Mintys.Žinoti istorija
Paslėpti nežymius pakeitimus - Rodyti galutinio teksto pakeitimus
2018 spalio 03 d., 15:49
atliko -
Pakeistos 1-130 eilutės iš
===What does it mean to Know?===
To Know is:
* be open to NotBeingOneWith
Knowing is the Understanding of one's limits, of one's separation. Our limits are the context that we find ourselves in. To know everything is to understand God's limits, yet he is unlimited, without context, and so goes beyond himself into his limits, into his context, where we may coincide with him. So MyWish seeks to go beyond, go before any context.
See also: Knowing, {{Foursome}}, {{Understanding}}, Definition
In my Overview of my work to know everything and apply that knowledge usefully, I distinguish between the facts and the theory. I note that the facts are the structures that we encounter and that each of them addresses a question related to Knowledge.
===What is Knowledge?===
* Knowledge is the establishing of Person, the circumscription of Who in terms of What they assume, the negation of an assumption about Who. (Negation of Representations of Nullsome (Significant, Constant, Direct, True))
* Knowledge is of the Person's Self
* Knowledge is the coinciding of the one who assumes and the one who is assumed
* NotBeingOneWith in the extent of BeingOneWith.
* Truth X within Scope Y. Truth about Y.
* Truth about...
* the extent to which BeingOneWith has gone beyond itself into NotBeingOneWith and thus defines it.
* Knowledge is the extent to which BeingOneWith has gone beyond itself into NotBeingOneWith and is present there.
* Knowledge of X is the Relationships (the Conditions) by which X is BeingOneWith and NotBeingOneWith. Knowing X is Understanding these Relationships (keeping separate the Conditions).
* Knowledge is what allows for the Truth.
* Knowledge is the Facts.
* Knowledge is institutional.
* Knowledge is True Concepts.
Knowledge
* Knowledge, presumption comes after relationship (of BeingOneWith)
* negates where God comes from (God's properties, where God is)
* is negation of assumptions about Who
* (Negation of Representations of Nullsome (Significant, Constant, Direct, True)) (NotTruth) is negation of a property of being alone (of God), acceptance from Within of this Negation, negation of TotalStructure (of structure beyond Scope, of what comes from beyond), internal limitations, is Answers taking up Answers, resetting Scope, establishing Person as the one who accepts Scope and who is thus the utmost outreach by going beyond Scope.
* Nonexistence of God, interference with God, Questions not taking up Answers.
* is of Everything (Why), Anything (How), Something (What), Nothing (Whether). Knowledge (about Scope) is of context, what is beyond Scope, what it presumes, thus presumption of what is beyond Scope.
Idea: Knowledge is institutional. The difference between 'independent thinking' and 'self-learning' is that self-learning is driven by the thirst for knowledge, and as such is the engagement of institutions. Knowledge is defined within the context of institutions, and so self-learning is pursued both inside and outside of an institution. Self-learning is about intertwining learning in all aspects of our lives, so that we are free to lead ourselves outside of institutions, and we are able to make the most of our being within institutions. Whereas independent thinking is about our own personal development as individuals, and leads to our own world, our own private language.
Knowledge is the issue for which is essential the division of everything into four perspectives. We may think of these four perspectives as questions:
* why?
* how?
* what?
* whether?
Or as answers:
* why!
* how!
* what!
* whether!
In other words, there are two ways to conceive these levels, to approach them with our minds, to represent them.
I suppose that these are the perspectives for something to be a "concept", be "known" or "knowable", be self-standing, and serve as a relationship for that which conceives and that which is conceived.
I am trying to understand this better. Here are some thoughts:
I think that the key issue here is "understanding" as the ability to hold concepts separate. In particular, a "concept" holds together in itself its "spirit" and its "structure" (its self within which it (the spirit) finds itself). "Understanding" the concept is to separate the two.
* The spirit is of its own. It may realize itself. (This is the perspective Why, a knowledge of Everything. The spirit is separated from itself (its structure) by everything.)
* The spirit goes beyond itself from the unscoped into the scoped. In this way it generates structure. The spirit and structure are considered separately. (This is the perspective How, a knowledge of Anything. The spirit is separated from itself (its structure) by anything.)
* The spirit and structure are considered together. The structure is a limit on the spirit. (This is the perspective What, a knowledge of Something. The spirit is separated from itself (its structure) by something.)
* The structure is of its own. It is an open space which may frame and evoke a spirit. (This is the perspective Whether, a knowledge of Nothing. The spirit is separated from itself (its structure) by nothing.)
A concept is that which "stands on its own". Therefore it needs to be able to "stand apart from itself". The above four perspectives express the different scopes which that entails. I think this is why the basic divisions (of everything into zero, one, two or three perspectives) have four representations.
