East Meets West Logic...

[labelwench]

The English term is based on the Latin word jurisprudentia: juris is the genitive form of jus meaning "law", and prudentia means "knowledge". The word is first attested in English in 1628[8], at a time when the word prudence had the now obsolete meaning of "knowledge of or skill in a matter". The word may have come via the French jurisprudence, which is attested earlier.
From Wikipedia

http://www.mystic-mouse.co.uk/Wisdom...levenAgain.htm

The human brain is designed to recognize repeating patterns, possibly from early times, as a survival trait. Repeating numbers hook our attention readily.

From marketing, I have learned that whenever possible, it is an effective strategy to piggy-back on an existing, and proven vehicle, be it related to size, shape, color or content, and in-so-far as it does not infringe upon copyright law.

Eleven Eleven is already out there in the public domain, generally associated with powers for good.(see link above)

Awakening is associated with another idea that is in circulation, related to a 'New World Order'.

Laws of Knowledge is taken directly from the definition of Jurisprudence.

Three hours sleep, lol.....and I wake up with this on my mind.

Eleven Eleven - Awakening to the Laws of Knowledge

A title that could effectively catch the attention of both the mystical and the mathematical, as we are going to need to bridge that gap to return to common sense, in my opinion.....

[G_burnett]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoBHlawhJ3U&NR=1

[Lloyd Gillespie]

The Hidden Key to Understanding Europe’s Crisis — and Ours

Fabius Maximus

Summary: The response by major national governments to the Greek crisis is rational, and inevitable. It has nothing to do with Greece, and everything to do with these government’s own debts and deficits. This is the key to understanding the crisis.

{Trantor’s} dependence upon the outer worlds for goods made it increasingly vulnerable … and Imperial policy became little more than the protection of Trantor’s delicate jugular vein. — Foundation by Isaac Asimov

Imperial Rome was dependent on grain markets, esp imports from Egypt, which became a major part of imperial policy. Similarly today the major nations depend on the debt markets, and their government’s primary task becomes protecting the flow of credit to fund their deficits — and maintaining the stability of their massive debts. Ideology and law must give way to this necessity. We saw that in America’s response to the 2008 crisis; we see that today in Europe’s response to the Greek crisis. Greece is small, but its default or exit from European Monetary Union might disturb the delicate stability of the sovereign debt markets (based on the false confidence in government promises). See Here for a report on the dimensions of the problem.

Reforms to ensure long-term stability are for a future day, and hence play no role in the American and European policy measures so far. First things first, esp for frightened people operating with plans or maps.

About the latest bail-out for Greece
The program’s primary effect is to shift Greece’s loans from private hands (e.g., banks and insurance companies) to public balance sheets. That eliminates the risk that Greece might be unable to rollover its debts and fund its deficits, or do so only at lethally high interest rates. This also relieves the pressure on those financial institutions. And future losses from Greek default (of some sort) will fall on the public, not politically powerful private interests.

If the package — loans to Greece and austerity by the Greeks — succeeds, the cost of these loans and guarantees will be zero. Perhaps even profits, as the lender’s cost of funds is less than the rate charged Greece.



If the package fails, governments will take bigger and bolder steps. They have many tools in the box, such as…

• Limit banks’ ability to lend to speculators.
• Limits on who can speculate, and maximum position limits.
• Controls on the flow of capital within and across borders.

They will do whatever the situation requires. What are the unknowns, the factors to watch?

• How will the German people react to this massive bailout? Most did not like its smaller predecessors.
• How will the recipients fulfill their end of the deal? Spain already has 20% unemployment, an odd point to implement austerity programs.
• How will their economies react to region-wide austerity? Will economic decline wash away any effect of the austerity programs?

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Eleven Eleven - Awakening to the Laws of Knowledge; Your idea has already led me into the ancient infinity and dot maths of the Zulu's in Africa and Shintoism in Japan, among other places, linking ancient mystic traditions to modern knowledge and math systems, linking into modern economic analyses, from the Far East... This will take a few days/weeks to process, then I'll get back to your title idea. Btw, it's excellent already__Thanks a trillion... I always knew 11 was wierd, but never realized it was this powerful... No wonder 7-11 named their stores as such... Go figure...

http://www.mystic-mouse.co.uk/Wisdom...levenAgain.htm

The human brain is designed to recognize repeating patterns, possibly from early times, as a survival trait. Repeating numbers hook our attention readily.

From marketing, I have learned that whenever possible, it is an effective strategy to piggy-back on an existing, and proven vehicle, be it related to size, shape, color or content, and in-so-far as it does not infringe upon copyright law.

