See also: Script, Outline, Extra, Overview, Welcome, GlossaryOfStructure, SummaryArchive, CurrentQuestions
AndriusKulikauskas: I wish to know everything and apply that knowledge usefully. Here are my results.
As a six-year-old, I dedicated myself to a quest to know everything and apply that knowledge usefully. This summer, as a forty-four-year-old, I made a ten-minute video I Wish to Know that overviews my results. Below are my notes. I'm grateful for feedback and I'm also interested to work together.
My results (and my video) have two parts, fact and theory. I start with the facts, the conceptual structures that I observe as I explore the limits of my mind. I start with the concept of "everything" (which has no external context, no internal structure, is the simplest alogrithm - which accepts all things, and a required concept - we all have it, can't learn it and can't get rid of it). I then note "divisions of everything" (such as a division into two perspectives: "opposites coexist" (as in free will) and "all is the same" (as with fate)). I catalogue a variety of such conceptual structures that build on each other.
I then imagine God's point of view so as to make sense how all of these structures might unfold. I imagine God asking, Is God necessary? Would God exist even if God didn't exist? (As in a proof by contradiction). God then ever removes himself, going beyond himself into himself, shifting from God to I to You to Other, and generating all of the structures which I documented above, until God is not necessary because there is a self-standing Other. However, God's nature is impulsive (what God does and thinks are the same) and not-God's nature is understanding (which distinguishes what is in a system and what comes from beyond it). Understanding wrenches us out of each system, from Other to You to I to God. For example, life is the fact that God is good, but eternal life is understanding this fact and recognizing that God doesn't have to be good, that there is so much left undone. It is the bad in the world that makes evident that there must be a God who is responsible. Thus God is necessary. God is both not-necessary and necessary and taking up this question (Is God necessary?) is what makes sense of the facts of our lives.
I was quite excited to conclude my life's quest. There are many details to work out, especially languages for how things happen (narration), how they acquire meaning (verbalization), how they come to matter (argumentation). Yet I do feel I know everything in the sense of understanding the big picture, as I describe above, as if I was a near-sighted child sitting in the lap of God and viewing what God views, but needing to crawl out, venture out to work out any particular detail. But I do feel that I have found a good place to sit from and overview the whole.
Nobody cares too much about my work. Perhaps somebody here will. Even if nobody does, I've drawn two useful conclusions regarding applications and God.
As a child I reasoned, if I knew everything, then I'd know what to do with that knowledge. The most useful work that I know is to organize a culture of independent thinkers, the "kingdom of heaven" which Jesus spoke of, where "what you believe is what happens" for each of us, which means that all truth can make itself tangible to satisfy the poverty of our faith/imagination (we are the poor in spirit!). That poverty, that lack of slack, is what makes relevant a culture of wisdom. I'm encouraged that I've been working on such a culture (here is a Charter) as a consequence of my practical work at MinciuSodas, my online laboratory for serving and organizing independent thinkers.
I also note that I started by keeping God at a distance, allowing for God as no more than a possibility, even as I engaged that possibility. After all my work, I see that God is rather peripheral to all of the "facts" of life. Yet what's been most fruitful for my theory is imagining God's point of view, and this has given meaning to and made sense of every structural fact that I've observed. I've personally depended on God, especially when I have lived on the edge. My feeling for God has grown from very cold to fiercely warm and now, too, I understand God's absence as God's nature. I realize that I do have a big picture understanding, and even without all the details, I don't need to pursue them all now, but rather start making use of what I have learned. I should therefore work with God and take up God's questions, which I think is, how might God reach every person? I also believe that I can more effectively learn how things matter or mean or happen if I embrace the points of view of individuals. I've collected many people's deepest values and questions they wish to answer (Values), what they'd like to achieve (Endeavors), I'm organizing an "economy of dreams" (Dreams).
I appreciate all manner of thoughts, including the facts I've observed,the theory I've worked out, the culture I'm organizing and practical work we might do together. How might these ideas relate to your own ideas?
|Table of contents of this page|
God is alone
Imagining God's point of view
I wish to make as few assumptions as possible so that I might know what is truly fundamental from which everything else unfolds.
I am told that God knows everything and is responsible for everything.
I think that I will assume less if I allow for the possibility of God rather than not.
I try to imagine God's point of view. This helps me note the limits of my own imagination. I share my conclusions.
God is Alone
What do we mean by God? What is the nature of God?
God is alone.
What does that mean to God and to us?
We understand God through Aloneness. Aloneness manifests itself to us as Freedom, the lack of restriction, the lack of necessity, the lack of shift in perspective.
But is God Alone or is Aloneness God? Is God distinct from Aloneness or one and the same as Aloneness? Does God understand Aloneness as we do? Is God Free?
Concepts have meaning within a context. If they have meaning in all contexts, then they have meaning beyond context, they have absolute meaning. If a concept is understood in terms of absolute meaning, then it has meaning in all contexts. In different contexts we consider: Is there Aloneness independently of God? Is God not Alone, in some context? Yet also Alone, beyond context? Does God exist or not or both or neither?
Do I know God? Is God my God? My God is what is absolute with regard to all of my contexts, thus what is absolute pragmatically, with regard to me. Whereas God is absolute with regard to all contexts, not only mine, but God's as well.
What is my God? What is absolute for me?
My God is Everything. Everything is the sum of Anything, the sum of the limits of my knowledge.
Everything has four properties: It has no external context. It has no internal structure. It is the simplest algorithm, the one which accepts all things. It is a required concept.
Is God indeed my God, which is to say, Everything?
God is alone and thus unrestricted. God is beyond What I know and even the limits of what I know. God is Who.
Everything is Not Who, for Everything is restricted by itself. Everything is the outcome of God's absence, for God thereby makes way for Everything.
God might be the foundation for Everything. I assume that God knows Everything and imagine that Everything unfolds as God's knowledge.
What is beyond Everything? And how may we conceive that? Everything is Assumption. What is assumed is what exists.
God is beyond Assumption and God is not restricted by Assumption thus God is within Assumption as well. Thus God both exists and does not exist.
Yet does God exist even if God does not exist? Is God necessary?
God may be assumed or not. He may exist or not. For him as such it is the same.
God is assumed to the extent that God manifests himself. "Those things are which show themselves to be."
But is he necessarily assumed? Does he necessarily exist? Yes, in that he is God. He is assumed if he is assumed and he even comes to be assumed if he is not assumed. He comes to exist if he does not exist. How does this unfold?
The nonassumption of God is, ultimately, a manifestation of God. How does God manifest himself? What unfolds from nonassumption?
The Flow of Truth
God is the flow of truth, from what is assumed out to what is not assumed, so that, conversely, nonassumption gives rise to assumption, which is the Structure of Freedom. The flow is the Spirit, and so God is the Spirit of Truth. Everything is what God flows through. Thus God is beyond Everything (as assumption alongside nonassumption), and within Everything, and through Everything. And being through Everything, God's assumption and not assumption are the same.
Note that there are two directions to the flow: God flows from assumption out to nonassumption (God is and therefore is (in the new context)), and nonassumption gives rise to assumption (God is not but therefore is (in the same new context)). Consider the fifth perspective (which links these two directions) and the sixth perspective (which perhaps keeps them separate).
Is God alone? so that we know God and we ever define aloneness? Or is Aloneness God ? so that we know Aloneness (as independent thinkers) and we ever define God?
The Theory God is alone (God is free, God is good) links the definition of God (What) with Person (Who within Scope) who applies the definition. The Facts Aloneness is God (Freedom is God, Goodness is God) link the definition of God (What) with the God (Who beyond Scope) they are applied to. These pairs – existing God as the Person who is recentered, and nonexisting God by whom the Person is recentered, are mirrors of each other by way of God as definition which Person applies to God. Scope is the halfway mark at which God is defined as existing or not. God (as Truth) is thereby the equality of Answers and Questions, of adding and subtracting assumptions, of assuming God or not.
God participates in three ways:
Meaning relates for Person (the one who conceives, knows) a Concept (what is conceived, known, defined, such as Self or God) with regard to their Context (Person's Scope).
God and NotGod have a rather straightforward relation within system (God is alone) and beyond system (Aloneness is God). What is complicated is the mediation of these two approaches as given by the shared Definition of God and the related structures given by NotGod.
God is alone and Aloneness is God start with different knowledge (God vs. Aloneness) and proceed with different definitions (Aloneness vs. God). Both approaches involve negation of properties, interruption of flow, and circumscription.
God flows to God by way of Persons. Thus God is greater than our Scope, both before us and after us. In our Scope, God is as our Aloneness, the NullActivity which coincides with God, thus God is with us, alongside of us, but of a wider Scope. Thus in our Scope, God both is and is not, as we by our Freedom choose God and live through God's being or not being. God loves us by granting us this Freedom, and by expanding our Freedom through all others, so that we are eternally free. As God's wider Scope becomes explicit, our own Scope is Nothing, and we live through Other, so we give up our Self, and "Aloneness is God" is within "God is alone". In this way, as Scope narrows, God becomes more explicit, and the idea that we are not alone becomes real, although when it is completely explicit, then it is apparent that we are one in God. For then we all coincide for we all share the coinciding within us of God within and God beyond, which is to say, Life and even (by way of the noncoinciding in the process of becoming explicit) EternalLife. This explicitness requires that God and Person be separate (by Scope) so that Aloneness (and Scope and Self) is understood to be contingent in its meaning. By loving others we grow explicit in our distinction from God and yet then explicit in our love and we coincide in our love for all.
- Circumscription is the zone of distinction of God and NotGod. Beyond circumscription they are indistinguishable.
- Negation is
- the negation, the disallowal, of one's opposite
- a view from within
- the failure of Definition, of circumscription of NotGod.
- the juxtaposition of God and NotGod side-by-side
- Contradiction is the failure of Knowledge, of circumscription of God.
- Affirmation is a view from outside, for it is the acceptance of one's opposite.
- Truth is from beyond System and manifests God through affirmation.
- Freedom is within System and manifests God through negation.
- System is all that is not necessary.
- Beyond System is what is necessary.
Love equates God's separation and God's coinciding, as in Will and GodsWill, or Life and EternalLife. And that is Freedom as seen from Person's perspective. Thus in Love there coincides FreeWill and Fate, different perspectives and so Structure collapses. Thus Love is Truth, its fulfillment in Other, thus Aloneness (oneness) beyond us, and Freedom is aloneness within us, and Truth and Freedom coincide for "beyond us" is "within us".
Self assumes System. System assumes Scope. System is what relates God within and God beyond. Whereas God within and God beyond are beyond system and their separation reveals them and takes us beyond system. The explicit and implicit interpretations can exist in parallel.
What is the difference between God and God who is alone? The application of quality ("alone") implies a shift in that "God" and "God who is alone" are not quite the same God and so we must reconsider, is the "God who is alone" actually alone? Self is the distinction of God before and after quality.
If God is given, then Aloneness arises within, as Person, through God. If Aloneness is given, then God arises beyond, through NotGod.
By BeingOneWith in System, we are Alone beyond System. Our Freedom is that being different, in different circumstances, we can be one, whether by Goodness, Slack, Coinciding or Perfection, depending on the Scope. In this way by Freedom we overcome our constraints, whether through general Good or though Love for a particular Person. By Love we do not fear Definition and we find in others relationships with God beyond them.
The distinction as to whether God within and beyond are linked can be made at one of four places with regard to the System:
There are four relations between what "is" and what "is necessary".
