I ching translation

[lagunader]

I find the Brian Browne Walker I ching exceptional,both simple and clear.Has this been anyone else's experience?

[bradford_h]

Hi Lagundar
He might have some insights and expressions that you find useful, but you shouldn't call it a translation. He doesn't understand the Chinese text.

[lagunader]

Thanks Bradford.
I find using several texts most helpful,would you share your preferences(besides Willhem ).
Lagunader

[bradford_h]

Hi again Lagunader-
Yes - using several texts is indeed the best way to go. The three old standards, Wilhelm, Legge and Blofeld. And newer ones Cleary (the plain or Buddhist versions), Huang, and Lynn.
I still don't regard Karcher's books as translations, although his work can be useful.
I have a big bibliography at my site
http://www.hermetica.info/F-YiBib.htm
And two translations of my own are available free at the main page. Check out LiSe's site too
http://www.anton-heyboer.org/i_ching/yi_index.html

[lagunader]

thanks thanks thanks Bradford.
Lagunader

[pakua]

Hi Brad,

I see the Cleary Buddhist version mentioned from time to time, but not the Taoist version. Is it inferior?

[bradford_h]

Hi Pakua-
He did four translations, and tweaked three of them to accord with the perceptions of the commentator he was translating. I compared all four, sentence by sentence, to the Chinese text. The Buddhist translation somehow rang truest, even more than his plain one.
There are many forms of Daoism, and most bear little resemblance to the teachings which attracted me (Laozi and Zhuangzi). My "what the...?" reaction to That part of the book I tried to keep separate, so that I could really see the translation. But yes, I found it inferior as a translation to his others.

[susan]

I assume then that the Reifler (sp) you would also consider in the same vein as the Walker, Bradford?
I like the Legge, it seems so under the radar tho.
Sometimes the Blofield scares me.

[cguleff]

Susan,

I don't necessarily want to break in on Bradford's discussion, but I found some objectionable passages in the Reifler version and stopped using it long ago. I would prefer the Walker version any day. Of course, that's my opinion, perhaps there are others who like it.

I'm just curious . . . "What have you seen in Blofeld scares you?"

Thanx,
Chris

[bradford_h]

Hi Susan-
Same category for Reifler - an interpretation (which is what he calls it), not a translation, and no indication that he knew any Chinese.
I had to force myself to read everything in print twice, so I wouldn't miss anything. But that took lots of years. If you have limited years to invest, I would just concentrate on reading the best studies and translations you can find.

[susan]

I don't have a Blofield on me right now. I'll get one at the library and tell you. In general just the wording. I do think it's good tho, I do realize it's better than Reifler. He (Reifler) was good to get to a familiarity with the ic lines, but some of his are scary too, I guess I mean dramatic--like 50.4 in Reifler "you have been given too grat a responsibility, youhave neither the personality nor the experience nor the strength to fulfill it."
I apologize also if I am off topic. But what did you find objectionable in Reifler?
I used in the years I became familiar w/ the ic, Wilhelm, Legge, Blofield, Reifler, and Anthony.
Bradford, how long have you been studying the ic, and did you ever study formally with any one.
Actually same questions for alot of others on this
site, alot have people have here have a deep knowledge of the ic.

[bradford_h]

Hi Susan-
I hope some others answer this too.
For me, 38 years in English, only 10 in Chinese.
My reading list is the bibliography on my website.
Self-taught. Not a Lot of professional divination experience. Mostly saw the Yi as a manual, like a taxonomy of human experience, or a catalogue of attitudes. A psychology book.

[susan]

Bradford,
That is very impressive. I assume you learned Chinese formally? Or are you self taught in that also.
I only recently have seen it as a pschology book (although it does "tell the future") and that has been very helpful for me. Someone was saying it's like having a conversation with your loving grandmother and that has also heped me to view the answers in their conversational aspects and be less "scared" when I get certain hexagrams or changing lines. Also reigning in how often I use it and what I ask or don't ask about has also helped me.
Do you do this work w/ the ic as part of your formal occupation, or is it a hobby? How has the knowledge of Chinese helped you in your studies?

[bradford_h]

Hi Susan-
No- self taught in Chinese too. I live in the Colorado mountains - no Chinese nearby except working in restaurants, and they're all afraid of computers and scholarly things. But I tried to seek help. So I just read, don't speak or write. Just got a tall pile of dictionaries and looked up each of the characters fifteen times. It's a full-time hobby, but studies range much broader than Yijing. Vocation is (very) part-time architect & planning consultant.

[susan]

That's an interesting comment about the Chinese people living near you. Why are they afraid of scholary things and computers?
So then you got a chinese language ic and some dictionaries and went from there?
Do you throw hexagrams for yourself? or have you stopped doing that, and if you do how often do you?

[bradford_h]

They're just simple restaurant people.
Not all Chinese are philosophers.
My granddaughter wants to be a Chinese waitress.
She thinks it's just really pretty makeup.

At this stage of study you have hexagrams hiding behind every damn bush, ready to jump out at you.
You don't need to go seeking them - they offer themselves as explanations and observations for your daily affairs. No, I only throw coins when I'm really puzzled about something, rarely more often than monthly.

[bradford_h]

Susan-
Forgot-
Unlike the Laozi, where there are lots of different versions out there, there's really only one "standard" version of the Yijing in Chinese, assembled by Li Guangdi for the emperor Kang Xi, and published in 1715 with a bunch of classical commentary as the Zhouyi Zhezhong. There's also an old silk text with lots of differences, including the sequence and half the hexagram titles, caled the Mawangdui Yijing.
So I really only had to read one thousand-page Chinese book - but I had to read it a whole lot of times.

[hmesker]

.....and not to forget the Fuyang Yijing and the Chujian Yijing, all versions that differ from the text we used for hundreds of years. That is what fascinates me: the fact that there were different texts, more or less the same but with intruiging differences. And they were all called Yi. No wonder that the Han emperor called for a standard text. But will the real Yijing please stand up? http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/biggrin.gif

Harmen.

[bradford_h]

Hi Harmen-
I imagine that a lot of the same forces we have today drove diversification of Yijing and Zhouyi versions - like people out to make a buck by capitalizing on the Yi's popularity, or scholars trying to be immortal by attaching their contributions to a deathless work. Plus they had lots of opportunity for forgery and pseudepigrapha in the years following the burning of the books, when these other editions were buried.
But just like the Zhouyi Zhezhong attempted to synthesize a version from the best established textual traditions at that time, I have to suspect that Emperor Wu Di and Dong Zhongshu, although they obviously had Confucian agendas, still had to select the most reputable and widely accepted version of the Yi to canonize in 136 bce. To do less would be to show great disrespect. They could do anything they wanted with the Wings, but not with the Zhouyi. That's just an assumption, but it does give me a level of comfort with the received text.

[cguleff]

Susan,

I no longer have a Reifler edition, but I remember one passage that stated that if you obtained that changing line in a reading, you would never achieve enlightenment. That seemed rather high-handed to me -- anyone consulting the I Ching over a period of time is likely to come up with that line in a reading at some point. Besides, I believe that "enlightenment" is always possibile for any human being wishing to lead a more spiritual and less material life.

I've been reading about and consulting the I Ching for about 30 years, but I am not an expert or a scholar. Mine is an intuitive approach in which I use translations and commentaries to as a starting point. However, I respect and am impressed with the scholarly and technical methods used by some of the contributors to this site, and have learned a lot from their comments.

Chris

BTW, Bradford, I'm also in Colorado.

[bradford_h]

Chris-
Then please accept an invite to visit if you're ever in this remote SW part of the state. I don't go to Denver very often.
brad

[lagunader]

To all of you...I am truly enjoying all of your comments...Like Cguleff,I take an intuitive approach, but am very impressed with the in depth knowledge that Bradford and other scholars have.
Wish some of you decide to go on to the chat side , so folks like my self can sit back, learn and enjoy !!

[lightofdarkness]

The majority of the comments here are on the TRADITIONAL and so a 'small world' I Ching where universals have been described by analogy to local history/myth. From that have come local INTERPRETATIONS that often have issues in that they have been limited by using the traditional as a 'root'.

The point here is that there is no need whatsoever to understand chinese to understand the universals, it is just the 'luck of the draw' that the *representation* system derived in China is the easiest to use in analysis of the archetypes.

Each of us can create their own IC and each would be different LOCALLY but the universals that seed those local descriptions would still shine through.

Those who attempt to translate the traditional IC are taking that particular work as the 'gospel' when in fact it is not, it is but one of MANY attempts to express the underlying, species-wide, universals at work in all of us.

Step out of the traditional box and into the 'bigger' but 'vague' general box and a LOT of material comes into view. THEN go back into the traditional if you want to understand the uniquely 'chinese' elements in the IC, and so the local context, but there is no requirement at all to fully understand chinese or the local context.

The core universals are derived from recursion of a dichotomy (any) such that we can 'see' the IC in anything and so use it as a filter with which to 'see' reality:

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

Since our brains operate using a core dichotomy so the IC is 'encoded' into our brains - as all languages are.

Chris.

[lightofdarkness]

dont forget the species I Ching material thread:

http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/messages/92/805.html

Note any reference to a link in the text to 'prodigy' etc is now invalid. The current root for all links in that page would be to:

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/(html page in old link reference)

Chris

[jerryd]

And so ends another commercial announcement!?

[hmesker]

Hi Bradford,

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

But just like the Zhouyi Zhezhong attempted to synthesize a version from the best established textual traditions at that time, I have to suspect that Emperor Wu Di and Dong Zhongshu, although they obviously had Confucian agendas, still had to select the most reputable and widely accepted version of the Yi to canonize in 136 bce. To do less would be to show great disrespect.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
Personally I am not convinced that they selected 'the most reputable and widely accepted version', I do not think that was one of their criteria. As Michael Nylan says in The Five Confucian Classics (p. 48-49),

(...) The very attempt to establish a single authoritative edition of each of the Five Classics tended to spawn multiple versions of them, each claiming to be authoritative. Clearly, if the imperial house was to retain, let alone increase, its control over the dissemination of learning in the empire, it would have to take decisive measures to determine which of the variant editions of the Five Classics and attached interpretive traditions to authorize for teaching in the Imperial Academy.
Attempting to curb an increase in variant editions, many Han emperors extravagantly rewarded scholars who carefully "preserved the [approved] interpretive lines." Such measures failed to stem the interpretive flood, for the most vociferous of the polemicists, it was widely rumored, were daring enough to bribe the imperial librarians to tamper with the Five Classics texts themselves. Accordingly, the Han emperor in AD 172 ordered a definitive edition of the Five Classics to be carved on stone tablets at the Han capital, outside the Imperial Academy, so that students and teachers would have a Standard to consult for ready reference. Cai Yong, heading the team of scholars, may have labored eight full years (175-83) on that first set of Stone Classics. His efforts hardly brought an end to doctrinal disputes, however, as is obvious from the following lengthy yet partial list of later Stone Classics carved for precisely the same purpose:

1. an incomplete set on which Hantan Chun worked for eight years (240-48)
2. a set associated with Xi Kang about AD 260
3. a Western Jin (265?) set of unknown date
4. a Northern Wei (386-534) set of unknown date
5. a Northern Zhou set (completed 581)
6. the Tang Stone Classics (833-37), with repairs and supplemental stones made during the periods 874? 907? and in the Ming (1368-1643)
7. a Five Dynasties set carved in Chengdu (begun in 938)
8. a Northern Song set carved in 1040-61
9. a Southern Song set carved in 1135?10. a Qing set carved in Peking during 1791?

Even carved into massive stone steles erected in the capital within sight of the imperial palaces, the texts of the Five Classics could not be fixed or the scholarly debates halted.

If at the time of 'fixing the text' there is talk of bribary and several versions claiming to be authorative, and in later centuries there were still debates, how can we be sure that the version we have today is the most reliable one? The version we have today already contains characters that differ from a prior Yi version because of taboo characters (names of the reigning emperor where not allowed in texts), as Ed Shaughnessy noted in one of his articles. Also, if there really was 'a reputable and widely accepted version of the Yi', how is it possible that at three different places there are found three different versions of the Yi? Statistically this does not hold up.

