The Minciu Sodas laboratory.  Notes by Andrius Kulikauskas on the

Loving Our Neighbors

I am considering the ways that we love our neighbors as ourselves, the various structures that help make sense of this.  I value your thoughts, please write to me at ms@ms.lt   Join our discussion by sending a blank message to minciu_sodas_en@egroups.com  Andrius Kulikauskas

Relevant structures:
God states explicitly:  Negative commandments
God states implicitly:  Interpretations by Jesus, Pretexts for outreach, Logics of the heart, Reasons for caring
Structures state implicitly:  Ways of rethinking, Spaces for work
Structures state explicitly:  Ways of choosing, Representations of anything, Properties of complex adaptive systems, Visualizations, Qualities of signs

Key themes:  Allowing Choosing, Self and Un-Self, Christ: Looking through the Eyes of Another, Two Perspectives becoming One, Changing or Staying the Same, Going beyond Oneself, Backwards and Forwards Logic, God's Unifying Perspective, Faith to Love, Think as you would for yourself AND think as you would for others, Workspace for Independent Life.

Questions: How do the ways of rethinking bring us up from one level of the foursome to another?

Summary

Why am I considering the ways that we care about others?
I think this will unify many, or perhaps all, of the structures I've worked to uncover.  This should help consider the usefulness of each structure.
I think that the same auxiliary structure gets expressed in four different ways, in accordance with the four tests for distinguishing the truth of the heart from the truth of the world. Some of the key structures that are helping me pull this together are the ways of rethinking, the ways of choosing (closely related to representations), and the visualizations (which give the anti-structures, the movements within the divisions).

I need to relate the visualizations with the ways of rethinking, or with the ways of choosing.

Relevant Structures

I'm going through various structures that can shed light on the ways of caring about others.

God states explicitly

Negative commandments

How do these commandments keep us from getting riled?  Or riling others?

Do not tempt to Go Along, to get anybody to think "I feel like doing this...".  (Do not commit adultery).  How does it seem to me?
Do not tempt to Resist, to get anybody to think "you can't do this to me...".  (Do not kill).  What else should I be doing?
Do not tempt to Not Go Along, to get anybody to think "you should have asked..."  (Do not steal).  Would it make any difference?
Do not tempt to Not Resist, to get anybody to think "I just did what I was supposed to..." (Do not lie).  What do I have control over?
Do not tempt to Choose to Choose, to get anybody to think "this is what I'm going to do"   (Do not covet your neighbor's things).  Am I able to consider the question?
Do not tempt to Choose to Not Choose, to get anybody to think "it's only natural that I want this"   (Do not covet your neighbor's spouse).  Is this the way things should be?

In this order, these seem to be related to Christ's antitheses from the Sermon on the Mount, as ordered by the counterquestions.

      The Jewish Torah, and the Christian Bible, start with the Five Books of Moses.  One of these is Exodus, and another is Deuteronomy, and they both contain the Ten Commandments. Deuteronomy is like a "second edition", a retelling of the key points of the law of Moses.  There's a lot of evidence in Scriptures that God is redundant!  Perhaps partly for our sake.  Also, I think redundancy makes for slack, and good is slack.
      I think four of the commandments have to do with our relationship with God: Have no gods before him, not take the name of God in vain, keep the sabbath, honor father and mother.  And six have to do with our relationship with others: Do not kill, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not bear false witness, do not desire your neighbor's wife, do not desire your neighbor's property.  There is a lot of room for quibbling.  But I think that the first four are positive commandments,
they command what we should do, with regard to God.  And I think that the last six are negative commandments, they command what we should not do, with regard to others.  And there is redundancy here, which shows the greatness of God, that even if we simply heed the negative commandments, then the postive commandments will also fall into place.  And if we heed the positive commandments, then we will surely never need the negative commandments.  So there's no excuses!
      I've never known much what to do with this structure, but now that so many things are coming together of the form 6+4, it seems that this must be a central organizing framework.  Where I can, I try to guess God' point of view, it can make for rapid advances, just as in solving hard math programs it helps to guess what will be the right answer, and then work backwards from your guess.  I think God likes to say, "this was so obvious, the most obvious thing, and you refused to look!"  I seriously doubt that the answers to deep questions are most readily found in quantum physics, or relativity, or from extraterrestrials.  My bet is that they are all in the simplest stuff, so it's worth looking very honestly at the simplest stuff.  It would make complete sense if God said, "structure is My Law, everything is organized according to My Law, why didn't you look at My Law?" As I write, I'm looking at Exodus and Deutoronomy, at the long explanations of the Law.  Some of it has to do with specific instances of the Ten Commandments, and it's very interesting.  For example, if there is a false witness, then "you shall do to him what he thought to have done to his brother", which resonates quite strongly with "love your neighbor as yourself"!  Or if you poke out the eye of your servant, then you must set them free, which resonates with Christ's "if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out".  For me, it will be time well spent if I go through everything I can find in the Law that can be organized in terms of the ten commandments, and try to make sense of it.  If you can draw on books of your faith, that will be very interesting.

