---

Įvardijimas, Kalbos, Geros valios pratimų pavyzdžiai

Kaip kalbos išreiškia geros valios pratimus?

---

---

• Kaip susiję geros valios pratimai ir išgyvenimai?
• Palyginti širdies tiesų logiką, pasaulio tiesų logiką ir gyvybės savybes.

---

Dialektika - širdies ir pasaulio priešprieša, traukia į skirtingas puses ir išsemia visa kita, verčia rinktis, bet tai gal būt per ilgą laiką. Tai aplinkybių, tapatybių lygtys.

Širdį ir pasaulį Vilija Bortkevičienė vadina gamta (prigimtimi) ir civilizacija. Ji civilizacijai priskiria priešingybių įžiūrėjimą, o gamtai ne. Sutinku. Tad pasaulis (priešingybių tiesa) seka iš širdies (vienumo tiesos), panašiai kaip skirtingumas iš tapatumo, tuo tarpu dvejybėje priešingybių požiūris veda į vienumo požiūrį. Tad tiesų aptarime vyksta refleksija nes tas tiesas suvokiame už mūsų, nebeįeiname į visumą. Visgi, kuri kryptis pirminė, kaip tai išaiškėja, ką tai reiškia Dievo savęs ieškojime? Ir kuri kryptis sietina su Dievo požiūriu, kuri su žmogaus požiūriu? Ir kaip požiūriai sietini su kryptingumais? Kaip žmogaus ir Dievo požiūrius skirsto žinojimo rūmai (sisteminį-pasaulinį ir pirmsisteminį-širdinį mąstymą)? Kaip gėrio-blogio pažinimas (geras, geresnis, geriausias) šešerybėje sietinas su žmogaus, pasaulio pažinimu? ir kaip kūniškas pažinimas su širdies pažinimu? Koks jų ryšys, koks turėtų būti santykis?

Širdies tiesos yra pagrindas sveikai, turiningai kūrybai.

See discussion of David Weinberger's post [http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/mtarchive/003424.html D'Souza on Authenticity].

David, Thank you for such an important topic and thoughtful treatment. In 1995, I wanted to do something practical with my structural thoughts on life, so I started work on "good will exercises". Their purpose was to address the situations where we believe one thing in our heart, but everything is different in the world, and it riles us. The idea was to set up an exercise where we would assimilate the truth of the heart by taking a stand, following through, and reflecting, so as to show ourselves that we could do it, and what it meant. I spent a year preparing with friends and colleagues and ended up setting up about 40 exercises and doing about 20.

From the very first exercises I came to an amazing observation: the person who is riled is ALWAYS WRONG about which is the truth of the heart, and which is the truth of the world! (That's why they are riled). Additionally, there are three other tests that agree as to which is the "truth of the heart" and which is the "truth of the world". It's also, of course, noteworthy, that on any abstract topic we always find exactly two truths pulling in opposite directions. (I'm sure that part is hard to believe, but that's what I found again and again).

Example, I was riled whenever I met panhandlers on the street For the subject of "helping somebody" there are two truths: "I should help somebody who needs help" and "my help could make things worse". These are both true, but I was wrapped up in the latter truth, it was my "inner voice" (which, of course, turns out is the truth of the world - the riled guy is always wrong). This first test is phenomenological.

Second test is logical direction: the truth of the world follows from the truth of the heart, but not the other way around. If I truly should help others, then it will also be relevant not to make things worse. But my concern is not to make things worse, then I will never care to help anybody, that won't follow.

Third test is epistemological: you can learn the truth of the world from real life examples, but the truth of the heart you have to know a priori, you have to appeal to the person that this is already in them. I can show lots of examples where my help made things worse, but I can't show anybody that they *should* help somebody, that has to be rooted inside them.

Fourth test is structural: on any abstract topic, like "helping somebody" there are four questions (like Aristotle's causes): whether? what? how? why? where I've listed them in increasing broadness. The heart always asks the broader question. So the world may ask "what" help am I giving (is it helpful) but the heart is asking "why" I am giving (because I should). In this case, it's really about me, the deepest me.

So these four tests together allow one to realize that their "inner voice" is not the "INNER VOICE" whenever they are riled (they've lost touch with their deepest universal heart and have gut stuck in its corollary heart, our persona in the world). This is why the Bible can say that people have wicked hearts.

The "heart" is a very important outlet for God as part of an "inversion effect". We can think of God as ranging from cold to warm: wishing for nothing (self-sufficient, lacks nothing), wishing for something (certain, things are just as he wants), wishing for anything (all that happens is good for him), wishing for everything (loves us more than we love ourselves, cares seriously even about the total nonsense that we worry about, like a parent loves a child). The latter God is so over-the-top that in order to conceive of him we have to use an "inversion effect" and flip everything over so that nothing becomes everything (the boundless unknown) and everything becomes nothing (the HEART within the depths of our heart, deeper than we can even feel or know). Then this deeper HEART looks out through us into the unknown.

