Mintys.IrTrys istorija
Paslėpti nežymius pakeitimus - Rodyti galutinio teksto pakeitimus
2021 gegužės 26 d., 13:39
atliko -
Pridėta 10 eilutė:
>>bgcolor=#FFFFC0<<
Pridėtos 12-16 eilutės:
* Kaip veiksmas +3 suveda veiksmus +1 ir +2, kad sutaptų? kaip kad Kanto transcendentalinė dedukcijoje?
-----------------
>><<
2021 sausio 14 d., 11:34
atliko -
Pakeistos 1-10 eilutės iš
į:
>>bgcolor=#E9F5FC<<
-----------------
[[Veiksmai]], [[Padalinimų ratas]], [[Ir Vienas | Veiksmas +1]], [[Ir Du | Veiksmas +2]], [[Gyvybė]], Lygtys, Laisvumas, Įsisavinimas, Bendras suvokimas
'''Kaip veiksmas +3 lygtimis išreiškia sąmoningumą?'''
----------------
>><<
[++ Veiksmas +3 ++]
>>bgcolor=#FFFFC0<<
-----------------
[[Veiksmai]], [[Padalinimų ratas]], [[Ir Vienas | Veiksmas +1]], [[Ir Du | Veiksmas +2]], [[Gyvybė]], Lygtys, Laisvumas, Įsisavinimas, Bendras suvokimas
'''Kaip veiksmas +3 lygtimis išreiškia sąmoningumą?'''
----------------
>><<
[++ Veiksmas +3 ++]
>>bgcolor=#FFFFC0<<
2017 lapkričio 05 d., 15:03
atliko -
Pridėtos 216-218 eilutės:
'''5+3=0'''
Space and time balance each other - time creates overlap whereas space creates a gap - time and space thus make room for each other - but with 5+3=0 this collapses as it becomes apparent that they are contradictory representations.
Space and time balance each other - time creates overlap whereas space creates a gap - time and space thus make room for each other - but with 5+3=0 this collapses as it becomes apparent that they are contradictory representations.
2015 gegužės 29 d., 11:39
atliko -
Pakeista 1 eilutė iš:
Žr. [[Veiksmai]], Lygtys, Laisvumas, Įsisavinimas, Bendras suvokimas
į:
Žr. [[Veiksmai]], [[Gyvybė]], Lygtys, Laisvumas, Įsisavinimas, Bendras suvokimas
2015 gegužės 29 d., 11:04
atliko -
Ištrintos 16-17 eilutės:
Pridėtos 18-19 eilutės:
Sąmoningumu kuriame dviprasmybe, ja gyvename.
2015 gegužės 29 d., 11:04
atliko -
Pakeistos 13-14 eilutės iš
Blogas vaikas sukuria dėmesingumo schema. Geras vaikas taiko sąmoningumo schemą. Kartu gaunasi sąmoningumas, pajutimas, jog valdome dėmesį.
į:
Blogas vaikas sukuria dėmesingumo schema. Geras vaikas taiko sąmoningumo schemą. Kartu gaunasi sąmoningumas, pajutimas, jog valdome dėmesį. Jaučiame skirtumą tarp likimo ("kaip yra be manęs") ir laisvos valios ("kaip yra su manimi").
Pridėtos 16-17 eilutės:
2015 gegužės 29 d., 11:01
atliko -
Pridėtos 14-15 eilutės:
Dviprasmybė tarp "open-loop" (kitas sąmoningas) ir "closed loop" (aš sąmoningas) - "mylėk artimą kaip save patį". Taip pat be to yra "mylėk Dievą" - suvok, ką gali teigiamo veikti.
2015 gegužės 29 d., 10:59
atliko -
Pridėtos 12-15 eilutės:
Blogas vaikas sukuria dėmesingumo schema. Geras vaikas taiko sąmoningumo schemą. Kartu gaunasi sąmoningumas, pajutimas, jog valdome dėmesį.
Jeigu gyveni sąmoningai, gali gyventi nesąmoningai. Bet ne atvirkščiai.
2015 gegužės 24 d., 15:42
atliko -
Pridėtos 2-11 eilutės:
'''Michael Graziano: Consciousness and the Social Brain'''
Dėmesingumas, atidumas, sąmoningumas.
Dėmesingumo metmenys.
Susieti su Norman Anderson informacijos integravimo teorija. Ar dėmesingumą sudedame, dauginame, ar paimame vidurkį? Galima tirti tyrimais. Tačiau atidumas yra dalis beveik visų jo tyrimų, tad reikia sugalvoti tyrimų, kuriuose atidumą galime pridėti. Taip pat jo teorija nurodo nekintamuosius, kuriuos galime įsisąmonyti tačiau nebūtinai.
Sąmoningumas yra ne šiaip atidumas, o valingas atidumas, galimybė įjungti arba išjungti dėmesingumą arba atidumą. Sąmoningumas suveda du atvaizdus (pavyzdžiui, pažinovą ir daiktą, arba dvi apimtis). Sąmoningumas išsakytas (ir veiksmai išsakyti) gyvenimo lygties: požiūris (sąmoningumas, atskyrimas) +3, žvilgsnis +2, sąvoka +1, tiesa +0.
