Iš Gvildenu svetainės

Mintys: Įvardijimas

• Ironija Holokausto kaltininkus pažinojusiųjų atsiminimuose
• Games as the Foundation for Universal Grammar?

Įvardijimas, tai vienas iš trijų kalbų ir šešių atjautų.

Įvardijimo kalbos tikslas

• Įvardijimas išsako, kaip kas ima reikšti.
  • Įvardijimas išsako kaip veiksniui (kas turi reikšmę) priskiriamas tarinys (reikšmė).
  • Įvardijimas yra mokymasis sąvokų - žodžių reikšmių.
  • Įvardijimo kalba yra pagrindas visom žodžiais pagrįstom kalbom, tai yra, žmonijos kalbom.
• Įvardijimas yra meilės įvardijimas, jos tikslinimas, perkūrimas, ją išsakant kertine vertybe ar apskritai vertybe. Tai tuo pačiu mūsų asmens aplinkybių nusakymas.
• Įvardijimas išreiškia teiginius, būtent dorovinius teiginius, užtat širdies ir pasaulio tiesas. Šie teiginiai yra Aleksandro deriniai. Jie suderina skirtingus dorovinius rūpesčius. Dora yra būtent toksai derinimas, atsižvelgimas į skirtingus rūpesčius. Užtat dora yra atsižvelgimas į darną, kas dera.
• Įvardijimas yra įsikišimas į veiklą. Sandara (tvarka, vienybė) kyla iš pasikartojančios veiklos. "Good order results spontaneously when things are let alone."
• Įvardijimas išnarplioja širdies ir pasaulio tiesas. Įvardijimas veda iš sąmonės padalinimų į pasąmonės aplinkybes. Įvardijimas pasąmonei širdies tiesą išreiškia, sustato pasaulio tiesa. Tam tikslui remiasi ironijos aptvėrimu.
• Įvardijimas pasąmonės žinojimą (Polanyi subsidiary) išreiškia sąmonės nežinojimu (Polanyi focal).

Kodėl yra širdies ir pasaulio tiesos?

• Širdies tiesa yra sąmonės žvilgsnis už santvarkos - loginis sulyginimas sąmonės nežinojimo ir pasąmonės žinojimo, o pasaulio tiesa yra žvilgsnis santvarkoje - treybės ratas.
• Pasaulio tiesa, tai mūsų vertės patikrinimas, ar susigaudome, ar mes verti širdies tiesos?

Įvardijimo kalbos ypatybės

• Įvardijimo kalbą įrėmina šv.Petro raktai į dangų.
• Įvardijimas mus veda iš 8 padalinimų į 12 aplinkybių.
• Įvardijimas sieja vertybes ir užtikrintą Dievą, tad dvejones. Dvejones išreiškia Kiparskio linksnių laipsnynas.

Gyvenimo sprendimai - kaip kad "Minčių sodui" bet taip pat mūsų ir kitų filosofijose

Ironijos pavyzdžiai

Žaidimai - suprasti kalbos veiksmus kaip žaidimus

Veiklos - kartojami veiksmai - kaip kalbos pagrindas

Širdies ir pasaulio tiesos, jų aptariami reikalai

Išgyvenimai

Matematikos terminai ir išsireiškimai

• Visą matematiką būtų galima išvesti iš įvardijimo mokslo, kaip įvardinti objektus, kaip juos apibrėžti, kokia tvarka, jų vidinę sandarą ir t.t.

Elgesio taisyklės

• Elgesio taisyklės yra panašios į gramatikos taisykles. Žmonės sugeba jas sukurti, įžvelgti, taikyti, jų laikytis.

Žodžių daryba

• Thomas vaikas mokydamasis tiek lietuvių, tiek vokiečių, pasakydavo tarsi vokiškai "žal obol", kas parodo, kad vaikai susigalvoja ir taiko taisykles, nekalba vien tikimybių pagrindu.

Visuomenės normos

• Normos atsiranda panašiai, kaip kalbos sudėtingumas (linksniai, giminės ir t.t.), supratimo dėlei.

