I invite you to copy, share, respond and contribute. Write to me at [email protected] We also have a working group Considering God. Let me know if you'd like to pursue your own understanding at our laboratory, in the public domain.
Currently, I am thinking of God's perspective, and how it relates to the entire picture. How does it relate to:
2004.09.11 Andrius [email protected]
Current Research | Author's remarks | Understanding | Know everything
Imagining God's outlook | Endless Life | God divides himself | Division of everything | Nullsome: God is God |Everything | Onesome: God defines himself | Twosome: God is necessary | Threesome: God understands himself | Foursome: God is separated from himself | Fivesome: God is his own boundary | Logic of Jesus | Growth in concern | Sixsome: God is his own principle | Sevensome: God is good | God's perspective on his relationship with himself.
Overview of Structure | Eightsome | Empathy | Gradation | General structure
Primary Structures: Everything wishes for nothing, something, anything, everything
Secondary Structures: Divisions | criteria | topologies | argumentation | verbalization | narration.
Ten concerns | Map back from anything to everything
Open
Questions |
Other Structures |
Interpolation |
Old Notes
I wish to know everything and apply that usefully.
I have prepared for this for most of my childhood, and worked on this for all my life as an adult. These last twenty-two years I have observed and collected a wide variety of structures. My starting point is God, and the related concept of everything. My ending point is life, as the fact that God is good.
I've always had trouble writing up my thoughts because they are murky, but
even worse, they want to spin out in all directions. And I can't prove much of
anything, although that's not my goal, either.
I've found a natural point of convergence, a conclusion from which I can work
backwards and lead to all the structures that I know of. My conclusion is:
"Life is the fact that God is good".
Or more simply, "Life is the goodness of God".
Starting from just one conclusion: "Life is the goodness of God", I am able to
explore "life", "goodness", "God", "is", etc. and work backwards, what do I
mean? It's the conclusion that pulls everything together that I've been working
on, and I find it attractive and natural. It leaves enormous room for
clarification, elaboration. But it also works as a conclusion, in that I'm
willing to take my stand here, and I'm able to confess my dogma, what I'll not
retreat from. My "core values", so to speak.
There is a greater assertion, which I have drawn from the Gospel of John:
"Everlasting life is the understanding that God is good." I am finding
that to work from "Life is the goodness of God" is to work backwards, whereas to
work with "Endless life is understanding the goodness of God" is to work
forwards.
Just as my backwards-looking conclusion reflects my outlook, so it seems that the forwards-looking assertion reflects God's outlook, his venturing outwards to everlasting life. How may my looking back, or yours, find God and take up his looking forwards?
My wish is to know everything and apply that usefully.
I wish to understand.
I think everything arises from God.
I think everything concludes that God is good.
I think that knowing everything would be useful because we may then know what to do, and how to live, and we may apply ourselves to the fullest. With such an outlook, we simply add to our life, and give it deeper and broader meaning, for all aspects of our life help us know everything.
Many have told me that nobody can know everything, and that I need not try. They speak with great confidence, but I suppose, without any experience. If they spent one full day trying, with all their might, then I imagine they might think differently.
In fact, I think that we can hardly know anything if we can't understand how it fits with everything. Whereas my quest to know everything has brought much knowledge, and much of that useful.
I do not feel that God requires such endeavor. But I do feel that God is sympathetic, and Scripture lets me be bold.
I think that everything arises from God. Therefore I try to imagine what that looks like from God's point of view.
Similarly, Albert Einstein imagined himself riding a beam of light, Jonas Salk imagined himself as a polio virus, and Richard Feynman imagined himself immersed amongst a cloud of electrons. Tom Munnecke calls this inverted perspective.
I imagine what it is like for God, before there is anything else but God. What is it like before there is any logic, time, reason, necessity, existence, meaning, language, structure, feeling, goodness? What would God do? Why should anything arise?
Of course, I am constrained by the limits of my own imagination. Yet, any understanding that I may ever gain will likewise be constrained by those limits. This is, in fact, an opportunity to study those limits. Furthermore, if I have any chance of knowing everything, I think that it is only if God does not make that too hard. I therefore try to explore the limits that I have found myself in, and look to them as God's language by which I may hear what he may speak to me.
I also think that everything concludes that God is good. Occasionally, I work backwards, like a mathematician who accepts a statement as true so that she might search for the grounds for any truth it might have. I try to make explicit my key beliefs that I think must be central to the "happy ending". I follow Christ, and I expect that he plays a vital role. Yet, what is Christ, in that sense? I think that he is both God and man, and that he states his essence as "Love God" and "Love your neighbor as yourself". I also think that the Holy Trinity: Father, Son, Spirit is basic to God as we may understand him. Even so, I work as a minimalist, and try to presume as little as possible. And for what I do presume, I try to make that explicit. I understand that I may be wrong, and I accept the consequences.
I accept that there might be God. I choose to
place my life within God's sovereignty. I bind my
fate with his.
I am free to think that there is no God, and I do find
this useful for my understanding.
I am free to think all things where that might be useful.
I start with God.
I think that the start is God, and the end is that God
is good.
I think that here we find the distinction between God's
perspective and our perspective.
God looks forward: he starts with God and also good,
but thinks of them separately. Endless life is this
understanding that God is good.
Humans look backward: we assume that God is good, and then
look backwards towards God. Life is the fact that
God is good.
Therefore in the divisions of everything, God keeps finding a new perspective. And as in Genesis, that is good.
What may God do, if there is nothing but God?
The only thing that I can imagine is that God might divide himself. He may differentiate parts of himself, and those parts may have relationships. In this way, he may give rise to structure.
We may imagine these as the events, or the days, in the life of God. They bring to mind the days in the Book of Genesis.
I have many observations, quite detailed, regarding these divisions. Structurally, we may think of them as divisions of everything. They divide everything into perspectives that we might take up. For example, we may have two perspectives, one of free will and the other of fate. God may take up such perspectives, and so may we. We are spirit, in that we may take up perspectives.
The structure of God is everything. One's structure is one's self, which is to say, one's relationship with others. Other is that which is beyond. God knows everything, has power over everything, and is everywhere. God is spirit, and as such, is more than structure. But, as structure, God is everything. God is the spirit of everything.
By dividing everything into perspectives, we live in our mind that very structure which we may imagine that God lives in dividing himself. We should be careful to understand, however, that here we are speaking of divisions of absolutely everything, and so they must engage and include our very selves. Such divisions therefore have no external relationships, but only internal relationships. Divisions of everything serve to define all manner of structure. We may think of each division as arising as God takes up a particular question.
God is prior to everything. God may have no perspective. This is God of himself, the God who divides himself. We may reference this, structurally, as the division of everything into no perspectives: the nullsome. This structure reflects God taking up the question, What do I truly want?
Everything is the most basic structure. Everything is the anchor concept. When we need absolutes, as we do if we wish for answers, then we may turn to everything as the anchor for all our concepts.
Everything has four properties.
Everything is that which gives unity to these four profoundly different properties.
I associate Everything with God, but we consider this same structure in a variety of ways, as: the universe, ourselves, meaning, existence, and so on.
Everything, as structure, is the division of everything into one perspective: the onesome.
The onesome is the structure that arises when God takes up the question: How does it seem to me? God finds himself at the center. All is defined with regard to him. There is no way to define him. Whether he exists, or does not exist, does not matter, because he is the one who defines what they mean. With regard to him, they are all the same, and they all apply equally. In the mind of God, all things are true, he takes them literally. His state is that of contradiction in mathematics, where all statements are true, and which is prior to mathematics. I speak of "mind" and "state", but again, these are simply references to the onesome, or rather, to the everything, the structure of God.
The distinction between God and everything is subtle and profound. It is the distinction between everything as structure, and the spirit behind it. I think this is the subject of Lao Tze.
From God's point of view, this is his relationship with his own structure: Everything is the structure of God. From everything's point of view, this is the distinction between the nullsome (the division of everything into zero perspectives) and the onesome (the division of everything into one perspective).
God likes everything. He wants all variants. Do I like this? How does it seem to me?
As humans, we are bounded, and we take everything as our point of reference. Alternatively, God takes himself as his point of reference.
We are imagining God's perspective, and so we may look beyond everything to an outlook from which everything may unfold.
Structural note: The eightfold way relates the negations of the representations of the nullsome with the negations of the representations of the onesome.
God is of himself. What is there for God do?
God may be, or not be, that is all the same to him, and presents no challenge. I imagine for God only one challenge. Yes, God may be, but is he necessarily? In other words, if God were not, would he still be?
The answer is presumably that God would still be. God is absolutely necessary. But the challenge is quite huge. It involves God creating a world that is least favorable to him. And then demonstrating what happens. There is a lot to do!
This is just as in a mathematical proof by contradiction. We suppose that X does not exist, and then show, as a consequence, that X does exist. On the other hand, if X exists, then we also have that X exists. So, in any case, X exists.
In this way, there arise two tracks, working in parallel. There is one track where it is assumed that God exists. We may think of this as defining the spiritual world. There is another track where it is supposed that God does not exist, but then God may appear even so. We may think of this as describing our physical world. Our physical world is designed, if at all, as a place where the Creator is not at the forefront, but rather has made room for everything else. Just like a master artist, his own presence in his work is not given, not obvious. Yet, more and more, he will be seen in his work, and engaged through it, until he is manifest and tangible in his existence.
So, first he goes beyond himself - opposites coexist. Then it becomes clear that he was always - all is the same.
God goes beyond himself. He ventures from his existence into his nonexistence. He is unbounded, and so he ventures into the bounded. This is to say, he enters structure. God is spirit, and good is spirit in structure. But, more generally, beyond God, and within structure, is the other. The other may or may not be good. The other may or may not be spirit.
Many people ponder, how can there be God, if there is so much bad? But God wants all the good. He therefore wants the good that is of itself, but also he wants all the good that comes with the bad. He wants all of it. This is to say, with anything bad that ever happens, there is always at least the slightest bit of good that it comes with, which is why I imagine God allows for it.
Will God arise in the physical world, in the world of structure? This is only if the other realizes that there is more than just structure, there is more than just good, there is more than just everything. The other must return the world to God by recognizing that God is from beyond the world, beyond good, beyond everything.
Activity is one's relationship with oneself. One's self is one's empathy for others. God goes beyond himself to others, and has empathy for them.
3) God looks at himself looking at himself looking at himself from the side: "I am understood by myself". And he reinterprets the previous perspectives: "I figure myself out" (="I am understanding myself") and "I understand myself".
God recognizes himself when he arises from not being. The two parallel tracks come together. God recognized, God recognizes, and God is recognized.
In other words, this is understanding. We may think of this as the Trinity: God the Father who understands, the Son who is the understanding and the Spirit who is understood. This structure expresses consciousness of God.
This is the structure that allows for engagement, for participation. In the spiritual world, God is at the center. But in the physical world, God makes room for all. All can participate through the physical world to engage the spiritual world. This takes place through three perspectives:
In this way, all may participate in the physical world by subordinating it to the spiritual world. This is understanding, the activity of God. Activity is one's relationship with oneself, and God's activity is understanding.
It is an infinite three-cycle. Father, Son, Spirit are equal.
... the unity of the representations of the structure of the unity of the representations of the structure of the unity of ...
and so we have the equation that: God is the unity of the representations of the structure of God. And likewise for all concepts of our understanding. And concepts are precisely that which we may understand.
Representations are beyond structure; unity is beyond representations; structure is beyond unity.
4) God looks at himself looking at himself looking at himself looking at himself from the side: "I am separated from myself by nothing". And he reinterprets the previous perspectives: "I am separated from myself by something", "I am separated from myself by anything" and "I am separated from myself by everything".
We have described God's point of view, and with regard to him there is nothing more to say. The threesome defines consciousness of God. However, the fact that God goes beyond himself (into the good) means that there may be a point of view beyond God. This is the point of view of good God. From that point of view there is more to explore. How does it find God? We may think of this as a perspective within us that may or may not seek God.
Structurally, this is a very important event with enormous complications. This is later reflected in the fact that the first four divisions have four representations - expressing the "going beyond" - and the latter four divisions have two representations - expressing the perspectives of God and good God. This is also the moment when the inversion effect occurs - what is nothing is imagined as everything (the unknown), what is everything is imagined as nothing (the heart). It is also reflected in the fact that structure is taking literally. Good God finds himself already within structure. Therefore he does not go beyond himself into structure, but simply takes it literally. In this way, the onesome, twosome, threesome are mapped to the foursome, fivesome, sixsome, and we do not have a counterpart for the nullsome until we come to the sevensome.
Here is the way that the four perspectives arise from reinterpreting understanding:
Understanding = going beyond oneself X to oneself Y.
A) The one who understands = the one who will go beyond.
B) The one who is understanding = the one who is going
beyond.
C) The one who is understood = the one who is gone beyond
to.
D) The one who is being = the one who is returning.
A starts at X and ends at X.
B starts at X and ends at Y.
C starts at Y and ends at Y.
D starts at Y and ends at X.
Open = starts at X.
Closed = starts at Y.
Bounded = ends at X.
Unbounded = ends at Y.
The one who is returning - good God returns to God - is separated by nothing! God overcomes everything to be God, and anything to be good God. Good God overcomes something - himself - to be good God, but nothing to be God! This is to say, it is a challenge for good God to find God because they are separated by nothing. This is perhaps the starting point for good God.
Origin of the foursome: wider purpose
Origin of the foursome: four perspectives
Directional structure of the foursome.
Definitions
Connections
God's will is outreach across everything. Will is
the essence found in everything. God's will is the
understanding of will.
Good will is outreach across anything. Choice is the
essence found in anything. Good will is the
understanding of choice.
