Mintys.Valia istorija
Paslėpti nežymius pakeitimus - Rodyti galutinio teksto pakeitimus
2022 birželio 02 d., 16:53
atliko -
Pridėtos 21-24 eilutės:
'''Kas yra valia'''
* Valia - skirtumas tarp to ar pakeliu savo ranką ar jos nepakeliu kai mąstau apie savo rankos pakėlimą. Valia yra tai kas prisideda prie mąstymo, kad tai įvyktų.
2021 gegužės 27 d., 14:38
atliko -
Ištrintos 20-70 eilutės:
'''Aš renkuosi vietoj kad mums derėtų'''
I want to apply knowledge to remake our world, and engage it rather than just rise above it. I look for inspiration to Christ's Sermon on the Mount where I think he distinguishes between the logic of "I choose" and "we should".
'''Nuodėmės verčia reikšti valią'''
* Killing = forcing to suffer.
* Adultery = forcing to love.
* Stealing = forcing to rely on.
* Lying = forcing to believe.
* Coveting people = forcing to be uptight.
* Coveting things = forcing to get engrossed.
We're commanded not to do such things. It suggests an interesting idea: suffering, etc. may all be good, as an expression of the will. But we should not force people to express their will!
In the system that I'm working out, these ways of expressing the will should play a central role. I was writing up how all of these structures unfolded, but then I noticed that I was making use of one of the very structures that I was going to describe, which I call "the divisions of everything". That's not so bad, but it made me wonder, is this a special property of this particular structure, its role in defining things, and what do all the other structures offer?
Kokia prasmė viso šio žinojimo? Keturi netroškimai yra savaime vertingi, mums leidžia:
* not be ruled by our needs, but know how to respond to them, get around them, or simply not have them.
* address all of our doubts, be able to find our bearings no matter how questionable our experience, and exercise perfect intelligence by asking counterquestions.
* understand our expectations, our emotional responses, and how to respond to them, and live in suspense, or be at peace.
* hear God in our life's trials, choose his will over ours when we're connected with him, and live by our own principles when we're not.
I value such knowledge. I find it useful. But it is knowledge that elevates our thinking so that we can live above this world. So it doesn't really connect much with any attachment we have to this world. It frees the spirit, but not the soul.
I think the point of life is to do things in this world, to inject our spirit here and remake this world we have entered into. It's very good that we can rise above this world, but the point is to engage it.
So I thought about Christ, who I choose to follow. What attracts me most about Christ is that he says how to directly take on the issues of this world. "Love God", "Love your neighbor as yourself", and in his Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5) he punches out a platform of very practical ways to engage this life. I don't see much conscious effort by people to apply this, but we could do it. This is a kind of knowledge that I think is useful in this world, and engages it, and remakes it.
'''Šešios Jėzaus antitezės'''
Jesus makes six statements that are known as "antitheses" because he says, "You have heard it said... but I tell you..." For example, you have heard "an eye for an eye" but Jesus says "turn the other cheek". A couple of years ago, I tried to figure out his logic for these statements. In this one, I think he's saying that rather than account (an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth), we should satisfy (turning the cheek, walking the extra mile, giving away our coat).
I went back over these logics, and I think they relate to the ways we express our will. In the case above, relying on others is a way of expressing our will, and there is something holy about that. Yet stealing is wrong to the extent that it forces us to rely on others. There is also something useless about prescribing that we rely on others, something futile about insisting that we should. That is what accounting is all about: you should rely on others as to what belongs to you, and what does not. Instead, he seems to say, why don't just satisfy them? Just give everything away, and choose to rely on others.
In each case, I think it says that instead of prescribing us to express our will, we should rather simply choose to express our will. For example, we can express our will by believing. Lying forces people to believe. Convincing tells them they should believe. Instead, why not just choose to believe: take a stand.
This is important to me here because it suggests ways that knowledge can be used practically to remake this world.
* be unconditional, rather than consistent
* save, rather than blame
* take a stand, rather than convince
* satisfy, rather than account
* be one with, rather than accomodate
* be at peace with, rather than condemn
I wrote about my interest to integrate raw initiative and to create a system to fit together our work so that we could support and encourage each other effortlessly.
I want such a system to be based on our choice to express our own will, rather than what we think people should do. I find it very hard to eliminate "should" from my thinking!
2021 gegužės 27 d., 14:37
atliko -
Pakeistos 3-6 eilutės iš
[[Valios raiškos]], [[Malda]], [[Betkas]], [[Dievas]], [[Priėmimas]], [[Suvestinė]]
'''Kaipvalios išraiškos grindžia vienumo pagrindus?'''
'''Kaip
į:
[[Valios išraiškos]], [[Malda]], [[Betkas]], [[Dievas]], [[Priėmimas]], [[Suvestinė]]
'''Kaip valia išreiškia sąlygišką priėmimą?'''
'''Kaip valia išreiškia sąlygišką priėmimą?'''
Ištrintos 12-17 eilutės:
* Kuria prasme valios raiškos yra betko atvaizdai?
* Ar valios raiškos grindžia vienumo pagrindus?
* What is the role of Willingness?
* How does this unfolding relate to that expressed in terms of Willingness or in terms of the kinds of Understanding and the LostChild metaphor?
Ištrintos 20-41 eilutės:
'''Valios išraiškos'''
Šešios valios išraiškos yra:
* Dvejonė: Ar darau ką nors tuo klausimu? (įsitraukti)
* Jaudulys: Įtampa. (laukti)
* Atsiliepimas: Gryna valia. (tikėti)
* Tėve mūsų: Gelbėk mus nuo pikto. (atsiremti)
* šv.Petro raktai į dangų: Meilė. (mylėti)
* Palaiminimai: Palaiminti, kurie persekiojami dėl teisybės, jų yra dangaus karalystė. (kentėti)
* engaging
* waiting
* believing
* relying
* loving
* suffering
Tai atjautose iškylantis septintasis požiūris kuomet vieno lygmens troškimas atjaučia kito lygmens netroškimą. Kitaip tarus, vieno lygmens nulinis požiūris atjaučia kito lygmens septintąjį požiūrį. Tuo pačiu nuliniam požiūriui tenka atjausti ir visus kitus to lygmens požiūrius.
Šešios valios išraiškos grindžia šešis neigiamus Dievo įsakymus mylėti artimą, nekenkti jam, neversti jo pareikšti savo valią. Valia turėtų būti laisva ir savanoriška.
2021 gegužės 27 d., 14:33
atliko -
Pakeista 3 eilutė iš:
[[Malda]], [[Betkas]], [[Dievas]], [[Priėmimas]], [[Suvestinė]]
į:
[[Valios raiškos]], [[Malda]], [[Betkas]], [[Dievas]], [[Priėmimas]], [[Suvestinė]]
2021 gegužės 27 d., 14:11
atliko -
Pakeista 3 eilutė iš:
[[Malda]], [[Betkas]], [[Dievas]], [[Pritarimas]], [[Suvestinė]]
į:
[[Malda]], [[Betkas]], [[Dievas]], [[Priėmimas]], [[Suvestinė]]
2021 gegužės 27 d., 13:58
atliko -
Ištrintos 26-35 eilutės:
'''Nesutikimas'''
* santvarka
* sandara
* keeps getting reinterpreted as Activity
* nulinės veiklos pašalinimas
* neleidimas, atmetimas to, kas nereikalinga
* sąlygiškumas sąlygiškumo požiūriu
* turėti nuostatą
2021 gegužės 27 d., 13:46
atliko -
Ištrintos 26-45 eilutės:
'''Sutikimas, pritarimas, norimas, troškimas'''
Kas yra sutikimas?
