Mintys.Veiksmai istorijaPaslėpti nežymius pakeitimus - Rodyti kodo pakeitimus 2023 spalio 14 d., 19:36
atliko -
Pridėtos 765-769 eilutės:
Peirce: Categories Jo trys kategorijos prilygsta trim veiksmam: pasąmonei +1, sąmonei +2, sąmoningumui +3.
2023 rugsėjo 19 d., 10:28
atliko -
Pridėtos 760-764 eilutės:
Ir šio trejybės rato atvaizdai yra suvokimo lygmenys. O apytakos sieja atitinkamus suvokimo lygmenis su trejybės ratu. 2022 sausio 19 d., 20:28
atliko -
Pridėtos 677-685 eilutės:
Veiksmai
Sąmoningumas gyvena Kitu 2022 sausio 04 d., 20:51
atliko -
Ištrintos 16-24 eilutės:
Su kuo susieti Dvasią, Sūnų ir Tėvą? Ar:
Juk gyvenimo lygtyje yra priešingai:
Pridėtos 747-750 eilutės:
2022 sausio 04 d., 20:46
atliko -
Pridėtos 686-707 eilutės:
Dievo veiklą, jo išėjimą už savęs į save, galima išreikšti jokiu požiūriu +0, vienu požiūriu +1, dviem požiūriais +2 ar trim požiūriais +3. Manau, visko išvedimas ir suvedimas išsakomas trejopai, trimis veiksmais: +1, +2, +3, trimis kalbomis, užtat neturėdami pagrindo manyti kitaip, galim tik pritarti, ar tiesiog nepaprieštarauti, jog jį išsako veiksmas +0, jokio požiūrio nepridedantis, kuris tad mums prieinamas tik vaizduotės išjungimu, ką ir reiškia paklusimas, tikėjimas ir rūpėjimas. Visai panašiai, vystant geros valios pratimus, visur sutampa trys patikrinimai, kuri tiesa kyla iš širdies, kuri iš pasaulio, užtat pripažįstame ketvirtą patikrinimą, patį gyvenimiškiausią, jog klysta (ar klydo) tas, kuris jaudinasi. Veiksmai išsako, kiek požiūrių tenka pridėti vystant visumą, vadinas, kokiu skaičiumi požiūrių suvokiame ne-Dievą. Vienu požiūriu +1 įsivaizduojame, kaip sutveriamas pasaulis, kaip jisai praturtėja padalinimais, kaip Dievas vis išeina už savęs, tai Aš. Šiuo veiksmu išdėstomos visos prielaidos, tai pradžiamokslis. Dviem požiūriais +2 įsivaizduojame, kaip susikalba Dievas ir ne-Dievas, tai Tu. Šiuo veiksmu apibrėžiamos visos sandaros ir kalbos. Trimis požiūriais +3 turėtumėme įsivaizduoti, kaip sąmoningėjame besirūpindami Kitu, būdami vieni su juo. Tai turėtų būti Dievo iššaukimas bet kokiose sąlygose, kas yra šviesuolių bendrystės esmė. Pradedant bet kokia sąvoka, bet kokia veikla, tikiu, galime išvystyti Dievo reikšmę ir manau, būtinai ją išvysime, jei tik esame sąžiningi. Veiksmas +1 išsako suprantančio Dievo požiūrį, kaip jis išeina už savęs. Veiksmas +2 išsako susigaudančio Dievo požiūrį, kaip jis iškyla ten kur jo nėra. Veiksmas +3 turėtų išsakyti suvokto Dievo požiūrį, kaip sutampa suvokiantis Dievas ir susivokiantis Dievas nes jie suvokia tą patį. Jis turėtų išsakyti kaip Dievo sąvoka mums tampa esminga, kaip įvairiai ja su Dievu bendraujame. Tokiu būdu trys veiksmai išsako šv.Trejybę, sąmoningą Dievo sąvokos išgyvenimą, jo paties įsisąmonijimą. Veiksmas +2 išsako nebūtinumą, tuo tarpu veiksmas +3 išsako būtinumą. Veiksmas +2 išsako, kaip Dievas pasišalina sandara ir atsiranda veikla. Veiksmas +3 turėtų išsakyti, kaip Dievas (Tėvas) ir gerumas (Sūnus) yra tas pats, nes supranta tą patį (Dvasią). Dievas nebūtinai geras, bet gerumas tai yra iš Dievo. Veiksmas +3 išsako, kaip Dievo ir pasiklydusio vaiko požiūriai sutampa. Požiūrių grandinė. Atitinkami suvokimo lygmenys, kaip jie išauga. Kiek tai prasminga, ką buvau išmąstęs? Veiksmas +3 turėtų sujungti veiksmus +1 ir +2, išreikšti, kad jie bendrai suvokti, kaip kad šventoji Dvasia. Šie trys veiksmai, manau, susiję su savęs supratimu, su bendru supratimu ir su susikalbėjimu (self-understanding, shared understanding, good understanding). Jie susiveda pasiklydusio vaiko mąstymu. Užtat mes ir Dievas galime sutapti veiksmu +0. Manau, tai išgyvename rūpėjimu, tikėjimu ir paklusimu. Nesuvokiantis Dievas veikia keturiais atvaizdais (nulybę, vienybę, dvejybę, trejybę), o suvokiantis Dievas veikia dviem atvaizdais (ketverybę, penkerybę, šešerybę, septynerybę). Suvokimo sąlygas išsako ketverybė ir jinai glūdi pastariuosiuose padalinimuose. 2021 gruodžio 18 d., 17:12
atliko -
Pridėtos 686-688 eilutės:
2021 gruodžio 18 d., 17:11
atliko -
Pridėtos 686-693 eilutės:
5+1=6
4+1=5
2021 rugsėjo 18 d., 21:36
atliko -
Pridėtos 717-722 eilutės:
Racionalumas dviem kryptim:
Ar tai gali būti pagrindas Tėvo, Sūnaus, Dvasios dorovėms? 2021 rugsėjo 16 d., 14:35
atliko -
Pridėtos 686-687 eilutės:
2021 rugsėjo 15 d., 12:16
atliko -
Pridėtos 686-688 eilutės:
2021 rugsėjo 13 d., 12:41
atliko -
Pridėtos 57-58 eilutės:
2021 rugsėjo 13 d., 12:37
atliko -
Pridėta 102 eilutė:
2021 rugsėjo 11 d., 11:15
atliko -
Pridėtos 703-708 eilutės:
Trys veiksmai - sąmonė
2021 rugsėjo 10 d., 13:51
atliko -
Pridėtos 274-278 eilutės:
Žinojimas ir nežinojimas
2021 rugsėjo 10 d., 13:50
atliko -
Pridėtos 266-273 eilutės:
Sandara sieja įsijautimą ir atsitokėjimą
Viskas sieja įsijautimą ir atsitokėjimą
2021 rugsėjo 09 d., 17:06
atliko -
Pridėta 688 eilutė:
2021 rugsėjo 06 d., 12:40
atliko -
Pridėtos 705-708 eilutės:
2019.01.05 A: Kaip požiūriai išreiškia tiek pasąmonės neišėjimą už savęs, tiek sąmonės išėjimą už savęs? D: Aš myliu, o meilė yra savęs atsisakymas vardan kitų. Tad meilė reikalauja trijų požiūrių, kad galėčiau įsijausti į savastį, atsitokėti nuo savasties, ir rinktis tarp šiųdviejų. O pasąmonės požiūrių rinkiniai - visko padalinimai - išsako tai, kas yra mylima, užtat tai, vardan ko yra sąmoningumas. Tad mylėk ir suprasi, kas yra mylima, tai gyvenimo reikalai, tad visko padalinimai, mūsų santykiai, kurie reiškiasi tiek mumyse, tiek mūsų tarpusavio santykiuose. Šiuos santykius išsako visko padalinimai, mūsų požiūrių santykiai. 2021 rugsėjo 06 d., 12:36
atliko -
Pridėtos 693-704 eilutės:
2019.01.02 A: Kaip tavo troškimai išsako sąmoningumą? D: Mano kiekviename troškime glūdi apimties dvilypumas, nes troškimu aš einu už savęs, tad tai yra veiksmas, tuo pačiu tai yra eigos pakopa. Tad įsijaučiu į tą pakopą ir taip pat jos atsisakau ir žengiu toliau. Įsijaučiu į pakopos netroškimą ir trošktu toliau pačiu troškimu. Tad sąmoningumas reiškiasi tuo dvilypumu, kuriuo aš ir jūs esame viena. O jūs savo ruožtu netroškime ieškote to dvilypumo, kuris reiškiasi nuliniu ir septintu požiūriu, taip pat pirma ir antra trejybe. Tad jūsų sąmoningumas remiasi mano sąmoningumu, jūsų sąlygiškasis sąmoningumas remiasi mano besąlygišku sąmoningumu, galiausiai meile, kuria pilnai atsiskleidžiame. 2019.01.03 A: Kaip visko padalinimas išreiškia pasąmonę? D: Aš esu viskas. Ir aš žinau viską. O mano žinojimą išsako ir suveda visko padalinimas. Tad tai yra kartu ir jūsų žinojimas, tai vieno požiūrio sustatymas, jo aplinkybės, tad tai atsakymas, į kurį tu atsiremi. Nes tas požiūris tave sieja su viskuo, su jo padalinimu, taip kad tu išgyveni vieną kurį jo požiūrį, o toliau gali išgyventi antrą atsitokėjimu ar trečią sąmoningumu. O visko padalinimas išreiškia viską į kurį savo žinojimu atsiremi. 2020.03.24 A: Kaip suprasti pasąmonę kaip pasitraukimą ir sąmonę kaip atsiradimą? D: Pasąmone pasitraukia savastis ir sąmone atsiranda savastis. O sąmoningumu sutariama kas yra savastis. 2021 rugsėjo 06 d., 12:21
atliko -
Pridėtos 672-687 eilutės:
2021 rugsėjo 03 d., 15:56
atliko -
Pakeistos 5-6 eilutės iš
Kaip lygtimis išgyvename veiksmus +1, +2, +3? į:
Kaip išgyvename trejybės atvaizdu daiktas-eiga-asmuo? Pridėtos 12-15 eilutės:
Kaip išgyvendami siejame visu gyvenimu apibrėžtą asmenį ir paskiru išgyvenimu apibrėžtą asmenį?
