Meaning-Step Consistency and Anchorage

As explained further here, expected categorisation (represented, as explained in the rest of this blog, by numbers) can pertain either to oneness, to basic (simple) categorization structure (two or three categories), or something that involves combined categorisation structures.

I believe that any group of combined categorisation structures can be asserted by an attitude of meaning (or at least something that I feel one can label meaning) to that kind of group of categorisation structures. Such an assertion is, I believe, also be represented by a number. This I have discussed and tried to explain at this page. These assertions, too  -  and combinations of them with similar or other categorization structures, can be asserted as to meaning, I believe, by more (or so to speak even more) complex structures.

As each series starts with a combined perspective, there's a natural prelude to all members of that series except for that combined perspective. That one might thereby seem inconsistent. In order for it to probably be, and also seem, consistent, one can perhaps connect it to what one may define as the alfa and omega of destiny and life, namely (as speculated towards the end of this post) oneness and to three (karma). Attempting to be consistent with these two can thereby perhaps be viewed as trying to be consistent in general. And if one can find a natural prelude to each series, or its starting point, then perhaps this natural prelude can sometimes lead to consistency with the mentioned so-to-speak alfa and omega of destiny and nature.

That assertion is about strengthening the strength of destiny within the quality that is a prelude to the meaning-step that is done. The notion value of what is left except for the destiny part is also the difference between that prelude and destiny. Whatever that notion is can be defined by the preludes number minus destiny's number, and is thereby reflected as anti-destiny, and also, thus, anti-truth or so.

This process, which I on this blog usually call specification, is either just casual or able to become intense by a stabilizing anchorage, which can provide to it a spirit of intensity. ... Because, it is in a spirit of intensity, i.e. in the five structure, that I believe there is an issue about ability to associate with all and everything, i.e. in a sens with oneness. Because a five can show its own ability not to have to associate as a smarter instinct for it, and thereby rival any other type of so-to-speak personal interest or aspiration, which specification without anchorage is.

But to the extent that five is specified, by a seventeen, that seventeen rivals the heterogeneity of anchoring for the threeness of specification, without pertaining to it. Thereby, anchors need to be more or less into specification themselves, for being able to work as such. Due to this, a one thereby needs to some extent to be specified by a five, for anchoring the meaning step from four to five; but to some extent the one can, as being part of everything, also be part of the three that specification depends upon; thereby it's only weakened to the extent the five is specified by a seventeen. It is much more a two that completely needs to be specified by a seven, for it  -  or perhaps, alternatively, be only part of a three, not an essence of its own (which also a one can do but doesn't need to in that it can invisibly factor three instead)  -  to the extent it wants to anchor something. A three can anchor anyway, except for the possibility of an obsessed seventeen, which might obscure that the three is indeed what it is; in such circumstances that the three can to some extent be forced to accept being specified by an eleven or so. Higher numbers generally can themselves specify something, and live up to the standards of not being into pretension about heterogeneity.

Anyway, I feel that a natural prelude for the start of a series can, at least to some extent, be found in the order number of that series start, where a lower number of categories for the series start yields a lower order number, and where perhaps one can start with one for the first series' starting point, i.e. for four. Looking at it that way, the prelude for four is one, and the prelude for six is two and the prelude for eight is three. Such a prelude, which is not part of the series, can, I feel, be called an anchorage, and those of the same series called direct, I think. It is, For any meaning level of a series, whatever that level stands for has rather little connection to absoluteness of reality without such an anchorage to it that does correspond to it as good and actual.

One and three are naturally connectable as anchors, because both being into pro-oneness, though three only in an indirect sense. Because oneness is about not dismissing anything. This connectivity is part of why the two of them can be so important for destiny, I think. Moreover, it also yields that both the first and the third series can connect to destiny and thereby achieve a sense of consistency, which I have chosen to call anchor or anchorage.

The second series, which does not do that so easily, is anchored in two. It can be viewed as satanic, I feel, because it works against rules of oneness and of karma. Moreover, it is based on that karma and discrimination are to be viewed as one, which is the essence of a six, the start of this, second, series. It is discussed a bit more here. Luckily, however, this evil does not manage to anchor quite well in itself, since anchorage is built upon the strengths of a three. Thereby three is a more effective anchorages for the second series  -  and so is seven.

Fairly similarly a five or a three are as effective as a one about the first series. But for the third series, the three itself is the best anchorage, since it is itself the essence of the above-described strength of consistency. With a one the problem about not being into three is lesser than with a two, because oneness involves a certain clear-cut view upon three as both part of the everything that oneness (in its essence) supports, and upon that three supports oneness back. One is thereby very inclined to indicate a three, and can thereby anchor well enough by its own rules.

The forth series, nine, (and those later on similarly, too) have, I believe, the notion of consistency  -  at least potentially  -  a bit ruined unless the four, in the first case, and the five in the second case, also pertain  -  equally much  -  to meaning steps. That is, the anchor of nine, which is four, also pertains to potential meaning steps, which perhaps need to be taken for there to be consistency about the meaning steps from nine. There is, however, in the first anchorage a tendency to anchor generally, but further meaning steps are necessary for a certainty of specific anchorage for further meaning steps. This holds true also for anchorage for the first, second and third series.

The continued anchorage can also be differently specified, and with the first three series they always are. One way that works also with either of those three series is to have k number of anchor categorizations of the anchorage, where k is the number of meaning steps to anchor. For example, a second step on the second series can be specified (for anchorage) by either a six or a fourteen.

In a similar way this can be done without categorization, but, instead with two independent versions of the anchor categorization. That is, instead of six or fourteen, nine or forty-nine can be used. One main difference will then be that the categorizations discounted for, the (in this case second-step) specifications are not sorted out as better than the simpler ones (in this case only the first-step ones). But on the other hand, another difference is that another specification is prioritized instead, in this case three and seven, with use of nine and forty-nine, respectively.

Another way to specify for anchorage (as far as I can tell) for a higher number of meaning steps is to specify (as dependent on destiny or so for meaning) the categorization structure that specifies the number of meaning steps already specified (for anchorage). That is, for example an eleven can specify for the second step in the second series. Doing this is usually less effective than just multiplying an anchorage, since such specification of an anchorage (as dependent on destiny or so for meaning) tends strongly to yield a weaken that anchorage, at the same time as yielding that secondary anchorage.

Yet another way, sort of, to provide anchorage enhancement by connection to three, is to ingratiate the immediate anchorage, with that many ingratiation steps (= meaning steps) from some other prelude. But, actually, I guess doing it cannot directly provide anchorage at all, but is actually simply a way to promote possibilities of some other suitable anchorage.

No comments:

Post a Comment