God states implicitly

Even more obvious then the written Law is our own intuition of the way we relate to God, and especially, to our neighbors.

Interpretations by Jesus

      In the summer I looked closely at how Jesus interprets the commandments, which I suppose he did in terms of the same basic human intuition that we have, but avoid.  You can find it in the Sermon on the Mount, in Matthew, where he says "you have heard it said... Thou shall not kill ...  but I say to you..."  And also, very closely related, in Jerusalem he lambasts the scribes and Pharisees, "woe to you, hypocrites..."  I'll want to revisit this, but the conclusions that I drew were that he challenges us not to focus on the sign, but on the signified: "Be Open rather than Comfortable", "Take a Stand rather than Convince", "Come to Our Senses rather than Measure", "Get Along rather than Judge", "Save rather than Blame", "Be Unconditional rather than Be Consistent".  He goes real deep, so I'll want to keep trying to better capture his logic.

Compare with the counterquestions!

Pretexts for outreach

By what reasoning do I get myself to think of my neighbor as the same as myself?       Also in the summer, I asked, what are the ways that I get myself to reach out to my neighbor.  Again, I found six lines of thinking that help me do this.  For example, "I am happy, and have gifts which may keep me happy.  But I received them not for anything I did...."  So I think such lines of thinking are very closely related, and they help me climb out of myself, which makes them great structures.

Logics of the heart

      Also, the idea of focusing on the signified rather than the sign reminds me of the good will exercises.  I worked on those for a couple of years, and I'll have to write that up.  They were in response to situations where our heart says one thing, the world says another, and we want to follow our heart.  Actually, it turns out to be quite tricky to figure out what the heart says, and what the worlds says, but there are some very amazing rules for sorting them out.  One is that on any issue you can address four questions: whether? what? how? why? If we think of why as the broadest question, and whether as the narrowest, then the heart always asks a broader question than the world.  There's also a lot more that we can tap into as far as how the truth of the heart, and the truth of the world relate. In the case of the heart, the carer and the cared are two different perspectives, two different version of "me".  In the case of the world, there is just the channel between them.  Also the "open rather than comfortable", etc., is very much "the heart rather than the world".  Except that if I'm open, than comfort will be irrelevant, because if I'm engaging openly, then respecting another's will becomes relevant.  So there's a little twist here worth studying.
There seems to be a connection with the eight motivational drives.
If I "universally care", then it seems possible to reverse the directions.  Universal caring is perhaps the same as "faith".
So it's a relationship between the general, and the particular.
      In the truth of the heart, the carer and the cared are the same, but in the truth of the world, they are different.

Reasons for caring

I have been writing about "living systems" for a wide variety of reasons.  I'm thinking I'll make progress if I go through those reasons.  Why care about living systems?  In other words, why care about life?  I would like to read your answers.  Here are some reasons why I want to understand living systems.  I think they are also reasons for caring about living systems, and life itself:       Another promising direction is to consider, "Why would I care about a living system?"  This came up in trying to understand our relationship to complex adaptive systems, which might be an ecosystem, organism, organ, society, community, economy, the weather, anything that might behave like a living system.  Asking the question taps into our relationship with such a system, why might we care?  This can help relate to the six representations of anything, discussed further below.

Structure states implicitly

      These questions are actually quite closely related to the activity of the laboratory.  That's because I think the success of our laboratory in fostering "caring about thinking" comes from our being completely comprehensive.  We do all things, and therefore we can capture all of the resulting synergy.  We therefore gain many insights simply by dealing with the challenge of being comprehensive.

Ways of Rethinking; Objectives through gain

      One of the challenges of being comprehensive is organizing ourselves for the many endeavors that we might possibly have.  Based on the ones that we have, and could imagine, I ended up with a system of ten objectives, which has served quite well.  Four we pursue through material loss: caring about God, relationship with God, relationship with others, others.  Six we pursue through material gain: thinking about our own thoughts, actions, stands, and other thoughts, actions, stands.  So this is where that 4+6 structure popped up, and you can see why I'm most happy about how working on the laboratory so comprehensively has helped me make progress on basic questions of life.
      Each of our working groups helps an independent thinker rethink in different ways: This seems related to the emotional dimensions: calm or aroused, sensitive or insensitive, positive or negative.
There are six ways of rethinking, through material gain, and four ways of recaring, through material loss.  They make for synergy.
The ways of rethinking accord with our working groups.

