• Kaip požiūrių santykius išreiškia prijungtiniai funktoriai ir visko padalinimai?

• Kaip požiūrių santykius išreiškia prijungtiniai funktoriai?

• Underlying the languages is an "inversion effect" (like 1/1-x) whereby, in order to imagine "a God who loves us more than we love ourselves", we need to turn everything around, so that God is the smallest thing (deeper than our hearts can reach) and the unknown is the largest thing which engulfs us. (Your ideas make me consider that such a God may then find himself needing to identify with us so as to undo the inversion and not get stuck; all this to affirm that indeed the knowledge of everything may be dispersed everywhere as you say).

Požiūriai, Išgyvenimo apytaka, Dievas, Proto laukai

• Suvokti žvilgsnių algebrą kaip pagrindą visų sandarų atsiskleidimui: Besąlygiškų, sąlygiškų, bendrų ir pavaldžių požiūrių. Kiek įmanoma, remtis kategorijų teorija.
• Kaip vienas požiūrį priima kitą požiūrį? Ar tai susiję su veiksmu +1? Kaip žmogus pažįsta, supranta, priima Dievo požiūrį? Kaip priimti kitą asmenį ar žodį?
• Kaip sudurti vieną požiūrį ir kitą požiūrį?
• Kaip sudurti vieną žvilgsnį į kitą žvilgsnį?
• Kaip požiūris susijęs su nuostata (position)? su sąlygom, aplinkybėm, kontekstu?
• Kaip sutampa požiūriai?
• Kaip esame viena požiūriais?
• Kaip susiveda Dievo ir žmogaus požiūriai pasiklydusiu vaiku? Ar tai vyksta susikalbant (GoodUnderstanding)? Suprantame, kad Dievas žiūri teisinga kryptimi, o Aš klaidinga kryptimi, tad Dievas yra tėvas, o Aš esu vaikas. Kur Dievas manęs ieškotų? Šalia jo įsakymo, ar tai teigiamo, ar tai neigiamo. Jo įsakymas: Mylėk Dievą. Ką išgyvena Dievas mumyse (aš) ir Dievas už mūsų (tu)? Kaip jų išgyvenimai susiję? Dievas mumyse susivokia, kad jis yra vaikas, o Dievas už mūsų yra tėvas, užtat gyvenant įsakymu, gali būti viena. Kaip išgvyenimai išreiškiami, pavyzdžiui, atvaizdais? ir būtent Dievo ir žmogaus atvaizdais?
• Kaip kiekvieną pasiekti? būtent per jų vertybes, klausimus bei svajones?
• Su kieno požiūriu ir nuostata siejami Dievas ir santvarka?
• Kaip žvilgsniai išsaugoja suvokimą?
• Kaip žvilgsniai išsaugoja tiesą? kurią sandarą išsaugoja?
• Ar žvilgsniai suvokimui priskiria suvokimą? Ar suvokimas žvilgsniui priskiria žvilgsnį?
• Kaip gyvenimas ir amžinas gyvenimas sieja viengubą ir dvigubą požiūrį?
• How is inversion and framing related to duality?
• Kaip žmogaus požiūriais išreikšti viską? Dievo ir žmogaus požiūriais, jų sutapimu? kaip išsakyti tris kalbas, išsiaiškinimų vidinę sandarą?

Kokios požiūrio sudūrimo galimybės?

• Kaip kategorijų teorija išreiškiami galimi požiūriai ir jų išgyvenimas. Kaip jie grindžia kategorijų teoriją ir matematiką apskritai.

Požiūriai, Dorovės tyrimas, Dievas, Proto laukai

Požiūrių permainos

• Kaip prijungtiniai funktoriai išreiškia požiūrių išvertimą ir kitas požiūrių permainas?
• Kaip trikampių geometrijos permainos išreiškia požiūrių permainas?

• Kaip suprasti požiūrio priėmimą? kaip vienas požiūris imasi kito požiūrio? ir kaip jie sutampa?

Požiūrių algebra išreiškia daugybę reiškinių. Juos apžvelgus, matosi, kad požiūrių sudūrimais išsivysto galimybė išgyventi save ir kitus, būti daugialypiai išgyventam, tą patį išgyventi skirtingais požiūriais, sąmoningėti ir bręsti, būti viena su kitais. Bendrai požiūrių algebra sudaro įvairiausias galimybes sutapti ar nesutapti.

Kategorijų teorija

• Kaip kategorijų teorija išreiškiami galimi požiūriai ir jų išgyvenimas. Kaip jie grindžia kategorijų teoriją ir matematiką apskritai.

Požiūrio išvertimas

• Požiūrį išvertus, taip kad Dievas už mūsų, už santvarkos, yra suvokiamas kaip Dievas mūsų gelmėse, išgyvenamasis požiūris virsta neišgyventa sandara (perspektyva). Šią sandarą išgyvename ją suporuodami su atitinkamu požiūriu. Tokiu būdu galime išgyventi savo perspektyvą, taip pat ir kito perspektyvą.

Troškimų ir išmąstymų santykis

• Troškimų ir išmąstymų vienas kito išvertimas.

• Kaip kinta sąlygiškumo apimtis, tiesos pobūdis, suvokimo branda.

Požiūrių išgyvenimas

• Kaip proto laukus suprasti kaip požiūrių išgyvenimus. Išmąstyti Gilles Fauconnier knygą Mappings in Thought and Language.

Sandarų brandinimas

• Kaip sandaros brandinamos perkūrimais (transformacijomis, permainomis). Išmąstyti Christopher Alexander knygą The Nature of Order: The Luminous Ground.
• Veiksmus +1, +2, +3 suprasti kaip padalinimų brandinimą.

Santykis su prielaidomis

• Keliais pagrindais išskiriame ar sulyginame prielaidas. Kaip išsiaiškiname tokius santvarkos klausimus?

Požiūrių aplinkybės

• Kaip derinami požiūrių sandara (padalinimai), požiūriai į sandarą (atvaizdai) ir požiūriai sandaroje (aplinkybės).

Išgyvenimai

• Ką išgyvename ir ką galėtumėme išgyventi.
• Kaip įvairiais sąmoningumais galime išgyventi tą patį sudurtinį požiūrį.
• Kaip išgyventi betarpiškai, tiesiogiai, kaip gyventi žvilgsniu, tad Dievu, nuliniu išgyvenimu.
• Kaip nenuliniais išgyvenimais išskirti ir išgyventi nulinį išgyvenimą.

Išvystome dvilypį mąstymą

• Kaip išvystome dvigubą protą, atskiriame savo ir Dievo mąstymą, galime mylėti priešą, bendrauti su Dievu.

Susieti skirtingus gyvenimo būdus

• Kaip susiję siauras tiesos, šventumo kelias ir platus, laisvas, nusidėjimo kelias - gero ir blogo vaiko keliai.

Dievo ir žmogaus požiūrių sutapimas

• Kaip Dievo požiūris sutampa su žmogaus požiūriu, taip kad Dievas nebūtinas.
• Kaip požiūrių grandine Dievas asmenimis (Manimi, Tavimi, Kitu) išeina už savęs ir išvysto visas sandaras: žmogaus požiūriu į Dievo požiūrį į žmogaus požiūrį į Dievo požiūrį į žmogaus požiūrį. Šioje požiūrių grandinėje svarbus požiūrių sudūrimo asociatyvumas. Ši grandinė, tai išmintis pasiklydusio vaiko, susigaudančio ne pačiam ieškoti savo tėvų, o eiti ten, kur jie jo ieškotų.
• Kaip sąlygiško žmogaus požiūris sutampa su besąlygiško Dievo požiūriu, kaip Dievas tampa būtinas. Kaip žmogus išeina už savęs suvokimu. Kaip pasirenka ką išgyventi.

Dievo ir meilės sąsaja

• Kaip Dievas reiškiasi savo esme, meile.
• Kaip suvokimas ir Dievas-meilė susiję.

Asmenų vienumas

• Kaip mes skirtingi asmenys esame viena. Esame viena jeigu visais požiūriais iš esmės sutampame.

Rasti viską aprėpiantį požiūrį

Susieti skirtingus gyvenimo būdus

Išvystome dvilypį mąstymą

Troškimų ir išmąstymų santykis

Kategorijų teorija

Požiūrių išgyvenimas

Sandarų brandinimas

• Kaip sandaros brandinamos perkūrimais (transformacijomis, permainomis). Išmąstyti Christopher Alexander knygą The Nature of Order: The Luminous Ground.
• Veiksmus +1, +2, +3 suprasti kaip padalinimų brandinimą.

Požiūrio išvertimas

• Požiūrį išvertus, taip kad Dievas už mūsų, už santvarkos, yra suvokiamas kaip Dievas mūsų gelmėse, išgyvenamasis požiūris virsta neišgyventa sandara (perspektyva). Šią sandarą išgyvename ją suporuodami su atitinkamu požiūriu. Tokiu būdu galime išgyventi savo perspektyvą, taip pat ir kito perspektyvą.

Požiūrių algebros svarba

Požiūrių algebra išreiškia daugybę reiškinių.

Asmenų vienumas

• Kaip mes skirtingi asmenys esame viena. Esame viena jeigu visais požiūriais iš esmės sutampame.

Santykis su prielaidomis

• Keliais pagrindais išskiriame ar sulyginame prielaidas. Kaip išsiaiškiname tokius santvarkos klausimus?

Išgyvenimai

• Ką išgyvename ir ką galėtumėme išgyventi.
• Kaip įvairiais sąmoningumais galime išgyventi tą patį sudurtinį požiūrį.
• Kaip išgyventi betarpiškai, tiesiogiai, kaip gyventi žvilgsniu, tad Dievu, nuliniu išgyvenimu.
• Kaip nenuliniais išgyvenimais išskirti ir išgyventi nulinį išgyvenimą.

Požiūrių sudūrimo galimybės

• Kaip suduriame požiūriai
• Kaip vienas požiūris paklūsta kitam, jam nuolankus, pavaldus, vykdo jo valią.

Tapatumai ir skirtumai

• Kaip skirtinguose lygmenyse suvokiami, apibrėžiami tapatumai ir skirtumai.
• Kaip vystosi atskyrimo ir tapatinimo sąlygos.
• Kaip tai susiję su dvejybės atvaizdais.

Tiesa

• Kaip tiesos pobūdis kinta mums požiūrius išgyvenant netiesiogiai.
• Kaip tiesiogiai išgyventos lanksčios tiesos tolstant keturiais asmenimis tampa netiesiogiai išgyventomis nelanksčiomis tiesiomis.
• Kaip viską žinanti dvasia išeina už savęs į ne viską žinančius, į neskaidrumo pasaulį.
• Kaip nelanksčios tiesos atveria netiesos galimybę.

Požiūrių aplinkybės

• Kaip derinami požiūrių sandara (padalinimai), požiūriai į sandarą (atvaizdai) ir požiūriai sandaroje (aplinkybės).

Dievo ir žmogaus požiūrių sutapimas

• Kaip Dievo požiūris sutampa su žmogaus požiūriu, taip kad Dievas nebūtinas.
• Kaip požiūrių grandine Dievas asmenimis (Manimi, Tavimi, Kitu) išeina už savęs ir išvysto visas sandaras: žmogaus požiūriu į Dievo požiūrį į žmogaus požiūrį į Dievo požiūrį į žmogaus požiūrį. Šioje požiūrių grandinėje svarbus požiūrių sudūrimo asociatyvumas. Ši grandinė, tai išmintis pasiklydusio vaiko, susigaudančio ne pačiam ieškoti savo tėvų, o eiti ten, kur jie jo ieškotų.
• Kaip sąlygiško žmogaus požiūris sutampa su besąlygiško Dievo požiūriu, kaip Dievas tampa būtinas. Kaip žmogus išeina už savęs suvokimu. Kaip pasirenka ką išgyventi.

Apimties poveikis

• Kaip kinta sąlygiškumo apimtis, tiesos pobūdis, suvokimo branda.

Dievo ir meilės sąsaja

• Kaip Dievas reiškiasi savo esme, meile.
• Kaip suvokimas ir Dievas-meilė susiję.

Sąmoningėjimas

• Išmąstyti kaip vienakryptis nelaisvas deterministinis mąstymas užsiima daugiakrypčiu laisvu nedeterministiniu mąstymu. Ši laisvė iškyla sąmoningumu iš šalies stebint savo nelaisvę.

• Išmąstyti George Spencer-Brown "Laws of Form".

• Asmenų vienumą
  • Kaip mes skirtingi asmenys esame viena. Esame viena jeigu visais požiūriais iš esmės sutampame.
• Santykį su prielaidomis
  • Keliais pagrindais išskiriame ar sulyginame prielaidas. Kaip išsiaiškiname tokius santvarkos klausimus?
• Išgyvenimus
  • Ką išgyvename ir ką galėtumėme išgyventi.
  • Kaip įvairiais sąmoningumais galime išgyventi tą patį sudurtinį požiūrį.
  • Kaip išgyventi betarpiškai, tiesiogiai, kaip gyventi žvilgsniu, tad Dievu, nuliniu išgyvenimu.
  • Kaip nenuliniais išgyvenimais išskirti ir išgyventi nulinį išgyvenimą.
• Požiūrių sudūrimo galimybes
  • Kaip suduriame požiūriai
  • Kaip vienas požiūris paklūsta kitam, jam nuolankus, pavaldus, vykdo jo valią.
• Tapatumus ir skirtumus
  • Kaip skirtinguose lygmenyse suvokiami, apibrėžiami tapatumai ir skirtumai.
  • Kaip vystosi atskyrimo ir tapatinimo sąlygos.
  • Kaip tai susiję su dvejybės atvaizdais.
• Tiesą
  • Kaip tiesos pobūdis kinta mums požiūrius išgyvenant netiesiogiai.
  • Kaip tiesiogiai išgyventos lanksčios tiesos tolstant keturiais asmenimis tampa netiesiogiai išgyventomis nelanksčiomis tiesiomis.
  • Kaip viską žinanti dvasia išeina už savęs į ne viską žinančius, į neskaidrumo pasaulį.
  • Kaip nelanksčios tiesos atveria netiesos galimybę.
• Požiūrių aplinkybes
  • Kaip derinami požiūrių sandara (padalinimai), požiūriai į sandarą (atvaizdai) ir požiūriai sandaroje (aplinkybės).
• Dievo ir žmogaus požiūrių sutapimą
  • Kaip Dievo požiūris sutampa su žmogaus požiūriu, taip kad Dievas nebūtinas.
  • Kaip požiūrių grandine Dievas asmenimis (Manimi, Tavimi, Kitu) išeina už savęs ir išvysto visas sandaras: žmogaus požiūriu į Dievo požiūrį į žmogaus požiūrį į Dievo požiūrį į žmogaus požiūrį. Šioje požiūrių grandinėje svarbus požiūrių sudūrimo asociatyvumas. Ši grandinė, tai išmintis pasiklydusio vaiko, susigaudančio ne pačiam ieškoti savo tėvų, o eiti ten, kur jie jo ieškotų.
  • Kaip sąlygiško žmogaus požiūris sutampa su besąlygiško Dievo požiūriu, kaip Dievas tampa būtinas. Kaip žmogus išeina už savęs suvokimu. Kaip pasirenka ką išgyventi.
• Apimties poveikį
  • Kaip kinta sąlygiškumo apimtis, tiesos pobūdis, suvokimo branda.

Dievo ir meilės sąsają

• Kaip Dievas reiškiasi savo esme, meile.
• Kaip suvokimas ir Dievas-meilė susiję.

• Sąmoningėjimą
  • Išmąstyti kaip vienakryptis nelaisvas deterministinis mąstymas užsiima daugiakrypčiu laisvu nedeterministiniu mąstymu. Ši laisvė iškyla sąmoningumu iš šalies stebint savo nelaisvę.

Požiūrių atėmimas

• Požiūrius atimant pereiname iš ketverybės į septynerybę. Atimant požiūrius, ketverybės daviklis tampa vis galingesnis, vis laisvesnis

• Dievo ir žmogaus požiūriai gali sutapti ir susidurti nes vienas kitą papildome.

• Permainos yra semiotinis tarpas. Tai "vaizdavimai", tad atvaizdos, tai pertvarkymai, kuriais vaizdinys užpildo tarpą tarp požiūrių, papildo požiūrį, kad jis būtų prieinamas, išsako jų skirtumą, ko reikia, kad požiūris būtų suprantamas. Semiotinis tarpas yra tada kada žodžiai, žodingumas papildo turinį, reikšmę, kada žodžiai įsiterpia ir atitolina supratimą.

• Permainos yra simetrijos rūšys.
• 6 permainos yra 6 simetrinių funkcijų bazės.
• Požiūris, tai scalar. Permainos, tai field operations.

• Požiūrių sudūrimo galimybes aptarti Azimuth Project susirašinėjime.

Dievo veikla reiškiasi požiūriais, jų santykiais. Atitrūkimai tai yra požiūrių santykių pasikeitimai.

• požiūrio atskyrimas - vienybė - požiūrio atskyrimas nuo visumos

2018.11.06 A: Kaip išsiskiria ir susisieja tavo ir mūsų požiūriai?

D: Mano požiūris atsiranda man, Dievui, išeinant į Mane. O jūsų požiūris atsiranda pirmajam asmeniui Man išeinant į Tave, tai yra, sutampant su Dievu. Tačiau tas sutapimas yra sandaros lygmenyje ir mes sutampame žiūrėdami vienas į kitą, tuo tarpu Kitu sutampame dvasia nes žiūrime kartu ir žiūrime dvasia, užtat sutampa mūsų žvilgsniai ir esame viena.

požiūrių perskyrimas ir sudūrimas - septynerybė

Požiūrių perskyrimas

Požiūrių perskyrimas yra sudūrimo antra pusė, tad sudūrimo pagrindas.

Bisecting A View. Bisection is the opposite of coinciding. Požiūrio Z padalinimas grįstinas žvilgsniu A) į save ir B) už savęs. Juk tada sudūrimas Z = A-B mato tą patį kaip lygiagretūs požiūriai A ir B, tai yra, požiūrio Z padalinimas į A ir B.

• Išvertimas. The inversion effect is relevant when God wishes for Everything, which is to say, wishes also for all of the nonsense that we dream up. In order for us to conceive of such a God, we flip everything around, so that God is the smallest - the heart deepest within us - and nothing is the largest, the unknown that engulfs us. This flipping around is the inversion effect.

Nulinė nuostata

Nulinė - default.

• Nulinis požiūris (default) sandaroje priima viską taip, kaip yra. Tai sandaros tuštuma.
• Nulinis pažinovas priima nulinį požiūrį.

Nulinis požiūris išeina už savęs į nepriklausomą požiūrį. Nepriklausomas požiūris gali ieškoti nulinio požiūrio.

• Požiūris, kuriam priskiriamas tapatumas (likimas), keičiasi dvejybės atvaizduose.

• Permainos

Permainos

• Permainos vieną požiūrį perkeičia į kitą požiūrį. Požiūrio permainos yra būdai atsisakyti savo požiūrio: Mylėk artimą, kaip pats save.
• Geometrijos ir permainos.

Požiūrius galima sudurti ir tokiu būdu sutverti naujus požiūrius. Tuo tarpu žvilgsnių negalima sudurti - žvilgsniu išgyvename požiūrį. Žvilgsniu galime išgyventi sudurtus požiūrius.

Žr. Požiūriai, Dorovės tyrimas, Kategorijų teorija, Dievas, Proto laukai

• Kodėl trys kalbos pabrėžia tiktai vieną požiūrį (požiūryje į požiūrį į požiūrį)? Kodėl nepabrėžiami pirminis ir antrinis požiūriai?

Požiūrį išvertus, taip kad Dievas už mūsų, už santvarkos, yra suvokiamas kaip Dievas mūsų gelmėse, išgyvenamasis požiūris virsta neišgyventa sandara (perspektyva). Šią sandarą išgyvename ją suporuodami su atitinkamu požiūriu. Tokiu būdu galime išgyventi savo perspektyvą, taip pat ir kito perspektyvą.

Antrinės sandaros

Padalinimai išsako požiūrį.

Įsijautimą išsako aplinkybės - požiūriai į požiūrį. O atsitokėjimą išsako atvaizdai - požiūriai į požiūrį.

Trys kalbos išsako požiūrį į požiūrį į požiūrį.

Požiūrių algebra yra neasociatyvi. Palyginti su lie algebrom.

Požiūrių apjungimas

Norman Andersono informacijos integravimo teorija jungia vertinimus trimis skirtingais būdais: sudėtimi, vidurkiu ir daugyba. Manau, tai pasąmonė remiasi vidurkiu, o sąmonė sudėtimi.

Nulinis (numatytasis) požiūris yra troškimas viska žinoti ir tą žinojimą gražiai taiyti. Tai neturėjimas jokio filtro, jokio sieto, tad atvirumas visakam, visako priėmimas. Tai Visko būdas, juk Viskas yra algoritmas priimantis visaką.

Pavyzdžiai:

• tyla kalboje
• tuštuma tekste
• tuščia aibė matematinėje sistemoje

It is the going beyond of any Context, of any necessary conditions. It thereby defines what is necessary. It is the position expressed by Coinciding, which is the context for the going beyond of any context. It is always available in any context and as such is taken up as the Default position. It's expression unfolds as the coinciding with none, one (God), two (God and I) or three (God, I, Other). God defines the necessary, human defines the actual, other defines the possible. All contexts are then simply expressions of their position together. God is the necessary condition, the context for this position, rather than the position the context for God.

• Kada požiūrių sudūrimas yra asociatyvus?

• Susieti su Fauconnier proto laukais.

Žr. Požiūriai, Dorovės tyrimas, Kategorijų teorija, Dievas, Proto laukai Taip pat: IndependentPerspective, DefaultObserver, DefaultPosition, View, Frame Overview, InversionEffect, ReversalEffect, Institutions, Overview, ActualContext, Heart, Helmut Leitner, Benoit Couture

Life is given by the coinciding of God inside and God outside. Eternal life is given by their distinctness. Love is the inversion of perspective which yields this distinctness.

Požiūrių grandinė

The great challenge is that, as humans, we are bound by our own view, so that we are unable to escape it, at least as humans. However, it is possible that God may be able to escape his point of view and take up ours. This is a ConstructiveHypothesis that we take. It acknowledges a difference between God and us. We may then leverage this difference to open up our view. It may also be that our human view is sufficient for direct access to all knowledge - where perhaps the directness is understood with regard to the nature of our minds.

The aim is to describe God's view of human's view. What is the fullest experience of the human view? How does an unrestricted view experience a view that can't escape itself?

In my account, I am attempting to express God's view of a human's view. By human I mean myself and all whose perspective I might possibly admit. I am thus attempting to take up and make available the Absolute complete potential of my perspective.

I have my own human view, but I am attempting to take up God's view. How can I take up God's view directly rather than through my own view?

This is possible if my view and God's view coincide. This may depend on factors beyond my control. Yet I may position myself with regard to such factors to enable such coinciding to the extent that I am able to control. Even so, on what basis may it be that indeed my view and God's view coincide?

We take up God's view because that opens up a vantage point that he might take up so that our views might coincide. And by taking up, alternatively, his view upon our view and ours upon his, ever deeper, the idea is that we do not diminish or close our view at all, but instead enrich it by exposing it to God's and our view through it. Finally, the Other is very important as the vehicle for shared understanding, in that the way that we treat others is the way that God may treat us, as we allow God to use us as a vehicle in reaching out to others. We may not be absolutely transparent like God, but yet we might be transparent for the purpose of him reaching out to others. And this transparency may be what is relevant in our view coinciding with God's.''

The main idea in all of this, perhaps, is how God makes available his Godly perspective to all of those beyond him, which is an increasing challenge until it reaches the stretching point. In this sense God shares perspective, and even more, goes beyond that to all those who might position themselves for his perspective - and through them others may be reached just as through him - it starts from them as it did with him.

Therefore we have all, any, a and no perspectives. These are four increasingly focused LevelsOfUnderstanding. Understanding is the keeping separate of Concepts. (A concept is that which is with itself). It is also the distinction of one perspective (anything) upon another perspective (everything) (and of that perspective from slack). (To have a perspective is to go beyond oneself). This allows for a sequence of ever deeper (ever closer) Scopes which may be shared. Love is the sharing of a scope. We therefore have a sequence of ever deeper levels of love. They ground the ever greater Independence of the one who is loved (and understood): Self, Other, God. At the fourth level, LoveGod, God's view and human's view coincide (love absolutely) regarding the Good, so that both share the same view of God's view of human's view of God's view of human's view. All of the Structure that I am aware of rests in one of these four levels.

The chain of views lets us separate out all concepts, any concept, a concept, no concept (be one with) - by establishing the distance from the viewer.

The chain of views apparently arises from the fact that the definite view has decreasing slack in scope and is thus ever more defined, whereas the indefinite view has increasing slack in scope and is thus ever less defined.

Proto suskaldymas

Atskyrimas savo valios ir Dievo valios. Susigaudymas, jog esu vaikas, o Dievas yra tėvas. Esu sąlygose, o jisai be sąlygų.

Požiūrio išvertimas

TomMunnecke spoke to me about the creativity of inverted perspective. Everything looks different when we take up the perspective of the other. He gave some great examples: Jonas Salk imagined he was a polio virus, Einstein rode a beam of light. Imagine you were a molecule. Or a slave. Empathy. The source of real Creativity.

