THE SEVEN LAWS

[frandoch]

Hi there,

My apologies. I've been very busy doing some changes to my book to fit in with design requirements, and I'm away today till next Tuesday. So the joust will have to wait till then.

Love to all.

Michael F.

[yellowblue]

Ah ha, Michael F.--

I've been waiting with sword/lance poised...

This suspension does take advantage of the tension doesn't it... will all be ready for the joust?... ; )

A simple A4 sheet of paper shouldn't call for a joust, but then again the simple has always cried for clarification...maybe your words bring forth some premonition and truth. there will always be that, truth... But then again what is truth...

It begins...

you've called for readiness...

Deb

[frandoch]

Hi there,

Sorry about the delay - I?ve been away for a week or so.

If we want to live a life of joy, bliss, internal peace, whatever the universe throws at us, we have to understand how the universe works - what the rules are. The universe doesn?t care for us as individuals - because we?re not separate individuals - we are part of the One. It may not provide us with what we think we want - that?s ego - but it will provide us with what we need, if we follow the rules. It doesn?t matter whether or not you believe the rules - they still operate. An example I use is that if you step off a tall building you?ll hit the ground hard and fast whether or not you believe in gravity - it?s one of the rules of this physical world.

So, what are the rules for success as a spiritual being. They are more understandings, awarenesses, rather than rules. I?ll list them below and then write a short paragraph on each. I can expand on them further, and say how we can apply them in our daily lives if anyone would like me to.

1. Pure Potential

The whole of this manifested reality is pure consciousness. Before this material universe existed - before even space and time came into being - there was pure consciousness - an ocean of unmanifested potential, which contained all possibilities. When we become aware that we too are pure potential, we align ourselves with the power to manifest anything in our lives - we realise that we are co-creators of our reality.

2. Giving

The universe is dynamic - it flows. Everything is give and take. Without the flow of energy, nothing can happen. Consider water or electricity - if they?re not flowing, nothing is achieved, except stagnation. You must realise that giving, true giving, without sending an invoice, means that you are living from a state of abundance instead of a state of lacking. Whatever you want, start by giving it to others - the universe will refill you - it is infinite - and so are you.

3. Cause and Effect

Every thought, word and action generates energy, which flows from us to the edges of the universe. We reap that which we sow. If we choose to bring happiness, love and abundance to others, your karma will be happiness, love and abundance.

4. Least Effort

?An integral being knows without going, sees without looking, and accomplishes without doing.? (Lao Tzu)

This is the principle of non-action - do less, achieve more - until finally you achieve everything by doing nothing.

5. Intention and Desire

Everything that exists started as an idea - a seed idea in the ocean of pure potential. This grew to become a Desire to manifest it on the physical plane - then came the Intention to manifest it - then came the manifestation.

6. Detachment

?In detachment lies the wisdom of uncertainty?..in the wisdom of uncertainty lies freedom from our past, from the known, which is a prison of past conditioning. In our willingness to step into the unknown, the field of all possibilities, we surrender ourselves to the Creative Mind that orchestrates the dance of the universe? (Deepak Chopra)

7. Purpose in Life

Each of us has a purpose in life - a unique talent. When we blend this talent with service to others, we experience the ecstasy and exultation of our own spirit, which is part of the One, which is experiencing this reality through our own unique pair of eyes.

Michael F.

[chrislofting]

Hi Michael,

Your 'laws' reflect an acceptable idealist perspective, where consciousness is deemed 'primary'. My own perspective is of the more materialist (or more 'hybrid') approach that puts matter first, consciousness second (note how the distinctions form a dichotomy of differentiating/integrating in the form of idealist/materialist - IOW the distinctions alone reflect we are already one step 'removed' from reality of the species -a hybrid format (see below)). The current data from neurosciences supports more the materialist perspective where the idealism stems from exaggerations. The benefit of the exaggerations is in being able to make clear differentiations, PARTS analysis. From that process has emerged our consciousness-nature.

There is the indication that the roots of consciousness, the idealism, stem from basic instincts of our species-nature where in the processing of stimuli:

(a) each stimuli is potentially meaningful
(b) all stimuli are potentially linked together

these are survival instincts to avoid becoming dinner for some other lifeform. Their exaggeration is where the term 'potential' is removed and, through the process of anthropomorphism, we read into these instincts more than is there (as in give them a 'life'). Consciousness seems to have emerged from our species' development of high detail processing, where the stimulus/response, holistic interactions with reality is refined, made more 'precise'.

That said, we can trace the roots of differentiating/integrating to the beginnings of the Universe (see http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/summary.html) and so those protective instincts reflect adaptations to the Universe ;-) - adaptations rooted in all neuron-dependent lifeforms.

Note that the physiological consequences of focusing attention upon something is that the focus of energy causes a distortion in subjective time experience - our species-nature time is thermodynamic, the 'arrow of time' and so a dialectical, I Ching-like perspective (all is change) whereas our consciousness-nature time is mechanistic, time appears to be slowable, stoppable, and even reversible! From these exaggerations of energy comes a sense of the 'eternal' - no change - the advantage to a lifeform of this analytical approach is in object identification, discreteness, 'things'. The 'problems' are when this perspective is deemed 'the' perspective of reality - it isnt for our species-nature, it is for our consciousness-nature - and so out pops what our consciousness-nature deems 'paradox' ;-) (also note that we will instinctively reflect on such experiences as 'the eternal' and so rationalise its meaning with stories of 'gods' etc etc etc)

What Lao Tsu talks about in:

> 4. Least Effort
>
> ?An integral being knows without going, sees without
> looking, and accomplishes without doing.? (Lao Tzu)
>

.. is the interaction of our species-nature and our consciousness-nature. Here the 'way of the superior' is reflected in differentiating, refining, and re-integrating the instincts/habits of our collective nature such that, placed in ANY context, we adapt immediately, seamlessly, such that we automatically 'go with the flow' in that consciousness is not required, there is no need to consciously see or do or know since it is all done 'instinctively', intuitively, reflecting the total integration of one with the collective that is our species.

ANY training exercise is through the differentiation of details, the use of that differentiation to refine actions etc, and so re-integrate that which has been differentiated to a level of 'stimulus/response' - we return to our species-nature but with more 'refined' instincts. The tool to do all of this is our consciousness-nature, it allows us to use imagination to refine instincts/habits rather than have to have an actual experience - IOW our imagination aids in speeding-up our adaptations and so refine our abilities to predict, adapt, adopt.

What these processes have done is create TWO senses of the 'everyday', that which our species shares with the universe, a materialist perspective, focused on millions of years of integration with the universe (and so development of instincts), and that which has, and is still, and will continue to be, a developing hybrid form of everyday, made-up of materialism combined with our idealism (note how this reflects yin/yang folding back into T'ai Chi and an overall sense of folding-unfolding-folding etc etc)

Our species-nature interacts 'seamlessly' with the materialist universe. Our consciousness-nature focuses more on the hybrid everyday that it thinks is 'the' everyday and its exaggerations can cause 'conflict' in this activity in that the high-energy focus in consciousness forces a focus on competitive exchange etc (gets into the five-phase phase of METAL ;-)) - especially-so when unaware of what is going on 'in here' from a neurocognitive perspective.

Our consciousness-nature, evolving from a parts perspective, is more precise than our species-nature and as such the experience of our individual consciousness as the 'beginning' of things, as the start of 'self' is useful but also a delusion, we develop like the I Ching hexagrams, from general-to-particular. At the level the particular develops the 'spirit' ;-), the realm of personal consciousness as well as personal unconsciousness. Post that is the collective unconscious we all share as species-members (see quotes and comments in http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/jungcollect.html )

The problems we have in interpretations of reality a la quantum mechanics etc stem from not understanding the differences between our consciousness-nature and our species-nature. This has also been the problem with past interpretations of reality where, lacking any knowledge of HOW we as a species process data, we will use our imagination! ;-) We see this in split brain patients where the left hemisphere is more into identifications and will rationalise when presented with 'unknowns' - at the species-level it is 'driven' to interpret and at the consciousness-level many 'what ifs' are possible! - we are instinctive story-tellers.

For example, see my page on a rabbi's explanation of 'angels' (http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/angels.html) where the lack of knowledge re how our habits/instincts are encoded into the input areas of neurons and so allow context to PUSH us, has led to the (a) acknowledgement of our minds sensing of being 'guided' or 'pushed' in a context (b) the rationisation that there must be 'invisible' forces at hand, i.e. angels etc that are doing this 'guiding'.

Most of the prose stemming from our consciousness-nature reflects properties of that nature rooted in some of the properties of the neuron - a focus on transcendence, on replacement of 'x' with something considered 'better', and that includes attempts to 'break free' of one's embodyment - where the sense of 'breaking free' stems from a survival instinct where there are occasions where our habits/instincts are not working successfully in a context and so we need to escape that context by either actually escaping to another context (e.g. the attraction of the USA or Australia to those persecuted in other lands) or else by asserting our own context (and so 'starting again', being 'reborn' etc). (see my IDM work or the short essay "Dance of the Neurons" - http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/ideal.html )

Any parts-oriented perspective will over-cut, over-differentiate, and so out will pop a dynamic nature overall, very creative but also very costly in energy expenditure and increasingly unstable (with lots and lots of labels, apparent 'things'). The 'natural' consequence of this focus on expenditure is to elicit an exaggerated sense of a need to 'transcend' - IOW transcendence is no longer an escape system, the ultimate act of protection, but becomes something to be exploited - we get off on the 'buzz', we transcend to transcend ;-)

This focus on transcending-to-transcend can be 'fun' but also costly to the species-nature in that it does not allow for time to integrate with a context, we have to 'keep moving' and that becomes 'mindless' - there is no 'mind' in evolution and so if we want to survive as conscious beings we will have to 'go against' the mindless flow of evolution (or more so exploit evolution to develop with it rather than to die out)

Our consciousness-nature as such is more 'yang/yin' oriented, our species-nature more 't'ai chi' oriented. Our consciousness-nature exaggerates, expends energy, there is a focus on 'motivational speakers' etc etc whereas our species-nature balances-out, conserves energy (and so we see these distinctions in yang/yin itself). Our consciousness-nature emerges from our species-nature to allow for LOCAL exaggerations. Problems come when we try to make those exaggerations a 'way of life' in that the energy expenditure means we use-up natural, finite, resources without considering the consequences of those actions in that the high energy causes a shrinking of one's 'world', it becomes all 'me, me' (or fundamentalist groups).

The I Ching covers all of this in that it reflects the brain that reflects the neuron.

