revising, harmonising

[lightofreason]

I don't have a problem with your theories as theories. I only take issue with you calling them 'facts' or 'the truth'. And what I usually do in my posts is that I try to show that it is all not so certain as you say it it.

...your thought being an error in that it IS as certain as I say based on it maps 1 + 1 = 2 - it is the SOURCE of such. The issue is that the template is GENERAL and so represents determinism from a VAGUE, GROUP focused perspective.

LOCAL context will then customise the universals and so reflect a probabilities form of thinking at the LOCAL level - but as QM shows (and the wave equation in particular) the estimated probabilities can be VERY precise. This is what we deal with when playing with 64 hexagrams or 4096 dodecagrams etc etc where EACH comes with a probability of it fitting the current context and we can sort those emotionally.

Without the sorting we are using random/miraculous methods but these are not consistant and that is the issue of their use.

The differentiating/integrating aka WHAT/WHERE aka positive-feedback/negative-feedback aka yang/yin self-referencing is fact. As a result of that comes corollaries such as XOR, Logic of Relationships etc etc.

For what ever personal reason you have, probably a focus on the realm of expression and so variations on themes, you find difficulty accepting this.

When you question you offer no alternative perspective/data, all you do is question and that gets nowhere since your questions demonstrate a lack of knowledge of what is being covered; if 1 + 1 = 2 and you cannot accept that, no matter what questions you ask it makes no difference since 1 + 1 DOES = 2; this is a universal.

GIVEN the method of self-referencing a dichotomy so the XOR etc come as corollaries to that method, they are built in and so universal. The issues come in LOCAL determinations, local labels, local experiences, that add colour to the categories. Thus 17 XOR 27 = 12 but local context will 'skew' the nature of 12, some see it as neutralising, some see it as standstill; most fail to see the dual emotional content present in emotions in that they 'colour' the universal to localise it.

The problems then come where these LOCAL colourings are taken as if universal!

Your obvious exposure to the realm of the singular (personal emotional states etc) biases your perspectives when we view the realm of the general in that you do not seem to be able to deal with the determinism present at that level (and so outside of conscious awareness). This is to me VERY funny in that you seek determinism in your start charts, mathematics, I Ching etc and when it is demonstrated to be present but at the general level, you reject it, have doubts! LOL!

Chris.

 

[dobro p]

People sooner or later get fed up with your absolutism. Depending on their temperament they stop responding to you, start to make jokes (like I do here sometimes...) or simply tell you that you should f*ck off.
What else can they do?

Occasionally people take yet another approach, which is the one you and I have taken in this thread, maybe out of desperation or maybe because nothing else has worked, which is to talk to him. To him, not to the ideas.

 

[lightofreason]

What IDM covers is more general and more determined than Mathematics - it fleshes out where Mathematics comes from. Given our neurology and its focus on differentiating/integrating in general, and that fleshed out in more physiological details on emotions (magnitudes, amygdala) and sequencing (date/time stamp, hippocampus) so we have emerge the qualities that seed mathematical representations:

Blend - whole numbers
Bound - rationals
Bond - irrationals (share space)
Bind - imaginary (share time)

The first three represent magnitudes and so 'point' focus (scalars) and what we call REAL numbers. When we add Bind we move to COMPLEX in that we move from scalars to introduction of vectors and so SEQUENCING. As we refine these we move to QUATERNIONS and OCTONIONS. Beyond that the basic algebra breaks down big time.

When we use sequencing we are trying to get back to a REAL, a particular value NOW and so the use of the conjugate process to do this.

Thus the REPRESENTATIONS of these number types forms into PAIRS of REALS:

Real (a,1)
Complex (a,b)
Quaternion ((a,b),(a,b))
Octonion (((a,b),(a,b)),((a,b),(a,b)))

Note the exponential focus (2^n) still repeating the derivation of magnitudes from the self-referencing of a dichotomy (2^n)

The dynamics of objects(blend-bound) and relationships(bond-bind) reflect the dynamics of positive vs negative feedback. Thus Bond issues come out of the negative and the sense of 'getting closer to' - it is here we have irrational numbers representing mathematical sequences/series and the use of the ratio to derive a 'fixed' number or SYMBOL of representation (e.g. e or Phi or Pi etc)

As such, the objects, the discrete sense of '1, 2, 3,' etc reflect the representation of pure ratios and as such all is based upon relationships - no relationships, no meaning.

Given a particular ratio this can then become the positive feedback side of things in that it sets a context out of which particular perspectives develop - e.g. the Phi comes out of the Fibonacci sequence relationships and sets a context for conserving energy but allowing for some structural development.

