XPost: alt.egyptians.copts, alt.culture.egyptian, talk.religion.christian.coptic
XPost: alt.egyptians.copts

WE ACCUSE THE ORTHODOX RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY OF RELIGIOUS HARASSMENT UPON
SABBATH (SABBATH) FORUMS THEREFORE THEY WILL FORFEIT THEIR ENTITLEMENTS
WITHIN OUR COUNTRY

WE WANT NOTHING TO DO WITH THESE HETERODOX RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES AND WE
WANT THEM OUT OF OUR LAND...

Coptic Orthodox Church; the Syriac Orthodox Church; the Armenian
Apostolic Church, represented by the two Catholicossates of Etchmiadzin
and Cilicia, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church; the Eritrean Orthodox
Church; and the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church.

<https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2019-02/pope-thanks-god-for-catholic-oriental-orthodox-dialogue.html>

-- OUR HUMAN, RELIGIOUS AND CONSTITUTIONAL PREROGATIVE RIGHT TO SHABBAT
SHALOM

(c) 2019 Dolf Leendert Boek, Revision: 1 February 2019

SHABBAT SHALOM@[
ש , {@1: Sup: 57 (#57); Ego: 57 (#57)},
ב , {@2: Sup: 59 (#116); Ego: 2 (#59)},
ת , {@3: Sup: 54 (#170); Ego: 76 (#135)},
ש, {@4: Sup: 30 (#200 - I AM NOT A ROBBER OF SACRED PROPERTY {%8}); Ego:
57 (#192 - I AM NOT SWOLLEN WITH PRIDE {%39})},
ל , {@5: Sup: 60 (#260); Ego: 30 (#222)},
ו , {@6: Sup: 66 (#326); Ego: 6 (#228 - I HAVE NO UNJUST PREFERENCES
{%40})},
מ] {@7: Sup: 25 (#351); Ego: 40 (#268)}

IMMANUEL KANT'S PROLEGOMENA SECTION #57 - ON DETERMINING THE BOUNDARY OF
PURE REASON AS IDEA @351: "After the extremely clear proofs we have
given above, it would be an absurdity for us, with respect to any
object, to hope to cognize more than belongs to a possible experience of
it, or for us, with respect to any thing that we assume not to be an
object of possible experience, to claim even the least cognition for determining it according to its nature as it is in itself; for by what
means will we reach this determination, since time, space, and all the
concepts of the understanding, and especially the concepts drawn from
empirical intuition or perception in the sensible world, do not and
cannot have any use other than merely to make experience possible, and
if we relax this condition even for the pure concepts of the
understanding, they then determine no object whatsoever, and have no significance anywhere.

But, on the other hand, it would be an even greater absurdity for us not
to allow any things in themselves at all, or for us to want to pass off
our [IDEA: @351] experience for the only possible way of cognizing things–hence *OUR* *INTUITION* *IN* *SPACE* *AND* *TIME* *FOR* *THE*
*ONLY* *POSSIBLE* *INTUITION* *AND* *OUR* *DISCURSIVE* *UNDERSTANDING*
*FOR* *THE* *ARCHETYPE* *OF* *EVERY* *POSSIBLE* *UNDERSTANDING* – and so
to want to take principles of the possibility of experience for
universal conditions on things in themselves.

THUS TO MAKE IT VERY PLAIN WITH RESPECTS TO THE JEWISH 40 YEARS SOJOURN
WITHIN THE WILDERNESS FROM THE YEAR:

49J1W2D

THAT IT IS INNATELY CONNECTED TO BOTH THE NOTION OF 49 as 49 JUBILEES
and 1W2D as 9 YEARS + 40 YEARS = 49 YEARS AND IPSO FACTO:

#2184 = 6 x #364 x 49 AS JUBILEE = 107016 days = 6J / 293 =
365.242320819112628 SOLAR TROPICAL YEAR

#111 (@3 - Nature Surmounts Nature: #34 - Engendering Nature [#164 -
AVOID HETERONOMY AGAINST AUTONOMY]) ...

