Dvejybės atvaizdai skiria priešingybių rūšis: dvynių, pažymėtos-nepažymėtos ir t.t.Dvejybės atvaizdai skiria priešingybių rūšis: dvynių, pažymėtos-nepažymėtos ir t.t.

Laisvą valią grindžia ištrynimas, kaip kad Turingo mašina. Yra įvairių būdų nusigauti į tą pačią būseną ir nėra vieno kelio kaip grįžti atgal.

• Laisvą valią grindžia taip pat pasirinkimas iš trijų būsenų - nusistatymo, vykdymo, permąstymo.
• Laisva valia taip pat reiškiasi tuo, kad mes patys sprendžiama kada imtis trejybės rato poslinkio, ankščiau ar vėliau.
• Laisva valia reiškiasi mūsų pasirinkimu, ar gyventi Dievu ar savimi. Tai dviprasmybė į kurią susitelkia Jėzus.

• Atsiradus skirtumui, turi dar prieš tai būti stebėtojas, galintis atskirti. Taip suprasti Spencer-Brown.

Padalinimai, Padalinimų ratas, Abėcėlė, Trejybė, Ketverybė, Požiūriai, Veiksmas +2, Požiūrių sudūrimas, Išvertimas

Užrašai

• Kaip savastis susijusi su dvejybės atvaizdais, pavyzdžiui, su skirtumu tarp sąlygiškumo ir besąlygiškumo ir t.t.?
• "You can't have your cake and eat it, too." Dvejybė - galimybė (turėjimas) ir esamybė (suvalgymas).
• Dvejybė: žinojimas-nežinojimas ir troškimas (o kaip su netroškimu?)
• Pamąstyti kaip dvejybės atvaizduose priešingybės susijusios su pasirinkimu. Pavyzdžiui, laisvoje valioje - likime pirma išsiskiria priešingybės, o paskui renkamės. Tuo tarpu tapatume - skirtingume nėra pagrindo rinktis - pasirinkimas yra vienodas - ir tik paskui išsiskiria. Arba išorėje - viduje pasirinkus viskas pasikeičia. Teorijoje - praktikoje kaip yra?
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unity_of_opposites
• https://www.britannica.com/topic/table-of-opposites
• http://www.sfu.ca/~jeffpell/Phil350/Opposites.pdf

• Ar dvejybė veda iš žinojimo-nežinojimo į troškimą?

• Priešingos pusės (gretinamos) turi bendrų prielaidų (kuriais viskas visvien).

Padalinimai, Padalinimų ratas, Trejybė, Ketverybė, Požiūriai, Veiksmas +2, Požiūrių sudūrimas, Išvertimas

Krypties apvertimas

The reversal effect is the idea that, upon reflection, the direction of a representation of the {{Twosome}} changes. So, for example, the perspective of free will leads into the perspective of fate, and not the other way around. However, there is a reversal effect: Thinking about fate leads to thinking about free will, and not the other way around.

The reversal effect may be related to the switching around of a composition. For example, we would like to switch from a bounded view of an unbounded view to an unbounded view of a bounded view.

This might also relate to the relationship between {{Structure}} and {{Activity}} as given by the [AddTwo operation +2].

Pavyzdžiai

Kas yra buvimas

• Dievas yra.

Koks yra buvimas

• Buvimas yra būklėje. Tai būties klausimas, dvejybės klausimas, atskyrimas buvimo ir būklės, tad suvokimo ištakos.
• Dvejybe, buvimu, Dievas apibrėžiamas neigiamai, kaip neturintis prielaidų.
• Dvejybė išverčia Dievo pristatymą.
• Buvimas yra dvejybinis.

二切

• Būtis yra išskyrimas: "būtis" ir ... anas
• Teorija yra dvilypis požiūris, analitinis, sąmonės, o praktika yra vienlypis, sintetinis, pasąmonės. Praktika yra kurios nors gyvenimo srities (kaip, koks), o teorija yra visų sričių (kodėl, ar).
• Albinas: Nuo genijaus iki bepročio vienas žingsnis, o atvirkštinis kelias kur kas ilgesnis.

