"Great Vessel" site 'deletions for being off topic'

[lightofdarkness]

I was having a conversation with Karcher that was 'interrupted' by Kevin with his 'this site is about the Yi Jing' and considered my prose as nothing to do with the Yi Jing. below is his email and the two deletions - IMHO this sums up well the 'fear' of the traditionalists.... (note carefully the last paragraph of Kevin's 'deletion' notice re the site covering theory/ideas where what he says seems to contradict the deletion! - I am thus considered to be guilt of 'thought crime'. LOL!)

View the complete topic at: http://www.greatvessel.com/cs/forums/152/ShowPost.aspx

Posted By: webmaster@greatvessel.com in Yijing Theory and Practice
Subject: Re: Ideal and Shadow
__________________________________




Chris

Your last two posts have been deleted. This was done reluctantly. They were off topic for our forum. I had hoped you would have desisted after my last post which made the position clear.

Such long posts based on systems of thought which have little to do with the Yijing and indeed attack its basic principles both block up the threads and add little to the discourse.

It is sad to have to do this so early in this sites life.

For clarification, this forum is for the exploration of the Yijing Practice, Method, Myth, History, Translation, Theory and Ideas. Theories which use the material, but set it into completely different paradigms, are considered to be off topic.

Kevin

------------------ deleted email 1 ----------

Stephen made reference to 27-ness (see the thread) and I supplied fuller details in the form of :

This email was sent from a user at Great Vessel. Replying
to this email will be sent back to the user via normal
email.

Sent From: lofting@iimetro.com.au
Subject: 3rd post Ideal Shadow
__________________________________

Stephen, to avoid the labour of going through all hexgrams to get there 27-ness, here is an extract from one of my webpages covering 27-ness (I have added some text as well - the rules applied here apply to ALL hexagrams giving the X-ness of hexagrams and so fine details about the properties and methods of hexagrams - all possible due to the self-referencing methodology where it allow the IC to tell us about itself - the binary sequence of the IC is the 'natural' sequence derived from the self-referencing of the yin/yang dichotomy): The below patterns reflects the characteristics of hexagram 27, representing an archetype of structure that needs content, and so is the 'clay' from which a full hexagram is made, being expressed in each of the hexagrams (in the IC text is a warning on quality control, being wary of what one takes in). You can consider this perspective as a hexagram has a set of 'genes', all of the other hexagrams, and their expression through a particular hexagram can be distorted in the final expression. As such, hexagram A is the description by analogy of the gene, the genotype, and hexagram B is description by analogy of the context or filter, then hexagram C is the description by analogy of what is called the phenotype, the expression. Another analogy/metaphor is with music, where hexagram A is the note or chord, b is the KEY, and C is the expression. Thus, below, the hexagram in the column of titled "expression" is interpreted as describing the underexaggerated qualities of the hexagram in the "context" column, where THROUGH that context is being expressed the hexagram in the "archetype" column. In this example, the archetype column is always 27 (100001). So, to apply a hexagram taken as archetype to a hexagram taken as context, just 'flip' those lines in the context hexagram that correspond with the YANG lines in the archetype hexagram. Thus in the below example we flip lines 1 and 6. [this is equivalent to applying the XOR operator of logic to hexagrams. What this application does is what the brain does when IT uses XOR - it extracts parts from a whole] For example, if we 'flip' lines 1 and 6 of 111111 we get 011110 - hexagram 28, where 28s generic quality of excess (as compared to its refined quality of going the extra distance) is translated as 'too much yang' where that describes by analogy the mud/clay/infrastructure out of which hexagram 01 has 'emerged'. I have ordered these in binary sequence down the context column, from 000000 to 111111 (1/0 ordering left-to-right = bottom-to-top)

