Juodraštis? FFFFFF

Užrašai EEEEEE

Klausimai FFFFC0

Gvildenimai CAE7FA

Pavyzdžiai? ECD9EC

Šaltiniai? EFCFE1

Duomenys? FFE6E6

Išsiaiškinimai D8F1D8

Pratimai? FF9999

Dievas man? FFECC0

Pavaizdavimai? E6E6FF

Istorija AAAAAA

Asmeniškai? BA9696

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



Žr. Viskas, Betkas, Kažkas?, Niekas. Žr.taip pat: Scope, GoingBeyondOneself, Overview, Grounds, Scopes, Contexts, Representations, Everything, Anything, Something, Nothing, SpiritVStructure, Omniscope, Views

Yra keturios apimtys: Viskas, Betkas, Kažkas?, Niekas. Jos yra keturi iš šešių atvaizdai. Tai yra Visko atvaizdai, užtat ir nulybės, vienybės, dvejybės bei trejybės atvaizdai.

Apimtys yra skirtumai tarp tiesos turinio ir jos išraiškos. Keturi skirtumai - viskas, betkas, kažkas, niekas - Dievo požiūriu veiksmu +1 iškyla ketverybe, tai tarpai tarp Dievo išeinančio iš už savęs ir Dievo išėjusio į save.

Apimtys tad išskiria:

  • Dvasią - Dievo žvilgsnį - skirtumas, tai niekas - išgyvename tiesiogiai
  • Sandarą - Mano požiūrį - skirtumas, tai kažkas - trūksta asmens
  • Atvaizdą - Tavo požiūrį - skirtumas, tai betkas - trūksta dviejų asmenų
  • Vieningumą - Kito požiūrį - skirtumas, tai viskas - trūksta trijų asmenų

Apimtis yra:

  • The four scopes are what is necessary for us to be able to have an observational plane, which is to say, to be able to clear everything away from it.
  • Kas mums rūpi.

Išskyrimo laipsnis

  • that which keeps separate an Assumption (Supposition)
  • NotWho in NotWhat, the degree of separation. (Context, Facts)

Nevienumo laipsnis

  • the extent of NotBeingOneWith
  • the self-limit of NotBeingOneWith to the grounds for its Definition
  • the self-limitations of NotBeingOneWith
  • our not being one with ourselves

Vienumo reikšmė

  • gives specific meanings for “being one”: Everything, Anything, Something, Nothing

Apsiribojimo laipsnis

  • the depth of the vantage point within Structure, self-limitation.
  • the removal of self
  • is the limits of negation and bounds Perspective
  • the difference between human's view God is alone (as Person within who applies the definition of God) and God's view Aloneness is God (as God beyond to whom the definition of God is applied).
  • the degree of Flow, thus the number of interruptions that the Flow allows for, as without interruption, what starts and ends are the same and the Flow is trivial.

Dievo nebuvimas

  • the extent of NotGod and thus the extent of Freedom where there is both God and NotGod.
  • keeps God out so that Person can be a witness
  • centers on NotGod
  • is the extent of God's not being and of Person's being
  • defines the Nonexistence of God
  • Negation of Unity of Representations of Onesome
  • is the distance between God and NotGod, between one and one's self, which grows smaller, from Everything to Anything to Something to Nothing.
  • is the domain where God might not be
  • has that which is beyond God.
  • is where there needs to be a system beyond which the question of God's existence can be raised, and within which it can be answered.
  • what makes possible the disconnect of God from God and thus the relative ground.
  • where Aloneness ("Aloneness is God") is defined (yielding scope), whereas God ("God is alone") is undefined (beyond any scope) and simply expressed (within scope).

Ryšys tarp pažinovo ir pažinimo lauko

  • the relationship between Observer and ObservationalPlane, and especially, their coupling, the extent to which they determine each other
  • in particular, the relationship between the coincider and the context, so that the scope is determined by the number of intervening Contexts
  • the amount of Redundancy between the observer and the observational plane, which implies Slack. This slack gives meaning to a variety of notions: Supposition, Concepts, Views, Perspectives, TakeUpAPerspective.
  • the amount of tightness or looseness or tightness in the coupling of observer and observational plane, so that they may or may not completely determine each other.

