GATEWAY to new TEMPLATE with I-Ching

[yly2pg1]

Sometimes, in threading through a template (http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/messages/48/4429.html?1118659742) with Yi, i notice that it is possible to look for signs or gateway through which new field of activities and opportunities are laid ahead (new TEMPLATE).

Questions like the kind of roles I-Ching could render, the way to read the signs, and the 'Gateway' in the Yi text/line position are perhaps potential areas for exploration. Your tips may be very helpful here to 'unmask' the doorway?

[lightofdarkness]

mountain.

[yly2pg1]

(1) Line 6 in upper trigram
(2) Line 3 in lower trigram
(3) 51 as 'filter' in a Hexagram

Is that what you mean by 'Mountain'?

[lightofdarkness]

52 as filter ;-)

There is an association with mountain of being a gateway to 'something'.

When we map in the MBTI we find the same position of mountain includes XNFJ personas - psychics, Seers, prophets etc.

(more so the first four hexagrams, with yin 4th line: 15, 52, 39, 53 - the last four, 62, 56, 31, 33, map more to mentors, ringmasters etc)

There is the association of mountain to the basic principles of Buddhism and so of learning through suffering - we learn quality control, discernment.

If we map in basic emotions categories so the focus is on sharing space with another 'in here' (contractive bonding) - and with emotions that is grief, sadness that relate to 'lost loves' etc and from those memories we learn quality control and so discernment.

The BOND emphasis is on some form of connection, a link in space, sharing the same space, eternal and so 'timeless'.

15 - modesty, remove highs/lows, keep words close to facts.

52 - self-restraint doubled = discernment.

39 - obstruction - going against the mindless flow, standing out (also covers bypassing obstructions using the flow).

53 - maturing.

vague stuff but there is still 'something', use of discipline etc to 'mature' ;-)

The other half get into issues of loyalty (62,56) and enticement (31,33).

With mountain on top so discernment rules - and so the general quality control emphasis of 23, 52, 04, 18, 27, 22, 41, 26 etc.

Discernment means making quality choices and so a path to 'transcending' the everyday qualities but 'in here'.... and buddhism focuses on this 'inner light' state that gives one an aire of quality.

23 covers discernment re faith.
52 covers pure discernment.
04 covers socialisation using discernment.
18 covers correcting corruptions.
27 covers being discerning about what goes in the 'new' structure.
22 covers discernment in look from the outside etc
41 covers distillation processes (alchemy like)
26 covers discernment in holding firm to the tried and true.

The discernment, the quality control is subtle, controlled, elegant, 'pure' etc. (but can fail at times - as with 41 where the distillation process can fail and we have true 'decrease')

The discerning nature of the mindset that goes with mountain - self-restraint/discernment - is what is useful in exploring 'gateways' since gateways are often guarded so one must be careful and the self-restraint of mountain has that carefulness built-in.

the nature of a mountain bottom puts basic architecture issues etc as sourced in fire-based hexagrams (recall the 27-ness of hexagrams means change lines 1 and 6.) and so a sense of light, of expanding 'boundaries' but all 'in here' through bonding - note how hex 52 has its core architecture in hex 36 - 'darkening of the light' - the emphasis being on covering up the inner light for future times - and so be discerning in exposure of that light etc - IOW the discernment recognises an INNER light and that fuels mountain.

hex 15 on the other hand has hex 22 as its architecture and so the focus on covering up - but with the light base it is an extreme in 22 and so the sense of 'beautyfy' and 'gloss over' when compared to 15s covering up by reducing highs, filling in the lows.

Chris.

[yly2pg1]

Quote
<font size="-2">Then note that each of these hexagrams in the binary sequence express all of the others. And so we move into the XOR dynamic of extracting the '27-ness' etc of each hexagram.</font>

Chris, you mention about '27-ness' many times. Why '27-ness' is so important(?) in XOR dynamic?

[lightofdarkness]

I use it as an example, and it was the first quality I discovered that led to the formal recognition of the XOR methodology so it has become habit in that 27-ness is the first that enters my mind when writting about XOR etc.

See the old ddiamond site for comments on bottom and top line changes to hexagrams that appear to elicit a description of the 'mud', the 'clay' that formed them.
( http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond ) - this was a vague observation that I developed without formally recognising the XOR dynamic at work.

Later on I realised that it was the XOR operator at work where XORing ANY hexagram with 27 brings out the expression of 27 THROUGH that hexagram (and so the 'clay' which formed 01 is described by analogy to 28 (27 XOR 01 = 28) - too much yang, excess.)

SO, we can apply to each hexagram ALL of the others to bring out THEIR expression through EACH hexagram by analogy to some other; and so the IC describes itself ;-)

(e.g. how does X 'complete'? XOR it with 63 - how does X 'prune'? XOR it with 23. How does X 'seed' (spread the word), XOR it with 43 etc etc etc)

Many dont 'get it' yet but given time I think they will ;-)

I have given the X-ness of a hexagram in the line meaning section in the X pages of my website (off the table in http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/icstruct.html

OR off the links to hexagrams by name on the left frame of the main ICPlus page:

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

[lightofdarkness]

For a particular link to the old pages consider:

http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond/cardinal.html

It is 'old' stuff but useful to see the development path re 'raw'/'refined' etc. It was not until I got into brain analysis of paradox that the 'insight' occured re the use of XOR to extract parts from a whole (a complex system).

Many have played with logic operators and the I Ching but the play has been lacking grounding; fun but 'what does it mean!?'. The IDM work through brain analysis in information processing gives us a meaning for the IC - using the XOR allows us to extract details from a complex form, here being a hexagram.

The hexagram is, with all of the others, a part of the integrated whole and the XOR (recursion) brings it out (to implement XOR in the brain requires TWO neurons and so the implementation forces recursive processes, self-referencing as a property of the neurology)

Once you have a hexagram it is now a whole and the same process of XORing brings out all of its parts. BUT the DESCRIPTION of those parts can only be done using the IC 'language' and so the use of analogy/metaphor. Thus the 27-ness of a hexagram is brought out by XORing the hexagram with 27 to elicit the analogy hexagram; and so for 01 so 27 XOR 01 = 28 where the basic architecture of 01 is LIKE the qualities represented in 28 - excess, too much yang.

Thus many have played with XOR and other logic operators but have limited that play to universals generating universals 27 XOR 01 = 28 - so what? By knowing what the brain does so we ground this dynamic into parts extraction from a whole. It is the 'bit' REPRESENTATION that allows us to do this, different representations (colours, sounds etc) may not have allowed for the insight.

From the IDM perspective, this is a major insight into the IC and in general into packing/unpacking meaning in the brain.

But, as is the case with these sorts of insights - it takes a while for the understanding to sink in and replace past perspectives (and some dont want those past perspectives to be replaced! gets into issues of identity etc)

There are LOTS of applications here but my main focus is fleshing-out the categories and relationships from an abstract 'bit' level and then ground the universal in different contexts (e.g. the MBTI extensions - see my brief page http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/type.html)

The XOR/AND dynamic reflects the particle/wave dynamic at work. The recursion of generals into particulars shows all particulars being linked together and so a whole realm of information processing not touched on before. (I have been through a lot of literature and no references to anything like this)

Since my 'day gig' has nothing to do with all of this so it all takes time ;-)

[martin]

"and some dont want those past perspectives to be replaced! gets into issues of identity etc"

Why issues of identity? I come to the IC and other ancient texts exactly because of these past perspectives. So it's only natural that I have no - or not much - desire to replace them.
It's like traveling to a foreign country and immersing myself in the way of life of the people there and their outlook. Looking through their eyes, walking in their shoes, thinking their thoughts. Becoming one of them.

[lightangel]

But Martin... (btw, is that still your name?) http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/biggrin.gif

I think that Chris means... oops, forgot what I was going to say!

[martin]

Only on the internet! http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/biggrin.gif

[lightofdarkness]

The issue Martin is in that we are dealing with universals, not locals, and we are dealing with Science not Religion. In Science, if something comes up that raises issues, that offers better perspectives, on past data then there is replacement, the 'better' perspective is used but elements of the past that are still valid are retained (coexistance element). Overall we are dealing dialectical negation (we keep the 'good' bits of the old, utilise the new)

Peer reviewed journals etc ensure repeatability of experiments and so their validation and incorporation into the species perspectives. IOW we use XORing and derive the same generic qualities as covered in the original material and so validate that material (LOCAL interpretations will more often reflect an ad-hoc development perspective such that comparisons will be 'vague', but move to the universal level, and so universal terms, and the comparisons become very 'crisp'! ;-))

In Religion any material that comes up that goes against the current dogma, that raises issues on intepretations of core texts is fought against tooth n nail (in the INSTITUTION of Science this also occurs but that just reflects the religious aspects in that institution). This often leads to fundamentalism where the current dogma has to compete with the new and rhetoric is the determiner of success of not (and so the role of charisma in such interactions - Science has nothing to do with it since univerally 1 + 1 = 2; indicating that the fundamentalism is not universal, it is local!)

The differences are in Science having its 'facts' outside of the belief system of any particular individual, whereas Religion is matter of faith and so very much INSIDE the individual. There is also the focus on the power of charisma not being as strong as it can be in religion (sure there are some members of the institution of Science that are charismatic and can skew perspectives, but not for long if they are wrong - the data soon determines what is 'fact' or 'fiction')

IOW Science will focus on many universals and recognise the diversity in the actualisation of those universals; piecemeal work at the level of the local will then aid in refining the universals. IOW the formality of review etc tries to ensure objectivity and so bring out what is 'behind' all of the small world networks (and mathematical/logical representations soon disolve any subjective issues)

Religion will focus on one universal ("god") but all else is subjective (interpretations of what "god" says/does) but that subjectivity will include attempts to impose that subjectivity on all others as if universal 'fact' but WITHOUT proof - it is all a matter of faith.

To me, your comments above reflect someone who has come to a small world network perspective and entered that perspective accepting the dogma as 'fact' - beyond question. That immersion entangles personal identity with the dogma, there is a bond and/or blend at work where any focus on changing that relationship will change one's identity. That to many would be threatening if the focus is on analytical negation, total replacement - my work is not, it is dialectial negation (and so in the spirit of the IC ;-))

MY perspective comes from the regular network outlook, the realm of universals, where as more and more research is done on the psyche so small world perspectives come under review and so possible need for change (which is what the IC is about from a universal perspective).

The fact that the XOR material (a) works and (b) has not been published in the IC dogma texts indicates a discovery of something 'new'.

That discovery comes from OUTSIDE of the IC where the focus has been on how the IC, MBTI, Mathematics etc etc could have developed 'naturally' from brain dynamics - we are dealing with our reflection as such.

Only in recent times has there been enough data from neurosciences to give us insight into 'in here' and my IDM work has taken that data and built a model of information processing that works at the level of GENERIC qualities, universals, that we then 'colour' with local nuances to give the small world networks.

To introduce this material to the traditional IC can be threatening in that that IC has been around for 3000+ years and indicates that the local, small world network of ancient china, IC dogma has excluded major aspects of the universal IC. That exclusion has not, I believe, been intentional, it has simply been due to ignorance about how our brains work and how we derive meaning. (that said, it is possible for some 'secret sect' to have come up with the material and kept it hidden or 'reserved' for initiates etc! ;-) IOW there could be elements of the XOR perspective in ancient texts but they have not appeared to date, and the properties and methods of the XOR material are so major that if they were discovered in the past they would have found their way into the 'traditional' material and so be part of the dogma.)

Think carefully here Martin, it is possible to use the XOR to describe in rich detail the generic properties of each hexagram and how those properties are expressed through all other hexagrams. There has been NOTHING like that available for the IC to date. To those who like the 'freedom' of meandering interpretations of hexagrams this is an issue in that now we have a set of more precise meanings "hard wired" into the hexagrams themselves allowing them to define themselves. The advantage is a richer IC (and so still allowing for 'meandering' interpretations but more localised ;-))

What we are looking at is the 'wave' nature of the realm of AND, out of which we use XOR to extract parts (as shown in the paradox processing material - also see this visually in http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/WaveStructure.html ).

We are also seeing the hierarchy at work where recursion of 64 hexagrams (or 8 trigrams, 4 digrams, or 4096 dodecagrams) gives us PARTS that in turn can be treated as WHOLES and so we can apply XOR to them to extract the 'entanglement' of the waves that allow for the bringing-out of a particular 'particle'.

If you wish to stay with the traditional perspective that is fine - but over time MY perspective, or one like it, will become increasingly attractive due to its better precision in analysing the IC universals.

The ancients did a good job in fleshing-out the trigrams/hexagrams etc but they did not know what they were dealing with universally (other than imagining they were dealing with the 'spirits' etc - their RICH metaphor shows their lack in precision and so the 'struggles' later in trying to interpret that metaphor, they did the best they could given the times)

In the 3000+ years since the original material, and in particular over the last 30 years, we have done considerable work in the areas of brain function and information processing by the neurology. To exclude that work in considering the properties and methods of the I Ching is, IMHO, corrupt - reflecting a religious perspective where the past must be preserved regardless of any indication that it is 'limited' or even 'wrong'. (as you know, I am on the lookout for some maths for all of this - so far the maths of particle physics seems to 'fit' but still more work to do re Kaufman etc)

The MANY interpretations/translations of the IC currently available are sourced from the traditional 'small world network' of the ancient chinese IC. A LOT of energy has been put into those works based on a perspective of taking the IC as the 'ground', not our brains as the 'ground'.

Introducing a brain-based perspective that is BETTER, offers better precision of categorisation, understanding of relationships etc, but at the GENERAL level of universals, can be an 'issue' for the past translators/interpreters - tough. We evolve, we do not stand still, things CHANGE.

The 'good side' of this is that the IC *in general* does not change, its basic representations remain. The IC has been demonstrated to be a very usable, easily teachable, metaphor for interpreting past, present, and future (you dont need a PhD in Maths to understand things! ;-)) BUT we do need to move up to its regular network format, the universals, to re-interpret details and so link them back to local contexts.

Chris.

[bruce]

Hi Chris,

I have to differ with your perspective on three things. One is that ?you? are dealing with science, not everyone. Secondly, you make the leap to assume that if someone doesn?t 'scientize' the Yi that they make it a religion, complete with all the inflexible dogma that goes with fundamentalism. There?s a vast amount of space between Science and Religion. Thirdly, you say, approaches other than yours ONLY deal with ?local interpretation? and not universalism. I could never understand how you arrive at that conclusion when clearly archetypes and universal images are discussed here, at length.

A religious view typically makes itself the only true way.

[lightofdarkness]

Hi Bruce,

I think you do not recognise the LOCAL nature of archetypes when working from the level of spoken/written words (ego realm) and of visions (psyche realm). BENEATH those specialist realms is the general realm that we ALL share as members of a neuron-dependent species. Those archetypes are true universals in that they are NOT linked to any sense, they cover ALL senses.