The four levels (Activity, VantagePoint, Position, Perspective) give the amount of undefinition, of liberty beyond system that one goes beyond from as one goes beyond oneself, as one retains identity beyond oneself. In the case of Activity, the relation is very loose between one and one's activity, and the difference is Everything, because it depends on Why. In the case of Perspective, the relation is very tight between one and one's perspective, and the difference is Nothing, because it depends on Whether, on the fact that one has gone beyond themselves. Thus the levels give the degree of explicitness, how much has gone beyond.
- Beyond System - in God's vantage point - they are the same - as God, who is and necessarily is.
- Beyond System, looking into System - in I's vantage point - there is the expansion of what is necessary - what is not necessary is necessary (but not the other way around) - as Everything, which goes beyond itself into ever narrower scopes.
- Within System, looking beyond System - as You's vantage point - there is the expansion of what is not necessary - what is necessary is not necessary (but not the other way around) - as Wishes, where what is not necessary need not be necessary
- Within System - in Other's vantage point - they are different - as Love, where what is necessary supports what is but is not necessary.
The four Levels
God is alone is understood in the Scope (Everything, Anything, Something, Nothing) with regard to which aloneness is defined. It is the scope of Freedom. In such a scope, God is alone and Aloneness is God are distinct. There one is free to assume God or not. The scope establishes Person as the degree of pragmatic knowledge, where God and Other are hypothetical, and I and You are tangible. There is the Person who knows; the God they know; and the knowing they share. The question for the Person is, are they alone or not? Is there something beyond their scope by which they are not alone within scope but are alone beyond scope? Are they defined with regard to scope or beyond it? Do we assume God or, as is the case, does God presume us? And this becomes clear as we presume others by understanding ourselves as broader than our selves, which occurs through Love which supports us without regard for our circumstances, thus in general circumstances, thus we are general persons, thus we extend beyond our selves. The scope grows smaller as the possibility is considered that somebody is not alone.
- are Activity, Structure, Representation (Structure of Structure) and Unity (Structure of Structure of Structure).
- are related to the four PropertiesOfGod (which disallow of circumscription) and to the four PropertiesOfEverything (whereby Everything coincides with itself despite any circumscription); where circumscription is what distinguishes, in the flow, what is before and after quality.
- give the way of restricting Freedom, the manifestation of being alone, restricting the flow of truth.
- allow for the relationship between Truth and Freedom, the amount of Truth that Freedom allows for (such as Everything, Anything, Something, Nothing). NotGod is the amount and God is the Truth.
- are given by the way that side-by-side perspectives can be more or less implicit and explicit, assumed in their relationship.
- are the ways that we can have understanding-in-parallel in terms of a system and what is beyond the system. Thus they yield the kinds of vantage points: God, I, You, Other.
- are given by the differences between what is known and what quality it is defined to have; thus by limits: none, one, two, three; and by the third qualification they are the same. From within definition (within aloneness) there is unity, but from beyond definition (beyond aloneness) there are four different levels (given by the scope of our not aloneness).
- are four possibilities for the new context in which God is arisen, whether or not it is the same as the old context, and those are perhaps the four RepresentationsOfTheTwosome.
- possibilities of circumscription are given by the localization of the distinction of God and NotGod. They express whether the maker of the distinction is distinguishable or not; and whether the distinction made is distinguishable or not.
The Definition of God projects God within Scope as that which is Alone (so that Aloneness is God). Thus God is alone projects itself into Scope as Aloneness is God and thereby the two are distinct and the latter is subordinate.
God is one with us within us (and we are one) and God is also one with us beyond us (and so there are four Levels for God is one apart from us and there are four ways that God may be beyond us, apart from us).
Not alone, NotGod
The relationship between God and NotGod is fixed by Not along a fourfold spectrum from assumption to nonassumption. Person and Scope are that fixed relationship.
Is there a Definition of God that is so contingent that NotGod may stand apart from God?
Person and God related by Truth and Freedom Other exists for GodTheFather; You exists for GodTheSon; I exists for GodTheSpirit; God exists for God. Conversely, GodTheFather assumes Other; GodTheSon assumes You; GodTheSpirit assumes I; God assumes God. And Other is free to acknowledge GodTheFather; You is free to acknowledge GodTheSon; I is free to acknowledge GodTheSpirit; God is free to acknowledge God. Thus Truth and Freedom flow in opposite directions. God beyond is acknowledged by Person when Person accepts that its Freedom is based in Truth. Then God within and beyond coincide in the Definition of God, of Truth.
Three relationships of God and NotGod
Negation juxtaposes God and NotGod side-by-side either
There are three points of failure and four levels of circumscription.
For God's relationship with God's relationship with God is the separation of what is beyond system and what is within system. They are separated by God's behavior and they are one by God's behavior.
This relates the questions, each of which relates "is" and "not is" side by side:
How do obstacles become perspectives and then contexts?
- God within NotGod: Where God is Person, NotGod is Scope, the inner context that relates assumption and nonassumption, the channel of the Flow of Truth through which it flows, the spectrum by which God is and is not. Scope may present zero, one, two or three obstacles to (constraints on) this flow:
- God is Not NotGod: Where God is Definition (GoingBeyondOneself), NotGod is Self, System, Structure which God overcomes. This is how Person both is and is not. There are zero, one, two or three Perspectives:
- God beyond NotGod: Where God is beyond (before GoingBeyondOneself), NotGod is the Self (after GoingBeyondOneself) which is offered as a choice in contrast, and which is within limits (thus linked), whereas God stretches beyond any limits, before or after. This is how GoingBeyondOneself both is and is not. There are zero, one, two or three Contexts:
Theory and Facts
Theory describes Who's presence (manifestation, assumption) and Facts describe Who's absence (nonassumption). How are Theory and Facts related?
God (Who) is Alone (Not What). Which is fundamental, Who or What?
Is God alone? Or is aloneness God? Is God who he is or what he is? Is God beyond Everything or within Everything? Is God assumed or not?
The Theory God is alone takes God as given, knows God, assumes God. The Theory defines aloneness as God's attribute, which alters the context, and so redefines aloneness accordingly, going inwards. Whereas the Facts Aloneness is God takes Aloneness as given for Person and defines and redefines God accordingly, going outwards.
What does it mean for God to assume God? God imagines himself. How does God imagine himself? God is alone. Aloneness is God's attribute. Aloneness is a paradox for it is lack of assumption, yet is itself an assumption. It is the lack of context, yet is itself a context. God must then be imagined anew in the context of aloneness: What does it mean to be alone in a context? God arises in succesive contexts as Persons who distinguish what is within and beyond the Scope of their knowledge. I is God beyond God; You is I beyond I; Other is You beyond You. Theory is that Other is God that stands apart from God as NotGod.
Facts are that we can allow for Other in theory but that Other need not exist in practice. This is absolutely pragmatic in the way that Everything is a required concept.
The Facts Aloneness is God do not assume God. Aloneness is understood with regard to Scope as TotalStructure, as all that might be imagined, thus as God. What is Aloneness attributed to? Aloneness is attributed to Other, the most radically alone, the one who truly is what he imagines. What is the context, the reference, the source, the generalization of Other's Aloneness, what is Other's God, the one who imagines Other? It is the distinction of Other and its Self. Other may, possibly, identify its unity as within what it imagines (its self) or beyond what it imagines (its God). The latter is what distinguishes Other from Self, and keeps Other alone from its Self. This yields Persons, successively, from general to particular, Other, You, I, God, who have a God:
The meaning of God thus evolves by possibility given by distinct Facts to mean that most particular God which grounds every sense of Alone for every Who as the most purely Who. It starts with Other whose Self is TripleSelf, and keeps pealing away a self, until it ends in the God whose Self is LackOfSelf. For the Person at the start of the flow of truth, and the God at the end of the flow of truth, are taken to be the same God. Aloneness is the unity of the flow of truth, that it is a single strand, and this can be only if so beyond each context, each self, until finally there is no context, no self.
God is alone is human's view of God's view. The inversion of this is Aloneness is God, which is thus God's view of human's view, inasmuch as human's view and God's view can be compatible.
Other is the limit of Theory (as to whom God manifests himself) and God is the limit of Facts (as to who manifests himself).
There is a pragmatic ladder that goes down (as God, truth) from God to Other and goes up (as aloneness, freedom) from Other to God. The ladder comes together when we understand that it is the same whether we start from truth or freedom. Theory evolves Persons so that they are ever alone, even of the context of aloneness, until with Other there is no way for us to distinguish whether or not it is alone, so Other is free. Facts ever have us, given aloneness, assume our assumptions, make explicit our definitions, until after three contexts there is nothing left to assume, God is fully defined, there is simply God which we can't distinguish, whether or not it is God, and so God is true. As Person is made complete, God's definition is reduced but even in the end, God is more important than Person!
The Commandments are minimalist, they assume as little as possible: Believe in God, refrain from using his name without a reason, celebrate the rest in creation, and respect your parents. Each of these has us allow for what is left unsaid, undone.
Person (who applies Definition) and God (to whom Definition is applied) are both Who. Yet Person (except for God) is defined, created, whereas God is not.
Their correlation takes place at any of four junctions where we define God (Who) as a quality (aloneness) which exists or not as given by the relevant property for that junction. Who is expressed through What: “Those things are which show themselves to be”. Who is “I am what I am”, the one who is themselves. Who's properties express that he has his quality, and Everything's properties express that he doesn't. Who's existence and nonexistence are related through Person's Knowledge (circumscription of what God assumes, Who by What, thus negation of a property of God) and Scope's Definition (circumscription of what is assumed about God, of NotWho by NotWhat, thus negation of a property of Everything).
The Unfolding of Structure
I am NotGod in that I don't go beyond myself, I don't give up myself. I can give up myself by giving myself on behalf of another. This is the logic of God and keeps leading to new persons until there is a person, Other, with no logic.
God goes beyond himself as Everything. Everything is that which has the logic of going beyond itself. In this way, God is redefined as Everything, as the absence of God. Everything then exhibits the logic of Wishes, and together with God is redefined as Wishes. And Wishes exhibit the logic of Love, and they are all redefined as Love. And what does Love exhibit? or does Love have no logic? and thus no redefinition?
With each choice of God over Self, there is a change in what is assumed, in what exists, and thus a change in the Definition of God with the Knowledge that God is already inside the one who chooses.
Thus there is a clear Definition and choice for Person as to whether they are alone as an individual (Who BeingAlone) or alone as a collective (What BeingOneWith). There is a clear relationship (Freedom) as to whether a Person is connected with God (by being distinct from God as the one who applies to God the definition of God) or not, and a flickering between them. If there is not such a clear relationship, then God is in question. Scope is the muddling of that relationship by relating or not with exceptions or not. Ultimately, if we take the Aloneness of Who and What to be the same, as we do for Other, then we are able to bootstrap out across each and every context to show that God within and God beyond are the same, but indeed, God beyond is necessary and primary.
It may be that with each layer person goes deeper within and God goes further beyond and the definition is ever newly expressed, unfolded in terms of negation.
From God's point of view (God is Alone), God and NotGod are the same. From NotGod's point of view (Aloneness is God), God and NotGod are different. Ultimately, NotGod's point of view is not necessary. Structure is the distinction between God within (NotGod) and God beyond.
How do structures unfold? The question is whether NotGod can stand independently of God? This is the case if NotGod is necessary in some Scope.
Consider the three steps:
As Person (such as I) is projected beyond System, then within System there is supposed a Freedom for an independent Person (such as You). Thus I is independent of God; You is independent of I; Other is independent of You.
- Forcing God into context God (we with God)(from beyond System) goes beyond himself (and a Scope) into NotGod (System) by way of RepresentationsOfTheNullsome, being one with by way of God's being.
