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.Nedviprasmybės istorija

Paslėpti nežymius pakeitimus - Rodyti galutinio teksto pakeitimus

2014 lapkričio 09 d., 19:17 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pakeistos 1-119 eilutės iš
[[Netroškimai]] Žr.taip pat Everything, Anything, Slack, Representations, Empathy

Šešios nedviprasmybės yra pasirinkimai, antrinės sandaros, betko atvaizdai.

Dievas yra daugiaprasmiškas.

Attach:representationsofanything.gif

What relates Everything and Anything? Slack - anything is everything plus slack - this happens by way of their Activity.

Note that the difference between everything and anything is that everything is unbounded, and anything is bounded. So life is the fact that God partakes of the bounded, as well as the unbounded.

Structural families arise from attempts to express one representation of everything in terms of the structural framework for another representation of everything. They allow Life to stay independent before God. Andrius, 2002.02.12 This below needs to be fixed, rethought.

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

----

Andrius: [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/318 June 14, 2003]

I found a way to think about the six representations of anything so
that they are connected with the four representations of everything.

The four representations of everything are the same as the four
properties of God.
* Everything wishes for nothing - has no needs, is self-sufficient.
(Going beyond this, we have needs, and a system of operating
principles for responding.)
* Everything wishes for something - has no doubts, is certain, things
are just as it wishes. (Going beyond this, we have doubts, and a
system of counterquestions for responding.)
* Everything wishes for anything - has no expectations, is calm, all
things are good for it. (Going beyond this, we have expectations,
and a system of emotional responses for responding.)
* Everything wishes for everything - has no trials, is loving, loves
us more than we love ourselves. (Going beyond this, we have trials,
and an eightfold way for responding.)
Many of the details are in my notes at
http://www.ms.lt/en/andrius/understanding/understanding.html

Structurally, each of the resulting systems has eight perspectives,
one for the property of God, three for the perspective of God, three
for the perspective of human, and a seventh for the relationship
between the two.

There are six more systems that appears can be gotten by applying a
system of broader scope to a property of narrower scope. If we look
at the seventh perspective from each of these "injections" then we
get: engage, suspense, believe, rely, love, suffer. These are
related to six of the ten commandments, which prohibit forcing these
various ways of engaging the will.

I remembered that the representations of anything are related to the
ways of choosing, and considered, what is being chosen here? I
noticed that in each of these injections, the everything/God
is "colder" than he needs to be, that is, narrower in the scope of is
concern. So I thought this is the consequence of our "choosing". We
are "choosing our God", and unfortunately, the involvement of our
choice is what forces the complementary system to be from a broader
level than the property, so that there is a gap. I think this yields
a sensible derivation for the six ways of engaging the will, the
represetations of anything:

* 6) we are suffering =
we have trials, but everything is self-sufficient, lacks nothing.

* 5) we are loving =
we have trials, but everything is certain, things are just as it
wishes.

* 4) we are relying =
we have trials, but everything is calm, all that happens is good.

* 3) we are believing =
we have expectations, but everything is certain, things are just as
it wishes.

* 2) we are in suspense =
we have expectations, but everything is self-sufficient, lacks nothing

* 1) we are engaging =
we have doubts, but everything is self-sufficient, lacks nothing

So here the representations of anything are given by the way that we
are choosing our God, our everything. Here it seems indeed that
anything is everything plus slack (given by the difference in levels).

Note also that the scope of everything is "bounded" so that also
helps us move from the unbounded everything to the bounded anything.

And I think I can match these with the representations of slack and
of everything.

(how we are choosing God)
* 1) with increasing slack
* 2) with decreasing slack

(what scope of God's concern are we choosing)
* 3) everything
* 4) anything
* 5) something
* 6) nothing

Another thought here is that if we choose God, then he is colder than
he needs to be. And if he chooses us, then he is just right for
where we are at. In particular, we can not ourselves choose a "loving
God", or I think, a loving everything.

Now I have some questions on my mind.
* How to relate these ideas in terms of loving your neighbor as yourself, being "one with" locally?
* Conceptualizing especially the representations of everything and slack as those of anything. I think this involves one or more inversion effects for some of these.
* Seeing how that works for the ten commandments.
* I should work out the distinction between God and everything here, I am being loose with words.

This is a pretty good vantage point, though, from which I can start
working out and writing up the details of the many structures.
Something to think about would be the practical importance of various
structures, and how that relates to writing them up. So I appreciate
thoughts on your own projects.
į:
Žr. [[Atvaizdai]]
2014 birželio 27 d., 10:55 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pakeistos 1-2 eilutės iš
[[Netroškimai]] Žr.taip pat {{Everything}}, {{Anything}}, {{Slack}}, {{Representations}}, {{Empathy}}
į:
[[Netroškimai]] Žr.taip pat Everything, Anything, Slack, Representations, Empathy
Pakeistos 9-10 eilutės iš
What relates {{Everything}} and {{Anything}}? {{Slack}} - anything is everything plus slack - this happens by way of their {{Activity}}.
į:
What relates Everything and Anything? Slack - anything is everything plus slack - this happens by way of their Activity.
Pakeista 19 eilutė iš:
{{Andrius}}: [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/318 June 14, 2003]
į:
Andrius: [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/318 June 14, 2003]
2014 birželio 27 d., 10:54 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pakeistos 1-3 eilutės iš
[[Pasirinkimai]], Antrinės sandaros

Dievas yra daugiaprasmiškas.
Pasirinkimai.
į:
[[Netroškimai]] Žr.taip pat {{Everything}}, {{Anything}}, {{Slack}}, {{Representations}}, {{Empathy}}

Šešios nedviprasmybės yra pasirinkimai, antrinės sandaros, betko atvaizdai.

