Iš Gvildenu svetainės

Mintys: 20200519Visaregis

Žr. Visaregis, Apytakos, Dievo šokis, Reikalai, Padalinimų ratas, Bendra sandara, Viską žinoti

Iš ankščiau: Overview, Omniscope, Observer, Observe, ObservationalPlane, DefaultObserver, World, OurPosition, DefaultPosition, Position, Sevensome, System, Divergence (Onefold, twofold, threefold, fourfold), Diverging, Division, Distinctions, Indistinction, PrimaryStructures, SecondaryStructures, Concerns, AlgebraOfViews, LostChild, Human, Coinciding, Understanding, Representations, Scope, MeaningfulConcepts, Angles, ActualContext

Visaregis

Apžvalga

Visaregis yra viską apžvelgianti sandara, tarsi Dievo lęšis. Ja bandžiau nustatyti ir paaiškinti ką bendro turi keturios pirminės sandaros, kad galėčiau jas tiksliau apibrėžti, užtat teisingais pagrindais suvokti ir apibrėžti antrines sandaras, jų tarpe tris kalbas. Nemažai išmąsčiau, tačiau tai neturėjo pakankamo ryšio su gyvenimu, užtat taip ir nepavyko pasistūmėti trijų kalbų nusakyme. Vis dėl to tai padėjo suvokti asmenų (Dievo, Mano, Tavo, Kito) svarbą. Po daug metų, išmąsčius žinojimo rūmus ir Dievo šokį, išmąstant išgyvenimo apytaką ir maldos mokslą, iš viso keturias apytakas, naujai prisimenu visaregį, nes jisai irgi susideda iš 24 kampų. Tad tvarkau savo senus užrašus ir bandau suprasti visaregį kaip sandarą, kurio keturi atvaizdai yra keturios apytakos.

Visaregis yra vienas iš sandarų sluoksnių:

Visaregis susideda iš keturių išsiskyrimų, nukrypimų (divergences), kuriais Dievas atsiplėšia nuo savęs, atveria tarpą kuriame tveria savo požiūrį, savo lęšį, visaregį. Šie keturi išsiskyrimai glūdi nuostatoje "Aš trokštu viską žinoti ir tą žinojimą gražiai taikyti".

Juos kartu sudėjus gaunasi {$1 \times 2 \times 3 \times 4 = 24$} kampai, reikalai.

Dievo lęšis, visaregis, sustato keturis lygmenis, kuriuose Dievas sutampa su savimi jei neišsiskiria nuo savęs. Kiekvienas lygmuo pasižymi savitu išskyrimo būdu. Tad yra keturi išskyrimai:

Tokiu būdu grindžiamas sutapimas, nulgubas išskyrimas. Šie lygmenys skiria ir sieja Dievą, viską, troškimus, meilę.

Keturios pirminės sandaros apibrėžiamos taikant po vieną iš šių sutapimo supratimų: suprantant vienu iš

Ar atvirkščiai?

Visaregio istorija

The many structures that I'm aware of arise as we take up, sequentially, "human's view of God's view of human's view of God's view of human's view" (see ChainOfViews). I thought about an AlgebraOfViews. This led me to the omniscope.

I noticed a key point:

I noticed that, in our imagination:

This introduces a very important asymmetry. It allows us to realize that we are the "child" and that we should look for our "parent". And, as a LostChild, we are most wise if we do not ourselves look for our parent, but rather go there where our parent might expect to find us.

Kas yra visaregis?

Visaregis

I'll describe what I think is the "answer" in my own quest to KnowEverything. It is a contraption which I'll call the Omniscope. Just as a "telescope" lets us see what is far away, and a "microscope" lets us see what is small, an "omniscope" lets us see everything.

Inasmuch as we can imagine God, the omniscope is the contraption by which God observes himself. It gives the 24 Angles in which an Observer pulls away from an ObservationalPlane. In this sense, it gives the ways that God goes beyond himself, as God first associates himself with the ObservationalPlane, but then pulls himself away and associates himself with the Observer.

