Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
getojack
visitor
- Joined
- Jun 13, 1971
- Messages
- 589
- Reaction score
- 14
lightofreason said:
topal said:
Step up to the plate, Chris. You're up...
...life can be translucent
An open letter to Chris: Defend your methodology!
- Thread starter getojack
- Start date
Step up to the plate, Chris. You're up...
L
lightofreason
Guest
The I Ching (or more so I Ching Plus) comes out of the use of IDM in interpreting the properties and methods of classification systems based on self-referencing (and so associated with the "chaos game" - google that. ;-)) In that analysis were discovered aspects of self-referencing not covered before (entanglement (specific appliction of XORing)) and so a movement of the traditional IC into modern times.
topal said:
The methodology is not 'mine' - it is the methodology of self-referencing (recursion) where the application of the work on self-referencing has brought out a lot about the I Ching. The same IDM work applies to the realm of emotion and the consideration of the self-referencing of the fight/flight dichotomy where, due to the method, it is isomorphic to the I Ching and so I can derive the Emotional I Ching material. (IDM and emotion see http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/emote.html )
There was also application to the MBTI categorisation (and other categorisation systems all based on how our brains categorise and label) but I was asked by the MBTI people to remove that material so I will have to re-format it)
The template format of blend, bond, bound, bind and composite forms is covered in the IDM introduction:
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/introIDM.html
The focus on properties of dichotomisation is covered in:
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/dicho.html
topal said:
The IDM material covers the ONLY method we use as neuron-dependent species and from there comes sub-methods - ie. using the I Ching, each hexagram is representative of a method to use to interpret reality. These classifications, due to them stemming from the dynamics of the chaos game, cover all levels of perception with differences being in resolution power. The issues are that the IDM level is generic and unconscious. The classifiers derived 'seed' higher levels and in doing so allow for bifurcations of more classifiers as we move from general to particular, approximate to precise, objective to subjective, whole to part, essences to instances of essences that are labelled to differentiate one from another. THEN comes part-to-whole dynamics that also includes the breaking of symmetry at the surface level (symmetry is retained at the deep level since it is essential for general communications) in the form of labels.
topal said:
I dont 'read' any more - I have internalised the IDM material and so I Ching Plus in general and I apply it day to day. If I need an emotional assessment I just run the emotional I Ching in my head as I can access the equivalent categories in the MBTI (persona mappings) or basic emotions or explaining basic mathematics or social dynamics etc etc etc
The IDM material works as a guide to dealing with material outside of my immediate consciousness such that if I come across something I dont understand at the surface level I can go deep since I know what is POSSIBLE at the deep structure to seed the surface structure - I then need to map labels to qualities, to essences the labels represent and from there pick up on the overall structure.
I know what the hexagrams represent from a neurological and emotional position and so their UNIVERSAL forms that then get customised at local levels. Given understanding of the self-referencing we now move into XOR realm where we can identify the 'purpose' of each hexagram as we can 'neutralise' that development.
We can then extend the I Ching into its use as a coordinate system for QUALITIES rather than quantities. The issues with most Western categorisations is that they have not developed depth, there are MANY of them but all limited to 8 or 16 categories before they then get into quantitative expressions and so lose the qualitative. The I Ching is developed to 64/4096 categories and we keep going if need be and still retain the qualitative - the point is the qualitative is communicatable to all species members without an intense 'need' for training in mathematics etc.
What the Emotional I Ching shows clearly is that the I Ching works without any need for references to magical/random methods and as such is open to further refinement that makes the I Ching 'fit' the every day life of the species without raising issues of belief systems - the Emotional I Ching has empirical support for its dynamics, there is no need to focus on 'magic' or 'random' methods etc etc.
Chris.
getojack
visitor
- Joined
- Jun 13, 1971
- Messages
- 589
- Reaction score
- 14
Come on, Chris... that's not a very logical answer... the methodology is indeed yours, so take credit for it. It comes from your brain, doesn't it? If it's not yours, then whose is it?
getojack
visitor
- Joined
- Jun 13, 1971
- Messages
- 589
- Reaction score
- 14
So you've lost objectivity about it, because it is so much a part of you now. You've lost the ability to think critically about IDM. Too bad. I thought we could have a normal discussion about it, but now I see that we can't.
