Kaip sąvokos ir žodžiai įgauna reikšmę?
Širdies ir pasaulio tiesos
Arasti šešis lygmenis.
Noriu išmąstyti įvardijimo kalbą ir ja pagrįsti vertybių žemėlapį.
Kas yra įvardijimo kalba?
Įvardijimas, tai vienas iš trijų kalbų ir šešių antrinių sandarų.
Kokia įvardijimo esmė, kokie jo bruožai?
Aštuongubas kelias yra žinojimo rūmuose. Gerojo vaiko (vienybės neigimo pusė), tai pagrįsta tikėjimu - daryti gerą: B1, B2, B3, B4, o blogojo vaiko (nulybės neigimo pusė), tai pagrįsta rūpėjimu - nedaryti blogo: C5, C6, C7, C8. Turėtų būti eilės tvarka: B1, B2, B3, B4, C5, C6, C7, C8. (Pavyzdžiui, kūniškus poreikius tenkinam pirm protinių poreikių.) Tačiau galime tai supainioti, suregzti kalba jeigu C pradedame anksti. Tada vyksta kalba, reikia trejybe išnarplioti, yra trikdys, aklavietė. Tokiu būdu poruojami ketverybės laipsniai, tai pertvarkymai (išsiaiškinimai 6+4 išsakantys sistemą). Kalba yra išsakymas sistema to kas buvo ne sistemoje. Tad kalba remiasi žinojimo rūmais ir būtent aštuongubu keliu. Pasakojimas sieja ketverybės lygmenis, keturių atvaizdų - įtampos balsus, tai abi ketverybes sulygina. Gal pagrindimas ir įvardijimas sulygina dvejybes ir trejybes?
It seems that first the conscious serves the unconscious by rationalizing. But this lets us balance the conscious and the unconscious as saying the same thing in two different ways (system 2 explictly rational and system 1 implicitly intuitive). Once they are balanced, we can let go of the unconscious. And then that's the moment, when we're rational, that the conscious will ask a question. (A counterquestion, dividing everything.) And with that question it has the chance to question itself, to challenge itself, in which case it takes the initiative. But in either case, now the unconscious serves the conscious by answering its question. If we are letting our conscious take the initiative, then it starts to structure, frame, shape the unconscious, and we grow in that direction, as a person for whom consciousness is very natural. It's a long process and that's why we can have people with very low consciousness or very high consciousness, but in each person the cycle is the same: the conscious serves the unconscious by rationalizing it, and the unconscious serves the conscious by answering its question.
Listening to others and having good listeners is important because it lets us stay in that balanced mindset and gives us a chance to formulate our best question and to actually challenge ourselves wholeheartedly. That's why attacking a person with facts, etc., generally backfires because it doesn't let the person make explicit their own beliefs and find their own balance and honestly challenge themselves. That was a great story you gave about listening.
It's also very helpful to think about Haidt's distinctions in value systems. And one thing I noticed yesterday in my conversations is the unspoken presence of Loyalty, Authority and Sacredness among the participants. In my conversations, its obvious that people could lose their jobs for expressing a personal opinion or implying their company's position. So it's not that these values are not there. It's that these aren't values that some people talk about. They are implicit, hidden. Whereas it can be easy to talk about Caring and Fairness but do absolutely nothing about it. So perhaps there needs to be a measure of how people behave vs. what they say.
See: Liminal thinking practices and principles http://www.liminalthinking.com
Visą matematiką būtų galima išvesti iš įvardijimo mokslo, kaip įvardinti objektus, kaip juos apibrėžti, kokia tvarka, jų vidinę sandarą ir t.t.
Tėvo požiūriu - Dievas nebūtinas, Sūnaus požiūriu - Dievas būtinas, Dvasia tai jų sutapimas, jų bendras suvokimas. Paklydęs vaikas derina ir vienija tėvo ir sūnaus požiūrius. Požiūriai apibrėžia trejybę.