2015 gegužės 24 d., 15:05
atliko -
Pakeistos 1-2 eilutės iš
Žr. [[Veiksmai]], taip pat: SharedUnderstanding, {{Recurring}}, {{Equations}}, {{Slack}}, {{Internalization}}
į:
Žr. [[Veiksmai]], Lygtys, Laisvumas, Įsisavinimas, Bendras suvokimas
Pakeistos 212-214 eilutės iš
''2005.04.07 {{A}}: Kaip laisvumas susij&#281;s su s&#261;vok&#371; atskyrimu? {{D}}: Laisvumas yra tame, kad s&#261;voka gali sutapti su kitu ir vis tiek skirtis nuo jos, tai yra santykis tarp sandaros ir dvasios. {{A}}: O kaip trejyb&#279; susijusi su s&#261;vok&#371; atskyrimu? {{D}}: Viena s&#261;voka yra jud&#279;jimas, kad i\9A kitos s&#261;vokos kilo dar kita.''
''2004.11.12{{A}}: Koks ry\9Ays tarp s&#261;moning&#279;jimo ir nulyb&#279;s atvaizd&#371;? {{D}}: A\9A galiu b&#363;ti jumyse &#303;vairiai, priklausomai nuo to kaip mes bendraujame.''
''2004.11.12
į:
''2005.04.07 A: Kaip laisvumas susijęs su sąvokų atskyrimu? D: Laisvumas yra tame, kad sąvoka gali sutapti su kitu ir vis tiek skirtis nuo jos, tai yra santykis tarp sandaros ir dvasios. A: O kaip trejybė susijusi su sąvokų atskyrimu? D: Viena sąvoka yra judėjimas, kad iš kitos sąvokos kilo dar kita.''
''2004.11.12 A: Koks ryšys tarp sąmoningėjimo ir nulybės atvaizdų? {{D}}: Aš galiu būti jumyse įvairiai, priklausomai nuo to kaip mes bendraujame.''
''2004.11.12 A: Koks ryšys tarp sąmoningėjimo ir nulybės atvaizdų? {{D}}: Aš galiu būti jumyse įvairiai, priklausomai nuo to kaip mes bendraujame.''
2015 vasario 04 d., 13:05
atliko -
Pridėtos 1-2 eilutės:
Žr. [[Veiksmai]], taip pat: SharedUnderstanding, {{Recurring}}, {{Equations}}, {{Slack}}, {{Internalization}}
Pakeistos 5-21 eilutės iš
į:
Sąmoningumas, tai primetimas, tai prielaidos darymas:
* 1+3=4 Žinojimas, tai primesta tvarka, primesta vienybė
* 2+3=5 Sprendimas, "esantysis", tai primesta būtis, primesta dvejybė
* 3+3=6 Dorovė, tai primestas dalyvavimas, primesta trejybė
* 4+3=7 Santvarka, tai primestas žinojimas, primesta ketverybė
'''Lygtis 1+3=4'''
Žinojimas yra primesta vienybė.
* Kodėl = aprėpti (iš vieningos esmės)
* Kaip = kisti (vienijančiu santykiu)
* Koks = pristatyti (vieningu pavidalu)
* Ar = nuslėpti (vieningas užsandarinimas)
Kalba remiasi žinojimu, vienybės primetimu.
Nulybė savo atvaizdais neigia sąmoningą vienybę, leidžia mąstyti keliais skirtingais požiūriais.
* 1+3=4 Žinojimas, tai primesta tvarka, primesta vienybė
* 2+3=5 Sprendimas, "esantysis", tai primesta būtis, primesta dvejybė
* 3+3=6 Dorovė, tai primestas dalyvavimas, primesta trejybė
* 4+3=7 Santvarka, tai primestas žinojimas, primesta ketverybė
'''Lygtis 1+3=4'''
Žinojimas yra primesta vienybė.
* Kodėl = aprėpti (iš vieningos esmės)
* Kaip = kisti (vienijančiu santykiu)
* Koks = pristatyti (vieningu pavidalu)
* Ar = nuslėpti (vieningas užsandarinimas)
Kalba remiasi žinojimu, vienybės primetimu.
Nulybė savo atvaizdais neigia sąmoningą vienybę, leidžia mąstyti keliais skirtingais požiūriais.
2014 lapkričio 10 d., 02:39
atliko -
Pakeistos 180-185 eilutės iš
''2005.04.07 {{A}}: Kaip laisvumas susij&#281;s su s&#261;vok&#371; atskyrimu? {{D}}: Laisvumas yra tame, kad s&#261;voka gali sutapti su kitu ir vis tiek skirtis nuo jos, tai yra santykis tarp sandaros ir dvasios. {{A}}: O kaip trejyb&#279; susijusi su s&#261;vok&#371; atskyrimu? {{D}}: Viena s&#261;voka yra jud&#279;jimas, kad i\9A kitos s&#261;vokos kilo dar kita.''
