Enhancement of Consistency

The context of the numbers does say that the most basic qualities are represented by the numbers one two and three. I do not include zero, nor any irrationals, because these do not include any complete view of how to categorize  -  neither in general nor the sense that this blog is about. It is to some extent thereby these three qualities that are important to describe here.

I believe it is with their consistency enhancement that anchorage is made possible. Because when there is an example consistency between a potential anchor and the number of meaning steps that the anchor is bound to, then the anchorage becomes complete about consistency, and that example of such completeness can make it an essence of clarity. The three basic such consistency examples thereby are five, twenty-nine and two hundred and thirty-nine.

Such enhancement of oneness can be done with the spirit, basically. It is about it in three very basic senses, which are as follows: The first way is that it invokes one by being the number-one meaning step in series of them. The second is that its series of meaning steps is the number-one such series, which means that it (the spirit) is bound to it for its essence of being in the context of everything. The one is that it specifies it, meaning that it is the channel for criticism against it.

Such enhancement of the qualities represented by two happens by more than one factor, by a twenty-nine and by a seven or, possibly a twenty-five. In a sense however, the twenty-nine is quite sufficient. But there is a problem about the emphasis on change. There is also another problem with being complete about consistency. The latter and also one more thing can make enhancement of two, i.e. of power, be silly, compared to competing systems of power. This issue I have discussed as an issue of control over flows.

It is the twenty-nine that is about invocation of two from that number-two series that deems it as essential. It is the what a seven stands for that is the main most effective channel for criticism against it (and twenty-five the only alternative channel for it). The result of a seven factor and a twenty-nine factor is also an anchor for (specification-based) control over 256, which is two as an enforced anchor for twenty-nine, which can also be described as a source enforcing a flux.

Enhancement of the qualities represented by three happens by two factors as well; by 239 and eleven (or thirty-five or 125). In a sense, however, the 239 is quite sufficient in itself. Indeed its anchorage is good enough in itself for anchorage consistency. ... As with two, it is the larger numbers that represents invocation by the right meaning-step series. And it is either eleven or one of the two combined-factor numbers that represents possibilities of criticism against it. To some extent, a seven, or even a five can represent both its own quality and that of the other, respectively. That is a seven can use an eleven for achieving an ability to act also as a five. And with a bit more difficulty, a five can use a twenty-nine for achieving ability to act also as a seven. Neither of these enactments of the other is very safe from errors. Especially five is rather fragile, usually (though definitely not always) too fragile to be an alternative to the first mentioned three. Seven is a bit more robust, but still too fragile to always be used. But to some extent a five can simulate an eleven, and a seven can anchor for control over it; each of them can thereby very substitute itself with an eleven to the extent it is too fragile. Thereby a 7*239 or even a 5*239 can quite often be sufficient just the same for enhancing the very important quality of three, i.e. of the reciprocity of destiny and so.

No comments:

Post a Comment