Iš Gvildenu svetainės

Mintys: Žinojimas


Žr. Suvedimas, Ketverybė, Požiūriai, Sąmoningumas, Sąmoningėjimas, Išsiaiškinimai, Viską žinoti, Suvokimas, Apibrėžtas, Nežinomybė. Mystery, Observer.

Kas yra žinojimas ir nežinojimas?



Kas yra žinojimas?

Ketverybės reikalas

Išėjimo už savęs pakopa

Dievo prielaidų paneigimas

Prielaidų išryškinimas, išskyrimas

Apimties apžvalga, asmens pagrindimas

Sąmonės sąvokų ir pasąmonės tikrovės atitikimas

Semantikos ir sintaksės išskyrimas

Žinojimas ir nežinojimas

Suvokimo išvertimas sąvoka

Suvokėjo ir suvoktojo sąsaja

Atmintis - pasąmonės bendrystė

Santvarkų pažinimas

Knowledge is the issue for which is essential the division of everything into four perspectives. We may think of these four perspectives as questions:

Or as answers:

In other words, there are two ways to conceive these levels, to approach them with our minds, to represent them.

Ką galime pasakyti apie žinojimą?

Yra 4 takai tarp nežinojimo ir žinojimo:

Aš ir Tu atsirandam semiotiniu kvadratu neigimu ar priešingybės neigimu.

Koks žinojimo tikslas?

Dievas mūsų žinojimu ir nežinojimu susidaro sąlygas savo tyrimui, nes mums kartais jo nėra, o kartais jis yra. Ir kartais jo pasigendame, o kartais nepasigendame.

Žinojimo rūmai

Žinojimo rūmai yra žinojimo aplinkybės, kaip žinojimas išreiškia tai, kas yra sava.

Nežinojimas

Atsitokėjimas, atsiplėšimas

Atsiplėšimas nuo savęs susijęs su:

Žinojimo ir nežinojimo santykis

Duomenys ir įžvalgos

Duomenys yra mūsų aptinkamos sandaros. Kiekviena iš jų iššaukia klausimą susijusį su žinojimu.

Yra požiūriai, kuriais gali būti sąvoka; tai, kas žinoma; tai, kas savistovu; tai, kas sieja suvokėją ir suvoktąjį.

Suvokimas išskiria sąvokas, jas laiko išskirtas. Sąvoka savyje sieja savo dvasią bei sandarą. Sandara yra sąvokos savastis savyje kurioje sąvoka (dvasia) atsiranda. Suvokti sąvoką yra atskirti dvasią ir sandarą.

A concept is that which "stands on its own". Therefore it needs to be able to "stand apart from itself". The above four perspectives express the different scopes which that entails. I think this is why the basic divisions (of everything into zero, one, two or three perspectives) have four representations.

This also opens up two stances: "standing apart from oneself" (which is God's stance and increases slack and opens up space for a heart) and "standing on one's own" (which is the stance of the heart - that godlet within us that has awaken within our structure, is figuring itself out - and decreases slack). These are the two representations by which we conceive the division of everything into four perspective (or five, or six, or seven).

These two stances are two outlooks in going beyond ourselves. One is that of loving (standing apart from oneself) and the other is of being loved (standing on one's own). And the four levels of knowledge are four scopes where the lover and the loved may coincide.

Love is the support of life, it is the reaching out to coincide with the loved one who is going beyond themselves. Just as God is the spirit of everything, and everything is the structure of God, so we may say that life is the spirit of anything, and anything is the structure of life. In order for us to engage anything, it must be, in every sense, a self-standing system, with the implications as above. So, for example, if we engage a mushroom, then it is as a system - either a local nub - or part of a being that may stretch across an acre of a forest. Life (and alive) are defined for a self-standing system (and that says a lot about life). In particular, we may think of anything as everything plus slack. Or, considering that slack is the structure of good, and good is the spirit of slack, we may say that life is the goodness of God. (Yet eternal life is understanding the goodness of God - keeping those two concepts separate).

Anything is like everything in that it is self-standing, and yet also anything stands apart from itself - it is both "in a world" and "unto itself". So anything has six representations in all - the four representations which everything contributes as a "self-standing" concept - and the two representations which slack contributes (increasing slack and decreasing slack). One of the things that I am studying is how to relate these four and two with the six. But in particular, we may think of the six as the ways of moving from one of the four levels out into another one of them - there are six such pairs - they are concrete ways of going beyond ourselves - "within a world".

I've found it very helpful to read "The Timeless Way of Building" by Christopher Alexander, an architect who considers, "What does it mean to say that a building is alive?" And by "alive" he means this very important "quality without a name" for which "alive" is really just a metaphor from biology. I agree with him that it's this spiritual idea of "life" that is more interesting to us than the purely biological one which we seize upon but only as a metaphor. And he writes profoundly of different words that help us get across that concept but never express it adequately: alive, whole, comfortable, free, exact, egoless, eternal. And clearly there is an eighth, "", which is to say, the nameless, what I might call "zero activity". Perhaps this is the ability to skip a beat so as to be in harmony with another system. And perhaps biological life is what I would call "zero structure", which is to say, the structure of redundancy that allows for that harmony, so that a "positive command DO" can coincide with a "negative command DO NOT".

