Recursion, the XOR operator, and the 'universal' I Ching

[lightofdarkness]

The following is from a different list I am on - but relates here to the I Ching as a universal form where I have been enquiring re the use of XOR in recursion etc and came up with this.....

(just to keep those interested up-to-date in the XOR operator use in extracting 'parts' from a hexagram etc)

---------------
Just a small update from this afternoon's readings.... thanks to prompts from those on the "Society for chaos theory in psychology" list. My focus has been on identifying the source of how the XOR operator is aiding in extracting parts information from a set of recursively-derived categories.

Val's reference to laws of form prompted me to go back and start a 're-read' - beginning with Kaufman's "Self-reference and recursive forms".

Whilst doing that I realised that Kate had asked me about feedback.

Without combining the two I would not have 'pondered' more over this casual "yeh we know that" paragraph of Kaufman's

"the concept of feedback is normally associated with a system that can be decomposed into inputs and outputs. The feedback is 'feeding back' of (a transform of) the output into the input. This results in circulatory and recursive patterns in the system. Under appropriate conditions, the recursion settles down to a steady form of interaction" p59. J. Social. Biol. Struct. 1987 10, 53-72

so what?

My original focus here has been on understanding of a discovered property of the XOR function when applied to categories derived from the recursion of a dichotomy. The REPRESENTATION of those categories has been in the form of bit patterns, where each bit reflects some 'input' from a level of recursion. e.g. 001 means 'nothing from level 1, nothing from level 2, something from level 3' OR 'integrating from level 1, integrating from level 2, differentiating from level 3'.

We could use wave forms with each level being a marker of cps measured as 2^n cps where n is the level from 1 upwards. This would use constructive/destructive interference patterns to give us a waveform representing the quality)

so what?

To **IMPLEMENT** the XOR function in the neurology required TWO neurons in that we need a feedback system to do it.

IOW the XOR function in our brains ensures, guarantees, DEMANDS, recursion to be a fundamental property of extracting information from the 'complex', simply due to the fact that to implement it we need feedback (NOT the case with AND, NOT etc)

With the recursing of an ASYMMETRIC format (axons = FM (pulse), dendrites = AM (wave), FM/AM = differentiating/integrating dynamics) that allows for the application of recursion to itself (using the XOR operator). It is this XOR methodology that (a) ensures the whole is encoded in all parts, and (b) allows for the extraction of a particular through the use of masking the bit pattern of category A with the bit pattern of category B,to bring out a description, by analogy, of the result in the form of qualities of category C.

What is indicated here is that the AM data at the dendrites is XOR-ed into parts, pulse data, by the soma and transmitted down the axon in a REVERSE ordering of general-to-particular to ensure building of data context-to-text. Given a context so more information is limited using energy conservation, we just add 'bits' to the top as needed once the bulk has been transmitted to set the 'ground'.

Zoom up to the hemispheres of the neocortex and we seem to see this same sort of FM/AM 'dynamic' but now applied to complex thoughts etc due to the increase in bandwidth as we move from neuron to whole brain.

From another source, to instigate a memory system you need at the fundamental level the XOR operator. IOW memory is fundamentally recursive in form (since XOR requires recursion and memory requires XOR it follows that memory will be mapped in a recursive manner - which is what IDM covers - the template for meaning etc)

Feedback means using the past to aid in the perception of the current and/or imagination of the future. In IDM this is mapped to the 'dimension of precision'. Here we have:

(a) NO feedback, each moment is 'unique'. representable as ...1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1
(b) feedback limited to the last moment, scale is immaterial. ADD the moments to get, ...1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 - a beginning of 'sequence' and the AND operator - linkage.
(c) go back the last TWO moments - ...1,2,3,5,8,13,21,... the fibonacci sequence
(d) go back the last THREE to get the tribonacci sequence and so on.
(e) given a FINITE bound, as in a 'beginning', then go back to the beginning and we get ...1,2,4,8,16,32,64...

In image formats - at the level of the fibonacci sequence we have a cicular spiral pattern. At the level of the binary sequence we have a square spiral pattern - inbetween are all of the 'variations on a theme'.

