APPENDIX Z53: A Compelling Case
Published on 24 Jun 2016 at 2:31 pm.
No Comments.
Filed under Uncategorized.
THE TRANSCENDENT DYNAMIC
APPENDIX Z53:
A Compelling Case
One cannot expect to
clinically prove a dynamic
Framing
clinically prove a dynamic
Framing
Belief* of the Cosmic
Order – of the overarching/innite
Order – of the overarching/innite
magnitude of Quest for
Potential
Potential
∞
.
But ideally one could
provide a rather
compelling
provide a rather
compelling
circumstantial/supporting/empirical case.
Perhaps we have done
so.
so.
Supreme Court Justice
Louis Brandeis said that
ideally
Louis Brandeis said that
ideally
when solid circumstantial evidence is presented in court, it
would be like a spider’s web – so strong that nothing could
hope to escape.
According to my consulting
litigators, in an
According to my consulting
litigators, in an
ideal legal cobweb, all
the inferences and
implications are
the inferences and
implications are
internally consistent –
like the fabric of the
web.
like the fabric of the
web.
Ideally, a powerful case would clearly trump competing
scenarios.
Perhaps we have done
so here.
so here.
There is no (repeat: no) contradictory evidence to Summa’s
hypothesis. Not one iota
of contradictory information. After
of contradictory information. After
5,000+ years of
accumulated data and wisdom – across a
accumulated data and wisdom – across a
myriad of elds.
Over a 40+ year period – I have quite-carefully
reviewed
reviewed
eld-after-eld – to reality-check Summa. Does
Summa
Summa
– overlaid over the
particular eld – enhance the eld – or
particular eld – enhance the eld – or
contradict the eld?
In each and every case, overlaying Summa either has a
neutral effect or, more often, enhances the
eld. Often,
eld. Often,
Summa radically enhances
the eld. There are no
the eld. There are no
exceptions. Meaning, there
are no instances where Summa
are no instances where Summa
detracts from the eld.
Thus, on weighing all
the evidence, the probability that
the evidence, the probability that
Summa is essentially
on-the-mark, is quite high. And the
on-the-mark, is quite high. And the
possibility that it is
totally off-base, is quite
remote.
totally off-base, is quite
remote.
Moreover, there is massive and compelling afrming
evidence – from multiple directions, avenues
and elds – and
and elds – and
from careful, direct and empirical observation
– to buttress
– to buttress
Summa’s hypothesis. One has only to objectively
weigh the
weigh the
hypothesis.
In addition, as
explicated, there is de
facto no competing
explicated, there is de
facto no competing
metaphysics.
So I have presented.
There are no eyewitnesses coming forward
from the
from the
THE TRANSCENDENT DYNAMIC
Creation-point. With regards the Creation point, Summa has
made-a-case for circumstantial
and deductive (and spiritually
and deductive (and spiritually
consonant) evidence.
And contemporaneously,
we are all, indeed, very direct
we are all, indeed, very direct
eyewitnesses. And we can
all carefully evaluate the
all carefully evaluate the
contemporary situation –
across the panoply of
elds – and
across the panoply of
elds – and
in our own lives – through a Summa lens.
Very straightforward: Does it work?
*
see Exhibit Z41 several
exhibits prior
exhibits prior
