调查

Andrius

Įvadas E9F5FC

Juodraštis? FFFFFF

Užrašai FCFCFC

Klausimai FFFFC0

Gvildenimai CAE7FA

Pavyzdžiai? F6EEF6

Šaltiniai? EFCFE1

Duomenys? FFE6E6

Išsiaiškinimai D8F1D8

Pratimai? FF9999

Dievas man? FFECC0

Pavaizdavimai? E6E6FF

Miglos? AAAAAA

Asmeniškai? BA9696

Mieli dalyviai! Visa mano kūryba ir kartu visi šie puslapiai yra visuomenės turtas, kuriuo visi kviečiami laisvai naudotis, dalintis, visaip perkurti. - Andrius

Įranga

redaguoti

Mintys.Rūpėti istorija

Paslėpti nežymius pakeitimus - Rodyti galutinio teksto pakeitimus

2014 lapkričio 10 d., 22:01 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pakeistos 451-462 eilutės iš
*ActiveInvestigation=AndriusKulikauskas: What is a Culture that fosters Caring? I'm going to study Caring, and a Culture that fosters Caring. That's relevant to our Values, Investigations, Endeavors, to the languages of Argumentation (how things come to matter), but also Verbalization (how things get meaning) and Narration (how things happen). It's also relevant to the incremental compassion of the KingdomOfHeaven and to recognizing God in others, each other and ourselves. I will also consider what God cares about, which makes the Bible relevant and interesting.
į:
*ActiveInvestigation=AndriusKulikauskas: What is a Culture that fosters Caring? I'm going to study Caring, and a Culture that fosters Caring. That's relevant to our Values, Investigations, Endeavors, to the languages of Argumentation (how things come to matter), but also Verbalization (how things get meaning) and Narration (how things happen). It's also relevant to the incremental compassion of the KingdomOfHeaven and to recognizing God in others, each other and ourselves. I will also consider what God cares about, which makes the Bible relevant and interesting.

>>bgcolor=#FFECC0<<

D:Džiaugiuos tavimi, kad gyveni ir myli visa širdimi, o tai yra dangaus karalystės vaisius, juk atsiremi į šventąją Dvasią ir neturi jokio pagrindo abejoti, juk tau viskas rūpi. Tad gali tikėti, kaip mano sūnus Jėzus, bet gali ir pašalinti visas netikėjimo priežastis, kaip ir darai Šventąja Dvasia. Tad mylėk ir mylėsime kartu.

A: O rūpintis tai yra mylėti kuriuo nors klausimu, tad kuria nors apimtimi.

D: Myliu tave visomis apimtimis ir apskritai, jokia apimtimi, tad ir su Ieva.
>><<

>><<
2014 gegužės 18 d., 20:55 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pakeistos 1-20 eilutės iš
See also: {{heart}}, GoodUnderstanding, GoingBeyondOneself, {{Love}}
į:
See also: BeingOneWith, MinciuSodas/CaringAboutThinking, {{Slack}}, {{Empathy}}, {{Love}}, Thinking

[http://www.ms.lt/lt/wiki.cgi?Rūpintojėlis Lietuvių kalba: Rūpintojėlis]

===Investigation of Caring===

AndriusKulikauskas September 1, 2009 13:23 CET: What is a Culture that fosters Caring? I'm going to study Caring, and a Culture that fosters Caring. That's relevant to our Values, Investigations, Endeavors, to the languages of Argumentation (how things come to matter), but also Verbalization (how things get meaning) and Narration (how things happen). It's also relevant to the incremental compassion of the KingdomOfHeaven and to recognizing God in others, each other and ourselves. I will also consider what God cares about, which makes the Bible relevant and interesting.

Consider the scope of our Caring, which can be very broad or very narrow.

Make a list of what we're caring about.

Related pages: Concerns, Omniscope, CaringAboutThinking, Sixsome (Caring, Believing, Obeying), WaysOfGettingThingsDone, Responses

JohnHarland: Caring has to do with Identification (Empathy, Coinciding) and that's relating to being self-critical and not assuming.

