Shen shu?

[pedro]

I was gonna save this to when I had more time, to quote some parts, etc, but I dont know when that time will be, and there will be opportunity for it anyway, so I might as well just bring up the topic

Last weekend I found a translation (from the original german translation of the chinese) of the "shen shu" or "the oracle of sacred numbers".

Its supposed to be a very ancient Yi cousin that alledgedly is the most popular oracle in asia nowadays, due to its frindliness and ease of use compared to the Yi.
His author Zhuge Lian is supposed to have been some great mystic living in century 1 AD or something. His feats seem impressive, and he has gained quite a reputation in the likes of Fu Hsi and similar characters.

Anyway, the oracle itslef is composed of 384 entries (yes, like in 64x6=384) and in the little time Ive worked with it I already found it to be full of wisdom and very helpful. It doesnt substitute the Yi but it complements it. Its advice are not so kind as the Yi's, they can sound like reprehensions at times, and they dont allow us to forge ilusions over its answers as the Yi does. They are more practical and less metaphysical, but they distill an intensity that is very inspiring and can send us in the right track just as the Yi does. Seems to be aimed at making us all "imortals" http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif
And more often than not the texts also speak literally of the matters asked. Perhaps not always what you ask about (but what you wanted or needed to know), but in any case its a very rewarding experience. I sure recommend it!!

I promise I'll translate some verses so you get the feel, but in the meantime, has anyone ever found this text? Is there a direct relation to its 384 paragraphs and the Yi? I suspect there is...
The text seems to have only been translated to german, but I would love to have the original chinese text (any help anyone? Harmen, you that can find a chinese needle in the web's haypack, do you know of any place I can get a chinese version of the text?)

Please, tell me all you know of this little gem!!!

[hmesker]

Hi Pedro,

The German version you have of the Shenshu has also been translated in Dutch, so I know the book. The verses of the Shenshu are very poetic, beautiful to read and often sound like the Yilin.

It's hard to find the Chinese text on Internet, though. This site seems to contain the text: http://home.kimo.com.tw/zxing7/ (lower part of the screen), but to me it seems that all the verses are numbered wrong - the text doesn't correspond to the German translation from the book. But maybe you can figure it out.

That's the only site I found so far. There is another site where you can consult the Shenshu through a Flash program - the text you get in the end corresponds with the german/dutch translation: http://home.kimo.com.tw/ok357com/mainminga.html.

I'll look further for the text. If I find anything I'll let you know. If you want to search the internet for yourself, you have to look for "å­?æ??ç¥?æ?¸" (Unicode, I'm not sure if it appears correct on the site), "kongming shenshu". Kong Ming is the more popular name of Zhuge Liang.

Best wishes,

Harmen.

[pedro]

Harmen, thanks so much, you da gratest http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif
The 1st link shows just an empty page for me, but the flash application is cool http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif I saved the shockwave app locally, but it turns out that it goes to the web for the texts. Each line can be found under the address http://home.pchome.com.tw/web/para168/ming1/z000.swf
where you substitute the final 000 for the number you want. Im gonna try and save them all locally, but at least I can access the text online. It would be great to have the text in digital form, though, I have trouble recognizing some chars, but who's complaining?

Anyway, have you ever used it? I have it for less than a week, and it survived the test of whether it 'worked', with flying colors. It has provoked me a lot of interesting thoughts, expanding my understandment of the Yi, the Yilin and these type of oracles in general. It seems its structure might lead even more to the thought that it is us who make the answers, by selective thinking only. I mean, it is the Yi without the structure and relationships of the lines, trigrams, etc. And it still works! So this leads to the assumption that any coherent enough list of omens, selected at random, would result in a working oracle. But what instead this makes me believe, is that there are indeed other inteligences at work, and it isnt only an ego thing. Its true one can read a lot of what one wants in the Yi, the Yilin or (less so) in the Shenshu, but what happens in practice is that the omens that come out, most often reflect precise facts and situations that within its range of subjectiveness are still very much to the point, so much that it cant be just random and a trick of the mind. I mean, I tryed opening the book at random and reading any comment, and this didnt work effectively. But if Im turning the pages and suddenly one number catchs my eye, then this one is worth paying attention. And if later on, the same page and number grab my attention again, then that is certainly something I oughta look at!!
In truth I believe that it is us that make ALL the answers, but I think that when they come from the deepest layers of our sub(supra?)conscious, they are reliable and enlightening; when they come mostly from the conscious, they are just what we want to see, a call for self-ilusion. If we cast compulsively, we enter the conscious mode, and it just tells us what we want to hear; but if we let the questions come from calmness, openness and respect, then the answers will be like that too.
I admit that I came to a point where its hard for me not to tamper with the casting of the Yi. On the contrary, with the shenshu I have no control; I dont know the numbers meanings, so Im just waiting for the omen, not antecipating it.

Other times the Yi is just too subtle, and I fail to understand fully. The Shenshu is not so kind, and I already understood a very important lesson the Yi was telling me for a long time (with that line "if he let himself be led like sheep", is it #43?) In fact with a couple of answers from the shenshu it became apparent what I was doing wrong.
Not that Im not using the Yi anymore, I'll use it forever http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif I just feel that it should be better used for the big questions, and the Shenshu is a nice companion for the little, practical ones

Anyway, I'll try your search hints now, but thatnks for all the help already

[pedro]

Btw, do you think there is a correspondence to the Yi? In the Yilin its obvious that the hexagrams and line texts were used, but here, although I think the relationship exists, it seems a more ilusive one.
Maybe the author went through all six lines of each hexagram in sequence, to arrive at the 384 omens, but the question remais as to which sequence was used. Reading the first omens, they dont seem to relate to the criative, so either its not king wen's sequence, or there is no direct relation.
I gotta study it more before I can come up with a theory

Any opinions on this?

[pedro]

Harmen, that 1st link works after all (had to set encoding big-5)
And the text doesnt fit because it is off by one: 1 is 384, 2 is 1, etc. Appart from that I checked half a dozen poems and it seems correct
When I have all the verses I'll send you (or anyone interested) the file
The direct urls for the poems go from
http://uk.geocities.com/storm2003x/km1.htm
to
http://uk.geocities.com/storm2003x/km384.htm

[pedro]

Forgot to say one more thing, would there be any significance in the fact that this site's texts are off by one? This site is one of the most referred, as I found googling in chinese at Harmen's sugestion, and since its texts are offset, this might imply that a lot of people are getting the "wrong" answers and feeling quite happy about them nonetheless. But once again, the consultation method (as it boils down to it) is irrelevant, as the misterious forces at play KNOW how to tell the difference. They know in advance what we'll be doing and how to account for that
Funny, hu? http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif

[hmesker]

Hi Pedro,

Thanks for all your work, it saves me a lot of time! I do think there is a link with the Yijing, but I don't think the regular hexagram sequence is used for it. And because the book is written some time after the Han dynasty, I think you have to look more at the hexagram and trigram images than at the text to find correspondences. But this is just speculation. I don't use the Shenshu myself, but I enjoy reading it.

It is as you say: almost every compilation of texts is able to serve as an oracle, because you decide if and how the text applies in daily life. That's how bibliomancy works. But there is a difference between using the Yi or using bibliomancy (or another random text): The Yi contains a consistent philosophy of yin and yang and change. If you want to use the book to its proper value, you have to take that into account when you read the answer. An interpretation without applying the philosophy of the Yi makes the Yi an ordinary book just as any other.

You say "[The Yi] should be better used for the big questions, and the Shenshu is a nice companion for the little, practical ones". That's exactly how the Shenshu is used by the common people in China. For the really big issues they would consult a diviner or go to a temple.

I think the site with the text made an error when they compiled the text. But indeed, this doesn't matter when you use it, just as it doesn't matter if you build a hexagram top down. But it's the philosophy of the Yi that explains why you have to build a hexagram from bottom to top.....

This was a nice side-step, but I really have to devote myself to the Yilin now. I am way behind with the translation!

Best wishes,

Harmen.

[heylise]

I have the same copy Harmen has, a Dutch one translated from German. I like it, but do not use it often.
When you wrote about it, I was immediately inspired, but I decided to ask first if I should tackle another subject. As it is, there is a lot to do, and several things I really want to finish at last. I asked the Shenshu itself, and it answered 81: the moon is waning . . My website is the book of (sun and) moon, so the message was very clear.

But I would certainly love to have the Chinese text, because there will be a day when I have more time.

LiSe

[pedro]

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

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT>

It is as you say: almost every compilation of texts is able to serve as an oracle, because you decide if and how the text applies in daily life. That's how bibliomancy works. But there is a difference between using the Yi or using bibliomancy (or another random text): The Yi contains a consistent philosophy of yin and yang and change. If you want to use the book to its proper value, you have to take that into account when you read the answer. An interpretation without applying the philosophy of the Yi makes the Yi an ordinary book just as any other.<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I agree, but this brings a lot of questions. I think the Yi originally was one of these types of oracles, just a set of symbols, one out of inumerous variations that existed among all major cultures. Then what I think the zhou part brought that was inovative was precisely that structure that was imposed over each symbol, and that allowed for a whole microcosmos of meaning to be unfolded under what was just one basic image.

I value that structure, I respect it, I have deep faith in the zhouyi as a whole, and I realise that pretty much all I have grown over these last few years I owe it to its use. But Im not just interested in the philosophy, I want to understand the underlying mechanism behind it all, and for that, sometimes you have to go back, to the simpler simbolic oracle, that still works, before the structure was imposed.

There is one most intriguing question, whether each answer would be appropriate (or as Chris says, the top of a link of successively less appropriate answers), and we just use selective thinking, or if there is indeed a best possible answer being layed before us, by which means it is irrelevant for now. This question is at play under the Yi, the tarot, or whatever oracle that works (and opinions may vary as to which do and which dont). But answering this (possibly impossible) question is mentally stimulating to me, maybe like a hua tou, and I am irresitibly drawn to it like a moth to the flame

In any case, it seems to me that the philosophic part is what activates the intelectual responses mostly (the more analytical, ego-prone, part of the answer), while the symbolic part remains more connected to the cosmic forces or whatever may govern it (the big images that seem to be just what we needed to get). In the very end, I think all the philosophical system of the lines and trigrams must be discarded, it may structure our thought to a point, but eventually we have to let it go and just focus on the deepest images.

