Iš Gvildenu svetainės

Mintys: GyvenimoLygtis

Kokia gyvenimo lygties reikšmė?




Dievas ir gerumas

Gyvenimas ir amžinas gyvenimas


Kas yra gyvenimo lygtis

Gyvenimo lygtis apibūdina santykius su tuo, kas už vaizduotės

Gyvenimo lygtis išsako tai kas yra už vaizduotės, ir būtent išsako dvi galimybes kuriomis galime gyventi, tai yra, į kurias galime atsiremti visu gyvenimu. Gyvenimo lygtį įsivaizduojame keturiais lygmenimis: dvasia, sandara, atvaizdais, vieningumais.

Kas yra gyvenimo lygtis

Ką veikia gyvenimo lygtis

Kodėl yra gyvenimo lygtis

Keturi lygmenys

Gyvenimo lygtis galioja keturiuose lygmenyse: dvasios, sandaros, atvaizdų ir vieningumo.

DvasiaDievasgerumasgyvenimasamžinas gyvenimas
atvaizdaitroškimaitapatumaipasirinkimaigera valia
vieningumasmeilėtobulumasvaliaDievo valia

Gyvenimo lygties lygmenys

Dvasios lygmuo

Sandaros lygmuo

Atvaizdų lygmuo

Vieningumo lygmuo

Priėjimo lygmenys

Keturi stulpai

Dievo stulpas: Dievas, viskas, troškimai, meilė

Gyvenimo lygties esmė


Požiūrio lygtis

Požiūrio lygties - gyvenimo lygties kampai:

Skiriasi gyvenimas ir amžinas gyvenimas

Renkamės tarp gyvenimo ir amžino gyvenimo


Sąmoningumas ir nesąmoningumas

Požiūrio išgyvenimo taškai

Požiūrio lygtis ir ketverybė

Esmė yra dvasios sandaros atvaizdų vieningumas

Žmogaus trejybė ir Dievo ketverybė

Trys veiksmai

Gyvenimo lygtis bene susijusi su matematikos priešpastatymais, taip pat ir su sandarų šeimomis bei su pirminėmis sandaromis:

Keturi lygmenys

Gyvenimo lygtį galime įžvelgti kiekviename lygmenyje:

Išsibaigia Kitu

Gerumo lygmenys

Gyvenimo lygties kilmė

Gyvenimo lygtis ir Dievo šokio aštuonerybė

Gyvenimo lygtis ir dešimt Dievo įsakymų

Kitos mintys

Iš gyvenimo į amžiną gyvenimą

When God looks through us, so that God is Observer, then what that observer sees through us is a system which we define, and so he see himself within the system, which is good. So he is linked to himself - God and good - and that is life.

We are realized as he delves deeper into the system - first as life, then as anything (which can take up the structure of the onesome, twosome, threesome...), then as choosing (as by the seventh perspective), then as will (as God's possibility within us). In this way our subjectivity increases and becomes complete.

At that point we are able to think of God as not within us, but as beyond us, greater than us, as Observer. Thus we have God's will, which serves as our anchor. We are able to separate the Observed from the good that observes him. Then - increasingly objectively - we have good will (the angles for approaching God), and wisdom (the truth of the heart instead of the world) and finally eternal life (the wholeness of God's point of view in the secondary structures).

So God as Observer is integrated with the good that he observes, whereas God as Observed is separated from the good that observes him. Note that the latter explains why eternal life has to do with the independent testimony (worship, praise, challenge) of God.

Laisvė vs. tobulumas

Freedom is perfection and is thus the complement of love. When we are perfect, then we are free, and when we are free, then we are perfect. I need to think about the four levels and how they express our system and our freedom and how we relate God outside of us and God within us.


Freedom is that by which the one who loves and the one who is loved may coincide regarding their views. The more they are separate, the more freedom there is. If they have no connection, then they are most separate. Freedom is perfection, but understood from to point of view of God's will. Perfection is extreme freedom, when it is completely collapsed, yet still free.

