Mieli dalyviai! Visa mano kūryba ir kartu visi šie puslapiai yra visuomenės turtas, kuriuo visi kviečiami laisvai naudotis, dalintis, visaip perkurti. - Andrius
Kaip keturi netroškimai išplaukia iš aštuonerybės?
Netroškimai susiję su trejybės atvaizdais:
Dievas, išeidamas už savęs, eina iš savo klausimų (Ar Dievas būtinas?) į žmogaus klausimus (Kas aš esu?)
Dievas trokšta, o mes netrokštame. Troškimai skiria Dievą nuo kitų asmenų, pirmiausiai, nuo Manęs ir Tavęs. Aš ir Dievas sutampa Tavimi, bet Tu ir Aš netrokštame, o Dievas trokšta. O trokšta ar netrokšta visko, betko, kažko ar nieko. Tad troškimai ir netroškimai sieja asmenų atvaizdus (trokštančio ar netrokštančio) su sandarų atvaizdais (visko, betko, kažko, nieko). Nulybė trokšta, o vienybė netrokšta. Veiksnys +1 tad sieja Dievo troškimą su visa eile žmogaus netroškimų. Nulybė yra mūsų gelmėse, o veiksnys +1 išveda ją už mūsų ir palaipsniui vis arčiau mūsų, kol galiausia septintu požiūriu mums tapatus Kitu, tad išreiškia mus ir esame viena.
Netroškimai, tai mūsų savastis. Save tapatiname su savo poreikiais ir kūnu, abejonėmis ir protu, lūkesčiais ir jausmu, širdimi, vertybėmis ir valia. Tokiais lygmenimis išvystome save, tampami besąlygiški. Netroškimai, tai mūsų išmąstymai, kurie papildo troškimus, ir vis siaurėja.
TripleSelf is Other's self, the SecondaryStructures.
Dividing is going beyond the TripleSelf.
Atsisakymas savęs - septintas požiūris
Not wishes are:
There are 24 not wishes.
Each of the six SecondaryStructures may be thought of as the coinciding of the Observer of a wider observational plane with an observer of a narrower observational plane.
The PrimaryStructures are four structures that are central to human life. They are quite similar in that each of them consists of eight perspectives, six of which are experienced by a human, a seventh is a human's general perspective, and an eighth is understood as God's perspective. They describe our intuition, as if we are living in a house whose rooms are all familiar, yet too many to hold in our mind at the same time.
Of all structures, the primary structures are those which are not only deeply insightful but directly practical. They express our relationship with God, with the totality, so that we might know and apply ourselves appropriately. Here are there purposes:
Each framework is organized around a wish unmet, and so reflects a purpose by which we can know it. In practice, when we comprehensively collect and analyze our subjective experiences, then we find that they exhibit one of these structural frameworks. We understand the difference between these structural frameworks by appreciating the purposes in life that they serve.
Pairs of the primary structures yield the SecondaryStructures, which are not directly practical, but express all the remaining mechanics of life.
===The Primary Structures Arise from the Omniscope===
A primary structure arises from one of the Omniscope's four ObservationalPlanes. We identify with the Observer who has pulled away from that observational plane. In this way, we interpret the six Angles associated to that observational plane as six Concerns, which is to say, six NotWishes, what we don't wish for. We further allow for a seventh perspective that pulls together an observer in general, a human who is wished for. We also admit of an eighth perspective, the observer which went beyond themselves into the observational plane, who we identify with the one who wishes, structurally as Everything, the structure of God.
===Summary of a Primary Structure===
Every primary structure mediates God's and our relationship. It involves:
PrimaryStructures are constituted by four distinctions:
And each primary structure emphasizes a particular distinction.
===The Coinciding of Views===
The primary structures allow others to look through our eyes. We are different from others, but they may not be different from us! Although we do not wish, yet others may wish through us. We are therefore vehicles for their wishing, as given by the primary structures.
When others view themselves through our eyes, then they may be the same as us. We do not define them separately from their plane of observation, as we do not need to distinguish whether they may or are viewing through us. Hence our frameworks are the same. This yields the four PrimaryStructures depending on the vantage point.
When we view ourselves through the eyes of others, then they are different from us. We define them separately from their plane of observation because we distinguish between whether they are or are not viewing, and hence between them and what they are viewing. We identify with that narrower scope which they go beyond into their plane of observation. Hence our frameworks must be different. This yields the six SecondaryStructures depending on the shift in vantage point.
(Note: this is the asymmetry by which we understand that we are the child and not the parent, and so we should position ourselves where we might best be found, as the LostChild.)
The purpose is to separate the perspectives of eternal life and of life so that they might coincide. The coinciding is what humans may do and what God does of his nature. God, as the parent of the LostChild, positions himself so that the child might have every opportunity to find him or be found by him.
Each of the primary structures allows us to see through a certain perspective, and also be seen by that perspective. The structures allow that perspective to see itself (through us).
Note the relationship to the AlgebraOfViews. Each level relates how God sees through our eyes with how we see through God's eyes.
===Scope of access===
The primary structures arise when others view themselves through our eyes. How much access to themselves do they have through us? This is the scope of access. It may be: Everything, Anything, Something or Nothing. (Respectively: all perspectives, any perspective, a perspective, no perspectives.) It reflects the degree of our own opaqueness, our privacy. And it determines the nature of the other:
Note that this also opens up room for our own free will.