[pedro]

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT>

also, i mean to comment here that i understand your experiences are particular to you, and apologize for putting buddhist terms on them. the ultimate state has no differentiation, but as we live our lives and hash things out here in the good old world of gravity and relativity, differences do exist, and they matter, and i dont wish to label something particular to your efforts to correspond with my experience, (which happens to be buddhist). one can debate about labeling experience, which i wont get into here, but i do wish to make that point.<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE>

oh, dont appologise for anything http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/wink.gif
I dont mind that at all, in fact I wander how much I can progress without following some school, or a teacher or some sort of correct practice (ie, without labeling it). My problem is I dont know what the correct pratice is, I dont know what I should be doing in meditation terms (although Ive heard most of the practices that are preached around), and since I dont know, I dont even try to find it (anymore): I just do what I feel like doing. But there are pitfalls in this approach, I can tap into the force, but then I dont know what to do with it... I wish someone could enlighten me, but I dont know any real masters and I cant move to india or china in search of one. My only guide is the oracle and my own intuition. And if the answers are inside, then theyre bound to appear, sooner or later, just by asking for them

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT>

p.s. i like what you say about dragon eyes.<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE>

Shenshu #151
In the spiritual path (dao) there is no action that is free from mistake

I needed to hear that http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif Waiting to be perfect before one enters the path is just kidding ourselves, if we were perfect we wouldnt be needing to follow the path, we'd alreadby be there. Its while and because we are unperfect that we should follow the dao.

In it many thinks move and go into conflit.

How true

There is need for [the Longyan fruits known as] "dragon eyes".

This fruit is for sight problems, but the image is powerful, a dragon must observe life with clear eyes, and if we can do the same everything will be easier

A sparkling glow can only be obtained after much polishing and shining.

So let us all polish our minds till we glow http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif

[martin]

Hi Pedro,

About looking for a school or a teacher - I think that 'finding the Way' (as the ancients called it) is an essential part of the Quest. By trying different approaches and finding out what fits and what doesn't we discover who we are and that is what we really need to know. And although everyone of us is the One in disguise we are all different.
Once you find the Way that is right for you (and your final teacher) things will be different ... I wanted to say easier, but how easy is it when you begin to realize that "final" implies that your teacher is going to kill you? *grin*
But the training (in self-knowledge among other things) that you receive while you're looking for your own unique Way is not useless. In fact, your final teacher is with you (and helping you, guiding you through all kinds of experiences, preparing you) from the very beginning.

Rejoice, the preparations for your execution have already started! http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/biggrin.gif

[martin]

Hey, right way or not, I think we are in the wrong thread! http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif

[tashiiij]

hey pedro

yeh nice to be bumped over to this thread!

well thanks. for understanding. good to clear that up. just for my own head.

Shenshu #151
In the spiritual path (dao) there is no action that is free from mistake.


well well well aint it true. yeh i HAVE a teacher and all, but still it's been f%@ing hard. course i havent made things easy! tail keeps getting in the water. whatever that is. :-)

but damn i swear. three more years and im outa this jungle. y'know. the barbarian region. 64.4 63.3.

and then back to square 1, hex 3 or 4 or the fool !!!

cest l'amour cest la guerre.
tash.

[pedro]

Hey Martin, thanks for your comments, I understand what you mean, but I cant avoid thinking that many of us will not make it sooner because of bad (or no) guidance. I just wish there were reliable sources to know the proper practices (and Im talking of things like the microcosmic orbit), instead of this vague mix in which everyone has his own opinion and claims it to be the one

And youre definitely right, the reply to Tshiiij was supposed to go into the "see the light" thread... (sorry Tashiiij http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif)

[hmesker]

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT>

I value that structure, I respect it, I have deep faith in the zhouyi as a whole, and I realise that pretty much all I have grown over these last few years I owe it to its use. But Im not just interested in the philosophy, I want to understand the underlying mechanism behind it all, and for that, sometimes you have to go back, to the simpler simbolic oracle, that still works, before the structure was imposed.<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think the structure came with the text. From what I know of it, the Zhouyi comes from a kind of numeric oracle of which we find accounts on some oracle bones. These numbers form the structure, and possibly that structure became the hexagrams in later times. This is mostly speculation, but because the text of the Yi resembles for a large part the inscriptions on oracle bones, &aacute;nd because of the numbers which are found on some oracle bones, I assume they came together from the beginning. And numbers <=> structure <=> philosophy.

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT>

In any case, it seems to me that the philosophic part is what activates the intelectual responses mostly (the more analytical, ego-prone, part of the answer), while the symbolic part remains more connected to the cosmic forces or whatever may govern it (the big images that seem to be just what we needed to get). In the very end, I think all the philosophical system of the lines and trigrams must be discarded, it may structure our thought to a point, but eventually we have to let it go and just focus on the deepest images.<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hmmm.... I don't think so. I think any oracle is linked to the culture it comes from, and in order to understand the original oracle, you have to understand the original culture. The Yijing uses images and symbols which have a specific meaning and function in Chinese culture. You have to know what a concubine is and means in Chinese culture, to be able to understand the symbol as it appears in the Yi. I don't believe in images with a universal meaning. But that's just my humble opinion <FONT FACE="WINGDINGS">J</FONT>.

Best,

Harmen.

[chrislofting]

Harmen,

you wrote:
>
> Hmmm.... I don't think so. I think any oracle is linked to
> the culture it comes from, and in order to understand the
> original oracle, you have to understand the original
> culture.

Not totally. The *particular* oracle is a specialisation, rooted in the local properties and methods of the culture BUT ALL specialisations have their roots in the generalisation that is the manner in which all species-members derive meaning.

Understanding the generalisation aids in fleshing-out concepts in the specialisation in that each specialisation generates its own language that ensures it is 'different' from all other specialisations. The language, the expressions, link the ONE set of generic meanings we all share as species-members to a particular context where that context can be a culture, sect, or even individual.

(Note that any collective of individuals, if not taught a language will create their own 'instinctively', a creole-like language, to communicate - each generation does this now to some degree where they add words of their generation to the general language they are taught - the words are 'different' but what they relate to, what they *mean* as feelings is always the same, wholes are wholes, nouns are nouns ;-))

Thus all oracles, being specialisations, will have their own language but as surface expression, beneath this surface of apparent difference is a realm of sameness. All of us, as species-members, have a 'hard coded' sense of 'wholeness' but to what that sense is applied is up to local conditions, such that what is labelled 'a whole' for me may be a 'part' for you etc.

The I Ching is more a book of gerunds, of 'ings' where a gerund reflects the sharing of noun/verb concepts in the one space, a superposition of two 'waves' as one, and context 'collapses' this wave into a noun OR verb expression. Thus the core elements of the hexagrams, elements that are not 'Chinese' but rooted in our species-nature, always reflect object OR relationship perspectives. These perspectives are GENERAL biases such that the root of a particular hexagram is 'yang' biased or 'yin' biased but can go through nominalisation LOCALLY (as in a noun becomes a verb, a verb becomes a noun etc)

The IDM material (http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/idm001.html ) shows the GENERAL, determined, set of qualities we all use as species-members and how that general is reflected in the structure and dynamics of specialisations where I use three examples:

(1) The I Ching
(2) The MBTI (personality typology)
(3) Types of numbers we use in Mathematics (and by association linking the general to all specialisations that use Mathematics)

As such we see here what we see in the I Ching, the 'Fu Xi' realm 'beneath' the 'King Wen' but shining through ;-)

> The Yijing uses images and symbols which have a
> specific meaning and function in Chinese culture. You have
> to know what a concubine is and means in Chinese culture, to
> be able to understand the symbol as it appears in the Yi. I
> don't believe in images with a universal meaning. But that's
> just my humble opinion &amp;#74;.
>

There are differences between a 10th century BC perspective of the I Ching and a 21st century AD perspective of the I Ching. The 10 BC perspective reflects attempts to get to the roots of the specialisation as if those roots reflect some 'original' distinctions, this reflects a more religious, more spiritual, perspective as a priest attempts to keep the original texts as they are claimed to reflect the 'word of god' etc. The attitude is like that of a physicist trying to get to the roots of fundamental particles etc etc (and the attitudes of many doing this reflect a fervour that is 'religious' in form - read the book "Pythagoras's Trousers"). There is a strong focus here on the literal interpretations rather than recognising metaphor at work.

Overall the 10BC perspective is LOCAL, specialised, and can be extremely interesting etc but it is 'short' on learning about the source of the IC in toto in that that source is in fact in the manner in which our brains categorise, our methodology in making distinctions and giving those distinctions complex values and as such is GENERAL in form.

Chinese brains at the general level are no different from Western brains, it is this sameness that determines we are all one species. LOCAL conditions can influence styles in thinking and that includes learnt ways to communicate. Thus as BRAINS there is no difference, as MINDS there are where this is expressed in 'east vs west' models of thinking etc., all very LOCAL in focus.

The 21AD perspective looks at the general, the source of the patterns of meaning that are species-nature related, NON-LOCAL, and allows for the I Ching to now include the 3000+ years of understanding re psychology, cognitive sciences, neurosciences etc etc. We thus have the 'species I Ching', an I Ching that is a *general* in that it is customisable to any particular context and useable to 'decode' any specialisation. As such the perspective is more 'Science' oriented and recognises the dynamics of change and the changeless operating at the level of the species.

The Science perspective is on algorithms and formulas and as such is GENERAL. What you put into the variables in these algorithms/formulas gives you the PARTICULAR but the general structures reflect repeatability, how things 'repeat themselves' in general, just having local 'colourings' in particular (and so a sense of 'difference').

Above you write: "I don't believe in images with a universal meaning." Note the term 'images'. An image is a particular sourced 'out there' (or imagined 'in here'), a FEELING is a general in that it stems from core elements of our meanings derivation such that we all have a sense of 'wholeness' and THAT sense is a universal - WHAT you apply it to is local. Our emotions are the *universal* response system to any sensation and our emotions allow us to transfer meaning from one sense into that of another sense.

That said, our brains have developed in leaps and bounds with the use of vision to process information. Jung argues re the concept of the 'Collective Unconscious' and it is a concept that seems to have some value in that the generic qualities BEHIND the I Ching are hard-coded, they serve as instincts just as, for example, the *shadow* of a hawk flying over chicks makes them instinctively duck for cover (If I make a cut-out of that shadow I can elicit the SAME responses in the chicks as if the real hawk was there and so reflecting the property of our species-nature, i.e. the development of instincts that allow context to PUSH us).

