Book (English)

Knyga

Dievo šokis

Kaip gyventi

Išsiaiškinimai

Malda

Andrius

Užrašai

Mokykla

Juodraštis? FFFFFF

Užrašai EEEEEE

Klausimai FFFFC0

Gvildenimai CAE7FA

Pavyzdžiai? ECD9EC

Šaltiniai? EFCFE1

Duomenys? FFE6E6

Išsiaiškinimai D8F1D8

Pratimai? FF9999

Dievas man? FFECC0

Pavaizdavimai? E6E6FF

Istorija 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

Padalinimai, tai visko padalinimai į požiūrius.

Viskas yra apibrėžiama visko padalinimais. Jų yra aštuoni: nulybė, vienybė, dvejybė, trejybė, ketverybė, penkerybė, šešerybė, septynerybė.

We know that {{Everything}} has no internal structure. Even so, we can attempt to divide everything. In this sense, {{Structure}} is division.

Divisions have {{Representations}}. Nullsome, onesome, twosome, and threesome each have four representations. Foursome, fivesome, sixsome, sevensome each have two representations.

Divisions consist of {{Perspectives}}. Upon representation, these are {{Topologies}}.

Septynerybė yra ketverybė ir gyvenimo lygtis. O gyvenimo lygtis yra veiksnis +3. Tad antistruktūra ir meilė reiškiasi gyvenimo lygtimi.

Penkerybė - sprendimui, o šešerybė - susilaikymui nuo sprendimų.

Three {{Operations}} act on divisions: [AddOne +1], [AddTwo +2], [AddThree +3].

2 atvaizdus turi šie padalinimai:

  • Ketverybė - visko požiūris (vienas požiūris už santvarkos: kodėl)
  • Penkerybė - betko požiūris (du požiūriai už santvarkos: tolima praeitis, dabartis)
  • Šešerybė - kažko požiūris (trys požiūriai už santvarkos)
  • Septynerybė - nieko požiūris (keturi požiūriai už santvarkos)

4 atvaizdus turi šie padalinimai:

  • Nulybė
  • Vienybė
  • Dvejybė
  • Trejybė

Jie išreiškia klausimo (Dievo) ir atsakymo (gerumo) santykį, išsako gyvenimo lygtį.

Divisions of everything are natural as frames for {{Understanding}}, but perhaps also as views (morphisms) - leading from whole to perspective (as with topologies) - or from perspective to whole (as with representations.


I have many observations, quite detailed, regarding these divisions. Structurally, we may think of them as divisions of everything. They divide everything into perspectives that we might take up. For example, we may have two perspectives, one of free will and the other of fate. God may take up such perspectives, and so may we. We are {{Spirit}}, in that we may take up perspectives.

The structure of God is everything. One's structure is one's self, which is to say, one's relationship with others. Other is that which is beyond. God knows everything, has power over everything, and is everywhere. God is spirit, and as such, is more than structure. But, as structure, God is everything. God is the spirit of everything.

By dividing everything into perspectives, we live in our mind that very structure which we may imagine that God lives in dividing himself. We should be careful to understand, however, that here we are speaking of divisions of absolutely everything, and so they must engage and include our very selves. Such divisions therefore have no external relationships, but only internal relationships. Divisions of everything serve to define all manner of structure. We may think of each division as arising as God takes up a particular [{{Counterquestions}} question].


The six divisions of everything likewise offer an {{Interpolation}} between {{Everything}}, which the zeroth division defines, and {{Slack}}, which is defined by the seventh division. They describe various degrees of structural sophistication. The QualitiesOfSigns characterize each division with respect to everything, for example, the onesome is the structure by which "everything is malleable". The OrganizingObjects characterize each division with respect to slack, for example, "nonlinearity fills out the slack of the onesome". Putting this together, we get expressions of the form "nonlinearity fills out the slack by which everything is malleable". The slack is in the unity of the division.

===Divisions: SecondaryStructures for Love: God in Context in Context in Context===

My final interpretation of the expression is as Other the interpreted. What does it mean that coinciding has meaning? What is the context for meaning? It is that there is something more within that may go even further beyond as a greater context. The reference point in each case is God's coinciding with himself, so that he is both within himself and beyond himself.