BEYOND (e) and we move into complexity/chaos dynamics (Verhulst, Mandelbrot et al)

The focus on PRECISION means that each of the above sequences serve as positions for interpretation of reality -some will do it through patterns of the fibonacci, most of us do it through patterns of the binary (or 'beyond' - i.e. use of imagination where we put in 'extra' energy that destablises, allows for 'emergence' etc)

The RECURSION of a dichotomy is covered in the binary - what about the others? Their recursion is of fractal dimension. The range is 1.6^n to 2.0^n (less than the fibonacci sequence and there is little or no 'growth'. Beyond 2.0 and we get into complexity etc) For high precision we have to use the realm of the binary, the exclusive OR. The tightness of the spirals is determined by what number PAIRS are used out the sequence to create the spiral. (using the fib pattern as an example - 5/8 is wide, 13/21 tighter)

I still have not reached the EXACT, formal, description of what is going on but it looks like this:

Given:

000, 001, 010, 011, 100, 101, 110, 111

where these are recursed from the 0/1 dichotomy, if I then apply recursion to EACH I will get the same patterns I get when I XOR the whole set of qualities with each. I apply recursion to each by 'bit flipping' - we step through each quality's representation using binary number patterns. Thus to 'flip' through 000 left-to-right we have:

000, 100, 010, 110, 001, 101, 011, 111

IOW the link of recursion to XOR means I will get the same patterns be it applying recursion to each quality or just XOR-ing all against one. The DIFFERENCE here is that the use of recursion just gives me a 'parts list' ordered by analogy (an AND format), whereas the XOR gives me the X-ness of the particular property A expressed through context B in the form of an analogy to property C (since the language for a row is finite and it is supposed to describe 'all there is', so analogy/metaphor is the 'preferred' form of description).

I have used 'bit flipping' before to describe things but did not equate the need for recursion to create the XOR operator in our brains and so the association of 'bit flipping' (recursion) with XOR-ing.

Chris.

[yly2pg1]

From another source, to instigate a memory system you need at the fundamental level the XOR operator. IOW memory is fundamentally recursive in form (since XOR requires recursion and memory requires XOR it follows that memory will be mapped in a recursive manner - which is what IDM covers - the template for meaning etc)

errorneous zone
Spelling error in the middle of "errorneous", right?

Why there is "a missing link" in the middle of XOR mapping? Why not the missing link in the root?

[yly2pg1]

"the concept of feedback is normally associated with a system that can be decomposed into inputs and outputs. The feedback is 'feeding back' of (a transform of) the output into the input. This results in circulatory and recursive patterns in the system. Under appropriate conditions, the recursion settles down to a steady form of interaction"

circulatory? http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/new.gif

[yly2pg1]

IOW the XOR function in our brains ensures, guarantees, DEMANDS, recursion to be a fundamental property of extracting information from the 'complex', simply due to the fact that to implement it we need feedback (NOT the case with AND, NOT etc)

That explains why it takes time to read the material posted here. Everytime i have to stop, to wait for "feedback" in order to proceed.

[yly2pg1]

With the recursing of an ASYMMETRIC format (axons = FM (pulse), dendrites = AM (wave), FM/AM = differentiating/integrating dynamics) that allows for the application of recursion to itself (using the XOR operator). It is this XOR methodology that (a) ensures the whole is encoded in all parts, and (b) allows for the extraction of a particular through the use of masking the bit pattern of category A with the bit pattern of category B,to bring out a description, by analogy, of the result in the form of qualities of category C.

(b) allows "feedback".
(a) together with (b) allows "circulation".

Circulation process will mask and filter the info (bit pattern)?

[yly2pg1]

Feedback means using the past to aid in the perception of the current and/or imagination of the future. In IDM this is mapped to the 'dimension of precision'. Here we have:

(a) NO feedback, each moment is 'unique'. representable as ...1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1
(b) feedback limited to the last moment, scale is immaterial. ADD the moments to get, ...1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 - a beginning of 'sequence' and the AND operator - linkage.
(c) go back the last TWO moments - ...1,2,3,5,8,13,21,... the fibonacci sequence
(d) go back the last THREE to get the tribonacci sequence and so on.
(e) given a FINITE bound, as in a 'beginning', then go back to the beginning and we get ...1,2,4,8,16,32,64...