Eleven Eleven is already out there in the public domain, generally associated with powers for good.(see link above)

Awakening is associated with another idea that is in circulation, related to a 'New World Order'.

Laws of Knowledge is taken directly from the definition of Jurisprudence.

Three hours sleep, lol.....and I wake up with this on my mind.

Eleven Eleven - Awakening to the Laws of Knowledge

A title that could effectively catch the attention of both the mystical and the mathematical, as we are going to need to bridge that gap to return to common sense, in my opinion.....

[Mikal]

Hi All…I do not pop in often so I will be brief.

Relevant to the number 11, it is important to know that this number also means disorganization, disorder and disruption.
Those in the know, those who study these things know that the archetypal power of 11 can be used to “anchor evolutionary critical turning points on the physical planet.” That can be negative turning points.

Positively to us as humans recognizing this number as a pattern has to do with the fact that 11 is a Master Number which is encoded into our cellular memory bank so we can recognize it.

Psychically or to do with our psyche if the events are negative for humanity—it means the struggle against being swallowed up by the mass group mind versus taking the struggle to your own individual mind—the one not divided—for your own psychological health.

Sorry for the interruption—I felt this was important to know.

Regards Mikal

[PoPpAScience]

A title that could effectively catch the attention of both the mystical and the mathematical, as we are going to need to bridge that gap to return to common sense, in my opinion.....

This is the message of our age labelwench. Returning to common sense! With this common sense we can then grow to a higher way of thinking, called Logic.

[labelwench]

Anything that gets the wheels turning.....

Judging by a some immediate input from members that do not frequently drop by this thread, the combination of numbers and words has potential to generate some dialogue among more diverse perspectives, perhaps.

How about a bit of music from another era where unification was also a goal?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAVH_...eature=related

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Eleven Come Eleven__Awakening To The Universal Laws of Knowledge...

The Fundamental Theory of Knowledge...
Khumalo, Bhekuzulu (Zulu knowledge system...)

A Correspondence Theory of Objects?
On Kant’s Notions of Object, Truth, and Actuality...

"'Negative' knowledge is merely a term used to simplify understanding. Negative numbers also exist merely to simplify understanding. Again this is like infinity for one can argue forever and still some people will insist negative numbers exist. They exist, but merely for our convenience.. Laws of the universe either exist or they do not exist. There is no such thing as a negative law. . Negative knowledge is a lie; it does not exist, no matter how much one persists in it for ideological and political reasons. That the earth is flat is not true. That it is spherical is true. That the earth is flat is not the opposite of the fact that the earth is spherical - it just is not true. Non-existence cannot be proved because it does not exist. One cannot know less than nothing. To know less than zero would be negative in the truest sense - but that is impossibility. Even an amoeba knows something. If one has fifty rocks, one then cannot subtract more than those fifty rocks because one then is entering the real of non-existence - a realm that does not exist. This being said, the negative concept is most helpful. In Fig 16 above Maria Curie did actually lose time, but she still got older. In her investigations that would eventually lead to her discovery of time she did lose time ??. Fig 18 below demonstrates the four quadrants."

In each of the four quadrants above, A, B, C and D we have a positive or negative effect on either time or knowledge. In quadrant A both time and knowledge are in the positive . namely the plain in which we exist.. In quadrant B time is positive but knowledge is negative. In quadrant C both time and knowledge are negative. In quadrant D knowledge is positive but time is negative. In truth Fig 17 should demonstrate a loss both of knowledge and time because that is what a wrong premise does - the untruth leads to untruthful results. (should you explain this paragraph a bit more?)

...Since energy cannot be destroyed but only transformed, the amount of energy today cannot exceed the amount of energy there was at the beginning of existence (regardless of whether that beginning resulted from a big bang or a divine creation. Given this, the universe is not infinite. Infinity (represented by the symbol ∞) is a word with its origins in mysticism. Forever and ever. God is forever and ever. The universe is forever and ever. This, however, directly contradicts the fact that energy cannot be destroyed,merely transformed. To eliminate this complication that arises from using the word infinity and resulting unwinnable arguments ; existence and the laws that govern it have been termed Konke - a Zulu word that means everything. Konke is represented by the symbol ●. Konke's properties are similar to that of infinity but for one major difference. Whereas ∞ - 1 = ∞, ● -1 ≠ ●. The rationale is simple. Once you subtract out one Konke is no longer everything.

