Mintys.Įžvalgos istorija
Paslėpti nežymius pakeitimus - Rodyti galutinio teksto pakeitimus
2014 liepos 24 d., 21:38
atliko -
Pakeistos 1-137 eilutės iš
===What is Theory?===
Theory is:
* what can be shared
* grounds for sharing Definition
* the grounds for Definition.
* Logos
* the Word
{{God}} is a Theory that makes sense of the Facts.
Perhaps this is what is meant in the Gospel of John by the Word (or
Theory (Logos)
* is God's going beyond himself, which is what we are, Person. God's quality (aloneness) is what can be negated. God goes beyond aloneness into aloneness, thus is not alone. God's going beyond relates God and NotGod in terms of Being (of God) and NotBeing. Nullsome, Being as distinct from NotBeing, the positive Activity (of being alone, our going beyond ourselves) that defines our being as Persons in Scopes, that creates and defines the arisal of everything, the maintaining of Position, our identity as not our Selves, God's question “Am I alone?” that is self-sufficent, unresolved, empathetic, the taking up of what is beyond, of what is not taking up, the Spirit of Truth, the marked opposite, necessary, the taking up of Questions, it is Questions taking up Questions, what is actual. God thereby creates us who go before him, who are alone prior to him. God is not where he already is for he is alone, but Person allows God to arise there.
===A letter===
[http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/695 August 1, 2007, Living by Truth]
In 1971, when I was child, I set upon a quest to know everything and
apply that knowledge usefully. In 1982, when I entered college, I
started to catalogue structures that expressed the limits of our minds,
notably "divisions of everything", but later "representations",
"topologies", "languages" and "primary structures". In 2000 or so, I
started to seek a theory that would pull all of the structural facts
together and generate how they unfold. I try to work on that every
morning here and am making incremental progress.
This year I have been trying to find the end of the string that ties it
all together. The unfolding is driven by God's going beyond himself.
But what in his nature most deeply compels him? For example, the
unconditional goes beyond itself into the conditional; the indefinite
into the definite; the inconsistent into the consistent; the unlimited
into the limited; and so on. What seems to be at the heart is that
"being one with" goes beyond itself into "not being one with". I'm
still not sure, but it is emotionally meaningful, morally satisfying,
structurally fruitful and also scripturally central given Jesus's
personal prayer to his Father in the Gospel of John where he speaks of
"love" and "being one with" as if they were analogues.
http://www.ebible.org/web/John.htm#C17V1 Perhaps "being one with" is a
premonition of "love" in the sense that I will explain below.
As I swirled inward looking for the starting point of it all, I
recognized that I should distinguish the structural facts from the
explanatory theory which I was seeking. The structural facts about our
minds were there to be explained regardless of any theory. Although a
successful theory might make those facts much more evident. But what I
am doing now is seeking a theory. My instinct is that God (to be
defined or not!) is at the root of it all. Whether or not God exists -
and I think God is prior to matters of existence - but my theory is that
if we can take up God's point of view then we can indeed know everything
and apply that knowledge usefully.
You might imagine, the closer that we get to the starting point, the
more we have to let go of all of our presumptions and contexts. Indeed,
our greatest presumptions must be built into the starting point. So as
I kept rethinking the starting point I wondered maybe Theory itself is
the starting point because that is what I am seeking and is the context
in which I am working. Then I recalled the beginning of the Gospel of
John: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
Word was God." http://www.ebible.org/web/John.htm
And in Greek the "Word" is Logos which has many interpretations. But I
thought, what if Logos means Theory? And that seems quite plausible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos
And there is a supposedly literal translation of the Greek: "In
beginning was the word, and the word was toward the god, and god was the
word". From my point of view this would say: "In the beginning there
was the Theory, and the Theory (was embraced by? or went beyond itself
to?) God, and the God was (defined as?) Theory." In the Christian
faith, the Logos is identified with Jesus Christ, the Son of God, which
might make sense in that Jesus is the perfect person in theory - the
organizing principle for our universe - who was then realized in practice.
This allows God - or the root of it all - to be considered as the Theory
such that:
* God is the Theory of BeingOneWith
* The Facts are that the Theory is going beyond itself into what is NotBeingOneWith
* The Truth is the Application that we can be meeting the Theory and thus BeingOneWith
This opens up a role for us as those in NotBeingOneWith who can meet
with BeingOneWith and enter into it, link up our perspective with its
perspective. It also provides a stark moral choice between "living with
a theory" and "living without any theory". I suspect that the latter
option ends badly, but this may very well be life's question. And
perhaps a more troubling question is, if we "live with a theory" (a
god), then must we "live with a Theory" (a God), which is to say, live
by a comprehensive theory?
