XPost: uk.current-events.terrorism, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.slack
XPost: nyc.politics

BY JOSEPH LEVINE JULY 6, 2024

Let's cut to the chase. If you're fretting about antisemitism and the
fears and insecurities of Jewish students in the middle of a genocide,
you're an awful human being.

https://mondoweiss.net/2024/07/if-you-support-israel-in-the-middle-of-a-genocide-youre-an-awful-person/

During the worst attack on Gaza before this one, in 2014, Steven
Salaita, a Palestinian professor of American Indian Studies, had a
tenured offer withdrawn by the University of Illinois over some
strongly worded tweets he posted concerning that attack. Soon after, I published a piece in the New York Times blog The Stone (also see
here), concerning one of those tweets � it said �Let�s cut to the
chase: If you�re defending #Israel right now you�re an awful human
being�(11:46 PM � 8 Jul 2014).

I wasn�t addressing the obvious violation of academic freedom
represented by his case, nor the appropriateness of his moral outrage
at Israel�s actions � regarding those issues I was totally with him.
Instead, I considered whether I thought the claim in the tweet was, in
fact, true. Were defenders of Israel during this attack indeed �awful
human beings�?

Let�s set aside the obvious hyperbole of the statement and the fact
that, of course, most people, no matter their deplorable views, cannot
be simply summed up as �awful�; human character is a complicated
affair. What I take to be the point of the claim, however, is that if
someone, after the horrific punishment meted out by Israel on Gaza,
could still defend Israel, then this manifested a serious moral
character flaw.

Without completely rehearsing my answer to the question ten years ago,
briefly, it went like this. It�s important to distinguish between the
moral status of an action and the moral character of a person. As
applied to the 2014 Israeli attack, I argued that though Israel�s
actions were indeed morally atrocious, people of decent character
could still defend it given the surrounding social and informational environment in which they lived. Given the nature of Western
(especially American) media, the standard assumptions of people�s
families and friends, etc., it�s quite understandable how good, decent
people might be misled into defending what are, in fact, morally
abominable actions. I then interpreted Salaita�s tweet as both
aspirational and interventionist. I saw it as aspirational in the
sense that it pointed to a world where people were sufficiently
well-informed by the media and their surrounding social environment so
that, in fact, only �an awful human being� would support Israel�s
actions. (The way I put it then was that the tweet wasn�t true, �but
it ought to be�). It was interventionist in the sense that he was
helping us to get to that world by modeling the reaction one ought to
have.

As I�ve watched Israel�s genocide unfold these past nine months and
seen so many political and media figures either outright defend Israel
or produce so-called �nuanced� criticisms laced with excuses, I�ve had
many occasions to think about Salaita�s tweet. Given the scale of the
current genocidal attack on Gaza, and the abundance of information
available from social media (and even the mainstream media, though
usually one has to ignore the framing), is it now true that only �an
awful human being� would defend Israel? This time, I think the case
for answering in the affirmative is quite strong.

One might ask at this point whether the question really matters. As I
am not a fan of �clean hands� politics, I don�t think one�s judgments
of moral character normally have clear consequences about how one
should behave politically. If the political calculation warrants it, I
will �hold my nose�, or get my �hands dirty� when required. For
example, though I indeed judge Joe Biden to be �an awful human being�,
I will vote for him to keep a much more awful and much more dangerous
human being from winning the election.

However, I do think this question of moral character matters a lot in
two arenas: what I�ll call �deliberation in the public sphere� and
local interpersonal relations. By the first, I have in mind the many controversies we�re now seeing in a large variety of settings over how
to speak about Israel and Gaza. Organizations of every sort � whether
it be government bodies like city councils and school boards, or non-governmental organizations like schools, universities, sports
associations, online communities, private businesses, etc. � are
dealing with questions about making public statements in the name of
the organization on Gaza and disciplining the kind of speech
concerning Gaza that takes place within the organizational spaces
(e.g. see this story). I mention this arena mainly to set it aside
here (but see this excellent discussion of the issue � and in the
spirit of full disclosure, the author is my daughter). The only point
I want to make here regarding the controversies taking place in these
public spaces over how to address Gaza is that this question of moral
character is playing an important role, if only implicitly. One might
think of it this way: where is the line between the demands of minimal
decency (not being an �awful human being�) and demands that are
clearly political? The case of Gaza 2023-24 is bringing this question
to the fore in unprecedented ways.

But it�s in the second arena, the realm of local interpersonal
relations, where I have experienced the effects of the Salaita claim
most deeply. Until recently I have been able to separate my political commitment to Palestinian liberation from my personal relations. There
are many people, a number of them friends, who I knew felt quite
differently from me about Israel/Palestine, and yet toward whom I had
warm and friendly feelings. But now that�s changed � not completely,
but in important, and quite discernible ways. There are now many
people whose company I can no longer unequivocally enjoy, or, in some
cases, even tolerate.

In particular, I feel very differently about certain Jewish friends, colleagues, and acquaintances. I�m thinking of people who actively
affirm their Jewish identity as an important part of their lives,
especially those who see Zionism, or some special connection to
Israel, as an important component in their sense of their Jewishness.
As I said above, in the past, I could look past this difference in our
views, but now, after Gaza 2023-24, I can�t any longer. I find that
all of my interactions with these folks are emotionally colored in a
way that prevents me from experiencing the kind of warm fellow-feeling
I used to feel in their company. I include here not only people
�defending Israel� straightforwardly (actually, I pretty much don�t
associate with people who do that), but primarily those who, with much
liberal hand-wringing and consternation, express their sorrow over the
loss of Palestinian life but then pivot to discussing the horrors of
October 7, the difficulty of dealing with terrorism, Israeli-Jewish
feelings of insecurity, and then, what really gets me going, the
worrisome increase in antisemitism.

I have recently spoken and written about the groundless charge that
the protest movement is infected with antisemitism, charges that are
taken for granted in many spaces (the political and media
establishment, for starters, but also most prominent Jewish
organizations � Jewish Voice for Peace and If Not Now being the
notable exceptions). My writing and speaking about this has been
mostly defensive, in the sense that I rebut the arguments that claim
to show how antisemitic the movement is, especially those that
conflate anti-Zionism with antisemitism. While I think publicly
rebutting these arguments is necessary � and I�m sure, unfortunately,
there will still be a need to do this often in the future � the
politically expedient, perhaps necessary, adoption of this defensive
mode has left me feeling frustrated and inadequate.

Here, then, is what I want to say to these Jewish friends and
acquaintances who fret about antisemitism, especially those who
perceive attacks on Israel as attacks on their identity. One way of
thinking about Jewish identity is to think of one�s relation to the
rest of the Jewish people as a kind of family relation. A people is
sort of like a very, very large family. Israel, the Jewish state, can
then be thought of as the family project. I think this is how many
Jews do feel about Israel, and it helps to explain their taking
criticism of Israel personally. However, while solidarity with, and
concern for, one�s family members is certainly a crucial part of
identifying with the family, so is taking responsibility for what
one�s family members do. If my children, say, were to engage in
morally atrocious behavior, my greatest concern wouldn�t be how people
reacted to me and my family. My primary concern would be to rectify
the wrong done, to the extent possible. So, in that vein, I ask, is
the very moment the Jewish �family project� is engaging in genocide
the morally appropriate time to worry about negative feelings
expressed about Jews? Wouldn�t a �mensch� devote all of their energy
to putting a stop to the family�s criminal behavior first, allying
with everyone fighting for that goal (as we see JVP and If Not Now
doing), and put aside one�s concerns about how some chants are phrased
and some tropes are expressed? (See this for a particularly good
example of what I�m talking about.)

In the spirit of the Salaita tweet, then, I will end with this. Anyone
who is fretting about antisemitism, about the fears and insecurities
of Jewish students on campuses, and all the other complaints about
antisemitic tropes that are sometimes carelessly expressed by those
reacting to the horror of Gaza � to them I say, �let�s cut to the
chase; if this is what�s occupying your concerns right now, in the
midst of a genocide being perpetrated by your own people, you�re an
awful human being!�

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: uk.current-events.terrorism, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.slack
XPost: nyc.politics

On 7/7/2024 11:34 AM, NefeshBarYochai wrote:

BY JOSEPH LEVINE JULY 6, 2024

Let's cut to the chase. If you're fretting about antisemitism and the
fears and insecurities of Jewish students in the middle of a genocide,
you're an awful human being.

https://mondoweiss.net/2024/07/if-you-support-israel-in-the-middle-of-a-genocide-youre-an-awful-person/

During the worst attack on Gaza before this one, in 2014, Steven
Salaita, a Palestinian professor of American Indian Studies, had a
tenured offer withdrawn by the University of Illinois over some
strongly worded tweets he posted concerning that attack. Soon after, I published a piece in the New York Times blog The Stone (also see
here), concerning one of those tweets – it said “Let’s cut to the chase: If you’re defending #Israel right now you’re an awful human being”(11:46 PM – 8 Jul 2014).