archetype => context => expression
100001 => 000000 => 100001 (27=>02=>27)
100001 => 000001 => 100000 (27=>23=>24)
100001 => 000010 => 100011 (27=>08=>42)
100001 => 000011 => 100010 (27=>20=>03)
100001 => 000100 => 100101 (27=>16=>21)
100001 => 000101 => 100100 (27=>35=>51)
100001 => 000110 => 100111 (27=>35=>25)
100001 => 000111 => 100110 (27=>45=>17)
100001 => 001000 => 101001 (27=>15=>22)
100001 => 001001 => 101000 (27=>52=>36)
100001 => 001010 => 101011 (27=>39=>37)
100001 => 001011 => 101010 (27=>53=>63)
100001 => 001100 => 101101 (27=>62=>30)
100001 => 001101 => 101100 (27=>56=>55)
100001 => 001110 => 101111 (27=>31=>13)
100001 => 001111 => 101110 (27=>33=>49)
100001 => 010000 => 110001 (27=>07=>41)
100001 => 010001 => 110000 (27=>04=>19)
100001 => 010010 => 110011 (27=>29=>61)
100001 => 010011 => 110010 (27=>59=>60)
100001 => 010100 => 110101 (27=>40=>38)
100001 => 010101 => 110100 (27=>64=>54)
100001 => 010110 => 110111 (27=>47=>10)
100001 => 010111 => 110110 (27=>06=>38)
100001 => 011000 => 111001 (27=>46=>26)
100001 => 011001 => 111000 (27=>18=>11)
100001 => 011010 => 111011 (27=>48=>09)
100001 => 011011 => 111010 (27=>57=>05)
100001 => 011100 => 111101 (27=>32=>14)
100001 => 011101 => 111100 (27=>50=>34)
100001 => 011110 => 111111 (27=>28=>01)
100001 => 011111 => 111110 (27=>44=>43)
100001 => 100000 => 000001 (27=>24=>23)
100001 => 100001 => 000000 (27=>27=>02)
100001 => 100010 => 000011 (27=>03=>20)
100001 => 100011 => 000010 (27=>42=>08)
100001 => 100100 => 000101 (27=>51=>35)
100001 => 100101 => 000100 (27=>21=>16)
100001 => 100110 => 000111 (27=>17=>12)
100001 => 100111 => 000110 (27=>25=>45)
100001 => 101000 => 001001 (27=>36=>52)
100001 => 101001 => 001000 (27=>22=>15)
100001 => 101010 => 001011 (27=>63=>53)
100001 => 101011 => 001010 (27=>37=>39)
100001 => 101100 => 001101 (27=>55=>56)
100001 => 101101 => 001100 (27=>30=>62)
100001 => 101110 => 001111 (27=>49=>33)
100001 => 101111 => 001110 (27=>13=>31)
100001 => 110000 => 010001 (27=>19=>04)
100001 => 110001 => 010000 (27=>41=>07)
100001 => 110010 => 010011 (27=>60=>59)
100001 => 110011 => 010010 (27=>61=>29)
100001 => 110100 => 010101 (27=>54=>64)
100001 => 110101 => 010100 (27=>38=>40)
100001 => 110110 => 010111 (27=>58=>06)
100001 => 110111 => 010110 (27=>10=>47)
100001 => 111000 => 011001 (27=>11=>18)
100001 => 111001 => 011000 (27=>26=>46)
100001 => 111010 => 011011 (27=>05=>57)
100001 => 111011 => 011010 (27=>09=>48)
100001 => 111100 => 011101 (27=>34=>50)
100001 => 111101 => 011100 (27=>14=>32)
100001 => 111110 => 011111 (27=>43=>44)
100001 => 111111 => 011110 (27=>01=>28)

------- Deleted email 2 -------
This was a response to an email of Kevin's and I focused on Karcher's own words in his books etc to make the point that there was no 'off topic' nature in my prose:


This email was sent from a user at Great Vessel. Replying
to this email will be sent back to the user via normal
email.

Sent From: lofting@iimetro.com.au
Subject: 4th post Ideal Shadow
__________________________________

I am well aware of what Stephen is focused upon - the emphasis of image processing goes back to the original Ritsema and Karcher text (now re-released in TWO forms, one by Karcher and the other by Ritsema and Sabbadini).

Stephen ends his last post with: "but in the end my own standard of judgement centers in what they might add to the in-depth undertanding of the images themselves, not what the images can offer to stabilize another abstract system that demeans their specific texture and presence." LOL! There is nothing 'demeaning' about finding within the image hidden details all there due to the manner of construction of the image and the only methodology allowable to extract that data.

Let us go through this issues using Stephen (and Ritzema) words. In the focus on the image the comments in the original Eranos text are in page 23:

"The Image of the Situation describes an archetypal situation. It is each hexagram's central oracular statement, the ground in which all other parts of the hexagram are embedded. The name of the hexagram, the first word of the image, provides both a description of your situation and advice as to the most effective way to deal with it. The text places it in the dynamics of time, indicating key qualities and actions associated with it."

"The Image is the fundamental divinatory text. The first word of this text forms the name or title of your hexagram. ....The Image suggests that knowing the image of the time, and basing your action upon it, is a key to realizing the riches and intelligence inherent in the situation."

If we go back to page 18, concerning the question, we find in the original Eranos text:

"The first step is making the question. The question is important, because it is the point of contact that focuses the divinatory images and connects them to your personal situation. It clarifies a moment of time and draws it out of the flux of experience to act as a link to fundamental energies. Making a question has two parts. The first part is soul-searching. Search out the feelings, images and experiencess that lie *behind the immediate situation* [MY emphasis - CL] - what you feel, remember, are afraid of, what you think the effects of the problem might be, what it symbolizes for you, what relations and issues it involves, what is at stake, why you are uncertain or anxious about making a descision. This establishes the subjective field.

