Iš Gvildenu svetainės

Mintys: Visaregis

Visaregis

Apžvalga

Visaregis yra tas kampas, kuriuo žmogus mąsto kaip Dievas mąsto, išgyvena kaip Dievas išgyvena.

Visaregis yra sandara nusakanti, kaip sąmonė įvairiai atsiplėšia nuo savęs, nuo pasąmonės, išgyvenimo apytakoje.

Sąmonės santykį su savimi išsako užmojis, "Trokštu viską žinoti ir tą žinojimą gražiai taikyti." Šiuo užmoju sąmonė atsiplėšia nuo savęs, išskirdama viengubą "Aš-Dievas", dvigubą "viskas" (žinoti-taikyti), trigubą "trokštu", ir keturgubą "meilė" (santykis "ir"). Šiais atsiplėšimais sąmonė apibrėžia 24 kampus-reikalus, kurių pagrindu sustato keturis netroškimus, papildančius pasąmonės troškimus. Netroškimai sieja išskyrimus: keturgubą, dvigubą, viengubą ir nulgubą. Šie išskyrimai nusako santykį tarp pasąmonės (Dievo) ir sąmonės (Manęs). Toliau sąmoningumui atsiveria galimybė šešiomis atjautomis suderinti troškimus ir netroškimus.

Tad visaregis išreiškia būtent sąmonės (Mano, Dievo Sūnaus) aplinkybes išgyvenimo apytakoje. Visaregis Dievo Sūnaus kampu išreiškia Dievo šokį. Užtat visaregis nėra bendras visoms keturioms apytakoms, bet išreiškia kaip būtent Aš atsiplėšiu nuo savęs ir grindžiu savo požiūrį, ir bendrai požiūrius bei sandaras, kurie sieja mane ir Dievą.

Visaregiu aš atsiplėšiu nuo savęs, tad jau yra Aš ir savastis, kurią visaregis išskleidžia. Visaregis išskleidžia sandarą kaip Mane supančias prielaidas, kaip Dievo lęšį, Dievo Dvasią.

Visaregis yra viską apžvelgianti sandara, tarsi Dievo lęšis. Ja bandžiau nustatyti ir paaiškinti ką bendro turi keturios pirminės sandaros, kad galėčiau jas tiksliau apibrėžti, užtat teisingais pagrindais suvokti ir apibrėžti antrines sandaras, jų tarpe tris kalbas. Nemažai išmąsčiau, tačiau tai neturėjo pakankamo ryšio su gyvenimu, užtat taip ir nepavyko pasistūmėti trijų kalbų nusakyme. Vis dėl to tai padėjo suvokti asmenų (Dievo, Mano, Tavo, Kito) svarbą. Po daug metų, išmąsčius žinojimo rūmus ir Dievo šokį, išmąstant išgyvenimo apytaką ir meilės mokslą, iš viso keturias apytakas, naujai prisimenu visaregį, nes jisai irgi susideda iš 24 kampų. Tad tvarkau savo senus užrašus ir bandau suprasti visaregį kaip sandarą, kurio keturi atvaizdai yra keturios apytakos.

Visaregis yra vienas iš sandarų sluoksnių:

• 1 visaregis
• 4 pirminės sandaros
• 6 antrinės sandaros

Visaregis susideda iš keturių išsiskyrimų, nukrypimų (divergences), kuriais Dievas atsiplėšia nuo savęs, atveria tarpą kuriame tveria savo požiūrį, savo lęšį, visaregį. Šie keturi išsiskyrimai glūdi nuostatoje "Aš trokštu viską žinoti ir tą žinojimą gražiai taikyti".

• Viengubas išsiskyrimas
• Dvigubas išsiskyrimas
• Trigubas išsiskyrimas
• Keturgubas išsiskyrimas

Juos kartu sudėjus gaunasi {$1 \times 2 \times 3 \times 4 = 24$} kampai, reikalai.

Dievo lęšis, visaregis, sustato keturis lygmenis, kuriuose Dievas sutampa su savimi jei neišsiskiria nuo savęs. Kiekvienas lygmuo pasižymi savitu išskyrimo būdu. Tad yra keturi išskyrimai:

• Keturgubas išskyrimas: dvasia: išėjimas už savęs
• Dvigubas išskyrimas: sandara: buvimas dalimi
• Viengubas išskyrimas: atvaizdas: tekinimas
• Nulgubas išskyrimas: vieningumas: numanymas

Tokiu būdu grindžiamas sutapimas, nulgubas išskyrimas. Šie lygmenys skiria ir sieja Dievą, viską, troškimus, meilę.

Keturios pirminės sandaros apibrėžiamos taikant po vieną iš šių sutapimo supratimų: suprantant vienu iš

• Poreikių tenkinimas: išėjimas už savęs
• Dvejonės abejonėms: buvimas dalimi
• Gėrio kryptys: tekinimas
• Aštuongubas kelias: numanymas

Ar atvirkščiai?

Visaregio istorija

The many structures that I'm aware of arise as we take up, sequentially, "human's view of God's view of human's view of God's view of human's view" (see ChainOfViews). I thought about an AlgebraOfViews. This led me to the omniscope.

I noticed a key point:

• The most basic structures (PrimaryStructures) have somebody look at themselves through our eyes.
• The less basic structures (SecondaryStructures) have us look at ourselves through somebody else's eyes.

I noticed that, in our imagination:

• When somebody looks through our eyes, then we don't distinguish whether they are actually looking or simply possibly looking. In other words, we don't distinguish the Observer and the ObservationalPlane. It is simply enough that they might be looking. What matters is that we are transparent to them. They stand as if behind us, looking through our eyes, as if we were but a mask.
• When we look through somebody else's eyes, then we always distinguish between them (as an observer) and the observational plane which they determine. We distinguish between whether we might and whether we are looking through their eyes. That means that when we are looking through somebody else's eyes, there is a reduction of scope, a focusing of scope, a definite shift from one scope to a smaller scope, a shift from one observational plane to another observational plane.

This introduces a very important asymmetry. It allows us to realize that we are the "child" and that we should look for our "parent". And, as a LostChild, we are most wise if we do not ourselves look for our parent, but rather go there where our parent might expect to find us.

Kas yra visaregis?

• Sandara grindžianti keturias apytakas, taip kad jos visos susideda iš 24 galimybių.
  • Visaregis taip pat sietinas su padalinimų ratu, su 24 = 8 padalinimai x 3 veiksmai. Yra taip pat 24 = (4 x 4) + (2 x 4) padalinimų atvaizdai.
  • Visaregis gal vaizduotinas kubu, kurio 8 kampai - padalinimai, 6 šonai - atvaizdai, 12 briaunos - aplinkybės. 24/3 = 8; 24/4 = 6, 24/2 = 12. Ir 2, 3, 4 lygu -1+3, 0+3 ir 1+3, tai sąmoningumai. Panašiai, gal jisai vaizduotinas oktahedru.
• Sandara nusakanti, kaip požiūris atsiplėšia nuo savęs.
  • Kaip įvairiai Dievas atsiplėšia nuo savęs, tai yra, kaip jo požiūris atsiplėšia nuo savo pažinimo lauko.
  • Sandara, kurioje iškyla Aš, kada Dievas visaip pasitraukia ir tuomi išeina už savęs. Tad, matyt, tai yra Dievo pasitraukimo būdai. Visaregis pilnai apibrėžia Mane, tai yra, mano aplinkybes.
  • Kaip atsisakyti požiūrio. Tai remiasi ketverybe. Perėjimas iš "požiūrio į požiūrį" į "požiūrį" grindžia perėjimą iš "požiūrio į požiūrį į požiūrį" į "jokį požiūrį". Perėjimas iš Tavęs į Mane grindžia perėjimą iš Kito į Dievą. Palyginti su logikos implikacijomis.
  • 4 pirminės sandaros atsiranda kada sutampa pirmapradis Dievas ir visaregyje apibrėžtas Aš.
• Sandara išsakanti prielaidas mano užmojo, mano nuostatos, mano troškimo viską žinoti ir tą žinojimą gražiai taikyti.
  • Šios prielaidos yra mano filosofijos abėcėlė: vienybė, dvejybė, trejybė, ketverybė.
  • Šiame užmojyje įžvelgiau 1 x 2 x 3 x 4 = 24 galimybes, kurios kartu paėmus turėtų sudaryti visaregį. Tačiau šias galimybes nesu tiksliai išsakęs.
  • Tai sandara, keturiais būdais išsakanti laipsnyną, 4 x 6 reikalus. Laipsnynas yra svarbus keturioms pirminėms sandaroms, taip pat trims aštuongubo kelio atmainoms.
  • Visaregis išdėsto įvairiausias prielaidas, kurių galime atsisakyti, iš ko ir kyla paskiri klausimai.
• Dievo požiūris, Dievo lęšis, kuriuo jisai mus supranta.
  • Visaregis visapusiškai aprėpia visas sandaras taip, kad įmanoma viską žinoti.
  • The Omniscope is God's relationship with himself, the lens that he sees himself through, the ways that an Observer may pull away from an ObservationalPlane. God considers all possibilities in that he pulls away from the expression in all directions. In going beyond himself he is Coinciding with himself.
• Sandara, kurios ieškojau, bandydamas suvesti ir apibendrinti keturias pirmines sandaras. Šiuo metu nežinau ar tokia sandara yra.
• Vaizduotės ribų apžvalga.

