Mintys.Asmenys istorija
Paslėpti nežymius pakeitimus - Rodyti galutinio teksto pakeitimus
2023 rugsėjo 19 d., 12:49
atliko -
Pridėtos 497-509 eilutės:
* Dievas išeidamas už savęs į save išskiria keturis asmenis. Žmogus išeidamas iš savęs už savęs surenka keturis asmenis ir juos suvienija Dievu. Visur yra ta pati dvasia.
* Žmogus yra Kitas. Jam Dievas tampa Kitu. Ir taip toliau kuriama Žmogaus ir Dievo požiūrių grandinė.
* Santykinai Aš esu Dievas, Tu esi Kitas.
* Asmenys sieja du požiūrius. Šie du požiūriai grindžia gyvenimo lygtį.
** Sąlygose: Dievas - besąlygiškas, Aš - sąlygose, Tu - sieji, Kitas - skiria
** Už sąlygų: Dievas - dvasia, Aš - sandara, Tu - atvaizdai (suvokimai), Kitas - vieningumas
* Dievas veda į Mane (gerumą), Tave (gyvenimą) ir Kitą (amžiną gyvenimą). Taip atrodo nešališkai. O šališkai, Dievo akimis, Dievas išeina už savęs į Mane, toliau Manimi mato Dievą kaip Tave, ir galiausiai Tavimi supranta Dievą kaip Kitą.
* Aš esu, Tu vykdai, Kitas mąsto - mąstymas vyksta Kitame, veikla vyksta Tavyje, buvimas vyksta Manyje
* Klausimas: Kodėl Kitas mąsto? iškelia jo vidinio gyvenimo reikalingumą, tad jo laisvos valios reikalingumą. Kitas mąstydamas gali spręsti, kaip liudytojas. Turėdamas savo vidinį gyvenimą, savo vidinį pasaulį, yra visiškai laisvas nuo išorinio pasaulio ir kartu nuo Dievo. Mąstymu puoselėja savo vidinį pasaulį, o buvimas ir veikimas jį sieja su išoriniu pasauliu.
2022 spalio 21 d., 14:47
atliko -
Pridėtos 493-496 eilutės:
Mes ir Dievas vienas kitą papildome.
* Dievas įsijaučia (visko) nežinojimu (savo žvilgsniu) ir atsitokėja (visko) žinojimu (savo požiūriu). O mes atvirkščiai įsijaučiame žinojimu ir atsitokėjame nežinojimu.
* Mes kiekvienas esame visako suvedimas, tokia mūsų pasąmonės veikla. Bet juo labiau svarbu yra visko išvedimas, juk tai kilo ne iš mūsų asmenybių, bet iš pirmapradžio Dievo. Visgi kartu ir mūsų kiekvieno pradmuo yra tasai grynasis sąmoningumas, prabundantis, lygiai kaip ir pirmapradis Dievas, tad sutampantis su juo.
2022 spalio 18 d., 15:25
atliko -
2022 spalio 18 d., 15:25
atliko -
Pridėta 60 eilutė:
* Ar Kitas yra mylintis? Ar Tu esi ramus? Ar Aš esu užtikrintas?
2022 spalio 15 d., 16:39
atliko -
Pakeista 494 eilutė iš:
Attach:4asmenys.png
į:
%center%Attach:4asmenys.png
Pakeistos 496-507 eilutės iš
Attach:godiyouother.png
į:
%center%Attach:godiyouother.png
-------------------------
%center%Attach:lavintijautruma.png
-----------------------
%center%Attach:understanding.gif
----------------------
%center%Attach:conjunctions.gif
>>bgcolor=#EFCFE1<<
-------------------------
* Fichte - argument about the I.
-------------------------
%center%Attach:lavintijautruma.png
-----------------------
%center%Attach:understanding.gif
----------------------
%center%Attach:conjunctions.gif
>>bgcolor=#EFCFE1<<
-------------------------
* Fichte - argument about the I.
2022 spalio 15 d., 14:59
atliko -
Ištrinta 492 eilutė:
Pakeistos 497-498 eilutės iš
į:
Pridėta 646 eilutė:
------------------------
2022 spalio 15 d., 14:58
atliko -
2022 spalio 15 d., 14:58
atliko -
Ištrintos 493-494 eilutės:
Pakeistos 498-648 eilutės iš
------------------------
į:
------------------------
>>bgcolor=#FFDADA<<
--------------------------
[+Aš+]
'''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
'''Pasitelkti pasamonę, nuojautą, patirtį, išvadas'''
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
>>bgcolor=#FFCDCD<<
---------------------------
[+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
Internal dialogue with someone dear or critical Conversing with: convictions I often have dialogues in my mind with people I know. I suppose they are sparked by my feelings and my conscience. In reflect about events in my life, I will feel a wish to say to somebody the truth. But am I being fair to them? What would they say? My mind provides their reply, what they might say. And then I think and reply. In this way, my mind rehearses conversations that may be several minutes long. I recall doing this in grade school as I rode home on the bus, thinking to myself. I have had many conversations with my parents, with good friends, with girls and women I have been in love with, and even certain peripheral individuals who are critical of me. I have a crush on a woman, but then imagine, what if she had an abortion, would I still love her, and what would I say? I have had many conversations in my mind with my parents about the things I do that irk them, such as not getting a hair cut or my difficulty in making a living or my adventures in life or my philosophical ideas, or their aspirations for me, such as being Lithuanian or being a good person, kind and of good will. I learned that people in my mind were more real, vibrant, honest, direct, intense, distilled, than they were in real life. True, in real life, when they said something unexpected, I had to adjust my understanding of them, yet in mind, there could also be something similar, when I managed to see them in a new light, and indeed, I would converse with them in my mind until I could resolve all of my feelings. I noticed that my conversations with God are quite similar, and I could explain to others that, in that sense, God is very real to me, just as the people in my mind are more real than they are in real life. In 2011, in speaking about this with my father, I learned that he actually doesn't have any such conversations. I suppose I have them because I was never able to talk with my parents and others as much as I liked about what I cared about, and because when I did have a chance, I didn't want the conversations to go on unhelpful or hurtful tracks.709
>>bgcolor=#FFC0C0<<
----------------------
[+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
'''Priimti aplinkybes'''
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
>><<
>>bgcolor=#FFDADA<<
--------------------------
[+Aš+]
'''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
'''Pasitelkti pasamonę, nuojautą, patirtį, išvadas'''
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
>>bgcolor=#FFCDCD<<
---------------------------
[+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
Internal dialogue with someone dear or critical Conversing with: convictions I often have dialogues in my mind with people I know. I suppose they are sparked by my feelings and my conscience. In reflect about events in my life, I will feel a wish to say to somebody the truth. But am I being fair to them? What would they say? My mind provides their reply, what they might say. And then I think and reply. In this way, my mind rehearses conversations that may be several minutes long. I recall doing this in grade school as I rode home on the bus, thinking to myself. I have had many conversations with my parents, with good friends, with girls and women I have been in love with, and even certain peripheral individuals who are critical of me. I have a crush on a woman, but then imagine, what if she had an abortion, would I still love her, and what would I say? I have had many conversations in my mind with my parents about the things I do that irk them, such as not getting a hair cut or my difficulty in making a living or my adventures in life or my philosophical ideas, or their aspirations for me, such as being Lithuanian or being a good person, kind and of good will. I learned that people in my mind were more real, vibrant, honest, direct, intense, distilled, than they were in real life. True, in real life, when they said something unexpected, I had to adjust my understanding of them, yet in mind, there could also be something similar, when I managed to see them in a new light, and indeed, I would converse with them in my mind until I could resolve all of my feelings. I noticed that my conversations with God are quite similar, and I could explain to others that, in that sense, God is very real to me, just as the people in my mind are more real than they are in real life. In 2011, in speaking about this with my father, I learned that he actually doesn't have any such conversations. I suppose I have them because I was never able to talk with my parents and others as much as I liked about what I cared about, and because when I did have a chance, I didn't want the conversations to go on unhelpful or hurtful tracks.709
>>bgcolor=#FFC0C0<<
----------------------
[+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
'''Priimti aplinkybes'''
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
>><<
2022 spalio 10 d., 15:11
atliko -
Pridėtos 14-16 eilutės:
* Kaip asmenys susiję su gyvenimo lygties lygmenimis?
* Kaip suprasti Dievo buvimo papildinį, kaip kad Dievo troškimais, augančiais nuo nieko iki kažko iki betko iki visko?
* Kaip Dievo buvimo papildiniai susiję su netroškimais?
* Kaip suprasti Dievo buvimo papildinį, kaip kad Dievo troškimais, augančiais nuo nieko iki kažko iki betko iki visko?
* Kaip Dievo buvimo papildiniai susiję su netroškimais?
2022 spalio 10 d., 14:26
atliko -
Pridėta 10 eilutė:
* Kaip keturių asmenų ir jų apimčių apibrėžimai atsiremia į tai, kaip asmuo sieja besąlygiškumą-sąlygiškumą, nešališkumą-šališkumą ir nepaneigiamumą-paneigiamumą?
2022 spalio 10 d., 10:00
atliko -
Pakeista 3 eilutė iš:
[[Asmuo]], [[Asmenų tyrimai]], [[Gyvenimo lygtis]], [[Neįsivaizduojamumas]]
į:
[[Asmuo]], [[Asmenų tyrimai]], [[Apytakos]], [[Gyvenimo lygtis]], [[Neįsivaizduojamumas]]
2022 rugsėjo 14 d., 13:09
atliko -
Pridėtos 29-31 eilutės:
Aš ir Tu
* Kuriais atvejais Aš yra asmenybė ar asmuo, ir kuriais atvejais Tu yra asmenybė ar asmuo?
2022 rugsėjo 14 d., 13:02
atliko -
Pridėtos 37-38 eilutės:
Kaip susiję asmenų išsirikiavimai požiūrių lygtimi - Dievas, Aš (gerumas), Tu (gyvenimas), Kitas (amžinas gyvenimas) - ir ketverybe - Dievas (ar), Aš (koks), Tu (kaip), Kitas (kodėl) ?
Pridėtos 485-487 eilutės:
2022 gegužės 03 d., 13:53
atliko -
Pridėtos 48-50 eilutės:
* Mokytis kokių įvardžių yra pasaulio kalbose. Kaip tai susiję su asmenimis?
* Ar mano suvokimas asmenų atspindi vakarų pasaulėžiūros ribotumus?
2022 balandžio 26 d., 16:45
atliko -
Pakeistos 3-4 eilutės iš
[[Asmuo]], [[Asmenų tyrimai]], [[Gyvenimo lygtis]]
į:
[[Asmuo]], [[Asmenų tyrimai]], [[Gyvenimo lygtis]], [[Neįsivaizduojamumas]]
Pridėtos 478-479 eilutės:
* Asmenis telkia Kitas.
2022 balandžio 26 d., 15:30
atliko -
Pridėtos 464-477 eilutės:
Kitas (trečias asmuo) yra Dievo (nulinio asmens) pilnatvė.
Dievas (Dievas-Kitas) ir Žmonės (Aš-Tu)
* Dievas yra galimybių visuma, o mes esame paskiros galimybės.
* Kitas yra tiek visuma, tiek paskira galimybė - jų darna.
Asmenys suteikia reikšmes apimtyse
* Asmuo yra tiriamasis.
Asmenys išreiškia reikšmių lygmenis
* Pasąmonė gyvena Manimi
* Sąmonė gyvena Tavimi
* Sąmoningumas gyvena Kitu
2022 kovo 15 d., 12:31
atliko -
Pridėta 47 eilutė:
* Požiūrio lygtyje Aš (žinojimas), Tu (nežinojimas), mus sieja (Dievas), o skiria (Kitas). Ar kaip?
2022 vasario 09 d., 22:23
atliko -
Pridėtos 45-46 eilutės:
* Kaip trečias asmuo yra nulinio asmens pilnatvė?
2021 lapkričio 24 d., 14:10
atliko -
Pridėtos 424-425 eilutės:
* Asmenys apima visumą, tik ją permaino požiūriais. Spėju, šios permainos remiasi įsijautimu +1, atsitokėjimu +2, sąmoningėjimu +3 ir santykiais tarp asmenų. Tokiu būdu galėtų gautis pasivaikščiojimai medžiais kaip visumą išsaugojančios permainos.
* Asmenys išreiškia visa tai ką išvysto visumą išsaugojančios permainos.
* Asmenys išreiškia visa tai ką išvysto visumą išsaugojančios permainos.
2021 lapkričio 24 d., 14:07
atliko -
Pakeista 423 eilutė iš:
* Asmenys yra nesudėtingi. Jie sujungia apytakų pažinovus kaišteliu.
į:
* Asmenys yra nesudėtiniai. Jie sujungia apytakų pažinovus kaišteliu.
2021 lapkričio 24 d., 14:07
atliko -
Pridėtos 422-429 eilutės:
* Asmenys yra nesudėtingi. Jie sujungia apytakų pažinovus kaišteliu.
* Kitas yra taškas kurio atžvilgiu Dievas nebūtinai geras.
* Dievas įsisavinamas vidiniu tašku - Kitu.
* Dievo kampu išryškėja Kitas.
* Atjausdami Kitą atveriame laisvę.
* Asmenys yra Dievas būklėse: Dievas neapibrėžtume, Aš apibrėžtume, Tu įsivaizduojamume, Kitas neįsivaizduojamume.
* Asmenys brenda gilyn į įsikūnijimą, į savastį, į (savasties) tarpą (tarp Dievo už mūsų ir Dievo mumyse). Labiausiai įbridęs, visiškai įbridęs yra Kitas.
2021 lapkričio 22 d., 13:12
atliko -
Pridėtos 14-19 eilutės:
Asmenų požiūriai
* Kokie yra Mano, Tavo, Kito požiūriai?
* Ar Mano, Tavo, Kito požiūriai išvis skiriasi?
* Kaip susiję Dievo požiūris ir Mano, Tavo, Kito požiūriai?
* Kaip asmenys išgyvena Dievo požiūrį?
* Kokie yra Mano, Tavo, Kito požiūriai?
* Ar Mano, Tavo, Kito požiūriai išvis skiriasi?
* Kaip susiję Dievo požiūris ir Mano, Tavo, Kito požiūriai?
* Kaip asmenys išgyvena Dievo požiūrį?
Pakeistos 26-31 eilutės iš
Asmenų požiūriai
* Kokie yra Mano, Tavo, Kito požiūriai?
*Ar Mano, Tavo, Kito požiūriai išvis skiriasi?
* Kaip susiję Dievo požiūris ir Mano, Tavo, Kito požiūriai?
* Kaip asmenys išgyvena Dievo požiūrį?
*
* Kaip susiję Dievo požiūris ir Mano, Tavo, Kito požiūriai?
* Kaip asmenys išgyvena Dievo požiūrį?
į:
Asmenų branda
* Kaip neįsivaizduojamume bręsta asmenys?
* Kaip asmenys grindžia meilės mokslą?
* Kaip neįsivaizduojamume bręsta asmenys?
* Kaip asmenys grindžia meilės mokslą?
Pridėtos 33-34 eilutės:
* Ar gali visi būti Kitais?
* Ar iš Kitų išsivysto Tu, paskui Aš, galiausiai Dievas?
* Ar iš Kitų išsivysto Tu, paskui Aš, galiausiai Dievas?
Pakeistos 44-45 eilutės iš
į:
* Kaip tyrimas sieja trejybės ratą (tyrimą apskritai) ir trejybės atvaizdą (asmenų tyrimą)?
Pakeistos 307-310 eilutės iš
į:
Liudijimas
* Asmenims nieko apimtimi įmanomas griežčiausias liudijimas.
* Asmenims nieko apimtimi įmanomas griežčiausias liudijimas.
Ištrintos 422-425 eilutės:
* Kaip asmenys grindžia meilės mokslą?
* Asmenims nieko apimtimi įmanomas griežčiausias liudijimas.
* Kaip tyrimas sieja trejybės ratą (tyrimą apskritai) ir trejybės atvaizdą (asmenų tyrimą)?
Pakeistos 424-425 eilutės iš
* Kas yra viena su viskuo? Asmenys.
į:
* Asmenys yra viena su viskuo.
Pakeistos 440-441 eilutės iš
į:
Kitas
Ištrintos 448-449 eilutės:
Ištrinta 449 eilutė:
2021 lapkričio 17 d., 13:44
atliko -
Pakeistos 9-17 eilutės iš
** Kodėl yra keturi lygmenys?
** Kaip su keturiomis vienumo sampratomis (valių santykiais) ir su keturiais asmenimis susieti: unfolding, transcending, engaging, cohering?
** Iš kur kyla asmenys? Kaip jie susiję su įvairiomis lygmenų poromis: ženklų savybėmis, dvejonėmis, išsiaiškinimo būdais, Dievo įsakymais, pertvarkymais, gyvybės savybėmis?
** Asmenys išsako išraiškas: Ką išsako kam?
* Kokie yra Mano, Tavo, Kito požiūriai?
** Ar jų požiūriai išvis skiriasi?
* Kaip atsiranda
į:
Kaip apibrėžiami keturi asmenys?
Pakeistos 11-15 eilutės iš
* Jeigu asmenys yra padalinimai, o vaizduotė remiasi atvaizdais, tai kokie yra asmenų atvaizdai?
Kaip suprasti Mane, Tave, Kitą sandaromis, kuriomis jie išsiritulioja?
* Kaip asmenys (Dievas) susiję su apimtimis(viskuo)?
* Kaip iš Dievo pusės išsivysto Asmenys (Dievas, Aš, Tu, Kitas)? Kaip mes iškylame iš Dievo raidos?
* Kaip asmenys (Dievas) susiję su apimtimis
* Kaip iš Dievo pusės išsivysto Asmenys (Dievas
į:
* Kodėl yra keturi lygmenys?
* Ką asmuo išreiškia kam?
Asmenų kilmė
* Kaip atsiranda asmenys?
* Iš kur kyla asmenys?
* Kaip mes iškylame iš Dievo raidos?
* Kaip iš Dievo pusės išsivysto Asmenys (Dievas, Aš, Tu, Kitas)?
Asmenų požiūriai
* Kokie yra Mano, Tavo, Kito požiūriai?
* Ar Mano, Tavo, Kito požiūriai išvis skiriasi?
* Kaip susiję Dievo požiūris ir Mano, Tavo, Kito požiūriai?
* Kaip asmenys išgyvena Dievo požiūrį?
Kitas
* Ką asmuo išreiškia kam?
Asmenų kilmė
* Kaip atsiranda asmenys?
* Iš kur kyla asmenys?
* Kaip mes iškylame iš Dievo raidos?
* Kaip iš Dievo pusės išsivysto Asmenys (Dievas, Aš, Tu, Kitas)?
Asmenų požiūriai
* Kokie yra Mano, Tavo, Kito požiūriai?
* Ar Mano, Tavo, Kito požiūriai išvis skiriasi?
* Kaip susiję Dievo požiūris ir Mano, Tavo, Kito požiūriai?
* Kaip asmenys išgyvena Dievo požiūrį?
Kitas
Pridėtos 28-32 eilutės:
* Kaip iš Kito pusės reiškiasi Lygtis: Gyvenimas, tai Dievo gerumas, bet amžinas gyvenimas, tai jo suvokimas, kad Dievas ir gerumas yra atskiri?
* Kaip susivienijame Kitu?
Asmenų santykiai su sandaromis
* Kaip suprasti Mane, Tave, Kitą sandaromis, kuriomis jie išsiritulioja?
* Kaip susivienijame Kitu?
Asmenų santykiai su sandaromis
* Kaip suprasti Mane, Tave, Kitą sandaromis, kuriomis jie išsiritulioja?
Pakeistos 34-37 eilutės iš
* Kaip iš Kito pusės tai reiškiasi Lygtis: Gyvenimas, tai Dievo gerumas, bet amžinas gyvenimas, tai jo suvokimas, kad Dievas ir gerumas yra atskiri?
*išgyvena Dievo požiūrį?
* Kaip susivienijame Kitu? Dievas - gyventi Mumis. Dievas Mumis - gyventi Kitu.
*
* Kaip susivienijame Kitu? Dievas - gyventi Mumis. Dievas Mumis - gyventi Kitu.
į:
* Kaip asmenys (Dievas) susiję su apimtimis (viskuo)?
* Kaip su keturiomis vienumo sampratomis (valių santykiais) ir su keturiais asmenimis susieti: unfolding, transcending, engaging, cohering?
* Kaip asmenys susiję su įvairiomis lygmenų poromis: ženklų savybėmis, dvejonėmis, išsiaiškinimo būdais, Dievo įsakymais, pertvarkymais, gyvybės savybėmis?
* Jeigu asmenys yra padalinimai, o vaizduotė remiasi atvaizdais, tai kokie yra asmenų atvaizdai?
* Kaip su keturiomis vienumo sampratomis (valių santykiais) ir su keturiais asmenimis susieti: unfolding, transcending, engaging, cohering?
* Kaip asmenys susiję su įvairiomis lygmenų poromis: ženklų savybėmis, dvejonėmis, išsiaiškinimo būdais, Dievo įsakymais, pertvarkymais, gyvybės savybėmis?
* Jeigu asmenys yra padalinimai, o vaizduotė remiasi atvaizdais, tai kokie yra asmenų atvaizdai?
Pridėtos 431-432 eilutės:
Dievas už Mūsų gyvena Mumis. Dievas Mumis, Dievas Mumyse gyvena Kitu.
2021 lapkričio 16 d., 13:41
atliko -
Pridėtos 20-29 eilutės:
* Kaip suprasti Mane, Tave, Kitą sandaromis, kuriomis jie išsiritulioja?
* Kaip asmenys (Dievas) susiję su apimtimis (viskuo)?
* Kaip iš Dievo pusės išsivysto Asmenys (Dievas, Aš, Tu, Kitas)? Kaip mes iškylame iš Dievo raidos?
* Koks Kito vaidmuo mūsų sutapime su Dievu?
* Koks ryšys tarp asmenų ir suvokimo lygmenų?
* Kaip iš Kito pusės tai reiškiasi Lygtis: Gyvenimas, tai Dievo gerumas, bet amžinas gyvenimas, tai jo suvokimas, kad Dievas ir gerumas yra atskiri?
* Kaip asmenys išgyvena Dievo požiūrį?
* Kaip susivienijame Kitu? Dievas - gyventi Mumis. Dievas Mumis - gyventi Kitu.
2021 lapkričio 08 d., 12:34
atliko -
Pridėtos 422-427 eilutės:
'''Užrašai'''
* Asmenys yra neįsivaizduojantys. Jeigu yra neįsivaizduojamumas, tai yra neįsivaizduojantis (Kitas). O tai yra trejybės ratas, tai prasmingumas, neaprėpiamumas, kuris trejopai reiškiasi, pereinant iš nusistatymo į vykdymą, iš vykdymo į permąstymą, iš permąstymo į nusistatymą. Tad Kitas yra, vadinas, Dievas gali būti išplėtus Kitą kuomet Dievas gyvena Kitu.
* Kaip neįsivaizduojamume bręsta asmenys?
* Asmenys grindžia dvilypumą, kad gali Dievas gyventi Kitu ir Kitas Dievu, Aš Tavimi ir Tu Manimi. Malda tai palaiko. Tai yra bene būdas kaip šeši pertvarkymai susisieja, susiderina, ir tai vyksta jų tarpais tarp dviejų tvarkų.
2021 spalio 24 d., 11:07
atliko -
Pridėtos 393-399 eilutės:
Asmenys, tyrimai
* Kaip asmenys grindžia meilės mokslą?
* Asmenims nieko apimtimi įmanomas griežčiausias liudijimas.
* Kaip tyrimas sieja trejybės ratą (tyrimą apskritai) ir trejybės atvaizdą (asmenų tyrimą)?
* Asmenis jungia tyrimas, jų bendra veikla.
* Kas yra viena su viskuo? Asmenys.
2021 spalio 12 d., 16:17
atliko -
Pridėtos 402-404 eilutės:
* Dievas grindžia asmenis - Dievą, Mane, Tave, Kitą. Juos išsako požiūriais, kuriuos grindžia sandara.
* Dievo ir Kito santykiui yra lemtingi tarpiniai asmenys, Aš ir Tu, ir jų santykis.
2021 rugsėjo 18 d., 21:56
atliko -
Pridėta 401 eilutė:
* Būtent Kitas, priimdamas Dievo požiūrį į save, užsklendžia trejybės ratą. Aš ir Tu šito negalime. Tiktai suprasdami save kaip Kitą, iš Dievo pusės, galima tai padaryti, save patikslinti, būtent Dievo atžvilgiu.
2021 kovo 06 d., 14:22
atliko -
Pridėtos 398-400 eilutės:
* Asmenų (mano - tavo) esmė yra požiūriai (įsijautimas - atsitokėjimas) nes tai išsako, kas mes esame, tai išsako mūsų sąmoningumą, kaip renkamės viską priimti.
* Asmenys išsiskirsto nesant suvokimui, tai Dievo pakaitalai neigiant jo savybes. Asmenys vienijasi lygtimi.
2021 kovo 05 d., 12:29
atliko -
Pakeistos 3-4 eilutės iš
į:
[[Asmuo]], [[Asmenų tyrimai]], [[Gyvenimo lygtis]]
,
,
2021 kovo 05 d., 12:28
atliko -
Pridėtos 398-407 eilutės:
'''Kitas'''
Antrinių sandarų (sandarų šeimų ir kalbų) apibrėžtas Kitas išsako Dievo nebūtinumą ir būtinumą. Kitas atskiria Mane ir Dievą.
* Kitas yra vieninga savastis, vienijanti šešias antrines sandaras, betko atvaizdus.
* Kuria prasme, esant Kitam, Dievas nebūtinas? Dievas nebūtinas jeigu pakanka gerumo, jeigu Dievas būtinai santvarkoje, juk Dievas yra tai, kas pirm santvarkos, gi santvarka Dievas neigia save.
* Ir kaip Dievas visgi tampa būtinas? Dievas iškyla sąvoka, ''Dievas nebūtinai geras''.
* Kaip Kitu susiveda sandarų šeimos ir kalbos? Jos atitinkamai apibrėžia požiūrius ir sąvokas.
* Kitu išsakomos visos įmanomos sąlygos, taip kad besąlygiškumas nebūtinas.
* Visgi, mums - Aš ir Tau - prisiimant visas įmanomas sąlygas, besąlygiškumas yra būtinas.
2021 vasario 23 d., 20:00
atliko -
Pridėtos 391-397 eilutės:
'''Užrašai'''
* Dievas - už santvarkos - priešinga veikla: išėjimas už savęs į save, į santvarką
* Aš - santvarkoje - priešinga veikla: nukrypimai
* Tu - junginys - priešinga veikla: išskyrimai
* Kitas - atskyrimas - priešinga veikla: padalinimai
2021 sausio 29 d., 15:21
atliko -
Pakeista 168 eilutė iš:
* transcending - pasirinkimų malūnas
į:
* transcending - išgyvenimo apytaka
Pakeista 170 eilutė iš:
* cohering - maldų mokslas
į:
* cohering - meilės mokslas
2021 sausio 29 d., 15:20
atliko -
Pakeista 3 eilutė iš:
Žr. [[Asmuo]]
į:
Žr. [[Asmuo]], [[Asmenų tyrimai]]
2021 sausio 29 d., 15:19
atliko -
Pridėtos 202-207 eilutės:
Dievas savo išėjimą už savęs išgyvena keturiais asmenimis
* Dievas požiūriais (virsmais į sąlygas) virsta asmenimis.
* Dievo tyrimas išsišakoja pagal keturias buvimo galimybes.
* Dievas išeidamas už savęs į save virsta asmenimis sąlygose: Dievu, Manimi, Tavimi, Kitu.
* Keturi asmenys paskirai nusako ketverybės lygmenis, išėjimo už savęs pakopas.
2021 sausio 23 d., 23:13
atliko -
Pakeistos 25-26 eilutės iš
'''Keturi asmenys'''
į:
'''Kaip skiriasi asmenys: Dievas, Aš, Tu, Kitas'''
|| || '''Dievas''' || '''Aš''' || '''Tu''' || '''Kitas''' ||
|| pirmi keturi padalinimai || nulybė || vienybė || dvejybė || trejybė ||
|| mato manimi || kodėl: kas mes iš tiesų esame || kaip: save matau per savo vaidmenį || koks: mane per savo prielaidas || ar: manęs visai nemato ||
|| buvimas viena || dvasia || sandara || atvaizdai || vieningumas ||
|| asmenų lygtis || Dievas || gerumas || gyvenimas || amžinas gyvenimas ||
|| suvokimo lygmenys || suvokimas || savęs suvokimas || bendras suvokimas || susikalbėjimas ||
|| išvertimai, buvima ne vienas, asmens iššaukti santykiai || || Aš išverčiu Dievą || Tu suvedi Dievą ir Mane || Kitas atskiria Dievą ir Mane, užtat parodo jog Dievas viršesnis, nes būtent jisai rūpinasi Kitu ||
|| || '''Dievas''' || '''Aš''' || '''Tu''' || '''Kitas''' ||
|| pirmi keturi padalinimai || nulybė || vienybė || dvejybė || trejybė ||
|| mato manimi || kodėl: kas mes iš tiesų esame || kaip: save matau per savo vaidmenį || koks: mane per savo prielaidas || ar: manęs visai nemato ||
|| buvimas viena || dvasia || sandara || atvaizdai || vieningumas ||
|| asmenų lygtis || Dievas || gerumas || gyvenimas || amžinas gyvenimas ||
|| suvokimo lygmenys || suvokimas || savęs suvokimas || bendras suvokimas || susikalbėjimas ||
|| išvertimai, buvima ne vienas, asmens iššaukti santykiai || || Aš išverčiu Dievą || Tu suvedi Dievą ir Mane || Kitas atskiria Dievą ir Mane, užtat parodo jog Dievas viršesnis, nes būtent jisai rūpinasi Kitu ||
Ištrintos 37-42 eilutės:
* Mato kodėl: Dievas mato kas mes iš tiesų esame
* Mato kaip: Aš save matau per savo vaidmenį.
* Mato koks: Tu matai mane per savo prielaidas.
* Mato ar: Kitas manęs visai nemato.
Ištrintos 39-44 eilutės:
* Dvasia (Dievas)
* Sandara (Aš)
* Atvaizdai (Tu)
* Esmė (Kitas).
Pakeistos 46-56 eilutės iš
* Dievas
* Gerumas (Aš)
* Gyvenimas (Tu)
* Amžinas gyvenimas (Kitas).
Suvokimo lygmenys, buvimas ne viena, asmens iššaukti santykiai
* Suvokimas
* Savęs suvokimas: Aš išverčia Dievą.
* Bendras suvokimas: Tu suveda Dievą ir Mane.
* Susikalbėjimas: Kitas atskiria Dievą ir Mane, užtat parodo jog Dievas viršesnis, nes būtent jisai rūpinasi Kitu.
į:
* Bendras suvokimas: .
* Susikalbėjimas:
* Susikalbėjimas:
2021 sausio 22 d., 00:07
atliko -
Pridėtos 16-19 eilutės:
* Kaip atsiranda asmenys?
* Kaip suprasti asmenų lygmenis?
* Jeigu asmenys yra padalinimai, o vaizduotė remiasi atvaizdais, tai kokie yra asmenų atvaizdai?
2020 lapkričio 28 d., 14:12
atliko -
Pakeistos 18-21 eilutės iš
'''Kas yra asmuo?'''
į:
Kitame puslapyje giliniuosi, kas yra [[asmuo]]. Šiame puslapyje nagrinėju keturis asmenis: Dievą, Mane, Tave, Kitą.
Ištrinta 20 eilutė:
2020 lapkričio 28 d., 14:11
atliko -
Ištrintos 17-18 eilutės:
Pridėtos 19-24 eilutės:
'''Kas yra asmuo?'''
'''Keturi asmenys'''
2020 lapkričio 28 d., 14:10
atliko -
Pridėtos 206-211 eilutės:
Asmenų apibrėžimas vieningumu X=X:
* Vieningumas su savimi - Aš
* Vieningumas vieno su kitu - Tu
* Vieningumas su visais - Kitas
Apimtys yra apibrėžimo filtrai, sietai, ką reiškia lygybės ženklas.
2020 lapkričio 14 d., 19:43
atliko -
Pridėta 233 eilutė:
* esmė, atvaizdų vieningumas, koks yra (santvarkoje) už atvaizdų, tai kas nesirodo betgi suvienija visus atvaizdus.
2020 lapkričio 14 d., 19:26
atliko -
Pridėtos 386-387 eilutės:
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.
2020 lapkričio 14 d., 19:23
atliko -
Pridėtos 18-385 eilutės:
'''Keturi asmenys'''
Yra keturi asmenys: [[Dievas]], [[Aš]], [[Tu]], [[Kitas]].
* Kitas yra Dievas Mano vietoj. Kitas yra Dievo patikslinimas trejybės ratu. Trejybės ratas prilygina (isomorfiškai) Dievą ir jo patikslinimą. Užtat galime mylėti besąlygišką Dievą arba galime mylėti savo artimą.
Asmuo yra mumis matantysis
* Mato kodėl: Dievas mato kas mes iš tiesų esame
* Mato kaip: Aš save matau per savo vaidmenį.
* Mato koks: Tu matai mane per savo prielaidas.
* Mato ar: Kitas manęs visai nemato.
'''Tarpusavio santykiai'''
Gyvenimo lygties lygmenys - buvimas viena
* Dvasia (Dievas)
* Sandara (Aš)
* Atvaizdai (Tu)
* Esmė (Kitas).
Gyvenimo lygties lygmenys. Amžino gyvenimo išreiškimas Dievo trejybe. Dievo išvertimas.
* Dievas
* Dievas Dvasia - išmintis - Aš
* Dievas Sūnus - gera valia - Tu
* Dievas Tėvas - Dievo valia - Kitas
Asmenų lygtis
* Dievas
* Gerumas (Aš)
* Gyvenimas (Tu)
* Amžinas gyvenimas (Kitas).
Suvokimo lygmenys, buvimas ne viena, asmens iššaukti santykiai
* Suvokimas
* Savęs suvokimas: Aš išverčia Dievą.
* Bendras suvokimas: Tu suveda Dievą ir Mane.
* Susikalbėjimas: Kitas atskiria Dievą ir Mane, užtat parodo jog Dievas viršesnis, nes būtent jisai rūpinasi Kitu.
* Aš esu santykiai su Dievu,
* Tu esi santykiai su Kitais.
Rūpinamės Dievu, Manimi, Tavimi, Kitais. (Tai Minčių sodo veiklos)
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.
Asmeniui bene reikalingi visi asmenys: Kiti, Tu, Aš ir Dievas.
* Dievu asmuo išeina už savęs, tampa savo papildiniu, gali save mylėti.
'''Požiūriai - santykiai su santvarka'''
Požiūriai išsako mūsų išėjimą už savęs. Kitu visi santykiai tarp asmenų pilnai išsakomi požiūriais, taip kad Dievas (nežinojimas) yra požiūriu atskirtas nuo Manęs (žinojimo).
* Dievas žiūri pirmyn: amžinas gyvenimas, tai suvokimas, jog Dievas nebūtinai geras.
* Aš žiūri atgal iš lygties: gyvenimas, tai Dievo gerumas.
* Tu, tai šių skirtingų požiūrių sutapimas.
* Kitas, tai šių skirtingų požiūrių atskyrimas.
* Aš: esantysis (dvejybės langas: priešingybės gretinamos)
* Tu: žinantysis (ketverybės langas: kodėl)
* Kitas: atsakantysis (šešerybės langas: ...)
Asmenų keturi lygmenys:
* Nutrukūs ryšiui, Tu tampi Kitu; Aš tampu Tavimi; Dievas tampa Manimi.
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")
Asmenų tiesos, tai keturi [[išgyvenimai | išgyvenimo]] lygmenys:
* Dievo žvilgsnis
* Mano požiūris
* Tavo laikysena
* Kito vertybė.
* Dievas yra tiesos dvasia
* Aš esu sąvokos dvasia
* Tu esi žvilgsnio dvasia
* Kitas yra požiūrio dvasia.
Išeities taškai, savastis
* beyond system (Spirit) Activity
* beyond system, looking in (Structure) VantagePoint
* within system, looking out (Representation) Position
* within system (Unity) Perspective
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 within System, looking out
* Other is within System
Vantage gives the structural Level: Spirit, Structure, Representation, Unity
* Activity - God beyond the System
* Structure - I beyond the System, looking in
* Representations - You within the System, looking out
* Unity - Other within the System
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.
Sandaros išryškėjimas veikla. Visaregio sandai.
* Going beyond oneself
* Divergences
* Distinctions
* Divisions
Asmenys - Dievas, Aš, Tu, Kitas - yra apibrėžiami santvarkos pagrindu.
* Dievas yra pirm santvarkos, tad jisai viskuo atsiskyręs nuo savęs, esančio santvarkoje.
* Kitas yra būtent santvarkoje, tarp jos duženų. Tad Kitas nesiskiria nuo savęs ir gyvena tiesiogiai. Jo nežinojimas ir žinojimas sutampa.
* Kitaip tariant, Kitą nuo santvarkos skiria niekas, Tave skiria kažkas, Mane skiria betkas, ir Dievą skiria viskas.
Nuo santvarkos:
* Dievą skiria viskas
* Mane skiria betkas
* Tave skiria kažkas
* Kitą skiria niekas.
* Aš esu Dievas sąlygose.
* Tu esi sąlygos Dievui.
* Kiti yra sąlygos.
Sąmoningumo (nežinojimo ir žinojimo santykio) išsakymas požiūriais
* Dievas: Joks požiūris
* Aš: požiūris
* Tu: požiūris į požiūrį
* Kitas: požiūris į požiūrį į požiūrį.
Visas sąvokas dėliojant programine įranga TheBrain išskyriau keturias pagrindines sąvokas (1+4+6+1):
* unfolding
* structures for transcending (PrimaryStructures) "Mylėk Dievą"
* structures for engaging (SecondaryStructures) "Mylėk artimą kaip save patį"
* cohering.
Jos grindžia skirtingus supratimus. Bene atitinka keturias vienumo sampratas išsakančias valių santykius.
* unfolding - dvasia sąlygose
* transcending - sandara sąlygose
* engaging - atvaizdai sąlygose
* cohering - vieningumas sąlygose
Štai mintys, kaip šios sąvokos susijusios:
* 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.
* Dievas man atsakė: you transcend when you love, and you unfold when you want to be loved.
* Cohering is to be connected in a way that does not want to be disconnected.
* unfold = to wish to be loved
* transcend = to love
* engage = to not hurt
* cohere = to wish to be not hurt
* unfolding = living beyond a system
* transcending = choosing to go beyond a system
* engaging = choosing to go within a system
* cohering = living within a system
* unfolding - Dievo šokis
* transcending - pasirinkimų malūnas
* engaging - žinojimo rūmai
* cohering - maldų mokslas
'''Troškimai - Dievo atvaizdai'''
* 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.
* “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.
[+Keturi asmenys+]
'''Kitas'''
Kitas yra trečias asmuo, kuris iškyla su amžinu gyvenimu, tame tarpe kuriame Dievas ir Aš (santvarkoje) dar nesutampame kaip Tu, taip kad Dievas nebūtinai geras.
Asmenų požiūriai yra jų išeities taškai. Kito išeities taškas yra Dievo troškimas visko, tad ir mūsų rūpesčių bei nesąmonių, tad Dievo būtinumas.
Kitas yra:
* Kito tiesa išgyvenama kaip Tavo tiesa ir t.t.
* Kitas iššaukia Tave - papildiniu.
* Kitas, Tu, Aš iššaukia Dievą kaip meilę, troškimą, viską.
* Kitas atsako Tavo klausimą...
* Asmuo Kitas iškyla atskyrus Dievą ir Mane. Šis atskyrimas vyksta Dievui esantį viename lygmenyje prisiimant pirminę sandarą iš kito lygmens. Tai iššaukia antrinę sandarą.
* Kitas išgyvena asmenų atskirtumu (užtat ženklų savybėmis!) Kitas yra anti-asmuo, asmens priešingybė, tad aplinka. Atskirtumai yra Dievo valios nevykdymo aplinkybės: nepaklusimas, netikėjimas, nerūpėjimas, atskiriantys ir įprasminantys keturis lygmenis. Dievas būtinas - Amžinas gyvenimas yra - per nerūpėjimą, juk tiktai Dievas gali įveikti nerūpėjimą, iš negyvo padaryti gyvą. Tai ir yra amžino gyvenimo uždavinys.
* In GoingBeyondOneself, that which one goes beyond into.
* God made explicit
* the one we coincide with
* the participant of a System.
* that by which God and heart coincide. Well, they can coincide in six ways. So other is the unity of those ways.
* Unity when it is different from Spirit. This is the case from the perspective of the Beginning.
* a self-standing Self.
* is God as Not God for Other is alone, not one
* is completely explicit definition of God as Position and NotGod as Perspective.