[ThisWiki:Look Looking through our eyes] may be thought of as a transition, a state change. Before one sees through our eyes, they are not restricted. At the point when they see through our eyes, they are restricted by some ObservationalPlane, some scope: everything, anything, something, nothing. Then they are looking through our eyes. They can then see themselves, and as such, they see themselves in that observational plane. To look through somebody's eyes is to take up their observational plane.
===God as the viewer who fully takes up the access of scope===
Whatever the access of scope, we may identify a viewer with that scope who takes it up fully. Such a viewer is the one who thereby completely determines the structural ramifications. Such a viewer is God identified with a scope. We have, generally:
Here the structures are defined from our vantage point: God is our everything, our anything, our something, our nothing. And they dictate planes of observation, in that they are the qualities that hold when no distinction is made between the observer and their plane of observation:
Note that here God is both that which accesses all of the observational plane, seeing through us, but also fills up all of the observational plane, as he sees himself, as the relevant structure.
For us to be able to understand the above identifications, we need to consider God himself in a structural form. God's structure is Everything, which is to say, the everything. For this God to be identified with a scope is for him to go beyond himself. In considering this God, we shift our view from what he has gone beyond to to the one who will go beyond himself. From that latter view, this going beyond is now sized up with regard to where he already is, and how much he will go beyond himself. This means that we are now dealing with the complements:
These are Wishes:
These are the backgrounds that we live amongst, the observational planes that access themselves through us as they go beyond themselves by way of us. We are their wishes for nothing, something, anything, everything.
Wishes are the blocking of access which we attribute to everything as it reduces its scope to the access that is attributed to God.
We may think of God as going beyond himself into these scopes. In order to conceive of this, we need to think of God structurally. So we identify with "everything" that God who will go beyond himself, and we may identify with "everything", "anything", "something" or "nothing" that God who has gone beyond himself. In going beyond himself, God has restricted his access to himself. He has reduced it from "everything" to something equal or less. We interpret these focusings of access as "wishes":
===The Omniscope - Our Eyes Are Given By Our NotWishes - Four ObservationalPlanes===
The primary structures describe how we might respond fully to our Needs, our Doubts, our Expectations and our Commitments.
NotWishes are the not-blocking of access by which we open the way for God. They are our identification with the Observer who has pulled away from the ObservationalPlane, and hence has not reduced himself to it.
In each case the NotWishes are what separate an observer and an observational plane. Our own NotWishes are what distinguish us from an ObservationalPlane, and keep us Separate from it. They give the extent to which we do not go beyond ourselves, to which we keep to ourselves. They are thus SelfReinforcing. In that sense, with regard to ourselves, we are defined by not-wishes, and they are defining.
They are characterized by the Scope, the observational plane, from which we back away, to which they relate us, and in particular, the distance that they overcome:
The Omniscope expresses the 24 NotWishes in terms of 4 ObservationalPlanes, the three-cycle, and backing out to either ourselves (Anything) or Everything.
What keeps us separate from an observational plane? We need to attach ourselves to what is ultimately beyond it, either the ultimate observational plane, or the ultimate observer.
The fact that everything goes beyond itself (through wishes) into our everything, our anything, our something or our nothing means that we can distinguish ourselves from our observational plane by letting go of it and taking up the everything. This disengagement makes for what is, seems, ought, and what we choose, depending on our observational plane.
===Omniscope - Three-Cycle===
There is a sense in which the three-cycle is driven by such self-restrictions. For example, courage is related to choosing without reflecting, hope with choosing without following through, and honesty with choosing without taking a stand. There is a sense that each shift has us remove ourselves, leaving only the plane of observation, and yet we are still arise anew as our own self-restriction. But I need to intuitively understand this.
I think that the meaning of the plane arises by considering it (choose, ought, seem, is) as a position (taking a stand, following through, reflecting) disappears or appears. For example, courage is choosing as reflecting disappears, and caring is choosing as reflecting appears. This yields the twenty four human perspectives. (And this may express the 4x3x2 possibilities that are subsequently factored by the secondary structures). They thereby give the relationship between the participant (the human) and the underlying structure, the default space, the base space.
When we go beyond ourselves, then there is a wish by which we are separated from ourselves, and we wish (as in EternalLife). If we do not wish, then there is not a wish by which we are separated from ourselves, and so we must be that movement by which we go from ourselves to ourselves. We are ever that movement by which we are not separate from ourselves. And so this keeps moving us onward. And the threesome is the minimal structure for expressing that identification (as in Life). As the minimal structure, it is the one which allows the widest variety to see through our eyes.
Another way to think of this is that Scope is the extent of our not being one with ourselves. Scope is the extent of the removal of self. Hence, to not have scope is to have one's self.
The threesome gives the essential distillation of our self: taking a stand, following through and reflecting. We move out of ourselves into ourselves, and that movement is also ourselves. It is a movement out of ourselves and into our observational plane, but within that plane, we are yet again always present. So the threesome provides the minimal presence that we always have within our observation plane. We are always present as a taking a stand within ourselves, a following through within our observational plane, and a reflection within that movement.
With the three-cycle they see through our eyes, whereas with the other three nodes, we see through their eyes. Also, the three-cycle takes us from the observer to the observational plane. What does that mean?
I think that the Threesome has the observer arise as distinct from their observational plane, and yet thereby ever collapse back into it. Each perspective in the threesome may be identified with such an arisal. The completion of the arisal makes for the collapse.