- Projecting God outwards God goes again into NotGod by identifying with Person (God in NotGod) and reframing his going beyond himself as a NullAction defining the Person's Perspective, who is the same God by way of RepresentationsOfTheOnesome (the NullAction, God's removing himself, the unreal action, the assumption of God), BeingOneWith by way of God's not being, accepting and expressing NotGod as given structure for projecting God. God is then the root, the source, the actor of the NullAction (which is Divergences or Distinctions or Divisions) and thus inverts them and brings them together. The grounds for NotGod are outside the system and thus mapped to the NullAction.
- Restricting away from God Negation by NotGod of the RepresentationsOfTheOnesome calls into question this God by dismissing, removing NullAction, pinches (or defines, redefines) the flow (and thus God), separates context from perspective, defines (or redefines) Scope and Person as a structural Position (know Scope and apply that knowledge usefully) given by the number or perspectives and contexts that God is placed within, thus circumscribing a new Scope. Negating the NullAction negates the Grounds that are mapped into them, thus forcing God deeper into context.
Is Selflessness at the root of our Self or not? Do we have a Self because we are Selfless? Or are we Selfless because we have a Self? This is answered by no more than three levels.
Each stage interferes with the projection of the last stage:
And the SecondaryStructures, such as the Eightfoldway structures for language, such as the Beatitudes - deal with gradations of concerns - and interpret concerns of one level in terms of a different level, so that concerns are completely explicit, self-standing, apart from us.
- God projects himself into system (by going beyond oneself)
- I interferes with God by inverting God - identifying God with going beyond oneself - and projecting I out of system (by way of divergences)
- You interferes with I by identifying I with concerns (composed of divergences) and bringing God in and projecting You into the process of system
- Other interferes You by identifying You with the God in a plane (of distinction of Other) and projecting Other with regard to God further out.
- GoingBeyondOneself is beyond concerns
- Omniscope introduces all concerns
- PrimaryStructures address a Person's concerns
- SecondaryStructures address an isolated concern
Meaning arises as structure is added layer by layer. First, there are 24 concerns. Then a Person is distinguished and there are 6 concerns and 6 responses-questions (self or God) and (given that there are Persons) one can also take up the concerns of another, and (given that there is God) one can be without concerns. Then we can specify a particular concern by considering, who responds? who asks the question? who, by that question, is interpreting a model? is modeling some meaning? and the particular concern may be understood as some operation's equation. For example, the divisions are the concerns expressed as AddOne equations such as 4+1=5. Each of these equations has God define himself by way of the model, by way of the divisions, and correspondingly, the concern is defined and interpreted as a way by which God defines himself, for there is both God and his self, and they are distinguished. Thus there is significance from beyond system and meaning from within system. By acknowledging God beyond us we find God within us and we are one by linking God with God, through both Life and EternalLife. And the equation links up with the gradation, beyond system, that identifies God with each step in the gradation, interpolating from God to Good.
The concerns are a product of:
- ..., seems, ought, choose
- absolutely, relatively, universally
- to have, to get
GoingBeyondOneself is for Good, for being selfless.
GoingBeyondOneself is Aloneness, the link between God beyond and God within, by which God beyond has gone beyond himself into God within.
GoingBeyondOneself expresses God in terms of NotEverything.
This is the structure of the child who does not know they are lost.
What concepts can mean, signify God? There are four that can signify "objectively" (to NotGod): God, Everything, Wishes, Love. And there are four that can signify "subjectively" (to God): I, Circumscribe, Wishes, And. The result is that we identify God with I.
Divergences are systems for Slack. They are the reversal of GoingBeyondOneself so that there are stages which together express "I wish to know everything and apply that knowledge usefully" (the Unity of the Representations of the Structure of the Activity). They are what can "mean" God: I - circumscribe - wish - and.
The Omniscope gives the ways of Observer pulling away from any ObservationalPlane, from the system to outside the system, for it is the product of Divergences (of Perspective from Position) of the ObservationalPlane from the Observer. The Omniscope pulls together the Divergences so as to project I from within system out beyond system, so that I is not contingent.
- beyond the system (onefold divergence - God: I), a onefold choice "I" as to What is meant by "I=God"? no perspectives, a onefold localization of God as God.
- not within the system (twofold divergence - everything: know/define), a twofold choice "know everything" (beyond system) and "apply/define everything" as to What is meant by "circumscribe=everything"? one perspective, a twofold localization of God as Everything.
- not beyond the system (threefold divergence - wish), a threefold choice "having a wish", "fulfilling the wish" and "allowing for a wish" (beyond system) as to What is meant by "wish=wishes"? two perspectives, a threefold localization of God as Wishes.
- within the system (fourfold divergence - unity: and), a fourfold choice, four meanings for the conjunction "and" based on how much system it presumes, and answering What is meant by "and=love", where is this conjunction taking place? three perspectives, a fourfold localization of God as Love:
- beyond system - beyond expression and unexpressed (Spirit)
- not within system - beyond expression and expressed (Structure)
- not beyond system - within expression and expressed (Representation)
- within system - within expression and unexpressed. (Unity)
The Omniscope expresses Everything in terms of the 24 NotWishes (Needs, Doubts, Expectations, Trials) as the product of:
The Omniscope expresses what is relevant to God, thus all concerns. Thus all the ways that an observer can pull away from
their constraints, from their observational plane. 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:
When an Observer observes themselves, this relationship characterizes the ObservationalPlane between them.
- 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 order to distinguish the observer and their observational plane, it is important to first indicate how they coincide. These positions are:
- 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
What is the structure of the Omniscope in terms of is-seems-ought-choose and take a stand-follow through-reflect ?
- 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.
"I wish to know and love everything" is the position of the child who realizes that they don't know where there parents are.
What is the relationship between Omniscope and Love or Command?
The concerns are:
is, seems to, ought to, choose to:
- Survival, security, social, self-esteem, opportunity, sel-fulfilment
- Like, need, real, problematic, reasonable, wrong
- Good God, good gift, good quality, good person, good deed, good word
- obey, believe, care, hope, courage, honesty
They may also be thought in terms of Whether, What, How, Why.
- take a stand with regard to God rather than self
- follow through with regard to God rather than self
- reflect with regard to God rather than self
- take a stand rather than reflect
- follow through rather than take a stand
- reflect rather than follow through
What are Distinctions?
What are the four Distinctions?
- Distinctions are systems for Coinciding.
- Distinctions develop You from I. What concepts can mean, signify I? There are different degrees of explicitness that may be required to distinguish I from another, from the Person in Scope and the Person of Scope. I can mean, objectively, chooses-ought-seem-is, and subjectively - ultimately is full-fledged You, beyond system.
- Distinctions are where God and I coincide. Supposing that God and I coincide, the question is, where? God is going beyond himself into system, and I is going beyond itself out of system. There are four places along the way where they can meet and coincide. The distinctions indicate how equal or not is that coinciding. Beyond the system they are equal and go beyond each other. Within the system God presumes I.
- Distinctions negate the property of Everything that it accepts all things.
- Distinctions are what are needed to distinguish the one who takes up the concerns from another.
The coinciding with the other must overcome the distinctions:
- Nullfold distinction Chooses (no perspectives) - within the system - your nature presumes you
- Onefold distinction Ought (one perspective) - not beyond the system - you channel your nature
- Twofold distinction Seems (two perspectives) - not within the system - your nature is a part of you (thus you may be separate or together)
- Fourfold distinction Is (four perspectives) - beyond the system - you and your nature go beyond each other. No ambiguity, explicit.
- taking up the needs of Other - fourfold distinction required
- taking up the doubts of You (Am I doing anything about this?) - twofold distinction required
- taking up the receptiveness of I - onefold distinction required
- taking up the will of God - nullfold distinction required
The more explicit God, the less explicit the distinction between Person and other; and vice versa.
- fourfold distinction of going beyond each other in taking up another's needs rather than one's own
- twofold distinction as part of whole in taking up another's doubts, "Am I doing anything about this?"
- onefold distinction of channeling in taking up another's expectations, "Is this news good?" as in suspense or sheer will
- nullfold distinction of presumption in the case of taking up another's trials, as in being watched over.
What are PrimaryStructures?
- The PrimaryStructures are given by the collection of all of the distinctions where God and I could meet. One of the distinctions is then the plane, the scope in which they do meet, and thus the Person that they are understood to coincide as. Thus I beyond system is reintroduced as You within system at one of these four planes.
- The PrimaryStructures introduce a double point of view where we (with NotWishes) see God (along with God) and God sees God through our eyes.
- The PrimaryStructures, given six NotWishes and an observational plane, allow for a seventh perspective that pulls together an observer in general, a human who is wished for. We also admit of an eighth perspective, the observer which went beyond themselves into the observational plane, who we identify with the one who wishes,
- The PrimaryStructures allow others to look through our eyes. We are different from others, but they may not be different from us! Although we do not wish, yet others may wish through us. We are therefore vehicles for their wishing, as given by the primary structures. When others view themselves through our eyes, then they may be the same as us. We do not define them separately from their plane of observation, as we do not need to distinguish whether they may or are viewing through us. Hence our frameworks are the same. This yields the four PrimaryStructures depending on the vantage point.
- The PrimaryStructures are our CounterChoices and they are relevant to a particular ObservationalPlane (OperatingPrinciples, Counterquestions, DirectionsToTheGood, LifeChoices). Whereas the NotWishes (the Dilemmas) are organized globally by the Omniscope. The PrimaryStructures arise along with Wishes, which they express in terms of NotLove.
- The PrimaryStructures arise when others view themselves through our eyes. How much access to themselves do they have through us? This is the scope of access. It may be: Everything, Anything, Something or Nothing. (Respectively: all perspectives, any perspective, a perspective, no perspectives.) It reflects the degree of our own opaqueness, our privacy. And it determines the nature of the other:
- PrimaryStructures mediate the relationship between the RepresentationsOfTheNullsome (the perspectives that express the extrasystemic view whose eyes we see through - and with whom we are one as in Life) and the respective RepresentationsOfTheOnesome (as is, seems, ought, choose) (defined by the systemic view structured by the threesome that expresses what eyes see through us - and keeps them separate from us as in Eternal Life).
- Each PrimaryStructure is based on an ObservationalPlane that gives who we are speaking to, and that complements what they are wishing for:
- God within us speaks to God by Wishing for Nothing (fourfold distinction required): The OperatingPrinciples allow us to see (life) through God's eyes, and be seen through his eyes (eternal life) - but this is the God who lies within us.
- Other within us speaks to I by Wishing for Something (twofold distinction required): The Counterquestions allow us to see through another's eyes (anything), and be seen through their eyes (wisdom) - but this is the other within us.
- Other beyond us speaks to You by Wishing for Anything (onefold distinction required): The DirectionsToTheGood allow us to see (choosing) through another's eyes, and be seen (good will) through their eyes - this is the other beyond us.
- God beyond us speaks to Other by Wishing for Everything (nullfold distinction required): The life choices (the EightfoldWay) allow us to see (will) through God's eyes, and be seen (God's will) through his eyes - this is God beyond us.
- The PrimaryStructures consist of eight questions that have us choose between God (Understanding, Theory, EternalLife) and Self (Experiencing, Facts, Life).
- A PrimaryStructure consists of
- God, understood by way of zero, one, two or three perspectives, that dictates the understanding of relationships: is - seems - ought - choose.
- relationships between the understanding of God and three states: taking a stand, following through, and reflecting
- three relationships amongst three states: takes a stand and thus follows through; follows through and thus reflects; reflects and thus takes a stand.