I wasn’t addressing the obvious violation of academic freedom
represented by his case, nor the appropriateness of his moral outrage
at Israel’s actions – regarding those issues I was totally with him. Instead, I considered whether I thought the claim in the tweet was, in
fact, true. Were defenders of Israel during this attack indeed “awful
human beings”?

Let’s set aside the obvious hyperbole of the statement and the fact
that, of course, most people, no matter their deplorable views, cannot
be simply summed up as “awful”; human character is a complicated
affair. What I take to be the point of the claim, however, is that if someone, after the horrific punishment meted out by Israel on Gaza,
could still defend Israel, then this manifested a serious moral
character flaw.

Without completely rehearsing my answer to the question ten years ago, briefly, it went like this. It’s important to distinguish between the
moral status of an action and the moral character of a person. As
applied to the 2014 Israeli attack, I argued that though Israel’s
actions were indeed morally atrocious, people of decent character
could still defend it given the surrounding social and informational environment in which they lived. Given the nature of Western
(especially American) media, the standard assumptions of people’s
families and friends, etc., it’s quite understandable how good, decent people might be misled into defending what are, in fact, morally
abominable actions. I then interpreted Salaita’s tweet as both
aspirational and interventionist. I saw it as aspirational in the
sense that it pointed to a world where people were sufficiently
well-informed by the media and their surrounding social environment so
that, in fact, only “an awful human being” would support Israel’s actions. (The way I put it then was that the tweet wasn’t true, “but
it ought to be”). It was interventionist in the sense that he was
helping us to get to that world by modeling the reaction one ought to
have.

As I’ve watched Israel’s genocide unfold these past nine months and
seen so many political and media figures either outright defend Israel
or produce so-called “nuanced” criticisms laced with excuses, I’ve had many occasions to think about Salaita’s tweet. Given the scale of the current genocidal attack on Gaza, and the abundance of information
available from social media (and even the mainstream media, though
usually one has to ignore the framing), is it now true that only “an
awful human being” would defend Israel? This time, I think the case
for answering in the affirmative is quite strong.

One might ask at this point whether the question really matters. As I
am not a fan of “clean hands” politics, I don’t think one’s judgments of moral character normally have clear consequences about how one
should behave politically. If the political calculation warrants it, I
will “hold my nose”, or get my “hands dirty” when required. For example, though I indeed judge Joe Biden to be “an awful human being”,
I will vote for him to keep a much more awful and much more dangerous
human being from winning the election.

However, I do think this question of moral character matters a lot in
two arenas: what I’ll call “deliberation in the public sphere” and local interpersonal relations. By the first, I have in mind the many controversies we’re now seeing in a large variety of settings over how
to speak about Israel and Gaza. Organizations of every sort — whether
it be government bodies like city councils and school boards, or non-governmental organizations like schools, universities, sports associations, online communities, private businesses, etc. — are
dealing with questions about making public statements in the name of
the organization on Gaza and disciplining the kind of speech
concerning Gaza that takes place within the organizational spaces
(e.g. see this story). I mention this arena mainly to set it aside
here (but see this excellent discussion of the issue — and in the
spirit of full disclosure, the author is my daughter). The only point
I want to make here regarding the controversies taking place in these
public spaces over how to address Gaza is that this question of moral character is playing an important role, if only implicitly. One might
think of it this way: where is the line between the demands of minimal decency (not being an “awful human being”) and demands that are
clearly political? The case of Gaza 2023-24 is bringing this question
to the fore in unprecedented ways.

But it’s in the second arena, the realm of local interpersonal
relations, where I have experienced the effects of the Salaita claim
most deeply. Until recently I have been able to separate my political commitment to Palestinian liberation from my personal relations. There
are many people, a number of them friends, who I knew felt quite
differently from me about Israel/Palestine, and yet toward whom I had
warm and friendly feelings. But now that’s changed — not completely,
but in important, and quite discernible ways. There are now many
people whose company I can no longer unequivocally enjoy, or, in some
cases, even tolerate.

In particular, I feel very differently about certain Jewish friends, colleagues, and acquaintances. I’m thinking of people who actively
affirm their Jewish identity as an important part of their lives,
especially those who see Zionism, or some special connection to
Israel, as an important component in their sense of their Jewishness.
As I said above, in the past, I could look past this difference in our
views, but now, after Gaza 2023-24, I can’t any longer. I find that
all of my interactions with these folks are emotionally colored in a
way that prevents me from experiencing the kind of warm fellow-feeling
I used to feel in their company. I include here not only people
“defending Israel” straightforwardly (actually, I pretty much don’t associate with people who do that), but primarily those who, with much liberal hand-wringing and consternation, express their sorrow over the
loss of Palestinian life but then pivot to discussing the horrors of
October 7, the difficulty of dealing with terrorism, Israeli-Jewish
feelings of insecurity, and then, what really gets me going, the
worrisome increase in antisemitism.

I have recently spoken and written about the groundless charge that
the protest movement is infected with antisemitism, charges that are
taken for granted in many spaces (the political and media
establishment, for starters, but also most prominent Jewish
organizations — Jewish Voice for Peace and If Not Now being the
notable exceptions). My writing and speaking about this has been
mostly defensive, in the sense that I rebut the arguments that claim
to show how antisemitic the movement is, especially those that
conflate anti-Zionism with antisemitism. While I think publicly
rebutting these arguments is necessary — and I’m sure, unfortunately, there will still be a need to do this often in the future — the
politically expedient, perhaps necessary, adoption of this defensive
mode has left me feeling frustrated and inadequate.

Here, then, is what I want to say to these Jewish friends and
acquaintances who fret about antisemitism, especially those who
perceive attacks on Israel as attacks on their identity. One way of
thinking about Jewish identity is to think of one’s relation to the
rest of the Jewish people as a kind of family relation. A people is
sort of like a very, very large family. Israel, the Jewish state, can
then be thought of as the family project. I think this is how many
Jews do feel about Israel, and it helps to explain their taking
criticism of Israel personally. However, while solidarity with, and
concern for, one’s family members is certainly a crucial part of identifying with the family, so is taking responsibility for what
one’s family members do. If my children, say, were to engage in
morally atrocious behavior, my greatest concern wouldn’t be how people reacted to me and my family. My primary concern would be to rectify
the wrong done, to the extent possible. So, in that vein, I ask, is
the very moment the Jewish “family project” is engaging in genocide
the morally appropriate time to worry about negative feelings
expressed about Jews? Wouldn’t a “mensch” devote all of their energy
to putting a stop to the family’s criminal behavior first, allying
with everyone fighting for that goal (as we see JVP and If Not Now
doing), and put aside one’s concerns about how some chants are phrased
and some tropes are expressed? (See this for a particularly good
example of what I’m talking about.)

In the spirit of the Salaita tweet, then, I will end with this. Anyone
who is fretting about antisemitism, about the fears and insecurities
of Jewish students on campuses, and all the other complaints about antisemitic tropes that are sometimes carelessly expressed by those
reacting to the horror of Gaza — to them I say, “let’s cut to the chase; if this is what’s occupying your concerns right now, in the
midst of a genocide being perpetrated by your own people, you’re an
awful human being!”

HE HATE ME

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: uk.current-events.terrorism, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.slack
XPost: nyc.politics

x-no-archive: yes

On 7/7/2024 11:13 AM, Fartass Dillinger wrote:

On 7/7/2024 11:34 AM, NefeshBarYochai wrote:

BY JOSEPH LEVINE  JULY 6, 2024

Let's cut to the chase. If you're fretting about antisemitism and the
fears and insecurities of Jewish students in the middle of a genocide,
you're an awful human being.

https://mondoweiss.net/2024/07/if-you-support-israel-in-the-middle-of-a-genocide-youre-an-awful-person/


During the worst attack on Gaza before this one, in 2014, Steven
Salaita, a Palestinian professor of American Indian Studies, had a
tenured offer withdrawn by the University of Illinois over some
strongly worded tweets he posted concerning that attack. Soon after, I
published a piece in the New York Times blog The Stone (also see
here), concerning one of those tweets – it said “Let’s cut to the
chase: If you’re defending #Israel right now you’re an awful human
being”(11:46 PM – 8 Jul 2014).

