Kaip žinojimo rūmais išsiskiria valios?

Žinojimo rūmų tikslas

• Kodėl tyrimai yra susiję su žaidimais?
• Kaip žaidimai sudaro žinojimo rūmus?
• Kam reikalingas bendras reikalas?
• Kaip žinojimo rūmai išreiškia bendrą suvokimą?

Suvokti žinojimo rūmų sandarą:

• Kaip trejybė susieja aštuongubo kelio dvi puses? Ar tai Dievo trejybė ar žmogaus trejybės ratas?
• Kaip išsidėsto asmenys, Dievo nebūtinumo ir būtinumo klausimai?
• Išvesti visaregį, pirmines ir antrines sandaras, ir ypač tris kalbas.
• Kaip Tavo požiūrį, žinojimo rūmus, išsako pirminės sandaros?
• Palyginti grupės S4 sandarą ir žinojimo rūmų sandarą.
• Kaip rūpėjimas, tikėjimas, paklusnumas išreiškia Dvasią, Sūnų ir Tėvą?
• Kuris yra už mūsų ir kuris yra mūsų gelmėse - žinantis Dievas ar nežinantis Dievas - ir kodėl?
• Kaip žinojimo rūmai susiję su lūkesčiais, su jų nubrėžta riba, kas mums artima-žinoma ir svetima-nežinoma?
• Dievo požiūrį ištirti ir išsakyti žinojimo rūmais.
• Kaip žinojimo rūmais išsiskiria valios?
• Koks ryšys tarp požiūrio (8 x 3) (susiję su kuo?) ir koordinačių sistemos (4+6) (susijęs su tensoriais?)
• Susieti, kaip žinojimo rūmuose 3+3 apibrėžia požiūrį į požiūrį į požiūrį (valią 6+3=1), 4+2 apibrėžia požiūrį į požiūrį (širdį 5+3=0), 3x4=1 apibrėžia požiūrį (protą 4+3=-1).

• Apžvelgti kapitono Jono Noreikos žinojimo rūmus.
• Apžvelgti Christopher Alexander žinojimo rūmus.

Žinojimo rūmai ir kitos apytakos

• Kokie žinojimo rūmai atitinka visko žinojimą? Taip kad Dievo požiūrį - gyvenimo knygą išsako išsiaiškinimai santvarkoje, o Dievo išgyvenimą išsako išsiaiškinimai už santvarkos.
• Kuria prasme pasirinkimų malūnas yra žinojimo rūmai atitinkantys betko žinojimą?
• Kaip žinojimo rūmai yra kažko žinojimai? Kaip kalbomis apibrėžiamas kažkas?
• Išmąstyti žinojimo rūmų reikšmę.
• Išsiaiškinimai Patikslinti, kas yra išsiaiškinimas?
• Kaip klausimai atsakomi?
• Nusakyti įvairiausius žinojimo rūmus
• Nusakyti fizikos žinojimus rūmus.
• Susieti matematikos žinojimo rūmus ir fizikos žinojimo rūmus.
• Nusakyti smegenų mokslo žinojimo rūmus.
• Nusakyti Vilniaus Gaono žinojimo rūmus.
• Nusakyti šachmatų žinojimo rūmus.
• Kaip išsivysto įvairiausi žinojimo rūmai?
• Kaip žinojimo rūmai atspindi pažinovą?
• Kaip asmenybės žinojimo rūmai atspindi jos kertinę vertybę?
• Kaip skirtingi žinojimo rūmai išplaukia iš žaidimų?
• Kaip šachmatų žinojimo rūmai atskleidžia žaidimų prasmę?
• Kokia svarba mokytis iš kitų ir kitus mokyti? Kaip tai pasireiškia tarp išsiaiškinimo būdų?

Žinojimo rūmai

Kas yra žinojimo rūmai?

• Žinojimo rūmai yra trečia apytaka.
• Žinojimo rūmais vadinu išsiaiškinimo būdų visumą.
• Žinojimo rūmais Tu tiri Kaip Dievas būtinas? Šis klausimas taikomas Tavo apimtyje, tai yra, paskiros asmenybės ar paskiros mokslo šakos. O atsakymas yra pasąmonės, nuojautos įgūdžius persakyti sąmoningai, tad išmintimi.

Žinojimo rūmų tikslas

• Žinojimo rūmai apibrėžia gyvenimą.
• Tu žinojimo rūmais skiri betko žinojimą ir betko nežinojimą.
• Žinojimo rūmai savo apimtimi bene iš Kito galo išgauna visaregį, tad iššaukia Dievą.
• Dievo išėjime už savęs, su visiškai sąmoningu bendrauji savarankiškumo pakopoje - matematika, kuria suprantame Dievo būklę, o su visiškai nesąmoningu bendrauji meilės pakopoje, kuria suprantame nesąmoningiausio Kito būklę. Ir būtent meilės pakopa mus visus vienija.
• Smegenų mokslo žinojimo rūmai parodo santykį tarp kūno ir proto, jų dvilypumą. Šis dvilypumas parodo, kad tuos pačius išsiaiškinimo būdus galima dvejopai suprasti, iš vieno galo (pirm santvarkos) ar iš kito galo (po santvarkos). Tokiu būdu 24 išsiaiškinimo būdus galima suprasti poromis, taip kad iš viso yra 48 išsiaiškinimo būdai, kaip kad aptikau savo žinojimo rūmuose. Šiuo dvilypumu išverčiami žinojimo rūmai, taip kad mokslas (pagrįstas pirm santvarkos) virsta asmenybe (pagrįsta po santvarkos). Panašiai, einama iš matematikos (kurios šaknys pirm santvarkos) į biologiją (kurios šaknys po santvarkos).

