RELATION BETWEEN GENE AND PARTICLE AND METHODOLOGY OF WIDESPREADNESS AND DOMINANCE OF THE SAME
This Paper investigates the relation between gene and particle; and of the methodology of dominance and widespreadness of the same
1. Every gene is a particle : a particle that possess a relative controller and also that is relatively controlled.
2.Thus the manifestation of gene as a mysterious and immense “controller ens” should be qualified.
3.Qualified, we assert, for the gene is a particle as all other particles in the protoplasms of ens are and whose “controlling percentage” is relative to the context: field within which it lies as indeed happens in the case of every particle.
4.Moreover what is a particle is also energy : Vedi the mass: energy relation: percentage.
5.Therefore the Principle:
That:
The rate of dominance (or otherwise) of the gene as a particle of mass will be as directly proportional to its rate of dominance (or otherwise) as current: energy
And vice-versa
6. The gene is no exception to the Principle that :
The rate of dominance: controller of any particle: current will be as directly proportional to the rate of dominance of its position within the relative reference: field
And vice-versa
7.That is:
The position and not any other term of any gene: particle determines its rate of dominance (or otherwise) and not otherwise.
And this is done in as direct proportion.
But one might say:
The rate of dominance of any gene is determined by the (bio)chemical combinations it has undergone.
To this I retort:
Yes, but in structural terms, is not the rate of dominance of (bio)chemical combinations in the gene: molecule itself, the global rate of dominance resultant from the position of the atoms within the molecule; and thence of the sub-divided sub-atomic particles within the atom?
And that this goes on “ad infinitum” in the steps of the relative rate of dominance of sub-division.
8.The rate of widespreadness of any particle will be as directly proportional to the rate of its dominance
And vice-versa
9.Now how does this fit in with the proportion between position and dominance of a particle?
10.Rather than in any way being an obstacle to the proportionality of position and dominance in respect of particles it is a manifestation thereof.
For here we assert this Principle:
namely that:
The rate of (increase of) dominance of a particle: energy in the mass:universe* will be as directly proportional to the rate of (increase of) the number of “dominant” positions in the respective reference: field multiplied by the rate of adjacency: contiguity of these positions
And vice-versa
*and therefore of any protoplasms of ens
11. Id est : The rate of widespreadness of “dominant positions” will be as directly proportional to the rate of number of dominant positions multiplied by the rate of adjacency:contiguity of the same (positions)
That is : this itself is a Principle.
And further:
And as by syllogistic reasoning:
The rate of widespreadness of any particle in any reference:field multiplied by the rate of widespreadness of similar sub-divided particles in the same will be as directly proportional to the rate of dominance of that relative particle in its reference:field
And vice-versa
And further:
The rate of (increase of) widespreadness of any particle in any reference:field multiplied by the rate of (increase of) widespreadness of >similar* sub-divided particles in the same
will be as directly proportional to the rate of (increase of) dominance of the same in the relative reference:field
And vice-versa
· > similar : for this is a relative term again; we opine no absolute similarity of particles
Sunday
8/9/1996
8.21 A.M.
This Paper investigates the relation between gene and particle; and of the methodology of dominance and widespreadness of the same
1. Every gene is a particle : a particle that possess a relative controller and also that is relatively controlled.
2.Thus the manifestation of gene as a mysterious and immense “controller ens” should be qualified.
3.Qualified, we assert, for the gene is a particle as all other particles in the protoplasms of ens are and whose “controlling percentage” is relative to the context: field within which it lies as indeed happens in the case of every particle.
4.Moreover what is a particle is also energy : Vedi the mass: energy relation: percentage.
5.Therefore the Principle:
That:
The rate of dominance (or otherwise) of the gene as a particle of mass will be as directly proportional to its rate of dominance (or otherwise) as current: energy
And vice-versa
6. The gene is no exception to the Principle that :
The rate of dominance: controller of any particle: current will be as directly proportional to the rate of dominance of its position within the relative reference: field
And vice-versa
7.That is:
The position and not any other term of any gene: particle determines its rate of dominance (or otherwise) and not otherwise.
And this is done in as direct proportion.
But one might say:
The rate of dominance of any gene is determined by the (bio)chemical combinations it has undergone.
To this I retort:
Yes, but in structural terms, is not the rate of dominance of (bio)chemical combinations in the gene: molecule itself, the global rate of dominance resultant from the position of the atoms within the molecule; and thence of the sub-divided sub-atomic particles within the atom?
And that this goes on “ad infinitum” in the steps of the relative rate of dominance of sub-division.
8.The rate of widespreadness of any particle will be as directly proportional to the rate of its dominance
And vice-versa
9.Now how does this fit in with the proportion between position and dominance of a particle?
10.Rather than in any way being an obstacle to the proportionality of position and dominance in respect of particles it is a manifestation thereof.
For here we assert this Principle:
namely that:
The rate of (increase of) dominance of a particle: energy in the mass:universe* will be as directly proportional to the rate of (increase of) the number of “dominant” positions in the respective reference: field multiplied by the rate of adjacency: contiguity of these positions
And vice-versa
*and therefore of any protoplasms of ens
11. Id est : The rate of widespreadness of “dominant positions” will be as directly proportional to the rate of number of dominant positions multiplied by the rate of adjacency:contiguity of the same (positions)
That is : this itself is a Principle.
And further:
And as by syllogistic reasoning:
The rate of widespreadness of any particle in any reference:field multiplied by the rate of widespreadness of similar sub-divided particles in the same will be as directly proportional to the rate of dominance of that relative particle in its reference:field
And vice-versa
And further:
The rate of (increase of) widespreadness of any particle in any reference:field multiplied by the rate of (increase of) widespreadness of >similar* sub-divided particles in the same
will be as directly proportional to the rate of (increase of) dominance of the same in the relative reference:field
And vice-versa
· > similar : for this is a relative term again; we opine no absolute similarity of particles
Sunday
8/9/1996
8.21 A.M.