调查

Andrius

Įvadas E9F5FC

Juodraštis? FFFFFF

Užrašai FCFCFC

Klausimai FFFFC0

Gvildenimai CAE7FA

Pavyzdžiai? F6EEF6

Šaltiniai? EFCFE1

Duomenys? FFE6E6

Išsiaiškinimai D8F1D8

Pratimai? FF9999

Dievas man? FFECC0

Pavaizdavimai? E6E6FF

Miglos? AAAAAA

Asmeniškai? BA9696

Mieli dalyviai! Visa mano kūryba ir kartu visi šie puslapiai yra visuomenės turtas, kuriuo visi kviečiami laisvai naudotis, dalintis, visaip perkurti. - Andrius

Įranga

redaguoti

Mintys.Dvejybė istorija

Paslėpti nežymius pakeitimus - Rodyti galutinio teksto pakeitimus

2018 sausio 19 d., 20:31 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pridėtos 4-7 eilutės:

>>bgcolor=#FFFFC0<<

* Kuris dvejybės atvaizdas yra: klausimas-atsakymas ?
2017 kovo 21 d., 17:13 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pridėtos 58-61 eilutės:

* Būtis yra išskyrimas: "būtis" ir ... anas
* Teorija yra dvilypis požiūris, analitinis, sąmonės, o praktika yra vienlypis, sintetinis, pasąmonės. Praktika yra kurios nors gyvenimo srities (kaip, koks), o teorija yra visų sričių (kodėl, ar).
* Albinas: Nuo genijaus iki bepročio vienas žingsnis, o atvirkštinis kelias kur kas ilgesnis.
2016 kovo 04 d., 21:06 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Ištrintos 83-84 eilutės:
'''Discussion'''
Pridėtos 85-91 eilutės:

Heidegeris savo knygoje "Introduction to Metaphysics" aprašo dvejybės atvaizdus:
* Being and Thinking
* Being and Becoming
* Being and Seeming
* Being and Ought
2015 vasario 04 d., 13:28 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Ištrintos 70-134 eilutės:

===Discussion===

Andrius, my difficulties in understanding are still immense, I still think this is a problem of language. While I start to understand terms like "everything" I still do not understand the meaning of terms like "view", "perspective" or "representation".

Explanations that are based on the local terminology (e. g. a view of a view is a view) do not reach me because:
* a number multiplied with a number also yields a number
* a vector added to a vector is a vector
these are structural aspects (a kind of closedness) but do not explain what a number, a vector or a view is.

Examples - however short or simple - do help and are extremely important
to help in understanding. With respect to the divsions:

''I know of only four ways of conceiving such a division:''
* ''"free will" and "fate"''
* ''"outside" and "inside"''
* ''"theory" and "practice"''
* ''"same" and "different"''

I assume that you mean "types or classes" of divisions.
You have provided two dicvisions with examplary explanations:

* outside/inside: For example, if I am outside a system, then it also has an inside, and so opposites coexist. But if I am sucked inside that system, then there is only inside, as in that we are inside our universe.

* same/different: Likewise, if items are the same, then they must also be different in that they are distinct. But if they are different, then they are simply different.

So at this point I'd ask you to provide similar explanations for

* free will/fate:
* ...
* theory/practice:
* ...

You also did not explain how these subtleties in divisions do add to our understanding of our thinking.

-----

I also see (and miss) a certain order:

* same/different -- the most general "making a difference" (maybe "what")
* inside/outside -- difference with respect to an arbitrary "system boundary" (maybe "where" in space and time)
* reality(not practice!)/theory -- difference with respect to "modelling" or "representation" or "reference"
* free will/fate -- different view of a process with respect to "causality"

-----

As a working hypothesis I would doubt that these four are a complete list and
try to challenge you by adding further types of divisions, like:

* created/grown
* chaotic(individual)/ordered
* following/opposing (this is maybe 4-fold: moving/following/opposing/standing-by)
* form/content
* causal/stochastic (maybe causal/unrelated/free/random)
* independent/correlated(resonating)
* centered/peripheral (near/far, relative to center)
* continuous/atomic (unstructured/structured)

Of course I know that adding a single additional division would break existing
symmetry and you must resist that - but it is not my job to make you happy.

So I would assume that you might be then able to fold them into the existing four
types, but this would at least make clearer, what's characteristic about them.