As such, your prose reflects coming out of a consciousness-nature perspective which is fine, but is perhaps in need of being 'grounded' a little more in our species-nature otherwise we can get too carried away with trying to *escape* (aka transcend) and in doing so lose contact with our species-nature, a nature currently 'inescapable' and in need of some 'care' at the moment, the exaggerations of consciousness includes fundamentalism and that is doing damage at this time.

Chris.

[frandoch]

Hi Chris

Our dialogue demonstrates the differences between our approaches to reality.

You are a 'reductionist' - I am more 'holistic' - you are 'bottom-up', whereas I am 'top down'.
This doesn't mean that either of us is 'right' or 'wrong'.

But mine are somewhat shorter than yours. LOLOLOL

I stand by what I wrote - as you do - and we are both 'right' and 'wrong'.

Michael F.

[chrislofting]

Hi Michael,

you wrote:
> Hi Chris
>
> Our dialogue demonstrates the differences between our
> approaches to reality.
>
> You are a 'reductionist' - I am more 'holistic' - you
> are 'bottom-up', whereas I am 'top down'.
> This doesn't mean that either of us is 'right' or 'wrong'.
>

Here I think you misunderstand. My perspective is from that of the species-nature and as such focuses on the structure of the collective unconscious and THAT is holistic in that it reflects a few millions years of *integration* with the Universe. What my perspective identifies is the set of generic qualities used by ALL neuron-dependent lifeforms for the derivation of meaning and as such is not 'reductionist' in that it reflects a common theme that is then *exaggerated* and from that exaggeration emerges consciousness.

The work is also strongly supported through empirical studies in neurosciences, cognitive sciences, psychology, as well as studies in mythology, anthropology, and religion etc etc and as such is validated by repeatable experiments etc in uncovering how we derive meaning (and as a consequence validates the properties and methods of the I Ching as a specialisation of what the brain deals with in general).

As such the work is both 'bottom up' and 'top down' and so is overall 'whole' focused in that it incorporates both top and bottom - a such it is dynamic, it oscillates and from that oscillation emerges a 'whole' ;-)

The overall sense of 'wholes and parts' is strongly present in my approach to the I Ching and that approach has proven to be beneficial in fleshing-out the 10th century BC I Ching into the 21st century I Ching where the interpretations offered includes the recognition of holistic, unconscious, perspectives of the I Ching, the focus on the use of recursion that ensures 'all is linked together' and so wholes and parts.

Interestingly a pure consciousness perspective is in fact, from the species-nature perspective, reductionist, it reflects a focus on hexagrams as being 'independent' of all others, it reflects the focus on individuals as being 'independent' of others and so lacking in any species-nature - a focus we know is 'false' since no species-nature means no communications with others ;-) - IOW the realm of the discrete, a realm of exaggerations of particulars (and so REDUCES something to a static form) - is useful but also derived, reflecting the PARTS perspective that, based on recursion, allows for the WHOLE to be encoded in all parts and that takes us into issues of hierarchy.

The idealist perspective focuses on a sense of the 'eternal' and we can identify that 'sense' as being derived as a consequence, as a side-effect, of high energy focus on 'something' and so of a focus 'transcending' the species-nature trend to conserve energy - IOW properties of consciousness reflect more distortions of our species-nature rather than being 'pre' species-nature.

>
> But mine are somewhat shorter than yours. LOLOLOL
>

:-) ....but are 'limited'. No empirically-derived evidence. Just a focus on faith, it is as such religious. Motivational, a focus on 'lifting', sweeping generalisations ;-) Why the limitation? We can move beyond that. We can make assertions re the needs of our species-nature based on empirically-derived data, pin the generalisations down. Give them 'ground' that is unmovable, unshakable. (as you can see, I am not 'opposite' to you, my perspective is not 'mine vs yours' but more how you can 'lift' yours - cooperative over competitive ;-) - and so my ending comments in the last post re your 'laws' in need of grounding)

'Out of Body' experiences are shown to be 'anomolies' in brain function (discovered through work in epileptic fits etc). We also find that 'intense' revelations, that can lead to spontaneous conversation to the 'spiritual' and so a need to repeat the experience, are sourced to electrical thunderstorms in the temporal lobes of the brain, lobes that encode objects etc and so the thunderstorms can elicit intense images as well as voices etc - and if the mind has no idea what is going on (as is usually the case since it is a later development and so 'new' to all of this) it will create stories ;-) (recall the link to the rabbi's comments on angels).

A 'law' is something that is supportable by 'facts' and best of all by empirically-derived facts, otherwise it is more speculation - story telling ;-)

Our consciousness-nature is still 'child minded' and as such is attracted to the 'magical' and so away from our species-nature and that is proving to be a 'problem' in current times in that the concentration of, the mass production of, personality cults (be they traditional religious, fundamentally religious, fundamentally secular, or 'new age') reflects reductionism, reflects a focus on PARTS where each personality claims 'their way is THE way' and yet they are all parts, not wholes, our wholes, our species-nature, are IMPLIED, not touchable, not nameable, on the fringe of consciousness, or more so out of consciousness. Thus the IDM material can never be a 'specialisation' in that it is too general, BUT it can work as a guide to specialisations (and so flesh-out which of your 'laws' are 'grounded' ;-))

My point is generalist, not asserting a particular, but showing a general that can be used to ground all of the specialisations in their roots, our species-nature. (and so we can flesh-out elements of the I Ching not covered in the past as far as we know).

Chris.

[joang]

Excellent, Michael.
I agree with your views. They dovetail very nicely with an almost-finished article I'm working on right now. I therefore do of course encourage you to expand on them.

Namaste,
Joan G.

[martin]

Hi Chris,

You wrote:
"We also find that 'intense' revelations, that can lead to spontaneous conversation to the 'spiritual' and so a need to repeat the experience, are sourced to electrical thunderstorms in the temporal lobes of the brain, .."

I think we should be a little bit careful here, because - as far as I know - there are no experiments that show that spiritual experiences are always _caused_ by electrical storms.
Some experiments show a correlation but what is caused by what remains uncertain.
Other experiments show that it is possible to generate certain experiences by electrical stimulation of parts of the brain. However, we cannot conclude from that that _every_ experience is caused by electrical of chemical changes in the brain.

In the endless (and IMO very interesting) debate between "materialists" and "idealists" both sides seem to have a tendency to jump to conclusions.

About angels, I _know_ that they exist. Period! http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/biggrin.gif

[dharma]

Specific details clarify and support a point more clearly than faith alone, to be sure. In this sense, I can appreciate what Chris is saying. However, as you pointed out we are masterful storytellers, so if the data is missing or if the data is hard to grasp, then faith & imagination are infinitely better than nothing at all.

Though the student in the following true story could have answered the question like any of the other students, he stepped outside the box and turned his experience into something more... interesting. http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif


HELL.......O

The following is an actual question given on a University of Washington?engineering mid-term.? The answer was so "profound" that the Professor shared it with colleagues, and the sharing obviously hasn't ceased...

Bonus Question:?Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or Endothermic (absorbs heat)?

Most of the students wrote Proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law, (gas? cools off when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant.

One student, however, wrote the following:

"First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time.?So we?need to know the rate that souls are moving into Hell and the rate they are leaving.?I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell,?it will not leave.?Therefore, no souls are leaving.

As for how many souls are entering Hell, let us look at the different religions that exist in the world today.?Some of these religions state that?if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell.?Since there are more than one of these religions and since people do not
belong? to more than one religion, we can project that ALL souls go to Hell.

With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls?in Hell to increase exponentially.?Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand as souls are added.?This gives two possibilities:

1.?If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase
until all Hell breaks loose.

2.?Of course, if Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of?souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.

So which is it?

If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa Banyan during my Freshman?year, "...that it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you" and?take into account the fact that I still have not succeeded in having sexual?relations with her, then, #2 cannot be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and will not freeze."

This student received the only A.

[martin]

http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/biggrin.gif http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/biggrin.gif http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/biggrin.gif

[sparhawk]

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT>


As for how many souls are entering Hell, let us look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Some of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there are more than one of these religions and since people do not
belong to more than one religion, we can project that ALL souls go to Hell.<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup... Masterful!!

I needed that. Thanks Dharma!

Chris, try as I may, I cannot place myself in your vantage point of view. It may be that my IQ is not up to par. Still, I WANT to believe my soul is a separate entity from my body. I may be wrong, but it would be a very comforting kind of denial.

Cheers,

Luis

[chrislofting]

Martin,

your wrote:
> Howwever, we cannot conclude from that that
> _every_ experience is caused by electrical of chemical
> changes in the brain.
>

prove it wrong. show a wired-up living brain with an ongoing mental event with NO brain activity. You cant. period. What CAN be shown is apparent resonance of brain activities, empathy-at-a-distance. (as seen in (a) identical twin research, (b) radio crystal research, (c) generic cell research (cancer cells), (d) waves passing through barriers (QM stuff). IOW there is always activity.)

Our technology is such that we are down to the level of brain scans in a second to millisecond resolution and so can start to map conscious experiences directly with physiological events.

You may like to do some reading on recent work on general brain functions etc http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/neurorefs.html (large file but lots of interesting material in abstracts form)

> In the endless (and IMO very interesting) debate between
> "materialists" and "idealists" both sides seem to have a
> tendency to jump to conclusions.
>

there are no 'sides', there is no debate 'between'. Idealism has emerged from materialism such that wipe out your consciousness and I am still left with a living form (ever been exposed to people suffering Alzheimer's? 'interesting' experience!)

The categories of 'idealism' and 'materialism' reflect the re-labelling of the differentiate/integrate dichotomy and as such validate the the underlying generic patterns we find in categorisations. See the points made in the "Dance of the Neuron" page (http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/ideal.html) - the main point however is the focus on consciousness, and with that idealism, has emerged from materialism where we see that in how our consciousness deals with patterns that our species-nature 'sees' as a whole but our consciousness-nature sees 'paradox' (http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/paradox.html)

(the Dance of the Neuron shows the roots of idealism/materialism at the level of the neuron and the functions of Transformation and Transcendence)

Idealism reflects the exaggerations of things, their 'archetypal' forms where the original material is part of the materialist 'everyday'.

The integrating element reflects the focus on balance, on harmony, on symmetry and gets into concepts such as 'superpositions' and bose-einstein condensates and 'perfect' order in the form of heat death and so a total loss in identifying discreteness. This is the realm of the unary.

The differentiating element reflects a focus on exaggerations, on rigid A/NOT-A distinctions and overall is the realm of the binary. This realm seems to have emerged from the unary, the realm of light (bosons = photons etc).