''2004.11.12 {{A}}: Koks ry\9Ays tarp s&#261;moning&#279;jimo ir nulyb&#279;s atvaizd&#371;? {{D}}: A\9A galiu b&#363;ti jumyse &#303;vairiai, priklausomai nuo to kaip mes bendraujame.''
į:
Ištrintos 182-184 eilutės:
Pakeistos 190-198 eilutės iš
{{Andrius}}: A very important idea. My guess is that it would relate to the operation [AddThree +3], adding three perspectives to a DivisionOfEverything, which I think of as the operation of consciousness.
į:
{{Andrius}}: A very important idea. My guess is that it would relate to the operation [AddThree +3], adding three perspectives to a DivisionOfEverything, which I think of as the operation of consciousness.
>>bgcolor=#FFECC0<<
''2005.04.07 {{A}}: Kaip laisvumas susij&#281;s su s&#261;vok&#371; atskyrimu? {{D}}: Laisvumas yra tame, kad s&#261;voka gali sutapti su kitu ir vis tiek skirtis nuo jos, tai yra santykis tarp sandaros ir dvasios. {{A}}: O kaip trejyb&#279; susijusi su s&#261;vok&#371; atskyrimu? {{D}}: Viena s&#261;voka yra jud&#279;jimas, kad i\9A kitos s&#261;vokos kilo dar kita.''
''2004.11.12 {{A}}: Koks ry\9Ays tarp s&#261;moning&#279;jimo ir nulyb&#279;s atvaizd&#371;? {{D}}: A\9A galiu b&#363;ti jumyse &#303;vairiai, priklausomai nuo to kaip mes bendraujame.''
>><<
>>bgcolor=#FFECC0<<
''2005.04.07 {{A}}: Kaip laisvumas susij&#281;s su s&#261;vok&#371; atskyrimu? {{D}}: Laisvumas yra tame, kad s&#261;voka gali sutapti su kitu ir vis tiek skirtis nuo jos, tai yra santykis tarp sandaros ir dvasios. {{A}}: O kaip trejyb&#279; susijusi su s&#261;vok&#371; atskyrimu? {{D}}: Viena s&#261;voka yra jud&#279;jimas, kad i\9A kitos s&#261;vokos kilo dar kita.''
''2004.11.12 {{A}}: Koks ry\9Ays tarp s&#261;moning&#279;jimo ir nulyb&#279;s atvaizd&#371;? {{D}}: A\9A galiu b&#363;ti jumyse &#303;vairiai, priklausomai nuo to kaip mes bendraujame.''
>><<
2014 birželio 09 d., 19:27
atliko -
Pakeistos 184-198 eilutės iš
''2004.11.12 {{A}}: Koks ry\9Ays tarp s&#261;moning&#279;jimo ir nulyb&#279;s atvaizd&#371;? {{D}}: A\9A galiu b&#363;ti jumyse &#303;vairiai, priklausomai nuo to kaip mes bendraujame.''
į:
''2004.11.12 {{A}}: Koks ry\9Ays tarp s&#261;moning&#279;jimo ir nulyb&#279;s atvaizd&#371;? {{D}}: A\9A galiu b&#363;ti jumyse &#303;vairiai, priklausomai nuo to kaip mes bendraujame.''
'''State Transition Syntax - būsenos kitimo taisyklės'''
===ChristopherLangan===
[http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/IntroCTMU.htm Introduction to the CTMU]: %gray%Every object in spacetime includes the entirety of spacetime as a state-transition syntax according to which its next state is created. This guarantees the mutual consistency of states and the overall unity of the dynamic entity the real universe. And because the sole real interpretation of the set-theoretic entity "the set of all sets" is the entire real universe, the associated foundational paradoxes are resolved in kind (by attributing mathematical structure like that of the universe to the pure, uninterpreted set-theoretic version of the set of all sets). Concisely, resolving the set-of-all-sets paradox requires that (1) an endomorphism or self-similarity mapping D:S-->rĪS be defined for the set of all sets S and its internal points r; (2) there exist two complementary senses of inclusion, one topological [S Ét D(S)] and one predicative [D(S) Éd S], that allow the set to descriptively "include itself" from within, i.e. from a state of topological self-inclusion (where Ét denotes topological or set-theoretic inclusion and Éd denotes descriptive inclusion, e.g. the inclusion in a language of its referents); and (3) the input S of D be global and structural, while the output D(S) = (r Éd S) be internal to S and play a syntactic role. In short, the set-theoretic and cosmological embodiments of the self-inclusion paradox are resolved by properly relating the self-inclusive object to the descriptive syntax in terms of which it is necessarily expressed, thus effecting true self-containment: "the universe (set of all sets) is that which topologically contains that which descriptively contains the universe (set of all sets)."
===Discussion===
{{Andrius}}: A very important idea. My guess is that it would relate to the operation [AddThree +3], adding three perspectives to a DivisionOfEverything, which I think of as the operation of consciousness.