It took several debates to arrive at the authorative versions of the Five Classics. I found the following paragraph amusing to read (Nylan, p. 46):

When such debates proved too divisive for the court, the throne would summon scholars to resolve inconsistencies and contradictions within the Five Classics. Indeed, successive courts under successive dynasties convened multiple court conferences whose sole aim was to resolve problems in textual interpretation. Sadly, such court conferences seldom functioned as cooperative exercises by literati well schooled in patterns of deference. One Eastern Han history, for example, shows a classical master, Dai Feng, engaging in the very sort of aggressive competition that violated Confucius's dictum "Gentlemen never compete." At a court audience, Dai Feng refused to take his assigned place. When the emperor asked him why Dai replied, "None of the Academicians is my equal in explicating the Classics, yet they are ranked above me." The emperor responded by testing those present on problematic passages in the Classics. Finding that Dai did, in fact, know more than the official Academicians, the emperor raised him to a higher office. As it was the custom in court academic conferences that those who could not offer a satisfactory explanation of problematic passages had to cede the mats they sat upon to those with plausible answers, one court conference ended with Dai Feng sitting atop a pile of more than fifty mats taken from eminent scholars whom he had bested.

Imagine Dai Feng sitting on top of more than fifty mats. Must have been a funny sight.

Best,

Harmen.

[lightofdarkness]

Jerryd -

How do you see it as 'commercial'?

na, a public service announcement - no commercial element at this time ;-) More .org than .com

Chris.

[hmesker]

But the amount of 'public service announcements' on this board, with loads of links to your website, make it more look like a religious proclamation. And these days religion = commerce http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/lol.gif.

[bruce]

?New? and ?improved? are still the most persuasive words in advertising, except to antique collectors, anthropologists, and other niche markets.

What is it about the wheel that has endured for so long? Could it be that it just works?

http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/messages/92/5824.jpg

[lightofdarkness]

Harmen,

religion has no science behind it. ICPlus has loads of it in the form of IDM and its reference material re neurology.

The traditional IC has more of a 'religious' element in it as the continous promotion of that partial material as if the only material.

The amount of references, quotes etc of the 'traditional' IC on this list outweights my material and as such shows the degree of fundamentalism present - as you show in you attack upon something you obviously dont understand nore consider trying to - a common behaviour in fundamentalism ;-)

Because you are so rooted in the traditional material does not mean you know what you are dealing with from the position of the 'big picture' - you may imagine your position is the only 'real' one but I assure you you are mistaken.... and that is unfortunate in that if you bothered to take the time to understand the Science etc your world would open up a bit.

Chris.

[bruce]

That?s what I love most about this forum, and I?m the lucky one for it: Strong views from all directions, meeting at the well. There?s a lot to be said for endurance.

[lightangel]

Chris,
You say that we don't need to understand the chinese to understand the Universals. But the alternative you present to us is to understand YOU and think like you.. that might prove more difficult than learning chinese and understanding their culture.. i think.. http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/biggrin.gif

[hmesker]

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

religion has no science behind it.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
So what? The way you talk about your stuff makes it sound like a religion to me.

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

The traditional IC has more of a 'religious' element in it as the continous promotion of that partial material as if the only material.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
Nowhere does the Yi say 'this is it, there is no more, deal with it'. The Yi hardly promotes anything, it is just what the viewer sees in it, and how much he is guided by commentary.

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

The amount of references, quotes etc of the 'traditional' IC on this list outweights my material and as such shows the degree of fundamentalism present - as you show in you attack upon something you obviously dont understand nore consider trying to - a common behaviour in fundamentalism ;-)<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
Thank you. I do my best. Your so-called science is pretty fundamentalistic too, as you present it as The Only True Way. So we are not that far apart from each other. But fundamentalism is not necessarily bad.

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

Because you are so rooted in the traditional material does not mean you know what you are dealing with from the position of the 'big picture' - you may imagine your position is the only 'real' one but I assure you you are mistaken....<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
I do not 'imagine' anything. Never have I said that I know 'the big picture' or that my position is 'the real one'. On the contrary. The most difficult question people can ask me is 'what is the Yijing?' Honest, I haven't got the slightest clue.

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

and that is unfortunate in that if you bothered to take the time to understand the Science etc your world would open up a bit.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
It seems yours is pretty closed too - everytime someone mentions traditional views you have to go against it. That is not an attitude of openess.

Harmen.

[hmesker]

But there is one difference between fundamentalism and me: I allow myself quite some room for doubt. I question almost everything. 'He says that, but is it really so?' Without this doubt the learning stops. For me, that is.

HM

[lightofdarkness]

lightangel - I NEVER say 'think like me' since that would be to be as particular as everyone else - what I suggest is to understand the GENERAL methodology we all use as species members to create such particular expressions as the IC - IOW by understanding the CAUSE of the IC one can get a better idea re understand the EFFECTS.

The cause is NOT ancient china, the cause is rooted in the properties and methods of our neurology and the ICPlus material shows how it all happens. That is not MY thinking, it is the seeding of all thoughts by our species-nature.

Understanding that realm of the GENERAL and REGULAR network that is the 'universal I Ching' so one can get a richer understanding of LOCAL expressions as well as witness that which has been excluded from the local by ad hoc development.

[lightofdarkness]

HM I say nothing - I indicate the research that says something; I put it all together to bring out the universal IC. That is what Science is about, it is not out of the meanderings of my mind over a cup of tea; I channel nothing. IT is all rooted in the hard work, the empirical studies, on how we as a species derive meaning and from there how such particular metaphors as the IC come about.

As to my comments on traditional views - prior to my prose that is all that was expressed on this thread as an answer to a question covering the whole IC concept - IOW there were only 'traditional' translations/interpretations and that is FALSE. But as long as you traditionalists refuse to recognise the universal aspects so there will be these issues where I will say 'but wait, there is more!'.

BTW - a give LOTS of links since I dont like repeating myself - why expound for the nth time something covered in a page one can link to?

AS for being closed - no way in that the traditional perspectives are recognised parts of the universal IC - it is YOU who are closed in not recognising that your work has been on a PART of a greater whole.

I suppose we should not worry too much about it all - the system with the most choices will suceed in the long run - Law of Requisite Variety - and I assure you the universal perspective has more choices....

Chris.

[bradford_h]

Hi all
What Bruce said about niche markets, things working and endurance, reminds me of something not said here yet. Meme theory suggests an extended analogy between cultural and biological evolution, and that selective processes and the survival of fitness act on cultural elements as well. And fitness eventually comes to mean appropriateness more than might.
In my comment to Susan I mentioned multiple versions of Laozi. Many survived above ground in the culture (Wang Bi, Heshang Gong, Fuyi, etc) and some "went extinct" and just got exhumed. Only one Yi survived above ground in the culture. The question is, what do we make of this?
What did humans lose when we lost the gene lines of Neanderthal and Habilis?
Certainly any twelve year old Erectus kid would win most of our Olympic strength events without breaking a sweat (even thought they're invariably shown as clumsy on TV). What went on in a Neanderthal brain that was 20% larger than ours?
I suppose my decision to stand by the received text of the Yi had a little bit to do with a Darwinian sort of snobbery, as well as a need to say Enough, this book has to get written sometime before I die. As to the things we've brought back from the dead, they still have things to teach us. I've used glosses from the Mawangdui Yijing to help me understand ideas in the received text, but mostly I just don't find it to be as good, or as insightful, or as clear.

[martin]

" .... the cause is rooted in the properties and methods of our neurology and the ICPlus material shows how it all happens. That is not MY thinking, it is the seeding of all thoughts by our species-nature."

Of course this is YOUR thinking, Chris. There is no general agreement about anything like that, not even among psychologists and neuroscientists.
And among those who would agree more or less there are still many differences in opinion as to the how (the role of recursion for example).

[lightofdarkness]

HM wrote: "I allow myself quite some room for doubt"

but 1 + 1 = 2 - that is what universals can do give some good degree of certainty.

For example, the ICPlus XOR material shows the encoding of all hexagrams in each. That is not MY doing it is a fact of the methodology in deriving hexagrams using recursion. IOW the '27-ness' of 01 is ALWAYS 28. no question. no doubt.

The use of recursion to encode yin/yang ensures a rich tapastry of meaning is created that is only extractable using logic operators a la what our brains do in extracting parts from a whole (XOR/AND dynamio).

There is no doubt here. There IS 'vagueness' in that LOCAL expression is required to ground the universal, to bring out the particular, and so bring out its full colour LOCALLY.

Focus too much on the trees and one will lose sight of the forest.

Chris.

[lightofdarkness]

Martin - GO THROUGH THE REFERENCES. NOT doing that weakens your assertions in that you offer no counter claims, no supporting material from neurosciences or psychology - I DO.

This is all 'new paradigm' stuff so take the time and get into it. From an I Ching perspective you WILL benefit.

(refs/abstracts/reading lists are in pages linked to the end of the IDM main page:

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/idm001.html

There is additional supporting refs in such pages as:

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

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

Chris.

[martin]

Chris, as you know, I already did my "homework". And we discussed your approach in detail, remember? ;)

[lightofdarkness]

BTW - basic recursion in the asymmetric brain:

with no memory each moment is of:

T1 A OR B
T2 A OR B
T3 A OR B

Add memory and a context to give:

T1 A OR B
T2 A OR B in a context set by T1 give us AA, OR AB OR BA OR BB
etc etc etc

The set of POSSIBLE meanings then becomes a binary tree format with a personal life (or moment) being a thread through that tree.

Given the facts re differentiating/integrating aka WHAT/WHERE so we can derive the set of POSSIBLE meanings at Tn. (as covered in the 'species I ching' thread on clarity list archives)

IDM shows that mapping these out gives us the whole, part, statics, dynamics qualities that are fundamental to the trigrams of the IC.... and to the qualities used in describing human emotions.... and to the qualities used in describing personas.... and to the qualities use in describing types of numbers used in Mathematics....

As covered in IDM there are TWO types of dichotomies and the IC can map both. The core type is asymmetric (WHAT/WHERE, PARTICULAR/GENERAL, DIFFERENTIATING/INTEGRATING) as shown in such neuroscience work as:

Cerebral Cortex, Vol. 11, No. 10, 954-965, October 2001
? 2001 Oxford University Press

New Evidence for Distinct Right and Left Brain Systems for Deductive versus Probabilistic Reasoning
Lawrence M. Parsons and Daniel Osherson1
University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX and
1 Rice University, Houston, TX, USA

Lawrence M. Parsons, Director, Cognitive Neuroscience Program, Division of Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences, Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230, USA.

Deductive and probabilistic reasoning are central to cognition but the functional neuroanatomy underlying them is poorly understood. The present study contrasted these two kinds of reasoning via positron emission tomography. Relying on changes in instruction and psychological ?set?, deductive versus probabilistic reasoning was induced using identical stimuli. The stimuli were arguments in propositional calculus not readily solved via mental diagrams. Probabilistic reasoning activated mostly left brain areas whereas deductive activated mostly right. Deduction activated areas near right brain homologues of left language areas in middle temporal lobe, inferior frontal cortex and basal ganglia, as well as right amygdala, but not spatial?visual areas. Right hemisphere activations in the deduction task cannot be explained by spill-over from overtaxed, left language areas. Probabilistic reasoning was mostly associated with left hemispheric areas in inferior frontal, posterior cingulate, parahippocampal, medial temporal, and superior and medial prefrontal cortices. The foregoing regions are implicated in recalling and evaluating a range of world knowledge, operations required during probabilistic thought. The findings confirm that deduction and induction are distinct processes, consistent with psychological theories enforcing their partial separation. The results also suggest that, except for statement decoding, deduction is largely independent of language, and that some forms of logical thinking are non-diagrammatic.