===What is caring?===

Caring is a perspective within the {{Representation}} of the {{Sixsome}}.
Pakeistos 23-24 eilutės iš
A '''constructive hypothesis''' is a statement that we may accept as pragmatically true because otherwise we cannot proceed. These hypotheses are essential for the {{Overview}} by which human's view and God's view may coincide.
į:
{{Andrius}} [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/338 July 9, 2003]

I like this idea of reciprocal recursion. Given that humans are prone
to changing our minds (and to error), the right strategy is to proceed
recursively so that, on the one hand, we admit recursively as much
information as possible, and on the other hand, we strip away the layers
of our decision making, and arrive at the deepest layer, which does not
err.

I asked God, what is the sense of this deepest layer? What I understood
from him was that here we are naked before him, but it would be great if
we could be this way in full consciousness.

I think that obeying, believing, caring are our correctness at these
additional levels of awareness, where obeying is +3 levels of awareness,
believing is +2 levels of awareness, and caring is +1 levels of
awareness. In other words, all three are reasons for following the will
of God, but obeying exercises the fullest freedom, believing the next
greatest, and caring the least.

What questions to think about?

* What is the warmth, the "caring" in the caring?
* How is loving related to obeying, believing, caring?
* What are the roles of Scope and perspective in obeying, believing, caring? and in courage, hope, honesty?
* What is the relevance of Scopes: life, work, talk, outlook?
* What is the relevance of scopes: caring about Everything, Anything, Something, Nothing?
* What does it mean for God to have a will? or for us to have a will? and who can have a will?
* What is the will of God? Our will?
* What does it mean to love oneself, others, neighbor, enemy, God?

Recalling that to love is...
* to support life, therefore
* to support the unity of the representations of anything, therefore
* to support the unity of the expressions of the will, therefore
* to strengthen the will, therefore
* to make evident choice, therefore
* to make evident the scope of not-wishing, and the scope of wishing, so it is clear that we are "choosing wishing", which is to say, "willing"; therefore
* to make clear the scopes (everything, anything, something, nothing) of wishing/not-wishing, therefore
* to wish in every way, therefore
* to heighten the fact that we may choose.

I'm noting that to live is to wish in every way. But not to not-wish in
every way. I think that this is important, that love is a unity of
wishing, not of not-wishing. It is the wishing that is important to
heighten the fact that we may choose.

God's will is eternal life, and I think our own will is life, but we are
prone to changing our mind on that. So perhaps it is a matter of
consciously exercising our will for life. Here sin - apathy, pride,
idolatry - may be the obstacle.

{{Andrius}} [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/337 July 9, 2003]

I note we may think of a "rule of response" which duty has us apply to
a scope, but caring let us apply by our perspective, so that it is
recursive, leading us from perspective to perspective. God
reciprocates by recursively reframing our free choices, so that they
reach our touchstone, and we might decide without error.

-----

Caring, believing, obeying are internal perspectives that we have upon
internalizing the external perspectives of duty, loyalty, justice. So
I am looking how they relate with regard to scope.

"To care about X is to care about all that falls within the
perspective of X, and vice versa. It is to empathize with X, to take
up the scope of X. If we care about the same things, then we care
about each other, and vice versa. In caring about a scope, we are
doing the job of the one who has that scope."

I think that that duty lacks this transparency, this transitivity,
that caring has. If I have a duty regarding X, then the scope of my
concern is only X, and I do not consider the perspective of X. But if
I care about X, then my concern extends to the scope of the
perspective of X, and continues onward.

So the difference between duty and caring is whether I admit that the
scope may contain a perspective that further extends my scope.

This points to the difference between the external motivation of duty,
and the internal motivation of caring. Self-direction!

It is as if we are applying a rule or instruction. If the rule is
applied to a scope, then there is no recursion, for one scope is not
aware of another. But if the rule is applied by the perspective, then
there is recursion, for one perspective may be aware of another that
falls within its scope. Concern is a rule to respond. Duty applies
this rule to a scope. Caring applies this rule by a perspective,
recursively, as far as it can be aware. I imagine that love applies
this rule directly, without any scope.