'''State Transition Syntax - būsenos kitimo taisyklės'''
===ChristopherLangan===
[http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/IntroCTMU.htm Introduction to the CTMU]: %gray%Every object in spacetime includes the entirety of spacetime as a state-transition syntax according to which its next state is created. This guarantees the mutual consistency of states and the overall unity of the dynamic entity the real universe. And because the sole real interpretation of the set-theoretic entity "the set of all sets" is the entire real universe, the associated foundational paradoxes are resolved in kind (by attributing mathematical structure like that of the universe to the pure, uninterpreted set-theoretic version of the set of all sets). Concisely, resolving the set-of-all-sets paradox requires that (1) an endomorphism or self-similarity mapping D:S-->rĪS be defined for the set of all sets S and its internal points r; (2) there exist two complementary senses of inclusion, one topological [S Ét D(S)] and one predicative [D(S) Éd S], that allow the set to descriptively "include itself" from within, i.e. from a state of topological self-inclusion (where Ét denotes topological or set-theoretic inclusion and Éd denotes descriptive inclusion, e.g. the inclusion in a language of its referents); and (3) the input S of D be global and structural, while the output D(S) = (r Éd S) be internal to S and play a syntactic role. In short, the set-theoretic and cosmological embodiments of the self-inclusion paradox are resolved by properly relating the self-inclusive object to the descriptive syntax in terms of which it is necessarily expressed, thus effecting true self-containment: "the universe (set of all sets) is that which topologically contains that which descriptively contains the universe (set of all sets)."
===Discussion===
{{Andrius}}: A very important idea. My guess is that it would relate to the operation [AddThree +3], adding three perspectives to a DivisionOfEverything, which I think of as the operation of consciousness.
2014 balandžio 13 d., 18:51
atliko -
Pakeistos 1-184 eilutės iš
Attach:operationplus3.jpg
į:
Attach:operationplus3.jpg
See also: SharedUnderstanding, {{Recurring}}, {{Equations}}, {{Slack}}, {{Internalization}}
===The perspective of '''{{Nothing}}'''===
This is an account of the perspective of {{Nothing}}. The operation +3 takes us from {{Everything}} to nothing by adding three perspectives. The relationships between {{Nothing}} and {{Something}}, {{Anything}}, {{Everything}} should yield the three {{Languages}}.
===What do I mean by the '''operation +3''' ?===
The operation +3 is that by which we can see through the eyes of another. This is because it allows us to represent a shift from A to B with a third perspective C. This means that a perspective shifting from A to B can be identified with a perspective C! So two different perspectives can be identified, as the dynamic and static versions of each other. The dynamic version sees through the static version. This is what it means to take up a perspective. See: PrimaryStructures.
===Questions===
How is the operation +3 an action on the original {{Wholeness}} within a division?
===Ideas===
How many ways are there of adding three perspectives? There are four: +3, +1+2, +2+1, +1+1+1. More generally, there are 2**(N-1) ways of adding N perspectives because we lay out N+1 points, the first and last are necessarily included, and then we can choose any combination of the N-1 points in between. However, we might also allow for backwards steps, at least those which don't include the initial terminal step. This allows for: +2-1+2 and perhaps for: +1+1-1+1+1 etc.
===Nothing===
This account starts with:
* God as everything - self-sufficient - wishes for nothing
* God as anything - certain - wishes for something
* God as something - calm - wishes for anything
* God as nothing - loving - wishes for everything
Wishing involves four aspects of relationship:
* of itself - no perspectives - RepresentationsOfTheNullsome
* available for relationship - one perspective - RepresentationsOfTheOnesome
* having relationship - two perspectives - RepresentationsOfTheTwosome - negating the representations of the onesome
* not having relationship - three perspectives - RepresentationsOfTheThreesome - negating the representations of the nullsome, as if a third switch to keep the parties separate
The eightfold way consists of negations of the RepresentationsOfTheOnesome and of the RepresentationsOfTheNullsome. Having a relationship negates the expression of everything, and not having a relationship negates the essence of everything.
The negation of the representation of the onesome express that we are connected with God and that he loves us more than we love ourselves. They negate the idea that everything is by itself, whereby everything is:
* required concept
* no internal structure
* simplest algorithm which accepts all things
* no external context
Instead, they allow for another, lesser perspective which supercedes everything, so that:
* it is not a required concept, it's expression may be superceded by a lesser outlook
* there are internal structures, {{Divisions}}
* algorithms do not accept all things, but have filters, {{Representations}}
* there are external contexts, {{Topologies}}.
The negations of the representation of the nullsome express that we are disconnected from God. Hence we can have dynamic languages. Our disconnection is the negation of our connection. That connection is that for him, as a viewer, everything is:
* true
* direct
* constant
* significant
A negation of that connection means that for us, as viewers, there may be things that are:
* not true - things matter, and there is {{Argumentation}}
* not direct - things mean, and there is {{Verbalization}}
* not constant - things happen, and there is {{Narration}}
* not significant - it's essence may be captured and dismissed
It seems that the ''not having connection'' manifests itself in the topologies that do ''not'' express the representations of the nullsome. For example, ''all'' means that we do not find one example of constancy, and so in that sense it is ''not constant''. Or ''process'' is ''not direct''. And ''actual'' is not ''true''. And ''be'', ''do'', ''think'' are all ''not significant''.