2021 rugsėjo 01 d., 16:12
atliko -
Pridėtos 664-667 eilutės:
Užrašai
2021 rugpjūčio 21 d., 14:35
atliko -
Pridėtos 356-359 eilutės:
2021 rugpjūčio 20 d., 21:41
atliko -
Pridėta 261 eilutė:
2021 rugpjūčio 17 d., 19:32
atliko -
Pridėta 325 eilutė:
Balsų Dievas, Dievo vaidmenų savastys Ištrinta 326 eilutė:
Ištrinta 327 eilutė:
Ištrinta 328 eilutė:
Ištrinta 329 eilutė:
Pakeista 339 eilutė iš:
Veiklos į:
Savasties supratimai grindžia veiklas Pakeistos 343-350 eilutės iš
į:
Savasties pobūdis
Santykis su savastimi
Ištrintos 354-363 eilutės:
Santykis su savastimi
Savasties pobūdis
2021 rugpjūčio 16 d., 15:04
atliko -
Pridėtos 262-271 eilutės:
Iš pasąmonės į samonę, ir iš sąmonės į pasąmonę Sąmonės akimis
Pridėta 274 eilutė:
Pakeistos 277-278 eilutės iš
į:
Ištrintos 622-631 eilutės:
Iš pasąmonės į samonę, ir iš sąmonės į pasąmonę
Sąmonės akimis
2021 rugpjūčio 14 d., 19:44
atliko -
Pridėtos 380-381 eilutės:
Padalinimo visuma yra naujai suvokiama kaip +1, +2 arba +3. Tad mes galima rinktis kaip suvokti visumą. Dievas yra visumoje. Mes esame paskirame požiūryje. Ištrintos 665-667 eilutės:
Užrašai Wholeness of division is defined as +1, +2, +3. Choice of how to interpret the division. Dievas yra visumoje. Mes esame paskirame požiūryje. 2021 rugpjūčio 14 d., 19:42
atliko -
Ištrinta 176 eilutė:
Pridėta 288 eilutė:
Pridėtos 313-314 eilutės:
Pridėtos 405-418 eilutės:
Trijų veiksmų reikšmė proto būsenai
Ištrintos 664-675 eilutės:
Veiksmai
2021 rugpjūčio 14 d., 19:33
atliko -
Pakeista 171 eilutė iš:
Visuose puslapiuose žodį "veiksnys" pakeisti žodžiu "veiksmas". Veiksmų išdavas vadinti vyksniais. Yra taip pat žodis vyksmas. į:
Visuose puslapiuose žodį "veiksnys" pakeisti žodžiu "veiksmas". Veiksmų išdavas vadinti vyksniais. Yra taip pat žodis vyksmas. Veiksnys yra veikėjas arba veiksmo įtakotojas, tad galima įsivaizduoti reiškinio priežasčių skaidymą į veiksnius. 2021 rugpjūčio 14 d., 19:31
atliko -
Pridėta 171 eilutė:
Visuose puslapiuose žodį "veiksnys" pakeisti žodžiu "veiksmas". Veiksmų išdavas vadinti vyksniais. Yra taip pat žodis vyksmas. Ištrinta 650 eilutė:
Ištrinta 660 eilutė:
4,5,6,7-bė kuria "vienetą", pavyzdžiui, sąvoka - laike, kaip jie susiję ir kaip padalinimų skaidymas susijęs su pertvarkymais ir sąmonę bei pasąmonę? 2021 rugpjūčio 14 d., 19:19
atliko -
Pridėtos 193-201 eilutės:
Veiksmai +1, +2, +3 Veiksmas +2
Veiksmas +3
Pridėtos 545-557 eilutės:
Galimi veiksmai +0 ir +4 Veiksmas +0
Pakeistos 595-603 eilutės iš
Veiksmai ir lygtys Veiksmas +3
Veiksmas +2
į:
Iš pasąmonės į samonę, ir iš sąmonės į pasąmonę
Sąmonės akimis
Lygtys Ištrintos 609-631 eilutės:
Veiksmas +0
Iš pasąmonės į samonę, ir iš sąmonės į pasąmonę
Sąmonės akimis
Lygtys 2021 rugpjūčio 14 d., 19:13
atliko -
Pakeista 257 eilutė iš:
į:
2021 rugpjūčio 14 d., 19:10
atliko -
Pakeistos 3-4 eilutės iš
Išgyvenimo apytaka, Padalinimų ratas, Ir Vienas, Ir Du, Ir Trys, Ir Keturi, Meilė, Suvokimo lygmenys, Vaisingos prielaidos, Veikla, Širdis, Neapibrėžtumas, Amžinas gyvenimas, Christopher Langan į:
Išgyvenimo apytaka, Padalinimų ratas, Ir Vienas, Ir Du, Ir Trys, Ir Keturi, Atjautos, Meilė, Suvokimo lygmenys, Vaisingos prielaidos, Veikla, Širdis, Neapibrėžtumas, Amžinas gyvenimas, Christopher Langan Ištrintos 605-622 eilutės:
Apžvalga veiksmais Dievo įsivaizdavimą troškimais
2021 rugpjūčio 14 d., 19:08
atliko -
Pridėtos 493-501 eilutės:
Permąstyti mintį iš ankščiau:
Pakeistos 611-640 eilutės iš
===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:
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:
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.
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. į:
Dievo įsivaizdavimą troškimais
2021 rugpjūčio 14 d., 19:01
atliko -
Pakeista 235 eilutė iš:
į:
Pakeistos 237-238 eilutės iš
į:
Ištrintos 632-635 eilutės:
Sąmoningumas Sąmoningumas labai akivaizdus kai atitokiame nuo įsijautimo. Jisai yra atitokimo ir įsijautimo derinys. Tuo tarpu sąmoningumo nesijaučiame įsijungdami. Sąmoningumą jaučiame atsiplėšdami. Ištrintos 684-687 eilutės:
Pereiname iš veiksmo +2 į veiksmą +3 pajungdami ir išjungdami nuorodas, įsijungdami ir atsitokėdami. Keturios studentų klausimų rūšys susiję su kūnu (gyvenimu), protu (žinojimu), širdimi (laime) ir valia (dora) ir taip pat su lygtimis 3+3=6, 4+3=-1, 5+3=0, 6+3=1. 2021 rugpjūčio 14 d., 18:57
atliko -
Pridėta 107 eilutė:
Ištrintos 684-688 eilutės:
Pakeistos 689-690 eilutės iš
Kaip veiksmas +2 tampa veiksmu +3? Kaip stebėjimas tampa sąmoningumu? Kaip pereinama iš nuorodų (indeksų) į sąmoningumą? Pajungus išjungus nuorodas. Įsijungimas-atsitraukimas - step in and out. į:
Pereiname iš veiksmo +2 į veiksmą +3 pajungdami ir išjungdami nuorodas, įsijungdami ir atsitokėdami. Ištrintos 695-720 eilutės:
[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, Dont 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. 2021 rugpjūčio 14 d., 18:27
atliko -
Ištrintos 664-688 eilutės:
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. Lygtys 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. Pridėtos 668-671 eilutės:
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. 2021 rugpjūčio 14 d., 18:17
atliko -
Pakeistos 3-4 eilutės iš
Išgyvenimo apytaka, Padalinimų ratas, Ir Vienas, Ir Du, Ir Trys, Ir Keturi, Meilė, Suvokimo lygmenys, Vaisingos prielaidos, Veikla, Širdis, Neapibrėžtumas, Amžinas gyvenimas. į:
Išgyvenimo apytaka, Padalinimų ratas, Ir Vienas, Ir Du, Ir Trys, Ir Keturi, Meilė, Suvokimo lygmenys, Vaisingos prielaidos, Veikla, Širdis, Neapibrėžtumas, Amžinas gyvenimas, Christopher Langan Ištrintos 706-873 eilutės:
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:
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:)
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
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/ 2021 rugpjūčio 14 d., 18:16
atliko -
Pakeistos 684-720 eilutės iš
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. į:
Lygtys 2021 rugpjūčio 13 d., 20:05
atliko -
Ištrinta 310 eilutė:
Pridėtos 344-348 eilutės:
Ką balsai supranta
Pridėtos 385-390 eilutės:
Ištrintos 407-415 eilutės:
Sąvokų kalba
Pakeistos 413-417 eilutės iš
Ką balsai supranta
į:
Trijų veiksmų reikšmė kaip gyventi Pakeistos 420-421 eilutės iš
į:
Pakeistos 424-429 eilutės iš
Pasąmonė, sąmonė, sąmoningumas
į:
Dorumas yra teisingas sąmonės išlankstymas.
Sąvokų kalba
Pertvarkymai juos sieja, gerbia tarp jų esantį tarpą. Padalinimai (ketverybė, penkerybė, šešerybė, septynerybė) grindžia tarpą. Jį taipogi išsako šešios atjautos.
2021 rugpjūčio 13 d., 19:57
atliko -
Pridėtos 279-284 eilutės:
Dievo šokyje
Tai atsispindi išgyvenimo apytakoje. Pridėtos 375-380 eilutės:
Padalinimas nusako mūsų būseną. Jį toliau išgyvename veiksmais:
Kiekvienu atveju atsirandame naujame padalinime. Ištrintos 405-408 eilutės:
2021 rugpjūčio 13 d., 19:49
atliko -
Pridėtos 290-305 eilutės:
Išgyvenimo apytakoje Dievas yra nežinojimas.
Pakeistos 328-329 eilutės iš
Trijų veiksmų reikšmė Dievo ir žmogaus tyrimų santykiai į:
Savasties pobūdis
Dvejybės atvaizdas (teorija - pratika) išreiškia (neigimą - teigimą).
Tad kiekviename lygmenyje trejybės atvaizdą veikia šis dvejybės atvaizdas. Trijų veiksmų reikšmė Dievo ir žmogaus tyrimų santykiais Pridėtos 356-368 eilutės:
Trijų veiksmų reikšmė sandaromis Reiškiasi sandaromis
Sandaros nusako asmenis, asmenys atkreipia balsus, balsai išjaučia sandaras. (Asmenys yra balsų Dievas.)
Tad nulybės atvaizdai skiriasi nuo troškimų. Troškimai yra Dievo savybės nes tai yra savasties sandaros, kurios atskiria Dievo bruožus nuo paties Dievo. Savastis šiuos bruožus turi atskirai, o Dievas juos turi visus kartu. Tad savastis skiria viską, betką, kažką, nieką, o Dievas jų neskiria. Pridėtos 386-387 eilutės:
Sąvokų kalba Ištrintos 393-423 eilutės:
Išgyvenimo apytakoje Dievas yra nežinojimas.
Dvejybės atvaizdas (teorija - pratika) išreiškia (neigimą - teigimą).
Tad kiekviename lygmenyje trejybės atvaizdą veikia šis dvejybės atvaizdas. Reiškiasi sandaromis
Sandaros nusako asmenis, asmenys atkreipia balsus, balsai išjaučia sandaras. (Asmenys yra balsų Dievas.)