"Our eyes" are the point at which the ObservationalPlane begins. When somebody looks through our eyes, then they have entered whichever observational plane which we express.
We arise by stepping back, stepping away from "our eyes". Just as the Wishes step into our eyes, so that one might see through us, so do NotWishes have us step away from our eyes, and take up the very same Everything which is apart from us and went beyond itself to our eyes. We step away from "our everything", "our anything", "our something", "our nothing" and back into (or at least towards) "THE everything".
Others can see through our eyes by way of the threesome (see the [AddThree operation +3]. Our eyes are given by the threesome, and they see by means of shifts expressed as such through the representations.
Our point of view and God's point of view are related by means of the threesome: take a stand, follow through and reflect. Our point of view (our eyes) is expressed as a cyclic shift from one perspective to another perspective:
The answer centered on God/potential for God/potential for good/good moves us forward, and the answer centered on self/potential for self/potential for bad/bad moves us backwards.
God's point of view is given by the perspectives as expressed by some representation of the threesome. God waits for us to make our move and he coincides with us before and after. In order to do so, he must relate with the entire threesome, and so he must dictate one of four levels at which its representation takes place. In order for the human to acknowledge God's perspective, the human must consider that level as standing on its own. Therefore the human must be able to distinguish that level on its own (God's representation through the nullsome) and God's participation through that level within the human's three cycle. This yields three more perspectives where the human chooses between God's plane within the human's sphere and God's plane standing on its own.
God expresses his point of view as a going beyond the threesome into the nullsome. He relates a topology with the RepresentationOfTheNullsome from which it arises.
Each of the dilemmas seems to have a three-cycle which gives the human outlook. The three-cycle is mapped onto God, outside the system, onto his representation in terms of 0, 1, 2 or 3 perspectives. This map yields three additional perspectives which give God's outlook.
A human allows for a null, and God takes up that role.
===NotWishes - Dilemmas===
The NotWishes are given by dilemmas:
Note that the dilemmas are such that they intensify themselves, they give themselves positive feedback, they are SelfReinforcing. Perhaps this is because they distinguish the observer from the observational plane. The more that we identify with the observer, the more they separate us from the observational plane.
Doubts are self-reinforcing in one perspective. Expectations are perhaps in two perspectives, as structure and activity. And commitments perhaps in three perspectives.
Then they are rephrased as Counterchoices, which is how we are able to respond. And each primary structure differs in the distance that it provides between the concerns and the counterchoices. So that in the case of God is nothing, there is a complete separation between the commitments and their counterchoices. (Which is why they can consitute the Sixsome, a DivisionOfEverything. God is presumably what the commitments and their counterchoices have in common.
The NotWishes have us flutter back and forth, as God steps in to empathize with a narrower observer, and we step back into God's wider view.
To know is to separate and isolate what is within a scope from what is beyond it. But God is prior and thus in this sense there can be no knowledge. God is already present in and beyond any scope and so alongside scope is introduced the NullAction which makes this evident. Scope mediates the relationship between God beyond system and God / NotGod within system even as it shrinks to Nothing. Whereas God within system climbs out by way of the acceptance of scope by God beyond system. Life equates these two processes and EternalLife holds them separate. The PrimaryStructures mediate the relationship between the RepresentationsOfTheNullsome (the perspectives that express the extrasystemic view whose eyes we see through - and with whom we are one as in Life) and the respective RepresentationsOfTheOnesome (as is, seems, ought, choose) (defined by the systemic view structured by the threesome that expresses what eyes see through us - and keeps them separate from us as in Eternal Life). Note that the topologies mediate this relationship and they are spawned by the RepresentationsOfTheNullsome and they characterize the RepresentationsOfTheOnesome.
===They Are Given By Our CounterChoices===
The concerns are responded to by CounterChoices:
These structures of response extend into eight perspectives the available responses. The counterchoices are appropriate and sufficient knowledge for us in all aspects of life.
These response arise when somebody else looks through our eyes. In this way, take a stand / follow through / reflect becomes:
Note that when God is within us, then so is the choice of good, and so is life. But when God is beyond us, then likewise our choice of good is evident beyond us - in our actions - and so is our life. So God's reaching beyond himself is an externalization that moves our choice into a world beyond us and that is what makes truth hard, and goodness hard. Our choices are fluid inside of us, but harden outside of us.
As somebody is looking through our eyes, we are now faced with a choice - to side with them, for EternalLife, or to side with ourselves, for Life. They represent the general state of somebody in our own situation, hence they represent eternal life. But we need to choose them over ourselves.
Each concern distinguishes two outlooks for the observational plane, one as the Everything (the ultimate observational plane), and another as the Anything (the observational plane for the observer). This yields a choice for us, as the observer. We can identify with the observational plane that is separate from us, and greater from us, or we can identify with the one that is given by us. These become choices between EternalLife and Life:
These are the Counterchoices. They are phrased as general questions, principles, matters, in which case they still reflect our point of view. They may then take us to either of the two outlooks, as ever we decide, in which case they have taken us to God's point of view.
The NotWishes allow us to separate ourselves, as observers, from our observational planes. But then the CounterChoices rephrase these as choices, and they allow us to think not in terms of ourselves (for we keep receding back into our observational plane) but rather escape ourselves and think in terms of another: God within us, another within us, another outside us, God outside us.