* is the question of Being that is left in the matter of Being God.
* is the total substitute
* is completely accessible
* shares of himself
'''Prielaidų rinkinys'''
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)
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.
'''Asmenys ir pertvarkymai'''
* Pertvarkymai yra santvarkinis žinojimas, o asmenys yra žinojimas pirm santvarkos.
* Asmenys sieja, tai kas santvarkoje ir kas už jos. Pertvarkymų tvarkos išsako kas mąstoma, o asmenų poros išsako, kas mąsto. Santvarkoje nėra prieštaravimo, užtat ten yra mažoji tvarka, ji valdo didžiąją tvarką už santvarkos. Panašiai, atsakantysis asmuo yra santvarkoje, o klausiantysis asmuo yra už jos. Mažoji tvarka susiskirsto didžiąją tvarką.
'''Buvimo (žinojimo) ir nebuvimo (nežinojimo) santykis'''
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
* ką išgyvename kaip Aš, ar Dievo šokį? ar tai Visaregis? kaip tai suderinti su pasikalbėjimais?
* pirmines sandaras išgyvename kaip Tu (tai santykis su Dievu);
* antrines sandaras išgyvename kaip Kitas (kaip suprasti?);
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''.
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
'''Mintys apie lygmenis'''
* [[http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/295 | April 5, 2003]]
* [[http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/292 | April 3, 2003]]
* [[http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/293 | April 4, 2003]]
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".
*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.
'''Paskiri asmenys'''
Aš
* 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.
'''Santykiai tarp asmenų'''
Įvairūs būdai suprasti šešias asmenų poras:
* 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.
4 asmenys, 6 asmenų santykiai susiveda į 1 asmenį (kitą) žiūrintį iš šalies - tai asmuo susijęs su dviem asmenimis, išsakytas jų santykiu
* Asmenys - neigimas prieš apimtis ir po apimčių - kaip tai suprasti? Loginis kvadratas.
* Asmenų tyrimais, Aš įsijaučia į pasąmonę, į netroškimus, ir išskiria valią. Tu atsitokėji sąmone, gyveni bendru žmogumi. O Dievas naujai iškyla Kitu, sąmoningumu.
* Kitas išplečia Tave jo nebuvime, už Tavo apimties
Yra keturi asmenys: [[Dievas]], [[Aš]], [[Tu]], [[Kitas]].
* Kitas yra Dievas Mano vietoj. Kitas yra Dievo patikslinimas trejybės ratu. Trejybės ratas prilygina (isomorfiškai) Dievą ir jo patikslinimą. Užtat galime mylėti besąlygišką Dievą arba galime mylėti savo artimą.
Asmuo yra mumis matantysis
* Mato kodėl: Dievas mato kas mes iš tiesų esame
* Mato kaip: Aš save matau per savo vaidmenį.
* Mato koks: Tu matai mane per savo prielaidas.
* Mato ar: Kitas manęs visai nemato.
'''Tarpusavio santykiai'''
Gyvenimo lygties lygmenys - buvimas viena
* Dvasia (Dievas)
* Sandara (Aš)
* Atvaizdai (Tu)
* Esmė (Kitas).
Gyvenimo lygties lygmenys. Amžino gyvenimo išreiškimas Dievo trejybe. Dievo išvertimas.
* Dievas
* Dievas Dvasia - išmintis - Aš
* Dievas Sūnus - gera valia - Tu
* Dievas Tėvas - Dievo valia - Kitas
Asmenų lygtis
* Dievas
* Gerumas (Aš)
* Gyvenimas (Tu)
* Amžinas gyvenimas (Kitas).
Suvokimo lygmenys, buvimas ne viena, asmens iššaukti santykiai
* Suvokimas
* Savęs suvokimas: Aš išverčia Dievą.
* Bendras suvokimas: Tu suveda Dievą ir Mane.
* Susikalbėjimas: Kitas atskiria Dievą ir Mane, užtat parodo jog Dievas viršesnis, nes būtent jisai rūpinasi Kitu.
* Aš esu santykiai su Dievu,
* Tu esi santykiai su Kitais.
Rūpinamės Dievu, Manimi, Tavimi, Kitais. (Tai Minčių sodo veiklos)
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.
Asmeniui bene reikalingi visi asmenys: Kiti, Tu, Aš ir Dievas.
* Dievu asmuo išeina už savęs, tampa savo papildiniu, gali save mylėti.
'''Požiūriai - santykiai su santvarka'''
Požiūriai išsako mūsų išėjimą už savęs. Kitu visi santykiai tarp asmenų pilnai išsakomi požiūriais, taip kad Dievas (nežinojimas) yra požiūriu atskirtas nuo Manęs (žinojimo).
* Dievas žiūri pirmyn: amžinas gyvenimas, tai suvokimas, jog Dievas nebūtinai geras.
* Aš žiūri atgal iš lygties: gyvenimas, tai Dievo gerumas.
* Tu, tai šių skirtingų požiūrių sutapimas.
* Kitas, tai šių skirtingų požiūrių atskyrimas.
* Aš: esantysis (dvejybės langas: priešingybės gretinamos)
* Tu: žinantysis (ketverybės langas: kodėl)
* Kitas: atsakantysis (šešerybės langas: ...)
Asmenų keturi lygmenys:
* Nutrukūs ryšiui, Tu tampi Kitu; Aš tampu Tavimi; Dievas tampa Manimi.
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")
Asmenų tiesos, tai keturi [[išgyvenimai | išgyvenimo]] lygmenys:
* Dievo žvilgsnis
* Mano požiūris
* Tavo laikysena
* Kito vertybė.
* Dievas yra tiesos dvasia
* Aš esu sąvokos dvasia
* Tu esi žvilgsnio dvasia
* Kitas yra požiūrio dvasia.
Išeities taškai, savastis
* beyond system (Spirit) Activity
* beyond system, looking in (Structure) VantagePoint
* within system, looking out (Representation) Position
* within system (Unity) Perspective
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 within System, looking out
* Other is within System
Vantage gives the structural Level: Spirit, Structure, Representation, Unity
* Activity - God beyond the System
* Structure - I beyond the System, looking in
* Representations - You within the System, looking out
* Unity - Other within the System
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.
Sandaros išryškėjimas veikla. Visaregio sandai.
* Going beyond oneself
* Divergences
* Distinctions
* Divisions
Asmenys - Dievas, Aš, Tu, Kitas - yra apibrėžiami santvarkos pagrindu.
* Dievas yra pirm santvarkos, tad jisai viskuo atsiskyręs nuo savęs, esančio santvarkoje.
* Kitas yra būtent santvarkoje, tarp jos duženų. Tad Kitas nesiskiria nuo savęs ir gyvena tiesiogiai. Jo nežinojimas ir žinojimas sutampa.
* Kitaip tariant, Kitą nuo santvarkos skiria niekas, Tave skiria kažkas, Mane skiria betkas, ir Dievą skiria viskas.
Nuo santvarkos:
* Dievą skiria viskas
* Mane skiria betkas
* Tave skiria kažkas
* Kitą skiria niekas.
* Aš esu Dievas sąlygose.
* Tu esi sąlygos Dievui.
* Kiti yra sąlygos.
Sąmoningumo (nežinojimo ir žinojimo santykio) išsakymas požiūriais
* Dievas: Joks požiūris
* Aš: požiūris
* Tu: požiūris į požiūrį
* Kitas: požiūris į požiūrį į požiūrį.
Visas sąvokas dėliojant programine įranga TheBrain išskyriau keturias pagrindines sąvokas (1+4+6+1):
* unfolding
* structures for transcending (PrimaryStructures) "Mylėk Dievą"
* structures for engaging (SecondaryStructures) "Mylėk artimą kaip save patį"
* cohering.
Jos grindžia skirtingus supratimus. Bene atitinka keturias vienumo sampratas išsakančias valių santykius.
* unfolding - dvasia sąlygose
* transcending - sandara sąlygose
* engaging - atvaizdai sąlygose
* cohering - vieningumas sąlygose
Štai mintys, kaip šios sąvokos susijusios:
* 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.
* Dievas man atsakė: you transcend when you love, and you unfold when you want to be loved.
* Cohering is to be connected in a way that does not want to be disconnected.
* unfold = to wish to be loved
* transcend = to love
* engage = to not hurt
* cohere = to wish to be not hurt
* unfolding = living beyond a system
* transcending = choosing to go beyond a system
* engaging = choosing to go within a system
* cohering = living within a system
* unfolding - Dievo šokis
* transcending - pasirinkimų malūnas
* engaging - žinojimo rūmai
* cohering - maldų mokslas
'''Troškimai - Dievo atvaizdai'''
* 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.
* “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.
[+Keturi asmenys+]
'''Kitas'''
Kitas yra trečias asmuo, kuris iškyla su amžinu gyvenimu, tame tarpe kuriame Dievas ir Aš (santvarkoje) dar nesutampame kaip Tu, taip kad Dievas nebūtinai geras.
Asmenų požiūriai yra jų išeities taškai. Kito išeities taškas yra Dievo troškimas visko, tad ir mūsų rūpesčių bei nesąmonių, tad Dievo būtinumas.
Kitas yra:
* Kito tiesa išgyvenama kaip Tavo tiesa ir t.t.
* Kitas iššaukia Tave - papildiniu.
* Kitas, Tu, Aš iššaukia Dievą kaip meilę, troškimą, viską.
* Kitas atsako Tavo klausimą...
* Asmuo Kitas iškyla atskyrus Dievą ir Mane. Šis atskyrimas vyksta Dievui esantį viename lygmenyje prisiimant pirminę sandarą iš kito lygmens. Tai iššaukia antrinę sandarą.
* Kitas išgyvena asmenų atskirtumu (užtat ženklų savybėmis!) Kitas yra anti-asmuo, asmens priešingybė, tad aplinka. Atskirtumai yra Dievo valios nevykdymo aplinkybės: nepaklusimas, netikėjimas, nerūpėjimas, atskiriantys ir įprasminantys keturis lygmenis. Dievas būtinas - Amžinas gyvenimas yra - per nerūpėjimą, juk tiktai Dievas gali įveikti nerūpėjimą, iš negyvo padaryti gyvą. Tai ir yra amžino gyvenimo uždavinys.
* In GoingBeyondOneself, that which one goes beyond into.
* God made explicit
* the one we coincide with
* the participant of a System.
* that by which God and heart coincide. Well, they can coincide in six ways. So other is the unity of those ways.
* Unity when it is different from Spirit. This is the case from the perspective of the Beginning.
* a self-standing Self.
* is God as Not God for Other is alone, not one
* is completely explicit definition of God as Position and NotGod as Perspective.
* is the question of Being that is left in the matter of Being God.
* is the total substitute
* is completely accessible
* shares of himself
'''Prielaidų rinkinys'''
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)
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.
'''Asmenys ir pertvarkymai'''
* Pertvarkymai yra santvarkinis žinojimas, o asmenys yra žinojimas pirm santvarkos.
* Asmenys sieja, tai kas santvarkoje ir kas už jos. Pertvarkymų tvarkos išsako kas mąstoma, o asmenų poros išsako, kas mąsto. Santvarkoje nėra prieštaravimo, užtat ten yra mažoji tvarka, ji valdo didžiąją tvarką už santvarkos. Panašiai, atsakantysis asmuo yra santvarkoje, o klausiantysis asmuo yra už jos. Mažoji tvarka susiskirsto didžiąją tvarką.
'''Buvimo (žinojimo) ir nebuvimo (nežinojimo) santykis'''
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
* ką išgyvename kaip Aš, ar Dievo šokį? ar tai Visaregis? kaip tai suderinti su pasikalbėjimais?
* pirmines sandaras išgyvename kaip Tu (tai santykis su Dievu);
* antrines sandaras išgyvename kaip Kitas (kaip suprasti?);
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''.
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
'''Mintys apie lygmenis'''
* [[http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/295 | April 5, 2003]]
* [[http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/292 | April 3, 2003]]
* [[http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/293 | April 4, 2003]]
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".
*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.
'''Paskiri asmenys'''
Aš
* 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.
'''Santykiai tarp asmenų'''
Įvairūs būdai suprasti šešias asmenų poras:
* 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.
4 asmenys, 6 asmenų santykiai susiveda į 1 asmenį (kitą) žiūrintį iš šalies - tai asmuo susijęs su dviem asmenimis, išsakytas jų santykiu
* Asmenys - neigimas prieš apimtis ir po apimčių - kaip tai suprasti? Loginis kvadratas.
* Asmenų tyrimais, Aš įsijaučia į pasąmonę, į netroškimus, ir išskiria valią. Tu atsitokėji sąmone, gyveni bendru žmogumi. O Dievas naujai iškyla Kitu, sąmoningumu.
* Kitas išplečia Tave jo nebuvime, už Tavo apimties
2020 lapkričio 14 d., 19:22
atliko -
Pakeistos 21-23 eilutės iš
-----------------------
į:
-----------------------
Attach:godiyouother.png
------------------------
Attach:godiyouother.png
------------------------
2020 lapkričio 14 d., 19:21
atliko -
Pakeistos 16-21 eilutės iš
>><<
į:
>><<
--------------------
Attach:4asmenys.png
-----------------------
--------------------
Attach:4asmenys.png
-----------------------
2020 lapkričio 14 d., 19:21
atliko -
Pakeistos 9-10 eilutės iš
į:
* Kaip apibrėžiami keturi asmenys?
** Kodėl yra keturi lygmenys?
** Kaip su keturiomis vienumo sampratomis (valių santykiais) ir su keturiais asmenimis susieti: unfolding, transcending, engaging, cohering?
** Iš kur kyla asmenys? Kaip jie susiję su įvairiomis lygmenų poromis: ženklų savybėmis, dvejonėmis, išsiaiškinimo būdais, Dievo įsakymais, pertvarkymais, gyvybės savybėmis?
* Kokie yra Mano, Tavo, Kito požiūriai?
** Ar jų požiūriai išvis skiriasi?
** Kodėl yra keturi lygmenys?
** Kaip su keturiomis vienumo sampratomis (valių santykiais) ir su keturiais asmenimis susieti: unfolding, transcending, engaging, cohering?
** Iš kur kyla asmenys? Kaip jie susiję su įvairiomis lygmenų poromis: ženklų savybėmis, dvejonėmis, išsiaiškinimo būdais, Dievo įsakymais, pertvarkymais, gyvybės savybėmis?
* Kokie yra Mano, Tavo, Kito požiūriai?
** Ar jų požiūriai išvis skiriasi?
2020 lapkričio 14 d., 19:20
atliko -
Pakeistos 1-12 eilutės iš
Žr. [[Asmuo]]
į:
>>bgcolor=#E9F5FC<<
---------------
Žr. [[Asmuo]]
'''Kaip apibrėžiami keturi asmenys?'''
---------------
>>bgcolor=#FFFFC0<<
---------------
>><<
---------------
Žr. [[Asmuo]]
'''Kaip apibrėžiami keturi asmenys?'''
---------------
>>bgcolor=#FFFFC0<<
---------------
>><<
2020 lapkričio 14 d., 19:19
atliko -
Pakeistos 1-876 eilutės iš
---------------
Žr. [[Asmuo]]
'''Kas yra asmuo?'''
---------------
>>bgcolor=#FFFFC0<<
* Kas yra asmuo?
** Ar asmuo yra ne Dievas?
** Kaip asmenys susiję su gyvenimo lygties lygmenimis?
* Koks asmens tikslas?
* Kaip suprasti Dievo buvimo papildinį, kaip kad Dievo troškimais, augančiais nuo nieko iki kažko iki betko iki visko? Kaip tai susiję su netroškimu?
* Kaip apibrėžiami keturi asmenys?
** Kodėl yra keturi lygmenys?
** Kaip su keturiomis vienumo sampratomis (valių santykiais) ir su keturiais asmenimis susieti: unfolding, transcending, engaging, cohering?
** Iš kur kyla asmenys? Kaip jie susiję su įvairiomis lygmenų poromis: ženklų savybėmis, dvejonėmis, išsiaiškinimo būdais, Dievo įsakymais, pertvarkymais, gyvybės savybėmis?
* Kokie yra Mano, Tavo, Kito požiūriai?
** Ar jų požiūriai išvis skiriasi?
* Kaip ir kodėl keičiasi asmuo?
** Ar asmenį keičia nulybės atvaizdų paneigimas?
** Ar tai sąlygoja perėjimą iš paklusimo į tikėjimą į rūpėjimą?
* Ar pasirinkimas išeiti už savęs ar laukti priimti kitą yra pasirinkimas vyriškos ar moteriškos laikysenos?
* Ar yra penktas asmuo (Visi, Aš Tavo vietoj)?
* Išsakyti savo filosofiją menais - asmenimis - [[veikėjai | veikėjais]].
---------------
>><<
============================
%center%Attach:kasyraasmuo.png
[+Asmens prielaidos+]
'''Dievas: dvasia ir savastis'''
* Dievo dvasia atsiskiria nuo Dievo savasties.
* Dievo dvasia yra Dievo buvimas, Dievo savastis yra Dievo nebuvimas.
* Atsiskyrimas išreiškia Dievo buvimą nebuvime.
* Iš pradžių, Dievo buvimas ir Dievo nebuvimas turėtų visiškai sutapti, apimti viską.
* Palaipsniui Dievo buvimas siaurėja nuo visko iki betko iki kažko iki nieko.
'''Apimtis nusako tam tikrą Dievo dvasios ir Dievo savasties atsiskyrimo pakopą'''
* Apimtis nusako Dievo dvasios (Dievo buvimo) ir Dievo savasties (Dievo nebuvimo) sutapimą: viskame, betkame, kažkame, niekame.
* Papildanti apimtis nusako Dievo dvasios (Dievo buvimo) ir Dievo savasties (Dievo nebuvimo) nesutapimą: niekame, kažkame, betkame, viskame.
[+Kas yra asmuo?+]
'''Asmuo yra dvasia tam tikroje apimtyje'''
* Yra keturi asmenys: Dievas, Aš, Tu, Kitas.
* Nevaržoma dvasia yra Dievas.
* Asmenis skiria požiūriai, užtat asmenis atitinkamai išsako joks požiūris, požiūris, požiūris į požiūrį, požiūris į požiūrį į požiūrį. Tai yra keturi apimtys: viskas, betkas, kažkas, niekas.
'''Dievo savastis yra asmens būklė'''
* Yra keturios Dievo savastys: Dievas, viskas, troškimai, meilė.
* Dievo savastis išreiškia Dievo nebuvimą.
'''Didėja Dievo dvasios ir Dievo savasties išsiskyrimas'''
* Dievas su Dievu sutampa, o toliau Aš su viskuo sutampame mažiau, Tu su troškimais dar mažiau, ir Kitas su meile visai nesutampa.
'''Asmenų tikslas'''
* Asmenų tikslas yra neišreikštą dvasią (Dievą) išreikšti iš šalies, kaip Kitą, kaip prielaidą (kaip meilę), kaip esmę - gryną sandarą. Tokiu būdu galima tvirtinti "dvasia yra (jos sandaros atvaizdų) vieningumas" (Dievas yra meilė). Keturi asmenys yra raiškos lygmenys.
'''Asmuo ir apytaka'''
* Asmuo yra mažėjantis laisvumas, atsakymas, liudytojas, nulybė.
* Apytaka yra didėjantis laisvumas, klausimas, vienybė, turinio ir raiškos dvilypumas.
* Asmuo ir apytaka yra septynerybės atvaizdai ir tuo pačiu yra visko padalinimai, turi po keturis atvaizdus.
'''Dievo (dvasia) atsiskirianti nuo savęs (savasties)'''
Dievas Dieve
* Dievas (mumyse) esantis santykyje su savimi (už mūsų)
* Šis santykis priklauso nuo apimties. Pirmoje pakopoje, nieko apimtyje, Dievas (Dievas) visko apimtyje pilnai sutampa su savimi (Dievu) nieko apimtyje, tad yra Dievo teigimas. O paskutinėje pakopoje, Dievas (Kitas) nieko apimtyje pilnai nesutampa su savimi (meile) visko apimtyje, tad yra Dievo neigimas. Yra taip pat dvi tarpinės apimtys.
* Dievas apimtyje yra Dievo galimybė. Ta galimybė, skirtumas tarp galimo ir esamo, vis didėja. Man tai yra skirtumas tarp dorovės ir elgesio.
* tai kas Dievo nebuvime yra pirm Dievo atsiradimo
* Nepatvirtintas Dievas. Dievas (Sūnus) dar nepatvirtinus, jog tai tas pats Dievas (Tėvas)
Dievo būtinumo aplinkybės
* Dievas (asmuo) ne Dieve (savastyje), tad Dievo galimybės aplinkybės.
* apibrėžimas Dievo buvimo, tai yra, Dievo galimybės Dievo nebuvime
* Asmens sulyginimas su Dievu yra Dievo būtinumo parodymas.
'''Savastis'''
Dievo paneigimas
Dievo būklė, jo prielaidos
* Dievas yra pirm asmens, po asmens ir įvairiausiuose asmenyse. Dievas tad yra Visi.
* Apimtis ir asmuo išreiškia tą patį, tiktai priešingais žodžiais, jiems suteikiant priešingą prasmę. Apimtis yra NeDievas už Dievo. Asmuo yra Dievas NeDieve.
* Asmenys nurodomi pabrėžiant Kas Kame - asmuo apimtyje ar Kas Kam - apimtis asmeniui.
* Asmuo yra matytojas. Apimtis yra prasmė kuria prielaidos sutampa ar išsiskiria, tai visko savybė, kad jinai būtina sąvoka. Apimtis nurodo lauką kuriame tiesa pasireiškia taip kad sutampa tai kaip yra ir kaip atrodo.
* Asmuo yra tai kas yra net ir nesant. Jei Dievo nėra, tai Dievas yra Kitas. Jei Kito nėra, tėra Dievas.
* Dievas apibrėžia save išsakydamas savo prielaidas.
* Savastis pagrįsta tuo, kad asmuo ir apimtis vienas kitą papildo.
troškimas, Dievo atvaizdas
* vienumo raiška, tad Dievo raiška, tad Dievo atvaizdas, lygmuo, troškimas.
* Asmenys yra troškimai, tačiau juos nusako, apibrėžia netroškimai, jų savastys, jų papildiniai, tai kas jie nėra. Dievas yra savarankiškumas, kurį nusako kūno poreikiai. Aš esu užtikrintumas, kurį nusako proto abejonės. Tu esi ramumas, kurį nusako širdies lūkesčiai, tad tu esi riba tarp to, kas manyje ir kas už manęs. Kitas yra meilė, kurią nusako valios klausimai, tad mylime Kitu.
* asmens esmė
* Dievas reiškiasi asmenimis: Dievas, Aš, Tu, Kitas - o mes esame jo atspindžiai. Mus sieja pasivaikščiojimai medžiais.
'''Asmuo ir požiūris'''
* Požiūris yra dėmesio apimties praplėtimas.
* Asmuo yra požiūrio telkiamasis.
* požiūrio telkiamasis
** požiūris sutelkia dvasia, apibrėžia ir sutelkia dėmesį, išskiria tai, kas žinoma (požiūryje) ir nežinoma (už požiūrio)
** mes patys savęs nematome, tad esame sau nežinomi
** užtat požiūriu į požiūrį pamatome save, tai kas nežinomą, galiausiai pasižiūrime iš šalies, kaip pats požiūris atrodo
* požiūrio išgyventojas.
** Asmeniui reikalingi visi keturi požiūrį grindžiantys lygmenys - Dievas, Aš, Tu, Kitas.
** Šių keturių lygmenų reikalingumas grindžia Dievo būtinumą. Du lygmenys išsako sąlygiškumą: Aš, Tu. O du lygmenys išsako besąlygiškumą: Dievas, Kitas.
** požiūriu matantis, stebintis, priimantis Dievo neigimą
** nuostata matantis, stebintis, priimantis Dievo buvimą
** Turintis požiūrį
** Turintis nežinojimo
** Esantis aplinkybėse.
** Aplinkybių dviprasmiškumas: jos gali būti išgyventos arba neišgyventos, tad paneigtos.
* požiūrių lygties išgyventojas
** Asmuo išgyvena požiūrių lygtį savo apimtyje, kurią nustato atitinkama požiūrio grandinė: Dievas viskame jokiu požiūriu, Aš betkame viengubu požiūriu, Tu kažkame dvigubu požiūriu, Kitas niekame trigubu požiūriu.
** Asmuo, dalyvaujantis požiūrių lygtyje (gyvenimo lygtyje), tad nusakantis asmens lygmenį (Dievas, Aš, Tu, Kitas) Pavyzdžiui, Aš=Viskas, Aš santvarkoje = Laisvumas, ir t.t.
* trejybės išgyventojas
** nusistatantis (grindžiantis), vykdantis (veikiantis), permąstantis (išgyvenantis požiūrį).
* pasekmių išgyventojas
** išgyvenantis pasekmes, kad buvo vienaip, o paskui buvo kitaip, tad išgyvenantis skirtumą tarp dviejų būklių. Užtat asmuo grindžia būtinumą, tad ir Dievą.
** matantis savybėmis
** už apimties gyvenantis nuostata
** apimtyje gyvenantis požiūriu
** experiences Actuality, Process, All, Following Through
* bendras žmogus, Aš, nusakytas savo požiūrio, tad požiūrio į požiūrį
** Mane matai Tu, požiūriu į požiūrį
** nesiriboja savimi, tad gali virsti Tavimi, Kitu ir, atsisakydamas savęs, Dievu. Arba jiems gali būti priskirtas Aš.
** Aš esu pagrindas požiūriui, tad ir asmenims. Aš = {$P$}, Tu = {$P^2$}, Kitas = {$P^3$}, o Dievas = {$P^0$}. Kitas man apibrėžia Dievą. Ketverybės poslinkiai taip ir suvokia: Tu apibrėži (paaiškini) Mane, užtat Kitas apibrėžia (paaiškina) Dievą.
** Visi keturi asmenys (Dievas, Aš, Tu, Kitas) yra apibrėžti požiūriais: jokiu požiūriu, požiūriu, požiūriu į požiūrį, požiūriu į požiūrį į požiūrį. Tad už visų asmenų glūdi asmuo Aš: Joks Aš, Ašai, Aš Sau, Man Savo Sau.
** Niekas yra "būtina sąvoka". O viskas turi tris papildomas savybes. Gali būti, kad šios papildomos savybės sudaro žmogaus trejybę, taip kad jinai yra skirtumas tarp visko ir nieko.
** Nuotaikų šešios permainos išsako santykius tarp požiūrų, tad tarp asmenų.
* požiūrių grandinė
** būtent joks požiūris (Dievas), požiūris (Aš), požiūris į požiūrį (Tu), arba požiūris į požiūrį į požiūrį (Kitas).
'''laisvai besirenkantis'''
besirenkantis
* kiekvienoje apimtyje galime Dievą įžvelgti kaip asmenį ar jo neįžvelgti
** renkasi ar suvokti (ir išeiti už savęs, už santvarkos) ar būti suvoktam (taip kad mums tenka į juos įeiti, kad būtumėme viena).
** renkasi ar apibrėžti (visus, bet kurį, kažkurį, jokį) ryšium su santvarka ar už santvarkos.
** pripažįsta Dievą pirma savo asmens aplinkoje, pasirinkdamas Dievą vietoj savęs, tuomi pripažindamas Dievą už savo asmens.
** apibrėžia buvimą vienų viena kaip buvimą viena pasirenkant Dievą vietoj savęs.
** sprendžia iš savo kampo ar suprasti buvimą vienų viena ryšium su Dievu (buvima viena su Kitais) ar savastimi (nebuvimą viena su Kitais).
** yra laisvas rinktis apimtyje
** chooses between one's own Perspective and the Position of all
** 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.
* savarankiškai veikiantis
** has a solitary activity? and how is that mapped or not to God's NullActivity within them.
* kuriantis
** 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.
* tiriantis
** seeks Truth in their own Scope, in which God is and is not.
** Persons and Scopes are Questions, Knowledge and Definition are Answers.
** klausimas yra būklė iššaukianti atsakymą
** 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)
* galintis išeiti už savęs
** negalintis būti vienų vienas jei prisirišęs prie savęs, jei vienas su savimi
** galintis būti vienų vienas tiktai jei prisiriša prie Dievo, jei vienas su Dievu
* atpažįstantis Dievą
** susitelkiantis į Dievą
* liudijantis
** is the witness to whether or not God exists
** is the witness who chooses between self within Scope and God beyond Scope
** Ryšys tarp atskleidžiamojo (tiesos šaltinio, pagrindo) ir atskleidėjo (tiesos pranešėjo, laido).
* nurodantis, nukreipiantis
** Nurodytasis
** Nuoroda (reference)
** Kas? (Who?)
** yra atskaitos taškas: Visi, Betkuris, Kažkuris, Joks asmuo.
** atskaitos taškas apibrėžiant Dievą bei sąvokas
** asmuo yra nurodytojas (Visi, Betkuris, Kažkuris, Joks asmuo), o apimtis yra nurodomasis (Viskas, Betkas Kažkas, Niekas).
** Asmuo gali nurodyti Dievą arba ne Dievą. Asmuo nurodo Dievą kuomet Asmuo renkasi Dievą vietoj savęs. 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.
** 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.
* atveriantis
** 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.
'''mylimasis'''
* mylimasis ir kartu mylintysis
** išgyvenantis, tad galintis išgyvenimą derinti, tad galintis būtų mylimas, ir save bei kitus mylintis.
** meile išeinantis už požiūrio į nuostatą
** mylėti, tai priimti požiūrį, kas iškyla mylint savo artimą, kaip save patį
** sukurtas priimti tobulą meilę ir tuomi mylėti kitus taipogi.
** mylintis kartu priimant mylimojo požiūrį, tokiu būdu suvedantis požiūrį ir nuostatą, kad sueitų meile Kitam.
* bręstantis, augantis
** asmenys įvairiai auga žinomumu ar nežinomumu
*** God is ever more known (presumed).
*** I is ever less defined.
*** You is ever less known (presumed).
*** Other is ever more defined.
** 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.
** The window grows smaller in which there is Person.
'''Asmuo grindžia'''
* yra išeities taškas (už santvarkos)
** Person is from beyond System and Scope is from within System.
* tenkina apibrėžimą
** satisfies definition (if they choose God over themselves, and thus are alone rather than not alone, are going beyond themselves).
** every, any, some, none “one” are definitions of being “alone” and as such, the conditions of being “one” with regard to reference.
* yra susijęs su...
** Asmuo yra apimtyje, tad skiriasi nuo savo savasties.
** kitais asmenimis. Persons are completely distinct in God, his Position beyond Everything, which is reached by Understanding.
* išreiškia ribą, sąlygas, apimtį
** 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.
** Person is Unconditional Condition: God is unconditional Good, I is unconditional Slack, You is unconditional Coinciding, Other is unconditional Perfection, All is unconditional Experiencing.
** an independent, limited Human
** Beyond Person's Self is Scope.
* yra tarpas, jo raiška.
* yra laisvės pagrindas
** 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.
** Asmenų svarba: Įvairūs Dievo kampai reikalingi dvasiai, jos laisvei.
* sutampa su savimi (laisve)
** Asmuo išsako mūsų santykį su savimi. Asmeniu turime savastį ir būtent pasaulyje. Jame turime savastį ir taip pat galime atsisakyti savęs.
** Freedom equates a Person with its Self (Activity, VantagePoint, Position, Perspective).
** 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.
** 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.
* yra buvimas viena
** Person is Unconditional BeingOneWith. It is the union of the Unconditional and the Conditional in that the unconditional meets all conditions.
** 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.
* grindžia būtinumą
** Asmenys išsako būtinumo reikšmę ir pasekmes.
* apibrėžia Dievą - sąmoningumą
** yra Dievas apibrėžiantis Dievą
** yra sąmoningumo lygmuo
** Persons apply the Definitions of God, of Being Alone.
** Dievas kaip toks yra strimagalvis, tad suvokimas jam iškyla asmenimis, atveriant ir priimant jų požiūrius, išeinant už savęs į juos. Užtat ir iškyla išsiaiškinimai.
* Dievo šokyje yra Dievo kampo (vaidmens) nurodytas Dievas
** Dievo savastis: "Aš esu Dievas", "Tu esi Dievas", "Tai yra Dievas".
* yra Dievas apimtyje, taip iškyla
** 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.
** Asmuo ir apimtis išsako santykį su Dievu: are esame (vienų) viena? ar ne viena?
** Asmuo ir apimtis yra santykiai tarp Dievo ir NeDievo. Yra keturi santykiai: God/Everything, I/Anything, You/Something, Other/Nothing.
** Asmuo yra nežinojimo ir žinojimo apimtys. Jisai nežinojimą ir žinojimą išskiria, taip pat ir sieja.
** Asmenys iškyla apimtyse išskiriant mylintį ir mylimąjį, suvokiantį ir suvoktąjį, žinantį ir žinomąjį, nežinantį ir nežinomąjį, trokštantį ir trokštamąjį.
* yra Dievo savybių paneigimas (ne meilė, vertybė)
** Negation of Unity of Representations of Nullsome
** are distinct because of God's properties.
[+Kaip išgyvename asmenis?+]
* Asmenis išgyvename [[požiūriai | požiūriais]]. Užtat Kitą išgyvename Tavimi ir Savimi, ir Tave išgyvename Savimi. O Dievo neišgyvename, nebent kada atsisakome požiūrio.
* Asmenys yra apibrėžti iš santvarkos išeities taško (žinojimo apimtimis) tačiau juos klausimais išgyvename iš už santvarkos esančio išeities taško.
* Asmuo išgyvena sąlygas (žinojimą, pasąmonę) kaip savastį, kaip savo ryšį su savimi. Sąlygų apimtis apibrėžia asmenį ir jo sąmoningumo lygį. Dievas išgyvena tiesiogiai, be savasties. Požiūrių skaičius nusako netroškimą, kurį išgyvename atjausdami.
** Dievas jokio požiūrio neišgyvena.
** Aš išgyvenu savastį (požiūrį - padalinimus),
** Tu išgyveni savasties savastį (požiūrį į požiūrį - atvaizdus ir aplinkybes), ir
** Kitas išgyvena savasties savasties savastį (požiūrį į požiūrį į požiūrį - kalbas).
============================
---------------------------------
[+Asmenų rūšys+]
'''Kas yra lygmuo?'''
* 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.
* tai, ką skiria požiūris
Kaip atsiskleidžia asmenys?
* Asmenys atsiskleidžia savo nežinojimais, savo tyrimais, kuriais išgyvena atitinkamas apytakas. Savo tyrimais kartu atskleidžia savo prielaidas.
* Asmenys vis artimiau išgyvena gyvenimo lygtį. Gyvenimo lygtis (Dievas, gerumas, gyvenimas, amžinas gyvenimas) yra iš vidaus išgyvenama keturiais asmenimis: dvasia (Dievu), sandara (manimi), atvaizdais (tavimi), vieningumu (kitu). Tad kiekvienas asmuo išgyvena savaip tą visus asmenis apibrėžiančią gyvenimo lygtį.
'''Keturi asmenys'''
Yra keturi asmenys: [[Dievas]], [[Aš]], [[Tu]], [[Kitas]].
* Kitas yra Dievas Mano vietoj. Kitas yra Dievo patikslinimas trejybės ratu. Trejybės ratas prilygina (isomorfiškai) Dievą ir jo patikslinimą. Užtat galime mylėti besąlygišką Dievą arba galime mylėti savo artimą.
Asmuo yra mumis matantysis
* Mato kodėl: Dievas mato kas mes iš tiesų esame
* Mato kaip: Aš save matau per savo vaidmenį.
* Mato koks: Tu matai mane per savo prielaidas.
* Mato ar: Kitas manęs visai nemato.
'''Tarpusavio santykiai'''
Gyvenimo lygties lygmenys - buvimas viena
* Dvasia (Dievas)
* Sandara (Aš)
* Atvaizdai (Tu)
* Esmė (Kitas).
Gyvenimo lygties lygmenys. Amžino gyvenimo išreiškimas Dievo trejybe. Dievo išvertimas.
* Dievas
* Dievas Dvasia - išmintis - Aš
* Dievas Sūnus - gera valia - Tu
* Dievas Tėvas - Dievo valia - Kitas
Asmenų lygtis
* Dievas
* Gerumas (Aš)
* Gyvenimas (Tu)
* Amžinas gyvenimas (Kitas).
Suvokimo lygmenys, buvimas ne viena, asmens iššaukti santykiai
* Suvokimas
* Savęs suvokimas: Aš išverčia Dievą.
* Bendras suvokimas: Tu suveda Dievą ir Mane.
* Susikalbėjimas: Kitas atskiria Dievą ir Mane, užtat parodo jog Dievas viršesnis, nes būtent jisai rūpinasi Kitu.
* Aš esu santykiai su Dievu,
* Tu esi santykiai su Kitais.
Rūpinamės Dievu, Manimi, Tavimi, Kitais. (Tai Minčių sodo veiklos)
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.
Asmeniui bene reikalingi visi asmenys: Kiti, Tu, Aš ir Dievas.
* Dievu asmuo išeina už savęs, tampa savo papildiniu, gali save mylėti.
'''Požiūriai - santykiai su santvarka'''
Požiūriai išsako mūsų išėjimą už savęs. Kitu visi santykiai tarp asmenų pilnai išsakomi požiūriais, taip kad Dievas (nežinojimas) yra požiūriu atskirtas nuo Manęs (žinojimo).
* Dievas žiūri pirmyn: amžinas gyvenimas, tai suvokimas, jog Dievas nebūtinai geras.
* Aš žiūri atgal iš lygties: gyvenimas, tai Dievo gerumas.
* Tu, tai šių skirtingų požiūrių sutapimas.
* Kitas, tai šių skirtingų požiūrių atskyrimas.
* Aš: esantysis (dvejybės langas: priešingybės gretinamos)
* Tu: žinantysis (ketverybės langas: kodėl)
* Kitas: atsakantysis (šešerybės langas: ...)
Asmenų keturi lygmenys:
* Nutrukūs ryšiui, Tu tampi Kitu; Aš tampu Tavimi; Dievas tampa Manimi.
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")
Asmenų tiesos, tai keturi [[išgyvenimai | išgyvenimo]] lygmenys:
* Dievo žvilgsnis
* Mano požiūris
* Tavo laikysena
* Kito vertybė.
* Dievas yra tiesos dvasia
* Aš esu sąvokos dvasia
* Tu esi žvilgsnio dvasia
* Kitas yra požiūrio dvasia.
Išeities taškai, savastis
* beyond system (Spirit) Activity
* beyond system, looking in (Structure) VantagePoint
* within system, looking out (Representation) Position
* within system (Unity) Perspective
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 within System, looking out
* Other is within System
Vantage gives the structural Level: Spirit, Structure, Representation, Unity
* Activity - God beyond the System
* Structure - I beyond the System, looking in
* Representations - You within the System, looking out
* Unity - Other within the System
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.
Sandaros išryškėjimas veikla. Visaregio sandai.
* Going beyond oneself
* Divergences
* Distinctions
* Divisions
Asmenys - Dievas, Aš, Tu, Kitas - yra apibrėžiami santvarkos pagrindu.
* Dievas yra pirm santvarkos, tad jisai viskuo atsiskyręs nuo savęs, esančio santvarkoje.
* Kitas yra būtent santvarkoje, tarp jos duženų. Tad Kitas nesiskiria nuo savęs ir gyvena tiesiogiai. Jo nežinojimas ir žinojimas sutampa.
* Kitaip tariant, Kitą nuo santvarkos skiria niekas, Tave skiria kažkas, Mane skiria betkas, ir Dievą skiria viskas.
Nuo santvarkos:
* Dievą skiria viskas
* Mane skiria betkas
* Tave skiria kažkas
* Kitą skiria niekas.
* Aš esu Dievas sąlygose.
* Tu esi sąlygos Dievui.
* Kiti yra sąlygos.
Sąmoningumo (nežinojimo ir žinojimo santykio) išsakymas požiūriais
* Dievas: Joks požiūris
* Aš: požiūris
* Tu: požiūris į požiūrį
* Kitas: požiūris į požiūrį į požiūrį.
Visas sąvokas dėliojant programine įranga TheBrain išskyriau keturias pagrindines sąvokas (1+4+6+1):
* unfolding
* structures for transcending (PrimaryStructures) "Mylėk Dievą"
* structures for engaging (SecondaryStructures) "Mylėk artimą kaip save patį"
* cohering.
Jos grindžia skirtingus supratimus. Bene atitinka keturias vienumo sampratas išsakančias valių santykius.
* unfolding - dvasia sąlygose
* transcending - sandara sąlygose
* engaging - atvaizdai sąlygose
* cohering - vieningumas sąlygose
Štai mintys, kaip šios sąvokos susijusios:
* 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.
* Dievas man atsakė: you transcend when you love, and you unfold when you want to be loved.