Spaces for work

      How to structure the laboratory as a workspace, for example, how to structure the website?  There is evidence for a structure of the form 1+1+6.  For example, we moderate a very active group for Knowledge Management, kmci@egroups.com  The kinds of issues that interest people suggest that there should be six working groups, for working on Knowledge Networks, Formats, Experiences, Concepts, Discourses, Cultures.  And there should be two gateways, one based on issues, kmci@egroups.com and one based on meeting people kmci-virtual-chapter@egroups.com moderated by our member Denham Grey.

Our laboratory's website has the following categories:

Compare this with the shrinking role of God in St.Peter's Keys to Heaven (as everything, agent, benefeciary, goal, instrument, theme, location, nothing - in the Kiparsky hierarchy).

Structure states explicitly

      Finally, there are the purely structural facts.

Ways of choosing

Choice involves having two levels, one broader than the other.  (Consider the ways of offering choice!)  The heart consider the broader level, the world the narrower level.
The six criteria are the ways of choosing something concrete.  They are the filters that we can have.  There are the middle six within the following eight:

Ways of thinking

The ways of re-thinking are related to the ways of thinking as follows: There is also thinking, and not thinking, but these are not re-thinking.
The ways of choosing are also related to the representations.
Everything wishes for Everything = Everything chooses Yes, is loving.
Everything wishes for Not Nothing = Everything chooses Not No, is at peace.
Everything wishes for Not Everything = Everything chooses Not Yes, is certain.
Everything wishes for Nothing = Everything chooses No, is self-sufficient.

Representations of Divisions

Likewise, representations of Divisions are given by what Anything chooses: These give the  representations of the divisions.
Representations are choosings, where something stays the same, and something changes.  In the foursome, the higher level changes, and the lower level stays the same.  Where is the "representation"?  It probably depends on the perspective.  In our mind, we can't see what stays the same, so the representation is that which changes.  But in the world, we can only see one outcome, so that stays the same.  There are also connections between the levels, so there are probably four perspectives, the ambiguity of the six criteria.  I should try to map out where is the "representor" for each perspective, perhaps they relate to the properties of everything, the properties of divisions, etc.

Representations of Anything

Representations of Anything are given by negations of  Everything.  They are Not representations of the Nullsome, and Not representations of the Onesome. These last few years I have been taking a fresh look at all of the structures that I've observed and work with.  I think they fall into ten families.  Four of them have immediate practical value, and they relate to our needs, doubts, expectations, trials.  I wrote last week that there are four representations of Everything, and they are intimately related to these, and to the ways of caring about God, with all our strength, our mind, our soul, our heart.
      Another six families of structure don't seem to have any real practical value for everyday life, at least not yet, and maybe never.  But they are the machinery for explaining everything about life.  I don't know all the details, but I'm getting close, it seems.  There are three tables of structure: eight divisions, six criteria, twelve
topologies.  There are also three languages: narration (how things come to happen), argumentation (how things come to matter), verbalization (how things come to mean).  Some big holes are nailing down some of the larger divisions: fivesome (for space & time), the sixsome (what makes us human), and the sevensome (for slack).  I need to get a better handle on how to define the criteria, and how the topologies relate with the other structures.  I don't know anything specific about argumentation or verbalization.  But right now the big progress to be made is understanding the overview for all of these structures.
      I think these six families are intimately related to the representations of anything, of which there should be six.  The difference between anything and everything is that you can think of anything in ways that you can't think of everything.  I imagine it this way: Anything can always be thought of as Everything, a kind of "local
version of everything".  But furthermore, anything can be part of a system, in which case we think about it by separating it from the system, which we have to do by approximating.  The approximation requires slack, and the slack can be increasing or decreasing.  So Everything+Slack = Anything, and if we put flesh on those bones, we get God+Good = Life.  (Aside: I'm curious how Anything and Anybody relate, if Anything+Slack=Anybody, and what does that mean? and the
consequences? but structural thinking is a slippery goose, so it's good to note doubts).  More notes are at http://www.ms.lt/ms/projects/reasonfeatures/index.html
      I'm very interested in trying to pull together this system, which is a major reason why I'm so interested now in making sense of "caring about others".  That is one of the big keys.  Of course, it's also good to keep my mind on that because it really is such an important part of life, and also I don't end up in a bad place.  So I have multiple motives, but I think this is a way for me to do something useful with my "having nothing better to do" by intertwining it with "the wonderfulness of caring about others".

