Iš Gvildenu svetainės

Mintys: Santvarka

Žr. Suvedimas, Žemėlapynas, Santykiai, Savastis, Ir du, Kitas, Dvasia, Distinction, Indistinction

Santvarka išryškėja netroškimais, o prieš tai tėra sąlygos. Trokštame - Dievas mumyse - sutampame su juo. Netrokštame - Dievas už mūsų - nesutampame su juo.

Pastebėjau, kad kiekvienoje santvarkoje, kiekvienoje sandaroje yra požiūris atstovaujantis tam, kas už santvarkos, kas už sandaros. Ko įmantresnė ta santvarka, to gilesnis tas požiūris.

Kaip lietuviškai pasakyti "sistemą"?

Kas yra santvarka (sistema)?

A system is:


===Relationships with regard to System===

{{Human}} is {{God}} within a system. {{God}} is {{human}} beyond any system. So a system distinguishes between those within it and those beyond it.

===Martin Wurzinger's theory of system===

MartinWurzinger: Firstly, what is a system? The name implies an identifiable {{Structure}} as well as a {{Dynamic}}. In other words, a 'system' expresses a certain formality while at the same time going through its paces - it 'does something'. The formality is needed because without it we would not be able to label it one way or another, and the 'doing' tells us something about its behaviour. The two are interdependent; the behaviour is classifiable within the terms of its structure, and the structure portrays an ongoing scenario we can follow according to the format we were able to identify.

{{Andrius}}: Compare with Christopher Alexander's idea that recurring {{Activity}} evokes structure, and structure channels {{Activity}}, which I am thinking of as an [AddTwo operation +2] that adds two perspectives to a structure, namely activity and non-activity from which it arises smoothly.

===System - Martin Wurzinger===

MartinWurzinger, [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/547 February 11, 2006]: Thank you Andrius for the interesting letter to Chris Langan's conference regarding CTMU and [EternalLife life after death]. A number of issues have been raised there that at times seem to approach the nature of definition. In that light may I offer a focus that treats those concepts as systems per se (and not more - but certainly not less). For the full details of where I'm coming from see the material on the nature of {{Mind}} on [http://members.optusnet.com.au/mwurzinger48 my website]. I would also cite it as a way of introducing myself to the group.

So, here goes!

Firstly, what is a system? The name implies an identifiable {{Structure}} as well as a {{Dynamic}}. In other words, a 'system' expresses a certain formality while at the same time going through its paces - it 'does something'. The formality is needed because without it we would not be able to label it one way or another, and the 'doing' tells us something about its behaviour. The two are interdependent; the behaviour is classifiable within the terms of its structure, and the structure portrays an ongoing scenario we can follow according to the format we were able to identify.

{{Andrius}}: Compare with Christopher Alexander's idea that recurring {{Activity}} evokes structure, and structure channels {{Activity}}, which I am thinking of as an [AddTwo operation +2] that adds two perspectives to a structure, namely activity and non-activity from which it arises smoothly.

So far the situation might almost seem trivial, but consider: as we observe such a system, we, the {{Observer}}, represent a system in its own right and subject to the same definition we have just applied. For the two to work together (ie, we observe something which has meaning to us) the {{Pattern}} unfolding before us must in some way find its re-representation in our own minds, otherwise there would be no meaning. This wouldn't require the {{Observed}} system to be meaningless in itself, it simply (?) says the system would have no meaning for us.

{{Andrius}}: I am grappling with the relationship between {{Observer}} and {{Observed}} in my {{Overview}} of knowing everything.

To have a format entails expectability. But to what extent? In principle there are two options. Either we apply our pre-knowledge about certain objects, in which case another object (meant quite literally) outside the existing format forces us to re-interpret our erstwhile definition of the system. Or, we consider the scenario in terms of functionality, in which case the options multiply (for example, if a coffee table is replaced by a baroque table we need to reconsider, but if we understand the things as 'table' first and foremost then what particular type of table is being presented becomes immaterial - they are all meaningful).

{{Andrius}}: I think that EmotionalResponses are driven by {{Expectations}} and I write about this in my page on EverythingWishesForAnything.