The IDM material focus on the properties that come out of the neurology as it deals with information from specialist sources. IOW when I talk of universals I am not talking ancient chinese archetypes of the dragon etc nore of the set of Western archetypes from Jung et al- the focus is on archetypal FEELINGS derivable from neurons differentiating/integrating.

The "images" etc discussed most of the time on these lists are LOCAL archetypes, universals operating WITHIN a 'small world network' and so CULTURAL in form.

EACH specialisation will come with its own set of archetypes/universals but these in turn represent more generic qualities that allow us to share those qualities across the species.

Thus IDM comes with blending, bonding, bounding, and binding - and their composites. These form a pool of feelings used in meaning generation at the unconscious levels, FREE of any particular sense (at the level of the neurology we are dealing with frequencies, wavelengths, and amplitudes and our senses SHARE the neurology as well as have customised areas. What allows that sharing is the SAMENESS factor, a factor mapped to dealing with wholes (blending), parts (bounding), static relationships (sharing space - bonding), and dynmaic relationships (sharing time - binding). These patterns of frequencies/wavelengths/amplitudes are harmonics and elicit emotions - our more primitive language pre spoken/written words etc. Frontal lobe development allows for the DELAY of the expression of emotions and so we move into CHOICES and MEDIATION - stimulus/response becomes stimulus/considered_response that, once habituated, returns to stimulus/response but in a far more refined form.

In the universal IC position for trigram qualities we have:

http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/lofting/t1.html
http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/lofting/t2.html
http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/lofting/t3.html
http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/lofting/t4.html
http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/lofting/t5.html
http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/lofting/t6.html
http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/lofting/t7.html
http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/lofting/t8.html

Thus all hexagrams with 'contractive bounding' - aka water - as a member there is a focus on 'us vs them' dynamics with an aim on protection. With 'expansive bounding' - aka fire - the focus us also us vs them but more on expanding than contracting (gets into issues of guidance and direction-setting rather than containment/control)

I think you fail to see the hierarchy present in LOCAL dynamics - WITHIN a 'small world network' can emerge smaller networks that take the main one AS IF a regular, universal, network. As such, the elements of the main get interpreted as if 'universals' and that is fine LOCALLY but when we move to the increasingly general so we recognise that all senses are SPECIALISATIONS and as such 'small world networks' showing adaptation to LOCAL contexts.

Filter out the specialisations leaves one with the neurology. Filter THAT out and you have no sensations, no meanings etc etc IOW, for US, the neurology is the ground, the principle universal. Focus on THAT and out pops the patterns of differentiating/integrating, free of any PARTICULAR - THOSE patterns are the core universals that all others will represent as we try to derive meaning, to communicate.

IOW your comments are to me a touch 'short sighted', too LOCAL - the universals you speak of are LOCAL when compared to what IDM/ICPlus deals with ;-)

AS to my perspective on Science - no Science no internet. Please show me some religion fantatics building technology that allows us to communicate across the planet one on one. What you do see is religous fanatatics using the internet to plan the destruction of their 'competition'! Science is more egalitarian in that its products are for all to use - and that includes the 'dark' elements who's education, more often NOT determined by Science (e.g. the plethora of religious schools), is extreme to the point of being psychotic.

The IC structure, its universal nature free of LOCAL expressions (and so ancient chinese) is an extremely useful metaphor for teaching etc and in that teaching incorporating understanding of both the competitive and cooperative natures of our being as a species.

It can be EXPRESSED locally as in the traditional ancient chinese perspective or any other local perspective but with the work at the level of universals so that expression is shown to be currently 'limited' - if you choose to stay 'limited' that is up to you, but for me I think the current state of the species requires some reanalysis etc and focusing on the universal form of the IC can do that far better than the limited traditional perspective - IMHO ;-)

Chris.

[martin]

Hmm, I believe that the explanations and concepts of our sciences are no less "local" than those of ancient cultures.
Our sciences don't exist in a vacuum. They are rooted in this-our culture and reflect our way of life, our outlook and our (partly hidden) assumptions.
Our thinking is perhaps more abstract than it was in ancient times but is it also more universal, more objective?
I doubt it. http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif

[matt]

It is fair to say that the scientific/mathematical side of the I Ching is a "universal form"....though only if it is fair to say the intuitive/hidden side of the I Ching is a "universal form" also.

Thought is defined as to reason or formulate in the mind.

Intuition is defined as the act of knowing or sensing without the use of rational processes, a perceptive insight.

Thought is commonplace and overused, where as intuition is a rarity. If any one of us was able to live in constant intuitive awareness for just 1 day, the whole mystery of the I Ching would probably unravel before our insightful eyes.

The brain isnt the source of energy, its merely the conduit for the energy. And not all energy is recieved via the brain. Sushil's article about thought-emotion was very enlightening and outlined how little neuro-science actually knows about the brain.

Most people you refer to as using "Local" or "Small networks" are trying to build their intuitive faculties, their understanding of processes rational thought cannot deal with. These people would be quite capable of exploring the mathematical side if they applied and trained their brain in this way, but many feel this would restrict their vision.

In that sense, the world they are perceiving is of a "Universal" form, because intuitive insight sees a broader spectrum than mathematics.

Do you think Lao Tzu was more concerned with the structure or the space the structure occupied? This is the origin of Tao, to abandon cleverness, diminish thought, attain peace, so that other processes may start blossoming and gaining momentum, like intuition and insight.

What could be more "Universal" than that?

[bruce]

Matt, I like what you?ve said and it reminds me of something I saw this morning.

I was sitting at the computer when I saw a small lizard walk out into the hallway. I live in the desert and occasionally one of the smaller lizards find their way into the house. He stopped for a moment, dead still. Then I noticed a lanky spider crawling across the floor until it was right at the lizard?s mouth. The lizard snapped up the spider, turned its head, giving me a perfect profile shot; the spider?s legs sticking out of all sides of his mouth. The lizard did a 180 and scooted under the spare bedroom door to finish his meal.

The whole scene lasted less then a minute but was so totally primitive. It happened here and now, but it could just as well have happened a few million years ago. I doubt there was any thought involved in the whole process.

[bruce]

and to add your line:

What could be more "Universal" than that?

[gypsy]

"The camel driver knew what the boy was saying. He knew that any given thing on the face of the earth could reveal the history of all things. One could open a book to any page, or look at a person's hand; one could turn a card, or watch the flight of birds....whatever the thing observed, one could find a connection with his experience of the moment. Actually, it wasnt that those things, in themselves, revealed anything at all: it was just that people, looking at what was occuring around them, could find a means of penetration to the Soul of The World."

from The Alchemist by Paulo Coelho

[lightofdarkness]

Matt,

(1) what you dont seem to 'get' is that the IDM emphasis is more primitive, more in tune with the species-nature than of consciousness - it in fact shows where Mathematics comes from in that it maps the basic qualities of numbers to the blend, bond, bound, and bind qualities derived from the dynamics of differentiating(yanging)/integrating(yinning) - so please dont equate my position as rooted in Mathematics etc - Mathematics is metaphor just like the IC and as such its use in describing other disciplines is due to all specialist disciplines sharing the ONE set of core qualities; different labels, same qualities.

The labels act to differentiate the qualities from different contexts, otherwise there would be confusion when trying to describe literally context X with the same terms as context Y. It is to what the labels represent that allows us to make analogies/metaphors such that you can see the IC in all other specialist perspectives, you can use the IC as analogy/metaphor to describe properties of quantum mechanics or mathematics or logic or religion or history etc just as one an use Mathematics to represent the properties etc due to all of these 'differences' using the ONE set of sameness as core meanings.

(2) what you dont get is that the IDM emphasis maps out the core emotions, and so source of intuitive 'feelings', stemming from the neurology and so usable in the IC (see the trigram links above where these core emotions are covered - or go to the IDM material on emotions:

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

The CORE focus of IDM, and so its application to analysis of the IC as ICPlus, is on HOW we derive meaning as a species. To be able to do that has required access to empirical research, well documented, clear, precise - not the ad hoc material that comes out of other areas with little or no validation/repeatability.

In the last 30 years we have moved from a vague understanding, at times fanciful understanding, of how we as a species derive and communicate meaning, to a richer understanding through the use of Science, not Religion, not Philosphy nor any other 'humanities'.

What I find interesting in the comments by you and others is that you all fail to address what the original post that started this flurry of posts, was about - the XOR operator and its use in extracting the spectrum of a hexagram - and in doing so showing the linkage of all hexagrams to each other - beneath the discrete is a continuum, the whole.

By failing to address that fact you are showing exactly what my comments were about - how something radically 'new'/'discovered' can take time to be adopted by others in that its adopting can lead to 'issues' re the current dogma that can, depending on the degree of personal entanglement with the dogma, lead to 'issues' in personal, or collective, identity.

Foe example, by IDM coming up with XOR perspective so the rest of the IDM material is of possible value - but that means accepting that disciplines are analogies/metaphors and so not to be taken literally - and that includes all 'faiths/beliefs'. To many that is an issue. The point is we cannot deny the research from Science, despite how mechanistic it can be, in that we can see the organic as well.

A religious perspective establishes some creed, a thing, as fact (e.g. the Bible or Koran or Torah being the 'words of god' - or even the traditional IC) and does not move from that position despite new discoveries (e.g. the Spanish Inquisition being a classic example of attempts to preserve the status quo despite new ideas/discoveries coming forward. - and this is still going on through Creationism and Intelligent Design arguements 'against' the Scientists - as is the treatment of 50% of the population - females - where the perspective of most religions (secular buddhism trying to be a little different) is disgusting, shameful, in its repression of 'yin' mindedness.

Science sets down a METHODOLOGY to use in the analysis/discovery processes and as such is open to change, to the 'new' as long as it conforms to the tenants of the methodology re repeatability etc and is open to peer review. In this realm all competition is references at 10 paces - in religion it is more rhetoric at 10 paces with only ONE reference - 'words of god' - the holy book etc. more often taken literally.

What IS noticable is that within the INSTITUTION of Science we find a religious, patriarchic, perspective still present and so ill treatment of the female unless the mind in that female shows extreme talents worthy of 'ignoring' the femininity! ;-) (go through the history of the discovery of DNA structure to see what I mean - or read such books as "Pythagoras' Trousers")

As a species we have moved on from our primate nature to where what is inbetween our ears is of more value that what is inbetween our legs. In that movement the Science perspective is of obvious value but is also open to abuse - something we will have to deal with over time, but we have the skill and the will to do that.

From my perspective we should keep our spiritual elements to ourselves and just get on with developing the species in a rational, precise, discerning, way - and the only way to do that is to use the methodology of Science to 'enlighten' our monkey minds and so recognise the yin mind and the yang mind as aspects of the whole and in so doing teach that. Given what the "Science of Nature" gives us (i.e. physics et al) so we then explore the "Science of Freedom" - ethics - it is there we start to become more discerning etc but to do that we need to know the full spectrum of what we are dealing with - and that includes the full spectrum of the universal IC - regardless of any 'suffering' that exploration does in bringing out properties not considered before and potentially threatening to personal identity. (and it is from suffering that we learn quality control ;-))

Chris.

[lightofdarkness]

I suppose the main emphasis in the approach to the IC here is of that of "science of nature" (physics extended into chemistry, biology, neurology etc) vs "science of freedom" (ethics and so moral philosophy etc - the Confusian 'bias' in the traditional IC + comments)

We can add the science focused on logic but logic had not been traditional sourced in empirical perspectives, more on the 'pure', a priori (see Kant etc on this); OTOH nature and freedom have both 'pure' and 'empirical' formats.

IOW logic is often impoverished in its application to the IC, as shown by the XOR work that comes about by asking the 'right' questions based on empirical work re the brain dynamics of XOR/AND processing - IOW the empirical comes to the rescue of logic (and about time too! ;-))

Ethics basically covers (a) what ought to be done, (b) what ought not to be done, and I think you can see how this moves into the realm of mountain, of discernment, quality control etc. (and the basic 'rules' of scientific method are reflected in the basic truths of Buddhism so there is a tie of science to a science of 'within' - of development of consciousness, compassion, etc etc without any 'god' requirement - there are issues with the INSTITUTION of Buddhism than can be as 'corrupt' as other religious/secular 'spiritual' perspectives)

The traditional IC, the divinational, perspective focuses these days more on the science of freedom, than the science of nature but that focus impoverishes 'nature' and so associates with 'nature' perspectives of 3000BC rather than 2005AD - those perspectives have been allowed to waste, have been neglected (hex 18).

What IDM does is 'update', correct (hex 18), that perspective, introduce recent discoveries that then require the re-analysis of the IC from the 'science of nature' perspective, but in doing so also aids the ethical, the 'science of freedom'.

The use of the IC as a source of rules of ethics, and so freedoms, rather than a source of rules of 'physics' (here meaning the hard sciences and moving into psychology etc) is the more common attraction of the IC.

All ethical considerations are surrendered, one has issues with trying to assert what should/should-not be done in a particular situation based on one's own self and one has had little or contradictory training in ethics from whatever collective one is in, be it immediate family or the general culture (and in a time of existentialism/postmodernism that is understandable where the 'need' for an understanding of ethics gives way to 'randomness rules' and really nothing 'matters'!)

Thus the structure of the IC, its reflection of 'us', contains within it both the science of nature and the science of freedom and so serves as a GUIDE when there is no guidance from the local collectives or that guidance is in some way too local, too flawed for those who sense what is behind expressions.

Martin reflects in his comments a 'bias' to the 'science of freedom' perspective where there develops a reluctance to give up freedom or to add more freedoms - the 'small world network' for him is stable enough to allow one to 'plod along' in comfort. The problem here is that the universe is not static and the speed of Science is such that change happens within one's generation (one can no longer leave school and get a job at the bank until one retires etc - change is now at the level of re-training being a common demand etc - BUT with the ICPlus so that re-training can be quicker, easier to bare - the science of nature comes to the rescue of the science of freedom.)

Chris.

[matt]

Chris,

1/ What you dont seem to 'get' is that you cannot analyse human emotion/feeling using thought. Instead we should feel it, thereby returning to simplicity.

2/ What you dont seem to 'get' is how XORing a hexagram is another fantastic way to dissect the beautiful system, and will without doubt give glimpses to hidden processes, but if one were to XOR a hexagram with a specific function in mind for personal growth, they would miss out on the natural cycle of energy.

Example. If you recieved a letter from your girlfriend, but "XORed" how it completed itself - 63 - and read only the last part, you would be denying yourself the journey.

3/ What you dont seem to 'get' is that the way you are portraying your own system is a far more accurate representation of the word "dogma" or "religious". As Bruce rightly pointed out, the "dogmatic or religious" way normally assumes it is the ONLY correct way.

4/ What you dont seem to 'get' is that I have developed my own system (If you did not know, I am Simple_Complexities) that is based upon a scientific standpoint. I use it to correlate sunspot and earth cycles, I use it to measure time, I use it to see how energy flows from its birth to its end and back to its birth again. Its very different from your model, though I admire a lot of the scientific work in your model. But the Science cannot explain everything. You cannot label everything that is NOT science in the religion or philosophy category. And even if you are able to do this...following JUST science would limit your potential dramatically. My view on the IC is not religious, it is personal perspective BASED on science with the intention of building INTUITION, the lesser known of human faculties.