If we focus on the ordering of numbers, the use of number 'line' etc we find a quantiatively infinite format BOUNDED by a finite qualities - those of positive and negative. In other words any sense of the infinite operates WITHIN the qualitative bounds and so reflects the root self-referencing going on - we do not move 'outwards' to infinity, we move INWARDS by making finer distinctions in the bounded space.

This then moves us into Cantor and the issues of cardinality (magnitudes) and ordinality (sequences) that come with 'different' forms of 'infinity' - but Cantor had no idea what he was dealing with - the mathematics was all taken literally rather than as metaphor, and in that literalness interpretations of inwards development was not considered.

By analysis of the neurological processing of information we now have a better insight into what Mathermatics 'is' in that we see behind it, we see its metaphor nature as a nature it shares with all other specialisations and in that sharing allows for it to represent any other specialisation. The advantage is in the form of representations that are superior to most (but not, for example, in Chemistry ;-))

There is a LOT of material here you are ignoring or not thinking about due to you being specialist, as in working from WITHIN the Mathematics box where it is a metaphor for the bigger box of the neurology categorising information - be it real or imagined, same form, same properties.

Chris.

 

[dobro p]

Like we wasn't even here...

 

[lightofreason]

Chris is the holographic representation of the collective madness.

If there is a Hell, it might well be the place where we are in the greater domain of meaning derivation that spans the species, sourced in the neurology, and THAT is watertight/bulletproof since it determines 'all there is'.

does this mean "heaven in a grain of sand"?

what does it mean? what do you mean? This is Hell: intellectual wrestling with words that seem to convey something but don't convey anything.

The IDM focus is NOT on words, it is on basic feelings. The child you speak of was feeling sensations of blending, bonding, bounding, binding and their composites - the child was FEELING the hexagrams of the I Ching (or dodecagrams or trigrams or just a line of yin/yang)

The Species I Ching mentioned before covers all of these generic, vague, feelings that LOCAL context will then colour and, if possible, label to form words.

Sun light is unpolarised, glaring, life giving as it is life taking.
Moon light is polarised, soft, also life giving but through its cylclic behaviours.

These qualities map to hex 01 as they do hex 02 in their totality, their wholeness, their blending qualities. (and with the Moon we note the need for, association with, darkness)

The Emotional IC work shows a method to bring out these feelings, to sense the semi-independent emotion system at work as IT interprets reality. Through that method the focus is on creation of sensory images that represent the basic qualities and so can be used to communicate (in parallel) with those not able to do it with words (serial).

As such, there is no madness here other than as a potential ;-)

Chris.

 

[lightofreason]

Occasionally people take yet another approach, which is the one you and I have taken in this thread, maybe out of desperation or maybe because nothing else has worked, which is to talk to him. To him, not to the ideas.

the ideas are more imporant than me - I am just a messenger you guys obviously need to burn since change is too stressful for you! ;-)

 

[martin]

Well, I don't know what others think, but I'm slowly getting enough of all this absolutist preaching.
I didn't say goodbye to institutional religion to end up in the fundamentalist church of Chris Lofting.

Fortunately this forum has a handy option if you want to shut out unwelcome noise: the ignore list.

No need to answer Chris, I can't hear you anymore.
Bye bye!

 

[lightofreason]

Well, I don't know what others think, but I'm slowly getting enough of all this absolutist preaching.
I didn't say goodbye to institutional religion to end up in the fundamentalist church of Chris Lofting.

Fortunately this forum has a handy option if you want to shut out unwelcome noise: the ignore list.

No need to answer Chris, I can't hear you anymore.
Bye bye!

(1) you still refuse to offer ANY contradictory evidence to the material. IOW you cannot put your money where your mouth is - I CAN.

(2) all religions work of faith alone - IDM is not a religion, it is a model of meaning derivation that comes with reference to well researched empirical studies on brain dynamics etc etc

Your ignorance, you instance on remaining so, will eventually find your arse and bite you. be wary grasshopper ;-)

Chris.

 

[luz]

Chris,

Why are you so convinced that people are afraid to accept your theories?, that they find them very stressful because they place their identities in jeopardy? What is the evidence for that? You know, I've heard of people that, when confronted with the lack of interest in a potential lover, they chalk it up to fear. "Oh he's just afraid to fall in love with me"... I know, it sounds funny, but I think you are doing the sameI think I will call that... denial, or is it razionalization?? or projection??? (it's a good thing I have been studying defense mechanisms with my daughter, it's helping me understand you a bit better, you know).