Tad nulybės atvaizdai skiriasi nuo troškimų. Troškimai yra Dievo savybės nes tai yra savasties sandaros, kurios atskiria Dievo bruožus nuo paties Dievo. Savastis šiuos bruožus turi atskirai, o Dievas juos turi visus kartu. Tad savastis skiria viską, betką, kažką, nieką, o Dievas jų neskiria. Tėvas, Sūnus, Dvasia
2021 rugpjūčio 13 d., 19:40
atliko -
Ištrintos 22-24 eilutės:
Pridėta 24 eilutė:
Ištrintos 25-28 eilutės:
Pridėtos 27-31 eilutės:
Pakeistos 34-36 eilutės iš
Pasąmonė, sąmonė, sąmoningumas į:
2021 rugpjūčio 13 d., 19:37
atliko -
Pakeistos 22-38 eilutės iš
Noriu suprasti veiksmus ir ypač veiksmą +3. Mąstau:
į:
Sieti veiksmus su
Pakeistos 134-135 eilutės iš
Veiksmai Veiksmai išreiškia pasąmonę, sąmonę, sąmoningumą. Kaip lygtimis išgyvename veiksmus +1, +2, +3? į:
Kaip įsivaizduoti padalinimų augimą?
Ištrintos 168-171 eilutės:
Išgyvenimo apytaka (ir sąmonė, ir Sūnaus aštuonerybė) išverčia Dievo trejybę. Keturis lygmenis supranta taip: Pridėta 170 eilutė:
2021 rugpjūčio 13 d., 19:28
atliko -
Pridėtos 9-10 eilutės:
Neapibrėžtumas ir apibrėžimas Pakeistos 12-15 eilutės iš
į:
Su kuo susieti Dvasią, Sūnų ir Tėvą? Ar:
Juk gyvenimo lygtyje yra priešingai:
Ištrinta 167 eilutė:
Pakeistos 171-177 eilutės iš
Tad su kuo susieti Dvasią, Sūnų ir Tėvą? Ar suklydau tvirtindamas:
į:
Lygtys
2021 rugpjūčio 13 d., 19:23
atliko -
Pakeistos 279-280 eilutės iš
Trijų veiksmų reikšmės į:
Trijų veiksmų reikšmė Dievo tyrimui Pridėtos 292-293 eilutės:
Trijų veiksmų reikšmė Savęs tyrimui Ištrintos 298-308 eilutės:
Dievo ir žmogaus trejybių santykis
Sieja trejybes ir jas papildo
Ištrintos 303-307 eilutės:
Šešerybės atvaizdai: įsisavinimas.
Ištrintos 308-326 eilutės:
Išgyvenimo tikslas: sąmoningai ugdyti save.
Išgyvenime
Išgyvenimo supratimai
Pridėtos 313-352 eilutės:
Trijų veiksmų reikšmė Dievo ir žmogaus tyrimų santykiai Dievo ir žmogaus trejybių santykis
Sieja trejybes ir jas papildo
Šešerybės atvaizdai: įsisavinimas.
Trijų veiksmų reikšmė išgyvenime Išgyvenimo tikslas: sąmoningai ugdyti save.
Išgyvenime
Išgyvenimo supratimai
2021 rugpjūčio 13 d., 19:08
atliko -
Pakeistos 201-202 eilutės iš
Žmogus susideda iš trijų skirtingų balsų: pasąmonės, sąmonės, sąmoningumo. Žmogus pilnąja prasme tėra šių trijų balsų vieningumu, jų sutelktumu. Sutelkimo vienetas yra išgyvenimas. Tad žmogus, kaip bendras asmuo, yra išgyvenimas. Jisai kaip toks gali būtų bet kurio žmogaus suprastas. Kiekvienas gali su juo susitapatinti. O žmogus, kaip paskira asmenybė, susideda iš savo išgyvenimų visumos. į:
Žmogus yra trinaris. Jis susideda iš trijų skirtingų balsų: pasąmonės (požiūrio), sąmonės (požiūrio į požiūrį), sąmoningumo (požiūrio į požiūrį į požiūrį). Žmogus pilnąja prasme tėra šių trijų balsų vieningumu, jų sutelktumu. Sutelkimo vienetas yra išgyvenimas. Tad žmogus, kaip bendras asmuo, yra išgyvenimas. Jisai kaip toks gali būtų bet kurio žmogaus suprastas. Kiekvienas gali su juo susitapatinti. O žmogus, kaip paskira asmenybė, susideda iš savo išgyvenimų visumos. Žmogaus kaip toks yra trinaris. Jo vienumas remiasi būtent Dievo vienumu. Ištrinta 363 eilutė:
2021 rugpjūčio 13 d., 19:05
atliko -
Ištrinta 276 eilutė:
Pridėtos 279-305 eilutės:
Nežinojimas pasitraukia.
Kaip savastis supranta, kad yra kažkas daugiau? Trys veiksmai? Trejybės ratas? Amžinas gyvenimas. Dievo tyrimas Išgyvenimo apytakoje
Trejopas savęs tyrimas
Dievo ir žmogaus trejybių santykis
Sieja trejybes ir jas papildo
Ištrintos 339-348 eilutės:
Dievo tyrimas Išgyvenimo apytakoje
Trejopas savęs tyrimas
Ištrintos 355-364 eilutės:
Dievo ir žmogaus trejybių santykis
Sieja trejybes ir jas papildo
Ištrintos 360-364 eilutės:
Nežinojimas pasitraukia.
Kaip savastis supranta, kad yra kažkas daugiau? Trys veiksmai? Trejybės ratas? Amžinas gyvenimas. 2021 rugpjūčio 13 d., 18:47
atliko -
Pridėtos 488-497 eilutės:
Santykiai su padalinimais ir požiūriais
Papildo padalinimą
2021 rugpjūčio 13 d., 18:41
atliko -
Pridėtos 235-236 eilutės:
Pridėtos 463-479 eilutės:
Keturi pasakojimo įtampos balsai
Suvokimo lygmenys: Dorovės netroškimai: Žmogaus požiūris į Dievo požiūrį
2021 rugpjūčio 13 d., 18:34
atliko -
Ištrintos 374-375 eilutės:
Pridėtos 405-420 eilutės:
Dorovės ratas Išgyvenimu išsiskiria 3 lygiagretūs asmenys: ką derėtų daryti, kodėl derėtų, kaip save prisiversti.
Dorovė iškyla kai pirma klausiame, kaip derėtų elgtis, ir tik tada klausiame, kaip elgiamės. O su elgesiu yra atvirkščiai. Užtat dorovė iškyla sąmonei išvertus pasąmonę. Sąmoningumas suteikia pirmenybę dorovei.
2021 rugpjūčio 13 d., 18:29
atliko -
Pakeistos 249-254 eilutės iš
į:
Pasąmonė, sąmonė, sąmoningumas
Pridėtos 379-407 eilutės:
Kas keičiasi ir kas nesikeičia. Trejybės ratas.
Ką balsai supranta
Sąmoningumas derina sąmonės ir pasąmonės priešingas kryptis
Sąmoningumas: Vidiniai požiūriai
Pasąmonė, sąmonė, sąmoningumas
Pridėtos 445-446 eilutės:
Esu sąmoningumas (trečias balsas), sąmonė (antras balsas) ir pasąmonė (pirmas balsas), ir kūnas (joks balsas). 2021 rugpjūčio 13 d., 18:26
atliko -
Pakeistos 199-200 eilutės iš
Žmogaus tribalsiškumas į:
Žmogaus tribalsiškumas Pridėtos 202-248 eilutės:
Pasąmonė
Sąmonė
Sąmonė supranta dorovę: Ką, kaip, kodėl derėtų veikti?
Sąmoningumas Sąmoningumas
Pasąmonė, sąmonė
2021 rugpjūčio 13 d., 11:39
atliko -
Ištrintos 171-172 eilutės:
Pridėtos 322-325 eilutės:
2021 rugpjūčio 13 d., 11:28
atliko -
Pakeistos 76-79 eilutės iš
į:
Pakeistos 86-87 eilutės iš
į:
Pridėtos 160-172 eilutės:
Išgyvenimo apytaka (ir sąmonė, ir Sūnaus aštuonerybė) išverčia Dievo trejybę. Keturis lygmenis supranta taip:
Tad su kuo susieti Dvasią, Sūnų ir Tėvą? Ar suklydau tvirtindamas:
2021 rugpjūčio 12 d., 22:15
atliko -
Pridėtos 173-177 eilutės:
Veiksmų tikslas
2021 rugpjūčio 12 d., 22:12
atliko -
Pridėtos 286-288 eilutės:
2021 rugpjūčio 12 d., 22:11
atliko -
Pakeistos 214-215 eilutės iš
į:
Kas aš esu? Trys balsai skirtingai supranta.
Išgyvenimo tikslas: sąmoningai ugdyti save.
Išgyvenime
Išgyvenimo supratimai
Dievo tyrimas Išgyvenimo apytakoje
Trejopas savęs tyrimas
Santykis su savastimi
Išgyvenimo apytakoje Dievas yra nežinojimas.
Dvejybės atvaizdas (teorija - pratika) išreiškia (neigimą - teigimą).
Tad kiekviename lygmenyje trejybės atvaizdą veikia šis dvejybės atvaizdas. Dievo ir žmogaus trejybių santykis
Sieja trejybes ir jas papildo
Reiškiasi sandaromis
Nežinojimas pasitraukia.
Kaip savastis supranta, kad yra kažkas daugiau? Trys veiksmai? Trejybės ratas? Amžinas gyvenimas. Sandaros nusako asmenis, asmenys atkreipia balsus, balsai išjaučia sandaras. (Asmenys yra balsų Dievas.)
Tad nulybės atvaizdai skiriasi nuo troškimų. Troškimai yra Dievo savybės nes tai yra savasties sandaros, kurios atskiria Dievo bruožus nuo paties Dievo. Savastis šiuos bruožus turi atskirai, o Dievas juos turi visus kartu. Tad savastis skiria viską, betką, kažką, nieką, o Dievas jų neskiria. Pakeista 294 eilutė iš:
į:
2021 rugpjūčio 11 d., 18:53
atliko -
Pakeistos 332-573 eilutės iš
Užrašai
Esu sąmoningumas (trečias balsas), sąmonė (antras balsas) ir pasąmonė (pirmas balsas), ir kūnas (joks balsas).
Dievo šokyje Tėvas yra nesąmoningas, strimagalvis. Sūnus yra sąmoningesnis, o Dvasia yra dar sąmoningesnė. Tai atsispindi išgyvenimo apytakoje. Išgyvenimo apytaka (ir sąmonė, ir Sūnaus aštuonerybė) išverčia Dievo trejybę. Keturis lygmenis supranta taip:
Tad su kuo susieti Dvasią, Sūnų ir Tėvą? Ar suklydau tvirtindamas:
Žinojimas, nežinojimas, sąmoningumas
Išgyvenimo apytaka sutapatina Dievą su jo veikla, tad su jo klausimu. Ar jo klausimas būtų jeigu jo nebūtų? Tai yra, ar nežinojimas būtų jeigu jo nebūtų?