I wasn’t addressing the obvious violation of academic freedom
represented by his case, nor the appropriateness of his moral outrage
at Israel’s actions – regarding those issues I was totally with him.
Instead, I considered whether I thought the claim in the tweet was, in
fact, true. Were defenders of Israel during this attack indeed “awful
human beings”?

Let’s set aside the obvious hyperbole of the statement and the fact
that, of course, most people, no matter their deplorable views, cannot
be simply summed up as “awful”; human character is a complicated
affair. What I take to be the point of the claim, however, is that if
someone, after the horrific punishment meted out by Israel on Gaza,
could still defend Israel, then this manifested a serious moral
character flaw.

Without completely rehearsing my answer to the question ten years ago,
briefly, it went like this. It’s important to distinguish between the
moral status of an action and the moral character of a person. As
applied to the 2014 Israeli attack, I argued that though Israel’s
actions were indeed morally atrocious, people of decent character
could still defend it given the surrounding social and informational
environment in which they lived. Given the nature of Western
(especially American) media, the standard assumptions of people’s
families and friends, etc., it’s quite understandable how good, decent
people might be misled into defending what are, in fact, morally
abominable actions. I then interpreted Salaita’s tweet as both
aspirational and interventionist. I saw it as aspirational in the
sense that it pointed to a world where people were sufficiently
well-informed by the media and their surrounding social environment so
that, in fact, only “an awful human being” would support Israel’s
actions. (The way I put it then was that the tweet wasn’t true, “but
it ought to be”). It was interventionist in the sense that he was
helping us to get to that world by modeling the reaction one ought to
have.

As I’ve watched Israel’s genocide unfold these past nine months and
seen so many political and media figures either outright defend Israel
or produce so-called “nuanced” criticisms laced with excuses, I’ve had >> many occasions to think about Salaita’s tweet. Given the scale of the
current genocidal attack on Gaza, and the abundance of information
available from social media (and even the mainstream media, though
usually one has to ignore the framing), is it now true that only “an
awful human being” would defend Israel? This time, I think the case
for answering in the affirmative is quite strong.

One might ask at this point whether the question really matters. As I
am not a fan of “clean hands” politics, I don’t think one’s judgments
of moral character normally have clear consequences about how one
should behave politically. If the political calculation warrants it, I
will “hold my nose”, or get my “hands dirty” when required. For
example, though I indeed judge Joe Biden to be “an awful human being”, >> I will vote for him to keep a much more awful and much more dangerous
human being from winning the election.

However, I do think this question of moral character matters a lot in
two arenas: what I’ll call “deliberation in the public sphere” and
local interpersonal relations. By the first, I have in mind the many
controversies we’re now seeing in a large variety of settings over how
to speak about Israel and Gaza. Organizations of every sort — whether
it be government bodies like city councils and school boards, or
non-governmental organizations like schools, universities, sports
associations, online communities, private businesses, etc. — are
dealing with questions about making public statements in the name of
the organization on Gaza and disciplining the kind of speech
concerning Gaza that takes place within the organizational spaces
(e.g. see this story). I mention this arena mainly to set it aside
here (but see this excellent discussion of the issue — and in the
spirit of full disclosure, the author is my daughter). The only point
I want to make here regarding the controversies taking place in these
public spaces over how to address Gaza is that this question of moral
character is playing an important role, if only implicitly. One might
think of it this way: where is the line between the demands of minimal
decency (not being an “awful human being”) and demands that are
clearly political? The case of Gaza 2023-24 is bringing this question
to the fore in unprecedented ways.

But it’s in the second arena, the realm of local interpersonal
relations, where I have experienced the effects of the Salaita claim
most deeply. Until recently I have been able to separate my political
commitment to Palestinian liberation from my personal relations. There
are many people, a number of them friends, who I knew felt quite
differently from me about Israel/Palestine, and yet toward whom I had
warm and friendly feelings. But now that’s changed — not completely,
but in important, and quite discernible ways. There are now many
people whose company I can no longer unequivocally enjoy, or, in some
cases, even tolerate.

In particular, I feel very differently about certain Jewish friends,
colleagues, and acquaintances. I’m thinking of people who actively
affirm their Jewish identity as an important part of their lives,
especially those who see Zionism, or some special connection to
Israel, as an important component in their sense of their Jewishness.
As I said above, in the past, I could look past this difference in our
views, but now, after Gaza 2023-24, I can’t any longer. I find that
all of my interactions with these folks are emotionally colored in a
way that prevents me from experiencing the kind of warm fellow-feeling
I used to feel in their company. I include here not only people
“defending Israel” straightforwardly (actually, I pretty much don’t
associate with people who do that), but primarily those who, with much
liberal hand-wringing and consternation, express their sorrow over the
loss of Palestinian life but then pivot to discussing the horrors of
October 7, the difficulty of dealing with terrorism, Israeli-Jewish
feelings of insecurity, and then, what really gets me going, the
worrisome increase in antisemitism.

I have recently spoken and written about the groundless charge that
the protest movement is infected with antisemitism, charges that are
taken for granted in many spaces (the political and media
establishment, for starters, but also most prominent Jewish
organizations — Jewish Voice for Peace and If Not Now being the
notable exceptions). My writing and speaking about this has been
mostly defensive, in the sense that I rebut the arguments that claim
to show how antisemitic the movement is, especially those that
conflate anti-Zionism with antisemitism. While I think publicly
rebutting these arguments is necessary — and I’m sure, unfortunately,
there will still be a need to do this often in the future — the
politically expedient, perhaps necessary, adoption of this defensive
mode has left me feeling frustrated and inadequate.

Here, then, is what I want to say to these Jewish friends and
acquaintances who fret about antisemitism, especially those who
perceive attacks on Israel as attacks on their identity. One way of
thinking about Jewish identity is to think of one’s relation to the
rest of the Jewish people as a kind of family relation. A people is
sort of like a very, very large family. Israel, the Jewish state, can
then be thought of as the family project. I think this is how many
Jews do feel about Israel, and it helps to explain their taking
criticism of Israel personally. However, while solidarity with, and
concern for, one’s family members is certainly a crucial part of
identifying with the family, so is taking responsibility for what
one’s family members do. If my children, say, were to engage in
morally atrocious behavior, my greatest concern wouldn’t be how people
reacted to me and my family. My primary concern would be to rectify
the wrong done, to the extent possible. So, in that vein, I ask, is
the very moment the Jewish “family project” is engaging in genocide
the morally appropriate time to worry about negative feelings
expressed about Jews? Wouldn’t a “mensch” devote all of their energy >> to putting a stop to the family’s criminal behavior first, allying
with everyone fighting for that goal (as we see JVP and If Not Now
doing), and put aside one’s concerns about how some chants are phrased
and some tropes are expressed? (See this for a particularly good
example of what I’m talking about.)

In the spirit of the Salaita tweet, then, I will end with this. Anyone
who is fretting about antisemitism, about the fears and insecurities
of Jewish students on campuses, and all the other complaints about
antisemitic tropes that are sometimes carelessly expressed by those
reacting to the horror of Gaza — to them I say, “let’s cut to the
chase; if this is what’s occupying your concerns right now, in the
midst of a genocide being perpetrated by your own people, you’re an
awful human being!”

HE HATE ME

What about Turdie M.?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, uk.current-events.terrorism, alt.slack
XPost: nyc.politics

WE MUST RESPOND TO THIS UNACCOUNTABLE AMERICAN RELIGIOUS HATRED WHICH HAS
NO MORE POSSIBILITY FOR REDEMPTION GIVEN A LACK OF RESPECT FOR GRACES GIVEN RELATED TO 11 SEPTEMBER 2001

<http://www.grapple369.com/Groundwork/Islamic%20Declaration%20of%20Belief.pdf.

