text:
Gvildenu | Mintys / Tiesa
 Mintys: Tiesa
 Žr. Nulybė, Požiūriai, Meilė, Apimtys, Anthony Judge, Flemming Funch See also: Institutions, Freedom
 Kaip iš asmeninių požiūrių išvesti besąlygišką Dievo požiūrį?
 Koks santykis tarp tiesos ir šviesos ir optikos?
 Ar tiesa dinamiška?
 Koks ryšys tarp tiesos ir gerumo sandaros, laisvumo?
 one of the four RepresentationsOfTheNullsome
 a negation of the perspective of the Foursome which is for knowledge of things in themselves
 true is negation of hidden, true is what is obvious, in your face
 the extent of BeingOneWith
 Knowledge from the perspective of BeingOneWith
 the Application that we can be meeting the Theory and thus BeingOneWith.
 the Coinciding of the global BeingOneWith (God) and the local BeingOneWith (us)
 the Application that we are BeingOneWith the Theory
 the IndependentPerspective can take up the DefaultPerspective and thus coincide with it, be not hidden
 the answer of Willingness
 the Nonwilling meets the Willing.
 What is true is: what is obvious, not hidden, what is [ThisWiki:View viewed].
 Truth is the implicitness of Coinciding. Truth is coinciding from within Contexts.
 Truth is taking up of a perspective.
 Truth is the Identity across all through Other who is alongside all and so truth ultimately brings meaning all the way back to God as the ultimate ground.
 True is one of the four RepresentationsOfTheNullsome. Also, each of the representations of the nullsome may be understood as truth of a different {{Scope}}.
 True is the negation of the whether perspective of the {{Foursome}}. It is the negation of knowledge of things in themselves. In that sense, true is negation of what is hidden. True is what is obvious, in your face.
 Tiesa yra širdingumo sąlygos. Širdingasis sutampa su savo raiška.
 Tiesa yra melas nes nėra santvarkoje. Visi teiginiai melagingi, nes teiginiai yra modelyje, o modelis nėra tikrovė.
 Kas yra sutampa (ar ne) su tuo kas reiškiasi.
 Tiesa, tai kas akivaizdu, kas nenuslėpta. Sutapimas to, kas yra ir to, kas reiškiasi. Išėjimas už savęs kažkurio asmens atitinkamoje apimtyje. What is True is what is viewed. The Observational Plane is what is viewed by the Observer. What is obvious, not hidden, Viewed, the separation between the viewer and the viewed when it is nothing. Tiesa, sandara, ir būtent išsiaiškinimas, plėtojasi. Tiesa yra sistema be jokių kliūčių, tad visų sistemų grynumas, grynoji sistema, santvarka. Užtat tiesa labai susijusi su laisve, su kliūčių nebuvimu.
 Tiesa yra dvasios ir sandaros neišskiriamumas. Tiesa yra nenuslepiama, pasireiškianti dvasia, tad jinai tiek dvasia, tiek sandara. Laisvumas yra gerumo sandara. Ar tai kartu tiesos sandara? Tiesos sandara, yra tarpas tarp klausimo ir atsakymo, tai jo atvaizdai. Tai laisvumas tarp tiesos turinio ir išraiškos, tad laisvumas turi apimtį, taip pat mažėja ar didėja. Laisvumo esmė yra išsiaiškinimas, kuris gali plėtotis.
 Tiesa yra tai, kas kyla iš nebuvimo, kas atsiskleidžia, kaip kad Dievas, iškylantis ten, kur jo nėra.
 tiesa nebūtinai suvokiama - tiesa nesuvokta, atsirinkta - tvėrinių pagrindas
 Tiesa akivaizdi
 Tiesa apie keturias apimtis.
 Apibrėžti: viską, betką, kažką, nieką.
 Didėjantis tiesos griežtumas.
 Didėjantis, ryškėjantis neigimo apibrėžimas.
 Palyginti: asmenys (žinojimas - visko, betko, kažko, nieko) Kitas žino nieką.
 Palyginti: jauduliai (vienas su viskuo, betkuo, kažkuo, niekuo) - lūkestis, jog esame viena
 Tiesos atskaitos taškas
 Niekas arba viskas?
 Apibrėžti viską
 Apibrėžti betką, kažką, nieką
 Apibrėžti ketverybe kaip skirtumą tarp Dievo ir gerumo (manęs)
 Nepaslėpta: Ketverybės požiūrio paneigimas
 Heidegerio, graikų tiesa - aletheia - ir mano
 Nulybės atvaizdai yra ketverybės požiūrių paneigimai.
 Dievas yra tiesos dvasia.
 palyginti: troškimų paneigimas, nulybės atvaizdų paneigimas, vienybės atvaizdų paneigimas.
 Ar neigimui reikalinga ketverybė? Taip, užtat yra nuliniai atvaizdų nariai.
 Tiesa atsiranda su neigimu.
 Neigimas slypi apimtyse: viskas, betkas, kažkas, niekas.
 Ten kur yra neigimas yra du atvaizdai ir papildinys.
 Atvaizdai išsako tiesos santykį tarp tiesos turinio (kas yra tiesa) ir tiesos raiškos (kas tą tiesą parodo). Kada neigimas įmanomas (ir papildinys įmanomas) tada yra du atvaizdai - didėjantis ir mažėjantis laisvumas. O kada neigimas neįmanomas ir nėra papildinio, tai yra keturi atvaizdai išsakantys atstumą tarp turinio ir raiškos. Kai nėra atstumo tarp turinio ir raiškos, tada atsiranda neigimas ir papildinys, antisandara.
 Atvaizdai skiria tiesos turinį ir raišką; jeigu jie sutampa, tai dvejopai išsako sutapimo didėjimą ar mažėjima; jei skiriasi, ai ketveriopai išsako skirtumą tarp jų.
 Nepaslėpta, neatkirsta santvarkos, esanti viena, neužsidarusi savyje, išeinanti už savęs
 Tiesa: Trejybės atvaizdo (ir aplinkybių) užtaisas.
 Trys tiesos įrodymo būdai.
 Tiesa ir ryšys tarp turinio ir atskleidimo.
 Apibrėžta "ne" - netiesa.
 Neigimas reikalauja: Ne, taip, ne ne, ne taip.
 A priori ir aposteriori, sintetinis ir analitinis
 Proto žaidimai - tapatybės (su savimi) atskleidimai - savęs atitikimai (nulybės atvaizdai) - skirtingose apimtyse - skirtingais asmenimis - skirtingais žinojimais - tad tiesa yra siauriausias, smulkiausias - dangaus karalystei - tiesa reiškia, kad ištisai reiškiamasi
 Lygiavertės ir nelygiavertės priešingybės
 Tiesa ir kas paslėpta - lygiavertės priešingybės - Paslėptas: neišėjęs už savęs Tiesa: nėra neišėjęs už savęs
 Prasminga ir kas aprėpta - nelygiavertės priešingybės - Aprėptas: išėjęs už savęs į save Prasmė: nėra pilnai savyje
 Keturi atvaizdai (apimtys) nurodo išėjimo už savęs pakopas - taip pat santykį su papildiniu
 Dvejybės atvaizdai
 Dievo papildinys - septynerybė - antisandara
 Gyvenimo lygtis yra antisandara, ketverybės/penkerybės/šešerybės/septynerybės papildinys
 Dievas papildo septynerybę (tiesą) ir išsakytas aštuonerybės - nulybės. Tad Dievas - tiesos dvasia.
 gerumas papildo šešerybę (tiesumą-betarpiškumą) ir išsakytas septynerybės
 gyvenimas papildo penkerybę (pastovumą) ir išsakytas šešerybės
 amžinas gyvenimas papildo ketverybę ir išsakytas penkerybės
 Pažymėta priešingybė
 Dvejybėje - pusė požiūrio
 Požiūrio priėmimas, išgyvenimas - neįmanoma išgyventi netiesą
 Turinys (nežymėta priešingybė) ir raiška (žymėta priešingybė). Tarp jų yra ryšys.
 Trejybėje - permąstymas
 Tiesos dvasia kalba iš to, ką girdi - atitikimas
 Dievas šlovinamas dvasia ir tiesa - dvasia, tai ryšys su Dievu; tiesa - tai atitikimas su skurdžiadvasių mąsteliais
 Tiesa nuo asmeninės iki besąlygiškos
 Išsiaiškinimai - pagrindai
 Raiška yra svarbi dalis tiesos, nes tai, kas akivaizdu, turi būti išreikšta, nenuslėpta.
 To Manifest is to show. In that sense, it is the opposite of View, it is the making way for others to [GoingBeyondOneself go beyond themselves]. It is also closely related to Truth, in that truth is what is obvious, not hidden. Andrius: It also reminds of the statement Those things are which show themselves to be which I once heard God say in a dream as to the nature of everything.
 Heidegeris - tiesa ir netiesa - nepaslėpta ir paslėpta - pasislėpimas pasirodymu - aletheia
 Heidegeris - tiesa įkūnyta mene, pavyzdžiui, Van Gogo paveiksle "Batai". Meno kūrinys - žemės ir pasaulio kova, ginčas. Ir šioje dinaminėje kovoje skleidžiasi tiesa.
 Heidegeris - meno kūrinio tiesa yra tiesesnė negu pasaulio tiesa
 Heidegerio - Meno kūrinio ištaka (2 vertimai)
 Bulgakovo "Meistras ir Margarita", Ha-Noon ir Poncijaus Piloto dialogas, Kas yra tiesa?
 Wittgenstein - turime apibrėžti atskaitos tašką
 Aristotelis - mokslas apie būtį apskritai (metafizika); apie esmes ir priežastis; apie nejudantį judintoją (teogonika)
 Prieštaravimas - nesąmonės: Dievas trokšta visko
 Nesakau, kad galima nepaisyti prieštaravimų ir mąstyti bet kokias nesąmones. Priešingai, siūlau pripažinti prieštaravimą ir labai atsakingai jį stebėti, sulėtinant mąstymą.
 Prieštaravimas slypi dviejų tvarkų nesutarime, tad tarp jų, jų nesusivedime, kuris tampa vis griežtesniu.
 Antra tvarka iškelia prieštaravimą glūdintį pirmoje tvarkoje. Klajonėje antros tvarkos nariai sutampa su pirmos tvarkos nariais. Užtat prieštaravimas yra griežtas. Raidoje antra tvarka labai miglotai skiria pirmos tvarkos reiškinius, taip kad net neaišku, kur tos ribos.
 Žinojimas, tai reiškia žinių prasmės atstatymas iš jų papildinio. Tad glūdi prieštaravimas tarp nežinojimo ir žinojimo. Taip pat papildinys reiškia meilę, reiškia esmę.
