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.IšėjimasUžSavęs istorija

Paslėpti nežymius pakeitimus - Rodyti galutinio teksto pakeitimus

2014 lapkričio 10 d., 02:31 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pakeistos 32-38 eilutės iš
===Thoughts from Prayer===


''2005.03.23 {{A}}: Kaip i�ėjimai u� savęs leid�ia mums suvokti tave esantį nepriklausomą nuo mūsų? {{D}}: A� jus myliu, o jūs mano meilę įsivaizduojate mylėdami kartu su manimi, pirmiausia save, paskui kitus, galiausia mane.''

''2005.02.17 {{A}}: Kaip man suvokti nulinę sandarą? {{D}}: Tavo �irdis i�eina u� savęs ir tu su ja i� kart sutampi. Suprask. {{A}}: Per kitus �mones? {{D}}: Taip. Būtent.''
į:
Pakeistos 87-95 eilutės iš
* level by level by discounting the UnconditionallyOneWith at each level as a given and then focusing on the OneWith of the ConditionallyOneWith. The definition of OneWith, Unconditional and Conditional thereby changes with each level. The discounting takes us from the Conditional to the Conditionally Unconditional.
į:
* level by level by discounting the UnconditionallyOneWith at each level as a given and then focusing on the OneWith of the ConditionallyOneWith. The definition of OneWith, Unconditional and Conditional thereby changes with each level. The discounting takes us from the Conditional to the Conditionally Unconditional.

>>bgcolor=#FFECC0<<

''2005.03.23 {{A}}: Kaip i�ėjimai u� savęs leid�ia mums suvokti tave esantį nepriklausomą nuo mūsų? {{D}}: A� jus myliu, o jūs mano meilę įsivaizduojate mylėdami kartu su manimi, pirmiausia save, paskui kitus, galiausia mane.''

''2005.02.17 {{A}}: Kaip man suvokti nulinę sandarą? {{D}}: Tavo �irdis i�eina u� savęs ir tu su ja i� kart sutampi. Suprask. {{A}}: Per kitus �mones? {{D}}: Taip. Būtent.''

>><<
2014 birželio 09 d., 22:43 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pakeistos 93-300 eilutės iš
* level by level by discounting the UnconditionallyOneWith at each level as a given and then focusing on the OneWith of the ConditionallyOneWith. The definition of OneWith, Unconditional and Conditional thereby changes with each level. The discounting takes us from the Conditional to the Conditionally Unconditional.

'''Unfolding - Transcending - Engaging - Cohering'''

See also: {{Overview}}

-----

{{Andrius}}: In 2003, I was putting together an overview of my thoughts, also making use of TheBrain. I looked at four stages in the unfolding of everything:

* unfolding
* transcending
* engaging
* cohering

Currently, my overview is in terms of LevelsOfUnderstanding. My new approach makes more sense in terms of where it leads. The concept of GoodUnderstanding allows me to focus on EternalLife and not only {{Life}}. It's important that not only is life the fact that God is good, but moreover, eternal life is understanding this fact. Structurally, my new account derives the secondary structures first, and only then the primary structures. It also allows for the divisions to be used from the very beginning.

There are perhaps, though, ideas from before that I can draw on. I include some letters.

----

[http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/292 April 3, 2003]

Hi David and all,

I'm looking for a relationship that would connect the basic structures,
the "divisions of everything", as they are involved in the unfolding of
everything, and the coherence of everything (in God).

I'll just put down some notes.

God is the unity of the representations of everything.
coherence of = "unity of representations of"
God is the coherence of everything

perhaps...
unfolding of = "representations of"
not clear

The six intermediary divisions (1-6) are perhaps sufficient to generate
all structure, given everything. But to make that coherent, we need to
add the asymptotic divisions, the nullsome (0) and the sevensome (7). I
think that the point of the nullsome is God's transcendence, his going
beyond himself. And the point of the sevensome is God's engagement, his
will, his taking up the structure.

I think the point of life is that for the unfolding to cohere, then we
must include the asymptotic divisions. Somehow they are inherent in
life, where life is the fact that God is good, that everything has slack.