ALSO SEE:


Oaksford, M., and Chater, N., (2001) "The probabilistic approach to human reasoning" IN Trends in Cognitive Sciences Vol 5. No8 August 2001: 349-357

(published PRIOR to the above) From the intro:

"In a standard reasoning task, performance is compared with the inferences people should make according to logic, so a judgement can be made on the rationality of people's reasoning. It has been found that people make large and systematic (i.e. non-random) errors, which suggests that humans might be irrational. However, the probabilistic approach argues against this interpretation" (p349)

For such work showing the differences in accumulated time in brain oscillations over hemispheres influence one's general thinking then consider:

http://www.uq.edu.au/nuq/jack/procroysoc.html

The above allows for persona types to emerge in behaviour in that the oscillations in the brain is across the differentiate(left bias)/integrate(right bias) dichotomy that translates to the binary sequence of the IC....

ICPlus = new paradigm.

Chris.

[martin]

My main conclusion is and was: this is ingenious and imaginative work, quite fitting for an NT type ;).
However, as it is now it is still too speculative for current scientific standards. There is as yet not enough experimental/empirical proof.
That may change in the future though and I wish you good luck!

[martin]

Crossed posts!

[lightofdarkness]

Martin - I recall you did not finish your homework.

The IDM material and recursion leads into the XOR/AND processing in the brain and that leads into the extracting of parts from a whole and that leads to the XOR material applied to hexagram and their 'N-ness' - a methodology of extracting a hexagram's spectrum and it DOES work.

(and we can see the roots in our unconscious sensory processing as covered in:

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

The IDM/ICPlus research never stops ;-)

Chris.

[lightofdarkness]

I sdont consider the XOR work on hexagrams as "speculative" - there is clearly a relationship there that is rooted in the methodology of recursing the dichotomy where that material also applies to ALL self-referencing of dichotomies and so the MBTI etc.

If know NT types then you know they 'map' to Thunder and can be represented as:

100100

XOR this with 100001 to get their skeletal form and it is - 35 (000101) where we do exactly what NTs do - bring something into the light:

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/lofting/x101000.html

Check out the full spectrum for the NT covered in thunder:

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/lofting/x001001.html


Chris.

[martin]

Of course I finished my homework. ;) I played a lot with XOR (also with other operators) and it indeed does seem to make sense.
But "it makes sense" is subjective, that's why I would like to have some kind of "hard" test.

Not easy to do, I know, but if it's supposed to be "science" such tests are ultimately necessary.
Beyond a certain point documenting doesn't add much anymore. Even if the facts and the reasoning that support a theory seem to leave no room for doubt (and this is rare) the question remains "is this really true?". And only new experiments can help to answer that question.

[martin]

Btw, I link NT with heaven, not with thunder.
Now, how are we going to find out if I am right or you? http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif

[hmesker]

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

As to my comments on traditional views - prior to my prose that is all that was expressed on this thread as an answer to a question covering the whole IC concept - IOW there were only 'traditional' translations/interpretations and that is FALSE. But as long as you traditionalists refuse to recognise the universal aspects so there will be these issues where I will say 'but wait, there is more!'.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
Yet on your site you rely almost solely on traditional views to explain the hexagrams. On http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/lofting/x001001.html I read questions like
(24) : How does this hexagram 'start', express 'beginning'?
(36) : How does this hexagram protect its 'light' when not its time?
(51) : How does this hexagram express surprise, enlightenment, shock?
(55) : How does this hexagram deal with abundance/overflowing?
(03) : How does this hexagram 'sprout'?

etc. Just a few samples. You clearly connect 'starting' with 24, 36 with 'protecting its light', etc. These are all traditional views. In other words, you use the traditional views as a basis for (a part of) your own material. There is nothing wrong with that, but why do you despise the 'traditional view' if without the traditional view your work lacks a foundation? After all, without the traditional views of the hexagrams their meaning can only be guessed. Discard the 'traditional view' and you have to start from the beginning (as I try to do). There is nothing 'universal' in the traditional view, it is all firmly grounded in Chinese culture. And you use a lot of it. There does not exist a 'universal I Ching' because it is unseparately linked with Chinese culture. Without the Chinese culture there would not be a Yijing. After all, the Yijing is the hexagrams + the text (and if you want you may add the Ten Wings). It is this specific combination which makes up the Yi. Without the hexagrams it is not the Yi, without the text it is also not the Yi. If you only work with the hexagrams, or with their names, you do not use the Yi. Because the Yi is more than that.

and if you say in a former post

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

Those who attempt to translate the traditional IC are taking that particular work as the 'gospel' when in fact it is not, it is but one of MANY attempts to express the underlying, species-wide, universals at work in all of us.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

...then I can only say, that is not science. Because science has never proven that the Yijing 'is but one of MANY attempts to express the underlying, species-wide, universals at work in all of us'. That is your LOCAL assumption http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/lol.gif

HM

[bruce]

Brad, of course I can?t know this, but I?d imagine that the Neanderthal would have found the same consistent and recordable phenomenal laws as the Erectus. Perhaps weaker in some areas and stronger in others. The stories and myths which illustrate truths would have their own characters, but the outcomes would be the same; just as Tibetan culture isn?t so far removed from indigenous native American culture.

[jesed]

Hi Cris

I have learned that, when there are debates respect of the I Ching, the best thing is ask the I Ching directly "its opinion". (take this sentence as a metaphora, not like I Ching is an outer person)

I propose you an exercise.

I consulted to I Ching two questions:
1.-What buttons were pushed in order that Cris was behaving as he has done in this thread? 18.4 ==> 50
2.-Which is your judgment with regard to Cris's idea against traditional teachings? 18.4 ==> 50
(again)

With all honesty, i post the answers that i received. The proposal is... you ask the same questions to the i Ching, and with the same honesty you post the answers you'll get

And then, with both traditional interpretation and ICPlus interpretation, maybe we could get some conclusions.

What do you think?

[lightofdarkness]

Martin,

*cognitive* analysis of the different categories such as IC or MBTI show 'sameness' at the level of blending, bonding, bounding, and binding. At that level we have MBTI correlates with IC that correlates with categories of emotions that correlate with categories of number types in Mathematics.

Given that consistancy the NT tempermant maps to the DIGRAM of yin over yang. Move to the trigrams and we have Thunder with XNTP and Fire with XNTJ. (the I/E dichotomy is not differentiated until level 4 and so replaced with X.)

The consistancy in data patterns/predictions when 'eating' this way suggest your association of NT and Heaven is FALSE.

See the mappings in:

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

(I had to remove the explicit MBTIPlus material as the owners of the MBTI got 'upset' ;-))

The point with the XOR is that applied to the MBTI categories it brings out not just properties but methods used in interacting with the environment and those 'fit' the prose applied to the MBTI types (and HBDI etc) from outside of IDM.

Using the IDM recursive processes takes us WAY beyond the current dogma re type etc., and allows us to detect the 'drive' of emotions on persona expression. All of which can be mapped to the IC to give more depth.

Chris.

[lightofdarkness]

Jesed,

18 = correcting corruption
50 = transformation

so correcting current corruptions (interpretable as correcting the maintaining of traditional perspectives in the light of current research in neurosciences) leads to transformations.

;-)

Chris.

[lightofdarkness]

HM,

If you read through the IC Plus material it takes the 'traditional' and extends it through application of additional material. To maintain the connections of universal with traditional I include the traditional names (showing that the traditional is a PART of the universal)

If you move to the IDM material it all covers IDM terms a la blend, bond, bound, bind. Terms I have used in the 'species I Ching' thread to bring out the underlying, generic, feelings of the qualities derived from recursion of yin/yang.

The 'questions' you have quoted above relate to the XOR material that allows us to extract a hexagram's spectrum and you have left out the FULL context that is:

01 :: (24) : How does this hexagram 'start', express 'beginning'? :: 16

02 :: (07) : How does this hexagram express uniformity, establishment of? :: 54

03 :: (19) : How does this hexagram express approaching the 'high'; defer to the 'low'? :: 40

04 :: (15) : How does this hexagram level things out, keep words close to facts? :: 55

05 :: (36) : How does this hexagram protect its 'light' when not its time? :: 62

etc etc

IOW the questions are rhetorical where the answer is given by analogy to the hexagram whose number is at the end of each 'question'. This 'spectrum' comes from the XOR-ing methodology.

I can exclude the traditional IC material to give a universal model based on generic terms of blending, bonding etc but why? This is about the IC not about something totally different. To SHOW the traditional material as sourced from the general material one needs to maintain the links ;-) - over time it could be possible to have no reference at all to the traditional IC but to see the links to the traditional IC we use elements of that IC in our showing of what is going on neurologically etc.

At the generic level, hexagram 24 covers a context of binding (sharing time with another/others) in which is a text of blending (becoming 'one', through integration, drawing someone/something 'in') - this comes out of qualities derived from basic brain dynamics, no reference at all to the IC in particular.

IOW the labels of the traditional are labels given to the cells of meaning derived from recursion of differentiate(yang)/integrate(yin) by the brain.

Move up to the more particular in the context of emotions and we have issues of fear and resolving it through devotion to another/others in a context of surprise/the sudden.

Move to the IC and this is a context of thunder in which is operating a text of earth and the traditional text maintains, to varying degrees, the same meanings. FROM there comes the additional work re XOR etc derived from analysis of the method of recursion.

The UNIVERSAL level is the qualities of blend, bond, bound, bind (aka issues of wholeness, static relatedness, partness, dynamic relatedness) there is no IC labels here (in IDM we focus on bit patterns representing wave forms or binary values etc etc). The IC labels are at the level of LOCAL EXPRESSION of these universal patterns of meaning derived from the species recursion of a dichotomy.

What you seem to dismiss is the SAMENESS across all members of the species and over-focus on the DIFFERENCES as shown in expressions. IOW to you it is all 'rooted' in the Chinese. No. The form of representation, of symbolism, is, but the qualities represented are in all of us as a species, it is not something 'unique' to the Chinese (if it was then non-chinese would not understand it at all)

Chris.

[bruce]

<font size="-2">saw that one coming, ie:18-50</font>

[jesed]

"interpretable as correcting the maintaining of traditional perspectives in the light of current research in neurosciences"

it is a posibility of interpretation, indeed.. but not the only one, isn't?
specially if one read the changing line (beacuse, if what was spoiled="traditonal perspectives", then the line 4 would mean that you are accepting and tolerating "traditonal perspectives". And it is obvious that you aren't doing that)

But what about your own exercise? because, if you read the proposal, there was steps: a)i did some questions and post the answer; b) you do the same questions and post the answers; c) i do the traditional interpretation; d) you do the ICPlus interpretation; e)we both try to get some conclusions.

But I guess you don't accept what others think or other's proposal. Is all about what you think and your own proposal only.

[hmesker]

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

HM,

If you read through the IC Plus material it takes the 'traditional' and extends it through application of additional material. Blahblah etc.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
Funny: you are completely ignoring what I said. You use a lot of words but you are not communicating.

And still, when you say to Jesed that
<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

18 = correcting corruption
50 = transformation<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
you are still using traditional views to explain the meaning of hexagrams, instead of your own material. It seems that when it comes to it there is nothing that can beat that.

HM

[jesed]

Hi Cris

Since you avoid the step b), let's move to the step c):

According with traditional teachings

1.- Every hexagram points, among other meanings, both to objective situations and subjective positions.

2.- In hex 18, the objective situation is like having worms in the food. That is why, the name of the hexagram can be translated as: "corruption, decay, decadence, rot, putrefaction, worms (in food or the belly), toxicity, poison, pestilence; bad medicine, bad magic, slow poison, venom; fixation (s), stagnation, deception, guile, delusion, insanity" (Bradford translation)

3.- The same hex 18, as subjective position, is the responsability of repair that objective situation (as the Judgment says, specially if you take the Tuan Zhuan). That is why, another way to translate the name is "renewal, healing, curing, purging,detoxifying" (Bradford's translation)

4.- The same hex 18, as a cualification of a person/idea/undertake, is the result from face the changing line(s) with both the subjective and objective situation. In line 4, we can see that in an objective situation of putrefaction and a subjective position of resposability of repair that situation, the person/idea/undertake is not doing what he/she/it should do but tolerating that wrong situation. Of course, that means a bad cualification of the person/idea/undertake

5.- If the question is the cualification of an idea, the above can be "translate" like: the person have a dogmatic/wrong idea; he/she should review his/her conceptions; but he/she is holding to his/her own point of view.