Dievas yra daugiaprasmiškas.

Attach:representationsofanything.gif

What relates {{Everything}} and {{Anything}}? {{Slack}} - anything is everything plus slack - this happens by way of their {{Activity}}.

Note that the difference between everything and anything is that everything is unbounded, and anything is bounded. So life is the fact that God partakes of the bounded, as well as the unbounded.

Structural families arise from attempts to express one representation of everything in terms of the structural framework for another representation of everything. They allow Life to stay independent before God. Andrius, 2002.02.12 This below needs to be fixed, rethought.

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

----

{{Andrius}}: [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/318 June 14, 2003]

I found a way to think about the six representations of anything so
that they are connected with the four representations of everything.

The four representations of everything are the same as the four
properties of God.
* Everything wishes for nothing - has no needs, is self-sufficient.
(Going beyond this, we have needs, and a system of operating
principles for responding.)
* Everything wishes for something - has no doubts, is certain, things
are just as it wishes. (Going beyond this, we have doubts, and a
system of counterquestions for responding.)
* Everything wishes for anything - has no expectations, is calm, all
things are good for it. (Going beyond this, we have expectations,
and a system of emotional responses for responding.)
* Everything wishes for everything - has no trials, is loving, loves
us more than we love ourselves. (Going beyond this, we have trials,
and an eightfold way for responding.)
Many of the details are in my notes at
http://www.ms.lt/en/andrius/understanding/understanding.html

Structurally, each of the resulting systems has eight perspectives,
one for the property of God, three for the perspective of God, three
for the perspective of human, and a seventh for the relationship
between the two.

There are six more systems that appears can be gotten by applying a
system of broader scope to a property of narrower scope. If we look
at the seventh perspective from each of these "injections" then we
get: engage, suspense, believe, rely, love, suffer. These are
related to six of the ten commandments, which prohibit forcing these
various ways of engaging the will.

I remembered that the representations of anything are related to the
ways of choosing, and considered, what is being chosen here? I
noticed that in each of these injections, the everything/God
is "colder" than he needs to be, that is, narrower in the scope of is
concern. So I thought this is the consequence of our "choosing". We
are "choosing our God", and unfortunately, the involvement of our
choice is what forces the complementary system to be from a broader
level than the property, so that there is a gap. I think this yields
a sensible derivation for the six ways of engaging the will, the
represetations of anything:

* 6) we are suffering =
we have trials, but everything is self-sufficient, lacks nothing.

* 5) we are loving =
we have trials, but everything is certain, things are just as it
wishes.

* 4) we are relying =
we have trials, but everything is calm, all that happens is good.

* 3) we are believing =
we have expectations, but everything is certain, things are just as
it wishes.

* 2) we are in suspense =
we have expectations, but everything is self-sufficient, lacks nothing

* 1) we are engaging =
we have doubts, but everything is self-sufficient, lacks nothing

So here the representations of anything are given by the way that we
are choosing our God, our everything. Here it seems indeed that
anything is everything plus slack (given by the difference in levels).

Note also that the scope of everything is "bounded" so that also
helps us move from the unbounded everything to the bounded anything.

And I think I can match these with the representations of slack and
of everything.

(how we are choosing God)
* 1) with increasing slack
* 2) with decreasing slack

(what scope of God's concern are we choosing)
* 3) everything
* 4) anything
* 5) something
* 6) nothing

Another thought here is that if we choose God, then he is colder than
he needs to be. And if he chooses us, then he is just right for
where we are at. In particular, we can not ourselves choose a "loving
God", or I think, a loving everything.

Now I have some questions on my mind.
* How to relate these ideas in terms of loving your neighbor as yourself, being "one with" locally?
* Conceptualizing especially the representations of everything and slack as those of anything. I think this involves one or more inversion effects for some of these.
* Seeing how that works for the ten commandments.
* I should work out the distinction between God and everything here, I am being loose with words.

This is a pretty good vantage point, though, from which I can start
working out and writing up the details of the many structures.
Something to think about would be the practical importance of various
structures, and how that relates to writing them up. So I appreciate
thoughts on your own projects
.
2014 birželio 27 d., 10:51 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pridėtos 1-3 eilutės:
[[Pasirinkimai]], Antrinės sandaros

Dievas yra daugiaprasmiškas. Pasirinkimai.

Nedviprasmybės


Naujausi pakeitimai


Puslapis paskutinį kartą pakeistas 2014 lapkričio 09 d., 19:17