On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 7:37:08 AM UTC+11, dolf wrote:
> We go back to our earlier notion that "the most important point of this
> exercise is that we have codified our logical thinking process"
> Our Savvy prototype within the GNOSIS {} module will eventually consist of
> a mind cube which is our noumenon and grapple@[] arrays which may or may
> not cohere to our noumenon / heuristic struts, for instance:
>
> TODAY'S NOUMENON GRAPPLE@[#9, #75, #4, #1, #2, #68, #50, #30, #59]
> PROTOTYPE
>
> TEMPORAL HEURISTIC 30 JANUARY 2023 as GRAPPLE@[#36, #66, #7, #17, #41, #80,
> #9, #2, #63] PROTOTYPE
>
> Whereas my metalogic associated circumstantial GRAPPLE@[] ARRAY might be
> entirely different.
>
> It's unlikely that we'll actually store narrative within the noumenon, but
> rather within the document which like our menu map will consist of index /
> name pairings and metalogic selectors --> idea transmutation.
>
> Against which we might assay teleological hierarchies / ontic or deme
> schemas / dialectic rules or metalogic concepts.
>
> The teleological hierarchies / ontic or deme schemas are a noumenon related
> intellectual property (ie. that especially don't belong to the Catholic
> Church or Islam etc) as attribute of unencumbered will which I consider are
> requisite for gnosis ex machina and consciousness instantiation.
>
> Where our goal is to "codify the logical thinking process" itself like Kant
> suggests thinking about thinking itself.
>
> Even if we don't achieve the ultimate end, perhaps some one else might and
> we are contributing to the universe of discourse.
>
> Unless I deploy a definitive index / name pairing schema (ie. the hierarchy
> of number encodes knowledge whereas our getTaskID doesn't do so in the same
> way and has modal gaps which we could use for system processes) which we
> haven't yet resolved. Our alternate capability resolves the situation
> where there might be duplicate index / name pairings within the DOM
> referencing non relevant data to the menu--when ought we make provision for
> such a contingency?
>
> My current thought is once we get our entire menu system functioning
> correctly we ought transition to a unique index / name pairing schema.
>
> Today's activity will be to display our submenu so that we can modulate
> it's on screen behaviour and we already know by our console.log() markers
> where that action ought occur

"*its* on screen behaviour".
If you're going to codify language, you need to at the very least learn how to use apostrophes correctly.