The four layers are the extent to which this equation holds as given by the level of access, all the way up to Love instead of God.

God loves through our freedom. We share freedom and that is how we can coincide through restrictions on our freedom. That is related to truth.

Meilė ir gerumas

Meilė yra tai, kas diegia gerumą dar nesant santvarkai, tad nesant blogumui. Ir tas gerumas visada su Dievu.

Mūsų žvilsnio vieningumą išreiškia Dievas kaip pažinovas, o mūsų žvilgsnio pilnumą išreiškia Dievas kaip pažintasis. Juos sieja tai, kas mums pažįstama, ir jie išsiskiria nuo to, kas mums pažįstama, savo nevaržomumu. Mūsų vaidmuo yra atverti kelią tam, kas mums pažįstama. Pažinovo meilę ir pažintojo gyvenimą sieja priėjimo būdu, kurį parūpiname. Jie yra pilnai susiję kai toks priėjimas įmanomas visais būdais.

We open up four kinds of access for God:

(Relate these with everything, anything, something, nothing).

To know everything is for the human view and God's view to coincide. Such coinciding is central to love. This is the point of Jesus Christ. It occurs in its own way at each of the four levels, where God appears on both sides of each level, and taken together gives both God inside and God outside:

The balance between God inside and God outside shifts according to whether they have access to each other by way of nothing, something, anything or everything. Taken all together there is complete coinciding.

The equation of EternalLife relates the two, the nature of love and of life, at four levels of access (Everything, Anything, Something, Nothing), which define the four primary structures. The secondary structures ensure that these primary structures are distinct. The four equations are:

How do they relate to God's perspective as it carries across the nature of love and the nature of life and relates them?

Žmogaus požiūris į Dievo požiūrį

Dievas kaip pažinovas ir kaip pažintasis

Šališkumas ir nešališkumas

So the four levels express how we appear as the observational planes that God finds himself within. When the plane is nothing, then we are looking at ourselves as if from the side, as if objectively, so that God and good stand alone, and they are linked by life and separated by eternal life, and subjectively it's as if we're not there. Whereas love and perfection make sense by way of our subjectivity, and they are linked by our will and separated by God's will, and so that is taking place through our subjective experience. And so wishing and identifying make sense by way of the potential for our subjectivity, and they are linked by our choosing and separated by good will. And everything and slack make sense by way of the potential for our objectivity, and they are linked by anything and separated by wisdom. This suggests that the path from life to eternal life (yielding an eightfold way) has us develop our subjective self, which places the matter squarely before us - our will vs. God's will - allowing us to switch over to separating God and good rather than presuming they are linked. And then we can remove our subjectivity. But switching over is possible at every level, yet the matter is most pronounced to us subjectively when it is stated subjectively. This is the relationship between two lines: God as Observed (God) and God as Observer (good) and whether they are linked or separate. By separating them, we acknowledge the primacy of God as Observed who is prior to us and greater than us. And we are able to coincide with the God the Observer who looks through us, and by way of him, with God the Observed, so that we are all one.

Consider the extent the meaning of the four levels of access, including the extent to which love can be shared by God and human (perhaps greater the more "aware" that a person is, which is to say, the more engrossed they are in the views, thus the more stretched, the more having gone beyond, outside oneself) and how that allows for a switch between the outlook of "observer" and "observed" (by going beyond oneself) to an ever greater extent, and the question of what is in the way between the observer and observed outlooks, and how the equations of eternal life open up room to clear the way.

In the nature of love, God stays the same, but his and human's views are ever different along the chain. In the nature of life, the views ever coincide but God ever changes. What are the windows that God is opening up? They seem to be such that they allow for invertibility of the view or perhaps simply commutation. Note that the nature of life and the nature of love may each be thought of representations of the foursome for which the nulls are given by that level where God and human coincide. Thus, in the nature of love, the null is whether and we have what, how, why; and in the nature of life, the null is why, and we have how, what, whether.

