XPost: uk.legal, alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic   
   XPost: alt.atheism   
   From: dolfboek@hotmail.com   
      
   We haven't yet entered a suitable frame of mind whereby we'll begin are   
   coding tasks...  This is partially due to distractions as disruptions by   
   others then necessitating substantial administrative actions and the   
   need to for some formulative thinking.   
      
   For instance in the example of the OATH / PLEDGE as a meta descriptive   
   concept, the GRUMBLE dialectic as plausible rule was obtained by using   
   the NEURAL LINGUISTIC PARADIGM as our own INFORMAL RESEARCH we can make   
   a logical premise on the xiÄ�n jiàn zhÄ« míng (先見之明): *FORESIGHT* /   
   xiÄ�n   
   jiàn (先見) *PRESCIENCE* conception circumscribing to the #451 - PRAXIS OF   
   RATIONALITY as the ontic nucleus of conscious intention.   
      
   Thusly the provisional INFORMAL RESEARCH proposition is that the   
   function of *PRESCIENCE* occurs within the spectrum of a conformity   
   LIMIT (eg: #451 x 2 = #902 - RULE OF LAW + #67 + #17) to the rationality   
   of being itself:   
      
   GRUMBLE (#391, #352)@[80, 60, 73, 34, 48, 56, 15, 81, 81, 49, 27, 55,   
   67, 17] <-- OATH / PLEDGE RULE   
      
   FROM THIS TIME FORWARD, [UNDER GOD],   
   I PLEDGE MY LOYALTY TO AUSTRALIA AND ITS PEOPLE,   
   WHOSE DEMOCRATIC BELIEFS I SHARE,   
   WHOSE RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES I RESPECT, AND   
   WHOSE LAWS I WILL UPHOLD AND OBEY.   
      
   #986 = #902 - RULE OF LAW + #67 - DARKENING (HUI) + #17 - HOLDING BACK   
   (JUAN) as [#400, #80, #1, #20, #70, #400, #5, #10] = hypakoúŠ  
    (G5219):   
   {UMBRA: #1771 % #41 = #8} 1) to listen, to harken; 1a) of one who on the   
   knock at the door comes to listen who it is, (the duty of a porter); 2)   
   to harken to a command; 2a) *TO* *OBEY*, *BE* *OBEDIENT* *TO*, *SUBMIT*   
   *TO*;   
      
   How might this be then applied to that elusive creature called the   
   journalist as self-referencing integrity especially applied to the #451   
   - PRAXIS OF RATIONALITY SPECTRUM and its resolution dynamic as PROBLEM   
   PAIRING and determination of either a CONJURED (ie. cause of esprit de   
   corps to appear) SCENARIO or a HYPOTHETICAL / CONTINGENT QUESTION which   
   is one based on supposition, not facts. They are typically used to   
   elicit opinions and beliefs about imagined situations or conditions that   
   don't exist.   
      
    From a metalogic perspective (ie. probability is concerned with the   
   likelihood of occurrence) as the capability of occurrence we ought to   
   have sufficient dialectic category sample from the new media articles to   
   obtain some case study examples of the FORESIGHT / PRESCIENCE (#902 -   
   RULE OF LAW ... #1064 - agnÅ   
   sía (G56): not knowing, ignorance) DYNAMIC   
   function.   
      
   #1064 as [#80, #100, #70, #10, #4, #800] = proeídÅ   
    (G4275): {UMBRA:   
   #1064 % #41 = #39} 1) to foresee;   
      
   Simply put it isn't sufficient to make an appraisal of the dialectic   
   categories as strata of conformity as speech and action cohesion   
   dynamic, but in the example of the OATH / PLEDGE RULE:   
      
   #986 = #902 - RULE OF LAW + #67 - DARKENING (HUI) + #17 - HOLDING BACK   
   (JUAN) as hypakoúŠ  
    (G5219): *TO* *OBEY*, *BE* *OBEDIENT* *TO*, *SUBMIT* *TO*   
      
   We want to specifically observe the CONTINGENT nature of the FORESIGHT   
   CATEGORY #986 and if such is not quantified appropriately then the   
   circumstance may be conforming with maxim "do as I say, not as I do"   
   which means that while the speaker may have imperfections or mistakes,   
   they want the listener to follow their advice and instructions rather   
   than imitating their own actions.   
      
