I am editing these pages, introducing material that I've worked on by
myself over the years, so you will probably find them esoteric. Even
so, I much appreciate material that you may contribute, and that may be
rooted in a different point of view. Please write to me at ms@ms.lt
I am working to better understand how the various structures relate, and
so am writing up an overview of questions
and ideas. [6/00, Andrius Kulikauskas]
What describes our subjective experience? Representations of Everything
In practice, when we comprehensively collect and analyze our subjective experiences, then we find that they exhibit one of these structural contexts. We can understand the difference between these structural contexts by considering the purposes in life that they serve.
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 dont' 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]
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
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.
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, and emotional responses, and volitional responses - ways of getting things done - and avenues for the good.
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]
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]
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 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.
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]
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]
The attempts to alter everything are structured by the qualities of signs, which 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). [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 interpreted as three virtues: 1. hope 2. honesty 3. courage and three pairs of emotional dispositions: 4. love/hate 5. closeness/fear 6. beauty/disgust. In terms of cognition, the operating principles are interpreted as three internal perspectives: 1. faith 2. caring 3. self-control and three external perspectives: 4. loyalty 5. duty 6. justice. These involve absolute, relative, and ultimate judgements. Our mind moves from absolute to relative, and from particular (self-centered, internal, closed) to general (multi-centered, external, open) morality. [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]
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 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]
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:
Life is the unity of the six representations of anything. God
is the unity of the four representations of everything. Slack is
that aspect of anything that is represented by the two representations
of anything that are not representations of everything. Good is the
unity of these two representations of anything that are not representations
of everything. Ultimately, life is the fact that God is good.
God emerges - God is an emergent property of structure.
All of the structure above should provide a framework for life. There are four representations of Everything, and there are six applications given by pairs of these representations. This redundancy is perhaps a way of expressing slack. Some practical examples that are providing insights into the overall framework are:
Center for Research on Concepts and Cognition lead by Douglas Hofstadter [http://www.cogsci.indiana.edu/, 8/99, Andrius Kulikauskas]
A great example of an independent thinker: David Albert Harrell, somebody who's developed his own theory and application. The idea, as far as I understand, is to create a world in which there can be intelligence. A world that shapes the participants, but is also shaped by the participants. He's created a Microsoft Access database that simulates this.[http://members.aol.com/daharrell/, 7/00, Andrius Kulikauskas, Thanks to Bob La Quey]