• Susikalbėjimas vyksta dviem laidais. Sąmonės sąvokomis galime bendrauti tačiau jas suprasti galime tiktai pasąmonės atjauta, sąmoningumo dėka.

Atsakymai grindžia suvokimą, klausimai grindžia savęs suvokimą, tyrimai grindžia bendrą suvokimą, o vaizduotės ribos grindžia susikalbėjimą.

• Kur Dievas mūsų ieško? kad mes, pasiklydę, galėtumėme būtent ten jo laukti.

Išėjimas už savęs - suvokimo lygmenys

• neišgyvenant, o žiūrint iš šalies, suvokimmu: 4 pakopos
• išėjimą už savęs išgyvename susikalbėjimu, esme, vienumu
• Troškimai grindžia suvokimo lygmenis, taip pat atjautas.

• Suvokimas skiria Dievą ir gerumą, tad ką skiria kiti suvokimo lygmenys?

• Suvokimas - ŽD - Dievas, Aš, Tu, Kitas
• Savęs suvokimas - ŽDŽ - Aš, Tu, Kitas (nes įsivaizduojamas žmogaus požiūris, o nėra žmogaus kai yra tik vien Dievas - būtinai yra ne tik Dievas bet ir galimybės)
• Bendras suvokimas - ŽDŽD - Aš, Tu (žmogus įsivaizduoja, kad yra Dievas - jiem bendras yra išėjimas už savęs)
• Susikalbėjimas - ŽDŽDŽ - (įsivaizduojamas Dievas grįžta prie žmogaus)

Suvokimo lygmenys plėtoja vienumo sąmoningumą

• Žmogus neria į kitus lygmenis.
• Suvokimas yra atskyrimas ir tuo pačiu vienumas (suvokiančiojo ir susivokiančiojo suvoktumu). Tačiau suvokimas taip pat skiria vienumą (suvokiančiojo besąlygiškumo lygmenyje) ir atskyrimą (susivokiančiojo sąlygiškumo lygmenyje).
• Suvokimo lygmenys išsako kaip vienumas nusileidžia į sąlygiškiausius lygmenis. Vienumas savaip reiškiasi suvokime, savęs suvokime, bendrame suvokime. Susikalbėjimu susivokiantysis sąmoningai renkasi vieningumą.

• Suvokimo lygmenys - trejybės atvaizdai - išsako ką suvokiame.

• Suvokimo lygmenimis žmogus pradeda susikalbėjimą ir toliau vis atsisako požiūrių, auga nežinojimas, baigiasi: žmogaus požiūris = jokiam požiūriui.
• Suvokimas yra atskyrimas ir tuo pačiu vienumas (suvokiančiojo ir susivokiančiojo suvoktumu). Tačiau suvokimas taip pat skiria vienumą (suvokiančiojo besąlygiškumo lygmenyje) ir atskyrimą (susivokiančiojo sąlygiškumo lygmenyje). Tad suvokimo lygmenys išsako kaip vienumas nusileidžia į sąlygiškiausius lygmenis. Susikalbėjimu susivokiantysis sąmoningai renkasi vieningumą. Bendru suvokimu, savęs suvokimu, suvokimu, tas vienumas vyksta kitaip. Ir šis vienumo klausimas iškyla aštuonerybe (pirmyn ir atgal), ir dešimt Dievo įsakymų, sutapimais keturiose pakopose, taip pat atitrūktimuose atskyrimuose šešiomis poromis. Tad tai išplečia ką reiškia vienumas suvokime, Dievo trejybėje, Dievo Sūnaus ir Dievo Dvasios kampais.
• Jėzaus ankšti vartai, tai susikalbėjimas, paskiro asmens akistata su Dievu, susigaudymas, kad žmogus yra sąlygiškas, o Dievas besąlygiškas. Tai perėjimas iš bendro likimo į paskirus likimus. O kas yra platieji vartai? Ar tai bendras likimas?
• Žmogus neria į kitus lygmenis.

Suvokiame

• Dievą
• save - paskirą žinojimą
• sąvoką - bendrą žinojimą
• santykį - teisingą santykį

• Noriu viską žinoti. Tad noriu mąstyti Dievo požiūrį. Tačiau mane ištisai varžo žmogaus požiūris. Kaip man atsisakyti savo požiūrio ir mąstyti Dievo požiūrį? Kada mąstau žmogaus požiūrį į Dievo požiūrį į žmogaus požiūrį į Dievo požiūrį į žmogaus požiūrį - tai yra, kada vyksta susikalbėjimas - ir jeigu Dievas palaiko mane - tuomet mano mąstymas gali išsakyti Dievo požiūrį į žmogaus požiūrį į Dievo požiūrį. O tai yra, iš esmės, visko žinojimas žmogaus sąlygose. Juk aš tokiu būdu suvokiu, kaip Dievas priima mano jo suvokimą.

• Dvasia neturi savasties, tad savęs nesuvokia, tad savęs suvokimą išreiškia savęs nesuvokimu.
• Sandara yra savastis, tad savęs suvokimas savimi.
• Atvaizdai yra savęs suvokimas kitais.
• Vieningumas yra savęs suvokimas Dievu.

Suvokimo lygmenis išreiškia netroškimų atliepimų nulinis požiūris:

• Suvokimas - būk tobulas
• Savęs suvokimas - ko iš tikrųjų noriu?
• Bendras suvokimas - atsiliepti ramybės būsenoje
• Susikalbėjimas - mane myli labiau kaip aš pats save, tad...

Suvokimo lygmenys - Išėjimas už savęs iš savęs

• Kitas - susikalbėjimas (sąmoningumas)
• Tu - bendras suvokimas (sąmonė)
• Aš - savęs suvokimas (pasąmonė)
• Dievas - suvokimas

Paskiri suvokimo lygmenys

Suvokimas

• Suvokimas nusako pasaulio elgesį, kas savaime vyksta.

Savęs suvokimas

• Savęs suvokimas nusako paskiro žmogaus elgesį, kaip elgiamės.

Bendras suvokimas

• Bendras suvokimas nusako bendro žmogaus elgesį, kaip derėtų elgtis, telkiant, tveriant, kuriant visuomenę.

Susikalbėjimas

• Susikalbėjimas nusako Dievo elgesį, tai buvimas Dievu.

Suvokimo lygmenų esmė

Suvokimo lygmuo

• Iš Dievo trejybės išplaukia suvokimas ir suvoktasis. Suvokimas Dievo šokyje besąlygiškas. Tai pagrindas sąvokoms.

Suvokimo lygmenys ir sąvokos.

• Suvokimas tampa sąlygišku kitose apytakose, apimtis siaurėja. Apytakų apimtims siaurėjant atsiranda atitinkamų apimčių sąvokos. Sąvokos iškyla ir plėtojasi.

Asmenys apibrėždami (suvokdami) save apibrėžia (suvokia)

• Visus asmenis apibrėžia tai, ką jie patys apibrėžia (suvokia). Ir Dvasia pati save apsibrėžia.

Sutapimas

• Siaurėjant apimtims galiausiai sutampa suvokiantis ir susivokiantis.

Keturi suvokimo lygmenys

Yra keturi suvokimo lygmenys.

Suvokimas vyksta trejybės atvaizdais apytakose.

Kas yra suvokimas?

• Kuo skiriasi suvokimas teiginiuose "amžinas gyvenimas yra gyvenimo suvokimas" ir "Viskas yra Manęs suvokimas" ?

• Kaip savęs suvokime iškyla ketverybė, penkerybė, šešerybė?
• Kuria prasme meilė sau yra ketverybės, penkerybės, šešerybės atsiradimas iš savęs suvokimo?
• Koks veiklos ir veiksmo +2 vaidmuo ketverybei, penkerybei, šešerybei išplaukiant iš savęs suvokimo?

Grandinės pabaiga

• Kodėl santvarka subliukšta kuomet suvokimas yra Visų suvokimas?

• Kodėl santvarka subliukšta kuomet suvokimas yra Visų suvokimas?

• Mes kažkuria prasme negalime suvokti visko, o Dievas gali, tad kaip mes priimame Dievo suvokimą?

• Kuria prasme Dievas yra suvokimas Dievo, viskas yra suvokimas Manęs, troškimai yra suvokimas tavęs, meilė yra suvokimas kito?
• Kaip suprasti, kad Dievas yra suvokimas Dievo, viskas yra suvokimas Manęs ir taip toliau? Ką jungiu Aš. Kiekvienu atveju Dievas jungiamas su tam tikro santvarkos lygmens dvasia.

