Gvildenu, Visaregis

Visaregio pagrindimas

All of the conceptual structures which I have observed might be generated by the following chain of views: a human's view of God's view of human's view of God's view of human's view.

A human's view of God's view yields an Everything which is first self-divided into one perspective ("I am defined by myself"), then two perspectives (spiritual "I am therefore I am" and physical "I am not yet even so I am"), then three perspectives, yielding one who "understands himself, can figure himself out, and is understood by himself" (I take this as the Holy Trinity - Father, Son and Spirit).

Next, that God's view of a human's view is as a "godlet" which is in the situation that God has cast himself, yet otherwise is not God. (Such is the Heart). So for that godlet it makes sense to consider the extent by which it differs from its situation, which is to say, from its self, yielding four perspectives: differs by everything, by anything, by something, or by nothing. (That last is peculiar to the godlet, for God as such is distinct from his self, his structure, his situation). Then God considers his relationship with such a godlet as to whether God is a cause or effect, whether as such he is restricted or unrestricted, or yet again, the restriction of his unrestriction (as in "the present"). This yields five perspectives. Then God gives life to that godlet by availing himself as principles which that godlet may take up: cling to what you have, get more than what you need, avoid extremes - but then also, choose the good over the bad, the better over the worse, the best over the rest. This yields six perspectives.

Next, that human's view of a God's view is as a "good person", a model person inside himself who might mediate between the perfection of God (ever taking a stand, following through, reflecting in a "centered" way) and the imperfection of human (who is choosing good over bad, better over worse, best over rest in an attempt to keep moving around that perfect center). That perfect person reflects a division of everything into seven perspectives as choices (I think: choosing yes, choosing not no, choosing not yes, choosing no, choosing to not choose, choosing to choose, and choosing). The perfect person makes possible a factoring and intermingling of God's and human's choices (as taken from their trinities). Human's choices are Definite, unambiguous, restricting but God's choices are Indefinite, ambiguous, unrestricting. The size of the human Factors are 2, 3, 4 because the human choice takes an Operation +1, +2, +3 (as the three-cycle defines) and considers it as acting on a Onesome (a whole) and preserving that (through the act of choice so that it is whatever is chosen). And so that choice lies within a structure of size 1+1 or 1+2 or 1+3. Of the three factors, two or one or zero are from the human choices, yielding auxiliary structures:

• 4 x 2 = 8 Divisions of everything
• 2 x 3 = 6 Representations of such divisions
• 3 x 4 = 12 Topologies that express the parts of those divisions

[Note that we might picture this as a cube with 24 directed edges where edges might be partially referenced by 8 corners (ambiguity=3), 6 faces (ambiguity=4) or 12 edges (ambiguity=2).] The three families of structures above are static. There are also three Languages that are dynamic. They arise when one of the factors is defined and two are not. They represent shifts between the static structures:

• Argumentation (how do things matter?) moves from 3 x 4 topologies to 2 x 3 representations
• Verbalization (how do things mean?) moves from 4 x 2 divisions to 3 x 4 topologies
• Narration (how do things happen?) moves from 2 x 3 representations to 4 x 2 divisions (so the 2 is preserved).

And finally there is a seventh possibility in that human's view of God where that perfect person is of itself without connection to the human - so there are zero factors from the human. These structures describe the machinery for the infinitely various world that we live in, as well as what we've needed to define all the above.

Finally, that God - as the perfect person that links the human to God through the wealth of that metaphysical structure - that God may yet again take up a humans' view. And for that God, a human is that to which the God goes beyond itself into. That human is a lens, an Omniscope, through which God sees himself, which is to say, everything. And as such a lens, that human's outlook, stepping back away from himself, may coincide with God's outlook which steps into him. So that God has no needs - but we do, has no doubts - but we do, has no expectations - but we do, has no commitments - but we do. And there are four PrimaryStructures which have eight perspectives and they express our needs, our doubts, our expectations, our commitments. In each case the eighth perspective is God's (no needs or no doubts or no expectations or no commitments) and marks a collapsing of everything back into God. These four primary structures generate the six secondary structures as injections of one the eighth (God's) perspective from a lower level into a primary structure from a higher level. For example, when the God who has no needs takes up our doubts (and the related Counterquestions) then that generates the divisions of everything. The six secondary structures are then organized by the seventh perspective in each of these injections, and they constitute that perfect person. The eighth perspective may also be thought of as what results when all three factors (described in the previous view) come from human, which is to say, that in such a case everything collapses back into God, or is otherwise understood as God having gone beyond himself.

So the end result is a coinciding of God's view and human's view, mediated by the concept of a perfect person, and the understanding that what is human comes in every way from God going beyond himself.

A helpful way to think about this alternation of views is to consider the thinking of a LostChild.