The answer will focus on these concerns. Talking to someone about the situation can often help you bring these things out and clarify them. This leads to the second step - a clear formulation of the question based on what you want to do in the situation. Be precise." p18

In the Ritsema & Sabbadini text we have, under the heading of "Interrogating the oracle": such points as: "1. Ask only questions that are emotionally significant for you. The emotional charge in your question is the energy that activates the archetypal images in the answer."

" 3. Avoid asking the Yi Jing what to do, and avoid asking questions that expect a yes or no as an answer.... The answer will consist of images, and it will say neither yes nor no; it will be up to you to decide on a yes or a no, based on the *resonances* that those images call up in you.[MY emphasis - CL]. ...."

"5. Be as specific as possible. Do not be afraid to narrow your question down. The answer to a vast or general question is often difficult to interpret becuase the image can be read in too many different ways." p7(Ritsema & Sabbadini).

Of special notice here is the focus on emotions and on resonance and on archetypes and on what is BEHIND a situation.

Given the ICPlus material we can now go 'deeper' in analysis of what the images represent (or more so, in the hexagram format, the use of yin/yang lines or 0/1 'bits'). We can go deeper since through neuroscience work we now have access to the dynamics of the "Self", not just the Psyche or Ego.

The focus on an "Image" emphasises a visual bias and as such an attempt to reach the Psyche. However, our sensory systems are many and their diversity is such that what is needed is a focus on what they all have in common, the sameness, and so avoid any differences so that we can get 'core' meaning. The representations in the I Ching, where the IC serves as a metaphor/analogy for what we feel as indiviual and social beings, are encoded with FEELINGS.

At the generic level this is in the form of sensations of wholeness, partness, static-relatedness (sharing space with another/others), and dynamic-relatedness (sharing time with another/others).

We can convert these terms into terms closer to feelings in the form of blending, bounding, bonding, binding. IOW no matter what sense is being used, all senses will share the above cateogries since these are derivable from the core mechanism we use to derive categories - oscillations across the differentiate/integrate dichotomy - a dynamic rooted in our neurology and so spanning the species, not some local collective of that species.

The encoding of finer categories in the form of emotions derived from the fight/flight dichotomy that is hard-coded into us, allows for the making of finer distinctions and the communicating of those distinctions and that includes the 'painting' of texts, symbols, images such that they elicit in others resonance where it appears that through emotional resonance (and so sympathy/empathy) we can share meanings. Now comes the 'fun' bit.

A major factor in our development as a species has been in the ability to integrate with contexts through the creation of instincts(span the species)/habits(down to local, personal, preferences). The neurology shows that instinct/habit creation is in the form of those instincts being encoded into the input areas of the neurology. What this does is conserve energy in a thermodynamic universe - IOW once we have habituated it is context that 'pushes' the habit/instincts; we no longer need to waste energy monitoring the context for what we have habituated - we just let autopilot deal with it. A consequence of the development of consciousness has been its mediating, self-referencing, ability (real or imagined) where we can question our emotions, label them, and so identify them clearly where the context 'pushes' to elicit emotional responses.

So we have a mechanism whereby (a) context pushes, (b) habits are created and included in that are 'immediate' emotional responses, (c) consciousness can identify the emotions and so map them to the context - see what is 'pushing' where our emotional responses are in parallel to the environment, and so are more organic, holistic, immediate, instinctive. IOW, through consciousness we can serialise the parallel - break it down into parts etc for fine details analysis.

The development of divination methods indicates that in the past there were enough experiences to show the 'push' nature of context without the details possible now due to neurosciences. Divination methods enquire of the context (and that context would include the sense of the 'spiritual' due to anthropomorphism) where the methods want the context to 'tell' them what is happening or going to happen since consciousness cannot 'figure it out' for itself.

The ability of context to push emotional responses (and that can be limited to some syntactic response of 'correct/incorrect'), together with consciousness being able to interrogate those responses, elicit 'fine detail' categories etc, allows for our determining what is 'pushing our buttons' in the context (where divination indicates we are not sure consciously).

