关怀

Minčių sodo bendra vertybė buvo rūpestis mąstymu.

[http://www.ms.lt/lt/wiki.cgi?Rūpintojėlis Lietuvių kalba: Rūpintojėlis]

===Investigation of Caring===

AndriusKulikauskas September 1, 2009 13:23 CET: What is a Culture that fosters Caring? I'm going to study Caring, and a Culture that fosters Caring. That's relevant to our Values, Investigations, Endeavors, to the languages of Argumentation (how things come to matter), but also Verbalization (how things get meaning) and Narration (how things happen). It's also relevant to the incremental compassion of the KingdomOfHeaven and to recognizing God in others, each other and ourselves. I will also consider what God cares about, which makes the Bible relevant and interesting.

Consider the scope of our Caring, which can be very broad or very narrow.

Make a list of what we're caring about.

Related pages: Concerns, Omniscope, CaringAboutThinking, Sixsome (Caring, Believing, Obeying), WaysOfGettingThingsDone, Responses

JohnHarland: Caring has to do with Identification (Empathy, Coinciding) and that's relating to being self-critical and not assuming.

===What is caring?===

Caring is a perspective within the Representation of the Sixsome.

---

Andrius [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/338 July 9, 2003]

I like this idea of reciprocal recursion. Given that humans are prone to changing our minds (and to error), the right strategy is to proceed recursively so that, on the one hand, we admit recursively as much information as possible, and on the other hand, we strip away the layers of our decision making, and arrive at the deepest layer, which does not err.

I asked God, what is the sense of this deepest layer? What I understood from him was that here we are naked before him, but it would be great if we could be this way in full consciousness.

I think that obeying, believing, caring are our correctness at these additional levels of awareness, where obeying is +3 levels of awareness, believing is +2 levels of awareness, and caring is +1 levels of awareness. In other words, all three are reasons for following the will of God, but obeying exercises the fullest freedom, believing the next greatest, and caring the least.

What questions to think about?

• What is the warmth, the "caring" in the caring?
• How is loving related to obeying, believing, caring?
• What are the roles of Scope and perspective in obeying, believing, caring? and in courage, hope, honesty?
• What is the relevance of Scopes: life, work, talk, outlook?
• What is the relevance of scopes: caring about Everything, Anything, Something, Nothing?
• What does it mean for God to have a will? or for us to have a will? and who can have a will?
• What is the will of God? Our will?
• What does it mean to love oneself, others, neighbor, enemy, God?

Recalling that to love is...

• to support life, therefore
• to support the unity of the representations of anything, therefore
• to support the unity of the expressions of the will, therefore
• to strengthen the will, therefore
• to make evident choice, therefore
• to make evident the scope of not-wishing, and the scope of wishing, so it is clear that we are "choosing wishing", which is to say, "willing"; therefore
• to make clear the scopes (everything, anything, something, nothing) of wishing/not-wishing, therefore
• to wish in every way, therefore
• to heighten the fact that we may choose.

I'm noting that to live is to wish in every way. But not to not-wish in every way. I think that this is important, that love is a unity of wishing, not of not-wishing. It is the wishing that is important to heighten the fact that we may choose.

God's will is eternal life, and I think our own will is life, but we are prone to changing our mind on that. So perhaps it is a matter of consciously exercising our will for life. Here sin - apathy, pride, idolatry - may be the obstacle.

Andrius [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/337 July 9, 2003]

I note we may think of a "rule of response" which duty has us apply to a scope, but caring let us apply by our perspective, so that it is recursive, leading us from perspective to perspective. God reciprocates by recursively reframing our free choices, so that they reach our touchstone, and we might decide without error.

---

Caring, believing, obeying are internal perspectives that we have upon internalizing the external perspectives of duty, loyalty, justice. So I am looking how they relate with regard to scope.

"To care about X is to care about all that falls within the perspective of X, and vice versa. It is to empathize with X, to take up the scope of X. If we care about the same things, then we care about each other, and vice versa. In caring about a scope, we are doing the job of the one who has that scope."

I think that that duty lacks this transparency, this transitivity, that caring has. If I have a duty regarding X, then the scope of my concern is only X, and I do not consider the perspective of X. But if I care about X, then my concern extends to the scope of the perspective of X, and continues onward.

So the difference between duty and caring is whether I admit that the scope may contain a perspective that further extends my scope.

This points to the difference between the external motivation of duty, and the internal motivation of caring. Self-direction!