Įsivaizduoju dvasią (nulinį sluoksnį) ir šešis sluoksnius, kur dvasia randa tarpą, ir septintą sluoksnį (dvasią sandaroje). Ir įsivaizduoja, kad dvasia labai lengvai randa kelią tarp tuos tarpus, bet kai mūsų ribotas protas pagauna dvasią, tada jam belieka susipainioti tarp tų sluoksnių ir gaunasi painiava, nes jis gali tik aprėpti iš karto šešis požiūrius, lygmenis. Kalba yra ta painiava.
Kristaus teiginiai mus moko vertinti:
Šie vertinimai sieja du požiūrius.
Įvardijimo kalba grindžia ženklų reikšmingumą, tad sieja du požiūrius, simbolio ir ikono.
Palaiminti skurdžiadvasiai... netobuli (būk tobulas); skeptikai, ne kankiniai; nuolankūs, nesipriešinantys, paklūstantys.
Šeši prielaidų lygmenys
Šeši lygmenys susiję su pertvarkymų raida, su sąvokų pasaulio išsivystymu (gyvenimo lygtis, sandaros, išorė/vidus, bendravimas, bendrystė, pasaulis).
Gyvenimo lygtis (ir kartu dvasia) reiškiasi savaip kiekviename lygmenyje, vis buitiškiau.
Dievas - dvasia, nebūtinai su požiūriu. Žmogaus - požiūris, nebūtinai su dvasia. Yra jų sąsaja.
Pirmus tris palaiko antri trys, juos papildo. Iš gyvenimo lygties išvedamos sąvokos. O palaidame pasaulyje įžvelgiama bendrystė. Palyginti su šešiomis išgyvenimų rūšimis.
Prielaidų lygmenys, tai lygmenys, kuriais esame ar nesame viena. Užtat tai lygmenys, kuriais iškyla klausimai, Ar esame viena? O klausimus ir atsakymus išreiškia atvaizdai, juk tai yra atitokėjimai.
Palyginti su pertvarkymais, kaip esame viena:
Learning is a risky, even dangerous endeavor. I think it is fair that we learn by experimenting on ourselves rather than experiment on others. Let us create a learning system where we are the first learners. I would like our system to explicitly show how we are learning. How have we variously come to believe what we do? Yet also, in order to share our learning, we do need to discover some basic invariables that are present in all that we learn.
Pirminės patirties svarba - Aš, ne Tu ar Kitas
My major concern is that we be able to ground our learning in first hand accounts. Many of the subjects that we are interested in, such as community currency, are still in the early stages of development. Much of the "knowledge" that is circulating is second hand. It is often divorced from reality and spread by inculcating formulaic thinking. Such formulas sound logical but may fail in practice because they are incomplete. I wish us to focus our attention on first hand accounts. They often bring to light aspects that may be counterintuitive, but taken together, can help us understand how we can put together systems that actually work.
Iškėlimas į sąmonę ir įsisavinimas pasąmone
My goal is to structure our online learning environment so that we might accumulate our first hand accounts, share and apply our knowledge, and build our intuition. John and I considered the trajectory of our learning. We bring forth our knowledge from out of our unconscious. We make it explicit in our conscious, where we can transform it to address our needs. We then name what we have learned in a way that lets us store it back in our unconscious, so that we have assimilated it as part of our intuition.
My conclusion is that we access knowledge from our unconscious in the form of a story regarding what has us "stuck". We then consciously rework the story until it works for us. Then we capture the knowledge with a sign that we store back into our unconscious. This means that we are using our conscious mind to leverage the much larger knowledge of our unconscious mind.
Savo iššūkį tirti ar mokytis iš visų, apskritai?
We can travel this path in two ways, forwards or backwards. We can go forwards and consider our own experience as learners, in practice, focusing on the particular matter at hand and resolving it. Or we can look backwards at all the solutions that have ever come up, and then select the one we prefer, theoretically. We might first ask: "Do you wish to address your particular challenge, or do you wish to overview all solutions?" In what follows, I will assume a particular challenge.