Visaregis

• The Omniscope is a comprehensive view upon all Structure.
• Each of the four PrimaryStructures presents an ObservationalPlane of the omniscope as a relationship between God and human.
• Each of the six SecondaryStructures may be thought of as the coinciding of the Observer of a wider observational plane with an observer of a narrower observational plane.

I'll describe what I think is the "answer" in my own quest to KnowEverything. It is a contraption which I'll call the Omniscope. Just as a "telescope" lets us see what is far away, and a "microscope" lets us see what is small, an "omniscope" lets us see everything.

Inasmuch as we can imagine God, the omniscope is the contraption by which God observes himself. It gives the 24 Angles in which an Observer pulls away from an ObservationalPlane. In this sense, it gives the ways that God goes beyond himself, as God first associates himself with the ObservationalPlane, but then pulls himself away and associates himself with the Observer.

By pulling apart himself as observer and observational plane, he makes room for us, those who identify only with the observer. The omniscope and its angles are for us purely formal, but we then give life to them. In identifying ourselves with this observer, we interpret these Angles, these ways of pulling away as 24 Concerns, which is to say, 24 NotWishes. Our identification has us focus on a particular observational plane. This yields four PrimaryStructures, one for each observational plane. In this way, the purely formal structure of the omniscope becomes grounded in our outlook. We then coincide with the omniscope, so that God sees himself through us, and the omniscope defines everything as it relates to us.

The Omniscope gives the ways that I go from the bounded into the unbounded (thus accounting for but reversing God's going beyond himself from the unbounded into the bounded).

Dievas išeina už savęs 24 kampais

In order for an observer to pull away from an observational plane:

• the observational plane must be specified
• the observer and the observational plane must coincide
• the observer must then coincide with a point of reference separate from the observational plane

The 24 ways that God goes beyond himself are determined by, and the product of:

• The 4 observational planes that an observer might observe themselves through, allowing for access to: Everything, Anything, Something or Nothing;
• the 3 points of contact that an observer and an observational plane might have: either TakingAStand or FollowingThrough or Reflecting;
• the 2 points of reference that the observer might have when they are separate from the observational plane: either their own vantage point within the observational plane, as the ultimate Observer, or the absolute vantage point of all that is beyond the observational plane, which is to say, the vantage point of THE everything, as the ultimate ObservationalPlane.

In going beyond himself, God is both the observational plane (the God who will go beyond himself) and the observer (the God who has gone beyond himself) and the two have been separated.

Keturi pažinimo laukai

When an Observer observes themselves, this relationship characterizes the ObservationalPlane between them.

• If the observational plane coincides with both observer and observed, then they coincide, it lets through all perspectives, and is Everything
• If the observational plane coincides with the observer but not the observed, then it is a stepping in, and lets through any perspective, and is Anything
• If the observational plane coincides with the observed but not the observer, then it is a stepping out, and lets through a perspective, and is Something
• If the observational plane coincides with neither the observed nor the observer, then they are separate, it lets through no perspectives, and is Nothing

This relationship is completely formal. It gives the amount of opaqueness that separates the observer and the observed, the amount of perspective that is filtered out by self-reflection, by which the observer sees less than the observed. Note that the observer may, in a sense, see more by seeing less.

God is identifiable with any of these four Scopes of access, which is to say, with any of these observational planes. However, God himself is beyond them all.

3 Points of Coinciding of Observer and ObservationalPlane

In order to distinguish the observer and their observational plane, it is important to first indicate how they coincide.

These positions are:

• TakingAStand: this is the position that is at the far end of the observational plane, it is what is "seen" upon looking through.
• FollowingThrough: this is the position in the middle of the observational plane that is "seeing", it is what identifies with the plane itself.
• Reflecting: this is what "sees", it is at the beginning of the observational plane.

They are related to the three PrinciplesOfLife which are unconceivable, namely: strong centers (taking a stand), strong boundaries (following through), levels of scale (reflecting).

Back into or back towards

Upon stepping away from one's observational plane, one may either identify with oneself (as the ultimate observer) or with whatever is beyond the observational plane (the ultimate observational plane). If one identifies with oneself as an observer, then one finds oneself within a new observational plane, as an observer always comes with some observational plane. Whereas if one identifies with the default observational plane, then that plane need not have an observer, and not the observer at hand, and so they can remain distinct. In the first case, this takes us backwards in the observational plane (perhaps like an ever expandable telescope), and in the second case, possibly completely out of the observational plane.

So if one:

• Follows through after taking a stand: then one steps back from the end of the observational "tube" and into its middle.
• Reflects after following through: then one steps back from the middle of the observational "tube" and into its beginning.
• Takes a stand after reflecting: then one reinterprets the beginning of the observational "tube" as actually the end of a deeper, more intimate observational "tube".

In every case one is moving deeper towards "THE everything" which stands behind and away from the observational tube. To the above three movements we may add three more that move one to THE everything:

• Back away from TakingAStand and to "THE everything".
• Back away from FollowingThrough and to "THE everything".
• Back away from Reflecting and to "THE everything".

We then multiply the four observational planes with the six shifts to get twenty-four Angles. They remain abstract until they are intrepreted by us as Not-wishes.

24 kampai - netroškimai

• Each of the Angles comes to life when we ourselves take it up and identify with it. We do this by way of the PrimaryStructures.
• I think that each of the three-cycle's shifts distinguishes an observer from their observational plane. (This is essential for EternalLife). When the shift is complete, this distinction collapse, and so it is vital to keep shifting again.
• Each of the not-wishes is "self-reenforcing" in that it tends to strengthen itself. It is resolved by a countering choice that has us side with either "stepping back" or "stepping in", apparently, the "stepping back" (back into or back towards THE everything) is preferable. I have written these up somewhat in the diagrams and there is a lot that I will need to work out further, but I think with this "omniscope" I've found a fruitful way of sorting out the details of the mechanics.
• We can then consider a seventh perspective which is a generic "shift back" (perhaps "THE Anything") that we understand as a generalization of the three-cycle shift (...taking a stand to following through to reflecting to taking a stand...). Together with "THE Everything" that yields for each observational plane a "primary structure" of the kind that I've observed in practice.

Išvados. The "omniscope" is an apparatus that pulls all the structures together. We might think of it as a special kind of "lens" which God places against his eye, or actually, has within his eye, by which he is able to see Everything, at least the everything that relates to us. In a sense, he accords with that lens, as he is its default observer. Yet, even more so, we are that lens, and we coincide with God by pulling back from ourselves. "We" are the unity of the six shifts, the unity of the secondary structures, the unity of the seventh perspectives, which is to say, the "Anything" that may relate with the "Everything" which expresses God's structural nature. So we stand separately as "Anything" and yet we may also pull back from ourselves and coincide with God's vantage point by understanding ourselves more basically, not as the secondary structures, but rather, as a derivative of the primary structures. I suppose we are more meaningful as derivative creatures than as self-standing beings.

Tolimesnės mintys

I have been making steady progress in thinking through how the many structures arise from the omniscope. I'm currently focusing on the simplest family of PrimaryStructures, the Counterquestions by which we can "debrainwash" ourselves by putting our experience in context: What do I truly want? How does it seem to me? What else should I be doing? Would it make any difference? What do I have control over? Am I able to consider the question? Is this the way things should be? Am I doing anything about this? I am making progress in explaining how these and related structures arise as God, I and other take up perspectives upon the structure given by the omniscope. I want to relate this back to TheChainOfViews by which the structures arise from "human's view of God's view of human's view of God's view of human's view". It seems as if the omniscope is the starting point in the reverse direction, so that we keep stepping back from it, rather than keep stepping into it. Somehow the two directions are connected.

Inspired by ChristopherLangan's work, I developed a key insight. In a minimalist system, semantics gets used as syntax, as with the ConstructiveHypotheses that I discuss above. The Threesome of "take a stand, follow through, and reflect" is a self-contained system in that the next time we take a stand it is considered the same as the last time. So here there is no distinction between semantics and syntax. However, we may make a distinction between the first time we take a stand (the first time we go through the three-cycle) and the next time we take a stand (and go through the three-cycle). Then we are distinguishing between an absolute internal perspective (purely semantic) and a relative perspective that takes the former three-cycle as a "law" that it is constrained by. So the semantics of the absolute view serves as the syntax for the relative view. (The absolute view considers self-correction with regard to itself, and the relative view considers self-direction with regard to the absolute view.) I imagine that this continues, so that the semantics of the relative view becomes the syntax for the shared view - the shared view being that it doesn't matter which perspective we start from (take a stand, follow through, or reflect) they are all equally satisfactory. What is happening here, as semantics gets interpreted as syntax, is that the perspective is going beyond itself, opening up another perspective. And I suppose, as the structure grows richer, the "going beyond itself" takes on a richer meaning - first with regard to oneself (as in a self-contained absolute view given by the threesome) and then that going beyond itself opens up for a relative view (given by the sixome) which is distinct, and then that going beyond itself says that the views may be shared, may coincide, and then that going beyond itself says that indeed a view is subordinate to another, which might have it collapse back into a simpler state of affairs. So this is now in the back of my mind as I think about the unfolding structures.

