Iš Gvildenu svetainės

Mintys: Viskas


Suvestinė, Viską žinoti, Santvarka, Priėjimai prie visumos, Betkas, Padalinimai, Dievas, Vienybė, Viena, Suvokimas

Kokie gali būti santykiai su viskuo?


一切


Visko pradžia ir pabaiga

Kaip viskas aprėpiama?

Visko santykiai


Kas yra viskas?

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?

Kokios visko savybės?

Viską nusako jo keturios savybės:

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

Susijusios sąvokos

Susijusios plonybės

Visko daugiaprasmybė

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.

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).

Santykiai su viskuo

Galime

Visko troškimai

Žinojimo apimtysKetverybės požiūriaiNulybės atvaizdaiVienybės atvaizdaiVisko atvaizdaiNetroškimaiAtliepimai
niekasartiesusbūtina sąvokasavarankiškasporeikiaitenkinimai
kažkaskoksbetarpiškasnėra sandarosužtikrintasabejonėsdvejonės
betkaskaippastovusnėra filtroramuslūkesčiaijauduliai
viskaskodėlprasmingasnėra aplinkosmylintisvertybėsklausimai
ApimtysApimčių žinojimaiApimčių nežinojimaiApimčių troškimaiApimčių netroškimai

Laisvumas grindžia netroškimus.

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


The point of view of Anything is the stage which Everything has created for its own participation of every sort.

Santykis tarp Dievo ir visko

"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.

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.

Kas yra besąlygiška?

Užrašai

Viskas

Apima... save, savo vidinę sandarą, visa kas ateina iš lauko, visas savo aplinkybes. Viskas

Visko keturios savybės kartu apibrėžia ir betką, kažką bei nieką:


Pavyzdžiai ir atitikmenys

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)).

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.

Law of Forms

Laozi

Fenomenologija? - ko plačiau suskliausti.

Natalie d'Arbeloff: Peter Collins and his site on Holistic Mathematics.

Universal Wholeness Math by Flemming Funch.

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.

Materializmas: Viskas yra medžiaga.

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.


Parsiųstas iš http://www.ms.lt/sodas/Mintys/Viskas
Puslapis paskutinį kartą pakeistas 2021 kovo 12 d., 17:05