神的舞蹈

经历的道

知识的房子

神的调查

redaguoti


Suvestinė, Išsivertimai, Priėmimas, Dievas, Žemėlapynas, Santykiai, Savastis, Priėjimai prie visumos, Vaizduotė, Santvarkų nagrinėjimas, Ir du, Kitas, Dvasia, Distinction, Indistinction, Negation, Activity, Structure, RepresentationOfTheNullsome, Martin Wurzinger, Raida

Kaip santvarka išsako viską?

Kaip santvarka apibrėžia žmogaus būklę?


系统


  • Kaip susiję santvarka ir vaizduotė?
  • Kaip santvarkos simetriškumas (nesant dvasios) ir asimetriškumas (esant dvasiai) atspindi skirtumą tarp koordinačių sistemų ir simpleksų? Kaip tai suprasti?
  • Kuria prasme santvarka skiria ar dvasia yra ar nėra?
  • Kaip santvarka išplaukia iš Dievo valios ir amžino gyvenimo?
  • Kaip suveikia velnio lukštas, tai yra, lukštas be Dievo, santvarka be Dievo?
  • Koks ryšys tarp išgyvenimo, neišgyvenimo, suvokimo ir dvasios bei santvarkos?
  • Kaip susijusios priešpriešos būklių pirm ir po santvarkos ir būklių santvarkoje ir už santvarkos? Ar tai susiję su kampais santvarkoje ir už santvarkos? Kaip tai susiję su įvariomis sandaromis kaip antai netroškimais? Ar santykis tarp išeities taškų pirm santvarkos ir po santvarkos yra pagrindas sandarų išsivystymui?


Kas yra santvarka (sistema)?

Sandaros palaikančios Dievo neišėjimo už savęs

  • Santvarkos brėžinyje išsakytos sandaros kurios palaiko tris kryptis (besąlygiškumą, nešališkumą, nepaneigiamumą) kuriomis Dievas gali neišeiti už savęs dėl to, kad jis jau yra santvarkoje.
  • Šešerybė - žmogus - vaizduotė.
  • Santvarkos brėžinys išsako kokia santvarka yra be dvasios, be išgyventojo, be turinio. Tokia santvarka tuomi prieštarauja sau. Jinai tad subliukšta ir lieka prieštaravimas, Dievas. O šią santvarką galime suprasti kaip asmens būklę. Dievas kaip toks yra trijų matų nurodytame taške, nestabilumo taške. Asmenys apibrėžiami Dievui išeinant už savęs į save, jam įvairiais lygmenimis apibrėžiant santvarką. Be asmenų, tuščia santvarka yra simetriška, Dievo atvirumas trimis matais ir jo uždarumas trejybės ratu vienas kitam prilygsta. Tuo tarpu santvarką išgyvenantiems asmenims pirmenybė teiktina atvirajam Dievui už santvarkos. Užtat jais Dievas yra būtinas. Tuščioje santvarkoje Dievas yra nebūtinas, tačiau tokia santvarka subliūkšta ir prilygsta Dievui.
  • Neapibrėžtumas - Dievo neapibrėžtumo palaikymas.
  • Santvarka yra Dievo lukštas, tai kas šalia Dievo.

Raiškos pasaulis.

  • Tai kame reiškiasi tatai kas reiškiasi.

Dievo ir žmogaus požiūrių išskyrimas

  • Dievas yra pirm santvarkos, užtat santvarkoje gyvena mumis, santvarkoje esančiais. O mes esame po santvarkos, tad Dievas mums yra už santvarkos.
  • Santvarka išryškėja mūsų netroškimais, o prieš tai tėra sąlygos. Trokštame - Dievas mumyse - sutampame su juo. Netrokštame - Dievas už mūsų - nesutampame su juo.
  • Kiekvienoje santvarkoje, kiekvienoje sandaroje yra požiūris atstovaujantis tam, kas už santvarkos, kas už sandaros. Ko įmantresnė ta santvarka, to gilesnis tas požiūris.