* Cohering is to be connected in a way that does not want to be disconnected.
* unfold = to wish to be loved
* transcend = to love
* engage = to not hurt
* cohere = to wish to be not hurt
* unfolding = living beyond a system
* transcending = choosing to go beyond a system
* engaging = choosing to go within a system
* cohering = living within a system
* unfolding - Dievo šokis
* transcending - pasirinkimų malūnas
* engaging - žinojimo rūmai
* cohering - maldų mokslas
'''Troškimai - Dievo atvaizdai'''
* 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.
* “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.
[+Keturi asmenys+]
'''Kitas'''
Kitas yra trečias asmuo, kuris iškyla su amžinu gyvenimu, tame tarpe kuriame Dievas ir Aš (santvarkoje) dar nesutampame kaip Tu, taip kad Dievas nebūtinai geras.
Asmenų požiūriai yra jų išeities taškai. Kito išeities taškas yra Dievo troškimas visko, tad ir mūsų rūpesčių bei nesąmonių, tad Dievo būtinumas.
Kitas yra:
* Kito tiesa išgyvenama kaip Tavo tiesa ir t.t.
* Kitas iššaukia Tave - papildiniu.
* Kitas, Tu, Aš iššaukia Dievą kaip meilę, troškimą, viską.
* Kitas atsako Tavo klausimą...
* Asmuo Kitas iškyla atskyrus Dievą ir Mane. Šis atskyrimas vyksta Dievui esantį viename lygmenyje prisiimant pirminę sandarą iš kito lygmens. Tai iššaukia antrinę sandarą.
* Kitas išgyvena asmenų atskirtumu (užtat ženklų savybėmis!) Kitas yra anti-asmuo, asmens priešingybė, tad aplinka. Atskirtumai yra Dievo valios nevykdymo aplinkybės: nepaklusimas, netikėjimas, nerūpėjimas, atskiriantys ir įprasminantys keturis lygmenis. Dievas būtinas - Amžinas gyvenimas yra - per nerūpėjimą, juk tiktai Dievas gali įveikti nerūpėjimą, iš negyvo padaryti gyvą. Tai ir yra amžino gyvenimo uždavinys.
* In GoingBeyondOneself, that which one goes beyond into.
* God made explicit
* the one we coincide with
* the participant of a System.
* that by which God and heart coincide. Well, they can coincide in six ways. So other is the unity of those ways.
* Unity when it is different from Spirit. This is the case from the perspective of the Beginning.
* a self-standing Self.
* is God as Not God for Other is alone, not one
* is completely explicit definition of God as Position and NotGod as Perspective.
* is the question of Being that is left in the matter of Being God.
* is the total substitute
* is completely accessible
* shares of himself
'''Prielaidų rinkinys'''
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)
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.
'''Asmenys ir pertvarkymai'''
* Pertvarkymai yra santvarkinis žinojimas, o asmenys yra žinojimas pirm santvarkos.
* Asmenys sieja, tai kas santvarkoje ir kas už jos. Pertvarkymų tvarkos išsako kas mąstoma, o asmenų poros išsako, kas mąsto. Santvarkoje nėra prieštaravimo, užtat ten yra mažoji tvarka, ji valdo didžiąją tvarką už santvarkos. Panašiai, atsakantysis asmuo yra santvarkoje, o klausiantysis asmuo yra už jos. Mažoji tvarka susiskirsto didžiąją tvarką.
'''Buvimo (žinojimo) ir nebuvimo (nežinojimo) santykis'''
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
* ką išgyvename kaip Aš, ar Dievo šokį? ar tai Visaregis? kaip tai suderinti su pasikalbėjimais?
* pirmines sandaras išgyvename kaip Tu (tai santykis su Dievu);
* antrines sandaras išgyvename kaip Kitas (kaip suprasti?);
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''.
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
'''Mintys apie lygmenis'''
* [[http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/295 | April 5, 2003]]
* [[http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/292 | April 3, 2003]]
* [[http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/293 | April 4, 2003]]
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".
*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.
'''Paskiri asmenys'''
Aš
* 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.
'''Santykiai tarp asmenų'''
Įvairūs būdai suprasti šešias asmenų poras:
* 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.
4 asmenys, 6 asmenų santykiai susiveda į 1 asmenį (kitą) žiūrintį iš šalies - tai asmuo susijęs su dviem asmenimis, išsakytas jų santykiu
* Asmenys - neigimas prieš apimtis ir po apimčių - kaip tai suprasti? Loginis kvadratas.
* Asmenų tyrimais, Aš įsijaučia į pasąmonę, į netroškimus, ir išskiria valią. Tu atsitokėji sąmone, gyveni bendru žmogumi. O Dievas naujai iškyla Kitu, sąmoningumu.
* Kitas išplečia Tave jo nebuvime, už Tavo apimties
[+Užrašai+]
* Asmenis suvokiame klausimais
* Asmenys yra tie, kuriuos norime suprasti. Požiūrių grandinė skiria asmenis.
* Kai įsijaučiame, kai prisiimame požiūrį, kai numanome atsakymą, tai visi asmenys sutampa, tarsi matytų tom pačiom akim.
* Kai atsitokėjame, kai užduodame klausimus, tai išsiskiria asmenys, kiekvienas atsako už savo apimtį.
--------------------
Attach:4asmenys.png
------------------
Attach:godiyouother.png
>>bgcolor=#D8F1D8<<
--------------------
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.
>>bgcolor=#EEEEEE<<
-------------------------
http://www.ms.lt/uploads/lavintijautruma.png
>>bgcolor=#FFDADA<<
--------------------------
[+Aš+]
'''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
'''Pasitelkti pasamonę, nuojautą, patirtį, išvadas'''
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
>>bgcolor=#FFCDCD<<
---------------------------
[+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
Internal dialogue with someone dear or critical Conversing with: convictions I often have dialogues in my mind with people I know. I suppose they are sparked by my feelings and my conscience. In reflect about events in my life, I will feel a wish to say to somebody the truth. But am I being fair to them? What would they say? My mind provides their reply, what they might say. And then I think and reply. In this way, my mind rehearses conversations that may be several minutes long. I recall doing this in grade school as I rode home on the bus, thinking to myself. I have had many conversations with my parents, with good friends, with girls and women I have been in love with, and even certain peripheral individuals who are critical of me. I have a crush on a woman, but then imagine, what if she had an abortion, would I still love her, and what would I say? I have had many conversations in my mind with my parents about the things I do that irk them, such as not getting a hair cut or my difficulty in making a living or my adventures in life or my philosophical ideas, or their aspirations for me, such as being Lithuanian or being a good person, kind and of good will. I learned that people in my mind were more real, vibrant, honest, direct, intense, distilled, than they were in real life. True, in real life, when they said something unexpected, I had to adjust my understanding of them, yet in mind, there could also be something similar, when I managed to see them in a new light, and indeed, I would converse with them in my mind until I could resolve all of my feelings. I noticed that my conversations with God are quite similar, and I could explain to others that, in that sense, God is very real to me, just as the people in my mind are more real than they are in real life. In 2011, in speaking about this with my father, I learned that he actually doesn't have any such conversations. I suppose I have them because I was never able to talk with my parents and others as much as I liked about what I cared about, and because when I did have a chance, I didn't want the conversations to go on unhelpful or hurtful tracks.709
>>bgcolor=#FFC0C0<<
----------------------
[+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
'''Priimti aplinkybes'''
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
>><<
-----------------------
http://www.ms.lt/en/andrius/understanding/diagrams/understanding.gif
----------------------
http://www.ms.lt/en/andrius/understanding/diagrams/conjunctions.gif
>>bgcolor=#EFCFE1<<
-------------------------
* Fichte - argument about the I.
>>bgcolor=#FFECC0<<
--------------------------------
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.
2004.12.17 A: Koks ryšys tarp susikalbėjimo ir supratimo? D: Širdis trokšta susikalbėti, o supratimo lygmenų yra įvairių. Laiminu.
2018.12.06 A: Kaip susiję [[asmenys | asmuo]] ir apimtis?
D: Asmenys iškyla iš mano sąmoningumo, man tiriant ar aš esu net ir kada nesu. Asmuo yra tai kas skiria mane pirm ir po išėjimo, tad apimtis yra mano savastis. O mano savastis keičiasi man sąmoningėjant taip kad mano pilnas sąmoningumas kaip toks atsiskleidžia tiktai Kitu. O jūs gyvenate daliniu sąmoningėjimu, Aš ir Tu. Tuo tarpu Kitas yra mūsų bendrystės pagrindas, mūsų visų sąmoningumo pagrindas.
2019.10.12 A: Kuria prasme [[asmenys]] išgyvena požiūrių lygtį?
D: Požiūrių lygtį išgyvena apimtimis. O apimtis nubrėžia požiūrių grandinės: joks požiūris viską, viengubas požiūris betką, dvigubas požiūris kažką, trigubas požiūris nieką. Nes viengubas požiūris yra gyvas ir tolydus, tačiau požiūriu į požiūrį jisai tampa nustatytas, o požiūriu į požiūrį į požiūrį dingsta ryšys ir lieka tik sandara. O toje sandaroje glūdi esmė.
----------------
>><<`
į:
Žr. [[Asmuo]]
2020 lapkričio 14 d., 18:56
atliko -
Pakeistos 3-4 eilutės iš
Žr. [[Keturi asmenys]], [[Savastis]], [[Žmogus]], [[Dievo šokis]], [[gyvenimo lygtis]], [[Požiūriai]], [[Sąmoningumas]], [[Dievo šokio išdavos]], [[Gyvenimo lygtis]], [[Veiksmai]], [[Veikėjai]] the diagrams at SpiritVStructure
į:
Žr. [[Asmuo]], [[Savastis]], [[Žmogus]], [[Dievo šokis]], [[gyvenimo lygtis]], [[Požiūriai]], [[Sąmoningumas]], [[Dievo šokio išdavos]], [[Gyvenimo lygtis]], [[Veiksmai]], [[Veikėjai]] the diagrams at SpiritVStructure
Pridėtos 487-516 eilutės:
[+Keturi asmenys+]
'''Kitas'''
Kitas yra trečias asmuo, kuris iškyla su amžinu gyvenimu, tame tarpe kuriame Dievas ir Aš (santvarkoje) dar nesutampame kaip Tu, taip kad Dievas nebūtinai geras.
Asmenų požiūriai yra jų išeities taškai. Kito išeities taškas yra Dievo troškimas visko, tad ir mūsų rūpesčių bei nesąmonių, tad Dievo būtinumas.
Kitas yra:
* Kito tiesa išgyvenama kaip Tavo tiesa ir t.t.
* Kitas iššaukia Tave - papildiniu.
* Kitas, Tu, Aš iššaukia Dievą kaip meilę, troškimą, viską.
* Kitas atsako Tavo klausimą...
* Asmuo Kitas iškyla atskyrus Dievą ir Mane. Šis atskyrimas vyksta Dievui esantį viename lygmenyje prisiimant pirminę sandarą iš kito lygmens. Tai iššaukia antrinę sandarą.
* Kitas išgyvena asmenų atskirtumu (užtat ženklų savybėmis!) Kitas yra anti-asmuo, asmens priešingybė, tad aplinka. Atskirtumai yra Dievo valios nevykdymo aplinkybės: nepaklusimas, netikėjimas, nerūpėjimas, atskiriantys ir įprasminantys keturis lygmenis. Dievas būtinas - Amžinas gyvenimas yra - per nerūpėjimą, juk tiktai Dievas gali įveikti nerūpėjimą, iš negyvo padaryti gyvą. Tai ir yra amžino gyvenimo uždavinys.
* In GoingBeyondOneself, that which one goes beyond into.
* God made explicit
* the one we coincide with
* the participant of a System.
* that by which God and heart coincide. Well, they can coincide in six ways. So other is the unity of those ways.
* Unity when it is different from Spirit. This is the case from the perspective of the Beginning.
* a self-standing Self.
* is God as Not God for Other is alone, not one
* is completely explicit definition of God as Position and NotGod as Perspective.
* is the question of Being that is left in the matter of Being God.
* is the total substitute
* is completely accessible
* shares of himself
2020 lapkričio 14 d., 18:56
atliko -
Pakeista 3 eilutė iš:
Žr. [[Savastis]], [[Žmogus]], [[Dievo šokis]], [[gyvenimo lygtis]], [[Požiūriai]], [[Sąmoningumas]], [[Dievo šokio išdavos]], [[Gyvenimo lygtis]], [[Veiksmai]], [[Veikėjai]] the diagrams at SpiritVStructure
į:
Žr. [[Keturi asmenys]], [[Savastis]], [[Žmogus]], [[Dievo šokis]], [[gyvenimo lygtis]], [[Požiūriai]], [[Sąmoningumas]], [[Dievo šokio išdavos]], [[Gyvenimo lygtis]], [[Veiksmai]], [[Veikėjai]] the diagrams at SpiritVStructure
2020 spalio 08 d., 15:41
atliko -
Pakeistos 35-36 eilutės iš
[+Kas yra asmuo?+]
į:
[+Asmens prielaidos+]
Pakeistos 50-51 eilutės iš
į:
[+Kas yra asmuo?+]
'''Asmuo yra dvasia tam tikroje apimtyje'''
'''Asmuo yra dvasia tam tikroje apimtyje'''
Pakeistos 55-56 eilutės iš
* Asmenis skiria požiūriai, užtat asmenis atitinkamai išsako joks požiūris, požiūris, požiūris į požiūrį, požiūris į požiūrį į požiūrį.
į:
* Nevaržoma dvasia yra Dievas.
* Asmenis skiria požiūriai, užtat asmenis atitinkamai išsako joks požiūris, požiūris, požiūris į požiūrį, požiūris į požiūrį į požiūrį. Tai yra keturi apimtys: viskas, betkas, kažkas, niekas.
* Asmenis skiria požiūriai, užtat asmenis atitinkamai išsako joks požiūris, požiūris, požiūris į požiūrį, požiūris į požiūrį į požiūrį. Tai yra keturi apimtys: viskas, betkas, kažkas, niekas.
2020 rugsėjo 02 d., 17:40
atliko -
Pridėta 18 eilutė:
** Iš kur kyla asmenys? Kaip jie susiję su įvairiomis lygmenų poromis: ženklų savybėmis, dvejonėmis, išsiaiškinimo būdais, Dievo įsakymais, pertvarkymais, gyvybės savybėmis?
2020 rugpjūčio 14 d., 11:44
atliko -
Pridėta 9 eilutė:
Pridėta 12 eilutė:
** Kaip asmenys susiję su gyvenimo lygties lygmenimis?
2020 rugpjūčio 14 d., 11:43
atliko -
Pridėtos 355-357 eilutės:
Asmenų keturi lygmenys:
* Nutrukūs ryšiui, Tu tampi Kitu; Aš tampu Tavimi; Dievas tampa Manimi.
* Nutrukūs ryšiui, Tu tampi Kitu; Aš tampu Tavimi; Dievas tampa Manimi.
Pridėta 621 eilutė:
Įvairūs būdai suprasti šešias asmenų poras:
Ištrintos 626-627 eilutės:
Nutrukūs ryšiui, Tu tampi Kitu; Aš tampu Tavimi; Dievas tampa Manimi.
2020 birželio 29 d., 11:56
atliko -
Pakeista 22 eilutė iš:
* Ar Visi yra asmuo?
į:
* Ar yra penktas asmuo (Visi, Aš Tavo vietoj)?
2020 birželio 29 d., 11:55
atliko -
Pakeista 23 eilutė iš:
* Išsakyti savo filosofiją menais - asmenimis: Juodasis Dievas, Mėlynasis Gerasis vaikas, Geltonasis Vedlys, Raudonasis Blogasis vaikas...
į:
* Išsakyti savo filosofiją menais - asmenimis - [[veikėjai | veikėjais]].
2020 birželio 25 d., 15:26
atliko -
Pakeistos 104-107 eilutės iš
'''Požiūrio telkiamasis'''
į:
'''Asmuo ir požiūris'''
* Požiūris yra dėmesio apimties praplėtimas.
* Asmuo yra požiūrio telkiamasis.
* Požiūris yra dėmesio apimties praplėtimas.
* Asmuo yra požiūrio telkiamasis.
2020 birželio 25 d., 13:23
atliko -
Pakeista 295 eilutė iš:
* Kitas yra Dievas Mano vietoj. Kitas yra Dievo patikslinimas trejybės ratu. Užtat galime mylėti besąlygišką Dievą arba galime mylėti savo artimą.
į:
* Kitas yra Dievas Mano vietoj. Kitas yra Dievo patikslinimas trejybės ratu. Trejybės ratas prilygina (isomorfiškai) Dievą ir jo patikslinimą. Užtat galime mylėti besąlygišką Dievą arba galime mylėti savo artimą.
2020 birželio 25 d., 13:23
atliko -
Pakeista 295 eilutė iš:
* Kitas yra Dievas Mano vietoj. Užtat galime mylėti besąlygišką Dievą arba galime mylėti savo artimą.
į:
* Kitas yra Dievas Mano vietoj. Kitas yra Dievo patikslinimas trejybės ratu. Užtat galime mylėti besąlygišką Dievą arba galime mylėti savo artimą.
2020 birželio 25 d., 13:22
atliko -
Pakeista 295 eilutė iš:
* Kitas yra Dievas Mano vietoj.
į:
* Kitas yra Dievas Mano vietoj. Užtat galime mylėti besąlygišką Dievą arba galime mylėti savo artimą.
2020 birželio 25 d., 13:06
atliko -
Pakeistos 150-152 eilutės iš
** apibrėžia buvimą vienų vieną kaip buvimą viena pasirenkant Dievą vietoj savęs.
**considers from their vantage point whether to interpret BeingAlone in terms of God (BeingOneWith) or Self (NotBeingOneWith).
** is free to choose in Scope
**
** is free to choose in Scope
į:
** apibrėžia buvimą vienų viena kaip buvimą viena pasirenkant Dievą vietoj savęs.
** sprendžia iš savo kampo ar suprasti buvimą vienų viena ryšium su Dievu (buvima viena su Kitais) ar savastimi (nebuvimą viena su Kitais).
** yra laisvas rinktis apimtyje
** sprendžia iš savo kampo ar suprasti buvimą vienų viena ryšium su Dievu (buvima viena su Kitais) ar savastimi (nebuvimą viena su Kitais).
** yra laisvas rinktis apimtyje
2020 birželio 25 d., 13:01
atliko -
Pakeistos 148-150 eilutės iš
** chooses whether to define (everyone, anyone, someone, noone) with regard to System or beyond System.
**acknowledges God first in the context of his own Person, choosing God over oneself, and thereby acknowledges God beyond his Person
** defines BeingAlone as BeingOneWith by choosing God over self
**
** defines BeingAlone as BeingOneWith by choosing God over self
į:
** renkasi ar apibrėžti (visus, bet kurį, kažkurį, jokį) ryšium su santvarka ar už santvarkos.
** pripažįsta Dievą pirma savo asmens aplinkoje, pasirinkdamas Dievą vietoj savęs, tuomi pripažindamas Dievą už savo asmens.
** apibrėžia buvimą vienų vieną kaip buvimą viena pasirenkant Dievą vietoj savęs.
** pripažįsta Dievą pirma savo asmens aplinkoje, pasirinkdamas Dievą vietoj savęs, tuomi pripažindamas Dievą už savo asmens.
** apibrėžia buvimą vienų vieną kaip buvimą viena pasirenkant Dievą vietoj savęs.
2020 birželio 25 d., 12:58
atliko -
Pridėta 21 eilutė:
* Ar pasirinkimas išeiti už savęs ar laukti priimti kitą yra pasirinkimas vyriškos ar moteriškos laikysenos?
Pakeista 147 eilutė iš:
** chooses whether to understand (and GoBeyondOneself, beyond system) or be understood (so that we must go into them that we may be one).
į:
** renkasi ar suvokti (ir išeiti už savęs, už santvarkos) ar būti suvoktam (taip kad mums tenka į juos įeiti, kad būtumėme viena).
2020 birželio 25 d., 12:48
atliko -
Ištrintos 30-34 eilutės:
* Asmenys atskiria Dievą (asmenį) nuo jo savasties (apytakos). Keturi asmenys išsako keturis išskyrimo lygmenis nuo visiško sutapimo Dievu iki visiško išsiskyrimo Kitu.
* Asmenų tikslas yra neišreikštą dvasią (Dievą) išreikšti iš šalies, kaip Kitą, kaip prielaidą (kaip meilę), kaip esmę - gryną sandarą. Tokiu būdu galima tvirtinti "dvasia yra (jos sandaros atvaizdų) vieningumas" (Dievas yra meilė). Keturi asmenys yra raiškos lygmenys.
Pridėtos 55-62 eilutės:
'''Didėja Dievo dvasios ir Dievo savasties išsiskyrimas'''
* Dievas su Dievu sutampa, o toliau Aš su viskuo sutampame mažiau, Tu su troškimais dar mažiau, ir Kitas su meile visai nesutampa.
'''Asmenų tikslas'''
* Asmenų tikslas yra neišreikštą dvasią (Dievą) išreikšti iš šalies, kaip Kitą, kaip prielaidą (kaip meilę), kaip esmę - gryną sandarą. Tokiu būdu galima tvirtinti "dvasia yra (jos sandaros atvaizdų) vieningumas" (Dievas yra meilė). Keturi asmenys yra raiškos lygmenys.
2020 birželio 25 d., 12:42
atliko -
Pakeistos 47-49 eilutės iš
* Papildanti apimtis nusako Dievo dvasios ir
į:
* Apimtis nusako Dievo dvasios (Dievo buvimo) ir Dievo savasties (Dievo nebuvimo) sutapimą: viskame, betkame, kažkame, niekame.
* Papildanti apimtis nusako Dievo dvasios (Dievo buvimo) ir Dievo savasties (Dievo nebuvimo) nesutapimą: niekame, kažkame, betkame, viskame.
2020 birželio 25 d., 12:39
atliko -
Pridėtos 52-59 eilutės:
* Yra keturi asmenys: Dievas, Aš, Tu, Kitas.
* Asmenis skiria požiūriai, užtat asmenis atitinkamai išsako joks požiūris, požiūris, požiūris į požiūrį, požiūris į požiūrį į požiūrį.
'''Dievo savastis yra asmens būklė'''
* Yra keturios Dievo savastys: Dievas, viskas, troškimai, meilė.
* Dievo savastis išreiškia Dievo nebuvimą.
2020 birželio 25 d., 12:35
atliko -
Pridėta 12 eilutė:
* Kaip suprasti Dievo buvimo papildinį, kaip kad Dievo troškimais, augančiais nuo nieko iki kažko iki betko iki visko? Kaip tai susiję su netroškimu?
Pridėtos 42-44 eilutės:
* Atsiskyrimas išreiškia Dievo buvimą nebuvime.
* Iš pradžių, Dievo buvimas ir Dievo nebuvimas turėtų visiškai sutapti, apimti viską.
* Palaipsniui Dievo buvimas siaurėja nuo visko iki betko iki kažko iki nieko.
* Iš pradžių, Dievo buvimas ir Dievo nebuvimas turėtų visiškai sutapti, apimti viską.
* Palaipsniui Dievo buvimas siaurėja nuo visko iki betko iki kažko iki nieko.
2020 birželio 25 d., 12:22
atliko -
Pakeistos 37-39 eilutės iš
** Apytaka yra didėjantis laisvumas, klausimas, vienybė, turinio ir raiškos dvilypumas.
**
į:
'''Dievas: dvasia ir savastis'''
* Dievo dvasia atsiskiria nuo Dievo savasties.
* Dievo dvasia yra Dievo buvimas, Dievo savastis yra Dievo nebuvimas.
'''Apimtis nusako tam tikrą Dievo dvasios ir Dievo savasties atsiskyrimo pakopą'''
* Apimtis nusako Dievo dvasios ir Dievo savasties sutapimą: viskame, betkame, kažkame, niekame.
* Papildanti apimtis nusako Dievo dvasios ir Dievo savasties atskyrimą: niekame, kažkame, betkame, viskame.
'''Asmuo yra Dievo dvasia tam tikroje apimtyje'''
'''Asmuo ir apytaka'''
* Asmuo yra mažėjantis laisvumas, atsakymas, liudytojas, nulybė.
* Apytaka yra didėjantis laisvumas, klausimas, vienybė, turinio ir raiškos dvilypumas.
* Asmuo ir apytaka yra septynerybės atvaizdai ir tuo pačiu yra visko padalinimai, turi po keturis atvaizdus.
* Dievo dvasia atsiskiria nuo Dievo savasties.
* Dievo dvasia yra Dievo buvimas, Dievo savastis yra Dievo nebuvimas.
'''Apimtis nusako tam tikrą Dievo dvasios ir Dievo savasties atsiskyrimo pakopą'''
* Apimtis nusako Dievo dvasios ir Dievo savasties sutapimą: viskame, betkame, kažkame, niekame.
* Papildanti apimtis nusako Dievo dvasios ir Dievo savasties atskyrimą: niekame, kažkame, betkame, viskame.
'''Asmuo yra Dievo dvasia tam tikroje apimtyje'''
'''Asmuo ir apytaka'''
* Asmuo yra mažėjantis laisvumas, atsakymas, liudytojas, nulybė.
* Apytaka yra didėjantis laisvumas, klausimas, vienybė, turinio ir raiškos dvilypumas.
* Asmuo ir apytaka yra septynerybės atvaizdai ir tuo pačiu yra visko padalinimai, turi po keturis atvaizdus.
2020 birželio 25 d., 12:00
atliko -
Pakeistos 61-68 eilutės iš
*
** Person is the viewer. Scope is the sense in which suppositions are the same or different - (the property of) 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
** Dievas apibrėžia save išsakydamas savo prielaidas
** Self assumes Person and Scope as complements
į:
* Apimtis ir asmuo išreiškia tą patį, tiktai priešingais žodžiais, jiems suteikiant priešingą prasmę. Apimtis yra NeDievas už Dievo. Asmuo yra Dievas NeDieve.
* Asmenys nurodomi pabrėžiant Kas Kame - asmuo apimtyje ar Kas Kam - apimtis asmeniui.
* Asmuo yra matytojas. Apimtis yra prasmė kuria prielaidos sutampa ar išsiskiria, tai visko savybė, kad jinai būtina sąvoka. Apimtis nurodo lauką kuriame tiesa pasireiškia taip kad sutampa tai kaip yra ir kaip atrodo.
* Asmuo yra tai kas yra net ir nesant. Jei Dievo nėra, tai Dievas yra Kitas. Jei Kito nėra, tėra Dievas.
* Dievas apibrėžia save išsakydamas savo prielaidas.
* Savastis pagrįsta tuo, kad asmuo ir apimtis vienas kitą papildo.
* Asmenys nurodomi pabrėžiant Kas Kame - asmuo apimtyje ar Kas Kam - apimtis asmeniui.
* Asmuo yra matytojas. Apimtis yra prasmė kuria prielaidos sutampa ar išsiskiria, tai visko savybė, kad jinai būtina sąvoka. Apimtis nurodo lauką kuriame tiesa pasireiškia taip kad sutampa tai kaip yra ir kaip atrodo.
* Asmuo yra tai kas yra net ir nesant. Jei Dievo nėra, tai Dievas yra Kitas. Jei Kito nėra, tėra Dievas.
* Dievas apibrėžia save išsakydamas savo prielaidas.
* Savastis pagrįsta tuo, kad asmuo ir apimtis vienas kitą papildo.
2020 birželio 25 d., 11:16
atliko -
Pakeista 32 eilutė iš:
* Asmenys atskiria Dievą (asmenį) nuo jo savasties (apytakos). Keturi asmenys išsako keturis išskyrimo lygmenis nuo visiško sutapimo Dievu iki visiško nesutapimo Kitu.
į:
* Asmenys atskiria Dievą (asmenį) nuo jo savasties (apytakos). Keturi asmenys išsako keturis išskyrimo lygmenis nuo visiško sutapimo Dievu iki visiško išsiskyrimo Kitu.
2020 birželio 25 d., 11:16
atliko -
Pridėta 32 eilutė:
* Asmenys atskiria Dievą (asmenį) nuo jo savasties (apytakos). Keturi asmenys išsako keturis išskyrimo lygmenis nuo visiško sutapimo Dievu iki visiško nesutapimo Kitu.
2020 birželio 24 d., 18:00
atliko -
Pridėtos 69-74 eilutės:
troškimas, Dievo atvaizdas
* vienumo raiška, tad Dievo raiška, tad Dievo atvaizdas, lygmuo, troškimas.
* Asmenys yra troškimai, tačiau juos nusako, apibrėžia netroškimai, jų savastys, jų papildiniai, tai kas jie nėra. Dievas yra savarankiškumas, kurį nusako kūno poreikiai. Aš esu užtikrintumas, kurį nusako proto abejonės. Tu esi ramumas, kurį nusako širdies lūkesčiai, tad tu esi riba tarp to, kas manyje ir kas už manęs. Kitas yra meilė, kurią nusako valios klausimai, tad mylime Kitu.
* asmens esmė
* Dievas reiškiasi asmenimis: Dievas, Aš, Tu, Kitas - o mes esame jo atspindžiai. Mus sieja pasivaikščiojimai medžiais.
* vienumo raiška, tad Dievo raiška, tad Dievo atvaizdas, lygmuo, troškimas.
* Asmenys yra troškimai, tačiau juos nusako, apibrėžia netroškimai, jų savastys, jų papildiniai, tai kas jie nėra. Dievas yra savarankiškumas, kurį nusako kūno poreikiai. Aš esu užtikrintumas, kurį nusako proto abejonės. Tu esi ramumas, kurį nusako širdies lūkesčiai, tad tu esi riba tarp to, kas manyje ir kas už manęs. Kitas yra meilė, kurią nusako valios klausimai, tad mylime Kitu.
* asmens esmė
* Dievas reiškiasi asmenimis: Dievas, Aš, Tu, Kitas - o mes esame jo atspindžiai. Mus sieja pasivaikščiojimai medžiais.
Pakeistos 231-236 eilutės iš
* yra troškimas, Dievo atvaizdas
** vienumo raiška, tad Dievo raiška, tad Dievo atvaizdas, lygmuo, troškimas.
** Asmenys yra troškimai, tačiau juos nusako, apibrėžia netroškimai, jų savastys, jų papildiniai, tai kas jie nėra. Dievas yra savarankiškumas, kurį nusako kūno poreikiai. Aš esu užtikrintumas, kurį nusako proto abejonės. Tu esi ramumas, kurį nusako širdies lūkesčiai, tad tu esi riba tarp to, kas manyje ir kas už manęs. Kitas yra meilė, kurią nusako valios klausimai, tad mylime Kitu.
** Troškimas yra asmens esmė.
** Dievas reiškiasi asmenimis: Dievas, Aš, Tu, Kitas - o mes esame jo atspindžiai. Mus sieja pasivaikščiojimai medžiais.
* yra Dievo savybių paneigimas
** vienumo raiška
** Asmenys yra troškimai, tačiau juos nusako, apibrėžia netroškimai, jų savastys, jų papildiniai, tai kas jie nėra. Dievas yra savarankiškumas, kurį nusako kūno poreikiai. Aš esu užtikrintumas, kurį nusako proto abejonės. Tu esi ramumas, kurį nusako širdies lūkesčiai, tad tu esi riba tarp to, kas manyje ir kas už manęs. Kitas yra meilė, kurią nusako valios klausimai, tad mylime Kitu.
** Troškimas yra asmens esmė.
** Dievas reiškiasi asmenimis: Dievas, Aš, Tu, Kitas - o mes esame jo atspindžiai. Mus sieja pasivaikščiojimai medžiais.
* yra Dievo savybių paneigimas
į:
* yra Dievo savybių paneigimas (ne meilė, vertybė)
2020 birželio 24 d., 17:58
atliko -
Pakeistos 42-43 eilutės iš
Dievas (mumyse) esantis santykyje su savimi (už mūsų)
į:
Dievas Dieve
* Dievas (mumyse) esantis santykyje su savimi (už mūsų)
* Dievas (mumyse) esantis santykyje su savimi (už mūsų)
Pakeistos 46-47 eilutės iš
į:
* tai kas Dievo nebuvime yra pirm Dievo atsiradimo
* Nepatvirtintas Dievas. Dievas (Sūnus) dar nepatvirtinus, jog tai tas pats Dievas (Tėvas)
Dievo būtinumo aplinkybės
* Dievas (asmuo) ne Dieve (savastyje), tad Dievo galimybės aplinkybės.
* apibrėžimas Dievo buvimo, tai yra, Dievo galimybės Dievo nebuvime
* Nepatvirtintas Dievas. Dievas (Sūnus) dar nepatvirtinus, jog tai tas pats Dievas (Tėvas)
Dievo būtinumo aplinkybės
* Dievas (asmuo) ne Dieve (savastyje), tad Dievo galimybės aplinkybės.
* apibrėžimas Dievo buvimo, tai yra, Dievo galimybės Dievo nebuvime
Pridėtos 54-57 eilutės:
'''Savastis'''
Dievo paneigimas
Dievo paneigimas
Pakeistos 64-66 eilutės iš
** 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.
į:
2020 birželio 24 d., 17:47
atliko -
Ištrinta 52 eilutė:
Pakeistos 103-104 eilutės iš
į:
besirenkantis
* kiekvienoje apimtyje galime Dievą įžvelgti kaip asmenį ar jo neįžvelgti
* kiekvienoje apimtyje galime Dievą įžvelgti kaip asmenį ar jo neįžvelgti
2020 birželio 24 d., 17:46
atliko -
Pakeistos 42-50 eilutės iš
*
** taip kad asmens sulyginimas su Dievu yra Dievo būtinumo parodymas
* yra Dievo būklė, jo prielaidos
į:
Dievas (mumyse) esantis santykyje su savimi (už mūsų)
* Šis santykis priklauso nuo apimties. Pirmoje pakopoje, nieko apimtyje, Dievas (Dievas) visko apimtyje pilnai sutampa su savimi (Dievu) nieko apimtyje, tad yra Dievo teigimas. O paskutinėje pakopoje, Dievas (Kitas) nieko apimtyje pilnai nesutampa su savimi (meile) visko apimtyje, tad yra Dievo neigimas. Yra taip pat dvi tarpinės apimtys.
* Dievas apimtyje yra Dievo galimybė. Ta galimybė, skirtumas tarp galimo ir esamo, vis didėja. Man tai yra skirtumas tarp dorovės ir elgesio.
Dievo paneigimas
* Asmens sulyginimas su Dievu yra Dievo būtinumo parodymas.
Dievo būklė, jo prielaidos
* Dievas yra pirm asmens, po asmens ir įvairiausiuose asmenyse. Dievas tad yra Visi.
* Šis santykis priklauso nuo apimties. Pirmoje pakopoje, nieko apimtyje, Dievas (Dievas) visko apimtyje pilnai sutampa su savimi (Dievu) nieko apimtyje, tad yra Dievo teigimas. O paskutinėje pakopoje, Dievas (Kitas) nieko apimtyje pilnai nesutampa su savimi (meile) visko apimtyje, tad yra Dievo neigimas. Yra taip pat dvi tarpinės apimtys.
* Dievas apimtyje yra Dievo galimybė. Ta galimybė, skirtumas tarp galimo ir esamo, vis didėja. Man tai yra skirtumas tarp dorovės ir elgesio.
Dievo paneigimas
* Asmens sulyginimas su Dievu yra Dievo būtinumo parodymas.
Dievo būklė, jo prielaidos
* Dievas yra pirm asmens, po asmens ir įvairiausiuose asmenyse. Dievas tad yra Visi.
Ištrintos 61-63 eilutės:
'''Dievas mumyse'''
2020 birželio 24 d., 17:40
atliko -
Pakeistos 40-42 eilutės iš
'''Dievo (dvasios) atsiskyrimas nuo savęs (savasties)'''
*Dievo santykis su savimi
*
į:
'''Dievo (dvasia) atsiskirianti nuo savęs (savasties)'''
* Dievas (mumyse) esantis santykyje su savimi (už mūsų)
* Dievas (mumyse) esantis santykyje su savimi (už mūsų)
Pridėta 44 eilutė:
Pakeistos 49-50 eilutės iš
** God is prior to Person, subsequent to Person, and in the various Persons. God is thus Everyone.
** relate God's being beyond us and within us, in System
į:
** Dievas yra pirm asmens, po asmens ir įvairiausiuose asmenyse. Dievas tad yra Visi.
Pakeista 63 eilutė iš:
į:
'''Dievas mumyse'''
2020 birželio 24 d., 17:36
atliko -
Pridėtos 42-43 eilutės:
* Dievo santykis su savimi
** Šis santykis priklauso nuo apimties. Pirmoje pakopoje, nieko apimtyje, Dievas (Dievas) visko apimtyje pilnai sutampa su savimi (Dievu) nieko apimtyje, tad yra Dievo teigimas. O paskutinėje pakopoje, Dievas (Kitas) nieko apimtyje pilnai nesutampa su savimi (meile) visko apimtyje, tad yra Dievo neigimas. Yra taip pat dvi tarpinės apimtys.
** Šis santykis priklauso nuo apimties. Pirmoje pakopoje, nieko apimtyje, Dievas (Dievas) visko apimtyje pilnai sutampa su savimi (Dievu) nieko apimtyje, tad yra Dievo teigimas. O paskutinėje pakopoje, Dievas (Kitas) nieko apimtyje pilnai nesutampa su savimi (meile) visko apimtyje, tad yra Dievo neigimas. Yra taip pat dvi tarpinės apimtys.
Pakeistos 47-48 eilutės iš
į:
* yra Dievo būklė, jo prielaidos
** God is prior to Person, subsequent to Person, and in the various Persons. God is thus Everyone.
** relate God's being beyond us and within us, in System
** Scope and Person express the same, but using opposite words, giving them opposite meaning. Scope is NotGod beyond God. Person is God within NotGod.
** Kiekvienoje apimtyje galime įžvelgti Dievą kaip asmenį arba neįžvelgti - lieka apimtis.
** 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.
** Person is the viewer. Scope is the sense in which suppositions are the same or different - (the property of) 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.
** 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.
** 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.
** Dievas apibrėžia save išsakydamas savo prielaidas
** Self assumes Person and Scope as complements
** Person in Scope is the potential of God.
** God is prior to Person, subsequent to Person, and in the various Persons. God is thus Everyone.
** relate God's being beyond us and within us, in System
** Scope and Person express the same, but using opposite words, giving them opposite meaning. Scope is NotGod beyond God. Person is God within NotGod.
** Kiekvienoje apimtyje galime įžvelgti Dievą kaip asmenį arba neįžvelgti - lieka apimtis.
** 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.
** Person is the viewer. Scope is the sense in which suppositions are the same or different - (the property of) 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.
** 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.
** 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.
** Dievas apibrėžia save išsakydamas savo prielaidas
** Self assumes Person and Scope as complements
** Person in Scope is the potential of God.
Ištrintos 223-237 eilutės:
** asmuo yra ne Dievas, Dievo neigimas
** God is prior to Person, subsequent to Person, and in the various Persons. God is thus Everyone.
** relate God's being beyond us and within us, in System
** Scope and Person express the same, but using opposite words, giving them opposite meaning. Scope is NotGod beyond God. Person is God within NotGod.
** Kiekvienoje apimtyje galime įžvelgti Dievą kaip asmenį arba neįžvelgti - lieka apimtis.
** 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.
** Person is the viewer. Scope is the sense in which suppositions are the same or different - (the property of) 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.
** 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.
** 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.
** Dievas apibrėžia save išsakydamas savo prielaidas
** Self assumes Person and Scope as complements
** Person in Scope is the potential of God.
2020 birželio 24 d., 15:18
atliko -
Pridėtos 40-41 eilutės:
'''Dievo (dvasios) atsiskyrimas nuo savęs (savasties)'''
Pridėtos 45-46 eilutės:
Pakeista 194 eilutė iš:
* yra Dievo kampas Dievo šokyje
į:
* Dievo šokyje yra Dievo kampo (vaidmens) nurodytas Dievas
2020 birželio 24 d., 15:02
atliko -
Pridėtos 43-44 eilutės:
'''Požiūrio telkiamasis'''
Ištrintos 49-60 eilutės:
** Mane matai Tu, požiūriu į požiūrį
** nesiriboja savimi, tad gali virsti Tavimi, Kitu ir, atsisakydamas savęs, Dievu. Arba jiems gali būti priskirtas Aš.
** Aš esu pagrindas požiūriui, tad ir asmenims. Aš = {$P$}, Tu = {$P^2$}, Kitas = {$P^3$}, o Dievas = {$P^0$}. Kitas man apibrėžia Dievą. Ketverybės poslinkiai taip ir suvokia: Tu apibrėži (paaiškini) Mane, užtat Kitas apibrėžia (paaiškina) Dievą.