 Vietoj, kad vengti prieštaravimo - Pradėti nuo prieštaravimo ir ieškoti neprieštaravimo - pradėti nuo klausimo ir ieškoti atsakymo, tai yra, išrišimo. Prieštaravimas - tai neatsakytas klausimas. Nežinojimas, o kartu ir žinojimas. Laukimas. Prieštaravimas yra tarpas tarp tiesos buvimo ir jos pasireiškimo. teiginys A2 = "Šis teiginys A1 yra neteisingas"
 Klausimas yra prieštaravimas iššaukiantis neprieštaravimą (atsakymą). Panašiai, meilė yra klausimas - meilė yra esmė, papildinys. Klausimas yra Dievo esmė - ir tas klausimas yra "kodėl" - ir tai yra meilė - nes laukiama atsakymo. Tad gyventi klausimais yra gyventi Dievu. O tiesa yra tarpas, tarp klausimo ir atsakymo, tarp tikrumo ir jo raiškos, jo akivaizdumo. Nes klausime jau glūdi tai, kas tikra, tačiau tai dar išreikština.
 Mąstymas Dievo požiūriu - mąstymas besąlygiškai - mąstymas prieštaravimu - mąstymas prasmingai - iš karto dviem takais. Pats santvarkos išgyvenimas yra prieštaringas - juk įsiterpimas keičia aplinką. Bet užtat suvietintas (septynerybės laisvumas). Ir gyvenimas už santvarkos yra prieštaringas. Ir pati tiesa - buvimo ir raiškos skirtumas - yra kažkuo prieštaringa.
 Prasmingas - atskiriantis prieštaravimą ir neprieštaravimą - palyginti su buvimu.
 Pertvarkymai - skaitlinga tvarka prieštarauja sau - neskaitlinga tvarka neprieštarauja sau. Tada antra tvarka gali iškelti prieštaravimą pirmoje tvarkoje, ją išsakyti.
 Apriboti prieštaravimą.
 Dievo požiūris - prieštaravimo. Asmenų požiūris - nuoseklumo.
 Nesusivedimais ryškėja prieštaravimas, tad žinojimas (taip ar ne). Šis ryškėjimas išsako pertvarkymų (ir padalinimų) eilės tvarką. Prieštaravimai sau: "strange loop".
 Priešprieša. Blogiu vadiname priešpriešą gėriui. Tačiau gėrio priešprieša yra Dievas. Juk gerumas yra santvarkoje, o Dievas yra už santvarkos. Jeigu įsikimbame į santvarką, tada bet koks jo klibinimas mums atrodo blogas. Bet toks klibinimas kyla už santvarkos, tad yra Dievas. O jeigu mąstome Dievu, tada priešpriešos nėra.
 Tiesos apimtys
 Tiesos takai (turiniai) suderina dvi kryptis. Tiesa atsiskleidžia iš žinojimo į nežinojimą, tai yra, iš atsakymo į jį reiškiantį ženklą, galiausiai simbolį (šnipštą), užtat ženklų lygmenimis išreiškia ženklų savybes. O gvildenimai veda iš nežinojimo į žinojimą, tai yra, iš klausimo veda gvildenimu į apibrėžimą. Tiesos atskleidėjas - platesnis požiūris, o tiesos atskleistasis - siauresnis požiūris.
 Kodėl tiesa? Dievo požiūris. Tiesa apie viską. (Atskleidžiama jog visaip yra.)
 Kaip tiesa? Mano požiūris. Tiesa apie betką.
 Kokia tiesa? Tavo požiūris. Tiesa apie kažką.
 Ar tiesa? Kito požiūris. Tiesa apie nieką. (Nes atskleidžiama jog kažkaip nėra.)
 Imagine God as knowing everything, I as knowing anything, You as knowing something, and Other as knowing nothing.
 Truth works differently in these different scopes. "Everything is hot", "Everything is cold" and other such statements about everything are trivially true, much as in a state of contradiction, or in the mind of God, where all statements are true. A statement such as "Anything is hot" depends on a particular point of view, such as that of an engineer, an "I" who can think through in what sense it is true or false based on what "hot" means for her. "Something is hot" is a statement which must be negotiated by several points of view and thus is accepted or rejected tentatively, pragmatically by a "You". "Nothing is hot" is the kind of statement which is formalized in an abstract model of hypotheticals with regard to an "Other" and as such is strictly true or false.
 We can define everything as that which has the following four properties: A) Everything has no external context (if it is put in a box, then it includes the box) B) Everything is the simplest algorithm, which accepts all things, that is, has no filter (and so your everything and my everything are the same) C) Everything has no internal structure (it may be orderly or chaotic, and thus all statements are true about it, as there is no structure to latch onto) D) Everything is a required concept (in practice, we all have it, and we all use it, for example, in taking a stand; we could not have learned it from the real world because all we know there is bounded, whereas everything is unbounded; and so we must have always had it)
 Let us take Everything as our anchor for our metaphysics. We deal with questions of knowledge by dividing Everything into Whether, What, How, Why. For example, we may put a cup in a cupboard, and imagine Whether the cup is still there. Then we can define Truth as the rejection of this perspective Whether, which is to say, what is true is that which *cannot* be hidden, that which is obvious. (Whereas Heidegger defines truth as that which *is not* hidden, the Greek concept "aletheia"). Similarly, we can define Directness, Constancy and Significance by rejecting What, How and Why, accordingly.
 Inherent in Truth is a self-identity, a mind game where we try to distinguish T (a truth) and R (that which reveals the truth) so that R=>T. If T is itself true for us, then we have necessary truth, as in proof by contradiction, and the distinctions collapse. If R is true for us, then it is the ground for T, and we have actual truth, where R and => collapse. If what is true for us is => , then we have possible truth, consistency. Similarly, Directness, Constancy and Significance trigger mind games which together yield a variant of Kant's twelve categories.
 Thus we get the distinction between one perspective (necessary truth), two perspectives (actual truth) and three perspectives (possible truth) which is relevant for the onesome, twosome and threesome; but also for the Omniscope (I), Primary Structures (You) and Secondary Structures (Other). We are getting what Truth means to the outsider, not to the truth itself. There may also be no truth, in which case we have four perspectives, namely, there is the outsider, distinct from these three. So then we have the four levels of knowledge where the outsider is the Why and the other three are in a system and they are related. So thus we have the way to climb out of the system and look "objectively" into it as the undefined looks into the defined. And this possible thus to have negation and to have a complement for the system wherein the outsider is. And then the system can grow to include the outsider and to shift them from Other (foursome) to You (fivesome) to I (sixsome) to God (sevensome) and then collapse. This is the proof that God is necessary! and it is given by simplifying the equation of life.
 Kaip tiki, taip yra. - this is the fact that there is one truth and so the truth we believe and the truth that happens must be the same truth.
 Meluojame ženklais. Note that lying is possible only by way of symbols (not by way of indexes or icons). So this is a way to analyze the Qualities Of Signs, which aspects allow for lying. Similarly, I imagine, with other violations of the ten commandments. On the other hand, if one switches the underlying things, then the meaning changes. But that is perhaps not lying, it is perhaps fooling.
 The only mystery is Being One With, as we can participate in that, but we can't know it, as it is prior to knowledge.
 Požiūrių sudūrimas leidžia meluoti bet išryškina tiesą
 Within a view, everything is true. All of its own perspectives are true. (The false ones would not be in that view. And so in order to think about false perspectives it would need to take up other views. Here then "view" might be the same as "outlook" or "model" as I wrote about institutions.)
 Something is not true when a view sees it one way, but presents it another way to another view. Therefore falsehood depends on CompositionOfViews. However, the truth goes intense as it stays true in the face of the opportunity for falsehood.
 This is a matter that relates the {{Indefinite}} view which sees along all tracks, and a {{Definite}} view, which sees along one track at a time. The indefinite view is not fooled, as it sees all that is going on. The definite view may be fooled.
 Truth is a central notion in an AlgebraOfViews. The change in what we mean by truth mirrors the development of a view as it accesses other views and makes for indirect knowledge.
 A {{View}} is the discrimination of what is true. Directly, everything within a view is true, obvious. However, the view may go beyond itself, go beyond its scope. Then the nature of truth becomes more complex, mature. When spaces are accessed indirectly, then there can be false statements, hidden suppositions. And there can also be the collapsing of our space, so that what is obvious, true to us, is cast in doubt.
 ===Viewer and Viewed===
 Implicit in truth - as a representation of the nullsome and a trigger for a representation of the threesome - is a relationship between viewer and viewed. They are considered to be inseparable - hence the nullsome - and yet they are separated. And the way that their separation may be conceived is given by the representation of the threesome as necessary, actual and possible.
 I want to consider how the implications, the notion of truth expands when it reaches out to those who do not want to look at it directly, and so it approaches them in forms that they will accept. In particular, truth may take the form of fiction, which is itself challenged, however, to stay true to the truth it conveys. And then to consider what it is like to wake up in a world where truth is of such a nature, which is to say, to take truth very sharply, and be frustrated wherever it is not straightforwardly true. And then to be confused again when, as the context becomes evident, it is apparently true. So that the crucial attitude to take is that there may be a vantage point which may know more than we do. And the troubles of losing touch with such a possibility, the sins of pride.
 The smaller the scope on which concepts are kept separate, the more they are separate! This is what relates love and understanding. Ultimately, the scope is zero and the separation is total as it is even under scope zero. (And so the views coincide.) Here it is regarding God and good, I think. Compare also with the diagrams at SpiritVStructure. And consider this all with regard to institutions and the task of translating truth. So that we start with the Concept of truth - holding truth with itself - and this is an overflowing that triggers its going beyond itself, and then maintaining the truth as it does so, relativizing it accordingly, until it can hold even in silence.
 The {{Truth}}, and God as the concept of truth, may express that his view is not restrictive, and is thus transparent. (Note that a transparent soul is important for understanding.)
 ===Hard truths and soft truths===
 The CompositionOfViews makes it possible for knowledge to be accessed both directly and indirectly. We may think of truth as that access. What is true is what is not hidden, what is obvious.
 If it is to be the same truth in every context, then it needs to be interpreted in a way appropriate to the context.
 Here is what I'm finding: As views take up views, they become less direct, and the truth becomes less fluid and more rigid. There are four levels, so that truths about everything are completely fluid, truths about anything are less so, truths about something are rather rigid, and truths about nothing are completely rigid.
 Let us consider these four levels:
 Truths about everything. When we speak about everything, then all statements are true. "Everything is hot" and "everything is cold" are both true in a trivial sense. They don't say very much because everything has no internal structure for them to latch onto. Instead, everything ends up defining what "hot" and "cold" must mean. So here the truth is completely fluid. We may imagine this as the way that God views everything. God has direct access and things are just as he thinks. This is the nature of absolute truths. Another example of a truth about everything is "Every medicine has its purpose." There is no way for such a statement to be false, even if it's opposite is true, for each statement stands on its own.
 Truths about anything. When we speak about anything, then we are applying our assertion to one thing at a time. And we are referencing that assertion from some particular point of view. For example, a doctor might say "Any medicine has its purpose." Here the truth is not entirely direct. It needs to pass through the doctor's point of view. It now depends on the doctor to make it true. It can depend on the doctor's ability to find the purpose of a medicine. Its truth depends on its reference point. So it is a relative truth. As such, it may be a frustrated truth, which is to say, it needs to be manifested and may be endlessly waiting for that to happen. Yet, it can't be false, for we never know for sure that it doesn't hold.