166: [11 - I AM NOT SLUGGISH]
168: [26 - I AM NOT THE CAUSE OF WEEPING TO ANY]
169: [18 - I TROUBLE MYSELF ONLY WITH MY OWN AFFAIRS]
171: [20 - I AM NOT UNCHASTE WITH ANY ONE]
173: [27 - I AM NOT GIVEN TO UNNATURAL LUST]
175: [22 - I AM NOT A TRANSGRESSOR]
177: [29 - I AM NOT GIVEN TO CURSING]
180: [19 - I COMMIT NOT ADULTERY WITH ANOTHER'S WIFE]
181: [24 - I LEND NOT A DEAF EAR TO THE WORDS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS, 35
- I AM NOT ONE WHO CURSETH THE KING]
182: [6 - I AM NOT FRAUDULENT IN MEASURES OF GRAIN]
184: [36 - I PUT NO CHECK UPON THE WATER IN ITS FLOW]
185: [25 - I AM NOT BOISTEROUS IN BEHAVIOUR]
186: [31 - I AM NOT ONE OF INCONSTANT MIND]
191: [32 - I DO NOT STEAL THE SKINS OF THE SACRED ANIMALS]
192: [39 - I AM NOT SWOLLEN WITH PRIDE]
196: [37 - I AM NOT ONE OF LOUD VOICE]
197: [33 - I AM NOT NOISY IN MY SPEECH]
200: [8 - I AM NOT A ROBBER OF SACRED PROPERTY]

TOTAL: @166 + @168 + @169 + @171 + @173 + @175 + @177 + @180 + @181 +
@182 + @184 + @185 + @186 + @191 + @192 + @196 + @197 + @200 = #3273 - PRINCIPLE OF MATERIALITY {3 x #1091: THAT #1092 = 3 x #364 IS THE 'OTH
CYCLE OF THE JERUSALEM TEMPLE FROM 1550 BCE}: "WHO HATH TAKEN THIS
*COUNSEL* {

@1 (#1) + @2 (#41) + @3 (#81) + @4 (#369) = #10 (#492) / #12 = #41 -
ONTIC NECESSITY ESPOUSED BY 'ADVICE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL' (LIBERTÉ {17 SEPTEMBER 1900}) WHICH IMPLIES A TRINOMIAL BASIS TO EMPIRE GOVERNANCE

} AGAINST TYRE {strength; rock; sharp}, THE CROWNING CITY, WHOSE
MERCHANTS ARE PRINCES, WHOSE TRAFFICKERS ARE THE HONOURABLE OF THE
EARTH?" [Isaiah 23:8]


<http://www.grapple369.com/images/HOSPITABLITY.PNG>

6J x 12 = 72J + 3(3²+1)/2 = # as circa PURIM 457 BCE - "THEN THE KING
SAID TO THE WISE MEN, WHICH KNEW THE *TIMES*, (FOR SO WAS THE KING’S
MANNER TOWARD ALL THAT KNEW LAW AND JUDGMENT: AND THE NEXT UNTO HIM WAS:

CARSHENA {a lamb; sleeping}: @1 - MENTALISM: 1 x #41 = #41 as #1 - Will,
free will, choice / VIRTUE: 64 meta descriptor prototypes: OMNE DATUM
OPTIMUM {#1 - Every perfect gift} (1139 CE) / Remember the Sabbath Day}

SHETHAR {putrefied; searching}: @2 - CORRESPONDENCE: 2 x #41 = #82 as #2
- desire, inclination: MILITES TEMPLI {#2 - Soldiers of the Temple}
(1144 CE) / TOOLS: marriage / Honour Parents

ADMATHA {a cloud of death; a mortal vapor}: @3 - VIBRATION: 3 x #41 =
#123 as #3 - disposition towards (something or someone): MILITIA DEI {#3
- Soldiers of God} (1145 CE) / POSITION: Soldier / Do Not Kill

TARSHISH {contemplation; examination}: @4 - POLARITY: 4 x #41 = #164 as
#4 - favour, affection: PASTORALIS PRAEEMINENTIAE {#4 - Pastoral
Pre-eminence to monarchs} (1307 CE) / TIME: #CENTRE and #INRI / Do Not
Commit Adultery (ie. Avoid Heteronomy Against Autonomy)} [John 5:39-47
(KJV)]

MERES {defluxion; imposthume}: @5 - RHYTHM: 5 x #41 = #205 as #5 - last
will, testament: FACIENS MISERICORDIAM {#5 - Granting forgiveness} (1308
CE) / CANON: RHYTHM & HARMONY / Do Not Steal}

MARSENA {bitterness of a bramble}: @6 - CAUSE AND EFFECT: 6 x #41 = #246
as #6 - goal, object, purpose, intention: AD PROVIDAM {#6 - To Foresee /
For Providence} (1312 CE) / IMPLEMENTATION: HETEROS (binomial /
bifurcated) THEORY OF NUMBER / Do Not Bear False Witness}

MEMUCAN {impoverished; to prepare; certain; true}: @7 - ENGENDERING / ENUMERATE: 7 x #41 = #287 as #7 - signification, import: VOX IN EXCELSO
{#7 - The voice on high} (1312 CE) / LIMIT: #INRI AS TERNIO ANAGRAM / Do
Not Covet} [LATIN definition: VOLUNTĀTIS]