At the heart of learning is a three-cycle:
This is familiar by other names (such as plan, do, review). As we face challenges, we overcome them by choosing, applying and evaluating our principles. When we have learned a subject, then we are able to take up all manner of challenges and keep learning from them. At times, we may get "stuck", but then we grow by finding ways to overcome the obstacles. This is what I seek to document. We can make explicit the obstacles and the solution, and so we can share them.
Different kinds of support are relevant for different modes in the three-cycle. When somebody is following through on their principles, it is not the time to ask them to reassess them. Instead, we should help them be true to their existing principles so that they might have truly put them to the test.
Ar nori keisti veiklą?
It is therefore important to identify the mode in which the learner is at. We may focus on the case where they are stuck. If they are not stuck, then they do not need support! We can make this point by asking explicitly: "Do you want to consider changing what you are doing?" If they do not want to consider changing, then they are done, or we may all focus on another person who is willing to consider changing.
Next, I believe it is important to tap into our feelings, for they are our guide as to what is real to us. My hypothesis is that our feelings reveal where we are stuck in the three-cycle. It is enough to ask the learner, regarding the matter at hand, such as community currency design, What kind of change do you most want?
My hypothesis is that the choice of A, B or C will indicate the learning mode in which the person is stuck.
They can feel where they are ask. So we can ask them to tell a story that relates to where they feel stuck. We can then ask them to take a step back within that story, back to where they were not stuck:
Then have them tell the story so as to shift onwards to conclusions which they find convincing.
This method can be applied to current challenges, but also to document how we have overcome earlier challenges.
In this way, we will accumulate a set of stories, but also principles, solutions and conclusions that are grounded in these first hand accounts. We can then survey the knowledge that we are building.
By making ourselves aware of the story that we are in, we can tease out the various dimensions and find ways to pull them together:
This is now conscious knowledge. In order to remember it, and be able to draw upon it in the future, we want to name it. We want to assimilate this knowledge and find a place for it in our intuition, our unconscious! Our idea now is to do this we create a sign by which we express our knowledge: an "integrated communicative unit". John noted Robert E. Horn's book "Visual Language" and suggested that, optimally, such a sign might include words, images, symbols, sounds and more, all integrated together to capture the meaning.
My own hypothesis, which I will try to implement, is that we can identify an angle which helps us create our symbol. We started by identifying one of three modes where we were "stuck" in our learning: taking a stand, following through, or reflecting. Now consider at what level of knowledge did we manage to overcome the obstacle:
I think that by pairing the three modes and the four levels we get what I call the "twelve topologies" which I think of as the building blocks for the imagination. They are abstract concepts: be, do, think; one, all, many; object, process, subject; necessary, actual, possible. More about them at: http://www.patternlanguages.info/wiki.cgi?PatternLanguages/UniversalLanguage/Topologies I think that each topology matches with a pair of mode and level. So, for example, if we have a story about our experience with community currency, and we learn how to "take a stand", and this learning takes place through implementation, then I think the relevant pairing would lead us to the topology "necessary", where what's necessary in the story is the "unit of value", the particular currency. And so we might name and remember that story by virtue of that unit of value.
In fact, I think that given a particular domain such as "community currency", we will find that the twelve topologies take on a more concrete form, as they seem to have in the "design feature matrix": http://www.findbetterways.info/wiki.cgi?FindBetterWays/Cyfranogi/DesignFeatureMatrix This is again something that I will be exploring. My main point for our purposes is that I think it is possible (given the mode and the level) to suggest what information to capture in order to recall the entire story.
If this method is truly helpful, then it is I think describing a language of "verbalization" by which signs (names, words, images...) come to have meaning. This language has our minds move from stories to spaces for metaphor (what I call topologies), and thereby we "learn", we rely on old and new signs to navigate intuitively, without getting "stuck".
So this is the process of learning, as John describes it, a "learning journey" as follows:
This is a personal journey. We also considered how we might overview all of the knowledge. Certainly, we will accumulate knowledge bases of stories, principles, solutions and conclusions. However, if my hypotheses above are fruitful, then we will also be able to find families of currencies and design accordingly.