Žinojimo rūmų sandara

• Žinojimo rūmai sieja tris svarbiausius išsiaiškinimo būdus: pažinovo A) požiūrį, B) požiūrį į požiūrį, ir C) požiūrį į požiūrį į požiūrį. Žinojimo rūmai iš A išveda B, ir iš B išveda C.
• Žinojimo rūmuose trejybė suderina dvi ketverybes, tada santvarkoje galima kalbėti apie keturių lygmenų poras.
• Žinojimo rūmuose du skirtingi sparnai palaiko tikėjimą ir rūpėjimą. Abu sparnai kartu palaiko paklusimą.
• Žinojimo rūmais pereiname iš trejybės į ketverybę (abiem kryptim). Apsukti trejybės ratą reikia padaryti ketverybę.

Ryšys su kitomis apytakomis

• Dievo šokis veda į daugybę žinojimo rūmų. Išgyvenimo apytaka išskiria žinojimo rūmus, juos sudėlioja, kaip kad matematika sudėlioja savo šakas. Reikėtų tirti matematikos paskiras šakas (pavyzdžiui, geometriją) ir išsakyti kiekvienos šakos žinojimo rūmus, kaip jie susiję.
• Žinojimo rūmų galutinis išsiaiškinimo būdas, aplinka, yra meilės mokslo pradžia, kurioje atsiranda ir išsivysto Kitas.
• Meilė yra bendras reikalas suderinantis skirtingas valias.

Bendras suvokimas

Žr. Susikalbėjimas, Atjautos, Ir trys, Laisvumas, Šešerybė, Factoring, Factors, EverythingVAnything, SecondaryStructures, Equations, Structure, Activity.

Kadaise tyriau keturis suvokimo lygmenis: 0) suvokimą, 1) savęs suvokimą, 2) bendrą suvokimą ir 3) susikalbėjimą. (Anglų kalba: Understanding, Self understanding, Shared understanding, Good understanding.) Juos dabar suprantu kaip sąmoningėjimo lygmenis ir sieju su keturiomis dorovės tyrimo pakopomis.

Kas yra bendras suvokimas?

• Bendras suvokimas yra žmogaus požiūris į Dievo požiūrį į žmogaus požiūrį į Dievo požiūrį.
• Bendras suvokimas gal sutampa su Tomasello tiriamu "joint intentionality".
• Taikome bendrą suvokimą kuomet mylime savo artimą kaip save patį.
• Shared understanding expresses the SecondaryStructures on their own terms, as self-standing, and relating humans as equals.
• SharedUnderstanding allows for a PersonInGeneral by understanding Representations. SharedUnderstanding makes it possible for a perspective to be taken up by an Other, which it introduces. This makes it possible for God and heart to take up each other's perspectives. Perhaps Human is that Other.

Bendro suvokimo sandaros

• Bendro suvokimo sandara yra septynerybė.
• Bendras suvokimas yra veiksmas +3 vedantis mus iš nulybės į trejybę.
• +3 adds Slack - three perspectives - yielding Interplay and SharedUnderstanding.

Skaidymas

Skaidymas yra pastaba apie sandaras kurią bandau suprasti gyvenimiškai. Skaičiaus 24 = 2 x 3 x 4 sandus galima sulyginti su antrinėmis sandaromis:

• 8 = 2 x 4 padalinimai
• 6 = 3 x 2 atvaizdai
• 12 = 4 x 3 aplinkybės
• trys kalbos yra poslinkiai tarp šių trijų sandarų.

Bendru suvokimu šitaip suprantame šias sandaras. Tuo tarpu geru suvokimu šias sandaras suprantame Dievo atjauta (ir sandara 4+6).

Skaidymas atveria dvi papildomas galimybes:

• nulinė sandara (visi trys sandai atskirti) septintas požiūris
• nulinė veikla (sandai neatskirti) aštuntas (nulinis) požiūris

Sandus galima suvokti kaip kylančius iš vienybės (grynos sandaros) pridėjus veiksmus +1, +2, +3, taip išgaunant dvejybę, trejybę, ketverybę.

Intuitive interpretation of the {{Factors}}

I am trying to understand what might be the significance of these factors.

It seems that the 2 factor is from having unequals manifest as equals (as in BeginningVEnd), and the 4 factor is from having equals manifest as unequals (as in SpiritVStructure). How to understand the 3 factor?

If we have an unequal relationship, such as A to B then we can still emphasize one or the other role (A or B) and they become equals.

If we have a relationship of equals, such as X and Y, then we can consider them as unequals by introducing a relationship "to", generating: X to X, X to Y, Y to X, Y to Y and pairing X to X with X to Y (keeping the first element fixed) and pairing Y to X and Y to Y (also keeping the first element fixed). This is nonsense. Hmmm.

I ask God, and my understanding from that is: the factors are those structures which coincide with their activity. Humans go beyond themselves through the wholeness of structure, and humans immerse themselves in structure by way of activity.

I suppose this is because the factors are those structures that result from acting on the onesome, which as a DummyVariable reflects and expresses the action upon it. The activity is given by the operation.

In my own observations, the factors seem to express the relationship between {{Structure}} and {{Spirit}}. We may think of the {{Onesome}} as pure structure. The factors result from the operations acting on this pure structure and placing it within a framework (a factor). This framework allows us to consider that pure structure in more than one way (specifically, in two, three or four ways).

