Juodraštis? FFFFFF

Užrašai FCFCFC

Klausimai FFFFC0

Gvildenimai CAE7FA

Pavyzdžiai? F6EEF6

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. Savastis, Dievo šokis, gyvenimo lygtis, Požiūriai, Sąmoningumas, Dievo šokio išdavos, Gyvenimo lygtis, Veiksmai, the diagrams at SpiritVStructure

Kas yra asmuo?

Kas yra asmuo?

Asmuo

• is a reference point: Everybody, Anybody, Somebody, Nobody
• differs from his Self in that he is in Scope
• can't “be” alone if they are attached to, one with their Self
• can “be” alone only if they are attached to, one with God
• relate God's being beyond us and within us, in System
• is the witness to whether or not God exists
• is the witness who chooses between self within Scope and God beyond Scope
• the point of reference for Definition of God (and concepts)
• expresses the boundary between what participates in system and what participates beyond it. And those participations are related by being and not being. And they are different within system, but are the same beyond it.
• chooses whether to understand (and GoBeyondOneself, beyond system) or be understood (so that we must go into them that we may be one).
• chooses whether to define (everyone, anyone, someone, noone) with regard to System or beyond System.
• sees, views, accepts NotGod by Perspective
• sees, views, accepts God by Principle
• goes from Perspective to Position by Love
• seeks Truth in their own Scope, in which God is and is not.
• steps out of the system by asking a question within it (from perspective to position), and steps into a system by providing an answer from beyond it (from position to perspective)
• acknowledges God first in the context of his own Person, choosing God over oneself, and thereby acknowledges God beyond his Person
• an independent, limited Human
• experiences Actuality, Process, All, Following Through
• defines BeingAlone as BeingOneWith by choosing God over self
• considers from their vantage point whether to interpret BeingAlone in terms of God (BeingOneWith) or Self (NotBeingOneWith).
• by being good, lives with God and is open
• being open is good in every way and lives together with God forever
• opens the way so that God can be one beyond Person and within Person
• opens and then God arises where he had not been
• opens to God by understanding that God beyond system is the source of good withn the system, that being beyond the system is the essence of being within the system. Then God's and Person's perspectives coincide (God reaches to Person) and God's and Person's position coincide (Person grounds himself in God) and together they fill that gap given where God is not and yet arises by the free will of Person. Thus in that gap either Person chooses God or it is extended as I, You, Other. And it ends in Other for then there is a gap within the gap, thus I is no longer and is thus one with God, truly one, in their activity, in parallel.
• is free to choose in Scope
• lives beyond Scope through Position
• lives within Scope through Perspective
• chooses between one's own Perspective and the Position of all
• is created to receive Love in Perfection and thereby to love others as well.
• chooses between "being separate" outside of system (and "being one with") based on position (based on God, a vantage point greater than oneself) or "being separate" inside the system based on one's own perspective, one's own self.
• can identify their perspective with a position and thus be true to themselves and yet act from a context greater than their own self, which they can't if the simply act from thier own perspective, in which case they can't rise above thier own contradictions. In this way Truth/Understanding separate position and perspective.
• satisfies definition (if they choose God over themselves, and thus are alone rather than not alone, are going beyond themselves).
• sees through Properties
• centers on God
• is God in NotGod and thus the context for the potential of God
• defines the Existence of God, which is God's potential in God's Nonexistence
• is what is prior to the arisal of God, in that it is God in NotGod.
• grows
• God is ever more known (presumed).
• I is ever less defined.
• You is ever less known (presumed).
• Other is ever more defined.
• has a solitary activity? and how is that mapped or not to God's NullActivity within them.
• Person is Unconditional BeingOneWith. It is the union of the Unconditional and the Conditional in that the unconditional meets all conditions.
• Person is Unconditional Condition: God is unconditional Good, I is unconditional Slack, You is unconditional Coinciding, Other is unconditional Perfection, All is unconditional Experiencing.

Person is who sees us:

• God sees us for what we are.
• I sees myself through my role (how).
• You see me through your assumptions.
• Other does not see me at all.

Person is that which is even when it is not. If God is not, then God is Other. If Other is not, then there is only God.

Person may refer to God or NotGod. Person refers to God when Person chooses God over Self. Person refers to NotGod when Person chooses Self over God. God within a Person is that which chooses God over Self. NotGod within a Person is that which chooses Self over God.

Person as such is without God, but God arises in Person through Life - Everything, Wishes and Love - and so it becomes evident how we can give up even our own life, and by that there is something more than life, that is our shared Aloneness, our EternalLife by which we are one even in different circumstances.

Person (notably I, You) lives among Others, NotAlone, whereas God within and God beyond are Alone. God within is Other, separate from all and thus Alone, one with God. Love has us focus on this Other and all be as Other; Wishes have us all be as You; Everything has us all be as I; and God has us all be as God. We are all one when we focus on Other, for Other is in all.

Kokios asmenų savybės?

Asmenys

• are distinct because of God's properties.
• love together in taking up the perspective of the loved one and this brings together Perspective and Position until they coincide in their love for Other.
• are completely distinct in God, his Position beyond Everything, which is reached by Understanding, and is the foundation for Freedom, the separation of Position and Perspective, so that it is possible to choose God and Position over Self and Perspective.
• are BeingOneWith as creators, thus not simply created "things", but cocreators of ourselves, our surroundings, of God and of others
• create by making way for others. We thereby live as others and as all.
• every, any, some, none “one” are definitions of being “alone” and as such, the conditions of being “one” with regard to reference.
• Negation of Unity of Representations of Nullsome
• are the sharing of identity by one and one's self, the primacy of referer over referent, lack of conditions on Position, what acts (from within a framework or from beyond it), is alone in not alone, being alone in Scope, within context, distinct (and isolated) from Self (within Scope) and God (beyond Scope), accepts properties of God, defines the Existence of God, negates God prior to God, is God in NotGod, God arising from NotGod, the unresolved status of God, thus the potential for God. (God - everyone, I - anyone, You - someone, Other - noone). Essence of God, God prior to God. In Person, being and not being are compared, although they are different. Thus there are degrees of comparison, and accordingly, degrees of Person.

Koks asmens tikslas?

• Asmeniu turime savastį ir būtent pasaulyje. Jame turime savastį ir taip pat galime atsisakyti savęs. Asmuo išsako mūsų santykį su savimi.

Gyvenimo lygties lygmenys

• Dvasia (Dievas), Sandara (Aš), Atvaizdai (Tu), Esmė (Kitas).

Asmenų tiesos, tai keturi išgyvenimo lygmenys: Dievo žvilgsnis, Mano požiūris, Tavo laikysena, Kito vertybė.

Aš žiūri atgal iš lygties: gyvenimas, tai Dievo gerumas. Dievas tai žiūri pirmyn: amžinas gyvenimas, tai suvokimas, jog Dievas nebūtinai geras. Tu, tai šių skirtingų požiūrių sutapimas. Kitas, tai šių skirtingų požiūrių atskyrimas.

Aš esu santykiai su Dievu, Tu esi santykiai su Kitais. Rūpinamės Dievu, Manimi, Tavimi, Kitais. (Tai Minčių sodo veiklos)

Asmeniui bene reikalingi visi asmenys: Kiti, Tu, Aš ir Dievas. Dievu asmuo išeina už savęs, tampa savo papildiniu, gali save mylėti.

• Aš: esantysis (dvejybės langas: priešingybės gretinamos)
• Tu: žinantysis (ketverybės langas: kodėl)
• Kitas: atsakantysis (šešerybės langas: ...)

Kaip ir kodėl keičiasi asmuo? Ar jį keičia nulybės atvaizdų paneigimas? Ar tai sąlygoja perėjimą iš paklusimo į tikėjimą į rūpėjimą?

Yra keturi asmenys: Dievas, Aš, Tu, Kitas.

Aš išverčia Dievą.

Tu suveda Dievą ir Mane.

Kitas atskiria Dievą ir Mane.