This also opens up two stances: "standing apart from oneself" (which is God's stance and increases slack and opens up space for a heart) and "standing on one's own" (which is the stance of the heart - that godlet within us that has awaken within our structure, is figuring itself out - and decreases slack). These are the two representations by which we conceive the division of everything into four perspective (or five, or six, or seven).
These two stances are two outlooks in going beyond ourselves. One is that of loving (standing apart from oneself) and the other is of being loved (standing on one's own). And the four levels of knowledge are four scopes where the lover and the loved may coincide.
Love is the support of life, it is the reaching out to coincide with the loved one who is going beyond themselves. Just as God is the spirit of everything, and everything is the structure of God, so we may say that life is the spirit of anything, and anything is the structure of life. In order for us to engage anything, it must be, in every sense, a self-standing system, with the implications as above. So, for example, if we engage a mushroom, then it is as a system - either a local nub - or part of a being that may stretch across an acre of a forest. Life (and alive) are defined for a self-standing system (and that says a lot about life). In particular, we may think of anything as everything plus slack. Or, considering that slack is the structure of good, and good is the spirit of slack, we may say that life is the goodness of God. (Yet eternal life is understanding the goodness of God - keeping those two concepts separate).
Anything is like everything in that it is self-standing, and yet also anything stands apart from itself - it is both "in a world" and "unto itself". So anything has six representations in all - the four representations which everything contributes as a "self-standing" concept - and the two representations which slack contributes (increasing slack and decreasing slack). One of the things that I am studying is how to relate these four and two with the six. But in particular, we may think of the six as the ways of moving from one of the four levels out into another one of them - there are six such pairs - they are concrete ways of going beyond ourselves - "within a world".
I've found it very helpful to read "The Timeless Way of Building" by Christopher Alexander, an architect who considers, "What does it mean to say that a building is alive?" And by "alive" he means this very important "quality without a name" for which "alive" is really just a metaphor from biology. I agree with him that it's this spiritual idea of "life" that is more interesting to us than the purely biological one which we seize upon but only as a metaphor. And he writes profoundly of different words that help us get across that concept but never express it adequately: alive, whole, comfortable, free, exact, egoless, eternal. And clearly there is an eighth, "", which is to say, the nameless, what I might call "zero activity". Perhaps this is the ability to skip a beat so as to be in harmony with another system. And perhaps biological life is what I would call "zero structure", which is to say, the structure of redundancy that allows for that harmony, so that a "positive command DO" can coincide with a "negative command DO NOT".
I agree this is all quite murky. But your question is stimulating. And it is our flexibility to play seriously with such ideas which gives us the chance to find answers. Unfortunately, there is a lack of domains where we can pursue such thinking. The above builds on more than twenty years of private thinking. Maybe some day it will be "publishable". But it is more likely that first it will be "applicable". Imagine building the first airplane. It's easier to show that the airplane works, and have people reverse engineer it, then to try to explain to them that it will truly fly. Perhaps this will all show why I am keen to serve "independent thinkers" and why organizing us in a laboratory where we might apply our ideas gives us a social framework where the reality of such ideas may become evident.
And in summary, I think that you are right, there is a deep connection between life and knowledge. I think that knowledge is the issue that (as a state of mind) involves four scopes by which a "concept" "stands on its own". This makes it possible for "standing apart from oneself" (going beyond oneself) to become a concrete relationship "within a world" between a lover and a loved. And life is the underlying spirit expressed by the various (six) ways they can relate to each other.
----
JosephGoguen: My first step in answering the question "What is
knowing?" would be to break it into two parts: "What is
a concept?" and "What is truth?" since true concepts
will be knowledge.
I would also like to "de-reify" the question, since i
think the processes of knowing are more fundamental
than the results. So we should ask about processes of
conceptualization, and of reasoning, while still noting
that a great deal can be learned from looking at the
reified notions of concept and truth.
As you say in your analysis of "everything", knowledge
is relative, and hence always uncertain, perhaps even
contradictory; it is also uncertain to varying degrees.
As noted long ago by Charles Sanders Peirce, the problems
of relativity can be overcome to some extent by making
the truth of what concepts refer to relative to context,
in a very broad sense of context that includes the
"knower" and his/her point of view, background knowledge,
perceptions, etc., as well as what is in the world.
So now we want to look at {{Concepts}} and how they refer in
variable contexts, and how we can reason with concepts
in a way that allows the result to truthfully refer, not
forgetting that concepts can of course refer to other
concepts as well as to percepts.