See the page on reflections re light as our fundamental - http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/light.html

Our brain structure etc reflects the development of consciousness post our species-nature and such texts as that of the rabbi re angels reflects the ignorance of those times where we lacked any understanding about 'in here'. We are now starting to get data to aid in understanding and that will force a paradigm shift in the species in general.

That is where the I Ching comes in in that it reflects the modern findings but allows us to keep 'ancient' terms and so some sense of history.

Chris.

[chrislofting]

Hi luis,

IMHO you miss the point re idealism/materialism. Idealism has emerged from materialism such that we create a hybrid everyday. Interact with THAT everyday and many believe the soul is 'free' of body and with the drive of transcendence seeking there is the potential for that event (see de Chardin or Tippler on the "Omega Point Theory" (google it).

Our *consciousness* feeds into the everyday of the species such that lots of material abounds with concepts of not being embodied - BUT the underlying neurocognitive processes show that the transcendence drive is also an escape mechanism such that our belief reflects the underlying push to escape as an instinct that is recruited and abstracted to be something 'more'.

The NEED for such a concept reflects deeper psychological issues and there is no real problem with making the distinctions of consciousness-nature vs species-nature BUT there is evidence that favours consciousness as evolving from species - and so a materialist focus is primary.

Which of these everydays you wish to interect with is up to you, and your prose suggests you favour the hybrid everyday and thats fine, but to get the 'whole' picture requires more ;-)

Note in my last comments to martin re 'issues' in identical twins etc, these issues reflect 'something' that seems to break no laws where the Pauli Exclusion Principle prohibits fermions (electrons etc) from sharing absolutely identical states (and so the one 'space') but there is nothing about the one being in many spaces ;-)

Chris.

[chrislofting]

Dharma,

LOL!

Chris.

[chrislofting]

Dharma,

You wrote:
>
> Specific details clarify and support a point more clearly
> than faith alone, to be sure. In this sense, I can
> appreciate what Chris is saying. However, as you pointed out
> we are masterful storytellers, so if the data is missing or
> if the data is hard to grasp, then faith &amp; imagination are
> infinitely better than nothing at all.
>

true - BUT when we are in a position to get finer details and the faith is up for replacement then it is up to us to ensure that this happens and we dont continue to live the delusion. The longer one refuses to change, the more extreme one's position becomes to a degree where the extremes sneak up on you and change is dramatic as well as traumatic. With current work in neurosciences etc and the application of that work to the study of specialisations there is no need for the trauma etc in that we recognise the metaphoric emphasis of our maps and so the unchanging 'behind' the changing and that is in the form of our species' notions of 'wholes' and 'parts' etc etc.

Chris.

[yellowblue]

Chris, Michael F. and all,

I think that again the "obstacle" here is regarding postition and perspective for all of us...

How and where are we looking at this...from various interconnecting points that are dew drops on the web of the cosmos....

we can't possibly see things and conduce and come to the same "point" because we're all at differen points/dots in the cosmos web...

the TRUTH here is that from the point and depth of field that we as individuals are in in that field all relate exactly where we need to correspond/inter-relate individually and also as a whole...meaning that because we are all inter-relating the subtle effect that we have on the subconscious is precisely what we need/were meant to encounter to inter-connect in the great all...

We are all silly to believe we have an either an independent or dependent effect on the cosmos and silly to to believe that the cosmos acts independently without the effect of the smallest detail (us..the reasoning especially) having some effect on the whole...

All is vanity... this is intercourse in complete spectrum....from the base physical to the esoterical....

how dare we think that we independently have any profound effect without the effected result...
meaning the leaf falls into the stream, pond, and as subtle as those effects are, it still causes motion whether seen or not.... a pebble thrown in is more evident, but may or not be as profound...

obvious is not important...

every thought word has effect .... rippling out and continuing outward or hitting an object and rippling in ... and both bouncing off a simultaneous ripple and changing course due to interaction....

every thing is relevant and no one is wrong or right... that is the interactiveness of the web... that is what forms the web, redefines the web... constant change... and when we can accept our position of the time that means we are centered... but the center will always change and if we are truly centered we are constantly moving with the flow of energy and see in perspective to the flow, depth of our movement...

None of us will ever be really at the same point in field and depth, but we can relate if we can forget our individual path and see that all the paths intersect at the same time... seeing..depth perception.

Not being able to see in depth and lineally as well causes the individuality or "separating"...black and white. It is when we see the diverse as the whole that we are in the space that integrates and yet incorporates the segregation.

This is what everyone ponders and wishes to embrace... these are the fringes of duality incorporated into the whole. The circle that embraces both yin and yang and completes to make the whole. The absorbing of opposites that integrates so completely. And of course in the unceasing motion and change of all everything in the cosmos the all is in constant flux. Expansion and contraction, but at verious points and depths, but in harmony.

So we are all correct and incorrect...we just need to flow with it all. And that is the problem... we're all trying to figure it out and just get stuck between those octaves...intervals. But we will all arrive at our appointed times. The univerise may be contracting, but it will eventually expand again.

So we can all be happy and accept responsiblity for the "individual" positions we are in in depth and field, point, etc. It's really not a lineal thing and we all, due to conditioning, still relate to some degree or another thing lineally.

Deb

[yellowblue]

P.S.

I am familiar with physics and quantum theory and think that it is evident/existenet in the simplistic terms I used in my previous post.

Over complicating a simple expression doesn't clarify.

Deb

[dharma]

Appreciating everyone's contribution; all are so incredibly (but not surprisingly) brilliant, that I have to don my http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/shades.gif just to remain in the room! http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif

Chris,
you said: "true - BUT when we are in a position to get finer details and the faith is up for replacement then it is up to us to ensure that this happens and we dont continue to live the
delusion. The longer one refuses to change, the more extreme one's position becomes to a degree where the extremes sneak up on you and change is dramatic as well as traumatic. With current work in neurosciences etc and the application of that work to the study of specialisations there is no need for the trauma etc in that we recognise the metaphoric emphasis of our maps and so the unchanging 'behind' the changing and that is in the form of our species' notions of 'wholes' and 'parts' etc etc."


true - BUT we are not all readily in the position to grasp the finer details and so faith is what is left until which time the holes of our delusions can be filled in.

Speaking for myself, I have never been afraid of education and of incorporating the changes that that produces by looking very closely at myself. But no matter how deeply I go with the latest ideas and knowledge at my disposal, I have found that life can still throw me surprising and unanticipated curveballs that subject me to experiencing 'trauma' despite my best efforts.

In that sense, my logic alone cannot protect me, though it certainly is valuable for making sense of those unexpected devastations that I sometimes find myself in the midst of having to clean up. You may believe that I need to outgrow this stage and maybe I do, but for now it is by far easier to cultivate patience in the unknown and trusting that my best interests will prevail than to try to second guess the Mind of God. At least for now.

I do very much love what you bring to this board. Your sharing feeds my neurons precisely what they need for expanding and multiplying... http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif

[chrislofting]

Hi Deb,

I think the point missed by all is that the moment you create a dichotomy so you create an I Ching perspective that in toto covers the whole but our personal consciousness is driven to focus on parts as wholes.

Thus in the dichotomy of idealist/materialist, when the generic characteristics of the elements of the dichotomy are analysed, we find the 'best fit' is of idealism to differentiating and materialism to integrating. These are of course biases where further analysis gives us idealism as focusing on integrating WITHIN what has been differentiated, a focus on linking of parts, whereas materialism limits differentiations to generic 'points' as wholes not parts, this gets into issues of precision, and the overall focus on connections BETWEEN these points.

The pairing process (differentiate, integrate) is a constant but the precision varies, thus in the realm of differentiating there is a degree of high precision in identifying the 'point', the 'static' form, when compared to the materialist perspective where the overall bias is more 'field' oriented and so the implicit unit of measure is a PAIR (reflects the need to use coordinates etc) and identifications are more qualitative than quantitative, more implicit than explicit.

With these distinctions we have in fact moved from the realm of yin/yang to the realm of digrams and on into trigrams and hexagrams where the overall perspectives on idealism/materialism are 64 in number! (move to dodecagrams and we move to 4096 variations).

At the level of hexagrams we can recruit the generic properties of the hexagrams to flesh-out the content of the root elements, i.e. idealism and materialism and to do that from two perspectives (those pairs again!) of a cooperative perspective as against a competitive perspective.

When we include the manner in which we process data using dichotomies that reflect differentiation/integration we find that the A VS NOT-A perspective, the competitive perspective of the exclusive-OR, is more an exaggeration of events, a PART-icularisation where the binary focus reflects the extraction of 'something' from the unary for analysis, IOW the 'yangness' elements have their roots in 'yinness' - idealism has its roots in materialism and these sorts of distinctions are traced down to the generic properties of neurons, what in IDM I label as the Transcendence function (differentiating, high energy focus) and the Transformation function (integrating, conserving of energy).

Now as I said in my original posts to Michael, the moment we make the distinctions of 'idealist/materialist' we are already shifted 'away' from the reality of the species, reality that is A AND B rather than X XOR B. Keep digging and out pop properties and methods of information processing that reflect the differentiating element of the dichotomy as exaggerated from the integrating element, regardless of what scale we are using to review things and this was my overall point in that an idealist perspective needs its roots to really work well (and so we link yin with yang to get t'ai chi ;-))

These patterns we observe in the qualities of the elements of dichotomies ultimately get to the level of the characteristics we use to describe fundamental particles in Physics - fermions and bosons (noting that our instruments are extensions of our senses and as such use the same filtering in identifying patterns as our brain does)

The characteristics of bosons reflect an integrating bias and the ability to create 'superpositions' where many can share the same space - overall there is a focus on the unary.

The characteristics of fermions reflect a differentiating bias, discreteness dominates where we cannot 'share space' (the Pauli Exclusion Principle), the focus in the realm of fermions is on a BINARY perspective (and so all fermions have their 'anti-particle' etc). The dynamics of fermions/bosons are such that fermions emerge from bosons in the form of pairs (and to fall-back into the realm of bosons need to re-form into pairs etc)

If we move 'up' the ladder of characteristics of our general dichotomies we find, for example, that the characteristics of bosons and fermions are reflected in, are isomorphic to, the characteristics found in molecular biology, namely the characteristics of mRNA to DNA where the mRNA forms into a tightly-integrated sequence of codes that identify a particular gene. The DNA, on the other hand, reflects more a distributed system and so a degree of diffusness but also the ability to encode many genes (or gene elements) in the one space etc (and so superposition concepts).