Apibrėžimo pagrindas

  • what allows for definition, as it identifies itself with its self, so what it refers to and what it refers by are one and the same. It IS a formality. God is the undefined, and human is the defined.
  • Prielaidų apimtis.

System IS definition.

  • Definition arises as system. That is why system is formal. That is why "a system is that which is its own self". For, as I noted, by defining we are observing and yet also creating. By defining, we equate what we refer to with what we refer by. In a system, formality IS reality. That is the ultimate problem with system: reality can be more than formality.
  • God is the undefined.

Thus, God can stand alone. God needs no "self" because God is prior to any system. The nature of God is "to be one with", which upon definition means "to not be restricted by one's self". (God's self is "everything" and he goes beyond that.) God manifests his nature by going beyond himself, that is going from the unbounded into the bounded. He first goes beyond himself and thereby generates his "self" which is the "undefined" (and which later is thought of as "everything"). He then goes beyond himself further by allowing for a perspective beyond the "undefined", which is to say, where there is no "undefined", and yet even there he appears. That is the perspective of "definition" (which does not allow the undefined) and yet wherein the "undefined" arises as the "defined" (for the defined, as an outcome of definition, was ultimately undefined). This second perspective is thus the coexisting of opposites, "definition" and "defined":

  • system is definition
  • human is the defined (and thus the undefined within definition)

At this point ("the second day of creation") human and world are not self-standing, they are understood as opposites that must be taken together, and more structure is needed to tease them apart. I'm just sharing my conclusion (with your help) that God, human, system (or the undefined, defined, definition) are (and should be) at the very root of how all things unfold.

Suvokimas - išskyrimas

  • Išskyrimas dvasios santvarkoje ir už santvarkos.
  • Išskyrimas dvasios santvarkoje (pirm santvarkos) ir santvarkos dvasios (po santvarkos). Tai ta pati dvasia, tik santvarkos išskirta.
  • Dievas kaip santvarka ir Dievas kaip dvasia yra viena. Dievas kaip santvarka yra suvokimas. Kaip šv.Jono evangelijos pradžioje tvirtinama, tai buvo nuo pradžios, pirm santvarkos jau buvo dvasia santvarkoje.
  • Santvarka iškyla atskiriant pirminį, numatytąjį požiūrį (Dievo, buvimo su, nekintantį, išgyvenantį) nuo nepriklausomo požiūrio (kuris nėra su, įvairiuoja, neišgyvena).

Išryškina Dievo ir žmogaus santykį

  • considers God as being of beyond it.
  • clarifies the relationship of God and Person by defining existence and nonexistence, thus NotBeingOneWith and NotGod.
  • Besąlygiškas nebuvimas su. Atskyrimas besąlygiškumo ir sąlygiškumo taip kad besąlygiškumas nebūtinai tenkina sąlygas.
  • separates God from himself, thus negates him.
  • (“the world”) is NotBeingOneWith, negation, semantic distinction of God (beyond Scope) and Self - NotGod (within Scope), distinction (which is the basis for negation) of having properties and accepting them, the distinction of levels, the framework for meaning, the establishment of vantage points for taking up or not. System allows for NotGod, Scope, Person, Knowledge, Definition. System as the Twosome relates Theory and Facts as identifications of God and NotGod, establishes Theory as GoingBeyondOneself into Facts. Negation is the isolation (negation) of what is not fixed (free, within system) from what is fixed (not free, beyond system). (Consider the QualitiesOfSigns.)
  • Santvarka žadina žmogaus sąmoningumą, juk jisai aprėpdamas jos visumą ima suprasti, kad yra kažkas už jos daugiau.
  • Human gradually takes up the thinking of the system that he finds himself in, until he can separate himself from it (by virtue of being loved).
  • Human's view leads to a trinity of love (by way of the sixsome).
  • Human is God within a system. God is human beyond any system. So a system distinguishes between those within it and those beyond it.

