The Significance of an Algebra of Views

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

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

Current priorities

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

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

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

Same and Different

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

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

The Algebra of Views & The Big Picture

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

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

4) 5) 6) Therefore a new outlook awakens and finds itself as such within the structural situation unfolded by the original outlook. We may think of this as a "godlet" which may not be God, but is otherwise in the situation of God. There is now a disconnect between Structure and Activity. Structure may or may not channel activity. Activity may or may not evoke structure. The feedback between structure and activity may be thought of as an operation +2: the evoking of structure is linked to the arisal of activity. We may think of the godlet as a perturbation that opens up angles: Representations upon the whole, and Topologies from out of the parts. I think that this is where the "algebra of views" is defined. The give and take between activity and structure introduces a slack which allows one to take up a perspective, thus integrating whole and parts.

7) Then the new outlook comes to understand itself with regard to the original outlook as a perturbation of an ideal outlook that links both outlooks. All three outlooks are characterized by their three-cycles: taking a stand, following through, reflecting. And these rotations may be thought of as an operation +3. I think here is where the dynamic languages of life come into play: argumentation, verbalization, narration. I suppose they are expressions of the "algebra of views". Here the ideal outlook serves as a mediator which allows us to localize the slack so that we know where it is within a three-cycle. This makes the algebra definite.

8=0) Then the new outlook understands itself as subordinate to the original outlook. At the core of the new outlook is always the original outlook which went beyond itself and thereby generated the new outlook. Everything is always collapsing back into the original outlook. The views of the new outlook and the original outlook coincide by way of that collapsing.

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

Fundamental concepts for an AlgebraOfViews

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

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

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

RepresentationsOfTheNullsome what separates the viewer and the viewed

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

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

Scopes

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

same and different a representation of the twosome

Supposition that which can be the same or different

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Context - adjoint to supposition?

CompositionOfViews

CompositionOfSuppositions

TakeUpAPerspective

StructurePreserving

TheChainOfViews

BisectingAView

OptimalityConstraints

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

Questions

Define:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are suppositions?

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

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

CategoryTheory

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

Consider

Think of understanding:

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

Andrius Views are central to my wish to KnowEverything.

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

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

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

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

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

Consider the InversionEffect.

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

Thoughts from prayer

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