XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, aus.politics, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
XPost: uk.legal
From: dolfboek@hotmail.com
If you take the margin [4:nnn] reference you will find consistent with his
Christian education that there is a substantial correspondence with the
Hebrew / Greek gematria entries:
Do you have access to both so that you might express an opinion rather than
prejudice?
Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 2:46:47 AM UTC-8, dolf wrote:
>> I forgot to mention that in my view Kant deploys Hebrew / Greek lexicon by
>> gematria as idea scaffolding within his prolegomena but that doesn't make
>> me a magician
>
> "He notably doesn't use Hebrew or Greek in his works."
>
dolf wrote:
> I forgot to mention that in my view Kant deploys Hebrew / Greek lexicon by
> gematria as idea scaffolding within his prolegomena but that doesn't make
> me a magician
>
> #268 as [#8, #200, #9, #40, #10, #1] = charṭôm (H2749): {UMBRA: #257 % #41
> = #11} 1) magician, magician-astrologer;
>
> dolf wrote:
>> Think about the reality that my initial 3 paragraph statement gives a TELOS
>> TOTAL: #37971 as circumscribing but that I was able to cohere a
>> triangulation of categorical ideas with ONTIC / DEME grounding which
>> functioned logically as judgement in negation of your hypotheticals.
>>
>> GRUNTLE (#268, #303) <-- Consciousness cushioning
>>
>
> #302 - NOUMENON RESONANCE FOR 7 DECEMBER as [#2, #100, #200] /
> #303 as [#1, #2, #100, #200] = bâqar (H1239): {UMBRA: #302 % #41 = #15} 1)
> to seek, enquire, consider; 1a) (Piel); 1a1) to seek, look for; 1a2) to
> consider, reflect;
>
> #303 as [#6, #5, #200, #2, #10, #70, #10] = rᵉbîyʻîy (H7243): {UMBRA:
#292
> % #41 = #5} 1) fourth; 1a) fourth; 1b) four square; 1c) fourth part;
>
>> IMMANUEL KANT'S PROLEGOMENA (1783) COMMENTARY ON IDEA #303: "In order
>> therefore to explain the possibility of experience insofar as it rests on
>> pure a priori concepts of the understanding, we must first present that
>> which belongs to judgments in general, and the various moments of the
>> understanding therein, in a complete table; for the pure concepts of the
>> understanding – which are nothing more than concepts of intuitions in
>> general insofar as these intuitions are, with respect to one or another of
>> these moments, in themselves determined to judgments and therefore
>> determined necessarily and with universal validity – will come out exactly
>> parallel to them. By this means the a priori principles of the possibility
>> of all experience as objectively valid empirical cognition will also be
>> determined quite exactly. For they are nothing other than propositions that
>> subsume all perception (according to certain universal conditions of
>> intuition) under those pure concepts of the understanding .
>>
>> Logical table of judgments
>>
>> 1. According to quantity
>> Universal
>> Particular
>> Singular
>>
>> 2. According to quality
>> Affirmative
>> Negative
>> Infinite
>>
>> 3. According to relation
>> Categorical
>> Hypothetical
>> *Disjunctive* <-- I *USED* THIS TERM
>>
>> 4. According to modality
>> Problematic
>> Assertoric
>> Apodictic [page 54]
>>
>
> #268 as [#8, #60, #200] = châçêr (H2638): {UMBRA: #268 % #41 = #22} 1) in
> need of, lacking, needy, in want of;
>
> #268 as [#10, #200, #8, #50] = ísos (G2470): {UMBRA: #480 % #41 = #29} 1)
> equal, in quantity or quality;
>
>> IMMANUEL KANT'S PROLEGOMENA (1783) COMMENTARY ON IDEA #268: "Judgments of
>> experience are always synthetic. For it would be absurd to base an analytic
>> judgment on experience, since I do not at all need to go beyond my concept
>> in order to formulate the judgment and therefore have no need for any
>> testimony from experience. That a body is extended, is a proposition that
>> stands certain a priori, and not a judgment of experience.
>>
>> For before I go to experience, I have all the conditions for my judgment
>> already in the concept, from which I merely extract the predicate in
>> accordance with the principle of contradiction, and by this means can
>> simultaneously become conscious of the necessity of the judgment, which
>> experience could never teach me.
>>
>> 2. Mathematical judgments are one and all synthetic. This proposition
>> appears to have completely escaped the observations of analysts of human
>> reason up to the present, and indeed to be directly opposed to all of their
>> conjectures although it is incontrovertibly certain and very important in
>> its consequences. Because they found that the inferences of the
>> mathematicians all proceed in accordance with the principle of
>> contradiction (which, by nature, is required of any apodictic certainty),
>> they were persuaded that the fundamental propositions were also known
>> through the principle of contradiction, in which they were very mistaken;
>> for a synthetic proposition can of course be discerned in accordance with
>> the principle of contradiction, but only insofar as another synthetic
>> proposition is presupposed from which the first can be deduced, never
>> however in itself.
>>
>> First of all it must be observed: that properly mathematical proposi- tions
>> are always a priori and not empirical judgments, because they carry
>> necessity with them, which cannot be taken from experience. But if this
>> will not be granted me, very well, I will restrict my proposition to pure
>> mathematics, the concept of which already conveys that it contains not
>> empirical but only pure cognition a priori." [pages 17, 18]
>>
>> dolf wrote:
>>> On 7/12/2022 09:30, Raskolynikov wrote CROATIAN NONSENSE:
>>>> Dear Dolf,
>>>>
>>>> I did not dedicate so much time to numerology or ontology, mostly
>>>> because it was regarded as occult meaning and thus kind of forbidden in
>>>> the fundamentalist society.
>>>>
>>>> However, you will notice that the human psyche always seeks a way to
>>>> deal with irrational, metaphysical, spiritual, mystical, magical.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No you are engaged in misnomers and falsehood by fallacious argument.
>>> For instance the ONTIC epistemological premise is derived from I CHING
>>> metrics as polar opposites and interplay of opposites.
>>>
>>> Whilst on one hand you quote Confucius you don't then consider the
>>> consequences of his writings as then seminal.
>>>
>>> And you have recourse to quasi logical arguments which are disjunctive
>>> propositions before then proceeding to unrelated matters as if then the
>>> florid thought then is a substantiation of your earlier quips--whilst
>>> conveying intelligence it isn't necessarily a rational process. {@4:
>>> Sup: 52 - MEASURE: TU (#159); Ego: 36 - STRENGTH: CH'IANG (#144)}
>>>
>>>
>>>
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
