Gvildenu | Mintys / GyvybėsDėsniai

2021 rugsėjo 18 d., 21:57 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -

Pridėtos 17-18 eilutės:

Gyvybės dėsniai išsako keturis asmenų tyrimus kūryba vykstančius keturiuose lygmenyse. Juos visus sieja trys bendri dėsniai: tvirti židiniai, aiškios ribos, laipsningi mąstai, kuriais derinami skirtinguose lygmenyse vykstantys tyrimai.

2021 rugpjūčio 21 d., 15:50 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -

Pakeista 13 eilutė iš:

* ~~Ar nereikėtų~~ kūrybos tiksluose sukeisti visumą ir daugį~~? Kad~~ būtų vienis-visuma-daugis?

į:

* Reikėtų kūrybos tiksluose sukeisti visumą ir daugį kad būtų vienis-visuma-daugis. Taip sukeičiau savo straipsnyje.

2021 rugpjūčio 21 d., 15:48 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -

Pakeista 13 eilutė iš:

* Ar nereikėtų kūrybos tiksluose sukeisti ~~visybę~~ ir daugį? Kad būtų vienis-~~visybė~~-daugis ?

į:

* Ar nereikėtų kūrybos tiksluose sukeisti visumą ir daugį? Kad būtų vienis-visuma-daugis?

2021 rugpjūčio 21 d., 15:47 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -

Pakeista 13 eilutė iš:

*

į:

* Ar nereikėtų kūrybos tiksluose sukeisti visybę ir daugį? Kad būtų vienis-visybė-daugis ?

2021 rugpjūčio 21 d., 15:25 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -

Pakeistos 41-46 eilutės iš

* Roughness
Pack in irregular variants of repeating centers for the (tentatively) most regular solution possible
* Gradient. Systematic response to an uneven, non-homogeneous field, gives global variation of features to local centers
* ~~Not-separateness~~. Knits existing centers by taking hints from their surroundings, and vice versa

* Good-shape. Makes alternating repetition distinct by making more marked any loosely formed shape

į:

* Not-separateness. Knits existing centers by taking hints from their surroundings, and vice versa.
* Gradient. Systematic response to an uneven, non-homogeneous field, gives global variation of features to local centers.
* Roughness. Pack in irregular variants of repeating centers for the (tentatively) most regular solution possible.

* Good-shape. Makes alternating repetition distinct by making more marked any loosely formed shape.

Pakeistos 49-51 eilutės iš

* Contrast. Sharpens the distinction between two kinds of centers with polarity so they complement each other
* Echoes. Generates a widespread family resemblance by propagating a shared feature of some centers to other centers
* Deep-interlock. Weaves opposing parts of a ~~boundary~~

į:

* Contrast. Sharpens the distinction between two kinds of centers with polarity so they complement each other.
* Echoes. Generates a widespread family resemblance by propagating a shared feature of some centers to other centers.
* Deep-interlock. Weaves opposing parts of a boundary.

2021 rugpjūčio 21 d., 15:23 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -

Pridėtos 28-33 eilutės:

Penkiolika gyvybės dėsnių
* Kloti simetrišką dugną - pasėti smulkius židinius kaip kūrybos galimybes.

---------------------------------

2021 rugpjūčio 21 d., 14:31 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -

Pakeistos 3-4 eilutės iš

[[Dvylika klausimų]], [[Aplinkybės]], [[Pagrindimas]], [[Gyvenimas]]

į:

[[Dvylika klausimų]], [[Aplinkybės]], [[Pagrindimas]], [[Gyvenimas]], [[Betkas]], [[Viskas]]

Pridėta 25 eilutė:

-----------------

Pakeistos 27-28 eilutės iš

į:

-----------------

Pakeistos 52-53 eilutės iš

~~>>bgcolor=#EEEEEE<<~~

į:

--------------------

Ištrintos 210-213 eilutės:

>><<

See also: PrinciplesOfLife, {{Topologies}}, {{Anything}}, {{Everything}}, EverythingVAnything, FifteenPropertiesOfLife

2021 rugpjūčio 21 d., 14:29 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -

Pakeista 3 eilutė iš:

[[Aplinkybės]], [[Pagrindimas]], [[Gyvenimas]]

į:

[[Dvylika klausimų]], [[Aplinkybės]], [[Pagrindimas]], [[Gyvenimas]]

2021 kovo 12 d., 11:55 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -

Pakeista 9 eilutė iš:

į:

[++++生活的属性++++]

2021 kovo 12 d., 11:54 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -

Pakeistos 1-16 eilutės iš

~~Žr.~~ [[Aplinkybės]], [[Pagrindimas]], [[Gyvenimas]]

į:

>>bgcolor=#E9F5FC<<
-------------------------
[[Aplinkybės]], [[Pagrindimas]], [[Gyvenimas]]

'''Koks gyvybės dėsnių vaidmuo meilės moksle?'''