• Kaip skirtingi suvokimo lygmenys susiję su dviejų sąvokų (kaip kad Dievo ir gerumo) santykių stiprumu?

• Ką suvokimo lygmenys turi bendro kaip sandaros (veiksmu +1 ir išėjimu už savęs) ir kuo jie skiriasi?

• Kuria prasme suvokimas (be apimties) susijęs su meile? Ar būtent tuo, kad neturi apimties?

• Kaip požiūrių grandinė išdėlioja visko žinojimą?
• Kas yra sąlygiškumas ir kaip jisai vystosi požiūrių grandine?
• Kaip požiūrių grandinė išreiškia ne tik mano, kaip paskiro žmogaus, bet visų žmonių būklę?

Žmogaus ir Dievo požiūrių grandinė

Kaip požiūrių grandinę suprasti Dievu?

• Kuria prasme požiūrių grandinė sutampa ir su Dievo požiūriu, kaip yra, ir yra netgi dalis jo požiūrio?
• Kaip požiūrių grandine susieti su keturių asmenų šešiais pokalbiais ir su tuo, kaip asmeniniais požiūriais išgauti besąlygišką Dievo požiūrį?

Kaip požiūrių grandinę suprasti žmogumi?

• Kaip požiūrių grandinė išdėlioja visko žinojimą?

Kaip požiūrių grandinė grindžia išgyvenimo apytaką?

• Koks ryšys tarp padalinimų ir dorovės tyrimo septynių pakopų?

Suvokimo vaidmuo

Kas išplaukia iš suvokimo lygmenų?

• Ar apimtys iškyla suvokimo lygmenimis?

Keturi lygmenys

Kas vyksta lygmenyse?

• Kaip suvokimo lygmenis suprasti kaip trejybės atvaizdus?
• Kuria prasme Dievas yra suvokimas Dievo, viskas yra suvokimas manęs, troškimai yra suvokimas tavęs, meilė yra suvokimas kito?
• Ką kiekvienas asmuo jungia, ką atitinkamas suvokimas skiria?
• Kaip Dievas ir gerumas sueina kiekviename lygmenyje?
• Kaip (Sūnaus) susivokimas ir suvoktumas reiškiasi keturiuose suvokimo lygmenyse?

Paskiri lygmenys

• Kaip iš bendro suvokimo išplaukia septintasis požiūris (bene betkas = sąvoka) ir kaip tai sukuria sandus ir antrines sandaras?
• Kaip suprasti bendrą suvokimą kaip santykį tarp veikėjo ir jo aplinkos kaip kad įsisavinimu?
• Koks skaidymo, nulinio veiksmo ir sąvokų vaidmuo, paėmus kartu ir atskirai?

• Kaip skaidymo sandai (ir juos apibrėžiančios lygtys) susiję su padalinimais, atvaizdais, aplinkybėmis?
• Kaip skaidymas susijęs su širdimi ir išvertimu (kuriuo Dievas tampa gelmių Dievulėliu, niekas tampa nežinojimo platybėmis)?

Kaip sąvokos suvokiamos?

• Koks suvokimo lygmenų vaidmuo suvokiant sąvokas?

Ryšiai

Asmenys ir suvokimo lygmenys

Kokie suvokimo lygmenų ryšiai?

• Kaip suvokimo lygmenys susiję su pokalbiu, su kalbomis, su atitinkamu pašnekovu?

Kokie suvokimo ryšiai?

• Kaip vaizduotė ir atvaizdai susiję su suvokimu ir sąvokom?

Lygmenys

Savęs suvokimas

• Ar savęs suvokimas yra susivokimas?

• Koks skaidymo vaidmuo?
• Kaip dviejų grandinų lygmenys susiję?
• Susieti skaidymo sandus (ir juos apibrėžiančius lygtis) su padalinimais, atvaizdais, aplinkybėmis
• Susieti skaidymą su širdimi ir išvertimu (

• Gyvenimo lygtis, Amžino gyvenimo pjūvis, Ketverybės
• Suvokimas, Apibrėžimas, Sąvoka, Sąvokų raida
• Žmogaus suvokimas, Žmogaus savęs suvokimas, Žmogaus bendras suvokimas, Žmogaus susikalbėjimas

Kas išplaukia iš suvokimo lygmenų?

Kaip sąvokos išplaukia iš suvokimo?

Savęs suvokimas nusako paskiro žmogaus elgesį, kaip elgiamės. O bendras suvokimas nusako bendro žmogaus elgesį, kaip derėtų elgtis, telkiant, tveriant, kuriant visuomenę.

Savęs suvokimas nusako paskiro žmogaus elgesį, kaip elgiamės. O bendras suvokimas nusako bendro žmogaus elgesį, kaip derėtų elgtis, telkianti ir kuriant visuomenę.

Augant sąmoningumui, siaurėja žinojimo apimtis

• Suvokimas - žinojimas visko
• Savęs suvokimas - žinojimas betko
• Bendras suvokimas - žinojimas kažko
• Susikalbėjimas - žinojimas nieko

Suvokimas, Gyvenimo lygtis, Apibrėžimas, Sąvoka, Amžino gyvenimo pjūvis, Ketverybės

Suvokimas, Gyvenimo lygtis, Apibrėžtumas?, Sąvoka, Amžino gyvenimo pjūvis, Ketverybės

• Ar apimtys iškyla suvokimo lygmenimis?

• Buvimas Dievu = susikalbėjimas

• Kaip suvokimo lygmenis suprasti kaip trejybės atvaizdus?
• Kaip (Sūnaus) susivokimas ir suvoktumas reiškiasi keturiuose suvokimo lygmenyse?

• Suvokimo lygmenys - trejybės atvaizdai - išsako ką suvokiame (Dievą, save, bendrą žinojimą, teisingą santykį).

Suvokimo lygmenys

• Suvokimas yra atskyrimas ir tuo pačiu vienumas (suvokiančiojo ir susivokiančiojo suvoktumu). Tačiau suvokimas taip pat skiria vienumą (suvokiančiojo besąlygiškumo lygmenyje) ir atskyrimą (susivokiančiojo sąlygiškumo lygmenyje). Tad suvokimo lygmenys išsako kaip vienumas nusileidžia į sąlygiškiausius lygmenis. Susikalbėjimu susivokiantysis sąmoningai renkasi vieningumą. Bendru suvokimu, savęs suvokimu, suvokimu, tas vienumas vyksta kitaip. Ir šis vienumo klausimas iškyla aštuonerybe (pirmyn ir atgal), ir dešimt Dievo įsakymų, sutapimais keturiose pakopose, taip pat atitrūktimuose atskyrimuose šešiomis poromis. Tad tai išplečia ką reiškia vienumas suvokime, Dievo trejybėje, Dievo Sūnaus ir Dievo Dvasios kampais.

Suvokimo lygmenys - Išėjimas už savęs iš savęs

• Kitas - susikalbėjimas (sąmoningumas)
• Tu - bendras suvokimas (sąmonė)
• Aš - savęs suvokimas (pasąmonė)
• Dievas - suvokimas

Dorovės tyrimas

Yra septynios dorovės tyrimo pakopos. Tirdamas dorovę susiduriu su šiais klausimais:

• Kas yra dorovė?
• Kokia dorovės esmė?
• Kaip išgyvename dorovę?
• Kokius pasirinkimus išgyvename?
• Kuris pasirinkimas esminis?
• Kaip dorovė grindžia sąmoningėjimą?
• Kaip išgyvenimais susiveda sandaros?

Dorovės tyrimo lygmenys atspindi suvokimo lygmenis, jų raidą, žmogaus ir Dievo požiūrių grandinę, išėjimą už savęs iš savęs.

Žmogaus ir Dievo požiūrių grandinė

• Kaip požiūrių grandinė grindžia išgyvenimo apytaką?
• Koks ryšys tarp padalinimų ir dorovės tyrimo septynių pakopų?
• Kaip požiūrių grandinė išdėlioja visko žinojimą?
  • Kas yra sąlygiškumas ir kaip jisai vystosi požiūrių grandine?
  • Kaip požiūrių grandinė išreiškia ne tik mano, kaip paskiro žmogaus, bet visų žmonių būklę?
  • Kuria prasme požiūrių grandinė sutampa ir su Dievo požiūriu, kaip yra, ir yra netgi dalis jo požiūrio?
  • Kaip požiūrių grandine susieti su keturių asmenų šešiais pokalbiais ir su tuo, kaip asmeniniais požiūriais išgauti besąlygišką Dievo požiūrį?