In this way, the eightfold way consists of four RepresentationsOfTheTwosome (when we have connection with God) and four RepresentationsOfTheThreesome (when we don't).
===Notes===
I think there is an {{Operation}} +3 and I am trying to understand it. I am making progress in terms of what I think it must involve.
I think that it builds on the operations [AddOne +1] and [AddTwo +2]. I imagine it as a three-cycle of ladder rungs. The operation +2 defines and relates these rungs.
I don't know why the three-cycle arises. I think it relates to a redundancy introduced into the {{Foursome}} - where {{human}} equates {{Spirit}} and {{Unity}} - yields the equation. I imagine that the three rungs are related to {{Obeying}}, {{Believing}} and {{Caring}}, and also to the three kinds of {{Internalization}}. I think it comes from God's relationship with the heart: GodVHeart.
The operation +3 may be related to the relationship between the representations of the {{Nullsome}} and the representations of the {{Threesome}} which are the mindgames tha generate the {{Topologies}}. In particular, these might be the equations:
* [NullAddThree 0 + 3 = 3] for necessary, actual, possible
* [OneAddThree 1 + 3 = 4] for object, process, subject
* [TwoAddThree 2 + 3 = 5] for one, all, many
* [ThreeAddThree 3 + 3 = 6] for be, do, think
They would relate, in the relevant divisions, the human threesome with the divine nullsome. And they may be central to generating the PrimaryStructures.
Note that the representations of the nullsome are equal to the negations of the representation of the foursome in terms of the thing (or is it simply the perspectives of the foursome?)
===''How does the operation +3 generate slack?''===
I need to understanding the unfolding of the onesome, twosome, threesome to arrive at understanding, and the implications of that. And why that recurs for the foursome, fivesome, sixsome, as generated by the heart walking through the same logic. And why the latter generate only two representations instead of four. The unfolding has three tracks taking place at the same time, but how to understand that? Structure is what understands, activity is what comes to understand, and recurring activity (slack) is what they both understand. I imagine what happens is that the unity of the two relationships of +2 (between shift and perspective) makes for a collapse, where two perspectives become one, hence is equivalent to having an antistructure - the seventh perspective - which makes everything collapse into one perspective - zero structure. And then the eighth perspective is similar but without collapse, it is zero activity. This collapse is how it can be recurring - all collapse is the same - whereas all growth is new and ever different.
I also imagine there is a switching from structure to activity that comes with SharedUnderstanding: the activity of one is understood as the structure of an other. I think the ambiguity between structure and activity is what opens up slack.
----
Note: to be loved and then to love - which is to say, to go beyond oneself, coincide with one who has stepped forward, and then to turn around so as to step forward - to love - oneself - this is to allow for a coinciding of views - and a parallel view as with eternal life. Hence understanding is in the turning around, this returning to the beginning. And here that beginning is at the heart. So the movement seems to be: go beyond oneself, coincide with the one who steps forward to meet you, and then turn around to face the one you went beyond.
----
+3 is an {{Operation}} for {{Consciousness}}. It is the operation for RecurringActivity. Here there is a symmetry between {{Structure}} and {{Activity}}. ''(Note that the [AddTwo operation +2] has that Structure channels activity and activity evokes structure.)''
This is the operation by which the {{Sixsome}} yields the {{Sevensome}} by introducing {{Factoring}} and ZeroActivity - ({{Slack}}). Study the SeventhPerspective in the diagram of the PrimaryStructures. Consider how this seventh perspective arises from the factoring that yields the SecondaryStructures.
Note that this is the operation by which the {{Threesome}} becomes cyclic. In fact, the cyclic interpretation of the threesome is the basis for this operation.
'''4 + 3 = 7'''
The operation 1 + 3 = 4 determines the operation +3 and the associated factor, the {{Foursome}}. But it seems that the equation [FourAddThree 4+3=7] is what fully defines the operation '''+3''' and along with it {{Slack}} as the SeventhPerspective.
This could be the system of seven/eight choices based on the four corners of the SemioticSquare. Key here is the introduction of '''and''' to hold together two perspectives at the same time, such as holding together everything and anything to have ''choosing to choose''. Apparently, the binding is an inherent aspect of choosing. It is also vital in the taking up of a perspective as by spirit and structure. It can introduce ''choosing to choose'' as a fifth perspective (engaging), ''choosing to not choose'' as a sixth perspective (disengaging), and finally ''choosing'' as a SeventhPerspective. Then ''not choosing'' is the EighthPerspective which collapses the entire system. The binding of two concepts is given in its variety of ways by the hierarchy of UnityOfRepresentationsOfStructure.
Relate this to {{Internalization}}.