If we are willing to take up this rule so as to apply it ourselves, by
our perspective, and consequently do so recursively, then we have
internalized the rule. Then God reciprocates by strengthening our
will. His nature is to live on the edge, for example, the free choice
between intimacy and fear, or love and hate, or beauty and disgust.
For him, each decision is clear, he never errs. But we are human, we
are designed to make mistakes. If we apply the rule transparently,
therefore recursively, then he can likewise remove us from the edge.
He can place the right decision deep within our heart as a virtue. He
places it at the deepest reaches of our awareness, where we no longer
find any choice of perspectives. Much like a philosopher places his
gut feeling under every layer of framing! like a pea under many
mattresses. Here our choice is safe and is beyond our ability to
discuss, examine or question. It is what it is. It is a kernel, a
touchstone, that makes the right decisions for us, our basic honesty,
hope or courage.

In other words, if we behave recursively, by living a rule through
perspectives rather than scopes, and thereby internalize our outlook,
always walking deeper into what we care, believe, obey, then God
reciprocates, and recursively reframes our choices so that they are
obvious and errorless just as they are for him.

I imagine that we may understand this as a matter of thinking. With
this help of God, every issue can be made concrete, simple, relevant,
so that we never err. He will do this if we live wholeheartedly,
internalizing the rule of response. If we try to think sensitively,
powerfully, energetically, then we may succeed, but we may also fail
.
Pakeistos 147-174 eilutės iš
I have my own human view, but I am attempting to take up God's view. '''How can I take up God's view directly rather than through my own view?'''

This is possible if my view and God's view coincide. This may depend on factors beyond my control.
Yet I may position myself with regard to such factors to enable such coinciding to the extent that I am able to control. Even so, on what basis may it be that indeed my view and God's view coincide?

This coinciding depends on 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.

These include:
* If I am completely cooperative, then I may take up God's perspective.
* If
I fully choose to be cooperative, then I am so. ''(obeying)''
* If I fully
know myself to be cooperative, then I choose to be so. ''(believing)''
* If I fully care to be honest, then I know myself
. ''(caring)''
These hypotheses may turn out to be false,
but at least in such event I will have learned something about that which is beyond me. Until then, they are contingently true - they are pragmatically true. Moreover, as pragmatic truths, they are absolute!

I imagine that the constructive hypotheses relate to the EightfoldWay
. I think that some of them are the basis for our own positioning of ourselves (when we are not connected to God). And other's are assumptions regarding God, so that we might prefer his point of view to ours. These assumptions make up the eightfold way. ''The eightfold way is the maximal primary structure. In what sense is it important as such?''

I thus will develop my view so that I may cooperate with
God. By cooperation, I mean acting of good understanding, which is to say, rapport, the ability to understand each other, that from which shared understanding can arise. I therefore consider (to the extent that I am able) how God and human take up each other's perspective. I proceed to understand the point at which I am completely cooperative. At that point when I take up God's perspective, then likewise, I may constructively assume that God takes up my perspective. At this point our views coincide and so what I see is God's view of a human's view. (In mathematics, this might be called a ''fixed point''.)

===ChristopherLangan===

FromWikipedia: %gray%The CTMU
is an attempt to circumvent these limitations and achieve absolute knowledge. Langan writes: "What I mean by "absolute" is precisely this: (1) you can't relativize your way out of it by changing the context; (2) finding it in error equates to destroying your own basis for inference. These criteria are built into the theory from the ground up using some very effective, that is to say ironclad, techniques. Logically, there is no way out."

===Thoughts from Prayer===

2005.03.25 ''{{A}}: Kaip prielaidos padeda mums labiau myl&amp;#279;ti? {{D}}: Prielaidomis tu atsiveri galimybei, kad yra kažkas už tav&amp;#281;s kas tave gali myl&amp;#279;ti vis labiau
.''

