Oscillations ... and my bandwidth/time dichotomy

[yly2pg1]

quote:

Due to the 'hard coding' of differentiating/integrating, anything outside of that hard-coding will be interpreted from WITHIN that hard-coding. This will elicit uncertainty in identification, our brains will 'oscillate' across the set of possible hard-coded meanings, unable to settle on one (and this oscillation can span milliseconds or millenia) - the oscillation reflects the brain's working with the bandwidth/time dichotomy, relabelled as NOW/PAST-FUTURE dichotomy where what cannot be identified NOW is surrended to PAST-FUTURE to try and resolve the problem. This dynamic makes us driven to 'argue' as we try and resolve A/NOT-A issues when dealing with reality (and that includes the subjective reality of others)

[lightofdarkness]

... and the best experience of this oscillation is in examples of sensory paradox:

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/paradox.html

[yly2pg1]

Everyday, i deal with few oscillations.

When come to making decision, I sometimes oscillates between waiting (pending) and conclusion.

Waiting (or pending) a decision is a good strategy to buy time to allow as many piece of information as possible to fall in its place before a better decision could be reached.

Reaching and concluding a decision is a skill too if one is adept in processing several groups of seemingly unrelated data in parallel and able to transcend a final result with fairly accurate result.

In IDM (or IC Plus), is there a way to check the "ripple" of the oscillations, as a measure of the quality (e.g. accuracy) of the consultation?

[lightofdarkness]

>
> Posted by Yly2pg1 (Yly2pg1) on Thursday, February 16, 2006 - 7:12 am:
>
> Everyday, i deal with few oscillations.
>
> When come to making decision, I sometimes oscillates between waiting
> (pending) and conclusion.
>
> Waiting (or pending) a decision is a good strategy to buy time to
> allow as many piece of information as possible to fall in its place
> before a better decision could be reached.
>

Sure - it shows frontal lobes at work through implementing DELAY in a response to allow for the acquisition of more data - this gets into the benefits of using TIME through past/future considerations rather than maximising bandwidth (and so energy expending) to understand something "NOW". (that said, frontal lobe precision includes access to well-defined labels that allow for a 'NOW' experience.)

Each delay opens-up a sequence of the 64 hexagrams in 'best fit' ordering or in need of 'best fit' ordering. As we reflect or let our intuition reflect, so we re-order the sequence where one of the 64 becomes the 'best fit' and our consciousness selects that one and all of the others form into their 'correct' positions given the context.

We can work off our raw, untrained, species-level instincts to survive but not to transcend that level of survival; we need our mediating consciousness, and so delay, to transcend.

That said, with the passage of time comes the refinement of the instincts/habits such that we can use our developed intuition to grasp something 'NOW' but due to the 'maturing' of the instinct/habit so we conserve energy 'NOW'. (our 'best fit' for instinct A is generalised and repeatedly used in contexts similar to the original)

An issue here is in not trusting our training/experience and so having to validate the intuition with serial, empirically-focused, perspectives. A bit like given 1 + 1 = 2 we question that and need to go back into the philosophy of mathematics etc where there is no need in that the day-to-day running of things works fine when we trust the representation of 1 + 1 = 2. - a representation taught by the collective to ensure commonality in understanding/communicating (but that also lead to a 'lie' being presented as if 'true' - more so the lie is shown to only apply to the local context, it is not a 'true' universal and so applicable in ANY context)

> Reaching and concluding a decision is a skill too if one is adept in
> processing several groups of seemingly unrelated data in parallel and
> able to transcend a final result with fairly accurate result.
>

The 'seemingly unrelated' is often at the level of expression where, as IDM shows, there is a LOT Of 'relatedness' beneath the surface structures of apparently unrelated specialisations.

> In IDM (or IC Plus), is there a way to check the "ripple" of the
> oscillations, as a measure of the quality (e.g. accuracy) of the
> consultation?
>

Learn the qualities of the I Ching categories IN GENERAL (and so 'blending, bonding, bounding, and binding' etc). Seek out LOCAL context experiences (or imagined experiences found in stories/movies etc) that will add some 'colour' to those universal categories. Over time the intuition will develop (and for some it is there early) such that one does not need to 'think' just respond where that response will be a response of 'class' since one is well-developed in offering the correct response to some stimulus.