THE SEVEN PRINCES OF PERSIA AND MEDIA, WHICH SAW THE KING'S FACE, AND
WHICH SAT THE FIRST IN THE KINGDOM;)" [Esther 1:13-14 (KJV)]

DOLF @ 1521 HOURS ON 23 JANUARY 2016: “That there is by determined means
a lack of #873 - *PROBITY* shown BY ONTIC #205 - ABERRATION {@210 / @215
/ @220 / @228} TO PRINCIPLES OF PARTICULAR SECTIONS VIII / IX QUEEN
VICTORIA'S LETTERS PATENT 29 OCTOBER 1900 AS CONVEYING THE PERSISTENCE
OF SUBSTANCE MADE AGAINST ELIZABETH {THE OATH, FULLNESS OF GOD} REGINA
II and thereby as an impunity of the @115 - DIGNITY ROYAL and in the circumstance of TREASON the ONUS of accountability is placed upon OTHERS
having no entitlement for any use of that INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY in such
a manner whatsoever.

#175 {*MARRIAGE*} (@4 - NATURE AMENDED IN ITS NATURE: #369 - Autonomous
Nature [#205 - DO NOT STEAL]) ...

210: [30 - I AM NOT OF AGGRESSIVE HAND]
215: [34 - I AM NEITHER A LIAR NOR A DOER OF MISCHIEF]
220: [38 - I CURSE NOT A GOD]
228: [40 - I HAVE NO UNJUST PREFERENCES]

TOTAL: @210 + @215 + @220 + @228 = #873 - PRINCIPLE OF THE PERSISTENCE
OF SUBSTANCE as [#80, #5, #100, #10, #70, #600, #8] = perioche (G4042):
{UMBRA: #873 % #41 = #12} 1) an encompassing, compass, circuit; 2) that
which is contained; 2a) the contents of any writing SUCH AS QUEEN
VICTORIAS LETTERS PATENT OF 29 OCTOBER 1900 AS DICTUM OF #2184 - FREEDOM
from #1827 - OPPRESSION is:

#902 - RULE OF LAW (EGALITÉ {9 JULY 1900}: #22 x #41 as *ONTIC*
necessity comprising a subset of 21 consonants with #VOWELS of Semitic origins),

#492 - VOLUNTARY FREE WILL (LIBERTÉ {17 SEPTEMBER 1900}: #12 X #41), and

#391 - HOMOGENEOUS PRINCIPLES (FRATERNITÉ {29 OCTOBER 1900}) OF CIVIL
SOCIETY

THUS IF THE SUBJECT IS SACRED, AND THE SUBJECT IS SOVEREIGN ACCORDINGLY
IT REQUIRES A THRESHOLD OF #873 - *PROBITY* AND #644 - *DECORUM* AS #123
- *JUDGMENT* *SENSIBILITY* THAT IS SUBSTANTIALLY GREATER THAN THEIR
EXHIBITED #101 - *INDOLENT* TERRESTRIAL MANNER.”

Our principles, which limit the use of reason to possible experience
alone, could accordingly themselves become transcendent and could pass
off the limits of our reason for limits on the possibility of things
themselves (for which Hume’s Dialogues can serve as an example), if *A* *PAINSTAKING* *CRITIQUE* *DID* *NOT* *BOTH* *GUARD* *THE* *BOUNDARIES*
*OF* *OUR* *REASON* *EVEN* *WITH* *RESPECT* *TO* *ITS* *EMPIRICAL*
*USE*, *AND* *SET* *A* *LIMIT* *TO* *ITS* *PRETENSIONS*. Skepticism
originally arose from metaphysics and its unpoliced dialectic. At first
this skepticism wanted, solely for the benefit of the use of reason in experience, to portray everything that surpasses this use as empty and deceitful; but gradually, as it came to be noticed that it was the very
same a priori principles which are employed in experience that,
unnoticed, had led still further than experience reaches – and had done
so, as it seemed, with the very same right – then even the principles of experience began to be doubted. There was no real trouble with this, for
sound common sense will always assert its rights in this domain; but
there did arise a particular confusion in science, which cannot
determine how far (and why only that far and not further) reason is to
be trusted, and this confusion can be remedied and all future relapses prevented only through a formal determination, derived from principles,
of the boundaries for the use of our reason.