Thus the generic properties we *observe* (and so reflecting properties of our sensory systems, properties extended into our technology) that dominate mRNA are differentiating, the ONE gene from all others, as with the generic properties that dominate DNA are integrating, with the whole gene pool distributed across the whole of the DNA strands we find in all cells of the lifeform. WITHIN these generic categories the mRNA is strongly integrating, its tight serial nature, and the DNA is strongly differentiating (all of those genes ;-)) but also reflecting a parallel nature.

If we keep moving 'up' the ladder of characteristics, we find that at the level of the neuron the same generic patterns are found (axonic/dendritic), and if we keep going all the way up to brain structure and mind structure we still find the same patterns - IOW we see in DIFFERENT contexts the SAME generic properties that reflect differentiation/integration.

This gets us into the issues of whether what we see is determined by our brain structure and so all we can ever know are reflected in our neurons, OR, to extend that, our neurons reflect adaptations to the Universe and as such 'out there' is mapped generically to 'in here'. (see the page that reflects on this issue - http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/symmetry.html)

To study ALL of the properties of idealism, study all of the hexagrams with yang lines as base. To Study all of the properties of materialism, study all of the hexagrams with yin lines as base. (this reflects a need to focus on the binary sequence of the hexagrams).

With this study, also focus on the dynamics of brain activity and neuron activity in processing of information and you will find that the materialist perspective is the one that dominates our species-nature, the use of habits/instincts reflects the focus on protection through integrating with a context and interacting with that context holistically, through the wholeness of those instincts and habits. On the other hand, the idealist perspective is the one that dominates our consciousness-nature where we learn to exploit circumstances to 'transcend' the protection etc and so a focus more on parts, on detailsm and on serial interactions with reality, and that includes communications with others in that reality.

This dynamic of exploit(yang)/protect(yin) means that exploitation leads to protection that leads to the exploitation of that protection etc etc etc to a degree where out of the middle of the exploit/protect dichotomy emerges a mediation industry - thus the more 'developed' nations are overloaded with accountants, lawyers, and psychotherapists (and that includes new-age 'motivationists' etc)

As we work through these various expressions of the differentiate(idealist)/integrate(materialist) dichotomy so we map-out finer details on the differences, but also any samenesses.

The use of our attention system to focus and pour-in energy to analyse 'something' demonstrates the high-precision focus used in idealism where the 'need' is to get clear, precise, identification on 'something', to establish an ideal form, where the encapsulation of that 'something' for the sake of analysis reflects the primary properties of what we call 'idealism' - this actually 'bleeds' into the context and in the development of 'idealist' collectives that are dominated by a focus on archetypes and through communication using stereotyping.

With this development of a high-energy focus comes certain mental experiences, such as the sense of the 'eternal' and a developing sense of the 'spiritual'. From these experiences emerges the general realm of the idealist, and that will focus on issues of consciousness as primary simply because the high precision focus means high levels of distinction making, of parts analysis, out of which seems to emerge personal consciousness and so differences - as well as the personal sense we all have as if all is centred from the individual.

(we note here that in the 'traditional' approach to randomness in the IC, the use of yarrow sticks etc reflects the overall bias in nature to conservation of energy over its expenditure; IOW the the species-nature perspective dominates the yarrow stick methodology)

ALL of this gets into the DEVELOPMENT of the exaggerated notions of the personally 'spiritual' FROM the root elements of the material (that includes a generic sense of the 'spiritual' stemming from genetics focused on protection of the collective). Where we GO with this is up to us, luis for example chooses to follow the path of the spiritual transcending the body etc and thats fine, BUT it does require careful grounding in our species-nature in that the realm of the ideal is also the realm of psychosis - we over-encapsulate and so create our 'own little worlds' - e.g. Heaven's Gate, JonesTown etc etc

you also wrote:
>
> P.S.
>
> I am familiar with physics and quantum theory and think that
> it is evident/existenet in the simplistic terms I used in my
> previous post.
>

ummm... your familiarity appears to be coloured by the traditional perspectives derived from reflections of physicists etc circa 1900, all lacking any understanding at all about neurocognitive processes and how paradox is elicited if we dont recognise the differences in a species-nature perspective vs a consciousness-nature perspective - see my pages on:

(1) paradox processing - http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/paradox.html
(2) consequences of our visual system dominating our brain - http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/light.html
(3) consequences of developing precision through use of audition to communicate - http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/vision.html
(4) patterns that emerge *naturally* from ANY analysis of some event by combining dichotomisation (left-slit/right-slit) with indeterminacy - http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/bits.html (IOW wave-particle duality is a product of method and not necessarily reflecting something 'real' - it is context that determines the patterns, they are not necessarily universals)

The STRUCTURE of our experiments in Physics are determined by the STRUCTURE of our consciousness-nature and as such reflect PARTS perspectives. When we try and map these perspectives to a reality that has developed our sensory systems from a species-nature level of functionality (and so integrated with reality through millions of years of developing instincts etc) we come-up against the reality of our species-nature, a reality that is NON-LOCAL, reflecting balance, integration, symmetry - 'yin-like' properties. Not understanding the differences in perspective guarantees 'paradox' and that leads into all sorts of story-telling as we as a conscious species try to interpret things from a position of ignorance.

This story-telling can get carried-away to a degree where an alternative is not acceptable due to the large paradigm shift that that alternative introduces, and so we enter a realm of creating our own little worlds, not just at the personal level but at the level of the collective.

One of these 'stories' is the assertions re idealism being 'primary'. It is a logical assertion given the facts about our experiences as individuals but when we go 'wide' and into the hidden layers of our being so it appears to be a false assertion such that the expressions of idealism often need grounding in the species-nature levels to become of value across the species. If this is not done then our consciousness-nature can come up with some 'novel' stories about others and endevour to remove those others and in doing so directly threaten the whole species, and be prepared to do so since they lack awareness of the SAMENESS in us all and so our integration as a WHOLE. Our consciousness-nature needs to training to understand these issues.

Chris.

[martin]

Hi Chris,

You wrote "show a wired-up living brain with an ongoing mental event with NO brain activity. You cant."
Maybe I can't, but that's not the point. My question is: what causes the brain activity in the case of experiences of a spiritual nature.
Is it a real spiritual event - communication with an "angel" for example - or is there only an electrical storm and nothing else?
According to the materialist position (and I don't know if that is also your position) the "angel" is an illusion.
To me, that is jumping to conclusions.

Martin

[chrislofting]

Hi Dharma,

you wrote:
> Chris,
> you said: "true - BUT when we are in a position to get finer
> details and the faith is up for replacement then it is up to
> us to ensure that this happens and we dont continue to live
> the
> delusion. The longer one refuses to change, the more extreme
> one's position becomes to a degree where the extremes sneak
> up on you and change is dramatic as well as traumatic. With
> current work in neurosciences etc and the application of
> that work to the study of specialisations there is no need
> for the trauma etc in that we recognise the metaphoric
> emphasis of our maps and so the unchanging 'behind' the
> changing and that is in the form of our species' notions of
> 'wholes' and 'parts' etc etc."
>
>
> true - BUT we are not all readily in the position to grasp
> the finer details and so faith is what is left until which
> time the holes of our delusions can be filled in.
>

sure but there is also a tendency stemmed at the species-nature level of holding-on to what you know 'forever'. This is often focused at the level of expression and at the level of the particular which our parts-oriented consciousness treats as if a whole. One of the issues for many these days is the realisation that a 'job for life' is rare, we have to re-educate etc etc WITHIN our lifetimes such that learning all of the parts of the generic whole can be useful in all of this 'shape-shifting' required these days.

To get the 'whole' picture at the intuitive level requires familiarity with the 'species I Ching' level and that requires a proactive approach to learning those patterns to the level where we no longer have to think, we just 'know' in that we have fleshed-out the patterns, their details etc, through the use of our consciousness-nature.

The focus of 'mindless' evolution is the refinement of stimulus/response processes to fit-in with any context. That process takes a few generations to thousands, perhaps millions, of years of 'mindless' trial and error. - all very EITHER/OR in that EITHER you live OR you die. period. These refinement processes aim to REDUCE trauma through familiarisation at the generic levels, we recognise the uniqueness of contexts and so some 'novel' events in that context but focus on the sameness with other contexts, the generic forms that are 'invarient' (as in properties of 'wholes' as compared to 'parts' etc etc)

The success of lifeforms in general takes a 'leap' when they can internalise a map of their local context and so start to prempt conditions, can start to plan, where our consciousness allows us to use imagination to refine our instincts and in doing so aid in reducing the drama/trauma or, if we are bored, increase the drama/trauma! (know where to go to experience it, or create it ourselves) ;-)

For this list I think the focus is on the use of the IC, or more so its integration, into our toolset of instinctive filtering of reality. That requires work in that we have to transcend the more 'mystic' elements - Jung pointed out that the symbolic is a realm of dealing with unknowns, the semiotic (the realm of signs) deals more with the known, where the signs serve as shorthand. The process of going-through the IC is a process that converts the symbolic (in Jung's interpretation) to the semiotic and that process means understanding the generic characteristics of our species-nature that are expressed at the particular level through the I Ching.


> Speaking for myself, I have never been afraid of education
> and of incorporating the changes that that produces by
> looking very closely at myself. But no matter how deeply I
> go with the latest ideas and knowledge at my disposal, I
> have found that life can still throw me surprising and
> unanticipated curveballs that subject me to experiencing
> 'trauma' despite my best efforts.
>

:-) I think this reflects the parts nature of our being. Each hexagram reflects a persona, a mask, but in consciousness-nature that mask can become a tight fit. Without proactively working on the rest of the whole, and so aware of sources of trauma/drama, so we leave ourselves open for 'issues'.

The work in neurosciences, cognitive sciences, and psychology is starting to allow us to 'stretch' ourselves as conscious beings by giving us some solid foundations to stand upon. As part of the process of developing our consciousness-nature the material is generic, but then as foundational so it should be, it serves to guide and so allow for 'unique' experiences but within a context of confidence in being able to at least understand and in general deal with, any context.

There is room to 'shift' to a more proactive approach to consciousness development but that is still 'early days' and I think we need to ground ourselves in our species-nature, a form of tethering such that if the development of consciousness gets too 'extreme' we can pull ourselves back ;-) (this gets into areas that Luis etc favour, the apparent 'disembodyment' of mind etc, something we are often focused upon but perhaps that focus is instinctive in the form of stress setting-off the Transcendence function in us all, that 'need' to escape a context to something considered 'better' - our imagination allows us to do that but the issue is 'is there more?..')