Life is the fact that God is good; eternal life is the understanding that God is good. These equations hold at four distinct levels which are defined by perspectives that see themselves through us:
These levels express the movement outwards from soft Truth - how things look to God - to hard truth - how things look to us. In this way God goes beyond himself: we move from a point inside us from which God views to a point outside us from which God views:
IAmStatements are the right applications of the OperatingPrinciples, applying them to God rather than to Self.
I think that it is best for us that God be beyond us, for we are limited, and so he might be greater than us, especially as a reference point when we reach out to others. We thus likewise grow in our ability to engage others. Also, by being distinct from God, we are able to more fully engage God.
===God sees himself through us===
Our experience, given by the Concerns, is expressed as shifts, whereby the as observers we pull away from the observational plane. Then we reinterpret these as Counterchoices whereby we may shift in the forward direction, separating ourselves from the observational plane, or shift in the backwards direction. When we shift forward, then the other sees themselves through us, for we have chosen the general perspective (the other) over our own. Whereas when we shift backward, we have chosen the perspective that identifies us with our observational plane.
God's perspective is given by where our shift resolves, either its beginning or its end. These points of resolution are either the ultimate Observer (which God understands as the Threesome) or the ultimate ObservationalPlane (which God understands as the Nullsome). We may therefore consider our shift as coinciding with God's shift, except that God's shift is in the context of the whole. When we choose God over ourselves, then we are accepting the right direction, we are pulling away from our observational plane, and that shift coincides with God's perspective, which in God's case is not only a shift, but also a separation of two perspectives, initial and final. That shift itself is, from his point of view, either part of a RepresentationOfTheThreesome, or part of a RepresentationOfTheNullsome. If it is a shift in the context of a representation of the threesome, then he experiences the shift with respect to the whole, and for us it sets apart a final Topology which we experience separately from the others. If it is in the context of a representation of the nullsome (either true, direct, constant or significant) then he experiences the shift with regard to the whole, as leading to the root trigger that gave rise to the mind game and hence the representation. We experience it as leading to the individual threads of the mind game (3 for significance, 2 for constancy, 1 for direct, 0 for truth), and perhaps each of these is Reinforcing of a concern, perhaps:
When God looks at himself through our eyes he sees the representation of the nullsome that accords with the scope of access: things look true, direct, constant or significant, accordingly. He accesses the representation of the nullsome by way of the representation of the threesome, and thus by way of our eyes.
Our concerns have us combine both options, whereas counterchoices have us separate them. For example, we can combine or separate the topology and the trigger:
necessary = is taking a stand, actual = is following through, possible = is reflecting
object = seems to take a stand, process = seems to follow through, subject = seems to reflect
one = ought to take a stand, all = ought to follow through, many = ought to reflect (is there also: many = ought to take a stand, one = ought to follow through, all = ought to reflect)?
be = chooses to take a stand, do= chooses to follow through, think = chooses to reflect (are there the other two permutations as well?)
And consider the above within the three-cycle...
What are the concerns and counterchoices for the eightfold way? I think they are related to the perspectives of the representations of the sixsome, but I need to get this straight. It seems that the concerns would be (obey, believe, care, courage, honesty, hope) and have us open ourselves to God beyond us, but then the counterchoices would have us pray with God to God, and yet choose God, so that he might grow from weak to strong. In this way, the concerns have us defer our will, but the counterchoices let us transfer our will, or not. Also, how does this relate to internalization, both the external perspectives, and the emotional dispositions?
Where do the Counterquestions get their structure? (As perspectives on situations). How does it relate to their definition as concerns (seeming to take a stand, follow through, etc.) Perhaps their structure arises as the way that the other experiences our concerns, the slack that they have compared to us. (Perhaps that is how AntiStructure arises.) Consider similarly for the DirectionsToTheGood and the EightfoldWay. Consider how such structure for the PrimaryStructures arises as the Other takes up the Concerns through us. And then consider the SecondaryStructures as given by placing, framing that other's perspective within a framework given by God's ObservationalPlane.
Write up the counter-choices.
How do the injections work? What is their mechanics?
What is the role of the Gradations?
What is the relationship between the operation +3 and not wishing?
Write up the Topologies, Representations and Divisions in terms of the Omniscope.
Consider how the threesome relates to the observational plane. And consider the role of fluttering, of switching back between our relationship with ourselves and with God, and the extent of that chasm.
What is the meaning of what separates the commitments and the choices, and what they have in common ?
What is the relationship between activity (reaching out, recurring, etc.) and the primary structures?
Question: Where do we place and interpret the questions Why? How? What? and the answers Whether! What! How! And how do we permute them?
Consider how the topologies might be considered as modalities in the movement through the threesome (for example, the word "may").
Clarify how the topologies relate (from the perspectives of life and God) as empathy that connects to taking a stand, following through and reflecting.
Write up how the topologies and representations come from the expectations, and consider how the divisions come from the counterquestions.
Look for the role that the eightsome plays as GeneralStructure, where is it to be found?
The zeroth perspective may be thought of as the voice of that representation of the nullsome, the voice of God. But what is the seventh perspective? How does it express the threesome? Is it related to the nullsome?
How does the eighth perspective, which seems to give God's view, relate to the human's view? (As the omniscope describes human's view of God's view of human's view of God's view of a human's view?) How does this relate to the view of Nothing? And how do the eighth perspective and the seventh perspective relate to each other? How does this all relate to the coinciding of God's and human's views?