It is as if we are applying a rule or instruction. If the rule is applied to a scope, then there is no recursion, for one scope is not aware of another. But if the rule is applied by the perspective, then there is recursion, for one perspective may be aware of another that falls within its scope. Concern is a rule to respond. Duty applies this rule to a scope. Caring applies this rule by a perspective, recursively, as far as it can be aware. I imagine that love applies this rule directly, without any scope.

If we are willing to take up this rule so as to apply it ourselves, by our perspective, and consequently do so recursively, then we have internalized the rule. Then God reciprocates by strengthening our will. His nature is to live on the edge, for example, the free choice between intimacy and fear, or love and hate, or beauty and disgust. For him, each decision is clear, he never errs. But we are human, we are designed to make mistakes. If we apply the rule transparently, therefore recursively, then he can likewise remove us from the edge. He can place the right decision deep within our heart as a virtue. He places it at the deepest reaches of our awareness, where we no longer find any choice of perspectives. Much like a philosopher places his gut feeling under every layer of framing! like a pea under many mattresses. Here our choice is safe and is beyond our ability to discuss, examine or question. It is what it is. It is a kernel, a touchstone, that makes the right decisions for us, our basic honesty, hope or courage.

In other words, if we behave recursively, by living a rule through perspectives rather than scopes, and thereby internalize our outlook, always walking deeper into what we care, believe, obey, then God reciprocates, and recursively reframes our choices so that they are obvious and errorless just as they are for him.

I imagine that we may understand this as a matter of thinking. With this help of God, every issue can be made concrete, simple, relevant, so that we never err. He will do this if we live wholeheartedly, internalizing the rule of response. If we try to think sensitively, powerfully, energetically, then we may succeed, but we may also fail.

---

Andrius [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/333 July 8, 2003]

I am trying to think about Obeying, Believing, Caring as involving issues of Scope. I recall that they are three reasons for following a way (the will of God) and note: obeying = accepting the start of the way believing = accepting the middle of the way caring = accepting the end of the way

---

Some ideas that I like:

To care about X is to care about all that falls within the perspective of X, and vice versa. It is to empathize with X, to take up the scope of X. If we care about the same things, then we care about each other, and vice versa. In caring about a scope, we are doing the job of the one who has that scope.

I want to ask:

• What is the "warmth", the "caring" in caring?
• How do issues of scope make caring different from loving?
• How do issues of identity come up in caring?
• How are obeying, believing, caring related?

I continue my thoughts from before:

"Caring about X" = "for the X that we know of, being responsive to what X is sensitive to".

"Caring says that there is a scope within which my sensitivity turns to responsivity. I have accepted this scope from another, it was my duty, but now I have taken it as my own. I have internalized it. I will now respond in my own way, which means that I may not appear to respond, but in fact I am myself responding."

I want to think of obeying, believing, caring in terms of scope. They are three different mindsets for following the will of God. We may think of their being one "way", but there are three reasons we might follow that way.

• obeying - accepting the start of the way
• believing - accepting the middle of the way
• caring - accepting the end of the way

---

Andrius [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/332 July 7, 2003]

To care about X is to care about all that falls within the Perspective of X, and vice versa. So to care about everything is to care about God, etc. Issues of Scope and {Identity come up.

Note that Unity seems relevant here, and with regard the InversionEffect.

---

I want to understand caring, for example, how it relates to loving. I like this idea that loving looks beyond any scope, whereas caring focuses on a particular scope.

So I am trying to understand the various kinds of caring in terms of their scope. I had made this list:

• Caring about everybody is "caring about God".
• Caring about anybody is "caring about others".
• Caring about somebody is "caring about relationship with others".
• Caring about nobody is "caring about relationship with God".

but this is not quite right. So I am thinking.

I asked God, what is it that we can care about, and the reply I got was that we can care about him, and through inversion, things from his perspective.

Today I have this idea that, for example, "caring about everything" is "caring about God". In other words, if we care about everything, then we care about God, because God cares about everything. This is to say that if we care about the same things, then we care about each other, and vice versa. It is very strange, but I think true. So I like:

• Caring about everything is "caring about God".
• Caring about anything is "caring about others".
• Caring about something is "caring about relationship with others".
• Caring about nothing is "caring about relationship with God".

To care about X is to care about all that falls within the perspective of X. In this sense, it is to empathize with X, to take up the scope of X.

This still doesn't quite explain caring! But it's a nice step forward.