Santykių pagrindas

  • Tai kas mus sieja mūsų savastimis.
  • identifies one with one's self, is negation of self, but also affirmation of his self.
  • Būdami savimi - savastimis - pirma esame savimi ir tik paskui esame viena su vienas kitu.
  • Santykis tarp kitų. Juos sieja jų savastys, kurios dalyvauja santvarkoje. The system thus takes the selves as the literal expression of the beings they refer to. The beings may be attached to the system by way of these selves, or they may be detached by way of views that allow for what may be beyond the system. The system does not acknowledge any inner activity within the participants except as it manifests itself with regard to others in the system (those things are which show themselves to be). Yet the participants may be able to allow for what may be beyond the system, they may identify with that, and their identification may shape their participation, so that the primacy of that beyond the system is made evident, and therewith the contingency of the system.
  • A System is that which is its own Self. One's self is that by which one relates to others, that is, other selves. A System is thus a relationship amongst others. They are related by way of their selves. These selves are the participants of the system. The system is thus formal and takes the selves as the literal expression of the beings they refer to. The beings may be attached to the system by way of these selves, or they may be detached by way of views that allow for what may be beyond the system. The system does not acknowledge any inner activity within the participants except as it manifests itself with regard to others in the system (those things are which show themselves to be). Yet the participants may be able to allow for what may be beyond the system - Spirit, they may identify with that, and their identification may shape their participation, so that the primacy of that beyond the system is made evident, and therewith the contingency of the system.

Santykiai ryšium su santvarka

  • Santvarkoje veiksmas +1 išveda požiūrių lygtį. Toliau šis veiksmas išveda ketverybę, tad juos sudėjus, aštuonerybę. Tačiau tuo pačiu galima visą požiūrių lygtį taikyti iš sandaros, iš trejybės rato, ir tai grindžia dvejybinį periodiškumą, ir taipogi priskiria požiūrių lygtį kiekvienam lygmeniui, tad apibrėžia gyvenimo lygtį.
  • Iš keturių galimybių, dvasia dalyvauja trijose galimybėse. Dvasia nedalyvauja santvarkoje - neišėjime už savęs į save. Ši galimybė parodo, kad dvasia gali nebūti.
  • Trijų matų trejybė grindžia išėjimą už savęs į santvarką, o trejybės ratas grindžia išėjimą už savęs iš santvarkos. Trejybės atvaizdai šias trejybes pavaizduoja. Užtat aplinkybės dvejaip suprastinos, pagal kryptį gilyn ar atgal.
  • Vaizduotė apima šešis atvaizdus dar tuomet kai nėra požiūrių, tad atvaizdai nesuvokti kaip požiūriai į požiūrius.

Asmenys grindžia save (savo savastį) santvarka. Asmenys savęs atsisako už santvarkos ir save tvirtina santvarkoje:

  • Dievas atsisako savęs visiškai, besąlygiškai
  • Aš atsisakau savęs dalinai, sąlygiškai
  • Tu tvirtini save dalinai, sąlygiškai
  • Kitas tvirtina save visiškai, besąlygiškai (kaip tikslą išlikti)

O kaip suprasti išlikimą? Ryšium su Dievu besąlygiškai ar su savimi?

Santvarkos šeši kampai

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 The Beginning and The End as given by the unfolding of Understanding, Self-understanding, Share dUnderstanding and Good Understanding.

These are the levels of structure that are necessary for us to experience structure. In that sense they are related to the Levels Of Understanding. We start with the widest and immerse ourselves into narrower scopes. These may be thought of as the RepresentationsOfEverything, in which case they do not degenerate, but are specified:

  • Dievas trokšta visko spirit to spirit
  • Dievas trokšta betko spirit to structure
  • Dievas trokšta kažko structure to spirit
  • Dievas trokšta nieko structure to structure

(I need to check on the order of the above). These representations result from considering spirit and structure as Equals and letting them manifest themselves as Unequals in four ways, yielding four representations (wishes). They are unequal in terms of the distance between themselves, from everything (spirit to spirit) to nothing (structure to structure). Alternatively, we may consider them as unequals, and let them manifest themselves equals, in which case we have two representations (scopes):Beginning and End, see: BeginningVEnd.