 Truths about something. When we speak about something, then we are admitting another point of view with which we are sharing an object of conversation. We are using the same word, the same referent, to express the different ideas which we possess of it. For example, a doctor may speak to a patient about a particular medicine, such as aspirin: "Aspirin has its purpose." The word "aspirin" and the entire sentence is refering to what the doctor has in mind, but also to what the patient has in mind. But the meanings may not match up. One may think of a natural form of aspirin, and another of a synthetic form. One may intend one inference, but the other may take away a different one. It is possible to miscommunicate, to misspeak and to mislead. It is also possible to communicate just enough to be understood. Most of our speaking is quite tentative in this way. We speak to each other about a "tree" as if we meant the same thing. And yet, if we were to take the tree and shorten it, then there would come a point where we would probably disagree if it was still a tree. But, frankly, we're typically not interested in the tree itself, we're just leveraging it as a reference point in our conversation. We're able to catch disagreements and correct them. This is the nature of shared truths.
 Truths about nothing. It is possible for us to speak about things for which we have no definite knowledge. For example, we might say "no medicine has its purpose" and explain: "a medicine is a molecule, and molecules don't have purposes". Yet, in a very clear sense, we have overspoken, we have asserted more than we ourselves have the right to. Who are we to speak about what molecules "don't have"? How can we know when molecules "will have" or "won't have" purposes? The problem here is that we are speaking in the negative, rather than in the positive. When we say that "every molecule has its purpose", then that statement can anchor itself in us. When we say "every medicine has its purpose" then we can define what we mean by medicine and by purpose, and adapt as needed, so that truth is fluid. But when we say that "no medicine has its purpose" then we have cut ourselves off from the very meaning that we choose to speak regarding. Whatever we mean is being defined somewhere else without us. If we speak about what we know, then we can choose to mean whatever will make sense. But if we speak about what we don't know, then the choice is not ours to make. So here truth becomes most rigid. Of course, this is a situation that we may try to avoid. And yet there are moments in life where we are called to bear witness. We're not asked what we know - we're asked, what do we choose to say? So I may say - "don't drive drunk" - by which I may mean that, although I don't and can't have any basis to know for sure, yet this is my own stand based on how I make sense of the situation that I've been put into in this life. And I will tell you with authority and responsibility that I have to the extent that I'm able to participate in this life. This statement is a "hard truth" and it is either "true" or "false". And that knowledge rests with some higher, greater vantage point to which I am subordinate. So this is a subordinate truth. And here I may be right or wrong, and also I may speak the truth or I may lie. And the distinction between right and wrong, between truth and lie, is most sharp. So when I say "no medicine has its purpose", then, to the extent that my statement is about "nothing", I may be very right or very wrong or both.
 I imagine these as four levels by which God reaches out beyond himself by way of us all, his little godlets. He views directly absolute truths about "everything". He then views indirectly, through us, relative truths about "anything", shared truths about "something" and subordinate truths about "nothing". Our responsibility grows as the truth gets rigid. If we're able to fulfill our responsibility, then the truths carry across all four levels. The relative truth, as such, is also an absolute truth. Likewise, the shared truth, properly meant, is both relative and absolute. The subordinate truth, properly meant, is shared, relative and absolute. Yet this can break down if we act falsely.
 These four levels also relate to love which grows more intense as God reaches out further and further:
 Truths about everything are supported by "love", and yet they are platitudes.
 Truths about anything are supported by "loving one's self", which keeps them from being frustrated.
 Truths about something are supported by "loving others", "loving our neighbors", whereby we are supportive of those with whom we speak, so that we may indeed care about their perspective, and may seek a shared perspective.
 Truths about nothing are supported by "loving God", so that we speak so as to make things simple for the God who truly knows that which we bear witness about but can't truly know.
 ===Sources of Truth===
 One idea that came up is the power of the hypothesis that all self-standing systems, fully realized as to their potential, are the same - as this hypothesis makes metaphysical thinking very powerful. For example, it makes it easy for us to go to new "source of truth", including "aesthetic sense" or "Scripture" because it gives us a useful criteria - these sources are valid only if we can approach them as self-standing systems. We might then ask, what are the "sources of truth" that we might appeal to? Where do they offer insight? And in what sense are they self-standing? In particular, each of us as individuals can function as a source of truth regarding our own "key concept" by which we are self-standing. This is all relevant as we organize our online system for "openly learning", so I share with our Cyfranogi working group. Andrius,
 {{Andrius}}: I share my exchange with Tom Wayburn as we search for how to define truth. His work grounds important economic ideas, so I share also with our Cyfranogi working group.
 Thank you for alerting me to your work. I find it very helpful and thought-provoking at this time. I'm very impressed by the scope of your work and by the directness of your conclusions. I think I agree with much of your reasoning, but at times I feel your conclusions are incomplete as "hard truths" unless we complete them with "soft truths". And, in that sense, they are false as "hard truths".
 This distinction between "soft truth" and "hard truth" is what I'd like to explore. I'm interested to think about "truth" and it's role in an "algebra of views". I'll respond also to your paper, further below. First, I'll give an example.
 You conclude that, in general, it is immoral to exchange money for work. You note that the Money Game is an improper game in that the rules are not written down, they are continuously changing, and that participants do not start off fairly. Participants are tempted or forced to play, and they are tempted or forced to cheat. In general, the game is an unfair competition.
 Practically, I feel this fits with my position that "money brings people together, but you can't pay people to care". Caring is self-directed, and so can't be the result of external direction, such as by money. People care in spite of the fact that they are paid money, and we know if they care only when we stop paying them money, and can see that they truly are self-directed and continue in their ways. If people ask for money to care, then that doesn't make sense, they can't and don't care in a self-directed way. So, if we apply the Money Game to what we are serious about - what we care about - then the game is false and sustaining it is immoral.
 However, I find it's possible not to take the game so seriously. I may engage somebody with money not to "win" but to make a point. So, for example, at our lab we offer stipends in Lithuania that are not-so-serious money for not-so-serious work. My interest is to encourage, support, integrate people who do care so that we might meet each other halfway. In other words, first they care, then we may play. And it's crucial to keep the amount of money small enough so that it's not overly influential. The goal is not to make them care about something, but rather to encourage them to relate to a strategic direction their own self-directed work on whatever they already do care about. Then the money game becomes not so serious in itself - it becomes just a minor part of a bigger game - and it may be quite helpful. In fact, if we are living in an unfair world, then such money games may be vital in helping transform it into a fair world. Furthermore, the very reason we may be in an unfair world is that this is how a fair world functions - it allows for all manner of unfairness so that it might be transformed into fairness.
 My point is that the nature of truth depends on whether we are "game makers" (the ones who make the rules) or "game players" (the ones who are bound by the rules). Game makers live by "soft truths", each of which is not constrained by any other truth. Game players live by "hard truths" which are completely constrained by other truths.
 God is a helpful concept as the Ultimate Game Maker. Structurally, I might think of "everything". It seems that all statements are true of everything. "Everything is hot" and "everything is cold". The point is that qualities like "hot" or "cold" or "good" or "bad" or "exists" or "does not exist" don't mean much at all when applied to everything because there is no structure to cling to so as to provide meaning. Similarly, when we have a state of contradiction, then all things are true: 2=3 and so 12=13 and green is white and so on. Again, if I say, "this tomato is everything" then, in a sense, that is true because every thing can be related to that tomato, and so every thing is a fact about that tomato. So "everything" is effective as a reference point for making truth irrelevant - all things are true. Indeed, I feel that, given any statement, no matter how bizaare or ill formed, there is some context in which it is true.
 Here's a related statement from Abdullah Yusuf Ali's translation of the Quran, Surah 21: "Not for idle sport did We create the heavens and the earth and all that is between! If it had been Our wish to take just a pastime, We should surely have taken it from the things nearest to Us, if We should do such a thing! Nay, We hurl the Truth against falsehood, and it knocks out its brain, and behold, falsehood perishes! Ah! woe be to you for the false things you ascribe to Us."
 Our society encourages us to live as game players, not as game makers; to acknowledge hard truths and not soft truths; to say there is "true" and "false", knowledge of "good" and "evil"; to believe that things matter. And the same society invites us to cheat, and to gain control as game makers for the game players.
 But as we play with "hard truths" we find that there may be purpose in "soft truths", but especially if indeed there is injustice, as life suggests. And also we find that our own personal truths are soft, in that they suppose rather than deny.
 So I feel that we can understanding by starting with "soft truths" (the view of the game maker) and then deriving from them the "hard truths" (the view of the game player). Why do we have hard truths? I think the reason is that the game maker wants the game to matter. And so the game maker needs to "care" ever deeper, needs to immerse themselves into the game.
 Therefore, to understand the game maker, it helps to work with "suppositions". In this sense, all truths are "fictional truths". As you write: "if Dickens tells us that Pip was sorry to see his benefactor die, we are obliged to believe him". Likewise, I feel that we shouldn't elevate "reality" beyond "supposition", even if it is Nature's supposition. And suppositions are "soft truths" in that they are simply possibilities, clearly the prerogrative of a game maker.
 So where may hard truths come from? I think they come from the relationships between suppositions. I mean that suppositions can grow hard, they can grow in their implications, as they relate with each other, and imply regarding each other. So, for example, if Dickens has given us reason to doubt the narrator, then we might be obliged to question or even disbelieve him. "All things are true" - but if we speak enough, then we may very well speak a contradiction - assuming that we have a point of accountability.
 Here is how I think the game evolves, from "soft truths" to "hard truths":
 Rules are absolute: We suppose there is a game maker for whom all rules are equally fine.
 Rules are relative: The game maker supposes a game player who has "a self in a situation" and is thereby striving (self-correcting) to play by the rules.
 Rules are shared: That game player supposes a game maker who has made it possible to "play perfectly" and so they (and all) are linked by an ideal Other who follows the rules.
 Rules are subordinate: That game maker supposes a game player who is in the game and needs to uncover its purpose by supposing that there is a game maker.
 I will stop for today, but briefly about your paper, I find most relevant your Third Approach. Some structures that I will write about:
 the division of everything into four perspectives, the {{Foursome}}: why, how, what, whether - matches I think your four levels: phenomena (whether), percepts (what), concepts (how), visualizations (why).
 pairs of such levels yield the QualitiesOfSigns:
 truth as that which is "unhidden"="obvious", thus yielding the necessarily, actually, possibly true, see {{Topologies}}
 I hope to write more, and I hope we might help each other advance.
 ===Letter to Tom Wayburn===
 TomWayburn: Andrius, I am curious to know what you think of the [http://dematerialism.net/Chapter%203.html#_Toc104446215 exposition] (under Additional Discussion for the Mathematically Inclined in case the bookmark doesn't work). I wouldn't ask if I were confident that it was correct. I wrote this so long ago that I am afraid to change it as I may no longer understand what I wrote then.