I also noticed that the most explicit, developed structures (divisions
of everything, topologies, representations) were at play from the very
beginning in the unfolding of structure. But I realized that they could
be thought of as premonitions of what was to come and only realized
themselves as Definition itself progressed from soft to hard. And I saw
that this progression could be measured by the Scope given by the
overlap of BeingOneWith and NotBeingOneWith so that at the beginning
they are the same and the scope is Everything, but as Truth hardens,
they become separate and the scope is Nothing.
I then looked at the different fundamental concepts that were relevant
to explain the unfolding of the structure. The notion of Conditional
and Unconditional was quite central but I realized that this could be
driven by the perspective of NotBeingOneWith. There were also concepts
that played off both oppositions (+/- BeingOneWith and +-
Unconditional), namely:
* Person (such as God, I, You, Other) = Unconditional BeingOneWith
* Perspective (such as Life, Anything, Choosing, Will) = Conditional BeingOneWith
* Position (such as EternalLife, Wisdom, GoodWill, GodsWill) = Conditional NotBeingOneWith
* System (such as God, Everything, Wishing, Love) = Unconditional NotBeingOneWith
and these are organized by the diagram I wrote about earlier regarding
Experiencing and Understanding at
http://www.worknets.org/http://www.ms.lt/livingbytruth/?page=LivingByTruth/Overview
So I thought in what sense "BeingOneWith and NotBeingOneWith" are to
BeingOneWith what "Unconditional" and "Conditional" are to
NotBeingOneWith? And I realized that what is NotBeingOneWith is
separating it's own perspective from whatever it might even be one with,
which is to say, it is not subjective, it is not engaged. As I thought
about that I realized that we might phrase this positively in terms of
grounds for definition:
* BeingOneWith is "sharing the grounds for definition"
* NotBeingOneWith is "not sharing the grounds for definition"
Which is to say that BeingOneWith is inclusive and treating others by
the same presumptions as in "love your neighbor as yourself" and "love
God". Whereas NotBeingOneWith is keeping others at arm's length and
applying a different standard to them. BeingOneWith is "allowing for A
theory" whereas NotBeingOneWith is "not allowing for A theory". What
this means is that NotBeingOneWith allows for "redefinition",
"reinterpretation" as it is engaged by BeingOneWith and chased as to its
grounds until after four levels finally they are all exhausted and there
is nothing left of NotBeingOneWith except the freedom that was opened up
in this.
[http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/674 System distinguishes experiencing and understanding, May 1, 2007, Andrius Kulikauskas
į:
Žr. [[Viena]]
2014 birželio 09 d., 20:18
atliko -
Pridėtos 1-137 eilutės:
See also: Facts, Word, {{God}}, Overview
===What is Theory?===
Theory is:
* what can be shared
* grounds for sharing Definition
* the grounds for Definition.
* Logos
* the Word
{{God}} is a Theory that makes sense of the Facts.
Perhaps this is what is meant in the Gospel of John by the Word (or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos Logos]): ''In the beginning was the Word. And the word was towards God. And God was the word.'' This may mean that Theory was toward God (of himself) and God (upon going beyond himself) was Theory.
Theory (Logos)
* is God's going beyond himself, which is what we are, Person. God's quality (aloneness) is what can be negated. God goes beyond aloneness into aloneness, thus is not alone. God's going beyond relates God and NotGod in terms of Being (of God) and NotBeing. Nullsome, Being as distinct from NotBeing, the positive Activity (of being alone, our going beyond ourselves) that defines our being as Persons in Scopes, that creates and defines the arisal of everything, the maintaining of Position, our identity as not our Selves, God's question “Am I alone?” that is self-sufficent, unresolved, empathetic, the taking up of what is beyond, of what is not taking up, the Spirit of Truth, the marked opposite, necessary, the taking up of Questions, it is Questions taking up Questions, what is actual. God thereby creates us who go before him, who are alone prior to him. God is not where he already is for he is alone, but Person allows God to arise there.