Properties of complex adaptive systems

      Anything is a place holder for Life, so the representations of Anything should be intimately related to the properties of living systems, complex adaptive systems, and I've been able to use some great work from Hidden Order by John Holland regarding those properties.

Visualizations

I've also been able to relate those properties to the visualizations that are an important part of my draft of the Mindset standard.
Visualizations give the anti-structure, the movements within the foursome, fivesome, sixsome.

Narratives

Narration is one of the three languages.  A basic unit of narrative is given by the creation and relaxation of tension.  The creator of tension has available four voices: forcing (III), commanding (IV), explaining (V), caring (VI).  There is a constant voice of tension at the beginning of a narrative, and a constant but different voice of tension at the end of a narrative.  Seven narrative shifts are observed, each yielding a different narrative content, as follows: An eighth narrative is conceivable, but not observable: VI to III creation.
Compare with the visualizations.  In either case, something is "happening".  In the case of the visualizations, the mind is shifting from a primary outlook to a secondary outlook, which is why the structure feels unnatural, and also the benefit of using the structure.  There we have tables (III), trees (IV), sequences (V), networks (VI).  This matches intutively with forcing, commanding, explaining, and caring, but also, these structures relate to the negations of the  representations of the onesome.  They also relate to the sacraments, or if you prefer, rites of passage.

Qualities of signs

      Finally, there are the six qualities of signs, of which I wrote, and which involve those pairs of levels.  Structurally they should be very relevant here.  But it's also noteworthy to me how much Jesus talks about signs.  I think it would be fair to say that Life is the sign of God, that Life is the sign, and God is the signified.  A question being, what are the answers that we can live with?  This might be such an answer.  If so, then the qualities of signs are indeed key.

Key Themes

      It was helpful writing my letter about all the different structures I can draw on, as I search for the ways of caring about others.  I'm starting to look over that letter, making a list of key themes that these structures may share.  I think I'll start with the question what stays the same, and what changes?  This will help identify pairs of levels, as in the case of each of the qualities of signs.
 

Christ is God's unifying perspective

Question: How does belief in Christ allow us to go beyond our lives, follow God, the I am statements?

The ways of caring about others unfold from a unifying perspective.
The unifying perspective is given by how God looks at things.  How does God look at things?
The unifying perspective is Christ. What is Christ?

How does God look at things?

God looks at things backwards, he already knows the answer, so he considers the question.
Something that stood out for me, as I write this, is the logic that "if we strike everything else away about Christ, then it will all flow back".  This is very much the same logic by which I think that God creates our world where he does not exist, but in the end he does exist, even so.  It's the logic of a proof by contradiction - we may start with the assumption that there are not infinitely many prime numbers, but we arrive at a contradiction.  Once you have a contradiction, all things are true, including the fact that there are infinitely many prime numbers.  I suppose this means that the world in which there is no God must ultimately collapse into absurdity.

What is Christ?

How do we describe this as something real in our own lives?  I will review what I know of the reality of Christ.

What is at the core of Christ's teaching?  What is it that we would cling to, if everything about him was cast in doubt?  For me, it is when he was asked, what is the greatest commandment.  He answered, that the first was to love God with all you heart, and all your soul, and all your mind.  And the second was like it, to love your neighbor as yourself.  I believe that everything else about him could be struck away, and all that is relevant about him would flow back from these. Somebody who accepts these, accepts Christ.  For me, these two commandments define "what" Christ is.

What do these two laws say?

Christ pulls these two together.  He is perfect, and he is identical to us!  That's quite a shock.  I know that I'm not perfect.  Not only do I make mistakes, but I am not able to fix myself, so that I would not make those mistakes.  In fact, much of my inability I know is willful and life-destroying.

So Christ is that through which I am both perfect and identical with all others.  Who is this Christ, who is perfect but identical?  What does it mean, for him to live through us?

I think that this happens when we do "what any good person would do", when we live as a "person in general". This is very relevant for me whenever I engage people who I fear, who may hurt me.  In Chicago, I would engage kids and young adults hanging out on the street corners.  They are often very intimidating.  I can feel very quickly that if I come with my own point of view, then I will provoke violence towards me.  Instead, if I always try to look at things from their point of view, then I lose myself.  I become very flexible, and can turn with them, until we're all dizzy.  I may definitely not agree with them, but in disagreeing I take their point of view.  So even in very frightening circumstances, so long as I look from their point of view, I'm able to stay engaged, I'm flexible and ready for the good to come from any direction.  In these situations, I always find that I've completely lost my own point of view, so who am I?  I have the very same outlook when I'm doing the simple things that "any good person would do", that have nothing to do with my own person.  So this outlook is what I know, in my real life, of Christ living through me.