• The two-factor allows us to consider the primacy of structure and spirit (or the {{Beginning}} of structure and spirit). We may have structure manifest spirit, as when spirit is thus is. Or we may have structure yield spirit, as when spirit is not, even so, is. In the first case, spirit is prior to structure, and in the second case, structure is prior to spirit. If we allow for this (and only this) to be ambiguous, then we have {{Topologies}}.
• The three-factor allows us to consider the convergence of structure and spirit (or the {{End}} of structure and spirit). We may have spirit understand structure, so that the end is spirit. Or we may have spirit come to understand structure, so that the end is their relationship. Or we may structure be understood by spirit, so that the end is structure. If we allow for this (and only this) three-fold ambiguity, then we have {{Divisions}}.
• The four-factor allows us to consider the separation of structure and spirit (or the relationship of structure and spirit). This may be {{Everything}}, {{Anything}}, {{Something}} or {{Nothing}}. If this (and only this) is left ambiguous, then we have {{Representations}}.

In each case, we may think of the factor (and any of its perspectives) as allowing us to understand the wholeness of a structure. This is what is significant about the twosome, threesome, foursome: they may be considered as resulting from actions on the onesome.

We may then consider the structures as arising from fixing two aspects of the relationship of spirit and structure (or {{God}} and {{human}}, respectively), and leaving another aspect ambiguous. We may think of the beginning as the spiritual whole, and the end as the structural whole. This yields:

• {{Divisions}} fix the spiritual whole and the relationship, but leave the structural whole ambiguous. (Thus a division has several perspectives, and it is not clear if the weight is in the part or the whole).
• {{Representations}} fix the spiritual whole and the structural whole, but leave the relationship ambiguous. (Thus the distance between the two is left unclear).
• {{Topologies}} fix the relationship and the structural whole, but leave the spiritual whole ambiguous. (Thus a topology leaves unclear if it is experienced as such, or coming from beyond it).

Binary Operations

I have thought that the 2 x 4 = 8 divisions, 3 x 2 = 6 representations and 4 x 3 = 12 topologies are given as products. But it might actually be more interesting than that. It might be better to think of them as applying three different kinds of binary operations:

• The 12 {{Topologies}} are indeed a product of the {{Foursome}} and the {{Threesome}}.
• But the 6 {{Representations}} are the union of the {{Twosome}} and the {{Foursome}}.
• And the 8 {{Divisions}} are the intertwining of the {{Threesome}} and the {{Twosome}}, yielding two additional perspectives, so that we have 8 = 1 + 3 + 3 + 1.

This very much accords with what I've observed. I'm wondering what the structural implications are elsewhere. I suppose it doesn't affect the position of the three languages within the eightfold way because that is given by the shifts in the structures themselves, not their components.

Note also that these structures may still be derived by the {{Omniscope}} as products 2 x 3 x 4, and yet arise fresh when they are reinterpreted, perhaps by human eyes, so that the divisions and the representations switch places.

More notes

These are perhaps fundamental to shared understanding. They may be the entities that are factored 2 x 3 x 4. The factoring may have us think of them in pieces. Each piece is a mapping from the onesome (as a whole) to the onesome (as a perspective). Perhaps the ambiguities are as follows:

• We have a twofold ambiguity (and topologies) if we presume there is a direction, but we don't know which it is, either forwards or backwards, from which we are interpreting the operation (either from the initial division (beginning) reaching out, or from the final division (end) going back to the roots). This ambiguity is given by the equation 1+1=2. This is the outlook of the end, looking backwards in terms of two representations of the division to which it is returning, namely, beginning and end. This is the ambiguity between God and human when it is not clear who is the originator for a shift in perspective - God or human?
• We have a threefold ambiguity (and divisions) if we presume there is an operation, a relationship between beginning and end, but we don't know what it is, either +1, +2 or +3. This ambiguity is given by the equation 1+2=3?. This is the outlook of the relationship between beginning and end.
• We have a fourfold ambiguity (and representations) if we presume that each division has its own state, but we don't know what it is, yielding: (beginning or end) to (beginning or end). These are four levels of understanding. This ambiguity is given by the equation 1+3=4?. This is the outlook of the beginning, looking forwards in terms of four representations of the division which it is reaching out from, constructively presuming that relationship.

I think that these presumptions are the constructive hypotheses. The factoring then makes sense as a split of determiniteness and ambiguity as part of such a presumption and the engagement of an other. I should also think of them in terms of the heart? and the inversion effect.

Apparently, we should attribute the forwards direction when operations act on divisions with four representations: nullsome, onesome, twosome, threesome. And we should attribute the backwards direction when operations act on divisions with two representations: foursome, fivesome, sixsome, sevensome. And these presumably also list out the levels of understanding. But I should look into this when I know more.

The factoring assigns factors to either a human view (one-track, deterministic, where a perspective is chosen) or to God's view (all-track, nondeterministic, where all perspectives are taken). These views are the generation of what is relevant for an absolute perspective: the onesome, twosome, threesome - considered as operations that also generate whate is relevant for a relative perspective: the foursome, fivesome, sixsome - acting on either the nullsome or the threesome. This is made a shared perspective by considering its action on a whole - on the onesome - and allowing for mixed modes. So factoring is a categorization of views understood as operations on wholeness.

Question: How does the Other arise in factoring as the seventh perspective? How does the Other express that total ambiguity which is partially evident in structures and more evident in activity? How is that ambiguity expressed as a function (+1, +2, +3) from wholeness to wholeness? And how is nonambiguity, determination likewise expressed by that function? In what sense are we thereby opening ourselves up for view by somebody else? And how does that mediate our absolute and relative perspectives?

Shared understanding is based on the fact that it is the same good in both God and human. In Representations, that good is Waiting and it is separate for God and human. In Topologies, that good is Believing and it is together in God and Human. Either way, there is SharedUnderstanding. See: EverythingWishesForAnything. Note that here the slack of the Wholeness is in the case of Representations.

Recall the destructionism of the threesome onto the threesome which yields people, words, qualities - these may be considered as anythings on which the threesome of structure and threesome of activity may share perspective from, their shared point of reference, their stand.

