Knyga

Dievo šokis

Dorovės tyrimas

Išsiaiškinimai

Malda

Andrius

Užrašai

Mokykla

Juodraštis? FFFFFF

Užrašai EEEEEE

Klausimai FFFFC0

Gvildenimai CAE7FA

Pavyzdžiai? ECD9EC

Šaltiniai? EFCFE1

Duomenys? FFE6E6

Išsiaiškinimai D8F1D8

Pratimai? FF9999

Dievas man? FFECC0

Pavaizdavimai? E6E6FF

Istorija AAAAAA


Asmeniškai? BA9696

Mieli dalyviai! Visa mano kūryba ir kartu visi šie puslapiai yra visuomenės turtas, kuriuo visi kviečiami laisvai naudotis, dalintis, visaip perkurti. - Andrius

Įranga

redaguoti

Žr. Ir Vienas, Ir Du, Ir Trys, Meilė. Taip pat: SharedUnderstanding, Heart, ConstructiveHypotheses, Activity, Factors, Beginning, EternalLife, LevelsOfUnderstanding.

Trys veiksmai +1, +2, +3 mūsų protus veda iš vieno padalinimo į kitą. Yra aštuoni padalinimai, tad iš viso 24 lygtys. Šios lygtys išsako visaregį.

They take us from one state of mind (given by one division) to another state of mind (given by another division). And they express the second state of mind in terms of an increased awareness over the first state of mind.

Sąmoningumą išreiškia veiksmas +3.

Veiksmai, pavyzdžiui, 2+3=5 reiškia, kad trejybė slypėjo jau dvejybėje, tad tą trejybę galima padalinti dvejybe. Tik pasikeitė kampas. O tas kampas irgi jau glūdėjo, padalintas, padalinime, ir tik iškilo. Taip kad pasidalinimas persitvarkė. Tad tai prilygintina persitvarkymams.

Trejybės sunaikinimai, kuriais atsiranda žmonės, tiesos (žodžiai), pasauliai (nuotaikos, savybės) irgi išreiškia, kaip sandaros slypi padalinimuose.

Įsivaizduoju, blogą vaiką ir gerą vaiką perpina veiksmas +2.

Veiksmas +2, tai kaip metų laikai, jų ratas: Dievas žiema, būtis pavasaris, žinojimas vasara, nežinojimas ruduo.

Žiūrėjimas atgal (į Dievą) ir pirmyn (su Dievu)

I was interested in relating these to TheBeginning and TheEnd, looking forwards and backwards.

  • +1 adds a new end 0+1=1, 1+1=2, 2+1=3, 3+1=4, 4+1=5, 5+1=6, 6+1=7, 7+1=0.
  • +2 looks back at oneself (by way of the end) 0+2=2, 1+2=3, 2+2=4, 3+2=5, 4+2=6, 5+2=7, 6+2=0, 7+2=1.
  • +3 introduces the 8 cycle of divisions, it is a cyclic operation 0+3=3, 1+3=4, 2+3=5, 3+3=6, 4+3=7, 5+3=0, 6+3=1, 7+3=2.

These are perhaps fundamental to SharedUnderstanding. They may be the entities that are factored 2 x 3 x 4. The factoring may have us think of them in pieces. Each piece is a mapping from the onesome (as a whole) to the onesome (as a perspective). Perhaps the ambiguities are as follows:

  • We have a twofold ambiguity (and {{Topologies}}) if we presume there is a direction, but we don't know which it is, either {{Forwards}} or {{Backwards}}, from which we are interpreting the operation (either from the initial division ({{Beginning}}) reaching out, or from the final division ({{End}}) going back to the roots). This ambiguity is given by the equation [OneAddOne 1+1=2]. This is the outlook of the end, looking backwards in terms of two representations of the division to which it is returning, namely, beginning and end. This is the ambiguity between God and human when it is not clear who is the originator for a shift in perspective - God or human?
  • We have a threefold ambiguity (and {{Divisions}}) if we presume there is an operation, a relationship between {{Beginning}} and {{End}}, but we don't know what it is, either [AddOne +1], [AddTwo +2] or [AddThree +3]. This ambiguity is given by the equation [OneAddTwo 1+2=3]. This is the outlook of the relationship between beginning and end.
  • We have a fourfold ambiguity (and {{Representations}}) if we presume that each division has its own state, but we don't know what it is, yielding: (beginning or end) to (beginning or end). These are four LevelsOfUnderstanding. This ambiguity is given by the equation [OneAddThree 1+3=4]. This is the outlook of the beginning, looking forwards in terms of four representations of the division which it is reaching out from, constructively presuming that relationship.