The 21AD model of the I Ching recognises the 'hard coding' of the qualities of the I Ching trigrams, hexagrams, dodecagrams etc etc as 'archetype' expressions that get projected into many different symbols but the most useful appears to be the symbolisms of the I Ching (the SAME patterns of meaning, the same feelings, appear in Astrology, Tarot, qaballah etc etc but the expressions of these specialisations are often either over-differentiated or under-differentiated when compared to the ease of the IC - see the page The Logic of the Esoteric (http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/esoter.html ))

Understand the dynamics etc of the 21AD I Ching model and there is no need to learn Chinese etc or burrow to get to the roots of the chinese text to understand what is going on from a oracular perspective in that the Chinese format serves as a local analogy/metaphor to describe the context using the general meanings of the species. With the 21AD model we can generate 'modern' comments etc without loss of the point being made about a particular expression of a hexagram, line change, etc etc. As such, given the generic meanings of the 21AD material, they serve as a guide to link-in LOCAL material as analogy.

All of this said, the disadvantage of the 21AD model is its generality in that our consciousness is instinctively seeking 'high precision' such that it needs to label 'wholes and wholes' into 'apples and pears', it is driven to differentiate BEYOND the species-level BUT the advantage is understanding the CORE of the I Ching, HOW it developed 'instinctively' and how those general feelings have been labelled to give us the 10BC 'I Ching' in that the perspective grounds the I Ching in our species-nature, it is part of us and as such reflects us as a species, not just as a local collective.

Thus the 10BC I Ching is LOCAL, particular, asymmetric, whereas the 21AD I Ching is NON-LOCAL, general, symmetric (and so the pages and pages of prose I write on the relationships of hexagrams that comes from the METHODOLOGY in their derivation).

From a research perspective, it is the oscillation across these differences that allow us to derive a clearer perspective on the I Ching as a whole and so of its reflection of a univeral form, it being a product of our species-nature overall and so not something uniquely Chinese ;-)

Chris.

[val]

Chris...

There are rare moments when I understand what you're saying in your posts. This was one of them. I pretty much agree with you on most things. I do disagree with one thing and would love to hear your feelings on it.

The Chinese and other cultures who use tonal languages do think differently than Westerners, whose languages uses only the left brain. Our brains may all have the the same structure, etc., but there are definite differences in left-brain thinking and right-brain thinking, and that the Chinese use both left and right brains makes their thinking necessarily different.

I found the article that Luis posted on the subject fascinating because of my experiences with right-brain and left-brain thinking. When I'm immersed in the creative process, and someone asks me a question, it sometimes takes me as long as a minute to answer. I have to bring to closure whatever "brushstroke" I'm executing, "bookmark my place" in the process, shut off the right-brain, turn on the left-brain, process the question, then answer it. And, unless I'm asked a question, while I'm in the creative process I do not think in language and, consequently, do not speak. There are, of course, many other differences when I'm "in" the right-brain, such as absence of time or bodily sensations.

Something I've pondered since reading Luis' article about tonal languages and left/right-brain thinking is...which came first? The chicken or the egg? Was it an existing thinking mode incorporating both hemispheres of the brain that nurtured the language? Or was it the development of the language that fostered the mode of thinking?

Cheerio the noo,

Val

[chrislofting]

Hi Val,

You wrote:
> Chris...
>
> There are rare moments when I understand what you're saying
> in your posts. This was one of them. I pretty much agree
> with you on most things. I do disagree with one thing and
> would love to hear your feelings on it.
>
> The Chinese and other cultures who use tonal languages do
> think differently than Westerners, whose languages uses only
> the left brain.

ouch. IMHO a little too 'sweeping' a statement - see below.

> Our brains may all have the the same
> structure, etc., but there are definite differences in
> left-brain thinking and right-brain thinking, and that the
> Chinese use both left and right brains makes their thinking
> necessarily different.
>

Ooowww... you have not been reading my IDM material! ;-) tsk tsk! ;-)

I suggest you later, after reading the summary below, take some time and go through the IDM material where 'all is revealed'. ;-) (http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/idm001.html - and dont forget to review the references/further reading:

http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/neurorefs.html (abstracts on general brain research, some briefly annotated)
http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/dencerefs.html (abstracts associated with the IDM 'transcendence' function concept)
http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/formrefs.html (abstracts associated with the IDM 'transformation' function concept)

the above use terms from psychology/neurosciences/cognitive sciences so be wary if not aware of such terms. I will add annotations over time to make the interpretation task easier in the context of linking a particular abstract to what IDM is on about.

For general reference/further reading see:
http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/brefs.html (general reference list for things 'brain' oriented)
http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/irefs.html (general reference list for things 'I Ching/MBTI' oriented)

as well as such pre-IDM papers as:

http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/general.html
http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/ideal.html

or the earlier:

http://pages.prodigy.net/plate.html
http://pages.prodigy.net/dicho.html

etc
etc!

But to summarise things:

The brain/mind AS A WHOLE is reflected in expression summing from the oscillations across the hemispheres and into the other parts of the brain. Timing issues in this oscillation can be reflected in general behaviour expression (e.g. too much accumulated time over the right can lead to depression emerging in general behaviour, reflects the lack of 'precise' identity found in the right, a precision required in a more 'personal identity' focused collectives we have these days ;-))

There is a dimension of precision at work here based on general (right) to particular (left) where particular includes the KNOWN, as in NAMED, and general includes the UNKNOWN. This dimension in fact operates not just left-right but also front(part)-back(gen), and surface(part)-core(gen) and even WITHIN each hemisphere (e.g. relation of parietal lobe (general) to temporal lobe (particular) and even within each lobe (anterior temporal (particular) vs posterior temporal (general))

We can in fact trace this dimension's properties to those of the humble neuron where the particular reflects the axonic processes and the general reflects dendritic processes. Axonic means FM (frequency modulation) oriented, pulses, discrete, OUTPUT, and Dendritic means AM (amplitude modulation) oriented, waves, continuous, INPUT. Overall we go from the GENERAL (continuous) to the PARTICULAR (discrete), from a WHOLE (A AND B) to ordering PARTS (A XOR B). The neuron is as such an analogue-to-digital converter (which we can also derive digital-to-analogue through integration).

To complicate things more, the dimension of precision, or each point on it, serves to reflect a timing difference in the oscillations such that from the basic 'left/right' oscillations emerges... the binary sequence of the I Ching! ;-) where each trigram/hexagram/dodecagram (depending on which scale you wish to operate from) serves as a particular perspective, maps to a point on the dimension, on reality and can serve as a UNIVERSAL, as a PERSONALITY with which to interact with reality (BUT is at all times a PART of the whole dimension).

IOW, genetics and physiological dynamics can 'hard code' a personality in the form of the persona reflecting the timing differences in left/right oscillations where a particular point on the dimension of precision is 'preferred' over all other points. Thus some people can be born 'naturally' depressed (right) as other can be born 'naturally' manic (left) or some shade inbetween. Cultural training can then add to this and 'skew' the expression of the collective overall and personal local context adds further biases to expression. (as such we have hardware (neural connections), firmware (hormones that set down patterns, sex differences in thinking etc etc), and software (pure nurture)).

At the level of hemispheres and of general conscious expression, The KNOWN/precise reflects an absolute, a universal, where the name is 'forever'. The UNKNOWN/approximate reflects a need to analyse the context to identify, to name. IOW there is need for local context sensitivity to derive a meaning. This latter state reflects the issues of languages that use ideograms/pictograms etc to function where, if we compare to English, in English the integration is as rigid syntax and thats it, ideograms/pictograms etc are not so rigid but also not so precise at times ;-)

In Japanese there are no 4 to 7 tonal differences as there are in Chinese but a combination of Kanji (chinese characters) and Kana (japanese sounds). However the brain processes of Chinese, Korean, and Japanese in the processing of ideograms etc is generally the same. BUT Kana allows for whole sentences to be made-up of vowels such that Japanese also links with some languages rooted in Polynesia and thus biases brain activity - see the work of Tsunoda in Japan circa 1984 on this issue.

The Chinese tones elicit differences in the dynamics of integrating/differentiating and context sensitivity etc but beneath these LOCAL processes are still the SAME set of GENERAL processes we all share as a species and that includes the sense of 'wholeness', 'part' etc etc, that we use in the derivation of meaning.

Overall, in the brain, that part that deals with the KNOWN is DIFFERENTIATING in form. That part that deals with the approximate/unknown is INTEGRATING in form BUT the precision issue is more precise using AUDITION than VISION such that there is a hybrid bias where the SPOKEN/WRITTEN word comes out of the precision of the left, the serial processing, the more visual, the more parallel elements, dominates the right. (e.g. WHOLE sounds, animals sounds we do not KNOWN elicit right brain activity, learn the meaning and the next time around a LEFT bias will occur).

This focus on precision is reflected in handedness etc, a preference for one side over the other in sensory processing, motor responses etc. Genetic diversity allows for 'anomolies' as in left-handedness etc etc but overall the more precise 'side' of the brain determines the motor activity expressed in the use of the limbs etc of the other side of the body.

Vision is usually more IMMEDIATE in whole-data aquisition when compared to audition where I have to 'build' a picture from sound etc - thus you can consider the hemispheres as a huge eye, the right side reflects the parafovea, the 'form' identifier, the 'edge-detector', and the left the fovea, the high detail, colour sensitive core of the eye (the parafovea surrounds the fovea and it gives us peripheral vision, 'intuitive' pattern matching etc). Our audition system has developed WITHIN this development of vision etc.

Each point on the dimension of precision serves as a ground, a context, with which to interpret reality, where as you move increasingly 'left' so you move to a more binary, more 'dot' precise, differentiating perspective where any integration is WITHIN what has been differentiated.

The more 'right' you move so the more unary, the more 'field' precise, integrating perspective where differentiations are IMPLIED, we make relationships that IMPLY 'something' - gets into geometric perspectives, use of card spreads, astrology charts, rune stone patterns etc to derive meaning, the right is the realm of innuendo, pattern matching, and identification through what something is NOT. (the more left you go so the more algebraic the perspective, gets into the dimensionless (the dot))

The right perspective is closer to our species-nature. The left perspective is closer to our consciousness-nature. The right is more into fibonacci sequence patterns of expression (and so is more 'aesthetic' in perspective, more qualitative), the left more into binary sequence patterns of expression (and so more precise and prone to the quantitative, we compress universals into a formula/number).

