Iš Gvildenu svetainės

Mintys: PasiklydęsVaikas

See also: {{Overview}}, {{Oracle}}

AndriusKulikauskas: The situation of a lost child is exactly that which makes sense of the {{Overview}} of knowledge of everything.

A lost child's outlook depends on the maturity of their thinking:

These levels reflect the growth in awareness, in maturity of the child. The ability to act according to mutual expectations rather than individual perspectives is what allow for perspectives to coincide (such as those of parent and child).

Note: another relevant parable is the mind as {{Oracle}}.

That's a nice and easy to understand example. I like it. -- Profiles/HelmutLeitner

Helmut, Thank you! I'm interested where this metaphor appears in various faiths and cultures. I include a few from the Bible. -- Profiles/AndriusKulikauskas

[http://www.ebible.org/web/Luke.htm#C2V42 Luke 2:42-51] When he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem according to the custom of the feast, and when they had fulfilled the days, as they were returning, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. Joseph and his mother didn�t know it, but supposing him to be in the company, they went a day�s journey, and they looked for him among their relatives and acquaintances. When they didn�t find him, they returned to Jerusalem, looking for him.It happened after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them, and asking them questions. All who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers. When they saw him, they were astonished, and his mother said to him, �Son, why have you treated us this way? Behold, your father and I were anxiously looking for you.� He said to them, �Why were you looking for me? Didn�t you know that I must be in my Father�s house?� They didn�t understand the saying which he spoke to them. And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth. He was subject to them, and his mother kept all these sayings in her heart.

There are also illustrations of Jesus' idea that WhatYouFindIsWhatYouLove, which is a counterpart to WhatYouBelieveIsWhatHappens.

[http://www.ebible.org/web/Luke.htm#C15V4 Luke 15:4-7] �Which of you men, if you had one hundred sheep, and lost one of them, wouldn�t leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one that was lost, until he found it? When he has found it, he carries it on his shoulders, rejoicing. When he comes home, he calls together his friends and his neighbors, saying to them, �Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost!� I tell you that even so there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents, than over ninety-nine righteous people who need no repentance.

[http://www.ebible.org/web/Luke.htm#C15V8 Luke 15:8-10] Or what woman, if she had ten drachma coins, if she lost one drachma coin, wouldn�t light a lamp, sweep the house, and seek diligently until she found it? When she has found it, she calls together her friends and neighbors, saying, �Rejoice with me, for I have found the drachma which I had lost.� Even so, I tell you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner repenting.�

Another story is known as the Prodigal Son. (It's interesting for us also that this metaphor is used by [http://www.prodigalart.org Prodigal Art]) [http://www.ebible.org/web/Luke.htm#C15V11 Luke 15:11-32] He said, "A certain man had two sons. The younger of them said to his father, "Father, give me my share of your property." He divided his livelihood between them. Not many days after, the younger son gathered all of this together and traveled into a far country. There he wasted his property with riotous living. When he had spent all of it, there arose a severe famine in that country, and he began to be in need. He went and joined himself to one of the citizens of that country, and he sent him into his fields to feed pigs. He wanted to fill his belly with the husks that the pigs ate, but no one gave him any. But when he came to himself he said, "How many hired servants of my father's have bread enough to spare, and I'm dying with hunger! I will get up and go to my father, and will tell him, "Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in your sight. I am no more worthy to be called your son. Make me as one of your hired servants." He arose, and came to his father. But while he was still far off, his father saw him, and was moved with compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him. The son said to him, "Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in your sight. I am no longer worthy to be called your son." But the father said to his servants, "Bring out the best robe, and put it on him. Put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet. Bring the fattened calf, kill it, and let us eat, and celebrate; for this, my son, was dead, and is alive again. He was lost, and is found." They began to celebrate. Now his elder son was in the field. As he came near to the house, he heard music and dancing. He called one of the servants to him, and asked what was going on. He said to him, "Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fattened calf, because he has received him back safe and healthy." But he was angry, and would not go in. Therefore his father came out, and begged him. But he answered his father, "Behold, these many years I have served you, and I never disobeyed a commandment of yours, but you never gave me a goat, that I might celebrate with my friends. But when this, your son, came, who has devoured your living with prostitutes, you killed the fattened calf for him." He said to him, "Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. But it was appropriate to celebrate and be glad, for this, your brother, was dead, and is alive again. He was lost, and is found." I think that this good son, the elder son, is Jesus himself.