Heidegeris savo knygoje "Introduction to Metaphysics" aprašo dvejybės atvaizdus:

• Being and Thinking
• Being and Becoming
• Being and Seeming
• Being and Ought

Lietuvių kalba skiria tarp esančiojo ir būnančiojo. Esantysis yra (ar nėra) tam tikrose, vieningose aplinkybėse, o būnantysis jose pabūna, užtat tai nevieningos aplinkybės. Esantysis, tai griežtėjantis klausimas: yra ar nėra? O būnantysis, tai minkštėjantis atsakymas - yra kaip yra. (Tad kaip su laisvumu?) Esimas - tai esatis, kaip nuoroda, o buvimas - tai būtis, kaip būsena. Esantysis yra Dasein, o būnantysis yra Das Man. Panašiai, ispanų kalba skiria estar ir ser.

Lietuvių kalba skiria tarp esančiojo ir būnančiojo. Esantysis yra (ar nėra) tam tikrose, vieningose aplinkybėse, o būnantysis jose pabūna, užtat tai nevieningos aplinkybės. Esantysis, tai griežtas klausimas: yra ar nėra? O būnantysis, tai minkštas atskymas - yra kaip yra. Esimas - tai esatis, kaip nuoroda, o buvimas - tai būtis, kaip būsena. Esantysis yra Dasein, o būnantysis yra Das Man. Panašiai, ispanų kalba skiria estar ir ser.

Krypties apvertimas

See also: {{Twosome}}, AlgebraOfViews, InversionEffect, [AddTwo operation +2]

The reversal effect is the idea that, upon reflection, the direction of a representation of the {{Twosome}} changes. So, for example, the perspective of free will leads into the perspective of fate, and not the other way around. However, there is a reversal effect: Thinking about fate leads to thinking about free will, and not the other way around.

The reversal effect may be related to the switching around of a composition. For example, we would like to switch from a bounded view of an unbounded view to an unbounded view of a bounded view.

This might also relate to the relationship between {{Structure}} and {{Activity}} as given by the [AddTwo operation +2].

Dvejybės atvaizdai

See also: {{Twosome}}, {{Representations}}

There are four representations of the division of everything into two perspectives. Such a division has two perspectives: one where opposites coexist, and another where all things are the same. I know of only four ways of conceiving such a division:

• "free will" and "fate"
• "outside" and "inside"
• "theory" and "practice"
• "same" and "different"

For example, if I am outside a system, then it also has an inside, and so opposites coexist. But if I am sucked inside that system, then there is only inside, as in that we are inside our universe. Likewise, if items are the same, then they must also be different in that they are distinct. But if they are different, then they are simply different. So these are "representations" of an underlying structure, the division of everything into two perspectives.

===Discussion===

Andrius, my difficulties in understanding are still immense, I still think this is a problem of language. While I start to understand terms like "everything" I still do not understand the meaning of terms like "view", "perspective" or "representation".

Explanations that are based on the local terminology (e. g. a view of a view is a view) do not reach me because:

• a number multiplied with a number also yields a number
• a vector added to a vector is a vector

these are structural aspects (a kind of closedness) but do not explain what a number, a vector or a view is.

Examples - however short or simple - do help and are extremely important to help in understanding. With respect to the divsions:

I know of only four ways of conceiving such a division:

• "free will" and "fate"
• "outside" and "inside"
• "theory" and "practice"
• "same" and "different"

I assume that you mean "types or classes" of divisions. You have provided two dicvisions with examplary explanations:

• outside/inside: For example, if I am outside a system, then it also has an inside, and so opposites coexist. But if I am sucked inside that system, then there is only inside, as in that we are inside our universe.
• same/different: Likewise, if items are the same, then they must also be different in that they are distinct. But if they are different, then they are simply different.

So at this point I'd ask you to provide similar explanations for

• free will/fate:
• ...
• theory/practice:
• ...

You also did not explain how these subtleties in divisions do add to our understanding of our thinking.

I also see (and miss) a certain order:

• same/different -- the most general "making a difference" (maybe "what")
• inside/outside -- difference with respect to an arbitrary "system boundary" (maybe "where" in space and time)
• reality(not practice!)/theory -- difference with respect to "modelling" or "representation" or "reference"
• free will/fate -- different view of a process with respect to "causality"

As a working hypothesis I would doubt that these four are a complete list and try to challenge you by adding further types of divisions, like:

• created/grown
• chaotic(individual)/ordered
• following/opposing (this is maybe 4-fold: moving/following/opposing/standing-by)
• form/content
• causal/stochastic (maybe causal/unrelated/free/random)
• independent/correlated(resonating)
• centered/peripheral (near/far, relative to center)
• continuous/atomic (unstructured/structured)

Of course I know that adding a single additional division would break existing symmetry and you must resist that - but it is not my job to make you happy.

So I would assume that you might be then able to fold them into the existing four types, but this would at least make clearer, what's characteristic about them.