I think the Other arises as the one who experiences the taking a stand, following through and reflecting of the Absolute perspective - and makes it continuous - and also is the center for the Relative perspective - with regard to which there is self-correction in taking a stand, following through, and reflecting. It is a person-in-general that bridges the Relative and Absolute perspectives through recurring activity. It is what allows us to take up another point of view rather than just our own - to take up another's needs rather than just our own, for example.

This Other is perhaps that Stand - the Anything - which arises in both the Relative and the Absolute perspectives - it is the continuity of this Stand. It is the root of a person and allows us to communicate with them. The Other is what steps into the Absolute perspective and steps out of the Relative perspective. Perhaps this is why it is bounded, it goes counter to the natural direction where Absolute is God's point of view, framing, and Relative is human's point of view, immersed. Slack is what allows the Other to be in each case, and for it to be the same Other in both cases. How does that relate to the sixsome and factoring?

We think of that self-standing whole (the Other) as a recurring activity within a threesome that is held together by shifts +1, +2, +3. If these shifts are all considered activity, then we have recurring activity and the Other. But some of these shifts may be taken as structure, which means that they set a definite path from whole to whole, with no ambiguity. If one is fixed, then we understand a shift as taking us from one activity to another activity as part of our self-correction (as an Other) with regard to some third structural center that is fixed. If two are fixed, then we understand them as where we are coming from and going to, and there is an undefined action that the Other experiences along with us from one to the other. Why is there a circle of shiftss +1, +2, +3? I need to look at the details of each type of structure that is generated.

This is the level that distinguishes Choosing and GoodWill.

Shared understanding is the arisal of an Other (perhaps the understanding of this other, or the separating out of this other) as a SeventhPerspective that relates the Heart and God - the Releative and Absolute perspectives. This is the seventh perspective which the relative perspective circles around (and therefore posits). It is also the recurring activity of the absolute perspective that it walks through. And so these two approaches which it combines are like immersing oneself into a perspective (stepping in) and framing a perspective (stepping out). In this way, through the other, we can induce fluttering by both stepping in and stepping out. The spirit can thereby flutter amongst us as we make possible a person-in-general, almost as single frames can form a movie, a moving picture. A person is that into which they immerse themselves, which is ever deeper love. Whereas God is that into which they step out, which is ever distant frames. In the sequence: God - heart - other - God (as in loving them), we have that humans conflate the first and the last, thus yielding a three-cycle. But God keeps them separate. In conflating them, God and human can coincide. God in all ways supports that Other which can relate him to the heart. Among those others is the heart, so may they coincide? If the heart and the other coincide (by the heart going beyond itself), then God(0) and God(3) coincide (perhaps by internalization). I'm looking for the rationale by which the relative three-cycle may entertain a seventh perspective (perhaps which it considers absolute) and the absolute three-cycle may entertain it as well (perhaps as that which it considers relative). So that they are able to share a perspective, by engaging the complement. And how does this relate to slack, increasing and decreasing? And how does this relate to factoring and the factors and the secondary structures? And then later it will become a question of whether to consider oneself subordinate or superordinate. Also, the idea of understanding as applying to a hole which is first empty (the truth) and then the Self and then the Other and finally God - and in each case adding to this hole three or however many perspectives so as to create the relevant framework.

Self-understanding separated activity from structure. Shared understanding switches their primacy and has us start with the self-correction of the threesome for activity. Here we are faced with choices between good and bad, better and worse, the best and the rest. Shared understanding separates these and considers good as that which preserves wholeness, and so this gives rise to a seventh perspective which is the preservation of wholeness, and we take as Other. Given wholeness, the preservation is considered as an operation +1 (for the good), +2 (for the better) or +3 (for the best). The threesome of structure is understood as a projection of the threesome of activity onto what preserves the wholeness. In this sense, structure is always good. But the perspectives of the threesome of activity allow good and bad to travel side by side. Through the good we have shared understanding. This also allows us to define slack and good by way of the seventh perspective. Good is what allows us to relate an absolute perspective and a relative perspective. Good arises by mapping back from the threesome of activity into the threesome of structure. So the threesome of structure is not aware of this concept, of its goodness, except by way of this map. So the Other is always good. This is a separation of what is particular (and does not preserve the good) and what is general (and does preserve the good). Note that this seventh perspective is understood to be the recurring activity within the threesome of structure. This recurring activity allows us to understand that there might be bad alongside good within structure, but only contingently, as relevant for preserving the whole. The factoring allows this to take place for individual perspectives. Also, we get Factoring because each operation may be considered as undetermined (and not necessarily preserving the good) or as determined (and preserving the good). So the determined factors are considered structure, and the undetermined factors are considered activity. For the seventh perspective, I imagine that all factors are pure structure, there is a complete focus on the good, a perfect person, a total structure. Then the eighth perspective is a total activity by which God goes beyond himself and is able to come out into our world. The factors are maps that are into and onto wholeness, hence wholeness preserving. They yield structure, which is purely good, hence this lets us have a self-standing opposite. They open windows by which other perspectives can look inside of us. A representation is perhaps a view from any one of the perspectives of the sixsome through the Other and onto a selection of the perspectives. The Other then plays a role much like that of the whole yet independent.

Now it is important to try to define the secondary structures as arising from this kind of factoring. The factors should be related to the operations. For example, the operation +2 acting on the wholeness may be thought of as yielding wholeness="divided" and also "dividing" and "not-dividing" as three choices by which the wholeness may be preserved. These are left undetermined in the case of a division. The operation +1 acting on the wholeness may be thought of as yielding wholeness="absolute context" and also "arising context". These are left undetermined in the case of a topology. What might the operation +3 yield? that would be left undetermined in the case of a representation?''