- coinciding of one with the person given by the mode
- A PrimaryStructure introduces a Person as the one with respect to whom there is (God) or seems (I) or ought (You) or chooses (Other). And the response layer (such as the Counterquestions or the DirectionsToTheGood) interprets the Threesome (Absolutely, Relatively, Universally) in terms of TakeAStand, FollowThrough, Reflect. For example:
- Ought to take a stand rather than reflect: is experienced as inner adherence rather than outer adherence
- Ought to follow through rather than take a stand: is experienced as will achieve rather than able to do
- Ought to reflect rather than follow through: is experienced as could be doing rather than is doing
- And similarly:
- Seems to take a stand rather than reflect: I have control rather than I don't have control
- Seems to follow through rather than take a stand: I can't consider the question rather than I can consider the question
- Seems to reflect rather than follow through: this is the way things should be rather than this is not the way things should be
- And then "chooses" and "ought" and "seem" and "is" are redefined by comparing Person's interpretation and God's interpretation where God beyond has a wider perspective. And then with SecondaryStructures we can provide God's perspective of the threesome in terms of the trinity of Understanding: the one who understands, who is understanding, and who comes to understand. (Think also of GodsWill, GoodWill, Wisdom). With the SecondaryStructures we can focus out to God with one of these.
- PrimaryStructures are the four positive Commandments of theory, what we should do, the possibilities of the heart. Love God with all your heart, mind, soul and body. Love your enemy. Love one level. How do they match up with the four positive commandments?
- God is self-sufficient, outermost: Have no other gods before God. (God as thing)
- God is certain: Do not say in vain God's name or make his image. (God as icon)
- God is calm: Honor the day of rest, of nonaction. (God as index)
- God is loving, innermost: Honor mother and father, the ones who were before you. (God as symbol)
- Each command associates God with NullActivity (and RepresentationOfTheNullsome) for that level. God gives reasons for the positive Commandments. God wishes, God is self-sufficient, certain, calm, loving; obey and experience that God is so; do likewise wish, do likewise be self-sufficient, certain, calm, loving; do by God's example.
- A PrimaryStructure is the structure for the child who is looking for thier parents.
- For each PrimaryStructure, God is expressed as perspectives beyond System: none (God - God is self-sufficient), one (Everything - God is certain, knows everything), two (Wishes - God is calm; good and bad may be alongside each other, yet we can also focus on the good), three (Love - God is loving; God is, does, thinks).
- Each PrimaryStructure gives a level of difference between the Person and God who coincides, empathizes with them: zero perspectives (is), one perspective (seems), two perspectives (ought), three perspectives (choose). The Threesome (take a stand, follow through, reflect) gives the vantage point of God within the System. This means that coinciding, empathizing is possible, in general; and then the SeventhPerspective shows that it is possible, in practice.
- The relation 4+2=3+3 (or twice 2+1=3) is based on the exceptionality of reflection (compared with taking a stand and following through) in that it allows for bad, allows for what is beyond system, allows for pulling away, going beyond oneself. Good is what agrees with the System and bad does not. Reflection is identified with the difference in levels.
- The PrimaryStructures describe the relationship between God and Human (Person). They describe God within and God beyond. God within is the Threesome (take a stand, follow through, reflect) and is represented in one of four ways (is, seems, ought, chooses). Are these the RepresentationsOfTheThreesome? God beyond is the Nullsome and is represented in one of four ways by the RepresentationsOfTheNullsome (true, direct, constant, significant) given by zero, one, two or three perspectives. The human is the mediating structure and is the Sixsome, the maximum they can encompass (and its transformations?)
- God is given by the Threesome within the PrimaryStructures. We live by God through the static modes of the Threesome, whereas we lives by our Selves through the dynamic shifts of the Threesome. Each dynamic shift is restricted by a Scope that expresses in what extent we are going beyond ourselves.
- PrimaryStructures relate God's Wishes and Person's NotWishes. God wishes for Everything, Anything, Something or Nothing. Person lives through not wishes (Needs, Doubts, Expectations, Trials). The wishes and not wishes can coincide. We wish through God's wishes or by taking up the not-wishes of another. Thus wish and not-wish can coincide. Thus PrimaryStructures are structures for the meeting up of the positive and negative, the wishes and the NotWishes. NotWishes are negation of the flow, whereas Wishes are affirmation of the flow. The flow is inside Person as the Threesome (in which case Person - blockage is Nullsome?), and is outside of Person as the RepresentationsOfTheNullsome (in which case Person - blockage is RepresentationOfTheThreesome ?).
- The Sixsome in the PrimaryStructures represents us (our life, the linking of God going beyond himself to Good) as nodes that represent the flows in the Threesome. Thus we represent the flows as nodes (as us). But we also represent the flows from beyond the Threesome (which yet we reverse, and why?)
- God's perspectives define, namely, what it means beyond system that God is (nullfold), God seems to (onefold), God ought to (twofold), God chooses to (threefold), and within system that God takes a stand, follows through, reflects.
Questions about the PrimaryStructures
- NotWishing is not going beyond, but rather staying in the observational plane. They are questions which, if answered affirmatively, become more prominent (along with the observational plane), and if answered negatively, become less prominent.
- NotWishes are what separate an observer and an observational plane. Our own NotWishes are what distinguish us from an ObservationalPlane, and keep us Separate from it. They give the extent to which we do not go beyond ourselves, to which we keep to ourselves. They are thus SelfReinforcing. In that sense, with regard to ourselves, we are defined by not-wishes, and they are defining.
- NotWishes are characterized by the Scope, the observational plane, from which we back away, to which they relate us, and in particular, the distance that they overcome:
- Needs ("not self-sufficient") have us as close as possible (separated by Nothing) to what "is", they keep us from that observational plane
- Doubts ("not certain") have us separated by Something to what "seems", they lead us away from the observational plane
- Expectations ("not calm") have us separated by Anything to what "ought", they lead us into the observational plane
- Commitments ("not loving") have us separated by Everything to what we "choose", they keep us in the observational plane.
- We do not wish, but others may wish through us.
Consider how the four PrimaryStructures arise:
Consider the significance of the sixth perspective for each level in terms of fulfillment: self-fulfillment (Needs and OperatingPrinciples), what is wrong (Doubts and Counterquestions), what is sad or happy (Expectations and EmotionalResponses), and how they relate to the Wish of BeingOne, so for example, one should be Happy because it is Right that this wish should be fulfilled, and so our BeingOneWith is related to our Expectations. Each level of PrimaryStructures considers with its sixth perspective what it means for a Wish to be unfulfilled. (It is wrong, but that's the way it should be.) Each level is correct in itself, but must be understood in a broader context, so that all persons may be in harmony and be one. In its own level, then there is unfulfillment (?) with regard to God (the bigger picture), but taken the levels all together, there is then fulfillment in God (the bigger picture) (?) And the relationship between that fulfillment (more broadly) and unfulfillment (of itself) is given by the SecondaryStructures. Divisions are that self-fulfillment is right; Representations that self-fulfillment is happy; Topologies are that right is happy (?)
- What does it mean to be selfless and how does that relate with the seventh perspective?
- What does it mean to be alone and how does that relate with the zeroth perspective?
- How is the 4 + 2 + 1 + 0 structure related to the 1 + 3 + 3 + 1 structure?
- Which of the distinctions accord with which stage and person?
- Intutively, what does it mean that God looks through our eyes and we look through God's eyes?
- The role of: is, seems, ought, choose.
- The relation with the Omniscope.
- The role of NotLove, the lack of selflessness - the inability to give up one's notwishes, except by way of another's notwishes, foreshadowing the SecondaryStructures.
- The projection of person (You) beyond system.
- The inclusion, the addressing of God within Person.
- What is the role of the Sixsome and its two representations? Why are these not four representations of the Sixsome? Why does "wishes for nothing" relate to the Sixsome, but "wishes for everything" relates to the two representations of the Sixsome?
- How do the PrimaryStructures express the equation 3+3=6, 4+3=7, 5+3=8/0, 6+3=1 ?
Consider the SeventhPerspective "What am I doing about this?" as relating the Counterquestions with ("I take a stand, but do I follow through?") and the EmotionalResponses (sheer will) with taking a stand based on our reflection, and the OperatingPrinciples with reflection on our actions (taking up the needs of another). So that each level relates to a shift in the threesome?
God lives us consciously through his Threesome inside of us. We live God through various levels of consciousness (zero, one, two, three perspectives) and their unity. We live through God by searching for person-in-general, Other who lives in us and by whom we understand consciously. We understand God beyond us in various levels of consciousness, even directly +0. But we understand him as loving through our full consciousness +3 just as he understands us lovingly. By love we all understand each other.
God sees (taking a stand, following through, reflecting) through our eyes (is or seems or ought or chooses). We see through God's eyes(nullfold, onefold, twofold, threefold) as the nullfold unity of God, onefold unity of I, twofold unity of You, threefold unity of Other. God's eyes consider the unity of the whole which is evident beyond system. Our eyes consider the local experience that we have within system.
You is projected out of the System through the duality of the zeroth perspective (God with no self) and the seventh perspective (giving up one's self for another). Other is what keeps these two separate.
You is the Person determined by the mode, the plane, which I coincides with, gives up his self for, just as God does, and thereby God and I meet in You, who is set in the plane, the System.
You and I are most separate (by Everything) with the fourfold distinction, beyond system, of taking up the needs of another; and least separated (by Nothing) with the nullfold distinction, within system, of taking up the trials of another.
And in touch with who beyond us? and who sees through our eyes? and whose eyes do we see through?
Is it necessary to sacrifice, to give oneself up on behalf of others? Consider GodsWill, GoodWill, Wisdom, EternalLife as degrees of answers. The more we submit to God, the less Self we have to give up. The more Self we have, the more we ourselves must reach out to God, and give up ourselves on behalf of others, as with EternalLife.
- God is Perfect (without needs, SelfSufficient)
- God is Coinciding (without doubts, Certain, What do we truly want?)
- God is Slack (without expectations, Calm, What you find is what you love)
- God is Good (without trials, Loving, loves us more than we love ourselves)
Responses to Concerns (or Angles) distinguish the systemic situation and the Person from beyond placed within it. The two together make for a question, and the Person (or perspective) draws beyond the system, toward the consequences, whereas the situation draws towards the ground, the system. Consider the Counterquestions and note how the levels of the foursome come into play. Consider also the distinction of what is fixed and what is free as in the QualitiesOfSigns. Note that because the PrimaryStructures fix the Person, they free up the Foursome for framing the relationship between God who wishes and Person who does not. We can think of there being four levels:
The first two can be thought of as defining the Concern - from freely free to freely fixed, which is the Ground, the lower of the two. A question may be, how to reverse this, so that it makes sense from God's point of view? And this might be done through the remaining two levels, from fixedly fixed to fixedly free, the higher of the two, yielding a Response Question. This is a cleaving of Person from God, with each layer of structure, so that Persons can be distinct and there can be All.
- freely free
- freely fixed
- fixedly free
- fixedly fixed
DirectionsFromTheGood and DirectionsToTheGood
Consider how the cognitive expectations and emotional responses and ways of getting things done are related to the DirectionsFromTheGood and the DirectionsToTheGood. There are two bases for definition (of "ought", regarding take a stand, follow through, reflect), one where we make expectations (God - gift, person - deed: for take a stand - follow through) and one where we don't (quality, word: for reflect). The state of making expectations precedes the one of not making. Wishes make for two bases of definition (Love for three; Everything for one - as in situation that we experience counterquestions in terms of). Good word is increasing slack and good quality is decreasing slack. What is the expectation? That we are one with. We are one with nobody: sad; somebody: surprised; anybody: excited; everybody: content. Note also the Fivesome: with the GoodWord, time moves backward, from the fruit to the trees, from the effect to the cause - and it is good that good arises from good and bad arises from bad; whereas with the GoodQuality, time moves forward, from the distinction in essence and in evidence - and it is good that the good and the bad are made distinct. The GoodNews is that these are the same good.