It would reasonably appear given this linguistic / temporal coefficient
[HEBREW / GREEK: 24 x 7 x 13 x 49 = 294 x 364 = 6J as 107016 days / 293 = 365.2423 solar tropical year] that you could also utilise the same
methodology for ARABIC script to obtain the requisite pragma selectors.

6 days x 28 x 13 (or 28 x #78) = #2184 x 49 = 6J (294 x 364 days or 293 x 365.2423 tropical years)

We are here talking about "THE DIETY" as ALLAH not being the same GOD as PLEROMA / AEONS -- Since the foundation of the world is a JEWISH (world to come) / CHRISTIAN belief. As a #205 - TENET OF BELIEF substantiated by
COGITO: #60 - ACCUMULATION (CHI) - 𝍁積 = #511 as [#41, #41, #41, #41, #41] relating to the 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 [... OBELISK / BENBEN STONE / PYRAMIDION ...] #6000 years % 22 = 13 SEPTEMBER 2001.

#592 - ONTIC CHECKSUM TOTAL: #170 as [#9, #5, #70, #300, #8, #200] /
#962 - ONTIC CHECKSUM TOTAL: #170 as [#9, #5, #70, #300, #8, #300, #70,
#200] = theótēs (G2320): {UMBRA: #592 % #41 = #18} 1) *DEITY*; 1a) the
state of being God, Godhead;

"BEWARE LEST ANY MAN SPOIL YOU THROUGH PHILOSOPHY AND VAIN DECEIT, AFTER
THE TRADITION OF MEN, AFTER THE RUDIMENTS OF THE WORLD, AND NOT AFTER
CHRIST. FOR IN HIM DWELLETH ALL THE *FULNESS*-G4138 OF THE *GODHEAD*-G2320 BODILY. AND YE ARE COMPLETE IN HIM, WHICH IS THE HEAD OF ALL PRINCIPALITY
AND POWER:" [Colossians 2:8-10]

YOUTUBE: "GREGORIAN - GLORIA - LIVE IN BERLIN 2016"

<https://youtu.be/hqZq32Kx08k?si=tqUKRIYuXmfCHQ9J&t=27>

#1059 as [#80, #30, #8, #100, #800, #40, #1] = plḗrōma (G4138): {UMBRA: #1059 % #41 = #34} 1) that which is (has been) filled; 1a) a ship inasmuch
as it is filled (i.e. manned) with sailors, rowers, and soldiers; 1b) in
the NT, the body of believers, as that which is *FILLED* *WITH* *THE* *PRESENCE*, *POWER*, *AGENCY*, riches of God and of Christ; 2) that which
fills or with which a thing is filled; 2a) of those things which a ship is filled, freight and merchandise, sailors, oarsmen, soldiers; 2b)
completeness or fulness of time; 3) fulness, abundance; 4) *A*
*FULFILLING*, *KEEPING*;

<https://x.com/nypost/status/1809294585786519761>

X:TWITTER (@nypost) @ 0433 HOURS ON 6 JULY 2024: "Independent presidential candidate ROBERT F. KENNEDY Jr. made a bizarre statement Friday, announcing
he “won’t take sides” on the conspiracies surrounding the 11 SEPTEMBER, 2001, terror attacks if he got into the Oval Office, and instead would push
for “transparency” surrounding that horrible day.

“My take on 9/11: It’s hard to tell what is a conspiracy theory and what isn’t. But conspiracy theories flourish when the government routinely lies
to the public,” Kennedy wrote in a post on X.

“As President I won’t take sides on 9/11 or any of the other debates. But I can promise is that I will open the files and usher in a new era of transparency,” the third-party candidate added."

<https://nypost.com/2024/07/05/us-news/rfk-jr-says-he-wont-take-sides-on-9-11-conspiracies-if-elected-president/>

<https://i.pinimg.com/originals/32/1c/4f/321c4fea718aa1ffd690db2d8a63daf2.jpg>

[IMAGES (left): Saudi national OMAR AL-BAYOUMI recorded a video in
Washington for several days in 1999 as taken within 90 days of the time
when senior al Qaeda planners were deciding on 9/11 targets. The footage
shows entrances and exits of the U.S. Capitol along with security posts and
a model of the building. At one point, he points out the Washington
Monument and says he'll go there and "report to you in detail what is
there." He also notes the airport is nearby.

The Washington Monument is an obelisk on the National Mall in Washington,
D.C., built to commemorate George Washington, a Founding Father of the
United States, victorious commander-in-chief of the Continental Army from
1775 to 1783 in the American Revolutionary War, and the first President of
the United States from 1789 to 1797. Standing east of the Reflecting Pool
and the Lincoln Memorial, the monument is made of bluestone gneiss for the foundation and of granite for the construction.

Ottoman Sultan Abdul Mejid I donated $30,000 toward the construction of the Washington monument. The Sultans' donation was the largest single donation toward the building of the Washington Monument. The Sultan's intention was
to bridge peace between the Ottomans and the Americans. The stone
containing the Turkish inscriptions commemorating this event is on the
190-foot (58 m) level. The abbreviated translation of the inscriptions
states, "SO AS TO STRENGTHEN THE FRIENDSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO COUNTRIES. ABDUL-MEJID KAHN HAS ALSO HAD HIS NAME WRITTEN ON THE MONUMENT TO
WASHINGTON." It combines the works of two eminent calligraphers: an
imperial tughra by Mustafa Rakım's student Haşim Efendi, and an inscription in jalī ta'līq script by Kazasker Mustafa Izzet Efendi, the calligrapher
who wrote the giant medallions at Hagia Sophia in Istanbul.

#1383 - MALE CHECKSUM TOTAL: #129 as [#5, #20, #50, #8, #500, #800] = eknḗphō (G1594): {UMBRA: #1383 % #41 = #30} 1) to *RETURN* *TO* *ONE'S* *SELF* *FROM* *DRUNKENNESS*, *BECOME* *SOBER*; 2) metaph. to return to soberness of mind;

Many of the stones donated for the monument carried inscriptions that did
not commemorate George Washington. For example, one from the Templars of
Honour and Temperance stated "WE WILL NOT MAKE, BUY, SELL, OR USE AS A BEVERAGE, ANY SPIRITOUS OR MALT LIQUORS, WINE, CIDER, OR ANY OTHER
ALCOHOLIC LIQUOR."  George Washington himself had owned a whiskey
distillery which operated at Mount Vernon after he left the presidency.

#90 - DEME CHECKSUM TOTAL: #82 as [#2, #80, #8] = pach (H6341): {UMBRA: #88
% #41 = #6} 1) bird trap, trap, snare; 1a) bird trap (literal); 1b) *OF* *CALAMITIES*, *PLOTS*, *SOURCE* *OR* *AGENT* *OF* *CALAMITY* (fig.); 2)
*PLATE* (*OF* *METAL*);

The cornerstone was a 24,500-pound (11,100 kg) marble block 2.5 feet (0.76
m) high and 6.5 feet (2.0 m) square with a large hole for a zinc case
filled with memorabilia. The hole was covered by a *COPPER* *PLATE*
inscribed with the date of the Declaration of Independence (4 JULY 1776),
the date the cornerstone was laid (4 JULY 1848), and the names of the
managers of the Washington National Monument Society. The memorabilia in
the zinc case included items associated with the monument, the city of Washington, the national government, state governments, benevolent
societies, and George Washington, plus miscellaneous publications, both governmental and commercial, a coin set, and a Bible, totalling 73 items or collections of items, as well as 71 newspapers containing articles relating
to George Washington or the monument.

#1258 - FEME CHECKSUM TOTAL: #205 as [#2, #200, #20, #6, #400, #10, #20,
#600] = Bᵉrâkâh (H1293): {UMBRA: #227 % #41 = #22} 1) blessing; 2) (source of) blessing; 3) blessing, prosperity; 4) blessing, *PRAISE* *OF* *GOD*; 5)
a gift, present; 6) treaty of peace;

The Washington Monument is a hollow Egyptian-style stone obelisk with a 500-foot-tall (152.4 m) column surmounted by a 55-foot-tall (16.8 m) pyramidion. Its walls are 15 feet (4.6 m) thick at its base and 1+1⁄2 feet (0.46 m) thick at their top. The marble pyramidion's walls are 7 inches (18
cm) thick, supported by six arches: two between opposite walls, which cross
at the center of the pyramidion, and four smaller arches in the corners.
The top of the pyramidion is a large, marble capstone with a small
aluminium pyramid at its apex, with inscriptions on all four sides. In
OCTOBER 2007, it was discovered that the display of this replica was
positioned so that the *LAUS* *DEO* (Latin for "praise be to God")
inscription could not be seen and *LAUS* *DEO* was omitted from the placard describing the apex. The National Park Service rectified the omission by creating a new display.