** Visi keturi asmenys (Dievas, Aš, Tu, Kitas) yra apibrėžti požiūriais: jokiu požiūriu, požiūriu, požiūriu į požiūrį, požiūriu į požiūrį į požiūrį. Tad už visų asmenų glūdi asmuo Aš: Joks Aš, Ašai, Aš Sau, Man Savo Sau.
** Niekas yra "būtina sąvoka". O viskas turi tris papildomas savybes. Gali būti, kad šios papildomos savybės sudaro žmogaus trejybę, taip kad jinai yra skirtumas tarp visko ir nieko.
** Nuotaikų šešios permainos išsako santykius tarp požiūrų, tad tarp asmenų.
* požiūrių grandinė
** būtent joks požiūris (Dievas), požiūris (Aš), požiūris į požiūrį (Tu), arba požiūris į požiūrį į požiūrį (Kitas).
'''Išgyventojas'''
Pakeistos 71-87 eilutės iš
* galintis išeiti už savęs
** negalintis būti vienų vienas jei prisirišęs prie savęs, jei vienas su savimi
** galintis būti vienų vienas tiktai jei prisiriša prie Dievo, jei vienas su Dievu
* mylimasis ir kartu mylintysis
** išgyvenantis, tad galintis išgyvenimą derinti,galintis būtų mylimas, ir save bei kitus mylintis.
** meile išeinantis už požiūrio į nuostatą
** mylėti, tai priimti požiūrį, kas iškyla mylint savo artimą, kaip save patį
** sukurtas priimti tobulą meilę ir tuomi mylėti kitus taipogi.
**mylintis kartu priimant mylimojo požiūrį, tokiu būdu suvedantis požiūrį ir nuostatą, kad sueitų meile Kitam.
'''Asmuo savarankiškai veikia'''
* savarankiškai veikia
** has a solitary activity? and how is that mapped or not to God's NullActivity within them.
renkasi
** negalintis būti vienų vienas jei prisirišęs prie savęs, jei vienas su savimi
* mylimasis ir kartu mylintysis
** išgyvenantis, tad galintis išgyvenimą derinti,
** meile išeinantis už požiūrio į nuostatą
** mylėti, tai priimti požiūrį, kas iškyla mylint savo artimą, kaip save patį
** sukurtas priimti tobulą meilę ir tuomi mylėti kitus taipogi
**
'''Asmuo savarankiškai veikia'''
* savarankiškai veikia
** has a solitary activity? and how is that mapped or not to God's NullActivity within them
į:
* bendras žmogus, Aš, nusakytas savo požiūrio, tad požiūrio į požiūrį
** Mane matai Tu, požiūriu į požiūrį
** nesiriboja savimi, tad gali virsti Tavimi, Kitu ir, atsisakydamas savęs, Dievu. Arba jiems gali būti priskirtas Aš.
** Aš esu pagrindas požiūriui, tad ir asmenims. Aš = {$P$}, Tu = {$P^2$}, Kitas = {$P^3$}, o Dievas = {$P^0$}. Kitas man apibrėžia Dievą. Ketverybės poslinkiai taip ir suvokia: Tu apibrėži (paaiškini) Mane, užtat Kitas apibrėžia (paaiškina) Dievą.
** Visi keturi asmenys (Dievas, Aš, Tu, Kitas) yra apibrėžti požiūriais: jokiu požiūriu, požiūriu, požiūriu į požiūrį, požiūriu į požiūrį į požiūrį. Tad už visų asmenų glūdi asmuo Aš: Joks Aš, Ašai, Aš Sau, Man Savo Sau.
** Niekas yra "būtina sąvoka". O viskas turi tris papildomas savybes. Gali būti, kad šios papildomos savybės sudaro žmogaus trejybę, taip kad jinai yra skirtumas tarp visko ir nieko.
** Nuotaikų šešios permainos išsako santykius tarp požiūrų, tad tarp asmenų.
* požiūrių grandinė
** būtent joks požiūris (Dievas), požiūris (Aš), požiūris į požiūrį (Tu), arba požiūris į požiūrį į požiūrį (Kitas).
'''laisvai besirenkantis'''
* besirenkantis
** Mane matai Tu, požiūriu į požiūrį
** nesiriboja savimi, tad gali virsti Tavimi, Kitu ir, atsisakydamas savęs, Dievu. Arba jiems gali būti priskirtas Aš.
** Aš esu pagrindas požiūriui, tad ir asmenims. Aš = {$P$}, Tu = {$P^2$}, Kitas = {$P^3$}, o Dievas = {$P^0$}. Kitas man apibrėžia Dievą. Ketverybės poslinkiai taip ir suvokia: Tu apibrėži (paaiškini) Mane, užtat Kitas apibrėžia (paaiškina) Dievą.
** Visi keturi asmenys (Dievas, Aš, Tu, Kitas) yra apibrėžti požiūriais: jokiu požiūriu, požiūriu, požiūriu į požiūrį, požiūriu į požiūrį į požiūrį. Tad už visų asmenų glūdi asmuo Aš: Joks Aš, Ašai, Aš Sau, Man Savo Sau.
** Niekas yra "būtina sąvoka". O viskas turi tris papildomas savybes. Gali būti, kad šios papildomos savybės sudaro žmogaus trejybę, taip kad jinai yra skirtumas tarp visko ir nieko.
** Nuotaikų šešios permainos išsako santykius tarp požiūrų, tad tarp asmenų.
* požiūrių grandinė
** būtent joks požiūris (Dievas), požiūris (Aš), požiūris į požiūrį (Tu), arba požiūris į požiūrį į požiūrį (Kitas).
'''laisvai besirenkantis'''
* besirenkantis
Pakeistos 94-97 eilutės iš
* kuria
į:
* savarankiškai veikiantis
** has a solitary activity? and how is that mapped or not to God's NullActivity within them.
* kuriantis
** has a solitary activity? and how is that mapped or not to God's NullActivity within them.
* kuriantis
Pakeista 100 eilutė iš:
* tiria
į:
* tiriantis
Pakeistos 106-108 eilutės iš
* atpažįsta Dievą
** susitelkia į Dievą
* liudija
** susitelkia į Dievą
į:
* galintis išeiti už savęs
** negalintis būti vienų vienas jei prisirišęs prie savęs, jei vienas su savimi
** galintis būti vienų vienas tiktai jei prisiriša prie Dievo, jei vienas su Dievu
* atpažįstantis Dievą
** susitelkiantis į Dievą
* liudijantis
** negalintis būti vienų vienas jei prisirišęs prie savęs, jei vienas su savimi
** galintis būti vienų vienas tiktai jei prisiriša prie Dievo, jei vienas su Dievu
* atpažįstantis Dievą
** susitelkiantis į Dievą
* liudijantis
Pakeista 117 eilutė iš:
* nurodo, nukreipia
į:
* nurodantis, nukreipiantis
Pakeista 127 eilutė iš:
* atveria
į:
* atveriantis
Pakeistos 134-143 eilutės iš
* bręsta, auga
į:
'''mylimasis'''
* mylimasis ir kartu mylintysis
** išgyvenantis, tad galintis išgyvenimą derinti, tad galintis būtų mylimas, ir save bei kitus mylintis.
** meile išeinantis už požiūrio į nuostatą
** mylėti, tai priimti požiūrį, kas iškyla mylint savo artimą, kaip save patį
** sukurtas priimti tobulą meilę ir tuomi mylėti kitus taipogi.
** mylintis kartu priimant mylimojo požiūrį, tokiu būdu suvedantis požiūrį ir nuostatą, kad sueitų meile Kitam.
* bręstantis, augantis
* mylimasis ir kartu mylintysis
** išgyvenantis, tad galintis išgyvenimą derinti, tad galintis būtų mylimas, ir save bei kitus mylintis.
** meile išeinantis už požiūrio į nuostatą
** mylėti, tai priimti požiūrį, kas iškyla mylint savo artimą, kaip save patį
** sukurtas priimti tobulą meilę ir tuomi mylėti kitus taipogi.
** mylintis kartu priimant mylimojo požiūrį, tokiu būdu suvedantis požiūrį ir nuostatą, kad sueitų meile Kitam.
* bręstantis, augantis
2020 birželio 24 d., 14:06
atliko -
Ištrinta 75 eilutė:
Pakeistos 77-78 eilutės iš
** gyvenantis už apimties nuostata
**gyvenantis apimtyje požiūriu
**
į:
** už apimties gyvenantis nuostata
** apimtyje gyvenantis požiūriu
** apimtyje gyvenantis požiūriu
2020 birželio 24 d., 14:04
atliko -
Pridėtos 44-47 eilutės:
** požiūris sutelkia dvasia, apibrėžia ir sutelkia dėmesį, išskiria tai, kas žinoma (požiūryje) ir nežinoma (už požiūrio)
** mes patys savęs nematome, tad esame sau nežinomi
** užtat požiūriu į požiūrį pamatome save, tai kas nežinomą, galiausiai pasižiūrime iš šalies, kaip pats požiūris atrodo
** mes patys savęs nematome, tad esame sau nežinomi
** užtat požiūriu į požiūrį pamatome save, tai kas nežinomą, galiausiai pasižiūrime iš šalies, kaip pats požiūris atrodo
2020 birželio 24 d., 13:14
atliko -
Ištrintos 54-55 eilutės:
** nusistatantis (grindžiantis), vykdantis (veikiantis), permąstantis (išgyvenantis požiūrį).
Ištrintos 55-58 eilutės:
** Asmuo išgyvena požiūrių lygtį savo apimtyje, kurią nustato atitinkama požiūrio grandinė: Dievas viskame jokiu požiūriu, Aš betkame viengubu požiūriu, Tu kažkame dvigubu požiūriu, Kitas niekame trigubu požiūriu.
** Asmuo, dalyvaujantis požiūrių lygtyje (gyvenimo lygtyje), tad nusakantis asmens lygmenį (Dievas, Aš, Tu, Kitas) Pavyzdžiui, Aš=Viskas, Aš santvarkoje = Laisvumas, ir t.t.
* išgyvena požiūrį
Pakeistos 58-59 eilutės iš
** Išgyvena, tad gali išgyvenimą derinti, tad gali būtų mylimas, ir save bei kitus mylėti.
į:
** požiūriu matantis, stebintis, priimantis Dievo neigimą
** nuostata matantis, stebintis, priimantis Dievo buvimą
** nuostata matantis, stebintis, priimantis Dievo buvimą
Pakeistos 64-72 eilutės iš
* išgyvena (pasekmes)
** Asmuo išgyvena pasekmes, kad buvo vienaip, o paskui buvo kitaip, tad skirtumą tarp dviejų būklių. Užtat asmuo grindžia būtinumą, tad ir Dievą.
** sees, views, accepts NotGod by Perspective
** sees, views, accepts God by Principle
** sees through Properties
** lives beyond Scope through Position
** lives within Scope through Perspective
** goes from Perspective to Position by Love
** sees
** sees through Properties
** lives beyond Scope through Position
** lives within Scope through Perspective
** goes from Perspective to Position by Love
į:
* požiūrių lygties išgyventojas
** Asmuo išgyvena požiūrių lygtį savo apimtyje, kurią nustato atitinkama požiūrio grandinė: Dievas viskame jokiu požiūriu, Aš betkame viengubu požiūriu, Tu kažkame dvigubu požiūriu, Kitas niekame trigubu požiūriu.
** Asmuo, dalyvaujantis požiūrių lygtyje (gyvenimo lygtyje), tad nusakantis asmens lygmenį (Dievas, Aš, Tu, Kitas) Pavyzdžiui, Aš=Viskas, Aš santvarkoje = Laisvumas, ir t.t.
* trejybės išgyventojas
** nusistatantis (grindžiantis), vykdantis (veikiantis), permąstantis (išgyvenantis požiūrį).
* pasekmių išgyventojas
** išgyvenantis pasekmes, kad buvo vienaip, o paskui buvo kitaip, tad išgyvenantis skirtumą tarp dviejų būklių. Užtat asmuo grindžia būtinumą, tad ir Dievą.
** matantis savybėmis
** gyvenantis už apimties nuostata
** gyvenantis apimtyje požiūriu
** Asmuo išgyvena požiūrių lygtį savo apimtyje, kurią nustato atitinkama požiūrio grandinė: Dievas viskame jokiu požiūriu, Aš betkame viengubu požiūriu, Tu kažkame dvigubu požiūriu, Kitas niekame trigubu požiūriu.
** Asmuo, dalyvaujantis požiūrių lygtyje (gyvenimo lygtyje), tad nusakantis asmens lygmenį (Dievas, Aš, Tu, Kitas) Pavyzdžiui, Aš=Viskas, Aš santvarkoje = Laisvumas, ir t.t.
* trejybės išgyventojas
** nusistatantis (grindžiantis), vykdantis (veikiantis), permąstantis (išgyvenantis požiūrį).
* pasekmių išgyventojas
** išgyvenantis pasekmes, kad buvo vienaip, o paskui buvo kitaip, tad išgyvenantis skirtumą tarp dviejų būklių. Užtat asmuo grindžia būtinumą, tad ir Dievą.
** matantis savybėmis
** gyvenantis už apimties nuostata
** gyvenantis apimtyje požiūriu
Pakeistos 76-79 eilutės iš
** 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
* yra mylimasis, o kartu myli
** can “be” alone only if they are attached to, one with God
* yra mylimasis, o kartu myli
į:
* galintis išeiti už savęs
** negalintis būti vienų vienas jei prisirišęs prie savęs, jei vienas su savimi
** galintis būti vienų vienas tiktai jei prisiriša prie Dievo, jei vienas su Dievu
* mylimasis ir kartu mylintysis
** išgyvenantis, tad galintis išgyvenimą derinti, tad galintis būtų mylimas, ir save bei kitus mylintis.
** meile išeinantis už požiūrio į nuostatą
** negalintis būti vienų vienas jei prisirišęs prie savęs, jei vienas su savimi
** galintis būti vienų vienas tiktai jei prisiriša prie Dievo, jei vienas su Dievu
* mylimasis ir kartu mylintysis
** išgyvenantis, tad galintis išgyvenimą derinti, tad galintis būtų mylimas, ir save bei kitus mylintis.
** meile išeinantis už požiūrio į nuostatą
Pakeistos 86-87 eilutės iš
** myli kartu priimdami mylimojo požiūrį, tokiu būdu suveda požiūrį ir nuostatą, kad sueitų meile Kitam.
į:
** mylintis kartu priimant mylimojo požiūrį, tokiu būdu suvedantis požiūrį ir nuostatą, kad sueitų meile Kitam.
2020 birželio 24 d., 13:06
atliko -
Pakeistos 74-78 eilutės iš
*** 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.
į:
Pridėtos 245-250 eilutės:
Asmuo yra mumis matantysis
* Mato kodėl: Dievas mato kas mes iš tiesų esame
* Mato kaip: Aš save matau per savo vaidmenį.
* Mato koks: Tu matai mane per savo prielaidas.
* Mato ar: Kitas manęs visai nemato.
2020 birželio 24 d., 12:48
atliko -
Ištrinta 35 eilutė:
Pridėtos 39-43 eilutės:
* Dievo paneigimas
** taip kad asmens sulyginimas su Dievu yra Dievo būtinumo parodymas.
* požiūrio telkiamasis
Ištrintos 49-50 eilutės:
** taip kad asmens sulyginimas su Dievu yra Dievo būtinumo parodymas.
Pridėtos 52-54 eilutės:
'''Išgyventojas'''
Pakeistos 58-61 eilutės iš
* išgyvena požiūrių lygtį
į:
* požiūrių lygties išgyventojas
2020 birželio 24 d., 12:44
atliko -
Pakeistos 37-38 eilutės iš
* Asmuo yra mažėjantis laisvumas, atsakymas, liudytojas, nulybė. O apytaka yra didėjantis laisvumas, klausimas, vienybė, turinio ir raiškos dvilypumas. Užtat asmuo ir apytaka yra septynerybės atvaizdai ir tuo pačiu yra visko padalinimai, turi po keturis atvaizdus.
*Asmuo yra bendras žmogus, Aš, savo požiūrio nusakytas, kuris tačiau nesiriboja savimi, tad gali virsti Tavimi, Kitu ir, atsisakydamas savęs, Dievu. Arba jiems gali būti priskirtas Aš.
*
į:
* mažėjantis laisvumas, atsakymas, liudytojas, nulybė.
** Apytaka yra didėjantis laisvumas, klausimas, vienybė, turinio ir raiškos dvilypumas.
** Asmuo ir apytaka yra septynerybės atvaizdai ir tuo pačiu yra visko padalinimai, turi po keturis atvaizdus.
* bendras žmogus, Aš, nusakytas savo požiūrio
** nesiriboja savimi, tad gali virsti Tavimi, Kitu ir, atsisakydamas savęs, Dievu. Arba jiems gali būti priskirtas Aš.
** Apytaka yra didėjantis laisvumas, klausimas, vienybė, turinio ir raiškos dvilypumas.
** Asmuo ir apytaka yra septynerybės atvaizdai ir tuo pačiu yra visko padalinimai, turi po keturis atvaizdus.
* bendras žmogus, Aš, nusakytas savo požiūrio
** nesiriboja savimi, tad gali virsti Tavimi, Kitu ir, atsisakydamas savęs, Dievu. Arba jiems gali būti priskirtas Aš.
Pakeista 43 eilutė iš:
** Yra keturi asmenys: Dievas, Aš, Tu, Kitas. O asmuo yra bendras žmogus, Aš, nusakytas požiūrio. Tad visi keturi asmenys yra apibrėžti požiūriais: jokiu požiūriu, požiūriu, požiūriu į požiūrį, požiūriu į požiūrį į požiūrį. Tad už visų asmenų glūdi asmuo Aš: Joks Aš, Ašai, Aš Sau, Man Savo Sau.
į:
** Visi keturi asmenys (Dievas, Aš, Tu, Kitas) yra apibrėžti požiūriais: jokiu požiūriu, požiūriu, požiūriu į požiūrį, požiūriu į požiūrį į požiūrį. Tad už visų asmenų glūdi asmuo Aš: Joks Aš, Ašai, Aš Sau, Man Savo Sau.
Pakeistos 46-49 eilutės iš
* Asmuo yra Dievo paneigimas, taip kad asmens sulyginimas su Dievu yra Dievo būtino parodymas.
*Asmuo yra požiūrių grandinė: būtent joks požiūris (Dievas), požiūris (Aš), požiūris į požiūrį (Tu), arba požiūris į požiūrį į požiūrį (Kitas).
*Asmuo yra trejybės išgyventojas: nusistatantis (grindžiantis), vykdantis (veikiantis), permąstantis (išgyvenantis požiūrį).
* Asmuo yra požiūrio išgyventojas.
*
*
*
į:
* Dievo paneigimas
** taip kad asmens sulyginimas su Dievu yra Dievo būtinumo parodymas.
* požiūrių grandinė
** būtent joks požiūris (Dievas), požiūris (Aš), požiūris į požiūrį (Tu), arba požiūris į požiūrį į požiūrį (Kitas).
* trejybės išgyventojas
** nusistatantis (grindžiantis), vykdantis (veikiantis), permąstantis (išgyvenantis požiūrį).
* požiūrio išgyventojas.
** taip kad asmens sulyginimas su Dievu yra Dievo būtinumo parodymas.
* požiūrių grandinė
** būtent joks požiūris (Dievas), požiūris (Aš), požiūris į požiūrį (Tu), arba požiūris į požiūrį į požiūrį (Kitas).
* trejybės išgyventojas
** nusistatantis (grindžiantis), vykdantis (veikiantis), permąstantis (išgyvenantis požiūrį).
* požiūrio išgyventojas.
2020 birželio 23 d., 14:31
atliko -
Pakeista 37 eilutė iš:
* Asmuo yra mažėjantis laisvumas, atsakymas, liudytojas, nulybė. O apytaka yra didėjantis laisvumas, klausimas, vienybė, turinio ir raiškos dvilypumas.
į:
* Asmuo yra mažėjantis laisvumas, atsakymas, liudytojas, nulybė. O apytaka yra didėjantis laisvumas, klausimas, vienybė, turinio ir raiškos dvilypumas. Užtat asmuo ir apytaka yra septynerybės atvaizdai ir tuo pačiu yra visko padalinimai, turi po keturis atvaizdus.
2020 birželio 23 d., 14:30
atliko -
Pakeista 37 eilutė iš:
* Asmuo yra mažėjantis laisvumas, atsakymas, liudytojas. O apytaka yra didėjantis laisvumas, klausimas.
į:
* Asmuo yra mažėjantis laisvumas, atsakymas, liudytojas, nulybė. O apytaka yra didėjantis laisvumas, klausimas, vienybė, turinio ir raiškos dvilypumas.
2020 birželio 23 d., 14:28
atliko -
Pridėta 37 eilutė:
* Asmuo yra mažėjantis laisvumas, atsakymas, liudytojas. O apytaka yra didėjantis laisvumas, klausimas.
2020 gegužės 15 d., 18:40
atliko -
Pridėtos 38-41 eilutės:
** Aš esu pagrindas požiūriui, tad ir asmenims. Aš = {$P$}, Tu = {$P^2$}, Kitas = {$P^3$}, o Dievas = {$P^0$}. Kitas man apibrėžia Dievą. Ketverybės poslinkiai taip ir suvokia: Tu apibrėži (paaiškini) Mane, užtat Kitas apibrėžia (paaiškina) Dievą.
** Yra keturi asmenys: Dievas, Aš, Tu, Kitas. O asmuo yra bendras žmogus, Aš, nusakytas požiūrio. Tad visi keturi asmenys yra apibrėžti požiūriais: jokiu požiūriu, požiūriu, požiūriu į požiūrį, požiūriu į požiūrį į požiūrį. Tad už visų asmenų glūdi asmuo Aš: Joks Aš, Ašai, Aš Sau, Man Savo Sau.
** Niekas yra "būtina sąvoka". O viskas turi tris papildomas savybes. Gali būti, kad šios papildomos savybės sudaro žmogaus trejybę, taip kad jinai yra skirtumas tarp visko ir nieko.
** Nuotaikų šešios permainos išsako santykius tarp požiūrų, tad tarp asmenų.
** Yra keturi asmenys: Dievas, Aš, Tu, Kitas. O asmuo yra bendras žmogus, Aš, nusakytas požiūrio. Tad visi keturi asmenys yra apibrėžti požiūriais: jokiu požiūriu, požiūriu, požiūriu į požiūrį, požiūriu į požiūrį į požiūrį. Tad už visų asmenų glūdi asmuo Aš: Joks Aš, Ašai, Aš Sau, Man Savo Sau.
** Niekas yra "būtina sąvoka". O viskas turi tris papildomas savybes. Gali būti, kad šios papildomos savybės sudaro žmogaus trejybę, taip kad jinai yra skirtumas tarp visko ir nieko.
** Nuotaikų šešios permainos išsako santykius tarp požiūrų, tad tarp asmenų.
2020 gegužės 15 d., 18:37
atliko -
Pakeista 37 eilutė iš:
* Asmuo yra bendras žmogus, Aš, savo požiūrio nusakytas, kuris tačiau nesiriboja savimi, tad gali virsti Tavimi, Kitu ir, atsisakydamas savęs, Dievu.
į:
* Asmuo yra bendras žmogus, Aš, savo požiūrio nusakytas, kuris tačiau nesiriboja savimi, tad gali virsti Tavimi, Kitu ir, atsisakydamas savęs, Dievu. Arba jiems gali būti priskirtas Aš.
2020 gegužės 15 d., 18:36
atliko -
Pridėta 37 eilutė:
* Asmuo yra bendras žmogus, Aš, savo požiūrio nusakytas, kuris tačiau nesiriboja savimi, tad gali virsti Tavimi, Kitu ir, atsisakydamas savęs, Dievu.
2020 vasario 21 d., 19:33
atliko -
Ištrintos 204-207 eilutės:
Pakeistos 559-566 eilutės iš
* Kitas išplečia Tave jo nebuvime, už Tavo apimties.
į:
* Kitas išplečia Tave jo nebuvime, už Tavo apimties
[+Užrašai+]
* Asmenis suvokiame klausimais
* Asmenys yra tie, kuriuos norime suprasti. Požiūrių grandinė skiria asmenis.
* Kai įsijaučiame, kai prisiimame požiūrį, kai numanome atsakymą, tai visi asmenys sutampa, tarsi matytų tom pačiom akim.
* Kai atsitokėjame, kai užduodame klausimus, tai išsiskiria asmenys, kiekvienas atsako už savo apimtį.
[+Užrašai+]
* Asmenis suvokiame klausimais
* Asmenys yra tie, kuriuos norime suprasti. Požiūrių grandinė skiria asmenis.
* Kai įsijaučiame, kai prisiimame požiūrį, kai numanome atsakymą, tai visi asmenys sutampa, tarsi matytų tom pačiom akim.
* Kai atsitokėjame, kai užduodame klausimus, tai išsiskiria asmenys, kiekvienas atsako už savo apimtį.
2019 gruodžio 12 d., 23:16
atliko -
Pridėtos 561-566 eilutės:
* Asmenys - neigimas prieš apimtis ir po apimčių - kaip tai suprasti? Loginis kvadratas.
* Asmenų tyrimais, Aš įsijaučia į pasąmonę, į netroškimus, ir išskiria valią. Tu atsitokėji sąmone, gyveni bendru žmogumi. O Dievas naujai iškyla Kitu, sąmoningumu.
* Kitas išplečia Tave jo nebuvime, už Tavo apimties.
--------------------
* Asmenų tyrimais, Aš įsijaučia į pasąmonę, į netroškimus, ir išskiria valią. Tu atsitokėji sąmone, gyveni bendru žmogumi. O Dievas naujai iškyla Kitu, sąmoningumu.
* Kitas išplečia Tave jo nebuvime, už Tavo apimties.
--------------------
Pridėtos 569-570 eilutės:
------------------
Pakeista 574 eilutė iš:
į:
--------------------
Pakeistos 578-579 eilutės iš
į:
-------------------------
Ištrinta 581 eilutė:
Pakeista 583 eilutė iš:
į:
--------------------------
Pakeista 645 eilutė iš:
į:
---------------------------
Pakeista 675 eilutė iš:
į:
----------------------
Pakeistos 731-732 eilutės iš
į:
-----------------------
Pridėtos 735-736 eilutės:
----------------------
Pridėta 740 eilutė:
-------------------------
2019 lapkričio 05 d., 13:59
atliko -
Pridėta 37 eilutė:
* Asmuo yra Dievo paneigimas, taip kad asmens sulyginimas su Dievu yra Dievo būtino parodymas.
2019 spalio 14 d., 12:11
atliko -
Pakeista 37 eilutė iš:
* Asmuo yra požiūrių grandinė: būtent joks požiūris, požiūris, požiūris į požiūrį, arba požiūris į požiūrį į požiūrį.
į:
* Asmuo yra požiūrių grandinė: būtent joks požiūris (Dievas), požiūris (Aš), požiūris į požiūrį (Tu), arba požiūris į požiūrį į požiūrį (Kitas).
2019 spalio 14 d., 12:11
atliko -
Pakeistos 36-39 eilutės iš
į:
Kas yra asmuo?
* Asmuo yra požiūrių grandinė: būtent joks požiūris, požiūris, požiūris į požiūrį, arba požiūris į požiūrį į požiūrį.
* Asmuo yra trejybės išgyventojas: nusistatantis (grindžiantis), vykdantis (veikiantis), permąstantis (išgyvenantis požiūrį).
* Asmuo yra požiūrio išgyventojas.
* Asmuo yra požiūrių grandinė: būtent joks požiūris, požiūris, požiūris į požiūrį, arba požiūris į požiūrį į požiūrį.
* Asmuo yra trejybės išgyventojas: nusistatantis (grindžiantis), vykdantis (veikiantis), permąstantis (išgyvenantis požiūrį).
* Asmuo yra požiūrio išgyventojas.
2019 spalio 12 d., 15:31
atliko -
Pakeistos 32-33 eilutės iš
* Asmenų tikslas yra neišreikštą dvasią (Dievą) išreikšti iš šalies, kaip Kitą, kaip prielaidą (kaip meilę). Tokiu būdu galima tvirtinti "dvasia yra (jos sandaros atvaizdų) vieningumas" (Dievas yra meilė). Keturi asmenys yra raiškos lygmenys.
į:
* Asmenų tikslas yra neišreikštą dvasią (Dievą) išreikšti iš šalies, kaip Kitą, kaip prielaidą (kaip meilę), kaip esmę - gryną sandarą. Tokiu būdu galima tvirtinti "dvasia yra (jos sandaros atvaizdų) vieningumas" (Dievas yra meilė). Keturi asmenys yra raiškos lygmenys.
Pridėtos 35-36 eilutės:
Asmuo yra tai, kas išgyvena trejybę: nusistato (grindžia), vykdo (veikia), permąsto (išgyvena požiūrį).
2019 spalio 12 d., 15:24
atliko -
Pakeistos 38-39 eilutės iš
* tai, kas išgyvena požiūrį
** Užtat asmeniui reikalingi visi keturi požiūrį grindžiantys lygmenys - Dievas, Aš, Tu, Kitas.
į:
* išgyvena požiūrių lygtį
** Asmuo išgyvena požiūrių lygtį savo apimtyje, kurią nustato atitinkama požiūrio grandinė: Dievas viskame jokiu požiūriu, Aš betkame viengubu požiūriu, Tu kažkame dvigubu požiūriu, Kitas niekame trigubu požiūriu.
** Asmuo, dalyvaujantis požiūrių lygtyje (gyvenimo lygtyje), tad nusakantis asmens lygmenį (Dievas, Aš, Tu, Kitas) Pavyzdžiui, Aš=Viskas, Aš santvarkoje = Laisvumas, ir t.t.
* išgyvena požiūrį
** Asmeniui reikalingi visi keturi požiūrį grindžiantys lygmenys - Dievas, Aš, Tu, Kitas.
** Asmuo išgyvena požiūrių lygtį savo apimtyje, kurią nustato atitinkama požiūrio grandinė: Dievas viskame jokiu požiūriu, Aš betkame viengubu požiūriu, Tu kažkame dvigubu požiūriu, Kitas niekame trigubu požiūriu.
** Asmuo, dalyvaujantis požiūrių lygtyje (gyvenimo lygtyje), tad nusakantis asmens lygmenį (Dievas, Aš, Tu, Kitas) Pavyzdžiui, Aš=Viskas, Aš santvarkoje = Laisvumas, ir t.t.
* išgyvena požiūrį
** Asmeniui reikalingi visi keturi požiūrį grindžiantys lygmenys - Dievas, Aš, Tu, Kitas.
Ištrintos 48-49 eilutės:
** Asmuo, dalyvaujantis požiūrių lygtyje (gyvenimo lygtyje), tad nusakantis asmens lygmenį (Dievas, Aš, Tu, Kitas) Pavyzdžiui, Aš=Viskas, Aš santvarkoje = Laisvumas, ir t.t.
2019 spalio 12 d., 15:06
atliko -
Pridėta 726 eilutė:
--------------------------------
Pridėtos 740-744 eilutės:
2019.10.12 A: Kuria prasme [[asmenys]] išgyvena požiūrių lygtį?
D: Požiūrių lygtį išgyvena apimtimis. O apimtis nubrėžia požiūrių grandinės: joks požiūris viską, viengubas požiūris betką, dvigubas požiūris kažką, trigubas požiūris nieką. Nes viengubas požiūris yra gyvas ir tolydus, tačiau požiūriu į požiūrį jisai tampa nustatytas, o požiūriu į požiūrį į požiūrį dingsta ryšys ir lieka tik sandara. O toje sandaroje glūdi esmė.
----------------
2019 spalio 10 d., 23:47
atliko -
Pridėtos 42-47 eilutės:
** Turintis požiūrį
** Turintis nežinojimo
** Esantis aplinkybėse.
** Aplinkybių dviprasmiškumas: jos gali būti išgyventos arba neišgyventos, tad paneigtos.
* išgyvena požiūrių lygtį
** Asmuo, dalyvaujantis požiūrių lygtyje (gyvenimo lygtyje), tad nusakantis asmens lygmenį (Dievas, Aš, Tu, Kitas) Pavyzdžiui, Aš=Viskas, Aš santvarkoje = Laisvumas, ir t.t.
** Turintis nežinojimo
** Esantis aplinkybėse.
** Aplinkybių dviprasmiškumas: jos gali būti išgyventos arba neišgyventos, tad paneigtos.
* išgyvena požiūrių lygtį
** Asmuo, dalyvaujantis požiūrių lygtyje (gyvenimo lygtyje), tad nusakantis asmens lygmenį (Dievas, Aš, Tu, Kitas) Pavyzdžiui, Aš=Viskas, Aš santvarkoje = Laisvumas, ir t.t.
Pridėtos 103-105 eilutės:
** Nurodytasis
** Nuoroda (reference)
** Kas? (Who?)
** Nuoroda (reference)
** Kas? (Who?)
Pridėtos 197-199 eilutės:
2019 spalio 01 d., 12:11
atliko -
Pridėtos 29-32 eilutės:
'''Asmenų tikslas'''
* Asmenų tikslas yra neišreikštą dvasią (Dievą) išreikšti iš šalies, kaip Kitą, kaip prielaidą (kaip meilę). Tokiu būdu galima tvirtinti "dvasia yra (jos sandaros atvaizdų) vieningumas" (Dievas yra meilė). Keturi asmenys yra raiškos lygmenys.
2019 spalio 01 d., 10:43
atliko -
Pridėta 15 eilutė:
* Kokie yra Mano, Tavo, Kito požiūriai?
Pakeista 20 eilutė iš:
* Išsakyti savo filosofiją menais - asmenimis: Dievas, Gerasis vaikas, Blogasis vaikas...
į:
* Išsakyti savo filosofiją menais - asmenimis: Juodasis Dievas, Mėlynasis Gerasis vaikas, Geltonasis Vedlys, Raudonasis Blogasis vaikas...
2019 rugsėjo 28 d., 15:04
atliko -
Ištrintos 110-112 eilutės:
Pakeistos 113-114 eilutės iš
į:
* yra išeities taškas (už santvarkos)
** Person is from beyond System and Scope is from within System.
* tenkina apibrėžimą
** satisfies definition (if they choose God over themselves, and thus are alone rather than not alone, are going beyond themselves).
** every, any, some, none “one” are definitions of being “alone” and as such, the conditions of being “one” with regard to reference.
* yra susijęs su...
** Asmuo yra apimtyje, tad skiriasi nuo savo savasties.
** kitais asmenimis. Persons are completely distinct in God, his Position beyond Everything, which is reached by Understanding.
* išreiškia ribą, sąlygas, apimtį
** 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.
** Person is Unconditional Condition: God is unconditional Good, I is unconditional Slack, You is unconditional Coinciding, Other is unconditional Perfection, All is unconditional Experiencing.
** an independent, limited Human
** Beyond Person's Self is Scope.
* yra tarpas, jo raiška.
* yra laisvės pagrindas
** 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.
** Asmenų svarba: Įvairūs Dievo kampai reikalingi dvasiai, jos laisvei.
* sutampa su savimi (laisve)
** Asmuo išsako mūsų santykį su savimi. Asmeniu turime savastį ir būtent pasaulyje. Jame turime savastį ir taip pat galime atsisakyti savęs.
** Freedom equates a Person with its Self (Activity, VantagePoint, Position, Perspective).
** 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.
** 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.
* yra buvimas viena
** Person is Unconditional BeingOneWith. It is the union of the Unconditional and the Conditional in that the unconditional meets all conditions.
** 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.
* grindžia būtinumą
** Asmenys išsako būtinumo reikšmę ir pasekmes.
* apibrėžia Dievą - sąmoningumą
** yra Dievas apibrėžiantis Dievą
** yra sąmoningumo lygmuo
** Persons apply the Definitions of God, of Being Alone.
** Dievas kaip toks yra strimagalvis, tad suvokimas jam iškyla asmenimis, atveriant ir priimant jų požiūrius, išeinant už savęs į juos. Užtat ir iškyla išsiaiškinimai.
* yra Dievo kampas Dievo šokyje
** Dievo savastis: "Aš esu Dievas", "Tu esi Dievas", "Tai yra Dievas".
* yra Dievas apimtyje, taip iškyla
** 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.
** Asmuo ir apimtis išsako santykį su Dievu: are esame (vienų) viena? ar ne viena?
** Asmuo ir apimtis yra santykiai tarp Dievo ir NeDievo. Yra keturi santykiai: God/Everything, I/Anything, You/Something, Other/Nothing.
** Asmuo yra nežinojimo ir žinojimo apimtys. Jisai nežinojimą ir žinojimą išskiria, taip pat ir sieja.
** Asmenys iškyla apimtyse išskiriant mylintį ir mylimąjį, suvokiantį ir suvoktąjį, žinantį ir žinomąjį, nežinantį ir nežinomąjį, trokštantį ir trokštamąjį.
* yra troškimas, Dievo atvaizdas
** vienumo raiška, tad Dievo raiška, tad Dievo atvaizdas, lygmuo, troškimas.
** Asmenys yra troškimai, tačiau juos nusako, apibrėžia netroškimai, jų savastys, jų papildiniai, tai kas jie nėra. Dievas yra savarankiškumas, kurį nusako kūno poreikiai. Aš esu užtikrintumas, kurį nusako proto abejonės. Tu esi ramumas, kurį nusako širdies lūkesčiai, tad tu esi riba tarp to, kas manyje ir kas už manęs. Kitas yra meilė, kurią nusako valios klausimai, tad mylime Kitu.
** Troškimas yra asmens esmė.
** Dievas reiškiasi asmenimis: Dievas, Aš, Tu, Kitas - o mes esame jo atspindžiai. Mus sieja pasivaikščiojimai medžiais.
* yra Dievo būklė, jo prielaidos
** asmuo yra ne Dievas, Dievo neigimas
** God is prior to Person, subsequent to Person, and in the various Persons. God is thus Everyone.
** relate God's being beyond us and within us, in System
** Scope and Person express the same, but using opposite words, giving them opposite meaning. Scope is NotGod beyond God. Person is God within NotGod.
** Kiekvienoje apimtyje galime įžvelgti Dievą kaip asmenį arba neįžvelgti - lieka apimtis.
** 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.
** Person is the viewer. Scope is the sense in which suppositions are the same or different - (the property of) 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.
** 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.
** 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.
** Dievas apibrėžia save išsakydamas savo prielaidas
** Self assumes Person and Scope as complements
** Person in Scope is the potential of God.
* yra Dievo savybių paneigimas
** Negation of Unity of Representations of Nullsome
** are distinct because of God's properties.
[+Kaip išgyvename asmenis?+]
** Person is from beyond System and Scope is from within System.
* tenkina apibrėžimą
** satisfies definition (if they choose God over themselves, and thus are alone rather than not alone, are going beyond themselves).
** every, any, some, none “one” are definitions of being “alone” and as such, the conditions of being “one” with regard to reference.
* yra susijęs su...
** Asmuo yra apimtyje, tad skiriasi nuo savo savasties.
** kitais asmenimis. Persons are completely distinct in God, his Position beyond Everything, which is reached by Understanding.
* išreiškia ribą, sąlygas, apimtį
** 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.
** Person is Unconditional Condition: God is unconditional Good, I is unconditional Slack, You is unconditional Coinciding, Other is unconditional Perfection, All is unconditional Experiencing.
** an independent, limited Human
** Beyond Person's Self is Scope.
* yra tarpas, jo raiška.
* yra laisvės pagrindas
** 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.
** Asmenų svarba: Įvairūs Dievo kampai reikalingi dvasiai, jos laisvei.
* sutampa su savimi (laisve)
** Asmuo išsako mūsų santykį su savimi. Asmeniu turime savastį ir būtent pasaulyje. Jame turime savastį ir taip pat galime atsisakyti savęs.
** Freedom equates a Person with its Self (Activity, VantagePoint, Position, Perspective).
** 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.
** 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.
* yra buvimas viena
** Person is Unconditional BeingOneWith. It is the union of the Unconditional and the Conditional in that the unconditional meets all conditions.
** 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.
* grindžia būtinumą
** Asmenys išsako būtinumo reikšmę ir pasekmes.
* apibrėžia Dievą - sąmoningumą
** yra Dievas apibrėžiantis Dievą
** yra sąmoningumo lygmuo
** Persons apply the Definitions of God, of Being Alone.
** Dievas kaip toks yra strimagalvis, tad suvokimas jam iškyla asmenimis, atveriant ir priimant jų požiūrius, išeinant už savęs į juos. Užtat ir iškyla išsiaiškinimai.
* yra Dievo kampas Dievo šokyje
** Dievo savastis: "Aš esu Dievas", "Tu esi Dievas", "Tai yra Dievas".
* yra Dievas apimtyje, taip iškyla
** 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.
** Asmuo ir apimtis išsako santykį su Dievu: are esame (vienų) viena? ar ne viena?
** Asmuo ir apimtis yra santykiai tarp Dievo ir NeDievo. Yra keturi santykiai: God/Everything, I/Anything, You/Something, Other/Nothing.