Shared understanding is the Understanding that allows for a PersonInGeneral. It is the Understanding that focuses on that which we may presume to share with others. It involves three tracks acting in parallel: the general structure that is yielded by understanding, the activity that is given by self-understanding within that, and the slack that relates structure and activity when there is recurrence. This slack appears when we impose the sixsome onto the threesome given by these three tracks. We thereby allow for a person-in-general.

Shared understanding is the human view that good and God are the same. Good is that which human and God share. Yet God is more than that, but at this point human does not consider this. The human understands the SeventhPerspective to be Good and God and Life. Here the two concepts God and good are conflated by the equation life is the goodness of God. This equation is with regard to some Scope. If there is no scope, then the equation becomes Abslute, the concepts of God and good become separate, and we have GoodUnderstanding.

God is that which is separated from itself by "everything". The godlet (the heart which arises in the space that God opens up for it as he goes beyond himself) is separated from itself (it's self, it's structure) by "nothing" (it identifies with its structure that it has found itself in, awoken up within). Now, the "everything" (all contexts) and the "nothing" (no contexts) may seem (and the heart presumes initially) are symmetric, equal. Yet ultimately it becomes apparent that the heart distinguishes everywhere true and false (a "knowledge of good and evil") whereas for God all is true. Note here that "true / false" is a false "separation", a false "or", as it does not keep the two concepts separate, but rather combines them, blends them with an "either or".

As part of this growth in understanding, we may consider a "human" as that which "is" what it identifies with:

• A) first God's perspective, as separated from itself by everything, and then going beyond itself, a general "love" (and perhaps an empathy for the "world")
• B) then the heart's perspective, that which awakens within structure, and is separated from it's self (structure) by nothing, thus a "love of self" (so that the heart is like "personality" of a person-in-particular). Here we are one with ourselves.
• C) then the human (hopefully) identifies with an "other" by which God and heart coincide, thus one lives as a person-in-general, as "character" by which we are all the same (this is the key event in life, to live from this general perspective) This happens as the heart goes beyond itself (from a narrower scope to a broader scope - one of six ways - between nothing, something, anything, everything) as a loved one who is met by God receiving, loving, conceiving, supporting it. Here the human is an intermediary by which God outside and the heart within meet. Here we are one with others. This is about "love other".
• D) Finally the human identifies with the God who supports, loves the "other", is able to place that other within an understanding context by going beyond itself into the limitations of the other. This is to "love God". As the evangelist John says, we can't love God except as we love others.

AndriusKulikauskas: I'm trying to make what follows more understandable. It is a mechanics that relates various structures that I have observed. These are structural ideas that arise in trying to "make sense of the numbers", which is to say, make sense of the structures that I have observed.

Shared understanding is the acknowledgement of an [{{Other}} #] which is the same. It is the recognition of the ability to take up each other's perspectives. What is [{{Structure}} #] for one is [{{Activity}} #] for the other, and vice versa.

This is made possible by [{{Recurring}} activity], which is the driver for shared understanding.

In shared understanding, as we walk a third time around the [{{Threesome}} #], we have acting-in-parallel:

• +1 structure (God)
• +2 activity (heart)
• +3 a slack that mediates them (as activity evokes structure and structure channels activity). (God and heart go around together).

[{{Factoring}} #]

Factoring occurs because shared understanding is where [{{Structure}} #] and [{{Activity}} #] coincide. This is indeed how the sharing takes place - structure and activity coincide. This happens by way of the [{{Twosome}} #], [{{Threesome}} #], [{{Foursome}} #] because these are the divisions for which this is so. These are the structures which may be considered as products of the operations upon the [{{Onesome}} #].

Related reasons why factoring occurs:

• recurring activity allows the sixsome to be imposed. *shared understanding compares a level of understanding with a base level, thus yielding operations and factors.

Each operation can be understood to embed the previous ones. If we apply each of them to the [{{Onesome}} #] (the division of everything into one perspective - and the basis for "shared understanding" and for [{{Constructive}} hypotheses] that allow for that), then this can look like a chain of mappings from the whole (the onesome) to a new structure (twosome (1+1), threesome (1+2), foursome (1+3)) within which there is one perspective that may be attributed to the whole (any one may be selected - any one may have served as the original - this yields up to 2 x 3 x 4 possibilities - but also at any component, selection need not take place, need not be rendered explicit). Then the resulting structural totality can be factored by the sixsome (the total structure for layer 2) yielding the following (cyclically structured with regard to each other):

• 2 x 4 = 8 [{{Divisions}} #]
• 3 x 2 = 6 [{{Representations}} #]
• 4 x 3 = 12 [{{Topologies}} #]
• 3 = shift from 4 x 3 topologies to 3 x 2 representations: [{{Argumentation}} #]
• 4 = shift from 2 x 4 divisions to 4 x 3 topologies: [{{Verbalization}} #]
• 2 = shift from 3 x 2 representations to 2 x 4 divisions: [{{Narration}} #]

Here we may think of this as an interpretation of the motion through the three-cycle where each component may be [{{Structure}} #] (with one of its perspectives specified as corresponding to the whole) or as [{{Activity}} #] (where no perspective need be distinguished, and participation is understood to occur along all possibilities in parallel). The factoring pairs structure with activity in all possible ways, yielding [{{Independents}} #] and [{{Insignificants}} #].

Having understood this all as a "factoring" it is now possible to make sense of a seventh perspective which is pure activity with no structure arising at any component. This is the "slack" ([{{Zero}} structure], the possibility of no factors, and also that which can always slip between any two factors). In this way, we can go from the sixsome to the sevensome.

The human is [{{The}} end] and the other is [{{The}} beginning]. Beginning and end:

• may be distinguished (twosome) beginning: coexist as opposites; end: all are the same
• may be equated (threesome) end is beginning; not end?; not beginning?
• may take up each other as values (foursome) beginning to beginning; beginning to end; end to beginning; end to end (determine order)

This is how the threesome imagines God.