At the same time ● x ● = ● because there is only one existence. Also when added upon itself Konke must equal itself, i.e. ● + ● = ●. This property will be made clearer towards the end of the chapter when the sum of knowledge is discussed. Given that existence is singular and clearly defined as the limit it follows that the mathematical expression ● + 1 is impossible for the reason that there is nothing more to add up. This is very different from the concept of infinity as the expression ∞ + 1 can be used and the answer is still infinity. One existence means that the mathematical expression ● ÷ ● can exist and the answer will be one. Having defined Konke and demonstrated its mathematical properties the question of knowledge can now be answered...

(Interesting side note: Woke up this morning, grabbed a t-shirt, looked in the mirror, saw an 11 on the front of it__The only t-shirt I own, or ever owned with the number 11 on it... Never even noticed it before, as it's actually an ad for a carpentry shop , in downtown Rockland, ME...)

[RascalPuff]

"The Empire, the State, had become everything. The common citizen had dwindled down to less than nothing. As for the slaves, they had heard the words that were spoken by Paul. They had accepted the message of the humble carpenter of Nazareth. They did not rebel against their masters. On the contrary, they had been taught to be meek and they obeyed their superiors. But they had lost all interest in the affairs of this world which had proved such a miserable place of abode. They were willing to fight the good fight that they might enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. But they were not willing to engage in warfare for the benefit of an ambitious emperor who aspired to glory by way of a foreign campaign in the land of the Parthians or the Numidians or the Scots.

And so conditions grew worse as the centuries went by. The first Emperors had continued the tradition of “leadership" which had given the old tribal chieftains such a hold upon their subjects. But the Emperors of the second and third centuries were Barrack-Emperors, professional soldiers, who existed by the grace of their body-guards, the so-called Prae- torians. They succeeded each other with terrifying rapidity, murdering their way into the palace and being murdered out of it as soon as their successors had become rich enough to bribe the guards into a new rebellion.

Meanwhile the barbarians were hammering at the gates of the northern frontier. As there were no longer any native Roman armies to stop their progress, foreign mercenaries had to be hired to fight the invader. As the foreign soldier happened to be of the same blood as his supposed enemy, he was apt to be quite lenient when he engaged in battle. Finally, by way of experiment, a few tribes were allowed to settle within the confines of the Empire. Others followed. Soon these tribes complained bitterly of the greedy Roman tax- gatherers, who took away their last penny. When they got no redress they marched to Rome and loudly demanded that they be heard.

This made Rome very uncomfortable as an Imperial residence. Constantine (who ruled from 323 to 337) looked for a new capital. He chose Byzantium, the gate-way for the commerce between Europe and Asia. The city was renamed Constantinople, and the court moved eastward. When Constantine died, his two sons, for the sake of a more efficient administration, divided the Empire between them. The elder lived in Rome and ruled in the west. The younger stayed in Constantinople and was master of the east.

Then came the fourth century and the terrible visitation of the Huns, those mysterious Asiatic horsemen who for more than two centuries maintained themselves in Northern Europe and continued their career of bloodshed until they were defeated near Chalons-sur-Marne in France in the year 451. As soon as the Huns had reached the Danube they had begun to press hard upon the Goths. The Goths, in order to save themselves, were thereupon obliged to invade Rome. The Emperor Valens tried to stop them, but was killed near Adrianople in the year 378. Twenty-two years later, under their king, Alaric, these same West Goths marched westward and attacked Rome. They did not plunder, and destroyed only a few palaces. Next came the Vandals, and showed less respect for the venerable traditions of the city. Then the Burgundians. Then the East Goths. Then the Alemanni. Then the Franks. There was no end to the invasions. Rome at last was at the mercy of every ambitious highway robber who could gather a few followers.
In the year 402 the Emperor fled to Ravenna, which was a sea-port and strongly fortified, and there, in the year 475, Odoacer, commander of a regiment of the German mercenaries, who wanted the farms of Italy to be divided among themselves, gently but effectively pushed Romulus Augustulus, the last of the emperors who ruled the western division, from his throne, and proclaimed himself Patriarch or ruler of Rome. The eastern Emperor, who was very busy with his own affairs, recognised him, and for ten years Odoacer ruled what was left of the western provinces.

A few years later, Theodoric, King of the East Goths, invaded the newly formed Patriciat, took Ravenna, murdered Odoacer at his own dinner table, and established a Gothic Kingdom amidst the ruins of the western part of the Empire. This Patriciate state did not last long. In the sixth century a motley crowd of Longobards and Saxons and Slavs and Avars invaded Italy, destroyed the Gothic kingdom, and established a new state of which Pavia became the capital.