Helmut
2015 vasario 04 d., 13:23 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pakeista 143 eilutė iš:
Lietuvių kalba skiria tarp esančiojo ir būnančiojo. Esantysis yra (ar nėra) tam tikrose, vieningose aplinkybėse, o būnantysis jose pabūna, užtat tai nevieningos aplinkybės. Esantysis, tai griežtas klausimas: yra ar nėra? O būnantysis, tai minkštas atskymas - yra kaip yra. Esimas - tai esatis, kaip nuoroda, o buvimas - tai būtis, kaip būsena. Esantysis yra Dasein, o būnantysis yra Das Man. Panašiai, ispanų kalba skiria estar ir ser.
į:
Lietuvių kalba skiria tarp esančiojo ir būnančiojo. Esantysis yra (ar nėra) tam tikrose, vieningose aplinkybėse, o būnantysis jose pabūna, užtat tai nevieningos aplinkybės. Esantysis, tai griežtėjantis klausimas: yra ar nėra? O būnantysis, tai minkštėjantis atsakymas - yra kaip yra. (Tad kaip su laisvumu?) Esimas - tai esatis, kaip nuoroda, o buvimas - tai būtis, kaip būsena. Esantysis yra Dasein, o būnantysis yra Das Man. Panašiai, ispanų kalba skiria estar ir ser.
2015 vasario 04 d., 13:22 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pridėtos 142-143 eilutės:

Lietuvių kalba skiria tarp esančiojo ir būnančiojo. Esantysis yra (ar nėra) tam tikrose, vieningose aplinkybėse, o būnantysis jose pabūna, užtat tai nevieningos aplinkybės. Esantysis, tai griežtas klausimas: yra ar nėra? O būnantysis, tai minkštas atskymas - yra kaip yra. Esimas - tai esatis, kaip nuoroda, o buvimas - tai būtis, kaip būsena. Esantysis yra Dasein, o būnantysis yra Das Man. Panašiai, ispanų kalba skiria estar ir ser.
2014 birželio 08 d., 07:06 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pakeistos 150-162 eilutės iš
>><<
į:
>><<

'''Krypties apvertimas'''

See also: {{Twosome}}, AlgebraOfViews, InversionEffect, [AddTwo operation +2]

-----

The reversal effect is the idea that, upon reflection, the direction of a representation of the {{Twosome}} changes. So, for example, the perspective of free will leads into the perspective of fate, and not the other way around. However, there is a reversal effect: Thinking about fate leads to thinking about free will, and not the other way around.

The reversal effect may be related to the switching around of a composition. For example, we would like to switch from ''a bounded view of an unbounded view'' to ''an unbounded view of a bounded view''.

This might also relate to the relationship between {{Structure}} and {{Activity}} as given by the [AddTwo operation +2].
2014 birželio 08 d., 07:03 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pridėtos 58-135 eilutės:

'''Dvejybės atvaizdai'''

See also: {{Twosome}}, {{Representations}}

-----

There are four representations of the division of everything into two perspectives. Such a division has two perspectives: one where opposites coexist, and another where all things are the same. I know of only four ways of conceiving such a division:
* "free will" and "fate"
* "outside" and "inside"
* "theory" and "practice"
* "same" and "different"
For example, if I am outside a system, then it also has an inside, and so opposites coexist. But if I am sucked inside that system, then there is only inside, as in that we are inside our universe. Likewise, if items are the same, then they must also be different in that they are distinct. But if they are different, then they are simply different. So these are "representations" of an underlying structure, the division of everything into two perspectives.

===Discussion===

Andrius, my difficulties in understanding are still immense, I still think this is a problem of language. While I start to understand terms like "everything" I still do not understand the meaning of terms like "view", "perspective" or "representation".

Explanations that are based on the local terminology (e. g. a view of a view is a view) do not reach me because:
* a number multiplied with a number also yields a number
* a vector added to a vector is a vector
these are structural aspects (a kind of closedness) but do not explain what a number, a vector or a view is.

Examples - however short or simple - do help and are extremely important
to help in understanding. With respect to the divsions:

''I know of only four ways of conceiving such a division:''
* ''"free will" and "fate"''
* ''"outside" and "inside"''
* ''"theory" and "practice"''
* ''"same" and "different"''

I assume that you mean "types or classes" of divisions.
You have provided two dicvisions with examplary explanations:

* outside/inside: For example, if I am outside a system, then it also has an inside, and so opposites coexist. But if I am sucked inside that system, then there is only inside, as in that we are inside our universe.