6.- The effect of this cualification is described in the line 4 of hex 50: "A cauldron with a broken leg. Overturning the duke?s meal
His person is soiled. Woe" (Bradford's translation) (note that the relationship between 18.4 and 50.4 is cause/efect: 50.4 is the effect of 18.4 and 18.4 is the cause of 50.4 but not viceversa. Is what Bradford name fan yao)

7.- If the question is the cualification of an idea, the above can be "translate" like: the idea is "uneatable".

8.- In traditional teachings there is not one binary secuence (as seems to be in ICPlus).. but 8 binary secuences (4 "microcosmical" and 4 "macrocosmical"). Normally I don't use them in the forum, because the general consecuences of them are implicit in the traditional commentaries of the principal hex, but if you want it I could transcript the pairs of 18 in the 8 secuences.

best wishes

[lightofdarkness]

HM of you bothered to go through the IC plus material you would perhaps start to 'get it'! The ICPlus material covers the application of recursion to a dichotomy and the qualities that emerge as universal that are then localised, given colour, by the local context.

That LOCAL context will assign arbitrary labels to the universals where the set of labels we are covering here are what we call the 'traditional sequence'.

From the universal level, the quality in the cell that the label "hexagram 18" represents is of a context of sharing time with another/others (contractive binding) within which is operating a text of sharing space with another/others (contractive bonding).

There is no 'chinese' element here, it is all pure expression at the general, species-level of our being. LOCALISE the binding and bonding universals in a chinese context and out will pop labels linking the universals to local conditions/language.

Refine these generic qualities and the sharing of time with another/others is refined into the properties, in the IC, of wind with its focus on cultivation/anticipation (and these cover both 'right' doing and 'wrong' doing).

IOW the qualities associated with contractive binding, a category derived from recursion of differentiate/integrate dichotomy operating in our brains, are expressed LOCALLY, culturally and so collectively in the Chinese label of 'wind' - as they are expressed in the emotional label derived from research into the categories of emotions of 'anticipation'.

The SAME 'cells' of qualities are used in ALL category systems based on recursion of a dichotomy - there is ONE set of qualities used in MANY specialist perspectives.

The LABEL is arbitrary, what it represents is hard-coded into all of us as species-members.

Knowing the method of deriving the qualities so we find that the method comes with properties such as described in the ICPlus XOR material - where, for example, the skeletal form of 18 is described by analogy to the under-exaggerated qualities of hexagram 11.

IOW from understanding the GENERAL, UNIVERSAL, properties and methods of recursion we bring out qualities etc at the LOCAL level that are useful in understanding what hexagram 18 covers - and it all comes from the certainty of the methodology.

This does not 'remove' the traditional labels of the IC, it does allow for their refinement in meaning in that we can be more precise in labelling what is represented. (e.g. the pattern of contractive blending is 000000 and is known as 'earth' or 'the receptive'. But what is represented is more general in that we cover (a) the competitive nature of darkness vs light and (b) the cooperative nature of female with male. The ICPlus pages cover all of this 'dual' or 'paired' interpretations all the way up to quartets, octets, and to the full 64 hexagram sequences and so extend understanding of 000000 way beyond the 'traditional' material.

The ability to do this comes from understanding the derivation of meaning by us as a species - the traditional IC as such is a collection of metaphors/anologies used to describe qualities we all share as neuron-dependent life forms - that is 'why' it all 'works'.

The traditional texts etc are extremely limiting in their scope simply because they are specialist and so 'demand' understanding of the local. Through the IDM analysis of meaning derivation so there is no longer the demand to understand the local, all you need to do is understand the GENERAL qualities out of which you can make your own local.

Chris.

[jesed]

Hi cris

You had said that.. and I had notice that.

If you read the previous post, you can see that I did the proposal "i do the traditional interpretation and you do the ICPlus interpretation".

So, you has decide no to do your own questions and answer... is ok. I had do the c) step (traditional interpretation. Of course, it means that you can not expect that I do a traditional interpretation using the ICPlus, isn't? I think is obvious).

Now, maybe you can do an ICPlus interpretation of the answer 18.4 to one of the questions (or both, as you wish)

Just a favor (in case you wish to do that): try to respond with a straight conclusion.

best wishes

[lightofdarkness]

>
> According with traditional teachings
>
> 1.- Every hexagram points, among other meanings, both to objective
> situations and subjective positions.
>

In IDM and its focus on the IC in ICPlus there is a set of qualities derived to serve as universals in describing 'anything' real or imagined - IOW at the general level there is no distinction of subjective/objective. THAT distinction is made LOCALLY. The IC symbolisms are a set of labels mapped to the set of generic qualities derived by the neurology.

It is thus LOCAL CONTEXT that adds colour to these universals. When we map the binary sequence of the IC to the template of qualities identified above we have the cell that is labelled in the IC as hex 18 'containing' the qualities of a context of issues with sharing time with another/others - be it positive (cultivating right) or negative (anticipating wrong)

ANY local context that elicits the generic qualities in this cell will, by association, 'fit' the label of "hexagram 18" of the I Ching.

In the ad hoc development of the I Ching WITHOUT understanding the underlying neurology seeding meaning will emerge MANY particular associations to this ONE GENERAL cell of meaning.

In the ICPLus pages I use a number of labels etc to communicate this generic quality that is represented in the IC as 'hexagram 18':

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/lofting/x100010.html

The generic focus is on (a) corruption by neglect and (b) criminal corruption. The ACTION involved is on correcting that corruption where the skeletal form of that action is described by analogy to hexagram 11 with a focus on harmonising/balancing - IOW the generic 'vibe' seeding hex 18 is on mediation to 'restore' balance etc. (the reverse is also for 11 where its focus on harmonising/balancing is seeded by a need to 'correct')

Given the use of 'bit' values in representations (0/1 dichotomy) we discover that we can extract the spectrum of 18 to show ALL of the other hexagrams being expressed through 18. (and so the '27-hess' of 18 is 11).

This XOR work is 'mathematical' in that it is not 'derived' by me, it is a product of recursion such that we can elicit a LOT of details about any hexagram by using logic operators that are parts of our brains and thinking (e.g. hexagram 18's "correct sequence" - how it completes without interference etc is derived by XOR-ing 18 with the hexagram of correct sequence - 63. This gives us:

010001
101010
------
111011 = 09 the making of small gains (and so small 'corrections') is the 'correct sequence' through the quality represented in 18. With this can come prose covering the issues of making too large corrections or no corrections at all etc where the 'correct' path is to make small corrections and so gains. In the realm of personal relationships this gets into the need to maintain and develop the relationship through continual 'correcting' of misunderstanding etc - and so avoid things building-up and getting out of hand etc.

The ICPlus covers the 'language of the vague' and so covers all possible expressions of hexagrams as universals. LOCAL context then adds the 'colour'.

BTW - In IC PLUS there are thousands of binary sequences but all derived from the one 'natural' sequence of recursing yin/yang. The fact that you are not aware of this shows how much time you have spent going through the ICPlus material - very little!

For discussion etc see such pages as:

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

...and the collection of pages etc into the ICPlus page:

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


... or ask me more questions ;-) .....

..... or go through the following about the use of micro 'binary sequences' in the IC ( I have pasted this from my own list due to the content covering some aspects of 18):

--------------fractal nature of self-referencing/self-similar --------

If we take the binary sequence of the IC and fold it into its eight
octets we get a matrix of:

02 23 08 20 16 35 45 12 (earth base)
15 52 39 53 62 56 31 33 (mountain base)
07 04 29 59 40 64 47 06 (water base)
46 18 48 57 32 50 28 44 (wind base)
-------------------------
24 27 03 42 51 21 17 25 (thunder base)
36 22 63 37 55 30 49 13 (fire base)
19 41 60 61 54 38 58 10 (lake base)
11 26 05 09 34 14 43 01 (heaven base)

We can interpret the full sequence as a sequence of 32 pairs where
the 16 yin-based pairs structurally 'oppose' the 16 yang-based pairs
such that we can form pairs of 'opposites' a la 02/01, 23/43, 08/14
etc etc

BUT, since EACH octet is itself a representitive of a binary sequence
so we can form opposites in each octet such as:

02/12, 23/45, 08/35, 20/16 etc etc

BUT, since the ordering of the octets is in opposites so we can form
opposite octets to give 16-hexagram 'binary' sequences:

02 23 08 20 16 35 45 12 (earth base)
11 26 05 09 34 14 43 01 (heaven base)

'opposite' pairs 02/01, 23/43, 08/14, 20/34, 16/09, 35/05, 45/26,
12/11

15 52 39 53 62 56 31 33 (mountain base)
19 41 60 61 54 38 58 10 (lake base)

07 04 29 59 40 64 47 06 (water base)
36 22 63 37 55 30 49 13 (fire base)

46 18 48 57 32 50 28 44 (wind base)
24 27 03 42 51 21 17 25 (thunder base)

BUT, being binary we can apply a method here that is applied at
the 'big scale' binary sequence - variations on a theme. Rather
than 'oppose' one side of the binary with the other, we 'slide' one
side over the other.

In the full sequence this will give us:

02 23 08 20 16 35 45 12 (earth base)
24 27 03 42 51 21 17 25 (thunder base)

15 52 39 53 62 56 31 33 (mountain base)
36 22 63 37 55 30 49 13 (fire base)

07 04 29 59 40 64 47 06 (water base)
19 41 60 61 54 38 58 10 (lake base)

46 18 48 57 32 50 28 44 (wind base)
11 26 05 09 34 14 43 01 (heaven base)

Here each column in the pairs of octets reflects a one line
difference between the bottom hexagram and the top (02/24, 23/27 etc
etc)

This is applicable to the 'micro' binary sequences made up of octet
pairs such that we get:

opposites
(earth base - heaven base)
02 23 08 20 16 35 45 12 - 11 26 05 09 34 14 43 01

becomes

variations
02 23 08 20 16 35 45 12
11 26 05 09 34 14 43 01

where the columns are variations on a theme. To complete the sets:

(mountain - lake)
15 52 39 53 62 56 31 33 - 19 41 60 61 54 38 58 10

(15 opposes 10, 52 opposes 58)

becomes:

15 52 39 53 62 56 31 33
19 41 60 61 54 38 58 10

15 and 19 share a theme.
52 and 41 share a theme. etc

(water vs fire opposites)
07 04 29 59 40 64 47 06 - 36 22 63 37 55 30 49 13

(water vs fire as variations (columns))

07 04 29 59 40 64 47 06 (water base)
36 22 63 37 55 30 49 13 (fire base)

07 and 36 share a theme, 04 and 22 etc etc

(wind vs thunder opposites)
46 18 48 57 32 50 28 44 - 24 27 03 42 51 21 17 25

(wind vs thunder as variations (columns))

46 18 48 57 32 50 28 44
24 27 03 42 51 21 17 25

46 and 24 share a theme
18 and 27 share a theme etc etc

Due to this 'fractal' nature reflected in the binary sequence, we can
reduce these 'binary' sequences from 64 to 2 x 32 to 4 x 16 to 8 x 8
to 16 x 4 to 32 x 2.

IOW in each octet we have (a) the binary sequence (e.g. 46 18 48 57
32 50 28 44) and also (b) the variations (e.g.

46 18 48 57
32 50 28 44

46 and 32 share a theme etc etc

Then we have 46 18 48 57 'binary sequence' that becomes

46 18
48 57

These in turn 'reduce' to pairs of 46, 18 that are (a) opposites and
(b) variations.