Wisdom is outreach across something. Anything is the
essence found in something. Wisdom is the
understanding of anything.
Eternal life is outreach across nothing. Life is the
essence found in nothing. Eternal life is the
understanding of life.
Questions
The fivesome is the structure by which God makes better sense of his situation. It arises when God asks himself Am I able to consider the question?
5) God looks at himself looking at himself looking at himself looking at himself looking at himself from the side: "I allow for restricted unrestriction". And he reinterprets the previous perspectives: "I allow for unrestricted effects", "I allow for restricted effects", "I allow for restricted causes", "I allow for unrestricted causes".
This is the relationship between what we know and don't know.
What we know is given by: "every effect has had its
cause".
What we don't know is given by: "not every cause has had
its effect".
And then there is the relationship between what we know
and don't know, so they are parallel, and either one may
lead to the other.
So the fivesome brings together the known effect, the known cause, the unknown cause, the unknown effect and the point of ambiguity.
There are representations in terms of time and space.
In time, there is a definite move from the unknown to the
known. In time, there is only learning. This
gives God's perspective, where he is not able to consider
the question. God does not go back on what he knows.
But in space, there is a possible move from the known to
the unknown. In space, things may be suspect.
The known system, with the known cause and known effect,
may become unknown if it is understood within a larger
system. This is the human perspective.
This is a going beyond, but within the system, across a boundary.
To go from unknown to known is to increase scope.
To go from known to unknown is to decrease scope.
We find the known in our knowledge of everything,
anything or something.
We find the unknown in our knowledge of anything,
something or nothing.
The unknown that came from the known is bad will (evil), error (sin), loss (death).
Here are some thoughts on the fivesome:
Structural note: This structure relates love and everything.
God is good.
Understanding this is eternal life.
Eternal life is the goodness of God.
Understanding unfolds from God.
Understanding concludes that God is good.
We may take as given that God is good, and work backwards,
towards God. We assume the goodness of God, we look
backwards, and we realize that life is the goodness of
God. Life is the fact that God is good. Or we may
take God as given, and work forwards, towards the goodness
of God. God looks forwards to eternal life, and we
may believe that eternal life is the goodness of God.
Eternal life is the understanding that God is good.
[Compare looking and "seeing" backwards with looking and
"not seeing" forwards].
Life is the degenerate union of two
concepts, goodness and God, in that it is a third concept
which expresses their coming together, but does not
consider each of them separately. Life is an
abbreviation. Good and God are
in life, but it does not know that.
Eternal life is the nondegenerate union of two concepts,
goodness and God, in that it brings them together, but
keeps them distinct, and may consider how each
participates separately. Good and God are in life,
and it knows both of them.
This is a key difference, and it is all in the mind, and
difficult to talk about. The mind likes to collapse
concepts. But there is wisdom in keeping them distinct.
We look backwards, and think that "every effect has had
its cause". But God looks forwards, and thinks that
"not every cause has had its effect". [Consider the
two axes of the foursome, fivesome, sixsome.] We
look backwards, as if looking at God, as if at death, our
own disintegration, rather than forward towards our
further co-creation.
God's view forwards is that of increasing slack. Our view backwards is that of decreasing slack. God sees the equation: Eternal life is the goodness of God. And this is the sense in which God truly is good. We see the equation: The goodness of God is life.
Positive and negative directions.
Logic of Jesus Jesus considers the purpose of our activity in the world. He says that the purpose of our activity should come from beyond the world, rather than from the world itself. His logic has us reject the purpose of the truth of the world, and take up the purpose of the truth of the heart. We go beyond the world by having good will, or the good heart lives through us from beyond the world. And so slack increases. In each case, his logic expresses the complexity of giving and not giving the slack, with the simplest being to "get along", and the subtlest being to "satisfy". In each case, there is an underlying division of everything, and a perspective within it that may either have slack from beyond, or not: 2some=>fate, 3some=>take-a-stand, 4some=>whether, 5some=>present.
Each of the latter offer a "unity" and assume there is "bad".
Knowledge is what is understood.
We can go from lesser understanding to lesser knowledge,
as with save.
Or from lesser knowledge to lesser understanding, as with
blame.
Spirit is the unity of representations.
Properties are the representations of structure.
Nature is the unity of representations of
structure.
Understanding.
Activity.
Consider: how does take care of relate to caring,
believing, obeying, etc.
How does take a stand relate to take a stand, follow
through, reflect, etc.
Peace = good will. Bad will is without peace.
Wisdom = what do I truly want? Error is without asking what I truly want.
Eternal life = be perfect. Loss is without being perfect.
Looking back and seeing that which was not there. God wishing and not wishing.
Bad will, error, loss may be understood to have intent: Evil, sin, death. This is Milton's trinity of evil.
I should relate these to choices of the heart and the world (as in general structure - perhaps the counterquestions?) And I should add Jesus' antitheses.
Growth in God's concern, and growth in our concern.
Consider our relationships with God, and with others.
representations I went through the six issues, and fixed each one, and considered how the double perspective became a single perspective as I went from the Heart's answer to the associated counterquestion, to the World's answer. For two of the criteria, the single perspective arises as a limiting case of the double perspective.
For four of the criteria
We can also consider the logic of the heart and the world:
Logics of the heart/world The heart has us all accept total responsibility. The world has us each accept separate responsibility. The truth of the heart leads to the truth of the world, but not the other way around. The pretexts for outreach allow us to overcome this separation. The heart has us be one with our neighbor, the world has us distinguish ourselves from our neighbors. The heart has us apply the qualities of signs totally, the world has us apply them separately. The truth of the heart frees us to grow without bounds, the truth of the world bounds our growth. The heart increases slack, the world decreases slack.
Logic of the Heart and World Data from the developing the good will exercises shows that if the truth of the heart is relevant, then so is the truth of the world, but not the other way around. This logic expresses itself in eight different ways, as follows:
Andrius, 2002.02.02
The sixsome is the structure that arises when God takes up the question: Is this the way things should be? The sixsome is the structure by which God makes optimal sense of his situation. He takes up a possibly hypothetical but ideal point of knowledge.
6) God looks at himself looking at himself looking at himself looking at himself looking at himself looking at himself from the side: "I am my principle to strive for the best". And he reinterprets the previous perspectives: "I am my principle to choose the better over the worse", "I am my principle to choose the good over the bad", "I am my principle to avoid extremes", "I am my principle to get more than what I need", "I am my principle to cling to what I have".
The best way to make sense of one's situation is redundancy: to be both engaged and disengaged. This is structure, the choice of God's will over our will. These are the 4 primary and 6 secondary structures that arise from general structure as the freedom of the self.
Ways of Choosing Every kind of growth in God's concern
evokes a particular response from life:
Here "yes" means "to go along", "no" means "to resist".
Life is that which coexists with God, that which dances
on the fringes of the All-Powerful as it unfolds. It is remarkable
that Life is able to respond at all, that anything can coexist with
God in any way. How can the not-at-all-powerful live alongside the
All-Powerful? Only if the All-Powerful makes some room for us, opens
up a crack where we can coexist independently.
How does God open up room for us, where we can live
and respond independently of him? God grows! How can God grow?
God grows in his concern. We think of God as having a variety of concerns:
We think of the same God in all of these different
ways. God is the unity of all such ways, so for him they are all
the same. But not for us! We, the not-at-all-powerful, do not find
it all the same. It makes a difference to us that God concern himself
more broadly. In this light we can say that God can and should grow in
his concern.
While God is growing, for that fleeting moment, we
have room to respond. For God is not yet what he will suddenly be.
For each way that God grows, I think there is only a single way
that we can genuinely independently respond in the face of his All-Powerfulness.
These are the only ways that I can maintain my independence
in the face of the All-Powerful. This is a dance which the All-Powerful
leads. Every way that the All-Powerful grows in concern, I have
but one response by which I maintain any independence. My response
is always fleeting because I have room left to choose only while God
has room left to grow. My concern is to choose genuinely.
The beauty of the dance is that as we live, each of
these ways presents themselves, and we are the unity of these responses,
our Life is the coherence of our responses. As we live on the fringes
of God, he keeps opening up these spaces for us, so that our coherence
becomes ever more miraculous. My unity is a network that relates all
of my responses, and so I become a locus for ever more amazing coincidences.
In the face of the All-Powerful, I have only one genuine
response to whatever I find myself in. The real freedom of my life
comes from responding at all, from alerting myself to every single
opportunity for response that he keeps opening up. To live is to respond
to these cracks in the fabric of life, to tune myself in, and to die
is to tune myself out. So there is an enormous spectrum from life to death
that is given by how many of these openings I alert myself to. This is
what I think it is to coexist with God. My feeling is that coexistence
is my proper aspiration. I keep my independence, but nothing more. So
I follow God's lead everywhere. Life is coexistence with God. Moreover,
only Life can coexist with God! What coheres before God is Life.
The sevensome is the structure that arises when God takes up the question: Am I doing anything about this?
The sevensome introduces the seventh perspective. Will is the unity of the seventh perspectives. It is the unity of the expressions of the will.
I am understanding the unfolding of the divisions through God's perspective. This is a very helpful way to consider how the divisions of everything relate to the general structure. This progression may be thought of as the operation +1 on divisions.
Each stage reflects God's relationship with himself. "I am defined by myself" - perhaps this is God's name Yahwe, "I am who I am". Himself - perhaps this is everything, the structure of God. In other words, God's self is everything. Perhaps above we may replace "my" or "myself" with everything.
I think of each stage as arising from God through his outreach, his going beyond himself and looking from aside. He takes up the existing perspectives as his own, and then he looks additionally from the perspective of somebody from the side, somebody in the slack. Beyond the perspectives there is slack. What is beyond everything is slack.
God thinks in parallel along all perspectives. He thinks all of the perspectives of a division of everything. God keeps going beyond himself - and beyond everything - into the slack beyond everything. He does this until the sevensome - the division of everything into seven perspectives - finally defines slack itself. Then he goes beyond that by going back to himself. So the question is: how to understand slack as the sevensome? and how to make use of what I have learned about the divisions in order to understand general structure?
Also, these unfolding structures may be considered as mediating communication between God and the God is good within us.
Notes on 4): Outreach is taking place. The differential is everything, anything, something, nothing. The knowledge that overcomes this differential is why, how, what, whether. Going forwards - as outreach - it is the perspective of the observer: God's will, good will, wisdom, eternal life. Going backwards - as the essence - it is the perspective of the thing: will, choice, anything, life. Outreach occurs from or to God, and from or to other. The divine levels are given by outreach from God, the human levels are given by outreach from other. (Consider how this all relates to unity, representations, structure, X - and perhaps the conjunctions.)
Note that the human outlook is given by the rightmost three perspectives, and what is left of that may be considered a Null from the human point of view. That Null includes, in the sevensome, the semiotic square - the basis for logic.
A division of everything arises when God takes up the corresponding counterquestion and responds with his own point of view, the answer of the heart. If he takes up the other's point of view, the answer of the world, then this gives rise to the next division of everything. For example, when God takes up the question Would it make any difference? from his own point of view - it makes no difference - then this generates the threesome, but when he takes up the other's point of view - it makes a difference - then this generates the foursome. See the table below!
I think that there is a general explanation for the unfolding of the divisions that can be found by taking up God's perspective and also our own, and considering the relationship.
The representations of everything are the properties of God. If we take each of them separately, then they are the characteristics of God, everything, wishing and love. God is self-sufficient, everything is certain, wishing is calm, love is loving. God is wider than everything, everything is wider than wishing, wishing is wider than love.
Each of the divisions from the onesome to the sixsome is determined by a pair of these levels which it addresses. At each level, the structure defines the relation between the two. And the next structure defines their separate expression. Apparently, this makes for a kind of bootstrapping. So, for example, the wishes of everything are structured by the threesome: what wishes, is wished, and the wishing. But the wishes of everything are given by the foursome. Likewise, God's wishes don't need a "wishing", what is wished occurs directly. His wish is to go beyond himself. But that going beyond himself is given by the threesome.
This means that, if we think of the Onesome as God's separation from himself, then we can think of the Nullsome as God's relationship with himself, his perspective (his activity?) And we may think of the Sevensome as the separation of God and love, so that love is in the people when they take up the concerns of others, it is the human perspective.
Note the key role of love in the foursome, fivesome, sixsome. Here we can think of love as support for life. Not eternal life (two concepts separate), but life (two concepts related). Life is the mixing of God and good, their inseparation. God asks, Would it make a difference? and the threesome arises. The answers from the heart are God's answers. Is the God who arises from the situation where there is no God the same as the original God? No, it would not make a difference, that is God's answer. So in the movement from "without God" to "with God" this is identifiying with God. But if it does make a difference, then that is the difference between without God and with God. And it is given by knowledge of nothing, something, anything, or everything. This understanding is given by eternal life, where God and good are separated, which is what God supports. But love supports life, which is the inseparatedness of God and good.
So the foursome arises from the Self which is the essence of goodness. The question is whether that Self can be a replacement for God. Do we choose Self, as the locus of good, or do we choose God? The answer depends on whether we go beyond ourselves. If we go beyond Self, then we find God. In this way, we find more than ourselves.
What describes our subjective experience? Representations of Everything
Here I will try to describe the derivation of the structures.
Everything wishes for Nothing, Something, Anything, Everything. These are the four scopes to which it may go beyond itself.
The wishes yield the representations of everything:
Everything is self-sufficient, certain, calm, loving.
In going beyond itself, everything allows for not-wishes:
The not-wishes are given by dilemmas, that come from gradations:
The gradations give rise to dilemmas that express the not-wishes:
Each gradation relates a representation of the
threesome with the threesome itself.