By pulling apart himself as observer and observational plane, he makes room for us, those who identify only with the observer. The omniscope and its angles are for us purely formal, but we then give life to them. In identifying ourselves with this observer, we interpret these Angles, these ways of pulling away as 24 Concerns, which is to say, 24 NotWishes. Our identification has us focus on a particular observational plane. This yields four PrimaryStructures, one for each observational plane. In this way, the purely formal structure of the omniscope becomes grounded in our outlook. We then coincide with the omniscope, so that God sees himself through us, and the omniscope defines everything as it relates to us.

The Omniscope gives the ways that I go from the bounded into the unbounded (thus accounting for but reversing God's going beyond himself from the unbounded into the bounded).

Dievas išeina už savęs 24 kampais

In order for an observer to pull away from an observational plane:

The 24 ways that God goes beyond himself are determined by, and the product of:

In going beyond himself, God is both the observational plane (the God who will go beyond himself) and the observer (the God who has gone beyond himself) and the two have been separated.

Keturi pažinimo laukai

When an Observer observes themselves, this relationship characterizes the ObservationalPlane between them.

This relationship is completely formal. It gives the amount of opaqueness that separates the observer and the observed, the amount of perspective that is filtered out by self-reflection, by which the observer sees less than the observed. Note that the observer may, in a sense, see more by seeing less.

God is identifiable with any of these four Scopes of access, which is to say, with any of these observational planes. However, God himself is beyond them all.

3 Points of Coinciding of Observer and ObservationalPlane

In order to distinguish the observer and their observational plane, it is important to first indicate how they coincide.

These positions are:

They are related to the three PrinciplesOfLife which are unconceivable, namely: strong centers (taking a stand), strong boundaries (following through), levels of scale (reflecting).

Back into or back towards

Upon stepping away from one's observational plane, one may either identify with oneself (as the ultimate observer) or with whatever is beyond the observational plane (the ultimate observational plane). If one identifies with oneself as an observer, then one finds oneself within a new observational plane, as an observer always comes with some observational plane. Whereas if one identifies with the default observational plane, then that plane need not have an observer, and not the observer at hand, and so they can remain distinct. In the first case, this takes us backwards in the observational plane (perhaps like an ever expandable telescope), and in the second case, possibly completely out of the observational plane.

So if one:

In every case one is moving deeper towards "THE everything" which stands behind and away from the observational tube. To the above three movements we may add three more that move one to THE everything:

We then multiply the four observational planes with the six shifts to get twenty-four Angles. They remain abstract until they are intrepreted by us as Not-wishes.

24 kampai - netroškimai

Išvados. The "omniscope" is an apparatus that pulls all the structures together. We might think of it as a special kind of "lens" which God places against his eye, or actually, has within his eye, by which he is able to see Everything, at least the everything that relates to us. In a sense, he accords with that lens, as he is its default observer. Yet, even more so, we are that lens, and we coincide with God by pulling back from ourselves. "We" are the unity of the six shifts, the unity of the secondary structures, the unity of the seventh perspectives, which is to say, the "Anything" that may relate with the "Everything" which expresses God's structural nature. So we stand separately as "Anything" and yet we may also pull back from ourselves and coincide with God's vantage point by understanding ourselves more basically, not as the secondary structures, but rather, as a derivative of the primary structures. I suppose we are more meaningful as derivative creatures than as self-standing beings.

Tolimesnės mintys

I have been making steady progress in thinking through how the many structures arise from the omniscope. I'm currently focusing on the simplest family of PrimaryStructures, the Counterquestions by which we can "debrainwash" ourselves by putting our experience in context: What do I truly want? How does it seem to me? What else should I be doing? Would it make any difference? What do I have control over? Am I able to consider the question? Is this the way things should be? Am I doing anything about this? I am making progress in explaining how these and related structures arise as God, I and other take up perspectives upon the structure given by the omniscope. I want to relate this back to TheChainOfViews by which the structures arise from "human's view of God's view of human's view of God's view of human's view". It seems as if the omniscope is the starting point in the reverse direction, so that we keep stepping back from it, rather than keep stepping into it. Somehow the two directions are connected.