Note: the threesome arises as the colors in the diagram, where everything and nothing coincide, and anything and something coincide.
http://www.ms.lt/en/andrius/understanding/diagrams/operationplus3.jpg
----
{{Andrius}} [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/317 June 14, 2003]
I made a structural observation and extrapolation that help me
understand obeying, believing, caring in terms of their natural
scopes of doing, being, thinking. Consciousness here seems given by
the circumscription of scope, the control of the "rules of the game".
Andrius, http://www.ms.lt
----
I was thinking about this operation +3, which describes
consciousness. I remembered the two representations of the sixsome,
in terms of emotion and cognition, and this brought to mind "caring
about thinking". So I considered the two representations of the
foursome, and of the fivesome, and extrapolated:
Foursome: perspective (obeying) situation (doing)
Fivesome: time (believing) space (being)
Sixsome: emotion (caring) cognition (thinking)
So that we have:
"obeying with regard to doing"
"believing with regard to being"
"caring with regard to thinking"
Where obeying, believing, caring are the reasons for following the
will of God. And doing, being, thinking are likewise a
representation of the threesome, the division of everything into
three perspectives.
This again brought to mind internalization, and the strengthening of
the will, where
beauty to courage is the strengthening of doing
love to hope is the strengthening of being
intimacy to honesty is the strengthening of thinking
I note that here we have representations in terms of increasing slack
(perspective, time, emotion), and then representations in terms of
decreasing slack (situation, space, cognition). So this suggests
the "right relationship". That increasing slack leads to decreasing
slack, as perspectives, we go from God's perspective - good heart, to
man's perspective - good will. But that also, if we live these
perspectives as transformations, then we can have a reversal: if we
follow the will (decreasing slack), then God responds by
strengthening the will (increasing slack).
Also, the extrapolation (obeying about doing, believing about being,
caring about thinking) helps understand how consciousness is given by
control of conceptuality. For here the structure x + 3 circumscribes
the scope for, respectively, doing (onesome), being (twosome),
thinking (threesome).
For example, time/space circumscribe a scope for being, the boundary
were "what is" holds. So taking up issues of decision making
(time/space) have us be conscious of issues of being, because we are
determining where to set the scope for being, what the ground rules
for being are. Likewise, issues of knowledge (perspective/situation)
have us set the ground rules for doing, and issues of morality
(emotion/cognition) have us set the ground rules for thinking.
Also, this helps understand how to interpret the unfolding of the
threesome, first doing (first perspective), then being (second
perspective), then thinking (third perspective).
===Thoughts from prayer===
''2005.04.07 {{A}}: Kaip laisvumas susij&#281;s su s&#261;vok&#371; atskyrimu? {{D}}: Laisvumas yra tame, kad s&#261;voka gali sutapti su kitu ir vis tiek skirtis nuo jos, tai yra santykis tarp sandaros ir dvasios. {{A}}: O kaip trejyb&#279; susijusi su s&#261;vok&#371; atskyrimu? {{D}}: Viena s&#261;voka yra jud&#279;jimas, kad i\9A kitos s&#261;vokos kilo dar kita.''
''2004.11.12 {{A}}: Koks ry\9Ays tarp s&#261;moning&#279;jimo ir nulyb&#279;s atvaizd&#371;? {{D}}: A\9A galiu b&#363;ti jumyse &#303;vairiai, priklausomai nuo to kaip mes bendraujame.''
See also: SharedUnderstanding, {{Recurring}}, {{Equations}}, {{Slack}}, {{Internalization}}
===The perspective of '''{{Nothing}}'''===
This is an account of the perspective of {{Nothing}}. The operation +3 takes us from {{Everything}} to nothing by adding three perspectives. The relationships between {{Nothing}} and {{Something}}, {{Anything}}, {{Everything}} should yield the three {{Languages}}.
===What do I mean by the '''operation +3''' ?===
The operation +3 is that by which we can see through the eyes of another. This is because it allows us to represent a shift from A to B with a third perspective C. This means that a perspective shifting from A to B can be identified with a perspective C! So two different perspectives can be identified, as the dynamic and static versions of each other. The dynamic version sees through the static version. This is what it means to take up a perspective. See: PrimaryStructures.
===Questions===
How is the operation +3 an action on the original {{Wholeness}} within a division?
===Ideas===
How many ways are there of adding three perspectives? There are four: +3, +1+2, +2+1, +1+1+1. More generally, there are 2**(N-1) ways of adding N perspectives because we lay out N+1 points, the first and last are necessarily included, and then we can choose any combination of the N-1 points in between. However, we might also allow for backwards steps, at least those which don't include the initial terminal step. This allows for: +2-1+2 and perhaps for: +1+1-1+1+1 etc.
===Nothing===
This account starts with:
* God as everything - self-sufficient - wishes for nothing
* God as anything - certain - wishes for something
* God as something - calm - wishes for anything
* God as nothing - loving - wishes for everything
Wishing involves four aspects of relationship:
* of itself - no perspectives - RepresentationsOfTheNullsome
* available for relationship - one perspective - RepresentationsOfTheOnesome
* having relationship - two perspectives - RepresentationsOfTheTwosome - negating the representations of the onesome
* not having relationship - three perspectives - RepresentationsOfTheThreesome - negating the representations of the nullsome, as if a third switch to keep the parties separate
The eightfold way consists of negations of the RepresentationsOfTheOnesome and of the RepresentationsOfTheNullsome. Having a relationship negates the expression of everything, and not having a relationship negates the essence of everything.