-------------------------
>><<

>>bgcolor=#FFFFC0<<
-------------------

*

-------------------
>><<

2017 spalio 17 d., 10:44 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -

Pridėtos 11-33 eilutės:

'''Fifteen principles as transformations (Book II of The Nature of Order)'''

* Strong Center. A weak center is made more emphatic, gets more weight, by being more strongly differentiated, defined, integrated by virtue of its differences, drawn and distinguished.
* Boundary. A slightly different zone is made more distinct.
* Levels of Scale. Introduces intermediate-sized centers to fill out the hierarchy of scales. A loosely distinguished zone is differentiated further into smaller parts. A large center is made more coherent and distinct by the introduction of smaller parts. (distinguish level and metalevel)

* Roughness
Pack in irregular variants of repeating centers for the (tentatively) most regular solution possible
* Gradient. Systematic response to an uneven, non-homogeneous field, gives global variation of features to local centers
* Not-separateness. Knits existing centers by taking hints from their surroundings, and vice versa

* Good-shape. Makes alternating repetition distinct by making more marked any loosely formed shape
* Local-symmetry. Gives an internal axis of symmetry around a center.
* Positive space. Creates new centers in spaces between centers.

* Contrast. Sharpens the distinction between two kinds of centers with polarity so they complement each other
* Echoes. Generates a widespread family resemblance by propagating a shared feature of some centers to other centers
* Deep-interlock. Weaves opposing parts of a boundary

* Simplicity. Reduces unnecessary structure, removes unwanted centers, differences and complexity throughout the structure.
* Void. Gets rid of unnecessary differentiation, defines a boundary with existing differentiation, preserves an imitation of the undifferentiated void.
* Alternating repetition. Generates a repeating pattern (of latent centers and boundaries) in an undifferentiated field.

2016 lapkričio 23 d., 22:13 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -

Pridėta 8 eilutė:

Atitinkamai turėtų ryškėti keturios geometrijos ir jų patikslinimai.

2016 lapkričio 23 d., 22:12 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -

Pakeistos 3-7 eilutės iš

Gyvybės dėsniai yra pagrindimo kalbos sandai iš kurių kyla įtampa, jėgos, kurias suderina geometrijos patikslinimas. Gyvybės dėsniai nusako plotmę ir jos santykį su mumis ir su reiškinių židiniu. Židinys ~~gali tenkintis plotme ir atsiriboti nuo mūsų, tuomet mąstom "ar" yra plotmės reiškiniai, tai akivaizdumas, savarankiškumas, tiesa, kas būtina, tikra, galima.~~

į:

Gyvybės dėsniai yra pagrindimo kalbos sandai iš kurių kyla įtampa, jėgos, kurias suderina geometrijos patikslinimas. Gyvybės dėsniai nusako plotmę ir jos santykį su mumis ir su reiškinių židiniu. Židinys išeina už savęs į mus, išeina iš plotmės į platesnę erdvę su mumis. Mes liudijame Židinio išėjimą už savęs.
* Židinys gali tenkintis plotme ir atsiriboti nuo mūsų, tuomet mąstom "ar" yra plotmės reiškiniai, tai akivaizdumas, savarankiškumas, tiesa, kas būtina, tikra, galima, tai kas vyksta be mūsų, nors ir atsiveria mums: susipaprastina, nurimsta, atveria priėjimą, kaitalioja, vagoja. Suvokiama, jog židinys gali būti už plotme didesnes.
* Židinys gali ryškinti ribas, mus skiriančias, tuo pačiu ribas esančias plotmėje, priešpastant, aidint, pinant daugiaprasmybę, taip įtraukiant mūsų dėmesį. Mąstome "kokie" plotmės reiškiniai.
* Židinys gali išėjus už plotmės suvokti ją kaip visumą, derinti židinių jėgas, taip pat mūsų ryšius su esamais židiniais, sustatyti mums taisyklingus pavidalus, dalinti erdvę sveikai, klot simetrišką dugną. Mąstom "kaip" yra plotmės reiškiniai.
* Židinys yra mūsų naujos erdvės židiniu ir skatina joje palaikyti naujus židinius, tad židinių neatsieti, keisti kryptingai, kurti grubiai. Mąstom "kodėl" yra plotmės reiškiniai.

2016 lapkričio 23 d., 22:04 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -

Pridėtos 2-5 eilutės:

Gyvybės dėsniai yra pagrindimo kalbos sandai iš kurių kyla įtampa, jėgos, kurias suderina geometrijos patikslinimas. Gyvybės dėsniai nusako plotmę ir jos santykį su mumis ir su reiškinių židiniu. Židinys gali tenkintis plotme ir atsiriboti nuo mūsų, tuomet mąstom "ar" yra plotmės reiškiniai, tai akivaizdumas, savarankiškumas, tiesa, kas būtina, tikra, galima.

http://www.ms.lt/derlius/MenoTaisykles/MenoTaisyklesSkaidre7.png

2016 lapkričio 23 d., 21:35 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -

Pakeista 17 eilutė iš:

Imagine two points on a page. If you consider the page a closed system, then the center between the points will be in the plane of the page. But if you consider yourself part of the system, if you admit of an outer vantage point, then the system shifts so that now the center is out of the page. I am sure it will have more life then. We have to think of how to connect the system with that which is beyond it. In art, ideas like major, minor, accent assume that there is a viewer, that the art is not onto itself. (Palyginti su [[Book/Simplex]].)

