-- (DRAFT 4) INFORMAL RESEARCH NOTES ON A PLAUSIBLE NOEMA SCENARIO [#230
- WICKED, #232 - KNIFE / WEAPON, #249 - SATOR (#38), #228 - ONTIC LIMIT
/ WITNESSING TRAVESTY AS REPROACH, #237 - DEME LIMIT / USE OF FORCE]
RELATED TO RAMPAGE KILLING EVENTS

(c) 2024 Dolf Leendert Boek, Published: 20 April 2024

In our informal research as self education, the meta-descriptive
aggregation of concepts of mind most likely has some relevance to the
philosophical concept of intentionality. But what we have recognised
from our memeBrain prototypes, is that the #451 - PRAXIS OF RATIONALITY
and its dynamic problem resolution pairing only occurs by being couched
with a preamble for which we have a desire to examine if the resolution
idea has recurrence as then a criteria for its attainment as pairing
action being a function of mind.

For want of a better term, we might consider this dá dào (達到): to reach;
to achieve; to attain

<http://www.grapple369.com/Savvy/?run:Mystery&glyph:達>

dá (達): 1. to attain; to reach, 2. Da, 3. intelligent proficient, 4. to
be open; to be connected, 5. to realize; to complete; to accomplish, 6.
to display; to manifest, 7. to tell; to inform; to say, 8. illustrious;
influential; prestigious, 9. everlasting; constant; unchanging, 10.
generous; magnanimous, 11. commonly; everywhere, 12. arbitrary; freely
come and go

<http://www.grapple369.com/Savvy/?run:Mystery&glyph:到>

dào (到): 1. to arrive, 2. arrive; receive, 3. to go, 4. careful, 5. Dao

APPRAISAL #9: It offends the ear but sets the toe on track. (到耳順止)
The matter will go right. (事貞)
FATHOMING #9: Offended ears, compliant toes (到耳順止)
MEANS: Contrary talk makes for obedient conduct. (逆聞順行也)

dào (到): 1. to arrive, 2. arrive; receive, 3. to go, 4. careful, 5. Dao

ěrshùn (耳順): 1. an obedient *EAR*, 2. pleasing to the ear

zhǐ (止): 1. to stop; to halt, 2. until; to end, 3. Kangxi radical 77, 4.
only, 5. to prohibit; to prevent; to refrain; to suppress, 6. to remain
in one place; to stay, 7. to rest; to settle, 8. deportment; bearing;
demeanor; manner, 9. a particle at the end of a phrase, 10. foot

shì (事): 1. matter; thing; item, 2. to serve, 3. a government post, 4.
duty; post; work, 5. occupation, 6. cause; undertaking; enterprise;
achievement, 7. an accident, 8. to attend, 9. an allusion, 10. a
condition; a state; a situation, 11. to engage in, 12. to enslave, 13.
to pursue, 14. to administer, 15. to appoint, 16. a piece

zhēn (貞): 1. virtuous; chaste; pure, 2. loyal, 3. divination, 4.
chastity, 5. to divine, 6. auspicious, 7. upright, 8. lower part of the
trigrams in the Yijing, 9. four

We want to explore whether achieving this goal as the #451 - PRAXIS OF
RATIONALITY and its dynamic problem resolution pairing, actually
involves the two concepts that have been central to Husserl’s
internalist interpretation of intentionality: the concept of a noema
(plural noemata) and the concept of epoche (i.e., bracketing) or
phenomenological reduction. By the word ‘noema,’ Husserl refers to the
internal structure of mental acts. The phenomenological reduction is
meant to help get at the essence of mental acts by suspending all naive
presuppositions about the difference between real and fictitious
entities (on these complex phenomenological concepts, see the papers by
Føllesdal and others conveniently gathered in Dreyfus (1982). For
further discussion, see Bell (1990) and Dummett (1993).

#169 as [#50, #70, #8, #40, #1] /
#470 = #451 - PRAXIS OF RATIONALITY + #19 - FOLLOWING (TS'UNG) as [#50,
#70, #8, #40, #1, #300, #1] = nóēma (G3540): {UMBRA: #169 % #41 = #5} 1)
a mental perception, thought; 2) an evil purpose; 3) that which thinks,
the mind, thoughts or purposes

APPRAISAL #3: Men do not attack him. (人不攻之)
They are drawn to follow. (自然證)
FATHOMING #3: That men do not attack him (人不攻之)
MEANS: This, in itself, is proof of Virtue's power. (自然證也)

rén (人): 1. person; people; a human being, 2. Kangxi radical 9, 3. a
kind of person, 4. everybody, 5. adult, 6. somebody; others, 7. an
upright person

bù (不): 1. not; no, 2. expresses that a certain condition cannot be
achieved, 3. as a correlative, 4. no (answering a question), 5. forms a
negative adjective from a noun, 6. at the end of a sentence to form a
question, 7. to form a yes or no question, 8. infix potential marker

gōng (攻): 1. to attack; to assault, 2. to discredit; to impugn; to
criticize, 3. to remedy; to cure, 4. to work at; to handle, 5.
workmanship; expertise, 6. exaction by the state, 7. sturdy; strong, 8.
to govern; to administer, 9. Gong

zhī (之): 1. him; her; them; that, 2. used between a modifier and a word
to form a word group, 3. to go, 4. this; that, 5. genitive marker, 6.
it, 7. in, 8. all, 9. and, 10. however, 11. if, 12. then, 13. to arrive;
to go, 14. is, 15. to use, 16. Zhi

zìrán (自然): 1. nature, 2. natural, 3. of course; certainly; naturally

zhèng (證): 1. proof, 2. to prove; to demonstrate; to confirm; to give
evidence, 3. to advise against, 4. certificate, 5. an illness, 6. to accuse

In fact, commentators have been unable to achieve consensus on exactly
what a noema is. In a recent survey, David Woodruff Smith distinguished
four different schools of thought. On one view, to say that the noema is
the intentional object of an act of consciousness is to mean that it
quite literally is an object. Husserl's student Roman Ingarden, for
example, held that both ordinary objects, like chairs and trees, and
intentional objects, like a chair precisely as it appears to me, or even
a fictional tree, actually exist, but have different "modes" of existence.

An alternative view, developed primarily by Aron Gurwitsch, emphasizes
the noema of perceptual experience. Most ordinary objects can be
perceived in different ways and from different perspectives (consider
looking at a tree from several different positions). For Gurwitsch, what
is perceived in each such act is a noema, and the object itself—the
tree, say—is to be understood as the collection or system of noemata
associated with it. This view has similarities with phenomenalism.

Robert Sokolowski, alternatively, holds that a noema is just the actual
object of perception or judgment itself, considered phenomenologically.
In other words, the noema of the judgment that "this chair is
uncomfortable" is neither an entity (the chair considered as
uncomfortable) which exists in addition to the chair itself (but with a
different mode of existence)—the Ingarden view; nor is the noema of such
a judgment identified with a particular tactile perception of the
chair—which along with other perceptions constitutes the chair as
such—the Gurwitsch view. For Sokolowski, the noema is not a separate
entity at all, but the chair itself as in this instance perceived or
judged. This seems consistent with Husserl's emphasis on the noema as
the "perceived as such…remembered as such...judged as such..."

Analytic philosopher Dagfinn Føllesdal, in an influential 1969 paper,
proposed a Fregean interpretation of the noema, which has been developed
extensively by Ronald McIntyre and David Woodruff Smith. This school of
thought agrees that the noema is not a separate entity, but rather than
identifying it with the actual object of the act (of perceiving,
judging, etc.), phenomenologically understood, this view suggests that
it is a mediating component of the act itself. It is what gives the act
the sense it has. Indeed, Føllesdal and his followers suggest that the
noema is a generalized version of Gottlob Frege's account of linguistic
meaning, and in particular of his concept of sense (Sinn). Just as Frege
held that a linguistic expression picks out its reference by means of
its sense, so Husserl believed that conscious acts generally—not merely
acts of meaning but also acts of perception, judgment, etc.—are
intentionally directed toward objects by means of their noemata. On this
view, the noema is not an object, but an abstract component of certain
types of acts.