So I can update my list:

0) Everything's purpose = God's transcendence
1) Everything's unity as coherence = God's glory
2) Everything's existence as states = God's intention
3) Everything's participation as perspectives = God's example
4) Everything's information as qualities = God's love
5) Everything's continuum as conclusions = God's work
6) Everything's morality as structure = God's command
7) Everything's choice = God's engagement

Each of these is an expression of eternal life, unconditional life. The
idea is that such life is possible within Everything only if through the
good there is within, and that good can be only of God, the whole beyond
the system. In this sense, life is the fact that God is good.

perhaps:
coherence is the unity of representations
states are the existence of representations
perspectives are the participation of representations
qualities are the information of representations
conclusions are the continuum of representations
structure is the morality of representations

Each of these is split because of representations. But perhaps purpose
and choice cannot be split into representations. In other words, they
might not be of the system, only of the spirit. The system is that for
which there are representations.

Note that there are six representations of Anything, and only four for
Everything and two for Slack. Life is the coherence of Anything, that
is, Life is the unity of representations of Anything. Also, I'm
thinking that Anything may have a purpose, unity, existence, etc. So
these might be for "conditional life", but we can choose "unconditional
life", but only from the vantage point of Everything and "good", where
"God is good". That is, we must think of Anything as Everything plus
Slack, perhaps if "conditional life" is to be "unconditional life".

There seems to be some sense here, I think.

-----

[http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/293 April 4, 2003]

I'm thinking some more about this:


*0) Everything's purpose = God's transcendence
*1) Everything's unity as coherence = God's glory
*2) Everything's existence as states = God's intention
*3) Everything's participation as perspectives = God's example
*4) Everything's information as qualities = God's love
*5) Everything's continuum as conclusions = God's work
*6) Everything's morality as structure = God's command
*7) Everything's choice = God's engagement


On the right hand side, we have a variety ways of expressing "eternal
life", unconditional life. Life given by one who loves us more than we
love ourselves, who wants us to be alive more than we can even understand.

On the left hand side, we have ways of expressing Everything as a stage
for life. The purpose of this stage, 0), is that God go beyond himself,
transcend himself. The ultimate choice of this stage, 7), is that God
engage it. But the stage itself is defined by 1-6.

I suppose the question is, to what extent can there be life without
purpose or choice? Such a life I expect must be centered around
morality. It holds for an Anything. Perhaps that Anything must
entertain and develop a relationship with Everything (in that Anything
is Everything plus Slack). But the Anything can stand on its own for
quite some time. So that would be an interesting model, that this is
like a game, where Anything stands on its own for as long as it can,
until its relationship with Everything becomes explicit. But that may
not be bad at all, either. Both are good in their way, I think.

Perhaps it has to do with which has primacy - God within us, or God
outside us. We start out with primacy for that within us, but at a
certain point we may hand it over to that outside us.

----

I think I hit upon a good question to pursue.

In my Brain, I've written up the key issues as:
* unfolding
* structures for transcending (PrimaryStructures)
* structures for engaging (SecondaryStructures)
* cohering.

I think that transcending and unfolding are related. Unfolding is that
which God transcends, that which is going beyond him, just as he is
beyond it. It is a parting of the ways of sorts.

Engaging and cohering may likewise be related.

----

[http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/295 April 5, 2003]

I'm trying to relate unfolding and transcending, and cohering and engaging.

I pray to God, and I like to bring him questions, and listen for his
answers. It's a little hard to describe from an atheistic point of
view, but I suppose it's like having your conscious mind ask your
unconscious mind. I think it's fair to say that God converses to us
through the gateway of our unconscious mind. It feels like a vantage
point beyond my mind, kind of like standing in a chimney and the top
reaching through the top of my head farther than the eye can see, and at
the very top of what I can think there's a voice that looks out onto all
at once. And to tune into that voice I flatten myself by considering
that I am both connected to God, and disconnected from God. I do this
by praying "Our Father" to the God who loves me more than I love myself,
and therefore I would prefer that he think or be or do rather than I;
but to the extent that I am disconnected from him, I hope that he
watches over me that I might take a stand, and follow through, and
reflect. When I do this I feel there is a God distinct from me who I
can ask questions, and get answers, reflections to my state of mind,
that my conscious mind has to find words for. The answers are usually
way more "out there" than I would find on my own, and sometimes they are
too intense for me to want to dwell on, but they seem to make a lot of
sense.