Suvokimo lygmenys išdėsto visko žinojimą žmogaus ir Dievo požiūrių grandine

• Noriu viską žinoti. Tad noriu mąstyti Dievo požiūrį. Tačiau mane ištisai varžo žmogaus požiūris. Kaip man atsisakyti savo požiūrio ir mąstyti Dievo požiūrį? Kada mąstau žmogaus požiūrį į Dievo požiūrį į žmogaus požiūrį į Dievo požiūrį į žmogaus požiūrį - tai yra, kada vyksta susikalbėjimas - ir jeigu Dievas palaiko mane - tuomet mano mąstymas gali išsakyti Dievo požiūrį į žmogaus požiūrį į Dievo požiūrį. O tai yra, iš esmės, visko žinojimas žmogaus sąlygose. Juk aš tokiu būdu suvokiu, kaip Dievas priima mano jo suvokimą.

Pasiklydęs vaikas - gerasis vaikas ir blogasis vaikas

• Dievo Tėvo požiūris palaikanti blogąjį vaiką, tvirtinantį: Dievas būtinai geras. Būtų teisinga pasaulį sunaikinti. Dievas geras nes jisai nesunaikina pasaulio. Jisai atperka pasaulį Jėzaus auka. Pastoviai išduodame Dievą. Dievo meilės atmetinėjimas yra gėrio darymas. Atstumo įvedimas.

Suvokimo lygmenis išreiškia netroškimų atliepimų nulinis požiūris:

• Suvokimas - būk tobulas
• Savęs suvokimas - ko iš tikrųjų noriu?
• Bendras suvokimas - atsiliepti ramybės būsenoje
• Susikalbėjimas - mane myli labiau kaip aš pats save, tad...

• Dvasia neturi savasties, tad savęs nesuvokia, tad savęs suvokimą išreiškia savęs nesuvokimu.
• Sandara yra savastis, tad savęs suvokimas savimi.
• Atvaizdai yra savęs suvokimas kitais.
• Vieningumas yra savęs suvokimas Dievu.

Suvokimo lygmenų raida

Neapibrėžtumas. 0) 1) 2) 3) Veiksmu +1 išsivysto (Dievo) sąmonė - suvokėjas, suvokimas, suvoktasis - yra sandaros pagrindas, visko padalinimus. Sąmonė išbaigta trimis požiūriais, tačiau veiksmas +1 taikomas toliau. Visuma vis naujai suvokiama kaip papildomas požiūris (palyginti su simpleksų židiniu).

Apibrėžtumas. 4) 5) 6) Therefore a new outlook awakens and finds itself as such within the structural situation unfolded by the original outlook. We may think of this as a "godlet" which may not be God, but is otherwise in the situation of God. There is now a disconnect between Structure and Activity. Structure may or may not channel activity. Activity may or may not evoke structure. The feedback between structure and activity may be thought of as an operation [AddTwo +2]: the evoking of structure is linked to the arisal of activity. We may think of the godlet as a perturbation that opens up angles: Representations upon the whole, and Topologies from out of the parts. I think that this is where the "algebra of views" is defined. The give and take between activity and structure introduces a slack which allows one to take up a perspective, thus integrating whole and parts.

7) Then the new outlook comes to understand itself with regard to the original outlook as a perturbation of an ideal outlook that links both outlooks. All three outlooks are characterized by their three-cycles: taking a stand, following through, reflecting. And these rotations may be thought of as an operation [AddThree +3]. I think here is where the dynamic languages of life come into play: argumentation, verbalization, narration. I suppose they are expressions of the "algebra of views". Here the ideal outlook serves as a mediator which allows us to localize the slack so that we know where it is within a three-cycle. This makes the algebra definite.

8=0) Then the new outlook understands itself as subordinate to the original outlook. At the core of the new outlook is always the original outlook which went beyond itself and thereby generated the new outlook. Everything is always collapsing back into the original outlook. The views of the new outlook and the original outlook coincide by way of that collapsing.

This is extremely helpful for me because it places the "algebra of views" within the big picture. It suggests that the algebra of views becomes defined with the divisions of everything into four, five and six perspectives. And that its applications through argumentation, verbalization, narration arise with the division of everything into seven perspectives. And, finally, the coinciding of views is related to the collapse of structure, which is perhaps the key point about mathematical systems in general. It's the collapse of structure which makes mathematics interesting.

• Jėzaus ankšti vartai, tai susikalbėjimas, paskiro asmens akistata su Dievu, susigaudymas, kad žmogus yra sąlygiškas, o Dievas besąlygiškas. Tai perėjimas iš bendro likimo į paskirus likimus. O kas yra platieji vartai? Ar tai bendras likimas?
• Žmogus neria į kitus lygmenis.

Bendras suvokimas ir skaidymas

• Where does Factoring come into play? And how are the two chains related across their levels?
• Consider how to relate the factors (and their defining equations) to the topologies, divisions, representations
• Consider how to relate the factoring to the heart and the inversion effect.

• What is the difference in understanding between statements such as EternalLife is understanding of Life and statements such as Everything is understanding of I?

• Describe SharedUnderstanding as giving rise to a SeventhPerspective, perhaps Anything = Concept, and how that generates the Factors and the SecondaryStructures. Consider SharedUnderstanding as a relationship between actor and surroundings as given by Internalization. Look for the role of Factoring, ZeroStructure, and Concepts as together, separate and both.
• Why does the system collapse because understanding is the understanding of all? Because All is separated from experiencing, yet All is experiencing. In All, indistinction and distinction are the same, and thus the system collapses.
• What does it mean that God is understanding of God, Everything is understanding of I, and so forth? What is I combining? In each case, God is being combined with the spirit of the system for a particular level.
• In what sense is Understanding (without scope) related to Love? Is it the very fact that it has no scope?
• How are the Foursome, Fivesome, Sixsome generated in Self-understanding? In what sense does this LoveSelf? What are the roles of Activity and the Operation +2?
• Write up what the levels of understanding have in common structurally (the operation +1 and going beyond oneself) and what distinguishes them.
• PairsOfConcepts Consider how the different levels of understanding relate to the intensity of the relationship between two concepts such as God and good.
• Mes kažkuria prasme negalime suvokti visko, o Dievas gali, tad kaip mes priimame Dievo suvokimą?

Užrašai

• Suvokimo lygmenimis žmogus pradeda susikalbėjimą ir toliau vis atsisako požiūrių, auga nežinojimas, baigiasi: žmogaus požiūris = jokiam požiūriui.

Suprasti santykį tarp požiūrių grandinės ir žmogaus bei Dievo požiūrių grandinės.

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

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

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

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

• 1) Absolute absolute view of Everything (God, Understanding, Love): view of the known of the unknown
• 2) Relative relative view of Anything (Heart, SelfUnderstanding, LoveSelf): view of the known of the unknown of the known
• 3) Shared shared view of Something (Other, SharedUnderstanding, LoveOther): view of the known of the unknown of the known of the unknown
• 4) Subordinate subordinate view of Nothing (Human, GoodUnderstanding, LoveGod): view of the known of the unknown of the known of the unknown of the known

• Human view of self-understanding = human's view of God's view of human's view: A human (godlet) awakes within structure (the threesome) and (in-parallel with God) finds itself through shifts in perspective (choosing the good, the better, the best), yielding Activity: a Sixsome. This is what we need for a Relative perspective.
• Human view of SharedUnderstanding = human's view of God's view of human's view of God's view: A human (as given by the Sixsome) now walks through again but together with God (through RecurringActivity) through a shared perspective given by a perfect Other (the Onesome - or what I look for as our key concepts). This makes it possible to Factor his own activity into components of structure/activity and thereby allow for ZeroStructure, a SeventhPerspective and the basis for stepping inside each other as a person-in-general, yielding RecurringActivity: SecondaryStructures. God slips in through the structural cracks as goodness. This is what we need for a Shared perspective.

• Kuria prasme Dievas yra suvokimas Dievo, viskas yra suvokimas manęs, troškimai yra suvokimas tavęs, meilė yra suvokimas kito? Ką kiekvienas asmuo jungia, ką atitinkamas suvokimas skiria? Kaip Dievas ir gerumas sueina kiekviename lygmenyje?