Here beginning and end are considered symmetrical. This possibility makes relevant recurrent activity as expressed by a general shift. Recurrent activity is that in which beginning and end are equivalent, there is circularity. The end takes up the perspective of the beginning, which it understands as 'an other'. '''

This is the level of the key question: should I look for God, or help God find me?

Note that the answer takes us further to go beyond ourselves to the eightsome in good understanding. We either allow ourselves to be found - or we hide ourselves, like Adam and Eve. Here it is a question of whether we allow ourselves to be found by an other who we take to be our equal. If we do, then we allow ourselves to be found by God as well. It is not a matter of whether we believe in God, but whether we allow ourselves to be found by God.

Recurrent activity is the origin of slack. We understand it as increasing slack and decreasing slack.

This general shift makes sense in two ways.How do we equate these two definitions?

• I look for God decreasing God's scope God and I are equal as in shared understanding. One is as a structural definition of shift through the structural products (this is a God's view of human's view, it is a global perspective). Here perhaps God's shift (into the threesome) is equated with one, two and three shifts around the human threesome - this makes for structures of size 2, 3 and 4. They are then multiplied together and partitioned. These perhaps represent structure, activity and slack.
• I help God find me increasing God's scope God is greater than I - as parent and child - as in good understanding. The other is as a movement between two scopes (this is a human's view of God's view, it is a local perspective). Here the human shift is reinterpreted as a move between two scopes defined with respect to God. This perhaps expresses activity going beyond itself into structure: activity evokes structure, and that structure channels activity.

Here God goes beyond himself through the shifts of the threesome. These shifts are the origin of slack (hence the sevensome). The shift in general is the seventh perspective, it is the general shift that is the equivalence of the three shifts of the cyclic threesome. It is the essence of goodness, slack. This is the quality of God. God acts through his qualities.

Secondary structure is a structural partition, and as such a shift or a shift of shifts

God and human are treated as the same. Here the structures are defined passively, structurally.

The threesome is important here as the human condition - that which is taken to be the same as the other.

The shift and the recurring activity are in the fact that the beginning and the end are interchangeable.

In the choices, there are six combinations. They are built from:

• 2 outlooks: God and human (going beyond oneself or cyclic shift)
• 3 equivalent perspectives in the cyclic threesome (shifts) - understanding, self-understanding, shared understanding (the beginning and end are conflated)
• 4 perspectives (going beyond oneself - where the beginning and end are kept distinct)

The point of a general shift - and of each shift - is that first one determination is made, and then another. The shift expresses a shift in determination (or perhaps likewise in ambiguation, where we have the reverse, a shift between shifts).

A shift is the gap between determinations. The shift is the fact that the secondary structure can be factored - broken down into factors that are bound by the shift.

Note that the 24 may be understood as [{{Equations}} #], and the factoring provides different ways of understanding those equations, how to relate the parts of the equations.

Big question: Why 2 x 3 x 4 ? and Why does it factor? One possible answer - that there is an additional unifying perspective included (such as nothing) that may represent our point of view (or God's point of view, or perhaps the shared point of view).

Answer: factoring occurs because slack is inherent in the distinction between structure and activity. Activity evokes structure, structure channels activity, and there is slack in (the redundancy of) this relationship. Activity expresses the participant, and structure is the complement for that, the self for that participant. (Perhaps activity is representation - the point of view of a participant within and upon structure.) Activity expresses the participant by being ambiguous. There should also be factoring into one part of 3 and three of 1. But these imply that slack is more than just activity/structure. One of these is the seventh perspective, the other is the eighth perspective. The whole point of the secondary structures is to make relevant this seventh perspective. Note that the twosome, threesome, foursome serve as building blocks based on the participant - their consciousness +3 of the lacksome, nullsome, onesome. The seventh perspective has something to do with recurring activity, with general shift.

Note: the components are the twosome, threesome, foursome because these are the components for which structure coincides with activity (hence there is no slack in their distinction). What do they have in common, what does this mean? It seems that they may be considered as the consequences of the operations +1, +2, +3 on the onesome. Here the onesome is a "dummy variable" which represents "pure structure" and as such reflects the activities +1, +2, +3 in their outcomes (twosome, threesome, foursome). Within each of these outcomes it becomes relevant to identify which of the perspectives is the original "pure structure". Hence we get a multiplicative choice: 2 x 3 x 4.

What seems to be happening here is that each of the operations +1, +2, +3 can be understood as both activity and structure. As structure, the operation may be projected as a transformation from the whole (as the onesome, a dummy variable) and into a part (corresponding to the onesome). The operations +3 (recurring activity), +2 (shift in perspective), +1 (going beyond oneself) are happening at the same time, and in that sense form a threesome of endless activity - a cyclic threesome +3, +2, +1. This, when acting on the onesome, looks structurally like 4 x 3 x 2 with choices being made (or not made). Where a choice is made, we have structure (and activity), otherwise we have simply activity. By taking the "onesome" as the basis for shared communication (for the constructive hypotheses)(and for the identification of structure and activity) we can express the sixsome upon this cycle 4 x 3 x 2 with three static structural families (specify two structures) and three dynamic structural families (specify one structure). In every case activity is what flows through all of the structural cycle - it is simply specified (and unspecified) at certain points as it passes through that cycle. This factoring (which results from the sixsome rethought in terms of the shared "onesome") opens up a seventh possibility - which is all structure specified: 4 and 3 and 2. Here we have both structure and activity, but not for one perspective or the other perspective, but for the shared perspective, all spelled out. This has slack because again we have both activity and structure.