God is implicit. He manifests himself through his implicitness. His implicit going beyond himself into his self is prior to his explicit going beyond himself out of his self. His implicitness is given by the divisions of everything. From this point of view, Everything is his self, the explicitness of his implicitness. God's point of view gives rise to chains of implicitness and explicitness. In this way we have gone from his Self's point of view (Expression) to God's point of view. And so his self (his context) is redefined as Everything rather than Life.

Indeed, at this point we have that:

  • Everything's structure is God in context (and here we reference God as what has gone beyond self)
  • Wishes' structure is God in context in context (and here we reference coinciding as with that which is within self)
  • Love's structure is God in context in context in context (and here we reference context as that which is yet further beyond)

And thus God has no context. So we have shifted subtly from Self as Expression (which is grounded in explicitness) to Self as Context (which is grounded in implicitness). The appearance of the series of contexts is implicit in the unfolding from the expression I wish to know everything and apply that knowledge usefully. Thus all of the structure, including the expression itself, is implicit in God.

Coinciding, defined generally, can apply to particular cases where within the explicitness of a particular level there may be the implicitness that lurks within and is brought out in a subsequent level. Thus it is possible to capture the process of going beyond oneself, and this is the coinciding in the broadest sense. This process is unified and available as such in the Other. It is the implicitness of the expression which is implicit in an expression. It seems that in this sense God's view is implicitness and human's view is explicitness so that we have a chain of implicitness of explicitness of implicitness of explicitness of implicitness (as in God's view of human's view...)

Finally, I shift my attention to the interpreted Other who grounds the relationship between God the interpreter and Human the interpretation. This pairs the active stages of the interpreter going beyond themselves with the static stages that are yet beyond them. This means that we allow for an Other that extends Human by looking beyond. In this way coinciding takes on a deeper meaning that identifies the expression with what it expresses, which is to say, the interpreted.

  • Divisions - be part of what is beyond itself
  • Representations - channel what is beyond itself
  • Topologies - channel what is not within itself
  • Argumentation - presume what is not beyond itself
  • Verbalization - presume what is not within itself
  • Narration - presume what is beyond itself

Other extends God and Human by fixing their relationship with a situation that they both experience - human by taking up the observational plane, God by looking from a wider observational plane. Human, by following God's will, gives a channel for Other to connect with God. This happens perhaps by way of Good, Slack, Identity and Perfection.

The Divisions consider the Distinctions from different levels alongside each other. This opens up a vantage point for an Other who may connect interpreter of one level with a role at another level.

The Distinctions are simply distinguishing and not yet dividing. The Divisions reference the collapse of Everything for the distinguishing and thus provide completeness.

The DivisionsOfEverything collect the Distinctions into a complete whole. They do this by starting with the NullfoldDistinction as the whole and including parts from the other distinctions, running through them from the reverse end. In this way, each Division is a complete whole and yet can grow until all seven distinctions are present along with the whole, yielding the Sevensome.

The DivisionsOfEverything provide a completeness which allows us to include Other as any of the perspectives that Human may take up. In this way, the Other is a bridge between Human as expression of God, thus a bridge between different levels given by the divergences. There are four levels and hence six pairs of levels.

The four systemic levels can be considered in terms of presumption (of none) or non-presumption (of none). If we don't presume none, then God and human coincide in their absence, as accounted by the PrimaryStructures which express God going beyond his wishes into human's not-wishes. If we do presume none, then we have a logical collapse which allows for human as God's self, and in this sense they may coincide in their presence, with human as a sign of God, as related by the SecondaryStructures. Finally, the presumption and non-presumption coincide so that, by way of the collapse, it is indeed the case that human's view and God's view coincide. Practically, this means that human thinks as God when we live in terms of the logical collapse. The logical collapse is experienced also as the threesome which is at the heart of wishing.

We express God's absence through four PrimaryStructures. We love by way of four PrimaryStructures, one for each level: GodsWill, GoodWill, Wisdom, EternalLife. God arises through the unity of the representations of the nullsome at each level. Structurally, this is the story of a mind that wishes to know everything and apply that usefully. It enters progressively into structure, so that the semantics of the conjunctions in its wish become presumptions built into the system that it finds itself within. This arises by love and yields through the absence of God for us the PrimaryStructures which accord with God (self-sufficient), Everything (certain), Wishes (constant), Love (loving) until it all collapses into the Nullsome.

Structure arises by which we love and by which we are loved. Structure allows God's and human's relationship. Structure is related to the receding of expression.