Požiūrių virtinė

See also: Overview ===A structural summary - TheChainOfViews===

All of the conceptual structures which I have observed might be generated by the following chain of views: a human's view of God's view of human's view of God's view of human's view.

A human's view of God's view yields an {{Everything}} which is first self-divided? into [{{Onesome}} one perspective] ("I am defined by myself"), then [{{Twosome}} two perspectives] (spiritual "I am therefore I am" and physical "I am not yet even so I am"), then [{{Threesome}} three perspectives], yielding one who "understands himself, can figure himself out, and is understood by himself" (I take this as the Holy Trinity - Father, Son and Spirit).

Next, that God's view of a human's view is as a "godlet" which is in the situation that God has cast himself, yet otherwise is not God. (Such is the {{Heart}}). So for that godlet it makes sense to consider the extent by which it differs from its situation, which is to say, from its self, yielding [{{Foursome}} four perspectives]: differs by everything, by anything, by something, or by nothing. (That last is peculiar to the godlet, for God as such is distinct from his self, his structure, his situation). Then God considers his relationship with such a godlet as to whether God is a cause or effect, whether as such he is restricted or unrestricted, or yet again, the restriction of his unrestriction (as in "the present"). This yields [{{Fivesome}} five perspectives]. Then God gives life to that godlet by availing himself as principles which that godlet may take up: cling to what you have, get more than what you need, avoid extremes - but then also, choose the good over the bad, the better over the worse, the best over the rest. This yields [{{Sixsome}} six perspectives].

Next, that human's view of a God's view is as a "good person", a model person inside himself who might mediate between the perfection of God (ever taking a stand, following through, reflecting in a "centered" way) and the imperfection of human (who is choosing good over bad, better over worse, best over rest in an attempt to keep moving around that perfect center). That perfect person reflects a division of everything into [{{Sevensome}} seven perspectives] as choices (I think: choosing yes, choosing not no, choosing not yes, choosing no, choosing to not choose, choosing to choose, and choosing). The perfect person makes possible a factoring and intermingling of God's and human's choices (as taken from their trinities). Human's choices are {{Definite}}, unambiguous, restricting but God's choices are {{Indefinite}}, ambiguous, unrestricting. The size of the human {{Factors}} are 2, 3, 4 because the human choice takes an {{Operation}} +1?, +2?, +3? (as the three-cycle defines) and considers it as acting on a {{Onesome}} (a whole) and preserving that (through the act of choice so that it is whatever is chosen). And so that choice lies within a structure of size 1+1 or 1+2 or 1+3. Of the three factors, two or one or zero are from the human choices, yielding [SecondaryStructures auxiliary structures]:

[Note that we might picture this as a cube with 24 directed edges where edges might be partially referenced by 8 corners (ambiguity=3), 6 faces (ambiguity=4) or 12 edges (ambiguity=2).] The three families of structures above are static. There are also three {{Languages}} that are dynamic. They arise when one of the factors is defined and two are not. They represent shifts between the static structures:

And finally there is a seventh possibility in that human's view of God where that perfect person is of itself without connection to the human - so there are zero factors from the human. These structures describe the machinery for the infinitely various world that we live in, as well as what we've needed to define all the above.

