XPost: alt.history.ancient-egypt, soc.culture.egypt, alt.culture.egyptian XPost: alt.egyptians.copts
MELBOURNE FERTILITY CONTROL CLINIC
11 APRIL 2019 [SATURDAY 13 APRIL 2019 EXPANSION]
Dear Doctor Susie (CLINICAL *PSYCHOLOGIST*)
CONGRATULATIONS ON WINNING YOUR HIGH COURT CHALLENGE YESTERDAY (10 APRIL
2019) AGAINST RELIGIONISTS AS PREDOMINANTLY ROMAN CATHOLICS ATTEMPTING
TO CONTROVERT THE LAWFULNESS OF A 150 METER ZONE PERIMETER.
IF YOU RECALL YOU HAD ATTENDED TO ME SHORTLY AFTER THE 16 JULY 2001 ASSASSINATION OF THE SECURITY GUARD STEVE ROGERS, AND PRIOR TO MY
DEPARTURE I HAD GIVEN A GIFT TO THE CLINIC OF A MATHEMATICAL MATRIX
WHICH I WAS THEN RESEARCHING IN RELATION TO ALTERNATE TRINOMIAL
PERSPECTIVES OF THE BINOMIAL PERENNIALIST TRADITION, COGNITION AND
REGIMES OF GOVERNANCE ESTABLISHED UPON THE UNIVERSAL HUMANIST PRINCIPLE
OF #492 - VOLUNTARY FREE WILL.
PLEASE INDULGE ME FURTHER BY MY NOW GIVING YOU AN EXPLANATION OF THAT MATHEMATICAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AS AN INDEPENDENT MEANS TO FOREVER
RID YOURSELVES OF THOSE ABHORRENT AND OBSTRUCTIONIST RELIGIONISTS (HOW
GREAT IS THEIR FALL FROM GOOD GRACES?).
Jean Piaget (9 August 1896 – 16 September 1980) as Swiss Philosopher
being the originator of a seminal Cognitive Development Theory And Epistemological View, wrote that within logic, juxtaposition {ie.
WE HOLD THE INFORMAL RESEARCH VIEW:
#41 - TO BE OR #81 - NOT TO BE THAT IS THE #364 - QUESTION AS #231 - JUXTAPOSITION CONTROL MADE OF IGNORANCE AND IT’S ENDLESS #312 -
CONTRADICTION AGAINST THE #123 - SENSIBILITY OF #273 - REASON ITSELF
AS THEN THE PROVISIONAL PROPOSITION WHICH WE HAVE MADE OF
SELF-JUSTIFICATION:
#277 - *RIGHT* *TO* *PLACE* *A* *TEST* / #123 - *JUDGEMENT*
*SENSIBILITY* AS IT'S CONVEYANCE BY THE #400 - *RATIONALITY* *OF*
*SPEECH* BEING IMPLICITLY COMPLIANT WITH A #205 - *PRINCIPLE* *OF* *PERSISTENCE* *SUBSTANCE* EFFECTING MODERATION ENABLING THE TRAVERSAL OF
THE SELF-EGO WITHIN TEMPORAL CONTINUUM AND BY WHICH THE #164 - *REVERSE* *TRANSCRIPTASE* *INHIBITOR* *PROCESS* AS ITS ONTOLOGICAL DYNAMIC
*PRINCIPLE* *OF* *MATERIALITY* IS THEN KEPT WITHIN REASONABLE BOUNDS AS CIRCULARITY OF 22 ELEMENTS (RATIONAL PI) CONSTITUTED BY THE #41 - ONTIC PROPOSITION.
} is a logical fallacy on the part of the observer, where two items
placed next to each other imply a correlation, when none is actually claimed. He disagreed with the idea that intelligence was a fixed trait,
and regarded cognitive development as a process which occurs due to
biological maturation and interaction with the environment.