į:

Imagine two points on a page. If you consider the page a closed system, then the center between the points will be in the plane of the page. But if you consider yourself part of the system, if you admit of an outer vantage point, then the system shifts so that now the center is out of the page. I am sure it will have more life then. We have to think of how to connect the system with that which is beyond it. In art, ideas like major, minor, accent assume that there is a viewer, that the art is not onto itself. (Palyginti su [[Book/Simplex]] židiniu.)

2016 lapkričio 23 d., 21:35 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -

Pakeista 17 eilutė iš:

Imagine two points on a page. If you consider the page a closed system, then the center between the points will be in the plane of the page. But if you consider yourself part of the system, if you admit of an outer vantage point, then the system shifts so that now the center is out of the page. I am sure it will have more life then. We have to think of how to connect the system with that which is beyond it. In art, ideas like major, minor, accent assume that there is a viewer, that the art is not onto itself. (Palyginti su [[~~Math~~/Simplex]].)

į:

Imagine two points on a page. If you consider the page a closed system, then the center between the points will be in the plane of the page. But if you consider yourself part of the system, if you admit of an outer vantage point, then the system shifts so that now the center is out of the page. I am sure it will have more life then. We have to think of how to connect the system with that which is beyond it. In art, ideas like major, minor, accent assume that there is a viewer, that the art is not onto itself. (Palyginti su [[Book/Simplex]].)

2016 lapkričio 23 d., 21:34 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -

Pakeista 17 eilutė iš:

Imagine two points on a page. If you consider the page a closed system, then the center between the points will be in the plane of the page. But if you consider yourself part of the system, if you admit of an outer vantage point, then the system shifts so that now the center is out of the page. I am sure it will have more life then. We have to think of how to connect the system with that which is beyond it. In art, ideas like major, minor, accent assume that there is a viewer, that the art is not onto itself.

į:

Imagine two points on a page. If you consider the page a closed system, then the center between the points will be in the plane of the page. But if you consider yourself part of the system, if you admit of an outer vantage point, then the system shifts so that now the center is out of the page. I am sure it will have more life then. We have to think of how to connect the system with that which is beyond it. In art, ideas like major, minor, accent assume that there is a viewer, that the art is not onto itself. (Palyginti su [[Math/Simplex]].)

2016 lapkričio 23 d., 21:34 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -

Pakeistos 5-9 eilutės iš

Christopher Alexander gyvybės dėsnius suprasti kaip aplinkybių veiklą. Kiekvieną aplinkybę galime suvokti kaip atskiro mato derinimą, užtat kaip dviejų priešingybių priešpastatymą. Tai akivaizdu "proto žaismuose".

į:

Christopher Alexander gyvybės dėsnius suprasti kaip aplinkybių veiklą. Kiekvieną aplinkybę galime suvokti kaip atskiro mato derinimą, užtat kaip dviejų priešingybių priešpastatymą. Tai akivaizdu "proto žaismuose", pavyzdžiui:
* Ieškoti pastovumo. Randam ''vieną'' jo atvejį. Priešpastatome įvairumą ir vieningumą.
* Arba nerandam jokio atvejo, tad ''visuma'' pastovi. Priešpastatome neigimą ir teigimą.
* O šiai paieškai svarbu, kad tai ką atrenkam atitiktų tai ką vertinam, taip kad yra ''daugis''. Priešpastatome pasirinkimą ir

2016 lapkričio 23 d., 21:34 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -

Pakeistos 5-8 eilutės iš

Christopher Alexander gyvybės dėsnius suprasti kaip aplinkybių veiklą. Kiekvieną aplinkybę galime suvokti kaip atskiro mato derinimą, užtat kaip dviejų priešingybių priešpastatymą. Tai akivaizdu "proto žaismuose", pavyzdžiui:
* Ieškoti pastovumo. Randam ''vieną'' jo atvejį. Priešpastatome įvairumą ir vieningumą.
* Arba nerandam jokio atvejo, tad ''visuma'' pastovi. Priešpastatome neigimą ir teigimą.
* O šiai paieškai svarbu, kad tai ką atrenkam atitiktų tai ką vertinam, taip kad yra ''daugis''. Priešpastatome pasirinkimą ir

į:

Christopher Alexander gyvybės dėsnius suprasti kaip aplinkybių veiklą. Kiekvieną aplinkybę galime suvokti kaip atskiro mato derinimą, užtat kaip dviejų priešingybių priešpastatymą. Tai akivaizdu "proto žaismuose".

2014 birželio 09 d., 15:33 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -

Pakeistos 301-305 eilutės iš

small centers)

į:

small centers)

The 24 {{Concerns}} are self-reinforcing.

Christopher Alexander's fifteen PrinciplesOfLife describe self-reinforcing activity.

2014 birželio 07 d., 10:47 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -

Pakeistos 162-301 eilutės iš

>><<

į:

>><<

See also: PrinciplesOfLife, {{Topologies}}, {{Anything}}, {{Everything}}, EverythingVAnything, FifteenPropertiesOfLife

----

{{Andrius}} [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/363 September 4, 2003]

I went through Christopher Alexander's "The Nature of Order" and his
fifteen principles of life.

