-- BUDDHISM EXPOSED AS HAVING NEO NAZI ANTI-BIBLICIST {#215 / #235 - TABLE
TALK} VIEWS
(c) 2018 Dolf Leendert Boek, Revision: 26 September, 2018
DOLF @ 1737 HOURS ON 23 SEPTEMBER 2018: "Each answers for their own soul
and there is #168 - CONDEMNATION / #541 - CONTEMN upon yours since you have
never shown respect.
I see that you have no explanation for exhibiting equivalent neo Nazi
ANTI-BIBLICIST {#215 / #235 - TABLE TALK} values and conveying Jesus as
little more than a personality hero cult figure: 'FOR THOSE BRAVE WHO GAVE
THEIR LIVES SO WE COULD LIVE OURS.'"
WISE TIBETANMONKEY, MOST HUMBLE PHILOSOPHER (***@GMAIL.COM) @
0305 HOURS ON 25 SEPTEMBER 2018: "Saying that Jesus is smarter than me is
like saying I play an instrument better than these guys"
YOUTUBE: "Adventure Of A Lifetime (Coldplay)"
DOLF @ 1025 HOURS ON 23 SEPTEMBER 2018: "WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A
DILDO AND A BUDDHA STATUE?
An Orgasm {#684 as [#70, #100, #3, #1, #200, #40, #70, #200] = from Greek
ὀργασμός orgasmos meaning: excitement, swelling}
ORGASM@{
@1: Sup: 70 (#70); Ego: 70 (#70),
@2: Sup: 8 (#78); Ego: 19 (#89),
@3: Sup: 11 (#89); Ego: 3 (#92),
@4: Sup: 12 (#101 ***); Ego: 1 (#93),
#492 - *VOLUNTARY* *FREEWILL* {#41 = #12 - CIRCULARITY OF BEING} -
#391 - *HOMOIOS* *FRATERNITY* =
#101 - #KORPPIONOIKEUS AS ANY VEXATION MEANING: 'THE #260 - RAVEN / RAPE IS
RIGHT'
@5: Sup: 50 (#151); Ego: 38 (#131),
@6: Sup: 9 (#160); Ego: 40 (#171 - I AM NOT UNCHASTE WITH ANY ONE
{%20}),
@7: Sup: 79 (#239); Ego: 70 (#241),
@8: Sup: 36 (#275); Ego: 38 (#279),
Male: #275; Feme: #279
} // #684
H2000@{
@1: Sup: 6 (#6); Ego: 6 (#6),
@2: Sup: 16 (#22); Ego: 10 (#16),
@3: Sup: 21 (#43); Ego: 5 (#21),
@4: Sup: 61 (#104 - I COMMIT NO FRAUD {%7}); Ego: 40 (#61),
@5: Sup: 13 (#117); Ego: 33 (#94),
Male: #117; Feme: #94
} // #101
T'AI HSÜAN CHING {POLAR OPPOSITIONS / INTERPLAY OF OPPOSITES} [4 BCE]:
UMBRA: #101 % #41 = #19 - Argument for Ethical Anarchism, Returning to
Simplicity; I-Ching: H57 - Compliance, Gentle Penetration/Wind, Ground,
Calculations; Tetra: 58 - Gathering In;
THOTH MEASURE: #19 - Oh Uammetu, who makest thine appearance at the Block;
*I* *COMMIT* *NOT* *ADULTERY* *WITH* *ANOTHER'S* *WIFE*.
#VIRTUE: Following (no. #19) means dispersing, but
#TOOLS: Massing (no. #59) means assembling.
#POSITION: With Ease (no. #23), the level and smooth, but
#TIME: With Difficulties (no. #79), the going up and down.