** Asmuo yra nežinojimo ir žinojimo apimtys. Jisai nežinojimą ir žinojimą išskiria, taip pat ir sieja.
** Asmenys iškyla apimtyse išskiriant mylintį ir mylimąjį, suvokiantį ir suvoktąjį, žinantį ir žinomąjį, nežinantį ir nežinomąjį, trokštantį ir trokštamąjį.
* yra troškimas, Dievo atvaizdas
** vienumo raiška, tad Dievo raiška, tad Dievo atvaizdas, lygmuo, troškimas.
** Asmenys yra troškimai, tačiau juos nusako, apibrėžia netroškimai, jų savastys, jų papildiniai, tai kas jie nėra. Dievas yra savarankiškumas, kurį nusako kūno poreikiai. Aš esu užtikrintumas, kurį nusako proto abejonės. Tu esi ramumas, kurį nusako širdies lūkesčiai, tad tu esi riba tarp to, kas manyje ir kas už manęs. Kitas yra meilė, kurią nusako valios klausimai, tad mylime Kitu.
** Troškimas yra asmens esmė.
** Dievas reiškiasi asmenimis: Dievas, Aš, Tu, Kitas - o mes esame jo atspindžiai. Mus sieja pasivaikščiojimai medžiais.
* yra Dievo būklė, jo prielaidos
** asmuo yra ne Dievas, Dievo neigimas
** God is prior to Person, subsequent to Person, and in the various Persons. God is thus Everyone.
** relate God's being beyond us and within us, in System
** Scope and Person express the same, but using opposite words, giving them opposite meaning. Scope is NotGod beyond God. Person is God within NotGod.
** Kiekvienoje apimtyje galime įžvelgti Dievą kaip asmenį arba neįžvelgti - lieka apimtis.
** 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.
** Person is the viewer. Scope is the sense in which suppositions are the same or different - (the property of) 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.
** 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.
** 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.
** Dievas apibrėžia save išsakydamas savo prielaidas
** Self assumes Person and Scope as complements
** Person in Scope is the potential of God.
* yra Dievo savybių paneigimas
** Negation of Unity of Representations of Nullsome
** are distinct because of God's properties.
[+Kaip išgyvename asmenis?+]
2019 rugsėjo 28 d., 14:56
atliko -
Pridėtos 59-109 eilutės:
* savarankiškai veikia
** has a solitary activity? and how is that mapped or not to God's NullActivity within them.
* renkasi
** 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.
** acknowledges God first in the context of his own Person, choosing God over oneself, and thereby acknowledges God beyond his Person
** 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).
** is free to choose in Scope
** chooses between one's own Perspective and the Position of all
** 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.
* kuria
** 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.
* tiria
** seeks Truth in their own Scope, in which God is and is not.
** Persons and Scopes are Questions, Knowledge and Definition are Answers.
** klausimas yra būklė iššaukianti atsakymą
** 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)
* atpažįsta Dievą
** susitelkia į Dievą
* liudija
** is the witness to whether or not God exists
** is the witness who chooses between self within Scope and God beyond Scope
** Ryšys tarp atskleidžiamojo (tiesos šaltinio, pagrindo) ir atskleidėjo (tiesos pranešėjo, laido).
* nurodo, nukreipia
** yra atskaitos taškas: Visi, Betkuris, Kažkuris, Joks asmuo.
** atskaitos taškas apibrėžiant Dievą bei sąvokas
** asmuo yra nurodytojas (Visi, Betkuris, Kažkuris, Joks asmuo), o apimtis yra nurodomasis (Viskas, Betkas Kažkas, Niekas).
** Asmuo gali nurodyti Dievą arba ne Dievą. Asmuo nurodo Dievą kuomet Asmuo renkasi Dievą vietoj savęs. 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.
** 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.
* atveria
** 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.
* bręsta, auga
** asmenys įvairiai auga žinomumu ar nežinomumu
*** God is ever more known (presumed).
*** I is ever less defined.
*** You is ever less known (presumed).
*** Other is ever more defined.
** 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.
** The window grows smaller in which there is Person.
** has a solitary activity? and how is that mapped or not to God's NullActivity within them.
* renkasi
** 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.
** acknowledges God first in the context of his own Person, choosing God over oneself, and thereby acknowledges God beyond his Person
** 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).
** is free to choose in Scope
** chooses between one's own Perspective and the Position of all
** 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.
* kuria
** 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.
* tiria
** seeks Truth in their own Scope, in which God is and is not.
** Persons and Scopes are Questions, Knowledge and Definition are Answers.
** klausimas yra būklė iššaukianti atsakymą
** 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)
* atpažįsta Dievą
** susitelkia į Dievą
* liudija
** is the witness to whether or not God exists
** is the witness who chooses between self within Scope and God beyond Scope
** Ryšys tarp atskleidžiamojo (tiesos šaltinio, pagrindo) ir atskleidėjo (tiesos pranešėjo, laido).
* nurodo, nukreipia
** yra atskaitos taškas: Visi, Betkuris, Kažkuris, Joks asmuo.
** atskaitos taškas apibrėžiant Dievą bei sąvokas
** asmuo yra nurodytojas (Visi, Betkuris, Kažkuris, Joks asmuo), o apimtis yra nurodomasis (Viskas, Betkas Kažkas, Niekas).
** Asmuo gali nurodyti Dievą arba ne Dievą. Asmuo nurodo Dievą kuomet Asmuo renkasi Dievą vietoj savęs. 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.
** 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.
* atveria
** 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.
* bręsta, auga
** asmenys įvairiai auga žinomumu ar nežinomumu
*** God is ever more known (presumed).
*** I is ever less defined.
*** You is ever less known (presumed).
*** Other is ever more defined.
** 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.
** The window grows smaller in which there is Person.
2019 rugsėjo 28 d., 14:54
atliko -
Pridėta 34 eilutė:
* išgyvena (pasekmes)
Ištrintos 35-36 eilutės:
* išgyvena (pasekmes)
2019 rugsėjo 28 d., 14:53
atliko -
Pridėtos 35-51 eilutės:
* išgyvena (pasekmes)
** sees, views, accepts NotGod by Perspective
** sees, views, accepts God by Principle
** sees through Properties
** 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.
** lives beyond Scope through Position
** lives within Scope through Perspective
** goes from Perspective to Position by Love
** experiences Actuality, Process, All, Following Through
** 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
Ištrintos 65-188 eilutės:
** Dievo savastis: "Aš esu Dievas", "Tu esi Dievas", "Tai yra Dievas".
* nurodo, nukreipia
** yra atskaitos taškas: Visi, Betkuris, Kažkuris, Joks asmuo.
** atskaitos taškas apibrėžiant Dievą bei sąvokas
** asmuo yra nurodytojas (Visi, Betkuris, Kažkuris, Joks asmuo), o apimtis yra nurodomasis (Viskas, Betkas Kažkas, Niekas).
** Asmuo gali nurodyti Dievą arba ne Dievą. Asmuo nurodo Dievą kuomet Asmuo renkasi Dievą vietoj savęs. 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.
** 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.
* yra Dievas apimtyje, taip iškyla
** 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.
** Asmuo ir apimtis išsako santykį su Dievu: are esame (vienų) viena? ar ne viena?
** Asmuo ir apimtis yra santykiai tarp Dievo ir NeDievo. Yra keturi santykiai: God/Everything, I/Anything, You/Something, Other/Nothing.
** Asmuo yra nežinojimo ir žinojimo apimtys. Jisai nežinojimą ir žinojimą išskiria, taip pat ir sieja.
** Asmenys iškyla apimtyse išskiriant mylintį ir mylimąjį, suvokiantį ir suvoktąjį, žinantį ir žinomąjį, nežinantį ir nežinomąjį, trokštantį ir trokštamąjį.
* yra troškimas, Dievo atvaizdas
** vienumo raiška, tad Dievo raiška, tad Dievo atvaizdas, lygmuo, troškimas.
** Asmenys yra troškimai, tačiau juos nusako, apibrėžia netroškimai, jų savastys, jų papildiniai, tai kas jie nėra. Dievas yra savarankiškumas, kurį nusako kūno poreikiai. Aš esu užtikrintumas, kurį nusako proto abejonės. Tu esi ramumas, kurį nusako širdies lūkesčiai, tad tu esi riba tarp to, kas manyje ir kas už manęs. Kitas yra meilė, kurią nusako valios klausimai, tad mylime Kitu.
** Troškimas yra asmens esmė.
** Dievas reiškiasi asmenimis: Dievas, Aš, Tu, Kitas - o mes esame jo atspindžiai. Mus sieja pasivaikščiojimai medžiais.
* yra Dievo būklė, jo prielaidos
** asmuo yra ne Dievas, Dievo neigimas
** God is prior to Person, subsequent to Person, and in the various Persons. God is thus Everyone.
** relate God's being beyond us and within us, in System
** Scope and Person express the same, but using opposite words, giving them opposite meaning. Scope is NotGod beyond God. Person is God within NotGod.
** Kiekvienoje apimtyje galime įžvelgti Dievą kaip asmenį arba neįžvelgti - lieka apimtis.
** 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.
** Person is the viewer. Scope is the sense in which suppositions are the same or different - (the property of) 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.
** 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.
** 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.
** Dievas apibrėžia save išsakydamas savo prielaidas
** Self assumes Person and Scope as complements
** Person in Scope is the potential of God.
* atpažįsta Dievą
** centers on God
* apibrėžia Dievą - sąmoningumą
** yra Dievas apibrėžiantis Dievą
** yra sąmoningumo lygmuo
** Persons apply the Definitions of God, of Being Alone.
** Dievas kaip toks yra strimagalvis, tad suvokimas jam iškyla asmenimis, atveriant ir priimant jų požiūrius, išeinant už savęs į juos. Užtat ir iškyla išsiaiškinimai.
* yra išeities taškas (už santvarkos)
** Person is from beyond System and Scope is from within System.
* grindžia būtinumą
** Asmenys išsako būtinumo reikšmę ir pasekmes.
* liudija
** is the witness to whether or not God exists
** is the witness who chooses between self within Scope and God beyond Scope
** Ryšys tarp atskleidžiamojo (tiesos šaltinio, pagrindo) ir atskleidėjo (tiesos pranešėjo, laido).
* išreiškia ribą, sąlygas, apimtį
** 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.
** Person is Unconditional Condition: God is unconditional Good, I is unconditional Slack, You is unconditional Coinciding, Other is unconditional Perfection, All is unconditional Experiencing.
** an independent, limited Human
** Beyond Person's Self is Scope.
* išgyvena (pasekmes)
** sees, views, accepts NotGod by Perspective
** sees, views, accepts God by Principle
** sees through Properties
** 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.
** lives beyond Scope through Position
** lives within Scope through Perspective
** goes from Perspective to Position by Love
** experiences Actuality, Process, All, Following Through
** 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
* renkasi
** 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.
** acknowledges God first in the context of his own Person, choosing God over oneself, and thereby acknowledges God beyond his Person
** 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).
** is free to choose in Scope
** chooses between one's own Perspective and the Position of all
** 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.
* tiria
** seeks Truth in their own Scope, in which God is and is not.
** Persons and Scopes are Questions, Knowledge and Definition are Answers.
** klausimas yra būklė iššaukianti atsakymą
** 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)
* atveria
** 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.
* kuria
** 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.
* savarankiškai veikia
** has a solitary activity? and how is that mapped or not to God's NullActivity within them.
* bręsta, auga
** asmenys įvairiai auga žinomumu ar nežinomumu
*** God is ever more known (presumed).
*** I is ever less defined.
*** You is ever less known (presumed).
*** Other is ever more defined.
** 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.
** The window grows smaller in which there is Person.
* yra buvimas viena
** Person is Unconditional BeingOneWith. It is the union of the Unconditional and the Conditional in that the unconditional meets all conditions.
** 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.
* yra Dievo savybių paneigimas
** Negation of Unity of Representations of Nullsome
** are distinct because of God's properties.
* tenkina apibrėžimą
** satisfies definition (if they choose God over themselves, and thus are alone rather than not alone, are going beyond themselves).
** every, any, some, none “one” are definitions of being “alone” and as such, the conditions of being “one” with regard to reference.
* sutampa su savimi (laisve)
** Asmuo išsako mūsų santykį su savimi. Asmeniu turime savastį ir būtent pasaulyje. Jame turime savastį ir taip pat galime atsisakyti savęs.
** Freedom equates a Person with its Self (Activity, VantagePoint, Position, Perspective).
** 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.
** 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.
* yra laisvės pagrindas
** 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.
** Asmenų svarba: Įvairūs Dievo kampai reikalingi dvasiai, jos laisvei.
* yra susijęs su...
** Asmuo yra apimtyje, tad skiriasi nuo savo savasties.
** kitais asmenimis. Persons are completely distinct in God, his Position beyond Everything, which is reached by Understanding.
* yra tarpas, jo raiška.
2019 rugsėjo 28 d., 14:49
atliko -
Pakeistos 28-29 eilutės iš
į:
'''Asmuo išgyvena'''
Pridėtos 39-48 eilutės:
'''Asmuo savarankiškai veikia'''
'''Asmuo grindžia'''
2019 rugsėjo 28 d., 14:48
atliko -
Pridėta 33 eilutė:
** Asmuo išgyvena pasekmes, kad buvo vienaip, o paskui buvo kitaip, tad skirtumą tarp dviejų būklių. Užtat asmuo grindžia būtinumą, tad ir Dievą.
2019 rugsėjo 28 d., 14:39
atliko -
Pridėta 32 eilutė:
** Išgyvena, tad gali išgyvenimą derinti, tad gali būtų mylimas, ir save bei kitus mylėti.
2019 rugsėjo 28 d., 13:53
atliko -
Pridėta 33 eilutė:
** mylėti, tai priimti požiūrį, kas iškyla mylint savo artimą, kaip save patį
2019 rugsėjo 28 d., 13:52
atliko -
Pridėtos 29-31 eilutės:
* tai, kas išgyvena požiūrį
** Užtat asmeniui reikalingi visi keturi požiūrį grindžiantys lygmenys - Dievas, Aš, Tu, Kitas.
** Šių keturių lygmenų reikalingumas grindžia Dievo būtinumą. Du lygmenys išsako sąlygiškumą: Aš, Tu. O du lygmenys išsako besąlygiškumą: Dievas, Kitas.
** Užtat asmeniui reikalingi visi keturi požiūrį grindžiantys lygmenys - Dievas, Aš, Tu, Kitas.
** Šių keturių lygmenų reikalingumas grindžia Dievo būtinumą. Du lygmenys išsako sąlygiškumą: Aš, Tu. O du lygmenys išsako besąlygiškumą: Dievas, Kitas.
2019 rugsėjo 28 d., 13:45
atliko -
Pridėtos 29-31 eilutės:
* yra mylimasis, o kartu myli
** sukurtas priimti tobulą meilę ir tuomi mylėti kitus taipogi.
** myli kartu priimdami mylimojo požiūrį, tokiu būdu suveda požiūrį ir nuostatą, kad sueitų meile Kitam.
** sukurtas priimti tobulą meilę ir tuomi mylėti kitus taipogi.
** myli kartu priimdami mylimojo požiūrį, tokiu būdu suveda požiūrį ir nuostatą, kad sueitų meile Kitam.
Ištrintos 134-136 eilutės:
** is created to receive Love in Perfection and thereby to love others as well.
** 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.
2019 rugsėjo 12 d., 11:18
atliko -
Pridėtos 72-73 eilutės:
* grindžia būtinumą
** Asmenys išsako būtinumo reikšmę ir pasekmes.
** Asmenys išsako būtinumo reikšmę ir pasekmes.
2019 rugsėjo 12 d., 11:14
atliko -
Pakeista 3 eilutė iš:
Žr. [[Savastis]], [[Dievo šokis]], [[gyvenimo lygtis]], [[Požiūriai]], [[Sąmoningumas]], [[Dievo šokio išdavos]], [[Gyvenimo lygtis]], [[Veiksmai]], [[Veikėjai]] the diagrams at SpiritVStructure
į:
Žr. [[Savastis]], [[Žmogus]], [[Dievo šokis]], [[gyvenimo lygtis]], [[Požiūriai]], [[Sąmoningumas]], [[Dievo šokio išdavos]], [[Gyvenimo lygtis]], [[Veiksmai]], [[Veikėjai]] the diagrams at SpiritVStructure
2019 rugsėjo 12 d., 11:12
atliko -
Pridėtos 24-25 eilutės:
============================
Ištrinta 30 eilutė:
Pakeistos 32-33 eilutės iš
** is a reference point: Everybody, Anybody, Somebody, Nobody
** the point of reference for Definition of God (and concepts)
** the point of reference for Definition of God (and concepts)
į:
** yra atskaitos taškas: Visi, Betkuris, Kažkuris, Joks asmuo.
** atskaitos taškas apibrėžiant Dievą bei sąvokas
** atskaitos taškas apibrėžiant Dievą bei sąvokas
Pakeista 35 eilutė iš:
** 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.
į:
** Asmuo gali nurodyti Dievą arba ne Dievą. Asmuo nurodo Dievą kuomet Asmuo renkasi Dievą vietoj savęs. 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.
Pridėta 149 eilutė:
** Asmenų svarba: Įvairūs Dievo kampai reikalingi dvasiai, jos laisvei.
Pakeista 151 eilutė iš:
** differs from his Self in that he is in Scope
į:
** Asmuo yra apimtyje, tad skiriasi nuo savo savasties.
Pridėtos 164-165 eilutės:
============================
2019 rugpjūčio 17 d., 11:26
atliko -
Pridėtos 9-10 eilutės:
* Kas yra asmuo?
** Ar asmuo yra ne Dievas?
** Ar asmuo yra ne Dievas?
Pridėta 48 eilutė:
** asmuo yra ne Dievas, Dievo neigimas
2019 birželio 04 d., 12:47
atliko -
Pridėtos 364-368 eilutės:
'''Asmenys ir pertvarkymai'''
* Pertvarkymai yra santvarkinis žinojimas, o asmenys yra žinojimas pirm santvarkos.
* Asmenys sieja, tai kas santvarkoje ir kas už jos. Pertvarkymų tvarkos išsako kas mąstoma, o asmenų poros išsako, kas mąsto. Santvarkoje nėra prieštaravimo, užtat ten yra mažoji tvarka, ji valdo didžiąją tvarką už santvarkos. Panašiai, atsakantysis asmuo yra santvarkoje, o klausiantysis asmuo yra už jos. Mažoji tvarka susiskirsto didžiąją tvarką.
* Pertvarkymai yra santvarkinis žinojimas, o asmenys yra žinojimas pirm santvarkos.
* Asmenys sieja, tai kas santvarkoje ir kas už jos. Pertvarkymų tvarkos išsako kas mąstoma, o asmenų poros išsako, kas mąsto. Santvarkoje nėra prieštaravimo, užtat ten yra mažoji tvarka, ji valdo didžiąją tvarką už santvarkos. Panašiai, atsakantysis asmuo yra santvarkoje, o klausiantysis asmuo yra už jos. Mažoji tvarka susiskirsto didžiąją tvarką.
Pridėtos 496-497 eilutės:
4 asmenys, 6 asmenų santykiai susiveda į 1 asmenį (kitą) žiūrintį iš šalies - tai asmuo susijęs su dviem asmenimis, išsakytas jų santykiu
2019 kovo 02 d., 19:39
atliko -
Pakeista 150 eilutė iš:
* Asmenis išgyvename [[požiūris | požiūriais]]. Užtat Kitą išgyvename Tavimi ir Savimi, ir Tave išgyvename Savimi. O Dievo neišgyvename, nebent kada atsisakome požiūrio.
į:
* Asmenis išgyvename [[požiūriai | požiūriais]]. Užtat Kitą išgyvename Tavimi ir Savimi, ir Tave išgyvename Savimi. O Dievo neišgyvename, nebent kada atsisakome požiūrio.
2019 kovo 02 d., 19:39
atliko -
Pakeista 150 eilutė iš:
* Asmenis išgyvename požiūriais. Užtat Kitą išgyvename Tavimi ir Savimi, ir Tave išgyvename Savimi. O Dievo neišgyvename, nebent kada atsisakome požiūrio.
į:
* Asmenis išgyvename [[požiūris | požiūriais]]. Užtat Kitą išgyvename Tavimi ir Savimi, ir Tave išgyvename Savimi. O Dievo neišgyvename, nebent kada atsisakome požiūrio.
2019 kovo 02 d., 19:38
atliko -
Ištrintos 21-32 eilutės:
** Asmenys atsiskleidžia savo nežinojimais, savo tyrimais, kuriais išgyvena atitinkamas apytakas. Savo tyrimais kartu atskleidžia savo prielaidas.
** Asmenys vis artimiau išgyvena gyvenimo lygtį. Gyvenimo lygtis (Dievas, gerumas, gyvenimas, amžinas gyvenimas) yra iš vidaus išgyvenama keturiais asmenimis: dvasia (Dievu), sandara (manimi), atvaizdais (tavimi), vieningumu (kitu). Tad kiekvienas asmuo išgyvena savaip tą visus asmenis apibrėžiančią gyvenimo lygtį.
* Kaip išgyvename asmenis?
** Asmenys yra apibrėžti iš santvarkos išeities taško (žinojimo apimtimis) tačiau juos klausimais išgyvename iš už santvarkos esančio išeities taško.
** Asmuo išgyvena sąlygas (žinojimą, pasąmonę) kaip savastį, kaip savo ryšį su savimi. Sąlygų apimtis apibrėžia asmenį ir jo sąmoningumo lygį. Dievas išgyvena tiesiogiai, be savasties. Požiūrių skaičius nusako netroškimą, kurį išgyvename atjausdami.
*** Dievas jokio požiūrio neišgyvena.
*** Aš išgyvenu savastį (požiūrį - padalinimus),
*** Tu išgyveni savasties savastį (požiūrį į požiūrį - atvaizdus ir aplinkybes), ir
*** Kitas išgyvena savasties savasties savastį (požiūrį į požiūrį į požiūrį - kalbas).
Pridėtos 149-157 eilutės:
Kaip išgyvename asmenis?
* Asmenis išgyvename požiūriais. Užtat Kitą išgyvename Tavimi ir Savimi, ir Tave išgyvename Savimi. O Dievo neišgyvename, nebent kada atsisakome požiūrio.
* Asmenys yra apibrėžti iš santvarkos išeities taško (žinojimo apimtimis) tačiau juos klausimais išgyvename iš už santvarkos esančio išeities taško.
* Asmuo išgyvena sąlygas (žinojimą, pasąmonę) kaip savastį, kaip savo ryšį su savimi. Sąlygų apimtis apibrėžia asmenį ir jo sąmoningumo lygį. Dievas išgyvena tiesiogiai, be savasties. Požiūrių skaičius nusako netroškimą, kurį išgyvename atjausdami.
** Dievas jokio požiūrio neišgyvena.
** Aš išgyvenu savastį (požiūrį - padalinimus),
** Tu išgyveni savasties savastį (požiūrį į požiūrį - atvaizdus ir aplinkybes), ir
** Kitas išgyvena savasties savasties savastį (požiūrį į požiūrį į požiūrį - kalbas).
* Asmenis išgyvename požiūriais. Užtat Kitą išgyvename Tavimi ir Savimi, ir Tave išgyvename Savimi. O Dievo neišgyvename, nebent kada atsisakome požiūrio.
* Asmenys yra apibrėžti iš santvarkos išeities taško (žinojimo apimtimis) tačiau juos klausimais išgyvename iš už santvarkos esančio išeities taško.
* Asmuo išgyvena sąlygas (žinojimą, pasąmonę) kaip savastį, kaip savo ryšį su savimi. Sąlygų apimtis apibrėžia asmenį ir jo sąmoningumo lygį. Dievas išgyvena tiesiogiai, be savasties. Požiūrių skaičius nusako netroškimą, kurį išgyvename atjausdami.
** Dievas jokio požiūrio neišgyvena.
** Aš išgyvenu savastį (požiūrį - padalinimus),
** Tu išgyveni savasties savastį (požiūrį į požiūrį - atvaizdus ir aplinkybes), ir
** Kitas išgyvena savasties savasties savastį (požiūrį į požiūrį į požiūrį - kalbas).
Ištrinta 159 eilutė:
Pridėtos 167-171 eilutės:
* tai, ką skiria požiūris
Kaip atsiskleidžia asmenys?
* Asmenys atsiskleidžia savo nežinojimais, savo tyrimais, kuriais išgyvena atitinkamas apytakas. Savo tyrimais kartu atskleidžia savo prielaidas.
* Asmenys vis artimiau išgyvena gyvenimo lygtį. Gyvenimo lygtis (Dievas, gerumas, gyvenimas, amžinas gyvenimas) yra iš vidaus išgyvenama keturiais asmenimis: dvasia (Dievu), sandara (manimi), atvaizdais (tavimi), vieningumu (kitu). Tad kiekvienas asmuo išgyvena savaip tą visus asmenis apibrėžiančią gyvenimo lygtį.
Kaip atsiskleidžia asmenys?
* Asmenys atsiskleidžia savo nežinojimais, savo tyrimais, kuriais išgyvena atitinkamas apytakas. Savo tyrimais kartu atskleidžia savo prielaidas.
* Asmenys vis artimiau išgyvena gyvenimo lygtį. Gyvenimo lygtis (Dievas, gerumas, gyvenimas, amžinas gyvenimas) yra iš vidaus išgyvenama keturiais asmenimis: dvasia (Dievu), sandara (manimi), atvaizdais (tavimi), vieningumu (kitu). Tad kiekvienas asmuo išgyvena savaip tą visus asmenis apibrėžiančią gyvenimo lygtį.
2019 kovo 02 d., 19:26
atliko -
Ištrintos 21-24 eilutės:
* Kaip iškyla asmenys?
** Asmenys iškyla apimtyse išskiriant mylintį ir mylimąjį, suvokiantį ir suvoktąjį, žinantį ir žinomąjį, nežinantį ir nežinomąjį, trokštantį ir trokštamąjį.
Pakeista 46 eilutė iš:
* yra Dievas apimtyje
į:
* yra Dievas apimtyje, taip iškyla
Pridėta 51 eilutė:
** Asmenys iškyla apimtyse išskiriant mylintį ir mylimąjį, suvokiantį ir suvoktąjį, žinantį ir žinomąjį, nežinantį ir nežinomąjį, trokštantį ir trokštamąjį.
Ištrintos 384-389 eilutės:
2019 kovo 02 d., 19:23
atliko -
Pridėtos 22-37 eilutės:
* Kaip iškyla asmenys?
** Asmenys iškyla apimtyse išskiriant mylintį ir mylimąjį, suvokiantį ir suvoktąjį, žinantį ir žinomąjį, nežinantį ir nežinomąjį, trokštantį ir trokštamąjį.
* Kaip atsiskleidžia asmenys?
** Asmenys atsiskleidžia savo nežinojimais, savo tyrimais, kuriais išgyvena atitinkamas apytakas. Savo tyrimais kartu atskleidžia savo prielaidas.
** Asmenys vis artimiau išgyvena gyvenimo lygtį. Gyvenimo lygtis (Dievas, gerumas, gyvenimas, amžinas gyvenimas) yra iš vidaus išgyvenama keturiais asmenimis: dvasia (Dievu), sandara (manimi), atvaizdais (tavimi), vieningumu (kitu). Tad kiekvienas asmuo išgyvena savaip tą visus asmenis apibrėžiančią gyvenimo lygtį.
* Kaip išgyvename asmenis?
** Asmenys yra apibrėžti iš santvarkos išeities taško (žinojimo apimtimis) tačiau juos klausimais išgyvename iš už santvarkos esančio išeities taško.
** Asmuo išgyvena sąlygas (žinojimą, pasąmonę) kaip savastį, kaip savo ryšį su savimi. Sąlygų apimtis apibrėžia asmenį ir jo sąmoningumo lygį. Dievas išgyvena tiesiogiai, be savasties. Požiūrių skaičius nusako netroškimą, kurį išgyvename atjausdami.
*** Dievas jokio požiūrio neišgyvena.
*** Aš išgyvenu savastį (požiūrį - padalinimus),
*** Tu išgyveni savasties savastį (požiūrį į požiūrį - atvaizdus ir aplinkybes), ir
*** Kitas išgyvena savasties savasties savastį (požiūrį į požiūrį į požiūrį - kalbas).
Pakeista 54 eilutė iš:
** Asmuo yra nežinojimo ir žinojimo apimtys. Jisai nežinojimą ir žinojimą išskiria, taip pat ir sieja.
į:
** Asmuo yra nežinojimo ir žinojimo apimtys. Jisai nežinojimą ir žinojimą išskiria, taip pat ir sieja.
Pridėta 278 eilutė:
* Kitaip tariant, Kitą nuo santvarkos skiria niekas, Tave skiria kažkas, Mane skiria betkas, ir Dievą skiria viskas.
2018 gruodžio 13 d., 14:33
atliko -
Pakeista 237 eilutė iš:
* You is withing System, looking out
į:
* You is within System, looking out
2018 gruodžio 13 d., 14:20
atliko -
Pridėtos 479-480 eilutės:
Nutrukūs ryšiui, Tu tampi Kitu; Aš tampu Tavimi; Dievas tampa Manimi.
2018 gruodžio 06 d., 11:59
atliko -
Pridėtos 199-200 eilutės:
Požiūriai išsako mūsų išėjimą už savęs. Kitu visi santykiai tarp asmenų pilnai išsakomi požiūriais, taip kad Dievas (nežinojimas) yra požiūriu atskirtas nuo Manęs (žinojimo).
2018 gruodžio 06 d., 11:58
atliko -
Pridėtos 277-308 eilutės:
Visas sąvokas dėliojant programine įranga TheBrain išskyriau keturias pagrindines sąvokas (1+4+6+1):
* unfolding
* structures for transcending (PrimaryStructures) "Mylėk Dievą"
* structures for engaging (SecondaryStructures) "Mylėk artimą kaip save patį"
* cohering.
Jos grindžia skirtingus supratimus. Bene atitinka keturias vienumo sampratas išsakančias valių santykius.
* unfolding - dvasia sąlygose
* transcending - sandara sąlygose
* engaging - atvaizdai sąlygose
* cohering - vieningumas sąlygose
Štai mintys, kaip šios sąvokos susijusios:
* 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.
* Dievas man atsakė: you transcend when you love, and you unfold when you want to be loved.
* Cohering is to be connected in a way that does not want to be disconnected.
* unfold = to wish to be loved
* transcend = to love
* engage = to not hurt
* cohere = to wish to be not hurt
* unfolding = living beyond a system
* transcending = choosing to go beyond a system
* engaging = choosing to go within a system
* cohering = living within a system
* unfolding - Dievo šokis
* transcending - pasirinkimų malūnas
* engaging - žinojimo rūmai
* cohering - maldų mokslas
* unfolding
* structures for transcending (PrimaryStructures) "Mylėk Dievą"
* structures for engaging (SecondaryStructures) "Mylėk artimą kaip save patį"
* cohering.
Jos grindžia skirtingus supratimus. Bene atitinka keturias vienumo sampratas išsakančias valių santykius.
* unfolding - dvasia sąlygose
* transcending - sandara sąlygose
* engaging - atvaizdai sąlygose
* cohering - vieningumas sąlygose
Štai mintys, kaip šios sąvokos susijusios:
* 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.
* Dievas man atsakė: you transcend when you love, and you unfold when you want to be loved.
* Cohering is to be connected in a way that does not want to be disconnected.
* unfold = to wish to be loved
* transcend = to love
* engage = to not hurt
* cohere = to wish to be not hurt
* unfolding = living beyond a system
* transcending = choosing to go beyond a system
* engaging = choosing to go within a system
* cohering = living within a system
* unfolding - Dievo šokis
* transcending - pasirinkimų malūnas
* engaging - žinojimo rūmai
* cohering - maldų mokslas
Pridėtos 354-357 eilutės:
* ką išgyvename kaip Aš, ar Dievo šokį? ar tai Visaregis? kaip tai suderinti su pasikalbėjimais?
* pirmines sandaras išgyvename kaip Tu (tai santykis su Dievu);
* antrines sandaras išgyvename kaip Kitas (kaip suprasti?);
* pirmines sandaras išgyvename kaip Tu (tai santykis su Dievu);
* antrines sandaras išgyvename kaip Kitas (kaip suprasti?);
Pakeistos 374-407 eilutės iš
Visas sąvokas dėliojant programine įranga TheBrain išskyriau keturias pagrindines sąvokas:
* unfolding
* structures for transcending (PrimaryStructures)
* structures for engaging (SecondaryStructures)
* cohering.
Jos grindžia skirtingus supratimus. Bene atitinka keturias vienumo sampratas išsakančias valių santykius.
Štai mintys, kaip šios sąvokos susijusios:
* 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.
* Dievas man atsakė: you transcend when you love, and you unfold when you want to be loved.
* 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".
* Cohering is to be connected in a way that does not want to be disconnected.
* unfold = to wish to be loved
* transcend = to love
* engage = to not hurt
* cohere = to wish to be not hurt
* unfolding = living beyond a system
* transcending = choosing to go beyond a system
* engaging = choosing to go within a system
* cohering = living within a system
* unfolding - Dievo šokis
* transcending - pasirinkimų malūnas
* engaging - žinojimo rūmai
* cohering - maldų mokslas
* unfolding - dvasia sąlygose
* transcending - sandara sąlygose
* engaging - atvaizdai sąlygose
* cohering - vieningumas sąlygose
į:
2018 gruodžio 06 d., 11:51
atliko -
Pridėtos 271-276 eilutės:
Sąmoningumo (nežinojimo ir žinojimo santykio) išsakymas požiūriais
* Dievas: Joks požiūris
* Aš: požiūris
* Tu: požiūris į požiūrį
* Kitas: požiūris į požiūrį į požiūrį.
* Dievas: Joks požiūris
* Aš: požiūris
* Tu: požiūris į požiūrį
* Kitas: požiūris į požiūrį į požiūrį.
Ištrinta 336 eilutė:
2018 gruodžio 06 d., 11:41
atliko -
Pridėta 43 eilutė:
** Dievas reiškiasi asmenimis: Dievas, Aš, Tu, Kitas - o mes esame jo atspindžiai. Mus sieja pasivaikščiojimai medžiais.
Pridėtos 257-270 eilutės:
Asmenys - Dievas, Aš, Tu, Kitas - yra apibrėžiami santvarkos pagrindu.
* Dievas yra pirm santvarkos, tad jisai viskuo atsiskyręs nuo savęs, esančio santvarkoje.
* Kitas yra būtent santvarkoje, tarp jos duženų. Tad Kitas nesiskiria nuo savęs ir gyvena tiesiogiai. Jo nežinojimas ir žinojimas sutampa.
Nuo santvarkos:
* Dievą skiria viskas
* Mane skiria betkas
* Tave skiria kažkas
* Kitą skiria niekas.
* Aš esu Dievas sąlygose.
* Tu esi sąlygos Dievui.
* Kiti yra sąlygos.
* Dievas yra pirm santvarkos, tad jisai viskuo atsiskyręs nuo savęs, esančio santvarkoje.
* Kitas yra būtent santvarkoje, tarp jos duženų. Tad Kitas nesiskiria nuo savęs ir gyvena tiesiogiai. Jo nežinojimas ir žinojimas sutampa.
Nuo santvarkos:
* Dievą skiria viskas
* Mane skiria betkas
* Tave skiria kažkas
* Kitą skiria niekas.
* Aš esu Dievas sąlygose.
* Tu esi sąlygos Dievui.
* Kiti yra sąlygos.
Pakeistos 308-311 eilutės iš
į:
'''Buvimo (žinojimo) ir nebuvimo (nežinojimo) santykis'''
Pridėtos 316-321 eilutės:
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''.
* 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''.
Pakeistos 328-338 eilutės iš
* 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''.
Asmenys - Dievas, Aš, Tu, Kitas - yra apibrėžiami santvarkos pagrindu. Dievas yra pirm santvarkos, tad jisai viskuo atsiskyręs nuo savęs, esančio santvarkoje. Tuo tarpu Kitas yra būtent santvarkoje, tarp jos duženų. Tad Kitas nesiskiria nuo savęs ir gyvena tiesiogiai. Jo nežinojimas ir žinojimas sutampa. Kitaip tariant, Kitą nuo santvarkos skiria niekas, Tave skiria kažkas, Mane skiria betkas, ir Dievą skiria viskas.
Dievas reiškiasi asmenimis: Dievas, Aš, Tu, Kitas - o mes esame jo atspindžiai. Mus sieja pasivaikščiojimai medžiais.
* Aš esu Dievas sąlygose. Tu esi sąlygos Dievui. Kiti yra sąlygos.
į:
2018 gruodžio 06 d., 11:31
atliko -
Ištrintos 638-643 eilutės:
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.
Pridėtos 640-643 eilutės:
2018.12.06 A: Kaip susiję [[asmenys | asmuo]] ir apimtis?
D: Asmenys iškyla iš mano sąmoningumo, man tiriant ar aš esu net ir kada nesu. Asmuo yra tai kas skiria mane pirm ir po išėjimo, tad apimtis yra mano savastis. O mano savastis keičiasi man sąmoningėjant taip kad mano pilnas sąmoningumas kaip toks atsiskleidžia tiktai Kitu. O jūs gyvenate daliniu sąmoningėjimu, Aš ir Tu. Tuo tarpu Kitas yra mūsų bendrystės pagrindas, mūsų visų sąmoningumo pagrindas.
2018 gruodžio 06 d., 11:23
atliko -
Pakeista 171 eilutė iš:
į:
Gyvenimo lygties lygmenys. Amžino gyvenimo išreiškimas Dievo trejybe. Dievo išvertimas.
Pridėtos 173-178 eilutės:
* Dievas Dvasia - išmintis - Aš
* Dievas Sūnus - gera valia - Tu
* Dievas Tėvas - Dievo valia - Kitas
Asmenų lygtis
* Dievas
* Dievas Sūnus - gera valia - Tu
* Dievas Tėvas - Dievo valia - Kitas
Asmenų lygtis
* Dievas
Pridėtos 251-256 eilutės:
Sandaros išryškėjimas veikla. Visaregio sandai.
* Going beyond oneself
* Divergences
* Distinctions
* Divisions
* Going beyond oneself
* Divergences
* Distinctions
* Divisions
Ištrintos 296-297 eilutės:
* Activity: GoingBeyondOneself, Divergences, Distinctions, Divisions
2018 gruodžio 06 d., 11:15
atliko -
Pakeistos 177-180 eilutės iš
* Tu suveda Dievą ir Mane.
į:
Suvokimo lygmenys, buvimas ne viena, asmens iššaukti santykiai
* Suvokimas
* Savęs suvokimas: Aš išverčia Dievą.
* Bendras suvokimas: Tu suveda Dievą ir Mane.
* Susikalbėjimas: Kitas atskiria Dievą ir Mane, užtat parodo jog Dievas viršesnis, nes būtent jisai rūpinasi Kitu.
* Suvokimas
* Savęs suvokimas: Aš išverčia Dievą.
* Bendras suvokimas: Tu suveda Dievą ir Mane.
* Susikalbėjimas: Kitas atskiria Dievą ir Mane, užtat parodo jog Dievas viršesnis, nes būtent jisai rūpinasi Kitu.
Pakeista 220 eilutė iš:
Išeities taškai
į:
Išeities taškai, savastis
Pakeistos 284-285 eilutės iš
* NotBeingOneWith: Understanding, SelfUnderstanding, SharedUnderstanding, GoodUnderstanding
į:
2018 gruodžio 05 d., 23:51
atliko -
Pridėta 50 eilutė:
** Person is the viewer. Scope is the sense in which suppositions are the same or different - (the property of) 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.
Pridėta 150 eilutė:
Pridėtos 153-160 eilutės:
'''Kas yra lygmuo?'''
* 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.
'''Keturi asmenys'''
* 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.
'''Keturi asmenys'''
Pakeista 165 eilutė iš:
Gyvenimo lygties lygmenys
į:
Gyvenimo lygties lygmenys - buvimas viena
Pakeistos 190-191 eilutės iš
'''Požiūriai'''
į:
'''Požiūriai - santykiai su santvarka'''
Pridėtos 224-235 eilutės:
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
* Activity - God beyond the System
* Structure - I beyond the System, looking in
* Representations - You within the System, looking out
* Unity - Other within the System
* 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
* Activity - God beyond the System
* Structure - I beyond the System, looking in
* Representations - You within the System, looking out
* Unity - Other within the System
Ištrintos 281-293 eilutės:
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.
Lygmuo
* 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.
* BeingOneWith: Spirit, Structure, Representation, Unity
Pakeistos 286-311 eilutės iš
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
į:
Ištrintos 305-311 eilutės:
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
2018 gruodžio 05 d., 14:06
atliko -
Pridėta 63 eilutė:
** Dievas kaip toks yra strimagalvis, tad suvokimas jam iškyla asmenimis, atveriant ir priimant jų požiūrius, išeinant už savęs į juos. Užtat ir iškyla išsiaiškinimai.