The not-wishes are responded to by structures:
These structures of response extend into eight perspectives the available responses.
Then there can be a unity of seven perspectives,
through empathy.
In that case, there are for each level questions that can
accord to God's perspective: Whether? What? How? Why?,
from 0 to 3 of these.
What are the representations of anything? The manifestations that everything has gone beyond itself. These six manifestations are given by change of scope: everything goes out to a wider scope, and into the "not-wishing" that is beyond that wider scope. [In this way, God empathises with life, and also, life chooses God, and God grows in concern.]
I'll sketch out what evolves in clarifying "Life is the
goodness of God".
What is (or rather, do I mean by) God? The spirit of
everything.
What is life? The spirit of anything.
What is goodness? The spirit of slack.
What is spirit? The unity of representations. In
other words, necessity, coherence.
In what sense do I mean that it "is"? It "is" in that it
is the unity of its properties.
So you "are" only with regard to your own domain, where
your properties extend, but you are "necessary" without
any regard for domain, for here the unity is with regard
to representations. In other words, existence is unity of
the properties by which we see ourselves, and necessity is
unity of the representations by which we are seen.
What is everything? Everything is the one concept which
has the four properties: No external context; no internal
structure; simplest algorithm - accepts all things;
required concept.
What relates everything and anything? Slack - anything is
everything plus slack - this happens by way of their
activity.
What is the activity of everything? To go beyond itself.
Everything is unbounded (no external context), so it goes
beyond itself into the bounded.
What is the activity of anything? To recur.
[This is the nature of life. Life recurs because of its
boundedness. In this sense death also is important
constraint for life.]
So anything is, just like everything, open (accepts all
things) in that it is open to everything. Anything's
openness is through recurrence, and everything's openness
is through going beyond itself.
But everything might not go beyond itself, might be
inactive. In this case it is nothing. And anything might
not recur, might be inactive. In this case it is
something. Nothing and something are closed. [Check this:
The activity of something is to "not go beyond itself" and
the activity of nothing is to "not recur".]
For many years I've worked from a "starting point" -
Everything. I've also thought of working backward from an
ending point, somehow related to God, but only now feel
good that it might be "Life is the goodness of God", and
also what I wrote about Eternal life. I find this
fruitful.
A representation is that which can be thought. It
is that which a mind can look at.
A unity is that which can care. It is that by which
a heart looks out.
Coherence is a caring about all thought. It is a heart
looking out in every way in which a mind may look at.
The representations of anything are the union of those
of everything and those of slack. Therefore life, as a unity,
manifests the unity of God and good.
Andrius 2002.02.28
The "representations of everything" are "what everything wishes":
(everything wishes for: nothing, something, anything, everything)
The "representations of anything" are "what anything chooses":
(anything chooses: to wish for nothing, something, anything,
everything; to wish; to not wish)
The representations of slack (increasing and decreasing)
as "scopes", namely, unbounded and bounded. "increasing
slack" is "slack has scope unbounded" and "decreasing slack" is "slack has scope bounded".
Note that the difference between everything and anything
is that everything is unbounded, and anything is bounded.
So life is the fact that God partakes of the bounded, as
well as the unbounded.
Representation are wishes (in the context of everything), choices (in the context of anything),
and scopes (in the context of slack).
There are 6 relationships (rework the equations):
In A is I: Obeying is the unity of taking a stand and
following through.
I is A: Believing is the unity of reflecting and taking a
stand.
I is felt by A: Caring is the unity of following through
and reflecting.
A is in I: Willing is the distinction of taking a stand
and following through.
A is not I: Choosing is the distinction of
reflecting and taking a stand.
A feels I: Empathizing is the distinction of
following through and reflecting.
The eightsome adds the original perspective of God, into which everything collapses. The eightsome is the structure that expands logic to include the perspective that "All is good" and "All is bad" which has the entire system collapse into emptiness.
Note that this structure consists of all of the non-contradictory combinations of All is good, There is good, There is bad, All is bad. Having three or more of these statements leads to a contradiction. There are four ways of having pairs of these statements. Perhaps All is good & All is bad is the same as having none of these statements, an empty system? or undefined system?
I think that the eightsome is the general structure.
I have observed four primary structural families: needs, doubts, expectations, trials, and six secondary structural families: divisions, representations, topologies, argumentation, verbalization, narration. I think that there is a general structure which the four primary structural families have in common. I think that this is the eightsome. I also think that the six secondary families are given by separating the primary families into properties of God and frameworks beyond God, and then injecting a property of God from a narrower level into a structural framework from a broader level.
The purpose of the general structure is to allow a perspective to see itself. It sees itself through us by having a structure (the threesome) through which it sees through our eyes, and a structure by which we see through its eyes. In this way it can see itself through us.
Therefore there is a dual empathy.
Note: this section describes a direction which I took in August and September of 2003. I was looking for a deep way to arrive at the basic structures. I thought a lot about how everything and anything may reach out to each other and have empathy for each other. I also drew on my thoughts on the fifteen principles of life in Christopher Alexander's The Nature of Order. This approach is fundamental to my thoughts on general structure.
Activity evokes structure - recurrent activity establishes structure. Structure restricts activity. The relationship between structure and activity is yet loose, and this looseness is slack. It is a rule of thumb, a pattern.
Everything is the structure of God. Everything is evoked by God's activity of going beyond himself. God goes beyond himself into the good.
Good is slack, and this slack is given by the looseness between activity and structure. Activity evokes structure - this is increasing slack (because the structure is new, and so therefore is the slack). Structure channels activity - this is decreasing slack (because the activity is already there, and can only be restricted)..
The activity of everything is to go beyond itself. Everything is, hence is; and is not, yet is. This is the division of everything into two perspectives, for the sake of existence.. Everything is open and unbounded, and so it goes beyond itself into the bounded. (0+2=2)
Activity is the operation +2. Anything is open and unbounded, it is the onesome, the division of everything into one perspective. Everything goes beyond itself into anything. Anything (in the abstract) is the example of everything.
The activity of anything is to recur. Anything is open and bounded, hence recurs. Anything recurs in three ways: in taking a stand, in following through, and in reflecting. This is the division of everything into three perspectives, for the sake of participation. (1+2=3)
Everything may not go beyond itself, and so there is nothing: closed and unbounded. Anything may not go beyond itself, and so there is something: closed and bounded. There are four perspectives in parallel.
The representations of everything: everything wishes
for nothing, something, anything, everything.
(Something is not everything, nothing is not anything).
These are also properties of God.
Representation is the providing of scope.
Everything has empathy for anything through the
representations of the threesome.
Everything has empathy for anything in various degrees.
The representations of the threesome express such empathy.
The degree of empathy is given by the number of states
that are recurring.
Anything has empathy for everything through shifts. The members of the threesome can (by way of the representations) be understood as going beyond themselves, as shifts from one state to another. Representations allow us to think of isolated perspectives, not just the entire whole.
take a stand:
follow through:
reflect
These are shifts from one perspective to another.
Everything goes beyond itself, in its empathy for anything. It has empathy for anything, both outside the system, and within the system. This is expressed by the gradation.
The gradation distinguishes experiences within the system and outside of it. As anything, and as everything. It expresses the living of the representations of the threesome.
We may distinguish:
These are perhaps maps between God and good, for example: survival is the glory of God, glory is the survival of good; security is the intent of God, intent is the security of good; acceptance is the example of God, example is the acceptance of good; self-esteem is the love of God, love is the self-esteem of good; opportunity is the work of God, work is the opportunity of good; self-fulfillment is the command of God, command is the self-fulfillment of good. And so on. Gradation is the interpolation between God is God and God is good. Also, think about how this relates to the eightfold way: God is glory, God is intent... (=blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted, blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth...) God is agent, God is beneficiary... (faith, virtue, ...
| without system | within system | |
| necessary | glory | love |
| actual | intent | work |
| possible | example | command |
| without system | within system | |
| subject | agent | instrument |
| object | beneficiary | theme, patient |
| process | goal, experience | location |
| without system | within system | |
| many | morphism | substitution |
| all | induction | examination of cases |
| one | construction of algorithm | construction |
There is also a gradation of secondary structures which should be kept in mind: divisions, criteria, topologies, argumentation, verbalization, narration. Although this is perhaps not a gradation, in that it is three states, and three shifts between those states.
Gradation provides the conditions for will - it makes it possible to participate within a system, and also without it.
There are three gradations (the Kiparsky gradation, the methods of mathematical proof, and Maslow's hierarchy of needs) and they arise from injections into the life choices. They relate to the three non-cyclic representations of the threesome. They serve to relate God's extrasystemic point of view (where all topologies work together) and life's systemic point of view (where each topology stands separately).
The perspectives of the gradations are what we identify God with. They are thereby an interpolation from God is God to God is good.
Presumably the other injections likewise connect God's and life's points of views.
We may think of there being two perspectives: without system and within system. How may they think together? Apparently, they are each first expressed in terms of a representation of the threesome. Perhaps this allows us to have perspectives, to treat them each separately, and associate them. These perspectives are either without system or within system. [Question, problem: what dictates the order of these topologies?]
Next, we take up the perspective (it is given spirit). For example:
The "taking up the spirit" is of various degrees, each giving rise to a different primary structure. The degree is given by the number of vantage points that it introduces: 0 for needs, 1 for doubts, 2 for expectations, 3 for trials. Perhaps this gives the amount of disruption to the original symmetry between the representation of the threesome within and without system.
The point of view of Anything is the stage which Everything has created for its own participation of every sort. Here it makes sense to make a subtle distinction between God and Everything, as they have different implications, like an answer and a question. - "Everything" is that which was alone, and then took up the challenge to go beyond itself, and to create situations where it is, and where it is not, and consider whether it arises. Everything is the ultimate question. - "God" as that which arises from this challenge, which demonstrates its necessity by arising even from the least favorable situations. God is the ultimate answer. "Everything" and "God" get related through us and our world. This is the source of slack, this distinction between Everything and God. Technically, this is an equation "God is the unity of the representations of Everything". The representations are the many ways of thinking about, and the unity is the unique way of caring about them all. Coherence is another way to say "unity of representations". God is the coherence of Everything. The Answer is the coherence of the Question. What creeps in here is the concept of slack, that fleeting gap between the Question and the Answer. We've presented two very different ways of thinking about this slack, it can be increasing (as in the case of the questioning), or decreasing (as in the case of the answering). Slack has precisely these two representations, we think of it as either increasing or decreasing. "Good is slack", in other words, good is the coherence of slack, good is the unity of the two representations of slack. Everything has exactly four representations. - Everything wishes for nothing, is self-sufficient - Everything wishes for something, is certain - Everything wishes for anything, is calm - Everything wishes for everything, is loving These are the four different ways of thinking about the entirety, and God is the unity of these different ways. We can add slack to each of these representations of everything:
We can likewise add everything to each of the representations of slack:
"Good" is the fact that this is the same slack. The concept of anything brings all this together! This is because we think of anything as either everything with some slack (by which everything can be related to the "anything" that faces us), or as some slack in the face of everything (by which anything can be related to the "everything" that faces us) . Every way that we think of anything, we are defining it in terms of choices that we are making regarding it.
We're driven to choose, in each case, because that kind of choosing is the only activity that maintains our independence. These are the six representations of Anything, in which are embedded the four representations of Everything, and the two representations of Slack. Life is the unity of these six representations, Life is the coherence of Anything. Life is the drive to choose. What is the whole point? "Life is the fact that God is good". The coherence of Anything is the fact that Everything and Slack are coherent together. Whether Everything or Slack are coherent separately is an additional question.
Gradation expresses the development of the conditions for structure. A whole series of conditions unfold from the activity of everything. These are conditions for the structure expressing the connection between everything (the nullsome) and anything (the onesome).
nullsome
onesome - system
twosome - existence
threesome - participation
foursome - knowledge
fivesome - decision
sixsome - structure
sevensome
The sixsome is the condition for structure, and onesome is the condition for system. The gradation is in this way also the interpolation between the nullsome and the sevensome, between spirit without system and spirit within system. Nullsome, onesome, twosome, threesome have four representations. Foursome, fivesome, sixsome, sevensome have two representations. The goodness of God is in the connection of these coherencies. Any kind of spirit within the system arises from spirit without the system. The spirit, in going into any system, is its spirit.
Not wishing expresses what is beyond everything. The scope of everything is given by wishes, by its representations. What is beyond everything, beyond its scope, its wishes, is given by not-wishes.
Note: the section below is questionable or perhaps simply dubious.
Gradation expresses the conditions for structure as not-wishes. We can consider the gradation as the identification of the characteristics of structure with not-wishes:
| survival | system as need |
| security | existence as need |
| acceptance, social | participation as need |
| self-esteem | knowledge as need |
| opportunity | decision as need |
| self-fulfillment | structure as need |
| agent | system as doubt |
| beneficiary | existence as doubt |
| goal, experience | participation as doubt |
| instrument | knowledge as doubt |
| theme, patient | decision as doubt |
| location | structure as doubt |
| morphism | system as expectation |
| induction | existence as expectation |
| construction of algorithm | participation as expectation |
| substitution | knowledge as expectation |
| examination of cases | decision as expectation |
| construction | structure as expectation |
We understand the not-wishes as dilemmas of the conditions for structure. We can understand the not-wishes as questions which the gradations ask.
| need for survival | system as need? |
| need for security | existence as need? |
| need for acceptance, social | participation as need? |
| need for self-esteem | knowledge as need? |
| need for opportunity | decision as need? |
| need for self-fulfillment | structure as need? |
| Do I truly like this? | system as doubt? |
| Do I truly need this? | existence as doubt? |
| Is this truly real? | participation as doubt? |
| Is this truly problematic? | knowledge as doubt? |
| Is this truly reasonable? | decision as doubt? |
| Is this truly wrong? | structure as doubt? |
Expectations are defined by searching and finding, both within the system, and without it. Peace: not search and not find, without system. Suspense: not search and not find, within system. We experience these conditions when we feel the dilemmas of the members of the gradation, and we consider them as searches.
| sad: search and not find, without system | system as expectation? |
| disgusted: not search and find, without system | existence as expectation? |
| happy: search and find, without system | participation as expectation? |
| surprised: search and not find, within system | knowledge as expectation? |
| afraid: not search and find, within system | decision as expectation? |
| excited: search and find, within system | structure as expectation? |
God is good. The spirit, in going beyond itself into system, is spirit in system, and goes beyond itself within that system - it cares for others instead of itself. The scope of God is given by the degree of empathy, feeling, experience. Everything feels for anything through:
As in the mind games of the representations of the threesome. Anything lives by them, and they inspire anything to go beyond itself, to renounce itself on behalf of others, through shifts: experiences, searches, giving attention, revealing.