It is true: we cannot provide, beyond all possible experience, any de- terminate concept of what things in themselves may be. But we are
nevertheless not free to hold back entirely in the face of inquiries
about those things; for experience never fully satisfies reason; it
directs us ever further back in answering questions and leaves us
unsatisfied as regards their full elucidation, as everyone can
sufficiently observe in the dialectic of pure reason, which for this
very reason has its good subjective ground. Who can bear being brought,
as regards the nature of our soul, both to the point of a clear
consciousness of the subject and to the conviction that the appearances
of that subject cannot be explained materialistically, without asking
what then the soul really is, and, if no concept of [IDEA: @352]
experience suffices thereto, without perchance adopting a concept of
reason (that of a simple immaterial being) just for this purpose,
although we can by no means prove the objective reality of that concept?
Who can satisfy themselves with mere cognition through experience in all
the cosmological questions, of the duration and size of the world, of
freedom or natural necessity, since, wherever we may begin, any answer
given ac- cording to principles of experience always begets a new
question which also requires an answer, and for that reason clearly
proves the insufficiency of all physical modes of explanation for the satisfaction of reason? Finally, who cannot see, from the thoroughgoing contingency and dependency of everything that they might think or assume according to principles of experience, the impossibility of stopping
with these, and who does not feel compelled, regardless of all
prohibition against losing oneself in transcendent ideas, nevertheless
to look for peace and satisfaction beyond all concepts that one can
justify through experience, in the concept of a being the idea of which
indeed cannot in itself be understood as regards possibility – though it cannot be refuted either, because it pertains to a mere being of the understanding – an idea without which, however, reason would always have
to remain unsatisfied?

Boundaries (in extended things) always presuppose a space that is found
outside a certain fixed location, and that encloses that location;
limits require nothing of the kind, but are mere negations that affect a magnitude insofar as it does not possess absolute completeness. Our
reason, however, sees around itself as it were a space for the cognition
of things in themselves, although it can never have determinate concepts
of those things and is limited to appearances alone.

SOVEREIGN ONTIC NECESSITY (6.5.5.41.0)@{
@1: Sup: 41 (#41); Ego: 41 (#41),
@2: Sup: 1 (#42); Ego: 41 (#82),
@3: Sup: 42 (#84 - I AM NOT A MAN OF VIOLENCE {%2}); Ego: 41 (#123
- JUDGMENT SENSIBILITY),
@4: Sup: 2 (#86 - I AM NOT A ROBBER OF FOOD {%10}); Ego: 41 (#164 - *PRINCIPLE* *OF* *MATERIALITY*),
@5: Sup: 43 (#129); Ego: 41 (#205 - *PRINCIPLE* *OF* *THE*
*PERSISTENCE* *OF* *SUBSTANCE*),
@6: Sup: 3 (#132); Ego: 41 (#246),
@7: Sup: 44 (#176 - KANT'S IDEA B176: *THE* *TRANSCENDENTAL*
*DOCTRINE* *OF* *THE POWER* *OF* *JUDGMENT* *OR* *ANALYTIC* *OF*
*PRINCIPLES*); Ego: 41 (#287),
@8: Sup: 24 (#200 - I AM NOT A ROBBER OF SACRED PROPERTY {%8});
Ego: 61 (#348),
@9: Sup: 66 (#266 - *PRECEPT* / *STATUTE*); Ego: 42 (#390 -
*SOVEREIGNTY* / *CROWN*),
Male: #266; Feme: #390
}

Prototype: *HOMOIOS* {#266 - *PRECEPT* / *STATUTE* / #390 -
*SOVEREIGNTY* / *CROWN*} / HETEROS {#238 / #376} / TORAH {#248 / #381}

<http://www.grapple369.com?zen:6,row:5,col:5,nous:41&idea:{m,132}&idea:{f,246}&idea:{m,266}&idea:{f,390}&PROTOTYPE:HOMOIOS>

HUMAN BEING (3.5.5.41.0)@{
@1: Sup: 41 (#41); Ego: 41 (#41),
@2: Sup: 1 (#42); Ego: 41 (#82),
@3: Sup: 42 (#84 - I AM NOT A MAN OF VIOLENCE {%2}); Ego: 41 (#123
- JUDGMENT SENSIBILITY),
@4: Sup: 2 (#86 - I AM NOT A ROBBER OF FOOD {%10}); Ego: 41 (#164 - *PRINCIPLE* *OF* *MATERIALITY*),
@5: Sup: 43 (#129); Ego: 41 (#205 - *PRINCIPLE* *OF* *THE*
*PERSISTENCE* *OF* *SUBSTANCE*),
@6: Sup: 3 (#132); Ego: 41 (#246),
@7: Sup: 44 (#176); Ego: 41 (#287),
@8: Sup: 68 (#244); Ego: 24 (#311 *** SERIOUS BREACH OF SOVEREIGN / AUTONOMY DYNAMIC GIVEN THE INNER MAIDEN / MARRIAGEABLE MAIDEN DYNAMIC OF
3 APRIL 33 AD),
@9: Sup: 67 (#311 *** SERIOUS BREACH OF SOVEREIGN / AUTONOMY
DYNAMIC GIVEN THE INNER MAIDEN / MARRIAGEABLE MAIDEN DYNAMIC OF 3 APRIL
33 AD); Ego: 80 (#391),
Male: #311; Feme: #391
} // [LATIN definition: VOLUNTĀTIS (*YES*) / NOLUNTĀTIS (*NO*)]