A set of practical conclusions: A) the person who is calm is THINKING correctly, the person who is riled is thinking incorrectly B) the person who feels good, positive is DOING correctly, the person who feels bad, negative is doing incorrectly C) the person who is sensitive, responsive is BEING correctly, the person who is insensitive, unresponsive is being incorrectly. You get all combinations, and it's practically very helpful as a self-check.

People didn't want to do these exercises, and then I did a whole bunch on myself, and they really sorted out a lot of issues (it's a great kind of therapy because it leaves no scars, it simply says - that was the wrong (yet true, natural, understandable, unfortunate, irrelevant, secondary) way of looking at things. It calmed me down on all manner of issues. I stopped doing them because I realized that the point was to address the "riling" but it didn't make sense to look for "riling" and make a deal about that if there wasn't a real need. The point is to be calm (and responsive, like still water that ripples when a pebble strikes) rather than excited (like stormy water responsive only to one thing, oblivious to any other issue). When we are alive than we will be living on a very subtle cusp but when we are dead than we have all kinds of pent up energies that are just sapping our ability to respond.

If anybody is interested in this kind of stuff I invite us to join here with our thoughts and actions. I hope to relate these to the practical issue of people's [{{MinciuSodas/DeepestValue}} key interests] and how that can be integrated in the development of [http://www.globalvillages.info global villages]. Peace, Andrius

Need to engage [http://lion.taoriver.net Lion Kimbro] and [http://homepage.mac.com/dave_rogers/ Dave Rogers].

---

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/consideringOthers/message/18

CC: David Ellison-Bey

In this letter, I'll write to you about the "good will exercises". David Ellison-Bey and I have worked to set one up, so I'll use that as an example. We'd like to bring it to our group minciu_sodas_en@yahoogroups.com, do the exercise as an event there. So first I'll describe it to you here, we can think about it. Then I'll ask for advice at otherstands@yahoogroups.com on how to present this. With that advice, we can take it to minciu_sodas_en@yahoogroups.com

---

• Why write about this?
• Purpose of the exercises
• Overview, example of the homeless
• Method for designing the exercise
• 1) State the issue
• 2) Get to the real issue by delving into the feelings
• 3) State the real issue
• 4) State what we know about the real issue
• 5) Decide which truth is from the heart. Four tests:
• A) Touchstone is ALWAYS WRONG!
• B) Truth of heart leads to truth of world.
• C) Can only show the truth of the world.
• D) Truth of heart asks broader question.
• 6) Decide what keeps our Touchstone from following the heart.
• Thank you!

---

I've been wondering, why write to you about this? I want to do these exercises because they work, they help us to follow our hearts. In order to follow our hearts, in the face of the world, we must act openly. I want to do the exercises openly, so they would work.

The purpose of the good will exercises is to address situations where we believe one thing in our hearts, but we see another thing in the world. This gets us riled, gets us going! We'd like to follow our hearts. Why don't we follow our hearts?

For example, I used to be quite bothered when I'd meet homeless people asking for money. On the one hand, I'd feel that I should help anybody who wants or needs help. On the other hand, I'd feel that my help could make things worse. They could take my money and buy drugs and hurt themselves or others. So I'd feel this conflict, and mostly I'd focus on the fact that my help could make things worse. However, I wanted to do something, I thought that truly I should help anybody who wants or needs help. How could I start to do this?

A good will exercise has us practice, in a small way, to follow our heart. If we can try that out in a small way, then we'll be able to incorporate that into our lives. In order to practice this, our exercise has three parts by which we follow our heart: we take a stand, we follow through, and we reflect. With regard to the homeless, I asked my friends Joe Sochor and John Green to help me. We agreed that we wanted to follow our hearts, that we should help anybody who wants or needs help, but I had trouble actually doing that. So first we got together and each of us took a stand, what did we think would be truly helpful? Then we went out, each of us found somebody to help for an hour or so. Finally, we came back together to reflect on what we learned. This was a very good experience for me, and has allowed me approach these situations with a new outlook.

I've worked with others to structure and conduct several dozen such exercises on a wide variety of issues. I must admit, I've never found much desire among others! Also, early on, I ran into the problem that people would claim that their heart said one thing, but it seemed to me that the heart said something entirely different! So there was a big problem, in designing these exercises, to figure out what is the heart actually saying on a particular issue? Gradually, I developed a method to sort this out. That method has in many ways proved more valuable as the exercises themselves. The most amazing conclusion is that the person who is riled is always wrong! I'll illustrate how it worked with David and I.

This method requires at least two people. One is the "touchstone", the person who is riled, and the other is the person who is able to be dettached.

1) State the issue. We start with an issue for our Touchstone that always gets them going, and they would like to do something about. The issue may generate negative feelings, in which case we'd like to address and solve the problem. Or the issue may evoke positive feelings, typically because the person has great intuition, but is unable to express it. For David, the issue is negative: "My mother is a victim of a kidnapping". Certainly, this topic triggers his emotions.

2) Get to the real issue by delving into the feelings. We ask our Touchstone, what would heighten their feelings? In the case of negative feelings, we keep looking, what would make the feelings even worse? In David's case it was "I am cut off from my mother, and I don't know her condition." As we look into this, we start to feel room for the opposite feelings. What would make David feel very good? "I am in contact with my mother, and I can help her with whatever she needed." It's very common to end up with statements of the form "X makes me feel good, and Y makes me feel even better" or "Q makes me feel bad, and Z makes me feel even worse".