- Joined
- May 19, 1972
- Messages
- 3,488
- Reaction score
- 412
I'm not so sure. See, he uses a different Yi than you and me and he uses it in a different way. He doesn't 'ask the Oracle by tossing coins', he uses a series or cluster of questions to explore the emotional character of what's happening (is that right, Chris?) that he was previously not so aware of. If I understand his method correctly, then you don't need coins and pen and paper. You just need you and the questions.
getojack
visitor
- Joined
- Jun 13, 1971
- Messages
- 589
- Reaction score
- 14
Yes, I understand this... I understand that Chris's method doesn't use the I Ching at all. I understand that it is derived from categorization of personality types and so on. What I was saying is that he's lost the ability to think critically about his method. And that's a shame, in my opinion.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2007
- Messages
- 3,566
- Reaction score
- 174
Yes, ok Chris, that's clear and helpful. You explain very well what goes on regarding the workings of this method. There's a link there I haven't read too. But there was a little side-stepping going on too I think...
So you've used self-referencing as the primary foundation to this work. The way you have interpreted this, and adapted it to the I Ching is your analysis which gave rise to your method which is why you are here explaining it to this forum right? There isn't another Chris Lofting doing the same thing. (at least not in this reality) So, logically, and inescapably you are persuaded by it - it works. Therefore, you have faith in it - you share the results and conclusions you have come to because you believe in it. You have a belief in this methodology which you have made your own? Correct?
However logical and mathematically precise this method is and however all-encompassing, it can still give rise to a belief as all methods must go through the subjective filter of interpretation. Reductionist science is no exception. Yet it is not so much this as your conviction that excludes other forms based on an assumption that you have all the knowledge you need to dismiss what you see as "magical" when in fact, there is much more to this than meets the eye. Magical ideas have been distorted and corrupted. Our history is not as we think it is. And it is dangerous to assume that magical thinking or rather more intuitive methods of interpretating reality are without merit. We know so little about our origins as a species. Next to nothing and even that reason alone must ensure that we remain open to methods that are not exclusive to our mindset. Indeed, it is imperative that we do.
Now that to me suggests a danger in that you are relying on yourself, your own subjective interpretation of reality to navigate through perceptual minefields that occur daily - every second. Accessing new data is one thing, but the application and qualitative amplifying of this data can only be done through the action of networking and constant self- analysis outside normal forms of conditioning. You are conditioned Chris to think and FEEL in a certain way, just like the rest of us. As such, the difference between you and I is how we've processed our experiences and what method we have chosen to live through to contextualise meaning or lack of it.
If you want to initiate people into this new way of interpreting the IC you must give REAL LIFE, LIVING, BREATHING EXAMPLES that speak to our FEELINGS not just the INTELLECT. If you do indeed "go deep" into the dark of emotions give examples - open up the system. All new methods of interpretation are only as good as their practical use for people. Otherwise they remain an exercise in cognitive masturbation. Life can be viewed mechanistically but it is is also bursting with emotion which, so far is atrophying in your overall framework. At least, that seems to be the impression. And impressions are birthed from a cumulative appraisal of data and keyword analysis in this setting. Whether you like it or not, you are the personification of a method that you are "selling" to the cyberspace public. You are intimately connected to this method. As such, you are a co-creator. This creation of yours therefore has your limitations built into it. To iron out the limitations based on your interpretation of the data it requires the ironing out of the cognitive dissonance in yourself, just as we all have to if we are serious about growing and evolving. This is why I asked about YOU.
I assume that open and closed systems, negative and positive feedback (in the sense of systems theory) are solely dependent on creativity "bursts" that arrive from bifurcation, that in turn arrive from amplification. The oscillations are derived from interacting with a wide range of data and applying it - sharing it FEELING it. Pain and suffering is often involved. Alchemy - molecular, neurological - its all the same manifestations of change expressed through at different levels. Emotion permeates all action and all thought at whatever degree. These points cannot be allowed to develop if there is an ultimate BELIEF in the isolated intellectual grasp of the individual. Such hubris is as old as the hills and is tightly woven into our archetypal consciousness. Which is why the value of Myth and folklore is so vital to the nourishment of the emotions especially children. This is how archetypes and mythological constructs can operate - to feed the "soul." To guard against excessive intellectualisations in any discipline.
Do you feel that there is at least, a danger that your particular personality type is dependent on this system for a sense of self worth? Or do you perceive yourself above such things?
That may well be. Fantasy, wishful thinking and assumption and supposition is not good on any account. But empiricism, reductionism, and any other "ism" - or even mathematics - has limitation. Logic has limitation. Each is only as good as the sum of its parts. Your understanding of "magic" implies particular assumptions and interpretations which may or may not be correct. If you have "internalised" the parameters by which you interpret reality for yourself and trust in a wide ranging but also limited i.e. field specific arena. Therefore, the method will also be limited in a very real sense as a natural by-product of imperfection and biased conceptualisations. This inherent limitation is exhibited by your own expression of the system as its personification.
So, again, can you give real life examples to illustrate your points?
Topal
Last edited:
L
lightofreason
Guest
Our brains - the brain of the species. It has properties and methods in dealing with information and we share all of those as species members. THEN comes local context that can customise the general to be particular and so hide the sameness behind local difference.
