Mintys.Aplinkybės istorija
Rodyti nežymius pakeitimus - Rodyti galutinio teksto pakeitimus
2024 balandžio 04 d., 13:54
atliko -
Pridėtos 391-392 eilutės:
* Dėmesingumas - awareness - suvokimas - savęs stebėjimas - reikalingas taikant Christopher Alexander derinius.
2024 balandžio 02 d., 13:39
atliko -
Pridėtos 379-390 eilutės:
[+Užrašai+]
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Sanders_Peirce#Modes_of_inference
** Necessary, actual, possible: Deduction proves that something must be; Induction shows that something actually is operative; Abduction merely suggests that something may be.
** Induction seeks facts to test a hypothesis; abduction seeks a hypothesis to account for facts.
** Abduction is the reduction of surprise (thus reformulating emotional expectations). "The surprising fact, C, is observed; But if A were true, C would be a matter of course, Hence, there is reason to suspect that A is true."
** Abduction only takes place reactive when we are mistaken.
** Proactive experimentation (Andrius) vs. Reactive experimentation (Peirce). "Guesses can be selected for trial strategically" - an example of deduction in the stage of hypothesis forming.
** In proactive experimentation, the experimenting occurs in the "abduction" of following through. In reactive experimentation, the design of the experiment is deduction, and the conducting of the experiment is induction.
** Proactive experimentation - vystome save (pasąmonę). Reactive experimentation - vystome savo žinojimą.
** Proactive experimentation - nėra savasties, tad nėra ribos. Išgyvename ramybę. Reactive experimentation - tyrimas vyksta už mūsų, tad išgyvename nuostabą, nustembame.
2023 rugsėjo 19 d., 14:23
atliko -
Pridėtos 310-313 eilutės:
3 x 4
* Trejybė - išoriniai santykiai: 3 + 3
* Ketverybė - vidiniai santykiai: 4 + 6.
2023 rugsėjo 19 d., 12:10
atliko -
Pakeistos 3-4 eilutės iš
[[Lūkesčiai]], [[Dvylikanaris protas]], [[Palyginimai]], [[Dievo įsivaizdavimas]], [[Gyvybės dėsniai]], [[Vertybių žemėlapis]], [[Kūrybos prasmė ir meno taisyklės]], [[Dvylika klausimų]]
į:
[[Lūkesčiai]], [[Palyginimai]], [[Dievo įsivaizdavimas]], [[Gyvybės dėsniai]], [[Vertybių žemėlapis]], [[Kūrybos prasmė ir meno taisyklės]], [[Dvylika klausimų]]
Pridėtos 346-349 eilutės:
* Prielaida: Trejybės atvaizde "vienis, visybė, daugis" daugis yra prielaida. Kituose trejybės atvaizduose, kas yra prielaida?
------------------
------------------
Pridėtos 352-353 eilutės:
--------------------
Pridėta 356 eilutė:
--------------------
Pakeista 358 eilutė iš:
į:
--------------------
Pakeista 360 eilutė iš:
į:
--------------------
Pakeistos 362-363 eilutės iš
į:
-------------------
2022 rugsėjo 08 d., 19:12
atliko -
Pridėtos 85-94 eilutės:
[[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyGqfasGsr4 | Self-Consciousness in Kant's Transcendental Deduction of the Categories]]
* Kit Slover at St John's College, Dean's Lecture & Concert Series, 2021.
* https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-transcendental/
* https://www.jstor.org/stable/2249498 Ewing
* https://philpeople.org/profiles/kit-slover
* [[https://www.academia.edu/62847026/Time_and_Transcendental_Matter_The_Sensible_Role_of_the_Thing_in_Itself | Time and Transcendental Matter: The Sensible Role of the Thing in Itself]]
Kantas taikė kategorijas sakinių - teiginių turiniui - keturiuose lygmenyse. Mąstome sakiniais.
* logical functions of judgment tarnauja kaip gamtos kategorijos - transcendental deduction
2022 gegužės 18 d., 15:26
atliko -
Pridėtos 298-299 eilutės:
* Aplinkybės išplaukia iš nulybės atvaizdų, tad tai yra ryšys su Dievu (nulybe), o gal ir su gerumu (atvaizdu).
2021 lapkričio 26 d., 17:27
atliko -
Pridėtos 11-12 eilutės:
Glaudžiau susieti aplinkybes su trejybės ratu.
Pakeistos 20-21 eilutės iš
Attach:topologies.gif
į:
%center%Attach:topologies.gif
-------------------
Kur yra tiesa, betarpiškumas, pastovumas, prasmingumas?
* Tiesa nusistatyme (būtinumas), vykdyme (tikrumas), permąstyme (galimumas).
* Betarpiškumas nusistatyme (daiktas), vykdyme (eiga), permąstyme (asmuo).
* Pastovumas nusistatyme (vienis), vykdyme (visybė), permąstyme (daugis).
* Prasmingumas nusistatyme (buvimas), vykdyme (veikimas), permąstyme (mąstymas).
-------------------
Kur yra tiesa, betarpiškumas, pastovumas, prasmingumas?
* Tiesa nusistatyme (būtinumas), vykdyme (tikrumas), permąstyme (galimumas).
* Betarpiškumas nusistatyme (daiktas), vykdyme (eiga), permąstyme (asmuo).
* Pastovumas nusistatyme (vienis), vykdyme (visybė), permąstyme (daugis).
* Prasmingumas nusistatyme (buvimas), vykdyme (veikimas), permąstyme (mąstymas).
2021 sausio 15 d., 00:35
atliko -
Pridėtos 346-348 eilutės:
Thu, 06 Mar 2008 05:29:09 UTC ThomasChepaitis: topology is a science about a place ("topos" in Greek) I studied some time the theory of knots, in connection with Lacan's psychotherapy. Do you use topology in that sence?
Place can be closed, ant space isn't, which was proved by Moebius, as I understand it
2021 sausio 13 d., 20:32
atliko -
Pridėta 7 eilutė:
---------------
Pakeista 9 eilutė iš:
į:
2021 sausio 13 d., 20:32
atliko -
Pakeistos 1-5 eilutės iš
į:
>>bgcolor=#E9F5FC<<
------------------------
[[Lūkesčiai]], [[Dvylikanaris protas]], [[Palyginimai]], [[Dievo įsivaizdavimas]], [[Gyvybės dėsniai]], [[Vertybių žemėlapis]], [[Kūrybos prasmė ir meno taisyklės]], [[Dvylika klausimų]]
'''Kaip užtikrintam Dievui išgyvenant lūkesčius apibrėžti aplinkybes?'''
------------------------
[[Lūkesčiai]], [[Dvylikanaris protas]], [[Palyginimai]], [[Dievo įsivaizdavimas]], [[Gyvybės dėsniai]], [[Vertybių žemėlapis]], [[Kūrybos prasmė ir meno taisyklės]], [[Dvylika klausimų]]
'''Kaip užtikrintam Dievui išgyvenant lūkesčius apibrėžti aplinkybes?'''
2020 lapkričio 13 d., 21:13
atliko -
Pakeista 4 eilutė iš:
į:
---------------
Pakeista 12 eilutė iš:
į:
-------------------
Pakeista 297 eilutė iš:
į:
Meilės moksle - kur Dievas
2018 sausio 19 d., 20:32
atliko -
Pridėtos 16-19 eilutės:
Užrašai
* Galimybė yra neigimo neigimas - nėra taip, kad nėra tiesa.
* Teiginių pagrindas yra tiesos žaidimas, juk eina kalba apie teiginio tiesą.
2017 lapkričio 05 d., 17:32
atliko -
Pridėtos 6-9 eilutės:
Suprasti pavyzdžius dvylika aplinkybių.
* Kaip Dievą įsivaizduojame psalmėse.
* Lakoff ir Johnson palyginimuose.
2017 spalio 14 d., 00:39
atliko -
Pridėtos 321-329 eilutės:
>>bgcolor=#EEEEEE<<
Kas yra kategorija? (Tadas Snuviškis)
* intensijos (sąlygų savybės - vaizduotės žodynas - aplinkybės) ir ekstensijos (iš aibių - apibendrinimai - narystė - priklausymas kategorijai)
Aplinkybė yra požiūrio esmė - apibrėžimas.
Langacker aplinkybės - image schemes - "configurational concepts"
2017 rugsėjo 22 d., 12:57
atliko -
Pakeista 275 eilutė iš:
Aplinkybės yra dviprasmiškos. Jas galima suvokti, kaip atsitokėjimus (kūrybos tikslus) arba kaip įsijautimus (meno taisykles).
į:
Aplinkybės yra dviprasmiškos. Jas galima suvokti, kaip atsitokėjimus (kūrybos tikslus - kodėl) arba kaip įsijautimus (meno taisykles - kaip).
2017 rugsėjo 22 d., 12:57
atliko -
Pridėta 275 eilutė:
Aplinkybės yra dviprasmiškos. Jas galima suvokti, kaip atsitokėjimus (kūrybos tikslus) arba kaip įsijautimus (meno taisykles).
2017 balandžio 05 d., 13:26
atliko -
Pridėtos 10-19 eilutės:
Aplinkybių pavyzdžiai:
* trejybės atvaizdai
* gyvybės savybės
* psalmėse
* palyginimuose (Lakoff ir Johnson)
* Dievo aplinkybėse - maldose
* veiksmažodžių priešdėliuose
* 4 geometrijos - trikampiai
2017 balandžio 05 d., 13:24
atliko -
Pakeista 306 eilutė iš:
Attach:Dievoaplinkybes.png
į:
Attach:DievoAplinkybes.png
2017 sausio 03 d., 22:36
atliko -
Pridėtos 16-27 eilutės:
Aplinkybės yra atsakymai į klausimus:
* Kodėl? Kodėl!: esu, veikiu, mąstau
* Kaip? Kaip!: vienis, visybė, daugis
* Koks? Koks!: daiktas, eiga, asmuo
* Ar? Ar!: būtinas, tikras, galimas
Viskas apima keturis lygmenis ir jie jį padalina. Nulybės atvaizdai išreiškia nulybę ir šių keturių atvaizdų vieningumas išreiškia meilę.
