Gvildenu

Bendrystė

Andrius

Juodraštis? FFFFFF

Užrašai EEEEEE

Klausimai FFFFC0

Gvildenimai CAE7FA

Pavyzdžiai? ECD9EC

Šaltiniai? EFCFE1

Duomenys? FFE6E6

Išsiaiškinimai D8F1D8

Pratimai? FF9999

Dievas man? FFECC0

Pavaizdavimai? E6E6FF

Istorija AAAAAA

Asmeniškai? BA9696

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

Įranga

redaguoti

Žr. Viena

Buvimas viena

2007 m. rugpjūčio mėn. 1 d.

This year I have been trying to find the end of the string that ties it all together. The unfolding is driven by God's going beyond himself. But what in his nature most deeply compels him? For example,

  • the unconditional goes beyond itself into the conditional;
  • the indefinite into the definite;
  • the inconsistent into the consistent;
  • the unlimited into the limited;

and so on. What seems to be at the heart is that

  • "being one with" goes beyond itself into "not being one with".

I'm still not sure, but it is emotionally meaningful, morally satisfying, structurally fruitful and also scripturally central given Jesus's personal prayer to his Father in the Gospel of John where he speaks of "love" and "being one with" as if they were analogues. Perhaps "being one with" is a premonition of "love" in the sense that I will explain below.

As I swirled inward looking for the starting point of it all, I recognized that I should distinguish

  • the structural facts

from the

  • explanatory theory

which I was seeking. The structural facts about our minds were there to be explained regardless of any theory. Although a successful theory might make those facts much more evident. But what I am doing now is seeking a theory. My instinct is that God (to be defined or not!) is at the root of it all. Whether or not God exists - and I think God is prior to matters of existence - but my theory is that if we can take up God's point of view then we can indeed know everything and apply that knowledge usefully.

You might imagine, the closer that we get to the starting point, the more we have to let go of all of our presumptions and contexts. Indeed, our greatest presumptions must be built into the starting point. So as I kept rethinking the starting point I wondered maybe Theory itself is the starting point because that is what I am seeking and is the context in which I am working. Then I recalled the beginning of the Gospel of John: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." http://www.ebible.org/web/John.htm And in Greek the "Word" is Logos which has many interpretations. But I thought, what if Logos means Theory? And that seems quite plausible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos And there is a supposedly literal translation of the Greek: "In beginning was the word, and the word was toward the god, and god was the word". From my point of view this would say: "In the beginning there was the Theory, and the Theory (was embraced by? or went beyond itself to?) God, and the God was (defined as?) Theory." In the Christian faith, the Logos is identified with Jesus Christ, the Son of God, which might make sense in that Jesus is the perfect person in theory - the organizing principle for our universe - who was then realized in practice.

This allows God - or the root of it all - to be considered as the Theory such that:

  • God is the Theory of BeingOneWith
  • The Facts are that the Theory is going beyond itself into what is NotBeingOneWith
  • The Truth is the Application that we can be meeting the Theory and thus BeingOneWith

This opens up a role for us as those in NotBeingOneWith who can meet with BeingOneWith and enter into it, link up our perspective with its perspective. It also provides a stark moral choice between "living with a theory" and "living without any theory". I suspect that the latter option ends badly, but this may very well be life's question. And perhaps a more troubling question is, if we "live with a theory" (a god), then must we "live with a Theory" (a God), which is to say, live by a comprehensive theory?

I also noticed that the most explicit, developed structures (divisions of everything, topologies, representations) were at play from the very beginning in the unfolding of structure. But I realized that they could be thought of as premonitions of what was to come and only realized themselves as Definition itself progressed from soft to hard. And I saw that this progression could be measured by the Scope given by the overlap of BeingOneWith and NotBeingOneWith so that at the beginning they are the same and the scope is Everything, but as Truth hardens, they become separate and the scope is Nothing.