Sokolowski has continued to reject this approach, arguing that "(t)o
equate sense and noema would be to equate propositional and
phenomenological reflection. It would take philosophy simply as the
critical reflection on our meanings or senses; it would equate
philosophy with linguistic analysis." Robert C. Solomon attempted to
reconcile the perception-based interpretation of the Gurwitsch school
with the Fregean interpretation of noema as sense, suggesting that while
"(i)t has now become virtually axiomatic among phenomenologists that the
Sinne [senses] of experience stand independent of the Bedeutungen
[meanings] of linguistic expressions. It has become all but axiomatic
among analytic philosophers that there is no meaning apart from
language. It is the concept of the noema that provides the link between
them. The noema embodies both the changing phases of experience and the
organizing sense of our experience. But these two 'components' are not
separable, for all experience requires meaning, not as an after-the-fact
luxury in reflective judgements but in order for it to be experience of
anything." <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noema>

If we substitute *SUN* for *JAPAN* as our TETRAD MENTIONS OF [rì (日):
*JAPAN*] and consider it is most likely a #135 + #102 + #168 + #215 =
#620 - metáthesis (G3331): {UMBRA: #770 % #41 = #32} 1) transfer: from
one place to another; 2) *TO* *CHANGE*; 2a) *OF* *THINGS* *INSTITUTED*
*OR* *ESTABLISHED* OF THE GERMAN REICH ITSELF AND THE USE OF THE
MOTORCAR AS AUTONOMY [+ #130 = #750 + #147 = #897] INNOVATION.

TETRAD MENTIONS OF [rì (日): *SUN*] @ [

#1 - WHAT FASCISM IS,
#5 - GREATEST INVENTION OF STATE,
#13,
#18 - HIJACK THE ANZAC 2018 CENTENNIAL,
#19 - DISRUPTION OF THE NOEMA?, <-- morphosis scenario [#230, #232,
#249, #228, #237] @ CHRISTCHURCH MOSQUE SHOOTINGS ON 15 MARCH 2019
#20,
#23,
#24,
#33, <-- 2033 AS CENTENNIAL OF THE REICH'S CONCORDAT
#41,
#47,
#52,
#67,
#70,
#78]

<http://www.grapple369.com/Savvy/?run:Mystery&glyph:日>

#38 - JUPITER PRINCIPLE (#549 - DEME FOR morphosis = #38 (* IMMATERIAL
INCLUSION) + #511: @SUM(TETRAD MENTIONS OF [rì (日): *SUN*]))

#1 #52 #20 #78
#70 #23 #33 #18
#47 #5 #38 #19
#24 #67 #13 #41 = #511 + #38 = #549

This may then provide an ECLIPSE grounding rationale for the
CHRISTCHURCH MOSQUE SHOOTINGS ON 15 MARCH 2019

#1537 - DEME CHECKSUM TOTAL: #549 as [#40, #70, #100, #500, #800, #9,
#8, #10] /
#1580 - DEME CHECKSUM TOTAL: #549 as [#40, #70, #100, #500, #70, #800] =
morphóō (G3445): {UMBRA: #1580 % #41 = #22} 1) *TO* *FORM*;

— PARTING OF WAYS —
[Thoughts of 27 MARCH 1986]

"ANSWER THE PHONE WILL YA.
MY *DAUGHTER* IS IN THE STREET.
ANSWER THE PHONE WILL YA.
FLESH #115 - *BURNING* LIKE BLAZING #115 - *WHEAT*.

I WANT TO HEAR HER #115 - *SIGH*
ANSWER THE PHONE WILL YA.
I JUST DON'T WANT HER TO DIE.
*FOR* *GOD* *SAKE*, WILL YA.

{@9: Sup: 76 - AGGRAVATION: CHU (#492); Ego: 29 - DECISIVENESS: TUAN (#489)}

JUST ANSWER THE PHONE.
THERE'S NOT A #115 - *PLANE* IN SIGHT.
DON'T LEAVE HER ALONE.
WHAT CRIME THIS BLIGHT?

BLOWN GLASS IN ANY SHADE
AND EVERY WINDOW SILL.
DRAWN BY EMPATHY OF JADE. {@17: Sup: 63 - WATCH: SHIH (#839); Ego: 27 -
DUTIES: SHIH (#821)}
FOR THE THINGS WE HOLD STILL." {@18: Sup: 41 - RESPONSE: YING (#880);
Ego: 18 - WAITING: HSI (#839)}

YOUTUBE: "HANS ZIMMER - TIME (CYBERDESIGN REMIX) / ADELE - HELLO (3RD
VERSION) [AN EDGE MASHUP]"

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFMbKIGp6Lg>

WITHIN CHINESE HAN OMEN LITERATURE SOLAR ECLIPSES OFTEN WERE CONSIDERED
TO PORTENDED USURPATION OF THE ROYAL POWER (YANG):

- TOTAL SOLAR ECLIPSE (NOUS: #44; #393; #404 - *PERIHELION*; #489 -
*PARTING* *OF* *WAYS* *POEM*): 20 MARCH 2015 (AEST)

|- 20 ΜΑRCH 2015 - TOTAL SOLAR ECLIPSE
|- 19 YEARS AS TEMPORAL HEURISTIC CONSCIOUSNESS ANCHOR
|- WED 20 MARCH 1996 / NEW MOON 21 MARCH

WED 20 MARCH 1901 / NEW MOON 21 MARCH WHEN THE COMMONWEALTH IS ALIGNED
TO 400 YEARS CENTENNIAL OF DUTCH DISCOVERY 26 OCTOBER 1616 RENDERS

- TOTAL SOLAR ECLIPSE (NOUS: #36 - *ANZAC* *DAY*; #298 <--- GOOD FRIDAY
AGREEMENT IRISH CATHOLIC ENCLOSURE OBSTRUCTION, #325, #373 - *APHELION*
#393): 3 JULY 2019 (AEST)

- TOTAL SOLAR ECLIPSE (NOUS: #44; #297, #325, #342 - *PERIHELION*, #383
- *JOIN* *ME* *IN* *DEATH* *LYRIC* / HITLER's BIRTHDAY): 20 APRIL 2023
(AEST) - EXMOUTH

"THIS WORLD IS A CRUEL PLACE {@1: Sup: 43 - ENCOUNTERS: YU (#43); Ego:
28 - CHANGE: KENG (#28)}
AND WE'RE HERE ONLY TO LOSE {@2: Sup: 61 - EMBELLISHMENT: SHIH (#104 - I
COMMIT NO FRAUD {%7}); Ego: 33 - CLOSENESS: MI (#61 - MALE DEME IS
UNNAMED {%22})}
SO BEFORE LIFE TEARS US APART {@3: Sup: 55 - DIMINISHMENT: CHIEN (#159);
Ego: 78 - ON THE VERGE: CHIANG (#139 - I HAVE NOT SLAUGHTERED THE SACRED
ANIMALS {%13})}
LET DEATH BLESS ME WITH YOU. {@4: Sup: 80 - LABOURING: CH'IN (#239);
Ego: 1 - CENTRE: CHUNG (#140 - I DEAL NOT FRAUDULENTLY {%14} / I AM NOT
AN EAVES-DROPPER {%16})}

ONTIC CHECKSUM TOTAL: #383

YOUTUBE: "HIM - JOIN ME IN DEATH (1999) / GREGORIAN WITH AMELIA
BRIGHTMAN - JOIN ME IN DEATH (2002), W / INTRO"

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDRxZVGlKSA>

CONCLUDING AUGUSTI NUMEN / TREASON EVENTS WILL OCCUR AS EASTER SUNDAY ON
#44 - 20 APRIL 2025 AND PENTECOST SUNDAY ON #38 - 8 JUNE 2025.