The MAPPING of emotional responses and stimuli gives us a reference for looking up what contexts elicit those responses due to the shared qualities between context and us of patterns of differentiating/integrating. IOW any 'image' will be a representation of those qualities, where some will be able to reflect all aspects of emotions, others will be limited to some particular or set of. Here we now find a mechanism to identify what is BEHIND our 'need' to ask a particular question where that need is sourced in the context as it pushes us (and that can also be our consciousness pushing our speciesness etc or visa versa - IOW we make no distinction of the imagined/real at this vague level of meaning) In other words, we can access the core areas of 'self' that are 'sensory-system' independent. Those core areas show us a methodology in deriving meaning from the dynamics of our brains 'oscillating' across the differentiate/integrate dichotomy, localised to the dichotomy of 'yang/yin'. Map-out the patterns that come out of the self-referencing of that dichotomy and we find ourselves with representations in the form of trigrams and hexagrams. A cognitive analysis of many interpretations/translations of the IC material shows us a correlation of the qualities of trigrams/hexagrams with qualities derived from the recursion of differentiate/integrate (the 'general' dichotomy) and in turn the recursion of fight/flight.

Through analysis of how our brains deal with sameness/differences we can derive generic questions that interrogate our feelings and use the results to bring up a hexagram representing the context that is 'pushing' those feelings - and so get the 'big picture', the 'background' in which we operate and concern ourselves with particular questions.

This is all core 'divination' focus but now at a level where we have identified the point of resonance between us and our context and in so doing can (a) go with the flow, or (b) assert one's own context or (c) move on.

Ancient divination processes tried to do with but lacking understanding of what was going on 'in here' such that sometimes things 'worked' and other times they 'didnt'. We are now in a position to be more precise. Included in understanding the self-referencing in the creation of hexagrams, comes the discovery that the methodology encodes the whole in all parts such that , using the XOR material, we can interrogate the image to a degree never considered possible in the past where we can map-out its 'ideal' form of expression etc and so benefit from more precise understanding of the IC. There is nothing 'demeaning' about this, more so it gives access to qualities implicitly encoded in the Image, and shows how 90% of what is available is folded up into the generic expression of the Image where we 'see' but the surface of the 'iceberg'.

Chris.

[hilary]

Chris, why don't you start your own forum?

[bradford_h]

RE: "Chris, why don't you start your own forum?"

Because Chris needs a captive audience that can't get away. Specifically, an audience of people who can't distinguish tautology from science and are dazzled by meaningless word puzzles. Only Chris, his aliases and imaginary friends would go there.

[martin]

I'm sorry that this happened to you, Chris. But I can understand that they want to draw the line somewhere.
Let's turn it around and suppose that you have a forum that is dedicated to IDM and IC+ and that somebody writes long posts:

(1) about the history of the IC
(2) about the correct translation of certain characters in the IC
(3) about references to esoteric practices in the IC
(4) about the 'sage' that is supposed to answer through the oracle
(5) with many anecdotes of how to the point the answers of the oracle are when it is consulted with traditional random methods.

And so on ..

Would you consider such a poster "off topic" and maybe slightly irritating? http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif

[bruce]

Reading this gave me a chill, imagining inviting my friend Chris into my spanking new home with freshly painted walls, and he with a black magic marker pen.
http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/ugh.gif

[lightofdarkness]

>
> Posted by Hilary (Hilary) on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 8:24 pm:
>
> Chris, why don't you start your own forum?
>

Your not making sense Hilary - As you well know and have advertised the fact, I have had my own ICPlus related list since 2000.

http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/ichingplus

... and an IDM list and a maths list (I had an MBTIPlus list but was asked to remove it by the corporate police)

People are, and have, discussed both traditional and universal IC matters without limitation.

Chris.

[lightofdarkness]

Martin - never would I consider such a post off-topic. it would be welcome on my list where it would be added-to with the universal material for further discussion. I dont have the 'issues', it is people like Kevin, Karcher, Herman, and seeing his contribution to this thread, Bradford who have the 'issues'. (and even LiSe has shown some 'hate' or 'avoidance' behaviour to ICPlus and me - and I know you and Hilary are not members of my list so you cant be interested in what it is about, so just do what LiSe does - ignore the posts to this list)

The ICplus material covers the universal IC and so ALL local ICs that fall within that scope, and that includes the traditional. Karcher wanted to focus on the "Image" and so I did, with reference to the ERANOS material to make sure the definitions etc were understood. 'Suddenly' the conversation is cut-off by the thought-crime police. Poor show.

I get the impression that the traditionalists cant take the universal IC since it shows that they have been slack in understanding the full spectrum of the IC; what they have imagined as their whole, 'specialist', perspectives has been shown to be but a small part of something far greater than they have previously imagined - and THAT is a threat to their identity/egos as 'IChing 'gurus' etc.