#CANON: #180
ONTIC_OBLIGANS_180@{
@1: Sup: 19 (#19); Ego: 19 (#19),
@2: Sup: 78 (#97); Ego: 59 (#78),
@3: Sup: 20 (#117); Ego: 23 (#101),
@4: Sup: 18 (#135); Ego: 79 (#180 - I COMMIT NOT ADULTERY WITH ANOTHER'S
WIFE {%19}),
Male: #135; Feme: #180
} // #180
#101 as [#6, #10, #5, #40, #600] = hamam (H2000): {UMBRA: #36 as #101 % #41
= #19} 1) to move noisily, confuse, make a noise, discomfit, break,
*CONSUME*, *CRUSH*, *DESTROY*, *TROUBLE*, *VEX*; 1a) (Qal); 1a1) to move
noisily; 1a2) *TO* *CONFUSE*, *DISCOMFIT*, *VEX*;
SECTION #4 - THE GENERAL QUESTION OF THE PROLEGOMENA: IS METAPHYSICS AT ALL
POSSIBLE?
The Critique of Pure Reason investigates this question synthetically. In
it, an abstract examination of the concepts of the sources of pure reason
results in knowledge of the actual science of metaphysics. The Prolegomena,
on the other hand, starts with the known fact that there is actual
synthetic a priori metaphysical knowledge of pure mathematics and pure
natural science. From this knowledge, analytically, we arrive at the
sources of the possibility of metaphysics. [Wikipedia
2018:Prolegomena_to_Any_Future_Metaphysics]
[IDEA @271] ... In the Critique of Pure Reason I worked on this question
synthetically, namely by inquiring within pure reason itself, and seeking
to determine within this source both the elements and the laws of its pure
use, according to principles. This work is difficult and requires a
resolute reader to think himself little by little into a system that takes
no foundation as given except reason itself, and that therefore tries to
develop cognition out of its original seeds without relying on any fact
whatever. Prolegomena should by contrast be preparatory exercises; they
ought more to indicate what needs to be done in order to bring a science
into existence if possible, than to present the science itself. *THEY*
*MUST* *THEREFORE* *RELY* *ON* *SOMETHING* [IDEA: @275] *ALREADY* *KNOWN*
*TO* *BE* *DEPENDABLE*, *FROM* *WHICH* *WE* *CAN* *GO* *FORWARD* *WITH*
*CONFIDENCE* *AND* *ASCEND* *TO* *THE* *SOURCES*, *WHICH* *ARE* *NOT* *YET*
*KNOWN*, *AND* *WHOSE* *DISCOVERY* *NOT* *ONLY* *WILL* *EXPLAIN* *WHAT*
*IS* *KNOWN* *ALREADY*, *BUT* *WILL* *ALSO* *EXHIBIT* *AN* *AREA* *WITH*
*MANY* *COGNITIONS* *THAT* *ALL* *ARISE* *FROM* *THESE* *SAME* *SOURCES*.
The methodological procedure of prolegomena, and especially of those that
are to prepare for a future metaphysics, will therefore be analytic.
TETRAGRAMMATON {ARCH KAI TELOS OIDA: #1 + #2 + #3 +#4 = #10 } HIERARCHY
VALUE AS THE METAPHYSICAL CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE TO THE HOMOIOS THEORY OF
*NUMBER*
+ 0, 27 {IDEA: @311}, 54 {IDEA: @348} {ie. REALM OF ITS NATURE AS HEAVEN -
*FORMULA* *FOR* *UNIVERSAL* *LAW*}
+ 0, 9 {IDEA: @282}, 18 {IDEA: @298} {ie. SYSTEM’S COSMOLOGY AS EARTH -
*FORMULA* *OF* *HUMANITY*}
+ 0, 3 {IDEA: @270}, 6 {IDEA: @280} {ie. SELF IDENTITY - *FORMULA* *OF*
*AUTONOMY* *AS* *SUI* *JURIS* / *MEMBRUM* *VIRILE*}
+ 1 {IDEA: @265, @266}, 2 {IDEA: @267, @268, @269, @272, @273, @274}, 3
{IDEA: @265 - PREAMBLE, @270} {ie. *FORMULA* *OF* *PROGRESSION* OF
INDIVIDUAL PHENOMENA: *CONJECTURAL* *ONLY*}
#41 - ONTIC NECESSITY: IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH METAPHYSICS AS A SCIENCE, A
CLEAR DISTINCTION MUST BE MADE BETWEEN THE CATEGORIES (PURE CONCEPTS OF THE
UNDERSTANDING) AND THE IDEAS (PURE CONCEPTS OF REASON) {IDEA: @329}.