There is one level of understanding for each of the Primary Structures, and also for each Voice Of Tension in Narration. The fivesome relates the two directions: looking forward (from beginning to end) and looking backwards (from end to beginning) and this is perhaps relevant for shared understanding.

• God's view (from his view) = going beyond himself - the God who does not know
• God is The Beginning. This is to say, God is unbounded.
• God, unbounded, goes beyond himself, into the bounded. This gives rise to Everything. Everything is the Structure of God. God is the Spirit of everything.

• Susigaudymas, savęs suvokimas (Sūnus). Žmogaus požiūris į Dievo požiūrį į žmogaus požiūrį.

• God's view (from our view) = dividing himself - the God who knows
• What may God do, if there is nothing but God? The only thing that I can imagine is that God might divide himself. He may differentiate parts of himself, and those parts may have relationships. In this way, he may give rise to structure. We may imagine these as the events, or the days, in the life of God. They bring to mind the days in the Book of Genesis.

• Luke 2:42-51 When he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem according to the custom of the feast, and when they had fulfilled the days, as they were returning, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. Joseph and his mother didn't know it, but supposing him to be in the company, they went a day's journey, and they looked for him among their relatives and acquaintances. When they didn't find him, they returned to Jerusalem, looking for him.It happened after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them, and asking them questions. All who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers. When they saw him, they were astonished, and his mother said to him, "Son, why have you treated us this way? Behold, your father and I were anxiously looking for you." He said to them, "Why were you looking for me? Didn't you know that I must be in my Father's house?" They didn't understand the saying which he spoke to them. And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth. He was subject to them, and his mother kept all these sayings in her heart.

• The threesome is the structure for understanding - for returning to the beginning. This is the completion from God's point of view. There is God who understands (the Father), God who figures himself out (the Son), and their shared understanding (the Spirit) by which they are indeed the same God.
• Vienybė, dvejybė, trejybė iškyla veiksmu +1.

• Ketverybė, penkerybė, šešerybė iškyla veiksmu savęs suvokimu, sąmone, +2.

• Septynerybė iškyla bendru suvokimu, sąmoningumu, veiksmu +3.

• Nulybė iškyla susikalbėjimu, atsidavimu, veiksmu +4.

Andrius: Benoit, thank you for your great contributions to our lab. I appreciate the many Scriptural references you have made to basic concepts that I want to focus on. You have saved me a lot of work! It is hard to ponder these things, but I think these concepts are good to ponder. In your note above you reveal the importance of allowing for separate even as we wish to be unified. So I am very interested to understand that dynamic and our personal testimony is very relevant. I myself want to point first to the reality of Jesus which makes him relevant - perhaps as the one for all as you mention, which is also related to how the separate and the unified are related. I think that the name of Jesus becomes important to us when we can agree as to what we mean by that, and at that point we can speak as believers. But I feel that it's to look for that reality because I have much to learn regarding that and I also doubt whether most people really know what they mean when they say Jesus. How would you explain it to a Muslim, for example?

• Visus asmenis apibrėžia tai, ką jie patys apibrėžia (suvokia). Ir Dvasia pati save apsibrėžia.
• The point is to keep reducing scope so as to have complete coincidence.

• Why does the system collapse because understanding is the understanding of all? Because All is separated from experiencing, yet All is experiencing. In All, indistinction and distinction are the same, and thus the system collapses.

Apytakos ir suvokimo lygmenys apibrėžia gyvenimo lygties lygmenis:

• Understanding allows for the World by understanding Spirit.
• Self-understanding allows for a Person-in-particular by understanding Structure (Self). Self-understanding determines a scope (with regard to nobody, somebody, anybody, everybody) which says how far away we are from the end.
• Shared Understanding allows for a Person-in-general by understanding Representations.
• Good Understanding allows for God by understanding Unity. Good understanding (rapport) is when the narrower concept gives way to the broader concept - when the two understand each other.

There is one level of understanding for each of the PrimaryStructures, and also for each VoiceOfTension in Narration. The fivesome relates the two directions: looking forward (from beginning to end) and looking backwards (from end to beginning) and this is perhaps relevant for shared understanding.

• Understanding relates to the Threesome
• Self-understanding relates to the Foursome
• SharedUnderstanding relates to the Fivesome
• GoodUnderstanding relates to the Sixsome

Thought: Understanding is the activity of God; not understanding is the activity of human. The human perspective reflects the structure of understanding: take a stand - not understood, but rather creates understood; follow through - not understanding, but rather creates understanding; reflect - not understander, but rather creates understander. The human perspective is bounded: closed upon itself (but open to itself). God's perspective is unbounded: open upon itself it goes beyond itself. We therefore know it by the extent that it goes to view the human perspective: through 0, 1, 2 or 3 nodes. First of itself, and then futher out: why, how, what - each going beyond the previous and deeper into the human perspective. Threesome + null

= division = framework for structure = empathize with God's perspective.

• Refactor - kiekvieną sandarą mąstome, kuriame vienu požiūriu, tačiau ją perkuriame, permąstome kitu asmeniu. Tokiu būdu jos visos susiveda. Tai grindžia dviprasmybę ir laisvę.

Each level arises when we note it for the sake of the distinction of Concepts. We make them explicit as God's view and human's view. Thus there are the following levels:

• Understanding - one level: God's
• Self-understanding - two levels: God's, human's
• SharedUnderstanding - three levels: God's, human's, God's
• GoodUnderstanding - four levels: God's, human's, God's, human's

Suvokimas, Sąvoka, Amžino gyvenimo pjūvis, Ketverybės

• Lygiaverčių požiūrių santykis.
• Pirminės sandaros kyla iš bendro suvokimo.

• Antrinės sandaros kyla iš susikalbėjimo.

Apytakos grindžia suvokimo lygmenis

• Suvokimas Dievo šokyje besąlygiškas. Jisai tampa sąlygišku kitose apytakose, apimtis siaurėja.
• Suvokimas ir sąvokos. Iš Dievo trejybės išplaukia suvokimas ir suvoktasis. Tai tad pagrindas sąvokoms. Apytakų apimtims siaurėjant atsiranda atitinkamų apimčių sąvokos.

Paskiri lygmenys

Paklydusio vaiko būklė išreiškia keturis visko žinojimo lygmenis priklausant nuo vaiko brandumo.

• These levels reflect the growth in awareness, in maturity of the child. The ability to act according to mutual expectations rather than individual perspectives is what allow for perspectives to coincide (such as those of parent and child).
• Understanding - child's view of parent's view - the child appreciates that they are lost, which is to say, that their parent does not know where they are
• SelfUnderstanding - child's view of parent's view of child's view - the child appreciates that their parents are depending on what their child will do
• SharedUnderstanding - child's view of parent's view of child's view of parent's view - the child looks for where their parents might be, just as the child assumes their parents are looking for them
• GoodUnderstanding - child's view of parent's view of child's view of parent's view of child's view - the child acknowledges their parents as superiors, and that the child should position themselves to be found where their parents might expect to find them, rather than to look for their parents

Pasiklydęs vaikas

• [http://www.ebible.org/web/Luke.htm#C2V42 Luke 2:42-51] When he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem according to the custom of the feast, and when they had fulfilled the days, as they were returning, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. Joseph and his mother didn't know it, but supposing him to be in the company, they went a day's journey, and they looked for him among their relatives and acquaintances. When they didn't find him, they returned to Jerusalem, looking for him.It happened after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them, and asking them questions. All who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers. When they saw him, they were astonished, and his mother said to him, "Son, why have you treated us this way? Behold, your father and I were anxiously looking for you." He said to them, "Why were you looking for me? Didn't you know that I must be in my Father's house?" They didn't understand the saying which he spoke to them. And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth. He was subject to them, and his mother kept all these sayings in her heart.

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

Suvokimas (perkelti į Dievo šokio puslapį)

• (Tėvas). Atskyrimas kas sąlygose (asmeniškumas) ir kas besąlygiška (be asmens). Neigimo pagrindimas. Žmogaus požiūris į Dievo požiūrį.

Savęs suvokimas (perkelti į Išgyvenimo apytakos puslapį)

• susigaudymas, savęs suvokimas (Sūnus). Žmogaus požiūris į Dievo požiūrį į žmogaus požiūrį.

