# Mintys: Asmenys

Kaip apibrėžiami keturi asmenys?

Kaip apibrėžiami keturi asmenys?

• Kaip keturių asmenų ir jų apimčių apibrėžimai atsiremia į tai, kaip asmuo sieja besąlygiškumą-sąlygiškumą, nešališkumą-šališkumą ir nepaneigiamumą-paneigiamumą?
• Kaip suprasti asmenų lygmenis?
• Kodėl yra keturi lygmenys?
• Ką asmuo išreiškia kam?
• 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?

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?

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 branda

• Kaip neįsivaizduojamume bręsta asmenys?
• Kaip asmenys grindžia meilės mokslą?

Aš ir Tu

• Kuriais atvejais Aš yra asmenybė ar asmuo, ir kuriais atvejais Tu yra asmenybė ar asmuo?

Kitas

• Koks Kito vaidmuo mūsų sutapime su Dievu?
• Kaip iš Kito pusės reiškiasi Lygtis: Gyvenimas, tai Dievo gerumas, bet amžinas gyvenimas, tai jo suvokimas, kad Dievas ir gerumas yra atskiri?
• Ar gali visi būti Kitais?
• Ar iš Kitų išsivysto Tu, paskui Aš, galiausiai Dievas?
• Kaip susivienijame Kitu?

Kaip susiję asmenų išsirikiavimai požiūrių lygtimi - Dievas, Aš (gerumas), Tu (gyvenimas), Kitas (amžinas gyvenimas) - ir ketverybe - Dievas (ar), Aš (koks), Tu (kaip), Kitas (kodėl) ?

Asmenų santykiai su sandaromis

• Kaip suprasti Mane, Tave, Kitą sandaromis, kuriomis jie išsiritulioja?
• Koks ryšys tarp asmenų ir suvokimo lygmenų?
• 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 tyrimas sieja trejybės ratą (tyrimą apskritai) ir trejybės atvaizdą (asmenų tyrimą)?
• Kaip trečias asmuo yra nulinio asmens pilnatvė?
• Požiūrio lygtyje Aš (žinojimas), Tu (nežinojimas), mus sieja (Dievas), o skiria (Kitas). Ar kaip?
• Mokytis kokių įvardžių yra pasaulio kalbose. Kaip tai susiję su asmenimis?
• Ar mano suvokimas asmenų atspindi vakarų pasaulėžiūros ribotumus?
• Ar Kitas yra mylintis? Ar Tu esi ramus? Ar Aš esu užtikrintas?

Kitame puslapyje giliniuosi, kas yra asmuo. Šiame puslapyje nagrinėju keturis asmenis: Dievą, Mane, Tave, Kitą.

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
• 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.

Tarpusavio santykiai

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
• 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 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 - išgyvenimo apytaka
• engaging - žinojimo rūmai
• cohering - meilės 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

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.

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.

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
• esmė, atvaizdų vieningumas, koks yra (santvarkoje) už atvaizdų, tai kas nesirodo betgi suvienija visus atvaizdus.

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

Liudijimas

• Asmenims nieko apimtimi įmanomas griežčiausias liudijimas.

Mintys apie lygmenis

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

• 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

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.

Užrašai

• Asmenys yra nesudėtiniai. Jie sujungia apytakų pažinovus kaišteliu.
• 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.
• 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.
• Asmenis jungia tyrimas, jų bendra veikla.
• Asmenys yra viena su viskuo.
• 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
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.

Dievas už Mūsų gyvena Mumis. Dievas Mumis, Dievas Mumyse gyvena Kitu.

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.
• 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.
• 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.

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
• Asmenis telkia Kitas.

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.

• Fichte - argument about the I.

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

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

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

Parsiųstas iš http://www.ms.lt/sodas/Mintys/Asmenys
Puslapis paskutinį kartą pakeistas 2022 spalio 21 d., 14:47