I will describe them as the features by which "anything" may connect
itself with "everything" as centers of life, limited and unlimited.

-----------------------------------------------

We can think of "everything" and "anything" as players that wish to
link up with each other.

"Anything" plays through a trinity of roles: taking a stand,
following through, and reflecting. This cycle is the motor of our
life.

"Everything" plays by going beyond itself. It is the infinite
recursiveness of Why? It is the same recursiveness in the cycle of
our soul - taking a stand, following through, reflecting - which is
how we are conscious of everything.

Three of Alexander's properties of life describe this relationship
just as it is.

"take a stand" is in "strong centers" (made of other strong centers)
"follow through" is in "strong boundaries" (same order of magnitude
as centers. itself made up of boundaries)
"reflect" is in "levels of scale" (recursive nesting. regular size
jumps between scales)

Where is everything?
Here it is in the recursive nature, going ever deeper, inward, but
also, going back outward, farther than we may imagine.

We are limited, hence unable to conceive directly our connection, but
may only allude to it. Our conception is thus given not by this
infinite recursion, but through representations of everything.
Everything is represented in four ways, as true, direct, constant,
significant. Moreover, in its relationship with anything, it is
given as a player of a mind game which generates properties of life,
of the oneness of the spirit beyond and within structure, of
everything and anything.

-----------------------------------------------

"Significant" generates a mind game, where significant is that which
is unencompassable, can't be captured:
If thinking is significant, then so is being, for thoughts are
encompassed by the thinker. If being is significant, then so is
doing, for things are encompassed by the actions that manifest them.
If doing is significant, then so is thinking, for actions are
encompassed by the observations made of them.

where is the everything?
everything is identified with the relaxation of global centers to
allow for restatement through local centers.

"be" is in "not-separateness" (not apart from the world, lack of
separation from other centers, blending into them, supporting them,
fragmented boundary)
"do" is in "gradients" (slow variation of larger center makes for
gradient given by new centers)
"think" is in "roughness" (relaxation of global constraints so local
constraints can have priority)

-----------------------------------------------

"Constant" generates a mind game:
In searching for constancy, we find one example of constancy,
otherwise it is constantly unconstant. So the constancy is in
the "one" or in the "all". Note that to do this search, what we
select needs to be the same as what we judge, they are multiply
constant, "many".

where is the everything?
everything is identified with that which searches for centers,
perhaps finding one (and breaking symmetry) or not finding one (and
leaving symmetry) but especially in the regularity of the "many",
which blankets the entire space with centers.

"one" is in the "good shape" (as a shape, made of multiple coherent
centers, built from simple elemental structures, clear building
blocks with distinct symmetries. regularity allows for cross-
relationships, clear division of function, etc.)
"all" is in the "local symmetries" (default solution is symmetry, a
pre-filling of space)
"many" is in the "positive space" (every part is whole onto itself,
not leftover, has a strong center. all space useful, evenhanded
complements, no wasted space.)

-----------------------------------------------

"Direct" generates a mind game:
Our attention can be directed by something other than itself,
an "object". Subsequently, it can be directed by itself, this
is "process". Finally, it may or may not be directed, this
is "subject".

where is the everything?
everything is identified with that which gives attention to centers,
and especially, the subject, the ambiguity and interlock.

"object" is in the "contrast" (creation of differentiation,
acknowledgement of purposeful, meaningful centers)
"process" is in the "echoes" (repetition of motif at different
levels, same angles as building blocks, same process involved)
"subject" is in the "deep interlock and ambiguity" (center and its
complement enmeshed by shared and ambiguous subcenters)

-----------------------------------------------

"True" generates a mind game, where true is what can't be hidden, is
obvious:

The content and what reveals it may be the same, in which case it
is "necessarily" true. Otherwise, the content may be different from
what reveals it, and follows it, so is "actually" true. Finally,
what may be true is the relationship between the content and what
reveals it, which is "possibly" true.

where is the everything?
everything is identified with that which serves as the center, and
especially the void, what is possible.

"necessary" is in the "simplicity and inner calm" (unnecessary is
taken away, freely focused on function. slow)
"actual" is in the "alternating repetition" (intensified by
counterpoint of systems. continually engages the eye, recurring
action, space repeats, oscillation)
"possible" is in the "void" (solid contrast to the clutter that
surrounds it, connects with infinite void, brings life to mass of
small centers)

2014 gegužės 18 d., 19:56 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -

Ištrintos 160-275 eilutės:

-----------

See also: PropertiesOfLife

----

Hi to All from Budapest!
Joseph, I wish you both a fun trip!

Before I left, I got [{{Books/TheNatureOfOrder}} The Nature of Order] by ChristopherAlexander,
so I have taken that with me. It is great, and very helpful for me at
this time.

As an architect, he wrote earlier about What makes a building alive?
and is now thinking more generally about life. But also, about our
understanding of it, particularly why are we building buildings with
so little life, and why are we living in them.

I will write what his thoughts mean to me.

