Iš Gvildenu svetainės

Mintys: Troškimai


Netroškimai, Valia

Kaip troškimai išreiškia esminį Dievo polinkį palaikyti visų galimybių atsiskleidimą?


希望


Ryšiai su troškimu


Kas yra troškimai

Dievo savybės

Atjautoms svarbu įžvelgti Dievo trejybę:

Nepriklausomybės, laisvės pagrindai:

Troškimai išverčia požiūrio lygtį

Keturi troškimai palaiko dviejų požiūrių skirtumus, tad keturis dvejybės atvaizdus:

Dievo troškimai palaiko papildinį, aplinką, papildančią apimtį.

Dievo įsivaizdavimą troškimais

Dievas sutinka

Dievas sutinka.

Dievas sutinka leisdamas visoms galimybėms

Sutikimas yra pirmapradis

Sutinka išeiti už savęs

Pilnai išsiskleidžia, išsireiškia, save taiko

The Willing is willing in its relationships and so does not distinguish itself from the Nonwilling which it fades into. The Nonwilling is nonwilling in its relationships and avoids the Willing and keeps itself distinct. It is related to the willing only conditionally. It considers their relationship as fixed and conditional and establishing the amount that the Willing has broken away from it.

What is the relationship between the willing and the nonwilling? From the point of view of the willing, they are nonwilling, which is Love. From the point of view of the nonwilling, they are willing, which is Truth. Understanding is where this issue is resolved so that Love and Truth may be Willing and thereby all may be willing. For the nonwilling does not understand, does not acknowledge that the willing reached out to it, and so there is not Unity until it does understand this asymmetry.

Dievo postūmis

Kas Dievo būde jį išjudina viską išskleisti?

Yra daugybė būdų kaip Dievas išeina už savęs. Kuris iš jų pats paprasčiausias? Taip kad iš jo kyla visi kiti būdai?

In each case, I think the former has (by definition) an impulse to go beyond itself into the latter (and not the other way around). What is beyond any system goes beyond itself into a system. That impulse is driven by the logic I described above (Am I necessarily so?) That question has one remove oneself, thus allow for a system, a condition, a context where one is not (and yet might be). Yet which of these ways are fundamental? yielding the others? And there are more ways to imagine God (such as Love or Truth) but they require even more presumptions (Love and Truth are complicated concepts that presume a lot already.) What is the simplest concept from which all others flow?

The concepts above are generally not satisfactory because they depend on a "systemic" point of view to make sense. For example, the Unbounded makes sense in terms of bounds, the Indefinite makes sense in terms of definitions, the Unconditional makes sense in terms of conditions, but all of these assume a system. What is prior to system? And how can we understand it, appeal to it on its own terms, without system?

Let us note that the argument assumes several points:

God is thus "all inclusive" in some way that is "prior to system". He is cohesive, coherent, complete in a way that has him reach out into system and thus create it. This brings to mind the "being one with" that Jesus prays to God for as very much related to "love". It allows that he is one with us, and reaches out to us, even if we are not one with him. Yet unity, being, completeness make sense within a system, but not as such before it.

I note also that, naturally enough, the structures which I have observed all assert my position "I wish to know everything and apply that knowledge usefully". I therefore suppose that this is God's position, and in some deepest sense, the position taken by me, you and others as our default position. But why did I take such a position? It came from my desire to apply myself fully. This drive to "apply oneself fully" is like what propels God to go beyond himself. It does suggest the cohesion that allows us to cohere and intermingle with others as one. But it still assumes a system, one where we have selves and they can be fulfilled. What impulse leads us to this, prior to any system?

Dievas yra pritariantis

Dievas yra pritariantis, sutinkantis, neprieštaraujantis.

Dievo pritarimas yra visų postūmių postūmis.

willing. It compels itself "willingly" to go beyond itself to allow for the unwilling and to explore if it might arise among them. It "applies itself fully".

Santvarkai išsiskleidžiant, tiesai tvirtėjant, pritarimas vis ryškiau priešpastatomas nepritarimui ir pasirinkimas tampa aiškesnis ir ryškesnis.

This is the basis of the Ten Commandments, the negative ones:

And also, I think, the positive ones.

Dievo pritariantis, norintis, trokštantis būdas "tegul, tebūnie" iškyla įvairiausiose sandarose.

It is a Yes as Benoit writes, but of course, it is prior to yes and no, and even prior to yes. It is simply a willingness as in "Let there be..."

I will pursue this line of thinking further. One question that comes up for me now is: What distinguishes the Willing and the Unwilling? And what is the nature of that which makes the distinction?

The Willing goes beyond itself into the Unwilling. I think that they are separated by Perspective as an Observer who goes beyond themselves into a Context. I suppose here by Willing I mean ("takes others along") and by Unwilling I mean ("turns others away"). Perspective leads the Willing into the Unwilling. But what is the status of Perspective? It is:

This suggests that the nature of perspective is to harden our options as system grows more manifest.