God has two vantage points here:
- That Good and Bad are alongside each other - as increasing slack (GoodWord) or as decreasing slack (GoodQuality). No expectation is made.
- Or that there is an expectation of the Good, a focus on the Good, without any Bad. There are then four Scopes: one with Everything (Content), one with Anything (Excited), one with Something (Surprised), one with Nothing (Sad) as to which focus is appropriate. They are the extent of God's flow within System, the extent of coinciding of God from beyond and God from within. That coinciding gives the channel that is the relevant onefold Distinction. The broader scopes (Everything, Anything) are experienced by way of Person in System connected with God whereas the narrower scopes (Something, Nothing) are experienced by way of God beyond System, trying to connect with Person. This inverts the understanding of System so that disconnection is experienced by God beyond System rather than by Person within System.
What concepts can mean, signify You? (You is Person of Scope, rather than I, which is Person in Scope.) You is both the same and different as I, thus participates in two different planes, one further out where it is fixed, and another further into system, where it may or may not be the same as I. To signify You is to fix the Scope and to make explicit that the Person is identified with that Scope, thus the Person must make sense (to God the sensemaker) further beyond. Ultimately, Other signifies You and is beyond system (is with God and need not be accessible).
Divisions are systems for Perfection.
A particular concern can be variously interpreted as:
The EightfoldWay matches the PrimaryStructure to a gradation, an interpolation of God and Good. This interpolation is an interpretation depending on the level.
SecondaryStructures are injections of God of an outer level (outward, beyond system) into a PrimaryStructure of an inner level (inward, within system). This recasts You as an Other that spans the levels between God and I. And so giving up our self for other becomes tangible, less drastic, as in the kingdom of heaven, where the other is more tangible, personal, thanks to the SecondaryStructures.
- For needs, it is direct. God is survival, security, social, self-esteem, opportunity, self-fulfillment.
- For doubts, it is the interpreter: God is agent (of likes), beneficiary (of needs), goal/experience (of reality), instrument (of problematic), patient (of reasonable), location/situation (of wrong).
- For expectations, it is the link between the direct and the interpreter: God is morphism, induction, algorithmic construction, substitution, examination of cases, construction.
When we view ourselves through the eyes of others, then they are different from us. We define them separately from their plane of observation because we distinguish between whether they are or are not viewing, and hence between them and what they are viewing. We identify with that narrower scope which they go beyond into their plane of observation. Hence our frameworks must be different. This yields the six SecondaryStructures depending on the shift in vantage point.
The operations AddOne, AddTwo, AddThree give the number of layers in what is beyond. Thus what is beyond is understood, respectively, to consist of one, two or three distinct layers. Actually, it may be more accurate to think of these as six operations, given by an algebra of perspectives:
SecondaryStructures are the six negative Commandments, what we should not do, the limits of the mind. Love your neighbor as yourself (thus linking two levels). Love is the support of Life. Neighbor is the one who does Good to you. Which level, outer or inner, is one's neighbor, and which is one's Self? How do the SecondaryStructures match up with the six negative commandments? The negative commandments force us to choose.
- perspective on perspective
- perspective on perspective
- perspective on perspective on perspective
- perspective on perspective on perspective
- perspective on perspective on perspective
The negative commandments regard behavior towards Other and the positive commandments regard behavior towards You.
If we are NotAlone on the lower level, yet we may be the same with regard to the higher level. Share God - share Love - do not isolate others.
Do not force understanding and thereby reject that God is good.
Acknowledge the whole, do not separate the inner level from the outer level. Do not impose a particular self on the inner level, but allow for a general self, inclusive of others, by which the inner level relates to the outer level. Do not treat the lower level as your exclusive, hidden reality.
Given different scopes: self (outlook), talk, work, life
Given Resist (choose no) and Go along (choose yes):
- Lie = care for talk without care for work
- Murder = care for self without care for life
- Covet things = care for self without care for talk
- Steal = care for work without care for life
- Covet people = care for self without care for work
- Commit adultery = care for talk without care for life
- Lie = force what over how
- Murder = force whether over why
- Covet things = force whether over what
- Steal = force how over why
- Covet people = force whether over how
- Commit adultery = force what over why
Following a command has to do with obeying, believing, caring.
- murder - insist that victim choose to resist
- adulter - insist that victim choose to go along
- lie - insist that victim choose to not resist ("I would have stopped you")
- steal - insist that victim choose to not go along ("I didn't say you could have that")
- covet house (position?) - insist that victim choose to not choose
- covet things - insist that victim choose to choose
Other is the bridge that separates and links God and I.
We don't need to sacrifice ourselves when there is Other, for we can acknowledge Other directly, and give ourselves up by way of Other.
SecondaryStructures identify that which is beyond the system with part of the system as the Nothing that separates the two:
SecondaryStructures separate God and I by applying the "questions" of the PrimaryStructure to God, outside of System, rather than to I. Thus I is left inside System and relates to God through Other who is both in and beyond System, both part and whole. The unity of the PrimaryStructure is projected outside of the System onto God and accessed through Other. In this way, I deals with Other as one who may have a wider vantage point than I, as rooted in God.
Other is projected out of System through the Trinity: Wisdom, GoodWill, GodsWill. The Trinity is stable in that they keep each other separate.
SecondaryStructures indicate what happens when God wishes for less. For example, suppose God wishes for Nothing rather than Something, is SelfSufficient rather than Certain? This opens up room for Other who links us with God, who participates beyond System (as whole) and within System (as part).
Note how each Structure builds on the previous layers.
How do these match a RepresentationOfTheNullsome and a RepresentationOfTheOnesome ?
How are they expressions of Love? and what are they expressions of? and negations of?
Consider the inversion of the Omniscope, so that what was 4 x 6 becomes 6 x 4.
Thinking is the reference point beyond System which indicates for the permutation of the EightfoldWay which level +1 (Argumentation - Calm), +2 (Verbalization - Certain), +3 (Narration - SelfSufficient) is God indicated at.
These establish an independent thinker, one who is Alone. Similarly, Divisions, Representations and Topologies establish the aloneness of their positions and perspectives.
- Argumentation, How do things come to matter? is a language of values
- Verbalization, How do things come to have meaning? is a language of investigations
- Narration, How do things come to happen? is a language of endeavors
SecondaryStructures are (in the case of language) organized around a gradation:
And in each case God is equated to one of the concerns in this gradation. And the gradation is interpreted overall in terms of the gradation of the EightfoldWay whereby God loves us more than we love ourselves. In this way God is equated with an individual concern of ours.
God who is calm is equated to one of the concerns in the gradation, needs or doubts/thematic-roles. What is the nature of God's concern?
A complex of responses organized by AddTwo.
God who is certain is equated to one of the concerns in the gradation of needs. What is the nature of God's concern?
A complex of responses organized by AddOne.
This relates a single concern (as God from an outer level) to a complex of responses (of an inner level). The complex of responses is organized by an operation (AddOne, AddTwo or AddThree). And they correspond to the systems for SelfUnderstanding, SharedUnderstanding and GoodUnderstanding.
A Definition of Aloneness (given by the PrimaryStructure's three-cycle) is projected outward onto a single concern out to a level of expectations (for values), doubts (for questions), needs (for endeavors).
Thus the Threesome, the engine of the soul, is the Structure of Aloneness, explicit and self-standing.
The static SecondaryStructures are ambiguities in the 24 concerns:
The dynamic SecondaryStructures are shifts in ambiguities:
Thus from values (taking a stand) to endeavors (following through) to questions (reflection). This defines the implicit threesome (subjective aloneness) as explicit structure (objective God) - as shifts among ambiguities of the concerns. Ambiguity is a way to capture, to express what is beyond system.
God is identified with a single concern, beyond system, from an outer level. The Goodness is defines within the complex of responses. God and good are thereby linked structurally.
Representations: We associate the good with the whole. Good is in good will. It is the good will that we show. It opens up the way for goodness.
Topologies: The good is both in us (good will) and in God (good heart). It is the good of God as isolated within one of four planes as one of three modes. We associate the good with the part. It is the good will that we speak to through the ways of getting things done. X (the good whole) = good God, gift, quality, Y (the good part) = good person, deed, word. Where is the good X in the good Y? topologies are narrowing down where exactly is the good. They are narrowing it down to a particular part, one of three. In this way, they isolate that particular part, allow us to consider it distinct from the others. Also, to do this, its good must be with regard to a particular plane, one of four, that it is attributing the good to. Hence the good is both in the plane and in the part, whence it is indeed slack, good. And that plane must be considered from either God's or a person's point of view, as possible. Topologies have to do with decreasing slack, with reducing good to zero. This leaves structure, the part. Topologies: The perspective (God's - the whole) see A perspective (ours - the part). The whole (whatever is the direction of the good) gets mapped to the representation of the nullsome, and accordingly, the part gets mapped to a topology. Here good gets reduced to zero. (the perspective) good God (the direction of the good) gets understood as good + whole, and when the good gets sent to null, we have the whole become a representation of the nullsome. And then accordingly, (a perspective) for good person, deed, word, we have that it's understood as good + part, and as the good goes away, we are left with a topology, and they can be understood collectively as a representation of the threesome.
- To Isolating from isolated is the good (quality) of decreasing slack, the good from an ObservationalPlane, of the need for Freedom - frightened:confront.
- To Could be doing from are doing is the good (word) of increasing slack, the good from an Observer, the need for Security - disgusted:make yourself heard.
- To Willingness to change from unwillingness to change is the good (God) of why, the good from Everything, the Social need - sad:renew.
- To Inner adherence from outer adherence is the good (person) of how, the good from Anything, the need for SelfFulfillment - content:delegate.
- To what they will achieve from what they can achieve is the good (deed) of what, the good from Something, the need for SelfEsteem - excited:initiate.
- To inertia from interest is the good (gift) of whether, the good from Nothing, the need for Survival - surprised:articulate.
Note that each Concern may be thought of as what (Good) might signify God.
The Omniscope introduces a concern; the PrimaryStructures introduce a twofold response; the SecondaryStructure introduce a maker, chooser for that response. A maker-chooser-interpreter, a Perspective, is what is needed to make sense to an Other.
There is a shared link between God and Good, beyond system and within system; what is variable and what is fixed; the RepresentationOfTheNullsome and the RepresentationOfTheOnesome. See the QualitiesOfSigns.
SecondaryStructures allow for Other when we choose EternalLife over Life; and thereby do not identify with our Self as the unity of God and Good, but allow for their distinction, so that Good is an option beyond system, and is localized within System.
Other is NotAlone, by Definition.
How does LoveYourNeighborAsYourself relate to the SeventhPerspective? Jesus in the Sermon of the Mount provides antitheses:
And I related these to the ExpressionsOfTheWill which I took to be the six injections, the SeventhPerspectives, gotten by embedding God of a higher level into the PrimaryStruture of a lower level.
- be unconditional, rather than consistent
- save, rather than blame
- take a stand, rather than convince
- satisfy, rather than account
- be one with, rather than accomodate
- be at peace with, rather than condemn
This is the structure for the LostChild who goes where their parents will find them.
- Killing = forcing to suffer.
- Adultery = forcing to love.
- Stealing = forcing to rely on.
- Lying = forcing to believe.
- Coveting people = forcing to be uptight.
- Coveting things = forcing to get engrossed.
End of Structure
What concepts can mean, signify Other? We can't subjectively take up Other because they are apart from us. Other's meaning is with God and need not be accessible. Thus there is objectively no way to signify Other, but only subjectively, to take Other as given, as the reference point, in which case Other is - because of lack of structure - reinterpreted as You, as I, as God.