Užtat asmenys bene susiję kaip Dievas, Gerumas (Aš), Gyvenimas (Tu) ir Amžinas gyvenimas (Kitas). Tai galima vadinti asmenų lygtimi.

Asmenų rūšys, tai požiūriai: Dievas, , Tu, Kitas. Visi??

===Persons are God who applies the Definition of God===

• Self assumes Person and Scope as complements
• Person is from beyond System and Scope is from within System.
• Persons are given by the number of references they have within System: God - 0, I - 1, You - 2 and Other – 3. Scope is what is left in System, accordingly: Everything, Anything, Something, Nothing.
• Persons apply the Definitions of God, of Being Alone.
• Persons are given by the vantage points:
• beyond system (Spirit) Activity
• beyond system, looking in (Structure) VantagePoint
• within system, looking out (Representation) Position
• within system (Unity) Perspective
• Beyond Person's Self is Scope.
• Person in Scope is the potential of God.
• Freedom equates a Person with its Self (Activity, VantagePoint, Position, Perspective).
• The window grows smaller in which there is Person.
• Freedom is the Godness of Person, the meaning of “I am what I am”, the What by which they can be one with God, with Who.
• Free will - there is Good
• Outside - there is Slack
• Theory - there is Coinciding
• Same - there is Perfection

Kaip apibrėžiami keturi asmenys?

• Gyvenimo lygties keturi lygmenys: dvasia, sandara, atvaizdai, vieningumas.
• Dievas yra tiesos dvasia; Aš esu sąvokos dvasia; Tu esi žvilgsnio dvasia; Kitas yra požiūrio dvasia.
• Kiekvienoje apimtyje galime įžvelgti Dievą kaip asmenį arba neįžvelgti - lieka apimtis.
• There are four Scopes, degrees of separation, given by the number of contexts (zero to three), the number of “pinches” in the relationship between God inside (going beyond) and God beyond (going inside). Scopes give the distance between God within and God beyond.

One's Self is the assumptions one makes. There are two representations in terms of Questions (making fewer Assumptions) and Answers (making more Assumptions). God makes all assumptions, thus is both assumed and need not be assumed. We subtract assumptions to get I, You, Other. Everything makes no assumptions. We add assumptions to get Anything, Something, Nothing. The two sets of levels match because of the number of assumptions involved:

• GodsWill (GodTheFather) is Other's God and Nothing's God (Love)
• GoodWill (GodTheSon) is I's God and Something's God (Wishes)
• Wisdom (GodTheSpirit) is You's God and Anything's God (Everything)
• God is Other's God and Everything's God (God)

The Persons are indicated by emphasizing Who or What in Person or Scope where Person is Who in What and Scope is What for Who.

• “God is alone”: God's essence: God - God – EternalLife
• “Aloneness is God”: God's property (Alone): Everything – I – Wisdom
• “Assumption is Everything”: God's lack of property: Wishes – You – GoodWill
• “Everything is Assumption”: God's lack of essence: Love – Other – GodsWill

There are four properties of God (Everyone) and NotGod (Everything) because assuming is taking up a vantage point (being, having properties, not having properties, not being)

• Everything extends beyond every System, thus is the scope of NotBeing.
• Anything is not within any System, thus is the scope of not having qualities.
• Something is not beyond any System, thus is the scope of having qualities.
• Nothing is within every System, thus is the scope of Being.

Assumption of God is manifest by negating nonassumption of God, that is, by Person's freely choosing God over themselves. The noninterference of assumption and nonassumption of one Person upon the next is the respect for their freedom. God, I, You, Other are contexts for Freedom:

• Arisal of God assumes I. I is even when God is not.
• Arisal of I assumes You. You is even when I is not.
• Arisal of You assumes Other. Other is even when You is not.

Thus levels of Nonassumption arise, because of the respect for Person that is separate, prior to the Person who provides their context. Yet for this same reason the Scope keeps getting narrower until finally Position and Perspective are separated by merely Nothing.

Dievas kaip toks yra strimagalvis, tad suvokimas jam iškyla asmenimis, atveriant ir priimant jų požiūrius, išeinant už savęs į juos. Užtat ir iškyla išsiaiškinimai.

Asmens požiūris išsako ką jisai žino:

• Dievo požiūris - žino viską;
• mano požiūris - žinau betką;
• tavo požiūris - žinai kažką;
• kito požiūris - žino nieką.

Ką asmuo žino, tai asmens prielaidos. Tad žinoti nieko - prieiti be nuomonių, kaip svetimas, kaip kitas. Tad asmenys (Dievas, Aš, Tu, Kitas) iškyla tiktai su ketverybe.

Asmenys (tiesos langai), tiesos atsiskleidimo pakopa iš žinojimo į nežinojimą:

• Kitas: išskirtinai supranta - visiška nelaisvė (atsakymas - įvykis, "kaip buvo" - gyvenimiškas)
• Tu: neišskirtinai supranta - dalinė nelaisvė (atsakymas - aplinkybės, "kaip būna" - buitinis)
• Aš: neišskirtinai nesuprantu - dalinė laisvė (klausimas - aplinkybės, "kaip būna" - egzistencinis) - žinau, ko neįstengiu, ko nesuprantu
• Dievas: išskirtinai nesupranta - visiška laisvė (klausimas - įvykis, "kaip buvo")

Asmenys, apimtys. The person is the viewer. Scope the sense in which suppositions are the same or different - everything as a required concept. The scope indicates the domain within which the truth is manifest so that what is and what seems are the same.

Koks Dievo ir asmens santykis?

God is prior to Person, subsequent to Person, and in the various Persons. God is thus Everyone.

Asmuo ir apimtis

Asmuo ir apimtis:

• express the relation with God: are we one (alone) or not one?
• are the relationships between God and NotGod. There are four such relationships (God/Everything, I/Anything, You/Something, Other/Nothing).
• are referer and referent: Everybody/Everything, Anybody/Anything, Somebody/Something, Nobody/Nothing.
• Scope and Person express the same, but using opposite words, giving them opposite meaning. Scope is NotGod beyond God. Person is God within NotGod.
• Persons and Scopes are Questions, Knowledge and Definition are Answers.

Asmenų paroda

• Dievas - geras ir blogas
• Gerumas - geras
• Gyvenimas - blogas (netrokšti: poreikiai, abejonės, lūkesčiai, vertybės)
• Amžinas Gyvenimas - nė geras, nė blogas - gyventi kitu, nepažįstamu, gyventi klausimu

Užtat gėrio ir blogio pažinimas yra žmoniška ašis (didėjantis ir mažėjantis laisvumas), o gyvybės medis yra dieviška ašis. Mąstyti ne gėrį ar blogį, bet pereiti upę, gyventi kitoje jos pusėje, Užupyje. Amžinas gyvenimas išsisako tiek teigiamais, tiek neigiamais įsakymais, kaip tą suprasti?

Aš vertinu (mano gerumas lygu) išmintį, mano Dievas gerumas. Tu vertini gerą valią, tavo Dievas gyvenimas (palyginti kaip Kristus gydė, palaikė šiame gyvenime, ne amžinuoju). Kitas vertina Dievo valią, jo Dievas amžinas gyvenimas.

Raudonas žmogus skiria kitą ir Dievą... Geltonas žmogus skiria žmogaus ir Dievo aplinkas...

Raudonas žmogus tiki, užtat nebūtina tikėti; visgi netikint, būtina tikėti. Geltonam žmogui rūpi, užtat nebūtina rūpėti; visgi nerūpint, būtina rūpėti. Mėlynas žmogus pasklūsta? užtat nebūtina paklusti; visgi nepaklūstant, būtina paklusti. Bendrai, Dievo būtinumas-nebūtinumas išgyvenamas kiekvieno asmens.

Geras ir blogas vaikas susiveda pašnekovu, toliau išsiaiškinimai kalbina įsakymą-įstatymą, kalbas.