Quoting you;-

"From my perspective we should keep our spiritual elements to ourselves and just get on with developing the species in a rational, precise, discerning, way"

This is why we know so little about emotion, because we are obsessed with the "rational" or "logical" way. I emphasise again, you CANNOT understand emotion or feeling by rationalising or logistically analysing.

The BBC is running a fascinating 3 part documentary about the human Brain at the moment in the UK.

I have read your website Chris, and printed out pages of the information you offer, I have studied the XOR technique extensively and pondered upon its implications, something I have still not RATIONALLY decided upon based upon the SCIENTIFIC model I am using.

Your work is very good and would be even better IF you integrated the left side of your brain with your right. If you look to solve your problems using logic only, then those brain receptors of yours will be firing at a lonely rate.

Thought is important. Emotion is important. Most people see them as separate entities. Most people see Thought as superior to Emotion (normally thought-dominated-brains). Its the balance I seek, and many others seek.

If I saw a complex mathematical equation and wanted to solve it, I would not solve it using emotion:- "mmmmmm equation I love you...very much". You would have to think.

If you wanted to describe the feeling of love, you cannot do this using logical or rational arguments:- "Love is a chemical reaction the body experiences whilst eating chocolate".
You would have to feel it, to know it.

This is what you do not 'get' Chris. Logic cannot solve or explain everything. And everything that isnt logic is not religious or philosophical.

I know you will argue many of these points pragmatically and logically, its in your nature :-) But just try to 'get' that not everyone is made the same way you are, each has his own journey and there is enough space for all of our views. There are many ways up and down a mountain.

[lightofdarkness]

Hi Matt,

> Posted by Matt (Matt) on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 6:21 am:
>
> Chris,
>
> 1/ What you dont seem to 'get' is that you cannot analyse human
> emotion/feeling using thought. Instead we should feel it, thereby
> returning to simplicity.
>

(1) We CAN and ARE analysing human emotions and it is developing very nicely - see some of the refs at the end of http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/emote.html - all part of the science of nature - and see the links to IC trigrams etc as presented in previous links. (there are some threads of the emotions and the IC etc on the clarity site as well - search for those)

(2) perhaps it is more that you think we SHOULD NOT analyse - that is an ETHICAL perspective, science of freedom and relates perhaps to a personal preference 'not to go there'?

> 2/ What you dont seem to 'get' is how XORing a hexagram is another
> fantastic way to dissect the beautiful system, and will without doubt
> give glimpses to hidden processes, but if one were to XOR a hexagram
> with a specific function in mind for personal growth, they would miss
> out on the natural cycle of energy.
>
> Example. If you recieved a letter from your girlfriend, but "XORed"
> how it completed itself - 63 - and read only the last part, you would
> be denying yourself the journey.
>

To me it is REALLY obvious from this statement that you have NOT yet understood the ICPlus XOR material OR you perspective is overly one-sided, focuses on the Science of Freedom. In my material we are dealing with "The Book of Structures" - go and read it again. Your above comments appear to be out of context totally in what the XOR-ing is about (and your example makes no sense in the context of XORing - rephrase it or give some other example).

http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/icstruct.html OR the particular page: http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/linemean.html


> 3/ What you dont seem to 'get' is that the way you are portraying your
> own system is a far more accurate representation of the word "dogma"
> or "religious". As Bruce rightly pointed out, the "dogmatic or
> religious" way normally assumes it is the ONLY correct way.
>

Again, IMHO you are not reading things carefully. I made the distinctions between the Science of Nature and the Science of Freedom - the ICPlus material extends all of that but with focus on the Science of Nature path. Furthermore I make emphasis on PROOF, IOW what I have presented is verifiable, testable and so in no way 'religious'. Your also don?t seem to understand my use of the term 'dogma' - it is not the same as being 'dogmatic', it refers to the current canon, the current set of perspectives that reflect the authoritative view. In the IC the traditional perspective is the current 'dogma' as such.

dog?ma ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d?gm, dg-)
n. pl. dog?mas or dog?ma?ta (-m-t)
A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine.
A principle or belief or a group of them: ?The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present? (Abraham Lincoln).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Latin, from Greek, opinion, belief, from dokein, to seem, think. See dek- in Indo-European Roots.]

In the realm of complexity/chaos dynamics the area of stability are 'inland' and reflect, from an intellectual position, the areas of current dogma for some specialist perspective; the stable ground. The 'new' comes from the periphery, the border areas where complexity/chaos lives.

> 4/ What you dont seem to 'get' is that I have developed my own system
> (If you did not know, I am Simple_Complexities) that is based upon a
> scientific standpoint. I use it to correlate sunspot and earth cycles,
> I use it to measure time, I use it to see how energy flows from its
> birth to its end and back to its birth again. Its very different from
> your model, though I admire a lot of the scientific work in your
> model. But the Science cannot explain everything. You cannot label
> everything that is NOT science in the religion or philosophy category.
> And even if you are able to do this...following JUST science would
> limit your potential dramatically. My view on the IC is not religious,
> it is personal perspective BASED on science with the intention of
> building INTUITION, the lesser known of human faculties.
>

:-) I find this amusing in that you have dogmatically determined my nature by your limited exposure to me! LOL! You have a lot to learn grasshopper.

Lets consider the term "Science":

sci?ence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sns)
n.

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
Science Christian Science.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English, knowledge, learning, from Old French, from Latin scientia, from scins, scient- present participle of scre, to know. See skei- in Indo-European Roots.]

This is very different to religion where there is no questioning or if there is then any difficult answers are in the form of 'its gods will!' or 'that?s what the good book says!' That said, you can have a 'Science of Religion' but it will form part of the "Science of Freedom" in rather than focusing on what you ought to do or not do we remove the responsibilities to considering what would GOD want you to do or not do! This is equivalent to deriving the 'ought' from a book like the IC rather than from what we feel. That said, exposure to the IC long enough can habituate the ethics and so the book is no longer required ;-) (all gets into the realm of FILTRATION - see the five phase IC:

http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/icfive0.html)

> Quoting you;-
>
> "From my perspective we should keep our spiritual elements to
> ourselves and just get on with developing the species in a rational,
> precise, discerning, way"
>
> This is why we know so little about emotion, because we are obsessed
> with the "rational" or "logical" way. I emphasise again, you CANNOT
> understand emotion or feeling by rationalising or logistically
> analysing.
>

All I see here is ignorance of what is going on in the research areas and in the nature of you ego/psyche/self overall. Go and read the reference material in the supplied link previously. You cannot research emotions emotionally. You can differentiate emotions and THEN place yourself in contexts that will set them off to experience them 'in toto' - and the IC can show you how to do that. IOW you use the PURE form of differentiating universals and then the EMPIRICAL form of integrating with some PARTICULAR context to push your buttons.


> The BBC is running a fascinating 3 part documentary about the human
> Brain at the moment in the UK.
>
> I have read your website Chris, and printed out pages of the
> information you offer, I have studied the XOR technique extensively
> and pondered upon its implications, something I have still not
> RATIONALLY decided upon based upon the SCIENTIFIC model I am using.
>

:-) if you are going to continue with the IC then you will eventually have to incorporate the ICPlus material or something like it to develop further. That is basic 'fact' in that the material comes out of the data, not out of me, I am just the messenger. If, in that process you find anomalies with your perspectives then you may need to adjust... but that again reflects an ethics problem (should I? Shouldn?t I?) - the science side is more in the data being irrefutable and so there is no choice if you want to develop further than where you are.

> Your work is very good and would be even better IF you integrated the
> left side of your brain with your right. If you look to solve your
> problems using logic only, then those brain receptors of yours will be
> firing at a lonely rate.
>

Your not making sense here, or perhaps have not covered to total IDM material - your use of the term 'logic' is for one thing misleading in that I think you are focusing on the analytical form that is 'one sided' - the sum is both sides, as covered in such pages as http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/logic.html - as such I am not such an extremist as you think! ;-)

> Thought is important. Emotion is important. Most people see them as
> separate entities. Most people see Thought as superior to Emotion
> (normally thought-dominated-brains). Its the balance I seek, and many
> others seek.
>

Then go through IDM and discover it all - and that includes the realm of emotions. ;-) The IDM material, and so the specialist format in ICPlus, cover the full range of emotions and derivation of meanings and their communications. The focus is on universals where LOCAL context will then 'customise' things to fit that context. If you want the empirical evidence then at the bottom of the main IDM page are links to files of abstracts and further reading etc.

> If I saw a complex mathematical equation and wanted to solve it, I
> would not solve it using emotion:- "mmmmmm equation I love you...very
> much". You would have to think.
>

If trained properly you could FEEL the equation, its beauty or ugliness - that being due to the FACT that emotions are a SPECIALIST tool for communicating as is Mathematics and so each is in the other - as shown by IDM (blend, bond, bound, bind 'rule' emotions as well as Mathematics, I CHing, MBTI, etc etc etc)

> If you wanted to describe the feeling of love, you cannot do this
> using logical or rational arguments:- "Love is a chemical reaction the
> body experiences whilst eating chocolate".
> You would have to feel it, to know it.
>

All done through IDM and ICPlus. You need to read more, think more, feel more. Your attempts to teach me how to suck eggs are amusing. ;-) You have a LOT of work to do despite what you have done to date - but as the IC says 'perseverance furthers'

Here is an exercise for you, take the binary tree format of the IC and in the position of the whole insert "LOVE" - then derive the 64 representations of that whole as universals ;-)
Have fun - and if you cannot experience them all, then figure out what context is required to 'push' the right buttons and go and place yourself in that context ;-)

Chris.

[martin]

Hi Chris,

"Furthermore I make emphasis on PROOF, IOW what I have presented is verifiable, testable ..."

As I have argued in other posts that is IMO one of the main problems with your approach, if you look at it from a science perspective. There is as yet not enough hard empirical evidence to support your theory. And with some of your statements I don't even see how they could ever be tested empirically.
Does the XOR operator do what you think it does? People play with it and nod, it seems to make sense. The resulting hexagram seems to fit as an answer to the question. But, as you have often said yourself, every hexagram always "fits" more or less. So this doesn't prove anything.
Does trigram y or hexagram x really mean what you think it means? Who knows, who can know? What does "really mean" mean in this case? Who is going to decide if an interpretation is right or wrong? Based on what?
Do you see the problem? You can test the statement "the earth revolves around the sun" but how are you going to test "hexagram x means a"?
Is there a recursive structure 'behind' MBTI or 'behind' basic emotions?
What you can do is generate/build/explain the MBTI categories or basic emotions in that way. And you can argue, based on neurological findings, that the brain REALLY builds/generates them recursively.
Fine, you have done that. But now a hard nosed scientist comes along and says "Okay, I follow your logic, I understand what you mean and perhaps you are right, but that's not enough for me, is there any direct evidence that the brain does this? Can I hook my brain up to some device and watch this process on a screen? Or can I at least do experiments that eliminate other explanations?"
Problem ..

If I were you I wouldn't make too many scientific claims at the moment. I would build a recursive IC, for example, and say "See, this is how it can be done, this is my IC". I wouldn't say "This is the UNIVERSAL IC" even if I believed that it was. Why create unnecessary resistance? Let people find out for themselves ..

But you are not me, that is a scientific fact, isn't it? http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/biggrin.gif

[lightofdarkness]

Hi Martin,

>
> Posted by Martin (Martin) on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 10:49 am:
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> "Furthermore I make emphasis on PROOF, IOW what I have presented is
> verifiable, testable ..."
>
> As I have argued in other posts that is IMO one of the main problems
> with your approach, if you look at it from a science perspective.
> There is as yet not enough hard empirical evidence to support your
> theory. And with some of your statements I don't even see how they
> could ever be tested empirically.
> Does the XOR operator do what you think it does? People play with it
> and nod, it seems to make sense. The resulting hexagram seems to fit
> as an answer to the question. But, as you have often said yourself,
> every hexagram always "fits" more or less. So this doesn't prove
> anything.

The difference in 'fitting' is in the context, is it a universal or a local? What I say is that for any given moment the WHOLE of the I Ching, EVERY hexagram, is applicable and it is local context that SORTS that list into 'best fit/worst fit' - which is what the standard wave equation does but using probabilities not dice. (in physics the probabilities are figured out prior to insertion into the equation, then measurement collapses the 'wave' into giving a particular)

If you ask a question that sets a context, that context will 'fit' the brain's single context format when dealing with a particular (for refs see the IDM material). If you then ask particular questions about that context then the sort will be better, closer to the 'best fit' - as the proactive IC page does.

Our focus is attracted to the 'bright end' of the spectrum of bestfit/worstfit and so we will more than often exclude the rest of the hexagrams in interpreting things and so often miss details.

IOW the WHOLE of the 64 hexagrams, or more so the whole of whatever row of recursion you are dealing with, apply to any moment and that WHOLE is what allows the XOR to work. The whole is an integrated system as is a complex drawing etc and we see in the processing of paradox how we extract an object, something of 'meaning' from that whole where in some cases that extraction is delusion, a paradox forms.

To EXPERIENCE this extraction process, see the examples in the paradox page but now imagine what is extracted is not a necker cube or some 'distorted' image, but a sequence of 64 hexagrams, seemingly discrete, clearly apart from each other.

The AND state, the 'complex pattern' is represented in IC perspectives as a hierarchic journey from Wu Chi to T'ai Chi to yan&amp;yang to yin XOR yang and so the building of the hexagrams/dodecagrams etc. This process is clearly mapped to the methodology of recursion of the dichotomy.

Thus, the perceived discreteness is in fact illusion where we are still 'seeing' the WHOLE but our details processor, the XOR nature, extracts the parts instinctively. We can reveal that illusion when we use the XOR operator where we find the contribution of EACH hexagram to the expression of any particular hexagram - IOW we find a hexagram's spectrum. With that finding comes the association of discreteness (particle, mechanistic) with a continuum (wave, organic). This reflects (!) the brain's core adaptation to light such that communication is through spectrum exchange and the sequences in the IC reflect that spectrum, a RIGID sequence that allows for modulations in energy, we use amplitudes into frequences etc to communicate.

To implement the XOR operator in our brains DEMANDS self-referencing, recursion, in that we have to feedback one neuron into another; IOW you cannot have clear, precise, discreteness WITHOUT recursion as far as the brain is concerned.

The referenced material in IDM covers all of these points and allows for the derivation of a particular, consistant, meaning, a repeated meaning, from applying XOR of hexagram X to Y to give a qualitative representation of that expression by analogy to hexagram Z. This is a natural product of language processing where to stay at the level of 64 or 4096 etc means the language can only represent things through mostly analogy/metaphor to other qualities in the language (we note that using hexagrams so our language is of qualitities, feelings, not letters.)