Bendras suvokimas (perkelti į Žinojimo rūmų puslapį)

Žr. Dorovė

• Tai suvoktumas (Dvasia).
• Bendros sąlygos yra pagrindas bendram suvokimui. Aplinkybės apreiškia bendras sąlygas. O atvaizdai apibrėžia mūsų santykį su sąlygomis, apimtimi ir laisvumu.
• Bendras požiūris yra bendro suvokimo pasekmė
• Lygiaverčių požiūrių santykis.

Susikalbėjimas (perkelti į Meilės mokslo puslapį)

• Žmogaus požiūris į Dievo požiūrį į žmogaus požiūrį į Dievo požiūrį į žmogaus požiūrį.
• Nelygiaverčių požiūrių santykis.

Pasiklydęs vaikas

• [http://www.ebible.org/web/Luke.htm#C2V42 Luke 2:42-51] When he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem according to the custom of the feast, and when they had fulfilled the days, as they were returning, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. Joseph and his mother didn't know it, but supposing him to be in the company, they went a day's journey, and they looked for him among their relatives and acquaintances. When they didn't find him, they returned to Jerusalem, looking for him.It happened after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them, and asking them questions. All who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers. When they saw him, they were astonished, and his mother said to him, "Son, why have you treated us this way? Behold, your father and I were anxiously looking for you." He said to them, "Why were you looking for me? Didn't you know that I must be in my Father's house?" They didn't understand the saying which he spoke to them. And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth. He was subject to them, and his mother kept all these sayings in her heart.

Ką randi, tą myli

Suvokimo lygmenys išdėsto visko žinojimą požiūrių grandine

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

Visko žinojimas, tai sutapimas su Dievo požiūriu.

• To know everything is to View the Unknown. Yet, as a human, I always view the Known. The key question is: How can I know everything? How can I escape my own view and take up God's view? How can a Definite view take up an Indefinite view? The answer is that their views can Coincide if the indefinite view takes up the definite view. (I therefore care to understand an Algebra Of Views.)

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

Yra keturi suvokimo lygmenys. Suvokimas vyksta trejybės atvaizdais. Medžiagą įkelsiu atitinkamų apytakų puslapiuose.

• Suvokimas: Dievo šokiu Dievas suvokia Dievo trejybe (suvokiantis, susivokiantis, suvoktas)
• Savęs suvokimas: Išgyvenimo apytaka Aš suvokiu save Savo trejybe (pasąmonė, sąmonė, sąmoningumas)
• Bendras suvokimas: Žinojimo rūmais Tu suvoki bendrai Tavo trejybe (pradžia, vidurys, pabaiga)
• Susikalbėjimas, teisingas suvokimas: Meilės mokslu Kitas susikalba, suvokia savo santykius, suvokia savo ir kitų suvokimą, suvokia suvokimą Kito trejybe (buvimu, veikimu, mąstym)

Suvokimas (perkelti į Dievo šokio puslapį)

• (Tėvas). Atskyrimas kas sąlygose (asmeniškumas) ir kas besąlygiška (be asmens). Neigimo pagrindimas. Žmogaus požiūris į Dievo požiūrį.

Savęs suvokimas (perkelti į Išgyvenimo apytakos puslapį)

• susigaudymas, savęs suvokimas (Sūnus). Žmogaus požiūris į Dievo požiūrį į žmogaus požiūrį.

Bendras suvokimas (perkelti į Žinojimo rūmų puslapį)

Žr. Dorovė

• Tai suvoktumas (Dvasia).
• Bendros sąlygos yra pagrindas bendram suvokimui. Aplinkybės apreiškia bendras sąlygas. O atvaizdai apibrėžia mūsų santykį su sąlygomis, apimtimi ir laisvumu.
• Bendras požiūris yra bendro suvokimo pasekmė
• Lygiaverčių požiūrių santykis.

Susikalbėjimas (perkelti į Meilės mokslo puslapį)

• Žmogaus požiūris į Dievo požiūrį į žmogaus požiūrį į Dievo požiūrį į žmogaus požiūrį.
• Nelygiaverčių požiūrių santykis.

Suvokimas, Sąvoka, Amžino gyvenimo pjūvis

Kiekviena sandara kyla iš kurio nors suvokimo lygmens.

• Pirminės sandaros kyla iš bendro suvokimo.
• Antrinės sandaros kyla iš susikalbėjimo.

Suvokimas (perkelti į Dievo šokio puslapį)

• (Tėvas). Atskyrimas kas sąlygose (asmeniškumas) ir kas besąlygiška (be asmens). Neigimo pagrindimas. Žmogaus požiūris į Dievo požiūrį.

Savęs suvokimas (perkelti į Išgyvenimo apytakos puslapį)

• susigaudymas, savęs suvokimas (Sūnus). Žmogaus požiūris į Dievo požiūrį į žmogaus požiūrį.

Bendras suvokimas (perkelti į Žinojimo rūmų puslapį)

Žr. Dorovė

• Tai suvoktumas (Dvasia).
• Bendros sąlygos yra pagrindas bendram suvokimui. Aplinkybės apreiškia bendras sąlygas. O atvaizdai apibrėžia mūsų santykį su sąlygomis, apimtimi ir laisvumu.
• Bendras požiūris yra bendro suvokimo pasekmė
• Lygiaverčių požiūrių santykis.

Susikalbėjimas (perkelti į Meilės mokslo puslapį)

• Žmogaus požiūris į Dievo požiūrį į žmogaus požiūrį į Dievo požiūrį į žmogaus požiūrį.
• Nelygiaverčių požiūrių santykis.

• Kaip suvokimo lygmenys susiję su pokalbiu, su kalbomis, su atitinkamu pašnekovu?

• Susikalbėjimas, teisingas suvokimas: Meilės mokslu susikalbame, suvokiame savo santykius, suvokiame savo ir kitų suvokimą, suvokiame suvokimą

Yra keturi suvokimo lygmenys. Tai keturios apytakos. Tad atitinkamuose puslapiuose įkelsiu medžiagą.

• Suvokimas: Dievo šokiu suvokiame
• Savęs suvokimas: Išgyvenimo apytaka suvokiame save
• Bendras suvokimas: Žinojimo rūmais suvokiame bendrai
• Susikalbėjimas - teisingas suvokimas: Meilės mokslu susikalbame, suvokiame savo santykius, suvokiame savo ir kitų suvokimą, suvokiame suvokimą

God is TheBeginning. This is to say, God is unbounded.

God, unbounded, goes beyond himself, into the bounded. This gives rise to Everything. Everything is the Structure of God. God is the Spirit of everything.

Going beyond oneself is an Operation. We term this +1 because it adds a perspective, taking us from:

• the Nullsome - everything divided into no perspectives, which is to say, God prior to everything

• the Onesome - everything divided into one perspective

God ever goes beyond himself. He keeps adding a perspective through this operation +1. This gives rise to ever more structure. God goes beyond himself into the Onesome, then the Twosome and then the Threesome.

See also: Overview, KeepSeparate

Andrius: Benoit, thank you for your great contributions to our lab. I appreciate the many Scriptural references you have made to basic concepts that I want to focus on. You have saved me a lot of work! It is hard to ponder these things, but I think these concepts are good to ponder. In your note above you reveal the importance of allowing for separate even as we wish to be unified. So I am very interested to understand that dynamic and our personal testimony is very relevant. I myself want to point first to the reality of Jesus which makes him relevant - perhaps as the one for all as you mention, which is also related to how the separate and the unified are related. I think that the name of Jesus becomes important to us when we can agree as to what we mean by that, and at that point we can speak as believers. But I feel that it's to look for that reality because I have much to learn regarding that and I also doubt whether most people really know what they mean when they say Jesus. How would you explain it to a Muslim, for example?

See also: Overview, Oracle

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

Note: another relevant parable is the mind as Oracle.

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

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

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

• 4 x 2 = 8 Divisions of everything
• 2 x 3 = 6 Representations of such divisions
• 3 x 4 = 12 Topologies that express the parts of those divisions

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

• Argumentation (how do things matter?) moves from 3 x 4 topologies to 2 x 3 representations
• Verbalization (how do things mean?) moves from 4 x 2 divisions to 3 x 4 topologies
• Narration (how do things happen?) moves from 2 x 3 representations to 4 x 2 divisions (so the 2 is preserved).