2005.02.21 ''{{A}}: Iš kur kyla vaisingos prielaidos? {{D}}: Vaisingos prielaidos iškyla kartu su širdimi, visk&amp;#261; apvertus, ir jai ieškant man&amp;#281;s, vietoj kad aš jos.''

''2005.01.14 {{A}}: Iš kur kyla žmogaus veiklai reikalingos prielaidos? {{D}}: Tau reikia prielaid&amp;#371;
, kad gal&amp;#279;tum su manim bendrauti, taip pat ir su savim bendrauti. Tad prielaidos gl&amp;#363;di pa&amp;#269;iame bendravime - tai yra jo užvedimas, jam platesnis laukas. Tuo esate panaš&amp;#363;s &amp;#303; mane, išeinate už sav&amp;#281;s.''
į:
{{Andrius}} [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/333 July 8, 2003]

I am trying to think about {{Obeying}}, {{Believing}}, {{Caring}} as involving
issues of {{Scope}}.
I recall that they are three reasons for following a
way (the will of God) and note:
obeying = accepting the start of the way
believing = accepting the middle of the way
caring = accepting the end of the way

-------

Some ideas that I like:

To care about X is
to care about all that falls within the perspective
of X, and vice versa. It is to empathize with X, to take up the scope
of X. If we care about the same things, then we care about each
other, and vice versa. In caring about a scope, we are doing the job
of the one who has that scope.

I want to ask:

* What is
the "warmth", the "caring" in caring?
* How do issues of scope make caring different from loving?
* How do issues of identity come up in caring?
* How are obeying, believing, caring related?

I continue my thoughts from before:

"Caring about X" =
"for the X that we
know of, being responsive to what X is sensitive to".

"Caring says that there is a scope within which my sensitivity turns
to responsivity
. I have accepted this scope from another, it was my
duty,
but now I have taken it as my own. I have internalized it. I
will now respond in my own way
, which means that I may not appear to
respond, but in fact I am myself responding."


I want to think of obeying, believing, caring in terms of scope
. They
are three different mindsets for following the will of God. We may
think of their being one "way", but there
are three reasons we might
follow that way.

* obeying - accepting the start of the way
* believing - accepting the middle
of the way
* caring - accepting the end of
the way

----

{{Andrius}} [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/332 July 7, 2003]

To care about X is to care about all that falls within the {{Perspective}}
of X, and vice versa. So to care about everything is to care about

God, etc. Issues of {{Scope}} and {{{Identity}} come up.

Note that {{Unity}} seems relevant here
, and with regard the InversionEffect.

-------

I want to understand caring, for example, how it relates to loving. I
like this idea that loving looks beyond any scope, whereas caring
focuses on a particular scope.

So I am trying to understand the various kinds of caring in terms of
their scope. I had made this list:
* Caring about everybody is "caring about
God".
* Caring about anybody is "caring about others".
* Caring about somebody is "caring about relationship with others".
* Caring about nobody is "caring about relationship with God".
but
this is not quite right. So I am thinking.

I asked God, what
is it that we can care about, and the reply I got
was that we can care about him, and through inversion, things from his perspective.

Today I have this idea that, for example, "caring about everything" is
"caring about God". In other words, if we care about everything, then
we care about God, because God cares about everything. This is to say
that if we care about the same things
, then we care about each other,
and vice versa
. It is very strange, but I think true. So I like:
* Caring about everything is "caring about God".
* Caring about anything is "caring about others"
.
* Caring about something is "caring about relationship with others".
* Caring about nothing is "caring about relationship with God".

To care about X is to care about all that falls within the perspective
of X. In this sense
, it is to empathize with X, to take up the scope
of X
.

This still doesn't quite explain caring! But it's a nice step forward.

To love X is not to love what X loves. So loving and caring are
different in this regard
. To care about X is to care about not just
what X cares about, but everything within the scope of X, that is,
everything that X could care about!

This also makes evident the comprehensiveness of "caring about
thinking". To care about thinking is to care about all that falls
within the perspective of thinking. And that includes all the scopes
that we can care about: everything, anything, something, nothing.