This is very relevant to me now in thinking about the big picture. Just about my whole philosophy is based on imagining I was God. What would I do? Why? What is there to do? That's been very productive.

And again, now I've been applying that to God, imagining him wanting to put himself in somebody else's shoes. Kind of like "love my neighbor as myself". Going beyond ourselves, but also going into somebody else. Maybe those are the two different productive options - we can go be beyond ourselves, or we can stay in ourselves but forget ourselves by taking up somebody else.

I'm viewing the unfolding of structure as a series of inversion effects, where structure is created each time God goes beyond himself, and perhaps back into himself.

In the Beginning, it might just be God asking himself, what is it like to be me? So first he steps into himself.

This all has a lot to do with structure, and with love.

Vienumo pagrindas yra nieko apimtis, tai yra, ko mažiau prileisti, kaip kad antruoju Dievo įsakymu, neminėti jo vardo be reikalo, nedaryti jo vaizdinių.

Tiesos išplėtojimas

Stebėtojas iškyla kaip asmuo. Jis kaip toks išsiskiria nuo stebinio, nuo jo atsiplėšia.

Laisvumas didėja ar mažėja. Mažėjančiu laisvumu pridedame teiginius, o didėjančiu laisvumu atimame teiginius. Apimtys yra tai prie ko tuos teiginius pridedame ar atimame, tai viskas, betkas, kažkas ar niekas.

A perspective is like a Morphism in that perspectives can be composed: John's perspective may take up Mary's perspective. By CategoryTheory, the morphism should be considered a structure preserving transformation. What structure is being preserved? The truth - obviousness - what is not hidden. So we can work backwards from God as the concept of truth - all perspectives look to him - and he steps inwards to himself, but out to them, but they look to him:

• absolute perspective - all perspectives may take it up (it may be taken up by all of them together)
• relative perspective - any perspective may take it up (it may be taken up by them singly)
• shared perspective - it may be taken up by a perspective
• subordinate perspective - it may be taken up by no perspective (and hence is isolated, atomic)

subordinate perspectives may not take each other up as they are too narrow - so if God and human take subordinate perspectives then they coincide

Atskyrimo lygmenys

Suppositions are kept separate by placing them in different Scopes. What does this mean?

Separateness is the indirectness of view - that it is possible to have not a direct view.

A view (or outlook) that separates:

• all perspectives is Spirit
• any perspective is Structure
• a perspective is Representation
• no perspective is Unity

The point is to keep reducing scope so as to have complete coincidence.

Separateness is a key idea and somehow the adding of a perspective (the taking up of a perspective) introduces separateness, perhaps:

• self separates God from God
• heart is separateness of self from God
• other is separateness of heart from God
• God is separateness of other from God

The division of everything into four perspectives is the place where the algebra of views starts to matter. The four levels give us a scale from "oneness" to "separateness". Why asserts that the observer and situation are one, and whether asserts that they are completely separate. How and what are somewhere in between and allow for a nontrivial relationship between the observer and situation. So these are all levels that are relevant as we consider matters of "same" and "different".

The four levels may also be thought in terms of scopes:

• why - knowledge of everything
• how - knowledge of anything
• what - knowledge of something
• whether - knowledge of nothing

And the knowledge may be thought of as what the observer and situation share, which is to say, the extent to which the observer is one with the situation.

Furthermore, the four levels may be thought of as relating structure and activity. "Structure channels activity" expresses what is definite, what that means. "Activity evokes structure" expresses what is specified. We may think of structure as a function and activity as the flow through it. The function may be definite or not, and the inflow may be specified or not. (In particular, the specification of input is akin to its partial calculation.) This yields four possibilities:

• why - indefinite and unspecified - structure and activity are uncoupled
• how - definite and unspecified - top down: structure yields activity
• what - definite and specified - structure and activity are in a loop
• whether - indefinite and specified - bottom up: activity yields structure

We may think of structure as arising from God and activity as arising from godlet, and then the four levels give the possible relationships. These relationships may be thought of in terms of the distance between structure and activity. Here activity is that which finds itself within structure and is inspired by it.

• At first the distance, the separation between structure and activity is "everything"
• Then structure determines activity, so structure must be definite, and the separation is "anything"
• Then structure and activity feed off each other, and so the separation is "something" which keeps them yet separate
• Finally, activity directs structure, which is to say, they are the same, the structure embodies the activity, and so they are separated by "nothing".

It is this last level which extends the "threesome" by saying that, above and beyond God, there might be something in the situation of God which is not distinct from it, as God is, but rather determined by it. This material level "whether" is the source of the Foursome and exemplifies God's ever going beyond himself.

Another very important idea is that what separates the "viewer" (observer) and the "viewed" (situation) is the Nullsome (the division of everything into zero perspectives). This separation manifests itself through the four RepresentationsOfTheNullsome:

• significant (not encompassable - Negation of why)
• constant (not changeable - negation of how)
• direct (not representable - negation of what)
• true (not hideable - negation of whether)

So I think that in the "original outlook" the distinction between viewer and viewed is kept latent. But with the new outlook - and once Representations becomes relevant - it is possible to think of viewer and viewed as separate and even self-standing.

All of this to say that this is the machinery that lets us consider matters of "same", "different", "separate", "one", "equal", "difference" that are key to an algebra of views.

The ability to have a dual point of view is what lets us "keep separate" concepts like God and good, and that ability is at the heart of understanding.

Suvokimo lygmenys

Think of understanding:

• God's view as understanding
• God's view of human's view as self-understanding
• God's view of human's view of God's view as shared understanding
• God's view of human's view of God's view of human's view as good understanding

Where each of these are described in the Overview. So understanding may be God's view, as in eternal life is the understanding that God is good.

The Algebra of Views & The Big Picture

It seems that all of this is rolled out as follows:

0) 1) 2) 3) There is first a unified outlook (such as God) which unfolds the perspectives that are the basis for Structure, for the DivisionOfEverything. We may think of this unfolding as an operation [AddOne +1] which keeps reinterpreting the whole as an additional perspective. When there are three perspectives, then the structure for the original outlook is complete: it can understand, come to understanding, and be understood. However, the operation +1 continues.

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 [AddTwo +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 [AddThree +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.

Atjauta

Atjauta susijusi su požiūrių skaidrumu ir neskaidrumu.

Požiūrių sutapimas

Equivalent views

Functions are understood to be equivalent if they have the same effects.

This is relevant for the associative rule. For example, on a 12 hour clock, 10 + 1 = 11 and 11 + 3 = 2. Here the first and last items are considered the position on the clock and we add an "action" which is a movement by the hand of the clock.

So we may interpret 10 + 1 + 3 as:

• (10 + 1) + 3 which is to start at 10 and move the hand twice
• 10 + (1 + 3) which is to combine the actions and then move the hand by the combined amount.

The result is the same. The clock, in general, satisifies the Associative law. So the two expressions are considered equivalent. And being equivalent, we may write them as 10 + 1 + 3.

This is also the case with the natural numbers where we may consider 10 + 1 + 3 as a movement along an infinite tape. In fact, almost all mathematical systems of interest obey the associative law. And yet it is noteworthy when an interesting system does not quite obey it, as with an AlgebraOfViews.

Stepping-in and stepping-out take up different scopes. The further that these may be separated, the more that views can coincide. In particular, we want to make room for not-stepping-in and not-stepping-out so they can take up two additional scopes:

• stepping-out: everything
• not-stepping-in: anything
• not-stepping-out: something
• stepping-in: nothing

Note that love leads to God - love God, whereas understanding leads to good - good understanding. So they work together to keep those concepts separate.

Požiūrių neskaidrumas

Požiūrių išvertimu Dievas už mūsų tampa gera širdis mūsų gelmėse, o niekas (nulinis atvaizdas) mumyse tampa nežinomybė plytinti už mūsų. Tokiu išvertimu galime atsisakyti mūsų požiūrį grindžiančio besąlygiško Dievo požiūrio nes jisai tampa nieku mumyse. Taip pat galime jį įvairiai prilyginti su įvairiais niekais esančiais mūsų sudurtiniame požiūryje. Užtat tokiu būdu galimas požiūrio neskaidrumas, asmeniškumas. Tokiu atveju tasai niekas yra ne tuščias, užtat žymėtinas. Kitu atveju jo galima atsisakyti. Išvertimas taip pat išreiškia apibrėžimą, tai gyvo požiūrio dvejybinė pora, jį lydinti sandara.

I'm making some progress with the help of ideas from Gilles Fauconnier's writings on MentalSpaces.

A human view (H) is opaque in that suppositions are assigned to a definite scope. God's view (G) is transparent in that suppositions are taken to hold for all scopes. In that sense, for God, everything is public knowledge.

Therefore we have a chain of human's view of human's view etc. And we can take God's view as an interpolation that makes definite what is defined where. (We can think of God's view as holding separate two human views.)

The first such interpolation is God (HG) and the second is the good (HGHG). Now here we can have a collapsing of space (the opposite of building a space). We may think of this collapse as the simplification that we get by taking good to be the defining characteristic of God, and therefore dealing with God rather than with good. In this case it is not simply removal of the latter HG (which would be a reversal of the space building). Instead, it is a stripping away of the first HG by finding it within the second HG. This is denoted by the red arrow.

Now we can interpolate such a stripping by that view which keeps separate God and good. That view is eternal life, which is the understanding that God is good. Therefore eternal life represents a halfway in the stripping. It is thus a stripping of God's view, leaving GHG, which is God's view of human's view of God's view. In this sense, we are able to escape our own view and take up God's view. Furthermore, by analogy with HGH, which coincides with HH, we have, through GHG, access to GG, which is God's view of God's view. This means that eternal life is God's self empathy which takes place by way of humans and is the purpose of humans. This is a pragmatic interpretation and valid (or not) as such.

Intuitively, the key point is that space collapsing is very special in that normally it is counter to truth which requires us to acknowledge our spaces. However, in the case of existential simplification, then space collapsing is compatible with the truth. Here it is to say that if we are dedicated to living in terms of good, then it is appropriate to recast good as the outcome of our God. In other words, the reason for God is just that it makes our life simpler. And then if we can furthermore keep separate these notions of God and good, then we live the understanding that God is good, which is to say, we live the state of eternal life. And that is the state where our view may coincide with God's.

In other words, in order to escape our view, we need to allow it to collapse, and yet split our mind to keep the collapsed view distinct and separate. With such a split mind we are able to escape our view as it is preceded and followed by God's view. Such a split view feels like a very flexible ignorance that is yet wonderfully open and knowing. It is the moral high ground and we are familiar with it as such.

Požiūrių atskyrimas

Keeping God separate. Note the Quran's exhortation not to ascribe partners to Allah. In other words, God is to be kept separate.

Tiesa ir Dievo išėjimas už savęs

Tiesa ir jos įvairūs lygmenys yra pasekmė Dievo išėjimo už savęs. Juk išeidamas už savęs jis save išreiškia. Tiesa tai yra jo sutapimas su jo išraiška. Esmė yra tai, kas sutampa su savo išraiška, vadinas, tai dėka kurios visa kas yra sutampa su savo išraiška. Esmė yra tasai vieningumas. Skirtingi tiesos laipsniai susiaurina šio sutapimo apimtį, taip kad kada jisai yra niekas, tai tiesa labai griežta, o kada jisai yra viskas, tiesa yra labai plati, bendra.

požiūrių suvedimas - nulybė

požiūrio perskyrimas - vienybė

požiūrio išvertimas - dvejybė

požiūrio išplėtimas - trejybė

Sąmoningumas.

požiūrio atsisakymas - ketverybė

požiūrio apvertimas - penkerybė

Reflection. Protui mąstant dvejybę apsiverčia jos kryptis. Tai penkerybės esmė.

Perspectives are flipped around as they are taken up.

požiūrio įsisavinimas - šešerybė

Įsisavinimas šešerybe sieja vidinius ir išorinius požiūrius, keičia trejybės narius.

požiūrių sudūrimas - septynerybė

Tiesa ir Dievo išėjimas už savęs

Tiesa ir jos įvairūs lygmenys yra pasekmė Dievo išėjimo už savęs. Juk išeidamas už savęs jis save išreiškia. Tiesa tai yra jo sutapimas su jo išraiška. Esmė yra tai, kas sutampa su savo išraiška, vadinas, tai dėka kurios visa kas yra sutampa su savo išraiška. Esmė yra tasai vieningumas. Skirtingi tiesos laipsniai susiaurina šio sutapimo apimtį, taip kad kada jisai yra niekas, tai tiesa labai griežta, o kada jisai yra viskas, tiesa yra labai plati, bendra.

Dievo veikla reiškiasi požiūriais, jų santykiais:

• išeina už savęs į save - taip atsiveria asmenys ir požiūriai
• viską padalina į požiūrius - taip išryškėja jo išėjimas už savęs, ką tai reiškia
• požiūrio perskyrimas - vienybė - požiūrio perskyrimas nuo visumos
• požiūrio išvertimas - dvejybė
• požiūrio išplėtimas - trejybė
• požiūrio atsisakymas - ketverybė
• požiūrio apvertimas - penkerybė
• požiūrio įsisavinimas - šešerybė
• požiūrių sudūrimas - septynerybė
• požiūrių suvedimas grandine, pasiklydusiu vaiku - nulybė - Dievo valios vykdymas, mūsų valios pajungimas jam

• Kaip tiesiogiai išgyventi, kaip gyventi žvilgsniu, tad Dievu, nuliniu išgyvenimu. Kaip nenuliniais išgyvenimais išskirti ir išgyventi nulinį išgyvenimą.

• Kaip tiesiogiai išgyventi, kaip gyventi žvilgsniu, tad Dievu, nuliniu išgyvenimu. Kaip nenuliniais išgyvenimais išgauti nulinį išgyvenimą.

• Sąmoningėjimas. The goal is for a one-track, deterministic thinking to be able to take up a multiple-track, nondeterministic thinking.

Žvilgsnių sudūrimas

• CategoryTheory helps us consider composition of views and what structure they preserve. Composition of views is associative in that it respects stepping in and stepping out.
• Composition of views is coinciding of views with regard to some scope. As the scope reduces to nothing there is complete coinciding, even as their perspectives are kept separate.
• An unlimited view of a limited view may see more than simply the limited view by itself, for example, as a post-parser that is more sensitive, in that it is able to uncover a message that was jibberish or noise to the pre-parser.
• A view may see more by taking up other views, focusing and thereby intensifying its own view.
• A view may also see less by taking up another view if it restricts its view, if there is a reduction in transparency.
• A view may, in the right context, take up views so as to cancel itself and escape itself.
• A sequence of views may, in the right circumstances, be cut in half and switched around, thus emphasizing symmetry or asymmetry, and in effect, allowing for a switch in direction. For example, the sequence human-God-human-God-human may be broken and switched around, thus identifying God (God) with God (good), and human (unknown) with human (known). Or, for example, Knowledge as the truth of concepts is related to God as the concept of truth in that it uncollapses structure by presenting it in its commuted order.
• A view may, in the right circumstances, look within itself, as Suhit Dey notes, rather than outside itself, and thereby initiate independent thinking, returning to one's thoughts, climbing out of oneself, ultimately finding a fixed point, canceling itself out. An abstraction can be understood as immersion, thus reversing the direction of the view. (In category theory, this is the idea of duality.)

• Tvirtinimas. Supposition That which can be the same or different. They solve the "problems" in composing views. You may say that if I take up your view, then that's a "fiction" whereas your own view is "real". But, actually, your own view is a "fiction", too - it is just a supposition. And we can equate them as fictions, as suppositions. A Supposition is that which can be kept Separate, which is to say, can be given a Scope.

• Concept. A supposition for which the viewed is responsible, and which is thus one with itself. Concepts are, as such, with regard to a Scope (all, any, a, none) wherein they are self-contained (the smaller the domain, the more they are self-contained, so there are fewer concepts).
• Požiūriai Perspective Požiūris yra klausimo sandara, didėjantis laisvumas. A supposition for which a viewer is responsible, by which they go beyond themselves. Perspective, perception open up our view. Perspectives are, as such, with regard to a scope (all, any, a, none) wherein they are not-self-contained (the smaller the domain, the less they are not-self-contained, so there are more perspectives).

• View. The keeping separate of suppositions, the acceptance of a scope. A View is the observational plane determined by an observer.

Požiūrį išvertus, taip kad Dievas už mūsų, už santvarkos, yra suvokiamas kaip Dievas mūsų gelmėse, išgyvenamasis požiūris virsta neišgyventa sandara (perspektyva). Šią sandarą išgyvename ją suporuodami su atitinkamu požiūriu. Tokiu būdu galime išgyventi savo perspektyvą, taip pat ir kito perspektyvą.

• Troškimų ir išmąstymų vienas kito išvertimas.

Tiesa ir Dievo išėjimas už savęs

Sąvokos - tapatumas ir netapatumas

Santykis tarp požiūrių

Požiūrių sudūrimas

Požiūrių neskaidrumas

Tiesos išsiplėtojimas

• How does eternal life arise as the understanding of this togetherness and the keeping separate in the face of it?
• How does the use of two levels lets us have signs be the same on one level and different on another level? There are six QualitiesOfSigns given by pairs of levels: malleable, modifiable, mobile, memorable, meaningful, motivated. I think that if we look at how variables are interepreted, then we'll find likewise a dual perspective on them. So there might be six ways to an interpret a variable/constant. I might study math texts to look for the different ways.

Požiūrių grandinė

• Empathy. How might we step out of a definite view and back into another definite view?
• What is the role of Love as coinciding of views?
• What is limited love (LoveYourNeighborAsYourself) and unlimited love (LoveGod)?
• What is the relationship between love and separateness?

• What is an independent perspective as compared with the default perspective and how does it arise and unfold?

• TakeUp A View
• TakeUp A Perspective
• How is inversion and framing related to duality?
• the relationship GodVHeart between God and heart (Inversion Effect)
• How does a view see more? How does that relate to truth? and to looking within oneself?
• How is a view able to see more if it is focused at the right point, through the right views?
• Given that we need to consider a vantage point greater than us, how does such a vantage point take up this same question? In other words, how does God take up the possibility that he has simply found himself in his situation and there may be a vantage point greater than his own?
• How might we escape a view, that is, be independent of the view that grounds us, imagines us, encompasses us? How do we go beyond ourselves to own that view as our own?
• How might we apply constructive hypotheses to extend pragmatically from conclusions supposing a definite view to those allowing for an indefinite view?
• What happens when we move backwards, backing out of a space? How do we make such moves?
• We can't understand all, but God can, thus how do we accept God's understanding?
• How is a view's look beyond itself related by inversion to its focusing within itself? How is this related to the House of Knowledge, to Caring about Caring... and Believing in Believing... ?
• How does a view look within itself, and does this help it cancel itself out, escape from itself?
• Does looking within oneself result in a bisection of oneself and a distinction of scopes?
• Does looking within oneself relate to being with oneself?
• Does looking within oneself require an extra scope?
• How might Bisecting A View help us escape a view?
• How does Bisecting A View create an other, a person-in-general that we can identify with?
• What is the role of other in our coinciding with God?
• What are the perspectives of the Other and of the System?

• Whose relationships with System and with God are given by Perspective and Position?

• How do we allow for a discourse or not? In what sense can we have a shared space? To who does it belong to? Does that determine the nature of the space, the degree to which it belongs to one? The difference between one and one's self? Perhaps space arises with the foursome, as a situation, and an inversion of the concept of a view.
• How is life, etc. the togetherness (of God and good) as defined by the relevant scope?
• Consider the effect of the scopes as contexts for what truth means, from all things are true, to either true or false.
• How can we entertain dual concepts so as to take up an indefinite view?
• How does love connect truth to Truth?
• How does love of self, love of others, love of God yield ever broader connection of truth to Truth?
• How does this love allow two views to be increasingly one with each other, in an ever tighter scope?

• Where does Factoring come into play? And how are the two chains related across their levels?
• I want to understand the Operations, and in particular, the operation Ir Trys +3?. In exploring this, I am considering:
  • their action on Wholeness
  • that action's relationship to that which understands, that which is understanding, and that which is by them both understood.
  • the relationship between the one who loves and the one who is loved
  • the ConstructiveHypotheses and the Representations, perhaps they are one and the same
• Relate the different levels of understanding to the relationships between TheBeginning and TheEnd. Consider the role of JesusChrist (as a bridge between the beginning and the end) and how humans grow to be loving. Consider the structures involved at each stage and link to them.
• PairsOfConcepts. Consider how the different levels of understanding relate to the intensity of the relationship between two concepts such as God and good.
• Consider God's going beyond himself as a way of opening up his perspective to other perspectives that are further out, less powerful. So this is his way of including all perspectives, including that which is taken up by no perspective, in that it is subordinate - what does that mean?
• Internalization
• Factoring and Embedding
• negations of the representations of the Nullsome and of the Onesome, and the EightfoldWay
• Relate Operations and Activity and Structure for the Factors.
• Does view map understanding to understanding? Then why is understanding a map of view to view?

Laisvumas didėja ar mažėja. Mažėjančiu laisvumu pridedame teiginius, o didėjančiu laisvumu atimame teiginius. Apimtys yra tai prie ko tuos teiginius pridedame ar atimame, tai viskas, betkas, kažkas ar niekas.

• How do we consider how another might take up our view? What do they see?

• How does view preserve truth? What is the Structure that is being preserved? How can this be understood in terms of morphisms?

• How do we reference a full space, which is to say, all of reality?
• How do we reference an empty space, which is to say, the bare minimum that is possible for a space, the basic of our faculty of reason?

• How to think of the Representations in a unified way?
• How can there be unity of representations?
• What is the role of equating unity with the original? (for example, love with God)? How is this human, cyclic, threesome-creating?
• What is the role of growth in awareness (structure, representations, unity)?
• What is the role of spirit - structure - representation - unity in the growth of consciousness - and in the levels of understanding?

• How are the Foursome, Fivesome, Sixsome generated in Self-understanding? In what sense does this LoveSelf? What are the roles of Activity and the Operation +2?
• Describe SharedUnderstanding as giving rise to a SeventhPerspective, perhaps Anything = Concept, and how that generates the Factors and the SecondaryStructures. Consider SharedUnderstanding as a relationship between actor and surroundings as given by Internalization. Look for the role of Factoring, ZeroStructure, and Concepts as together, separate and both.
• Incorporate my own investigatory point of view into the overview.

Požiūrį išvertus, taip kad Dievas už mūsų, už santvarkos, suvokiamas kaip Dievas mūsų gelmėse, išgyvenamasis požiūris virsta neišgyventa sandara (perspektyva). Šią sandarą išgyvename ją suporuodami su atitinkamu požiūriu. Tokiu būdu galime išgyventi savo perspektyvą, taip pat ir kito perspektyvą.

• What does it mean for God's and human's perspectives to coincide?
• How can the two points of view of God and human be one and the same?
• How does one perspective variously take up another perspective? (see Operation [AddOne +1])

• the role of Spirit, Structure, Representations, Unity

• the nature of Self-understanding and SharedUnderstanding
• Why is it that God and human's perspectives coincide in GoodUnderstanding?
• In what sense is Understanding (without scope) related to Love? Is it the very fact that it has no scope?
• How are the Foursome, Fivesome, Sixsome generated in Self-understanding? In what sense does this LoveSelf? What are the roles of Activity and the Operation +2?

Požiūrių išvertimu Dievas už mūsų tampa gera širdis mūsų gelmėse, o niekas (nulinis atvaizdas) mumyse tampa nežinomybė plytinti už mūsų. Tokiu išvertimu galime atsisakyti mūsų požiūrį grindžiančio besąlygiško Dievo požiūrio nes jisai tampa nieku mumyse. Taip pat galime jį įvairiai prilyginti su įvairiais niekais esančiais mūsų sudurtiniame požiūryje. Užtat tokiu būdu galimas požiūrio neskaidrumas, asmeniškumas. Tokiu atveju tasai niekas yra ne tuščias, užtat žymėtinas. Kitu atveju jo galima atsisakyti. Išvertimas taip pat išreiškia apibrėžimą, tai gyvo požiūrio dvejybinė pora, jį lydinti sandara.

• How is an indefinite view of definite view able to see more than the definite view by itself? (Perhaps the same path may be traveled by multiple perspectives (of multiple awarenesses)).

• Constructive Hypotheses. How might we apply constructive hypotheses to extend pragmatically from conclusions supposing a definite view to those allowing for an indefinite view?

• How does one view preserve but extend another? Is understanding the distinction between preserving and extending?
• How does a view see more? How does that relate to truth? and to looking within oneself?
• How is a view able to see more if it is focused at the right point, through the right views?
• How do views preserve Understanding? in the CategoryTheory sense.
• Given that we need to consider a vantage point greater than us, how does such a vantage point take up this same question? In other words, how does God take up the possibility that he has simply found himself in his situation and there may be a vantage point greater than his own?
• How might we escape a view, that is, be independent of the view that grounds us, imagines us, encompasses us? How do we go beyond ourselves to own that view as our own?

• How do we identify spaces? Is the distinction between everything, anything, something, nothing relevant for that?

• Write up what the levels of understanding have in common structurally (the operation +1 and going beyond oneself) and what distinguishes them.
• What is slack? How does it relate to Factoring, SharedUnderstanding and the Operation [AddThree +3]?
• Consider how to relate the factors (and their defining equations) to the topologies, divisions, representations
• Consider how to relate the factoring to the heart and the inversion effect.

