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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

{@9: Sup: 8 - OPPOSITION: KAN (#309); Ego: 2 - FULL CIRCLE: CHOU (#332)}

TELOS TOTAL: #332
DEME CHECKSUM TOTAL: #549

#1770 - DEME CHECKSUM TOTAL: #549 as [#40, #70, #100, #500, #800, #200,
#10, #50] = mórphōsis (G3446): {UMBRA: #1920 % #41 = #34} 1) a forming,
shaping; 2) form; 2a) the mere form, semblance; 2b) the form befitting a
thing or truly expressing the fact, the very form;

#556 - ONTIC CHECKSUM TOTAL: #230 as [#8, #4, #10, #20, #8, #200, #1, #300,
#5] = adikéō (G91): {UMBRA: #840 % #41 = #20} 1) absolutely; 1a) to act
unjustly or wickedly, to sin,; 1b) to be a criminal, to have violated the
laws in some way; 1c) to do wrong; 1d) to do hurt; 2) transitively; 2a) to
do some wrong or sin in some respect; 2b) to wrong some one, act wickedly
towards him; 2c) to hurt, damage, harm;

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

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

HETEROS PROTOTYPE #SEVEN (#117 / #351)

47    7    63
55   39    23
15    71    31

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

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

#472 - MALE CHECKSUM TOTAL: #258 as [#20, #100, #10, #40, #1, #300, #1] /
#741 - MALE CHECKSUM TOTAL: #258 as [#20, #100, #10, #40, #1, #300, #70,
#200] = kríma (G2917): {UMBRA: #171 % #41 = #7} 1) a decree, judgments; 2)
judgment; 2a) condemnation of wrong, the decision (whether severe or mild)
which one passes on the faults of others; 2b) in a forensic sense; 2b1) the
sentence of a judge; 2b2) the punishment with which one is sentenced; 2b3)
condemnatory sentence, penal judgment, sentence; 2c) a matter to be
judicially decided, a lawsuit, a case in court;
 
#718 - MALE CHECKSUM TOTAL: #258 as [#1, #30, #8, #9, #70, #400, #200] =
alēthḗs (G227): {UMBRA: #256 % #41 = #10} 1) true; 2) loving the truth,
speaking the truth, truthful;

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

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

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

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

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

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

COURSE OF NATURE

57    56    49
66    65    58
75    74    67
       
74       
131       
189       
238       
303       
378       
444       
511 <-- @SUM(TETRAD MENTIONS OF [rì (日): *SUN*])     
567       

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

30    75    12
21    39    57
66    3    48
       
3       
33       
90       
102       
141       
207       
228 <-- ****     
276       
351       

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

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

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

COURSE OF NATURE #ONE

77    78    79
5    6    7
14    15    16

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

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

COURSE OF NATURE #NINE

23    24    25
32    33    34
41    42    43

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which gave viable meta-logical pairings:

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

Male: #237; Feme: #228

Which gave viable meta-logical pairings:

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

Male: #237; Feme: #228

42 16 65
64 41 18
17 66 40

66
108
126
191
232
249

44 4 60
52 36 20
12 68 28

68
112
132
192
228

H3801@{
{@1: Sup: 20 - ADVANCE: CHIN (#20); Ego: 20 - ADVANCE: CHIN (#20)},
{@2: Sup: 15 - REACH: TA (#35); Ego: 76 - AGGRAVATION: CHU (#96 - MALE
DEME IS UNNAMED {%33})},
{@3: Sup: 65 - INNER: NEI (#100 - MALE DEME IS UNNAMED {%3}); Ego: 50 -
VASTNESS / WASTING: T'ANG (#146 - I AM NOT A LAND-GRABBER {%15})},
{@4: Sup: 71 - STOPPAGE: CHIH (#171 - I AM NOT UNCHASTE WITH ANY ONE
{%20}); Ego: 6 - CONTRARIETY: LI (#152)},
{@5: Sup: 66 - DEPARTURE: CH'U (#237 - MALE DEME IS UNNAMED {%17}); Ego:
76 - AGGRAVATION: CHU (#228 - I HAVE NO UNJUST PREFERENCES {%40})},
Male: #237; Feme: #228
} // #876

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

Also I was aware #232 - knife

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds-G3540 of them which
believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the
image of God, should shine unto them." [2Corinthians 4:4]

"Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself
against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every
thought-G3540 to the obedience of Christ;" [2Corinthians 10:5]

"But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his
subtlety, so your minds-G3540 should be corrupted from the simplicity that
is in Christ." [2Corinthians 11:3]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

----------

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

Also I was aware #232 - knife

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[#12, #67]

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

HOWEVER THIS META-PROCESS RESOLVES TO BIPARTITE PROTOTYPES:

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

And therefore possesses a TRIPARTITE potential which requires research.

33 78 15
24 42 60
69 6 51

6
39
99
114
156
225
249
300
378

45 19 68
67 44 21
20 69 43

69
114
135
203
247
267
334
377
396

35 80 17
26 44 62
71 8 53

8
43
105
122
166
237
263
316
396

41 1 57
49 33 17
9 65 25

65
106
123
180
213
222
271
296
297

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

bái yè (白夜): midnight sun; white night

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

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

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

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

[#24]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[#12, #67]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revision Date: 22 April 2024

--

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