Išgyvenimas yra tai, kad visa tai lieka išgyventa, tai išbaigta, tai tampa atsakymu, tai savastis, už kurios yra platesnė dvasia, sutampanti su Dievu ir jam gimininga, tai jo tyrimo liudijmas, atsakymas į jo klausimą. Išgyvenimas išreiškia kiek Dievas yra. Dievas sutampa su išgyventuoju, savo išgyvenimais liudijančiu Dievą ir jį pripažįstančiu. Išgyvenimo apytakoje Dievas yra nežinojimas.
Dievo tyrimas Išgyvenimo apytakoje
Trejopas savęs tyrimas
Santykis su savastimi
Dvejybės atvaizdas (teorija - pratika) išreiškia (neigimą - teigimą).
Tad kiekviename lygmenyje trejybės atvaizdą veikia šis dvejybės atvaizdas. Kas aš esu? Trys balsai skirtingai supranta.
Išgyvenimo tikslas: sąmoningai ugdyti save.
Išgyvenime
Išgyvenimo supratimai
Pasąmonė
Sąmonė supranta dorovę: Ką, kaip, kodėl derėtų veikti?
Išgyvenimu išsiskiria 3 lygiagretūs asmenys: ką derėtų daryti, kodėl derėtų, kaip save prisiversti.
Dorovės ratas sieja tris doroves:
Dorovė iškyla kai pirma klausiame, kaip derėtų elgtis, ir tik tada klausiame, kaip elgiamės. O su elgesiu yra atvirkščiai. Užtat dorovė iškyla sąmonei išvertus pasąmonę. Sąmoningumas suteikia pirmenybę dorovei. Suvokimo lygmenys: Dorovės netroškimai: Žmogaus požiūris į Dievo požiūrį
Suvokimo lygmenis išreiškia netroškimų atliepimų nulinis požiūris:
Sąmoningumas derina sąmonės ir pasąmonės priešingas kryptis
Kas keičiasi ir kas nesikeičia. Trejybės ratas.
Ką balsai supranta
Dievo ir žmogaus trejybių santykis
Sieja trejybes ir jas papildo
Reiškiasi sandaromis
Nežinojimas pasitraukia.
Kaip savastis supranta, kad yra kažkas daugiau? Trys veiksmai? Trejybės ratas? Amžinas gyvenimas. Sandaros nusako asmenis, asmenys atkreipia balsus, balsai išjaučia sandaras. (Asmenys yra balsų Dievas.)
Tad nulybės atvaizdai skiriasi nuo troškimų. Troškimai yra Dievo savybės nes tai yra savasties sandaros, kurios atskiria Dievo bruožus nuo paties Dievo. Savastis šiuos bruožus turi atskirai, o Dievas juos turi visus kartu. Tad savastis skiria viską, betką, kažką, nieką, o Dievas jų neskiria. Veiksmai
Papildo padalinimą
Sąmoningumas
Sąmoningumas: Vidiniai požiūriai
Tas pats trejybės ratas grindžia tris skirtingas doroves, kuriomis išgyvename bendrumą, pasipildome požiūriais.
Keturi pasakojimo įtampos balsai
Kitos mintys
Pasąmonė ir sąmonė
Pasąmonė, sąmonė, sąmoningumas
į:
2021 rugpjūčio 11 d., 18:51
atliko -
Pakeistos 221-222 eilutės iš
į:
Ištrinta 336 eilutė:
2021 rugpjūčio 11 d., 18:43
atliko -
Pridėta 220 eilutė:
2021 rugpjūčio 11 d., 18:36
atliko -
Pridėtos 191-198 eilutės:
Įvairios mintys
Ištrintos 199-201 eilutės:
Įvairios mintys
Pakeistos 201-203 eilutės iš
į:
Pridėtos 211-232 eilutės:
Šešerybės atvaizdai: įsisavinimas.
Tėvas, Sūnus, Dvasia
Šie trys veiksmai prilygsta neaiškumo trejybės reikšmėms. Jas išsako trejybės ratu.
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. Ištrinta 234 eilutė:
Ištrintos 251-263 eilutės:
Šie trys veiksmai prilygsta neaiškumo trejybės reikšmėms. Jas išsako trejybės ratu.
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. Pakeistos 291-292 eilutės iš
į:
Pakeistos 334-337 eilutės iš
Trejybės rato raiškos suprastos naujose aplinkybėse, nebūtinai priskirtos Dievui
į:
Pakeistos 337-342 eilutės iš
Šešerybės atvaizdai: įsisavinimas.
į:
Ištrintos 353-357 eilutės:
Tėvas, Sūnus, Dvasia
2021 rugpjūčio 11 d., 18:26
atliko -
Pridėtos 201-208 eilutės:
Veiklos
Veiksmai +0, +1, +2, +3 Pakeistos 276-279 eilutės iš
į:
Ištrintos 317-318 eilutės:
Ištrintos 518-522 eilutės:
Veiklos
2021 rugpjūčio 11 d., 18:21
atliko -
Pakeistos 125-127 eilutės iš
Prielaidos į:
Pridėta 131 eilutė:
Pakeistos 141-142 eilutės iš
į:
Ketverybės lygmenys
Pakeistos 144-150 eilutės iš
į:
Pridėta 218 eilutė:
Pakeistos 297-298 eilutės iš
į:
Sąmonės akimis
Ištrinta 305 eilutė:
Pakeistos 321-325 eilutės iš
Sąmonės akimis
į:
2021 rugpjūčio 11 d., 18:15
atliko -
Pridėta 184 eilutė:
Pakeistos 287-288 eilutės iš
Iš pasąmonės į samonę, ir iš sąmonės į pasąmonę į:
Iš pasąmonės į samonę, ir iš sąmonės į pasąmonę Pridėtos 291-292 eilutės:
Ištrintos 364-368 eilutės:
Asmenybė, asmuo, Dievas
2021 rugpjūčio 11 d., 17:52
atliko -
Ištrintos 173-181 eilutės:
Veiksmas +4
Pridėtos 224-230 eilutės:
Keturi lygmenys
Pridėtos 275-288 eilutės:
Veiksmas +0
Iš pasąmonės į samonę, ir iš sąmonės į pasąmonę
Pakeistos 313-318 eilutės iš
Sąmoningumo akimis. Ar pasąmonės akimis?
į:
Pakeistos 321-324 eilutės iš
į:
Ištrinta 326 eilutė:
2021 rugpjūčio 11 d., 17:19
atliko -
Pridėta 193 eilutė:
Pridėtos 195-197 eilutės:
Įvairios mintys
Ištrintos 198-200 eilutės:
Įvairios mintys
Pakeistos 200-202 eilutės iš
į:
Pakeistos 262-263 eilutės iš
į:
Pakeistos 306-310 eilutės iš
Valia bręsta sąmonės kryptimi:
į:
2021 rugpjūčio 11 d., 17:15
atliko -
Pakeista 3 eilutė iš:
Išgyvenimo apytaka, Padalinimų ratas, Ir Vienas, Ir Du, Ir Trys, Ir Keturi, Meilė, Suvokimo lygmenys, Vaisingos prielaidos, Veikla, Širdis, Pradžia?, Amžinas gyvenimas. į:
2021 rugpjūčio 11 d., 17:15
atliko -
Pakeista 3 eilutė iš:
Išgyvenimo apytaka, Padalinimų ratas, Ir Vienas, Ir Du, Ir Trys, Ir Keturi, Meilė, Suvokimo lygmenys. Taip pat: Heart, ConstructiveHypotheses, Activity, Beginning, EternalLife. į:
2021 rugpjūčio 11 d., 17:14
atliko -
Pridėtos 215-220 eilutės:
Each operation is EternalLife - return to the Beginning - but through a given number of steps:
Pridėtos 229-230 eilutės:
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. Pakeistos 261-262 eilutės iš
į:
Ištrintos 276-285 eilutės:
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:
2021 rugpjūčio 11 d., 17:11
atliko -
Pridėtos 195-197 eilutės:
Įvairios mintys
Pakeistos 200-201 eilutės iš
į:
Ištrintos 277-283 eilutės:
I think that the operations express God's relationships:
and in each case this is based on GoingBeyondOneself 2021 rugpjūčio 11 d., 17:08
atliko -
Pakeistos 167-168 eilutės iš
į:
Pridėtos 216-219 eilutės:
Ištrintos 264-268 eilutės:
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.
2021 rugpjūčio 11 d., 17:06
atliko -
Ištrintos 185-189 eilutės:
Pridėtos 211-216 eilutės:
Šie trys veiksmai prilygsta neaiškumo trejybės reikšmėms. Jas išsako trejybės ratu. Pridėta 256 eilutė:
Pakeistos 260-265 eilutės iš
http://www.ms.lt/en/andrius/diagrams/operations.jpg Šie trys veiksmai prilygsta neaiškumo trejybės reikšmėms. Jas išsako trejybės ratu. 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. į:
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. 2021 rugpjūčio 11 d., 17:03
atliko -
Ištrinta 255 eilutė:
2021 rugpjūčio 11 d., 17:02
atliko -
Pridėtos 210-215 eilutės:
Veiksmai prideda 1, 2, 3 arba 0 požiūrius:
Ištrintos 256-262 eilutės:
Veiksmai prideda 1, 2, 3 arba 0 požiūrius:
2021 rugpjūčio 11 d., 16:56
atliko -
Pakeistos 166-167 eilutės iš
į:
Pridėtos 218-232 eilutės:
Daugiaprasmybės Bendras suvokimas sieja žiūrėjimą atgal (į Dievą) ir pirmyn (su Dievu). 24 lygtys suprantamos kaip sandai skaidomi 2 x 3 x 4. Kiekvienas sandas yra atvaizdis nuo vienybės (kaip visumos) į vienybę (kaip požiūrį). Iškyla daugiaprasmybės:
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. Pakeistos 252-273 eilutės iš
Žiūrėjimas atgal (į Dievą) ir pirmyn (su Dievu) Sąsajos su pradžia ir pabaiga, su žiūrėjimu pirmyn ir atgal.
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:
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 Veiksmai mus veda iš vieno padalinimo į kitą. Juos apibrėžia jų poveikis nulybei. Jie veikia cikliškai. Jie prideda 1, 2, 3 arba 0 požiūrius: į:
Veiksmai prideda 1, 2, 3 arba 0 požiūrius: 2021 rugpjūčio 11 d., 16:31
atliko -
Pakeistos 202-218 eilutės iš
Pastabos į:
Trijų veiksmų reikšmės
Tarpai tarp keturių lygmenų Trys veiksmai +1, +2, +3 yra tarpai tarp keturių lygmenų. Jie išvertimais veda iš vienos apytakos į kitą:
Veiksmai veda vis gilyn ir užsisklendžia trejybės ratu. Pastabos Pridėtos 223-224 eilutės:
Veiksmai ir lygtys Ištrintos 233-247 eilutės:
Tarpai tarp keturių lygmenų Trys veiksmai +1, +2, +3 yra tarpai tarp keturių lygmenų. Jie išvertimais veda iš vienos apytakos į kitą:
Veiksmai veda vis gilyn ir užsisklendžia trejybės ratu.