* same/different: Likewise, if items are the same, then they must also be different in that they are distinct. But if they are different, then they are simply different.

So at this point I'd ask you to provide similar explanations for

* free will/fate:
* ...
* theory/practice:
* ...

You also did not explain how these subtleties in divisions do add to our understanding of our thinking.

-----

I also see (and miss) a certain order:

* same/different -- the most general "making a difference" (maybe "what")
* inside/outside -- difference with respect to an arbitrary "system boundary" (maybe "where" in space and time)
* reality(not practice!)/theory -- difference with respect to "modelling" or "representation" or "reference"
* free will/fate -- different view of a process with respect to "causality"

-----

As a working hypothesis I would doubt that these four are a complete list and
try to challenge you by adding further types of divisions, like:

* created/grown
* chaotic(individual)/ordered
* following/opposing (this is maybe 4-fold: moving/following/opposing/standing-by)
* form/content
* causal/stochastic (maybe causal/unrelated/free/random)
* independent/correlated(resonating)
* centered/peripheral (near/far, relative to center)
* continuous/atomic (unstructured/structured)

Of course I know that adding a single additional division would break existing
symmetry and you must resist that - but it is not my job to make you happy.

So I would assume that you might be then able to fold them into the existing four
types, but this would at least make clearer, what's characteristic about them.

Helmut
2014 gegužės 18 d., 19:53 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pakeistos 15-21 eilutės iš
===Examples===

Some examples of the twosome: Doubt and Belief: Peirce, Trees: Genesis, Reality: Levi-Strauss, Data: Beneviste, Things: Plato, Creation: Theodoric
, Stimulation: Spencer, Salvation: Hinduism, Representation: Locke, Reference: Buddhism, Permanence: Buddhism, Mystical Experience: Buddhism, Irony and Romance: Frye, Identity: Schelling, Sources of Information: Hume, God: Hinduism, Communicational Scepticism: Taylor, Complementary Truths: Fromke, Perception: Spinoza, Judgments: Mansel, Reflections: Marcel, Reading: Frye, Our Divine Calling: Fromke, Synthetic and Analytic: Kant, Judgments: Kant, Change: Kant, Time and Space: Kant, Representations: Kant, God Proves that He Exists, Symbolic Representation: Cassirer, Structure: Saussure, Worship: Kierkegaard, Virtue: Lao Tzu, Speech: Greimas, Outward and Inward Man: Watchman Nee, Concreteness and Ultimacy: Tillich, Faith: Tillich, Experience: Kant

===Discussion===

{{Andrius}}: ChrisopherLangan writes
of Syndiffeonesis, ''difference-in-sameness'', that when things are different, then that implies that there is a reality in which they are the same, as they are comparable. I think this is very noteworthy, however, I think it still constitutes a switch in direction, it is not the straightforward direction. It requires a mental leap.
į:
See also: Twosome, Existence

Being, Existence
* be separate
* independent
* separate from God
* prior to God
* is confusing to define
, both as being separate or not, and as BeingOneWith
* is the satisfying of a definition
* is the taking up
of a vantage point
* is subsequent to System
, is not beyond it, and is relevant in it negatively as NotBeing
* is a topic shared by Persons. Logical statements have to do with saying that "there exists" or
that "for all" regarding some quality.
* what is assumed, the relationship between one (independent, distinct identity) and one's self (dependent, contextual identity)
, the sharing of a frame, the projection of the Referer (sharer) frame within the Referent (shared) frame as its NullActivity, thus allowing for a shared frame (being) for both Referer (as body) and Referent (as thing), independence of conditions, definiteness of being alone, being alone within a context (where there can be not being, thus an absolute set of relationships for references, thus a scope), satisfying a definition of being alone, the distinction of God's going beyond himself and going into himself, the distinction (within Scope by NotGod) of being alone (Being) from not being alone (NotBeing), the distinction of Questions and Answers, independent being, independence of System, thus relation with what is beyond System including NotBeing, expression as Position, the taking up of Answers, thus the Activity of being separate, being without Self, beyond one's Self. Being and NotBeing are the same beyond Scope (for God as Self (NotGod, Everything, Lack of self) derives unconditionally). Being and NotBeing are distinct as Person for NotGod because God derives from Self conditionally. (GoingBeyondOneself, Divergence, Distinction, Division).

What is the meaning of presence and absence, affirmation and negation, being and not being? especially with regard to a channel – full or empty – between what is completely beyond and what is completely within.