-----
{{Andrius}}
''Knowing'' as the ''{{Truth}} of {{Concepts}}'' - fantastic! And that makes me think that {{God}} (the nullsome - division of everything into no perspectives, so that it is of itself) is the "concept of truth" and thereby related to the foursome (division of everything into four perspectives) which may be thought of as bifurcating the "concept of truth" into "concept" and "truth" and reordering them, those holding them separate, which would explain the role of the foursome as the maximal unfolding of structure, which opens up space for the godlet but also starts the collapse of structure, the eightsome finalizing the collapse into the nullsome, as it has a perspective "all are good and all are bad" which is to say, an empty system (here I say: "true"="obvious"="not hidden" which as a "concept" (stands on its own and is thus "hidden") is by nature contradictory and is thus both "obvious" and "hidden").
----
{{HelmutLeitner}}: As I now read Andrius's "know everything and apply that usefully" I understand that as "know the structure of all thinking and apply that usefully". So it is not about being a know-it-all.
Regarding knowledge. We thought about some terms a while ago at http://www.emacswiki.org/cw/InformationKnowledgeAndWisdom and I came to a convincing looking row data-information-knowledge-wisdom (see section "Alternative Explanation"). In short: data = mathematical description of reality, information = redundancies stripped, knowledge = in an activated form to answer questions, wisdom = complete system knowledge to make good decisions. This view of knowledge seems compatible, although questions like "when" or "who" are possible, too. This suggests that your "what" is broader than in common use and includes the "when", "where" and "who" as questions about existing reality.
Maybe the concepts of the GlossaryOfStructure could be seen as a separate language that has to be explicitely translated and maybe tagged. #what = { "what", "when", "where", "who" / "any question about the state of reality" }. #God = { "any belief of god that encloses everything in love and goodness?" }. A simple identification of words (#glossaryofstructureword="everydaylanguageword") like #what="what" or #God="Christian God" may create misunderstandings or may be plain wrong, depending on the circumstances.
{{Andrius}}: Helmut, Thank you. Yes, I think that data-information-knowledge-wisdom generally corresponds to whether-what-how-why. Yes, the what is broader then the general usage. Your idea of the tags may be very helpful. I have always struggled with this issue of communication, as you see. It's also tricky because often my knowledge is incomplete. For example, I may say "what" but not be quite sure if I mean the deep structure #what or its representation as an answer #what! or as a question #what? etc. Thank you for this idea. I will start a page of {{Terms}}.
See: {{Knowledge}}, {{Foursome}}, {{Definite}}, KnowEverything, {{Unknown}}, {{Overview}}
----
To view the known is to view the {{Limited}}, the {{Definite}}.
į:
Žr. [[Žinojimas]]
2014 birželio 02 d., 11:49
atliko -
Pakeistos 125-130 eilutės iš
{{Andrius}}: Helmut, Thank you. Yes, I think that data-information-knowledge-wisdom generally corresponds to whether-what-how-why. Yes, the what is broader then the general usage. Your idea of the tags may be very helpful. I have always struggled with this issue of communication, as you see. It's also tricky because often my knowledge is incomplete. For example, I may say "what" but not be quite sure if I mean the deep structure #what or its representation as an answer #what! or as a question #what? etc. Thank you for this idea. I will start a page of {{Terms}}.
į:
{{Andrius}}: Helmut, Thank you. Yes, I think that data-information-knowledge-wisdom generally corresponds to whether-what-how-why. Yes, the what is broader then the general usage. Your idea of the tags may be very helpful. I have always struggled with this issue of communication, as you see. It's also tricky because often my knowledge is incomplete. For example, I may say "what" but not be quite sure if I mean the deep structure #what or its representation as an answer #what! or as a question #what? etc. Thank you for this idea. I will start a page of {{Terms}}.
See: {{Knowledge}}, {{Foursome}}, {{Definite}}, KnowEverything, {{Unknown}}, {{Overview}}
----
To view the known is to view the {{Limited}}, the {{Definite}}.
See: {{Knowledge}}, {{Foursome}}, {{Definite}}, KnowEverything, {{Unknown}}, {{Overview}}
----
To view the known is to view the {{Limited}}, the {{Definite}}.
2014 birželio 02 d., 11:48
atliko -
Pakeistos 9-125 eilutės iš
Knowing is the Understanding of one's limits, of one's separation. Our limits are the context that we find ourselves in. To know everything is to understand God's limits, yet he is unlimited, without context, and so goes beyond himself into his limits, into his context, where we may coincide with him. So MyWish seeks to go beyond, go before any context.
į:
Knowing is the Understanding of one's limits, of one's separation. Our limits are the context that we find ourselves in. To know everything is to understand God's limits, yet he is unlimited, without context, and so goes beyond himself into his limits, into his context, where we may coincide with him. So MyWish seeks to go beyond, go before any context.
