调查

Andrius

Įvadas E9F5FC

Juodraštis? FFFFFF

Užrašai FCFCFC

Klausimai FFFFC0

Gvildenimai CAE7FA

Pavyzdžiai? F6EEF6

Šaltiniai? EFCFE1

Duomenys? FFE6E6

Išsiaiškinimai D8F1D8

Pratimai? FF9999

Dievas man? FFECC0

Pavaizdavimai? E6E6FF

Miglos? AAAAAA

Asmeniškai? BA9696

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

Įranga

redaguoti

Mintys.Viskas istorija

Paslėpti nežymius pakeitimus - Rodyti galutinio teksto pakeitimus

2019 sausio 21 d., 12:57 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pridėta 17 eilutė:
** Viskas yra pamatas besąlygiškumui.
Ištrinta 25 eilutė:
* Viskas yra pamatas besąlygiškumui.
2019 sausio 21 d., 12:56 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pridėta 25 eilutė:
* Viskas yra pamatas besąlygiškumui.
2018 rugsėjo 10 d., 14:16 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pridėtos 25-29 eilutės:

Viskas yra Dievo sandara, o Dievas yra visko dvasia. Viskas yra (mūsų proto galimybių) vienybė, o Dievas yra nulybė.

Viskas išplaukia iš Dievo klausimo, Ar Dievas būtinas?
2018 rugsėjo 07 d., 12:52 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pridėtos 12-13 eilutės:
** Viskas yra Dievo savastis (jo neturėjimas savasties). Dievas sukuria save (viską) išeidamas už savęs į save.
** Viskas yra Dievo nebuvimas, jo rėmai, jo papildinys, užtat jo savastis.
Pakeistos 20-24 eilutės iš
* Viskas yra veidrodis atspindintis mūsų proto veiklą, pavyzdžiui, kaip padaliname viską. Viskas yra smegenų darbo laukas, kuris padalinimais (takoskyromis) skaidomas į skirtingus požiūrius.
* Viskas turi keturias jį apibrėžiančias savybes.
* Viskas yra Dievo savastis (jo neturėjimas savasties). Dievas sukuria save (viską) išeidamas už savęs į save
.
* Viskas yra Dievo nebuvimas, jo rėmai, jo papildinys, užtat jo savastis.
* Viskas yra rėmai - tiek proto, tiek pasaulio - kurie lieka kada atitokėjame, atsisiejame nuo savęs, kartu ir nuo Dievo sampratos
. Viskas yra dvasios aplinkybės, tai kas lieka pasitraukus (mano ir Dievo) dvasiai, atsitokėjus.
į:
** Viskas yra veidrodis atspindintis mūsų proto veiklą, pavyzdžiui, kaip padaliname viską. Viskas yra smegenų darbo laukas, kuris padalinimais (takoskyromis) skaidomas į skirtingus požiūrius.
** Viskas yra rėmai - tiek proto, tiek pasaulio - kurie lieka kada atitokėjame, atsisiejame nuo savęs, kartu ir nuo Dievo sampratos. Viskas yra dvasios aplinkybės, tai kas lieka pasitraukus (mano ir Dievo) dvasiai, atsitokėjus.
* Viskas turi keturias jį apibrėžiančias savybes.
Visko savybės turėtų atspindėti keturias pakopas Dievo išėjimo už savęs į save.
** Visko savybės yra tuo pačiu betko, kažko, nieko savybės - tiktai šios apimtys turi mažiau savybių kaip viskas - jos visos turi aplinką; kažkas ir niekas turi filtrą; niekas bene turi vidinę sandarą? Ar kažkas neturi vidinės sandaros?
2018 rugsėjo 07 d., 12:32 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Ištrintos 67-74 eilutės:

'''Dievas'''

God likes everything. He wants all variants. ''Do I like this? How does it seem to me?''

As humans, we are bounded, and we take everything as our point of reference. Alternatively, God takes himself as his point of reference.

We are imagining God's perspective, and so we may look beyond everything to an outlook from which everything may unfold.
2018 rugsėjo 07 d., 12:32 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Ištrintos 91-95 eilutės:
Žr. [[Fenomenologija]] - ko plačiau suskliausti.

Išėjimas už savęs
Ištrintos 93-95 eilutės:
Matematika mus moko, kaip besąlygiškumą reikšti sąlygomis, o tai įmanoma sąlygiškai. Žr. [[Mintys/MathForThinkers | Math for thinkers]]
Pridėtos 105-106 eilutės:

[[Fenomenologija]] - ko plačiau suskliausti.
2018 rugsėjo 07 d., 12:23 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeistos 138-142 eilutės iš
* that from which all things unfold.

'''Išėjimas už savęs'''

Besąlygiška išeina už savęs į sąlygišką
.
į:
* that from which all things unfold.
2018 rugsėjo 06 d., 14:12 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeistos 56-60 eilutės iš
||'''Ketverybės požiūriai'''||'''Žinojimo apimtys'''||'''Nulybės atvaizdai'''||'''Vienybės atvaizdai'''||'''Visko atvaizdai'''||'''Netroškimai'''||'''Atliepimai'''||
||ar||niekas||tiesus||būtina sąvoka||savarankiškas||poreikiai||tenkinimai||
||koks||kažkas||betarpiškas||nėra sandaros||užtikrintas||abejonės||dvejonės||
||kaip||betkas||pastovus||nėra filtro||ramus||lūkesčiai||jauduliai||
||kodėl||viskas||prasmingas||nėra aplinkos||mylintis||vertybės||klausimai||
į:
||'''Žinojimo apimtys'''||'''Ketverybės požiūriai'''||'''Nulybės atvaizdai'''||'''Vienybės atvaizdai'''||'''Visko atvaizdai'''||'''Netroškimai'''||'''Atliepimai'''||
||niekas||ar||tiesus||būtina sąvoka||savarankiškas||poreikiai||tenkinimai||
||kažkas||koks||betarpiškas||nėra sandaros||užtikrintas||abejonės||dvejonės||
||betkas||kaip||pastovus||nėra filtro||ramus||lūkesčiai||jauduliai||
||viskas||kodėl||prasmingas||nėra aplinkos||mylintis||vertybės||klausimai||
||'''Apimtys'''||'''Apimčių žinojimai'''||'''Apimčių nežinojimai'''||||'''Apimčių troškimai'''||'''Apimčių netroškimai'''||
||
2018 rugsėjo 06 d., 14:09 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeistos 56-67 eilutės iš
What describes our subjective experience? Representations of Everything

* Everything that Wishes for Nothing Everything is self-sufficient
. We have needs, and operating principles address our needs.
* Everything that Wishes for Something Everything is certain. We have doubts, and counterquestions address our doubts.
* Everything that Wishes for Anything Everything is calm. We have expectations, and emotional responses address our expectations.
* Everything that Wishes for Everything Everything is loving. We have trials, and life choices address our trials.