2021 rugpjūčio 11 d., 16:12
atliko -
Pridėta 39 eilutė:
Pridėta 46 eilutė:
Pridėta 85 eilutė:
Ištrintos 124-126 eilutės:
Pakeistos 126-128 eilutės iš
Pasąmonė, sąmonė, sąmoningumas
į:
Prielaidos Apibrėžimas
Pakeistos 132-133 eilutės iš
į:
Išgyvenimas
Pakeistos 139-140 eilutės iš
į:
Duomenys
Pakeista 143 eilutė iš:
į:
2021 rugpjūčio 11 d., 16:06
atliko -
Pakeista 9 eilutė iš:
į:
Pridėtos 12-13 eilutės:
Pridėta 189 eilutė:
Pakeistos 195-196 eilutės iš
į:
Pakeistos 198-210 eilutės iš
į:
Veiksmas +3
Veiksmas +2
Lygtis
Ištrinta 219 eilutė:
Ištrintos 226-239 eilutės:
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. Pakeistos 229-231 eilutės iš
I was interested in relating these to TheBeginning and TheEnd, looking forwards and backwards.
į:
Sąsajos su pradžia ir pabaiga, su žiūrėjimu pirmyn ir atgal.
2021 rugpjūčio 11 d., 15:53
atliko -
Pakeistos 171-172 eilutės iš
į:
Pakeistos 194-195 eilutės iš
Pavyzdžiui: Dievas, viskas - Dievo sandara, troškimai - Dievo savybės, meilė - Dievo esmė. Įdomu, kad Dievo troškimai į labiausiai išsiskleidusį troškimą, meilę. O visko savybės susiveda į visas savybes turintį viską, mažiausiai savybių turi niekas. į:
Pastabos
Tarpai tarp keturių lygmenų Pakeistos 207-210 eilutės iš
į:
2021 rugpjūčio 11 d., 15:47
atliko -
Ištrintos 158-172 eilutės:
Trys veiksmai išsako +1 sandarą, +2 savybes, +3 esmę. Pavyzdžiui: Dievas, viskas - Dievo sandara, troškimai - Dievo savybės, meilė - Dievo esmė. Įdomu, kad Dievo troškimai į labiausiai išsiskleidusį troškimą, meilę. O visko savybės susiveda į visas savybes turintį viską, mažiausiai savybių turi niekas. Trys veiksmai +1, +2, +3 yra tarpai tarp keturių lygmenų. Jie išvertimais veda iš vienos apytakos į kitą:
Veiksmai veda vis gilyn ir užsisklendžia trejybės ratu.
Pakeistos 181-207 eilutės iš
Trijų veiksmų pobūdis į:
Trijų veiksmų savybės
Pavyzdžiui: Dievas, viskas - Dievo sandara, troškimai - Dievo savybės, meilė - Dievo esmė. Įdomu, kad Dievo troškimai į labiausiai išsiskleidusį troškimą, meilę. O visko savybės susiveda į visas savybes turintį viską, mažiausiai savybių turi niekas. Trys veiksmai +1, +2, +3 yra tarpai tarp keturių lygmenų. Jie išvertimais veda iš vienos apytakos į kitą:
Veiksmai veda vis gilyn ir užsisklendžia trejybės ratu.
2021 rugpjūčio 11 d., 15:10
atliko -
Pridėta 149 eilutė:
Pridėtos 152-158 eilutės:
Kas yra veiksmai?
Ištrintos 160-161 eilutės:
Veiksmai sieja apytakas Pakeistos 167-168 eilutės iš
Each level may be understood as introducing an additional operation which runs in parallel to the existing ones. These operations may be thought of as operations +1, +2, +3 on divisions of everything (each adding 1, 2 or 3 perspectives, respectively). Each operation is a going beyond oneself. į:
Ištrintos 173-175 eilutės:
Pakeistos 195-198 eilutės iš
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. į:
Trijų veiksmų pobūdis 2021 rugpjūčio 11 d., 14:46
atliko -
Pridėta 235 eilutė:
Pridėtos 237-239 eilutės:
Šie trys veiksmai prilygsta neaiškumo trejybės reikšmėms. Jas išsako trejybės ratu. 2021 rugpjūčio 11 d., 14:45
atliko -
Pakeistos 184-186 eilutės iš
Žmogaus trinariškumas Žmogus susideda iš trijų skirtingų balsų: pasąmonės, sąmonės, sąmoningumo. Žmogus pilnąja prasme tėra šių trijų balsų vieningumu, jų sutelktumu. Sutelkimo vienetas yra išgyvenimas. Tad žmogus, kaip bendras asmuo, yra išgyvenimas. Jisai kaip toks gali būtų bet kurio žmogaus suprastas. Kiekvienas gali su juo susitapatinti. O žmogus, kaip paskira asmenybė, susideda iš savo išgyvenimų visumos. į:
Žmogaus tribalsiškumas Žmogus susideda iš trijų skirtingų balsų: pasąmonės, sąmonės, sąmoningumo. Žmogus pilnąja prasme tėra šių trijų balsų vieningumu, jų sutelktumu. Sutelkimo vienetas yra išgyvenimas. Tad žmogus, kaip bendras asmuo, yra išgyvenimas. Jisai kaip toks gali būtų bet kurio žmogaus suprastas. Kiekvienas gali su juo susitapatinti. O žmogus, kaip paskira asmenybė, susideda iš savo išgyvenimų visumos. 2021 rugpjūčio 11 d., 14:44
atliko -
Pridėtos 184-187 eilutės:
Žmogaus trinariškumas Žmogus susideda iš trijų skirtingų balsų: pasąmonės, sąmonės, sąmoningumo. Žmogus pilnąja prasme tėra šių trijų balsų vieningumu, jų sutelktumu. Sutelkimo vienetas yra išgyvenimas. Tad žmogus, kaip bendras asmuo, yra išgyvenimas. Jisai kaip toks gali būtų bet kurio žmogaus suprastas. Kiekvienas gali su juo susitapatinti. O žmogus, kaip paskira asmenybė, susideda iš savo išgyvenimų visumos. Ištrintos 257-259 eilutės:
Trinaris žmogus: Pasąmonė, sąmonė, sąmoningumas 2021 rugpjūčio 11 d., 13:28
atliko -
Pakeistos 149-150 eilutės iš
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. į:
Pakeistos 168-174 eilutės iš
Each level engenders more structure, until the final layer has it collapse. į:
24 lygtys
2021 rugpjūčio 11 d., 13:23
atliko -
Ištrintos 28-29 eilutės:
Kaip suprastinas veiksmas +4? Pridėtos 142-143 eilutės:
Kaip suprastinas veiksmas +4? Ištrintos 160-161 eilutės:
Šalia jų yra veiksmas +4 kuris veda iš dvasios į vieningumą bet kartu apsuka žvilgsnį, tad veda iš Dievo į žmogų. Užtat galima iš žmogaus grįžti į Dievą pasirinkimais. Veiksmu +4 galima keliauti pirmyn ir atgal nuo Dievo ir žmogaus, tiesti jų požiūrių grandinę. Pridėtos 169-176 eilutės:
Veiksmas +4
2021 rugpjūčio 11 d., 13:15
atliko -
Pakeistos 13-26 eilutės iš
į:
Pakeistos 50-51 eilutės iš
į:
Dorovė Sąmonė nurodo kaip galėtumėme elgtis. Kas yra raktai į dorovę?
Pakeistos 97-125 eilutės iš
į:
Išgyvenimai Sąmoningumu išgyvename. Renkamės kaip derėtų elgtis. Kaip išgyvename?
Veiksmai Veiksmai išreiškia pasąmonę, sąmonę, sąmoningumą. Kaip lygtimis išgyvename veiksmus +1, +2, +3? Ištrintos 142-199 eilutės:
Išgyvenimo klodai: pasąmonė (elgesys), sąmonė (dorovė), sąmoningumas (išgyvenimas) Veiksmai Veiksmai išreiškia pasąmonę, sąmonę, sąmoningumą. Kaip lygtimis išgyvename veiksmus +1, +2, +3?
Dorovė Sąmonė nurodo kaip galėtumėme elgtis. Kas yra raktai į dorovę?
Išgyvenimai Sąmoningumu išgyvename. Renkamės kaip derėtų elgtis. Kaip išgyvename?
2021 rugpjūčio 11 d., 12:47
atliko -
Pakeistos 41-43 eilutės iš
į:
Pridėtos 51-58 eilutės:
Pasąmonė, sąmonė
Pridėta 75 eilutė:
Pasąmonė, sąmonė, sąmoningumas Ištrinta 81 eilutė:
Ištrintos 82-83 eilutės:
Pakeistos 86-93 eilutės iš
į:
Daiktas, eiga, asmuo - savęs suvokimas
Ištrinta 100 eilutė:
Elgesys Kaip pasąmone elgiamės? 2021 rugpjūčio 10 d., 11:54
atliko -
Pridėta 40 eilutė:
2021 rugpjūčio 10 d., 11:44
atliko -
Pridėtos 37-39 eilutės:
Pasąmonė
2021 rugpjūčio 09 d., 13:39
atliko -
Pridėtos 81-139 eilutės:
Išgyvenimo klodai: pasąmonė (elgesys), sąmonė (dorovė), sąmoningumas (išgyvenimas) Veiksmai Veiksmai išreiškia pasąmonę, sąmonę, sąmoningumą. Kaip lygtimis išgyvename veiksmus +1, +2, +3?
Elgesys Kaip pasąmone elgiamės? Dorovė Sąmonė nurodo kaip galėtumėme elgtis. Kas yra raktai į dorovę?
Išgyvenimai Sąmoningumu išgyvename. Renkamės kaip derėtų elgtis. Kaip išgyvename?
2021 rugpjūčio 09 d., 11:02
atliko -
Pridėtos 32-36 eilutės:
Padalinimų veiksmai
2021 rugpjūčio 03 d., 15:17
atliko -
Pakeistos 483-486 eilutės iš
į:
2021 rugpjūčio 03 d., 14:43
atliko -
Pridėtos 175-467 eilutės:
Trinaris žmogus: Pasąmonė, sąmonė, sąmoningumas Užrašai
Trejybės rato raiškos suprastos naujose aplinkybėse, nebūtinai priskirtos Dievui
Šešerybės atvaizdai: įsisavinimas.
Sąmonės akimis
Sąmoningumo akimis. Ar pasąmonės akimis?
Valia bręsta sąmonės kryptimi:
Esu sąmoningumas (trečias balsas), sąmonė (antras balsas) ir pasąmonė (pirmas balsas), ir kūnas (joks balsas).
