Gaius Julius Caesar Ocatvius

I just wanted to point out the fact that although Gaius Julius Caesar Octavius bares a very similar resemblance to Tiberius Julius Caesar Augustus that they are actually not the same person.

They are two entirely different people. I was kind of worried at first thinking that Tiberius might have been the reincarnation of Gaius which was something I was really concerned about thinking that it might've represented Julius Caesar's symbolical resurrection such as the one of Christ, Gaius reincarnating as Tiberius.

Considering my recent discovery of statues that were said to actually be Tiberius, but then turning out to be statues that looked like certain distant cousins of mine who I know, although am not very well acquainted with yet, but hopefully will be soon. (To be honest I started thinking they were reincarnations of clones I had made of myself in the past who actually turned out to be different people, but I'm not exactly sure of this yet.)

This made me start noticing and quite gladly so yet, that I am actually not Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus who gets assassinated on Shakespeare's play,  that Caesar although baring certain like qualities to Tiberius has to be another Caesar, a completely different person.

Also one who I might add I have unfortunately yet to discover in person. I haven't noticed who he might be in person. I haven't discovered who Augustus Caesar might be in person yet either though as well.

I actually feel relieved to know that Tiberius wasn't Gaius' reincarnation because really what I'm starting to notice right now.

I actually noticed I'm Tiberius' reincarnation or resurrection. Tiberius was not the reincarnation of Gaius' I'm actually the reincarnation or "resurrection" of Tiberius. This is my resurrection it wasn't how I had thought that Tiberius might have been Gaius' resurrection of reincarnation, this is actually something that I am barely becoming certain of which is actually something I think which is good.

I feel safe knowing I wasn't Gaius, I haven't figured out who he might be, but I guess I'd have to wish him luck. Really don't know who it might be, but it's not me for certain.

The Metamorphoses - Gay Characters / Pro-Homosexuality

I have to admit The Metamorphoses kind of hit me by surprise as to what the entire book was going to be based on.

I noticed it actually suggested that being Gay actually isn't such a bad idea at all and actually includes several characters that are gay such as Hermaphroditus:

In Greek mythology, Hermaphroditus or Hermaphroditos ⁱ/hərˌmæf.rəˈdaɪ.təs/ (Ancient Greek: Ἑρμαφρόδιτος) was the child ofAphrodite and Hermes. He was a minor deity of bisexuality and effeminacy. According to Ovid, born a remarkably handsome boy, he was transformed into an androgynous being by union with the water nymph Salmacis.^[1] His name is the basis for the wordhermaphrodite.

New Pro-Homosexuality Direction - Metamorphoses Supports Homosexuality

I have to admit I'm barely around the 4th and 5th Chapter of Metamorphoses and we just learned that Metamorphoses actually supports Homosexuality on several Chapters and includes several openly Gay Characters which made me decide to change our entire Anti-Gay direction we had going on.

Like I mentioned several times this blog is a "Work in Progress / Several Ideas are Subject to Change" over and over again because of the fact that I constantly change my mind about things.

I've actually decided to discard the words "Arlyvenarly" and "Astavalasta" as not necessary any longer... I'll probably be making sure to just complete delete both words entirely out of the blogs and our work. I decided not to include the words on the new Ninety Three 999 Blog nor the entire Anti-Gay agenda either.

Rhetoric

ul·u·late   [uhl-yuh-leyt, yool-]  Show IPA
verb (used without object), ul·u·lat·ed, ul·u·lat·ing.
1.
to howl, as a dog or a wolf; hoot, as an owl.
2.
to utter howling sounds, as in shrill, wordless lamentation; wail.
3.
to lament loudly and shrilly.

You have to be precise about issues and stuff like that. I can never understand anything they're saying.

rhetoric (ˈrɛtərɪk)

— n
1. the study of the technique of using language effectively
2. the art of using speech to persuade, influence, or please; oratory
3. excessive use of ornamentation and contrivance in spoken or written discourse; bombast
4. speech or discourse that pretends to significance but lacks true meaning: all the politician says is mere rhetoric

This actually reminded me of this post I made recently about Rhetoric:

Teaches you how to avoid constant conflict and arguing and learn how to avoid conversing in an endless stream of insults...