If we follow octet sequences through analysis we have a binary
sequence of 16 hexagrams - two 'opposing' octets - e.g. wind and
thunder:

46 18 48 57 32 50 28 44 - 24 27 03 42 51 21 17 25

Here 46 opposes 25 structurally but the only difference of 46 to 18
is the top trigram

Make variations and we have:

46 18 48 57 32 50 28 44
24 27 03 42 51 21 17 25

The variation for 46 to 24 is the bottom trigram. IOW there is a
semantic element at work in these columns. (pushing upwards, becoming
MORE involved as reflected in 46 is a variation of the theme
of 'returning' to a particular/preferred 'path' a la 24. 18 with its
focus on correcting corruption is in a variation with 27 where we are
warned to watch what we take-in etc etc for these column pairs)

Reduce the binary sequence to within an octet and
interpret 'opposites':

46 18 48 57 - 32 50 28 44

e.g. 46 'opposes' 44

go to variations:

46 18 48 57
32 50 28 44

46 variation is with 32.
18 with 50 etc etc

reduce the binary sequence to:

46 18 - 48 57

46 'opposes' 57
18 'opposes' 48

reduce to variations:

46 18
48 57

46 variation with 48
18 variation with 57



Chris.

[lightofdarkness]

Jesed, 18.4 turns into this dodecagram (which is what hexagrams with changing lines in fact represent:

011001 -> 011x01 -> 001111010011)

What does THAT represent? still working on it. from a 'hexagram over hexagram' perspective it is 59 over 33.

If we stick to hexagrams alone then line 4 is related to qualities of 16 (see pages on wave interpretations etc -

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/IChingPlus/WaveInterpret.html )

The ICPlus INTERPRETATION of 18.4 based on the 'traditional' ERANOS text is covered in the line comments at page:

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/lofting/100010.html

but the derivation method used re 'random' methods comes with doubts - so try the proactive methodology for an ICPlus interpretation:

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

Chris

[lightofdarkness]

oops,

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/lofting/100010.html should be http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/lofting/100110.html

line 4 is:

Line 4
"To be able to talk about the problems, to know what they are (map them out) and yet do nothing brings humiliation."

sorry -

Chris.

[jesed]

straight answer..indeed

but remains some doubst to me

1.- when you wrote "The generic focus is on (a) corruption by neglect and (b) criminal corruption",
how can you know that the corruption is in the traditional teachings and not in your own idea against traditional teaching? (even more, because the questions was your idea and not traditional teachings)

2.- when you wrote. "The ACTION involved is on correcting that corruption where the skeletal form of that action is described by analogy to hexagram 11 with a focus on armonising/balancing",
how can you know that the action is correct traditonal teachings and not correct your idea against traditional teachings? (even more, because the questions was your idea and not traditional teachings)

3.- When you wrote "With this can come prose covering the issues of making too large corrections or no corrections at all etc where the 'correct' path is to make small corrections and so gains",
how can you know that you should do large corrections to traditional teachings instead not-doing corrections to traditional teachings at all? (remember, this Universals are used to solve a concrete question)

4.- You wrote "In the realm of personal relationships this gets into the need to maintain and develop the relationship through continual 'correcting' of misunderstanding etc "
If this is related to the first question (why you acted like you did), how can you know that you should try to "correct" Harmen instead of correct your own conduct? or yur own idea in the case of the second question?

5.- You wrote: "In IC PLUS there are thousands of binary sequences but all derived from the one 'natural' sequence of recursing yin/yang. The fact that you are not aware of this shows how much time you have spent going through the ICPlus material - very little!"
Your thounsands secuences, are really the "resultant" of doing the unique "one natural" secuence of yin/yang with diferent hexagrams, isn't?.
So, you have only one secuence (one way to derivate those resultants), isn't?.
(Otherwise, you contradict yourself with thousands secuences derivated of the one natural secuence. The 8 secuences I wrote about are 8 diferent ways to derivate "resultants". By the way, I had read your articles, but you hadn't read many of traditional teachings, as you said weeks ago)


As you can see, yes I had a lot of questions...
but know I now that I cnn't expect straight answers to those questions

[jesed]

ps... in order you notice that I read your linked pages:

In your comment about 18 (http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/lofting/100110.html), you wote that the "degeneration caused by spiritual neglect" sy,mbolized in 18 is "the price of too much cultivation"
But, how can you know which "too much cultivation" is? harmen's cultivation? bradford's cultivation? yours? (You wouldn't think that I have "much cultivation" at all, isn't?)

[hmesker]

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

HM of you bothered to go through the IC plus material you would perhaps start to 'get it'!<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
You always assume that I do not read what you write on your site (you do a lot of these assumptions), it seems to be your standard answer when someone disagrees with what you say: 'just read my website!'. But you know that your site is totally incomprehensible to me. Again, you use a lot of words but you are not communicating. If you want me to understand/believe what you say you at least have to try to speak my language. You can't expect me to turn into an amateur neuro-scientist just to understand your website. The problem is also that you have a lot of old stuff lying around on the web, there are a lot of broken links, and I cannot judge what is still relevant and what isn't.

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

From the universal level, the quality in the cell that the label "hexagram 18" represents is of a context of sharing time with another/others (contractive binding) within which is operating a text of sharing space with another/others (contractive bonding).

There is no 'chinese' element here, it is all pure expression at the general, species-level of our being. LOCALISE the binding and bonding universals in a chinese context and out will pop labels linking the universals to local conditions/language.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
If there is 'no chinese element here', then why do you still use the Chinese labels? If you still use the Chinese labels/names, then there are still Chinese elements in your work.

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

Knowing the method of deriving the qualities so we find that the method comes with properties such as described in the ICPlus XOR material - where, for example, the skeletal form of 18 is described by analogy to the under-exaggerated qualities of hexagram 11.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
And you really expect me to understand this sentence?

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

This does not 'remove' the traditional labels of the IC, it does allow for their refinement in meaning in that we can be more precise in labelling what is represented.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

Still, with at the basis the traditional labels. Suppose if you did not know that hexagram 18 was called 'corruption' or something similar, would your system (it is nothing more than that) still point to that meaning? I believe your first starting point will always be the traditional views/names of the hexagrams. Because without it, you are lost.

HM

[lightofdarkness]

> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Posted by Jesed (Jesed) on Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 10:07 am:
>
> straight answer..indeed
>
> but remains some doubst to me
>
> 1.- when you wrote "The generic focus is on (a) corruption by neglect
> and (b) criminal corruption",
> how can you know that the corruption is in the traditional teachings
> and not in your own idea against traditional teaching? (even more,
> because the questions was your idea and not traditional teachings)
>

? I think you may be confused. The traditional sequence and associated prose presents a perspective rooted in the local context of ancient china. That perspective, as presented in the I Ching texts is based on lack of knowledge of the inner workings of how we, as a species, derive meaning. As such, the traditional IC has been derived from an ad hoc development path at the level of expression and in that development contains explanations of IC development that is 'fanciful'.

When we analyse the general meanings associated with hexagrams and trigrams we find they express universal qualities in local terms. When we move to the general so we also move to the vague where we come across the level from which all meaning is seeded and all words are attempts to describe those 'vague' qualities.

In the particular, traditional IC material for hex 18 the focus is on issues of corruption, neglect, etc. In the universal it is on qualities described by association with issues of a context of sharing time with another/others in which is operating a text of sharing space with another/others - simply put to contractive bonding in a context of contractive binding.

This vague composite of basic qualities serves as a source for reference to MANY local contexts, especially one covering 'corruption, neglect, etc'. The focus on neglect, decay in the traditional text indicates an association with something rotting - only possible over time (gets into the sharing of time with another/others of the general meaning).

The focus on bonding, is sharing space with another/others covers generic qualities associated with relationships that are static, eternal. In the IC these particular qualities when contracting are associated with quality control, discernment that come out of the more primitive being blocked, stopped etc. (the sense of the eternal reflect this focus on static, stay still, not moving)

IOW the particulars of the hexagram and its associated trigrams etc have their roots in qualities derived from what our brains do in deriving generic meaning unconsciously. IOW the making of the particular hexagrams etc come from the attempts to describe feelings sourced in our unconscious as a species, not as Chinese. What is Chinese is the LOCAL forms of expression.

The contractive bonding/binding qualities that are identified in the IC through hexagram 18 are the same qualities that are identified in the MBTI, in categories of emotions, and of types of numbers of Mathematics.

The qualities are generic and unconscious - we communicate through use of words to elicit resonance. LOCAL languages use visual/auditory methods to elicit resonance.


> 2.- when you wrote. "The ACTION involved is on correcting that
> corruption where the skeletal form of that action is described by
> analogy to hexagram 11 with a focus on armonising/balancing",
> how can you know that the action is correct traditonal teachings and
> not correct your idea against traditional teachings? (even more,
> because the questions was your idea and not traditional teachings)
>

As the above comments to point 1 show, the generic qualities are part of our species nature, unconscious to us as conscious being but serving as a seed for communicating. IOW the generic qualities associated with 18 are qualities we all share as species-members. LOCAL differences can then add variations etc.

The methodology in deriving the hexagrams from recursion of yin/yang also encodes relationships to all hexagrams THROUGH each. This gets into the ICPlus focus on a hexagram's spectrum.

IOW there is a relationship of the hex 18 labelled cell and the hex 11 labelled cell where they serve as sources of analogy/metaphor to describe each other's skeletal (27-ness) form. This relationship is universal for recursion such that the 18-11 relationship is not open to discussion as 'could be' or 'could not be' in that it is certain given the methodology of recursion. (as is the 63-ness or 34-ness etc etc. What IS open to discussion are the LOCAL expressions, the LOCAL biases that colour these expressions.)

> 3.- When you wrote "With this can come prose covering the issues of
> making too large corrections or no corrections at all etc where the
> 'correct' path is to make small corrections and so gains",
> how can you know that you should do large corrections to traditional
> teachings instead not-doing corrections to traditional teachings at
> all? (remember, this Universals are used to solve a concrete question)
>

These comments of mine relate to the prose that can follow identifying the 'correct sequence' as 09. IOW here we have a hard-coded behaviour as the 'correct sequence' for 18 where all others, be they large correcting or non-correcting, are considered as 'not correct'.

This does not make them 'wrong', just 'not correct' ;-) - ideal conditions for a 'correct sequence' are not common but are useful as a guide.

> 4.- You wrote "In the realm of personal relationships this gets into
> the need to maintain and develop the relationship through continual
> 'correcting' of misunderstanding etc "
> If this is related to the first question (why you acted like you did),
> how can you know that you should try to "correct" Harmen instead of
> correct your own conduct? or yur own idea in the case of the second
> question?
>

Harmen is focused on maintaining a 'traditional' perspective without consideration of what has happened in the area of psychology, neurosciences, etc etc over the last 3000+ years. THAT is an example of corrupt thinking, an example of neglect, a failure to keep the IC up-to-date (and so either (a) prove its universality or (b) let it fade out. I think (a) is the path to go))

As I said to Harmen etc before, all comments upto my post re the subject of this thread were focused on perpetuating the 'traditional' perspective and that is, to me, an act of neglect of the universal IC in favour of the 'traditional' material a la "but we have always done it that way"

> 5.- You wrote: "In IC PLUS there are thousands of binary sequences but
> all derived from the one 'natural' sequence of recursing yin/yang. The
> fact that you are not aware of this shows how much time you have spent
> going through the ICPlus material - very little!"
> Your thounsands secuences, are really the "resultant" of doing the
> unique "one natural" secuence of yin/yang with diferent hexagrams,
> isn't?.
> So, you have only one secuence (one way to derivate those resultants),
> isn't?.
> (Otherwise, you contradict yourself with thousands secuences derivated
> of the one natural secuence. The 8 secuences I wrote about are 8
> diferent ways to derivate "resultants". By the way, I had read your
> articles, but you hadn't read many of traditional teachings, as you
> said weeks ago)
>

The template allows you to put in any pair of hexagrams to derive a sequence of qualities spanning the pair. For example the 'natural' binary sequence of recursing yin/yang is in fact interpretable as recursing the hexagram pair of 01/02. The traditional sequence indicates the recursion of the hexagram pair of 01/64 (see my page: http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/cracked.html )

For work on compass patterns using the binary and traditional etc see such pages as http://members.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond/onemany.html

Due to the nature of the sequences of 64 (which can be converted to sequences of 4096 etc) it becomes obvious that we are dealing with the properties and methods of the brain in its creation and use of languages - the IC being a language.

Chris.

[lightofdarkness]

Harmen, to understand the universal IC you will need to step out of your box and into mine and so learn new terms and understanding of XOR dynamics etc.