Also, I wrote a lot, in August, about the ways I consider "Who is my neighbor?"  Christ was asked that question, and he told the story of the Good Samaritan.  Well, I'm now curious if he ever answered the question, "Who is my God?"  I remember the story of the Samaritan woman at the well, who basically asked him that.  He told her that the time is now that true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such to worship him.  God is a spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.  That's something I'm marking in my mind, and I'll press further: the story of the Good Samaritan is that the neighbor of the victim was the one who showed mercy (if I remember correctly).  Well, showing mercy (I think it's not pity) is a way of looking with our neighbor's eyes.  And, worshiping in spirit, if God is a spirt, is a way of looking with God's eyes.  So the common theme here seems to be that we look through the eyes of another.

To love is to support the one who shows mercy. Give slack that they might give slack.

I never pray to Christ, I pray to God.  So this is the Christ I know. In what may he be a unifying perspective?  I think he brings the idea of "love your neighbor as yourself" out of the idea "love God", as a practical consequence.  Some ideas that come to mind: I was reading in Luke, and there he doesn't include "love God with all your strength" which he says, I think, in other gospels.  Maybe because the ways of loving our neighbor are the structure that is our strength.  I suppose that's why I like structure, it's indestructible.

What is the question for God that evokes Christ?

Christ is the answer.  What is the question that God posed to evoke it?
Is there anyone righteous?
What does it mean to be righteous?  It means to be good not just within our lives, but beyond our lives.

What is the problem in our lives?

The problem with respect to our lives is that our "anything with respect to anything" relationships involve decreasing slack.  We give each other less and less slack.  This is the consequence of the truth of the world.  That is why we want to live by the heart, live by "everything with respect to anything", because such relationships involve increasing slack.  The consequence of the truth of the heart is that we can give more and more slack.

The endeavors through material gain are through loss of slack.  The endeavors through material loss are through increase of slack.

In order to go from the truth of the world to the truth of the heart we have to go outside of our lives, go outside of representations, turn away from the sign and to the signified.  We have to think with regard to everything.

How does Christ solve the problem in our lives?

For me, the key to Christian psychology is this: I prefer Christ over myself.  I recognize that I'm not perfect, and of myself will never be, because of my own fault.  I'm happy to know that Christ is perfect.  I'm happy to choose Christ over me.  My first sin, my original sin is that I focused on my personality, on what makes me different.  Instead, I choose to focus on character, on what makes us the same.  My personality flows as a consequence, but I don't ever have to focus on that, I don't have to look in the mirror.  Through Christ, I focus on my work as a creator, rather than myself as a creation.

When we go beyond our lives, then there are two issues:
"I": anything with regard to everything.  By listening to God, I distinguish between myself and God, prefer God over myself, by the eightfold way.
"God": everything with regard to everything.  By following God, I choose God over myself, by the "I am" statements.
So here the difference is between myself and God, anything and everything (within the context of everything).

But that same question is raised within our own lives.
"World": anything with regard to anything.  By listening to the heart, I distinguish between the world and the heart, I prefer the heart over the world, by the emotional responses.
"Heart": everything with regard to anything.  By following the heart, I choose the heart over the world, by the counterquestions.
So here the difference is between the world and the heart.
Somehow Christ bridges these worlds, makes the choice between God and myself relevant within my own life.
The world has decreasing slack, we are related by hurt and feud and revenge and death.  The heart has increasing slack.  Christ bore the cross.  We are able to love more than we can imagine, if we live by the heart.  We live forever, if we live by God, outside of our lives.

In other words, I think the unifying perspective is that by which the fact that God does not exist collapses into absurdity.  I believe that Christ is that unifying perspective.  I wrote that I choose, or wish to choose, Christ over myself.  My focusing on my own personality is, I suppose, an acceptance of the fact that God does not exist.  My need to let go of that outlook expresses the collapse of that outlook into absurdity.  I suppose that living as a person in general is what allows me to change my outlook, because it allows me to consider the point of view of another.  Living as a person in particular I don't have that freedom, that slack.

I'm whirling around these themes.  I appreciate any thoughts you themes may add, especially if they might express the core of what you believe.

For God, how do things happen?  Divisions.
For God, how do things come to matter?  Criteria.
For God, how do things get their meaning?  Topologies.
What are the six criteria?  They are the representations of anything.
What are the six representations?
For God, things come to matter through his Son, who suffers our cruelties.  He loves others, just as God loves them.
God loves others.  He shows you how to love others, and you do, just as he does.  When you suffer because of that, that matters to God.  That's how things come to matter to God.