> In that sense, my logic alone cannot protect me, though it
> certainly is valuable for making sense of those unexpected
> devastations that I sometimes find myself in the midst of
> having to clean up. You may believe that I need to outgrow
> this stage and maybe I do, but for now it is by far easier
> to cultivate patience in the unknown and trusting that my
> best interests will prevail than to try to second guess the
> Mind of God. At least for now.
>

If as a species all we can ever know are expressions of 'objects and relationships', of 'differentiations and integrations', so it is the expressions we have to see past. If we have the opportunity to learn the basic patterns of differentiations and integrations so I think it is advantageous to take the opportunity in the form of a more concerted analysis of the science of the IC and its properties and methods stemming from our species-nature. Given that understanding of these basic patterns so we can intuitively 'see past' the expression and in doing so possibly pre-empt where the expression is leading us.

> I do very much love what you bring to this board. Your
> sharing feeds my neurons precisely what they need for
> expanding and multiplying... [ happy ]
>

Cool! perseverence furthers.. ;-)

Chris.

[chrislofting]

Hi Martin,

you wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> You wrote "show a wired-up living brain with an ongoing
> mental event with NO brain activity. You cant."
> Maybe I can't, but that's not the point. My question is:
> what causes the brain activity in the case of experiences of
> a spiritual nature.
> Is it a real spiritual event - communication with an "angel"
> for example - or is there only an electrical storm and
> nothing else?
> According to the materialist position (and I don't know if
> that is also your position) the "angel" is an illusion.
> To me, that is jumping to conclusions.
>

In reviewing our species-nature, and in particular our neurology, one of the interesting discoveries is that our instincts/habits get encoded into the input areas of neurons, the dendrites. This encoding means that the instincts serve as filters where context PUSHES the individual. For example, a change in temperature etc can elicit the growing of winter coats or the molting of summer coats. We are not consciously aware of these processes, they operate unconsciously and reflect the integration of species with context, the 'perfect fit' where there is little antagonism, just basic 'stimulus/response'.

The encoding reflects a fundamental property of lifeforms, the conservation of energy. With the rich store of instincts in the species so ANYTHING in a context, be it the whole context or some aspect of it, serves as a source of 'push' to a lifeform, be it a push to exploit, to protect, to replace or integrate. If we review the set of basic emotions we have:

fear, sadness, disgust(rejection), anticipation, surprise, acceptance, love, anger

Thus a context can set-off at the species-level, the unconscious level, a feeling of anticipation that our consciousness can become aware of and yet not know the reason why (the reason being that something/someone in the context has set-off an instinct that includes in its set of properties a sense of anticipation etc - it is like chicks that instinctively duck for cover when just the *shadow* of a hawk passes overhead)

For our consciousness we regularly respond to the push of context and that can be extreme where our minds have no idea what is going on other than a feeling of being 'pushed' to do something that the consciousness may not want to do.

Since we are well developed in the art of interpretations (aka rationalisations) so the sense of being pushed, a sense derived from the above mechanisms, can elicit the creation of a whole world of demons and gods, of angels and elves, at work around us, guiding us, tricking us etc etc and exposure to the rationalisations together with confirmation through the experiences of feelings of being 'pushed' can develop into strongly-held belief systems about reality and given enough time, as in thousands of years, can develop into axioms re reality (as covered in the rabbi's descriptions of angels etc.)

Note that religion attempts to maintain the 'original words' in that they are interpreted as sourced from 'god' and so 'eternal' - thus the priest's role is to 'keep the faith'. The problem is that this state of unchanging becomes extreme if it does not keep up with changes in interpretations of reality based on Science etc. The Bible as such is a text of rich metaphor that is taken literally by the strongly religious, the book is interpreted as the 'word of god' etc and that can cause 'problems' for the collective ;-)

The understanding of the sense of push from a context, and so the sensing of that push by our minds, can lead to a re-interpretation of the realm of the spiritual or at least the realisation that the stories of demons and gods are metaphors for describing events reflecting our neurology at work.

We in fact exploit this 'push' emphasis through the medium of the cinema and the novel (and so Dungeons and Dragons can take on a sense of the 'real' that can be dangerous in the context of development of the individual psyche!)

Given a belief in the 'spiritual' so our sense of being 'pushed' and so guided, tricked etc can lead to a rich interaction with our instincts through the creation of a buffer of 'beings' that are manifestations of our instincts, they are metaphors, carries of the meanings. Our instincts reflect the properties of the collective unconscious, the set of instincts we all share as members of the species, and as such this buffer serves as a form of interface to the collective unconscious but through a set of personal labels - we do as we usually do with the unknown, we anthropomorphise where if there is no measure then we use ourselves as the measure, useful but also a cause of 'issues' where life is put into something that has none.

This 'buffer' world reflects specialisations, thus the I Ching is 'in' this buffer world in that it allows us to interact with the generic qualities used by the species to derive meaning - we see our nature 'through' the I Ching that itself reflects instincts etc of the species (as mapped in the IDM material). We can also use the demons and angels perspective to give 'life' to our instincts, we can 'talk' to them etc., thus I can map the qualities of the hexagrams of the I Ching to those of persona types, and so to patterns we associate with people, with the living.

The ability to map IC to personas (MBTI) means I can create a VERY rich world of 'knowable' demons and angels, all with apparent 'personalities' etc 'in here' - this reflects the ease in which we can create our 'own little worlds'. if these worlds are therapeutic, if these worlds are recognised for what they are, imagined states used to link the conscious with the unconscious, so they can serve as a source of relief from daily stress and a source of problem solving and even creativity. BUT a focus on these worlds as replacements for social reality can be an issue as can their taking-on a 'life' that appears seperate from oneself - we get into issues of schizoidal events, where disassociation takes place.

Chris.

[yellowblue]

Osmosis.

Deb

[dharma]

Chris,
In response to your earlier post addressed to me..

This is true and you are so right but, as I pointed out to you once already last year, the average person's ability to understand and really grasp the implications of what you are teaching here is severely and grossly restricted. Ignorance is indeed the problem, however the present limits of how much can realistically be imparted at this time must be respected or one loses the esteem of the 'audience' that one is attempting to elevate through the educating process. Impatience for the end result to manifest quickly reflects a 'PARTS' thinking process at work, http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/wink.gif I think; an underlying fearfulness and a lack of trust in a WHOLE Universe as having It's own version of 'timing' and 'agenda' to be honoured and respected.

I work with people everyday and find that despite all that *I* know and apply to my own life I can at best only minimally spoon-feed others to newer levels of understanding and ever so gradually at that. To attempt to heap more and more onto bigger and bigger spoons would only cause my clientele to seek out comfort and understanding elsewhere where their need for patience and a slower pace will be accepted.

If ever I figure out an easier way of imparting higher-awareness knowledge to others than what I am already doing, I will be the first one doing it. For the time being, a proactive choice to learning the patterns as you suggest is the approach I am taking for myself but can only go so far in imparting it to others without losing sight of their boundaries. AND... as long as I work with others I must maintain a certain groundedness to their level of understanding if I am to get through to them at all.

More often than not, I am more in control of the drama/trauma in my life, reducing or increasing depending on what I am consciously attempting to experience for myself. http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif In that sense, I keep it as "real" as possible, ALL the time. This is what I call 'walking meditation'; a constant vigilance and alertness to the NOW moment. Appreciating this exercise for what it really is is truly an "acquired taste" because initially the fantasy of one's personal reality is infinitely more desireable than the alternative, disillusioning view one is left with. It is this 'walking meditation' more than anything that has 'educated' me into seeing clearly the delusions of the many parts, the psychosis of the numerous splits and the misconceptions of the multiple world versions. Humour is then the only way through the convoluted maze. http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/spin.gif

Dharma

[gene]

Chris

I, with my limited time, am presently sitting here trying to read these posts. Unfortunately, I can't. They are too long and too involved. I like your posts, as long as I can figure out what in the world you are talking about. You are obviously highly intelligent, and extremely knowledgeable. I honestly believe I am too, and so are the people that write and listen here. But when I try to read some of your posts, I shake my head and say, "What is he talking about?" I really think you would reach more people if you could come up with a way to make your point very concise and precise. This is not meant to be a criticism, I really want to get your point. It is just too much reading, and not just reading but studying the meaning of the words you use that leaves me with a feeling of wow, I've got to move on.

As for this materialist versus idealist viewpoint, I still haven't figured out what side of the fence, or on the top of the fence or under the fence you are taking. Maybe none of the above. One thing that will probably mean very little to anyone, but I will say it anyway, as far as electrical brain activity, where does it come from in the first place? Materialists in general insist that it just happens. But nothing in nature normally just happens. It just happens, ha ha. But that's my point, it happens because it happens, but that indicates a happening behind the happening. Something causes the formation of neurons in the brain and it is different in every individual. Once again, the formation does not just happen, there is a guiding principle behind it. A principle causes a principle. A happening causes a happening. There is a DNA matter that is at least to some extent responsible for the wiring of the human brain. But where does DNA come from? By the way, what may prove to be an interesting website, only indirectly related to this is http://www.biocosm.org/

Also, I will just say this, and people can look up the evidence one way or another for themselves, but the evidence is now becoming extremely strong in some scientific circles, that Darwinian evolution is an absolute impossibility. Materialism still rules in the scientific community though, since the world is ruled by the people it is ruled by, and the evidence against the Darwinian theory is systematically covered up, and no school books have yet been changed, nor are they likely to be.

Gene

[chrislofting]

Hi Gene,

you wrote:
> Chris
>
> I, with my limited time, am presently sitting here trying to
> read these posts. Unfortunately, I can't. They are too long
> and too involved. I like your posts, as long as I can figure
> out what in the world you are talking about. You are
> obviously highly intelligent, and extremely knowledgeable. I
> honestly believe I am too, and so are the people that write
> and listen here. But when I try to read some of your posts,
> I shake my head and say, "What is he talking about?" I
> really think you would reach more people if you could come
> up with a way to make your point very concise and precise.

even the draft IDM summary is 'long' - it currently stops at point 27 but will continue for a lot more! ;-) see http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/idmsumm.html and I cant see how I will reduce that. The introduction page of IDM covers a bit that may aid in getting the idea across, see http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/idm002.html

I am afraid I cannot concentrate and transmit my perspective 'instantly' ;-) it is more an approach of write, re-write, rephrase, repeat. All based on feedback where eventually you will 'get it' ;-)



One of the interesting 'drives' in understanding reality and our selves is the need for a sense of history, a sense of origin. For the more 'religious' oriented, the drive can be intense to a degree where if there is no sense of, no clear identification of a 'beginning' so we do what we have always done, use ourselves as the measure - anthropomorphism at work.

The focus in Science is to solve problems in identification through a rigid methodology that ensures clarity that is repeatable and so predictable. As such the artist sees each rainbow as a unique expression, the scientist sees behind the rainbow, to the laws that allow its expression.