In 2004, I had pulled together the knowledge of WICC on design features into a matrix of issues. http://www.findbetterways.info/wiki.cgi?FindBetterWays/Cyfranogi/DesignFeatureMatrix The matrix expresses how the issues arise as constraints that different roles (rulemaker, connector, giver, receiver) make on each other.
Note that we may and do play all roles. I think of these roles as representing different levels of awareness, different kinds of economy, and applying different kinds of mental categories:
We can design a currency by considering which relationships are most essential and starting with those. So, for example, if we want to emphasize the Rulemaker and the Receiver, then they restrict each other as follows:
A currency that starts with this relationship may be simply a ration system, for example, between government and citizens, or between an event organizer and the attendees. Then we might add a relationship with a Connector (who may be considered a "scalper") and so now we have to add two more relationships:
Finally, we can add a Giver (perhaps somebody doing work for the tickets, such as an usher), and that adds three more relationships.
I believe that in this way the laying down of the relationships determines the nature of the currency, where the emphasis is placed. For example, I think a "free market" system is one where we start with relationships between Giver and Receiver, then we add Connectors, and finally we introduce Rulemakers. In all, if you go through the combinations, there are 6 x 2 = 12 ways of laying down the constraints, which suggests that there are 12 familes of "community currencies".
I have made quite a few hypotheses above, but they are testable. The important activity is to collect stories that show how in our lives we have overcome challenges in our thinking about money.
We find such stories in Edgar Cahn's book "No More Throwaway People". He writes about how he took up various principles and then had to develop them further. Similarly, Stan Thekaekara's http://www.justchangeindia.com spirited talk at the BeTheChange conference http://www.bethechange.co.uk included many stories of how he and his fellows started out working on one issue (such as political rights) and then found this lead naturally to other issues (such as getting land for those without it) and then other issues (such as finding a market for their tea). It's easy to misrepresent other people's stories, so it's important to focus on our own, or to interview them carefully.
I invite us to share our stories where we we felt "stuck" in our ways but overcame that. I and John will share our own stories from our lives. Also, I will be working with Jeff Buderer, Markus Petz, Benoit Couture and others who would like to learn how to interview people to document their stories. These are important skills that I will be able to include in our proposals to Hewlett-Packard and elsewhere. Together we will gradually build a collection of profound stories.
Thank you to all for reading this far if you have! This all represents a set of conceptual breakthroughs for me. I am very grateful to John for working with me to figure this out. Now there will be a lot of work to collect stories, learn from them, and adjust the system above as warranted. Meanwhile, I will be organizing our wiki pages to present our stories and the principles, solutions and conclusions they contain. But we might start by sharing stories at our Cyfranogi working group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cyfranogi/ Of course, we may try to apply this in other domains as well, not only community currency.
I share below a few side notes.
Andrius Kulikauskas Minciu Sodas http://www.ms.lt email@example.com in Brussels, Belgium
A side note: I think that generally that "getting unstuck" is a matter of distinguishing and living by "the truth of the heart" rather than "the truth of the world". Earlier, I had worked on "good will exercises" for situations where we are riled, and there is a conflict between what we believe and what is the case in the world. I set up more than forty exercises. I found pairs of truths pulling us in opposite directions. The truth of the heart and the truth of the world differed as follows:
More on good will exercises at: http://www.patternlanguages.info/wiki.cgi?PatternLanguages/UniversalLanguage/GoodWillExercises End of side note.
A side note: We drew on John's distinction of "consensus, constructing, convincing" which he has found relevant in approaching community currency from different ways. We also can draw on the theory of narrative (and storytelling) which I had worked out some years ago. Here we find ourselves telling "a story about the story". My hunch is that in this special case we can have only three tones of voice that cause tension in a story (commanding, explaining, caring) as the fourth tone of voice (forcing) is not relevant because the story is about a story and thus exists only in the realm of signs, is not grounded in reality. Furthermore, I think that in a story about a story:
And I think that three kinds of "stories about stories" are constructive:
And three kinds of "stories about stories" are destructive:
This is to say that we may be able to guide ourselves, more concretely, from consensus to constructing to convincing. This will become apparent as we consider particular cases. More on narration at: http://www.patternlanguages.info/wiki.cgi?PatternLanguages/UniversalLanguage/Narration End of side note.