The omniscope's views generate structure as they are taken up, it seems, as follows. Here I consider, as an example, one of the twenty four angles:

• when God pulls away from himself, so that he is open to view, we have the omniscope, as with the angle "seems (to God, or to an external observer) to take a stand" which (perhaps later, by reconstruction) we experience as an "object" (a topology that as such is probably defined and made use of only later).
• when we take up that view, then we experience it as "seems (to me, an internal observer) that I take a stand", which is to say, "liking", as in "I like this"
• when another takes up my view, then this gets split and turned around: "I take a stand as to the fact that it seems to me" which is to wonder How does it seem to me?
• that perhaps lets go of the scope of a shared relationship and distinguishes between the observer (the other) and the observed (myself) and then we may choose as to our preference between the two: choosing the other over ourselves = I take a stand with regard to what does not seem to me = I like it; it does not seem to me choosing ourselves over the other = I take a stand with regard to what does seem to me - I like it; it does seem to me
• So, in the former case, where we give preference to the other over ourselves, when they see through us, then we can have God take up their view and apply it to himself, for example, asking himself, How does it seem to me? where in this case the God who asks is not certain, doubts, but the God who is asked is self-sufficient. Here this gaves rise to a structure, namely, the division of everything into one perspective, the onesome.

So I'm thinking through the unfolding of these relationships, and this month I will be looking for how it relates to taking up perspectives described above (among God, human and other), and the back and forth between God and human in their chain of views, and the connections suggested by the interrelationship between semantics and syntax in minimalistic systems.

Sąvokynas

Mano nuostata, užmojis, troškimas (Our Position): Aš trokštu viską žinoti ir tą žinojimą gražiai taikyti.

• My wish: I wish to see rightly, and subsequently, to act rightly.
  • My wish is the ground for every wish, as every wish intends to be sensible and fulfilled. A wish is ultimately sensible with regard to everything, and is fulfilled through useful application.
  • Every wish is included in my wish.
• Viską žinoti: Matyti ką Dievas mato, kai jisai mato pro mus.
  • To know everything is for one's view to coincide with God's view.
• Gražiai taikyti: Daryti ką Dievas mumis darytų.
  • To apply usefully is for God's view to coincide with one's view.
  • This is my position and it defines my quest. It comes from my wish to apply myself fully. It encourages me to imagine God's position, my position, your position, and the position of all others. It suggests that we may all share this same position. It has us focus on God's outlook to the extent that we can imagine it.
  • This is my starting point! and so perhaps not surprisingly, the position into which all the knowledge I am finding is coming together, and from which it all unfolds.
• In starting with this position, I may be God, myself, some other or simply the empty expression itself. Who I am sorts itself out as this position unfolds through my relationship with this position. I live the expression as God the Interpreter, Human the Interpretation and Other the Interpreted, all depending on what I means. My own focus on this Interpretation, on How all the knowledge unfolds, indicates my humanity.
  • It is a position of going beyond oneself, and this happens through the separation (and thus the coinciding) of the one who goes beyond themselves and their self they go beyond, which ultimately is to say, the context which they go into. If one is going beyond oneself, then separating from one's self is coinciding with one's self.
  • The activity of going beyond oneself yields, successively, the vantage points of an Interpreter, then an Interpretation, and finally, an Interpreted. Through them it becomes apparent that the expression is, of itself, simply an expression which they fully express. And in fact, the expression is implicit in them, and they all in the Interpreter, who is God.
  • This position is God's Self, his Expression, his Context which he places himself in. Taken up it is the going beyond of oneself which is his activity. And this position itself goes beyond itself by expressing this as a disambiguation of it (which goes beyond) and it's self (which it goes beyond). These are related as stages with reference to what has gone beyond itself, which is taken as the final stage. Each of these stages is an implicit Coinciding with what has come before it, and an explicit Coinciding with the stages that come after it, thus expressing the potential which is being fulfilled. The final stage is implicitly I, and as a reference point, is explicitly God. With reference to God, each is expressible as a stage of going beyond oneself, with a divergence from the expression by way of this reference point, and other reference points that are yielded, until they are exhausted.
  • It is natural to start with my wish, yet inherent in my wish is that I not presume it, but rather arrive at it. The goal is to derive from this wish that by which we might no longer presume it. Presumption recedes as coinciding is fulfilled in the relationship of God, human and other by which my wish is an actuality.

Dievo žvilgsnis

• God's view is from beyond any system and thus sees all perspectives.

Žmogaus žvilgsnis

• Human's view is from within a system, is identified with that system, and thus sees one perspective.

Santvarka

• A System is the making explicit of what is within it.
• A system makes explicit what is within it by expressing it as a Perspective.
• A system is given by the extent to which it links the coinciding of what is beyond with what is within and the coinciding of what is within with what is beyond. If there is no system, then these are separate questions. If there is a complete system, then these are the same question.

Sutapimas ir išskyrimas

• To coincide is to not be distinguished by a system, and most generally, by any system.

Separating and Coinciding: Approaching My Position

• Why this position - coinciding with what is separate
• How this position - separating from what is coinciding
• What this position - separating from what is separating
• Whether this position - coinciding with what is coinciding

Išsiskyrimai

• Išsiskyrimai: OnefoldDivergence, TwofoldDivergence, ThreefoldDivergence, FourfoldDivergence.
• Diverging is going beyond the SingleSelf. SingleSelf is I's self, the Omniscope.

Pažinovas, pažinimo laukas

• Observer and ObservationalPlane are the separating of one from oneself.
• An Observer's observational plane is what they have access to. Immanuel Kant talked about time and space as that which is left when we get rid of all of the objects. Similarly, in our imagination, we can consider the observational plane as that which is left when the observer removes themselves and everything they might possibly observe. It is the constraints on an observer. It is a sort of default space.
• The observational plane is defined by the Threesome:
  • TakingAStand (an observer may be seen at the end of the plane)
  • FollowingThrough (an observer may be seeing within the observational plane)
  • Reflecting (an observer may see through the observational plane)
• The shifts of the threesome have the observer keep separating themselves from their observational plane.

Apimtys

• The four scopes (Everything, Anything, Something, Nothing) are the coinciding of one with oneself.
• There are four observational planes: Everything, Anything, Something, Nothing. They are scopes of access, they are the extent to which an observer might see themselves if they look at themselves through us. There are four scopes:
• Everything - lets through all perspectives.
• Anything - lets through any perspective.
• Something - lets through a perspective.
• Nothing - lets through no perspective.

These four scopes arise as the default behavior of the observational plane when it is separated from an observer:

• Separating them may let through all perspectives, so that we have what is, and they are separated by nothing, and the observational plane lets through all perspectives by default.
• Separating them may let through any perspective, so that we have what seems, and they are separated by anything, so then the observational plane lets through no more than one perspective at any given time.
• Separating them may let through a perspective, so that we have what ought, and they are separated by something, so then the observational plane lets through a single requirement.
• Separating them may let through no perspective, so that the observer chooses, and they are separated by everything, so then the observational plane of its own sake does not let through any requirement.

Gyvenimo lygtis

• The EquationOfLife relates Observer, ObservationalPlane, Self and Other (as in God, Good, Life, EternalLife).
• The equation is expressed with regard to the observer's scope.
• Life is the goodness of God.
• EternalLife is Understanding the goodness of God.
• Life is the coinciding of God inside and outside.
• Eternal life is the Distinctness of God inside and outside.

Suvokimas

• Understanding is the position of Other as the choice between the DefaultObserver (GodTheFather, GodTheSon, HolySpirit, God) and the ActualContext (Self). See the diagram of the EquationOfLife at SelfVOther.

Dievas

• God is not explicit, but God is expressed through us, to the extent that we coincide, which is given by Other.

Žmogus

• Human is that which can have self discovery as the DefaultObserver within a particular context, their ActualContext.

Dievas ir žmogus

• The expressions indicate the absence of God and of human, who pull away from the expression. This is how they work together as creator and co-creator. God pulls away in all directions and human pulls away in one direction.
• Human as extension of God Human is God's Self and as such extends God. Self pulls into the expression as a context, thus from some one interpretation, which gives the expression a definite meaning. Human is God within context. In this way God and human coincide with regard to some interpretation of some vantage point of God.

Dievas ir savastis

• God coincides with his Self, but does his Self coincide with God? This question has us identify his self (his expression) with a particular stage in God's going beyond himself. Thus the question is raised separately for each of the stages of going beyond oneself. The self coincides with God when God goes beyond it. The self does not coincide with God if God does not go beyond it. Hence the meaning of coinciding, and what is implicit in it, grows the further the self is along the stages of God's going beyond himself. This is because the further out the self coincides with him, the more his self is implicit in his going beyond himself.
• Dievo sutapimas su savimi: My next interpretation of the expression is as Human the Interpretation. God in context is God's relationship with himself, his coinciding with himself. But what does that coinciding mean? What is coinciding in context, which is to say, God in context in context? The meaning is what is implicit in the coinciding. Distinctions express what is assumed, what is relevant, what is implicit, in God's coinciding with self while they are yet within self. The reference point in each case is God within himself.
• Iš ankščiau: God and human are related as semantic interpreter and syntactic role: One interpreter may play many roles. Yet, depending on the context, the role may be interpreted as an interpreter, so that there is an ambiguity of interepreters. In this way God and human may coincide as given by the context.
• When we are outside expression, then God - as interpreter of all interpretations - is expressed by everything, the expression of not one interpretation. Human - as interpreter of one interpretation - is expressed by choices, the expression of not all interpretations. In this way, negation arises for the purpose of expression.