I think that these presumptions are the ConstructiveHypotheses. The {{Factoring}} then makes sense as a split of determiniteness and ambiguity as part of such a presumption and the engagement of an other. I should also think of them in terms of the {{heart}} and the inversion effect.

Apparently, we should attribute the forwards direction when operations act on divisions with four representations: {{Nullsome}}, {{Onesome}}, {{Twosome}}, {{Threesome}}. And we should attribute the backwards direction when operations act on divisions with two representations: {{Foursome}}, {{Fivesome}}, {{Sixsome}}, {{Sevensome}}. And these presumably also list out the levels of understanding. But I should look into this when I know more.

Dievui yra tik vienybė vietoj nulybės, tad jis neapeina ratu. Dievui vienybė yra klausimas, ar Dievas yra būtinas? Dievas septynerybe nebūtinas, jisai ilsisi.


Veiksmai

The operations are what move us from one {{Division}} of everything to another. They are defined in terms of their impact on the {{Nullsome}}. They subsequently work cyclically, adding 1, 2, 3 or 0 perspectives:

  • [AddOne +1] adds {{Perspective}} - one perspective - GodsView - yielding {{Structure}} and {{Understanding}}
  • [AddTwo +2] adds ShiftInPerspective - two perspectives - first humansView, then GodsView of that - yielding {{Activity}} and {{Self-understanding}}
  • [AddThree +3] adds {{Slack}} - three perspectives - first GodView, then humansView of that, then GodsView of that - yielding {{Interplay}}, RecurringActivity and SharedUnderstanding
  • [AddNone +0] adds no perspectives - (adding four perspectives is perhaps equivalent to adding no perspectives) - yielding RecurringStructure and GoodUnderstanding

The operations acts on divisions, yielding {{Equations}}. The operation acts on the {{Beginning}}, the original wholeness of the division. It places this wholeness within the structure of a mapping X->Y where the wholeness is identified with one of the three parts of the mapping: X, Y or ->. It helps to think of the wholeness as the {{Nullsome}}, but generally, it might be a perspective in the {{Onesome}} or any {{Division}}.

  • For +1, the wholeness is the perspective in the {{Division}} that is the unity of all the others. It is the X. It is the original unity X that is interpreted as a perspective equal to the others and, through such interpretation ->, opens up a new unity Y of that equality.
  • For +2, this same wholeness is understood as ->, a shift in activity. It is the structure evoked by the arisal of activity, that activity - equal interpretation - which gave rise to that structure, that new unity. This is a move from X = equal interpretation of the same (whence there is no activity, nothing to interpret!) to Y = equal interpretation of the different (whence there is activity).
  • For +3, this same wholeness is understood as Y. What does that mean? It should be what is understood, what is common to understands and understanding.

Older idea: For +2, the wholeness is associated with the final shift in perspective (that leads to the comprehensive perspective). This final shift is reinterpreted as a perspective (the {{End}}) that is defined with regard to an external ground (the {{Beginning}}). For +3, the wholeness should be given by what these two share.

An operation (and its {{Activity}}) is characterized by the number of tracks along which it goes around the {{Threesome}}. For example, going beyond oneself goes around once. Engaging goes around twice - the quality goes around - and so does that which has the quality.