Fortunately, it happens that, even though we cannot assume that meta-
physics as science is actual, we can confidently say that some pure
synthetic cognition a priori is actual and given, namely, pure mathematics
and pure natural science; for both contain propositions that are fully
acknowledged, some as apodictically certain through bare reason, some from
universal agreement with experience (though these are still recognized as
independent of experience). We have therefore some at least uncontested
synthetic cognition a priori, and we do not need to ask whether it is
possible (for it is actual), but only: how it is possible, in order to be
able to derive, from the principle of the possibility of the given
cognition, the possibility of all other synthetic cognition a priori.
[CAMBRIDGE TEXTS IN THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY, Kant's Prolegomena to Any
Future Metaphysics, IDEA @275]
SECTION #5 - THE GENERAL PROBLEM: HOW IS KNOWLEDGE FROM PURE REASON
POSSIBLE?
By using the analytical method, we start from the fact that there are
actual synthetic a priori propositions and then inquire into the conditions
of their possibility. In so doing, we learn the limits of pure reason.
[Wikipedia 2018:Prolegomena_to_Any_Future_Metaphysics]
[IDEA: @276] All metaphysicians are therefore solemnly and lawfully
suspended from their occupations until such a time as they will have
satisfactorily answered the question: How are synthetic cognitions a priori
possible? For in this answer alone consists the credential which they must
present if they have something to advance to us in the name of pure reason;
in default of which, however, they can expect only that reasonable persons,
who have been deceived so often already, will reject their offerings
without any further investigation.
If, on the contrary, they want to put forth their occupation not as
science, but as an art of beneficial persuasions accommodated to general
common sense, then they cannot justly be barred from this trade. They will
then use the modest language of reasonable belief, they will acknowledge
that it is not allowed them even once to guess, let alone to know,
something about that which lies beyond the boundaries of all possible
experience, but only to assume something about it (not for speculative use,
for they must renounce that, but solely for practical use), as is possible
and even indispensable for the guidance of the understanding and will in
life. *ONLY* *THUS* *WILL* *THEY* *BE* *ABLE* *TO* *CALL* *THEMSELVES*
*USEFUL* *AND* *WISE* *MEN*, *THE* *MORE* *SO*, *THE* *MORE* *THEY*
*RENOUNCE* *THE* *NAME* *OF* *METAPHYSICIANS*; *FOR* *METAPHYSICIANS*
*WANT* *TO* *BE* *SPECULATIVE* *PHILOSOPHERS*, *AND* since one cannot aim
for vapid probabilities when judgments a priori are at stake (for what is
alleged to be cognized a priori is thereby announced as necessary), it
*CANNOT* *BE* *PERMITTED* *THEM* *TO* *PLAY* *WITH* *GUESSES*, *BUT*
*RATHER* *THEIR* *ASSERTIONS* *MUST* *BE* *SCIENCE* *OR* *THEY* *ARE*
*NOTHING* *AT* *ALL*.
It can be said that the whole of transcendental philosophy, which
necessarily precedes all of metaphysics, is itself nothing other than
simply the complete solution of the question presented here, but in
systematic order and detail, and that until now there has therefore been no
transcendental philosophy; for what goes under this name is really a part
of metaphysics, but this science is to settle the possibility of
metaphysics in the first place, and therefore must precede all
metaphysics.2 Hence there need be no surprise because a science is required
that is utterly deprived of assistance from other sciences, hence is itself
completely new, in order just to answer a single question adequately, when
the solution to it is conjoined with trouble and difficulty and even with
some obscurity.