If you refuse to do that and feel 'safer' in your box then I suggest you (a) stay in your box and (b) do not venture out into the deep in future - you will flounder and I will not rescue you - you need to learn to swim in the 'new paradigm' or leave it alone. To just complain about what you obviously dont understand and/or are not interested in serves no purpose.

Chris.

[lightofdarkness]

Jesed, a note on references - the particular IC material is listed in:

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

it is not up to date but it gives you an idea of what went in to the cognitive analysis of the translations/interpretations.

For the neurosciences etc refs see the links off my IDM pages.

Chris.

[jesed]

So, if I understood your last post... all the tools of ICPlus cann't allows us to answer the questions i did?

Because, in the empiric case that I was wondering if your idea against traditional teachings are correct or not, I got 18.4 ==> 50: I can get with ICPlus "universals", that allows me to know how human brain works, and describe characteristics that all we share as specie... but even if ICPlus points that 18 "generic focus is on (a) corruption by neglect and (b) criminal corruption", and that "The ACTION involved is on correcting that corruption where the skeletal form of that action is described by analogy to hexagram 11 with a focus on armonising/balancing" and even more.. the fact is that nothing of that can be apply to know if your idea against traditional teachings is correct or not????

In this case, the way ICPlus describe it, the I Ching allows us to know how our brain derivate meaning, but it is unpractical to solve concrete questions.

Now, talking about empiric demostrations... the empiric fact is that I ching has been useful to solve practical questions.

mmmm something is wrong, isn't?

But as any fundamentalist can say: "if the reality clash with my theory, worst for the reality". ;)

[jesed]

Now, using your own words:

"to understand traditional teachings you will need to step out of your box and into mine and so learn new terms and understanding of "microcosmical" and "macrocosmical" dynamics etc.

If you refuse to do that and feel 'safer' in your box then I suggest you (a) stay in your box... To just despise about what you obviously dont understand and/or are not interested in serves no purpose."

"shows the degree of fundamentalism present - as you show in you attack upon something (traditional teachings) you obviously dont understand nore consider trying to - a common behaviour in fundamentalism ;-) "

[hmesker]

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

Harmen, to understand the universal IC you will need to step out of your box and into mine and so learn new terms and understanding of XOR dynamics etc.

If you refuse to do that and feel 'safer' in your box then I suggest you (a) stay in your box and (b) do not venture out into the deep in future - you will flounder and I will not rescue you - you need to learn to swim in the 'new paradigm' or leave it alone. To just complain about what you obviously dont understand and/or are not interested in serves no purpose.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
And this is what you always do: others have to adapt to your standards to understand what you write. That is not very realistic, is it? Instead of pointing at others and say "it's not my fault they don't understand it. They don't talk my language" you could take responsability for your writing and accept that it is, as Steve Marshall puts it, 'unpalatable tripe'. After a few centuries the traditional view of the Yijing will still hold up, and if you don't change your way of writing and use easier language that a layman can understand, your website and ideas will die out the moment you have to let it all go and dissolve in eternity.

And still you are not communicating and you are not addressing what I present you. You selectively ignore what does not fit in your theories. So who's in a box here?

[martin]

Hexagram 18, "system thinking"? It is saturn over mercury in my planet .. err .. system. Lol.

The term "system" could refer to traditional systems as well as IDM here.
In contrast hexagram 50 in the background - jupiter over mercury - corresponds to a more open, more fluid and alive kind of thinking.

A problem with 18, if it is interpreted in this way, is that the mind is more or less caught up in a system, it tends to be a "closed" mind that cannot see what is outside its perspective.
(interestingly contrasting it with the openmindedness of 50 brings out line 4, troubles caused by the father. Father, saturn, system?)
And it seems that this is what the discussion in this thread is all about. For Chris traditional views are too closed and for others IDM is too closed.
Right?

[hmesker]

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

And it seems that this is what the discussion in this thread is all about. For Chris traditional views are too closed and for others IDM is too closed.
Right?<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
Yes. Well put, as far as I'm concerned.

HM

[jesed]

Hi Martin

Even if i personally don't like mix Yi Jing with astrology, I always find your comment interesting.

Just a little precision about me: I don't think IDM is too closed. I had said, and it is not rethorical, that I find intersting Chris' work.

My point is not about ICplus itself... but about the idea against traditional techings.

As I said in the thread "are traditional teachings a lacking knowledgment": so much of Chris' work are saying the same than traditional teachings on Yi Jing, with other lenguage (as most of neuroscience are saying the same than traditional teaching on mind development or most of quantic science are saying the same than traditional techings on energy).

So, the fact that now we can describe the same "laws" with a modern leanguage, doesn't mean that the traditional teachings are less truthful.. just diferent lenguages http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif

[lightofdarkness]

> Posted by Jesed (Jesed) on Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 1:51 pm:
>
> So, if I understood your last post... all the tools of ICPlus cann't
> allows us to answer the questions i did?
>

ICPlus can in fact do better than the 'traditional' methods.


> Because, in the empiric case that I was wondering if your idea against
> traditional teachings are correct or not, I got 18.4 ==> 50:


How? Tossing coins or yarrow sticks? Possible delusion. What happens with this sort of 'random/miraculous' methodology is that the WHOLE of the I Ching, and so that whole with all of its parts, and that includes 64 hexagrams, filters the context (your question) and as such will guarantee 'meaning' no matter what particular hexagram you get.

The I Ching as a 'universal' filter will ALWAYS 'fit' some context where the particular context will sort the hexagrams into a sequence of 64 from best fit to worst fit.

Your consciousness is an agent of mediation and will focus on the 'best fit'. The 'random/miraculous' methodologies will give you a 1 in 64 chance of the hexagram you derive as being the 'best fit'.

To make sense of the IC you MUST have a question since the filter will not work without a context it can overlay. All hexagrams are applicable to ANY moment so the tossing of coins etc is just that, a random process (or you can use yarrow stick method and get a bias to yin) such that you will get a particular hexagram supposedly being the 'best fit' but it is not consistently so - you can get the 2nd best, 13th best, 64th best (aka worst).

To understand whole/part, background/foreground processing in the brain (and so applied to the IC) see http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/wavedicho.html

Investigation by IDM shows that there IS a way of getting the best fit more consistently and it involves the use of questions. So I suggest you phrase your question to the proactive IC pages:

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

This is VERY practical in answering concrete questions (and it will be improved upon with the XOR data etc).

Using the 'traditional' methods of consulting the I Ching will not consistently give you the 'best fit' hexagram for the particular context you are working with. The use of that method will give enough 'meaning' to appear as if the IC 'replied' to you. It didn?t. You did or more so the 'confused' belief systems that can go with these sorts of 'divination' systems.

What one can do is use the random methods to give an aspect of the whole one may not have considered when analysing/reflecting-upon the problem/situation - this being that ALL hexagrams will contribute to the meaning of a situation where their contribution is in their position in the best-fit/worst-fit ordering. If you don?t know the ordering etc that?s fine, just toss coins etc and consider what you get as an aspect of the situation and not necessarily the 'best fit' - using questions will do better in getting thst 'best fit'.


So .. as to your questions, if derived using random/miraculous methods show an eduction lacking understanding of how 'in here' actually works - here is an example of what happens in other contexts when people are ignorant or fail to include modern research in their assertions about reality etc:

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

Simply put, the originators of the IC had no idea what they were dealing with, they just 'felt' that they got value out of what they did - but as above demonstrates any moment will be a WHOLE and each part of that whole will elicit 'meaning' when presented - but with a sort of best-fit to worst-fit.

The above is all covered at my websites, previous threads on clarity etc and since you seem to no be aware of this I can assume you have not read the material as yet ;-)

To use the IC as a universal means to step out of the traditional box and into the bigger box where the traditional is not 'the whole' but an aspec of it. From that position the IC moves into the 21st century.

Chris.

[jesed]

Chris

I did a proposal to you: i do the questions and interpretation in the way I know.. and you do the questions and interpretation in the way you know...

I did it in the way i know... you didn't in the way you know. With this fact, is unfair and useles to now avoid the questions to your position with the descalification of the way i got the hexagram.

But, here another oportunity for you. Don't just say ICPlus can respond the questions I did better than the 'traditional' methods (as we must have some kind of religious faith in your saying).. SHOW IT.

Give us a straight answer with the way you know of getting the "best fit" hexagram and the way of interpreting it. And the, we continue the comparison.

Other wise, you actually wants that we believe that ICPlus can give a better answer just because you say it does. And that is just like any other faith.

[lightofdarkness]

Hermen,

you wrote:

"After a few centuries the traditional view of the Yijing will still hold up, and if you don't change your way of writing and use easier language that a layman can understand, your website and ideas will die out the moment you have to let it all go and dissolve in eternity."

you still dont get it - you focus on expression and so fail to see behind it for that is where IDM comes from. The traditional view is NOT replaced by ICPlus, it is enhanced and is 'allowed' to coexist with the universal in that there is no need to replace it. As a historical document etc and foundational to Chinese culture etc it will continue - BUT there is now additional material that 'adds light' to how the IC has survived for so long - showing it for what it is, a source of analogy/metaphor in describing what our brains communicate - patterns of differentiating/integrating.

Oh - and as for that quote of Marshall's - LOL! he is in the same boat as you - over-specialised and suddenly faced with something not considered in your specialisation and so a threat to that specialisation. The energy that you and Marshall have put into working with the traditional material will force you to 'reject' any 'new paradigms' since they can impoverish your own work, marginalise your efforts and so your identity that is also wrapped-up in your specialisation. There is little I can do to hep you deal with these issues - I just go where the research data takes me ;-) and that means that perspectives based on out-of-date information will need to adapt to remain 'valid' perspectives.

Chris.

[jesed]

ps... had you notice one FACT? you repeat the sames ARGUMENTS and ASUMPTIONS (ideas.. so not empiric comprobations), but you avoid commitment with the empiric exercise I proposed to you. Argument without empiric comprobation is science to you? even more.. basis your arguments on asumptions is a scientific aproach?

[lightofdarkness]

Jesed, I have given you the explanation of ICPlus 'questions' and given you a link to the proactive pages so you can try it out for yourself. SO ... use your method to ask the question, toss your coins, etc and then use the ICPlus questions method and see which comes up more consistantly with the 'best fit' hexagram. simple. No involvement with me at all, just the computer. ;-)

Chris.

[jesed]

nooooo
since the begining, the proposal was that YOU shows how your sistem works...

but of course, you can accept others proposals, isn't?

[martin]

"Using the 'traditional' methods of consulting the I Ching will not consistently give you the 'best fit' hexagram for the particular context you are working with. The use of that method will give enough 'meaning' to appear as if the IC 'replied' to you. It didn?t."

How can you be so sure about that, Chris?
Personally I have little doubt that there is indeed something/somebody that replies.
I think we hide a lot behind the word "random" that we - at least scientifically - don't understand.

[lightofdarkness]

Jesed, you are now being irrational. I supplied a link to a page that described how it all works and you can try it out. What is the issue with that? The page, written by me, shows how it works so it is my agent ;-)

I dont understand how you find this a problem unless you think there is some competitiveness here - maybe from you but not from me, I am being overally cooperative.

Chris.

[lightofdarkness]

Martin, if you need to believe what you believe that is fine, but the IDM material indicates that there is no need for such a belief to explain things - it can be explained from simple work in neurosciences and issues of consciousness/unconsciousness etc etc. IOW there is no need for the 'god hypothesis' at this time ;-)

I think a major 'issue' has been with consciousness thinking it is the 'all' when the data suggests it is in fact a PART of a whole. The conceit, the vanity of consciousness has, and will continue, to cause 'problems' in interpreting reality since its purpose is to mediate and so interpret BUT it knows nothing of 'out there' other than what comes from instincts or imagination!

Chris.

[jesed]

Hi Chris:

You misunderstand again ( i use to believe you did misunderstand unintentionally, but now i doubt it).

I had try your proactive page several times. Is not about that. And it is not about competitiveness, but about a concrete empiric exercise of comparison. But, again you try to avoid empiric issues.