In movies there are a limited number of stories - it is the STYLE that adds differences such that we get umpteen variations/renditions of 'romeo and juliet' - IOW LOTS of different expressions for the same 'archetypal' story. (any good text of script writing will cover this)

Martial arts gets into issues of 'correct' responses for a stimuli but from a specialist position - IOW given move 'x' there is only one correct response, 'y'. You can experiment with others but over time one realises that for a particular stimulus there is a particular response. LOCAL context can add nuances unique to that context bur the overall 'universal' is the best fit.

In 'learning the qualities of the IC categories' I am not just focusing on hexagrams or trigrams or dodecagrams - I include the study of harmonics through the use of XOR dynamics.

If we go back to the really abstract level of IDM and 0s/1s so we gain understanding of the contribution to meanings made by the methodology - self-referencing of 0/1 (integrate/differentiate). In that process we set down a tool usable for analysis of any dichotomy and so fleshing-out that dichotomy - or using one to flesh-out the properties of another.

Since all specialisations will 'reduce' to the dynamics of dichotomies so we can quickly flesh-out the general goings-on without wasting too much time on learning the lingo 'in full'. That then sets down a stable, GENERAL, context from which we can develop further (or move on) where the basics of the specialisation are understood ( and their behaviour predictable in general).

Thus an IDM focus is abstract, sets-down the properties and methods of meaning derivation in the form of a template and THEN we move on to adding colour, as in the specialist perspectives where, due to all specialisations having the same general form, one can quickly pick-up what each specialist language is 'getting at'.

At the same time we can identify those specialisations that have well-developed some path through the template. Extract all of those 'well defined' paths, sum them, and out will pop a really good map of the 'regular' network behind all of these 'small world' networks. The issue then is restructuring the hybrid language that would also come out of this process.

Given the 'archetypes' of the trigrams/hexagrams/dodecagrams, through XOR etc we know their ideal history and so can put our selves in one of those history lines or maintain our own (the MBTI categories use the same template and so give the same historic path for a persona as we can for a hexagram left to run its course. - Note that we are dealing with COLLECTIVES, GROUPS, such that the precise details on some individual will be vague, allowing for distraction or premature death to stop the individual reaching the group's overall goal. - see the work on small world networks and history etc in the history section of http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/Vague.pdf .

Given the 'ideal' forms of a hexagram we can extract its outcome given ideal conditions and so determine its 'best fit' nature to the given, particular, context. Taking into consideration local dynamics we can then assess the 'material' outcome as compared to the 'ideal' outcome - IOW an approximation of local context dynamics on the ideal - to see if it can stand the pressure to reach its goal in an acceptable time.

Chris.

[lightofdarkness]

Note that to 'know' the core archetypes through XOR dynamics without understanding the full spectrum approach in IDM/ICPlus can cause 'confusion' for those trained in hard-core 'traditional' perspectives sourced in Wilhelm/Legge etc

For example. The 63-ness of a hexagram covers the 'ideal' passage through a particular hexagram's nature. Thus for hexagram 01 we have:

111111
101010
------
010101

IOW hexagram 64. WHAT? Isnt 64 about errors, about 'before completion' etc etc? The ideogram covers:

"WEI CHI -

WEI : temporal negative; incomplete, has not occured...

CHI : cross a river at a ford or shallow place; overcome an obstacle, embark on a course of action; help, relieve, cease. The ideogram: water and level, running smooth over a flat bottom."ERANOS p665

There is more than the 'flippant' label of 'before completion' or 'not yet complete/crossed' in that 64 covers overall a proactive focus on intentionally AVOIDING completion; forcing one to remain open.

Hexagram 01 covers high energy expenditure, it "never stops". It represents perpetual mediation and is competitive in approach. Competitive mediation means a focus on SKILL development, on never 'closing', never stopping the development of a skill nore, once developed, the perpetual practice of that skill to maintain its precision.

This focus on 'remaining open' as the 'correct path' through hex 01 shows the analogy to 64 with ITS focus on 'remaining open, NOT completing'. Note how 64 reflects itself (or answers itself) in that its REACTIVE expression is on issues of 'incorrect sequence', on making little errors etc - whereas its PROACTIVE expression is on issues of remaing open, to refine skills to deal with the 'mis-sequencing' (and even allows for intential mis-sequencing as a novel way of dealing with some context in which instincts dont work)

This level of prose (and a lot more for that matter) applies to EACH XOR-ed value of hex 01 (and all other hexagrams) so there is a lot of depth to consider here before moving on to dodecagrams (and so hexagrams with moving lines)

Chris.