Maldos

• Maldos kalba išsireiškia žodžiais. Žodžiai yra maldos indai.

Humoras

• Humoras yra labai svarbus reiškinys nes jisai kuria dėsnius iš visiškai nedėsningų aplinkybių.

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?

Vertybių kalba

• Veidrodiniai neuronai rodo, kad yra valios kalba, veiksmų kalba, kad valia ir valios vykdymas yra kalbos pagrindas. Vertybės yra būdas vykdyti valią - ne savo, o kažkieno - būtent Dievo - kada jokios valios nėra, kada nulinė valia.
• Kertinė vertybė žmogui atstoja meilę. Tai jo esmė. Tai kaip dvasia išlieka per visus šešis lygmenis. Tie lygmenys išsako tarpą, laisvę, kylantį pokalbiais tarp asmenų. Dvasia veikia tuo tarpu, ta laisve.

Jėzaus palyginimų turiniai.

• Kaip vertini mažą, taip ir didelį vertini. (Laukų teorija, proporcingumas.)
• Kaip vertini vaisių, taip vertini medį. (Tolydumo funkcijos.)
• Kaip vertini kitus, taip tave vertina. (Inversinė funkcija.)

Įvardijimas veda iš aštuonių padalinimų į dvylika aplinkybių.

Padalinimai

• Padalinimai turėtų išsakyti širdies ir pasaulio tiesų įtampą, kas mus jaudina ar glumina.
• 8 padalinimai yra prielaidų lygmenys, tai santykiai su nulybe, tai išsako aštuongubą kelią.
• Gestalt teorija sieja pasąmonę ir sąmonę visko padalinimais.

An econet is based on harmony, much as I discuss in my recent video "Harmony Is the Meaning of Life" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQjtHkBz4KE We can have harmony inside ourselves, harmony outside ourselves, harmony relating inside and outside. Life seems to be all about that harmony. Harmony is a guide to organizing economy as ecology. I think a key principle is the priority of the local solution. We can draw on our experiences to identify and formulate such key principles so they constitute a system for argumentation by which issues come to matter. We can look out for how society reasons not simply as an aggregate of individuals but something more. The whole is more than the sum of its parts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestalt_psychology It's very interesting now for me to learn about the "gestalt laws" by which we interpret sensations, or more specifically, how our minds group what they see. They bring to mind the divisions of everything, supposing that each law presumes a different number of perspectives, perhaps as follows:

• Law of symmetry (we group around a center) = Onesome for Order, for Everything
• Law of similarity (we group similar items - separately from the other items!) = Twosome for Existence
• Law of past experience (we remember exceptions - we group across time!) = Threesome for Participation, the learning-cycle
• Law of proximity (we group clustered items - distinguishing subsystems from systems!) = Foursome for Knowledge
• Law of closure (we fill in the gaps) = Fivesome for Decision-making, conceived as space or time.
• Law of common fate (we combine what moves together - distinguishing relative and absolute!) = Sixsome for Morality
• Law of continuity (we combine what overlaps - allowing for ambiguity!) = Sevensome for Logic

We can also group sounds, as through music. And Gestalt psychology has been used to study problem solving, which is relevant for the ways of figuring thing out, as in mathematics.

• Conscious reason justifies the decision made by the unconscious. Confirmation bias. "Predictably rational" Don Ariely.
• Backfire effect. People reject data and cling to their views even more. They avoid cognitive dissonance. (Avoid parallel thinking - divisions of everything.)
• But then conscious can critique the decision by removing, draining the unconscious. The conscious mind can do this if it is balanced with the unconscious mind.
• First, the conscious serves the unconscious by rationalizing, but then the unconscious serves the conscious by answering the conscious question.
• At the climax, the conscious can take the initiative by challenging itself.
• Listening to others lets people listen to themselves.
• Separating values from the issue. Accepting other people's values and arguing from them. "Moral Tribes" Joshua Greene.

Įtampa

• Įtampa glūdi pasąmonės ir sąmonės santykyje.
• Įtampa glūdi ironijoje, esminiame turinio ir išsireiškimo nesutapime.
• Įtampa kyla iš širdies ir pasaulio tiesų supainiojimo. Ji atslūgsta jas išnarpliojus.