So, the feedback system in our brain is dictating our learning curve, our evolving skills, learning experience ... up to the evolution of a civilization!!! http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/teach.gif

[yly2pg1]

In image formats - at the level of the fibonacci sequence we have a cicular spiral pattern. At the level of the binary sequence we have a square spiral pattern - inbetween are all of the 'variations on a theme'.

That could be used to categorize a person:

pure fibonacci - take thing at the face value

pure binary - balance view of all aspects and dimensions

in-between - noise and arguments http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/proud.gif http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/angry.gif http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/rant.gif

[yly2pg1]

BEYOND (e) and we move into complexity/chaos dynamics (Verhulst, Mandelbrot et al)

http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/clown.gifhttp://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/clown.gif like me?

[yly2pg1]

The RECURSION of a dichotomy is covered in the binary - what about the others? Their recursion is of fractal dimension. The range is 1.6^n to 2.0^n (less than the fibonacci sequence and there is little or no 'growth'. Beyond 2.0 and we get into complexity etc) For high precision we have to use the realm of the binary, the exclusive OR. The tightness of the spirals is determined by what number PAIRS are used out the sequence to create the spiral. (using the fib pattern as an example - 5/8 is wide, 13/21 tighter)

http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/howmuch.gif ???

[lightofdarkness]

The overall dynamic follows the dimension of precision for fib pattern to binary, from 'yin' to 'yang'. See the material on small world networks and history:

http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/history.html

The main element is in the ability to go sideways - to break off from the development path and so reflect stratification.

The development path is mappable to the binary ordering of the IC with each hexagram in that order allowing for a lateral development.

The IC REFLECTS all of this and as such can serve as a predictor of generic events, allowing for the slowing down of things, or their speeding up - but the outcomes are inevitable.

None of this has been covered in detail before and it is an interesting area - once I have done all of the other stuff! ;-)

[lightofdarkness]

re spirals, as we plot the spiral based on the fib ratio of one number and the next so the ratio determines the tightness of the spiral.

8 / 5 is not as tight as 21 / 13 etc - as we move along the sequence so the ratios get closer to the irrational number 1.618...

See anything on the net re log spirals, growth spirals etc.

[yly2pg1]

000, 001, 010, 011, 100, 101, 110, 111

IOW the link of recursion to XOR means I will get the same patterns be it applying recursion to each quality or just XOR-ing all against one. The DIFFERENCE here is that the use of recursion just gives me a 'parts list' ordered by analogy (an AND format), whereas the XOR gives me the X-ness of the particular property A expressed through context B in the form of an analogy to property C (since the language for a row is finite and it is supposed to describe 'all there is', so analogy/metaphor is the 'preferred' form of description).

The more -AND a person you are, the slower you speak.

The more -XOR a person you are, the faster you response and speak.

To assert a meaning, a stand, an expression (so to speak), the language used is finite, "all there is". The YANG predominates.

[lightofdarkness]

The XOR/AND is more sensitive to precision issues - and differences between quantitative vs qualitative. AND is more into pattern matching, edge detection, relational dynamics where often the conversation 'circles' the point since it cannot immediate make the point - gets into the use of innuendo etc.

XOR can be too pointed in that it can marginalise relational dynamics for the sake of making the point!

AND is more yin, XOR is more yang. That said, WITHIN what has been differentiated we find AND in the form of rigid linking of parts in a hierarchy - as such the general, vague, semantics focus of the AND is transformed into an intense single-minded focus on position in the hierarchy - all that matters is that position and as such the term 'semantics' is concentrated and relabelled as 'syntax'.

Thus we have AND 'between' and AND 'within'. XOR focuses on the boundary of 'this-ness', the fine details perspective and so on discreteness.

[candid]

This is interesting. The image it creates in my mind is that of the cuts on a key. The outward material being yang or is-ness, and the spaces between being yin or vagueness. When the boundaries or profile of two keys vary, they form incompatibility. They don't work to open the same lock but instead need their own individual lock to work in and with. When a group forms its own profile it serves to open a collective lock, but omits a key with its own profile.