 The bookmarked section is embedded in a [http://web.wt.net/twayburn/Chapter%203.html sub-chapter on Truth]. It is an attempt to make definite the stricture of Hemingway, "Tell the truth to those who have a right to know it", from *The Green Hills of Africa* [quoted from memory].
 Tom, Thank you for alerting me again to your essay on Truth. http://dematerialism.net/Chapter%203.html#_Toc104446215 I read only parts but I like your writing. I hope to explore it more and perhaps engage you and others with regard to my own explorations.
 I have been making steady progress in my efforts to consider how does all knowledge unfold? My quest is to know everything and apply that knowledge usefully. Imagine that there is a vantage point from which God surveys everything and how it all unfolds along with all of the relationships. I wish to find and take up such a vantage point, with the understanding that I won't be able to see as far as God, yet like a nearsighted child I might crawl out and back along any path of inquiry I might find relevant.
 I have worked almost every day on my Overview and it is so hard to pull everything together that I am trying to write a condensed Summary I also find it very helpful to listen to God. I am simply encouraged by the enormous intelligence that comes to me, as if to my conscious mind from my unconscious mind. Which is to say, I lean heavily on God as I work to make progress. Certainly that's understandable because in large part I am struggling to imagine and take up God's point of view.
 The root of the unfolding - or the nature of God - keeps wriggling as I try to snatch it. But lately I'm thinking about God's fascination with the issue of his own necessity. There aren't many questions that might seem to interest God when he is all by himself, prior to all things and concerns. For him, being and not being are quite the same, as they are just words at this point, and structurally they are the same. But would he exist even if he did not exist? Would he be God even if he wasn't? Is God as such necessary? That is a very stimulating question from his point of view. It opens up two tracks: If God exists, then God exists. And if God does not exist, then yet being God he should still find away to exist, if he truly is God. This is the spirit of any mathematical proof by contradiction. So it suggests what is apparent in the physical world, that God makes his best effort not to exist, and it's very intriguing if and when he creeps into life's practicalities. Whereas in the spiritual world, God is given.
 I have a lot of knowledge of the conceptual structures that frame our thinking, and have figured out some of the mechanics of how they can all fit together in theory. I'm noticing that God's effort to not exist is part of that. The structures unfold upon negation of the properties of God (significant, constant, direct, true) by which God goes beyond himself into a particular scope (Everything, Anything, Something, Nothing). There is also a negation of the properties of Everything (no external context, no filter, no internal structure, not an optional concept). Everything is the structure of God, but also, Everything is a substitute for God. In God we are being one through God's being, whereas in Everything we are being one through God's not being.
 I'm noticing that each scope is a domain for a particular aspect of nonbeing:
 "does not exist" would hold across Everything
 "a quality of their being does not exist" would hold for Anything
 "a quality of their not being does exist" would hold for Something
 "their not being does exist" would hold for Nothing
 What I think this means is that God's not being has to realize itself formally, which is to say, it's not enough to have "not God" but rather we have to think formally in terms of "being" so that we can remove ourselves and indicate, objectively, what that's referring to. This formality opens up all four levels.
 Tom, I suppose this is related to the distinction that you note when you refer to White Knight’s story in Lewis Carroll's "Through the Looking Glass" between a thing, and what it's called, and its name, and what that's called. Also, you note of four levels of information: Phenomena, Concepts, Percepts, Visualizations and I imagine that this is what I call the Foursome, the division of Everything into four perspectives, which are familiar as Whether, What, How, Why and so I call them that way, but are employed by many thinkers (often materialists neglect the Why and idealists neglect the Whether).
 Tom, I imagine that I'm working on the question that you raise regarding Tarski's conjecture: "The definition of a true statement cannot be constructed in the (formalized) language in which the sentence occurs. In particular, it will never be possible to define a true sentence in ordinary colloquial language." What I am trying to show, more or less, is that any system that is inhabited by a Person must admit of an extrasystemic reference point (which is to say, God) or the system will collapse (into that extrasystem). Truth is the last straw, it is the ability of God to reach into the scope of Nothing, which is to say, even into utter nonsense. My guess is that the final collapse occurs when the last property of Everything (that it is not an optional concept) is negated, because then the crux of the matter becomes "optional" and thus the issue resolves itself, but I need to nail that down, what is that!?
 Here is what I wrote today listening to God and for me is very helpful to be able to think in terms of the big picture: "God's being and nonbeing are the same as long as they don't interfere with each other. And they could interfere only if they were imposed upon a Person. Thus the Freedom of a Person is the foundation for God's necessity. And Freedom grows through Understanding. Love is what supports that growth. Thus Love is within all things and in being itself and through it we are one. BeingOneWith is the foundation for all relations between Persons."
 So now I'm thinking back on how truth hardens so that opposites like "being" and "not being" can become hard and irreconciliable. (Which is how I found your link again, thank you!) See: Truth. Truths about Everything are soft and pliable and all compatible. ("Everything is hot" and "Everything is cold" and "Every medicine has its purpose"...) Truths about Nothing are hard and brittle because they have us overspeak, they have us speak about that for which we have no definite knowledge. If we say, "No medicine has its purpose (for medicines are molecules, and molecules don't have purposes)", then we are overreaching, and our statement is either true or false but not both, in this rigid sense.
 Perhaps the "imposed" truths are those that demand us to understand them within the system, and don't let us make sense of them outside the system.
 The "free" truths let us know that they carry a meaning that can go
 beyond the system. That is why we might hold stubbornly to a truth even though the system runs over us, for we have faith that there is a perspective greater than the system.
 Jesus's disciples asked him, Why do you speak plainly to us, but you speak to others in parables? and he replied, so they could listen but not hear, and hear and not understand and so they could be damned. Which I take him to mean, with his ambiguous "could", that in general listeners would have the freedom to understand his meaning or to consider it all nonsense, whereas his disciples already believe and so he can speak plainly without concern for their freedom.
 I suppose that I have a faith in the truth and an appreciation of my own ignorance that I don't think that I will limit anybody's freedom with my thoughts. Yet the whole subject is apocalyptic - a world of truth that we can access is the end of the "real world", the human world as we know it.
 I will try to think more how God's not being and God's being grow distinct through the Person who distinguishes them (God, I, You, Other) and how the imposition of such a distinction shifts the question along to yet another Person until finally with Other the issue collapses.
 Tom and all, Thank you for your thoughts! And I invite us to write about the questions that we are exploring, investigating.
 Greetings from San Francisco where I hope to stay for about four weeks,
 Felt truth
 I think there's both an analytical, logical way of approximating truth, and there's a truth one feels inside. And they're probably not really the same thing. The most deep and real truth is probably what one sincerely feels inside. And the other kind of truth is more about the analysis of data, an external activity, and will always be imperfect. Anyway, any kind of attempt to establish truth will always end up with a subjective feeling inside. No matter how scientific one's methodology is, it will always end up with somebody taking a subjective decision, based on how they feel, as to whether the requirements for truth-finding have been met. Scientific methodology includes the principle that several people would arrive in the same place, but that makes it no less dependent on subjective decision.
 The source of data is probably a vital piece of data in itself. Like, a piece of information doesn't exist by itself, separate from everything else. There's no such thing as a "fact" all by itself. It is important who said so, when and why, based on what data or what situation.
 Ah yes, I'm actually reading Power vs. Force right now. Indeed, it makes a good case for measuring the truth value of things with Applied Kineseology. I will explore it more. I haven't yet tried to experiment with blind AK tests, to see how it actually comes out.
 Jeigu tiesa visada sąlygiška, tai ši tiesa irgi yra sąlygiška, užtat iš sąlygiškos tiesos kyla besąlygiška tiesa. Tai išvertimas išėjimo už savęs, iš santvarkos, iš septynerybės.
 Velnias išlenda visokiomis "tiesomis" ir įžvalgomis dėl to, kad tai tėra "žinojimai", ogi Dievas yra grynas nežinojimas.
 Brute facts nėra nes gamtoje nėra dalinių sąvokų, modelių, ar yra?
 S-o-C goes beyond itself into itself, namely, Everything. Everything is the self of S-o-C.
 Truth as the Unique Referent Beyond a System
 Define divisions of everything
 Define representations
 Define going beyond oneself
 Define equation of life
 Define truth as a representation of the nullsome - that which cannot be hidden, that which has nothing between expression and content. And likewise define the representations of the nullsome and ground them in the foursome.
 Define necessary, possible, actual with regard to truth, and similarly define the twelve topologies.
 Sevensome and eightsome - ways of choosing - sources of mistakes
 Truth is the gap within a restructuring and is the source of paradox.
 Statements are typically tentative - we don't care to agree absolutely on what they mean - they are
 Scopes of truth: everything, anything, something, nothing.
 Truth as a distinguished (unmarked?) opposite.
 Results related to truth theories:
 Truth is the unique referent which is beyond a system. And thus by definition truth cannot be solely systemic. But a system of this kind is completely explicit, thus truth is the only thing that is outside it. Truth refers to the original everything. And thus true is the opposite of the good.
 Truth is that which can be "unmarked", that which can be without context, without conditions, taken at face value.
 Truth is that which cannot be hidden.
 Substantial and deflationary theories are the 6 representations based on views vs. concepts.
 Axiomatic theories are possible (model), actual (proof), necessary (logical).
 Statements are given by fusing views and concepts, or content and expression.
 How do truth claims arise?
 pragmatiškai, tiesa yra konteksto nereikalingumas. Tiesa yra tuomet kuomet galima suprasti tiesiogiai, nereikia vertinti konteksto. Užtat tiesa yra tuo pačiu galimybė atsisakyti konteksto. O kaip tai susiję su aplinka (+3), juk tiesa yra (+0).
 antisandara (sąlygiškumo atsisakymas) -1
 logika 7-bė
 nesusivedimų tarpas
 nulybės atvaizdas ir aplinkybės
 Equations are truths because they allow "forgetting", they allow equivalence. Equivalence is a sense of not being distinguishable in any context. Any context in which it is distinguishable would be a meta-context. This is the source of paradox: conflating context with metacontext. And that is why context and metacontext need to be different. Truth is that there is no genuine basis for disagreement.
 Bridging formal and informal theories.
 Tiesų gali būti įvairių, bet dėl melo galime sutarti, kada meluojama.
 Shift from self to concept. Truth. God->I->You->Other.
 Aplinkybės dalyvauja skaidant požiūrį į dvi priešingybes, būtent nulybės atvaizdo skaidymu, pavyzdžiui, tiesos skaidymą į turinį ir raišką, arba prasmingumo skaidymą. Aplinkybės gi išskiria vieną požiūrį ir jo būklę (aplinkybes). Taip pat iškyla galimas dvilypis požiūris į požiūrį. Taip pat šį skaidymą reikėtų lyginti su gyvenimo lygtimi.
 Įrodymas, tai tiesos pagrindimas. Įrodymas (kad teiginys yra teisingas) - yra suskaldymas pagrindimo. Panašus suskaldymas vyksta skaidant veiklą.
