* [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kegan | Robert Kegan]] Evolutionary balances of object and subject.

* Impulsive (E2) survival
* Self-Protective (E3) security
* Conformist (E4) social
* Self-Aware (E5)

* Individualistic (E7)
* Autonomous (E8)

[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loevinger%27s_stages_of_ego_development | Jane Loevinger's stages of ego development]]

* Impulsive (E2)
* Self-Protective (E3)
* Conformist (E4)
* Self-Aware (E5)

* Autonomous (E8)

I had noticed how the unfolding of everything was based upon the divisions, and their role in making definitions. So that is how
everything starts out. Now what I've noticed is that there are a lot of very important facts about life that have to do with the upshot of life, how it concludes. It's very helpful to separate these out. I've realized that they are all about the coherence of everything, rather than the unfolding of everything. I think they are organized by the "I am..." statements of Jesus, and they can be considered in reverse order, so that each expresses coherence with fewer and fewer perspectives, getting down to the core essence of life, which has zero perspectives, and is God, "I AM". Perfection, I suppose. I imagine that this is related to the outlook that you've been expressing.

So here is a sketch of what I think are the core outlooks that express the essence of life, by which it coheres. Consider life as having unfolded from everything by means of an operation +1, which contributes definitions by means of the division of everything. The eight divisions yield four primary structures and six secondary structures that express all of life. But do they all cohere? Now there are eight outlooks that don't collapse life, but rather, allow it to hold together. They are perhaps related by an operation -1, which describes what is good. Jesus talks about them through his "I am..." statements, which I write more about at http://www.ms.lt/def/17.html and have to do with the fact that God has no needs, lacks nothing, is perfect, but we have needs, and can respond to them with operating principles, and apply them to look towards God.

[+Užrašai+]

Hofstatder pavyzdys iš jo kalbos apie analogijas, Stanford universitete: kaip jo dukrytės nusivylimas jam primenė, kaip jisai vaikystėje nusivylė, kai sužinojo, kad x1, x2... nieko ypatingo nereiškia. Tai parodo, kad prisiminimų akstinas nėra (būtinai) kūniškas, o prisiminimas pagrįstas santykiais, schemomis, sandaromis.

* Everything cares for its own unity. See the WaysOfCaring.


* Poreikiai rūpinasi savimi - pirmieji trys savasties nurodytu, antrieji trys savasties išsakytu. Yra savastis, tolydžioji savastis, netolydžioji savastis. (Palyginti su vienu, visybe, daugiu - daugyje sutampa nurodytasis ir išsakytasis).
* Savasties atžvilgiu: nusistatyti (rūpintis savastimi), vykdyti (tolydžiaja savastimi), permąstyti (netolydžiaja savastimi) - mat, gal peršokau į kitą žmogų! Visa tai yra pagrindas amžinajam gyvenimui, rinktis Dievą vietoj savęs.



Stebuklai yra "vaikų duona, šunyčiams nemetama", kuriais Dievo vaikams atsiveria galimybė tikėti, tad tai yra gyvenimo duona.

Poreikių tenkinimai

Dievas savarankiškas, nieko netrokšta. Mūsų protai tiesiogiai nesuvokia nieko netroškimo. Tuomi nėra ką suvokti! Poreikiai neigia savarankiškumą, troškimą nieko. Tai išsako kūną, ir kaip dalį kūno, protą - psichiką. Taip išskiriamos pasąmonė su kūnu, ir sąmonė.

Abraham Maslow iškėlė penkis poreikius. Jo sekėjai juos papildė laisvės poreikiu. Nagrinėjant, įsijaučiant, apmąstant, išryškėja sandara 2x3 poreikiai, palaikanti laisvės poreikio pripažinimą.

Pirmi trys poreikiai yra kūno (pasąmonės) poreikiai. Kiti trys poreikiai yra psichikos, proto (sąmonės) poreikiai.

Pasąmonė rūpinasi kūnu ir kraštutinumų vengimu, sąmonė rūpinasi dvasia ir kraštutinumų išskyrimu.