* meilė pirm sąlygų, tad troškimų vieningumas
* rinktis trokšti
* to take up one's Position
* the Conditional from the perspective of the Unconditional
* Spirit
* Activity
* Adding zero structure
* allowing for the superfluous, adding null Structure
* Willingness is the conditional from the perspective of the unconditional, and Nonwillingness is the conditional from the perspective of the conditional.
* to take up one's Position.
Kaip sutikimas iškyla kaip nulinė veikla? Visaregio lygmenimis:
* zero GoingBeyondOneself
* zero-Divergence, that which is inherent at its own stage
* zero-Distinction, that being (I) which coincides with its nature (You)
* zero-Division
2021 gegužės 27 d., 12:48
atliko -
Pakeista 3 eilutė iš:
[[Malda]], [[Betkas]], [[Dievas]], [[Suvestinė]]
į:
[[Malda]], [[Betkas]], [[Dievas]], [[Pritarimas]], [[Suvestinė]]
2021 gegužės 26 d., 13:14
atliko -
Pridėtos 16-17 eilutės:
* What is the role of Willingness?
* How does this unfolding relate to that expressed in terms of Willingness or in terms of the kinds of Understanding and the LostChild metaphor?
* How does this unfolding relate to that expressed in terms of Willingness or in terms of the kinds of Understanding and the LostChild metaphor?
2021 gegužės 26 d., 12:58
atliko -
Pakeista 13 eilutė iš:
Valios raiškos
į:
Valios išraiškos
Pakeistos 155-284 eilutės iš
we know.
'''Dievas sutinka'''
Dievas sutinka.
* Jis palaiko, priima visas galimybes. Užtat jisai išeina už savęs į nevalingumą.
* Valingumas susijęs su valia ir su Dievo valia.
* Dievo įsakymai susiję su valingumu ir nevalingumu.
Dievas sutinka leisdamas visoms galimybėms
* tebūnie... šviesa ir t.t.
* Elijui šnibždantis balsas
* Amen - tebūnie
Sutikimas yra pirmapradis
* This Is the Impulse for all impulses.
* It can make sense prior to system because it allows for all systems and all that they might do.
* It is open and thus inclusive and cohesive with all that might likewise be willing.
Sutinka išeiti už savęs
* It compels itself "willingly" to go beyond itself into the nonwilling and to explore if it might arise among them.
Pilnai išsiskleidžia, išsireiškia, save taiko
* It "applies itself fully".
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.
-----
Ką bendro turi visos sandaros? Kiekviena savyje prisiima požiūrį atstojanti tai kas už sandaros, už santvarkos. Ko labiau išsakyta santvarka, to giliau jose įstatytas šis požiūris.
Iš ko išsivysto visos sandaros?
* I imagine God as prior to all.
* I imagine his outlook as the starting point.
Kas Dievo būde jį išjudina viską išskleisti?
* Dievas išeina už savęs. Klausia ar Dievas būtinas? Jei būčiau, tai būčiau. O jei nebūčiau, ar vis tiek būčiau?
Yra daugybė būdų kaip Dievas išeina už savęs. Kuris iš jų pats paprasčiausias? Taip kad iš jo kyla visi kiti būdai?
* The Unbounded goes beyond itself into the Bounded.
* The Indefinite goes beyond itself into the Definite.
* The Unknown goes beyond itself into the Known.
* The Complete goes beyond itself into the Incomplete.
* The Inconsistent goes beyond itself into the Consistent.
* The Unconditional goes beyond itself into the Conditional.
* The Coherent goes beyond itself into the Incoherent.
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 prior to all things, concepts, frameworks, logics, systems, selves.
* God is compelled by his nature to "go beyond himself" and allow for his own nonexistence
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, sutinkantis, neprieštaraujantis.
Dievo pritarimas yra visų postūmių postūmis.
* Tai pirm santvarkos nes pritaria visoms santvarkoms ir jų galimai veiklai.
* It is open and thus inclusive and cohesive with all that might likewise be
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.
* It is made evident, as system grows hard, that not all "willing" is "willing".
This is the basis of the Ten Commandments, the negative ones:
* "murder" = willing one to will "no" without their willing
* "adultery" = willing one to will "yes" without their willing
* "stealing" = willing one to will "not yes" without their willing
* "lying" = willing one to will "not no" without their willing
* "coveting things" = willing one to will "to will" without their willing
* "coveting people" = willing one to will "to not will" without their willing
And also, I think, the positive ones.
Dievo pritariantis, norintis, trokštantis būdas "tegul, tebūnie" iškyla įvairiausiose sandarose.
* It accords with the observation that God's structure is "everything", that structure's representations are given by "wishes", and their unity is "love".
* It is at the core of the primary structures, for example, as the counterquestion "What do I truly want?" or as the emotional response of peace (no expectations, wishing for anything)
* It is embedded variously in the secondary structures as "wisdom", "good will", "God's will"
* It suggests the awfulness of apathy
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:
* Willing Perspective, as God's perspective, beyond system
* NotUnwilling Perspective, as my perspective, not within system, manifest by the Omniscope
* NotWilling Perspective, as your perspective, not beyond system, manifest by the Primary Structures
* Unwilling Perspective, as other's perspective, within system, manifest by the Secondary Structures.
This suggests that the nature of perspective is to harden our options as
system grows more manifest.
'''Dievas sutinka'''
Dievas sutinka.
* Jis palaiko, priima visas galimybes. Užtat jisai išeina už savęs į nevalingumą.
* Valingumas susijęs su valia ir su Dievo valia.
* Dievo įsakymai susiję su valingumu ir nevalingumu.
Dievas sutinka leisdamas visoms galimybėms
* tebūnie... šviesa ir t.t.
* Elijui šnibždantis balsas
* Amen - tebūnie
Sutikimas yra pirmapradis
* This Is the Impulse for all impulses.
* It can make sense prior to system because it allows for all systems and all that they might do.
* It is open and thus inclusive and cohesive with all that might likewise be willing.
Sutinka išeiti už savęs
* It compels itself "willingly" to go beyond itself into the nonwilling and to explore if it might arise among them.
Pilnai išsiskleidžia, išsireiškia, save taiko
* It "applies itself fully".
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.
-----
Ką bendro turi visos sandaros? Kiekviena savyje prisiima požiūrį atstojanti tai kas už sandaros, už santvarkos. Ko labiau išsakyta santvarka, to giliau jose įstatytas šis požiūris.
Iš ko išsivysto visos sandaros?
* I imagine God as prior to all.
* I imagine his outlook as the starting point.
Kas Dievo būde jį išjudina viską išskleisti?
* Dievas išeina už savęs. Klausia ar Dievas būtinas? Jei būčiau, tai būčiau. O jei nebūčiau, ar vis tiek būčiau?
Yra daugybė būdų kaip Dievas išeina už savęs. Kuris iš jų pats paprasčiausias? Taip kad iš jo kyla visi kiti būdai?