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.

Įsitikinimai - užtikrintumas - troškimas kažko

Įsitikinimai, o kartu ir įvardijimas, išplaukia iš Dievo užtikrintumo, jo troškimo kažko

Riba tarp žinomo ir nežinomo (ribinis mąstymas - liminal thinking) reiškiasi įsitkinimais

Įsitikinimai (Ribinio mąstymo dėsniai - Liminal Thinking)

• yra modeliai
• yra sukurti
• save gina
• susiję su tapatybe
• grindžia nepastabumą
• tveria bendrą pasaulį

Ribinio mąstymo taikymas

• Pasakojimais įprasminti, sureikšminti
• Brandink save, puoselėk savo raidą
• Veikti tarytum
• Trikampiuok ir patvirtink
• Klausk ir susiek
• Išpilk puodelį
• Manyk, kad esi šališkas
• Kurk saugią aplinką
• Paįvairink, iššok iš vėžių

---

---

Linksniai

• šv.Petro raktai linksniais išreiškia visko netroškimą. Įvardijimas jais išsako kažko troškimą.
• Dalykas (daiktas, eiga, asmuo) gali išaugti į pasaulį. Dalykas yra dėmesio ribojimas, sutelkimas.

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:

• Ką randi, tą myli
• Priklausyk valdovui, džiaukis jo malone
• Lauk šeimininko, dalinkis jo turtu
• Sek mokytoją, gyvenk jo dorybe
• Kaip vertini vaisių, taip vertini medį
• Kaip vertini mažą, taip vertini didelį
• Kaip vertini kitus, taip tave vertina
• Kaip tiki, taip ir bus

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.

• Gyvenimo lygtis: Viena Dievu - Kaip Dievui kiekvieną pasiekti? (Dievas ir jo požiūris)
• Sandaros: Viena Kitu - Kaip viską išvesti iš paskiro žmogaus? (žmonės)
• Išorė/vidus: Viena asmenimi - Kaip sieti Dievo ir kito požiūrius? (Dievas ir žmogus)
• Pasaulis: Viena meile - Kaip meilė palaiko amžiną brandą? (vienumas meile - Dievo esme)
• Bendravimas: Viena požiūriais - Kaip sutampa požiūriai? (vienumas požiūriais - žmogaus esme)
• Bendrystė: Viena bendryste - Kaip viską išreikšti rūpesčiais? (vienumas rūpesčiais - Dievo ir žmogaus esme)

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:

• Raida - Viena Kitu
• Žemėlapynas
• Vadovėlis
• Metraštis - Viena Dievu
• Žinynas
• Kelionė

Ženklai, jų rūšys ir savybės

Įvardijame ženklais, juos kuriant ir perkuriant.

Ženklai sieja skirtingus ketverybės lygmenų vaidmenis gyvenimo žaidime, kaip kad alternatyviomis valiutomis.

Aplinkybės

Įtampa atslūgsta aptvėrus ironiją aplinkybe.

Aplinkybė išreiškia lygmenį, kuriame glūdi ironija, einant nuo išsireiškimo link supratimo

• prieštaravimas savaime atsiskleidžia
• jį patys įžvelgiame
• jo tyčia ieškome
• jisai mums neaprėpiamas

Šiais lygmenimis nusakome įvardijimo tikslą:

• Susikalbėti
• Bendrai suvokti
• Save suvokti
• Suvokti

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.

Trikdžio pašalinimas

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:

• taking a stand
• following through
• reflecting

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.

Jausmų matas

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?

• A) Do you wish to feel more sensitive, rather than insensitive?
• B) Do you wish to feel more positive, rather than negative?
• C) Do you wish to feel more calm, rather than riled?

My hypothesis is that the choice of A, B or C will indicate the learning mode in which the person is stuck.

• A) If they feel insensitive, then they have trouble taking a stand, they need new principles.
• B) If they feel negative, then they have trouble following through, they need new solutions, patterns.
• C) If they feel riled, then they have trouble reflecting, they need new conclusions.