Today I asked, how are unfolding and transcending related? And the
answer I interpreted was that you transcend when you love, and you
unfold when you want to be loved. That's the kind of idea that I find
helpful, and I don't know how I would dream that up on my own.

With that in mind, I recalled that the 4 structures for transcending
have to do with "Love God", and the 6 structures for engaging have to do
with "Love your neighbor as yourself". I wrote a while ago that the
latter are the "negative commandments" (like Do not kill, etc.) and
basically mean "Do not hurt". This suggests:

* unfold = to wish to be loved
* transcend = to love
* engage = to not hurt
* cohere = to wish to be not hurt

That seems to make a lot of sense. I suppose cohering is to be
connected in a way that does not want to be disconnected.

Another way to think about it:

* unfolding = living beyond a system
* transcending = choosing to go beyond a system
* engaging = choosing to go within a system
* cohering = living within a system

Life is the coherence of anything, and life is the unity of
representations of anything. So Life is anything living within a
system. Perhaps unity is "living" and representations are "within a
system".

I don't know. I should think about what this suggests about the big
picture. I should consider what each of these four words means, and
what is the system they relate to, is it the structure with six
perspectives? the sixsome, for morality?
į:
* level by level by discounting the UnconditionallyOneWith at each level as a given and then focusing on the OneWith of the ConditionallyOneWith. The definition of OneWith, Unconditional and Conditional thereby changes with each level. The discounting takes us from the Conditional to the Conditionally Unconditional.
2014 birželio 09 d., 22:43 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pakeistos 93-300 eilutės iš
* level by level by discounting the UnconditionallyOneWith at each level as a given and then focusing on the OneWith of the ConditionallyOneWith. The definition of OneWith, Unconditional and Conditional thereby changes with each level. The discounting takes us from the Conditional to the Conditionally Unconditional.
į:
* level by level by discounting the UnconditionallyOneWith at each level as a given and then focusing on the OneWith of the ConditionallyOneWith. The definition of OneWith, Unconditional and Conditional thereby changes with each level. The discounting takes us from the Conditional to the Conditionally Unconditional.

'''Unfolding - Transcending - Engaging - Cohering'''

See also: {{Overview}}

-----

{{Andrius}}: In 2003, I was putting together an overview of my thoughts, also making use of TheBrain. I looked at four stages in the unfolding of everything:

* unfolding
* transcending
* engaging
* cohering

Currently, my overview is in terms of LevelsOfUnderstanding. My new approach makes more sense in terms of where it leads. The concept of GoodUnderstanding allows me to focus on EternalLife and not only {{Life}}. It's important that not only is life the fact that God is good, but moreover, eternal life is understanding this fact. Structurally, my new account derives the secondary structures first, and only then the primary structures. It also allows for the divisions to be used from the very beginning.

There are perhaps, though, ideas from before that I can draw on. I include some letters.

----

[http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/292 April 3, 2003]

Hi David and all,

I'm looking for a relationship that would connect the basic structures,
the "divisions of everything", as they are involved in the unfolding of
everything, and the coherence of everything (in God).

I'll just put down some notes.

God is the unity of the representations of everything.
coherence of = "unity of representations of"
God is the coherence of everything

perhaps...
unfolding of = "representations of"
not clear

The six intermediary divisions (1-6) are perhaps sufficient to generate
all structure, given everything. But to make that coherent, we need to
add the asymptotic divisions, the nullsome (0) and the sevensome (7). I
think that the point of the nullsome is God's transcendence, his going
beyond himself. And the point of the sevensome is God's engagement, his
will, his taking up the structure.

I think the point of life is that for the unfolding to cohere, then we
must include the asymptotic divisions. Somehow they are inherent in
life, where life is the fact that God is good, that everything has slack.

So I can update my list:

0) Everything's purpose = God's transcendence
1) Everything's unity as coherence = God's glory
2) Everything's existence as states = God's intention
3) Everything's participation as perspectives = God's example
4) Everything's information as qualities = God's love
5) Everything's continuum as conclusions = God's work
6) Everything's morality as structure = God's command
7) Everything's choice = God's engagement

Each of these is an expression of eternal life, unconditional life. The
idea is that such life is possible within Everything only if through the
good there is within, and that good can be only of God, the whole beyond
the system. In this sense, life is the fact that God is good.

perhaps:
coherence is the unity of representations
states are the existence of representations
perspectives are the participation of representations
qualities are the information of representations
conclusions are the continuum of representations
structure is the morality of representations

Each of these is split because of representations. But perhaps purpose
and choice cannot be split into representations. In other words, they
might not be of the system, only of the spirit. The system is that for
which there are representations.