Then this collapse yields a shift in perspective to the actual state of God as prior to mind, prior to knowing. This yields for us through the presence of God and being loved the SecondaryStructures, first structures (the Divisions and being part of), then perspectives (the Representations and Topologies and channeling) and finally the languages (Argumentation, Verbalization, Narration and presuming). The languages are the final goal and we have made explicit the mind that wishes to know everything and apply that usefully, and for which that is fulfilled. We express God's presence through six SecondaryStructures which pair levels as QualitiesOfSigns and yield ExpressionsOfTheWill. Human is the expression of God's being one with. Thus human is a sign of God. Their relationship is expressed as one of the QualitiesOfSigns which pairs two levels of the Foursome. In each pair, human is a level that expresses the will (ExpressionsOfTheWill) and God is a level that is thereby expressed. Human is the will that unifies the expression, and God analogously has God's will that is the unity of what is thereby expressed. This relationship between God and human takes place on all four levels and ultimately, through the unities, in the system itself. We are loved by way of six SecondaryStructures which relate the levels: everything, anything, something, nothing. God arises as the everything which the other levels are related to, so as to give rise to first the Divisions, then the Criteria and Topologies, and finally the three Languages. Here God is related to the representations of the onesome. Note that the wish can be shared by God and human and so they coincide - as they do in Love - and the result after the collapse hold for them both as theirs is a shared love for others.

This opens the way for an Other who expresses the love that we share with God for the other.

We unite (we normalize) God within and beyond, so that we may be one with God who is both within and beyond. Then for us, for our view, which takes us beyond ourselves in the system, our relationship with him defines an equation of life. Our expression of him (as beyond us) becomes an expression (and a mirror) of his qualities:

  • Is God one with himself? God is Complete as God who is beyond system.
  • What is God one with himself as? God is Unobstructed as EternalLife, which is the Distinctness of God and good.
  • How is God one with himself? God is Familiar as Life, which is the Identification of God and good.
  • Why is God one with himself? God is Unified as good, which is God within system.

Whereas within the system, and for the system, our expression is taken directly as God's expression. And so we represent God within us as a participant in God's being one with. As such a participant, he may be one with us (we are loved) or we may be one with him (we love). So, by normalizing the expressions of God beyond and within, we are the product of:

  • His being one with us (we are loved) or our being one with him (we love)
  • The extent to which that distinction is expressed, so that he and we are Complete, Unobstructed, Familiar or Unified.

In our view upon his being one with himself, he is an equation which the system expresses through our relationship with him. Life is the goodness of God, but EternalLife is understanding the goodness of God, which is to stay, the distinctness of good and God, and thus, the entire equation. We understand God's being one with, as expressed by the system, with regard to this equation. We become advocates for God within the system to God beyond the system.

In this way we understand the system to manifest the equation relating God, good, life, eternal life, which is beyond the system. But our own experience of this equation, and thus of God's being one with, depends on our own identification with the system, so that either it is one with us (and we are loved), or we are one with it, and are beyond it, and make way for it (and love). What is loved is what is one with the system, and to love is to be one with the system.

God's activity is the origin of all. His activity is BeingOneWith and as such, God is Spirit. God's activity has him ever make way for and include those who may not yet be one with him. Thus God makes way for a System (a World) where BeingOneWith manifests itself to all. This manifestation is Truth.

God's view is Complete. Our view is Unified. A unified view takes up a complete view through what is Familiar to it, and thus through a chain of views taken up, until they coincide, as in the metaphor of the LostChild. A complete view allows for a unified view through the Unobstructed, and this takes place within a System, so that the complete view must allow for observation from every angle, and so we make way for God and he may thereby step out from the Omniscope, the lens that we are for him to see himself through. God, who transcends the system, and allows for the system, thereby establishes in himself that unity which is the ultimate purpose of the system.

In terms of a System, our relationship with God is given by Love. Did we love him first or were we first loved by him? If we understand ourselves as special, as unique, as given in this system, then we are limited by this system, and his love for us is prior to ours for him. However, if we allow for an Other, and live as such, then we live through all, and we love, from the beginning, with God, as included in God, and grow with God as Other. We are thereby one with God.