See also: Knowing, {{Foursome}}, {{Understanding}}, Definition
In my Overview of my work to know everything and apply that knowledge usefully, I distinguish between the facts and the theory. I note that the facts are the structures that we encounter and that each of them addresses a question related to Knowledge.
===What is Knowledge?===
* Knowledge is the establishing of Person, the circumscription of Who in terms of What they assume, the negation of an assumption about Who. (Negation of Representations of Nullsome (Significant, Constant, Direct, True))
* Knowledge is of the Person's Self
* Knowledge is the coinciding of the one who assumes and the one who is assumed
* NotBeingOneWith in the extent of BeingOneWith.
* Truth X within Scope Y. Truth about Y.
* Truth about...
* the extent to which BeingOneWith has gone beyond itself into NotBeingOneWith and thus defines it.
* Knowledge is the extent to which BeingOneWith has gone beyond itself into NotBeingOneWith and is present there.
* Knowledge of X is the Relationships (the Conditions) by which X is BeingOneWith and NotBeingOneWith. Knowing X is Understanding these Relationships (keeping separate the Conditions).
* Knowledge is what allows for the Truth.
* Knowledge is the Facts.
* Knowledge is institutional.
* Knowledge is True Concepts.
Knowledge
* Knowledge, presumption comes after relationship (of BeingOneWith)
* negates where God comes from (God's properties, where God is)
* is negation of assumptions about Who
* (Negation of Representations of Nullsome (Significant, Constant, Direct, True)) (NotTruth) is negation of a property of being alone (of God), acceptance from Within of this Negation, negation of TotalStructure (of structure beyond Scope, of what comes from beyond), internal limitations, is Answers taking up Answers, resetting Scope, establishing Person as the one who accepts Scope and who is thus the utmost outreach by going beyond Scope.
* Nonexistence of God, interference with God, Questions not taking up Answers.
* is of Everything (Why), Anything (How), Something (What), Nothing (Whether). Knowledge (about Scope) is of context, what is beyond Scope, what it presumes, thus presumption of what is beyond Scope.
Idea: Knowledge is institutional. The difference between 'independent thinking' and 'self-learning' is that self-learning is driven by the thirst for knowledge, and as such is the engagement of institutions. Knowledge is defined within the context of institutions, and so self-learning is pursued both inside and outside of an institution. Self-learning is about intertwining learning in all aspects of our lives, so that we are free to lead ourselves outside of institutions, and we are able to make the most of our being within institutions. Whereas independent thinking is about our own personal development as individuals, and leads to our own world, our own private language.
Knowledge is the issue for which is essential the division of everything into four perspectives. We may think of these four perspectives as questions:
* why?
* how?
* what?
* whether?
Or as answers:
* why!
* how!
* what!
* whether!
In other words, there are two ways to conceive these levels, to approach them with our minds, to represent them.
I suppose that these are the perspectives for something to be a "concept", be "known" or "knowable", be self-standing, and serve as a relationship for that which conceives and that which is conceived.
I am trying to understand this better. Here are some thoughts:
I think that the key issue here is "understanding" as the ability to hold concepts separate. In particular, a "concept" holds together in itself its "spirit" and its "structure" (its self within which it (the spirit) finds itself). "Understanding" the concept is to separate the two.
* The spirit is of its own. It may realize itself. (This is the perspective Why, a knowledge of Everything. The spirit is separated from itself (its structure) by everything.)
* The spirit goes beyond itself from the unscoped into the scoped. In this way it generates structure. The spirit and structure are considered separately. (This is the perspective How, a knowledge of Anything. The spirit is separated from itself (its structure) by anything.)
* The spirit and structure are considered together. The structure is a limit on the spirit. (This is the perspective What, a knowledge of Something. The spirit is separated from itself (its structure) by something.)
* The structure is of its own. It is an open space which may frame and evoke a spirit. (This is the perspective Whether, a knowledge of Nothing. The spirit is separated from itself (its structure) by nothing.)
A concept is that which "stands on its own". Therefore it needs to be able to "stand apart from itself". The above four perspectives express the different scopes which that entails. I think this is why the basic divisions (of everything into zero, one, two or three perspectives) have four representations.
This also opens up two stances: "standing apart from oneself" (which is God's stance and increases slack and opens up space for a heart) and "standing on one's own" (which is the stance of the heart - that godlet within us that has awaken within our structure, is figuring itself out - and decreases slack). These are the two representations by which we conceive the division of everything into four perspective (or five, or six, or seven).
These two stances are two outlooks in going beyond ourselves. One is that of loving (standing apart from oneself) and the other is of being loved (standing on one's own). And the four levels of knowledge are four scopes where the lover and the loved may coincide.