The need for gratification comes in two modes, reflected in the dichotomy of instant/delayed. The 'demand' for instant gratification reflects the need for knowing 'now' and in the extreme a rejection of any delayed gratification. Science develops along the line of delayed and that means that each generation of the species makes some contribution to understanding and all of those contributions, in principle, lead to a sense of clarity, of understanding.

Science has not stopped. Religion has in that it focuses on asserting the Bible, Koran, or Torah as the 'truth' that must be accepted totally and utterly, without question. In those texts are unacceptable attitudes to the non-believers, as well as the marginalisation of 50% of the species - as in females - that are obviously not derived from any Science!

The questions you have asked are on-going. The current focus in neurosciences etc is on the dynamics of consciousness etc etc and the development into areas of complexity/chaos etc indicate sources of 'emergence' that reflect the properties we see in neurons - for example, flocking behaviour, be it in a swarm of bees, a flock of birds, or a collection of neurons, where individuals making local distinctions can elicit a pattern across the collective that is not locatable in any one individual. As such the PARTS all oscillate to elicit a pattern of behaviour in the WHOLE.

From the level of our consciousness, each individual, each PART, makes local distinctions that give 'life' to the whole that is the immediate collective and that collective, treatable as an individual, can in turn reflect distinctions that sum with other collectives to be finally expressed as a 'behaviour' of the whole.

If you want to see the patterns created by such processes then see the results of the very simple algorithm of 'flocking behaviour' expressed in 'boid' programs on the 'net - e.g. http://www.red3d.com/cwr/boids/applet/

Or have a look into Cymatics where sand is sprinkled onto a surface that is made to vibrate and from that vibration emerge patterns reflecting the differences in frequency of the vibration. Then realise that we can move this model to our brain where the surface becomes a sphere, our brain, and the sand particles each neuron ( and note that our brains, in deriving meaning, are dependent on harmonics of senses in the dominating form of auditory harmonics (chords) and visual harmonics (colours) where these harmonics have a tight relationship with the expressions of emotions - overall the prime attraction is to frequencies and wavelengths - the 'vibes' ;-) the focus on resonance and a source of meaning, of 'likemindedness'.

All of this material, and more, is feeding into the realm of scientific inquiry as we slowly develop and understanding of our consciousness and our species. You may be dead before we get anywhere near answering some of the questions you have asked but that is the consequence of our methods in understanding, the price of delayed gratification is that it is a function of the collective, not the individual.

That said, all of the 'transcending' work in these processes stems from individuals where the summing of data acquired over generations leads to a 'sudden' realisation. In highly precise collectives this 'suddenness' reflects instant gratification and those sorts of collectives, ignorant of the patterns in instant/delayed, will 'demand' the instant and as such demand a 'story'.

My perspective is on what we can know as a species, where the focus is not on the expressions, the infinite contexts that can elicit something perceptually 'novel', but on the underlying patterns that permit those expressions. As such, my perspective gives you (a) instant gratification at the GENERIC level in that all we can know will be 'differentiations/integrations', aka 'objects/relationships' and that such specialisations as the I Ching reflect these generic meanings (and so ground meaning in the species), and (b) a guide to delayed gratification where we know generically what patterns to expect.

>
> Also, I will just say this, and people can look up the
> evidence one way or another for themselves, but the evidence
> is now becoming extremely strong in some scientific circles,
> that Darwinian evolution is an absolute impossibility.

My approach is scientific overall but I am not a member of the institution of Science and as such I question all ;-) Thus because I favour the methodology does not mean I accept the dogma. My review of evolutionary theory focuses on the *dichotomy* of Darwin/Lamarck where this dichotomy reflects the generic properties of differentiating( Darwin) / integrating (Lamarck).

( I thus treat Science as a specialisation and open to the same analysis of its methods as to all other disciplines)

Darwinism focused on a competitive form of development, Lamarckism on a cooperative form of development. These two dominating perspectives on evolution reflect our brain's bias to making these sorts of distinctions by applying the differentiate focus (and so integration occurs WITHIN what has been differentiated) and the integrating focus (where integration occurs BETWEEN individuals and the connectedness that this reflects means the differentiated is at the level of the group, not the individual). As such, Darwinism is attractive to the more 'Science' oriented in that, being differentiating, it is more 'precise' that integration where integration reduces to no less than a PAIR (e.g. Lamarck's focus is more on the dynamics BETWEEN a giraffe and the trees it feeds upon)

Darwinism is precise at the level of understanding self-containment, genetic 'purity' etc etc but has ignored until more recent times the dynamics, the consequences of relationships with other species in a cooperative format, to evolution.

What we also see here is what I have asserted a number of times, in that the realm of differentiation is an exaggeration from the more universally dominating realm of integration. Darwin came after Lamarck (and Darwin found interest in Lamarck's ideas) and reflected as such a refinement in precision but that refinement will always lead to a more PARTS perspective and so can move us 'away' from understanding our species-nature ;-)

The IDM material, and so through that the I Ching material, reflects ALL of these differences and samenesses in a format that is not 'threatening' in that the generic nature prohibits its use to replace things, all it does is GUIDE the specialisations and as such allows us to flesh-out the I Ching into something more than its 'traditional' perspective as an 'ancient chinese method of divination' ;-) - but then the material also allows us to flesh-out evolutionary theory as well as Mathematics etc etc etc.

Chris.

[chrislofting]

Hi Dharma,

You wrote

> Humour is then the only way through the convoluted maze.

:-)

before enlightenment - chop wood, carry water.
after enlightenment - chop wood, carry water - but you also smile a lot! ;-)

Due to the nature of the 'net, communication is limited (55% of comms is non-verbal) and my prose is not 'fluid' enough to elicit the emotional nuances required for 'good' communications to all, the occasional 'likeminded' pick up on what I am getting at - I persevere. ;-) (being one of the IT professionals now long-term unemployed (now 2.5 yrs where being 54 with no degree (university drop-out to so a specialist programming course through Control Data Institute in 1977) does not help - nore does the 25 years experience!)

My focus is on getting into the IDM material and so the I Ching and MBTI material but since it is all 'novel' so it is not easy to 'sell' in that the IDM material goes against the current education processes that focus on specialisations from the beginning - but as the IC asserts , 'perseverence furthers', and all that is needed overall is to sow seeds in the minds of some and so the work carries on ;-)

I have given some public lectures in the past (1995) and they have been positive (but small audiences) due more to the mode of presentation, I try and make it fun, interesting, and in the form of a journey of discovery and so draw-in the audience to share the journey. That said, what is being presented in the IDM/I Ching plus work is I suppose more suited to a formal course, formal text etc etc but I lack the qualifications to be considered for such an activity and I lack the finance (and I owe the taxman 'big time' so I may be bankrupted soon!) to start some sort of IDM/IC+ 'Institute', some IDM.org etc etc! ;-)

On top of that, there is to me a LOT of work still required to flesh-out the patterns discovered - there is more a focus on the next generation so take copy of my website and give it to the kids to decode, by the time they reach adulthood they should understand it -- although my daughter (now 19) seems to 'get it' easily but then she has been exposed to the material whilst ingesting the 'dogma' of the current education system and so 'balances out' perspectives.

Chris.

[chrislofting]

Hi Deb,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: I Ching Community Discussion Forum
> [mailto:support@onlineClarity.co.uk]
> Sent: Sunday, 14 September 2003 4:55 AM
> To: ddiamond@ozemail.com.au
> Subject: THE SEVEN LAWS
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> I Ching Community Discussion Forum: Open Space: THE SEVEN
> LAWS
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> By Yellowblue (Yellowblue) on Saturday, September 13, 2003 -
> 07:55 pm:
>
> Osmosis.
>

:-) ... but dont forget resonance where absorption can elicit 'sameness' that elicits resonance in communications.

Chris.

[gene]

Hi Chris

Your story about owing the IRS, and no college degree etc. is a lot like mine. I have seven years of college study and no degree. It amazes me. We are too smart for this. With our knowledge of the I Ching and our knowledge overall we should have very comfortable positions. What went wrong? In my case, I suppose it was my own attitudes. I didn't really grow up until I was forty. Come to think of it, I still haven't grown up totally.

Gene

[dharma]

Chris,
Your present limitations have less to do with your qualifications and your state of finances and more to do with the fact that, as you said yourself "there is to me a LOT of work still required to flesh-out the patterns discovered".

Just keep the "perseverence furthers" mantra going and continue sowing the seeds and your work will find appreciation in the relevant few who will in time carry your ideas to the next logical level. You aren't that old... you will likely be fortunate enough to experience it in this lifetime!

Dharma http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif

[gene]

Oh, and I just wanted to clear up. By saying evolution is not possible, I was not supporting the religious theory either. Both are wrong. And the website I gave out, when I looked at it yesterday, it didn't seem to have the information I originally found on it. There may be a related website out there. I will see if I can find it.

Gene

[frandoch]

Grown up is boring. I owned a manufacturing company which went 'belly-up' due to cheap imports from the Far East, and I owe Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise about &pound;100,000. They might bankrupt me too, but I've got nothing of value. But I'm happy.

Blessings.

Michael (Frandoch)

[martin]

Hi Chris,

A random quote:
"From the level of our consciousness, each individual, each PART, makes local distinctions that give 'life' to the whole that is the immediate collective and that collective, treatable as an individual, can in turn reflect distinctions that sum with other collectives to be finally expressed as a 'behaviour' of the whole."

http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/spin.gif http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/biggrin.gif
Too many different messages in one sentence ...
Please UNPACK http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif

[heylise]

"From the level of our consciousness, each individual, each PART, makes local distinctions: *I like chocolate, you like ice-cream*
that give 'life' to the whole that is the immediate collective *we all like sweet stuff, many different kinds*
and that collective, treatable as an individual, can in turn reflect distinctions
*our people love sweet, cold, chocolatey stuff, so they found out chodolate soft ice*
that sum with other collectives to be finally expressed as a 'behaviour' of the whole".
*at the neighbor's they love crunchy things*
*So we all together are hooked to crunchy cones filled with soft ice with chocolate chunks and with whipped cream on top*

LiSe

[chrislofting]

Hi Gene,

you wrote:
> Hi Chris
>
> Your story about owing the IRS, and no college degree etc.
> is a lot like mine. I have seven years of college study and
> no degree. It amazes me. We are too smart for this. With our
> knowledge of the I Ching and our knowledge overall we should
> have very comfortable positions. What went wrong? In my
> case, I suppose it was my own attitudes. I didn't really
> grow up until I was forty. Come to think of it, I still
> haven't grown up totally.
>

:-) there is a lot of work required to flesh-out the IC and it is at the moment a specialist area. I dont envision current perspectives developing beyond their specialisation in that to get to a generation you need to get to the teachers of that generation. People instinctively try to avoid change in that it also can threaten one's sense of identity and our culture is strongly into promotion of personal identity, and that includes the badges of education (as in high school diploma, degree etc etc, more often badges of socialisation rather than education)

I lived in 18 different countries between my birth ( in India, british 'raj' family) and my coming to Australia (1970). 12 years of that was in asian countries (thailand, hong kong, japan, singapore) and the rest in Europe (english boarding school, 'tours' through Europe with the showbiz side of the family etc) so my education has been 'wide' ;-) - When I eventually got out of rock music and went to university to do a BSc I got bored in that I was being sold a Western perspective that was often at odds with my experiences re the species as a whole. I took an aptitude test for a programming course and did 'really well' and took to programming as a duck takes to water.