Their continued attacks are not 'their fault' as such, they are just being amusingly human as they try to defend what they consider 'their' territory - and thats fine since I have the long term advantage in the form of the Law of Requisite Variety. But given the nature of the IC it is sad to see such censorship behaviour; behaviour to try and make me 'disappear' since my work upsets things -- but then there are many who still believe the earth is flat and they will go on doing so until they die out like the dinasours.

My work on the IC, in the form of analysis of derivation of categories, relationships to self-referencing and the XOR material is a real 'eye opener' to those seriously involved in developing the IC, taking it from the 10th century BC roots into the 21st century AD. IT is also an eye-opener psychologically in showing how the IC can work and how intuitively all 'ancient' divination systems have some aspects about them that are real, not just imagined.

People who ignore or attempt to bury empirically-derived material show no interest in development other then their own and so it is to their advantage to 'cover it up; pretend it didnt happen'. (some of what Gauqalin had to go through also demonstrates this).


After all, the ICPlus material is what change, development, evolution, is about. These 'traditionalists' are classics in their rigour and fear of having to learn things they should have found out for themselves.

If you read the whole thread of the discussion with Karcher, HE engaged ME in conversation beyond my initial comments and I have addresses those comments. All of a sudden Kevin bursts in with his 'this is off topic' rubbish.

TO me Kevin has demonstrated a 'fantaticism', his 'paranoia' in those emails reflected the same paranoia present in his site's protection policy that Jesed and others complained about - IOW the THREE of them show this sort of rigid behaviour that includes 'we take everthing we can lay our hands on' and 'we say open to ideas theories etc but in reality ignore that'.

I am starting to get the impression that Marshall was right about a 'plagarist' element in Karcher's general character - an element obviously present in the other two as well. I think this comes down to an over need to control - the focus is on security seeking and so on water/wind dynamics - here more so in water with the contractive bounding focus on 'us' vs 'them' etc.

Poor show people of the "Great Vessel" - I think you have shot a hole in the bottom of the vessel!

Chris.

[hilary]

Chris, I meant an actual online forum. But a Yahoo! list would do the job. On your own list you can't be off-topic; in someone else's forum, they pay the bills and do the hard work, and they decide what does and doesn't belong.

Speaking of which - this forum is for discussion of divination, not of other people's character.

[martin]

"and I know you and Hilary are not members of my list"
Okay, that has changed now, I subscribed a few minutes ago. http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif

[pakua]

Chris, you keep mentioning the "fear" of the traditionalists. I don't think there's any fear. I think that all those planets in Aries make you a pioneer, you go to new places, but it doesn't mean others have a fear of going there. They just don't have the same impetus.

I think the main issue has to do with your prose being inaccessible to almost everybody.

[martin]

Yes, I was wondering what the real issues are here. Fear maybe, sometimes, but I don't think this is very important. Dense prose, yes, that doesn't exactly help. And there are technical issues, such as "how important is recursion of dichotomies in the IC?" and many others.
But I think the main problem is that IDM/IC+ and more traditional perspectives are rooted in very different worldviews and beliefs, different ways of experiencing life, different states of consciousness even.

[heylise]

The mail in the beginning of this thread seems to me the illustration of the 'fear'. No fear for what Chris writes about, but most of all fear for this kind of posts ruining a forum.

We are used to Chris' posts, but someone who comes here without knowing the 'history' of this forum, he/she would run away immediately. Not to mention the trouble of the moderator, to keep things within limits regarding the space he/she has in MB's. A very realistic fear.

I can imagine, that Greatvessel has its doubts about Chris' arrival there. And seeing the length of the post above, those doubts are legitimate.

If you want to be 'guest' in a forum, you have to have some politeness towards the 'host'.

LiSe

[heylise]

Funny thing is - I like Chris. I think if we'd meet face to face, we would have a very nice time together.

And I admire what you do. Very often I have seen really good things. I have a folder with pages from your website, and a page with links, but every time I try to read in it, there are too many words I have to eat in order to find those good things.

When I put too many words and theory in my head, my heart has a way of rebelling. So I listen to my heart, and stop reading. I rather stay dumb and living, than become a smart thinking machine. And besides, there are so many things I want to do, I simply don't have the time.

I guess it's all a question of communication.

LiSe

[ewald]

Although my current focus is mostly on the translation of the Zhouyi, I could be interested in Chris's work. Could be - as his writing style is thoroughly inaccessible, even for someone with some knowledge about the subjects he writes about.

I've been looking for a concise, clear text that explains how his system works. A text that is mostly without specialized terms. One that is respectful of the "traditional" Yi and shows how his system connects to it. One that links to texts that have more detail. A text that enables me to check whether I agree with his logic.

But it isn't there. It seems that Chris wants me to wade to enormous amounts of words and tables and jargon that are supposed to convince me. But I have my own questions and I can't find the answers to them.