A major gripe of his is that we have become overly used to studying
systems by thinking of them as isolated mechanisms in their own right.
In this sense, they become closed systems, detached and dead. Imagine
two points on a page. If you consider the page a closed system, then
the center between the points will be in the plane of the page. But
if you consider yourself part of the system, if you admit of an outer
vantage point, then the system shifts so that now the center is out of
the page. I am sure it will have more life then. We have to think of
how to connect the system with that which is beyond it. In art, ideas
like major, minor, accent assume that there is a viewer, that the art
is not onto itself.

For me this is about finding the connection between any particular,
bounded whole (anything) and the absolute, unbounded whole
(everything). He calls these "centers". I think of there being an
everything, and then, in reaching out beyond itself, it allows itself
not to be, but in that "nothingness" allows for such centers to
likewise arise, gods who know not themselves, so to speak. These are
bounded, in structure, but otherwise arisen of the same nature as the
everything.

He writes of fifteen properties of life that he goes through. He
finds these as ways that centers relate to each other. They are:

* 1. levels of scale
* 2. strong centers
* 3. boundaries
* 4. alternating repetition
* 5. positive space
* 6. good shape
* 7. local symmetries
* 8. deep interlock and ambiguity
* 9. contrast
* 10. gradients
* 11. roughness
* 12. echoes
* 13. void
* 14. simplicity and inner calm
* 15. not-separateness

I have a hypothesis for what they are. I think that they are features
by which "anything" may connect itself with "everything" as centers.
They are the ways that anything goes beyond itself and comes to that
original everything.

I have been working to unify those four structural families. It seems
that each one relates the division into three (taking a stand,
following through, reflecting) with one of its four representations.
Each one of these representations makes use of a vantage point for God
of different degrees of awareness. They are:
* necessary, actual, possible
* object, process, subject
* one, all, many
* be, do, think
Where I have listed them in increasing order of Gods empathy, so that
in the first representation he is flat, but in the last he has a full
fledged threefold vantage point. In each case his role is to live
within us the principle of "taking up anothers concerns rather than
our own", which is to say, reaching out beyond ourselves.

It is important to note here that the perspectives of the division
into three are themselves inconceivable (taking a stand, following
through, reflecting) by us, we need to represent them. How can that
be? Well, I am claiming that we can not directly conceive of taking a
stand. It is simply something that we actually do. We live it! So
to actually think about it is quite awkward. Instead, we think of it
as a passage between states. It may be the passage between thinking
and being. Or the passage between what is possible and what is
necessary. In the latter case I think it becomes the principle
"strive for the best". But my point is that we are dealing with it as
a passage.

So, in order to try to directly think about it, I think we try to
express the representations themselves in terms of passages. That
way we get passages of passages.

Well, I think that of Alexanders 15 principles, 3 come from the
division into three, and 12 from the representations. So my claim is
that 3 of his are inconceivable.

But I see why this is, I think. He gives an example of a lovely vase
showing a recurring beautiful 3 to 1 proportion of scales, nested. I
think the purpose of these level scales is that they allow us to
suppose that there is an outer frame, pragmatically an everything,
that must exist. And functionally, our upper torso may in fact be 3 to
1 in proportion to the vase. So such is the purpose of all the
properties of life, to generate this connection.

But because this does it so directly, there is a problem which makes
it inconceivable! Because here we would have to imagine infinitely
many levels going smaller and smaller. We can not do this. Likewise
for nested boundaries. But in other cases, relating centers of an
equal level, we can. It is like the relation between human and God,
we can not conceive directly, but instead appeal to relations between
humans, which serve I think for this ultimate purpose.

2014 gegužės 18 d., 19:55 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -

Pridėtos 161-276 eilutės:

-----------

See also: PropertiesOfLife

----

Hi to All from Budapest!
Joseph, I wish you both a fun trip!

Before I left, I got [{{Books/TheNatureOfOrder}} The Nature of Order] by ChristopherAlexander,
so I have taken that with me. It is great, and very helpful for me at
this time.

As an architect, he wrote earlier about What makes a building alive?
and is now thinking more generally about life. But also, about our
understanding of it, particularly why are we building buildings with
so little life, and why are we living in them.

I will write what his thoughts mean to me.

A major gripe of his is that we have become overly used to studying
systems by thinking of them as isolated mechanisms in their own right.
In this sense, they become closed systems, detached and dead. Imagine
two points on a page. If you consider the page a closed system, then
the center between the points will be in the plane of the page. But
if you consider yourself part of the system, if you admit of an outer
vantage point, then the system shifts so that now the center is out of
the page. I am sure it will have more life then. We have to think of
how to connect the system with that which is beyond it. In art, ideas
like major, minor, accent assume that there is a viewer, that the art
is not onto itself.

For me this is about finding the connection between any particular,
bounded whole (anything) and the absolute, unbounded whole
(everything). He calls these "centers". I think of there being an
everything, and then, in reaching out beyond itself, it allows itself
not to be, but in that "nothingness" allows for such centers to
likewise arise, gods who know not themselves, so to speak. These are
bounded, in structure, but otherwise arisen of the same nature as the
everything.