As a species we have developed from the right, from the more unary, the more holistic, to the left that is more binary, more parts oriented and yet the binary is also the source of emergence and so of the ability to express personal consciousness. (in the neuron the axon is the source of EXPRESSION, of OUTPUT).

Western civilisation is more 'dot' precise overall but being so can be TOO precise, the focus is on excessive differentiations of parts and in doing so can 'cut off' relational links. There is a strong sense of 'self-referencing', self-help, a focus on personal identity over all (gets into the concept of competitive exchange, autonomy, 'freedom', etc).

Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc have roots in the integrating overall (and so the underlying tie of family etc) whereas the West have roots more into differentiating overall, BUT Japan culturally also often reflects a more 'competitive' mental state and an over-rigid sense of 'order' socially, perhaps reflecting the integration of Kanji and Kana!)

Current trends in social development and the use of technology favour an ever developing consciousness-focus, discreteness etc and as such collapse of the more general family sense, family is more parents and child and thats it such that fundamental structures in Japanese, Chinese, and Korean cultures are breaking down, taking on a more 'Western' look or more so a HYBRID form of universalness is developing combining the different cultures.

Most Western languages are rigid in ordering in that they link parts to make a whole and those links are strongly determined. In Eastern languages (or more so pictogram or ideogram oriented) the ordering is not so rigid (and can be vertical, right-to-left, or left-to-right) but requires increased context sensitivity to understand. IOW as you move more 'western' you move to focusing on creating universals, as in terms, expressions, 'free' of context sensitivity and so VERY precise and considered 'eternal', unchanging.

This precision focus extends culturally into a focus on skill, perfection, and the discovery and use of methods that are increasingly precise (e.g. current Western weapon systems). This precision shifts mental states more left to a degree we enter the realm of pure yang, the realm of competitive exchange, the phase of METAL with a dominating focus on EXCHANGE (retail rules! ;-)) above all else.

The sense of the 'eternal' that comes with 'hard core' yang thinking is at odds with reality that is thermodynamic and reflected in the 'arrow of time' such that the Eastern perspectives can be more 'down to earth' at times, not as idealistic as the western perspectives and so accommodating of, more accepting of, our 'animal' nature and the inevitability of death etc ;-)

(Note that western culture is more attracted to escaping death, through a focus on eternal youth be it through cosmetics, fashion, or plastic surgery - and we cant forget genetic engineering and the space programme, the latter aiding us in escaping this planet that our idealism is turning to waste!)

The dimension of precision is such that the realm of the binary, the A/NOT-A focus is thus single context in thinking, particular, and so focused on universals, clear, precise, 'eternal' identifications and yet is also the realm of complexity/chaos in that being over-precise can put in more energy than is there in the first place (as in use of imagination) and so we can 'transcend' due to the high energy focus. The more 'right' you move so the slower this transcendence can be and even not be possible in that there is not enough energy available to achieve the transcendence.

In IDM I identify two functions, the Transcendence function and the Transformation function that reflect properties of the neurology. The former is 'yang' oriented, high energy expenditure, revolutionary in focus, fundamentalist, 'born again'. etc. The transformation function is more 'yin' oriented, conserving of energy, evolutionary in focus (learns habits/instincts), relativist, more focused on integrating with the context as compared to escaping the context or asserting a context, as the transcendence function will do.

All of the above properties of transcend/transform, of binary/unary, of differentiating/integrating are packed into the 'dimension of precision' and that dimension has its roots in a single neuron that can link with other neurons into a network, column, lobe, hemisphere, individual, collective, species! The linking allows for behaviours to emerge in the collective that is not identifiable in any one individual, two minds can do more than one, but more often ONE mind will often sum the data from the other minds and come up with something 'revolutionary'.

The I Ching reflects the dimension of precision. As such the Eastern perspective is, in general, more 'yin', the Western perspective is, in general, more 'yang'. Zoom-in and we start to mix these distinctions such that each hexagram is representative of a 'style' of thinking ;-) - thus from IDM I have been able to map the I Ching hexagrams to qualities associated with personality types of the MBTI (see http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/MBTIX.htm ) and they can be applied to collectives etc

> I found the article that Luis posted on the subject
> fascinating because of my experiences with right-brain and
> left-brain thinking. When I'm immersed in the creative
> process, and someone asks me a question, it sometimes takes
> me as long as a minute to answer. I have to bring to
> closure whatever "brushstroke" I'm executing, "bookmark my
> place" in the process, shut off the right-brain, turn on the
> left-brain, process the question, then answer it.

Umm... no. What you are describing here is a bias in the form of an intense focus of attention, single context perspective. That perspective can be so intense that it sets-off a side-effect of the intensity in focus - the distortion of subjective time experience in that there is an inverse relationship of energy expenditure and subjective time experience.

An 'interrupt' forces the suspension of the focus and so requires adjustment to this new context. ANY focus of attention is an act of differentiation, of a focus on a particular from the general. The creative element here is in the high energy focus, the integrating element operates WITHIN this differention and the more 'right' you are in general so the more the focus on relationships, on patterns, in the creativity and a less focus on 'dot' details.

As a species-member you are basically 'mindless' in that all interactions are through instincts, context will PUSH you. As a conscious member of the species your consciousness allows you to modify instincts/habits and so refine development to allow you to fit in quicker in any context.

> And,
> unless I'm asked a question, while I'm in the creative
> process I do not think in language and, consequently, do not
> speak. There are, of course, many other differences when I'm
> "in" the right-brain, such as absence of time or bodily
> sensations.
>

IMHO nothing to do really with 'right' brain as such. Single context thinking is more 'male' oriented, more yang, and as such can lessen verbal expression as you concentrate, few can talk and do something requiring high focus, high precision, at the same time. Creativity comes in the form of innovations vs adaptations, the former more differentating, the latter more integrating. You can 'start' right (an approximation of the end product), move 'left' (differentiate) go back 'right' (integrate to make a whole) and EXPRESS left (the NAME, transcend). Oscillations, oscillations ;-)

The above process reflects general-to-particular processing, but you can start particular-to-general (abduction process) where something particular draws attention (as in 'this is meaningful in some way') and we go through all of the existing hypotheses of the collective to find where this particular 'fits'. This process can make a novel association of the particular with a general and so an 'insight' can occur, a new relationship discovered besides the relationship of that particular to its 'true', usual, general.

The single context style of thinking is very precise, very clear, and due to the time distortion will also elicit a sense of the timeless, the eternal. This distortion of time is useful but also an illusion stemming from the need to 'freeze' a perspective to be able to deal with details, to label things etc. This style of thinking will convert thermodynamic time into a mechanistic time that is seemingly slowable, stoppable and even considered reversible!

Unfortunately a lot of the product of this sense of the eternal has led to a lot of 'interesting' interpretations of reality based on not understanding how physiological processes affect our thinking - we see here the source of 'idealism' ;-)

> Something I've pondered since reading Luis' article about
> tonal languages and left/right-brain thinking is...which
> came first? The chicken or the egg? Was it an existing
> thinking mode incorporating both hemispheres of the brain
> that nurtured the language? Or was it the development of the
> language that fostered the mode of thinking?
>

Right-brain thinking is more species-nature, more 'AS IS' oriented. Left-brain thinking is more consciousness-nature, more 'AS INTERPRETED' oriented. The single context is the source of our interpretations, our focus on ontologies, on IS-ness etc BUT this is also the realm of PARTS such that we end up with LOTS of ontologies, each one a specialisation and so a PART of what 'IS' - we will rationalise out of the 'left' perspective in that we are driven to interpret a situation and will do so even with no data on what is behind what is happening! - the realm of story-telling ;-) ['right' deals better with metaphors, 'left' is more 'literal' minded]

The points along the dimension of precision gives us a LOT of different perspective of the whole where from each point can develop the same dimension. Thus the dimension expressed horizontally can have the same dimension ordered vertically from EACH point on the horizontal! From that vertical dimension we can do the same thing and so move from one dimension to two to three etc etc!

Given all of this, the I Ching AS A WHOLE is focused on the breakdown of T'ai Chi. There is hierarchy here such that we have:

Differentiating bias (left,particular) / Integrating bias (right,general)

T'ai Chi /Wu Chi [General]
Yin-AND-Yang / T'ai Chi
Yang / Yin [Particular]

There is a matrix, a lattice, format here ;-)

See the table of associations of these two 'threads' in the brain in http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/hemis.html

The overall focus is on differentiations (yang) and integrations (yin). Integration is NATURALLY general WHEN COMPARED to differentiating in that there is an issue of precision - integration requires a PAIR, differentiation focuses on the ONE.

The I Ching reflects these patterns and all else follows, and that includes differences in language styles and so LOCAL thought patterns ;-)

Chris.

[martin]

Quote: "Unfortunately a lot of the product of this sense of the eternal has led to a lot of 'interesting' interpretations of reality based on not understanding how physiological processes affect our thinking - we see here the source of 'idealism' ;-)"

Hmmm, not really ... (sounds familiar? http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/wink.gif)
But we are leaving the domain of science here. It becomes a matter of what one chooses to believe.
I prefer the more 'idealistic' viewpoints because they explain the data of my experience much better than the alternatives.
Although physiological processes are important, they are IMO only the tip of the iceberg.

On his homepage (http://www.deikman.com/index.html) Arthur Deikman introduces himself by saying "Welcome! You will find here articles and books offering a way of understanding the mystical traditions and the mystical experience without reducing them to neurophysiological artifacts."

Applause!

[val]

Chris....

That's a summary??? That's a real knee-slapper. Did I detect a "frisky" tone in your opening paragraph? *grin*

Yup...it was meant to be sweeping. I was discussing my experience, not all that I've learned...and trying to be succinct.

Nope...I haven't read your IDM. My first real awareness of my "oddness" as being the difference between left-brain and right-brain thinking was when I read Betty Edwards "Drawing From the Right Side of Your Brain." I was reading it to become a better artist, but it became an "AH HA" moment for me. I was elated to be able to explain to my family and friends just why I was so slow to respond when I was in creative mode...and to learn why I lose weight and all sense of time when I create...and why I often experience a sustained euphoria when I finish a creation that makes the post-coital feeling seem like ground beef compared to a fine filet mignon.

If you have something instructional in your IDM that will help me increase my creativity, please direct me to it. I would love to read it.

Thanks!

Cheerio the noo,

Val

[val]

Dear Pedro and Harmen (and LiSe if she wasn't on holiday)...