Pridėtos 191-196 eilutės:
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")
* 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")
Pridėtos 214-220 eilutės:
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.
* 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.
Pridėtos 239-243 eilutės:
* 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.
* 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.
Ištrintos 251-260 eilutės:
* 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.
Pakeistos 258-271 eilutės iš
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")
į:
2018 gruodžio 05 d., 14:03
atliko -
Pridėta 49 eilutė:
** 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.
Ištrintos 213-225 eilutės:
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.
Pakeistos 219-236 eilutės iš
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)
į:
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
'''Prielaidų rinkinys'''
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)
* being
* having properties
* not having properties
* not being
'''Prielaidų rinkinys'''
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)
2018 gruodžio 05 d., 13:31
atliko -
Pakeista 17 eilutė iš:
* Ar [[Visi]] yra asmuo?
į:
* Ar Visi yra asmuo?
2018 gruodžio 05 d., 13:30
atliko -
Pridėta 48 eilutė:
** Kiekvienoje apimtyje galime įžvelgti Dievą kaip asmenį arba neįžvelgti - lieka apimtis.
Pridėtos 173-174 eilutės:
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.
Pridėtos 195-199 eilutės:
* Dievas yra tiesos dvasia
* Aš esu sąvokos dvasia
* Tu esi žvilgsnio dvasia
* Kitas yra požiūrio dvasia.
* Aš esu sąvokos dvasia
* Tu esi žvilgsnio dvasia
* Kitas yra požiūrio dvasia.
Pakeistos 216-232 eilutės iš
** Free will - there is Good
** Outside - there is Slack
** Theory - there is Coinciding
** Same - there is Perfection
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.
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.
* 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.
į:
2018 gruodžio 05 d., 13:16
atliko -
Pridėta 43 eilutė:
** Troškimas yra asmens esmė.
Pridėtos 158-163 eilutės:
Asmenų lygtis
* Dievas
* Gerumas (Aš)
* Gyvenimas (Tu)
* Amžinas gyvenimas (Kitas).
* Dievas
* Gerumas (Aš)
* Gyvenimas (Tu)
* Amžinas gyvenimas (Kitas).
Pakeistos 186-203 eilutės iš
Užtat asmenys bene susiję kaip Dievas, Gerumas (Aš), Gyvenimas (Tu) ir Amžinas gyvenimas (Kitas). Tai galima vadinti asmenų lygtimi.
Asmenų tiesos, tai keturi [[išgyvenimai | išgyvenimo]] lygmenys: Dievo žvilgsnis, Mano požiūris
** beyond system (Spirit) Activity
** beyond system, looking in (Structure) VantagePoint
** within system, looking out (Representation) Position
** within system (Unity) Perspective
Laisvė
** Free will - there is Good
** Outside - there is Slack
** Theory - there is Coinciding
** Same - there is Perfection
Asmenys, tai Dievo
į:
Asmenų tiesos, tai keturi [[išgyvenimai | išgyvenimo]] lygmenys:
* Dievo žvilgsnis
* Mano požiūris
* Tavo laikysena
* Kito vertybė.
Išeities taškai
* beyond system (Spirit) Activity
* beyond system, looking in (Structure) VantagePoint
* within system, looking out (Representation) Position
* within system (Unity) Perspective
'''Troškimai - Dievo atvaizdai'''
* Dievo žvilgsnis
* Mano požiūris
* Tavo laikysena
* Kito vertybė.
Išeities taškai
* beyond system (Spirit) Activity
* beyond system, looking in (Structure) VantagePoint
* within system, looking out (Representation) Position
* within system (Unity) Perspective
'''Troškimai - Dievo atvaizdai'''
Pakeistos 204-215 eilutės iš
į:
Laisvė
** Free will - there is Good
** Outside - there is Slack
** Theory - there is Coinciding
** Same - there is Perfection
2018 gruodžio 05 d., 13:12
atliko -
Pridėta 17 eilutė:
* Ar [[Visi]] yra asmuo?
Pridėtos 143-144 eilutės:
---------------------------------
Pakeistos 147-149 eilutės iš
Yra keturi asmenys:
į:
Yra keturi asmenys: [[Dievas]], [[Aš]], [[Tu]], [[Kitas]].
'''Tarpusavio santykiai'''
Gyvenimo lygties lygmenys
* Dvasia (Dievas)
* Sandara (Aš)
* Atvaizdai (Tu)
* Esmė (Kitas).
'''Tarpusavio santykiai'''
Gyvenimo lygties lygmenys
* Dvasia (Dievas)
* Sandara (Aš)
* Atvaizdai (Tu)
* Esmė (Kitas).
Pakeistos 165-168 eilutės iš
Asmeniui bene reikalingi visi asmenys: Kiti, Tu,
į:
Asmeniui bene reikalingi visi asmenys: Kiti, Tu, Aš ir Dievas.
* Dievu asmuo išeina už savęs, tampa savo papildiniu, gali save mylėti.
'''Požiūriai'''
* Dievas žiūri pirmyn: amžinas gyvenimas, tai suvokimas, jog Dievas nebūtinai geras.
* Aš žiūri atgal iš lygties: gyvenimas, tai Dievo gerumas.
* Tu, tai šių skirtingų požiūrių sutapimas.
* Kitas, tai šių skirtingų požiūrių atskyrimas.
* Dievu asmuo išeina už savęs, tampa savo papildiniu, gali save mylėti.
'''Požiūriai'''
* Dievas žiūri pirmyn: amžinas gyvenimas, tai suvokimas, jog Dievas nebūtinai geras.
* Aš žiūri atgal iš lygties: gyvenimas, tai Dievo gerumas.
* Tu, tai šių skirtingų požiūrių sutapimas.
* Kitas, tai šių skirtingų požiūrių atskyrimas.
Ištrintos 178-179 eilutės:
* Dvasia (Dievas), Sandara (Aš), Atvaizdai (Tu), Esmė (Kitas).
2018 gruodžio 05 d., 13:00
atliko -
Pridėta 10 eilutė:
* Koks asmens tikslas?
Pakeistos 12-13 eilutės iš
* Kodėl yra keturi lygmenys?
į:
** Kodėl yra keturi lygmenys?
** Kaip su keturiomis vienumo sampratomis (valių santykiais) ir su keturiais asmenimis susieti: unfolding, transcending, engaging, cohering?
** Kaip su keturiomis vienumo sampratomis (valių santykiais) ir su keturiais asmenimis susieti: unfolding, transcending, engaging, cohering?
Pakeistos 15-16 eilutės iš
* Ar asmenį keičia nulybės atvaizdų paneigimas?
* Ar tai sąlygoja perėjimą iš paklusimo į tikėjimą į rūpėjimą?
* Ar tai sąlygoja perėjimą iš paklusimo į tikėjimą į rūpėjimą?
į:
** Ar asmenį keičia nulybės atvaizdų paneigimas?
** Ar tai sąlygoja perėjimą iš paklusimo į tikėjimą į rūpėjimą?
** Ar tai sąlygoja perėjimą iš paklusimo į tikėjimą į rūpėjimą?
Ištrintos 17-18 eilutės:
* Kaip su keturiomis vienumo sampratomis (valių santykiais) ir su keturiais asmenimis susieti: unfolding, transcending, engaging, cohering?
2018 gruodžio 05 d., 12:59
atliko -
Pakeistos 37-38 eilutės iš
** Asmuo ir apimtis yra santykiai tarp Dievo ir NeDievo. Yra keturi santykiai: God/Everything, I/Anything, You/Something, Other/Nothing.
* yra Dievo atvaizdas
* yra
į:
** Asmuo ir apimtis yra santykiai tarp Dievo ir NeDievo. Yra keturi santykiai: God/Everything, I/Anything, You/Something, Other/Nothing.
** Asmuo yra nežinojimo ir žinojimo apimtys. Jisai nežinojimą ir žinojimą išskiria, taip pat ir sieja.
* yra troškimas, Dievo atvaizdas
** Asmuo yra nežinojimo ir žinojimo apimtys. Jisai nežinojimą ir žinojimą išskiria, taip pat ir sieja.
* yra troškimas, Dievo atvaizdas
Pridėta 41 eilutė:
** Asmenys yra troškimai, tačiau juos nusako, apibrėžia netroškimai, jų savastys, jų papildiniai, tai kas jie nėra. Dievas yra savarankiškumas, kurį nusako kūno poreikiai. Aš esu užtikrintumas, kurį nusako proto abejonės. Tu esi ramumas, kurį nusako širdies lūkesčiai, tad tu esi riba tarp to, kas manyje ir kas už manęs. Kitas yra meilė, kurią nusako valios klausimai, tad mylime Kitu.
Pakeista 55 eilutė iš:
* apibrėžia Dievą
į:
* apibrėžia Dievą - sąmoningumą
Pridėta 57 eilutė:
** yra sąmoningumo lygmuo
Pridėtos 295-296 eilutės:
Asmenys - Dievas, Aš, Tu, Kitas - yra apibrėžiami santvarkos pagrindu. Dievas yra pirm santvarkos, tad jisai viskuo atsiskyręs nuo savęs, esančio santvarkoje. Tuo tarpu Kitas yra būtent santvarkoje, tarp jos duženų. Tad Kitas nesiskiria nuo savęs ir gyvena tiesiogiai. Jo nežinojimas ir žinojimas sutampa. Kitaip tariant, Kitą nuo santvarkos skiria niekas, Tave skiria kažkas, Mane skiria betkas, ir Dievą skiria viskas.
2018 gruodžio 04 d., 22:18
atliko -
Ištrintos 602-623 eilutės:
----
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?
----
''It seems that '' to '' means going beyond and also '' being with.
2018 gruodžio 04 d., 22:16
atliko -
Pakeistos 342-344 eilutės iš
* [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/295 April 5, 2003]
į:
* [[http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/295 | April 5, 2003]]
* [[http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/292 | April 3, 2003]]
* [[http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/293 | April 4, 2003]]
* [[http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/292 | April 3, 2003]]
* [[http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/293 | April 4, 2003]]
2018 gruodžio 04 d., 22:16
atliko -
Pakeistos 17-18 eilutės iš
į:
* Kaip su keturiomis vienumo sampratomis (valių santykiais) ir su keturiais asmenimis susieti: unfolding, transcending, engaging, cohering?
Pridėtos 307-429 eilutės:
Visas sąvokas dėliojant programine įranga TheBrain išskyriau keturias pagrindines sąvokas:
* unfolding
* structures for transcending (PrimaryStructures)
* structures for engaging (SecondaryStructures)
* cohering.
Jos grindžia skirtingus supratimus. Bene atitinka keturias vienumo sampratas išsakančias valių santykius.
Štai mintys, kaip šios sąvokos susijusios:
* 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.
* Dievas man atsakė: you transcend when you love, and you unfold when you want to be loved.
* 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".
* Cohering is to be connected in a way that does not want to be disconnected.
* unfold = to wish to be loved
* transcend = to love
* engage = to not hurt
* cohere = to wish to be not hurt
* unfolding = living beyond a system
* transcending = choosing to go beyond a system
* engaging = choosing to go within a system
* cohering = living within a system
* unfolding - Dievo šokis
* transcending - pasirinkimų malūnas
* engaging - žinojimo rūmai
* cohering - maldų mokslas
* unfolding - dvasia sąlygose
* transcending - sandara sąlygose
* engaging - atvaizdai sąlygose
* cohering - vieningumas sąlygose
'''Mintys apie lygmenis'''
* [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/295 April 5, 2003]
* [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/292 April 3, 2003]
* [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/293 April 4, 2003]
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".
*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.
'''Paskiri asmenys'''
* unfolding
* structures for transcending (PrimaryStructures)
* structures for engaging (SecondaryStructures)
* cohering.
Jos grindžia skirtingus supratimus. Bene atitinka keturias vienumo sampratas išsakančias valių santykius.
Štai mintys, kaip šios sąvokos susijusios:
* 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.
* Dievas man atsakė: you transcend when you love, and you unfold when you want to be loved.
* 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".
* Cohering is to be connected in a way that does not want to be disconnected.
* unfold = to wish to be loved
* transcend = to love
* engage = to not hurt
* cohere = to wish to be not hurt
* unfolding = living beyond a system
* transcending = choosing to go beyond a system
* engaging = choosing to go within a system
* cohering = living within a system
* unfolding - Dievo šokis
* transcending - pasirinkimų malūnas
* engaging - žinojimo rūmai
* cohering - maldų mokslas
* unfolding - dvasia sąlygose
* transcending - sandara sąlygose
* engaging - atvaizdai sąlygose
* cohering - vieningumas sąlygose
'''Mintys apie lygmenis'''
* [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/295 April 5, 2003]
* [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/292 April 3, 2003]
* [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/293 April 4, 2003]
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".
*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.
'''Paskiri asmenys'''
Ištrintos 628-824 eilutės:
'''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]
I'm thinking some more about this:
*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?
2018 gruodžio 04 d., 21:56
atliko -
Ištrintos 478-487 eilutės:
----
* 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.''
2018 gruodžio 04 d., 21:53
atliko -
Ištrintos 506-516 eilutės:
----
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.
2018 gruodžio 04 d., 21:52
atliko -
Pridėtos 24-26 eilutės:
* yra Dievo kampas Dievo šokyje
** Dievo savastis: "Aš esu Dievas", "Tu esi Dievas", "Tai yra Dievas".
** Asmenų svarba: Įvairūs kampai reikalingi dvasiai, jos laisvei.
** Dievo savastis: "Aš esu Dievas", "Tu esi Dievas", "Tai yra Dievas".
** Asmenų svarba: Įvairūs kampai reikalingi dvasiai, jos laisvei.
Pridėta 60 eilutė:
** Ryšys tarp atskleidžiamojo (tiesos šaltinio, pagrindo) ir atskleidėjo (tiesos pranešėjo, laido).
Pakeistos 292-316 eilutės iš
į:
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.
* Aš esu Dievas sąlygose. Tu esi sąlygos Dievui. Kiti yra sąlygos.
* Dievas, Aš: požiūris, Tu: požiūris į požiūrį, Kitas: požiūris į požiūrį į požiūrį.
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?
Aš
* 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.
'''Santykiai tarp asmenų'''
* 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.
* 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.
* Aš esu Dievas sąlygose. Tu esi sąlygos Dievui. Kiti yra sąlygos.
* Dievas, Aš: požiūris, Tu: požiūris į požiūrį, Kitas: požiūris į požiūrį į požiūrį.
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?
Aš
* 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.
'''Santykiai tarp asmenų'''
* 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.
Ištrintos 722-750 eilutės:
'''Išeities taškas'''
See also: Person, StructuralFamily
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?
2018 gruodžio 04 d., 21:40
atliko -
Pridėta 11 eilutė:
* Kodėl yra keturi lygmenys?
Ištrintos 244-245 eilutės:
'''Kodėl yra keturi lygmenys?'''
2018 gruodžio 04 d., 21:39
atliko -
Pridėtos 232-289 eilutės:
Lygmuo
* 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.
* 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
'''Kodėl yra keturi lygmenys?'''
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''.
* 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.
* 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
'''Kodėl yra keturi lygmenys?'''
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''.
Pakeistos 451-511 eilutės iš
'''Gyvenimo lygties lygmenys'''
Lygmuo
* 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.
* 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
'''Kodėl yra keturi lygmenys?'''
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''.
į:
>><<
2018 gruodžio 04 d., 21:35
atliko -
Pridėtos 15-16 eilutės:
* Koks asmens tikslas?
Pridėta 123 eilutė:
** Asmuo išsako mūsų santykį su savimi. Asmeniu turime savastį ir būtent pasaulyje. Jame turime savastį ir taip pat galime atsisakyti savęs.
Pridėtos 127-128 eilutės:
* yra laisvės pagrindas
** 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.
** 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.
Pakeistos 131-135 eilutės iš
* Asmeniu turime savastį ir būtent pasaulyje. Jame turime savastį ir taip pat galime atsisakyti savęs. Asmuo išsako mūsų santykį su savimi.
* 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
į:
** kitais asmenimis. Persons are completely distinct in God, his Position beyond Everything, which is reached by Understanding.
2018 gruodžio 04 d., 21:31
atliko -
Pridėta 24 eilutė:
** asmuo yra nurodytojas (Visi, Betkuris, Kažkuris, Joks asmuo), o apimtis yra nurodomasis (Viskas, Betkas Kažkas, Niekas).
Pridėtos 29-30 eilutės:
** Asmuo ir apimtis išsako santykį su Dievu: are esame (vienų) viena? ar ne viena?
** Asmuo ir apimtis yra santykiai tarp Dievo ir NeDievo. Yra keturi santykiai: God/Everything, I/Anything, You/Something, Other/Nothing.
** Asmuo ir apimtis yra santykiai tarp Dievo ir NeDievo. Yra keturi santykiai: God/Everything, I/Anything, You/Something, Other/Nothing.
Pridėta 34 eilutė:
** God is prior to Person, subsequent to Person, and in the various Persons. God is thus Everyone.
Pridėta 36 eilutė:
** Scope and Person express the same, but using opposite words, giving them opposite meaning. Scope is NotGod beyond God. Person is God within NotGod.
Pridėtos 86-87 eilutės:
** Persons and Scopes are Questions, Knowledge and Definition are Answers.
** klausimas yra būklė iššaukianti atsakymą
** klausimas yra būklė iššaukianti atsakymą
Ištrintos 229-242 eilutės:
'''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.
2018 gruodžio 04 d., 21:18
atliko -
Pridėta 10 eilutė:
* Kaip apibrėžiami keturi asmenys?
Ištrintos 174-175 eilutės:
'''Kaip apibrėžiami keturi asmenys?'''
2018 gruodžio 04 d., 21:17
atliko -
Pakeistos 17-19 eilutės iš
į:
[+Kas yra asmuo?+]
Pridėtos 25-28 eilutės:
* yra Dievas apimtyje
** 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.
* yra Dievo atvaizdas
** vienumo raiška, tad Dievo raiška, tad Dievo atvaizdas, lygmuo, troškimas.
** 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.
* yra Dievo atvaizdas
** vienumo raiška, tad Dievo raiška, tad Dievo atvaizdas, lygmuo, troškimas.
Ištrinta 118 eilutė:
Pakeistos 164-174 eilutės iš
į:
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.
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.
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.
* 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.
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.
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.
Ištrintos 241-257 eilutės:
>>bgcolor=#EEEEEE<<
[+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.
2018 gruodžio 04 d., 21:02
atliko -
Ištrintos 224-255 eilutės:
'''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)
2018 gruodžio 04 d., 21:02
atliko -
Pridėta 13 eilutė:
* Išsakyti savo filosofiją menais - asmenimis: Dievas, Gerasis vaikas, Blogasis vaikas...
2018 gruodžio 04 d., 21:00
atliko -
Pakeistos 3-4 eilutės iš
Žr. [[Savastis]], [[Dievo šokis]], [[gyvenimo lygtis]], [[Požiūriai]], [[Sąmoningumas]], [[Dievo šokio išdavos]], [[Gyvenimo lygtis]], [[Veiksmai]], the diagrams at SpiritVStructure
į:
Žr. [[Savastis]], [[Dievo šokis]], [[gyvenimo lygtis]], [[Požiūriai]], [[Sąmoningumas]], [[Dievo šokio išdavos]], [[Gyvenimo lygtis]], [[Veiksmai]], [[Veikėjai]] the diagrams at SpiritVStructure
Ištrintos 435-466 eilutės:
-----------------
[+Veikėjai+]
'''Visas savo mintis išsakysiu veikėjais''', kuriuos išmąsčiau savo [[DievoProtas20120401 | paroda]]. Juos apibūdinsiu, kartu su jų santykiais:
[[Dievas | 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.
[[Aš | 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.
[[Tu | 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.
[[Kitas | 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.
2018 gruodžio 04 d., 13:42
atliko -
Ištrintos 16-23 eilutės:
* 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.
* Beyond Person's Self is Scope.
* Person in Scope is the potential of God.
Pridėta 24 eilutė:
** 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.
Pridėta 33 eilutė:
** Person in Scope is the potential of God.
Pakeistos 38-40 eilutės iš
* yra išeities taškas
į:
** Persons apply the Definitions of God, of Being Alone.
* yra išeities taškas (už santvarkos)
** Person is from beyond System and Scope is from within System.
* yra išeities taškas (už santvarkos)
** Person is from beyond System and Scope is from within System.
Pakeista 44 eilutė iš:
* išreiškia ribą, sąlygas
į:
* išreiškia ribą, sąlygas, apimtį
Pridėta 48 eilutė:
** Beyond Person's Self is Scope.
2018 gruodžio 04 d., 13:40
atliko -
Pridėtos 16-24 eilutės:
* 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.
* Beyond Person's Self is Scope.
* Person in Scope is the potential of God.
Pridėtos 38-39 eilutės:
** Dievas apibrėžia save išsakydamas savo prielaidas
** Self assumes Person and Scope as complements
** Self assumes Person and Scope as complements
Pridėtos 42-44 eilutės:
* apibrėžia Dievą
** yra Dievas apibrėžiantis Dievą
* yra išeities taškas
** yra Dievas apibrėžiantis Dievą
* yra išeities taškas
Pridėta 98 eilutė:
** The window grows smaller in which there is Person.
Pakeistos 111-112 eilutės iš
* sutampa su savimi
į:
* sutampa su savimi (laisve)
** Freedom equates a Person with its Self (Activity, VantagePoint, Position, Perspective).
** Freedom equates a Person with its Self (Activity, VantagePoint, Position, Perspective).
Pridėta 114 eilutė:
** 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.
Ištrintos 151-158 eilutės:
* Dievo prielaidos
** Dievas apibrėžia save išsakydamas savo prielaidas
** 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.
Pakeistos 157-161 eilutės iš
* 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.
į:
Laisvė
Pridėta 163 eilutė:
2018 gruodžio 04 d., 13:34
atliko -
Pridėtos 8-13 eilutės:
>>bgcolor=#FFFFC0<<
* Kaip ir kodėl keičiasi asmuo?
* Ar asmenį keičia nulybės atvaizdų paneigimas?
* Ar tai sąlygoja perėjimą iš paklusimo į tikėjimą į rūpėjimą?
---------------
* Kaip ir kodėl keičiasi asmuo?
* Ar asmenį keičia nulybės atvaizdų paneigimas?
* Ar tai sąlygoja perėjimą iš paklusimo į tikėjimą į rūpėjimą?
---------------
Pakeistos 101-105 eilutės iš
Asmenys
* 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.
į:
Pakeistos 105-110 eilutės iš
* Dvasia (Dievas), Sandara (Aš), Atvaizdai (Tu), Esmė (Kitas).
Asmenų tiesos, tai keturi [[išgyvenimai | išgyvenimo]] lygmenys: Dievo žvilgsnis, Mano požiūris
į:
* 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.
[+Asmenų rūšys+]
Asmenų rūšys, tai [[požiūriai]]: [[Dievas]], [[Aš]], [[Tu]], [[Kitas]]. [[Visi]]?
Yra keturi asmenys: Dievas, Aš, Tu, Kitas.
* Aš išverčia Dievą.
* Tu suveda Dievą ir Mane.
* Kitas atskiria Dievą ir Mane.
* Aš esu santykiai su Dievu,
* Tu esi santykiai su Kitais.
Rūpinamės Dievu, Manimi, Tavimi, Kitais. (Tai Minčių sodo veiklos)
[+Asmenų rūšys+]
Asmenų rūšys, tai [[požiūriai]]: [[Dievas]], [[Aš]], [[Tu]], [[Kitas]]. [[Visi]]?
Yra keturi asmenys: Dievas, Aš, Tu, Kitas.
* Aš išverčia Dievą.
* Tu suveda Dievą ir Mane.
* Kitas atskiria Dievą ir Mane.
* Aš esu santykiai su Dievu,
* Tu esi santykiai su Kitais.
Rūpinamės Dievu, Manimi, Tavimi, Kitais. (Tai Minčių sodo veiklos)
Pakeistos 124-127 eilutės iš
''Kaip ir kodėl keičiasi asmuo? Ar jį keičia nulybės atvaizdų paneigimas? Ar tai sąlygoja perėjimą iš paklusimo į tikėjimą į rūpėjimą?''
į:
* Aš: esantysis (dvejybės langas: priešingybės gretinamos)
* Tu: žinantysis (ketverybės langas: kodėl)
* Kitas: atsakantysis (šešerybės langas: ...)
Gyvenimo lygties lygmenys
* Dvasia (Dievas), Sandara (Aš), Atvaizdai (Tu), Esmė (Kitas).
* Tu: žinantysis (ketverybės langas: kodėl)
* Kitas: atsakantysis (šešerybės langas: ...)
Gyvenimo lygties lygmenys
* Dvasia (Dievas), Sandara (Aš), Atvaizdai (Tu), Esmė (Kitas).
Pakeistos 133-148 eilutės iš
Asmenų rūšys
Yra keturi asmenys: Dievas
* Aš išverčia Dievą.
* Tu suveda Dievą ir Mane.
* Kitas atskiria Dievą ir Mane.
* Aš esu santykiai su Dievu,
* Tu esi santykiai su Kitais.
Rūpinamės Dievu, Manimi, Tavimi, Kitais. (Tai Minčių sodo veiklos)
* Aš: esantysis (dvejybės langas: priešingybės gretinamos)
* Tu: žinantysis (ketverybės langas: kodėl)
* Kitas: atsakantysis (šešerybės langas: ...)
į:
Asmenų tiesos, tai keturi [[išgyvenimai | išgyvenimo]] lygmenys: Dievo žvilgsnis, Mano požiūris, Tavo laikysena, Kito vertybė.
2018 gruodžio 04 d., 13:30
atliko -
Pakeista 84 eilutė iš:
* yra vieningumo paneigimas
į:
* yra Dievo savybių paneigimas
Pridėta 86 eilutė:
** are distinct because of God's properties.
Ištrinta 97 eilutė:
2018 gruodžio 04 d., 13:28
atliko -
Pridėtos 66-68 eilutės:
* kuria
** 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.
** 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.
Pakeistos 79-80 eilutės iš
** is created to receive Love in Perfection and thereby to love others as well.
į:
** is created to receive Love in Perfection and thereby to love others as well.
** 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.
** 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.
Pridėtos 84-85 eilutės:
* yra vieningumo paneigimas
** Negation of Unity of Representations of Nullsome
** Negation of Unity of Representations of Nullsome
Pridėtos 88-90 eilutės:
** every, any, some, none “one” are definitions of being “alone” and as such, the conditions of being “one” with regard to reference.
* sutampa su savimi
** 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.
* sutampa su savimi
** 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.
Ištrinta 97 eilutė:
Ištrintos 98-104 eilutės:
* 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.
2018 gruodžio 04 d., 13:23
atliko -
Pridėta 16 eilutė:
** 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.
Pridėta 22 eilutė:
** 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.
Pakeista 28 eilutė iš:
* išreiškia ribą
į:
* išreiškia ribą, sąlygas
Pridėta 30 eilutė:
** Person is Unconditional Condition: God is unconditional Good, I is unconditional Slack, You is unconditional Coinciding, Other is unconditional Perfection, All is unconditional Experiencing.
Pakeistos 69-72 eilutės iš
** God is ever more known (presumed).
** I is ever less defined.
**You is ever less known (presumed).
**Other is ever more defined.
**
**
į:
** asmenys įvairiai auga žinomumu ar nežinomumu
*** God is ever more known (presumed).
*** I is ever less defined.
*** You is ever less known (presumed).
*** Other is ever more defined.
** 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.
*** God is ever more known (presumed).
*** I is ever less defined.
*** You is ever less known (presumed).
*** Other is ever more defined.
** 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.
Pridėtos 77-81 eilutės:
* yra buvimas viena
** Person is Unconditional BeingOneWith. It is the union of the Unconditional and the Conditional in that the unconditional meets all conditions.
** 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.
* tenkina apibrėžimą
** satisfies definition (if they choose God over themselves, and thus are alone rather than not alone, are going beyond themselves).
** Person is Unconditional BeingOneWith. It is the union of the Unconditional and the Conditional in that the unconditional meets all conditions.
** 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.
* tenkina apibrėžimą
** satisfies definition (if they choose God over themselves, and thus are alone rather than not alone, are going beyond themselves).
Ištrintos 83-96 eilutės:
* satisfies definition (if they choose God over themselves, and thus are alone rather than not alone, are going beyond themselves).
* 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 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.
2018 gruodžio 04 d., 13:17
atliko -
Pridėtos 33-37 eilutės:
** 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.
*** 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.
Ištrintos 79-84 eilutės:
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.
2018 gruodžio 04 d., 13:15
atliko -
Pridėtos 16-22 eilutės:
* yra Dievo būklė, jo prielaidos
** relate God's being beyond us and within us, in System
** 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.
* atpažįsta Dievą
** centers on God
** relate God's being beyond us and within us, in System
** 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.
* atpažįsta Dievą
** centers on God
Pridėtos 58-64 eilutės:
* savarankiškai veikia
** has a solitary activity? and how is that mapped or not to God's NullActivity within them.
* bręsta, auga
** 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.
* bręsta, auga
** God is ever more known (presumed).
** I is ever less defined.
** You is ever less known (presumed).
** Other is ever more defined.
Ištrintos 70-72 eilutės:
Ištrintos 71-80 eilutės:
* 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.
2018 gruodžio 04 d., 13:10
atliko -
Pakeista 13 eilutė iš:
* nurodo
į:
* nurodo, nukreipia
Pakeista 22 eilutė iš:
* išgyvena
į:
* išgyvena (pasekmes)
Pridėtos 25-27 eilutės:
** sees through Properties
** lives beyond Scope through Position
** lives within Scope through Perspective
** lives beyond Scope through Position
** lives within Scope through Perspective
Pridėtos 30-31 eilutės:
** 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
** can “be” alone only if they are attached to, one with God
Pridėtos 39-41 eilutės:
** chooses between one's own Perspective and the Position of all
** 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.
** 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.
Pridėtos 51-52 eilutės:
* yra mylimas ir myli
** is created to receive Love in Perfection and thereby to love others as well.
** is created to receive Love in Perfection and thereby to love others as well.
Pakeistos 56-57 eilutės iš
* can “be” alone only if they are attached to, one with God
į:
Pakeistos 59-64 eilutės iš
* 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.
į:
Ištrinta 60 eilutė:
2018 gruodžio 04 d., 13:05
atliko -
Pridėta 21 eilutė:
** an independent, limited Human
Pridėta 33 eilutė:
** is free to choose in Scope
Pridėtos 37-42 eilutės:
* atveria
** 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.
** 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.
Ištrintos 49-56 eilutės:
* 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
2018 gruodžio 04 d., 13:03
atliko -
Pakeistos 13-14 eilutės iš
* is a reference point: Everybody, Anybody, Somebody, Nobody
*differs from his Self in that he is in Scope
*
į:
* nurodo
** is a reference point: Everybody, Anybody, Somebody, Nobody
** the point of reference for Definition of God (and concepts)
* liudija
** is the witness to whether or not God exists
** is the witness who chooses between self within Scope and God beyond Scope
* išreiškia ribą
** 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.
* išgyvena
** sees, views, accepts NotGod by Perspective
** sees, views, accepts God by Principle
** goes from Perspective to Position by Love
** experiences Actuality, Process, All, Following Through
* renkasi
** 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.
** acknowledges God first in the context of his own Person, choosing God over oneself, and thereby acknowledges God beyond his Person
** 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).
* tiria
** 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)
* yra susijęs su...
** differs from his Self in that he is in Scope
** is a reference point: Everybody, Anybody, Somebody, Nobody
** the point of reference for Definition of God (and concepts)
* liudija
** is the witness to whether or not God exists
** is the witness who chooses between self within Scope and God beyond Scope
* išreiškia ribą
** 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.
* išgyvena
** sees, views, accepts NotGod by Perspective
** sees, views, accepts God by Principle
** goes from Perspective to Position by Love
** experiences Actuality, Process, All, Following Through
* renkasi
** 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.
** acknowledges God first in the context of his own Person, choosing God over oneself, and thereby acknowledges God beyond his Person
** 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).
* tiria
** 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)
* yra susijęs su...
** differs from his Self in that he is in Scope
Pakeistos 41-52 eilutės iš
* 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
į:
Pakeistos 43-45 eilutės iš
* 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).
į:
2018 gruodžio 03 d., 23:50
atliko -
Ištrintos 100-101 eilutės:
Ištrintos 102-105 eilutės:
* Tu: žinantysis (ketverybės langas: kodėl)
* Kitas: atsakantysis (šešerybės langas: ...)
Pridėtos 107-112 eilutės:
Užtat asmenys bene susiję kaip Dievas, Gerumas (Aš), Gyvenimas (Tu) ir Amžinas gyvenimas (Kitas). Tai galima vadinti asmenų lygtimi.
'''Asmenų rūšys'''
Asmenų rūšys, tai [[požiūriai]]: [[Dievas]], [[Aš]], [[Tu]], [[Kitas]]. [[Visi]]?
'''Asmenų rūšys'''
Asmenų rūšys, tai [[požiūriai]]: [[Dievas]], [[Aš]], [[Tu]], [[Kitas]]. [[Visi]]?
Pakeistos 114-130 eilutės iš
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]], [[Aš]], [[Tu]], [[Kitas]]. [[Visi]]?
===Persons are God who applies the Definition of God===
* Self assumes Person and Scope as complements
Tu suveda Dievą ir Mane.
Kitas atskiria Dievą ir Mane.
----------
Asmenų rūšys, tai [[požiūriai]]
===Persons are God who applies the Definition of God===
*
į:
* Aš išverčia Dievą.
* Tu suveda Dievą ir Mane.
* Kitas atskiria Dievą ir Mane.
* Aš esu santykiai su Dievu,
* Tu esi santykiai su Kitais.
Rūpinamės Dievu, Manimi, Tavimi, Kitais. (Tai Minčių sodo veiklos)
* Aš: esantysis (dvejybės langas: priešingybės gretinamos)
* Tu: žinantysis (ketverybės langas: kodėl)
* Kitas: atsakantysis (šešerybės langas: ...)
'''Asmenys yra Dievas apibrėžiantis Dievą'''
* Dievo prielaidos
** Dievas apibrėžia save išsakydamas savo prielaidas
** Self assumes Person and Scope as complements
* Tu suveda Dievą ir Mane.
* Kitas atskiria Dievą ir Mane.
* Aš esu santykiai su Dievu,
* Tu esi santykiai su Kitais.
Rūpinamės Dievu, Manimi, Tavimi, Kitais. (Tai Minčių sodo veiklos)
* Aš: esantysis (dvejybės langas: priešingybės gretinamos)
* Tu: žinantysis (ketverybės langas: kodėl)
* Kitas: atsakantysis (šešerybės langas: ...)
'''Asmenys yra Dievas apibrėžiantis Dievą'''
* Dievo prielaidos
** Dievas apibrėžia save išsakydamas savo prielaidas
** Self assumes Person and Scope as complements
Pridėtos 424-427 eilutės:
-----------------
[+Veikėjai+]
[+Veikėjai+]
Pakeistos 456-461 eilutės iš
>>bgcolor=#DDDDDD<<
Level
į:
------------
'''Gyvenimo lygties lygmenys'''
Lygmuo
'''Gyvenimo lygties lygmenys'''
Lygmuo
Ištrintos 465-466 eilutės:
Pakeistos 473-474 eilutės iš
į:
'''Kodėl yra keturi lygmenys?'''
Ištrintos 516-519 eilutės:
Pakeistos 534-541 eilutės iš
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.
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.
į:
* 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.
* 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.
Pakeistos 603-611 eilutės iš
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
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
į:
* 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
* 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
Pakeistos 618-624 eilutės iš
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
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
į:
* 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
* 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
Pakeistos 789-791 eilutės iš
Fichte - argument about the I.
į:
>>bgcolor=#EFCFE1<<
* Fichte - argument about the I.
* Fichte - argument about the I.
2018 rugsėjo 12 d., 12:01
atliko -
Pridėtos 213-244 eilutės:
'''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)
* 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)
Pakeistos 456-483 eilutės iš
* 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.
'''Lygmenys'''
See: Levels, LevelsOfUnderstanding, Scope
į:
Ištrintos 464-469 eilutės:
There are four Levels for interpreting the EquationOfLife.
===How do the levels manifest themselves?===
Pakeistos 516-526 eilutės iš
* Understanding
* SelfUnderstanding
* SharedUnderstanding
* GoodUnderstanding
'''Sąmoningumo lygmenys'''
į:
Ištrintos 521-528 eilutės:
* all perspectives is Spirit
* any perspective is Structure
* a perspective is Representation
* no perspective is Unity
----
Pakeistos 526-543 eilutės iš
'''the unity of representations of structure of spirit'''
From a human point of view, the unity and the spirit are the same, which makes this cyclic. From God's point of view they are distinct.
From a human point of view, for example, love and God are the same.
So from a human point of view, ''spirit is the unity of representations''. For example, God is the spirit of everything. Additionally, from the human point of view, God is the unity of the representations of everything. But God keeps unity and spirit distinct.
Perhaps:
* Structure is generated by the Operation [AddOne +1]
* Representations are generated by the Operation [AddTwo +2]
* Unity is generated by the Operation [AddThree +3]
Coherence is unity of representations. We may think of coherence as necessity.
į:
Pakeistos 548-555 eilutės iš
* 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)
-----------
į:
Ištrintos 559-790 eilutės:
'''Suvokimo lygmenys'''
See also: PrimaryStructures, Understanding, Self-understanding, SharedUnderstanding, GoodUnderstanding, Operation.
----
AndriusKulikauskas: My '''Overview''' organizes structures into '''four levels of understanding'''.
Each level arises when we note it for the sake of the distinction of Concepts. We make them explicit as God's view and human's view. Thus there are the following levels:
* Understanding - one level: God's
* Self-understanding - two levels: God's, human's
* SharedUnderstanding - three levels: God's, human's, God's
* GoodUnderstanding - four levels: God's, human's, God's, human's
One way to think of the levels is as the unity of the representations of the structure of spirit:
* [AddOne +1] Understanding allows for the World by understanding Spirit.
* [AddTwo +2] Self-understanding allows for a Person-in-particular by understanding Structure (Self). Self-understanding determines a scope (with regard to nobody, somebody, anybody, everybody) which says how far away we are from the end.
* [AddThree +3] SharedUnderstanding allows for a Person-in-general by understanding Representations.
* [AddNull +0] GoodUnderstanding allows for God by understanding Unity. Good understanding (rapport) is when the narrower concept gives way to the broader concept - when the two understand each other.
Each level may be understood as introducing an additional operation which runs in parallel to the existing ones. These [ThisWiki:Operation operations] may be thought of as operations +1, +2, +3 on [ThisWiki:Divisions divisions of everything] (each adding 1, 2 or 3 perspectives, respectively). Each operation is a ''going beyond oneself''.
*+1 ''going beyond oneself'' ''Structure: (Perspective: )'' First there is going beyond oneself from the unbounded into the bounded, ever adding an additional comprehensive perspective that reinterprets all the others.
*+2 ''shift in perspective'' ''Activity: (ShiftInPerspective: )'' Then there is a three-cycle which, in parallel, goes beyond by shifting from perspective to perspective.
*+3 ''recurring activity'' ''RecurringActivity: (Slack: )'' (generalized shift in perspective) Next, this three-cycle starts to cover old ground - here what is new is the recurring shift, the ''recurring activity''. This recurring activity is now localized in the shift (without the nodes, which are ever new). So we have a ''general shift''.
*+0 ''unity of origin'' ''RecurringStructure: (Everything: )'' (generalized perspective) - collapse of framework. Finally, there is unity in that the recurring activity can align itself around that which goes beyond.
Each level engenders more structure, until the final layer has it collapse.
----
In describing an absolute, relative, shared, subordinate perspective: consider what truth means for understanding, self-understanding, shared understanding, good understanding:
* understanding - for there to be an absolute perspective we need: no internal structure, no external context (no reframing), accept all things. Here ''all things are true''.
* self-understanding - for a relative perspective we need to separate the threesome for activity (a relative stand) from the threesome for structure (an absolute stand), +2, no overlapping so 3 + 3, notion of ''required concept''
* shared understanding - factoring (''other'' between God and heart through which they coincide) zero structure, seventh perspective, concept, anything (+3). Factor act on the whole - from whole to whole (redefining the absolute whole as a particular stand, which is to say, selecting a perspective) - factors: +2=the focus (structure or spirit, which moves), +3=the movments of spirit with regard to structure (how moving), +4=the separation of spirit and structure (how far apart). Recall: people, words, Qualities. Shared point is: (everything becomes anything - this is perhaps what is needed for sharing - and is what we mean by something - that everything becomes anything, as per +2, defining activity as shift in structure).
* good understanding - zero activity - other is unity of the six levels by which God and heart coincide (secondary structures as embeddings).