Visko atvaizdas

  • a Wishing, a representation of everything. It is that which allows a view to be extended, hence allows for Suppositions.
  • the locus of equivalence of suppositions: they are equal as all, any, a or none. In other words, the scope is the nature by which the suppositions are considered equal. Or we might say, the sense in which they are all suppositions. Is the suppositionhood in all of them, any of them, one of them, or none of them? Where is the suppositionhood? This is what scope establishes - what it is that the suppositions are thought to share as such.
  • the amount of looseness or tightness in the coupling between Observer and Observational Plane, so that they may or may not completely determine each other. One way to think of that coupling is to reinterpret the observer as an observational plane and then have them pull out and away from that plane, and consider what the two observers share with each other (and with the observational plane). They may share no perspective (Nothing), a perspective (Something), any perspective (Anything) or all perspectives (Everything).

Sutapimo laukas

  • the amount of Truth that Freedom allows for.
  • the extent of coinciding between God within and God beyond. This relationship is within.
  • the amount of overlap between BeingOneWith and NotBeingOneWith (namely, Everything, Anything, Something, Nothing) and thus the degree to which BeingOneWith has gone beyond itself
  • that which allows for suppositions to be considered the same or different.
  • is the context for definition (for being and not being alongside each other)


  • is the extent, the domain in which a Person can be replaced by their Self, so that they are interchangeable - būtent, vertybė atstoja žmogų visakame; laikysena, betkame; požiūris, kažkame; žvilgsnis, niekame.
  • is where Person is alone and we are one with that Person
  • are aloneness in not aloneness, the extent of the distinction between one and one's self, the primacy of referent over referer, the conditions on Perspectives (all, any, a, none), frameworks for being and not being, what is not alone, beyond God, the context for distinguishing Being and NotBeing, accepts properties of NotGod, defines the Nonexistence of God, negates God subsequent to God, is NotGod beyond God, NotPerson, LackOfPerson, ExtentOfSelf, the limits of Person as given by negation, that from which they view NotGod, the domain for resolution of status, MentalSpace. (Everything - LackOfGod, Anything - LackOfI, Something - LackOfYou, Nothing - LackOfOther). Scope is the difference between Existence (beyond Scope) and Nonexistence (within Scope), the extent (the Self) that Person goes beyond themselves, thus the difference between a Person and their Self, and the domain in which they both are and are not, the domain of their Freedom. Scope is what lets through perspectives: all, any, a or none. Scope establishes Beyond and Within. Manifestation of God, God subsequent to God.

Tiesos laukas

  • is the extent of assumption

===Truth across scopes===

- You mention "relativeness" as the point of scope - great! Indeed, we may think of everything, anything, something, nothing as serving these purposes. Relative to "everything" - all statements are true! (Because a statement is just a narrowing down of the truth, and note that the state of everything is contradictory, thus not restricting the truth). So we may think of a statement as true (= obvious = not hidden) relative to:

- all contexts ("everything"=open+unbounded) if we think broadly enough, then truth wins out, everything is obvious, and there is no falsehood, there is nothing hidden - any context ("anything"=open+bounded) if we restrict to a particular context, there is a way to empathize with its truth, if necessary, by way of the relevant framing of everything - some contexts = not all contexts ("something" = "not everything"=closed+bounded), which is to say, it is sometimes true, and sometimes false, the usual way of looking at logic - no contexts = ("nothing"=closed+unbounded), then there is no context to distinguish truth and falsehood, and so they are equal in standing.

Note: In this way, the four scopes serve a most important structural function: they allow for the description of a "distinguished opposite". Perhaps the greatest structural challenge is defining a "distinguished opposite" - we want to be able to say that, on the one hand, good and bad are opposites, but on the other hand, good wins out, which is to say, there can be good without bad. One way to think about this is that God wants "all the good" - so some good does not require bad, but he's willing to take all the bad that might be needed so as to include every least bit of good. Structurally, this "distinguished opposite" is slack (note in English the interesting fact that "loosen" and "unloosen" mean the same thing, or that tightening and loosening are both representations of slack - decreasing and increasing). Slack is the "anti-structure" that dissolves structure so that it can collapse and doesn't keep growing in metalevels. What's new for me here is the idea that the point of the scopes (and what gives rise to them) is that they are what's needed for being able to look at truth as self-standing (as with everything) but also an equal opposite to falsehood (as with nothing). Apparently, all four scopes are needed - the two intermediate scopes "any" and "some" apparently restrict the question to individual matters - do we link back to the "true" and "false" of nothing or to the "all true" of everything - do we place the question in the conceiver or in the conceived?

Now, furthermore, these scopes make it possible to relate "God" and "godlet" in a symmetric way, and yet ultimately realize the primacy of God.