Nonbeing
* is to depend on Scope
* is the ways that a Person can exist, can be separate from God
* is the Scopes with regard to which a Person is defined
* is the distinction of what allows (for nonexistence; God) and what is allowed (as nonexistence; NotGod)
* is expressed in terms of Scope and Person.
* is the lack of relationship between one and one's self, the nonsharing of a frame, dependence on conditions, on System, indefiniteness (lack of distinction) of being alone or not, separation from Being, expression as Perspective, the not taking up of Answers, being with Self, in one's Self.

Being and NotBeing
* conflict with each other only if their coinciding is imposed upon a person. So that they are compared but not through him, thus making irrelevant his comparison.
* are defined with regard to the system or beyond it?
* are the same for God (for whom they are completely separate), and also the same for Other (for whom they are completely the same)

God's Being
* is his LackOfSelf, going without self, being separate from himself, self-negation
* is his going beyond himself
* is his unconditional BeingAlone
* in nonexistence is Activity evoking Structure, and Structure links a Scope with the other scopes.
* is a matter of each Person's existence, in that they are prior to the arisal of God
* is the potential of God
* is his giving up himself, negating himself, his unconditional being Alone

God's Being and NotBeing
* are the same because God is his own Self
* are his self-negation and self-affirmation, respectively
* are simply words and he is the only reference point for them... so how do other reference points arise for words?
* go hand in hand, for God (nonbeing) stands apart from anyself, yet (being) thereby is related to his self and plays off this relationship
Pridėtos 65-71 eilutės:
'''Examples'''

Some examples of the twosome: Doubt and Belief: Peirce, Trees: Genesis, Reality: Levi-Strauss, Data: Beneviste, Things: Plato, Creation: Theodoric, Stimulation: Spencer, Salvation: Hinduism, Representation: Locke, Reference: Buddhism, Permanence: Buddhism, Mystical Experience: Buddhism, Irony and Romance: Frye, Identity: Schelling, Sources of Information: Hume, God: Hinduism, Communicational Scepticism: Taylor, Complementary Truths: Fromke, Perception: Spinoza, Judgments: Mansel, Reflections: Marcel, Reading: Frye, Our Divine Calling: Fromke, Synthetic and Analytic: Kant, Judgments: Kant, Change: Kant, Time and Space: Kant, Representations: Kant, God Proves that He Exists, Symbolic Representation: Cassirer, Structure: Saussure, Worship: Kierkegaard, Virtue: Lao Tzu, Speech: Greimas, Outward and Inward Man: Watchman Nee, Concreteness and Ultimacy: Tillich, Faith: Tillich, Experience: Kant

'''Discussion'''

{{Andrius}}: ChrisopherLangan writes of Syndiffeonesis, ''difference-in-sameness'', that when things are different, then that implies that there is a reality in which they are the same, as they are comparable. I think this is very noteworthy, however, I think it still constitutes a switch in direction, it is not the straightforward direction. It requires a mental leap.
2014 kovo 10 d., 15:26 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pakeistos 24-26 eilutės iš
Immanuel Kant, [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Judgment | Critique of Judgment (Wikipedia)]] The Critical project, that of exploring the limits and conditions of knowledge, had already produced the Critique of Pure Reason, in which Kant argued for a Transcendental Aesthetic, an approach to the problems of perception in which space and time are supposed not to be objects but ways in which the observing subject's mind organizes and structures the sensory world. The end result of this inquiry is that there are certain fundamental antinomies in human Reason, most particularly that there is a complete inability to favor on the one hand the argument that all behavior and thought is determined by external causes, and on the other that there is an actual "spontaneous" causal principle at work in human behavior.
* The first position, of causal determinism, is adopted, in Kant's view, by empirical scientists of all sorts; moreover, it led to the Idea (perhaps never fully to be realized) of a final science in which all empirical knowledge could be synthesized into a full and complete causal explanation of all events possible to the world.
* The second position, of spontaneous causality, is implicitly adopted by all people as they engage in moral behavior; this position is explored more fully in the Critique of Practical Reason.
į:
Immanuel Kant, [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Judgment | Critique of Judgment (Wikipedia)]] ''The Critical project, that of exploring the limits and conditions of knowledge, had already produced the Critique of Pure Reason, in which Kant argued for a Transcendental Aesthetic, an approach to the problems of perception in which space and time are supposed not to be objects but ways in which the observing subject's mind organizes and structures the sensory world. The end result of this inquiry is that there are certain fundamental antinomies in human Reason, most particularly that there is a complete inability to favor on the one hand the argument that all behavior and thought is determined by external causes, and on the other that there is an actual "spontaneous" causal principle at work in human behavior.''
* ''The first position, of causal determinism, is adopted, in Kant's view, by empirical scientists of all sorts; moreover, it led to the Idea (perhaps never fully to be realized) of a final science in which all empirical knowledge could be synthesized into a full and complete causal explanation of all events possible to the world.''
* ''The second position, of spontaneous causality, is implicitly adopted by all people as they engage in moral behavior; this position is explored more fully in the Critique of Practical Reason.''
2014 kovo 10 d., 15:25 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pridėtos 22-26 eilutės:
>>bgcolor=#ECD9EC<<