The degree of life, the intensity of empathy, is given by the number of perspectives that participate, which is from zero (operating principles) to three (life choices). These perspectives can be interpreted as expressing the level of awareness. They map onto the perspectives which we alternate amongst, making them static.
The structures that arise in response to dilemmas seem to be given by equations generated by the operation +3 which describes consciousness:
Note that here the threesome, foursome, fivesome, sixsome are given by the white circles below, and they account perhaps for God's participation.
God takes up the role of the null (as a nullsome, onesome, twosome or threesome). It seems that these roles can be understood, in each case, as why, how and what:
So these seem to be the structures into which injections are made at each level, just as they are into the qualities of signs in the case of language.
The primary structures are frameworks for the different LevelsOfUnderstanding.
Consider the four tests of the heart and the world. Perhaps there is one test for each primary structure.
Then there can be a unity of seven perspectives, through empathy. In that case, there are for each level questions that can accord to God's perspective: Whether? What? How? Why?, from 0 to 3 of these.
Idea: General structure gives perspectives of God and life. (The white nodes). Life is given by the threesome within the division of everything. God is given by what is null in the human representation of the division of everything, which is then restated in terms of God's representation. This is the remainder of the division of everything. It is perhaps rotated for each injection.
Idea: Primary structure is given by empathy of life for God and God for life. (The grey nodes). They are shifts from one state to another - shifts within the threesome - and also shifts between topologies. In this sense, they are "going beyond" and these shifts are empathy of life for God. The empathy of God for life is given by the representations of the threesome in four different degrees given by the number of "recurring states" which may be 0 to 3. The gradation relates these two empathies: topologies that are together and topologies that are separate. Empathy takes place through activity. Each of the six nodes in the primary structure expresses not-wishing (the agreement of the heart and the world) and also responding (the choice between the heart and the world). The heart chooses the broader between whether, what, how, why - this is how we can know where to locate these questions/answers.
Idea: We may consider each primary structure as opening up the 7th perspective. For example, one primary structure relates God and good through life (8) and eternal life (7+1). In the latter, God and good are kept separated. Wishing and not-wishing are kept separated. Likewise fro the other primary structures. Here the purpose is to switch from having the eight perspective (God's) be open for injection, and free up the seventh perspective so that it is open for injection (especially in six ways).
Perhaps the highest structure, wishes for everything, makes possible the sixsome - so that the perspectives are distinct - as the end result of the four structures. Is then loyalty, duty, justice of God? And what about love, intimacy, beauty? How do they participate as God's perspectives, the white dots?
Our wishes are unrestricted self-relationships. Our not-wishes are restricted self-relationships.
The not-wishing is given by what is shared by the topology and the representation of the nullsome. The response is given by the choice of either the topology (the answer of the world) or the representation of the nullsome (the answer of the heart).
It seems that general structure relates the perspectives of everything and anything, whereas primary structures relate the perspectives of God and life (God is good). Each of the primary structures seems to involve:
So the movement from the rightmost (human) Threesome backwards until it reaches God - this is the movement from God is good to God.
In each case, the structure matches the representations of the Foursome (as in the QualitiesOfTheSigns, or the Counterquestions).
What is beyond us is general, and what is within us is particular.
The concept of Everything makes itself available to us through four perspectives that express what Everything wishes for. We make sense of any such wish by considering it in terms of its satisfaction, especially our subjective experience of living with this wish unsatisfied. Our subjective experience is comprehensively structured by a framework that is just a bit larger than what a single mind encompasses. This framework includes a role for Everything, where its wish is satisfied. It includes six roles for us by which we address our lack of satisfaction. It also includes a seventh role for us, where we ignore our own lack of satisfaction by responding to another's lack of satisfaction. Our own growth is given by our accepting that the wish may in fact be satisifed, and also that we can ignore our own lack of satisfaction by responding to that of another.
BenoitCouture: Andrius suggests: "WE MAY CONSIDER EACH PRIMARY STRUCTURE AS OPENING UP THE 7TH PERSPECTIVE"
Please see: [http://www.openleader.com/index.php/LovingGod/KingdomDeepNet KDN], where I seek to dig a root in the essence of the meaning of the 7th perspective and to establish a rapport of the organic experience of unity into the energy of the primary structure applications. In practice, this research could provide some advancement toward deploying the KDN across the www in view of easing the open source's parameters of healthy homes and safe communities.
See also: PrimaryStructures, Equations, Operations, Factoring
===Omniscope, PrimaryStructures, SecondaryStructures===
The Omniscope is a comprehensive view upon all Structure.
Each of the four PrimaryStructures presents an ObservationalPlane of the omniscope as a relationship between God and human.
Each of the six secondary structures may be thought of as the Coinciding of the Observer of a wider observational plane with an observer of a narrower observational plane.
The PrimaryStructures are constructed so that God sees himself by way of our eyes, which is to say, God sees through our eyes, and our eyes see through God's eyes. Here the two views occur at the same level. The primary structures are frameworks that open us up to such inspection.
The secondary structures turn this around. They have us see through God's eyes, and God's eyes see through our eyes. This is because we see through the eyes of an Other who we take to be separate from ourselves, yet equal to ourselves, hence a broader version of ourselves. We therefore relate God to some observational plane that is strictly broader than our own.
The six secondary structures are:
Each secondary structure arises through the injection of a wishing into a framework for not-wishing. Then the seventh perspective within that framework becomes a representation of anything, an expression of the will. Apparently, will is what allows for the injection of wishing into not-wishing.