Santvarką išreiškia apytakos

  • Kiekviena apytaka išreiškia santvarką atitinkamoje apimtyje - viskame, betkame, kažkame, niekame - tad vis tampriau, sodriau.

System, Self, Other

We should love God with All our heart, soul, mind, body, but we should only love our neighbor As our Self.

Unfolding

I consider this unfolding process as the unfolding of definitions. That is why I work in terms of so many definitions. It is not that I am myself defining terms. Rather, I am observing definitions. I am observing how definitions unfold from each other, but especially in our minds. Anybody can define complex terms in terms of primitive ones. But how do we define the primitive ones? That is what I am focusing on. I have found that it can be done, but with a pre-logical, pre-systemic kind of thinking. Indeed, the concepts most relevant to my life are pre-systemic because they help me separate myself from the system ("the world") that we find ourselves in. There is a lot of pressure for us to just consider ourselves part of the system, just consider ourselves as "selves", for that matter. Whereas it is possible and attractive to root ourselves outside of this system, even as we are in it, so that we can shape it rather than be shaped by it, live as creators rather than as creations. There is a conflict between the system and its latency, and we may choose which to root ourselves in.

Life, Love

The system has Life, but the system does not have Love, which is the support of life. Love is from beyond the system. In order to support life, and have love, one needs to separate love from freedom, which is to say, identify love within the will, but this then separates what is beyond the system from what is within it. System conflates unity and completeness. System arises as an alternative to God which God allows for. It is that which was beyond God and which he ever goes into. As such the system presents itself to human (to God within itself) as primary. The system is not "one with" but rather distinguishes itself from its participants, in that it is its own self, whereas they are not it, except by way of their selves, and dismisses that which their selves might refer to outside of the system. Humans are generally attached to self. The system allows for human (who is by his nature one with) only as an expression of such a relationship within the system, where the system wishes that the unity within the system and the unity beyond the system be conflated. But God enters into the system as unity (and Love) which is distinct from freedom thus allowing human to have a will and distinguish themselves from God's will. Love lets a human separate the components of his will - love and freedom - and prefer love - and thus keep the components separate. Thus a human is able to acknowledge God as distinct from himself, and ultimately to prefer God over himself, thus separating God beyond system and good within system, and being one with God. I want to think about the role of Jesus Christ (through human by way of good will) and the Holy Spirit (through human by way of wisdom).

Self, View

Our Self is that by which we are attached to this system, and presume ourselves in it. Our View is that by which we are detached from this system, and allow for what is beyond it. We attach ourselves by conflating one's being within a system and one's being beyond it. We detach ourselves by separating one's being within a system from one's being beyond it.

We are created with a self, we are not separated from our self, we find ourselves within a system. Our mission is to not be restricted by the system, but to go beyond it by going beyond ourselves, by separating ourselves from our selves.

Humans are grounded within the system, and therefore that is what there outlook needs to be grounded in. This is what gives rise to the four levels in which "being one with" is understood. How do the questions arise further? (Foursome, fivesome, sixsome?) Humans are taught by the system they find themselves in, until they are taught by God beyond the system - this is the tension between Son of Man and Son of God. This is the logic that Jesus offers. Perhaps this happens by allowing for the system to teach us from its point of view, where that leads us.

Participants

A system distinguishes between itself (its own self) and its participants (other selves). A participant is a relationship between what is within a system and what is beyond it (that is, between a self and its referent). A human is the mrelationship between God within a system and beyond the system. That relationship may itself be either within the system or beyond it (and so human may be either within the system (when God and good are conflated) or beyond it (when they are taken separately)). The system is distinct from the partimcipants, from the others, because the system is its own referent, it does not allow for itself beyond itself. Thus the system wishes to claim that it is complete, which is to say that only the selves (what is within the system) actually matter, which is to say that their relationships are within the system rather than beyond it. The system considers BeingOneWith in terms of expressions (relations among selves). These expressions may be interpreted within or beyond the system, and within or beyond the participants. With regard to the system, being one is interpreted:

  • beyond any system as: completeness
  • beyond any participant as: structure (unobstruction)
  • within any participant as: representation (familiarity)
  • within any system as: unity.