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:

• A) If they are having trouble taking a stand, then have them go back to reflecting. What are the conclusions that are convincing? Then have them tell the story so as to shift onwards to a consensus regarding principles. They will thereby take a stand.
• B) If they are having trouble following through, then have them go back to taking a stand. What are the principles for which they have consensus? Then have them tell the story so as to shift onwards to constructing solutions (or "patterns") that resolve the tensions between the principles.
• C) If they are having trouble reflecting, then have them go back to following through. What are the solutions which they have constructed?

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:

• A) principles that position us with regard to our conclusions
• B) solutions (patterns) that resolve tensions between principles
• C) conclusions that make clear the real value, if any, of solutions

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:

• "Why we are learning": through clarifying our purposes and assessing our wishes
• "How we are learning": through thought experiments and considering design issues
• "What we are learning": through role playing and understanding different points of view
• "Whether we are learning": through real life implementation and evaluation

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:

• Unconscious Incompetence: "I don't know that I don't know about Community Currency - never heard of it."
• Conscious Incompetence: "Someone told me about CC. I'd like to find out more."
• Conscious competence: "Now I'm learning about and practising CC."
• Unconscious competence: "Now I'm doing it and don't even think about it."

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:

• Rulemaker thinks in terms of Why, lives in the Casino economy, and experiences through "be, do, think". (Like a shareholder deciding where to invest.)
• Connector thinks in terms of How, lives in the Market economy, and experiences through "one, all, many". (Like a shopper deciding where to buy.)
• Giver thinks in terms of What, lives in the Core economy, and experiences through "object, process, subject". (Like a volunteer deciding what help to give.)
• Receiver thinks in terms of Whether, lives in the Natural economy, and experiences through "necessary, actual, possible". (Like a child enjoying a gift.)

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:

• The Rulemaker restricts the Receiver through the "unit of value" they have set.
• The Receiver restricts the Rulemaker through the "validation of currency" they require.

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:

• The Rulemaker restricts the Connector through "taxation" (and trading rules, payment for administrative tasks, etc.)
• The Connector restricts the Rulemaker through "governance" issues, such as future value, monitoring, evaluation.
• The Receiver restricts the Connector through "demand for services".
• The Connector restricts the Receiver through "range of services".

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.

Peace,

Andrius

---

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:

• the person who is riled is generally wrong as to which is the truth of the heart
• the the truth of the world follows from the truth of the heart, but not the other way around
• the truth of the world can be learned from examples in real life that we can point to, whereas the truth of the heart is tautological
• the truth of the heart addresses the broader question, and the truth of the world address the narrower question, from among Why? How? What? Whether?, where Why? is the broadest and Whether? is the narrowest.

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:

• "caring" is understood as consensus
• "commanding" is understood as constructing
• "explaining" is understood as convincing

And I think that three kinds of "stories about stories" are constructive:

• shifting from consensus to constructing ("empowerment")
• shifting from constructing to convincing ("taking up a calling")
• shifting from convincing to consensus ("coming together")

And three kinds of "stories about stories" are destructive:

• shifting from constructing to consensus ("transgression")
• shifting from convincing to constructing ("marking of the good")
• shifting from consensus to convincing ("rescue")

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.

2002.10.25

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.

See: VerbalizationDiagram

• Love supports life by allowing for the lack of context.
• Shift from "default" (God) context to explicit particular reference point from implicit to explicit. (Presume what is not within itself). Matching explicit with implicit. Here "nothing" is related to God (beyond himself) and "something" with Everything (not within itself).
• In narration, the "nothing" is the middle of the story which can be quite elaborate but is just "filler".

• 6 linksniai, šv.Petro raktai į dangų, 8 žodžių rūšys
• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Part_of_speech
• Įvardijimui palyginti žodžių rūšis ir padalinimus.
• Penkerybę (laiką ir erdvę) tirti kaip prielinksnių šaltinį (veiksmai +1,+2,+3 puoselėja aplinkybių gijas).