Immanuel Kant, [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Judgment | Critique of Judgment (Wikipedia)]] The Critical project, that of exploring the limits and conditions of knowledge, had already produced the Critique of Pure Reason, in which Kant argued for a Transcendental Aesthetic, an approach to the problems of perception in which space and time are supposed not to be objects but ways in which the observing subject's mind organizes and structures the sensory world. The end result of this inquiry is that there are certain fundamental antinomies in human Reason, most particularly that there is a complete inability to favor on the one hand the argument that all behavior and thought is determined by external causes, and on the other that there is an actual "spontaneous" causal principle at work in human behavior.
* The first position, of causal determinism, is adopted, in Kant's view, by empirical scientists of all sorts; moreover, it led to the Idea (perhaps never fully to be realized) of a final science in which all empirical knowledge could be synthesized into a full and complete causal explanation of all events possible to the world.
* The second position, of spontaneous causality, is implicitly adopted by all people as they engage in moral behavior; this position is explored more fully in the Critique of Practical Reason.
2014 vasario 09 d., 09:57 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pakeistos 3-23 eilutės iš
Attach:dvejybe.jpg
į:
Attach:dvejybe.jpg

>>bgcolor=#EEEEEE<<

See also: {{Divisions}}, RepresentationsOfTheTwosome

===The Twosome - The Division of Everything into Two Perspectives===

The twosome is the [DivisionsOfEverything division of everything] into two perspectives. This structure defines issues of existence. The two perspectives are one where opposites coexist, and another where all things are the same. Our mind moves from the perspective where opposites coexist to the perspective where all things are the same. The twosome has four representations: +3) free will and fate, +2) outside and inside, +1) theory and practice, +0) same and different. [10/99, Andrius Kulikauskas]

http://www.ms.lt/en/andrius/understanding/diagrams/twosome.gif

===Examples===

Some examples of the twosome: Doubt and Belief: Peirce, Trees: Genesis, Reality: Levi-Strauss, Data: Beneviste, Things: Plato, Creation: Theodoric, Stimulation: Spencer, Salvation: Hinduism, Representation: Locke, Reference: Buddhism, Permanence: Buddhism, Mystical Experience: Buddhism, Irony and Romance: Frye, Identity: Schelling, Sources of Information: Hume, God: Hinduism, Communicational Scepticism: Taylor, Complementary Truths: Fromke, Perception: Spinoza, Judgments: Mansel, Reflections: Marcel, Reading: Frye, Our Divine Calling: Fromke, Synthetic and Analytic: Kant, Judgments: Kant, Change: Kant, Time and Space: Kant, Representations: Kant, God Proves that He Exists, Symbolic Representation: Cassirer, Structure: Saussure, Worship: Kierkegaard, Virtue: Lao Tzu, Speech: Greimas, Outward and Inward Man: Watchman Nee, Concreteness and Ultimacy: Tillich, Faith: Tillich, Experience: Kant

===Discussion===

{{Andrius}}: ChrisopherLangan writes of Syndiffeonesis, ''difference-in-sameness'', that when things are different, then that implies that there is a reality in which they are the same, as they are comparable. I think this is very noteworthy, however, I think it still constitutes a switch in direction, it is not the straightforward direction. It requires a mental leap.

>><<
2013 gruodžio 26 d., 10:48 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pridėtos 1-3 eilutės:
Attach:twosome.gif

Attach:dvejybe.jpg

Dvejybė


Naujausi pakeitimai


Puslapis paskutinį kartą pakeistas 2018 sausio 19 d., 20:31