The negation of the representation of the onesome express that we are connected with God and that he loves us more than we love ourselves. They negate the idea that everything is by itself, whereby everything is:
* required concept
* no internal structure
* simplest algorithm which accepts all things
* no external context
Instead, they allow for another, lesser perspective which supercedes everything, so that:
* it is not a required concept, it's expression may be superceded by a lesser outlook
* there are internal structures, {{Divisions}}
* algorithms do not accept all things, but have filters, {{Representations}}
* there are external contexts, {{Topologies}}.
The negations of the representation of the nullsome express that we are disconnected from God. Hence we can have dynamic languages. Our disconnection is the negation of our connection. That connection is that for him, as a viewer, everything is:
* true
* direct
* constant
* significant
A negation of that connection means that for us, as viewers, there may be things that are:
* not true - things matter, and there is {{Argumentation}}
* not direct - things mean, and there is {{Verbalization}}
* not constant - things happen, and there is {{Narration}}
* not significant - it's essence may be captured and dismissed
It seems that the ''not having connection'' manifests itself in the topologies that do ''not'' express the representations of the nullsome. For example, ''all'' means that we do not find one example of constancy, and so in that sense it is ''not constant''. Or ''process'' is ''not direct''. And ''actual'' is not ''true''. And ''be'', ''do'', ''think'' are all ''not significant''.
In this way, the eightfold way consists of four RepresentationsOfTheTwosome (when we have connection with God) and four RepresentationsOfTheThreesome (when we don't).
===Notes===
I think there is an {{Operation}} +3 and I am trying to understand it. I am making progress in terms of what I think it must involve.
I think that it builds on the operations [AddOne +1] and [AddTwo +2]. I imagine it as a three-cycle of ladder rungs. The operation +2 defines and relates these rungs.
I don't know why the three-cycle arises. I think it relates to a redundancy introduced into the {{Foursome}} - where {{human}} equates {{Spirit}} and {{Unity}} - yields the equation. I imagine that the three rungs are related to {{Obeying}}, {{Believing}} and {{Caring}}, and also to the three kinds of {{Internalization}}. I think it comes from God's relationship with the heart: GodVHeart.
The operation +3 may be related to the relationship between the representations of the {{Nullsome}} and the representations of the {{Threesome}} which are the mindgames tha generate the {{Topologies}}. In particular, these might be the equations:
* [NullAddThree 0 + 3 = 3] for necessary, actual, possible
* [OneAddThree 1 + 3 = 4] for object, process, subject
* [TwoAddThree 2 + 3 = 5] for one, all, many
* [ThreeAddThree 3 + 3 = 6] for be, do, think
They would relate, in the relevant divisions, the human threesome with the divine nullsome. And they may be central to generating the PrimaryStructures.
Note that the representations of the nullsome are equal to the negations of the representation of the foursome in terms of the thing (or is it simply the perspectives of the foursome?)
===''How does the operation +3 generate slack?''===
I need to understanding the unfolding of the onesome, twosome, threesome to arrive at understanding, and the implications of that. And why that recurs for the foursome, fivesome, sixsome, as generated by the heart walking through the same logic. And why the latter generate only two representations instead of four. The unfolding has three tracks taking place at the same time, but how to understand that? Structure is what understands, activity is what comes to understand, and recurring activity (slack) is what they both understand. I imagine what happens is that the unity of the two relationships of +2 (between shift and perspective) makes for a collapse, where two perspectives become one, hence is equivalent to having an antistructure - the seventh perspective - which makes everything collapse into one perspective - zero structure. And then the eighth perspective is similar but without collapse, it is zero activity. This collapse is how it can be recurring - all collapse is the same - whereas all growth is new and ever different.
I also imagine there is a switching from structure to activity that comes with SharedUnderstanding: the activity of one is understood as the structure of an other. I think the ambiguity between structure and activity is what opens up slack.
----
Note: to be loved and then to love - which is to say, to go beyond oneself, coincide with one who has stepped forward, and then to turn around so as to step forward - to love - oneself - this is to allow for a coinciding of views - and a parallel view as with eternal life. Hence understanding is in the turning around, this returning to the beginning. And here that beginning is at the heart. So the movement seems to be: go beyond oneself, coincide with the one who steps forward to meet you, and then turn around to face the one you went beyond.
----
+3 is an {{Operation}} for {{Consciousness}}. It is the operation for RecurringActivity. Here there is a symmetry between {{Structure}} and {{Activity}}. ''(Note that the [AddTwo operation +2] has that Structure channels activity and activity evokes structure.)''
This is the operation by which the {{Sixsome}} yields the {{Sevensome}} by introducing {{Factoring}} and ZeroActivity - ({{Slack}}). Study the SeventhPerspective in the diagram of the PrimaryStructures. Consider how this seventh perspective arises from the factoring that yields the SecondaryStructures.