• Apibrežimas atsiranda išvertus požiūrį. Tad kiekvieną požiūrį lydi jo apibrėžimas. Tai yra dvejybinis santykis, tad jame glūdi dvejybės ir jos atvaizdai. Definition. Viewed by a distinct path, set by a distinct structure.

Stebėtojas iškyla kaip asmuo. Jis kaip toks išsiskiria nuo stebinio, nuo jo atsiplėšia.

• What is Truth?

• What is Separate? kept separate?
• What is View?

• What does it mean for views to coincide?
• What is the nature of base space and regular space? Is base space maximalist (all that is not taken out) and regular space is minimalist (all that is put in)? Example, "my brother" and "Jeff" are the same or different (it depends on the ordering).

• What is a limited view? an unlimited view?

• The AlgebraOfDistinguishability, of equality and nonequality, is what allows us to fix what is defined. How can we ground Definition in an AlgebraOfDistinguishability? What Definitions result? Are Equality and Distinguishability two different outlooks simply separated by Not, but otherwise inversions?

• How does one view preserve but extend another?

• How to compose views?
• How to compose Perspectives?

• What is the Identity View? and how does it relate equivalent views?
• Is it possible to reverse the direction of the composition of views? Is the Inversion Effect related to this? How does the Inversion Effect relate to a composite view?
• Is the Inversion Effect extrasystemic and the Reflection Effect systemic but otherwise are they the same effect?

• Understand scope as a relationship between observer and observational plane, and as making sense of a series of concepts such as perspective, suppostion, view, concept

• How does this unfolding relate to that expressed in terms of Willingness or in terms of the kinds of Understanding and the LostChild metaphor?
• How is a perspective related to a position? to a context? to the chain in the LostChild metaphor?
• Understand an AlgebraOfViews as the foundation for the unfolding of all structure: Absolute, Relative, Shared, Subordinate perspectives. Where possible, make use of CategoryTheory.
• the role of Love and Understanding, and as part of that, the Independence of the one we love
• the LevelsOfUnderstanding and the LevelsOfConsciousness

• What are suppositions?

• What is the difference, if any, between a mental space and a View?
• How are Concepts kept Separate?
• What is the relationship between a Perspective and a concept?
• How do concepts arise - being with oneself?
• Is being a concept and taking up a perspective an either/or?
• Is a concept a marker for a perspective, a place where a perspective can be allowed for?
• In what sense do the views constitute a category?
• What are Equivalent Views?

• May an indefinite view take up a definite view? Note that this is related to the Associative rule: Is it the case that a (definite view of an indefinite view) of a definite view is the same as a definite view of (an indefinite view of a definite view)? And how can we know? In other words, how can we know that the Composition Of Views is Associative? Or what Constructive Hypotheses must we assume? And how do we apply them?
• Associative. Is composition of views associative?
• How might we switch around the composition of a definite view of an indefinite view?
• How might a definite view take up an indefinite view?
• What is the Identity View?

• How is truth accessed directly or indirectly?

• What do pronouns (I, you, he, she, it, we, they, who, what) say about a mental space? Are they space builders? Do they relate to viewpoint?
• What do pronouns (such as I) mean in a base space?
• How do scopes arise and change?
• How do everything, anything, something, nothing arise?
• How do scope and change in scope enable separation?
• Why does scope decrease as views are composed?
• How does truth hold across scopes?
• How is there falsehood?
• What happens to truth as we move from space to space?

• How we might escape a humans' view and arrive at God's view of human's view which is perhaps to know everything?
• Look at the relationship between love and understanding across the four scopes and the extent to which views coincide.

• Empathy. How might we step out of a definite view and back into another definite view?

• How might Bisecting A View help us escape a view?

• Požiūrių algebros svarba
• Sąvokos
• Tiesa ir Dievo išėjimas už savęs
• Skirtumas tarp požiūrių
• Santykis tarp požiūrių
• Požiūrių sudūrimas
• Požiūrių neskaidrumas
• Požiūrių sutapimas
• Tiesos išsiplėtojimas
• Požiūrių grandinė

Požiūrių algebros svarba

Tiesa ir Dievo išėjimas už savęs

• What is the role that Truth plays in the algebra of views?

Sąvokos - tapatumas ir netapatumas

• What is the origin of "same" and "different"?
  • Are two views the same, or are they different, and in what sense?
  • Are two contexts the same, or are they different?
  • Are two suppositions the same, or are they different?
  • In mathematics, are two expressions the same, or are they different, and in what sense?

Skirtumas tarp požiūrių

• IndefiniteVDefinite, Indefinite, Definite, Definition, Define
• What is the structure preserved by views as morphisms?

Santykis tarp požiūrių

Požiūrių sudūrimas

• Požiūrius ir jų sudūrimą išreikšti kategorijų teorija.
• May an indefinite view take up a definite view? Note that this is related to the Associative rule: Is it the case that a (definite view of an indefinite view) of a definite view is the same as a definite view of (an indefinite view of a definite view)? And how can we know? In other words, how can we know that the CompositionOfViews is Associative? Or what ConstructiveHypotheses must we assume? And how do we apply them?

Požiūrių neskaidrumas Požiūrių sutapimas Tiesos išsiplėtojimas

Požiūrių grandinė

• What is the nature and the foundation of the Chain of Views?
• How we might escape a humans' view and arrive at God's view of human's view which is perhaps to know everything?

Kiti

Pirminiai apibrėžimai išplaukia iš būties klausimo, tad yra susiję su dvejybės atvaizdais. Būties klausimas veiksniais +3, +2, +1 apžvelgia padalinimus -1, 0, 1, tad apžvelgia atitinkamus laisvės, Dievo ir tvarkos klausimus. Būties klausimas iškyla kada Dievas nebūtinas. Jisai grindžia Dievo būtinumą.

• Tiesa. Tai kas akivaizdu, kas nenuslėpta. Sutapimas to, kas yra ir to, kas reiškiasi. Išėjimas už savęs kažkurio asmens atitinkamoje apimtyje. What is True is what is viewed. The Observational Plane is what is viewed by the Observer. What is obvious, not hidden, Viewed, the separation between the viewer and the viewed when it is nothing.

• Context. Adjoint to supposition?

• Love is the considering of suppositions as the same, the sharing of scope, the stepping into a view
• Responsibility - a central concept for applying all of this, especially the distinction between those who make the rules and who have to play by them, thus related to scopes and to the difference between hard and soft truths
• Consciousness (Self Love) as an idempotent, a fixed point, a View upon oneself. (Žr. Suhrit Dey).

• Understanding The considering of suppositions as different, the stepping back from one view out into another
• Concept. A supposition for which the viewed is responsible, and which is thus one with itself

• Išvertimas. The inversion effect is relevant when God wishes for Everything, which is to say, wishes also for all of the nonsense that we dream up. In order for us to conceive of such a God, we flip everything around, so that God is the smallest - the heart deepest within us - and nothing is the largest, the unknown that engulfs us. This flipping around is the inversion effect.

• StructurePreserving
• Consciousness as an idempotent, a fixed point, a View upon oneself. (Žr. Suhrit Dey).

Tiesos išplėtojimas

• Representations scopes and keeping separate may be understood in terms of representation.
• RepresentationsOfTheNullsome. What separates the viewer and the viewed
• Focus the distinction between viewer and viewed which opens up scope. Focus is given by viewer, taken by viewed.
• Asmenys, apimtys. The person is the viewer. Scope the sense in which suppositions are the same or different - everything as a required concept. The scope indicates the domain within which the truth is manifest so that what is and what seems are the same.

• A whole is the Scope of all perspectives: Everything

• Foursome the distinction between spirit and structure which opens up the representations and the topologies

• Context. Adjoint to supposition?

Požiūrių sudūrimas

• Composition Of Views.
• Composition Of Suppositions.
• Bisecting A View. Bisection is the opposite of coinciding.
• Optimality Constraints'''

Požiūrių grandinė

• TheChain Of Views
• A shared perspective is the result of SharedUnderstanding.

2005.05.25 A: Kas yra požiūris? D: Požiūris yra ryšys su tuo kas yra už tavęs. A: Kokią sandarą jisai išsaugoja? D: Jis išsaugoja meilę. A: Kaip čia meilę suprasti? D: Aš būnu su jumis, bet ar jūs būnate su manimi? Aš vis tiek jumis būnu.

Žr. Požiūriai, Kategorijų teorija, Dievas, Proto laukai Taip pat: IndependentPerspective, DefaultObserver, DefaultPosition, View, Frame Overview, InversionEffect, ReversalEffect, Institutions, Overview, ActualContext, Heart, Helmut Leitner, Benoit Couture

• Tiesa. Tai kas akivaizdu, kas nenuslėpta. Sutapimas to, kas yra ir to, kas reiškiasi. Išėjimas už savęs kažkurio asmens atitinkamoje apimtyje. What is True is what is viewed. The ObservationalPlane is what is viewed by the Observer. What is obvious, not hidden, Viewed, the separation between the viewer and the viewed when it is nothing.

• Equate and keep separate are the active forms of same and different. Atskyrimas, KeepSeparate, Separate - The vital matter is that we may hold suppositions separately, so that in some sense they are the same, and in some other sense they are different (think also of how we use Variables, they work on two levels, as with the QualitiesOfSigns). Palyginti su suvokimu.

• Tvirtinimas. Supposition That which can be the same or different. They solve the "problems" in composing views. You may say that if I take up your view, then that's a "fiction" whereas your own view is "real". But, actually, your own view is a "fiction", too - it is just a supposition. And we can equate them as fictions, as suppositions.
• Grounds are what is equal.

• Understanding the considering of suppositions as different, the stepping back from one view out into another
• Požiūriai Perspective Požiūris yra klausimo sandara, didėjantis laisvumas. A supposition for which a viewer is responsible, by which they go beyond themselves. Perspective, perception open up our view.

• Principle is affirmation that goes beyond Person and substitutes for them, extends them
• Qualities distinguish for their object what stays the same and what may change (pvz. Qualities of Signs. Palyginti taip pat Properties, kaip skiriasi?) Good is the quality of God.

• View. The keeping separate of suppositions, the acceptance of a scope.
• Frame. What is a frame? Is it a domain for being one with? (Pavyzdžiui, meilė). By frame, I mean that which is mapped by a View. A view takes us from one frame to another. It takes us from being stepped out to being stepped in. When we are stepped out, then we are not immersed, we do not identify with what is in the frame, but rather with the frame which we sustain. When we are stepped in, then we are immersed, and we identify with what is in the frame, and we are not aware of the frame. A frame is a support for being one with. It is support for a concept. Structurally, a concept is everything and a frame is slack. The frame may be understood as increasing slack (when we are stepped out) and decreasing slack (when we are stepped in). A view takes us from increasing slack to decreasing slack.
• Žiūrėti. To Look is to take up a view, which is to say, to have the same ObservationalPlane. To Look is to take up an ObservationalPlane. We look through somebody else's eyes if we take up their observational plane. In general, this is the Heart within us and God in that context.
• To Manifest is to show. In that sense, it is the opposite of View, it is the making way for others to [GoingBeyondOneself go beyond themselves]. It is also closely related to Truth, in that truth is what is obvious, not hidden. Andrius: It also reminds of the statement Those things are which show themselves to be which I once heard God say in a dream as to the nature of everything.
• StructurePreserving

Skirtumas tarp požiūrių

• A shared perspective is the result of SharedUnderstanding.
• A whole is the Scope of all perspectives: Everything
• Structure the first three divisions allow for structure, allow for divisions and definition
• Definition viewed by a distinct path, set by a distinct structure
• Definite or Indefinite the relationship with the definition, is it through a single path or multiple paths
• Foursome the distinction between spirit and structure which opens up the representations and the topologies

• Asmenys, apimtys. Scope the sense in which suppositions are the same or different - everything as a required concept. The scope indicates the domain within which the truth is manifest so that what is and what seems are the same.
• Scopes
• Everything indefinite, unspecified
• Anything definite, unspecified
• Something definite, specified
• Nothing indefinite, specified
• Representations scopes and keeping separate may be understood in terms of representation.

• Love is the considering of suppositions as the same, the sharing of scope, the stepping into a view
• Responsibility - a central concept for applying all of this, especially the distinction between those who make the rules and who have to play by them, thus related to scopes and to the difference between hard and soft truths
• Concept a supposition for which the viewed is responsible, and which is thus one with itself
• Focus the distinction between viewer and viewed which opens up scope. Focus is given by viewer, taken by viewed.

• Consciousness as an idempotent, a fixed point, a View upon oneself. (Žr. Suhrit Dey).

It is the going beyond of any [UniversalLanguage/Contexts Context], of any necessary conditions. It thereby defines what is necessary. It is the position expressed by Coinciding, which is the context for the going beyond of any context. It is always available in any context and as such is taken up as the Default position. It's expression unfolds as the coinciding with none, one (God), two (God and [UniversalLanguage/Human I]) or three (God, I, Other). God defines the necessary, human defines the actual, other defines the possible. All contexts are then simply expressions of their position together. God is the necessary condition, the context for this position, rather than the position the context for God.

An "algebra of views" arises along with the ability to have distinct angles upon a structure or within a structure. A Representation is a view upon a division of everything as a whole, and there are six in all. Analogously, a Topology is what I call the taking up of one of the perspectives within a division. There are twelve topologies, and we may think of them as contexts, backdrops, projections, worlds upon which we imagine things.

The result is the same. The clock, in general, satisifies the Associative law. So the two expressions are considered equivalent. And being equivalent, we may write them as 10 + 1 + 3.

Also, a view may be thought of as Understanding, and what it preserves as Love.

A view preserves a frame. A frame is the condition for being one with, it is love. We may think of views as amplifiers or parsers, they are related to Understanding. A frame is the domain or scope which love shares, and which is used to distinguish concepts. As scope decreases, it is harder to distinguish concepts, and perspectives are less separated. A view is perhaps a collection of perspectives.

great examples: Jonas Salk imagined he was a polio virus, Einstein rode a beam of light. Imagine you were a molecule. Or a slave. Empathy. The source of real Creativity.

This is very relevant to me now in thinking about the big picture. Just about my whole philosophy is based on imagining I was God. What would I do? Why? What is there to do? That's been very productive.

In the Beginning, it might just be God asking himself, what is it like to be me? So first he steps into himself.

A perspective is like a Morphism in that perspectives can be composed: John's perspective may take up Mary's perspective. By CategoryTheory, the morphism should be considered a structure preserving transformation. What structure is being preserved? The truth - obviousness - what is not hidden. So we can work backwards from God as the concept of truth - all perspectives look to him - and he steps inwards to himself, but out to them, but they look to him:

Suppositions are kept separate by placing them in different Scopes. What does this mean?

• all perspectives is Spirit
• any perspective is Structure
• a perspective is Representation
• no perspective is Unity

It is this last level which extends the "threesome" by saying that, above and beyond God, there might be something in the situation of God which is not distinct from it, as God is, but rather determined by it. This material level "whether" is the source of the Foursome and exemplifies God's ever going beyond himself.

Another very important idea is that what separates the "viewer" (observer) and the "viewed" (situation) is the Nullsome (the division of everything into zero perspectives). This separation manifests itself through the four RepresentationsOfTheNullsome:

• significant (not encompassable - Negation of why)

So I think that in the "original outlook" the distinction between viewer and viewed is kept latent. But with the new outlook - and once Representations becomes relevant - it is possible to think of viewer and viewed as separate and even self-standing.

In my account, I am attempting to express God's view of a human's view. By human I mean myself and all whose perspective I might possibly admit. I am thus attempting to take up and make available the Absolute complete potential of my perspective.

Therefore we have all, any, a and no perspectives. These are four increasingly focused LevelsOfUnderstanding. Understanding is the keeping separate of Concepts. (A concept is that which is with itself). It is also the distinction of one perspective (anything) upon another perspective (everything) (and of that perspective from slack). (To have a perspective is to go beyond oneself). This allows for a sequence of ever deeper (ever closer) Scopes which may be shared. Love is the sharing of a scope. We therefore have a sequence of ever deeper levels of love. They ground the ever greater Independence of the one who is loved (and understood): Self, Other, God. At the fourth level, LoveGod, God's view and human's view coincide (love absolutely) regarding the Good, so that both share the same view of God's view of human's view of God's view of human's view. All of the Structure that I am aware of rests in one of these four levels.

Where each of these are described in the Overview. So understanding may be God's view, as in eternal life is the understanding that God is good.

0) 1) 2) 3) There is first a unified outlook (such as God) which unfolds the perspectives that are the basis for Structure, for the DivisionOfEverything. We may think of this unfolding as an operation [AddOne +1] which keeps reinterpreting the whole as an additional

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 [AddTwo +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.

• May an indefinite view take up a definite view? Note that this is related to the Associative rule: Is it the case that a (definite view of an indefinite view) of a definite view is the same as a definite view of (an indefinite view of a definite view)? And how can we know? In other words, how can we know that the CompositionOfViews is Associative? Or what ConstructiveHypotheses must we assume? And how do we apply them?

• What is the role that Truth plays in the algebra of views?

• What is the difference, if any, between a mental space and a View?

• [Associative Is composition of views associative]?

• [Empathy How might we step out of a definite view and back into another definite view]?

• How are Concepts kept Separate?

• What is the relationship between a Perspective and a concept?

• Is CompositionOfViews Associative?

• Understand an AlgebraOfViews as the foundation for the unfolding of all structure: Absolute, Relative, Shared, Subordinate perspectives. Where possible, make use of CategoryTheory.
• Describe SharedUnderstanding as giving rise to a SeventhPerspective, perhaps Anything = Concept, and how that generates the Factors and the SecondaryStructures. Consider SharedUnderstanding as a relationship between actor and surroundings as given by Internalization. Look for the role of Factoring, ZeroStructure, and Concepts as together, separate and both.

I want to understand the Operations, and in particular, the operation [AddThree +3]. In exploring this, I am considering:

• their action on Wholeness

• the relationship GodVHeart between God and heart
• the role of Love and Understanding, and as part of that, the Independence of the one we love

• the ConstructiveHypotheses and the Representations, perhaps they are one and the same
• the nature of Self-understanding and SharedUnderstanding
• the role of Spirit, Structure, Representations, Unity
• Internalization
• Factoring and Embedding
• negations of the representations of the Nullsome and of the Onesome, and the EightfoldWay
• Relate Operations and Activity and Structure for the Factors.

• What is slack? How does it relate to Factoring, SharedUnderstanding and the Operation [AddThree +3]?

• What is Separate? kept separate?
• What is Truth?
• What is View?

• How to compose Perspectives?

• How do views preserve Understanding? in the CategoryTheory sense.

• How does view preserve truth? What is the Structure that is being preserved?

• What is the role of Love as coinciding of views?

• In what sense is Understanding (without scope) related to Love? Is it the very fact that it has no scope?
• How are the Foursome, Fivesome, Sixsome generated in Self-understanding? In what sense does this LoveSelf? What are the roles of Activity and the Operation [PlusTwo +2]?
• How does one perspective variously take up another perspective? (see Operation [AddOne +1])

• How to think of the Representations in a unified way?

Žr. Požiūriai, Kategorijų teorija, Dievas, Proto laukai Taip pat: IndependentPerspective, DefaultObserver, DefaultPosition, {{View}}, {{Frame}} {{Overview}}, InversionEffect, ReversalEffect, {{Institutions}}, Overview, ActualContext, Heart, Helmut Leitner, Benoit Couture

• Požiūrių algebros svarba
• Sąvokos
• Tiesa ir Dievo išėjimas už savęs
• Skirtumas tarp požiūrių
• Santykis tarp požiūrių
• Požiūrių sudūrimas
• Požiūrių neskaidrumas
• Požiūrių sutapimas
• Tiesos išsiplėtojimas
• Požiūrių grandinė

Tiesa ir Dievo išėjimas už savęs

Požiūrių atskyrimas

Keeping God separate. Note the Quran's exhortation not to ascribe partners to Allah. In other words, God is to be kept separate.

Požiūrių sutapimas

Equivalent views

Functions are understood to be equivalent if they have the same effects.

This is relevant for the associative rule. For example, on a 12 hour clock, 10 + 1 = 11 and 11 + 3 = 2. Here the first and last items are considered the position on the clock and we add an "action" which is a movement by the hand of the clock.

So we may interpret 10 + 1 + 3 as:

• (10 + 1) + 3 which is to start at 10 and move the hand twice
• 10 + (1 + 3) which is to combine the actions and then move the hand by the combined amount.

The result is the same. The clock, in general, satisifies the {{Associative}} law. So the two expressions are considered equivalent. And being equivalent, we may write them as 10 + 1 + 3.

This is also the case with the natural numbers where we may consider 10 + 1 + 3 as a movement along an infinite tape. In fact, almost all mathematical systems of interest obey the associative law. And yet it is noteworthy when an interesting system does not quite obey it, as with an AlgebraOfViews.

Stepping-in and stepping-out take up different scopes. The further that these may be separated, the more that views can coincide. In particular, we want to make room for not-stepping-in and not-stepping-out so they can take up two additional scopes:

• stepping-out: everything
• not-stepping-in: anything
• not-stepping-out: something
• stepping-in: nothing

Note that love leads to God - love God, whereas understanding leads to good - good understanding. So they work together to keep those concepts separate.

Sandarų išlaikymas

Sandarų išsaugojimas ir išplėtojimas susijęs su požiūrių sutapimu. Juk požiūris prieš ir po sandaros išplėtojimo turėtų išlikti tas pats.

A view respects the relationship between stepping out and stepping in. This relationship between immersion and abstraction should determine what it is that a view preserves. The genesis of the divisions of everything by the [AddOne operation +1] gives this feeling. God takes up a whole with regard to the existing perspectives of a division, then reinterprets them so that they are all equal with regard to this new perspective. In other words, God abstracts from the perspectives, and then immerses himself into them all, including the abstraction.

Also, a view may be thought of as {{Understanding}}, and what it preserves as {{Love}}.

A view preserves a frame. A frame is the condition for being one with, it is love. We may think of views as amplifiers or parsers, they are related to {{Understanding}}. A frame is the domain or scope which love shares, and which is used to distinguish concepts. As scope decreases, it is harder to distinguish concepts, and perspectives are less separated. A view is perhaps a collection of perspectives.

Atjauta

Tiesos išplėtojimas

A perspective is like a {{Morphism}} in that perspectives can be composed: John's perspective may take up Mary's perspective. By CategoryTheory, the morphism should be considered a structure preserving transformation. What structure is being preserved? The truth - obviousness - what is not hidden. So we can work backwards from God as the concept of truth - all perspectives look to him - and he steps inwards to himself, but out to them, but they look to him:

• absolute perspective - all perspectives may take it up (it may be taken up by all of them together)
• relative perspective - any perspective may take it up (it may be taken up by them singly)
• shared perspective - it may be taken up by a perspective
• subordinate perspective - it may be taken up by no perspective (and hence is isolated, atomic)

subordinate perspectives may not take each other up as they are too narrow - so if God and human take subordinate perspectives then they coincide

Atskyrimo lygmenys

Požiūrių grandinė

The great challenge is that, as humans, we are bound by our own view, so that we are unable to escape it, at least as humans. However, it is possible that God may be able to escape his point of view and take up ours. This is a ConstructiveHypothesis that we take. It acknowledges a difference between God and us. We may then leverage this difference to open up our view. It may also be that our human view is sufficient for direct access to all knowledge - where perhaps the directness is understood with regard to the nature of our minds.

The aim is to describe God's view of human's view. What is the fullest experience of the human view? How does an unrestricted view experience a view that can't escape itself?

In my account, I am attempting to express God's view of a human's view. By {{human}} I mean myself and all whose perspective I might possibly admit. I am thus attempting to take up and make available the {{Absolute}} complete potential of my perspective.

I have my own human view, but I am attempting to take up God's view. How can I take up God's view directly rather than through my own view?

This is possible if my view and God's view coincide. This may depend on factors beyond my control. Yet I may position myself with regard to such factors to enable such coinciding to the extent that I am able to control. Even so, on what basis may it be that indeed my view and God's view coincide?

We take up God's view because that opens up a vantage point that he might take up so that our views might coincide. And by taking up, alternatively, his view upon our view and ours upon his, ever deeper, the idea is that we do not diminish or close our view at all, but instead enrich it by exposing it to God's and our view through it. Finally, the Other is very important as the vehicle for shared understanding, in that the way that we treat others is the way that God may treat us, as we allow God to use us as a vehicle in reaching out to others. We may not be absolutely transparent like God, but yet we might be transparent for the purpose of him reaching out to others. And this transparency may be what is relevant in our view coinciding with God's.''

The main idea in all of this, perhaps, is how God makes available his Godly perspective to all of those beyond him, which is an increasing challenge until it reaches the stretching point. In this sense God shares perspective, and even more, goes beyond that to all those who might position themselves for his perspective - and through them others may be reached just as through him - it starts from them as it did with him.