#205 as [#10, #90, #100, #5] = yᵉtsuqâh (H3333): {UMBRA: #205 % #41 = #41} 1) a *CASTING* (*OF* *METAL*);

The building of the monument proceeded quickly after Congress had provided sufficient funding. In four years, it was completed, with the 100-ounce
(2.83 kg) aluminium apex / lightning-rod being put in place on 6 DECEMBER
1884. The apex was the largest single piece of aluminium *CAST* at the
time, when aluminium commanded a price comparable to silver. Two years
later, the Hall–Héroult process made aluminium easier to produce and the price of aluminium plummeted, though it should have provided a lustrous, non-rusting apex. The monument opened to the public on 9 OCTOBER, 1888. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Monument>

#60 - 𝍁積 = #511
COGITO: [#41, #41, #41, #41, #41] as #60 - ACCUMULATION (CHI)
RANGE: noon 13 to 17 SEPTEMBER
ANKH: #400 (x [24 x 7 x 13 x 49 / 293 = 365.2423] % 22) = 17 SEPTEMBER |
#6000 % 22 = 13 SEPTEMBER 2001 | #8800 % 22 = #TAU

<http://www.grapple369.com/Savvy/?run:Mystery&tetra:60>

[#41 {@1: Sup: 41 - RESPONSE: YING (#41); Ego: 41 - RESPONSE: YING (#41)}
#41 {@2: Sup: 1 - CENTRE: CHUNG (#42); Ego: 41 - RESPONSE: YING (#82 - MALE DEME IS UNNAMED {%11})}
#41 {@3: Sup: 42 - GOING TO MEET: YING (#84 - I AM NOT A MAN OF VIOLENCE
{%2}); Ego: 41 - RESPONSE: YING (#123)}
#41 {@4: Sup: 2 - FULL CIRCLE: CHOU (#86 - I AM NOT A ROBBER OF FOOD
{%10}); Ego: 41 - RESPONSE: YING (#164)}
#41] {@5: Sup: 43 - ENCOUNTERS: YU (#129); Ego: 41 - RESPONSE: YING (#205)}

TELOS TOTAL: #205
ONTIC CHECKSUM TOTAL: #170
DEME CHECKSUM TOTAL: #82

#89 - DEME CHECKSUM TOTAL: #82 as [#2, #80, #7] = pâz (H6337): {UMBRA: #87
% #41 = #5} 1) refined or pure *GOLD*;

#691 - FEME CHECKSUM TOTAL: #205 as [#5, #80, #200, #6, #400] = pârâh (H6510): {UMBRA: #285 % #41 = #39} 1) cow, *HEIFER*;

To put it succinctly as a fable, whether MOSES one day as a child at play
in Pharaoh's Royal Courts whilst chasing pet BENNU BIRDS [image (right) is
(c) Kazuma Kaneko] around an OBELISK (ie. BENBEN stone which is also known
as a pyramidion is the top stone of the Egyptian pyramid) and then being overcome with flatulence resulting in a cataclysm -- causing a maelstrom
within SAUDI ARABIA which was not unlike SODOM / GOMORRAH that to this day
they scarcely speak of it.

#400 % 22 = 17 SEPTEMBER

...

#6000 % 22 = 13 SEPTEMBER 2001 <-- #60 - 𝍁積 = #511 as [#1, #60, #50, #400] = ʼÂçᵉnath (H621): {UMBRA: #511 % #41 = #19} 0) Asenath = 'belonging to the
goddess *NEITH*'; 1) the wife of Joseph;

...

#8800 % 22 = #TAU as REPRISE OF INFINITE LOOP

That the notion ALLAH has an etymology from Arabic اللّٰه (allāh), contraction of #31 - اَل (al-, “the”) + #36 - إِلَه (ʔilah, “deity”);
cognate with the Aramaic אלה (aláh) and אלהא (aláhâ)

[ا , {@1: Sup: 1 - CENTRE: CHUNG (#1); Ego: 1 - CENTRE: CHUNG (#1)}
ل] {@2: Sup: 31 - PACKING: CHUANG (#32); Ego: 30 - BOLD RESOLUTION: YI
(#31)}

#31 as [#1, #30] = ʼal (H408): {UMBRA: #31 % #41 = #31} 1) not, no, nor, neither, nothing (as wish or preference); 1a) do not, let not (with a
verb); 1b) let there not be (with a verb understood); 1c) not, no (with substantive); 1d) nothing (as substantive);

#31 as [#1, #30] = ʼêl (H410): {UMBRA: #31 % #41 = #31} 1) god, god-like
one, mighty one; 1a) mighty men, men of rank, mighty heroes; 1b) angels;
1c) *GOD*, *FALSE* *GOD*, (*DEMONS*, *IMAGINATIONS*); 1d) *GOD*, *THE*
*ONE* *TRUE* *GOD*, *JEHOVAH*; 2) mighty things in nature; 3) strength,
power;

[ا , {@1: Sup: 1 - CENTRE: CHUNG (#1); Ego: 1 - CENTRE: CHUNG (#1)}
ل , {@2: Sup: 31 - PACKING: CHUANG (#32); Ego: 30 - BOLD RESOLUTION: YI
(#31)}
ه] {@3: Sup: 36 - STRENGTH: CH'IANG (#68 - I DO NOT THAT WHICH OFFENDETH
THE GOD OF MY DOMAIN {%42}); Ego: 5 - KEEPING SMALL: SHAO (#36)}

#36 as [#1, #30, #5] /
#472 as [#30, #5, #1, #30, #400, #6] = ʼâlâh (H422): {UMBRA: #36 % #41 = #36} 1) to swear, curse; 1a) (Qal); 1a1) to swear, *TAKE* *AN* *OATH*
(*BEFORE* *GOD*); 1a2) *TO* *CURSE*; 1b) (Hiphil); 1b1) to put under oath, adjure; 1b2) to put under a curse;

<https://x.com/uz_khawaja/status/1808772370137821371>

X:TWITTER (@Uz_Khawaja) @ 1758 HOURS ON 4 JULY 2024: "As a Muslim who grew
up in Western Sydney I find this comment from someone who is running for PM
an absolute disgrace. Bigotry at its finest. Fuelling Islamophobia from the very top."

#195 as [#30, #100, #30, #30, #5] = qᵉlâlâh (H7045): {UMBRA: #165 % #41 = #1} 1) *CURSE*, *VILIFICATION*, *EXECRATION*;

DOLF @ 1900 HOURS ON 5 JULY 2024: "We have elsewhere commented on
@Uz_Khawaja's DEPRAVED AND DELUSIONAL DIATRIBE AS SLANDER UPON ISLAMOPHOBIA
- we are here talking about "THE DIETY" as ALLAH not being the same GOD as PLEROMA / AEONS -- Since the foundation of the world is JEWISH (world to
come) / CHRISTIAN belief."

#832 - MALE CHECKSUM TOTAL: #155 as [#50, #300, #2, #70, #400, #10] =
shâbaʻ (H7650): {UMBRA: #372 % #41 = #3} 1) to swear, adjure; 1a) (Qal)
sworn (participle); 1b) (Niphal); 1b1) to swear, take an oath; 1b2) to
swear (of Jehovah by Himself); 1b3) *TO* *CURSE*; 1c) (Hiphil); 1c1) to
cause to take an oath; 1c2) to adjure;

"THEN JESUS WENT THENCE, AND DEPARTED INTO THE COASTS OF TYRE AND SIDON.
AND, BEHOLD, A WOMAN OF *CANAAN*-G5478 CAME OUT OF THE SAME COASTS, AND
*CRIED* UNTO HIM, SAYING, HAVE *MERCY* ON ME, O *LORD*, THOU *SON* *OF* *DAVID*; MY *DAUGHTER* IS GRIEVOUSLY *VEXED* WITH A *DEVIL*.