As the usual example I use the 27-ness influence where the UNIVERSAL nature of 27, when it is all by itself, is of issues relating to the 'new' architecture, the infrastructure of 'something' or 'someone' that is in need of filling. When we move to the LOCAL, the expression of that universal through a hexagram expressing the LOCAL is derived by XOR-ing 27 with that local expression, e.g. 01. That gives us 28 where we learn something about 01, how its 27-ness is indicated by analogy/metaphor to hexagram 28.

We can thus apply the XOR to all hexagrams (AND THEIR LINES) to bring out FINER details than ever done before in the IC - simply because IDM identifies the METHODOLOGY of meaning creation IN GENERAL in our brains and the IC is a METAPHOR of that methodology.

The oscillations in the brain allowing for recursion of a dichotomy are well documented.
The WHAT/WHERE, aka differentiating/integrating, is well documented.
The GENERAL-to-PARTICULAR/PARTICULAR-to-GENERAL dynamic in the brain is well documented.
The XOR/AND dynamic at work in perceptions is well documented.
The DEMAND for TWO neurons at least to elicit XOR processing in the brain is documented.
The particle/wave nature is well documented (and links to the XOR/AND dynamic).
The particle/wave nature in the form of issues of precision is well documented and even easily demonstrated using pencil and paper - see http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/WaveStructure.html - this dynamic reflects the XOR/AND processing extending into the abstract symbolisms of consciousness in the derivation of meaning in the IC (See the end section on wave patterns and the trigram qualities etc.) AND ANY OTHER DICHOTOMY-BIASED CATEGORISATION SYSTEM (and so this applies to the MBTI - as summarised in http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/type.html)


The main point is that the blend, bond, bound, bind qualities are derived from the neurology through 'mindless' dynamics - the properties of differentiating/integrating GUARANTEE those qualities. They are UNIVERSALS where LOCAL interpretations become the issue, not the universals. IOW the sense of expansive bounding covers all possible expressions of some distinction of 'us' from 'them', some boundary of some form that is expanding, pushing outwards and in doing so converting the unknown to the known, the accepted. The positive/negative aspects are not applicable here in that THEY are LOCAL and so open to interpretations - what is 'positive' to you may be 'negative' to me but the generic state is 'expansive bounding'. period.

Given these HARD CODED qualities, all derived from 'mindless', natural, immediate, oscillations in the neurology, so we can map the qualities of trigrams and hexagrams to the hard codings but as universals - and so LOCAL context then brings things out and so we find that 'contractive blending' is the negative of a black hole or the positive of one's devotion to another/others. -- and you can FEEL 'contractive blending' etc.

TO CREATE categories, to be discrete, you need XOR. To create XOR you need recursion. Simple. Examples of category creation, of thingness from 'complex forms' is demonstrated in paradox processing, is EXPERIENCED, in that processing, and so we see XOR-AND dynamics.

Working from the AND position, it is a position of INTEGRATION and we can use XOR to extract its 'parts', to differentiate. That XOR works through RECURSION, it HAS TO since you cannot implement XOR without it. SO - categories derived from recursion show AND-to-XOR dynamics and that MUST include the recursion of yin/yang and the representations of the qualities derived through the symbolisms of hexagrams. IOW the qualities represented by hexagrams are the qualities represented in recursion of differentiating/integrating and so the associating of blend, bond, bound, and bind. FROM there, all else follows in that ANY dichotomy will 'fit over' this template of qualities and allow for the extraction of details re wholeness, partness, partness THROUGH wholeness etc etc etc.

Thus the TRIGRAM of fire will ALWAYS represent expansive bounding. period. THAT is the universal. That is the quality built-in to the neurology. LOCAL conditions will then add colourings, turn it into a 'local' universal in some way (e.g. 'Fire' in the traditional IC). We have a DIRECT link of QUALITIES of trigrams with the neurology and so can use those trigrams to represent what is POSSIBLE, what is POTENTIAL, in the neurology where LOCAL CONTEXT will actualise those potentials. There is no 'arbitraryness' here, the qualities represented in 101 come out of the neurology being '101' - there is no subjective association, the qualities are emergent from the dynamics of the neurology. THEN comes all of the 'differences' through arbitary, ad-hoc, RELABELLING of those qualities to fit the local context.

There has been recent work on the brain SHOWING the general labelling process going on in the left hemisphere (in most). If I ask someone to give me a tactile, a kinsethetic, description of an MBTI category it will 'fit' IN GENERAL the above categories of blend, bond, bound, bind etc. simply because the METHODOLOGY used to create the MBTI was on using dichotomies to layer meaning (if you use the orthogonality arguement of X axis, Y axis, Z axis etc you will find that this is in fact recursive where X is first (0/1), Y is orthogonal (00, 01 / 10, 11) and Z orthoganal to them (000....111). Using the IMP operator, given Z you can determine the existance of Y and X. Given X you can determine the existence of X (but not Z). Given X you cannot determine the existance of Y or Z. THIS reflects hierarchy and the Z <= Y <= X dynamic of the IMP operator.)

For fMRI, CAT scans, PET work, invasive research that validates all of this, go through the abstracts/references - it is all there in some form or another.

To go through the set of 64 universal 'feelings', search out the Species I Ching thread on this site. THEN go through the XOR processing to bring out this perspective of the discrete being more the exaggerations of a whole where beneath the discrete they are all connected (then GENERALISE that in that our neurology reflects the ADAPTATION of life to the universe and so teh REFLECTION of that universe and so the notion of it all being connected UNIVERSALLY with LOCAL dynamics favouring the discrete, the realm of expressions as compares to what they represent.

What IDM presents is the set of vague, universal qualities used to derive and communicate meaning. ANY specialist perspective will recruit those universals, relabel them to their 'universals' but in doing so become increasingly 'small world' and allow for 'smaller worlds' to develop within them as LOCAL context 'demands' conformity to local conditions.

(On I forget to mention the encoding of instincts/habits into the dendrites of neurons and so allowing local context to PUSH is also well documented).

The XOR aspects of all of this are just that, aspects of a much bigger story than the traditional IC has been presenting and we are in the position to flesh all of this out and so bring the universal IC to the fore. ;-)

Chris.

[matt]

Chris, you said:-

"(2) perhaps it is more that you think we SHOULD NOT analyse - that is an ETHICAL perspective, science of freedom and relates perhaps to a personal preference 'not to go there'?"

An ethical perspective is defined as:- Being in accordance with the accepted principles of right and wrong that govern the conduct of a profession.

I did not suggest it was "right or wrong" or that it was going against the accordance of "principles that govern the conduct of a profession".

I said it was impossible to understand a feeling without feeling it. To analyse and disect emotion using thought is not a moral view I have, its more of a logical one! Surely you must grasp the concept here?

You said I quote:-
"To me it is REALLY obvious from this statement that you have NOT yet understood the ICPlus XOR material OR you perspective is overly one-sided, focuses on the Science of Freedom. In my material we are dealing with "The Book of Structures" - go and read it again."

I understand the process of XORing a hexagram. If I'm to debate something, then I certainly want to understand the subject beforehand. I spent a little over 2 hours XORing various hexagrams. For example I would XOR hexagram 32 with hexagram 49 to find how it skins/transforms, hexagram 64 to find how it accumulates energy ready for the transformation, hexagram 41 to find out how it diminishes itself in order to augment with heaxagram 42. I am not being unfair, I have read your material.

I was simply hoping to clarify that too much knowledge only hinders the journey. It takes our attention away from the moment and into the past or future.

* Dogma - An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.

Quoting you:- "If you wish to stay with the traditional perspective that is fine - but over time MY perspective, or one like it, will become increasingly attractive due to its better precision in analysing the IC universals."

and later;

" if you choose to stay 'limited' that is up to you, but for me I think the current state of the species requires some reanalysis etc and focusing on the universal form of the IC can do that far better than the limited traditional perspective - IMHO ;-)"

Far from humble, not far from dogmatic.


You said, quoting;

":-) I find this amusing in that you have dogmatically determined my nature by your limited exposure to me! LOL! You have a lot to learn grasshopper."

I would agree, I do have a lot to learn, or I should say I have a lot to "unlearn". Though I did not need to determine your nature dogmatically, your posts are long and detailed enough for you to determine your own nature. The one thing I will learn or "unlearn" from this subject, is to observe quietly next time, rather than venture in! Its a lot more peaceful http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif

You thought my following comment was one of ignorance:-

" I emphasise again, you CANNOT understand emotion or feeling by rationalising or logistically analysing."

I stand by that without comment.

You said;

"All done through IDM and ICPlus. You need to read more, think more, feel more. Your attempts to teach me how to suck eggs are amusing. ;-) You have a LOT of work to do despite what you have done to date - but as the IC says 'perseverance furthers'"

I was not trying to teach you how to "suck eggs", I was trying to offer a perspective that I felt you had not viewed properly. Any offense I may have caused was not intentional, apologies to you, though I stand by what I said.

Our brains are not "wired" the same way, hence you see one way, I see another, making neither of us right or wrong, they are just perspectives.

I know you feel that your work provides a better point of accuray when dealing with the universal nature of the IC, scientifically I would agree.

Though, you call the "inner" part of ourselves, i.e. faith, insight as more religious, therefore not reflecting the accuracy of science. Here I disagree, and if I have not been able to express this well enough in my earlier posts, I sadly admit defeat in being able to express it at all.

Nothing more from me.
Matt

[pakua]

In essence, isn't this the same old argument about whether we're just a bunch of chemicals reacting and firing off nerve impulses, which affects the mind, or whether the mind causes the chemicals to react?

Can't it be both?

[martin]

Parallelism, correlations, mirroring.
The tendency to reduce it all to chemistry or neurology is typical for our time.
It is based on beliefs that have nothing to do with science as such.

[ithaki]

"you CANNOT understand emotion or feeling by rationalising or logistically analysing"

Roger that!

[ithaki]

"In essence, isn't this the same old argument about whether we're just a bunch of chemicals reacting and firing off nerve impulses, which affects the mind, or whether the mind causes the chemicals to react?

Can't it be both?"

Absolutely!!!

[lightofdarkness]

Firstly to Matt - I think your pulling out of this discussion shows how overwhelmed you can be to discussion that can elicit emotions seemingly out of your control. Discipline dude. Debate is a fundamental requirement for any development in Science where it is references at 10 paces. Focus on that area and you should be able to deal with the discussions better.

Secondly, I think most of you who have replied above are perhaps a little naive re the dynamics of emotion and reason where the latter is more of a frontal lobe dynamic that suppresses the more 'primitive' emotional REACTIONS to allow for increase in bandwidth to allow for more information to be gathered prior to some rational or emotional response. IOW we move from being REACTIVE to being PROACTIVE.

As such we move from emotions to feelings and so from undifferentiated wholes into the subtle nuances that comes from analysis of parts; we express emotions, they can overwhelm at times, we talk about our feelings - and so serialise the parallel.

The formation of frontal lobes activity is refined through socialisation such that being in a competitive context will elicit a more competitive mindset and if that is habituated then that mindset is for 'life' and so hard to remove/soften etc (but perhaps to impossible)
(and so increases in ADD/ADHD diagnosis reflect more adaptations to high precision where high precision is easily scattered - as a blue sky shows us (and our neurology reflects adaptation to light etc) - IOW the noticing of ADD/ADHD problems associating with with the frontal lobes is 'logical')

If the society is overally 'emotional' in its nature, too 'hot blooded', too quick to respond to stimulus, then that can 'socialise' the brain, allowing for the formation of local archetypes of culture - the 'classic aussie' or the 'classic brasilian' etc etc.

Since emotions reflect responses to sensory harmonics, these being in chords and colours, so the more emotional collectives will be rich in these harmonics as expressions, they are not as 'black or white' as the more emotionally 'restrained' or emotionally untrained collectives. BUT, they can lack the PRECISION of black/white collectives. Thus the more precise collectives create space ships, the less precise create the samba. ;-) (That said, the precision collectives DO create fundamentalist groups that show the lack in emotional training, their emotions are extreme, be it in love for some 'god' or hate for others not of their 'kind' - and so 'childlike'. Simply put, education without discipline is not a good idea (and that means in focusing of attention, consideration of consequences of actions etc and so an ethics element in that education - punishment need not be physical but more mental, eliciting challenges to improve etc, make it 'fun' - that said, some recognise that we learn quality control more from our sufferings).

Since, as a species, we are still coming down from the trees so the instinctive emotional communications will continue to dominate (current fanaticism being an example) WITHOUT education that allows for development of more rational, and so more controlled, perspectives.

Some may like to wallow in 'love' but in doing so elicit the presence of, the fear of, loss of love and so of severe episodes of grief. Since sexual love and anger share the same generic space of context replacement one can also 'wallow' in the love-hate dynamic which can be a waste of potentials as a conscious individual. Being ignorant of what is going on and so the individual can be 'pushed' by that love-hate dynamic, feeling unable to deal with it or control it. Once controlled, using the rational, the frontal lobe delay skills (and so reflect consciousness in action as an agent of mediation interacting with oneself) redirect the energy into more beneficial activities for self and species.

The mapping of basic categories of emotion to the IC allow one to predict the outcomes of emotional expressions and their consequences. By such activity so one can introduce mediation into one's emotional outbursts, learn to be more context-sensitive and so move more smoothly in the context; become more unflappable and be able to wallow out of choice rather than whim... and so the way of the 'superior'.

In this realm of the way of the superior there IS consideration of precise ethical dynamics rather than mindless stimulus/response. That consideration allows for the mindless stimulus/response to be 'educated', refined, such that we are not overwhelmed by emotional reactions that can be 'over the top' at times - and the IC can 'educate' proactively in reading it as a guide rather than using it as divinitation system.

As IDM shows, the path of information processing and its communication is from the generic issues of dealing with context (to replace or to coexist) at a level of mindless stimulus/response. We then move into communications of that dealing through the development of hormonal communications and so emotional dynamics. Those dynamics allow for the encoding of memories etc in that the highs and lows act to sum frequencies into a superposition of 'meaning'.

BUT, at the primate and lower levels of dynamics the use of the parallel to communicate has lacked efficency in adapting to context such that the development of SERIAL communications takes us PAST the holistic and into the partial. In the partial, the mechanistic, through the development of serial communications, we become more precise in our dealings and in doing so more proactive, we assert our context, develop our technology etc and so 'progress'.

The problem here is the feedback from this progress can elicit an overally positive outlook that is deceptive and so alientating from our species-nature - we create our own little worlds and from the inside interpret them as if THE world - so we need to be wary, discerning.