If we heed the negative commandments, the postive commandments fall into place.
If we heed the postive commandments, then the negative commandments are irrelevant.
We should focus on the signified, not the sign.
Lines of thinking help me climb out of myself by having me reach out to others.
What makes us the same as a person, what separates us?
The perspective of anything is the point of view of a system.
The perspective of everything is the point of view of what cares for the system, what loves the system.
A system is not everything, because every system finds itself within a larger system.
Visualizations involve one of three primary structures, which are rooted in everything, and on of two secondary structures, which are rooted in ourselves, our visualizations, and perhaps correspond to increasing and decreasing slack.
The truth of the heart involves two points of view, which requires energy.
The truth of the world involves one point of view, a collapsed point of view, which does not require energy.
Objectives through material gain involve one of three concepts that are rooted in everything: thought, action, or stands.  They also involve the self, that we take up either our own point of view of ownership, or that not our own.
Redundancy allows for slack.
Same love, but for different people.  Self is that which makes us different.
Workspaces (see 12 wishes):  Same understanding, but different approach to the structure.  The structure is the same, but it may be approached differently.
God generates structure by entering the self.  He does this to show that the self does not equal the un-self.  God lives as Un-Self with regard to needs - whether he is God.  What or how he is God, he lives as either Self or Un-Self with regard to our Expectations and Doubts, and why he is God, he lives through us as the Self.   In our case, it's the opposite:  with needs we take the outlook of the self, and with trials we take the outlook of the un-self.  So there are these two outlooks.  The self is the loved, and the non-self is the lover.  How do we relate the outlooks that God takes with regard to the self and the un-self, and the outlooks that we take with regard to the self and un-self? Are they necessarily complementary?  And why?
I imagine that needs are what define us, which is why they are always self for us.  And trials are what define God, which is why they are always self for him.  But we share our doubts and expectations, either side.  That is how we can relate to God as an equal.  And so this is the space that God has made for us to relate with him.
With regard to the qualities of signs, it is very curious that here the sign is the higher level, and it changes, where is the lower level seems to be the signified, and stays the same!  Why is this, and how does that relate to the other structures, which seem to say the opposite.  Perhaps the freeness of the sign is what connects it to everything, and the signified is separated from everything?  Is this a reflection effect?  Also, is there a role played by the complementary two levels of the foursome?
Also, in generating the auxiliary structures, God has the higher level include both the Un-Self and the Self, 1+7, whereas the lower level is just the Un-Self.  So this may be the answer, that the Self does not stand by itself, but only with the Un-Self, whereas the Un-Self can stand by itself, but is higher if it involves the Self.
So, in order to introduce the Self, God has representations that can be Un-Self, or Un-Self and Self.  Then he has to show that Un-Self and Self is different than just Un-Self.
A way to explore structure is by attempting to alter it.  In the case of everything, these attempts fail.  However, everything responds as a mirror, and so our failures mirror the structure of our minds.  Such attempts share some general features: they have us focus on one representation of everything, and then have it apply to itself another representation of everything.  What happens?  The first representation offers no choice of perspectives, whereas the second representation offers a complete set of choices of perspectives.  We find that the second representation changes without the first representation changing.  Our attempts to alter everything fail, but we generate structure that mirrors our attempts.
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.

Consider what Christ gave us, what he felt was important:
Interpretations by Jesus.
I am statements.
Contents of his messages.
Eightfold ways.
His emotional responses.
The counterquestions.

Christ: Looking through the Eyes of Another

Allowing Choosing

There's a sense in which the heart says, "Yes", the world says, "No", character says, "Not No", personality says, "Not Yes".  How does this relate to the ways they answer the criteria and the counterquestions?

Heart:  I like, this does not seem.
World:  I like, this does seem.

Heart:  I need, I should do something else.
World:  I need, I shouldn't do anything else.

Heart:  This is real, it makes no difference.
World:  This is real, it makes a difference.

Heart:  This is problematic, I have control over it.
World:  This is problematic, I don't have control over it.

Heart:  This is reasonable, I'm not able to consider the question.
World:  This is reasonable, I'm able to consider the question.

Heart:  This is wrong, it's the way things should be.
World:  This is wrong, it's not the way things should be.

In each case, Heart "goes along" and the World "resists".

Here:
Like = Yes
Need = Not No
Real = Not Yes
Problematic = No
Reasonable = not choose
Wrong = choose

Yes = Yes & Not No
Not No = Yes & Not Yes
Not Yes = Yes & No
No = Not Yes & No
not choose = Not No & No
choose = Not Yes & Not No

Also, we have:
Character: I do not like, this does seem.
Personality: I do not like, this does not seem.
And so on, for all six doubts and counterquestions, where Character counters the World, and Personality counters the Heart.