Jėzus tai raudonas - blogas vaikas - kuriam rūpi, tad vertina tikėjimą. (Raudonasis yra blogas nes žiūri ne ta kryptimi.) Jėzus tai geltonas - geras vaikas - kuris tiki, tad išgano kitą.

• Geltonas yra geras, žiūri teisinga kryptimi. Mato gerą ir blogą ir pasirinkimą tarp jų.
• Raudonas yra blogas, žiūri priešinga kryptimi. Mato tik gerumą.

Aš nebūtinai geras - Dievas nebūtinai geras - "mane" galim įvairiai suprasti.

Raudonojo akimis, melynasis Kitas pereina is tikejimo i rupejima, tad valingai, samoningai paklusta. Kitas ryžtasi gyventi plačiau, gyventi ryžtingiau, nuklydėlių pasaulyje.

Suderinti, susieti keturis sluoksnius, klodus:

• Lūpos, giesmės, upė: Dievas: Kodėl? Žinoti viską: Atsakymai (Sandaros). Dievas būtinas ar nebūtinas? Kaip jam kiekvieną pasiekti? Sandaros.
• Pėdos, batai: Aš: Kaip? Žinoti betką: Išsiaiškinimai. Žinojimo rūmai. (Tikėjimas)
• Peteliškės, akmenys upėje: Tu: Koks? Žinoti kažką: Klausimai. (Rūpėjimas)
• Rankos, dirvožemis, sėklos: Kitas: Ar? Žinoti nieką: Aklavietės. "Mintys", tarp jų, pavojingos mintys. Tai "meilės" ir kitų vertybių sieną, jos mūsų sėklos mumyse, tačiau jos paskiros, kaip žvaigždės danguje. Dievo valios vykdymas. (Paklusimas)

Kas yra asmenys?

Kaip apibrėžti Dievas, Aš, Tu, Kitas?

Asmenys, tai Dievo atvaizdai. Palyginti su troškimais:

• Kitas: Savarankiškas. (Trokšta nieko) Poreikiai: gerumas santvarkoje.
• Tu: Užtikrintas. (Trokšta kažko) Abejonės: Išėjimas už santvarkos.
• Aš: Ramus. (Trokšta betko) Lūkesčiai: Įsijautimas į santvarką.
• Dievas: Mylintis. (Trokšta visko) Vertybės: Dievas už santvarkos.

Troškimas yra asmens esmė.

Asmenys yra Dievas apimtyje; nulybės atvaizdai yra apimtyje Dievas (dvasia) už jos; tai labai glaudžiai susiję. Apimtys yra Dievo paneigimas... tad kas yra gerumo atvaizdai, didėjantis ir mažėjantis laisvumas... ? Tai yra paneigimo paneigimas.

Dievas yra Asmens ir Dvasios vienumas. Kitas yra Asmens ir Dvasios atskyrimas, juk Kitas atskiria dvasią nuo dvasios. Aš ir Tu esame tarpiniai slenksčiai. Būdami viena su Kitu mes naujai suvedame Asmenį ir Dvasią. Asmuo yra vienumo raiška, tad Dievo raiška, tad Dievo atvaizdas, lygmuo, troškimas. Niekas, kažkas, betkas, viskas yra įsijungimo apimtys šiame pasaulyje. Dievas puoselėja širdingą įsijungimą. Iš pradžių tai šaltas, strimagalvis, beširdis atsitraukimas, mumis (manimi, tavimi, kitu) išaugantis tačiau į šiltą, širdingą, sąmoningą, visapusišką įsijungimą, atsidavimą.

Atrinkau savo filosofijos išsiaiškinimus kaip nors mininčius Dievą. Jų gavosi koks šimtas, maždaug pusę visų. Juos rūšiavau pagal tai, kaip mane veikia ryšium su Dievu. Susidarė maždaug trisdešimt rūšių. Įžvelgiau, jog išsiaiškinimai lavina mano jautrumą, skatina gyventi bendru žmogumi ir išmąstyti proto ribų apibrėžtą Dievo požiūrį. Rūšis rūšiavau pagal asmenis: betarpiškai atjaučiantis Aš ir atjaučiamas Tu, netiesiogiai atjaučiantis Dievas ir atjaučiamas Kitas. Dievo veikla reiškiasi keturių asmenų lygiagrečiu išsivystymu, iš kurio kyla suvokimas, atjaučiančiojo asmens ir atjaučiamojo aplinkybių atskyrimas, ir netgi jų atskyrimas nuo atjautimo. Atrodo, kiekvienas asmuo taipogi sąmoningėja.

Pripažinti savo prielaidas

Acknowledge my assumptions Conversing with: unknown I wish to assume as little as possible. Thus I note the assumptions that I do make. I assume the possibility of God rather than reject that possibility. I assume the possibility of others. By recognizing these as assumptions, I do not take them for granted, but allow that they are simply assumptions, which may be wrong and may be questioned.59

Priimti į širdį

Take to heart Jesus's ideas Conversing with: spirit free of this world Love your enemy, give everything away, be true to your wife, pray in twos and threes, engage God.77

Acknowledging Scripture Conversing with: self-imposed assumptions I acknowledge that Scripture, such as the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, is the message of God intended for us to take to heart. I am attracted to what Jesus says, and I accept his logic. As a youth I read the Gospels, including the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus says that if your eye causes you to sin, then you should pluck it out, for it is better to go to heaven without an eye, then to go to hell in one piece. Jesus' logic seemed clear and sensible. If I were not to follow it, then I would be denying him and denying Scripture.616

Lavinti jautrumą

Tune myself to my sweetheart Conversing with: mood My sweetheart is a great influence on me. I have every desire to be one with her. So I open myself to her values that I perceive. She loves to worship God and she is a patriot of Lithuania. I can be skeptical of all of that, but not when I think of her, and I am glad that it is what I truly wish to be a part of, too. She is beautiful and she makes me feel chaste, too, for I devote myself to her.71

Susitelkti, prisiversti, įprasti, skirti laiko

Dedicating my best hour Starting around 1994, when I started to work from home as a software developer, I made sure to start my day by working on my philosophy for an hour or two. Even later, as I struggled and failed to make a living from my lab, Minciu Sodas, I always dedicated my best hour or two to my philosophy. My best hour is in the morning, when my mind is fresh and uncluttered with concerns. I pray to God, do some calisthenics, eat breakfast, check my emails to keep them off my mind, and then apply my mind to my philosophy, preferably to the deepest question that I can. My goal is to get a new idea every day. Then I feel that my day has gone well and it doesn't matter what else happens. I typically continue by reviewing, writing and sharing my strategy for applying myself and making a living. As the day wears on, I make some effort to make a living. But I don't let that have my best energies. I believe that we all have a right and duty to spend one or two hours each day of our best time to apply ourselves and do what we were created and inspired to do.

Dedicate my mind Is God good? On Christmas morning once, in Lithuania, I was living in my parents' office, and I thought about God. I realized that there was God outside us and God inside us and they must be the same God, but how? I considered that God inside us is God in system, the Good. I put this together with what I had been considering from the Gospel of John, and realized that Life is the fact that God is good, that they are the same, but eternal life is understanding that fact, keeping them separate, so that God need not be good. So I dedicated my mind to what my heart believed was important. I matched my personal intuition with a statement that I felt must be meaningful. This let me observe and engage a paradox which in a way I resolved. 2257

Take a long walk Sometimes I set aside a day, often Sunday, for an excursion by bus and/or a long walk. I may bring along a philosophical problem that I work on, along with relevant diagrams or notes which I add to along the way. On such trips I often try to spend time with God, too. The trip helps me spend longer time on a problem, wrap my mind around it, clears my mind a bit, perhaps includes some random inputs or insights, helps me feel peaceful and reach deeper into my feelings, balance them out.1700