Well, I think it's all three, you are definitely in denial, and your attempts at rationalizing others' lack of blind acceptance of your dogma are rather obvious, plus it is you who seems to be very afraid. After all, the repeated posting of the same old links, the same old illegible prose (that, as such, goes mostly unread), can only be an act of desperation. I think you are scared to pieces that nobody is buying into your theories and you perhaps fear that the lack of acknowledgement might obliterate your identity? tsk tsk...

On top of it, I think you might have a death wish since you make no effort whatsoever to connect with people and deliver your message in an effective way. If, as you say, you are just a messenger, could you please ask the owner of the circus to send a new messenger, a more coherent clown? Because, I don't know about you, but it seems to me like you are not doing a very good job... Thanks.

 

[hilary]

Try thinking of Chris as an evangelical missionary. For our own good, he wants to convert us.

(Now put that cooking pot away.)

 

[luz]

Put away the cooking pot!?!?!?

Why??? That is the only use we savages have for missionaries!!!

 

[stevev]

It's all your own fault

Hasn't anyone been watching kids gone bad, and nanny someone. Put him in the naughty room and don't engage him. Personally I'd like to know what the hell he's talking about and when he limits his posts to short sentances, I'll read them.

 

[dobro p]

Try thinking of Chris as an evangelical missionary. For our own good, he wants to convert us.

(Now put that cooking pot away.)

One word: proselytizing.

Two or three words: proselytizing's irritating.

 

[dobro p]

Hasn't anyone been watching kids gone bad, and nanny someone. Put him in the naughty room and don't engage him. Personally I'd like to know what the hell he's talking about and when he limits his posts to short sentances, I'll read them.

I'm thinking the obfuscation created by the hyperintellectual verbiage is an unconscious way for him to accomplish two things: elevate himself above the hoipolloi and maintain a distance between himself and others because he doesn't know how to 'meet' people because he doesn't have much of a sense of self. 'I am a worthless servant of an immortal message.' Standard issue psychological dynamics, in other words - lies, defenses and denial, basically.

'Obfuscation created by the hyperintellectual verbiage' - fcuk, it's catching! I'm outta here lol.

I'm still gonna check out his stuff. Pity I can't actually connect with the guy.

 

[martin]

I believe we have allowed this thing to go too far.
Steve is right, it's better not to engage Chris. And in retrospect I think I have also done that way too much. It only stimulated him.
The advantage of having him on the ignore list is that I don't see his posts anymore and am not tempted to respond to them.

If Chris expresses his opinions about the IC here, that is perfectly okay as far as I am concerned, but he does much more than that. He floods the forum with his posts and (mis)uses it as a platform for his pet theory. His presence has become too dominant and on top of that he insults people and their believes.
His last posts (the posts that I still saw, before I put him on ignore) are provocative, to say the least. He repeats the same absolutist nonsense statements and he apparently thinks that he can do whatever he likes here because ... we are so soft and we will not ban him.

Frankly, IMO it is time to solve the problem "Chris Lofting" once and for all. If people are interested in his system they can go to his website or join his Yahoo group.
I see no reason why he should be allowed to stay here.

 

[Sparhawk]

Oh, come on, Chris is an odd ball (perhaps the oddest of them all) but I don't recognize in him a bad person. Opinionated to the 'n' potency, yes. Annoying with a deluge of reading material, yes. Repetitive, yes. A pain in the butt most of the time, yes. But I rather take (and most likely will utterly ignore) absolutisms dressed in logical reasoning than absolutisms dressed in faith (those I'm violently allergic to...) I've seen both types exposed in here. It may be argued that Chris's statements are as much "faith" in something than "logic" but, heck, I don't know, the dressing is impressive to lesser souls and minds...

I know I have a twisted mind, but I do find this whole situation quite humorous. Is not like we've just met Chris. The man is as constant as a swiss watch in his thoughts and flawed delivery (sorry Chris). If one does not like it, one has the option to ignore him. Not all, however, is worthy of the dustbin; even for somebody that believes that voices in your head may be actually a good thing if they are good interpreters of the Yi...

Let's chill...


L

 

[hilary]

Chief savage's official position: as long as there is someone here who's interested in Chris's posts, and/or someone who finds them helpful, he stays. I think it's important to acknowledge that his motives are actually good-hearted and generous. (That was the point of my comment about missionaries - also, I believe you'll avoid some frustration if you can see that the missionary doesn't visit the savages thinking that maybe he'll change his mind and convert to animism.) I don't ban people for being insulting or for disagreeing.