* Akivaizdumas neigia Ar ir atvirkščiai
* Betarpiškumas neigia Koks ir atvirkščiai
* Pastovumas neigia Kaip ir atvirkščiai
* Prasmingumas neigia Kodėl ir atvirkščiai
2016 rugpjūčio 12 d., 11:08
atliko -
Pakeistos 292-315 eilutės iš
Attach:irdakiss.gif
į:
Attach:irdakiss.gif
>>bgcolor=#ECD9EC<<
[[http://www.lituanus.org/1991_4/91_4_06.htm | Antanas Klimas, Prefixes and Suffixes in the Lithuanian Verbal System]] - palyginti dvylika priešdėlių su aplinkybėmis:
* ap-
* at-
* į-
* iš-
* nu-
* pa-
* par-
* per-
* pra-
* pri-
* su-
* už-
dar reikėtų pridėti:
* te-
* be-
* tebe-
* "da"-
>><<
>>bgcolor=#ECD9EC<<
[[http://www.lituanus.org/1991_4/91_4_06.htm | Antanas Klimas, Prefixes and Suffixes in the Lithuanian Verbal System]] - palyginti dvylika priešdėlių su aplinkybėmis:
* ap-
* at-
* į-
* iš-
* nu-
* pa-
* par-
* per-
* pra-
* pri-
* su-
* už-
dar reikėtų pridėti:
* te-
* be-
* tebe-
* "da"-
>><<
2016 kovo 11 d., 13:22
atliko -
Pakeistos 261-265 eilutės iš
į:
[[Kūrybos prasmė ir meno taisyklės]] - kur Dievas
Maldos moksle - kur Dievas
[[Dievo raiškos | Ryšiai su Dievu]]
Maldos moksle - kur Dievas
[[Dievo raiškos | Ryšiai su Dievu]]
2016 kovo 11 d., 13:19
atliko -
Pridėtos 17-36 eilutės:
There are twelve topologies. They are the vocabulary of our imagination. They are the perspectives given by the four RepresentationsOfTheThreesome, generated by the four RepresentationsOfTheNullsome, as follows:
* exist, act, think generated from significant
* one, all, many generated from constant
* object, process, subject generated from direct
* necessary, actual, possible generated from true
Note that significant (not encompassed), constant (not changing), direct (not mediated), true (not hidden) are negations of the four perspectives of the {{Foursome}}. They are also the four RepresentationsOfTheNullsome and the PropertiesOfGod.
We may think of {{Everything}} and {{Anything}} as players that are trying to connect. As anything, we are limited, hence unable to conceive directly our connection, but may only allude to it. Our conception is thus given not by this infinite recursion, but through representations of everything. Everything is represented in four ways, as true, direct, constant, significant. Moreover, in its relationship with anything, it is given as a player of a mind game which generates properties of life, of the oneness of the spirit beyond and within structure, of everything and anything.
"Significant" generates a mind game, where significant is that which is unencompassable, can't be captured: If thinking is significant, then so is being, for thoughts are encompassed by the thinker. If being is significant, then so is doing, for things are encompassed by the actions that manifest them. If doing is significant, then so is thinking, for actions are encompassed by the observations made of them.
"Constant" generates a mind game: In searching for constancy, we find one example of constancy, otherwise it is constantly unconstant. So the constancy is in the "one" or in the "all". Note that to do this search, what we select needs to be the same as what we judge, they are multiply constant, "many".
"Direct" generates a mind game: Our attention can be directed by something other than itself, an "object". Subsequently, it can be directed by itself, this is "process". Finally, it may or may not be directed, this is "subject".
"True" generates a mind game, where true is what can't be hidden, is obvious: The content and what reveals it may be the same, in which case it is "necessarily" true. Otherwise, the content may be different from what reveals it, and follows it, so is "actually" true. Finally, what may be true is the relationship between the content and what reveals it, which is "possibly" true.
* exist, act, think generated from significant
* one, all, many generated from constant
* object, process, subject generated from direct
* necessary, actual, possible generated from true
Note that significant (not encompassed), constant (not changing), direct (not mediated), true (not hidden) are negations of the four perspectives of the {{Foursome}}. They are also the four RepresentationsOfTheNullsome and the PropertiesOfGod.
We may think of {{Everything}} and {{Anything}} as players that are trying to connect. As anything, we are limited, hence unable to conceive directly our connection, but may only allude to it. Our conception is thus given not by this infinite recursion, but through representations of everything. Everything is represented in four ways, as true, direct, constant, significant. Moreover, in its relationship with anything, it is given as a player of a mind game which generates properties of life, of the oneness of the spirit beyond and within structure, of everything and anything.
"Significant" generates a mind game, where significant is that which is unencompassable, can't be captured: If thinking is significant, then so is being, for thoughts are encompassed by the thinker. If being is significant, then so is doing, for things are encompassed by the actions that manifest them. If doing is significant, then so is thinking, for actions are encompassed by the observations made of them.
"Constant" generates a mind game: In searching for constancy, we find one example of constancy, otherwise it is constantly unconstant. So the constancy is in the "one" or in the "all". Note that to do this search, what we select needs to be the same as what we judge, they are multiply constant, "many".
"Direct" generates a mind game: Our attention can be directed by something other than itself, an "object". Subsequently, it can be directed by itself, this is "process". Finally, it may or may not be directed, this is "subject".
"True" generates a mind game, where true is what can't be hidden, is obvious: The content and what reveals it may be the same, in which case it is "necessarily" true. Otherwise, the content may be different from what reveals it, and follows it, so is "actually" true. Finally, what may be true is the relationship between the content and what reveals it, which is "possibly" true.
Pakeistos 62-92 eilutės iš
'''Aplinkybės'''
See also: SecondaryStructures, PrinciplesOfLife, {{Anything}}, {{Something}}, DivisionsOfEverything
===Twelve Topologies===
AndriusKulikauskas: There are twelve topologies. They are the vocabulary of our imagination. They are the perspectives given by the four RepresentationsOfTheThreesome, generated by the four RepresentationsOfTheNullsome, as follows:
* exist, act, think generated from significant
* one, all, many generated from constant
* object, process, subject generated from direct
* necessary, actual, possible generated from true
Note that significant (not encompassed), constant (not changing), direct (not mediated), true (not hidden) are negations of the four perspectives of the {{Foursome}}. They are also the four RepresentationsOfTheNullsome and the PropertiesOfGod.
http://www.ms.lt/en/andrius/understanding/diagrams/topologies.gif
We may think of {{Everything}} and {{Anything}} as players that are trying to connect. As anything, we are limited, hence unable to conceive directly our connection, but may only allude to it. Our conception is thus given not by this infinite recursion, but through representations of everything. Everything is represented in four ways, as true, direct, constant, significant. Moreover, in its relationship with anything, it is given as a player of a mind game which generates properties of life, of the oneness of the spirit beyond and within structure, of everything and anything.
"Significant" generates a mind game, where significant is that which is unencompassable, can't be captured: If thinking is significant, then so is being, for thoughts are encompassed by the thinker. If being is significant, then so is doing, for things are encompassed by the actions that manifest them. If doing is significant, then so is thinking, for actions are encompassed by the observations made of them.
"Constant" generates a mind game: In searching for constancy, we find one example of constancy, otherwise it is constantly unconstant. So the constancy is in the "one" or in the "all". Note that to do this search, what we select needs to be the same as what we judge, they are multiply constant, "many".
"Direct" generates a mind game: Our attention can be directed by something other than itself, an "object". Subsequently, it can be directed by itself, this is "process". Finally, it may or may not be directed, this is "subject".
"True" generates a mind game, where true is what can't be hidden, is obvious: The content and what reveals it may be the same, in which case it is "necessarily" true. Otherwise, the content may be different from what reveals it, and follows it, so is "actually" true. Finally, what may be true is the relationship between the content and what reveals it, which is "possibly" true.
===Derivation of the Topologies===
See also: SecondaryStructures, PrinciplesOfLife, {{Anything}}, {{Something}}, DivisionsOfEverything
===Twelve Topologies===
AndriusKulikauskas: There are twelve topologies. They are the vocabulary of our imagination. They are the perspectives given by the four RepresentationsOfTheThreesome, generated by the four RepresentationsOfTheNullsome, as follows:
* exist, act, think generated from significant
* one, all, many generated from constant
* object, process, subject generated from direct
* necessary, actual, possible generated from true
Note that significant (not encompassed), constant (not changing), direct (not mediated), true (not hidden) are negations of the four perspectives of the {{Foursome}}. They are also the four RepresentationsOfTheNullsome and the PropertiesOfGod.
http://www.ms.lt/en/andrius/understanding/diagrams/topologies.gif
We may think of {{Everything}} and {{Anything}} as players that are trying to connect. As anything, we are limited, hence unable to conceive directly our connection, but may only allude to it. Our conception is thus given not by this infinite recursion, but through representations of everything. Everything is represented in four ways, as true, direct, constant, significant. Moreover, in its relationship with anything, it is given as a player of a mind game which generates properties of life, of the oneness of the spirit beyond and within structure, of everything and anything.
"Significant" generates a mind game, where significant is that which is unencompassable, can't be captured: If thinking is significant, then so is being, for thoughts are encompassed by the thinker. If being is significant, then so is doing, for things are encompassed by the actions that manifest them. If doing is significant, then so is thinking, for actions are encompassed by the observations made of them.
"Constant" generates a mind game: In searching for constancy, we find one example of constancy, otherwise it is constantly unconstant. So the constancy is in the "one" or in the "all". Note that to do this search, what we select needs to be the same as what we judge, they are multiply constant, "many".
"Direct" generates a mind game: Our attention can be directed by something other than itself, an "object". Subsequently, it can be directed by itself, this is "process". Finally, it may or may not be directed, this is "subject".
"True" generates a mind game, where true is what can't be hidden, is obvious: The content and what reveals it may be the same, in which case it is "necessarily" true. Otherwise, the content may be different from what reveals it, and follows it, so is "actually" true. Finally, what may be true is the relationship between the content and what reveals it, which is "possibly" true.
===Derivation of the Topologies===
į:
'''Aplinkybių kildinimas'''
Pakeistos 252-254 eilutės iš
į:
Pakeista 255 eilutė iš:
Christopher Alexander - [[Gyvybės dėsniai | 15 gyvybės dėsnių]].
