Iš Gvildenu svetainės

Mintys: Atvaizdai

Žr. Apimtys, Antrinės sandaros, Sistemų nagrinėjimas, Trejybė, Padalinimai, Ir du, Žemėlapynas, Dievo šokio išdavos taip pat: FourAddOne, Observer, ObservationalPlane, Scopes, WaysOfModeling, EverythingVAnything, PropertiesVRepresentations, ConstructiveHypotheses, Everything, Anything, Slack, Representations, Empathy, Spirit, BeginningVEnd, LoveVLife, Other, SelfVOther, GodVHuman, SevenAddOne, PositiveVNegative, LoveVLife.

Kaip apibrėžti atvaizdus?

Lūkesčiai: Atvaizdų kilmė

Yra šeši atvaizdai: Klausimas, Atsakymas, Viskas, Betkas, Kažkas, Niekas. Jie susiję su žinojimu. 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.

Nulybės atvaizdai, vienybės atvaizdai, dvejybės atvaizdai, trejybės atvaizdai vis turiningiau skiria pažinovą ir pažintąjį; ketverybės, penkerybės, šešerybės, septynerybės atvaizdai išsako pažinovą ir pažintąjį.

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:

Yra apibrėžti atvaizdai: viskas, betkas, kažkas, niekas. Jų nulis yra niekas. Taip pat yra laisvi atvaizdai: viskas, klausimas, atsakymas, niekas. Jų nulis yra viskas. Klausimas ir atsakymas praplėčia apibrėžtus atvaizdus, kad būtų galimos kalbos.

4+2 ir 3+3

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

Keturios apimtys: Viskas, betkas, kažkas, niekas

Žinojimo lygmenysarkokskaipkodėl
Jauduliai esant viena su...liūdna (viena su niekuo)nuostabu (viena su kažkuo)puiku (viena su betkuo)laiminga (viena su visais)
Nulybės atvaizdai, Dievo savybėstiesusbetarpiškaspastovusprasmingas
Vienybės atvaizdai, visko savybėsprivaloma sąvokabe vidinės sandarosviską priimabe išorinės aplinkos
Dvejybės atvaizdaitapatu-skirtingaįžvalga-išgyvenimasišorė-viduslaisva valia-likimas
Trejybės atvaizdaibūtina-tikra-galimadaiktas-eiga-asmuovienis-visybė-daugisbūti-veikti-mąstyti
Suvokimo lygmenyssuvokimassavęs suvokimasbendras suvokimassusikalbėjimas
Gyvenimo lygties lygmenysdvasiasandaraatvaizdaivieningumas
Dievo lygmenysDievasviskastroškimaimeilė
Išsakymasneapibrėžta ir nustatytaapibrėžta ir nustatytaapibrėžta ir nenustatytaneapibrėžta ir nenustatyta
Veiklos ir sandaros santykisveikla iššaukia sandarąveikla ir sandara vienas kitą įtakojasandara nukreipia veikląveikla ir sandara atsietos
Kliūtys tiesaijokia klūtisviena kliūtisdvi kliūtystrys kliūtys
Lygmenų pobūdžiaineribota ir atviraribota ir atviraneribota ir uždararibota ir uždara



Four Representations are given by the relationship between Self and Other as different Scopes for GoingBeyondOneself:

Or we may say that self is Structure and other is Perspective so that we have, as activity:

Explore here the relationship with the levels of understanding, and the kinds of love. For example, structure going out of structure is self-understanding.

The Foursome is given by the difference from the end:

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

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)?)

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.

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.

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: Activity, RecurringActivity, BeginningVEnd, SelfVOther, SpiritVStructure.

Dievo būklėuž mūsųmūsų gelmėse
ketverybės atvaizdaipažinovaspažintasis
penkerybės atvaizdailaikaserdvė
šešerybės atvaizdaiDievas - jausmaižmogus - protas
septynerybės atvaizdaididėjantis laisvumasmažėjantis laisvumas
malonė - santvarkos atvirumasteisybė - santvarkos uždarumas
atitokėjimas +2įsijautimas +1


Atsakymas, tai raktas į suvokimą, kas yra neigiamybė.


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".

Is there a necessary confusion as to which is the end - human or spirit? In the beginning there is no confusion because it is agreed that there is an other - and all (four) possibilities may be considered. Towards the end there is a confusion - who is the other? And the crisis occurs when there is a mapping between these two systems - Which is the other - God or human - and what does that mean? I think it means that human is the Other, but as lesser than God.

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.



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.

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.

2005.03.21 {{A}}: Kaip suvokti ketverybės, penkerybės, šešerybės, septynerybės atvaizdus, kuo jie skiriasi tarpusavyje ir nuo kitų keturių? {{D}}: Tai yra sandaros išgyvenimai, tad jau turi būti sandara ir taškas už jos ar joje. {{A}}: O kiti keturi atvaizdai? {{D}}: Tai yra sandaros nustatymo lygmenys kurių reikia, kad būtų ką išgyventi. {{A}}: Tad atvaizdai yra išgyvenimo sąlygos? {{D}}: Taip, kartu su aplinkomis - tai visumos ir dalių išgyvenimas.

2005.03.19 {{A}}: Koks ryšys tarp pradžios, pabaigos ir suvokimo? {{D}}: Jei nori suprasti mane, būk su manimi pradžioje, o jei suprasti tave, tai reikia būti su tavimi pabaigoje. {{A}}: O kitas? {{D}}: Kitas yra tai per kurį gyvena dvasia. {{A}}: O požiūris? {{D}}: Tai ir yra kitas.

2005.03.12 {{A}}: Kaip suprasti, kas yra pabaiga? {{D}}: Pabaiga yra tai į ką tu gali įsijausti po visko. Tai yra sandara kuri yra tavo dvasios namai ir ją atspindi. {{A}}: Tad kok jos ryšys su mumis? {{D}}: Jūs esate ta dvasia išgyvenanti pabaigą. {{A}}: Ir koks jos ryšys su pradžia? {{D}}: Tai sandaros ir dvasios ryšiai - jūsų ir mano. {{A}}: Kokia tavo sandara ir dvasia? {{D}}: Mano dvasia tai aš, o mano sandara viskas. {{A}}: Kokia mūsų dvasia ir sandara? {{D}}: Jūsų sandara yra gyvenimas ir kartu amžinas gyvenimas (žiūrint kaip žiūrite) o jūsų dvasia esate patys.

Parsiųstas iš http://www.ms.lt/sodas/Mintys/Atvaizdai
Puslapis paskutinį kartą pakeistas 2019 birželio 03 d., 21:33