[jesed]

ps.
since you are not willing to accept the proposal i did for you, i have no interest in continue in this thread

[martin]

Lol, if you need to believe what you believe (or if you need to not believe what you don't believe, for that matter) that is also fine with me, Chris.
But from a science viewpoint "this is random" and "this is not random" are both just beliefs, aren't they?
As far as I see this whole issue is scientifically undecidable at the moment.
I know that many socalled "rational" people will discard the idea that the IC indeed responds as utter nonsense. But that is not an argument, or is it? And these people are not really "rational", or are they?

[hmesker]

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

you still dont get it - you focus on expression and so fail to see behind it for that is where IDM comes from. The traditional view is NOT replaced by ICPlus, it is enhanced and is 'allowed' to coexist with the universal in that there is no need to replace it.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
If ICPlus does not replace the traditional view, then why do you want as to disregard the traditional view? All your messages say the same over and over again: that the traditional view is outmoded and we should all switch to ICPlus (which is based on the traditional view).

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

As a historical document etc and foundational to Chinese culture etc it will continue - BUT there is now additional material that 'adds light' to how the IC has survived for so long - showing it for what it is, a source of analogy/metaphor in describing what our brains communicate - patterns of differentiating/integrating.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
These are your assumptions, it is not science, there is no proof for this. Odd, since you cling so much to science.

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

The energy that you and Marshall have put into working with the traditional material will force you to 'reject' any 'new paradigms' since they can impoverish your own work, marginalise your efforts and so your identity that is also wrapped-up in your specialisation.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
Ah, look who's 'in a box' here. My identity is not connected to my work. And I leave room for doubt, which you seem to be afraid of. You fail to see that your material vaporizes if you leave out the traditional view. You use the traditional or accepted meanings of the trigrams and hexagrams as the foundation of your system, along with the assumption that the Yijing is 'a source of analogy/metaphor in describing what our brains communicate'. And when I ask you "Suppose if you did not know that hexagram 18 was called 'corruption' or something similar, would your system still point to that meaning? I believe your first starting point will always be the traditional views/names of the hexagrams. Because without it, you are lost" you selectively ignore it. Again: you are not communicating.

[lightofdarkness]

Jesed, I supplied a page for use in empirical analysis of questions to the IC - that said I would never bother with such questions as that asked by Hilary in your example - you obviously know VERY little about probabilities etc and seem to ignore the 'need' for the question to be 'correct' in form.

It is obvious to me that, if you have been to the proactive page you realise that you cannot ask that style of question since that style is for those who believe they are talking to someone actively and there is no evidence for this. There IS evidence for the format used at the proactive page to elicit useful meaning re the current context.

Go through my comments re ICPlus, my daughter, and her car in:

http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/messages/92/5822.html

January 11th post.

Chris.

[lightofdarkness]

HM wrote:

"If ICPlus does not replace the traditional view, then why do you want as to disregard the traditional view? All your messages say the same over and over again: that the traditional view is outmoded and we should all switch to ICPlus (which is based on the traditional view). "

I strongly suggest you go back and try and find where I have said this - since I have NEVER said it. I focus on INCLUDING the material 'discovered' in ICPlus in consideration of the UNIVERSAL I CHING.

My posts are that the promotion of the traditional perspective as the only perspective is at fault. YOU promote that perspective as do other 'traditionalists' but in doing so you do the IC a diservice.

To bring the IC into the 21st century one needs to include consideration of the last 3000 years of psychology, neurosciences, biology etc etc. YOU fail to do this and in so doing do the IC a diservice.

I include the traditional but with some 'alternatives' that suggest some of the methods used in the traditional are possibly 'misleading' and can be supplemented with better thought-out methods.

As for proof of the brain differentiating/integrating - read the research data material I supply with IDM. If you do not understand the language of the papers that is your problem - find a neuroscience dictionary. I say this since it is obvious that if I translated it for you you would accuse me of lying etc!

you wrote:

"You fail to see that your material vaporizes if you leave out the traditional view"

I DONT LEAVE IT OUT - I ADD TO IT AND CORRECT SOME "MISUNDERSTANDINGS". BY THAT CORRECTION SO THE 10century BC model moves into the 21st century AD. You really do need to be careful how you read things HM, your instinctive 'need' for competitiveness does not aid you.

Go to my websites, see the hexagram pages, the old and the new are present. Those elements of the old I consider 'out of date' or 'primitive thinking' I comment upon or leave out as not part of ICPlus but as being part of the LOCAL manifestation of the IC in its ancient chinese format.

coin tossing or yarrow sticks are NOT acceptable as methods to acquire consistant 'advice' from the IC - questions ARE consistant. That is what the research data indicates and that is what is promoted in ICPlus (and note I use ICPlus not IC in that I recognise the material ADDS TO the existing and so lifts it from a 10th century BC perspective to something more up to date)

[lightofdarkness]

Martin. the brain does its thing whether there is someone there or not. the WHOLE is unconscious and overlayed with the IC. You can be proactive and extract details using questions etc OR you can be reactive and derive hexagrams from coins etc. BOTH methods aim to bring into the foreground the 'best fit' hexagram.

If you believe that every hexagram you have derived is 100% always 'best fit' then good luck to you and BTW please supply this weeks lotto numbers for Australia - we might as well cash-in on your talent (you obviously have not for some reason....)

Chris

[bruce]

And the winning lotto jackpot numbers are (drum roll):

24 27 03 42 51 21 17 25
36 22 63 37 55 30 49 13
19 41 60 61 54 38 58 10
11 26 05 09 34 14 43 01

[martin]

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

[lightofdarkness]

24 27 03 42 51 21 17 25 thunder
36 22 63 37 55 30 49 13 fire
19 41 60 61 54 38 58 10 lake
11 26 05 09 34 14 43 01 heaven

(binary sequence lotto! cool)

[hmesker]

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

I strongly suggest you go back and try and find where I have said this - since I have NEVER said it.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
Of course not. But when you say here http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/messages/48/5821.html?1137344783#POST39513

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

hmm.... a very 'traditional' perspective and so, IMHO, missing a LOT<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
you at least imply it. If you were really 'including' the material of icplus, in other words add it, you would not find the need to say this. You want us to accept icplus because in your opinion the 'traditional perspective misses a lot'. But the nice thing about the 'traditional perspective' is that it incorporates everything - there is no need for additions/inclusions. All additions are interpretations.

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

My posts are that the promotion of the traditional perspective as the only perspective is at fault. YOU promote that perspective as do other 'traditionalists' but in doing so you do the IC a diservice.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
Of course I promote the traditional perspective but I never said it is the only perspective. But it is the only perspective that is used as the foundation of other -later- perspectives - like your icplus.

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

To bring the IC into the 21st century one needs to include consideration of the last 3000 years of psychology, neurosciences, biology etc etc. YOU fail to do this and in so doing do the IC a diservice.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
I do not 'fail to do that', I just don't see the need. The Yijing already is in the 21st century. I accept the Yijing as it is - a book with hexagrams and texts. And with this it is complete. It is not really necessary that others explain what the book can tell you or what meaning it has to you, or even worse, find the need to interpretate it for you or add material to it. The Yijing already is complete as it is. If you find the need to use it as an oracle, or apply it in another way to gain insights, then it will do the job (as will any other book). By thinking you have to add to it in order to 'bring it into the 21st century' you do the Yijing a disservice.

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

s for proof of the brain differentiating/integrating - read the research data material I supply with IDM. If you do not understand the language of the papers that is your problem - find a neuroscience dictionary. I say this since it is obvious that if I translated it for you you would accuse me of lying etc!<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
If you think it is 'obvious' that I will accuse you of lying, then you are really 'in the box'. And suggesting that I should use a dictionary to understand your website brings me back to the point where it all started with: a quality of religion is that it forces the use of new words/language to understand the dogma's it presents. If your material cannot be described using existing words and necessitates the use of new vocabulary to understand it, then it is truly a religion.

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

I DONT LEAVE IT OUT - I ADD TO IT AND CORRECT SOME "MISUNDERSTANDINGS". BY THAT CORRECTION SO THE 10century BC model moves into the 21st century AD.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
You do not need to shout, I can hear you. I am not saying that you leave out the traditional view - on the contrary, you seem to build your whole structure on the traditional view. That is why I asked, "Suppose if you did not know that hexagram 18 was called 'corruption' or something similar, would your system still point to that meaning?" But you choose to ignore that question. If the answer would be 'yes', then it gets interesting, after all, then you would have objective proof for your assumptions, right?. If the answer is 'no', well, then all your material is just another layer of interpretations based on the same old traditional views.

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

You really do need to be careful how you read things HM, your instinctive 'need' for competitiveness does not aid you.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
I do not have a 'need for competitiveness', this is pure entertainment to me. You choose to ignore my questions.

[bradford_h]

Ya know-
One of those things that came much, much later in the Yi's history, 500 years after the original Zhouyi was written, was the notion of Yin and Yang, or Rou and Gang, or any other dichotomy as somehow metaphysically or existentially fundamental to the nature of things, or the Yi. Sure there were dichotomies, notably before and after, decrease and increase, etc., but these were specifically and pointedly regarded as epiphenomenal, not central to anything. And sure there was a whole vs broken graphic that indexed the divination system and inspired images in the minds of the authors, But that was about as far as it went. All theories suggesting that the ultimate root or core of the Yi is in dichotomy or recursion fail in the light of this understanding.
I don't even think you need to know Chinese to know this.

[bruce]

Brad, that sounds so peculiar to me to think that yin/yang as the apple's core wouldn't be essential/fundamental to the building blocks which rest upon them. Even if the yin/yang symbol hadn't yet been conceived, how is it that something so primitive as polar opposites could be less than central to ancient Chinese thought?

The same for trigrams coming after hexagrams. Makes no sense to me.

[hmesker]

Bruce,

I know it sounds odd what Brad says, but he has a point. Consider this: the text of the Yi does not talk about Yin &amp; Yang, only centuries after the proposed writing of the book do we find these two words used in a philosophical sense. It is very well possible that before that time the Yi, and its use, were different from later ages. Personally I would have expected that if Yin &amp; Yang played a role from the beginning that it would also be mentioned in the text. The fact that it is not mentioned could be an indication of later implementation. I think.

Harmen.

[bruce]

Harmen,

Yes, I'm not questioning Brad's accuracy or yours in stating those findings. I'm only questioning how it could be so, not that it isn't so.

Let me ask you (plural) this, what role did gua 1 and 2 play in the development of the Yi, if not as a central dichotomy?

[hmesker]

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

what role did gua 1 and 2 play in the development of the Yi, if not as a central dichotomy<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
Personally I do not have the impression that hexagram 1 and 2 played a role in the development of (the rest of) the Yi. Even stronger put: at the moment I hardly see a link between the text of the Yi and its hexagrams. Sometimes (as in the case of hexagram 58, see http://www.i-tjingcentrum.nl/serendipity/archives/51-The-salient.html) I do see a link, but this could also be coincidence. To be honest, I am not sure.

Harmen.

[bruce]

Thanks, Harmen. There's something of a missing link here for me then, if the phenomenal world, which the Yi represents, does not have male/female ? father/mother at its core. No disrespect intended, but it seems even a child would figure that much out. That's why it mystifies me when historical records seem to defy logic, and it's also why I don't lean on historic evidence as conclusive, where understanding the Yi?s meanings are concerned. At least not yet. All it takes is one archeological dig to change our understanding, from an exclusively historical perspective.

[martin]

Well, being aware of the difference between male and female is one thing, but reading the "whole" lines on tortoise shells as "male" and the "broken" lines as "female" is another.

I have of course no idea what actually happened but I could imagine that back then the people who saw certain images (on shells) and interpreted them as signs didn't break them down into lines. They saw a "gestalt" and that suggested something to them. Mountains, trees, animals and so on.
Only later people (former incarnations of Chris? http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/biggrin.gif) looked more closely at these images and said "hey, this is whole-broken-whole-whole ... let's make a theory!"