Therefore we have all, any, a and no perspectives. These are four increasingly focused LevelsOfUnderstanding. {{Understanding}} is the keeping separate of {{Concepts}}. (A concept is that which is with itself). It is also the distinction of one perspective (anything) upon another perspective (everything) (and of that perspective from slack). (To have a perspective is to go beyond oneself). This allows for a sequence of ever deeper (ever closer) {{Scopes}} which may be shared. Love is the sharing of a scope. We therefore have a sequence of ever deeper levels of love. They ground the ever greater {{Independence}} of the one who is loved (and understood): {{Self}}, {{Other}}, {{God}}. At the fourth level, LoveGod, God's view and human's view coincide (love absolutely) regarding the {{Good}}, so that both share the same view of God's view of human's view of God's view of human's view. All of the {{Structure}} that I am aware of rests in one of these four levels.

The chain of views lets us separate out all concepts, any concept, a concept, no concept (be one with) - by establishing the distance from the viewer.

The chain of views apparently arises from the fact that the definite view has decreasing slack in scope and is thus ever more defined, whereas the indefinite view has increasing slack in scope and is thus ever less defined.

Suvokimo lygmenys

Think of understanding:

• God's view as understanding
• God's view of human's view as self-understanding
• God's view of human's view of God's view as shared understanding
• God's view of human's view of God's view of human's view as good understanding

Where each of these are described in the {{Overview}}. So understanding may be God's view, as in eternal life is the understanding that God is good.

The Algebra of Views & The Big Picture

It seems that all of this is rolled out as follows:

0) 1) 2) 3) There is first a unified outlook (such as God) which unfolds the perspectives that are the basis for {{Structure}}, for the DivisionOfEverything. We may think of this unfolding as an operation [AddOne +1] which keeps reinterpreting the whole as an additional perspective. When there are three perspectives, then the structure for the original outlook is complete: it can understand, come to understanding, and be understood. However, the operation +1 continues.

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 [AddTwo +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 [AddThree +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.

Požiūrių atskyrimas

Keeping God separate

Note the Quran's exhortation not to ascribe partners to Allah. In other words, God is to be kept separate.

If we can demonstrate that the associative rule holds when the first view is definite, then perhaps we may then extend this to assume, pragmatically, that the associate rule holds for all composition of views.

Note also that, starting with a definite view, we have no problem stepping into an indefinite view.

Our difficulty is, How do we step out from a definite view into an indefinite view?

We might first understand, How do we step out from a definite view into a definite view, and then extend pragmatically to the case of an indefinite view. Especially because we might vary the definite view that we step out into. It may indeed be indefinite for us.

In having one view take up another view, we find that we can create chains of views. We pause to think in what sense:

• ((( ... Andrea's view ) of Barbara's view ) of Charlie's view ) of ...

is the same as:

• ... ( Andrea's view of ( Barbara's view of ( Charlie's view of ( ...

In the first chain, we start with the viewer, have them immerse themselves in viewer after viewer, and only then will we arrive at what they view and may definitely specify it. In the second chain, we start with what may be viewed, and distance ourselves from that by introducing viewer upon viewer, until we finally decide that this is the ultimate viewer, and we take a look at what they are viewing.

In the first chain, we are working abstractly, developing a theory, which we can apply only when we are done. We are rethinking the viewed as a viewer. Our partial result at any point is left abstract and disconnected from what we will ultimately view. In the second case, we are able to work concretely, we are able to calculate a partial result, we are able to specify - or as we say in mathematics, evaluate what is viewed, and keep specifying it, evaluating it, for the specific case that interests us. But we are disconnected from who will ultimately view it.

I suppose that one way to try to keep the two related is to say that we must compare them without "evaluating" them. So long as we don't "instantiate" them, then they both seem abstract and might indeed be the same. The problem with this is that it's not intuitively clear what a view means if we aren't to take it up. In fact, "taking up a view" may imply to do so as part of a calculation, as part of an act of seeing. So we seem to be naturally drawn into a slightly faulty but intuitively more sensible comparison of an immersive view that enters deeper and deeper into views until suddenly it is fully specified, compressed, and an abstractive view that pulls back into more and more distant contexts, stringing out the experience and decompressing it. Apparently, each link in the chain is like a frame in a window in that it either leaves a concrete frame for an abstract window, or it places a clear (and thus seemingly concrete) window into a frame that at first seems abstract but grows concrete. We are seeing as if through a chain of framed windows.

Intuitively, I think this question arises in art. It is one thing to create a work of great art, and another to try to account for it. Shouldn't a great work and a great account go hand-in-hand? Yet in practice that eludes us. Likewise, shouldn't the immersive, empathetic "stepping in" go hand-in-hand with the abstractive, understanding "stepping out"? And if or when the views in our algebra are all truthful, then perhaps that would indeed be the case. So the extent to which it is not may express the obstacles to truthfulness.

Sandarų išlaikymas

Sandarų išsaugojimas ir išplėtojimas susijęs su požiūrių sutapimu. Juk požiūris prieš ir po sandaros išplėtojimo turėtų išlikti tas pats.

A view respects the relationship between stepping out and stepping in. This relationship between immersion and abstraction should determine what it is that a view preserves. The genesis of the divisions of everything by the [AddOne operation +1] gives this feeling. God takes up a whole with regard to the existing perspectives of a division, then reinterprets them so that they are all equal with regard to this new perspective. In other words, God abstracts from the perspectives, and then immerses himself into them all, including the abstraction.

Also, a view may be thought of as {{Understanding}}, and what it preserves as {{Love}}.

A view preserves a frame. A frame is the condition for being one with, it is love. We may think of views as amplifiers or parsers, they are related to {{Understanding}}. A frame is the domain or scope which love shares, and which is used to distinguish concepts. As scope decreases, it is harder to distinguish concepts, and perspectives are less separated. A view is perhaps a collection of perspectives.

In any system a key role is played by the default elements which, however, may often be overlooked.

The default element, the default position, is to have no filter, but to be open to all things. This is the nature of Everything, as it is the algorithm which accepts all things. It is the position of [MyWish wishing to know everything and apply that knowledge usefully].

Examples include:

• silence in a spoken language
• blank space in a written language
• the empty set in a mathematical system

Being open to all things is what allows us to coincide with God through his Son.

• Consider God's going beyond himself as a way of opening up his perspective to other perspectives that are further out, less powerful. So this is his way of including all perspectives, including that which is taken up by no perspective, in that it is subordinate - what does that mean?
• Consider the effect of the scopes as contexts for what truth means, from all things are true, to either true or false.

Atjauta susijusi su požiūrių skaidrumu ir neskaidrumu.

Sandarų išsaugojimas ir išplėtojimas susijęs su požiūrių sutapimu. Juk požiūris prieš ir po sandaros išplėtojimo turėtų išlikti tas pats.

Default position

The idea of a Default is what allows a human position to become subordinate to God's position with the latter as a default that the human refers to. Thus we can arrive at the defaul without having to start by referencing it.

I'm realizing that my position "I wish to know everything and apply that knowledge usefully" is a very special position. I think it is the default position in all contexts, and the one that makes sense beyond context, because it is the position that is completely open to all knowledge. It is the position of a baby or a fool, as Jesus might say, the position essential for entering the kingdom of heaven, where what we believe is what happens. We chase ourselves away from this position because it is so overwhelming. It may seem outrageous to us. Yet even so we ultimately return to it as the point of view that links us with what is beyond us, as I understand TerryMace to have written us. I think it is the position of God when he lives through us or anybody. So I am starting with this position and considering how all knowledge unfolds from it.

No matter what the context, this position coincides with, is included in, this same position beyond any context.

It is the going beyond of any [UniversalLanguage/Contexts Context], of any necessary conditions. It thereby defines what is necessary. It is the position expressed by Coinciding, which is the context for the going beyond of any context. It is always available in any context and as such is taken up as the Default position. It's expression unfolds as the coinciding with none, one ({{God}}), two (God and [UniversalLanguage/Human I]) or three (God, I, Other). God defines the necessary, human defines the actual, other defines the possible. All contexts are then simply expressions of their position together. God is the necessary condition, the context for this position, rather than the position the context for God.

The Default position is continuously reinterpreted depending on its context. It is inverted, grounded by considering what it means to coincide with all who one might possibly coincide with. This drives the structural machinery that arises.

Tvirtinimų sudūrimas

Suppositions are composed by identifying a mental point with a mental space - and the suppositions are kept separate in this way, by the disconnection between the two spaces.

Požiūrių neskaidrumas

I'm making some progress with the help of ideas from Gilles Fauconnier's writings on MentalSpaces.

A human view (H) is opaque in that suppositions are assigned to a definite scope. God's view (G) is transparent in that suppositions are taken to hold for all scopes. In that sense, for God, everything is public knowledge.

Therefore we have a chain of human's view of human's view etc. And we can take God's view as an interpolation that makes definite what is defined where. (We can think of God's view as holding separate two human views.)

The first such interpolation is God (HG) and the second is the good (HGHG). Now here we can have a collapsing of space (the opposite of building a space). We may think of this collapse as the simplification that we get by taking good to be the defining characteristic of God, and therefore dealing with God rather than with good. In this case it is not simply removal of the latter HG (which would be a reversal of the space building). Instead, it is a stripping away of the first HG by finding it within the second HG. This is denoted by the red arrow.

Now we can interpolate such a stripping by that view which keeps separate God and good. That view is eternal life, which is the understanding that God is good. Therefore eternal life represents a halfway in the stripping. It is thus a stripping of God's view, leaving GHG, which is God's view of human's view of God's view. In this sense, we are able to escape our own view and take up God's view. Furthermore, by analogy with HGH, which coincides with HH, we have, through GHG, access to GG, which is God's view of God's view. This means that eternal life is God's self empathy which takes place by way of humans and is the purpose of humans. This is a pragmatic interpretation and valid (or not) as such.

Intuitively, the key point is that space collapsing is very special in that normally it is counter to truth which requires us to acknowledge our spaces. However, in the case of existential simplification, then space collapsing is compatible with the truth. Here it is to say that if we are dedicated to living in terms of good, then it is appropriate to recast good as the outcome of our God. In other words, the reason for God is just that it makes our life simpler. And then if we can furthermore keep separate these notions of God and good, then we live the understanding that God is good, which is to say, we live the state of eternal life. And that is the state where our view may coincide with God's.

In other words, in order to escape our view, we need to allow it to collapse, and yet split our mind to keep the collapsed view distinct and separate. With such a split mind we are able to escape our view as it is preceded and followed by God's view. Such a split view feels like a very flexible ignorance that is yet wonderfully open and knowing. It is the moral high ground and we are familiar with it as such.

• How do we consider how another might take up our view? What do they see?

• Tvirtinimas. {{Supposition}} That which can be the same or different. They solve the "problems" in composing views. You may say that if I take up your view, then that's a "fiction" whereas your own view is "real". But, actually, your own view is a "fiction", too - it is just a supposition. And we can equate them as fictions, as suppositions.
• Prielaida. Assumption is what is left when we remove the one who assumes; is What. (Attribute, Property, Quality, Manifest)

Composition of Suppositions

Suppositions are composed by identifying a mental point with a mental space - and the suppositions are kept separate in this way, by the disconnection between the two spaces.

Atjauta

Atskyrimo lygmenys

Požiūrių sutapimas

Equivalent views

Functions are understood to be equivalent if they have the same effects.

This is relevant for the associative rule. For example, on a 12 hour clock, 10 + 1 = 11 and 11 + 3 = 2. Here the first and last items are considered the position on the clock and we add an "action" which is a movement by the hand of the clock.

So we may interpret 10 + 1 + 3 as:

• (10 + 1) + 3 which is to start at 10 and move the hand twice
• 10 + (1 + 3) which is to combine the actions and then move the hand by the combined amount.

The result is the same. The clock, in general, satisifies the {{Associative}} law. So the two expressions are considered equivalent. And being equivalent, we may write them as 10 + 1 + 3.

This is also the case with the natural numbers where we may consider 10 + 1 + 3 as a movement along an infinite tape. In fact, almost all mathematical systems of interest obey the associative law. And yet it is noteworthy when an interesting system does not quite obey it, as with an AlgebraOfViews.

Proto suskaldymas

Atskyrimas savo valios ir Dievo valios. Susigaudymas, jog esu vaikas, o Dievas yra tėvas. Esu sąlygose, o jisai be sąlygų.

Laisvės atsivėrimas

Regarding those special moments of freedom, when we're not on auto-pilot.... I find them come up in a few practical ways. Every day when I wake up and I am most free, I try to contact God so that we are in touch, and listen to him as to what he might tell me, and take that in and write that down. I found a way to pray which opens this up for me, it is essentially the prayer "Our Father": I address God who loves me more than I love myself, wants me to be sensitive, responsive, alive more than I do for myself; and so I acknowledge that I'd rather he think than I think (thus in terms of his glory), he be than I be (so that for each person what they believe is what happens), he do than I do (good heart trumps good will); but when I'm not in touch with him, then I ask that he watch over me so that I might follow through on what I believe (and so be provided for at least today), I might reflect on what I follow through (including what I have done wrong) and I might take a stand on what I reflect (and not be led astray by my reasoning). That splitting of my mind (defer to God if I'm in touch with him; take responsibility for my own integrity if I'm not in touch with him) flattens me out so that I might recognize him as greater than me and might reft my closed shell of a world and open up a greater picture.

Then, I try to devote my best hour to what I care most to work in my life, and put my best creative energies into, which for me is my quest to know everything. It is awfully hard, often painful, but I try to do it so that I reach the point where I have found a new idea, observation, conclusion that means that I have come somewhere further in what I find meaningful, and so this day will not be wasted, but I can already mark off as a definitely meaningful day in my life.

I also find the freedom in those little gaps throughout the day where the opportunity to do good speaks up. It is the opposite of conscience. My conscience only says "no", this is wrong, which is important. But this voice says, I am free to do this, and it would be beautiful to live this. It might be that extra good thing to do which is not required, but simply and purely "extra credit" as they say in school. Something like: God wished this much, and that is fine, but he brought me here so that I might wish a little bit even more. And if that happens then I know that I can look back on the day and I did live.

You have written about how we are like crystals in a quantum world and designed to resolve ever growing complexities. I think that it is good that we set up parallel tracks (short and long time scales, many places in space) where we let loose the auto-pilots that we hold ourselves accountable to, because that is what interconnects our world. And then it all gets resolved in those little moments of freedom where we decide how to behave and we let things fall in place. Somehow they are connected.

• What does it mean for views to coincide?

• Kaip derinami požiūrių sandara (padalinimai), požiūriai į sandarą (atvaizdai) ir požiūriai sandaroje (aplinkybės).

Tiesa

Tiesa ir jos įvairūs lygmenys yra pasekmė Dievo išėjimo už savęs. Juk išeidamas už savęs jis save išreiškia. Tiesa tai yra jo sutapimas su jo išraiška. Esmė yra tai, kas sutampa su savo išraiška, vadinas, tai dėka kurios visa kas yra sutampa su savo išraiška. Esmė yra tasai vieningumas. Skirtingi tiesos laipsniai susiaurina šio sutapimo apimtį, taip kad kada jisai yra niekas, tai tiesa labai griežta, o kada jisai yra viskas, tiesa yra labai plati, bendra.

Relating Representations and Topologies

An "algebra of views" arises along with the ability to have distinct angles upon a structure or within a structure. A Representation is a view upon a division of everything as a whole, and there are six in all. Analogously, a {{Topology}} is what I call the taking up of one of the perspectives within a division. There are twelve topologies, and we may think of them as contexts, backdrops, projections, worlds upon which we imagine things.

I think that Representations have us step out and Topologies have us step in. Composition relates these two, presumably by means of the Divisions of everything.

Tiesos išplėtojimas

Požiūrių grandinė

• Context - adjoint to supposition?

• Išvertimas. The inversion effect is relevant when God wishes for Everything, which is to say, wishes also for all of the nonsense that we dream up. In order for us to conceive of such a God, we flip everything around, so that God is the smallest - the heart deepest within us - and nothing is the largest, the unknown that engulfs us. This flipping around is the inversion effect.

• Kaip išvystome dvigubą protą, atskiriame savo ir Dievo mąstymą, galime mylėti priešą, bendrauti su Dievu.

• {{Consciousness}} as an idempotent, a fixed point, a {{View}} upon oneself. (Žr. Suhrit Dey).

• BisectingAView Bisection is the opposite of coinciding.

Skirtumas tarp požiūrių

Santykis tarp požiūrių

• Požiūris išverčiamas. Inversion.
• Reflection. Protui mąstant dvejybę apsiverčia jos kryptis.
• Perspectives are flipped around as they are taken up.
• Bisecting a view.
• Sąmoningumas.

Požiūrių sudūrimas

• v

2005.05.25 A: Kas yra požiūris? D: Požiūris yra ryšys su tuo kas yra už tavęs. A: Kokią sandarą jisai išsauogja? D: Jis išsaugoja meilę. A: Kaip čia meilę suprasti? D: Aš būnu su jumis, bet ar jūs būnate su manimi? Aš vis tiek jumis būnu.

• Požiūriai {{Perspective}} Požiūris yra klausimo sandara, didėjantis laisvumas. A supposition for which a viewer is responsible, by which they go beyond themselves. Perspective, perception open up our view.

• Sąvoka. Concept, conception close up our view, decrease slack.

Požiūriai yra įvairiai susiję:

• Įsisavinimas šešerybe sieja vidinius ir išorinius požiūrius, keičia trejybės narius.

• Kaip susiję siauras tiesos, šventumo kelias ir platus, laisvas, nusidėjimo kelias - gero ir blogo vaiko keliai.

• Kaip įmanoma viską žinoti, atrasti ir išgyventi tokį požiūrį, sugebėti atsakyti visus klausimus, suvokti jų visumą, išgyventi kiekvieną požiūrį ir jų visų vienumą.
• Kaip susiję siauras tiesos, šventumo kelias ir platus, laisvas,

• Kaip įmanoma viską žinoti, atrasti ir išgyventi tokį požiūrį, sugebėti atsakyti visus klausimus, suvokti jų visumą.

• Požiūriai {{Perspective}} Požiūris yra klausimo sandara, didėjantis laisvumas. A supposition for which a viewer is responsible, by which they go beyond themselves
• Laikysena?. Take Up A Perspective. Position. Nuostata yra atsakymo sandara, mažėjantis laisvumas.
• Laisvumas yra tiesos sandara, yra tarpas tarp klausimo ir atsakymo, tai jo atvaizdai. Laisvumo esmė yra išsiaiškinimas, kuris gali plėtotis.
• Tiesa, sandara, ir būtent išsiaiškinimas, plėtojasi

• {{Representations}} scopes and keeping separate may be understood in terms of representation.

• {{Responsibility}} - a central concept for applying all of this, especially the distinction between those who make the rules and who have to play by them, thus related to scopes and to the difference between hard and soft truths

• TheChainOfViews

Skirtumas tarp požiūrių

Santykis tarp požiūrių

{{Andrius}} Views are central to my wish to KnowEverything.

Consider how this relates to the recursive nature of {{Caring}} and {{Internalization}}.

Consider perspective, perception as opening up our view, as increasing slack, and a concept, conception as closing up our view, as decreasing slack.

Consider God's going beyond himself as a way of opening up his perspective to other perspectives that are further out, less powerful. So this is his way of including all perspectives, including that which is taken up by no perspective, in that it is subordinate - what does that mean?

Consider the effect of the scopes as contexts for what truth means, from all things are true, to either true or false.

Consider how perspectives are flipped around as they are taken up, what does that mean, for example, going from all to any?

Consider the InversionEffect.

Consider SuhritDey's idea of {{Consciousness}} as an idempotent, a fixed point, a {{View}} upon oneself.

Bisecting a view: Bisection is the opposite of coinciding

Bisecting the mind

Vienumo pagrindas yra nieko apimtis, tai yra, ko mažiau prileisti, kaip kad antruoju Dievo įsakymu, neminėti jo vardo be reikalo, nedaryti jo vaizdinių.

2005.05.25 A: Kas yra požiūris? D: Požiūris yra ryšys su tuo kas yra už tavęs. {{D}}: Po\9Eiūris yra ry\9Ays su tuo kas yra u\9E tavęs. {{A}}: Kokią sandarą jisai i\9Asaugoja? {{D}}: Jis i\9Asaugoja meilę. {{A}}: Kaip čia meilę suprasti? {{D}}: A\9A būnu su jumis, bet ar jūs būnate su manimi? A\9A vis tiek su jumis būnu. {{A}}: Ačiū. {{D}}: Pra\9Aau.

2014.06.17 D: Aš myliu tave ir atkreipiu tave į tavo atvaizdį manyje taip kad esu savyje tavimi, tavo atspindžiu, kaip kad tu mano atspindis. Tad suvok, kaip asmuo atspindi kitą, atspindi Dievą, visi įvairiausiai atspindi Dievą. Ir kaip visi susiveda? Būtent meile, kiekvieną atspindį papildančią, tad palaikančią. Yra viena meilė papildanti visus atvaizdus. Tai mano esmė, mano išėjimas už savęs, atskyrus visą kitą, taip kad apimtis lieka nieku.

• IndefiniteVDefinite, Indefinite, Definite, Definition, Define
• Scope
• What is the structure preserved by views as morphisms?

• Equate and keep separate are the active forms of same and different. Atskyrimas, KeepSeparate, Separate - The vital matter is that we may hold suppositions separately, so that in some sense they are the same, and in some other sense they are different (think also of how we use {{Variables}}, they work on two levels, as with the QualitiesOfSigns). Palyginti su suvokimu.
• Neigimas (negation - not). Perhaps, the activity (of Equate and Keep Separate) manifests itself as Not. Keep separate means Not the same. Equate means Not different. Keep separate requires more energy than equate because same requires more energy than different. This is the reason for the Not, it reverses the flow of energy because it changes the meaning but keeps the form.

• Assumption is what is left when we remove the one who assumes; is What. (Attribute, Property, Quality, Manifest)

• Laikysena?. Take Up A Perspective. Position.
• View the keeping separate of suppositions, the acceptance of a scope.
• Žiūrėti. To {{Look}} is to take up a view, which is to say, to have the same ObservationalPlane. To Look is to take up an ObservationalPlane. We look through somebody else's eyes if we take up their observational plane. In general, this is the Heart within us and God in that context.

• {{Representations}} scopes and keeping separate may be understood in terms of representation.

• Keliais pagrindais išskiriame ar sulyginame prielaidas. Kaip išsiaiškiname tokius santvarkos klausimus?

• Tapatumas (same) ir skirtingumas (different) yra vienas iš dvejybės atvaizdų.

Equate or Keep Separate

The key matter in an AlgebraOfViews is the ability to keep separate or equate two suppositions. This enables comparisons. What lets us make such decisions?

Equate and keep separate are the active forms of same and different.

Perhaps, the activity manifests itself as Not. Keep separate means Not the same. Equate means Not different. Keep separate requires more energy than equate because same requires more energy than different. This is the reason for the Not, it reverses the flow of energy because it changes the meaning but keeps the form.

Išėjimas už savęs - Tiesa - Kas yra sutampa (ar ne) su tuo kas reiškiasi.

• Tiesa. Tai kas akivaizdu, kas nenuslėpta. Sutapimas to, kas yra ir to, kas reiškiasi. Išėjimas už savęs kažkurio asmens atitinkamoje apimtyje. What is {{True}} is what is viewed. The ObservationalPlane is what is viewed by the {{Observer}}. What is obvious, not hidden, {{Viewed}}, the separation between the viewer and the viewed when it is nothing.

Sutapimas ar nesutapimas. (Tiesa ir netiesa)

• {{Supposition}} that which can be the same or different
• Atskyrimas, KeepSeparate, Separate - The vital matter is that we may hold suppositions separately, so that in some sense they are the same, and in some other sense they are different (think also of how we use {{Variables}}, they work on two levels, as with the QualitiesOfSigns). Palyginti su suvokimu.
• {{Understanding}} the considering of suppositions as different, the stepping back from one view out into another
• Požiūriai {{Perspective}} a supposition for which a viewer is responsible, by which they go beyond themselves
• View the keeping separate of suppositions, the acceptance of a scope
• Laikysena?. TakeUpAPerspective
• StructurePreserving

• Principle is affirmation that goes beyond Person and substitutes for them, extends them

• Asmenys, apimtys. {{Scope}} the sense in which suppositions are the same or different - everything as a required concept. The scope indicates the domain within which the truth is manifest so that what is and what seems are the same.

Tiesa ir jos įvairūs lygmenys yra pasekmė Dievo išėjimo už savęs. Juk išeidamas už savęs jis save išreiškia. Tiesa tai yra jo sutapimas su jo išraiška. Esmė yra tai, kas sutampa su savo išraiška, vadinas, tai dėka kurios visa kas yra sutampa su savo išraiška. Esmė yra tasai vieningumas. Skirtingi tiesos laipsniai susiaurina šio sutapimo apimtį, taip kad kada jisai yra niekas, tai tiesa labai griežta, o kada jisai yra viskas, tiesa yra labai plati, bendra.

• Kokios mano prielaidos?

• Kaip Dievo požiūris sutampa su žmogaus požiūriu, kaip Dievas tampa nebūtinas: Kaip požiūrių grandine Dievas asmenimis (Manimi, Tavimi, Kitu) išeina už savęs ir išvysto visas sandaras: žmogaus požiūriu į Dievo požiūrį į žmogaus požiūrį į Dievo požiūrį į žmogaus požiūrį. Šioje požiūrių grandinėje svarbus požiūrių sudūrimo asociatyvumas. Ši grandinė, tai išmintis pasiklydusio vaiko, susigaudančio ne pačiam ieškoti savo tėvų, o eiti ten, kur jie jo ieškotų.