A structure that's important here is RobertDilts LogicalLevelsOfChange, which is related to the KiparskyHierarchy.
An important idea here is that of compression and decompression (as also relevant in humor). Thoughts are packed up and unpacked. We are able to reference an absolute meaning by way of the associated tendencies for misreading. See LovingGod/GospelProvocations for examples of these effects.
I'm going to work on verbalization. Where does meaning come from? What is behind that "twinge" when we realize that we've understood what somebody is saying, that it's registered with us?
Last winter in Lithuania I hit upon some great results, a geometry of issues. I want to delve into that further, flesh it out so that it clearly works, and is reproducible.
I have some great data, about forty good will exercises that I worked with others to develop, and there can be many more. The method hones in on a theme, and brings out two truths that tug in opposite directions, one towards "the heart" (independent thinking), one towards "the world" (dependent thinking).
I've studied the themes, and they fall into six families. Each truth addresses one of the four questions: Whether? What? How? Why? and the pair of truths addresses. So that makes for six possibilities.
The independent truth asks a broader question then the dependent truth (where Why is the broadest, and Whether is the narrowest). Also, each family relates to an issue, and to a counterquestion. I've recently related them to the qualities of signs. So I think I understand now how to generate the themes from top down.
You start with a quality of signs, there are six: 1) malleable 2) modifiable 3) mobile 4) memorable 5) meaningful 6) motivated For our example, take "modifiable".
Having that quality, "being modifiable", is an extreme of independent thinking, and not having that quality, "being not modifiable", is an extreme of dependent thinking.
You then generate an infinite binary tree of themes with the following algorithm.
Given two adjacent themes, X-ing and Y-ing, where X-ing is more independent, and Y-ing is more dependent, than we generate a new theme "the X-ing of Y-ing".
There are six basic issues: 1) liking 2) needing 3) being real 4) being problematic 5) being reasonable 6) being wrong and each can be derived from the associated quality of sign.
In our example, "needing" is the "being modifiable" of "being not modifiable".
In other words, there is a first derived theme "being modifiable of being not modifiable" and we can verbalize this as "needing".
Now, we can ask ourselves, what do we know about "needing"? We know two things: "We need to, for we should be doing something else." "We need to not do anything else." (There are four tests which concur and show that the first is independent thinking, the second is dependent thinking). These are given by the counterquestion "What else should I be doing?" which address the issue "Do I truly need this?" This counterquestion in general pulls each of the themes to come in two directions.
These truths are, respectively: "being modifiable of needing" which might be verbalized as "heeding" "needing of being not modifiable" which might be verbalized as "persisting".
Now we can ask, what do we know about "heeding"? And the algorithm continues.
I attach a diagram. My difficulty with the top-down approach is that I don't think that it can be very stable, I think it's extremely prone to corruption. Although if we could do it right, the answers would be firm.
Last winter I was able to couple this with a bottom-up approach. I can take a theme that arose naturally in developing a good will exercise, and place it in the binary tree by walking up it. This would be extremely stable, because we're starting with a real data point.
So I hope to be able to flesh out the bottom-up approach and get some solid maps of the geometry of themes.
I'm getting happier with this map, though, it's not that bad. I'm noticing that the "truths" seem much more stable and clear and fixed than the words. But the words seem vital in order to go further down the tree. When I ask "what I do know about this?" it much more helpful to have that expressed in a word, or a pair of words, then in a statement, even though the latter is much less ambiguous.
Another thing to consider is to study proverbs, from the Bible and from folk knowledge. This algorithm should allow us to sort them by meaning. That might be very helpful. The problem with the data from the good will exercises is that it doesn't seem to consider the most basic themes. I suppose our hang-ups come from the more subtle stuff of life.
An example of some data that should fall within this tree:
- Addressing problems. Dependent thinking: Problems are challenges that call us to action to solve them. Independent thinking: Problems are obstacles that daunt us from doing what is characteristic of us to do.