Would one of you be so kind as to translate the verse for 080. I went to the flash program and used it with an open mind...no question. I'm curious as to what it said.

Thank you so much!

Cheerio the noo,

Val

[chrislofting]

Hi Martin,

you wrote:
> By Martin (Martin) on Friday, October 10, 2003 - 03:31 pm:
>
> Quote: "Unfortunately a lot of the product of this sense of
> the eternal has led to a lot of 'interesting'
> interpretations of reality based on not understanding how
> physiological processes affect our thinking - we see here
> the source of 'idealism' ;-)"
>
> Hmmm, not really ... (sounds familiar? [ wink ])

no - truely ;-)

> But we are leaving the domain of science here.

not really - we are on the border of Physics and Metaphysics.

>
> It becomes a matter of what one chooses to believe.
>

No. fact. The differences emerge in basic perceptions - see the page (and references) in http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/general.html and/or go through the abstracts I use in IDM - http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/neurorefs.html

Personal beliefs then emerge as 'distortions' of these basics and we note that given no facts our brains will fantasise to rationalise ;-)

> I prefer the more 'idealistic' viewpoints because they
> explain the data of my experience much better than the
> alternatives.

Sure, BUT in the context of our consciousness embodied with our speciesness the idealist viewpoints are 'ideal' and not 'real' when viewed from how we as a species integrate with reality. Our consciousness stems from the ideal in that the focus is on CLEAR, PERFECT, viewpoints but due to their PARTS nature these viewpoints can also be 'distortions' of reality - as we see in fundamentalist faiths etc (both religious and secular). Clarity requires the ability to go PAST the immediate reality itself, we need to get details to get a 'clear' picture.

The idealist perspective is as such 'left brained', FM oriented BUT is VERY LOCAL due to it being a distortion. Our species-nature is more 'right brained' and so 'the many', and from that we extract, zoom-in upon, a particular and that particular is the foreground when compared to the background from which we have 'drawn out' the particular.

Physiologically, this act of zooming-in acts to isolate, cut-off, 'something' from reality, to 'freeze' it so we can get details. With this function comes the distortion of subjective time experience, time will appear to slow/stop in that the focus for identification is on the STATIC not the dynamic.

Our MINDS will notice this distortion and focus on this sense of the 'eternal' that can come with the distortion and, ignorant of the physiology and its consequences, will create a story to 'rationalise' the experience of the 'eternal'. From that sense has developed a lot of 'interesting' interpretations of reality (and so welcome to the concept of maya).

In the I Ching the 'right' is T'ai Chi or the generic sense of yin-AND-yang. This then unfolds into the hexagram sequences, dodecagram sequences etc etc, that are parts resulting from zooming-in for details on the 'whole' and we get yin-OR-yang. The original text of the I Ching reflects attempts to label the parts that come from differentiating the whole where the labels are metaphors/analogies to describe the feelings that come with these distinctions that we have as a species.

The focus of attention on these differences will automatically create a sense of their 'archetypal' form, a sense of their 'eternal' nature. LOCALLY, for us they DO appear 'eternal', but NON-LOCALLY that is not necessarily the 'truth' ;-)

The 'right brain' perspective is materialist in that it reflects nature 'AS IS'. The perspective interacts with nature through instincts/habits and as such operates unconsciously, it reflects the integration of species with the Universe. That process will include the 'instincts' of recognising 'wholes' or 'parts' etc such that TO US these are 'archetypes'. Our idealism, being LOCAL, will then label these 'archetypes', give them some local colour and in doing so interpret those archetypes as if true 'universals'. This is what specialisations, such as the I Ching, do, they LOCAL the archetypes and then interpret the localisations literally, as if 'the thing' rather than as relabelling of the 'thing' to fit the local context.

The dimension of precision that appears in the brain means that a form of communication is possible from the 'right' but it is 'chunky' in size. For example, some left brain stroke patients cannot talk but CAN sing! How? It deals with how they learnt things when children in that they memorised nursery rhymes AS WHOLES, IOW from beginning to end, rote. As they developed understanding of words so their precision improved, they could cut up the rhyme, focus on what the words actually ment etc etc This 'cutting' ability is LEFT biased, PARTS biased.

When singing a rhyme these patients CANNOT stop halfway through and take-up where they left-off, they MUST start at the beginning again. What we see here is chunk size, the 'dot' of the left is the size of the whole object when in the right, as we move more left so we unravel the PARTS and these in turn can be interpreted as if WHOLES but fine grain not corse grain.

Having a stroke in that part of the brain dealing with fine grain distinctions will block the ability to communicate 'fine grain' but the understanding of the dimension of precision allows us to shift communications to a 'lower' level of precision, corse grain, and so work from there until the fine grain areas are healed. we could teach our children 'corse grain' language skills to pre-empt these problems with strokes!

Another example of this issue with precision is where a partial left brain stroke can affect calculations such that asked 'what is 3 plus 5?' the patient will give an APPROXIMATION as the result as in '8 or 2'. They will never say 'ten million' or 'rubber gloves' etc etc and so reflect this issue of precision and the left-right relationships.

Our education systems already reflect these differences (but I think unaware of them) where, for example, a nurse or paramedic will be taught a procedure to do something and that is learnt rote. A doctor on the other hand has a finer level of training, focusing on the details of the procedure. The doctor can then interrupt the procedure and introduce a change and take-up where he/she left off. Nurses/paramedics can get very stressed when a procedure is interrupted in some way (as interns find out very quickly!) in that they intuitively feel that the 'whole' has not been 'completed' properly. For the doctor the whole is at fine grain level, each step is a whole, for the nurse/paramedic the 'chunk size' is bigger, it covers all steps.

If we move further *right* on the dimension of precision all we can do to communicate is POINT, we have to be in the immediate context to communicate - the more left you go the more we create labels that free us of this dependence on context to communicate, we can roll the context up in the form of words, universals, and tell our story anywhere else through the power of imagination.

You can see here the improvement in perception that comes with being able to flesh-out details and this is reflected in how the eye works where in the brain the 'left' perception is more 'fovea-like', precise, and the 'right' perception more 'parafovea-like', approximate.

Shift to the level of *consciousness-nature* and it reflects the 'fovea' perspective when compared to our species-nature that reflects more the 'parafovea' perspective.

Your preference for an idealist viewpoint reflects the nature of our consciousness BUT we cannot use that nature to assert reality that is species-nature oriented and so reflecting the integration of species with the Universe. For example, getting back to the doctor/nurse differences, the reality of the doctor will be different from that of the nurse. The doctor's reality is of finer and finer distinctions but also of extremes, 1000 to 1 events, that are given equal importance in consideration (and so interns getting a cold imagine they have brain cancer!). The nurse's reality is close to the 'truth' of reality, more pragmatic, practical, and aware of 'procedures' but dependent on the doctor when the 'unusual' emerges. As such the doctor appears as more differentiating, the nurse appears as more integrating.

Our consciousness-nature is thus MORE PRECISE than our species-nature and this causes problems in perceptions, or more so causes apparent paradox in perceptions e.g. wave/particle duality etc reflects this 'clash' of consciousness-nature embodied in species-nature - we have gone 'past' reality where reality for the species-nature is NON-LOCAL, integrated, symmetric, and so reflects what in quantum mechanics we call the 'state vector'.

Our consciousness is LOCAL, differentiating, asymmetric/symmetry-breaking and as such is EITHER/OR such that from the state vector we extract A/NOT-A - parts. It is the failure to understand the dynamics of brain function that has led to the 'misunderstandings' of the results of QM experiments - the originators of these theories had no idea how the brain worked and current texts just maintain the dogma without carefully reviewing what modern research into the brain that shows us about how we make maps. The wave/particle duality issue reflects a distortion due to differences in interpretations of perceptions not the perceptions themselves.

The idealist nature stems from our brain's ability to go for details. In development we are born with a reasonably developed 'right brain' and only exposure to the context elicits development of the 'left brain', the development to go for fine detail and from that to develop refined, SERIAL communications - the spoken/written word.

The advantage of the idealist perspective is on clarity etc the disadvantage to date has been in our consciousness developing out of this idealist perspective and in doing so imagining it is 'originating' - it isnt.

This sense of personal and others awareness (as in other minds) reflects a distortion, a mutation, of brain into the development of minds (and so allows for multiple minds to operate in the one brain). The benefit has been for identification of 'things', a focus on labelling the 'discrete' and so refine our communications skills as CONSCIOUS beings but the roots of communications is in our SPECIES being and we have only recently been able to focus on the differences between consciousness-nature and species-nature.

The domination of English etc in languages today reflects the precision, the left bias, in these languages through their creation of a label for EVERYTHING, IOW the focus upon universals, removal of context-sensitivity, an IDEALIST perspective. English is overloaded with verbs to ensure precision is communications, clear differentation of terms (audition is always more precise than vision). Languages that are more context-sensitive, more visual in form (ideograms, pictograms) compact different meanings into one term and allow context to be used to extract the 'right' meaning for the local condition, as such these languages can lack the 'singlemindedness' of the more precise, self-contained, languages.

Compare a scan of an English, or indo-european, speaker, where there is a more differentiating perspective, with that of some speak of some other non euro-indian language and you should pick-up in a higher degree of integrating activity in the non indo-european speaker in that the lack in precision will come through, the need for consideration of local context to derive meaning. (Finnish and I think Hungarian are non indo-european sourced and seem to allow for 'superpositions' of meanings).

As such we have 'yang' languages that are 'context free', differentiating, and 'yin' languages that recruit the context to aid in asserting meaning and so are overall integrating. Zoom-in for details using the I Ching and every hexagram is representative of a 'style' of language.

> Although physiological processes are important, they are IMO
> only the tip of the iceberg.
>

A wonderful example of idealist thinking - the sense of there being something 'more', something 'higher' (or in the above metaphor, 'deeper')! ;-)

There is 'more' but it is still rooted in physiological processes. As a conscious species we are building a hybrid reality, one mixing the materialism of the Universe with the idealism of the Species. To understand what is going on we need to understand our species-nature more since our consciousness-nature, if allowed to develop ignorant of its roots can dissapear into ga-ga land (left brain is associated more with psychosis, where we build our own little worlds etc and that is detrimental to the survival of the species. That said, depression is associated more with 'right brain' thinking so we need to oscillate around the middle of left/right!)