* The Unbounded goes beyond itself into the Bounded.
* The Indefinite goes beyond itself into the Definite.
* The Unknown goes beyond itself into the Known.
* The Complete goes beyond itself into the Incomplete.
* The Inconsistent goes beyond itself into the Consistent.
* The Unconditional goes beyond itself into the Conditional.
* The Coherent goes beyond itself into the Incoherent.
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 prior to all things, concepts, frameworks, logics, systems, selves.
* God is compelled by his nature to "go beyond himself" and allow for his own nonexistence
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, sutinkantis, neprieštaraujantis.
Dievo pritarimas yra visų postūmių postūmis.
* Tai pirm santvarkos nes pritaria visoms santvarkoms ir jų galimai veiklai.
* It is open and thus inclusive and cohesive with all that might likewise be
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.
* It is made evident, as system grows hard, that not all "willing" is "willing".
This is the basis of the Ten Commandments, the negative ones:
* "murder" = willing one to will "no" without their willing
* "adultery" = willing one to will "yes" without their willing
* "stealing" = willing one to will "not yes" without their willing
* "lying" = willing one to will "not no" without their willing
* "coveting things" = willing one to will "to will" without their willing
* "coveting people" = willing one to will "to not will" without their willing
And also, I think, the positive ones.
Dievo pritariantis, norintis, trokštantis būdas "tegul, tebūnie" iškyla įvairiausiose sandarose.
* It accords with the observation that God's structure is "everything", that structure's representations are given by "wishes", and their unity is "love".
* It is at the core of the primary structures, for example, as the counterquestion "What do I truly want?" or as the emotional response of peace (no expectations, wishing for anything)
* It is embedded variously in the secondary structures as "wisdom", "good will", "God's will"
* It suggests the awfulness of apathy
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:
* Willing Perspective, as God's perspective, beyond system
* NotUnwilling Perspective, as my perspective, not within system, manifest by the Omniscope
* NotWilling Perspective, as your perspective, not beyond system, manifest by the Primary Structures
* Unwilling Perspective, as other's perspective, within system, manifest by the Secondary Structures.
This suggests that the nature of perspective is to harden our options as
system grows more manifest
į:
we know.
2021 gegužės 26 d., 12:36
atliko -
Pakeistos 26-27 eilutės iš
'''Sutikimas'''
į:
'''Sutikimas, pritarimas, norimas, troškimas'''
Pakeistos 241-246 eilutės iš
This is my conclusion
prior to system because it allows for all systems and all that they might do.
It is open and thus inclusive and cohesive with all that might likewise be
į:
Dievas yra pritariantis, sutinkantis, neprieštaraujantis.
Dievo pritarimas yra visų postūmių postūmis.
* Tai pirm santvarkos nes pritaria visoms santvarkoms ir jų galimai veiklai.
* It is open and thus inclusive and cohesive with all that might likewise be
Dievo pritarimas yra visų postūmių postūmis.
* Tai pirm santvarkos nes pritaria visoms santvarkoms ir jų galimai veiklai.
* It is open and thus inclusive and cohesive with all that might likewise be
Pakeistos 250-253 eilutės iš
"unwilling" and the choice between them becomes stark and clear. It is made
evident, as system grows hard, that not all
the basis of the Ten Commandments, the negative ones:
į:
Santvarkai išsiskleidžiant, tiesai tvirtėjant, pritarimas vis ryškiau priešpastatomas nepritarimui ir pasirinkimas tampa aiškesnis ir ryškesnis.
* It is made evident, as system grows hard, that not all "willing" is "willing".
This is the basis of the Ten Commandments, the negative ones:
* It is made evident, as system grows hard, that not all "willing" is "willing".
This is the basis of the Ten Commandments, the negative ones:
Pakeista 261 eilutė iš:
į:
Dievo pritariantis, norintis, trokštantis būdas "tegul, tebūnie" iškyla įvairiausiose sandarose.
2021 gegužės 26 d., 12:28
atliko -
Pakeista 194 eilutė iš:
į:
Yra daugybė būdų kaip Dievas išeina už savęs. Kuris iš jų pats paprasčiausias? Taip kad iš jo kyla visi kiti būdai?
2021 gegužės 26 d., 12:20
atliko -
Pakeistos 185-202 eilutės iš
I have now tried again to understand what all this structure, all this
knowledge unfolds from. I imagine God as prior to all. I imagine his
outlook as the starting point. (Perhaps you don't have use for such a
concept as God, but then please consider whatever you might imagine as a
starting point for all, at least conceptually.) What is it in his nature
that drives him to unfold everything?
I have found it very fruitful to imagine God as "going beyond himself". I
think of him as having nothing to do except to take up the question: Do I
necessarily exist? If I exist, then I exist; but if I did not exist, would I
still exist? Let's see... Presumably the answer is yes, but God's removing
himself, creating the least satisfactory conditions for himself, makes for
lots of work to do. Indeed, such an impulse can derive the many conceptual
structures that I am aware of.
There are many ways to think of God as "going beyond himself":
į:
Ką bendro turi visos sandaros? Kiekviena savyje prisiima požiūrį atstojanti tai kas už sandaros, už santvarkos. Ko labiau išsakyta santvarka, to giliau jose įstatytas šis požiūris.
Iš ko išsivysto visos sandaros?
* I imagine God as prior to all.
* I imagine his outlook as the starting point.
Kas Dievo būde jį išjudina viską išskleisti?
* Dievas išeina už savęs. Klausia ar Dievas būtinas? Jei būčiau, tai būčiau. O jei nebūčiau, ar vis tiek būčiau?
Būdai kaip Dievas išeina už savęs:
Iš ko išsivysto visos sandaros?
* I imagine God as prior to all.
* I imagine his outlook as the starting point.
Kas Dievo būde jį išjudina viską išskleisti?
* Dievas išeina už savęs. Klausia ar Dievas būtinas? Jei būčiau, tai būčiau. O jei nebūčiau, ar vis tiek būčiau?
Būdai kaip Dievas išeina už savęs:
2021 gegužės 26 d., 12:16
atliko -
Pakeistos 132-133 eilutės iš
is the same will, but more intense, because it is now within bounds
į:
Valia stiprinama apibrėžiant jos apimtį. Tai ta pati valia bet ryškesnė nes ribose.
Pakeistos 165-177 eilutės iš
į:
Dievas sutinka leisdamas visoms galimybėms
* tebūnie... šviesa ir t.t.
* Elijui šnibždantis balsas
* Amen - tebūnie
Sutikimas yra pirmapradis
* This Is the Impulse for all impulses.
* It can make sense prior to system because it allows for all systems and all that they might do.
* It is open and thus inclusive and cohesive with all that might likewise be willing.
Sutinka išeiti už savęs
* It compels itself "willingly" to go beyond itself into the nonwilling and to explore if it might arise among them.
Pilnai išsiskleidžia, išsireiškia, save taiko
* It "applies itself fully".
* tebūnie... šviesa ir t.t.
* Elijui šnibždantis balsas
* Amen - tebūnie
Sutikimas yra pirmapradis
* This Is the Impulse for all impulses.
* It can make sense prior to system because it allows for all systems and all that they might do.