- TOTAL SOLAR ECLIPSE ON 8 (UTC) / 9 JUNE 1918 (AEST) [During World War
I: 28 JULY 1914 to 11 NOVEMBER 1918]

- TOTAL SOLAR ECLIPSE ON 13 (UTC) / 14 NOVEMBER 2012 (AEST) - KING
CHARLES III ACTUAL BIRTHDAY

KING CHARLES III BIRTHDAY HOLIDAY ON #68 - 9 JUNE 2025 AND #38 - 8 JUNE
2026.

"IN WHOM THE GOD OF THIS WORLD HATH BLINDED THE *MINDS*-G3540 OF THEM
WHICH BELIEVE NOT, LEST THE LIGHT OF THE GLORIOUS GOSPEL OF CHRIST, WHO
IS THE IMAGE OF GOD, SHOULD SHINE UNTO THEM." [2Corinthians 4:4]

"CASTING DOWN IMAGINATIONS, AND EVERY HIGH THING THAT EXALTETH ITSELF
AGAINST THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD, AND BRINGING INTO CAPTIVITY EVERY
*THOUGHT*-G3540 TO THE OBEDIENCE OF CHRIST;" [2Corinthians 10:5]

"BUT I FEAR, LEST BY ANY MEANS, AS THE SERPENT BEGUILED EVE THROUGH HIS
SUBTLETY, SO YOUR *MINDS*-G3540 SHOULD BE CORRUPTED FROM THE SIMPLICITY
THAT IS IN CHRIST." [2Corinthians 11:3]

BING CHAT GPT @ 0836 HRS ON 21 APRIL 2024: "During the CHRISTCHURCH
MOSQUE SHOOTINGS ON 15 MARCH 2019, the perpetrator, Brenton Tarrant, was
dressed in *MILITARY*-*STYLE* *CAMOUFLAGE* *CLOTHING*. He also wore a
full tactical vest with front pockets containing at least seven fully
loaded .223 magazines and carried a bayonet-style *KNIFE* in a scabbard.
His attire allowed him to carry numerous magazines and move with ease
during the attacks. Tarrant’s actions that day resulted in a tragic loss
of life and left an indelible mark on New Zealand’s history."

BOER WAR MEMORIAL ANTAGONISM AS IMPLICIT ROMAN CATHOLIC CRIME AGAINST
THE COMMONWEALTH (CAESAROPAPISM)
PENTECOST SUNDAY AS JUPITER (#38 - SATOR / #33 - TENET / #34 - ROTAS)
PRINCIPLE

[#38 - 8 JUNE 1930, #35 - 24 MAY 1931, #33 - 15 MAY 1932, #37 - 4 JUNE
1933, #34 - 20 MAY 1934]

[#38 - 8 JUNE 2014, #35 - 24 MAY 2015 (KNIGHTS TEMPLAR RENEWED), #33 -
15 MAY 2016 (IRREGULAR VIETNAM CORPSE INTERMENT IN RAAF WWII CEMETERY),
#37 - 4 JUNE 2017 [TARGETED ATTACKS / SLANDER], #34 - 20 MAY 2018 (WWI
CENTENNIAL HIJACKING)]

[#38 - 8 JUNE 2025, #35 - 24 MAY 2026, #33 - 16 MAY 2027, #37 - 4 JUNE
2028, #34 - 20 MAY 2029]

EASTER SUNDAY occurs between the TETRA / RANGE dates #21 - 22 MARCH
through #28 - ANZAC DAY: 25 APRIL (whereas PENTECOST SUNDAY as 49 days
thereafter occurs within ranges #31 - 10 MAY through #39 - 13 JUNE)
within the Gregorian calendar and may be the 81st through 115th day of
common years or 82nd through 116th day of leap years.

<http://www.grapple369.com/Groundwork/Lawyer%20Notes%2020240409%20%28public%29.pdf>

GRAPPLE (309, 332)@[34, 22, 54, 31, 63, 5, 61, 60, 2] PROTOTYPE

<http://www.grapple369.com/Savvy/?date:2024.4.21&time:8.36&heuristic>



[#34 {@1: Sup: 34 - KINSHIP: CH'IN (#34); Ego: 34 - KINSHIP: CH'IN (#34)}
#22 {@2: Sup: 56 - CLOSED MOUTH: CHIN (#90); Ego: 22 - RESISTANCE: KE (#56)}
#54 {@3: Sup: 29 - DECISIVENESS: TUAN (#119 - MALE DEME IS UNNAMED
{%35}); Ego: 54 - UNITY: K'UN (#110 - MALE DEME IS UNNAMED {%30})}
#31 {@4: Sup: 60 - ACCUMULATION: CHI (#179 - MALE DEME IS UNNAMED {%0});
Ego: 31 - PACKING: CHUANG (#141 - MALE DEME IS UNNAMED {%31})}
#63 {@5: Sup: 42 - GOING TO MEET: YING (#221); Ego: 63 - WATCH: SHIH (#204)}
#5 {@6: Sup: 47 - PATTERN: WEN (#268); Ego: 5 - KEEPING SMALL: SHAO (#209)}
#61 {@7: Sup: 27 - DUTIES: SHIH (#295); Ego: 61 - EMBELLISHMENT: SHIH
(#270)}
#60 {@8: Sup: 6 - CONTRARIETY: LI (#301); Ego: 60 - ACCUMULATION: CHI
(#330)}
#2] {@9: Sup: 8 - OPPOSITION: KAN (#309); Ego: 2 - FULL CIRCLE: CHOU (#332)}

TELOS TOTAL: #332

DEME CHECKSUM TOTAL: #549

#1770 - DEME CHECKSUM TOTAL: #549 as [#40, #70, #100, #500, #800, #200,
#10, #50] = mórphōsis (G3446): {UMBRA: #1920 % #41 = #34} 1) a forming,
shaping; 2) form; 2a) the mere form, semblance; 2b) *THE* *FORM*
*BEFITTING* *A* *THING**OR* *TRULY* *EXPRESSING* *THE* *FACT*, the very
form;

#556 - ONTIC CHECKSUM TOTAL: #230 as [#8, #4, #10, #20, #8, #200, #1,
#300, #5] = adikéō (G91): {UMBRA: #840 % #41 = #20} 1) absolutely; 1a)
*TO* *ACT* *UNJUSTLY* *OR* *WICKEDLY*, *TO* *SIN*; 1b) *TO* *BE* *A*
*CRIMINAL*, *TO* *HAVE* *VIOLATED* *THE* *LAWS* *IN* *SOME* *WAY*; 1c)
to do wrong; 1d) to do hurt; 2) transitively; 2a) to do some wrong or
sin in some respect; 2b) to wrong some one, act wickedly towards him;
2c) to hurt, damage, harm;

We already have a meta-description of #237 - USE OF FORCE associated to
the [#0, #40, #41, #81, #30] template prototype but the consideration is
whether we can deduce some metalogic axioms from our NOEMA SCENARIO
[#230 - WICKED, #232 - KNIFE / WEAPON, #249 - SATOR (#38), #228 - ONTIC
LIMIT / WITNESSING TRAVESTY AS REPROACH, #237 - DEME LIMIT / USE OF
FORCE] where the use of an object knife for instance, is both an
engendering nature: #237 - #230 = #7 and a strategic grounding action
#237 - #232 = #5 which is an atrocity consequential to the autonomy:
#237 - #228 = #9 but also the general populace: #249 - #237 = #12...

But just how elastic and vital are these meta logical premises that a
specific category #258 might provide a #30 - BOLD RESOLUTION to #228 -
ATROCITY?