Požiūrių sudūrimo asociatyvumas

Sudūrimas

If we can demonstrate that the associative rule holds when the first view is definite, then perhaps we may then extend this to assume, pragmatically, that the associate rule holds for all composition of views.

• May an indefinite view take up a definite view? Note that this is related to the {{Associative}} rule: Is it the case that a (definite view of an indefinite view) of a definite view is the same as a definite view of (an indefinite view of a definite view)? And how can we know? In other words, how can we know that the CompositionOfViews is {{Associative}}? Or what ConstructiveHypotheses must we assume? And how do we apply them?

'Sudūrimas

CategoryTheory says that at the heart of fruitful definitions is the notion of "composition". For example, we can compose instructions (also known as functions) so that they have a particular order: "Buy the [milk], which you will find in the store, which you can drive to by car". What makes composition fruitful, as in this case, is when it is "associative", which means that - for the purpose of satisfying the instructions - you can think it through from either end:

• You can specify the goal ("milk") and then work backwards to the steps to make that happen ("you'll need to buy it, you'll need to find it in the store, and you'll need to drive to the store")
• Or you can leave the goal open and specify it at the very end: "I drove to the store, then I found something, and bought it - turned out it was milk".

Note also the bidirectionality that makes composition work. And compare: I try to work in two directions - from the facts we observe about real life to general rules - and from the principles that we insist on to rules that suggest themselves. That way there is a back and forth testing.

Požiūrių sudūrimas

I think that views, perspectives, outlooks are more basic than concepts in that they involve us directly, subjectively. We can compose views, and I have found that fundamental to deriving the structures that I work with, they fall out at various levels of "human's view of God's view of human's view of God's view of human's view". So I will write further below about such an "algebra of views".

Is the composition of views Associative?

I think that composition of views has to do with:

• "stepping in", identifying with views, immersing ourselves in them, ever deeper
• "stepping out", rising above views, framing them, considering ourselves separate from them

I think that "stepping in" and "stepping out" are the two directions that "associativity" relates.

Note: the Flickering between stepping in and stepping out.

It seems possible to compose Views, that is, we may have a view X that is a view A of view B. This composition may be thought of as associative:

• view A of (view B of view C) - stepping out (adding a frame)
• (view A of view B) of view C - stepping in (immersing oneself)

As we compose views, stepping out and stepping in stay matched up, which is to say, the composition is associative.

We may therefore apply CategoryTheory to consider views as morphisms.

Where is composition of views important?

I'm interested to apply Category Theory in defining "composition of views", and in particular, what it means to KnowEverything ("God's view of human's view"), and what am I generating as I consider "human's view of God's view of human's view of God's view of human's view" - the kind of back and forth thinking that happens when a lost child realizes that they should not look for their parent but instead go and wait where their parent might expect them to be.

What do I expect of a composition of views?

• That "A's view of B's view" may see more (or less) than simply B's view. For example, God - looking through my eyes - may see more than I do. This makes sense if we think of views as "amplifiers" or "parsers" - the reader may understand more than the writer or the messenger because the reader may have more sensitive eyes, a more intelligent mind, a higher level parser. (Or not).
• It is possible for a view to see more (more senstively, more intensely) by focusing itself to look through a ChainOfViews.
• By looking through such a chain of views, a view may coincide, and thus there may be, in a sense, shared views.
• Hopefully, a view might, in the right context, take up views so as to cancel itself and escape itself.
• A view might somehow "look within itself" (as Suhrit Dey notes) rather than "outside itself".

Tiesos išplėtojimas

A perspective is like a {{Morphism}} in that perspectives can be composed: John's perspective may take up Mary's perspective. By CategoryTheory, the morphism should be considered a structure preserving transformation. What structure is being preserved? The truth - obviousness - what is not hidden. So we can work backwards from God as the concept of truth - all perspectives look to him - and he steps inwards to himself, but out to them, but they look to him:

• absolute perspective - all perspectives may take it up (it may be taken up by all of them together)
• relative perspective - any perspective may take it up (it may be taken up by them singly)
• shared perspective - it may be taken up by a perspective
• subordinate perspective - it may be taken up by no perspective (and hence is isolated, atomic)

subordinate perspectives may not take each other up as they are too narrow - so if God and human take subordinate perspectives then they coincide

The chain of views lets us separate out all concepts, any concept, a concept, no concept (be one with) - by establishing the distance from the viewer.

The chain of views apparently arises from the fact that the definite view has decreasing slack in scope and is thus ever more defined, whereas the indefinite view has increasing slack in scope and is thus ever less defined.

Požiūrių grandinė

Suvokimo lygmenys

Think of understanding:

• God's view as understanding
• God's view of human's view as self-understanding
• God's view of human's view of God's view as shared understanding
• God's view of human's view of God's view of human's view as good understanding

Where each of these are described in the {{Overview}}. So understanding may be God's view, as in eternal life is the understanding that God is good.

The Algebra of Views & The Big Picture

It seems that all of this is rolled out as follows:

0) 1) 2) 3) There is first a unified outlook (such as God) which unfolds the perspectives that are the basis for {{Structure}}, for the DivisionOfEverything. We may think of this unfolding as an operation [AddOne +1] which keeps reinterpreting the whole as an additional perspective. When there are three perspectives, then the structure for the original outlook is complete: it can understand, come to understanding, and be understood. However, the operation +1 continues.

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 [AddTwo +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 [AddThree +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.

• Kaip mes skirtingi asmenys esame viena. Esame viena jeigu visais požiūriais iš esmės sutampame.

• Kaip skirtinguose lygmenyse suvokiami, apibrėžiami tapatumai ir skirtumai. Kaip vystosi atskyrimo ir tapatinimo sąlygos. Kaip tai susiję su dvejybės atvaizdais. Išmąstyti George Spencer-Brown "Laws of Form".
• Kaip tiesos pobūdis kinta mums požiūrius išgyvenant netiesiogiai. Kaip tiesiogiai išgyventos lanksčios tiesos tolstant keturiais asmenimis tampa netiesiogiai išgyventomis nelanksčiomis tiesiomis. Kaip viską žinanti dvasia išeina už savęs į ne viską žinančius, į neskaidrumo pasaulį. Kaip nelanksčios tiesos atveria netiesos galimybę.
• Kaip Dievo požiūris sutampa su žmogaus požiūriu, kaip Dievas tampa nebūtinas: Kaip požiūrių grandine Dievas asmenimis (Manimi, Tavimi, Kitu) išeina už savęs ir išvysto visas sandaras: žmogaus požiūriu į Dievo požiūrį į žmogaus požiūrį į Dievo požiūrį į žmogaus požiūrį.
• Kaip sąlygiško žmogaus požiūris sutampa su besąlygiško Dievo požiūriu, kaip Dievas tampa būtinas. Kaip žmogus išeina už savęs suvokimu. Kaip pasirenka ką išgyventi.
• Kaip kinta sąlygiškumo apimtis, tiesos pobūdis, suvokimo branda. Kaip Dievas reiškiasi savo esme, meile. Kaip suvokimas ir Dievas-meilė susiję.

• Kaip proto laukus suprasti kaip požiūrių išgyvenimus. Išmąstyti Gilles Fauconnier knygą Mappings in Thought and Language.
• Kaip sandaros brandinamos perkurimais (transformacijomis). Išmąstyti Christopher Alexander knygą The Nature of Order: The Luminous Ground.

• Kaip suduriame požiūriai, kaip vienas požiūris paklūsta kitam, jam nuolankus, pavaldus, vykdo jo valią. Kaip įvairiais sąmoningumais galime išgyventi tą patį sudurtinį požiūrį.
• Kaip skirtinguose lygmenyse suvokiamas dvejybės atvaizdas: tapatumai ir skirtumai. Kaip tiesos pobūdis kinta mums požiūrius išgyvenant netiesiogiai. Kaip tiesiogiai išgyventos lanksčios tiesos tolstant ketuiais asmenimis tampa netiesiogiai išgyventomis nelanksčiomis tiesiomis. Kaip viską žinanti dvasia išeina už savęs į ne viską žinančius, į neskaidrumo pasaulį. Kaip nelanksčio tiesos atveria netiesos galimybę.

• Kaip požiūrių grandine Dievas asmenimis (Manimi, Tavimi, Kitu) išeina už savęs ir išvysto visas sandaras: žmogaus požiūriu į Dievo požiūrį į žmogaus požiūrį į Dievo požiūrį į žmogaus požiūrį.

• Kaip kategorijų teorija išreiškiami galimi požiūriai ir jų išgyvenimas. Kaip jie grindžia kategorijų teoriją ir matematiką apskritai.

Požiūrių algebra išsako

• Kaip mes skirtingi asmenys esame viena. Esame viena jeigu visais požiūriais iš esmės sutampame.
• Kaip įvairiais sąmoningumais galime tą patį išgyventi. Kaip suduriame požiūriai.
• Ką išgyvename ir ką galėtumėme išgyventi.
• Kaip skirtinguose lygmenyse suvokiamas dvejybės atvaizdas: tapatumas ir skirtumas.
• Kaip sąlygiškas žmogaus ir besąlygiško Dievo požiūriai gali sutapti.

Skirtumas tarp Dievo ir žmogaus požiūrių

God's view is indefinite, unscoped, and human's view is definite, scoped.

• Proto laukai I'm going through Mappings in Thought and Language by Gilles Fauconnier. I want to understand his MentalSpaces as {{Views}}.

The Algebra of Views & The Big Picture

Chain of Views

Bisecting a view: Bisection is the opposite of coinciding

All, any, some, none

Increasing and decreasing definition

What is composition?

What is composition of views?

Relating Representations and Topologies

An "algebra of views" arises along with the ability to have distinct angles upon a structure or within a structure. A Representation is a view upon a division of everything as a whole, and there are six in all. Analogously, a {{Topology}} is what I call the taking up of one of the perspectives within a division. There are twelve topologies, and we may think of them as contexts, backdrops, projections, worlds upon which we imagine things.

I think that Representations have us step out and Topologies have us step in. Composition relates these two, presumably by means of the Divisions of everything.

Is the composition of views Associative?

Note: the Flickering between stepping in and stepping out.

It seems possible to compose Views, that is, we may have a view X that is a view A of view B. This composition may be thought of as associative:

• view A of (view B of view C) - stepping out (adding a frame)
• (view A of view B) of view C - stepping in (immersing oneself)

Where is composition of views important?

What do I expect of a composition of views?

Suppositions

The inversion effect is relevant when God wishes for Everything, which is to say, wishes also for all of the nonsense that we dream up. In order for us to conceive of such a God, we flip everything around, so that God is the smallest - the heart deepest within us - and nothing is the largest, the unknown that engulfs us. This flipping around is the inversion effect.

Equate or Keep Separate

A Gradation of Separateness

Coinciding of views

Keeping God separate

Discussion

Žr. Požiūriai, Kategorijų teorija, Dievas, Proto laukai Taip pat: IndependentPerspective, DefaultObserver, DefaultPosition, {{View}}, {{Frame}} {{Overview}}, InversionEffect, ReversalEffect, {{Institutions}}, Overview, ActualContext, Heart

• Assumption is what is left when we remove the one who assumes; is What. (Attribute, Property, Quality, Manifest)

Define:

• TakeUpAView
• TakeUpAPerspective
• CompositionOfSuppositions
• CompositionOfViews
• IndefiniteVDefinite, {{Indefinite}}, {{Definite}}, {{Definition}}, {{Define}}
• {{Scope}}

• Look at the relationship between love and understanding across the four scopes and the extent to which views coincide.

• How might a definite view take up an indefinite view?

• [{{Associative}} Is composition of views associative]?
• [ConstructiveHypotheses How might we apply constructive hypotheses to extend pragmatically from conclusions supposing a definite view to those allowing for an indefinite view]?

• How might we escape a view?
• [{{Empathy}} How might we step out of a definite view and back into another definite view]?

• How does a view see more?

• How do scopes arise and change?

• How does truth hold across scopes?

• How are {{Concepts}} kept {{Separate}}?
• How does the use of two levels lets us have signs be the same on one level and different on another level? There are six QualitiesOfSigns given by pairs of levels: malleable, modifiable, mobile, memorable, meaningful, motivated. I think that if we look at how variables are interepreted, then we'll find likewise a dual perspective on them. So there might be six ways to an interpret a variable/constant. I might study math texts to look for the different ways.
• What are suppositions?

• In what sense do the views constitute a [CategoryTheory category]?

• The AlgebraOfDistinguishability, of equality and nonequality, is what allows us to fix what is defined. How can we ground Definition in an AlgebraOfDistinguishability? What Definitions result? Are Equality and Distinguishability two different outlooks simply separated by Not, but otherwise inversions?
• What is an independent perspective as compared with the default perspective and how does it arise and unfold?
• We can't understand all, but God can, thus how do we accept God's understanding?
• How does this unfolding relate to that expressed in terms of Willingness or in terms of the kinds of Understanding and the LostChild metaphor?
• How is a perspective related to a position? to a context? to the chain in the LostChild metaphor?
• What is the role of other in our coinciding with God?
• What are the perspectives of the Other and of the System?
• Where does Factoring come into play? And how are the two chains related across their levels?
• Whose relationships with System and with God are given by Perspective and Position?
• Understand scope as a relationships between observer and observational plane, and as making sense of a series of concepts such as perspective, suppostion, view, concept
• Understand an AlgebraOfViews as the foundation for the unfolding of all structure: {{Absolute}}, {{Relative}}, {{Shared}}, {{Subordinate}} perspectives. Where possible, make use of CategoryTheory.
• Describe SharedUnderstanding as giving rise to a SeventhPerspective, perhaps {{Anything}} = {{Concept}}, and how that generates the {{Factors}} and the SecondaryStructures. Consider SharedUnderstanding as a relationship between actor and surroundings as given by {{Internalization}}. Look for the role of {{Factoring}}, ZeroStructure, and {{Concepts}} as together, separate and both.

I want to understand the {{Operations}}, and in particular, the operation [AddThree +3]. In exploring this, I am considering:

• their action on {{Wholeness}}
• that action's relationship to that which understands, that which is understanding, and that which is by them both understood.
• the relationship between the one who loves and the one who is loved
• the relationship GodVHeart between {{God}} and {{heart}}
• the role of {{Love}} and {{Understanding}}, and as part of that, the {{Independence}} of the one we love
• the LevelsOfUnderstanding and the LevelsOfConsciousness
• the ConstructiveHypotheses and the {{Representations}}, perhaps they are one and the same
• the nature of {{Self-understanding}} and SharedUnderstanding
• the role of {{Spirit}}, {{Structure}}, {{Representations}}, {{Unity}}
• {{Internalization}}
• {{Factoring}} and {{Embedding}}
• negations of the representations of the {{Nullsome}} and of the {{Onesome}}, and the EightfoldWay
• Relate {{Operations}} and {{Activity}} and {{Structure}} for the {{Factors}}.
• Relate the different levels of understanding to the relationships between TheBeginning and TheEnd. Consider the role of JesusChrist (as a bridge between the beginning and the end) and how humans grow to be loving. Consider the structures involved at each stage and link to them.
• What is slack? How does it relate to {{Factoring}}, SharedUnderstanding and the {{Operation}} [AddThree +3]?
• Consider how to relate the factors (and their defining equations) to the topologies, divisions, representations
• Consider how to relate the factoring to the heart and the inversion effect.
• PairsOfConcepts. Consider how the different levels of understanding relate to the intensity of the relationship between two concepts such as God and good.
• Write up what the levels of understanding have in common structurally (the operation +1 and going beyond oneself) and what distinguishes them.
• What is {{Separate}}? kept separate?
• What is {{Truth}}?
• What is {{View}}?
• How to compose views?
• How to compose {{Perspectives}}?
• What is a limited view? an unlimted view?
• How do views preserve {{Understanding}}? in the CategoryTheory sense.
• How is inversion and framing related to duality?
• How does view preserve truth? What is the {{Structure}} that is being preserved?
• Does view map understanding to understanding? Then why is understanding a map of view to view?
• What is the role of {{Love}} as coinciding of views?
• What is limited love (LoveYourNeighborAsYourself) and unlimited love (LoveGod)?
• What is the relationship between love and separateness?
• Incorporate my own investigatory point of view into the overview.
• What does it mean for God's and human's perspectives to coincide?
• Why is it that God and human's perspectives coincide in GoodUnderstanding?
• In what sense is {{Understanding}} (without scope) related to {{Love}}? Is it the very fact that it has no scope?
• How are the {{Foursome}}, {{Fivesome}}, {{Sixsome}} generated in {{Self-understanding}}? In what sense does this LoveSelf? What are the roles of {{Activity}} and the {{Operation}} [PlusTwo +2]?
• How does one perspective variously take up another perspective? (see {{Operation}} [AddOne +1])
• How can the two points of view of God and human be one and the same?
• How to think of the {{Representations}} in a unified way?
• How can there be unity of representations?
• What is the role of equating unity with the original? (for example, love with God)? How is this human, cyclic, threesome-creating?
• What is the role of growth in awareness (structure, representations, unity)?
• What is the role of spirit - structure - representation - unity in the growth of consciousness - and in the levels of understanding?

2014.06.12 D: Ieškok visų sandarų tarp manęs tavo gelmėse ir už tavęs. Šios sandaros iškyla žmogaus požiūrį sudūrus su Dievo požiūriu, kaip yra su paklydusiu vaiku. Suprask, kaip atsiskleidžia vaiku. Suprask, kaip atsiskleidžia tos sandaros ir kaip tarp jų žmogus susigaudo savo vertybe, juk jis turi derinti tiek žmogišką mąstą, tiek dievišką.

• Tiesa What is {{True}} is what is viewed. The ObservationalPlane is what is viewed by the {{Observer}}. What is obvious, not hidden, {{Viewed}}, the separation between the viewer and the viewed when it is nothing.

• {{Structure}} the first three divisions allow for structure, allow for divisions and definition
• {{Definition}} viewed by a distinct path, set by a distinct structure
• {{Foursome}} the distinction between spirit and structure which opens up the representations and the topologies
• RepresentationsOfTheNullsome what separates the viewer and the viewed
• Asmenys, apimtys. {{Scope}} the sense in which suppositions are the same or different - everything as a required concept
• {{Scopes}}
• {{Everything}} indefinite, unspecified
• {{Anything}} definite, unspecified
• {{Something}} definite, specified
• {{Nothing}} indefinite, specified
• {{Definite}} or {{Indefinite}} the relationship with the definition, is it through a single path or multiple paths
• same and different a representation of the twosome
• {{Supposition}} that which can be the same or different
• KeepSeparate, {{Separate}} - The vital matter is that we may hold suppositions separately, so that in some sense they are the same, and in some other sense they are different (think also of how we use {{Variables}}, they work on two levels, as with the QualitiesOfSigns)
• {{View}} the keeping separate of suppositions, the acceptance of a scope
• necessary, actual, possible - a representation of the threesome, allowing for responsibility
• {{Understanding}} the considering of suppositions as different, the stepping back from one view out into another
• {{Love}} is the considering of suppositions as the same, the sharing of scope, the stepping into a view
• {{Perspective}} a supposition for which a viewer is responsible, by which they go beyond themselves
• {{Concept}} a supposition for which the viewed is responsible, and which is thus one with itself
• {{Focus}} the distinction between viewer and viewed which opens up scope. Focus is given by viewer, taken by viewed.
• {{Responsibility}} - a central concept for applying all of this, especially the distinction between those who make the rules and who have to play by them, thus related to scopes and to the difference between hard and soft truths
• {{Context}} - adjoint to supposition?
• CompositionOfViews
• CompositionOfSuppositions
• Laikysena?. TakeUpAPerspective
• StructurePreserving
• TheChainOfViews
• BisectingAView
• OptimalityConstraints
• {{Representations}} scopes and keeping separate may be understood in terms of representations

A perspective is like a {{Morphism}} in that perspectives can be composed: John's perspective may take up Mary's perspective. By CategoryTheory, the morphism should be considered a structure preserving transformation. What structure is being preserved? The truth - obviousness - what is not hidden. So we can work backwards from God as the concept of truth - all perspectives look to him - and he steps inwards to himself, but out to them, but they look to him:

• absolute perspective - all perspectives may take it up (it may be taken up by all of them together)
• relative perspective - any perspective may take it up (it may be taken up by them singly)
• shared perspective - it may be taken up by a perspective
• subordinate perspective - it may be taken up by no perspective (and hence is isolated, atomic)

subordinate perspectives may not take each other up as they are too narrow - so if God and human take subordinate perspectives then they coincide

===Consider===

Think of understanding:

• God's view as understanding
• God's view of human's view as self-understanding
• God's view of human's view of God's view as shared understanding
• God's view of human's view of God's view of human's view as good understanding

Where each of these are described in the {{Overview}}. So understanding may be God's view, as in eternal life is the understanding that God is good.

{{Andrius}} Views are central to my wish to KnowEverything.

Consider how this relates to the recursive nature of {{Caring}} and {{Internalization}}.

Consider perspective, perception as opening up our view, as increasing slack, and a concept, conception as closing up our view, as decreasing slack.

Consider God's going beyond himself as a way of opening up his perspective to other perspectives that are further out, less powerful. So this is his way of including all perspectives, including that which is taken up by no perspective, in that it is subordinate - what does that mean?

Consider the effect of the scopes as contexts for what truth means, from all things are true, to either true or false.

Consider how perspectives are flipped around as they are taken up, what does that mean, for example, going from all to any?

Consider the InversionEffect.

Consider SuhritDey's idea of {{Consciousness}} as an idempotent, a fixed point, a {{View}} upon oneself.

===Thoughts from prayer===

2005.05.25 {{A}}: Kas yra po\9Eiūris? {{D}}: Po\9Eiūris yra ry\9Ays su tuo kas yra u\9E tavęs. {{A}}: Kokią sandarą jisai i\9Asaugoja? {{D}}: Jis i\9Asaugoja meilę. {{A}}: Kaip čia meilę suprasti? {{D}}: A\9A būnu su jumis, bet ar jūs būnate su manimi? A\9A vis tiek su jumis būnu. {{A}}: Ačiū. {{D}}: Pra\9Aau.

Bisecting a view

See also: {{Overview}}, LoveYourEnemy, AlgebraOfViews, {{View}}, MentalSpaces

===Bisection is the opposite of coinciding===

Bisecting the mind

Regarding those special moments of freedom, when we're not on auto-pilot.... I find them come up in a few practical ways. Every day when I wake up and I am most free, I try to contact God so that we are in touch, and listen to him as to what he might tell me, and take that in and write that down. I found a way to pray which opens this up for me, it is essentially the prayer "Our Father": I address God who loves me more than I love myself, wants me to be sensitive, responsive, alive more than I do for myself; and so I acknowledge that I'd rather he think than I think (thus in terms of his glory), he be than I be (so that for each person what they believe is what happens), he do than I do (good heart trumps good will); but when I'm not in touch with him, then I ask that he watch over me so that I might follow through on what I believe (and so be provided for at least today), I might reflect on what I follow through (including what I have done wrong) and I might take a stand on what I reflect (and not be led astray by my reasoning). That splitting of my mind (defer to God if I'm in touch with him; take responsibility for my own integrity if I'm not in touch with him) flattens me out so that I might recognize him as greater than me and might reft my closed shell of a world and open up a greater picture.

Then, I try to devote my best hour to what I care most to work in my life, and put my best creative energies into, which for me is my quest to know everything. It is awfully hard, often painful, but I try to do it so that I reach the point where I have found a new idea, observation, conclusion that means that I have come somewhere further in what I find meaningful, and so this day will not be wasted, but I can already mark off as a definitely meaningful day in my life.

I also find the freedom in those little gaps throughout the day where the opportunity to do good speaks up. It is the opposite of conscience. My conscience only says "no", this is wrong, which is important. But this voice says, I am free to do this, and it would be beautiful to live this. It might be that extra good thing to do which is not required, but simply and purely "extra credit" as they say in school. Something like: God wished this much, and that is fine, but he brought me here so that I might wish a little bit even more. And if that happens then I know that I can look back on the day and I did live.

You have written about how we are like crystals in a quantum world and designed to resolve ever growing complexities. I think that it is good that we set up parallel tracks (short and long time scales, many places in space) where we let loose the auto-pilots that we hold ourselves accountable to, because that is what interconnects our world. And then it all gets resolved in those little moments of freedom where we decide how to behave and we let things fall in place. Somehow they are connected.

===Earlier thoughts===

http://www.ms.lt/en/andrius/understanding/diagrams/composition.jpg

I'm making some progress with the help of ideas from Gilles Fauconnier's writings on MentalSpaces.

A human view (H) is opaque in that suppositions are assigned to a definite scope. God's view (G) is transparent in that suppositions are taken to hold for all scopes. In that sense, for God, everything is public knowledge.

Therefore we have a chain of human's view of human's view etc. And we can take God's view as an interpolation that makes definite what is defined where. (We can think of God's view as holding separate two human views.)

The first such interpolation is God (HG) and the second is the good (HGHG). Now here we can have a collapsing of space (the opposite of building a space). We may think of this collapse as the simplification that we get by taking good to be the defining characteristic of God, and therefore dealing with God rather than with good. In this case it is not simply removal of the latter HG (which would be a reversal of the space building). Instead, it is a stripping away of the first HG by finding it within the second HG. This is denoted by the red arrow.