* It is open and thus inclusive and cohesive with all that might likewise be willing.
Sutinka išeiti už savęs
* It compels itself "willingly" to go beyond itself into the nonwilling and to explore if it might arise among them.
Pilnai išsiskleidžia, išsireiškia, save taiko
* It "applies itself fully".
2021 gegužės 26 d., 12:09
atliko -
Pakeistos 47-60 eilutės iš
*System
*Structure
*keeps getting reinterpreted as Activity
*removing zero activity
*taking away the superfluous
*the Conditional from the perspective of the Conditional
* To be nonwilling is to have a Position.
* not allowing for the superfluous, removing null Activity
* To be nonwilling is to have a Position.
* the Conditional from the perspective of the Conditional.
*keeps getting reinterpreted as
*
*taking away the superfluous
*the Conditional from the perspective of the Conditional
* not allowing for the superfluous, removing null Activity
* To be nonwilling is to have a Position.
* the Conditional from the perspective of the Conditional.
į:
* santvarka
* sandara
* keeps getting reinterpreted as Activity
* nulinės veiklos pašalinimas
* neleidimas, atmetimas to, kas nereikalinga
* sąlygiškumas sąlygiškumo požiūriu
* turėti nuostatą
* sandara
* keeps getting reinterpreted as Activity
* nulinės veiklos pašalinimas
* neleidimas, atmetimas to, kas nereikalinga
* sąlygiškumas sąlygiškumo požiūriu
* turėti nuostatą
Pakeistos 59-60 eilutės iš
* engaging - įsijausti
* waiting - atsitokėti
* waiting - atsitokėti
į:
* Dvejonė: Ar darau ką nors tuo klausimu? (įsitraukti)
* Jaudulys: Įtampa. (laukti)
* Atsiliepimas: Gryna valia. (tikėti)
* Tėve mūsų: Gelbėk mus nuo pikto. (atsiremti)
* šv.Petro raktai į dangų: Meilė. (mylėti)
* Palaiminimai: Palaiminti, kurie persekiojami dėl teisybės, jų yra dangaus karalystė. (kentėti)
* engaging
* waiting
* Jaudulys: Įtampa. (laukti)
* Atsiliepimas: Gryna valia. (tikėti)
* Tėve mūsų: Gelbėk mus nuo pikto. (atsiremti)
* šv.Petro raktai į dangų: Meilė. (mylėti)
* Palaiminimai: Palaiminti, kurie persekiojami dėl teisybės, jų yra dangaus karalystė. (kentėti)
* engaging
* waiting
2021 gegužės 26 d., 11:54
atliko -
Pakeistos 64-65 eilutės iš
* engaging
* waiting
į:
* engaging - įsijausti
* waiting - atsitokėti
* waiting - atsitokėti
Pakeistos 75-78 eilutės iš
į:
'''Aš renkuosi vietoj kad mums derėtų'''
Pakeistos 79-86 eilutės iš
Lately, I have made some progress in figuring how it all fits together. I have been working in Lithuanian at http://ms.memes.net where I have posted some diagrams.
Some of the structures come from sorting through real life data regarding some question that I
Recently, while working on the big picture, I came upon six different ways of expressing our will: getting engrossed, being uptight, believing, relying, loving and suffering. I then observed that they related to six of the ten commandments.
į:
'''Nuodėmės verčia reikšti valią'''
Pakeistos 92-93 eilutės iš
į:
Kokia prasmė viso šio žinojimo? Keturi netroškimai yra savaime vertingi, mums leidžia:
Pakeistos 105-106 eilutės iš
į:
'''Šešios Jėzaus antitezės'''
Jesus makes six statements that are known as "antitheses" because he says, "You have heard it said... but I tell you..." For example, you have heard "an eye for an eye" but Jesus says "turn the other cheek". A couple of years ago, I tried to figure out his logic for these statements. In this one, I think he's saying that rather than account (an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth), we should satisfy (turning the cheek, walking the extra mile, giving away our coat).
Jesus makes six statements that are known as "antitheses" because he says, "You have heard it said... but I tell you..." For example, you have heard "an eye for an eye" but Jesus says "turn the other cheek". A couple of years ago, I tried to figure out his logic for these statements. In this one, I think he's saying that rather than account (an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth), we should satisfy (turning the cheek, walking the extra mile, giving away our coat).
Pakeistos 126-128 eilutės iš
į:
'''Valios stiprinimas'''
Pakeistos 156-160 eilutės iš
Dievas yra valingas
į:
'''Dievas sutinka'''
Dievas sutinka.
Dievas sutinka.
2021 gegužės 26 d., 11:47
atliko -
Pakeistos 44-59 eilutės iš
į:
'''Nesutikimas'''
*System
*Structure
*keeps getting reinterpreted as Activity
*removing zero activity
*taking away the superfluous
*the Conditional from the perspective of the Conditional
* To be nonwilling is to have a Position.
* not allowing for the superfluous, removing null Activity
* To be nonwilling is to have a Position.
* the Conditional from the perspective of the Conditional.
*System
*Structure
*keeps getting reinterpreted as Activity
*removing zero activity
*taking away the superfluous
*the Conditional from the perspective of the Conditional
* To be nonwilling is to have a Position.
* not allowing for the superfluous, removing null Activity
* To be nonwilling is to have a Position.
* the Conditional from the perspective of the Conditional.
Ištrintos 130-149 eilutės:
----
'''Nevalingumas'''
NonWilling is:
*
*System
*Structure
*keeps getting reinterpreted as Activity
*removing zero activity
*taking away the superfluous
*the Conditional from the perspective of the Conditional
* To be nonwilling is to have a Position.
* not allowing for the superfluous, removing null Activity
* To be nonwilling is to have a Position.
* the Conditional from the perspective of the Conditional.
2021 gegužės 26 d., 11:46
atliko -
Pakeista 142 eilutė iš:
I thought: the will is strengthened by circumscribing its {{Scope}}. It
į:
I thought: the will is strengthened by circumscribing its Scope. It
Pakeista 145 eilutė iš:
to bound his {{Wishing}}. We {{Love}} somebody by being willing to accept
į:
to bound his Wishing. We Love somebody by being willing to accept
2021 gegužės 26 d., 11:43
atliko -
Pridėtos 168-182 eilutės:
'''Dievas leidžia, sutinka - Dievas yra valingas'''
Dievas yra valingas.
* Jis palaiko, priima visas galimybes. Užtat jisai išeina už savęs į nevalingumą.
* Valingumas susijęs su valia ir su Dievo valia.
* Dievo įsakymai susiję su valingumu ir nevalingumu.
God is Willing as in allowing for all possibilities as in the spark of "let there be..." or the whispering Yes or the thunder of Amen ("so may it be"). This Is the Impulse for all impulses. It can make sense prior to system because it allows for all systems and all that they might do. It is open and thus inclusive and cohesive with all that might likewise be willing. It compels itself "willingly" to go beyond itself into the nonwilling and to explore if it might arise among them. It "applies itself fully".
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.
Pakeistos 294-311 eilutės iš
system grows more manifest.