Continued progression includes coming to grips with our more 'primate' natures through the training of discipline, self-control rather than self-expression where the latter is the mindset of a child in that it is fun to start with but fails to consider consequences of actions and so can take one down a path hard to return from (and there IS a need to return in that protection of natural resources and protection against extreme exploitation of others is required where these are exploited at the level of child-mindedness and so unconditional self-expression)

IOW discipline is required and it is the realm of the rational that sources that discipline (as reflected in the East in Taoism, Buddhism etc - dont get caught by the monkey mind - and the focus on the Science of Freedom - ethics and morality - in Western philosophy)

To move from mindless stimulus/response is to move into the realm of mindful stimulus/considered_response and so into a TRIADIC realm where well trained consciousness acts as the agent of mediation. The teaching of that consciousness can be in formal institutions or through such texts and the I Ching, and the categorisation of emotions by current Science feeds into the IC symbolisms and so allows for developing a rich understanding of emotions/feelings. Given those universals so the IC also can indicate the best local context to enter to experience having those emotional 'buttons' pushed. As such you can be PROACTIVE in working through emotions rather than waiting around, un-trained, for something to 'happen'.

I am sure that many of you have experienced a novel context that pushes your species buttons and your mind has no idea what is going on! - Consciousness through the IC can aid in 'smoothing' that ride and so developing confidence in dealing with any situation, be it emotional or rational, 'immediately' ;-)

Chris.

[hilary]

Hi Chris!

As someone who pulled out of the debate with you years ago http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif , I don't see any sign that Matt is 'overwhelmed'. There's such a thing as saying your piece, recognising you've done all you can to communicate it, and agreeing to differ.

Bruce's lizard is great. (You know one of the meanings 'Yi' has gathered over the years is 'lizard'?) You sit at your computer, you engage in serious debate, and Yi darts across the floor and snaps up a spider.

[bruce]

dragon in lake?

http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/messages/48/4857.jpg

This one found its way into a small bowl of water I had put out for Mojo (my dog). It?s called a ?blue tail lizard?.

Online writing leaves conspicuous gaps where it can be too easy to project things like emotions and intent where, in fact, none exist. When I read Chris? last post on this thread last night I was stunned by how much he reads into things that do not exist, like fear and angst over the dreadful thought that old ways will need to be changed into his new ways. Frontal lobe competitiveness indeed.

[martin]

Cute! How many neurons does it have? http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/lol.gif

[lightofdarkness]

Hilary, Bruce - both of you are still skirting the issue re XOR-ing - perhaps you miss the implications of it all in the context of understanding, of meaning categorisations etc

fine - your loss I suppose ;-)

What instigated this flurry of emails was my reply to the enquiry re refering to the 27-ness and I gave my reply re the original ddiamond website work. I then added that these sorts of dicoveries take time to be taken seriously since the discovery comes with consequences the more 'traditionists' may find unacceptable - but then I did emphasis my perspective as being on the Science of Nature rather than on the Science of Freedom.

I can work with both, can you?

The IC moves on, change is inevitable, the Science of Nature side of the IC is being brought up to date whether you like it or not - it is not an issue of ethics, it is an issue of 'physics' and as such a fact of nature.

If you find a problem with taking my word for it, go through the supplied references in IDM etc - practice XOR-ing yourself to flesh out a hexagram, its full spectrum - or look at it applied to the MBTI categories to flesh out personas:

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

The realm of the Science of Nature is starting to focus on the dynamics of the IC and in doing so is finding material that is of benefit and also raising questions about past methodologies, interpretations etc. THAT is what Science is a about and that is where it can be disturbing to the Science of Freedom side of things - tough, adapt/adopt. simple.

Chris.

[bruce]

Chris, should I take this to mean that you don?t encourage individuals to follow their own path?

[lightofdarkness]

In the context of Science of Freedom - do follow your path in that local nuances will influence you oughts/ought-nots.

BUT in the context of Science of Nature the 'fact' element is external to any particular in that it is a universal and so on all paths. BEING on all paths it is useful to know these universals on one's particular path - when you run in to them you can identify them quickly ;-)

[martin]

"fear and angst over the dreadful thought that old ways will need to be changed"

One thing I noticed is that it are so often the science minded people who react emotionally (and sometimes quite unreasonably) when confronted with ideas and phenomena that do not fit in with their world view.
The most common reaction seems to be one of blind denial.
I cannot explain it, therefore it doesn't exist.

What are THEY afraid of?
Are they afraid to lose (the illusion of) control?
I think so ..

[martin]

Not so long ago, when I felt ill again and started to worry if it could perhaps be something fatal I asked the IC about it.
The answer was 16.5.
In Legges translation: "The fifth line, divided, shows one with a chronic complaint, but who lives on without dying."

What could be more direct and to the point than this response?
It is this kind of answers that make me doubt the validity of "new" ways such as IDM, even apart from doubts about the science aspect (as expressed earlier in this thread).
They occur far too often to be discarded as coincidences and it's clearly the 'local expression' that matters.
What would remain of this particular answer if I tried to "universalize" it? And what could applying algebraic operations (such as XORing) add to it?
It is complete and crystal clear, it is exactly what I wanted to know. http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif

[gypsy]

Well said , Martin! you're such a sweet grasshopper.

[martin]

Thank you Gypsy!

http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/messages/48/4878.jpg

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

[lightofdarkness]

If one bothered to take time to understand probability one would realise that using random methods allows for Legge's particular translation coming up with that question - the WHOLE of the IC applies for ANY moment and random methods, some biased some not, allow for the interpretation of seeming synchronies.

REPEAT the trial and you will not get the same result consistantly - it will reflect a random distribution. THAT is what Science is about, repeatability allows for predicitability IN GENERAL and down to such levels as 1 + 1 = 2.

Use vague questions and you CAN refine the chance of getting the 'best fit'. As covered in the proactive IC pages.

All I see from the rest of your prose Martin is a certain degree of ignorance re what is Science about .... and I note for you and others there is STILL no focus on the XOR material so you are skirting the issue, putting up smokescreens, laying down red herrings! LOL!

[bruce]

"seeming synchronies"?

Well at least you've finally come out with it and admitted that you fail to recognize synchronies as such. I suppose it's easier for you to construct your own rationalizations and your own cryptic language to justify what you can't explain.

It seems to me that the fear you accuse others as having are, in actuality, your own fears. I think that?s pretty funny, though also a bit sad for someone to spend so much time and energy trying to disprove the obvious. Talk about red herrings.

[hmesker]

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

If one bothered to take time to understand probability one would realise that using random methods allows for Legge's particular translation coming up with that question - the WHOLE of the IC applies for ANY moment and random methods, some biased some not, allow for the interpretation of seeming synchronies.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
Chris, you are not listening. Martin said that the answer was "complete and crystal clear, it is exactly what I wanted to know." That does not show randomness, because every other answer from the Yi would not have had the same impact. Of course every hexagram from the Yi fits every situation, but there is always one which fits best, and captures the essence - and that is the one you are going to get.

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

REPEAT the trial and you will not get the same result consistantly - it will reflect a random distribution.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
If that is how you assume the Yi works, then that is what you are going to get. But it is a subjective - not objective - point of view. If you accept that the answer you get from the Yi is the best answer you can have in your situation, and that there are no alternatives which are better, then that is what you are going to get. The answer from the Yi involves every facet of the situation, also your specific mindset of how you think about the Yi.

Harmen.

[martin]

This is becoming grotesque!
I'm beginning to wonder if the founder of IDM (sounds nice, uh? http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif) is playing a joke on us and meanwhile laughing his *ss off.
He presents us with a crackpot theory that is obviously a house of cards and calls it "science". When we make objections he produces long unreadable texts full of "scientific data" and then calls us ignorant if we don't "get" it. In passing he lets us know that such big shots as Heisenberg, Bohr, Einstein, Schroedinger and Jung also didn't "get" it, and that there was in fact nobody on the face of this earth who ever did.
Until the founder of IDM appeared, as by a miracle, and spoke "let there be light!". And there was light!

I mean, he cannot possibly be serious, can he? http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/biggrin.gif

[lightofdarkness]

Bruce,

(1) for something to be 'synchronous' from a Science perspective it has to be proven under formal conditions. simple. UNTIL that happens it is 'seemingly' so. Science works off delayed gratification, not instant where "oh look at that, that MUST be connected!" is the mindset - no focus on proof etc - childmindedness; literalmindedness where we can demonstrate metaphor at work.

(2) given what is coming out of neurology, the WHOLE of the IC applies for ANY question - that is why you MUST HAVE a question to start with as it sets the context that is then interpreted by the IC metaphor; and GIVEN a question you will ALWAYS get an answer that appears to 'fit'. This then gets into the best_fit/worst_fit ordering and so issues of METHOD.

(3) Given the different methods in deriving hexagrams, be it by coins (50/50) or yarrow sticks (bias to yin) or generic questions (more sensitive to generating a 'best fit' than either of the above) so one can detect synchronicities easily if one looks - and nine times out of ten the question asked will NOT generate a synchrony but we notice it more when it DOES and that DOING is a manifestation of basic probabilities dynamics.
(that said, using yarrow sticks the yin bias reflects the overall social bias to be REACTIVE such that that method or types like it can generate better 'best fits' due solely to the overall yin bias in the method and in the society in general - move to high energy societies and so a more yang bias and coins work better (as would REVERSING the yarrow bias from yin to yang)

All of this gets back to Martin's claim re asking about his illness etc - given that single result, how many other times has he asked the SAME question and got the SAME result? REPEATABILITY is what is required when mapping universals; if that is not the case then the claims of synchrony etc are just anecdotal and so fine LOCALLY but not UNIVERSALLY (which is what appears to be claimed) and/or a product of the above mentioned 'bestfit/worstfit' mappings.

Now, from the Jungean level, the sychronicities where of events 'near' each other as in DAYS or less, not in 1:1 so I think you notion of synchrony is a touch distorted (go back and read Jung more) - and making the scope that large but WITHIN the bounds of IC possibles they would HAVE TO BE the perception of synchronies - but again in need of testing formally.

The traditional focus on the IC comes out of the realm of moral philosphy, not natural philosophy - and so realm of freedom not the realm of physics.

The SUBJECTIVE nature of the realm of freedom allows for that realm to operate without verification, without repeatability etc and thats fine. BUT, move into Science and thing change in that the focus is on UNIVERSALS - and as I said before, in the realm of universals they are on ALL paths and that makes a difference in how to deal with them.

As for Martin's comments to date - weak stuff to the degree of being obnoxious; failure to address the issues other than from some emotionally-charged, and so realm of freedom, perspective. A cheap attempt to heat things for no reason other than to be hostile.

We are dealing with universals Martin, not local dynamics. When dealing with them it is Science perspective, the rational, over rhetoric.

Going back over this thread Martin has increased the emotional, rhetorical, element unjustifiable and so indicating a perspective that is not prepared to deal with facts, but only his fictions.

His prose is increasingly not worthy of comment other than as indicating an example of ignorance; primitive thinking when we are in a time of sophisticated thinking - and that includes recognising that the 'big shots' had no idea what they were dealing with regarding HOW we perceive reality and how the XOR/AND dynmaic works across the conscious/unconscious in our brains and so can the QM interpretations are more ARTIFACTS of the METHOD and so not neccessarily 'out there'.
As shown in such pages as:

http://www.iimetro.com.ayu/~lofting/myweb/WaveStructure.html

(your comments about Bohr etc seem to be rooted in 'hero worship' - not these days; their work was fine FOR ITS TIME, times change (as the IC reflects) but you choose to cling to past perspectives WITHOUT consideration of the last decades of work in neurosciences etc that raise issues with the interpretations etc (see above link as an example)

IOW more work is required in the realm of ontology creation and epistemology to flesh out the QM issues (and IDM has done some of that)

You need to do a LOT more reading Martin than you have - but I doubt if you will since you are not a Scientist (who would and it would then be references at 10 paces as is should when dealing with universals, natural philosophy etc)

[lightofdarkness]

that should be

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

[gypsy]

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

Going back over this thread Martin has increased the emotional, rhetorical, element unjustifiable and so indicating a perspective that is not prepared to deal with facts, but only his fictions. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

Chris I respectfully maintain that you dont write too clearly. Maybe this is a part of the problem..........your meanings get lost in translation and befuddle rather than challenge.

I think you need to read The Alchemist and then stop reading at all for a long time. Do you have any fun? What makes you happy? Whe was the last time you had a belly laugh?

[kevin]

My feelings are that neurology has been pushed way beyond its current limits here.

But as Chris says - Science is not about feelings but of proof.

In actualite the Sociology of Science demonstrates that hypotheses are most often formed from feelings - The research is most often guided by hunches and the results have often been poorly understood even when they are demonstrably true - Until further work had been done to understand the events involved.

Be that as it may... Does anyone know a qualified neurologist who can put this argument to bed once and for all?

--K

[lightofdarkness]

Bruce, just to flesh out the synchrony perspective a bit. There IS 'something' going on re connectivity and it is rooted in the notion of PURITY. We have:

(1) The 100 monkeys story
(2) The cancer cells story (HeLa etc)
(3) The radio crystals story
(4) The identical twins story
(5) The EPR correlations story
(6) Sheldrake's Lab Rat story
etc etc

These ALL focus on correlation of participants in the stories due to PURITY - this maps to what I call the "Continuum Effect" and gets into patterns from the Harmonic series.

We are not interested in this data being real or imagined in that the neurology makes no distinctions, more interested in the commonality in the themes indicates these patterns as being part of our toolkit for describing things. TESTING is required to validate these stories where the indication is of one thing being in two places at the same time (identical twins being an example) - The Pauli Exclusion principle asserts two things cannot share the same quantum states (and so same 'space' - bias is to fermions, bosons CAN share the same space in the form of superpositions) but nothing about sharing different spaces.

So, you eager interpretation of my comment about SEEMINGLY synchronous as if I am 'anti' or something is in error. My science-favouring perspective allows me to be open to all sorts of '
stuff' but until it is repeated in formal experiments there are issues. That said, note that the XOR stuff comes out of LOGIC and is self-referencing (see the "book of Structures" material) but the synchrony stuff is coming out of PHYSICS (as in 'natural' philosophy and so empirical areas besides 'pure' realms)

Chris.

[hilary]

Isn't the bottom line that I Ching divination - the old-fashioned sort - isn't a science? Surely no-one ever claimed it was...

On that subject - for anything to be a scientific theory, it needs to be falsifiable, right? So, Chris, how could someone experimentally disprove your arguments?

[lightofdarkness]

Gypsy, Kevin, two more who still fail to address the original issue - XOR-ing. Your both going along with the others OTHER THAN Yly who asked the question - why do I use 27-ness so much when discussing XOR. I replied and with a link together with a comment about such material being difficult to accept etc ... and so the flurry of emails but NOT about XOR-ing!

As I said to Bruce, I am NOT pushing following one's own path IN THE CONTEXT OF moral philosophy (e.g. tossing coins to as 'what ought/should I/X do?' etc) I AM pushing the discovery of UNIVERSALS and so perspectives that apply to ALL paths; natural philosophy. Simple.

(Kevin, you want proof from neurosciences? read the references etc but that is all in IDM pages, not IC pages)

If some of you cant take that, tough. I am not the originator, I am the messenger with LOTS of references etc supporting the material. We will all find the need to adapt as more information comes out and our local perspectives are open to 'modifications'.