And there's also the point that his version of the Yi only seems to resemble the Yi as I know it from it's Chinese original. It doesn't seem to be the same. So I'd want to find out whether that's inaccuracy of Chris's part or whether there are other reasons for it.

But, like others have said, I'm not interested in wading through these enormous amounts of text that may or may not be relevant to what I'd like to know. Let alone the insults and the condescending treatment of the "traditional" Yi (hex. 4.6).

[lightofdarkness]

Try this (The Logic of the Esoteric)

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

it is reasonably 'chatty'... a bit 'old' and so could use some updating re XOR etc etc but see if you 'get it'. Note that the MBTI link (MBTIX.html) wont work.

Chris.

[lightofdarkness]

For an introduction to the IDM work (out of which comes ICPlus) try this intro sent to an 'academic' forum:

My work is labelled "IDM" - Integration, Differentiation, and Meaning. It covers the pool of POSSIBLE categories shared across our sensory systems that allow for the expression, and so communication, of those categories in the process of deriving meaning.

The focus is thus not on the infinite number and form of expressions, but on what those expressions are trying to represent where all expressions are considered as metaphors and sources of analogy in communicating what our brains deal with - patterns of frequencies, wavelengths, and amplitudes (where these patterns are artefacts of the neurology's processing of sensory data. The core differentiations cover issues of wholes, parts, static relationships (share space with another/others), and dynamic relationships (share time with another/other))

The focus on our species-nature, and so what we all share in common, our sameness, brings out a methodology based around recursion and resonance where we all share a common 'pool' of feelings as POTENTIALS where local context will then customise those into actuals - where some potentials if actualised are exaggerated and others marginalised or even 'ignored/deleted'.

This focus on potentials/actuals moves us into the realm of regular vs small-world networks that reflect the dynamics of genotype/phenotype where the regular network of genetics is 'all linked together' (DNA encoding) and exposure of that network to local, 'random' context, will elicit a small-world network - the customisation of the 'universals' of the regular to the local context (and these in turn can elicit local 'universals' etc and a hierarchy of precision can develop moving from the semantic to the syntactic where the latter has the prime concern of identifying one's position in that hierarchy - all meaning is thus focused on position since 'correct' position ensures the maintaining of the rigid structure. For a good analysis of different social groups see the application of the 'Control/Flux' dichotomy in:

Bradley, R.T. (1987) "Charisma and Social Structure : A Study of Love and Power, Wholeness and Transformation" New York : Paragon House Bradley, R.T., & Pribram, K.(1998) "Communication and Stability in Social Collectives" IN Journal of Social and Evolutionary Systems 21(1):29-81

)

The IDM focus has been on identifying the core neurological dynamics that could form a set of universal qualities 'felt' by an individual and then 'put into words'. These words can go on to form the foundation for the development of a collective that undergoes the SAME dynamics and so encodes the universals within the collective (where some 'universals' are found to be so only within that collective; their universality breaking down once more and more collectives are analysed)

The recursive element here is in the basic dynamics of the brain through the natural oscillations across the brain. The core dichotomy across which this oscillation occurs is that of WHAT/WHERE. IDM generalises that specialist dichotomy into the more general 'template' form of dichotomy of differentiate/integrate. (the dynamics 'across' the dichotomy give us a set of POSSIBLE qualities. Interactions with reality will then trace out a thread of actuals through that set of possibles; a consequence being that some specialist threads may never experience some of the possible qualities due to some strong bias in the local context)

From a neurological perspective it is noteworthy that the concept of differentiation comes with the property of XOR - The exclusive OR. Due to the structure of the neuron, to implement the exclusive OR in the neurology requires TWO neurons (or two collectives etc), one feeding back on the other. In other words the realm of differentiation is dominated by patterns associated with self-referencing (and so recursion - we can in fact map the dynamics of the neuron all the way 'up' to the dynamics of the hemispheres of the cerebral cortex).

We can experience the XOR nature of our being through simple sensory paradox processing where our brain tries to break down a complex pattern (an integrated whole) into finer details and in so doing can create 'paradox' where, for example in the Necker cube, we differentiate two 'wholes'. This is confusing to the XOR side of things and we surrender bandwidth and the focus on identifying something 'NOW' to time and so focus on past/future to aid in 'resolving' the problem - in so doing we oscillate across the set of possible expressions in trying to 'ground' one of them. (see examples etc in http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/paradox.html - indicated here is the source of our instinct to argue where, if I say A and you say NOT-A our brains will instinctively move into 'paradox processing' mode to try and resolve the paradox - and this processing can take milliseconds or millennia!)