In the elaboration of the logical model of intellectual development,
Piaget argued that intelligence develops in a series of stages that are
related to age and are progressive because one stage must be
accomplished before the next can occur. For each stage of development
the child forms a view of reality for that age period. At the next
stage, the child must keep up with earlier level of mental abilities to reconstruct concepts. Piaget conceived intellectual development as an
upward expanding spiral in which children must constantly reconstruct
the ideas formed at earlier levels with new, higher order concepts
acquired at the next level.
GIVE ME A CHILD TILL HIS SEVENTH YEAR AND I WILL SHOW YOU THE MAN IS A
MAXIM OF THE CHURCH.
The action of *CASTRATO* which was practiced by ROMAN EMPEROR NERO {#666
as *PONTIFEX* *MAXIMUS*} (he replaced his wife with one) was only
outlawed within the 20th century and after the establishment of the COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA by QUEEN VICTORIA'S LETTERS PATENT dated 29
OCTOBER 1900 as conveying the FIRST PRINCIPLE @492 - VOLUNTARY FREEWILL
{@369 / @123 - JUDGMENT SENSIBILITY (#3 x #3 - CENTRE INTERLOCK)} which
is in concordance with women's suffrage ...
...such MALAKOS against the SUI JURIS / MEMBRUM VIRILE entitlement of
the person of another epitomises the depravity of the Roman Catholic
Church...
But wait a minute Pope Benedict XVI was in the #231 - Hitler youth {ie.
Adolf Hitler said in Table Talk Ideas @1 and @5 that fascism was a
return to the traditions of ancient Rome: @1 - RETAINED, @5 - CENTRE OF
VALUE {#111 / #666 - *SUNDAY* *SACREDNESS*}, #65 - soldier, #175 - marriage}
And why is he besides self justification otherwise so incapable of
answers as the breaching of our Constitutional entitlement by his
erroneous religious beliefs?
“YE WORSHIP YE KNOW NOT WHAT: WE KNOW WHAT WE WORSHIP: FOR SALVATION IS
OF THE JEWS.” [John 4:22 (KJV)]
<
http://www.grapple369.com/images/HOSPITABLITY.PNG>
#71 #1 #11
#61 #81 #21
#51 #41 #31 = #369 as DISCRIMINATING NORM OF HUMAN NATURE / WAN WU AS ORGANISATION OF THINGS IN NATURE
#205 = PRINCIPLE OF PERSISTENT SUBSTANCE (YANG)
#164 = PRINCIPLE OF MATERIALITY (YIN)
#41 - EMANATION PRINCIPLE (REMEMBER THE SABBATH)
#82 - TERMS OF CONTINUITY (HONOUR PARENTS)
#123 - JUDGMENT SENSIBILITY (DO NOT KILL)
#164 = PRINCIPLE OF MATERIALITY (YIN / TORAH: AVOID HETERONOMY AGAINST AUTONOMY)
#205 = PRINCIPLE OF PERSISTENT SUBSTANCE (YANG / YAHAD: DO NOT STEAL)
#246 - NORMA OBLIGANS (BEAR NO FALSE WITNESS)
#287 - MANIFESTING NORM (COVET NOT)
@492 - VOLUNTARY FREEWILL {@369 / @123 - JUDGMENT SENSIBILITY (#3 x #3 -
CENTRE INTERLOCK)}
@205 / #873 - QUEEN VICTORIA'S LETTERS PATENT <-- PRINCIPLES OF PROBITY
@82 / #491 - SECTION IX <— TERMS OF CONTINUITY
@164 / #3273 - SECTION VIII (?) <— COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS
@123 / #2188 - SECTION III (?) <— JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT
@41 / #113 - EMANATION FUNCTION <— ETHICAL ENGAGEMENT
I’M SURPRISED THAT THE FORMER POPE IS OF SUFFICIENTLY SOUND MIND TO
WRITE A COHERENT SENTENCE LET ALONE CONVEY ANY AFFECTIONS FOR TRUTH.