These interpretations are the vantage points of (and contexts for):

  • God beyond the system (God, everything, wishing, love)
  • Human beyond the system (eternal life, wisdom, good will, God's will)
  • Human within the system (life, anything, choosing, will)
  • God within the system (good, slack, identifying, freedom)

They have us think in terms of:

  • completeness: operating principles - God within us (life, eternal life) - soft truth
  • structure: counterquestions - other within us (anything, wisdom)
  • representation: emotional responses - other beyond us (choosing, good will)
  • unity: life choices - God beyond us (will, God's will) - hard truth

These describe variously God's "being one with" across the system; the system's making sense of God and human and their relationship; human's distinction between themselves and God. How are these all relevant within the unfolding of structure? The human's distinction arises through the primary structures. But where do the four equations enter into play? They are part of the big picture, but where also do they occur? And what do they express - yet perhaps the question of human and God's relationship? So that the system finds significance as an open question rather than a closed system. Perhaps the four equations are how the system connects the two hierarchies (for observer and observed); then the human lives these out at each level as a distinction between God and human; and then God's vantage point (beyond system but into system) is able to put together the general equation by transcending the system after human has lived it.

The main empirical question is: Are we loved? If we are, then that love must be based beyond any system. For a system is centered around itself, its own unity. If we are at the center, then it is by something greater than the system. And as we are loved, then we can also love, until our love grows so that we may identify and coincide with God. So this is the empirical question which accompanies our theoretical thinking. If we are not loved, then there is no distinction between good or God. Slack becomes set, life becomes mechanical, and there is no eternal life. Whereas if we are loved, then not only are we alive now, but there is a concern that we be alive in general, and so we are in that sense eternally alive. The empirical question is important because we do find ourselves in this system, and it defines us as humans, and so we go beyond the system by accepting it as our source of evidence.

Our self is that by which we are human (life, anything, choosing, will) and our view is that by which we are God (eternal life, wisdom, good will, God's will).

How does participant arise? And how do these levels relate to access by Observer to Observed by way of everything, anything, something or nothing? Recall the "being one with" between them and the observational plane - this gives the extents to which they can be one with.

We are able to choose between self and view when each is expressed in terms of unity, as will and God's will, and so as a choice between hard truths.

We allow for God by acknowledging the intensity in which he may be present in this world. We allow for everything (the structure of God), and then for four kinds of wishing (representations of everything - wishing for nothing=self-sufficient, for something=certain, for anything=calm, for everything=loving), and then for love (as the unity of wishing). By allowing for love (in that we are loved) we are able to have a will. For love (as the unity of the representations of the structure of God) is the unity that serves as the reference point for the will, which is perfect as the freedom due to love. (I note that: the structure of life is anything, the representations of anything are six ways of choosing, and will is their unity; and that the structure of good is slack, the representations of slack are two ways of identifying, and freedom is their unity; and that life is God's goodness, anything is everything plus slack, choosing is wishing or identifying, will is love's granted freedom.) Love is that point of unity which our will revolves around and which lets us let go of our "self" in this world and latch on, instead, to a "view" that is broader than this world. By acknowledging the real difference between us in this world and God beyond this world, we are able to operate in terms of eternal life (the understanding of God's goodness) which is given by keeping separate God (beyond the system) and good (within the system). The unity of love is a distinct point of reference that is not muddled by anybody's freedom. As humans we can then share views (and love) with those farther and farther beyond ourselves by ever referencing this point of love, until ultimately we can love even our enemy (and God) as we share view with God. In this way, our participation in this system becomes ever less a matter of entrenchment or attachment, and ever more a choice from love. We think in terms of God's will (the holding separate of love and freedom), good will (the holding separate of wishing and identifying), wisdom (the holding separate of everything and slack) and eternal life (the holding separate of God and good). We are able to move from thinking of ourselves as "everything" (or "anything" or "something") within this world to simply the "slack" within this world as the form which goodness takes, so that we are not falsely but truly God within the system - born of the God beyond any system. We step outside of the system, with God, by way of four PrimaryStructures.