3) State the real issue. We consider the statements that capture our feelings, and look at what they're talking about. We ignore words that mean "no", "not", etc. In statements that consist of two or more phrases, we consider each phrase: "I'm cut off from my mother", "I don't know her condition", "I'm in contact with my mother", "I can help her with whatever she needs". What do these phrases have in common? That's the real issue. In David's case, we can say it's "being connected".

4) State what we know about the real issue. What do we know about "being connected"? One truth is that "In order to be connected, you have to do something to get rid of the clutter". Another truth is that "You stay connected if you never do something to break it off". My experience is that, curiously, we only end up with two truths. Here, we try to phrase them so that they are as intense as possible, especially compared with each other. They should feel, in every way, to be pulling in two different directions.

5) Decide which truth is from the heart, and which truth is from the world. There are four tests:

A) Touchstone is ALWAYS WRONG! Ask our Touchstone, which one they think is from the heart? More importantly, which one are they attached to, do they focus on? It's very important to ask this as neutrally as possible, even though - especially because! - it may be obvious to the onlooker. According to this test, our Touchstone is ALWAYS WRONG! Whatever they are attached to, whatever occupies their mind, whatever they feel is from their heart is actually the truth of the world. This explains why they are so worked up, their heart is frustrated by their mind! In David's case, he felt his heart said "in order to be connected, you have to do something to get rid of the clutter". So that's actually the truth of the world.

B) Truth of heart leads to truth of world, not the other way around. You'll always find that one truth leads to the other, but not the other way around. For example, if I believe that "I stay connected if I never do something to break it off", then I'll also become interested in what I must do if I have "done something to break it off", I'll want to "clear the clutter". But if I'm focused on "clearing the clutter to be connected", then I'll never get around to thinking that I'll stay connected if I don't do anything to break it off. The latter will never become relevant. So the truth of the heart is that "I stay connected if I never do something to break it off".

C) You can show truth of world, not the truth of heart. You can point to the truth of the world with examples from real life, you can learn it. But you can't show the truth of the heart. You talk about it by analogy, by illustration, but there is nothing to actually show, so ultimately have to hope that the other person already knows what you mean. For example, it's easy to show that "in order to be connected, you have to do something to get rid of the clutter". You can show somebody became connected, and you can show clutter was removed. But how do you show that somebody stayed connected? How do you show that nothing happened to break it off? Therefore the truth of the heart is that "I stay connected if I never do something to break if off".

D) Truth of heart addresses broader question than truth of world. On any subject it's possible to consider four questions: Why? How? What? Whether? Here I've listed them from broadest to narrowest, with Why? being the broadest. The heart always considers a broader question than the world. Only the heart ever asks Why? and only the world ever asks Whether? With How? and What? it could be either the heart or the world. This is a structural test, and is the most slippery to apply, because you have to go beneath the surface. Here the subject is "being connected". It might look, on the surface, that both questions are addressing Whether we are connected. However, here I think actually, the truth of the heart is consider Why we are connected - so as to stay connected, whereas the truth of the world is considering how we are connected - by clearing away the clutter. This structural test further allows us to group issues into families based on the pair of questions that they involve, and that gives us even more information. For example, issues that yield a Why-How pair of truths, they are raising the issue "What do I truly like?" This is addressed by the counterquestion "How does it seem to me?" The heart says, "I like it; It DOESN'T seem to me." The world says, "I like it; It DOES seem to me." With hindsight, it makes sense that David's issue is one of liking and seeming, but certainly it's not obvious, even given the two truths.

Amazingly, the four truths always agree! It's important to go over these tests with our Touchstone to check whether they accept the conclusion. So this is how we come up with the truths of the heart, and of the world, and tell them apart.

6) Decide what keeps us from following the heart. Once we've sorted out the truths, that might be enough for our Touchstone. The truth of the heart will take root one they start to follow it, act on it. This can happen naturally. However, the Touchstone may believe all of the conclusions and yet still have trouble assimilating the truth of the heart, actually following it. We can therefore design a good will exercise to follow the heart. The major question is, where's the trouble with regard to following the heart? Is it in taking a stand? in following through? or in reflecting? In David's case, he finds it hard to take a stand, so we'll put that in the middle. We'll design an exercise where first we reflect, then we take a stand, and then we follow through. We should find some small and good thing to do, and take it through those three stages. So David and I still have to talk about that, what would be a good way to follow the truth that "I stay connected if I never do something to break if off"? There's no formula for that, just some creativity, aesthetic and improvisation designing and conducting a small exercise.