Each operation is EternalLife - return to the {{Beginning}} - but through a given number of steps:

  • [AddOne +1] goes ever to the {{Beginning}}
  • [AddTwo +2] goes to the {{End}} and then to the {{Beginning}}
  • [AddThree +3] goes to the {{End}}, the {{Middle}} and the {{Beginning}}
  • [AddNull +0] makes for the {{Beginning}}

I think that the operations express God's relationships:

  • the operation +1 expresses his relationship with himself
  • the operation +2 expresses his relationship with the heart
  • the operation +3 expresses his relationship within the HolyTrinity

and in each case this is based on GoingBeyondOneself

Apžvalga veiksmais

===Operational summary - Conceiving God - {{Wishes}}===

We can derive all the structures by considering how we conceive God. We conceive God as a structure: {{Everything}}, {{Anything}}, {{Something}} or {{Nothing}}. Yet again, the structure of God is everything, and so we relate two structures. In doing so, we consider what everything wishes for:

  • God as {{Everything}} = EverythingWishesForNothing = self-sufficient
  • God as {{Anything}} = EverythingWishesForSomething = certain
  • God as {{Something}} = EverythingWishesForAnything = calm
  • God as {{Nothing}} = EverythingWishesForEverything = loving

We circumscribe God, and express our circumscription as an imbalance that everything wishes to address. This opens up frameworks that express our situation, in that it allows for us as those who do not wish for.

In this way, we may also consider God, through everything, as reaching out ever further. We may think of this outreach as operations which take us from everything back to everything. Wishing allows us to consider God both as wisher and what he wishes for, so that we can be both together with God and separate from him, and thus can relate with him. We identify {{God}} as the one who wishes, and thus progressively with {{Everything}}, {{Anything}}, {{Something}} and {{Nothing}}. Respectively, we have him wish for nothing, something, anything and everything. This reflects the growth in our conception of God. We relate:

  • Operation +0? {{Everything}} Everything is the anchor concept by which we can work with absolutes. Think about: EverythingWishesForNothing. Consider the role of truth
  • Operation +1? {{Everything}} and {{Anything}} God ever goes beyond himself, yielding the {{Divisions}} of everything. The first three make for completeness, yet the operation continues. The division of everything is the relationship between everything and anything, the whole perspective and the partial perspective. Think about: EverythingWishesForSomething and {{Understanding}}. Consider the role of required concept
  • Operation +2? {{Everything}} and {{Something}}, {{Anything}} and {{Something}}. God allows for an outlook different than his own. Understand, coming to understand, understood is extended and reinterpreted as Understanding, coming to understand, not understanding, not coming to understand. The operation +2 says that structure channels activity, and activity evokes structure. This means that we have structure arise from nonstructure (digital), and activity arise from nonactivity (analogue). Now we have two outlooks, we can step in and step out. We have {{Representations}} (relating something and everything - a view on the whole) and {{Topologies}} (relating something and anything - a view to the part). Compare with Christopher Alexander's PrinciplesOfLife, try to consider them as relating anything and something. Think about: EverythingWishesForAnything and self-understanding?. Consider the role of same and different
  • Operation +3? {{Something}} and {{Nothing}}, {{Anything}} and {{Nothing}}, {{Everything}} and {{Nothing}}. Now we have the three-cycle and so can consider slack. The three {{Languages}} ({{Argumentation}}, {{Verbalization}}, {{Narration}}) arise as relationships with nothing (by something, anything and everything). How does factoring come into play? We then reintepret this all in terms of PrimaryStructures and injections. Identify evertyhing with nothing yields the InversionEffect. Think about: EverythingWishesForEverything and SharedUnderstanding and GoodUnderstanding. Consider the role of necessary, actual and possible

An Idea to Rethink

The following idea that understanding is a base level does not make sense because it is the operation +1 that generates the divisions that participate in understanding, +2 for self-understanding and +3 for shared understanding. Perhaps the base level is good understanding. This would then also organize the levels more sensibly, so that the base level would have operation +0 and the nullsome.

I think that they describe the level of awareness in understanding. They relate different LevelsOfUnderstanding with regard to the base level of Understanding.

  • +0 from Understanding}} to Understanding
  • +1 from Understanding}} to Self-understanding
  • +2 from Understanding}} to SharedUnderstanding
  • +3 from Understanding}} to GoodUnderstanding

In this sense, understanding is the experience of a division of everything, and this experience may be at any of four levels of awareness, from fully unconscious to fully conscious. In this sense, each of the Factors is a map from Understanding as a whole, a base level, to Understanding as any perspective within a new whole, within a higher level of understanding.