It was primarily the “Third Piaget” (the logical model of intellectual development) that was debated by *AMERICAN* *PSYCHOLOGISTS* when
Piaget’s ideas were “rediscovered” in the 1960s. In the 1950s, Clare Graves extended Piaget’s psychology through adulthood. Don Beck and Christopher Cowan developed Graves’s model further in Spiral Dynamics. Graves argued that humans evolve new psychological stages in response to changing life conditions. When a society contains a critical number of
people at a given stage, the society itself transforms, creating the
social conditions for yet another stage of psychological development. [<
https://fee.org/articles/spiral-dynamics-an-overview/>]
Christopher Cowan is now deceased, however if I were to correspond with
him [which I did @ 1230 hours on 27 August, 2016 in memory of him and
his accomplishments], I would then convey the following: "I've done some considerable informal research in advancing the 4-Quadrant, 8-Tier
paradigm proposed by yourself and Don Beck within your book published in
1996 and titled, "Spiral Dynamics: Mastering Values, Leadership, and
Change". He had surmised of my own informal research efforts, "THOSE WHO
HAVE NOT RECENTLY VISITED DOLF BOEK'S WORK WILL FIND MUCH NEW AT
HTTP://.../TELOS. GIVEN THE SITUATION IN ISRAEL/PALESTINE AND ALL OF THE RELIGIOUS UNDERCURRENTS IN TODAY'S WORLD, DOLF'S PERSPECTIVE OFFERS YET
ANOTHER WAY TO VIEW THE FORCES INFLUENCING HUMAN NATURE."
I was once asked by him, what I considered of Pythagoras's use of #36
and it has taken me many years of careful consideration and I feel that
I have now got an acceptable explanation: "In the process of
invalidating the original Letters Patent to the Australian Constitution
of 1901 and conveying it's dependency (ie. arch kai telos oida {1 + 2 +
3 + 4 = 10}) upon the Pythagorean Tetrad/Decad/Tetractys as the fount of
SOULS which is purveyed by the binary HETEROS THEORY OF NUMBER, which I
have shown it to be a CANON OF TRANSPOSITION that is intellectually
dependent upon a superior conception of a ternary HOMOIOS THEORY OF
NUMBER."
In my view, it is concerned with the essential encapsulating knowledge
as the driver conveyed within the Pythagorean marriage (ie. being
expressed as the Harmony because it hath the power to in-generate a
vital habit as hymenealism) metathesis which has bought about it's
deployment as TETRAD OF MAGIC SQUARES {#15 ... #34 ... #65 ... #111} and
that which formed the foundational basis of Roman Imperial Governance
made in association with the adoption of the Julian Calendar and which
was made against the individual Human Characteristic of an Autonomy of
Will (eg: the 'forma corporis' as the issue conveyed by the embodiment, judicial trial and crucifixion of the historical person of Jesus {He is
saved/A saviour; a deliverer} of Nazareth {Sovereign; one chosen or set
apart; separated; crowned; sanctified}).
Spiral Dynamics describes awareness development both at a personal and a collective level, such as organisations. It is based on the works of
American Professor Emeritus of Psychology Clare W. Graves. Spiral
Dynamics describes eight levels, expressed in value systems each with
their own colours. These levels climb from simple structure to
increasing complexity. Spiral Dynamics is a registered trademark and is
mainly used in change management. It is used by advisory agencies for
personal development and organisational development. Spiral Dynamics
focuses on the development of these values.
MEMES AND GENES: Spiral Dynamics makes use of the terms from ‘memetics’; the study of the evolution of culture and ideas. A meme is an idea that spreads itself through information carriers, such as the human brain. It
is also described as a contagious information pattern.
Everyone is familiar with genes; the biological code carriers in human
DNA. Biologist Richard Dawkins first introduced the term ‘memes’ in his book The Selfish Gene(1976). Genes underlie physical changes; they
multiply themselves and move from cell to cell. Memes are similar, they
move from brain to brain. They are thought systems that spread
themselves about society. Like viruses, they jump from mind to mind.
Like genes, they form the human personality. As such, memes affect organisations and causes common thoughts. They may cause social
conflicts, but they also provide solutions. They are the driving force
behind new developments.