In caring about a scope, we are doing the job of the one who has that
scope. In caring about everything, we are, like Atlas, shouldering
the work of God. In caring about anything, we are responding to the
human condition. Caring about something, we are focused on some
object of our relationships with others. And caring about nothing, we
are attending to the futility of our condition before God.

These also match up nicely with the scopes that arise in the ten
commandments:
* life is the everything that we care about
* work is the anything that we care about
* talk is the something that we care about
* outlook is the nothing that we care about

So now I need to consider, what is the "caring" in the caring? I
mean, the warmth, what is it?

Caring is the internalization of duty. And duty, as an external
perspective, seems to have a very clearly defined scope. Caring is
taking this scope seriously, personally.

We can think of "caring about X" as "for the X that we know of, being
responsive to what X is sensitive to".

If A cares about B, and B cares about C, then A cares about C. This
is because caring is defined with regard to the X that we know of,
which is to say, we must know that it is X. Suppose Andrew and Carlos
are enemies, perhaps in the same jail cell, and Andrew cares about his
true love Betty, and Betty cares about her childhood friend Carlos.
And suppose that Andrew doesn
't know that Betty cares about Carlos, or
even knows him. Then Andrew cares about Carlos in the sense that
Andrew cares about all that Betty cares about. But here he only cares
about the Carlos that he knows of indirectly, which is the "unknown
Carlos" that he does not know, but Betty does. Presumably, he does
not care about the Carlos he knows directly. So there is a question
of identity involved in caring that makes knowledge and scope important.

In the case of love, I think it is not important what we know, or what
is the scope. If I love, then it is always direct, not through
others. I can only love the Carlos who is before me, not the one who
Betty cares about.

Caring says that there is a scope within which my sensitivity turns to
responsivity. I have accepted this scope from another, it was my
duty, but now I have taken it as my own. I have internalized it. I
will now respond in my own way, which means that I may not appear to
respond, but in fact I am myself responding.

I imagine that obeying and believing are similar. I will think about
that, and also the role of scope here.

----

{{Andrius}} [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/331 July 4, 2003]

This morning, I asked God, what is caring? The answer I took was that
caring is focused on a particular {{Scope}}, whereas {{Loving}} looks past
beyond any particular scope.

I find that helpful. When I care, for example, when I care about a
person, then it says nothing about whether I care about God. But when
I love a person, then my love looks right through them to the unity of
everything.

To "love" is very closely related to BeingOneWith. This would
explain why, for to love is to be directed to that very unity.

So there are several kinds of caring, but only one kind of loving. We can, however, feel vividly the context of our loving, as given by the scopes with regard to which we are "one with":
* If I am one with nobody, then I feel very sad, like Christ on the cross.
* If I am one with somebody (not everybody), then I feel most surprised, and this is romantic love.
* If I am one with anybody (not nobody), then I feel excited, a
hyperflexible person in general, engaging and responding.
* If I am one with everybody, then I feel completely content, everything is right.
So these are all the same love, but ....?

Whereas caring is of different kinds.
Here I want to be able to say that the different kinds of caring are
given by the different scopes that we care regarding. Something like:
* Caring about everybody is "caring about God".
* Caring about anybody is "caring about others".
* Caring about somebody is "caring about relationship with others".
* Caring about nobody is "caring about relationship with God".
But it should be much more clear, certain, vivid. So I am thinking
about this.

This may be helpful, from last month:

* outlook (what is scoped by nothing) that is, can have no regard for any facts
* talk (what is scoped by something) that is, has a topic that we are talking about
* work (what is scoped by anything) that is, is able to respond to any circumstances
* life (what is scoped by everything) that is, takes on everything at once

{{Andrius}} [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/326 June 28, 2003]

I am thinking about "caring", "loving", "living", "following the will
of God". I find it helpful to think of God as giving way for us, with
the will that we give way for each other, and even share in this
giving of the way. Andrius, http://www.ms.lt
---------------------------------------------------------

I am swirling around the big picture. I tried to understand "caring
about thinking", and then I thought about the difference between
"caring" and "loving".