This possibility is given by Good and is thus in the context of a System, and expresses itself through the Foursome: Whether? What? How? Why?:

  • Life is the answer as to whether we are loved
  • Anything is the answer as to what we are loved as
  • Our Choosing is the answer as to how we are loved
  • Our Will is the answer as to why we are loved

Thus God is evident in the system through his love for us. And through our love we transcend this system:

  • GodsWill is the answer as to why we love
  • GoodWill is the answer as to how we love
  • Wisdom is the answer as to what we love
  • EternalLife is the answer as to whether we love

The first three correspond to Father, Son, Holy Spirit within the system, and the last is God beyond the system.

God outside of us is the one whose view we take up and who grows familiar, and the heart - God inside of us - is the one who we make way for and becomes unobstructed. The two coincide through our life and are separated by our eternal life.

The system is perhaps closed through the presence of the Foursome (Knowledge) within the Eightsome within the Nullsome. And so the statement is extended by a structural world which includes the statement explicitly but yet also us: God, Human and Other.

The relationship between God and other is quite simple except for the relationship itself! System is that relationship. It allows for:

  • Whether - the absence of God within the system
  • What - the absence of other within the system
  • How - the presence of other within the system
  • Why - the presence of God within the system

Once we go beyond the system, things are quite simple. The deeper that we place ourselves within the system, the more complex things become. The deeper we go, the more obstructions there are between us and God beyond the system.

What is the role of the InversionEffect and the Heart in God's going beyond himself by going into himself, and our's likewise? What is the role of the ReversalEffect?

Narration, verbalization, argumentation relate to obeying, believing, caring, respectively, all ways of following God's will.

Flemming Funch

See also: {{Divisions}} of {{Everything}}


Universal Wholeness Math by FlemmingFunch, [http://www.worldtrans.org/essay/wholemath.html 8 Dec 95]

This is my abridged metaphysical explanation of the mystery of a universe that is both diverse and unified at the same time. Particularly it is my attempt to postulate that the numbers zero, one, two, and infinity add up to being different aspects of the same thing in this "wholeness math".

First of all, let's start with something that is whole and all-inclusive. For example, the totality of {{Everything}}, all that is. We could get religious and call that {{God}}, or we can say that it is a holographic universe. We could say that it is inherently all in one piece and that any apparent separation is simply the convenient illusion of time and space and other dimensions. Thus this unbroken universe could be symbolized by the number 1.

Now, the interesting thing is that we can divide this wholeness into pieces in a myriad of ways. There is obviously a lot of stuff in the universe, a vast variety of ways of being and doing, lots of different phenomena to experience. And there are probably many more possible things that could be going on that we aren't even dreaming of yet.

One way of describing these [DivisionsOfEverything "divisions" of wholeness] is as equations. Most of us have learned algebra in school. We can construct all kinds of algebraic equations. An interesting thing about all equations is that the two sides of them are equal. Yes, of course, that is why we call them equations. We can also put the two sides of the equation over on one side and the result will always be zero. And there are an infinite number of ways we can do that.

For example:

X + (-X) = 0

We create a value "X" and a value "-X" and since they even each other out we get the result zero. We can do that a zillion different ways. E.g.:

2X+5Y-30Z - (2X+5Y-30Z) = 0

In more down-to-earth terms, you can divide a whole something into several pieces. The several pieces will always add up to being equal to the whole, no matter how complicated we get.

The zero represents an infinite potential. We can "divide" the zero into an infinite number of pieces, as long as the pieces always add back up to the zero we started with. So, in terms of equations we can represent wholeness with the number zero.

The zero also tells us that nothing is ever lost. The pieces always add up. And it represents all closed systems. For example, the second law of thermodynamics saying that the sum of energy remains constant. From our equation theory we can then also conclude that any positive energy is balanced out with a negative energy somewhere in the same system, to ensure that the equation always balances.

The equation idea is also found in what is known as Heisenberg's Uncertainty Theorem. The principle that an observer can never quite be sure what it is looking at, because the observer is itself part of the system. We can take a wholeness and divide it into an observer and that-which-is-observed. The [{{Twosome}} two sides] are inherently mirrors of each other. When one changes the other changes. But the equation always adds up.

The infinity is found in the infinite number of ways we can split things up. With the basic rule that an equation adds up to zero there is no limit to how many ways we can divide things. In other words, there is no limit to what kind of phenomena might exist in the universe, as long as each phenomenon is always balanced out by an equal quantum of phenomena of the opposite polarity.

The observer and the observed are part of this infinity of possibilities. There is no limit to how many different viewpoints one can assume on the universe. However, that which is observed will never be the whole universe, but simply the complentary part to the viewpoint one has assumed.

