Iš Gvildenu svetainės

Mintys: Atvaizdai

Žr. Antrinės sandaros, Sistemų nagrinėjimas, Trejybė, Padalinimai, taip pat: FourAddOne, Observer, ObservationalPlane, Scopes, WaysOfModeling, EverythingVAnything, PropertiesVRepresentations, ConstructiveHypotheses, Everything, Anything, Slack, Representations, Empathy, Spirit, Structure, Representations, BeginningVEnd, Understanding, LoveVLife, Other, SelfVOther

Lūkesčiai: Atvaizdų kilmė

Yra šeši atvaizdai. Jie susiję su žinojimu, tad su veiksmu +2: Klausimas, Atsakymas, Viskas, Betkas, Kažkas, Niekas. Šeši atvaizdai yra būtent Betko atvaizdai. Tuo tarpu padalinimai yra Visko padalinimai. O aplinkybės yra Kažko aplinkybės.

Atvaizdai yra:

AndriusKulikauskas: Divisions of Everything have representations by which we conceive them. I have also used the word criteria. A representation provides us with a vantage point upon a division so that it becomes accessible to us. Without a representation, we are not able to conceive the division.


Yra 6 padalinimų atvaizdai:

Iš viso 24.

Taip pat yra:

Keturi (padalinimo) atvaizdai kartu paimti išsako meilę, jų vieningumą. Du (padalinimo) atvaizdai kartu paimti išsako tobulumą, jų vieningumą.

Yra šeši atvaizdai

Šeši atvaizdai: klausimas (didėjantis laisvumas), atsakymas (mažėjantis laisvumas), niekas, kažkas, betkas, viskas.

The six representations do not form a DivisionOfEverything because they overlap. Instead, they may be thought of as the union of two divisions of everything: the Twosome and the Foursome.

I have always had trouble coherently formulating the six representations. And yet, from the divisions, and many other structural points, there seem to be definitely six. Perhaps this is the best way to think of them:

Note that the Observed is not a representation. This is because the observed is that Whole upon which a representation is providing an angle. In this sense, the observed is Everything, and the observer is Something.

4 + 2 atvaizdai:

Galima atvaizdus (ir aplinkybes) išreikšti veiksmu +2, su sandara ir pasikartojančiu veiksmu:


Yra būdai, kaip širdies dvigubas požiūris išplečia pasaulio viengubą požiūrį. I went through the six issues, and fixed each one, and considered how the double perspective became a single perspective as I went from the Heart's answer to the associated counterquestion, to the World's answer. For two of the criteria, the single perspective arises as a limiting case of the double perspective.

For four of the criteria

Viskas, betkas, kažkas, niekas

See also: Understanding, GoodUnderstanding, Structure, RecurringStructure, PairsOfConcepts.

Viską, betką, kažką, nieką galima sieti su įvairiomis sandaromis.

Four Representations express the role (as Equals) that one has with one's Self. See SpiritVStructure.

Viskas, betkas, kažkas, niekas yra:

Representations of Everything (expressed by the Onesome) and of God (expressed by the Nullsome). They express the roles of Equals that they play with each other - hence the role that one may have with one's Self.

Taip kad visko atvaizdai yra: viskas, betkas, kažkas, niekas. Viskas yra pats sau atvaizdas.

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).





Note that first God goes beyond himself through the operation +1. God goes beyond himself into structure, inwards, and ultimately, into self. This gives rise to the heart, a self. Then this self, this heart, goes beyond itself - backwards, outwards. It goes beyond itself with regard to some scope which indicates the extent to which it has gone beyond, which it has separated itself from itself:

These scopes are those from which the one who is loved can turn around and, along with God, love themselves. These representations are relevant for the divisions that express the situation of God. They give God's point of view as to God's relationship with the heart. They express the scope at which God must StepForward to meet the heart. (Perhaps this relates the directions of Forwards (God) and Backwards (heart)?)

These are scopes where God and heart coincide. These are the scopes for life.

This is (but in what sense?) the coinciding of what loves and what is loved.

The coinciding is perhaps ever more deeper and reflects the distance that separates the intended and actual target of the love. Which is to say, what separates the life supported and the life lived. And this depth is given perhaps by the back and forth reflection, looking into each other's eyes, until the separation is nothing.