Now we can interpolate such a stripping by that view which keeps separate God and good. That view is eternal life, which is the understanding that God is good. Therefore eternal life represents a halfway in the stripping. It is thus a stripping of God's view, leaving GHG, which is God's view of human's view of God's view. In this sense, we are able to escape our own view and take up God's view. Furthermore, by analogy with HGH, which coincides with HH, we have, through GHG, access to GG, which is God's view of God's view. This means that eternal life is God's self empathy which takes place by way of humans and is the purpose of humans. This is a pragmatic interpretation and valid (or not) as such.

Intuitively, the key point is that space collapsing is very special in that normally it is counter to truth which requires us to acknowledge our spaces. However, in the case of existential simplification, then space collapsing is compatible with the truth. Here it is to say that if we are dedicated to living in terms of good, then it is appropriate to recast good as the outcome of our God. In other words, the reason for God is just that it makes our life simpler. And then if we can furthermore keep separate these notions of God and good, then we live the understanding that God is good, which is to say, we live the state of eternal life. And that is the state where our view may coincide with God's.

In other words, in order to escape our view, we need to allow it to collapse, and yet split our mind to keep the collapsed view distinct and separate. With such a split mind we are able to escape our view as it is preceded and followed by God's view. Such a split view feels like a very flexible ignorance that is yet wonderfully open and knowing. It is the moral high ground and we are familiar with it as such.

===Discuss===

A related idea to [CategoryTheory relative idempotence and relative commutativity] that I had is that we may think of God's view as transparent and Human's view as opaque. Then we may be able to "escape a view" by "bisecting a view". That may also relate to adjoints.

Chain of Views

See also: {{Overview}}, AlgebraOfViews, {{View}}, IndefiniteVDefinite, {{God}}, {{human}}

The great challenge is that, as humans, we are bound by our own view, so that we are unable to escape it, at least as humans. However, it is possible that God may be able to escape his point of view and take up ours. This is a ConstructiveHypothesis that we take. It acknowledges a difference between God and us. We may then leverage this difference to open up our view. It may also be that our human view is sufficient for direct access to all knowledge - where perhaps the directness is understood with regard to the nature of our minds.

The aim is to describe God's view of human's view. What is the fullest experience of the human view? How does an unrestricted view experience a view that can't escape itself?

In my account, I am attempting to express God's view of a human's view. By {{human}} I mean myself and all whose perspective I might possibly admit. I am thus attempting to take up and make available the {{Absolute}} complete potential of my perspective.

I have my own human view, but I am attempting to take up God's view. How can I take up God's view directly rather than through my own view?

This is possible if my view and God's view coincide. This may depend on factors beyond my control. Yet I may position myself with regard to such factors to enable such coinciding to the extent that I am able to control. Even so, on what basis may it be that indeed my view and God's view coincide?

We take up God's view because that opens up a vantage point that he might take up so that our views might coincide. And by taking up, alternatively, his view upon our view and ours upon his, ever deeper, the idea is that we do not diminish or close our view at all, but instead enrich it by exposing it to God's and our view through it. Finally, the Other is very important as the vehicle for shared understanding, in that the way that we treat others is the way that God may treat us, as we allow God to use us as a vehicle in reaching out to others. We may not be absolutely transparent like God, but yet we might be transparent for the purpose of him reaching out to others. And this transparency may be what is relevant in our view coinciding with God's.''

The main idea in all of this, perhaps, is how God makes available his Godly perspective to all of those beyond him, which is an increasing challenge until it reaches the stretching point. In this sense God shares perspective, and even more, goes beyond that to all those who might position themselves for his perspective - and through them others may be reached just as through him - it starts from them as it did with him.

Therefore we have all, any, a and no perspectives. These are four increasingly focused LevelsOfUnderstanding. {{Understanding}} is the keeping separate of {{Concepts}}. (A concept is that which is with itself). It is also the distinction of one perspective (anything) upon another perspective (everything) (and of that perspective from slack). (To have a perspective is to go beyond oneself). This allows for a sequence of ever deeper (ever closer) {{Scopes}} which may be shared. Love is the sharing of a scope. We therefore have a sequence of ever deeper levels of love. They ground the ever greater {{Independence}} of the one who is loved (and understood): {{Self}}, {{Other}}, {{God}}. At the fourth level, LoveGod, God's view and human's view coincide (love absolutely) regarding the {{Good}}, so that both share the same view of God's view of human's view of God's view of human's view. All of the {{Structure}} that I am aware of rests in one of these four levels.

===All, any, some, none===

The chain of views lets us separate out all concepts, any concept, a concept, no concept (be one with) - by establishing the distance from the viewer.

===Consider===

The chain of views apparently arises from the fact that the definite view has decreasing slack in scope and is thus ever more defined, whereas the indefinite view has increasing slack in scope and is thus ever less defined.

See also: {{View}}, AlgebraOfViews, StructurePreserving

===What is composition?===

CategoryTheory says that at the heart of fruitful definitions is the notion of "composition". For example, we can compose instructions (also known as functions) so that they have a particular order: "Buy the [milk], which you will find in the store, which you can drive to by car". What makes composition fruitful, as in this case, is when it is "associative", which means that - for the purpose of satisfying the instructions - you can think it through from either end:

• You can specify the goal ("milk") and then work backwards to the steps to make that happen ("you'll need to buy it, you'll need to find it in the store, and you'll need to drive to the store")
• Or you can leave the goal open and specify it at the very end: "I drove to the store, then I found something, and bought it - turned out it was milk".

Note also the bidirectionality that makes composition work. And compare: I try to work in two directions - from the facts we observe about real life to general rules - and from the principles that we insist on to rules that suggest themselves. That way there is a back and forth testing.

===What is composition of views?===

I think that views, perspectives, outlooks are more basic than concepts in that they involve us directly, subjectively. We can compose views, and I have found that fundamental to deriving the structures that I work with, they fall out at various levels of "human's view of God's view of human's view of God's view of human's view". So I will write further below about such an "algebra of views".

===Relating {{Representations}} and {{Topologies}}===

An "algebra of views" arises along with the ability to have distinct angles upon a structure or within a structure. A {{Representation}} is a view upon a division of everything as a whole, and there are six in all. Analogously, a {{Topology}} is what I call the taking up of one of the perspectives within a division. There are twelve topologies, and we may think of them as contexts, backdrops, projections, worlds upon which we imagine things.

I think that {{Representations}} have us step out and {{Topologies}} have us step in. Composition relates these two, presumably by means of the {{Divisions}} of everything.

===Is the composition of views {{Associative}}?===

I think that composition of views has to do with:

• "stepping in", identifying with views, immersing ourselves in them, ever deeper
• "stepping out", rising above views, framing them, considering ourselves separate from them

I think that "stepping in" and "stepping out" are the two directions that "associativity" relates.

Note: the {{Flickering}} between stepping in and stepping out.

It seems possible to compose {{Views}}, that is, we may have a view X that is a view A of view B. This composition may be thought of as associative:

view A of (view B of view C) - stepping out (adding a frame)

(view A of view B) of view C - stepping in (immersing oneself)

As we compose views, stepping out and stepping in stay matched up, which is to say, the composition is associative.

We may therefore apply CategoryTheory to consider views as morphisms.

===Where is composition of views important?===

I'm interested to apply Category Theory in defining "composition of views", and in particular, what it means to KnowEverything ("God's view of human's view"), and what am I generating as I consider "human's view of God's view of human's view of God's view of human's view" - the kind of back and forth thinking that happens when a lost child realizes that they should not look for their parent but instead go and wait where their parent might expect them to be.

===What do I expect of a composition of views?===

• That "A's view of B's view" may see more (or less) than simply B's view. For example, God - looking through my eyes - may see more than I do. This makes sense if we think of views as "amplifiers" or "parsers" - the reader may understand more than the writer or the messenger because the reader may have more sensitive eyes, a more intelligent mind, a higher level parser. (Or not).
• It is possible for a view to see more (more senstively, more intensely) by focusing itself to look through a ChainOfViews.
• By looking through such a chain of views, a view may coincide, and thus there may be, in a sense, shared views.
• Hopefully, a view might, in the right context, take up views so as to cancel itself and escape itself.
• A view might somehow "look within itself" (as Suhrit Dey notes) rather than "outside itself".

===Suppositions===

{{Suppositions}} solve the "problems" in composing views. You may say that if I take up your view, then that's a "fiction" whereas your own view is "real". But, actually, your own view is a "fiction", too - it is just a supposition. And we can equate them as fictions, as suppositions.

Composition of Suppositions

See: {{Supposition}}, CompositionOfViews, AlgebraOfViews

Suppositions are composed by identifying a mental point with a mental space - and the suppositions are kept separate in this way, by the disconnection between the two spaces.

Default position

See also: DefaultPerspective, DefaultObserver, Overview, MyPosition, Everything, Position

The idea of a Default is what allows a human position to become subordinate to God's position with the latter as a default that the human refers to. Thus we can arrive at the defaul without having to start by referencing it.

I'm realizing that my position "I wish to know everything and apply that knowledge usefully" is a very special position. I think it is the default position in all contexts, and the one that makes sense beyond context, because it is the position that is completely open to all knowledge. It is the position of a baby or a fool, as Jesus might say, the position essential for entering the kingdom of heaven, where what we believe is what happens. We chase ourselves away from this position because it is so overwhelming. It may seem outrageous to us. Yet even so we ultimately return to it as the point of view that links us with what is beyond us, as I understand TerryMace to have written us. I think it is the position of God when he lives through us or anybody. So I am starting with this position and considering how all knowledge unfolds from it.

No matter what the context, this position coincides with, is included in, this same position beyond any context.

It is the going beyond of any [UniversalLanguage/Contexts Context], of any necessary conditions. It thereby defines what is necessary. It is the position expressed by Coinciding, which is the context for the going beyond of any context. It is always available in any context and as such is taken up as the Default position. It's expression unfolds as the coinciding with none, one ({{God}}), two (God and [UniversalLanguage/Human I]) or three (God, I, Other). God defines the necessary, human defines the actual, other defines the possible. All contexts are then simply expressions of their position together. God is the necessary condition, the context for this position, rather than the position the context for God.

The Default position is continuously reinterpreted depending on its context. It is inverted, grounded by considering what it means to coincide with all who one might possibly coincide with. This drives the structural machinery that arises.

In any system a key role is played by the default elements which, however, may often be overlooked.

The default element, the default position, is to have no filter, but to be open to all things. This is the nature of Everything, as it is the algorithm which accepts all things. It is the position of [MyWish wishing to know everything and apply that knowledge usefully].

Examples include:

• silence in a spoken language
• blank space in a written language
• the empty set in a mathematical system

Being open to all things is what allows us to coincide with God through his Son.

Assumption

See also: Alone, Everything, Supposition

Assumption

• is what is left when we remove the one who assumes.
• is What. (Attribute, Property, Quality, Manifest)

Mano paties prielaidos. AndriusKulikauskas:

• I think {{Everything}} arises from {{God}}.
• I think everything concludes that GodIsGood.

Asociatyvumo savybė

See also: howToKnowEverything, CompositionOfViews

A key question for me is may an indefinite view take up a definite view?

Note that this is related to the {{Associative}} rule: Is it the case that a (definite view of an indefinite view) of a definite view is the same as a definite view of (an indefinite view of a definite view)? And how can we know?

In other words, how can we know that the CompositionOfViews is {{Associative}}? Or what ConstructiveHypotheses must we assume? And how do we apply them?

Also, if we can demonstrate that the associative rule holds when the first view is definite, then perhaps we may then extend this to assume, pragmatically, that the associate rule holds for all composition of views.

Note also that, starting with a definite view, we have no problem stepping into an indefinite view.

Our difficulty is, How do we step out from a definite view into an indefinite view?

We might first understand, How do we step out from a definite view into a definite view, and then extend pragmatically to the case of an indefinite view. Especially because we might vary the definite view that we step out into. It may indeed be indefinite for us.

In other words, how do we consider how another might take up our view? What do they see? This relates to the question of {{Empathy}}.

In having one view take up another view, we find that we can create chains of views. We pause to think in what sense:

• ((( ... Andrea's view ) of Barbara's view ) of Charlie's view ) of ...

is the same as:

• ... ( Andrea's view of ( Barbara's view of ( Charlie's view of ( ...

In the first chain, we start with the viewer, have them immerse themselves in viewer after viewer, and only then will we arrive at what they view and may definitely specify it. In the second chain, we start with what may be viewed, and distance ourselves from that by introducing viewer upon viewer, until we finally decide that this is the ultimate viewer, and we take a look at what they are viewing.

In the first chain, we are working abstractly, developing a theory, which we can apply only when we are done. We are rethinking the viewed as a viewer. Our partial result at any point is left abstract and disconnected from what we will ultimately view. In the second case, we are able to work concretely, we are able to calculate a partial result, we are able to specify - or as we say in mathematics, evaluate what is viewed, and keep specifying it, evaluating it, for the specific case that interests us. But we are disconnected from who will ultimately view it.

I suppose that one way to try to keep the two related is to say that we must compare them without "evaluating" them. So long as we don't "instantiate" them, then they both seem abstract and might indeed be the same. The problem with this is that it's not intuitively clear what a view means if we aren't to take it up. In fact, "taking up a view" may imply to do so as part of a calculation, as part of an act of seeing. So we seem to be naturally drawn into a slightly faulty but intuitively more sensible comparison of an immersive view that enters deeper and deeper into views until suddenly it is fully specified, compressed, and an abstractive view that pulls back into more and more distant contexts, stringing out the experience and decompressing it. Apparently, each link in the chain is like a frame in a window in that it either leaves a concrete frame for an abstract window, or it places a clear (and thus seemingly concrete) window into a frame that at first seems abstract but grows concrete. We are seeing as if through a chain of framed windows.

Intuitively, I think this question arises in art. It is one thing to create a work of great art, and another to try to account for it. Shouldn't a great work and a great account go hand-in-hand? Yet in practice that eludes us. Likewise, shouldn't the immersive, empathetic "stepping in" go hand-in-hand with the abstractive, understanding "stepping out"? And if or when the views in our algebra are all truthful, then perhaps that would indeed be the case. So the extent to which it is not may express the obstacles to truthfulness.

Equivalent views

Functions are understood to be equivalent if they have the same effects.

This is relevant for the associative rule. For example, on a 12 hour clock, 10 + 1 = 11 and 11 + 3 = 2. Here the first and last items are considered the position on the clock and we add an "action" which is a movement by the hand of the clock.

So we may interpret 10 + 1 + 3 as:

• (10 + 1) + 3 which is to start at 10 and move the hand twice
• 10 + (1 + 3) which is to combine the actions and then move the hand by the combined amount.

The result is the same. The clock, in general, satisifies the {{Associative}} law. So the two expressions are considered equivalent. And being equivalent, we may write them as 10 + 1 + 3.

This is also the case with the natural numbers where we may consider 10 + 1 + 3 as a movement along an infinite tape. In fact, almost all mathematical systems of interest obey the associative law. And yet it is noteworthy when an interesting system does not quite obey it, as with an AlgebraOfViews.

Inversija

See also: {{God}}, {{heart}}, AlgebraOfViews, ReversalEffect

The inversion effect is relevant when {{God}} wishes for {{Everything}}, which is to say, wishes also for all of the nonsense that we dream up. In order for us to conceive of such a God, we flip everything around, so that God is the smallest - the {{heart}} deepest within us - and nothing is the largest, the unknown that engulfs us. This flipping around is the inversion effect.

Požiūrio išvertimas

TomMunnecke spoke to me about the creativity of inverted perspective. Everything looks different when we take up the perspective of the other. He gave some great examples: Jonas Salk imagined he was a polio virus, Einstein rode a beam of light. Imagine you were a molecule. Or a slave. {{Empathy}}. The source of real {{Creativity}}.

This is very relevant to me now in thinking about the big picture. Just about my whole philosophy is based on imagining I was {{God}}. What would I do? Why? What is there to do? That's been very productive.

And again, now I've been applying that to God, imagining him wanting to put himself in somebody else's shoes. Kind of like "love my neighbor as myself". Going beyond ourselves, but also going into somebody else. Maybe those are the two different productive options - we can go be beyond ourselves, or we can stay in ourselves but forget ourselves by taking up somebody else.

I'm viewing the unfolding of structure as a series of inversion effects, where structure is created each time God goes beyond himself, and perhaps back into himself.

In the {{Beginning}}, it might just be God asking himself, what is it like to be me? So first he steps into himself.

This all has a lot to do with structure, and with love.

Atskyrimas

Palyginti su suvokimu.

See: {{Supposition}}, {{Understanding}}, MentalSpace, AlgebraOfViews

===Equate or Keep Separate===

The key matter in an AlgebraOfViews is the ability to keep separate or equate two suppositions. This enables comparisons. What lets us make such decisions?

Equate and keep separate are the active forms of same and different. The latter are a representation of the {{Twosome}}.

Perhaps, the activity manifests itself as Not. Keep separate means Not the same. Equate means Not different. Keep separate requires more energy than equate because same requires more energy than different. This is the reason for the Not, it reverses the flow of energy because it changes the meaning but keeps the form.

===A Gradation of Separateness===

Suppositions are kept separate by placing them in different {{Scopes}}. What does this mean?

Separateness is the indirectness of view - that it is possible to have not a direct view.

A view (or outlook) that separates:

• all perspectives is {{Spirit}}
• any perspective is {{Structure}}
• a perspective is {{Representation}}
• no perspective is {{Unity}}

The point is to keep reducing scope so as to have complete coincidence.

Separateness is a key idea and somehow the adding of a perspective (the taking up of a perspective) introduces separateness, perhaps:

• self separates God from God
• heart is separateness of self from God
• other is separateness of heart from God
• God is separateness of other from God

The division of everything into four perspectives is the place where the algebra of views starts to matter. The four levels give us a scale from "oneness" to "separateness". Why asserts that the observer and situation are one, and whether asserts that they are completely separate. How and what are somewhere in between and allow for a nontrivial relationship between the observer and situation. So these are all levels that are relevant as we consider matters of "same" and "different".

The four levels may also be thought in terms of scopes:

• why - knowledge of everything
• how - knowledge of anything
• what - knowledge of something
• whether - knowledge of nothing

And the knowledge may be thought of as what the observer and situation share, which is to say, the extent to which the observer is one with the situation.

Furthermore, the four levels may be thought of as relating structure and activity. "Structure channels activity" expresses what is definite, what that means. "Activity evokes structure" expresses what is specified. We may think of structure as a function and activity as the flow through it. The function may be definite or not, and the inflow may be specified or not. (In particular, the specification of input is akin to its partial calculation.) This yields four possibilities:

• why - indefinite and unspecified - structure and activity are uncoupled
• how - definite and unspecified - top down: structure yields activity
• what - definite and specified - structure and activity are in a loop
• whether - indefinite and specified - bottom up: activity yields structure

We may think of structure as arising from God and activity as arising from godlet, and then the four levels give the possible relationships. These relationships may be thought of in terms of the distance between structure and activity. Here activity is that which finds itself within structure and is inspired by it.

• At first the distance, the separation between structure and activity is "everything"
• Then structure determines activity, so structure must be definite, and the separation is "anything"
• Then structure and activity feed off each other, and so the separation is "something" which keeps them yet separate
• Finally, activity directs structure, which is to say, they are the same, the structure embodies the activity, and so they are separated by "nothing".

It is this last level which extends the "threesome" by saying that, above and beyond God, there might be something in the situation of God which is not distinct from it, as God is, but rather determined by it. This material level "whether" is the source of the {{Foursome}} and exemplifies God's ever going beyond himself.

Another very important idea is that what separates the "viewer" (observer) and the "viewed" (situation) is the {{Nullsome}} (the division of everything into zero perspectives). This separation manifests itself through the four RepresentationsOfTheNullsome:

• significant (not encompassable - {{Negation}} of why)
• constant (not changeable - negation of how)
• direct (not representable - negation of what)
• true (not hideable - negation of whether)

So I think that in the "original outlook" the distinction between viewer and viewed is kept latent. But with the new outlook - and once {{Representations}} becomes relevant - it is possible to think of viewer and viewed as separate and even self-standing.

All of this to say that this is the machinery that lets us consider matters of "same", "different", "separate", "one", "equal", "difference" that are key to an algebra of views.

The ability to have a dual point of view is what lets us "keep separate" concepts like God and good, and that ability is at the heart of understanding.

===Coinciding of views===

Stepping-in and stepping-out take up different scopes. The further that these may be separated, the more that views can coincide. In particular, we want to make room for not-stepping-in and not-stepping-out so they can take up two additional scopes:

• stepping-out: everything
• not-stepping-in: anything
• not-stepping-out: something
• stepping-in: nothing

Note that love leads to God - love God, whereas understanding leads to good - good understanding. So they work together to keep those concepts separate.

What does it mean for views to coincide?

http://www.ms.lt/en/andrius/understanding/diagrams/overview.jpg

http://www.ms.lt/en/andrius/understanding/diagrams/comparescopes.jpg

Note the Quran's exhortation not to ascribe partners to Allah. In other words, God is to be kept separate.

===Discussion===

{{HelmutLeitner}}: Some associations come to my mind. Some people talk about "the ability to make/see a difference" which means to "compare". Are two things equal or not.

This seems to need interpretation. Old saying: "one can't sum up apples and pears". Others might say: "5 apples plus 3 pears are 8 pieces of fruit". So it depends on the el[EverydayLanguage]!perspective.

Related seems the philosophical problem of "being and nothingness" which - far from Hegels "logic" - seems a matter of interpretation: for example when does human life start (when to we see abortion as murder, avoiding pregnancy as sin)?

On the other hand the operation of "comparison" might be considered fundamental to generate "language". How could we keep a "cat" and a "dog" separate, if we were not able to observe the quality of things, compare and see differences, and give them names (as mapping symbols and perceptions).

GOS uses "language" in a different way, far from everyday language. I think such redefinitions are a problem and should be avoided.

Fauconnier: Proto Laukai

{{Andrius}}: Gilles Fauconnier writes about mental spaces in his book Mappings in Thought and Language. I am trying to understand his mental spaces as {{Views}}. In particular, I want to define a CategoryTheory in which I could have composition of views and composition of {{Suppositions}}.

Here are some key terms in his work:

mental space = {{View}} Views are defined with regard to each other

space builder A move (indicated by a grammatical expression) that opens up a new space or shifts focus to an existing space. Examples:

• in 1973
• in that story
• actually
• in reality
• in Josephine's opinion
• Franz believes
• Therese hopes
• If it rains

names and descriptions set up new elements or point to existing elements. These elements are {{Suppositions}}

base space

tenses and moods determine what kind of space is in focus and its connection to the base space, its accessibility, and the location of counterparts used for identification

presuppositional constructions Certain elements may be explicitly noted as suppositions for the purpose of propagating them into other spaces. Grammatical constructions for this include definite descriptions, aspectuals, clefts and pseudo-clefts.

trans-spatial operators Spaces may be connected by the copula (be in English) and other copulative verbs such as become, remain. Generally, the function of be is to stand for a domain mapping F, so that if one space is another, then their elements are likewise mapped.

identification of elements by way of the Access Principle, also known as the Identification principle. A name or description in one space can be used to access a counterpart of that supposition in another space. If F(a) is identified by way of a, then we say that a is the trigger, and F(a) is the target.

focus, event, viewpoint, base are perhaps related to the foursome: why, how, what, whether. Viewpoint is perhaps a collection of spaces and hence an ambiguity given by a division of everything.

space collapser Just as there are space builders, there is also the collapsing of space. We may make various suppositions and then qualify it all - that's not the case anymore, that is what Ryoko thought, that is just a dream, or foolishness, or formalities. Truthfulness, however, requires that we be upfront about the space that we are operating in, so that we may be held accountable to the truth.

counterfactuals

optimization

access

projection

matching conditions

upward floating

Space building lets us consider two spaces - one in which we accept as given, and one from which we recognize as questionable, inspectable. How does this relate to the {{Twosome}}?

Sandarų išlaikymas

See also: CategoryTheory, AlgebraOfViews, {{Structure}}, CompositionOfViews

Look at the relationship between love and understanding across the four scopes and the extent to which views coincide.

• Frame. What is a frame? Is it a domain for being one with? (Pavyzdžiui, meilė). By frame, I mean that which is mapped by a {{View}}. A view takes us from one frame to another. It takes us from being stepped out to being stepped in. When we are stepped out, then we are not immersed, we do not identify with what is in the frame, but rather with the frame which we sustain. When we are stepped in, then we are immersed, and we identify with what is in the frame, and we are not aware of the frame. A frame is a support for being one with. It is support for a concept. Structurally, a concept is everything and a frame is slack. The frame may be understood as increasing slack (when we are stepped out) and decreasing slack (when we are stepped in). A view takes us from increasing slack to decreasing slack.

Inversija

See also: {{God}}, {{heart}}, AlgebraOfViews, ReversalEffect

Fauconnier: Proto Laukai

• What is the nature and the foundation of the Chain of Views?
• How we might escape a humans' view and arrive at God's view of human's view which is perhaps to know everything?
• What is the role that {{Truth}} plays in the algebra of views?
• What is the origin of "same" and "different"?
  • Are two views the same, or are they different, and in what sense?
  • Are two contexts the same, or are they different?
  • Are two suppositions the same, or are they different?
  • In mathematics, are two expressions the same, or are they different, and in what sense?