Then the eighth perspective is pure activity (no structure) and this as such has no distinction between activity and structure, no slack in that sense, perhaps the decreasing sense. And so everything collapses into the nullsome.

Divisions [everything, anything] does [nothing, something, anything, everything]

• [{{Nullsome}} #] = everything does nothing
• [{{Onesome}} #] = everything does something
• [{{Twosome}} #] = everything does anything
• [{{Threesome}} #] = everything does everything
• [{{Foursome}} #] = anything does nothing
• [{{Fivesome}} #] = anything does something
• [{{Sixsome}} #] = anything does anything
• [{{Sevensome}} #] = anything does everything

Representations [being, becoming, acknowledging] does [taking up, acknowledging]

• [{{The}} beginning] = being does taking up
• [{{The}} end] = being does acknowledging
• [{{Understanding}} #] = acknowledging does acknowledging
• [{{Self-understanding}} #] = acknowledging does taking up
• [{{Shared}} understanding] = becoming does taking up
• [{{Good}} understanding] = becoming does acknowledging

Topologies [understander, understanding, understood, immersed] does [immersed, understood, understanding]

Secondary structures arise through various manifestations (determinations and nondeterminations) of the shift:

• determination of [{{{{Divisions}}}} division]:
• shift = 2 (outlooks - God's the beginning's unfolding, human's the end's coming together) x 4 (divisions)
• Operation +1
• Ambiguity: take a stand, follow through, reflect - the human condition - roles in the mind game
• Determine: the beginning (0) or the end (4). - representation of slack.
• Determine: +0, +1, +2, +3. - representation of nullsome.
• Outcome: (0, 1, 2, 3) or (4, 5, 6, 7).
• The division is in between, in the shift - it is the relationship from the whole to its parts. The division is either using the beginning (the nullsome) as a dummy variable and acting upon it with an operation; Or it is using the end (the foursome - which acknowledges the end and pulls the perspectives together) and then? considering it as the remainder?
• (For the coming together, consider each perspective as gaining a "marker" and then having a "marker for the markers" yielding 1+3+3+1. Or perhaps better - consider it an unloosening - first everything is held together, then it gets unloosened, decoupled, like dangling tassles.)
• Note: we may think of this as the ambiguity inherent in the threesome - the relevant structure. This ambiguity is given by the product of the two and the four representations.
• determination of [{{{{Representations}}}} representation]:
• shift = 3 shifts x 2 outlooks (why? involve human linearly or God cyclically)
• Operation +2
• Ambiguity: +0, +1, +2, +3. - representation of nullsome.
• Determine: take a stand, follow through, reflect - the human condition - roles in the mindgame
• Determine: the beginning (0) or the end (7). - representations of slack, increasing or decreasing
• Outcome: The threesome is either unbounded or bounded... (understander, understanding, understood) x (unbounded, bounded) = (God, God to other (God's will), God to God (life)) (other, other to God (wisdom), other to other (good will))
• looking out and back, back at one self - how does it seem from the side: human's view to God, God's view to human
• Note: we may think of this as the ambiguity inherent in the four representations that view the division through the kinds of relationships - understandings - between the beginning and the end.
• determination of [{{{{Topologies}}}} topology]:
• shift = 4 perspectives (each suitable as beginning or end) x 3 (members of threesome)
• Operation + 3 cyclic
• Ambiguity: the beginning (0) or the end (7). - representations of slack, increasing or decreasing
• Determine: +0, +1, +2, +3. - representations of the nullsome
• Determine: take a stand, follow through, reflect - the human condition - roles in the mindgame
• Outcome: Key concepts trigger the mind games...
• Note: this is the ambiguity inherent in the two representations that view the division through its wholeness - God (beginning) or human (end) - increasing or decreasing slack
• [{{Argumentation}} #]: nondetermination of division: 4x3 to 3x2
• [{{Verbalization}} #]: nondetermination of representation: 2x4 to 4x3
• [{{Narration}} #]: nondetermination of topology: 3x2 to 2x4

(Note the noncommutative definitions: 2x4, 3x2, 4x3 etc. and the role of x -1) Also, we get modes: +2, +1, +1, -1, -1, -2.)

Note that determination = ambiguity! So nondetermination is perhaps nonambiguity. Consider these identities as expressing the outlooks of the beginning and the end.

Determination: shift = perspective (shift of perspectives) Nondetermination: shift = shift (shift of shifts) ambiguity - a flip operation

So this is a sixfold expression of the shift.

God imagines the human outlook (of a three-cycle) by identifying himself (outside of us) with himself in the depths of our hearts. This is the way in which he is "alive" and we live in him.

The seventh perspective is what allows one to take up the perspective of another. It is in this sense that we have shared understanding. Perhaps the eighth perspective is what allows us to understand our perspective as just part of a larger perspective.

Kas yra bendrumas

• allowing for the referent, thus being one of the all who are of a one, thus for whom there is a greater ground and also a wider circle, so that they are open as a part in a whole, thus being among.
• And, not sharing is Or

Su bendrumu susijusios sąvokos

• Dievas
• Buvimas viena, meilė ir ne viena
• Referent, Reference, Grounds or Basis (a referent), Extent (all referents)
• Theory (what can be shared, the grounds for definition)
• BeingOneWith (sharing what can be shared, especially theory), NotBeingOneWith
• Truth (the extent of what can be shared), Scope
• Knowledge, Definition
• Undefined
• Unconditional, Conditional
• Coinciding (Defined as BeingOneWith)
• Agreement (Person), Basis for Agreement (Perspective), Basis for Disagreement (Position), Disagreement (System)
• Willingness, Nonwillingness
• God (Person and System), Human (Person and not System)
• Experiencing, Understanding
• DefaultPerspective (first shared and then defined), IndependentPerspective (first defined and then shared)

Užrašai

48 pomenės suporuoja sandarinį ir asmeninį požiūrį dėl to, kad 12 menių yra pokalbis su asmenimi, su pašnekovu, o 12 menių yra pokalbis su sandara, su kalba. Tad kiekvieną menę galima suprasti kaip pokalbį su asmenimi/pašnekovu arba su sandara/kalba.