[yly2pg1]

That said, WITHIN what has been differentiated we find AND in the form of rigid linking of parts in a hierarchy
- as such the general, vague, semantics focus of the AND is transformed into
an intense single-minded focus on position in the hierarchy
- all that matters is that position and as such the term 'semantics' is concentrated and relabelled as 'syntax'.
Thus we have AND 'between' and AND 'within'.

Life experience consists of syntaxes that link all parts in a hierarchy?

The younger is dealing more with AND 'between' and the elder is guided by AND-within?

[lightofdarkness]

Not necessarily, genetic diversity can determine initial biases - some get softer as they age, some get harder. Some born more AND-within sensitive, others more AND-betweeen sensitive. Drug preferences come out here - aminergic focus (cocaine, speed) favours AND-within; LSD and ecstasy more AND-between (serotinergic focus).

Gets into issues of identity assertions. AND operating 'within' elicits a sense of personal integrity that can differ from 'identity seekers' who get a sense of identity from context and so feed AND within from AND between. 'sensation seekers' are more asserting of their identiy and favour AND within feeding into AND between.

At the level of gender, females are more AND between oriented, more social, integrating the group, males are more AND within oriented, differentiating of self.

the more 'YANG' oriented collectives focus on assertion of identity and so a focus on one's position in the collective dominates. There is pressure in these sorts of collectives for females, or the more AND between oriented, to conform to that differentiating focus, a demand to be 'universal', and that can go against genetic preferences and so elicit issues of depression etc as well as a demand to be materialist - possessions aid in asserting identity for the AND-between focused - fashion etc dominates, as does the search for, demand for, eternal youth! (and so some say that men never grow up! ;-))

Products of YANG collectives will bias labels etc to reflect the perceived 'weakness' by AND-between in assertion of one's identity - and so the MBTI/Keirsey label of 'identity seekers'!

See my page:

http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/price.html

The focus on being a universal in fact distorts the reality of our social nature and so the need to COMPLETE that universality through being local context sensitive - as such the AND-between can be more multi-tasking than the AND-within, the AND-within more precise, more overly-precise at times (miss the forest for the trees).

The above distinctions are of course 'extremes' - the AND-within/AND-Between dichotomy reflects aspects of differentiating/integrating and so can be recursed to cover the full spectrum of hexagram descriptions! (000000 = and-between to 111111 = and-within)

Chris.

[yly2pg1]

A demand to be 'universal' when genetic preference is AND-between yields depression.

A demand to be 'multi-tasking' when genetic preference is AND-within yields what? suppression and aggressiveness?

[yly2pg1]

Drug preferences come out here - aminergic focus (cocaine, speed) favours AND-within; LSD and ecstasy more AND-between (serotinergic focus).

If i take cocaine, i build castle in the air.
If i take ecstasy, a bird fly me off in the air.

[yly2pg1]

Some born more AND-within sensitive, others more AND-betweeen sensitive.

If a mother is AND-between sensitive; the father AND-within sensitive; and the mother is the dominating part, what impact will it be to the kid?

[lightofdarkness]

(1) a demand for multi-tasking can elicit anxiety as well as 'dropping things' - gets into issues of ADHD etc.

(2) An and-within father with a dominating and-between mother implies the father is introverted, engineering type.

if you draw a circle with mother/father 'opposed' so children will more often find a position to 'fit in' between the parents and so assert THEIR identity - maximise distance from both - three form a tringle, four a tetrahedron etc. LOCAL context etc will then 'skew' things, a bias to father or mother can develop or a break occur etc.
etc.

All of that said, genetics can 'push' a male to be 'like dad' even if there is personal dislike - same for daughters and their mothers! - LOTS of identity issues can develop ;-)

[lightofdarkness]

BTW - relational patterns that appear 'opposite' are often more so 'variations on a theme' and reflect the two threads where the columns form relationships:

000, 001, 010, 011 'and-between'
100, 101, 110, 111 'and-within'

Thus 000 links with 100 rather than with 111 etc. In the MBTI the 000 (XNFP) is focused on intuition and values, the 100 (XNTP) on intuition and facts. The 'shared space' is the attraction to what is BEHIND things rather than taking things at face value. The crossover is also in 001 to 100, 000 to 101 etc.