The body seeks to survive. It also seeks security so that it survives tomorrow. Finally, it seeks acceptance (fulfillment of the social need), relevance to the greater context, which is the ultimate reason for surviving. Analogously, the mind has no life, no energy to live, except by its self-esteem (self-worth). It also seeks opportunity (freedom, independence) so that it has self-esteem tomorrow. Finally, it seeks self-fulfillment (life meaning), relevance to the greater context, which is the ultimate reason for self-esteem.

Poreikių laipsnyne pirmi trys poreikiai neapibrėžti, už santvarkos, o kiti trys žinojimo poreikiai apibrėžti santvarkoje. Tai primena gyvybės medį ir gėrio bei blogio pažinimo medį.

Poreikių grandinė skiria kūną (išorinį gyvenimą) ir protą (vidinį gyvenimą). Šis skirtumas susijęs su klausimu Kodėl Kitas mąsto? Dievo valia palieka laisvą žmogaus vidinį gyvenimą.

Paskiri poreikiai

* I thought about the gate for the sheep, having life and to the fullest. I think now that the pen is heaven, and that we are saved by entering in, but to live to the fullest we go out to
pasture, into the world. We are born again if we choose therefore to go out to the world. If we are in the spirit, then we are like the wind, nobody knows if we are coming or going, in this regard - are we rising above the world, or are we engaging it.

'''Poreikiai'''

'''Tenkinimai'''

'''Jėzaus pasisakymai Aš esu. Malonė vietoj teisybės'''

'''Laipsnynas grindžiantis "Aš esu..."'''

'''Citatos'''

Abraham Maslow iškėlė penkis poreikius. Jo sekėjai juos papildė laisvės poreikiu. Nagrinėjant, įsijaučiant, apmąstant, iškyla sandara 2x3 poreikiai.

Abraham Maslow iškėlė penkis poreikius. Jo sekėjai juos papildė laisvės poreikiu.

Aštuoniais dėsniais tenkiname Maslow laipsnyno poreikius:

I'm thinking more about each of these, what they mean, and how they
relate to each other. I thought about the gate for the sheep, having
life and to the fullest. I think now that the pen is heaven, and that
we are saved by entering in, but to live to the fullest we go out to
pasture, into the world. We are born again if we choose therefore to
go out to the world. If we are in the spirit, then we are like the
wind, nobody knows if we are coming or going, in this regard - are we
rising above the world, or are we engaging it.

I have two thoughts regarding this. One is that God is always
connected to us, but we are not always connected to him, and not
necessarily for any fault of our own. I have a sense when I have a
connection with God, and when I don't. I doubt that we're designed to
have connection with God all the time, we're designed to turn our
attention over to other things as well. I don't find there being
something inherently wrong not to be connected with God, although it
often happens that I feel there's something wrong and that I should
run to him, and he is there. Certainly Christ had a will distinct
from God's, and even at odds with God, although he always chose God
over himself. "Don't touch me, for I haven't yet ascended to my
Father". I'm thinking about Christ on the cross, and also his
temptation in the wilderness. In the latter case, the Spirit was with
him. I don't know if the Father was with him or not, I suppose he
was, for he prayed. At all these times I expect he prayed, but
whether God was with him, I don't know. Also, with the psalm, "God
why have you abandoned me?", it's hard to say what level he is reading
it on. Is he living it, or is he reading it? If he is living it,
then I'd say he's abandoned. If he's just citing it, I think that at
least he's sympathetic with the position. If he's sympathetic, I
think it's because it's real, and if it's real, I think he suffers
this, for this makes his suffering more real, more to the point. The
fact that he's abandoned does not diminish God, but rather glorifies
him. So certainly he was abandoned.

Another issue, I guess the same issue, is that just as God gives
himself up in every way, making way for others, so he has children who
do likewise, but he has a Son who he gives up. That is, the Father
behaves towards his Son in a way that is above and beyond how he
behaves towards himself. The Father gives up himself of his own, but
the Son is given up by the Father. That is why there is drama. The
Son is always with the Father, but the Father has given up the Son.
It is up to the Son to justify the Father. The Son takes up this work
from the Father, and thereby glorifies the Father. And the Father has
a vested interest that people believe in the Son, for otherwise there
is no justification for the Father. So this is the Father's work, to
make good of his action towards his Son. For the Son has made good of
what the Father has done. The Son makes true the Father - that just
as the Father give himself up, so does the Son give himself up, even
as the Father has given up the Son.