Dievas ir Kitas

• God is that vantage point which always sees all that an ObservationalPlane offers. In other words, as an Observer, God is indistinguishable from the observational plane. God is the DefaultObserver for any observational plane.
• Other is that vantage point which distinguishes between observer and observational plane.
• This is why God's view is relevant for the Nullsome, Onesome, Twosome, Threesome, and they each have four representations, which are the scopes of access. Whereas Other's view is relevant for the Foursome, Fivesome, Sixsome, Sevensome, and they each have two representations, namely Observer and ObservationalPlane.

Savastis ir Kitas

• Self is Observer in context (as in Life).
• Self defines and thus identifies Observer in terms of their ObservationalPlane.
• Other is Observer before context as referenced from within context.
• Other is thus the distinction of Observer before and after context (as in EternalLife).
• Other defines ObservationalPlane in terms of the Observer and thus separates the two by means of a Scope which is a filter that considers which of the perspectives that pull away from the observational plane coincide with the observer: every, any, one or none (Everything, Anything, Something or Nothing).

Aplinka

• The ActualContext is the context that we find ourselves in, perhaps the base space, which is the World, or in general, for an Observer, their ObservationalPlane.

Dievas aplinkoje

• Ką reiškia Dievas aplinkoje (God in Context) ir Dievas aplinkoje aplinkoje (God in Context in Context)
  • Just as God, Everything, Wishes, Love are all God in context, so Life, Anything, Choices, Will are all God in context in context.

Pirminės sandaros

• OperatingPrinciples where coinciding means going beyond oneself
• Counterquestions where coinciding means being a part of
• DirectionsToTheGood where coinciding means channeling
• EightfoldWay where coinciding means presuming
• The NotWishes have us step back and momentarily look through this contraption. However, in order for us to establish such a view, we need to give up our perspective for that of another. This means that we accept one of four Scopes and thereby enter a relationship with God as given by one of the four PrimaryStructures. The omniscope expresses God's view directly, and so we are not related to him, but rather completely subordinate to him, as his lens. We may have a relationship with God through one of the four PrimaryStructures whereby we relate to him by way of one of the RepresentationsOfTheNullsome and Wishes of Everything.

Santykiai tarp sąvokų, žr.: UnderstandingVSlack

---

Keturi lygmenys

Santykiai skirtingose apimtyse išreiškia išėjimą už savęs ir iššaukia atitinkamas sandaras.

• Išėjimas už savęs: GoingBeyondOneself
• Išsiskyrimai - nukrypimai: Divergences
• Išskyrimai: Distinctions
• Padalinimai: Divisions
• A human is able to consider God's point of view as Everything.
• Then distinctions allow for wishes and PrimaryStructures.
• Then divisions of everything allow for the redundancy within structure that is Love and is expressed in the SecondaryStructures.

---

Nukrypimai-Išsiskyrimai (Divergences)

Išskyrimai

• Visaregis susideda iš keturių išsiskyrimų: viengubo, dvigubo, trigubo, keturgubo. Jie išreiškia sąvokas: Aš, matau kartu, trokštu, ir. Ir grindžia sąvokas: Dievą, viską, troškimus, meilę.
• Visaregis visakam: Dievas aplinkoje
• The four divergences together give the semantics that defines their relationship. And the syntax for that relationship is given by some one of those four levels. Each of these syntactic possibilities requires a different degree of semantic distinction, hence a different sense of coinciding: In this way, semantics and syntax coincide, as God brings all semantic possibilities and human brings one syntactic possibility.

My first interpretation of the position is as God the interpreter. In going beyond himself, God is both dynamic (implicit, coinciding with what comes before) and static (explicit, coinciding with what comes after), and so he goes past himself and coincides with himself. I consider where he coincides with himself as he goes beyond himself. The reference point in each case is God beyond himself.

My position is realized through four Divergences of Interpretations which unfold from within its compact expression. These are the divergences, the separations of the explicit from the implicit, which thus describe God's vantage point at various stages as he goes beyond himself.

• Divergence introduces slack that relates God and human.

Išsiskyrimai

• Viengubas: "Aš". Dievas už savęs: Dievas.
• Dvigubas: "Viskas". Dievas išeinantis iš už savęs: Viskas.
• Trigubas: "Trokštu". Dievas įeinantis į save: Troškimai.
• Keturgubas (žinoti-teisingai matyti) "Ir" (taikyti-teisingai elgtis). Dievas savyje: Meilė.

Keturi išsiskyrimai

• Each of these Divergences establishes a context (and expresses the Self) which fixes the expression as to its balance of syntax and semantics. This introduces an Interpreter: God, Everything, Wishes or Love. These are all God but in different contexts. Each context provides one or more directions in which the Interpreter may pull away from the expression, leaving it free, as it was without an interpreter. In this way the Divergences extend the expression.

Viengubas išsiskyrimas

• God is beyond himself: God, the vantage point of I, a OnefoldDivergence out of expression as to:
  • the subject of a position, which is to say, that which lives the expression and thereby is diverging out of it.

Dvigubas išsiskyrimas

• God is not within himself: Everything, the vantage point of share a view, a TwofoldDivergence out of expression and God as to whether:
  • human coincides with God, as in KnowEverything, or
  • God coincides with human, as in ApplyUsefully.
• the one within the expression (human) coincides with the one beyond the expression (God), as in KnowingEverything, or
• the one beyond the expression (God) coincides with the one within the expression (human), as in ApplyingUsefully.

Trigubas išsiskyrimas

• God is not beyond himself: Wishes, the vantage point of wish, a ThreefoldDivergence out of expression, God and human as to:
  • allowing a wish,
  • fulfilling it,
  • and having it.

Vaisinga nuostata ir troškimas

• Note that perhaps pulling it all together are the ConstructiveHypotheses which relate having a wish, satisfying that wish, and allowing for that wish - this three-cycle which opens us in this, but not the three-cycle which does not.
• Given the (constructive) intent to satisfy that wish, regardless of our ability, there (pragmatically) must be the possibility of a solution) write about the necessity of the possibility of God, given the starting point of a mind wishing to know everything and apply that usefully.
  • Having this wish: the actuality of the necessity of the possibility of God.
  • Satisfying this wish: the necessity of the possibility of the actuality of God.
  • Allowing this wish: the possibility of the actuality of the necessity of God.
• Next: What does it mean for that possibility to manifest itself? It must be the necessity of that possibility that manifests itself.
  • The actuality is given through the manifestation (and through us)
  • The possibility is given by the identity of God who takes up our view and whose view we take up
  • The necessity is given by the distinctness of God who takes up our view and whose view we take up
• The necessity of the possibility is what manifests itself through us.

Troškimai

• There is God in Wishes. God is in the being one with shared by God beyond the system (as entering into relationship) and God within the system (as presuming a relationship). What they share is their distinctness, their separateness, at any level of expression. For God beyond the system, these levels (Complete, Unobstructed, Familiar, Unified) are four qualities of the expression of being one with, and so apply to us. For God within the system, these same levels are four expressions of the quality of being one with, and so apply to God. This means that at any of these four levels there is a being one with which manifests as the fact that the expression of a quality is the same as a quality of the expression. Yet also there is an expression of this distinction which manifests as an identification of God beyond the system and God within the system. Thus, at each of the four levels, there is an expression of EternalLife (and loving) as Life (and being loved).
• In this sense, God's qualities are within the system (as wishes that are representations of everything). God's being one with is expressed through us as the arisal of his qualties so that they express him and he expresses them. We are the fact of this equivalence.
• Wishes are the ability to arise. Identifications are the ability for that which is to be the same as that which arises. It is the difference between external and internal representations. What are choices, as representations? They are expressions of the will. What does it mean for a wish and a choice to coincide? It means that there can be (as a choice) a deference to a wish (that is rooted beyond the system).

Keturgubas išsiskyrimas

• God is within himself: Love, the vantage point of and, a FourfoldDivergence out of expression, God, human and other with regard to a system as to how explicitly an expression may be put together, perhaps:
  • beyond expression and unexpressed (Spirit)
  • beyond expression and expressed (Structure)
  • within expression and expressed (Representation)
  • within expression and unexpressed. (Unity)

Keturgubas išsiskyrimas

• The coinciding of views means different things depending on how much we presume, which is to say, how much the coinciding takes place within a system. In what sense is there a notion of Coinciding, a notion of Conjunction? In other words, is the semantics of coinciding able to build on an existing syntax of conjunction?
• Older thought: FourfoldDivergence: If there is no system, and no conjunction, then we relate One and All by having them go beyond themselves into NotOne and NotAll. Then the idea that NotOne is within All and that NotAll is within One is what has them coincide. So we have to be careful about interpretation. Here views coincide as spirits. Spirits are that which go beyond themselves, thus into views. This is the freest form of their coinciding, which is beyond system. The views are completely distinct. They stand alone and they coincide with each other. They are the same as views. We have:
• God's view - complete - all perspectives
• God's view of human's view - familiar - all perspectives on one perspective
• human's view of God's view - unobstructed - one perspective on all perspectives
• human's view - unified - one perspective

They may also coincide in ways that are rooted within system, as structures or representations or unities.