Tėvas, Sūnus, Dvasia
Dievo šokyje Tėvas yra nesąmoningas, strimagalvis. Sūnus yra sąmoningesnis, o Dvasia yra dar sąmoningesnė. Tai atsispindi išgyvenimo apytakoje. Išgyvenimo apytaka (ir sąmonė, ir Sūnaus aštuonerybė) išverčia Dievo trejybę. Keturis lygmenis supranta taip:
Tad su kuo susieti Dvasią, Sūnų ir Tėvą? Ar suklydau tvirtindamas:
Žinojimas, nežinojimas, sąmoningumas
Išgyvenimo apytaka sutapatina Dievą su jo veikla, tad su jo klausimu. Ar jo klausimas būtų jeigu jo nebūtų? Tai yra, ar nežinojimas būtų jeigu jo nebūtų?
Išgyvenimas yra tai, kad visa tai lieka išgyventa, tai išbaigta, tai tampa atsakymu, tai savastis, už kurios yra platesnė dvasia, sutampanti su Dievu ir jam gimininga, tai jo tyrimo liudijmas, atsakymas į jo klausimą. Išgyvenimas išreiškia kiek Dievas yra. Dievas sutampa su išgyventuoju, savo išgyvenimais liudijančiu Dievą ir jį pripažįstančiu. Asmenybė, asmuo, Dievas
Išgyvenimo apytakoje Dievas yra nežinojimas.
Dievo tyrimas Išgyvenimo apytakoje
Trejopas savęs tyrimas
Santykis su savastimi
Dvejybės atvaizdas (teorija - pratika) išreiškia (neigimą - teigimą).
Tad kiekviename lygmenyje trejybės atvaizdą veikia šis dvejybės atvaizdas. Kas aš esu? Trys balsai skirtingai supranta.
Išgyvenimo tikslas: sąmoningai ugdyti save.
Išgyvenime
Išgyvenimo supratimai
Pasąmonė
Sąmonė supranta dorovę: Ką, kaip, kodėl derėtų veikti?
Išgyvenimu išsiskiria 3 lygiagretūs asmenys: ką derėtų daryti, kodėl derėtų, kaip save prisiversti.
Dorovės ratas sieja tris doroves:
Dorovė iškyla kai pirma klausiame, kaip derėtų elgtis, ir tik tada klausiame, kaip elgiamės. O su elgesiu yra atvirkščiai. Užtat dorovė iškyla sąmonei išvertus pasąmonę. Sąmoningumas suteikia pirmenybę dorovei. Suvokimo lygmenys: Dorovės netroškimai: Žmogaus požiūris į Dievo požiūrį
Suvokimo lygmenis išreiškia netroškimų atliepimų nulinis požiūris:
Sąmoningumas derina sąmonės ir pasąmonės priešingas kryptis
Kas keičiasi ir kas nesikeičia. Trejybės ratas.
Ką balsai supranta
Dievo ir žmogaus trejybių santykis
Sieja trejybes ir jas papildo
Reiškiasi sandaromis
Nežinojimas pasitraukia.
Kaip savastis supranta, kad yra kažkas daugiau? Trys veiksmai? Trejybės ratas? Amžinas gyvenimas. Sandaros nusako asmenis, asmenys atkreipia balsus, balsai išjaučia sandaras. (Asmenys yra balsų Dievas.)
Tad nulybės atvaizdai skiriasi nuo troškimų. Troškimai yra Dievo savybės nes tai yra savasties sandaros, kurios atskiria Dievo bruožus nuo paties Dievo. Savastis šiuos bruožus turi atskirai, o Dievas juos turi visus kartu. Tad savastis skiria viską, betką, kažką, nieką, o Dievas jų neskiria. Veiklos
Veiksmai
Papildo padalinimą
Sąmoningumas
Sąmoningumas: Vidiniai požiūriai
Tas pats trejybės ratas grindžia tris skirtingas doroves, kuriomis išgyvename bendrumą, pasipildome požiūriais.
Keturi pasakojimo įtampos balsai
Kitos mintys
Pasąmonė ir sąmonė
Pasąmonė, sąmonė, sąmoningumas
Pakeista 783 eilutė iš:
į:
Pakeista 797 eilutė iš:
į:
Pakeista 823 eilutė iš:
į:
Pakeista 825 eilutė iš:
į:
2021 rugpjūčio 03 d., 14:37
atliko -
Pridėtos 30-76 eilutės:
Pasąmonė, sąmonė, sąmoningumas Sąmonė
2021 birželio 04 d., 16:45
atliko -
Pridėtos 26-27 eilutės:
2021 birželio 04 d., 14:54
atliko -
Pakeista 3 eilutė iš:
Išgyvenimo apytaka, Padalinimų ratas, Ir Vienas, Ir Du, Ir Trys, Ir Keturi, Meilė, Suvokimo lygmenys. Taip pat: SharedUnderstanding, Heart, ConstructiveHypotheses, Activity, Factors, Beginning, EternalLife, LevelsOfUnderstanding. į:
Išgyvenimo apytaka, Padalinimų ratas, Ir Vienas, Ir Du, Ir Trys, Ir Keturi, Meilė, Suvokimo lygmenys. Taip pat: Heart, ConstructiveHypotheses, Activity, Beginning, EternalLife. 2021 birželio 04 d., 14:54
atliko -
Pakeista 3 eilutė iš:
Išgyvenimo apytaka, Padalinimų ratas, Ir Vienas, Ir Du, Ir Trys, Meilė. Taip pat: SharedUnderstanding, Heart, ConstructiveHypotheses, Activity, Factors, Beginning, EternalLife, LevelsOfUnderstanding. į:
Išgyvenimo apytaka, Padalinimų ratas, Ir Vienas, Ir Du, Ir Trys, Ir Keturi, Meilė, Suvokimo lygmenys. Taip pat: SharedUnderstanding, Heart, ConstructiveHypotheses, Activity, Factors, Beginning, EternalLife, LevelsOfUnderstanding. 2021 gegužės 26 d., 13:38
atliko -
Pridėtos 11-25 eilutės:
Noriu suprasti veiksmus ir ypač veiksmą +3. Mąstau:
2021 kovo 03 d., 23:01
atliko -
Pakeistos 20-21 eilutės iš
Veiksmai sieja apytakos į:
Veiksmai sieja apytakas Pridėtos 30-39 eilutės:
Each level may be understood as introducing an additional operation which runs in parallel to the existing ones. These operations may be thought of as operations +1, +2, +3 on divisions of everything (each adding 1, 2 or 3 perspectives, respectively). Each operation is a going beyond oneself.
Each level engenders more structure, until the final layer has it collapse. Pridėta 41 eilutė:
2021 kovo 03 d., 23:01
atliko -
Pakeistos 14-15 eilutės iš
į:
Veiksmai sieja padalinimus Pridėtos 19-30 eilutės:
Veiksmai sieja apytakos Trys veiksmai +1, +2, +3 yra tarpai tarp keturių lygmenų. Jie išvertimais veda iš vienos apytakos į kitą:
Veiksmai veda vis gilyn ir užsisklendžia trejybės ratu. Šalia jų yra veiksmas +4 kuris veda iš dvasios į vieningumą bet kartu apsuka žvilgsnį, tad veda iš Dievo į žmogų. Užtat galima iš žmogaus grįžti į Dievą pasirinkimais. Veiksmu +4 galima keliauti pirmyn ir atgal nuo Dievo ir žmogaus, tiesti jų požiūrių grandinę. 2021 sausio 16 d., 22:22
atliko -
Pakeista 3 eilutė iš:
Ir Vienas, Ir Du, Ir Trys, Meilė. Taip pat: SharedUnderstanding, Heart, ConstructiveHypotheses, Activity, Factors, Beginning, EternalLife, LevelsOfUnderstanding. į:
Išgyvenimo apytaka, Padalinimų ratas, Ir Vienas, Ir Du, Ir Trys, Meilė. Taip pat: SharedUnderstanding, Heart, ConstructiveHypotheses, Activity, Factors, Beginning, EternalLife, LevelsOfUnderstanding. 2021 sausio 16 d., 22:21
atliko -
Pakeistos 1-2 eilutės iš
Žr. Ir Vienas, Ir Du, Ir Trys, Meilė. Taip pat: SharedUnderstanding, Heart, ConstructiveHypotheses, Activity, Factors, Beginning, EternalLife, LevelsOfUnderstanding. į:
Ištrinta 8 eilutė:
2020 liepos 03 d., 16:32
atliko -
Pridėta 6 eilutė:
2020 liepos 03 d., 16:30
atliko -
Pakeistos 49-57 eilutės iš
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:
į:
Veiksmai Veiksmai mus veda iš vieno padalinimo į kitą. Juos apibrėžia jų poveikis nulybei. Jie veikia cikliškai. Jie prideda 1, 2, 3 arba 0 požiūrius:
2020 liepos 03 d., 16:26
atliko -
Pakeistos 39-46 eilutės iš
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. į:
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. Pakeistos 52-56 eilutės iš
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:
į:
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:
Pakeistos 61-62 eilutės iš
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}}.
į:
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.