This can be endlessly puzzling as an observer can never quite seem to get a complete grip on what the universe really is. At least not until the observer stops seeing it as separate from himself and starts experiencing the unbroken wholeness of it all, including all sides of the equation at the same time.

So, the numbers zero, one and infinity all represent the mechanics of a wholeness that remains whole, but which we can nevertheless divide into complementary parts.

[{{Nullsome}} 0] represents that the true nature of everything is not found by studying any of the manifest parts, because all the parts always even each other out and add up to zero. It also represents the belief that anything physical is illusion, again because if you take a big enough perspective and add it all up, it comes out to zero.

[{{Onesome}} 1] represents the unbroken wholeness of the universe. No matter what you do with it, or no matter what you appear to do with it, it remains in one piece. That is the "all is one", or "we are all one" idea. It is not the number 1 as compared to 2 or 3 or 4, but rather a one that is all-that-is, that inherently couldn't be any more or less.

[{{Twosome}} 2] represents the complementarity of anything that isn't whole. Whenever you find a particular something you can be sure that its complentary part is somewhere to be found. There are always two sides of the coin. There is no object that can be examined without an {{Observer}} existing at the same time.

{{Infinity}} represents the unlimited number of things can be found within a wholeness. They are the facets of the hologram. None of these infinite things are the final truth about the wholeness, but that doesn't make them any less valid in their own right.

Now, as to the reason for this whole arrangement. If we look at it metaphysically or religiously, we can regard the Zero as the eternal indestructible universal consciousness, the unlimited space that anything can take place in, the quality that remains unchanged no matter what goes on in it, the Prime Mover Unmoved. The One is the unbroken pervasiveness of this consciousness, the inherent integrity of it, no matter what takes place in it. The number Two is the inherent ability to study things and to learn, by creating separateness and by having different pieces interact with each other. The Infinity represents the unlimited potential for learning, for exploring, and for newness.

So, despite being eternal and unbroken, the universal consciousness can nevertheless explore its own existence, experience life, discover new things about itself, and essential expand the possibilities of life indefinitely.

In this apparent paradox, of how one can be both 0, 1, 2, and infinity at the same time, being both eternally uninvolved and thoroughly enmeshed in the dynamics of life, how one can be both eternally unbroken and unified and also explore the diversity of experiences through separation at the same time, in this we might discover the meaning of life.

This might be the only meaningful way a whole eternal consciousness can expand itself, to not only possessing infinite potential, but also having explored these potentials from all possible angles and vantage points. It might be the way of improving something that inherently is beyond improving.

Well, I might have lost most of you at this point. And somebody with a traditional scientific or mathematical training might well say that this is utter complete nonsense. But, I had fun writing it.

- Flemming

Padalinimai leidžia nežinojimą, dalinį žinojimą, visumos nežinojimą.

Padalinimus galima bene visus suvokti kaip skirstančius žinojimo rūmų "srovę". Tad dvejybė skiria gerą ir blogą vaiką; trejybė juos sieja, taip pat skiria; ketverybė skiria santvarkos galimybes; šešerybė bene yra ketverybių laipsnių poros; vienybė yra pašnekovas; nulybė Dievo valia. Kaip suprasti penkerybę? ir septynerybę bei aštuonerybę?