Liber III vel Jugorvm I remember thinking was a text that can teach a person how to control themselves from spewing a constant stream of insults, tames one into becoming a Gentleman and avoid the need to "Fight" so much.

rhetoric (ˈrɛtərɪk)

— n
1. the study of the technique of using language effectively
2. the art of using speech to persuade, influence, or please; oratory
3. excessive use of ornamentation and contrivance in spoken or written discourse; bombast
4. speech or discourse that pretends to significance but lacks true meaning: all the politician says is mere rhetoric

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric_(Aristotle[/url])

It doesn't tell you directly... but let me give you a little hint...

Because people that are like really smart know what he's talking about...

It's about how to deal with imbeciles that can't read or write properly that do nothing but for lack of a better term "argue" with each other

In what one would consider regular... Conversation?

Let me give you another hint for all the idiots in the crowd...

[url]http://hermetic.com/crowley/libers/lib3.html[/url]

[B]Liber III vel Jugorum[/B] - Aleister Crowley

An instruction for the control of speech, action, and thought.

[B]The Art of Rhetoric by Aristotle[/B]:

Chapter One
Aristotle first defines rhetoric as the counterpart (antistrophos) of dialectic (Bk. 1:1:1-2). He explains the similarities between the two but fails to comment on the differences. Here he introduces the term enthymeme (Bk. 1:1:3). This chapter is inconsistent with what follows in the others however.

Chapter Two
Aristotle’s famous definition of rhetoric is viewed as the ability in any particular case to see the available means of persuasion. He defines pisteis as atechnic (inartistic) and entechnic (artistic). Of the pisteis provided through speech there are three parts: ethos, pathos, and logos. He introduces paradigms and syllogisms as means of persuasion.

Chapter Three
Introduces the three genres of rhetoric: deliberative, forensic, epideictic. Here he also touches on the “ends” the orators of each of these genres hope to reach with their persuasions – which are discussed in further detail in later chapters (Bk. 1:3:5-7).

Chapter Four
Aristotle discusses the types of political topics of deliberative rhetoric. The five most common are finance, war and peace, national defense, imports and exports, and the framing of laws.

Chapter Five
Aristotle discusses the different ethical topics of deliberative rhetoric. Aristotle identifies the goal of human action with “happiness” and describes the many factors contributing to it (Bk. 1:5:5-18).

Chapter Six
This is a continuation of Chapter Five, explaining in greater detail the stoikhea (elements) of the “good” described in the previous chapter.

Chapter Seven
Introduces the term koinon of degree. Discusses the ‘ends’ of deliberative rhetoric in relation to the greater good or more advantageous.

Chapter Eight
Aristotle defines and discusses the four forms of politeia (constitution) useful in deliberative rhetoric: democracy, oligarchy, aristocracy, and monarchy.

Chapter Nine
This chapter discusses the virtues and concepts of to kalon (the honorable) included in epideictic rhetoric. Aristotle describes what makes certain topics appropriate or worthy for praise or blame. He also states that it is important to highlight certain traits of the subject of praise.

Chapter Ten
Discusses what syllogisms should be derived from kategoria (accusations) and apologia (defenses) for judicial rhetoric. Also introduces the wrongdoing, which is useful for judicial rhetoric.

Chapter Eleven
This chapter discusses the many different types of hedone (pleasure) useful for judicial rhetoric. Aristotle states these as the reasons for people doing wrong.

Chapter Twelve
This chapter, also about judicial rhetoric, discusses people’s dispositions of mind and whom people wrong from the hedone discussed in the previous chapter. Aristotle emphasizes the importance of willingness, or intentions, of wrongdoings.

Chapter Thirteen
Aristotle classifies all acts that are just and unjust defined in judicial rhetoric. He also distinguishes what kinds of actions are fair and unfair with being just.

Chapter Fourteen
This chapter parallels the koinon described in Chapter Seven. Aristotle is clarifying the magnitude in relation to questions of “wrongdoing” meant for judicial rhetoric.