Žr. Požiūriai, Kategorijų teorija, Dievas Taip pat: IndependentPerspective, DefaultObserver, DefaultPosition, {{View}}, {{Frame}} {{Overview}}, InversionEffect, ReversalEffect, {{Institutions}}, Overview, ActualContext, Heart

Požiūrius ir jų sudūrimą išreikšti kategorijų teorija.

A perspective is like a {{Morphism}} in that perspectives can be composed: John's perspective may take up Mary's perspective. By CategoryTheory, the morphism should be considered a structure preserving transformation. What structure is being preserved? The truth - obviousness - what is not hidden. So we can work backwards from God as the concept of truth - all perspectives look to him - and he steps inwards to himself, but out to them, but they look to him:

• absolute perspective - all perspectives may take it up (it may be taken up by all of them together)
• relative perspective - any perspective may take it up (it may be taken up by them singly)
• shared perspective - it may be taken up by a perspective
• subordinate perspective - it may be taken up by no perspective (and hence is isolated, atomic)

subordinate perspectives may not take each other up as they are too narrow - so if God and human take subordinate perspectives then they coincide

Define:

• TakeUpAView
• TakeUpAPerspective
• CompositionOfSuppositions
• CompositionOfViews
• IndefiniteVDefinite, {{Indefinite}}, {{Definite}}, {{Definition}}, {{Define}}
• {{Scope}}

How might a definite view take up an indefinite view?

• How can we entertain dual concepts so as to take up an indefinite view?
• [{{Associative}} Is composition of views associative]?
• [ConstructiveHypotheses How might we apply constructive hypotheses to extend pragmatically from conclusions supposing a definite view to those allowing for an indefinite view]?
• Given that we need to consider a vantage point greater than us, how does such a vantage point take up this same question? In other words, how does God take up the possibility that he has simply found himself in his situation and there may be a vantage point greater than his own?

How might we escape a view?

• [{{Empathy}} How might we step out of a definite view and back into another definite view]?
• How might we switch around the composition of a definite view of an indefinite view?
• How does a view look within itself, and does this help it cancel itself out, escape from itself?
• Is it possible to reverse the direction of the composition of views? Is the InversionEffect related to this?
• How might BisectingAView help us escape a view?

How does a view see more?

• What does it mean for a view to see more? How does that relate to truth? and to looking within oneself?
• Does looking within oneself result in a bisection of oneself and a distinction of scopes?
• Does looking within oneself relate to being with oneself?
• Does looking within oneself require an extra scope?
• How is a view able to see more if it is focused at the right point, through the right views?
• How is an indefinite view of definite view able to see more than the definite view by itself? (Perhaps the same path may be traveled by multiple perspectives (of multiple awarenesses)).

How do scopes arise and change?

• How do everything, anything, something, nothing arise?
• How do scope and change in scope enable separation?
• Why does scope decrease as views are composed?
• How do we identify spaces? Is the distinction between everything, anything, something, nothing relevant for that?
• How do we allow for a discourse or not? In what sense can we have a shared space? To who does it belong to? Does that determine the nature of the space, the degree to which it belongs to one? The difference between one and one's self? Perhaps space arises with the foursome, as a situation, and an inversion of the concept of a view.

How does truth hold across scopes?

• How is truth accessed directly or indirectly?
• How is there falsehood?
• What happens to truth as we move from space to space?
• How does love connect truth to Truth?
• How does love of self, love of others, love of God yield ever broader connection of truth to Truth?
• How does this love allow two views to be increasingly one with each other, in an ever tighter scope?
• How is life, etc. the togetherness (of God and good) as defined by the relevant scope?
• How does eternal life arise as the understanding of this togetherness and the keeping separate in the face of it?

How are {{Concepts}} kept {{Separate}}?

• How does the use of two levels lets us have signs be the

same on one level and different on another level? There are six QualitiesOfSigns given by pairs of levels: malleable, modifiable, mobile, memorable, meaningful, motivated. I think that if we look at how variables are interepreted, then we'll find likewise a dual perspective on them. So there might be six ways to an interpret a variable/constant. I might study math texts to look for the different ways.

What are suppositions?

• What is the relationship between a {{Perspective}} and a concept?
• How do concepts arise - being with oneself?
• Is being a concept and taking up a perspective an either/or?
• Is a concept a marker for a perspective, a place where a perspective can be allowed for?

In what sense do the views constitute a [CategoryTheory category]?

• Is CompositionOfViews {{Associative}}?
• What is the IdentityView?
• What are EquivalentViews?

Žr. Požiūriai Taip pat: Dievas, IndependentPerspective, DefaultObserver, DefaultPosition, {{View}}, {{Frame}} {{Overview}}, CategoryTheory, InversionEffect, ReversalEffect, {{Institutions}}, Overview, ActualContext, Heart

Požiūrių algebros svarba

• The Chain of Views generates all of the {{Structure}} that I have observed. The various structures arise upon composing God's view and human's view in an alternating chain: human's view of God's view of human's view of God's view of human's view.
• TheChainOfViews is a framework for the changes in scope and what they mean for the relationship between {{Love}} and {{Understanding}}.
• The nature of truth changes as we access views indirectly, so that what are soft truths when viewed directly become hard truths when viewed indirectly. I want to understand the four levels as relevant to different interpretations of truth - from soft to hard - reflective of an all knowing being reaching out to those who are not all knowing, who are in a world of opaqueness. An indirect view also allows for falsehood to arise.
• God's view is indefinite, unscoped, and human's view is definite, scoped.
• An algebra of views will allow us to understand the CompositionOfViews, and in particular, a SubordinateView.
• I want to analyze complexes of views to show how they may be variously interpreted.
• I want to study CategoryTheory so as to understand how it might express this algebra of views and how, conversely, an algebra of views might be the basis for category theory and perhaps all of mathematics.
• I'm going through Mappings in Thought and Language by Gilles Fauconnier. I want to understand his MentalSpaces as {{Views}}.
• I want to read The Nature of Order: The Luminous Ground by Christopher Alexander so as to think more about StructurePreserving transformations.
• Algebra of Distinguishability: Distinguishability may be at the heart of all Definitions. Požiūrių esmė gali būti, kad tai atskyrimo sąlygos. Jeigu požiūriu neatskiriame, tai mums nesireiškia, mums nėra.
• The main idea throughout the "algebra of views" seems to be the ability to assert as to what is "same" and what is "different". These are a representation of the twosome.

• Perspective Požiūriai
• View

• Žiūrėti. To {{Look}} is to take up a view, which is to say, to have the same ObservationalPlane. To Look is to take up an ObservationalPlane. We look through somebody else's eyes if we take up their observational plane. In general, this is the Heart within us and God in that context.

Žr. Požiūriai

• Tiesa What is {{True}} is what is viewed. The ObservationalPlane is what is viewed by the {{Observer}}.
• Matyti. To {{Look}} is to take up a view, which is to say, to have the same ObservationalPlane.

A view preserves a frame. A frame is the condition for being one with, it is love. We may think of views as amplifiers or parsers, they are related to {{Understanding}}. A frame is the domain or scope which love shares, and which is used to distinguish concepts. As scope decreases, it is harder to distinguish concepts, and perspectives are less separated. A view is perhaps a collection of perspectives.

Algebra of Distinguishability: Distinguishability may be at the heart of all Definitions. Požiūrių esmė gali būti, kad tai atskyrimo sąlygos. Jeigu požiūriu neatskiriame, tai mums nesireiškia, mums nėra.

• A whole is the {{Scope}} of all perspectives: {{Everything}}

• What is the nature of base space and regular space? Is base space maximalist (all that is not taken out) and regular space is minimalist (all that is put in)? Example, "my brother" and "Jeff" are the same or different (it depends on the ordering).

Sandarų išlaikymas

See also: CategoryTheory, AlgebraOfViews, {{Structure}}, CompositionOfViews

The question then becomes, What is the structure that {{Views}} preserve? What is the structure preserved by these morphisms?

Consider also the thoughts of Christopher Alexander in The Nature of Order.

A view respects the relationship between stepping out and stepping in. This relationship between immersion and abstraction should determine what it is that a view preserves. The genesis of the divisions of everything by the [AddOne operation +1] gives this feeling. God takes up a whole with regard to the existing perspectives of a division, then reinterprets them so that they are all equal with regard to this new perspective. In other words, God abstracts from the perspectives, and then immerses himself into them all, including the abstraction.

Also, a view may be thought of as {{Understanding}}, and what it preserves as {{Love}}.

A view preserves a frame. A frame is the condition for being one with, it is love. We may think of views as amplifiers or parsers, they are related to {{Understanding}}. A frame is the domain or scope which love shares, and which is used to distinguish concepts. As scope decreases, it is harder to distinguish concepts, and perspectives are less separated. A view is perhaps a collection of perspectives.

• A shared perspective is the result of SharedUnderstanding.

• Qualities distinguish for their object what stays the same and what may change (pvz. Qualities of Signs. Palyginti taip pat Properties, kaip skiriasi?) Good is the quality of God.

• Qualities distinguish for their object what stays the same and what may change (pvz. Qualities of Signs. Palyginti taip pat Properties, kaip skiriasi?)

• Principle is affirmation that goes beyond Person

GOS uses "language" in a different way, far from everyday language. I think such redefinitions are a problem and should be avoided.

See also: {{View}}, AlgebraOfViews

{{Andrius}}: Gilles Fauconnier writes about mental spaces in his book Mappings in Thought and Language. I am trying to understand his mental spaces as {{Views}}. In particular, I want to define a CategoryTheory in which I could have composition of views and composition of {{Suppositions}}.

Here are some key terms in his work:

mental space = {{View}} Views are defined with regard to each other

space builder A move (indicated by a grammatical expression) that opens up a new space or shifts focus to an existing space. Examples:

• in 1973
• in that story
• actually
• in reality
• in Josephine's opinion
• Franz believes
• Therese hopes
• If it rains

names and descriptions set up new elements or point to existing elements. These elements are {{Suppositions}}

base space

tenses and moods determine what kind of space is in focus and its connection to the base space, its accessibility, and the location of counterparts used for identification

presuppositional constructions Certain elements may be explicitly noted as suppositions for the purpose of propagating them into other spaces. Grammatical constructions for this include definite descriptions, aspectuals, clefts and pseudo-clefts.

trans-spatial operators Spaces may be connected by the copula (be in English) and other copulative verbs such as become, remain. Generally, the function of be is to stand for a domain mapping F, so that if one space is another, then their elements are likewise mapped.

identification of elements by way of the Access Principle, also known as the Identification principle. A name or description in one space can be used to access a counterpart of that supposition in another space. If F(a) is identified by way of a, then we say that a is the trigger, and F(a) is the target.

focus, event, viewpoint, base are perhaps related to the foursome: why, how, what, whether. Viewpoint is perhaps a collection of spaces and hence an ambiguity given by a division of everything.

space collapser Just as there are space builders, there is also the collapsing of space. We may make various suppositions and then qualify it all - that's not the case anymore, that is what Ryoko thought, that is just a dream, or foolishness, or formalities. Truthfulness, however, requires that we be upfront about the space that we are operating in, so that we may be held accountable to the truth.

counterfactuals

optimization

access

projection

matching conditions

upward floating

Space building lets us consider two spaces - one in which we accept as given, and one from which we recognize as questionable, inspectable. How does this relate to the {{Twosome}}?

===Questions===

• What is the difference, if any, between a mental space and a {{View}}?
• What do pronouns (I, you, he, she, it, we, they, who, what) say about a mental space? Are they space builders? Do they relate to viewpoint?
• What do pronouns (such as I) mean in a base space?
• What happens when we move backwards, backing out of a space? How do we make such moves?
• How do we reference a full space, which is to say, all of reality?
• How do we reference an empty space, which is to say, the bare minimum that is possible for a space, the basic of our faculty of reason?
• What is the nature of base space and regular space? Is base space maximalist (all that is not taken out) and regular space is minimalist (all that is put in)? Example, "my brother" and "Jeff" are the same or different (it depends on the ordering).

• To Manifest is to show. In that sense, it is the opposite of View, it is the making way for others to [GoingBeyondOneself go beyond themselves]. It is also closely related to Truth, in that truth is what is obvious, not hidden. Andrius: It also reminds of the statement Those things are which show themselves to be which I once heard God say in a dream as to the nature of everything.

• To Look is to take up an ObservationalPlane. We look through somebody else's eyes if we take up their observational plane. In general, this is the Heart within us and God in that context.

This all has a lot to do with structure, and with love.

Atskyrimas

Palyginti su suvokimu.

See: {{Supposition}}, {{Understanding}}, MentalSpace, AlgebraOfViews

===Equate or Keep Separate===

The key matter in an AlgebraOfViews is the ability to keep separate or equate two suppositions. This enables comparisons. What lets us make such decisions?

Equate and keep separate are the active forms of same and different. The latter are a representation of the {{Twosome}}.

Perhaps, the activity manifests itself as Not. Keep separate means Not the same. Equate means Not different. Keep separate requires more energy than equate because same requires more energy than different. This is the reason for the Not, it reverses the flow of energy because it changes the meaning but keeps the form.

===A Gradation of Separateness===

Suppositions are kept separate by placing them in different {{Scopes}}. What does this mean?

Separateness is the indirectness of view - that it is possible to have not a direct view.

A view (or outlook) that separates:

• all perspectives is {{Spirit}}
• any perspective is {{Structure}}
• a perspective is {{Representation}}
• no perspective is {{Unity}}

The point is to keep reducing scope so as to have complete coincidence.

Separateness is a key idea and somehow the adding of a perspective (the taking up of a perspective) introduces separateness, perhaps:

• self separates God from God
• heart is separateness of self from God
• other is separateness of heart from God
• God is separateness of other from God

The division of everything into four perspectives is the place where the algebra of views starts to matter. The four levels give us a scale from "oneness" to "separateness". Why asserts that the observer and situation are one, and whether asserts that they are completely separate. How and what are somewhere in between and allow for a nontrivial relationship between the observer and situation. So these are all levels that are relevant as we consider matters of "same" and "different".

The four levels may also be thought in terms of scopes:

• why - knowledge of everything
• how - knowledge of anything
• what - knowledge of something
• whether - knowledge of nothing

And the knowledge may be thought of as what the observer and situation share, which is to say, the extent to which the observer is one with the situation.

Furthermore, the four levels may be thought of as relating structure and activity. "Structure channels activity" expresses what is definite, what that means. "Activity evokes structure" expresses what is specified. We may think of structure as a function and activity as the flow through it. The function may be definite or not, and the inflow may be specified or not. (In particular, the specification of input is akin to its partial calculation.) This yields four possibilities:

• why - indefinite and unspecified - structure and activity are uncoupled
• how - definite and unspecified - top down: structure yields activity
• what - definite and specified - structure and activity are in a loop
• whether - indefinite and specified - bottom up: activity yields structure

We may think of structure as arising from God and activity as arising from godlet, and then the four levels give the possible relationships. These relationships may be thought of in terms of the distance between structure and activity. Here activity is that which finds itself within structure and is inspired by it.

• At first the distance, the separation between structure and activity is "everything"
• Then structure determines activity, so structure must be definite, and the separation is "anything"
• Then structure and activity feed off each other, and so the separation is "something" which keeps them yet separate
• Finally, activity directs structure, which is to say, they are the same, the structure embodies the activity, and so they are separated by "nothing".

It is this last level which extends the "threesome" by saying that, above and beyond God, there might be something in the situation of God which is not distinct from it, as God is, but rather determined by it. This material level "whether" is the source of the {{Foursome}} and exemplifies God's ever going beyond himself.

Another very important idea is that what separates the "viewer" (observer) and the "viewed" (situation) is the {{Nullsome}} (the division of everything into zero perspectives). This separation manifests itself through the four RepresentationsOfTheNullsome:

• significant (not encompassable - {{Negation}} of why)
• constant (not changeable - negation of how)
• direct (not representable - negation of what)
• true (not hideable - negation of whether)

So I think that in the "original outlook" the distinction between viewer and viewed is kept latent. But with the new outlook - and once {{Representations}} becomes relevant - it is possible to think of viewer and viewed as separate and even self-standing.

All of this to say that this is the machinery that lets us consider matters of "same", "different", "separate", "one", "equal", "difference" that are key to an algebra of views.

The ability to have a dual point of view is what lets us "keep separate" concepts like God and good, and that ability is at the heart of understanding.

===Coinciding of views===

Stepping-in and stepping-out take up different scopes. The further that these may be separated, the more that views can coincide. In particular, we want to make room for not-stepping-in and not-stepping-out so they can take up two additional scopes:

• stepping-out: everything
• not-stepping-in: anything
• not-stepping-out: something
• stepping-in: nothing

Note that love leads to God - love God, whereas understanding leads to good - good understanding. So they work together to keep those concepts separate.

What does it mean for views to coincide?

http://www.ms.lt/en/andrius/understanding/diagrams/overview.jpg

http://www.ms.lt/en/andrius/understanding/diagrams/comparescopes.jpg

===Consider===

Note the Quran's exhortation not to ascribe partners to Allah. In other words, God is to be kept separate.

===Discussion===

{{HelmutLeitner}}: Some associations come to my mind. Some people talk about "the ability to make/see a difference" which means to "compare". Are two things equal or not.

This seems to need interpretation. Old saying: "one can't sum up apples and pears". Others might say: "5 apples plus 3 pears are 8 pieces of fruit". So it depends on the el[EverydayLanguage]!perspective.

Related seems the philosophical problem of "being and nothingness" which - far from Hegels "logic" - seems a matter of interpretation: for example when does human life start (when to we see abortion as murder, avoiding pregnancy as sin)?

On the other hand the operation of "comparison" might be considered fundamental to generate "language". How could we keep a "cat" and a "dog" separate, if we were not able to observe the quality of things, compare and see differences, and give them names (as mapping symbols and perceptions).

GOS uses "language" in a different way, far from everyday language. I think such redefinitions are a problem and should be avoided.

The inversion effect is relevant when {{God}} wishes for {{Everything}}, which is to say, wishes also for all of the nonsense that we dream up. In order for us to conceive of such a God, we flip everything around, so that God is the smallest - the {{heart}} deepest within us - and nothing is the largest, the unknown that engulfs us. This flipping around is the inversion effect.

Požiūrio išvertimas

TomMunnecke spoke to me about the creativity of inverted perspective. Everything looks different when we take up the perspective of the other. He gave some great examples: Jonas Salk imagined he was a polio virus, Einstein rode a beam of light. Imagine you were a molecule. Or a slave. {{Empathy}}. The source of real {{Creativity}}.

This is very relevant to me now in thinking about the big picture. Just about my whole philosophy is based on imagining I was {{God}}. What would I do? Why? What is there to do? That's been very productive.

And again, now I've been applying that to God, imagining him wanting to put himself in somebody else's shoes. Kind of like "love my neighbor as myself". Going beyond ourselves, but also going into somebody else. Maybe those are the two different productive options - we can go be beyond ourselves, or we can stay in ourselves but forget ourselves by taking up somebody else.

I'm viewing the unfolding of structure as a series of inversion effects, where structure is created each time God goes beyond himself, and perhaps back into himself.

In the {{Beginning}}, it might just be God asking himself, what is it like to be me? So first he steps into himself.

This all has a lot to do with structure, and with love.

A frame is a support for being one with. It is support for a concept. Structurally, a concept is everything and a frame is slack. The frame may be understood as increasing slack (when we are stepped out) and decreasing slack (when we are stepped in). A view takes us from increasing slack to decreasing slack.

Inversija

See also: {{God}}, {{heart}}, AlgebraOfViews, ReversalEffect

The inversion effect is relevant when {{God}} wishes for {{Everything}}, which is to say, wishes also for all of the nonsense that we dream up. In order for us to conceive of such a God, we flip everything around, so that God is the smallest - the {{heart}} deepest within us - and nothing is the largest, the unknown that engulfs us. This flipping around is the inversion effect.

• IndependentPerspective is a perspective that the DefaultPerspective goes beyond itself into, and thus which may seek the DefaultPerspective.

Kaip pirminiai apibrėžimai susiję su dvejybės atvaizdais, tad su būties klausimu?

• Grounds are what is equal.

This is also the case with the natural numbers where we may consider 10 + 1 + 3 as a movement along an infinite tape. In fact, almost all mathematical systems of interest obey the associative law. And yet it is noteworthy when an interesting system does not quite obey it, as with an AlgebraOfViews.

Frame

See: {{View}}, AlgebraOfViews, {{Love}}

What is a frame? Is it a domain for being one with?

By frame, I mean that which is mapped by a {{View}}. A view takes us from one frame to another. It takes us from being stepped out to being stepped in. When we are stepped out, then we are not immersed, we do not identify with what is in the frame, but rather with the frame which we sustain. When we are stepped in, then we are immersed, and we identify with what is in the frame, and we are not aware of the frame.

A frame is a support for being one with. It is support for a concept. Structurally, a concept is everything and a frame is slack. The frame may be understood as increasing slack (when we are stepped out) and decreasing slack (when we are stepped in). A view takes us from increasing slack to decreasing slack.

Equivalent views

Functions are understood to be equivalent if they have the same effects.

This is relevant for the associative rule. For example, on a 12 hour clock, 10 + 1 = 11 and 11 + 3 = 2. Here the first and last items are considered the position on the clock and we add an "action" which is a movement by the hand of the clock.

So we may interpret 10 + 1 + 3 as:

• (10 + 1) + 3 which is to start at 10 and move the hand twice
• 10 + (1 + 3) which is to combine the actions and then move the hand by the combined amount.

The result is the same. The clock, in general, satisifies the {{Associative}} law. So the two expressions are considered equivalent. And being equivalent, we may write them as 10 + 1 + 3.

This is also the case with the natural numbers where we may consider 10 + 1 + 3 as a movement along an infinite tape. In fact, almost all mathematical systems of interest obey the associative law. And yet it is noteworthy when an interesting system does not quite obey it, as with an AlgebraOfViews.

• I think everything concludes that GodIsGood.

Asociatyvumo savybė

See also: howToKnowEverything, CompositionOfViews

A key question for me is may an indefinite view take up a definite view?

Note that this is related to the {{Associative}} rule: Is it the case that a (definite view of an indefinite view) of a definite view is the same as a definite view of (an indefinite view of a definite view)? And how can we know?

In other words, how can we know that the CompositionOfViews is {{Associative}}? Or what ConstructiveHypotheses must we assume? And how do we apply them?

Also, if we can demonstrate that the associative rule holds when the first view is definite, then perhaps we may then extend this to assume, pragmatically, that the associate rule holds for all composition of views.

Note also that, starting with a definite view, we have no problem stepping into an indefinite view.

Our difficulty is, How do we step out from a definite view into an indefinite view?

We might first understand, How do we step out from a definite view into a definite view, and then extend pragmatically to the case of an indefinite view. Especially because we might vary the definite view that we step out into. It may indeed be indefinite for us.

In other words, how do we consider how another might take up our view? What do they see? This relates to the question of {{Empathy}}.

In having one view take up another view, we find that we can create chains of views. We pause to think in what sense:

• ((( ... Andrea's view ) of Barbara's view ) of Charlie's view ) of ...

is the same as:

• ... ( Andrea's view of ( Barbara's view of ( Charlie's view of ( ...

In the first chain, we start with the viewer, have them immerse themselves in viewer after viewer, and only then will we arrive at what they view and may definitely specify it. In the second chain, we start with what may be viewed, and distance ourselves from that by introducing viewer upon viewer, until we finally decide that this is the ultimate viewer, and we take a look at what they are viewing.

In the first chain, we are working abstractly, developing a theory, which we can apply only when we are done. We are rethinking the viewed as a viewer. Our partial result at any point is left abstract and disconnected from what we will ultimately view. In the second case, we are able to work concretely, we are able to calculate a partial result, we are able to specify - or as we say in mathematics, evaluate what is viewed, and keep specifying it, evaluating it, for the specific case that interests us. But we are disconnected from who will ultimately view it.

I suppose that one way to try to keep the two related is to say that we must compare them without "evaluating" them. So long as we don't "instantiate" them, then they both seem abstract and might indeed be the same. The problem with this is that it's not intuitively clear what a view means if we aren't to take it up. In fact, "taking up a view" may imply to do so as part of a calculation, as part of an act of seeing. So we seem to be naturally drawn into a slightly faulty but intuitively more sensible comparison of an immersive view that enters deeper and deeper into views until suddenly it is fully specified, compressed, and an abstractive view that pulls back into more and more distant contexts, stringing out the experience and decompressing it. Apparently, each link in the chain is like a frame in a window in that it either leaves a concrete frame for an abstract window, or it places a clear (and thus seemingly concrete) window into a frame that at first seems abstract but grows concrete. We are seeing as if through a chain of framed windows.

Intuitively, I think this question arises in art. It is one thing to create a work of great art, and another to try to account for it. Shouldn't a great work and a great account go hand-in-hand? Yet in practice that eludes us. Likewise, shouldn't the immersive, empathetic "stepping in" go hand-in-hand with the abstractive, understanding "stepping out"? And if or when the views in our algebra are all truthful, then perhaps that would indeed be the case. So the extent to which it is not may express the obstacles to truthfulness.

