Iš Gvildenu svetainės

Mintys: Savybės

Gyvybės savybės, Gyvybės dėsniai, Ženklų savybės, Viskas, Troškimai

Kas yra savybės?



Pasiskaityti apie savybes


Savybių pavyzdžiai

Savybių santykiai

Asmenų Dievo savybėsamžinas gyvenimasišmintisgera valiaDievo valia
Nulybės atvaizdaitiesusbetarpiškaspastovusprasmingas
Ketverybės lygmenų neigimasnenuslepiamasnepavaizduojamasnekintantisneaprėpiamas
Vienybės atvaizdaiprivaloma sąvoka, be pasirinkimobe vidinės sandarosbe atrankosbe išorinės aplinkos

Vienybės atvaizdai yra ketverybės lygmenų neigimo įsisavinimai. Neigimus taiko tiesiogiai sau, priima kaip bylojančius būtent apie save, ne apie santykį su kitais.

Vienybė yra visko sandara ir viskas yra vienybės dvasia. Užtat vienybės atvaizdai yra visko savybės. O Dievo sandara yra viskas ir visko atvaizdai yra troškimai. Užtat troškimai yra Dievo savybės.

Savybės ir atvaizdai

{{Andrius}}: [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/300 April 14, 2003]

I'm making some more progress. I'm trying to understand how structure unfolds and coheres. I'm finding a connection between the properties of a division X and the representations of a division X + 1.

I'm finding that the way to understand structure is to understand the Spirit beyond it. Here are some basic thoughts.

within Structure. In other words, Life is the fact that God is good.

So Structure appears as the means of the Spirit going beyond itself. The question is: Would the Spirit be such even if it was isolated from itself? Structure is that form of isolation, the System within which the Spirit can be placed. To place Spirit within System requires Slack. Then the point is to show that Slack is connected with Everything, that Good is connected with God. But Anything is what connects Everything with Slack; Life is what connects God with good.

I want to show how step by step structure unfolds through an operation +1. I've noticed that the properties of everything are given by the representations of the onesome:

There is a subtle distinction between the nullsome (the division of everything into zero perspectives) and the onesome (the division of everything into one perspectives). The former is that which, in some sense, is beyond the system. The latter is expressed within the system. When we consider "everything" it may be an "example" of everything. As an example, it is the onesome, but as itself, it is the nullsome. As an example, it has representations, ways that it can be thought. Whereas, as the nullsome, these are is properties. Therefore:

the properties of the nullsome = the representations of the onesome

But likewise, we may look at the representations of the nullsome: true, direct, constant, significant. These are the properties of God. So we may conclude:

the properties of God = the representations of the nullsome

And this lets us say that God has no representations, only properties. It also suggests:

And perhaps:

where perhaps good has no properties. And then we might work backwards through all of the structures and conclude that God is good.

What is the difference between properties and representations?

Representations are different ways of looking at the same thing. Properties are the qualities that something unites within itself.f

In the case of divisions of everything (into perspectives), we have that each representation adds an extra perspective. Furthermore, the representation itself may be considered as having an additional perspective that looks upon the structure. So the representation includes two perspectives, one explicit, as part of the division, and an associated one that is implicit, as the vantage point upon the division. And these associated perspectives both are vantage points for "unification". They are the unifying views, both inside and outside, the points of coinciding between the inside and the outside. If something directly has a property, then it need not be seen. But if it is to be seen, then this must be so within a system, with comprehensive vantage points inside and outside the system.

Coherence is the unity of representations: for example, God is the unity of the representations of everything; God is the coherence of everything. The properties of God are the representations of everything, that means that the properties are what God is unifying. What God unifies is the ways of looking at everything.

So, starting with God, we can ask: what does God unify? What does God bring together? That is a way of going beyond God, and it is the way of introducing structure. For about each structure we can then ask, What does it unify? What does it bring together?

God holds together everything, the nullsome. What holds together the nullsome? The onesome, and so on. What does this mean?

Is everything more than God? or less than God?

It's a strange question because it may be a bit of either. If God is the coherence of everything, that which unifies everything and holds it together, then:

less than God.

is more than God. Hmmm.