* Everything is self-sufficient, has no needs, but with slack there could be needs!
* Everything is certain, has no doubts, but with slack there could be doubts!
* Everything is calm, has no expectations, but with slack there could be expectations!
* Everything is loving, has no trials, but with slack there could be trials!
į:
||'''Ketverybės požiūriai'''||'''Žinojimo apimtys'''||'''Nulybės atvaizdai'''||'''Vienybės atvaizdai'''||'''Visko atvaizdai'''||'''Netroškimai'''||'''Atliepimai'''||
||ar||niekas||tiesus||būtina sąvoka||savarankiškas||poreikiai||tenkinimai||
||koks||kažkas||betarpiškas||nėra sandaros||užtikrintas||abejonės||dvejonės||
||kaip||betkas||pastovus||nėra filtro||ramus||lūkesčiai||jauduliai||
||kodėl||viskas||prasmingas||nėra aplinkos||mylintis||vertybės||klausimai||

Laisvumas grindžia netroškimus
.
Ištrinta 64 eilutė:
2018 rugsėjo 06 d., 13:59 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeista 45 eilutė iš:
* Dievas ir viskas. The distinction between God and Everything is subtle and profound. It is the distinction between everything as structure, and the spirit behind it. I think this is the subject of Lao Tze.
į:
* Dievas ir viskas. Viskas yra Dievo sandara. Dievas yra visko dvasia.
Pridėtos 115-116 eilutės:

Laozi
2018 rugsėjo 06 d., 13:57 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeista 5 eilutė iš:
* Kuom skiriasi apimtys (viskas,betkas,kažkas,niekas) ir visko atvaizdai (troškimai) ir vienybės atvaizdai (visko savybės)? Vienybė yra visko padalinimas į vieną požiūrį.
į:
* Kuom skiriasi apimtys (viskas, betkas, kažkas, niekas) ir visko atvaizdai (troškimai) ir vienybės atvaizdai (visko savybės)? Vienybė yra visko padalinimas į vieną požiūrį.
2018 rugsėjo 06 d., 13:57 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeista 5 eilutė iš:
* Kuom skiriasi visko atvaizdai (troškimai) ir vienybės atvaizdai (visko savybės)? Vienybė yra visko padalinimas į vieną požiūrį.
į:
* Kuom skiriasi apimtys (viskas,betkas,kažkas,niekas) ir visko atvaizdai (troškimai) ir vienybės atvaizdai (visko savybės)? Vienybė yra visko padalinimas į vieną požiūrį.
2018 rugsėjo 06 d., 13:56 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeista 1 eilutė iš:
Žr.: [[Viską žinoti]], [[Betkas]], [[Niekas]], [[Padalinimai]], [[Troškimai]], [[Dievas]], [[Vienybė]], [[Viena]], [[Suvokimas]]
į:
Žr.: [[Viską žinoti]], [[Betkas]], [[Niekas]], [[Padalinimai]], [[Dievas]], [[Vienybė]], [[Viena]], [[Suvokimas]]
2018 rugsėjo 06 d., 12:53 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeista 23 eilutė iš:
* Viskame yra tarsi Dievo užtaisas. Nors Dievas yra pasitraukęs ir Viskas tėra santvarka, visgi joje glūdi Dievo išsivystymo raidos postūmis.
į:
* Viskame yra tarsi Dievo užtaisas. Nors Dievas yra pasitraukęs ir Viskas tėra santvarka, visgi jame glūdi Dievo išsivystymo raidos postūmis.
2018 rugsėjo 06 d., 12:52 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pridėta 23 eilutė:
* Viskame yra tarsi Dievo užtaisas. Nors Dievas yra pasitraukęs ir Viskas tėra santvarka, visgi joje glūdi Dievo išsivystymo raidos postūmis.
2018 rugsėjo 06 d., 12:16 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pridėtos 2-7 eilutės:

>>bgcolor=#FFFFC0<<

* Kuom skiriasi visko atvaizdai (troškimai) ir vienybės atvaizdai (visko savybės)? Vienybė yra visko padalinimas į vieną požiūrį.

>><<
2018 rugsėjo 05 d., 13:55 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeista 1 eilutė iš:
Žr.: [[Viską žinoti]], [[Betkas]], [[Kažkas]], [[Niekas]], [[Padalinimai]], [[Troškimai]], [[Dievas]], [[Vienybė]], [[Viena]], [[Suvokimas]]
į:
Žr.: [[Viską žinoti]], [[Betkas]], [[Niekas]], [[Padalinimai]], [[Troškimai]], [[Dievas]], [[Vienybė]], [[Viena]], [[Suvokimas]]
2018 rugsėjo 05 d., 13:07 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pridėta 7 eilutė:
** Viskas yra mūsų asmeninis išeities taškas, mūsų kertinė vertybė. Apparently, as we develop as people, we find our own Deepest Value which serves as our own everything. We can therefore communicate with each other regarding our own key concept.
Ištrintos 16-23 eilutės:


Apparently, as we develop as people, we find our own DeepestValue which serves as our own everything. We can therefore communicate with each other regarding our own key concept.

Our potential is fulfilled by our ability to live with absolutes. This happens when we are able to love that which is completely independent of us. In this sense, we are commanded to LoveGod. We are to BePerfect and to do what we do without distinctions towards others.

Our ability to [LoveOther love others] is a move in this direction, as is our ability to [LoveSelf love ourselves].
2018 rugsėjo 05 d., 13:04 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pridėta 10 eilutė:
** Everything is important as an absolute Concept. It is absolute in the sense that we all have it, it is well-defined, and for all of us it is the same. It is an absolute in our society in the sense that, upon inspection, we all do individually admit and recognize this concept. It is absolute for us as individuals, and pragmatically, it is absolute for us as a society.
Pakeistos 14-15 eilutės iš
į:
* Viskas yra Dievo nebuvimas, jo rėmai, jo papildinys, užtat jo savastis.
* Viskas yra rėmai - tiek proto, tiek pasaulio - kurie lieka kada atitokėjame, atsisiejame nuo savęs, kartu ir nuo Dievo sampratos. Viskas yra dvasios aplinkybės, tai kas lieka pasitraukus (mano ir Dievo) dvasiai, atsitokėjus.


Apparently, as we develop as people, we find our own DeepestValue which serves as our own everything. We can therefore communicate with each other regarding our own key concept.

Our potential is fulfilled by our ability to live with absolutes. This happens when we are able to love that which is completely independent of us. In this sense, we are commanded to LoveGod. We are to BePerfect and to do what we do without distinctions towards others.

Our ability to [LoveOther love others] is a move in this direction, as is our ability to [LoveSelf love ourselves].
Ištrintos 104-115 eilutės:
>>bgcolor=#EEEEEE<<

In seeking to know everything, we first wonder, is it possible to know anything? In other words, are there any '''absolutes'''?

{{Everything}} is important as an absolute {{Concept}}. It is absolute in the sense that we all have it, it is well-defined, and for all of us it is the same. It is an absolute in our society in the sense that, upon inspection, we all do individually admit and recognize this concept. It is absolute for us as individuals, and pragmatically, it is absolute for us as a society.