VALUES: In addition, according to Clare W. Graves, specific memes
represent the attractive and repulsive forces behind the development of
values. These are called value memes and within Spiral Dynamics they are
used to identify value systems. This determines how people think about
certain things and why they believe in something. It is not about what
they think. The value memes reveal the deeper value systems, on which
people judge and evaluate observations.
VALUE SYSTEMS: The value systems in Spiral Dynamics are colour coded.
The first system is the simplest and from there it gets increasingly
complex. Each value system has its own characteristic expression.
LEVEL 1 – SURVIVAL (BEIGE / BRONZE): This is the first and also the
lowest level of consciousness. It is the level of the group aimed at
survival. It focuses on the necessary biological survival needs. There
are no individuals, people organise themselves according to herd
behaviour. The strongest members are compassionate towards the weaker, protecting them and making the decisions. The rest follows. In
situations of extreme stress or life threatening circumstances people
can regress to this level.
Characteristics: people in this level hardly communicate. Everything
that is communicated, focuses on survival (the primary necessities of life).
LEVEL 2 – SECURITY (PURPLE): This is the level of the tribe: the close
social unity in which people feel secure and, if necessary, will
sacrifice themselves for the benefit of the group. This is the security
that people seek and which is found in religion, for example. This level creates a social unit.
Characteristics: Communication takes place verbally from the high level
to the lower level and vice versa. The leader speaks the truth and
opposition is not tolerated.
LEVEL 3 – ENERGY & POWER (RED): This is the level of divide and conquer
in which the hierarchical power structure is central. People are part of
a system and are directed by the highest power-holder. All social
relationships are power-oriented and occasionally a new order in
hierarchy takes place.
Characteristics: Communication is purely top-down. There is continuous supervision of higher levels at lower levels. Orders are only effective
if there are sanctions. Logic and persuasion are therefore not addressed.
LEVEL 4 – ORDER (BLUE): This is the level of the conventional society,
which establishes what is right and wrong. Established conventions and traditions are honoured and rules, procedures and structures are
strictly adhered to. At this level, the concept of deferred reward
occurs for the first time: if you do your best, you will be rewarded later.
Characteristics: Communication takes place from high to low and
horizontally. The control freak needs to know what needs to be done.
Consistent communication is very important. Intuition or feelings are unimportant
LEVEL 5 – SUCCESS (ORANGE): This is the ideal of the individualistic capitalist society. The truth lies in logical reasoning and (empirical) research, after which the correct conclusion is left. People perceive themselves as individuals. In this level, everything revolves around
success. Power equals prestige and position within the structure, which
is acquired by successful operation.
Characteristics: Communication in this level takes place from high to
low, low to high and horizontally. People are interested in each other
and want to know whether it will positively impact their career.
Communication is often focused on negotiation.
LEVEL 6 – COMMUNITY (GREEN): Green is the level of humanity and the
social network, in which man is interested in inner peace and peace with others. In this level, people attach great importance to their social environment and little to their own status. People make decisions as a
group, but each individual must be able to develop fully.
Characteristics: there is a lot of communication in all directions,
where the emphasis is on reaching a consensus. There is also sensitivity to emotions and the needs of others.
LEVEL 7 – SYNERGY (YELLOW): AT this level, it is about system thinking; realising that everything is interconnected. Tolerance is the key word
in this. People work together in a system in which they make their own decisions. This makes it possible to work on a project basis.
Characteristics: Communication takes place as needed, and it is
important that information gets to the right place and is easily
accessible. Think about management information systems.
LEVEL 8 – HOLISTIC LIFE SUPPORT (TURQUOISE / CYAN): This is the highest level. It is a holistic living system in which the world is seen as an interactive, interconnected system. At this level, energy is focused on sacrifice. Trust is put, not so much in a higher power, but in people.
People are organising themselves in order to cherish and renew the world
from macro level.