Atune my mind In 2000 or so, I noted eight areas in my personal life where I wanted to improve myself: Be with God, foster my conscience, foster my willpower, foster my stewardship, be curious, serve others, support others' endeavors, be successful. Each morning, after I prayed, I would run through each of these and imagine how I might do that during the day. I didn't try to plan to actually do them because it would be too contrived to carve out so much time. Rather, I would imagine how I might do that, and then during the day I would be open to similar opportunities and seize them. Over several years this helped me change in these ways and I felt better about myself. Afterwards, I gave up this practice because it had achieved its purpose and it took up time, perhaps twenty minutes. 2259

Būti pažeidžiamam

Live independently Conversing with: life When I went to elementary school it was understood that I was best to address any troubles at school by myself, without involving my parents or teachers. I felt this way especially because I was younger than the other children as I had skipped kindergarten. During recess, I would venture out far into the yard, away from the teachers. Every so often, a troubled child would come and threaten me. Then I would ask God to save me. And always, some stronger child would come and protect me. When I was deciding what university to go to, I thought that it would be best to live away from home because I was very good and obedient and respected my parents' wisdom and experience, and I thought that I would best develop my own decision making if I lived independently. Looking back, I suppose that I learned the most from the many conversations that I had with my roommates.705

Stebėti save, permąstyti save

Recognizing influences on my perspective Conversing with: my own thinking I notice how television engrosses my thinking and how I am a freer person by not having one. Radio takes up mental bandwidth, too. The cultures that I have lived in have shaped my thinking of what's important. My efforts to link up with God have fostered my appetite for being with God.6

Pondering my own legends Conversing with: freedom As a child, certain mental events became reference points. The most significant was engaging God to let me think freely that I might pursue my quest to know everything. Another was in third grade, the day we came back to school from summer. A girl, Rachael Baca, was running around the field in new boots. She was kicking me, as if it was a way to show that she liked me. I wasn't interested. I told God, so this is what girls are all about? I don't want to be any part of this. God said, really? I said, yes, it's not sensible. But then, I thought, I was too harsh, too hurried. Maybe some day I will want to fall in love and have a family? So I told God, not for the next ten years, until I'm seventeen. But I wasn't sure if God heard that, if he and I hadn't already sealed my fate. As it turned out, for at least ten years, and more than that, I was completely incapable of talking to girls, but would regularly fall in love. I thought I was cursed. Perhaps in seventh grade, I told God that there was one reward I would ask for figuring everything out, and that was to have a sweetheart, the most wonderful, beautiful, good and true woman in the world. He asked, do you want her to be your companion in your work? And I said, no, I can do that myself. I just wanted to enjoy her. Truly, when I finished my quest to know everything, at the age of 44, I found her right away! It was if I could look at life and people differently. I am blessed. It was a long wait, but I'm glad.784

How one thought extends another thought In studying argumentation, I drew a diagram of how my principles unfolded in organizing my Minciu Sodas laboratory. I then considered the ways in which one thought extends another thought, especially on that part Z given by God. I related them to the twelve topologies.

Survey the evolution of a perspective Conversing with: goal of evolution As I analyzed the "ways of figuring things out", I noticed that several of them seemed to be dialogues with God or myself or others. Indeed, I saw that I could think of each of them as a dialogue with some quality. I went through my list of ways and wrote down the quality that I imagined it had me be in dialogue with. Then I grouped those qualities. I had a chart of the first 55 ways that I had noted, especially from my philosophical work, where I had organized them by how they had become relevant as my inquiry unfolded. After studying the ways in terms of their various aspects, I finally tuned into how the "conversant" evolved, from very abstract "inner depths" or "infinity beyond" to a full-fledged "human-in-general", as we presumed ever more aspects. The "human-in-general" conflates us with our conversant. I noticed then that at that point the conversant was no longer imagined, but became presumed, and so instead, the ways were dialogues with a shared conceptual language, which seemed to require us to presume God as well. (I realize now that this also marks the distinction between defining ourselves beyond any system and then defining the system that we are in.) We start to dialogue with our conversants' circumstances, consider them from God's point of view. Subsequently, I saw how the four tests for the heart and the world were bridges between us and our conversant, and how the ways related to structural questions were perhaps six groups of pairs of these four tests, and that taking up God's point of view was the ultimate way.790

Nusistatyti

Ask God to intercede Conversing with: hope By asking God to intercede, I figure out, what do I truly want? I and other prayed for Lithuania to become free of Soviet occupation and it came true! I loved a woman with all my heart, but I didn't think I should interfere with her free will, so I asked God to fulfill at least two of three wishes of mine, that she visit me, that she be happy and that she fall in love with me. And she did visit me and she was happy, but she didn't fall in love with me.714

Savarankiškai spręsti

Do not go along with God Conversing with: baselessness I don't always do as God has me do. In China, as I was writing up how to do the good will exercises, and I was engaging God for his help to work together, God told me to sit on the window sill. I did not want to offend God, but I thought that it was too much to ask of my faith. God was a bit miffed, and his reply was that this put our relationship in perspective. In Chicago, I prayed God that my friend David, who I was living with, not lose his home. God told me that he would stay there, and indeed I would live there with my sweetheart. Even so, I looked for another place to live, because I did not want to live there after it was confirmed sold. God was not mad at me. 726

Hold God's behavior to at least my own standard I loved a woman with all of my heart, but she chose to marry another man. I told God that I still loved her, but that for me to be true to pursuing her, I would have to kill this man. I told God that I wasn't going to do that. And so I told God that he owed me, for I had loved her so completely, and that I wouldn't love a woman unless I loved her more than I had loved this woman. Seventeen years later, unexpectedly, God brought me to such a woman! And I love her unreservedly, and God encourages me.1232

Making sense of a statement through personal intuition Is God good? I was contemplating God and the idea that he was both inside us and outside of us, yet the same God. I remembered an idea of Jesus from the Gospel of John and, in contemplating both, I made sense of its meaning: that life is the fact that God is good, uniting them, but understanding that fact, distinguishing them, is eternal life, by which God need not be good. I believed there was meaning in a statement, and by leveraging my personal intuition, I was able to get that meaning. I think that Father Dave Martin prepared his sermons similarly, relating his personal intuition to a passage from the Gospel, noting how it differed, and contemplating the difference.2258

Artistic process Conversing with: subconscious Making my statue "Troskimai (Wishes)" and my video summary "I Wish to Know" spurred the breakthroughs by which I pulled together my philosophy, namely that the evolving structures show that God is Not necessary (rather than is). My painting of the muses of the days of creation showed me how their smiles grew ever more serious. Focusing on the differences between me and God reminded me of my childhood experiences.607

Structural aesthetics Conversing with: internal imagination I am sometimes informed by my own personal sense of what is attractive structurally. I sense that the foursome, the division of everything into four perspectives, is structured to favor idealism over materialism, and the human over the divine, so that How precedes What, Why precedes Whether, and the former shift precedes the latter shift. I've never quite confirmed that, but it just seems to my moral sensitivity the way those outlooks should fit together. Similarly, I understand that good and bad are opposites, but I generally don't think of them as equals, for example, thinking of good as refering to God beyond the system. Good may not be able to stand on its own, but there is a sense in which it doesn't need bad.639

Applying a structure Conversing with: applicability I knew that my mind could encompass six perspectives, but not seven or eight, as in the Lord's prayer, and this helped me figure out how to listen to God. I realized that if I tried to contemplate each line of the Lord's prayer, then this would overload my mind, flatten me out, and indeed I would find myself before God, as if in my world there was a rift that opened up above me.6

Tu

Būti atviram, įsijausti į kitus, palaukti

Invite all people Conversing with: God's will In my activities, I've tried to be and stay open to everybody and not be exclusive. I have tried not to worry about people's intelligence, competence, reliability, wealth or niceness. This has helped me to be more flexible with regard to what might happened, how things might develop, and be more appreciative as to what other people might contribute. It has also gotten me to develop relevant filters, such as expecting certain behavior. I've focused on "independent thinkers", expected people to be accountable to their own deepest value in life, or to engage me based on their own question that they wish to answer.699

Believing in believing in believing in believing Fostering the spirit amongst us. Create space to include everybody as they are, both actively immersed and passively reflected, alternatively, so God's spirit may speak through them.39