The adaptation of the neuron to reality goes back hundreds of millions of years to basic sponges out of which evolved neurons and their behaviours. Go back further (or just generalise now) and we come up with the properties and methods of the chaos game.
The outcome of self-referencing is covered in the IDM material and its focus in the dichotomy hard coded into our brains - that of differentiating/integrating - where that dichotomy is applied to itself (self-referencing) through brain oscillations. See the page http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/properties.html
Chris.
L
lightofreason
Guest
I have not 'lost' the ability to critcise IDM - I have done as part of its development in that it is too general to be 'meaningful' - we have to derive metaphors to see how it clearly works (and so how, for example, XORing works in getting the I Ching to describe itself through reference to itself).
Also note that IDM reflects our brain dynamics and as such IS part of ALL of us. LOCAL context will add nuances, customisations etc but the GENERAL form is identical with its focus on deriving categories of meaning from self-referencing differentiating/integrating aka WHAT(who,which)/WHERE (when,how)
Chris.
L
lightofreason
Guest
.. you need the basic universal structures - the hexagrams etc The IDM focus has been on how we as a species derive meaning. It brings out through analysis of a number of specialisations isomorphisms across those specialisations and so indicating a sameness beneath all of the differences. The IDM material identified that sameness, the core classifications and so the ability to use one specialisation as a source of analogy/metaphor in fleshing out some other specialisation. Thus the isomorphism of I Ching hexagrams with IDM patterns and categories of human emotions allow us to come up with the Emotional I Ching since IDM has captured the basic, generic, qualities derived from brain oscillations.
The IDM material covering the generation of its patterns are covered starting with section 3 of the main IDM text - http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/idm003.html
The SAME qualities come up in deriving types of numbers in Mathematics or types of personas in the MBTI or types of emotions or types of socioeconomic states or five-phase types and so on. The same types implies that behind all of the apparent difference there is ONE sameness - and so we move into the realm of metaphor creation etc (where metaphors are interchangable in describing reality - and so Mathematics can represent any other metaphor. The core differences are in the representations used in metaphors - some are easier to use than others, some are well developed (maths) others are not)
The traditional I Ching is a product of our brains circa 10th century BC ancient China and we can move beyond that due to the discoveries of IDM in working on self-referencing - some material was covered in the past, some not. Bringing it all out moves the IC into the 21st century AD and allow us, for example using XORing, to get a hexagram to describe itself IN GENERAL (as a universal and so lacking in colour, sensory harmonics etc where LOCAL CONTEXT adds the colourings)
Chris.
L
lightofreason
Guest
yes I do. See my pages. But I also EXTEND the traditional due to the understanding of IDM and the creations of metaphors such as the I Ching.
getojack said:
Wrong. The I Ching Plus material comes out of applying IDM to the I Ching where IDM covers general brain dynamics in the derivation of categories used to communicate in ANY discipline. Thus I use examples of I Ching, Mathematics, MBTI, human emotions, socioeconomic categories, five-phase categories etc to show the isomorphism across these specialisations all due to them coming from the ONE set of categories derived from the dynamics of our neurology.
When the ancients created the IC they did it using their brains and the qualities derived from that activity UNCONSCIOUSLY.
See section 3 onwards of IDM:
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/idm003.html
Also see supporting refs/abstracts listed in the pages linked at the bottom of the IDM main page:
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/idm001.html
Chris.
getojack
visitor
- Joined
- Jun 13, 1971
- Messages
- 589
- Reaction score
- 14
I pretty much agree with everything Topal said. Give me some concrete examples of how using the IDM version of the I Ching is so much better than the traditional I Ching and maybe we can have a conversation.
getojack
visitor
- Joined
- Jun 13, 1971
- Messages
- 589
- Reaction score
- 14
me said:
you said:
I've seen your pages... you give a completely different meaning for each hexagram than the traditional one... so imo it's not the I Ching.
me said:
you said:
Hmm, you just contradicted yourself... First you say that you use the I Ching in your analysis. Then 10 seconds later, you say the I Ching is only one of numerous examples of the ONE set of categories of... what? Blend, Bond, Bind and Bound? Your quote-unquote "logic" is maddening.
getojack
visitor
- Joined
- Jun 13, 1971
- Messages
- 589
- Reaction score
- 14
me said:
you said:
Chris, who wrote the IDM material and put it on a website with a copyright symbol and "Chris Lofting"? Who put the Emotional IC page up? Was it the brain of the species? I don't think so. Stop trying to deflect everything to "the neurology of the species." You do have a "particular" brain in your head, don't you?