į:
Christopher Alexander - [[Gyvybės dėsniai | 15 gyvybės dėsnių]]. Apie juos sužinojau 2003 metais. I interpreted them as the three perspectives of the Threesome plus the twelve topologies. This interpretation is proving very helpful to intuit how the topologies relate Anything and Something, which I now recognize is their purpose.
2016 kovo 11 d., 13:15
atliko -
Pridėtos 11-12 eilutės:
Attach:aplinkybes.png
Ištrintos 41-57 eilutės:
* Diversity -- Unity
* Agreement -- Disagreement
* Organization -- Chaos
* Configuration -- Relationships
* Strategy -- Lifestyle
* Static -- Dynamic
* Conventional -- Radical
* Future -- Present
* Global -- Personal
* Information systems -- Communication
* Comprehension -- Incomprehension
* Facts -- Aesthetics
* Balance -- Imbalance
* Problems -- Potential
Ištrintos 271-272 eilutės:
Pakeistos 278-293 eilutės iš
į:
Anthony Judge - [[dvylikanaris protas]]. Taip pat galvojau apžvelgti apžvelgti Anthony Judge mąstymą. Jisai sakė, kad tai geriausiai apžvelgia šis jo [[http://www.laetusinpraesens.org/docs00s/writpol.php | priešingybių sąrašas]].
* Diversity -- Unity
* Agreement -- Disagreement
* Organization -- Chaos
* Configuration -- Relationships
* Strategy -- Lifestyle
* Static -- Dynamic
* Conventional -- Radical
* Future -- Present
* Global -- Personal
* Information systems -- Communication
* Comprehension -- Incomprehension
* Facts -- Aesthetics
* Balance -- Imbalance
* Problems -- Potential
* Diversity -- Unity
* Agreement -- Disagreement
* Organization -- Chaos
* Configuration -- Relationships
* Strategy -- Lifestyle
* Static -- Dynamic
* Conventional -- Radical
* Future -- Present
* Global -- Personal
* Information systems -- Communication
* Comprehension -- Incomprehension
* Facts -- Aesthetics
* Balance -- Imbalance
* Problems -- Potential
2016 kovo 11 d., 13:12
atliko -
Pakeistos 33-34 eilutės iš
>>bgcolor=#FFFFC0<<
į:
>>bgcolor=#ECD9EC<<
* GodTheFather is the Necessity of God
* GodTheSon is the Actuality of God
* GodTheSpirit is the Possibility of God
* GodTheFather is the Necessity of God
* GodTheSon is the Actuality of God
* GodTheSpirit is the Possibility of God
Ištrintos 39-54 eilutės:
Attach:aplinkybes.png
Attach:interests.gif
Kažin kada šitą nubrėžiau. Įdomu palyginti su 12 klausimų.
Attach:irdakiss.gif
>>bgcolor=#ECD9EC<<
* GodTheFather is the Necessity of God
* GodTheSon is the Actuality of God
* GodTheSpirit is the Possibility of God
>><<
Pakeistos 291-301 eilutės iš
Proto darbo laukai
į:
Proto darbo laukai
Kanto kategorijos kažkiek panašios. [[http://sourcepov.com/2012/01/22/21stc-kant-convergence/ | Chris Jones straipsnis]]
Attach:aplinkybes.png
Attach:interests.gif
Kažin kada šitą nubrėžiau. Įdomu palyginti su 12 klausimų.
Attach:irdakiss.gif
Kanto kategorijos kažkiek panašios. [[http://sourcepov.com/2012/01/22/21stc-kant-convergence/ | Chris Jones straipsnis]]
Attach:aplinkybes.png
Attach:interests.gif
Kažin kada šitą nubrėžiau. Įdomu palyginti su 12 klausimų.
Attach:irdakiss.gif
2016 kovo 11 d., 13:11
atliko -
Pridėtos 13-14 eilutės:
Aplinkybės taip pat yra sąlygos (circumstances).
Pakeistos 97-100 eilutės iš
These topologies may be observed in [{{PrinciplesOfLife}} Christopher Alexander's fifteen principles of life], [{{TopologiesInMetaphors}} Lakoff and Johnson's work on metaphors] and [{{TopologiesInPsalms}} in the psalms]. Consider also AnthonyJudge's DodecameralMind. Perhaps also in understanding RelationshipsWithGod and in MentalWorkspaces.
į:
Pakeistos 291-304 eilutės iš
į:
[+Pavyzdžiai+]
Christopher Alexander - [[Gyvybės dėsniai | 15 gyvybės dėsnių]].
Aplinkybės palyginimuose - Lakoff ir Johnson
Aplinkybės psalmėse
Anthony Judge - dvylikanaris protas
Ryšiai su Dievu
Proto darbo laukai
2016 kovo 11 d., 13:07
atliko -
Pakeista 1 eilutė iš:
Žr. [[Dvylikanaris protas]], [[Palyginimai]], [[Dievo įsivaizdavimas]], [[Gyvybės dėsniai]], [[Vertybių žemėlapis]], [[Kūrybos prasmė ir meno taisyklės]], [[Dvylika klausimų]]
į:
Žr. [[Lūkesčiai]], [[Dvylikanaris protas]], [[Palyginimai]], [[Dievo įsivaizdavimas]], [[Gyvybės dėsniai]], [[Vertybių žemėlapis]], [[Kūrybos prasmė ir meno taisyklės]], [[Dvylika klausimų]]
2016 kovo 11 d., 12:33
atliko -
Ištrintos 280-285 eilutės:
{{Andrius}}: I expect that topologies play a role in {{Argumentation}} (which I think takes us from topologies to {{Representations}}) and in {{Verbalization}} (which I think takes us from {{Divisions}} to topologies).
The topologies may be thought of as extensions of a Z, where Z is that which is given by God, and the rest by a person. These extensions arose in my study of diagrams for {{Argumentation}}. If Z is taken as everything, then they yield the topologies, and if Z is taken as slack, then they yield the ways of connecting with God. This is presumably the twofold ambiguity inherent in topologies, of theory and practice, of God's view of us, and our view of God.
Pakeistos 291-301 eilutės iš
Another word for topology might be ''circumstance''.
===Discussion===
{{-Benoit}}: Here is a "far out" connection that happened spontaniously when I read a little bit about Andrius topologies at: http://www.openleader.com/index.php/GlossaryOfStructure/Topologies
Somehow, I experienced a great child like associative pleasure from the topologies and my exploration of the Sufi part of Islam who practice spiritual expressions of dancing:
Dear Andrius, topology is a brand new word for me and you have me quite going at this point. So instead of reading further, allow me to write up a feedback of personal affinity to the subject right away. If I get it, in theory, topology is the description of the order of dynamics of meaning, once observed and defined. In practice, it describes the mechanics of the being's fulfillment, once in order and functional. This leads me to the connective experience in the topology of unity's unology. One way with which I have survived insanity so far has been music. Dancing, playing guitar and a little keyboard when jamming with friend and singing. I do not have any claim to quality musician here, simply a pure connection to what it is to enjoy being me, here and now, with all that I am given and capable to be manifesting life in complete serenity. Topology gives me a word to connect music, meaning and movement from the essence of being in the presence of patient wisdom, seeing its sound shaping my thoughts from silence, moving my being with the energy of the wind who carries me in the dance from anything to everything, as in the dance of the nearly wedded lovers. The spontaneous moment where Jesus says: "If a man is led by the Spirit, he is like the wind. No one knows where he comes from nor where he is going." We find out as the steps of the dance unfold. Dear Andrius, this comes to me on the day after I had my first short chat with someone who is Sufi who are mystic Muslim, and the one topic was the holiness and spiritual nature of dancing with gravity. Thanks for giving me 12 steps of reference. From now on, when I sing, play out the sounds and dance, I shall contemplate with sensitivity my topologic order of 12, 4, 3, 3, 4, 12, partaking in the unologic overcoming of ignorance in the constant healing of the meaning, for the spread in prayer and the growth in action of the open source of knowledge, communing in the unity of management, with the organism's development of becoming spiritual humans. As I perceive the meaning of topology, the understanding I imbibe brings on the bliss of contemplation, assimilating, partaking and overcoming ignorance by penetrating the quietning silence of lubricated patient wisdom where the essence of our existance lights up in the substance of relevancy, relating me to peacefully enjoy who I am in the humming company of One source of human becoming from and to Self, from death unto life, eternally. Thank for this dance of completion between objective and subjective, dissolving the power of any paradox into energy for the road ahead from the essence of truth to the substance of meaning and vice versa. Benoit Couture
Thu, 06 Mar 2008 05:29:09 UTC ThomasChepaitis: topology is a science about a place ("topos" in Greek) I studied some time the theory of knots, in connection with Lacan's psychotherapy. Do you use topology in that sence?