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

To know everything is to View the Unknown.

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

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

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

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

• 1) [Absolute absolute view] of Everything (God, Understanding, Love): view of the known of the unknown
• 2) [Relative relative view] of Anything (Heart, SelfUnderstanding, LoveSelf): view of the known of the unknown of the known
• 3) [Shared shared view] of Something (Other, SharedUnderstanding, LoveOther): view of the known of the unknown of the known of the unknown
• 4) [Subordinate subordinate view] of Nothing (Human, GoodUnderstanding, LoveGod): view of the known of the unknown of the known of the unknown of the known

• Human view of Understanding = human's view of God's view: God goes beyond himself and ever finds himself, (taking a stand, following through, reflecting), yielding Structure: a Threesome. This is what we need for an Absolute perspective.
• Human view of self-understanding? = human's view of God's view of human's view: A human (godlet) awakes within structure (the threesome) and (in-parallel with God) finds itself through shifts in perspective (choosing the good, the better, the best), yielding Activity: a Sixsome. This is what we need for a Relative perspective.
• Human view of SharedUnderstanding = human's view of God's view of human's view of God's view: A human (as given by the Sixsome) now walks through again but together with God (through RecurringActivity) through a shared perspective given by a perfect Other (the Onesome - or what I look for as our key concepts?). This makes it possible to Factor his own activity into components of structure/activity and thereby allow for ZeroStructure, a SeventhPerspective and the basis for stepping inside each other as a person-in-general?, yielding RecurringActivity: SecondaryStructures. God slips in through the structural cracks as goodness. This is what we need for a Shared perspective.
• Human view of GoodUnderstanding = human's view of God's view of human's view of God's view of human's view: A human reinterprets everything in terms of RecurringStructure, and recognizes that God may have a wider vantage point ("a greater power", as when one loves us more than we love ourselves) with regard to which they should position themselves cooperatively that they be found (rather than find the other by themselves). This is to say that we understand human as that which God goes into beyond himself, from wishing into not-wishing, to have a shared perspective with human. This wider perspective is ZeroActivity which we are not able to conceive, yielding RecurringStructure: PrimaryStructures. This is what we need for a Subordinate perspective.

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

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

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

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

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

• Understanding - child's view of parent's view - the child appreciates that they are lost, which is to say, that their parent does not know where they are
• SelfUnderstanding - child's view of parent's view of child's view - the child appreciates that their parents are depending on what their child will do
• SharedUnderstanding - child's view of parent's view of child's view of parent's view - the child looks for where their parents might be, just as the child assumes their parents are looking for them
• GoodUnderstanding - child's view of parent's view of child's view of parent's view of child's view - the child acknowledges their parents as superiors, and that the child should position themselves to be found where their parents might expect to find them, rather than to look for their parents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Požiūrių virtinė

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

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

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

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

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

• 4 x 2 = 8 {{Divisions}} of everything
• 2 x 3 = 6 {{Representations}} of such divisions
• 3 x 4 = 12 {{Topologies}} that express the parts of those divisions

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

• {{Argumentation}} (how do things matter?) moves from 3 x 4 topologies to 2 x 3 representations
• {{Verbalization}} (how do things mean?) moves from 4 x 2 divisions to 3 x 4 topologies
• {{Narration}} (how do things happen?) moves from 2 x 3 representations to 4 x 2 divisions (so the 2 is preserved).

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

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

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

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

Apžvalga

See also: Overview

The following is an earlier summary of my ideas.

Coinciding with God's view -

What do I mean by KnowEverything?

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

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

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

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

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

• 1) [{{Absolute}} absolute view] of {{Everything}} ({{God}}, {{Understanding}}, {{Love}}): view of the known of the unknown
• 2) [{{Relative}} relative view] of {{Anything}} ({{Heart}}, SelfUnderstanding, LoveSelf): view of the known of the unknown of the known
• 3) [{{Shared}} shared view] of {{Something}} ({{Other}}, SharedUnderstanding, LoveOther): view of the known of the unknown of the known of the unknown
• 4) [{{Subordinate}} subordinate view] of {{Nothing}} ({{Human}}, GoodUnderstanding, LoveGod): view of the known of the unknown of the known of the unknown of the known

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

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

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

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

• Human view of {{Understanding}} = human's view of God's view: God goes beyond himself and ever finds himself, (taking a stand, following through, reflecting), yielding {{Structure}}: a {{Threesome}}. This is what we need for an {{Absolute}} perspective.
• Human view of self-understanding? = human's view of God's view of human's view: A human (godlet) awakes within structure (the threesome) and (in-parallel with God) finds itself through shifts in perspective (choosing the good, the better, the best), yielding {{Activity}}: a {{Sixsome}}. This is what we need for a {{Relative}} perspective.
• Human view of SharedUnderstanding = human's view of God's view of human's view of God's view: A human (as given by the {{Sixsome}}) now walks through again but together with God (through RecurringActivity) through a shared perspective given by a perfect {{Other}} (the {{Onesome}} - or what I look for as our key concepts?). This makes it possible to {{Factor}} his own activity into components of structure/activity and thereby allow for ZeroStructure, a SeventhPerspective and the basis for stepping inside each other as a person-in-general?, yielding RecurringActivity: SecondaryStructures. God slips in through the structural cracks as goodness. This is what we need for a {{Shared}} perspective.
• Human view of GoodUnderstanding = human's view of God's view of human's view of God's view of human's view: A human reinterprets everything in terms of RecurringStructure, and recognizes that {{God}} may have a wider vantage point ("a greater power", as when one loves us more than we love ourselves) with regard to which they should position themselves cooperatively that they be found (rather than find the other by themselves). This is to say that we understand human as that which God goes into beyond himself, from wishing into not-wishing, to have a shared perspective with human. This wider perspective is ZeroActivity which we are not able to conceive, yielding RecurringStructure: PrimaryStructures. This is what we need for a {{Subordinate}} perspective.

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

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

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

Užrašai

• Suvokimas Dievo šokyje besąlygiškas. Jisai tampa sąlygišku kitose apytakose, apimtis siaurėja.

Suvokimas ir sąvokos

• Iš Dievo trejybės išplaukia suvokimas ir suvoktasis. Tai tad pagrindas sąvokoms. Apytakų apimtims siaurėjant atsiranda atitinkamų apimčių sąvokos.

Apytakos grindžia suvokimo lygmenis

• Dievo trejybė grindžia suvokimą ir visko apimties (dvasios) sąvokas.
• Išgyvenimo apytaka grindžia savęs suvokimą ir betko apimties (sandaros) sąvokas.
• Žinojimo rūmai grindžia bendrą suvokimą ir kažko apimties (atvaizdų) sąvokas.
• Meilės mokslas grindžia susikalbėjimą ir nieko apimties (vieningumo) sąvokas.

Suvokimo lygmenys papildo troškimo lygmenis

Keturi suvokimo lygmenys reiškiasi tiek požiūrio lygtimi, tiek ketverybe

• Keturi suvokimo lygmenys yra: suvokimas, savęs suvokimas, bendras suvokimas, susikalbėjimas.
• Keturi suvokimo lygmenys išreiškia požiūrio lygtį: Dievas, Aš-gerumas, Tu-gyvenimas-sutapimas, Kitas-amžinas gyvenimas-išskyrimas.
• Keturi suvokimo lygmenys išreiškia ketverybės lygmenis: Dievas, Aš-savastyje, Tu-sutapime, Kitas-tarpe.

• Koks suvokimo lygmenų vaidmuo suvokiant sąvokas?
• Ar savęs suvokimas yra susivokimas?

Suvokimo lygmenys yra apytakos

• Dievo šokiu suvokiame
• Išgyvenimo apytaka suvokiame save
• Žinojimo rūmais suvokiame bendrai
• Meilės mokslu susikalbame, suvokiame savo santykius, suvokiame savo ir kitų suvokimą, suvokiame suvokimą

Tad atitinkamuose puslapiuose įkelsiu medžiagą.

理解水平

• Kaip bendrai suvoktasis reiškiasi įvairiausiomis sąvokomis?
• Kaip vaizduotė ir atvaizdai susiję su suvokimu ir sąvokom?

