调查

摘要

神的舞蹈

经历的道

知识的房子

神的调查

redaguoti

Mintys.Visaregis istorija

Paslėpti nežymius pakeitimus - Rodyti galutinio teksto pakeitimus

2021 sausio 13 d., 23:09 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeistos 1-2 eilutės iš
Žr. [[Apytakos]], [[Dievas | Dievo šokis]], [[Reikalai]], [[Padalinimų ratas]], [[Bendra sandara]], [[Viską žinoti]], [[20200519Visaregis]]
į:
>>bgcolor=#E9F5FC<<
--------------------

[[Apytakos]], [[Dievas | Dievo šokis]], [[Reikalai]], [[Padalinimų ratas]], [[Bendra sandara]], [[Viską žinoti]], [[20200519Visaregis]]
Pridėtos 6-10 eilutės:

'''Ar visaregis įžvelgtinas išgyvenimo apytakoje?'''

--------------------
>><<
2020 lapkričio 14 d., 19:30 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pridėtos 648-651 eilutės:

Attach:observationalplane.jpg

Attach:concerns.jpg
2020 lapkričio 14 d., 19:29 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pridėtos 626-647 eilutės:

Kampus apibrėžti ir susieti su pirminėmis sandaromis.


[+Visaregis+]

Visaregis, tai įžvelgtina sandara, siekiant viską suvesti. Visaregį išvedu iš keturių pirminių sandarų.

Visaregiu Aš (Dievas santvarkoje) išsaugoja save. Užtat Aš yra Dievo apribojimas. O patsai Dievas yra strimagalvis.

Visaregį galim suvokti, kaip rinkinį 24-ių kampų ar rūpesčių ar netroškimų. Šiuos rūpesčius išreiškia keturios pirminių sandarų grandines šešių rūpesčių. Jas apibendrinam, kaip: būti, atrodyti, turėti būti, rinktis:
* nusistatyti Dievo pagrindu užuot savo
* vykdyti Dievo pagrindu užuot savo
* permąstyti Dievo pagrindu užuot savo
* nusistatyti užuot permąstyti
* vykdyti užuot nusistatyti
* permąstyti užuot vykdyti
Visaregis tad išsako šešerybės poslinkius - trejybės vidinius ryšius ir tris išorinius ryšius iš jos su Dievu.

Tuos kampus suprantu poreikiais, abejonėmis, gėrio kryptimis ir pasiryžimais.

Visaregis išsako galimus kampus. O jie tampa paskirais rūpesčiais, netroškimais, kada mes pirminėmis sandaromis juos prisiimame ir jais atsiveriame Dievui.
2020 lapkričio 13 d., 20:55 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeista 11 eilutė iš:
** Ką tai pasako apie Dievo šokį, išgyvenimo apytaką, žinojimo rūmus, maldos mokslą?
į:
** Ką tai pasako apie Dievo šokį, išgyvenimo apytaką, žinojimo rūmus, meilės mokslą?
Pakeista 29 eilutė iš:
Visaregis yra viską apžvelgianti sandara, tarsi Dievo lęšis. Ja bandžiau nustatyti ir paaiškinti ką bendro turi keturios pirminės sandaros, kad galėčiau jas tiksliau apibrėžti, užtat teisingais pagrindais suvokti ir apibrėžti antrines sandaras, jų tarpe tris kalbas. Nemažai išmąsčiau, tačiau tai neturėjo pakankamo ryšio su gyvenimu, užtat taip ir nepavyko pasistūmėti trijų kalbų nusakyme. Vis dėl to tai padėjo suvokti asmenų (Dievo, Mano, Tavo, Kito) svarbą. Po daug metų, išmąsčius žinojimo rūmus ir Dievo šokį, išmąstant išgyvenimo apytaką ir maldos mokslą, iš viso keturias apytakas, naujai prisimenu visaregį, nes jisai irgi susideda iš 24 kampų. Tad tvarkau savo senus užrašus ir bandau suprasti visaregį kaip sandarą, kurio keturi atvaizdai yra keturios apytakos.
į:
Visaregis yra viską apžvelgianti sandara, tarsi Dievo lęšis. Ja bandžiau nustatyti ir paaiškinti ką bendro turi keturios pirminės sandaros, kad galėčiau jas tiksliau apibrėžti, užtat teisingais pagrindais suvokti ir apibrėžti antrines sandaras, jų tarpe tris kalbas. Nemažai išmąsčiau, tačiau tai neturėjo pakankamo ryšio su gyvenimu, užtat taip ir nepavyko pasistūmėti trijų kalbų nusakyme. Vis dėl to tai padėjo suvokti asmenų (Dievo, Mano, Tavo, Kito) svarbą. Po daug metų, išmąsčius žinojimo rūmus ir Dievo šokį, išmąstant išgyvenimo apytaką ir meilės mokslą, iš viso keturias apytakas, naujai prisimenu visaregį, nes jisai irgi susideda iš 24 kampų. Tad tvarkau savo senus užrašus ir bandau suprasti visaregį kaip sandarą, kurio keturi atvaizdai yra keturios apytakos.
2020 birželio 06 d., 12:59 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pridėtos 622-625 eilutės:

* Visaregis susideda iš vienybės (nejudamojo taško), dvejybės, trejybės (trejybės rato), ketverybės (apimčių). Keturios apytakos yra visaregio keturi atvaizdai.
* Kaip požiūris skiria nežinojimą (atsitokėjimą) ir žinojimą (įsijautimą). Kaip visaregis skiria nežinojimą ir žinojimą, atsiplėšimą nuo savo požiūrio. Kaip visaregis palaiko požiūrio grandinės (požiūrio į požiūrio ir t.t.) išaugimą ir jokio požiūrio nustatymą. Kaip ketverybė išreiškia jokio požiūrio (nulinio požiūrio) nustatymą. Kaip suprasti Dievo ir žmogaus požiūrius ir jų grandines?
* Visaregio lygmenų poros duoda dvejybę 2x1, trejybę 3x1, ketverybę 4x1, atvaizdus 2x3, padalinimus 2x4, aplinkybes 3x4. Po vieną, po tris, ar po keturis lygmenis duoda tas pačias dalines sandaras, prisideda tiktai visuminė sandara 2x3x4.
2020 gegužės 20 d., 11:38 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pridėtos 26-27 eilutės:

Visaregiu aš atsiplėšiu nuo savęs, tad jau yra Aš ir savastis, kurią visaregis išskleidžia. Visaregis išskleidžia sandarą kaip Mane supančias prielaidas, kaip Dievo lęšį, Dievo Dvasią.
2020 gegužės 20 d., 11:14 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pridėtos 24-25 eilutės:

Tad visaregis išreiškia būtent sąmonės (Mano, Dievo Sūnaus) aplinkybes išgyvenimo apytakoje. Visaregis Dievo Sūnaus kampu išreiškia Dievo šokį. Užtat visaregis nėra bendras visoms keturioms apytakoms, bet išreiškia kaip būtent Aš atsiplėšiu nuo savęs ir grindžiu savo požiūrį, ir bendrai požiūrius bei sandaras, kurie sieja mane ir Dievą.
2020 gegužės 20 d., 11:09 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pridėtos 22-23 eilutės:

Visaregis yra sandara nusakanti, kaip sąmonė įvairiai atsiplėšia nuo savęs išgyvenimo apytakoje. Sąmonės santykį su savimi išsako užmojis, "Trokštu viską žinoti ir tą žinojimą gražiai taikyti." Šiuo užmoju sąmonė atsiplėšia nuo savęs, išskirdama viengubą "Aš-Dievas", dvigubą "viskas" (žinoti-taikyti), trigubą "trokštu", ir keturgubą "meilė" (santykis "ir"). Šiais atsiplėšimais sąmonė apibrėžia 24 kampus-reikalus, kurių pagrindu sustato keturis netroškimus, papildančius pasąmonės troškimus. Netroškimai sieja išskyrimus: keturgubą, dvigubą, viengubą ir nulgubą. Šie išskyrimai nusako santykį tarp pasąmonės (Dievo) ir sąmonės (Manęs). Toliau sąmoningumui atsiveria galimybė šešiomis atjautomis suderinti troškimus ir netroškimus.
2020 gegužės 19 d., 19:08 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Ištrintos 14-15 eilutės:
* Parodyti kaip dvejonės kyla iš visaregio.
* Parodyti kaip kryptys į gėrį ir iš gėrio kyla iš visaregio.
2020 gegužės 19 d., 19:07 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pridėtos 10-14 eilutės:
** Koks ryšys tarp visaregio ir apytakų?
** Ką tai pasako apie Dievo šokį, išgyvenimo apytaką, žinojimo rūmus, maldos mokslą?
** Ką visaregis pasako apie Dievą ir asmenis, jų veiklą?
** Ką visaregis pasako apie Dievo ir žmogaus požiūrių grandinę?
** Ką visaregis pasako apie pirmines sandaras ir antrines sandaras?
2020 gegužės 19 d., 16:35 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeista 1 eilutė iš:
Žr. [[Apytakos]], [[Dievas | Dievo šokis]], [[Reikalai]], [[Padalinimų ratas]], [[Bendra sandara]], [[Viską žinoti]]
į:
Žr. [[Apytakos]], [[Dievas | Dievo šokis]], [[Reikalai]], [[Padalinimų ratas]], [[Bendra sandara]], [[Viską žinoti]], [[20200519Visaregis]]
2020 gegužės 19 d., 14:22 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeista 27 eilutė iš:
Visaregis susideda iš keturių išsiskyrimų, nukrypimų (divergences), kurie glūdi nuostatoje "Aš trokštu viską žinoti ir tą žinojimą gražiai taikyti".
į:
Visaregis susideda iš keturių išsiskyrimų, nukrypimų (divergences), kuriais Dievas atsiplėšia nuo savęs, atveria tarpą kuriame tveria savo požiūrį, savo lęšį, visaregį. Šie keturi išsiskyrimai glūdi nuostatoje "Aš trokštu viską žinoti ir tą žinojimą gražiai taikyti".
Pakeistos 32-34 eilutės iš
Juos kartu sudėjus gaunasi {$1 \times 2 \times 3 \times 4 = 24$} kampai, reikalai.

Šie keturi lygmenys grindžia
keturis išskyrimus (distinctions) įvairiai skiriančius Dievą ir žmogų.
į:
Juos kartu sudėjus gaunasi {$1 \times 2 \times 3 \times 4 = 24$} kampai, reikalai.

Dievo lęšis, visaregis, sustato
keturis lygmenis, kuriuose Dievas sutampa su savimi jei neišsiskiria nuo savęs. Kiekvienas lygmuo pasižymi savitu išskyrimo būdu. Tad yra keturi išskyrimai:
2020 gegužės 19 d., 14:14 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeistos 35-39 eilutės iš
* Keturgubas išskyrimas: išėjimas už savęs
* Dvigubas išskyrimas: buvimas dalimi
* Viengubas išskyrimas: tekinimas
* Nulgubas išskyrimas: numanymas
Tokiu būdu grindžiamas sutapimas, nulgubas išskyrimas.
į:
* Keturgubas išskyrimas: dvasia: išėjimas už savęs
* Dvigubas išskyrimas: sandara: buvimas dalimi
* Viengubas išskyrimas: atvaizdas: tekinimas
* Nulgubas išskyrimas: vieningumas: numanymas
Tokiu būdu grindžiamas sutapimas, nulgubas išskyrimas. Šie lygmenys skiria ir sieja Dievą, viską, troškimus, meilę.
2020 gegužės 19 d., 14:10 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Ištrintos 604-605 eilutės:

Attach:scopesofaccess.jpg
2020 gegužės 19 d., 14:10 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeistos 35-38 eilutės iš
* Keturgubas išskyrimas
* Dvigubas išskyrimas
* Viengubas
išskyrimas
* Nulgubas išskyrimas
į:
* Keturgubas išskyrimas: išėjimas už savęs
* Dvigubas
išskyrimas: buvimas dalimi
* Viengubas išskyrimas: tekinimas
* Nulgubas išskyrimas: numanymas
Pridėtos 40-46 eilutės:

Keturios pirminės sandaros apibrėžiamos taikant po vieną iš šių sutapimo supratimų: suprantant vienu iš
* Poreikių tenkinimas: išėjimas už savęs
* Dvejonės abejonėms: buvimas dalimi
* Gėrio kryptys: tekinimas
* Aštuongubas kelias: numanymas
Ar atvirkščiai?
2020 gegužės 19 d., 13:52 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeistos 22-40 eilutės iš
į:
Visaregis yra vienas iš sandarų sluoksnių:
* 1 visaregis
* 4 pirminės sandaros
* 6 antrinės sandaros

Visaregis susideda iš keturių išsiskyrimų, nukrypimų (divergences), kurie glūdi nuostatoje "Aš trokštu viską žinoti ir tą žinojimą gražiai taikyti".
* Viengubas išsiskyrimas
* Dvigubas išsiskyrimas
* Trigubas išsiskyrimas
* Keturgubas išsiskyrimas
Juos kartu sudėjus gaunasi {$1 \times 2 \times 3 \times 4 = 24$} kampai, reikalai.

Šie keturi lygmenys grindžia keturis išskyrimus (distinctions) įvairiai skiriančius Dievą ir žmogų.
* Keturgubas išskyrimas
* Dvigubas išskyrimas
* Viengubas išskyrimas
* Nulgubas išskyrimas
Tokiu būdu grindžiamas sutapimas, nulgubas išskyrimas.
Pakeista 43 eilutė iš:
The many structures that I'm aware of arise as we take up, sequentially, "human's view of God's view of human's view of God's view of human's view" (see ChainOfViews). I thought about an AlgebraOfViews. This lead me to the omniscope.
į:
The many structures that I'm aware of arise as we take up, sequentially, "human's view of God's view of human's view of God's view of human's view" (see ChainOfViews). I thought about an AlgebraOfViews. This led me to the omniscope.
2020 gegužės 19 d., 12:58 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeista 20 eilutė iš:
į:
Visaregis yra viską apžvelgianti sandara, tarsi Dievo lęšis. Ja bandžiau nustatyti ir paaiškinti ką bendro turi keturios pirminės sandaros, kad galėčiau jas tiksliau apibrėžti, užtat teisingais pagrindais suvokti ir apibrėžti antrines sandaras, jų tarpe tris kalbas. Nemažai išmąsčiau, tačiau tai neturėjo pakankamo ryšio su gyvenimu, užtat taip ir nepavyko pasistūmėti trijų kalbų nusakyme. Vis dėl to tai padėjo suvokti asmenų (Dievo, Mano, Tavo, Kito) svarbą. Po daug metų, išmąsčius žinojimo rūmus ir Dievo šokį, išmąstant išgyvenimo apytaką ir maldos mokslą, iš viso keturias apytakas, naujai prisimenu visaregį, nes jisai irgi susideda iš 24 kampų. Tad tvarkau savo senus užrašus ir bandau suprasti visaregį kaip sandarą, kurio keturi atvaizdai yra keturios apytakos.
2020 gegužės 19 d., 12:50 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pridėtos 18-22 eilutės:
'''Apžvalga'''


Pakeistos 59-60 eilutės iš
------------------
į:
'''Visaregis'''

* The '''Omniscope''' is a comprehensive view upon all Structure.
* Each of the four '''PrimaryStructures''' presents an ObservationalPlane of the omniscope as a relationship between God and human.
* Each of the six '''SecondaryStructures''' may be thought of as the coinciding of the Observer of a wider observational plane with an observer of a narrower observational plane.

I'll describe what I think is the "answer" in my own quest to KnowEverything. It is a contraption which I'll call the Omniscope. Just as a "telescope" lets us see what is far away, and a "microscope" lets us see what is small, an "omniscope" lets us see everything.

Inasmuch as we can imagine God, the omniscope is the contraption by which God observes himself. It gives the 24 Angles in which an Observer pulls away from an ObservationalPlane. In this sense, it gives the ways that God goes beyond himself, as God first associates himself with the ObservationalPlane, but then pulls himself away and associates himself with the Observer.

By pulling apart himself as observer and observational plane, he makes room for us, those who identify only with the observer. The omniscope and its angles are for us purely formal, but we then give life to them. In identifying ourselves with this observer, we interpret these Angles, these ways of pulling away as 24 Concerns, which is to say, 24 NotWishes. Our identification has us focus on a particular observational plane. This yields four PrimaryStructures, one for each observational plane. In this way, the purely formal structure of the omniscope becomes grounded in our outlook. We then coincide with the omniscope, so that God sees himself through us, and the omniscope defines everything as it relates to us.

The Omniscope gives the ways that I go from the bounded into the unbounded (thus accounting for but reversing God's going beyond himself from the unbounded into the bounded).

Dievas išeina už savęs 24 kampais

In order for an observer to pull away from an observational plane:
* the observational plane must be specified
* the observer and the observational plane must coincide
* the observer must then coincide with a point of reference separate from the observational plane

The 24 ways that God goes beyond himself are determined by, and the product of:

* The 4 observational planes that an observer might observe themselves through, allowing for access to: Everything, Anything, Something or Nothing;
* the 3 points of contact that an observer and an observational plane might have: either TakingAStand or FollowingThrough or Reflecting;
* the 2 points of reference that the observer might have when they are separate from the observational plane: either their own vantage point within the observational plane, as the ultimate Observer, or the absolute vantage point of all that is beyond the observational plane, which is to say, the vantage point of THE everything, as the ultimate ObservationalPlane.

In going beyond himself, God is both the observational plane (the God who will go beyond himself) and the observer (the God who has gone beyond himself) and the two have been separated.

'''Keturi pažinimo laukai'''

When an Observer observes themselves, this relationship characterizes the ObservationalPlane between them.

* If the observational plane coincides with both observer and observed, then they coincide, it lets through all perspectives, and is Everything
* If the observational plane coincides with the observer but not the observed, then it is a stepping in, and lets through any perspective, and is Anything
* If the observational plane coincides with the observed but not the observer, then it is a stepping out, and lets through a perspective, and is Something
* If the observational plane coincides with neither the observed nor the observer, then they are separate, it lets through no perspectives, and is Nothing

This relationship is completely formal. It gives the amount of opaqueness that separates the observer and the observed, the amount of perspective that is filtered out by self
-reflection, by which the observer sees less than the observed. Note that the observer may, in a sense, see more by seeing less.

God is identifiable with any of these four Scopes of access, which is to say, with any of these observational planes. However, God himself is beyond them all.

Attach:scopesofaccess.jpg

'''3 Points of Coinciding of Observer and ObservationalPlane'''

In order to distinguish the observer and their observational plane, it is important to first indicate how they coincide.

These positions are:
* TakingAStand: this is the position that is at the far end of the observational plane, it is what is "seen" upon looking through.
* FollowingThrough: this is the position in the middle of the observational plane that is "seeing", it is what identifies with the plane itself.
* Reflecting: this is what "sees", it is at the beginning of the observational plane.

They are related to the three PrinciplesOfLife which are unconceivable, namely: strong centers (taking a stand), strong boundaries (following through), levels of scale (reflecting).

'''Back into or back towards'''

Upon stepping away from one's observational plane, one may either identify with oneself (as the ultimate observer) or with whatever is beyond the observational plane (the ultimate observational plane). If one identifies with oneself as an observer, then one finds oneself within a new observational plane, as an observer always comes with some observational plane. Whereas if one identifies with the default observational plane, then that plane need not have an observer, and not the observer at hand, and so they can remain distinct. In the first case, this takes us backwards in the observational plane (perhaps like an ever expandable telescope), and in the second case, possibly completely out of the observational plane.

So if one:
* Follows through after taking a stand: then one steps back from the end of the observational "tube" and into its middle.
* Reflects after following through: then one steps back from the middle of the observational "tube" and into its beginning.
* Takes a stand after reflecting: then one reinterprets the beginning of the observational "tube" as actually the end of a deeper, more intimate observational "tube".
In every case one is moving deeper towards "THE everything" which stands behind and away from the observational tube. To the above three movements we may add three more that move one to THE everything:
* Back away from TakingAStand and to "THE everything".
* Back away from FollowingThrough and to "THE everything".
* Back away from Reflecting and to "THE everything".

We then multiply the four observational planes with the six shifts to get twenty
-four Angles. They remain abstract until they are intrepreted by us as Not-wishes.

Attach:observationalplane.jpg


24 kampai
- netroškimai
* Each of the Angles comes to life when we ourselves take it up and identify with it. We do this by way of the PrimaryStructures.
* I think that each of the three
-cycle's shifts distinguishes an observer from their observational plane. (This is essential for EternalLife). When the shift is complete, this distinction collapse, and so it is vital to keep shifting again.
* Each of the not
-wishes is "self-reenforcing" in that it tends to strengthen itself. It is resolved by a countering choice that has us side with either "stepping back" or "stepping in", apparently, the "stepping back" (back into or back towards THE everything) is preferable. I have written these up somewhat in the diagrams and there is a lot that I will need to work out further, but I think with this "omniscope" I've found a fruitful way of sorting out the details of the mechanics.
* We can then consider a seventh perspective which is a generic "shift back" (perhaps "THE Anything") that we understand as a generalization of the three
-cycle shift (...taking a stand to following through to reflecting to taking a stand...). Together with "THE Everything" that yields for each observational plane a "primary structure" of the kind that I've observed in practice.

Išvados. The "omniscope" is an apparatus that pulls all the structures together. We might think of it as a special kind of "lens" which God places against his eye, or actually, has within his eye, by which he is able to see Everything, at least the everything that relates to us. In a sense, he accords with that lens, as he is its default observer. Yet, even more so, we are that lens, and we coincide with God by pulling back from ourselves. "We" are the unity of the six shifts, the unity of the secondary structures, the unity of the seventh perspectives, which is to say, the "Anything" that may relate with the "Everything" which expresses God's structural nature. So we stand separately as "Anything" and yet we may also pull back from ourselves and coincide with God's vantage point by understanding ourselves more basically, not as the secondary structures, but rather, as a derivative of the primary structures. I suppose we are more meaningful as derivative creatures than as self
-standing beings.

Tolimesnės mintys

I have been making steady progress in thinking through how the many structures arise from the omniscope. I'm currently focusing on the simplest family of PrimaryStructures, the Counterquestions by which we can "debrainwash" ourselves by putting our experience in context: What do I truly want? How does it seem to me? What else should I be doing? Would it make any difference? What do I have control over? Am I able to consider the question? Is this the way things should be? Am I doing anything about this? I am making progress in explaining how these and related structures arise as God, I and other take up perspectives upon the structure given by the omniscope. I want to relate this back to TheChainOfViews by which the structures arise from "human's view of God's view of human's view of God's view of human's view". It seems as if the omniscope is the starting point in the reverse direction, so that we keep stepping back from it, rather than keep stepping into it. Somehow the two directions are connected.

Inspired by ChristopherLangan's work, I developed a key insight. In a minimalist system, semantics gets used as syntax, as with the ConstructiveHypotheses that I discuss above. The Threesome of "take a stand, follow through, and reflect" is a self
-contained system in that the next time we take a stand it is considered the same as the last time. So here there is no distinction between semantics and syntax. However, we may make a distinction between the first time we take a stand (the first time we go through the three-cycle) and the next time we take a stand (and go through the three-cycle). Then we are distinguishing between an absolute internal perspective (purely semantic) and a relative perspective that takes the former three-cycle as a "law" that it is constrained by. So the semantics of the absolute view serves as the syntax for the relative view. (The absolute view considers self-correction with regard to itself, and the relative view considers self-direction with regard to the absolute view.) I imagine that this continues, so that the semantics of the relative view becomes the syntax for the shared view - the shared view being that it doesn't matter which perspective we start from (take a stand, follow through, or reflect) they are all equally satisfactory. What is happening here, as semantics gets interpreted as syntax, is that the perspective is going beyond itself, opening up another perspective. And I suppose, as the structure grows richer, the "going beyond itself" takes on a richer meaning - first with regard to oneself (as in a self-contained absolute view given by the threesome) and then that going beyond itself opens up for a relative view (given by the sixome) which is distinct, and then that going beyond itself says that the views may be shared, may coincide, and then that going beyond itself says that indeed a view is subordinate to another, which might have it collapse back into a simpler state of affairs. So this is now in the back of my mind as I think about the unfolding structures.

The omniscope's views generate structure as they are taken up, it seems, as follows. Here I consider, as an example, one of the twenty four angles:
* when God pulls away from himself, so that he is open to view, we have the omniscope, as with the angle "seems (to God, or to an external observer) to take a stand" which (perhaps later, by reconstruction) we experience as an "object" (a topology that as such is probably defined and made use of only later).
* when we take up that view, then we experience it as "seems (to me, an internal observer) that I take a stand", which is to say, "liking", as in "I like this"
* when another takes up my view, then this gets split and turned around: "I take a stand as to the fact that it seems to me" which is to wonder How does it seem to me?
* that perhaps lets go of the scope of a shared relationship and distinguishes between the observer (the other) and the observed (myself) and then we may choose as to our preference between the two: choosing the other over ourselves = I take a stand with regard to what does not seem to me = I like it; it does not seem to me choosing ourselves over the other = I take a stand with regard to what does seem to me - I like it; it does seem to me
* So, in the former case, where we give preference to the other over ourselves, when they see through us, then we can have God take up their view and apply it to himself, for example, asking himself, How does it seem to me? where in this case the God who asks is not certain, doubts, but the God who is asked is self-sufficient. Here this gaves rise to a structure, namely, the division of everything into one perspective, the onesome.

So I'm thinking through the unfolding of these relationships, and this month I will be looking for how it relates to taking up perspectives described above (among God, human and other), and the back and forth between God and human in their chain of views, and the connections suggested by the interrelationship between semantics and syntax in minimalistic systems.
Pridėtos 271-272 eilutės:
Santykiai tarp sąvokų, žr.: UnderstandingVSlack
Pakeistos 486-487 eilutės iš
į:
* As we presume expression, the distinctions collapse.
* The NullfoldDistinction makes for a collapse because spirit (God) is taken to be a distinguished opposite of structure (Everything) which counters the assumption of the FourfoldDistinction that they are equal in stature.
* Note that here God is in the NullfoldDistinction and thus in the semantics. So here God has been relocated inside structure. But here we are considering the semantics and so this is where we define the God who is a self-contradiction. And this is the God who goes beyond himself into structure, from the Nullsome into the Onesome and so on. But this is happening on the semantic level. Whereas on the syntactic level we have that God has gone beyond himself out of structure. So these two levels meet in the eightfold way.
Pakeistos 502-503 eilutės iš
* The NullfoldDistinction makes for a collapse because spirit (God) is taken to be a distinguished opposite of structure (Everything) which counters the assumption of the FourfoldDistinction that they are equal in stature.
* Note that here God is in the NullfoldDistinction and thus in the semantics. So here God has been relocated inside structure. But here we are considering the semantics and so this is where we define the God who is a self-contradiction. And this is the God who goes beyond himself into structure, from the Nullsome into the Onesome and so on. But this is happening on the semantic level. Whereas on the syntactic level we have that God has gone beyond himself out of structure. So these two levels meet in the eightfold way.
į:
Ištrintos 509-510 eilutės:
As we presume expression, the distinctions collapse.
Ištrintos 518-615 eilutės:
'''Visaregis'''

* The '''Omniscope''' is a comprehensive view upon all Structure.
* Each of the four '''PrimaryStructures''' presents an ObservationalPlane of the omniscope as a relationship between God and human.
* Each of the six '''SecondaryStructures''' may be thought of as the coinciding of the Observer of a wider observational plane with an observer of a narrower observational plane.

I'll describe what I think is the "answer" in my own quest to KnowEverything. It is a contraption which I'll call the Omniscope. Just as a "telescope" lets us see what is far away, and a "microscope" lets us see what is small, an "omniscope" lets us see everything.

Inasmuch as we can imagine God, the omniscope is the contraption by which God observes himself. It gives the 24 Angles in which an Observer pulls away from an ObservationalPlane. In this sense, it gives the ways that God goes beyond himself, as God first associates himself with the ObservationalPlane, but then pulls himself away and associates himself with the Observer.

By pulling apart himself as observer and observational plane, he makes room for us, those who identify only with the observer. The omniscope and its angles are for us purely formal, but we then give life to them. In identifying ourselves with this observer, we interpret these Angles, these ways of pulling away as 24 Concerns, which is to say, 24 NotWishes. Our identification has us focus on a particular observational plane. This yields four PrimaryStructures, one for each observational plane. In this way, the purely formal structure of the omniscope becomes grounded in our outlook. We then coincide with the omniscope, so that God sees himself through us, and the omniscope defines everything as it relates to us.

The Omniscope gives the ways that I go from the bounded into the unbounded (thus accounting for but reversing God's going beyond himself from the unbounded into the bounded).

Dievas išeina už savęs 24 kampais

In order for an observer to pull away from an observational plane:
* the observational plane must be specified
* the observer and the observational plane must coincide
* the observer must then coincide with a point of reference separate from the observational plane

The 24 ways that God goes beyond himself are determined by, and the product of:

* The 4 observational planes that an observer might observe themselves through, allowing for access to: Everything, Anything, Something or Nothing;
* the 3 points of contact that an observer and an observational plane might have: either TakingAStand or FollowingThrough or Reflecting;
* the 2 points of reference that the observer might have when they are separate from the observational plane: either their own vantage point within the observational plane, as the ultimate Observer, or the absolute vantage point of all that is beyond the observational plane, which is to say, the vantage point of THE everything, as the ultimate ObservationalPlane.

In going beyond himself, God is both the observational plane (the God who will go beyond himself) and the observer (the God who has gone beyond himself) and the two have been separated.

===4 ObservationalPlanes===

When an Observer observes themselves, this relationship characterizes the ObservationalPlane between them.

* If the observational plane coincides with both observer and observed, then they coincide, it lets through all perspectives, and is Everything
* If the observational plane coincides with the observer but not the observed, then it is a stepping in, and lets through any perspective, and is Anything
* If the observational plane coincides with the observed but not the observer, then it is a stepping out, and lets through a perspective, and is Something
* If the observational plane coincides with neither the observed nor the observer, then they are separate, it lets through no perspectives, and is Nothing

This relationship is completely formal. It gives the amount of opaqueness that separates the observer and the observed, the amount of perspective that is filtered out by self-reflection, by which the observer sees less than the observed. Note that the observer may, in a sense, see more by seeing less.

God is identifiable with any of these four Scopes of access, which is to say, with any of these observational planes. However, God himself is beyond them all.

Attach:scopesofaccess.jpg

===3 Points of Coinciding of Observer and ObservationalPlane===

In order to distinguish the observer and their observational plane, it is important to first indicate how they coincide.

These positions are:
* TakingAStand: this is the position that is at the far end of the observational plane, it is what is "seen" upon looking through.
* FollowingThrough: this is the position in the middle of the observational plane that is "seeing", it is what identifies with the plane itself.
* Reflecting: this is what "sees", it is at the beginning of the observational plane.

They are related to the three PrinciplesOfLife which are unconceivable, namely: strong centers (taking a stand), strong boundaries (following through), levels of scale (reflecting).

===Back into or back towards===

Upon stepping away from one's observational plane, one may either identify with oneself (as the ultimate observer) or with whatever is beyond the observational plane (the ultimate observational plane). If one identifies with oneself as an observer, then one finds oneself within a new observational plane, as an observer always comes with some observational plane. Whereas if one identifies with the default observational plane, then that plane need not have an observer, and not the observer at hand, and so they can remain distinct. In the first case, this takes us backwards in the observational plane (perhaps like an ever expandable telescope), and in the second case, possibly completely out of the observational plane.

So if one:
* Follows through after taking a stand: then one steps back from the end of the observational "tube" and into its middle.
* Reflects after following through: then one steps back from the middle of the observational "tube" and into its beginning.
* Takes a stand after reflecting: then one reinterprets the beginning of the observational "tube" as actually the end of a deeper, more intimate observational "tube".
In every case one is moving deeper towards "THE everything" which stands behind and away from the observational tube. To the above three movements we may add three more that move one to THE everything:
* Back away from TakingAStand and to "THE everything".
* Back away from FollowingThrough and to "THE everything".
* Back away from Reflecting and to "THE everything".

We then multiply the four observational planes with the six shifts to get twenty-four Angles. They remain abstract until they are intrepreted by us as Not-wishes.

Attach:observationalplane.jpg


24 kampai - netroškimai
* Each of the Angles comes to life when we ourselves take it up and identify with it. We do this by way of the PrimaryStructures.
* I think that each of the three-cycle's shifts distinguishes an observer from their observational plane. (This is essential for EternalLife). When the shift is complete, this distinction collapse, and so it is vital to keep shifting again.
* Each of the not-wishes is "self-reenforcing" in that it tends to strengthen itself. It is resolved by a countering choice that has us side with either "stepping back" or "stepping in", apparently, the "stepping back" (back into or back towards THE everything) is preferable. I have written these up somewhat in the diagrams and there is a lot that I will need to work out further, but I think with this "omniscope" I've found a fruitful way of sorting out the details of the mechanics.
* We can then consider a seventh perspective which is a generic "shift back" (perhaps "THE Anything") that we understand as a generalization of the three-cycle shift (...taking a stand to following through to reflecting to taking a stand...). Together with "THE Everything" that yields for each observational plane a "primary structure" of the kind that I've observed in practice.


Išvados. The "omniscope" is an apparatus that pulls all the structures together. We might think of it as a special kind of "lens" which God places against his eye, or actually, has within his eye, by which he is able to see Everything, at least the everything that relates to us. In a sense, he accords with that lens, as he is its default observer. Yet, even more so, we are that lens, and we coincide with God by pulling back from ourselves. "We" are the unity of the six shifts, the unity of the secondary structures, the unity of the seventh perspectives, which is to say, the "Anything" that may relate with the "Everything" which expresses God's structural nature. So we stand separately as "Anything" and yet we may also pull back from ourselves and coincide with God's vantage point by understanding ourselves more basically, not as the secondary structures, but rather, as a derivative of the primary structures. I suppose we are more meaningful as derivative creatures than as self-standing beings.