Apparently, as we develop as people, we find our own DeepestValue which serves as our own everything. We can therefore communicate with each other regarding our own key concept.

Our potential is fulfilled by our ability to live with absolutes. This happens when we are able to love that which is completely independent of us. In this sense, we are commanded to LoveGod. We are to BePerfect and to do what we do without distinctions towards others.

Our ability to [LoveOther love others] is a move in this direction, as is our ability to [LoveSelf love ourselves].
2018 rugsėjo 05 d., 12:41 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeistos 5-6 eilutės iš
Everything is the most basic structure. Everything is the anchor concept. When we need absolutes, as we do if we wish for answers, then we may turn to everything as the anchor for all our concepts.
į:
* Viskas yra Dievo sandara. Dievas yra visko dvasia.
* Viskas yra išeities taškas. Viskuo remiamės nusistatydami, tirdami, besimokydami.
* Viskas yra (troškimo
, žinojimo) apimtis - besąlygiškumo apimtis.
* Viskas yra pamatinė sąvoka (inkaras) iš kurios išplaukia visi padalinimai
.
** Everything is an ''anchor concept'' in that, accepted as an absolute, it serves as a ground for other concepts, possibly all other concepts.
* Viskas yra veidrodis atspindintis mūsų proto veiklą, pavyzdžiui, kaip padaliname viską. Viskas yra smegenų darbo laukas, kuris padalinimais (takoskyromis) skaidomas į skirtingus požiūrius.
* Viskas turi keturias jį apibrėžiančias savybes.
* Viskas yra Dievo savastis (jo neturėjimas savasties). Dievas sukuria save (viską) išeidamas už savęs į save.
Ištrintos 85-88 eilutės:


Pakeistos 90-105 eilutės iš
-----------

LackOfSelf is God's self (his lack of self) which is Everything.

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

'''Pradžia - išeities taškas'''

For many years I've worked from a "starting point" - Everything. I've also thought of working backward from an ending point, somehow related to God, but only now feel good that it might be "Life is the goodness of God", and also what I wrote about Eternal life. I find this fruitful.

*{{Everything}}
*{{Life}}
*EternalLife

Do these relate to LevelsOfUnderstanding?
į:
Pakeistos 93-94 eilutės iš
Matematika mus moko, kaip besąlygiškumą reikšti sąlygomis, o tai įmanoma sąlygiškai. Žr. [[http://www.helproom.org/Value/MathForThinkers | Math for thinkers]]
į:
Matematika mus moko, kaip besąlygiškumą reikšti sąlygomis, o tai įmanoma sąlygiškai. Žr. [[Mintys/MathForThinkers | Math for thinkers]]
Ištrinta 100 eilutė:
Everything is an ''anchor concept'' in that, accepted as an absolute, it serves as a ground for other concepts, possibly all other concepts.
2018 gegužės 23 d., 12:31 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeista 1 eilutė iš:
Žr.: [[Betkas]], [[Kažkas]], [[Niekas]], [[Padalinimai]], [[Troškimai]], [[Dievas]], [[Vienybė]], [[Viena]], [[Suvokimas]]
į:
Žr.: [[Viską žinoti]], [[Betkas]], [[Kažkas]], [[Niekas]], [[Padalinimai]], [[Troškimai]], [[Dievas]], [[Vienybė]], [[Viena]], [[Suvokimas]]
2018 gegužės 17 d., 13:11 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeistos 1-2 eilutės iš
Žr.: [[Betkas]], [[Kažkas]], [[Niekas]], [[Padalinimai]], [[Troškimai]], [[Dievas]], [[Vienybė]], [[Viena]]
į:
Žr.: [[Betkas]], [[Kažkas]], [[Niekas]], [[Padalinimai]], [[Troškimai]], [[Dievas]], [[Vienybė]], [[Viena]], [[Suvokimas]]
Pakeistos 20-25 eilutės iš
I associate Everything with {{God}}, but we consider this same structure in a variety of ways, as: the universe, ourselves, meaning, existence, and so on.

Everything, as structure, is the division of everything into one perspective: the {{Onesome}}.

Everything
makes our perspective {{Absolute}}. It is helpful in providing us with an absolute structural reference.
į:
* Dievas. Viskas yra Dievo sandara. Dievas yra visko dvasia.
* Visko vardai. Viską galima vadinti
, sulyginti su visata, savimi, prasme, būtimi ir t.t.
* Vienybė. Tai visko padalinimas į vieną požiūrį.
* Besąlygiškumas. Everything
makes our perspective Absolute. It is helpful in providing us with an absolute structural reference.

'''Susijusios plonybės'''

* Dievas ir viskas. The distinction between God and Everything is subtle and profound. It is the distinction between everything as structure, and the spirit behind it. I think this is the subject of Lao Tze.
* Nulybė ir vienybė
.
Ištrintos 44-60 eilutės:
'''Dievas ir viskas'''

See also: NullsomeVOnesome, {{Understanding}}
----

The distinction between {{God}} and {{Everything}} is subtle and profound. It is the distinction between everything as structure, and the spirit behind it. I think this is the subject of Lao Tze.

God likes everything. He wants all variants. ''Do I like this? How does it seem to me?''

As humans, we are bounded, and we take everything as our point of reference. Alternatively, God takes himself as his point of reference.

We are imagining God's perspective, and so we may look beyond everything to an outlook from which everything may unfold.

----

The point of view of Anything is the stage which Everything has created for its own participation of every sort. Here it makes sense to make a subtle distinction between God and Everything, as they have different implications, like an answer and a question. - "Everything" is that which was alone, and then took up the challenge to go beyond itself, and to create situations where it is, and where it is not, and consider whether it arises. Everything is the ultimate question. - "God" as that which arises from this challenge, which demonstrates its necessity by arising even from the least favorable situations. God is the ultimate answer. "Everything" and "God" get related through us and our world. This is the source of slack, this distinction between Everything and God. Technically, this is an equation "God is the unity of the representations of Everything". The representations are the many ways of thinking about, and the unity is the unique way of caring about them all. Coherence is another way to say "unity of representations". God is the coherence of Everything. The Answer is the coherence of the Question. What creeps in here is the concept of slack, that fleeting gap between the Question and the Answer. We've presented two very different ways of thinking about this slack, it can be increasing (as in the case of the questioning), or decreasing (as in the case of the answering). Slack has precisely these two representations, we think of it as either increasing or decreasing. "Good is slack", in other words, good is the coherence of slack, good is the unity of the two representations of slack. Everything has exactly four representations. - Everything wishes for nothing, is self-sufficient - Everything wishes for something, is certain - Everything wishes for anything, is calm - Everything wishes for everything, is loving These are the four different ways of thinking about the entirety, and God is the unity of these different ways. We can add slack to each of these representations of everything:
Pridėtos 54-65 eilutės:

'''Dievas'''

God likes everything. He wants all variants. ''Do I like this? How does it seem to me?''

As humans, we are bounded, and we take everything as our point of reference. Alternatively, God takes himself as his point of reference.