Our minds are very good at PatternRecognition. A pattern is a format, and paring away the specific detail we arrive at the object's {{Abstraction}}, which is another way of saying we have recognised its underlying functionality. By the way, these kind of thought process can be traced in history; Thomas Aquinas for instance not only discusses proportion but moves on to proportionality, something an Aristotle didn't do! That next higher level of abstraction allows him to speculate about human nature far more powerfully than was hitherto the case.

Returning to the observer and the observed, we can say therefore that a given pattern only then becomes {{Meaningful}} to us if our {{Minds}} are capable of abstracting to a sufficient degree. The problem then becomes - what is 'sufficient'?

Even a table can be abstracted further, take the geological formation known as mesa for example. A mesa is not really a 'platform to put things on', but the semantic link is obvious.

Further abstractions are possible if the system possesses a high enough degree of complexity (such as the mind of Thomas Aquinas), but does not go further than that degree allows (compare Aquinas with the writings of Sartre for example). Since we are dealing with systems, the same can be said about the other side, the observed.

And here we come to the crux of the matter. Any given system consists of its ObjectRelatedContent as well as its [{{Latency}} abstractive potential], the former being more limited than the latter as we have seen. Again, this goes for the observer as well as the observed. However, since the system is defined as a 'system' in terms of its {{Boundaries}} as they are convenient for the purpose of the current definition, the potential can be raised by extending its boundaries. We still have our system, but now it represents a subsystem within the set of added functionalities. Naturally, we can apply the same process once again and widen our reference further still.

Continuing along that line we come to a point at which our own interpretative capacity (remember, we are the observer) reaches a limit. This limit is reached as soon as our own abstractive potential becomes incongruent in relation to the framework of what we are trying to observe. The observed system doesn't care - it is us who falter and take recourse to SemanticBridges in our attempts at reconciling the outside with what our minds are capable of expressing.

I would suggest that concepts such as 'God', 'Truth' (note the capital T), 'Good' and 'Evil' (likewise) are such semantic bridges. I suspect this is where Andrius' "God seeks ALL good" comes in (but correct me if I'm wrong). After all, we don't really know what 'good' ultimately means because the all-encompassing system of Life contains abstraction potentials far in excess of what we can make of it with our current understanding. I say 'current' because as we come across events which represent instantiated examples of our abstractions our reference system has been extended and our knowledge base has now expanded. The scientific approach of moving from hypothesis to theory and on to established fact follows that line.

The abstractive potential can be termed {{Latency}}. It is the inherent latency of any given system that gives rise to its {{Unfolding}}, whether such a system happens to be our {{Mind}}, an evolving {{Organism}}, an EcoSystem, indeed the {{Universe}}. Yet a potential is not completely open-ended. It needs the moment-by-moment {{Instantiation}} for the following phase to occur (which means I cannot discourse about Aquinas if I haven't learned how to read, I cannot abstract 'table' if I don't know about platforms, or plants and animals cannot exist unless and until something like a solar system has come into being).

And yet... would the latency as we know as of today have existed at the time the universe settled itself into star clusters? We can trace the developmental process from our vantage point, but would a galaxy somehow {{Know}} about organic compounds? There is a possible answer, and it touches on what I call {{Affinities}}.

For the time being I would be interested in what others have to say about this so far.

The relevance to Andrius' letter lies in the ideas he presents in the context of the {{Bounded}} system defined as SelfStanding; to apply "thinking as human" by positing an {{Anthropomorphic}} system; talking about Chicago, Bangalore etc as specific subsystems; and asking [{{Foursome}} Whether? What? How? Why?] as an application of abstraction processes, and residing within one's own mind at that.

Santvarkos požiūris

===System's view===

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).

{{System}}, {{Self}}, {{Other}}

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 [{{Other}} others]. They are related by way of their [{{Self}} 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.

(Note that we should love God with All our heart, soul, mind, body, but we should only love our neighbor As our Self.)

{{System}}, {{Definition}}

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.

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":

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.


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.


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:

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

They have us think in terms of:

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.

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:

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

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

See also: Negation, Activity, Structure, RepresentationOfTheNullsome, Overview

Total Structure

Parsiųstas iš http://www.ms.lt/sodas/Mintys/Santvarka
Puslapis paskutinį kartą pakeistas 2018 spalio 03 d., 18:43