'''Dievas leidžia, sutinka - Dievas yra valingas'''
God is Willing as in allowing for all possibilities as in the spark of "let there be..." or the whispering Yes or the thunder of Amen ("so may it be"). This Is the Impulse for all impulses. It can make sense prior to system because it allows for all systems and all that they might do. It is open and thus inclusive and cohesive with all that might likewise be willing. It compels itself "willingly" to go beyond itself into the nonwilling and to explore if it might arise among them. It "applies itself fully".
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.
---------------
[[Dievas]] yra valingas. Jis palaiko, priima visas galimybes. Užtat jisai išeina už savęs į nevalingumą.
Valingumas susijęs su valia ir su Dievo valia.
Dievo įsakymai susiję su valingumu ir nevalingumu.
'''Dievas leidžia, sutinka - Dievas yra valingas'''
God is Willing as in allowing for all possibilities as in the spark of "let there be..." or the whispering Yes or the thunder of Amen ("so may it be"). This Is the Impulse for all impulses. It can make sense prior to system because it allows for all systems and all that they might do. It is open and thus inclusive and cohesive with all that might likewise be willing. It compels itself "willingly" to go beyond itself into the nonwilling and to explore if it might arise among them. It "applies itself fully".
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.
---------------
[[Dievas]] yra valingas. Jis palaiko, priima visas galimybes. Užtat jisai išeina už savęs į nevalingumą.
Valingumas susijęs su valia ir su Dievo valia.
Dievo įsakymai susiję su valingumu ir nevalingumu
į:
system grows more manifest.
2021 gegužės 26 d., 11:39
atliko -
Pakeistos 3-4 eilutės iš
[[Malda]], [[Betkas]]
į:
[[Malda]], [[Betkas]], [[Dievas]], [[Suvestinė]]
Pakeistos 140-141 eilutės iš
į:
Andrius, 2003 m. liepos mėn. 1 d. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/328
Pakeistos 151-152 eilutės iš
į:
Andrius, 2003 m. liepos mėn. 2 d., http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/329
Pridėta 154 eilutė:
Ištrintos 165-168 eilutės:
'''Sutinkantis'''
See also: God, Overview, Willingness, NonWilling
2021 gegužės 26 d., 11:37
atliko -
Pridėtos 26-44 eilutės:
'''Sutikimas'''
Kas yra sutikimas?
* to take up one's Position
* the Conditional from the perspective of the Unconditional
* Spirit
* Activity
* Adding zero structure
* allowing for the superfluous, adding null Structure
* Willingness is the conditional from the perspective of the unconditional, and Nonwillingness is the conditional from the perspective of the conditional.
* to take up one's Position.
Kaip sutikimas iškyla kaip nulinė veikla? Visaregio lygmenimis:
* zero GoingBeyondOneself
* zero-Divergence, that which is inherent at its own stage
* zero-Distinction, that being (I) which coincides with its nature (You)
* zero-Division
Kas yra sutikimas?
* to take up one's Position
* the Conditional from the perspective of the Unconditional
* Spirit
* Activity
* Adding zero structure
* allowing for the superfluous, adding null Structure
* Willingness is the conditional from the perspective of the unconditional, and Nonwillingness is the conditional from the perspective of the conditional.
* to take up one's Position.
Kaip sutikimas iškyla kaip nulinė veikla? Visaregio lygmenimis:
* zero GoingBeyondOneself
* zero-Divergence, that which is inherent at its own stage
* zero-Distinction, that being (I) which coincides with its nature (You)
* zero-Division
Pakeistos 170-180 eilutės iš
Willing is:
* to take up one's Position
* the Conditional from the perspective of the Unconditional
* Spirit
* Activity
* Adding zero structure
* Allowing for the superfluous
į:
Pakeistos 284-285 eilutės iš
į:
'''Dievas leidžia, sutinka - Dievas yra valingas'''
Ištrintos 291-302 eilutės:
What is Willingness?
* allowing for the superfluous, adding null Structure
* Willingness is the conditional from the perspective of the unconditional, and Nonwillingness is the conditional from the perspective of the conditional.
* to take up one's Position.
How does Willingness arise as NullActivity?
* zero GoingBeyondOneself
* zero-Divergence, that which is inherent at its own stage
* zero-Distinction, that being (I) which coincides with its nature (You)
* zero-Division
2021 gegužės 26 d., 11:13
atliko -
Ištrintos 98-104 eilutės:
===Discussion===
{{HelmutLeitner}}: Andrius, I'm just learning to understand the GlossaryOfStructure. One way to do so is to experiment with it and to challenge it. Where would "opposing" and "helping" fit in? Helping is taken from MinciusSodas:MapOfDeepestValues. Opposing is from mapping a dialog role modell: move (engaging?) - follow (believing?) - oppose (???) - stand-by (waiting?).
{{Andrius}}: Helmut, I'm not sure. I found an earlier post which I add above. These six arose as the seventh perspectives in the six injections that I note above. Those injections are structurally very complex yet important. I then noted that they seem to relate to six of the ten commandments. And that they might well be the representations of anything that are united by willing. Perhaps you might write more about your dialogue role model. Also, perhaps suffering is related to opposing.
2021 gegužės 26 d., 11:12
atliko -
Pakeistos 5-6 eilutės iš
'''Apmąstyti valios raiškas.'''
į:
'''Kaip valios išraiškos grindžia vienumo pagrindus?'''
Pakeistos 28-29 eilutės iš
į:
Šešios valios išraiškos yra:
Pakeistos 37-39 eilutės iš
They also generate six of the ten commandments, the ones that have us LoveYourNeighborAsYourself, in that we should not hurt others, we should not force them to express their will
į:
Tai atjautose iškylantis septintasis požiūris kuomet vieno lygmens troškimas atjaučia kito lygmens netroškimą. Kitaip tarus, vieno lygmens nulinis požiūris atjaučia kito lygmens septintąjį požiūrį. Tuo pačiu nuliniam požiūriui tenka atjausti ir visus kitus to lygmens požiūrius.
Šešios valios išraiškos grindžia šešis neigiamus Dievo įsakymus mylėti artimą, nekenkti jam, neversti jo pareikšti savo valią. Valia turėtų būti laisva ir savanoriška.
Šešios valios išraiškos grindžia šešis neigiamus Dievo įsakymus mylėti artimą, nekenkti jam, neversti jo pareikšti savo valią. Valia turėtų būti laisva ir savanoriška.
2021 gegužės 26 d., 11:07
atliko -
Pridėtos 13-17 eilutės:
Valios raiškos
* Kuria prasme valios raiškos yra betko atvaizdai?
* Ar valios raiškos grindžia vienumo pagrindus?
Pavyzdžių nagrinėjimas
* Kuria prasme valios raiškos yra betko atvaizdai?
* Ar valios raiškos grindžia vienumo pagrindus?
Pavyzdžių nagrinėjimas
2021 gegužės 26 d., 11:05
atliko -
Pakeistos 1-8 eilutės iš
[[Malda]]
Nagrinėsiu pavyzdžius iš Holokausto Lietuvoje ištakų, kieno buvo kokia valia Bandysiu sulyginti su [[požiūrių sudūrimas | požiūrių algebra]].
Taip pat reikėtų palyginti, kaip duomenų bazių teorijoje išauga kliūtys ir jų sprendimai. Arba panagrinėti TRIZ metodą, kaip tokius uždavinius sprendžia, kaip kliūtys įveikiamos.