Sąmoningumas

Sąmoningumas labai akivaizdus kai atitokiame nuo įsijautimo. Jisai yra atitokimo ir įsijautimo derinys. Tuo tarpu sąmoningumo nesijaučiame įsijungdami. Sąmoningumą jaučiame atsiplėšdami.

Lygtys

0+1=1

God goes beyond himself, out of the unbounded and into the bounded, thus generating {{Everything}}.

Everything has no bounds, and yet serves as its own bounds, whereas God is unbounded, and ever goes beyond his own bounds.

1+1=2

{{God}} is of himself. What is there for God do?

God may be, or not be, that is all the same to him, and presents no challenge. I imagine for God only one challenge. Yes, God may be, but is he necessarily? In other words, if God were not, would he still be?

The answer is presumably that God would still be. God is absolutely necessary. But the challenge is quite huge. It involves God creating a world that is least favorable to him. And then demonstrating what happens. There is a lot to do!

This is just as in a mathematical proof by contradiction. We suppose that X does not exist, and then show, as a consequence, that X does exist. On the other hand, if X exists, then we also have that X exists. So, in any case, X exists.

In this way, there arise two tracks, working in parallel. There is one track where it is assumed that God exists. We may think of this as defining the spiritual world. There is another track where it is supposed that God does not exist, but then God may appear even so. We may think of this as describing our physical world. Our physical world is designed, if at all, as a place where the Creator is not at the forefront, but rather has made room for everything else. Just like a master artist, his own presence in his work is not given, not obvious. Yet, more and more, he will be seen in his work, and engaged through it, until he is manifest and tangible in his existence.

So, first he goes beyond himself - opposites coexist. Then it becomes clear that he was always - all is the same.

God goes beyond himself. He ventures from his existence into his nonexistence. He is unbounded, and so he ventures into the bounded. This is to say, he enters structure. God is spirit, and good is spirit in structure. But, more generally, beyond God, and within structure, is the other. The other may or may not be good. The other may or may not be spirit.

Many people ponder, how can there be God, if there is so much bad? But God wants all the good. He therefore wants the good that is of itself, but also he wants all the good that comes with the bad. He wants all of it. This is to say, with anything bad that ever happens, there is always at least the slightest bit of good that it comes with, which is why I imagine God allows for it.

Will God arise in the physical world, in the world of structure? This is only if the other realizes that there is more than just structure, there is more than just good, there is more than just everything. The other must return the world to God by recognizing that God is from beyond the world, beyond good, beyond everything.

Activity is one's relationship with oneself. One's self is one's empathy for others. God goes beyond himself to others, and has empathy for them.


God is alone. So God takes up the question, "Am I necessary?" There is the question and the answer, and there are four considerations: God necessarily IS. God necessarily IS NOT. It is NOT the case that God necessarily is. It is NOT the case that God necessarily is not. They occur in parallel. Together with the question and the answer, they are the six representations of life. So that Life is the matter of Is God necessary? Consider the coherence of this question. This depends on the Unity of the six representations. Do they have a unity?

The human is the bystander who is given this to live, experience and ponder. We likewise take up the question, "Am I necessary?", alongside God, by sharing the perspective of everything.


RaimundasVaitkevicius: Is God mortal?

If God is almighty than He could create such a world that could exist without Him. Then He could destroy Himself (because He is almighty). If yes, how can we be sure that He hadn't done this?

What's wrong in this reasoning?

{{Andrius}}: I think there is nothing wrong with this reasoning. I think it is in fact the truth.

This is the natural challenge for an almighty God. Not merely to be, but to be necessarily. This means that God would exist even if he were not to exist.

I think the physical world is like this. It appears like an arena that was created without a God. But I imagine that ultimately God emerges from this. It is like a chess game where the total victory becomes more and more certain as the many variations report their outcomes.

God is prior to logic. He can pursue multiple lines simultaneously. So we also imagine there is a spiritual world where God always is. But the interesting developments I think are in the physical world.

God is closely related to everything. I think all things are true of everything. It is alive. It is dead. It is mortal. It is immortal. There is no internal structure to constrain it. I think that with God there are things that we can say are true and not, for God is not exactly everything, but the unity of the representations of everything, which can be taken as the coherence of everything. In this sense, I think the ultimate truth of this coherence is that God is alive.