Accept everyone the same, as if God Conversing with: simplicity In accepting a person as myself, if they are God, I give them my full attention, and realize how surprisingly intelligent they are, or troubled or proud or dignified or harmonious. It makes whole the many things to learn.694

Wait Conversing with: associations I learned to wait sometimes, to give a chance for solutions to arise, for my unconscious to percolate or for the situation to develop. I learned to give God a chance. For example, I was living with David Ellison-Bey and his home was confirmed as foreclosed and then sold, and by law, I had to leave. I decided not to rush to leave, but waited to find a suitable place.690

Bus station lottery When I came to Vilnius, Lithuania in 1997, I enjoyed the Old Town very much, but every weekend I felt an impulse to get out of the city, have an adventure, get some exercise, and also, open up some time to be with God. I also wanted to get to know the country better. But I didn't like the pressure of planning ahead and sticking to a plan. So on Sundays I would go to the central bus station and look for which buses were duly leaving and choose from among them. I thought of this as a "bus station lottery". Bus tickets at the time were very cheap for me, so that for $2 or$4 I could travel for an hour or two or more. I could get off wherever I wanted to along the way. Meanwhile, I would read the cultural newspapers I brought, work on my philosophical notes and engage God a bit. I would get out somewhere, note the schedule of the returning buses, and go for a walk. It was a fun way of mixing things up.1922

Keep my mind as open as possible As a child, perhaps five-years-old, appreciating the concept of God, and of believing in God or not, I wondered if such a concept might interfere with my thinking. But I asked myself, which would close more doors in my thinking, to accept God or to reject God? I realized that to not reject God was to accept God as a possibility, and thus keep that more or less open either way, whether God was real. Although to accept God as a possibility was, I thought, to accept God as a reality, in that God is real, first and foremost, as a concept. But to reject God was to close that door completely. And so I chose to accept the possibility of God.122

Reading a book that somebody recommends I've learned quite a bit from several books that others recommended that I read. An IrDA member from Oregon introduced me to Christopher Alexander's "The Timeless Way of Building". It's a wonderfully poetic book and I rank Alexander along with Plato and Kant for his insightful theory and practice of pattern languages. Malcolm Duerod recommended that I read "The Shack", a book depicting God's relationship with himself as the Holy Trinity, but it got me thinking that, in my imagination, God is alone. June Terry recommended "A Purpose Driven Life" and I've just read the first chapter, but it made me realize that, as a child, I appreciated that my happy life did not come from my own merits, yet it was I who appreciated that, and I who decided to apply myself, and I who engaged God regarding that, as I myself thought best.1299

Allowing for inconsistency I considered the variety of prayer. I noticed that they have us think of God inconsistently, as one who has fated everything in advance, one who fixes and manages the situation, and one who can guide us spontaneously.1709

Compare perspectives Conversing with: dialogue I compared my answers to the 12 questions with what I imagine God answers to be. I realized that I live in circumstances but God does not; and that I myself wish for God to be, but God need not wish to be. My perspective sometimes differs from my parents' and other people's.593

Atjausti kitą

Take up another's perspective Conversing with: other's wisdom I imagined God's perspective to think that "days of creation" might mean "divisions of everything". I embraced Jesus' perspective such as "love your enemy" and "give everything away". I committed myself to my parents' perspective of living our Lithuanian identity and culture. I respected my childhood peers' perspective of the meaningfulness of being cool.596

Kitas

Suvokti pagrindus

What must I believe? Conversing with: my ability to believe As a child, I pondered, what must I accept and believe so that I don't go astray in my thinking? and think evil things? I thought I should believe, as Jesus teaches, to believe God, and then also, to love my neighbor as myself, and for good measure, to believe that Jesus is God.1222

What does everything depend on? Conversing with: all that follows Jesus taught that the whole law and the prophets depends on "Love God with all of your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind" and "Love your neighbor as yourself".1220

Acknowledging people's natural inclination Conversing with: people's inclinations In developing good will exercises, I learned that people who are riled about some surface subject typically aren't too interested in the deeper issue that fuels it. People, in general, aren't interested in whatever would make them more responsible, such as truly knowing everything or hearing from God.645

Jesus focused on what is natural Sometimes, as my debts grew, I would wonder if I should have foresworn from ever going into debt. However, I realized the positive aspects of my debts. And I recalled that Jesus discouraged saving, but had much to say about debtors, which he seemed to take as the natural human condition, and which makes sense, given that we're created by God and raised by our parents.110

Turn a question on its head Conversing with: circumstances Given a question, such as, Why is there evil? I may invert it, assume "there is evil" and ask, What does that say about God? Rather than pretend that there is no evil, or that it only appears to be evil, or presume that God is good, I allow myself to think more simply that God isn't primarily concerned with evil, that God wants absolutely all of the good, and is willing to allow for evil if that's what it takes to include every least bit of good. In this way, I can say that there is some good that comes with evil, yet there is other good that need not, and so evil is not necessary in general.77

Identifying the issue Conversing with: conditionality I may solve an issue by appealing to the heart of it. For example, I may wonder whether God would let me hear him, whether God would allow for that. Yet of all the things that I could ask for, isn't that the most ordinary one for God to grant? If Jesus encourages us to ask God for things, then isn't this the one that he can't credibly deny me?652

Išsisakyti, susiderinti

Share what God says Conversing with: people's relationship with God Almost every morning I link up with God, listen to him and write down what he says. Sometimes I share that with other people. That helps me appreciate that a relationship with God is, it seems, most relevant on a personal level.781

Relate endeavors Conversing with: might In 2007, I asked participants of Minciu Sodas, my online laboratory, what did they want to achieve? Then I organized the endeavors with a diagram, a map, where broader endeavors led to narrower endeavors. The broadest endeavor I took to be God's endeavor, to reach the hard to reach.73

Ieškoti dėsningumo, nedėsningumo, priežasties, esmės

Acknowledge that God behaves inconsistently in Scripture Conversing with: God's truth I find it very freeing to note and consider inconsistencies in God's behavior in Scripture. I note that the priest Eli's sons were wicked, and God had them killed in battle, and the Philistines took the ark of Yahweh, and upon hearing that, Eli fell backward and died. (1 Sam 4) Yet the priest Samuel's sons perverted justice, and the people refused them, and wanted a king, and God granted them a king. (1 Sam 8) Or when Zacharias asks the angel Gabriel, "How can I be sure of this?", that his barren wife will give birth, then he is made mute until the child is born, because he did not believe. But when Mary asks the angel Gabriel, "How can this be?", that she will give birth to a child, being a virgin, then the angel explains how. (Luke 1) People draw conclusions from the Scriptures. They may not notice such discrepancies; they may not choose to notice them; and if they do notice them, then they may explain them away in many ways, so as to defend an idea that God is consistent. But given such discrepancies, I don't see how I can draw any conclusions, except that God's reasoning is hidden, or more constructively, that God is inconsistent, practically speaking, from our point of view. Ultimately, God does as God pleases, and God is free, and such a thought is freeing, whereas people are consistent, just as machines are consistent in their outcomes, and alcoholics are consistent in their goals. I've been taught that there are four Gospels so as to have different witnesses tell the same story and corroborate each other. But once I checked their versions of the Resurrection and was astonished to see that they differed in absolutely every fact: who saw Jesus first; how many people were there; where did that occur and so on. They disagree on absolutely every fact and are completely incompatible! Which typically would not be the case if they were lying or inventing. Which suggests that the Resurrection involved a total breakdown of time and space, whether real or imaginary. Noticing such difficulties supports my hope that the Scripture is a perfect text in that it transcends the particular wording or translation, but says something constructive to anybody who reads it in good faith. 764

Imagine that God is responsible Conversing with: God's wishes When my computer crashes, if I lose a letter or file, then I often stop and wonder, what was the point of losing that? what would God have me do otherwise? And so I try to make good of the loss, often thinking and writing more kindly, or focusing on the key point. In Chicago, when my boss told me he wouldn't give me more hours because I was unwilling to change my approach, then I considered, maybe God doesn't want me to have more hours there, which surprised him, as he was a devout Christian.76