Love is the support of life, it is the reaching out to coincide with the loved one who is going beyond themselves. Just as God is the spirit of everything, and everything is the structure of God, so we may say that life is the spirit of anything, and anything is the structure of life. In order for us to engage anything, it must be, in every sense, a self-standing system, with the implications as above. So, for example, if we engage a mushroom, then it is as a system - either a local nub - or part of a being that may stretch across an acre of a forest. Life (and alive) are defined for a self-standing system (and that says a lot about life). In particular, we may think of anything as everything plus slack. Or, considering that slack is the structure of good, and good is the spirit of slack, we may say that life is the goodness of God. (Yet eternal life is understanding the goodness of God - keeping those two concepts separate).
Anything is like everything in that it is self-standing, and yet also anything stands apart from itself - it is both "in a world" and "unto itself". So anything has six representations in all - the four representations which everything contributes as a "self-standing" concept - and the two representations which slack contributes (increasing slack and decreasing slack). One of the things that I am studying is how to relate these four and two with the six. But in particular, we may think of the six as the ways of moving from one of the four levels out into another one of them - there are six such pairs - they are concrete ways of going beyond ourselves - "within a world".
I've found it very helpful to read "The Timeless Way of Building" by Christopher Alexander, an architect who considers, "What does it mean to say that a building is alive?" And by "alive" he means this very important "quality without a name" for which "alive" is really just a metaphor from biology. I agree with him that it's this spiritual idea of "life" that is more interesting to us than the purely biological one which we seize upon but only as a metaphor. And he writes profoundly of different words that help us get across that concept but never express it adequately: alive, whole, comfortable, free, exact, egoless, eternal. And clearly there is an eighth, "", which is to say, the nameless, what I might call "zero activity". Perhaps this is the ability to skip a beat so as to be in harmony with another system. And perhaps biological life is what I would call "zero structure", which is to say, the structure of redundancy that allows for that harmony, so that a "positive command DO" can coincide with a "negative command DO NOT".
I agree this is all quite murky. But your question is stimulating. And it is our flexibility to play seriously with such ideas which gives us the chance to find answers. Unfortunately, there is a lack of domains where we can pursue such thinking. The above builds on more than twenty years of private thinking. Maybe some day it will be "publishable". But it is more likely that first it will be "applicable". Imagine building the first airplane. It's easier to show that the airplane works, and have people reverse engineer it, then to try to explain to them that it will truly fly. Perhaps this will all show why I am keen to serve "independent thinkers" and why organizing us in a laboratory where we might apply our ideas gives us a social framework where the reality of such ideas may become evident.
And in summary, I think that you are right, there is a deep connection between life and knowledge. I think that knowledge is the issue that (as a state of mind) involves four scopes by which a "concept" "stands on its own". This makes it possible for "standing apart from oneself" (going beyond oneself) to become a concrete relationship "within a world" between a lover and a loved. And life is the underlying spirit expressed by the various (six) ways they can relate to each other.
----
JosephGoguen: My first step in answering the question "What is
knowing?" would be to break it into two parts: "What is
a concept?" and "What is truth?" since true concepts
will be knowledge.
I would also like to "de-reify" the question, since i
think the processes of knowing are more fundamental
than the results. So we should ask about processes of
conceptualization, and of reasoning, while still noting
that a great deal can be learned from looking at the
reified notions of concept and truth.
As you say in your analysis of "everything", knowledge
is relative, and hence always uncertain, perhaps even
contradictory; it is also uncertain to varying degrees.
As noted long ago by Charles Sanders Peirce, the problems
of relativity can be overcome to some extent by making
the truth of what concepts refer to relative to context,
in a very broad sense of context that includes the
"knower" and his/her point of view, background knowledge,
perceptions, etc., as well as what is in the world.
So now we want to look at {{Concepts}} and how they refer in
variable contexts, and how we can reason with concepts
in a way that allows the result to truthfully refer, not
forgetting that concepts can of course refer to other
concepts as well as to percepts.
-----
{{Andrius}}
''Knowing'' as the ''{{Truth}} of {{Concepts}}'' - fantastic! And that makes me think that {{God}} (the nullsome - division of everything into no perspectives, so that it is of itself) is the "concept of truth" and thereby related to the foursome (division of everything into four perspectives) which may be thought of as bifurcating the "concept of truth" into "concept" and "truth" and reordering them, those holding them separate, which would explain the role of the foursome as the maximal unfolding of structure, which opens up space for the godlet but also starts the collapse of structure, the eightsome finalizing the collapse into the nullsome, as it has a perspective "all are good and all are bad" which is to say, an empty system (here I say: "true"="obvious"="not hidden" which as a "concept" (stands on its own and is thus "hidden") is by nature contradictory and is thus both "obvious" and "hidden").