Prototype: *HOMOIOS* {#311 / #391 - HOMOGENEOUS PRINCIPLES (FRATERNITÉ
{29 OCTOBER 1900}) OF QUEEN VICTORIA'S LETTERS PATENT TO THE FEDERATION
OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMONWEALTH 1901} / HETEROS {#283 / #377} / TORAH
{#237 - *USE* *OF* *FORCE* OR *IMMUTABLE* / *STUBBORN* *WILL* / #435}

<http://www.grapple369.com?zen:3,row:5,col:5,nous:41&idea:{m,84}&idea:{f,123}&idea:{m,311}&idea:{f,391}&PROTOTYPE:HOMOIOS>

As long as reason’s cognition is #391 - *HOMOGENEOUS*, no determinate boundaries can be thought for it. In mathematics and natural science
human reason recognizes limits but not boundaries; that is, it indeed recognizes that something lies beyond it to which it can never reach,
but not that it would itself at any point ever complete its inner
progression. The expansion of insight in mathematics, and the
possibility of ever new inventions, goes to infinity; so too does the
discovery of new properties in nature (new forces and laws) through
continued experience and the unification of that experience by reason.
But limits here are nonetheless unmistakable, for mathematics refers
only to appearances, and that which cannot be an object of sensory
intuition, like the concepts of metaphysics and morals, lies entirely
outside its sphere, and it can never lead there; but it also has no need whatsoever for such concepts. There is therefore no continuous progress
and advancement toward those sciences, or any point or line of contact,
as it were. Natural science will never reveal to us the inside of
things, i.e., that which is not appearance but can nonetheless serve as
the highest ground of explanation for the appearances; but it does not
need this for its physical explanations; nay, if such were offered to it
from else- where (e.g., the influence of immaterial beings), natural
science should indeed reject it and ought by no means bring it into the progression of its explanations, but should always base its explanations
only on that which can belong to experience as an object of the senses
and which can be brought into connection with our actual perceptions in accordance with laws of experience.

But metaphysics, in the dialectical endeavours of pure reason (which are
not initiated arbitrarily or wantonly, but toward which the nature of
reason itself drives), does lead us to the boundaries; and the
transcendental ideas, just because they cannot be avoided and yet will
never be realized, serve not only actually to show us the boundaries of reason’s pure use, but also to show us the way to determine such
boundaries; and that too is the end and use of this natural
predisposition of our reason, which bore metaphysics as its favourite
child, whose procreation (as with any other in the world) is to be
ascribed not to chance accident but to an original seed that is wisely organized toward great ends. For metaphysics, perhaps more than any
other science, is, as regards its fundamentals, placed in us by nature
itself, and cannot at all be seen as the product of an arbitrary choice,
or as an accidental extension from the progression of experiences (it
wholly separates itself from those experiences).

Reason, through all of its concepts and laws of the understanding, which
it finds to be adequate for empirical use, and so adequate within the
sensi- ble world, nonetheless does not thereby find satisfaction for
itself; for, as a result of questions that keep recurring to infinity,
it is denied all hope of completely answering those questions. The transcendental ideas, which have such completion as their aim, are such problems for reason. Now reason clearly sees: that the sensible world
could not contain this completion, [IDEA: @354] any more than could
therefore all of the concepts that serve solely for understanding that
world: space and time, and everything that we have put forward under the
name of the pure concepts of the understanding. The sensible world is
nothing but a chain of appearances connected in accordance with
universal laws, which therefore has no existence for itself; it truly is
not the thing in itself, and therefore it necessarily refers to that
which contains the ground of those appearances, to beings that can be
cognized not merely as appearances, but as things in themselves. Only in
the cognition of the latter can reason hope to see its desire for
completeness in the progression from the conditioned to its conditions satisfied for once.