===Scope for parsers: outlook, talk, work, life===

[http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/304 May 31, 2003]

I write about a tenfold structure (four PrimaryStructures and six SecondaryStructures) that I consider fundamental to all of life. In particular, I think it is associated with the ten commandments. I think of outlook, talk, work and life as four scopes for parsers (much as in "The Algebra of Copyright"). I associate four commandments with honor for what is beyond scope, and six of the commandments with not reducing one scope to another.

I decided I should try to make some progress on what I think is the all-encompassing structure. It consists of four levels and six pairs of levels. This structure came up in my work on "The Algebra of Copyright" and I think also in my work on "Spine for the Web". There are five other places where I have noticed it previously. So I am trying to look for unity and learn as I look.

See QualitiesOfSigns.

In 1998 and 1999 I realized that the possible endeavors of our laboratory suggested a tenfold structure: four directions to foster caring, and six directions to foster thinking, where the latter where elevations from narrower scopes of caring to broader scopes of caring. I have used this for the structure of our working groups.

In 2000 and 2001 I realized that the many structures that I had observed throughout the years could all be organized by means of such a tenfold structure (four families of primary structure for transcending life, six families of secondary structure for engaging life). As part of this, I noticed that we could think of everything as having four representations, and anything as having six representations, where anything is everything plus slack. (Analogously, Life is the fact that God is good, where Life is the coherence (= the unity of representations) of anything, God is the coherence of everything, good is the coherence of slack.)

Theologically this was most attractive. I had earlier thought of the Ten Commandments as consisting of 4 positive commands (expressing Love God) and 6 negative commands (expressing Love your neighbor as yourself). Now I thought that this might be the same tenfold structure. So this would make evident that, from God's point of view, the Law is the Structure, and the most basic law is the most fundamental structure.

In flying out to the United States, I worked out some ideas in "The Algebra of Copyright" and came up with four levels (transcriber, proofreader, editor, author) and six pairs of levels (copy, interpret, transform, author, intend, perform). And I also came up with ten levels in "Spine for the Web", four initiators (intiative, relationship, individual, community) and six encouragers (kindword, frustration, evaluation; story, pattern, expression). So I am thinking that I should try to use these new insights to revisit this fundamental structure.

In particular, an important question is to understand the Ten Commandments. I have yet to find a structural interpretation that would explain how six of the commandments are to be understood as pairs from the other four. So I am looking to ideas from "The Algebra of Copyright".

One idea that I got just before my talk in Vienna, Austria is that we may think of there being an outputter, proofreader, editor, author who are parsing a creative work in different chunks, whatever can "stand alone" according to their parsing. For example, a proofreader can often get by reading a work sentence by sentence, whereas an editor might have to read paragraph by paragraph. Their parsing is characterized by the "scope" involved. Likewise, the character of a sign (for example, a word) - whether it is fulfilling the functions of an icon, index or symbol - may be given by the scope that it involves. If a word is a "symbol" within a work, then a proper understanding (or parsing) may require parsing the entire work.

I looked at the various examples that I have collected for this tenfold structure:

4 Levels 6 Pairs of Levels

  • Commandment to honor to not hurt
  • Signification of referent of reference
  • Representation of everything of anything
  • Structure for transcending for engaging
  • Direction for caring for thinking
  • Work to create to co-create
  • Reference to initiator to encourager

They suggest that the four levels have to do with Creation, and what is unbounded, and beyond scope, whereas the six pairs of levels have to do with Co-creation, what is bounded, within scope. Here the scopes might be: nothing, something, anything, everything.

I took a new look at the Ten Commandments. Four of the commandments express Love God, and relate to the foursome: whether, what, how, why. Perhaps as Christ said: Love God with all your heart, mind, soul, body. They all seem to have to do with honoring God in different scopes:

  • [honor whether] Honor God: Have no God but the one God. Honor what is beyond the scope of outlook, beyond the scope of nothing - the object of outlook.
  • [honor what] Honor his name: Do not say his name without reason. Honor what is beyond the scope of talk, beyond the scope of something - the object of talk.
  • [honor how] Honor his day of rest: Celebrate the day after his work. Honor what is beyond the scope of work, beyond the scope of anything - the object of work.
  • [honor why] Honor your parents: The symbol of God, as they love you more than you love yourself. Honor what is beyond the scope of life, beyond the scope of everything - the object of life.