   In other words it is perfidious where the actions are not in accordance   
   with the words as a breach of OATH.   
      
   On 17/6/2024 07:36, dolf wrote:   
   > And if one was mindful of each of the meta descriptor stasis such as   
   > TETRAD #78 that both comprises and comprehends the temporal fabric by   
   > which one's presence of being is steeped (ie. #78 - ON THE VERGE   
   > (CHIANG)) and must be known to itself in all instances at once although   
   > that does not preclude a continual #549 - MORPHOSIS of #540 - KNOWING   
   > predicated upon a #579 - qì (æ°£): METAPHYSICAL CONCEPT OF 'VITAL ENERGY'   
   > as instantiation within the here and now.   
   >   
   > #492 - DEME CHECKSUM TOTAL: #235 as [#2, #400, #40, #10, #40] /   
   > #1106 - ONTIC CHECKSUM TOTAL: #579 as [#6, #400, #40, #10, #40, #10,   
   > #600] = tâmîym (H8549): {UMBRA: #490 % #41 = #39} 1) complete, whole,   
   > entire, sound; 1a) complete, whole, entire; 1b) whole, sound,   
   > *HEALTHFUL*; 1c) complete, *ENTIRE* (*OF* *TIME*); 1d) sound, wholesome,   
   > unimpaired, innocent, having integrity; 1e) what is complete or entirely   
   > in accord with truth and fact (neuter adj/subst);   
   >   
   > To be @1 - SELF aware in conformity to the universe's #491 - MODEL (FA)   
   > = #492 (12 x 41) seems to meet the situation "HYPOTHETICAL BEINGS FOR   
   > WHOM TIME IS NOT LINEAR MIGHT VIEW VARIOUS SO-CALLED, EVENTS, ALL AT ONCE."   
   >   
   >      #409 - NOUMENON RESONANCE FOR 16 JUNE 2024 as [#1, #8, #400] /   
   >      #414 - NOUMENON RESONANCE FOR 16 JUNE 2024 as [#5, #1, #8, #400] =   
   > ʼechâd (H259): {UMBRA: #13 % #41 = #13} 1) one (number); 1a) one   
   > (number); 1b) each, every; 1c) a certain; 1d) an (indefinite article);   
   > 1e) only, once, *ONCE* *FOR* *ALL*; 1f) one...another, the one...the   
   > other, one after another, one by one; 1g) first; 1h) eleven (in   
   > combination), eleventh (ordinal);   
   >   
   > If not, then what do you mean?"   
   >   
   > ONE  @ 2246 HOURS ON 16 JUNE 2024: "What was meant   
   > was simply that experiences of a future event may be possible at times."   
   >   
   > DOLF @ 0110 HOURS ON 17 JUNE 2024: "What are your plans for 1400 hours?"   
   >   
   > ONE  @ 2246 HOURS ON 16 JUNE 2024: "At the same time,   
   > such experiences are not subject to scientific experimentation.   
   >   
   > Such could be called, synchronicity. Meaningful events, etc."   
   >   
   > DOLF @ 0110 HOURS ON 17 JUNE 2024: "We want clarity and not vagueness --   
   > do you have any awareness of time?   
   >   
   > The COGITO: #40 - LAW / MODEL (FA) - ð�Œ­æ³• = #491 as [#7, #78, #35, #80,   
   > #10] / RANGE: noon 15 to 19 JUNE dynamic is a spacial matrix that has   
   > vectors as temporal associative.   
   >   
   > Your comment was at TETRA #78 on 16 JUNE 2024 but my reply was from   
   > TETRA #35 on 17 JUNE 2024 where the temporal relativity reference is in   
   > the past and I then will extrapolate the poem appraisal #NINE which is   
   > believed written in 4 BCE, but with Hebrew / Greek corresponding IDEAS   
   > written much earlier and have done so by utilising a mathematical method   
   > of idea cohesion which deploys a neural linguistic pragma selector.   
   >   
   > Unless you can grasp such a cognition (ie. is YANG HSIUNG the seminal   
   > author of the T'AI HSÃœAN CHING and did he deploy any COGITO array as   
   > scaffolding or perhaps preassembled essential IDEAS which were then   
   > dispersed within the appraisals?) as unity of apperception there isn't   
   > any need to discuss this further.   
   >   
   > The difference in perspective is either having the globe 🌎 in one's   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)