===Update===

I have been making steady progress in thinking through how the many structures arise from the omniscope. I'm currently focusing on the simplest family of PrimaryStructures, the Counterquestions by which we can "debrainwash" ourselves by putting our experience in context: What do I truly want? How does it seem to me? What else should I be doing? Would it make any difference? What do I have control over? Am I able to consider the question? Is this the way things should be? Am I doing anything about this? I am making progress in explaining how these and related structures arise as God, I and other take up perspectives upon the structure given by the omniscope. I want to relate this back to TheChainOfViews by which the structures arise from "human's view of God's view of human's view of God's view of human's view". It seems as if the omniscope is the starting point in the reverse direction, so that we keep stepping back from it, rather than keep stepping into it. Somehow the two directions are connected.

Inspired by ChristopherLangan's work, I developed a key insight. In a minimalist system, semantics gets used as syntax, as with the ConstructiveHypotheses that I discuss above. The Threesome of "take a stand, follow through, and reflect" is a self-contained system in that the next time we take a stand it is considered the same as the last time. So here there is no distinction between semantics and syntax. However, we may make a distinction between the first time we take a stand (the first time we go through the three-cycle) and the next time we take a stand (and go through the three-cycle). Then we are distinguishing between an absolute internal perspective (purely semantic) and a relative perspective that takes the former three-cycle as a "law" that it is constrained by. So the semantics of the absolute view serves as the syntax for the relative view. (The absolute view considers self-correction with regard to itself, and the relative view considers self-direction with regard to the absolute view.) I imagine that this continues, so that the semantics of the relative view becomes the syntax for the shared view - the shared view being that it doesn't matter which perspective we start from (take a stand, follow through, or reflect) they are all equally satisfactory. What is happening here, as semantics gets interpreted as syntax, is that the perspective is going beyond itself, opening up another perspective. And I suppose, as the structure grows richer, the "going beyond itself" takes on a richer meaning - first with regard to oneself (as in a self-contained absolute view given by the threesome) and then that going beyond itself opens up for a relative view (given by the sixome) which is distinct, and then that going beyond itself says that the views may be shared, may coincide, and then that going beyond itself says that indeed a view is subordinate to another, which might have it collapse back into a simpler state of affairs. So this is now in the back of my mind as I think about the unfolding structures.

The omniscope's views generate structure as they are taken up, it seems, as follows. Here I consider, as an example, one of the twenty four angles:
* when God pulls away from himself, so that he is open to view, we have the omniscope, as with the angle "seems (to God, or to an external observer) to take a stand" which (perhaps later, by reconstruction) we experience as an "object" (a topology that as such is probably defined and made use of only later).
* when we take up that view, then we experience it as "seems (to me, an internal observer) that I take a stand", which is to say, "liking", as in "I like this"
* when another takes up my view, then this gets split and turned around: "I take a stand as to the fact that it seems to me" which is to wonder How does it seem to me?
* that perhaps lets go of the scope of a shared relationship and distinguishes between the observer (the other) and the observed (myself) and then we may choose as to our preference between the two: choosing the other over ourselves = I take a stand with regard to what does not seem to me = I like it; it does not seem to me choosing ourselves over the other = I take a stand with regard to what does seem to me - I like it; it does seem to me
* So, in the former case, where we give preference to the other over ourselves, when they see through us, then we can have God take up their view and apply it to himself, for example, asking himself, How does it seem to me? where in this case the God who asks is not certain, doubts, but the God who is asked is self-sufficient. Here this gaves rise to a structure, namely, the division of everything into one perspective, the onesome.

So I'm thinking through the unfolding of these relationships, and this month I will be looking for how it relates to taking up perspectives described above (among God, human and other), and the back and forth between God and human in their chain of views, and the connections
suggested by the interrelationship between semantics and syntax in minimalistic systems.
Ištrintos 539-541 eilutės:


Santykiai tarp sąvokų, žr.: UnderstandingVSlack
2020 gegužės 19 d., 12:38 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pridėtos 13-14 eilutės:

* I have realized that TheChainOfViews has us step into a view with a smaller scope, hence keeps them separate, whereas taking up the Omniscope has us step out of a view with a smaller scope, hence taking it up and equating one's view with it, so that they all coincide. How do the two - separation and coinciding - match up?
Pridėtos 241-245 eilutės:
Troškimai
* There is God in Wishes. God is in the being one with shared by God beyond the system (as entering into relationship) and God within the system (as presuming a relationship). What they share is their distinctness, their separateness, at any level of expression. For God beyond the system, these levels (Complete, Unobstructed, Familiar, Unified) are four qualities of the expression of being one with, and so apply to us. For God within the system, these same levels are four expressions of the quality of being one with, and so apply to God. This means that at any of these four levels there is a being one with which manifests as the fact that ''the expression of a quality'' is the same as ''a quality of the expression''. Yet also there is an expression of this distinction which manifests as an identification of God beyond the system and God within the system. Thus, at each of the four levels, there is an expression of EternalLife (and loving) as Life (and being loved).
* In this sense, God's qualities are within the system (as wishes that are representations of everything). God's being one with is expressed through us as the arisal of his qualties so that they express him and he expresses them. We are the fact of this equivalence.
* Wishes are the ability to arise. Identifications are the ability for that which is to be the same as that which arises. It is the difference between external and internal representations. What are choices, as representations? They are expressions of the will. What does it mean for a wish and a choice to coincide? It means that there can be (as a choice) a deference to a wish (that is rooted beyond the system).
Pridėtos 265-267 eilutės:
* The human's one perspective within the system and God's all perspectives beyond the system can be related (on the level of representations) by God within the system as identifications (internal representations). Putting aside these internal representations (as allowed by the conjunction or) then an (internally grounded) choice is an (externally grounded) wish. The conjunction Or lets us put aside God within the system, which is to say, put aside identifications.
* Iš ankščiau: Within a system, the views may further coincide based on the distinctions given by the conjunction Or and what it means to be channeling. Here the channeling also exhibits the independence of the quality of an equation and the equation of qualities 2x4=4x2
Pakeistos 372-373 eilutės iš
* If God is not beyond himself, then his self (Wishes within context) coinciding with him (Wishes) means that his self (Choices) is the '''channel''' for him to go beyond himself. Representation is that which is Familiar (self's view of God's view) in that it acknowledges such a OnefoldDistinction (GoodWill). Wishes' ambiguity Identity allows for not all interpreters.
į:
* If God is not beyond himself, then his self (Wishes within context) coinciding with him (Wishes) means that his self (Choices) is the '''channel''' for him to go beyond himself. Representation is that which is Familiar (self's view of God's view) in that it acknowledges such a OnefoldDistinction (GoodWill). Wishes' ambiguity Identity allows for not all interpreters.
* Coinciding Representations (Referents)
* Representation gives the relationship between spirit and structure. Spirit may be outside structure (external representations) or inside structure (internal representations).
* Here there is a onefold distinction in terms of channeling. The one is the channel for the all, the channel for the none. Hence the one coincides with the all. This happens because the representation makes clear, regarding the one, what is beyond the one (external to it) and so its nature as a channel by which all beyond and all within are the same all, and so the one coincides with them (as in the Omniscope). (This also brings to mind the relationship between structure and activity). This may be thought of as the invariance of all or none under one, or as the transparency of one, or perhaps of it's inherent nature.
* Note also that the channeling is quite real, in that the wishes and the identifications are separated from each other, and one and all are related (as choices matching wishes) by leaving aside the identifications (the internal representations). The latter may be thought of as the channeling of the none, the former as the channeling of the all.
* Distinction between all and none: '''All and none are separately invariant under one.''' This distinction is given by a single statement.
Ištrintos 514-539 eilutės:

I have realized that TheChainOfViews has us step into a view with a smaller scope, hence keeps them separate, whereas taking up the Omniscope has us step out of a view with a smaller scope, hence taking it up and equating one's view with it, so that they all coincide. How do the two - separation and coinciding - match up?




'''Viengubas skyrimas'''

===Onefold distinction: Coinciding Representations (Referents)===
Representation gives the relationship between spirit and structure. Spirit may be outside structure (external representations) or inside structure (internal representations).

Here there is a onefold distinction in terms of channeling. The one is the channel for the all, the channel for the none. Hence the one coincides with the all. This happens because the representation makes clear, regarding the one, what is beyond the one (external to it) and so its nature as a channel by which all beyond and all within are the same all, and so the one coincides with them (as in the Omniscope). (This also brings to mind the relationship between structure and activity). This may be thought of as the invariance of all or none under one, or as the transparency of one, or perhaps of it's inherent nature.

Note also that the channeling is quite real, in that the wishes and the identifications are separated from each other, and one and all are related (as choices matching wishes) by leaving aside the identifications (the internal representations). The latter may be thought of as the channeling of the none, the former as the channeling of the all.

Distinction between all and none: '''All and none are separately invariant under one.''' This distinction is given by a single statement.

There is God in Wishes. God is in the being one with shared by God beyond the system (as entering into relationship) and God within the system (as presuming a relationship). What they share is their distinctness, their separateness, at any level of expression. For God beyond the system, these levels (Complete, Unobstructed, Familiar, Unified) are four qualities of the expression of being one with, and so apply to us. For God within the system, these same levels are four expressions of the quality of being one with, and so apply to God. This means that at any of these four levels there is a being one with which manifests as the fact that ''the expression of a quality'' is the same as ''a quality of the expression''. Yet also there is an expression of this distinction which manifests as an identification of God beyond the system and God within the system. Thus, at each of the four levels, there is an expression of EternalLife (and loving) as Life (and being loved).

In this sense, God's qualities are within the system (as wishes that are representations of everything). God's being one with is expressed through us as the arisal of his qualties so that they express him and he expresses them. We are the fact of this equivalence.

Wishes are the ability to arise. Identifications are the ability for that which is to be the same as that which arises. It is the difference between external and internal representations. What are choices, as representations? They are expressions of the will. What does it mean for a wish and a choice to coincide? It means that there can be (as a choice) a deference to a wish (that is rooted beyond the system).

The human's one perspective within the system and God's all perspectives beyond the system can be related (on the level of representations) by God within the system as identifications (internal representations). Putting aside these internal representations (as allowed by the conjunction or) then an (internally grounded) choice is an (externally grounded) wish. The conjunction Or lets us put aside God within the system, which is to say, put aside identifications.

* Iš ankščiau: Within a system, the views may further coincide based on the distinctions given by the conjunction Or and what it means to be channeling. Here the channeling also exhibits the independence of the quality of an equation and the equation of qualities 2x4=4x2
2020 gegužės 19 d., 12:29 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pridėtos 227-238 eilutės:
Vaisinga nuostata ir troškimas
* Note that perhaps pulling it all together are the ConstructiveHypotheses which relate having a wish, satisfying that wish, and allowing for that wish - this three-cycle which opens us in this, but not the three-cycle which does not.
* Given the (constructive) intent to satisfy that wish, regardless of our ability, there (pragmatically) must be the possibility of a solution) write about the necessity of the possibility of God, given the starting point of a mind wishing to know everything and apply that usefully.
** Having this wish: the actuality of the necessity of the possibility of God.
** Satisfying this wish: the necessity of the possibility of the actuality of God.
** Allowing this wish: the possibility of the actuality of the necessity of God.
* Next: What does it mean for that possibility to manifest itself? It must be the necessity of that possibility that manifests itself.
** The actuality is given through the manifestation (and through us)
** The possibility is given by the identity of God who takes up our view and whose view we take up
** The necessity is given by the distinctness of God who takes up our view and whose view we take up
* The necessity of the possibility is what manifests itself through us.
Pakeistos 355-360 eilutės iš
į:
* Coinciding Structures (Values): Human Is God's Quality
Iš ankščiau:
* eternal life is that '''one is part of all''' after the fact (or structurally: anything is part of everything)
* life is that '''not all is part of not one''' before the fact (or structurally: not everything is part of not anything)
* The latter says that (single step outwards) wishes are structurally already built into the (endlessly inward stepping) recursive structure of everything. The former says that there is slack to allow for one within all, but this slack may yet manifest itself, as it is beyond structure.
Pakeistos 524-525 eilutės iš
į:
Ištrintos 550-583 eilutės:



'''Troškimas'''

Note that perhaps pulling it all together are the ConstructiveHypotheses which relate having a wish, satisfying that wish, and allowing for that wish - this three-cycle which opens us in this, but not the three-cycle which does not.

===ConstructiveHypotheses===

Given the (constructive) intent to satisfy that wish, regardless of our ability, there (pragmatically) must be the possibility of a solution) write about the necessity of the possibility of God, given the starting point of a mind wishing to know everything and apply that usefully.

*Having this wish: the actuality of the necessity of the possibility of God.
*Satisfying this wish: the necessity of the possibility of the actuality of God.
*Allowing this wish: the possibility of the actuality of the necessity of God.

Next: What does it mean for that possibility to manifest itself? It must be the necessity of that possibility that manifests itself.

* The actuality is given through the manifestation (and through us)
* The possibility is given by the identity of God who takes up our view and whose view we take up
* The necessity is given by the distinctness of God who takes up our view and whose view we take up

The necessity of the possibility is what manifests itself through us.

'''Dvigubas Išskyrimas'''

===Twofold Distinction: Coinciding Structures (Values): Human Is God's Quality===

Note: I'm rethinking this...

* eternal life is that '''one is part of all''' after the fact (or structurally: anything is part of everything)
* life is that '''not all is part of not one''' before the fact (or structurally: not everything is part of not anything)

The latter says that (single step outwards) wishes are structurally already built into the (endlessly inward stepping) recursive structure of everything. The former says that there is slack to allow for one within all, but this slack may yet manifest itself, as it is beyond structure.
2020 gegužės 19 d., 12:22 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pridėtos 281-291 eilutės:
* Thus the shift in God's vantage point leads to 4 + 2 + 1 + 0 perspectives which variously express being one with. These perspectives reflect the variety of ways in which God arises where God was not:
** as his views upon himself (by which he goes beyond himself)
** his relationships with himself
** his role as a dummy variable
** his implicitness
* Thus the number of perspectives depends on the explicitness or implicitness of God's not being.
* Thus, the expression of being one with occurs at each of the four levels, and this implies at each level an Other through whom this takes place, by our love for them. The levels correspond to GodTheFather, GodTheSon, the HolySpirit and God taken together beyond the system.
* Thus, for God beyond the system, and for God within the system, for both of them we are the expression of their being one with. Thus, as expression, are we one with ourselves? This means that loving or being loved may take place at any level: completeness, unobstructedness, familiarity, unity. We love ourselves by allowing all to love through us, which is to allow that they are not simply expressions within this world, but that they may express what is beyond this world. That is to say that the relations (identification and distinction) which relate this world with what is beyond it, are not relevant simply in this world, but are relevant at every level. Our role then is to reexpress ourselves (as expressions of God within and beyond) so that the ways of expression of either are equally valid as choices. We choose to be identified or distinct, and in the very same way we choose the level at which to manifest ourselves.
* The human's one perspective within the system can be related to God's all perspectives beyond the system as unities. Here we consider, rather than going beyond oneself, what it means for one to have included within oneself. The unity of the representations of the structure of good is that which is necessarily included, which is to say, the essential, the perfect, the given.
* Iš ankščiau: Finally, within a system, the views may coincide based on the distinctions given by the conjunction In (as in All in One). This conjunction is the opposite of Of. Of puts God into the system as Good. In says that the Essence is in the system and extends it as the Love beyond it.
Pakeistos 304-340 eilutės iš
į:
* Coinciding Spirits (Views): God and Human are SelfStanding
* God of himself needs not make any distinction between knowing everything and applying such knowledge usefully. Pragmatically, we consider him as simply as possible, and straightforwardly, we express ourselves simply as possible, so generally, we may assume that he does not distinguish between the two. What he knows is what he does. He creates by thinking.
* Our wish thus makes the distinction between knowing everything and applying usefully. We distinguish between God and his situation. Through us, God's situation, his self, is able to ever unfold, as it is distinct from God. Distinct in this way, God manifests himself through us in their coming together as they originally were. Taken together, God takes up his own view through us. In this way, God is one with himself.

Attach:summary.jpg

* God's Self is Love. God is one with. Who is he one with? He is one with his Self. What is self? Self is all that which has his quality. God's quality is BeingOneWith. His self is Love. How does he Manifest that? He manifests it through his arisal there where he is not. God is not his quality, yet in the World is his quality. God arises through the shift in his relationship with himself. First, in his absence, he is related to Love through:
* his View, which is his venturing into himself
* his Identification with himself
* his Equivalence with himself
* his Inclusion by himself
This yields the PrimaryStructures. This is the perspective of being loved. Then, in his presence, he is related to Love through the same four levels, but from the perspective of Love, of loving. This yields the SecondaryStructures and opens the way for Other.

God goes beyond God to manifest God, thus giving rise to Himself and a System (a world) where he is present through his self, that is, through love.

We are the expression of God's being one with himself. We are the fact that God is love. We are his relationship with himself. He is one with himself through us.

Consider God's relationship with Love, how that evolves through eight steps from God's absence to his presence, and how our role opens up, as does that of other, and how structure thereby arises, and each of the issues that I have collected which are relevant to the overview. Consider how God is present when his absence is explicit, as given by the gradation.

God's view is from beyond the system, yet leads him into it, so that ultimately he is in the system as love.

First, from beyond system, but entering into a relationship, he considers in terms of where he is not, thus his view. We are the expressions of his being one with:
* Complete, as expressing his view beyond the system
* Unobstructed, as expressing his view of his self's view
* Familiar, as expressing his self's view of his view
* Unified, as expressing his self's view within the system

We may think of this as a relationship of GoingBeyondOneself:
* Complete: all goes beyond into all
* Unobstructed: all goes beyond into one
* Familiar: one goes beyond into all
* Unified: one goes beyond into one

'''All and one go beyond each other into each other independently.''' This is the distinction between all and one. It is a quadruple statement.

This relates God beyond system (all perspectives) and human within system (one perspective) by way of good (spirit) that is God within system, which says that even within system there can be a going beyond oneself, hence human can go beyond oneself and have a view, just as God does, and they may be related spiritually, as above. Here the conjunction Of (as in goodness of God) means Among (as in one perspective among all perspectives) and is related to going beyond oneself (from non-systemic all to systemic one).
Pakeistos 350-351 eilutės iš
į:
* Coinciding Unities (Actors)
* Finally, God is in the system as Love, as the unity of the representations of the structure of God. There is God in the being one with which is even beyond God but nevertheless included by God as we may be. This is in that the quality of being one with itself is included in God who manifests this quality. All which has this quality is included, subsumed in God. In this way the system collapses to make way for God.
* Here coinciding is manifest as presuming. '''All presumes one''' is the idea that Love supports the essence, that the essence (the minimal, the basic, the perfect) comes '''from''' love, and so is presumed by love. This is the opposite of the '''of''' by which (as in the goodness of God) God is going beyond himself. Here the '''from''' is the presumption that the essence (nurtured by the all) has always been with the all (and so the all presumes the one). But this presumption, lurking in the always, is itself a presumption of the null, that there is a shared reference frame (albeit empty) independent of all. Yet the role of the all is to be this shared reference frame. Hence the presumption of all and none is at this point circular and the system collapses in that all statements are presumed. Yet these are the conditions which allow the fixing of all that is wrong, and so maximally encourage the deference of one to all (and of our will to God's will).
Ištrintos 376-419 eilutės:

'''Fourfold distinction'''

===Fourfold Distinction: Coinciding Spirits (Views): God and Human are SelfStanding===

God of himself needs not make any distinction between knowing everything and applying such knowledge usefully. Pragmatically, we consider him as simply as possible, and straightforwardly, we express ourselves simply as possible, so generally, we may assume that he does not distinguish between the two. What he knows is what he does. He creates by thinking.

Our wish thus makes the distinction between knowing everything and applying usefully. We distinguish between God and his situation. Through us, God's situation, his self, is able to ever unfold, as it is distinct from God. Distinct in this way, God manifests himself through us in their coming together as they originally were. Taken together, God takes up his own view through us. In this way, God is one with himself.

Attach:summary.jpg

God's Self is Love

God is one with. Who is he one with? He is one with his Self. What is self? Self is all that which has his quality. God's quality is BeingOneWith. His self is Love. How does he Manifest that? He manifests it through his arisal there where he is not. God is not his quality, yet in the World is his quality. God arises through the shift in his relationship with himself. First, in his absence, he is related to Love through:
* his View, which is his venturing into himself
* his Identification with himself
* his Equivalence with himself
* his Inclusion by himself
This yields the PrimaryStructures. This is the perspective of being loved. Then, in his presence, he is related to Love through the same four levels, but from the perspective of Love, of loving. This yields the SecondaryStructures and opens the way for Other.

God goes beyond God to manifest God, thus giving rise to Himself and a System (a world) where he is present through his self, that is, through love.

We are the expression of God's being one with himself. We are the fact that God is love. We are his relationship with himself. He is one with himself through us.

Consider God's relationship with Love, how that evolves through eight steps from God's absence to his presence, and how our role opens up, as does that of other, and how structure thereby arises, and each of the issues that I have collected which are relevant to the overview. Consider how God is present when his absence is explicit, as given by the gradation.

God's view is from beyond the system, yet leads him into it, so that ultimately he is in the system as love.

First, from beyond system, but entering into a relationship, he considers in terms of where he is not, thus his view. We are the expressions of his being one with:
* Complete, as expressing his view beyond the system
* Unobstructed, as expressing his view of his self's view
* Familiar, as expressing his self's view of his view
* Unified, as expressing his self's view within the system

We may think of this as a relationship of GoingBeyondOneself:
* Complete: all goes beyond into all
* Unobstructed: all goes beyond into one
* Familiar: one goes beyond into all
* Unified: one goes beyond into one

'''All and one go beyond each other into each other independently.''' This is the distinction between all and one. It is a quadruple statement.

This relates God beyond system (all perspectives) and human within system (one perspective) by way of good (spirit) that is God within system, which says that even within system there can be a going beyond oneself, hence human can go beyond oneself and have a view, just as God does, and they may be related spiritually, as above. Here the conjunction Of (as in goodness of God) means Among (as in one perspective among all perspectives) and is related to going beyond oneself (from non-systemic all to systemic one).
Ištrintos 384-405 eilutės:

'''Nulinis atskyrimas'''

===Nullfold distinction: Coinciding Unities (Actors)===
Finally, God is in the system as Love, as the unity of the representations of the structure of God. There is God in the being one with which is even beyond God but nevertheless included by God as we may be. This is in that the quality of being one with itself is included in God who manifests this quality. All which has this quality is included, subsumed in God. In this way the system collapses to make way for God.

Here coinciding is manifest as presuming. '''All presumes one''' is the idea that Love supports the essence, that the essence (the minimal, the basic, the perfect) comes '''from''' love, and so is presumed by love. This is the opposite of the '''of''' by which (as in the goodness of God) God is going beyond himself. Here the '''from''' is the presumption that the essence (nurtured by the all) has always been with the all (and so the all presumes the one). But this presumption, lurking in the always, is itself a presumption of the null, that there is a shared reference frame (albeit empty) independent of all. Yet the role of the all is to be this shared reference frame. Hence the presumption of all and none is at this point circular and the system collapses in that all statements are presumed. Yet these are the conditions which allow the fixing of all that is wrong, and so maximally encourage the deference of one to all (and of our will to God's will).

Thus the shift in God's vantage point leads to 4 + 2 + 1 + 0 perspectives which variously express being one with. These perspectives reflect the variety of ways in which God arises where God was not:
* as his views upon himself (by which he goes beyond himself)
* his relationships with himself
* his role as a dummy variable
* his implicitness
Thus the number of perspectives depends on the explicitness or implicitness of God's not being.

Thus, the expression of being one with occurs at each of the four levels, and this implies at each level an Other through whom this takes place, by our love for them. The levels correspond to GodTheFather, GodTheSon, the HolySpirit and God taken together beyond the system.

Thus, for God beyond the system, and for God within the system, for both of them we are the expression of their being one with. Thus, as expression, are we one with ourselves? This means that loving or being loved may take place at any level: completeness, unobstructedness, familiarity, unity. We love ourselves by allowing all to love through us, which is to allow that they are not simply expressions within this world, but that they may express what is beyond this world. That is to say that the relations (identification and distinction) which relate this world with what is beyond it, are not relevant simply in this world, but are relevant at every level. Our role then is to reexpress ourselves (as expressions of God within and beyond) so that the ways of expression of either are equally valid as choices. We choose to be identified or distinct, and in the very same way we choose the level at which to manifest ourselves.

The human's one perspective within the system can be related to God's all perspectives beyond the system as unities. Here we consider, rather than going beyond oneself, what it means for one to have included within oneself. The unity of the representations of the structure of good is that which is necessarily included, which is to say, the essential, the perfect, the given.

Iš ankščiau: Finally, within a system, the views may coincide based on the distinctions given by the conjunction In (as in All in One). This conjunction is the opposite of Of. Of puts God into the system as Good. In says that the Essence is in the system and extends it as the Love beyond it.
2020 gegužės 19 d., 12:05 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pridėtos 281-285 eilutės:
The sets of distinctions give the meaning of coinciding in terms of expression, whether unexpressed (4), expressed (2), within expression (1) or beyond expression (0).
* If views coincide (all and one coincide) then note that the being part of and the channeling are not relevant for distinction between all and one and so we are left with presuming which is relevant.
* Relationship between All and One. Coinciding itself is a relationship between all, one and none which distinguishes between interpretations as to what it means to coincide. Each of these are levels in which human defers to God (one defers to all), whether as equals who go beyond themselves into each other, or as complete unequals so that human is presumed by God.
* '''Not''' means ''step towards'' and one goes beyond oneself into the stepping towards itself. All and One are spirit, and Not takes us into structure or takes us out of structure. Going beyond oneself is in terms of spirit and in terms of structure, hence there is a fourfold distinction. It distinguishes between what is within the expression (hence subject to it) and what is beyond expression (hence its greater context). Human is the interpreter of one interpretation within expression and God is the interpreter of all interpretations beyond expression.
Pakeistos 292-303 eilutės iš
The sets of distinctions give the meaning of coinciding in terms of expression, whether unexpressed (4), expressed (2), within expression (1) or beyond expression (0).
* If views coincide (all and one coincide) then note
that the being part of and the channeling are not relevant for distinction between all and one and so we are left with presuming which is relevant.
* Relationship between All and One. Coinciding itself is a relationship between all
, one and none which distinguishes between interpretations as to what it means to coincide. Each of these are levels in which human defers to God (one defers to all), whether as equals who go beyond themselves into each other, or as complete unequals so that human is presumed by God.
* '''Not''' means ''step towards'' and one goes beyond oneself into the stepping towards itself. All and One are spirit, and Not takes us into structure or takes us out of structure. Going beyond oneself is in terms of spirit and in terms of structure, hence there is a fourfold distinction. It distinguishes between what is within the expression (hence subject to it) and what is beyond expression (hence its greater context). Human is the interpreter of one interpretation within expression and God is the interpreter of all interpretations beyond expression.

Nulgubas išskyrimas
* If God is within himself, then his self (Love within context) coinciding with him (Love) means that by his self (Will) we '''presume''' God goes beyond himself. Unity is Unified (self's view) in that it acknowledges such a NullfoldDistinction (GodsWill) which requires us ourselves that we might make such a presumption. Love's ambiguity Perfection allows for one interpreter.

Viengubas išskyrimas
* If God is not beyond himself, then his self (Wishes within context) coinciding with him (Wishes) means that his self (Choices) is the '''channel''' for him to go beyond himself. Representation is that which is Familiar (self's view of God's view) in that it acknowledges such a OnefoldDistinction (GoodWill). Wishes' ambiguity Identity allows for not all interpreters.
į:
* If God is beyond himself, then his self (God within context) coinciding with him (God) means that his self (Life) has likewise '''gone beyond itself''' and shares his nature, mirroring him but as expression, so that God may be within himself and beyond himself, and his self may be within itself and beyond itself. Spirit is that which is Complete (God's view) in that it acknowledges a FourfoldDistinction (EternalLife) between All and Not One, One and Not All. It makes explicit the relationship between All and One. Not One is the expression of All. Not All is the expression of One. God's ambiguity Good allows for all interpreters.
Pakeistos 297-299 eilutės iš
Keturgubas išskyrimas
* If God is beyond himself, then his self (God within context) coinciding with him (God) means that his self (Life) has likewise '''gone beyond itself''' and shares his nature, mirroring him but as expression, so that God may be within himself and beyond himself, and his self may be within itself and beyond itself. Spirit is that which is Complete (God's view) in that it acknowledges a FourfoldDistinction (EternalLife) between All and Not One, One and Not All. It makes explicit the relationship between All and One. Not One is the expression of All. Not All is the expression of One. God's ambiguity Good allows for all interpreters.
į:
Viengubas išskyrimas
* If God is not beyond himself, then his self (Wishes within context) coinciding with him (Wishes) means that his self (Choices) is the '''channel''' for him to go beyond himself. Representation is that which is Familiar (self's view of God's view) in that it acknowledges such a OnefoldDistinction (GoodWill). Wishes' ambiguity Identity allows for not all interpreters.
Pridėta 301 eilutė:
* If God is within himself, then his self (Love within context) coinciding with him (Love) means that by his self (Will) we '''presume''' God goes beyond himself. Unity is Unified (self's view) in that it acknowledges such a NullfoldDistinction (GodsWill) which requires us ourselves that we might make such a presumption. Love's ambiguity Perfection allows for one interpreter.
2020 gegužės 19 d., 11:55 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeistos 16-31 eilutės iš
Kas yra visaregis?
į:
'''Visaregio istorija'''

The many structures that I'm aware of arise as we take up, sequentially, "human's view of God's view of human's view of God's view of human's view" (see ChainOfViews). I thought about an AlgebraOfViews. This lead me to the omniscope.

I noticed a key point:
* The most basic structures (PrimaryStructures) have somebody look at themselves through our eyes.
* The less basic structures (SecondaryStructures) have us look at ourselves through somebody else's eyes.

I noticed that, in our imagination:
* When somebody looks through our eyes, then we don't distinguish whether they are actually looking or simply possibly looking. In other words, we don't distinguish the Observer and the ObservationalPlane. It is simply enough that they might be looking. What matters is that we are transparent to them. They stand as if behind us, looking through our eyes, as if we were but a mask.
* When we look through somebody else's eyes, then we always distinguish between them (as an observer) and the observational plane which they determine. We distinguish between whether we might and whether we are looking through their eyes. That means that when we are looking through somebody else's eyes, there is a reduction of scope, a focusing of scope, a definite shift from one scope to a smaller scope, a shift from one observational plane to another observational plane.

This introduces a very important asymmetry. It allows us to realize that we are the "child" and that we should look for our "parent". And, as a LostChild, we are most wise if we do not ourselves look for our parent, but rather go there where our parent might expect to find us.

'''Kas yra
visaregis?'''
Pakeistos 408-417 eilutės iš
===Omniscope, PrimaryStructures, SecondaryStructures===

The
'''Omniscope''' is a comprehensive view upon all Structure.

Each of the four '''PrimaryStructures''' presents an ObservationalPlane of the omniscope as a relationship between God and human.

Each of the six '''SecondaryStructures''' may be thought of as the coinciding of the Observer of a wider observational plane with an observer of a narrower observational plane.

===The Omniscope===
į:
* The '''Omniscope''' is a comprehensive view upon all Structure.
* Each of the four '''PrimaryStructures''' presents an ObservationalPlane of the omniscope as a relationship between God and human.
* Each of the six '''SecondaryStructures''' may be thought of as the coinciding of the Observer of a wider observational plane with an observer of a narrower observational plane.
Pakeistos 420-421 eilutės iš
===24 Angles are Ways that God Goes Beyond Himself===
į:
Dievas išeina už savęs 24 kampais
Pakeistos 486-489 eilutės iš
===Conclusions===

The "omniscope" is an apparatus that pulls all the structures together. We might think of it as a special kind of "lens" which God places against his eye, or actually, has within his eye, by which he is able to see Everything, at least the everything that relates to us. In a sense, he accords with that lens, as he is its default observer. Yet, even more so, we are that lens, and we coincide with God by pulling back from ourselves. "We" are the unity of the six shifts, the unity of the secondary structures, the unity of the seventh perspectives, which is to say, the "Anything" that may relate with the "Everything" which expresses God's structural nature. So we stand separately as "Anything" and yet we may also pull back from ourselves and coincide with God's vantage point by understanding ourselves more basically, not as the secondary structures, but rather, as a derivative of the primary structures. I suppose we are more meaningful as derivative creatures than as self-standing beings.
į:
Išvados. The "omniscope" is an apparatus that pulls all the structures together. We might think of it as a special kind of "lens" which God places against his eye, or actually, has within his eye, by which he is able to see Everything, at least the everything that relates to us. In a sense, he accords with that lens, as he is its default observer. Yet, even more so, we are that lens, and we coincide with God by pulling back from ourselves. "We" are the unity of the six shifts, the unity of the secondary structures, the unity of the seventh perspectives, which is to say, the "Anything" that may relate with the "Everything" which expresses God's structural nature. So we stand separately as "Anything" and yet we may also pull back from ourselves and coincide with God's vantage point by understanding ourselves more basically, not as the secondary structures, but rather, as a derivative of the primary structures. I suppose we are more meaningful as derivative creatures than as self-standing beings.
Pakeistos 490-499 eilutės iš
I have been making steady progress in thinking through how
the many structures arise from the omniscope. I'm currently focusing on the simplest family of PrimaryStructures, the Counterquestions by which we can "debrainwash" ourselves by putting our experience in context: What do I truly want? How does it seem to me? What else should I be doing? Would it make any difference? What do I have control over? Am I able to consider the question? Is this the way things should be? Am I doing anything about this? I am making progress in explaining how these and related structures arise as God, I and other take up perspectives upon the structure given by the omniscope. I want to
relate this back to TheChainOfViews by which the structures arise from "human's view of God's view of human's view of God's view of human's view". It seems as if the omniscope is the starting point in the reverse direction, so that we keep stepping back from it, rather than keep stepping into it. Somehow the two directions are connected.