[yly2pg1]

(A) I-Ching reflects (via the recursion of dichotomy 0/1):

(1) The ability to go sideways - to break off from the development path and so reflect stratification.

(2) The development path is in the binary ordering


(B) From 'yin' to 'yang', the overall dynamic follows the dimension of precision from 'fibonacci' pattern to 'binary'.


(C) "Shared-Space" in Trigram
The 'shared space' is the attraction to what is BEHIND things rather than taking things at face value.

000 001
010 011
100 101
110 111


(D) AND-between, AND-within (in Trigram)

000, 001, 010, 011 - 'and-between'
100, 101, 110, 111 - 'and-within'

Some born more AND-within sensitive, others more AND-betweeen sensitive.
Genetic diversity can determine initial biases - some get softer as they age, some get harder.


(E) XOR Operator

The link of recursion to XOR means there will be same patterns
be it applying recursion to each quality or just XOR-ing all against one.
The use of recursion just gives a 'parts list' ordered by analogy (an AND format),
whereas the XOR gives the X-ness of the particular property A expressed through context B in the form of an analogy to property C

(since the language for a row is finite and it is supposed to describe 'all there is',
so analogy/metaphor is the 'preferred' form of description).

('bit flipping' did not equate the need for recursion to create the XOR operator in our brains.)

[lightofdarkness]

? bit flipping IS recursion in that it reflects the application of recursion to what has been recursed.

IOW I apply recursion to 1/0 and get:

000, 001, 010, 011, 100, 101, 110, 111

I can keep going ad infinitum.
I can zoom-in and apply recursion to these bit patterns by 'flipping' the bits in binary number ordering (recall that Peano derived the integers from recursion of the empty set - IOW 1,2,3... is recursion at work!)

If I 'flip' 000 I get:

000, 100, 010, 110, 001, 101, 011, 111

This is the list of parts 'up' 000 and maps to the XOR dynamics where, in 000, so XORING brings out the 'pure' form the pool of potentials - 100 XOR 000 = 100 etc.

This sequence in fact appears to reflect the path of 'stratification' where the original quality sets the context. IOW the '-ness' we get out of these relationships form into the AND-within code in some way of ordering parts.

For example, for 111 the 'end' is 000. What does this 'meaning'? Look at five-phase. The 111 position is the realm of exchange, of intense energy use, mediation etc. The 000 position is the realm of filtration, of conservation of energy by working off one's instincts; skills, rules.

Where do we get those skills? in the realm of exchange, of 111. Just as there is a path from generic filtering to mediation and refinements of those filters (000 to 111) so there is a path from the mediation, the obtaining of new skills BEYOND the genetic ones, to full incorporation of those skills into a 000 form.

This feedback loop will naturally move the 000 to a more universals, 111, focus due to the aquisition of skills - where those skills include our technology.

Thus as yin moves to yang so yang can 'transcend' and in that transcendence become 'yin' - 000 - but at the next level of development and so at a more complex context and so a more 'universal' perspective develops.

Note how corporations these days are starting to create their own 'worlds' through supplying corporate schools, housing, funding etc. The actions WITHIN these corporations are very AND oriented and as such reflect integrating, yin-ness, over differentiating. They believe that by establishing a 'world', a corporate filtering system, the corporate 'way' decrees individual behaviours, loyalties etc, so they can compete better with other corporations.

This overall approach reflects the emergence of 'yin perspectives' in yang realms where the drive to break all barriers, a drive of capitalism, creates barriers only surmountable by adopting socialist perspectives WITHIN the capitalist groups!

The role of consciousness, of yang, is to REFINE the instincts, and so yin, and so become a 'universal' with all of those skills and now able to be dropped in to any context and adapt 'immediately' through filtering, through allowing the context to 'push' and we just apply a touch of dicernment re allowing the push or not.

As for XOR and neurons, to be able to apply feedback means linking the output of neuron A with its own input. To do that requires TWO neurons, 1 feeds onto another than feeds back onto the original. That is the only way you can get an XOR operator - you need at least two neurons.

If I allow for feedback of a neuron directly onto itself I will create a short-circuit. Thus, from an evolution perspective, a 'success' was in developing feedback, and so self-referencing. FROM there comes the benefits of XOR-ing - we go past a whole and into analysis of its parts.