[lightofdarkness]

Hilary, as covered previously in this thread, the traditional IC is more focused on the science of freedom, ethics, morality (what should, what ought etc and that gets into divination)

But the universal IC is MORE than that it that it also includes the science of physics, natural philosophy, as it does the science of logic.

As for disproving my arguements - not for me to say since any model I come up with would be considered 'biased'! The XOR etc IS repeatable and that is in its favour and there is plenty of coverage to come up with to prove it NOT to be the case - but I dont design that ;-)

The first thing is that the methodology etc is repeatable and so experiments designed around that - random choices, juxtapositions of hexes etc - something like that.

Chris.

[lightofdarkness]

oh and dont forget the control group ;-)

[kevin]

No Chris

Your work applies the material from the references to the material from the Yijing. It therefore extrapolates.

If I want to know whether a model is true / false I do not read the underpinning theory. It has to be tested.

In addition I am aware of this years Reith Lectures were given by a world leader in neurology... Though he did not address your model directly, I did note that nothing in his lectures claimed anything near the level of understanding you propose.

Every model has circumstances in which it breaks down. Where does yours fail?

--Kevin

[hilary]

Yes, slightly dumb question on my part. I would need to read and assimilate all your stuff, single out a particular theory, and then ask you to design the experiment that could prove/disprove it. (And I've an idea that designing experiments to disprove your own theories is a pretty routine part of science.) Though mind you, you could also do all the above, and you do have something of a head start. http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/wink.gif

[martin]

Chris, I suggest that you consider my posts as laughing mirrors, that's how they are meant. http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif
As to me not being a scientist, my occupation is in my profile, lol.

[lightofdarkness]

Kevin,

see some recent discussion with John McCrone on the JCS-online list (you can join, check the archives and leave etc)

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jcs-online/

- discussions also held some months ago with him and Stan on the "Complex Science" list - see archives of:

http://necsi.org/

Stan and John's perspectives have a triadic element that I suggest is not fixed but variable where once mediation is over so we all sink back to stimulus/response so there is an issue there - BUT IDM focuses on the GENERAL and states PRE development of individual consciousness and the spoken/written word and so the realm of formal, intentful, mediation.

John also set up a webpage to cover the perspective:

http://george.fri.uni-lj.si/HICwiki/FrontPage

The XOR/AND research etc is 'new' and as far as I can see 'original' in that it does not appear to be formally covered elsewhere - but the supporting data does (see the list I gave Martin a few emails 'up' this thread) - IOW it is not something unique to the IC, it is something unique to IDM/recursion /neurology etc - and so my search for some Mathematics to formalise it.

That said, since it has roots in logic so there is an a priori element present - it comes out of the method, the self-referencing, and so is an artifact of that - but a really useful one.

As for the current 'top' neurologists - they focus on trees more than the forest ;-) - IDM is not current neuroscience 'dogma', it is a model developed from analysis of a LOT of specialist texts but working at a generalist level.

As I said, the only 'issue' at the moment is the dyadic/triadic perspectives but the model of John and Stan does not lead directly to MBTI, IC, Mathematics, emotions etc where IDM does.

Chris.

[kevin]

Thanks Chris

Will read links before returning.

These two are trained neurologists I take it?

--Kevin

[martin]

Chris, I think Kevin made a point that I also tried to make earlier: some of the building blocks of your theory may be "well documented", as you put it. However, the building as a whole still needs to be tested.
This implies verifying/falsifying NEW hypotheses that come out of the theory.
Because you are so much into IDM it is perhaps difficult for you to see the speculative elements in it. They are very clear to others, like me, who look at it from the outside, though.

Apart from everything else, I think that these discussions, which are IMO very interesting, would be easier if you showed a bit more respect for others. You keep suggesting that others are ignorant, backward, afraid and things like that and then get upset when I fire back at you with a joking post. What do you expect?

[bruce]

Martin, did you undergo a sex change? If so, good job!

Chris, I have to agree with Martin here. Your work doesn't offend at all, but your demeaning comments do.

I disagree that those who don't buy into your work wholesale necessarily see the IC as something which tells them what to do or what is right or wrong from strictly a moral perspective. You underestimate a lot of us, it seems.

[martin]

No change Bruce ... surprise? http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif

[kevin]

I was deeply shocked Martin - I always thought you were a scientist!

Still hoping Chris is going to confirm that the two folk he steers me toward in his post are actually trained neurologists... Of course there will be gifted untrained folk - But then there are the others...

Chris?

--K

[gypsy]

Martin, you are a woman?????? oh my god.does lightangel know?

[martin]

LOL. For the moment I would rather keep this a mystery, if you don't mind, as there is already so much "this is how it is" going on with all the science in this thread.
And yes, Lightangel knows all about it. http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif

[lightangel]

Martine??? She's quite the witch! But she's also smart and charming and pretty darn cute! http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif

[lightofdarkness]

Kevin,

McCrone is the the author of the book "Going Inside" - covering a day in the life of the neurology etc.

http://www1.dragonet.es/users/markbcki/mccrone.htm

Stan is a professor emeritus - website:

http://www.nbi.dk/~natphil/salthe/

Stan 'contributes' to the Complex Science list mentioned before, besides being an author as well:

http://www.nbi.dk/~natphil/salthe/bookdescr.html

You can also go through material on the MindBrain list, run by a neuroscience-imaging-in-training ;-) ( http://www.ramsoy.dk/ ) and editor of an online journal with other editors such as Baar etc:

http://sci-con.org/

Thomas' List:

MindBrain@yahoogroups.com - recent discussions re IDM have been with a hard-core nominalist you may find of interest (and so a philosophical perspective - likes the material but not the way it is expressed).

I am not published in any journals etc - I am not representitive of current 'dogma' and being a drop out not considered a 'peer' ;-)

That said, if I can get the mathematics sorted then it can speak for itself and so may get published.... but that would lead back to the IC and many still dont get it and see the IC as 'all of that new age stuff'! ;-)

I AM doing a paper for the Journal of Psychological Type (suggested by a member of the editorial board) re the MBTI material (and so leading into IDM, XOR/AND, I Ching etc) but the completion and publication is a long way off!

Chris.

[lightofdarkness]

I use the term 'ignorant' in its 'true' sense where many ARE ignorant OF Science stuff. I think the issue is in an over-emotive 'reading' of the term by many. If some of you take the term out of the particular context and generalise it to apply to yourselves 'in toto', that is an 'error' - being ignorant is not at all a problem in that it can be delt with by finding things out, doing the research etc ;-)

-------------------------------
ig?no?rant ( P ) Pronunciation Key (gnr-nt)
adj.
Lacking education or knowledge.
Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
Unaware or uninformed.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English ignoraunt, from Old French ignorant, from Latin ignrns, ignrant- present participle of ignrre, to be ignorant, not to know. See gn- in Indo-European Roots.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[bruce]

I'm definitely ig?no?rant. But then, Chris, so are you. We're just ignorant in different ways. Not everyone wants to be a scientist and not everyone possesses the aptitude to be one. That doesn't make them less, just different. I'm happy with how I am and you obviously delight in how you are. S'all good, man.

It would be wrong of me to assume that because you are analytical that you don't possesses intuitive qualities. It is also presumptuous of you to assume that because I am not scientifically minded that I do not see Universals as well as localizations, or that I view the IC in an exclusively religious context. It doesn't have to be either/or, all or nothing.

Describing, labeling, identifying something doesn?t create it. Knowing what a medicine is made of doesn?t cure the patient. You focus on universalisms. Great! But someone still has to give the cart wheels to help them with their local problem or question. It doesn?t mean they?re necessarily ig?no?rant, just that their intelligence is used in a different way.

[lightofdarkness]

Hi Bruce,

I did emphasise the point about context sensitivity in the use of the term. The GENERAL focus of the TRADITIONAL I Ching is towards the realm of MORAL philosophy. Questions usually deal with actions of one to another/others or actions upon one by others - these focus on "I am right about this or am I wrong?" or "I cannot decide, 'you' decide for me". Even when considered as interactions with some 'spirit' of some form, these questions still focus on the more ethical considerations - am I RIGHT in doing this? are they WRONG? Will the hunt be successful, and so 'right' as compared to being 'wrong' - IOW if the answer is no then the rule is "I should not/must not go hunting" - should, must, ought, ought not etc are terms that come out of the more ethics realm in the context of asking questions etc about LOCAL dynamics.

This dynamic is fine, been going on for thousands of years and is 'unchanging' - but the developments in discoveries in NATURAL philosophy, with the focus on universals, HAS change and that material is in need of updating as far as the IC is concerned.

Dont confuse a MORAL, an ETHICAL, perspective with a RELIGIOUS one - religion is a PART of that perspective. This all gets into the realm of FILTRATION and the roles of earth and mountain on the yin path, thunder and fire on the yang path - the unconditional filtration that goes with earth is where all 'rules' are sourced from outside of consciousness - be they in some religious text or secular text or word-of-mouth from some charismatic leader etc., OR from one's genetics in the form of instincts (many of which we are ignorant of until some new context pushes a button we did not think existed! ;-))

The SCIENCE bias in this filtering is where the 'rules' are universals of fact, not of values. Values will bias personal paths, facts are on all paths; values affect the expression of local collectives, facts affect the expression of all collectives.

The 'small world network' of the traditional, local IC, serves a more ethical perspective and does aid personally and I think most work on the IC is in that area and I have no complaints about that OTHER THAN the impoverishment of the 'regular network' perspectives that allow us to see it 'all linked together' formally. With that linking come questions re the 'best use' of the IC locally - different local methods based on universals that can give better advice.

The 'anti science' perspective acts to stunt the development of the IC beyond its ethical (confusian) pseudo-religious elements that seem to be 'stuck' in 10th century BC thinking and so excluding material developed since then and on into the current 21st century AD.

Working on the natural philosophy side of things for the IC allows for the refining of the use of the IC where findings in that area can add new aspects to the ethics-focused areas re depth of understanding what one is dealing with etc. - from cybernetics we have the Law of Requisite Variety - the system with the MOST choices will benefit over all others IN THE LONG TERM.

By bringing the other aspects of the IC up-to-date (and so the realms covering natural philosophy and logic) so we formally refine the IC, bring out all of its aspects and so increase choices in behaviour, or aid the available ones through giving more details about possible outcomes/natures etc.

[bruce]

Moral, philosophical, religious, ethical, archetypal, metaphorical or the science of same?

http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/messages/48/4884.jpg

[martin]

I'm not exactly "ignorant" when it comes to science (no, really http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif) and certainly not anti science.
Science is fine. But I'm also aware of the limitations of the scientific method.
For instance, I know very well that any evidence that I can present regarding the accuracy of answers of an oracle is from a science perspective merely anecdotical.
Does that mean that there is no evidence? No. The fact that current science cannot detect or explain certain phenomena does not mean that they don't exist.
Science is not the ultimate judge of things. It is as simple as that.

When we believe that it is that judge we put it on a pedestal where it doesn't belong and create a kind of religion around it that it doesn't need.

[bruce]

Martin, I agree. Science may be defined as the objective study of a subject. But it is not the subject itself, nor the object.

[ithaki]

So, although Divination is not a religion, would it be fair to say that it is a bit like religion, in that it definitely falls out of the realm of Science as we know it; that it's unexplainable, as it is synergistic and personal and based on feelings and not on ideas or rational thinking? Is it perhaps a bit irrational??? (rational: "Consistent with or based on reason; logical")

[bruce]

Can IC evoke religious feelings? Yes. Is it religious? Only if it is to you.

[ithaki]

Right, but I didn't mean religious, I meant "like religion"... irrational...

[martin]

I get stuck with the word "rational" here.
Could we say that those who are convinced that oracles "work" are not necessarily irrational but rational in a different way, i.e. that they have a different kind of "rationality"?

[bruce]

Is love rational? Is laughing in the rain rational? Is the taste of real chocolate rational? Is Dao rational? Sure, they can be rationalized but there's something more than rational that makes them enjoyable and enriching to experience. Yi, imo, is both rational and irrational. To eliminate either is to diminish it?s usefulness.

[ithaki]

Love is not rational but also not barking mad, or ..? http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/biggrin.gif

[martin]

Somewhere inbetween, mostly. http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/lol.gif

[lightangel]

I love it when discussions come down to words...
what do words mean, anyway?

"Words are the source of misunderstandings"

Maybe everybody here agrees on everything but they just don't know it...

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

[martin]

The river doesn't think, yet it flows orderly, natural order, you can FEEL it.
Did the Taoists not have a word for that, "Li" or something?
Shall we misunderstand that word then? http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/biggrin.gif

[ithaki]

Yeah, the river is not rational.
But I never said that it was a bad thing, to be irrational!
Let it be irrational! Let's stop trying to explain it, let science mind its own business.
Let's just flow, like the river! (well, and then we stop from time to time, to ask the Yi, of course)

[martin]

I wrote a little story about a river once.
That river was sitting on one of its banks. I approached it and asked it if it knew how odd it looked, sitting there.
It said: I forgot how to flow and I will stay here until I've figured out how to do it!

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

[ithaki]

http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/messages/48/4888.jpg

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

[lightofdarkness]

From a brain dynamics perspective, the realm of the rational is the realm of LATER development in brain function - frontal lobe dynamics, that if not trained can retain a degree of rationality but still overwhelmed by what the frontal lobes suppress - immediate, emotional, expressions.

As the SERIAL nature of 'rational' communication occurs, so it also uses the older 'irrational' levels of communication in the modulation of serial communication to carry emotional messages.

Our emotions go back to the times of non-verbal communications and so lack serial precision and can be overwhelming at times - but they have their roots in issues of context - to REPLACE (anger/sex) or COEXIST (grief/fear). As such they reflect an underlying logic but it is LOCAL and so can appear 'illogical' to others.

Generic 'love' is sexual and is focused on context replacement through replication, drown out the opposition with copies of self. This moves us into the realm of LAKE with its focus reflection, mirroring, mimicry etc. Next to lake is Heaven with its focus on single mindedness, agressive, competitive - IOW love and anger share the same roots and can easily slide into each other (and so killing can be sexual etc)

All 'basic' emotions cover the communications of intent in dealing with context, to stick out (anger/sex) and so replace or to use it to disappear (grief/fear) and so coexist with it.

From these basics comes refined emotions in the form of devotion to others, devotion to self, discernment, 'show biz' dynamics, rejection, accepting, cultivating etc.

IOW, using a Science perspective we can map out more efficently the universals of 'emotions' and use those to better define LOCAL events etc. and so FEED into the "science of freedom" realm covering issues of morality etc (confuscian ethics etc)

A I have said before, and I say again, there is no issue with the more ethics-focused dynamics of the traditional IC OTHER THAN the impoverishment of the 'natural philosophy' elements of the IC as a whole. IOW there is recognition of ethics threads, physics threads, logic threads. What I DO find of interest is the recent posts that attempt to maintain that impoverishment of the Science aspects - indicating issues with accepting the other aspects of the IC that aid in completing the IC - most seem to prefer the local, ethics-driven focus on divinations of 'what ought to be' etc.