Each of the secondary structures serves as an interpolation between a property of God (a wishing) and a property of life (a willing) - between the horizon points outside and inside the system - between an identification of God with God and God with good.
===Deriving the Secondary structures===
The Observer sees less than the Observed, and yet we consider the observed to have a narrower view.
From the four PrimaryStructures it is possible to work out the details of the six SecondaryStructures that express the enormous variety that we find in life. These secondary structures express our seeing ourselves through the eyes of another. In particular, we may look through the eyes of God (as the default observer in the ObservationalPlane). Here, we consider God as having a strictly wider scope than we ultimately do. This makes for a shift in scopes, and so there are six possibilities. The following structures arise:
The secondary structures are generated by embedding the representations (everything wishes for nothing, something, anything) into the structural frameworks (not wishes). For example, the divisions of everything are generated by having "everything that wishes for nothing", that is self-sufficient, take up the counterquestions: "how does it seem to me?" yields onesome, "what else should I be doing?" yields twosome, etc. For each embedding, the seventh perspective gives one of the six expressions of the will, here it is "engaging". The expressions of the will are the representations of anything.
Hence there are three injections, or versions, for the Eightfold way, and two for the emotional responses, and one for the counterquestions, and none for the operating principles. And the various gradations (Maslow's hierarchy of needs, Kiparsky's gradation of thematic roles, methods of mathematical proof) figure accordingly. Frameworks
Frameworks are the structures described by not-wishing, which is to say, that which is beyond wishing. For example, God is calm, but we have expectations: God's perspective consists of good God, good gift, good quality. Person's perspective consists of good person, good deed, good word.
God empathizes with humans by taking up their boundedness, and reaching out beyond a definite boundary. This gives rise to the secondary structures.
I suppose this is because God empathizes with the activity of life, which is recurrence. Recurrence has one go to a perspective further within. Whereas going beyond has one go to a perspective further out. Everything has a representation (God has a property) as a reference point for such going further within. The secondary frameworks therefore have God recur - go within himself - counter to his going beyond. Perhaps this is to reverse the direction from going forwards (keeping God and good separate) to going backwards (taking them as one related concept).
There are three Languages.
The six secondary families are given by separating the primary families into properties of God and frameworks beyond God, and then injecting a property of God from a narrower level into a structural framework from a broader level.
What can we do with our limitations? Representations of Anything When we attempt to equate distinct representations of Everything, then the futility of our attempt leaves behind auxiliary structure.
===The Secondary Structures as Empathy===
I'm trying to understand the derivation of the secondary structures as God's empathy for human. I think they reflect God's growth. And in some sense they arise from human's negation of God's representations. Perhaps this kicks in when human's interpret God's empathy.
The secondary structures come into play when the human chooses other over self. Then God may identify with the human, yielding a secondary structure, which the human may yet again identify with. Hence, the primary structures are most important, in that they are the framework for the choice before us, and yet the secondary structures indicate that the right choice has been made: other over self. (This is perhaps Spirit over Structure.) For example, the DivisionsOfEverything are evident only when we are able to rise above our own perspective and allow that it is one among a set of perspectives. We do so by taking up the Counterquestions and choosing other over self.
In considering the injections, think of God as everything as being alone, and think of God as nothing as never alone, always with us. And God as anything and God as something would be somehow in between. For it is the God who is alone that yields the DivisionsOfEverything when he takes up the Counterquestions. This is an essential point of the injection! Consider the secondary structures as relating his being with us and not being with us, which is certainly important in the Languages and the EightfoldWay.
Note that God generates the divisions by taking up the operation [AddOne +1], which has him go through the Counterquestions. So +1 must determine the nature of the injection. This is Self-understanding.
Similarly, the Topologies and Representations seem to arise from [AddTwo +2]. Here God adds two points of view. In doing so, God switches perspective, from his to ours. The Representations are when God has an Absolute perspective. Four of them are forward looking, grounded in everything: [OneAddTwo 1+2=3], [TwoAddTwo 2+2=4], [ThreeAddTwo 3+2=5], [FourAddTwo 4+2=6]. The other two are backwards looking, grounded in slack: [SixAddTwo 6+2=8], [FiveAddTwo 5+2=7]. The Topologies are when God has a Relative perspective. Then he is acting on a generic division. He takes two steps forward, and the person takes two steps forward, analogously. The good of the one can be located and isolated in the other, yielding topologies. This is SharedUnderstanding.
The three Languages as coming from [AddThree +3]. Extrapolating from above, in Narration, God has an Absolute perspective and takes one step forward. In Verbalization, God has a Relative perspective and takes two steps forward. In Argumentation, God has a Shared perspective and takes three steps forward. This is GoodUnderstanding.
I think that key to the Languages is the set of all sets as ChristopherLangan deals with. For when God is inverted by the InversionEffect, I imagine that might be the point where sets come into play (people (narration), words (verbalization), qualities (argumentation)). And perhaps everything gets fleshed out as an infinite ladder, the set of all sets. And languages can operate on that ladder, perhaps like an infinite tape for various automata.
Also, consider the ordering of the counterquestions. Why that particular ordering which just happens to work to order the divisions of everything properly? There's is the ordering that works for the QualitiesOfSigns. So answer this question.
We may think of the injections as relating God's view (eternal life) and our view (life):
It seems positive to move as follows:
I imagine, given the structure of the Sixsome, and the PrimaryStructures, that it is likewise positive to move to Nothing from Everything, Anything or Something.