Structure connects the threesome, as the feeling of everything for the activity of anything by way of shifts, and the living of the representations of the threesome as the feeling of anything for the activity of everything in going beyond itself.
Gradation expresses the separation between anything and everything. Shifts - representations of the threesome - express their identification. So we move from gradations to unity in representations.
General structure is that structure by which we (or life, or one) can be seen through and see through the eyes of another.
General structure bounds us, but not the other. In the broadest sense, general structure is that by which life (God through us - God is good) evokes God and they interact. I think it is also the relationship between everything and anything, between nullsome and onesome. The nullsome has no perspectives - and is not restricted by the general structure, whereas the onesome has one perspective - as given by the general structure.
Our perspective is always the same. It is given alternately by three perspectives that interpolate between taking a stand, following through and reflecting. The other's perspective is an alternate interpolation between these three (taking a stand, following through and reflecting) and what we consider to be null (which has either zero, one, two or three perspectives).
The other's perspective is made specific by the nullsome, onesome, twosome, threesome, each of which have four representations (in terms of God's separation from himself). Here God (nullsome) is the referent. Our perspective is given by the foursome, fivesome, sixsome, sevensome, each of which have two representations (God's outlook - increasing slack, and life's outlook - decreasing slack). Here everything (onesome) is the referent. (A more general, structural take on God. God that may not be God.) (Example: everything wishes for... gives the foursome).
Our eyes are given by shifts in the threesome. a representation of the threesome. The Their eyes are given by what is null to us, as expressed from their perspective. We see through their eyes by mapping each of our three eyes to their null, by means of one of their perspectives, if any.
Apparently, the general structure has eight perspectives. One of these is a wishing (a representation of everything, a property of God). The other seven describe an associated framework for not-wishing. In that framework, three perspectives describe God's outlook, and three describe a human's outlook. The seventh perspective brings together the humans' outlook and expresses slack (and the thought that God is good).
The representations of everything are given by wishing. Wishing makes no distinction between that which is within system and that which is without sytsem. Not-wishing makes a distinction between that which is within the system and that which is without system. The representations of anything are given by choosing. Choosing makes a distinction between that which is within system and that which is without system.
Here are properties of general structure, they are common to all four primary structures:
There are four primary structures: operating principles, counterquestions, directions of the good, life choices. These are the structures that are directly useful - each of them expresses a deep and directly practical insight into life. They share many general features, and therefore I seek to derive them as special cases of a a general structure.
Each of the primary structures allows us to see through a certain perspective, and also be seen by that perspective.
The structures allow that perspective to see itself (through us). They are from the perspectives of God beyond us, life beyond us, life within us and God within us. What is beyond us is general, and what is within us is particular.
Others can see through our eyes by way of the threesome. Our eyes are given by the threesome, and they see by means of shifts expressed as such through the representations. In this way, take a stand / follow through / reflect becomes:
| we are seen through... | that we... | take a stand | follow through | reflect |
| God's eyes | choose to | I wish to take a stand on what I reflect | I wish to follow through on the stand I take | I wish to reflect on what I have followed through |
| another's eyes | ought to | Inner adherence, or outer adherence? | What one will achieve vs. What one is able to do | What one could be doing vs. What one is doing |
| another's eyes within us | seem to | Is this the way things should be? | What do I have control over? | Am I able to consider the question? |
| God's eyes within us | are | Choose the good over the bad | Choose the better over the worse | Choose the best over the rest |
Life's point of view and God's point of view are related by means of the threesome: take a stand, follow through and reflect. Life expresses its point of view as a cyclic shift of these:
The answer of the heart moves us forward, and the answer of the world moves us backwards.
God expresses his point of view as a going beyond the threesome into the nullsome. He relates a topology with the representation of the nullsome from which it arises. This relation takes place through one of four perspectives: the eyes of God beyond us, the eyes of life beyond us, the eyes of life within us, or the eyes of God within us. Hence there are four primary structures.
The not-wishing is given by what is shared by the topology and the representation of the nullsome. The response is given by the choice of either the topology (the answer of the world) or the representation of the nullsome (the answer of the heart).
necessary = is taking a stand, actual = is following through, possible = is reflecting
object = seems to take a stand, process = seems to follow through, subject = seems to reflect
one = ought to take a stand, all = ought to follow through, many = ought to
reflect
(is there also: many = ought to take a stand, one = ought to follow through, all
= ought to reflect)?
be = chooses to take a stand, do= chooses to follow through, think = chooses
to reflect
(are there the other two permutations as well?)
The zeroth perspective may be thought of as the voice of that representation of the nullsome, the voice of God. But what is the seventh perspective? How does it express the threesome? Is it related to the nullsome?
The degree of life, the intensity of empathy, is given by the number of perspectives that participate, which is from zero (operating principles) to three (life choices). These perspectives can be interpreted as expressing the level of awareness. They map onto the perspectives which we alternate amongst, making them static.
Each of the primary structures consists of eight perspectives. One of these perspectives is a representation of everything (what it wishes for) and the other seven describe the framework for not-wishing. Of these seven, one is the seventh perspective, which is unobservable, and expresses the slack of the system. The other six serve as an interpolation between these two.
Idea: We may consider each primary structure as opening up the 7th perspective. For example, one primary structure relates God and good through life (8) and eternal life (7+1). In the latter, God and good are kept separated. Wishing and not-wishing are kept separated. Likewise fro the other primary structures. Here the purpose is to switch from having the eight perspective (God's) be open for injection, and free up the seventh perspective so that it is open for injection (especially in six ways).
Question: Where do we place and interpret the questions Why? How? What? and the answers Whether! What! How! And how do we permute them?
Idea: General structure gives perspectives of God and life. (The white nodes). Life is given by the threesome within the division of everything. God is given by what is null in the human representation of the division of everything, which is then restated in terms of God's representation. This is the remainder of the division of everything. It is perhaps rotated for each injection.
Idea: Primary structure is given by empathy of life for God and God for life. (The grey nodes). They are shifts from one state to another - shifts within the threesome - and also shifts between topologies. In this sense, they are "going beyond" and these shifts are empathy of life for God. The empathy of God for life is given by the representations of the threesome in four different degrees given by the number of "recurring states" which may be 0 to 3. The gradation relates these two empathies: topologies that are together and topologies that are separate. Empathy takes place through activity. Each of the six nodes in the primary structure expresses not-wishing (the agreement of the heart and the world) and also responding (the choice between the heart and the world). The heart chooses the broader between whether, what, how, why - this is how we can know where to locate these questions/answers.
Note: Consider the four tests of the heart and the world. Perhaps there is one test for each primary structure.
What is the relationship between activity (reaching out, recurring, etc.) and the primary structures?
I need to show how there arise structures defining needs, doubts, expectations, trials. Each of these seems to have a three-cycle which gives the human outlook. The three-cycle is mapped onto God, outside the system, onto his representation in terms of 0, 1, 2 or 3 perspectives. This map yields three additional perspectives which give God's outlook.
I also need to show the structures that arise to respond to these not wishes. They seem to be given by equations generated by the operation +3 which describes consciousness: 3+3=6 (operating principles, the sixsome), 4+3=7 (counterquestions), 5+3=0 (ways of getting things done), 6+3=1 (internalization). Note that here the threesome, foursome, fivesome, sixsome are given by the white circles below, and they account perhaps for God's participation. I need to review the primary structures, write them up more carefully.
The four primary structures arise from a human allowing for a null, and God taking up that role (as a nullsome, onesome, twosome or threesome).
There are two representations of the foursome, fivesome, sixsome. One is from God's perspective, the other is from a person's perspective. Take the null from the person's perspective and reexpress it in terms of God's perspective. So God participates through the null in the person's perspective.
It seems that general structure relates the perspectives of everything and anything, whereas primary structures relate the perspectives of God and life (God is good). Each of the primary structures seems to involve:
Next: Consider how the topologies might be considered as modalities in the movement through the threesome (for example, the word "may"). Clarify how the topologies relate (from the perspectives of life and God) as empathy that connects to taking a stand, following through and reflecting. Write up how the topologies and representations come from the expectations, and consider how the divisions come from the counterquestions. Look for the role that the eightsome plays as general structure, where is it to be found?
So the movement from the rightmost (human) threesome backwards until it reaches God - this is the movement from God is good to God.
Earlier thoughts: The concept of Everything makes itself available to us through four perspectives that express what Everything wishes for. We make sense of any such wish by considering it in terms of its satisfaction, especially our subjective experience of living with this wish unsatisfied. Our subjective experience is comprehensively structured by a framework that is just a bit larger than what a single mind encompasses. This framework includes a role for Everything, where its wish is satisfied. It includes six roles for us by which we address our lack of satisfaction. It also includes a seventh role for us, where we ignore our own lack of satisfaction by responding to another's lack of satisfaction. Our own growth is given by our accepting that the wish may in fact be satisifed, and also that we can ignore our own lack of satisfaction by responding to that of another. Andrius , 2002.02.07
In practice, when we comprehensively collect and analyze our subjective experiences, then we find that they exhibit one of these structural frameworks. We can understand the difference between these structural frameworks by considering the purposes in life that they serve. Andrius , 2002.02.07
| Everything Wishes | Representations of Everything | Not-wishes go beyond Everything | |||
| Everything Wishes for Nothing | Everything is self-sufficient, caring for its own unity. Everything lacks nothing. | The structural context for self-sufficiency is that there can be various needs. | Operating principles address these needs. | These principles may be exercised with respect to ourselves, or with respect to what is greater than us, as in Jesus of Nazareth's statements, "I Am..." Operating principles let us go beyond ourselves as to whether we care, they let us take the perspective that lacks nothing. | We thereby care about our own unity, which manifests itself as our relationship with God. |
| Everything Wishes for Something | Everything is certain, caring for its own perspective. Things are exactly as Everything wishes. | The structural context for certainty is that there can be doubts. | Counterquestions address these doubts. | Counterquestions let us go beyond ourselves as to what we care about, they let us take the perspective that is certain. | We thereby care about our own point of view, which manifests itself as our relationship with others. |
| Everything Wishes for Anything | Everything is calm, caring for any perspective. All that happens is good for Everything. | The structural context for being at peace is that there can be expectations of directions from which the good might come. | Emotional responses, and volitional responses - ways of getting things done - address these expectations. | Emotional responses let us go beyond ourselves as to how we care, they let us take the perspective that is calm. | We thereby care about point of view, which manifests itself as others. |
| Everything Wishes for Everything | Everything is loving, caring for any unity. Everything loves us (wants us to be alive: sensitive and responsive) more than we love ourselves. | The structural context for such love is the Eightfold Way. | Examples are the Lord's prayer, the Beatitudes, and St.Peter's Keys to Heaven. | This structural context has us take up two separate perspectives: when we are connected to Everything, then we may choose that Everything take the lead, whereas when we are not connected to Everything, we are left to choose to take the lead ourselves. The Eightfold Way lets us go beyond ourselves as to why we care, they let us take the perspective of love. | We thereby care about unity, which manifests itself as God. |
[Andrius Kulikauskas, 10/03]
Note that the representations are so various! God is
the unity of the representations of everything. In other words,
God is the coherence of everything. If we're thinking coherently
about everything, then we're thinking about God. Andrius
, 2002.02.05
God is self-sufficient, he wishes for nothing, he has
no needs.
Good is Not Wishing-for-nothing, and is expressed by
responses to needs.
The Wishing-for-nothing is expressed by
necessary-actual-possible and the Not is the distinction
of their being without or within a system.
| without system | within system | |
| necessary | glory | love |
| actual | intent | work |
| possible | example | command |
With regard to the good, we get needs:
Each of the needs relates two perspectives. The responses to needs are operating principles which discriminate between the two perspectives, which is from the heart, and which is from the world?
We may think of the gradation of needs as connecting choices of the heart and the world, and thereby providing interpretations for the operating principles in terms of the heart and the world.
For three of the needs (the physical needs) the choices are between accepting them, or thinking of them in terms specifically in terms of the questions whether - what - how, and thereby in terms of the topologies - necessary - actual - possible. This determines whether the operating principles are applied broadly (with regard to God, as in the "I am" questions) or narrowly.
Likewise, for the other three needs, the heart chooses the broader perspective (amongst whether - what - how), so for example, the heart chooses "the good" (the what of self-esteem) over "the bad" (the whether of self-esteem), and "the better" (the how of opportunity) over "the worse" (the whether of opportunity), and "the best" (the how of self-fulfillment) over "the rest" (the what of self-fulfillment). Note that the social need may be thought of as picking out the slack that is above and beyond our own survival needs and is inherent in part of our need for security, the surplus which security builds up is the slack that we can share.