Inspired by ChristopherLangan's work, I developed a key insight. In a minimalist system, semantics gets used as syntax, as with the ConstructiveHypotheses that I discuss above. The Threesome of "take a stand, follow through, and reflect" is a self-contained system in that the next time we take a stand it is considered the same as the last time. So here there is no distinction between semantics and syntax. However, we may make a distinction between the first time we take a stand (the first time we go through the three-cycle) and the next time we take a stand
(and go through the three-cycle). Then we are distinguishing between an absolute internal perspective (purely semantic) and a relative perspective that takes the former three-cycle as a "law" that it is constrained by. So the semantics of the absolute view serves as the syntax for the relative view. (The absolute view considers self-correction with regard to itself, and the relative view considers self-direction with regard to the absolute view.) I imagine that this continues, so that the semantics of the relative view becomes the syntax for the shared view - the shared view being that it doesn't matter which perspective we start from (take a stand, follow through, or reflect)
they are all equally satisfactory. What is happening here, as semantics gets interpreted as syntax, is that the perspective is going beyond itself, opening up another perspective. And I suppose, as the structure grows richer, the "going beyond itself" takes on a richer meaning -
first with regard to oneself (as in a self-contained absolute view given by the threesome) and then that going beyond itself opens up for a relative view (given by the sixome) which is distinct, and then that going beyond itself says that the views may be shared, may coincide, and
then that going beyond itself says that indeed a view is subordinate to another, which might have it collapse back into a simpler state of affairs. So this is now in the back of my mind as I think about the unfolding structures.
į:
I have been making steady progress in thinking through how the many structures arise from the omniscope. I'm currently focusing on the simplest family of PrimaryStructures, the Counterquestions by which we can "debrainwash" ourselves by putting our experience in context: What do I truly want? How does it seem to me? What else should I be doing? Would it make any difference? What do I have control over? Am I able to consider the question? Is this the way things should be? Am I doing anything about this? I am making progress in explaining how these and related structures arise as God, I and other take up perspectives upon the structure given by the omniscope. I want to relate this back to TheChainOfViews by which the structures arise from "human's view of God's view of human's view of God's view of human's view". It seems as if the omniscope is the starting point in the reverse direction, so that we keep stepping back from it, rather than keep stepping into it. Somehow the two directions are connected.

Inspired by ChristopherLangan's work, I developed a key insight. In a minimalist system, semantics gets used as syntax, as with the ConstructiveHypotheses that I discuss above. The Threesome of "take a stand, follow through, and reflect" is a self-contained system in that the next time we take a stand it is considered the same as the last time. So here there is no distinction between semantics and syntax. However, we may make a distinction between the first time we take a stand (the first time we go through the three-cycle) and the next time we take a stand (and go through the three-cycle). Then we are distinguishing between an absolute internal perspective (purely semantic) and a relative perspective that takes the former three-cycle as a "law" that it is constrained by. So the semantics of the absolute view serves as the syntax for the relative view. (The absolute view considers self-correction with regard to itself, and the relative view considers self-direction with regard to the absolute view.) I imagine that this continues, so that the semantics of the relative view becomes the syntax for the shared view - the shared view being that it doesn't matter which perspective we start from (take a stand, follow through, or reflect) they are all equally satisfactory. What is happening here, as semantics gets interpreted as syntax, is that the perspective is going beyond itself, opening up another perspective. And I suppose, as the structure grows richer, the "going beyond itself" takes on a richer meaning - first with regard to oneself (as in a self-contained absolute view given by the threesome) and then that going beyond itself opens up for a relative view (given by the sixome) which is distinct, and then that going beyond itself says that the views may be shared, may coincide, and then that going beyond itself says that indeed a view is subordinate to another, which might have it collapse back into a simpler state of affairs. So this is now in the back of my mind as I think about the unfolding structures.
Ištrintos 504-517 eilutės:

===Historical Notes===

AndriusKulikauskas: The many structures that I'm aware of arise as we take up, sequentially, "human's view of God's view of human's view of God's view of human's view" (see ChainOfViews). I thought about an AlgebraOfViews. This lead me to the omniscope.

I noticed a key point:
* The most basic structures (PrimaryStructures) have somebody look at themselves through our eyes.
* The less basic structures (SecondaryStructures) have us look at ourselves through somebody else's eyes.

I noticed that, in our imagination:
* When somebody looks through our eyes, then we don't distinguish whether they are actually looking or simply possibly looking. In other words, we don't distinguish the Observer and the ObservationalPlane. It is simply enough that they might be looking. What matters is that we are transparent to them. They stand as if behind us, looking through our eyes, as if we were but a mask.
* When we look through somebody else's eyes, then we always distinguish between them (as an observer) and the observational plane which they determine. We distinguish between whether we might and whether we are looking through their eyes. That means that when we are looking through somebody else's eyes, there is a reduction of scope, a focusing of scope, a definite shift from one scope to a smaller scope, a shift from one observational plane to another observational plane.

This introduces a very important asymmetry. It allows us to realize that we are the "child" and that we should look for our "parent". And, as a LostChild, we are most wise if we do not ourselves look for our parent, but rather go there where our parent might expect to find us.
2020 gegužės 19 d., 11:51 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Ištrintos 246-249 eilutės:
''Interpreter and Interpretation'' I may shift my attention onward from God the interpeter to Human the interpretation. I thus rethink God's going beyond himself as a variety of actions that relate interpreter and interpretation (role). As the interpretation is moved closer to the interpreter, the interpreter's action of going beyond himself is truncated, and the meaning of coinciding changes accordingly.

''The meaning of coinciding''
* The nature of their coinciding is given by a set of distinctions that define what it means to enter a context, which is to say, enter an expression, hence coincide. The meaning of coinciding depends on the extent of expression presumed.
Pakeistos 248-249 eilutės iš
į:
* Interpreter and Interpretation. I may shift my attention onward from God the interpeter to Human the interpretation. I thus rethink God's going beyond himself as a variety of actions that relate interpreter and interpretation (role). As the interpretation is moved closer to the interpreter, the interpreter's action of going beyond himself is truncated, and the meaning of coinciding changes accordingly.
* The nature of their coinciding is given by a set of distinctions that define what it means to enter a context, which is to say, enter an expression, hence coincide. The meaning of coinciding depends on the extent of expression presumed.
Pakeistos 251-253 eilutės iš
Išskyrimai: Keturgubas, dvigubas, viengubas, nulgubas
į:
* The expression is understood ever more tightly as the nature of the conjunction is ever more presumed through syntax, as expressed in PrimaryStructures given by Distinctions. The first level (nulgubas išskyrimas) may be considered nonsystemic, and the other levels are increasingly systemic.
* The semantic Distinctions may also be thought of as ambiguities that the syntax allows for.
* If views coincide (all and one coincide) then note that the being part of and the channeling are not relevant for distinction between all and one and so we are left with presuming which is relevant.

Keturi išskyrimai: Keturgubas, dvigubas, viengubas, nulgubas
Pakeistos 257-258 eilutės iš
į:
* The different coincidings may be considered as different expressions of the same coinciding. In order to do this, they must be considered in the same context, which is with regard to what is implicit in the self by each of them, the distinctions inherent in what it means to coincide. In this way, what is implicit becomes explicit. As implicitness increases, there are 0, 1, 2 and 4 distinctions. Taken together they yield a GeneralStructure, an Eightsome of distinctions. This structure shows that a particular coinciding is indeed coinciding in general. Thus it is associated with some one of the four particular stages of going beyond oneself, and this yields four PrimaryStructures in all. Each of the PrimaryStructures emphasizes a particular set of distinctions. This brings out what Coinciding means at that particular level both from its particular and the general point of view by having these two coincide. This is the relationship, the coinciding of Human (as given by the particular level, what is becoming explicit) and God (as given by the general outlook, what is staying implicit).
Pakeista 290 eilutė iš:
Nulinis išskyrimas
į:
Nulgubas išskyrimas
Ištrintos 293-300 eilutės:
Išskyrimų lygmenys
* Note: The first level (nulgubas išskyrimas) may be considered nonsystemic, and the other levels are increasingly systemic.

Note: If views coincide (all and one coincide) then note that the being part of and the channeling are not relevant for distinction between all and one and so we are left with presuming which is relevant.

The different coincidings may be considered as different expressions of the same coinciding. In order to do this, they must be considered in the same context, which is with regard to what is implicit in the self by each of them, the distinctions inherent in what it means to coincide. In this way, what is implicit becomes explicit. As implicitness increases, there are 0, 1, 2 and 4 distinctions. Taken together they yield a GeneralStructure, an Eightsome of distinctions. This structure shows that a particular coinciding is indeed coinciding in general. Thus it is associated with some one of the four particular stages of going beyond oneself, and this yields four PrimaryStructures in all. Each of the PrimaryStructures emphasizes a particular set of distinctions. This brings out what Coinciding means at that particular level both from its particular and the general point of view by having these two coincide. This is the relationship, the coinciding of Human (as given by the particular level, what is becoming explicit) and God (as given by the general outlook, what is staying implicit).
Ištrintos 299-304 eilutės:

'''Structure of Semantics'''

The expression is understood ever more tightly as the nature of the conjunction is ever more presumed through syntax, as expressed in PrimaryStructures given by Distinctions. The first level may be considered nonsystemic, and the other levels are increasingly systemic.

The semantic Distinctions may also be thought of as ambiguities that the syntax allows for.
2020 gegužės 19 d., 11:47 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pridėtos 155-156 eilutės:
-------------------------
Pridėtos 169-170 eilutės:
-------------------
Pridėtos 202-205 eilutės:
* the one within the expression (human) coincides with the one beyond the expression (God), as in KnowingEverything, or
* the one beyond the expression (God) coincides with the one within the expression (human), as in ApplyingUsefully.
Pridėtos 231-234 eilutės:
--------------------
Attach:4distinctions.jpg
---------------------
Pakeistos 245-246 eilutės iš
Attach:4distinctions.jpg
į:
'''Sutapimo sąvoka'''

''Interpreter and Interpretation'' I may shift my attention onward from God the interpeter to Human the interpretation
. I thus rethink God's going beyond himself as a variety of actions that relate interpreter and interpretation (role). As the interpretation is moved closer to the interpreter, the interpreter's action of going beyond himself is truncated, and the meaning of coinciding changes accordingly.

''The meaning of coinciding''
* The nature of their coinciding is given by a set of distinctions that define what it means to enter a context, which is to say, enter an expression, hence coincide. The meaning of coinciding depends on the extent of expression presumed.
* Coinciding is the satisfying of the same distinctions in context as without context. This means that the context does not affect the distinctions. So Life coincides with God because it satisfies the same fourfold distinctions as God.

* These are coinciding of God's Self (Human) with God across four levels. All presume expression in a different way.
Pakeistos 278-289 eilutės iš
The expression is understood ever more tightly as the nature of the conjunction is ever more presumed through syntax, as expressed in PrimaryStructures given by Distinctions. The complete expression in PrimaryStructures leads to the collapse of the statement with regard to their absence, yielding Everything and Divisions, and to their taking up of the position through their presence, which they express by way of an Other and SecondaryStructures. The basic Divisions accord with the Divergences, the former assuming Everything, the latter not.

Padalinimai
* Note: These are not as such divisions of everything because as yet there is no Everything, there is no completeness, and so they are prior to Divisions, they are simply distinguishing and not yet dividing. Taken together these distinctions are a division of everything, the Eightsome, which is however unstable as a structure (because it contains the nullfold distinction) and so collapses into an empty system in which all things are true, which is to say, the Nullsome. In fact, from this perspective, as of yet there is no Everything, and indeed Everything arises by way of this collapse into the Nullsome.

Note: The first level may be considered nonsystemic, and the other levels are increasingly systemic.

Note: If views coincide (all and one coincide) then note that the being part of and the channeling are not relevant for distinction between all and one and so we are left with presuming which is relevant.

Nulinis išskyrimas
* The NullfoldDistinction makes for a collapse because spirit (God) is taken to be a distinguished opposite of structure (Everything) which counters the assumption of the FourfoldDistinction that they are equal in stature.
į:
Nulgubas išskyrimas
Pridėtos 280-281 eilutės:

Viengubas išskyrimas
Pridėtos 283-284 eilutės:

Dvigubas išskyrimas
Pridėtos 286-287 eilutės:

Keturgubas išskyrimas
Pridėtos 290-298 eilutės:
Nulinis išskyrimas
* The NullfoldDistinction makes for a collapse because spirit (God) is taken to be a distinguished opposite of structure (Everything) which counters the assumption of the FourfoldDistinction that they are equal in stature.


Išskyrimų lygmenys
* Note: The first level (nulgubas išskyrimas) may be considered nonsystemic, and the other levels are increasingly systemic.

Note: If views coincide (all and one coincide) then note that the being part of and the channeling are not relevant for distinction between all and one and so we are left with presuming which is relevant.
Pakeistos 301-308 eilutės iš
''Interpreter and Interpretation'' I may shift my attention onward from God the interpeter to Human the interpretation. I thus rethink God's going beyond himself as a variety of actions that relate interpreter and interpretation (role). As the interpretation is moved closer to the interpreter, the interpreter's action of going beyond himself is truncated, and the meaning of coinciding changes accordingly.

''The meaning
of coinciding''
* The nature of their coinciding is given by a set of distinctions that define what it means to enter a context, which is to say, enter an expression, hence coincide. The meaning of coinciding depends on the extent of expression presumed.
* Coinciding is the satisfying of the same distinctions in context as without context. This means that the context does not affect
the distinctions. So Life coincides with God because it satisfies the same fourfold distinctions as God.

* These are coinciding of God's Self (Human) with God across four levels. All presume expression in a different
way.
į:
---------------------

The expression is understood ever more tightly as the nature of
the conjunction is ever more presumed through syntax, as expressed in PrimaryStructures given by Distinctions. The complete expression in PrimaryStructures leads to the collapse of the statement with regard to their absence, yielding Everything and Divisions, and to their taking up of the position through their presence, which they express by way of an Other and SecondaryStructures. The basic Divisions accord with the Divergences, the former assuming Everything, the latter not.

Padalinimai
* Note: These are not as such divisions of everything because as yet there is no Everything, there is no completeness, and so they are prior to Divisions, they are simply distinguishing and not yet dividing. Taken together these distinctions are a division of everything,
the Eightsome, which is however unstable as a structure (because it contains the nullfold distinction) and so collapses into an empty system in which all things are true, which is to say, the Nullsome. In fact, from this perspective, as of yet there is no Everything, and indeed Everything arises by way of this collapse into the Nullsome.
Pakeistos 645-646 eilutės iš
===Older Thoughts===
Within a system, the views may coincide based on the distinctions given by the conjunction And. There is God and his quality, goodness. The human value is the quality of God's value. There are two understandings of this equation as to what it means to be part of:
į:

Iš ankščiau:
Within a system, the views may coincide based on the distinctions given by the conjunction And. There is God and his quality, goodness. The human value is the quality of God's value. There are two understandings of this equation as to what it means to be part of:
Pakeistos 651-655 eilutės iš
'''Dvigubas nukrypimas'''

'''share a view''' (knowing/applying)
- A TwofoldDivergence as to whether:
* the one within the expression (human) coincides with the one beyond the expression (God), as in KnowingEverything, or
* the one beyond the expression (God) coincides with the one within the expression (human), as in ApplyingUsefully.
į:
---------------------
2020 gegužės 18 d., 14:41 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeista 79 eilutė iš:
Pažinovas, pažinimo laukas, apimtys
į:
Pažinovas, pažinimo laukas
Pridėtos 81-89 eilutės:
* An Observer's '''observational plane''' is what they have access to. Immanuel Kant talked about time and space as that which is left when we get rid of all of the objects. Similarly, in our imagination, we can consider the observational plane as that which is left when the observer removes themselves and everything they might possibly observe. It is the constraints on an observer. It is a sort of default space.
* The observational plane is defined by the Threesome:
** TakingAStand (an observer may be seen at the end of the plane)
** FollowingThrough (an observer may be seeing within the observational plane)
** Reflecting (an observer may see through the observational plane)
* The shifts of the threesome have the observer keep separating themselves from their observational plane.


Apimtys
Pakeistos 91-102 eilutės iš
į:
* There are four observational planes: Everything, Anything, Something, Nothing. They are scopes of access, they are the extent to which an observer might see themselves if they look at themselves through us. There are four scopes:
* Everything - lets through all perspectives.
* Anything - lets through any perspective.
* Something - lets through a perspective.
* Nothing - lets through no perspective.

These four scopes arise as the default behavior of the observational plane when it is separated from an observer:
* Separating them may let through all perspectives, so that we have what '''is''', and they are separated by nothing, and the observational plane lets through all perspectives by default.
* Separating them may let through any perspective, so that we have what '''seems''', and they are separated by anything, so then the observational plane lets through no more than one perspective at any given time.
* Separating them may let through a perspective, so that we have what '''ought''', and they are separated by something, so then the observational plane lets through a single requirement.
* Separating them may let through no perspective, so that the observer '''chooses''', and they are separated by everything, so then the observational plane of its own sake does not let through any requirement.
Pakeistos 378-411 eilutės iš
===Older Thought===
Finally, within a system, the views may coincide based on the distinctions given by the conjunction In (as in All in One). This conjunction is the opposite of Of. Of puts God into the system as Good. In says that the Essence is in the system and extends it as the Love beyond it.

'''Pažinimo laukas'''

===ObservationalPlanes===

See ObservationalPlanes for information about the four observational planes: Everything, Anything, Something, Nothing

===Observational Plane===

An Observer's '''observational plane''' is what they have access to. Immanuel Kant talked about time and space as that which is left when we get rid of all of the objects. Similarly, in our imagination, we can consider the observational plane as that which is left when the observer removes themselves and everything they might possibly observe. It is the constraints on an observer. It is a sort of default space.

The observational plane is defined by the Threesome:
* TakingAStand (an observer may be seen at the end of the plane)
* FollowingThrough (an observer may be seeing within the observational plane)
* Reflecting (an observer may see through the observational plane)

The shifts of the threesome have the observer keep separating themselves from their observational plane.


'''Pažinimo laukai'''

There are four observational planes. They are scopes of access, they are the extent to which an observer might see themselves if they look at themselves through us. There are four scopes:
* Everything - lets through all perspectives.
* Anything - lets through any perspective.
* Something - lets through a perspective.
* Nothing - lets through no perspective.

These four scopes arise as the default behavior of the observational plane when it is separated from an observer:
* Separating them may let through all perspectives, so that we have what '''is''', and they are separated by nothing, and the observational plane lets through all perspectives by default.
* Separating them may let through any perspective, so that we have what '''seems''', and they are separated by anything, so then the observational plane lets through no more than one perspective at any given time.
* Separating them may let through a perspective, so that we have what '''ought''', and they are separated by something, so then the observational plane lets through a single requirement.
* Separating them may let through no perspective, so that the observer '''chooses''', and they are separated by everything, so then the observational plane of its own sake does not let through any requirement
.
į:
Iš ankščiau: Finally, within a system, the views may coincide based on the distinctions given by the conjunction In (as in All in One). This conjunction is the opposite of Of. Of puts God into the system as Good. In says that the Essence is in the system and extends it as the Love beyond it.
2020 gegužės 18 d., 14:37 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pridėtos 233-237 eilutės:
The sets of distinctions give the meaning of coinciding in terms of expression, whether unexpressed (4), expressed (2), within expression (1) or beyond expression (0).
* If views coincide (all and one coincide) then note that the being part of and the channeling are not relevant for distinction between all and one and so we are left with presuming which is relevant.
* Relationship between All and One. Coinciding itself is a relationship between all, one and none which distinguishes between interpretations as to what it means to coincide. Each of these are levels in which human defers to God (one defers to all), whether as equals who go beyond themselves into each other, or as complete unequals so that human is presumed by God.
* '''Not''' means ''step towards'' and one goes beyond oneself into the stepping towards itself. All and One are spirit, and Not takes us into structure or takes us out of structure. Going beyond oneself is in terms of spirit and in terms of structure, hence there is a fourfold distinction. It distinguishes between what is within the expression (hence subject to it) and what is beyond expression (hence its greater context). Human is the interpreter of one interpretation within expression and God is the interpreter of all interpretations beyond expression.
Ištrintos 263-272 eilutės:

'''Relationship between All and One'''

The sets of distinctions give the meaning of coinciding in terms of expression, whether unexpressed (4), expressed (2), within expression (1) or beyond expression (0).

If views coincide (all and one coincide) then note that the being part of and the channeling are not relevant for distinction between all and one and so we are left with presuming which is relevant.

Coinciding itself is a relationship between all, one and none which distinguishes between interpretations as to what it means to coincide. Each of these are levels in which human defers to God (one defers to all), whether as equals who go beyond themselves into each other, or as complete unequals so that human is presumed by God.

'''Not''' means ''step towards'' and one goes beyond oneself into the stepping towards itself. All and One are spirit, and Not takes us into structure or takes us out of structure. Going beyond oneself is in terms of spirit and in terms of structure, hence there is a fourfold distinction. It distinguishes between what is within the expression (hence subject to it) and what is beyond expression (hence its greater context). Human is the interpreter of one interpretation within expression and God is the interpreter of all interpretations beyond expression.
2020 gegužės 18 d., 14:33 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeistos 77-78 eilutės iš
į:
* Diverging is going beyond the SingleSelf. SingleSelf is I's self, the Omniscope.
Pakeistos 133-137 eilutės iš
* A human is able to consider God's point of view as Everything.
* Then distinctions allow for wishes and PrimaryStructures.
* Then divisions of everything allow for the redundancy within structure
that is Love and is expressed in the SecondaryStructures.
į:
* The NotWishes have us step back and momentarily look through this contraption. However, in order for us to establish such a view, we need to give up our perspective for that of another. This means that we accept one of four Scopes and thereby enter a relationship with God as given by one of the four PrimaryStructures. The omniscope expresses God's view directly, and so we are not related to him, but rather completely subordinate to him, as his lens. We may have a relationship with God through one of the four PrimaryStructures whereby we relate to him by way of one of the RepresentationsOfTheNullsome and Wishes of Everything.
Pakeistos 477-490 eilutės iš
===24 NotWishes===

Each of the Angles comes to life when we ourselves take it up and identify with it. We do this by way of the
PrimaryStructures.

I think that each of the three-cycle's shifts distinguishes an observer from their observational plane. (This is essential for EternalLife). When the shift is complete, this distinction collapse, and so it is vital to keep shifting again.

Each of the not-wishes is "self-reenforcing" in that it tends to strengthen itself. It is resolved by a countering choice that has us side with either "stepping back" or "stepping in", apparently, the "stepping back" (back into or back towards THE everything) is preferable. I have written these up somewhat in the diagrams and there is a lot that I will need to work out further, but I think with this "omniscope" I've found a fruitful way of sorting out the details of the mechanics.

We can then consider a seventh perspective which is a generic "shift back" (perhaps "THE Anything") that we understand as a generalization of the three-cycle shift (...taking a stand to following through to reflecting to taking a stand...). Together with "THE Everything" that yields for each observational plane a "primary structure" of the kind that I've observed in practice.

===PrimaryStructures===

The NotWishes have us step back and momentarily look through this contraption. However, in order for us to establish such a view, we need to give up our perspective for that of another. This means that we accept one of four Scopes and thereby enter a relationship with God as given by one of the four PrimaryStructures. The omniscope expresses God's view directly, and so we are not related to him, but rather completely subordinate to him, as his lens. We may have a relationship with God through one of the four PrimaryStructures whereby we relate to him by way of one of the RepresentationsOfTheNullsome and Wishes of Everything.
į:
24 kampai - netroškimai
* Each of the Angles comes to life when we ourselves take it up and identify with it. We do this by way of the
PrimaryStructures.
* I think that each of the three-cycle's shifts distinguishes an observer from their observational plane. (This is essential for EternalLife). When the shift is complete, this distinction collapse, and so it is vital to keep shifting again.
* Each of the not-wishes is "self-reenforcing" in that it tends to strengthen itself. It is resolved by a countering choice that has us side with either "stepping back" or "stepping in", apparently, the "stepping back" (back into or back towards THE everything) is preferable. I have written these up somewhat in the diagrams and there is a lot that I will need to work out further, but I think with this "omniscope" I've found a fruitful way of sorting out the details of the mechanics.
* We can then consider a seventh perspective which is a generic "shift back" (perhaps "THE Anything") that we understand as a generalization of the three-cycle shift (...taking a stand to following through to reflecting to taking a stand...). Together with "THE Everything" that yields for each observational plane a "primary structure" of the kind that I've observed in practice.
Pakeistos 574-588 eilutės iš



===Relations between concepts====

Here I list relations between concepts.

*
UnderstandingVSlack

'''Pirminė savastis'''

SingleSelf is I's self, the Omniscope.

Diverging is going beyond the SingleSelf.
į:
Santykiai tarp sąvokų, žr.: UnderstandingVSlack
Pridėta 581 eilutė:
2020 gegužės 18 d., 14:26 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pridėtos 139-144 eilutės:
Santykiai skirtingose apimtyse išreiškia išėjimą už savęs ir iššaukia atitinkamas sandaras.
* Išėjimas už savęs: GoingBeyondOneself
* Išsiskyrimai - nukrypimai: Divergences
* Išskyrimai: Distinctions
* Padalinimai: Divisions
Pakeistos 293-296 eilutės iš
===Related===

''LawsOfForm'' by GeorgeSpencer-Brown is a mathematical and philosophical treatise on distinction.
į:
Pakeistos 555-558 eilutės iš
The human's one perspective within the system and God's all perspectives beyond the system can be related (on the level of representations) by God within the system as identifications (internal representations). Putting aside these internal representations (as allowed by the conjunction or) then an (internally grounded) choice is an (externally grounded) wish. The conjunction Or lets us put aside God within the system, which is to say, put aside identifications.
===Older Thoughts===
Within a system, the views may further coincide based on the distinctions given by the conjunction Or and what it means to be channeling. Here the channeling also exhibits the independence of the quality of an equation and the equation of qualities 2x4=4x2
į:
The human's one perspective within the system and God's all perspectives beyond the system can be related (on the level of representations) by God within the system as identifications (internal representations). Putting aside these internal representations (as allowed by the conjunction or) then an (internally grounded) choice is an (externally grounded) wish. The conjunction Or lets us put aside God within the system, which is to say, put aside identifications.


* Iš ankščiau: Within a system, the views may further coincide based on the distinctions given by the conjunction Or and what it means to be channeling. Here the channeling also exhibits the independence of the quality of an equation and the equation of qualities 2x4=4x2
Pakeistos 582-593 eilutės iš
'''Santykiai'''

===Relations===

There are relations that express GoingBeyondOneself for different Scopes and also generate Structure accordingly:

* GoingBeyondOneself
* Divergences
* Distinctions
* Divisions
į:
Pakeistos 680-686 eilutės iš
* Visaregis išsakomas pirmiausiai padalinimų veiksmais: 8x3=24 (raida). O iškilus žmogui, jisai išsakomas dvejopai, atvaizdais 6x4=24 (4 pirminių sandarų laipsnynais - žemėlapynu) ir aplinkybėmis 12x2=24 (žinojimo rūmais - vadovėliu). Toliau visaregis išsakomas kalbomis. Tad visaregis visaip išsakomas kubu.
į:
* Visaregis išsakomas pirmiausiai padalinimų veiksmais: 8x3=24 (raida). O iškilus žmogui, jisai išsakomas dvejopai, atvaizdais 6x4=24 (4 pirminių sandarų laipsnynais - žemėlapynu) ir aplinkybėmis 12x2=24 (žinojimo rūmais - vadovėliu). Toliau visaregis išsakomas kalbomis. Tad visaregis visaip išsakomas kubu.

>>bgcolor=#F6EEF6<<
------------------
* ''LawsOfForm'' by GeorgeSpencer-Brown is a mathematical and philosophical treatise on distinction.
------------------
>><<
2020 gegužės 18 d., 14:20 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeistos 3-4 eilutės iš
Iš ankščiau: Overview, Omniscope, Observer, Observe, ObservationalPlane, DefaultObserver, World, OurPosition, DefaultPosition, Position, Sevensome, System, Divergence (Onefold, twofold, threefold, fourfold), Diverging, Division, Distinctions, Indistinction, PrimaryStructures, SecondaryStructures, Concerns, AlgebraOfViews, LostChild, Human, Coinciding, Understanding, Scope, MeaningfulConcepts, Angles, ActualContext
į:
Iš ankščiau: Overview, Omniscope, Observer, Observe, ObservationalPlane, DefaultObserver, World, OurPosition, DefaultPosition, Position, Sevensome, System, Divergence (Onefold, twofold, threefold, fourfold), Diverging, Division, Distinctions, Indistinction, PrimaryStructures, SecondaryStructures, Concerns, AlgebraOfViews, LostChild, Human, Coinciding, Understanding, Representations, Scope, MeaningfulConcepts, Angles, ActualContext
Ištrintos 81-87 eilutės:
Savastis ir Kitas
* Self is Observer in context (as in Life).
* Self defines and thus identifies Observer in terms of their ObservationalPlane.
* Other is Observer before context as referenced from within context.
* Other is thus the distinction of Observer before and after context (as in EternalLife).
* Other defines ObservationalPlane in terms of the Observer and thus separates the two by means of a Scope which is a filter that considers which of the perspectives that pull away from the observational plane coincide with the observer: every, any, one or none (Everything, Anything, Something or Nothing).
Pakeistos 85-89 eilutės iš
į:
* Life is the goodness of God.
* EternalLife is Understanding the goodness of God.
* Life is the coinciding of God inside and outside.
* Eternal life is the Distinctness of God inside and outside.
Pakeistos 104-106 eilutės iš
Dievo sutapimas su savimi
* My next interpretation of the expression is as Human the Interpretation. God in context is God's relationship with himself, his coinciding with himself. But what does that coinciding mean? What is coinciding in context, which is to say, God in context in context? The meaning is what is implicit in the coinciding. Distinctions express what is assumed, what is relevant, what is implicit, in God's coinciding with self while they are yet within self. The reference point in each case is God within himself.
į:
* Dievo sutapimas su savimi: My next interpretation of the expression is as Human the Interpretation. God in context is God's relationship with himself, his coinciding with himself. But what does that coinciding mean? What is coinciding in context, which is to say, God in context in context? The meaning is what is implicit in the coinciding. Distinctions express what is assumed, what is relevant, what is implicit, in God's coinciding with self while they are yet within self. The reference point in each case is God within himself.
* Iš ankščiau: God and human are related as semantic interpreter and syntactic role: One interpreter may play many roles. Yet, depending on the context, the role may be interpreted as an interpreter, so that there is an ambiguity of interepreters. In this way God and human may coincide as given by the context.
* When we are outside expression, then God - as interpreter of '''all''' interpretations - is expressed by everything, the expression of '''not one''' interpretation. Human - as interpreter of '''one''' interpretation - is expressed by choices, the expression of '''not all''' interpretations. In this way, negation arises for the purpose of expression.

Dievas ir Kitas
* God is that vantage point which always sees all that an ObservationalPlane offers. In other words, as an Observer, God is indistinguishable from the observational plane. God is the DefaultObserver for any observational plane.
* Other is that vantage point which distinguishes between observer and observational plane.
* This is why God's view is relevant for the Nullsome, Onesome, Twosome, Threesome, and they each have four representations, which are the scopes of access. Whereas Other's view is relevant for the Foursome, Fivesome, Sixsome, Sevensome, and they each have two representations, namely Observer and ObservationalPlane.

Savastis ir Kitas
* Self is Observer in context (as in Life).
* Self defines and thus identifies Observer in terms of their ObservationalPlane.
* Other is Observer before context as referenced from within context.
* Other is thus the distinction of Observer before and after context (as in EternalLife).
* Other defines ObservationalPlane in terms of the Observer and thus separates the two by means of a Scope which is a filter that considers which of the perspectives that pull away from the observational plane coincide with the observer: every, any, one or none (Everything, Anything, Something or Nothing).
Ištrintos 132-140 eilutės:

[+Nukrypimai-Išsiskyrimai (Divergences)+]

Išskyrimai
* Visaregis susideda iš keturių išsiskyrimų: viengubo, dvigubo, trigubo, keturgubo. Jie išreiškia sąvokas: Aš, matau kartu, trokštu, ir. Ir grindžia sąvokas: Dievą, viską, troškimus, meilę.
* Visaregis visakam: Dievas aplinkoje
* The four divergences together give the semantics that defines their relationship. And the syntax for that relationship is given by some one of those four levels. Each of these syntactic possibilities requires a different degree of semantic distinction, hence a different sense of coinciding: In this way, semantics and syntax coincide, as God brings all semantic possibilities and human brings one syntactic possibility.
Pridėtos 137-149 eilutės:
[+Keturi lygmenys+]

* A human is able to consider God's point of view as Everything.
* Then distinctions allow for wishes and PrimaryStructures.
* Then divisions of everything allow for the redundancy within structure that is Love and is expressed in the SecondaryStructures.

[+Nukrypimai-Išsiskyrimai (Divergences)+]

Išskyrimai
* Visaregis susideda iš keturių išsiskyrimų: viengubo, dvigubo, trigubo, keturgubo. Jie išreiškia sąvokas: Aš, matau kartu, trokštu, ir. Ir grindžia sąvokas: Dievą, viską, troškimus, meilę.
* Visaregis visakam: Dievas aplinkoje
* The four divergences together give the semantics that defines their relationship. And the syntax for that relationship is given by some one of those four levels. Each of these syntactic possibilities requires a different degree of semantic distinction, hence a different sense of coinciding: In this way, semantics and syntax coincide, as God brings all semantic possibilities and human brings one syntactic possibility.
Pridėtos 154-155 eilutės:
* Divergence introduces slack that relates God and human.
Pridėtos 162-164 eilutės:
Keturi išsiskyrimai
* Each of these Divergences establishes a context (and expresses the Self) which fixes the expression as to its balance of syntax and semantics. This introduces an Interpreter: God, Everything, Wishes or Love. These are all God but in different contexts. Each context provides one or more directions in which the Interpreter may pull away from the expression, leaving it free, as it was without an interpreter. In this way the Divergences extend the expression.
Pakeistos 186-190 eilutės iš
Each of these Divergences establishes a context (and expresses the Self) which fixes the expression as to its balance of syntax and semantics. This introduces an Interpreter: God, Everything, Wishes or Love. These are all God but in different contexts. Each context provides one or more directions in which the Interpreter may pull away from the expression, leaving it free, as it was without an interpreter. In this way the Divergences extend the expression.