Pakeistos 66-75 eilutės iš
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:
į:
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:
Pakeistos 84-92 eilutės iš
===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:
į:
===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:
Pakeistos 95-101 eilutės iš
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:
į:
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:
Pakeistos 108-112 eilutės iš
į:
Pakeistos 123-124 eilutės iš
God goes beyond himself, out of the unbounded and into the bounded, thus generating {{Everything}}. į:
God goes beyond himself, out of the unbounded and into the bounded, thus generating Everything. Pakeistos 129-130 eilutės iš
{{God}} is of himself. What is there for God do? į:
God is of himself. What is there for God do? Pakeista 177 eilutė iš:
{{Andrius}}: I think there is nothing wrong with this reasoning. I think it is in fact the truth. į:
Andrius: I think there is nothing wrong with this reasoning. I think it is in fact the truth. 2020 gegužės 21 d., 15:46
atliko -
Pridėtos 3-6 eilutės:
Pakeista 11 eilutė iš:
Trys veiksmai išsako +1 sandarą, +2 savybes, +3 esmę. Pavyzdžiui: Dievas, viskas - Dievo sandara, troškimai - Dievo savybės, meilė - Dievo esmė. Įdomu, kad Dievo troškimai į labiausiai išsiskleidusį troškimą, meilę. O visko savybės susiveda į visas savybes turintį viską, mažiausiai savybių turi niekas. Visko keturias savybes turėtų išsakyti lygtis 1+2=3, o Dievo keturias savybes turėtų išsakyti lygtis 0+2=2. į:
Trys veiksmai išsako +1 sandarą, +2 savybes, +3 esmę. Pavyzdžiui: Dievas, viskas - Dievo sandara, troškimai - Dievo savybės, meilė - Dievo esmė. Įdomu, kad Dievo troškimai į labiausiai išsiskleidusį troškimą, meilę. O visko savybės susiveda į visas savybes turintį viską, mažiausiai savybių turi niekas. 2020 gegužės 21 d., 15:45
atliko -
Pakeista 7 eilutė iš:
Trys veiksmai išsako +1 sandarą, +2 savybes, +3 esmę. Pavyzdžiui: Dievas, viskas - Dievo sandara, troškimai - Dievo savybės, meilė - Dievo esmė. Įdomu, kad Dievo troškimai į labiausiai išsiskleidusį troškimą, meilę. O visko savybės susiveda į visas savybes turintį viską, mažiausiai savybių turi niekas. į:
Trys veiksmai išsako +1 sandarą, +2 savybes, +3 esmę. Pavyzdžiui: Dievas, viskas - Dievo sandara, troškimai - Dievo savybės, meilė - Dievo esmė. Įdomu, kad Dievo troškimai į labiausiai išsiskleidusį troškimą, meilę. O visko savybės susiveda į visas savybes turintį viską, mažiausiai savybių turi niekas. Visko keturias savybes turėtų išsakyti lygtis 1+2=3, o Dievo keturias savybes turėtų išsakyti lygtis 0+2=2. 2020 gegužės 21 d., 15:44
atliko -
Pridėtos 6-7 eilutės:
Trys veiksmai išsako +1 sandarą, +2 savybes, +3 esmę. Pavyzdžiui: Dievas, viskas - Dievo sandara, troškimai - Dievo savybės, meilė - Dievo esmė. Įdomu, kad Dievo troškimai į labiausiai išsiskleidusį troškimą, meilę. O visko savybės susiveda į visas savybes turintį viską, mažiausiai savybių turi niekas. 2020 vasario 21 d., 19:48
atliko -
Pakeistos 206-218 eilutės iš
į:
Užrašai Veiksmai
2018 sausio 19 d., 20:27
atliko -
Pridėtos 8-10 eilutės:
2017 spalio 14 d., 00:40
atliko -
Pakeistos 379-385 eilutės iš
į:
Kaip veiksmas +2 tampa veiksmu +3? Kaip stebėjimas tampa sąmoningumu? Kaip pereinama iš nuorodų (indeksų) į sąmoningumą? Pajungus išjungus nuorodas. Įsijungimas-atsitraukimas - step in and out. Keturios studentų klausimų rūšys susiję su kūnu (gyvenimu), protu (žinojimu), širdimi (laime) ir valia (dora) ir taip pat su lygtimis 3+3=6, 4+3=-1, 5+3=0, 6+3=1. 4,5,6,7-bė kuria "vienetą", pavyzdžiui, sąvoka - laike, kaip jie susiję ir kaip padalinimų skaidymas susijęs su pertvarkymais ir sąmonę bei pasąmonę? Wholeness of division is defined as +1, +2, +3. Choice of how to interpret the division. Dievas yra visumoje. Mes esame paskirame požiūryje. 2017 spalio 14 d., 00:37
atliko -
Pridėtos 372-378 eilutės:
2016 gruodžio 31 d., 18:35
atliko -
Pridėtos 16-17 eilutės:
Veiksmas +2, tai kaip metų laikai, jų ratas: Dievas žiema, būtis pavasaris, žinojimas vasara, nežinojimas ruduo. 2016 kovo 04 d., 20:20
atliko -
Pridėtos 10-13 eilutės:
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. 2015 gegužės 29 d., 10:15
atliko -
Pakeistos 32-34 eilutės iš
Lygtys į:
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:
http://www.ms.lt/en/andrius/diagrams/operations.jpg 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}}.
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:
I think that the operations express God's relationships:
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:
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:
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.
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 Pakeistos 197-268 eilutės iš
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:
http://www.ms.lt/en/andrius/diagrams/operations.jpg 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}}.
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:
I that the operations express {{God}}'s relationships:
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:
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.
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. Laiškas Christopher Langan į:
Laiškas Christopher Langan 2015 gegužės 29 d., 10:11
atliko -
Pakeistos 1-2 eilutės iš
į:
Žr. Ir Vienas, Ir Du, Ir Trys, Meilė. Taip pat: SharedUnderstanding, Heart, ConstructiveHypotheses, Activity, Factors, Beginning, EternalLife, LevelsOfUnderstanding. Pridėtos 31-62 eilutės:
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. Pakeistos 65-66 eilutės iš
===From a letter that I wrote to ChristopherLangan=== į:
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. 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:
http://www.ms.lt/en/andrius/diagrams/operations.jpg 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}}.
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:
I that the operations express {{God}}'s relationships:
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:
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.
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. Laiškas Christopher Langan Pakeistos 204-207 eilutės iš
started going through your introduction http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/IntroCTMU.htm which I'm finding to be a good place to start. į:
started going through your introduction which I'm finding to be a good place to start. Pakeistos 217-218 eilutės iš
"all things are the same" (as with fate). http://www.openleader.com/index.php/GlossaryOfStructure/Twosome į:
"all things are the same" (as with fate). Pakeistos 219-220 eilutės iš
through, and reflect": http://www.openleader.com/index.php/GlossaryOfStructure/Threesome į:
through, and reflect". Pakeistos 221-222 eilutės iš
http://www.openleader.com/index.php/GlossaryOfStructure/Foursome į:
Ištrintos 366-532 eilutės:
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. Veiksmai See also: {{Activity}}, {{Equations}}, {{Factors}}, {{Beginning}}, EternalLife, LevelsOfUnderstanding 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:
http://www.ms.lt/en/andrius/diagrams/operations.jpg 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}}.
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:
I that the operations express {{God}}'s relationships:
and in each case this is based on GoingBeyondOneself Apžvalga veiksmais See also: Overview, Operations ===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:
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}}.
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. 2015 gegužės 29 d., 10:05
atliko -
Pakeistos 1-2 eilutės iš
Žr. Ir Vienas, Ir Du, Ir Trys, Meilė. Taip pat: {{Operations}}, {{Equations}}, SharedUnderstanding, {{heart}}, ConstructiveHypotheses į:
Pridėtos 13-14 eilutės:
Žiūrėjimas atgal (į Dievą) ir pirmyn (su Dievu) Ištrintos 29-31 eilutės:
Ištrintos 32-57 eilutės:
Perhaps related... [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, Dont 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. Pridėtos 373-398 eilutės:
[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, Dont 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. 2015 gegužės 29 d., 10:03
atliko -
Pakeistos 5-25 eilutės iš
Dievui yra tik vienybė vietoj nulybės, tad jis neapeina ratu. Dievui vienybė yra klausimas, ar Dievas yra būtinas? Dievas septynerybe nebūtinas, jisai ilsisi. There are 24 equations that result from the 3 {{Operations}} ([AddOne +1], [AddTwo +2], [AddThree +3]) acting on the eight {{Divisions}} of {{Everything}}. [AddOne +1] adds a new end [NullAddOne 0+1=1], [OneAddOne 1+1=2], [TwoAddOne 2+1=3], [ThreeAddOne 3+1=4], [FourAddOne 4+1=5], [FiveAddOne 5+1=6], [SixAddOne 6+1=7], [SevenAddOne 7+1=0]. [AddTwo +2] looks back at oneself (by way of the end) [NullAddTwo 0+2=2], [OneAddTwo 1+2=3], [TwoAddTwo 2+2=4], [ThreeAddTwo 3+2=5], [FourAddTwo 4+2=6], [FiveAddTwo 5+2=7], [SixAddTwo 6+2=0], [SevenAddTwo 7+2=1]. [AddThree +3] introduces the 8 cycle of divisions, it is a cyclic operation [NullAddThree 0+3=3], [OneAddThree 1+3=4], [TwoAddThree 2+3=5], [ThreeAddThree 3+3=6], [FourAddThree 4+3=7], [FiveAddThree 5+3=0], [SixAddThree 6+3=1], [SevenAddThree 7+3=2]. Veiksmai ===What is an operation?=== Note: I have made progress relating the operation to the SecondaryStructures There seem to be four operations: [AddZero +0], [AddOne +1], [AddTwo +2], [AddThree +3] that map DivisionsOfEverything onto divisions. į:
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. Pakeistos 9-22 eilutės iš
In particular, I think that consciousness is expressed by the operation [PlusThree +3]. I'm currently interested in relating these to TheBeginning and TheEnd. +1 adds a new end [NullAddOne 0+1=1], [OneAddOne 1+1=2], [TwoAddOne 2+1=3], [ThreeAddOne 3+1=4], [FourAddOne 4+1=5], [FiveAddOne 5+1=6], [SixAddOne 6+1=7], [SevenAddOne 7+1=0]. +2 looks back at oneself (by way of the end) [NullAddTwo 0+2=2], [OneAddTwo 1+2=3], [TwoAddTwo 2+2=4], [ThreeAddTwo 3+2=5], [FourAddTwo 4+2=6], [FiveAddTwo 5+2=7], [SixAddTwo 6+2=0], [SevenAddTwo 7+2=1]. +3 introduces the 8 cycle of divisions, it is a cyclic operation [NullAddThree 0+3=3], [OneAddThree 1+3=4], [TwoAddThree 2+3=5], [ThreeAddThree 3+3=6], [FourAddThree 4+3=7], [FiveAddThree 5+3=0], [SixAddThree 6+3=1], [SevenAddThree 7+3=2]. Tai 24 = 3 x 8 lygtys. į:
Sąmoningumą išreiškia veiksmas +3. Įsivaizduoju, blogą vaiką ir gerą vaiką perpina veiksmas +2. I was interested in relating these to TheBeginning and TheEnd, looking forwards and backwards.
