Metaphor And Analogy In The 'i Ching

[toganm]

METAPHOR AND ANALOGY IN THE 'I CHING.' by TUNG, GEA. is a Phd. Dissertation. Can anyone provide a review of this dissertation?

Many thanks in advance.

Togan

[lightofreason]

No link.

Based on the title, my only comment is that the whole of the IC IS metaphor, never mind what is in it as also being analogy/metaphor. As a symbolic language each hexagram serves as metaphor ("situation X IS hexagram Y" or "you are experiencing hexagram Y") and as a source of analogy ("Situation X is LIKE hexagram Y")

This leads to an interesting issue in that you cannot have metaphor without symmetry. BUT symmetry allows for the illogical as in "this man is evil" -> "all men are evil" -> the term "men" and "evil" are interchangable. This is false reasoning and it can only be resolved through consideration of DIFFERENCES such that each man is unique and being so covers behaviours not necessarily "evil"; uniqueness negates generalities just as it can validate them.

The more education, the more exposure to differences, the less dependence on stereotyping. Our brains, when they detect a difference will, for a rapid assessment, use instincts/habits and so focus on sameness. If the instincts/habits are not clearly differentiated between and within themselves (and so context-sensitive) then a response will be more stereotypic.

In the evolution of OUR species, the development of ASYMMETRIC dynamics, and so sensitivity to difference, has come through frontal lobe/PFC development and the introduction of DELAY in processing information and so being more precise, more discriminating, in our assessments of situations.

The I Ching, when reviewed from its development from recursion reflects the emergence of differences from sameness, particular from generals, immediate gratification (yin XOR yang) to delayed gratification (4096 POSSIBLE categories for any core dichotomy)

As such, ANY moment is covered by ALL trigrams or hexagrams or dodecagrams - depending on the level of analysis, the precision required, the quickness of response required. Learning the IC as a whole, rather than in an ad hoc manner (coin tossing can allow one to rarely or even NEVER experience some hexagram(s)), allows for turning the categories into instincts, working unconsciously, and so enables one to operate 'smoothly' in a context in that refined decision making is possible - we dont fight the context since we know all of its possible, general, conditions and with that knowing operate with confidence in any situation.

IOW the use of DELAY, through learning, reflection etc, allows for the development of more context-sensitive responses to situations and the asymmetric bias aids in avoiding the issues of restricting things to symmetric perspectives - it is like moving on to understanding vectors (magnitude + sequence) once you have understood scalars (magnitudes).

Combine the two and we move into a third realm, that of hierarchy and so learn skills to operate within a level in a hierarchy as well as span levels.

Of final note, as the IC becomes more differentiating so metaphor gives way to metonymy (part for whole) and so the objectification of hexagrams, taking them literally, and seeing the whole sequence as made up of 'independent' forms rather than as representatives of relationships.

Thus as whole numbers are expressions of relationships in the form X/1 so the hexagrams are expressions of relationships in the form of hexX/IChing. Objectification removes the /1 or /IChing and so cuts the perceptions of all elements linked together; something brought out in the XOR work of IC+. WIth this cut so each hexagram is seen as a whole when it is in fact as part and any situation will sort all parts into an order of best-fit/worst-fit. Our consciousness, being what it is, brings of the conversion of metaphor to metonomy that has a benefit in that it allows for emergence of asymmetry at a cost of losing sight of the 'big picture'.


Chris.

[jesed]

Very scientific review of a non-read disertation. This is how real science is done¡

[bradford]

It's a puny little thing. 144 pages. Some folks work lots harder for their Phuds.
The thesis is simple, but important, and flies in the face of modern scholarship in that it asserts the authors had stepped beyond the mythological stage of culture into the deliberate construction of extended metaphors and analogies as a basis for decision making and modeling the world of experience and action.

[lightofreason]

Very scientific review of a non-read disertation. This is how real science is done¡

I am stunned by this VERY childish, ignorant, OUTRAGEOUS, comment.