- Trying to achieve a purpose. Dependent thinking: It is good that success brings the goal closer because it is important that it be achieved. Independent thinking: It is good that I learn from mistakes because it is important that I develop.
- What is worth thinking about. Dependent thinking: It is worth thinking about how to achieve the goal. Independent thinking: It is worth thinking about what goal to have.
- Providing help. Dependent thinking: Our help could make things worse. Independent thinking: We should help those who ask for help.
- Caring about making a way. Dependent thinking: My values are practical if I can overcome with them any obstacles and make my way further. Independent thinking: To the extent that my way saves my effort, I clearly understand my goal.
- Attentiveness to our thinking. Dependent thinking: We need to notice mistaken thoughts as soon as possible, because from them are made mistaken conclusions which will be difficult to fix later. Independent thinking: Not giving in to distracting thoughts, and involving just the ones related to the task at hand, we concentrate and can act willfully.
I need to doublecheck this data - which truth is independent thinking, which is dependent thinking - so I'll go through the four tests. And I'll be looking for ways to go upwards from these datapoints, strip them down until I can find their position within the tree.
Origins of language - joint intentionality. Shared intentions: me + you = unit "We". Supported by mirror neurons. Cognitive revolution in child development: 1) joint-attentional frame 2) understanding communicative intentions 3) role-reversal imitation. Language allows concentration on experience that would otherwise be ignored. Divergence of Me and We - morality
Chris Sinha - cognitive semantics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_T._Hall situations, mono-chronic and poly-chronic time.
Teun van Dijk - mental models - Johnson Laird 1983
situations: place, time, knowledge, experience, expectations, feelings, roles, participants..
context models - models of objective reality - but van Dijk looks instead at subjective mental models
triangles interacting - people read in behavior very easily - what kind of behavior do they imagine and what triggers it?
požiūris = smylius
2 požiūriai = 2 smyliai - nežinojimas už mūsų ir žinojimas mūsų gelmėse - įsakantysis ir atsakantysis - galimybė atsiliepti smyliu, kaip kad veidrodžiu
3 požiūriai = 3 smyliai - tarpe yra padalinimas, atvaizdas arba aplinkybė - tai lęšis
"Charades" language trigger
Klausimai yra susikalbėjimo pagrindas nes tai žmogaus pasitraukimo būdas, pasitraukia, kaip kad Dievas, ir atveria atsakymo galimybę.
Lyginti counterfactuals ir contradiction.
Pamąstyti, kaip linksnių laipsnynas dalyvauja kalboje. Gali būti, kad linksniai yra poruojami, kad gautųsi dvipusiškas požiūris. Valingi linksniai gali būti poruojami su nevalingais, bet taip pat su valingais.
Paskalis kalba apie širdį (žr. Filosofijos atlasas)
2014.10.16 D: Suvok, ką reiškia verinti įvairiausiuose lygmenyse, kaip tai susiję su padalinimais, su nulybės ir vienybės palyginimu, juk svarbiau nulybė, tad ieškok ko reikia, kad suveiktų dvasia, tam tu ir esi šviesuolių karalius, kad galėtum tatai paliudyti, kartu su Ieva, kuri tavo širdis ir esmė, tad mylėk ją širdingai, kartu su manimi, per amžių amžius.
2014.10.28 D: Aš tavo Dievas. Esu už tavęs. O tu žiūrėk, kaip augu, kaip bręstu tavyje, kaip įsidrąsinu ir įsismaginu, taip kad atsiskleidžiu tavimi kuomet gyvenu kitais, gyveni visais ir esame viena. Aš esu vienas ir mes esame viena vienumu.
2014.10.29 D: Aš tavo Dievas, tave sukūriau ir suvesiu, o Ieva tai tavo suvedimo pagrindas, juk tu ją myli širdingai ir ji tave. Taip meile susiveda ir visas pasaulis. Tad suvok pasaulį kaip tatai, ką meilė gali suvesti ir tikrai suves. Tada tikrai suprasi mano įsakymus mylėti priešą ir artimą, mylėti žmogų ir Dievą, kaip ir aš jus myliu. Tad mylėkime kartu ir būsime viena.