David and I would like to do such an exercise. We'd like to do it with our group at minciu_sodas_en@yahoogroups.com It's already seemed to have helped a lot, I'd like to see if doing the exercise actually helped David even more. I'm curious what we might do with this method. Very few people are bold enough to try it. Figuring out the truth of the heart requires that be willing to see that you're dead wrong about what you strongly care about. Doing these exercises I've come up against so many wrong ideas of mine! I've also been stripped away of all my misguided passions. So now I'm too calm to know what to do with this method! Also, people have trouble actually doing the excercises, I don't think they can do them without having an absolute faith that we live in an environment that is designed to allow for such self-experimentation. In other words, you need to have a God that you know that you can run to if things ever go wrong. So ultimately I didn't see any reason for doing this anymore, and I became more interested in how do we develop and encourage our ability to listen for God?

I'm very happy, though, to have the opportunity to work with David on a very serious problem that has hurt him for about three years, and keeps us from working together, doing other things. I like the solution very much: focus on the fact that your always connected with your mother if you don't break that connection. Then you'll be calm. You'll also get rid of that clutter, the people who keep you from your mother, but you won't get sucked into that because you'll focus on what you truly like - your connection with your mother.

I'm glad I may share this with you. I'm very interested in your thoughts, and what we might do with this. Certainly, this is part of our work through material loss.

Yours,

Andrius

Andrius Kulikauskas Director Minciu Sodas laboratory ms@ms.lt http://www.ms.lt +1 (559) 735-0262 in Visalia, California through June, 2001

Flickering

Palyginti su šv.Dvasia, su malda Tėve mūsų ir aštuongubu keliu - ar turime ryšį su Dievu ar ne, stepping in ir stepping out, su nesusivedimais.

See also: GoodUnderstanding, AlgebraOfViews

---

Stepping in and stepping out - in the context of multiple people - yield a flickering.

This flickering also appears in praying to God when there is a switching back and forth between prefering him (if we are in touch with him) and checking ourselves (if we are not in touch with him).

This kind of flickering also appears in Russell's paradox as a a logical flickering. Consider the set X of all sets which do not include themselves. If X is in X, then X is not. And if X is not in X, then X is. So there is a flickering back and forth between these two states. And it relates to being subordinate, maximally {{Subordinate}}.

Širdies ir pasaulio logika

See also: FourAddOne, MergingPerspectives, GoodWillExercises.

---

Logics of the heart/world The heart has us all accept total responsibility. The world has us each accept separate responsibility. The truth of the heart leads to the truth of the world, but not the other way around. The pretexts for outreach allow us to overcome this separation. The heart has us be one with our neighbor, the world has us distinguish ourselves from our neighbors. The heart has us apply the qualities of signs totally, the world has us apply them separately. The truth of the heart frees us to grow without bounds, the truth of the world bounds our growth. The heart increases slack, the world decreases slack.

Logic of the Heart and World Data from the developing the GoodWillExercises shows that if the truth of the heart is relevant, then so is the truth of the world, but not the other way around. This logic expresses itself in eight different ways, as follows:

• If I care about structuring harmony, then I will readily care about achieving durability, but not the other way around.
• If I care about listening wholeheartedly, then I will also care about acknowledging the apparent, but not the other way around.
• If I care about engaging openly, then I will readily care about respecting another's will, but not the other way around.
• If I care about fostering myself, then I will readily care about observing progress, but not the other way around.
• If I care about choosing meaningfully, then I will readily care about applying in general, but not the other way around.
• If I care about responding consciously, then I will readily care about addressing my oversights, but not the other way around.
• If I care about devoting myself to a goal, then I will readily care about overcoming obstacles, but not the other way around.
• If I care about supporting good, then I will readily care about harnessing my powers, but not the other way around.

Pasaulis - Heart, {{God}}, {{Person-in-general}}, {{Person-in-particular}}, {{Counterquestions}}, ObservationalPlane, ActualContext

Savo rūpestį visais gyvenimo klausimais ir visų žmonių rūpesčiais suvedžiau į geros valios pratimus.

Dialektika yra širdies požiūrio iškilimas - o tai yra atsitokėjimas nuo vieno požiūrio ir sugebėjimas pasižiūrėti keliais skirtingais požiūriais.

• Geros valios pratimai - jausmų tyrimas - išsakome laimingumą, linksmumą, liūdesį, staigmeną - ir tas mums padeda susigaudyti, ko laukiame.

---

Pratimų sumanymas

Apply my discoveries Conversing with: significance of knowledge I have not simply wanted to know everything, but also to apply that knowledge usefully. This has shaped the questions that I've chosen to take up. In 1995, encouraged by Joe Damal, I set upon applying my philosophy practically. I addressed situations where we believe one thing in our heart, and the world teaches us differently, and we feel riled. As I meant to lead and influence people, I sought for a way to pray to God that I might listen to him. With the good will exercises, I found ways to capture and express people's intution. In Lithuania, I needed a way to make a living, so I started up Minciu Sodas, a laboratory for independent thinkers, where I tried to make use of conceptual structures to structure our online space and activity. In fostering a culture of truth, I am sharing, documenting and structuring ways of figuring things out. My practical impulse has thus focused me on questions that engage what's at the heart of my personal life.775 F-0

Real life exercise Conversing with: response I developed "good will exercises" by which I and others assimilated "truths of the heart" through real life exercises, not just hypothetically.635 F-0