Characteristics: Communication is important in all layers; consensus and competence are merged for the benefit of the public good. [<
https://www.toolshero.com/change-management/spiral-dynamics/>]
Here also is an attempt at integration of this centrist Sabbath values
based and ethereal belief within the framework of the 4 Quadrant-8 Tier paradigm as model proposed in 1996 by Christopher Cowan and Don Beck as
authors of the book titled, 'Spiral Dynamics: Mastering Values,
Leadership, and Change', within an article titled: 'When We Disagree:
How Cultural Values Shape Our Conversation' dated 27 April, 2000 by
Caleb Rosado, Ph.D, as then principal lecturer in sociology and head of
the department of behavioral sciences at Newbold College in Binfield,
England.
THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THIS PRESENT ROMAN CATHOLIC LEGAL DILEMMA AS
IMPASSE IS A STUBBORN CRITERIA OF DETERMINISM OR A STAGE OF CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT?
What we call 'culture' is actually a series of core beliefs or value
systems, with each level expressing a different understanding of the
world or the church. A “belief” or “value system” is a worldview, a set of perspectives/priorities/paradigms, a mind-set, an organizing
framework for deep-level decision-making at the bottom line—which is why
you can’t compromise about it. Your value system is the threshold at
which you won’t negotiate.
Each level of cultural and human development represents a value system,
or to use a term coined by Richard Dawkins, a meme. Just as genes carry
the informational codes for our biological DNA, these value systems
supply the codes (or memes, rhymes with “themes”) that determine our “cultural DNA.” Memes are ideas, beliefs, values, common ways of looking
at the world that, like contagious viruses, spread from brain to brain
through word of mouth, through media, through interaction between
people. The third angel’s message is a meme. Net ’98 was a global
memetic event infecting the world with the divine virus of the gospel.
There are more than 6 billion people in the world today, and though we
all come from some 100,000 genes—all of us—we share only a few basic
value systems or memes. Researchers studying this topic have identified
only eight thus far.
But we propose nine given that the #81 - PRINCIPLE OF JUXTAPOSITION AS SOVEREIGNTY then gives rise to #492 - VOLUNTARY FREEWILL and IPSO FACTO
A TRINOMIAL RATHER THAN A BINOMIAL CONCEPTION OF NUMBER:
+ 0, 27 {IDEA: @311 *** SERIOUS BREACH OF THE SOVEREIGN / AUTONOMY
DYNAMIC GIVEN THE INNER MAIDEN / MARRIAGEABLE MAIDEN DYNAMIC OF 3 APRIL
33 AD}, 54 {IDEA: @348} {ie. REALM OF ITS NATURE AS HEAVEN - *FORMULA*
*FOR* *UNIVERSAL* *LAW*}
+ 0, 9 {IDEA: @282}, 18 {IDEA: @298} {ie. SYSTEM’S COSMOLOGY AS EARTH
- *FORMULA* *OF* *HUMANITY*}
+ 0, 3 {IDEA: @270}, 6 {IDEA: @280} {ie. SELF IDENTITY - *FORMULA*
*OF* *AUTONOMY* *AS* *SUI* *JURIS* / *MEMBRUM* *VIRILE*}
+ 1 {IDEA: @265, @266}, 2 {IDEA: @267, @268, @269, @272, @273 ***
*FORMULA* *FOR* *PRESERVING* *EUROPEAN* *AUTONOMY* ***, @274 - PERFUME},
3 {IDEA: @265 - PREAMBLE} {ie. *FORMULA* *OF* *PROGRESSION* OF
INDIVIDUAL PHENOMENA: *CONJECTURAL* *ONLY*}
@1 {#1} + @2 {#41} + @3 {#81} + @4 {#369} = #492 - VOLUNTARY FREE WILL {LIBERTÉ: 17 SEPTEMBER 1900 AS ADVICE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL} IN THE
EXERCISE OF THE INTELLECTUS AS GENITIVE VOLUNTĀTIS: #205 - *PRINCIPLE*
*OF* *THE* *PERSISTENCE* *OF* *SUBSTANCE* ☯️ / ✡️ #164 - *PRINCIPLE* *OF* *MATERIALITY*]. For simplification of understanding, we can
colour-code them (Figure A).