In now setting to work on this solution – and indeed following the analytic
method, in which we presuppose that such cognitions from pure reason are
actual – we can appeal to only two sciences of theoretical knowledge (which
alone is being discussed here), namely, pure mathematics and pure natural
science; for only these can present objects to us in intuition, and
consequently, *IF* *THEY* *HAPPEN* *TO* *CONTAIN* *AN* *A* *PRIORI*
*COGNITION*, *CAN* *SHOW* *ITS* *TRUTH* *OR* *CORRESPONDENCE* *WITH* *THE*
*OBJECT* *IN* *CONCRETO*, i.e., its actuality, from which one could then
proceed along the analytic path to the ground of its possibility. This
greatly facilitates the work, in which general considerations are not only
applied to facts, but even start from them, instead of, as in the synthetic
procedure, *HAVING* *TO* *BE* *DERIVED* *WHOLLY* *IN* *ABSTRACTO* *FROM
CONCEPTS*. [CAMBRIDGE TEXTS IN THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY, Kant's
Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, IDEA @279]
WISE TIBETANMONKEY, MOST HUMBLE PHILOSOPHER (***@GMAIL.COM) @
1511 HOURS ON 25 SEPTEMBER 2018: "Jesus didn't have a clue about the world.
I take from the East and the West, the North and the South to put together
a universal culture in diversity.
Jesus was an outcast Jew. He's only a hero in America. 😩"
DOLF @ 0924 HOURS ON 26 SEPTEMBER 2018: "BUDDHIST {STATUE THROUGH MY WINDOW
@ 0041 HOURS ON 11 OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE BEERSHEBA CENTENNIAL COMMEMORATIONS}
BAALIM {idols; masters; false gods} EXPOSED AS HAVING NEO NAZI
ANTI-BIBLICIST {#215 / #235 - TABLE TALK} VIEWS OF BALAAM {the ancient of
the people; the destruction of the people} SON OF BEOR {burning; foolish;
mad}:
This is the *KNOWLEDGE* *OF* *THINGS* *IN* *THE* *DIVINE* *MIND*
*OPERATING* *INTELLECTUALLY*. From this fountain of Eternal Nature, flows
down the Pythagorean numbers *ONE* and *TWO*--which from Eternity, in the
fountain of the immense Ocean, was, shall be, or rather always is,
abundantly streaming. This *ONE* was by the Ancients termed [“Zeus”] as
Jupiter; *TWO* as [“Hera”]
G1520@{
@1: Sup: 5 (#5); Ego: 5 (#5),
@2: Sup: 55 (#60); Ego: 50 (#55),
@3: Sup: 44 (#104); Ego: 70 (#125),
@4: Sup: 1 (#105); Ego: 38 (#163),
Male: #105; Feme: #163
} // #325
T'AI HSÜAN CHING {POLAR OPPOSITIONS / INTERPLAY OF OPPOSITES} [4 BCE]:
UMBRA: #215 % #41 = #10 - Impossible Advice, What can Be Done?; I-Ching:
H30 - Cohesion, Radiance, Clinging to Brightness/Fire, The net; Tetra: 41 -
Response;
THOTH MEASURE: #10 - Oh thou who orderest the flame, who makest thine
appearance in Memphis; *I* *AM* *NOT* *A* *ROBBER* *OF* *FOOD*.
#VIRTUE: With Defectiveness (no. #10), selfishness and crookedness.
#TOOLS: With Vastness (no. #50), fairmindedness and desirelessness.
#POSITION: As to Branching Out (no. #9), it is the advance.
#TIME: As to Holding Back (no. #17), it is the retreat.
#CANON: #86 <-- *MAPPED* *TO* *JUDGES* / *ELOHYM* / *RULERS*
#325 {#5x#5 = #65 - *SOLDIER*} as [#5, #50, #70, #200] = heis (G1520): {#12
as #215 % #41 = #10} 1) *ONE*;
At this stage of appraisal, Kant appears to be procrastinatory {ie. as the
habitual/intentional delay of starting or finishing a task despite its
negative consequences} and conveys the ambiguous thought on ANALYTIC A
POSTERIORI that it was self-contradictory by nature. But, some other
philosophers treated it as valid. But what are examples of ANALYTIC A
POSTERIORI knowledge?
