Kokia sutapimo svarba?
Kaip žiūrėti į kitus (tapačiais su mumis ar skirtingais nuo mūsų) ir kokiomis sąlygomis?
Laimė yra lūkesčių sutapimas su tikrove
Sutapimas ir nesutapimas
Tapatumas reikalauja daugiau jėgų negu skirtingumas. Tapatumas išsako dvilypį požiūrį. Užtat jeigu laikome kitus tapačiais su savimi, taip pat juos laikome skirtingais. O jeigu laikome juos skirtingais, jų nelaikome tapačiais.
Sutapimas ar nesutapimas. (Tiesa ir netiesa) Sutapti
The unfolding of coinciding is driven by love as the question Who is coinciding? and the reply I am coinciding whose meaning keeps shifting. This question goes beyond as a call to all regardless of context to coincide. It thereby includes us as expressions of what is prior to our own context. We are the ones in context who are coinciding, and so we acknowledge what is prior to context that reaches out through us. Within any context the question Who is coinciding? orientates us to take up the position that is beyond context and coincide along with it, and thus reaching out along with it from what is before our context out to a context beyond ours. Yet the same question ever heightens the separation between lover and loved which is the context that the one must cross to reach out to the other.
The position of Other is progressively defined until it is Coinciding as SelfCoinciding. Understanding is the degree of SelfCoinciding as given by the separation which there can be between one (as Observer) and their Self (as ObservationalPlane) when the latter is taken as Other with which they coincide and which distinguishes the two. Understanding is thus the relationship between Love, which evokes Self, and Truth, which introduces Other. Love, whose question Who is coinciding? drives the Unfolding Structure of the position, coincides with Truth, whose reply I am coinciding drives the Collapsing Spirit of the one who takes up the position. This happens by completely unfolding the position so that it is definite to the point of establishing an Other for whom having a position and taking it up are one and the same, and then expanding the significance of this Other's self-coinciding until it characterizes the full scope of the position. The I shifts step by step from the one who is going beyond to their Self, the Other they are going beyond to, with whom they are coinciding, until it is the Other that is coinciding. This is the shift from GodTheFather to God.
We can thus add context upon context, which makes the coinciding ever more definite as to who is coinciding with whom. The question Who is coinciding? makes explicit what separates us. It has truths grow from soft to hard as follows.
These questions define as God the lover who is prior to all contexts. They ask, who is there to coincide with?
Once we have defined the Other, then the questions become:
So now the structure evokes the spirit, whereas before the spirit evolved the structure.
If we think of the self as that which coincides with other, we have:
The Other arises through slack, but how? The Other, by way of slack, unfolds along with structure as the one who can take it up.
What relates coinciding and separating? Both coinciding and separating.
The shift from generating structure to coinciding in spirit is the shift from Love as creating a perspective to Truth as the taking up of a perspective. When the perspective is completely defined then it is that of Other because Other is always alongside. But that perspective of the Other alone beyond our reach is in fact the unifying perspective where structure and spirit are the same and so with reference to this fourth and highest context which we cannot access directly, we are able to switch to the taking up of the perspective, which we take up as other, and then broaden out until we identify other with all of God.
Slack is what allows for the separation to be overcome, and makes for love and life as increasing and decreasing slack.
Knowledge may interfere with knowledge, thus it is vital then to submit to that which is before context and which is open to all knowledge. We are often offered knowledge that will hinder other knowledge. This is the dilemma where we as humans fail.
Coinciding may be through submission to God as in the case of the languages, but it may also be less asymmetrically defined, more softly defined. It is the position by which we are participants rooted in what is beyond context.
The Other is God made explicit, the ultimate Loved for the ultimate Lover, for whom we are intermediaries.
This is the shift from GodTheFather (Observer) to God who is the Trinity.
Knowing is the understanding of one's separation, one's context, one's limits. Knowing is the response to the question Who is coinciding?
Who is coinciding? makes all explicit, context, structure,thus decreasing slack. Who is there to coincide with? makes all implicit, spirit, thus increasing slack.
The question of who is there to coincide with has us go through the gate of starting with the interpreter God (the Father), then the interpretation Human (the Son) and finally, the interpreted Other (the Spirit).
Recall the wholeness preserving transformation of Christopher Alexander.
As structure unfolds through love, the Other is taken as a partner alongside, until there is only room for one with that Other, and then beyond that is the fourth context where there is only other - so that perspective (structure) and taking up perspective (spirit) are the same - and then this Other as reference point and now spirit is brought back wider and wider all the way to God so that God is the implicit in this explicit Other.
God loves all (in every way) and that can be coordinated only by truth which arises as we love each other. When we forgive each other our wrongs, then that does not fit within a context and that pulls us out of context. This is the nature of the negative six commandments, they show that by addressing our wrongs we can pull away from ourselves into God. Just as the positive four commandments show that God goes beyond himself into us, that we flow out of him.
Given a context, coinciding is expressed as the going beyond of that context. As my position, it is in the context of "me" (of "I"), and so it is the coinciding of "going beyond myself" as given by my situation (which breaks up the expression in terms of going beyond myself), my wish (which provides direction to the expression in terms of going beyond myself) and my activity (which allows for application of the expression in terms of going beyond myself).
God defines the necessary, human defines the actual, other defines the possible. All contexts are then simply expressions of their position together. God is the necessary condition, the context for this position, rather than the position the context for God.
God goes beyond himself by ever taking up the perspective of an other. The other becomes ever more defined until it truly is an Other. Whereupon the outlooks all coincide. In this way the Truth becomes harder, more defined.
The nature of the expression "I wish to know everything and apply that knowledge usefully" is that the more that we take it up, the more it becomes evident that it is that of an other, and that other is God. We are all Other and God is the ultimate Other that we all coincide with. When God takes up the expression then he coincides with himself by it.
This position is fully realized, fully expressed, God goes beyond himself completely, through the coinciding of all who might take up this outlook of going beyond oneself: the outlook's interpreter God, the interpretation Human and the interpreted Other. Their coinciding proceeds by degrees as the one who takes up the expression coincides with God, through him with Human, and through them with Other:
As Other one is expressly going beyond oneself and it is established that this is with regard to God by way of Human.
In fully realizing this position, which is to say, the wish within it, the one who takes it up not only coincides with God's outlook, but God's outlook coincides with his, so that they both coincide. The wish is realized by the Divisions because then the relationship between God and expression has been inverted so that expression proceeds from God as his Context (all from one) and not the other way around (one from none). God is prior to himself and goes beyond himself and gives rise to himself by going into himself. This is apparent through the coinciding of all who might coincide with God for this is by his outreach. And so likewise, we go beyond ourselves by going ever deeper into ourselves and sharing our example with others as well. This is all a process of distinguishing what is God (who goes beyond himself) and what is his Self (his coinciding with himself and others) so they might indeed coincide as Other (he goes beyond himself by coinciding with himself and others). And one takes up the position by coinciding with an other through whom it is evident that all coinciding takes place through God as an expression of his going beyond himself.