Growth of Freedom
Love clarifies Freedom so that it has just what it needs, it has null scope (Nothing), and because Freedom cares only about what is within Scope, then it has no Scope, just as God has no Scope being beyond Scope. In this way we (as Other) are one with God through Love, by being within null Scope or being beyond Scope, we coincide. And I and You by their behavior support the oneness of God and Other and are likewise one.
God (as Definition) ever seeks to be not God, not alone, which is to say, being both alone and not alone. Person ever arises as that second half which is not alone but takes itself to be alone by and in Scope which separates being not alone from being alone.
BeingOneWith is how being alone and being not alone are the same. God arises in Other as the distinction between God and Self where there is no distinction between these two (for the Scope is Nothing and Other is the same as his Perspective) except for that very distinction!
- God goes beyond himself and thus acknowledges himself and is not alone, but with his self, which goes in the opposite direction, within himself.
- I – this opposite direction – then considers itself alone (in Anything). Except that God arises in I as not alone when it acknowledges You which ever greets I as I travels, as its opposite.
- You – the partial direction – then considers itself alone (in Something). Except that God arises in You as not alone when it is separated from I by Other.
- Other – the lack of connection – then considers itself alone (in Nothing). Except that God arises in Other as not alone through the being one with of all.
Unity through God over Self
As structure unfolds, ultimately, God is a Person just like I, You, Other, and God beyond System is equivalent to God within System, inasmuch as the latter chooses God over Self. In this way, the System collapses.
If Structure is not a required concept, then it is possible to choose between unstructured God (beyond System) and structured Self (within System) as the reference one identifies with. This starts with Other - in structure - and expands from there to include You, I and God. This corresponds to an expansion of Truth from hard to soft.
How do those grounded relatively develop an absolute relationship through an appeal to an absolute ground?
If Other exists in theory, then we are one with Other in Theory. If Other exists in practice, then there is a practical way to be one with Other. This is the argument by which we all come together.
When Person is one with God and also one with Other by recentering around them in anticipation of them and acknowledging their freedom, then we are all One. God is God within Other and Person is God beyond Other and they are acting as one. God opens up life for us by his Love, and that life is the reference point for EternalLife. As we live with all our might, this distinguishes the behavior, the logic of our Self and of God. God lies within us and goes beyond himself into himself beyond us. Thus in understanding ourselves we go beyond ourselves and understand God. By understanding Other we also understand You and I, thus ourselves. For You is relationship with one's "self beyond system" and I is relationship with one's "self within system". God is, in the beginning, without self, and Other is ultimately without self for Other completely coincides with their self. In understanding one's self we distinguish self from God and distinguish all Persons and reveal and recognize God who extends beyond them.
Person is free to identify (with Self) as God or (with God) as not God. Person is being God upon choosing to identify with NotGod. Person's freedom is interfered with only by redefining the meaning of “being” (what is defined and what is known) by altering its scope. God ever restores Person's freedom by showing himself relevant in any meaning.
We are one, in our profoundest variety, through our shared necessity.
Each Person brings a new understanding of Separation (the negation of both God and Everything, Property by Property) and of All, until all of God's properties and Everything's properties are negated. Structure identifies us (Who) ever more with our selves (What) – Activity, VantagePoint, Position, Perspective – has us all take up our perspectives – until we have Unity, so that with Other, the most complete form of separation, they are to all the same. Other may acknowledge God's will that Love does not have to be Perfect. Other is then both alone and not alone. NotGod is then not necessary. The Truth with regard to Freedom, Experiencing, Understanding, has the System collapse. This turns the direction around, from Other back to God, from being separate to BeingOneWith. Scopes collapse and Scope along with them. Persons collapse, but Person persists for it is rooted beyond System. God's Self, Everything, collapses along with all that is attached to it, including NonBeing. God is Not God, BeingOneWith is NotBeingOneWith. God assumes (knows) all and is assumed (defined) by all. God is everyone, all are BeingOneWith. We are one with God because of who he is, not what he is. God is who he is.
Each Person, in being alone, shows that we are all BeingOneWith, we are all one in God. It is God who is alone. Whoever is alone is one with God, alone as God.
Structure (and the properties of God) distinguishes Person and their Self until with Other they are the same. AntiStructure (and the properties of Everything) equate a Person with one of the properties of Self (Perspective, Position, VantagePoint, Activity) and each of these equations shows the limits of a Person, that there is inherent in them a greater Person with a greater equation, until there is God. All may live as God, as children of God. Thus God is inherent in all and greater than all, the God of all.
The Facts are the success of NotGod by Knowledge to circumscribe God. The Facts are what we are not, the Selves by which we are not alone, which we Persons encounter as our Structure, what we know about the conditions on our Perspectives.
The Theory is the success of God by Definition to circumscribe NotGod. The Theory is what we are, that by which we are alone, without Selves, the Activity of being alone (our going beyond ourselves) by which we maintain our Position and are thereby defined as Persons in Scopes:
Note that Truth is a subject and Freedom is a quality whereas Experiencing and Understanding are both verbs.
- God is Who.
- Who is that which is beyond any limits. (Participant, Essence)
- Everything is what has no limits.
- Everything is Not Who, for Who can take up limits.
- God is alone. (Who is Not What).
- Assumption is What. (Attribute, Property, Quality, Manifest)
- Aloneness is Not What, the lack of assumptions, yet it is an assumption.
- Being is What is assumed.
- NotBeing is What is not assumed.
- Theory (Logos)("God is alone") is Who into What, God's going beyond himself.
- Person is Who in What.
- Scope is NotWhat for NotWho, Aloneness for Assumption, the degree of separation. (Context, Facts, "Aloneness is God")
- Relationship is the extent that Who reaches out: What Who assumes (knows).
- Self is the limits that Who has reached: What assumes (defines) Who.
- System is circumscription, the extent of assumptions, the zone of distinction.
- Negation is an assumption about system, the distinction of assumption and not assumption.
- Questions are decreasing assumptions.
- Answers are increasing assumptions.
- TotalStructure is the sum of assumptions, thus God with regard to Scope.
- NullActivity is the lack of assumptions, thus Aloneness with regard to Scope.
- Knowledge is the establishing of Person, the circumscription of Who in terms of What they assume, the negation of an assumption about Who. (Negation of Representations of Nullsome (Significant, Constant, Direct, True))
- Definition is the establishing of Scope and thus the distinction of the who knows (and applies definition) and the one who is known (and to whom the definition is applied) so that they may be the same or different, the circumscription of NotWho in terms of NotWhat that assumes them, the negation of an assumption about Not Who. (Negation of Representations of Onesome) (Creation)
- Level is the condition for negation, the definition of NotWho, so that one may or may not be assumed, the degree of separation that defines the vantage point and the meaning of All, from BeingOneWith to BeingAlone, the sustaining of the paradox that Person may not assume their own ground, the Self (Activity, VantagePoint, Position, Perspective) that assumes them.
- Spirit (Activity, Who is not assumed) is the Who of Person, God's vantage point of Everything (NotGod), from outside of system.
- Structure (VantagePoint, What is not assumed) is the What of Person, I's vantage point of Anything (NotI), from outside of system looking in.
- Representation (Position, What is assumed) is the What of Scope, You's vantage point of Something (NotYou), from inside of system looking out.
- Unity (Perspective, Who is assumed) is the Who of Scope, Other's vantage point of Nothing (NotOther), from inside of system.
- BeingOneWith is the assumption of Who:
The ultimate definitions, in terms of Unity and Love, are the SecondaryStructures which relate the levels. They relate what changes and what stays the same in Definitions. They thus make being alone explicit with regard to different scopes:
- Topologies: "God is necessary" is a topology that God's manifestation and essence are one and the same ("I am what I am"), whereas actuality is that manifestation and essence are different, and possibility is that manifestation and essence are linked. God's necessity is that by which Other's Perspective and Position are the same, and through which we are all BeingOneWith.
- Representations: The representations give the levels of necessity in terms of four levels of definition and a level each of pre-definition and post-definition.
- Division: Each level of necessity is structured by a division of everything which may be positive (defined by the perspectives inside everything: division into one, two, three or four perspectives) or negative (defined by the "missing perspectives" outside everything which assume Self as the context: division into five (missing three - TripleSelf), six (missing two - DoubleSelf), seven (missing one - SingleSelf), eight (missing none - LackOfSelf)).
- Argumentation: Units for learning, and God and our deepest values and investigatory questions.
- Verbalization: God's necessity is transformed by way of all the topologies as shifts in vantage point until it is present in Other's three-cycle of be, do, think.
- Narration: We shift between I, You and Other, or between God and Other, yielding a division, a positive or negative structuring of necessity.
Why are there Persons?
Why is there Person?
Person is God in Not God, Who in Not Who, Everyone in Everything.
For God, being assumed or not is the same, they are just words, and he needs no reference for them, for he can be alone. But God is moved by the question, Is God necessary? Would God be assumed even if he wasn't? This leads to two tracks of argument:
Therefore suppose that God is not, and consider whether God must yet arise even so.
Can there be not aloneness? That would be isolation/togetherness in which we are not completely being one with and not completely separated. Yet ultimately such togetherness must imply that either (and both) we are alone because we are completely separate (BeingAlone), and we are alone because we are completely together (BeingOneWith). A Person's unrealized potential is what muddles this distinction. Everything unfolds through the allowing of such potential which is fulfilled through the clarification of the preference of God over Self. God's potential unfolds as necessary (for I through Anything), actual (for you through Something) and possible (for Other through Nothing).
In going beyond himself, God arises directly, God in NotGod, but also establishes a NotGod and a potential for God that are prior to his arisal. In order to allow for NotGod, he must keep clarifying the extent to which that potential for God is indeed God or NotGod, and thus he keeps removing himself as if he were an impurity.
God's going beyond himself (Theory, Logos) is prior to definition for it is his activity with respect to himself. But God's arising, his relationship with regard to NotGod, is a matter of Definition, for then we have Person (God in NotGod) who is defined with respect to NotGod by negation of negation - negating a property of Everything (NotGod).
There is Definition of BeingAlone so that there can be Persons who are alone in Scope, thus for whom Self and God are distinct, and must choose between God's being and not being.
Not assuming means that there is a choice (Freedom) as with Person's choice of self (NotGod) or God.
Person is God's Knowledge. Scope is Everything's Definition. Definition is the placing of God in ever less rigid Scope. There is Definition – negation of properties of being not alone – so that there can be Knowledge – negation of properties of being alone.
God (alone) takes up the question of his nonexistence by GoingBeyondOneself. Person likewise can go beyond himself but from within scope by choosing God over self. This is because only for God is that God and self are the same.
Assumption of God and nonassumption of God are the same possibility as long as they don't interfere with each other. And they could interfere only if they were imposed upon a Person to be alone in Scope, to be that Person. They are imposed by setting Who is Not What and What is Not Who. Thus the Freedom of a Person (to assume or not God, who is beyond Scope) is the foundation for God's necessity.
Person (definition of God) allows for NotGod's point of view. NotGod's point of view is manifest negatively, as the negation of what is beyond it, thus as definition, whereas God's point of view is manifest positively, of itself. NotGod's point of view is therefore unstable, because it shifts with God's arisal, and so there are Levels of Definition of God (of Necessity), and a vantage point for each, given negatively (as absence) by Scope and positively (as presence) by Person. The levels give the Scope, which is the difference between NotGod and God, and the Person, with regard to whom that difference is defined.
God creates System.
We know system (as God's not being within) and we define system (as God's being beyond).
Why are there several Persons?
God can be “in” Not God in ever smaller Scopes yielding different Persons. Each of these Persons defines God differently. Person is Definition of God.