===A letter===
[http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/695 August 1, 2007, Living by Truth]
In 1971, when I was child, I set upon a quest to know everything and
apply that knowledge usefully. In 1982, when I entered college, I
started to catalogue structures that expressed the limits of our minds,
notably "divisions of everything", but later "representations",
"topologies", "languages" and "primary structures". In 2000 or so, I
started to seek a theory that would pull all of the structural facts
together and generate how they unfold. I try to work on that every
morning here and am making incremental progress.
This year I have been trying to find the end of the string that ties it
all together. The unfolding is driven by God's going beyond himself.
But what in his nature most deeply compels him? For example, the
unconditional goes beyond itself into the conditional; the indefinite
into the definite; the inconsistent into the consistent; the unlimited
into the limited; and so on. What seems to be at the heart is that
"being one with" goes beyond itself into "not being one with". I'm
still not sure, but it is emotionally meaningful, morally satisfying,
structurally fruitful and also scripturally central given Jesus's
personal prayer to his Father in the Gospel of John where he speaks of
"love" and "being one with" as if they were analogues.
http://www.ebible.org/web/John.htm#C17V1 Perhaps "being one with" is a
premonition of "love" in the sense that I will explain below.
As I swirled inward looking for the starting point of it all, I
recognized that I should distinguish the structural facts from the
explanatory theory which I was seeking. The structural facts about our
minds were there to be explained regardless of any theory. Although a
successful theory might make those facts much more evident. But what I
am doing now is seeking a theory. My instinct is that God (to be
defined or not!) is at the root of it all. Whether or not God exists -
and I think God is prior to matters of existence - but my theory is that
if we can take up God's point of view then we can indeed know everything
and apply that knowledge usefully.
You might imagine, the closer that we get to the starting point, the
more we have to let go of all of our presumptions and contexts. Indeed,
our greatest presumptions must be built into the starting point. So as
I kept rethinking the starting point I wondered maybe Theory itself is
the starting point because that is what I am seeking and is the context
in which I am working. Then I recalled the beginning of the Gospel of
John: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
Word was God." http://www.ebible.org/web/John.htm
And in Greek the "Word" is Logos which has many interpretations. But I
thought, what if Logos means Theory? And that seems quite plausible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos
And there is a supposedly literal translation of the Greek: "In
beginning was the word, and the word was toward the god, and god was the
word". From my point of view this would say: "In the beginning there
was the Theory, and the Theory (was embraced by? or went beyond itself
to?) God, and the God was (defined as?) Theory." In the Christian
faith, the Logos is identified with Jesus Christ, the Son of God, which
might make sense in that Jesus is the perfect person in theory - the
organizing principle for our universe - who was then realized in practice.
This allows God - or the root of it all - to be considered as the Theory
such that:
* God is the Theory of BeingOneWith
* The Facts are that the Theory is going beyond itself into what is NotBeingOneWith
* The Truth is the Application that we can be meeting the Theory and thus BeingOneWith
This opens up a role for us as those in NotBeingOneWith who can meet
with BeingOneWith and enter into it, link up our perspective with its
perspective. It also provides a stark moral choice between "living with
a theory" and "living without any theory". I suspect that the latter
option ends badly, but this may very well be life's question. And
perhaps a more troubling question is, if we "live with a theory" (a
god), then must we "live with a Theory" (a God), which is to say, live
by a comprehensive theory?
I also noticed that the most explicit, developed structures (divisions
of everything, topologies, representations) were at play from the very
beginning in the unfolding of structure. But I realized that they could
be thought of as premonitions of what was to come and only realized
themselves as Definition itself progressed from soft to hard. And I saw
that this progression could be measured by the Scope given by the
overlap of BeingOneWith and NotBeingOneWith so that at the beginning
they are the same and the scope is Everything, but as Truth hardens,
they become separate and the scope is Nothing.