<http://www.grapple369.com/images/Papal%20War%20Commemorations%20Intellectual%20Property%20Theft%202.png>

HETEROS PROTOTYPE #SEVEN (#117 / #351)

47    7    63
55   39    23
15   71    31

71
118
141
204
243
258 <-- ****
313
344
351

#1721 - MALE CHECKSUM TOTAL: #258 as [#200, #800, #500, #100, #70, #50,
#1] = sṓphrōn (G4998): {UMBRA: #2450 % #41 = #31} 1) of a sound mind,
sane, in one's senses; 2) curbing one's desires and impulses,
self-controlled, temperate;

#472 - MALE CHECKSUM TOTAL: #258 as [#20, #100, #10, #40, #1, #300, #1] /
#741 - MALE CHECKSUM TOTAL: #258 as [#20, #100, #10, #40, #1, #300, #70,
#200] = kríma (G2917): {UMBRA: #171 % #41 = #7} 1) a decree, judgments;
2) judgment; 2a) condemnation of wrong, the decision (whether severe or
mild) which one passes on the faults of others; 2b) in a forensic sense;
2b1) the sentence of a judge; 2b2) the punishment with which one is
sentenced; 2b3) condemnatory sentence, penal judgment, sentence; 2c) a
matter to be judicially decided, a lawsuit, a case in court;

#718 - MALE CHECKSUM TOTAL: #258 as [#1, #30, #8, #9, #70, #400, #200] =
alēthḗs (G227): {UMBRA: #256 % #41 = #10} 1) true; 2) loving the truth,
speaking the truth, truthful;

We need to be mindful where the #237 is itself a LIMIT as a DEME
boundary (ie. excluding for the moment either its usage by selection or
aggregated extension) such that the #237 - USE OF FORCE associated with
the BIPARTITE PROTOTYPE #228 - WITNESSING TRAVESTY AS REPROACH is
entirely a systemic product of ONTIC moral proscription abandonment for
rightful action and a steeping effect of the prototype artifice itself,
such that water finds its own course which is here biased by conformity
with the patterning imposed by the immaterial elements @1 / @5 as then a
fixed mindset which cannot change?

It will always find some self justification but the problem is the
paradigm as the foundation of belief and being.

We see the resolution of the problem is firstly a metalogic
quantification of the human being and not chasing after endless self
justification by such.

We cannot be shallow here given there is already conveyed a viable
metalogical proposition of a BIPOLAR REALITY (ie. not a medical
diagnosis but a paradigm of action: #365 - YANG: LUO SHU / #364 - YIN:
T'AI HSUAN + fusion)...

Thus whilst the principle of a specific category #258 might provide a
#30 - bold resolution to atrocity #228 we must understand that informal
research postulations may be made upon certain assumptions which from
case studies do not hold true.

For instance whilst the HETEROS PROTOTYPE #SEVEN (#117 / #351) has an
equivalent locus to the BIPOLAR REALITY as LUO SHU PROTOTYPE #THREE
(#117 / #351) in possessing a meta descriptor of #75 - FAILURE (SHIH) -
𝍐失 = #526 as COGITO: [#58, #27, #27, #49, #46] that our #364 - YIN:
T'AI HSUAN assay of an array ONLY makes an artifice metalogic assertion:
[#9 - vCORAL, #8 - vCYAN, #1 ... #7 - CAUSALITY] where the #65 - INNER
(NEI) / H54 - MARRIAGEABLE MAIDEN, CONVERTING THE MAIDEN is then the
CENTRE or AUTONOMOUS DELIMITED PRINCIPLE with a PRINCIPLE OF MATERIALITY
associated to #75 - FAILURE (SHIH) and in its SPIRAL ASSAY also includes
#228 and thus there is no in-equitability of paradigm consequence.

COURSE OF NATURE

57   56    49
66   65    58
75   74    67

74
131
189
238
303
378
444
511 <-- @SUM(TETRAD MENTIONS OF [rì (日): *SUN*])
567

#567 - ONTIC CHECKSUM TOTAL: #331 as [#2, #90, #2, #1, #6, #400, #10,
#50, #6] = tsâbâʼ (H6635): {UMBRA: #93 % #41 = #11} 1) that which goes
forth, army, war, warfare, host; 1a) army, host; 1a1) host (of organised
army); 1a2) host (of angels); 1a3) *OF* *SUN*, *MOON*, *AND* *STARS*;
1a4) of whole creation; 1b) war, warfare, service, go out to war; 1c)
service;



<https://www.grapple369.com/nature.html>

WHICH MIGHT RELY ON A SPIRAL ASSAY ARRAY TO MEDIATE AGAINST THE
BIPARTITE HYPOSTASIS:

[#57, #56, #49, #58, #67, #74, #75, #66, #65]

[#57, {@1: Sup: 57 - GUARDEDNESS: SHOU (#57); Ego: 57 - GUARDEDNESS:
SHOU (#57)}
#56, {@2: Sup: 32 - LEGION: CHUANG (#89); Ego: 56 - CLOSED MOUTH: CHIN
(#113)}
#49, {@3: Sup: 81 - FOSTERING: YANG (#170); Ego: 49 - FLIGHT: T'AO (#162)}

#58, {@4: Sup: 58 - GATHERING IN: HSI (#228 - I HAVE NO UNJUST
PREFERENCES {%40}); Ego: 58 - GATHERING IN: HSI (#220 - I CURSE NOT A
GOD {%38} / I CURSE NOT A GOD {%38})} <-- ****

#67, {@5: Sup: 44 - STOVE: TSAO (#272); Ego: 67 - DARKENING: HUI (#287)}
#74, {@6: Sup: 37 - PURITY: TS'UI (#309); Ego: 74 - CLOSURE: CHIH (#361)}
#75, {@7: Sup: 31 - PACKING: CHUANG (#340); Ego: 75 - FAILURE: SHIH (#436)}
#66, {@8: Sup: 16 - CONTACT: CHIAO (#356); Ego: 66 - DEPARTURE: CH'U (#502)}
#65] {@9: Sup: 81 - FOSTERING: YANG (#437); Ego: 65 - INNER: NEI (#567)}

#567 as [#1, #100, #300, #5, #40, #70, #50, #1] = artémōn (G736):
{UMBRA: #1296 % #41 = #25} 1) a top-sail or *FORESAIL* *OF* *A* *SHIP*;

YOUTUBE: "1492 CONQUEST OF PARADISE (VANGELIS)"

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCynyt9z8CQ>

#567 as [#40, #20, #60, #1, #6, #400, #40] = kiççêʼ (H3678): {UMBRA: #81
% #41 = #40} 1) seat (of honour), throne, seat, stool; 1a) seat (of
honour), throne; 1b) *ROYAL* *DIGNITY*, *AUTHORITY*, *POWER* (fig.);

#567 as [#300, #5, #30, #5, #200, #9, #8, #10] = teléō (G5055): {UMBRA:
#1140 % #41 = #33} 1) to bring to a close, to finish, to end; 1a)
passed, finished; 2) to perform, execute, complete, fulfil, (so that the
thing done corresponds to what has been said, the order, command etc.);
2a) with special reference to the subject matter, to carry out the
contents of a command; 2b) *WITH* *REFERENCE* *ALSO* *TO* *THE* *FORM*,
*TO* *DO* *JUST* *AS* *COMMANDED*, *AND* *GENERALLY* *INVOLVING* *THE*
*NOTION* *OF* *TIME*, *TO* *PERFORM* *THE* *LAST* *ACT* *WHICH*
*COMPLETES* *A* *PROCESS*, *TO* *ACCOMPLISH*, *FULFIL*; 3) to pay; 3a)
of tribute;

So whilst we might easily extrapolate the paradigm of action: #365 -
YANG: LUO SHU / #364 - YIN: T'AI HSUAN to domestic violence being
likewise #228 - TRAVESTY as occurring within an optimal state of FUSION
(ie. MARRIAGE), ours is only an INFORMAL RESEARCH proposition and we are
not qualified to make any #491 - AGENCY (ie. which is why they are
established) or ONTIC JURISPRUDENCE statements.



<http://www.grapple369.com/images/Hitler%20Claim%20to%20Science.jpeg>

LUO SHU PROTOTYPE #THREE (#117 / #351)

30    75    12
21    39    57
66    3    48

3
33
90
102
141
207
228 <-- ****
276
351

This is then a hypothetical assumption about this "the BIPOLAR dynamic
of LUO SHU SQUARE / COURSE OF NATURE pairing (ie. #365 - YANG / #364 -
YIN = #729 = 9x9x9 as morphology of being) as adverse state occurs by an
artifice impetus of a BIPARTITE HYPOSTASIS fusion..."