One way that we approach Everything is with the perspective that Everything wishes for nothing. Everything is self-sufficient, Everything lacks nothing.Our minds are not able to directly conceive of lacking nothing. There is nothing here for us to conceive! Instead, our mind provides us with a structural context, which is that we can have various needs. Maslow's hierarchy of needs organizes six needs: survival, security, acceptance, self-esteem, opportunity, self-fulfillment. There are eight operating principles for addressing these needs. One of these operating principles is to Be perfect. In other words, Lack nothing, Have no needs.
In the Gospel of John, Jesus makes eight statements of the form "I am..." They express how we can exercise our operating principles with respect to that which Lacks nothing, rather than ourselves. In this way, we take up the perspective of Everything, we care about Everything.
Maslow observed that we share a hierarchy of needs , which his followers extended. We can organize these as three needs of the body: 1. survival, 2. security, 3. acceptance, and three needs of the mind: 4. self-esteem, 5. opportunity, 6. self-fulfillment. The body seeks to survive. It also seeks security so that it survives tomorrow. Finally, it seeks acceptance (fulfillment of the social need), relevance to the greater context, which is the ultimate reason for surviving. Analogously, the mind has no life, no energy to live, except by its self-esteem (self-worth). It also seeks opportunity (freedom, independence) so that it has self-esteem tomorrow. Finally, it seeks self-fulfillment (life meaning), relevance to the greater context, which is the ultimate reason for self-esteem.
There are eight operating principles by which
we address the needs in Maslow's hierarchy: 0. Be perfect,
1. Cling to what you have, 2. Get more than what you need, 3. Avoid
extremes, 4. Choose the good over the bad, 5. Choose the better over
the worse, 6. Strive for the best, 7. Worry about the needs of another
rather than your own. In order to survive, we cling to what
we have. We then want to survive tomorrow as well, so for security,
we get more than what we need, which puts distance between us and our
need for survival, because we can lose some of what we have, and cling
to the rest. Finally, how can we help others survive?
We avoid extremes - we don't rock the boat - so that others can cling
to what they have. In order to have self-esteem, we choose the
good over the bad, as each such choice is the source of our self-esteem.
We then want self-esteem tomorrow as well, so we seek this opportunity
by choosing the better over the worse. This puts distance between us
and our need for self-esteem, because in choosing the better over the
worse, both alternatives may be bad, or both may be good, so we don't
have to think, just yet, that one is bad and the other is good.
Finally, how can we help others find self-esteem? We strive for
the best - we are extreme - so that others may readily decide that we
are good or bad. We can observe these six operating principles, and
infer from them the needs they address. For example, consider an
"altruistic" person. Everything that we can observe will suggest
how they are addressing their own needs. If they do good deeds because
they "must be done", they address their own survival; if so that they would
have done "more good deeds", they address security; if because this is
what a "normal person does", they address acceptance; if to do "the right
thing", they address self-esteem; if to "make things better" they address
opportunity; and if to "seek perfection" they address self-fulfillment.
But there are two other principles, which we do not observe in the world,
but which we acknowledge in our heart, and which free us from our needs.
One is to be perfect, to have no needs, which is the case with God.
The other is to take up the needs of another, rather than our own, which
is the only way we can ignore our own needs. [11/00, Andrius Kulikauskas]
The gospel of John contains eight statements by Christ of the form "I am...", the eighth being "I AM", alluding to Jahwe, the name God revealed to Moses. 0. I am. 1. I am the resurrection and the life. 2. I am the gate for the sheep. 3. I am the way, the truth and the life. 4. I am the good shepherd. 5. I am the light of the world. 6. I am the true vine. 7. I am the bread of life. They express how we may apply our operating principles absolutely - with respect to God, the entirety - rather than relatively, with respect to ourselves.
I studied the gospel of Matthew, which has many of Christ's parables, to see what are the contents of Christ's sayings . I found them to be the following eight: 0.What you find is what you love. 1.Belong to the Lord, share in the favor of the Lord. 2.Wait for the master, share in the treasure of the master. 3.Follow the teacher, share in the virtue of the teacher. 4.As you value others, so are you valued. 5.As you value the little, so you value the big. 6.As you value the fruit, so you value the tree. 7.What you believe is what happens. I think they express the same ideas as Christ's statements "I am...", but as practical precepts, for us to follow. Christ states them neutrally - the middle six precepts are useful for people both good and bad - because they simply point out the consequences of how we apply our operating principles , with respect to the entirety (as in the case of Christ's statements "I am..." ), or with respect to ourselves. [11/00, Andrius Kulikauskas]
God is certain, he wishes for something, things are
just as he wants.
Good is Not Wishing-for-something, and is expressed by
responses to doubts.
The Wishing-for-something is expressed by
subject-object-process and the Not is the distinction of
their being without or within a system.
| without system | within system | |
| subject | agent | instrument |
| object | beneficiary | theme, patient |
| process | goal, experience | location |
With regard to the good, we get the doubts:
Each of the doubts relates two perspectives. These perspectives are distinguished by responses to the doubts, counterquestions which discriminate between them, which is from the heart, and which is from the world?
Here the null for life is Why, which from God's point of view is the question Why? This question arises in the counterquestions:
This is a choice between the perspective of the heart
(God) and of the world (life).
The choices of the world correspond to the topologies: object - it seems
to me, process - should not be doing anything else,
subject - it makes a difference.
The other three counterquestions seem to express taking a
stand, following through and reflecting.
One way that we approach Everything is that Everything wishes for Something (Not Everything). In other words, Everything is certain. Things are exactly as Everything wishes.
Our minds are not able to directly conceive of all things being exactly as wished. There is nothing here for us to conceive! Instead, our mind provides us with a structural context, which is that we can have various doubts . We either ignore these doubts, or we take them seriously and acknowledge that we cannot trust our experience. We address our doubts by raising counterquestions that help us find our bearings. One of these counterquestions is What do I truly want? This counterquestion expresses the state of mind which grants that all things are exactly as wished for.
Counterquestions allow us to take up the perspective of another, and so to care about others.
The seven issues are raised by the seven doubts : 1. Do I truly like this? 2. Do I truly need this? 3. Is this truly real? 4. Is this truly problematic? 5. Is this truly reasonable? 6. Is this truly wrong? 7. Am I truly anxious? [11/00, Andrius Kulikauskas]
The counterquestions are questions that we can ask to find our bearings when we cannot rely on our experience because we suspect that we may be brainwashed. For example, suppose I start to wonder, "Am I a robot?" I can ask the counterquestion, "Would it make any difference?" If it does make a difference, then I can look for that difference, and if it doesn't make a difference, then it's of no consequence. The counterquestion helps me find my bearings, regardless of the answer. There are eight counterquestions: 0. What do I truly want? 1. How does it seem to me? 2. What else should I be doing? 3. Would it make any difference? 4. What do I have control over? 5. Am I able to consider the question? 6. Is this the way things should be? 7. Am I doing anything about this? The counterquestions address the corresponding doubts , for example, the counterquestion 3.Would it make any difference? addresses doubts of the form 3.Is this truly real? Interestingly, the answer to the counterquestion is always independent of the answer to the doubt, so the two questions can be thought of as orthogonal. Structurally, each counterquestion can be understood as a different way of placing a perspective (of God, a person in general, a particular person) in a situation (of a person in general, a particular person, the world). See Andrius Kulikauskas on the Counterquestions . [10/00, Andrius Kulikauskas]
We can often model our intuition as a set of
principles that express the counterquestions. For example,
a different counterquestion resonates in each of the principles
of nonviolent engagement: 0. Live through their point of view
1. Be straightforward 2. Be thorough 3. Be vulnerable
4. Let them win 5. Seek clarification when confused 6. Stick
to your principles 7. Have something to share
God is calm, he wishes for anything, all is good for
him.
Good is Not Wishing-for-anything, and is given by
responses to expectations.
The Wishing-for-anything is expressed by
subject-object-process and the Not is the distinction of
their being without or within a system.
| without system | within system | |
| many | morphism | substitution |
| all | induction | examination of cases |
| one | construction of algorithm | construction |
The expectations are the directions of the good. They are given by
We expect the good.
Each of the expectations brings together two perspectives. These perspectives are distinguished by responses to the expectations: the heart embracing the following or the world embracing their opposites:
These may be thought of as as pretexts for outreach.
How are the pretexts for outreach structured with
regard to each other?
Consider how they relate to the expressions of the will.
Consider what they say with regard to the heart and the
world. Compare with the logic of the heart and the
world.
Outreach - the activity of everything - is
forward-looking. Recurrence - the activity of
anything - is backwards-looking.
Compare with Jesus' antitheses, their logic.
Understand them with regard to the criteria and the
topologies.
Pretexts for Outreach Our pretexts for outreach are the lines of reasoning by which we reach out to our neighbor and "love our neighbor as our self". They express our own growth as children of God who do as he does, whose concerns grows broader in the ways that his do. Interestingly, here both we and our neighbors respond together with the same way of choosing. This suggests that here we play the role of the unbounded God, and our neighbors play the role of the bounded person, but we have met exactly half way, so that we may both respond, and coincide in our response. This is why there are many people, that we might coincide in this way, reaching out and being reached. Christ is the one who reaches out.
By what reasoning do I get myself to think of my neighbor as the same as myself? There are six different lines of reasoning, as expressed below. Each of them expresses a growth in our concern, where self-sufficiency is concern for nothing, certainty is concern for something, calm is concern for anything, and love is concern for everything. These may be compared with Jesus' reasonings as in his Sermon on the Mount.
Again:
The general structure
Look for how to map "one-all" and "many" to "why" and "how" in two different
ways.
If God-distantpast-God/gift-one/all is why and God-is-good-distantfuture-quality-many
is how, then we have that God and good are kept separate, just as God's
perspective views them. Here we are active, we look to the good will in
others, we help create that, bring that out. These are the topologies.
If God-is-good-distantfuture-quality-many is why and God-distantpast-God/gift-one/all is how, then we have that we assume that God is good, and we look back to consider how, just as people's perspective views them. Here we are passive, we show good will because we assume that God is good. These are the representations, the criteria.
Look for two secondary structures which come from this: Criteria and Topologies.
They involve "waiting" and "believing" as their seventh perspectives.
Good person, deed, word are a cycle:
Good God, gift, quality get mapped to follow through, reflect, take a stand.
In those roles, good God is one, good gift is all, good quality is many.
Representation has us have expectations, God wish for nothing, and has "waiting" as its seventh perspective. If God wishes for nothing, then look for good in people. Everything is self-sufficient. Waiting = being in suspense, as an emotional response.
Topologies have us have expectations, God wish for something, and have "believing" as its seventh perspective. If God wishes for something (connection), then look for good in both God and people. Everything is certain. Believing = sheer will, for getting things done.
Good will rests in two locations. We address the good will in others, and we show good will ourselves.
The directions of the good are the structure for the expectations.
In each case, the slack is in the direction of the good:
Slack is in the former, not the latter. Slack is in the qualities of signs:
Expectations are given by the gradation of methods of mathematical proof: morphism, induction, algorithm construction, substitution, examination of cases, construction. These seem to define the various kinds of goodness:
The good will that we show is actually that which we open through the eight directions which the good comes from. These are the same directions that we speak to in others.
We can speak to the good will in others. Or we can open the way for it to speak from us. For example, we can go from "unwillingness to change" to "willingness to change", or the reverse.
Each of the directions of the good accords as if with a division of everything. Depending on the direction that we look at them, we have either representations or topologies. What do we associate the good with? the slack with? in a division. Either with the part, or with the whole. If with the part, then that part stands independently, and we have a topology. If with the whole, then the whole stands independently, and we have a representation. Whatever we associate the good with must stand independently on either side.
Representations and Topologies
A division relates a whole with its parts.
The good is related to either the whole or the part.
Jesus is Good will.
Good will is in the whole: representations.
Good will is in the part: topologies.
Criteria have to do with increasing slack. Criteria: A perspective (ours - the part) sees The perspective (God's - the whole). We open the way for the good, and it keeps pouring out.
Representations are the good will that we show. Good is in the whole.
Opening to the ways of the good is given by the emotional responses.
Criteria (representations) arise here when God wishes for nothing. This is the goodness of the whole, of the representation. It opens up the way for goodness. Good quality is the good of decreasing slack, good word is the good of increasing slack. Good God is the good of why, good person is the good of how, good deed is the good of what, good gift is the good of whether.
Topologies are the good will that we speak to. Good is in the part.
Topologies arise here when God wishes for something. This is the goodness of the part, of the topology. It speaks to the goodness within the person. I need to think about this!
Speaking to the good is done by the ways of getting things done.
The key concepts significant, constant, direct, true are given by the good that Jesus speaks to:
The threesome is given by: good God, gift, quality or good person,
deed, word.
Question: Where is the good x in the good y? Also, how might these relate
to the topological extensions?
| good | Jesus' | nullsome | good | topology | good | topology | good | topology |
| God | willingness to change | significant | person | be | deed | do | word | think |
| gift | inertia | constant | person | one | deed | all | word | many |
| quality | isolator | direct | person | object | deed | process | word | subject |
| person | inner adherence | constant | God | one | gift | all | quality | many |
| deed | what they will achieve | direct | God | object | gift | process | quality | subject |
| word | what they could be doing | true | God | necessary | gift | actual | quality | possible |
This uses the directions of the good as a framework to pair a representation of the nullsome with a threesome, attributing good to the perspectives, yielding the three topologies. We have the threesomes as they look from a perspective on the other side.