Place can be closed, ant space isn't, which was proved by Moebius, as I understand it
===Discussion===
{{-Benoit}}: Here is a "far out" connection that happened spontaniously when I read a little bit about Andrius topologies at: http://www.openleader.com/index.php/GlossaryOfStructure/Topologies
Somehow, I experienced a great child like associative pleasure from the topologies and my exploration of the Sufi part of Islam who practice spiritual expressions of dancing:
Dear Andrius, topology is a brand new word for me and you have me quite going at this point. So instead of reading further, allow me to write up a feedback of personal affinity to the subject right away. If I get it, in theory, topology is the description of the order of dynamics of meaning, once observed and defined. In practice, it describes the mechanics of the being's fulfillment, once in order and functional. This leads me to the connective experience in the topology of unity's unology. One way with which I have survived insanity so far has been music. Dancing, playing guitar and a little keyboard when jamming with friend and singing. I do not have any claim to quality musician here, simply a pure connection to what it is to enjoy being me, here and now, with all that I am given and capable to be manifesting life in complete serenity. Topology gives me a word to connect music, meaning and movement from the essence of being in the presence of patient wisdom, seeing its sound shaping my thoughts from silence, moving my being with the energy of the wind who carries me in the dance from anything to everything, as in the dance of the nearly wedded lovers. The spontaneous moment where Jesus says: "If a man is led by the Spirit, he is like the wind. No one knows where he comes from nor where he is going." We find out as the steps of the dance unfold. Dear Andrius, this comes to me on the day after I had my first short chat with someone who is Sufi who are mystic Muslim, and the one topic was the holiness and spiritual nature of dancing with gravity. Thanks for giving me 12 steps of reference. From now on, when I sing, play out the sounds and dance, I shall contemplate with sensitivity my topologic order of 12, 4, 3, 3, 4, 12, partaking in the unologic overcoming of ignorance in the constant healing of the meaning, for the spread in prayer and the growth in action of the open source of knowledge, communing in the unity of management, with the organism's development of becoming spiritual humans. As I perceive the meaning of topology, the understanding I imbibe brings on the bliss of contemplation, assimilating, partaking and overcoming ignorance by penetrating the quietning silence of lubricated patient wisdom where the essence of our existance lights up in the substance of relevancy, relating me to peacefully enjoy who I am in the humming company of One source of human becoming from and to Self, from death unto life, eternally. Thank for this dance of completion between objective and subjective, dissolving the power of any paradox into energy for the road ahead from the essence of truth to the substance of meaning and vice versa. Benoit Couture
Thu, 06 Mar 2008 05:29:09 UTC ThomasChepaitis: topology is a science about a place ("topos" in Greek) I studied some time the theory of knots, in connection with Lacan's psychotherapy. Do you use topology in that sence?
Place can be closed, ant space isn't, which was proved by Moebius, as I understand it
į:
Another word for topology might be ''circumstance''.
2016 kovo 11 d., 12:31
atliko -
Pridėtos 14-15 eilutės:
3 trejybės atvaizdai yra hegeliniai (Hegelio: tezė, antitezė, sintezė) ir 1 yra dekartinis (Dekarto: mąstau, vadinas esu; esu, vadinas veikiu; veikiu, vadinas mąstau). Hegeliniai pagrįsti neigimu (vienis pastovus, visybė pastoviai nepastovus; daiktas, tai dėmesys kitam, o eiga, tai dėmesys sau pačiam; būtina kada sutampa turinys ir raiška, tikra kada nesutampa). Dekartiniai nepagrįsti neigimu.
2016 kovo 04 d., 09:10
atliko -
Pridėtos 3-8 eilutės:
>>bgcolor=#FFFFC0<<
Nusižiūrėjus į tiesos atvejį (akivaizdumas = turinio ir raiškos atitikimas) palyginti kaip kiti nulybės atvaizdai suveikia (ar pasidalina) aplinkybes apibrėžiančiuose žaidimuose.
>><<
Nusižiūrėjus į tiesos atvejį (akivaizdumas = turinio ir raiškos atitikimas) palyginti kaip kiti nulybės atvaizdai suveikia (ar pasidalina) aplinkybes apibrėžiančiuose žaidimuose.
>><<
Pridėtos 12-13 eilutės:
Aristotelio tiesa: akivaizdumas = raiškos ir turinio atitikimas (o tai iškyla žaidimu).
2015 lapkričio 20 d., 22:03
atliko -
Pakeista 1 eilutė iš:
Žr. [[Aprašas]], [[Dvylikanaris protas]], [[Palyginimai]], [[Dievo įsivaizdavimas]], [[Gyvybės dėsniai]], [[Vertybių žemėlapis]], [[Kūrybos prasmė ir meno taisyklės]]
į:
Žr. [[Dvylikanaris protas]], [[Palyginimai]], [[Dievo įsivaizdavimas]], [[Gyvybės dėsniai]], [[Vertybių žemėlapis]], [[Kūrybos prasmė ir meno taisyklės]], [[Dvylika klausimų]]
2015 balandžio 21 d., 09:49
atliko -
Pridėtos 19-20 eilutės:
Kantas tvirtino, kad nėra aposteriori analitinių teiginių, tai yra, sandarioje santvarkoje nėra ką pažinti. Gal dėl to jisai ir nepripažino Dekarto "mąstau, vadinas esu". Betgi savo kailiu patyriau, kad jeigu mąstymas neaprėpiamas, tai ir buvimas neaprėpiamas. Tai yra, jei mintys neaprėpiamos, tai mąstytojas juo labiau. O jeigu buvimas neaprėpiamas, tai ir veikimas neaprėpiamas. Juk tėra tai, kas reiškiasi. Ir jei veikimas neaprėpiamas, tai ir mąstymas neaprėpiamas, nes visus veiksmus galima apmąstyti. Šį trejybės ratą - buvimo, veikimo, mąstymo - pažįstame iš gyvenimo. Jisai išplaukia iš neaprėpiamumo, kurį išgyvename, kaip prasmingumą: jei mąstymas prasmingas, tai ir buvimas prasmingas, ir t.t. Neaprėpiamumą, požiūrio nepakankamumą, įsivaizduoja tik tas, kuris santvarkos varžomas, joje gyvena, patiria jos ribas, nesutelpa jose ir ieško sąlyčio su tuo, kas už jų.
2014 lapkričio 09 d., 10:33
atliko -
Pakeista 20 eilutė iš:
į:
2014 spalio 08 d., 12:24
atliko -
Pakeista 1 eilutė iš:
Žr. [[Aprašas]], [[Dvylikanaris protas]], [[Palyginimai]], [[Dievo įsivaizdavimas]], [[Gyvybės dėsniai]], [[Vertybių žemėlapis]]
į:
Žr. [[Aprašas]], [[Dvylikanaris protas]], [[Palyginimai]], [[Dievo įsivaizdavimas]], [[Gyvybės dėsniai]], [[Vertybių žemėlapis]], [[Kūrybos prasmė ir meno taisyklės]]
2014 spalio 08 d., 12:23
atliko -
Pakeista 1 eilutė iš:
Žr. [[Aprašas]], [[Dvylikanaris protas]], [[Palyginimai]], [[Dievo įsivaizdavimas]], [[Gyvybės dėsniai]]
į:
Žr. [[Aprašas]], [[Dvylikanaris protas]], [[Palyginimai]], [[Dievo įsivaizdavimas]], [[Gyvybės dėsniai]], [[Vertybių žemėlapis]]
2014 spalio 07 d., 13:24
atliko -
Pridėtos 17-18 eilutės:
Būti, veikti, mąstyti yra ciklinė trejybė nes atitinkama apimtis yra viskas. Užtat kiti atvaizdai nesudaro rato nes atitinkamos apimtys yra siauresnės.
2014 birželio 09 d., 22:01
atliko -
Pridėtos 291-293 eilutės:
Thu, 06 Mar 2008 05:29:09 UTC ThomasChepaitis: topology is a science about a place ("topos" in Greek) I studied some time the theory of knots, in connection with Lacan's psychotherapy. Do you use topology in that sence?
Place can be closed, ant space isn't, which was proved by Moebius, as I understand it
2014 birželio 09 d., 21:58
atliko -
Pakeistos 52-290 eilutės iš
* Problems -- Potential
į:
* Problems -- Potential
'''Aplinkybės'''
See also: SecondaryStructures, PrinciplesOfLife, {{Anything}}, {{Something}}, DivisionsOfEverything
===Twelve Topologies===
AndriusKulikauskas: There are twelve topologies. They are the vocabulary of our imagination. They are the perspectives given by the four RepresentationsOfTheThreesome, generated by the four RepresentationsOfTheNullsome, as follows:
* exist, act, think generated from significant
* one, all, many generated from constant
* object, process, subject generated from direct
* necessary, actual, possible generated from true
Note that significant (not encompassed), constant (not changing), direct (not mediated), true (not hidden) are negations of the four perspectives of the {{Foursome}}. They are also the four RepresentationsOfTheNullsome and the PropertiesOfGod.
http://www.ms.lt/en/andrius/understanding/diagrams/topologies.gif
We may think of {{Everything}} and {{Anything}} as players that are trying to connect. As anything, we are limited, hence unable to conceive directly our connection, but may only allude to it. Our conception is thus given not by this infinite recursion, but through representations of everything. Everything is represented in four ways, as true, direct, constant, significant. Moreover, in its relationship with anything, it is given as a player of a mind game which generates properties of life, of the oneness of the spirit beyond and within structure, of everything and anything.
"Significant" generates a mind game, where significant is that which is unencompassable, can't be captured: If thinking is significant, then so is being, for thoughts are encompassed by the thinker. If being is significant, then so is doing, for things are encompassed by the actions that manifest them. If doing is significant, then so is thinking, for actions are encompassed by the observations made of them.
"Constant" generates a mind game: In searching for constancy, we find one example of constancy, otherwise it is constantly unconstant. So the constancy is in the "one" or in the "all". Note that to do this search, what we select needs to be the same as what we judge, they are multiply constant, "many".
"Direct" generates a mind game: Our attention can be directed by something other than itself, an "object". Subsequently, it can be directed by itself, this is "process". Finally, it may or may not be directed, this is "subject".
"True" generates a mind game, where true is what can't be hidden, is obvious: The content and what reveals it may be the same, in which case it is "necessarily" true. Otherwise, the content may be different from what reveals it, and follows it, so is "actually" true. Finally, what may be true is the relationship between the content and what reveals it, which is "possibly" true.
===Examples===
These topologies may be observed in [{{PrinciplesOfLife}} Christopher Alexander's fifteen principles of life], [{{TopologiesInMetaphors}} Lakoff and Johnson's work on metaphors] and [{{TopologiesInPsalms}} in the psalms]. Consider also AnthonyJudge's DodecameralMind. Perhaps also in understanding RelationshipsWithGod and in MentalWorkspaces.
===Derivation of the Topologies===
{{Andrius}}: The historical notes further below for an explanation of how I came to the topologies above. In this section, I share my work to derive the topologies from the {{Omniscope}}.
The topologies are what relate {{Anything}} and Something. We may think of anything as an {{Observer}}, and something as an {{Observed}}. Something is in its own ObservationalPlane. But now consider it in a larger plane, the one that is observed by {{Anything}}. The topologies express the various ways that anything and something may thereby be related.
The topologies are one of the six SecondaryStructures. Each of the secondary structures arises from God of a more accessible PrimaryStructure interpreting a less accessible primary structure. In this way, God sees something more than simply himself, so that his view coincides with the observer for that less accessible primary structure.