The question is on the #231 - JUXTAPOSITION CONTROL within the BIPARTITE
HYPOSTASIS and whether such is the holding capacity and the immaterial
elements @1 / @5 is then both impetus and anchor.

From our metalogic assertion: [#9 - vCORAL, #8 - vCYAN, #1 ... #7 -
CAUSALITY] we also make the observation of categories #230 and #297 with
the later the sum for BIPARTITE NUMBER PROTOTYPE #ONE and the COURSE OF
NATURE deploying the same assay method for PROTOTYPE #ONE / #NINE as
claim to JEWISH / CHRISTIAN IDENTITY being SOMETHING SUBSTANTIALLY
DIFFERENT TO THE ECCLESIASTICAL PRECEDENCE CLAIMS MADE BY THE @1 - #297
/ @5 - #333 - VATICAN CITY-STATE

COURSE OF NATURE #ONE

77    78    79
5   6   7
14    15    16

15
92
99
178
184
198
203
219
297 <-- ROMAN PROTOTYPE

[#15, #77, #7, #79, #6, #14, #5, #16, #78]

COURSE OF NATURE #NINE

23    24    25
32    33    34
41    42    43

42
65
99
124
157
198
230 <-- ****
273
297 <-- ROMAN PROTOTYPE

[#42, #23, #34, #25, #33, #41, #32, #43, #24]

The baying for blood "BRING HIM OUT" belongs to the same class of
statement as "CRUCIFY HIM" or "DEATH TO AMERICA" / "DEATH TO ISRAEL".

"EXCEPT IT BE FOR THIS ONE VOICE, THAT I CRIED STANDING AMONG THEM,
TOUCHING THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD I AM CALLED IN QUESTION BY YOU
THIS DAY.

AND WHEN FELIX HEARD THESE THINGS, HAVING MORE PERFECT KNOWLEDGE OF THAT
WAY, HE DEFERRED THEM, AND SAID, WHEN LYSIAS THE CHIEF CAPTAIN SHALL
COME DOWN, I WILL KNOW THE UTTERMOST OF YOUR MATTER." [Acts 24:21-22]

GRAPPLE (367, 230)@[13, 30, 17, 45, 59, 42, 9, 7, 8] PROTOTYPE

<http://www.grapple369.com/Savvy/?date:2024.4.13&time:15.20&heuristic>



[#13 {@1: Sup: 13 - INCREASE: TSENG (#13); Ego: 13 - INCREASE: TSENG (#13)}
#30 {@2: Sup: 43 - ENCOUNTERS: YU (#56); Ego: 30 - BOLD RESOLUTION: YI
(#43)}
#17 {@3: Sup: 60 - ACCUMULATION: CHI (#116); Ego: 17 - HOLDING BACK:
JUAN (#60)}
#45 {@4: Sup: 24 - JOY: LE (#140 - I DEAL NOT FRAUDULENTLY {%14} / I AM
NOT AN EAVES-DROPPER {%16}); Ego: 45 - GREATNESS: TA (#105)}
#59 {@5: Sup: 2 - FULL CIRCLE: CHOU (#142); Ego: 59 - MASSING: CHU (#164)}
#42 {@6: Sup: 44 - STOVE: TSAO (#186 - I AM NOT ONE OF INCONSTANT MIND
{%31} / I AM NOT ONE OF INCONSTANT MIND {%31}); Ego: 42 - GOING TO MEET:
YING (#206)}
#9 {@7: Sup: 53 - ETERNITY: YUNG (#239); Ego: 9 - BRANCHING OUT: SHU
(#215 - I AM NEITHER A LIAR NOR A DOER OF MISCHIEF {%34})}
#7 {@8: Sup: 60 - ACCUMULATION: CHI (#299); Ego: 7 - ASCENT: SHANG (#222
- MALE DEME IS UNNAMED {%12})}
#8] {@9: Sup: 68 - DIMMING: MENG (#367); Ego: 8 - OPPOSITION: KAN (#230)}

TELOS TOTAL: #230
ONTIC CHECKSUM TOTAL: #541
DEME CHECKSUM TOTAL: #408

From the time window of the BONDI MASSACRE vEVENT we determined a
viable prototype {@9: Sup: 68 - DIMMING: MENG (#367); Ego: 8 -
OPPOSITION: KAN (#230)}

#959 - FEME CHECKSUM TOTAL: #230 as [#5, #4, #10, #800, #20, #70, #50] =
diṓkō (G1377): {UMBRA: #1634 % #41 = #35} 1) to make to run or flee, put
to flight, drive away; 2) to run swiftly in order to catch a person or
thing, to run after; 2a) to press on: figuratively of one who in a race
runs swiftly to reach the goal; 2b) to pursue (in a hostile manner); 3)
in any way whatever to harass, trouble, molest one; 3a) to persecute;
3b) to be mistreated, suffer persecution on account of something; 4)
without the idea of hostility, to run after, follow after: someone; 5)
metaph., to pursue; 5a) to seek after eagerly, earnestly endeavour to
acquire;

We identified #230 as a likely action / temporal cohesion occurrence and
switched from FEME / IDEA to the supernal MALE noumenon redaction:

#880 - MALE CHECKSUM TOTAL: #230 as [#20, #400, #50, #400, #10] =
kᵉthôneth (H3801): {UMBRA: #870 % #41 = #9} 1) tunic, under-garment; 1a)
a long shirt-like garment usually of linen;

#654 - MALE CHECKSUM TOTAL: #230 as [#1, #3, #1, #80, #8, #200, #1, #50,
#300, #10] = agapáō (G25): {UMBRA: #886 % #41 = #25} 1) of persons; 1a)
to welcome, to entertain, to be fond of, to love dearly; 2) of things;
2a) to be well pleased, to be contented at or with a thing;

Which gave viable meta-logical pairings:

Male: #230; Feme: #232
Male: #230; Feme: #249

Male: #237; Feme: #228

42 16 65
64 41 18
17 66 40

66
108
126
191
232
249

44 4 60
52 36 20
12 68 28

68
112
132
192
228

H3801@{
  {@1: Sup: 20 - ADVANCE: CHIN (#20); Ego: 20 - ADVANCE: CHIN (#20)},
  {@2: Sup: 15 - REACH: TA (#35); Ego: 76 - AGGRAVATION: CHU (#96 -
MALE DEME IS UNNAMED {%33})},
  {@3: Sup: 65 - INNER: NEI (#100 - MALE DEME IS UNNAMED {%3}); Ego: 50
- VASTNESS / WASTING: T'ANG (#146 - I AM NOT A LAND-GRABBER {%15})},
  {@4: Sup: 71 - STOPPAGE: CHIH (#171 - I AM NOT UNCHASTE WITH ANY ONE
{%20}); Ego: 6 - CONTRARIETY: LI (#152)},
  {@5: Sup: 66 - DEPARTURE: CH'U (#237 - MALE DEME IS UNNAMED {%17});
Ego: 76 - AGGRAVATION: CHU (#228 - I HAVE NO UNJUST PREFERENCES {%40})},

  Male: #237; Feme: #228
} // #876

Thus upon that premise, I concluded the notions [#230, #232, #249] may
provide a suitable workable IDEA dialectic as conjectural motive
occasioning the need to mediate #237 - USE OF FORCE associated with the
BIPARTITE PROTOTYPE #228 - WITNESSING TRAVESTY AS REPROACH ...