Finally, that God - as the perfect person that links the human to God through the wealth of that metaphysical structure - that God may yet again take up a humans' view. And for that God, a human is that to which the God goes beyond itself into. That human is a lens, an {{Omniscope}}, through which God sees himself, which is to say, everything. And as such a lens, that human's outlook, stepping back away from himself, may coincide with God's outlook which steps into him. So that God has no needs - but we do, has no doubts - but we do, has no expectations - but we do, has no commitments - but we do. And there are four PrimaryStructures which have eight perspectives and they express [EverythingWishesForNothing our needs], [EverythingWishesForSomething our doubts], [EverythingWishesForAnything our expectations], [EverythingWishesForEverything our commitments]. In each case the eighth perspective is God's (no needs or no doubts or no expectations or no commitments) and marks a collapsing of everything back into God. These four primary structures generate the six secondary structures as injections of one the eighth (God's) perspective from a lower level into a primary structure from a higher level. For example, when the God who has no needs takes up our doubts (and the related {{Counterquestions}}) then that generates the divisions of everything. The six secondary structures are then organized by the seventh perspective in each of these injections, and they constitute that perfect person. The eighth perspective may also be thought of as what results when all three factors (described in the previous view) come from human, which is to say, that in such a case everything collapses back into God, or is otherwise understood as God having gone beyond himself.

So the end result is a coinciding of God's view and human's view, mediated by the concept of a perfect person, and the understanding that what is human comes in every way from God going beyond himself.

A helpful way to think about this alternation of views is to consider the thinking of a LostChild.


See also: Overview

The following is an earlier summary of my ideas.

Coinciding with God's view -

What do I mean by KnowEverything?

To know everything is to {{View}} the {{Unknown}}.

Yet, as a human, I always view the {{Known}}.

The key question is: [HowToKnowEverything How can I know everything]? How can I escape my own view and take up God's view? How can a {{Definite}} view take up an {{Indefinite}} view?

The answer is that their views can {{Coincide}} if the indefinite view takes up the definite view. (I therefore care to understand an AlgebraOfViews.)

How might our views coincide with God's? It helps to consider the thinking of a LostChild who grows to learn to position themselves so that they may be found by their parents. There is a deepening of {{Empathy}} as our own view unfolds:

The child grows in maturity to accomodate an ever weaker link with their parent. When the child is able to accomodate no link at all, and take the initiative so as to go where their parent will surely find them, then their views may coincide.

God's view is complete. In order for our views to coincide, our own view of ourselves must also be complete. Then it is possible that, within the limits of our view, our views do coincide. For this we need to be completely transparent to ourselves and to God.

This coinciding makes use of ConstructiveHypotheses which I make and take up. A constructive hypothesis is one that I may take as pragmatically true because otherwise I cannot proceed. Through them I can reach the point where I may pragmatically consider that my view and God's view are the same.

I am finding that I reach this point at the end of the following progression:

That final perspective is one where a human is deferential to the good. That is the point of full understanding at which one may be completely cooperative with everything and may then assume they are taking up God's perspective. In shared understanding, the human understands {{Slack}} to be a seventh perspective that is of God and beyond human. But with good understanding, the human understands that, from God's point of view, this seventh perspective is {{Good}} that is beyond God and needs to be considered as part of the human outlook. It is helpful to consider this as the thinking of a LostChild.

We may think of these as four vantage points (by a human) upon God's view. As such, they are four representations of God, which is to say, they are all of the representations that we are able to have of him. Their unity is, for us, God to the extent that we can know him. It is in this pragmatic sense that we can say, absolutely, that we know God's view. For it is God's view not only as we see it, but to the extent that we can know him by the limitations of our very nature.

We may think of God as TheBeginning - the perspective from which everything unfolds - and human as TheEnd - the perspective into which everything comes together. Their relationship is, I think, that of Jesus Christ - the beginning and the end, the Alfa and the Omega (the A and Z), the coinciding of perfection ("Love God") and identity ("love your neighbor as yourself") - by which God's perspective and our perspective may coincide. This outline describes this relationship between TheBeginning and TheEnd as given by the unfolding of {{Understanding}}, self-understanding?, SharedUnderstanding and GoodUnderstanding.

Parsiųstas iš http://www.ms.lt/sodas/Mintys/Pasiklyd%c4%99sVaikas
Puslapis paskutinį kartą pakeistas 2014 liepos 24 d., 22:12