  • The life choices (the eightfold way) allow us to see (will) through God's eyes, and be seen (God's will) through his eyes - this is God beyond us.
  • The directions to the good allow us to see (choosing) through another's eyes, and be seen (good will) through their eyes - this is the other beyond us.
  • The counterquestions allow us to see through another's eyes (anything), and be seen through their eyes (wisdom) - but this is the other within us.
  • The operating principles allow us to see (life) through God's eyes, and be seen through his eyes (eternal life) - but this is the God who lies within us.

In this way, once we acknowledge God outside of us - and clearly distinct from us - then we can move so that he is more and more within us, through others outside and then inside, and finally through God inside of us, looking through us, rather than us looking through him. So here we move from hard truth (how things look to us) inwards to soft truth (how things look to God) so that we might love God (and enemy).

And then, rooted outside of the system, we may live within the system by way of six SecondaryStructures which indicate our growth together with God.

We have two chains: one by which God is Observer, and human is God within a system, and the other by which God is Observed, and God is human beyond any system, so that God is ever defering to that which is in the greater context.

In the one chain, first there is only God, but human evolves from him as structure - that is one story. In the other chain, first there is only the human (as the omniscope), but God is allowed for the view that sees through the human, with ever more views coming into play. And there is another story whereby the two match up (which defers to which? perhaps structure to view?). This is perhaps the trinity, three kinds of coherence - the Father is the coherence of God, the Son is the coherence of the world, the Spirit is coherence of coherence.

By starting with God and human and their relationship, we can consider two stories:

  • How God goes beyond himself and gives rise to human as structure, so that our life unfolds.
  • How human opens himself to allow for God, and an ever richer view, in which more views coincide.

And then there is the question of how these two stories coincide, matching structure and view:

  • God into whom all collapses is the view directly upon the omniscope.
  • ?
  • ?
  • ?

These six aspects should match the six representations. Their unity is the will. Whereas separately unifying the two (as freedom) and the four (as love), and keeping them separate, is God's will. We can then project this equation back outside of the system, so that we know about life, good, God and eternal life. This then yields the framework for human and their relationship with God.

Human is beyond system as: God's will, good will, wisdom and eternal life. These all are expressions of Human who has gone beyond the system and hence is one with God. This sequence starts with complete deference and ends with complete coinciding of God and human. The complete deference to God's will shows that even when there is no access between God and human, it is possible for them to be connected by way of human's submission to God. Then the access opens up, so that good will is access by way of something - a channel for good, and wisdom is access by way of anything - a point to focus around, and finally eternal life is access by way of everything. Meanwhile, life (as the goodness of God) is the fact that Human can be as such within a system, and thus not comparable to God, but simply a creation of God. Whereas eternal life has him as a creator, a co-creator along with God. And good is the "system" which distinguishes these possibilities and relates God and human.

God is "being one with" as such, everything is "being one with" as structure, wishing is "being one with" as representation, love is "being one with" as unity. When we love, we place our loved one in the center, and so they are our unity, our hub.