Padalinimai, veiksmai, lygtys

  • Padalinimų rato trys veiksmai: Koks pasaulis kuriamas? jisai galimas - veiksmu +1. (Dvasios požiūriu - dešimt Dievo įsakymų) Kaip pasaulis kuriamas? jisai tikras - veiksmu +2 (Sūnus požiūriu - aštuongubu keliu). Kodėl pasaulis kuriamas? jisai būtinas - veiksmu +3 (Dievo šokiu, ypač Tėvo požiūrius).
  • Kiekvienas padalinimas turi vieną požiūrį išsakantį nežinojimą, tai būtent Dievo požiūris. Nebent išskyrus trejybę?
  • Supratimas vyksta veiksmu -1, vis atskiriant vieną požiūrį. O tas -1, tai tarpas. Tad šešerybe suprantame tarpą. Penkerybe - šešerybę, ketverybe (žinojimu) suprantame penkerybę (ir visus šiuos padalinimus). Dalyvavimu suprantame žinojimą, būtimi - dalyvavimą, tvarka - būtį, Dievu - tvarką, tiesa - Dievą, dorove - tiesą ir t.t. Tačiau bene šio veiksmo nesuprantame tiesiogiai, o tiktai derinant veiksmus +1, +2, +3, pavyzdžiui, {$-1 = +2 - +3$}.
  • Šešerybė skiria vidų ir išorę, kurie svarbūs savasčiai, ribai, lūkesčiams ir t.t.
  • Veiksmas +1 išsako, kaip padalinimai auga, kaip veikia padalinimai. +2 išsako, kaip veikia atvaizdai (atvaizdams? - visumoms) O +3 išsako, kaip veikia aplinkybės (aplinkybes - paskirus požiūrius).
  • Laikas ir erdvė kartu (sprendimo sąmoningumas) yra Dievas nes tai yra neribotumas (ir nežinojimo taškas iš kurio spręsi). Ogi viskas tas neribotumą suveda į tvarką.
  • Susipažinti su Difference and Repetition, Gilles Deleuze
  • Būti ir laikyti.
  • Sartre: Proto ribotumas žadina pykulį, reikia gyventi tėkme, muzika teikia laisvę (ribotumas žadina pykulį jeigu nepripažįsti Dievo, o jei pripažįsti, tai padeda suvokti Dievo požiūrį)
  • Padalinimai = be sąvokų (ribos). Veiksmais +1, +2, +3 išdėstomai įeiname į save.
  • Tai yra apvertimas savęs ir pasaulio (kurį pratęsia dorovė) taip kad tampame santvarkoje 4, 5, 6, 7.
  • Padalinimus suvokiu perskyromis. Būtis tai paprasčiausia perskyra, tai 7=-1, -1+3=2.
  • Vienybę ir nulybę galima suvokti tiktai apibendrinant.
  • Bene sąvoka yra -1 (suvokimas), jos savybės yra -2, apibrėžimas yra -3, o esmė yra -4. Pridėjus tris veiksmus ir nulinį veiksmą gautųsi visi aštuoni įmanomi veiksmai, visi įmanomi ryšiai tarp būsenų.
  • Padalinimai remiasi viskuo, tad besąlygiški. O atvaizdai remiasi betkuo ir aplinkybės kažkuo, tad yra sąlygiški.
  • Nulybė - Dvasia, vienybė - sandara, dvejybė - atvaizdas, trejybė - vieningumas, esmė. Ar gali būti: ketverybė - Dievas (kodėl), penkerybė - amžinas gyvenimas, šešerybė - gyvenimas (dorovė), septynerybė - gerumas ?
  • Padalinimais ir veiksmais susieti dalyką ir jo mąstymą +3,+2,+1. O -1 tai suvokimas.

Sutvėrimo dienos

Sutvėrimo dienos prilygsta padalinimams. Galima panagrinėti, kaip įvairiai reiškiasi padalinimai:

  • Išskirta šviesa, po kurios skiriasi naktis ir po padalinimo (prašviesėjimo, išsireiškimo) diena.
  • Vandenų vienybė išskirta tarpu - oru.
  • Sukurta kuriamoji jėga - žemė.
  • Žvaigždės valdo, ženklina šviesą.
  • Paukščiai, žuvys valdo, pripildo vandenis ir orą. Paukščiai dauginasi žemėje.
  • Žmogus valdo žemę - jisai Dievo paveiklas (Kūrėjas) - jam perduotas, juo įkūnytas Kūrėjo vaidmuo
  • tad Dievas ilsisi

Visi padalinimai susiję su kūryba, jos eiga.

  • Padalinimuose glūdi loginių santykių pradai (disjunkcija, konjunkcija) kurie paskui plačiau taikomi (ne visumai, o jos atkarpai, lopui).

Bott periodicity clock or the Clifford algebra clock is and 8-cycle just like the divisions (!)

2004.11.06 A: Kaip žmogus suvokia padalinimus? D: Žmogui rūpi visuma ir rasti savo vietą joje. Tada jisai supranta, kad yra tiktai jos dalis. A: Kodėl jam rūpi visuma? D: Visumoje yra tai kas jį sieja su manimi: jo išeities taškas. A: Kaip pirminės sandaros išreiškia žmogaus pasaulėžiūrą? D: Tu nevisada trokšti būti su manimi tad tenka su tavimi įvairiai būti.

Padalinimai


Naujausi pakeitimai


Puslapis paskutinį kartą pakeistas 2017 kovo 21 d., 18:52
Tweet