Knowledge is the issue that (as a state of mind) involves four scopes by which a Concept "stands on its own". (See the Foursome. This makes it possible for "standing apart from oneself" (GoingBeyondOneself) to become a concrete relationship "within a world" between a lover and a loved. And life is the underlying spirit expressed by the various (six) ways they can relate to each other.

I suppose that these four scopes are the perspectives for something to be a "concept", be "known" or "knowable", be self-standing, and serve as a relationship for that which conceives and that which is conceived.

Dvasios ir sandaros santykis

I think that the key issue here is "understanding" as the ability to hold concepts separate. In particular, a "concept" holds together in itself its "spirit" and its "structure" (its self within which it (the spirit) finds itself). "Understanding" the concept is to separate the two.

A Concept is that which "stands on its own". Therefore it needs to be able to "stand apart from itself". The above four perspectives express the different scopes which that entails. I think this is why the basic divisions (of everything into zero, one, two or three perspectives) have four representations.

Four Representations are given by the relationship between Spirit and Structure:

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 (I need to check on the order):

Didėjantis ir mažėjantis laisvumas

See also: Self-understanding, SharedUnderstanding, Activity, RecurringActivity, BeginningVEnd, SelfVOther, SpiritVStructure.

These are given by IncreasingSlack and DecreasingSlack. These representations are relevant for the divisions that express the situation of the heart. They give the heart's point of view as to the differing outlooks of God and heart. (Analyze the pairs of representations)

Žinojimas, tai kaip kvėpavimas - dvasią įtrauki ir išpūti (ar atvirkščiai).

Žmogaus laisvė (mažėjantis laisvumas) ir Dievo meilė (didėjantis laisvumas) yra išvirkštinės sąvokos, kuriose priešingai reiškiasi dėmesys.

They express the roles that Unequals play with each other - hence the role that one may have with one's Other.

We can at once look at the other divisions that have two representations, and I think that there is a difference between the subjective ones, and the objective ones.

Ketverybė, penkerybė, šešerybė, septynerybė yra bendruomeninės sandaros. Jos išsako bendruomenės tikrovę.

The Foursome, Fivesome, Sixsome and Sevensome have two Representations: one in terms of an observer, and another in terms of an ObservationalPlane; in terms of the observed and in terms of the observer.

Panašiai, kaip kad pašalinus visus daiktus, visus kūnus liktų laikas ir erdvė, kaip Kantas pastebėjo. Bendrai, padalinimai 4-7 išsako pasitraukimus (-4,-3,-2,-1). Septynerybė: Kito pasitraukimas, Šešerybė: Tavo pasitraukimas, Penkerybė: Mano pasitraukimas, Ketverybė: Dievo pasitraukimas.

So, more broadly, living through emotional resolution is subjective, as God through us, and living through cognitive resolution is objective, as human through us. And here God is what is unbounded, and human is what is bounded.

Didėjantis ir mažėjantis laisvumas

Klausimas (step out), atsakymas (step in), viskas - lygiagrečiai.

A preference for decreasing slack is bad, and a preference for increasing slack is good - God's perspective is preferable to the heart's perspective.

Two Representations express the role (as Unequals) that one has with one's Other. See BeginningVEnd.

Mylintis ir mylimas:

Negation is related to decreasing slack.

A Concept, as that which stands on its own, opens up two stances: conceiver - "standing apart from oneself" (which is God's stance and increases slack and opens up space for a heart) and conceived - "standing on one's own" (which is the stance of the heart - that godlet within us that has awaken within our structure, is figuring itself out - and decreases slack). These are the two representations by which we conceive the division of everything into four perspective (or five, or six, or seven).

Love is the support of life, it is the reaching out to coincide with the loved one who is going beyond themselves. Just as God is the spirit of everything, and everything is the structure of God, so we may say that life is the spirit of anything, and anything is the structure of life. In order for us to engage anything, it must be, in every sense, a self-standing system, with the implications as above. So, for example, if we engage a mushroom, then it is as a system - either a local nub - or part of a being that may stretch across an acre of a forest. Life (and alive) are defined for a self-standing system (and that says a lot about life). In particular, we may think of anything as everything plus slack. Or, considering that slack is the structure of good, and good is the spirit of slack, we may say that life is the goodness of God. (Yet eternal life is understanding the goodness of God - keeping those two concepts separate).