I had earlier had some related thoughts about the Trinity:

Bevardė savybė (quality without a name)

See also: {{Divisions}}, [AddOne operation +1]

{{Andrius}} [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/296 April 7, 2003]

I highly recommend "The Timeless Way of Building" by ChristopherAlexander. It is an architectural design book on the question, What makes a building "alive"? It was written in 1979 and has the deepest thoughts I've ever seen on life and living/complex systems.

One of the very first chapters discusses the "quality without a name" which is had by those things that are alive. He does a fantastic job showing that no word can quite capture it because the quality is more precise than words, whereas each word/concept has, of its nature, divergent meanings.

The seven words/concepts he considers are:

And to these we can add an eighth, " ", which is nameless.

I think these eight words/concepts relate directly to Jesus' "I am" statements, and I am looking for the connection.

They should also be related to the divisions of everything. Christopher Alexander defines the quality as "free from inner contradictions", where in particular, we may think (as in architecture) of their being inner forces that must fit together properly. We may think of these inner forces as the perspctives within a division of everything.

I suppose that one question is whether those perspectives are a division of all of everything, or just of something, a "local everything". In the latter case there are surroundings. I'm thinking that they way to be "free of inner contradictions" is to resolve them, rather than to not have them. In the case of divisions of everything, they are resolved into everything, which is to say, into contradiction itself. Because everything can be (and is) contradictory, and so they can be resolved into that. And that resolution can be one of equals. But if they are only divisions of something, then they must be resolved by their surrounding, their complement within everything. Such a resolution must favor one of the forces, perspectives by identifying it with the surroundings. It is the force that "wins" to the destruction of all.

This would explain that with words we can't know if the system they're defined within is everything or just something. Words are local, that is, defined within a domain, however broad, like the epsilons and deltas in calculus.

So I'll try to go through the qualities and see how they relate to the divisions. Peace, Andrius

{{Andrius}}: [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/297 April 9, 2003]

I think I'm making progress on these names for "alive", the quality without a name.

In each "division of everything" into perspectives, I think that there is one perspective that looks at the unity of the entire division. I mark them with an asterisk *.

Those perspectives are understood to be the source of the following names for the "quality without a name":

I notice that if such a perspective arises from the inside, from within the system, then it is "good", truly alive. But if the perspective is given from the outside, then it is dead, false.

In other words, we may think of the system, the division, as that of "everything", or only of "something". The perspective of unity reaches out to everything and beyond. But if the system only covers "something", then the perspective of unity will introduce an imbalance. It will not be coherent, for it will subject the system to a force that comes from beyond it. The perspective will introduce a division of what the system is accounting for, and what is coming from beyond.

For example, opposites co-existing is "freeing" if it is genuine, if it shows how the system must ever go beyond itself, because it includes both that which stays the same, and that which goes beyond it. However, if we think of "freeness" with regard to a bounded system of "something", then that freeness will be false, dead, contrived.

The system can be coherent only if it covers all of "everything". Then any contradictions are not resolved by the surroundings of everything, rather they are resolved by the contradiction of everything itself.

I need to keep working on this. I should search for a way, how does structure arise by having a new "perspective of unity" introduced until it is no longer needed, I think, when we have morality. In other words, I need to define the operation +1, which is related to "definition" and the "divisions of everything".

I had some incomplete but helpful thoughts on how everything unfolds. I'll jot them down here. Andrius, ms@ms.lt

{{Andrius}}: [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/298 April 10, 2003]

Consider how everything unfolds, in particular, how the inversion of God might introduce a perspective of unity, and how this might unfold all structure, and lead to a moral being, and then continue onwards through the seventh perspective into life, the coherence of the seventh perspectives. Life is getting engaged, being in suspense, believing, relying, loving, suffering. How does that relate to the names of the quality without a name? Perhaps these names are the representations of life, and "life" is the seventh name, and the quality is nameless? How do these names relate to the negative commandments?

Korpuse aptiktų būdvardžių sąrašas

Parsiųstas iš http://www.ms.lt/sodas/Mintys/Savyb%c4%97s
Puslapis paskutinį kartą pakeistas 2022 spalio 26 d., 16:02