----
{{HelmutLeitner}}: As I now read Andrius's "know everything and apply that usefully" I understand that as "know the structure of all thinking and apply that usefully". So it is not about being a know-it-all.
Regarding knowledge. We thought about some terms a while ago at http://www.emacswiki.org/cw/InformationKnowledgeAndWisdom and I came to a convincing looking row data-information-knowledge-wisdom (see section "Alternative Explanation"). In short: data = mathematical description of reality, information = redundancies stripped, knowledge = in an activated form to answer questions, wisdom = complete system knowledge to make good decisions. This view of knowledge seems compatible, although questions like "when" or "who" are possible, too. This suggests that your "what" is broader than in common use and includes the "when", "where" and "who" as questions about existing reality.
Maybe the concepts of the GlossaryOfStructure could be seen as a separate language that has to be explicitely translated and maybe tagged. #what = { "what", "when", "where", "who" / "any question about the state of reality" }. #God = { "any belief of god that encloses everything in love and goodness?" }. A simple identification of words (#glossaryofstructureword="everydaylanguageword") like #what="what" or #God="Christian God" may create misunderstandings or may be plain wrong, depending on the circumstances.
{{Andrius}}: Helmut, Thank you. Yes, I think that data-information-knowledge-wisdom generally corresponds to whether-what-how-why. Yes, the what is broader then the general usage. Your idea of the tags may be very helpful. I have always struggled with this issue of communication, as you see. It's also tricky because often my knowledge is incomplete. For example, I may say "what" but not be quite sure if I mean the deep structure #what or its representation as an answer #what! or as a question #what? etc. Thank you for this idea. I will start a page of {{Terms}}.
See also: Knowing, {{Foursome}}, {{Understanding}}, Definition
In my Overview of my work to know everything and apply that knowledge usefully, I distinguish between the facts and the theory. I note that the facts are the structures that we encounter and that each of them addresses a question related to Knowledge.
===What is Knowledge?===
* Knowledge is the establishing of Person, the circumscription of Who in terms of What they assume, the negation of an assumption about Who. (Negation of Representations of Nullsome (Significant, Constant, Direct, True))
* Knowledge is of the Person's Self
* Knowledge is the coinciding of the one who assumes and the one who is assumed
* NotBeingOneWith in the extent of BeingOneWith.
* Truth X within Scope Y. Truth about Y.
* Truth about...
* the extent to which BeingOneWith has gone beyond itself into NotBeingOneWith and thus defines it.
* Knowledge is the extent to which BeingOneWith has gone beyond itself into NotBeingOneWith and is present there.
* Knowledge of X is the Relationships (the Conditions) by which X is BeingOneWith and NotBeingOneWith. Knowing X is Understanding these Relationships (keeping separate the Conditions).
* Knowledge is what allows for the Truth.
* Knowledge is the Facts.
* Knowledge is institutional.
* Knowledge is True Concepts.
Knowledge
* Knowledge, presumption comes after relationship (of BeingOneWith)
* negates where God comes from (God's properties, where God is)
* is negation of assumptions about Who
* (Negation of Representations of Nullsome (Significant, Constant, Direct, True)) (NotTruth) is negation of a property of being alone (of God), acceptance from Within of this Negation, negation of TotalStructure (of structure beyond Scope, of what comes from beyond), internal limitations, is Answers taking up Answers, resetting Scope, establishing Person as the one who accepts Scope and who is thus the utmost outreach by going beyond Scope.
* Nonexistence of God, interference with God, Questions not taking up Answers.
* is of Everything (Why), Anything (How), Something (What), Nothing (Whether). Knowledge (about Scope) is of context, what is beyond Scope, what it presumes, thus presumption of what is beyond Scope.
Idea: Knowledge is institutional. The difference between 'independent thinking' and 'self-learning' is that self-learning is driven by the thirst for knowledge, and as such is the engagement of institutions. Knowledge is defined within the context of institutions, and so self-learning is pursued both inside and outside of an institution. Self-learning is about intertwining learning in all aspects of our lives, so that we are free to lead ourselves outside of institutions, and we are able to make the most of our being within institutions. Whereas independent thinking is about our own personal development as individuals, and leads to our own world, our own private language.
Knowledge is the issue for which is essential the division of everything into four perspectives. We may think of these four perspectives as questions:
* why?
* how?
* what?
* whether?
Or as answers:
* why!
* how!
* what!
* whether!
In other words, there are two ways to conceive these levels, to approach them with our minds, to represent them.