See also the story Puss in Boots where the cat tricks the dragon to turn into a mouse because it can.

1+3=4

recurring is the activity of something. It is defined by the equation 1+3=4. Here the whole is identified with a level that gives its separation from (and relationship with) a groundless perspective (and thereby gives a scope, a projection). That groundless perspective may be thought of as a godlet, a human that has found itself within the structure, but without any grounds. For this groundless perspective, the whole may be located at various levels (projections). The whole is originally the grounded situation (why) which is separated from a groundless perspective by everything. Another is the grounded perspective (how) (that looks onto the grounded situation) and is separated from a groundless perspective by anything. Another (what) is given by a groundless situation (which recurs!) which the grounded perspective may look upon (in coincidence with the grounded situation), and that situation is separated from a groundless perspective by something, that is, by what that perspective sees in that situation. A final perspective (whether) is given by the groundless perspective itself (the recurrence) which is separated from itself by nothing. This is the basis for redundancy and slack.

1+2=3

engaging is the activity of anything. It is defined by the equation 1+2=3?. Here, one perspective is given by understanding the original wholeness (thus taking a stand). Then another perspective comes from considering the whole as the ability to take up a new perspective, immerse oneself in it, identify with it (a specific perspective)(thus engaging!)(and following through). And a third perspective comes from accepting completely that new perspective (as a scope), but now disengaging from it, reflecting on it (as a general situation which others might take up), and again extending the meaning of that whole. In general, this adds two perspectives (upon the wholeness) alongside the existing ones in a division of everything. In this way, the original wholeness is engaged. This is the basis for activity, identification with situations for perspectives.

Laiškas Christopher Langan

Dear Chris,

I'm finding your thinking very relevant to my own life work. I've started going through your introduction which I'm finding to be a good place to start.

When I was a child, I set out on a quest to "know everything and apply that usefully". As I entered college, I realized that what little I knew about quantum physics was that "reality fades away". So I looked instead in the places where the knowledge might be most easily placed within my reach, and also that people most avoid looking, which is wisdom of human life.

I looked for absolutes and came across "divisions of everything". These can be observed as perspectives that a conversation might break down into. I observed that if we divide everything into two perspectives, then one will be "opposites coexist" (as in free will) and the other "all things are the same" (as with fate). We may divide everything into three perspectives: "take a stand, follow through, and reflect". Or into four perspectives: "why, how, what, whether".

I noticed that "everything" served as an absolute anchor, and that it had four properties:

  • no external context (if you put it in a box, it includes the box)
  • no internal structure (hence nothing for meaning to cling to, so that all statements are trivially true, as in "everything is hot, cold, etc.")
  • the simplest algorithm (accepts all things)
  • a required concept (we all have it, and there is no analogue in the physical world, so we could not have learned it).So this is very much like your SetOfAllSets. One difference is that I also identify this with the state of contradiction in which all things are true.

I tried to imagine what it's like for a God who is all alone, self-contained. The only thing that I can imagine for such a God to do is to divide himself into perspectives. For example, he can create one perspective ("everything") by going beyond himself, out of the unbounded and into the (self-)bounded. For such a God, "exist" and "not exist" mean the same thing at this point. What's interesting for such a God is whether he necessarily exists? which is to say, exists even when he doesn't exist? So this makes for two perspectives (as in a proof by contradiction): one where God exists, hence he exists (as assumed in the spiritual world), and another where God does not exist, yet ultimately does exist (which describes the situation of the physical world). Yet are these two Gods the same? Well, there is one God who "understands" (the Father), and another "who figures it out" (the Son), so what makes them the same is the God who is "understood" (the Spirit) which they both share. So this yields the threesome, as God thinks it. It is a self-standing structure (God's "self"); but what if something found itself in that structure; what would that mean? This gives rise to a "godlet" (like us) which is separated from that self by nothing, whereas the others were separated from that self by everything, anything, or something. This yields the foursome, and this operation +1 (adding one perspective) gives rise to more divisions of everything: http://www.openleader.com/index.php/GlossaryOfStructure/AddOne (Note: this is quite the story of Genesis if we think of divisions as events or "days"). Finally, we come to the eightsome, which is the sevensome (the logical square: all are good, all are bad, not all are bad, not all are good, all are good and not all are bad, all are bad and not all are good, not all are bad and not all are good): http://www.openleader.com/index.php/GlossaryOfStructure/Sevensome but adding an eighth perspective "all are good and all are bad" which means that the system is empty, and so it all collapses into the nullsome. I think this operation +1 is for the "self-defining" that you write about.