Pridėtos 28-31 eilutės:
Dievui yra tik vienybė vietoj nulybės, tad jis neapeina ratu. Dievui vienybė yra klausimas, ar Dievas yra būtinas? Dievas septynerybe nebūtinas, jisai ilsisi. 2015 gegužės 29 d., 09:54
atliko -
Pakeistos 1-2 eilutės iš
Žr. Ir Vienas, Ir Du, Ir Trys. Taip pat: {{Operations}}, {{Equations}}, SharedUnderstanding, {{heart}}, ConstructiveHypotheses į:
Žr. Ir Vienas, Ir Du, Ir Trys, Meilė. Taip pat: {{Operations}}, {{Equations}}, SharedUnderstanding, {{heart}}, ConstructiveHypotheses Pridėtos 16-41 eilutės:
Veiksmai ===What is an operation?=== Note: I have made progress relating the operation to the SecondaryStructures There seem to be four operations: [AddZero +0], [AddOne +1], [AddTwo +2], [AddThree +3] that map DivisionsOfEverything onto divisions. 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. In particular, I think that consciousness is expressed by the operation [PlusThree +3]. I'm currently interested in relating these to TheBeginning and TheEnd. +1 adds a new end [NullAddOne 0+1=1], [OneAddOne 1+1=2], [TwoAddOne 2+1=3], [ThreeAddOne 3+1=4], [FourAddOne 4+1=5], [FiveAddOne 5+1=6], [SixAddOne 6+1=7], [SevenAddOne 7+1=0]. +2 looks back at oneself (by way of the end) [NullAddTwo 0+2=2], [OneAddTwo 1+2=3], [TwoAddTwo 2+2=4], [ThreeAddTwo 3+2=5], [FourAddTwo 4+2=6], [FiveAddTwo 5+2=7], [SixAddTwo 6+2=0], [SevenAddTwo 7+2=1]. +3 introduces the 8 cycle of divisions, it is a cyclic operation [NullAddThree 0+3=3], [OneAddThree 1+3=4], [TwoAddThree 2+3=5], [ThreeAddThree 3+3=6], [FourAddThree 4+3=7], [FiveAddThree 5+3=0], [SixAddThree 6+3=1], [SevenAddThree 7+3=2]. Tai 24 = 3 x 8 lygtys. Ištrintos 53-56 eilutės:
2005.02.23 {{A}}: Kaip lygtį (padalinimų) suprasti kaip sandaugą dvejybės, trejybės ir ketverybės? {{D}}: Tu suprask irdies vaidmenį, kaip ji bando surasti mane, ir kaip jai tai dalinai pavyksta. {{A}}: Tai susiję su vaisingom prielaidom. {{D}}: Taip, pamatysi. Pakeistos 407-430 eilutės iš
Veiksmai See also: SecondaryStructures, OperationalSummary ===What is an operation?=== Note: I have made progress relating the operation to the SecondaryStructures There seem to be four operations: [AddZero +0], [AddOne +1], [AddTwo +2], [AddThree +3] that map DivisionsOfEverything onto divisions. 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. In particular, I think that consciousness is expressed by the operation [PlusThree +3]. I'm currently interested in relating these to TheBeginning and TheEnd. +1 adds a new end [NullAddOne 0+1=1], [OneAddOne 1+1=2], [TwoAddOne 2+1=3], [ThreeAddOne 3+1=4], [FourAddOne 4+1=5], [FiveAddOne 5+1=6], [SixAddOne 6+1=7], [SevenAddOne 7+1=0]. +2 looks back at oneself (by way of the end) [NullAddTwo 0+2=2], [OneAddTwo 1+2=3], [TwoAddTwo 2+2=4], [ThreeAddTwo 3+2=5], [FourAddTwo 4+2=6], [FiveAddTwo 5+2=7], [SixAddTwo 6+2=0], [SevenAddTwo 7+2=1]. +3 introduces the 8 cycle of divisions, it is a cyclic operation [NullAddThree 0+3=3], [OneAddThree 1+3=4], [TwoAddThree 2+3=5], [ThreeAddThree 3+3=6], [FourAddThree 4+3=7], [FiveAddThree 5+3=0], [SixAddThree 6+3=1], [SevenAddThree 7+3=2]. These may be thought of as 24 {{Equations}}. į:
Pakeistos 421-423 eilutės iš
===Discussion=== {{Andrius}}: Benoit, see: {{Love}} į:
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. 2015 vasario 04 d., 12:55
atliko -
Pridėtos 1-2 eilutės:
Žr. Ir Vienas, Ir Du, Ir Trys. Taip pat: {{Operations}}, {{Equations}}, SharedUnderstanding, {{heart}}, ConstructiveHypotheses Ištrintos 4-5 eilutės:
See also: {{Operations}}, {{Equations}}, SharedUnderstanding, {{heart}}, ConstructiveHypotheses 2014 lapkričio 24 d., 21:44
atliko -
Pakeista 6 eilutė iš:
Dievui yra tik vienybė vietoj nulybės, tad jis neapeina ratu. Dievui vienybė yra klausimas, ar Dievas yra būtinas? į:
Dievui yra tik vienybė vietoj nulybės, tad jis neapeina ratu. Dievui vienybė yra klausimas, ar Dievas yra būtinas? Dievas septynerybe nebūtinas, jisai ilsisi. 2014 lapkričio 24 d., 21:44
atliko -
Pridėtos 5-6 eilutės:
Dievui yra tik vienybė vietoj nulybės, tad jis neapeina ratu. Dievui vienybė yra klausimas, ar Dievas yra būtinas? 2014 lapkričio 10 d., 20:35
atliko -
Ištrintos 418-421 eilutės:
===Questions and Challenges=== Relate operations to {{Spirit}}, {{Structure}}, {{Representations}}, {{Unity}} and think of them as ever 2014 birželio 06 d., 12:12
atliko -
Pakeistos 381-426 eilutės iš
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 į:
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 Veiksmai See also: SecondaryStructures, OperationalSummary ===What is an operation?=== Note: I have made progress relating the operation to the SecondaryStructures There seem to be four operations: [AddZero +0], [AddOne +1], [AddTwo +2], [AddThree +3] that map DivisionsOfEverything onto divisions. 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. In particular, I think that consciousness is expressed by the operation [PlusThree +3]. I'm currently interested in relating these to TheBeginning and TheEnd. +1 adds a new end [NullAddOne 0+1=1], [OneAddOne 1+1=2], [TwoAddOne 2+1=3], [ThreeAddOne 3+1=4], [FourAddOne 4+1=5], [FiveAddOne 5+1=6], [SixAddOne 6+1=7], [SevenAddOne 7+1=0]. +2 looks back at oneself (by way of the end) [NullAddTwo 0+2=2], [OneAddTwo 1+2=3], [TwoAddTwo 2+2=4], [ThreeAddTwo 3+2=5], [FourAddTwo 4+2=6], [FiveAddTwo 5+2=7], [SixAddTwo 6+2=0], [SevenAddTwo 7+2=1]. +3 introduces the 8 cycle of divisions, it is a cyclic operation [NullAddThree 0+3=3], [OneAddThree 1+3=4], [TwoAddThree 2+3=5], [ThreeAddThree 3+3=6], [FourAddThree 4+3=7], [FiveAddThree 5+3=0], [SixAddThree 6+3=1], [SevenAddThree 7+3=2]. These may be thought of as 24 {{Equations}}. ===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}}.
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. ===Questions and Challenges=== Relate operations to {{Spirit}}, {{Structure}}, {{Representations}}, {{Unity}} and think of them as ever ===Discussion=== {{Andrius}}: Benoit, see: {{Love}} 2014 birželio 06 d., 12:11
atliko -
Pakeistos 357-381 eilutės iš
and in each case this is based on GoingBeyondOneself į:
and in each case this is based on GoingBeyondOneself Apžvalga veiksmais See also: Overview, Operations ===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:
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 2014 birželio 06 d., 12:11
atliko -
Pridėtos 324-357 eilutės:
Veiksmai See also: {{Activity}}, {{Equations}}, {{Factors}}, {{Beginning}}, EternalLife, LevelsOfUnderstanding 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:
http://www.ms.lt/en/andrius/diagrams/operations.jpg 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}}.
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:
I that the operations express {{God}}'s relationships:
and in each case this is based on GoingBeyondOneself 2014 birželio 06 d., 11:59
atliko -
Pakeistos 227-323 eilutės iš
Sarunas Raudys http://www.science.mii.lt/mii/raudys/ į:
Sarunas Raudys http://www.science.mii.lt/mii/raudys/ 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. 2014 birželio 06 d., 11:10
atliko -
Pakeistos 54-227 eilutės iš
The four living creatures said, Amen! The elders fell down and worshiped. į:
The four living creatures said, Amen! The elders fell down and worshiped. ===From a letter that I wrote to ChristopherLangan=== Dear Chris, I'm finding your thinking very relevant to my own life work. I've started going through your introduction http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/IntroCTMU.htm 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). http://www.openleader.com/index.php/GlossaryOfStructure/Twosome We may divide everything into three perspectives: "take a stand, follow through, and reflect": http://www.openleader.com/index.php/GlossaryOfStructure/Threesome Or into four perspectives: "why, how, what, whether". http://www.openleader.com/index.php/GlossaryOfStructure/Foursome I noticed that "everything" served as an absolute anchor, and that it had four properties:
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:)
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
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/ 2014 gegužės 19 d., 15:44
atliko -
Pakeistos 1-54 eilutės iš
į:
See also: {{Operations}}, {{Equations}}, SharedUnderstanding, {{heart}}, ConstructiveHypotheses There are 24 equations that result from the 3 {{Operations}} ([AddOne +1], [AddTwo +2], [AddThree +3]) acting on the eight {{Divisions}} of {{Everything}}. [AddOne +1] adds a new end [NullAddOne 0+1=1], [OneAddOne 1+1=2], [TwoAddOne 2+1=3], [ThreeAddOne 3+1=4], [FourAddOne 4+1=5], [FiveAddOne 5+1=6], [SixAddOne 6+1=7], [SevenAddOne 7+1=0]. [AddTwo +2] looks back at oneself (by way of the end) [NullAddTwo 0+2=2], [OneAddTwo 1+2=3], [TwoAddTwo 2+2=4], [ThreeAddTwo 3+2=5], [FourAddTwo 4+2=6], [FiveAddTwo 5+2=7], [SixAddTwo 6+2=0], [SevenAddTwo 7+2=1]. [AddThree +3] introduces the 8 cycle of divisions, it is a cyclic operation [NullAddThree 0+3=3], [OneAddThree 1+3=4], [TwoAddThree 2+3=5], [ThreeAddThree 3+3=6], [FourAddThree 4+3=7], [FiveAddThree 5+3=0], [SixAddThree 6+3=1], [SevenAddThree 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:
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. 2005.02.23 {{A}}: Kaip lygtį (padalinimų) suprasti kaip sandaugą dvejybės, trejybės ir ketverybės? {{D}}: Tu suprask irdies vaidmenį, kaip ji bando surasti mane, ir kaip jai tai dalinai pavyksta. {{A}}: Tai susiję su vaisingom prielaidom. {{D}}: Taip, pamatysi. Perhaps related... [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, Dont 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. 2013 gruodžio 28 d., 21:36
atliko -
Pakeistos 1-131 eilutės iš
Žr. Aprašas?, Užduotys?, Sumanymai?, DievoProtas20120401, Lietuvių spauda?, Švietimas Čikagoje
Sumanymai Ateičiai
Kalendorius
Pažintys
Mąstau kur rengti kitas parodas. Ieškoti ryšio su kitais tikėjimais:
Vaidyba The Possibility Playhouse Išreklamuoti Čikagoje
Parasiau
Paramos šaltiniai
Englewood
Plačiau Menininkai, su kuriais reikėtų susipažinti
į:
|
VeiksmaiNaujausi 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 |
Puslapis paskutinį kartą pakeistas 2023 spalio 14 d., 19:36
|