I suppose that these are the perspectives for something to be a "concept", be "known" or "knowable", be self-standing, and serve as a relationship for that which conceives and that which is conceived.
I am trying to understand this better. Here are some thoughts:
I think that the key issue here is "understanding" as the ability to hold concepts separate. In particular, a "concept" holds together in itself its "spirit" and its "structure" (its self within which it (the spirit) finds itself). "Understanding" the concept is to separate the two.
* The spirit is of its own. It may realize itself. (This is the perspective Why, a knowledge of Everything. The spirit is separated from itself (its structure) by everything.)
* The spirit goes beyond itself from the unscoped into the scoped. In this way it generates structure. The spirit and structure are considered separately. (This is the perspective How, a knowledge of Anything. The spirit is separated from itself (its structure) by anything.)
* The spirit and structure are considered together. The structure is a limit on the spirit. (This is the perspective What, a knowledge of Something. The spirit is separated from itself (its structure) by something.)
* The structure is of its own. It is an open space which may frame and evoke a spirit. (This is the perspective Whether, a knowledge of Nothing. The spirit is separated from itself (its structure) by nothing.)
A concept is that which "stands on its own". Therefore it needs to be able to "stand apart from itself". The above four perspectives express the different scopes which that entails. I think this is why the basic divisions (of everything into zero, one, two or three perspectives) have four representations.
This also opens up two stances: "standing apart from oneself" (which is God's stance and increases slack and opens up space for a heart) and "standing on one's own" (which is the stance of the heart - that godlet within us that has awaken within our structure, is figuring itself out - and decreases slack). These are the two representations by which we conceive the division of everything into four perspective (or five, or six, or seven).
These two stances are two outlooks in going beyond ourselves. One is that of loving (standing apart from oneself) and the other is of being loved (standing on one's own). And the four levels of knowledge are four scopes where the lover and the loved may coincide.
Love is the support of life, it is the reaching out to coincide with the loved one who is going beyond themselves. Just as God is the spirit of everything, and everything is the structure of God, so we may say that life is the spirit of anything, and anything is the structure of life. In order for us to engage anything, it must be, in every sense, a self-standing system, with the implications as above. So, for example, if we engage a mushroom, then it is as a system - either a local nub - or part of a being that may stretch across an acre of a forest. Life (and alive) are defined for a self-standing system (and that says a lot about life). In particular, we may think of anything as everything plus slack. Or, considering that slack is the structure of good, and good is the spirit of slack, we may say that life is the goodness of God. (Yet eternal life is understanding the goodness of God - keeping those two concepts separate).
Anything is like everything in that it is self-standing, and yet also anything stands apart from itself - it is both "in a world" and "unto itself". So anything has six representations in all - the four representations which everything contributes as a "self-standing" concept - and the two representations which slack contributes (increasing slack and decreasing slack). One of the things that I am studying is how to relate these four and two with the six. But in particular, we may think of the six as the ways of moving from one of the four levels out into another one of them - there are six such pairs - they are concrete ways of going beyond ourselves - "within a world".
I've found it very helpful to read "The Timeless Way of Building" by Christopher Alexander, an architect who considers, "What does it mean to say that a building is alive?" And by "alive" he means this very important "quality without a name" for which "alive" is really just a metaphor from biology. I agree with him that it's this spiritual idea of "life" that is more interesting to us than the purely biological one which we seize upon but only as a metaphor. And he writes profoundly of different words that help us get across that concept but never express it adequately: alive, whole, comfortable, free, exact, egoless, eternal. And clearly there is an eighth, "", which is to say, the nameless, what I might call "zero activity". Perhaps this is the ability to skip a beat so as to be in harmony with another system. And perhaps biological life is what I would call "zero structure", which is to say, the structure of redundancy that allows for that harmony, so that a "positive command DO" can coincide with a "negative command DO NOT".
I agree this is all quite murky. But your question is stimulating. And it is our flexibility to play seriously with such ideas which gives us the chance to find answers. Unfortunately, there is a lack of domains where we can pursue such thinking. The above builds on more than twenty years of private thinking. Maybe some day it will be "publishable". But it is more likely that first it will be "applicable". Imagine building the first airplane. It's easier to show that the airplane works, and have people reverse engineer it, then to try to explain to them that it will truly fly. Perhaps this will all show why I am keen to serve "independent thinkers" and why organizing us in a laboratory where we might apply our ideas gives us a social framework where the reality of such ideas may become evident.
And in summary, I think that you are right, there is a deep connection between life and knowledge. I think that knowledge is the issue that (as a state of mind) involves four scopes by which a "concept" "stands on its own". This makes it possible for "standing apart from oneself" (going beyond oneself) to become a concrete relationship "within a world" between a lover and a loved. And life is the underlying spirit expressed by the various (six) ways they can relate to each other.