We don't actually conceive these divisions directly, but instead, we approach them by means of representations (for example, the twosome has four:)

  • free will and fate
  • outside and inside
  • theory and practice
  • same and different

The fivesome has two representations: time and space. There are six representations in all by which we look on the whole: observer, observed, and access (through an observational plane) to nothing, something, anything, everything. There are also twelve topologies, which are the backdrops for the imagination, what Kant would call categories. They allow us to isolate a part of a division. They are generated by mind games, such as: "search for constancy; either you find

  • one* example of it, or it is *all* constantly unconstant, and in order

to search, you needed to assume that what you choose to inspect and what you have inspected are one and the same, so it is *multiply* constant".

I'm currently working on deriving the representations and the topologies in terms of an operation +2: http://www.openleader.com/index.php/GlossaryOfStructure/AddTwo and I've benefited a lot from Christopher Alexander's observations that "(recurring) activity evokes structure, and structure channels activity". I think the operation +2 is for what you call "self-inclusion" and I will benefit from understanding your ideas.

Finally, I think there is an operation +3 which is the shift in mental state that we call "consciousness". For example, the twosome is what is needed for the issue of "existence" (we need to be able to ask the question, Does the chair exist? (opposites coexist), but also be able to settle it with an answer (if it does, it does; if it doesn't, it doesn't; but it's settled). When we are "conscious" of this issue, the our state of mind is given by three additional perspectives, which is to say, the fivesome (for decisionmaking - space or time). I think this particular equation 2 +3 = 5 is what Kant intended by his Transcendental Deduction. And it's cyclic, so that 7 +3 = 2. I will be working on the details of this operation. I think that it should relate to your state-transition syntax, and presumably, the three elements for resolving the set-of-all-sets paradox. I expect that this operation +3 will generated three dynamic "languages" (argumentation - how do things come to matter? verbalization - how do things come to mean? narration - how do things happen?) and I have good empirical bases to work with. Underlying the languages is an "inversion effect" (like 1/1-x) whereby, in order to imagine "a God who loves us more than we love ourselves", we need to turn everything around, so that God is the smallest thing (deeper than our hearts can reach) and the unknown is the largest thing which engulfs us. (Your ideas make me consider that such a God may then find himself needing to identify with us so as to undo the inversion and not get stuck; all this to affirm that indeed the knowledge of everything may be dispersed everywhere as you say).

That's an introduction of why I'm very happy to learn of your thinking and your results. I certainly know that they are useful to me. I also know they are for real, not invented, have a warmth towards God and humans and a care for truth.

I will be sorting through your introduction, working on it at my workspace, see Christopher Langan on: http://www.openleader.com/index.php/GlossaryOfStructure/MeaningfulConcepts and I will try to decode and interpret the various terms in your introduction. I will also be working at my lab's working group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/ where I will share my letter.

I have found myself alone as I think you have in pursuing such thoughts. Yet many along the way have helped by allowing me to think out loud. In 1997, I moved to Lithuania and then founded Minciu Sodas, http://www.ms.lt, an open laboratory serving and organizing independent thinkers around the world, primarily through the Internet. I have found that as independent thinkers we have a shared value of "caring about thinking". We find ourselves everywhere on the periphery because the people who are quick to agree end up in the center. So we each develop our own private languages. And yet we are able to agree with each other because our existential situation is the same. We are able to be absolutely inclusive by filtering in all those interested who are able to demonstrate that they can openly "work for free" on their own projects so that all might share their work-in-progress. We currently have 100 active and 1,000 supportive participants. We're working especially on global villages, tools for thinking, open economy, leadership development, loving God, social networking, global inclusion and more.

All of my work is in the Public Domain and my philosophical work is completely free-of-charge for people to use according to their best judgement. I do alert you, though, to our lab's services: http://www.openleader.com/index.php/MinciuSodas/Services http://www.openleader.com/index.php/MinciuSodas/Clients which might be helpful for you or the Mega Foundation. For example, I and my lab could help popularize your work, provide support services to the severely gifted, or explore business opportunities for your think-tank.