[hmesker]

Yes Bruce, it indeed is mystifying, and it is tempting to cling to one side ('the Yijing = yin &amp; yang') or another ('because the Yijing does not talk about Yin &amp; Yang it does not play a role in the book'). Although I have a view about this I try not to choose. I often find myself murmuring things like

- what if the Yijing does not represent the phenomenal world but was intended to be something else?
- what if if it does represent the phenomenal world, but does not talk of father &amp; mother - what implications would this have for our view of the world as we know it?
- is the traditional view of the Yijing correct?
- are the traditional interpretations of the names of the trigrams correct?
- do the images that are connected to the trigrams play a role in the text?

etc. I often prefer doubt before answers :-).

Historical evidence is often far from conclusive, and when it concerns the Yi the few archaeological finds we have do not quite give us a better understanding of the book. But when it concerns the use of the book it does not really matter, I think.

[hmesker]

There is one simple but for me interesting fact which we find in the other Yijings that are dug up from the earth:

In the Mawangdui, Fuyang and Chujian Yijing the yin lines are written as / \ instead of -- --. Why did they do that, did it mean anything, and why was it changed in later ages?

Murmermurmer.....

HM

[bruce]

Harmen, I appreciate these views, and share them. I too am in a state of unknowing, or of 'before completion', about these things.

Observing this discussion has been fun. Miners mining in different sectors of our head. Is the code inside the bones, or are the bones themselves the code?

murmermurmerstoo

[bradford_h]

Harmen Harmurmering-
I'm sure you're aware of the observation that /\
looks like Ba (number 8). Of course that falls apart if you want ___ to look like Qi (#7)

Bruce-
I guess I'm saying that Yin-Yang and most Xiangshu (image and number speculation) have a legitimate place in Yijing and Yixue, but not in Zhouyi. But they can't be considered fundamental if they (or dichotomies in general) were specifically thought of as bu zhong, off center, or bu dao, off the path.
Most of Xiangshu, including Chris's work, is then apocryphal, and consists merely of the exploration of the properties of binary systems, "under color" of Yixue. It may even be suitable as an algorithm in Wing and Yiweishu exegesis (interpreting later commentary), but it does nothing to legitimately account for the origin of the Zhouyi text.

[bruce]

Brad,

Only speculating here, but isn't the Yi referred to as 'the book of sun and moon', in Zhouyi?

[bradford_h]

Hi Bruce
No, it isn't referred to in this way. That concerns speculation on the etymology or component parts of the character Yi. LiSe talks about this character on her site. It also means lizard, change and easy. It doesn't really mean sun and moon, but of course there's an association with change in the four seasons and the moon's phases.
The Yi only refers to itself, in a few places, as "I" and "me".

[lightofdarkness]

The moment you make a distinction you make a cut and form a dichotomy of A/NOT-A (NOT-A being 'all else' (the many) or the opposite of A (the one))

Our brains are driven to make distinctions. There are two forms, symmetric and asymmetric. The forms of representation are immaterial, be it yin/yang or 0/1 or /\ etc etc etc

What these represent is the issue and the IDM material covers what comes out of the brain dynamics that forces the self-referencing of dichotomies. Bradford's and Hermen's comments are comments from a position of ignorance re what is going on 'in here' and so excusable but their dismissal of all else should be taken as an example of a refusal to move on in IC development.

The traditionalists can be ignored, bypassed, in the development of IC understanding but that is unfortunate since it introduces an un-neccessary rift.

The XOR work etc covers material NOT present in the traditional work and Harmen's refusal to even try and understand what is going on using recursion indicates to me an issue re having to change his perspective.

There is no 'doubt' about the XOR work and what it does for hexagram analysis etc but the traditionalists have to face the fact that, if they accept it, they have to accept the fact that the traditionalist perspective has missed as lot due to its ad hoc methods - IOW their claimed expertise is severely lacking and it required a focus from outside of the traditionalist box to show the limitations of that box.

Chris.

[matt]

Hi Martin, just a little off topic, Im a couple of pages back reading this thread, but I skipped forward to ask you if you could post your planet system? I have a great interest in astrology, and would appreciate it if possible, thanks.

Ok 'back' button

[bruce]

I don?t doubt Brad?s, Harmen?s or your expertise, Chris. I follow my own path and learn from those of others.

[martin]

Hi Matt,

There is a discussion about (one version of) this planet system (starting with a modification by Pagan) in this thread (http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/messages/92/4124.html?1110330165).

Feel free to ask if anything is not clear. We can start another thread about it, if you like. http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif

Game over, press any key ... http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/biggrin.gif

[hmesker]

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

No, it isn't referred to in this way. That concerns speculation on the etymology or component parts of the character Yi. LiSe talks about this character on her site. It also means lizard, change and easy. It doesn't really mean sun and moon, but of course there's an association with change in the four seasons and the moon's phases.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
Since this topic is about Yijing translations I would like to let you all know that Steve Marshall has placed a review I wrote of Chung Wu's The Essentials of the Yi Jing' on his site: http://www.biroco.com/yijing/chungwu.htm. This review also mentions the misconception that yi is made of 'sun' and 'moon'.

HM

[hmesker]

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

The moment you make a distinction you make a cut and form a dichotomy of A/NOT-A (NOT-A being 'all else' (the many) or the opposite of A (the one)) blahblahblah etc.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
Chris, I cannot take you serious if you ignore my points/questions.

HM

[bradford_h]

Hi Harmen-
while were back on topic, have you seen the "Complete I Ching" by Tien Cong mentioned earlier?
I've still only seen that one line.
b

[hmesker]

Hi Brad,

I have missed when this book is mentioned earlier on this board, so maybe I am saying things that others have already mentioned before me.

No I have not seen it, I know he published it privately through Authorhouse. A very small sample can be found here: http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail~bookid~11830.aspx

He says

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

This interpretation aims at interpreting the Book of Change as a book that talks about the Way. We do not think that the sages, who were the authors of the Book of Change, wrote the Book of Change to talk about, for example, "traveling" or "marrying maiden". "Traveling" is explained as "traveling to or seeking the Way" and "marrying maiden" as "man coming to the house of the Way". All 64 hexagrams and 386 lines are interpreted as images and words of the Way.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
Interesting take, but not something that I am interested in.

HM

[lightofdarkness]

Hermen wrote:

"...you at least imply it. If you were really 'including' the material of icplus, in other words add it, you would not find the need to say this. You want us to accept icplus because in your opinion the 'traditional perspective misses a lot'. But the nice thing about the 'traditional perspective' is that it incorporates everything - there is no need for additions/inclusions. All additions are interpretations. "

The XOR material alone is not an interpretation, the material is a direct product of the method used to create the hexagrams using recursion of yin/yang. The fact that you cannot understand that shows your limitations in understanding where the traditional material has come from - the brains of our species LOCALISED to 'ancient china'. Universal patterns linked to local conditions and labelled locally.

With the XOR material identified by ICPlus, so for the first time we have access to details of a hexagram not thought of possible in traditional texts etc (in all of the printed texts referenced in http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/irefs.html you will not find the full spectrums etc of hexagrams listed as they are in the ICPlus pages - why not? because they had no idea such material was available).

I have seen you and other traditionalists struggle in trying to flesh-out meanings of hexagrams due to the limitations imposed on the traditional IC by a lack of undertanding of the methodology.

PRIOR to current work in neurosciences etc the generation of the traditional IC and its variations in interpretations where done in an ad hoc manner; given the work in neurosciences we can map out all POSSIBLE qualities we will use in deriving/communicating meaning and so reveal the 'full spectrum' of the I Ching and its elements.

Are you suggesting that the XOR material is not a part of the universal IC? If so then I suggest you spend a bit more time trying to understand what is going on here since by achieving that understanding you will, IMHO, find yourself rediscovering the IC.

Chris.

[hmesker]

Chris,

You still don't answer my questions, and you ignore most of the points I have made in former posts. Topic closed, as far as I'm concerned.

Harmen.

[lightofdarkness]

Hermen,

I have answered your questions but most likely with replies you cannot deal with - so you ignore then and continue with the 'you still dont answer my questions'! LOL! ... and there there is the perspective where your points are not worth answering since they are obviously 'poor'.

BTW - YOU have still not commented on the XOR material suggesting that it is too sensitive for you since by accepting it you are faced with having to re-adjust your understanding of the IC... and my work in particular.

Chris.

[matt]

Chris, just a reccomendation - try to portray your ideas with a little more clarity. I have been through the pages on your site many times and even printed out lengthy copies for extended analysis, and whilst I understand all of your ideas, it is apparent that your writing style doesn't express them effectively. You may say that you are not focused in the 'realm of expression', but any theory or idea is best understood when the realm of expression gives your audience more levity to interpret it. Or said in another way - Try to speak of your ideas as if you were talking to a 5 year old, then your work is far more accessable to everyone. At the moment the language you use is more complex than the system itself.

[lightofdarkness]

Hi Matt,

my style of prose has been an on-going issue but then I work off a tertiary level, not primary nor secondary - just my nature ;-) (I have no patience for kindergarten teaching ;-) let those more suited to that style do it) IOW when one comes to the IDM/ICPlus material it is assumed one has done the 'basics' and so there is no need for re-explanation.

I have noted some interpreting the word 'dichotomy' in its "Aristotle" form where it is in its symmetric format (+1/-1 - normal distribution focus) and so miss the bifurcation form (asymmetric, 0/infinity, worthless/priceless etc - power law/spectrum foci)

This also feeds into the understanding of what yin/yang represent where any dichotomy takes on either of the two forms - symmetric or asymmetric - and yin/yang represents both (as does 0/1). This can be misleading if one is not familiar with the types of dichotomies.

Then comes the self-referencing and so recursion dynamics which apparently many dont 'get' ... but understanding this is essential to understanding the development of the IC or all of our other categorisations in that the implementation of XOR in the brain, and so the ability to make discrete identifications, DEMANDS self-referencing (at least two neurons, one feeding back on the input of the other - this is also essential for a basic memory system).

If you go through the prose of others on this thread I think you can see the focus on expression, on the surface structures rather than the deep structures. And so the struggles of dealing with local representations rather than going deep to flesh-out the ONE deep structure that all of those analogies/metaphors are trying to communicate.

IOW a cognitive analysis of a large set of interpretations/translations of the IC brings out the underlying SAMENESS across all of the DIFFERENCES. That is what ICPlus has done through the 'baseline' of what all of us as species-members can 'know' in common.

The genetics involved in generating a 'complete' human demand all to be connected (genotype). Exposure of that GENERAL form then interacts with local context to give a customised, a specialised, form of expression (phenotype).

This same process applies to the generation of meanings where the neurological/cognitive levels give us a set of POSSIBLE but vague categories and exposure to local context will then 'select' the best-fits for that context - and so develop customised languages such as the traditional I Ching.

The issue for the traditionalists is in seeing the traditional as an ASPECT of a greater whole, the universal I Ching, where THAT whole is 'vague', is 'general', is 'archetypal' and so in need of local colour to manifest itself in full locally.

By understanding this universal I Ching level so we can refine our understandings at the local level and see those aspects of the universal that have been excluded or marginalised due to the local selection process of customisation. (and that selection criteria includes current knowledge on culture, science, myth, history etc be sources of analogy/metaphor to describe the qualities - NOW we get them to self-reference but in the past we have had to indicate to external references to aid in identifications etc.

Marshall's book is a good source for seeing these analogies/metaphors being made in the IC in an ad hoc manner as the communication of these internal qualities required reference to local history/myth. However, now, through work over the last 3000+ years in Science there is no such need as we can map out recursion and the patterns derived from that method that THEN are labelled locally)

(at least my paragraphs are not as long as, say, those of Hegel!... and there are the occasional full stops!)

Chris.

[heylise]

I called my website "book of sun and moon" because it might be, that sun and moon had a lot to do with the 'making' of the hexagrams. See
http://www.anton-heyboer.org/i_ching/origins/gui-gua.htm

The character Yi, 'pouring from one vase into another'. I think its meaning is closer to exchange than to change. In China it is commonly used in the name of trading companies.

LiSe

[heylise]

Pour it in another vase, like from your thinking mind into your 'guts', or from your old view into a new one. Or from a big thought in a small cup, so you can drink it.

Many ways of changing things by exchanging them.

LiSe