Create conditions Conversing with: inspiration In 1995, encouraged by Joe Damal, I wanted to start applying my philosophy practically. I decided to consider situations where I wanted to follow the truth of the heart, as opposed to the world. But where to start? I gave myself a year to develop good will exercises. Every two weeks I invited friends and all who might be interested to help me think this through. In between, I would write up and mail out and email out a newsletter reflecting on the last meeting and preparing for the next meeting. I conducted the meetings so that they always yielded some new idea, some step forward.651 B4-0

Learning from my failures Conversing with: other possibilities I learned not to brag about my mind because that can hurt others; to be ready to lead because others may not be ready;to use the simplest vocabulary so that I would be understood by everybody; to make clear my main point so that people could help me; to not be modest so that people would be aware of what I can do.675 R-0

Desire to live as an example Conversing with: my destiny I wanted to put my philosophy into practice and so I started developing good will exercises to address situations where we are riled because we believe one thing in our hearts, but in the world it is otherwise. In pursuing this, I wanted to live as an example. After two years I stopped because I realized that being riled meant that my mind was thinking wrongly, and so why start from that and encourage myself and others to focus on that? Later, after I completed my video summary "I wish to know", I wanted to start a culture, but more and more I realized that it was not by living as an example to emulate, but by playing a role that God put me in a position to play.737 C3-0

Example (1102) Who wants to listen to God? In 1995, just as I was preparing to engage others to make my philosophy practical, and so developing the good will exercises, I was inspired by Kangning Liou, who would pray for an hour every morning. I thought I should certainly pray more, but especially if I am to lead and even influence people, I need to be able to converse with God and listen to God. I thought that if this was possible for me, then it should be possible for others as well. Yet few people seem to hear God. Then I realized that few people want to hear God for they would then be accountable to obey him.1104 A-0

Applying Scripture Conversing with: heritage I wanted to have a way to hear from God, so I relied on the prayer "Our Father", which I had prayed many times, was part of my personal heritage, my family's heritage and my religious upbringing. 673 C3-1

Heartful interaction Conversing with: others as equals As I developed good will exercises, through many conversations with others, I learned that I could open up to new angles by alternatively stepping in (looking subjectively) and stepping out (stepping back, looking objectively). I learned how to get past the surface issue, the "hot button" issue, and get to the deep issue underlying it.646 B2-1

Step in, step out*** How to generate a profound, new and relevant idea? Conversing with: spirit In 1996, in developing the good will exercises, I wanted to make sure that each meeting yielded some insight that helped me develop them further. It was not easy because people didn't quite believe that something could come from such ideas and they kept drifting off in tangents. Yet those tangents were like gradients that showed what directions our minds could move in. I was able to note those gradients as others talked. But as they talked, they drifted away from the main point I cared about. So I had to talk to keep bringing them back to the main point. And as I talked I would immerse myself, pay attention to what I was feeling and thinking, and myself perhaps go to far afield. I started explaining this dynamic as "step in, step out". We should try to develop a rhythm where as one person "steps in" and brings forth from their personal experience, others should step back and watch the dynamics of the conversation. This yields a flutter, the Holy Spirit, as happens at the Chinese bible study that I'd go to sometimes with my friend Shu-Hong. I think it allows us to feel how different mental paths are possible from a particular point, and thus makes it real in its freedom. One question that came up thereby was raised by Bob, which was, how does he know that I won't brainwash him? This led me to think, how do I keep from being brainwashed, and so I recalled science fiction questions that I pondered in junior high school such as, "How do I know that I'm not a robot?" and the answers that I developed, counterquestions such as "Would it make any difference?" So I developed a whole theory and structure of counterquestions.656 B4-0

Remembering a solution*** What life experience is relevant? Conversing with: memory In 1996, I was organizing meetings to think through "good will exercises" for living by our hearts. One of our participants, Bob, asked how we might be sure that I wasn't going to brainwash them? I thought about this and remembered how in junior high school I had struggled with questions such as, "How do I know that I'm not a robot?" Back then, I had come up with a reply, a counterquestion, namely, "Would it make any difference?" I thus considered several dozens such situations and developed a theory of doubts and counterquestions.677 T-0

---

Pratimų išvystymas

Disagreement of views Conversing with: contradiction In organizing the good will exercises, I learned early on that, for a given issue, we wouldn't agree what truth came from the world. Often I felt that it was clear that people couldn't see past their own principle, couldn't acknowledge the dead end that they were in. People kept focusing on whatever got their buttons. They would disagree about an issue, such as gang violence, but actually, when you heard them out, in their minds they were approaching that issue from their own very personal angle, often only tentatively linked to the "hot button" words. So I developed a way to ask about their feelings, to balance negative feelings with positive feelings, and derive their real issue issue from the subject matter of their feelings.655 B3-0

Generalize from examples Conversing with: validity In developing the good will exercises, and considering situations that riled me, I saw that, in the case of a homeless person, I myself was not following the truth of my heart. From this one example, I looked for this principle in general. Similarly, when I noticed, in discussing the question, What is happiness? that there was a division of three at play, I started considering, what would it mean to divide everything into two parts? or four parts? and so on.666 T-0