#984 - ONTIC CHECKSUM TOTAL: #170 as [#600, #1, #50, #1, #1, #50, #1, #10,
#70, #200] = Chanaanaîos (G5478): {UMBRA: #984 % #41 = #41} 1) Canaanite,
the name of the ancient inhabitants of Palestine before its conquest by the Israelites; 2) in Christ's time: a Phoenician;

#965 - SHEM HAMEPHORASH as [#400, #80, #70, #40, #5, #50, #5, #10, #300,
#5] = hypoménō (G5278): {UMBRA: #1445 % #41 = #10} 1) to remain; 1a) to
tarry behind; 2) to remain i.e. abide, not recede or flee; 2a) *TO*
*PRESERVE*: *UNDER* *MISFORTUNES* *AND* *TRIALS* *TO* *HOLD* *FAST* *TO* *ONE'S* *FAITH* *IN* *CHRIST*; 2b) to endure, bear bravely and calmly: ill treatments;

Jiā nán (迦南): Canaan (in Biblical Palestine)

Shì jiā móu ní (釋迦牟尼): Siddhartha Gautama (563-485 BC), the historical
Buddha and founder of Buddhism

Shì jiā (釋迦): abbreviation for Shì jiā móu ní (釋迦牟尼): Sakyamuni Buddha

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

[#21, #22]

shì (釋): 1. *TO* *RELEASE*; *TO* *SET* *FREE*, 2. to explain; to interpret, 3. to remove; to dispel; to clear up, 4. to give up; to abandon, 5. to put down, 6. to resolve, 7. to melt, 8. Śākyamuni, 9. Buddhism, 10. Śākya; Shakya, 11. pleased; glad

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

[#42]

jiā (迦): 1. ka

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

[#68]

nán (南): 1. south, 2. nan, 3. southern part, 4. southward

#153 = [#21, #22, #42, #68]

PLEROMA LIGHT EMANATIONS / TEMPORAL REFLECTIONS (#75 - FAILURE (SHIH) / #62
- DOUBT (YI))
The #965 - SHEM HAMEPHORASH (Hebrew: שֵׁם הַמְּפֹרָשׁ) meaning "the
explicit name," which we have assigned to the #71 - DOMINION ARRAY (#77 - COMPLIANCE (HSUN) / #37 - PURITY (TS'UI)) TEMPORAL BOUNDARY is originally a Tannaitic term describing the Tetragrammaton.

In Kabbalah, it may refer to a name of God composed of either 4, 12, 22,
42, or 72 letters (or triads of letters), the latter version being the most common. The 72-fold name is highly important to Sefer Raziel HaMalakh. It
is derived from [Exodus 14:19–21], read boustrophedonically to produce 72 names of three letters. This method was explained by Rashi, (b. Sukkah
45a), as well as in Sefer HaBahir (c. 1150~1200). Kabbalist legends state
that the 72-fold name was used by Moses to cross the Red Sea, and that it
could grant later holy men the power to *CAST* *OUT* *DEMONS*, *HEAL* *THE* *SICK*, prevent natural disasters, and even kill enemies.

SHEM HAMEPHORASH FIGURES IN THE LEGEND OF THE #79 - *GOLEM* [גּוֹלֶם], AN
ANIMATED ANTHROPOMORPHIC BEING IN JEWISH FOLKLORE THAT IS CREATED ENTIRELY
FROM INANIMATE MATTER (USUALLY CLAY OR MUD). THE EARTHEN FIGURE IS THEN ANIMATED BY SAYING THE SHEM HAMEPHORASH OVER IT.

#246 - SATOR as [#40, #200, #1, #5] /
#296 as [#40, #200, #1, #10, #5, #40] = marʼeh (H4758): {UMBRA: #246 % #41
= #41} 1) sight, appearance, vision; 1a) sight, phenomenon, spectacle, appearance, vision; 1b) what is seen; 1c) a vision (supernatural); 1d)
sight, vision (*POWER* *OF* *SEEING*);

    #316 - NOUMENON RESONANCE FOR 7 JULY 2024 as [#6, #10, #90, #200, #10] /
#300 as [#10, #90, #200] = yâtsur (H3338): {UMBRA: #300 % #41 = #13} 1)
forms, members (of the body);

    #160 - NOUMENON RESONANCE FOR 7 JULY 2024 as [#90, #30, #40] /
#120 as [#90, #30] = tsêl (H6738): {UMBRA: #120 % #41 = #38} 1) *SHADOW*, shade; 1a) shadow (on dial); 1b) shadow, shade (as protection); 1c)
*SHADOW* (*SYMBOLIC* *OF* *TRANSITORINESS* *OF* *LIFE*);

#296 as [#90, #30, #30, #80, #6, #50, #10] = Tsᵉlelpôwnîy (H6753): {UMBRA: #301 % #41 = #14} 0) Hazelelponi = '*FACING* *THE* *SHADE*'; 1) sister of
the sons of Etam in the genealogies of Judah;

   #160 as [#90, #30, #30, #10] /
#150 as [#90, #30, #30] = tsêlel (H6752): {UMBRA: #150 % #41 = #27} 1)
shadow, shade; 1a) shadow (on dial); 1b) shadow, shade (as protection); 1c) *SHADOW* (*SYMBOLIC* *OF* *TRANSITORINESS* *OF* *LIFE*);

#135 as [#80, #50, #5] = pânâh (H6437): {UMBRA: #135 % #41 = #12} 1) to
turn; 1a) (Qal); 1a1) to turn toward or from or away; 1a2) *TO* *TURN*
*AND* *DO*; 1a3) to turn, decline (of day); 1a4) to turn toward, approach
(of evening); 1a5) to turn and look, look, look back or at or after or for;
1b) (Piel) to turn away, put out of the way, make clear, clear away; 1c) (Hiphil); 1c1) to turn; 1c2) to make a turn, show signs of turning, turn
back; 1d) (Hophal) to be turned back;

The word golem occurs once in the Bible, in [Psalm 139:16], which uses the
word גלמי (golmi; 'my golem', 'my light form', 'raw material') to connote the unfinished human being (ie. however "ALL MY *MEMBERS*-H3338 ARE AS A *SHADOW*-H6738." [Job 17:7] is a then comparison to "IN CHRIST DWELLETH ALL
THE *FULLNESS*-G4138 OF THE *GODHEAD*-G2320 BODILY." [Colossians 2:8-10]) before God's eyes. The Mishnah uses the term to refer to someone who is unsophisticated: "Seven characteristics #296 = [#44, #30, #42, #77, #18,
#37, #48] are in an uncultivated person, and seven in a learned one" (שבעה דברים בגולם).

In Modern Hebrew, golem is used to mean 'dumb', 'helpless', or 'pupa'. Similarly, it is often used today as a metaphor for a mindless lunk or
other entity that serves a man under controlled conditions, but is hostile
to him in other circumstances. Golem passed into Yiddish as goylem, meaning someone who is lethargic or in a
stupor.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golem>

[ג, {@1: Sup: 3 - MIRED: HSIEN (#3); Ego: 3 - MIRED: HSIEN (#3)}
ו, {@2: Sup: 9 - BRANCHING OUT: SHU (#12); Ego: 6 - CONTRARIETY: LI (#9)}
ל, {@3: Sup: 39 - RESIDENCE: CHU (#51); Ego: 30 - BOLD RESOLUTION: YI
(#39)}
מ] {@4: Sup: 79 - DIFFICULTIES: NAN (#130 - I AM NOT EVIL MINDED
{%3}); Ego: 40 - LAW / MODEL: FA (#79)}

TELOS TOTAL: #79 as [#10, #4, #5, #10, #50] = horáō (G3708): {UMBRA: #971 % #41 = #28} 1) *TO* *SEE* *WITH* *THE* *EYES*; 2) to see with the mind, to perceive, know; 3) to see, i.e. become acquainted with by experience, to experience; 4) to see, to look to; 4a) to take heed, beware; 4b) to care
for, pay heed to; 5) I was seen, showed myself, appeared;

ONTIC CHECKSUM TOTAL: #130

#299 - MALE CHECKSUM TOTAL: #130 as [#5, #40, #200, #4, #10, #40] = mârad (H4775): {UMBRA: #244 % #41 = #39} 1) to rebel, revolt, be rebellious; 1a) (Qal) *TO* *REBEL*, *REVOLT*; 1a1) *AGAINST* *HUMAN* *KING*; 1a2) *AGAINST* *GOD*; 1a3) *AGAINST* *LIGHT* (POETIC);