He writes of fifteen properties of life that he goes through. He
finds these as ways that centers relate to each other. They are:

* 1. levels of scale
* 2. strong centers
* 3. boundaries
* 4. alternating repetition
* 5. positive space
* 6. good shape
* 7. local symmetries
* 8. deep interlock and ambiguity
* 9. contrast
* 10. gradients
* 11. roughness
* 12. echoes
* 13. void
* 14. simplicity and inner calm
* 15. not-separateness

I have a hypothesis for what they are. I think that they are features
by which "anything" may connect itself with "everything" as centers.
They are the ways that anything goes beyond itself and comes to that
original everything.

I have been working to unify those four structural families. It seems
that each one relates the division into three (taking a stand,
following through, reflecting) with one of its four representations.
Each one of these representations makes use of a vantage point for God
of different degrees of awareness. They are:
* necessary, actual, possible
* object, process, subject
* one, all, many
* be, do, think
Where I have listed them in increasing order of Gods empathy, so that
in the first representation he is flat, but in the last he has a full
fledged threefold vantage point. In each case his role is to live
within us the principle of "taking up anothers concerns rather than
our own", which is to say, reaching out beyond ourselves.

It is important to note here that the perspectives of the division
into three are themselves inconceivable (taking a stand, following
through, reflecting) by us, we need to represent them. How can that
be? Well, I am claiming that we can not directly conceive of taking a
stand. It is simply something that we actually do. We live it! So
to actually think about it is quite awkward. Instead, we think of it
as a passage between states. It may be the passage between thinking
and being. Or the passage between what is possible and what is
necessary. In the latter case I think it becomes the principle
"strive for the best". But my point is that we are dealing with it as
a passage.

So, in order to try to directly think about it, I think we try to
express the representations themselves in terms of passages. That
way we get passages of passages.

Well, I think that of Alexanders 15 principles, 3 come from the
division into three, and 12 from the representations. So my claim is
that 3 of his are inconceivable.

But I see why this is, I think. He gives an example of a lovely vase
showing a recurring beautiful 3 to 1 proportion of scales, nested. I
think the purpose of these level scales is that they allow us to
suppose that there is an outer frame, pragmatically an everything,
that must exist. And functionally, our upper torso may in fact be 3 to
1 in proportion to the vase. So such is the purpose of all the
properties of life, to generate this connection.

But because this does it so directly, there is a problem which makes
it inconceivable! Because here we would have to imagine infinitely
many levels going smaller and smaller. We can not do this. Likewise
for nested boundaries. But in other cases, relating centers of an
equal level, we can. It is like the relation between human and God,
we can not conceive directly, but instead appeal to relations between
humans, which serve I think for this ultimate purpose.

2014 kovo 18 d., 21:37 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -

Pakeistos 1-3 eilutės iš

Žr. [[Aplinkybės]]

į:

Žr. [[Aplinkybės]], [[Pagrindimas]], [[Gyvenimas]]

Pakeistos 10-13 eilutės iš

~~See also: {{Topologies}}, {{~~Life}}, Verbalization

===ChristopherAlexander'~~s Fifteen Principles of Life===~~

į:

'''ChristopherAlexander's Fifteen Principles of Life'''

2014 kovo 18 d., 19:23 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -

Pakeistos 6-8 eilutės iš

* Ieškoti pastovumo. Randam ''vieną'' jo atvejį.
* Arba nerandam jokio atvejo, tad ''visuma'' pastovi.
* O ieš

į:

* Ieškoti pastovumo. Randam ''vieną'' jo atvejį. Priešpastatome įvairumą ir vieningumą.
* Arba nerandam jokio atvejo, tad ''visuma'' pastovi. Priešpastatome neigimą ir teigimą.
* O šiai paieškai svarbu, kad tai ką atrenkam atitiktų tai ką vertinam, taip kad yra ''daugis''. Priešpastatome pasirinkimą ir

2014 kovo 18 d., 19:12 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -

Pridėtos 9-163 eilutės:

See also: {{Topologies}}, {{Life}}, Verbalization

===ChristopherAlexander's Fifteen Principles of Life===

AndriusKulikauskas: I went through ChristopherAlexander's ''TheNatureOfOrder'' (see the website of the book [http://www.natureoforder.com here]) and his fifteen principles of life. I understand these to be the three perspectives of the {{Threesome}} and the twelve Topologies that are given by the four RepresentationsOfTheThreesome .

I will describe the fifteen principles as the features by which {{Anything}} may connect itself with {{Something}} so that the latter is a center of life.

Imagine two points on a page. If you consider the page a closed system, then the center between the points will be in the plane of the page. But if you consider yourself part of the system, if you admit of an outer vantage point, then the system shifts so that now the center is out of the page. I am sure it will have more life then. We have to think of how to connect the system with that which is beyond it. In art, ideas like major, minor, accent assume that there is a viewer, that the art is not onto itself.

Three of Alexander's properties of life describe this relationship just as it is. Where is the anything? Here it is in the recursive nature, going ever deeper, inward, but also, going back outward, farther than we may imagine. (But we can't conceive this, as it is actually the nature of everything.)

* "take a stand" is in "strong centers" (made of other strong centers)
* "follow through" is in "strong boundaries" (same order of magnitude as centers. itself made up of boundaries)
* "reflect" is in "levels of scale" (recursive nesting. regular size jumps between scales)

Where is the anything? Anything is identified with the relaxation of global centers to allow for restatement through local centers.