This outlook intensifies for me what is going on, increases my empathy
for the Son, and the glory of the Father. Just as the Father gave up
his Son, so he gave over to the Son all things that on him they
depend, that he make true the Father.

* God's glory "I am the resurrection and the life"
** God's Glory: that his Coherence go beyond him. (not only God has coherence, but so does everything)
** God's glory is his Word, the Son, the coherence of everything, the Godness of everything, that through which everything arises.
* God's intention "I am the gate for the sheep"
** God's Intention: that his free Spirit go beyond him. (we are "born again" when we choose to go out in the world and engage it)
** God's intention is to be worshipped in spirit and truth, that we have life and to the fullest, rising above the world but also engaging it.
* God's example "I am the way, the truth and the life"
** God's Example: that his Activity go beyond him. (as the Father does, so does the Son - he comes from above)
** God's example comes from above, from heaven, to show how to do, that it might be done, for the glory of the one above.
* God's love "I am the good shepherd"
** God's Love: that his Giving-himself-up go beyond him. (the Father gave himself up, made way for everything, of his own will - but he likewise gives up his Son, who is sent of his Father's will, not his own)
** God's love is that his Son (the one who does what the Father does) is always with him, but he is not always with his Son, so that just as he gives himself up, so he gives up his Son, so that his Son might give himself up.
* God's work "I am the light of the world"
** God's Work: that his Belief go beyond him. (the Father is justified if truly the Son likewise gives himself up, and there is belief that the Father and the Son are one)
** God's work is to believe the Son that he sent, and accept that he is from God, does God's work for the glory of God. And I think, to believe that God is loving even in giving up his Son, that he is truly God in doing so.
* God's command "I am the true vine"
** God's Command: that his Loving-each-other go beyond him. (as the Father makes way for the Son, and the Son makes way for the Father, so the Son makes way for us to make way for each other)
** God's command is to love each other, give oneself up for those who love each other, make way for each other to give oneself up.
* God's will "I am the bread of life"
** God's Will: that his Work go beyond him. (the drama of the justification of the Father's giving up his Son is to come across regardless of how one comes to see and believe)
** God's will is that every one who sees the Son and believes in him have eternal life. Eternal life is to do the work of God that the Son
allows us to complete through the Holy Spirit, this work of giving way for each other.

--------------------------------


I think a lot about Christ's statements "I am..." At the heart of
each statement I think there is a different concept, each of which is
eternal life.

Maslow observed that we share a hierarchy of needs, which his followers extended. We can organize these as three needs of the body:

*1. survival
*2. security
*3. acceptance

and three needs of the mind:

*4. self-esteem
*5. opportunity
*6. self-fulfillment.

[[Netroškimai]], [[Jėzaus pasisakymai]], [[Gyvybė]], [[Laipsnynas]]
* RequirementsOfLivingSystems, RepresentationsOfAnything

[[Netroškimai]], [[Jėzaus pasisakymai]], [[Gyvybė]]

'''Interpoliavimas tarp Dievo ir gerumo'''

See also {{Structure}}, RequirementsOfLivingSystems, RepresentationsOfEverything, RepresentationsOfAnything, {{Gradation}}

----

[http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/276 March 3, 2003]

Hi David,

Thank you for your most recent letter. I wrote a reply, but didn't send
it out, and have lost it somewhere. I don't know what to say regarding
the problem of how all such knowledge might be misused. I just think
that it's fair to expect God to take care of a lot of this. Certainly
if we ourselves are proceeding in good will, so that's always important
to check. Also, my feeling and experience is that the truly deep
knowledge is available only through our purity of heart, our clarity of
purpose. So that in itself is a check on misuse. Finally, how can we
know that hesitating is any better than pursuing?

I started reorganizing my notes at http://www.ms.lt/def/outline.html and
hit upon a better sense of the overview. I'll write about that here.
And I've started to work with Personal Brain on this, so I hope to make
that available in the coming weeks.