[yly2pg1]

(F) Feedback System

To **IMPLEMENT** the XOR function in the neurology required TWO neurons in that we need a feedback system to do it.

IOW the XOR function in our brains ensures, guarantees, DEMANDS, recursion to be a fundamental property of extracting information from the 'complex', simply due to the fact that to implement it we need feedback (NOT the case with AND, NOT etc)

With the recursing of an ASYMMETRIC format (axons = FM (pulse), dendrites = AM (wave), FM/AM = differentiating/integrating dynamics) that allows for the application of recursion to itself (using the XOR operator).

It is this XOR methodology that
(a) ensures the whole is encoded in all parts,
(b) allows for the extraction of a particular through the use of masking the bit pattern of category A with the bit pattern of category B,to bring out a description, by analogy, of the result in the form of qualities of category C.

What is indicated here is that the AM data at the dendrites is XOR-ed into parts, pulse data, by the soma and transmitted down the axon in a REVERSE ordering of general-to-particular to ensure building of data context-to-text. Given a context so more information is limited using energy conservation, we just add 'bits' to the top as needed once the bulk has been transmitted to set the 'ground'.

Zoom up to the hemispheres of the neocortex and we seem to see this same sort of FM/AM 'dynamic' but now applied to complex thoughts etc due to the increase in bandwidth as we move from neuron to whole brain.

From another source, to instigate a memory system you need at the fundamental level the XOR operator. IOW memory is fundamentally recursive in form (since XOR requires recursion and memory requires XOR it follows that memory will be mapped in a recursive manner - which is what IDM covers - the template for meaning etc)

[yly2pg1]

Hi Chris, i just try to make a very rough but simpler summary (to the best of my understanding) before i proceed. Cotto matte.

[yly2pg1]

(G) Circulatory and recursive pattern

The concept of feedback is normally associated with a system that can be decomposed into inputs and outputs. The feedback is 'feeding back' of (a transform of) the output into the input. This results in circulatory and recursive patterns in the system. Under appropriate conditions, the recursion settles down to a steady form of interaction.

[yly2pg1]

Say a MAN is going through a divination process.

First, he make his question clear in his mind.
Then, he make his reading via I-Ching.

Could you in a very simple manner lay down the process of brain dynamics throughout the process?
(Use the code A,B,C,D,E,F,G if possible, and supplement when necessary).

[lightofdarkness]

The dynamics of the brain are reflected in the prose of the I Ching. (a to g)

When you think of a question, you then reach for the I Ching as a filter with which to interpret your question and its answer - IOW you overlay the IC with the question and its format elicits the answer.

as you know, I dont work off 'random' or 'spiritual' perspectives - to get the IC to work for you does not requires these 'external' agents ;-) - but it does require understanding the universal form of the IC to get a degree of clarity ;-)

Your brain is built from A to G. The IC is built, using ancient metaphors, from A to G. Resonances follows ;-)

LOCAL context can 'skew' perspectives and so overplay a positive or negative aspect when, universally, both are present.

Blending, Bonding, Bounding, and Binding come out of the brain's oscillations (and so recursion) of WHAT/WHERE.

Consciousness RELABELS these qualities to fit a local context, and so from the sameness comes differences.

[lightofdarkness]

I shall try and put a diagram up tomorrow.

[yly2pg1]

Thanks Chris, that will help a lot for me! http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/zen2.gif

[lightofdarkness]

first, note that in the following diagram, the universal I Ching is where all is connected to all else - there is no movement as such, all is POTENTIALS. This is the left-most 'network'. Exposed to reality and ad hoc methods take over to 'fit' the universal into the local. This is the middle 'network'. In extreme cases the connections actualised are so ideosyncratic in link and in interpretation that to outsiders it all seems 'random' - the left most diagram. With me so far? ;-)

\image {small world networks}

Chris.

[lightofdarkness]

oops - try again

http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/messages/48/4322.jpg

[lightofdarkness]

Zoom-in on either the small world or random and you can, over time, bring out the regular network - aka ICPlus - an 'ideal' form built of potentials that then get actualised. In this ideal form the focus is on STRUCTURE, on deriving all of the links and so hidden elements more often not brought out in the small world/random maps.