The topologies are the secondary structure where God who has access to {{Anything}} (and is certain) interprets the primary structure which provides access to {{Something}} (and describes our {{Expectations}}). In this sense, we imagine (and thus coincide with the view) that God is anything and he is taking up the ways of pulling away from something.
The ways of pulling away from something are given by the primary structure [{{Everything}} wishes for anything]. They are given by the six {{Expectations}}, which are the DirectionsFromTheGood:
* good God
* good quality
* good gift
* good person
* good deed
* good word
Here they are understood as expressing good will, an other beyond us. We are expecting the good, and these are the directions from which the good might come.
If these directions from the good are interpreted by God who has access to everything, then such a God wishes for nothing. Hence, all of the goodness is then not in God, but rather in the one who opens themselves up to God. The directions from the good then are interpreted as the {{Representations}}.
However, if instead they are interpreted by God who has access to anything, then such a God wishes for something. Then the good is both in us and in God. It is the good of God (the anything in one of four planes) as it is isolated within that plane as one of three modes (yielding a topology). Thus it is the good of the good, as it has been isolated. This is related to our speaking to the good in others, and the DirectionsToTheGood become relevant.
The topologies are derived from the empathy that "Everything that wishes for something" has for "the not-wishing of anything". The latter is given by the directions that the good may come from, as these are the expectations in not wishing for just anything. What does everything wish for? That anything indeliberately be connected with the essence, so that all connects back unto everything. This is also that people follow the will of God. So this is a coinciding of the will of God, and the will of a person. Inasmuch as everything wishes for something, there is a domain for that wish, and therefore a representation of everything, which is given by everything, one of four representations, which are wishes. And as anything may follow the will of everything, there are three reasons for doing so: obeying, believing, caring. These together make for the twelve topologies.
-----
Topologies are derived when EverythingWishesForAnything.
Look for two secondary structures which come from this: Criteria and Topologies.
They involve "waiting" and "believing" as their seventh perspectives.
Good person, deed, word are a cycle:
* Good person: reflect => take a stand
* Good deed: take a stand => follow through
* Good word: follow through => reflect
Good God, gift, quality get mapped to follow through, reflect, take a stand.
* Good God is what lets the good person do the good deed, they are cocreators.
* Good gift is what lets the good word judge the worker by the work, judge the good deed.
* Good quality is what distinguishes the good person on the basis of the good word, throws away the bad and preserves the good.
In those roles, good God is one, good gift is all, good quality is many.
Representation has us have expectations, God wish for nothing, and has "waiting" as its seventh perspective. If God wishes for nothing, then look for good in people. Everything is self-sufficient. Waiting = being in suspense, as an emotional response.
Topologies have us have expectations, God wish for something, and have "believing" as its seventh perspective. If God wishes for something (connection), then look for good in both God and people. Everything is certain. Believing = sheer will, for getting things done.
Good will rests in two locations. We address the good will in others, and we show good will ourselves.
The directions of the good are the structure for the expectations.
In each case, the slack is in the direction of the good:
* good heart = Jesus' belief, rather than his wish (goodness of nullsome)
* good God = Jesus' willingness to change, rather than unwillingness to change (goodness of onesome)
* good gift = Jesus' investedness, rather than his interest (goodness of twosome)
* good quality = Jesus' isolating, rather than his isolated (goodness of threesome)
* good person = Jesus' inner adherence, rather than his outer adherence (goodness of foursome)
* good deed = what Jesus will achieve, rather than what he is able to do (goodness of fivesome)
* good word = what Jesus could be doing, rather than what he is doing (goodness of sixsome)
* good news = Jesus' purpose, rather than his strength (goodness of sevensome)
Slack is in the former, not the latter. Slack is in the qualities of signs:
* malleable = slack is in their willingness to change
* modifiable = slack is in their inertia
* mobile = slack is in their isolator
* memorable = slack is in their inner adherence
* meaningful = slack is in what they will achieve
* motivated = slack is in what they could be doing
Expectations are given by the gradation of methods of mathematical proof: morphism, induction, algorithm construction, substitution, examination of cases, construction. These seem to define the various kinds of goodness:
* morphism is the goodness of God
* induction is the goodness of gift
* algorithm construction is the goodness of quality
* substitution is the goodness of person
* examination of cases is the goodness of deed
* construction is the goodness of word
The good will that we show is actually that which we open through the eight directions which the good comes from. These are the same directions that we speak to in others.
We can speak to the good will in others. Or we can open the way for it to speak from us. For example, we can go from "unwillingness to change" to "willingness to change", or the reverse.
Each of the directions of the good accords as if with a division of everything. Depending on the direction that we look at them, we have either representations or topologies. What do we associate the good with? the slack with? in a division. Either with the part, or with the whole. If with the part, then that part stands independently, and we have a topology. If with the whole, then the whole stands independently, and we have a representation. Whatever we associate the good with must stand independently on either side.
Representations and Topologies
A division relates a whole with its parts.
The good is related to either the whole or the part.
Jesus is Good will.
Good will is in the whole: representations.
Good will is in the part: topologies.
Criteria have to do with increasing slack. Criteria: A perspective (ours - the part) sees The perspective (God's - the whole). We open the way for the good, and it keeps pouring out.
Representations are the good will that we show. Good is in the whole.
Opening to the ways of the good is given by the emotional responses.
Criteria (representations) arise here when God wishes for nothing. This is the goodness of the whole, of the representation. It opens up the way for goodness. Good quality is the good of decreasing slack, good word is the good of increasing slack. Good God is the good of why, good person is the good of how, good deed is the good of what, good gift is the good of whether.
Topologies are the good will that we speak to. Good is in the part.
Topologies arise here when God wishes for something. This is the goodness of the part, of the topology. It speaks to the goodness within the person. I need to think about this!
Speaking to the good is done by the ways of getting things done.
The key concepts significant, constant, direct, true are given by the good that Jesus speaks to:
* significant = their willingness to change (not take a stand)
* constant = their inertia (not follow through)
* direct = their isolation (not reflect)
* constant = their inner adherence (take a stand)
* direct = what they will achieve (follow through)
* true = what they could be doing (reflect)
The threesome is given by: good God, gift, quality or good person, deed, word.
Question: Where is the good x in the good y? Also, how might these relate to the topological extensions?
* Good God (significant) => Good person, deed, word: be do think
* Good Gift (constant) => Good deed, word, person: one all many
* Good Quality (direct) => Good word, person, deed: object process subject
* Good Person (constant) => Good God, gift, quality: one all many
* Good Deed (direct) => Good gift, quality, God: object process subject
* Good Word (true) => Good quality, God, gift: necessary, actual, possible
[[table]
good |Jesus' |nullsome |good |topology |good |topology |good |topology
God |willingness to change |significant |person |be |deed |do |word |think
gift |inertia |constant |person |one |deed |all |word |many
quality |isolator |direct |person |object |deed |process |word |subject
person |inner adherence |constant |God |one |gift |all |quality |many
deed |what they will achieve |direct |God |object |gift |process |quality |subject
word |what they could be doing |true |God |necessary |gift |actual |quality |possible
]
Here the topologies are narrowing down where exactly is the good. They are narrowing it down to a particular part, one of three. In this way, they isolate that particular part, allow us to consider it distinct from the others. Also, to do this, its good must be with regard to a particular plane, one of four, that it is attributing the good to. Hence the good is both in the plane and in the part, whence it is indeed slack, good. And that plane must be considered from either God's or a person's point of view, as possible.
* For the good God: the good person is be, the good deed is do, and the good word is think.
* For the good gift: the good person is one, the good deed is all, and the good word is many.
* For the good quality: the good person is the object, the good deed is the process, and the good word is the subject.
* For the good person: the good God is one, the good gift is all, and the good quality is many.
* For the good deed: the good God is object, the good gift is process, and the good quality is subject.
* For the good word: the good God is necessary, the good gift is actual, and the good quality is possible.
This uses the directions of the good as a framework to pair a representation of the nullsome with a threesome, attributing good to the perspectives, yielding the three topologies. We have the threesomes as they look from a perspective on the other side.
A topology is gotten by representing the entire threesome, and taking one of the perspectives
Topologies have to do with decreasing slack, with reducing good to zero. This leaves structure, the part. Topologies: The perspective (God's - the whole) see A perspective (ours - the part).
With topologies: The whole (whatever is the direction of the good) gets mapped to the representation of the nullsome, and accordingly, the part gets mapped to a topology. Here good gets reduced to zero.
Perhaps more precisely, for example: (the perspective) good God (the direction of the good) gets understood as good + whole, and when the good gets sent to null, we have the whole become a representation of the nullsome. And then accordingly, (a perspective) for good person, deed, word, we have that it's understood as good + part, and as the good goes away, we are left with a topology, and they can be understood collectively as a representation of the threesome.
Jesus' willingness to change => their willingness to change = significant
Now I need to work out specifically the various topologies to make sure this approach makes sense.
Note the connection between good person/deed/word = = inner adherence/what they will achieve/what they could be doing = = take a stand/follow through/reflect. (or is it just be do think ?) Consider also if there is a connection between: good God/gift/quality = = willingness to change/investedness/isolation = = follow through => reflect / take a stand => follow through / reflect => take a stand.
Study how Jesus addresses, and shows, good will.
Note that, for example, Jesus' wish speaks to their belief, and then the Good heart speaks to their wish. This suggest that the Good heart is Jesus' belief, and so on. Also, note that this is the "belief" that we are looking for, as the basis for the topologies.
===Ideas for Deriving the Topologies===
Note that here God is certain.
Consider ''the good of the good'' as relating the good of anything and the good of something.
===Topologies and {{Languages}}===
{{Andrius}}: I expect that topologies play a role in {{Argumentation}} (which I think takes us from topologies to {{Representations}}) and in {{Verbalization}} (which I think takes us from {{Divisions}} to topologies).
The topologies may be thought of as extensions of a Z, where Z is that which is given by God, and the rest by a person. These extensions arose in my study of diagrams for {{Argumentation}}. If Z is taken as everything, then they yield the topologies, and if Z is taken as slack, then they yield the ways of connecting with God. This is presumably the twofold ambiguity inherent in topologies, of theory and practice, of God's view of us, and our view of God.