Above (§§33, 34) we noted limits of reason with respect to all cognition
of mere beings of thought; now, since the transcendental ideas
nevertheless make the progression up to these limits necessary for us,
and have therefore led us, as it were, up to the contiguity of the
filled space (of experience) with empty space (of which we can know
nothing – the noumena), we can also determine the boundaries of pure
reason; for in all boundaries there is something positive (e.g., a
surface is the boundary of corporeal space, yet is nonetheless itself a
space; a line is a space, which is the boundary of a surface; a point is
the boundary of a line, yet is nonetheless a locus in space), whereas
limits contain mere negations. The limits announced in the cited
sections are still not enough after we have found that something lies
beyond them (although we will never cognize what that something may be
in itself). For the question now arises: How does our reason cope with
this connection of that with which we are acquainted to that with which
we are not acquainted, and never will be? Here is a real connection of
the known to a wholly unknown (which will always remain so), and even if
the unknown should not become the least bit better known – as is not in
fact to be hoped – the concept of this connection must still be capable
of being determined and brought to clarity.

We should, then, think for ourselves an immaterial being, an
intelligible world, and a highest of all beings (all noumena), because
only in these things, as things in themselves, does reason find
completion and satisfaction, which it can never hope to find in the
derivation of the [IDEA: @355] appearances from the #391 - *HOMOGENEOUS* grounds of those appearances; and we should think such things for
ourselves because the appearances actually do relate to something
distinct from them (and so entirely *HETEROGENEOUS*), in that
appearances always presuppose a thing in itself, and so provide notice
of such a thing, whether or not it can be cognized more closely.

Now since we can, however, never cognize these intelligible beings
according to what they may be in themselves, i.e., determinately –
though we must nonetheless assume such beings in relation to the
sensible world, and connect them with it through reason – we can still
at least think this connection by means of such concepts as express the relation of those beings to the sensible world. For, if we think an intelligible being through nothing but pure concepts of the
understanding, we really think nothing determinate thereby, and so our
concept is without significance; if we think it through properties
borrowed from the sensible world, it is no longer an intelligible being:
it is thought as one of the phenomena and belongs to the sensible world.
*WE* *WILL* *TAKE* *AN* *EXAMPLE* *FROM* *THE* *CONCEPT* *OF* *THE*
*SUPREME* *BEING*:

"AND THE LORD SPAKE UNTO MOSES, SAYING,

SPEAK THOU ALSO UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, SAYING, VERILY MY SABBATHS
YE SHALL KEEP: FOR IT IS A SIGN BETWEEN ME AND YOU THROUGHOUT YOUR
GENERATIONS; THAT YE MAY KNOW THAT I AM THE LORD THAT DOTH SANCTIFY YOU.

YE SHALL KEEP THE SABBATH THEREFORE; FOR IT IS HOLY UNTO YOU: EVERY ONE
THAT DEFILETH IT SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH: FOR WHOSOEVER DOETH ANY
WORK THEREIN, THAT SOUL SHALL BE CUT OFF FROM AMONG HIS PEOPLE.

SIX DAYS MAY WORK BE DONE; BUT IN THE SEVENTH IS THE SABBATH OF REST,
HOLY TO THE LORD: WHOSOEVER DOETH ANY WORK IN THE SABBATH DAY, HE SHALL
SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH.

WHEREFORE THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL SHALL KEEP THE SABBATH, TO OBSERVE THE
SABBATH THROUGHOUT THEIR GENERATIONS, FOR A PERPETUAL COVENANT.

IT IS A SIGN BETWEEN ME AND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL FOR EVER: FOR IN SIX
DAYS THE LORD MADE HEAVEN AND EARTH, AND ON THE SEVENTH DAY HE RESTED,
AND WAS REFRESHED.

AND HE GAVE UNTO MOSES, WHEN HE HAD MADE AN END OF COMMUNING WITH HIM
UPON MOUNT SINAI, TWO TABLES OF TESTIMONY, TABLES OF STONE, WRITTEN WITH
THE FINGER OF GOD." [Exodus 31:12-18 (KJV)]