I made it perfectly clear that I (a) made a comment on the TITLE alone (since there was no link supplied) and then (b) moved into a slightly different area of interest in regard to the issues of metaphor/symmetry and understandings in the IC (as in my comments on the title "leads to an interesting issue" etc etc)

My intentions, flow of prose etc were perfectly clear and the fact that you CHOSE to interprete it all in the manner that you did indicates you belong to the group of 10th century BC flamers on this list with no interest at all in serious consideration of the IC from a 21st century AD perspective, only a need to maintain archaic perspectives due to your inability to deal with well researched material that can 'upset' your beliefs. GROW UP!

Disgraceful conduct Jesed, absolutely disgraceful - SHAME Jesed, SHAME.

[jesed]

indicates you belong to the group of 10th century BC flamers on this list with no interest at all in serious consideration of the IC from a 21st century AD perspective

Another fine example about how a real scientist works ;)

[bradford]

I should probably add that, to my mind, he doesn't really draw a hard enough distinction between the Zhouyi and the Wings, written about six centuries later, so many of his examples use Han Dynasty dimensions, such as the Yin-Yang dichotomy, that weren't really part of the Zhouyi authors' analogies. Still, he uses enough Zhouyi elements to suggest that its authors weren't the drooling, superstition-ridden idiots that the modernist scholars portray.

[lightofreason]

Another fine example about how a real scientist works ;)

you mean the assertion of facts? Damn right. What you originally wrote was a flame, THATS a fact, and a totally uneccesary flame UNLESS there is some hidden agenda at work and the only others who instigate flaming are some of the 10th century BC oriented on this list - as such you share space with Bradford et al.

What the matter Jesed, is the 21century AD perspective starting to rattle you cage perhaps? I recall one post where you said you wanted to understand XORing but that interest seems to have disappeared - too much for you perhaps? It is REALLY easy but you have to step out of 10th century BC thinking and into considerations of how we as a SPECIES derive meaning. Once you understand that then step back into the IC but now with 21st century AD 'eyes' and so the IC opens up to give far more details etc on hexagrams, interpretations, etc in that we can get the IC to, in general, describe itself.

Does that bother you Jesed, that the IC is a better interpreter of itself than you? Does it concern you that your 'freedom' to interpret is now restricted in that there ARE CLEAR differentiations of categories as there are CLEAR differentiations of concepts etc. such that what you can offer is only LOCAL context commentary but to do that you would need to be in the same context as the person using the IC!?

Does it bother you Jesed that your methods shown to date lack empirical value when compared to what IC+ can offer (as in support from well researched material?)

What is the matter Jesed? you are obviously going through something and your frustrations come out in the need to flame without consideration of what is being discussed - you find no interest in the properties/methods of analogy/metaphor (material I have covered re the IC going back to my 1995 pages - e.g. http://members.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond/analog.html ) ?

There is NOTHING in the IC+ material that you are unable to understand; you have the capabilities, as does Bradford and the rest, but are limiting yourself. Why the need to do that? Is change such a threat to your identity or something?

Chris.

[jesed]

Hi Chris

I hadn't lost interest in XORing.. but let me remember that a) when I asked you to make an empirical experiment about traditional-vs-your method, you avoid it; and b) when I read your bibliography I found several thesis that was contradicting your conclusions. When I pointed out that contradiction between serious scince and your conclusion in a thread, you avoid it. That was the point when I lost interest, not in XORing, but in YOUR WORK.

Now, saying that my comment was a flame, is not a FACT, but an INTERPRETATION. Saying that it was frustration, is not a FACT but an INTERPRETATION. If you say that was facts, you have a serious problem discerning the diference between FACTS and INTERPRETATIONS; and that discern is a key point in real scince. And, actually, anyone that had read carefully your work arrives at the same conclusion: interesting, but there are so many INTERPRETATIONS that are presented as FACTS.

Best wishes.. and sorry to push some buttoms on you

[lightofreason]

Hi Chris

I hadn't lost interest in XORing.. but let me remember that a) when I asked you to make an empirical experiment about traditional-vs-your method, you avoid it;

? when? there is no 'traditional method' of XORing, and the use of the Emotional IC has been covered before re use of coin toss or questions so I dont see any 'avoidance' going on of any sort. The feedback I get from the users of the Emotional IC appears to validate the work and their comments contribute to considering the extension of the system (drop down boxes of sets of alternative questions etc).


and b) when I read your bibliography I found several thesis that was contradicting your conclusions.

which ones? where they old pages or new pages? what was their dates etc? what were the 'contradictions'? You cannot make such sweeping statements - a science perspective is to (a) publish and (b) get back support or complaints *in detail* that enable the work to be checked, re-done, re-validated etc etc etc. Its called 'peer review' ;-)


When I pointed out that contradiction between serious scince and your conclusion in a thread, you avoid it.

when, where? - the link to the post(s) please. I have not avoided anything so if I did not reply then I did not see or receive your comments. I NEVER avoid issues of contradictions re IDM/IC+ in that it is ALL supported by empirical studies and I can drown you in references etc if you like (you obviously havent gone through the references/abstracts or main IDM pages!)