Self and Un-Self

Something that strikes me is the notion of "self".  The idea "love your neighbor as yourself" says, so simply, that the people I love are different, but my love should be the same.  The most basic difference between all of these people is that most of them are not ME!  "Self" is the idea that separates me from all those other people.

So there's two points of view, one where there is no concept of self, and that's how we should love.  And the other point of view is that there is a concept of self, our own self, and that is, in some sense, different from the others.  If "self" is a fence, then what difference is there, which side of the fence somebody is on? Why have this concept at all?  There must be some reason?

Then I thought about the four kinds of structure that are related to how we care about God, how we make room for God, with regard to our needs, doubts, expectations, trials.  In each one of these structures, the role of "self" is very important, in different ways.  Here "self" is a distinction between us and God.  I am bounded, but he is not bounded.  So the concept of "self" helps define our relationship, which is probably the whole reason for the concept.

I also noticed that, for these four kinds of structures, regarding our needs - doubts - expectations - trials, it seems plausible that they each allow for a different kind of outlook.

So there is a rich notion of self, and also non-self, in each of A, B, C and D.  I'm now looking for pairs of levels, where on one level, there is a notion of self, and on the other there is a notion of non-self.  This will give six pairs of self and non-self from different levels, assuming that non-self is always from a higher level.  For this to make sense, level D should always have us look from only the point of view of non-self.  Indeed, this seems to be the case, because when I'm dealing with a God who loves me more than I love myself, my outlook is always rooting for him, including him.  And level A should always have us look from only the point of view of self.  This is also seems to be the case, when I am addressing my needs, then it's never part of my outlook that one could have no needs.  That's a lonesome God, the one who lacks nothing!  And even if I apply my operating principles with respect to him, rather than my own needs, even though I can do this, my mental
outlook always ignores this, I have to do it without any push from my mind.  The middle levels B and C seem to let me look either way, either take an inclusive point of view, with respect to God, or just stick with my self.

The upshot of the obscure paragraph above is that I can very likely draw on the structures A, B, C, D as four different ways that our self is defined with respect to God.  This expresses our boundedness with respect to God.  Then pairs of self and non-self are pulled together, yielding six different ways that our self may be defined with respect to others.  This playing field is of crucial interest to God.  He is the one God, so he wants the God in A, B, C, D to all be the same God.  I think the six different pairs are ways of checking whether or not he is the same God.  This whole question relies on whether the concept of "self" makes sense with regard to others, for example, maybe it is the channel by which the love of God is available to others.

So I'll keep looking at this big picture, and try to figure out how the "self" defined with respect to God, and the "self" defined with respect to others, are related.  A simple question is, what is value of the concept of "self"?

Two Perspectives becoming One

Changing or Staying the Same

Going beyond Oneself

Backwards and Forwards Logic

Is there a sense in which raising a question has us go backwards?  Are why, how, what the ways of going backwards, when they are quetions?  Is a whether a "zero" step backwards?  Is choosing why over how, for example, an emphasis in the direction of questioning, rather than answering?  Is that a way of choosing "backwards logic" instead of "forwards logic".

Faith to Love

Consider the transitions God makes from Faith (everything) to Love (nothing) in St.Peter's Keys to Heaven.

Think as you would for yourself AND think as you would for others.

I've been working a lot on the structure of the website, trying to look
at what God would like about it.  I came back to a new idea, the
different ways of rethinking.  Then I went for a jog to think about
that.  I think I hit upon the cardinal rule of thinking:

"Think as you would for yourself  AND  think as you would for others."

When we think as we would for ourselves, then we think our own thoughts,
our own actions, our own stands.  We're very independent!  We re-think
our own thoughts so we're more powerful, our own actions so we're more
sensitive, our own stands so we're more motivated.

But when we think as we would for others, then we think other thoughts,
other actions, other stands.  We look at everything from the side.  We
consider that maybe somebody knows better than them.  We take into
account their limitations.  We re-think the thoughts so that they're
simpler, the actions so that they're more concrete, the stands so that
they're more relevant.

We really should do both
- think as we would for ourselves, fostering our powers of thinking
- think as we would for others, clarifying our thoughts
And we should get them to converge.

It's hard to do both, but I think that's the cardinal rule of thinking,
to switch back and forth.  Our laboratory is set up to help with that.
So this is a place for "thinking out loud", for ourselves.  It's also a
place for learning how to express ourselves so that we are understood,
so that we find response.

Workspace for Independent Life

Eightfold way suggests answer to:
What do we need to be independent thinkers?
We need not to be lead into temptation!
We need to be able to take a stand based on our thoughts.
Likewise, what do we need to be independent actors, existers?
I think that the foursome, fivesome, sixsome describe the workspace needed.
This is the reason that we might have time and space, for example, to be able to make decisions.
The onesome, twosome, threesome must be so that we ourselves might exist, and choose God over ourselves.