* Divergence introduces slack that relates God and human.
į:
Pridėtos 188-195 eilutės:
* The coinciding of views means different things depending on how much we presume, which is to say, how much the coinciding takes place within a system. In what sense is there a notion of Coinciding, a notion of Conjunction? In other words, is the semantics of coinciding able to build on an existing syntax of conjunction?
* Older thought: FourfoldDivergence: If there is no system, and no conjunction, then we relate One and All by having them go beyond themselves into NotOne and NotAll. Then the idea that NotOne is within All and that NotAll is within One is what has them coincide. So we have to be careful about interpretation. Here views coincide as spirits. Spirits are that which go beyond themselves, thus into views. This is the freest form of their coinciding, which is beyond system. The views are completely distinct. They stand alone and they coincide with each other. They are the same as views. We have:
*God's view - complete - all perspectives
*God's view of human's view - familiar - all perspectives on one perspective
*human's view of God's view - unobstructed - one perspective on all perspectives
*human's view - unified - one perspective
They may also coincide in ways that are rooted within system, as structures or representations or unities.
Pakeistos 197-198 eilutės iš
į:
* The nature of '''and''' is to distinguish between the levels at which conjunction may take place: Spirit, Structure, Representations, Unity. Explicitly, as divergences, these are a hierarchy by which God is brought ever closer into his expression as his going beyond himself is ground ever deeper within himself. Implicitly, as distinctions, these levels are combinations of being within or beyond expression, and being expressed or unexpressed, and they are fully relevant when God has gone beyond himself. Implicitly, they are a FourfoldDistinction which unfolds from underlying sets of distinctions, the NullfoldDistinction (introducing God), OnefoldDistinction (introducing Good) and TwofoldDistinction (introducing Life and EternalLife, which is to say, the EquationOfLife). This is the semantics that is implicit at various stages of God's going beyond himself. Here are interpretations of the equation of life at various stages of God's going beyond himself:
Ištrintos 230-231 eilutės:
A human is able to consider God's point of view as Everything. Then distinctions allow for wishes and PrimaryStructures. Then divisions of everything allow for the redundancy within structure that is Love and is expressed in the SecondaryStructures.
Pakeistos 234-238 eilutės iš

Note:The first level may be considered nonsystemic, and the other levels are increasingly systemic.

Note:If views coincide (all and one coincide) then note that the being part of and the channeling are not relevant for distinction between all and one and so we are left with presuming which is relevant.
į:
Note: The first level may be considered nonsystemic, and the other levels are increasingly systemic.

Note: If views coincide (all and one coincide) then note that the being part of and the channeling are not relevant for distinction between all and one and so we are left with presuming which is relevant.
Ištrintos 240-241 eilutės:
The nature of '''and''' is to distinguish between the levels at which conjunction may take place: Spirit, Structure, Representations, Unity. Explicitly, as divergences, these are a hierarchy by which God is brought ever closer into his expression as his going beyond himself is ground ever deeper within himself. Implicitly, as distinctions, these levels are combinations of being within or beyond expression, and being expressed or unexpressed, and they are fully relevant when God has gone beyond himself. Implicitly, they are a FourfoldDistinction which unfolds from underlying sets of distinctions, the NullfoldDistinction (introducing God), OnefoldDistinction (introducing Good) and TwofoldDistinction (introducing Life and EternalLife, which is to say, the EquationOfLife). This is the semantics that is implicit at various stages of God's going beyond himself. Here are interpretations of the equation of life at various stages of God's going beyond himself:
Pakeistos 274-283 eilutės iš
The complete expression in PrimaryStructures leads to the collapse of the statement with regard to their absence, yielding Everything and Divisions, and to their taking up of the position through their presence, which they express by way of an Other and SecondaryStructures. The basic Divisions accord with the Divergences, the former assuming Everything, the latter not.

Taken together these semantic distinctions are a division of everything, the Eightsome, which is however unstable as a structure (because it contains the nullfold distinction) and so collapses into an empty system in which all things are true, which is to say, the Nullsome. In fact, from this perspective, as of yet there is no Everything, and indeed Everything arises by way of this collapse into the Nullsome.

The NullfoldDistinction makes for a collapse because spirit (God) is taken to be a distinguished opposite of structure (Everything) which counters the assumption of the FourfoldDistinction that they are equal in stature.

Note that here God is in the NullfoldDistinction and thus in the semantics. So here God has been relocated inside structure. But here we are considering the semantics and so this is where we define the God who is a self-contradiction. And this is the God who goes beyond himself into structure, from the Nullsome into the Onesome and so on. But this is happening on the semantic level. Whereas on the syntactic level we have that God has gone beyond himself out of structure. So these two levels meet in the eightfold way.

In PrimaryStructures, the Self (Human) coincides with the Observer (God) who pulled away from some observational plane. Thus the '''and''' for that observational plane is presumed as the relevant bridge the Observer pulls across. The coinciding relevant to that observational plane is given by the set of distinctions that define what '''and''' means across that observational plane, but especially, the number of meanings that '''and''' has for that plane, which is to say, the number of distinctions in the set. In this way a particular PrimaryStructure has resonance with a particular set of distinctions. However, also we add to the six angles by which an observer pulls away from an observational plane the '''observer in general''' (human) and also the observer who went beyond themselves into the observational plane (God). These map to the OnefoldDistinction and NullfoldDistinction respectively. The six angles are given by the FourfoldDistinction and the TwofoldDistinction as two sets of three angles, one for what is unexpressed (the observer beyond the observational plane) and one for what is expressed (the observer within the observational plane). The three angles accord with the elements of a wish, the fulfillment of the wish (God/Everything), the wisher (Love/Wishes) and what allows the wish (the connection in between).
į:
* The complete expression in PrimaryStructures leads to the collapse of the statement with regard to their absence, yielding Everything and Divisions, and to their taking up of the position through their presence, which they express by way of an Other and SecondaryStructures. The basic Divisions accord with the Divergences, the former assuming Everything, the latter not.
* Taken together these semantic distinctions are a division of everything, the Eightsome, which is however unstable as a structure (because it contains the nullfold distinction) and so collapses into an empty system in which all things are true, which is to say, the Nullsome. In fact, from this perspective, as of yet there is no Everything, and indeed Everything arises by way of this collapse into the Nullsome.
* The NullfoldDistinction makes for a collapse because spirit (God) is taken to be a distinguished opposite of structure (Everything) which counters the assumption of the FourfoldDistinction that they are equal in stature.
* Note that here God is in the NullfoldDistinction and thus in the semantics. So here God has been relocated inside structure. But here we are considering the semantics and so this is where we define the God who is a self-contradiction. And this is the God who goes beyond himself into structure, from the Nullsome into the Onesome and so on. But this is happening on the semantic level. Whereas on the syntactic level we have that God has gone beyond himself out of structure. So these two levels meet in the eightfold way.
* In PrimaryStructures, the Self (Human) coincides with the Observer (God) who pulled away from some observational plane. Thus the '''and''' for that observational plane is presumed as the relevant bridge the Observer pulls across. The coinciding relevant to that observational plane is given by the set of distinctions that define what '''and''' means across that observational plane, but especially, the number of meanings that '''and''' has for that plane, which is to say, the number of distinctions in the set. In this way a particular PrimaryStructure has resonance with a particular set of distinctions. However, also we add to the six angles by which an observer pulls away from an observational plane the '''observer in general''' (human) and also the observer who went beyond themselves into the observational plane (God). These map to the OnefoldDistinction and NullfoldDistinction respectively. The six angles are given by the FourfoldDistinction and the TwofoldDistinction as two sets of three angles, one for what is unexpressed (the observer beyond the observational plane) and one for what is expressed (the observer within the observational plane). The three angles accord with the elements of a wish, the fulfillment of the wish (God/Everything), the wisher (Love/Wishes) and what allows the wish (the connection in between).
Pakeistos 282-290 eilutės iš
===Earlier Thoughts===

God and human are related as semantic interpreter and syntactic role: One interpreter may play many roles. Yet, depending on the context, the role may be interpreted as an interpreter, so that there is an ambiguity of interepreters. In this way God and human may coincide as given by the context.

Who do we attribute
the context to? Note that we attribute the context to life (for God is beyond himself and thus any context) but we also attribute the context to love (for love is God within himself and thus within a context). Everything is God not within himself, and so the context is the boundary between God (everything) and himself (every thing), which is to say a shared scope. Wishes are God not beyond himself, and so the context is the difference between God (who wishes) and himself (obstacle to wishes) which is to say a shared view. So it depends on the base presumption, which for God is that he is beyond expression, and for human is that he is within expression. (Note: This sets up the EightfoldWay.)

When we are outside expression, then God - as interpreter of '''all''' interpretations - is expressed by everything, the expression of '''not one''' interpretation. Human - as interpreter of '''one''' interpretation - is expressed by choices, the expression of '''not all''' interpretations. In this way, negation arises for the purpose of expression.

However, as we presume expression, the distinctions collapse.
į:
Iš ankščiau: Who do we attribute the context to? Note that we attribute the context to life (for God is beyond himself and thus any context) but we also attribute the context to love (for love is God within himself and thus within a context). Everything is God not within himself, and so the context is the boundary between God (everything) and himself (every thing), which is to say a shared scope. Wishes are God not beyond himself, and so the context is the difference between God (who wishes) and himself (obstacle to wishes) which is to say a shared view. So it depends on the base presumption, which for God is that he is beyond expression, and for human is that he is within expression. (Note: This sets up the EightfoldWay.)

As we presume expression, the distinctions collapse
.
Ištrintos 290-298 eilutės:
'''Distinctness'''


*Life is the goodness of God.
*EternalLife is Understanding the goodness of God.

*Life is the coinciding of God inside and outside.
*Eternal life is the Distinctness of God inside and outside.
Pakeistos 342-356 eilutės iš
===Older Thoughts===
Older thought: FourfoldDivergence: If there is no system, and no conjunction, then we relate One and All by having them go beyond themselves into NotOne and NotAll. Then the idea that NotOne is within All and that NotAll is within One is what has them coincide. So we have to be careful about interpretation. Here views coincide as spirits. Spirits are that which go beyond themselves, thus into views. This is the freest form of their coinciding, which is beyond system. The views are completely distinct. They stand alone and they coincide with each other. They are the same as views. We have:
*God's view - complete - all perspectives
*God's view of human's view - familiar - all perspectives on one perspective
*human's view of God's view - unobstructed - one perspective on all perspectives
*human's view - unified - one perspective
They may also coincide in ways that are rooted within system, as structures or representations or unities.

'''Fourfold divergence'''

See: Divergences

The coinciding of views means different things depending on how much we presume, which is to say, how much the coinciding takes place within a system. In what sense is there a notion of Coinciding, a notion of Conjunction? In other words, is the semantics of coinciding able to build on an existing syntax of conjunction?
į:
Pakeistos 382-389 eilutės iš
===Observer and ObservationalPlane===

God is that vantage point which always sees all that an ObservationalPlane offers. In other words, as an Observer, God is indistinguishable from the observational plane. God is the DefaultObserver for any observational plane.

Other is that vantage point which distinguishes between observer and observational plane.

This is why God's view is relevant for the Nullsome, Onesome, Twosome, Threesome, and they each have four representations, which are the scopes of access. Whereas Other's view is relevant for the Foursome, Fivesome, Sixsome, Sevensome, and they each have two representations, namely Observer and ObservationalPlane.
į:
Ištrintos 384-387 eilutės:
See: ObservationalPlane, Representations, Scopes

===Observational planes===
Ištrintos 666-667 eilutės:

See: Divergence, Overview
2020 gegužės 18 d., 13:44 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pridėta 104 eilutė:
* ''Human as extension of God'' Human is God's Self and as such extends God. Self pulls into the expression as a context, thus from some one interpretation, which gives the expression a definite meaning. Human is God within context. In this way God and human coincide with regard to some interpretation of some vantage point of God.
Pridėtos 131-135 eilutės:

* A human is able to consider God's point of view as Everything.
* Then distinctions allow for wishes and PrimaryStructures.
* Then divisions of everything allow for the redundancy within structure that is Love and is expressed in the SecondaryStructures.
Pakeistos 138-146 eilutės iš
My position is realized through four Divergences of Interpretations which unfold from within its compact expression. These are the divergences, the separations of the explicit from the implicit, which thus describe God's vantage point at various stages as he goes beyond himself:
į:
My position is realized through four Divergences of Interpretations which unfold from within its compact expression. These are the divergences, the separations of the explicit from the implicit, which thus describe God's vantage point at various stages as he goes beyond himself.

Išsiskyrimai
* Viengubas
: "Aš". Dievas už savęs: Dievas.
* Dvigubas: "Viskas". Dievas išeinantis iš už savęs: Viskas.
* Trigubas: "Trokštu". Dievas įeinantis į save: Troškimai.
* Keturgubas (žinoti-teisingai matyti) "Ir" (taikyti-teisingai elgtis). Dievas savyje: Meilė.

Viengubas išsiskyrimas
Pridėtos 149-150 eilutės:

Dvigubas išsiskyrimas
Pridėtos 154-155 eilutės:

Trigubas išsiskyrimas
Pridėtos 160-161 eilutės:

Keturgubas išsiskyrimas
Pakeistos 210-212 eilutės iš
Note: These are not as such divisions of everything because as yet there is no Everything, there is no completeness, and so they are prior to Divisions, they are simply distinguishing and not yet dividing. Taken together these distinctions are a division of everything, the Eightsome, which is however unstable as a structure (because it contains the nullfold distinction) and so collapses into an empty system in which all things are true, which is to say, the Nullsome. In fact, from this perspective, as of yet there is no Everything, and indeed Everything arises by way of this collapse into the Nullsome.
į:
Padalinimai
*
Note: These are not as such divisions of everything because as yet there is no Everything, there is no completeness, and so they are prior to Divisions, they are simply distinguishing and not yet dividing. Taken together these distinctions are a division of everything, the Eightsome, which is however unstable as a structure (because it contains the nullfold distinction) and so collapses into an empty system in which all things are true, which is to say, the Nullsome. In fact, from this perspective, as of yet there is no Everything, and indeed Everything arises by way of this collapse into the Nullsome.
Pakeistos 218-219 eilutės iš
The NullfoldDistinction makes for a collapse because spirit (God) is taken to be a distinguished opposite of structure (Everything) which counters the assumption of the FourfoldDistinction that they are equal in stature.
į:
Nulinis išskyrimas
*
The NullfoldDistinction makes for a collapse because spirit (God) is taken to be a distinguished opposite of structure (Everything) which counters the assumption of the FourfoldDistinction that they are equal in stature.
Ištrintos 231-232 eilutės:
''Human as extension of God'' Human is God's Self and as such extends God. Self pulls into the expression as a context, thus from some one interpretation, which gives the expression a definite meaning. Human is God within context. In this way God and human coincide with regard to some interpretation of some vantage point of God.
Pakeistos 236-237 eilutės iš
These are coinciding of God's Self (Human) with God across four levels. All presume expression in a different way.
į:
* These are coinciding of God's Self (Human) with God across four levels. All presume expression in a different way.
Ištrintos 262-265 eilutės:

'''Overview'''

A human is able to consider God's point of view as Everything. Then distinctions allow for wishes and PrimaryStructures. Then divisions of everything allow for the redundancy within structure that is Love and is expressed in the SecondaryStructures.
2020 gegužės 18 d., 13:19 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeistos 166-169 eilutės iš
http://www.ms.lt/en/andrius/understanding/diagrams/4distinctions.jpg

Iškyrimai: Keturgubas, dvigubas, viengubas, nulgubas
į:
Attach:4distinctions.jpg

Išskyrimai: Keturgubas, dvigubas, viengubas, nulgubas
Ištrintos 196-197 eilutės:
http://www.ms.lt/en/andrius/understanding/diagrams/4distinctions.jpg
Ištrintos 227-228 eilutės:
http://www.ms.lt/en/andrius/understanding/diagrams/4distinctions.jpg
Pakeistos 282-283 eilutės iš
http://www.ms.lt/en/andrius/understanding/diagrams/summary.jpg
į:
Attach:summary.jpg
Pakeistos 319-320 eilutės iš
http://www.ms.lt/en/andrius/understanding/diagrams/allone.jpg
į:
Attach:allone.jpg
Pakeistos 453-454 eilutės iš
http://www.ms.lt/en/andrius/understanding/diagrams/scopesofaccess.jpg
į:
Attach:scopesofaccess.jpg
Pakeista 481 eilutė iš:
http://www.ms.lt/en/andrius/understanding/diagrams/observationalplane.jpg
į:
Attach:observationalplane.jpg
2020 gegužės 18 d., 13:03 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeistos 112-122 eilutės iš
į:
Dievas aplinkoje
* Ką reiškia Dievas aplinkoje (God in Context) ir Dievas aplinkoje aplinkoje (God in Context in Context)
** Just as God, Everything, Wishes, Love are all God in context, so Life, Anything, Choices, Will are all God in context in context.

Pirminės sandaros
* OperatingPrinciples where coinciding means '''going beyond oneself'''
* Counterquestions where coinciding means '''being a part of'''
* DirectionsToTheGood where coinciding means '''channeling'''
* EightfoldWay where coinciding means '''presuming'''
Pakeistos 139-141 eilutės iš
**allowing a wish,
**fulfilling it,
**and having it.
į:
** allowing a wish,
** fulfilling it,
** and having it.
Pakeistos 143-146 eilutės iš
**beyond expression and unexpressed (Spirit)
**beyond expression and expressed (Structure)
**within expression and expressed (Representation)
**within expression and unexpressed. (Unity)
į:
** beyond expression and unexpressed (Spirit)
** beyond expression and expressed (Structure)
** within expression and expressed (Representation)
** within expression and unexpressed. (Unity)
Ištrintos 209-210 eilutės:
Note that, just as God, Everything, Wishes, Love are all God in context, so Life, Anything, Choices, Will are all God in context in context.
Ištrintos 218-227 eilutės:


'''PrimaryStructures'''

The resulting primary structures are, accordingly:

* OperatingPrinciples where coinciding means '''going beyond oneself'''
* Counterquestions where coinciding means '''being a part of'''
* DirectionsToTheGood where coinciding means '''channeling'''
* EightfoldWay where coinciding means '''presuming'''
2020 gegužės 18 d., 12:56 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Ištrintos 74-76 eilutės:
Dievas
* God is not explicit, but God is expressed through us, to the extent that we coincide, which is given by Other.
Pridėtos 96-98 eilutės:
Dievas
* God is not explicit, but God is expressed through us, to the extent that we coincide, which is given by Other.
Pridėtos 102-108 eilutės:
Dievas ir žmogus
* The expressions indicate the absence of God and of human, who pull away from the expression. This is how they work together as creator and co-creator. God pulls away in all directions and human pulls away in one direction.
Dievas ir savastis
* God coincides with his Self, but does his Self coincide with God? This question has us identify his self (his expression) with a particular stage in God's going beyond himself. Thus the question is raised separately for each of the stages of going beyond oneself. The self coincides with God when God goes beyond it. The self does not coincide with God if God does not go beyond it. Hence the meaning of coinciding, and what is implicit in it, grows the further the self is along the stages of God's going beyond himself. This is because the further out the self coincides with him, the more his self is implicit in his going beyond himself.
Dievo sutapimas su savimi
* My next interpretation of the expression is as Human the Interpretation. God in context is God's relationship with himself, his coinciding with himself. But what does that coinciding mean? What is coinciding in context, which is to say, God in context in context? The meaning is what is implicit in the coinciding. Distinctions express what is assumed, what is relevant, what is implicit, in God's coinciding with self while they are yet within self. The reference point in each case is God within himself.
Ištrintos 112-114 eilutės:

Pakeistos 115-118 eilutės iš
Visaregis susideda iš keturių išsiskyrimų: viengubo, dvigubo, trigubo, keturgubo. Jie išreiškia sąvokas: Aš, matau kartu, trokštu, ir. Ir grindžia sąvokas: Dievą, viską, troškimus, meilę.

Divergences: Omniscope for Everything: God in Context
į:
Išskyrimai
*
Visaregis susideda iš keturių išsiskyrimų: viengubo, dvigubo, trigubo, keturgubo. Jie išreiškia sąvokas: Aš, matau kartu, trokštu, ir. Ir grindžia sąvokas: Dievą, viską, troškimus, meilę.
* Visaregis visakam: Dievas aplinkoje
* The four divergences together give the semantics that defines their relationship. And the syntax for that relationship is given by some one of those four levels. Each of these syntactic possibilities requires a different degree of semantic distinction, hence a different sense of coinciding: In this way, semantics and syntax coincide, as God brings all semantic possibilities and human brings one syntactic possibility.
Pakeistos 139-160 eilutės iš
===Thoughts===

The expressions indicate the absence of
God and of human, who pull away from the expression. This is how they work together as creator and co-creator. God pulls away in all directions and human pulls away in one direction.

Note: the divergence introduces slack that relates God and human
.

'''Distinctions'''

----

Distinction is
System.

Each of the levels has human's view (God's self's view - one perspective) defer to God's view (all perspectives). This deference is expressed from 4 angles, 2 angles, 1 angle or 0 angles depending on whether it is understood to occur beyond the system or within the system. Generally, it is the deference of one to all.


===Distinction===

*FourfoldDistinction
*TwofoldDistinction
*OnefoldDistinction
*NullfoldDistinction
į:
* Divergence introduces slack that relates God and human.


Keturgubas išsiskyrimas
* The Fourfold Divergence makes this explicit so that we may consider a divergence explicitly as a distinction by which we distinguish that which coincides.


[+Išskyrimai (Distinctions)+]

* Išskyrimai. Pirminės sandaros troškimams: Dievas aplinkoje aplinkoje.
* Distinctions are very fundamental. They are at the heart of coinciding
.
* Distinction is
System.
* The distinctions are the semantics that allow us to keep separate that which coincides. Syntax sets the scope for the semantics on a range of ambiguities of the interpreter from All (all ambiguity) to One (no ambiguity).
* This is
to say that all may live through God, but there is nobody but ourselves who can live through us.
* Each of these ambiguities defines coinciding in its context as a distinction that is made semantically, not syntactically.
* This is the set of distinctions that itself distinguishes the four kinds of distinctions.

http://www.ms.lt/en/andrius/understanding/diagrams/4distinctions.jpg

Iškyrimai: Keturgubas, dvigubas, viengubas, nulgubas

* Each of the levels has human's view (God's self's view - one perspective) defer to God's view (all perspectives). This deference is expressed from 4 angles, 2 angles, 1 angle or 0 angles depending on whether it is understood to occur beyond the system or within the system. Generally, it is the deference of one to all.
Pakeistos 169-170 eilutės iš
The FourfoldDistinction is between All and Not One, One and Not All. '''Not''' means ''step towards'' and one goes beyond oneself into the stepping towards itself. All and One are spirit, and Not takes us into structure or takes us out of structure. Going beyond oneself is in terms of spirit and in terms of structure, hence there is a fourfold distinction.
į:
Keturgubas išskyrimas
* going beyond oneself = complete
* being part of = familiar
* channeling = unobstructed
* presuming = unified
*
The FourfoldDistinction is between All and Not One, One and Not All. '''Not''' means ''step towards'' and one goes beyond oneself into the stepping towards itself. All and One are spirit, and Not takes us into structure or takes us out of structure. Going beyond oneself is in terms of spirit and in terms of structure, hence there is a fourfold distinction.
Ištrintos 177-178 eilutės:
The Fourfold Divergence makes this explicit so that we may consider a divergence explicitly as a distinction by which we distinguish that which coincides.
Pakeistos 182-187 eilutės iš
Note:This is itself the fourfold distinction:
* going beyond oneself = complete
* being part of = familiar
* channeling = unobstructed
* presuming = unified
į:
Ištrintos 190-201 eilutės:
----------------

Distinctions are very fundamental. They are at the heart of coinciding. Read more in Overview.

http://www.ms.lt/en/andrius/understanding/diagrams/4distinctions.jpg

===Distinctions: PrimaryStructures for Wishes: God in Context in Context===

My next interpretation of the expression is as Human the Interpretation. God in context is God's relationship with himself, his coinciding with himself. But what does that coinciding mean? What is coinciding in context, which is to say, God in context in context? The meaning is what is implicit in the coinciding. Distinctions express what is assumed, what is relevant, what is implicit, in God's coinciding with self while they are yet within self. The reference point in each case is God within himself.

God coincides with his Self, but does his Self coincide with God? This question has us identify his self (his expression) with a particular stage in God's going beyond himself. Thus the question is raised separately for each of the stages of going beyond oneself. The self coincides with God when God goes beyond it. The self does not coincide with God if God does not go beyond it. Hence the meaning of coinciding, and what is implicit in it, grows the further the self is along the stages of God's going beyond himself. This is because the further out the self coincides with him, the more his self is implicit in his going beyond himself.
Pakeistos 209-210 eilutės iš
*
į:
Ištrintos 211-219 eilutės:
''The distinctions'' The distinctions are the semantics that allow us to keep separate that which coincides. Syntax sets the scope for the semantics on a range of ambiguities of the interpreter from All (all ambiguity) to One (no ambiguity).

This is to say that all may live through God, but there is nobody but ourselves who can live through us.

Each of these ambiguities defines coinciding in its context as a distinction that is made semantically, not syntactically.

The four divergences together give the semantics that defines their relationship. And the syntax for that relationship is given by some one of those four levels. Each of these syntactic possibilities requires a different degree of semantic distinction, hence a different sense of coinciding: In this way, semantics and syntax coincide, as God brings all semantic possibilities and human brings one syntactic possibility.

This is the set of distinctions that itself distinguishes the four kinds of distinctions.
2020 gegužės 18 d., 12:43 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeistos 3-4 eilutės iš
Iš ankščiau: Overview, Omniscope, Observer, ObservationalPlane, DefaultObserver, World, OurPosition, DefaultPosition, Position, Sevensome, System, Divergence, Diverging, Division, Distinctions, Indistinction, PrimaryStructures, SecondaryStructures, Concerns, AlgebraOfViews, LostChild, Human, Coinciding, Understanding, Scope, MeaningfulConcepts
į:
Iš ankščiau: Overview, Omniscope, Observer, Observe, ObservationalPlane, DefaultObserver, World, OurPosition, DefaultPosition, Position, Sevensome, System, Divergence (Onefold, twofold, threefold, fourfold), Diverging, Division, Distinctions, Indistinction, PrimaryStructures, SecondaryStructures, Concerns, AlgebraOfViews, LostChild, Human, Coinciding, Understanding, Scope, MeaningfulConcepts, Angles, ActualContext
Pakeistos 718-723 eilutės iš
* Visaregis išsakomas pirmiausiai padalinimų veiksmais: 8x3=24 (raida). O iškilus žmogui, jisai išsakomas dvejopai, atvaizdais 6x4=24 (4 pirminių sandarų laipsnynais - žemėlapynu) ir aplinkybėmis 12x2=24 (žinojimo rūmais - vadovėliu). Toliau visaregis išsakomas kalbomis. Tad visaregis visaip išsakomas kubu.

* Angles. Divergence (Onefold, twofold, threefold, fourfold)
* ObservationalPlane,Observe, Observed
* ActualContext
* DefaultObserver, DefaultPosition
į:
* Visaregis išsakomas pirmiausiai padalinimų veiksmais: 8x3=24 (raida). O iškilus žmogui, jisai išsakomas dvejopai, atvaizdais 6x4=24 (4 pirminių sandarų laipsnynais - žemėlapynu) ir aplinkybėmis 12x2=24 (žinojimo rūmais - vadovėliu). Toliau visaregis išsakomas kalbomis. Tad visaregis visaip išsakomas kubu.
2020 gegužės 18 d., 12:00 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeista 67 eilutė iš:
Sutapimas
į:
Sutapimas ir išskyrimas
Pakeistos 69-74 eilutės iš
į:
Separating and Coinciding: Approaching My Position
* Why this position - coinciding with what is separate
* How this position - separating from what is coinciding
* What this position - separating from what is separating
* Whether this position - coinciding with what is coinciding
Pakeistos 105-106 eilutės iš
[+Išsiskyrimai+]
į:



[+Nukrypimai-Išsiskyrimai (Divergences)+]
Pakeistos 113-126 eilutės iš
===Approaching MyPosition===

Separating and Coinciding

* Why this position - coinciding with what is separate
* How this position - separating from what is coinciding
* What this position - separating from what is separating
* Whether this position - coinciding with what is coinciding

------------------------------------

[+Nukrypimai+]

===Divergences: Omniscope for Everything: God in Context===
į:
Divergences: Omniscope for Everything: God in Context
2020 gegužės 18 d., 11:53 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeistos 41-48 eilutės iš
* Mano nuostata (Our Position): Aš trokštu viską žinoti ir tą žinojimą gražiai taikyti.
į:
Mano nuostata, užmojis, troškimas (Our Position): Aš trokštu viską žinoti ir tą žinojimą gražiai taikyti.
* My wish: I wish to see rightly, and subsequently, to act rightly.
** My wish is the ground for every wish, as every wish intends to be sensible and fulfilled. A wish is ultimately sensible with regard to everything, and is fulfilled through useful application.
** Every wish is included in my wish.
* Viską žinoti: Matyti ką Dievas mato, kai jisai mato pro mus.
** To know everything is for one's view to coincide with God's view.
* Gražiai taikyti: Daryti ką Dievas mumis darytų.
** To apply usefully is for God's view to coincide with one's view.
Ištrintos 55-63 eilutės:

Mano nuostata, užmojis, troškimas
* My wish: I wish to see rightly, and subsequently, to act rightly.
** My wish is the ground for every wish, as every wish intends to be sensible and fulfilled. A wish is ultimately sensible with regard to everything, and is fulfilled through useful application.
** Every wish is included in my wish.
* Viską žinoti: Matyti ką Dievas mato, kai jisai mato pro mus.
** To know everything is for one's view to coincide with God's view.
* Gražiai taikyti: Daryti ką Dievas mumis darytų.
** To apply usefully is for God's view to coincide with one's view.
2020 gegužės 18 d., 11:51 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeistos 54-56 eilutės iš
* Know everything: See what God sees when he looks through us.
* Apply usefully: Do what God would do through us.
į:
* Viską žinoti: Matyti ką Dievas mato, kai jisai mato pro mus.
** To know everything is for one's view to coincide with God's view.
* Gražiai taikyti: Daryti ką Dievas mumis darytų.
** To apply usefully is for God's view to coincide with one's view.

Dievo žvilgsnis
* God's view is from beyond any system and thus sees all perspectives.
Žmogaus žvilgsnis
* Human's view is from within a system, is identified with that system, and thus sees one perspective.

Santvarka
* A System is the making explicit of what is within it.
* A system makes explicit what is within it by expressing it as a Perspective.
* A system is given by the extent to which it links the coinciding of what is beyond with what is within and the coinciding of what is within with what is beyond. If there is no system, then these are separate questions. If there is a complete system, then these are the same question.

Sutapimas
* To coincide is to not be distinguished by a system, and most generally, by any system.

Dievas
* God is not explicit, but God is expressed through us, to the extent that we coincide, which is given by Other
.
Ištrintos 113-126 eilutės:



===What does my wish mean?===

To know everything is for one's view to coincide with God's view. To apply usefully is for God's view to coincide with one's view.

God's view is from beyond any system and thus sees all perspectives. Human's view is from within a system, is identified with that system, and thus sees one perspective.

A System is the making explicit of what is within it. A system makes explicit what is within it by expressing it as a Perspective. A system is given by the extent to which it links the coinciding of what is beyond with what is within and the coinciding of what is within with what is beyond. If there is no system, then these are separate questions. If there is a complete system, then these are the same question.

* To coincide is to not be distinguished by a system, and most generally, by any system.

God is not explicit, but God is expressed through us, to the extent that we coincide, which is given by Other.
2020 gegužės 18 d., 11:24 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeistos 54-56 eilutės iš
* Know everything: See what {{God}} sees when he looks through us.
* Apply usefully: Do what {{God}} would do through us.
į:
* Know everything: See what God sees when he looks through us.
* Apply usefully: Do what God would do through us.
Pakeistos 117-120 eilutės iš
My first interpretation of the position is as {{God}} the interpreter. In going beyond himself, God is both dynamic (implicit, coinciding with what comes before) and static (explicit, coinciding with what comes after), and so he goes past himself and coincides with himself. I consider where he coincides with himself as [GoBeyondOneself he goes beyond himself]. The reference point in each case is God beyond himself.

My position is realized through four {{Divergences}} of Interpretations which unfold from within its compact expression. These are the divergences, the separations of the explicit from the implicit, which thus describe God's vantage point at various stages as he [GoBeyondOneself goes beyond himself]:
* God is '''beyond himself''': {{God}}, the vantage point of '''I''', a OnefoldDivergence out of expression as to:
į:
My first interpretation of the position is as God the interpreter. In going beyond himself, God is both dynamic (implicit, coinciding with what comes before) and static (explicit, coinciding with what comes after), and so he goes past himself and coincides with himself. I consider where he coincides with himself as he goes beyond himself. The reference point in each case is God beyond himself.