Nagrinėsiu pavyzdžius iš Holokausto Lietuvoje ištakų, kieno buvo kokia valia
Taip pat reikėtų palyginti, kaip duomenų bazių teorijoje išauga kliūtys ir jų sprendimai. Arba panagrinėti TRIZ metodą, kaip tokius uždavinius sprendžia
į:
>>bgcolor=#E9F5FC<<
-------------------
[[Malda]], [[Betkas]]
'''Apmąstyti valios raiškas.'''
-------------------
>><<
[++++意志++++]
>>bgcolor=#FFFFC0<<
-----------------------
* Nagrinėti pavyzdžius iš Holokausto Lietuvoje ištakų, kieno buvo kokia valia.
* Sulyginti su [[požiūrių sudūrimas | požiūrių algebra]].
* Palyginti, kaip duomenų bazių teorijoje išauga kliūtys ir jų sprendimai.
* Panagrinėti TRIZ metodą, kaip tokius uždavinius sprendžia, kaip kliūtys įveikiamos.
-------------------
[[Malda]], [[Betkas]]
'''Apmąstyti valios raiškas.'''
-------------------
>><<
[++++意志++++]
>>bgcolor=#FFFFC0<<
-----------------------
* Nagrinėti pavyzdžius iš Holokausto Lietuvoje ištakų, kieno buvo kokia valia.
* Sulyginti su [[požiūrių sudūrimas | požiūrių algebra]].
* Palyginti, kaip duomenų bazių teorijoje išauga kliūtys ir jų sprendimai.
* Panagrinėti TRIZ metodą, kaip tokius uždavinius sprendžia, kaip kliūtys įveikiamos.
Pakeistos 19-20 eilutės iš
į:
>><<
Ištrintos 21-25 eilutės:
See also: {{Will}}, RepresentationsOfAnything
----
2014 lapkričio 20 d., 11:42
atliko -
Pridėtos 1-10 eilutės:
[[Malda]]
Nagrinėsiu pavyzdžius iš Holokausto Lietuvoje ištakų, kieno buvo kokia valia. Bandysiu sulyginti su [[požiūrių sudūrimas | požiūrių algebra]].
Taip pat reikėtų palyginti, kaip duomenų bazių teorijoje išauga kliūtys ir jų sprendimai. Arba panagrinėti TRIZ metodą, kaip tokius uždavinius sprendžia, kaip kliūtys įveikiamos.
---------------
Nagrinėsiu pavyzdžius iš Holokausto Lietuvoje ištakų, kieno buvo kokia valia. Bandysiu sulyginti su [[požiūrių sudūrimas | požiūrių algebra]].
Taip pat reikėtų palyginti, kaip duomenų bazių teorijoje išauga kliūtys ir jų sprendimai. Arba panagrinėti TRIZ metodą, kaip tokius uždavinius sprendžia, kaip kliūtys įveikiamos.
---------------
Pridėta 12 eilutė:
2014 liepos 24 d., 21:35
atliko -
Pakeistos 280-288 eilutės iš
* zero-Division
į:
* zero-Division
---------------
[[Dievas]] yra valingas. Jis palaiko, priima visas galimybes. Užtat jisai išeina už savęs į nevalingumą.
Valingumas susijęs su valia ir su Dievo valia.
Dievo įsakymai susiję su valingumu ir nevalingumu.
---------------
[[Dievas]] yra valingas. Jis palaiko, priima visas galimybes. Užtat jisai išeina už savęs į nevalingumą.
Valingumas susijęs su valia ir su Dievo valia.
Dievo įsakymai susiję su valingumu ir nevalingumu.
2014 birželio 09 d., 23:34
atliko -
Pakeistos 133-134 eilutės iš
'''Norintis'''
į:
'''Sutinkantis'''
Pakeistos 267-280 eilutės iš
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.
į:
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.
'''Sutikimas'''
What is Willingness?
* allowing for the superfluous, adding null Structure
* Willingness is the conditional from the perspective of the unconditional, and Nonwillingness is the conditional from the perspective of the conditional.
* to take up one's Position.
How does Willingness arise as NullActivity?
* zero GoingBeyondOneself
* zero-Divergence, that which is inherent at its own stage
* zero-Distinction, that being (I) which coincides with its nature (You)
* zero-Division
'''Sutikimas'''
What is Willingness?
* allowing for the superfluous, adding null Structure
* Willingness is the conditional from the perspective of the unconditional, and Nonwillingness is the conditional from the perspective of the conditional.
* to take up one's Position.
How does Willingness arise as NullActivity?
* zero GoingBeyondOneself
* zero-Divergence, that which is inherent at its own stage
* zero-Distinction, that being (I) which coincides with its nature (You)
* zero-Division
2014 birželio 09 d., 23:33
atliko -
Pridėtos 132-267 eilutės:
'''Norintis'''
See also: God, Overview, Willingness, NonWilling
===What is Willing?===
Willing is:
* to take up one's Position
* the Conditional from the perspective of the Unconditional
* Spirit
* Activity
* Adding zero structure
* Allowing for the superfluous
-----
AndriusKulikauskas: Recently, I noticed what is common to all the conceptual structures which I have observed the years. Each of them embeds within its system a perspective that stands for what is beyond the system. The more explicit the system, the deeper that perspective is embedded within it.
I have now tried again to understand what all this structure, all this
knowledge unfolds from. I imagine God as prior to all. I imagine his
outlook as the starting point. (Perhaps you don't have use for such a
concept as God, but then please consider whatever you might imagine as a
starting point for all, at least conceptually.) What is it in his nature
that drives him to unfold everything?
I have found it very fruitful to imagine God as "going beyond himself". I
think of him as having nothing to do except to take up the question: Do I
necessarily exist? If I exist, then I exist; but if I did not exist, would I
still exist? Let's see... Presumably the answer is yes, but God's removing
himself, creating the least satisfactory conditions for himself, makes for
lots of work to do. Indeed, such an impulse can derive the many conceptual
structures that I am aware of.
There are many ways to think of God as "going beyond himself":
* The Unbounded goes beyond itself into the Bounded.
* The Indefinite goes beyond itself into the Definite.
* The Unknown goes beyond itself into the Known.
* The Complete goes beyond itself into the Incomplete.
* The Inconsistent goes beyond itself into the Consistent.
* The Unconditional goes beyond itself into the Conditional.
* The Coherent goes beyond itself into the Incoherent.
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 prior to all things, concepts, frameworks, logics, systems, selves.
* God is compelled by his nature to "go beyond himself" and allow for his own nonexistence
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?
God is willing.
This is my conclusion.
God's willing outlook Is the Impulse for all impulses. It can make sense
prior to system because it allows for all systems and all that they might do.
It is open and thus inclusive and cohesive with all that might likewise be
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".
As system unfolds, and truth grows hard, then "willing" is juxtaposed with
"unwilling" and the choice between them becomes stark and clear. It is made
evident, as system grows hard, that not all "willing" is "willing". This is
the basis of the Ten Commandments, the negative ones:
* "murder" = willing one to will "no" without their willing
* "adultery" = willing one to will "yes" without their willing
* "stealing" = willing one to will "not yes" without their willing
* "lying" = willing one to will "not no" without their willing
* "coveting things" = willing one to will "to will" without their willing
* "coveting people" = willing one to will "to not will" without their willing
And also, I think, the positive ones.