The other six commandments express Love your neighbor as yourself. So I am looking for how they relate pairs of levels. I think it might be that they are saying that a broader level should not be subjected to a narrower level. Life should not be reduced to work, nor work to talk, nor talk to outlook. Just as in "The Algebra of Copyright", talk is a constructor on outlooks, work is a constructor on talk, life is a constructor on work. And there is a qualitative "phase transition" at each level that cannot be reduced away.

Here is one attempt to apply these ideas:

  • covet things = reduce talk to outlook (reduce something to nothing)
  • covet people = reduce work to outlook (reduce anything to nothing)
  • lie = reduce work to talk (reduce anything to something)
  • steal = reduce life to work (reduce everything to anything)
  • commit adultery = reduce life to talk (reduce everything to something)
  • murder = reduce life to outlook (reduce everything to nothing)

Here I cheated - I used the ordering given by the relationship I had observed between the commandments and the families of structures. I wasn't able to get this just by thinking it through. But it does kind of feel right. So maybe it's just a matter of letting it rattle around, find the right understanding (or words) for outlook - talk - work - life.

I like the idea of the "Love God" commands having us honor what is beyond scope, and the "Love your neighbor as yourself"commands of having us not conflate scopes. And

  • outlook (what is scoped by nothing) that is, can have no regard for any facts
  • talk (what is scoped by something) that is, has a topic that we are talking about
  • work (what is scoped by anything) that is, is able to respond to any circumstances
  • life (what is scoped by everything) that is, takes on everything at once

is a rather nice way to distinguish the scopes through which we parse our lives.

So this is rather satisfactory, and I will consider what this might suggest further about the big picture.

===Older Thoughts===

Truth about Scope is the Person's Perspective given by Structure which presumes RepresentationsOfTheOnesome that express how God pushes further outward from Person to Person. Truth about Scope is that God goes beyond the Scope from beyond and into it.

===The four scopes: Everything, Anything, Something, Nothing===

When an Observer observes themselves, this relationship characterizes the ObservationalPlane between them. These are four scopes of access.

  • If the observational plane coincides with both observer and observed, then they coincide, it lets through all perspectives, and is Everything
  • If the observational plane coincides with the observer but not the observed, then it is a stepping in, and lets through any perspective, and is Anything
  • If the observational plane coincides with the observed but not the observer, then it is a stepping out, and lets through a perspective, and is Something
  • If the observational plane coincides with neither the observed nor the observer, then they are separate, it lets through no perspectives, and is Nothing

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.

This yields the following properties:

  • If the observer coincides with the observational plane, then the plane is Unevaluated
  • If the observer is separate from the observational plane, then the plane is Evaluated
  • If the observed coincides with the observational plane, then the plane is Indefinite
  • If the observed is separate from the observational plane, then the plane is Definite

We may also think of Indefinite as unbounded, Definite as bounded, Evaluated as closed, Unevaluated as open. Therefore:

  • Everything is Unevaluated and Indefinite
  • Anything is Unevaluated and Definite
  • Something is Evaluated and Definite
  • Nothing is Evaluated and Indefinite

Evaluated refers to the full or partial calculation that has taken place, as for a function. Evaluation is an obstacle to applying the Associative rule of CategoryTheory to the CompositionOfViews.

Another way to think about this is:

  • Everything is the unlimited observer
  • Anything is the limited observer
  • Something is the limited observed
  • Nothing is the unlimited observed

This is especially helpful in considering Christopher Alexander's PrinciplesOfLife, which is to say, the Topologies.

===Structural relationships===

The four scopes may also be understood as:

  • Whole = all perspectives = Everything
  • Part = any perspective = Anything
  • Perspective = a perspective = Something
  • Slack = no perspectives = Nothing

Where they refer to the role of the observational plane that is between the observer and the observed. These terms are helpful in considering the SecondaryStructures as generated by their relationships, and I should think more about that.

  • Extent is what is not equal.

Negating the null action is negating the grounds of God, thus God must be in the Extent.

2004.12.13 A: Kaip keturi atvaizdai susiję su susikalbėjimu? D: Aš noriu būti su visais, būti vienas su jais, juos mylėti. Tad tai yra meilės sąlygos. A: Kaip suprasti, meilės sąlygos? D: Meilei reikia, kad galėtumėme gyventi vienas kitame. A: O ką tai reiškia? D: Išeiti iš savęs, ir iš savęs į kitą, ir iš kito į save, ir iš kito. A: Ačiū. D: Myliu.


Naujausi pakeitimai

Puslapis paskutinį kartą pakeistas 2014 lapkričio 10 d., 21:49