We are imagining God's perspective, and so we may look beyond everything to an outlook from which everything may unfold.

----

The point of view of Anything is the stage which Everything has created for its own participation of every sort. Here it makes sense to make a subtle distinction between God and Everything, as they have different implications, like an answer and a question. - "Everything" is that which was alone, and then took up the challenge to go beyond itself, and to create situations where it is, and where it is not, and consider whether it arises. Everything is the ultimate question. - "God" as that which arises from this challenge, which demonstrates its necessity by arising even from the least favorable situations. God is the ultimate answer. "Everything" and "God" get related through us and our world. This is the source of slack, this distinction between Everything and God. Technically, this is an equation "God is the unity of the representations of Everything". The representations are the many ways of thinking about, and the unity is the unique way of caring about them all. Coherence is another way to say "unity of representations". God is the coherence of Everything. The Answer is the coherence of the Question. What creeps in here is the concept of slack, that fleeting gap between the Question and the Answer. We've presented two very different ways of thinking about this slack, it can be increasing (as in the case of the questioning), or decreasing (as in the case of the answering). Slack has precisely these two representations, we think of it as either increasing or decreasing. "Good is slack", in other words, good is the coherence of slack, good is the unity of the two representations of slack. Everything has exactly four representations. - Everything wishes for nothing, is self-sufficient - Everything wishes for something, is certain - Everything wishes for anything, is calm - Everything wishes for everything, is loving These are the four different ways of thinking about the entirety, and God is the unity of these different ways. We can add slack to each of these representations of everything:
2018 gegužės 17 d., 13:06 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeistos 80-88 eilutės iš
'''Pavyzdžiai ir atitikmenys'''

ChristopherLangan writes of ''the set of all sets''.


Viskas yra medžiaga. Materializmas:

[[http://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_vitzthum/materialism.html | Philosophical Materialism, Richard C. Vitzthum]] ''Yet neither Lucretius, d'Holbach, nor Buechner claimed that materialist philosophy was an empirical science. They all realized it rested on assumptions that were ultimately metascientific, though never metaphysical in the Aristotelian sense. That is, the assumptions of materialism reached beyond empirical science, though never beyond physical reality. These metascientific assumptions were, first of all, that material or natural reality formed an unbroken material continuum that was eternal and infinite[1]. Nature had no beginning or end. It was an eternal, self-generating and self-sustaining material fact without any sort of barrier or limit zoning it off from a nonmaterial, non-physical, or supernatural type of being. The only foundational being there was, was material being, and some kind of natural substance underlay all visible phenomena. Lucretius called this endless fact of material being the "All," and with d'Holbach and Buechner concluded it lacked any plan or purpose and consisted of blindly opposing forces locked in an ultimately self-canceling, cosmic equipoise or gridlock.''
į:
Ištrinta 120 eilutė:
Pridėtos 123-124 eilutės:
'''Pavyzdžiai ir atitikmenys'''
Pridėtos 138-143 eilutės:

Materializmas: Viskas yra medžiaga.

[[http://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_vitzthum/materialism.html | Philosophical Materialism, Richard C. Vitzthum]] ''Yet neither Lucretius, d'Holbach, nor Buechner claimed that materialist philosophy was an empirical science. They all realized it rested on assumptions that were ultimately metascientific, though never metaphysical in the Aristotelian sense. That is, the assumptions of materialism reached beyond empirical science, though never beyond physical reality. These metascientific assumptions were, first of all, that material or natural reality formed an unbroken material continuum that was eternal and infinite[1]. Nature had no beginning or end. It was an eternal, self-generating and self-sustaining material fact without any sort of barrier or limit zoning it off from a nonmaterial, non-physical, or supernatural type of being. The only foundational being there was, was material being, and some kind of natural substance underlay all visible phenomena. Lucretius called this endless fact of material being the "All," and with d'Holbach and Buechner concluded it lacked any plan or purpose and consisted of blindly opposing forces locked in an ultimately self-canceling, cosmic equipoise or gridlock.''

Matematikoje: Visų aibių aibė.
2018 gegužės 17 d., 13:04 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeistos 1-2 eilutės iš
Žr.: [[Betkas]], [[Kažkas]], [[Niekas]], [[Padalinimai]], [[Troškimai]], [[Dievas]], [[Vienybė]], [[Viena]] taip pat: UniversalWholenessMath
į:
Žr.: [[Betkas]], [[Kažkas]], [[Niekas]], [[Padalinimai]], [[Troškimai]], [[Dievas]], [[Vienybė]], [[Viena]]
Ištrintos 90-102 eilutės:
Law of Forms

Holistic Mathematics. Hi Andrius

Natalie d'Arbeloff: With respect to the points you are making, maybe you are aware of
Peter collins and his site on Holistic Mathematics
(http://indigo.ie/~peter/integral.html)

Of particular interest are papers he has, seemingly unindexed from

http://indigo.ie/~peter/F39.htm where the 39 may be replaced from 10
to 39
Ištrintos 98-103 eilutės:
'''ChristopherLangan'''

[http://megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/IntroCTMU.htm Introduction to the CTMU]: %gray%The real universe has always been theoretically treated as an object, and specifically as the composite type of object known as a set. But an object or set exists in space and time, and reality does not. Because the real universe by definition contains all that is real, there is no "external reality" (or space, or time) in which it can exist or have been "created". We can talk about lesser regions of the real universe in such a light, but not about the real universe as a whole. Nor, for identical reasons, can we think of the universe as the sum of its parts, for these parts exist solely within a spacetime manifold identified with the whole and cannot explain the manifold itself. This rules out pluralistic explanations of reality, forcing us to seek an explanation at once monic (because nonpluralistic) and holistic (because the basic conditions for existence are embodied in the manifold, which equals the whole). Obviously, the first step towards such an explanation is to bring monism and holism into coincidence.

{{HelmutLeitner}}: A representation of the universe as something like "a system of objects" is a highly formalized abstract model of the universe. This doesn't change when the language model is something like "the truth is in the wholeness". These two view aren't really contradicting each other. Any such simple language expression must be a gross simplification, a construction of the mind that doesn't yet hold knowledge about the universe.
Pridėtos 133-142 eilutės:

Law of Forms

Natalie d'Arbeloff: Peter Collins and his site on [[http://indigo.ie/~peter/integral.html | Holistic Mathematics]].

[[http://www.worldtrans.org/essay/wholemath.html | Universal Wholeness Math]] by Flemming Funch.

[[http://megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/IntroCTMU.htm | Christopher Langan: Introduction to the CTMU]]: The real universe has always been theoretically treated as an object, and specifically as the composite type of object known as a set. But an object or set exists in space and time, and reality does not. Because the real universe by definition contains all that is real, there is no "external reality" (or space, or time) in which it can exist or have been "created". We can talk about lesser regions of the real universe in such a light, but not about the real universe as a whole. Nor, for identical reasons, can we think of the universe as the sum of its parts, for these parts exist solely within a spacetime manifold identified with the whole and cannot explain the manifold itself. This rules out pluralistic explanations of reality, forcing us to seek an explanation at once monic (because nonpluralistic) and holistic (because the basic conditions for existence are embodied in the manifold, which equals the whole). Obviously, the first step towards such an explanation is to bring monism and holism into coincidence.