Make sense of Scripture Conversing with: God's thinking I learn a different way of looking at things by trying to make sense of concepts from Scripture. 599

Consider how a word is used in other passages Is God good? Jesus in the Gospels seems to speak in a private language, a personal code, much as I think in my philosophy. I find that about a third of his sayings are unclear as to their meaning. I look for other passages where he uses the same word or image or idea and that helps me decode what I think he means. In the Gospel of John, I traced down that the "Son of Man" means one who is taught by man, and man teaches by making an example out of him. I did a comprehensive review of Jesus's words in the Gospel of John and how he uses and explains his words, I chased them down and found that they centered on doing the will of God, which is that we have eternal life. With further contemplation, I concluded that "life is the fact that God is good, but eternal life is understanding that fact, that God need not be good." Similarly, I've tried to decode Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and the beginning of Heidegger's Being and Time. As I do that, I look for approaches and structures that I myself have uncovered in my own thinking. I think a similar approach led to the decoding of the Rosetta stone and of the Egyptian hieroglyphics as well as many others.1725

Distill the essence *** What are the constituent elements? Conversing with: ideal interlocutor Good will exercises. Andrius's and God's answers to the 12 questions. Deep ideas in math, algebra. Doubts and counterquestions. The truth of the world proceeds from the truth of the heart.598

Contemplating revelation Conversing with: greater than human perspective I studied the Gospel of John to try to decode what he was saying, specifically in his "I am..." statements, but also more generally, for in that gospel he speaks as if in an algebraic code. He keeps defining abstract words in terms of other abstract words, on and on, and I chased them as if they were equations. At the heart of that seemed to be the will of God that we have eternal life. And that perspective helped me appreciate the tension between presuming God to be good or not. And thus I realized that life is the fact that God is good, which conflates God and good as if they were the same, but eternal life is the understanding that God does not have to be good, so that God and good are separate, and there is an eternal life in reconciling God beyond the system and good within the system.6

Įžvelgti dėsningumo pavyzdį

Perceive a structure in Scripture *** What does structure mean to God? Conversing with: divineness I am encouraged when I observe in Scripture a structure that I am aware of from elsewhere. I noted that Jesus' antitheses in the Sermon on the Mount are six of the counterquestions. I identified Jesus' condemnations, "Woe to you, Pharisees", with the six expressions of the will. I related his parable of the sower and Satan's temptations with the levels of the foursome. This helps me think of these structures from a fresh perspective.725

Compatibility with structures I know In Scripture I sometimes find references to images and numbers that bring to mind the conceptual structures that I have been documenting. I noticed how the seven days of creation could mean events for God, thus the seven divisions of everything, which they match in number. And so I think of creation as an operation +1 of reflection. And I notice with interest that the creations of the first three days are governed by the creations of the next three days, as noted by bishop Skvireckas in his notes to his translation of the Bible into Lithuanian. Similarly, I notice that Ezekiel's chariot of God is carried by four creatures, like the four representations of the nullsome, or the four representations of everything. I notice that there are 24 elders in Revelations. Such coincidences spark my mind and encourage me to think that I may be on track, overall.195

Diegti visuomenėje, dalyvauti bendrystėje

Apply my discoveries Conversing with: significance of knowledge I have not simply wanted to know everything, but also to apply that knowledge usefully. This has shaped the questions that I've chosen to take up. In 1995, encouraged by Joe Damal, I set upon applying my philosophy practically. I addressed situations where we believe one thing in our heart, and the world teaches us differently, and we feel riled. As I meant to lead and influence people, I sought for a way to pray to God that I might listen to him. With the good will exercises, I found ways to capture and express people's intution. In Lithuania, I needed a way to make a living, so I started up Minciu Sodas, a laboratory for independent thinkers, where I tried to make use of conceptual structures to structure our online space and activity. In fostering a culture of truth, I am sharing, documenting and structuring ways of figuring things out. My practical impulse has thus focused me on questions that engage what's at the heart of my personal life.775

Dialogue with those responsible Conversing with: concern In speaking with leaders of the Chicago Archdiocese's Office of Catechesis, I realized that in the mainstream churches I might best connect with those who love to worship God. 70

Gyventi bendru žmogumi, asmeniu

Desire to live as an example Conversing with: my destiny I wanted to put my philosophy into practice and so I started developing good will exercises to address situations where we are riled because we believe one thing in our hearts, but in the world it is otherwise. In pursuing this, I wanted to live as an example. After two years I stopped because I realized that being riled meant that my mind was thinking wrongly, and so why start from that and encourage myself and others to focus on that? Later, after I completed my video summary "I wish to know", I wanted to start a culture, but more and more I realized that it was not by living as an example to emulate, but by playing a role that God put me in a position to play.737

Visas savo mintis išsakysiu veikėjais, kuriuos išmąsčiau savo paroda. Juos apibūdinsiu, kartu su jų santykiais:

Juodasis Dievas: Pirmapradis Dievas pirm visų sąvokų, įskaitant laiką, erdvę, meilę, protą... kuris užsimoja išsiaiškinti, Ar būčiau net tuomet jeigu nebūčiau? Ar aš būtinas? Užtat jis pasitraukia visais įmanomais būdais, tuomi sukuria šviesą ir mus visus. Kaip jis gali pasiekti kiekvieną iš mūsų? Jį pavaizdavau chorvede Dee Guyton kartu su tvėrimo dienomis, visko padalinimais, kuriuos vaizdavau šv.Benedict Afrikiečio (rytų) parapijos choro narėmis. Visa kas juoda yra dieviška.

Upė: Upė, kurią turime pereiti, tai mintis jog Dievas neprivalo būti geras, ar tiesiog, gyvenimas neprivalo būti teisingas. Kitapus upės yra amžinas gyvenimas.

Raudonasis Aš: Aš, žmogus, esu kukliausias indas į kurį Dievas sutelpa. Matau, aprėpiu viską, žinojimo rūmus, šventųjų sieną, dvylika klausimų. Raudonasis As mato teisuoliu pasauli, gerojo vaiko pasauli. Tačiau Raudonasis Aš atsigrežęs atbulai, link Dievo vietoj kad su Dievo į amžino gyvenimo platybes, į kurias Dievas vystosi per mus. Blogojo vaiko pasaulyje yra vedamas Geltonojo, aukštesniosios savasties. Turi būti stebuklingas permestas upės. Trokšta viską žinoti ir tą žinojimą gražiai taikyti.

Geltonasis Tu: Kuriuo Juodasis Dievas ir Raudonasis Aš susitinka. Jį vaizdavau savo draugu mauru David Ellison-Bey, maurų bendrystės dirbtuPortrayed by David Ellison-Bey of the Moorish Cultural Workshop as Jesus, the Higher Self. Connected to God beyond the River through the red fez. Yellow You looks in the right direction, but lives in a fragment of reality, surrounded by the river, ever tighter, from Needs to Doubts to Expectations to Values. Geltonasis Tu mato nuklydeliu pasauli, blogo vaiko pasauli. Mato, kas neigiama. Tenka rinktis tarp teigiamo ir neigiamo, tarp to kas pripažįsta ryšį su Dievu už santvarkos, ir to kas jo nepripažįsta. Užtat yra sandara (sandari!) kurią išgyvename, kaip dvasią, arba kaip ne dvasią o pasmerktąjį. Rūpi žinojimą taikyti. Jo akimis, raudonasis As pereina is rupejimo i tikejima, tad nevalinga paklusta, pasiduoda. Gali tik paskui naujai ta isgyventi samoningai, teisuoliu pasaulyje, kuri mato Raudonasis As.

Mėlynasis Kitas: The Baby who lives in the gap there can be between God and Red I where they have yet to meet. Engages God and crosses the river by hopping from rock to rock, the 12 questions. Domisi sandaromis, ypač antrinėmis sandaromis.