Note that there are six representations of Anything, and only four for
Everything and two for Slack. Life is the coherence of Anything, that
is, Life is the unity of representations of Anything. Also, I'm
thinking that Anything may have a purpose, unity, existence, etc. So
these might be for "conditional life", but we can choose "unconditional
life", but only from the vantage point of Everything and "good", where
"God is good". That is, we must think of Anything as Everything plus
Slack, perhaps if "conditional life" is to be "unconditional life".

There seems to be some sense here, I think.

-----

[http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/293 April 4, 2003]

I'm thinking some more about this:


*0) Everything's purpose = God's transcendence
*1) Everything's unity as coherence = God's glory
*2) Everything's existence as states = God's intention
*3) Everything's participation as perspectives = God's example
*4) Everything's information as qualities = God's love
*5) Everything's continuum as conclusions = God's work
*6) Everything's morality as structure = God's command
*7) Everything's choice = God's engagement


On the right hand side, we have a variety ways of expressing "eternal
life", unconditional life. Life given by one who loves us more than we
love ourselves, who wants us to be alive more than we can even understand.

On the left hand side, we have ways of expressing Everything as a stage
for life. The purpose of this stage, 0), is that God go beyond himself,
transcend himself. The ultimate choice of this stage, 7), is that God
engage it. But the stage itself is defined by 1-6.

I suppose the question is, to what extent can there be life without
purpose or choice? Such a life I expect must be centered around
morality. It holds for an Anything. Perhaps that Anything must
entertain and develop a relationship with Everything (in that Anything
is Everything plus Slack). But the Anything can stand on its own for
quite some time. So that would be an interesting model, that this is
like a game, where Anything stands on its own for as long as it can,
until its relationship with Everything becomes explicit. But that may
not be bad at all, either. Both are good in their way, I think.

Perhaps it has to do with which has primacy - God within us, or God
outside us. We start out with primacy for that within us, but at a
certain point we may hand it over to that outside us.

----

I think I hit upon a good question to pursue.

In my Brain, I've written up the key issues as:
* unfolding
* structures for transcending (PrimaryStructures)
* structures for engaging (SecondaryStructures)
* cohering.

I think that transcending and unfolding are related. Unfolding is that
which God transcends, that which is going beyond him, just as he is
beyond it. It is a parting of the ways of sorts.

Engaging and cohering may likewise be related.

----

[http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/295 April 5, 2003]

I'm trying to relate unfolding and transcending, and cohering and engaging.

I pray to God, and I like to bring him questions, and listen for his
answers. It's a little hard to describe from an atheistic point of
view, but I suppose it's like having your conscious mind ask your
unconscious mind. I think it's fair to say that God converses to us
through the gateway of our unconscious mind. It feels like a vantage
point beyond my mind, kind of like standing in a chimney and the top
reaching through the top of my head farther than the eye can see, and at
the very top of what I can think there's a voice that looks out onto all
at once. And to tune into that voice I flatten myself by considering
that I am both connected to God, and disconnected from God. I do this
by praying "Our Father" to the God who loves me more than I love myself,
and therefore I would prefer that he think or be or do rather than I;
but to the extent that I am disconnected from him, I hope that he
watches over me that I might take a stand, and follow through, and
reflect. When I do this I feel there is a God distinct from me who I
can ask questions, and get answers, reflections to my state of mind,
that my conscious mind has to find words for. The answers are usually
way more "out there" than I would find on my own, and sometimes they are
too intense for me to want to dwell on, but they seem to make a lot of
sense.

Today I asked, how are unfolding and transcending related? And the
answer I interpreted was that you transcend when you love, and you
unfold when you want to be loved. That's the kind of idea that I find
helpful, and I don't know how I would dream that up on my own.