* "be" is in "not-separateness" (not apart from the world, lack of separation from other centers, blending into them, supporting them, fragmented boundary)
* "do" is in "gradients" (slow variation of larger center makes for gradient given by new centers)
* "think" is in "roughness" (relaxation of global constraints so local constraints can have priority)

Where is the anything? Anything is identified with that which searches for centers, perhaps finding one (and breaking symmetry) or not finding one (and leaving symmetry) but especially in the regularity of the "many", which blankets the entire space with centers.

* "one" is in the "good shape" (as a shape, made of multiple coherent centers, built from simple elemental structures, clear building blocks with distinct symmetries. regularity allows for cross-relationships, clear division of function, etc.)
* "all" is in the "local symmetries" (default solution is symmetry, a pre-filling of space)
* "many" is in the "positive space" (every part is whole onto itself, not leftover, has a strong center. all space useful, evenhanded complements, no wasted space.)

Where is the anything? Anything is identified with that which gives attention to centers, and especially, the subject, the ambiguity and interlock.

* "object" is in the "contrast" (creation of differentiation, acknowledgement of purposeful, meaningful centers)
* "process" is in the "echoes" (repetition of motif at different levels, same angles as building blocks, same process involved)
* "subject" is in the "deep interlock and ambiguity" (center and its complement enmeshed by shared and ambiguous subcenters)

Where is the anything? Anything is identified with that which serves as the center, and especially the void, what is possible.

* "necessary" is in the "simplicity and inner calm" (unnecessary is taken away, freely focused on function. slow)
* "actual" is in the "alternating repetition" (intensified by counterpoint of systems. continually engages the eye, recurring action, space repeats, oscillation)
* "possible" is in the "void" (solid contrast to the clutter that surrounds it, connects with infinite void, brings life to mass of small centers)

We may think of these structures as arising from analogous SelfReinforcing activity.

Also, we may think at each level that there is a global principle, and a local implication, and a deference of the global to the local, thus yielding NikosASalingaros's principles. In particular, necessary, actual and possible are his laws for global, local and intermediate differentiation, accordingly.

----

||'''Be strong''' ||'''strong centers''' attract other centers without disturbing them (connect with other centers)||'''strong boundaries''' share a boundary zone (equalize) with other centers where new centers can grow||'''levels of scale''' centers grow as large as they can without disturbing the existing centers (or their scales)||

----

||'''Centers and subcenters''' ||'''not-separateness''' serve as a center for subcenters of other centers||'''gradients''' influence only in the direction of your motion, variation ||'''roughness''' allow for variation of your subcenters (relaxation)||
||'''Center and global forces''' (incoming links) ||'''good shape''' crystallize, purify, localize the balancing of conflicting forces ||'''local symmetries''' align with the prevailing axis of symmetry ||'''positive space''' push the boundary out from the center||
||'''Center and local attention''' (outgoing movement) ||'''contrast''' move like centers to one side of a boundary||'''echoes''' shift attention to similar centers (same balance) regardless of scale ||'''deep interlock and ambiguity''' shift attention to what is similar on both sides of a boundary||
||'''Centers and supercenters''' ||'''simplicity and inner calm''' align with every center you are within ||'''alternating repetition''' yield to a force so as to exhaust it ||'''void''' tranfer links from a center to a larger center that contains it||

===NikosASalingaros' Laws for Architecture===

Nikos has three laws of structural order. These are laws that maximize differentiablility.

* on the smallest scale, order is established by paired contrasting elements
* on the largest scale, order is established by minimizing entropy, which is to say, maximizing deliberateness
* on intermediate scales, order is established by a linked hierarchy approaching the number e which is roughly 2.7

Nikos then groups Christopher Alexander's principles as follows

* Order on smallest scale:
** GoodShape
** DeepInterlockAndAmbiguity
** AlternatingRepetition
** Void
* Order on largest scale:
** LocalSymmetry
** continuity of patterns across structural transitions
** NotSeparateness
** Roughness
* Order on intermediate scales:
** StrongBoundaries
** Echoes
** Gradient
** PositiveSpace

Missing principles: Contrast and SimplicityAndInnerCalm. Included principle: StrongBoundaries.

===Thinking Further===

We may furthermore think of these structures as evoked by recurring activity.
* strong centers: an activity cycles through several functions, and each function is a center
* strong boundaries: a boundary is where we switch from one function to another, and therefore where there may be several functions together
*levels of scale: inside one zone there may be all manner of activitiesetc.

I need to relate the {{Anything}} which is beyond {{Something}}'s plane, with the pulling away which makes for the {{Needs}}, {{Doubts}}, {{Expectations}}, {{Commitments}}, as in is, seems, ought, choose.

Note that anything is a limited {{Observer}}, whereas something is a limited {{Observed}}. Everything is a general observer and nothing is a general observed. See {{Scopes}}.

===A Letter Which Explains My Thinking===

I got ''The Nature of Order'' by Christopher Alexander,
so I have taken that with me. It is great, and very helpful for me at this time.

As an architect, he wrote earlier about What makes a building alive? and is now thinking more generally about life. But also, about our understanding of it, particularly why are we building buildings with so little life, and why are we living in them.