Also I was aware #232 - knife

#230 as [#20, #8, #200, #2] / [#8, #200, #2, #20] /
#232 as [#2, #8, #200, #2, #20] = chereb (H2719): {UMBRA: #210 % #41 =
#5} 1) sword, knife; 1a) sword; 1b) knife; 1c) tools for cutting stone;

As being entirely congruous notions and consistent with past informal
research interests

But there is a need to be mindful where the #237 is itself a LIMIT as a
DEME boundary (ie. excluding for the moment either its usage by
selection or aggregated extension) such that the #237 - USE OF FORCE
associated with the ONTIC boundary and BIPARTITE PROTOTYPE #228 -
WITNESSING TRAVESTY AS REPROACH is entirely a systemic product of ONTIC
moral proscription abandonment for rightful action and a steeping effect
of the prototype artifice itself, such that water finds its own course
which is here biased by conformity with the patterning imposed by the
immaterial elements @1 / @5 as then a fixed mindset which cannot change?

Secondly as a conception of ENTENTIONAL whether the expression of a
notion within the PARAGRAPH meets the criteria of pertaining to
entention or to objects that have entention as an attribute. Ententional
phenomena are teleological – the class of phenomena constituted by their
relation to something absent, e.g. function, purpose, value...

To illustrate this point, if we apply a memeBrain parsing to the first
two paragraphs within our "CASE STUDY ON PSYCHOSOMATIC PHENOMENON BY
TEMPORAL ASSOCIATIVE CAPACITY TO INTUIT NEURAL LINGUISTIC PRAGMA AS
MENTAL DESCRIPTION" which relates to "the philosophical notion of
psychosomatic phenomenon [which] is predominantly understood in terms of
a physiological psychological condition that leads to physical symptoms"

<http://www.grapple369.com/x-files/CASE%20STUDY%20Gnosis%20Ex%20Machina.pdf>

In that the INTENTIONALITY of the CONTROLLED EXPERIMENTS through BRAIN
MANIPULATION is expressed within the congruence of two paragraphs as:

It concerns the brain cells, {@10: Sup: 7 - ASCENT: SHANG (#285); Ego:
50 - VASTNESS / WASTING: T'ANG (#385)}
structures, {@11: Sup: 54 - UNITY: K'UN (#339); Ego: 11 - DIVERGENCE:
CH'A (#396)}
components, {@12: Sup: 40 - LAW / MODEL: FA (#379); Ego: 71 - STOPPAGE:
CHIH (#467)}

#855 - MALE CHECKSUM TOTAL: #379 as [#3, #5, #3, #400, #40, #50, #1,
#200, #40, #5, #50, #8, #50] = gymnázō (G1128): {UMBRA: #1301 % #41 =
#30} 1) to exercise naked (in a palaestra or school of athletics); 2)
*TO* *EXERCISE* *VIGOROUSLY*, *IN* *ANY* *WAY*, *EITHER* *THE* *BODY*
*OR* *THE* *MIND*;

However is the conception of ENTENTIONALITY obtained by a single
paragraph parsing without being couched by preamble of 9 span segments :

It concerns the brain cells, {@3: Sup: 13 - INCREASE: TSENG (#85); Ego:
50 - VASTNESS / WASTING: T'ANG (#183)}
structures, {@4: Sup: 60 - ACCUMULATION: CHI (#145); Ego: 11 -
DIVERGENCE: CH'A (#194)}
components, {@5: Sup: 46 - ENLARGEMENT: K'UO (#191 - I DO NOT STEAL THE
SKINS OF THE SACRED ANIMALS {%32}); Ego: 71 - STOPPAGE: CHIH (#265)}

#674 - MALE CHECKSUM TOTAL: #191 as [#6, #1, #7, #50, #10, #600] = ʼôzen
(H241): {UMBRA: #58 % #41 = #17} 1) *EAR*, as part of the body; 2) ear,
as organ of hearing; 3) (subjective) to uncover the ear to reveal; the
receiver of divine revelation;

#118 - MALE CHECKSUM TOTAL: #191 as [#50, #2, #50, #10, #6] = bîyn
(H995): {UMBRA: #62 % #41 = #21} 1) to discern, understand, consider;
1a) (Qal); 1a1) to perceive, discern; 1a2) to understand, *KNOW* (*WITH*
*THE* *MIND*); 1a3) to observe, mark, give heed to, distinguish,
consider; 1a4) to have discernment, insight, understanding; 1b) (Niphal)
to be discerning, intelligent, discreet, have understanding; 1c)
(Hiphil); 1c1) to understand; 1c2) to cause to understand, give
understanding, teach; 1d) (Hithpolel) to show oneself discerning or
attentive, consider diligently; 1e) (Polel) to teach, instruct; 2)
(TWOT) prudent, regard;

According to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the philosophical [dá
rén (達人): PERSON WHO TAKES THINGS PHILOSOPHICALLY] concept of
INTENTIONALITY is the power of minds and mental states to be about, to
represent, or to stand for, things, properties and states of affairs. To
say of an individual’s mental states that they have intentionality is to
say that they are mental representations or that they have contents.

<http://www.grapple369.com/Savvy/?run:Mystery&glyph:人>

rén (人): 1. person; people; a human being, 2. Kangxi radical 9, 3. a
kind of person, 4. everybody, 5. adult, 6. somebody; others, 7. an
upright person

Furthermore, to the extent that a speaker utters words from some natural
language or draws pictures or symbols from a formal language for the
purpose of conveying to others the contents of her mental states, these
artifacts used by a speaker too have contents or intentionality.
‘Intentionality’ is a philosopher’s word: ever since the idea, if not
the word itself, was introduced into philosophy by Franz Brentano in the
last quarter of the nineteenth century, it has been used to refer to the
puzzles of representation, all of which lie at the interface between the
philosophy of mind and the philosophy of language.

1. WHY IS INTENTIONALITY SO-CALLED?
Contemporary discussions of the nature of intentionality are an integral
part of discussions of the nature of minds: what are minds and what is
it to have a mind? They arise in the context of ontological and
metaphysical questions about the fundamental nature of mental states:
states such as perceiving, remembering, believing, desiring, hoping,
knowing, intending, feeling, experiencing, and so on. What is it to have
such mental states? How does the mental relate to the physical, i.e.,
how are mental states related to an individual’s body, to states of his
or her brain, to his or her behavior and to states of affairs in the world?

Why is intentionality so-called? For reasons soon to be explained, in
its philosophical usage, the meaning of the word ‘intentionality’ should
not be confused with the ordinary meaning of the word ‘intention.’ As
indicated by the meaning of the Latin word tendere, which is the
etymology of ‘intentionality,’ the relevant idea behind intentionality
is that of mental directedness towards (or attending to) objects, as if
the mind were construed as a mental bow whose arrows could be properly
aimed at different targets. In medieval logic and philosophy, the Latin
word intentio was used for what contemporary philosophers and logicians
nowadays call a ‘concept’ or an ‘intension’: something that can be both
true of non-mental things and properties—things and properties lying
outside the mind—and present to the mind.

2. INTENTIONAL INEXISTENCE
Contemporary discussions of the nature of intentionality were launched
and many of them were anticipated by Franz Brentano (1874, 88–89) in his
book, Psychology From an Empirical Standpoint, from which I quote two
famous paragraphs:

Every mental phenomenon is characterized by what the Scholastics of the
Middle Ages called the intentional (or mental) inexistence of an object,
and what we might call, though not wholly unambiguously, reference to a
content, direction toward an object (which is not to be understood here
as meaning a thing), or immanent objectivity. Every mental phenomenon
includes something as object within itself, although they do not do so
in the same way. In presentation, something is presented, in judgment
something is affirmed or denied, in love loved, in hate hated, in desire
desired and so on.

This intentional inexistence is characteristic exclusively of mental
phenomena. No physical phenomenon exhibits anything like it. We can,
therefore, define mental phenomena by saying that they are those
phenomena which contain an object intentionally within themselves.