Note what is interesting to others Conversing with: their attention I learn more with and from others by being open to what they are interested. In looking for participants for good will exercises, I would ask what issues riled them. In looking for work or clients, I look for who I might serve, and how. In organizing online groups, I center them around the deepest value of a leader. That way I hope that at least two of us, they and I, will be active. In general, I learn that there are people who are fascinated by things that I am not, but could be, and so they help me stretch and grow.650 B2-1

Learning from real life activity Conversing with: life After spending a year developing good will exercises, and another year conducting them, I came to understand that the person who is riled is wrong and confuses the truth of the world for the truth of the heart. I realized that people weren't keen to do such exercises. By doing them, I was focusing on what riled people, whereas I should be focusing on peace, as Jesus greeted in peace. In organizing Minciu Sodas, I learned that people don't want to dedicate themselves to a culture of independent thinkers.602 R-0

Equate two statements Conversing with: issue In developing the good will exercises, I would ask people, if they were riled about a surface topic, what made them feel bad about it? What would make them feel worse? What would make them feel good? And what would make them feel even better? I would express their answers as starkly as possible. Then I would look for what their statements had in common, ignoring the negative and positive dimensions, and focusing only on the semantic content. This would yield the deep issue.662 CB-0

Distill the essence*** What are the constituent elements? Conversing with: ideal interlocutor Good will exercises. Andrius's and God's answers to the 12 questions. Deep ideas in math, algebra. Doubts and counterquestions. The truth of the world proceeds from the truth of the heart.598 CB-1

Recognize a structure from its parts Conversing with: my own knowledge In the good will exercises, I recognized the relevance of the threesome because, with regard to the homeless, I was not following through on my stand. I therefore considered that likewise there could be exercises which help me reflect upon following through, or take a stand upon reflecting.724 CB-1

Riled is wrong Conversing with: my own peace In doing the good will exercises, I concluded that I and others who feel riled are actually thinking wrongly. We have been living from the truth of the world instead of the truth of the heart. We confused the two. I suppose that is why people are suspicious of others who speak agitatedly, but receptive of those who speak calmly.671 0-0

Note the nature of the origin of a statement Conversing with: sources In developing the good will exercises, I noted the following test to distinguish the truths of the heart and of the world: We can point to the truth of the world with examples, but we can't show or learn the truth of the heart and it must already be in us. I can show many examples that "My help could make things worse", whereas I can in no way show that "I should help those who need or want help", but it must be innate. I can appeal to one's knowledge of the latter with illustrations and analogies, but I can't show it in the world.670 1-0

Contrast two statements, positive and negative Conversing with: comparability In developing a good will exercise, if I am riled by something negatively, then I ask myself, what would make me feel even worse? and this opens up space for me to ask, what would make feel good? and even better than that? Then I contrast the resulting statements so that their parts align and contrast sharply.661 2-0

Counterbalance one's personal feelings Conversing with: fairness In developing good will exercises with people, they were generally riled by a surface topic at which they could only look at one way. If the topic made them feel bad, then I would ask them, why? and what would make them feel even worse? That would open up possibility inside of them for me to ask, what would make them feel good? and even better than that? I would contrast the four answers so they were as intense and comparable as possible, and then compare them, what did they all have in common, yielding the deep issue.659 2-0

Heighten the contrast of statements pulling us in opposite directions On any abstract topic, contrasting truths of the heart and of the world arise, so that they pull in opposite directions, they suggest opposite actions. I heighten that contrast.1652 2-0

Compare outcomes Conversing with: causality The truth of the world follows from the truth of the heart, but not the other way around. I have observed this logical direction in 40+ good will exercises that I developed. It serves as one of four tests for distinguishing the truths of the heart from the truths of the world. For example, if "I should help those who need or want help", then soon it will be relevant that "My help could make things worse". But if I start with "My help could make things worse", then I will never help anyone! So "I should help those who need or want help" is the truth of the heart, whereas "My help could make things worse" is the truth of the world.663 2-1

Comparing levels of the foursome: Why? How? What? Whether? Conversing with: scope of a statement On a given subject, one way to distinguish the truths of the heart and of the world is that, given four questions - whether, what, how, why - with why being the broadest - the heart asks the broader question. This also leads to six different pairs, thus categories into which the related topic and good will exercise fall into.680 3-1

Cross check Conversing with: truth I found four different ways to distinguish between the truths of the heart and of the world. Three of the ways corresponded with each other all of the time in the more than 40 good will exercises that I developed. These tests thereby affirmed each other: We can point to the truth of the world with examples from experience, but not the truth of the heart, which must be in us already; the truth of the world follows from the truth of the heart, but not the other way around; and given four questions, whether-what-how-why, why being the broadest, the truth of the heart asks a broader question than the truth of the world. The fourth test is that the person who is riled is wrong, and confuses the truths of the heart and the world, but in some cases they didn't and I had to ammend my conclusions regarding that test.723 3-1

Feel through a specific case Conversing with: characteristicness The truth of the world follows from the truth of the heart, but not the other way around.658 10-1