I will write what his thoughts mean to me.

A major gripe of his is that we have become overly used to studying systems by thinking of them as isolated mechanisms in their own right. In this sense, they become closed systems, detached and dead. Imagine two points on a page. If you consider the page a closed system, then the center between the points will be in the plane of the page. But if you consider yourself part of the system, if you admit of an outer vantage point, then the system shifts so that now the center is out of the page. I am sure it will have more life then. We have to think of how to connect the system with that which is beyond it. In art, ideas like major, minor, accent assume that there is a viewer, that the art is not onto itself.

For me this is about finding the connection between any particular, bounded whole (anything) and the absolute, unbounded whole (everything). He calls these "centers". I think of there being an everything, and then, in reaching out beyond itself, it allows itself not to be, but in that "nothingness" allows for such centers to likewise arise, gods who know not themselves, so to speak. These are
bounded, in structure, but otherwise arisen of the same nature as the everything.

He writes of fifteen properties of life that he goes through. He finds these as ways that centers relate to each other. They are:

* 1. levels of scale
* 2. strong centers
* 3. boundaries
* 4. alternating repetition
* 5. positive space
* 6. good shape
* 7. local symmetries
* 8. deep interlock and ambiguity
* 9. contrast
* 10. gradients
* 11. roughness
* 12. echoes
* 13. void
* 14. simplicity and inner calm
* 15. not-separateness

I have a hypothesis for what they are. I think that they are features by which "anything" may connect itself with "everything" as centers. They are the ways that anything goes beyond itself and comes to that original everything.

I have been working to unify those four structural families. It seems that each one relates the division into three (taking a stand, following through, reflecting) with one of its four representations. Each one of these representations makes use of a vantage point for God of different degrees of awareness. They are:
* necessary, actual, possible
* object, process, subject
* one, all, many
* be, do, think
Where I have listed them in increasing order of Gods empathy, so that in the first representation he is flat, but in the last he has a full fledged threefold vantage point. In each case his role is to live within us the principle of "taking up anothers concerns rather than our own", which is to say, reaching out beyond ourselves.

It is important to note here that the perspectives of the division into three are themselves inconceivable (taking a stand, following through, reflecting) by us, we need to represent them. How can that be? Well, I am claiming that we can not directly conceive of taking a stand. It is simply something that we actually do. We live it! So to actually think about it is quite awkward. Instead, we think of it
as a passage between states. It may be the passage between thinking and being. Or the passage between what is possible and what is necessary. In the latter case I think it becomes the principle "strive for the best". But my point is that we are dealing with it as a passage.

So, in order to try to directly think about it, I think we try to express the representations themselves in terms of passages. That way we get passages of passages.

Well, I think that of Alexanders 15 principles, 3 come from the division into three, and 12 from the representations. So my claim is that 3 of his are inconceivable.

But I see why this is, I think. He gives an example of a lovely vase showing a recurring beautiful 3 to 1 proportion of scales, nested. I think the purpose of these level scales is that they allow us to suppose that there is an outer frame, pragmatically an everything, that must exist. And functionally, our upper torso may in fact be 3 to 1 in proportion to the vase. So such is the purpose of all the
properties of life, to generate this connection.

But because this does it so directly, there is a problem which makes it inconceivable! Because here we would have to imagine infinitely many levels going smaller and smaller. We can not do this. Likewise for nested boundaries. But in other cases, relating centers of an equal level, we can. It is like the relation between human and God, we can not conceive directly, but instead appeal to relations between
humans, which serve I think for this ultimate purpose.

===Historical Notes===

I wrote the letter above when I was traveling in 2003. Then I thought of these as relationships between everything and anything. But actually, given my current thinking about SecondaryStructures, and in particular, topologies, I should describe them as relationships between '''{{Something}}''' and '''{{Anything}}'''. Here, something equals not-everything, and indeed, instead of imagining a plane of everything, this allows us to consider the complementary space of something, which then coincides with and is centered in the anything that enjoys our focus.

Here is some of my earlier thinking: We can think of "everything" and "anything" as players that wish to link up with each other. "Anything" plays through a trinity of roles: taking a stand, following through, and reflecting. This cycle is the motor of our life. "Everything" plays by going beyond itself. It is the infinite recursiveness of Why? It is the same recursiveness in the cycle of our soul - taking a stand, following through, reflecting - which is how we are conscious of everything.

2014 kovo 18 d., 18:58 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -

Pridėtos 1-3 eilutės:

Žr. [[Aplinkybės]]

2014 kovo 18 d., 18:57 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -

Pridėtos 1-7 eilutės:

>>bgcolor=#EEEEEE<<
Christopher Alexander gyvybės dėsnius suprasti kaip aplinkybių veiklą. Kiekvieną aplinkybę galime suvokti kaip atskiro mato derinimą, užtat kaip dviejų priešingybių priešpastatymą. Tai akivaizdu "proto žaismuose", pavyzdžiui:
* Ieškoti pastovumo. Randam ''vieną'' jo atvejį.
* Arba nerandam jokio atvejo, tad ''visuma'' pastovi.
* O ieš

>><<

Mintys.GyvybėsDėsniai istorija

GyvybėsDėsniai