In IDM I make the distinction of our species-nature, with its focus on integrated with the environment through instincts/habits and so immediatelty responsive when the context 'pushes', and the distinction of our consciousness-nature, with its focus on mediation/representation and so a focus on DELAY but also universalisation in the form of words etc. (there is a tie here to Peirce's semiotics but with 'thirdness' fleshed-out a bit more - I find "Western" thinking has in the past marginalised dynamics due to 'idealist' notions driven by the precision of differentiating (and so a bias to 'static' forms) and Peirce showed this 'bias' in his work to the level of some suggesting he forced things to 'fit' the triadic model)

If we recurse the differentiate/integrate dichotomy we find that it is closed at the root, but open-ended (in principle, issues come when our sensory systems can no longer make distinctions and we hit a 'continuum'). What IDM has come up with is that in the process of recursion 'down' the page, so each level of recursion creates a set of qualities 'across' the page usable as a form of language to communicate; this set is 'closed'. Note that we are here dealing with 'organic' elements, with feelings rather than letters etc to make words. In other words (!) we are focusing on what the words 'point' to and allow for resonance to occur.

The categories derived in each 'row' in the recursion serve as sources of analogy/metaphor and as we move down the rows so our set of qualities fragments into finer and finer distinctions to a point where the 'row' becomes a continuum in that no more distinctions are possible from the position of the senses.

Our learning methods indicate a movement from 'wholes' and 'parts' to then a stronger relational focus - once we have the 'thing' so we then focus on the space within and the space inbetween 'things' and from there define the 'whole' but in a more 'vague' form due to the emphasis on relationships.

Note that with mentioned fragmentation that comes with distinctions comes border creation and so we let loose what lives on borders - complexity/chaos dynamics. Thus there is a lot 'packed' into the "/" of the dichotomy where that is the point of mediation (and so of the work of the agent of mediation - consciousness). As we make finer distinctions so things can speed up and we can lose our sense of the qualitative as all as be drowned-out by quantitative. There is HIGH precision at work here but we are well into the realm of the mechanistic, partial and will often need to be more discerning in our distinctions to bring out the wheat free of the chaff.

Given the methodology of recursing WHAT/WHERE, combined with an attention system to focus on a particular, we have the foundations for specialist perspectives where the 'universals' created by the recursion can be re-labelled with arbitrary terms to represent the link of the universals to some unique context - be it oneself or some discipline. In other words from the creation of a specialisation comes a lexicon unique to that specialisation and so allowing for high precision communication about that specialisation.

Furthermore, since all specialisations have the one set of core universals as their 'ground' so all specialisations can serve as sources of analogy/metaphor in describing any other specialisation (especially 'new' ones still developing their own language. Whereupon these 'new' ones can then have their language used as a source of analogy/metaphor to 'update' older specialisations)

In closing note that we are dealing with PAIRS and so TWO forms of dichotomies:

(1) Asymmetric where the recursion will elicit a dimension focused on spectral and power-law dynamics. This is the 'common' form of WHAT/WHERE (and maps sameness across difference)

(2) Symmetric where the recursion will elicit a dimension focused on the normal, aka Gaussian, distribution curve (difference from sameness)

There are properties associated with these differences that are artefacts that are included in our models of reality and so we see as mix of the real and the imagined in our maps of reality.

[lightofdarkness]

The introduction page of latest ICPlus then gives an overview of what is being delt with:

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/IChingPlus

If you cannot get anything out of the above then you will have to wait for me to churn out something 'easier'/'clearer'.

Chris.

[ewald]

You lost me at http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/esoter.html
with this:
<blockquote>Blend - make a new whole. (whole)
Bond - one is 'tied' to another. (aspects - static relationships)
Bound - one is distinct from the other, a border exists between. (parts)
Bind - one influences the other at a distance. (aspects - dynamic relationships)</blockquote>
I don't find these words very descriptive, they are for me not precise enough. For instance, to "bind" is something else as "influencing the other at a distance." To "bound" is not the same as "having a boundary." This makes the rest very hard to read, because I constantly have to think that "this word" doesn't mean what it means, it means "that." I'd like to see them replaced by words that very precisely describe the concepts you intend them to describe. That may take you a lot of thinking and searching in a thesaurus, but it makes your text a lot more accessible.

Also, I understand that MBTI is part of the same discussion for you. While I happen to know about MBTI, I'm however not interested in it. I'm interested in this from the standpoint of the Yi Jing, so I'd like to read only about this in that context. The article gets less interesting to me with all these superfluous issues also being described in it.

Fermions and bosons are completely unknown to me. (I just noticed the terms by scanning the text.) I'd be really surprised if these are actually relevant for me to understand how you compose your Yi.