B
bruce_g
Guest
Can't help but chuckle at this thread. No one cracks the shell of this person, Chris. Not even Chris. And even when you agree with something he says, he will tell you you are wrong, and just repeat what's he's said a thousand times before.
Nice try, guys.
Nice try, guys.
L
lightofreason
Guest
No. I have identified self-referencing as the primary foundation of our brains at work. All that done in the IDM material. FROM that self-referencing I have identified core classifications of meaning from that self-referencing of the differentiating/integrating dichotomy that is 'hard coded' into our brains. That gives us blend, bond, bound, and bind. Cognitive analysis of the I Ching brings out those qualities 'beneath' the traditional material when we order the material in the binary or fu hsi sequence.
topal said:
I have done no 'adapting it to the I Ching', the hexagrams, trigrams, dodecagrams of the I Ching are all derived from self-referencing yin/yang. I have focused on THAT rather than the 'traditional sequence' and from that focus derived a lot more details etc on the I Ching than is covered in the published texts/mindset. The focus is on a cognitive analysis of the IDM template, the I Ching trigrams etc etc - see comments in:
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/lofting/t1.html
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/lofting/t2.html
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/lofting/t3.html
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/lofting/t4.html
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/lofting/t5.html
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/lofting/t6.html
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/lofting/t7.html
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/lofting/t8.html
topal said:
yes and no - the focus is on it being (a) consistant and so repeatable and (b) falsifiable. Basic 'rules' of a scientific perspective. The work goes on, it is not a 'completed' system as such since there is a lot to still uncover but the approach generates value more consistantly than traditional methods (and that is not just me talking ;-))
... no eyes involved. The IDM material identifies the sameness across all sensory systems, thus blend, bond, bound, bind and their composities communicate in any 'sense' in that they allow for difference senses to communicate the same meanings.topal said:
As for the 'magical', there is now strong evidence showing that the whole perceived by consciousness is not the 'true' whole we deal with as species members - see refs etc in http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/wavedicho.html - as such each moment is mapped by the whole of the I Ching but sorts the I C into a sequence of symbols covering 'best fit' to 'worst fit'. "Magical" methods access that sequence and can come up with the best fit or 3rd best or 15th best or 63rd best. Combined with consciousness 'forcing' meaning they can all be meaningful but the methods are inconsistant in getting the 'best fit' - the questions method is better and all due to identifying how our brains work in deriving meaning from novel situations - how we oscillate and move from general to particular and so the resulting questions I have set up to get the emotional I C to work.
topal said:
we know a LOT about 'in here' and the focus is on the pragmatics of the situation. The Emotional I Ching, complemented by the applying of a question to all of the hexagrams, is more consistant than the random/magical methods and so is easier to deal with, easier to teach, and it leaves the issues of magical/random to one side in that it bypasses the religion/science issue covered in that magical/random dichotomy. I emphasise in my prose the magical AND the random - I intentionally cover BOTH perspectives to bring out the THIRD perspective that is the I Ching Plus one of GIVEN the neurology etc what does it show us we can do to get consistant results from the I Ching without stuffing around philosophically re magic/random.
Having a science bias I have my preferences in that magic/random dichotomy but with the IC Plus material I dont have to worry about it - I have identified a consistant method in getting the IC to work WELL without having to deal with the ideal/material, religious/secular dichotomies.
Simply put, if you use the approaches presented from my I Ching Plus material you will get consistant results - be it for an immediate 'hit' using the Emotional I Ching or on the focus of a question to each hexagram and reflecting on that. Simple. ;-)
topal said:
I am a species member and so my brain in general will work like all other species members (or those in my sub-class as covered in the MBTI etc typologies). The I Ching Plus material comes out of examination of empirical research on brain dynamics, basic psychology, sociology etc to derive the IDM categories. Verification of their value comes not from me but from those who have used such and have observed the benefits of the perspective re understanding things quickly.
topal said:
species-member yes, "Chris lofting" no. My life has been extraordinary and so given me insights many do not have. It is from the singular perspective that innovations emerge and that has been the path of IDM as such in that my focus, my singlemindedness as "Chris Lofting" comes out in the putting together of the jigsaw puzzle covering meaning derivation. That is combined with my science biased nature that comes from my genetic history and is reflected in most males of the Lofting line - i.e. I am attracted to identifying essences more than experiences - most see a rainbow and go 'wow' for the moment, OTOH I see a rainbow, go 'wow' and then ask 'how?' and go into that realm. My travels have allowed me to avoid too rigid an education such that my interest is not ruled by some local collective impositions of perspectives - I can deal with the Science of my Art as I can the Art of my Science... we can talk Astrology or Tarot or Quantum Mechanics or Monet or Pain-of-Salvation or Bill Evans ;-) it is all metaphor and so has sameness behind all of that difference.
end part 1
L
lightofreason
Guest
PART 2
IDM focus is on the sameness not the difference. IDM focus leads into the I Ching Plus focus on general meanings, on sameness etc and it is THAT that allows the Emotional IC to work. THEN comes issues of differences, above the essences are the labels etc.