HelmutLeitner: A representation of the universe as something like "a system of objects" is a highly formalized abstract model of the universe. This doesn't change when the language model is something like "the truth is in the wholeness". These two view aren't really contradicting each other. Any such simple language expression must be a gross simplification, a construction of the mind that doesn't yet hold knowledge about the universe.
2018 gegužės 11 d., 15:25 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeistos 1-2 eilutės iš
Žr.: [[Betkas]], [[Kažkas]], [[Niekas]], [[Padalinimai]], [[Troškimai]], [[Dievas]], [[Vienybė]] taip pat: UniversalWholenessMath
į:
Žr.: [[Betkas]], [[Kažkas]], [[Niekas]], [[Padalinimai]], [[Troškimai]], [[Dievas]], [[Vienybė]], [[Viena]] taip pat: UniversalWholenessMath
Pakeista 146 eilutė iš:
Our ability to live by absolutes comes about through ConstructiveHypotheses that we take up.
į:
Pakeistos 148-157 eilutės iš
JosephGoguen:
Buddhists also find the absolute in '''sunyata''', saying that
the world is all relative and non-absolute, but the
emptiness of the world is absolute. There are also a
traditional theory of knowledge and a logic based on
the viewpoint of sunyata, for which one might consult
the book by Stcherbatsky "Buddhist Logic" (this email
is not a good place for such details but Google can
find some interesting links (of variable quality)).
į:

JosephGoguen: Buddhists also find the absolute in '''sunyata''', saying that the world is all relative and non-absolute, but the emptiness of the world is absolute. There are also a traditional theory of knowledge and a logic based on the viewpoint of sunyata, for which one might consult the book by Stcherbatsky "Buddhist Logic" (this email is not a good place for such details but Google can find some interesting links (of variable quality)).
Ištrintos 153-154 eilutės:

See also: Conditional, BeingOneWith, God, Everything
2018 gegužės 11 d., 15:04 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeista 28 eilutė iš:
Viskas yra daugiaprasmiška sąvoka nes viskas gali apsiriboti santvarka, tačiau gali apimti ir Dievą už santvarkos. Tą daugiaprasmybę išreiškia visko atvaizdai - troškimai. O tai leidžia išsakyti Dievo tyrimą, ar jisai būtinas? ir keturas susijusias būsenas.
į:
Viskas yra daugiaprasmiška sąvoka nes viskas gali apsiriboti santvarka, tačiau gali apimti ir Dievą už santvarkos. Tą daugiaprasmybę išreiškia visko atvaizdai - troškimai. O tai leidžia išsakyti Dievo tyrimą, ar jisai būtinas? ir keturias susijusias būsenas.
2018 gegužės 11 d., 15:04 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeista 28 eilutė iš:
Viskas yra daugiaprasmiška sąvoka nes viskas gali apsiriboti santvarka, tačiau gali apimti ir Dievą už santvarkos. Tą daugiaprasmybę išreiškia visko atvaizdai - troškimai.
į:
Viskas yra daugiaprasmiška sąvoka nes viskas gali apsiriboti santvarka, tačiau gali apimti ir Dievą už santvarkos. Tą daugiaprasmybę išreiškia visko atvaizdai - troškimai. O tai leidžia išsakyti Dievo tyrimą, ar jisai būtinas? ir keturas susijusias būsenas.
2018 gegužės 11 d., 15:01 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Ištrintos 2-3 eilutės:
Viskas yra mūsų santvarka (gamta) ir taip pat Dievas už jos, už visko. Tad viską galima dviprasmiškai suprasti, sausą be Dievo ir šlapią su Dievu, su dvasia. Tai teorija (savo paskiru požiūriu už santvarkos, kad ir Dievo požiūriu, neišėjusiam už savęs) ir praktika (kuria esame viena, Dievas išėjęs už savęs).
Pridėtos 25-30 eilutės:

'''Visko daugiaprasmybė'''

Viskas yra daugiaprasmiška sąvoka nes viskas gali apsiriboti santvarka, tačiau gali apimti ir Dievą už santvarkos. Tą daugiaprasmybę išreiškia visko atvaizdai - troškimai.

Viskas yra mūsų santvarka (gamta) ir taip pat Dievas už jos, už visko. Tad viską galima dviprasmiškai suprasti, sausą be Dievo ir šlapią su Dievu, su dvasia. Tai teorija (savo paskiru požiūriu už santvarkos, kad ir Dievo požiūriu, neišėjusiam už savęs) ir praktika (kuria esame viena, Dievas išėjęs už savęs).
2018 gegužės 11 d., 14:54 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeistos 3-10 eilutės iš
Viskas yra mūsų santvarka (gamta) ir taip pat Dievas už , už visko. Tad viską galima dviprasmiškai suprasti, sausą be Dievo ir šlapią su Dievu, su dvasia. Tai teorija (savo paskiru požiūriu už santvarkos, kad ir Dievo požiūriu, neišėjusiam už savęs) ir praktika (kuria esame viena, Dievas išėjęs už savęs).

===What is Everything?===

{{AndriusKulikauskas}}:
Everything is the most basic structure. Everything is the anchor concept. When we need absolutes, as we do if we wish for answers, then we may turn to everything as the anchor for all our concepts.

===What are the properties of everything?===
į:
Viskas yra mūsų santvarka (gamta) ir taip pat Dievas už jos, už visko. Tad viską galima dviprasmiškai suprasti, sausą be Dievo ir šlapią su Dievu, su dvasia. Tai teorija (savo paskiru požiūriu už santvarkos, kad ir Dievo požiūriu, neišėjusiam už savęs) ir praktika (kuria esame viena, Dievas išėjęs už savęs).

'''Kas yra viskas?'''

Everything is the most basic structure. Everything is the anchor concept. When we need absolutes, as we do if we wish for answers, then we may turn to everything as the anchor for all our concepts.