I had noticed how the unfolding of everything was based upon the
divisions, and their role in making definitions. So that is how
everything starts out. Now what I've noticed is that there are a lot of
very important facts about life that have to do with the upshot of life,
how it concludes. It's very helpful to separate these out. I've
realized that they are all about the coherence of everything, rather
than the unfolding of everything. I think they are organized by the "I
am..." statements of Jesus, and they can be considered in reverse order,
so that each expresses coherence with fewer and fewer perspectives,
getting down to the core essence of life, which has zero perspectives,
and is God, "I AM". Perfection, I suppose. I imagine that this is
related to the outlook that you've been expressing.

So here is a sketch of what I think are the core outlooks that express
the essence of life, by which it coheres. Consider life as having
unfolded from everything by means of an operation +1, which contributes
definitions by means of the division of everything. The eight divisions
yield four primary structures and six secondary structures that express
all of life. But do they all cohere? Now there are eight outlooks that
don't collapse life, but rather, allow it to hold together. They are
perhaps related by an operation -1, which describes what is good. Jesus
talks about them through his "I am..." statements, which I write more
about at http://www.ms.lt/def/17.html and have to do with the fact that
God has no needs, lacks nothing, is perfect, but we have needs, and can
respond to them with operating principles, and apply them to look
towards God.

{{Andrius}}: [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/346 July 24, 2003]

Yesterday I was analyzing Jesus' "I am..." statements from the Gospel
of John. I sent that to our group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lovingGod/ and I include it at the end
of my letter. At the core of each of these statements is a concept
that expresses eternal life as God's going beyond himself.

There seems to be an operation +2 here, where God's X+2 is that God's
X go beyond him. That might make sense if it could be related to
expectations and emotional responses.

* susilaikymas ir kraštutinumų vengimas, teisingumas ir geriausio pasirinkimas

* Dievas myli netobulą. Tad kodėl įsakė, "Būk tobulas"? Kodėl tai poreikių nulinis požiūris?

šv.Jono evangelijoje yra aštuoni Jėzaus pasisakymai, "Aš esu..."

===Jesus' statementes "I Am..."===

The gospel of John contains eight statements by Christ of the form "I am...", the eighth being "I AM", alluding to Jahwe, the name God revealed to Moses. 0. I am. 1. I am the resurrection and the life. 2. I am the gate for the sheep. 3. I am the way, the truth and the life. 4. I am the good shepherd. 5. I am the light of the world. 6. I am the true vine. 7. I am the bread of life. They express how we may apply our operating principles absolutely - with respect to God, the entirety - rather than relatively, with respect to ourselves.

* "I AM". How can I have no needs, and be perfect? Only with respect to the entirety.
* "I am the resurrection and the life". I have a need for life, and so I cling to what we have. If I wish to do so absolutely, then I do so with respect to the glory of the entirety, which gives absolute life. Not only to live, but to overcome death. "Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour. Father, glorify thy name."
* "I am the gate for the sheep". I have a need for security, and so I get more than what I need. If I wish to do so absolutely, then I do so with respect to the intention of the entirety, which gives absolute salvation. Not only blessed within the gate, but blessed to go out and come back. "I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly."
* "I am the way and the truth and the life". I have a need for acceptance, and so I avoid extremes, I behave normally. If I wish to do so absolutely, then I do so with respect to the example of the entirety, which provides an absolute home. "If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him."
* "I am the good shepherd". I have a need for self-worth, and so I choose the good over the bad. If I wish to do so absolutely, then I do so with respect to the love of the entirety, the source of absolute value. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
* "I am the light of the world". I have a need for opportunity, and so I choose the better over the worse. If I wish to do so absolutely, then I do so with respect to the works of the entirety, which give its absolute message. "I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world."
* "I am the true vine". I have a need for self-fulfillment, and so I strive for perfection. If I wish to do so absolutely, then I do so with respect to the command of the entirety, which gives absolute fruit. "If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you."
* "I am the bread of life". I have needs, but do not worry about them, if I worry about the needs of somebody else. If I wish to do so absolutely, then I do so with respect to the will of the entirety, which gives absolute relationship. "And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day."