Questions

How do the ways of rethinking bring us up from one level of the foursome to another? We go from thinking in particular, where the specific thought is given, so there is no direction or scope to the thinking.
to thinking in general, where we think in one direction, bounded, towards our thought, and God thinks in another direction, towards us, unbounded.
So we make definite the conditions on our thought, and on ourselves.

If we think in general, then we can care about thinking.  Because we don't care about thinking in particular, we care about thinking in general.

If we care about thinking, then this relationship between God and us arises, he looks backwards to our looking forwards.  Time arises when there is this generality, because otherwise there is nothing to flow through, there is no pipeline.  So there are these two directions, and a marker which matches with the hole.
Our mind steers us from the near future to the near past, but God's mind, his great love steers us from the far past to the far future.  In other words, if we stretch time wide enough, its direction flips around.  We go from near effects to near causes, taking them apart.  But we go from far causes to far effects, from deep principles to their many consequences.  So we need to elevate ourselves from near causes to far causes.  From us looking at something through the tube, to God looking back at us.

About not teaching, but re-thinking.
Instead of asking about "thinking": whether, what, how
We can ask about the relationship between "thinker" and "thought": what, how, why
Go from marker to relationship.
Does this involve a reversal?
The marker takes us from thinker to thought, captures that direction.
The relationship takes us from thought to thinker, has slack instead of marker.
Allow our thinking to be touched.
Place our thinking in a context.

What is memorable is nonmalleability.
What is meaningful is nonmodifiability.
What is motivated is nonmobility.
And vice versa?

Recall that our goals are:

The heart is the scope of God's perspective.  The world is the scope of our perspective.  Our questions go up from the world to the heart.
God's perspective is a double perspective.  Our perspective is a single perspective.
Our perspective is singular: thinker and thought have no slack.
God's perspective is dual: there is slack between thinker and thought, they are related but minimally independent
Whether - always disconnected.  Why - always connected.
So re-thinking is a way of introducing slack.
Our thinking can have a quality.

How do the properties of everything relate to the representations of everything?  How does everything relate to God?
What is the meaning of the operator +3, consciousness?  And +1 and +2?
What are argumentation? and verbalization?

Overview of Relevant Structures

What is the relationship between God and heart?
In the good will exercises, people are often willing to listen to the heart, but then have trouble following the heart.  They need to know that there is a God to whom they can run to, who watches over them.
If we want to go from listening to the heart to following the heart, then we have to go from listening to God to following God.
If we universally care about the truth of the world, then we'll take up the truth of the heart.
Our truth vs. God's truth is an other distinction: we can apply the operating principles with regard to ourselves, which is our truth.  Or we can apply them with respect to God, which is God's truth, the "I am" statements.
Listening to God: we hear the difference between our truth and God's truth.
Following God: we choose God's truth over our truth.
Listening to the heart: we hear the difference between the world's truth and the heart's truth.
Following the heart: we choose the heart's truth over the world's truth.
God's truth takes us beyond our lives.
The heart's truth takes us beyond our experience.
In order to go beyond our experience, we must go beyond our lives.
How do we go beyond our lives?
To believe in Christ is to:
Prefer him over ourselves: the eightfold way.
Continuously choose him over ourselves: the I Am statements.
These have to do with Universal thinking.

God is everything in the scope of everything.
The heart is everything in the scope of anything.   The heart is how God relates to us.  The four representations of everything.
The world is anything in the scope of anything.   The world is how we relate to each other.  The six representations of anything.
I am anything in the scope of everything.

How do we shift from anything to everything?
We have to shift scope from anything to everything.

Also: a representation is the scope of anything.

We want the world to be open - so that we may relate to each other.  Heart-to-heart support network = Open World support network.
We want the heart to be present - so that we may relate to God.

Given questions/answers whether, what, how, why.
Re-caring takes us from the answer back to the question (like going from the world back to the heart).
Re-thinking takes us to a higher level, for example, from whether to why.
Question: how does each way of re-thinking relate to a movement from one question to another?  and to the six objectives?
 
structure: rep of everything
Following God operating principles caring about God support growth of God include us
Following the heart counterquestions caring about others support growth of others invite us
Listening to the heart emotional responses caring about rel with others be connected with others involve us
Listening to God eightfold way caring about rel with God be connected with God shape us

Going upward from Whether to Why, we have decreasing slack, but then going back down we have increasing slack.  That is the reason for going upward, thinking more broadly, is that it introduces slack.