A topology is gotten by representing the entire threesome, and taking one of the perspectives
Topologies have to do with decreasing slack, with reducing good to zero. This leaves structure, the part. Topologies: The perspective (God's - the whole) see A perspective (ours - the part).
With topologies: The whole (whatever is the direction of the good) gets mapped to the representation of the nullsome, and accordingly, the part gets mapped to a topology. Here good gets reduced to zero.
Perhaps more precisely, for example: (the perspective) good God (the direction of the good) gets understood as good + whole, and when the good gets sent to null, we have the whole become a representation of the nullsome. And then accordingly, (a perspective) for good person, deed, word, we have that it's understood as good + part, and as the good goes away, we are left with a topology, and they can be understood collectively as a representation of the threesome.
Jesus' willingness to change => their willingness to change = significant
Now I need to work out specifically the various topologies to make sure this approach makes sense.
Note the connection between good person/deed/word = = inner adherence/what they will achieve/what they could be doing = = take a stand/follow through/reflect. (or is it just be do think ?) Consider also if there is a connection between: good God/gift/quality = = willingness to change/investedness/isolation = = follow through => reflect / take a stand => follow through / reflect => take a stand.
Study how Jesus addresses, and shows, good will.
Note that, for example, Jesus' wish speaks to their belief, and then the Good heart speaks to their wish. This suggest that the Good heart is Jesus' belief, and so on. Also, note that this is the "belief" that we are looking for, as the basis for the topologies.
The equation 5 + 3 = 0.
Consider the fivesome as expressing God's point of view. Consider difference between time and space, just as there is a difference between observer and thing. God's perspective is given by time. People's perspective is given by space. Look for perspective in terms of space.
In space, God's perspective is the null perspective. His is unrestricted context, and unrestricted configuration. What does it mean to say that God is good, or his gift is good? It is good in the sense that is wider than we can see: not every cause has had its effect. The unrestricted context is the Why, and the unrestricted configuration is the How. We may say that the Why is the goodness of God and his gift, and the How is the good quality (which supports the good and destroys the bad). Or we may say the other way around.
If we say that Why is the goodness of God and his gift, and the How is the good quality (which supports the good and destroys the bad), then we have that God wishes for something. So this gives rise to the topologies.
If we say that Why is the good quality (which supports the good and destroys the bad), and How is the goodness of God and his gift, then we have that God wishes for nothing. So this gives rise to the criteria.
One way that we approach Everything is that Everything wishes for Anything (Not Nothing). In other words, Everything is at peace. Whatever happens is good for Everything.
This structure helps us to be open to the good coming from more directions than our mind can encompass. It keeps us from thinking of the good as the "sole responsibility" of either God or man.
Our minds are not able to directly conceive that whatever happens is good. There is nothing here for us to conceive! Instead, our mind provides us with a structural context, which is that we can have various expectations. The structural context for being calm is that there can be expectations. These expectations are avenues for the good. They are the directions from which the good might come.
The directions of the good are the various things that are good. They are: good heart, good God, good gifts, good quality, good person, good deed, good word, good news. I collected them from the gospel of Luke. On the one hand, we can think of God as being good, and there being good gifts from him. On the other hand, we can think of people being good, and of them as doing good deeds. Back to the first line of thinking, we can say that there is a good quality by which the good in people is preserved, and the bad in people is destroyed. Back to the second line of thinking, we can say that there is a good word which judges the goodness of the tree by the goodness of the fruit. The good news, that what we believe is what happens, indicates that the good in the first line of thinking is the same good as in the second line of thinking. Finally, there is the good heart, that what we find is what we love, which makes the other seven irrelevant. Ultimate vs. immediate, Encouraging vs. discouraging, Interdependent vs. independent. [9/99, Andrius Kulikauskas]
Emotinal responses
Emotional responses have us be open to the perspective of another, care about our relationship with another. They allow us to respond in any single direction. The ways things get done describe our response.
Everything has no expectations, but we do. Expectations occur when our participation is bounded in scope. The foundation of all participation is the threesome , the division of everything into three perspectives: Taking a stand, following through, and reflecting on the results.
The participation of everything is unbounded in scope, and has no role. Whereas the perspective of anything is bounded in scope, which is its role.
Our participation may be bounded in three different ways, and so this gives shape to our expectation. We experience each dimension of our participation as an emotional dimension. These three emotional dimensions are our receptivity to emotion (sensitive or insensitive), the quality of our emotion (positive or negative), and the quantity of our emotion (calm or aroused).
We experience the unity of our expectation through an emotional response . We may respond to this unity with the associated way of getting things done, through which there opens up an avenue for the good .
This transformation may take place at the pre-level (cognitive expectations, getting things done) or at the post-level (emotional responses, avenues of the good). The pre-level is unbounded (indeliberate, with signified), the post-level is bounded (deliberate, with sign). Are we driven by our outlook, by God, or by emotion, by good?
Jesus observes, addresses and concludes with regard to this transformation.
The eight emotional experiences are combinations
of the three emotional dimensions.
Joe Damal and I identified eight ways of getting things done . Getting things done is much more relevant than having power. You do not need to have power to get things done, and you can have power but get nothing done. The eight ways of getting things done are: make yourself heard, confront, delegate, initiate, articulate, renew, sheer will, and respond. They are related to the eight emotional responses. Directed from inside vs. directed to outside. Supporting intention vs. countering intention, Exercising initiative vs. sharing initiative. [11/99, Andrius Kulikauskas]
Jesus has an expectation that people involuntarily lack connection with the signified. Involuntary vs. voluntary, with signified vs. with sign, lack connection vs.have connection. Their principle is: (absolute) Love God vs. (relative) Love your neighbor as yourself, do vs. do not, indeliberate vs. deliberate. He responds by addressing their good: Focused from inside vs. focused on outside, unified vs. divided, disengaged vs. engaged. These ways of showing good will are speaking to: their belief (at peace, respond, good heart), their willingness to change (sad, renew, good God), their investedness (surprised, articulate, good gift), demon isolating (frightened, confront, good quality), inner adherence (content, delegate, good person), what they will achieve (excited, initiate, good deed), what they could be doing (disgusted, make yourself heard, good word), their purpose (suspense, exercise sheer will, good news). Based on a study of the emotions of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark.
The good will that Jesus addresses is that people follow the will of God (this is the "what" that God wishes). This means that the will of the person is aligned with the will of God. For this to be the case, there needs to be a will - an inner adherence, but there also needs to be a following of the will - a willingness to change. The inner adherence is the goodness of a person, and the willingness to change is the goodness of God. The person who adheres manifests this through what they will achieve, through their good deeds. The relationship between the good person and their good deeds is what they could be doing, as given by the good word. God from whom comes the willingness to change manifests that through their investedness in the good, his good gifts. The relationship between the good God and his good gifts is that he is isolating the good from the bad, which is the good quality. This all opens up three connections in following the will of God: obeying, which connects the good person and the good God, so that they are one in the good heart, and the distinction between the wills collapses; believing, which connects the good deed with the good gift; and caring, which connects the good word with the good quality.
The eightfold way allows us to listen to God, to be open to him. It has us alternate from a point of view where we are in touch with God and can let him take the initiatve, and a point of view where we are not in touch with God and so we ourselves take the initiative.
The eightfold way is the structure that organizes all other structures. It pulls together the two representations of the foursome: the first four lines give the representation in terms of point of view, and the second four lines the representation in terms of situation. It matches God with everything in the first line, with the elements of the gradation in the middle six lines, and with nothing in the final line.
Note: the heart arises from the inversion effect when everything wishes for everything.
Structural note: The eightfold way matches negations of the four
representations of the nullsome with negations of the four representations of
the onesome. Also, it seems to relate Eternal life, wisdom, good will,
God's will with life, anything, choosing, will.
There are three canonical examples of the eightfold
way, and they can be found in the New Testament: The Lord's
prayer (Matthew 6:9-13), The Beatitudes (Matthew
5:3-10), and St.Peter's Keys to Heaven (2 Peter 1:5-7)
I take the name for the eightfold way from Buddha's eightfold way
which is structurally the same example as St.Peter's Keys to
Heaven. [8/99, Andrius Kulikauskas]
| The Lord's prayer | The Beatitudes | St.Peter's Keys to Heaven |
| Our father, who art in Heaven, [God, who loves us - wants us to be alive more than we ourselves do] | Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. [God, who loves us - wants us to be alive more than we ourselves do] | from faith [God, who loves us - wants us to be alive more than we ourselves do] |
| Hallowed be thy name. [Preferable that God think, than I think] | Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. [Preferable that God be, than I be] | to virtue, from virtue [Preferable that God do, than I do] |
| Thy kingdom come. [Preferable that God be, than I be] | Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth. [Preferable that God do, than I do] | to knowledge, from knowledge [Preferable that God think, than I think] |
| Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. [Preferable that God do, than I do] | Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be satisfied. [Preferable that God think, than I think] | to self-control, from self-control [Preferable that God be, than I be] |
| Give us this day our daily bread. [Watch over so I may do what I believe] | Blessed are the merciful, for they will be treated mercifully. [Watch over so I may reflect on what I do] | to endurance, from endurance [Watch over so I may believe based on what I reflect on] |
| And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. [Watch over so I may reflect on what I do] | Blessed are the pure of heart, for they will see God. [Watch over so I may believe based on what I reflect on] | to prayerfulness, from prayerfulness [Watch over so I may do what I believe] |
| And lead us not into temptation. [Watch over so I may believe based on what I reflect on] | Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the children of God. [Watch over so I may do what I believe] | to brotherhood, from brotherhood [Watch over so I may reflect on what I do] |
| But deliver us from evil. [Watch over us in the world] | Blessed are those who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. [Watch over us in the world] | to love [Watch over us in the world] |
Examples of the eightfold way include: Buddha's eightfold way, Zermelo-Frankel axioms of set theory, Hare Krishna chant, octave of musical chords. The principles of Kung Fu, as worked out with Steve Bonzak. [Andrius Kulikauskas, 5/00]
The Way of Flow by Craig Green provides excerpts from Czikszentmihalyi's books on his theory about the experience of flow. He goes through nine elements of the experience:
I looked over my weaknesses and drew up a list of what I want to be mindful of. Over the last three years, every morning after I pray, I go through my list, imagining how throughout my day I could address each item. I do not attempt to force myself to accomplish the things I think up, but rather to make myself aware of the possibility and thereby encourage myself to be flexible and make time for such things. I will call them Andrius' daily mindfulness : Be with God. Foster my conscience. Foster my will power. Foster my stewardship. Be interested in others. Serve others. Support others. Desire to succeed. [10/99, Andrius Kulikauskas]
Internalization describes the relationship between
a person and God. I denote it with the equation 6 + 3 = 1
because of the way it brings together the two representations
of the
sixsome
. We internalize when we convert an external perspective
(loyalty or duty or justice) into the corresponding internal perspective
(faith or caring or self-control). By internalizing, we make
ourselves responsive to God. When we internalize, then God
converts our emotional disposition, the precarious balance of (love/hate
or closeness/fear or beauty/disgust) into the corresponding virtue
(hope or honesty or courage) which is immutable. This happens
in three ways: the system of beauty, the system of closeness
, and the system of love . The system of beauty
involves the virtues as Plato understood them (upon interpreting his
virtue of wisdom as an emotional disposition towards beauty): beauty,
courage, self-control, justice. The system of love involves the
virtues as St.Paul understood them (upon making explicit loyalty, which
is implicit in his writing): love, hope, faith, loyalty. [10/99, Andrius
Kulikauskas]
God empathizes with humans by taking up their boundedness, and reaching out beyond a definite boundary. This gives rise to the secondary structures.
I suppose this is because God empathizes with the activity of life, which is recurrence. Recurrence has one go to a perspective further within. Whereas going beyond has one go to a perspective further out. Everything has a representation (God has a property) as a reference point for such going further within. The secondary frameworks therefore have God recur - go within himself - counter to his going beyond. Perhaps this is to reverse the direction from going forwards (keeping God and good separate) to going backwards (taking them as one related concept).
Each secondary structure arises through the injection of a wishing into a framework for not-wishing. Then the seventh perspective within that framework becomes a representation of anything, an expression of the will. Apparently, will is what allows for the injection of wishing into not-wishing.
Each of the secondary structures serves as an interpolation between a property of God (a wishing) and a property of life (a willing) - between the horizon points outside and inside the system - between an identification of God with God and God with good.
The secondary structures are generated by embedding the representations (everything wishes for nothing, something, anything) into the structural frameworks (not wishes). For example, the divisions of everything are generated by having "everything that wishes for nothing", that is self-sufficient, take up the counterquestions: "how does it seem to me?" yields onesome, "what else should I be doing?" yields twosome, etc. For each embedding, the seventh perspective gives one of the six expressions of the will, here it is "engaging". The expressions of the will are the representations of anything.
Hence there are three injections, or versions, for the Eightfold way, and two for the emotional responses, and one for the counterquestions, and none for the operating principles. And the various gradations (Maslow's hierarchy of needs, Kiparsky's gradation of thematic roles, methods of mathematical proof) figure accordingly.
Frameworks are the structures described by not-wishing, which is to say, that which is beyond wishing. For example, God is calm, but we have expectations: God's perspective consists of good God, good gift, good quality. Person's perspective consists of good person, good deed, good word.