God's willing nature appears in all kinds of structure:
* It accords with the observation that God's structure is "everything", that structure's representations are given by "wishes", and their unity is "love".
* It is at the core of the primary structures, for example, as the counterquestion "What do I truly want?" or as the emotional response of peace (no expectations, wishing for anything)
* It is embedded variously in the secondary structures as "wisdom", "good will", "God's will"
* It suggests the awfulness of apathy
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:
* Willing Perspective, as God's perspective, beyond system
* NotUnwilling Perspective, as my perspective, not within system, manifest by the Omniscope
* NotWilling Perspective, as your perspective, not beyond system, manifest by the Primary Structures
* Unwilling Perspective, as other's perspective, within system, manifest by the Secondary Structures.
This suggests that the nature of perspective is to harden our options as
system grows more manifest.
===God is Willing===
God is Willing as in allowing for all possibilities as in the spark of "let there be..." or the whispering Yes or the thunder of Amen ("so may it be"). This Is the Impulse for all impulses. It can make sense prior to system because it allows for all systems and all that they might do. It is open and thus inclusive and cohesive with all that might likewise be willing. It compels itself "willingly" to go beyond itself into the nonwilling and to explore if it might arise among them. It "applies itself fully".
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.
2014 birželio 09 d., 23:31
atliko -
Pridėtos 103-131 eilutės:
'''Strengthening the will'''
{{Andrius}} [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/328 July 1, 2003]
I thought: the will is strengthened by circumscribing its {{Scope}}. It
is the same will, but more intense, because it is now within bounds.
If a human is willing to bound his "non-wishing", then God is willing
to bound his {{Wishing}}. We {{Love}} somebody by being willing to accept
them on their own terms, that is, within the scope they choose. Life
will find a way to enter in its fullness in even the smallest scope.
As a person grows stronger in will, they can likewise expand their
scope, reach out and be sensitive and responsive to more of life.
{{Andrius}} [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/329 July 2, 2003]
Willing is choosing to wish.
So to strengthen the will is to make more evident that we are
choosing, and this is done by highlighting the representations of
everything as giving the scopes (anything, something, nothing) of our
wishing, and likewise the scopes (everything, anything, something) of
our not-wishing. Clarifying the scopes of wishing and not-wishing as
to what they happen to be, makes evident that they are different (for
us to choose, our wishing must have a scope that is narrower than our
not-wishing), and this clarity is what strengthens our will. In this
sense, the more definite the scopes, the stronger our will.
Especially in that the scopes give our perspective with regard to what
we know.
2014 birželio 06 d., 11:34
atliko -
Pridėtos 99-102 eilutės:
* not allowing for the superfluous, removing null Activity
* To be nonwilling is to have a Position.
* the Conditional from the perspective of the Conditional.
2014 birželio 06 d., 11:34
atliko -
Pridėtos 97-98 eilutės:
* To be nonwilling is to have a Position.
2014 birželio 06 d., 11:33
atliko -
Pridėtos 84-96 eilutės:
'''Nevalingumas'''
NonWilling is:
*
*System
*Structure
*keeps getting reinterpreted as Activity
*removing zero activity
*taking away the superfluous
*the Conditional from the perspective of the Conditional
2014 gegužės 19 d., 16:27
atliko -
Pridėtos 1-83 eilutės:
'''Valios išraiškos'''
See also: {{Will}}, RepresentationsOfAnything
----
The expressions of the will are:
* engaging
* waiting
* believing
* relying
* loving
* suffering
They appear as the SeventhPerspective when one PrimaryStructure is injected in another, yielding a SecondaryStructure.
They also generate six of the ten commandments, the ones that have us LoveYourNeighborAsYourself, in that we should not hurt others, we should not force them to express their will.
----
'''I choose rather than we should'''
I want to apply knowledge to remake our world, and engage it rather than just rise above it. I look for inspiration to Christ's Sermon on the Mount where I think he distinguishes between the logic of "I choose" and "we should".
I have been working all my life to "know everything and apply that usefully". These last twenty years I have noted structures that help express such knowledge in practical form.
Lately, I have made some progress in figuring how it all fits together. I have been working in Lithuanian at http://ms.memes.net where I have posted some diagrams.
Some of the structures come from sorting through real life data regarding some question that I'm pursuing. Then other structures observing how various structures relate and fit together. I get excited when a new structure introduces new ideas with useful implications for real life.
Recently, while working on the big picture, I came upon six different ways of expressing our will: getting engrossed, being uptight, believing, relying, loving and suffering. I then observed that they related to six of the ten commandments.
* Killing = forcing to suffer.
* Adultery = forcing to love.
* Stealing = forcing to rely on.
* Lying = forcing to believe.
* Coveting people = forcing to be uptight.
* Coveting things = forcing to get engrossed.
We're commanded not to do such things. It suggests an interesting idea: suffering, etc. may all be good, as an expression of the will. But we should not force people to express their will!
In the system that I'm working out, these ways of expressing the will should play a central role. I was writing up how all of these structures unfolded, but then I noticed that I was making use of one of the very structures that I was going to describe, which I call "the divisions of everything". That's not so bad, but it made me wonder, is this a special property of this particular structure, its role in defining things, and what do all the other structures offer?
So I started thinking about the point of it all, what good does all of this knowledge serve? There are 4 structures that do have direct value, they allow us to:
* not be ruled by our needs, but know how to respond to them, get around them, or simply not have them.
* address all of our doubts, be able to find our bearings no matter how questionable our experience, and exercise perfect intelligence by asking counterquestions.
* understand our expectations, our emotional responses, and how to respond to them, and live in suspense, or be at peace.
* hear God in our life's trials, choose his will over ours when we're connected with him, and live by our own principles when we're not.
I value such knowledge. I find it useful. But it is knowledge that elevates our thinking so that we can live above this world. So it doesn't really connect much with any attachment we have to this world. It frees the spirit, but not the soul.
I think the point of life is to do things in this world, to inject our spirit here and remake this world we have entered into. It's very good that we can rise above this world, but the point is to engage it.
So I thought about Christ, who I choose to follow. What attracts me most about Christ is that he says how to directly take on the issues of this world. "Love God", "Love your neighbor as yourself", and in his Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5) he punches out a platform of very practical ways to engage this life. I don't see much conscious effort by people to apply this, but we could do it. This is a kind of knowledge that I think is useful in this world, and engages it, and remakes it.
He makes six statements that are known as "antitheses" because he says, "You have heard it said... but I tell you..." For example, you have heard "an eye for an eye" but Jesus says "turn the other cheek". A couple of years ago, I tried to figure out his logic for these statements. In this one, I think he's saying that rather than account (an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth), we should satisfy (turning the cheek, walking the extra mile, giving away our coat).
I went back over these logics, and I think they relate to the ways we express our will. In the case above, relying on others is a way of expressing our will, and there is something holy about that. Yet stealing is wrong to the extent that it forces us to rely on others. There is also something useless about prescribing that we rely on others, something futile about insisting that we should. That is what accounting is all about: you should rely on others as to what belongs to you, and what does not. Instead, he seems to say, why don't just satisfy them? Just give everything away, and choose to rely on others.