• The Fourfold Divergence makes this explicit so that we may consider a divergence explicitly as a distinction by which we distinguish that which coincides.
• The nature of and is to distinguish between the levels at which conjunction may take place: Spirit, Structure, Representations, Unity. Explicitly, as divergences, these are a hierarchy by which God is brought ever closer into his expression as his going beyond himself is ground ever deeper within himself. Implicitly, as distinctions, these levels are combinations of being within or beyond expression, and being expressed or unexpressed, and they are fully relevant when God has gone beyond himself. Implicitly, they are a FourfoldDistinction which unfolds from underlying sets of distinctions, the NullfoldDistinction (introducing God), OnefoldDistinction (introducing Good) and TwofoldDistinction (introducing Life and EternalLife, which is to say, the EquationOfLife). This is the semantics that is implicit at various stages of God's going beyond himself. Here are interpretations of the equation of life at various stages of God's going beyond himself:
• The human's one perspective within the system and God's all perspectives beyond the system can be related (on the level of representations) by God within the system as identifications (internal representations). Putting aside these internal representations (as allowed by the conjunction or) then an (internally grounded) choice is an (externally grounded) wish. The conjunction Or lets us put aside God within the system, which is to say, put aside identifications.
• Iš ankščiau: Within a system, the views may further coincide based on the distinctions given by the conjunction Or and what it means to be channeling. Here the channeling also exhibits the independence of the quality of an equation and the equation of qualities 2x4=4x2

---

---

Išskyrimai (Distinctions)

• Išskyrimai. Pirminės sandaros troškimams: Dievas aplinkoje aplinkoje.
• Distinctions are very fundamental. They are at the heart of coinciding.
• Distinction is System.
• The distinctions are the semantics that allow us to keep separate that which coincides. Syntax sets the scope for the semantics on a range of ambiguities of the interpreter from All (all ambiguity) to One (no ambiguity).
• This is to say that all may live through God, but there is nobody but ourselves who can live through us.
• Each of these ambiguities defines coinciding in its context as a distinction that is made semantically, not syntactically.
• This is the set of distinctions that itself distinguishes the four kinds of distinctions.

Sutapimo sąvoka

• Coinciding is the satisfying of the same distinctions in context as without context. This means that the context does not affect the distinctions. So Life coincides with God because it satisfies the same fourfold distinctions as God.
• Interpreter and Interpretation. I may shift my attention onward from God the interpeter to Human the interpretation. I thus rethink God's going beyond himself as a variety of actions that relate interpreter and interpretation (role). As the interpretation is moved closer to the interpreter, the interpreter's action of going beyond himself is truncated, and the meaning of coinciding changes accordingly.
• The nature of their coinciding is given by a set of distinctions that define what it means to enter a context, which is to say, enter an expression, hence coincide. The meaning of coinciding depends on the extent of expression presumed.
• These are coinciding of God's Self (Human) with God across four levels. All presume expression in a different way.
• The expression is understood ever more tightly as the nature of the conjunction is ever more presumed through syntax, as expressed in PrimaryStructures given by Distinctions. The first level (nulgubas išskyrimas) may be considered nonsystemic, and the other levels are increasingly systemic.
• The semantic Distinctions may also be thought of as ambiguities that the syntax allows for.
• If views coincide (all and one coincide) then note that the being part of and the channeling are not relevant for distinction between all and one and so we are left with presuming which is relevant.

Keturi išskyrimai: Keturgubas, dvigubas, viengubas, nulgubas

• Each of the levels has human's view (God's self's view - one perspective) defer to God's view (all perspectives). This deference is expressed from 4 angles, 2 angles, 1 angle or 0 angles depending on whether it is understood to occur beyond the system or within the system. Generally, it is the deference of one to all.
• The different coincidings may be considered as different expressions of the same coinciding. In order to do this, they must be considered in the same context, which is with regard to what is implicit in the self by each of them, the distinctions inherent in what it means to coincide. In this way, what is implicit becomes explicit. As implicitness increases, there are 0, 1, 2 and 4 distinctions. Taken together they yield a GeneralStructure, an Eightsome of distinctions. This structure shows that a particular coinciding is indeed coinciding in general. Thus it is associated with some one of the four particular stages of going beyond oneself, and this yields four PrimaryStructures in all. Each of the PrimaryStructures emphasizes a particular set of distinctions. This brings out what Coinciding means at that particular level both from its particular and the general point of view by having these two coincide. This is the relationship, the coinciding of Human (as given by the particular level, what is becoming explicit) and God (as given by the general outlook, what is staying implicit).

The divergences function separately, but they may also be taken together on the basis of the underlying coinciding which they reference. They establish Distinctions depending on how they are taken together:

• A FourfoldDistinction (by which coinciding means going beyond oneself into) distinguishes between all and one. Manifests the nature of Spirit.
• A TwofoldDistinction (by which coinciding means being part of) distinguishes between one and none, presuming all. Manifests the nature of Structure.
• A OnefoldDistinction (by which coinciding means channeling) distinguishes between all and none, presuming one. Manifests the nature of Representation.
• A NullfoldDistinction (by which coinciding means presuming) distinguishes between all and one, presuming none. Manifests the nature of Unity.

Coinciding itself is a relationship between all, one and none which distinguishes between interpretations as to what it means to coincide. Each of these are levels in which human defers to God (one defers to all), whether as equals who go beyond themselves into each other, or as complete unequals so that human is presumed by God.

• Thus the shift in God's vantage point leads to 4 + 2 + 1 + 0 perspectives which variously express being one with. These perspectives reflect the variety of ways in which God arises where God was not:
  • as his views upon himself (by which he goes beyond himself)
  • his relationships with himself
  • his role as a dummy variable
  • his implicitness
• Thus the number of perspectives depends on the explicitness or implicitness of God's not being.
• Thus, the expression of being one with occurs at each of the four levels, and this implies at each level an Other through whom this takes place, by our love for them. The levels correspond to GodTheFather, GodTheSon, the HolySpirit and God taken together beyond the system.
• Thus, for God beyond the system, and for God within the system, for both of them we are the expression of their being one with. Thus, as expression, are we one with ourselves? This means that loving or being loved may take place at any level: completeness, unobstructedness, familiarity, unity. We love ourselves by allowing all to love through us, which is to allow that they are not simply expressions within this world, but that they may express what is beyond this world. That is to say that the relations (identification and distinction) which relate this world with what is beyond it, are not relevant simply in this world, but are relevant at every level. Our role then is to reexpress ourselves (as expressions of God within and beyond) so that the ways of expression of either are equally valid as choices. We choose to be identified or distinct, and in the very same way we choose the level at which to manifest ourselves.
• The human's one perspective within the system can be related to God's all perspectives beyond the system as unities. Here we consider, rather than going beyond oneself, what it means for one to have included within oneself. The unity of the representations of the structure of good is that which is necessarily included, which is to say, the essential, the perfect, the given.
• Iš ankščiau: Finally, within a system, the views may coincide based on the distinctions given by the conjunction In (as in All in One). This conjunction is the opposite of Of. Of puts God into the system as Good. In says that the Essence is in the system and extends it as the Love beyond it.

The sets of distinctions give the meaning of coinciding in terms of expression, whether unexpressed (4), expressed (2), within expression (1) or beyond expression (0).

• If views coincide (all and one coincide) then note that the being part of and the channeling are not relevant for distinction between all and one and so we are left with presuming which is relevant.
• Relationship between All and One. Coinciding itself is a relationship between all, one and none which distinguishes between interpretations as to what it means to coincide. Each of these are levels in which human defers to God (one defers to all), whether as equals who go beyond themselves into each other, or as complete unequals so that human is presumed by God.
• Not means step towards and one goes beyond oneself into the stepping towards itself. All and One are spirit, and Not takes us into structure or takes us out of structure. Going beyond oneself is in terms of spirit and in terms of structure, hence there is a fourfold distinction. It distinguishes between what is within the expression (hence subject to it) and what is beyond expression (hence its greater context). Human is the interpreter of one interpretation within expression and God is the interpreter of all interpretations beyond expression.

Keturgubas išskyrimas

• going beyond oneself = complete
• being part of = familiar
• channeling = unobstructed
• presuming = unified
• The FourfoldDistinction is between All and Not One, One and Not All. Not means step towards and one goes beyond oneself into the stepping towards itself. All and One are spirit, and Not takes us into structure or takes us out of structure. Going beyond oneself is in terms of spirit and in terms of structure, hence there is a fourfold distinction.
• If God is beyond himself, then his self (God within context) coinciding with him (God) means that his self (Life) has likewise gone beyond itself and shares his nature, mirroring him but as expression, so that God may be within himself and beyond himself, and his self may be within itself and beyond itself. Spirit is that which is Complete (God's view) in that it acknowledges a FourfoldDistinction (EternalLife) between All and Not One, One and Not All. It makes explicit the relationship between All and One. Not One is the expression of All. Not All is the expression of One. God's ambiguity Good allows for all interpreters.
• Coinciding Spirits (Views): God and Human are SelfStanding
• God of himself needs not make any distinction between knowing everything and applying such knowledge usefully. Pragmatically, we consider him as simply as possible, and straightforwardly, we express ourselves simply as possible, so generally, we may assume that he does not distinguish between the two. What he knows is what he does. He creates by thinking.
• Our wish thus makes the distinction between knowing everything and applying usefully. We distinguish between God and his situation. Through us, God's situation, his self, is able to ever unfold, as it is distinct from God. Distinct in this way, God manifests himself through us in their coming together as they originally were. Taken together, God takes up his own view through us. In this way, God is one with himself.