===Historical Notes===
{{Andrius}}: I collected many examples of each of the DivisionsOfEverything, especially the {{Twosome}}, {{Threesome}} and {{Foursome}}. I noticed that, conceptually, the examples seemed to fall into groupings. I started to think in terms of {{Representations}} of the divisions. At this time, in 1988, Rolandas Pavilionis introduced me to Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. I noticed that his twelve categories were quite similar to the set of four RepresentationsOfTheThreesome which I had been observing. Gradually, I concluded that these twelve had significance in their own right, and as such would, along with the eight divisions and six representations, yield a comprehensive system based on portions of 2 x 3 x 4 = 24, along with three languages that shifted between them. I thought that the twelve categories were what allowed us to distinctly conceive a single part of a division, so that we might think of it separately from the others, just as the representations allow us to distinctly conceive the whole.
In 1993-1994 I worked to account for the twelve (and not necessarily Kant's twelve). I had concluded that Kant's argument in the Critique of Pure Reason was incoherent, or simply missing, at a few key places in his Transcendental Deduction, and in some important matters just plain wrong (especially where he argues that there are no analytic a posteriori statements; I think that be, do, think (and associated Cartesian statements such as ''if thinking is unencompassable, then being is unencompassable'', ''if being is unencompassable, then doing is unencompassable'', ''if doing is unencompassable, then thinking is unencompassable'') are analytic (a closed system) and a posteriori (understood by way of experience). I surveyed readings in metaphor, rhetoric and emotion. I also did an empirical study of the first forty psalms, noting and sorting all of the ways that God is conceived, with the thought that God is as undefined as any universal dummy variable might be, and so our imaginations of him simply reflect the limits on our own imaginations, which are reached by the intensity of the psalms. I was very much helped by Lakoff and Turner's thoughts on metaphor, in that I came to think that the whole idea of ''category'' was misconceived, inasmuch as it is an abstract ''thing'' that we imagine. A key problem (as I learned from [{{TopologiesInPsalms}} grouping my data from the psalms]) was that there was generally not a single word or sentence that could summarize the abstraction. And there might not be any particular set of rules that was canonical. Instead, there was a definite world, a canvas, a backdrop, a mental space that could be defined. At this point, I started to call them topologies, as they are, so to speak, rules for such worlds. It is as if we may imagine what it is like to live on a sphere, or a plane, or a torus, and so on. Our imagination projects such topologies as backdrops for whatever we choose to imagine, which may be nothing at all. In this way, they are the vocabulary for our imagination. Next, after deep thinking, I realized that the topologies in the triplet (one, all, many) could be derived with regard to each other, as the outcomes of a ''mind game'': the search for constancy. I saw that constancy was a trigger that yielded such a mind game (search for constancy - either you find one example of it (and the constancy is in that one), or you don't find any example (and so it is constantly inconstant, and the constancy is in the whole), and furthermore, in order to play this game, whenever you select an example to inspect, and then conclude upon inspection, you presume that the two are the same, and that this is generally the case (hence multiply constant). (This particular mind game is often applied in the theory of recursive functions and the study of Turing machines). Finally, I noticed that constant means not changing, hence negates the level of the {{Foursome}} that is how and is interpreted as creation, causation, utility, and such. So I was able to negate the other three levels and work from the resulting triggers to look for analogous mind games that they might yield. In particular, this lead to a definition of true as what is not hidden, what is obvious, that for which there is no ''whether''. I worked out four mind games, and was happy that the four triggers were associated to the levels of the {{Foursome}} and thus clarified why there were exactly twelve topologies, and what they were. It became apparent that taking a stand, following through, and reflecting were not topologies but rather the three perspectives that made up the {{Threesome}} and which were then represented by the four RepresentationsOfTheThreesome, each of which was a mind game. Also, I noted that the four triggers made sense as the four representations of the {{Nullsome}} and were thus distinct from the four representations of the {{Onesome}}. This clarified the distinction between the PropertiesOfGod and the PropertiesOfEverything. I also did an empirical study of all of the metaphors in ''Metaphors We Live By'', grouping them into [{{TopologiesInMetaphors}} twelve metaphorical ideas].
Later I made progress in realizing that there was not one but four PrimaryStructures and that the DivisionsOfEverything could be intepreted, and presumably derived, as injections of God from one level into the primary structure of another. I then worked to understand that primary structure EverythingWishesForAnything which yields the representations and the topologies. I did an empirical study of Jesus' emotional responses in the Gospel of Mark. I was able to relate them to DirectionsFromTheGood and DirectionsToTheGood. In 2004, I was able to express the representations and the topologies in such terms in a plausible way. After working on the {{Omniscope}}, I now return to consider precisely how the topologies arise. All of this work prepares the way for understanding the three {{Languages}}.
Meanwhile, in 2003 I learned of [{{PrinciplesOfLife}} Christopher Alexander's fifteen principles of life]. I interpreted them as the three perspectives of the {{Threesome}} plus the twelve topologies. This interpretation is proving very helpful to intuit how the topologies relate {{Anything}} and {{Something}}, which I now recognize is their purpose.
Another word for topology might be ''circumstance''.
===Discussion===
{{-Benoit}}: Here is a "far out" connection that happened spontaniously when I read a little bit about Andrius topologies at: http://www.openleader.com/index.php/GlossaryOfStructure/Topologies
Somehow, I experienced a great child like associative pleasure from the topologies and my exploration of the Sufi part of Islam who practice spiritual expressions of dancing:
Dear Andrius, topology is a brand new word for me and you have me quite going at this point. So instead of reading further, allow me to write up a feedback of personal affinity to the subject right away. If I get it, in theory, topology is the description of the order of dynamics of meaning, once observed and defined. In practice, it describes the mechanics of the being's fulfillment, once in order and functional. This leads me to the connective experience in the topology of unity's unology. One way with which I have survived insanity so far has been music. Dancing, playing guitar and a little keyboard when jamming with friend and singing. I do not have any claim to quality musician here, simply a pure connection to what it is to enjoy being me, here and now, with all that I am given and capable to be manifesting life in complete serenity. Topology gives me a word to connect music, meaning and movement from the essence of being in the presence of patient wisdom, seeing its sound shaping my thoughts from silence, moving my being with the energy of the wind who carries me in the dance from anything to everything, as in the dance of the nearly wedded lovers. The spontaneous moment where Jesus says: "If a man is led by the Spirit, he is like the wind. No one knows where he comes from nor where he is going." We find out as the steps of the dance unfold. Dear Andrius, this comes to me on the day after I had my first short chat with someone who is Sufi who are mystic Muslim, and the one topic was the holiness and spiritual nature of dancing with gravity. Thanks for giving me 12 steps of reference. From now on, when I sing, play out the sounds and dance, I shall contemplate with sensitivity my topologic order of 12, 4, 3, 3, 4, 12, partaking in the unologic overcoming of ignorance in the constant healing of the meaning, for the spread in prayer and the growth in action of the open source of knowledge, communing in the unity of management, with the organism's development of becoming spiritual humans. As I perceive the meaning of topology, the understanding I imbibe brings on the bliss of contemplation, assimilating, partaking and overcoming ignorance by penetrating the quietning silence of lubricated patient wisdom where the essence of our existance lights up in the substance of relevancy, relating me to peacefully enjoy who I am in the humming company of One source of human becoming from and to Self, from death unto life, eternally. Thank for this dance of completion between objective and subjective, dissolving the power of any paradox into energy for the road ahead from the essence of truth to the substance of meaning and vice versa. Benoit Couture
'''Aplinkybės'''
See also: SecondaryStructures, PrinciplesOfLife, {{Anything}}, {{Something}}, DivisionsOfEverything
===Twelve Topologies===
AndriusKulikauskas: There are twelve topologies. They are the vocabulary of our imagination. They are the perspectives given by the four RepresentationsOfTheThreesome, generated by the four RepresentationsOfTheNullsome, as follows:
* exist, act, think generated from significant
* one, all, many generated from constant
* object, process, subject generated from direct
* necessary, actual, possible generated from true
Note that significant (not encompassed), constant (not changing), direct (not mediated), true (not hidden) are negations of the four perspectives of the {{Foursome}}. They are also the four RepresentationsOfTheNullsome and the PropertiesOfGod.
http://www.ms.lt/en/andrius/understanding/diagrams/topologies.gif
We may think of {{Everything}} and {{Anything}} as players that are trying to connect. As anything, we are limited, hence unable to conceive directly our connection, but may only allude to it. Our conception is thus given not by this infinite recursion, but through representations of everything. Everything is represented in four ways, as true, direct, constant, significant. Moreover, in its relationship with anything, it is given as a player of a mind game which generates properties of life, of the oneness of the spirit beyond and within structure, of everything and anything.
"Significant" generates a mind game, where significant is that which is unencompassable, can't be captured: If thinking is significant, then so is being, for thoughts are encompassed by the thinker. If being is significant, then so is doing, for things are encompassed by the actions that manifest them. If doing is significant, then so is thinking, for actions are encompassed by the observations made of them.
"Constant" generates a mind game: In searching for constancy, we find one example of constancy, otherwise it is constantly unconstant. So the constancy is in the "one" or in the "all". Note that to do this search, what we select needs to be the same as what we judge, they are multiply constant, "many".
"Direct" generates a mind game: Our attention can be directed by something other than itself, an "object". Subsequently, it can be directed by itself, this is "process". Finally, it may or may not be directed, this is "subject".
"True" generates a mind game, where true is what can't be hidden, is obvious: The content and what reveals it may be the same, in which case it is "necessarily" true. Otherwise, the content may be different from what reveals it, and follows it, so is "actually" true. Finally, what may be true is the relationship between the content and what reveals it, which is "possibly" true.
===Examples===
These topologies may be observed in [{{PrinciplesOfLife}} Christopher Alexander's fifteen principles of life], [{{TopologiesInMetaphors}} Lakoff and Johnson's work on metaphors] and [{{TopologiesInPsalms}} in the psalms]. Consider also AnthonyJudge's DodecameralMind. Perhaps also in understanding RelationshipsWithGod and in MentalWorkspaces.