#79 - FEME CHECKSUM TOTAL: #79 as [#2, #7, #30, #30, #10] = zâlal (H2151): {UMBRA: #67 % #41 = #26} 1) to be worthless, be vile, be insignificant, be light; 1a) (Qal); 1a1) *TO* *BE* *WORTHLESS*, *BE* *INSIGNIFICANT*; 1a2) to make light of, squander, be lavish with; 1b) to shake, tremble, quake; 1b1) (Niphal) to shake, quake;

#454 - ONTIC CHECKSUM TOTAL: #130 as [#8, #40, #6, #400] /
#456 as [#2, #8, #40, #400, #6] /
#460 - ONTIC CHECKSUM TOTAL: #130 as [#6, #8, #40, #400, #6] = chêmâh (H2534): {UMBRA: #53 % #41 = #12} 1) *HEAT*, *RAGE*, *HOT* *DISPLEASURE*, *INDIGNATION*, *ANGER*, *WRATH*, poison, bottles; 1a) heat; 1a1) fever;
1a2) *VENOM*, *POISON* (fig.); 1b) burning anger, rage;

"FOR THEIR ROCK IS NOT AS OUR ROCK, EVEN OUR ENEMIES THEMSELVES BEING
JUDGES. FOR THEIR VINE IS OF THE VINE OF SODOM, AND OF THE FIELDS OF
GOMORRAH: THEIR GRAPES ARE GRAPES OF GALL, THEIR CLUSTERS ARE BITTER: THEIR WINE IS THE *POISON*-H2534 *OF* *DRAGONS*, *AND* *THE* *CRUEL* *VENOM* *OF* *ASPS*. IS NOT THIS LAID UP IN STORE WITH ME, AND SEALED UP AMONG MY *TREASURES*-H214?" [Deuteronomy 32:31-34]

#292 - ONTIC CHECKSUM TOTAL: #130 as [#6, #10, #100, #90, #80, #6] =
qâtsaph (H7107): {UMBRA: #270 % #41 = #24} 1) to be displeased, be angry,
fret oneself, be wroth; 1a) (Qal) *TO* *BE* *WROTH*, *TO* *BE* *FULL* *OF* *WRATH*, *TO* *BE* *FURIOUS*; 1b) (Hiphil) to provoke to wrath or anger;
1c) (Hithpael) to put oneself in a rage, anger oneself;

#292 - ONTIC CHECKSUM TOTAL: #130 as [#2, #100, #90, #80, #20] = qetseph (H7110): {UMBRA: #270 % #41 = #24} 1) *WRATH*, *ANGER*; 1a) of God; 1b) of
man; 2) splinter, twig, broken twig; 2a) meaning dubious;

<http://www.grapple369.com/Savvy/?run:Mystery&tetra:5>

#5 - 𝌊少 = #456
COGITO: [#60, #45, #5, #21, #11] as #5 - KEEPING SMALL (SHAO)
RANGE: 09 to noon 13 JANUARY

[#60 {@1: Sup: 60 - ACCUMULATION: CHI (#60); Ego: 60 - ACCUMULATION: CHI
(#60)}
#45 {@2: Sup: 24 - JOY: LE (#84 - I AM NOT A MAN OF VIOLENCE {%2}); Ego: 45
- GREATNESS: TA (#105)}
#5 {@3: Sup: 29 - DECISIVENESS: TUAN (#113); Ego: 5 - KEEPING SMALL: SHAO
(#110 - MALE DEME IS UNNAMED {%30})}
#21 {@4: Sup: 50 - VASTNESS / WASTING: T'ANG (#163); Ego: 21 - RELEASE:
SHIH (#131)}
#11] {@5: Sup: 61 - EMBELLISHMENT: SHIH (#224); Ego: 11 - DIVERGENCE: CH'A (#142)}

TELOS TOTAL: #142
ONTIC CHECKSUM TOTAL: #84
DEME CHECKSUM TOTAL: #110

#41 (THESIS) - PRINCIPLE OF EMANATION / FORMULA OF UNIVERSAL LAW (REMEMBER
THE SABBATH)

#82 (ANTI-THESIS) - TERMS OF COMPLIANCE / FORMULA OF HUMANITY (HONOUR
PARENTS)

#123 (SYNTHESIS) - JUDGEMENT SENSIBILITY / FORMULA OF AUTONOMY (DO NOT
KILL) <-- DOMINION #65 + #41 + #17 = #123 SCHEMA IMPETUS

#164 (PROGRESSION) - PRINCIPLE OF MATERIALITY / PROGRESSION OF INDIVIDUAL PHENOMENON (AVOID HETERONOMY AGAINST AUTONOMY) / #328 - TRANSFORMATIONAL PROTOTYPE

#613 - ONTIC CHECKSUM TOTAL: #84 as [#2, #400, #6, #200, #5] /
#619 - ONTIC CHECKSUM TOTAL: #84 as [#6, #2, #400, #6, #200, #5] /
#1024 - ONTIC CHECKSUM TOTAL: #84 as [#2, #400, #6, #200, #400, #10, #6] = tôwrâh (H8451): {UMBRA: #611 % #41 = #37} 1) law, direction, instruction;
1a) instruction, direction (human or divine); 1a1) body of prophetic
teaching; 1a2) instruction in Messianic age; 1a3) body of priestly
direction or instruction; 1a4) body of legal directives; 1b) law; 1b1) law
of the burnt offering; 1b2) of special law, codes of law; 1c) custom,
manner; 1d) the Deuteronomic or Mosaic Law;

#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)

#287 (THESIS) - NECESSITY (LAW OF DUTY) / #451 - MANIFESTING NORM (right or privilege: DO NOT COVET) <-- *EXISTENTIAL* *VARIANCE* *TO* PRAXIS* *OF* *RATIONALITY*

#84 - ONTIC CHECKSUM TOTAL: #84 as [#4, #40, #40] /
#56 - DEME CHECKSUM TOTAL: #110 as [#2, #4, #40, #10] /
#556 - DEME CHECKSUM TOTAL: #110 as [#2, #4, #40, #10, #500] = dâm (H1818): {UMBRA: #44 % #41 = #3} 1) *BLOOD*; 1a) of wine (fig.);

"AND SHED INNOCENT *BLOOD*-H1818, EVEN THE *BLOOD*-H1818 OF THEIR SONS AND
OF THEIR DAUGHTERS, WHOM THEY SACRIFICED UNTO THE IDOLS OF CANAAN: AND THE
LAND WAS POLLUTED WITH *BLOOD*-H1818. THUS WERE THEY DEFILED WITH THEIR OWN WORKS, AND WENT A WHORING WITH THEIR OWN INVENTIONS.
THEREFORE WAS THE WRATH OF THE LORD KINDLED AGAINST HIS PEOPLE, INSOMUCH
THAT HE ABHORRED HIS OWN INHERITANCE. AND HE GAVE THEM INTO THE HAND OF THE HEATHEN; AND THEY THAT HATED THEM RULED OVER THEM. THEIR ENEMIES ALSO
OPPRESSED THEM, AND THEY WERE BROUGHT INTO SUBJECTION UNDER THEIR HAND.
MANY TIMES DID HE DELIVER THEM; BUT THEY PROVOKED HIM WITH THEIR COUNSEL,
AND WERE BROUGHT LOW FOR THEIR INIQUITY.
"NEVERTHELESS HE REGARDED THEIR AFFLICTION, WHEN HE HEARD THEIR CRY: AND HE REMEMBERED FOR THEM HIS COVENANT, AND REPENTED ACCORDING TO THE MULTITUDE
OF HIS MERCIES. HE MADE THEM ALSO TO BE PITIED OF ALL THOSE THAT CARRIED
THEM CAPTIVES. SAVE US, O LORD OUR GOD, AND GATHER US FROM AMONG THE
HEATHEN, TO GIVE THANKS UNTO THY HOLY NAME, AND TO TRIUMPH IN THY PRAISE. BLESSED BE THE LORD GOD OF ISRAEL FROM EVERLASTING TO EVERLASTING: AND LET
ALL THE PEOPLE SAY, AMEN. PRAISE YE THE LORD." [Psalm 106:38-48]

