Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).
Fact? Really? Come on!lightofreason said:ALL of these relationships are built-in to the methodology of self-referencing, the method used to create the hexagrams
martin said:Fact? Really? Come on!
martin said:You can shout FACT till the moon falls on the earth, my dear. But all you have is science fiction and you know it, somewhere deep down in the dark cave of your hopelessly confused reasoning.
Isn't it?
lightofreason said:IF you want to 'abuse' IDM then do it professionally, with Science, not Rhetoric.... but that will be an issue since I know any scientific research on neurosciences, brain, emotions etc etc will support the IDM model since at least *I* have done my homework.
martin said:I suggest that you use the search function of this forum. If you do that you will find many posts in which I address your work scientifically and in detail.
martin said:GROW EARS! Do you hear me?
martin said:In case you don't understand what I mean, look how you responded to LiSe's post in this thread.
Did you listen to her, did you even try to understand her a little bit?
No, you immediately went off into your IDM world and responded with a lecture about hex 18 (and other things) from the IDM perspective.
Do you really think that LiSe was waiting or hoping for that?
And this happens so often ..
And then you talk about the need to be context sensitive?
Clear? I hope so because I have other things to do now.
dobro said:Anyway, Simple, to get this thread back on track, I was saying something like this: "The approach I've plumped for is one I learned from the world of architecture, where you design a new building so that it harmonizes with the other (older) buildings in the vicinity."
lightofreason said:your are doing a LiSe - leaving out the other half. ;-)
lightofreason said:From the IDM work we find the dichotomy of replace/coexist. What you propose above is a coexistence position but the reality is BOTH (and so yin and yang).
lightofreason said:YOUR local context given above is, from an IDM perspective, idealist, extreme, in that you want to keep everything even if new data comes along that shows the old to be outdated and in need of replacement.
dobro said:It's interesting how my approach, which seems so balanced to me (because it uses the past and outgrows it when necessary) seems so extreme to you.
dobro said:I really don't know how to get the best out of you.
toganm said:No past; no future
lightofreason said:Since 1 + 1 = 2 so 17 XOR 27 = 12 where 12 describes the 'mud' context from which 17 is built. None of this is 'me', all of this comes out of basic developments of our species and its neurology to our environment through self-referencing. As such these assertions are all objective truths in that they existed before me and will do so after me.
lightofreason said:The extreme is in the assertion you made about fitting in a new building with the old. I made the point that that is a one sided, idealist, perspective, you made NO reference AT ALL in that assertion about replacement. NOW that that fact has been brought to your attention you try and recruit it as if you asserted it when you didnt. Your not really sure about anything are you!?
lightofreason said:Why do you need to? your need should be on the material that is a property of self-referencing and that is not sourced in me, all I have done is bring it to peoples attention. Utilise THAT in your studies of the I Ching and it will be beneficial and you dont need to talk to me at all ;-)
lightofreason said:Rather than bang away trying to reach ME, bang away with the XOR material and so reach yourself.
lightofreason said:A message gets reiterated in various forms such that some form will eventually get through - unless all forms are rejected out of hand since one does not really want to change, to refine oneself. ;-)
lightofreason said:your are doing a LiSe - leaving out the other half. ;-)
martin said:The reasoning that leads you to the conclusion that 12 has this meaning can be convincing or not but it cannot be watertight & bulletproof. That is not a shortcoming of the reasoning, it's simply a consequence of the fact that we have left the domain of pure mathematics.
martin said:What you have is a model that is perhaps internally consistent. Fine, however, it needs to be interpreted when applied to reality. That is where the uncertainty creeps in.
The other issue is that the model (like any model) is based on assumptions. Are these true in reality?
heylise said:I find simple images for hexagrams. They are not positive or negative. A can of worms is not negative, neither is "about a sick whatever". Medicine, which has to do with sickness, is not negative either.
lightofreason said:As I said before, put up or shut up
martin said:Be happy that I still respond to your posts. Why I do that, I don't know.
lightofreason said:..because you know I am right - but dont want to admit it (or bother trying to refute it since there are no contradictions to date and so the model tolerates refutations as it is open to their testing.)
Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).