I recalled that loving is supporting life. And obeying, believing,
caring are the three reasons for following the will of God. And I
think that following the will of God is related to eternal life.
Perhaps they are the reasons for eternal life. I thought I should
work on clarifying this. So I took out my notes on the Gospel of John.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/consideringGod/message/285
And I started playing around with them in TheBrain.

I am starting with a statement that I found which says:

eternal life = to know God the Father and Jesus ("with God") who he
has sent

And then I found a statement:

to know Christ = to understand that he is good = to understand that
the Father is good

So I am concluding:
to know X = to understand the goodness of X

My view from before is that "life is the fact that God is good".
Eternal life is something more. It is to know God the Father and God
the Son. It is to understand the goodness of God the Father, and the
goodness of God the Son. It seems that "eternal life is understanding
the fact that God is good". Perhaps it is consciousness of the fact
that God is good. For it is to combine two things. God the Father is
the Godness/coherence/sensibleness of God. God the Son is the
Godness/coherence/sensibleness of everything. God the Spirit is the
Godness/coherence/sensibleness of Godness. To understand both the
Father and the Son is to understand God as himself - not only of
himself, but also above and beyond himself - what he is both of
himself, and also above and beyond himself - his absolute nature, both
prior to this world and within it, both in his own context and outside
of it.

In what sense is God good? As Christ says, judge the tree by the
fruit, judge the worker by the work. The work of God is to believe
the one he sent. Which is to say, to recognize God even where he is
beyond himself. And he is recognized from the truth. And the truth
is the fact that one can give oneself up for others. I suppose this
is slack. And it is the seventh perspective.

Christ also distinguishes between the good shepherd and the hired
hand. The hired hand lives for himself, does not give up himself.
The good shepherd lives for the sheep, cares for his sheep, loves God.

Here we have "caring" - the good shepherd cares for his sheep. He
cares for them - he lives for them - he gives up his life for them,
rather than for himself. In doing so, he follows the will of God,
which is "that every one who sees the Son and believes in him have
eternal life" where "eternal life is to share in God
's eternal work,
that Christ allows us to complete, through the Spirit" where "the work
of God is to believe the one he sent" where people believe the one who
knows the truth when they see the truth, and the truth is the fact
that one can give oneself up for others.

Maybe more simply:
* good is slack
* slack is giving way to others
* the truth is that we can give way to others
* when we see that it is possible to give way to others, then we believe the one who knows this
* it is work to believe in the one who is sent to show the giving way to others
* eternal life is to share in this giving way of God as the ones who complete this giving way to each other
* the will of God is that all who see the one who was sent to show the giving way to others, and who likewise do so, may share with each other in this giving way

It seem that to follow the will of God is to share with all in this
giving of the way.

In other words, we should give way so that others may give way.

Obeying, believing, caring I expect are the three drivers by which we
share with all in the giving of the way.

Generally, by obeying, believing, caring I give way to others. But do
I give way so that they might give way? This is the practical
question for which I think it is vital to have an absolute vantage
point that is neither myself, nor the other. I may obey, believe,
care with regard to this vantage point. We may share the giving of
the way through this vantage point.

Starting with "life is the fact that God is good", then it seems that
we are invited to add our understanding. So that "eternal life is
understanding that God is good". It is understanding that this
absolute vantage point is one that lets us all share in the giving of
the way. I imagine that this understanding may be of various degrees,
one or two or three levels of reflection, perhaps as needed
respectively for obeying, believing, caring.

Also, as with the sheep, "caring about thinking" is "caring for
thinking" is "living for thinking, rather than for ourselves" is
"giving up our lives for thinking" is "giving way for thinking". This
makes sense if it is the thinking of the one who loves us more than we
love ourselves. More broadly, it is a giving way to thinking in the
broadest sense, acknowledging it as a domain by which we may always
give way to each other. Likewise I think with "obeying for doing" and
"believing for being".