*THE* *DEISTIC* *CONCEPT* *IS* *A* *WHOLLY* *PURE* *CONCEPT* *OF*
*REASON*, *WHICH* *HOWEVER* *REPRESENTS* *MERELY* *A* *THING* *THAT*
*CONTAINS* *EVERY* *REALITY*, *WITHOUT* *BEING* *ABLE* *TO* *DETERMINE*
*A* *SINGLE* *ONE* *OF* *THEM*, *SINCE* *FOR* *THAT* *AN* *EXAMPLE*
*WOULD* *HAVE* *TO* *BE* *BORROWED* *FROM* *THE* *SENSIBLE* *WORLD*,
*IN* *WHICH* *CASE* *I* *WOULD* *ALWAYS* *HAVE* *TO* *DO* *ONLY* *WITH*
*AN* *OBJECT* *OF* *THE* *SENSES*, and not with something completely *HETEROGENEOUS* which cannot be an object of the senses at all. For I
would, for instance, attribute understanding to it; but I have no
concept what- soever of any understanding save one like my own, that is,
one such that intuitions must be given to it through the senses, and
that busies itself with bringing them under rules for the unity of consciousness. But then the elements of my concept would still lie
within appearance; I was, however, forced by the inadequacy of the
appearances to go beyond them, to the concept of a being that is in no
way dependent on appearances nor bound up with them as conditions for
its determination. If, however, I separate understanding from
sensibility, in order to have a pure understanding, then nothing but the
mere form of thinking, without intuition, is left; through which, by
itself, I cannot cognize anything determinate, hence cannot cognize any
object. To that end I would have to think to myself a different
understanding, which intuits objects,13 of which, however, I do not have
the least concept, since the human understanding is discursive and can
cognize only by means of general concepts. The same thing hap- pens to
me if I attribute a will to the supreme being: For I possess this [IDEA:
@356] concept only by drawing it from my inner experience, where,
however, my dependence on satisfaction through objects whose existence
we need, and so sensibility, is the basis – which completely contradicts
the pure concept of a supreme being.

Hume’s objections to deism are weak and always concern the grounds of
proof but never the thesis of the deistic assertion itself. But with
respect to theism, which is supposed to arise through a closer
determination of our (in deism, merely transcendent) concept of a
supreme being, they are very strong, and, depending on how this concept
has been framed, are in certain cases (in fact, all the usual ones) irrefutable. Hume always holds to this: that through the mere concept of
a first being to which we attribute none but ontological predicates
(eternity, omnipresence, omnipotence), we actually do not think anything determinate at all; rather, properties would have to be added that can
yield a concept in concreto; it is not enough to say: this being is a
cause, rather we need to say how its causality is constituted, e.g., by understanding and willing – and here begin Hume’s attacks on the matter
in question, namely on theism, whereas he had previously assaulted only
the grounds of proof for deism, an assault that carries no special
danger with it. *HIS* *DANGEROUS* *ARGUMENTS* *RELATE* *WHOLLY* *TO* *ANTHROPOMORPHISM*, *OF* *WHICH* *HE* *HOLDS* *THAT* *IT* *IS*
*INSEPARABLE* *FROM* *THEISM* *AND* *MAKES* *THEISM*
*SELF*-*CONTRADICTORY*, *BUT* *THAT* *IF* *IT* *IS* *ELIMINATED*,
*THEISM* *FALLS* *WITH* *IT* *AND* *NOTHING* *BUT* *DEISM* *REMAINS* –
*FROM* *WHICH* *NOTHING* *CAN* *BE* *MADE*, *WHICH* *CAN* *BE* *OF* *NO*
*USE* *TO* *US*, *AND* *CAN* *IN* *NO* *WAY* *SERVE* *AS* *A*
*FOUNDATION* *FOR* *RELIGION* *AND* *MORALS*. If this inevitability of anthropomorphism were certain, then the proofs for the existence of a
supreme being might be what they will, and might all be granted, and
still the concept of this being could never be determined by us without
our becoming entangled in contradictions.

If we combine the injunction to avoid all transcendent judgments of pure
reason with the apparently conflicting command to proceed to concepts
that lie beyond the field of immanent (empirical) use, we become aware
that both can subsist together, but only directly on the boundary of all permitted use of reason – for this boundary belongs just as much to
[IDEA: @357] the field of experience as to that of beings of thought–and
we are thereby at the same time taught how those remarkable ideas serve
solely for deter- mining the boundary of human reason: that is, we are
taught, on the one hand, not to extend cognition from experience without
bound, so that nothing at all remains for us to cognize except merely
the world, and, on the other, nevertheless not to go beyond the boundary
of experience and to want to judge of things outside that boundary as
things in themselves.

But we hold ourselves to this boundary if we limit our judgment merely
to the relation that the world may have to a being whose concept itself
lies outside all cognition that we can attain within the world. For we
then do not attribute to the supreme being any of the properties in
themselves by which we think the objects of experience, and we thereby
avoid dogmatic anthropomorphism; but we attribute those properties, nonetheless, to the relation of this being to the world, and allow
ourselves a symbolic anthropomorphism, which in fact concerns only
language and not the object itself.