-----
I am trying to think of this in terms of love and understanding and concepts, the taking up of perspectives. Some thoughts:
* First God goes beyond himself, through the operation [AddOne +1], again and again, until he has opened up enough slack that his self - the heart - may be independent, on its own. So now there is the heart, and the question is, will God find his way into this heart?
* Then the heart goes beyond itself out to some level where it coincides with God who loves it, is one with it. But the heart considers this God as a mirror to itself. Just as structure is a mirror to activity, so the levels of structure by which God reaches out are taken as a mirror of the levels of activity by which the heart reaches out. The heart reaches out as either +1 or +2 or +3 (foursome, fivesome, sixsome). The heart thinks of God as arising in the gaps. (How does that relate to Factoring?)
* God arises in the gaps where the heart reaches out +0 and thus has zero structure. This structural gap is what allows the factors to be composed, and hence thought of as factors: 1 + 1 = 2, 1 + 2 = 3 and 1 + 3 = 4.
* This allows that the heart has a zero activity 1 + 0 = 1 - and that plants God within the heart as +0, so that they coincide.
''So I need to try to understand the foursome, fivesome, sixsome as the heart reaching back out with +1, +2 or +3 perspectives, respectively, presumably through the operation +2.''
----
We may also think of this as:
* ''self-Structure'' = ''Relationship with Self as Unequals''
* ''self-Activity'' = ''Relationship with Self as Equals''
* ''RecurringActivity'' = ''Relationship with Other as Equals''
* ''RecurringStructure'' = ''Relationship with Other as Unequals''
Structure has no scope and is Absolute, whereas Activity is Relative to some Scope. In particular, SharedUnderstanding is relative with regard to some scope, but GoodUnderstanding is absolute.
Each level seems to relate to a division of everything:
*+1 from Nullsome to Onesome, Twosome, Threesome
*+2 from onesome, twosome, threesome to Foursome, Fivesome, Sixsome
*+3 from sixsome to Sevensome
*+0 from sevensome to Eightsome/nullsome
----
On this page I gather various parallels across these four levels.
*relationship with God is given by Onesome, Twosome, Threesome
*relationship with other is given by Foursome, Fivesome, Sixsome
*other is given by Sevensome
*God is given by Nullsome
*+1 Caring about relationship with God
*+2 Caring about relationship with other
*+3 Caring about other
*+0 Caring about God
''Caring about'' apparently means ''going beyond to''. Other is in the SeventhPerspective. God is in the ZerothPerspective.
*+1 Nothing's outlook
*+2 Something's outlook
*+3 Anything's outlook
*+0 Everything's outlook
*Understanding relates to the Threesome
*Self-understanding relates to the Foursome
*SharedUnderstanding relates to the Fivesome
*GoodUnderstanding relates to the Sixsome
This makes for one level of understanding for each of the PrimaryStructures, and also for each VoiceOfTension in Narration. The fivesome relates the two directions: looking forward (from beginning to end) and looking backwards (from end to beginning) and this is perhaps relevant for shared understanding.
==='''Muddled thoughts'''===
Understanding is the separation of ourselves from our relationship. Understanding keeps separate who we have our relationship with (ultimately, God) and our relationship itself. This is I think general structure and relates to the Threesome.
'''Asmuo'''
See also: Expression, SelfUnderstanding, Structure, System, Reference
===Self===
I'm rethinking what I mean by Self...
What is Self?
* In GoingBeyondOneself, what one goes beyond.
* ObservationalPlane
* Expression
* the relationship given by the equation of life:
** Life is God's self
** Anything is everything's self
** Choices are wishes' self
** Will is love's self
* What is in context
* I. It's interesting that in Lithuanian there is no word for self. Or rather, there is a word for self (save), but it does not have nominative case! so there is no way to talk about it! except perhaps as I (as), which would be the word refering to one's own self, or perhaps more generally as pronoun (ivardis), which means ''that which is used to name''.
* The relationship between Spirit and Structure, so that God's self is everything, or at least I had thought that.
In this way, God's coinciding with himself is God's coinciding with life. And in each case the self arises when there is a structural context.
Self
* is what is BeingOneWith us
* is what we expand so that we are BeingOneWith all, and therefore we choose to be one with God rather than with one's Self
* is what, if Person is attached to, keeps them from being alone. Consequently, Person must not be. A Person must be attached to God to be alone.
* is what one (God) maps to in context, that is, what we are not
* is what assumes Who
* is BeingOneWith with us, one's relationship with relationships, one's own reference point, one's dual's dual, thus one in context, as related to by others, what our context attributes to us, the sum of our attributes, our properties, our qualities. Self is the opposition of going beyond and going within, so that going within (the referent Answer affirming all conditions as “united” Freedom) is considered an inverse of going beyond (the referer Question negating all conditions as “only” Truth), thus opposing “only” and “united” as meanings for being alone, being one. (Note the InversionEffect). Self thereby distinguishes referer and referent.
* correlates Theory (Scope) and Fact (Person).
===Earlier Thoughts==
Self is one's Structure
Four Representations express the role (as Equals) that one has with one's Self. See SpiritVStructure.
Two Representations express the role (as Unequals) that one has with one's Other. See BeginningVEnd.
'''Asmuo-Savastis ir Kitas'''
See also: Self, Other, Understanding, Overview
----
Four Representations are given by the relationship between Self and Other as different Scopes for GoingBeyondOneself:
* out of Self Everything
* out of Self and into Other Anything
* out of Other and into Self Something
* out of Other Nothing
Or we may say that self is Structure and other is Perspective so that we have, as activity:
* Spirit goes out of structure - yielding Everything
* Structure goes out of structure and into perspective - yielding Anything
* Representation goes out of perspective and into structure - yielding Something
* Unity goes out of perspective - yielding Nothing
''Explore here the relationship with the levels of understanding, and the kinds of love. For example, structure going out of structure is self-understanding.''
In this sense:
* spirit and unity are Unbounded
* structure and representation are Bounded
* spirit and structure are Open
* representation and unity are Closed
----
These are the levels of structure that are necessary for us to experience structure. In that sense they are related to the LevelsOfUnderstanding. We start with the widest and immerse ourselves into narrower scopes.
These may be thought of as the RepresentationsOfEverything, in which case they do not degenerate, but are specified:
* ''spirit to spirit'' is EverythingWishesForEverything
* ''spirit to structure'' is EverythingWishesForAnything
* ''structure to spirit'' is EverythingWishesForSomething
* ''structure to structure'' is EverythingWishesForNothing
''(I need to check on the order of the above).''
These representations result from considering ''spirit'' and ''structure'' as Equals and letting them manifest themselves as Unequals in four ways, yielding four representations (wishes). They are unequal in terms of the distance between themselves, from everything (spirit to spirit) to nothing (structure to structure).
Alternatively, we may consider them as unequals, and let them manifest themselves equals, in which case we have two representations (scopes):Beginning and End, see: BeginningVEnd.
They accord with the LevelsOfUnderstanding.
I will work here to flesh out these representations based on what I know about the representations of the Nullsome, Onesome, Twosome, Threesome. There are four levels: why - how - what - whether (or is it +3, +2, +1, +0).
'''Why'''
* significant
* no external context
* free will - fate
* be - do - think
'''How'''
* constant
* simplest algorithm - accepts all things
* outside - inside
* one - all - many
'''What'''
* direct
* no internal structure
* theory - practice
* object - process - subject
'''Whether'''
* true
* required concept
* same - different
* necessary - actual - possible
The Foursome is given by the difference from the end:
* The difference between will (onesome) and God's will (nullsome) is everything
* The difference between choice (twosome) and good will (nullsome) is anything
* The difference between anything (threesome) and wisdom (nullsome) is something
* The difference between life (foursome) and eternal life (nullsome) is nothing
It seems the four representations express the distance between two concepts as given by the difference between the concept and the sum. So, for example, first the difference is everything, as in the case of the will. Ultimately, the difference is nothing.
Ištrintos 567-570 eilutės:
-----
Ištrintos 573-578 eilutės:
Currently, my overview is in terms of LevelsOfUnderstanding. My new approach makes more sense in terms of where it leads. The concept of GoodUnderstanding allows me to focus on EternalLife and not only Life. It's important that not only is life the fact that God is good, but moreover, eternal life is understanding this fact. Structurally, my new account derives the secondary structures first, and only then the primary structures. It also allows for the divisions to be used from the very beginning.
There are perhaps, though, ideas from before that I can draw on. I include some letters.
----
2018 rugsėjo 12 d., 11:23
atliko -
Pakeista 3 eilutė iš:
Žr. [[Dievo šokis]], [[gyvenimo lygtis]], [[Požiūriai]], [[Sąmoningumas]], [[Dievo šokio išdavos]], [[Gyvenimo lygtis]], [[Veiksmai]], the diagrams at SpiritVStructure
į:
Žr. [[Savastis]], [[Dievo šokis]], [[gyvenimo lygtis]], [[Požiūriai]], [[Sąmoningumas]], [[Dievo šokio išdavos]], [[Gyvenimo lygtis]], [[Veiksmai]], the diagrams at SpiritVStructure
2018 rugsėjo 12 d., 11:22
atliko -
Pakeistos 1076-1079 eilutės iš
''
į:
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.
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.
Pakeistos 1084-1090 eilutės iš
''
''
''
į:
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.
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.
2018 rugsėjo 12 d., 11:20
atliko -
Ištrintos 1-5 eilutės:
Žr. [[Dievo šokis]], [[gyvenimo lygtis]], [[Požiūriai]]
'''Kas yra asmuo?'''
Pakeistos 3-4 eilutės iš
į:
Žr. [[Dievo šokis]], [[gyvenimo lygtis]], [[Požiūriai]], [[Sąmoningumas]], [[Dievo šokio išdavos]], [[Gyvenimo lygtis]], [[Veiksmai]], the diagrams at SpiritVStructure
Pridėtos 7-11 eilutės:
---------------
>><<
'''Kas yra asmuo?'''
>><<
'''Kas yra asmuo?'''
Pakeistos 526-527 eilutės iš
į:
Pakeistos 531-535 eilutės iš
* all perspectives is {{Spirit}}
* any perspective is {{Structure}}
* a perspective is {{Representation}}
* no perspective is {{Unity}}
į:
* all perspectives is Spirit
* any perspective is Structure
* a perspective is Representation
* no perspective is Unity
* any perspective is Structure
* a perspective is Representation
* no perspective is Unity
Pakeistos 538-541 eilutės iš
* {{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}}
į:
* 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
* Perfect is the unity of the representations of the structure of Good
* Will is the unity of the representations of the structure of Life
Pakeistos 554-559 eilutės iš
* {{Structure}} is generated by the {{Operation}} [AddOne +1]
*{{Representations}} are generated by the {{Operation}} [AddTwo +2]
*{{Unity}} is generated by the {{Operation}} [AddThree +3]
{{Coherence}} is unity of representations. We may think of coherence as necessity.
*
*
į:
* Structure is generated by the Operation [AddOne +1]
* Representations are generated by the Operation [AddTwo +2]
* Unity is generated by the Operation [AddThree +3]
Coherence is unity of representations. We may think of coherence as necessity.
* Representations are generated by the Operation [AddTwo +2]
* Unity is generated by the Operation [AddThree +3]
Coherence is unity of representations. We may think of coherence as necessity.
Pakeistos 589-594 eilutės iš
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.
Consider virtue as
Consider that
į:
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.
Consider virtue as Spirit, the outside viewer.
Consider that Structure is an internal perspective and that Representation is an external perspective.
Pakeista 603 eilutė iš:
See also: PrimaryStructures, {{Understanding}}, {{Self-understanding}}, SharedUnderstanding, GoodUnderstanding, {{Operation}}.
į:
See also: PrimaryStructures, Understanding, Self-understanding, SharedUnderstanding, GoodUnderstanding, Operation.
Pakeistos 606-611 eilutės iš
AndriusKulikauskas: My '''{{Overview}}''' organizes structures into '''four levels of understanding'''.
Each level arises when we note it for the sake of the distinction of{{Concepts}}. We make them explicit as God's view and human's view. Thus there are the following levels:
*{{Understanding}} - one level: God's
*{{Self-understanding}} - two levels: God's, human's
Each level arises when we note it for the sake of the distinction of
*
*
į:
AndriusKulikauskas: My '''Overview''' organizes structures into '''four levels of understanding'''.
Each level arises when we note it for the sake of the distinction of Concepts. We make them explicit as God's view and human's view. Thus there are the following levels:
* Understanding - one level: God's
* Self-understanding - two levels: God's, human's
Each level arises when we note it for the sake of the distinction of Concepts. We make them explicit as God's view and human's view. Thus there are the following levels:
* Understanding - one level: God's
* Self-understanding - two levels: God's, human's
Pakeistos 617-621 eilutės iš
* [AddOne +1] {{Understanding}} allows for the {{World}} by understanding {{Spirit}}.
* [AddTwo +2]{{Self-understanding}} allows for a {{Person-in-particular}} by understanding {{Structure}} ({{Self}}). Self-understanding determines a scope (with regard to nobody, somebody, anybody, everybody) which says how far away we are from the end.
* [AddThree +3] SharedUnderstanding allows for a{{Person-in-general}} by understanding {{Representations}}.
* [AddNull +0] GoodUnderstanding allows for{{God}} by understanding {{Unity}}. Good understanding (rapport) is when the narrower concept gives way to the broader concept - when the two understand each other.
* [AddTwo +2]
* [AddThree +3] SharedUnderstanding allows for a
* [AddNull +0] GoodUnderstanding allows for
į:
* [AddOne +1] Understanding allows for the World by understanding Spirit.
* [AddTwo +2] Self-understanding allows for a Person-in-particular by understanding Structure (Self). Self-understanding determines a scope (with regard to nobody, somebody, anybody, everybody) which says how far away we are from the end.
* [AddThree +3] SharedUnderstanding allows for a Person-in-general by understanding Representations.
* [AddNull +0] GoodUnderstanding allows for God by understanding Unity. Good understanding (rapport) is when the narrower concept gives way to the broader concept - when the two understand each other.
* [AddTwo +2] Self-understanding allows for a Person-in-particular by understanding Structure (Self). Self-understanding determines a scope (with regard to nobody, somebody, anybody, everybody) which says how far away we are from the end.
* [AddThree +3] SharedUnderstanding allows for a Person-in-general by understanding Representations.
* [AddNull +0] GoodUnderstanding allows for God by understanding Unity. Good understanding (rapport) is when the narrower concept gives way to the broader concept - when the two understand each other.
Pakeistos 624-628 eilutės iš
*+1 ''going beyond oneself'' ''{{Structure}}: ({{Perspective}}: )'' First there is going beyond oneself from the unbounded into the bounded, ever adding an additional comprehensive perspective that reinterprets all the others.
*+2 ''shift in perspective'' ''{{Activity}}: (ShiftInPerspective: )'' Then there is a three-cycle which, in parallel, goes beyond by shifting from perspective to perspective.
*+3 ''recurring activity'' ''RecurringActivity: ({{Slack}}: )'' (generalized shift in perspective) Next, this three-cycle starts to cover old ground - here what is new is the recurring shift, the ''recurring activity''. This recurring activity is now localized in the shift (without the nodes, which are ever new). So we have a ''general shift''.
*+0 ''unity of origin'' ''RecurringStructure: ({{Everything}}: )'' (generalized perspective) - collapse of framework. Finally, there is unity in that the recurring activity can align itself around that which goes beyond.
*+2 ''shift in perspective'' ''
*+3 ''recurring activity'' ''RecurringActivity: (
*+0 ''unity of origin'' ''RecurringStructure: (
į:
*+1 ''going beyond oneself'' ''Structure: (Perspective: )'' First there is going beyond oneself from the unbounded into the bounded, ever adding an additional comprehensive perspective that reinterprets all the others.
*+2 ''shift in perspective'' ''Activity: (ShiftInPerspective: )'' Then there is a three-cycle which, in parallel, goes beyond by shifting from perspective to perspective.
*+3 ''recurring activity'' ''RecurringActivity: (Slack: )'' (generalized shift in perspective) Next, this three-cycle starts to cover old ground - here what is new is the recurring shift, the ''recurring activity''. This recurring activity is now localized in the shift (without the nodes, which are ever new). So we have a ''general shift''.
*+0 ''unity of origin'' ''RecurringStructure: (Everything: )'' (generalized perspective) - collapse of framework. Finally, there is unity in that the recurring activity can align itself around that which goes beyond.
*+2 ''shift in perspective'' ''Activity: (ShiftInPerspective: )'' Then there is a three-cycle which, in parallel, goes beyond by shifting from perspective to perspective.
*+3 ''recurring activity'' ''RecurringActivity: (Slack: )'' (generalized shift in perspective) Next, this three-cycle starts to cover old ground - here what is new is the recurring shift, the ''recurring activity''. This recurring activity is now localized in the shift (without the nodes, which are ever new). So we have a ''general shift''.
*+0 ''unity of origin'' ''RecurringStructure: (Everything: )'' (generalized perspective) - collapse of framework. Finally, there is unity in that the recurring activity can align itself around that which goes beyond.
Pakeista 637 eilutė iš:
* shared understanding - factoring (''other'' between God and heart through which they coincide) zero structure, seventh perspective, concept, anything (+3). Factor act on the whole - from whole to whole (redefining the absolute whole as a particular stand, which is to say, selecting a perspective) - factors: +2=the focus (structure or spirit, which moves), +3=the movments of spirit with regard to structure (how moving), +4=the separation of spirit and structure (how far apart). Recall: people, words, {{Qualities}}. Shared point is: (everything becomes anything - this is perhaps what is needed for sharing - and is what we mean by something - that everything becomes anything, as per +2, defining activity as shift in structure).
į:
* shared understanding - factoring (''other'' between God and heart through which they coincide) zero structure, seventh perspective, concept, anything (+3). Factor act on the whole - from whole to whole (redefining the absolute whole as a particular stand, which is to say, selecting a perspective) - factors: +2=the focus (structure or spirit, which moves), +3=the movments of spirit with regard to structure (how moving), +4=the separation of spirit and structure (how far apart). Recall: people, words, Qualities. Shared point is: (everything becomes anything - this is perhaps what is needed for sharing - and is what we mean by something - that everything becomes anything, as per +2, defining activity as shift in structure).
Pakeistos 645-646 eilutės iš
* First God goes beyond himself, through the operation [AddOne +1], again and again, until he has opened up enough slack that his self - the {{heart}} - may be independent, on its own. So now there is the heart, and the question is, will God find his way into this heart?
* Then the heart goes beyond itself out to some level where it coincides with God who loves it, is one with it. But the heart considers this God as a mirror to itself. Just as structure is a mirror to activity, so the levels of structure by which God reaches out are taken as a mirror of the levels of activity by which the heart reaches out. The heart reaches out as either +1 or +2 or +3 (foursome, fivesome, sixsome). The heart thinks of God as arising in the gaps. (How does that relate to{{Factoring}}?)
* Then the heart goes beyond itself out to some level where it coincides with God who loves it, is one with it. But the heart considers this God as a mirror to itself. Just as structure is a mirror to activity, so the levels of structure by which God reaches out are taken as a mirror of the levels of activity by which the heart reaches out. The heart reaches out as either +1 or +2 or +3 (foursome, fivesome, sixsome). The heart thinks of God as arising in the gaps. (How does that relate to
į:
* First God goes beyond himself, through the operation [AddOne +1], again and again, until he has opened up enough slack that his self - the heart - may be independent, on its own. So now there is the heart, and the question is, will God find his way into this heart?
* Then the heart goes beyond itself out to some level where it coincides with God who loves it, is one with it. But the heart considers this God as a mirror to itself. Just as structure is a mirror to activity, so the levels of structure by which God reaches out are taken as a mirror of the levels of activity by which the heart reaches out. The heart reaches out as either +1 or +2 or +3 (foursome, fivesome, sixsome). The heart thinks of God as arising in the gaps. (How does that relate to Factoring?)
* Then the heart goes beyond itself out to some level where it coincides with God who loves it, is one with it. But the heart considers this God as a mirror to itself. Just as structure is a mirror to activity, so the levels of structure by which God reaches out are taken as a mirror of the levels of activity by which the heart reaches out. The heart reaches out as either +1 or +2 or +3 (foursome, fivesome, sixsome). The heart thinks of God as arising in the gaps. (How does that relate to Factoring?)
Pakeistos 656-662 eilutės iš
* ''self-{{Structure}}'' = ''{{Relationship}} with {{Self}} as {{Unequals}}''
* ''self-{{Activity}}'' = ''{{Relationship}} with {{Self}} as {{Equals}}''
* ''RecurringActivity'' = ''{{Relationship}} with {{Other}} as {{Equals}}''
* ''RecurringStructure'' = ''{{Relationship}} with {{Other}} as {{Unequals}}''
{{Structure}} has no scope and is {{Absolute}}, whereas {{Activity}} is {{Relative}} to some {{Scope}}. In particular, SharedUnderstanding is relative with regard to some scope, but GoodUnderstanding is absolute.
* ''self-
* ''RecurringActivity'' = ''
* ''RecurringStructure'' = ''
į:
* ''self-Structure'' = ''Relationship with Self as Unequals''
* ''self-Activity'' = ''Relationship with Self as Equals''
* ''RecurringActivity'' = ''Relationship with Other as Equals''
* ''RecurringStructure'' = ''Relationship with Other as Unequals''
Structure has no scope and is Absolute, whereas Activity is Relative to some Scope. In particular, SharedUnderstanding is relative with regard to some scope, but GoodUnderstanding is absolute.
* ''self-Activity'' = ''Relationship with Self as Equals''
* ''RecurringActivity'' = ''Relationship with Other as Equals''
* ''RecurringStructure'' = ''Relationship with Other as Unequals''
Structure has no scope and is Absolute, whereas Activity is Relative to some Scope. In particular, SharedUnderstanding is relative with regard to some scope, but GoodUnderstanding is absolute.
Pakeistos 665-669 eilutės iš
*+1 from {{Nullsome}} to {{Onesome}}, {{Twosome}}, {{Threesome}}
*+2 from onesome, twosome, threesome to {{Foursome}}, {{Fivesome}}, {{Sixsome}}
*+3 from sixsome to {{Sevensome}}
*+0 from sevensome to {{Eightsome}}/nullsome
į:
*+1 from Nullsome to Onesome, Twosome, Threesome
*+2 from onesome, twosome, threesome to Foursome, Fivesome, Sixsome
*+3 from sixsome to Sevensome
*+0 from sevensome to Eightsome/nullsome
*+2 from onesome, twosome, threesome to Foursome, Fivesome, Sixsome
*+3 from sixsome to Sevensome
*+0 from sevensome to Eightsome/nullsome
Pakeistos 674-678 eilutės iš
*relationship with God is given by {{Onesome}}, {{Twosome}}, {{Threesome}}
*relationship with other is given by {{Foursome}}, {{Fivesome}}, {{Sixsome}}
*other is given by {{Sevensome}}
*God is given by {{Nullsome}}
į:
*relationship with God is given by Onesome, Twosome, Threesome
*relationship with other is given by Foursome, Fivesome, Sixsome
*other is given by Sevensome
*God is given by Nullsome
*relationship with other is given by Foursome, Fivesome, Sixsome
*other is given by Sevensome
*God is given by Nullsome
Pakeistos 684-697 eilutės iš
''{{Caring}} about'' apparently means ''going beyond to''. {{Other}} is in the SeventhPerspective. {{God}} is in the ZerothPerspective.
*+1{{Nothing}}'s outlook
*+2{{Something}}'s outlook
*+3{{Anything}}'s outlook
*+0{{Everything}}'s outlook
*{{Understanding}} relates to the {{Threesome}}
*{{Self-understanding}} relates to the {{Foursome}}
*SharedUnderstanding relates to the {{Fivesome}}
*GoodUnderstanding relates to the {{Sixsome}}
This makes for one level of understanding for each of the PrimaryStructures, and also for each VoiceOfTension in{{Narration}}. The fivesome relates the two directions: looking forward (from beginning to end) and looking backwards (from end to beginning) and this is perhaps relevant for shared understanding.
*+1
*+2
*+3
*+0
*
This makes for one level of understanding for each of the PrimaryStructures, and also for each VoiceOfTension in
į:
''Caring about'' apparently means ''going beyond to''. Other is in the SeventhPerspective. God is in the ZerothPerspective.
*+1 Nothing's outlook
*+2 Something's outlook
*+3 Anything's outlook
*+0 Everything's outlook
*Understanding relates to the Threesome
*Self-understanding relates to the Foursome
*SharedUnderstanding relates to the Fivesome
*GoodUnderstanding relates to the Sixsome
This makes for one level of understanding for each of the PrimaryStructures, and also for each VoiceOfTension in Narration. The fivesome relates the two directions: looking forward (from beginning to end) and looking backwards (from end to beginning) and this is perhaps relevant for shared understanding.
*+1 Nothing's outlook
*+2 Something's outlook
*+3 Anything's outlook
*+0 Everything's outlook
*Understanding relates to the Threesome
*Self-understanding relates to the Foursome
*SharedUnderstanding relates to the Fivesome
*GoodUnderstanding relates to the Sixsome
This makes for one level of understanding for each of the PrimaryStructures, and also for each VoiceOfTension in Narration. The fivesome relates the two directions: looking forward (from beginning to end) and looking backwards (from end to beginning) and this is perhaps relevant for shared understanding.
Pakeistos 700-705 eilutės iš
Understanding is the separation of ourselves from our relationship. Understanding keeps separate who we have our relationship with (ultimately, God) and our relationship itself. This is I think general structure and relates to the {{Threesome}}.
===Thoughts from Prayer===
''2004.12.17 {{A}}: Koks ry�ys tarp susikalbėjimo ir supratimo? {{D}}: �irdis trok�ta susikalbėti, o supratimo lygmenų yra įvairių. Laiminu.''
===Thoughts from Prayer===
''2004.12.17 {{A}}: Koks ry�ys tarp susikalbėjimo ir supratimo? {{D}}: �irdis trok�ta susikalbėti, o supratimo lygmenų yra įvairių. Laiminu.''
į:
Understanding is the separation of ourselves from our relationship. Understanding keeps separate who we have our relationship with (ultimately, God) and our relationship itself. This is I think general structure and relates to the Threesome.
Pakeistos 705-706 eilutės iš
See also: Expression, SelfUnderstanding, {{Structure}}, {{System}}, Reference
į:
See also: Expression, SelfUnderstanding, Structure, System, Reference
Pakeistos 738-743 eilutės iš
Self is one's {{Structure}}
Four{{Representations}} express the role (as {{Equals}}) that one has with one's {{Self}}. See SpiritVStructure.
Two{{Representations}} express the role (as {{Unequals}}) that one has with one's {{Other}}. See BeginningVEnd.
Four
Two
į:
Self is one's Structure
Four Representations express the role (as Equals) that one has with one's Self. See SpiritVStructure.
Two Representations express the role (as Unequals) that one has with one's Other. See BeginningVEnd.
Four Representations express the role (as Equals) that one has with one's Self. See SpiritVStructure.
Two Representations express the role (as Unequals) that one has with one's Other. See BeginningVEnd.
Pakeistos 746-747 eilutės iš
See also: {{Self}}, {{Other}}, {{Understanding}}, Overview
į:
See also: Self, Other, Understanding, Overview
Pakeistos 750-763 eilutės iš
Four {{Representations}} are given by the relationship between {{Self}} and {{Other}} as different {{Scopes}} for GoingBeyondOneself:
* out of Self{{Everything}}
* out of Self and into Other {{Anything}}
* out of Other and into Self {{Something}}
* out of Other {{Nothing}}
Or we may say that self is{{Structure}} and other is {{Perspective}} so that we have, as activity:
*{{Spirit}} goes out of structure - yielding {{Everything}}
* {{Structure}} goes out of structure and into perspective - yielding {{Anything}}
* {{Representation}} goes out of perspective and into structure - yielding {{Something}}
* {{Unity}} goes out of perspective - yielding {{Nothing}}
* out of Self
Or we may say that self is
*
į:
Four Representations are given by the relationship between Self and Other as different Scopes for GoingBeyondOneself:
* out of Self Everything
* out of Self and into Other Anything
* out of Other and into Self Something
* out of Other Nothing
Or we may say that self is Structure and other is Perspective so that we have, as activity:
* Spirit goes out of structure - yielding Everything
* Structure goes out of structure and into perspective - yielding Anything
* Representation goes out of perspective and into structure - yielding Something
* Unity goes out of perspective - yielding Nothing
* out of Self Everything
* out of Self and into Other Anything
* out of Other and into Self Something
* out of Other Nothing
Or we may say that self is Structure and other is Perspective so that we have, as activity:
* Spirit goes out of structure - yielding Everything
* Structure goes out of structure and into perspective - yielding Anything
* Representation goes out of perspective and into structure - yielding Something
* Unity goes out of perspective - yielding Nothing
Pakeistos 768-772 eilutės iš
* spirit and unity are {{Unbounded}}
* structure and representation are {{Bounded}}
* spirit and structure are {{Open}}
* representation and unity are {{Closed}}
į:
* spirit and unity are Unbounded
* structure and representation are Bounded
* spirit and structure are Open
* representation and unity are Closed
* structure and representation are Bounded
* spirit and structure are Open
* representation and unity are Closed
Pakeistos 786-789 eilutės iš
These representations result from considering ''spirit'' and ''structure'' as {{Equals}} and letting them manifest themselves as {{Unequals}} in four ways, yielding four representations (wishes). They are unequal in terms of the distance between themselves, from everything (spirit to spirit) to nothing (structure to structure).
Alternatively, we may consider them as unequals, and let them manifest themselves equals, in which case we have two representations (scopes):{{Beginning}} and {{End}}, see: BeginningVEnd.
Alternatively, we may consider them as unequals, and let them manifest themselves equals, in which case we have two representations (scopes):
į:
These representations result from considering ''spirit'' and ''structure'' as Equals and letting them manifest themselves as Unequals in four ways, yielding four representations (wishes). They are unequal in terms of the distance between themselves, from everything (spirit to spirit) to nothing (structure to structure).
Alternatively, we may consider them as unequals, and let them manifest themselves equals, in which case we have two representations (scopes):Beginning and End, see: BeginningVEnd.
Alternatively, we may consider them as unequals, and let them manifest themselves equals, in which case we have two representations (scopes):Beginning and End, see: BeginningVEnd.
Pakeistos 792-793 eilutės iš
I will work here to flesh out these representations based on what I know about the representations of the {{Nullsome}}, {{Onesome}}, {{Twosome}}, {{Threesome}}. There are four levels: why - how - what - whether (or is it +3, +2, +1, +0).
į:
I will work here to flesh out these representations based on what I know about the representations of the Nullsome, Onesome, Twosome, Threesome. There are four levels: why - how - what - whether (or is it +3, +2, +1, +0).
Pakeistos 822-823 eilutės iš
The {{Foursome}} is given by the difference from the end:
į:
The Foursome is given by the difference from the end:
Pakeistos 839-840 eilutės iš
See also: {{Overview}}
į:
See also: Overview
Pakeistos 843-844 eilutės iš
į:
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:
Pakeistos 850-851 eilutės iš
Currently, my overview is in terms of LevelsOfUnderstanding. My new approach makes more sense in terms of where it leads. The concept of GoodUnderstanding allows me to focus on EternalLife and not only {{Life}}. It's important that not only is life the fact that God is good, but moreover, eternal life is understanding this fact. Structurally, my new account derives the secondary structures first, and only then the primary structures. It also allows for the divisions to be used from the very beginning.
į:
Currently, my overview is in terms of LevelsOfUnderstanding. My new approach makes more sense in terms of where it leads. The concept of GoodUnderstanding allows me to focus on EternalLife and not only Life. It's important that not only is life the fact that God is good, but moreover, eternal life is understanding this fact. Structurally, my new account derives the secondary structures first, and only then the primary structures. It also allows for the divisions to be used from the very beginning.
Pakeistos 1076-1079 eilutės iš
''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.''
''2004.12.13
į:
''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.''
''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.''
Pakeistos 1084-1088 eilutės iš
''2004.12.20 {{A}}: Koks ryys tarp suvokimo atsiradimo ir s&#261;moning&#279;jimo (sandara, atvaizdas, vieningumas)? {{D}}: Susikalb&#279;jimas vyksta &#303;vairiais lygmenimis ir s&#261;moning&#279;jimas juos tam atskleidia.''
''2004.11.12{{A}}: Koks ryys tarp s&#261;moning&#279;jimo ir nulyb&#279;s atvaizd&#371;? {{D}}: A galiu b&#363;ti jumyse &#303;vairiai, priklausomai nuo to kaip mes bendraujame.''
''2004.11.03{{A}}: Kaip i s&#261;moningumo ikyla sandara, atvaizdai ir vieningumas? {{D}}: S&#261;moning&#279;jimas yra i&#279;jimas u sav&#281;s. O tai yra man&#281;s neumirimas, gr&#303;imas &#303; save. {{A}}: O kaip tad su ketverybe? {{D}}: I u man&#281;s jau atrodo kitaip.''
''2004.11.12
''2004.11.03
į:
''2004.12.20 A: Koks ryys tarp suvokimo atsiradimo ir s&#261;moning&#279;jimo (sandara, atvaizdas, vieningumas)? D: Susikalb&#279;jimas vyksta &#303;vairiais lygmenimis ir s&#261;moning&#279;jimas juos tam atskleidia.''
''2004.11.12 A: Koks ryys tarp s&#261;moning&#279;jimo ir nulyb&#279;s atvaizd&#371;? D: A galiu b&#363;ti jumyse &#303;vairiai, priklausomai nuo to kaip mes bendraujame.''
''2004.11.03 A: Kaip i s&#261;moningumo ikyla sandara, atvaizdai ir vieningumas? D: S&#261;moning&#279;jimas yra i&#279;jimas u sav&#281;s. O tai yra man&#281;s neumirimas, gr&#303;imas &#303; save. A: O kaip tad su ketverybe? D: I u man&#281;s jau atrodo kitaip.''
''2004.12.17 A: Koks ryšys tarp susikalbėjimo ir supratimo? D: Širdis trokšta susikalbėti, o supratimo lygmenų yra įvairių. Laiminu.''
''2004.11.12 A: Koks ryys tarp s&#261;moning&#279;jimo ir nulyb&#279;s atvaizd&#371;? D: A galiu b&#363;ti jumyse &#303;vairiai, priklausomai nuo to kaip mes bendraujame.''
''2004.11.03 A: Kaip i s&#261;moningumo ikyla sandara, atvaizdai ir vieningumas? D: S&#261;moning&#279;jimas yra i&#279;jimas u sav&#281;s. O tai yra man&#281;s neumirimas, gr&#303;imas &#303; save. A: O kaip tad su ketverybe? D: I u man&#281;s jau atrodo kitaip.''
''2004.12.17 A: Koks ryšys tarp susikalbėjimo ir supratimo? D: Širdis trokšta susikalbėti, o supratimo lygmenų yra įvairių. Laiminu.''
2018 rugsėjo 12 d., 11:13
atliko -
Pridėtos 182-198 eilutės:
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.
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.
Ištrintos 241-349 eilutės:
Dievas reiškiasi visų keturių asmenų išsivystymą aprėpiančia vienybe. Taip mes visi gyvėjame, jautrėjame, bręstame, atsiveriame Dievui, mus išgyvenančiam. Dievas susijęs su mūsų jautrumo (ir atliepimo) didinimu, tad su mūsų gyvumu. Jisai yra mūsų jautrumo siekiamybė, tarsi norėtumėme pajusti "nulį", to ko nėra. Tad amžinas gyvenimas.