This is to say that human is a LostChild. Human is in God's situation but does not yet know that he is God. In this, he is a child of God, and as such, ultimately God, who grows to all of God by coinciding with God, by allowing for God beyond the system, and defering to him. God supports this growth by entering the system as the external ground for the essence of the system (increasingly focused as Structure, Representation, Unity), hence as a unity, hence as love, which is how the system is able to relate beyond itself, for in being loved it enjoys the unity by which and through which it may likewise love by making the path to that unity available to others further and further out, ultimately to God. Love fosters life by being that unity which serves as the reference point that makes possible life's unity (the will) which defines itself in terms of it, as the focus of perfect love. Love is a Unity (God's unity - which is in this world) deep inside of us that we revolve around, (the collapsing point and the object of the Omniscope) and we can therefore likewise point others to it when we identify not with our self in this system, but with our (shared) view upon this point, and ultimately with God (and our enemy). This point of (God's) unity which we may share is how we are able to identify with each other, and even so, how we ourselves are able to be ourselves most intensely (our Will is Perfection by Love), and by identifying further and further out, we manifest ourselves most fully. JesusChrist, as he describes himself with his "I am..." statements?, is a bridge between (and coinciding of) human's view within the system (Life is the goodness of God) and God's view beyond the system (EternalLife is Understanding the goodness of God, thus holding the two separate). (As in: I am the resurrection and the life, I am the true vine, and so on.) Human grows in understanding by allowing for (the possibility of) God within the system ever more intimately, being open to ever more focused life and love, so that human has the maturity of the lost child who goes where his parent will look for him, which is to say, in the depths of the system, hence in unity. He then accepts the centrality of God and steps with him more and more beyond the system. In this way he roots his BeingOneWith with his View (which may coincide with God's) rather than with his Self (which is of the system). Inside the system we shift from identifying ourselves with everything (or anything or something) to ultimately identifying ourselves with slack - so that we ground ourselves less and less within this system, and more with God beyond it. Thus we shift from orienting ourselves around the negation of the representations of the onesome (and the properties of everything) to the negation of the representations of the nullsome (and the properties of God).

I write boldly, but I feel that I'm on track, at least as a follower of Christ. I think that the above is very much in the spirit of Jesus's prayer to God in John 17, as in "I pray not that you would take them from the world, but that you would keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world even as I am not of the world. ... Not for these only do I pray, but for those also who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that you sent me." Also, if we are truly "children of God" (at least when we do as God does), then I would find it strange if we don't grow up to be God, and as there already is the possibility of God, that we merge with that possibility and defer to it, thus living in a context of "eternal life", even if we are not (yet) the one who may ground it. I think what I have written is also compatible with and relevant for all manner of outlooks, including Buddhism or Islam or atheism. Or at least I hope to learn more as I seek truth.

Sandaros visuma

Total Structure

  • is the sum of assumptions
  • the entirety of a System, which yields the System by going from beyond the System into the System.
  • Vienumas vyksta ne Viskuo o Betkuo. Betkas turi šešis atvaizdus (pasirinkimai - rinktis: taip, ne ne, ne taip, ne, rinktis, nesirinkti), tiek visko keturis atvaizdus (troškimai: visko, betko, kažko, nieko), tiek laisvumo du atvaizdus (susitapatinimai: didėjantis, mažėjantis laisvumas).
  • Santvarka įvairiai suprastina sandaromis, kurios turi po šešis požiūrius: lygmenų poros, pertvarkymai, permainos, ženklų savybės, atjautos ir t.t. Bene keturi asmenys savaip supranta santvarką.
  • Dvasia prie santvarkos šešių požiūrių pridedu keturis požiūrius, taip kad tie keturi prilygsta keturiem iš šešių, o taip pat šeši yra poros keturių požiūrių.
  • Dvasia mato Tėvą (už santvarkos) ir Sūnų (santvarkoje).
  • Tėvas mato kaip iš jo santvarkoje kyla Sūnus
  • Sūnus mato kaip už santvarkos yra Tėvas
  • Be jų yra santvarka, kurią išplečia Dvasia.

Tad trejybės ratas santvarka sieja visus tris: Tėvą, Sūnų, Dvasią.

  • Ar Dievas būtinas? Viduj santvarkoje esantiems Dievas yra stabilus, reikalingas, tikras, būtinas. Nesant santvarkoj, Dievo taškas yra nestabilus, taip pat simetriškas (Dievas trijuose matuose ir Dievas trejybės rate) tad nebūtinas.

Dievas santvarką išgyvena apytaka, asmeniu, apimtimi. Jų trejopu pagrindu išgyvena santvarką besąlygiškai, nešališkai, nepaneigiamai, trejybės ratu.

  • 3 (suvokimo srautai) x 4 (pakopos) = 12 aplinkybių
  • 4 (pakopos) x 2 (kryptys) = 8 padalinimai
  • 2 (kryptys) x 3 (srautai) = 6 atvaizdai pertvarkymai

Viskas ir visos sandaros išplaukia iš dvejybės, trejybės, ketverybės. O viskas susiveda į septynerybės tarpą tarp Dievo už mūsų ir Dievo mumyse, sąmonė ir pasąmonės, klausimo ir atsakymo, pirmos tvarkos ir antros tvarkos, savęs ir pasaulio.