Our brains reflect 'small world' where the dichotomy of the above is integrated whole (regular) vs differentiated whole (random). The realm of mediation is in the middle - the small world - where 'seed' deals with reality.

recursion of a dichotomy will be SYMMETRIC if we focus on ONE level - we derive difference from sameness. If the elements are asymmetric, as we find in reality, then we get a power law pattern, a spectrum of highs/lows, universals expressed in some parts, locals expressed in other parts - BUT there is still observable 'meaning' seen from the OUTSIDE. As we become increasingly differentiating so we can create what APPEARS to be 'random' networks, where from the INSIDE all seems to be 'fine' ;-)

BTW - 'perfect' order is regular, 'free will' is random, our reality is in the middle.

Ok so far?

Chris.

[lightofdarkness]

Now imagine your question coming out of the 'small world' network and overlayed with elements from the 'random' network - THEN all of that is overlayed the regular network for interpretations.

All that will come out will be a set of patterns for a situation, not ALL of them - which is what the regular, as a static form, represents.

When we focus on the small world/random networks we focus on the immediate, obvious, expressions, BUT the FULL SPECTRUM of expressions is in fact present where the potentials have 'slight' actualisations compared to the 'obvious' actualisations - This gets into sorting best-fit/worst-fit. IOW each moment is a distortion of the regular, we are dealing with topology, exaggerations of parts of that surface rather than discrete elements.

In our brains the XOR extracts parts from a whole but in doing so does not 'cut off' the parts from the whole, just exaggerates them - thus ALL parts are applicable to the moment and our perceptions etc 'distort' things ;-)

[lightofdarkness]

Consider nature as 'regular' - genetics, all is determined - and 'random' as the environment *in general* - and so nurture (iow the genetics cannot determine the behaviour of individuals etc you interact with - those local dynamics are 'random' as far as it is concerned).

The dynamics of the nature/nurture dichotomy elicits 'small world networks' be they the local adaptations of the brain of the individual, or the local adaptations of a collective, or the local adaptations of a neuron; the scale is immaterial - integrating vs differentiating and out of that comes the middle as mediation.

Our INDIVIDUAL brains will show adaptations in unique patterns of 'banding' (derived using dyes) that reflect the nature/nurture dynamic at work. BENEATH all of the actualisation is a realm of POTENTIALS, UNIVERSALS.

Over time these universals can be 'modified' by context but their core sense is constant - We all have a sense of 'wholeness' but what it is associated with is determined by physiological, psychological, and sociological 'nuances' of the basic form.

[lightofdarkness]

Imagine each translation/interpretation of the IC coming out of the small world/random perspectives. Imagine each of these being transparent such that we can stack them on top of each other to get the 'full' picture - that full picture will, over time, start to look like the regular in that we are summing the expressions of actuals from different contexts and in doing so mapping all of the potentials.
(if we linked all of the potentials in the above diagram it would be hard to see the links! - so the cross links are not given - I will see if I can get a 3-D perspective where the regular is like a dodecahedron etc.

[yly2pg1]

XOR operator equips MAN to response to the environmental stimulus instantaneously. However due to the shared-space property of our brains, the process distorts the Regular (Perfect Order).

[yly2pg1]

that explains why the MAN is born with sins ...

[yly2pg1]

I go through the IC Plus, it is a good tool

(1) to map a pattern for a situation
(2) to map the interactive elements of a situation
(3) to dictate the "course" when we change our mind

[yly2pg1]

Quote:
<font size="-1">The 'idea' with the IC is that it is a WHOLE. The hexagrams as such are XORed from that whole. By refined understanding of those parts so they get re-integrated into the WHOLE and we can work off our intuitions. we cannot consciously 'see the entire scope', that is outside of the LOCAL range of our FM thinking (Frequency Modulation is VERY clear but notoriously short ranged). Through summing the parts we fill in the dots of the universal we are dealing with (and so each part is a 'small world network') and on doing so move to INTUITING the WHOLE, being able to let it 'drive' universally and our consciousness differentiate local 'nuances'.</font>