Note that this is the operation by which the {{Threesome}} becomes cyclic. In fact, the cyclic interpretation of the threesome is the basis for this operation.
'''4 + 3 = 7'''
The operation 1 + 3 = 4 determines the operation +3 and the associated factor, the {{Foursome}}. But it seems that the equation [FourAddThree 4+3=7] is what fully defines the operation '''+3''' and along with it {{Slack}} as the SeventhPerspective.
This could be the system of seven/eight choices based on the four corners of the SemioticSquare. Key here is the introduction of '''and''' to hold together two perspectives at the same time, such as holding together everything and anything to have ''choosing to choose''. Apparently, the binding is an inherent aspect of choosing. It is also vital in the taking up of a perspective as by spirit and structure. It can introduce ''choosing to choose'' as a fifth perspective (engaging), ''choosing to not choose'' as a sixth perspective (disengaging), and finally ''choosing'' as a SeventhPerspective. Then ''not choosing'' is the EighthPerspective which collapses the entire system. The binding of two concepts is given in its variety of ways by the hierarchy of UnityOfRepresentationsOfStructure.
Relate this to {{Internalization}}.
Note: the threesome arises as the colors in the diagram, where everything and nothing coincide, and anything and something coincide.
http://www.ms.lt/en/andrius/understanding/diagrams/operationplus3.jpg
----
{{Andrius}} [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/317 June 14, 2003]
I made a structural observation and extrapolation that help me
understand obeying, believing, caring in terms of their natural
scopes of doing, being, thinking. Consciousness here seems given by
the circumscription of scope, the control of the "rules of the game".
Andrius, http://www.ms.lt
----
I was thinking about this operation +3, which describes
consciousness. I remembered the two representations of the sixsome,
in terms of emotion and cognition, and this brought to mind "caring
about thinking". So I considered the two representations of the
foursome, and of the fivesome, and extrapolated:
Foursome: perspective (obeying) situation (doing)
Fivesome: time (believing) space (being)
Sixsome: emotion (caring) cognition (thinking)
So that we have:
"obeying with regard to doing"
"believing with regard to being"
"caring with regard to thinking"
Where obeying, believing, caring are the reasons for following the
will of God. And doing, being, thinking are likewise a
representation of the threesome, the division of everything into
three perspectives.
This again brought to mind internalization, and the strengthening of
the will, where
beauty to courage is the strengthening of doing
love to hope is the strengthening of being
intimacy to honesty is the strengthening of thinking
I note that here we have representations in terms of increasing slack
(perspective, time, emotion), and then representations in terms of
decreasing slack (situation, space, cognition). So this suggests
the "right relationship". That increasing slack leads to decreasing
slack, as perspectives, we go from God's perspective - good heart, to
man's perspective - good will. But that also, if we live these
perspectives as transformations, then we can have a reversal: if we
follow the will (decreasing slack), then God responds by
strengthening the will (increasing slack).
Also, the extrapolation (obeying about doing, believing about being,
caring about thinking) helps understand how consciousness is given by
control of conceptuality. For here the structure x + 3 circumscribes
the scope for, respectively, doing (onesome), being (twosome),
thinking (threesome).
For example, time/space circumscribe a scope for being, the boundary
were "what is" holds. So taking up issues of decision making
(time/space) have us be conscious of issues of being, because we are
determining where to set the scope for being, what the ground rules
for being are. Likewise, issues of knowledge (perspective/situation)
have us set the ground rules for doing, and issues of morality
(emotion/cognition) have us set the ground rules for thinking.
Also, this helps understand how to interpret the unfolding of the
threesome, first doing (first perspective), then being (second
perspective), then thinking (third perspective).
===Thoughts from prayer===
''2005.04.07 {{A}}: Kaip laisvumas susij&#281;s su s&#261;vok&#371; atskyrimu? {{D}}: Laisvumas yra tame, kad s&#261;voka gali sutapti su kitu ir vis tiek skirtis nuo jos, tai yra santykis tarp sandaros ir dvasios. {{A}}: O kaip trejyb&#279; susijusi su s&#261;vok&#371; atskyrimu? {{D}}: Viena s&#261;voka yra jud&#279;jimas, kad i\9A kitos s&#261;vokos kilo dar kita.''
''2004.11.12 {{A}}: Koks ry\9Ays tarp s&#261;moning&#279;jimo ir nulyb&#279;s atvaizd&#371;? {{D}}: A\9A galiu b&#363;ti jumyse &#303;vairiai, priklausomai nuo to kaip mes bendraujame.''
IrTrys
Naujausi pakeitimai
网站
Įvadas #E9F5FC
Klausimai #FFFFC0
Teiginiai #FFFFFF
Kitų mintys #EFCFE1
Dievas man #FFECC0
Iš ankščiau #CCFFCC
Mieli skaitytojai, visa mano kūryba ir kartu visi šie puslapiai yra visuomenės turtas, kuriuo visi kviečiami laisvai naudotis, dalintis, visaip perkurti. - Andrius