APPRAISAL #6: The small cup is filled to the brim. (少持滿)
Once full, it later topples. (今盛後傾)
FATHOMING #6: The small cup kept full (少持滿)
MEANS: How can it be worth filling? (何足盛也)

shǎo (少): 1. few, 2. to decrease; to lessen; to lose, 3. slightly;
somewhat, 4. to be inadequate; to be insufficient, 5. to be less than, 6.
to despise; to scorn; to look down on, 7. short-term, 8. infrequently, 9. slightly; somewhat, 10. young, 11. youth, 12. a youth; a young person, 13.
Shao

chí (持): Ibid.

mǎn (滿): 1. full, 2. to be satisfied, 3. to fill, 4. conceited, 5. to reach (a time); to expire, 6. whole; entire, 7. completely, 8. Manchu, 9. very,
10. Man

jīn (今): 1. today; present; now, 2. Jin, 3. modern

chéng (盛): 1. to fill, 2. Sheng, 3. abundant; flourishing, 4. to contain,
5. a grain offering, 6. dense, 7. large scale, 8. extremely

hòu (後): 1. after; later, 2. empress; queen, 3. *SOVEREIGN*, 4. behind, 5. *THE* *GOD* *OF* *THE* *EARTH*, 6. late; later, 7. arriving late, 8. *OFFSPRING*; *DESCENDANTS*, 9. to fall behind; to lag, 10. behind; back,
11. then, 12. mother of the designated heir; mother of the crown prince,
13. Hou, 14. after; behind, 15. following, 16. to be delayed, 17. to
abandon; to discard, 18. feudal lords, 19. Hou

qīng (傾): 1. *TO* *OVERTURN*; *TO* *COLLAPSE*; to lean; to tend; to
incline; to pour out

"BUT SOLOMON WAS BUILDING HIS OWN HOUSE THIRTEEN YEARS, AND HE FINISHED ALL
HIS HOUSE... "AND IT WAS AN HAND BREADTH THICK, AND THE *BRIM*-H8193
THEREOF WAS WROUGHT LIKE THE *BRIM*-H8193 OF A CUP, WITH FLOWERS OF LILIES:
IT CONTAINED TWO THOUSAND BATHS." [1Kings 7:1, 26]

#121 - MALE CHECKSUM TOTAL: #224 as [#1, #30, #40, #10, #40] = ʼâlam
(H481): {UMBRA: #71 % #41 = #30} 1) to bind; 1a) (Niphal); 1a1) *TO* *BE* *DUMB*; 1a2) to be bound; 1b) (Piel) binding (part.);

#624 - MALE CHECKSUM TOTAL: #224 as [#6, #2, #200, #10, #400, #6] = bᵉrîyth (H1285): {UMBRA: #612 % #41 = #38} 1) covenant, alliance, pledge; 1a)
between men; 1a1) treaty, alliance, league (man to man); 1a2) constitution, ordinance (monarch to subjects); 1a3) agreement, pledge (man to man); 1a4) alliance (of friendship); 1a5) alliance (of marriage); 1b) between God and
man; 1b1) alliance (of friendship); 1b2) covenant (divine ordinance with
signs or pledges); 1c) (phrases); 1c1) covenant making; 1c2) covenant
keeping; 1c3) covenant violation;

#126 - MALE CHECKSUM TOTAL: #224 as [#30, #40, #30, #1, #20, #5] = mᵉlâʼkâh
(H4399): {UMBRA: #96 % #41 = #14} 1) occupation, work, business; 1a) occupation, business; 1b) property; 1c) work (something done or made); 1d) workmanship; 1e) service, use; 1f) public business; 1f1) political; 1f2) religious;

#385 - FEME CHECKSUM TOTAL: #142 as [#300, #80, #5] = sâphâh (H8193):
{UMBRA: #385 % #41 = #16} 1) lip, language, speech, shore, bank, brink,
*BRIM*, side, edge, border, binding; 1a) lip (as body part); 1b) language;
1c) edge, shore, *BANK* (*OF* *CUP*, sea, river, etc);

#709 - FEME CHECKSUM TOTAL: #142 as [#2, #1, #6, #90, #200, #400, #10] = ʼôwtsâr (H214): {UMBRA: #297 % #41 = #10} 1) *TREASURE*, storehouse; 1a) treasure (gold, silver, etc); 1b) store, supplies of food or drink; 1c) treasure-house, treasury; 1c1) treasure-house; 1c2) storehouse, magazine;
1c3) treasury; 1c4) magazine of weapons (fig. of God's armoury); 1c5) storehouses (of God for rain, snow, hail, wind, sea);

#790 - FEME CHECKSUM TOTAL: #142 as [#10, #70, #200, #10, #500] = ʻârak (H6186): {UMBRA: #290 % #41 = #3} 1) to arrange, set or put or lay in
order, set in array, prepare, order, ordain, handle, furnish, esteem,
equal, direct, compare; 1a) (Qal); 1a1) to arrange or set or lay in order, arrange, state in order, set forth (a legal case), set in place; 1a2) to compare, be comparable; 1b) (Hiphil) to value, *TAX*;

#628 - FEME CHECKSUM TOTAL: #142 as [#400, #3, #10, #5, #10, #200] = hygiḗs (G5199): {UMBRA: #621 % #41 = #6} 1) sound; 1a) of a man who is sound in
body; 2) to make one whole i.e. restore him to health; 3) metaph. teaching which does not deviate from the truth;

#952 - FEME CHECKSUM TOTAL: #142 as [#600, #1, #100, #10, #200, #40, #1] = chárisma (G5486): {UMBRA: #952 % #41 = #9} 1) a favour with which one
receives without any merit of his own; 2) the gift of divine grace; 3) the
gift of faith, knowledge, holiness, virtue; 4) the economy of divine grace,
by which the pardon of sin and eternal salvation is appointed to sinners in consideration of the merits of Christ laid hold of by faith; 5) grace or
gifts denoting extraordinary powers, distinguishing certain Christians and enabling them to serve the church of Christ, the reception of which is due
to the power of divine grace operating on their souls by the Holy Spirit;

SIX DAY (FORMULA OF PROGRESSION) TEMPORAL AGGREGATIONS

#28 #13 #09 #59 #66 #79 #51 #44 #20
#50 #08 #19 #81 #58 #65 #43 #30 #15
#11 #77 #70 #42 #46 #35 #04 #27 #57
#75 #33 #53 #22 #02 #18 #68 #61 #37
#06 #72 #56 #34 #41 #48 #26 #10 #76
#45 #21 #14 #64 #80 #60 #29 #49 #07
#25 #55 #78 #47 #36 #40 #12 #05 #71
#67 #52 #39 #17 #24 #01 #63 #74 #32
#62 #38 #31 #03 #16 #23 #73 #69 #54

<http://www.grapple369.com/Savvy/?run:Mystery&tetra:62>
#62 - 𝍃疑 = #513
COGITO: [#35, #48, #25, #33, #33] as #62 - DOUBT (YI)
RANGE: noon 22 to 26 SEPTEMBER

APPRAISAL #1: In doubt and confusion, (疑恛恛)
He loses what is tried and straight. (失貞矢)
FATHOMING #1: To lose the Right in perplexity (不正之疑)
MEANS: How could it be settled in his mind? (何可定也)

yí (疑): 1. to doubt; to disbelieve, 2. to suspect; to wonder, 3. puzzled,
4. to seem like, 5. to hesitate, 6. to fix; to determine, 7. to copy; to imitate; to emulate, 8. to be strange, 9. to dread; to be scared

huí (恛): 1. disordered, 2. indistinct; doubtful, 3. blurred
huí (恛): Ibid.

shī (失): 1. to lose, 2. *TO* *VIOLATE*; *TO* *GO* *AGAINST* *THE* *NORM*,
3. to fail; to miss out, 4. to be lost, 5. to make a mistake, 6. to let go
of

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

shǐ (矢): 1. arrow, 2. Kangxi radical 111, 3. dart, 4. excrement, 5. straight, 6. to exhibit, 7. to vow

bùzhèng (不正): 1. *IRREGULAR*; *NOT* *UPRIGHT*

<http://www.grapple369.com/Savvy/?run:Mystery&tetra:75>

#75 - 𝍐失 = #526
COGITO: [#58, #27, #27, #49, #46] as #75 - FAILURE (SHIH)
RANGE: 20 to noon 24 NOVEMBER

APPRAISAL #4: Trusting his faults, he does not eat, (信過不食)
So, like the sun, he sinks from sight. (至於側匿)
FATHOMING #4: Trusting faults and unemployed (信過不食)

[continued in next message]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)