If I say that we are compelled to look upon the world as if it were the
work of a supreme understanding and will, I actually say nothing more
than: in the way that a watch, a ship, and a regiment are related to an artisan, a builder, and a commander, the sensible world (or everything
that makes up the basis of this sum total of appearances) is related to
the unknown – which I do not thereby cognize according to what it is in itself, but only according to what it is for me, that is, with respect
to the world of which I am a part. [CAMBRIDGE TEXTS IN THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY, KANT'S PROLEGOMENA TO ANY FUTURE METAPHYSICS, IDEAS @351 to
@357]

- dolf

Initial Post: 2 February 2019


— VIVIENNE WESTWOOD (GODMOTHER OF SEDITION) ASKED TO EXPLAIN NAZI
IDEALISM AS MOTIVATION FOR EUROVISION ISRAEL BOYCOTT

(c) 2019 Dolf Leendert Boek, Revision: 1 February 2019

"WE CANNOT IGNORE ISRAEL'S SYSTEMATIC VIOLATION OF PALESTINIAN HUMAN
RIGHTS," their letter of ignorant objection made to BBC read.

I could point out the hypocrisy by those celebrities and activists from especially Britain (such as Vivienne Westwood) but I will let themselves
hang for a bit... before I eviscerate them.

— PRELAPSARIAN —

“OH DEAR ‘TIS SO PLAIN.
ORIGINAL SIN FOR ALL SEE.
JUST FOR BEING SO VAIN.
AND DISDAINFUL OF ME.
MURDEROUS LIKE CAIN.

SUCH A CROSS TO BEAR.
E’RYONE SEEMS TO KNOW.
THE NEWS IS EVERYWHERE.
SHAME IS SUCH A BLOW.
THEY’RE STARTING TO STARE.”

What a disgusting action by Vivienne Westwood whom has less scruples
than a madam of a disease ridden brothel since the 24 Priestly Divisions
to the Jewish Temple service from 49J1W2D as 24 x 7 x 13 = #2184 - *ANTHROPOCENTRIC* content {#2184 / 6 = #364; #2184 / 7 = #312; #2184 / 8
= #273} applies equally to QUEEN VICTORIA’S LETTERS PATENT to the
Australian Commonwealth and the Christian wedding vow.

THUS TO MAKE IT VERY PLAIN WITH RESPECTS TO THE JEWISH 40 YEARS SOJOURN
WITHIN THE WILDERNESS FROM THE YEAR:

49J1W2D

THAT IT IS INNATELY CONNECTED TO BOTH THE NOTION OF 49 as 49 JUBILEES
and 1W2D as 9 YEARS + 40 YEARS = 49 YEARS AND IPSO FACTO:

#2184 = 6 x #364 x 49 AS JUBILEE = 107016 days = 6J / 293 =
365.242320819112628 SOLAR TROPICAL YEAR

<http://www.grapple369.com/images/HOSPITABLITY.PNG>

6J x 12 = 72J + 3(3²+1)/2 = # as circa PURIM 457 BCE - "Then the king
said to the wise men, which knew the *TIMES*, (for so was the king’s
manner toward all that knew law and judgment: And the next unto him was:

CARSHENA {a lamb; sleeping}: @1 - MENTALISM: 1 x #41 = #41 as #1 - Will,
free will, choice / VIRTUE: 64 meta descriptor prototypes: OMNE DATUM
OPTIMUM {#1 - Every perfect gift} (1139 CE) / Remember the Sabbath Day}

SHETHAR {putrefied; searching}: @2 - CORRESPONDENCE: 2 x #41 = #82 as #2
- desire, inclination: MILITES TEMPLI {#2 - Soldiers of the Temple}
(1144 CE) / TOOLS: marriage / Honour Parents

ADMATHA {a cloud of death; a mortal vapor}: @3 - VIBRATION: 3 x #41 =
#123 as #3 - disposition towards (something or someone): MILITIA DEI {#3
- Soldiers of God} (1145 CE) / POSITION: Soldier / Do Not Kill

TARSHISH {contemplation; examination}: @4 - POLARITY: 4 x #41 = #164 as
#4 - favour, affection: PASTORALIS PRAEEMINENTIAE {#4 - Pastoral
Pre-eminence to monarchs} (1307 CE) / TIME: #CENTRE and #INRI / Do Not
Commit Adultery (ie. Avoid Heteronomy Against Autonomy)} [John 5:39-47
(KJV)]

MERES {defluxion; imposthume}: @5 - RHYTHM: 5 x #41 = #205 as #5 - last
will, testament: FACIENS MISERICORDIAM {#5 - Granting forgiveness} (1308

[continued in next message]

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