Brolis Griaučiai: Arises where God has removed himself. Goes in the wrong direction, and so will find God, if not by obeying, then by believing, caring or simply going along.

Blogis: Žemesnė savastis, Nedorėlių draugija, Smukdančios rankos ir visa kas Balta

Mylimoji:

Šventieji:

Klausimai: Peteliškės. The Black Butterfly is God as an existential question.

Išsiaiškinimai: Batai, kojinės, pėdos.

Pasakojimai: Lūpos, burnos.

Juodosios moterys: Dievas su kuriomis bendrauja Raudonasis Aš ir Geltonasis Tu, taip kad gaunasi penkerybė, kartu su trečiuoju asmeniu, aplinkybe.

Level

• is the assumption of negation.
• (of Person, of Definition of God) is a vantage point for taking up Questions or not. Level allows for the Attribution and Negation of a Quality. Thus Level is essential for God's negation both through the qualities of his presence (God) and his absence (Everything). Thus the levels themselves are given by combinations of the attribution and negation of his presence and absence.

At each level, NotGod imposes itself, but God allows for it and is compatible as an alternative, thus ever allowing for Freedom.

Gyvenimo lygties lygmenys

• BeingOneWith: Spirit, Structure, Representation, Unity
• Self: Activity, VantagePoint, Position, Perspective
• NotBeingOneWith: Understanding, SelfUnderstanding, SharedUnderstanding, GoodUnderstanding
• Inverting God: God, GodTheSpirit, GodTheSon, GodTheFather
• Activity: GoingBeyondOneself, Divergences, Distinctions, Divisions
• Persons: God, I, You, Other

===Why are there four levels?===

The Levels are given by the structure of Persons:

• Activity - God beyond the System
• Structure - I beyond the System, looking in
• Representations - You within the System, looking out
• Unity - Other within the System

Scopes are the negations of Persons, the negations of God in NotGod. These negations are obstacles to the Flow of Truth.

• Everything - zero obstacles
• Anything - one obstacle
• Something - two obstacles
• Nothing - three obstacles

The Foursome, the Division of Everything into four perspectives, is the structure for defining Knowledge:

• Why - knowledge of Everything
• How - knowledge of Anything
• What - knowledge of Something
• Whether - knowledge of Nothing

Negation of these four perspectives yields the four RepresentationsOfTheNullsome:

• Significant - negation of why
• Constant - negation of how
• Direct - negation of what
• True - negation of whether

God is Not NotGod: Where God is Definition (GoingBeyondOneself), NotGod is Self, System, Structure which God overcomes. This is how Person both is and is not. There are zero, one, two or three Perspectives:

• NotGod is Everything
• NotEverything is Omniscope
• NotWishes is PrimaryStructures
• NotLove is SecondaryStructures

God beyond NotGod: Where God is beyond (before GoingBeyondOneself), NotGod is the Self (after GoingBeyondOneself) which is offered as a choice in contrast, and which is within limits (thus linked), whereas God stretches beyond any limits, before or after. This is how GoingBeyondOneself both is and is not. There are zero, one, two or three Contexts:

• NotEternalLife is Life
• NotWisdom is Anything
• NotGoodWill is Choosing
• NotGodsWill is Will

Along with the three aspects of God there is the Self which defines God. This makes for four subjects to which the definition of God may be applied. They are:

• In the Scope of Everything, all things are separate, God is God. (God assumed) God as Self which defines God. God's presence as God - God – EternalLife. God is alone.
• In the Scope of Anything, one exception is not separate, God is Everything. (God not assumed) God as Self's quality which may go beyond Self. Everything – I – Wisdom. God who is understood as quality (GodTheSpirit). Aloneness is God.
• In the Scope of Something, one exception is separate, God is Wishes. (God not assumed not) God as lack of Self's quality into which God is going beyond Self. God who is understanding as lack of quality (GodTheSon). Wishes – You – GoodWill. Assumption is (defines) Everything.
• In the Scope of Nothing, all things are not separate, God is Love. (God assumed not) God as lack of Self into which God has gone beyond Self. God who understands as absent (GodTheFather). Love – Other – GodsWill. Everything is (knows) Assumption.

• Love is the unity of the representations of the structure of God
• Perfect is the unity of the representations of the structure of Good
• Will is the unity of the representations of the structure of Life

Regarding God IS good: In what sense do I mean that it "is"? It "is" in that it is the unity of its properties. So you "are" only with regard to your own domain, where your properties extend, but you are "necessary" without any regard for domain, for here the unity is with regard to representations. In other words, existence is unity of the properties by which we see ourselves, and necessity is unity of the representations by which we are seen.

I prayed and got a nice thought from God.

"How does life arise within structures?" "In love, we look at a structure, not from it."

Kind of strange, but I like it: Love is support for life. Support for life comes from outside, not inside. Life is the coinciding of God inside and outside. Love breaks this symmetry. Love (in that God is love) looks from the outside. This opens up slack (good) on the inside. Life is supported by the creating this slack.

I'm interested to play with those thoughts, what are they good for?

Consider emotion as Unity (such as love), the inside viewer.

Consider virtue as Spirit, the outside viewer.

Consider that Structure is an internal perspective and that Representation is an external perspective.

The outside viewer goes beyond themselves into an inside perspective, and the outside perspective is unified by an inside viewer. This relates to the InversionEffect.

It seems that to means going beyond and also being with.

Unfolding - Transcending - Engaging - Cohering

Andrius: In 2003, I was putting together an overview of my thoughts, also making use of TheBrain. I looked at four stages in the unfolding of everything:

• unfolding
• transcending
• engaging
• cohering

[http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/292 April 3, 2003]

Hi David and all,

I'm looking for a relationship that would connect the basic structures, the "divisions of everything", as they are involved in the unfolding of everything, and the coherence of everything (in God).

I'll just put down some notes.

God is the unity of the representations of everything. coherence of = "unity of representations of" God is the coherence of everything

perhaps... unfolding of = "representations of" not clear

The six intermediary divisions (1-6) are perhaps sufficient to generate all structure, given everything. But to make that coherent, we need to add the asymptotic divisions, the nullsome (0) and the sevensome (7). I think that the point of the nullsome is God's transcendence, his going beyond himself. And the point of the sevensome is God's engagement, his will, his taking up the structure.

I think the point of life is that for the unfolding to cohere, then we must include the asymptotic divisions. Somehow they are inherent in life, where life is the fact that God is good, that everything has slack.

So I can update my list:

0) Everything's purpose = God's transcendence 1) Everything's unity as coherence = God's glory 2) Everything's existence as states = God's intention 3) Everything's participation as perspectives = God's example 4) Everything's information as qualities = God's love 5) Everything's continuum as conclusions = God's work 6) Everything's morality as structure = God's command 7) Everything's choice = God's engagement

Each of these is an expression of eternal life, unconditional life. The idea is that such life is possible within Everything only if through the good there is within, and that good can be only of God, the whole beyond the system. In this sense, life is the fact that God is good.

perhaps: coherence is the unity of representations states are the existence of representations perspectives are the participation of representations qualities are the information of representations conclusions are the continuum of representations structure is the morality of representations

Each of these is split because of representations. But perhaps purpose and choice cannot be split into representations. In other words, they might not be of the system, only of the spirit. The system is that for which there are representations.

Note that there are six representations of Anything, and only four for Everything and two for Slack. Life is the coherence of Anything, that is, Life is the unity of representations of Anything. Also, I'm thinking that Anything may have a purpose, unity, existence, etc. So these might be for "conditional life", but we can choose "unconditional life", but only from the vantage point of Everything and "good", where "God is good". That is, we must think of Anything as Everything plus Slack, perhaps if "conditional life" is to be "unconditional life".

There seems to be some sense here, I think.