<
http://www.grapple369.com/images/DynamicsOfDevelopment.jpeg>
[IMAGE: These [nine rather than] eight memes or value systems are the
cultural magnets around which our “stuff” clusters and our lives are aligned]
When something isn’t right at the surface level—where we interact with others or with God—or when our priorities are distorted or our lives are
out of balance, we need to remember that we too are shaped by these deep emotional, social, and spiritual messages we have received. For these
influence how people think and how they respond to the world around
them. These memes equal the whole set of the cultural and spiritual
forces that shape our thinking they tell us from a human perspective
what is right, wrong, and appropriate (Figure B).
Notice how the Focus column alternates between me-oriented
express-the-self (warm colours) and we-oriented sacrifice-the-self (cool colours). Note also the differences people value the most in each system
as they flow from survival (Bronze), to safety and security (Purple), to
raw power and instant gratification (Red), to purpose in life (Blue), to strategies for success (Orange), to community awareness (Green), to
alternative forms (Yellow), to global village (Cyan), to autonomy as its natural form (Coral). The levels are open-ended; there isn’t a final
stage of development in this chart or any other useful one, for the
ideal that God sets before us is “higher than the highest human thought
can reach.” [Courtesy: Caleb Rosado, Ph.D, When We Disagree: Spiral
Dynamics on How Cultural Values Shape Our Conversation, Adventist
Review: 27th April 2000]
AUTONOMOUS NATURE {FORM OF NATURE}@[
C, {@1: Sup: 3 (#3); Ego: 3 (#3)},
O, {@2: Sup: 63 (#66); Ego: 60 (#63)},
R, {@3: Sup: 72 (#138: KANT'S METEMPIRICAL PREMISE - *PURE*
*CONCEPTS* *OF* *THE* *UNDERSTANDING*, IN COMPARISON WITH EMPIRICAL
INTUITIONS (INDEED, SENSORY INTUITIONS IN GENERAL), ARE COMPLETELY HETEROGENEOUS: [AS #205 - MALE / #164 - FEME WITHIN THE #391 -
HOMOGENEOUS NOUMENON]); Ego: 9 (#72)},
A, {@4: Sup: 73 (#211); Ego: 1 (#73)},
L] {@5: Sup: 22 (#233: SEE KANT'S PROLEGOMENA IDEA: B233 -
PRINCIPLE OF TIME-SUCCESSION ACCORDING TO THE LAW OF CAUSALITY); Ego: 30
(#103: SEE KANT'S PROLEGOMENA IDEA: B103 - ON THE PURE CONCEPTS OF THE UNDERSTANDING, OR CATEGORIES)}
EXCERPT FROM KANT'S PROLEGOMENA (1783) THIRD SECTION: ON THE PURE
CONCEPTS OF THE UNDERSTANDING, OR CATEGORIES AS IDEA @B103: "[IDEA: @A76
/ @B102] General logic (as has already been said several times)
abstracts from all content of cognition, and awaits representations to
be given to it from somewhere else, wherever it may be, so that,
proceeding analytically, it can first transform these representations
into concepts. By contrast, transcendental logic has a manifold of
sensibility lying before it a priori, which transcendental aesthetic
offers to it in order to provide material [IDEA: @A77] for the pure
concepts of the understanding, without which they would be without any
content, hence completely empty. Now space and time contain a manifold
of pure a priori intuition, but they nonetheless belong to the
conditions of receptivity of our mind under which alone representations
of objects can be received, and which must therefore ever affect the
concept of objects. But the spontaneity of our thought demands that the manifold first be gone through, taken up, and conjoined in a specific
manner, in order to make a cognition out of it. I call this act synthesis.
By synthesis in its most general signification, however, I understand
[IDEA: @B103] the act of adding diverse representations to one another,
and of comprehending their manifoldness in a cognition. Such a synthesis
is pure if the manifold is given, not empirically, but a priori (as is
the manifold in space and time). This synthesis must be given before all analysis of our representations, and no concepts can, as regards
content, arise through analysis. But the synthesis of a manifold
(whether it be given empirically or a priori) first produces a
cognition, which can indeed still be raw and confused to begin with and therefore requiring analysis; but synthesis is nonetheless that which
actually assembles the elements for cognitions and unifies them into a
specific content; it is therefore the first [IDEA: @A78] thing to which
we must attend if we want to judge the first origin of our cognition.