Eilę metų bandžiau visas sandaras išvesti iš Dievo. Tuomet dar nebuvau išmąstęs žinojimo rūmų, nė Dievo šokio, nė kitų apytakų. Mąsčiau 24=1x2x3x4 būsenų visaregio pagrindu. Visaregį mąsčiau bandydamas apvienyti keturis netroškimus.

Žmogaus ir Dievo požiūrių grandinė

Suvokimo lygmenų raida

Žmogaus ir Dievo požiūriu sutapimas susikalbėjimu

How might our views coincide with God's? It helps to consider the thinking of a LostChild who grows to learn to position themselves so that they may be found by their parents. There is a deepening of Empathy as our own view unfolds:

• 1) Absolute absolute view of Everything (God, Understanding, Love): view of the known of the unknown
• 2) Relative relative view of Anything (Heart, SelfUnderstanding, LoveSelf): view of the known of the unknown of the known
• 3) Shared shared view of Something (Other, SharedUnderstanding, LoveOther): view of the known of the unknown of the known of the unknown
• 4) Subordinate subordinate view of Nothing (Human, GoodUnderstanding, LoveGod): view of the known of the unknown of the known of the unknown of the known

The child grows in maturity to accomodate an ever weaker link with their parent. When the child is able to accomodate no link at all, and take the initiative so as to go where their parent will surely find them, then their views may coincide.

God's view is complete. In order for our views to coincide, our own view of ourselves must also be complete. Then it is possible that, within the limits of our view, our views do coincide. For this we need to be completely transparent to ourselves and to God.

This coinciding makes use of ConstructiveHypotheses which I make and take up. A constructive hypothesis is one that I may take as pragmatically true because otherwise I cannot proceed. Through them I can reach the point where I may pragmatically consider that my view and God's view are the same.

I am finding that I reach this point at the end of the following progression:

• Human view of Understanding = human's view of God's view: God goes beyond himself and ever finds himself, (taking a stand, following through, reflecting), yielding Structure: a Threesome. This is what we need for an Absolute perspective.
• Human view of Self-understanding = human's view of God's view of human's view: A human (godlet) awakes within structure (the threesome) and (in-parallel with God) finds itself through shifts in perspective (choosing the good, the better, the best), yielding Activity: a Sixsome. This is what we need for a Relative perspective.
• Human view of SharedUnderstanding = human's view of God's view of human's view of God's view: A human (as given by the Sixsome) now walks through again but together with God (through RecurringActivity) through a shared perspective given by a perfect Other (the Onesome - or what I look for as our key concepts). This makes it possible to Factor his own activity into components of structure/activity and thereby allow for ZeroStructure, a SeventhPerspective and the basis for stepping inside each other as a person-in-general, yielding RecurringActivity: SecondaryStructures. God slips in through the structural cracks as goodness. This is what we need for a Shared perspective.
• Human view of GoodUnderstanding = human's view of God's view of human's view of God's view of human's view: A human reinterprets everything in terms of RecurringStructure, and recognizes that God may have a wider vantage point ("a greater power", as when one loves us more than we love ourselves) with regard to which they should position themselves cooperatively that they be found (rather than find the other by themselves). This is to say that we understand human as that which God goes into beyond himself, from wishing into not-wishing, to have a shared perspective with human. This wider perspective is ZeroActivity which we are not able to conceive, yielding RecurringStructure: PrimaryStructures. This is what we need for a Subordinate perspective.

That final perspective is one where a human is deferential to the good. That is the point of full understanding at which one may be completely cooperative with everything and may then assume they are taking up God's perspective. In shared understanding, the human understands Slack to be a seventh perspective that is of God and beyond human. But with good understanding, the human understands that, from God's point of view, this seventh perspective is Good that is beyond God and needs to be considered as part of the human outlook. It is helpful to consider this as the thinking of a LostChild.

We may think of these as four vantage points (by a human) upon God's view. As such, they are four representations of God, which is to say, they are all of the representations that we are able to have of him. Their unity is, for us, God to the extent that we can know him. It is in this pragmatic sense that we can say, absolutely, that we know God's view. For it is God's view not only as we see it, but to the extent that we can know him by the limitations of our very nature.

• Why does the system collapse because understanding is the understanding of all? Because All is separated from experiencing, yet All is experiencing. In All, indistinction and distinction are the same, and thus the system collapses.