As God arises, NotGod is ever redefined, thus changing Scope and Person. Each level arises:
EternalLife is the separation (beyond the system) of God and Good, whereas Life is the identification of God and Good (within the System). (This is also the relationship of "step out" and "step in"). When God and Good are separate it means that God has gone beyond himself. But if God and Good are identified, then there is no going beyond oneself, where God coincides with himself. Thus:
But this is in conflict with God's nonexistence! For God not to be he is:
These two are in conflict, thus (NullActivity in Structure) his existence must ever be rejected. NullActivity is unreality.
- God coinciding with himself = God not going beyond himself = God is within the System.
In the case of Activity beyond TotalStructure, God's activity is outside of TotalStructure, and thus in rejecting his activity, there is a new, smaller Scope, because the TotalStructure is the smallest possible all encompassing Scope.
What does it mean to not assume God? When there is system, then it can mean:
These two are in conflict. If A, then what is there to negate in B? So B must be reinterpreted. If B, then the TotalStructure can be replaced with a smaller Structure, so A must be reinterpreted. So the meaning keeps shifting until it runs out.
How are Persons the same?
Threefold participation of God
Each level has God participate in three ways:
Thus there is a clear Definition and choice for Person as to whether they are alone as an individual (BeingAlone) or alone as a collective (BeingOneWith). There is a clear relationship as to whether a Person is connected with God or not, and a flickering between them. If there is not such a clear relationship, then God is in question. Scope is the muddling of that relationship by relating or not with exceptions or not.
How are Facts and Theory related by Truth, Experiencing, Understanding?
The various expressions of NotBeing can be thought of as the removal of the "BeingOneWith outside the system" (God, Everything, Wishes, Love) from "BeingOneWith inside the system" (Good, Slack, Coinciding, Perfection). This would mean that BeingOneWith (what holds the qualities together, and thus what allows for there to be being at all) takes place inside the system and not outside, which is to say, there can be a NotBeing of God that is distinct from his Being. For example, Everything arises as Good without God; Wishes arise as Slack without Everything (in this latter case note that Wishes need not be contained, and so we have removed the container, Everything).
Everything is beyond God, and Nothing is beyond us, thus we are together in Everything.
Person's Freedom is defined with regard to God. Person is free to assume God or not, to assume I or not, to assume You or not, to assume Other or not. Thus Person assumes less than God. God is within Person as the ultimate purpose of Freedom and Love. Through Love we are one in the purposefulness of Freedom.
What are the different Persons?
Self is the Manifestation by which Person exists or not
Nonexistence manifests itself in different ways:
Scope is between God within and beyond Definition
Freedom is the interchangeability of Self and God (who takes up Person's Self, either directly or as Person). Person (God in NotGod) assumes God, but Self does not. Freedom is that God may or may not be assumed, thus God may be chosen or not over Self.
Scope is the extent of Freedom and thus the degree to which God inside and God beyond are linked: linked, linked with exceptions, not linked with expections, not linked.
God is defined as Truth in terms of the scope of his activity:
The Definition of God is the assumption of God which is the identification of God within and beyond assumption.
The Definition of NotGod is the nonassumption of God (or the assumption of not God ?), the nonidentification of God within and beyond assumption.
God understands (as God's VantagePoint “God is alone”), is understanding (as God's Position “God is alone”), and is understood (as God's Perspective “God is alone”).
God and NotGod are alongside each other – for a Person - when we specify the nature of the identification and nonidentification. The Person thereby interferes with God and NotGod. This interference is the assumption of Person's interference and thus the negation of some property of God and some property of NotGod. Knowledge is negating a property of God (negating TotalStructure from within), and Definition is negating a property of Everything (negating NullActivity from beyond). Here negating means disconnecting, for example, God within and God beyond. Scope is where that connection (BeingOneWith) or disconnection (NotBeingOneWith) takes place.
Definitions are in terms of nonbeing:
Knowledge is in terms of:
Definition of God based on Scope of Activity
- Why = knowledge of not being, of Everything
- How = knowledge of not having qualities, of Anything
- What = knowledge of qualities, of Something
- Whether = knowledge of being, of Nothing
Scope is narrowed by contexts upon contexts that ever more tightly focus his activity into himself. This is the successive denial of God, the making explicit of NotGod and the reappearence of God in NotGod.
God here is that aspect of God which is present for Person despite the nonassumption of God.
From the context of God, and thus Not, disparately, God in terms of God's BeingOneWith, God speaks the Scope as Truth (vantage point) from beyond:
With the Divisions, God's vantage point is both within the System as one vantage point, one truth among several, but also God's vantage point is the one that surveys all of them (as the truth), as given by the operation PlusOne. Therefore the coinciding of God's NotBeingOneWith (within system) and BeingOneWith (beyond system) is explicit through Other. With the Divisions, God within us is the Whole, and the choice of God beyond us is one of the Parts, thus explicitly inverting what is within and what is beyond.
Truth goes beyond itself into Scope, from God to NotGod
God is, as such. God is alone from “is” (the relation), from being, alone from all relationships, and thus a referent for all relation, for all context. God is prior to all. “God is alone” is God's vantage point, God's context, God's point of reference, God as I, the fact that God is alone. God is detached. All unfolds from God as his knowledge.
God is God, thus God is alone from God (the subject). God goes beyond himself into himself. “God is alone” stands as a statement (word, Theory, Logos) that is true under any circumstances, thus without God. It is God's Position, God's context within context, God as You, God's activity “Am I truly alone?” which cleaves question and answer as distinct contexts, outer question and inner answer. God is absolutely alone.
God is the one who is alone, thus God is alone from aloneness (the predicate). God is BeingOneWith every God. “God is alone” is God's Perspective, God's context within context within context, God as Other, which defines God explicitly. “Would I be God if I was not God?” Aloneness ever removes aloneness. God's presence is God's absence, God's absence is God's presence, and thus God's perspective is ever available to every Person, every God in NotGod, as the choice of God's Perspective over one's own Self's Perspective. God is NotGod by being not alone but alongside Self as this choice to center oneself with regard to one's own Scope or not. God is NotGod.
In what sense can there be NotGod without God? What is NotGod? God is Truth and NotGod is NotTruth. Truth is vantage point, what is obvious.
Truth and Caring are akin to sensing and responding.
The smaller the scope, the harder the truth, the more knowledge it requires. And the standard for truth changes depending on which Person it is for. So my own logical powers are sufficient for my own truth, but as I want to relate to others, I must be more explicit and relevant to their situation.
- God's truth = Spirit of Truth = God = NotEverything = about everything - All statements are true. ("Every medicine has a purpose.") Within Scope. NotTruth and Truth are the same. What is significant.
- my truth = Structure of Truth = Everything = NotAnything = about anything - Must be able to connect the assumption with the conclusion. ("Any medicine has a purpose.") Scoped. What is constant.
- your truth = Representations of Truth = Wishing = NotSomething = about something - Must be able to connect the scoped assumption with the scoped conclusion. ("Some medicine has a purpose.") Scope upon Scope. What is direct.
- other's truth = Unity of Truth = Love = NotNothing = about nothing - Must be able to connect all scoped assumptions with all scoped conclusions. ("No medicine has its purpose.") Beyond Scope. What is true.
Truth (the unhidable, the obvious) is the connection of assumption and conclusion (ground and extent). Scope is the conditions on the Truth, on that connection. Person is live connection. When we speak to Other (who we don't know), we speak to their inner model, we connect the outer model with their inner model, but they are what link the two. We speak to the God within them.
NotTruth is Knowledge (the hidden, the whether, and more generally, knowledge), the separation of assumption and conclusion (separated by "knowledge"), and thus Structure presumed for Person. NotTruth (as Structure, Knowledge) is compatible with Truth and turns to Truth and in that sense they are the same.
Note that qualities (of God=Truth or of NotGod=NotTruth=Everything) make sense with regard to a shared frame, thus the crossing into the system, the distinction of within and beyond system, as with I and You, but not with God (beyond) or Other (within).
- NotTruth for God is that truth and nontruth are the same, "absolute truth".
- NotTruth for I is "my truth".
- NotTruth for You is "the truth", intersubjectively, "objectively".
- NotTruth for Other is "truth", explicit self-check of internal model.
We keep considering what is prior to God's arisal? and in what sense is that God? By way of Freedom, the free will of Person by which God's potential is there in I, You, Other. Person knows God in the context of NotGod, which keeps changing:
Conditional lack of necessity is the nonexistence in some Scope = under some Conditions = of some Quality. Person arises in these conditions and then Person freely prefers God to himself, subjects himself to God, which overcomes the shift by NotGod away from God.
Everything as NotGod is a common reference point for all Persons. Similarly, Love as God is a common reference point for all Persons.
Choice of God over Self is the Choice of the Application of the Definition of God
The different Definitions of God are, from the context of Person, and thus Goodness, sequentially, God in terms of God's NotBeingOneWith, the Person (God in NotGod) he speaks to as the Goodness within them:
Person, through God (NullActivity), distinguishes themselves (Experiencing) from their Assumptions (Freedom). Freedom lets us tell Person and Self apart by allowing God to take up Person's Self.
Thereby we bring up God in the Person. And similarly we relate to each other, taking up positions and perspectives.
The Structures are the Self which is NotGod, the alternative to God.
Structure defines NotGod, which for Person expresses necessity.
These are the ways that Person (God in NotGod) can be separated from God, especially in the sense of Person's freedom, by which they are prior to God.
By this progression, a loving God cares about the nonsense of Other that doesn't even exist.
- Everything is a context for all that exists (for God, everything is assumed, as everything is rooted in God)
- Omniscope is a context for the properties of all that exist (for I, all is assumed unless it isn't – by Questions)
- PrimaryStructures are contexts for the properties of all that does not exist (for You, nothing is assumed unless it is – by Answers)
- SecondaryStructures are contexts for all that does not exist (for Other, nothing exists, as nothing is rooted in Other)
Truth's activity overcomes Self and chooses God
These are pairs of levels as given by the SecondaryStuctures and the QualitiesOfSigns. There are also:
These properties are "being one with" each other, and that can take place through God's being (as with God) or through his not being (as with Everything).
Each PropertyOfGod is the equivalence of essence and manifestation within a Scope. Person sees God through a PropertyOfGod. Each PropertyOfGod is defined from a Person's vantage point. Person acknowledges God's arisal (through the PropertyOfGod) within the system.
How we progress through the levels...
Negating God by negating his properties, which then requires NotGod's properties, ultimately negating NotGod.
To negate God is to negate his quality (significant) and thus establish knowledge (why) of his "not being". But the scope of this knowledge is Everything, which is distinguished by the corresponding quality that it has "no external context". Then "not being" itself is identified with such an external context which is beyond the scope of "not being" and thus is. This is to say that "not being" is God.
Therefore we must negate the quality of Everything that it has no external context. Thus we allow for contexts and rephrase this matter as the negation of God by way of the negation of I and their quality (constant) and thus establish knowledge (how) of his "not having qualities" of God. The scope of this knowledge is Anything, which is distinguished by the corresponding quality that it has "no filter", as it is the simplest algorithm, the one which accepts all things. Then "not having qualities" is itself identified with that where all things comes from and which is beyond the scope of "not having qualities" and so is a quality of God and I. This is structured by the Omniscope.
Therefore we must negate the quality of Everything and Anything that it has no filter. We allow for filters and rephrase this matter as the negation of God and I by way of the negation of You and their quality (direct) and thus establish knowledge (what) of his "having qualities" of NotGod. The scope of this knowledge is Something, which is distinguished by the corresponding quality that it has "no internal structure". Then having qualities of NotGod is identified with that which is prior to structure and which is beyond the scope of "having qualities" and applies to God and I and You. This is structured by the Primary Structures.