===Derivation of the Topologies===
{{Andrius}}: The historical notes further below for an explanation of how I came to the topologies above. In this section, I share my work to derive the topologies from the {{Omniscope}}.
The topologies are what relate {{Anything}} and Something. We may think of anything as an {{Observer}}, and something as an {{Observed}}. Something is in its own ObservationalPlane. But now consider it in a larger plane, the one that is observed by {{Anything}}. The topologies express the various ways that anything and something may thereby be related.
The topologies are one of the six SecondaryStructures. Each of the secondary structures arises from God of a more accessible PrimaryStructure interpreting a less accessible primary structure. In this way, God sees something more than simply himself, so that his view coincides with the observer for that less accessible primary structure.
The topologies are the secondary structure where God who has access to {{Anything}} (and is certain) interprets the primary structure which provides access to {{Something}} (and describes our {{Expectations}}). In this sense, we imagine (and thus coincide with the view) that God is anything and he is taking up the ways of pulling away from something.
The ways of pulling away from something are given by the primary structure [{{Everything}} wishes for anything]. They are given by the six {{Expectations}}, which are the DirectionsFromTheGood:
* good God
* good quality
* good gift
* good person
* good deed
* good word
Here they are understood as expressing good will, an other beyond us. We are expecting the good, and these are the directions from which the good might come.
If these directions from the good are interpreted by God who has access to everything, then such a God wishes for nothing. Hence, all of the goodness is then not in God, but rather in the one who opens themselves up to God. The directions from the good then are interpreted as the {{Representations}}.
However, if instead they are interpreted by God who has access to anything, then such a God wishes for something. Then the good is both in us and in God. It is the good of God (the anything in one of four planes) as it is isolated within that plane as one of three modes (yielding a topology). Thus it is the good of the good, as it has been isolated. This is related to our speaking to the good in others, and the DirectionsToTheGood become relevant.
The topologies are derived from the empathy that "Everything that wishes for something" has for "the not-wishing of anything". The latter is given by the directions that the good may come from, as these are the expectations in not wishing for just anything. What does everything wish for? That anything indeliberately be connected with the essence, so that all connects back unto everything. This is also that people follow the will of God. So this is a coinciding of the will of God, and the will of a person. Inasmuch as everything wishes for something, there is a domain for that wish, and therefore a representation of everything, which is given by everything, one of four representations, which are wishes. And as anything may follow the will of everything, there are three reasons for doing so: obeying, believing, caring. These together make for the twelve topologies.
-----
Topologies are derived when EverythingWishesForAnything.
Look for two secondary structures which come from this: Criteria and Topologies.
They involve "waiting" and "believing" as their seventh perspectives.
Good person, deed, word are a cycle:
* Good person: reflect => take a stand
* Good deed: take a stand => follow through
* Good word: follow through => reflect
Good God, gift, quality get mapped to follow through, reflect, take a stand.
* Good God is what lets the good person do the good deed, they are cocreators.
* Good gift is what lets the good word judge the worker by the work, judge the good deed.
* Good quality is what distinguishes the good person on the basis of the good word, throws away the bad and preserves the good.
In those roles, good God is one, good gift is all, good quality is many.
Representation has us have expectations, God wish for nothing, and has "waiting" as its seventh perspective. If God wishes for nothing, then look for good in people. Everything is self-sufficient. Waiting = being in suspense, as an emotional response.
Topologies have us have expectations, God wish for something, and have "believing" as its seventh perspective. If God wishes for something (connection), then look for good in both God and people. Everything is certain. Believing = sheer will, for getting things done.
Good will rests in two locations. We address the good will in others, and we show good will ourselves.
The directions of the good are the structure for the expectations.
In each case, the slack is in the direction of the good:
* good heart = Jesus' belief, rather than his wish (goodness of nullsome)
* good God = Jesus' willingness to change, rather than unwillingness to change (goodness of onesome)
* good gift = Jesus' investedness, rather than his interest (goodness of twosome)
* good quality = Jesus' isolating, rather than his isolated (goodness of threesome)
* good person = Jesus' inner adherence, rather than his outer adherence (goodness of foursome)
* good deed = what Jesus will achieve, rather than what he is able to do (goodness of fivesome)
* good word = what Jesus could be doing, rather than what he is doing (goodness of sixsome)
* good news = Jesus' purpose, rather than his strength (goodness of sevensome)
Slack is in the former, not the latter. Slack is in the qualities of signs:
* malleable = slack is in their willingness to change
* modifiable = slack is in their inertia
* mobile = slack is in their isolator
* memorable = slack is in their inner adherence
* meaningful = slack is in what they will achieve
* motivated = slack is in what they could be doing
Expectations are given by the gradation of methods of mathematical proof: morphism, induction, algorithm construction, substitution, examination of cases, construction. These seem to define the various kinds of goodness:
* morphism is the goodness of God
* induction is the goodness of gift
* algorithm construction is the goodness of quality
* substitution is the goodness of person
* examination of cases is the goodness of deed
* construction is the goodness of word
The good will that we show is actually that which we open through the eight directions which the good comes from. These are the same directions that we speak to in others.
We can speak to the good will in others. Or we can open the way for it to speak from us. For example, we can go from "unwillingness to change" to "willingness to change", or the reverse.
Each of the directions of the good accords as if with a division of everything. Depending on the direction that we look at them, we have either representations or topologies. What do we associate the good with? the slack with? in a division. Either with the part, or with the whole. If with the part, then that part stands independently, and we have a topology. If with the whole, then the whole stands independently, and we have a representation. Whatever we associate the good with must stand independently on either side.
Representations and Topologies
A division relates a whole with its parts.
The good is related to either the whole or the part.
Jesus is Good will.
Good will is in the whole: representations.
Good will is in the part: topologies.
Criteria have to do with increasing slack. Criteria: A perspective (ours - the part) sees The perspective (God's - the whole). We open the way for the good, and it keeps pouring out.
Representations are the good will that we show. Good is in the whole.
Opening to the ways of the good is given by the emotional responses.
Criteria (representations) arise here when God wishes for nothing. This is the goodness of the whole, of the representation. It opens up the way for goodness. Good quality is the good of decreasing slack, good word is the good of increasing slack. Good God is the good of why, good person is the good of how, good deed is the good of what, good gift is the good of whether.
Topologies are the good will that we speak to. Good is in the part.
Topologies arise here when God wishes for something. This is the goodness of the part, of the topology. It speaks to the goodness within the person. I need to think about this!
Speaking to the good is done by the ways of getting things done.
The key concepts significant, constant, direct, true are given by the good that Jesus speaks to:
* significant = their willingness to change (not take a stand)
* constant = their inertia (not follow through)
* direct = their isolation (not reflect)
* constant = their inner adherence (take a stand)
* direct = what they will achieve (follow through)
* true = what they could be doing (reflect)
The threesome is given by: good God, gift, quality or good person, deed, word.
Question: Where is the good x in the good y? Also, how might these relate to the topological extensions?
* Good God (significant) => Good person, deed, word: be do think
* Good Gift (constant) => Good deed, word, person: one all many
* Good Quality (direct) => Good word, person, deed: object process subject
* Good Person (constant) => Good God, gift, quality: one all many
* Good Deed (direct) => Good gift, quality, God: object process subject
* Good Word (true) => Good quality, God, gift: necessary, actual, possible
[[table]
good |Jesus' |nullsome |good |topology |good |topology |good |topology
God |willingness to change |significant |person |be |deed |do |word |think
gift |inertia |constant |person |one |deed |all |word |many
quality |isolator |direct |person |object |deed |process |word |subject
person |inner adherence |constant |God |one |gift |all |quality |many
deed |what they will achieve |direct |God |object |gift |process |quality |subject
word |what they could be doing |true |God |necessary |gift |actual |quality |possible
]
Here the topologies are narrowing down where exactly is the good. They are narrowing it down to a particular part, one of three. In this way, they isolate that particular part, allow us to consider it distinct from the others. Also, to do this, its good must be with regard to a particular plane, one of four, that it is attributing the good to. Hence the good is both in the plane and in the part, whence it is indeed slack, good. And that plane must be considered from either God's or a person's point of view, as possible.
* For the good God: the good person is be, the good deed is do, and the good word is think.
* For the good gift: the good person is one, the good deed is all, and the good word is many.
* For the good quality: the good person is the object, the good deed is the process, and the good word is the subject.
* For the good person: the good God is one, the good gift is all, and the good quality is many.
* For the good deed: the good God is object, the good gift is process, and the good quality is subject.
* For the good word: the good God is necessary, the good gift is actual, and the good quality is possible.
This uses the directions of the good as a framework to pair a representation of the nullsome with a threesome, attributing good to the perspectives, yielding the three topologies. We have the threesomes as they look from a perspective on the other side.
A topology is gotten by representing the entire threesome, and taking one of the perspectives
Topologies have to do with decreasing slack, with reducing good to zero. This leaves structure, the part. Topologies: The perspective (God's - the whole) see A perspective (ours - the part).
With topologies: The whole (whatever is the direction of the good) gets mapped to the representation of the nullsome, and accordingly, the part gets mapped to a topology. Here good gets reduced to zero.
Perhaps more precisely, for example: (the perspective) good God (the direction of the good) gets understood as good + whole, and when the good gets sent to null, we have the whole become a representation of the nullsome. And then accordingly, (a perspective) for good person, deed, word, we have that it's understood as good + part, and as the good goes away, we are left with a topology, and they can be understood collectively as a representation of the threesome.
Jesus' willingness to change => their willingness to change = significant
Now I need to work out specifically the various topologies to make sure this approach makes sense.
Note the connection between good person/deed/word = = inner adherence/what they will achieve/what they could be doing = = take a stand/follow through/reflect. (or is it just be do think ?) Consider also if there is a connection between: good God/gift/quality = = willingness to change/investedness/isolation = = follow through => reflect / take a stand => follow through / reflect => take a stand.
Study how Jesus addresses, and shows, good will.
Note that, for example, Jesus' wish speaks to their belief, and then the Good heart speaks to their wish. This suggest that the Good heart is Jesus' belief, and so on. Also, note that this is the "belief" that we are looking for, as the basis for the topologies.