As one reads these lines, numerous questions arise: what does Brentano
mean when he says that the object towards which the mind directs itself
‘is not to be understood as meaning a thing’? What can it be for a
phenomenon (mental or otherwise) to exhibit ‘the intentional inexistence
of an object’? What is it for a phenomenon to ‘include something as
object within itself’? Do ‘reference to a content’ and ‘direction toward
an object’ express two distinct ideas? Or are they two distinct ways of
expressing one and the same idea? If intentionality can relate a mind to
something that either does not exist or exists wholly within the mind,
what sort of relation can it be?

Replete as they are with complex, abstract and controversial ideas,
these two short paragraphs have set the agenda for all subsequent
philosophical discussions of intentionality in the late nineteenth and
the twentieth century. There has been some discussion over the meaning
of Brentano’s expression ‘intentional inexistence.’ Did Brentano mean
that the objects onto which the mind is directed are internal to the
mind itself (in-exist in the mind)? Or did he mean that the mind can be
directed onto non-existent objects? Or did he mean both? (See Crane,
1998 for further discussion.)

Some of the leading ideas of the phenomenological tradition can be
traced back to this issue. Following the lead of Edmund Husserl (1900,
1913), who was both the founder of phenomenology and a student of
Brentano’s, the point of the phenomenological analysis has been to show
that the essential property of intentionality of being directed onto
something is not contingent upon whether some real physical target
exists independently of the intentional act itself.

3. THE RELATIONAL NATURE OF SINGULAR THOUGHTS
While the orthodox paradigm is clearly consistent with the possibility
that general thoughts may involve abstract objects (e.g., numbers) and
abstract properties and relations, none of which are in space and time,
special problems arise with respect to singular thoughts construed as
intentional relations to non-existent or fictitious objects. Two related
assumptions lie at the core of the orthodox paradigm. One is the
assumption that the mystery of the intentional relation should be
elucidated against the background of non-intentional relations. The
other is the assumption that intentional relations which seem to involve
non-existent (e.g., fictitious) entities should be clarified by
reference to intentional relations involving particulars existing in
space and time.

The paradigm of the intentional relation that satisfies the orthodox
picture is the intentionality of what can be called singular thoughts,
namely those true thoughts that are directed towards concrete
individuals or particulars that exist in space and time. A singular
thought is such that it would not be available—it could not be
entertained—unless the concrete individual that is the target of the
thought existed. Unlike the propositional contents of general thoughts
that involve only abstract universals such as properties and/or
relations, the propositional content of a singular thought may involve
in addition a relation to a concrete individual or particular. The
contrast between ‘singular’ and ‘general’ propositions has been much
emphasized by Kaplan (1978, 1989). In a slightly different perspective,
Tyler Burge (1977) has characterized singular thoughts as incompletely
conceptualized or de re thoughts whose relation to the objects they are
about is supplied by the context. On some views, the object of the
singular thought is even part of it. On the orthodox view, part of the
importance of true singular thoughts for a clarification of
intentionality lies in the fact that some true singular thoughts are
about concrete perceptible objects. Singular thoughts about concrete
perceptible objects may seem simpler and more primitive than either
general ones or thoughts about abstract entities.
<https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intentionality/#RelaNatuSingThou>

ENTENTIONAL: Of or pertaining to entention or to objects that have
entention as an attribute. Ententional phenomena are teleological – the
class of phenomena constituted by their relation to something absent,
e.g. function, purpose, value...

The term is deliberately similar to the term intention, which has a long
history of use in philosophy of mind, but was designed to have a broader
scope. "Ententional" is an adjective that applies to the class of
objects and phenomena that refer to or are in some other way "about"
something not present. This Wikipedia page is ententional because it
refers to and is explicitly about an abstract concept which is not
physically present in the page itself. Other paradigm examples of
ententional objects are books, DNA strands, and tools. In contrast,
rocks, stars, and electromagnetic radiation are not ententional.

Jeremy Sherman writes on ententionality, "Deacon coins the term
'ententional,' to encompass the entire range of phenomena that must be
explained, everything from the first evolvable function, to human social
processes, everything traditionally called intentional but also
everything merely functional, fitting and therefore representing its
environment with normative (good or bad fit) consequences."
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entention>

Suffice to say, we have much to learn on these particular subjects as
the philosophical concepts of intentionality and ententionality, but to
enable such opportunities we've now included both the data-meme and
data-entent-meme together with their respective praxis, ontic, deme
attribute elements:

<span data-meme="{ITEM:9,MALE:285,SUPER:7,FEME:385,EGO:50,TELOS:1103}"
data-praxis="false"
data-entent-meme="{ITEM:2,MALE:85,SUPER:13,FEME:183,EGO:50,TELOS:1103}"
data-entent-praxis="false">It concerns the brain cells, </span>

<span data-meme="{ITEM:10,MALE:339,SUPER:54,FEME:396,EGO:11,TELOS:1388}"
data-praxis="false"
data-entent-meme="{ITEM:3,MALE:145,SUPER:60,FEME:194,EGO:11,TELOS:1388}"
data-entent-praxis="false">structures, </span>

<span data-meme="{ITEM:11,MALE:379,SUPER:40,FEME:467,EGO:71,TELOS:638}"
data-praxis="true"
data-entent-meme="{ITEM:4,MALE:191,SUPER:46,FEME:265,EGO:71,TELOS:638}"
data-entent-praxis="false" data-entent-ontic="{MALE:191}">components,
</span>

Our next development action as logical thinking exercise will be to
devise the directory structure, as a possible dialectic means for IDEA
CATEGORY aggregation.

----------

How did we rationally deduce by around 2040 hours on 13 APRIL 2024 a
viable metalogical proposition of a BIPOLAR REALITY (ie. not a medical
diagnosis but a paradigm of action: #365 - YANG: LUO SHU / #364 - YIN:
T'AI HSUAN + fusion) for the BONDI MASSACRE, where we very early
proposed this meta-descriptive prototype kᵉthôneth (H3801): GARMENT
[#20, #400, #50, #6, #400] which may provide a suitable IDEA dialectic
to mediate #237 - USE OF FORCE associated with the BIPARTITE PROTOTYPE
#228 - WITNESSING TRAVESTY AS REPROACH so that process can occur whilst
the [police] investigation occurs.

Also I was aware #232 - knife

#230 as [#20, #8, #200, #2] / [#8, #200, #2, #20] /
#232 as [#2, #8, #200, #2, #20] = chereb (H2719): {UMBRA: #210 % #41 =
#5} 1) sword, knife; 1a) sword; 1b) knife; 1c) tools for cutting stone;

<http://www.grapple369.com/Savvy/?lexicon:H3801,H2719,G25>

Firstly metalogic is concerned with the possibility of action whereas
probability functions with the likelihood of occurrence such that the
bái yè (白夜): midnight sun is an impossibility at the equator. But around
the summer solstice (approximately 21 June in the Northern Hemisphere
and 21 December in the Southern Hemisphere), in certain areas the Sun
does not set below the horizon within a 24-hour period.

We must however consider that such is a meta element of the COURSE OF
NATURE paradigm which has its inception at midnight upon 21 DECEMBER
thusly at this stage of our informal research, we've conceived of a
meta-process (ie. the most likely candidate is bái (白): understand WHAT
IS huì (晦): hidden / [#28, #36, #54, #61, #64, #74] + [#12, #67]) for
which we'll need to undertake more contemplation since it also resolves
to the prophet / priest dynamic of the later church stabbing.