• God's Self is Love. God is one with. Who is he one with? He is one with his Self. What is self? Self is all that which has his quality. God's quality is BeingOneWith. His self is Love. How does he Manifest that? He manifests it through his arisal there where he is not. God is not his quality, yet in the World is his quality. God arises through the shift in his relationship with himself. First, in his absence, he is related to Love through:
• his View, which is his venturing into himself
• his Identification with himself
• his Equivalence with himself
• his Inclusion by himself

This yields the PrimaryStructures. This is the perspective of being loved. Then, in his presence, he is related to Love through the same four levels, but from the perspective of Love, of loving. This yields the SecondaryStructures and opens the way for Other.

God goes beyond God to manifest God, thus giving rise to Himself and a System (a world) where he is present through his self, that is, through love.

We are the expression of God's being one with himself. We are the fact that God is love. We are his relationship with himself. He is one with himself through us.

Consider God's relationship with Love, how that evolves through eight steps from God's absence to his presence, and how our role opens up, as does that of other, and how structure thereby arises, and each of the issues that I have collected which are relevant to the overview. Consider how God is present when his absence is explicit, as given by the gradation.

God's view is from beyond the system, yet leads him into it, so that ultimately he is in the system as love.

First, from beyond system, but entering into a relationship, he considers in terms of where he is not, thus his view. We are the expressions of his being one with:

• Complete, as expressing his view beyond the system
• Unobstructed, as expressing his view of his self's view
• Familiar, as expressing his self's view of his view
• Unified, as expressing his self's view within the system

We may think of this as a relationship of GoingBeyondOneself:

• Complete: all goes beyond into all
• Unobstructed: all goes beyond into one
• Familiar: one goes beyond into all
• Unified: one goes beyond into one

All and one go beyond each other into each other independently. This is the distinction between all and one. It is a quadruple statement.

This relates God beyond system (all perspectives) and human within system (one perspective) by way of good (spirit) that is God within system, which says that even within system there can be a going beyond oneself, hence human can go beyond oneself and have a view, just as God does, and they may be related spiritually, as above. Here the conjunction Of (as in goodness of God) means Among (as in one perspective among all perspectives) and is related to going beyond oneself (from non-systemic all to systemic one).

Dvigubas išskyrimas

• If God is not within himself, then his self (Everything within context) coinciding with him (Everything) means that his self (Anything) is part of him so that his self is a relationship that bridges what is inside and outside of it. Structure is that which is Unobstructed (God's view of self's view) in that it acknowledges a TwofoldDistinction (Wisdom) as to whether this bridge is expressed (syntactic, explicit, static, together) or unexpressed (semantic, implicit, dynamic, separate). Everything's ambiguity Slack allows for not one interpreter. This is to say that, structurally, everything keeps introducing a metalevel and so there never is a fixed interpretation.
• Coinciding Structures (Values): Human Is God's Quality

Iš ankščiau:

• eternal life is that one is part of all after the fact (or structurally: anything is part of everything)
• life is that not all is part of not one before the fact (or structurally: not everything is part of not anything)
• The latter says that (single step outwards) wishes are structurally already built into the (endlessly inward stepping) recursive structure of everything. The former says that there is slack to allow for one within all, but this slack may yet manifest itself, as it is beyond structure.

Viengubas išskyrimas

• If God is not beyond himself, then his self (Wishes within context) coinciding with him (Wishes) means that his self (Choices) is the channel for him to go beyond himself. Representation is that which is Familiar (self's view of God's view) in that it acknowledges such a OnefoldDistinction (GoodWill). Wishes' ambiguity Identity allows for not all interpreters.
• Coinciding Representations (Referents)
• Representation gives the relationship between spirit and structure. Spirit may be outside structure (external representations) or inside structure (internal representations).
• Here there is a onefold distinction in terms of channeling. The one is the channel for the all, the channel for the none. Hence the one coincides with the all. This happens because the representation makes clear, regarding the one, what is beyond the one (external to it) and so its nature as a channel by which all beyond and all within are the same all, and so the one coincides with them (as in the Omniscope). (This also brings to mind the relationship between structure and activity). This may be thought of as the invariance of all or none under one, or as the transparency of one, or perhaps of it's inherent nature.
• Note also that the channeling is quite real, in that the wishes and the identifications are separated from each other, and one and all are related (as choices matching wishes) by leaving aside the identifications (the internal representations). The latter may be thought of as the channeling of the none, the former as the channeling of the all.
• Distinction between all and none: All and none are separately invariant under one. This distinction is given by a single statement.

Nulgubas išskyrimas

• If God is within himself, then his self (Love within context) coinciding with him (Love) means that by his self (Will) we presume God goes beyond himself. Unity is Unified (self's view) in that it acknowledges such a NullfoldDistinction (GodsWill) which requires us ourselves that we might make such a presumption. Love's ambiguity Perfection allows for one interpreter.
• The NullfoldDistinction makes for a collapse because spirit (God) is taken to be a distinguished opposite of structure (Everything) which counters the assumption of the FourfoldDistinction that they are equal in stature.
• Coinciding Unities (Actors)
• Finally, God is in the system as Love, as the unity of the representations of the structure of God. There is God in the being one with which is even beyond God but nevertheless included by God as we may be. This is in that the quality of being one with itself is included in God who manifests this quality. All which has this quality is included, subsumed in God. In this way the system collapses to make way for God.
• Here coinciding is manifest as presuming. All presumes one is the idea that Love supports the essence, that the essence (the minimal, the basic, the perfect) comes from love, and so is presumed by love. This is the opposite of the of by which (as in the goodness of God) God is going beyond himself. Here the from is the presumption that the essence (nurtured by the all) has always been with the all (and so the all presumes the one). But this presumption, lurking in the always, is itself a presumption of the null, that there is a shared reference frame (albeit empty) independent of all. Yet the role of the all is to be this shared reference frame. Hence the presumption of all and none is at this point circular and the system collapses in that all statements are presumed. Yet these are the conditions which allow the fixing of all that is wrong, and so maximally encourage the deference of one to all (and of our will to God's will).
• As we presume expression, the distinctions collapse.
• The NullfoldDistinction makes for a collapse because spirit (God) is taken to be a distinguished opposite of structure (Everything) which counters the assumption of the FourfoldDistinction that they are equal in stature.
• Note that here God is in the NullfoldDistinction and thus in the semantics. So here God has been relocated inside structure. But here we are considering the semantics and so this is where we define the God who is a self-contradiction. And this is the God who goes beyond himself into structure, from the Nullsome into the Onesome and so on. But this is happening on the semantic level. Whereas on the syntactic level we have that God has gone beyond himself out of structure. So these two levels meet in the eightfold way.

---

The expression is understood ever more tightly as the nature of the conjunction is ever more presumed through syntax, as expressed in PrimaryStructures given by Distinctions. The complete expression in PrimaryStructures leads to the collapse of the statement with regard to their absence, yielding Everything and Divisions, and to their taking up of the position through their presence, which they express by way of an Other and SecondaryStructures. The basic Divisions accord with the Divergences, the former assuming Everything, the latter not.

Padalinimai

• Note: These are not as such divisions of everything because as yet there is no Everything, there is no completeness, and so they are prior to Divisions, they are simply distinguishing and not yet dividing. Taken together these distinctions are a division of everything, the Eightsome, which is however unstable as a structure (because it contains the nullfold distinction) and so collapses into an empty system in which all things are true, which is to say, the Nullsome. In fact, from this perspective, as of yet there is no Everything, and indeed Everything arises by way of this collapse into the Nullsome.

Collapse into everything

• The complete expression in PrimaryStructures leads to the collapse of the statement with regard to their absence, yielding Everything and Divisions, and to their taking up of the position through their presence, which they express by way of an Other and SecondaryStructures. The basic Divisions accord with the Divergences, the former assuming Everything, the latter not.
• Taken together these semantic distinctions are a division of everything, the Eightsome, which is however unstable as a structure (because it contains the nullfold distinction) and so collapses into an empty system in which all things are true, which is to say, the Nullsome. In fact, from this perspective, as of yet there is no Everything, and indeed Everything arises by way of this collapse into the Nullsome.
• In PrimaryStructures, the Self (Human) coincides with the Observer (God) who pulled away from some observational plane. Thus the and for that observational plane is presumed as the relevant bridge the Observer pulls across. The coinciding relevant to that observational plane is given by the set of distinctions that define what and means across that observational plane, but especially, the number of meanings that and has for that plane, which is to say, the number of distinctions in the set. In this way a particular PrimaryStructure has resonance with a particular set of distinctions. However, also we add to the six angles by which an observer pulls away from an observational plane the observer in general (human) and also the observer who went beyond themselves into the observational plane (God). These map to the OnefoldDistinction and NullfoldDistinction respectively. The six angles are given by the FourfoldDistinction and the TwofoldDistinction as two sets of three angles, one for what is unexpressed (the observer beyond the observational plane) and one for what is expressed (the observer within the observational plane). The three angles accord with the elements of a wish, the fulfillment of the wish (God/Everything), the wisher (Love/Wishes) and what allows the wish (the connection in between).

Human's view is explicit and sees one. God's view is implicit and sees all.

Iš ankščiau: Who do we attribute the context to? Note that we attribute the context to life (for God is beyond himself and thus any context) but we also attribute the context to love (for love is God within himself and thus within a context). Everything is God not within himself, and so the context is the boundary between God (everything) and himself (every thing), which is to say a shared scope. Wishes are God not beyond himself, and so the context is the difference between God (who wishes) and himself (obstacle to wishes) which is to say a shared view. So it depends on the base presumption, which for God is that he is beyond expression, and for human is that he is within expression. (Note: This sets up the EightfoldWay.)