With that in mind, I recalled that the 4 structures for transcending
have to do with "Love God", and the 6 structures for engaging have to do
with "Love your neighbor as yourself". I wrote a while ago that the
latter are the "negative commandments" (like Do not kill, etc.) and
basically mean "Do not hurt". This suggests:

* unfold = to wish to be loved
* transcend = to love
* engage = to not hurt
* cohere = to wish to be not hurt

That seems to make a lot of sense. I suppose cohering is to be
connected in a way that does not want to be disconnected.

Another way to think about it:

* unfolding = living beyond a system
* transcending = choosing to go beyond a system
* engaging = choosing to go within a system
* cohering = living within a system

Life is the coherence of anything, and life is the unity of
representations of anything. So Life is anything living within a
system. Perhaps unity is "living" and representations are "within a
system".

I don't know. I should think about what this suggests about the big
picture. I should consider what each of these four words means, and
what is the system they relate to, is it the structure with six
perspectives? the sixsome, for morality?
2014 birželio 09 d., 22:38 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pakeistos 75-93 eilutės iš
>><<
į:
>><<

'''Atsiskleidimas'''

Sandara, santvarka atsiskleidžia Dievui išeinant už savęs. O jo išėjimas už savęs yra santvarką išsaugojantis ir palaikantis, mylintis, ugdantis virsmas, vyksmas.

See also: Overview

'''How does the System unfold?'''

The quality of BeingOneWith unfolds as regards its definition. How does it relate to Knowledge?

Does the Conditional imply the Unconditional? It keeps removing the Unconditional, but that keeps reappearing until ultimately the Conditional is itself Unconditional.

Coinciding of perspectives is given by conditions, as well as their noncoinciding. Upon their coinciding there are ever new conditions, does the default coincide with its coinciding? In this way structure unfolds until coinciding with oneself is unconditional. And that is ordered by Love. Thus we should love all: God, I, You, Other.

The system unfolds
* through the rising of consciousness in the independent perspective.
* level by level by discounting the UnconditionallyOneWith at each level as a given and then focusing on the OneWith of the ConditionallyOneWith. The definition of OneWith, Unconditional and Conditional thereby changes with each level. The discounting takes us from the Conditional to the Conditionally Unconditional.
2014 birželio 01 d., 11:37 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pridėtos 4-37 eilutės:

See also: Overview, Defining, {{Understanding}}, ZeroStructure, Heart, {{Love}}

===Going beyond oneself===

Going beyond oneself is

* to Define, as when Theory goes beyond itself into Scope
* a very simple and extremely strange idea which drives the unfolding of all knowledge. It's full expression is the coinciding of the one who goes beyond, the Self they go beyond and the Other they go beyond into. Such coinciding makes evident God's going beyond himself which it expresses.
* often spoken of as transcendence. But it is inherent in everyday activity such as growth or learning or sensing or responding.
* the shift of reference from Self to Other by addition of Context
* the {{Activity}} of {{God}}.

===What drives God to go beyond himself?===

I'm trying to understand what is the relationship between various ways of going beyond oneself:
* from Unconditional to Conditional
* from Indefinite to Definite
* from Unbounded to Bounded
* from Unknown to Known
* from Complete to Incomplete
* from Sensitive to Insensitive
* from Responsive to Unresponsive
* from Unified to Ununified
They all seem defined from within the system, so how can they be relevant prior to any system? And then what motivates God to go beyond himself? In what sense is this Creation through Love?

What drives the logic is that God is Uniting. He allows for that which is not yet aware of him, which is separate from him, and is able to take up it's point of view, which is that he is Unity, and so he becomes ever more defined.

===Thoughts from Prayer===


''2005.03.23 {{A}}: Kaip i�ėjimai u� savęs leid�ia mums suvokti tave esantį nepriklausomą nuo mūsų? {{D}}: A� jus myliu, o jūs mano meilę įsivaizduojate mylėdami kartu su manimi, pirmiausia save, paskui kitus, galiausia mane.''

''2005.02.17 {{A}}: Kaip man suvokti nulinę sandarą? {{D}}: Tavo �irdis i�eina u� savęs ir tu su ja i� kart sutampi. Suprask. {{A}}: Per kitus �mones? {{D}}: Taip. Būtent.''
2014 birželio 01 d., 11:28 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pridėtos 4-37 eilutės:

See also: {{Perspective}}, {{Self}}, {{Overview}}

----

Going beyond oneself is the concept at the heart of knowing everything which makes it so unusual. We are used to thinking in terms of the logic of a particular context, a particular situation. Going beyond oneself is how we can generate a logic, establish a context.