Synthesis in general, as we will later see, is an effect of the
imagination alone, a blind but indispensable function of the soul
without which we would have no cognition at all, but of which we are
hardly ever conscious. But, to bring this synthesis to concepts is a
function that pertains to the understanding, and through which it for
the first time furnishes us with cognition in the strict sense.
The pure synthesis, considered generally, yields the pure concept of the
[IDEA: @B104] understanding. Under this synthesis I include that which
rests on a basis of synthetic a priori unity: thus, our counting (as is especially noticeable with larger numbers) is a synthesis according to concepts, since this synthesis occurs in accordance with a common basis
of unity (e.g., *THE* *DECADE*). Under this concept the unity in the
synthesis of the manifold is, then, rendered necessary.
<
http://www.grapple369.com/jubilee2000.html>
[IMAGE: INVALIDATING THE ORTHODOX AND ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH'S CLAIM TO JUBILEE2000 AS BEING DELUSIONAL AND FRAUDULENT
This report dated 16th MAY 2000 was prepared in response to a TP00/55 as
a Notice of an Application for Planning Permit
'GOOD DESIGN AND THE CONCEPTION/NOTION OF PARKING AGREEMENT IN A PRIVATE
#371 - SAINT ANDREWS STREET WITHIN AN AREA TO WHICH APPLIES A HISTORIC OVERLAY']
Various representations are brought under a concept analytically (a
matter treated in general logic). But to bring, not the representations,
but the pure synthesis of representations to concepts, is taught by transcendental logic. The first thing that must be given a priori for
the sake [IDEA: @A79] of the cognition of all objects is the manifold of
pure intuition; the second is the synthesis of this manifold through imagination, though it still does not yield cognition. The concepts that
give unity to this pure synthesis, and that consist solely in the representation of this necessary synthetic unity, make the third
requisite for the cognition of an occurrent object, and they rest on the understanding." [CAMBRIDGE TEXTS IN THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY, KANT'S PROLEGOMENA TO ANY FUTURE METAPHYSICS, SECOND ANALOGY of ANALYTIC OF PRINCIPLES, pp 164-166]
EXCERPT FROM KANT'S PROLEGOMENA (1783) ON THE SYSTEM OF PRINCIPLES OF
THE PURE UNDERSTANDING / PRINCIPLE OF TIME-SUCCESSION ACCORDING TO THE
LAW OF CAUSALITY AS IDEA @B233: "ALL ALTERATIONS TAKE PLACE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW OF THE CONNECTION OF CAUSE AND EFFECT.
PROOF: I perceive that appearances succeed one another, that is, that
[IDEA: @B233] one state of a thing exists at one time, the opposite of
which existed in the previous state. I am therefore actually connecting
two perceptions in time. *NOW* *CONNECTION* *IS* *NO* *ACT* *OF* *MERE*
*SENSE* *AND* *INTUITION*, *BUT* *IS* *HERE* *THE* *PRODUCT* *OF* *A* *SYNTHETIC* *FACULTY* *OF* *THE* *IMAGINATION* *THAT* *DETERMINES* *THE* *INNER* *SENSE* *WITH* *RESPECT* *TO* *RELATION* *IN* *TIME* {ie. as metempirics relating to matters beyond the range of empirical knowledge, metaphysical; (occasionally) affirming the validity of concepts or
beliefs not based on experience which occurs within time}. The
imagination can however conjoin the aforementioned two states in two
different ways, so that either one or the other would precede in time;
for time cannot be perceived in itself and what precedes and what
follows in objects determined, as it were empirically, in relation to
it. I am therefore conscious only that my imagination places one state
before, the other after, not that in the object [IDEA: @B234] one
precedes the other; or, in other words, the objective relation of the appearances that succeed one another remains undetermined through mere perception. In order then for this relation to be cognized as
determined, the relation between the two states must be so thought that
it is thereby determined with necessity which of them must be placed
before, which after, and not the reverse. However, the concept that
carries with it a necessity of synthetic unity can only be a pure
concept of the understanding, which does not lie in perception – and
here it is the concept of the relation of cause and effect, in which the
former determines the latter in time as consequence, and not merely as something that could precede it in the imagination (or not be perceived
at all). It is, then, only because we subject the succession of
appearances, hence all alterations, to the law of causality that
experience itself – i.e., empirical cognition of the appearances – is possible; hence the appearances themselves as objects of experience are possible only in accordance with this very law.