Anything is like everything in that it is self-standing, and yet also anything stands apart from itself - it is both "in a world" and "unto itself". So anything has six representations in all - the four representations which everything contributes as a "self-standing" concept - and the two representations which slack contributes (increasing slack and decreasing slack). One of the things that I am studying is how to relate these four and two with the six. But in particular, we may think of the six as the ways of moving from one of the four levels out into another one of them - there are six such pairs - they are concrete ways of going beyond ourselves - "within a world".

I've found it very helpful to read "The Timeless Way of Building" by Christopher Alexander, an architect who considers, "What does it mean to say that a building is alive?" And by "alive" he means this very important "quality without a name" for which "alive" is really just a metaphor from biology. I agree with him that it's this spiritual idea of "life" that is more interesting to us than the purely biological one which we seize upon but only as a metaphor. And he writes profoundly of different words that help us get across that concept but never express it adequately: alive, whole, comfortable, free, exact, egoless, eternal. And clearly there is an eighth, "", which is to say, the nameless, what I might call "zero activity". Perhaps this is the ability to skip a beat so as to be in harmony with another system. And perhaps biological life is what I would call "zero structure", which is to say, the structure of redundancy that allows for that harmony, so that a "positive command DO" can coincide with a "negative command DO NOT".

Visko, laisvumo ir betko atvaizdai

I think that there are special scopes for the representations which do not degenerate (they maintain the same potency) but become restricted to a scope.

Representations may be applied (without losing generality):

Note: I need to document the following and, in particular, order them correctly

They are also the choices (these are the RepresentationsOfAnything), the criteria:

They are also given by the four RepresentationsOfEverything together with the two RepresentationsOfSlack:

Here the representations of everything define the scope, the domain, with regard to which slack can be increasing or decreasing.

Other structures

Note: Representations are at the level of how (as a negation of a representation of the nullsome). And unity of representations is a going beyond itself that relates internal and external views - think of that in terms of God and human.

The Foursome is given by the difference from the end:

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.



What relates Everything and Anything? Slack - anything is everything plus slack - this happens by way of their Activity.

Note that the difference between everything and anything is that everything is unbounded, and anything is bounded. So life is the fact that God partakes of the bounded, as well as the unbounded.

Structural families arise from attempts to express one representation of everything in terms of the structural framework for another representation of everything. They allow Life to stay independent before God. Andrius, 2002.02.12 This below needs to be fixed, rethought.

June 14, 2003

I found a way to think about the six representations of anything so that they are connected with the four representations of everything.

The four representations of everything are the same as the four properties of God.

(Going beyond this, we have needs, and a system of operating principles for responding.)

are just as it wishes. (Going beyond this, we have doubts, and a system of counterquestions for responding.)

things are good for it. (Going beyond this, we have expectations, and a system of emotional responses for responding.)

us more than we love ourselves. (Going beyond this, we have trials, and an eightfold way for responding.)

Structurally, each of the resulting systems has eight perspectives, one for the property of God, three for the perspective of God, three for the perspective of human, and a seventh for the relationship between the two.

There are six more systems that appears can be gotten by applying a system of broader scope to a property of narrower scope. If we look at the seventh perspective from each of these "injections" then we get: engage, suspense, believe, rely, love, suffer. These are related to six of the ten commandments, which prohibit forcing these various ways of engaging the will.

I remembered that the representations of anything are related to the ways of choosing, and considered, what is being chosen here? I noticed that in each of these injections, the everything/God is "colder" than he needs to be, that is, narrower in the scope of is concern. So I thought this is the consequence of our "choosing". We are "choosing our God", and unfortunately, the involvement of our choice is what forces the complementary system to be from a broader level than the property, so that there is a gap. I think this yields a sensible derivation for the six ways of engaging the will, the represetations of anything:

So here the representations of anything are given by the way that we are choosing our God, our everything. Here it seems indeed that anything is everything plus slack (given by the difference in levels).