Sąvokų troškimas

In order to Conceive a Concept, we need to both keep it together with itself and hold it separate from itself. In this sense, we must be able to wish for it. This is to say that wishes are the basis for conception.

What describes our subjective experience? RepresentationsOfEverything

Everything wishes for Nothing, Something, Anything, Everything. These are the four scopes to which it may go beyond itself.

The wishes yield the representations of everything: Everything is self-sufficient, certain, calm, loving.

Everything goes beyond these wishes into NotWishes, which are relevant to humans.

Troškimai ir nulybės atvaizdai

How are the Wishes related to the RepresentationsOfTheNullsome, which is to say, the PropertiesOfGod? What is the connection:

The relationship is given by God as a scope of access, and the impact of that on everything:

Dievą suvokiame netiesiogiai

If we start out with God, then we can't conceive God directly. So we think of:

And then we consider this structurally. This makes sense to us as wishing by everything:

Consider also:

Troškimas ir žinojimas. Nežinojimas ir netroškimas.

Troškimas ir žinojimas susikalba per Dievo nežinojimą, kuris įveikia žmogaus netroškimą. Yra nežinojimai susiję su troškimu. Tai yra visko padalinimų požiūriai susiję su pačiu Dievu, palaikantys su juo ryšį, jo esmę už jų. O atitrūkę nuo Dievo požiūriai yra praradę su juo ryšį, atitrūkę nuo esmės. Ta esmė yra žmogus, jo žinojimas. Tad žmogaus problema yra, kad jis nepažįsta savęs.

Troškimas yra didėjantis laisvumas, o žinojimas yra mažėjantis laisvumas. Tai yra du laisvumo atvaizdai. Troškimai yra visko atvaizdai, o kas yra žinojimai? Žinojimas yra bene žmogaus dalinis vieningumas, tai yra, šeši betko atvaizdai suvokiami keturiais žinojimo lygmenimis (kaip augantys žinojimai).

Dievo sandaros atvaizdai

For us to be able to understand the above identifications, we need to consider God himself in a structural form. God's structure is Everything, which is to say, the everything. For this God to be identified with a scope is for him to go beyond himself. In considering this God, we shift our view from what he has gone beyond to to the one who will go beyond himself. From that latter view, this going beyond is now sized up with regard to where he already is, and how much he will go beyond himself. This means that we are now dealing with the complements:

These are Wishes:

These are the backgrounds that we live amongst, the observational planes that access themselves through us as they go beyond themselves by way of us. We are their wishes for nothing, something, anything, everything.

Wishes are the blocking of access which we attribute to everything as it reduces its scope to the access that is attributed to God.

We may think of God as going beyond himself into these scopes. In order to conceive of this, we need to think of God structurally. So we identify with "everything" that God who will go beyond himself, and we may identify with "everything", "anything", "something" or "nothing" that God who has gone beyond himself. In going beyond himself, God has restricted his access to himself. He has reduced it from "everything" to something equal or less. We interpret these focusings of access as "wishes":

Dievo troškimai yra visko atvaizdai. O vienybės atvaizdai, tai visko savybės. Nulybės atvaizdai, tai Dievo savybės.

Troškimai taip pat yra dvejybės atvaizdai, juk dvasia - Dievas yra nulybė, sandaras - viskas yra nulybė, tad visko atvaizdai yra dvejybė. Dvejybės atvaizdai:

Troškimai: savarankiškas, užtikrintas, ramus, mylintis

Viskas yra skirtumas tarp Dievo išeisiančio ir Dievo pilnai išėjusio už savęs į save. Šį skirtumą, šią sandarą, šią savastį galima atvaizduoti, tad kartu ir patį Dievą išreikšti netiesiogiai, jo troškimu.

Troškimai išsako tarpsnius, kuriais Dievas išeina už savęs į save. Troškimai sulygina esamą Dievą su būsimu Dievu. Troškimai išsako Dievo sutapimą su savimi, jo savastimi. Troškimai išsako, kas sutelpa Dievo savastyje. Ko plačiau Dievas trokšta, to labiau jis išsiskyręs nuo savęs, to labiau jis išėjęs už savęs. Savarankiškas Dievas yra už savęs neišėjęs, o mylintis Dievas yra už savęs išėjęs visiškai. Troškimai išsako kaip toli Dievo išeities taškas yra nukeliavęs, jo žvilgsnis, kuriuo jisai stebi. Troškimai išsako Dievo akį, jo žvilgsnį, jo tašką iš kurio jisai žiūri, iš kurio išgyvena savo eigą, savo išėjimą už savęs.

Užrašai

Parsiųstas iš http://www.ms.lt/sodas/Mintys/Tro%c5%a1kimai
Puslapis paskutinį kartą pakeistas 2022 gegužės 20 d., 12:27