• Koks ryšys tarp žinojimo rūmų ir žinojimo lygmenų?
• Kaip žinojimo rūmai išreiškia bendrą suvokimą ir Dvasios plazdenimą?
• Tėvas ir Sūnus yra du žinojimo rūmų sparnai.
• Koks ryšys tarp išgyvenimo ir išsiaiškinimo būdų?
• Keturios požiūrių grandinės {$P^0,P^1,P^2,P^3$} yra pagrindas žinojimo rūmų apibrėžtai santvarkai, pavyzdžiui, geometrijai.
• Žinojimo rūmai suveda dviprasmybę tarp Sūnaus visuminės asmenybės sąlygose ir besąlygiško Tėvo sąlygiškai apibrėžto mokslo. Dvasia juos suderina, kaip kad suderina klausimą ir atsakymą.
• Koks ryšys tarp šviesuolio kertinės vertybės ir jo žinojimo rūmų?
• mokslų žinojimo rūmų medis (sąmonė) pertvarko asmenybių žinojimo rūmų tinklą (pasąmonę)
• Pažinovas suvėda žinojimo rūmų tris ketverybes. Kokia tai trejybė? Kaip jinai įvairiai suprantama, išgyvenama, pavyzdžiui, trejybės atvaizdais?
• Ką sužinočiau iš muzikos žinojimo rūmų, pavyzdžiui, apie kalbą arba dirbtinį intelektą?
• Ar kertinė vertybė išsako žinojimo rūmų kertinį išsiaiškinimo būdą? O kiti būdai? Vertybiniai klausimai?
• Kaip kertinė vertybė ir asmenybė susiję su žinojimo rūmais?
• Kaip dorovė ir nedorovė susijusios su asmenybe ir žinojimo rūmais?
• Ką gaima išmokti iš Noreikos arba Hitlerio žinojimo rūmų?
• Kuo skiriasi Jėzaus žinojimo rūmai nuo kitų žmonių?

Žinojimo rūmais visi trys balsai savarankiškai iškyla. Gaunasi trejybės rato nariai į kuriuos slenkame.

• Žinojimo rūmai pagrįsti klausimo ir atsakymo atitikimu, jų suporavimu.
• Atvaizdai pavaizduoja pradus ir užsiskleidžia.
• Žinojimo rūmų nulybė grindžia visuotinio Dievo išsiaiškinimo būdus.
• Aštuongubas kelias nusako kaip apytaka atrodo iš vidaus, pavyzdžiui, kaip žinojimo rūmai atrodo pirm santvarkos.
• Kiekvieną apytaką apibrėžia kuriuos Dievo vaidmenis sieja trejybės ratas. Žinojimo rūmuose trejybės ratas apsiriboja santykiais pirm santvarkos, tarp pradinio išsiaiškinimo būdo ir vidurinio išsiaiškinimo būdo.
• Žinojimo rūmai išsako sandarą santvarkoje ir už jos, jas suderina, sutapatina trejybe.
• padalinti iš dviejų: mąstyti dvejopai - 2 sparnai
• mąstyti trejopai: trejybės ratas, trys būdai: pradžia, vidurys, pabaiga
• mąstyti ketveriopai: santvarka 4+6, dvi ketverybės
• Žinojimo rūmais pereinama iš dviejų skirtingų ketverybių į vieną ketverybę išsakančią požiūrių skaičius, tad asmenis, taip kad gali būti tarpai tarp asmenų.
• Ar žinojimo rūmai yra suvokimo rūmai?
• Žinojimo rūmai, tai Kito aplinka. Jinai gali būti labai ir labai įvairi. Jinai grindžia visas sandaras, kaip jos Kitam iškyla. Kalbos iškyla paklusimu, tikėjimu, rūpėjimu. Sandaros bene suvedamos pašnekovu (simetrija). Aštuongubas kelias (už santvarkos) palyginamas, pavyzdžiui, su vienu iš keturių lygmenų.
• nemąstyti, mąstyti, mąstyti apie mąstymą, mąstyti apie mąstymą apie mąstymą
• Tai suvoktumas (Dvasia).
• Bendros sąlygos yra pagrindas bendram suvokimui. Aplinkybės apreiškia bendras sąlygas. O atvaizdai apibrėžia mūsų santykį su sąlygomis, apimtimi ir laisvumu.
• Bendras požiūris yra bendro suvokimo pasekmė
• Lygiaverčių požiūrių santykis.
• Pirminės sandaros kyla iš bendro suvokimo.
• Septynerybė iškyla bendru suvokimu, sąmoningumu, veiksmu +3.
• Žinojimo rūmai susideda iš 24 (pasąmonės?) raktų ir 24 (sąmonės?) spynų (sandarų).
• Žinojimo rūmai - kaip tu esi - vieniu ir visybe dviem sparnais pirm santvarkos, daugiu santvarkos lygmenų poromis.

#### ŽinojimoRūmai

Naujausi pakeitimai

Klausimai #FFFFC0

Teiginiai #FFFFFF

Kitų mintys #EFCFE1

Dievas man #FFECC0

Iš ankščiau #CCFFCC

Mieli skaitytojai, visa mano kūryba ir kartu visi šie puslapiai yra visuomenės turtas, kuriuo visi kviečiami laisvai naudotis, dalintis, visaip perkurti. - Andrius

 Puslapis paskutinį kartą pakeistas 2021 balandžio 17 d., 17:07