More about how my thinking unfolded: http://www.openleader.com/index.php/GlossaryOfStructure/Andrius my current research interests (pulling together all the structures that I'm aware of): http://www.openleader.com/index.php/GlossaryOfStructure/Overview http://www.openleader.com/index.php/GlossaryOfStructure/Omniscope and me: http://www.openleader.com/index.php/Profiles/AndriusKulikauskas The latest news from our lab is at: http://www.ms.lt and more about our lab: http://www.openleader.com/index.php/MinciuSodas/MinciuSodas

A few participants I think you'd want to know about: Anthony Judge http://www.laetusinpraesens.org http://www.uia.org Joseph Goguen http://www.cs.ucsd.edu/goguen/ Sarunas Raudys http://www.science.mii.lt/mii/raudys/

[http://www.ebible.org/bible/web/Rev.htm Revelations 4, 5]

After these things I looked and saw a door opened in heaven, and the first voice that I heard, like a trumpet speaking with me, was one saying, Come up here, and I will show you the things which must happen after this.

Immediately I was in the Spirit. Behold, there was a throne set in heaven, and one sitting on the throne that looked like a jasper stone and a sardius. There was a rainbow around the throne, like an emerald to look at. Around the throne were twenty-four thrones. On the thrones were twenty-four elders sitting, dressed in white garments, with crowns of gold on their heads. Out of the throne proceed lightnings, sounds, and thunders. There were seven lamps of fire burning before his throne, which are the seven Spirits of God. Before the throne was something like a sea of glass, similar to crystal. In the midst of the throne, and around the throne were four living creatures full of eyes before and behind. The first creature was like a lion, and the second creature like a calf, and the third creature had a face like a man, and the fourth was like a flying eagle. The four living creatures, each one of them having six wings, are full of eyes around and within. They have no rest day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God, the Almighty, who was and who is and who is to come!

When the living creatures give glory, honor, and thanks to him who sits on the throne, to him who lives forever and ever, the twenty-four elders fall down before him who sits on the throne, and worship him who lives forever and ever, and throw their crowns before the throne, saying, Worthy are you, our Lord and God, the Holy One, to receive the glory, the honor, and the power, for you created all things, and because of your desire they existed, and were created!

I saw, in the right hand of him who sat on the throne, a book written inside and outside, sealed shut with seven seals. I saw a mighty angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the book, and to break its seals? No one in heaven above, or on the earth, or under the earth, was able to open the book, or to look in it. And I wept much, because no one was found worthy to open the book, or to look in it. One of the elders said to me, Don’t weep. Behold, the Lion who is of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has overcome; he who opens the book and its seven seals. I saw in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the elders, a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, having seven horns, and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God, sent out into all the earth. Then he came, and he took it out of the right hand of him who sat on the throne. Now when he had taken the book, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each one having a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. They sang a new song, saying,

You are worthy to take the book, and to open its seals: for you were killed, and bought us for God with your blood, out of every tribe, language, people, and nation, and made us kings and priests to our God, and we will reign on earth.

I saw, and I heard something like a voice of many angels around the throne, the living creatures, and the elders; and the number of them was ten thousands of ten thousands, and thousands of thousands; saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb who has been killed to receive the power, wealth, wisdom, strength, honor, glory, and blessing!

I heard every created thing which is in heaven, on the earth, under the earth, on the sea, and everything in them, saying, To him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb be the blessing, the honor, the glory, and the dominion, forever and ever! Amen!

The four living creatures said, Amen! The elders fell down and worshiped.

2005.02.23 A: Kaip lygtį (padalinimų) suprasti kaip sandaugą dvejybės, trejybės ir ketverybės? D: Tu suprask širdies vaidmenį, kaip ji bando surasti mane, ir kaip jai tai dalinai pavyksta. A: Tai susiję; su vaisingom prielaidom. D: Taip, pamatysi.

Veiksmai


Naujausi pakeitimai


Puslapis paskutinį kartą pakeistas 2016 gruodžio 31 d., 18:35
Tweet