 Consider the normativity of truth itself. It arises from truth's definition as a negation, a negation of whether, that X cannot be hidden. Also, there is a normativity to respect a toy model, to keep track of what is true and what is false, in the case where we have truths about nothing.
 Tiesa ir jos aplinkybės
 turinys = raiška (3 supratimai: būtina, tikra, galima)
 nėra turinio, yra tiktai raiška (Kitas) arba: nėra lygybės, turinys ir raiška tėra tas pats dalykas
 Gali būti raiška be turinio. Arba: gali būti turinys be raiškos (?)
 Parsiųstas iš http://www.ms.lt/sodas/Mintys/Tiesa
 Puslapis paskutinį kartą pakeistas 2020 vasario 21 d., 20:00


type: contracts

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 30.6.2010
 EN
 Official Journal of the European Union
 L 164/69
 Only the original UN/ECE texts have legal effect under international public law. The status and date of entry into force of this Regulation should be checked in the latest version of the UN/ECE status document TRANS/WP.29/343, available at:
 http://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29gen/wp29fdocstts.html
 Regulation No 91 of the Economic Commission for Europe of the United Nations (UN/ECE) — Uniform provisions concerning the approval of side-marker lamps for motor vehicles and their trailers
 Incorporating all valid text up to:
 Supplement 11 to the original version of the Regulation — Date of entry into force: 15 October 2008
 CONTENTS
 REGULATION
 1.
 Scope
 2.
 Definitions
 3.
 Application for approval
 4.
 Markings
 5.
 Approval
 6.
 General specifications
 7.
 Intensity of light emitted
 8.
 Colour of light emitted
 9.
 Test procedure
 10.
 Modification of a side-marker lamp type and extension of approval
 11.
 Conformity of production
 12.
 Penalties for non-conformity of production
 13.
 Production definitely discontinued
 14.
 Names and addresses of technical services responsible for conducting approval tests, and of administrative departments
 15.
 Transitional provisions
 ANNEXES
 Annex 1 —
 Minimum angles required for light distribution in space
 Annex 2 —
 Communication concerning the approval or refusal or extension or withdrawal of approval or production definitely discontinued of a type of side-marker lamp marked SM1/SM2
 Annex 3 —
 Arrangements of approval marks
 Annex 4 —
 Photometric measurements
 Annex 5 —
 Colour of lights emitted: light for trichromatic coordinates
 Annex 6 —
 Minimum requirements for conformity of production control procedures
 Annex 7 —
 Minimum requirements for sampling by an inspector
 1. SCOPE
 This Regulation applies to side-marker lamps for vehicles of category M, N, O and T (1).
 2. DEFINITIONS
 2.1.
 The definitions given in Regulation No 48 and the series of amendments in force at the time of application for the type of approval shall apply to this Regulation.
 2.2.
 ‘Side-marker lamp’ means a lamp used to indicate the presence of the vehicle when viewed from the side;
 2.3.
 ‘Side-marker lamps of different types’ means lamps which differ in such essential respects as:
 (a)
 the trade name or mark;
 (b)
 the characteristics of the optical system (level of intensity, light distribution angles, category of filament lamp, light source module, etc.).
 A change of the colour of the filament lamp or the colour of any filter does not constitute a change of type.
 2.4.
 References made in this Regulation to standard (étalon) filament lamp(s) and to Regulation No 37 shall refer to Regulation No 37 and its series of amendments in force at the time of application for type approval.
 3. APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL
 3.1.
 The application for approval shall be submitted by the holder of the trade name or mark or by his duty accredited representative.
 At the choice of the applicant, it will specify that the device may be installed on the vehicle with different inclinations of the reference axis in respect to the vehicle reference planes and to the ground or rotate around its reference axis; these different conditions of installation shall be indicated in the communication form. It shall specify:
 3.1.1.
 whether the side-marker lamp is intended to emit amber or red light.
 3.2.
 For each type of side-marker lamp the application shall be accompanied by:
 3.2.1.
 Drawings in triplicate, sufficiently detailed to permit identification of the type of lamp and showing geometrically in what position(s) it may be mounted on the vehicle; the axis of observation to be taken as the axis of reference in the tests (horizontal angle H = 0°, vertical angle V = 0°); the point to be taken as the centre of reference in the said tests; the vertical and horizontal tangents to the illuminating surface and their distances from the centre of reference of the lamp. The drawings shall show the position intended for the approval number and the additional symbols in relation to the circle of the approval mark.
 3.2.2.
 a brief technical description stating, in particular, with the exception of lamps with non-replaceable light sources:
 (a)
 the category or categories of filament lamp(s) prescribed; this filament lamp category shall be one of those contained in Regulation No 37 and its series of amendments in force at the time of application for type approval; and/or
 (b)
 the light source module specific identification code.
 3.2.3.
 Two samples; if the application is made for side-marker lamps which are not identical but are symmetrical and suitable for mounting one on the left and one on the right side of the vehicle and/or, alternatively, one towards the front and one towards the rear, the two samples submitted may be identical and be suitable for mounting only on the right or only on the left side of the vehicle and/or, alternatively, only towards the front or only towards the rear.
 4. MARKINGS
 4.1.
 Side-marker lamps submitted for approval:
 4.2.
 Must bear the trade name or mark of the applicant; this marking must be clearly legible and indelible;
 4.3.
 With the exception of lamps with non-replaceable light sources must bear a clearly legible and indelible marking indicating:
 (a)
 the category or categories of filament lamp(s) prescribed; and/or
 (b)
 the light source module specific identification code.
 4.4.
 Must comprise a space of sufficient size for the approval marking and the additional symbols prescribed in paragraph 5.4 below; this space shall be shown in the drawings mentioned in paragraph 3.2.1 above;
 4.5.
 In the case of lamps with non-replaceable light sources or light source module(s), shall bear the marking of rated voltage or the range of voltages, and the rated wattage.
 4.6.
 In the case of lamps with light source module(s), the light source module(s) shall bear:
 4.6.1.
 the trade name or mark of the applicant; this marking must be clearly legible and indelible;
 4.6.2.
 the specific identification code of the module; this marking must be clearly legible and indelible. This specific identification code shall comprise the starting letters ‘MD’ for ‘MODULE’ followed by the approval marking without the circle as prescribed in paragraph 5.4.1.1 below and, in the case several non identical light source modules are used, followed by additional symbols or characters; this specific identification code shall be shown in the drawings mentioned in paragraph 3.2.1 above.
 The approval marking does not have to be the same as the one on the lamp in which the module is used, but both markings shall be from the same applicant.
 4.6.3.
 the marking of the rated voltage (and rated wattage).
 5. APPROVAL
 5.1.
 If the two side-marker lamps submitted for approval pursuant to paragraph 3.2.3 above satisfy the provisions of this Regulation, approval shall be granted.
 5.2.
 An approval number shall be assigned to each type approved. Its first two digits shall indicate the series of amendments incorporating the most recent major technical amendments made to the Regulation at the time of issue of the approval. The same Contracting Party shall not assign this number to another type of side-marker lamp covered by this Regulation except in the case of the extension of the approval to a side-marker lamp differing only in the colour of the light emitted.
 5.3.
 Notice of approval or of extension or of refusal of approval of a type of side-marker lamp shall be communicated to the Parties to the Agreement which apply this Regulation, by means of a form conforming to the model in Annex 2 to this Regulation.
 5.4.
 Every side-marker lamp conforming to a type approved under this Regulation shall bear, in the space referred to in paragraph 4.4 above, and in addition to the markings prescribed in paragraphs 4.2 and 4.3 or 4.4 respectively:
 5.4.1.
 an international approval mark consisting of:
 5.4.1.1.
 a circle surrounding the letter ‘E’ followed by distinguishing number of the country which has granted the approval (2), and
 5.4.1.2.
 the approval number prescribed in paragraph 5.2 above.
 5.4.2.
 The additional symbol ‘SM1’ or ‘SM2’.
 5.4.3.
 The two digits of the approval number which indicate the series of amendments in force on the date of issue of the approval may be marked close to the above additional symbol.
 5.4.4.
 On devices with reduced light distribution in conformity to paragraph 2.5 in Annex 4 to this Regulation a vertical arrow starting from a horizontal segment and directed downwards.
 5.5.
 The marks and symbols mentioned in paragraphs 5.4.1 to 5.4.3 above shall be indelible and clearly legible even when the device is mounted on the vehicle.
 5.6.
 Where grouped, combined or reciprocally incorporated lamps have been found to comply with the requirements of several Regulations, a single international approval mark may be applied provided that such lamps are not grouped, combined or reciprocally incorporated with a lamp or lamps not satisfying any one of those Regulations.
 5.6.1.
 The approval mark shall consist of a circle surrounding the letter ‘E’ followed by the distinguishing number of the country which has granted the approval; an approval mark may be located anywhere on the grouped, combined or reciprocally incorporated lamps provided that:
 5.6.1.1.
 It is visible after their installation;
 5.6.1.2.
 No part of the grouped, combined or reciprocally incorporated lamps that transmits light can be removed without at the same time removing the approval mark.
 5.7.
 The identification symbol for each lamp appropriate to each Regulation under which approval has been granted, together with the corresponding series of amendments incorporating the most recent major technical amendments to the Regulation at the time of issue of approval shall be marked;
 5.7.1.
 either on the appropriate light-emitting surface, or
 5.7.2.
 in a group, in such a way that each lamp may be clearly identified (see three possible models in example 2 shown in Annex 3).
 5.8.
 The size of the components of a single approval mark shall not be less than the minimum size required for the smallest of the individual marks under which the approval was granted.
 5.9.
 An approval number shall be assigned to each type approved. The same Contracting Party shall not assign the same number to another type of assembly covered by this Regulation.
 5.10.
 Annex 3 to this Regulation gives examples of arrangements of approval marks for a single lamp (example 1) and for an assembly (example 2).
 5.11.
 Lamps grouped with a type of headlamp of which the lens is also used for another type of headlamp. The provisions laid down in paragraphs 5.6 to 5.9 above are applicable.
 5.11.1.
 However, if different types of headlamps or units of lamps including a headlamp comprise the same lens, the latter may bear the different approval marks relating to these types of headlamp or units of lamps, provided that the main body of the headlamp, even if it cannot be separated from the lens, bears the approval marks of the actual functions. If different types of headlamps comprise the same main body, the latter may bear the different approval marks.
 5.11.2.
 Annex 3 to this Regulation gives examples of approval marks relating to lamps which are grouped with a headlamp (example 3).
 5.12.
 The approval marking shall be clearly legible and indelible. It may be placed on an inner or outer part (transparent or not) of the device which cannot be separated from the transparent part of the device emitting the light. In any case the marking shall be visible when the device is fitted on the vehicle or when a movable part such as the hood or boot lid or a door is opened.
 6. GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS
 6.1.
 Each side-marker lamp submitted for approval shall conform to the specifications set out in paragraphs 7 and 8 of this Regulation.
 6.2.
 Side-marker lamps shall be so designed and made that, in normal use, despite the vibrations to which they may then be subjected, their satisfactory operation continues to be ensured and they retain the characteristics prescribed by this Regulation.