However... people do sometimes leave this forum because they find Chris, and his ability to derail a thread, a bit much. So I am on the fence - not a comfortable place to be: liberal instincts at war with a creeping sense of responsibility. You will find the 'ignore' option in your user control panel under 'buddy/ignore lists'; here's a direct link. And if you want to pm or email me with comments (as I think I've made enough of a contribution to derailing this thread myself for now ), you can do so by clicking my username above this post.

 

[martin]

I don't think of Chris as a bad person, I would rather call him a bad boy. A very naughty one.
And I see the humor of it too (as you know ) but I also see the other side. He is bullying people all the time and some have left because of him. And he is misusing this forum for his own purposes. That's not funny at all.

Part of the problem is, I think, that we have become used to him and his ways and don't see anymore how odd the situation really is.
He is testing the limits of our tolerance and how far will we allow him to go? This is a clear case of 44.1 if you ask me.

 

[hilary]

Missed your post, Luis. Nice one.

 

[pakua]

I'm constantly surprised why you guys are so put off by Chris.

Is it because he has a different view of Yi?

Is it because it seems he thinks he's always in the right, or he thinks his is the only right view?

If the former, so what? Everyone has an opinon. A number of people have expressed learning something from his posts. You take what you want and leave the rest.

If the latter, so what? I see others here with similar (or worse, IMO) personality traits.

So why is he such a target for so many derogatory remarks, which I'm sure wouldn't be made face-to-face?

 

[Sparhawk]

And he is misusing this forum for his own purposes.

Everybody is here for their own purposes! Take me, for example, I'm here for the ladies... (and that's a real misuse of the place...)

Although, Martin, I've no luck with any of them yet. The only one that liked me, and winked an eye at me, was Val and she's gone... sigh... Life is unfair.

L

 

[martin]

I think it's important to acknowledge that his motives are actually good-hearted and generous

My hobby too, seeing the good in everyone!
Still, as a teacher I sometimes had to remove pupils even although I saw their good heart. I hated to do that but their behavior left me no choice.

But it's your decision and I realize that your position is not an easy one.

 

[martin]

Luis! For once I'm trying to be dead serious and you are again misusing this forum to make me laugh!

 

[luz]

Is it because he has a different view of Yi?

NO

Is it because it seems he thinks he's always in the right, or he thinks his is the only right view?

NO

So why is he such a target for so many derogatory remarks, which I'm sure wouldn't be made face-to-face?

Another good question, Pakua, would be why does he make so many derogatory remarks, don't you think? I don't know if you understand and accept his theories as fact, but in case you don't, you should be aware that he thinks you are ignorant, fearful of facing the truth and living in the 10th century BC.
Plus, this is as face-to-face as it will ever get, Pakua, you can't say anybody is going behind anybody's back.
I guess the main problem is, though, that you just can't talk to him. And it feels weird to be the witness of one-sided diatribes that are meant to wash your brain, probably. Me, I prefer to think I'm having a conversation.

 

[pakua]

"you should be aware that he thinks you are ignorant, fearful of facing the truth and living in the 10th century BC."

I don't really see his comments that way.

"this is as face-to-face as it will ever get,"

By face-to face, I mean without any computer screens in between. As soon as there's a screen in between, it's easy to forget the rules of human discourse.

"I guess the main problem is, though, that you just can't talk to him."

There are many people in my life I can't have a conversation with. Does that mean I should go around and ban them and make comments about them?

Not everyone is interested in the same things I'm interested in. Some are here for social reasons, others just to learn, others to share, and everyone has their own agenda.

"And it feels weird to be the witness of one-sided diatribes that are meant to wash your brain, probably."

LOL. Whenever I've asked him a question, he's responded. If I don't respond back after that, neither does he. I haven't seen any brainwashing going on

 

[martin]

Well, as long as you don't respond or at least don't respond with an opinion that differs from his you will be okay, I think.
But if you disagree ...

 

[martin]

Anyway, do as you like. I "ban" the preacher from now on, I keep him on my ignore list.
No useless efforts to communicate with him anymore. Enough is enough.

 

[lightofreason]

lightangel, I find your pop psychology amusing, but misguided - you need to read more, but from your own statements you dont do that. How sad. Ignorance is bliss yes? LOL! get out more.

 

[martin]

This message is hidden because lightofreason is on your ignore list.

What a great feature!

 

[lightofreason]

Hasn't anyone been watching kids gone bad, and nanny someone. Put him in the naughty room and don't engage him. Personally I'd like to know what the hell he's talking about and when he limits his posts to short sentances, I'll read them.

This is REALLY silly thinking - it is akin to saying "I wont read an introduction to Mathematics until they make the numbers smaller!"

What this also implies is your professional understanding of recursion is obviously limited.