These representations of anything give the various ways that God emerges. Consider the representations of everything. Each of them is an eighth perspective that we take up only by making irrelevant seven other perspectives that provide its structural context. Let us ask the following question: Can we have a structural context without having the matching eighth perspective? We raise this question by applying a structural context to a nonmatching perspective. Apparently, the latter must be of a lower level of reflection. Our question is variously expressed by the six representations of anything. In each case, the answer should be No, because we expect that God emerges. The matching perspective should emerge from the way that the nonmatching perspective responds to that structural context. [11/00, Andrius Kulikauskas]
If we represent anything, then we may consider it as everything, in which case we have the same four representations as does everything. Or we may consider it apart from everything, but then such knowledge is only approximate, which explains why the two additional representations that we have do not apply to everything, for which there are no approximations. [11/00, Andrius Kulikauskas]
There are three languages: argumentation, narration, and verbalization. [5/00, Andrius Kulikauskas]
Divisions of everything are the way things are defined. There are eight divisions: nullsome , onesome , twosome , threesome , foursome , fivesome , sixsome , sevensome . Divisions have representations. Nullsome, onesome, twosome, and threesome each have four representations. Foursome, fivesome, sixsome, sevensome each have two representations. [8/99, Andrius Kulikauskas]
The nullsome is the division of everything into zero perspectives. This structure defines issues of God, who is everything, and has no issues. The nullsome has four representations: +3) significant, +2) constant, +1) direct, +0) true. These generate the twelve topologies. The four representations of the nullsome negate the four perspectives of the foursome : significant=unencompassed, constant=unchanged, direct=unrepresented, true=unhidden. The four representations of the nullsome are the same as, or at least closely related to, the four representations of everything : Everything is significantly loving, constantly calm, directly certain, truly self-sufficient. [3/00, Andrius Kulikauskas]
Some examples of the nullsome: God Appears Before Elijah as a Tiny Whispering
Sound, The Unknowable: Spencer, Tao: Lao Tzu, Being: Heidegger,
Leap: Heidegger, Ultimate Concern: Tillich, Absolute: Schelling,
The River: Keating
The onesome is the division of everything into one perspective. This structure defines issues of order. The onesome has four representations, which are the properties of everything: +3) no external context, +2) simplest algorithm: accepts all things, +1) no internal structure, +0) required concept. [3/00, Andrius Kulikauskas]
Some examples of the onesome: The Universe: Various People, The One Substance: Spinoza, The Universe: the Stoics, God, My Autobiographical Self, Being: Lao Tzu, Heaven: Mo Tzu, Null: MS Access, Religious Symbols: Tillich, Logical Form: Wittgenstein, Structure: Barthes, Set of All Sets: Russell, Experience: Dewey, Possible Self-Consciousness: Kant, All Statements True: Math, Walrasian Function: Friedman, Why?: Heidegger, Sacred Word: Keating, Absolute: Buddhism,Vanity: Ecclesiastics, Experience: Kant, Angular Momentum: Physics, Contemplation: Hinduism, Manifestations of Godhead: Hinduism, Description: Wittgenstein, Nature: Kant, Pure Concept: Kant, Ritual: Hinduism, Self: Hinduism, Necessity: Kierkegaard, Deciding for Others: Marsch, Restlesness: Marsch, Surplus: Economics, Possibility: Kierkegaard
The twosome is the division of everything into
two perspectives. This structure defines issues of existence.
The two perspectives are one where opposites coexist, and another
where all things are the same. Our mind moves from the perspective
where opposites coexist to the perspective where all things are
the same. The twosome has four representations: +3) free will
and fate, +2) outside and inside, +1) theory and practice, +0)
same and different. [10/99, Andrius Kulikauskas]
Some examples of the twosome: Doubt and Belief: Peirce, Trees: Genesis, Reality: Levi-Strauss, Data: Beneviste, Things: Plato, Creation: Theodoric, Stimulation: Spencer, Salvation: Hinduism, Representation: Locke, Reference: Buddhism, Permanence: Buddhism, Mystical Experience: Buddhism, Irony and Romance: Frye, Identity: Schelling, Sources of Information: Hume, God: Hinduism, Communicational Scepticism: Taylor, Complementary Truths: Fromke, Perception: Spinoza, Judgments: Mansel, Reflections: Marcel, Reading: Frye, Our Divine Calling: Fromke, Synthetic and Analytic: Kant, Judgments: Kant, Change: Kant, Time and Space: Kant, Representations: Kant, God Proves that He Exists, Symbolic Representation: Cassirer, Structure: Saussure, Worship: Kierkegaard, Virtue: Lao Tzu, Speech: Greimas, Outward and Inward Man: Watchman Nee, Concreteness and Ultimacy: Tillich, Faith: Tillich, Experience: Kant
The threesome is the division of everything
into three perspectives. This structure defines issues of
participation. The three perspectives are taking a stand,
following through, and reflecting. The threesome has four
representations: +3) exist, act, think +2) one, all, many
+1) object, process, subject +0) necessary, actual, possible.
The twelve perspectives are independently the twelve
topologies
. [4/01, Andrius Kulikauskas]
Some examples of the threesome: The Upward Spiral: Covey, Synthesis: Kant,
Existence of the World: Kant, Substantial: Lenin, Incompleteness:
Godel, Fact, Sentence, Thought: Wittgenstein, Information Streams:
Papez, Declaration of Independence: Andrius
The foursome is the division of everything into four perspectives. This structure defines issues of knowledge. The four perspectives are: +3) why +2) how +1) what +0) whether, where the notation indicates the levels of reflection involved. The foursome has two representations, the point of view of the observer (questions: why? how? what? whether?), and the point of view of the thing (answers: why, how, what, whether). [10/99, Andrius Kulikauskas]
Some examples of the foursome: Views, The Four Causes: Aristotle, Signs: Peirce, States of Mind: Plato, The Parable of the Sower: Jesus Christ, Knowledge Claims: Toulmin, Database Design: Microsoft Access, Delimitation of Being: Heidegger, Temptations of Christ: Matthew, Faculties of the Mind: Kant, Statue of Lion: Fa-tsang, Questions: Taylor, From Saying to Meaning: Locke, Types of Thoughts: Keating, Functions of Personality: Jung, Criteria For Good Measure: McClelland, Cognition: Aigen, Psychosocial Stages: Stewart, Representations: Kant, Degrees of Unsolvability: Turing Machines, Literary Meaning: Frye, Knowledge: Spinoza, Aspects of Man: Jaspers, Notation: Andrius, Conversational Categories: Grice, Universal Validity Claims: Abel and Habermas, Antimonies: Kant, Principal Moments: Kant, Cognitive Perfections: Kant, Habit: Covey, Ontological Classes: Peirce, Principles: Kant, Powers: Plato, Logical Progression: Harman, Reason and Understanding: Hegel, Permanence and Change: Nicolas of Autrecourt
The fivesome is the division of everything into
five perspectives. This structure defines issues of decision.
The fivesome has two representations: time and space. The
main idea is that every effect has a cause, but not every cause
has yet had its effect. Our practical perspective takes us from
the effect (that we wish or not) backwards to its cause. In
the case of time, this takes us from the immediately relevant "near
future" to the immediately relevant "near past". However, as
the distance between effect and cause becomes greater and greater, at
a certain reversal point we start to concern ourselves with causes that
have not yet had their effects, we take up a theoretical perspective.
In the case of time, we go from a "distant past" towards a "distant
future". Instead of particular cause-effect relationships, with
effect leading back to cause, we now consider general cause-effect
relationships, with cause taking us forward to effect. What drives
this reversal is that in leading backwards, effect and cause are of
the same kind, both are defined, but when we move forwards, cause and
effect are of different kinds, because the cause is defined and the effect
is not defined. It takes more energy for our minds to think of
perspectives as the same rather than as different. Therefore our
mind moves readily from the practical to the theoretical direction of
causality. As it does so, there is a reversal point where either
direction makes sense. In the case of time, this is the "present".
The key to all decision making is the existence of this reversal point,
because it says that we can move from one direction to another in a continuous
manner, there being a point where both directions coexist. At that
"point of decision" we can straightforwardly switch directions, we can
"make a decision" as to whether we're looking to cause an effect, or effect
a cause. In other words, the fivesome is what allows for continuity,
which is key for decision making. We can also represent this spatially,
where causes are understood as being outside of effects. Whether or
not there is a "system boundary" - a reversal point - depends on whether
or not the effect is already defined. If the effect is already defined,
then there is no system boundary between it and its cause, but if it is
not defined, then there is a system boundary between it and its cause.
Also, I think that the fivesome describes the "reflection effect" by
which reflection reverses mental movement, but I still need to work this
out. [3/01, Andrius Kulikauskas]
The sixsome is the division of everything into six perspectives. This structure defines issues of morality. It is given by six of the operating principles: 1. Cling to what you have, 2. Get more than what you need, 3.Avoid extremes, 4.Choose the good over the bad, 5. Choose the better over the worse, 6. Strive for the best. The sixsome has two representations, emotion and cognition. In terms of emotion, the operating principles are understood as the effect that horizon points have upon us when we focus on them, and thus slack is decreasing. They are three pairs of emotional dispositions: 1. intimacy/fear 2. love/hate 3. beauty/disgust and three virtues: 4. honesty 5. hope 6. courage. In terms of cognition, the operating principles are understood as our efforts to focus ourselves upon horizon points, and thus slack is increasing. They are three internal perspectives: 1. caring 2. believing 3. obeying and three external perspectives: 4.duty 5. loyalty 6. justice. These involve absolute, relative, and ultimate judgements. Our mind moves from absolute to relative. In emotion, our mind moves from recurrent activity (conflicts) to evoked structure (virtues), and this may be thought of as intensification. In cognition, our mind moves from expressed structure (external perspectives) to recurrent activity (internal perspectives), and this may be thought of as internalization. Perhaps these movements may also be thought of as taking us between particular (self-centered, internal, closed) and general (multi-centered, external, open) morality. Emotion takes us from particular to general, and cognition takes us from general to particular. [4/01, Andrius Kulikauskas]
The sevensome is the
division
of everything into seven perspectives, the ways of choosing:
1.choosing Yes 2.choosing Not No 3. choosing Not Yes
4.choosing No 5.choosing to not choose 6.choosing to
choose 7.choosing The first six are the six criteria,
and are the representations of anything. The seventh is the
act of choosing, where it's not established what we are choosing, and
therefore is not a representation of anything. If we add an eight
perspective, 0. not choosing, then the entire structure collapses back
into the nullsome. The sevensome defines issues of good, which
is slack. The sevensome has two representations, one in terms of
responsivity, perspective (increasing slack), and one in terms of sensitivity,
situation (decreasing slack). Note that perspective negates thing, and
situation negates observer. [2/01, Andrius Kulikauskas]
Perhaps "having the choice" is the representation in terms of increasing slack, and "choosing" is the representation in terms of decreasing slack.
There are six criteria. They are choosing Yes, choosing Not No, choosing Not Yes, choosing No, choosing to not choose, choosing to choose. [2/01, Andrius Kulikauskas]
These are also the six representations. They are being one with everything, anything, something, nothing and the increasing slack and decreasing slack in the extent of a domain.
These six criteria are ordered in a gradation of the form 3:3, but I'm not sure how that relates to the definition above. One way that this gradation is expressed is Maslow's hierarchy of needs : survival, security, acceptance, self-esteem, freedom, self-fulfillment. Another way is Kiparsky's hierarchy of thematic roles: agent, beneficiary, goal, instrument, patient, location. Another way that the gradation is expressed is the methods of proof : morphism, induction, algorithm construction, substitution, examination of cases, construction. [2/01, Andrius Kulikauskas]
Secondary structures arise from having everything, with a
given scope of concern, go beyond itself to empathize with
the experience of a primary structure.
The subject of this empathy is the relationship between
everything and anything. For example, let us consider when
everything wishes for nothing. In particular, here
everything wishes for nothing with regard to its
relationship with anything. We may think of anything as
everything plus slack. Here then, all the slack or
goodness is expected to come from anything, because
everything wishes for nothing.
So the directions of the good, as felt here by everything,
give rise to the following emotional responses:
- Good person: content (in what matters, things are as
they should) Here everything interprets itself as "being
one with everything".
- Good God: sad (in what matters, things are not as they
should be - the goodness here shouldn't be coming from a
God who wishes for nothing!)
Here everything interprets itself as "being one with
nothing".
- Good deed: excited (in what does not matter so much,
things are as they should) Everything feels it is "being
one with anything".
- Good gift: surprised (in what does not matter so much,
things aren't as they should be). Everything feels it is
"being one with something".
I think also:
- Good quality (sorting the good and the bad): fright (in
what does not matter so much, can't make expectation).
Everything interprets this as "decreasing slack".
- Good word (allowing the good and the bad to be
confused): disgust (in what matters, can't make
expectation). Everything interprets this as "increasing
slack".
The idea is that this empathy gives rise to a secondary
structure, the six criteria: being one with everything,
anything, something, nothing and increasing and decreasing
slack.
The empathy here is different if everything's scope of
concern becomes larger, as in "everything wishes for
something". What does everything wish for? That the
anythings which are beyond it seek to connect with it,
that they "involuntarily, actively, be connected". So now
there is an expectation on the part of everything. And
also the directions of the good will now be interpreted as
a two-sided effort, both God and person. I think empathy
here will give rise to the twelve topologies, by way of
the twelve ways that I've observed how we can conceive
being connected with God. So I am thinking about that and
will try to work that out.
There are twelve topologies. They are the vocabulary of our imagination. They are the perspectives given by the four representations of the threesome , generated by the four representations of the nullsome , as follows:
I went through Christopher Alexander's "The Nature of Order" and his
fifteen principles of life.
I will describe them as the features by which "anything" may connect
itself with "everything" as centers of life, limited and unlimited.
We can think of "everything" and "anything" as players that wish to
link up with each other.
"Anything" plays through a trinity of roles: taking a stand,
following through, and reflecting. This cycle is the motor of our
life.