 6.3.
 In the case of light source modules, it shall be checked that:
 6.3.1.
 The design of the light source module(s) shall be such as:
 (a)
 that each light source module can only be fitted in no other position than the designated and correct one and can only be removed with the use of tool(s);
 (b)
 if there are more than one light source module used in the housing for a device, light source modules having different characteristics can not be interchanged within the same lamp housing.
 6.3.2.
 The light source module(s) shall be tamperproof.
 6.4.
 In the case of replaceable filament lamp(s):
 6.4.1.
 Any category or categories of filament lamp(s) approved according to Regulation No 37 may be used, provided that no restriction on the use is made in Regulation No 37 and its series of amendments in force at the time of application for type approval.
 6.4.2.
 The design of the device shall be such that the filament lamp can be fixed in no other position but the correct one.
 6.4.3.
 The filament lamp holder shall conform to the characteristics given in IEC Publication 60061. The holder data sheet relevant to the category of filament lamp used, applies.
 7. INTENSITY OF LIGHT EMITTED
 7.1.
 The intensity of the light emitted by each of the two samples submitted shall be:
 Side-marker lamp category
 SM1
 SM2
 7.1.1.
 Minimum intensity
 In the axis of reference
 4,0 cd
 0,6 cd
 Within the specified angular field, other than above
 0,6 cd
 0,6 cd
 7.1.2.
 Maximum intensity
 Within the specified angular field (3)
 25,0 cd
 25,0 cd
 7.1.3.
 Angular field
 Horizontal
 ± 45 deg.
 ± 30 deg.
 Vertical
 ± 10 deg.
 ± 10 deg.
 7.1.4.
 In the case of a lamp containing more than one light source:
 the lamp shall comply with the minimum intensity required when any one light source has failed;
 when all light sources are illuminated the maximum intensity specified may not be exceeded.
 All light sources which are connected in series are considered to be one light source.
 7.2.
 Outside the reference axis and within the angular fields defined in the diagrams in Annex 1 to this Regulation, the intensity of the light emitted by each of the two side-marker lamps supplied must:
 7.2.1.
 In each direction corresponding to the points in the light distribution table reproduced in Annex 4 to this Regulation, be not less than the product of the minimum specified in paragraph 7.1 above by the percentage specified in the said table for the direction in question;
 7.2.2.
 In no direction within the space from which the side-marker lamp is visible, exceed the maximum specified in paragraph 7.1 above;
 7.2.3.
 The provisions of paragraph 2.2 of Annex 4 to this Regulation on local variations of intensity must be observed.
 7.3.
 Annex 4, to which reference is made in paragraph 7.2.1 above, gives particulars of the measurement methods to be used.
 8. COLOUR OF LIGHT EMITTED
 8.1.
 The side-marker lamp must emit amber light; however it can emit red, if the rearmost side-marker lamp is grouped or combined or reciprocally incorporated with the rear position lamp, the rear end-outline marker lamp, the rear fog lamp, the stop lamp, or is grouped with or has part of the light emitting surface in common with the rear retro-reflector.
 8.2.
 The colour of the light emitted inside the field of the light distribution grid defined at paragraph 2 of Annex 4 must be within the limits of the trichromatic coordinates prescribed for the colour in question when measured in accordance with Annex 5 to this Regulation. Outside this field no sharp variation of colour shall be observed.
 9. TEST PROCEDURE
 9.1.
 Measurements shall be carried out with a colourless standard filament lamp of the type recommended for the side-marker lamp and so regulated as to produce the reference luminous flux prescribed for this type of lamp, taking into account the provisions of paragraph 9.2 below.
 9.2.
 All measurements on lamps equipped with non-replaceable light sources (filament lamps and other) shall be made at 6,75 V, 13,5 V or 28,0 V respectively.
 In the case of light sources supplied by a special power supply, the above test voltages shall be applied to the input terminals of that power supply. The test laboratory may require from the manufacturer the special power supply needed to supply the light sources.
 9.3.
 The limits of the apparent surface in the direction of the reference axis of a light-signalling device shall be determined.
 10. MODIFICATION OF SIDE-MARKER LAMP TYPE AND EXTENSION OF APPROVAL
 10.1.
 Any modification of a side-marker lamp type shall be notified to the administration authority which approved the lamp. The authority may then either:
 10.1.1.
 consider that the modifications are unlikely to have an appreciable adverse effect and that, in any case, the side-maker lamp still meets the requirements; or
 10.1.2.
 require a further test report from the technical service responsible for conducting the tests.
 10.2.
 Confirmation or refusal of approval, specifying the alterations, shall be communicated by the procedure specified in paragraph 5.3 above to the Parties to the Agreement which apply this Regulation.
 10.3.
 The Competent Authority issuing the extension of approval shall assign a series number to each communication form drawn up for such an extension and inform thereof the other Parties to the Agreement applying this Regulation by means of a communication form conforming to the model in Annex 2 to this Regulation.
 11. CONFORMITY OF PRODUCTION
 The conformity of production procedures shall comply with those set out in the Agreement, Appendix 2 (E/ECE/324-E/ECE/TRANS/505/Rev.2), with the following requirements:
 11.1.
 Any side-marker lamp approved according to this Regulation shall be so manufactured as to conform to the type approved by meeting the requirements set forth in paragraphs 7 and 8 above.
 11.2.
 The minimum requirements for conformity of production control procedures set forth in Annex 6 to this Regulation shall be complied with.
 11.3.
 The minimum requirements for sampling by an inspector set forth in Annex 7 to this Regulation shall be complied with.
 11.4.
 The authority which has granted type approval may at any time verify the conformity control methods applied in each production facility. The normal frequency of these verifications shall be once every two years.
 12. PENALTIES FOR NON-CONFORMITY OF PRODUCTION
 12.1.
 The approval granted in respect of a side-marker lamp may be withdrawn if the foregoing conditions are not satisfied.
 12.2.
 If a Party to the Agreement applying this Regulation withdraws an approval it has previously granted, it shall forthwith so notify the other Contracting Parties applying this Regulation, by means of a communication form conforming to the model in Annex 2 to this Regulation.
 13. PRODUCTION DEFINITELY DISCONTINUED
 If the holder of an approval completely ceases to manufacture a side-marker lamp approved in accordance with this Regulation, he shall so inform the authority which granted the approval. Upon receiving the relevant communication, that authority shall inform the other Parties to the Agreement applying this Regulation, by means of a communication form conforming to the model in Annex 2 to this Regulation.
 14. NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF TECHNICAL SERVICES RESPONSIBLE FOR CONDUCTING APPROVAL TESTS, AND OF ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENTS
 The Parties to the Agreement applying this Regulation shall communicate to the United Nations secretariat the names and addresses of the technical services responsible for conducting approval tests and of the administrative departments which grant approval and to which communication forms certifying approval or extension or refusal or withdrawal of approval, issued in other countries, are to be sent.
 15. TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS
 15.1.
 As from the official date of entry into force of Supplement 3 to the Regulation, no Contracting Party applying this Regulation shall refuse to grant ECE approval under this Regulation as amended by Supplement 3.
 15.2.
 As from 24 months after the date of entry into force of Supplement 3 to the Regulation, Contracting Parties applying this Regulation shall grant ECE approvals only if the type of side-marker lamp to be approved meets the requirements of this Regulation as amended by Supplement 3.
 15.3.
 Contracting Parties applying this Regulation shall not refuse to grant extensions of approval to this Regulation in its original form and the subsequent supplements.
 15.4.
 Contracting Parties applying this Regulation shall continue to grant approvals to those types of side-marker lamps which comply with the requirements of this Regulation in its original form and the subsequent supplements during the 12 months period which follows the date of entry into force of Supplement 3 to this Regulation.
 15.5.
 ECE approvals granted under this Regulation earlier than 12 months after the date of entry into force and all extensions of approvals, including those to this Regulation in its original form and the subsequent supplements granted subsequently, shall remain valid indefinitely. When the type of side-marker lamp approved to this Regulation in its original form and the subsequent supplements meets the requirements of this Regulation as amended by Supplement 3, the Contracting Party which granted the approval shall notify the other Contracting Parties applying this Regulation thereof.
 15.6.
 No Contracting Party applying this Regulation shall refuse a type of side-marker lamp approved to Supplement 3 to this Regulation.
 15.7.
 Until 36 months after the date of entry into force of Supplement 3 to this Regulation, no Contracting Party applying this Regulation shall refuse a type of side-marker lamp approved to the this Regulation in its original form and the subsequent supplements.
 15.8.
 Starting 36 months after the date of entry into force of Supplement 3 to this Regulation, Contracting Parties applying this Regulation may refuse the sale of a type of side-marker lamp which does not meet the requirements of Supplement 3 to this Regulation unless the side-marker lamp is intended as a replacement for fitting on vehicles in use.
 15.9.
 Contracting Parties applying this Regulation shall continue to issue approvals for side-marker lamps on the basis of any previous supplement to the Regulation, provided that these side-marker lamps are intended as replacements for fitting to vehicles in use.
 15.10.
 As from the official date of entry into force of Supplement 3 to the Regulation, no Contracting Party applying this Regulation shall prohibit the fitting on a vehicle of a side-marker lamp approved under this Regulation as amended by Supplement 3 to this Regulation.
 15.11.
 Contracting Parties applying this Regulation shall continue to allow the fitting on a vehicle of a side-marker lamp approved to this Regulation in its original form and the subsequent supplements during the 48 months period which follows the date of entry into force of Supplement 3 to the 00 series of amendments.
 15.12.
 Upon the expiration of a period of 48 months after the date of entry into force of Supplement 3 to this Regulation, Contracting Parties applying this Regulation may prohibit the fitting of a side-marker lamp which does not meet the requirements of this Regulation as amended by Supplement 3 on a new vehicle for which national type or individual approval was granted more than 24 months after the date of entry into force of Supplement 3.
 15.13.
 Upon the expiration of a period of 60 months after the date of entry into force, Contracting Parties applying this Regulation may prohibit the fitting of a side-marker lamp which does not meet the requirements of this Regulation as amended by Supplement 3 on a new vehicle first registered more than 60 months after the date of entry into force of Supplement 3 to this Regulation.
 (1) As defined in Annex 7 to the Consolidated Resolution on the Construction of Vehicles (R.E.3), (document TRANS/WP.29/78/Rev.1/Amend.2 as last amended by Amend.4).