These statements question the logic of our concern for ourselves. They embolden us to live our lives with respect to the entirety. They challenge us to live with faith with regard to the entirety. When I read the gospel of John, I think he was the disciple very close to Christ, who cared to note how Christ himself thought about these things. [11/00, Andrius Kulikauskas]

===Notes===

I learned of the statements from AdrianHunter.

{{Andrius}}: One thing I noticed is that "eternal life" is identified with the
glory of God, and also the intention of God. So I imagine that it
might be identified with all of the following:

-
- glory of God
- intention of God
- example of God
- love of God
- work of God
- command of God
- will of God

These come up in Christ's "I am..." statements in the Gospel of John.
So I should think and write about that.

----

I will try to think more about the big picture, maybe this will help.

Peace,

Andrius

Andrius Kulikauskas
Minciu Sodas
http://www.ms.lt
ms@ms.lt
Velenje, Slovenia


I am working on understanding life, which I pursue mostly at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/consideringGod/ I have been writing my
notes in TheBrain. Today I looked over my notes from the Gospel of
John, and have been linking and thinking. I'll write down what I'm
thinking, maybe somebody will have a thought. Andrius, http://www.ms.lt
---------------------------------------------------------

I add some quotes that may relate.

Andrius

http://www.ms.lt
http://www.no-hit.com/andrius/

Poreikiai neigia savarankiškumą, troškimą nieko.

'''Jėzaus pasisakymai Aš esu. Malonė vietoj teisybės'''

Renkamės tenkinimus taikyti ryšium su Dievu (Jėzaus pasisakymais "Aš esu") gyventi DievuRinkti malonę vietoj teisybės.

* įsikabinti - rinkti kurį vienybės atvaizdą?

Poreikiai
* Poreikių laipsnyne pirmi trys poreikiai neapibrėžti, o kiti trys žinojimo poreikiai apibrėžti. Tai primena gyvybės medį ir gėrio bei blogio pažinimo medį.
Gerbti žmonių poreikius
* Nežudyti - gyvybės poreikio
* Nevogti - saugumo poreikis
* Nesvetmoteriauti - bendravimo poreikis
* Nemeluoti - vertės poreikis
* Negeisti svetimo daiktų - laisvės poreikis
* Negeisti svetimo žmogaus - prasmės poreikis


* Maslow vertės poreikis - brandos troškimas.
* Neįmanoma stebėjimo patvirtinti žmogaus nesavanaudišką elgesį - patvirtinti, kad jisai rūpinosi kito poreikiais arba tiesiog neturėjo poreikių - tačiau patys žinom apie save, kad tai yra įmanoma, kad rūpinamės kitais. Ir tikime, kad kiti gali būti tobuli, be poreikių.
* Poreikių tenkinimai telkia dėmesį į ribą.


* Kraštutiniškumas leidžia kitiems suvokti, kokios galimybės, kad yra kažkas daugiau už santvarkos. Užtat kraštutiniškumo reikia labai nedaug.

Poreikiai reiškiasi kaip netroškimas nieko, taip pat pasakojime, aštuongubiame kelyje Palaiminimai. Kaip tai siejasi? Ir kaip su kitais lygmenimis?

* Negeisk svetimo žmogaus - negriauti prasmės

* Esamybė - nepatinka, galimybė - nereikia, siekiamybė - netikra, nesamybė - nekeblu, negalimybė - neprotinga, nesiekiamybė - teisinga.

* Moteriška giminė rūpinasi kūnu ir kraštutinumų vengimu, vyriška giminė rūpinasi dvasia ir kraštutinumų išskyrimu.

Attach:wishesfornothing.gif

[[Netroškimai]], [[Gyvybė]]

Žr. [[Gyvybė]]

http://www.ms.lt/en/andrius/understanding/diagrams/wishesfornothing.gif

See also: {{Overview}}, IAmStatements, {{Spirit}}

===The Gospel of John===

http://www.ebible.org/web/John.htm

Rinkti malonę vietoj teisybę.

* kaupti - rinkti kurį dvejybės atvaizą?

* rūpintis kitu - rinkti malonę vietoj teisybę

>>bgcolor=#FFFFC0<<