The apprehension of the manifold of appearances is always successive.
[IDEA: @A189] The representations of the parts succeed one another.
Whether they also succeed one another in the object is a further point
for reflection, which is not included in the first point. Now one can in
fact call everything, and even every representation insofar as one is
conscious of it, an object; but it is a matter for deeper investigation
what this word is to signify regarding [IDEA: @B235] appearances, not
insofar as they (as representations) [IDEA: @A190] are objects, but only
in so far as they designate an object. In as much as they, merely as representations, are at the same time objects of consciousness, they are
not at all to be distinguished from apprehension, i.e., reception into
the synthesis of the imagination, and one must then say: that the
manifold of appearances is always generated successively in the mind.
Were appearances things in themselves, then no human being would be able
to conclude from the succession of representations how the manifold of
those appearances might be conjoined in the object. For in the end we
have to do only with our own representations; how things in themselves
may be (without regard to representations through which they affect us)
is completely beyond our sphere of cognition. Now although the
appearances are not things in themselves, and nevertheless are the only
thing that can be given to us for cognition, I still have to show what
in the appearances themselves may suit the manifold for a conjoining in
time, notwithstanding that its representation in apprehension is always successive. Thus, for example, the apprehension of the manifold in the appearances of a #311 - *HOUSE* that stands before me is successive. Now
the question is: whether the manifold of this #311 - *HOUSE* itself also
is successive in itself, which of course no one will grant. However, as
soon as I raise my concept of an object up to transcendental
significance, the #311 - *HOUSE* is now indeed no thing in itself, but
[IDEA: @A236] only an appearance, i.e., a representation, whose
transcendental object is [IDEA: @A191] unknown; what, then, shall I
understand by the question: how might the manifold be conjoined in the appearance itself (which is still nothing in itself )? That which lies
in the successive apprehension is here viewed as representation, while
the appearance that is given to me, notwithstanding that it is nothing
more than a sum of such representations, is viewed as their object –
with which my concept, which I extract from the representations of apprehension, has to agree. Since truth is the agreement of cognition
with object, it can easily be seen that here one can ask only about the
formal conditions of empirical truth, and that appearance, in
counter-relation with the representations of apprehension, can only be represented as their object that is distinct from them if it falls under
a rule that distinguishes it from every other apprehension and makes one
way of conjoining the manifold necessary. That in the appearance which
contains the condition of this necessary rule of apprehension is the object.
Let us now proceed to our problem. That something happens – i.e., that something, or some state, comes to be that wasn’t there before – [IDEA: @B237] cannot be perceived empirically unless preceded by an appearance
that [IDEA: @A192] does not contain this state in itself; for a reality following upon an empty time, hence, a coming to be that no state of
things precedes, can be apprehended just as little as empty time itself.
Every apprehension of an event is therefore a perception that follows
upon another perception. Since this is, though, the case with every
synthesis of apprehension, as I have shown above in the appearance of a
#311 - *HOUSE*, it does not in this way yet distinguish itself from the
others. But I also note: that if, in an appearance containing a
happening, I call the preceding state of perception A and the succeeding
one B, then B can only follow A in the apprehension, while the
perception a cannot follow but only precede B. I see for example a ship drifting downstream. My perception of its location further down succeeds
the perception of its location further up the course of the river, and
it is impossible that in the apprehension of this appearance the ship
should first be perceived further downstream but afterwards further
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
