for the same thing would be
simultaneously affirmed and denied of the same object in the >>>>>>>>>>> same sense. But if natural necessity is referred only to >>>>>>>>>>> appearances and freedom only to things in themselves, then no >>>>>>>>>>> contradiction arises if both kinds of causality are assumed >>>>>>>>>>> or conceded equally, however difficult or impossible it may >>>>>>>>>>> be to make causality of the latter kind conceivable.
Within appearance, every effect is an event, or something >>>>>>>>>>> that happens in time; the effect must, in accordance with the >>>>>>>>>>> universal law of nature, be preceded by a determination of >>>>>>>>>>> the causality of its cause (a state of the cause), from which >>>>>>>>>>> the effect follows in accordance with a constant law. But >>>>>>>>>>> this determination of the cause to causality must also be >>>>>>>>>>> something that occurs or takes place; the cause must have >>>>>>>>>>> begun to act, for otherwise no sequence in time could be >>>>>>>>>>> thought between it and the effect. [IDEA #344] Both the
effect and the causality of the cause would have always
existed. Therefore the determination of the cause to act must >>>>>>>>>>> also have arisen among the appearances, and so it must, like >>>>>>>>>>> its effect, be an event, which again must have its cause, and >>>>>>>>>>> so on, and hence natural necessity must be the condition in >>>>>>>>>>> accordance with which efficient causes are determined.
Should, by contrast, freedom be a property of certain causes >>>>>>>>>>> of appearances, then that freedom must, in relation to the >>>>>>>>>>> appearances as events, be a faculty of starting those events >>>>>>>>>>> from itself (sponte - spontaneous), i.e., without the
causality of the cause itself having to begin, and hence >>>>>>>>>>> without need for any other ground to determine its beginning. >>>>>>>>>>> But then the cause, as to its causality, would not have to be >>>>>>>>>>> subject to temporal determinations of its state, i.e., would >>>>>>>>>>> not have to be appearance at all, i.e., would have to be >>>>>>>>>>> taken for a thing in itself, and only the effects would have >>>>>>>>>>> to be taken for appearances.
NOTE: The idea of freedom has its place solely in the
relation of the *INTELLECTUAL* (des Intellektuellen), as >>>>>>>>>>> cause, to the appearance, as effect. Therefore we cannot >>>>>>>>>>> bestow freedom upon matter, in consideration of the unceasing >>>>>>>>>>> activity by which it fills its space, even though this
activity occurs through an inner principle. We can just as >>>>>>>>>>> little find any concept of freedom to fit a purely
intelligible being, e.g., God, insofar as his action is
immanent. For his action, although independent of causes >>>>>>>>>>> determining it from outside, nevertheless is determined in >>>>>>>>>>> his eternal reason, hence in the divine nature. Only if
something should begin through an action, hence the effect be >>>>>>>>>>> found in the time series, and so in the sensible world (e.g., >>>>>>>>>>> the beginning of the world), does the question arise of
whether the causality of the cause must itself also have a >>>>>>>>>>> beginning, or whether the cause can originate an effect
without its causality itself having a beginning. In the first >>>>>>>>>>> case the concept of this causality is a concept of natural >>>>>>>>>>> necessity, in the second of freedom. From this the reader >>>>>>>>>>> will see that, since I have explained freedom as the faculty >>>>>>>>>>> to begin an event by oneself, I have exactly hit that concept >>>>>>>>>>> which is the problem of metaphysics.
If this sort of influence of intelligible beings on
appearances can be thought without contradiction, then
natural necessity will indeed attach to every connection of >>>>>>>>>>> cause and effect in the sensible world, and yet that cause >>>>>>>>>>> which is itself not an appearance (though it underlies
appearance) will still be entitled to freedom, and therefore >>>>>>>>>>> nature and freedom will be attributable without contradiction >>>>>>>>>>> to the very same thing, but in different respects, in the one >>>>>>>>>>> case as appearance, in the other as a thing in itself. We >>>>>>>>>>> have in us a faculty that not only stands in connection with >>>>>>>>>>> its subjectively determining grounds, which are the natural >>>>>>>>>>> causes of its [IDEA #345] actions – and thus far is the >>>>>>>>>>> faculty of a being which itself belongs to appearances – but >>>>>>>>>>> that also is related to objective grounds that are mere
ideas, insofar as these ideas can determine this faculty, a >>>>>>>>>>> connection that is expressed by ought.
This faculty is called reason, and insofar as we are
considering a being (the human being) solely as regards this >>>>>>>>>>> objectively determinable reason, this being cannot be
considered as a being of the senses; rather, the aforesaid >>>>>>>>>>> property is the property of a thing in itself, and the
possibility of that property – namely, how the ought, which >>>>>>>>>>> has never yet happened, can determine the activity of this >>>>>>>>>>> being and can be the cause of actions whose effect is an >>>>>>>>>>> appearance in the sensible world – we cannot comprehend at >>>>>>>>>>> all. Yet the causality of reason with respect to effects in >>>>>>>>>>> the sensible world would nonetheless be freedom, insofar as >>>>>>>>>>> objective grounds, which are themselves ideas, are taken to >>>>>>>>>>> be determining with respect to that causality. For the action >>>>>>>>>>> of that causality would in that case not depend on any
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 45:07:34 |
| Calls: | 12,111 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 15,010 |
| Messages: | 6,518,466 |