Therefore we must negate the quality of Everything, Anything and Something that it has no internal structure. We allow for internal structure and rephrase this matter as the negation of Person by way of the negation of Other and their quality (true) and thus establish knowledge (whether) of his "being" NotGod. The scope of this knowledge is Nothing, which is distinguished by the corresponding quality that it "is not a required concept". Then being Not God is identified with that which is prior to requirement and which is beyond the scope of "being" and so applies to all persons. This is structured by the Secondary Structures.
Therefore we must negate the quality of Persons that it is a required concept... The lack of necessity of God's being is only there where God already is.
The transformation of God's necessity.
God asks Is God necessary? Does God exist even when he doesn't exist? God is necessary if:
Thus God is necessary for I through Anything, actual for You through Something, possible for Other through Nothing.
This argument gets transformed as the Vantage changes.
God is necessary through I.
I asks Is God many? (Alone-in-parallel)
God is many through You.
You asks Is God process?
God is Subject through Other.
Other asks Is God being, doing, thinking?
God is Being, Doing, Thinking through All. God is All for All.
- Cyclic answer - this is where the final answer is given - through the cyclicity
Here at this final transformation there is no difference between asking the question (is being?) and the answer (being is).
Person's potential unfolds as Persons
The unfolding of Structure is the transformation of Freedom of a Person to assume God and not. This growth of Freedom is through Understanding and it is supported by Love. Love is the willingness to completely localize in the Scope of Nothing that God is not yet may be.
Each PropertyOfGod is defined from a vantage point, from a Person's view. This explains the levels of the PrinciplesOfLife, how to understand the movement of a perspective with regard to the frame where everything is, with the perspective moving from completely outside the frame (the outer frame) to completely inside the frame (the inner frame). Note that Significance is outside of the Be-Do-Think cycle whereas Constancy is inside and satisfies it. Constancy then yields the One-All-Many game which Direct is inside of Many and satisfies that relationship. Direct yields the Object-Process-Subject game and Truth is inside of Subject and satisfies that relationship. Truth yields the Necessary-Actual-Possible game and perhaps if anything is inside of Truth and satisfies that relationship then it must be God and so God is Necessary, Actual and Possible.
Can a Person be distinct from God? The point of decision moves from God to I to You to Other. If God cares about the world, system, self, then I decides. If I care about this, then You decide. If You care, then Other decides. If Other cares, then God is present throughout the world. Understanding means that the one who understands (God) and the who comes to understand (Person) both understand the same thing, thus they coincide.
NotBeing expresses itself as a quality in a scope (Omniscope), then as a particular quality/scope (PrimaryStructures), then as in between scopes (and note there are six pairs of scopes and they give the SecondaryStructures).
Note Joyce's/Aquinas's thoughts about the phases of beauty:
He also notes the lyrical form (related to oneself), the epic form (related to oneself and others), the dramatic form (related to others).
- appreciating the whole
- appreciating the inner harmony
- appreciating the transcendence of that harmony (but Joyce says, apprehending that it is that thing and no other thing, the “whatness” that Aquinas speaks of)
Within each manifestation of BeingOneWith is the further essence (what is necessary) of BeingAlone:
where Perspective is what is necessary in Position, and for Other they are the same, thus the manifestation is complete. This is to say that Structure is perfectly and completely defined in terms of Perspectives of Other, which may also be taken as our shared Position. Here Position is BeingAlone and Perspective is Person, the Potential of BeingAlone, and for Other they are the same. Note that "with respect" can mean "within" for Freedom, "outside of" for Truth, "stepping into" for Experiencing, "stepping out of" for Understanding.
What are the details of the structures?
Everything is defined by GoingBeyondOneself which assumes Good.
Everything is God's LackOfSelf and he goes beyond that by GoingBeyondOneself into his self.
The Omniscope, the Single Self, is a view, a shift from what is not - the ObservationalPlane (the Scope which lets through all, any, a or no perspectives) - to what is - the Observer (the Person).
The Omniscope is SingleSelf, the I's self, which defines I in the scope of Anything. Diverging is how I goes beyond the SingleSelf, by pulling away from one's Perspective.
The Omniscope is defined by Divergences which assume Slack. The Omniscope matches God and I by taking as its reference God beyond the system and with regard to that considering the various degrees of system as one looks into the system from outside it. My divergence is with reference to the system and so takes place (is defined as cohesiveness) at one of four points. Each of these expresses from a different context, what does it mean to be beyond the system? as one Divergence among several
Each Divergence is the more or less explicit expression within system of the four levels referenced from beyond system.
- beyond the system (onefold divergence - God: I), a onefold choice "I" as to What is meant by "I"? (as God) no perspectives
- not within the system (twofold divergence - everything: know/apply), a twofold choice "know everything" (beyond system) and "apply everything" as to What is meant by "view"? (as everything) one perspective
- not beyond the system (threefold divergence - wish), a threefold choice "having a wish", "fulfilling the wish" and "allowing for a wish" (beyond system) as to What is meant by "wish"? (as wishes) two perspectives
- within the system (fourfold divergence - unity: and), a fourfold choice, four meanings for the conjunction "and" based on how much system it presumes, and answering What is meant by "and", where is this conjunction taking place? (as love) three perspectives
- beyond system - beyond expression and unexpressed (Spirit)
- not within system - beyond expression and expressed (Structure)
- not beyond system - within expression and expressed (Representation)
- within system - within expression and unexpressed. (Unity)
PrimaryStructures are the DoubleSelf, the You's self, which defines You in the scope of Something. You goes beyond the DoubleSelf by distinguishing, by either being without perspective, or taking up the perspective of another.
The DoubleSelf is us and those who look through us. Others view themselves through our eyes, they may be the same as us.
PrimaryStructures are defined by Distinctions which assume Coinciding. PrimaryStructures match God (and I) with You. They meet I which looks in from beyond the system with You which looks out from within the system.
- Nullfold distinction (no perspectives) - within the system - your nature presumes you
- Onefold distinction (one perspective) - not beyond the system - you channel your nature
- Twofold distinction (two perspectives) - not within the system - your nature is a part of you (thus you may be separate or together)
- Fourfold distinction (four perspectives) - beyond the system - you and your nature go beyond each other. No ambiguity, explicit.
- You is Self-sufficient (coincidal with Other), Wishes for Nothing, what is beyond everything: The OperatingPrinciples in response to Needs (Not You) allow other to coincide and to coincide with other. They allow us to see (life) through God's eyes, and be seen through his eyes (eternal life) - but this is the God who lies within us, as Other, beyond the system, related to us by the fourfold distinction (Is). (God/NotGod as Self-sufficient is in the distinction between ourselves in particular and others in general, directly (physically) and represented (mentally)). God identifies with us through no perspectives. Person lives on behalf of another.
- You is Certain (coincidal with You), Wishes for Something, what is beyond anything: The Counterquestions in response to Doubts (Not You) allow you to coincide and to coincide with you. They allow us to see through another's eyes (anything), and be seen through their eyes (wisdom) - but this is the other within us, as You, not within the system, related to us by the twofold distinction (Seems). (God/NotGod as Certain is in the distinction between Perspective and its Situation.) God identifies with us through one perspective. Person reaches out to live on behalf of another.
- You is Calm (coincidal with I), Wishes for Anything, what is beyond something: The DirectionsToTheGood in response to Expectations (Not You) allow me to coincide and to coincide with me. They allow us to see (choosing) through another's eyes, and be seen (good will) through their eyes - this is the other beyond us, as I, not beyond the system, related to us by the onefold distinction (Ought). (God/NotGod as Calm is in the suspense that there is an expectation but not yet resolved so there is a channel for him). God identifies with us through two perspectives. Person reaches out for God's primacy.
- You is Loving (coincidal with God), Wishes for Everything, what is beyond nothing: The life choices (the EightfoldWay) in response to Trials (Not You) allow God to coincide and to coincide with God. They allow us to see (will) through God's eyes, and be seen (God's will) through his eyes - this is God beyond us, as God, within the system, related to us by the nullfold distinction (Chooses). (God/NotGod as Loving is in the collapsing fact that we both are and are not in touch with God.) God identifies with us through three perspectives. Person accepts God's primacy.
SecondaryStructures are the TripleSelf, the Other's self, which defines Other in the scope of Nothing. Other goes beyond the TripleSelf by dividing a whole into perspectives and identifying one perspective with the whole (God's necessary perspective) and also identifying an actual perspective-in-particular (my and your perspective) with a possible perspective-in-general (Other's perspective).
The TripleSelf is that we view ourselves through the eyes of others. They are different from us. This allows for self-standing perspectives which can be composed. Other is the Person for whom we can have empathy in general.
SecondaryStructures are defined by Divisions which assume Perfection. SecondaryStructures match God (and I and You) with Other by mirroring God beyond system with Other within system. SecondaryStructures identify that which is beyond the system with part of the system as the Nothing that separates the two:
What is alone matters (Argumentation), has meaning (Verbalization), happens (Narration). Thus language has self-standing units which as such express aloneness. Languages perhaps express aloneness without God, whereas Divisions, Representations, Topologies express aloneness with God, as a lone perspective (Topology), lone whole (Representation), lone relation between the two (Division).
The Nothing can be both the RepresentationOfTheNullsome and the RepresentationOfTheOnesome as united by the QualitiesOfSigns.
Divisions are the bringing side by side of these two domains of Love and Understanding as two perspectives in one system, so that going beyond oneself is a shift in perspective. God thereby is able to go entirely into system and be with us, understand us, empathize with us and love us. And we can love along with him for we have this freedom.
God is in Everything and is thus accessible to all in their Scope. For Everything is defined with regard to Person. A Person can come to understanding with another Person through Everything. God is beyond Persons. If I Love with all of my heart, then by my Person God will be in Anything and by You in Something and by Other in Nothing and we will all be one as Persons with God beyond Persons.
Language is how we understand each other, how we have GoodUnderstanding, which is through God, through Truth. By speaking responsibly, accountably we speak Truth, each in his own Scope, and we respect the Truth of each Person, for God is Truth. Freedom arises from Truth, but not the other way around. Therefore hold to truth and you will be free in all things to understand everyone and to welcome to us through all of our Love.
Are there ever more Persons?
If Other exists in theory, then we are one with Other in Theory. If Other exists in practice, then there is a practical way to be one with Other. This is the argument by which we all come together.
As Structure unfolds, each Person brings a new understanding of Separation (the negation of both God and Everything, Property by Property) and of All, until all of God's properties and Everything's properties are negated. Structure identifies us (Who) ever more with our selves (What) – Activity, VantagePoint, Position, Perspective – has us all take up our perspectives - until with Other, the most complete form of separation, they are to all the same. We then have Unity, where we take up each other, directly and through each other, thus giving up ourselves by taking up others, thereby going beyond ourselves, our system. Other goes directly into themselves by dividing. Other may acknowledge God's will that Love does not have to be Perfect. Other is then both alone and not alone. NotGod, NotBeing is then not necessary. The Truth with regard to Freedom, Experiencing, Understanding, has the System collapse. This turns the direction around, from Other back to God, from being separate to BeingOneWith. All Persons and all Scopes collapse. Scope collapses, but Person persists for it is rooted beyond the system and moves outside of it. For Scope depends on properties, on the distinction of assumption and nonassumption, but there can be Person without Persons. God' Self, Everything, collapses along with all that is attached to it, including NonBeing. God and Not God are the same; NotBeing, NotBeingOneWith and BeingOneWith are the same in the Divisions; Activity and Structure are the same. God is everyone, all are BeingOneWith, we all coincide with God, we understand All in terms of All. We are one with God because of who he is. God is who he is.