> On his homepage Arthur Deikman introduces himself by saying
> "Welcome! You will find here articles and books offering a
> way of understanding the mystical traditions and the
> mystical experience without reducing them to
> neurophysiological artifacts."
>
> Applause!
>

No - IMHO a sign of ignorance. Ignorance in that there is no reduction in neurophysiology, more so a mapping of our species-nature from which our consciousness is an EXAGGERATION. It it that exaggeration, reflecting the PARTS perspective, the zooming-in for details, that is the source of consciousness. From that comes the sense of the 'spiritual' the 'mystical' etc but much of that sense is in recent times being shown to stem from brain function 'anomolies' e.g.

------------
Nature, 2002 Sep 19;419(6904):269-270

Neuropsychology: Stimulating illusory own-body perceptions.

Blanke O, Ortigue S, Landis T, Seeck M.

'Out-of-body' experiences (OBEs) are curious, usually brief sensations in which a person's consciousness seems to become detached from the body and take up a remote viewing position. Here we describe the repeated induction of this experience by focal electrical stimulation of the brain's right angular gyrus in a patient who was undergoing evaluation for epilepsy treatment. Stimulation at this site also elicited illusory transformations of the patient's arm and legs (complex somatosensory responses) and whole-body displacements (vestibular responses), indicating that out-of-body experiences may reflect a failure by the brain to integrate complex somatosensory and vestibular information.
---------

your mind, experiencing such an event and not knowing what is going on will rationalise, will create a story that 'explains' what is going on and that story will include references to 'spirits' etc.

As I have posted before, see the link http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/angels.html where a rabbi, ignorant of the neurology where instincts/habits are encoded into the input areas of neurons and so allow context to PUSH us, tries to describe the properties and methods of 'angels' (and so also 'demons' etc).

ANY context will elicit a response from us and there will be circumstances where the 'push' is strong and felt by consciousness but not understood, the 'difference' in the context that sets off the instinct can be very subtle. Our minds, ignorant of our species-nature, will then create a story about being 'guided' etc by invisible beings etc.

Current research in the neurosciences, cognitive sciences, and psychology are introducing a new paradigm re our being, both as a species and as conscious individuals. This is revolutionary work such that many past stories will need to be dropped or re-written ;-)

BUT included in this ARE properties of consciousness that seem to allow for a 'spiritual' development, for resonance across individuals etc that have 'science' roots but are mis-interpreted due to their being still 'under investigation' ;-)

Of SPECIAL note here re idealism and the sense of the eternal is that the ROOTS of Science stem from idealism. Thus our Logic (and Mathematics) is more idealist, more focused on universals as in Analytical (aka Formal) Logic where, surprise surprise, time is severly impoverished (even excluded). To develop a 'full spectrum' perspective of logic we have to integrate the analytical with what it emerged from - the dialectical (which is where the I Ching is more 'at home' in the context of change, of yang-into-yin etc etc) - see my page on Logic - http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/logic.html and on Mathematics - http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/NeuroMaths3.htm or the I Ching and Mathematics - http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/icmaths.html

There is a whole new world opening-up and the I Ching can play a big part in aiding in interpreting what is going on without reference to 'dry' academic texts on neurosciences or obscure 'occult' texts of the past etc!

Chris.

[chrislofting]

Hi Val,

you wrote:
> Chris....
>
> That's a summary??? That's a real knee-slapper. Did I
> detect a "frisky" tone in your opening paragraph? *grin*
>

:-)

> Yup...it was meant to be sweeping. I was discussing my
> experience, not all that I've learned...and trying to be
> succinct.
>
> Nope...I haven't read your IDM. My first real awareness of
> my "oddness" as being the difference between left-brain and
> right-brain thinking was when I read Betty Edwards "Drawing
> From the Right Side of Your Brain." I was reading it to
> become a better artist, but it became an "AH HA" moment for
> me.

Sure - I am left handed and so that hand focuses on details. To get a more 'artistic' expression, more sweeping, I use my right hand, it draws a general pattern that I can then add details later if need be.

The change of hands will also elicit change in mental state such that the shift from differentiating (competitive etc) to integrating (cooperative etc).

> I was elated to be able to explain to my family and
> friends just why I was so slow to respond when I was in
> creative mode...and to learn why I lose weight and all sense
> of time when I create

sure - high energy focus means your burning more fuel than consumming (and smoking adds to the reduction of hunger etc).

> .and why I often experience a
> sustained euphoria when I finish a creation that makes the
> post-coital feeling seem like ground beef compared to a fine
> filet mignon.
>

LOL! true! The intense focus is self-centered. gets into drugs like speed and cocaine that elicit a sense of total integration of self, and so focus on WITHIN your being.

> If you have something instructional in your IDM that will
> help me increase my creativity, please direct me to it. I
> would love to read it.
>

umm... geeze, the whole thing overall! it gives one the foundations of our thinking in general and from there the differences in perspectives. We can experience these differences proactively through use of such specialisations as the I Ching - see my page http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/icproact.html Artistically here we can 'experience' different mental states and so what attracts those states - and so get a good understanding of one's audience and so customise exchanges ;-)

The focus on oscillations of the brain reflects a normal cycle that we see clearly in sleep, the differences between 'left brain' dreaming (matter of fact, local day stuff) and 'right brain' dreaming (REM sleep, integration of the 'illogical' etc etc) The cycle is in fact on 24/7, with a general range of about 90-110 minutes (will vary timing due to metabolic rates as well so the timing range could be smaller/greater than 90-110) such that your 'precision' moments fall into the 'left' phase and your 'approximations', more qualitiative, fall into the 'right' phase.

There is hierarchy at work such that WITHIN each of these phases we can split activity such that I can do two things at once as long as one is differentiating (left) and the other integrating (right) - e.g. driving a car (habit, right) and talking at the same time. When I need to focus attention on the driving for some reason I will slow or stop my talking .... High detail processing, high precision, high exchange, requires singleminded focus.

Chris.

[yellowblue]

IMHO
words=labels
discord=fear

rationalizing to hold on to beliefs
rationalizing to get beyond beliefs
close and open
gradual progress

no wrong no right

Deb

[val]

Chris...

Thank you again!

Val

[chrislofting]

Hi Deb,

you wrote:
> By Yellowblue (Yellowblue) on Saturday, October 11, 2003 -
> 05:47 am:
>
> IMHO
> words=labels

yup.

> discord=fear
>

yup. More so a border condition is present and so 'oscillations' will occur that threaten one stable state or another. That said, the dynamics can be creative. Wars are often very productive of technology advances that become usable to benefit the species in peacetime.

> rationalizing to hold on to beliefs

yup.

> rationalizing to get beyond beliefs

yup.

> close and open

yup.

> gradual progress
>

both gradual (evolution) and sudden (revolution)

> no wrong no right
>

well ... depends on context ;-) gets into the issues of stable/unstable, competitive vs cooperative etc. As a *species* we wish to survive and so cooperate and compete with other species to do so (evolution) but that can lead to oppressive conditions from the perspective of *individual consciousness* that has its roots in differentiating and so escape/freedom and so revolution. These distinctions form the elements of the root dichotomy of evolution/revolution, and the dynamics across that dichotomy leads to the emergence of -- the binary ordering of the I Ching as POTENTIALS and one thread, one hexagram, becomes the 'actual' or most dominating of the whole set LOCALLY (more so we order the sequence into best-fit, worst-fit)

The ordering gives us 'right' vs 'wrong' and so a LOCAL focus. At the level of the mindless universe there is no differentiation - all is unary and so right/wrong share the same space - gets into relativistic concepts but our idealism will attempt to enforce rigid distinctions of right from wrong due to its 'binary' nature.

We see this in paradox processing where the species-nature is A AND B (integrating, whole) and the consciousness nature is A XOR B (differentiating, part) and from that comes paradox. (http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/paradox.html ) We can trace this unary-binary dynamic to the characteristics we associate with fundamental particles where the electron/anti-electron PAIR, we call these fermions, emerge from the 'soup' of bosons( and that includes light - the soup is called a Bose-Einstein Condensate). See http://pages.prodigy.net/symmetry.html - note how even here we see the yin/yang from T'ai Chi model and as such the concepts of the roots of the Universe being reflected in the structure and dynamics of our brains.

The INTENT of our consciousness, its idealism, will over-differentiate such that some things are overly determined to be 'right' or 'wrong' and others seem to be universals as in 1 + 1 = 2 NEVER, LOCALLY, does it = 3 etc. There is a *natural* focus on opposites developing in idealism and so concepts of 'absolute truth' etc etc - but truth, its feeling, seem to have emerged from territorial mapping and so truth stems from a sense of ownership, of differentiating 'MINE' from 'NOT-MINE'.

There are some interesting 'issues' in the process of negation in the brain in that the EXPRESSION of negation is always done from a positive/assertive mental state and as such cannot reflect the 'true' nature of negation - it has to be felt to appreciate the totality, the fear that can come with 'total negation'. In collectives that are strongly binary the focus is on the use of stereotyping to use in communicating and the rigid EITHER/OR that goes with this can impoverish concepts that are more organic, less mechanistic. See for example my page on issues of persona categorisations - http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/price.html


Chris.

[yellowblue]

Chris,

Per your comment below---

"well ... depends on context ;-) ....."

Precisely my point : )

Deb

[yellowblue]

PS

Even sudden "revolution" is gradual, but the intervals are closer.

Deb

[hmesker]

Hi Val,

Here is my translation of verse 80 of the Shen Shu:

"The wood is exposed to the sun when the spring opens up
The tripple yin however hides its roots
The woodcutter does not know this
He cuts away to make firewood."

With commentary added:

"You must not recklessly waste your grain; to perceive things intuitively is not enough; willfully cast aside misuse wouldn't be unfortunate."

Hum, I hope this makes some sense to you.

About the rest of this thread: it's growing above my head and I don't understand at all what it is about and where it is going. All I can say is that I don't believe in universal hidden meanings in oracles.

Best,

Harmen.

[chrislofting]

Deb,

you wrote:
> By Yellowblue (Yellowblue) on Saturday, October 11, 2003 -
> 07:51 am:
>
> Chris,
>
> Per your comment below---
>
> "well ... depends on context ;-) ....."
>
> Precisely my point : )
>

BUT ... there is a sense of the absolute at the level of our species-nature. At that level of being all is objects and relationships, the differentiating vs the integrating. ANYTHING perceived that is 'outside' of those distinctions will only be interpretable by those distinctions and as such will appear as a paradox in that it will oscillate in category across the dichotomy of object/relationship and no matter how many categories we create we will never be able to clearly pin-down that 'thing' ;-)

The sense of an 'object' and the sense of a 'relationship' are absolutes. WHAT they are applied to is relative.