That was the point when I lost interest, not in XORing, but in YOUR WORK.


LOL! since XORing *IS MY WORK*, my discovery, (or re-discovery), then you are contradicting yourself.

XOR comes out of consideration of properties/methods of self-referencing, something not explicit in the traditional work other than with reference to 'fu hsi' compasses and work done circa 10th century AD. XOR applies to ANY self-referencing of a dichotomy, be it symmetric, asymmetric, or anti-symmetric (perspectives you dont seem to recognise in your work)

IF anything like XOR applied to the IC was covered in the past (or should I say the correct question/answer derived regarding what does XORing 'mean' in the IC hexagrams) then it would have been included in the 'imperial' editions etc since it is such an eye opener re getting the I Ching to describe itself. Since it not part of the 10 wings etc etc then either (a) it was never discovered or (b) it was described in such a rich, esoteric, metaphor as to be limited in its understanding, incomprehensible.

MY work comes out not from the IC but from how we as a species derive meaning and the consequence of such. Thus XORing came out of considering how we process paradox (http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/paradox.html ) as well as how we can compress/decompress information (XOR is a fundamental in compression/encryption processes). The IC is the only metaphor that goes deep enough in its differentiating to give us the details we get using XOR (it is way to vague using trigrams and the dodecagram realm is still in need of fleshing-out more)

That said, if I extend the self-referencing of the MBTI I can get XOR out of that for each persona identified but again at 64+, no less than that since it requires a good degree of differentiation to work clearly.


Now, saying that my comment was a flame, is not a FACT, but an INTERPRETATION.


So let be get this straight - THIS is NOT a flame? - you dont detect sarcasm in the structure of the prose?:

"Very scientific review of a non-read disertation. This is how real science is done;"

nor this?:

"Another fine example about how a real scientist works "

BS Jesed. And the fact that you appologiesed for pushing buttons is a confession of your guilt for flaming.

if you want to work scientifically, with reason/logic then I suggest you do that rather than come up with emotion-ladended rubbish. I also suggest that if you find some contradiction in something and challenge it and I appear to avoid it then KEEP CHALLENGING, dont run off in some emotional huff.

XORing, logic of relationships etc etc is serious stuff and at the moment you wont get any details etc from anywhere else the my work so you will need to interact with me - like or not. If you cannot do that then all that will happen is you will get increasingly frustrated and keep flaming - and that does not help anyone, especially you.

Chris.

[jesed]

having fun with you Chris

a) You are avoiding right now. Because I didn't say anithing about "traditional XORing method" but an experiment about traditional-vs-your method. It was in the case of Zeldiac, if she would receive or not written information about his legal case. I asked to make an empirical experiment: I would answerr with traditional method and you could answer with ICplus. You avoid that action.
http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/friends/showthread.php?t=551

b) If you wish, I'll public the links to the contradiction between your bibliography and your conclusions; I only need some time to track it.

c) XOR, self-reference, dicothomy, etc. is only your work? Not, it doesn't. Read your own bibliography

d) My apologies are not a confession of guilt for flaming.. but a recognition that your reaction is what you always call "emotions pushed".

e) About comment of people using emotional IC, at least in this forum some users had say that they didn't get more clarity with it. About I need to intereact with you to XORing and logic of relationships, you forget another members of the forum use XOR (yly2pg1, for example). Even more, as you say, it is not so dificult, so I can work by myself without interacting with you. Again, Chris' ideas are diferent than empirical facts