'''Kokios visko savybės?'''
Pakeistos 20-21 eilutės iš
===Related concepts===
į:
'''Susijusios sąvokos'''
Pakeistos 28-29 eilutės iš
===Wishes of Everything===
į:
'''Visko troškimai'''
Pakeistos 76-77 eilutės iš
===Examples and Analogues===
į:
'''Pavyzdžiai ir atitikmenys'''
Pakeista 91 eilutė iš:
With respect to the points you are making, maybe you are aware of
į:
Natalie d'Arbeloff: With respect to the points you are making, maybe you are aware of
Pakeistos 100-101 eilutės iš
Best
į:
Išėjimas už savęs
Ištrintos 103-104 eilutės:
See: GoingBeyondOneself, Everything
Pakeistos 108-109 eilutės iš
===ChristopherLangan===
į:
'''ChristopherLangan'''
Pakeistos 160-161 eilutės iš
===What is Unconditional?
į:
'''Kas yra besąlygiška?'''
Pakeistos 170-172 eilutės iš
The Unconditional [GoBeyondOneself goes beyond itself] into the Conditional.
į:
'''Išėjimas už savęs'''

Besąlygiška išeina už savęs į sąlygišką
.
2015 spalio 15 d., 11:18 atliko AndriusKulikauskas -
Pakeistos 1-2 eilutės iš
See also: {{UniversalWholenessMath}}, {{God}}, {{Everything}}, {{Unology}}, GodVEverything, EverythingVAnything, {{Anything}}, {{Something}}, {{Nothing}}, {{Onesome}}, {{Divisions}}, {{Wishes}}
į:
Žr.: [[Betkas]], [[Kažkas]], [[Niekas]], [[Padalinimai]], [[Troškimai]], [[Dievas]], [[Vienybė]] taip pat: UniversalWholenessMath
Pridėtos 155-156 eilutės:

Dievui netinka citata, kurią Gadamer priskirai Goethe: Everything is a symbol. Iš tikrųjų Goethe rašė: Alles vergangliche ist nur ein Gleichnis. Visa, kas laikina, yra palyginimas.
2014 gruodžio 31 d., 18:57 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pakeista 3 eilutė iš:
Viskas yra mūsų santvarka (gamta) ir taip pat Dievas už jų, už visko. Tad viską galima dviprasmiškai suprasti, sausą be Dievo ir šlapią su Dievu, su dvasia. Tai teorija ir praktika.
į:
Viskas yra mūsų santvarka (gamta) ir taip pat Dievas už jų, už visko. Tad viską galima dviprasmiškai suprasti, sausą be Dievo ir šlapią su Dievu, su dvasia. Tai teorija (savo paskiru požiūriu už santvarkos, kad ir Dievo požiūriu, neišėjusiam už savęs) ir praktika (kuria esame viena, Dievas išėjęs už savęs).
2014 gruodžio 31 d., 18:53 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pakeista 3 eilutė iš:
Viskas yra mūsų santvarka (gamta) ir taip pat Dievas už jų, už visko. Tad viską galima dviprasmiškai suprasti, sausą be Dievo ir šlapią su Dievu.
į:
Viskas yra mūsų santvarka (gamta) ir taip pat Dievas už jų, už visko. Tad viską galima dviprasmiškai suprasti, sausą be Dievo ir šlapią su Dievu, su dvasia. Tai teorija ir praktika.
2014 gruodžio 31 d., 18:53 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pakeista 3 eilutė iš:
Viskas yra mūsų santvarka (gamta) ir taip pat Dievas už jų, už visko.
į:
Viskas yra mūsų santvarka (gamta) ir taip pat Dievas už jų, už visko. Tad viską galima dviprasmiškai suprasti, sausą be Dievo ir šlapią su Dievu.
2014 gruodžio 31 d., 18:53 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pridėtos 2-3 eilutės:

Viskas yra mūsų santvarka (gamta) ir taip pat Dievas už jų, už visko.
2014 liepos 24 d., 20:47 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pakeistos 122-168 eilutės iš
Do these relate to LevelsOfUnderstanding?
į:
Do these relate to LevelsOfUnderstanding?

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

Matematika mus moko, kaip besąlygiškumą reikšti sąlygomis, o tai įmanoma sąlygiškai. Žr. [[http://www.helproom.org/Value/MathForThinkers | Math for thinkers]]

>>bgcolor=#EEEEEE<<

In seeking to know everything, we first wonder, is it possible to know anything? In other words, are there any '''absolutes'''?

{{Everything}} is important as an absolute {{Concept}}. It is absolute in the sense that we all have it, it is well-defined, and for all of us it is the same. It is an absolute in our society in the sense that, upon inspection, we all do individually admit and recognize this concept. It is absolute for us as individuals, and pragmatically, it is absolute for us as a society.

Everything is an ''anchor concept'' in that, accepted as an absolute, it serves as a ground for other concepts, possibly all other concepts.

Apparently, as we develop as people, we find our own DeepestValue which serves as our own everything. We can therefore communicate with each other regarding our own key concept.

Our potential is fulfilled by our ability to live with absolutes. This happens when we are able to love that which is completely independent of us. In this sense, we are commanded to LoveGod. We are to BePerfect and to do what we do without distinctions towards others.

Our ability to [LoveOther love others] is a move in this direction, as is our ability to [LoveSelf love ourselves].

Our ability to live by absolutes comes about through ConstructiveHypotheses that we take up.
>>bgcolor=#ECD9EC<<
JosephGoguen:
Buddhists also find the absolute in '''sunyata''', saying that
the world is all relative and non-absolute, but the
emptiness of the world is absolute. There are also a
traditional theory of knowledge and a logic based on
the viewpoint of sunyata, for which one might consult
the book by Stcherbatsky "Buddhist Logic" (this email
is not a good place for such details but Google can
find some interesting links (of variable quality)).

>><<

See also: Conditional, BeingOneWith, God, Everything

===What is Unconditional?

* Not Defining Theory.
* Not self-limited.
* Not requiring the satisfaction of any Definition.
* BeingOneWith beyond the perspective of NotBeingOneWith, thus prior to it.
* The quality of BeingOneWith that is left upon removing all conditions.
* God.
* that from which all things unfold.

The Unconditional [GoBeyondOneself goes beyond itself] into the Conditional.
2014 birželio 09 d., 19:26 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pakeistos 112-122 eilutės iš
{{HelmutLeitner}}: A representation of the universe as something like "a system of objects" is a highly formalized abstract model of the universe. This doesn't change when the language model is something like "the truth is in the wholeness". These two view aren't really contradicting each other. Any such simple language expression must be a gross simplification, a construction of the mind that doesn't yet hold knowledge about the universe.
į:
{{HelmutLeitner}}: A representation of the universe as something like "a system of objects" is a highly formalized abstract model of the universe. This doesn't change when the language model is something like "the truth is in the wholeness". These two view aren't really contradicting each other. Any such simple language expression must be a gross simplification, a construction of the mind that doesn't yet hold knowledge about the universe.

'''Pradžia - išeities taškas'''

For many years I've worked from a "starting point" - Everything. I've also thought of working backward from an ending point, somehow related to God, but only now feel good that it might be "Life is the goodness of God", and also what I wrote about Eternal life. I find this fruitful.

*{{Everything}}
*{{Life}}
*EternalLife

Do these relate to LevelsOfUnderstanding?
2014 birželio 07 d., 10:59 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pakeistos 104-112 eilutės iš
LackOfSelf is God's self (his lack of self) which is Everything.
į:
LackOfSelf is God's self (his lack of self) which is Everything.