[#28, #36, #54, #61, #64, #74]

Interestingly, the character #28 - “更” also represents the concept of
change or replacement and is associated with experiencing different
phases. So, in addition to its role in dividing the night, it carries
broader connotations as well

gēng (更): to change or replace; to experience; one of the five two hour
periods into which the night was formerly divided; watch (e.g. of a
sentry or guard)

The expression 三更 (Sān Gēng): is the third period, occurring between
11:00 PM and 1:00 AM (also known as midnight).

bái (白): 1. white, 2. Kangxi radical 106, 3. plain, 4. to make clear; to
state; to explain; to say; to address, 5. pure; clean; stainless, 6.
bright, 7. a wrongly written character, 8. clear, 9. true; sincere;
genuine, 10. reactionary, 11. a wine cup, 12. a spoken part in an opera,
13. a dialect, 14. to understand, 15. to report, 16. to accuse; to
charge; to sue; to indict, 17. in vain; to no purpose; for nothing, 18.
merely; simply; only, 19. empty; blank, 20. free, 21. to stare coldly; a
scornful look, 22. relating to funerals, 23. Bai, 24. vernacular; spoken
language, 25. a symbol for silver

[#12, #67]

huì (晦): 1. night, 2. obscure; dark; unclear, 3. last day of the lunar
month, 4. concealed; hidden; not obvious

HOWEVER THIS META-PROCESS RESOLVES TO BIPARTITE PROTOTYPES:

#378 - LUO SHU PROTOTYPE #SIX
#396 - TORAH PROTOTYPE #SEVEN / LUO SHU PROTOTYPE #EIGHT
#297 - HETEROS PROTOTYPE #ONE

And therefore possesses a TRIPARTITE potential which requires research.

33 78 15
24 42 60
69 6 51

6
39
99
114
156
225
249
300
378

45 19 68
67 44 21
20 69 43

69
114
135
203
247
267
334
377
396

35 80 17
26 44 62
71 8 53

8
43
105
122
166
237
263
316
396

41 1 57
49 33 17
9 65 25

65
106
123
180
213
222
271
296
297

----------------------

bái yè (白夜): midnight sun; white night

<http://www.grapple369.com/Savvy/?run:Mystery&glyph:白>

[#28, #36, #54, #61, #64, #74]

bái (白): 1. white, 2. Kangxi radical 106, 3. plain, 4. to make clear; to
state; to explain; to say; to address, 5. pure; clean; stainless, 6.
bright, 7. a wrongly written character, 8. clear, 9. true; sincere;
genuine, 10. reactionary, 11. a wine cup, 12. a spoken part in an opera,
13. a dialect, 14. to understand, 15. to report, 16. to accuse; to
charge; to sue; to indict, 17. in vain; to no purpose; for nothing, 18.
merely; simply; only, 19. empty; blank, 20. free, 21. to stare coldly; a
scornful look, 22. relating to funerals, 23. Bai, 24. vernacular; spoken
language, 25. a symbol for silver

<http://www.grapple369.com/Savvy/?run:Mystery&glyph:奧>

[#24]

ào (奧): 1. southwest corner of a house, 2. Austria, 3. mysterious;
obscure; profound; difficult to understand, 4. Ao, 5. ao

{@7: Sup: 17 - HOLDING BACK: JUAN (#318); Ego: 24 - JOY: LE (#341)}

TELOS TOTAL: #341
ONTIC CHECKSUM TOTAL: #146
DEME CHECKSUM TOTAL: #297

#554 - MALE CHECKSUM TOTAL: #318 as [#30, #100, #8, #400, #10, #6] =
lâqach (H3947): {UMBRA: #138 % #41 = #15} 1) to take, get, fetch, lay
hold of, seize, receive, acquire, buy, bring, marry, take a wife,
snatch, take away; 1a) (Qal); 1a1) to take, take in the hand; 1a2) to
take and carry along; 1a3) to take from, take out of, take, carry away,
take away; 1a4) to take to or for a person, *PROCURE*, get, take
possession of, select, choose, take in marriage, receive, accept; 1a5)
to take up or upon, put upon; 1a6) to fetch; 1a7) to take, lead,
conduct; 1a8) to take, capture, seize; 1a9) to take, carry off; 1a10) to
take (vengeance); 1b) (Niphal); 1b1) to be captured; 1b2) to be taken
away, be removed; 1b3) to be taken, brought unto; 1c) (Pual); 1c1) to be
taken from or out of; 1c2) to be stolen from; 1c3) to be taken captive;
1c4) to be taken away, be removed; 1d) (Hophal); 1d1) to be taken unto,
be brought unto; 1d2) to be taken out of; 1d3) to be taken away; 1e)
(Hithpael); 1e1) to take hold of oneself; 1e2) to flash about (of
lightning);

#1294 as [#40, #5, #300, #1, #30, #8, #700, #10, #200] = metálēmpsis
(G3336): {UMBRA: #1294 % #41 = #23} 1) a taking, participation;

#346 as [#40, #5, #300, #1] = metá (G3326): {UMBRA: #346 % #41 = #18} 1)
with, after, behind;

<http://www.grapple369.com/Savvy/?lexicon:G3326,G2983,G3336>

#343 - ONTIC CHECKSUM TOTAL: #146 as [#30, #1, #2, #5, #300, #5] /
#924 as [#30, #1, #40, #2, #1, #50, #800] = lambánō (G2983): {UMBRA:
#924 % #41 = #22} 1) to take; 1a) to take with the hand, lay hold of,
any person or thing in order to use it; 1a1) to take up a thing to be
carried; 1a2) to take upon one's self; 1b) to take in order to carry
away; 1b1) without the notion of violence, i,e to remove, take away; 1c)
to take what is one's own, to take to one's self, to make one's own;
1c1) to claim, *PROCURE*, for one's self; i) to associate with one's
self as companion, attendant; 1c2) of that which when taken is not let
go, to seize, to lay hold of, apprehend; 1c3) to take by craft (our
catch, used of hunters, fisherman, etc.), to circumvent one by fraud;
1c4) to take to one's self, lay hold upon, take possession of, i.e. to
appropriate to one's self; 1c5) catch at, reach after, strive to obtain;
1c6) to take a thing due, to collect, gather (tribute); 1d) to take;
1d1) to admit, receive; 1d2) to receive what is offered; 1d3) not to
refuse or reject; 1d4) to receive a person, give him access to one's
self,; i) to regard any one's power, rank, external circumstances, and
on that account to do some injustice or neglect something; 1d5) to take,
to choose, select; 1d6) to take beginning, to prove anything, to make a
trial of, to experience; 1e) to receive (what is given), to gain, get,
obtain, to get back;

<http://www.grapple369.com/Savvy/?run:Mystery&glyph:晦>

[#12, #67]

huì (晦): 1. night, 2. obscure; dark; unclear, 3. last day of the lunar
month, 4. concealed; hidden; not obvious

[#28, #36, #54, #61, #64, #74]
[#12, #67]

{@8: Sup: 72 - HARDNESS: CHIEN (#378); Ego: 67 - DARKENING: HUI (#396)}

TELOS TOTAL: #396
ONTIC CHECKSUM TOTAL: #146
DEME CHECKSUM TOTAL: #297

#78 - MALE CHECKSUM TOTAL: #378 as [#50, #2, #10, #1, #10, #5] = nâbîyʼ
(H5030): {UMBRA: #63 % #41 = #22} 1) spokesman, speaker, prophet; 1a)
prophet; 1b) false prophet; 1c) heathen prophet;

#93 - ONTIC CHECKSUM TOTAL: #146 as [#2, #20, #5, #50, #10, #6] = kôhên
(H3548): {UMBRA: #75 % #41 = #34} 1) priest, principal officer or chief
ruler; 1a) priest-king (Melchizedek, Messiah); 1b) pagan priests; 1c)
priests of Jehovah; 1d) Levitical priests; 1e) Zadokite priests; 1f)
Aaronic priests; 1g) the high priest;

SEE ALSO: "CORRECTIONS FOR NOTE ON EMAIL TO LAWYERS @ 0700 HOURS ON 22
APRIL 2024"

<http://www.grapple369.com/Groundwork/EMAIL%20TO%20LAWYERS%2020240422%200700%20HRS.pdf>

A revision of this document may be obtained from the following URL:

<http://www.grapple369.com/Groundwork/Notes%20on%20NOEMA%2020240421.pdf>

Revision Date: 24 April 2024

--

Check out our SAVVY module prototype that facilitates a movable / resizable
DIALOG and complex dropdown MENU interface deploying the third party d3
library.
<http://www.grapple369.com/Savvy/?heuristic>
<http://www.grapple369.com/Savvy/Savvy.zip> (Download resources)