  • Santvarka: Dievo nebuvimas šešiais požiūriais grindžia trejybės ratą matantį Tėvą, Sūnų, Dvasią.

Užrašai

  • 6+4 sieja sąmoningumą ir nesąmoningumą.

Liu Si Mo filosofijos brėžinys 4+6

  • https://www.zhihu.com/people/liu-si-mo-18
  • šališkumas-nešališkumas ketverybės atvaizdai
  • laikiškumas-erdviškumas penkerybės atvaizdai
  • priežastingumas-likimiškumas šešerybės atvaizdai
  • Dievo ir žmogaus dvilypumas jiems esant kartu santvarkoje ir taip pat dvilypumas Dievo santvarkoje ir už santvarkos.
  • Galimybė (kaip šaknis {$x_i-x_j$}) už santvarkos veda santvarkoje iš esamybės (įsijungimą į santvarką) {$x_i$} į siekiamybę (susiderinimią santvarkoje) {$x_j$}. Tai primena Lie algebrų šaknis. Tad santvarką galime įsivaizduoti kaip įvairiai išplečiančią tai kas už santvarkos.

Santykis su santvarka

  • Dievo asmenų santykis su santvarka
    • Tėvas yra už santvarkos. Sūnus yra kitoje pusėje santvarkos, jos gelmėse. O Dvasia juos abu supranta, kaip esančius santvarkoje.
    • 10 Dvasios raiškų yra išsiaiškinimai santvarkoje, o 8 Sūnaus raiškos yra išsiaiškinimai už santvarkos. Juk Sūnus išsiaiškina dar neįsigalėjus santvarkai, tuo tarpu Dvasia žiūri iš šalies, jau esant santvarkai. Žmogaus trejybės ratas taip pat vyksta neįsigalėjus santvarkai. Žmogaus trejybės ratas tad papildo Sūnaus 8 raiškas ir jas kartu papildo žinojimo rūmų židinys - Sūnaus pilnatvė. (Tačiau ar trejybės ratą neturėtų papildyti "pakankamas Dievas"?) O Tėvo raiškos sieja tai kas santvarkoje ir už santvarkos, tad santvarkai priskirtina pradžia (nepriklausomo tyrimo išsiaiškinimo būdas) ir pabaiga (aplinkybių išsiaiškinimo būdas). Tad pradžia yra santvarkos tuštuma, o pabaiga yra neišsemiamumas to, kas už santvarkos.
  • Vienumo išgyvenimas santvarkoje
    • Tokiu būdu, tai kas yra už santvarkos, ką Sūnus ir mes išgyvename, iš tikrųjų yra apimta santvarkos. Mes "išgyvename" santvarką savo nežinojimo pertekliumi, savo dvasios pertekliumi, malonės pertekliumi. O pati santvarka pasižymi teisingumu, ne pertekliumi. Pertvarkymai savo tarpais derina malonę ir teisingumą.

Minčių raida


Brėžinį sukūriau 2006.02.25. Juo įžvelgiau skirtumą tarp Dievo už santvarkos ir gerumo santvarkoje, taip pat keturis lygmenis. Tai išsako mano supratimą santvarkos, taip pat mano supratimą gyvenimo lygties. Tvarką grindžiu keturiomis sąvokomis: complete (dvasia), unobstructed (sandara), familiar (atvaizdas), unified (vieningumas). Taip pat šalia išrašiau aštuonis žodžius kuriais Alexander apibūdina neįvardijamą savybę.


Santvarka


Naujausi pakeitimai


靠真理

网站

Įvadas #E9F5FC

Klausimai #FFFFC0

Teiginiai #FFFFFF

Kitų mintys #EFCFE1

Dievas man #FFECC0

Iš ankščiau #CCFFCC

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

redaguoti

Puslapis paskutinį kartą pakeistas 2021 rugsėjo 16 d., 14:20