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

===ChristopherLangan===

[http://megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/IntroCTMU.htm Introduction to the CTMU]: %gray%The real universe has always been theoretically treated as an object, and specifically as the composite type of object known as a set. But an object or set exists in space and time, and reality does not. Because the real universe by definition contains all that is real, there is no "external reality" (or space, or time) in which it can exist or have been "created". We can talk about lesser regions of the real universe in such a light, but not about the real universe as a whole. Nor, for identical reasons, can we think of the universe as the sum of its parts, for these parts exist solely within a spacetime manifold identified with the whole and cannot explain the manifold itself. This rules out pluralistic explanations of reality, forcing us to seek an explanation at once monic (because nonpluralistic) and holistic (because the basic conditions for existence are embodied in the manifold, which equals the whole). Obviously, the first step towards such an explanation is to bring monism and holism into coincidence.

{{HelmutLeitner}}: A representation of the universe as something like "a system of objects" is a highly formalized abstract model of the universe. This doesn't change when the language model is something like "the truth is in the wholeness". These two view aren't really contradicting each other. Any such simple language expression must be a gross simplification, a construction of the mind that doesn't yet hold knowledge about the universe
.
2014 birželio 02 d., 11:49 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pakeistos 98-104 eilutės iš
Best
į:
Best

-----------

See: GoingBeyondOneself, Everything

LackOfSelf is God's self (his lack of self) which is Everything.
2014 birželio 01 d., 12:03 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pakeistos 83-98 eilutės iš
Žr. [[Fenomenologija]] - ko plačiau suskliausti.
į:
Žr. [[Fenomenologija]] - ko plačiau suskliausti.

Law of Forms

Holistic Mathematics. Hi Andrius

With respect to the points you are making, maybe you are aware of
Peter collins and his site on Holistic Mathematics
(http://indigo.ie/~peter/integral.html)

Of particular interest are papers he has, seemingly unindexed from

http://indigo.ie/~peter/F39.htm where the 39 may be replaced from 10
to 39

Best
2014 birželio 01 d., 11:35 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Ištrintos 71-94 eilutės:

'''Dievas ir žmogus'''

I should be careful to distinguish this with GodVHuman and GodVEverything.

Consider also EverythingVAnything.

I think of {{heart}} here as God inside of us.

I want to understanding how the relationship between God and heart:

* defines {{Self-understanding}} and yields the {{Foursome}}, {{Fivesome}}, {{Sixsome}}.
* defines SharedUnderstanding and yields the {{Sevensome}}.

I think this will explain the {{Representations}}: four for God's perspective and two for the heart's perspective.

I also think this relationship is given by {{Internalization}} and {{Scope}} and especially by the InversionEffect.

-----

''2005.05.04 {{A}}: Kaip suvokti širdies susiejim&amp;#261; su tavimi? {{D}}: Kada širdis yra labiau su manimi, tada ji labiau myli.''

''2005.04.18 {{A}}: Kaip ketveryb&amp;#279;, penkeryb&amp;#279;, šešeryb&amp;#279; išvysto tavo ryš&amp;#303; su savimi? {{D}}: Kaip ir aš susivokiu savyje, taip ir mano širdis susivokia. {{A}}: O koks tarp j&amp;#363;s&amp;#371; ryšys? {{D}}: Aš ži&amp;#363;riu iš vidaus, o širdis iš lauko, ta&amp;#269;iau širdis tai apver&amp;#269;ia. O tas apvertimas yra m&amp;#363;s&amp;#371; ryšys.''
2014 birželio 01 d., 11:35 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pridėtos 72-95 eilutės:

'''Dievas ir žmogus'''

I should be careful to distinguish this with GodVHuman and GodVEverything.

Consider also EverythingVAnything.

I think of {{heart}} here as God inside of us.

I want to understanding how the relationship between God and heart:

* defines {{Self-understanding}} and yields the {{Foursome}}, {{Fivesome}}, {{Sixsome}}.
* defines SharedUnderstanding and yields the {{Sevensome}}.

I think this will explain the {{Representations}}: four for God's perspective and two for the heart's perspective.

I also think this relationship is given by {{Internalization}} and {{Scope}} and especially by the InversionEffect.

-----

''2005.05.04 {{A}}: Kaip suvokti širdies susiejim&amp;#261; su tavimi? {{D}}: Kada širdis yra labiau su manimi, tada ji labiau myli.''

''2005.04.18 {{A}}: Kaip ketveryb&amp;#279;, penkeryb&amp;#279;, šešeryb&amp;#279; išvysto tavo ryš&amp;#303; su savimi? {{D}}: Kaip ir aš susivokiu savyje, taip ir mano širdis susivokia. {{A}}: O koks tarp j&amp;#363;s&amp;#371; ryšys? {{D}}: Aš ži&amp;#363;riu iš vidaus, o širdis iš lauko, ta&amp;#269;iau širdis tai apver&amp;#269;ia. O tas apvertimas yra m&amp;#363;s&amp;#371; ryšys.''
2014 birželio 01 d., 11:34 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pridėtos 34-71 eilutės:

'''Dievas ir viskas'''

See also: NullsomeVOnesome, {{Understanding}}
----

The distinction between {{God}} and {{Everything}} is subtle and profound. It is the distinction between everything as structure, and the spirit behind it. I think this is the subject of Lao Tze.

God likes everything. He wants all variants. ''Do I like this? How does it seem to me?''

As humans, we are bounded, and we take everything as our point of reference. Alternatively, God takes himself as his point of reference.

We are imagining God's perspective, and so we may look beyond everything to an outlook from which everything may unfold.

----

The point of view of Anything is the stage which Everything has created for its own participation of every sort. Here it makes sense to make a subtle distinction between God and Everything, as they have different implications, like an answer and a question. - "Everything" is that which was alone, and then took up the challenge to go beyond itself, and to create situations where it is, and where it is not, and consider whether it arises. Everything is the ultimate question. - "God" as that which arises from this challenge, which demonstrates its necessity by arising even from the least favorable situations. God is the ultimate answer. "Everything" and "God" get related through us and our world. This is the source of slack, this distinction between Everything and God. Technically, this is an equation "God is the unity of the representations of Everything". The representations are the many ways of thinking about, and the unity is the unique way of caring about them all. Coherence is another way to say "unity of representations". God is the coherence of Everything. The Answer is the coherence of the Question. What creeps in here is the concept of slack, that fleeting gap between the Question and the Answer. We've presented two very different ways of thinking about this slack, it can be increasing (as in the case of the questioning), or decreasing (as in the case of the answering). Slack has precisely these two representations, we think of it as either increasing or decreasing. "Good is slack", in other words, good is the coherence of slack, good is the unity of the two representations of slack. Everything has exactly four representations. - Everything wishes for nothing, is self-sufficient - Everything wishes for something, is certain - Everything wishes for anything, is calm - Everything wishes for everything, is loving These are the four different ways of thinking about the entirety, and God is the unity of these different ways. We can add slack to each of these representations of everything:

* Everything is self-sufficient, has no needs, but with slack there could be needs!
* Everything is certain, has no doubts, but with slack there could be doubts!
* Everything is calm, has no expectations, but with slack there could be expectations!
* Everything is loving, has no trials, but with slack there could be trials!