To love X is not to love what X loves. So loving and caring are different in this regard. To care about X is to care about not just what X cares about, but everything within the scope of X, that is, everything that X could care about!

This also makes evident the comprehensiveness of "caring about thinking". To care about thinking is to care about all that falls within the perspective of thinking. And that includes all the scopes that we can care about: everything, anything, something, nothing.

In caring about a scope, we are doing the job of the one who has that scope. In caring about everything, we are, like Atlas, shouldering the work of God. In caring about anything, we are responding to the human condition. Caring about something, we are focused on some object of our relationships with others. And caring about nothing, we are attending to the futility of our condition before God.

These also match up nicely with the scopes that arise in the ten commandments:

• life is the everything that we care about
• work is the anything that we care about
• talk is the something that we care about
• outlook is the nothing that we care about

So now I need to consider, what is the "caring" in the caring? I mean, the warmth, what is it?

Caring is the internalization of duty. And duty, as an external perspective, seems to have a very clearly defined scope. Caring is taking this scope seriously, personally.

We can think of "caring about X" as "for the X that we know of, being responsive to what X is sensitive to".

If A cares about B, and B cares about C, then A cares about C. This is because caring is defined with regard to the X that we know of, which is to say, we must know that it is X. Suppose Andrew and Carlos are enemies, perhaps in the same jail cell, and Andrew cares about his true love Betty, and Betty cares about her childhood friend Carlos. And suppose that Andrew doesn't know that Betty cares about Carlos, or even knows him. Then Andrew cares about Carlos in the sense that Andrew cares about all that Betty cares about. But here he only cares about the Carlos that he knows of indirectly, which is the "unknown Carlos" that he does not know, but Betty does. Presumably, he does not care about the Carlos he knows directly. So there is a question of identity involved in caring that makes knowledge and scope important.

In the case of love, I think it is not important what we know, or what is the scope. If I love, then it is always direct, not through others. I can only love the Carlos who is before me, not the one who Betty cares about.

Caring says that there is a scope within which my sensitivity turns to responsivity. I have accepted this scope from another, it was my duty, but now I have taken it as my own. I have internalized it. I will now respond in my own way, which means that I may not appear to respond, but in fact I am myself responding.

I imagine that obeying and believing are similar. I will think about that, and also the role of scope here.

---

Andrius [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/331 July 4, 2003]

This morning, I asked God, what is caring? The answer I took was that caring is focused on a particular Scope, whereas Loving looks past beyond any particular scope.

I find that helpful. When I care, for example, when I care about a person, then it says nothing about whether I care about God. But when I love a person, then my love looks right through them to the unity of everything.

To "love" is very closely related to BeingOneWith. This would explain why, for to love is to be directed to that very unity.

So there are several kinds of caring, but only one kind of loving. We can, however, feel vividly the context of our loving, as given by the scopes with regard to which we are "one with":

• If I am one with nobody, then I feel very sad, like Christ on the cross.
• If I am one with somebody (not everybody), then I feel most surprised, and this is romantic love.
• If I am one with anybody (not nobody), then I feel excited, a

hyperflexible person in general, engaging and responding.

• If I am one with everybody, then I feel completely content, everything is right.

So these are all the same love, but ....?

Whereas caring is of different kinds. Here I want to be able to say that the different kinds of caring are given by the different scopes that we care regarding. Something like:

• Caring about everybody is "caring about God".
• Caring about anybody is "caring about others".
• Caring about somebody is "caring about relationship with others".
• Caring about nobody is "caring about relationship with God".

But it should be much more clear, certain, vivid. So I am thinking about this.

This may be helpful, from last month:

• outlook (what is scoped by nothing) that is, can have no regard for any facts
• talk (what is scoped by something) that is, has a topic that we are talking about
• work (what is scoped by anything) that is, is able to respond to any circumstances
• life (what is scoped by everything) that is, takes on everything at once

Andrius [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/326 June 28, 2003]

I am thinking about "caring", "loving", "living", "following the will of God". I find it helpful to think of God as giving way for us, with the will that we give way for each other, and even share in this giving of the way. Andrius, http://www.ms.lt

---

I am swirling around the big picture. I tried to understand "caring about thinking", and then I thought about the difference between "caring" and "loving".