Inspired by ChristopherLangan's work, I developed a key insight. In a minimalist system, semantics gets used as syntax, as with the ConstructiveHypotheses that I discuss above. The Threesome of "take a stand, follow through, and reflect" is a self-contained system in that the next time we take a stand it is considered the same as the last time. So here there is no distinction between semantics and syntax. However, we may make a distinction between the first time we take a stand (the first time we go through the three-cycle) and the next time we take a stand (and go through the three-cycle). Then we are distinguishing between an absolute internal perspective (purely semantic) and a relative perspective that takes the former three-cycle as a "law" that it is constrained by. So the semantics of the absolute view serves as the syntax for the relative view. (The absolute view considers self-correction with regard to itself, and the relative view considers self-direction with regard to the absolute view.) I imagine that this continues, so that the semantics of the relative view becomes the syntax for the shared view - the shared view being that it doesn't matter which perspective we start from (take a stand, follow through, or reflect) they are all equally satisfactory. What is happening here, as semantics gets interpreted as syntax, is that the perspective is going beyond itself, opening up another perspective. And I suppose, as the structure grows richer, the "going beyond itself" takes on a richer meaning - first with regard to oneself (as in a self-contained absolute view given by the threesome) and then that going beyond itself opens up for a relative view (given by the sixome) which is distinct, and then that going beyond itself says that the views may be shared, may coincide, and then that going beyond itself says that indeed a view is subordinate to another, which might have it collapse back into a simpler state of affairs. So this is now in the back of my mind as I think about the unfolding structures.

The omniscope's views generate structure as they are taken up, it seems, as follows. Here I consider, as an example, one of the twenty four angles:

So I'm thinking through the unfolding of these relationships, and this month I will be looking for how it relates to taking up perspectives described above (among God, human and other), and the back and forth between God and human in their chain of views, and the connections suggested by the interrelationship between semantics and syntax in minimalistic systems.

Sąvokynas

Mano nuostata, užmojis, troškimas (Our Position): Aš trokštu viską žinoti ir tą žinojimą gražiai taikyti.

Dievo žvilgsnis

Žmogaus žvilgsnis

Santvarka

Sutapimas ir išskyrimas

Separating and Coinciding: Approaching My Position

Išsiskyrimai

Pažinovas, pažinimo laukas

Apimtys

These four scopes arise as the default behavior of the observational plane when it is separated from an observer:

Gyvenimo lygtis

Suvokimas

Dievas

Žmogus

Dievas ir žmogus

Dievas ir savastis

Dievas ir Kitas

Savastis ir Kitas

Aplinka

Dievas aplinkoje

Pirminės sandaros

Santykiai tarp sąvokų, žr.: UnderstandingVSlack

Keturi lygmenys

Santykiai skirtingose apimtyse išreiškia išėjimą už savęs ir iššaukia atitinkamas sandaras.

Nukrypimai-Išsiskyrimai (Divergences)

Išskyrimai

My first interpretation of the position is as God the interpreter. In going beyond himself, God is both dynamic (implicit, coinciding with what comes before) and static (explicit, coinciding with what comes after), and so he goes past himself and coincides with himself. I consider where he coincides with himself as he goes beyond himself. The reference point in each case is God beyond himself.

My position is realized through four Divergences of Interpretations which unfold from within its compact expression. These are the divergences, the separations of the explicit from the implicit, which thus describe God's vantage point at various stages as he goes beyond himself.

Išsiskyrimai

Keturi išsiskyrimai

Viengubas išsiskyrimas

Dvigubas išsiskyrimas

Trigubas išsiskyrimas

Vaisinga nuostata ir troškimas

Troškimai

Keturgubas išsiskyrimas

Keturgubas išsiskyrimas

They may also coincide in ways that are rooted within system, as structures or representations or unities.