In this day and age, IMHO, that thinking is out of date, and so in need of updating when viewed from a universals perspective. The data is available to achieve that updating but it then comes down to LOCAL dynamics and the ethics realm of "should I?, ought I?" ;-)

- there is an issue here in that the realm of the universals ARE ON ALL PATHS such that the FACT nature overrides any LOCAL, ethical, considerations over the long term; if one ignores the facts they will not go away and over time one's position becomes increasingly 'extreme' until any change in perspective can be extreme and so feeds back on the self to make things more extreme!

Change is inevitable, especially when new information comes regarding universals etc. - this is not about the realm of ethics where different moral perspectives operate in parallel, universals are about sameness not differences so dont confuse that.

Chris.

[martin]

The issue here is not a focus on ethics. It is that the scientific method - as it is currently - is relatively blind for certain aspects of reality.
We ARE talking 'physics' here, at least that is what I am talking about. I focus on what-is and then note that science doesn't cover all of that. It evidently has problems with the detection (and explanation) of synchronistic events, for instance. We could say, slightly exaggerating, that science is as blind as a bat in certain areas.

Of course there are many scientists who are aware of this blindness but opinions differ as to how "deep" the problem is. Some maintain that fundamental changes will be necessary while others believe that the "paradigm shifters" make way too much fuzz and that science will almost automatically correct itself as it plods along.

What concerns me at the moment is not so much this discussion about what the problem really is as the tendency to deny the existence of phenomena that science - for whatever reason - cannot detect or account for.
This tendency is unfortunately widespread and that is what I take issue with. As I said before, this does not imply that I'm anti science. And the issue is not an ethical one, it is 'physics', what-is.
I don't allow science to decide for me what is real and what is not real. Is that difficult to understand?

[lightofdarkness]

Scientific method focuses on formal steps that are reflected in Buddhism and the four noble truths.

That said, as I am sure you are aware, within the Institutions of Science and of Buddhism are 'traits' that are more focused on political dynamics, power games etc. and basic primate social dynamics.

Science as such could not care less about you - you are just 'data'; something/someone LOCAL - and so unique but lacking immediate universality other than your species-nature (or unless you have 'charisma' and so open to investigation from some social psychologist! ;-))

Buddhism does appear to care about you or more so the development of consciousness and 'your' contribution - but in that sense again you are 'data' ;-)

The focus is on building up information re reality , consciousness etc that spans generations and as such transcends 'you'; the contributions are to the collective.

Now if you contribute to Science or to Buddhism then you become known, recognised etc., otherwise, you are nothing but 'data'.

Science does not focus on the LOCAL, the immediate other than as data to be used to draw out universals, REPEATABLE patterns of 'meaning' etc. and so can PREDICT the local IN GENERAL.

Thus when you see a rainbow you see a rainbow, the moment, the intenseness of the moment, the colours etc etc etc and with that you will describe that experience in a personal narrative etc etc and so highly subjective and thats fine.

When a scientist sees a rainbow he/she may see the immediate but also sees what is BEHIND it that makes it REPEATABLE in GENERAL and so PREDICTABLE in GENERAL given conditions X,Y, and Z etc. It is what is BEHIND it that is more 'attracting' ;-)

The overall focus in 'physics' is on (a) PURE forms (universals derived from theoretical) and (b) Empirical - experiments on LOCALS that aid in eliciting a GENERAL, a UNIVERSAL.

In LOGIC the traditional focus is on REASON, on the 'pure' - there has been a bias to considering logic as not having any empirical elements, it is all a priori - but IDM shows this to be 'mistaken', there IS an empirical element.

if we reduce this to basic persona types (as is possible given research into personas and so general personality expressions etc) then the focus of WHAT WAS/WHAT IS/WHAT WILL BE is a focus on (a) sensation seeking and/or (b) security seeking and an overall bias to 'yang'.

Emotionally that covers (a) anger and sex (direct replacement) and/or (b) rejection and anticipation (of wrong doing)

In the realm of Science the focus is more on WHAT COULD BE, IS NOT, COULD HAVE BEEN (and so yin bias). earth/mountain and thunder/fire dominate (recall the mapping of Buddhism to mountain etc and new ideas, maps etc to thunder/fire))

Deriving algorithms and formulas, seeing BEHIND things, DELAYS gratification over some immediate 'hit' - the focus is LONG TERM, not short term - BUT with the detection of formulas/algorithms so the short term is achieved more efficiently. - we have richer 'toolkits' to deal with reality. IOW we see a dynamic of moral vs natural philosophies.

As such, the Institution of Science can be 'conservative' and rightly so. Findings are published and experimental design is 'rigid' to allow for repeatability and falsification. Arguements are with references at 10 paces, rather than AK47s (the latter being a property more strongly associated with ethical dynamics re right/wrong 'my god' vs 'your god' (with no proof of 'god', just personal beliefs - all very 'primate'-like))

Thus there is a LOT of anecedotal material that is still 'outstanding' in that it is in need of investigation - lots of "WHAT IS", "AS IS" states still in need of research - simple; Science is an ongoing, piecemeal, process focused on universals so dont expect it to cover everything, explain everything 'NOW'. It plays with the bandwidth/time dichotomy and so some stuff is known NOW and other will take time. OVERALL we are moving to an increase in understanding, identifying universals but this is not NOW. IDM can help in dealing with the complex languages and so speed-up some comprehension but TIME is an essential part of all of this - we can maximise BANDWIDTH to a point, then we have to 'wait' and that can span generations.

Over time Science will come up with material that will in some way cover the issues you raise - if that is in YOUR lifetime or not is of no concern to Science, it is not here to satisfy YOU, it is here to aid in the development of the collective even if some are focused, driven, by personal 'needs to know'.

As to the 'troubles' associated with Science, it is more often the science-ignorant who USE the products of Science for some local dispute without consideration of consequences (and in doing so often ignore the warnings from the scientists about those consequences - the ERROR here is the PASSIVE nature of scientists in the context of social dynamics, there is a degree of 'seperation' and even 'ivory tower-ness' combined with an ease in being exploited and so compromised ethically)

What CAN help in this is in directing perspectives not AGAINST each other but THROUGH some third where the competitive can swing to become cooperative - where is that third? The IC.

Chris.

[martin]

Hi Chris,

Sure, science can be slow sometimes. It has to go through the ritual. Even math can be terribly slow. It took about 350 years to prove the last theorem of Fermat. It was already clear for quite some time that Fermat was probably right (for the wrong reasons, though, it's very unlikely that he indeed had a proof) but there was still no formal proof.
But that is not the problem. I don't expect instant gratification. The reality principle is functioning as it should in my case, well, usually. http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif
You probably know how the research of the Gauquelins was received in the scientific world. I have studied their work and I think it was good research, better in fact than a lot of research that I have seen in the social sciences. Others who had access to the raw data (which I had not) checked their statistical methods and calculations and found nothing wrong with them.
Of course, with work like this, there can always be doubt about the interpretation of the results but it didn't deserve the reception that it got.
Eysenck and Nias of London University write (in "Astrology, science or superstition?"): "We have come to the definite conclusion that the critics have often behaved in an irrational and scientifically unusual manner, violating principles that they themselves have laid down, failing to adhere to their own rules .."
And "We have not found any similar misdemeanor on the part of the Gauguelins, who seem to have behaved throughout in a calm, rational and scientifically acceptable manner, meeting criticism by appropriate re-analysis of the data, by the collection of new data, however laborious the process might have been, and by rational argument. We do not feel that the 'scientific' community emerges with any great credit from these encounters."

That is the problem. Not science itself, but scientists (and science minded outsiders), people who react with blind and irrational denial when confronted with phenomena that do not fit in with their beliefs. Even when they are, as in this case, presented with results of solid research that meets the standards of science.

[martin]

XOR! http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif
->
1. Science as a method
2. Science as an institution
3. Certain beliefs that are quite common among scientists and science minded outsiders.

(1) The method is fine, it works. Not that there are no issues. For instance in psychology / anthropology the issue of objectivity. Can I become part of a group/culture that I study or should I remain an outsider? Opinions differ.

(2) Yes, power games, politics, cliques, charismatic leaders, "popes". Was it Kuhn who said that such problems ultimately solve themselves because those who are an obstacle to progress are mortal?

(3) This is what I focused on in my previous posts. The 'believers' tend to deny that they believe in anything. They are generally unaware of their assumptions. "Science has proven X" while "X?" is in fact scientifically an open question. Religious over- and undertones. Dogmatism. Fundamentalism. The believers look in the mirror of fundamentalist religion and hate what they see: themselves.

[martin]

Of course there are links between (2) and (3) so the XOR may not be entirely XOR, more like OR.
Anyway, it's a bit more precise, I hope .. http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif

[lightofdarkness]

I have most of the Gauguelins books together with the supporting and not-supporting offerings of others (Dean's book was useful at the time re investigating perspectives)

The reactions of the INSTITUTION of Science was not surprising given their built-in 'fear' of Astrology etc., and the lack of understanding at the time re chronobiology and subtle influences on cellular growth etc.

The use of analogy to create typologies was common in ancient times in that there was little 'high precision' focus so analogies to constellations became metaphors that became taken literally and so when Science turns up recognising the SUBJECTIVE nature of constellations etc we can see where the problems are in accepting anything "Astrological" - BUT the LOCAL dynamics of planetary forces, REGARDLESS of the fact that the Sun overwhelms the environment, shows subtle influences at work re growth etc and so 'skewing' of internal development to encode gravitational/EM forces at work - we imprint.

Thus our reaction to POLARISED light as compared to direct sunlight, where life forms use that polarised light as clocks or resetters of clocks (note that in the eye, the exposure of the ganglion cells to direct light will elicit a horomone release that appears to reset our circadian clocks nestled in the limbic system)

SO - OVER TIME these rigid mindsets DO 'die out' such that it does take generations for change in perspectives. I know of a number of research scientists who at home are hard-core users of 'occult' materials (Tarot, Astrology etc) but then the IDM material shows how it is that we find VALUE in these materials regardless of what the Institution of Science 'says'.

The results from the work of the Gauguelins verified the perspective of there being no influence of constellations etc and so star signs on type, but in so doing came up with the stats indicative of an 'imprinting' of forces during development that could change metabolic dynamics and so 'skew' expressions.

The influences detected were influences that map to the main planets and the moon. The combination of gravitational and EM forces (all varying with the ecliptic orbits and so perigee/apogee dynamics) can act to introduce 'tidal' forces (as the moon does strongly) in our 60%+ water nature so there is a possible relationship worthy of analysis. (and there is a correlation of apogee/perigee dynamics, eclipses, and earth quake intensity events)

Just as rock sediments show layering, as trees show rings, so there is nothing to stop us showing these patterns as well as we develop.

That said, the data was placed on a dimension, the same sort of dimension derived from recursion of differentiating/integrating and turned into a circle, such that direct but GENERAL, VAGUE, associations can be made between persona types and planet influences on that dimension etc (e.g. I have Saturn rising and Moon in apex indicating a 'persona' akin to Lewis Carrol - mixing reason (Science - Saturn) with imagination (Moon - writing etc) ;-) - but I also have mars, venus, mercury, sun etc in the 'setting' position (another Gauguelin 'position of notice') as well as Jupiter in the 'bottom' position of notice!

BUT the methodology of laying things out onto a dimension and making associations allows for artifacts of that method to enter into the interpretations!

The breakdown of that dimension is into a mix of the Astrology categories of Earth, Fire, Water, and Air - a mix mapping to the IDM template as shown in the diagrams in:

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

In that diagram we show the movement of FOUR categories to EIGHT than then summed becomes 12.

The main points of interest in the original work indicated initially a bias in folding 365 days into a 360 degree map (things get 'lumpy') together with a fibonacci pattern reflecting the path of development (the 0, 126 degree etc statistics positives and negatives) that is most energy conserving but allowing for growth (IOW we are dealing with 'slow', circular spirals of development rather than the 'fast' square form we see in rigid XOR dynamics - this slowness is indicative of mapping VAGUE information, with WIDE scopes, as compared to what we get when we become more binary, more square-spiral, CRISP information with NARROW scopes - but then the old Roman charts used to be square so maybe there is something of interest there ;-) - as is the focus on Hindu charts etc showing is the differentiating/integrating nature of two core types of Astrology)

The problem with moving from the vague to the crisp is we move PAST our species-nature, a nature INTEGRATED with the environment and TIME and so sensitive to local forces all working in parallel, and into the realm of the PARTIAL, the SERIAL, and in so doing we IMPOVERISH the nature of time, move it from its thermodynamic, arrow of time, nature, to something considered mechanistic and even stoppable/reversible!

ALL of this requires review, even if to show it all as metaphors for the basics of differentiating/integrating, with a touch of chronobiology thrown in BUT such as review is far off - bringing something from the realm of the vague into the rulership of the crisp will always be a problem UNLESS something is predictable that FORCES recognition, there is no CHOICE re accepting/rejecting. ;-)

Using Astrological terms etc shows a use of EXPRESSIONS that will automatically elicit resistance from the more 'scientific' due to past history. So, a perspective along chronobiology dynamics and IDM template of category formations could bring out the 'facts' behind all of the 'fictions'.

(I note that when the Gauguelin data appeared there was interest WITHIN the Astrology community but to a DEGREE - constellations etc still being used etc and taken literally rather than as metaphor - IOW despite the material, not much was given up ;-))

[lightofdarkness]

Just to make the IDM point re Gauguelin's work. If you take the patterns of 'significant' points on the circle and lay the circle out into a line and so dimension, the pattern shown in amplitudes is that of a spectrum/power-law dynamic - and so an asymmetric dichotomy that 'maps' to such things as the MBTI persona typologies etc and so reflecting the common ground in all of these typologies.

The 'influence' of planets on that dimension wouls be as agents of exaggerating or dampening amplitudes etc on a FIXED dimension and so on FIXED natures on that dimension....

OR the asymmetry is due to the 'compression' factor of 365 onto 360 etc that will elicit some sort of distortion as an artifact that is then interpreted beyond its 'true' nature. IOW each mapping generates its own power law patterns that are 'independent' of each other but taking on the same form and so considered as dependent!

[bruce]

I dunno, Chris. What you describe sounds like a very sterile existence to me. Have you considered what could be lost if we cyborg ourselves into this scientific and objective species you speak of?

[lightofdarkness]

? all I am focusing on is balancing out perspectives, COEXISTING, not REPLACING. The current, traditional, IC perspective is biased to "science of freedom" issues and so issues about ought, should, must, ought not, should not, must not etc There are CHOICES here and they contribute to living in a LOCAL context but it is all ethics-sourced in 10th century BC and excluding research into our brains etc available in the now 21st century AD.