Collect ways of looking at something Conversing with: variety inherent in a phenomenon I developed and conducted good will exercises and noted different tests for distinguishing the truth of the heart and the truth of the world. In general, three of the tests agreed with each other. I think the fourth and most important test, whether the person confuses the truths of the heart and the world, indicates whether the person has resolved the conflict or not. Similarly, I noted the different properties of everything, and more generally, the divisions of everything along with their various representations.660 20-0

Noting a familiar structure In developing the good will exercises, I was alert to the relevance of structures that I was familiar with, such as the foursome (which arose as the four tests of the truth of the heart and the truth of the world) and the threesome (which gave the structure of the exercises). Similarly, in organizing the ways of figuring thing out with the House of Knowledge, I recalled the structure 4 + 6 where there are 6 pairs of 4 levels.617 21-0

Contrast dimensions*** What are the components? Conversing with: tension in possibilities In analyzing emotional responses, I noted three dimensions: positive vs. negative, calm vs. riled, sensitive vs. insensitive. I later saw how these were relevant in the good will exercises. In analyzing the counterquestions, I saw how they related a perspective with a situation.669 21-1

Spanning the obstacle Conversing with: strengths In designing good will exercises, I expected them to consist of three parts - taking a stand, following through, and reflecting - that we might assimilate the truth of the heart. I realized, from a particular example, and from contemplating the general situation, that we must be having difficulty with one of those three parts. Therefore, we should place that one in the middle of the exercise, so that the exercise might help us overcome that obstacle by spanning it from and to what we knew we could do.679 21-1

Finding the obstacle Conversing with: weaknesses Recognize in the three-cycle (take a stand, follow through, reflect) where am I stuck and thus feel riled.678 21-1

---

Vykdymas ir pavyzdžiai

Coinciding of endeavor and circumstances Conversing with: possibility I wanted to document my accumulated intuition and I realized that I should be able to do this with a good will exercise that focused on what got going my positive feelings.644 32-0

Good wins out over bad Conversing with: goodness In presuming that good must be more relevant than bad, I understood to give priority to good will exercises that grew out of positive feelings (and so expressed right thinking we could share) instead of those that addressed negative feelings.672 B2-0

Example (600) Ways of engaging the violent As a good will exercise, I and Joe Damal noted our many experiences engaging the violent, which I distilled to eight principles for doing so.1538 31-0

Example (600) Ways of getting things done Joe Damal and I noted ways of getting things done and grouped them into eight ways.1539 31-0

Example (600) Dimensions of organic work: Principles of community organizing Joe Damal and I noted principles of community organizing and grouped them into eight ways: Address problems of individuals, Stimulate public interest, Heighten awareness of values, Bring together community resources, Train ourselves and others to act as leaders, Bring out societal issues that need to be addressed, Recognize other opportunities for investigations, Challenge ourselves.1540 31-0

Take to heart an exception to a rule I had noted four tests to distinguish truths of the heart from truths of the world. The most important test was that the person who is riled regarding a subject confuses the truth of the heart and of the world. I tried to apply these tests as carefully and openmindedly as possible to make sure that they held true and I was not biasing the results. In developing a good will exercise with Annette Robinson about an issue that she cared about, it happened that what she thought and felt was the truth of the heart, what she kept coming back to, was indeed the truth of the heart as determined by the other three tests. This gave me pause to think. Later, I came across a few other such cases. After developing some forty exercises, I realized that I should be focused primarily on feelings of peace rather than what made people riled, and so my good will exercises were not grounded on the right foundation. Subsequently, I realized that this particular test compared with the other three tests may simply indicate whether a person was confused or not regarding the truth of the heart. If they were confused, then their frustration would continue to build. If they were no longer confused, then their frustration was dissipating. So it was actually more useful as an indication of their state of mind rather than whether the truth itself was of the heart or of the world. The other three tests could account for that.1665 R-0

Work in tune with God Conversing with: sensitiveness In China, I asked for God's help to write up together how to develop the "good will exercises", which I did with full attention to God.748 O-0

Do not go along with God Conversing with: baselessness I don't always do as God has me do. In China, as I was writing up how to do the good will exercises, and I was engaging God for his help to work together, God told me to sit on the window sill. I did not want to offend God, but I thought that it was too much to ask of my faith. God was a bit miffed, and his reply was that this put our relationship in perspective. In Chicago, I prayed God that my friend David, who I was living with, not lose his home. God told me that he would stay there, and indeed I would live there with my sweetheart. Even so, I looked for another place to live, because I did not want to live there after it was confirmed sold. God was not mad at me. 726 C4-0

---

Pasėkmės

Taking to heart people's perspective Conversing with: people's inclinations People weren't very interested to do good will exercises with me. They aren't very interested in my laboratory's services. I keep their interests in mind to know that my activities aren't central or basic in most people's lives and that I may be fundamentally on the wrong track.643 B2-1

Acknowledging people's natural inclination Conversing with: people's inclinations In developing good will exercises, I learned that people who are riled about some surface subject typically aren't too interested in the deeper issue that fuels it. People, in general, aren't interested in whatever would make them more responsible, such as truly knowing everything or hearing from God.645 B2-1