Išskyrimai (Distinctions)

Sutapimo sąvoka

Keturi išskyrimai: Keturgubas, dvigubas, viengubas, nulgubas

The divergences function separately, but they may also be taken together on the basis of the underlying coinciding which they reference. They establish Distinctions depending on how they are taken together:

Coinciding itself is a relationship between all, one and none which distinguishes between interpretations as to what it means to coincide. Each of these are levels in which human defers to God (one defers to all), whether as equals who go beyond themselves into each other, or as complete unequals so that human is presumed by God.

The sets of distinctions give the meaning of coinciding in terms of expression, whether unexpressed (4), expressed (2), within expression (1) or beyond expression (0).

Keturgubas išskyrimas

This yields the PrimaryStructures. This is the perspective of being loved. Then, in his presence, he is related to Love through the same four levels, but from the perspective of Love, of loving. This yields the SecondaryStructures and opens the way for Other.

God goes beyond God to manifest God, thus giving rise to Himself and a System (a world) where he is present through his self, that is, through love.

We are the expression of God's being one with himself. We are the fact that God is love. We are his relationship with himself. He is one with himself through us.

Consider God's relationship with Love, how that evolves through eight steps from God's absence to his presence, and how our role opens up, as does that of other, and how structure thereby arises, and each of the issues that I have collected which are relevant to the overview. Consider how God is present when his absence is explicit, as given by the gradation.

God's view is from beyond the system, yet leads him into it, so that ultimately he is in the system as love.

First, from beyond system, but entering into a relationship, he considers in terms of where he is not, thus his view. We are the expressions of his being one with:

We may think of this as a relationship of GoingBeyondOneself:

All and one go beyond each other into each other independently. This is the distinction between all and one. It is a quadruple statement.

This relates God beyond system (all perspectives) and human within system (one perspective) by way of good (spirit) that is God within system, which says that even within system there can be a going beyond oneself, hence human can go beyond oneself and have a view, just as God does, and they may be related spiritually, as above. Here the conjunction Of (as in goodness of God) means Among (as in one perspective among all perspectives) and is related to going beyond oneself (from non-systemic all to systemic one).

Dvigubas išskyrimas

Iš ankščiau:

Viengubas išskyrimas

Nulgubas išskyrimas

The expression is understood ever more tightly as the nature of the conjunction is ever more presumed through syntax, as expressed in PrimaryStructures given by Distinctions. The complete expression in PrimaryStructures leads to the collapse of the statement with regard to their absence, yielding Everything and Divisions, and to their taking up of the position through their presence, which they express by way of an Other and SecondaryStructures. The basic Divisions accord with the Divergences, the former assuming Everything, the latter not.

Padalinimai

Collapse into everything

Human's view is explicit and sees one. God's view is implicit and sees all.

Iš ankščiau: Who do we attribute the context to? Note that we attribute the context to life (for God is beyond himself and thus any context) but we also attribute the context to love (for love is God within himself and thus within a context). Everything is God not within himself, and so the context is the boundary between God (everything) and himself (every thing), which is to say a shared scope. Wishes are God not beyond himself, and so the context is the difference between God (who wishes) and himself (obstacle to wishes) which is to say a shared view. So it depends on the base presumption, which for God is that he is beyond expression, and for human is that he is within expression. (Note: This sets up the EightfoldWay.)

===All, One, Not All, Not One===

We may think of a view as extending from One to All. God is in its completeness of what it looks upon, its reaching all. Love is in its unity from which it can look out. God is Spirit and Love is likewise Spirit within structure. Whereas Everything and Wishes are structure and are defined in terms of Not. Everything is Not One in that the concept of everything ever introduces a meta level "everything" which steps back deeper towards the One. In this sense, everything is an endless recursive process. Likewise, Wishes are Not All in that the concept of wish introduces the notion of fulfillment which it steps forward to.