Is determining the length of the tropical year from a base-7 chronology of
364 days an example of “ANALYTIC A POSTERIORI” knowledge?
364 x 294 (ie. 364 x 6 x 49) = 107,016 days / 293 = 365.2423208191126
Is defining the TELOS as #6000 % 22 = 13 September 2001 with a #41 as ONTIC
necessity of the *APEIRON* also an example of “ANALYTIC A POSTERIORI”
knowledge?
#0 MOD 22 = 22 [#TAU / #400 - Jacob {He takes by the heel, he supplants,
That supplants, undermines; the heel}] as 4000 BCE
... [THE APEIRON] ...
#8800 MOD 22 = 22 [#TAU / #400 - Jacob {He takes by the heel, he supplants,
That supplants, undermines; the heel}] as 8800 CE
APEIRON@{
@1: Sup: 1 (#1); Ego: 1 (#1),
@2: Sup: 81 (#82); Ego: 80 (#81),
@3: Sup: 5 (#87); Ego: 5 (#86 - I AM NOT A ROBBER OF FOOD {%10}),
@4: Sup: 15 (#102 - I AM NOT RAPACIOUS {%4}); Ego: 10 (#96),
@5: Sup: 34 (#136); Ego: 19 (#115 - I AM NOT A SLAYER OF MEN {%5}),
@6: Sup: 23 (#159); Ego: 70 (#185 - I AM NOT BOISTEROUS IN BEHAVIOUR
{%25}),
@7: Sup: 73 (#232); Ego: 50 (#235 - ADOLF HITLER'S TABLE TALK IDEA @235
ON 7 JUNE 1942 AS SHOOTING ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY OF THESE SELF-STYLED
BIBLE STUDENTS (BIBELFORSCHER}),
Male: #232; Feme: #235
} // #316
APEIRON (ἄπειρον) is a Greek word meaning "(that which is) unlimited,"
"boundless", "infinite", or "indefinite"[1] from ἀ- a-, "without" and
πεῖραρ peirar, "end, limit", "boundary",[2] the Ionic Greek form of πέρας
peras, "end, limit, boundary". It is akin to Persian piramon, meaning
"*BOUNDARY*, *CIRCUMFERENCE*, *SURROUNDING*".
My approach to this at this stage is to acknowledge that Kant considers
that noumena is impossible to conceive by Pure Thought and therefore he
doesn’t fully conceive any “ANALYTIC A POSTERIORI” possibility and it’s
notion of TETRAGRAMMATON is itself an a priori postulate but as a
recursive enumeration giving forth a trinomial #NUMBER definition as
process of “SYNTHETIC A POSTERIORI” by it's as formulation of progression.
This dialectic is then in turn consistent with Kant's CATEGORICAL
IMPERATIVE as rationalism being an intellectual conception:
+ 0, 27, 54 - HEAVEN: Universal Law {@1}
+ 0, 9, 18 - EARTH: Humanity {@2}
+ 0, 3, 6, - SEA: Autonomy {@3}
+ 1, 2, 3 - FOUNTAIN: Progression {@4}
Thus the ANALYTIC {YANG CH’I} A PRIORI given by the alternative HOMOIOS
mathematical notion of #NUMBER with the recursive necessity of an #41 -
ONTIC {NORMA OBLIGANS} meta-prototype conveyed by the Intellectualism:
REMEMBER THE SABBATH and it’s SYNCRETIC {YIN CH’I} A PRIORI such as beIng
SAPIENT with the recursive necessity of an #82 - ONTIC {MANIFESTING NORM}
meta-prototype conveyed by the Intellectualism: HONOUR PARENTS is a
conception of fecundity by its capacity in producing or capable of
producing offspring, fruit, vegetation, etc., in abundance; prolific;
fruitful: fecund parents; fecund farmland and hence its equinox
association."