===All, One, Not All, Not One===

We may think of a view as extending from One to All. God is in its completeness of what it looks upon, its reaching all. Love is in its unity from which it can look out. God is Spirit and Love is likewise Spirit within structure. Whereas Everything and Wishes are structure and are defined in terms of Not. Everything is Not One in that the concept of everything ever introduces a meta level "everything" which steps back deeper towards the One. In this sense, everything is an endless recursive process. Likewise, Wishes are Not All in that the concept of wish introduces the notion of fulfillment which it steps forward to.

Note that a Wish is a single step outwards, whereas Everything is an endless stepping inwards. In this way Wish is a part of Everything and Wish is One and Everything is All as considered as processes.

Mūsų nuostata

MyPosition is I wish to know everything and I apply this knowledge usefully.

I believe this is OurPosition and I am pursuing it as such.

Our position is God's position, my position, your position and other's position.

• God's position
  • the position of GoingBeyondOneself
  • the source of all sources. It is the position which goes beyond itself in every way, which is to say, into every Context. A context is what makes a position Definite and thus allows them to not coincide, to be separate.
• my position
  • the DefaultPosition
  • All other positions arise from its going beyond itself.
  • the DefaultPosition in all Contexts, for it is available in any context as the position which is prior to context and thus Indefinite.
• your position
  • All other positions arise from its coinciding.
  • the one that is open to all Knowing, which is the Understanding of one's own limits, one's own separation, one's own context. Understanding is the separation of an Observer from their context, which is their ObservationalPlane.
• Other's position
  • the position of Coinciding.
  • It is the Position of Coinciding and reaches out to give rise to context. It is the position of the DefaultObserver, namely God. We start by coinciding in terms of Expression, and we end by coinciding in terms of Spirit.

Earlier Thoughts

BeingOneWith has meaning as an equation:

• The equation of life is that one is part of all.
• The equation of eternal life is that none is part of all.

This is the distinction between one and none. It is a double statement.

In taking up his own View, God is conscious of himself. To take up a view is to go beyond oneself into the observational plane determined by a view. It is to identify with one's own arisal. God identifies with his own arisal (his Self which is Love). Thus he participates as one who understands, who comes to understand, and who is understood. (Father, Son, Holy Spirit).

God manifests himself through the observational plane which is determined by his view and is given by what he has gone beyond into. He manifests himself through his Quality, which is BeingOneWith. His quality is his dual, in that it what indicates him in the observational plane to that which takes up that plane. His quality is that which indicates his arisal. God's quality is the default quality that is fundamental in all qualities. We understand God's quality at one of four levels through which we understand the equation of God and his quality. At one level we understand his quality as the Good, and that which refers us to what is beyond the system.

Consider God's relationship with himself (which we mediate). This takes place through God's quality, which is BeingOneWith. God manifests himself through his quality, this is his glory. God manifests himself directly in every way. We therefore consider his relationship from the perspective of his self. His self is all that which has his quality. His self is Love. We consider how Love relates back to God. His self brings forth all structure that is relevant for a quality to stand alone. Indeed, his quality is the most fundamental of all, that of being one with. We understand God's quality as the Good.

We thus consider everything from the vantage point of God's quality (being one with) which we know as the good. The relationship between God and good is given by an equation (life is the fact that God is good; eternal life is the understanding that God is good, their separation). From the perspective of good, this equation is understood in four levels (starting with God and good as distinct, and then bringing them closer together as in God's will and will) from the point of view of life (being loved) and eternal life (love). How do structures arise from this equation? They do arise at each level (four, two, one, zero). And perhaps the four and the two are combined to indicate God's absence, and the primary structures.

His quality, of itself, outlines a system for any quality. This system likely accords with the eight names of the QualityWithoutAName. These are the perspectives by which Love relates back to God. These levels are given by four, two, one, zero perspectives (as described below) by which we are loved, and then zero, one, two, four perspectives by which we love. We are therefore the relationship between Love and God. How can we climb out of ourselves and acknowledge this fundamental quality of being one with? and its foundation beyond us? That is the fundamental question and love is the answer.

The six secondary structures express God's presence and are the qualities of signs. However, God is not a sign, he manifests himself directly. This possibility goes beyond God's presence and is God's direct manifestation. The four primary structures express God's absence. God is neither his presence nor his absence.

God's Identification

Next, God allows for the system (his structure Everything), and thus for his self (defined in terms of Everything). However, he is not yet of the system, but his self, Love, with whom he is one with, and who manifests his being one with, finds himself grounded in the system, and thus presuming relationship. He is Good within the system.

His being one with may be understood as rooted beyond the system (distinguishing him from his self in the system) or as rooted within the system (identifying him with himself in the system). For him, we are the expressions of his being one with:

• Identification of him with God beyond the system from the beginning (and thus we are Life, and we are Loved, and they are one with directly)
• Distinction of him and God beyond the system as separate, so that the latter is prior (and thus we are EternalLife, and we Love, and they are one with through us by whom they may be separate as we make way for them to be together)

What does it mean for everything and anything to coincide? It means that the oneness of a perspective is allowed by the slack in the system so that it can connect with all perspectives structurally. The conjunction And lets us include God within the system, as slack.

Iš ankščiau: Within a system, the views may coincide based on the distinctions given by the conjunction And. There is God and his quality, goodness. The human value is the quality of God's value. There are two understandings of this equation as to what it means to be part of:

• God and his value are the same
• God and his value are distinct

---

---

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

Kaip trys veiksmai, trys protai grindžia padalinimus ir aštuongubą kelią

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

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

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

Each level seems to relate to a division of everything:

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

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

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

Suvokimo lygmenų raida

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

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

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

Žmogaus ir Dievo požiūriu sutapimas susikalbėjimu

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tiesa: besąlygiška, santykinė, bendra, pavaldi

In describing an absolute, relative, shared, subordinate perspective: consider what truth means for understanding, self-understanding, shared understanding, good understanding:

• understanding - for there to be an absolute perspective we need: no internal structure, no external context (no reframing), accept all things. Here all things are true.
• self-understanding - for a relative perspective we need to separate the threesome for activity (a relative stand) from the threesome for structure (an absolute stand), +2, no overlapping so 3 + 3, notion of required concept
• shared understanding - factoring (other between God and heart through which they coincide) zero structure, seventh perspective, concept, anything (+3). Factor act on the whole - from whole to whole (redefining the absolute whole as a particular stand, which is to say, selecting a perspective) - factors: +2=the focus (structure or spirit, which moves), +3=the movments of spirit with regard to structure (how moving), +4=the separation of spirit and structure (how far apart). Recall: people, words, Qualities. Shared point is: (everything becomes anything - this is perhaps what is needed for sharing - and is what we mean by something - that everything becomes anything, as per +2, defining activity as shift in structure).
• good understanding - zero activity - other is unity of the six levels by which God and heart coincide (secondary structures as embeddings).

Gerasis vaikas mumyse susikalba su Dievu

Visumos esmę pristatau išdėstydamas žmogaus požiūrį, jo požiūrių grandinę. Besigilinant jos grandimis pavyksta atsisakyti savo supratimo, susiderinti su Dievu, įsijungti į darną.

Mums žmonėms visko žinojimas išsiskleidžia keturiais klodais, suvokimo lygmenimis. Išsidėsto požiūrių grandine, kuria plėtojasi žmogaus ir Dievo požiūrių seka. Visuomet gyvename žmogaus požiūriu tačiau jį pranokstame kuomet jisai susikalbėjimu sutampa su Dievo požiūriu. Tai vyksta pažingsniui.

Žmogaus požiūris į suvokimą (Žmogaus požiūris į "Dievo požiūrį" į Dievą)

• Žmogus įsivaizduoja, kad visko esmė yra Dievo tapimas kažkieno Dievu. Tai vyksta keturiomis asmenų terpėmis: Dievo Neapibrėžtume, Mano Apibrėžtume, Tavo Įsivaizduojamume, Kito Neįsivaizduojamume.
• Amžinu gyvenimu: Dvasia tampa žmogaus Dievu.

Žmogaus požiūris į savęs suvokimą (Žmogaus požiūris į "Dievo požiūrį į žmogaus požiūrį" į Dievą)

• Žmogaus įsivaizduoja, kad Dievas įsivaizduoja žmogaus požiūrį, taip kad neapibrėžtumo trejybės reikšmės susidėlioja trejybės ratu, išsakančiu tris dėsnius: Asmeninį požiūrį į Dievą išplečia dvasia pirm akistatos ir dvasia po akistatos; Tėra tai kas reiškiasi; Priimti savo Dievą reiškia priimti Dievą kaip tokį.
• Išmintimi: Trejybės ratu amžinai nusistatome, vykdome, permąstome.

Žmogaus požiūris į bendrą suvokimą (Žmogaus požiūris į "Dievo požiūrį į žmogaus požiūrį į Dievo požiūrį" į Dievą)

• Žmogus įsivaizduoja, kad Dievas įsivaizduoja, kad žmogus įsivaizduoja, kad Dievas įsivaizduoja dvejopai, taip kad yra Dievas už mūsų ir tuo pačiu yra Dievas mumyse. Dievas už mūsų išeina už savęs į save, visko žinojimu. O Dievu mumyse išeiname už savęs iš savęs, gražiu taikymu.
• Gera valia: Dievas nebūtinai geras. Gyvenimas neteisingas. Užtat galime skirti Dievą ir save.