The Emotional I Ching is all about feelings. Its ease is in using it and getting a result without intellect - it works more to supress consciousness rather than supress emotions.
Thus for YOU to have examples, use it. The proof is in the eating not in examples of my personal experiences with it. Yes it does need some more work to get around issues of 'seeing it coming' etc and I am working on that but at the moment it still generates just enough to validate itself - if you use the Emotional IC and it comes out with what you expected then recognise that three really generic questions elicited resonance with your personal feelings - in other words it worked. Then feel how your consciousness reacts when the Emotional I Ching comes up with something you did not expect, or more so you knew you have been trying to suppress and so sheepishly have to admit it is 'right'. Keep doing that process and you start to get better integration between consciousness/emotions and so consciousness/unconscious and so better TRUST in your feelings.
the Emotional I Ching questions are REALLY easy to learn (or create your own as long as they move general to particular and are yes/no focused) - so the issue then comes down to memorising the hexagrams and their general meanings. Thus you have the IC in your head available any time - and no need for coins etc. Once you get a general meaning you can go for details later with reference to book or website etc.
There is more work coming out of these areas that map to the dark side of the I Ching, and so the interpretations are archetypal covering dark/light rather than the traditional form that is biased to female/male etc - this gets into I Ching compass formats and their use in deriving meaning - see comments in the old page http://members.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond/onemany.html
As for 'selling' the material - it is free, take it or leave it - it is all my research papers etc as I focus on uncovering the source of meaning and derive (a) a species 101 course on such for education pre specialisation and (b) ability to give AI systems a sense of 'meaning' ;-) I share that through my websites (first one was the ddiamond one I put on the 'net in 1995 - http://members.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond - still there for historic reasons as well as some extra space!)
The combination of I Ching, IDM, MBTI allows for focusing on path development, identifications of buttons being pushed and choices in dealing with that, refining them, amplifying them or moving on etc.
My social self-worth comes out of my work (I do contract work - computer industry, 150K or thereabouts per year - so I have a middle class perspective/life and the IDM material is my 'other' work - keeps me thinking and I have a 'need' to know what is behind things ;-))
I have well covered the categories/dynamics of sympathetic magic etc - you seem to think I have no experience in these areas - I do, I would not attempt what I have without covering ALL areas of meaning generation in that IDM covers all that is considered real and imagined - the base categories are consistant across all collectives within the species.
I am not here for you to experience 'me', you need to experience yourself through the methods I have described. If they work for you - fine. If not, thats fine to, but I would say that over the long run, the methods I have come up with seem to be more consistant, more productive of useful insights etc then using the magical/random methods on the I Ching... that said there IS a Science bias but that serves to link well researched, empirical work coving the last 3000+ years into the I Ching.
As such, I am 'meaningless' in this exercise, you dont need me to understand or appreciate the methods described - that is the success of a scientific approach, non-involvement and so not confusing my 'charisma' with the material in that the material stands on its own and so is not dependent on me to work ,nor dependent on me to be understood/used. Sure, I may be the 'discoverer' of the method (and that includes XORing etc) but if I didnt do it someoneelse with a scientific bent would eventually have done it since this is not 'my' method as such - it is me identifying a method our brains use and applying such to exposing properties/methods of the I Ching etc that take it beyond its 10th century BC 'wrapping'. ;-)
Chris.
topal said:
IDM focus is on the sameness not the difference. IDM focus leads into the I Ching Plus focus on general meanings, on sameness etc and it is THAT that allows the Emotional IC to work. THEN comes issues of differences, above the essences are the labels etc.
topal said:
The Emotional I Ching is all about feelings. Its ease is in using it and getting a result without intellect - it works more to supress consciousness rather than supress emotions.
Thus for YOU to have examples, use it. The proof is in the eating not in examples of my personal experiences with it. Yes it does need some more work to get around issues of 'seeing it coming' etc and I am working on that but at the moment it still generates just enough to validate itself - if you use the Emotional IC and it comes out with what you expected then recognise that three really generic questions elicited resonance with your personal feelings - in other words it worked. Then feel how your consciousness reacts when the Emotional I Ching comes up with something you did not expect, or more so you knew you have been trying to suppress and so sheepishly have to admit it is 'right'. Keep doing that process and you start to get better integration between consciousness/emotions and so consciousness/unconscious and so better TRUST in your feelings.