Best wishes

[lightofreason]

having fun with you Chris

a) You are avoiding right now. Because I didn't say anithing about "traditional XORing method" but an experiment about traditional-vs-your method. It was in the case of Zeldiac, if she would receive or not written information about his legal case. I asked to make an empirical experiment: I would answerr with traditional method and you could answer with ICplus. You avoid that action.
http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/friends/showthread.php?t=551


this covered your claims of being able to predict date/time and it clearly shows your method to offer little than probability predicts. As I emphasised the ICPlus material does not claim to do anything like that. If you believe you can do that then you should be ashamed of yourself for not acting on such information by demonstrating it as an example of superdeterminism! ;-)

So there is no 'avoidance' involved in that I did cover NOT being able to do that sort of prediction etc. ICPlus covers what is possible with the IC in prediction etc without ANY use of magical/random methods. What you are claiming to do is pick some particular date/time for an event through the actions of magical/random methods ('toss coins and it all happens' - yeh right dude!) - if you can do that then I suggest you go to Iraq and help the people out. Go and use it to win lotto and then send the money to them! LOL! Your logic is too symmetric at times and so you fool yourself.


b) If you wish, I'll public the links to the contradiction between your bibliography and your conclusions; I only need some time to track it.


please do so. I have no issue in waiting and am more than happy to go through it.


c) XOR, self-reference, dicothomy, etc. is only your work? Not, it doesn't. Read your own bibliography


you make no sense here - you will not find ANYWHERE reference to MY WORK (e.g. http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/introXOR.html) the use of XOR to extract parts from a whole and that is what I have done with XOR - I have identified a property of self-referencing not documented where that identification covers a methodology used by our brains to encode/decode information.

The XOR operator is one of a set of operators associated with basic logic. It focuses on DIFFERENCE just as the EQV operator focuses on SAMENESS. All past attempts to apply XOR to hexagrams have FAILED in that no one asked the 'right' questions about the answers as in 'what does that mean?'. The IC+ application of XOR to hexagrams shows what that means, how self-referencing forms a language and XORing allows us to describe language symbol X by analogy to all of the other symbols in the set. What allows us to do this is self-referencing and the discovery of this is mine as far as I know (and I HAVE asked on many lists about this)


d) My apologies are not a confession of guilt for flaming.. but a recognition that your reaction is what you always call "emotions pushed".

This comment is a confession to pushing someone's emotions - i.e. mine - and so a confession to intentionally, planned, flaming. YOu had MANY choices in how to comment on my post, you CHOSE to be sarcastic and so flame me. you are GUILTY of that FACT. You paid no attention at all to what I wrote about metaphor/symmetry, prose independent of the comments on the title of the paper. All you did was be selective in your response by flaming me for no acceptable reason other than some dislike of me. you did not as such address the prose, the reasoning etc, you offered no counter-arguement re what was said since you were not prepared to discuss things - all you wanted was to be spiteful.


e) About comment of people using emotional IC, at least in this forum some users had say that they didn't get more clarity with it. About I need to intereact with you to XORing and logic of relationships, you forget another members of the forum use XOR (yly2pg1, for example).

Sort of, he/she is still learning to use it and has already made some misinterpretations of its use (IMHO ;-)) see comments in:

http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/friends/showthread.php?t=3721


Even more, as you say, it is not so dificult, so I can work by myself without interacting with you. Again, Chris' ideas are diferent than empirical facts


wrong. The paper covers the facts well, it comes down to you being capable of understanding what is going on neurologically and the consequences of such to all meaning derivation.

(IDM paper on XOR as a property of self-referencing :

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

[toganm]

Still, he uses enough Zhouyi elements to suggest that its authors weren't the drooling, superstition-ridden idiots that the modernist scholars portray.

Thank you Bradford, that was very helpful.

Togan

[sparhawk]

Brad,

Do you have access to that thesis? I tried to find it (I did but is in libraries around) and could not find a way to buy it and/or download it...

Thanks,

L

[toganm]

Brad,

Do you have access to that thesis? I tried to find it (I did but is in libraries around) and could not find a way to buy it and/or download it...

Thanks,

L

try http://www.umi.com

Togan

[sparhawk]

Thanks, Togan!

L

[bradford]

That's where I got mine too - and just about all the other dissertations
http://www.umi.com/products_umi/dissertations/disexpress.shtml
If it is available electronically, I don't know about it.
B

[sparhawk]

That link did it. Thanks Brad!

L