I recalled that loving is supporting life. And obeying, believing, caring are the three reasons for following the will of God. And I think that following the will of God is related to eternal life. Perhaps they are the reasons for eternal life. I thought I should work on clarifying this. So I took out my notes on the Gospel of John. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/consideringGod/message/285 And I started playing around with them in TheBrain.

I am starting with a statement that I found which says:

eternal life = to know God the Father and Jesus ("with God") who he has sent

And then I found a statement:

to know Christ = to understand that he is good = to understand that the Father is good

So I am concluding: to know X = to understand the goodness of X

My view from before is that "life is the fact that God is good". Eternal life is something more. It is to know God the Father and God the Son. It is to understand the goodness of God the Father, and the goodness of God the Son. It seems that "eternal life is understanding the fact that God is good". Perhaps it is consciousness of the fact that God is good. For it is to combine two things. God the Father is the Godness/coherence/sensibleness of God. God the Son is the Godness/coherence/sensibleness of everything. God the Spirit is the Godness/coherence/sensibleness of Godness. To understand both the Father and the Son is to understand God as himself - not only of himself, but also above and beyond himself - what he is both of himself, and also above and beyond himself - his absolute nature, both prior to this world and within it, both in his own context and outside of it.

In what sense is God good? As Christ says, judge the tree by the fruit, judge the worker by the work. The work of God is to believe the one he sent. Which is to say, to recognize God even where he is beyond himself. And he is recognized from the truth. And the truth is the fact that one can give oneself up for others. I suppose this is slack. And it is the seventh perspective.

Christ also distinguishes between the good shepherd and the hired hand. The hired hand lives for himself, does not give up himself. The good shepherd lives for the sheep, cares for his sheep, loves God.

Here we have "caring" - the good shepherd cares for his sheep. He cares for them - he lives for them - he gives up his life for them, rather than for himself. In doing so, he follows the will of God, which is "that every one who sees the Son and believes in him have eternal life" where "eternal life is to share in God's eternal work, that Christ allows us to complete, through the Spirit" where "the work of God is to believe the one he sent" where people believe the one who knows the truth when they see the truth, and the truth is the fact that one can give oneself up for others.

Maybe more simply:

• good is slack
• slack is giving way to others
• the truth is that we can give way to others
• when we see that it is possible to give way to others, then we believe the one who knows this
• it is work to believe in the one who is sent to show the giving way to others
• eternal life is to share in this giving way of God as the ones who complete this giving way to each other
• the will of God is that all who see the one who was sent to show the giving way to others, and who likewise do so, may share with each other in this giving way

It seem that to follow the will of God is to share with all in this giving of the way.

In other words, we should give way so that others may give way.

Obeying, believing, caring I expect are the three drivers by which we share with all in the giving of the way.

Generally, by obeying, believing, caring I give way to others. But do I give way so that they might give way? This is the practical question for which I think it is vital to have an absolute vantage point that is neither myself, nor the other. I may obey, believe, care with regard to this vantage point. We may share the giving of the way through this vantage point.

Starting with "life is the fact that God is good", then it seems that we are invited to add our understanding. So that "eternal life is understanding that God is good". It is understanding that this absolute vantage point is one that lets us all share in the giving of the way. I imagine that this understanding may be of various degrees, one or two or three levels of reflection, perhaps as needed respectively for obeying, believing, caring.

Also, as with the sheep, "caring about thinking" is "caring for thinking" is "living for thinking, rather than for ourselves" is "giving up our lives for thinking" is "giving way for thinking". This makes sense if it is the thinking of the one who loves us more than we love ourselves. More broadly, it is a giving way to thinking in the broadest sense, acknowledging it as a domain by which we may always give way to each other. Likewise I think with "obeying for doing" and "believing for being".

===AboutThisPage===

• ActiveInvestigation=AndriusKulikauskas: What is a Culture that fosters Caring? I'm going to study Caring, and a Culture that fosters Caring. That's relevant to our Values, Investigations, Endeavors, to the languages of Argumentation (how things come to matter), but also Verbalization (how things get meaning) and Narration (how things happen). It's also relevant to the incremental compassion of the KingdomOfHeaven and to recognizing God in others, each other and ourselves. I will also consider what God cares about, which makes the Bible relevant and interesting.

• Peržiūrėti
• Redaguoti
• Istorija
• Spausdinti

Ieškoti:

Įvadas #E9F5FC

Klausimai #FFFFC0

Teiginiai #FFFFFF

Kitų mintys #EFCFE1

Dievas man #FFECC0

Iš ankščiau #CCFFCC