Iš Gvildenu svetainės

Mintys: SuvokimoLygmenys

理解水平

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.
• Suvokimo lygmenys - trejybės atvaizdai - išsako ką suvokiame.

Asmenys apibrėždami (suvokdami) save apibrėžia (suvokia)

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

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.

Sutapimas

• Siaurėjant apimtims galiausiai sutampa suvokiantis ir susivokiantis.
• Suvokimo lygmenimis žmogus pradeda susikalbėjimą ir toliau vis atsisako požiūrių, auga nežinojimas, baigiasi: žmogaus požiūris = jokiam požiūriui.

Keturi suvokimo lygmenys

Yra keturi suvokimo lygmenys.

Suvokiame

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

Augant sąmoningumui, siaurėja žinojimo apimtis

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

Suvokimas vyksta trejybės atvaizdais apytakose.

• 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)

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

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 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.

• Understanding relates to the Threesome
• Self-understanding relates to the Foursome
• SharedUnderstanding relates to the Fivesome
• GoodUnderstanding relates to the Sixsome
• 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 lygmenys išdėsto visko žinojimą žmogaus ir Dievo požiūrių grandine

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 - 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.
• 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.
• 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.

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

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 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.

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 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:

• 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 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.

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.

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.)

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.

• 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.

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.

• 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)

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

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.

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