Suvokimo lygmenų raida

• Neapibrėžtumas. 0) 1) 2) 3) Veiksmu +1 išsivysto (Dievo) sąmonė - suvokėjas, suvokimas, suvoktasis - yra sandaros pagrindas, visko padalinimus. Sąmonė išbaigta trimis požiūriais, tačiau veiksmas +1 taikomas toliau. Visuma vis naujai suvokiama kaip papildomas požiūris (palyginti su simpleksų židiniu).
• Apibrėžtumas. 4) 5) 6) Therefore a new outlook awakens and finds itself as such within the structural situation unfolded by the original outlook. We may think of this as a "godlet" which may not be God, but is otherwise in the situation of God. There is now a disconnect between Structure and Activity. Structure may or may not channel activity. Activity may or may not evoke structure. The feedback between structure and activity may be thought of as an operation +2: the evoking of structure is linked to the arisal of activity. We may think of the godlet as a perturbation that opens up angles: Representations upon the whole, and Topologies from out of the parts. I think that this is where the "algebra of views" is defined. The give and take between activity and structure introduces a slack which allows one to take up a perspective, thus integrating whole and parts.
• 7) Then the new outlook comes to understand itself with regard to the original outlook as a perturbation of an ideal outlook that links both outlooks. All three outlooks are characterized by their three-cycles: taking a stand, following through, reflecting. And these rotations may be thought of as an operation +3. I think here is where the dynamic languages of life come into play: argumentation, verbalization, narration. I suppose they are expressions of the "algebra of views". Here the ideal outlook serves as a mediator which allows us to localize the slack so that we know where it is within a three-cycle. This makes the algebra definite.
• 8=0) Then the new outlook understands itself as subordinate to the original outlook. At the core of the new outlook is always the original outlook which went beyond itself and thereby generated the new outlook. Everything is always collapsing back into the original outlook. The views of the new outlook and the original outlook coincide by way of that collapsing.

This is extremely helpful for me because it places the "algebra of views" within the big picture. It suggests that the algebra of views becomes defined with the divisions of everything into four, five and six perspectives. And that its applications through argumentation, verbalization, narration arise with the division of everything into seven perspectives. And, finally, the coinciding of views is related to the collapse of structure, which is perhaps the key point about mathematical systems in general. It's the collapse of structure which makes mathematics interesting.

• Suvokimas - ŽD - Dievas, Aš, Tu, Kitas
• Savęs suvokimas - ŽDŽ - Aš, Tu, Kitas (nes įsivaizduojamas žmogaus požiūris, o nėra žmogaus kai yra tik vien Dievas - būtinai yra ne tik Dievas bet ir galimybės)
• Bendras suvokimas - ŽDŽD - Aš, Tu (žmogus įsivaizduoja, kad yra Dievas - jiem bendras yra išėjimas už savęs)
• Susikalbėjimas - ŽDŽDŽ - (įsivaizduojamas Dievas grįžta prie žmogaus)

Kas vertingo, prasmingo, išmintingo glūdi mano pasiklaidžiojimuose?

Kaip trys veiksmai, trys protai grindžia padalinimus ir aštuongubą kelią

Dievas ir širdis (žmogus). Kaip meilės, suvokimo, įvairių sąvokų pagrindu priimami požiūriai:

So I need to try to understand the foursome, fivesome, sixsome as the heart reaching back out with +1, +2 or +3 perspectives, respectively, presumably through the operation +2.

Each level seems to relate to a division of everything:

• +1 from Nullsome to Onesome, Twosome, Threesome
• +2 from onesome, twosome, threesome to Foursome, Fivesome, Sixsome
• +3 from sixsome to Sevensome
• +0 from sevensome to Eightsome/nullsome
• relationship with God is given by Onesome, Twosome, Threesome
• relationship with other is given by Foursome, Fivesome, Sixsome
• other is given by Sevensome
• God is given by Nullsome

Caring about apparently means going beyond to. Other is in the SeventhPerspective. God is in the ZerothPerspective.

• +1 Caring about relationship with God
• +2 Caring about relationship with other
• +3 Caring about other
• +0 Caring about God
• +1 Nothing's outlook
• +2 Something's outlook
• +3 Anything's outlook
• +0 Everything's outlook

Trys veiksmai, trys protai

Gvildenu

Kas glūdi mano pasiklaidžiojimuose?

Trys veiksmai

Kaip meilės, suvokimo, įvairių sąvokų pagrindu priimami požiūriai:

• First God goes beyond himself, through the operation +1, again and again, until he has opened up enough slack that his self - the heart - may be independent, on its own. So now there is the heart, and the question is, will God find his way into this heart?
• Then the heart goes beyond itself out to some level where it coincides with God who loves it, is one with it. But the heart considers this God as a mirror to itself. Just as structure is a mirror to activity, so the levels of structure by which God reaches out are taken as a mirror of the levels of activity by which the heart reaches out. The heart reaches out as either +1 or +2 or +3 (foursome, fivesome, sixsome). The heart thinks of God as arising in the gaps. (How does that relate to Factoring?)
• God arises in the gaps where the heart reaches out +0 and thus has zero structure. This structural gap is what allows the factors to be composed, and hence thought of as factors: 1 + 1 = 2, 1 + 2 = 3 and 1 + 3 = 4.
• This allows that the heart has a zero activity 1 + 0 = 1 - and that plants God within the heart as +0, so that they coincide.

So I need to try to understand the foursome, fivesome, sixsome as the heart reaching back out with +1, +2 or +3 perspectives, respectively, presumably through the operation +2.