In the nature of love, God and human's view are separated by nothing (thus a null, they are one - God as observer), something, anything or everything. In the nature of life, God and human's view coincide across nothing, something, anything, everything (thus a null, they are one - God as observed). At each level - everything, anything, something, nothing - are what relates God as observer (in terms of his separation from human) and God as observed (in terms of his coinciding with human). Human is the slack by which there is both separation and coinciding.

The relationship between God and human is thus one of increasing closeness and warmth. Human and God are related:

So it is an ever stronger relationship of ever greater love and ever more intensely defined, internalized life. These are the chapters in the story of "knowing everything" and they lead us to a subordinate perspective where we take up God's will and live by that. And to do that means to be open and clear to all four levels? Is it cumulative?

The nature of love describes how unity reaches out from God as an observer, and the nature of life describes how concreteness reaches in from God as an observed. The four equations relate these two developments so that unity and completeness are joined together. This means that "knowledge of everything" allows the general view as given by God as the observer, to be placed in the most narrow and remote particular situation, which is found to be just a reinterpretation of the general situation. So we can move from God (God as observer) to good (God as observed).


Regarding God IS good: In what sense do I mean that it "is"? It "is" in that it is the unity of its properties. So you "are" only with regard to your own domain, where your properties extend, but you are "necessary" without any regard for domain, for here the unity is with regard to representations. In other words, existence is unity of the properties by which we see ourselves, and necessity is unity of the representations by which we are seen.

Laisvė išsakyta Dvejybės atvaizdo pirmasis narys išsako laisvę, atitinkamai liudijančią gerumo lygmenį.

Dievas bręsta atgal į Dievą, užtat apima viską, atsakys už viską. Jis leidžia bendrystę (ir taip, ir ne), leidžia, kad būtų kiti, bet visgi jis yra Dievas ir toks būdamas iškyla, kaip pirmapradis.

Dievas apibrėžiamas einant link būtinumo. Ar Kito Dievas yra suvokiantis, protaujantis, mums prilygstantis, kaip ir mes?

Gyvenimo lygtimi asmuo gali rinktis Dievą

Dievas įvairiai plėtojasi gyvenimo lygtimi.

Kitas svarbus net kai su juo neturime ryšio, net kai jis netobulas

Gyvenimo lygtis - aštuonerybė

Šiaip gyvenimas ir amžinas gyvenimas

I would like to write more about "life" and "eternal life" as opposites, much like "decreasing slack" and "increasing slack". Briefly, we may think of life as the goodness of God (or structurally, anything is everything plus slack). But, as I read in the Gospel of John, eternal life is understanding the goodness of God. To understand the goodness of God is to keep the two concepts separate, to recognize good and God as independent concepts, and not to assume that they are related. Unfortunately, so often we presume that God is good. That is very harmful because it diminishes what God means to us. In our lives, we can testify to many injustices which have yet to be fixed. It is too early for us as witnesses to say that God is good. The facts aren't in yet! And to claim to know that God is good is to make him unreal. If we look forwards, outwards, then we think in terms of increasing slack, that yes, perhaps in the very end God is good, and yet there is an eternity of possibility for him to have that be so. God is not constrained by good, he does not have to be good, it is up to him whether he is. By presuming his goodness, we are constraining him, our narrow little minds are binding him to good, and we are therefore looking backwards. Our lives are finite, and we can explain away everything in them, until there is nothing left, and we have death.