There are two representations of the foursome, fivesome, sixsome. One is from God's perspective, the other is from a person's perspective. Take the null from the person's perspective and reexpress it in terms of God's perspective. So God participates through the null in the person's perspective.
What are the RepresentationsOfAnything? The manifestations that everything has gone beyond itself. These six manifestations are given by change of scope: everything goes out to a wider scope, and into the "not-wishing" that is beyond that wider scope. [In this way, God empathises with life, and also, life chooses God, and God grows in concern.]
The seventh perspective is a general shift - a unity of shifts. The allowance of this seventh perspective is what makes the Sevensome equal to Slack.
The seventh perspective is accessed through the ExpressionsOfTheWill.
See also: NotWishes, Concerns, Angles, Everything, PrimaryStructures, Representations, Omniscope.
In order to Conceive a Concept, we need to both keep it together with itself and hold it separate from itself. In this sense, we must be able to wish for it. This is to say that wishes are the basis for conception.
What describes our subjective experience? RepresentationsOfEverything
Everything wishes for Nothing, Something, Anything, Everything. These are the four scopes to which it may go beyond itself.
The wishes yield the representations of everything: Everything is self-sufficient, certain, calm, loving.
Everything goes beyond these wishes into NotWishes, which are relevant to humans.
===Wishes and RepresentationsOfTheNullsome===
How are the Wishes related to the RepresentationsOfTheNullsome, which is to say, the PropertiesOfGod? What is the connection:
The relationship is given by God as a scope of access, and the impact of that on everything:
If we start out with God, then we can't conceive God directly. So we think of:
And then we consider this structurally. This makes sense to us as wishing by everything:
Troškimas ir žinojimas susikalba per Dievo nežinojimą, kuris įveikia žmogaus netroškimą. Yra nežinojimai susiję su troškimu. Tai yra visko padalinimų požiūriai susiję su pačiu Dievu, palaikantys su juo ryšį, jo esmę už jų. O atitrūkę nuo Dievo požiūriai yra praradę su juo ryšį, atitrūkę nuo esmės. Ta esmė yra žmogus, jo žinojimas. Tad žmogaus problema yra, kad jis nepažįsta savęs.
Troškimas yra didėjantis laisvumas, o žinojimas yra mažėjantis laisvumas. Tai yra du laisvumo atvaizdai. Troškimai yra visko atvaizdai, o kas yra žinojimai? Žinojimas yra bene žmogaus dalinis vieningumas, tai yra, šeši betko atvaizdai suvokiami keturiais žinojimo lygmenimis (kaip augantys žinojimai).
Netroškimai sudaro bendrąją sandarą, o nežinojimai sudaro padalinimus: trejybę, ketverybę, penkerybę ar šešerybę. Tad pirminės sandaros kyla iš ryšio tarp bendrosios sandaros ir visko padalinimų.
Dievas yra neribotas, jisai tiesiog trokšta. Užtat jam nieko nereikia žinoti, jam žinojimas yra ne prie ko.
Žmogus yra ribotas, užtat vis netrokšta. Žmogus gyvena netroškimais: poreikiais, dvejonėmis, lūkesčiais, išbandymais.
Dievas savo troškimais įvairiai trokšta susikalbėti, su sukalbamais ir su nesukalbamais.
Dievas nori suprasti žmogų, jį užjausti, su juo susikalbėti. Tačiau neribotas su ribotu negali susikalbėti. Žmogui, pavyzdžiui, gali rūpėti pinigai. O Dievas neturi kaip jo suprasti, juk tas žmogus rytoj mirs! Dievas užtat gali suprasti žmogų tik apribodamas save, priimdamas nežinojimą, prileisdamas žmogaus žinojimą. Taip tenka su kiekvienu žmogumi bendrauti, mes juk riboti. Susikalbėsi su žmogumi tik pats būdamas kvailas ar vaikas, tai yra, be savos patirties.
Žmogus yra užsidaręs savyje, pastoviai tikslina save, tuo ir gyvena: nusistato, vykdo, apmąsto ir taip toliau. Šis pasitiklinimas yra jo netroškimas klaidų, nuklydimo. Dievas jo pasitikslinimą gali suprasti tiktai per nežinojimą kurį Dievas išgyvena. Dievas laukia, kad žmogus "praeitų" - iš nusistatymo pereitų į vykdymą, arba iš vykdymo į apmąstymą, arba iš apmąstymo į nusistatymą. O juk tuo tarpu žmoguje bręsta jau sekantis būvis. Kada Dievas pastebi žmogų "nusistatantį", jame tai jau nunoko, jame jau bręsta "vykdymas", ir tuo gyvena. Tad Dievas kaip pašalinis stebėtojas visada yra atsilikęs, tai yra jo "nežinojimas". Užtat mes esame laisvi, mes vis gyvename tuo kas mumyse dar neprinoko. Tačiau tik per savo nežinojimą gali Dievas mus iš viso suprasti ir užjausti savo pastangomis. Kitaip jisai iš viso mus nurašytų kaip nesuprantamus.