I then looked at the different fundamental concepts that were relevant
to explain the unfolding of the structure. The notion of Conditional
and Unconditional was quite central but I realized that this could be
driven by the perspective of NotBeingOneWith. There were also concepts
that played off both oppositions (+/- BeingOneWith and +-
Unconditional), namely:
* Person (such as God, I, You, Other) = Unconditional BeingOneWith
* Perspective (such as Life, Anything, Choosing, Will) = Conditional BeingOneWith
* Position (such as EternalLife, Wisdom, GoodWill, GodsWill) = Conditional NotBeingOneWith
* System (such as God, Everything, Wishing, Love) = Unconditional NotBeingOneWith
and these are organized by the diagram I wrote about earlier regarding
Experiencing and Understanding at
http://www.worknets.org/http://www.ms.lt/livingbytruth/?page=LivingByTruth/Overview
So I thought in what sense "BeingOneWith and NotBeingOneWith" are to
BeingOneWith what "Unconditional" and "Conditional" are to
NotBeingOneWith? And I realized that what is NotBeingOneWith is
separating it's own perspective from whatever it might even be one with,
which is to say, it is not subjective, it is not engaged. As I thought
about that I realized that we might phrase this positively in terms of
grounds for definition:
* BeingOneWith is "sharing the grounds for definition"
* NotBeingOneWith is "not sharing the grounds for definition"
Which is to say that BeingOneWith is inclusive and treating others by
the same presumptions as in "love your neighbor as yourself" and "love
God". Whereas NotBeingOneWith is keeping others at arm's length and
applying a different standard to them. BeingOneWith is "allowing for A
theory" whereas NotBeingOneWith is "not allowing for A theory". What
this means is that NotBeingOneWith allows for "redefinition",
"reinterpretation" as it is engaged by BeingOneWith and chased as to its
grounds until after four levels finally they are all exhausted and there
is nothing left of NotBeingOneWith except the freedom that was opened up
in this.
[http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/674 System distinguishes experiencing and understanding, May 1, 2007, Andrius Kulikauskas]
===What is Theory?===
Theory is:
* what can be shared
* grounds for sharing Definition
* the grounds for Definition.
* Logos
* the Word
{{God}} is a Theory that makes sense of the Facts.
Perhaps this is what is meant in the Gospel of John by the Word (or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos Logos]): ''In the beginning was the Word. And the word was towards God. And God was the word.'' This may mean that Theory was toward God (of himself) and God (upon going beyond himself) was Theory.
Theory (Logos)
* is God's going beyond himself, which is what we are, Person. God's quality (aloneness) is what can be negated. God goes beyond aloneness into aloneness, thus is not alone. God's going beyond relates God and NotGod in terms of Being (of God) and NotBeing. Nullsome, Being as distinct from NotBeing, the positive Activity (of being alone, our going beyond ourselves) that defines our being as Persons in Scopes, that creates and defines the arisal of everything, the maintaining of Position, our identity as not our Selves, God's question “Am I alone?” that is self-sufficent, unresolved, empathetic, the taking up of what is beyond, of what is not taking up, the Spirit of Truth, the marked opposite, necessary, the taking up of Questions, it is Questions taking up Questions, what is actual. God thereby creates us who go before him, who are alone prior to him. God is not where he already is for he is alone, but Person allows God to arise there.
===A letter===
[http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/695 August 1, 2007, Living by Truth]
In 1971, when I was child, I set upon a quest to know everything and
apply that knowledge usefully. In 1982, when I entered college, I
started to catalogue structures that expressed the limits of our minds,
notably "divisions of everything", but later "representations",
"topologies", "languages" and "primary structures". In 2000 or so, I
started to seek a theory that would pull all of the structural facts
together and generate how they unfold. I try to work on that every
morning here and am making incremental progress.
This year I have been trying to find the end of the string that ties it
all together. The unfolding is driven by God's going beyond himself.
But what in his nature most deeply compels him? For example, the
unconditional goes beyond itself into the conditional; the indefinite
into the definite; the inconsistent into the consistent; the unlimited
into the limited; and so on. What seems to be at the heart is that
"being one with" goes beyond itself into "not being one with". I'm
still not sure, but it is emotionally meaningful, morally satisfying,
structurally fruitful and also scripturally central given Jesus's
personal prayer to his Father in the Gospel of John where he speaks of
"love" and "being one with" as if they were analogues.
http://www.ebible.org/web/John.htm#C17V1 Perhaps "being one with" is a
premonition of "love" in the sense that I will explain below.
As I swirled inward looking for the starting point of it all, I
recognized that I should distinguish the structural facts from the
explanatory theory which I was seeking. The structural facts about our
minds were there to be explained regardless of any theory. Although a
successful theory might make those facts much more evident. But what I
am doing now is seeking a theory. My instinct is that God (to be
defined or not!) is at the root of it all. Whether or not God exists -
and I think God is prior to matters of existence - but my theory is that
if we can take up God's point of view then we can indeed know everything
and apply that knowledge usefully.