Žmogaus požiūris į susikalbėjimą (Žmogaus požiūris į "Dievo požiūrį į žmogaus požiūrį į Dievo požiūrį į žmogaus požiūrį" į Dievą)

• Žmogus įsivaizduoja, kad Dievas įsivaizduoja, kad žmogus įsivaizduoja, kad Dievas įsivaizduoja, kad žmogaus įsivaizduoja, kad jo ir visų vienumas išplaukia būtent iš Dievo. Užtat žmogus tokia požiūrių grandine susitelkia į Dievą, kaip kad gerasis vaikas. Žmogus priima Dievą įsisavindamas išorinius požiūrius vidiniais požiūriais, paklusdamas, tikėdamas, rūpindamasis.
• Dievo valia: Esame viena dvasia ir amžinai bręstame. Dievo valią priimame įsisavindami požiūrius.

Visaregio pagrindimas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Žinojimo rūmai, tai:

• 2 x 12 = 24 dalis žinoma (sistema-teorija), dalis nežinoma (prieš sistemą-praktika)
• tame, kas žinoma: tai 6 x 4 = 24 įstatymas, Dievas nebūtinas, teisingumas, Asmuo-dvejybė
• tame, kas nežinoma: tai 8 x 3 = 24 kalbos, Dievas būtinas, malonė, Dievas-trejybė
• Visaregis išsakomas pirmiausiai padalinimų veiksmais: 8x3=24 (raida). O iškilus žmogui, jisai išsakomas dvejopai, atvaizdais 6x4=24 (4 pirminių sandarų laipsnynais - žemėlapynu) ir aplinkybėmis 12x2=24 (žinojimo rūmais - vadovėliu). Toliau visaregis išsakomas kalbomis. Tad visaregis visaip išsakomas kubu.
• Visaregis susideda iš vienybės (nejudamojo taško), dvejybės, trejybės (trejybės rato), ketverybės (apimčių). Keturios apytakos yra visaregio keturi atvaizdai.
• Kaip požiūris skiria nežinojimą (atsitokėjimą) ir žinojimą (įsijautimą). Kaip visaregis skiria nežinojimą ir žinojimą, atsiplėšimą nuo savo požiūrio. Kaip visaregis palaiko požiūrio grandinės (požiūrio į požiūrio ir t.t.) išaugimą ir jokio požiūrio nustatymą. Kaip ketverybė išreiškia jokio požiūrio (nulinio požiūrio) nustatymą. Kaip suprasti Dievo ir žmogaus požiūrius ir jų grandines?
• Visaregio lygmenų poros duoda dvejybę 2x1, trejybę 3x1, ketverybę 4x1, atvaizdus 2x3, padalinimus 2x4, aplinkybes 3x4. Po vieną, po tris, ar po keturis lygmenis duoda tas pačias dalines sandaras, prisideda tiktai visuminė sandara 2x3x4.

Kampus apibrėžti ir susieti su pirminėmis sandaromis.

Visaregis, tai įžvelgtina sandara, siekiant viską suvesti. Visaregį išvedu iš keturių pirminių sandarų.

Visaregiu Aš (Dievas santvarkoje) išsaugoja save. Užtat Aš yra Dievo apribojimas. O patsai Dievas yra strimagalvis.

Visaregį galim suvokti, kaip rinkinį 24-ių kampų ar rūpesčių ar netroškimų. Šiuos rūpesčius išreiškia keturios pirminių sandarų grandines šešių rūpesčių. Jas apibendrinam, kaip: būti, atrodyti, turėti būti, rinktis:

• nusistatyti Dievo pagrindu užuot savo
• vykdyti Dievo pagrindu užuot savo
• permąstyti Dievo pagrindu užuot savo
• nusistatyti užuot permąstyti
• vykdyti užuot nusistatyti
• permąstyti užuot vykdyti

Visaregis tad išsako šešerybės poslinkius - trejybės vidinius ryšius ir tris išorinius ryšius iš jos su Dievu.

Tuos kampus suprantu poreikiais, abejonėmis, gėrio kryptimis ir pasiryžimais.

Visaregis išsako galimus kampus. O jie tampa paskirais rūpesčiais, netroškimais, kada mes pirminėmis sandaromis juos prisiimame ir jais atsiveriame Dievui.

• Visaregis yra Dievo žinojimo rūmai. Jie permąstomi, iškraipomi Jėzaus žinojimo rūmais, netobulo žmogaus žinojimo rūmais, įvairiausių sričių suvokimo rūmais, galiausia sričių galimybių, matematikos žinojimo rūmais.

Visaregis

Man rūpėjo išrasti tą išeities tašką iš kurio išplaukia Dievo požiūris. Tai labai sunku kadangi tai turėtų būti pirma bet kokios sandaros, bet kokių tų priemonių, kuriomis jas apibrėžiame. Aš neįstengdavau tai kaip nors rašyti, tiesiog nesusigaudydavo, nuo ko pradėti ir kurios krypties laikytis betvarkant minčių tankumynę.

Kartais prisimindavau savo sandorą su Dievu, kad jame kaip ir glūdi visa kas prasminga. Visa glūdi net ir pačiame mano siekyje, kurį vaikystėje vardydavau "viską žinoti", o jau suaugęs iškėliau ir tų žinių prasmingą taikymą, kurį buvau numatęs, kad mano siekis neišsigimtų, tad sakau "viską žinoti ir tą žinojimą gražiai taikyti". Pagalvojau, gal tai ir yra paties Dievo tikslas, ar tiesiog jo požiūris.

Šiame požiūryje ("Aš trokštu viską žinoti ir tą žinojimą gražiai taikyti") labai ryškus manasis "aš", ar Dievo "aš". Ir pastebėjau, kad jame glūdi esminiai padalinimai:

• vienybė: "Aš"
• dvejybė: žinoti ir taikyti
• trejybė: trokšti (troškiantis, troškiamas, troškimas)
• ketverybė: "ir"

Ketverybės ieškojau ir pamaniau, kad tą "ir" galima, tiesiog būtina ketveriopai suprasti, nes junginys turi galioti skirtingose plotmėse: už santvarkos, santvarkoje, išeinant už jos ir susivedant į ją. Šias plotmes siejau su apimtimis: viskas, betkas, kažkas, niekas. Jos taip pat ir išreiškia keturis lygmenis, tad visa susiveda.

Tokiu būdu gavosi 1 x 2 x 3 x 4 = 24 galimybės. Laipsnyną galima suprasti kaip 2 x 3, tad gavosi 4 laipsnynai, kurių ir norėjosi.

Iš laipsnyno žinojau, kad dvejybę galiu suprasti kaip požiūrį santvarkoje ir požiūrį iš už santvarkos. Aplamai, vyksta atsiplėšimas. Dievas atsiplėšia nuo savęs. Tai ir yra požiūris. Jis apima 24 žvilgsnius ar rūpesčius.

Nustatant kurią nors iš 4 plotmių gaunam santvarką, tačiau tenka papildomai išsakyti nulinį (Dievo) ir septintą (gerumo) požiūrius.

Visaregis man tiko, bent iš dalies, kaip sprendimas, nes jisai jautėsi ir visuminis, ir sutelktas, ir išsakytas. Gali būti, kad jame išdėstyta, išsakyta visa kas tik reikalinga apibrėžti požiūrį. Visa tai prieinama iš vieno taško, iš Dievo požiūrio, kurį tačiau galima sutelkti įvairiose plotmėse. Dievas visaregiu reiškiasi ne pažingsniui, ne kažkokiu beatsiskleidžiančiu užtaisu, o vienu ypu, visas iš karto, lygiaverčiai. Užtat iš jo gali atskilti įvairiausi daliniai požiūriai bei jųjų sandaros.

Visaregis tuo tarpu man tebuvo teorinis išmislas, tiesiog visas sandaras suvedantis, nesusijęs su mūsų gyvenimo reiškiniais. Man tas gyvenimiškas turinys paprastai būna itin svarbus, kad neprisigalvočiau nebūtų dalykų. Tačiau šiuo atveju galvoju, galima tokių reiškinių nesitikėti, nes ši sandara žmogui per daug plati. Vėliau, kada rinkau ir rūšiavau išsiaiškinimo būdus, kaip ką esu išsiaiškinęs, visi būdai įtikinančiai susivedė į "žinojimo rūmus", susidedančius iš 24 menių. Tokius rūmus galima išvesti bet kuriam mokslui, dalykui, pasaulėžiūrai ar netgi asmeniui, išsakyti kaip jis įvairiausiai išsiaiškina. Manau, visaregis gali ir turi būti kaip nors su tai tampriai susijęs, nors jisai daug simetriškesnis. Visaregis turbūt yra Dievo žinojimo rūmai persmelkiantys kiekvieno iš mūsų žinojimo rūmus.

Visaregis išdėsto įvairiausias prielaidas, kurių galime atsisakyti, iš ko ir kyla paskiri klausimai.

• Visaregiu bene atsiplėšiame nuo savo aplinkybių, nuo savo požiūrio.

---

---

Užrašai

Klausimai reiškiasi sandara, būtent:

• išsiskyrimais (divergences)
• atskyrimais (distinctions)
• padalinimais (divisions)