..then use the emotional I Ching. That said, you can also use the other method to ask questions of hexagrams to balance out thinking and feeling. (and I mean ask a question, not use magical/random methods, just ask a question and go through the hexagrams seeing how they bring out aspects of the answers to that question)topal said:
the Emotional I Ching questions are REALLY easy to learn (or create your own as long as they move general to particular and are yes/no focused) - so the issue then comes down to memorising the hexagrams and their general meanings. Thus you have the IC in your head available any time - and no need for coins etc. Once you get a general meaning you can go for details later with reference to book or website etc.
I dont think so in the context of the emotional I Ching. Have you read the preamble? the focus on body language etc comes from experiences that tie to different types of memory and so operating emotionally in parallel as well as serial.topal said:
There is more work coming out of these areas that map to the dark side of the I Ching, and so the interpretations are archetypal covering dark/light rather than the traditional form that is biased to female/male etc - this gets into I Ching compass formats and their use in deriving meaning - see comments in the old page http://members.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond/onemany.html
As for 'selling' the material - it is free, take it or leave it - it is all my research papers etc as I focus on uncovering the source of meaning and derive (a) a species 101 course on such for education pre specialisation and (b) ability to give AI systems a sense of 'meaning' ;-) I share that through my websites (first one was the ddiamond one I put on the 'net in 1995 - http://members.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond - still there for historic reasons as well as some extra space!)
My particular type has changed as a result of using the material - as such I have moved in the MBTI from an INTP to a XNTP and on to a XNXP - in other words the Xs rely on context to give us the I/E and T/F elements - which is what Jung was on about, to be XXXX and so adapt to context. Something the MBTI does NOT like in that they focus on clear identifications for group/team membership etc.topal said:Do you feel that there is at least, a danger that your particular personality type is dependent on this system for a sense of self worth? Or are you perceive yourself above such things?
The combination of I Ching, IDM, MBTI allows for focusing on path development, identifications of buttons being pushed and choices in dealing with that, refining them, amplifying them or moving on etc.
My social self-worth comes out of my work (I do contract work - computer industry, 150K or thereabouts per year - so I have a middle class perspective/life and the IDM material is my 'other' work - keeps me thinking and I have a 'need' to know what is behind things ;-))
not in hierarchies where the level can produce material not possible in the level below. this gets into top-down (whole->part) and bottom-up(part-whole) dynamics. Some of this is covered in my posts to my Seldon Project list (http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/SeldonProject )topal said:
.....it covers both theoretical and practical understandings and with neuroscience research so a lot of the 'magic' is shown to be delusion - based on working at the level of surface structure with a lack of comprehension of deep structure due to lack of research available - Crowley's "Magik" is a good read with good insights into Physics dynamics etc but shrowded with a lot of 'stuff' related to linking in 'magical' elements not required - imagination at work. These issues are also covered in taoist perspectives on eternal life and alchemy as is other material covered in such texts as Fraser's "Golden Bough" etc.topal said:
I have well covered the categories/dynamics of sympathetic magic etc - you seem to think I have no experience in these areas - I do, I would not attempt what I have without covering ALL areas of meaning generation in that IDM covers all that is considered real and imagined - the base categories are consistant across all collectives within the species.
I am not here for you to experience 'me', you need to experience yourself through the methods I have described. If they work for you - fine. If not, thats fine to, but I would say that over the long run, the methods I have come up with seem to be more consistant, more productive of useful insights etc then using the magical/random methods on the I Ching... that said there IS a Science bias but that serves to link well researched, empirical work coving the last 3000+ years into the I Ching.
As such, I am 'meaningless' in this exercise, you dont need me to understand or appreciate the methods described - that is the success of a scientific approach, non-involvement and so not confusing my 'charisma' with the material in that the material stands on its own and so is not dependent on me to work ,nor dependent on me to be understood/used. Sure, I may be the 'discoverer' of the method (and that includes XORing etc) but if I didnt do it someoneelse with a scientific bent would eventually have done it since this is not 'my' method as such - it is me identifying a method our brains use and applying such to exposing properties/methods of the I Ching etc that take it beyond its 10th century BC 'wrapping'. ;-)
Chris.
L
lightofreason
Guest
really? here is ICPlus focus on hexagram 01 - please comment on whether or not this captures the qualities of the traditional I Ching view as well as add perspectives that flesh out that view further:
01 The Creative, Heaven
Assertion (Single-Mindedness, Self-contained, totalising)
In a context of perseverence we utilise singlemindedness.
"CH'IEN: spirit power, creative and destructive; unceasing forward motion; dynamic, enduring, untiring; firm, stable; heaven, soverign, father; also: dry-up, parched, exhausted, cleared away. The ideogram: sprouts or vapors rising from the ground and sunlight, both fecundating moisture and scortching drought." ERANOS p94
Trigrams : perseverence (bottom), singlemindedness (top) : with/from perseverence comes singlemindedness. [heaven over heaven]
In the binary sequence of the I Ching hexagram 01 pairs with hexagram 43.