We can likewise add everything to each of the representations of slack:

* Slack is increasing, in the face of any question, but with everything it faces Everything, an Ultimate Question.
* Slack is decreasing, in the face of any answer, but with everything it faces God, an Ultimate Answer.

"Good" is the fact that this is the same slack. The concept of anything brings all this together! This is because we think of anything as either everything with some slack (by which everything can be related to the "anything" that faces us), or as some slack in the face of everything (by which anything can be related to the "everything" that faces us) . Every way that we think of anything, we are defining it in terms of choices that we are making regarding it.

* In the face of needs, we're driven to choose "No"
* In the face of doubts, we're driven to choose "Not Yes"
* In the face of expectations, we're driven to choose "Not No"
* In the face of trials, we're driven to choose "Yes"
* In the face of answers, we're driven to choose to "Not Choose"
* In the face of questions, we're driven to choose to "Choose"

We're driven to choose, in each case, because that kind of choosing is the only activity that maintains our independence. These are the six representations of Anything, in which are embedded the four representations of Everything, and the two representations of Slack. Life is the unity of these six representations, Life is the coherence of Anything. Life is the drive to choose. What is the whole point? "Life is the fact that God is good". The coherence of Anything is the fact that Everything and Slack are coherent together. Whether Everything or Slack are coherent separately is an additional question.
2014 gegužės 19 d., 15:50 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pridėtos 1-39 eilutės:
See also: {{UniversalWholenessMath}}, {{God}}, {{Everything}}, {{Unology}}, GodVEverything, EverythingVAnything, {{Anything}}, {{Something}}, {{Nothing}}, {{Onesome}}, {{Divisions}}, {{Wishes}}

===What is Everything?===

{{AndriusKulikauskas}}: Everything is the most basic structure. Everything is the anchor concept. When we need absolutes, as we do if we wish for answers, then we may turn to everything as the anchor for all our concepts.

===What are the properties of everything?===

Everything has four properties.

* Everything has no external context. Everything includes any context that we find for it. If everything is put in a box, then it includes the box. If I think of everything, then it includes me.
* Everything is the simplest algorithm, it accepts all things. Whatever one thinks of, one puts into everything. We may think of different things, but the algorithm is absolutely the same. So we know that we are talking about the same everything.
* Everything has no internal structure. Everything can be thought of as chaotic, or as orderly. All predicates are equally uninformative: everything is hot, everything is cold, everything is good, everything is bad. Everything has no internal structure onto which predicates could map meaning.
* Everything is a required concept. We are aware of this concept, and cannot get rid of it. There is no analog to everything in the world, because the world is bounded, but everything is not. If we cannot learn this concept, then we must have always had it.

Everything is that which gives unity to these four profoundly different properties.

===Related concepts===

I associate Everything with {{God}}, but we consider this same structure in a variety of ways, as: the universe, ourselves, meaning, existence, and so on.

Everything, as structure, is the division of everything into one perspective: the {{Onesome}}.

Everything makes our perspective {{Absolute}}. It is helpful in providing us with an absolute structural reference.

===Wishes of Everything===

What describes our subjective experience? Representations of Everything

* Everything that Wishes for Nothing Everything is self-sufficient. We have needs, and operating principles address our needs.
* Everything that Wishes for Something Everything is certain. We have doubts, and counterquestions address our doubts.
* Everything that Wishes for Anything Everything is calm. We have expectations, and emotional responses address our expectations.
* Everything that Wishes for Everything Everything is loving. We have trials, and life choices address our trials.


===Examples and Analogues===

ChristopherLangan writes of ''the set of all sets''.
2014 balandžio 28 d., 17:38 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Ištrinta 1 eilutė:
Pakeistos 4-6 eilutės iš
[[http://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_vitzthum/materialism.html | Philosophical Materialism, Richard C. Vitzthum]] ''Yet neither Lucretius, d'Holbach, nor Buechner claimed that materialist philosophy was an empirical science. They all realized it rested on assumptions that were ultimately metascientific, though never metaphysical in the Aristotelian sense. That is, the assumptions of materialism reached beyond empirical science, though never beyond physical reality. These metascientific assumptions were, first of all, that material or natural reality formed an unbroken material continuum that was eternal and infinite[1]. Nature had no beginning or end. It was an eternal, self-generating and self-sustaining material fact without any sort of barrier or limit zoning it off from a nonmaterial, non-physical, or supernatural type of being. The only foundational being there was, was material being, and some kind of natural substance underlay all visible phenomena. Lucretius called this endless fact of material being the "All," and with d'Holbach and Buechner concluded it lacked any plan or purpose and consisted of blindly opposing forces locked in an ultimately self-canceling, cosmic equipoise or gridlock.''
į:
[[http://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_vitzthum/materialism.html | Philosophical Materialism, Richard C. Vitzthum]] ''Yet neither Lucretius, d'Holbach, nor Buechner claimed that materialist philosophy was an empirical science. They all realized it rested on assumptions that were ultimately metascientific, though never metaphysical in the Aristotelian sense. That is, the assumptions of materialism reached beyond empirical science, though never beyond physical reality. These metascientific assumptions were, first of all, that material or natural reality formed an unbroken material continuum that was eternal and infinite[1]. Nature had no beginning or end. It was an eternal, self-generating and self-sustaining material fact without any sort of barrier or limit zoning it off from a nonmaterial, non-physical, or supernatural type of being. The only foundational being there was, was material being, and some kind of natural substance underlay all visible phenomena. Lucretius called this endless fact of material being the "All," and with d'Holbach and Buechner concluded it lacked any plan or purpose and consisted of blindly opposing forces locked in an ultimately self-canceling, cosmic equipoise or gridlock.''

Žr. [[Fenomenologija]] - ko plačiau suskliausti.
2014 balandžio 15 d., 20:05 atliko Andrius Kulikauskas -
Pridėtos 1-5 eilutės:


Viskas yra medžiaga. Materializmas:

[[http://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_vitzthum/materialism.html | Philosophical Materialism, Richard C. Vitzthum]] ''Yet neither Lucretius, d'Holbach, nor Buechner claimed that materialist philosophy was an empirical science. They all realized it rested on assumptions that were ultimately metascientific, though never metaphysical in the Aristotelian sense. That is, the assumptions of materialism reached beyond empirical science, though never beyond physical reality. These metascientific assumptions were, first of all, that material or natural reality formed an unbroken material continuum that was eternal and infinite[1]. Nature had no beginning or end. It was an eternal, self-generating and self-sustaining material fact without any sort of barrier or limit zoning it off from a nonmaterial, non-physical, or supernatural type of being. The only foundational being there was, was material being, and some kind of natural substance underlay all visible phenomena. Lucretius called this endless fact of material being the "All," and with d'Holbach and Buechner concluded it lacked any plan or purpose and consisted of blindly opposing forces locked in an ultimately self-canceling, cosmic equipoise or gridlock.''

Viskas


Naujausi pakeitimai


Puslapis paskutinį kartą pakeistas 2019 sausio 21 d., 12:57