===AboutThisPage===

*ActiveInvestigation=AndriusKulikauskas: What is a Culture that fosters Caring? I'm going to study Caring, and a Culture that fosters Caring. That's relevant to our Values, Investigations, Endeavors, to the languages of Argumentation (how things come to matter), but also Verbalization (how things get meaning) and Narration (how things happen). It's also relevant to the incremental compassion of the KingdomOfHeaven and to recognizing God in others, each other and ourselves. I will also consider what God cares about, which makes the Bible relevant and interesting.
2014 gegužės 18 d., 20:54 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pridėtos 1-35 eilutės:
See also: {{heart}}, GoodUnderstanding, GoingBeyondOneself, {{Love}}
----

A '''constructive hypothesis''' is a statement that we may accept as pragmatically true because otherwise we cannot proceed. These hypotheses are essential for the {{Overview}} by which human's view and God's view may coincide.

----

I have my own human view, but I am attempting to take up God's view. '''How can I take up God's view directly rather than through my own view?'''

This is possible if my view and God's view coincide. This may depend on factors beyond my control. Yet I may position myself with regard to such factors to enable such coinciding to the extent that I am able to control. Even so, on what basis may it be that indeed my view and God's view coincide?

This coinciding depends on 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.

These include:
* If I am completely cooperative, then I may take up God's perspective.
* If I fully choose to be cooperative, then I am so. ''(obeying)''
* If I fully know myself to be cooperative, then I choose to be so. ''(believing)''
* If I fully care to be honest, then I know myself. ''(caring)''
These hypotheses may turn out to be false, but at least in such event I will have learned something about that which is beyond me. Until then, they are contingently true - they are pragmatically true. Moreover, as pragmatic truths, they are absolute!

I imagine that the constructive hypotheses relate to the EightfoldWay. I think that some of them are the basis for our own positioning of ourselves (when we are not connected to God). And other's are assumptions regarding God, so that we might prefer his point of view to ours. These assumptions make up the eightfold way. ''The eightfold way is the maximal primary structure. In what sense is it important as such?''

I thus will develop my view so that I may cooperate with God. By cooperation, I mean acting of good understanding, which is to say, rapport, the ability to understand each other, that from which shared understanding can arise. I therefore consider (to the extent that I am able) how God and human take up each other's perspective. I proceed to understand the point at which I am completely cooperative. At that point when I take up God's perspective, then likewise, I may constructively assume that God takes up my perspective. At this point our views coincide and so what I see is God's view of a human's view. (In mathematics, this might be called a ''fixed point''.)

===ChristopherLangan===

FromWikipedia: %gray%The CTMU is an attempt to circumvent these limitations and achieve absolute knowledge. Langan writes: "What I mean by "absolute" is precisely this: (1) you can't relativize your way out of it by changing the context; (2) finding it in error equates to destroying your own basis for inference. These criteria are built into the theory from the ground up using some very effective, that is to say ironclad, techniques. Logically, there is no way out."

===Thoughts from Prayer===

2005.03.25 ''{{A}}: Kaip prielaidos padeda mums labiau myl&amp;#279;ti? {{D}}: Prielaidomis tu atsiveri galimybei, kad yra kažkas už tav&amp;#281;s kas tave gali myl&amp;#279;ti vis labiau.''

2005.02.21 ''{{A}}: Iš kur kyla vaisingos prielaidos? {{D}}: Vaisingos prielaidos iškyla kartu su širdimi, visk&amp;#261; apvertus, ir jai ieškant man&amp;#281;s, vietoj kad aš jos.''

''2005.01.14 {{A}}: Iš kur kyla žmogaus veiklai reikalingos prielaidos? {{D}}: Tau reikia prielaid&amp;#371;, kad gal&amp;#279;tum su manim bendrauti, taip pat ir su savim bendrauti. Tad prielaidos gl&amp;#363;di pa&amp;#269;iame bendravime - tai yra jo užvedimas, jam platesnis laukas. Tuo esate panaš&amp;#363;s &amp;#303; mane, išeinate už sav&amp;#281;s.''

Rūpėti


Naujausi pakeitimai


Puslapis paskutinį kartą pakeistas 2014 lapkričio 10 d., 22:01