Note that a Wish is a single step outwards, whereas Everything is an endless stepping inwards. In this way Wish is a part of Everything and Wish is One and Everything is All as considered as processes.

Mūsų nuostata

MyPosition is I wish to know everything and I apply this knowledge usefully.

I believe this is OurPosition and I am pursuing it as such.

Our position is God's position, my position, your position and other's position.

Earlier Thoughts

BeingOneWith has meaning as an equation:

This is the distinction between one and none. It is a double statement.

In taking up his own View, God is conscious of himself. To take up a view is to go beyond oneself into the observational plane determined by a view. It is to identify with one's own arisal. God identifies with his own arisal (his Self which is Love). Thus he participates as one who understands, who comes to understand, and who is understood. (Father, Son, Holy Spirit).

God manifests himself through the observational plane which is determined by his view and is given by what he has gone beyond into. He manifests himself through his Quality, which is BeingOneWith. His quality is his dual, in that it what indicates him in the observational plane to that which takes up that plane. His quality is that which indicates his arisal. God's quality is the default quality that is fundamental in all qualities. We understand God's quality at one of four levels through which we understand the equation of God and his quality. At one level we understand his quality as the Good, and that which refers us to what is beyond the system.

Consider God's relationship with himself (which we mediate). This takes place through God's quality, which is BeingOneWith. God manifests himself through his quality, this is his glory. God manifests himself directly in every way. We therefore consider his relationship from the perspective of his self. His self is all that which has his quality. His self is Love. We consider how Love relates back to God. His self brings forth all structure that is relevant for a quality to stand alone. Indeed, his quality is the most fundamental of all, that of being one with. We understand God's quality as the Good.

We thus consider everything from the vantage point of God's quality (being one with) which we know as the good. The relationship between God and good is given by an equation (life is the fact that God is good; eternal life is the understanding that God is good, their separation). From the perspective of good, this equation is understood in four levels (starting with God and good as distinct, and then bringing them closer together as in God's will and will) from the point of view of life (being loved) and eternal life (love). How do structures arise from this equation? They do arise at each level (four, two, one, zero). And perhaps the four and the two are combined to indicate God's absence, and the primary structures.

His quality, of itself, outlines a system for any quality. This system likely accords with the eight names of the QualityWithoutAName. These are the perspectives by which Love relates back to God. These levels are given by four, two, one, zero perspectives (as described below) by which we are loved, and then zero, one, two, four perspectives by which we love. We are therefore the relationship between Love and God. How can we climb out of ourselves and acknowledge this fundamental quality of being one with? and its foundation beyond us? That is the fundamental question and love is the answer.

The six secondary structures express God's presence and are the qualities of signs. However, God is not a sign, he manifests himself directly. This possibility goes beyond God's presence and is God's direct manifestation. The four primary structures express God's absence. God is neither his presence nor his absence.

God's Identification

Next, God allows for the system (his structure Everything), and thus for his self (defined in terms of Everything). However, he is not yet of the system, but his self, Love, with whom he is one with, and who manifests his being one with, finds himself grounded in the system, and thus presuming relationship. He is Good within the system.

His being one with may be understood as rooted beyond the system (distinguishing him from his self in the system) or as rooted within the system (identifying him with himself in the system). For him, we are the expressions of his being one with:

What does it mean for everything and anything to coincide? It means that the oneness of a perspective is allowed by the slack in the system so that it can connect with all perspectives structurally. The conjunction And lets us include God within the system, as slack.

Iš ankščiau: Within a system, the views may coincide based on the distinctions given by the conjunction And. There is God and his quality, goodness. The human value is the quality of God's value. There are two understandings of this equation as to what it means to be part of:

Užrašai

Žinojimo rūmai, tai:

Parsiųstas iš http://www.ms.lt/sodas/Mintys/20200519Visaregis
Puslapis paskutinį kartą pakeistas 2020 gegužės 19 d., 16:35