My position is realized through four Divergences of Interpretations which unfold from within its compact expression. These are the divergences, the separations of the explicit from the implicit, which thus describe God's vantage point at various stages as he goes beyond himself:
* God is '''beyond himself''': God, the vantage point of '''I''', a OnefoldDivergence out of expression as to:
Pakeistos 134-135 eilutės iš
Each of these Divergences establishes a context (and expresses the Self) which fixes the expression as to its balance of syntax and semantics. This introduces an Interpreter: {{God}}, Everything, Wishes or Love. These are all God but in different contexts. Each context provides one or more directions in which the Interpreter may pull away from the expression, leaving it free, as it was without an interpreter. In this way the Divergences extend the expression.
į:
Each of these Divergences establishes a context (and expresses the Self) which fixes the expression as to its balance of syntax and semantics. This introduces an Interpreter: God, Everything, Wishes or Love. These are all God but in different contexts. Each context provides one or more directions in which the Interpreter may pull away from the expression, leaving it free, as it was without an interpreter. In this way the Divergences extend the expression.
Pakeistos 199-200 eilutės iš
{{God}} coincides with his Self, but does his Self coincide with {{God}}? This question has us identify his self (his expression) with a particular stage in God's going beyond himself. Thus the question is raised separately for each of the stages of going beyond oneself. The self coincides with God when God goes beyond it. The self does not coincide with God if God does not go beyond it. Hence the meaning of coinciding, and what is implicit in it, grows the further the self is along the stages of God's going beyond himself. This is because the further out the self coincides with him, the more his self is implicit in his going beyond himself.
į:
God coincides with his Self, but does his Self coincide with God? This question has us identify his self (his expression) with a particular stage in God's going beyond himself. Thus the question is raised separately for each of the stages of going beyond oneself. The self coincides with God when God goes beyond it. The self does not coincide with God if God does not go beyond it. Hence the meaning of coinciding, and what is implicit in it, grows the further the self is along the stages of God's going beyond himself. This is because the further out the self coincides with him, the more his self is implicit in his going beyond himself.
Pakeistos 203-204 eilutės iš
* If God is within himself, then his self (Love within context) coinciding with him (Love) means that by his self (Will) we '''presume''' God goes beyond himself. Unity is Unified (self's view) in that it acknowledges such a NullfoldDistinction (GodsWill) which requires us ourselves that we might make such a presumption. Love's ambiguity {{Perfection}} allows for one interpreter.
* If God is not beyond himself, then his self (Wishes within context) coinciding with him (Wishes) means that his self ({{Choices}}) is the '''channel''' for him to go beyond himself. Representation is that which is Familiar (self's view of God's view) in that it acknowledges such a OnefoldDistinction (GoodWill). Wishes' ambiguity {{Identity}} allows for not all interpreters.
į:
* If God is within himself, then his self (Love within context) coinciding with him (Love) means that by his self (Will) we '''presume''' God goes beyond himself. Unity is Unified (self's view) in that it acknowledges such a NullfoldDistinction (GodsWill) which requires us ourselves that we might make such a presumption. Love's ambiguity Perfection allows for one interpreter.
* If God is not beyond himself, then his self (Wishes within context) coinciding with him (Wishes) means that his self (Choices) is the '''channel''' for him to go beyond himself. Representation is that which is Familiar (self's view of God's view) in that it acknowledges such a OnefoldDistinction (GoodWill). Wishes' ambiguity Identity allows for not all interpreters.
Pakeistos 289-290 eilutės iš
''LawsOfForm'' by [GeorgeSpencerBrown GeorgeSpencer-Brown] is a mathematical and philosophical treatise on distinction.
į:
''LawsOfForm'' by GeorgeSpencer-Brown is a mathematical and philosophical treatise on distinction.
Pakeistos 294-296 eilutės iš
*Life is the [{{Good}} goodness] of {{God}}.
*EternalLife is {{Understanding}} the goodness of God.
į:
*Life is the goodness of God.
*EternalLife is Understanding the goodness of God.
Pakeistos 298-299 eilutės iš
*Eternal life is the {{Distinctness}} of God inside and outside.
į:
*Eternal life is the Distinctness of God inside and outside.
Pakeistos 306-307 eilutės iš
Our wish thus makes the distinction between knowing everything and applying usefully. We distinguish between God and his situation. Through us, God's situation, his self, is able to ever unfold, as it is distinct from God. Distinct in this way, God manifests himself through us in their coming together as they originally were. Taken together, God takes up his own view through us. In this way, {{God}} is [BeingOneWith one with] himself.
į:
Our wish thus makes the distinction between knowing everything and applying usefully. We distinguish between God and his situation. Through us, God's situation, his self, is able to ever unfold, as it is distinct from God. Distinct in this way, God manifests himself through us in their coming together as they originally were. Taken together, God takes up his own view through us. In this way, God is one with himself.
Pakeistos 392-393 eilutės iš
See ObservationalPlanes for information about the four observational planes: {{Everything}}, {{Anything}}, {{Something}}, {{Nothing}}
į:
See ObservationalPlanes for information about the four observational planes: Everything, Anything, Something, Nothing
Pakeistos 396-398 eilutės iš
An {{Observer}}'s '''observational plane''' is what they have access to. Immanuel Kant talked about time and space as that which is left when we get rid of all of the objects. Similarly, in our imagination, we can consider the observational plane as that which is left when the observer removes themselves and everything they might possibly observe. It is the constraints on an observer. It is a sort of default space.

The observational plane is defined by the {{Threesome}}:
į:
An Observer's '''observational plane''' is what they have access to. Immanuel Kant talked about time and space as that which is left when we get rid of all of the objects. Similarly, in our imagination, we can consider the observational plane as that which is left when the observer removes themselves and everything they might possibly observe. It is the constraints on an observer. It is a sort of default space.

The observational plane is defined by the Threesome:
Pakeistos 401-402 eilutės iš
* {{Reflecting}} (an observer may see through the observational plane)
į:
* Reflecting (an observer may see through the observational plane)
Pakeistos 405-412 eilutės iš
==={{Observer}} and ObservationalPlane===

{{God}} is that vantage point which always sees all that an ObservationalPlane offers. In other words, as an {{Observer}}, God is indistinguishable from the observational plane. God is the DefaultObserver for any observational plane.

{{Other}} is that vantage point which distinguishes between observer and observational plane.

This is why {{God}}'s view is relevant for the {{Nullsome}}, {{Onesome}}, {{Twosome}}, {{Threesome}}, and they each have four representations, which are the scopes of access. Whereas {{Other}}'s view is relevant for the {{Foursome}}, {{Fivesome}}, {{Sixsome}}, {{Sevensome}}, and they each have two representations, namely {{Observer}} and ObservationalPlane.
į:
===Observer and ObservationalPlane===

God is that vantage point which always sees all that an ObservationalPlane offers. In other words, as an Observer, God is indistinguishable from the observational plane. God is the DefaultObserver for any observational plane.

Other is that vantage point which distinguishes between observer and observational plane.

This is why God's view is relevant for the Nullsome, Onesome, Twosome, Threesome, and they each have four representations, which are the scopes of access. Whereas Other's view is relevant for the Foursome, Fivesome, Sixsome, Sevensome, and they each have two representations, namely Observer and ObservationalPlane.
Pakeistos 415-416 eilutės iš
See: ObservationalPlane, {{Representations}}, Scopes
į:
See: ObservationalPlane, Representations, Scopes
Pakeistos 420-424 eilutės iš
* {{Everything}} - lets through all perspectives.
* {{Anything}} - lets through any perspective.
* {{Something}} - lets through a perspective.
* {{Nothing}} - lets through no perspective.
į:
* Everything - lets through all perspectives.
* Anything - lets through any perspective.
* Something - lets through a perspective.
* Nothing - lets through no perspective.
Pakeistos 433-436 eilutės iš
==={{Omniscope}}, PrimaryStructures, SecondaryStructures===

The '''{{Omniscope}}''' is a comprehensive view upon all {{Structure}}.
į:
===Omniscope, PrimaryStructures, SecondaryStructures===

The '''Omniscope''' is a comprehensive view upon all Structure.
Pakeistos 439-440 eilutės iš
Each of the six '''SecondaryStructures''' may be thought of as the coinciding of the {{Observer}} of a wider observational plane with an observer of a narrower observational plane.
į:
Each of the six '''SecondaryStructures''' may be thought of as the coinciding of the Observer of a wider observational plane with an observer of a narrower observational plane.
Pakeistos 445-448 eilutės iš
Inasmuch as we can imagine {{God}}, the omniscope is the contraption by which God observes himself. It gives the 24 {{Angles}} in which an {{Observer}} pulls away from an ObservationalPlane. In this sense, it gives the ways that God goes beyond himself, as God first associates himself with the ObservationalPlane, but then pulls himself away and associates himself with the {{Observer}}.

By pulling apart himself as observer and observational plane, he makes room for us, those who identify only with the observer. The omniscope and its angles are for us purely formal, but we then give life to them. In identifying ourselves with this observer, we interpret these {{Angles}}, these ways of pulling away as 24 {{Concerns}}, which is to say, 24 NotWishes. Our identification has us focus on a particular observational plane. This yields four PrimaryStructures, one for each observational plane. In this way, the purely formal structure of the omniscope becomes grounded in our outlook. We then coincide with the omniscope, so that God sees himself through us, and the omniscope defines everything as it relates to us.
į:
Inasmuch as we can imagine God, the omniscope is the contraption by which God observes himself. It gives the 24 Angles in which an Observer pulls away from an ObservationalPlane. In this sense, it gives the ways that God goes beyond himself, as God first associates himself with the ObservationalPlane, but then pulls himself away and associates himself with the Observer.

By pulling apart himself as observer and observational plane, he makes room for us, those who identify only with the observer. The omniscope and its angles are for us purely formal, but we then give life to them. In identifying ourselves with this observer, we interpret these Angles, these ways of pulling away as 24 Concerns, which is to say, 24 NotWishes. Our identification has us focus on a particular observational plane. This yields four PrimaryStructures, one for each observational plane. In this way, the purely formal structure of the omniscope becomes grounded in our outlook. We then coincide with the omniscope, so that God sees himself through us, and the omniscope defines everything as it relates to us.
Pakeistos 451-452 eilutės iš
===24 {{Angles}} are Ways that God Goes Beyond Himself===
į:
===24 Angles are Ways that God Goes Beyond Himself===
Pakeistos 460-463 eilutės iš
* The 4 observational planes that an observer might observe themselves through, allowing for access to: {{Everything}}, {{Anything}}, {{Something}} or {{Nothing}};
* the 3 points of contact that an observer and an observational plane might have: either TakingAStand or FollowingThrough or {{Reflecting}};
* the 2 points of reference that the observer might have when they are separate from the observational plane: either their own vantage point within the observational plane, as the ultimate {{Observer}}, or the absolute vantage point of all that is beyond the observational plane, which is to say, the vantage point of THE everything, as the ultimate ObservationalPlane.
į:
* The 4 observational planes that an observer might observe themselves through, allowing for access to: Everything, Anything, Something or Nothing;
* the 3 points of contact that an observer and an observational plane might have: either TakingAStand or FollowingThrough or Reflecting;
* the 2 points of reference that the observer might have when they are separate from the observational plane: either their own vantage point within the observational plane, as the ultimate Observer, or the absolute vantage point of all that is beyond the observational plane, which is to say, the vantage point of THE everything, as the ultimate ObservationalPlane.
Pakeistos 468-474 eilutės iš
When an {{Observer}} observes themselves, this relationship characterizes the ObservationalPlane between them.

* If the observational plane coincides with both observer and observed, then they coincide, it lets through all perspectives, and is {{Everything}}
* If the observational plane coincides with the observer but not the observed, then it is a stepping in, and lets through any perspective, and is {{Anything}}
* If the observational plane coincides with the observed but not the observer, then it is a stepping out, and lets through a perspective, and is {{Something}}
* If the observational plane coincides with neither the observed nor the observer, then they are separate, it lets through no perspectives, and is {{Nothing}}
į:
When an Observer observes themselves, this relationship characterizes the ObservationalPlane between them.

* If the observational plane coincides with both observer and observed, then they coincide, it lets through all perspectives, and is Everything
* If the observational plane coincides with the observer but not the observed, then it is a stepping in, and lets through any perspective, and is Anything
* If the observational plane coincides with the observed but not the observer, then it is a stepping out, and lets through a perspective, and is Something
* If the observational plane coincides with neither the observed nor the observer, then they are separate, it lets through no perspectives, and is Nothing
Pakeistos 477-478 eilutės iš
God is identifiable with any of these four {{Scopes}} of access, which is to say, with any of these observational planes. However, God himself is beyond them all.
į:
God is identifiable with any of these four Scopes of access, which is to say, with any of these observational planes. However, God himself is beyond them all.
Pakeistos 481-482 eilutės iš
===3 Points of Coinciding of {{Observer}} and ObservationalPlane===
į:
===3 Points of Coinciding of Observer and ObservationalPlane===
Pakeistos 488-489 eilutės iš
* {{Reflecting}}: this is what "sees", it is at the beginning of the observational plane.
į:
* Reflecting: this is what "sees", it is at the beginning of the observational plane.
Pakeistos 503-506 eilutės iš
* Back away from {{Reflecting}} and to "THE everything".

We then multiply the four observational planes with the six shifts to get twenty-four {{Angles}}. They remain abstract until they are intrepreted by us as {{Not-wishes}}.
į:
* Back away from Reflecting and to "THE everything".

We then multiply the four observational planes with the six shifts to get twenty-four Angles. They remain abstract until they are intrepreted by us as Not-wishes.
Pakeistos 512-513 eilutės iš
Each of the {{Angles}} comes to life when we ourselves take it up and identify with it. We do this by way of the PrimaryStructures.
į:
Each of the Angles comes to life when we ourselves take it up and identify with it. We do this by way of the PrimaryStructures.
Pakeistos 522-523 eilutės iš
The NotWishes have us step back and momentarily look through this contraption. However, in order for us to establish such a view, we need to give up our perspective for that of another. This means that we accept one of four {{Scopes}} and thereby enter a relationship with God as given by one of the four PrimaryStructures. The omniscope expresses God's view directly, and so we are not related to him, but rather completely subordinate to him, as his lens. We may have a relationship with God through one of the four PrimaryStructures whereby we relate to him by way of one of the RepresentationsOfTheNullsome and {{Wishes}} of {{Everything}}.
į:
The NotWishes have us step back and momentarily look through this contraption. However, in order for us to establish such a view, we need to give up our perspective for that of another. This means that we accept one of four Scopes and thereby enter a relationship with God as given by one of the four PrimaryStructures. The omniscope expresses God's view directly, and so we are not related to him, but rather completely subordinate to him, as his lens. We may have a relationship with God through one of the four PrimaryStructures whereby we relate to him by way of one of the RepresentationsOfTheNullsome and Wishes of Everything.
Pakeistos 526-527 eilutės iš
The "omniscope" is an apparatus that pulls all the structures together. We might think of it as a special kind of "lens" which {{God}} places against his eye, or actually, has within his eye, by which he is able to see {{Everything}}, at least the everything that relates to us. In a sense, he accords with that lens, as he is its default observer. Yet, even more so, we are that lens, and we coincide with God by pulling back from ourselves. "We" are the unity of the six shifts, the unity of the secondary structures, the unity of the seventh perspectives, which is to say, the "Anything" that may relate with the "Everything" which expresses God's structural nature. So we stand separately as "Anything" and yet we may also pull back from ourselves and coincide with God's vantage point by understanding ourselves more basically, not as the secondary structures, but rather, as a derivative of the primary structures. I suppose we are more meaningful as derivative creatures than as self-standing beings.
į:
The "omniscope" is an apparatus that pulls all the structures together. We might think of it as a special kind of "lens" which God places against his eye, or actually, has within his eye, by which he is able to see Everything, at least the everything that relates to us. In a sense, he accords with that lens, as he is its default observer. Yet, even more so, we are that lens, and we coincide with God by pulling back from ourselves. "We" are the unity of the six shifts, the unity of the secondary structures, the unity of the seventh perspectives, which is to say, the "Anything" that may relate with the "Everything" which expresses God's structural nature. So we stand separately as "Anything" and yet we may also pull back from ourselves and coincide with God's vantage point by understanding ourselves more basically, not as the secondary structures, but rather, as a derivative of the primary structures. I suppose we are more meaningful as derivative creatures than as self-standing beings.
Pakeista 531 eilutė iš:
the many structures arise from the omniscope. I'm currently focusing on the simplest family of PrimaryStructures, the {{Counterquestions}} by which we can "debrainwash" ourselves by putting our experience in context: What do I truly want? How does it seem to me? What else should I be doing? Would it make any difference? What do I have control over? Am I able to consider the question? Is this the way things should be? Am I doing anything about this? I am making progress in explaining how these and related structures arise as God, I and other take up perspectives upon the structure given by the omniscope. I want to
į:
the many structures arise from the omniscope. I'm currently focusing on the simplest family of PrimaryStructures, the Counterquestions by which we can "debrainwash" ourselves by putting our experience in context: What do I truly want? How does it seem to me? What else should I be doing? Would it make any difference? What do I have control over? Am I able to consider the question? Is this the way things should be? Am I doing anything about this? I am making progress in explaining how these and related structures arise as God, I and other take up perspectives upon the structure given by the omniscope. I want to
Pakeista 534 eilutė iš:
Inspired by ChristopherLangan's work, I developed a key insight. In a minimalist system, semantics gets used as syntax, as with the ConstructiveHypotheses that I discuss above. The {{Threesome}} of "take a stand, follow through, and reflect" is a self-contained system in that the next time we take a stand it is considered the same as the last time. So here there is no distinction between semantics and syntax. However, we may make a distinction between the first time we take a stand (the first time we go through the three-cycle) and the next time we take a stand
į:
Inspired by ChristopherLangan's work, I developed a key insight. In a minimalist system, semantics gets used as syntax, as with the ConstructiveHypotheses that I discuss above. The Threesome of "take a stand, follow through, and reflect" is a self-contained system in that the next time we take a stand it is considered the same as the last time. So here there is no distinction between semantics and syntax. However, we may make a distinction between the first time we take a stand (the first time we go through the three-cycle) and the next time we take a stand
Pakeistos 550-551 eilutės iš
I have realized that TheChainOfViews has us step into a view with a smaller scope, hence keeps them separate, whereas taking up the {{Omniscope}} has us step out of a view with a smaller scope, hence taking it up and equating one's view with it, so that they all coincide. How do the two - separation and coinciding - match up?
į:
I have realized that TheChainOfViews has us step into a view with a smaller scope, hence keeps them separate, whereas taking up the Omniscope has us step out of a view with a smaller scope, hence taking it up and equating one's view with it, so that they all coincide. How do the two - separation and coinciding - match up?
Pakeista 561 eilutė iš:
* When somebody looks through our eyes, then we don't distinguish whether they are actually looking or simply possibly looking. In other words, we don't distinguish the {{Observer}} and the ObservationalPlane. It is simply enough that they might be looking. What matters is that we are transparent to them. They stand as if behind us, looking through our eyes, as if we were but a mask.
į:
* When somebody looks through our eyes, then we don't distinguish whether they are actually looking or simply possibly looking. In other words, we don't distinguish the Observer and the ObservationalPlane. It is simply enough that they might be looking. What matters is that we are transparent to them. They stand as if behind us, looking through our eyes, as if we were but a mask.
Pakeista 600 eilutė iš:
** the source of all sources. It is the position which goes beyond itself in every way, which is to say, into every [ThisWiki:Contexts Context]. A context is what makes a position Definite and thus allows them to not coincide, to be separate.
į:
** the source of all sources. It is the position which goes beyond itself in every way, which is to say, into every Context. A context is what makes a position Definite and thus allows them to not coincide, to be separate.
Pakeista 610 eilutė iš:
** It is the Position of Coinciding and reaches out to give rise to context. It is the position of the DefaultObserver, namely {{God}}. We start by coinciding in terms of Expression, and we end by coinciding in terms of Spirit.
į:
** It is the Position of Coinciding and reaches out to give rise to context. It is the position of the DefaultObserver, namely God. We start by coinciding in terms of Expression, and we end by coinciding in terms of Spirit.
2020 gegužės 18 d., 11:19 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pridėtos 30-31 eilutės:
* Dievo lęšis, kuriuo jisai mus supranta.
** The Omniscope is God's relationship with himself, the lens that he sees himself through, the ways that an Observer may pull away from an ObservationalPlane. God considers all possibilities in that he pulls away from the expression in all directions. In going beyond himself he is Coinciding with himself.
Pakeistos 52-54 eilutės iš
** Know everything: See what {{God}} sees when he looks through us.
** Apply usefully: Do what {{God}} would do through us.
į:
** My wish is the ground for every wish, as every wish intends to be sensible and fulfilled. A wish is ultimately sensible with regard to everything, and is fulfilled through useful application.
** Every wish is included in my wish.
* Know everything: See what {{God}} sees when he looks through us.

* Apply usefully: Do what {{God}} would do through us.
Pakeistos 98-105 eilutės iš
===My Wish===

AndriusKulikauskas: [WhyKnowEverything My wish] is to [KnowEverything know everything] and [UsefulApplications apply that knowledge usefully].

My wish is the ground for every wish, as every wish intends to be sensible and fulfilled. A wish is ultimately sensible with regard to everything, and is fulfilled through useful application.

Also, every wish is included in my wish.
į:
Pakeistos 101-102 eilutės iš
To know everything is for [OurView one's view] to coincide with [GodsView God's view]. To apply usefully is for God's view to coincide with one's view.
į:
To know everything is for one's view to coincide with God's view. To apply usefully is for God's view to coincide with one's view.
Pakeistos 107-108 eilutės iš
To coincide is to not be distinguished by a system, and most generally, by any system.
į:
* To coincide is to not be distinguished by a system, and most generally, by any system.
Ištrinta 135 eilutė:
This describes the Omniscope which is God's relationship with himself, the lens that he sees himself through, the ways that an Observer may pull away from an ObservationalPlane. God considers all possibilities in that he pulls away from the expression in all directions. In going beyond himself he is Coinciding with himself.
2020 gegužės 18 d., 11:13 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeistos 3-4 eilutės iš
Žr.taip pat: Overview, DefaultObserver, World, ObservationalPlane, OurPosition, Overview, DefaultPosition, Position, Omniscope, Sevensome, System, Divergence, Division, Indistinction
į:
Iš ankščiau: Overview, Omniscope, Observer, ObservationalPlane, DefaultObserver, World, OurPosition, DefaultPosition, Position, Sevensome, System, Divergence, Diverging, Division, Distinctions, Indistinction, PrimaryStructures, SecondaryStructures, Concerns, AlgebraOfViews, LostChild, Human, Coinciding, Understanding, Scope, MeaningfulConcepts
Ištrintos 194-195 eilutės:
See also: Divisions, Coinciding, Overview, Sevensome
Pakeistos 297-300 eilutės iš
See also: {{Understanding}}

----
į:
Ištrinta 305 eilutė:
See also: Overview
Ištrinta 371 eilutė:
See also: Overview
Ištrintos 393-394 eilutės:
See also: {{Omniscope}}, {{Observer}}, Scope
Ištrintos 436-437 eilutės:
See also: {{Overview}}, PrimaryStructures, SecondaryStructures, Concerns, AlgebraOfViews, LostChild, Human
Ištrinta 574 eilutė:
See also: Overview, Distinctions
Ištrintos 617-618 eilutės:
See also: Understanding, MeaningfulConcepts
Ištrintos 635-636 eilutės:
See also: Omniscope, Diverging
Ištrintos 641-642 eilutės:
See also: Overview
Ištrinta 660 eilutė:
See also: Overview
2020 gegužės 18 d., 11:08 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeistos 1-2 eilutės iš
Žr. [[Apytakos]], [[Dievas | Dievo šokis]], [[Reikalai]], [[Padalinimų ratas]], [[Bendra sandara]], [[Viską žinoti]] Žr.taip pat: Overview, DefaultObserver, World, ObservationalPlane, OurPosition, Overview, DefaultPosition, Position, Omniscope
į:
Žr. [[Apytakos]], [[Dievas | Dievo šokis]], [[Reikalai]], [[Padalinimų ratas]], [[Bendra sandara]], [[Viską žinoti]]

Žr.taip pat: Overview, DefaultObserver, World, ObservationalPlane, OurPosition, Overview, DefaultPosition, Position, Omniscope, Sevensome, System, Divergence, Division, Indistinction
Pakeistos 37-38 eilutės iš
Žodynas
į:
[+Sąvokynas+]
Pridėtos 47-48 eilutės:

Mano nuostata, užmojis, troškimas
Pridėtos 52-53 eilutės:

Išsiskyrimai
Pridėtos 55-77 eilutės:

Pažinovas, pažinimo laukas, apimtys
* Observer and ObservationalPlane are the separating of one from oneself.
* The four scopes (Everything, Anything, Something, Nothing) are the coinciding of one with oneself.

Savastis ir Kitas
* Self is Observer in context (as in Life).
* Self defines and thus identifies Observer in terms of their ObservationalPlane.
* Other is Observer before context as referenced from within context.
* Other is thus the distinction of Observer before and after context (as in EternalLife).
* Other defines ObservationalPlane in terms of the Observer and thus separates the two by means of a Scope which is a filter that considers which of the perspectives that pull away from the observational plane coincide with the observer: every, any, one or none (Everything, Anything, Something or Nothing).

Gyvenimo lygtis
* The EquationOfLife relates Observer, ObservationalPlane, Self and Other (as in God, Good, Life, EternalLife).
* The equation is expressed with regard to the observer's scope.

Suvokimas
* Understanding is the position of Other as the choice between the DefaultObserver (GodTheFather, GodTheSon, HolySpirit, God) and the ActualContext (Self). See the diagram of the EquationOfLife at SelfVOther.

Žmogus
* Human is that which can have self discovery as the DefaultObserver within a particular context, their ActualContext.

Aplinka
Pakeistos 93-100 eilutės iš
Observer and ObservationalPlane are the separating of one from oneself. Whereas the four scopes (Everything, Anything, Something, Nothing) are the coinciding of one with oneself.

Self is Observer in context (as in Life). Self defines and thus identifies Observer in terms of their ObservationalPlane. Other is Observer before context as referenced from within context. Other is thus the distinction of Observer before and after context (as in EternalLife). Other defines ObservationalPlane in terms of the Observer and thus separates the two by means of a Scope which is a filter that considers which of the perspectives that pull away from the observational plane coincide with the observer: every, any, one or none (Everything, Anything, Something or Nothing). This is the EquationOfLife which relates Observer, ObservationalPlane, Self and Other (as in God, Good, Life, EternalLife). The equation is expressed with regard to the observer's scope.

Understanding is the position of Other as the choice between the DefaultObserver (GodTheFather, GodTheSon, HolySpirit, God) and the ActualContext (Self). See the diagram of the EquationOfLife at SelfVOther.

Note this opens up a definition of Human as that which can have self discovery as the DefaultObserver within a particular context, their ActualContext.
į:
Ištrintos 147-148 eilutės:
See also: Overview, Sevensome, System, Divergence, Division, Indistinction
Pridėtos 153-154 eilutės:
2020 gegužės 18 d., 10:51 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeista 23 eilutė iš:
* Sandara išsakanti prielaidas mano užmojo, mano troškimo viską žinoti ir tą žinojimą gražiai taikyti.
į:
* Sandara išsakanti prielaidas mano užmojo, mano nuostatos, mano troškimo viską žinoti ir tą žinojimą gražiai taikyti.
Ištrinta 34 eilutė:
Pridėtos 36-47 eilutės:
* Mano nuostata (Our Position): Aš trokštu viską žinoti ir tą žinojimą gražiai taikyti.
** This is my position and it defines my quest. It comes from my wish to apply myself fully. It encourages me to imagine God's position, my position, your position, and the position of all others. It suggests that we may all share this same position. It has us focus on God's outlook to the extent that we can imagine it.
** This is my starting point! and so perhaps not surprisingly, the position into which all the knowledge I am finding is coming together, and from which it all unfolds.
* In starting with this position, I may be God, myself, some other or simply the empty expression itself. Who I am sorts itself out as this position unfolds through my relationship with this position. I live the expression as God the Interpreter, Human the Interpretation and Other the Interpreted, all depending on what ''I'' means. My own focus on this Interpretation, on How all the knowledge unfolds, indicates my humanity.
** It is a position of going beyond oneself, and this happens through the separation (and thus the coinciding) of the one who goes beyond themselves and their self they go beyond, which ultimately is to say, the context which they go into. If one is going beyond oneself, then separating from one's self is coinciding with one's self.
** The activity of going beyond oneself yields, successively, the vantage points of an Interpreter, then an Interpretation, and finally, an Interpreted. Through them it becomes apparent that the expression is, of itself, simply an expression which they fully express. And in fact, the expression is implicit in them, and they all in the Interpreter, who is God.
** This position is God's Self, his Expression, his Context which he places himself in. Taken up it is the going beyond of oneself which is his activity. And this position itself goes beyond itself by expressing this as a disambiguation of it (which goes beyond) and it's self (which it goes beyond). These are related as stages with reference to what has gone beyond itself, which is taken as the final stage. Each of these stages is an implicit Coinciding with what has come before it, and an explicit Coinciding with the stages that come after it, thus expressing the potential which is being fulfilled. The final stage is implicitly I, and as a reference point, is explicitly God. With reference to God, each is expressible as a stage of going beyond oneself, with a divergence from the expression by way of this reference point, and other reference points that are yielded, until they are exhausted.
** It is natural to start with my wish, yet inherent in my wish is that I not presume it, but rather arrive at it. The goal is to derive from this wish that by which we might no longer presume it. Presumption recedes as coinciding is fulfilled in the relationship of God, human and other by which my wish is an actuality.
* My wish: I wish to see rightly, and subsequently, to act rightly.
** Know everything: See what {{God}} sees when he looks through us.
** Apply usefully: Do what {{God}} would do through us.
* Išsiskyrimai: OnefoldDivergence, TwofoldDivergence, ThreefoldDivergence, FourfoldDivergence.
Pakeistos 50-93 eilutės iš
* OnefoldDivergence
* TwofoldDivergence
* ThreefoldDivergence
* FourfoldDivergence

These are
, respectively, expressions:

* I
* sharing a view
* wish
* and

And they express
, respectively:

* {{God}}
* Everything
* Wishes
* Love


[+Mano nuostata+]

My position is: '''I wish to know everything and apply that knowledge usefully
.'''

This is my position and it defines my quest. It comes from my wish to apply myself fully. It encourages me to imagine God's position, my position, your position, and the position of all others. It suggests that we may all share this same position. It has us focus on God's outlook to the extent that we can imagine it.

Consider this as OurPosition.

===MyWish: Expression for God===

[MyWish I wish to know everything and apply that knowledge usefully.] This is my starting point! and so perhaps not surprisingly, the position into which all the knowledge I am finding is coming together, and from which it all unfolds.

In starting with this position, I may be God, myself, some other or simply the empty expression itself. Who I am sorts itself out as this position unfolds through my relationship with this position. I live the expression as God the Interpreter, Human the Interpretation and Other the Interpreted, all depending on what ''I'' means. My own focus on this Interpretation, on How all the knowledge unfolds, indicates my humanity.

It is a position of going beyond oneself, and this happens through the separation (and thus the coinciding) of the one who goes beyond themselves and their self they go beyond, which ultimately is to say, the context which they go into. If one is going beyond oneself, then separating from one's self is coinciding with one's self.

The activity of going beyond oneself yields, successively, the vantage points of an Interpreter, then an Interpretation, and finally, an Interpreted. Through them it becomes apparent that the expression is, of itself, simply an expression which they fully express. And in fact, the expression is implicit in them, and they all in the Interpreter, who is God.

This position is God's Self, his Expression, his Context which he places himself in. Taken up it is the [GoingBeyondOneself going beyond of oneself] which is his activity. And this position itself goes beyond itself by expressing this as a disambiguation of it (which goes beyond) and it's self (which it goes beyond). These are related as stages with reference to what has gone beyond itself, which is taken as the final stage. Each of these stages is an implicit Coinciding with what has come before it, and an explicit Coinciding with the stages that come after it, thus expressing the potential which is being fulfilled. The final stage is implicitly I, and as a reference point, is explicitly God. With reference to God, each is expressible as a stage of going beyond oneself, with a divergence from the expression by way of this reference point, and other reference points that are yielded, until they are exhausted.

It is natural to start with my wish, yet inherent in my wish is that I not presume it, but rather arrive at it. The goal is to derive from this wish that by which we might no longer presume it. Presumption recedes as coinciding is fulfilled in the relationship of God, human and other by which my wish is an actuality.

į:
[+Išsiskyrimai+]

Visaregis susideda iš keturių išsiskyrimų: viengubo
, dvigubo, trigubo, keturgubo. Jie išreiškia sąvokas: Aš, matau kartu, trokštu, ir. Ir grindžia sąvokas: Dievą, viską, troškimus, meilę.
Ištrintos 70-77 eilutės:
===Knowing everything and applying that usefully===

'''KnowEverything''', '''ApplyUsefully'''

I wish to KnowEverything and to [ApplyUsefully apply that knowledge usefully].
* To know everything is to see what {{God}} sees when he looks through us.
* To apply usefully is to do what {{God}} would do through us.
I wish to see rightly, and subsequently, to act rightly.
2020 gegužės 18 d., 10:24 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeista 21 eilutė iš:
** Kaip atsisakyti požiūrio. Perėjimas iš "požiūrio į požiūrį" į "požiūrį" grindžia perėjimą iš "požiūrio į požiūrį į požiūrį" į "jokį požiūrį".
į:
** Kaip atsisakyti požiūrio. Tai remiasi ketverybe. Perėjimas iš "požiūrio į požiūrį" į "požiūrį" grindžia perėjimą iš "požiūrio į požiūrį į požiūrį" į "jokį požiūrį". Perėjimas iš Tavęs į Mane grindžia perėjimą iš Kito į Dievą. Palyginti su logikos implikacijomis.
2020 gegužės 18 d., 10:23 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pridėta 21 eilutė:
** Kaip atsisakyti požiūrio. Perėjimas iš "požiūrio į požiūrį" į "požiūrį" grindžia perėjimą iš "požiūrio į požiūrį į požiūrį" į "jokį požiūrį".
2020 gegužės 18 d., 10:17 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeistos 1-2 eilutės iš
Žr. [[Apytakos]], [[Dievas | Dievo šokis]], [[Reikalai]], [[Padalinimų ratas]], [[Bendra sandara]], [[Viską žinoti]] Žr.taip pat: Overview, DefaultObserver, World, ObservationalPlane
į:
Žr. [[Apytakos]], [[Dievas | Dievo šokis]], [[Reikalai]], [[Padalinimų ratas]], [[Bendra sandara]], [[Viską žinoti]] Žr.taip pat: Overview, DefaultObserver, World, ObservationalPlane, OurPosition, Overview, DefaultPosition, Position, Omniscope
Pakeistos 15-28 eilutės iš
* Tai sandara, kurios ieškojau, bandydamas suvesti ir apibendrinti keturias pirmines sandaras. Šiuo metu nežinau ar tokia sandara yra. Esu aprašęs panašią sandarą, Dievo šokį, kuria apžvelgia visas man pažįstamas Dievo raiškas.
* Tai galėtų būti vaizduotės ribų apžvalga.
Jį reikėtų išvesti iš Dievo šokio. Gal tai [[kaip gyventi | pasirinkimų malūnas]].
* Tai turėtų būti sandara, kurioje iškyla Aš
, kada Dievas visaip pasitraukia ir tuomi išeina už savęs. Tad, matyt, tai yra Dievo pasitraukimo būdai. Visaregis pilnai apibrėžia Mane, tai yra, mano aplinkybes.
* Tai sandara, kurią įžvelgiau benagrinėdamas savo paties užmojį "viską žinoti ir tą žinojimą gražiai taikyti". Šiame užmojyje įžvelgiau 1 x 2 x 3 x 4 = 24 galimybes, kurios kartu paėmus turėtų sudaryti visaregį. Tačiau šias galimybes nesu tiksliai išsakęs. Visaregis išsako, kaip įvairiai Dievas atsiplėšia nuo savęs, tai yra, kaip jo požiūris atsiplėšia nuo savo pažinimo lauko.
* Tai sandara, keturiais būdais išsakanti laipsnyną, 4 x 6 reikalus. Laipsnynas yra svarbus keturioms pirminėms sandaroms, taip pat trims aštuongubo kelio atmainoms.