"Everything" plays by going beyond itself. It is the infinite
recursiveness of Why? It is the same recursiveness in the cycle of
our soul - taking a stand, following through, reflecting - which is
how we are conscious of everything.
Three of Alexander's properties of life describe this relationship
just as it is.
Where is everything?
Here it is in the recursive nature, going ever deeper, inward, but
also, going back outward, farther than we may imagine.
We are limited, hence unable to conceive directly our connection, but
may only allude to it. Our conception is thus given not by this
infinite recursion, but through representations of everything.
Everything is represented in four ways, as true, direct, constant,
significant. Moreover, in its relationship with anything, it is
given as a player of a mind game which generates properties of life,
of the oneness of the spirit beyond and within structure, of
everything and anything.
"Significant" generates a mind game, where significant is that which
is unencompassable, can't be captured:
If thinking is significant, then so is being, for thoughts are
encompassed by the thinker. If being is significant, then so is
doing, for things are encompassed by the actions that manifest them.
If doing is significant, then so is thinking, for actions are
encompassed by the observations made of them.
Where is the everything? Everything is identified with the relaxation of global centers to
allow for restatement through local centers.
"Constant" generates a mind game:
In searching for constancy, we find one example of constancy,
otherwise it is constantly unconstant. So the constancy is in
the "one" or in the "all". Note that to do this search, what we
select needs to be the same as what we judge, they are multiply
constant, "many".
Where is the everything? Everything is identified with that which searches for centers,
perhaps finding one (and breaking symmetry) or not finding one (and
leaving symmetry) but especially in the regularity of the "many",
which blankets the entire space with centers.
"Direct" generates a mind game:
Our attention can be directed by something other than itself,
an "object". Subsequently, it can be directed by itself, this
is "process". Finally, it may or may not be directed, this
is "subject".
Where is the everything? Everything is identified with that which gives attention to centers,
and especially, the subject, the ambiguity and interlock.
"True" generates a mind game, where true is what can't be hidden, is
obvious:
The content and what reveals it may be the same, in which case it
is "necessarily" true. Otherwise, the content may be different from
what reveals it, and follows it, so is "actually" true. Finally,
what may be true is the relationship between the content and what
reveals it, which is "possibly" true.
Where is the everything? Everything is identified with that which serves as the center, and
especially the void, what is possible.
We may think of these structures as arising from analogous self-reinforcing activity.
| Be strong | strong
centers attract other centers without disturbing them (connect with other centers) |
strong
boundaries share a boundary zone (equalize) with other centers where new centers can grow |
levels of
scale centers grow as large as they can without disturbing the existing centers (or their scales) |
| Centers and subcenters |
not-separateness serve as a center for subcenters of other centers |
gradients
influence only in the direction of your motion, variation |
roughness
allow for variation of your subcenters (relaxation) |
| Center and global forces (incoming links) | good
shape crystallize, purify, localize the balancing of conflicting forces |
local
symmetries align with the prevailing axis of symmetry |
positive
space push the boundary out from the center |
| Center and local attention (outgoing movement) | contrast
move like centers to one side of a boundary |
echoes
shift attention to similar centers (same balance) regardless of scale |
deep
interlock and ambiguity shift attention to what is similar on both sides of a boundary |
| Centers and supercenters |
simplicity and inner calm align with every center you are within |
alternating repetition yield to a force so as to exhaust it |
void tranfer links from a center to a larger center that contains it |
We may furthermore think of these structures as evoked by recurring activity.
| strong centers an activity cycles through several functions, and each function is a center |
strong boundaries a boundary is where we switch from one function to another, and therefore where there may be several functions together |
levels of scale inside one zone there may be all manner of activities |
|
An example of the twelve topologies is our laboratory's
Thoughtful Wishing
usage matrix. We have collected wishes from
people as to what kind of support they would like for thinking.
Underlying this matrix are four mental states that seem to relate
to the four representations of Everything.
The topologies are derived from the empathy that "Everything that wishes for something" has for "the not-wishing of anything". The latter is given by the directions that the good may come from, as these are the expectations in not wishing for just anything. What does everything wish for? That anything indeliberately be connected with the essence, so that all connects back unto everything. This is also that people follow the will of God. So this is a coinciding of the will of God, and the will of a person. Inasmuch as everything wishes for something, there is a domain for that wish, and therefore a representation of everything, which is given by everything, one of four representations, which are wishes. And as anything may follow the will of everything, there are three reasons for doing so: obeying, believing, caring. These together make for the twelve topologies.
The topologies may be thought of as extensions of a Z, where Z is that which is given by God, and the rest by a person. These extensions arose in my study of diagrams for argumentation. If Z is taken as everything, then they yield the topologies, and if Z is taken as slack, then they yield the ways of connecting with God. This is presumably the twofold ambiguity inherent in topologies, of theory and practice, of God's view of us, and our view of God.
| Exist Supports: My enemies surround me, but I am on the Rock. I fight from an advantageous position. I may fight for a long time, but I do not lose for God is my support. In the end my enemies conclude that they cannot win and they withdraw in panic. | Act Holds: I run to the Lord and he holds me: he provides refuge from the godless. They are cut off from his refuge and the eternal blessings of the Lord. While there is a threat to me, can I glorify the Lord and not risk bringing shame to myself and to my Lord ? But my joy is secure! I glorify the Lord! | Think Removes: I am in great trouble. The Lord removes me: he pulls me out of trouble and places me on secure ground. |
| One Chooses: The Lord may compel his subjects, but then they would not have free will. Instead the Lord chooses me to rule. Man is chosen to rule creation and the Messiah is chosen to rule the peoples. To rule is not to compel but to direct those with free will. I warn you not to seek freedom from the Lord but to submit of free will. The Lord and I fight on the same side. If you do not submit of free will, then the Lord will force you to submit. | All Tests: The justice of the Lord demands that all succumb to their own devices. I am good and have nothing to fear from his test. | Many Completes: The Lord who compels the world is the Lord who saves the weak from the strong. The Lord who creates the world does not abandon interest in his creation. The Lord completes what he has started. I rely on his commitment. My gratefulness is also complete: I publicly proclaim that the Lord is true to his word. And so the glory of God spreads from one heart to another. It compels all before it. The Lord is eternal through this everlasting glory. |
| Object Points: I turn to the point of light: the light points that I may follow. It is the essence, the life, the law: "the good" from which all emmanates. I turn away from the godless and towards the law. The godless go to each other for advice, but I look to the law. I write it in my heart and the Lord fulfills my requests. What I want is what he wants for me. | Process Drives: The Lord shows sinners the way: they trust in him and he prods them along. He drives to the good those who trust in him. | Subject Restrains: When I transgress against the Lord I may expect him to destroy me. For my transgression shows that I am opposed to the Lord. Yet I acknowledge my sins to the Lord and beg him not to destroy me. Will the Lord destroy his own servant? The Lord restrains his wrath: he teaches me rather than destroy me. He thereby shows me his kindness. |
| Necessary Reveals: The violent only attack the weak. The spirit of violence is ambush. The violent always attack by surprise - they lurk behind lies. One is shamed when one's plans come to light and are thereby foiled. If the wicked are successful, then the weak are shamed for having placed their faith in God, and God is shamed, for he is the champion of the weak. But the voice of the Lord reveals the plans of the wicked. He foils the wicked and puts them to shame. | Actual Returns: The Lord always checks up on the godfearing man, but he ignores the godless forever. The godfearing man may have troubles, but the Lord forever remembers him. He returns to him regularly. The godless may seem to be well off, but he is left to rely on himself and ultimately perishes. | Possible Leaves: I am proud of my strength. The Lord leaves and I learn that my strength comes from him. I turn to him and ask him to come back, but he takes his time in accordance with my pride. |
Argumentation takes us from 12 topologies to six criteria.
The above diagram "How do things come to matter? Data from starting my business" is an example of the kind of data that argumentation should account for. I've noticed 12 extensions by which a thought depends on previous thoughts, especially on that part Z that we may say is given by God.
If Z is taken to be everything, then the extensions are the topologies, and if Z is taken to be slack, then the extensions are the ways of connecting with God.
This is the comprehensive equation of life.
Here are several ways to think of the ten concerns:
The Ten Commandments are 4 positive commandments ("Love God") plus 6 negative commandments ("Love your neighbor as yourself"). The six negative commandments prohibit us from playing God, from manipulating others in to making choices:
Here the victim may be the perpetrator and his or her associates. The problem with manipulation is that I can never completely manipulate myself. I will always have some freedom left. So who am I to go to somebody as a fighter with whom they must fight? or as a lover with whom they must love? I manipulate them to be like me, but I always know (my conscience!) that I am free to leave, even though my manipulations insist that they stay on. So the evil is my insistence of their staying in the face of my knowledge that I can leave. "Love your neighbor as yourself": slack is the difference between myself and my neighbor. My neighbor is anybody close enough for me to give slack to in any way. When we manipulate others, we hurt ourselves by tuning out the true openings in life.
An important way to think of all of the structure is that there are ten concerns, four given by the representations of everything, and six given by the representations of anything. The four concerns of God can be ranked by their broadness, so that there are six ways that God grows in concern, and these are the six concerns of life. Each concern of life is that God grow in concern. Andrius, 2002.02.01
Structurally, these ten concerns are given by the kinds and qualities of signs.The qualities of signs are given by pairs of perspectives from the foursome (symbol, index, icon, thing): malleable (icon can change without thing changing), modifiable (index can change without thing changing), mobile (index can change without icon changing), memorable (symbol can change without index changing), meaningful (symbol can change without icon changing), motivated (symbol can change without thing changing).(These are inspired by the "5 M's" of the Artificial Intelligence literature). Andrius, 2002.02.04
John Caswell's Business Equation also captures these ten concerns:
Also consider the Algebra of Copyright.
Ways of Rethinking There are six ways of rethinking,
and four ways of recaring. The six accord with the pretexts for
outreach, and with extending the concern from self to neighbor. Each
way of rethinking has a different domain, given by either self or
neighbor, and either actions or thoughts or stands. Note that the
sequence actions/thoughts/stands indicates a relationship with St.Peter's
Keys to Heaven and verbalization. 
There are six Ways of Modeling, one from questions that reveal the actors' point of view, another from answers that reveal the concepts' point of view, and the remaining four bridge these two by means of why, how, what, whether.
Structural families arise from attempts to express one representation of everything in terms of the structural framework for another representation of everything. They allow Life to stay independent before God. Andrius, 2002.02.12 This below needs to be fixed, rethought.
Consider also Representations of divisions, there are four of some, and two of others.
Derive the primary structures: operating principles, counterquestions, directions of the good, life choices.
What is the relation between the gradations (Maslow's hierarchy of needs, Kiparsky's gradation of thematic roles, the methods of mathematical proof) and the not-wishings (needs, doubts, expectations)? How do the gradations and not-wishings together express the choices between the heart and the world? Why is there not a fourth gradation? Why is there no counterpart to trials?
What is the principle for assigning the perspectives of the foursome (how, what, whether)? Why (and why not) is there permutation?
What are the 6 expectations?
What are the 6 trials?
Investigate regarding the directions of the good: Compare with ryšiai su Dievu. Compare with topologies as extensions. Relate to break down in the three dimensions. Relate representations to emotional responses. Relate topologies to ways of getting things done. Consider: God in the expectation, God prior to the expectation. Consider emotion and cognition as the two sides of internalization. Assimilating (cognition) and purifying (emotion). Consider mapping "free will" and "fate" onto "why" and "how".
Thought: The [seventh perspective] is the person's outlook as that of slack. In what sense does slack go beyond itself?
Thought: God looks as: why, how, what. Human looks as: how, what, whether.
Thought: The activity of God includes: Creating (foursome), empathizing (fivesome), loving (sixsome).
Thought: each new perspective gives the "essence" of everything, and defines God as that which looks at the other perspectives as well as himself.
Thought: Interpreting the four levels in terms of the six levels makes them "inspired", forward-looking. Not just frameworks but including God. Example: good will makes the expectations "alive" through both criteria and topologies.
Thought: Understanding is the activity of God; not understanding is the activity of human. The human perspective reflects the structure of understanding: take a stand - not understood, but rather creates understood; follow through - not understanding, but rather creates understanding; reflect - not understander, but rather creates understander. The human perspective is bounded: closed upon itself (but open to itself). God's perspective is unbounded: open upon itself it goes beyond itself. We therefore know it by the extent that it goes to view the human perspective: through 0, 1, 2 or 3 nodes. First of itself, and then futher out: why, how, what - each going beyond the previous and deeper into the human perspective. Threesome + null = division = framework for structure = empathize with God's perspective.
Andrius' daily routine I've found the following to be a comprehensive and helpful list of things to work on each day: Be with God, foster my conscience, foster my willpower, foster my stewardship, be curious, serve others, support others' endeavors, be successful. 2002.03.11
Perhaps the way to consider structure is as an interpolation between the representations of everything, and the representations of anything.
They are perhaps related primarily with the Eightfold way, and have to do with obeying, believing, caring - doing God's will.
I need to rethink the following:
Visualizations
The three external structurings are hierarchies
, sequences , and networks. It is
an open problem how to structurally derive definitions for them.
Related structures: Applying to something the mechanics inherent
in the properties of
everything
. The foursome, fivesome, sixsome. The
emotional dimensions
. The markings of the foursome: malleable and memorable
are expressed in terms of trees (hierarchies), modifiable and
meaningful are expressed in terms of microattributes (networks),
mobile and motivated are expressed in terms of tokens (sequences).
[9/99, Andrius Kulikauskas]
Here are some earlier notes that I need to rethink and reorganize from the spring of 2004. I was trying to consider the arisal of various concepts in terms of the progression of the divisions of everything.