The pairing of 01 and 43 reflect the subtle differences in expression of 'yangness' where the differentiating focus of 01, where we make the point of the totality of yangness, is complemented by the integrating focus of 43 where the emphasis is on 'spreading the word', sowing the seed, and doing that in a 'pushy' manner. Thus we have the integrating and differentiating examples of pure yang.
In the binary sequence hexagram 01 opposes hexagram 02.
This paring of 01 and 02 reflect the total opposition of yangness, of pure differentiation, to the total yinness reflected in pure integration. The originating binary sequence of the I Ching, based on recursion of the concepts of yin and yang, reflects a scale of a relationship of yin/yang where the scale is local at the level of immediate pairs (as in 43/01) and global at the level of distant pairs (as in linking one pole of the sequence, hexagram 02, with the other, hexagram 01). The main distinctions in the 01/02 pair are on the precision of yang, where the unit of measure is a point, and so the ONE, with the approximation in precision of yin, where the unit of measure is always two points, and so a PAIR. We thus see the differences of yin and yang at the level of the human psyche as that between single-mindedness (pure yang - total faith in self) and dual-mindedness (pure yin - total faith in another/others).
At the LOCAL level we are dealing with an octet of hexagrams with the HEAVEN trigram as base. In this sequence hexagram 01, the singlemindedness, exaggerations-prone nature of yangness, 'opposes' hexagram 11, the focus on maintaining balance and harmony and as such the hard core, sharp distinction of, differentiation nature of 01 is reflected in a more balanced format by the integration nature of 11.
In the traditional sequence hexagram 01 pairs with hexagram 02.
This pairing of 01/02 reflects the local differences of pure/mixed expression where at the level of pure expression, as reflected in the PAIRING of the two symbols of yin/yang purity, hexagram 02 is more 'biased' to being interpretable as being a little 'mixed', a little 'softer' in purity, than the absolute purity in expression of hexagram 01.
01 : purity, mindedness - through singlemindedness (total trust in self) 01 purity comes out of a context described by hexagram 28 - excess (too much yang)
02 : purity, mindedness - through dualmindedness (total trust in another/others) 02 purity comes out of a context described by hexagram 27 - hungering (too little yang)
In the traditional sequence hexagram 01 opposes hexagram 64.
This pairing of 01/64 reflects the absolute differences between pure/individual expression and mixed/group expression. As such, when compared to hexagram 01, hexagram 64 reflects incompleteness but also the benefits of remaining open and the overall sense of 'groupness', and so of mixing (reflected in the yin/yang line orderings as well).
The generic properties of hexagram 01 reflect the mixing of the generic properties of hexagram 43 with the generic properties of hexagram 28.
Hexagram 43, in its rawest form of expression, reflects a sense of being 'pushy', as is required when one is focused on 'spreading the word'. Hexagram 28 deals with the concept of excess, here interpretable as 'too much yang'. Thus being focused on spreading the word combined with a focus on excess reflects the overall extreme nature, the totalism, of hexagram 01.
In the variation on a theme sequence, hexagram 01 complements hexagram 44.
The pairing of hexagram 01 and 44 reflects the subtle differences in expression focused on the base line of a trigram. Here the 'rigidity' of yangness, as expressed in hexagram 01, is 'softened' at a general level to be reflected in the focus of hexagram 44 on seducation and so the need for persuation to achieve one's goal. In pure yangness there is no such need where the natural leadership skills reflected in 01 elicit immediate respect.
Line Positions (XOR material)
00 :: (02) : What is this hexagrams's potential form? :: 1
01 :: (24) : How does this hexagram 'start', express 'beginning'? :: 44
02 :: (07) : How does this hexagram express uniformity, establishment of? :: 13
03 :: (19) : How does this hexagram express approaching the 'high'; defer to the 'low'? :: 33
04 :: (15) : How does this hexagram level things out, keep words close to facts? :: 10
05 :: (36) : How does this hexagram protect its 'light' when not its time? :: 6
..
..
etc etc
interpretation of traditional change line comments
Line 1 [01]
"Although having potential, one must must lie low (hidden) for now."
Line 2 [02]
"One is noticed, but to go further it would be advisable to get some guidance."
Line 3 [04]
"One must be wary of being awed by one's own power. This perception can be extremely destructive and must be exorcised. No harm."
Line 4 [08]
"If one enjoys oneself in a seductive environment, no harm."
Line 5 [16]
"One may be riding high but one needs some guidance[direction]."