Taip pat visaregis turėtų būti susijęs su žinojimo rūmais - su išsiaiškinimo būdais - kurių iš viso yra 24. Dievo raiškos taip pat atitinka žinojimo rūmus
, išsidėsto jų tvarka.

Visaregis taip pat sietinas su padalinimų ratu, su 24 = 8 padalinimai x 3 veiksmai. Yra taip pat 24 = (4 x 4) + (2 x 4) padalinimų atvaizdai.

Visaregis gal vaizduotinas kubu, kurio 8 kampai - padalinimai
, 6 šonai - atvaizdai, 12 briaunos - aplinkybės. 24/3 = 8; 24/4 = 6, 24/2 = 12. Ir 2, 3, 4 lygu -1+3, 0+3 ir 1+3, tai sąmoningumai. Panašiai, gal jisai vaizduotinas oktahedru.

4 pirminės sandaros atsiranda kada sutampa pirmapradis Dievas ir visaregyje apibrėžtas Aš.
į:
* Sandara grindžianti keturias [[apytakos | apytakas]], taip kad jos visos susideda iš 24 galimybių.
** Visaregis taip pat sietinas su padalinimų ratu, su 24 = 8 padalinimai x 3 veiksmai. Yra taip pat 24 = (4 x 4) + (2 x 4) padalinimų atvaizdai
.
** Visaregis gal vaizduotinas kubu, kurio 8 kampai - padalinimai, 6 šonai - atvaizdai, 12 briaunos - aplinkybės. 24/3 = 8; 24/4 = 6, 24/2 = 12. Ir 2, 3, 4 lygu -1+3, 0+3 ir 1+3, tai sąmoningumai. Panašiai, gal jisai vaizduotinas oktahedru.
* Sandara nusakanti, kaip požiūris atsiplėšia nuo savęs
.
** Kaip įvairiai Dievas atsiplėšia nuo savęs, tai yra, kaip jo požiūris atsiplėšia nuo savo pažinimo lauko.
** Sandara, kurioje iškyla Aš, kada Dievas visaip pasitraukia ir tuomi išeina už savęs. Tad, matyt, tai yra Dievo pasitraukimo būdai. Visaregis pilnai apibrėžia Mane, tai yra, mano aplinkybes
.
** 4 pirminės sandaros atsiranda kada sutampa pirmapradis Dievas ir visaregyje apibrėžtas Aš.
* Sandara išsakanti prielaidas mano užmojo
, mano troškimo viską žinoti ir tą žinojimą gražiai taikyti.
** Šios prielaidos yra mano filosofijos abėcėlė: vienybė, dvejybė, trejybė, ketverybė.
** Šiame užmojyje įžvelgiau 1 x 2 x 3 x 4 = 24 galimybes
, kurios kartu paėmus turėtų sudaryti visaregį. Tačiau šias galimybes nesu tiksliai išsakęs.
** Tai sandara, keturiais būdais išsakanti laipsnyną, 4 x 6 reikalus. Laipsnynas yra svarbus keturioms pirminėms sandaroms, taip pat trims aštuongubo kelio atmainoms.
** Visaregis išdėsto įvairiausias prielaidas
, kurių galime atsisakyti, iš ko ir kyla paskiri klausimai.
* Sandara, kurios ieškojau, bandydamas suvesti ir apibendrinti keturias pirmines sandaras. Šiuo metu nežinau ar tokia sandara yra.
* Vaizduotės ribų apžvalga.
Pakeistos 34-40 eilutės iš
[+Visaregis+]

Visaregis
* Visaregis išdėsto įvairiausias prielaidas, kurių galime atsisakyti, iš ko ir kyla paskiri klausimai.

The ActualContext is the context that we find ourselves in, perhaps the base space, which is the World, or in general, for an Observer, their ObservationalPlane.
į:
Žodynas
* The ActualContext is the context that we find ourselves in, perhaps the base space, which is the World, or in general, for an Observer, their ObservationalPlane.
Ištrintos 58-59 eilutės:

See also: OurPosition, Overview, DefaultPosition, Position, Omniscope
2020 gegužės 06 d., 16:05 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeista 1 eilutė iš:
Žr. [[Dievas | Dievo šokis]], [[Reikalai]], [[Padalinimų ratas]], [[Bendra sandara]], [[Viską žinoti]] Žr.taip pat: Overview, DefaultObserver, World, ObservationalPlane
į:
Žr. [[Apytakos]], [[Dievas | Dievo šokis]], [[Reikalai]], [[Padalinimų ratas]], [[Bendra sandara]], [[Viską žinoti]] Žr.taip pat: Overview, DefaultObserver, World, ObservationalPlane
2020 gegužės 06 d., 16:05 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeistos 3-11 eilutės iš
'''Visaregis''', tai sandara, kurios ieškojau, bandydamas suvesti ir apibendrinti keturias pirmines sandaras. Šiuo metu nežinau ar tokia sandara yra. Esu aprašęs panašią sandarą, Dievo šokį, kuria apžvelgia visas man pažįstamas Dievo raiškas.

Visaregis galėtų būti vaizduotės ribų apžvalga. Jį reikėtų išvesti iš Dievo šokio
. Gal tai [[kaip gyventi | pasirinkimų malūnas]].

Visaregis turėtų būti sandara, kurioje iškyla Aš, kada Dievas visaip pasitraukia ir tuomi išeina už savęs
. Tad, matyt, tai yra Dievo pasitraukimo būdai. Visaregis pilnai apibrėžia Mane, tai yra, mano aplinkybes.

Visaregį įžvelgiau benagrinėdamas savo paties užmojį "viską žinoti ir tą žinojimą gražiai taikyti".
Šiame užmojyje įžvelgiau 1 x 2 x 3 x 4 = 24 galimybes, kurios kartu paėmus turėtų sudaryti visaregį. Tačiau šias galimybes nesu tiksliai išsakęs. Visaregis išsako, kaip įvairiai Dievas atsiplėšia nuo savęs, tai yra, kaip jo požiūris atsiplėšia nuo savo pažinimo lauko.

Gali būti, kad visaregis keturiais būdais išsako
laipsnyną, 4 x 6 reikalus. Laipsnynas yra svarbus keturioms pirminėms sandaroms, taip pat trims aštuongubo kelio atmainoms.
į:
[+Visaregis+]

>>bgcolor=#FFFFC0<<
----------------------
* Visaregį suprasti kaip sandarą glūdinčią už visų keturių apytakų
.
* Parodyti kaip dvejonės kyla iš visaregio.
* Parodyti kaip kryptys į gėrį ir iš gėrio kyla iš visaregio.
* Parodyti kaip pažinovas ir pažintasis susiję su antisandaros lygtimis 6+2=0 ir 7+2=1
.
---------------------
>><<

Kas yra visaregis?
* Tai sandara, kurios ieškojau, bandydamas suvesti ir apibendrinti keturias pirmines sandaras. Šiuo metu nežinau ar tokia sandara yra
. Esu aprašęs panašią sandarą, Dievo šokį, kuria apžvelgia visas man pažįstamas Dievo raiškas.
* Tai galėtų būti vaizduotės ribų apžvalga. Jį reikėtų išvesti iš Dievo šokio. Gal tai [[kaip gyventi | pasirinkimų malūnas]].
* Tai turėtų būti sandara, kurioje iškyla Aš, kada Dievas visaip pasitraukia ir tuomi išeina už savęs. Tad, matyt, tai yra Dievo pasitraukimo būdai. Visaregis pilnai apibrėžia Mane
, tai yra, mano aplinkybes.
* Tai sandara, kurią įžvelgiau benagrinėdamas savo paties užmojį "viską žinoti ir tą žinojimą gražiai taikyti". Šiame užmojyje įžvelgiau 1 x 2 x 3 x 4 = 24 galimybes, kurios kartu paėmus turėtų sudaryti visaregį. Tačiau šias galimybes nesu tiksliai išsakęs. Visaregis išsako, kaip įvairiai Dievas atsiplėšia nuo savęs, tai yra, kaip jo požiūris atsiplėšia nuo savo pažinimo lauko.
* Tai sandara, keturiais būdais išsakanti
laipsnyną, 4 x 6 reikalus. Laipsnynas yra svarbus keturioms pirminėms sandaroms, taip pat trims aštuongubo kelio atmainoms.
2017 rugpjūčio 08 d., 13:44 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeista 5 eilutė iš:
Visaregis galėtų būti vaizduotės ribų apžvalga. Jį reikėtų išvesti iš Dievo šokio.
į:
Visaregis galėtų būti vaizduotės ribų apžvalga. Jį reikėtų išvesti iš Dievo šokio. Gal tai [[kaip gyventi | pasirinkimų malūnas]].
2017 rugpjūčio 08 d., 13:44 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeistos 3-7 eilutės iš
'''Visaregis''', tai sandara, kurios ieškojau, bandydamas suvesti ir apibendrinti keturias pirmines sandaras. Šiuo metu manau, kad tokia sandara yra, bet ją nesu pilnai išmąstęs. Visaregis turėtų būti sandara, kurioje iškyla Aš, kada Dievas visaip pasitraukia ir tuomi išeina už savęs. Tad, matyt, tai yra Dievo pasitraukimo būdai. Visaregis pilnai apibrėžia Mane, tai yra, mano aplinkybes.
į:
'''Visaregis''', tai sandara, kurios ieškojau, bandydamas suvesti ir apibendrinti keturias pirmines sandaras. Šiuo metu nežinau ar tokia sandara yra. Esu aprašęs panašią sandarą, Dievo šokį, kuria apžvelgia visas man pažįstamas Dievo raiškas.

Visaregis galėtų būti vaizduotės ribų apžvalga. Jį reikėtų išvesti iš Dievo šokio.

Visaregis turėtų būti sandara, kurioje iškyla Aš, kada Dievas visaip pasitraukia ir tuomi išeina už savęs. Tad, matyt, tai yra Dievo pasitraukimo būdai. Visaregis pilnai apibrėžia Mane, tai yra, mano aplinkybes.
2016 gruodžio 25 d., 21:35 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeistos 748-753 eilutės iš
* Visaregis išsakomas pirmiausiai padalinimų veiksmais: 8x3=24 (raida). O iškilus žmogui, jisai išsakomas dvejopai, atvaizdais 6x4=24 (4 pirminių sandarų laipsnynais - žemėlapynu) ir aplinkybėmis 12x2=24 (žinojimo rūmais - vadovėliu). Toliau visaregis išsakomas kalbomis. Tad visaregis visaip išsakomas kubu.
į:
* Visaregis išsakomas pirmiausiai padalinimų veiksmais: 8x3=24 (raida). O iškilus žmogui, jisai išsakomas dvejopai, atvaizdais 6x4=24 (4 pirminių sandarų laipsnynais - žemėlapynu) ir aplinkybėmis 12x2=24 (žinojimo rūmais - vadovėliu). Toliau visaregis išsakomas kalbomis. Tad visaregis visaip išsakomas kubu.

* Angles. Divergence (Onefold, twofold, threefold, fourfold)
* ObservationalPlane,Observe, Observed
* ActualContext
* DefaultObserver, DefaultPosition
2016 vasario 13 d., 16:51 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeistos 1-2 eilutės iš
Žr. [[Reikalai]], [[Padalinimų ratas]], [[Bendra sandara]], [[Viską žinoti]] Žr.taip pat: Overview, DefaultObserver, World, ObservationalPlane
į:
Žr. [[Dievas | Dievo šokis]], [[Reikalai]], [[Padalinimų ratas]], [[Bendra sandara]], [[Viską žinoti]] Žr.taip pat: Overview, DefaultObserver, World, ObservationalPlane
Pakeistos 740-748 eilutės iš
Attach:scopesofaccess.jpg
į:
Attach:scopesofaccess.jpg

[+Užrašai+]

Žinojimo rūmai, tai:
* 2 x 12 = 24 dalis žinoma (sistema-teorija), dalis nežinoma (prieš sistemą-praktika)
* tame, kas žinoma: tai 6 x 4 = 24 įstatymas, Dievas nebūtinas, teisingumas, Asmuo-dvejybė
* tame, kas nežinoma: tai 8 x 3 = 24 kalbos, Dievas būtinas, malonė, Dievas-trejybė
* Visaregis išsakomas pirmiausiai padalinimų veiksmais: 8x3=24 (raida). O iškilus žmogui, jisai išsakomas dvejopai, atvaizdais 6x4=24 (4 pirminių sandarų laipsnynais - žemėlapynu) ir aplinkybėmis 12x2=24 (žinojimo rūmais - vadovėliu). Toliau visaregis išsakomas kalbomis. Tad visaregis visaip išsakomas kubu.
2015 birželio 07 d., 10:33 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pakeista 13 eilutė iš:
Visaregis gal vaizduotinas kubu, kurio 8 kampai - padalinimai, 6 šonai - atvaizdai, 12 briaunos - aplinkybės. 24/3 = 8; 24/4 = 6, 24/2 = 12. Ir 2, 3, 4 lygu -1+3, 0+3 ir 1+3, tai sąmoningumai.
į:
Visaregis gal vaizduotinas kubu, kurio 8 kampai - padalinimai, 6 šonai - atvaizdai, 12 briaunos - aplinkybės. 24/3 = 8; 24/4 = 6, 24/2 = 12. Ir 2, 3, 4 lygu -1+3, 0+3 ir 1+3, tai sąmoningumai. Panašiai, gal jisai vaizduotinas oktahedru.
2015 birželio 07 d., 10:31 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pakeista 11 eilutė iš:
Visaregis taip pat sietinas su padalinimų ratu, su 24 = 8 padalinimai x 3 veiksmai.
į:
Visaregis taip pat sietinas su padalinimų ratu, su 24 = 8 padalinimai x 3 veiksmai. Yra taip pat 24 = (4 x 4) + (2 x 4) padalinimų atvaizdai.
2015 gegužės 24 d., 22:57 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pridėtos 10-13 eilutės:

Visaregis taip pat sietinas su padalinimų ratu, su 24 = 8 padalinimai x 3 veiksmai.

Visaregis gal vaizduotinas kubu, kurio 8 kampai - padalinimai, 6 šonai - atvaizdai, 12 briaunos - aplinkybės. 24/3 = 8; 24/4 = 6, 24/2 = 12. Ir 2, 3, 4 lygu -1+3, 0+3 ir 1+3, tai sąmoningumai.
2015 gegužės 24 d., 22:38 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pridėtos 17-18 eilutės:
[+Visaregis+]
Pridėtos 43-118 eilutės:

[+Mano nuostata+]

See also: OurPosition, Overview, DefaultPosition, Position, Omniscope

My position is: '''I wish to know everything and apply that knowledge usefully.'''

This is my position and it defines my quest. It comes from my wish to apply myself fully. It encourages me to imagine God's position, my position, your position, and the position of all others. It suggests that we may all share this same position. It has us focus on God's outlook to the extent that we can imagine it.

Consider this as OurPosition.

===MyWish: Expression for God===

[MyWish I wish to know everything and apply that knowledge usefully.] This is my starting point! and so perhaps not surprisingly, the position into which all the knowledge I am finding is coming together, and from which it all unfolds.

In starting with this position, I may be God, myself, some other or simply the empty expression itself. Who I am sorts itself out as this position unfolds through my relationship with this position. I live the expression as God the Interpreter, Human the Interpretation and Other the Interpreted, all depending on what ''I'' means. My own focus on this Interpretation, on How all the knowledge unfolds, indicates my humanity.

It is a position of going beyond oneself, and this happens through the separation (and thus the coinciding) of the one who goes beyond themselves and their self they go beyond, which ultimately is to say, the context which they go into. If one is going beyond oneself, then separating from one's self is coinciding with one's self.

The activity of going beyond oneself yields, successively, the vantage points of an Interpreter, then an Interpretation, and finally, an Interpreted. Through them it becomes apparent that the expression is, of itself, simply an expression which they fully express. And in fact, the expression is implicit in them, and they all in the Interpreter, who is God.

This position is God's Self, his Expression, his Context which he places himself in. Taken up it is the [GoingBeyondOneself going beyond of oneself] which is his activity. And this position itself goes beyond itself by expressing this as a disambiguation of it (which goes beyond) and it's self (which it goes beyond). These are related as stages with reference to what has gone beyond itself, which is taken as the final stage. Each of these stages is an implicit Coinciding with what has come before it, and an explicit Coinciding with the stages that come after it, thus expressing the potential which is being fulfilled. The final stage is implicitly I, and as a reference point, is explicitly God. With reference to God, each is expressible as a stage of going beyond oneself, with a divergence from the expression by way of this reference point, and other reference points that are yielded, until they are exhausted.

It is natural to start with my wish, yet inherent in my wish is that I not presume it, but rather arrive at it. The goal is to derive from this wish that by which we might no longer presume it. Presumption recedes as coinciding is fulfilled in the relationship of God, human and other by which my wish is an actuality.



===Approaching MyPosition===

Separating and Coinciding

* Why this position - coinciding with what is separate
* How this position - separating from what is coinciding
* What this position - separating from what is separating
* Whether this position - coinciding with what is coinciding

Observer and ObservationalPlane are the separating of one from oneself. Whereas the four scopes (Everything, Anything, Something, Nothing) are the coinciding of one with oneself.

Self is Observer in context (as in Life). Self defines and thus identifies Observer in terms of their ObservationalPlane. Other is Observer before context as referenced from within context. Other is thus the distinction of Observer before and after context (as in EternalLife). Other defines ObservationalPlane in terms of the Observer and thus separates the two by means of a Scope which is a filter that considers which of the perspectives that pull away from the observational plane coincide with the observer: every, any, one or none (Everything, Anything, Something or Nothing). This is the EquationOfLife which relates Observer, ObservationalPlane, Self and Other (as in God, Good, Life, EternalLife). The equation is expressed with regard to the observer's scope.

Understanding is the position of Other as the choice between the DefaultObserver (GodTheFather, GodTheSon, HolySpirit, God) and the ActualContext (Self). See the diagram of the EquationOfLife at SelfVOther.

Note this opens up a definition of Human as that which can have self discovery as the DefaultObserver within a particular context, their ActualContext.

===Knowing everything and applying that usefully===

'''KnowEverything''', '''ApplyUsefully'''

I wish to KnowEverything and to [ApplyUsefully apply that knowledge usefully].
* To know everything is to see what {{God}} sees when he looks through us.
* To apply usefully is to do what {{God}} would do through us.
I wish to see rightly, and subsequently, to act rightly.
===My Wish===

AndriusKulikauskas: [WhyKnowEverything My wish] is to [KnowEverything know everything] and [UsefulApplications apply that knowledge usefully].

My wish is the ground for every wish, as every wish intends to be sensible and fulfilled. A wish is ultimately sensible with regard to everything, and is fulfilled through useful application.

Also, every wish is included in my wish.

===What does my wish mean?===

To know everything is for [OurView one's view] to coincide with [GodsView God's view]. To apply usefully is for God's view to coincide with one's view.

God's view is from beyond any system and thus sees all perspectives. Human's view is from within a system, is identified with that system, and thus sees one perspective.

A System is the making explicit of what is within it. A system makes explicit what is within it by expressing it as a Perspective. A system is given by the extent to which it links the coinciding of what is beyond with what is within and the coinciding of what is within with what is beyond. If there is no system, then these are separate questions. If there is a complete system, then these are the same question.

To coincide is to not be distinguished by a system, and most generally, by any system.

God is not explicit, but God is expressed through us, to the extent that we coincide, which is given by Other.

------------------------------------

[+Nukrypimai+]
Ištrintos 375-444 eilutės:
'''Mano nuostata'''

See also: OurPosition, Overview, DefaultPosition, Position, Omniscope

My position is: '''I wish to know everything and apply that knowledge usefully.'''

This is my position and it defines my quest. It comes from my wish to apply myself fully. It encourages me to imagine God's position, my position, your position, and the position of all others. It suggests that we may all share this same position. It has us focus on God's outlook to the extent that we can imagine it.

Consider this as OurPosition.

===MyWish: Expression for God===

[MyWish I wish to know everything and apply that knowledge usefully.] This is my starting point! and so perhaps not surprisingly, the position into which all the knowledge I am finding is coming together, and from which it all unfolds.

In starting with this position, I may be God, myself, some other or simply the empty expression itself. Who I am sorts itself out as this position unfolds through my relationship with this position. I live the expression as God the Interpreter, Human the Interpretation and Other the Interpreted, all depending on what ''I'' means. My own focus on this Interpretation, on How all the knowledge unfolds, indicates my humanity.

It is a position of going beyond oneself, and this happens through the separation (and thus the coinciding) of the one who goes beyond themselves and their self they go beyond, which ultimately is to say, the context which they go into. If one is going beyond oneself, then separating from one's self is coinciding with one's self.

The activity of going beyond oneself yields, successively, the vantage points of an Interpreter, then an Interpretation, and finally, an Interpreted. Through them it becomes apparent that the expression is, of itself, simply an expression which they fully express. And in fact, the expression is implicit in them, and they all in the Interpreter, who is God.

This position is God's Self, his Expression, his Context which he places himself in. Taken up it is the [GoingBeyondOneself going beyond of oneself] which is his activity. And this position itself goes beyond itself by expressing this as a disambiguation of it (which goes beyond) and it's self (which it goes beyond). These are related as stages with reference to what has gone beyond itself, which is taken as the final stage. Each of these stages is an implicit Coinciding with what has come before it, and an explicit Coinciding with the stages that come after it, thus expressing the potential which is being fulfilled. The final stage is implicitly I, and as a reference point, is explicitly God. With reference to God, each is expressible as a stage of going beyond oneself, with a divergence from the expression by way of this reference point, and other reference points that are yielded, until they are exhausted.

It is natural to start with my wish, yet inherent in my wish is that I not presume it, but rather arrive at it. The goal is to derive from this wish that by which we might no longer presume it. Presumption recedes as coinciding is fulfilled in the relationship of God, human and other by which my wish is an actuality.



===Approaching MyPosition===

Separating and Coinciding

* Why this position - coinciding with what is separate
* How this position - separating from what is coinciding
* What this position - separating from what is separating
* Whether this position - coinciding with what is coinciding

Observer and ObservationalPlane are the separating of one from oneself. Whereas the four scopes (Everything, Anything, Something, Nothing) are the coinciding of one with oneself.

Self is Observer in context (as in Life). Self defines and thus identifies Observer in terms of their ObservationalPlane. Other is Observer before context as referenced from within context. Other is thus the distinction of Observer before and after context (as in EternalLife). Other defines ObservationalPlane in terms of the Observer and thus separates the two by means of a Scope which is a filter that considers which of the perspectives that pull away from the observational plane coincide with the observer: every, any, one or none (Everything, Anything, Something or Nothing). This is the EquationOfLife which relates Observer, ObservationalPlane, Self and Other (as in God, Good, Life, EternalLife). The equation is expressed with regard to the observer's scope.

Understanding is the position of Other as the choice between the DefaultObserver (GodTheFather, GodTheSon, HolySpirit, God) and the ActualContext (Self). See the diagram of the EquationOfLife at SelfVOther.

Note this opens up a definition of Human as that which can have self discovery as the DefaultObserver within a particular context, their ActualContext.

===Knowing everything and applying that usefully===

'''KnowEverything''', '''ApplyUsefully'''

I wish to KnowEverything and to [ApplyUsefully apply that knowledge usefully].
* To know everything is to see what {{God}} sees when he looks through us.
* To apply usefully is to do what {{God}} would do through us.
I wish to see rightly, and subsequently, to act rightly.
===My Wish===

AndriusKulikauskas: [WhyKnowEverything My wish] is to [KnowEverything know everything] and [UsefulApplications apply that knowledge usefully].

My wish is the ground for every wish, as every wish intends to be sensible and fulfilled. A wish is ultimately sensible with regard to everything, and is fulfilled through useful application.

Also, every wish is included in my wish.

===What does my wish mean?===

To know everything is for [OurView one's view] to coincide with [GodsView God's view]. To apply usefully is for God's view to coincide with one's view.

God's view is from beyond any system and thus sees all perspectives. Human's view is from within a system, is identified with that system, and thus sees one perspective.

A System is the making explicit of what is within it. A system makes explicit what is within it by expressing it as a Perspective. A system is given by the extent to which it links the coinciding of what is beyond with what is within and the coinciding of what is within with what is beyond. If there is no system, then these are separate questions. If there is a complete system, then these are the same question.

To coincide is to not be distinguished by a system, and most generally, by any system.

God is not explicit, but God is expressed through us, to the extent that we coincide, which is given by Other.
2015 gegužės 24 d., 22:35 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pakeistos 574-630 eilutės iš
===Questions===

===Discussion===

BenoitCouture: Dear Andrius,

I love this word: "OMNISCOPE". With this word coming in the sight of your work, you are now located to materialize the Internet tool, born of the nature to live from the presence of God and to journey by Loving God in the full view of the Public Domain.

Omniscope is positioned to serve as the Internet host who invites and strenghtens all of humanity's YES while affirming without compromise where NO must remain. Multiculturalism finds its uniculture and deploys with the Omniscope, the common denominator born from the Law of the Spirit of Life.

From the culture of the Omniscope on the Internet, there begins the assembling of a mature people of all people. From Minciu Sodas lab grows the passage from minimum online networking to maximum ground activity of spiritual nature. In our calling, we get to serve, settled in the universal family who welcomes the opportunity to share the best that we all have to offer one another.

MINCIU SODAS' ASSEMBLING OF THE OMNISCOPE

CHAPTER ONE: CULTURE OF LOVING GOD-LIVING BY TRUTH

Omni potent: all powerful: ...[{{LovingGod/CleansingOurVisionOfTheCrown}} cleansing our vision of the Crown]...
[{{LovingGod/QuieteningSilenceOfPatientWisdom}} The Quietning Silence of Patient Wisdom]


Omni present: everywhere, all places at all times: Organic experience of spiritual unity
LovingGod/ExperienceOfUnity
LovingGod/UniversalFaith

Omni scient: knowing all things as in God Consciousness: Healing the Meaning
LovingGod/LivingMeaning
Human condition: LovingGod/HumanCondition

Omni potent: all powerful: Kingdom Deep Net LovingGod/KingdomDeepNet
Call to order
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/classic/A5290968

Omni present: everywhere, all places at all times:
{{LovingGod/Flowcalization}}
Public Domain of the Internet and Public Broadcasters joint venture:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/G1281
http://www.knowledgeboard.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=129672&d=pnd
And at the last 3 posts(as of Oct 23, 05) of [http://disruptive-mice.org/forums/711/ShowPost.aspx this thread]


Omni scient: knowing all things as in God Consciousness: Faculty of Living LovingGod/FacultyOfLiving
LovingGod/STArSHINE


CHAPTER TWO: CONNECTIVITY FROM REALITY TO CYBER TO REALITY

Development of the Global Villages from the struggling jurisdictions of the Western economies with the funding of established social services, to the jurisdiction with the curriculum from minus 40 to grade fourty.

The flowcalization of ...cleansing our vision of the Crown... into the KDN and the thought of the Omnoscope are within range of each other. Living by truth, they are being shaped and guided to assemble by Loving God, where the organic experience of spiritual unity lives in the completion of itself in the travail of labour of the whole creation, through time and space.

THE SACRED FIRE GUIDING SANCTITY OF SPIRIT SOUL AND BODY IS THE LOCATION OF GOD'S OMNISCOPE IN THE HOLY COMMUNION OF THE ORGANIC SPIRITUAL UNITY

Ps: I came across an interesting bit of info this week in regards to a word I use a lot in the explainations of my work. I explain that I began my "official" work by joining the SUFA review of 2002. SUFA is the Social Union Framework Agreement in Canada. It was signed in 1999 and when 2002's review came, I answered to a public announcement for anyone to participate, so I did.
In one of my main article, I used the name of our Prime Minister of the day and I wrote to his Office, to make sure that he could get to read it himself. The intreguing part is that when I paste this letter, now in 2005, the website reference of the SUFA review leads to a home surveillance camera add by Goooooogle. See for youself : The address is: www.sufa-review.ca and under the index of submissions you see my name there.
Truly your's, BenoitCouture Thank you!

Could it be that we are getting so close to the mark of the Permanent People {{LovingGod/Summit}}, that some war lords are already felling undermined in their interest of the command and control structures???
į:
2015 gegužės 24 d., 22:34 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pakeistos 3-4 eilutės iš
'''Visaregis''', tai sandara, kurios ieškojau, bandydamas suvesti ir apibendrinti keturias pirmines sandaras. Šiuo metu manau, kad tokia sandara yra, bet ją nesu pilnai išmąstęs. Visaregis turėtų būti sandara, kurioje iškyla Aš, kada Dievas visaip pasitraukia ir tuomi išeina už savęs. Tad, matyt, tai yra Dievo pasitraukimo būdai.
į:
'''Visaregis''', tai sandara, kurios ieškojau, bandydamas suvesti ir apibendrinti keturias pirmines sandaras. Šiuo metu manau, kad tokia sandara yra, bet ją nesu pilnai išmąstęs. Visaregis turėtų būti sandara, kurioje iškyla Aš, kada Dievas visaip pasitraukia ir tuomi išeina už savęs. Tad, matyt, tai yra Dievo pasitraukimo būdai. Visaregis pilnai apibrėžia Mane, tai yra, mano aplinkybes.
Pridėtos 7-8 eilutės:
Gali būti, kad visaregis keturiais būdais išsako laipsnyną, 4 x 6 reikalus. Laipsnynas yra svarbus keturioms pirminėms sandaroms, taip pat trims aštuongubo kelio atmainoms.
Pridėtos 11-12 eilutės:
4 pirminės sandaros atsiranda kada sutampa pirmapradis Dievas ir visaregyje apibrėžtas Aš.
Pakeistos 17-21 eilutės iš
Visaregis išdėsto įvairiausias prielaidas, kurių galime atsisakyti, iš ko ir kyla paskiri klausimai.

Visaregiu Aš pilnai apibrėžtas.

Visaregyje, Dievas sutampa su Aš (Savimi) ir Aš sutampu su Dievu, ir šie du sutapimai sutampa (Tavimi), nes tiek Dievas man, tiek aš Dievui esame Tu. Tačiau Tavimi sutampa kuriame nors lygmenyje, tad atsiranda pirminės sandaros
.
į:
Visaregis
* Visaregis išdėsto įvairiausias prielaidas, kurių galime atsisakyti, iš ko ir kyla paskiri klausimai.
2015 gegužės 24 d., 22:29 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pridėtos 9-10 eilutės:
Attach:observationalplane.jpg
Ištrintos 12-19 eilutės:
Attach:Godtolife.gif

Attach:observationalplane.jpg

Attach:position.jpg

Attach:scopesofaccess.jpg
Pakeistos 776-782 eilutės iš
* the one beyond the expression (God) coincides with the one within the expression (human), as in ApplyingUsefully.
į:
* the one beyond the expression (God) coincides with the one within the expression (human), as in ApplyingUsefully.

Attach:Godtolife.gif

Attach:position.jpg

Attach:scopesofaccess.jpg
2015 gegužės 24 d., 22:29 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pridėtos 8-9 eilutės:

------------------
2015 gegužės 24 d., 22:28 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pridėtos 3-8 eilutės:
'''Visaregis''', tai sandara, kurios ieškojau, bandydamas suvesti ir apibendrinti keturias pirmines sandaras. Šiuo metu manau, kad tokia sandara yra, bet ją nesu pilnai išmąstęs. Visaregis turėtų būti sandara, kurioje iškyla Aš, kada Dievas visaip pasitraukia ir tuomi išeina už savęs. Tad, matyt, tai yra Dievo pasitraukimo būdai.

Visaregį įžvelgiau benagrinėdamas savo paties užmojį "viską žinoti ir tą žinojimą gražiai taikyti". Šiame užmojyje įžvelgiau 1 x 2 x 3 x 4 = 24 galimybes, kurios kartu paėmus turėtų sudaryti visaregį. Tačiau šias galimybes nesu tiksliai išsakęs. Visaregis išsako, kaip įvairiai Dievas atsiplėšia nuo savęs, tai yra, kaip jo požiūris atsiplėšia nuo savo pažinimo lauko.