There are two general approaches to change, one is the explicit form of thunder, to walk up to someone any pointedly say 'you will change, NOW'. The other is the way of wind, to change the context and so get the individual to adapt to the change in that the context will 'push' the individual. The latter takes time, even generations, but then the Universe is in no hurry, we are! ;-)

The act of socialisation demands conformity to social norms, to be 'like us' and so with that one can lead a 'comfortable' life but into this mix comes particular personalities that can 'suffer' as outsiders but in that suffering come up with perspectives that can aid others over the longterm through paradigm change. As such these outsiders live on the borders of society but in doing so also happen to live in the most 'dynamic' of areas in that complexity/chaos, and so 'creativity' etc rules in these border areas, the 'cost' is a degree of instability but the benefit is also a sense of ongoing, perpetual, wonder, like that of a child and as such we can lift our heads every now and then and look up to the stars etc and go 'WOW!' - not many do that, too socialised, too busy! ;-)

The IDM perspective demonstrates the universal properties of the species and as such the value in perspectives of other cultures and so can aid in appreciating the value of these perspectives - however, despite the 'new age' publicity, to many the I Ching is something 'Chinese' and so 'alien' and as such through the IDM material that 'division' can be perhaps overcome ;-) I can honestly say that I think I have done a lot more research into the areas of meaning derivation that your average PhD etc but no 'proof' of that! ;-)

Some academics have shown 'interest' in my MBTI material but since I am not 'likeminded' overall (as in have a PhD etc) so that interest is restricted and at times patronising. I can also get the same reactions from 'hard core' I Chingers where their perspective is too entrenched in the 10th century BC world and so into the more 'arts' perspective of the IC and so at odds with the 'science' perspective that I focus upon where we take what we have learnt about ourselves over the last 3000 years and analyse the IC from there.

I agree that one's attitudes can affect social interactions, I can be quick to rise (I used to smoke 60 a day to 'solve' that problem but stopped smoking 14 years ago - and with that came the occasional 'issue' - but understanding certain things aids in the disciplining of such 'outbursts', as does mellowing with age! ;-) - I dont tolerate the technically 'inept' too easily but I am better than I was!

Chris.

[chrislofting]

Dharma,

you wrote:
> Chris,
> Your present limitations have less to do with your
> qualifications and your state of finances and more to do
> with the fact that, as you said yourself "there is to me a
> LOT of work still required to flesh-out the patterns
> discovered".
>
> Just keep the "perseverence furthers" mantra going and
> continue sowing the seeds and your work will find
> appreciation in the relevant few who will in time carry your
> ideas to the next logical level. You aren't that old... you
> will likely be fortunate enough to experience it in this
> lifetime!
>

Thanks! that would be cream! ;-)

Chris.

[chrislofting]

Hi Michael,

you wrote:
>
> Grown up is boring. I owned a manufacturing company which
> went 'belly-up' due to cheap imports from the Far East, and
> I owe Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise about &pound;100,000.
> They might bankrupt me too, but I've got nothing of value.
> But I'm happy.
>

jeeze you owe more than me! (A$130,000+ which is a about 40,000 to 50,000 pounds) - and I too have nothing of value.

I got caught in the 'tech wreck' where my capital gains tax (gained from selling my options in a computer company) was invested in the market and the market never recovered ( I was away when the crash happened but it was not exactly unexpected, as 'corrections' are, so I did not worry as I still had a year to pay the tax and 'traditionally' the market recovers. I found work with Sun Microsystems and started to save to pay the tax bill but then Sun and the US IT companies 'fell apart' in 2001 and so my contract ended prematurly (as in I was there 'for ever' until the ruling of no contract extensions for all other than emergencies etc etc)

Sun's shares fell from US$120 in August 2000 to US$8 in 2001 - not good, and they have still not recovered. As a consequence all of my savings etc have gone on trying to stay alive - you cannot have a company nore use the dole to maintain websites so I have not been on social security and have incurred some additional debt in attempts to develop the IDM material as well as look for work in IT.

My problem was I took my eye off the ball (as in the US market), I was happy at Sun and making enough money to make the tax payment not a problem. Thus I failed to recognise how much of a 'service' town Australia is to US IT companies - when they go down we go with them. The IT market is not expected to improve until 2004 or some even say 2007!

I wanted to move into the IDM/ICPlus material focus in 1999 when I was laid-off from a corporation that employed me (and so the source of my options). I went to the US to attend and make a presentation at a Humanist Psychology conference in 2000 and made some connections that could have developed into some useful material on the web for councellors etc. but everyone backed-off with the tech-wreck, and to be honest I think the attempt was premature - the work over the last few years has demonstrated that.

So.. here we all are ;-) Since my education is specialist, outside of IT I am a 54 year old with a high school diploma (I used to pick up gross A$10,000 to 12,000 a month, now I live on a budget of A$800 a month!!) - not good for repaying debts whereas in IT there is no issue, I earn a lot and these days there is only me to support so repaying the taxman would not take that long... but they are not prepared to keep waiting any longer(whilst charging interest)... so things dont look too good...

BUT that still does not stop me from the IDM/IC+ work and that has kept me sane where others may have hit the bottle, pill-jar etc by now! Overall I too am 'happy' but also 'pissed off' ;-)

To develop the IDM work etc into analysis of the market etc is possible (see for example my comments in http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/patterns.html ) but then the act of using such a system would change the dynamics if made too useful! Capitalism works off the 'early bird' principle where the surplus value comes from the exploitation prior to the agents of balance, the protectors, turning up. I suppose with some packaging it may be of interest but again the material is more as 'research notes' than anything useful - IOW there is a LOT of work to be done to get the IDM/IC+ material into the 'centre' of the collective from out here on the periphery.

Chris.

[chrislofting]

Hi Martin,

You Wrote
> Hi Chris,
>
> A random quote:
> "From the level of our consciousness, each individual, each
> PART, makes local distinctions that give 'life' to the whole
> that is the immediate collective and that collective,
> treatable as an individual, can in turn reflect distinctions
> that sum with other collectives to be finally expressed as a
> 'behaviour' of the whole."
>
> [ spin ] [ biggrin ]
> Too many different messages in one sentence ...
> Please UNPACK [ happy ]
>

:-) ok... try this:

A collection of neurons can work as a whole through synchronisations, iow they all fire as if one. The synchronisations are not 'precise' where each neuron can make local distinctions, reactions to its immediate environment, that get amplified across the collective such that there is a 'flow' at work, a pattern in the expression of the collective not locatable in any single neuron. (recall my comments in an earlier post on cymatics, where sand particles oscillating reflect patterns that change with the change in frequency of vibrations. This still gets into 'flocking' behaviour etc. These patterns can be beneficial such that the lifeform 'encourages' their repetition and the patterns become instincts/habits.)

Different collectives of neurons can, due to the synchronisations, manifest as if 'individuals' such that the same amplifications take place such that a WHOLE behaviour reflects the summing of all of the collectives making 'local' distinctions, where this behaviour is not locatable in any one individual, where that 'individual' is an individual or a collective. Thus we see both a localised system (particular) as well as a distributed system (general).

Since we can determine that the instincts/habits of the species/individual are encoded in the input areas of neurons ('post-synaptic') so the presence of collectives of neurons allows for encoding of instincts in the *collection* of inputs - IOW a single neuron could encode a WHOLE instinct or a PART of an instinct. You can see here the 'whole/part' relationships at work across the neurology.

The prime focus is on synchronisations, which reflects the dynamics, the complexity/chaos that is present in all of us as patterns of 'meaning' in dynamic context.

At the level of the neuron, or at a collective of neurons (and that includes the level of hemisphere function and brain/mind function overall) the passage from input to output is 'interrupted' by the cell of the neuron that acts to sum inputs to reach a 'threshold' level that elicits a firing, the output.

The interrupt is where neuron outputs from OTHER neurons/collectives act to excite or inhibit firing. Since the habits/instincts are encoded in the input areas so a 'push' by the context can set-off a pulse-train reflecting that instinct. Synchronisation then modulates that firing.

Synchronisation can be 'slack' or 'precise' and it is a function of recruitment, where neurons can be recruited by another neuron (or collective) to increase the bandwidth to process, or communicate, data - IOW we can get a 'clearer' picture of things through recruitment (we see this recruitment in such areas as limb applications or congenital disorders such as an eye or ear that is damaged but the brain area remains intact. The immediately adjacent neurons will 'recruit' these 'underworking' areas to increase THEIR bandwidth. This is the source of such concepts as the 'phantom limb' etc)

Since the habits/instincts are encoded in the input areas, so the synchronisation processes can either (a) increase the bandwidth to process the instinct or (b) make an 'error' in the timing of the execution of the instinct where the flow from input to output is disrupted.

(a) above gives us a clear, precise, 'in the groove' feeling of getting it 'right' where the instinct operates perfectly and reflects the tight integration of lifeform with context.

(b) above leads to two possibilities - (1) the execution of the instinct is 'sloppy' such that it could even lead to death or (2) the 'error' scrambles the instinct to a degree where the lifeform gets a 'new perspective' on a situation that is to its benefit.

(a) reflects the concept of transformation, of 'shape shifting' where a lifeform is integrated with the context and responds 'smoothly' to any changes in the context. Thus the surface can change, the core remains constant. This area reflects the realm of wind, of cultivation and eventual becoming influencial in the context, push allows for some development of pull.

(b) reflects the concept of transcendence, where the 'enlightenment' that comes with breaking the habit can save your life (as in the instinct/habit does not work in the current context). This function of transcendence reflects a process of escape, we escape FROM a context or TO a context, a focus on moving to something considered 'better' than the existing context. This focus on 'sudden' events reflects the realm of thunder.