You might imagine, the closer that we get to the starting point, the
more we have to let go of all of our presumptions and contexts. Indeed,
our greatest presumptions must be built into the starting point. So as
I kept rethinking the starting point I wondered maybe Theory itself is
the starting point because that is what I am seeking and is the context
in which I am working. Then I recalled the beginning of the Gospel of
John: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
Word was God." http://www.ebible.org/web/John.htm
And in Greek the "Word" is Logos which has many interpretations. But I
thought, what if Logos means Theory? And that seems quite plausible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos
And there is a supposedly literal translation of the Greek: "In
beginning was the word, and the word was toward the god, and god was the
word". From my point of view this would say: "In the beginning there
was the Theory, and the Theory (was embraced by? or went beyond itself
to?) God, and the God was (defined as?) Theory." In the Christian
faith, the Logos is identified with Jesus Christ, the Son of God, which
might make sense in that Jesus is the perfect person in theory - the
organizing principle for our universe - who was then realized in practice.
This allows God - or the root of it all - to be considered as the Theory
such that:
* God is the Theory of BeingOneWith
* The Facts are that the Theory is going beyond itself into what is NotBeingOneWith
* The Truth is the Application that we can be meeting the Theory and thus BeingOneWith
This opens up a role for us as those in NotBeingOneWith who can meet
with BeingOneWith and enter into it, link up our perspective with its
perspective. It also provides a stark moral choice between "living with
a theory" and "living without any theory". I suspect that the latter
option ends badly, but this may very well be life's question. And
perhaps a more troubling question is, if we "live with a theory" (a
god), then must we "live with a Theory" (a God), which is to say, live
by a comprehensive theory?
I also noticed that the most explicit, developed structures (divisions
of everything, topologies, representations) were at play from the very
beginning in the unfolding of structure. But I realized that they could
be thought of as premonitions of what was to come and only realized
themselves as Definition itself progressed from soft to hard. And I saw
that this progression could be measured by the Scope given by the
overlap of BeingOneWith and NotBeingOneWith so that at the beginning
they are the same and the scope is Everything, but as Truth hardens,
they become separate and the scope is Nothing.
I then looked at the different fundamental concepts that were relevant
to explain the unfolding of the structure. The notion of Conditional
and Unconditional was quite central but I realized that this could be
driven by the perspective of NotBeingOneWith. There were also concepts
that played off both oppositions (+/- BeingOneWith and +-
Unconditional), namely:
* Person (such as God, I, You, Other) = Unconditional BeingOneWith
* Perspective (such as Life, Anything, Choosing, Will) = Conditional BeingOneWith
* Position (such as EternalLife, Wisdom, GoodWill, GodsWill) = Conditional NotBeingOneWith
* System (such as God, Everything, Wishing, Love) = Unconditional NotBeingOneWith
and these are organized by the diagram I wrote about earlier regarding
Experiencing and Understanding at
http://www.worknets.org/http://www.ms.lt/livingbytruth/?page=LivingByTruth/Overview
So I thought in what sense "BeingOneWith and NotBeingOneWith" are to
BeingOneWith what "Unconditional" and "Conditional" are to
NotBeingOneWith? And I realized that what is NotBeingOneWith is
separating it's own perspective from whatever it might even be one with,
which is to say, it is not subjective, it is not engaged. As I thought
about that I realized that we might phrase this positively in terms of
grounds for definition:
* BeingOneWith is "sharing the grounds for definition"
* NotBeingOneWith is "not sharing the grounds for definition"
Which is to say that BeingOneWith is inclusive and treating others by
the same presumptions as in "love your neighbor as yourself" and "love
God". Whereas NotBeingOneWith is keeping others at arm's length and
applying a different standard to them. BeingOneWith is "allowing for A
theory" whereas NotBeingOneWith is "not allowing for A theory". What
this means is that NotBeingOneWith allows for "redefinition",
"reinterpretation" as it is engaged by BeingOneWith and chased as to its
grounds until after four levels finally they are all exhausted and there
is nothing left of NotBeingOneWith except the freedom that was opened up
in this.
[http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/674 System distinguishes experiencing and understanding, May 1, 2007, Andrius Kulikauskas]
Įžvalgos
Naujausi pakeitimai
网站
Įvadas #E9F5FC
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