The full story of the IC, what it as a metaphor represents, is thus more than 10BC thinking, it includes the "science of physics" and the "science of logic" etc., and THOSE areas have been impoverished in the development of the IC, and understandably so with the lack of information at the time of the original IC development.

Thus from the 'pure' science of logic and the empirical side of the science of physics emerge new information about our being, where that information is in the form of universals of methodology (and so cover all paths, not yours in particular nor mine in particular and as such are not ignorable over the long run)

Our WHOLE species-nature reflects ALL sciences but due to consciousness being fragmenting in nature so the sense of whole gets particularised, specialised, where each specialisation considers ITS perspective as if THE perspective. That includes the traditional IC as limiting itself to its traditional perspective as if it is THE perspective - it isnt - the realm covered by analysis of methods, the 'science of logic/physics' realm, has been ignored and needs to be updated. With that updating so the ethics side of things also benefits with finer precision available to allow for clearer, more precise, distinctions/decisions to be made.

I dont see anything 'sterile' in this other than the objective, universals focus, will distance one from another, but then that is what it is a about, universals, archetypes, not locals.

The warmth, immediacy of the local still remains but now enhanced through a better understanding of the universals - and so the Law of Requisite Variety; system with the most choices will, in the long run, benefit the most.

[martin]

Hi Chris,

You wrote:
"The results from the work of the Gauguelins verified the perspective of there being no influence of constellations etc and so star signs on type, but in so doing came up with the stats indicative of an 'imprinting' of forces during development that could change metabolic dynamics and so 'skew' expressions."

Do you mean the ancient star constellations?
The 'sidereal' zodiac that is based on these constellations is hardly used anymore in current western astrology. It uses the 'tropical' zodiac, that defines signs based on where the sun is (seen from the earth) in different seasons. In the tropical zodiac the sign Aries is - by definition - the 30 degree sector where the sun is when spring starts on the northern hemisphere. The sign Taurus is the next 30 degree sector, and so on.

It's true, however, that the work of the Gauquelins doesn't confirm that there is any influence of (tropical) signs. Also, their results stress the importance of 'falling' houses (3,6,9,12), which is surprising from the viewpoint of astrological theory. And then there are several anomalies that astrological theory doesn't account for. For instance, the effects only show up for people who excel in their profession. And they disappear when birth was induced (which indicates that what is going on is probably not 'an imprinting of forces during development', as you said).
In short, we cannot say that this research does much in the way of verifying astrology as it is. It only shows that there is "something in it". It is as yet not very clear what that is.

[lightofdarkness]

The tropical/sideral zodiacs, and their use, reflects the use of aspects from the differentiating/integrating dichotomy (and includes extension in 'temporal' perspectives etc in both)

The 3,6,9,12 mappings, and the differences in amplitudes of the probabilities, indicate the same properties as we find in the RECURSION processes (and out of 4 comes 8 that can elicit more details to make-up '12' etc - Have you read "Arachne Rising"? It covers the use of 13 houses, a more 'lunar' perspective ;-))

Onto this same dimension we can map the binary orderings of the IC as we can the categories of the MBTI and other 'good' typologies, reflecting the COMMON ground behind these DIFFERENT expressions.

Since the 'dimension' appears to be derived recursively so it also slots into sets of octets, quartets, and pairs - the dimension can be folded into these formats (and in Astrology the 12 get packed into 4 x 3 - mapping the core qualities of elements with particular, triadic, aspects -analyse the aspects and it is more a whole, a generic, and two parts - e.g. Aries as core, generic quality out of which comes Sagit., and Leo. Experience then allows for recognition of Aries developing self-referencing (as a universal) and so out pops THREE. The fractal nature is that these three can take-on the same dynamics - two parts out of leo, two parts out of sagit., and more self-referencing from aries etc etc etc)

The diagram is 'squashed' but look at the ROWS, bottom-up, of T0, T1, T2, and T3 - each row can 'wrap' around the circle - each row is a finer differentiation where the rows result from recursion of the core dichotomy (here in the specialist labels of air/earth - each row reflects qualities identical, isomorphic, to those found in wrapping digrams and trigrams of the IC in binary sequences - this qualities associated with Taurus (where it has 'emerged' out of the T2 level of Earth (Capricorn) reflect generic qualities we find associated with the Earth trigram and both to contractive wholeness (blending etc)):

<font face="courier new">
+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|Aquarius| Gemini | Leo |Sagittar| Pisces |Scorpio | Virgo | Taurus |T3
+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Air (Libra) | Fire (Aries) | Water (Cancer) |Earth (Capricorn)|T2
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| Air | Earth |T1
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| |
| (The Whole) |T0
| |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
</font>
Figure 4. The generation of Astrological symbols.

[martin]

I think that you might get a better fit if you arrange the signs in 3 groups of 4 according to the order in which they appear in the zodiac.
The signs Aries to Cancer seem to manifest their elements in their most 'pure' or general form. Aries is pure fire, and so on. There is a kind of innocence and playfulness about the signs in this group. They are independent, value freedom and try to minimize ties and responsibilities. They do their own thing. Often in new ways. One could call them the 'children' of the zodiac.
The signs in the second group (Leo to Scorpio) are more like 'parents'. They are generally concerned with building and maintaining a personal territory or 'empire' while the signs in the first group are more like nomads.
The third group (Sagittarius to Pisces) consists of the 'grandparents' or 'elders'. Their focus is on collective affairs and issues, the world at large. Or the universe.

I usually group the houses in the same way and the combination of signs and house placement can be quite revealing when there is a strong emphasis on one of the groups. For example, an emphasis on signs in the third group and houses in the first (1 to 4) indicates a strong interest in collective/universal issues but usually not much active participation, as this goes against the grain of the houses in the first group (freedom, no ties).
An emphasis on signs in the first group and houses in the third (the reverse) would be typical for someone who is actively involved in collective issues but in an independent individual way. A "solist". Possibly a pioneer.

If you use this arrangement the signs on the T2 level of your scheme will become the signs of the first group (Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer). The next signs go to the T3 level.

[lightofdarkness]

Martin, look carefully and you will see that YOUR perspective is temporal (AND oriented, linked together), MINE is structural (XOR oriented, 'stand alone'), which is the point re IDM/ICPlus etc - as universals LOCAL context will order them into different sequences and in doing so include temporal perspectives - King Wen perspectives as compared to my more Fu Hsi perspective.

The LABELS of signs reflect ad hoc naming to underlying qualities rooted in the neurology. Thus the labels in the presented diagram reflect the recruitment of blend, bond, bound, bind universals to describe some local context.

Thus at T3 the T2 labels dont exist, they have been 'refined' and so replaced into the two associated T3 labels derived from the T2 (and so Capricorn (EARTH digram) is differentiated into Taurus/Virgo)

IOW EACH row is the SAME 'realm' but in finer and finer distinctions and so we use recursion to lay out those differences. For each row Tn we can see in that row all of the previous rows but as generalities compared to the precise, particular, labels given in that row.

Thus the 'coexistance' vibe is still present such that we move from 4s to 8s but then retain the T2 labels and so get 12.

Thus we have at T1: Air (expansive blending) and Earth (contractive blending). The GENERIC qualities of which are expressed in yang/yin

Move to T2 and we now also have air in an earth context - WATER, and we also have Earth in an air context - FIRE. These are IC DIGRAMS reflecting generic properties BUT being universals can develop their own context as well as be linked to local contexts (imagine those contexts developing orthogonal to the above)

Move to T3 and we have the eight trigrams, the eight star signs, and the eight BBBB qualities (where the 4 are qualified with the contract/expand dichotomy)

Thus Taurus/Virgo, their raw STRUCTURAL natures, and so excluding their position in time, are related to contractive_blending/contractive_bonding and through that to the qualities of earth and mountain - thus the devotional bent in Taurus (note for example the presence of hex 08 qualities here):

"Taurus, the feminine (yin) sheath of Venus, is attractive and magnetic. Taureans have personal magnetism and are able to draw others into their circle, rather than actively seeking them out. In other words, while they are very fond of members of the opposite sex, they prefer to be courted. Taurus is straight-forward and down-to-earth in sexual matters.

A no-nonsense approach is favoured and too much verbalising, or complex fantasising is not really Taurus's thing. Music or other forms of sensual, non-verbal expression will strike a chord in the Taurean nature."

Map the Taurus label to the IC and you are dealing with all of the hexagrams with earth as base, together with all of their spectrums - so a MUCH richer source of meaning etc than in the above material taken off:

http://www.astrologycom.com/taurel.html

The Tarus mapping refines the qualities of VENUS to EARTH and Capricorn, as the Sagittarius mapping refins the qualities of MARS to FIRE and Aries.

Sagittarius blurb:

"Sagittarius, a masculine sign, is adventurous and not averse to the thrill of risk-taking. Your positive, life-affirming optimism makes you a lot of fun and great to be around. You love any new form of sexual expression that challenges and excites you. Both tolerant and eager to please, your honesty can sometimes prove too much for those who prefer a more mysterious, or veiled approach to love.

Your ancient emblem is the Centaur, a mythical creature famed for its wisdom and its unique half-man, half-horse combination of the human intellect and animal passions.

These animal passions are pretty much straightforward in their expression. You don't seek convoluted or theoretical discussions on the nature of love; you'd rather get on with it, because it is natural and you hate to thwart nature in the pursuit of self-expression...

A famous emblem for Sagittarius is the Archer, armed with the arrow of truth. Free and honest in your approach, you expect others to be likewise. Your arrow shoots for the stars, holding the blazing light of truth in an arc that illuminates the world. "

In the template mappings we have Sagittarious to THUNDER and Leo to FIRE as GENERIC qualities, iow the above 'blurb' is positive and so a little 'glossing over' the underlying quality where we can flesh that out using the IC hexagrams and spectra information to give a far more precise, but still generic, mapping of the types.

...and then, in the context of discussing taurus/virgo as earth/mountain representitives, there is the discerning nature of Virgo (reflecting mountain in the IC):

"Virgo, the sixth sign of the zodiac, is a feminine sign ruled by the magical trickster Mercury, the messenger of the gods. A mutable (fluid and changeable) sign, Virgo governs critical analysis, intellectual subtlety and service. Virgo people are practical and industrious, yet adaptable, with a remarkable eye for detail."

This is all linked to contractive bonding and mountain qualities. What they dont get (or refuse to mention) in the above is the roots of Virgo qualities in sadness/grief!

Given the template so we can have hexagrams relabelled to to astrological terms such as:

hex 12 = aquarius in a taurian context.

hex 15 = taurus in a virgo context.

Given the spectrum material you also have 64 aspects of hex 15 and so of taurus in virgo qualities and these are PRECISE to a level of being for some so cryptic as in need of more prose to flesh them out!

The MAIN focus here is on what the labels REPRESENT, the underlying qualities reflected in BBBB etc where that universal level is so universal it needs local colouring to be 'meaningful' at the level of expressions we deal with in the everyday.

We are thus not interested in 'correct positions' on a zodiac, but on the qualitative aspects of these representations where they reflect the same qualities that have different labels in other disciplines etc and so bring out the SAME generic qualities they ALL use - showing us the common ground at the level of our species as a whole.

Chris.

[lightofdarkness]

BTW - in the context of mapping qualities using planets as their representations we can take the 'binary' sequence and split it in the middle to give us two threads, the yin and the yang. Map the suggested planet biases and we have:

Yin path:

Venus ------> Moon
(Earth -----> Wind)

(note the association of Moon with cultivation etc - it is a big performer in biological clocks etc and so a cyclic/morphic change focus - maps to irrational numbers and binding)

Yang path:

Mars ------> Sun
(Thunder ----> Heaven)

These 'fit' reasonably well to indicate a generic root.

[lightofdarkness]

To add some more fuel .....

ANY particular categorisation system using recursion of a dichotomy to create its categories will be isomorphic to any other. IOW we can see in the IC and the above 'strands' of yin/yang the same generic properties and methods as we see resulting from the use of recursion of purines/pyramidines to create DNA or RNA codons - as such the 'double helix' of information encoding, and so the 'opposites' nature, is reflected in the above yin/yang threads/paths (as in venus on one strand only having mars on the other, moon on one strand only having sun on the other etc - this reflects the SYMMETRIC dichotomies formed for EACH position on the strand - and so reflects the SAME dynamics we find in DNA/RNA double strands re ACGT pairs etc. The movement ALONG the strand does not have this restriction, A can be followed by ANY other strand category etc and so allowing for local context mappings BUT in that movement there is a pattern that is ASYMMETRIC (3' end to 5' end etc - this is also reflected in the DNA of viruses - one part changes over thousands of years, the other end by the hour)

As such, the methodology used at the DNA levels to encode/decode 'meaning' is repeated, but with finer distinctions etc, at the level of consciousness and how it categorises.

If we then map-out the METHOD using 'bit' representations, and so 1s and 0s or yin and yang lines, we get the IDM template and with it access to the spectrum-extraction methodology etc., using XORing.

[lightofdarkness]

i?so?mor?phism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (s-m?rfzm)
n.
Biology. Similarity in form, as in organisms of different ancestry.

Mathematics. A one-to-one correspondence between the elements of two sets such that the result of an operation on elements of one set corresponds to the result of the analogous operation on their images in the other set.

A close similarity in the crystalline structure of two or more substances of similar chemical composition.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[martin]

Hi Chris,

It's not clear to me what point you are trying to make concerning the arrangement that I propose. I suggested it as a possible alternative because you write on your esoterics page:
"There is some question, however, to the positions of the cardinal/fixed signs. Since we move from the 'whole' and a state of equilibrium (T0) to increasing levels of complexity and change the more 'unchanging' signs should be at level T2 rather than the 'leading' sign. For fire signs this is the Leo/Aries dichotomy. Any ideas?"

You write about the fire signs but for these signs it makes no difference because Aries, apart from belonging to my first group, is also cardinal. Same for the water signs. Cancer is cardinal.
It only makes a difference for the 4 cardinal and mutable air and earth signs (Libra, Gemini, Capricorn, Virgo).
The logic behind the alternative grouping could have consequences for the order in which signs appear on the T3 level (and hence for correspondences with MBTI types, the 4 Bs, and so on) but I don't see why this should be so.

The grouping that I use indeed suggests a temporal (developmental) viewpoint. However, I wonder if that is essential. If you like you can reformulate it in structural terms, based on the trine aspect, where the cardinal-fixed-mutable division is based on the square aspect.
You could then also replace the terms child, parent and grandparent that reflect a developmental perspective (I made them up, btw, these are not 'official' terms, as far as I know) by others. I believe that the old Dutch school (of Ram, Thierens, Knegt and others) used the words 'pioneers', 'maintainers' and 'propagators' instead.

Anyway, my idea is just an idea, my arrangement is not necessarily better than yours. Don't use it if it makes you unhappy! http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif

[martin]

Oops, "It only makes a difference for the 4 cardinal and mutable air and earth signs (Libra, Gemini, Capricorn, Virgo)." should be:

"It only makes a difference for 4 air and earth signs (Libra, Gemini, Capricorn, Taurus)."