Then at last the imperial city sank into a state of utter neglect and despair. The ancient palaces had been plundered time and again. The schools had been burned down. The teachers had been starved to death. The rich people had been thrown out of their villas which were now inhabited by evil- smelling and hairy barbarians. The roads had fallen into decay. The old bridges were gone and commerce had come to a standstill. Civilisation–the product of thousands of years of patient labor on the part of Egyptians and Babylonians and Greeks and Romans, which had lifted man high above the most daring dreams of his earliest ancestors, threatened to perish from the western continent.

It is true that in the far east, Constantinople continued to be the centre of an Empire for another thousand years. But it hardly counted as a part of the European continent. Its interests lay in the east. It began to forget its western origin. Gradually the Roman language was given up for the Greek. The Roman alphabet was discarded and Roman law was written in Greek characters and explained by Greek judges. The Emperor became an Asiatic despot, worshipped as the god-like kings of Thebes had been worshipped in the valley of the Nile, three thousand years before. When missionaries of the Byzantine church looked for fresh fields of activity, they went eastward and carried the civilisation of Byzantium into the vast wilderness of Russia.
As for the west, it was left to the mercies of the Barbarians. For twelve generations, murder, war, arson, plundering were the order of the day. One thing–and one thing alone–saved Europe from complete destruction, from a return to the days of cave-men and the hyena.

This was the church–the flock of humble men and women who for many centuries had confessed themselves the followers of Jesus, the carpenter of Nazareth, who had been killed that the mighty Roman Empire might be saved the trouble of a street-riot in a little city somewhere along the Syrian frontier." - Hendrik van Loon, The Story of Mankind

[RascalPuff]

The American Revolution (West of England & Europe):
"FOR the sake of convenience, we ought to go back a few centuries and repeat the early history of the great struggle for colonial possessions.
As soon as a number of European nations had been created upon the new basis of national or dynastic interests, that is to say, during and immediately after the Thirty Years War, their rulers, backed up by the capital of their merchants and the ships of their trading companies, continued the fight for more territory in Asia, Africa and America.

The series of naval wars between England and Holland in the seventeenth century does not interest us here. It ended as all such encounters between hopelessly ill-matched powers will end. But the warfare between England and France (her other rival) is of greater importance to us, for while the superior British fleet in the end defeated the French navy, a great deal of the preliminary fighting was done on our own American continent. In this vast country, both France and England claimed everything which had been discovered and a lot more which the eye of no white man had ever seen.

In 1497 Cabot had landed in the northern part of America and twenty-seven years later, Giovanni Verrazano had visited these coasts. Cabot had flown the English flag. Verrazano had sailed under the French flag. Hence both England and France proclaimed themselves the owners of the entire continent.

During the seventeenth century, some ten small English colonies had been founded between Maine and the Carolinas. They were usually a haven of refuge for some particular sect of English dissenters, such as the Puritans, who in the year 1620 went to New England, or the Quakers, who settled in Pennsylvania in 1681. They were small frontier communities, nestling close to the shores of the ocean, where people had gathered to make a new home and begin life among happier surroundings, far away from royal supervision and interference.

The French colonies, on the other hand, always remained a possession of the crown. No Huguenots or Protestants were allowed in these colonies for fear that they might contaminate the Indians with their dangerous Protestant doctrines and would perhaps interfere with the missionary work of the Jesuit fathers. The English colonies, therefore, had been founded upon a much healthier basis than their French neighbours and rivals. They were an expression of the commercial energy of the English middle classes, while the French settlements were inhabited by people who had crossed the ocean as servants of the king and who expected to return to Paris at the first possible chance.

Politically, however, the position of the English colonies was far from satisfactory. The French had discovered the mouth of the Saint Lawrence in the sixteenth century. From the region of the Great Lakes they had worked their way southward, had descended the Mississippi and had built several fortifications along the Gulf of Mexico. After a century of exploration, a line of sixty French forts cut off the English settlements along the Atlantic seaboard from the interior.

The English land grants, made to the different colonial companies had given them “all land from sea to sea.” This sounded well on paper, but in practice, British territory ended where the line of French fortifications began. To break through this barrier was possible but it took both men and money and caused a series of horrible border wars in which both sides murdered their white neighbours, with the help of the Indian tribes.

