Iš Gvildenu svetainės

Mintys: Valia

Malda

Nagrinėsiu pavyzdžius iš Holokausto Lietuvoje ištakų, kieno buvo kokia valia. Bandysiu sulyginti su 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.


Valios išraiškos

See also: {{Will}}, RepresentationsOfAnything


The expressions of the will are:

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.

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:

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.

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.

Nevalingumas

NonWilling is:

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.

Sutinkantis

See also: God, Overview, Willingness, NonWilling

===What is Willing?===

Willing is:


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":

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?

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:

And also, I think, the positive ones.

God's willing nature appears in all kinds of structure:

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.

===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.

Sutikimas

What is Willingness?

How does Willingness arise as NullActivity?


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.

Parsiųstas iš http://www.ms.lt/sodas/Mintys/Valia
Puslapis paskutinį kartą pakeistas 2014 lapkričio 20 d., 11:42