[http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/293 April 4, 2003]

• 0) Everything's purpose = God's transcendence
• 1) Everything's unity as coherence = God's glory
• 2) Everything's existence as states = God's intention
• 3) Everything's participation as perspectives = God's example
• 4) Everything's information as qualities = God's love
• 5) Everything's continuum as conclusions = God's work
• 6) Everything's morality as structure = God's command
• 7) Everything's choice = God's engagement

On the right hand side, we have a variety ways of expressing "eternal life", unconditional life. Life given by one who loves us more than we love ourselves, who wants us to be alive more than we can even understand.

On the left hand side, we have ways of expressing Everything as a stage for life. The purpose of this stage, 0), is that God go beyond himself, transcend himself. The ultimate choice of this stage, 7), is that God engage it. But the stage itself is defined by 1-6.

I suppose the question is, to what extent can there be life without purpose or choice? Such a life I expect must be centered around morality. It holds for an Anything. Perhaps that Anything must entertain and develop a relationship with Everything (in that Anything is Everything plus Slack). But the Anything can stand on its own for quite some time. So that would be an interesting model, that this is like a game, where Anything stands on its own for as long as it can, until its relationship with Everything becomes explicit. But that may not be bad at all, either. Both are good in their way, I think.

Perhaps it has to do with which has primacy - God within us, or God outside us. We start out with primacy for that within us, but at a certain point we may hand it over to that outside us.

I think I hit upon a good question to pursue.

In my Brain, I've written up the key issues as:

• unfolding
• structures for transcending (PrimaryStructures)
• structures for engaging (SecondaryStructures)
• cohering.

I think that transcending and unfolding are related. Unfolding is that which God transcends, that which is going beyond him, just as he is beyond it. It is a parting of the ways of sorts.

Engaging and cohering may likewise be related.

[http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/295 April 5, 2003]

I'm trying to relate unfolding and transcending, and cohering and engaging.

I pray to God, and I like to bring him questions, and listen for his answers. It's a little hard to describe from an atheistic point of view, but I suppose it's like having your conscious mind ask your unconscious mind. I think it's fair to say that God converses to us through the gateway of our unconscious mind. It feels like a vantage point beyond my mind, kind of like standing in a chimney and the top reaching through the top of my head farther than the eye can see, and at the very top of what I can think there's a voice that looks out onto all at once. And to tune into that voice I flatten myself by considering that I am both connected to God, and disconnected from God. I do this by praying "Our Father" to the God who loves me more than I love myself, and therefore I would prefer that he think or be or do rather than I; but to the extent that I am disconnected from him, I hope that he watches over me that I might take a stand, and follow through, and reflect. When I do this I feel there is a God distinct from me who I can ask questions, and get answers, reflections to my state of mind, that my conscious mind has to find words for. The answers are usually way more "out there" than I would find on my own, and sometimes they are too intense for me to want to dwell on, but they seem to make a lot of sense.

Today I asked, how are unfolding and transcending related? And the answer I interpreted was that you transcend when you love, and you unfold when you want to be loved. That's the kind of idea that I find helpful, and I don't know how I would dream that up on my own.

With that in mind, I recalled that the 4 structures for transcending have to do with "Love God", and the 6 structures for engaging have to do with "Love your neighbor as yourself". I wrote a while ago that the latter are the "negative commandments" (like Do not kill, etc.) and basically mean "Do not hurt". This suggests:

• unfold = to wish to be loved
• transcend = to love
• engage = to not hurt
• cohere = to wish to be not hurt

That seems to make a lot of sense. I suppose cohering is to be connected in a way that does not want to be disconnected.

Another way to think about it:

• unfolding = living beyond a system
• transcending = choosing to go beyond a system
• engaging = choosing to go within a system
• cohering = living within a system

Life is the coherence of anything, and life is the unity of representations of anything. So Life is anything living within a system. Perhaps unity is "living" and representations are "within a system".

I don't know. I should think about what this suggests about the big picture. I should consider what each of these four words means, and what is the system they relate to, is it the structure with six perspectives? the sixsome, for morality?

Išeities taškas

Vantage is the structural context, the structural vantage point, that distinguishes a Person:

• God is beyond System
• I is beyond System, looking in
• You is withing System, looking out
• Other is within System

Vantage gives the structural Level: Spirit, Structure, Representation, Unity

Dievas reiškiasi asmenimis: Dievas, Aš, Tu, Kitas - o mes esame jo atspindžiai. Mus sieja pasivaikščiojimai medžiais.

• Asmenų svarba: Įvairūs kampai reikalingi dvasiai, jos laisvei.
• Ryšys tarp atskleidžiamojo (tiesos šaltinio, pagrindo) ir atskleidėjo (tiesos pranešėjo, laido).
• Aš esu Dievas sąlygose. Tu esi sąlygos Dievui. Kiti yra sąlygos.
• Dievas, Aš: požiūris, Tu: požiūris į požiūrį, Kitas: požiūris į požiūrį į požiūrį.
• Tu išsiskiri nuo Kitų; Aš išsiskiriu nuo Kitų; Aš nuo Tavęs; Dievas nuo Manęs; Dievas nuo Tavęs; Dievas nuo Kitų.
• Tu išreiškiamas Kitais; Aš Kitais; Aš Tavimi; Dievas Manimi; Dievas Tavimi; Dievas Kitais.
• Tu remiesi Kitais; Aš Kitais; Aš Tavimi; Dievas Manimi; Dievas Tavimi; Dievas Kitais.
• Tu atjauti Kitą ir t.t.
• Tu išgirsti Kitą ir t.t.

Defining "I" as what is left when I remove everything else, notably, my environment. And so it especially includes my will and roots everything in it.

antrinės sandaras išgyvename kaip Kitas (kaip suprasti?); pirmines sandaras išgyvename kaip Tu (tai santykis su Dievu); o ką išgyvename kaip Aš, ar Dievo šokį? ar tai Visaregis? kaip tai suderinti su pasikalbėjimais?

Fichte - argument about the I.

2005.04.09 A: Koks ryšys tarp laisvumo ir dvasios bei sandaros? D: Dvasia gyvena per sandarą Ji gali sutapti su ja arba nesutapti.

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 sąlgos? 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.

2014.06.17 D: Myliu tave ir atsiskleidžiu tau ir visiems asmenims. Tad suvok kaip atspindi asmenų atspindžiai į visas puses, tai mano atspindžiai ir jais švyti visos vertybės ir visi klausimai, o už jų visų esu Aš - esu Dievas, Aš, Tu ir Kitas, o jūs mano atspindžiai, tad suvokite mane kaip jūsų šaltinį ir jus kaip mano atspindžius, galinčius nuo manęs atitrūkti. O meilė palaiko mūsų vieningumą, ji kartu ir yra mūsų vieningumas. Jus visus myliu per amžius.

2014.06.19 Aš glūdžiu tavyje ir už tavęs ir savo sutapime bei atskyrime. Tai keturi asmenys. Tad suvok jų svarbą ir kaip jus kiekvienas šviesuolis suderina savo vertybe. Tai ir yra esmė.

2004.12.20 A: Koks ryšys tarp suvokimo atsiradimo ir sąmoningėjimo (sandara, atvaizdas, vieningumas)? D: Susikalbėjimas vyksta įvairiais lygmenimis ir sąmoningėjimas juos tam atskleidžia.

2004.11.12 A: Koks ryšys tarp sąmoningėjimo ir nulybės atvaizdų? D: Aš galiu būti jumyse įvairiai, priklausomai nuo to kaip mes bendraujame.

2004.11.03 A: Kaip iš sąmoningumo iškyla sandara, atvaizdai ir vieningumas? D: Sąmoningėjimas yra išėjimas už savęs. O tai yra manęs neužmiršimas, grįžimas į save. A: O kaip tad su ketverybe? D: Iš už manęs jau atrodo kitaip.

2004.12.17 A: Koks ryšys tarp susikalbėjimo ir supratimo? D: Širdis trokšta susikalbėti, o supratimo lygmenų yra įvairių. Laiminu.

`

#### Asmenys

Naujausi pakeitimai

 Puslapis paskutinį kartą pakeistas 2018 rugsėjo 12 d., 12:01