(a) is reversible, it reflects transition phases, like different expressions of water as you freeze it, boil it etc etc
(b) is not reversible, it reflects 'new' insights etc and not being able to 'go back' but the 'suddeness' allows for one to be 'reborn', to start again.

As such (a) reflects evolution, (b) reflects revolution. ;-) Processing of instinct/habits reflects evolution, escape, transcendence, reflects revolution.

The expression of the whole, regardless of level, falls within the dynamic of revolution/evolution where these terms reflect the focus in differentiating/integrating and so the concepts of transcendence/transformation, yang/yin.

The differences in levels are where differentiating at one level is reflects as integrating at the 'higher' level just as integrating at one level is reflected as differentiating at a 'lower' level.

Thus PARTS (differentiating) sum to WHOLES (integrating) etc. etc. This oscillation was labelled by the ancient greeks as enantiodromia where an individual/collective can have a history that reflects this dynamic in development, yin to yang to yin to yang .....

Chris.

[chrislofting]

Hi LiSe,

You wrote:
>
> "From the level of our consciousness, each individual, each
> PART, makes local distinctions: *I like chocolate, you like
> ice-cream*
> that give 'life' to the whole that is the immediate
> collective *we all like sweet stuff, many different kinds*
> and that collective, treatable as an individual, can in turn
> reflect distinctions
> *our people love sweet, cold, chocolatey stuff, so they
> found out chodolate soft ice*
> that sum with other collectives to be finally expressed as a
> 'behaviour' of the whole".
> *at the neighbor's they love crunchy things*
> *So we all together are hooked to crunchy cones filled with
> soft ice with chocolate chunks and with whipped cream on
> top*
>

yummy! -- and we eat this every day until things 'change' and we start to focus on 'veggies' and all things 'sweet' are taboo unless artifically sweet (sweeteners with that 'edge' of bitterness)...

I heard the other day that to get the maximum benefit from chocolate you must eat DARK chocolate with NO milk. The milk has an affect on the chemistry of the dark chocolate that removes any benefit -- so no whipped cream and the chunks are dark chocolate! ;-)

Chris.

[heylise]

Aha, so that is why I love the blacker-than-black, with at least 70% chocolate.
http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/smooch.gif
LiSe

[gene]

Chris

I have had first hand experience with college professors who stick up their nose at anyone else's ideas or knowledge unless they have a higher degree than the teacher. There was an old song popular probably in the 70's that starts out, "when I think of all the crap I learned in high school...its a wonder I can hardly think at all." College is worse, it is a government think tank in which at least the more academic classes are taught with foolish outworn ideas past off as gospel truth. We are told we are being taught to think for ourselves when in reality we are being taught to spew out the teachers philosophy verbatim on some ridiculous test that means nothing and prepares nobody for real life. But employers think that by going through that for four years you might be able to just as well go through the crap the company is going to throw at you over the years. At this point the United States is just starting on a serious, serious economic downturn in which a lot of people are falling through the cracks in the system. Once you fall through the cracks, well, it is not impossible to pick yourself back up, but the system works against you. Stronger personalities will prevail and find a new place in the system for themselves, but many people never recover.

Gene

[frandoch]

Chris - Milk is out, but cream is fine. Milk contains a protein, casein, whose function is to turn small calves into f***ing great cows within a few months - but our bodies can't process this protein. We have evolved to drink milk from our mothers' breasts for a short time, and then go on to solid foods. By continually taking in a substance that we are unable to process - we develop intolerances and even allergies. Milk is a trigger for many of the auto-immune diseases that plague people. But cream and butter don't contain this protein - just the fat content.

Gene - In the UK it's the same. When I was at University reading for a degree in Physics, I found a very serious error in the published text that we used in Nuclear Physics. I told my tutor about the error, and he said 'When you sit the finals, you'd better answer according to the published text, because the author is one of the examiners.'

I didn't - I answered with the 'truth' - part of the reason I didn't get the double first I was expected to get. No regrets.

Michael (Frandoch)

[chrislofting]

Hi Gene,

you wrote:
> Chris
>
> I have had first hand experience with college professors who
> stick up their nose at anyone else's ideas or knowledge
> unless they have a higher degree than the teacher. There was
> an old song popular probably in the 70's that starts out,
> "when I think of all the crap I learned in high school...its
> a wonder I can hardly think at all." College is worse, it is
> a government think tank in which at least the more academic
> classes are taught with foolish outworn ideas past off as
> gospel truth. We are told we are being taught to think for
> ourselves when in reality we are being taught to spew out
> the teachers philosophy verbatim on some ridiculous test
> that means nothing and prepares nobody for real life. But
> employers think that by going through that for four years
> you might be able to just as well go through the crap the
> company is going to throw at you over the years. At this
> point the United States is just starting on a serious,
> serious economic downturn in which a lot of people are
> falling through the cracks in the system. Once you fall
> through the cracks, well, it is not impossible to pick
> yourself back up, but the system works against you. Stronger
> personalities will prevail and find a new place in the
> system for themselves, but many people never recover.
>

In the current US situation the statistics of the MBTI combined with the IC (as IDM allows) gives us some interesting perspectives on group and individual influences. In the US 76% of the population are made-up of two groups, the SJs and the SPs. The SJs are what we can call 'security seekers', the SPs are 'sensation seekers'. These categories map to four trigrams of the I Ching, SPs to lake and heaven, SJs to water and wind. Overall there is a strong 'yang' bias and so more into transcendence than transformation, more into replacement than integrating ;-)

Zoom-in and there are 16 hexagrams in each group, hexagrams that reflect archetypal influences on expressions. These expressions reflect the journey of the individual as well as of the collective.

Thus the SJ group (38%) is dominated by events reflected in the hexagrams of:

07, 04, 29, 59, 40, 64, 47, 06 (water based) (19%)
46, 18, 48, 57, 32, 50, 28, 44 (wind based) (19%)

The SP group (38%) is reflected in:

19, 41, 60, 61, 54, 38, 58, 10 (lake based) (19%)
11, 26, 05, 09, 34, 14, 43, 01 (heaven based) (19%)

the remaining 24% are made-up of the NF and NT groups (12% each)

NFs (identity seekers):

02, 23, 08, 20, 16, 35, 45, 12 (earth based) (6%)
15, 52, 39, 53, 62, 56, 31, 33 (mountain based) (6%)

NTs (solution seekers (problem solvers)):

24, 27, 03, 42, 51, 21, 17, 25 (thunder based) (6%)
36, 22, 63, 37, 55, 30, 49, 13 (fire based) (6%)

these hexagrams serve to reflect issues of the collective but also of the individual due to the whole reflected in the parts nature of the categorisations. Thus derive your 'basic' temperament (SP, SJ, NF, NT) and the associated hexagrams will reflect 'main issues' in personality development (and so the masks, the personas, we all put on, but that also includes the personality of collectives).

Our consciousness-nature allows us to put-on masks 'outside' of those preferred by our species-nature and so develop a rich choice of behaviours given a context - this goes against what the collectives want, where due to the hierarchic formats so they prefer one to stick with a persona that 'fits' into a team. See my page http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/teammbti.html as well as the linking of I Ching with MBTI - http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/MBTIX.htm

My species-nature category is NT - trigram of thunder, where I have wrestled with being distracted away and having to come back to the 'true' path (24), difficult beginnings (03), hungering for 'brain food' (27), focused on augmentation (42), focused on enlightenment (51), on problem solving (21), on developing/adopting a belief system (17) and often standing to 'say my piece' ignoring all consequences of that action! (25)) ;-) - if we zoom in more then I fit more to the range of 24, 27, 03, 42 (the INTP category of the MBTI, 1 in 100) but span in general the XNTP range (6 in 100, where the ENTP makes-up the other 5% of the NT category).

From the root species-nature levels consciousness-nature allows for 'playing' with the other categories that are not part of my species-nature. As such I can get on well with other NTs but can have 'issues' dealing with the other 99% of the population, and thats where exercises benefit in improving understandings of these other categories, these other parts of the whole ;-)

Given all of this 'new' material perhaps recovery is by starting again, a 'new' perspective based on ignoring the existing, let it 'fade away' perhaps ;-)

Chris.

[malka]

Wow - okay, this is a most interesting dialogue. I wish to give a quick response to Frandoch's first email where he lists the spiritual laws as he understands them. I agree with some, and I must strongly disagree with others.

Definitely, the universe is not personal. I agree. Thinking that things happens to us specifically, for example, is absolutely the EGO. However, as a holistically educated person myself, I do not believe that the views expressed are necessarily holistic at all. Especially the description of cause and effect as a spiritual law. It is not.

Cause and effect is mechanistic. It's theory is based upon Newtonian science and this is out of date and out of touch with both spiritual truths, and that beautiful place where spirituality and science meet.

Similar to Yellowbird, what I know to be true is the world is not about simple cause and effect. The world is about relationships. In a nutshell, relationship is all there is. Everything we see and experience involves relationship. In it's simplest form, quantum science "proves" (for those of us who need the help of science for validating spiritual truths) that the observer, and the observed, are in intimate relationship always. I'll explain:

When scientists set out to look at the smallest unit (a photon) and the test is setup to see the photon as a wave - it's indeed a wave. When the test is setup to see the photon as a particle - it's indeed a particle. No, it's not that the photon is both things at the same time. It's that the relationship of the observer INFLUENCES the very nature of what is being observed. Nothing exists totally on it's own. We are intimately interconnected. We affect each other's existence. WE ARE ALL IN INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP WITH ONE ANOTHER ALWAYS.

Please keep in mind that I share all of this in laywoman's terms. I am not a scientist. Those so inclined among us will see that while my language is simple, I accurately describe the phenomena.

Then there is Schr&ouml;dinger's Cat:

"A cat which is neither alive nor dead, but rather in a state of stasis, in a box. There is also in the box a Geiger counter and a tiny radioactive particle, the counter wired to a vial of hydrochloric acid (that got your attention). After a set amount of time, the particle is 50% likely to decay, setting off a mechanism triggered by the Geiger counter which smashes the vial and kills the cat. Supposedly, after that set amount of time, if no one looks in the box, the whole system is in a state of stasis because the cat is 50% likely to be alive and 50% likely to be dead, and is thus neither alive nor dead, but both. At least, until someone opens the box. There are all sorts of conundrums associated with this thesis, and it is very controversial."

Mathematically, the cat is both equally alive and dead, and the only thing that influences one or the other is someone opening the box and looking inside. Hmmm...

And of course, this discussion is missing all the Albert Einstein amazing contributions to understanding the nature of our world... (www.westegg.com/einstein/)

And, there's systems theory...wh