In each case, I think it says that instead of prescribing us to express our will, we should rather simply choose to express our will. For example, we can express our will by believing. Lying forces people to believe. Convincing tells them they should believe. Instead, why not just choose to believe: take a stand.
This is important to me here because it suggests ways that knowledge can be used practically to remake this world.
* be unconditional, rather than consistent
* save, rather than blame
* take a stand, rather than convince
* satisfy, rather than account
* be one with, rather than accomodate
* be at peace with, rather than condemn
I wrote about my interest to integrate raw initiative and to create a system to fit together our work so that we could support and encourage each other effortlessly.
I want such a system to be based on our choice to express our own will, rather than what we think people should do. I find it very hard to eliminate "should" from my thinking!
----
===Discussion===
{{HelmutLeitner}}: Andrius, I'm just learning to understand the GlossaryOfStructure. One way to do so is to experiment with it and to challenge it. Where would "opposing" and "helping" fit in? Helping is taken from MinciusSodas:MapOfDeepestValues. Opposing is from mapping a dialog role modell: move (engaging?) - follow (believing?) - oppose (???) - stand-by (waiting?).
{{Andrius}}: Helmut, I'm not sure. I found an earlier post which I add above. These six arose as the seventh perspectives in the six injections that I note above. Those injections are structurally very complex yet important. I then noted that they seem to relate to six of the ten commandments. And that they might well be the representations of anything that are united by willing. Perhaps you might write more about your dialogue role model. Also, perhaps suffering is related to opposing.
See also: {{Will}}, RepresentationsOfAnything
----
The expressions of the will are:
* engaging
* waiting
* believing
* relying
* loving
* suffering
They appear as the SeventhPerspective when one PrimaryStructure is injected in another, yielding a SecondaryStructure.
They also generate six of the ten commandments, the ones that have us LoveYourNeighborAsYourself, in that we should not hurt others, we should not force them to express their will.
----
'''I choose rather than we should'''
I want to apply knowledge to remake our world, and engage it rather than just rise above it. I look for inspiration to Christ's Sermon on the Mount where I think he distinguishes between the logic of "I choose" and "we should".
I have been working all my life to "know everything and apply that usefully". These last twenty years I have noted structures that help express such knowledge in practical form.
Lately, I have made some progress in figuring how it all fits together. I have been working in Lithuanian at http://ms.memes.net where I have posted some diagrams.
Some of the structures come from sorting through real life data regarding some question that I'm pursuing. Then other structures observing how various structures relate and fit together. I get excited when a new structure introduces new ideas with useful implications for real life.
Recently, while working on the big picture, I came upon six different ways of expressing our will: getting engrossed, being uptight, believing, relying, loving and suffering. I then observed that they related to six of the ten commandments.
* Killing = forcing to suffer.
* Adultery = forcing to love.
* Stealing = forcing to rely on.
* Lying = forcing to believe.
* Coveting people = forcing to be uptight.
* Coveting things = forcing to get engrossed.
We're commanded not to do such things. It suggests an interesting idea: suffering, etc. may all be good, as an expression of the will. But we should not force people to express their will!
In the system that I'm working out, these ways of expressing the will should play a central role. I was writing up how all of these structures unfolded, but then I noticed that I was making use of one of the very structures that I was going to describe, which I call "the divisions of everything". That's not so bad, but it made me wonder, is this a special property of this particular structure, its role in defining things, and what do all the other structures offer?
So I started thinking about the point of it all, what good does all of this knowledge serve? There are 4 structures that do have direct value, they allow us to:
* not be ruled by our needs, but know how to respond to them, get around them, or simply not have them.
* address all of our doubts, be able to find our bearings no matter how questionable our experience, and exercise perfect intelligence by asking counterquestions.
* understand our expectations, our emotional responses, and how to respond to them, and live in suspense, or be at peace.
* hear God in our life's trials, choose his will over ours when we're connected with him, and live by our own principles when we're not.
I value such knowledge. I find it useful. But it is knowledge that elevates our thinking so that we can live above this world. So it doesn't really connect much with any attachment we have to this world. It frees the spirit, but not the soul.
I think the point of life is to do things in this world, to inject our spirit here and remake this world we have entered into. It's very good that we can rise above this world, but the point is to engage it.
So I thought about Christ, who I choose to follow. What attracts me most about Christ is that he says how to directly take on the issues of this world. "Love God", "Love your neighbor as yourself", and in his Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5) he punches out a platform of very practical ways to engage this life. I don't see much conscious effort by people to apply this, but we could do it. This is a kind of knowledge that I think is useful in this world, and engages it, and remakes it.
He makes six statements that are known as "antitheses" because he says, "You have heard it said... but I tell you..." For example, you have heard "an eye for an eye" but Jesus says "turn the other cheek". A couple of years ago, I tried to figure out his logic for these statements. In this one, I think he's saying that rather than account (an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth), we should satisfy (turning the cheek, walking the extra mile, giving away our coat).
I went back over these logics, and I think they relate to the ways we express our will. In the case above, relying on others is a way of expressing our will, and there is something holy about that. Yet stealing is wrong to the extent that it forces us to rely on others. There is also something useless about prescribing that we rely on others, something futile about insisting that we should. That is what accounting is all about: you should rely on others as to what belongs to you, and what does not. Instead, he seems to say, why don't just satisfy them? Just give everything away, and choose to rely on others.
In each case, I think it says that instead of prescribing us to express our will, we should rather simply choose to express our will. For example, we can express our will by believing. Lying forces people to believe. Convincing tells them they should believe. Instead, why not just choose to believe: take a stand.
This is important to me here because it suggests ways that knowledge can be used practically to remake this world.
* be unconditional, rather than consistent
* save, rather than blame
* take a stand, rather than convince
* satisfy, rather than account
* be one with, rather than accomodate
* be at peace with, rather than condemn
I wrote about my interest to integrate raw initiative and to create a system to fit together our work so that we could support and encourage each other effortlessly.
I want such a system to be based on our choice to express our own will, rather than what we think people should do. I find it very hard to eliminate "should" from my thinking!
----
===Discussion===
{{HelmutLeitner}}: Andrius, I'm just learning to understand the GlossaryOfStructure. One way to do so is to experiment with it and to challenge it. Where would "opposing" and "helping" fit in? Helping is taken from MinciusSodas:MapOfDeepestValues. Opposing is from mapping a dialog role modell: move (engaging?) - follow (believing?) - oppose (???) - stand-by (waiting?).
{{Andrius}}: Helmut, I'm not sure. I found an earlier post which I add above. These six arose as the seventh perspectives in the six injections that I note above. Those injections are structurally very complex yet important. I then noted that they seem to relate to six of the ten commandments. And that they might well be the representations of anything that are united by willing. Perhaps you might write more about your dialogue role model. Also, perhaps suffering is related to opposing.
Valia
Naujausi pakeitimai
网站
Įvadas #E9F5FC
Klausimai #FFFFC0
Teiginiai #FFFFFF
Kitų mintys #EFCFE1
Dievas man #FFECC0
Iš ankščiau #CCFFCC
Mieli skaitytojai, visa mano kūryba ir kartu visi šie puslapiai yra visuomenės turtas, kuriuo visi kviečiami laisvai naudotis, dalintis, visaip perkurti. - Andrius