Helmut

See also: Twosome, Existence

Being, Existence

• be separate
• independent
• separate from God
• prior to God
• is confusing to define, both as being separate or not, and as BeingOneWith
• is the satisfying of a definition
• is the taking up of a vantage point
• is subsequent to System, is not beyond it, and is relevant in it negatively as NotBeing
• is a topic shared by Persons. Logical statements have to do with saying that "there exists" or that "for all" regarding some quality.
• what is assumed, the relationship between one (independent, distinct identity) and one's self (dependent, contextual identity), the sharing of a frame, the projection of the Referer (sharer) frame within the Referent (shared) frame as its NullActivity, thus allowing for a shared frame (being) for both Referer (as body) and Referent (as thing), independence of conditions, definiteness of being alone, being alone within a context (where there can be not being, thus an absolute set of relationships for references, thus a scope), satisfying a definition of being alone, the distinction of God's going beyond himself and going into himself, the distinction (within Scope by NotGod) of being alone (Being) from not being alone (NotBeing), the distinction of Questions and Answers, independent being, independence of System, thus relation with what is beyond System including NotBeing, expression as Position, the taking up of Answers, thus the Activity of being separate, being without Self, beyond one's Self. Being and NotBeing are the same beyond Scope (for God as Self (NotGod, Everything, Lack of self) derives unconditionally). Being and NotBeing are distinct as Person for NotGod because God derives from Self conditionally. (GoingBeyondOneself, Divergence, Distinction, Division).

What is the meaning of presence and absence, affirmation and negation, being and not being? especially with regard to a channel – full or empty – between what is completely beyond and what is completely within.

Nonbeing

• is to depend on Scope
• is the ways that a Person can exist, can be separate from God
• is the Scopes with regard to which a Person is defined
• is the distinction of what allows (for nonexistence; God) and what is allowed (as nonexistence; NotGod)
• is expressed in terms of Scope and Person.
• is the lack of relationship between one and one's self, the nonsharing of a frame, dependence on conditions, on System, indefiniteness (lack of distinction) of being alone or not, separation from Being, expression as Perspective, the not taking up of Answers, being with Self, in one's Self.

Being and NotBeing

• conflict with each other only if their coinciding is imposed upon a person. So that they are compared but not through him, thus making irrelevant his comparison.
• are defined with regard to the system or beyond it?
• are the same for God (for whom they are completely separate), and also the same for Other (for whom they are completely the same)

God's Being

• is his LackOfSelf, going without self, being separate from himself, self-negation
• is his going beyond himself
• is his unconditional BeingAlone
• in nonexistence is Activity evoking Structure, and Structure links a Scope with the other scopes.
• is a matter of each Person's existence, in that they are prior to the arisal of God
• is the potential of God
• is his giving up himself, negating himself, his unconditional being Alone

God's Being and NotBeing

• are the same because God is his own Self
• are his self-negation and self-affirmation, respectively
• are simply words and he is the only reference point for them... so how do other reference points arise for words?
• go hand in hand, for God (nonbeing) stands apart from anyself, yet (being) thereby is related to his self and plays off this relationship

Examples

Some examples of the twosome: Doubt and Belief: Peirce, Trees: Genesis, Reality: Levi-Strauss, Data: Beneviste, Things: Plato, Creation: Theodoric, Stimulation: Spencer, Salvation: Hinduism, Representation: Locke, Reference: Buddhism, Permanence: Buddhism, Mystical Experience: Buddhism, Irony and Romance: Frye, Identity: Schelling, Sources of Information: Hume, God: Hinduism, Communicational Scepticism: Taylor, Complementary Truths: Fromke, Perception: Spinoza, Judgments: Mansel, Reflections: Marcel, Reading: Frye, Our Divine Calling: Fromke, Synthetic and Analytic: Kant, Judgments: Kant, Change: Kant, Time and Space: Kant, Representations: Kant, God Proves that He Exists, Symbolic Representation: Cassirer, Structure: Saussure, Worship: Kierkegaard, Virtue: Lao Tzu, Speech: Greimas, Outward and Inward Man: Watchman Nee, Concreteness and Ultimacy: Tillich, Faith: Tillich, Experience: Kant

Discussion

{{Andrius}}: ChrisopherLangan writes of Syndiffeonesis, difference-in-sameness, that when things are different, then that implies that there is a reality in which they are the same, as they are comparable. I think this is very noteworthy, however, I think it still constitutes a switch in direction, it is not the straightforward direction. It requires a mental leap.