 (2) 1 for Germany, 2 for France, 3 for Italy, 4 for the Netherlands, 5 for Sweden, 6 for Belgium, 7 for Hungary, 8 for the Czech Republic, 9 for Spain, 10 for Serbia, 11 for the United Kingdom, 12 for Austria, 13 for Luxembourg, 14 for Switzerland, 15 (vacant), 16 for Norway, 17 for Finland, 18 for Denmark, 19 for Romania, 20 for Poland, 21 for Portugal, 22 for the Russian Federation, 23 for Greece, 24 for Ireland, 25 for Croatia, 26 for Slovenia, 27 for Slovakia, 28 for Belarus, 29 for Estonia, 30 (vacant), 31 for Bosnia and Herzegovina, 32 for Latvia, 33 (vacant), 34 for Bulgaria, 35 (vacant), 36 for Lithuania, 37 for Turkey, 38 (vacant), 39 for Azerbaijan, 40 for The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, 41 (vacant), 42 for the European Community (Approvals are granted by its Member States using their respective ECE symbol), 43 for Japan, 44 (vacant), 45 for Australia, 46 for Ukraine, 47 for South Africa, 48 for New Zealand, 49 for Cyprus, 50 for Malta, 51 for the Republic of Korea, 52 for Malaysia, 53 for Thailand, 54 and 55 (vacant), 56 for Montenegro, 57 (vacant) and 58 for Tunisia. Subsequent numbers shall be assigned to other countries in the chronological order in which they ratify or accede to the Agreement Concerning the Adoption of Uniform Technical Prescriptions for Wheeled Vehicles, Equipment and Parts which can be Fitted and/or be Used on Wheeled Vehicles and the Conditions for Reciprocal Recognition of Approvals Granted on the Basis of these Prescriptions, and the numbers thus assigned shall be communicated by the Secretary-General of the United Nations to the Contracting Parties to the Agreement.
 (3) In addition, for red side-marker lamp, in the angular field from 60° to 90° in horizontal direction and ± 20° in vertical direction towards the front of the vehicle, the maximum intensity is limited to 0,25 cd.
 ANNEX 1
 MINIMUM ANGLES REQUIRED FOR LIGHT DISTRIBUTION IN SPACE
 Minimum vertical angles, SM1 and SM2:
 The angle of 10 ° below the horizontal may be reduced to 5 ° in case of lamps with a mounting height of equal to or less than 750 mm above the ground.
 Minimum horizontal angles, SM1:
 Minimum horizontal angles, SM2:
 ANNEX 2
 COMMUNICATION
 (Maximum format: A4 (210 × 297 mm))
 ANNEX 3
 ARRANGEMENTS OF APPROVAL MARKS
 Example 1(a)
 Example 1(b)
 Example 2
 Simplified marking for an assembly of several lamps that are part of the same unit
 MODEL A
 MODEL B
 MODEL C
 Note: The three examples of approval mark, models A, B, and C represent three possible variants of marking of a light-signalling device when two or more lamps are part of the same unit of grouped, combined or reciprocally incorporated lamps.
 The approval mark shows that the device was approved in the Netherlands (E4) under 3333 and comprises:
 A rear and a side retro-reflector of a class IA approved in accordance with Regulation No 3, 02 series of amendments;
 A rear direction indicator lamp of category 2a approved in accordance with Regulation No 6, 01 series of amendments;
 A rear position lamp (R) approved in accordance with Regulation No 7, 01 series of amendments;
 A rear fog lamp (F) approved in accordance with Regulation No 38, 01 series of amendments;
 A reversing lamp (AR) approved in accordance with Regulation No 23, 01 series of amendments;
 A stop lamp (S1) approved in accordance with Regulation No 7, 01 series of amendments;
 A side-marker lamp (SM1) approved in conformity with the present Regulation in its original form.
 Lamp reciprocally incorporated as grouped with a headlamp
 Example 3
 The main body of the headlamp shall bear the only valid approval number, for instance:
 Example 4
 Light source modules
 MD E3 17325
 The light source module bearing the identification code shown above has been approved together with a lamp approved in Italy (E3) under approval number 17325.
 ANNEX 4
 PHOTOMETRIC MEASUREMENTS
 1. Measurement methods
 1.1. During photometric measurement stray reflections shall be avoided by appropriate masking.
 1.2. In case the results of measurements should be challenged, measurements shall be carried out in such a way as to meet the following requirements:
 1.2.1.
 The distance of measurement shall be such that the law of the inverse of the square of the distance is applicable;
 1.2.2.
 The measuring equipment shall be such that the angular aperture of the receiver viewed from the reference centre of the lamp is comprised between 10 minutes and 1 degree;
 1.2.3.
 The intensity requirement for a particular direction of observation shall be deemed to be satisfied if that requirement is met in a direction deviating by not more than one-quarter of a degree from the direction of observation.
 1.3. In the case where the device may be installed on the vehicle in more than one or in a field of different positions the photometric measurements shall be repeated for each position or for the extreme positions of the field of the reference axis specified by the manufacturer.
 1.4. The direction H = 0° and V = 0° corresponds to the reference axis. (On the vehicle it is horizontal, perpendicular to the median longitudinal plane of the vehicle and oriented in the required direction of visibility.) It passes through the centre of reference.
 2. Tables of light distribution
 2.1. SM1 category of side-marker lamps
 2.1.1.
 Minimum values:
 0,6 cd at any point other than the reference axis, at which it shall be 4,0 cd.
 2.1.2.
 Maximum values:
 25,0 cd at any point
 2.2. SM2 category of side-marker lamps
 2.2.1.
 Minimum values:
 0,6 cd, at any point
 2.2.2.
 Maximum values:
 25,0 cd, at any point
 2.3. For SM1 and SM2 category of side-marker lamps it may be sufficient to check only five points selected by the test authority.
 2.4. Within the field of light distribution shown above as a grid the light pattern should be substantially uniform, i.e. the light intensity in every direction within a part of the field formed by the grid lines shall meet at least the lowest minimum value applicable to the respective grid lines.
 2.5. However, in the case where the device is intended to be installed at a mounting height of equal to or less than 750 mm above the ground, the photometric intensity is verified only up to an angle of 5° downwards.
 3. Photometric measurement of lamps
 The photometric performance shall be checked:
 3.1. For non-replaceable light sources (filament lamps and other):
 with the light sources present in the lamp, in accordance with paragraph 9.2 of this Regulation.
 3.2. For replaceable filament lamps:
 when equipped with filament lamps at 6,75 V, 13,5 V or 28,0 V the luminous intensity values produced shall be corrected. The correction factor is the ratio between the reference luminous flux and the mean value of the luminous flux found at the voltage applied (6,75 V, 13,5 V or 28,0 V). The actual luminous fluxes of each filament lamp used shall not deviate more than ± 5 per cent from the mean value. Alternatively a standard filament lamp may be used in turn, in each of the individual positions, operated at its reference flux, the individual measurements in each position being added together.
 3.3. For any signalling lamp except those equipped with filament lamp(s), the luminous intensities, measured after one minute and after 30 minutes of operation, shall comply with the minimum and maximum requirements. The luminous intensity distribution after one minute of operation can be calculated from the luminous intensity distribution after 30 minutes of operation by applying at each test point the ratio of luminous intensities measured at HV after one minute and after 30 minutes of operation.
 ANNEX 5
 Colour of light emitted: lights for chromaticity coordinates
 For checking the colorimetric characteristics, a source of light at a colour temperature of 2 856 K, corresponding to illuminant A of the International Commission on Illumination (CIE), shall be used. However, for lamps equipped with non-replaceable light sources (filament lamps and other), the colorimetric characteristics should be verified with the light sources present in the lamp, in accordance with paragraph 9.2 of this Regulation.
 ANNEX 6
 MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR CONFORMITY OF PRODUCTION CONTROL PROCEDURES
 1. GENERAL
 1.1. The conformity requirements shall be considered satisfied from a mechanical and geometric standpoint, if the differences do not exceed inevitable manufacturing deviations within the requirements of this Regulation.
 1.2. With respect to photometric performances, the conformity of mass-produced side-marker lamps shall not be contested if, when testing photometric performances of any side-marker lamp chosen at random and equipped with a standard filament lamp, or when the side-marker lamps are equipped with non-replaceable light sources (filament lamps or other), and when all measurements are made at 6,75 V, 13,5 V or 28,0 V respectively:
 1.2.1.
 no measured value deviates unfavourably by more than 20 per cent from the values prescribed in this Regulation.
 1.2.2.
 If, in the case of a side-marker lamp equipped with a replaceable light source and if results of the test described above do not meet the requirements, tests on side-marker lamps shall be repeated using another standard filament lamp.
 1.3. The chromaticity coordinates shall be complied with when the side-marker lamp is equipped with a standard filament lamp, or for side-marker lamps equipped with non-replaceable light sources (filament lamps or other), when the colorimetric characteristics are verified with the light source present in the side-marker lamp.
 2. MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR VERIFICATION OF CONFORMITY BY THE MANUFACTURER
 For each type of side-marker lamp the holder of the approval mark shall carry out at least the following tests, at appropriate intervals. The tests shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of this Regulation.
 If any sampling shows non-conformity with regard to the type of test concerned, further samples shall be taken and tested. The manufacturer shall take steps to ensure the conformity of the production concerned.
 2.1. Nature of tests
 Tests of conformity in this Regulation shall cover the photometric and colorimetric characteristics.
 2.2. Methods used in tests
 2.2.1.
 Tests shall generally be carried out in accordance with the methods set out in this Regulation.
 2.2.2.
 In any test of conformity carried out by the manufacturer, equivalent methods may be used with the consent of the competent authority responsible for approval tests. The manufacturer is responsible for proving that the applied methods are equivalent to those laid down in this Regulation.
 2.2.3.
 The application of paragraphs 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 requires regular calibration of test apparatus and its correlation with measurements made by a competent authority.
 2.2.4.
 In all cases the reference methods shall be those of this Regulation, particularly for the purpose of administrative verification and sampling.
 2.3. Nature of sampling
 Samples of side-marker lamps shall be selected at random from the production of a uniform batch. A uniform batch means a set of side-marker lamps of the same type, defined according to the production methods of the manufacturer.
 The assessment shall in general cover series production from individual factories. However, a manufacturer may group together records concerning the same type from several factories, provided these operate under the same quality system and quality management.
 2.4. Measured and recorded photometric characteristics
 The sampled lamp shall be subjected to photometric measurements for the minimum values at the points listed in Annex 4 and the required chromaticity coordinates.
 2.5. Criteria governing acceptability
 The manufacturer is responsible for carrying out a statistical study of the test results and for defining, in agreement with the competent authority, criteria governing the acceptability of his products in order to meet the specifications laid down for verification of conformity of products in paragraph 11.1 of this Regulation.
 The criteria governing the acceptability shall be such that, with a confidence level of 95 per cent, the minimum probability of passing a spot check in accordance with Annex 7 (first sampling) would be 0,95.
 ANNEX 7
 MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR SAMPLING BY AN INSPECTOR
 1. GENERAL
 1.1. The conformity requirements shall be considered satisfied from a mechanical and a geometric standpoint, in accordance with the requirements of this Regulation, if any, if the differences do not exceed inevitable manufacturing deviations.
 1.2. With respect to photometric performance, the conformity of mass-produced side-marker lamps shall not be contested if, when testing photometric performances of any side-marker lamp chosen at random and equipped with a standard filament lamp, or when the side-marker lamps are equipped with non-replaceable light sources (filament lamps or other), and when all measurements are made at 6,75 V, 13,5 V or 28,0 V respectively:
 1.2.1.
 no measured value deviates unfavourably by more than 20 per cent from the values prescribed in this Regulation.