I then looked at the different fundamental concepts that were relevant to explain the unfolding of the structure. The notion of Conditional and Unconditional was quite central but I realized that this could be driven by the perspective of NotBeingOneWith. There were also concepts that played off both oppositions (+/- BeingOneWith and +- Unconditional), namely:

  • Person (such as God, I, You, Other) = Unconditional BeingOneWith
  • Perspective (such as Life, Anything, Choosing, Will) = Conditional BeingOneWith
  • Position (such as EternalLife, Wisdom, GoodWill, GodsWill) = Conditional NotBeingOneWith
  • System (such as God, Everything, Wishing, Love) = Unconditional NotBeingOneWith

and these are organized by the diagram I wrote about earlier regarding Experiencing and Understanding at http://www.worknets.org/http://www.ms.lt/livingbytruth/?page=LivingByTruth/Overview

So I thought in what sense "BeingOneWith and NotBeingOneWith" are to BeingOneWith what "Unconditional" and "Conditional" are to NotBeingOneWith? And I realized that what is NotBeingOneWith is separating it's own perspective from whatever it might even be one with, which is to say, it is not subjective, it is not engaged. As I thought about that I realized that we might phrase this positively in terms of grounds for definition:

  • BeingOneWith is "sharing the grounds for definition"
  • NotBeingOneWith is "not sharing the grounds for definition"

Which is to say that BeingOneWith is inclusive and treating others by the same presumptions as in "love your neighbor as yourself" and "love God". Whereas NotBeingOneWith is keeping others at arm's length and applying a different standard to them. BeingOneWith is "allowing for A theory" whereas NotBeingOneWith is "not allowing for A theory". What this means is that NotBeingOneWith allows for "redefinition", "reinterpretation" as it is engaged by BeingOneWith and chased as to its grounds until after four levels finally they are all exhausted and there is nothing left of NotBeingOneWith except the freedom that was opened up in this.

Dievas mumyse susivokia, kad jis yra vaikas, o Dievas už mūsų yra tėvas, užtat gyvenant įsakymu, gali būti viena - pasiklydusiu vaiku.

Esame viena malda, nes ja mūsų valia viena. Tam ir yra esmė, sandarų atvaizdų vieningumas, tai mūsų vienumo pagrindas, kuriuo galime sutapti.

System distinguishes experiencing and understanding, May 1, 2007, Andrius Kulikauskas

Viena

===Notes on BeingOneWith from Overview===

BeingOneWith allows for NotBeingOneWith and thus arises in it and considers it a presumption of BeingOneWith, so that they are the same BeingOneWith. However, NotBeingOneWith considers itself as the negation of BeingOneWith that is overturned by BeingOneWith and is thus distinct from it.

In this way NotBeingOneWith defines BeingOneWith. This definition evolves ever more subtly until NotBeingOneWith in fact determines BeingOneWith and is the same as it. This evolution yields an AlgebraOfPerspectives, a system of lenses through which God and other look, taking up perspectives, sharing perspectives, a system in which Perspectives exist and are defined.

What is the relationship between BeingOneWith and NotBeingOneWith?

BeingOneWith provides Reference and so NotBeingOneWith is NonReference. NotBeingOneWith provides Condition and so BeingOneWith is Unconditional and satisfying Condition.

God is the one who is both unconditionally BeingOneWith (Experiencing) and conditionally GoingBeyondOneself (Understanding). He is BeingOneWith both the Unconditional and the Conditional.

With reference to God, BeingOneWith and NotBeingOneWith are states, activities, qualities. Without reference to God, and thus without reference, they are conditions, thus definitions. There is thus a distinction between the Conditional (the definite) and the Unconditional (the indefinite). Condition defines BeingOneWith as the meeting of the condition and NotBeingOneWith as the not meeting of the condition. First and foremost it is the condition of being Conditional, and in this sense the Unconditional (and God of himself) is NotBeingOneWith. Condition is negation, it is No and only conditionally, Yes.