As my paradox page shows, we are born to argue in that we link our assertions with our identity (recall what I said about the concept of 'truth' in that it seems to have its roots in ownership) such that if you say "A" and I say "NOT-A" our brains will instinctively 'tense up' since the assertions made create a paradox of A and NOT-A existing at the same time and to our PARTS oriented, A XOR B, consciousness that is a 'no no'.

Our species-nature, or more so its parts processing, will mindlessly oscillate on A/NOT-A, our consciousness will try and go 'beyond it' by solving the paradox to EITHER "I" am right or "YOU" are right and if it cant then it will label the situation as 'paradoxical' or we will just argue over centuries - yin into yang, yang into yin ....;-)

Thus, any notions WITHIN the realm of the species, as in perspectives of a collective or individual, will come with a degree of indeterminacy, relativity, only resolvable at the level of our basic being, our senses, our species-nature.

Consider the 'fact' that in Relativity theory time is distorted at the level of speeds approaching that of light. BUT our metabolism allows us to experience time distortions at the personal level well below relativistic speeds so there is something else going on here - the energy/time relationship is 'fractal' in form, same relationship at different scales.

Our thinking affects our models of reality and our instruments, being products of our thinking are simple extensions of that thinking and so will reflect the distortions and make them generalisable but not necessarily reflecting reality from the Universal perspective but more a LOCAL universal.

We cannot know anything outside of the bounds of our senses other than the extension of those bounds in our instruments. Thus the realm of our senses serve as a foundation, an absolute. LOCAL differences in genetic diversity can add some 'anomolies' but these will still be on the bounds and as such still reflect the 'absolutes' at the species-level of existence.

Note that in our adaptations to reality our brains are over-adapted to vision and so to light such that light is a fundamental. Our theories develop out of our minds that operate WITHIN the bounds of our adaptations such that, lo and behold, in our models of reality Time and Space are considered relative and light, its speed etc is a constant, an absolute, but then what would you expect if the primary adaptation is to light, to vision, and not so much to spacetime ;-)

Chris.

[martin]

Hi Chris,

You wrote:
"Our minds, ignorant of our species-nature, will then create a story about being 'guided' etc by invisible beings etc."

Implying that there are no invisible beings and so on, right?
Is this not what Deikman calls "reducing them to neurophysiological artifacts"?

BTW I think a conversation between you and Deikman would be very interesting.
Perhaps you could email him ;)

[martin]

Another quote from your answer to Deb:
"We cannot know anything outside of the bounds of our senses other than the extension of those bounds in our instruments."

Fact? Looks like a belief to me ...

[martin]

I'm out of body now and see you, typing furiously ..http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/biggrin.gif

[davidl]

Quote Pedro

In any case, it seems to me that the philosophic part is what activates the intelectual responses mostly (the more analytical, ego-prone, part of the answer), while the symbolic part remains more connected to the cosmic forces or whatever may govern it (the big images that seem to be just what we needed to get). In the very end, I think all the philosophical system of the lines and trigrams must be discarded, it may structure our thought to a point, but eventually we have to let it go and just focus on the deepest images.

End quote

I agree with you here Pedro, that underneath all the words and thoughts lies the more central force. By developing a personal relationship with the symbols, directly, outside of any 'priesthood' or translation we somehow move towards this central force.
To me the symbols are the 'keys' or gateways to new levels of understanding. I believe that why they are so fascinating is that they are somehow outside time. They are like the trees in the forest, with us flying around from branch to branch like birds.
To me the Yi, its symbols and everything written about it, is a big lesson in 'time'. It uses eternal images and extended commentary to teach me how to deal with change or time and space. By learning about time, we may one day master it, and move to a more' fifth dimensional' understanding and existence.
The Yi is then not a 'spiritual' document , its a manual,
a friend. By allowing the Yi to guide me through the realities of 3d existence, I then have time to look beyond the mire and dream.

[chrislofting]

HI Martin,

you wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> You wrote:
> "Our minds, ignorant of our species-nature, will then create
> a story about being 'guided' etc by invisible beings etc."
>
> Implying that there are no invisible beings and so on,
> right?

not necessarily - what it means is there in no *need* for the concept of 'invisible beings' to describe the sensations, the sensations can be described by understanding how the neurocognitive processes work ;-)

Chris.

[davidl]

Chris,
A human being sees about 2% of the light spectrum. Doesn't that make the other 98% invisible to the human brain ?

So if we cant see it, it doesn't exist, and we don't need it.
What a clever little species we are.

When people talk about being guided by invisible beings, they can also be talking about being guided by the light that shines from our mother galaxy. The creative force.

The invisible force that gave you life.

[val]

Harmen...

Thank you so much for taking the time to do this translation for me.

"willfully cast aside misuse wouldn't be unfortunate." I don't understand the syntax of this line. All I know is I burst into tears when I read it. I'm being willfully cast aside, and God it hurts. It's an effort of will...in defiance of what the heart feels...and wants. He calls it wearing his "practical" hat. His "practical" hat is dooming him to a mediocre, lifeless, loveless existence...and me too. And I'm hurt and angry. If I could get hold of that hat, I would rip it to shreds and burn it and then scatter its ashes over the ocean for them to sink to the bottom where he couldn't go to retrieve them and revive it.

I had a very disturbing nightmare night before last that woke me up at a quarter to 3. It was violent. And I knew it was deeper parts of me expressing anger about moving to LA...about my family having moved from the East Coast to LA. I have to move to LA. I have no choice. But it might be different if I weren't being willfully cast aside...no...it would be different. I DO NOT WANT to live in LA. I want to live on the East Coast. But I do not want to be alone any more. I want to be where the love is. I want someone to watch over me. I hate that it's my daughter, and I accept that I set up myself for it. But I'm getting old. My peers are starting to die of strokes and heart attacks, and I could be next. I do not want to be alone when it happens.

The window of opportunity to make the move (and escape the danger) is opening right now, and I have to jump through it, or I will not survive. It already started yesterday at work. The division head tried to cut back my hours this coming week, but people who depend on my work appealed to him. He governs without reason, and it's that very fact I'm banking on to make my escape. As soon as he cuts my hours back, which could be the following week, I can file an unemployment claim and give notice on my apartment. I will probably be able to get out of here before the 1st of December. And my focus now is necessarily on the preparations and steps to take, one by one, to do that...and escape the danger. I have the eyes of a hungry tiger right now. My survival depends on it. It's not even about a destiny that could be if one man had the guts to live his dream any more. It's about survival now.

I know what the Shen Shu said probably has nothing to do with any of this...that the message is probably entirely different. This is just what bubbled to surface when I read it. This is what it tapped. Pain and anger that two people cannot achieve a destiny of great love and prosperity because one man doesn't have the freaking guts (trust in himself) to make a change. "...the spirit cannot fly with only one wing."

I also felt the Shen Shu was expressing my feeling about the Yi lately. It's not enough the Yi keeps telling me my destiny...and they do (I send my castings to "impartial judges" to be sure I'm not reading something into them, and they concur). I have to know it with my senses other than intuition. I have to see (his smile), hear (his voice), feel (our bodies become one when he holds me), touch (every inch of him), taste (his sweet skin), smell (his lingering scent on the pillow after he's left our bed in the morning). And I don't. Consequently, I've turned the volume down on the Yi. If I didn't have to focus on survival at the moment maybe I could go on listening indefinitely. But I do have to focus on survival and I can't.

So...I would be most appreciative if you or someone familiar with the symbolism behind the Eastern thought in this verse will help me understand what the Shen Shu has actually said.

Thank you.

Cheerio the noo,

Val

[val]

Harmen...

Actually the not-so-odd coincidence is that I went to bed right after I played with the flash program, got verse 080 and decided not to bother with a translation...that's when I had the very disturbing nightmare. The next moring I was curious about what the verse said and if it had any connection to the nightmare...and I stayed curious all day.

Thanks again!

Cheerio the noo,

Val

[chrislofting]

Davidl

you wrote:
>
> By Davidl (Davidl) on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 02:34 pm:
>
> Chris,
> A human being sees about 2% of the light spectrum. Doesn't
> that make the other 98% invisible to the human brain ?
>
> So if we cant see it, it doesn't exist, and we don't need
> it.
> What a clever little species we are.
>

If you had bothered to read things in full you would have come across my statement re the development of instruments that serve to extend our senses. Our consciousness does that and as such makes the full spectrum available to us - all derived from good hard work in Sciences ;-)

Chris.

[louise]

uurgh...

[louise]

Tell me what scientific instrument enables dialogue with the deceased Chris ? And if you think such dialogue impossible - since it is not scientific, then thats your limitation. Science, science, science, useful, interesting even, gives us something but will NEVER NEVER give us everything. Science fulfills my soul not one iota.

[louise]

Ooops sorry I forgot I don't have a soul I'm just a bunch of neurons.

[louise]

how pointless is my world without my soul

[martin]

Well, that is what sometimes happens in science.
"We don't need it for our explanations so it doesn't exist."
Err, error! Bad science!

A correct application of the so called Occam's razor is for example "We don't need it for our explanations so we will not use it".
There is no conclusion about existence or nonexistence in that.

The fact that I don't need to assume that I have a soul to explain why tears are rolling down my cheeks at this very moment (I peeled an onion!) doesn't imply that I have no soul!

[chrislofting]

Louise,

you wrote:
> By Louise (Louise) on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 07:54 pm:
>
> Tell me what scientific instrument enables dialogue with
> the deceased Chris ? And if you think such dialogue
> impossible - since it is not scientific, then thats your
> limitation. Science, science, science, useful, interesting
> even, gives us something but will NEVER NEVER give us
> everything.

the role of Science is to solve problems, to ask an answer questions. simple. That means to be able to predict events based on past events and so focus on what is repeatible. It also means a focus on dispelling illusions and if you had read the prose I have sent to this thread without your anti-science blinkers on you would have read how Science can create delusions itself based on a lack of understanding of our physiology, just as non-Scientific perspectives, ignorant of our species-nature, create stories such as covered in http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/angels.html Science as such evolves ;-)

The advantage of Science over non-Science is in its self-correcting nature, more so it preparedness, willingness, to correct. The focus is on asking questions rather than taking things based on faith. Coming up with research data that is then peer reviewed and then, if accepted, is published for others to try and repeat and so validate (the repeatition is preferred to be through trying to negate the results, to prove the data WRONG. failure to do so acts to validate the data). You wont see that in any formal religous context in that the focus on fundamentalism etc is to NOT ask questions, to work of blind faith.