Note also that the scope of everything is "bounded" so that also helps us move from the unbounded everything to the bounded anything.

And I think I can match these with the representations of slack and of everything.

(how we are choosing God)

(what scope of God's concern are we choosing)

Another thought here is that if we choose God, then he is colder than he needs to be. And if he chooses us, then he is just right for where we are at. In particular, we can not ourselves choose a "loving God", or I think, a loving everything.

Now I have some questions on my mind.

This is a pretty good vantage point, though, from which I can start working out and writing up the details of the many structures. Something to think about would be the practical importance of various structures, and how that relates to writing them up. So I appreciate thoughts on your own projects.

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:


If you are doing something, then doing nothing is a singularity.

Romano Jakobsono komunikacinio akto ir komunikacijos funkcijų modelis (Tomo Venclovos paskaitoje).

2005.04.26 A: Kuom skiriasi dvasia ir sandara? D: Dvasioje yra mano meilė - neribota, o sandaroje yra jūsų meilė - ribota. A: Kaip gali dvasia ir sandara sutapti? D: Tiek kiek vienas kitą myli. A: Vis labiau? D: Vis giliau, artimiau, nes nepriklausomai. Pamatysi. Laiminu tave.

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.

2005.04.27 A: Kaip gali mylintis ir mylimas sutapti? D: Atskleisk savo širdį ir priimk kitą gyventi savyje - tiek jūs galėsite sutapti. A: O kaip atskleidžiama širdis? D: Mylėk - įsakymu kurį priimi, kuriam paklūsti. Sek mano Sūnumi. A ir K: Gerai.

2005.04.26 A: Kuom skiriasi dvasia ir sandara? D: Dvasioje yra mano meilė - neribota, o sandaroje yra jūsų meilė - ribota. A: Kaip gali dvasia ir sandara sutapti? D: Tiek kiek vienas kitą myli. A: Vis labiau? D: Vis giliau, artimiau, nes nepriklausomai. Pamatysi. Laiminu tave.

2005.04.25 A: Kaip suvokti dvasią, sandarą, atvaizdus ir jų vieningumą? D: Visa tai leidžia man bendrauti su tavimi bei su kitais. O kiti du atvaizdai leidžia jums bendrauti su manimi. A: Tai yra mūsų prielaidos. D: Taip, kad yra širdis.

2005.04.20 A: Koks ryšys tarp dviejų atvaizdų ir keturių atvaizdų? D: Aš myliu, o per jus (širdimi) myliu kitą arba save. Jeigu kitą, tai kartu ir save. Aš esu tas kitas, tad jeigu myli tą aš - save - tai kurioje nors apimtyje. O širdis tai yra tas aš, ir ji nesuvokia savo apimties. A: O iš kur ta apimtis? D: Ją nusako kiek aš suvokiu, kad širdis ir aš esame tas pats. A: Mažiau suvokiate, tai didesnė apimtis? D: Taip yra. Pamatysi.

2005.03.17 A: Kaip gali vienas atvaizdas tikti keturiems padalinimams bet ne visiems? D: Geras klausimas. Tu pažiūrėk į savo vidų ir pažiūrėk atgal ir tada suprasi.

2005.03.16 A: Koks ryšys tarp pradžios ir dvasios ir pabaigos ir sandaros? D: Pradžios veikla yra mylėti, o pabaigos veikla yra būti mylimam, tad dvasia ir sandara. A: O ką čia reiškia mylėti, kas yra gyvybė? D: Mylėti yra palaikyti gyvybę. Tu taip sakai ir taip yra. Kaip gyvybė yra iš pabaigos į pabaigą, meilė yra tos veiklos palaikymas. A: Kas vyksta tame tarpe. D: Taip, kas vyksta tarp pabaigos ir pabaigos.

2004.11.16 A: Koks atvaizdų vaidmuo susikalbėjime? D: Turi būti požiūris į kitą ir per jį atgal į save. Tad turi būti įmanoma vienu požiūriu įvairiai priimti kitą.

Parsiųstas iš http://www.ms.lt/sodas/Mintys/Atvaizdai
Puslapis paskutinį kartą pakeistas 2017 spalio 14 d., 13:03