Kuria prasme teiginys yra lygtis? Kuria prasme teiginys kaip lygtis įvardijime atsiremia į septynerybę? Kuria prasme septynerybė grindžia lygtis, lygybes, palyginimus?

• Įvardijimui tirti ne tiktai žodžius bet ir vaizdinius, muziką. Tirti kaip muzika plėtoja reikšmę.
• Įvardijimas turi bendrai sutarti dėl padalinimo iš skirtingų požiūrių, ir plėtoti gijas toliau veiksmais +1, +2, +3
• Įvardijimas iš padalinimų išgauna aplinkybių grandines.
• Įvardijimą suprasti kaip proto būsenų (padalinimais) seka (veiksmais +1,+2,+3) dviem ar trim (asmenų) gijomis (aplinkybėmis) požiūriais ir jų santykiais (poslinkiais).

Kokius duomenis rinkti ištirti įvardijimo kalbą?

• Kertines vertybes.
  • Juos susieti su posakiais, aforizmais.
  • Taip pat ieškoti kalbą besimokančiųjų svarbiausius, paprasčiausius išsireiškimus ir pasisakymus.
  • Žodžių daryba - žodžių rūšis išsako padalinimai - pirminis žodis yra ženklas (simbolis, indeksas, ikona) o toliau juos vysto tolimesnės žodių darybos galimybės.

Kinų kalbos žodžiai taip pat rašmenys ir raktai.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_semantic_metalanguage

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

• Įvardijimas. Dynamic epistemic. Imagination minimizes change - adaptation - as opposed to thinking of a closed system.
• Įvardijimo kalbos pagrindas yra mokymasis, kaip įvairiai geriau išmokstame sąvokas. Dažnai pradedame nuo vieno pavyzdžio; pereiname į kelis pavyzdžius, kuriuos apibendriname; susikuriame pavyzdinį atvejį; ir galimybių lauką; tą lauką išplečiame porūšimis; tą lauką išreiškiame savybėmis; iš tų savybių sudarome apibrėžimą; ir sukuriame išimtis. Tokiais būdais kiekviena sąvoka yra išplėtojama. Galima panašiai pradėti nuo veiksmo, nuo vietovės, nuo žodžio arba ženklo ir t.t.
• Įvardijimas kyla iš rūpesčių sankaupos.

Gettier problem

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

Kalba

"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.

Linksniai

• vardininkas: Dievas: vienumas yra pasaulis (viskas)
• naudininkas: asmenys: vienumas yra pasauliui (viskam)
• galininkas: Kitas: vienumas išgyvena pasaulį (viską)
• įnagininkas: požiūriai: vienumas pasauliu (viskuo)
• kilmininkas: meilė: pasaulio vienumas (visko)
• vietininkas: bendrystė: vienumas pasaulyje (viskame)
• Leonard Bernstein: variation is violation. Localized relations, logic are made possible by metaphors.
• Gibson 1979 affordances - animal and environment.
• Affordances. (my language theory)
• http://www.sdu.dk/en/CHI
• Kurčiųjų žvilgsnis - žymi laiką, proto lauką.
• Points of: Reference Event Speech - trejybė?
• Base, focus, event, v-point (specious present)
• perfective - imperfective: entropy or continuous closed systems (irreversible) and open systems (continuous). Aplinkybės (prielinksniai) sukuria sistemos uždarumą.
• Reflection (creates a scope) - measure words, verbal prefixes (for aspect)
• mokymąsi: 1) išgirstame išsireiškimą ir jį daugiau ar mažiau suprantame; su laiku 2) ryžtamės naudoti - pirmiausia su tais kurie taip išsireiškia. Pavyzdžiui, "let me at the ball"
• Zipfian frequency
• Mind the Gap! Divjak 2015.
• Subject (agency) prominent language (English) vs. topic prominent language (Japanese)
• Pasakojimo įtampos balsai yra svarbūs pragmatikai - veiklos skatinimui - tai kalbos pagrindas.
• Grammar tells what is not important; focus shows what is important. What can be focalized? Grammar cannot be focalized.
• Grammatical vs. lexical verbs; prepositions; pronouns; etc.
• grammatical - discursively secondary; dependent on other items
• 1) Prioritaization account - capacity limitations
• 2) Structural dependence - deficit pertaining for combining simple elements into complex wholes. Leads to omission of items.
• Compensation for capacity limitations in terms of prioritization. Dispensing with the less important grammatical ones.
• Magic number 4.
• Procedural memory (how), declarative memory (what). Ullman. Second language based more on declarative memory, not procedural.
• REF model.
• Grammar is for combining tasks. Grammar maps a "grammar of activity" (organizing procedural memory - How) onto a "grammar of expression" (in declarative memory - What - for interaction).
• Charles Foster. Being a beast.
• Standartinio veiksmo schema - transitive - intransitive ir t.t.
• The Syntax of Human Experience, Nicolas Ruwet
• Termino (etiketės) pridėjimas prie brėžinio prilygsta mąstymui iš aukšto, atitrūkus, panašiai kaip dvimatę plokštumą papildant žvilgsniu iš trečiojo mato. Tai svarbu įvardijimo kalbai.
• Širdis jau iš anksto viską žino. Viskas išsakyta širdies tiesomis. Įvardijimas išsako širdies tiesas ir pasaulio klaidas, ar tiksliau, antrines tiesas.