In this way God is separated from his quality BeingOneWith and is considered as the Unconditional. The Conditional and the Unconditional are related by the two by two matrix of states:

  • As BeingOneWith - Unconditional
  • BeingOneWith As BeingOneWith - Unconditional BeingOneWith - Person
  • BeingOneWith As NotBeingOneWith - Conditional BeingOneWith - Relationship with Person
  • NotBeingOneWith As NotBeingOneWith - Conditional NotBeingOneWith - Relationship with System
  • NotBeingOneWith As BeingOneWith - Unconditional NotBeingOneWith - System
  • As NotBeingOneWith - Conditional

===Ways of BeingOneWith===

The following are all ways of being one with:

  • Spirit is Complete
  • Structure is Unobstructed
  • Representation is Familiar
  • Unity is Unified

===Scope and Being one with===

One concept that I'm finding important is "scope". It allows me to consider an "X", for example, "to love X", or "to be one with X". So it is an important part of having a "calculus".

I came across the different ways to "be one with X", and I think they give meaning to the expression "be X". For example, to "be one with Nobody" is to "be Nobody". Perhaps there is also some context for the "being one with", but that same context is implicit in "be", I think. In other words, the way to "be X" is to "be one with X".

I just noticed an odd {{Recursion}}... being X = being one with being one with being one with X and so on. But this may not be so bizaare, it seems appropriate. And it may relate to that reciprocal recursion that I wrote about.

  • If I am one with nobody, then I feel very sad, like Christ on the cross.
  • If I am one with somebody (not everybody), then I feel most surprised, and this is romantic love.
  • If I am one with anybody (not nobody), then I feel excited, a hyperflexible person in general, engaging and responding.
  • If I am one with everybody, then I feel completely content, everything is right.

So these are all the same love, but ....?

===Scripture===

Gospel of John

17:1 Jesus said these things, and lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said, "Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may also glorify you; 17:2 even as you gave him authority over all flesh, he will give eternal life to all whom you have given him. 17:3 This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ. 17:4 I glorified you on the earth. I have accomplished the work which you have given me to do. 17:5 Now, Father, glorify me with your own self with the glory which I had with you before the world existed. 17:6 I revealed your name to the people whom you have given me out of the world. They were yours, and you have given them to me. They have kept your word. 17:7 Now they have known that all things whatever you have given me are from you, 17:8 for the words which you have given me I have given to them, and they received them, and knew for sure that I came forth from you, and they have believed that you sent me. 17:9 I pray for them. I don't pray for the world, but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours. 17:10 All things that are mine are yours, and yours are mine, and I am glorified in them. 17:11 I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them through your name which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are. 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in your name. Those whom you have given me I have kept. None of them is lost, except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. 17:13 But now I come to you, and I say these things in the world, that they may have my joy made full in themselves. 17:14 I have given them your word. The world hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 17:15 I pray not that you would take them from the world, but that you would keep them from the evil one. 17:16 They are not of the world even as I am not of the world. 17:17 Sanctify them in your truth. Your word is truth.* 17:18 As you sent me into the world, even so I have sent them into the world. 17:19 For their sakes I sanctify myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth. 17:20 Not for these only do I pray, but for those also who believe in me through their word, 17:21 that they may all be one; even as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that you sent me. 17:22 The glory which you have given me, I have given to them; that they may be one, even as we are one; 17:23 I in them, and you in me, that they may be perfected into one; that the world may know that you sent me, and loved them, even as you loved me. 17:24 Father, I desire that they also whom you have given me be with me where I am, that they may see my glory, which you have given me, for you loved me before the foundation of the world. 17:25 Righteous Father, the world hasn't known you, but I knew you; and these knew that you sent me. 17:26 I made known to them your name, and will make it known; that the love with which you loved me may be in them, and I in them."

Vienumas2007


Naujausi pakeitimai


Puslapis paskutinį kartą pakeistas 2018 kovo 25 d., 10:01