- dolf
The various PDF resources being essays as work in progress notations for
the prospect of producing a viable syncretism with Immanuel Kant's Ground
Work for the Metaphysics of Morals are now available within the directory:
<http://www.grapple369.com/Groundwork/>
Initial Post: 26 September 2018
#BUDDHISM #ANTIBIBLICIST #NAZISM #215 #235
Post by unknown"When, then, you make the sign of the cross on the forehead, arm yourself
with a saintly boldness, and reinstall your soul in its old liberty; for
you are not ignorant that the cross is a prize beyond all price."
St. John Chrysostom, On the Mystery of the Cross.
"If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and
to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." 1 John 1:9
Draw nigh unto God and He will draw nigh unto you.
--
YOUTUBE: "The Meerkat Circus"
SEE ALSO AS RELATIONSHIP: *INVALIDATING* {Perennial philosophy (HETEROS
{#390 - ROBBERS} v’s HOMOIOS {#391 - STEWARDS OF GOD’S HOUSE} THEORY OF
NUMBER) as universal of right and wrong...} *THE* *ORTHODOX* *AND* *ROMAN*
*CATHOLIC* *CHURCH'S* *CLAIM* {#390 as 1, #100, #80, #1, #3, #5, #200 as
harpax (G727): {#11 as #242} 1) rapacious, ravenous; 2) a extortioner, a
robber} *TO* *JUBILEE2000* *AS* *BEING* *DELUSIONAL* *AND* *FRAUDULENT*
Private “Saint Andrews” Street on the edge of the Central Business District
dated 16th May, 2000 - This report is prepared in response to a TP00/55 as
a Notice of an Application for Planning Permit
<http://www.grapple369.com/jubilee2000.html>
SEE ALSO: HYPOSTASIS as DAO OF NATURE (Chinese: ZIRAN) / COURSE (Greek:
TROCHOS) OF NATURE (Greek: GENESIS) [James 3:6]
Chinese HAN Dynasty (206 BCE - 220CE) Hexagon Trigrams to Tetragram
assignments proposed by Yang Hsiung (53BCE - 18CE) which by 4BCE
(translation published within English as first European language in 1993),
first appeared in draft form as a meta-thesis titled T'AI HSUAN CHING {ie.
Canon of Supreme Mystery} on Natural Divination associated with the theory
of number, annual seasonal chronology and astrology reliant upon the seven
visible planets as cosmological mother image and the zodiac.
It shows the ZIRAN as the DAO of NATURE / COURSE-trochos OF NATURE-genesis
[James 3:6] as HYPOSTATIS comprising #81 trinomial tetragrammaton x 4.5 day
= #364.5 day / year as HOMOIOS THEORY OF NUMBER which is an amalgam of the
64 hexagrams as binomial trigrams / 81 as trinomial tetragrammaton rather
than its encapsulated contrived use as the microcosm to redefine the
macrocosm as the quintessence of the Pythagorean [Babylonian] as binomial
canon of transposition as HETEROS THEORY OF NUMBER.
<http://www.grapple369.com/nature.html>
The Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities No. 43 of Act 2006 defines
a "PERSON MEANS A HUMAN BEING” and the question is, if it is permissible to
extend this definition to be a "PERSON MEANS A HUMAN BEING AS A CONSCIOUS
REALITY OF HOMO [iOS] SAPIEN [T] WHO IS INSTANTIATED WITHIN THE TEMPORAL
REALITY AS THEN THE CAUSE FOR REASONING AND RATIONALITY."
That my mathematical theoretical noumenon defines the meta-descriptor
prototypes which are prerequisite to the BEING of HOMO [iOS] SAPIEN [T] as
EXISTENCE / *OUSIA*.
<http://www.grapple369.com/Grapple.zip> (Download resources)
After all the ENNEAD of THOTH and not the Roman Catholic Eucharist,
expresses an Anthropic Cosmological Principle which appears within its
geometric conception as being equivalent to the Pythagorean
TETRAD/TETRACTYS