Translate

Specification (of Some Phenomenon as Potentially Unimportant and/or Uninteresting for Importance)

In numbers, specification is that three is emphasized as an essence of something defined as a part of a higher number, so that the remaining part of that defined something (the lower number) is set to be unessential, unless adapted to the lower number. The details of how this is done I have described below with reliance on some belief in God or so. But I assure you that it is also workable by strict mathematical rules.

The insinuation that a tendency, phenomenon or procedure should not be viewed as right, for given a circumstance, can  -  much more easily than otherwise, I think  -  be viewed as righteous in some situations than others. One simple rule of the matter probably is that to the extent that procedure or whatever can be pinpointed as the unstable aspect of a context or circumstance, this can be emphasized about it.

I believe there can be very logical rules for when a procedure, phenomenon or so can be specified in that manner, which one can find if one classifies them by their potentially expected categorization structure. The simplest example is if the circumstance can be classified as something of an individual, then the tendency that can be seen as unimportant (and/or precarious to view as important) for it is the notion that all are the same. That is, the circumstance for it pertains to four expectation categories, and the tendency to one. The specification that can be done will then have to be of five such categories, by rules described at my post about meaning steps and so. My main definition of what five categories stands for is the basic spirit of being an individual. The meaning step from for to five renders three (which can be defined as destiny itself) to be in focus as interesting compared to four minus three, one, in this case. A specification from for example nine to nineteen renders six to be focused for that comparison. The rule is, generally that the prelude for a meaning step is emphasized about its interpretation of what is to be viewed as antithesis of three, and thus be easily seen as too uninteresting to be an end in itself.

The number of categories that involves the three (categories) plus the target for specification, the number that is the sum of two latter, can then be said to passively specify. Because the antithesis of a number of categories is defined by the plus, in the sense that the plus can stand for a logical XOR. But this specification is only active in the version of that number (of categories) that takes part in (or preludes) the meaning step that is directly based upon it. Four is, four example such a prelude of five (which I find stands basically for spirit, as I have explained here), with one as specification target, and five of seven, with two as specification target.

In general one can say that a tendency that is specified in such a way is thereby not easily relied upon as a smartness in itself, though much as an indication about how its context should be seen. The latter aspect of specification is, I believe, what one has in memory  -  an indication of one's own view in that case. ... Either way, it is also very possible to more or less destructively specify something as unreliable, which basically can be when the context is worse than the pinpointed procedure. This is discussed a little bit for example here.

No comments:

Post a Comment