Suvokimo lygmenys

Gyvenimo lygties išsakyti Dievo pažinimai

Dievo pažinimai: Amžinas gyvenimas, Išmintis, Gera valia, Dievo valia

• are Understanding
• relate NotGod and Scope
• is how we find Position and we hold on to it
• is how the potential for God chooses God over itself and is indeed God
• is the foundation for going beyond oneself because it separates where we have come from and where we are going to
• gives the centering and the context that are relevant to support Person. For example, GoodWill centers us through I on You, whereas GodsWill centers us through God on Other. Centering places us within the zone for a feedback loop and context is the zone where there can be an answer rooted in a wider perspective.
• opens space for the Freedom of the next Person.
• is what is assumed because it is beyond the extent of assumptions
• being alone beyond Knowledge, the possibility of being not alone, the unity of being alone beyond System, the unity of BeingOneWith (beyond and within Scope) that takes place beyond Scope, before Negation and makes Scope for it, for Other. Thus Person can go beyond themselves, BeingOneWith beyond Scope (EternalLife, Wisdom, GoodWill, GodsWill), beyond System, in consciousness, out to God, thus choose God, coinciding in Position. Distinguishes between Knowledge and Definition. It is what is taken up, lived by God: Perspective (GodsWill), Position (Good Will), Vantage Point (Wisdom).

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:

• spirit to spirit is EverythingWishesForEverything
• spirit to structure is EverythingWishesForAnything
• structure to spirit is EverythingWishesForSomething
• structure to structure is EverythingWishesForNothing

(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.

Currently, my overview is in terms of Levels Of Understanding. The concept of Good Understanding allows me to focus on Eternal Life and not only Life. It's important that not only is life the fact that God is good, but moreover, eternal life is understanding this fact. Structurally, my new account derives the secondary structures first, and only then the primary structures. It also allows for the divisions to be used from the very beginning.

Suvokimo lygmenys

• Suvokimas
• Savęs suvokimas?
• Bendras suvokimas?
• Susikalbėjimas

Visos sandaros kyla iš kurio nors iš šitų lygmenų. Pirminės sandaros iš bendro suvokimo, o antrinės sandaros iš susikalbėjimo.

Each level arises when we note it for the sake of the distinction of Concepts. We make them explicit as God's view and human's view. Thus there are the following levels:

• Understanding - one level: God's
• Self-understanding - two levels: God's, human's
• SharedUnderstanding - three levels: God's, human's, God's
• GoodUnderstanding - four levels: God's, human's, God's, human's

Bendras suvokimas? žr. Dorovė

• Tai suvoktumas (Dvasia).
• Bendros sąlygos yra pagrindas bendram suvokimui. Aplinkybės apreiškia bendras sąlygas. O atvaizdai apibrėžia mūsų santykį su sąlygomis, apimtimi ir laisvumu.
• Bendras požiūris yra bendro suvokimo pasekmė
• Lygiaverčių požiūrių santykis.

Susikalbėjimas.

• Žmogaus požiūris į Dievo požiūrį į žmogaus požiūrį į Dievo požiūrį į žmogaus požiūrį.
• Nelygiaverčių požiūrių santykis.

One way to think of the levels is as the unity of the representations of the structure of spirit:

• [AddOne +1] Understanding allows for the World by understanding Spirit.
• [AddTwo +2] Self-understanding allows for a Person-in-particular by understanding Structure (Self). Self-understanding determines a scope (with regard to nobody, somebody, anybody, everybody) which says how far away we are from the end.
• [AddThree +3] SharedUnderstanding allows for a Person-in-general by understanding Representations.
• [AddNull +0] GoodUnderstanding allows for God by understanding Unity. Good understanding (rapport) is when the narrower concept gives way to the broader concept - when the two understand each other.

Each level may be understood as introducing an additional operation which runs in parallel to the existing ones. These [ThisWiki:Operation operations] may be thought of as operations +1, +2, +3 on [ThisWiki:Divisions divisions of everything] (each adding 1, 2 or 3 perspectives, respectively). Each operation is a going beyond oneself.

• +1 going beyond oneself Structure: (Perspective: ) First there is going beyond oneself from the unbounded into the bounded, ever adding an additional comprehensive perspective that reinterprets all the others.
• +2 shift in perspective Activity: (ShiftInPerspective: ) Then there is a three-cycle which, in parallel, goes beyond by shifting from perspective to perspective.
• +3 recurring activity RecurringActivity: (Slack: ) (generalized shift in perspective) Next, this three-cycle starts to cover old ground - here what is new is the recurring shift, the recurring activity. This recurring activity is now localized in the shift (without the nodes, which are ever new). So we have a general shift.
• +0 unity of origin RecurringStructure: (Everything: ) (generalized perspective) - collapse of framework. Finally, there is unity in that the recurring activity can align itself around that which goes beyond.

Each level engenders more structure, until the final layer has it collapse.

• Suvokimas (Tėvas). Atskyrimas kas sąlygose (asmeniškumas) ir kas besąlygiška (be asmens). Neigimo pagrindimas. Žmogaus požiūris į Dievo požiūrį.
• Savęs pažinimas?, susigaudymas, savęs suvokimas (Sūnus). Žmogaus požiūris į Dievo požiūrį į žmogaus požiūrį.

In describing an absolute, relative, shared, subordinate perspective: consider what truth means for understanding, self-understanding, shared understanding, good understanding:

• understanding - for there to be an absolute perspective we need: no internal structure, no external context (no reframing), accept all things. Here all things are true.
• self-understanding - for a relative perspective we need to separate the threesome for activity (a relative stand) from the threesome for structure (an absolute stand), +2, no overlapping so 3 + 3, notion of required concept
• shared understanding - factoring (other between God and heart through which they coincide) zero structure, seventh perspective, concept, anything (+3). Factor act on the whole - from whole to whole (redefining the absolute whole as a particular stand, which is to say, selecting a perspective) - factors: +2=the focus (structure or spirit, which moves), +3=the movments of spirit with regard to structure (how moving), +4=the separation of spirit and structure (how far apart). Recall: people, words, Qualities. Shared point is: (everything becomes anything - this is perhaps what is needed for sharing - and is what we mean by something - that everything becomes anything, as per +2, defining activity as shift in structure).
• good understanding - zero activity - other is unity of the six levels by which God and heart coincide (secondary structures as embeddings).

I am trying to think of this in terms of love and understanding and concepts, the taking up of perspectives. Some thoughts:

• First God goes beyond himself, through the operation [AddOne +1], again and again, until he has opened up enough slack that his self - the heart - may be independent, on its own. So now there is the heart, and the question is, will God find his way into this heart?
• Then the heart goes beyond itself out to some level where it coincides with God who loves it, is one with it. But the heart considers this God as a mirror to itself. Just as structure is a mirror to activity, so the levels of structure by which God reaches out are taken as a mirror of the levels of activity by which the heart reaches out. The heart reaches out as either +1 or +2 or +3 (foursome, fivesome, sixsome). The heart thinks of God as arising in the gaps. (How does that relate to Factoring?)
• God arises in the gaps where the heart reaches out +0 and thus has zero structure. This structural gap is what allows the factors to be composed, and hence thought of as factors: 1 + 1 = 2, 1 + 2 = 3 and 1 + 3 = 4.
• This allows that the heart has a zero activity 1 + 0 = 1 - and that plants God within the heart as +0, so that they coincide.

So I need to try to understand the foursome, fivesome, sixsome as the heart reaching back out with +1, +2 or +3 perspectives, respectively, presumably through the operation +2.

We may also think of this as:

• self-Structure = Relationship with Self as Unequals
• self-Activity = Relationship with Self as Equals
• RecurringActivity = Relationship with Other as Equals
• RecurringStructure = Relationship with Other as Unequals

Structure has no scope and is Absolute, whereas Activity is Relative to some Scope. In particular, SharedUnderstanding is relative with regard to some scope, but GoodUnderstanding is absolute.

Each level seems to relate to a division of everything:

• +1 from Nullsome to Onesome, Twosome, Threesome
• +2 from onesome, twosome, threesome to Foursome, Fivesome, Sixsome
• +3 from sixsome to Sevensome
• +0 from sevensome to Eightsome/nullsome

On this page I gather various parallels across these four levels.

• relationship with God is given by Onesome, Twosome, Threesome
• relationship with other is given by Foursome, Fivesome, Sixsome
• other is given by Sevensome
• God is given by Nullsome
• +1 Caring about relationship with God
• +2 Caring about relationship with other
• +3 Caring about other
• +0 Caring about God

Caring about apparently means going beyond to. Other is in the SeventhPerspective. God is in the ZerothPerspective.