===Ideas for Deriving the Topologies===
Note that here God is certain.
Consider ''the good of the good'' as relating the good of anything and the good of something.
===Topologies and {{Languages}}===
{{Andrius}}: I expect that topologies play a role in {{Argumentation}} (which I think takes us from topologies to {{Representations}}) and in {{Verbalization}} (which I think takes us from {{Divisions}} to topologies).
The topologies may be thought of as extensions of a Z, where Z is that which is given by God, and the rest by a person. These extensions arose in my study of diagrams for {{Argumentation}}. If Z is taken as everything, then they yield the topologies, and if Z is taken as slack, then they yield the ways of connecting with God. This is presumably the twofold ambiguity inherent in topologies, of theory and practice, of God's view of us, and our view of God.
===Historical Notes===
{{Andrius}}: I collected many examples of each of the DivisionsOfEverything, especially the {{Twosome}}, {{Threesome}} and {{Foursome}}. I noticed that, conceptually, the examples seemed to fall into groupings. I started to think in terms of {{Representations}} of the divisions. At this time, in 1988, Rolandas Pavilionis introduced me to Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. I noticed that his twelve categories were quite similar to the set of four RepresentationsOfTheThreesome which I had been observing. Gradually, I concluded that these twelve had significance in their own right, and as such would, along with the eight divisions and six representations, yield a comprehensive system based on portions of 2 x 3 x 4 = 24, along with three languages that shifted between them. I thought that the twelve categories were what allowed us to distinctly conceive a single part of a division, so that we might think of it separately from the others, just as the representations allow us to distinctly conceive the whole.
In 1993-1994 I worked to account for the twelve (and not necessarily Kant's twelve). I had concluded that Kant's argument in the Critique of Pure Reason was incoherent, or simply missing, at a few key places in his Transcendental Deduction, and in some important matters just plain wrong (especially where he argues that there are no analytic a posteriori statements; I think that be, do, think (and associated Cartesian statements such as ''if thinking is unencompassable, then being is unencompassable'', ''if being is unencompassable, then doing is unencompassable'', ''if doing is unencompassable, then thinking is unencompassable'') are analytic (a closed system) and a posteriori (understood by way of experience). I surveyed readings in metaphor, rhetoric and emotion. I also did an empirical study of the first forty psalms, noting and sorting all of the ways that God is conceived, with the thought that God is as undefined as any universal dummy variable might be, and so our imaginations of him simply reflect the limits on our own imaginations, which are reached by the intensity of the psalms. I was very much helped by Lakoff and Turner's thoughts on metaphor, in that I came to think that the whole idea of ''category'' was misconceived, inasmuch as it is an abstract ''thing'' that we imagine. A key problem (as I learned from [{{TopologiesInPsalms}} grouping my data from the psalms]) was that there was generally not a single word or sentence that could summarize the abstraction. And there might not be any particular set of rules that was canonical. Instead, there was a definite world, a canvas, a backdrop, a mental space that could be defined. At this point, I started to call them topologies, as they are, so to speak, rules for such worlds. It is as if we may imagine what it is like to live on a sphere, or a plane, or a torus, and so on. Our imagination projects such topologies as backdrops for whatever we choose to imagine, which may be nothing at all. In this way, they are the vocabulary for our imagination. Next, after deep thinking, I realized that the topologies in the triplet (one, all, many) could be derived with regard to each other, as the outcomes of a ''mind game'': the search for constancy. I saw that constancy was a trigger that yielded such a mind game (search for constancy - either you find one example of it (and the constancy is in that one), or you don't find any example (and so it is constantly inconstant, and the constancy is in the whole), and furthermore, in order to play this game, whenever you select an example to inspect, and then conclude upon inspection, you presume that the two are the same, and that this is generally the case (hence multiply constant). (This particular mind game is often applied in the theory of recursive functions and the study of Turing machines). Finally, I noticed that constant means not changing, hence negates the level of the {{Foursome}} that is how and is interpreted as creation, causation, utility, and such. So I was able to negate the other three levels and work from the resulting triggers to look for analogous mind games that they might yield. In particular, this lead to a definition of true as what is not hidden, what is obvious, that for which there is no ''whether''. I worked out four mind games, and was happy that the four triggers were associated to the levels of the {{Foursome}} and thus clarified why there were exactly twelve topologies, and what they were. It became apparent that taking a stand, following through, and reflecting were not topologies but rather the three perspectives that made up the {{Threesome}} and which were then represented by the four RepresentationsOfTheThreesome, each of which was a mind game. Also, I noted that the four triggers made sense as the four representations of the {{Nullsome}} and were thus distinct from the four representations of the {{Onesome}}. This clarified the distinction between the PropertiesOfGod and the PropertiesOfEverything. I also did an empirical study of all of the metaphors in ''Metaphors We Live By'', grouping them into [{{TopologiesInMetaphors}} twelve metaphorical ideas].
Later I made progress in realizing that there was not one but four PrimaryStructures and that the DivisionsOfEverything could be intepreted, and presumably derived, as injections of God from one level into the primary structure of another. I then worked to understand that primary structure EverythingWishesForAnything which yields the representations and the topologies. I did an empirical study of Jesus' emotional responses in the Gospel of Mark. I was able to relate them to DirectionsFromTheGood and DirectionsToTheGood. In 2004, I was able to express the representations and the topologies in such terms in a plausible way. After working on the {{Omniscope}}, I now return to consider precisely how the topologies arise. All of this work prepares the way for understanding the three {{Languages}}.
Meanwhile, in 2003 I learned of [{{PrinciplesOfLife}} Christopher Alexander's fifteen principles of life]. I interpreted them as the three perspectives of the {{Threesome}} plus the twelve topologies. This interpretation is proving very helpful to intuit how the topologies relate {{Anything}} and {{Something}}, which I now recognize is their purpose.
Another word for topology might be ''circumstance''.
===Discussion===
{{-Benoit}}: Here is a "far out" connection that happened spontaniously when I read a little bit about Andrius topologies at: http://www.openleader.com/index.php/GlossaryOfStructure/Topologies
Somehow, I experienced a great child like associative pleasure from the topologies and my exploration of the Sufi part of Islam who practice spiritual expressions of dancing:
Dear Andrius, topology is a brand new word for me and you have me quite going at this point. So instead of reading further, allow me to write up a feedback of personal affinity to the subject right away. If I get it, in theory, topology is the description of the order of dynamics of meaning, once observed and defined. In practice, it describes the mechanics of the being's fulfillment, once in order and functional. This leads me to the connective experience in the topology of unity's unology. One way with which I have survived insanity so far has been music. Dancing, playing guitar and a little keyboard when jamming with friend and singing. I do not have any claim to quality musician here, simply a pure connection to what it is to enjoy being me, here and now, with all that I am given and capable to be manifesting life in complete serenity. Topology gives me a word to connect music, meaning and movement from the essence of being in the presence of patient wisdom, seeing its sound shaping my thoughts from silence, moving my being with the energy of the wind who carries me in the dance from anything to everything, as in the dance of the nearly wedded lovers. The spontaneous moment where Jesus says: "If a man is led by the Spirit, he is like the wind. No one knows where he comes from nor where he is going." We find out as the steps of the dance unfold. Dear Andrius, this comes to me on the day after I had my first short chat with someone who is Sufi who are mystic Muslim, and the one topic was the holiness and spiritual nature of dancing with gravity. Thanks for giving me 12 steps of reference. From now on, when I sing, play out the sounds and dance, I shall contemplate with sensitivity my topologic order of 12, 4, 3, 3, 4, 12, partaking in the unologic overcoming of ignorance in the constant healing of the meaning, for the spread in prayer and the growth in action of the open source of knowledge, communing in the unity of management, with the organism's development of becoming spiritual humans. As I perceive the meaning of topology, the understanding I imbibe brings on the bliss of contemplation, assimilating, partaking and overcoming ignorance by penetrating the quietning silence of lubricated patient wisdom where the essence of our existance lights up in the substance of relevancy, relating me to peacefully enjoy who I am in the humming company of One source of human becoming from and to Self, from death unto life, eternally. Thank for this dance of completion between objective and subjective, dissolving the power of any paradox into energy for the road ahead from the essence of truth to the substance of meaning and vice versa. Benoit Couture
2014 birželio 07 d., 10:16
atliko -
Pakeistos 32-34 eilutės iš
į:
* GodTheFather is the Necessity of God
* GodTheSon is the Actuality of God
* GodTheSpirit is the Possibility of God
* GodTheSon is the Actuality of God
* GodTheSpirit is the Possibility of God
2014 birželio 07 d., 10:12
atliko -
Pakeistos 33-50 eilutės iš
>><<
į:
>><<
I am interested to study AnthonyJudge's thinking, which he says is best summarized by [http://www.laetusinpraesens.org/docs00s/writpol.php a set of polarities].
* Diversity -- Unity
* Agreement -- Disagreement
* Organization -- Chaos
* Configuration -- Relationships
* Strategy -- Lifestyle
* Static -- Dynamic
* Conventional -- Radical
* Future -- Present
* Global -- Personal
* Information systems -- Communication
* Comprehension -- Incomprehension
* Facts -- Aesthetics
* Balance -- Imbalance
* Problems -- Potential
I am interested to study AnthonyJudge's thinking, which he says is best summarized by [http://www.laetusinpraesens.org/docs00s/writpol.php a set of polarities].
* Diversity -- Unity
* Agreement -- Disagreement
* Organization -- Chaos
* Configuration -- Relationships
* Strategy -- Lifestyle
* Static -- Dynamic
* Conventional -- Radical
* Future -- Present
* Global -- Personal
* Information systems -- Communication
* Comprehension -- Incomprehension
* Facts -- Aesthetics
* Balance -- Imbalance
* Problems -- Potential
2014 balandžio 13 d., 18:46
atliko -
Pakeistos 29-33 eilutės iš
Attach:irdakiss.gif
į:
Attach:irdakiss.gif
>>bgcolor=#ECD9EC<<
GodTheSon is the Actuality of God
>><<
>>bgcolor=#ECD9EC<<
GodTheSon is the Actuality of God
>><<
Aplinkybės
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