Taip pat visaregis turėtų būti susijęs su žinojimo rūmais - su išsiaiškinimo būdais - kurių iš viso yra 24. Dievo raiškos taip pat atitinka žinojimo rūmus, išsidėsto jų tvarka.
Pridėtos 16-17 eilutės:

Visaregis išdėsto įvairiausias prielaidas, kurių galime atsisakyti, iš ko ir kyla paskiri klausimai.
2015 vasario 25 d., 11:01 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pakeistos 1-2 eilutės iš
Žr. [[Reikalai]], [[Padalinimų ratas]], [[Bendra sandara]], [[Viską žinoti]]
į:
Žr. [[Reikalai]], [[Padalinimų ratas]], [[Bendra sandara]], [[Viską žinoti]] Žr.taip pat: Overview, DefaultObserver, World, ObservationalPlane
Pridėtos 11-12 eilutės:
Visaregiu Aš pilnai apibrėžtas.
Ištrintos 14-15 eilutės:
See also: Overview, DefaultObserver, World, ObservationalPlane
Ištrintos 15-16 eilutės:

See also: Overview
2014 lapkričio 10 d., 21:50 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pakeistos 11-14 eilutės iš

>>bgcolor=#FFFFC0<<

>><<
į:
Visaregyje, Dievas sutampa su Aš (Savimi) ir Aš sutampu su Dievu, ir šie du sutapimai sutampa (Tavimi), nes tiek Dievas man, tiek aš Dievui esame Tu. Tačiau Tavimi sutampa kuriame nors lygmenyje, tad atsiranda pirminės sandaros.
2014 lapkričio 10 d., 02:36 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Ištrintos 12-21 eilutės:

* Kaip klausimai susiję su troškimu viską žinoti?
* Dar bandyti suvokti iš visko pusės. Kaip su Dievu bandom jį aprėpti? Kaip jis perduoda viską į mano rankas? Kaip nepasimetame visakame?
* Kaip visaregis atveria ir išsako klausimus?
* Kaip visaregis susijęs su dvejonėmis? (jeigu su klausimais?)
* Kaip visaregis išreiškia vienumą? ir išsako rūpesčius? ir vieningai aprėpia bendrystę? Susieti laipsnyną su visaregiu.
* Kaip iškyla suvokimo rūmai (visaregis)?
* Kaip visaregis, Dievo suvokimo rūmai išsivysto Jėzaus, netobulo žmogaus, įvairiausių sričių, jų galimybių (matematikos) suvokimo rūmais? Kaip susidaro saviraidos sąlygos?
* Kaip visaregis atveria ir išsako klausimus? - Visaregis išdėsto įvairiausias prielaidas, kurių galime atsisakyti, iš ko ir kyla paskiri klausimai.
* Kaip pavaizduoti visaregį?
2014 birželio 09 d., 22:24 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pridėtos 781-787 eilutės:
'''Dvigubas nukrypimas'''

See: Divergence, Overview

'''share a view''' (knowing/applying) - A TwofoldDivergence as to whether:
* the one within the expression (human) coincides with the one beyond the expression (God), as in KnowingEverything, or
* the one beyond the expression (God) coincides with the one within the expression (human), as in ApplyingUsefully.
2014 birželio 09 d., 22:23 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pakeistos 733-780 eilutės iš
The necessity of the possibility is what manifests itself through us.
į:
The necessity of the possibility is what manifests itself through us.

'''Dvigubas Išskyrimas'''

See also: Overview
===Twofold Distinction: Coinciding Structures (Values): Human Is God's Quality===

Note: I'm rethinking this...

* eternal life is that '''one is part of all''' after the fact (or structurally: anything is part of everything)
* life is that '''not all is part of not one''' before the fact (or structurally: not everything is part of not anything)

The latter says that (single step outwards) wishes are structurally already built into the (endlessly inward stepping) recursive structure of everything. The former says that there is slack to allow for one within all, but this slack may yet manifest itself, as it is beyond structure.


'''Earlier Thoughts'''

BeingOneWith has meaning as an equation:
* The equation of life is that '''one is part of all'''.
* The equation of eternal life is that '''none is part of all'''.
This is the distinction between one and none. It is a double statement.

In taking up his own View, God is conscious of himself. To take up a view is to go beyond oneself into the observational plane determined by a view. It is to identify with one's own arisal. God identifies with his own arisal (his Self which is Love). Thus he participates as one who understands, who comes to understand, and who is understood. (Father, Son, Holy Spirit).

God manifests himself through the observational plane which is determined by his view and is given by what he has gone beyond into. He manifests himself through his Quality, which is BeingOneWith. His quality is his dual, in that it what indicates him in the observational plane to that which takes up that plane. His quality is that which indicates his arisal. God's quality is the default quality that is fundamental in all qualities. We understand God's quality at one of four levels through which we understand the equation of God and his quality. At one level we understand his quality as the Good, and that which refers us to what is beyond the system.

Consider God's relationship with himself (which we mediate). This takes place through God's quality, which is BeingOneWith. God manifests himself through his quality, this is his glory. God manifests himself directly in every way. We therefore consider his relationship from the perspective of his self. His self is all that which has his quality. His self is Love. We consider how Love relates back to God. His self brings forth all structure that is relevant for a quality to stand alone. Indeed, his quality is the most fundamental of all, that of being one with. We understand God's quality as the Good.

We thus consider everything from the vantage point of God's quality (being one with) which we know as the good. The relationship between God and good is given by an equation (life is the fact that God is good; eternal life is the understanding that God is good, their separation). From the perspective of good, this equation is understood in four levels (starting with God and good as distinct, and then bringing them closer together as in God's will and will) from the point of view of life (being loved) and eternal life (love). How do structures arise from this equation? They do arise at each level (four, two, one, zero). And perhaps the four and the two are combined to indicate God's absence, and the primary structures.

His quality, of itself, outlines a system for any quality. This system likely accords with the eight names of the QualityWithoutAName. These are the perspectives by which Love relates back to God. These levels are given by four, two, one, zero perspectives (as described below) by which we are loved, and then zero, one, two, four perspectives by which we love. We are therefore the relationship between Love and God. How can we climb out of ourselves and acknowledge this fundamental quality of being one with? and its foundation beyond us? That is the fundamental question and love is the answer.

The six secondary structures express God's presence and are the qualities of signs. However, God is not a sign, he manifests himself directly. This possibility goes beyond God's presence and is God's direct manifestation. The four primary structures express God's absence. God is neither his presence nor his absence.

God's Identification

Next, God allows for the system (his structure Everything), and thus for his self (defined in terms of Everything). However, he is not yet of the system, but his self, Love, with whom he is one with, and who manifests his being one with, finds himself grounded in the system, and thus presuming relationship. He is Good within the system.

His being one with may be understood as rooted beyond the system (distinguishing him from his self in the system) or as rooted within the system (identifying him with himself in the system). For him, we are the expressions of his being one with:
* Identification of him with God beyond the system from the beginning (and thus we are Life, and we are Loved, and they are one with directly)
* Distinction of him and God beyond the system as separate, so that the latter is prior (and thus we are EternalLife, and we Love, and they are one with through us by whom they may be separate as we make way for them to be together)

What does it mean for everything and anything to coincide? It means that the oneness of a perspective is allowed by the slack in the system so that it can connect with all perspectives structurally. The conjunction And lets us include God within the system, as slack.
===Older Thoughts===
Within a system, the views may coincide based on the distinctions given by the conjunction And. There is God and his quality, goodness. The human value is the quality of God's value. There are two understandings of this equation as to what it means to be part of:
*God and his value are the same
*God and his value are distinct
2014 birželio 09 d., 21:57 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pakeistos 712-733 eilutės iš
Diverging is going beyond the SingleSelf.
į:
Diverging is going beyond the SingleSelf.

'''Troškimas'''

See also: Overview

Note that perhaps pulling it all together are the ConstructiveHypotheses which relate having a wish, satisfying that wish, and allowing for that wish - this three-cycle which opens us in this, but not the three-cycle which does not.
===ConstructiveHypotheses===

Given the (constructive) intent to satisfy that wish, regardless of our ability, there (pragmatically) must be the possibility of a solution) write about the necessity of the possibility of God, given the starting point of a mind wishing to know everything and apply that usefully.

*Having this wish: the actuality of the necessity of the possibility of God.
*Satisfying this wish: the necessity of the possibility of the actuality of God.
*Allowing this wish: the possibility of the actuality of the necessity of God.

Next: What does it mean for that possibility to manifest itself? It must be the necessity of that possibility that manifests itself.

* The actuality is given through the manifestation (and through us)
* The possibility is given by the identity of God who takes up our view and whose view we take up
* The necessity is given by the distinctness of God who takes up our view and whose view we take up

The necessity of the possibility is what manifests itself through us
.
2014 birželio 09 d., 17:48 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pakeistos 704-712 eilutės iš
*UnderstandingVSlack
į:
*UnderstandingVSlack

'''Pirminė savastis'''

See also: Omniscope, Diverging

SingleSelf is I's self, the Omniscope.

Diverging is going beyond the SingleSelf.
2014 birželio 08 d., 06:43 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pakeistos 684-704 eilutės iš
** It is the Position of Coinciding and reaches out to give rise to context. It is the position of the DefaultObserver, namely {{God}}. We start by coinciding in terms of Expression, and we end by coinciding in terms of Spirit.
į:
** It is the Position of Coinciding and reaches out to give rise to context. It is the position of the DefaultObserver, namely {{God}}. We start by coinciding in terms of Expression, and we end by coinciding in terms of Spirit.

'''Santykiai'''

See also: Understanding, MeaningfulConcepts

===Relations===

There are relations that express GoingBeyondOneself for different Scopes and also generate Structure accordingly:

* GoingBeyondOneself
* Divergences
* Distinctions
* Divisions


===Relations between concepts====

Here I list relations between concepts.

*UnderstandingVSlack
2014 birželio 06 d., 12:16 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pakeistos 662-684 eilutės iš
Within a system, the views may further coincide based on the distinctions given by the conjunction Or and what it means to be channeling. Here the channeling also exhibits the independence of the quality of an equation and the equation of qualities 2x4=4x2
į:
Within a system, the views may further coincide based on the distinctions given by the conjunction Or and what it means to be channeling. Here the channeling also exhibits the independence of the quality of an equation and the equation of qualities 2x4=4x2

'''Mūsų nuostata'''

MyPosition is '''I wish to know everything and I apply this knowledge usefully'''.

I believe this is OurPosition and I am pursuing it as such.

Our position is God's position, my position, your position and other's position.

* God's position
** the position of GoingBeyondOneself
** the source of all sources. It is the position which goes beyond itself in every way, which is to say, into every [ThisWiki:Contexts Context]. A context is what makes a position Definite and thus allows them to not coincide, to be separate.
* my position
** the DefaultPosition
** All other positions arise from its going beyond itself.
** the DefaultPosition in all Contexts, for it is available in any context as the position which is prior to context and thus Indefinite.
* your position
** All other positions arise from its coinciding.
** the one that is open to all Knowing, which is the Understanding of one's own limits, one's own separation, one's own context. Understanding is the separation of an Observer from their context, which is their ObservationalPlane.
* Other's position
** the position of Coinciding.
** It is the Position of Coinciding and reaches out to give rise to context. It is the position of the DefaultObserver, namely {{God}}. We start by coinciding in terms of Expression, and we end by coinciding in terms of Spirit.
2014 birželio 06 d., 12:09 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pakeistos 640-662 eilutės iš
Could it be that we are getting so close to the mark of the Permanent People {{LovingGod/Summit}}, that some war lords are already felling undermined in their interest of the command and control structures???
į:
Could it be that we are getting so close to the mark of the Permanent People {{LovingGod/Summit}}, that some war lords are already felling undermined in their interest of the command and control structures???

'''Viengubas skyrimas'''

See also: Overview, Distinctions
===Onefold distinction: Coinciding Representations (Referents)===
Representation gives the relationship between spirit and structure. Spirit may be outside structure (external representations) or inside structure (internal representations).

Here there is a onefold distinction in terms of channeling. The one is the channel for the all, the channel for the none. Hence the one coincides with the all. This happens because the representation makes clear, regarding the one, what is beyond the one (external to it) and so its nature as a channel by which all beyond and all within are the same all, and so the one coincides with them (as in the Omniscope). (This also brings to mind the relationship between structure and activity). This may be thought of as the invariance of all or none under one, or as the transparency of one, or perhaps of it's inherent nature.

Note also that the channeling is quite real, in that the wishes and the identifications are separated from each other, and one and all are related (as choices matching wishes) by leaving aside the identifications (the internal representations). The latter may be thought of as the channeling of the none, the former as the channeling of the all.

Distinction between all and none: '''All and none are separately invariant under one.''' This distinction is given by a single statement.

There is God in Wishes. God is in the being one with shared by God beyond the system (as entering into relationship) and God within the system (as presuming a relationship). What they share is their distinctness, their separateness, at any level of expression. For God beyond the system, these levels (Complete, Unobstructed, Familiar, Unified) are four qualities of the expression of being one with, and so apply to us. For God within the system, these same levels are four expressions of the quality of being one with, and so apply to God. This means that at any of these four levels there is a being one with which manifests as the fact that ''the expression of a quality'' is the same as ''a quality of the expression''. Yet also there is an expression of this distinction which manifests as an identification of God beyond the system and God within the system. Thus, at each of the four levels, there is an expression of EternalLife (and loving) as Life (and being loved).

In this sense, God's qualities are within the system (as wishes that are representations of everything). God's being one with is expressed through us as the arisal of his qualties so that they express him and he expresses them. We are the fact of this equivalence.

Wishes are the ability to arise. Identifications are the ability for that which is to be the same as that which arises. It is the difference between external and internal representations. What are choices, as representations? They are expressions of the will. What does it mean for a wish and a choice to coincide? It means that there can be (as a choice) a deference to a wish (that is rooted beyond the system).

The human's one perspective within the system and God's all perspectives beyond the system can be related (on the level of representations) by God within the system as identifications (internal representations). Putting aside these internal representations (as allowed by the conjunction or) then an (internally grounded) choice is an (externally grounded) wish. The conjunction Or lets us put aside God within the system, which is to say, put aside identifications.
===Older Thoughts===
Within a system, the views may further coincide based on the distinctions given by the conjunction Or and what it means to be channeling. Here the channeling also exhibits the independence of the quality of an equation and the equation of qualities 2x4=4x2
2014 birželio 06 d., 12:08 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pakeistos 445-640 eilutės iš
* Separating them may let through no perspective, so that the observer '''chooses''', and they are separated by everything, so then the observational plane of its own sake does not let through any requirement.
į:
* Separating them may let through no perspective, so that the observer '''chooses''', and they are separated by everything, so then the observational plane of its own sake does not let through any requirement.

'''Visaregis'''

See also: {{Overview}}, PrimaryStructures, SecondaryStructures, Concerns, AlgebraOfViews, LostChild, Human

==={{Omniscope}}, PrimaryStructures, SecondaryStructures===

The '''{{Omniscope}}''' is a comprehensive view upon all {{Structure}}.

Each of the four '''PrimaryStructures''' presents an ObservationalPlane of the omniscope as a relationship between God and human.

Each of the six '''SecondaryStructures''' may be thought of as the coinciding of the {{Observer}} of a wider observational plane with an observer of a narrower observational plane.

===The Omniscope===

I'll describe what I think is the "answer" in my own quest to KnowEverything. It is a contraption which I'll call the Omniscope. Just as a "telescope" lets us see what is far away, and a "microscope" lets us see what is small, an "omniscope" lets us see everything.

Inasmuch as we can imagine {{God}}, the omniscope is the contraption by which God observes himself. It gives the 24 {{Angles}} in which an {{Observer}} pulls away from an ObservationalPlane. In this sense, it gives the ways that God goes beyond himself, as God first associates himself with the ObservationalPlane, but then pulls himself away and associates himself with the {{Observer}}.

By pulling apart himself as observer and observational plane, he makes room for us, those who identify only with the observer. The omniscope and its angles are for us purely formal, but we then give life to them. In identifying ourselves with this observer, we interpret these {{Angles}}, these ways of pulling away as 24 {{Concerns}}, which is to say, 24 NotWishes. Our identification has us focus on a particular observational plane. This yields four PrimaryStructures, one for each observational plane. In this way, the purely formal structure of the omniscope becomes grounded in our outlook. We then coincide with the omniscope, so that God sees himself through us, and the omniscope defines everything as it relates to us.

The Omniscope gives the ways that I go from the bounded into the unbounded (thus accounting for but reversing God's going beyond himself from the unbounded into the bounded).

===24 {{Angles}} are Ways that God Goes Beyond Himself===

In order for an observer to pull away from an observational plane:
* the observational plane must be specified
* the observer and the observational plane must coincide
* the observer must then coincide with a point of reference separate from the observational plane

The 24 ways that God goes beyond himself are determined by, and the product of:

* The 4 observational planes that an observer might observe themselves through, allowing for access to: {{Everything}}, {{Anything}}, {{Something}} or {{Nothing}};
* the 3 points of contact that an observer and an observational plane might have: either TakingAStand or FollowingThrough or {{Reflecting}};
* the 2 points of reference that the observer might have when they are separate from the observational plane: either their own vantage point within the observational plane, as the ultimate {{Observer}}, or the absolute vantage point of all that is beyond the observational plane, which is to say, the vantage point of THE everything, as the ultimate ObservationalPlane.

In going beyond himself, God is both the observational plane (the God who will go beyond himself) and the observer (the God who has gone beyond himself) and the two have been separated.

===4 ObservationalPlanes===

When an {{Observer}} observes themselves, this relationship characterizes the ObservationalPlane between them.

* If the observational plane coincides with both observer and observed, then they coincide, it lets through all perspectives, and is {{Everything}}
* If the observational plane coincides with the observer but not the observed, then it is a stepping in, and lets through any perspective, and is {{Anything}}
* If the observational plane coincides with the observed but not the observer, then it is a stepping out, and lets through a perspective, and is {{Something}}
* If the observational plane coincides with neither the observed nor the observer, then they are separate, it lets through no perspectives, and is {{Nothing}}

This relationship is completely formal. It gives the amount of opaqueness that separates the observer and the observed, the amount of perspective that is filtered out by self-reflection, by which the observer sees less than the observed. Note that the observer may, in a sense, see more by seeing less.

God is identifiable with any of these four {{Scopes}} of access, which is to say, with any of these observational planes. However, God himself is beyond them all.

http://www.ms.lt/en/andrius/understanding/diagrams/scopesofaccess.jpg

===3 Points of Coinciding of {{Observer}} and ObservationalPlane===

In order to distinguish the observer and their observational plane, it is important to first indicate how they coincide.

These positions are:
* TakingAStand: this is the position that is at the far end of the observational plane, it is what is "seen" upon looking through.
* FollowingThrough: this is the position in the middle of the observational plane that is "seeing", it is what identifies with the plane itself.
* {{Reflecting}}: this is what "sees", it is at the beginning of the observational plane.

They are related to the three PrinciplesOfLife which are unconceivable, namely: strong centers (taking a stand), strong boundaries (following through), levels of scale (reflecting).

===Back into or back towards===

Upon stepping away from one's observational plane, one may either identify with oneself (as the ultimate observer) or with whatever is beyond the observational plane (the ultimate observational plane). If one identifies with oneself as an observer, then one finds oneself within a new observational plane, as an observer always comes with some observational plane. Whereas if one identifies with the default observational plane, then that plane need not have an observer, and not the observer at hand, and so they can remain distinct. In the first case, this takes us backwards in the observational plane (perhaps like an ever expandable telescope), and in the second case, possibly completely out of the observational plane.

So if one:
* Follows through after taking a stand: then one steps back from the end of the observational "tube" and into its middle.
* Reflects after following through: then one steps back from the middle of the observational "tube" and into its beginning.
* Takes a stand after reflecting: then one reinterprets the beginning of the observational "tube" as actually the end of a deeper, more intimate observational "tube".
In every case one is moving deeper towards "THE everything" which stands behind and away from the observational tube. To the above three movements we may add three more that move one to THE everything:
* Back away from TakingAStand and to "THE everything".
* Back away from FollowingThrough and to "THE everything".
* Back away from {{Reflecting}} and to "THE everything".

We then multiply the four observational planes with the six shifts to get twenty-four {{Angles}}. They remain abstract until they are intrepreted by us as {{Not-wishes}}.

http://www.ms.lt/en/andrius/understanding/diagrams/observationalplane.jpg


===24 NotWishes===

Each of the {{Angles}} comes to life when we ourselves take it up and identify with it. We do this by way of the PrimaryStructures.

I think that each of the three-cycle's shifts distinguishes an observer from their observational plane. (This is essential for EternalLife). When the shift is complete, this distinction collapse, and so it is vital to keep shifting again.

Each of the not-wishes is "self-reenforcing" in that it tends to strengthen itself. It is resolved by a countering choice that has us side with either "stepping back" or "stepping in", apparently, the "stepping back" (back into or back towards THE everything) is preferable. I have written these up somewhat in the diagrams and there is a lot that I will need to work out further, but I think with this "omniscope" I've found a fruitful way of sorting out the details of the mechanics.

We can then consider a seventh perspective which is a generic "shift back" (perhaps "THE Anything") that we understand as a generalization of the three-cycle shift (...taking a stand to following through to reflecting to taking a stand...). Together with "THE Everything" that yields for each observational plane a "primary structure" of the kind that I've observed in practice.

===PrimaryStructures===

The NotWishes have us step back and momentarily look through this contraption. However, in order for us to establish such a view, we need to give up our perspective for that of another. This means that we accept one of four {{Scopes}} and thereby enter a relationship with God as given by one of the four PrimaryStructures. The omniscope expresses God's view directly, and so we are not related to him, but rather completely subordinate to him, as his lens. We may have a relationship with God through one of the four PrimaryStructures whereby we relate to him by way of one of the RepresentationsOfTheNullsome and {{Wishes}} of {{Everything}}.

===Conclusions===

The "omniscope" is an apparatus that pulls all the structures together. We might think of it as a special kind of "lens" which {{God}} places against his eye, or actually, has within his eye, by which he is able to see {{Everything}}, at least the everything that relates to us. In a sense, he accords with that lens, as he is its default observer. Yet, even more so, we are that lens, and we coincide with God by pulling back from ourselves. "We" are the unity of the six shifts, the unity of the secondary structures, the unity of the seventh perspectives, which is to say, the "Anything" that may relate with the "Everything" which expresses God's structural nature. So we stand separately as "Anything" and yet we may also pull back from ourselves and coincide with God's vantage point by understanding ourselves more basically, not as the secondary structures, but rather, as a derivative of the primary structures. I suppose we are more meaningful as derivative creatures than as self-standing beings.

===Update===

I have been making steady progress in thinking through how
the many structures arise from the omniscope. I'm currently focusing on the simplest family of PrimaryStructures, the {{Counterquestions}} by which we can "debrainwash" ourselves by putting our experience in context: What do I truly want? How does it seem to me? What else should I be doing? Would it make any difference? What do I have control over? Am I able to consider the question? Is this the way things should be? Am I doing anything about this? I am making progress in explaining how these and related structures arise as God, I and other take up perspectives upon the structure given by the omniscope. I want to
relate this back to TheChainOfViews by which the structures arise from "human's view of God's view of human's view of God's view of human's view". It seems as if the omniscope is the starting point in the reverse direction, so that we keep stepping back from it, rather than keep stepping into it. Somehow the two directions are connected.

Inspired by ChristopherLangan's work, I developed a key insight. In a minimalist system, semantics gets used as syntax, as with the ConstructiveHypotheses that I discuss above. The {{Threesome}} of "take a stand, follow through, and reflect" is a self-contained system in that the next time we take a stand it is considered the same as the last time. So here there is no distinction between semantics and syntax. However, we may make a distinction between the first time we take a stand (the first time we go through the three-cycle) and the next time we take a stand
(and go through the three-cycle). Then we are distinguishing between an absolute internal perspective (purely semantic) and a relative perspective that takes the former three-cycle as a "law" that it is constrained by. So the semantics of the absolute view serves as the syntax for the relative view. (The absolute view considers self-correction with regard to itself, and the relative view considers self-direction with regard to the absolute view.) I imagine that this continues, so that the semantics of the relative view becomes the syntax for the shared view - the shared view being that it doesn't matter which perspective we start from (take a stand, follow through, or reflect)
they are all equally satisfactory. What is happening here, as semantics gets interpreted as syntax, is that the perspective is going beyond itself, opening up another perspective. And I suppose, as the structure grows richer, the "going beyond itself" takes on a richer meaning -
first with regard to oneself (as in a self-contained absolute view given by the threesome) and then that going beyond itself opens up for a relative view (given by the sixome) which is distinct, and then that going beyond itself says that the views may be shared, may coincide, and
then that going beyond itself says that indeed a view is subordinate to another, which might have it collapse back into a simpler state of affairs. So this is now in the back of my mind as I think about the unfolding structures.

The omniscope's views generate structure as they are taken up, it seems, as follows. Here I consider, as an example, one of the twenty four angles:
* when God pulls away from himself, so that he is open to view, we have the omniscope, as with the angle "seems (to God, or to an external observer) to take a stand" which (perhaps later, by reconstruction) we experience as an "object" (a topology that as such is probably defined and made use of only later).
* when we take up that view, then we experience it as "seems (to me, an internal observer) that I take a stand", which is to say, "liking", as in "I like this"
* when another takes up my view, then this gets split and turned around: "I take a stand as to the fact that it seems to me" which is to wonder How does it seem to me?
* that perhaps lets go of the scope of a shared relationship and distinguishes between the observer (the other) and the observed (myself) and then we may choose as to our preference between the two: choosing the other over ourselves = I take a stand with regard to what does not seem to me = I like it; it does not seem to me choosing ourselves over the other = I take a stand with regard to what does seem to me - I like it; it does seem to me
* So, in the former case, where we give preference to the other over ourselves, when they see through us, then we can have God take up their view and apply it to himself, for example, asking himself, How does it seem to me? where in this case the God who asks is not certain, doubts, but the God who is asked is self-sufficient. Here this gaves rise to a structure, namely, the division of everything into one perspective, the onesome.

So I'm thinking through the unfolding of these relationships, and this month I will be looking for how it relates to taking up perspectives described above (among God, human and other), and the back and forth between God and human in their chain of views, and the connections
suggested by the interrelationship between semantics and syntax in minimalistic systems.

I have realized that TheChainOfViews has us step into a view with a smaller scope, hence keeps them separate, whereas taking up the {{Omniscope}} has us step out of a view with a smaller scope, hence taking it up and equating one's view with it, so that they all coincide. How do the two - separation and coinciding - match up?

===Historical Notes===

AndriusKulikauskas: The many structures that I'm aware of arise as we take up, sequentially, "human's view of God's view of human's view of God's view of human's view" (see ChainOfViews). I thought about an AlgebraOfViews. This lead me to the omniscope.

I noticed a key point:
* The most basic structures (PrimaryStructures) have somebody look at themselves through our eyes.
* The less basic structures (SecondaryStructures) have us look at ourselves through somebody else's eyes.

I noticed that, in our imagination:
* When somebody looks through our eyes, then we don't distinguish whether they are actually looking or simply possibly looking. In other words, we don't distinguish the {{Observer}} and the ObservationalPlane. It is simply enough that they might be looking. What matters is that we are transparent to them. They stand as if behind us, looking through our eyes, as if we were but a mask.
* When we look through somebody else's eyes, then we always distinguish between them (as an observer) and the observational plane which they determine. We distinguish between whether we might and whether we are looking through their eyes. That means that when we are looking through somebody else's eyes, there is a reduction of scope, a focusing of scope, a definite shift from one scope to a smaller scope, a shift from one observational plane to another observational plane.

This introduces a very important asymmetry. It allows us to realize that we are the "child" and that we should look for our "parent". And, as a LostChild, we are most wise if we do not ourselves look for our parent, but rather go there where our parent might expect to find us.

===Questions===

===Discussion===

BenoitCouture: Dear Andrius,

I love this word: "OMNISCOPE". With this word coming in the sight of your work, you are now located to materialize the Internet tool, born of the nature to live from the presence of God and to journey by Loving God in the full view of the Public Domain.

Omniscope is positioned to serve as the Internet host who invites and strenghtens all of humanity's YES while affirming without compromise where NO must remain. Multiculturalism finds its uniculture and deploys with the Omniscope, the common denominator born from the Law of the Spirit of Life.

From the culture of the Omniscope on the Internet, there begins the assembling of a mature people of all people. From Minciu Sodas lab grows the passage from minimum online networking to maximum ground activity of spiritual nature. In our calling, we get to serve, settled in the universal family who welcomes the opportunity to share the best that we all have to offer one another.

MINCIU SODAS' ASSEMBLING OF THE OMNISCOPE

CHAPTER ONE: CULTURE OF LOVING GOD-LIVING BY TRUTH

Omni potent: all powerful: ...[{{LovingGod/CleansingOurVisionOfTheCrown}} cleansing our vision of the Crown]...
[{{LovingGod/QuieteningSilenceOfPatientWisdom}} The Quietning Silence of Patient Wisdom]


Omni present: everywhere, all places at all times: Organic experience of spiritual unity
LovingGod/ExperienceOfUnity
LovingGod/UniversalFaith

Omni scient: knowing all things as in God Consciousness: Healing the Meaning
LovingGod/LivingMeaning
Human condition: LovingGod/HumanCondition

Omni potent: all powerful: Kingdom Deep Net LovingGod/KingdomDeepNet
Call to order
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/classic/A5290968

Omni present: everywhere, all places at all times:
{{LovingGod/Flowcalization}}
Public Domain of the Internet and Public Broadcasters joint venture:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/G1281
http://www.knowledgeboard.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=129672&d=pnd
And at the last 3 posts(as of Oct 23, 05) of [http://disruptive-mice.org/forums/711/ShowPost.aspx this thread]


Omni scient: knowing all things as in God Consciousness: Faculty of Living LovingGod/FacultyOfLiving
LovingGod/STArSHINE


CHAPTER TWO: CONNECTIVITY FROM REALITY TO CYBER TO REALITY

Development of the Global Villages from the struggling jurisdictions of the Western economies with the funding of established social services, to the jurisdiction with the curriculum from minus 40 to grade fourty.

The flowcalization of ...cleansing our vision of the Crown... into the KDN and the thought of the Omnoscope are within range of each other. Living by truth, they are being shaped and guided to assemble by Loving God, where the organic experience of spiritual unity lives in the completion of itself in the travail of labour of the whole creation, through time and space.

THE SACRED FIRE GUIDING SANCTITY OF SPIRIT SOUL AND BODY IS THE LOCATION OF GOD'S OMNISCOPE IN THE HOLY COMMUNION OF THE ORGANIC SPIRITUAL UNITY

Ps: I came across an interesting bit of info this week in regards to a word I use a lot in the explainations of my work. I explain that I began my "official" work by joining the SUFA review of 2002. SUFA is the Social Union Framework Agreement in Canada. It was signed in 1999 and when 2002's review came, I answered to a public announcement for anyone to participate, so I did.
In one of my main article, I used the name of our Prime Minister of the day and I wrote to his Office, to make sure that he could get to read it himself. The intreguing part is that when I paste this letter, now in 2005, the website reference of the SUFA review leads to a home surveillance camera add by Goooooogle. See for youself : The address is: www.sufa-review.ca and under the index of submissions you see my name there.
Truly your's, BenoitCouture Thank you!

Could it be that we are getting so close to the mark of the Permanent People {{LovingGod/Summit}}, that some war lords are already felling undermined in their interest of the command and control structures???
2014 birželio 06 d., 12:05 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pakeistos 427-445 eilutės iš
This is why {{God}}'s view is relevant for the {{Nullsome}}, {{Onesome}}, {{Twosome}}, {{Threesome}}, and they each have four representations, which are the scopes of access. Whereas {{Other}}'s view is relevant for the {{Foursome}}, {{Fivesome}}, {{Sixsome}}, {{Sevensome}}, and they each have two representations, namely {{Observer}} and ObservationalPlane.
į:
This is why {{God}}'s view is relevant for the {{Nullsome}}, {{Onesome}}, {{Twosome}}, {{Threesome}}, and they each have four representations, which are the scopes of access. Whereas {{Other}}'s view is relevant for the {{Foursome}}, {{Fivesome}}, {{Sixsome}}, {{Sevensome}}, and they each have two representations, namely {{Observer}} and ObservationalPlane.

'''Pažinimo laukai'''

See: ObservationalPlane, {{Representations}}, Scopes

===Observational planes===

There are four observational planes. They are scopes of access, they are the extent to which an observer might see themselves if they look at themselves through us. There are four scopes:
* {{Everything}} - lets through all perspectives.
* {{Anything}} - lets through any perspective.
* {{Something}} - lets through a perspective.
* {{Nothing}} - lets through no perspective.

These four scopes arise as the default behavior of the observational plane when it is separated from an observer:
* Separating them may let through all perspectives, so that we have what '''is''', and they are separated by nothing, and the observational plane lets through all perspectives by default.
* Separating them may let through any perspective, so that we have what '''seems''', and they are separated by anything, so then the observational plane lets through no more than one perspective at any given time.
* Separating them may let through a perspective, so that we have what '''ought''', and they are separated by something, so then the observational plane lets through a single requirement.
* Separating them may let through no perspective, so that the observer '''chooses''', and they are separated by everything, so then the observational plane of its own sake does not let through any requirement
.
2014 birželio 06 d., 12:04 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pakeistos 400-427 eilutės iš
Finally, within a system, the views may coincide based on the distinctions given by the conjunction In (as in All in One). This conjunction is the opposite of Of. Of puts God into the system as Good. In says that the Essence is in the system and extends it as the Love beyond it.
į:
Finally, within a system, the views may coincide based on the distinctions given by the conjunction In (as in All in One). This conjunction is the opposite of Of. Of puts God into the system as Good. In says that the Essence is in the system and extends it as the Love beyond it.

'''Pažinimo laukas'''

See also: {{Omniscope}}, {{Observer}}, Scope

===ObservationalPlanes===

See ObservationalPlanes for information about the four observational planes: {{Everything}}, {{Anything}}, {{Something}}, {{Nothing}}

===Observational Plane===

An {{Observer}}'s '''observational plane''' is what they have access to. Immanuel Kant talked about time and space as that which is left when we get rid of all of the objects. Similarly, in our imagination, we can consider the observational plane as that which is left when the observer removes themselves and everything they might possibly observe. It is the constraints on an observer. It is a sort of default space.

The observational plane is defined by the {{Threesome}}:
* TakingAStand (an observer may be seen at the end of the plane)
* FollowingThrough (an observer may be seeing within the observational plane)
* {{Reflecting}} (an observer may see through the observational plane)

The shifts of the threesome have the observer keep separating themselves from their observational plane.

==={{Observer}} and ObservationalPlane===

{{God}} is that vantage point which always sees all that an ObservationalPlane offers. In other words, as an {{Observer}}, God is indistinguishable from the observational plane. God is the DefaultObserver for any observational plane.

{{Other}} is that vantage point which distinguishes between observer and observational plane.

This is why {{God}}'s view is relevant for the {{Nullsome}}, {{Onesome}}, {{Twosome}}, {{Threesome}}, and they each have four representations, which are the scopes of access. Whereas {{Other}}'s view is relevant for the {{Foursome}}, {{Fivesome}}, {{Sixsome}}, {{Sevensome}}, and they each have two representations, namely {{Observer}} and ObservationalPlane
.
2014 birželio 06 d., 12:00 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pridėtos 379-400 eilutės:
'''Nulinis atskyrimas'''

See also: Overview
===Nullfold distinction: Coinciding Unities (Actors)===
Finally, God is in the system as Love, as the unity of the representations of the structure of God. There is God in the being one with which is even beyond God but nevertheless included by God as we may be. This is in that the quality of being one with itself is included in God who manifests this quality. All which has this quality is included, subsumed in God. In this way the system collapses to make way for God.