I find it helpful to recognize that I, as a human, find it hard enough to wish for my own "life". In general, we tend to tune ourselves out, to diminish ourselves, to be unsuccessful, to dissipate ourselves, to walk away from our life. And so "eternal life" isn't even relevant. Scripture inspires me that it is not my wish, but God's wish that I live forever. If we define "love" as "support of life" (to love X = to support the life of X), then it is God's love for us that makes for eternal life. That is what God wants for us, not what we want for ourselves. If we understand life, if we understand the goodness of God, and if we disentangle the concepts of God and good, then we can look forwards, we can appreciate the reality of life so far, and we can be open to all the wrongs so far that may be yet redeemed, and all the many good things left that might come. We can and do live this "eternal life" now when we choose to allow for the open question of God's goodness and participate as a player - when we are sensitive, responsive, engaged. And we choose "death" when, alternatively, we consider it all closed and let that logic unravel any slack we have.

I liked very much Frank Mosca's letters. I think that the relation between "love" and "life" is very much that kind of give and take, that slack between structure and activity, which we may aesthetically ascribe to God with regard to us. And I am thinking that, just as we ought to shift from focusing on "life" to "eternal life" as I sketch above, but so we might shift from "love" (support of life as we might see it) to "God's love" (support of our life as the eternal life that he cares about).

If we live the open-ended outlook of eternal life, then I think that the CTMU might say that such an outlook can't be snapped by any physical events. Instead, we take our outlook with us, and all of our life which it connects to, into a broader reinterpretation that is open to connect with other such. Our life can be stopped only if we restrict ourselves to a closed outlook which, sadly, is the one that our society presumes upon us, and the one that would have us be reduced to nothing more than that which we have already been. The proof, so to speak, is that we are able to have an outlook "eternal life" which is not what we ourselves want, but what is given to us nonetheless, and which connects the unfolding future to our openness to it, so that it has a stake in our being ever alive, and we're able to drag the "real world" along with us, "uncollapsed" I suppose. The Psalmist clings to God's glory, for if his fate is tied to God's glory, then he will ever be alive.

In summary, I think that God would not be attractive if he might might forbid some good because it would also bring bad. I think that we, as systems, open ourselves and break out of evil by allowing for the question Whether? and the answer Why! as they naturally transcend us. Allowing for an answer Why! makes our question Why? meaningful, and allowing for a question Whether? makes our answer Whether! meaningful. We can thereby open ourselves to integration by that which is truly bigger than us, so that it might peer through us, see itself through us, and so live through us.

I think that the nature of life continuing openly, uncollapsed by physical events, is a question that we might apply the CTMU to, especially in defining further, what is life? We might be able to show what structures and activities in this world are actually relevant to that broader world. We might engineer bridges back and forth with that broader world, perhaps through prayer and good deeds. This might also have application to our health care systems. I look forward to exploring connections between the CTMU and my own quest "to know everything and apply that usefully". I'm especially stirred by Frank's letters on what I might think of as God's love. Here is my current attempt at an Overview of how everything unfolds.

The Beginning looks Forwards and the End looks Backwards. But then the End recognizes the primacy of the Beginning and also looks Forwards.


AndriusKulikauskas: I've always had trouble writing up my thoughts because they are murky, but even worse, they want to spin out in all directions.

Dievas nebūtinai geras

Gyvenimo lygtis

Gyvenimo lygtis primena Toulmino pagrindimo lygtį, keturių požiūrių. O ta lygtis primena Budos keturias taurias tiesas:

In the same way I saw an ancient path, an ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times. And what is that ancient path, that ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times? Just this noble eightfold path: right view, right aspiration, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration...I followed that path. Following it, I came to direct knowledge of aging & death, direct knowledge of the origination of aging & death, direct knowledge of the cessation of aging & death, direct knowledge of the path leading to the cessation of aging & death...Knowing that directly, I have revealed it to monks, nuns, male lay followers & female lay followers... —Nagara Sutta

Slack variable susiję su Simplex algorithm

Parsiųstas iš http://www.ms.lt/sodas/Mintys/GyvenimoLygtis
Puslapis paskutinį kartą pakeistas 2022 balandžio 12 d., 12:14