 1.2.2.
 If, in the case of a side-marker lamp equipped with a replaceable light source and if results of the test described above do not meet the requirements, tests on side-marker lamps shall be repeated using another standard filament lamp.
 1.2.3.
 Side-marker lamps with apparent defects are disregarded.
 1.3. The chromaticity coordinates shall be complied with when the side-marker lamp is equipped with a standard filament lamp, or for the side-marker lamps equipped with non-replaceable light sources (filament lamps or other), when the colorimetric characteristics are verified with the light source present in the side-marker lamp.
 2. FIRST SAMPLING
 In the first sampling four side-marker lamps are selected at random. The first sample of two is marked A, the second sample of two is marked B.
 2.1. The conformity is not contested
 2.1.1.
 Following the sampling procedure shown in Figure 1 of this Annex, the conformity of mass-produced side-marker lamps shall not be contested if the deviations of the measured values of the side-marker lamps in the unfavourable directions are:
 2.1.1.1.
 sample A
 A1:
 one side-marker lamp
 0 per cent
 one side-marker lamp not more than
 20 per cent
 A2:
 both side-marker lamps more than
 0 per cent
 but not more than
 20 per cent
 go to sample B
 2.1.1.2.
 sample B
 B1:
 both side-marker lamps
 0 per cent
 2.1.2.
 or, if the conditions of paragraph 1.2.2 for sample A are fulfilled.
 2.2. The conformity is contested
 2.2.1.
 Following the sampling procedure shown in Figure 1 of this annex the conformity of mass-produced side-marker lamps shall be contested and the manufacturer requested to make his production meet the requirements (alignment) if the deviations of the measured values of the side-marker lamps are:
 2.2.1.1.
 sample A
 A3:
 one side-marker lamp not more than
 20 per cent
 one side-marker lamp more than
 20 per cent
 but not more than
 30 per cent
 2.2.1.2.
 sample B
 B2:
 in the case of A2
 one side-marker lamp more than
 0 per cent
 but not more than
 20 per cent
 one side-marker lamp not more than
 20 per cent
 B3:
 in the case of A2
 one side-marker lamp
 0 per cent
 one side-marker lamp more than
 20 per cent
 but not more than
 30 per cent
 2.2.2.
 or, if the conditions of paragraph 1.2.2 for sample A are not fulfilled.
 2.3. Approval withdrawn
 Conformity shall be contested and paragraph 12 applied if, following the sampling procedure in Figure 1 of this annex, the deviations of the measured values of the side-marker lamps are:
 2.3.1.
 sample A
 A4:
 one side-marker lamp not more than
 20 per cent
 one side-marker lamp more than
 30 per cent
 A5:
 both side-marker lamps more than
 20 per cent
 2.3.2.
 sample B
 B4:
 in the case of A2
 one side-marker lamp more than
 0 per cent
 but not more than
 20 per cent
 one side-marker lamp more than
 20 per cent
 B5:
 in the case of A2
 both side-marker lamps more than
 20 per cent
 B6:
 in the case of A2
 one side-marker lamp
 0 per cent
 one side-marker lamp more than
 30 per cent
 2.3.3.
 or, if the conditions of paragraph 1.2.2 for samples A and B are not fulfilled.
 3. REPEATED SAMPLING
 In the cases of A3, B2, B3 a repeated sampling, third sample C of two side-marker lamps and fourth sample D of two side-marker lamps, selected from stock manufactured after alignment, is necessary within two months’ time after the notification.
 3.1. The conformity is not contested
 3.1.1.
 Following the sampling procedure shown in Figure 1 of this annex the conformity of mass-produced side-marker lamps shall not be contested if the deviations of the measured values of the side-marker lamps are:
 3.1.1.1.
 sample C
 C1:
 one side-marker lamp
 0 per cent
 one side-marker lamp not more than
 20 per cent
 C2:
 both side-marker lamps more than
 0 per cent
 but not more than
 20 per cent
 go to sample D
 3.1.1.2.
 sample D
 D1:
 in the case of C2
 both side-marker lamps
 0 per cent
 3.1.2.
 or, if the conditions of paragraph 1.2.2 for sample C are fulfilled.
 3.2. The conformity is contested
 3.2.1.
 Following the sampling procedure shown in Figure 1 of this annex the conformity of mass-produced side-marker lamps shall be contested and the manufacturer requested to make his production meet the requirements (alignment) if the deviations of the measured values of the side-marker lamps are:
 3.2.1.1.
 sample D
 D2:
 in the case of C2
 one side-marker lamp more than
 0 per cent
 but not more than
 20 per cent
 one side-marker lamp not more than
 20 per cent
 3.2.1.2.
 or, if the conditions of paragraph 1.2.2 for sample C are not fulfilled.
 3.3. Approval withdrawn
 Conformity shall be contested and paragraph 12 applied if, following the sampling procedure in Figure 1 of this annex, the deviations of the measured values of the side-marker lamps are:
 3.3.1.
 sample C
 C3:
 one side-marker lamp not more than
 20 per cent
 one side-marker lamp more than
 20 per cent
 C4:
 both side-marker lamps more than
 20 per cent
 3.3.2.
 sample D
 D3:
 in the case of C2
 one side-marker lamp 0 or more than
 0 per cent
 one side-marker lamp more than
 20 per cent
 3.3.3.
 or, if the conditions of paragraph 1.2.2 for samples C and D are not fulfilled.
 Figure 1


type: other

text:
escalade / bloc Square W
 escalade / bloc Square W T-Shirt La Sportiva T-shirt pour femmes destiné au bloc. Réalisé en coton bio. Impression sur le devant. Tailles: XS, S, M, L Couleurs: jade green white-purple Art. no: 48574 Prix: 45.– Vapor V Wmn Scarpa Chausson d‘escalade précis et puissant. Tige extérieure en microfibre et en cuir. Forme asymétrique et chaussant spécialement adapté aux pieds féminins. Construction de semelle 2/3. Semelle Vibram XS Edge de 3,5 mm. Poids: env. 420 g Pointures: EU 36 - 40 Couleur: turquoise Art. no: 46300 Prix: 159.– Evolution Helix 9.5 (DCS) Sterling La corde d’escalade Evolution Helix 9.5 est sportive et polyvalente. Sterling atteint ici le meilleur compromis entre légèreté et longévité. L’âme et la gaine de la corde bénéficient d’une imprégnation de haute qualité. Poids: env. 59 g/m Longueurs: 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 m Couleur: neon green Art. no: 52605 Prix: dès 145.– (40 m) Stripe 2.0 T-Shirt La Sportiva T-shirt classique de La Sportiva au design à rayures revisité. Réalisé en 100% coton bio. Poids: env. 150 g (M) Tailles: s, M, L, XL Couleur: carbon Art. no: 48615 Prix: 45.– Oasi Tenaya Chausson d‘escalade précis. La fermeture velcro ajustable en finesse permet de l‘utiliser tant pour les courts passages de bloc que pour les longues voies. Forme asymétrique pour une performance accrue sur les petites réglettes. Matériel extérieur en microfibre qui conserve bien sa forme. Semelle: Vibram XS Grip 3.5 mm. Pointures: GB 5.5 - 10.0 Couleur: white-blue Art. no: 49485 Prix: 159.– Crimper Pant La Sportiva Pantalon d‘escalade en tissu stretch robuste offrant une très bonne liberté de mouvement et un excellent confort. Poids: env. 317 g (M) Tailles: s, M, L, XL Couleur: lake-tropic blue Art. no: 51478 Prix: 145.– Cool Mountain T-Shirt Ortovox Fonctionnel, naturellement et durablement rafraîchissant. Le 150 Cool Mountain t-shirt est une combinaison de deux fibres naturelles: la laine mérinos et le Tencel, lequel permet de générer une fraicheur agréable grâce à l‘évaporation. Ceci est particulièrement appréciable pour l‘alpinisme, la marche ou l‘escalade. Poids: env. 155 g Tailles: s, M, L, XL Couleur: crazy orange Art. no: 51580 Prix: 86.– Psiphon FL Short Arc'teryx Grâce à sa construction Softshell hybride, le short Psiphon FL est parfaitement adapté à l‘escalade en rocher. Il est en outre léger, robuste et polyvalent. Poids: env. 200 g (M) Tailles: s, M, L, XL Couleur: pilot Art. no: 51409 Prix: 115.– Armadillo Black Charko Smarter Mammut Sac à magnésie doté d’une doublure intérieure en polaire douce et d’une fermeture étanche. Sur le côté extérieur se trouve une boucle pour fixer une brosse à dent. Le sac à magnésie est livré avec une sangle faisant office de ceinture. Couleur: black-orange Art. no: 52162 Prix: 37.– Le Smarter est un accessoire pour le dispositif d’assurage Smart 2.0. Il soutient l’assureur dans son effort pour éviter les erreurs de manipulation. Le système est conçu de façon à agir uniquement lorsqu’il y a mauvaise manipulation. Le Smarter peut être fixé sur le Smart 2.0 et être enlevé à tout moment sans problème. En cas de chute, le Smarter assure que la corde se bloque de manière fiable même si, par erreur, elle est tenue au-dessus de la ligne du dispositif d’assurage. Poids: env. 8 g Couleur: phantom Art. no: 52489 Prix: 22.– Smart 2.0 Mammut Le Smart 2.0 de Mammut est la suite logique du dispositif d’assurage Smart qui a connu un franc succès. Le Smart 2.0 fonctionne, tout comme son prédécesseur, selon le principe d’un tube. Il convient autant à l’assurage d’un grimpeur en moulinette qu’à un grimpeur en tête. L’effet de freinage et la géométrie ont encore une fois été optimisés pour le Smart 2.0. Idéal pour les cordes d’un diamètre de 8,7 à 10,5 mm. Poids: env. 80 g Couleurs: dark orange radiance dark ultramarine phantom Art. no: 52488 Prix: 47.– matthias schmid achat hardwear escalade hommes Bam Bam FrictionLabs De la magnésie par les grimpeurs pour les grimpeurs. Grâce à une préparation spéciale, la fabrication de cette magnésie est exempte de toute impureté et de tout sousproduit. La différence est immédiatement perceptible. Une couche fine uniforme se forme sur la peau et garantit une adhérence optimale. En outre, comme la peau reste sèche plus longtemps, il moins souvent nécessaire de remettre de la magnésie. Disponible dans différents degrés de mouture : Bam Bam – super chunky. Inhalt: 5 oz, 142 g Art. no: 51692 Prix: 19.– « Avec le Smarter, Mammut se penche sur la problématique du principe de la main de freinage et de l’angle de la corde entrant dans le dispositif. Pour assurer un fonctionnement correct, l’angle d’entrée dans le dispositif est décisif pour de nombreux dispositifs d’assurage actuels. Nos conseillers vous feront volontiers une démonstration du maniement des différents dispositifs d’assurage au magasin.» 20 bächli sÉlection 01 / 2018 21