Įvardijimas - sakiniai kaip vienetas - ir atsakomybė už tai - ir ironija. Subject's commitment to their unity, to be a unified self, thus to hold compatible beliefs as to how things are.

• Self-consciousness as responsibility for one's own judgements and one's own unity.

Thematic Roles. Saeed: Chapter 6.1-6.6

• Possible Universal Subject Hierarchy = Kiparsky gradation
• Fonologo Paul Kiparsky tėvas slavistas Valentin Kiparsky.

Geros valios pratimai: Susitapatinti su linksniu

• Linksniu pereiti iš pasaulio tiesos į sirdies tiesą.
• Atskleisti savastį kaip pasąmonę, sąmonę, sąmoningumą.
• Išgyvenimas sieja širdies (sąmonės) tiesos plėtotę ir pasaulio (pasąmonės) tiesos plėtotę.
• Sąmoningumas tas plėtotes sieja trejybės ratu.
• Išgyvenimuose dorovės rūšis sutampa su išgyvenimo prasme -> nusako polinkį trejybės rate
• Kokio to poslinkio įtaka siejant širdies ir pasaulio plėtotę grindžiant brandos šuolį?

Lūkesčiai, įvardijimas, įtampa - nerimas.

• Nesveika ironija: baimė, bjauresys
• Sveika ironija: laimingumas, liūdnumas, linksmumas, nuostaba - lūkesčiai yra dėžė (aplinkybė)

Ar veiklos būdai (kaip kas pasidaro) išsako dėžių (aplinkybių) santykį? Įvardijimas veda iš padalinimų (porų - lygčių) į aplinkybes.

• Nesveikoje ironijoje neaišku koks žmogaus santykis su prieštaravimu, neaišku kuris nulybės atvaizdas tai išreiškia. Sveikoje ironijoje aplinkybė nurodo žmogaus santykį su prieštaravimu.
• Klausimai veikia kaip katalizatorius. Klausimai ir (kalbos) žaidimai (žinojimo rūmuose). Dvejonės yra klausimai atliepiantys klausimus. Žodžiai yra klausimai. Žodžiai sumažina mokymosi slenkstį, ta prasme yra katalizatoriai, sintaksinės formos. Širdies ir pasaulio tiesų formos, įtampą išryškinančios, sustato sandus.
• Paukščių, žvaigždynų pavadinimai padeda juos įsidėmėti, atskirti iš fono. Panašiai su sandaromis.
• Mokymosi ratu peržengiame slenkstį, kuris pasireiškia catalizatoriuose ir insulatoriuose.
• Įvardijime palyginti dvejones ir linksnius. Įvardijime ieškoti linksnių, valingumo laipsnių, kaip jais pereinama iš78 padalinimų į 12 aplinkybių.