As such Science questions itself (which is what I have done in a lot of my prose in that I focus on what is POSSIBLE given our neurocognitive processes and that includes how Science perceives reality and can be 'blinded' by its own models - can try to close-off too soon or rationalise with little information to support that rationalisation)

> Science fulfills my soul not one iota.
>

It is interesting that you have said that to me in that without the internet, all based on applying findings of Science etc, we would not even be aware of each other let alone communicate ;-)

There is a fundamental distinction in our being between spirit and soul. Your spirit stems from your consciousness, your soul from your speciesness and as such your 'collective unconscious' - the realm of basic archetypes that are being revealed through applying scientific methods in research on such concepts. Science focuses a lot on our speciesness at the moment and is developing into issues of our consciousness. That is what Science is about, the precise, clear, analysis of soma and psyche to get a better idea as to what we are about and how we can improve things and that includes ourselves. To benefit all members of the species the data has to be clear and repeatible to be useful.

Our consciousness is more rooted in the realm of transcendence than transformation where in the latter the core remains constant and the exterior adapts to context, whereas in the former the core itself can change, can 'transcend' the current context. That 'drive' stems from the mindless activities of neurons where that activity can create behavioural patterns of the group not identifiably expressed in any individual - its called 'flocking behaviour'. That behaviour has been identified using the properties and methods of Science. simple. no waving of hands, no teleological activity, just simple dynamics that lead to complex systems.

Science is a product of our being, it is part of us, not only as a species but also as individuals, deductive reasoning is hard-coded into your brain (see abstract at the end of this post) but if you choose not to use it consciously that is not my problem, that is your choice ;-).

Perhaps what disturbs you more is the Institution of Science, now THAT has some 'issues' in that it is just as fundamentalist, just as dogmatic, as any religious fundamentalism but then you are dealing with people and so the Institution will attract certain types and be rejected by other types - all predictable by categories derived 'scientifically' ;-) The 'passive-aggressive' nature of many in Science means that, challenged to build the most destructive weapon of all times they will accept the challenge but take no responsibility for the consequences.

It is more so those lacking in Science education etc that USE the products of Science to satisfy their need for power (and so AK-47s abound in fundamentalist religous groups who prefer the 'immediate' gratification of such weapons rather than the 'delayed' gratification of 'destroying' someone in an academic journal! ;-) - Science as such can be 'peaceful' at the soma level, 'competitive' at the psyche level but then it makes the distinction of soma/psyche and so recognises you dont need to kill a body to kill a mind ;-) -- and minds are changeable)

I have stated in this thread (and in the above link re angels) that the lack of knowledge re how we as a species function leads to the *natural* creation of rationalisations based on the knowledge of the times and that has ment taking reported experiences of individuals, as in feeling pushed, guided etc and coming up with some model. In the past these feelings have been associated with 'invisible' beings, be they demons or angels etc. and over thousands of years of lack of knowledge re 'in here' has developed a universe of the 'spiritual'.

Science has revealed a source of these feelings that is inside of us - where our adaptation to context, so strongly rooted in our species integrating with the Universe, leads to habit/instinct formations that allow the context to PUSH us. That activity, that sensitivity to minute detail change in a context, is strongly expressed using such drugs as cocaine or speed where the introduction of the slightest difference into the context can switch an exaggerated sense of power and of general positive feeling into the darkest of fears and so paranoia.

The revelation of context setting-off filters in our input areas means there is no NEED for the 'invisible beings' concept to describe what is going on when you 'feel' as if something or some 'invisible being' is guiding you in some way. This does not say 'there are NO such beings etc', all it says is that there is no NEED for such concepts to be used to describe what is happening.

We must also consider such findings as temporal lobe thunderstorms eliciting images in our brains that our mind, ignorant as to what is going on, believes to be 'god' etc and so goes through a 'spontaneous conversion' - a common activity in those who experience these electrical thunderstorms in those areas of our brains that process images, objects (as well as voices etc)

We must consider the activity of low frequency sound that can elicit a resonance within us where our low frequencies are set-off. The point being that our low frequencies correlate with our sense of fear such that areas that do not absorb such frequencies can elicit a sense of fear in us, can push our species-nature buttons, and from there allow us to imagine all sorts of things going on (and that includes a sense of the 'spooky' etc etc)

We must consider the activities in areas of the neocortex, again related to electrical thunderstorms in the form of epilepsy, where we sense an Out-Of-Body experience. Our MINDS, ignorant as to what is going on, will rationalise these experiences and come up with all sorts of stories.

We must consider that, on approaching death, the brain is starved of oxygen and the neurons start to fire 'randomly'. This firing will create a summed sensation of a tunnel at the 'end' of which is what appears to be light. NOT knowing this side-effect of dying means our minds can create all sorts of stories re what is happening and if they do not die then write about the experience as if it supports some 'spiritual' realm. It doesnt support such a concept and as such cannot be used as an example of such a realm. simple. It does not REJECT such a realm, just adds doubt to its existence based on the 'facts' in that there in no NEED for such a realm to be asserted as the reason for the tunnel and light experience.

ALL of this sort of material, derived from empirical analysis, has to be considered when reviewing the nature of soma and psyche and this material is only of recent finding. IOW the neurosciences, cognitive sciences, and psychology are introducing as new paradigm re understand our Universe and ourselves and that paradigm will, is, causing some 'issues' re the realm of the spiritual.

That said, there is some interesting observations re mental states 'resonating' across members of the species (in particular identical twins) that, when combined with observations on crystals, pure-bred lab rats, and cancer cells, leads to the suggestion of some form of 'purity' (and so spirit oriented, a focus on 'transcendence' and 'purity' etc) that enables some form of resonance and so shared experiences without the use of words etc to communicate. This is all stuff that requires research and careful mapping of the details (some is planned re identical twins using 'Faraday' cages to block any form of electromagnetic communications combined with brain scanners to detect any 'resonance' that reflects communications.)

So.. your sweeping generalisation re Science needs, IMHO, review. ;-)

Chris.

--------ABSTRACT ON HARD-CODING OF DEDUCTIVE REASONING-------------
Cerebral Cortex, Vol. 11, No. 10, 954-965, October 2001
&copy; 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)

[chrislofting]

Louise,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: I Ching Community Discussion Forum
> [mailto:support@onlineClarity.co.uk]
> Sent: Sunday, 12 October 2003 4:59 AM
> To: ddiamond@ozemail.com.au
> Subject: Shen shu?
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> I Ching Community Discussion Forum: Open Space: Shen shu?
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> By Louise (Louise) on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 07:59 pm:
>
> how pointless is my world without my soul
>


It is not your soul that makes the point, it is your spirit that does that. Your soul reflects integration as a species-member and as such lack the 'pointedness' in precision of your spirit. Our souls are molded by instincts/habits of species, collectives, genetic 'anomolies' of the individual and all is unconscious, GENERAL and as such, from your consciousness perspective IS felt as if 'pointless'. look forward, not back.

USE the knowledge of the 'back' to guide in developing 'forward' ;-) - the spirit emerges from the FIELD of the soul, like a flower emerging from the grass and earth and so the bedrock. Neurons, hormones, neurocognitive dynamics are the BEDROCK from which YOU emerge but that bedrock also needs feedback to keepup with the flowering! ;-) - since it supples nutrient so it needs to be maintained not rejected.

That is what the IDM material, and so the I Ching, can do in aiding development. As such you have the skills to 'make' your world ;-) (e.g. see the I Ching affirmations page - http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/icproact.html )

Chris.

[val]

Dear Chris...

Albert Einstein believed in God.

There remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion.
--Albert Einstein

Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust, we all dance to a mysterious tune intoned in the distance by an invisible player.
--Albert Einstein

Quantum mechanics is very impressive. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory yields a lot, but it hardly brings us any closer to the secret of the Old One. In any case I am convinced that He doesn't play dice.
--Albert Einstein

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
--Albert Einstein

Love,

Val

[hilary]

Hi Val,

Good quotes!

I'm not sure, but I don't think Chris has actually said anything unambiguously to the effect that he doesn't, personally, agree with all the above.

Could Harmen's Shen Shu translation be relevant to any of this?

[chrislofting]

Hi Val,

you wrote:
> Dear Chris...
>
> Albert Einstein believed in God.
>
> There remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable.
> Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can
> comprehend is my religion.
> --Albert Einstein
>
> Human beings, vegetables, or comic dust, we all dance to a
> mysterious tune intoned in the distance by an invisible
> player.
> --Albert Einstein
>
> Quantum mechanics is very impressive. But an inner voice
> tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory
> yields a lot, but it hardly brings us any closer to the
> secret of the Old One. In any case I am convinced that He
> doesn't play dice.
> --Albert Einstein
>
> Science without religion is lame, religion without science
> is blind.
> --Albert Einstein
>

These are fine but must be taken in context. Firstly he was confusing religion with faith. Faith is singlemindedness as well as dualmindedness, it is yang as well as yin. You find both concepts operating within the SPECIALISATIONS of religion and science.

Einstein and the physicists of his time had no idea how 'in here' works such that the QM guys came up with all sorts of 'funnies' to try and describe reality from a position of ignorence re species-nature perspectives vs consciousness-nature perspectives. The issues have been with the *interpretations* of the data, not the data itself. (gets into concepts covered in my page on paradox - http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/paradox.html)

Einstein picked up this issue intuitively as in the above statement you quote of his about QM but his statements must be taken in the context of his times rather than as universals and so seemingly 'timeless' ;-) - his times included a rigid imposing of Christian and Jewish schooling throughout Europe and a lack of information re how we derive meaning.

Faith is:

(a) Absolute, total trust in, total devotion to, yourself such that you set the context, differentiate. Gets into charismatic persona types.

(b) Absolute, total trust in, total devotion to, another/others such that you integrate with their context.

Faith can be 'delusional' at times but also can aid in keeping you going in adversity. Faith can move mountains but it is the faithful who do the moving, no outside help required. Also reflects the 'placebo effect' ;-)

(a) is leading - hexagram 01, (b) is following - hexagram 02. Elements of (a) in (b) are expressed as