• +1 Nothing's outlook
• +2 Something's outlook
• +3 Anything's outlook
• +0 Everything's outlook
• Understanding relates to the Threesome
• Self-understanding relates to the Foursome
• SharedUnderstanding relates to the Fivesome
• GoodUnderstanding relates to the Sixsome

This makes for one level of understanding for each of the PrimaryStructures, and also for each VoiceOfTension in Narration. The fivesome relates the two directions: looking forward (from beginning to end) and looking backwards (from end to beginning) and this is perhaps relevant for shared understanding.

Kitos mintys

• Refactor - kiekvieną sandarą mąstome, kuriame vienu požiūriu, tačiau ją perkuriame, permąstome kitu asmeniu. Tokiu būdu jos visos susiveda. Tai grindžia dviprasmybę ir laisvę.
• -1x0x1 galima suvokti kaip įsijautimą, sąmoningumą ir atsitokėjimą. Įsijautimas -1 ir atsitokėjimas +1 nustato skirtingas kryptis apie padalinimų ratą.

God's view (from our view) = dividing himself - the God who knows

What may God do, if there is nothing but God? The only thing that I can imagine is that God might divide himself. He may differentiate parts of himself, and those parts may have relationships. In this way, he may give rise to structure. We may imagine these as the events, or the days, in the life of God. They bring to mind the days in the Book of [http://www.ebible.org/bible/web/Genesis.htm Genesis].

God's view (from his view) = going beyond himself - the God who does not know

{{God}} is TheBeginning. This is to say, God is unbounded.

God, unbounded, goes beyond himself, into the bounded. This gives rise to {{Everything}}. Everything is the {{Structure}} of God. God is the {{Spirit}} of everything.

Vienybė, dvejybė, trejybė

taken together: the operation +1

Going beyond oneself is an {{Operation}}. We term this +1 because it adds a perspective, taking us from:

• the {{Nullsome}} - everything divided into no perspectives, which is to say, God prior to everything

to:

• the {{Onesome}} - everything divided into one perspective

God ever goes beyond himself. He keeps adding a perspective through this operation +1. This gives rise to ever more structure. God goes beyond himself into the {{Onesome}}, then the {{Twosome}} and then the {{Threesome}}.

The operation +1 - going beyond oneself - is what drives all of the unfolding of structure. It is the rethinking (as in "repent"?) of all the perspectives, their unity by a new perspective, a delving backwards, inwards and deeper into structure.

There are three equations that ultimately yield the threesome and understanding, as God goes beyond himself:

• [NullAddOne 0+1=1] God goes beyond himself, out of the unboundable and into the boundable, giving rise to everything, where all things are the same.
• [OneAddOne 1+1=2] God goes beyond himself again, noting that if he is - then he is, but add in a perspective whereby even if he is not - then he still is.
• [TwoAddOne 2+1=3] God goes beyond himself again, noting that the God who is (one perspective) and the God who arises (another perspective) are the same God - what they understand is the same (this is a third perspective).

The threesome is the structure for understanding - for returning to the beginning. This is the completion from God's point of view. There is God who understands (the Father), God who figures himself out (the Son), and their shared understanding (the Spirit) by which they are indeed the same God.

Atskyrimas

What is Separate? Not Coinciding - Ne tapatumas.

See also: {{Overview}}, KeepSeparate

(Benoit?) Sanctification means separated by God for God

{{Andrius}}: Benoit, thank you for your great contributions to our lab. I appreciate the many Scriptural references you have made to basic concepts that I want to focus on. You have saved me a lot of work! It is hard to ponder these things, but I think these concepts are good to ponder. In your note above you reveal the importance of allowing for separate even as we wish to be unified. So I am very interested to understand that dynamic and our personal testimony is very relevant. I myself want to point first to the reality of Jesus which makes him relevant - perhaps as the one for all as you mention, which is also related to how the separate and the unified are related. I think that the name of Jesus becomes important to us when we can agree as to what we mean by that, and at that point we can speak as believers. But I feel that it's to look for that reality because I have much to learn regarding that and I also doubt whether most people really know what they mean when they say Jesus. How would you explain it to a Muslim, for example?

Thought: Understanding is the activity of God; not understanding is the activity of human. The human perspective reflects the structure of understanding: take a stand - not understood, but rather creates understood; follow through - not understanding, but rather creates understanding; reflect - not understander, but rather creates understander. The human perspective is bounded: closed upon itself (but open to itself). God's perspective is unbounded: open upon itself it goes beyond itself. We therefore know it by the extent that it goes to view the human perspective: through 0, 1, 2 or 3 nodes. First of itself, and then futher out: why, how, what - each going beyond the previous and deeper into the human perspective. Threesome + null = division = framework for structure = empathize with God's perspective.

• Why does the system collapse because understanding is the understanding of all? Because All is separated from experiencing, yet All is experiencing. In All, indistinction and distinction are the same, and thus the system collapses.
• What does it mean that God is understanding of God, Everything is understanding of I, and so forth? What is I combining? In each case, God is being combined with the spirit of the system for a particular level.

Atskyrimo lygmenys

Suppositions are kept separate by placing them in different Scopes. What does this mean?

Separateness is the indirectness of view - that it is possible to have not a direct view.

A view (or outlook) that separates:

• all perspectives is Spirit
• any perspective is Structure
• a perspective is Representation
• no perspective is Unity

The point is to keep reducing scope so as to have complete coincidence.

Separateness is a key idea and somehow the adding of a perspective (the taking up of a perspective) introduces separateness, perhaps:

• self separates God from God
• heart is separateness of self from God
• other is separateness of heart from God
• God is separateness of other from God

The division of everything into four perspectives is the place where the algebra of views starts to matter. The four levels give us a scale from "oneness" to "separateness". Why asserts that the observer and situation are one, and whether asserts that they are completely separate. How and what are somewhere in between and allow for a nontrivial relationship between the observer and situation. So these are all levels that are relevant as we consider matters of "same" and "different".

The four levels may also be thought in terms of scopes:

• why - knowledge of everything
• how - knowledge of anything
• what - knowledge of something
• whether - knowledge of nothing

And the knowledge may be thought of as what the observer and situation share, which is to say, the extent to which the observer is one with the situation.

Furthermore, the four levels may be thought of as relating structure and activity. "Structure channels activity" expresses what is definite, what that means. "Activity evokes structure" expresses what is specified. We may think of structure as a function and activity as the flow through it. The function may be definite or not, and the inflow may be specified or not. (In particular, the specification of input is akin to its partial calculation.) This yields four possibilities:

• why - indefinite and unspecified - structure and activity are uncoupled
• how - definite and unspecified - top down: structure yields activity
• what - definite and specified - structure and activity are in a loop
• whether - indefinite and specified - bottom up: activity yields structure

We may think of structure as arising from God and activity as arising from godlet, and then the four levels give the possible relationships. These relationships may be thought of in terms of the distance between structure and activity. Here activity is that which finds itself within structure and is inspired by it.

• At first the distance, the separation between structure and activity is "everything"
• Then structure determines activity, so structure must be definite, and the separation is "anything"
• Then structure and activity feed off each other, and so the separation is "something" which keeps them yet separate
• Finally, activity directs structure, which is to say, they are the same, the structure embodies the activity, and so they are separated by "nothing".

It is this last level which extends the "threesome" by saying that, above and beyond God, there might be something in the situation of God which is not distinct from it, as God is, but rather determined by it. This material level "whether" is the source of the Foursome and exemplifies God's ever going beyond himself.

Another very important idea is that what separates the "viewer" (observer) and the "viewed" (situation) is the Nullsome (the division of everything into zero perspectives). This separation manifests itself through the four RepresentationsOfTheNullsome:

• significant (not encompassable - Negation of why)
• constant (not changeable - negation of how)
• direct (not representable - negation of what)
• true (not hideable - negation of whether)

So I think that in the "original outlook" the distinction between viewer and viewed is kept latent. But with the new outlook - and once Representations becomes relevant - it is possible to think of viewer and viewed as separate and even self-standing.

All of this to say that this is the machinery that lets us consider matters of "same", "different", "separate", "one", "equal", "difference" that are key to an algebra of views.

The ability to have a dual point of view is what lets us "keep separate" concepts like God and good, and that ability is at the heart of understanding.

...

Kaip sąvokos suvokiamos?