Here coinciding is manifest as presuming. '''All presumes one''' is the idea that Love supports the essence, that the essence (the minimal, the basic, the perfect) comes '''from''' love, and so is presumed by love. This is the opposite of the '''of''' by which (as in the goodness of God) God is going beyond himself. Here the '''from''' is the presumption that the essence (nurtured by the all) has always been with the all (and so the all presumes the one). But this presumption, lurking in the always, is itself a presumption of the null, that there is a shared reference frame (albeit empty) independent of all. Yet the role of the all is to be this shared reference frame. Hence the presumption of all and none is at this point circular and the system collapses in that all statements are presumed. Yet these are the conditions which allow the fixing of all that is wrong, and so maximally encourage the deference of one to all (and of our will to God's will).

Thus the shift in God's vantage point leads to 4 + 2 + 1 + 0 perspectives which variously express being one with. These perspectives reflect the variety of ways in which God arises where God was not:
* as his views upon himself (by which he goes beyond himself)
* his relationships with himself
* his role as a dummy variable
* his implicitness
Thus the number of perspectives depends on the explicitness or implicitness of God's not being.

Thus, the expression of being one with occurs at each of the four levels, and this implies at each level an Other through whom this takes place, by our love for them. The levels correspond to GodTheFather, GodTheSon, the HolySpirit and God taken together beyond the system.

Thus, for God beyond the system, and for God within the system, for both of them we are the expression of their being one with. Thus, as expression, are we one with ourselves? This means that loving or being loved may take place at any level: completeness, unobstructedness, familiarity, unity. We love ourselves by allowing all to love through us, which is to allow that they are not simply expressions within this world, but that they may express what is beyond this world. That is to say that the relations (identification and distinction) which relate this world with what is beyond it, are not relevant simply in this world, but are relevant at every level. Our role then is to reexpress ourselves (as expressions of God within and beyond) so that the ways of expression of either are equally valid as choices. We choose to be identified or distinct, and in the very same way we choose the level at which to manifest ourselves.

The human's one perspective within the system can be related to God's all perspectives beyond the system as unities. Here we consider, rather than going beyond oneself, what it means for one to have included within oneself. The unity of the representations of the structure of good is that which is necessarily included, which is to say, the essential, the perfect, the given.
===Older Thought===
Finally, within a system, the views may coincide based on the distinctions given by the conjunction In (as in All in One). This conjunction is the opposite of Of. Of puts God into the system as Good. In says that the Essence is in the system and extends it as the Love beyond it.
2014 birželio 06 d., 11:06 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pakeistos 306-378 eilutės iš
The coinciding of views means different things depending on how much we presume, which is to say, how much the coinciding takes place within a system. In what sense is there a notion of Coinciding, a notion of Conjunction? In other words, is the semantics of coinciding able to build on an existing syntax of conjunction?
į:
The coinciding of views means different things depending on how much we presume, which is to say, how much the coinciding takes place within a system. In what sense is there a notion of Coinciding, a notion of Conjunction? In other words, is the semantics of coinciding able to build on an existing syntax of conjunction?

'''Mano nuostata'''

See also: OurPosition, Overview, DefaultPosition, Position, Omniscope

My position is: '''I wish to know everything and apply that knowledge usefully.'''

This is my position and it defines my quest. It comes from my wish to apply myself fully. It encourages me to imagine God's position, my position, your position, and the position of all others. It suggests that we may all share this same position. It has us focus on God's outlook to the extent that we can imagine it.

Consider this as OurPosition.

===MyWish: Expression for God===

[MyWish I wish to know everything and apply that knowledge usefully.] This is my starting point! and so perhaps not surprisingly, the position into which all the knowledge I am finding is coming together, and from which it all unfolds.

In starting with this position, I may be God, myself, some other or simply the empty expression itself. Who I am sorts itself out as this position unfolds through my relationship with this position. I live the expression as God the Interpreter, Human the Interpretation and Other the Interpreted, all depending on what ''I'' means. My own focus on this Interpretation, on How all the knowledge unfolds, indicates my humanity.

It is a position of going beyond oneself, and this happens through the separation (and thus the coinciding) of the one who goes beyond themselves and their self they go beyond, which ultimately is to say, the context which they go into. If one is going beyond oneself, then separating from one's self is coinciding with one's self.

The activity of going beyond oneself yields, successively, the vantage points of an Interpreter, then an Interpretation, and finally, an Interpreted. Through them it becomes apparent that the expression is, of itself, simply an expression which they fully express. And in fact, the expression is implicit in them, and they all in the Interpreter, who is God.

This position is God's Self, his Expression, his Context which he places himself in. Taken up it is the [GoingBeyondOneself going beyond of oneself] which is his activity. And this position itself goes beyond itself by expressing this as a disambiguation of it (which goes beyond) and it's self (which it goes beyond). These are related as stages with reference to what has gone beyond itself, which is taken as the final stage. Each of these stages is an implicit Coinciding with what has come before it, and an explicit Coinciding with the stages that come after it, thus expressing the potential which is being fulfilled. The final stage is implicitly I, and as a reference point, is explicitly God. With reference to God, each is expressible as a stage of going beyond oneself, with a divergence from the expression by way of this reference point, and other reference points that are yielded, until they are exhausted.

It is natural to start with my wish, yet inherent in my wish is that I not presume it, but rather arrive at it. The goal is to derive from this wish that by which we might no longer presume it. Presumption recedes as coinciding is fulfilled in the relationship of God, human and other by which my wish is an actuality.



===Approaching MyPosition===

Separating and Coinciding

* Why this position - coinciding with what is separate
* How this position - separating from what is coinciding
* What this position - separating from what is separating
* Whether this position - coinciding with what is coinciding

Observer and ObservationalPlane are the separating of one from oneself. Whereas the four scopes (Everything, Anything, Something, Nothing) are the coinciding of one with oneself.

Self is Observer in context (as in Life). Self defines and thus identifies Observer in terms of their ObservationalPlane. Other is Observer before context as referenced from within context. Other is thus the distinction of Observer before and after context (as in EternalLife). Other defines ObservationalPlane in terms of the Observer and thus separates the two by means of a Scope which is a filter that considers which of the perspectives that pull away from the observational plane coincide with the observer: every, any, one or none (Everything, Anything, Something or Nothing). This is the EquationOfLife which relates Observer, ObservationalPlane, Self and Other (as in God, Good, Life, EternalLife). The equation is expressed with regard to the observer's scope.

Understanding is the position of Other as the choice between the DefaultObserver (GodTheFather, GodTheSon, HolySpirit, God) and the ActualContext (Self). See the diagram of the EquationOfLife at SelfVOther.

Note this opens up a definition of Human as that which can have self discovery as the DefaultObserver within a particular context, their ActualContext.

===Knowing everything and applying that usefully===

'''KnowEverything''', '''ApplyUsefully'''

I wish to KnowEverything and to [ApplyUsefully apply that knowledge usefully].
* To know everything is to see what {{God}} sees when he looks through us.
* To apply usefully is to do what {{God}} would do through us.
I wish to see rightly, and subsequently, to act rightly.
===My Wish===

AndriusKulikauskas: [WhyKnowEverything My wish] is to [KnowEverything know everything] and [UsefulApplications apply that knowledge usefully].

My wish is the ground for every wish, as every wish intends to be sensible and fulfilled. A wish is ultimately sensible with regard to everything, and is fulfilled through useful application.

Also, every wish is included in my wish.

===What does my wish mean?===

To know everything is for [OurView one's view] to coincide with [GodsView God's view]. To apply usefully is for God's view to coincide with one's view.

God's view is from beyond any system and thus sees all perspectives. Human's view is from within a system, is identified with that system, and thus sees one perspective.

A System is the making explicit of what is within it. A system makes explicit what is within it by expressing it as a Perspective. A system is given by the extent to which it links the coinciding of what is beyond with what is within and the coinciding of what is within with what is beyond. If there is no system, then these are separate questions. If there is a complete system, then these are the same question.

To coincide is to not be distinguished by a system, and most generally, by any system.

God is not explicit, but God is expressed through us, to the extent that we coincide, which is given by Other.
2014 birželio 02 d., 10:52 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pakeista 1 eilutė iš:
Žr. [[Reikalai]], [[Padalinimų ratas]], [[Bendra sandara]]
į:
Žr. [[Reikalai]], [[Padalinimų ratas]], [[Bendra sandara]], [[Viską žinoti]]
2014 birželio 01 d., 11:20 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pakeistos 240-306 eilutės iš
*Eternal life is the {{Distinctness}} of God inside and outside.
į:
*Eternal life is the {{Distinctness}} of God inside and outside.

'''Fourfold distinction'''

See also: Overview
===Fourfold Distinction: Coinciding Spirits (Views): God and Human are SelfStanding===

God of himself needs not make any distinction between knowing everything and applying such knowledge usefully. Pragmatically, we consider him as simply as possible, and straightforwardly, we express ourselves simply as possible, so generally, we may assume that he does not distinguish between the two. What he knows is what he does. He creates by thinking.

Our wish thus makes the distinction between knowing everything and applying usefully. We distinguish between God and his situation. Through us, God's situation, his self, is able to ever unfold, as it is distinct from God. Distinct in this way, God manifests himself through us in their coming together as they originally were. Taken together, God takes up his own view through us. In this way, {{God}} is [BeingOneWith one with] himself.

http://www.ms.lt/en/andrius/understanding/diagrams/summary.jpg

God's Self is Love

God is one with. Who is he one with? He is one with his Self. What is self? Self is all that which has his quality. God's quality is BeingOneWith. His self is Love. How does he Manifest that? He manifests it through his arisal there where he is not. God is not his quality, yet in the World is his quality. God arises through the shift in his relationship with himself. First, in his absence, he is related to Love through:
* his View, which is his venturing into himself
* his Identification with himself
* his Equivalence with himself
* his Inclusion by himself
This yields the PrimaryStructures. This is the perspective of being loved. Then, in his presence, he is related to Love through the same four levels, but from the perspective of Love, of loving. This yields the SecondaryStructures and opens the way for Other.

God goes beyond God to manifest God, thus giving rise to Himself and a System (a world) where he is present through his self, that is, through love.

We are the expression of God's being one with himself. We are the fact that God is love. We are his relationship with himself. He is one with himself through us.

Consider God's relationship with Love, how that evolves through eight steps from God's absence to his presence, and how our role opens up, as does that of other, and how structure thereby arises, and each of the issues that I have collected which are relevant to the overview. Consider how God is present when his absence is explicit, as given by the gradation.

God's view is from beyond the system, yet leads him into it, so that ultimately he is in the system as love.

First, from beyond system, but entering into a relationship, he considers in terms of where he is not, thus his view. We are the expressions of his being one with:
* Complete, as expressing his view beyond the system
* Unobstructed, as expressing his view of his self's view
* Familiar, as expressing his self's view of his view
* Unified, as expressing his self's view within the system

We may think of this as a relationship of GoingBeyondOneself:
* Complete: all goes beyond into all
* Unobstructed: all goes beyond into one
* Familiar: one goes beyond into all
* Unified: one goes beyond into one

'''All and one go beyond each other into each other independently.''' This is the distinction between all and one. It is a quadruple statement.

This relates God beyond system (all perspectives) and human within system (one perspective) by way of good (spirit) that is God within system, which says that even within system there can be a going beyond oneself, hence human can go beyond oneself and have a view, just as God does, and they may be related spiritually, as above. Here the conjunction Of (as in goodness of God) means Among (as in one perspective among all perspectives) and is related to going beyond oneself (from non-systemic all to systemic one).

===All, One, Not All, Not One===

http://www.ms.lt/en/andrius/understanding/diagrams/allone.jpg

We may think of a view as extending from One to All. God is in its completeness of what it looks upon, its reaching all. Love is in its unity from which it can look out. God is Spirit and Love is likewise Spirit within structure. Whereas Everything and Wishes are structure and are defined in terms of Not. Everything is Not One in that the concept of everything ever introduces a meta level "everything" which steps back deeper towards the One. In this sense, everything is an endless recursive process. Likewise, Wishes are Not All in that the concept of wish introduces the notion of fulfillment which it steps forward to.

Note that a Wish is a single step outwards, whereas Everything is an endless stepping inwards. In this way Wish is a part of Everything and Wish is One and Everything is All as considered as processes.

===Older Thoughts===
Older thought: FourfoldDivergence: If there is no system, and no conjunction, then we relate One and All by having them go beyond themselves into NotOne and NotAll. Then the idea that NotOne is within All and that NotAll is within One is what has them coincide. So we have to be careful about interpretation. Here views coincide as spirits. Spirits are that which go beyond themselves, thus into views. This is the freest form of their coinciding, which is beyond system. The views are completely distinct. They stand alone and they coincide with each other. They are the same as views. We have:
*God's view - complete - all perspectives
*God's view of human's view - familiar - all perspectives on one perspective
*human's view of God's view - unobstructed - one perspective on all perspectives
*human's view - unified - one perspective
They may also coincide in ways that are rooted within system, as structures or representations or unities.

'''Fourfold divergence'''

See: Divergences

The coinciding of views means different things depending on how much we presume, which is to say, how much the coinciding takes place within a system. In what sense is there a notion of Coinciding, a notion of Conjunction? In other words, is the semantics of coinciding able to build on an existing syntax of conjunction?
2014 gegužės 19 d., 15:29 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pridėtos 229-240 eilutės:

'''Distinctness'''

See also: {{Understanding}}

----

*Life is the [{{Good}} goodness] of {{God}}.
*EternalLife is {{Understanding}} the goodness of God.

*Life is the coinciding of God inside and outside.
*Eternal life is the {{Distinctness}} of God inside and outside.
2014 gegužės 19 d., 15:28 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pridėtos 125-228 eilutės:

----------------

See also: Divisions, Coinciding, Overview, Sevensome

Distinctions are very fundamental. They are at the heart of coinciding. Read more in Overview.

http://www.ms.lt/en/andrius/understanding/diagrams/4distinctions.jpg

===Distinctions: PrimaryStructures for Wishes: God in Context in Context===

My next interpretation of the expression is as Human the Interpretation. God in context is God's relationship with himself, his coinciding with himself. But what does that coinciding mean? What is coinciding in context, which is to say, God in context in context? The meaning is what is implicit in the coinciding. Distinctions express what is assumed, what is relevant, what is implicit, in God's coinciding with self while they are yet within self. The reference point in each case is God within himself.

{{God}} coincides with his Self, but does his Self coincide with {{God}}? This question has us identify his self (his expression) with a particular stage in God's going beyond himself. Thus the question is raised separately for each of the stages of going beyond oneself. The self coincides with God when God goes beyond it. The self does not coincide with God if God does not go beyond it. Hence the meaning of coinciding, and what is implicit in it, grows the further the self is along the stages of God's going beyond himself. This is because the further out the self coincides with him, the more his self is implicit in his going beyond himself.

The nature of '''and''' is to distinguish between the levels at which conjunction may take place: Spirit, Structure, Representations, Unity. Explicitly, as divergences, these are a hierarchy by which God is brought ever closer into his expression as his going beyond himself is ground ever deeper within himself. Implicitly, as distinctions, these levels are combinations of being within or beyond expression, and being expressed or unexpressed, and they are fully relevant when God has gone beyond himself. Implicitly, they are a FourfoldDistinction which unfolds from underlying sets of distinctions, the NullfoldDistinction (introducing God), OnefoldDistinction (introducing Good) and TwofoldDistinction (introducing Life and EternalLife, which is to say, the EquationOfLife). This is the semantics that is implicit at various stages of God's going beyond himself. Here are interpretations of the equation of life at various stages of God's going beyond himself:

* If God is within himself, then his self (Love within context) coinciding with him (Love) means that by his self (Will) we '''presume''' God goes beyond himself. Unity is Unified (self's view) in that it acknowledges such a NullfoldDistinction (GodsWill) which requires us ourselves that we might make such a presumption. Love's ambiguity {{Perfection}} allows for one interpreter.
* If God is not beyond himself, then his self (Wishes within context) coinciding with him (Wishes) means that his self ({{Choices}}) is the '''channel''' for him to go beyond himself. Representation is that which is Familiar (self's view of God's view) in that it acknowledges such a OnefoldDistinction (GoodWill). Wishes' ambiguity {{Identity}} allows for not all interpreters.
* If God is not within himself, then his self (Everything within context) coinciding with him (Everything) means that his self (Anything) '''is part of''' him so that his self is a relationship that bridges what is inside and outside of it. Structure is that which is Unobstructed (God's view of self's view) in that it acknowledges a TwofoldDistinction (Wisdom) as to whether this bridge is expressed (syntactic, explicit, static, together) or unexpressed (semantic, implicit, dynamic, separate). Everything's ambiguity Slack allows for not one interpreter. This is to say that, structurally, everything keeps introducing a metalevel and so there never is a fixed interpretation.
* If God is beyond himself, then his self (God within context) coinciding with him (God) means that his self (Life) has likewise '''gone beyond itself''' and shares his nature, mirroring him but as expression, so that God may be within himself and beyond himself, and his self may be within itself and beyond itself. Spirit is that which is Complete (God's view) in that it acknowledges a FourfoldDistinction (EternalLife) between All and Not One, One and Not All. It makes explicit the relationship between All and One. Not One is the expression of All. Not All is the expression of One. God's ambiguity Good allows for all interpreters.

The different coincidings may be considered as different expressions of the same coinciding. In order to do this, they must be considered in the same context, which is with regard to what is implicit in the self by each of them, the distinctions inherent in what it means to coincide. In this way, what is implicit becomes explicit. As implicitness increases, there are 0, 1, 2 and 4 distinctions. Taken together they yield a GeneralStructure, an Eightsome of distinctions. This structure shows that a particular coinciding is indeed coinciding in general. Thus it is associated with some one of the four particular stages of going beyond oneself, and this yields four PrimaryStructures in all. Each of the PrimaryStructures emphasizes a particular set of distinctions. This brings out what Coinciding means at that particular level both from its particular and the general point of view by having these two coincide. This is the relationship, the coinciding of Human (as given by the particular level, what is becoming explicit) and God (as given by the general outlook, what is staying implicit).

Note that, just as God, Everything, Wishes, Love are all God in context, so Life, Anything, Choices, Will are all God in context in context.

''Interpreter and Interpretation'' I may shift my attention onward from God the interpeter to Human the interpretation. I thus rethink God's going beyond himself as a variety of actions that relate interpreter and interpretation (role). As the interpretation is moved closer to the interpreter, the interpreter's action of going beyond himself is truncated, and the meaning of coinciding changes accordingly.

''Human as extension of God'' Human is God's Self and as such extends God. Self pulls into the expression as a context, thus from some one interpretation, which gives the expression a definite meaning. Human is God within context. In this way God and human coincide with regard to some interpretation of some vantage point of God.

''The meaning of coinciding''
* The nature of their coinciding is given by a set of distinctions that define what it means to enter a context, which is to say, enter an expression, hence coincide. The meaning of coinciding depends on the extent of expression presumed.
* Coinciding is the satisfying of the same distinctions in context as without context. This means that the context does not affect the distinctions. So Life coincides with God because it satisfies the same fourfold distinctions as God.
*

These are coinciding of God's Self (Human) with God across four levels. All presume expression in a different way.

''The distinctions'' The distinctions are the semantics that allow us to keep separate that which coincides. Syntax sets the scope for the semantics on a range of ambiguities of the interpreter from All (all ambiguity) to One (no ambiguity).

This is to say that all may live through God, but there is nobody but ourselves who can live through us.

Each of these ambiguities defines coinciding in its context as a distinction that is made semantically, not syntactically.

The four divergences together give the semantics that defines their relationship. And the syntax for that relationship is given by some one of those four levels. Each of these syntactic possibilities requires a different degree of semantic distinction, hence a different sense of coinciding: In this way, semantics and syntax coincide, as God brings all semantic possibilities and human brings one syntactic possibility.

This is the set of distinctions that itself distinguishes the four kinds of distinctions.

'''PrimaryStructures'''

The resulting primary structures are, accordingly:

* OperatingPrinciples where coinciding means '''going beyond oneself'''
* Counterquestions where coinciding means '''being a part of'''
* DirectionsToTheGood where coinciding means '''channeling'''
* EightfoldWay where coinciding means '''presuming'''

'''Relationship between All and One'''

The sets of distinctions give the meaning of coinciding in terms of expression, whether unexpressed (4), expressed (2), within expression (1) or beyond expression (0).

If views coincide (all and one coincide) then note that the being part of and the channeling are not relevant for distinction between all and one and so we are left with presuming which is relevant.

Coinciding itself is a relationship between all, one and none which distinguishes between interpretations as to what it means to coincide. Each of these are levels in which human defers to God (one defers to all), whether as equals who go beyond themselves into each other, or as complete unequals so that human is presumed by God.

'''Not''' means ''step towards'' and one goes beyond oneself into the stepping towards itself. All and One are spirit, and Not takes us into structure or takes us out of structure. Going beyond oneself is in terms of spirit and in terms of structure, hence there is a fourfold distinction. It distinguishes between what is within the expression (hence subject to it) and what is beyond expression (hence its greater context). Human is the interpreter of one interpretation within expression and God is the interpreter of all interpretations beyond expression.

http://www.ms.lt/en/andrius/understanding/diagrams/4distinctions.jpg

'''Structure of Semantics'''

The expression is understood ever more tightly as the nature of the conjunction is ever more presumed through syntax, as expressed in PrimaryStructures given by Distinctions. The first level may be considered nonsystemic, and the other levels are increasingly systemic.

The semantic Distinctions may also be thought of as ambiguities that the syntax allows for.

'''Collapse into everything'''

The complete expression in PrimaryStructures leads to the collapse of the statement with regard to their absence, yielding Everything and Divisions, and to their taking up of the position through their presence, which they express by way of an Other and SecondaryStructures. The basic Divisions accord with the Divergences, the former assuming Everything, the latter not.

Taken together these semantic distinctions are a division of everything, the Eightsome, which is however unstable as a structure (because it contains the nullfold distinction) and so collapses into an empty system in which all things are true, which is to say, the Nullsome. In fact, from this perspective, as of yet there is no Everything, and indeed Everything arises by way of this collapse into the Nullsome.

The NullfoldDistinction makes for a collapse because spirit (God) is taken to be a distinguished opposite of structure (Everything) which counters the assumption of the FourfoldDistinction that they are equal in stature.

Note that here God is in the NullfoldDistinction and thus in the semantics. So here God has been relocated inside structure. But here we are considering the semantics and so this is where we define the God who is a self-contradiction. And this is the God who goes beyond himself into structure, from the Nullsome into the Onesome and so on. But this is happening on the semantic level. Whereas on the syntactic level we have that God has gone beyond himself out of structure. So these two levels meet in the eightfold way.

'''Overview'''

A human is able to consider God's point of view as Everything. Then distinctions allow for wishes and PrimaryStructures. Then divisions of everything allow for the redundancy within structure that is Love and is expressed in the SecondaryStructures.

In PrimaryStructures, the Self (Human) coincides with the Observer (God) who pulled away from some observational plane. Thus the '''and''' for that observational plane is presumed as the relevant bridge the Observer pulls across. The coinciding relevant to that observational plane is given by the set of distinctions that define what '''and''' means across that observational plane, but especially, the number of meanings that '''and''' has for that plane, which is to say, the number of distinctions in the set. In this way a particular PrimaryStructure has resonance with a particular set of distinctions. However, also we add to the six angles by which an observer pulls away from an observational plane the '''observer in general''' (human) and also the observer who went beyond themselves into the observational plane (God). These map to the OnefoldDistinction and NullfoldDistinction respectively. The six angles are given by the FourfoldDistinction and the TwofoldDistinction as two sets of three angles, one for what is unexpressed (the observer beyond the observational plane) and one for what is expressed (the observer within the observational plane). The three angles accord with the elements of a wish, the fulfillment of the wish (God/Everything), the wisher (Love/Wishes) and what allows the wish (the connection in between).

Human's view is explicit and sees one. God's view is implicit and sees all.

===Earlier Thoughts===

God and human are related as semantic interpreter and syntactic role: One interpreter may play many roles. Yet, depending on the context, the role may be interpreted as an interpreter, so that there is an ambiguity of interepreters. In this way God and human may coincide as given by the context.

Who do we attribute the context to? Note that we attribute the context to life (for God is beyond himself and thus any context) but we also attribute the context to love (for love is God within himself and thus within a context). Everything is God not within himself, and so the context is the boundary between God (everything) and himself (every thing), which is to say a shared scope. Wishes are God not beyond himself, and so the context is the difference between God (who wishes) and himself (obstacle to wishes) which is to say a shared view. So it depends on the base presumption, which for God is that he is beyond expression, and for human is that he is within expression. (Note: This sets up the EightfoldWay.)

When we are outside expression, then God - as interpreter of '''all''' interpretations - is expressed by everything, the expression of '''not one''' interpretation. Human - as interpreter of '''one''' interpretation - is expressed by choices, the expression of '''not all''' interpretations. In this way, negation arises for the purpose of expression.

However, as we presume expression, the distinctions collapse.
===Related===

''LawsOfForm'' by [GeorgeSpencerBrown GeorgeSpencer-Brown] is a mathematical and philosophical treatise on distinction.
2014 gegužės 19 d., 15:27 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pridėtos 78-124 eilutės:

'''Distinctions'''

See also: Overview, Sevensome, System, Divergence, Division, Indistinction

----

Distinction is System.

Each of the levels has human's view (God's self's view - one perspective) defer to God's view (all perspectives). This deference is expressed from 4 angles, 2 angles, 1 angle or 0 angles depending on whether it is understood to occur beyond the system or within the system. Generally, it is the deference of one to all.
===Distinction===

*FourfoldDistinction
*TwofoldDistinction
*OnefoldDistinction
*NullfoldDistinction

The divergences function separately, but they may also be taken together on the basis of the underlying coinciding which they reference. They establish Distinctions depending on how they are taken together:
* A FourfoldDistinction (by which coinciding means '''going beyond oneself into''') distinguishes between all and one. Manifests the nature of Spirit.
* A TwofoldDistinction (by which coinciding means '''being part of''') distinguishes between one and none, presuming all. Manifests the nature of Structure.
* A OnefoldDistinction (by which coinciding means '''channeling''') distinguishes between all and none, presuming one. Manifests the nature of Representation.
* A NullfoldDistinction (by which coinciding means '''presuming''') distinguishes between all and one, presuming none. Manifests the nature of Unity.
Coinciding itself is a relationship between all, one and none which distinguishes between interpretations as to what it means to coincide. Each of these are levels in which human defers to God (one defers to all), whether as equals who go beyond themselves into each other, or as complete unequals so that human is presumed by God.

The FourfoldDistinction is between All and Not One, One and Not All. '''Not''' means ''step towards'' and one goes beyond oneself into the stepping towards itself. All and One are spirit, and Not takes us into structure or takes us out of structure. Going beyond oneself is in terms of spirit and in terms of structure, hence there is a fourfold distinction.

The expression is understood ever more tightly as the nature of the conjunction is ever more presumed through syntax, as expressed in PrimaryStructures given by Distinctions. The complete expression in PrimaryStructures leads to the collapse of the statement with regard to their absence, yielding Everything and Divisions, and to their taking up of the position through their presence, which they express by way of an Other and SecondaryStructures. The basic Divisions accord with the Divergences, the former assuming Everything, the latter not.

The Fourfold Divergence makes this explicit so that we may consider a divergence explicitly as a distinction by which we distinguish that which coincides.

A human is able to consider God's point of view as Everything. Then distinctions allow for wishes and PrimaryStructures. Then divisions of everything allow for the redundancy within structure that is Love and is expressed in the SecondaryStructures.

Note: These are not as such divisions of everything because as yet there is no Everything, there is no completeness, and so they are prior to Divisions, they are simply distinguishing and not yet dividing. Taken together these distinctions are a division of everything, the Eightsome, which is however unstable as a structure (because it contains the nullfold distinction) and so collapses into an empty system in which all things are true, which is to say, the Nullsome. In fact, from this perspective, as of yet there is no Everything, and indeed Everything arises by way of this collapse into the Nullsome.

Note:This is itself the fourfold distinction:
* going beyond oneself = complete
* being part of = familiar
* channeling = unobstructed
* presuming = unified

Note:The first level may be considered nonsystemic, and the other levels are increasingly systemic.

Note:If views coincide (all and one coincide) then note that the being part of and the channeling are not relevant for distinction between all and one and so we are left with presuming which is relevant.

http://www.ms.lt/en/andrius/understanding/diagrams/4distinctions.jpg

The NullfoldDistinction makes for a collapse because spirit (God) is taken to be a distinguished opposite of structure (Everything) which counters the assumption of the FourfoldDistinction that they are equal in stature.
2014 gegužės 16 d., 12:14 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pridėtos 29-77 eilutės:

See also: Overview

* OnefoldDivergence
* TwofoldDivergence
* ThreefoldDivergence
* FourfoldDivergence

These are, respectively, expressions:

* I
* sharing a view
* wish
* and

And they express, respectively:

* {{God}}
* Everything
* Wishes
* Love

===Divergences: Omniscope for Everything: God in Context===

My first interpretation of the position is as {{God}} the interpreter. In going beyond himself, God is both dynamic (implicit, coinciding with what comes before) and static (explicit, coinciding with what comes after), and so he goes past himself and coincides with himself. I consider where he coincides with himself as [GoBeyondOneself he goes beyond himself]. The reference point in each case is God beyond himself.

My position is realized through four {{Divergences}} of Interpretations which unfold from within its compact expression. These are the divergences, the separations of the explicit from the implicit, which thus describe God's vantage point at various stages as he [GoBeyondOneself goes beyond himself]:
* God is '''beyond himself''': {{God}}, the vantage point of '''I''', a OnefoldDivergence out of expression as to:
** the subject of a position, which is to say, that which lives the expression and thereby is diverging out of it.
* God is '''not within himself''': Everything, the vantage point of '''share a view''', a TwofoldDivergence out of expression and God as to whether:
** human coincides with God, as in KnowEverything, or
** God coincides with human, as in ApplyUsefully.
* God is '''not beyond himself''': Wishes, the vantage point of '''wish''', a ThreefoldDivergence out of expression, God and human as to:
**allowing a wish,
**fulfilling it,
**and having it.
* God is '''within himself''': Love, the vantage point of '''and''', a FourfoldDivergence out of expression, God, human and other with regard to a system as to how explicitly an expression may be put together, perhaps:
**beyond expression and unexpressed (Spirit)
**beyond expression and expressed (Structure)
**within expression and expressed (Representation)
**within expression and unexpressed. (Unity)
Each of these Divergences establishes a context (and expresses the Self) which fixes the expression as to its balance of syntax and semantics. This introduces an Interpreter: {{God}}, Everything, Wishes or Love. These are all God but in different contexts. Each context provides one or more directions in which the Interpreter may pull away from the expression, leaving it free, as it was without an interpreter. In this way the Divergences extend the expression.

This describes the Omniscope which is God's relationship with himself, the lens that he sees himself through, the ways that an Observer may pull away from an ObservationalPlane. God considers all possibilities in that he pulls away from the expression in all directions. In going beyond himself he is Coinciding with himself.
===Thoughts===

The expressions indicate the absence of God and of human, who pull away from the expression. This is how they work together as creator and co-creator. God pulls away in all directions and human pulls away in one direction.

Note: the divergence introduces slack that relates God and human.
2014 balandžio 13 d., 18:45 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pakeistos 24-28 eilutės iš
>><<
į:
>><<

See also: Overview, DefaultObserver, World, ObservationalPlane

The ActualContext is the context that we find ourselves in, perhaps the base space, which is the World, or in general, for an Observer, their ObservationalPlane.
2014 vasario 03 d., 11:40 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pakeistos 9-24 eilutės iš
Attach:scopesofaccess.jpg
į:
Attach:scopesofaccess.jpg


>>bgcolor=#FFFFC0<<

* Kaip klausimai susiję su troškimu viską žinoti?
* Dar bandyti suvokti iš visko pusės. Kaip su Dievu bandom jį aprėpti? Kaip jis perduoda viską į mano rankas? Kaip nepasimetame visakame?
* Kaip visaregis atveria ir išsako klausimus?
* Kaip visaregis susijęs su dvejonėmis? (jeigu su klausimais?)
* Kaip visaregis išreiškia vienumą? ir išsako rūpesčius? ir vieningai aprėpia bendrystę? Susieti laipsnyną su visaregiu.
* Kaip iškyla suvokimo rūmai (visaregis)?
* Kaip visaregis, Dievo suvokimo rūmai išsivysto Jėzaus, netobulo žmogaus, įvairiausių sričių, jų galimybių (matematikos) suvokimo rūmais? Kaip susidaro saviraidos sąlygos?
* Kaip visaregis atveria ir išsako klausimus? - Visaregis išdėsto įvairiausias prielaidas, kurių galime atsisakyti, iš ko ir kyla paskiri klausimai.
* Kaip pavaizduoti visaregį?

>><<
2013 gruodžio 28 d., 22:18 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pakeistos 7-9 eilutės iš
Attach:position.jpg
į:
Attach:position.jpg

Attach:scopesofaccess
.jpg
2013 gruodžio 28 d., 21:55 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pakeistos 5-7 eilutės iš
Attach:observationalplane.jpg
į:
Attach:observationalplane.jpg

Attach:position
.jpg
2013 gruodžio 28 d., 21:10 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pakeistos 3-5 eilutės iš
Attach:Godtolife.gif
į:
Attach:Godtolife.gif

Attach:observationalplane.jpg
2013 gruodžio 28 d., 20:37 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pridėtos 1-2 eilutės:
Žr. [[Reikalai]], [[Padalinimų ratas]], [[Bendra sandara]]
2013 gruodžio 28 d., 18:10 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pridėta 1 eilutė:
Attach:Godtolife.gif

Visaregis


Naujausi pakeitimai


靠真理

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

redaguoti

Puslapis paskutinį kartą pakeistas 2021 sausio 13 d., 23:09