----
JosephGoguen: My first step in answering the question "What is
knowing?" would be to break it into two parts: "What is
a concept?" and "What is truth?" since true concepts
will be knowledge.
I would also like to "de-reify" the question, since i
think the processes of knowing are more fundamental
than the results. So we should ask about processes of
conceptualization, and of reasoning, while still noting
that a great deal can be learned from looking at the
reified notions of concept and truth.
As you say in your analysis of "everything", knowledge
is relative, and hence always uncertain, perhaps even
contradictory; it is also uncertain to varying degrees.
As noted long ago by Charles Sanders Peirce, the problems
of relativity can be overcome to some extent by making
the truth of what concepts refer to relative to context,
in a very broad sense of context that includes the
"knower" and his/her point of view, background knowledge,
perceptions, etc., as well as what is in the world.
So now we want to look at {{Concepts}} and how they refer in
variable contexts, and how we can reason with concepts
in a way that allows the result to truthfully refer, not
forgetting that concepts can of course refer to other
concepts as well as to percepts.
-----
{{Andrius}}
''Knowing'' as the ''{{Truth}} of {{Concepts}}'' - fantastic! And that makes me think that {{God}} (the nullsome - division of everything into no perspectives, so that it is of itself) is the "concept of truth" and thereby related to the foursome (division of everything into four perspectives) which may be thought of as bifurcating the "concept of truth" into "concept" and "truth" and reordering them, those holding them separate, which would explain the role of the foursome as the maximal unfolding of structure, which opens up space for the godlet but also starts the collapse of structure, the eightsome finalizing the collapse into the nullsome, as it has a perspective "all are good and all are bad" which is to say, an empty system (here I say: "true"="obvious"="not hidden" which as a "concept" (stands on its own and is thus "hidden") is by nature contradictory and is thus both "obvious" and "hidden").
----
{{HelmutLeitner}}: As I now read Andrius's "know everything and apply that usefully" I understand that as "know the structure of all thinking and apply that usefully". So it is not about being a know-it-all.
Regarding knowledge. We thought about some terms a while ago at http://www.emacswiki.org/cw/InformationKnowledgeAndWisdom and I came to a convincing looking row data-information-knowledge-wisdom (see section "Alternative Explanation"). In short: data = mathematical description of reality, information = redundancies stripped, knowledge = in an activated form to answer questions, wisdom = complete system knowledge to make good decisions. This view of knowledge seems compatible, although questions like "when" or "who" are possible, too. This suggests that your "what" is broader than in common use and includes the "when", "where" and "who" as questions about existing reality.
Maybe the concepts of the GlossaryOfStructure could be seen as a separate language that has to be explicitely translated and maybe tagged. #what = { "what", "when", "where", "who" / "any question about the state of reality" }. #God = { "any belief of god that encloses everything in love and goodness?" }. A simple identification of words (#glossaryofstructureword="everydaylanguageword") like #what="what" or #God="Christian God" may create misunderstandings or may be plain wrong, depending on the circumstances.
{{Andrius}}: Helmut, Thank you. Yes, I think that data-information-knowledge-wisdom generally corresponds to whether-what-how-why. Yes, the what is broader then the general usage. Your idea of the tags may be very helpful. I have always struggled with this issue of communication, as you see. It's also tricky because often my knowledge is incomplete. For example, I may say "what" but not be quite sure if I mean the deep structure #what or its representation as an answer #what! or as a question #what? etc. Thank you for this idea. I will start a page of {{Terms}}.
2014 birželio 02 d., 11:48
atliko -
Pakeistos 7-9 eilutės iš
* be open to NotBeingOneWith
į:
* be open to NotBeingOneWith
Knowing is the Understanding of one's limits, of one's separation. Our limits are the context that we find ourselves in. To know everything is to understand God's limits, yet he is unlimited, without context, and so goes beyond himself into his limits, into his context, where we may coincide with him. So MyWish seeks to go beyond, go before any context.
Knowing is the Understanding of one's limits, of one's separation. Our limits are the context that we find ourselves in. To know everything is to understand God's limits, yet he is unlimited, without context, and so goes beyond himself into his limits, into his context, where we may coincide with him. So MyWish seeks to go beyond, go before any context.
2014 birželio 02 d., 11:46
atliko -
Pridėtos 1-7 eilutės:
See: Knowledge, Understanding, Mystery, Observer
===What does it mean to Know?===
To Know is:
* be open to NotBeingOneWith
===What does it mean to Know?===
To Know is:
* be open to NotBeingOneWith
Žinoti
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