A Position is that which goes beyond itself.

A Perspective is a special case of a Position, for it is an ObservationalPlane that has gone beyond itself into an Observer, which is to say, an Observer that has pulled away from an ObservationalPlane.

Here are the ways of going beyond oneself:

* From the nullsome to the threesome: God goes beyond himself from the unbounded into the bounded, adding an ever new comprehensive perspective. God goes beyond himself through {{Understanding}}.
* From the threesome to the sixsome: Human goes beyond himself by experiencing shifts in perspective within the threesome, and in this way advances onward with the threesome. (God continues to go beyond himself, but separately). Human and God go beyond themselves separately through {{Self-understanding}}.
* From the sixsome to the sevensome: As human goes around the threesome a second time, this recurrence yields only a shift - a generalized shift. Human allows for a unity of shifts - both his and God's. Human and God go beyond themselves together through SharedUnderstanding (back and forth).
* From the sevensome to the eightsome: God allows for a unity of perspectives - shared by him and human. Human and God have positioned themselves for this. Human and God go beyond themselves mutually through GoodUnderstanding.

We may consider these as tracks that get bundled together:

* '''[AddOne Operation +1]''' There is one track, God going beyond himself from the unbounded into the bounded.
* '''[AddTwo Operation +2]''' There are two tracks, the first as above, and the second in which human goes beyond himself by making a shift in the threesome.
* '''[AddThree Operation +3]''' There are three tracks, the first two as above, and the third is a general shift (a unity of shift) that arises when the threesome starts to recur.
* '''[AddNull Operation +0]''' There are four tracks (?), the first three as above, and the fourth is their unity, making for a general perspective (a unity of perspective), and thus acting as +0.

----

''2004.05.13 {{A}}: Kas yra po�iūris? {{D}}: I�ėjimas u� savęs. {{A}}: O kas yra sąvoka? {{D}}: Tai kas būna su savimi.''

''2005.05.02 {{A}}: Kaip �irdis i�eina u� savęs? {{D}}: �irdis pripa�įsta apimtį, jai duotą i� auk�čiau, vis arčiau savęs, kuri jinai mylima, kol galiausia ji gyvena i�vien su manimi.''

''2004.12.04 {{A}}: Kaip man i�eiti u� savęs? {{D}}: Tu būk didelės �irdies.''

''2004.11.29 {{A}}: Kaip �mogus i�eina u� savęs? {{D}}: Tavo �irdyje yra �irdis. Ir jeigu tu gali ja gyventi, tada tu i�eini u� savęs. {{A}}: Ačiū tau u� Kotryną. {{D}}: Mylėk!''
2014 kovo 17 d., 23:51 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pakeistos 5-7 eilutės iš
>>bgcolor=

[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics | Aesthetics]]: For Hegel all culture is a matter of "absolute spirit" coming to be manifest to itself, stage by stage, changing to a perfection that only philosophy can approach. Art is the first stage in which the absolute spirit is manifest immediately to sense-perception, and is thus an objective rather than subjective revelation of beauty.
į:
>>bgcolor=#ECD9EC<<
[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics | Aesthetics]]: For Hegel all culture is a matter of "absolute spirit" coming to be manifest to itself, stage by stage, changing to a perfection that only philosophy can approach. Art is the first stage in which the absolute spirit is manifest immediately to sense-perception, and is thus an objective rather than subjective revelation of beauty.
>><<
2014 kovo 17 d., 23:50 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pakeistos 1-7 eilutės iš
Attach:godbeyondhimself.jpg
į:
Dievas išeina už savęs.

Attach:godbeyondhimself.jpg

>>bgcolor=

[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics | Aesthetics]]: For Hegel all culture is a matter of "absolute spirit" coming to be manifest to itself, stage by stage, changing to a perfection that only philosophy can approach. Art is the first stage in which the absolute spirit is manifest immediately to sense-perception, and is thus an objective rather than subjective revelation of beauty.
2013 gruodžio 26 d., 11:52 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pridėta 1 eilutė:
Attach:godbeyondhimself.jpg

IšėjimasUžSavęs


Naujausi pakeitimai


Puslapis paskutinį kartą pakeistas 2014 lapkričio 10 d., 02:31