Recognizing and reexamining an assumption Conversing with: purpose In 1997, after a year developing the good will exercises and a year of doing about forty of them, and after much theoretical reflection on them, I realized that it was better to be peaceful than to be riled. The person who is riled is thinking incorrectly, confusing the truths of the heart and the world, whereas the person at peace is thinking correctly. But my whole purpose of the good will exercises was to deal with situations where we are riled, where we believe one thing in our hearts, and we see another thing in the world, and we struggle to follow our hearts. It turns out that we are riled because we are confused. I also saw that, aside from myself, people didn't seek to participate. The exercises helped me with several issues that I had in my life, and they made me more at peace and appreciate that. So I realized that the exercises were problematic in that they had us start with and focus on our being riled instead of our being at peace. And so I stopped doing them.641 32-1

Believe in God Conversing with: inexperience I wondered, why were people so hesitant to do "good will exercises" with me? Why did they not want to let go of their experience in the sense that I was? Why was I able to live on the edge? I realized that I do believe in God. I do believe that God watches over me. I can therefore do risks to do the right thing. I then appreciated that people might not be able to do that if they don't believe in God. I drew this conclusion even though I had been very careful to think that people might not need to explicitly believe in God, but might have some comparable concept. Yet I saw that, to my dismay, they generally didn't.696 T-1

Building my own collection of examples I reflect on my own activity and study it. I developed and conducted about 40 good will exercises. As I collected them, I studied how they fell into groups, and analyzed the nature of the system as a whole. Similarly, I am studying the ways of figuring things out and organizing them in a House of Knowledge which turned out to have 24 rooms.1444 20

Contrast types Conversing with: mind's circumstances I analyzed the six kinds of truths of the hearts and the world given by pairs from the four levels (why, how, what, whether), what is common to each type, which I then realized was related to the counterquestions. 665 31-1

Augmenting a structure with its purpose*** What is the significance of a structure? Conversing with: meaningfulness I had noticed that the good will exercises could be organized into six groups based on the pairs of questions that they asked from whether? what? how? why?, the heart asking the broader question, with why? being the broadest. Then I noticed, starting with a few examples, that the questions could be answered yes or no, and that the heart would answer one way, and the world another way. Given a doubt, Is this truly wrong?, and the counterquestion, Is this the ways things should be?, the world says, "It is wrong, it should Not be this way", but the heart says, "It is wrong, it Should be this way", which is to say, that wrong behavior like the crucifixion of Jesus happens for a purpose. I realized that this is indeed part of the very purpose of the counterquestions, to distinguish between the heart and the world, and thus this observation adds new meaning to the counterquestions, aside from their ability to wrench us out of our doubts and our experience.676 32-1

Applying structural possibilities*** What can structure mean? Conversing with: unfolding I studied the statements and truths that arose in developing good will exercises. I noted that given the four questions Why? How? What? Whether?, the heart would address a broader question than the world, with Why being the broadest question. This allowed me to categorize the exercises in terms of the pairs of levels, and indeed, they related to the counterquestions. This left in each case a pair of levels not involved in the counterquestion. I realized that they were relevant to the doubts which the counterquestions addressed. And the order in which they were taken up determined whether they led to positive or negative feelings.681 20-1

Inverting conclusions Conversing with: conclusions As I considered the truths of the heart and of the world from some forty goodwill exercises, I noticed that both were related to their topic, but in different ways. Given a deep issue such as "helping", there was a truth of the heart, "I should help those who ask for help", and a truth of the world, "My help should not make things worse", each teaching something about "helping". I thought of the former as "accommodating of helping" and the latter as "helping of reprioritizing", and in general, I noticed that each truth was such a "double gerund". In the truth of the heart, the issue "helping" was qualified by "accomodating", whereas in the truth of the world, "helping" was a qualifier for "reprioritizing". I realized that "helping" could be defined as "accomodating of reprioritizing" and then realized that I could turn this process around. I could work backwards to ask, what are the truths of the heart and of the world about "accomodating"? how does it break down as a pair of gerunds? and work my way backwards to the most basic issue. And I knew the six most basic issues in that the truths of the heart and of the world took up different levels of the foursome, making for six pairs in all. So I had a method for working backwards from real life examples "in the field" to a theoretical foundation for them.624 3-0

Invite all people Conversing with: God's will In my activities, I've tried to be and stay open to everybody and not be exclusive. I have tried not to worry about people's intelligence, competence, reliability, wealth or niceness. This has helped me to be more flexible with regard to what might happened, how things might develop, and be more appreciative as to what other people might contribute. It has also gotten me to develop relevant filters, such as expecting certain behavior. I've focused on "independent thinkers", expected people to be accountable to their own deepest value in life, or to engage me based on their own question that they wish to answer.699 B4-0

---

Jonathan Heidt dviaukštis namas (duplex): viršutinis aukštas (dvasia), apatinis aukštas (pasaulis): širdies tiesa - dviaukštė tiesa, pasaulio tiesa - vienaaukštė tiesa.

---

Šešias pasaulio tiesas laikyti klaidų rūšimis, susieti su nesusivedimais, taip pat su neigiamais įsakymais.