Mano paties prielaidos. AndriusKulikauskas:

• I think {{Everything}} arises from {{God}}.
• I think everything concludes that GodIsGood.

• DefaultObserver is the one who takes up the DefaultPosition.

In general, this is the Heart within us and God in that context.

See also: {{God}}, Perspective, Overview, IndependentPerspective, DefaultObserver, DefaultPosition, {{View}}, {{Frame}} {{Overview}}, CategoryTheory, InversionEffect, ReversalEffect, {{Institutions}}, Overview, ActualContext, Heart

Assumption

See also: Alone, Everything, Supposition

Assumption

• is what is left when we remove the one who assumes.
• is What. (Attribute, Property, Quality, Manifest)

Sąvokos

• The DefaultPerspective is the null perspective in any structure that accepts things as they are. It is the blank in the system.

See also: {{God}}, Perspective, Overview, IndependentPerspective, DefaultObserver, DefaultPosition, {{View}}, {{Frame}} {{Overview}}, CategoryTheory, InversionEffect, ReversalEffect, {{Institutions}}

Default position

See also: DefaultPerspective, DefaultObserver, Overview, MyPosition, Everything, Position

The idea of a Default is what allows a human position to become subordinate to God's position with the latter as a default that the human refers to. Thus we can arrive at the defaul without having to start by referencing it.

I'm realizing that my position "I wish to know everything and apply that knowledge usefully" is a very special position. I think it is the default position in all contexts, and the one that makes sense beyond context, because it is the position that is completely open to all knowledge. It is the position of a baby or a fool, as Jesus might say, the position essential for entering the kingdom of heaven, where what we believe is what happens. We chase ourselves away from this position because it is so overwhelming. It may seem outrageous to us. Yet even so we ultimately return to it as the point of view that links us with what is beyond us, as I understand TerryMace to have written us. I think it is the position of God when he lives through us or anybody. So I am starting with this position and considering how all knowledge unfolds from it.

No matter what the context, this position coincides with, is included in, this same position beyond any context.

It is the going beyond of any [UniversalLanguage/Contexts Context], of any necessary conditions. It thereby defines what is necessary. It is the position expressed by Coinciding, which is the context for the going beyond of any context. It is always available in any context and as such is taken up as the Default position. It's expression unfolds as the coinciding with none, one ({{God}}), two (God and [UniversalLanguage/Human I]) or three (God, I, Other). God defines the necessary, human defines the actual, other defines the possible. All contexts are then simply expressions of their position together. God is the necessary condition, the context for this position, rather than the position the context for God.

The Default position is continuously reinterpreted depending on its context. It is inverted, grounded by considering what it means to coincide with all who one might possibly coincide with. This drives the structural machinery that arises.

In any system a key role is played by the default elements which, however, may often be overlooked.

The default element, the default position, is to have no filter, but to be open to all things. This is the nature of Everything, as it is the algorithm which accepts all things. It is the position of [MyWish wishing to know everything and apply that knowledge usefully].

Examples include:

• silence in a spoken language
• blank space in a written language
• the empty set in a mathematical system

Being open to all things is what allows us to coincide with God through his Son.

Composition of Suppositions

See: {{Supposition}}, CompositionOfViews, AlgebraOfViews

Suppositions are composed by identifying a mental point with a mental space - and the suppositions are kept separate in this way, by the disconnection between the two spaces.

See also: {{View}}, AlgebraOfViews, StructurePreserving

===What is composition?===

CategoryTheory says that at the heart of fruitful definitions is the notion of "composition". For example, we can compose instructions (also known as functions) so that they have a particular order: "Buy the [milk], which you will find in the store, which you can drive to by car". What makes composition fruitful, as in this case, is when it is "associative", which means that - for the purpose of satisfying the instructions - you can think it through from either end:

• You can specify the goal ("milk") and then work backwards to the steps to make that happen ("you'll need to buy it, you'll need to find it in the store, and you'll need to drive to the store")
• Or you can leave the goal open and specify it at the very end: "I drove to the store, then I found something, and bought it - turned out it was milk".

Note also the bidirectionality that makes composition work. And compare: I try to work in two directions - from the facts we observe about real life to general rules - and from the principles that we insist on to rules that suggest themselves. That way there is a back and forth testing.

===What is composition of views?===

I think that views, perspectives, outlooks are more basic than concepts in that they involve us directly, subjectively. We can compose views, and I have found that fundamental to deriving the structures that I work with, they fall out at various levels of "human's view of God's view of human's view of God's view of human's view". So I will write further below about such an "algebra of views".

===Relating {{Representations}} and {{Topologies}}===

An "algebra of views" arises along with the ability to have distinct angles upon a structure or within a structure. A {{Representation}} is a view upon a division of everything as a whole, and there are six in all. Analogously, a {{Topology}} is what I call the taking up of one of the perspectives within a division. There are twelve topologies, and we may think of them as contexts, backdrops, projections, worlds upon which we imagine things.

I think that {{Representations}} have us step out and {{Topologies}} have us step in. Composition relates these two, presumably by means of the {{Divisions}} of everything.

===Is the composition of views {{Associative}}?===

I think that composition of views has to do with:

• "stepping in", identifying with views, immersing ourselves in them, ever deeper
• "stepping out", rising above views, framing them, considering ourselves separate from them

I think that "stepping in" and "stepping out" are the two directions that "associativity" relates.

Note: the {{Flickering}} between stepping in and stepping out.

It seems possible to compose {{Views}}, that is, we may have a view X that is a view A of view B. This composition may be thought of as associative:

view A of (view B of view C) - stepping out (adding a frame)

(view A of view B) of view C - stepping in (immersing oneself)

As we compose views, stepping out and stepping in stay matched up, which is to say, the composition is associative.

We may therefore apply CategoryTheory to consider views as morphisms.

===Where is composition of views important?===

I'm interested to apply Category Theory in defining "composition of views", and in particular, what it means to KnowEverything ("God's view of human's view"), and what am I generating as I consider "human's view of God's view of human's view of God's view of human's view" - the kind of back and forth thinking that happens when a lost child realizes that they should not look for their parent but instead go and wait where their parent might expect them to be.

===What do I expect of a composition of views?===

• That "A's view of B's view" may see more (or less) than simply B's view. For example, God - looking through my eyes - may see more than I do. This makes sense if we think of views as "amplifiers" or "parsers" - the reader may understand more than the writer or the messenger because the reader may have more sensitive eyes, a more intelligent mind, a higher level parser. (Or not).
• It is possible for a view to see more (more senstively, more intensely) by focusing itself to look through a ChainOfViews.
• By looking through such a chain of views, a view may coincide, and thus there may be, in a sense, shared views.
• Hopefully, a view might, in the right context, take up views so as to cancel itself and escape itself.
• A view might somehow "look within itself" (as Suhrit Dey notes) rather than "outside itself".

===Suppositions===

{{Suppositions}} solve the "problems" in composing views. You may say that if I take up your view, then that's a "fiction" whereas your own view is "real". But, actually, your own view is a "fiction", too - it is just a supposition. And we can equate them as fictions, as suppositions.

2005.05.25 {{A}}: Kas yra po\9Eiūris? {{D}}: Po\9Eiūris yra ry\9Ays su tuo kas yra u\9E tavęs. {{A}}: Kokią sandarą jisai i\9Asaugoja? {{D}}: Jis i\9Asaugoja meilę. {{A}}: Kaip čia meilę suprasti? {{D}}: A\9A būnu su jumis, bet ar jūs būnate su manimi? A\9A vis tiek su jumis būnu. {{A}}: Ačiū. {{D}}: Pra\9Aau.

Bisecting a view

See also: {{Overview}}, LoveYourEnemy, AlgebraOfViews, {{View}}, MentalSpaces

===Bisection is the opposite of coinciding===

Bisecting the mind

Regarding those special moments of freedom, when we're not on auto-pilot.... I find them come up in a few practical ways. Every day when I wake up and I am most free, I try to contact God so that we are in touch, and listen to him as to what he might tell me, and take that in and write that down. I found a way to pray which opens this up for me, it is essentially the prayer "Our Father": I address God who loves me more than I love myself, wants me to be sensitive, responsive, alive more than I do for myself; and so I acknowledge that I'd rather he think than I think (thus in terms of his glory), he be than I be (so that for each person what they believe is what happens), he do than I do (good heart trumps good will); but when I'm not in touch with him, then I ask that he watch over me so that I might follow through on what I believe (and so be provided for at least today), I might reflect on what I follow through (including what I have done wrong) and I might take a stand on what I reflect (and not be led astray by my reasoning). That splitting of my mind (defer to God if I'm in touch with him; take responsibility for my own integrity if I'm not in touch with him) flattens me out so that I might recognize him as greater than me and might reft my closed shell of a world and open up a greater picture.

Then, I try to devote my best hour to what I care most to work in my life, and put my best creative energies into, which for me is my quest to know everything. It is awfully hard, often painful, but I try to do it so that I reach the point where I have found a new idea, observation, conclusion that means that I have come somewhere further in what I find meaningful, and so this day will not be wasted, but I can already mark off as a definitely meaningful day in my life.

I also find the freedom in those little gaps throughout the day where the opportunity to do good speaks up. It is the opposite of conscience. My conscience only says "no", this is wrong, which is important. But this voice says, I am free to do this, and it would be beautiful to live this. It might be that extra good thing to do which is not required, but simply and purely "extra credit" as they say in school. Something like: God wished this much, and that is fine, but he brought me here so that I might wish a little bit even more. And if that happens then I know that I can look back on the day and I did live.

You have written about how we are like crystals in a quantum world and designed to resolve ever growing complexities. I think that it is good that we set up parallel tracks (short and long time scales, many places in space) where we let loose the auto-pilots that we hold ourselves accountable to, because that is what interconnects our world. And then it all gets resolved in those little moments of freedom where we decide how to behave and we let things fall in place. Somehow they are connected.

===Earlier thoughts===

http://www.ms.lt/en/andrius/understanding/diagrams/composition.jpg

I'm making some progress with the help of ideas from Gilles Fauconnier's writings on MentalSpaces.

A human view (H) is opaque in that suppositions are assigned to a definite scope. God's view (G) is transparent in that suppositions are taken to hold for all scopes. In that sense, for God, everything is public knowledge.

Therefore we have a chain of human's view of human's view etc. And we can take God's view as an interpolation that makes definite what is defined where. (We can think of God's view as holding separate two human views.)

The first such interpolation is God (HG) and the second is the good (HGHG). Now here we can have a collapsing of space (the opposite of building a space). We may think of this collapse as the simplification that we get by taking good to be the defining characteristic of God, and therefore dealing with God rather than with good. In this case it is not simply removal of the latter HG (which would be a reversal of the space building). Instead, it is a stripping away of the first HG by finding it within the second HG. This is denoted by the red arrow.

Now we can interpolate such a stripping by that view which keeps separate God and good. That view is eternal life, which is the understanding that God is good. Therefore eternal life represents a halfway in the stripping. It is thus a stripping of God's view, leaving GHG, which is God's view of human's view of God's view. In this sense, we are able to escape our own view and take up God's view. Furthermore, by analogy with HGH, which coincides with HH, we have, through GHG, access to GG, which is God's view of God's view. This means that eternal life is God's self empathy which takes place by way of humans and is the purpose of humans. This is a pragmatic interpretation and valid (or not) as such.

Intuitively, the key point is that space collapsing is very special in that normally it is counter to truth which requires us to acknowledge our spaces. However, in the case of existential simplification, then space collapsing is compatible with the truth. Here it is to say that if we are dedicated to living in terms of good, then it is appropriate to recast good as the outcome of our God. In other words, the reason for God is just that it makes our life simpler. And then if we can furthermore keep separate these notions of God and good, then we live the understanding that God is good, which is to say, we live the state of eternal life. And that is the state where our view may coincide with God's.

In other words, in order to escape our view, we need to allow it to collapse, and yet split our mind to keep the collapsed view distinct and separate. With such a split mind we are able to escape our view as it is preceded and followed by God's view. Such a split view feels like a very flexible ignorance that is yet wonderfully open and knowing. It is the moral high ground and we are familiar with it as such.

===Discuss===

A related idea to [CategoryTheory relative idempotence and relative commutativity] that I had is that we may think of God's view as transparent and Human's view as opaque. Then we may be able to "escape a view" by "bisecting a view". That may also relate to adjoints.

Chain of Views

See also: {{Overview}}, AlgebraOfViews, {{View}}, IndefiniteVDefinite, {{God}}, {{human}}

The great challenge is that, as humans, we are bound by our own view, so that we are unable to escape it, at least as humans. However, it is possible that God may be able to escape his point of view and take up ours. This is a ConstructiveHypothesis that we take. It acknowledges a difference between God and us. We may then leverage this difference to open up our view. It may also be that our human view is sufficient for direct access to all knowledge - where perhaps the directness is understood with regard to the nature of our minds.

The aim is to describe God's view of human's view. What is the fullest experience of the human view? How does an unrestricted view experience a view that can't escape itself?

In my account, I am attempting to express God's view of a human's view. By {{human}} I mean myself and all whose perspective I might possibly admit. I am thus attempting to take up and make available the {{Absolute}} complete potential of my perspective.

I have my own human view, but I am attempting to take up God's view. How can I take up God's view directly rather than through my own view?

This is possible if my view and God's view coincide. This may depend on factors beyond my control. Yet I may position myself with regard to such factors to enable such coinciding to the extent that I am able to control. Even so, on what basis may it be that indeed my view and God's view coincide?

We take up God's view because that opens up a vantage point that he might take up so that our views might coincide. And by taking up, alternatively, his view upon our view and ours upon his, ever deeper, the idea is that we do not diminish or close our view at all, but instead enrich it by exposing it to God's and our view through it. Finally, the Other is very important as the vehicle for shared understanding, in that the way that we treat others is the way that God may treat us, as we allow God to use us as a vehicle in reaching out to others. We may not be absolutely transparent like God, but yet we might be transparent for the purpose of him reaching out to others. And this transparency may be what is relevant in our view coinciding with God's.''

The main idea in all of this, perhaps, is how God makes available his Godly perspective to all of those beyond him, which is an increasing challenge until it reaches the stretching point. In this sense God shares perspective, and even more, goes beyond that to all those who might position themselves for his perspective - and through them others may be reached just as through him - it starts from them as it did with him.

Therefore we have all, any, a and no perspectives. These are four increasingly focused LevelsOfUnderstanding. {{Understanding}} is the keeping separate of {{Concepts}}. (A concept is that which is with itself). It is also the distinction of one perspective (anything) upon another perspective (everything) (and of that perspective from slack). (To have a perspective is to go beyond oneself). This allows for a sequence of ever deeper (ever closer) {{Scopes}} which may be shared. Love is the sharing of a scope. We therefore have a sequence of ever deeper levels of love. They ground the ever greater {{Independence}} of the one who is loved (and understood): {{Self}}, {{Other}}, {{God}}. At the fourth level, LoveGod, God's view and human's view coincide (love absolutely) regarding the {{Good}}, so that both share the same view of God's view of human's view of God's view of human's view. All of the {{Structure}} that I am aware of rests in one of these four levels.

===All, any, some, none===

The chain of views lets us separate out all concepts, any concept, a concept, no concept (be one with) - by establishing the distance from the viewer.

===Consider===

The chain of views apparently arises from the fact that the definite view has decreasing slack in scope and is thus ever more defined, whereas the indefinite view has increasing slack in scope and is thus ever less defined.

See also: {{View}}, {{Frame}} {{Overview}}, CategoryTheory, InversionEffect, ReversalEffect, {{Institutions}}

===The Significance of an Algebra of Views===

{{Andrius}}: My quest to KnowEverything has lead me to a way to account for the generation of all of the {{Structure}} that I have observed. The various structures arise upon composing God's view and human's view in an alternating chain: human's view of God's view of human's view of God's view of human's view. I call this TheChainOfViews and I am concerned to understand its nature and its foundation. In particular, I want to understand how we might escape a humans' view and arrive at God's view of human's view which is perhaps to know everything.

An algebra of views will allow us to understand the CompositionOfViews, and in particular, a SubordinateView.

===Current priorities===

{{Andrius}}: I am currently interested in the role that {{Truth}} plays in the algebra of views. I think that the nature of truth changes as we access views indirectly, so that what are soft truths when viewed directly become hard truths when viewed indirectly. An indirect view also allows for falsehood to arise. TheChainOfViews is a framework for the changes in scope and what they mean for the relationship between {{Love}} and {{Understanding}}. God's view is indefinite, unscoped, and human's view is definite, scoped.

I'm going through Mappings in Thought and Language by Gilles Fauconnier. I want to understand his MentalSpaces as {{Views}}. I will also be reading The Nature of Order: The Luminous Ground by Christopher Alexander so as to think more about StructurePreserving transformations. I will be studying CategoryTheory so as to understand how it might express this algebra of views and how, conversely, an algebra of views might be the basis for category theory and perhaps all of mathematics.

I want to understand the four levels as relevant to different interpretations of truth - from soft to hard - reflective of an all knowing being reaching out to those who are not all knowing, who are in a world of opaqueness. Then I will want to be able to analyze complexes of views to show how they may be variously interpreted.

===Same and Different===

The main idea throughout the "algebra of views" seems to be the ability to assert as to what is "same" and what is "different". Are two views the same, or are they different, and in what sense? Are two contexts the same, or are they different? Are two suppositions the same, or are they different? In mathematics, are two expressions the same, or are they different, and in what sense?

What is the origin of "same" and "different"? They are one of the RepresentationsOfTheTwosome, the division of everything into two perspectives.

===The Algebra of Views & The Big Picture===

It seems that all of this is rolled out as follows:

0) 1) 2) 3) There is first a unified outlook (such as God) which unfolds the perspectives that are the basis for {{Structure}}, for the DivisionOfEverything. We may think of this unfolding as an operation [AddOne +1] which keeps reinterpreting the whole as an additional perspective. When there are three perspectives, then the structure for the original outlook is complete: it can understand, come to understanding, and be understood. However, the operation +1 continues.

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 [AddTwo +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 [AddThree +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.

===Fundamental concepts for an AlgebraOfViews===

{{Structure}} the first three divisions allow for structure, allow for divisions and definition

{{Definition}} viewed by a distinct path, set by a distinct structure

{{Foursome}} the distinction between spirit and structure which opens up the representations and the topologies

RepresentationsOfTheNullsome what separates the viewer and the viewed

{{Truth}} what is obvious, not hidden, {{Viewed}}, the separation between the viewer and the viewed when it is nothing

{{Scope}} the sense in which suppositions are the same or different - everything as a required concept

{{Scopes}}

• {{Everything}} indefinite, unspecified
• {{Anything}} definite, unspecified
• {{Something}} definite, specified
• {{Nothing}} indefinite, specified

{{Definite}} or {{Indefinite}} the relationship with the definition, is it through a single path or multiple paths

same and different a representation of the twosome

{{Supposition}} that which can be the same or different

KeepSeparate, {{Separate}} - The vital matter is that we may hold suppositions separately, so that in some sense they are the same, and in some other sense they are different (think also of how we use {{Variables}}, they work on two levels, as with the QualitiesOfSigns)

{{View}} the keeping separate of suppositions, the acceptance of a scope

necessary, actual, possible - a representation of the threesome, allowing for responsibility

{{Understanding}} the considering of suppositions as different, the stepping back from one view out into another

{{Love}} is the considering of suppositions as the same, the sharing of scope, the stepping into a view

{{Perspective}} a supposition for which a viewer is responsible, by which they go beyond themselves

{{Concept}} a supposition for which the viewed is responsible, and which is thus one with itself

{{Focus}} the distinction between viewer and viewed which opens up scope. Focus is given by viewer, taken by viewed.

Look at the relationship between love and understanding across the four scopes and the extent to which views coincide.

{{Responsibility}} - a central concept for applying all of this, especially the distinction between those who make the rules and who have to play by them, thus related to scopes and to the difference between hard and soft truths

{{Context}} - adjoint to supposition?

CompositionOfViews

CompositionOfSuppositions

TakeUpAPerspective

StructurePreserving

TheChainOfViews

BisectingAView

OptimalityConstraints

{{Representations}} scopes and keeping separate may be understood in terms of representations

===Questions===

Define:

• TakeUpAView
• TakeUpAPerspective
• CompositionOfSuppositions
• CompositionOfViews
• IndefiniteVDefinite, {{Indefinite}}, {{Definite}}, {{Definition}}, {{Define}}
• {{Scope}}

Questions:

[howToKnowEverything How might a definite view take up an indefinite view]?

• How can we entertain dual concepts so as to take up an indefinite view?
• [{{Associative}} Is composition of views associative]?
• [ConstructiveHypotheses How might we apply constructive hypotheses to extend pragmatically from conclusions supposing a definite view to those allowing for an indefinite view]?
• Given that we need to consider a vantage point greater than us, how does such a vantage point take up this same question? In other words, how does God take up the possibility that he has simply found himself in his situation and there may be a vantage point greater than his own?

How might we escape a view?

• [{{Empathy}} How might we step out of a definite view and back into another definite view]?
• How might we switch around the composition of a definite view of an indefinite view?
• How does a view look within itself, and does this help it cancel itself out, escape from itself?
• Is it possible to reverse the direction of the composition of views? Is the InversionEffect related to this?
• How might BisectingAView help us escape a view?

How does a view see more?

• What does it mean for a view to see more? How does that relate to truth? and to looking within oneself?
• Does looking within oneself result in a bisection of oneself and a distinction of scopes?
• Does looking within oneself relate to being with oneself?
• Does looking within oneself require an extra scope?
• How is a view able to see more if it is focused at the right point, through the right views?
• How is an indefinite view of definite view able to see more than the definite view by itself? (Perhaps the same path may be traveled by multiple perspectives (of multiple awarenesses)).

How do scopes arise and change?

• How do everything, anything, something, nothing arise?
• How do scope and change in scope enable separation?
• Why does scope decrease as views are composed?
• How do we identify spaces? Is the distinction between everything, anything, something, nothing relevant for that?
• How do we allow for a discourse or not? In what sense can we have a shared space? To who does it belong to? Does that determine the nature of the space, the degree to which it belongs to one? The difference between one and one's self? Perhaps space arises with the foursome, as a situation, and an inversion of the concept of a view.

How does truth hold across scopes?

• How is truth accessed directly or indirectly?
• How is there falsehood?
• What happens to truth as we move from space to space?
• How does love connect truth to Truth?
• How does love of self, love of others, love of God yield ever broader connection of truth to Truth?
• How does this love allow two views to be increasingly one with each other, in an ever tighter scope?
• How is life, etc. the togetherness (of God and good) as defined by the relevant scope?
• How does eternal life arise as the understanding of this togetherness and the keeping separate in the face of it?

How are {{Concepts}} kept {{Separate}}?

• How does the use of two levels lets us have signs be the

same on one level and different on another level? There are six QualitiesOfSigns given by pairs of levels: malleable, modifiable, mobile, memorable, meaningful, motivated. I think that if we look at how variables are interepreted, then we'll find likewise a dual perspective on them. So there might be six ways to an interpret a variable/constant. I might study math texts to look for the different ways.

What are suppositions?

• What is the relationship between a {{Perspective}} and a concept?
• How do concepts arise - being with oneself?
• Is being a concept and taking up a perspective an either/or?
• Is a concept a marker for a perspective, a place where a perspective can be allowed for?

In what sense do the views constitute a [CategoryTheory category]?

• Is CompositionOfViews {{Associative}}?
• What is the IdentityView?
• What are EquivalentViews?

===CategoryTheory===

I look forward to making this Algebra of Views more well defined with regard to CategoryTheory - it is one of these two-way processes of making them fit with each other fruitfully.

===Consider===

Think of understanding:

• God's view as understanding
• God's view of human's view as self-understanding
• God's view of human's view of God's view as shared understanding
• God's view of human's view of God's view of human's view as good understanding

Where each of these are described in the {{Overview}}. So understanding may be God's view, as in eternal life is the understanding that God is good.

{{Andrius}} Views are central to my wish to KnowEverything.

Consider how this relates to the recursive nature of {{Caring}} and {{Internalization}}.

Consider perspective, perception as opening up our view, as increasing slack, and a concept, conception as closing up our view, as decreasing slack.

Consider God's going beyond himself as a way of opening up his perspective to other perspectives that are further out, less powerful. So this is his way of including all perspectives, including that which is taken up by no perspective, in that it is subordinate - what does that mean?

Consider the effect of the scopes as contexts for what truth means, from all things are true, to either true or false.

Consider how perspectives are flipped around as they are taken up, what does that mean, for example, going from all to any?

Consider the InversionEffect.

Consider SuhritDey's idea of {{Consciousness}} as an idempotent, a fixed point, a {{View}} upon oneself.

===Thoughts from prayer===

2005.05.25 {{A}}: Kas yra po\9Eiūris? {{D}}: Po\9Eiūris yra ry\9Ays su tuo kas yra u\9E tavęs. {{A}}: Kokią sandarą jisai i\9Asaugoja? {{D}}: Jis i\9Asaugoja meilę. {{A}}: Kaip čia meilę suprasti? {{D}}: A\9A būnu su jumis, bet ar jūs būnate su manimi? A\9A vis tiek su jumis būnu. {{A}}: Ačiū. {{D}}: Pra\9Aau.

Approach:composition.jpg