To write a clear article, it's important to leave out anything superfluous for the intended audience.

[lightofdarkness]

These are basic feelings covering:

Blending - issues of wholeness

Bounding - issues of partness (e.g. "us vs them" make a distinction within a whole)

Bonding - issues of static relatedness (sharing space with another/others e.g. a marriage contract that is 'until death do us part')

Binding - issues of dynamic relatedness (sharing time with another/others, no 'touching' - e.g. a business contract for period X etc)

These are derived from recursion of differentiate/integrate dichotomy that functions in our brains. The specialist term is WHAT/WHERE.

The general qualities of the trigrams 'fit' the above since they are specialist expressions of those brain-sourced feelings.

Blend - heaven/earth
Bound - fire/water
Bond - lake/mountain
Bind - thunder/wind

The differences in each pair are in their focus on expanding/contracting, differentiating/integrating.

This thunder/wind cover temporal relationships of NOW/PAST-FUTURE.

Lake/Mountain cover spatial relationships (and so LOVE vs LOST-LOVE etc where we share space with another NOW or in our memories of the past or some fantisised future)

Water/Fire cover enclosures of distinct PARTS within a whole, as in 'us vs them' etc In water the focus us on holding IN, in fire it is on spreading OUT.

Heaven/Earth cover issues of establishing/maintaining 'wholeness' - be it by taking something 'in' (earth) or pushing something 'out' (heaven).

The point re all of the other dichotomies is that the elements of the dichotomies are specialist labels for the ONE dichotomy of differentiate/integrate.

IOW, the generic qualities of fermions and bosons reflect those qualities of differentiating and integrating. IOW all of the dichotomies used at the level of expression are specialist forms, relabellings, of what the brain deals with - patterns of differentiating/integrating.

It is this relabelling that allows for one specialisation to describe another - and so we can see 'yin/yang' in anything. ;-)

Chris.

[ewald]

Chris - I take it you don't want to acknowledge what I just said to you.

[lightofdarkness]

what you said lacked precision in thought re understanding the 'language of the vague' - your demand for more precision showed you were missing the point and not FEELING the terms etc.

Thus, to me, 'contractive blending' covers (a) the hexagram earth interpreted as 'total darkness' and (b) the hexagram earth interpreted as the 'female'.

Stop zooming-in with the mind, you will need to FEEL these qualities and try them out to 'get it' all.

YOUR level of precision appears to be more at the level of clear expression. MY level of precision is a few levels 'beneath' that, at the level of universals and so the vague feeling that goes with hexagram 02 and 'contractive blending' - the sense of wholeness achieved by drawing something 'in' - be it a black whole sucking in light (competitive) or a female drawing in a male (cooperative).

There is a LOT 'beneath' the traditional material not covered in the past - all sourced in the realm of universals of the species, not just the ancient chinese.

See if you can work you way through:

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/idm003.html

If you feel it is all to much for you - fine by me since that is all I have to offer and if you dont have the time there is not much I can do about it.

Chris.

[ewald]

At least it's clear that you don't intend to be clear, then.
Bye.

[matt]

Ewald, to be fair to Chris, hes a thinker; not a writer.
Writing is a gift, just as music and art is.
And it would be quite unfair of us to keep demanding a clearer written explanation of Chris' ideas, because he's not able to provide it - he doesnt possess a natural writing ability.
The only way his ideas would gain a better understanding for the layman would be to allow a 'writer' to translate the technical/jargon terms into something more accessable for the reader. But to do this... firstly the writer must understand the ideas Chris proposes (a difficult task considering the vagueness of his writing prose). And secondly, the writer would need to be granted 'creative freedom' to use metaphors, imagery, anaologies to express the ideas, therefore transforming the complexity on language into the simplicty of imagery - the best way for a reader to grasp any concept.
But this is unlikely to happen, but it would be a great idea.

[ewald]

Matt - Perhaps that would work.

[bruce]

To me ? and I don?t intend this to belittle anyone ? Chris states the obvious, but through a fine tooth comb. Looking at/reading his material, I have to slow everything way down and zoom way ?in? to see the point he is making. Too tedious to serve my mind well. That said, in-between his self-styled jargon are many little gems that pop out as interesting and useful.

I think Matt?s observation is accurate, in that it isn?t what Chris means that is hard to understand, but his mode of expressing his ideas involves long, elaborated posts, such as those Chris is known for, and from which conflicts with the desired focus of sites such as Great Vessel.

Ethically, it is poor judgment ? especially knowing full well the conflict his expression method creates within more traditional circuits ? to over-expose himself rampantly ?in the face? of the proprietors of those forums.