Žmogus pajunta, kad Dievas (ar bet koks pašalinis) jį nežinančiai supranta, nežengia kartu su juo o tiesiog jo laukia praeinančio. Jis taip pat norėtų atitrūkti kiek nuo tokio. Vis dėl to, žmogus gali tuo pačiu bandyti Dievą suprasti. Žmogus panašiai laukia, kad Dievas praeitų, kad Dievas išeitų iš savęs (iš savo nežinojimo - visiško atitrūkimo nuo žmogaus) į žmogaus stebėjimą (tačiau klaidingą, atsiliekantį, tai vėlgi nežinojimas). Žmogus nenori, kad Dievas (ar jokia būtybė) savaip lįstų jam į širdį, šito netrokšta. Tad žmogus būtent šituo netroškimu supranta Dievą, jį užjaučia, kaip visiškai atitrūkusią būtybę trokštanti susigaudyti bet tuo neįstengianti. Žmogus netrokšta, kad Dievas lįstų į jį klaidingu požiūriu. Verčiau žmogus pripažins Dievą kaip atitrūkusį. Verčiau žmogus bandys suprasti Dievą, išeis į jį.
Suvedant: žmogus netrokšta klysti užtat savaime vis tikslinasi - nusistato, vykdo, apmąsto Dievas nežino, kas žmoguje viduje bręsta - juk Dievas trokšta susikalbėti, o ne suprasti žmogus netrokšta, kad į jį lįstų klystantis Dievas nežino žmogaus nuo kurio Dievas yra atitrūkęs - juk Dievas nepergyvena
Tad žmogui tenka pačiam susiprasti, save pažinti. Būtent žmogui tenka žinoti. Jam tenka žinoti visais susikalbėjimo lygmenimis.
O žinoti žmogus gali tiktai susiprasdamas, išplėsdamas žinojimo ribas. Juk žinojmas visada yra tam tikros apimties: nieko, kažko, betko, visko.
Susipratimas yra valios išraiška. Įvairiausiai susiprasdamas, žmogus įvairiausiai išreiškia valią. Išraiškų vieningume ir yra jo valia, ir tuo pačiu jo žinojimas. Tai yra jo žmogiška gyvenimo patirtis, kurią gali turėti žmogus, ir Dievas tiktai per žmogų. Ta prasme Dievas yra tikrai durnas (bet mielas).
Iš savo žinojimo, žmogaus jau gali išeiti į Dievą, su juo kalbėtis, dalyvauti susikalbėjime. Tas susikalbėjimas jau vyksta visiškai kitaip: žinantis žmogus kalbasi su trokštančiu Dievu. Nors ir prasidėjo atvirkščiai: nežinantis Dievas išjudino netrokštantį žmogų.
Dar reikia pagalvoti koks yra kitų žmonių vaidmuo. Manau, kad mes galime žinoti (pereiti iš netroškimo į žinojimą kaip mūsų pagrindą) tiktai gyvendami kitais, per juos susikalbėdami su savimi.
Iš šešių poreikių paaiškėja, jog pirmais trimis poreikiais išreikšta savastis yra skirtinga nuo kitais trimis poreikiais išreikšto savęs suvokimo (self-understanding). Savęs suvokimas yra pagrindas protui. Tad panašiai, gal trys dvejonės (ar keblu? ar protinga? ar teisinga?) yra pagrindas širdžiai? ir bendram suvokimui? Ar trys lūkesčiai (išoriniai?) yra pagrindas valiai? vertybėms? ir susikalbėjimui?
2004.11.09 A: Kaip suvokti atsiliepimą į netroškimą? D: Aš jus myliu, tad duodu jums pasirinkimą, ar likti savyje ar būti su manimi.
2005.02.11 A: Kodėl antrinės sandaros skaldosi į dvejybę, trejybę, ketverybę? D: Nes tai yra sandaros kurios sutampa su savo veikla.
2005.02.14 A: Kaip suprasti veiklos ir sandaros sutapimą dvejybėje, trejybėje, ketverybėje? D: Jūs galite visiškai išeiti iš savęs tik per sandaros visumą, ir jūs galite visiškai pasinerti joje tik per veiklą. O dvejybėje, trejybėje, ketverybėje tai gali sutapti.
2005.01.31 A: Kaip pasislinkimas sieja sandarą ir veiklą antrinėse sandarose? D: Mano akimis sandara išplaukia iš veiklos kuri į ją persipila. O jūsų akimis sandara, veikla ir jų laisvumas yra lygiaverčiai.
2005.01.28 A: Kaip mes pereiname iš savo įsijautimą į tavo įsijautimą? D: Jums tenka įsivaizduoti, kad jumis gyvenu.
2005.01.27 A: Koks ryšys tarp antrinių sandarų išreikštų dvejybės, trejybės, ketverybės sandaugomis ir išreikštų tavo įsijautimu į netroškimus? D: Aš noriu jus suprasti ir jūs mane. Jūs įsijaučiate į mano išgyvenimą jūsų požiūrio. Taip ir aš įsijaučiu į jūsų išgyvenimą mano požiūrio, bet kaip ryšys tarp esančio už jūsų ir jumyse.
2005.01.20 A: Kaip antrinių sandarų apibrėžimai šešerybės pasislinkimais sietinas su jų apibrėžimais tavo išėjimo iš vieno lygmens troškimo į kito lygmens netroškimą? D: Kai tu pasižiūri į savo širdį, ką tu matai? A: Tave žiūrintį į mane. D: Tad dabar žiūrėk į mane žiūrintį į tave žiūrintį į mane žiūrintį į tave. Kur tavo šidis? A: Priklauso. D: Taip, tame yra esmė. Pamąstysi.