>>bgcolor=#FFE6E6<<
[+Dievas+]
'''Suvokti, kas nutolina'''
Appreciate futility What must it take for me to know everything? Conversing with: redirection Growing up, and seeking to know everything, I used to think that I could know human affairs from political science, which I could know from sociology, which I could know from psychology, which I could know from biology, which I could know from chemistry, which I could know from physics, which is based on mathematics. I was very interested to take high school physics and learn about the fundamental constituents of the universe. But the small bit that I surmised was that at the quantum level, reality itself seems to fade away, as if to say, you aren't meant to find anything here! And at that time, in the 1980's, it seemed that it would take billions of dollars of equipment and hundreds of scientists just to participate in the smallest way. So I concluded that if I am to know everything, God must make that possible.785
Believing 1-2-3-4 In real life, we discard the unessential to identify God which is deeper than our very depths, around such a core we allow for ourselves and others, we seek harmony of interests and we find a unity (Spirit) by which any person can serve as the center. These four frames are: believing; believing in believing; believing in believing in believing; believing in believing in believing in believing.29
'''Norėti ryšio'''
Who wants to listen to God? In 1995, just as I was preparing to engage others to make my philosophy practical, and so developing the good will exercises, I was inspired by Kangning Liou, who would pray for an hour every morning. I thought I should certainly pray more, but especially if I am to lead and even influence people, I need to be able to converse with God and listen to God. I thought that if this was possible for me, then it should be possible for others as well. Yet few people seem to hear God. Then I realized that few people want to hear God for they would then be accountable to obey him.1104
Increase God's possibilities Conversing with: God's will In 2002, I had reached my limits financially. I had failed to generate interest in an import/export standard for tools for organizing thoughts. I was in Chicago, and I had to think of finding any job. Indeed, my plan had been that, having a mathematics Ph.D. and some programming skills, I could always find a job. However, the US was in a recession. And I realized that my resume did not reflect a standard career and, with hundreds of people applying for each job, I would be weeded out early on for almost all jobs. Yet my own rationalizations could keep me from finding work, too. How could I know what to do? So I decided to increase God's possibilities by taking a fourfold approach. I applied for some full time positions. I applied for work through temp agencies (but the little work they had went to their earlier workers). I wrote some ambitious proposals for my lab (including writing a paper which won a travel award and took me to India and then home to Lithuania). I looked for part-time work through my network and was hired by Shannon Clark for a few months of corporate work that paid well. By taking all approaches I felt that I kept myself open to God's plans for me.69
'''Prileisti geranorišką bendradarbiavimą'''
Suppose that God will make things doable As a high school student I came to think that physics at the quantum level simply fades the way, and so is not a foundation for knowledge of life. So I concluded that if I am to know everything, God must make that possible. The truth must be at hand, easy for me to find, as if I was to search for a lost key at the foot of a lamp post, where the light happens to be best.1103
Believing in believing Allowing for self and others. Listen to others and God, appreciate what they care about as given by their choices, words and actions. Take that to heart.37
Existential conversation with God How should I apply myself? Conversing with: God I think of an "existential conversation" with God as one where I don't presume to hear directly from God, but rather, link up my existential situation with God's existential situation, and walk through conclusions based on that.548
What would be fair Conversing with: God As a six-year-old child, I engaged God in an existential conversation. I wished to apply myself to know everything, partly for its own sake, and partly to make good use of that knowledge. I was concerned that to seek such knowledge I would need to think freely, which could be very dangerous and lead me astray. I thus offered that, if he let me think freely, even think that God doesn't exist, then on my part, I would always believe in him. 609
What would be reasonable As a child, I had made an offer to God, which seemed reasonable, and I felt God's presence, and I wondered if I should have a sign to confirm this understanding. But then I thought it would be wrong to ask for a sign, to look for a sign, to demand a sign, as I might invent a sign, or depend on a sign, and be lead astray. So I told God that my sign would be that I have no sign, and that if he ever meant otherwise, he would give me a sign.1223
'''Priimti, pripažinti Dievą'''
Accepting God's assertion I am in love with a woman who God told me I will marry. I don't pray that she marry me because God assures me that she will. I prayed with her that her aunt get well from cancer and God consistently assured me that she would. I asked if I should keep praying, if I should offer myself to him in some way, but he said no. She died, though. Yet they reported that just before she died she bore witness that God truly is, that he had greeted her, and she said that she loved them all very much, and she passed away. I didn't know what to make of this, and when I ask God, he doesn't say.12
Respect seriousness Conversing with: importance When I was little, our mother pulled us aside one day and briefly taught us about God and Jesus and how to make the sign of the cross. I appreciated that she was very serious and that there must be something real to it if she was so. I couldn't dismiss her utmost seriousness. God must be at least a possibility.771
'''Klausytis Dievo, prisistatyti jam'''
Feeling good before God When I wrestle with how to make a living, and I don't know how to think that through, so that even my blood pressure feels high, then I listen especially, what God wants me to do. And when I hear from God, as I do, and take up in my heart what he would have me do, then I feel a great energy of goodness and freedom that overcomes my anxiety. I hold on to that good feeling and it makes me feel that everything will be fine if I am true to God. As I do related work, I feel elated.1234
Listen to God 555 Ask God a question Conversing with: answer In 1985, at the University of Chicago, I asked God, what kind of mathematics was important, and I understood him to say: walks on trees made of the elements of the threesome, which I denoted at the time as I (individual action), C (communal existence), U (universal thought), and I thought related to an infinite binary tree, which would be the case if I, C, U refered to the edges. I never quite knew what to make of that although I did prove a result about counting walks on trees and my thesis could be used to think further about this. I asked God, why did I have feelings for a woman who was too young for me, and he said it was because I will marry her. Also, when I prayed in the mornings, I would ask God a philosophical question and , which were very intense and generally more helpful indirectly. Now I mostly just listen to God, what does he have to say.71
Ask God what I should think over so as to understand? 1999.08.18: I asked God which questions I should think over so as to understand why good will makes way for good heart. He responded:
Ask God what interests him? 1999.08.18: In my personal work I want to do some investigations into a question that is of interest to God. I told him so and he responded: Why does Good Will make way for Good Heart?1468
Check with God Conversing with: selflessness I check in with God every so often, including when I have doubts on how I may behave, what is allowed or not, how not to be selfish.739
Hear from God in a dream Conversing with: God's perspective In dreams, I heard God say, "Those things are which show themselves to be" and "This is the fundamental unit of information" (a tableaux of large and small slashes)787
Listen to God Conversing with: God's wishes God told me, as I listened to him, to investigate God's love in the ways of figuring things out.713
Work in tune with God Conversing with: sensitiveness In China, I asked for God's help to write up together how to develop the "good will exercises", which I did with full attention to God.748
Write down what God says Conversing with: God's wisdom's noteworthiness I write down what God tells me each morning, including his answers to my questions, and I realize that he (or even my unconscious) is of much more powerful intelligence than I am.78
'''Likti Dievui ištikimu'''
Stay true to God Conversing with: fate As a child in grade school, I was weak and young, but during recess, I didn't want to be protected by the teachers, so I would walk far off into the field. And quite often a disturbed child would come up to bully me. I was a very good child and my response was to be as good as possible and to appeal in my heart to God to save me. Always some stronger kid would come and save me.715
Believe in God Conversing with: inexperience I wondered, why were people so hesitant to do "good will exercises" with me? Why did they not want to let go of their experience in the sense that I was? Why was I able to live on the edge? I realized that I do believe in God. I do believe that God watches over me. I can therefore do risks to do the right thing. I then appreciated that people might not be able to do that if they don't believe in God. I drew this conclusion even though I had been very careful to think that people might not need to explicitly believe in God, but might have some comparable concept. Yet I saw that, to my dismay, they generally didn't.69
Obey God Conversing with: God's wisdom Do good. Go to church. Chastity. Respect my parents.747
'''Atsiremti į tikėjimą'''
Applying Scripture Conversing with: heritage I wanted to have a way to hear from God, so I relied on the prayer "Our Father", which I had prayed many times, was part of my personal heritage, my family's heritage and my religious upbringing. 673
Value my life Conversing with: God's gift In China, after a conversation with Tong Zhu about the moral dilemmas of being a doctor, I realized that I was too precious to God to make a living as I had from a job that I did not think contributed to society, coding for a health care start-up serving a regulatory mandate of dubious merit.776
'''Prileisti platesnį požiūrį'''
Caring about caring about caring about caring Acknowledging what transcends our limits. Let go of my personal limits and live the vision of an unlimited God who can live through all.43
'''Aprėpti, pagauti visumą'''
Exhaustive review Conversing with: significance In 2009, to my surprise, I completed my quest "to know everything" with a 10 minute video summary, "I Wish to Know". I needed to find my bearings afterwards. I considered, in the broadest sense, what did I learn from my quest? And what came next? I learned two things. I need not be cold or distant to God as I had been, I need not keep God at arm's length, for God's point of view had made sense of absolutely every structure that I had uncovered in my search. I realized also that the useful application of this knowledge would be to foster a culture of truth, of self-learning, of figuring things out, which from my experience at Minciu Sodas was very much Jesus' vision of the Kingdom of Heaven. 707
Laying out thoughts Conversing with: thoughts In studying a question, I may collect a full variety of examples, group them and then lay out the groups as index cards on a table, and shuffle them around, looking for different dimensions that they may represent of particular aspects. In this way, I noted 12 ways that I connect with God, but other structures as well, such as the utility of an Irdakiss standard for import/export of data between tools for organizing thoughts. As I do this, a particular structure may come to mind, such as the 12 topologies, and so I will try to flesh it out.627
Failing to sort messages from God Once I failed miserably with this method. Almost every morning I listen to God and write down what he has to say. After several years, I tried to see if there were any patterns I could detect. However, the answers were so rich and intense that I kept getting dozens of dozens of groups, more and more as I added more data. I wasn't able to find an angle from which I could group his thoughts to me. He didn't seem too pleased, either.1541
Twelve Topologies in the Psalms I wanted to better understand twelve topologies, which I think of as the vocabulary of the imagination. In the first 40 psalms, I copied out the instances where God is imagined, then grouped them according to the mental image used, and came up with twelve groups, which I then matched with the twelve topologies.1533
'''Tvarkyti, grįsti, gryninti, rinktis proto aplinką'''
Define a concept in terms of other concepts I wanted to be sure to include and define all of the basic concepts in life. I wanted to do that in terms of the most basic concepts, and ultimately, ground them in the structures that I was discovering. I defined life as "the fact that God is good" and love as "support for life" and also as "the unity of the representations of the structure of God", thus "the unity of wishing", "the unity of the representations of everything". I organized these definitions using TheBrain and then later exported that to an HTML hierarchy. I knew that this kind of definition was, by itself, problematic and so I looked for other ways of defining as well, such as by way of "mind games" as with the topologies.1
Expressing the essence as a relation of concepts *** What are the elements of an experience? Conversing with: concepts I formulated the seven counterquestions as perspectives placed in situations. I recognized the qualities of signs as pairs of levels from the foursome. Similarly, I recognized that I could express the secondary structures as injections of God of one level into a primary structure of another level. In studying verbalization, I realized that the deep issue of a good will exercise could be considered as built up from two concepts which are put together differently by the truth of the heart and the truth of the world.682
Choose a fruitful data set Conversing with: circumstances for a phenomenon In developing a theory, I often choose a dataset of examples that makes vivid the phenomenon I am looking for and represents the complete variety of possibility. I analyzed Jesus' feelings and expectations by studying episodes from the Gospel of Mark because it was the most emotional of the Gospel. I studied the content of Jesus' parables in the Gospel of Luke. I studied what is "good" in the Gospel of Matthew. I tried to chase down Jesus' algebra of expressions to understand his "I am..." statements in the Gospel of John. I studied Lithuanian folk tales for my narrative theory because they are old, engaging, consistent and pure. I studied how God is imagined in the first 40 psalms because I was considering topologies as the variety of ways that we can imagine and I thought of God as the most generic yet intimate of concepts. I studied Lakoff and Johnson's target spaces from Metaphors We Live By because they had noted an important phenomenon and their many examples seemed to capture the variety of possibility.65
'''Išmąstyti proto ribų apibrėžtą Dievo požiūrį'''
And consider the "ten commandments". Note that these six "rooms" correspond to the six divisions of everything as generated by God taking up the counterquestions. The zeroth division corresponds to What do I truly want? and obeying God, and the seventh division corresponds to Am I doing anything about this? and caring=believing, living as a person-in-general, thus relating (Obeying) God the Father and (Believing) Jesus. Consider how the other secondary structures likewise arise in the house of knowledge from God's taking up the primary structures.34
Primary and Secondary Structures I came to realize that the six secondary structures (divisions, representations, topologies, argumentation, verbalization, narration) were given by pairs of levels of the foursome that injected God into primary structures.170
Considering the structure of a null structure In considering representations of the foursome, I noticed the role of "null perspectives" as reference points for the other perspectives. Later, in analyzing the primary structures, and considering how God is injected in them, I noticed that I could think of these structures each defined by "null structures" having their own increasingly complex structure. I think I was much inspired by the idea in modern algebra of a "kernel" to a group homomorphism, a structure which is mapped to the identity action.1702
Pregnant structure A structure may be able to say more than I know it to say, especially along with other structures. When I realized that I could think of the secondary structures could be expressed as God of one level of the foursome injected into a primary structure from another level, I noticed in particular in 2003 what happened to the seventh perspective of the primary structures. They showed an interesting variety of behavior, which I thought of as six expressions of the will, six representations of anything:
Recognizing a structure's purpose *** Which structures are distinct? Conversing with: purpose A very powerful technique is to consider the purpose of a structure. Over several years I had collected a dozen or more examples of structural frameworks consisting of seven or eight perspectives, depending on how you looked at them. I had tried to conceive of them as a single structure, yet that seemed less and less tenable. Finally, I made a list of what seemed to be the purpose of each structure. I noticed four purposes:
* An attitude for submitting to God (significant). Cataloging our needs and operating principles to address those needs, yet choosing to live forever.
* A language for supporting others (direct). Cataloging our doubts and counterquestions to address those doubts, translating our intuition.
* A world for supporting life (true). Cataloging our expectations and our emotional responses to them.
* A plan for supporting God (constant). Listening to God, cataloging our trials.
(Looking back, it's interesting that I ordered the four differently than I would now. I thought of them as four representations of the eightsome, four holes for generating slack, matching the representations of the nullsome.) And having grouped them so, I could see that I could think of them from God's point of view as wishes (for nothing - God is self-sufficient; for something - God is certain; for anything - God is calm; for everything - God is loving) and our own point of view as not-wishes.625
2018 rugsėjo 12 d., 10:56
atliko -
Pakeista 12 eilutė iš:
į:
Asmuo
Pakeistos 76-89 eilutės iš
į:
'''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.
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.
Pakeistos 127-136 eilutės iš
* 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.
į:
Pakeistos 149-156 eilutės iš
'''Kodėl yra keturi asmenys?'''
Dievas yra tiesos dvasia; Aš esu sąvokos dvasia; Tu esi žvilgsnio dvasia; Kitas yra požiūrio dvasia.
Negation introduces four levels: Activity, Structure, Representation, Unity. They give the relation between an orginal context and a new context, whether or not they are explicit, whether or not they are the same, whether or not they are positive or negative.
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. At each Scope, God can be assumed (as Persons) or not (as Scopes).
Negation introduces four levels: Activity, Structure, Representation, Unity. They give the relation between an orginal context and a new context, whether or not they
There are four Scopes, degrees of separation, given by the number of contexts
į:
'''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.
* 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.
Pakeistos 182-183 eilutės iš
į:
'''Koks Dievo ir asmens santykis?'''
Pakeistos 186-193 eilutės iš
===Person and Scope===
Person and Scope
į:
'''Asmuo ir apimtis'''
Asmuo ir apimtis:
Asmuo ir apimtis:
2018 rugsėjo 12 d., 10:47
atliko -
Pakeistos 3-4 eilutės iš
Žr. [[Požiūriai]]
į:
Žr. [[Dievo šokis]], [[gyvenimo lygtis]], [[Požiūriai]]
Pakeistos 145-147 eilutės iš
į:
'''Kodėl yra keturi asmenys?'''
Dievas yra tiesos dvasia; Aš esu sąvokos dvasia; Tu esi žvilgsnio dvasia; Kitas yra požiūrio dvasia.
Dievas yra tiesos dvasia; Aš esu sąvokos dvasia; Tu esi žvilgsnio dvasia; Kitas yra požiūrio dvasia.
2018 rugsėjo 10 d., 16:54
atliko -
Pakeistos 10-78 eilutės iš
į:
'''Kas yra asmuo?'''
Person
* 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.
'''Koks asmens tikslas?'''
Person
* 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.
'''Koks asmens tikslas?'''
Pakeistos 81-82 eilutės iš
Gyvenimo lygties lygmenys: Dvasia (Dievas), Sandara (Aš), Atvaizdai (Tu), Esmė (Kitas).
į:
Gyvenimo lygties lygmenys
* Dvasia (Dievas), Sandara (Aš), Atvaizdai (Tu), Esmė (Kitas).
* Dvasia (Dievas), Sandara (Aš), Atvaizdai (Tu), Esmė (Kitas).
Pakeistos 181-249 eilutės iš
See also: Persons, Overview
===What is Person?===
Person
* 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.
į:
2018 rugsėjo 10 d., 16:52
atliko -
Pakeistos 1-11 eilutės iš
Žr. [[Požiūriai]] Taip pat:
į:
>>bgcolor=#E9F5FC<<
Žr. [[Požiūriai]]
'''Kas yra asmuo?'''
---------------
>><<
* Asmeniu turime savastį ir būtent pasaulyje. Jame turime savastį ir taip pat galime atsisakyti savęs. Asmuo išsako mūsų santykį su savimi.
Žr. [[Požiūriai]]
'''Kas yra asmuo?'''
---------------
>><<
* Asmeniu turime savastį ir būtent pasaulyje. Jame turime savastį ir taip pat galime atsisakyti savęs. Asmuo išsako mūsų santykį su savimi.
2017 spalio 14 d., 00:44
atliko -
Pridėtos 1149-1154 eilutės:
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.
2016 vasario 26 d., 15:44
atliko -
Pakeistos 11-15 eilutės iš
Asmeniui bene reikalingi visi asmenys: Kiti, Tu, Aš ir Dievas. Dievu asmuo išeina už savęs, tampa savo papildiniu, gali save mylėti.
į:
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: ...)
* Aš: esantysis (dvejybės langas: priešingybės gretinamos)
* Tu: žinantysis (ketverybės langas: kodėl)
* Kitas: atsakantysis (šešerybės langas: ...)
2014 lapkričio 23 d., 11:20
atliko -
Pridėtos 10-11 eilutės:
Asmeniui bene reikalingi visi asmenys: Kiti, Tu, Aš ir Dievas. Dievu asmuo išeina už savęs, tampa savo papildiniu, gali save mylėti.
2014 lapkričio 23 d., 11:19
atliko -
Pridėtos 1133-1142 eilutės:
* 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.
2014 lapkričio 21 d., 22:52
atliko -
Pridėtos 8-9 eilutės:
Aš esu santykiai su Dievu, Tu esi santykiai su Kitais. Rūpinamės Dievu, Manimi, Tavimi, Kitais. (Tai Minčių sodo veiklos)
2014 lapkričio 17 d., 15:05
atliko -
Pakeistos 651-652 eilutės iš
į:
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)
-----------
* 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)
-----------
Pakeistos 669-674 eilutės iš
''2004.11.12 {{A}}: Koks ryys tarp s&#261;moning&#279;jimo ir nulyb&#279;s atvaizd&#371;? {{D}}: A galiu b&#363;ti jumyse &#303;vairiai, priklausomai nuo to kaip mes bendraujame.''
''2004.11.03 {{A}}: Kaip i s&#261;moningumo ikyla sandara, atvaizdai ir vieningumas? {{D}}: S&#261;moning&#279;jimas yra i&#279;jimas u sav&#281;s. O tai yra man&#281;s neumirimas, gr&#303;imas &#303; save. {{A}}: O kaip tad su ketverybe? {{D}}: I u man&#281;s jau atrodo kitaip.''
į:
Pridėtos 1140-1145 eilutės:
''2004.12.20 {{A}}: Koks ryys tarp suvokimo atsiradimo ir s&#261;moning&#279;jimo (sandara, atvaizdas, vieningumas)? {{D}}: Susikalb&#279;jimas vyksta &#303;vairiais lygmenimis ir s&#261;moning&#279;jimas juos tam atskleidia.''
''2004.11.12 {{A}}: Koks ryys tarp s&#261;moning&#279;jimo ir nulyb&#279;s atvaizd&#371;? {{D}}: A galiu b&#363;ti jumyse &#303;vairiai, priklausomai nuo to kaip mes bendraujame.''
''2004.11.03 {{A}}: Kaip i s&#261;moningumo ikyla sandara, atvaizdai ir vieningumas? {{D}}: S&#261;moning&#279;jimas yra i&#279;jimas u sav&#281;s. O tai yra man&#281;s neumirimas, gr&#303;imas &#303; save. {{A}}: O kaip tad su ketverybe? {{D}}: I u man&#281;s jau atrodo kitaip.''
2014 lapkričio 09 d., 17:15
atliko -
Ištrintos 491-497 eilutės:
* Kaip Dievas iškyla mano išsiaiškinimuose?
* Kaip poveikiai man, surūšiuoti asmenimis Dievas, Aš, Tu, Kitas, susiję su išsiaiškinimo rūmais?
* Kaip susikerta požiūris "Tu (ar visi) taip elgiesi, bet aš elgiuosi, eglsiuosi kitaip" ir požiūris "mes visi esame viena, mes visi tokie". Ar nereikėtų išlaikyti antrąjį požiūrį, nepaisant prieštaravimų?
>><<
Pakeistos 1130-1131 eilutės iš
į:
>>bgcolor=#FFECC0<<
Pridėta 1138 eilutė:
>><<
2014 liepos 24 d., 11:48
atliko -
Pridėtos 8-21 eilutės:
-----------
''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.
2014 birželio 25 d., 11:59
atliko -
Pakeistos 3-5 eilutės iš
Gyvenimo lygties lygmenys: Dvasia (Dievas), Sandara (Aš), Atvaizdai (Tu), Esmė (Kitas)
į:
Gyvenimo lygties lygmenys: Dvasia (Dievas), Sandara (Aš), Atvaizdai (Tu), Esmė (Kitas).
Asmenų tiesos, tai keturi [[išgyvenimai | išgyvenimo]] lygmenys: Dievo žvilgsnis, Mano požiūris, Tavo laikysena, Kito vertybė.
Asmenų tiesos, tai keturi [[išgyvenimai | išgyvenimo]] lygmenys: Dievo žvilgsnis, Mano požiūris, Tavo laikysena, Kito vertybė.
2014 birželio 19 d., 06:59
atliko -
Pridėtos 1128-1129 eilutės:
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.
2014 birželio 17 d., 07:32
atliko -
Pridėtos 1119-1120 eilutės:
Dievas reiškiasi asmenimis: Dievas, Aš, Tu, Kitas - o mes esame jo atspindžiai. Mus sieja pasivaikščiojimai medžiais.
Pakeistos 1123-1125 eilutės iš
''2005.04.09 {{A}}: Koks ry�ys 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}}:A� 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 rei�kia? {{D}}: I�eiti i� savęs, ir i� savęs į kitą, ir i� kito į save, ir i� kito. {{A}}: Ačiū. {{D}}: Myliu.''
''2004.12.13 {{A}}: Kaip keturi atvaizdai susiję su susikalbėjimu? {{D}}:
į:
''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.
''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 birželio 11 d., 12:40
atliko -
Pridėtos 1-2 eilutės:
Žr. [[Požiūriai]] Taip pat:
Pakeistos 7-11 eilutės iš
-----------
See also: Person, Overview
The Persons are God, I, You, Other.
See also: Person
The Persons are God
į:
----------
Asmenų rūšys, tai [[požiūriai]]: [[Dievas]], [[Aš]], [[Tu]], [[Kitas]]. [[Visi]]?
Asmenų rūšys, tai [[požiūriai]]: [[Dievas]], [[Aš]], [[Tu]], [[Kitas]]. [[Visi]]?
2014 birželio 09 d., 23:11
atliko -
Pridėtos 1105-1117 eilutės:
'''Išeities taškas'''
See also: Person, StructuralFamily
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
2014 birželio 09 d., 22:44
atliko -
Pridėtos 898-1104 eilutės:
'''Unfolding - Transcending - Engaging - Cohering'''
See also: {{Overview}}
-----
{{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
Currently, my overview is in terms of LevelsOfUnderstanding. My new approach makes more sense in terms of where it leads. The concept of GoodUnderstanding allows me to focus on EternalLife and not only {{Life}}. It's important that not only is life the fact that God is good, but moreover, eternal life is understanding this fact. Structurally, my new account derives the secondary structures first, and only then the primary structures. It also allows for the divisions to be used from the very beginning.
There are perhaps, though, ideas from before that I can draw on. I include some letters.
----
[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]
I'm thinking some more about this:
*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?
2014 birželio 09 d., 15:34
atliko -
Pridėtos 805-903 eilutės:
'''Asmuo-Savastis ir Kitas'''
See also: {{Self}}, {{Other}}, {{Understanding}}, Overview
----
Four {{Representations}} are given by the relationship between {{Self}} and {{Other}} as different {{Scopes}} for GoingBeyondOneself:
* out of Self {{Everything}}
* out of Self and into Other {{Anything}}
* out of Other and into Self {{Something}}
* out of Other {{Nothing}}
Or we may say that self is {{Structure}} and other is {{Perspective}} so that we have, as activity:
* {{Spirit}} goes out of structure - yielding {{Everything}}
* {{Structure}} goes out of structure and into perspective - yielding {{Anything}}
* {{Representation}} goes out of perspective and into structure - yielding {{Something}}
* {{Unity}} goes out of perspective - yielding {{Nothing}}
''Explore here the relationship with the levels of understanding, and the kinds of love. For example, structure going out of structure is self-understanding.''
In this sense:
* spirit and unity are {{Unbounded}}
* structure and representation are {{Bounded}}
* spirit and structure are {{Open}}
* representation and unity are {{Closed}}
----
These are the levels of structure that are necessary for us to experience structure. In that sense they are related to the LevelsOfUnderstanding. We start with the widest and immerse ourselves into narrower scopes.
These may be thought of as the RepresentationsOfEverything, in which case they do not degenerate, but are specified:
* ''spirit to spirit'' is EverythingWishesForEverything
* ''spirit to structure'' is EverythingWishesForAnything
* ''structure to spirit'' is EverythingWishesForSomething
* ''structure to structure'' is EverythingWishesForNothing
''(I need to check on the order of the above).''
These representations result from considering ''spirit'' and ''structure'' as {{Equals}} and letting them manifest themselves as {{Unequals}} in four ways, yielding four representations (wishes). They are unequal in terms of the distance between themselves, from everything (spirit to spirit) to nothing (structure to structure).
Alternatively, we may consider them as unequals, and let them manifest themselves equals, in which case we have two representations (scopes):{{Beginning}} and {{End}}, see: BeginningVEnd.
They accord with the LevelsOfUnderstanding.
I will work here to flesh out these representations based on what I know about the representations of the {{Nullsome}}, {{Onesome}}, {{Twosome}}, {{Threesome}}. There are four levels: why - how - what - whether (or is it +3, +2, +1, +0).
'''Why'''
* significant
* no external context
* free will - fate
* be - do - think
'''How'''
* constant
* simplest algorithm - accepts all things
* outside - inside
* one - all - many
'''What'''
* direct
* no internal structure
* theory - practice
* object - process - subject
'''Whether'''
* true
* required concept
* same - different
* necessary - actual - possible
The {{Foursome}} is given by the difference from the end:
* The difference between will (onesome) and God's will (nullsome) is everything
* The difference between choice (twosome) and good will (nullsome) is anything
* The difference between anything (threesome) and wisdom (nullsome) is something
* The difference between life (foursome) and eternal life (nullsome) is nothing
It seems the four representations express the distance between two concepts as given by the difference between the concept and the sum. So, for example, first the difference is everything, as in the case of the will. Ultimately, the difference is nothing.
''It seems that '' to '' means going beyond and also '' being with.
http://www.ms.lt/en/andrius/understanding/diagrams/understanding.gif
http://www.ms.lt/en/andrius/understanding/diagrams/conjunctions.gif
----
''2005.04.09 {{A}}: Koks ry�ys 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}}: A� 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 rei�kia? {{D}}: I�eiti i� savęs, ir i� savęs į kitą, ir i� kito į save, ir i� kito. {{A}}: Ačiū. {{D}}: Myliu.''
2014 birželio 09 d., 15:27
atliko -
Pridėtos 764-804 eilutės:
'''Asmuo'''
See also: Expression, SelfUnderstanding, {{Structure}}, {{System}}, Reference
===Self===
I'm rethinking what I mean by Self...
What is Self?
* In GoingBeyondOneself, what one goes beyond.
* ObservationalPlane
* Expression
* the relationship given by the equation of life:
** Life is God's self
** Anything is everything's self
** Choices are wishes' self
** Will is love's self
* What is in context
* I. It's interesting that in Lithuanian there is no word for self. Or rather, there is a word for self (save), but it does not have nominative case! so there is no way to talk about it! except perhaps as I (as), which would be the word refering to one's own self, or perhaps more generally as pronoun (ivardis), which means ''that which is used to name''.
* The relationship between Spirit and Structure, so that God's self is everything, or at least I had thought that.
In this way, God's coinciding with himself is God's coinciding with life. And in each case the self arises when there is a structural context.
Self
* is what is BeingOneWith us
* is what we expand so that we are BeingOneWith all, and therefore we choose to be one with God rather than with one's Self
* is what, if Person is attached to, keeps them from being alone. Consequently, Person must not be. A Person must be attached to God to be alone.
* is what one (God) maps to in context, that is, what we are not
* is what assumes Who
* is BeingOneWith with us, one's relationship with relationships, one's own reference point, one's dual's dual, thus one in context, as related to by others, what our context attributes to us, the sum of our attributes, our properties, our qualities. Self is the opposition of going beyond and going within, so that going within (the referent Answer affirming all conditions as “united” Freedom) is considered an inverse of going beyond (the referer Question negating all conditions as “only” Truth), thus opposing “only” and “united” as meanings for being alone, being one. (Note the InversionEffect). Self thereby distinguishes referer and referent.
* correlates Theory (Scope) and Fact (Person).
===Earlier Thoughts==
Self is one's {{Structure}}
Four {{Representations}} express the role (as {{Equals}}) that one has with one's {{Self}}. See SpiritVStructure.
Two {{Representations}} express the role (as {{Unequals}}) that one has with one's {{Other}}. See BeginningVEnd.
2014 birželio 07 d., 10:09
atliko -
Pridėtos 4-76 eilutės:
-----------
See also: Person, Overview
The Persons are God, I, You, Other.
Persons
* 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.
===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
===Why are there four Persons?===
Negation introduces four levels: Activity, Structure, Representation, Unity. They give the relation between an orginal context and a new context, whether or not they are explicit, whether or not they are the same, whether or not they are positive or negative.
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. At each Scope, God can be assumed (as Persons) or not (as Scopes).
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.
===How is God related to Persons?===
God is prior to Person, subsequent to Person, and in the various Persons. God is thus Everyone.
2014 birželio 07 d., 10:08
atliko -
Pridėtos 4-83 eilutės:
-----------
See also: Persons, Overview
===What is Person?===
Person
* 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.
===Person and Scope===
Person and Scope
* 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.
2014 birželio 06 d., 11:19
atliko -
Pridėta 3 eilutė:
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.
2014 birželio 02 d., 11:54
atliko -
Pridėtos 1-3 eilutės:
Gyvenimo lygties lygmenys: Dvasia (Dievas), Sandara (Aš), Atvaizdai (Tu), Esmė (Kitas)
Pridėtos 353-611 eilutės:
'''Lygmenys'''
See: Levels, LevelsOfUnderstanding, Scope
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'''
See: Level, Scope, LevelsOfUnderstanding, Person, Foursome
There are four Levels for interpreting the EquationOfLife.
===How do the levels manifest themselves?===
* 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''.
See: LevelsOfUnderstanding
* Understanding
* SelfUnderstanding
* SharedUnderstanding
* GoodUnderstanding
'''Sąmoningumo lygmenys'''
See also: {{Consciousness}}, LevelsOfUnderstanding, {{Unity}}, {{Representations}}, {{Structure}}, {{Spirit}}, {{Operations}} and the diagrams at SpiritVStructure
----
An outlook that separates:
* all perspectives is {{Spirit}}
* any perspective is {{Structure}}
* a perspective is {{Representation}}
* no perspective is {{Unity}}
----
* {{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}}
In general, we may say:
'''the unity of representations of structure of spirit'''
From a human point of view, the unity and the spirit are the same, which makes this cyclic. From God's point of view they are distinct.
From a human point of view, for example, love and God are the same.
So from a human point of view, ''spirit is the unity of representations''. For example, God is the spirit of everything. Additionally, from the human point of view, God is the unity of the representations of everything. But God keeps unity and spirit distinct.
Perhaps:
* {{Structure}} is generated by the {{Operation}} [AddOne +1]
* {{Representations}} are generated by the {{Operation}} [AddTwo +2]
* {{Unity}} is generated by the {{Operation}} [AddThree +3]
{{Coherence}} is unity of representations. We may think of coherence as necessity.
''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.
----
''2004.12.20 {{A}}: Koks ryys tarp suvokimo atsiradimo ir s&#261;moning&#279;jimo (sandara, atvaizdas, vieningumas)? {{D}}: Susikalb&#279;jimas vyksta &#303;vairiais lygmenimis ir s&#261;moning&#279;jimas juos tam atskleidia.''
''2004.11.12 {{A}}: Koks ryys tarp s&#261;moning&#279;jimo ir nulyb&#279;s atvaizd&#371;? {{D}}: A galiu b&#363;ti jumyse &#303;vairiai, priklausomai nuo to kaip mes bendraujame.''
''2004.11.03 {{A}}: Kaip i s&#261;moningumo ikyla sandara, atvaizdai ir vieningumas? {{D}}: S&#261;moning&#279;jimas yra i&#279;jimas u sav&#281;s. O tai yra man&#281;s neumirimas, gr&#303;imas &#303; save. {{A}}: O kaip tad su ketverybe? {{D}}: I u man&#281;s jau atrodo kitaip.''
'''Suvokimo lygmenys'''
See also: PrimaryStructures, {{Understanding}}, {{Self-understanding}}, SharedUnderstanding, GoodUnderstanding, {{Operation}}.
----
AndriusKulikauskas: My '''{{Overview}}''' organizes structures into '''four levels of understanding'''.
Each level arises when we note it for the sake of the distinction of {{Concepts}}. We make them explicit as God's view and human's view. Thus there are the following levels:
* {{Understanding}} - one level: God's
* {{Self-understanding}} - two levels: God's, human's
* SharedUnderstanding - three levels: God's, human's, God's
* GoodUnderstanding - four levels: God's, human's, God's, human's
One way to think of the levels is as the unity of the representations of the structure of spirit:
* [AddOne +1] {{Understanding}} allows for the {{World}} by understanding {{Spirit}}.
* [AddTwo +2] {{Self-understanding}} allows for a {{Person-in-particular}} by understanding {{Structure}} ({{Self}}). Self-understanding determines a scope (with regard to nobody, somebody, anybody, everybody) which says how far away we are from the end.
* [AddThree +3] SharedUnderstanding allows for a {{Person-in-general}} by understanding {{Representations}}.
* [AddNull +0] GoodUnderstanding allows for {{God}} by understanding {{Unity}}. Good understanding (rapport) is when the narrower concept gives way to the broader concept - when the two understand each other.
Each level may be understood as introducing an additional operation which runs in parallel to the existing ones. These [ThisWiki:Operation operations] may be thought of as operations +1, +2, +3 on [ThisWiki:Divisions divisions of everything] (each adding 1, 2 or 3 perspectives, respectively). Each operation is a ''going beyond oneself''.
*+1 ''going beyond oneself'' ''{{Structure}}: ({{Perspective}}: )'' First there is going beyond oneself from the unbounded into the bounded, ever adding an additional comprehensive perspective that reinterprets all the others.
*+2 ''shift in perspective'' ''{{Activity}}: (ShiftInPerspective: )'' Then there is a three-cycle which, in parallel, goes beyond by shifting from perspective to perspective.
*+3 ''recurring activity'' ''RecurringActivity: ({{Slack}}: )'' (generalized shift in perspective) Next, this three-cycle starts to cover old ground - here what is new is the recurring shift, the ''recurring activity''. This recurring activity is now localized in the shift (without the nodes, which are ever new). So we have a ''general shift''.
*+0 ''unity of origin'' ''RecurringStructure: ({{Everything}}: )'' (generalized perspective) - collapse of framework. Finally, there is unity in that the recurring activity can align itself around that which goes beyond.
Each level engenders more structure, until the final layer has it collapse.
----
In describing an absolute, relative, shared, subordinate perspective: consider what truth means for understanding, self-understanding, shared understanding, good understanding:
* understanding - for there to be an absolute perspective we need: no internal structure, no external context (no reframing), accept all things. Here ''all things are true''.
* self-understanding - for a relative perspective we need to separate the threesome for activity (a relative stand) from the threesome for structure (an absolute stand), +2, no overlapping so 3 + 3, notion of ''required concept''
* shared understanding - factoring (''other'' between God and heart through which they coincide) zero structure, seventh perspective, concept, anything (+3). Factor act on the whole - from whole to whole (redefining the absolute whole as a particular stand, which is to say, selecting a perspective) - factors: +2=the focus (structure or spirit, which moves), +3=the movments of spirit with regard to structure (how moving), +4=the separation of spirit and structure (how far apart). Recall: people, words, {{Qualities}}. Shared point is: (everything becomes anything - this is perhaps what is needed for sharing - and is what we mean by something - that everything becomes anything, as per +2, defining activity as shift in structure).
* good understanding - zero activity - other is unity of the six levels by which God and heart coincide (secondary structures as embeddings).
-----
I am trying to think of this in terms of love and understanding and concepts, the taking up of perspectives. Some thoughts:
* First God goes beyond himself, through the operation [AddOne +1], again and again, until he has opened up enough slack that his self - the {{heart}} - may be independent, on its own. So now there is the heart, and the question is, will God find his way into this heart?
* Then the heart goes beyond itself out to some level where it coincides with God who loves it, is one with it. But the heart considers this God as a mirror to itself. Just as structure is a mirror to activity, so the levels of structure by which God reaches out are taken as a mirror of the levels of activity by which the heart reaches out. The heart reaches out as either +1 or +2 or +3 (foursome, fivesome, sixsome). The heart thinks of God as arising in the gaps. (How does that relate to {{Factoring}}?)
* God arises in the gaps where the heart reaches out +0 and thus has zero structure. This structural gap is what allows the factors to be composed, and hence thought of as factors: 1 + 1 = 2, 1 + 2 = 3 and 1 + 3 = 4.
* This allows that the heart has a zero activity 1 + 0 = 1 - and that plants God within the heart as +0, so that they coincide.
''So I need to try to understand the foursome, fivesome, sixsome as the heart reaching back out with +1, +2 or +3 perspectives, respectively, presumably through the operation +2.''
----
We may also think of this as:
* ''self-{{Structure}}'' = ''{{Relationship}} with {{Self}} as {{Unequals}}''
* ''self-{{Activity}}'' = ''{{Relationship}} with {{Self}} as {{Equals}}''
* ''RecurringActivity'' = ''{{Relationship}} with {{Other}} as {{Equals}}''
* ''RecurringStructure'' = ''{{Relationship}} with {{Other}} as {{Unequals}}''
{{Structure}} has no scope and is {{Absolute}}, whereas {{Activity}} is {{Relative}} to some {{Scope}}. In particular, SharedUnderstanding is relative with regard to some scope, but GoodUnderstanding is absolute.
Each level seems to relate to a division of everything:
*+1 from {{Nullsome}} to {{Onesome}}, {{Twosome}}, {{Threesome}}
*+2 from onesome, twosome, threesome to {{Foursome}}, {{Fivesome}}, {{Sixsome}}
*+3 from sixsome to {{Sevensome}}
*+0 from sevensome to {{Eightsome}}/nullsome
----
On this page I gather various parallels across these four levels.
*relationship with God is given by {{Onesome}}, {{Twosome}}, {{Threesome}}
*relationship with other is given by {{Foursome}}, {{Fivesome}}, {{Sixsome}}
*other is given by {{Sevensome}}
*God is given by {{Nullsome}}
*+1 Caring about relationship with God
*+2 Caring about relationship with other
*+3 Caring about other
*+0 Caring about God
''{{Caring}} about'' apparently means ''going beyond to''. {{Other}} is in the SeventhPerspective. {{God}} is in the ZerothPerspective.
*+1 {{Nothing}}'s outlook
*+2 {{Something}}'s outlook
*+3 {{Anything}}'s outlook
*+0 {{Everything}}'s outlook
*{{Understanding}} relates to the {{Threesome}}
*{{Self-understanding}} relates to the {{Foursome}}
*SharedUnderstanding relates to the {{Fivesome}}
*GoodUnderstanding relates to the {{Sixsome}}
This makes for one level of understanding for each of the PrimaryStructures, and also for each VoiceOfTension in {{Narration}}. The fivesome relates the two directions: looking forward (from beginning to end) and looking backwards (from end to beginning) and this is perhaps relevant for shared understanding.
==='''Muddled thoughts'''===
Understanding is the separation of ourselves from our relationship. Understanding keeps separate who we have our relationship with (ultimately, God) and our relationship itself. This is I think general structure and relates to the {{Threesome}}.
===Thoughts from Prayer===
''2004.12.17 {{A}}: Koks ry�ys tarp susikalbėjimo ir supratimo? {{D}}: �irdis trok�ta susikalbėti, o supratimo lygmenų yra įvairių. Laiminu.''
2014 gegužės 13 d., 14:38
atliko -
Pakeistos 5-71 eilutės iš
Upė: Upė, kurią turime pereiti, tai mintis jog Dievas neprivalo būti geras, ar tiesiog, gyvenimas neprivalo būti teisingas. Kitapus upės yra amžinas gyvenimas.
[[Aš | 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.
[[Tu | 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.
[[Kitas | 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.
>>bgcolor=#FFFFC0<<
* Suvesti "gero vaiko" ir "blogo vaiko" pasaulėžiūras. Suvokti, kokiu pagrindu bendrauti su kitais?
* Kaip Dievas iškyla mano išsiaiškinimuose?
* Kaip poveikiai man, surūšiuoti asmenimis Dievas, Aš, Tu, Kitas, susiję su išsiaiškinimo rūmais?
* Kaip susikerta požiūris "Tu (ar visi) taip elgiesi, bet aš elgiuosi, eglsiuosi kitaip" ir požiūris "mes visi esame viena, mes visi tokie". Ar nereikėtų išlaikyti antrąjį požiūrį, nepaisant prieštaravimų?
>><<
>>bgcolor=#DDDDDD<<
* 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.
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.
Raudonojo akimis, melynasis Kitas pereina is tikejimo i rupejima, tad valingai, samoningai paklusta. Kitas ryžtasi gyventi plačiau, gyventi ryžtingiau, nuklydėlių pasaulyje
į:
>>bgcolor=#EEEEEE<<
[+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.
[+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.
Pakeistos 26-27 eilutės iš
>>bgcolor=#CCCCCC<<
į:
>>bgcolor=#EEEEEE<<
Pridėtos 30-31 eilutės:
Ištrintos 32-39 eilutės:
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.
Ištrintos 284-288 eilutės:
Pridėtos 288-349 eilutės:
'''Visas savo mintis išsakysiu veikėjais''', kuriuos išmąsčiau savo [[DievoProtas20120401 | paroda]]. Juos apibūdinsiu, kartu su jų santykiais:
[[Dievas | 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.
[[Aš | 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.
[[Tu | 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.
[[Kitas | 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.
>>bgcolor=#FFFFC0<<
* Suvesti "gero vaiko" ir "blogo vaiko" pasaulėžiūras. Suvokti, kokiu pagrindu bendrauti su kitais?
* Kaip Dievas iškyla mano išsiaiškinimuose?
* Kaip poveikiai man, surūšiuoti asmenimis Dievas, Aš, Tu, Kitas, susiję su išsiaiškinimo rūmais?
* Kaip susikerta požiūris "Tu (ar visi) taip elgiesi, bet aš elgiuosi, eglsiuosi kitaip" ir požiūris "mes visi esame viena, mes visi tokie". Ar nereikėtų išlaikyti antrąjį požiūrį, nepaisant prieštaravimų?
>><<
>>bgcolor=#DDDDDD<<
* 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.
2014 gegužės 13 d., 14:34
atliko -
Pakeistos 84-89 eilutės iš
į:
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.
* 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.
2014 kovo 10 d., 09:09
atliko -
Ištrintos 35-36 eilutės:
Pakeistos 37-40 eilutės iš
į:
* Kaip Dievas iškyla mano išsiaiškinimuose?
* Kaip poveikiai man, surūšiuoti asmenimis Dievas, Aš, Tu, Kitas, susiję su išsiaiškinimo rūmais?
* Kaip susikerta požiūris "Tu (ar visi) taip elgiesi, bet aš elgiuosi, eglsiuosi kitaip" ir požiūris "mes visi esame viena, mes visi tokie". Ar nereikėtų išlaikyti antrąjį požiūrį, nepaisant prieštaravimų?
* Kaip poveikiai man, surūšiuoti asmenimis Dievas, Aš, Tu, Kitas, susiję su išsiaiškinimo rūmais?
* Kaip susikerta požiūris "Tu (ar visi) taip elgiesi, bet aš elgiuosi, eglsiuosi kitaip" ir požiūris "mes visi esame viena, mes visi tokie". Ar nereikėtų išlaikyti antrąjį požiūrį, nepaisant prieštaravimų?
Ištrintos 73-79 eilutės:
>>bgcolor=#FFFFC0<<
====
Kaip Dievas iškyla mano išsiaiškinimuose?
Pakeistos 84-86 eilutės iš
Kaip poveikiai man, surūšiuoti asmenimis Dievas, Aš, Tu, Kitas, susiję su išsiaiškinimo rūmais?
į:
Asmenys
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