I agree this is all quite murky. But your question is stimulating. And it is our flexibility to play seriously with such ideas which gives us the chance to find answers. Unfortunately, there is a lack of domains where we can pursue such thinking. The above builds on more than twenty years of private thinking. Maybe some day it will be "publishable". But it is more likely that first it will be "applicable". Imagine building the first airplane. It's easier to show that the airplane works, and have people reverse engineer it, then to try to explain to them that it will truly fly. Perhaps this will all show why I am keen to serve "independent thinkers" and why organizing us in a laboratory where we might apply our ideas gives us a social framework where the reality of such ideas may become evident.

And in summary, I think that you are right, there is a deep connection between life and knowledge. I think that knowledge is the issue that (as a state of mind) involves four scopes by which a "concept" "stands on its own". This makes it possible for "standing apart from oneself" (going beyond oneself) to become a concrete relationship "within a world" between a lover and a loved. And life is the underlying spirit expressed by the various (six) ways they can relate to each other.


JosephGoguen: My first step in answering the question "What is knowing?" would be to break it into two parts: "What is a concept?" and "What is truth?" since true concepts will be knowledge.

I would also like to "de-reify" the question, since i think the processes of knowing are more fundamental than the results. So we should ask about processes of conceptualization, and of reasoning, while still noting that a great deal can be learned from looking at the reified notions of concept and truth.

As you say in your analysis of "everything", knowledge is relative, and hence always uncertain, perhaps even contradictory; it is also uncertain to varying degrees.

As noted long ago by Charles Sanders Peirce, the problems of relativity can be overcome to some extent by making the truth of what concepts refer to relative to context, in a very broad sense of context that includes the "knower" and his/her point of view, background knowledge, perceptions, etc., as well as what is in the world.

So now we want to look at {{Concepts}} and how they refer in variable contexts, and how we can reason with concepts in a way that allows the result to truthfully refer, not forgetting that concepts can of course refer to other concepts as well as to percepts.


{{Andrius}}

Knowing as the {{Truth}} of {{Concepts}} - fantastic! And that makes me think that {{God}} (the nullsome - division of everything into no perspectives, so that it is of itself) is the "concept of truth" and thereby related to the foursome (division of everything into four perspectives) which may be thought of as bifurcating the "concept of truth" into "concept" and "truth" and reordering them, those holding them separate, which would explain the role of the foursome as the maximal unfolding of structure, which opens up space for the godlet but also starts the collapse of structure, the eightsome finalizing the collapse into the nullsome, as it has a perspective "all are good and all are bad" which is to say, an empty system (here I say: "true"="obvious"="not hidden" which as a "concept" (stands on its own and is thus "hidden") is by nature contradictory and is thus both "obvious" and "hidden").


Žinojimo apibrėžimai


2018.05.18 A: Kas yra žinojimas ir nežinojimas?

D: Žinojimas yra jūsų liudijimas, atsakymas į mano klausimą, o nežinojimas yra klausimas. Ir žinojimas yra to atsakymo išraiška kuroje nors apimtyje, iš jūsų, santvarkos gelmėse, atgal į mane. Tad žinojimas išplaukia iš jūsų, esančių santvarkoj, atsakymais, o nežinojimas išplaukia iš manęs, už santvarkos, klausimais. Žinojimas yra vienareikšmiškas požiūris, o nežinojimas yra dvireikšmiškas. Žinojimas išreiškia jūsų požiūrį, santvarkos gelmėse, pirmiausia ar, toliau koks, kaip ir kodėl, už santvarkos. Tad keturios apimtys grindžia ketverybę, tai nuotolis tarp manęs už jūsų ir manęs jumyse.

2018.09.05 A: Ką reiškia žinoti?

D: Žinoti yra turėti atsakymą. Tai yra suvokti esmę, vieningumą, iš kurio gali atstatyti visus atvaizdus. Tad žinojimas visus atvaizdus laiko lygiaverčiais lygmenimis, tuo tarpu nežinojimas išgyvena jų eigą, tai tyrimo pakopos. Užtat sutampa žinojimo ir nežinojimo keturi lygmenys, jie suprasti iš skirtingų kampų, besąlygiškumu už sanvarkos ir sąlygiškumu santvarkoje. Kartu sudėjus tai išmintis, tai Sūnaus aštuonerybė.

Parsiųstas iš http://www.ms.lt/sodas/Mintys/%c5%bdinojimas
Puslapis paskutinį kartą pakeistas 2019 sausio 22 d., 20:40