As long as the Stuarts had ruled England there had been no danger of war with France. The Stuarts needed the Bourbons in their attempt to establish an autocratic form of government and to break the power of Parliament. But in 1689 the last of the Stuarts had disappeared from British soil and Dutch William, the great enemy of Louis XIV succeeded him. From that time on, until the Treaty of Paris of 1763, France and England fought for the possession of India and North America.

During these wars, as I have said before, the English navies invariably beat the French. Cut off from her colonies, France lost most of her possessions, and when peace was declared, the entire North American continent had fallen into British hands and the great work of exploration of Cartier, Champlain, La Salle, Marquette and a score of others was lost to France.

Only a very small part of this vast domain was inhabited. From Massachusetts in the north, where the Pilgrims (a sect of Puritans who were very intolerant and who therefore had found no happiness either in Anglican England or Calvinist Holland) had landed in the year 1620, to the Carolinas and Virginia (the tobacco-raising provinces which had been founded entirely for the sake of profit), stretched a thin line of sparsely populated territory. But the men who lived in this new land of fresh air and high skies were very different from their brethren of the mother country. In the wilderness they had learned independence and self-reliance. They were the sons of hardy and energetic ancestors. Lazy and timourous people did not cross the ocean in those days. The American colonists hated the restraint and the lack of breathing space which had made their lives in the old country so very unhappy. They meant to be their own masters. This the ruling classes of England did not seem to understand. The government annoyed the colonists and the colonists, who hated to be bothered in this way, began to annoy the British government.

Bad feeling caused more bad feeling. It is not necessary to repeat here in detail what actually happened and what might have been avoided if the British king had been more intelligent than George III or less given to drowsiness and indifference than his minister, Lord North. The British colonists, when they understood that peaceful arguments would not settle the difficulties, took to arms. From being loyal subjects, they turned rebels, who exposed themselves to the punishment of death when they were captured by the German soldiers, whom George hired to do his fighting after the pleasant custom of that day, when Teutonic princes sold whole regiments to the highest bidder.

The war between England and her American colonies lasted seven years. During most of that time, the final success of the rebels seemed very doubtful. A great number of the people, especially in the cities, had remained loyal to their king. They were in favour of a compromise, and would have been willing to sue for peace. But the great figure of Washington stood guard over the cause of the colonists.

Ably assisted by a handful of brave men, he used his steadfast but badly equipped armies to weaken the forces of the king. Time and again when defeat seemed unavoidable, his strategy turned the tide of battle. Often his men were ill-fed. During the winter they lacked shoes and coats and were forced to live in unhealthy dug-outs. But their trust in their great leader was absolute and they stuck it out until the final hour of victory.

But more interesting than the campaigns of Washington or the diplomatic triumphs of Benjamin Franklin who was in Europe getting money from the French government and the Amsterdam bankers, was an event which occurred early in the revolution. The representatives of the different colonies had gathered in Philadelphia to discuss matters of common importance. It was the first year of the Revolution. Most of the big towns of the sea coast were still in the hands of the British. Reinforcements from England were arriving by the ship load. Only men who were deeply convinced of the righteousness of their cause would have found the courage to take the momentous decision of the months of June and July of the year 1776.

In June, Richard Henry Lee of Virginia proposed a motion to the Continental Congress that “these united colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is and ought to be, totally dissolved.”

The motion was seconded by John Adams of Massachusetts. It was carried on July the second and on July fourth, it was followed by an official Declaration of Independence, which was the work of Thomas Jefferson, a serious and exceedingly capable student of both politics and government and destined to be one of the most famous of our American presidents.

When news of this event reached Europe, and was followed by the final victory of the colonists and the adoption of the famous Constitution of the year 1787 (the first of all written constitutions - notably concurrent with the Classic French Revolution) it caused great interest. The dynastic system of the highly centralised states which had been developed after the great religious wars of the seventeenth century had reached the height of its power. Everywhere the palace of the king had grown to enormous proportions, while the cities of the royal realm were being surrounded by rapidly growing acres of slums. The inhabitants of those slums were showing signs of restlessness. They were quite helpless.

The success of the American colonists showed them that many things were possible which had been held impossible only a short time before.

According to the poet, the shot which opened the battle of Lexington was “heard around the world.” That was a bit of an exaggeration. The Chinese and the Japanese and the Russians never heard of it at all. But it carried across the Atlantic Ocean. It landed in the powder house of European discontent and in France it caused an explosion which rocked the entire continent from Petrograd to Madrid and buried the representatives of the old statecraft and the old diplomacy under several tons of democratic bricks.
- Hendrik van Loon, The Story of Mankind