Chapter Fifteen
Aristotle is summarizing the arguments available to a speaker in dealing with evidence that supports or weakens a case. These atechnic pisteis contain laws, witnesses, contracts, tortures, and oaths.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic[/url]

Dialectic -

Dialectic (also dialectics and the dialectical method) is a method of argument for resolving disagreement that has been central to Indian and European philosophy since antiquity. The word dialectic originated in ancient Greece, and was made popular by Plato in the Socratic dialogues. The dialectical method is dialogue between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject, who wish to establish the truth of the matter by dialogue, with reasoned arguments.[1] Dialectics is different from debate, wherein the debaters are committed to their points of view, and mean to win the debate, either by persuading the opponent, proving their argument correct, or proving the opponent's argument incorrect – thus, either a judge or a jury must decide who wins the debate. Dialectics is also different from rhetoric, wherein the speaker uses logos, pathos, or ethos to persuade listeners to take their side of the argument.

 [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthymeme[/url]

An enthymeme (Greek: ἐνθύμημα, enthumēma),

 An enthymeme (Greek: ἐνθύμημα, enthumēma), in its modern sense, is an informally stated syllogism (a three-part deductive argument) with an unstated assumption that must be true for the premises to lead to the conclusion. In an enthymeme, part of the argument is missing because it is assumed. In a broader usage, the term "enthymeme" is sometimes used to describe an incomplete argument of forms other than the syllogism,[1] or a less-than-100% argument.[2] For Aristotle, who defined it in his Rhetoric, an enthymeme was a "rhetorical syllogism" which was based on probable opinions, thus distinguishing it from a scientific syllogism. It is aimed at persuasion while scientific syllogism is aimed at demonstration.[3] This definition of an enthymeme held fast until the 20th century, when Saul Kripke developed Modal logic. In the context of Modal logic, with Semantic tableaux as developed by Evert Willem Beth, the definition of an enthymeme alters: Rather than suppressing one of the major premises, minor premises, or the conclusion, any incorrect logical inference or proof that is persuasive, satisfies a concept of an enthymeme.

HVLYH / JULIO

HVLYH

YHVH + L = HVLYH = 56

ho·ly [hoh-lee] adjective, ho·li·er, ho·li·est, noun, plural ho·lies.
adjective

1. specially recognized as or declared sacred by religious use or authority; consecrated: holy ground.

2. dedicated or devoted to the service of God, the church, or religion: a holy man.

3. saintly; godly; pious; devout: a holy life.

4. having a spiritually pure quality: a holy love.

5. entitled to worship or veneration as or as if sacred: a holy relic.

6. religious: holy rites.

7. inspiring fear, awe, or grave distress: The director, when angry, isa holy terror.

Holy, Holy, Holy is Her Name

"And the ring of the horizon above her is a company of glorious Archangels with joined hands, that stand and sing: This is the daughter of BABALON the Beautiful, that she hath borne unto the Father of All. And unto all hath she borne her.

This is the Daughter of the King. This is the Virgin of Eternity. This is she that the Holy One hath wrested from the Giant Time, and the prize of them that have overcome Space. This is she that is set upon the Throne of Understanding. Holy, Holy, Holy is her name, not to be spoken among men. For Kore they have called her, and Malkuth, and Betulah, and Persephone.

And the poets have feigned songs about her, and the prophets have spoken vain things, and the young men have dreamed vain dreams; but this is she, that immaculate, the name of whose name may not be spoken. Thought cannot pierce the glory that defendeth her, for thought is smitten dead before her presence. Memory is blank, and in the most ancient books of Magick are neither words to conjure her, nor adorations to praise her. Will bends like a reed in the temptests that sweep the borders of her kingdom, and imagination cannot figure so much as one petal of the lilies whereon she standeth in the lake of crystal, in the sea of glass." - The Call of the 9th Aethyr Called ZIP, Liber 418 The Vision and the Voice

Translate The Blog Into Different Lanugages / Ninety Three 999 en Español and More

I just added Translate modules to all of the blogs including all of the blogs in this blog and as well as on Ninety Three 999.