Line 6 [32]
"One has become somewhat overbearing and is losing one's way. Repent."
getojack
visitor
- Joined
- Jun 13, 1971
- Messages
- 589
- Reaction score
- 14
OK, I'll take back that statement. The last I really looked at your ICPlus material was probably about a year ago, and then it was much more related to MBTI personality traits and wasn't the "best fit" for the hexagrams, in my view.
I'll take a look at your two-part essay in this thread in more depth later.
getojack
visitor
- Joined
- Jun 13, 1971
- Messages
- 589
- Reaction score
- 14
Chris, you remind me of Chrysippus. Is he your namesake? He was a Stoic in ancient Greece who by all accounts embraced humanitas, or sympathy, reasoning and intelligence. Tragically, he died of laughter after giving his donkey some wine and watching it try to eat figs. Ironic, isn't it?
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2007
- Messages
- 3,566
- Reaction score
- 174
Ok, fair enough, I'll have a look.
I'm still getting the impression that the Holy Grail of discovery is through the brain and it's neuro-chemistry. I think this is merely one facet rather than a primary one. The brain, imo, is merely a filter that isolates specific frequencies and allows us to function, to make sense of this density of being. So, perhaps you could say at our present level of perception and you have identified self-referencing as a primary influence in the way our brains work but that can never be an end in itself. There is always another step and when we reach that step we often realise that we were seeing it form only one angle. Self-referencing happens to be the "best fit" right now and for this particular expression of intent.
Well, I'm all for the scientific method. Again Chris, I need some real life examples as with any scientific perspective and its basic rules - they require peer review in the form of real life examples...
Case studies if you will.Sorry, that's far too confident. I don't doubt your breadth of knowledge but I happen to think the quality of Knowledge and how it is applied is intimately linked to our own state of awareness which will inform our intellect and our emotions. If you make statements as the above it is limiting in its scope. There may be things - no, there WILL be things that you haven't thought of and are not capable of assimilating and taking on by dint of you being both who you are and where you awareness presently resides. Ultimately I think wisdom, intellect and higher emotion is outside the sphere of any one localisation and thus the methods evoked.
Future work along this line will still be...along this line...It MAY be that self-referencing and sensory systems provide a big chunk of the answer but it may also be that this is still in the box which is defined by your perceptions.
Is that not a possibility?
Ok, understood.
But you see there are many, many more variables at work here than brain dynamics, semiotics and species focus etc. There is "strong evidence" for all kinds of things which are both rational and irrational, anomalous and empirical, reductive and deductive etc. Your whole assumption as to what consciouness is for example must inform your methodology. What if consciousness is something entirely different to what you imagined? What then?
What's more Chris, it is highly likely that this Universe of ours is stranger than we can possibly conceive. Would you agree?
Yes I see. The "third force" I'm familiar with and could be applied to most avenues of enlightened orthodox science as it has it's roots in esotericism - which at its best is a science.
Well, religious issues are not what I was talking about as I think it has done more damage to human awareness than anything else. Spiritual issues on the other hand certainly do as they are actually in my view, the realm of hard science, intuition and inspiration blended together. But then life suggests to me the existence of soul, whereas for you it does not. Would that be correct?
PART 1
Topal
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2007
- Messages
- 3,566
- Reaction score
- 174
Well, I certainly find the Emotional I Ching a valuable complement. Dealing with the mythos of certain collective themes and the rich tapestry of wisdom and individual / species-related stories and traditions, folk-lore is for me - fascinating. It implies much, much more than merely "magical" or religious connotations.
Again, are you so sure that it is JUST about the brain? Though you can explain it and organise it towards a high degree of scientific validation this does not necessarily displace other influences permeating the more material processes which are, in my view only material manifestations of higher reality frequencies.
Gotta be a bit careful here Chris. This could be misconstrued as a lack of humility...
Or is that not important?How about those who have had equally or more extraordinary lives and think YOUR work is delusional? Why would they think that? As far as I can see, your work has very real merit and usefulness. Again, the acceptabilty of our work and its usefulness - especially in this field - is defined by the co-creator - you. The responsibility is there. it's not about experiencing you per se, but I think it is important to recognise that what you DO and the quality of your "creating" if that it is what it is, inevitably reflects your state of awareness, not just about what clever things can be accomplished but how you interface with reality and those who inhabit it. THAT interfacing and sharing is vital to any creation - and the networking that produces that requires a quality that will also determine the outcome...
So does that mean that it is all passé? That this sameness is devoid of learning experiences and mystery?
And when your drive to take things apart and ask "how"? is resolved, is this reflected back into your OWN realm? i.e. YOU? Are you seeking to understand yourself in all this? Is the "how" applied to yourself? That it seems to me is one of the most vital questions we can ask.
Here's the thing Chris - do you see how people will get the impression that you have ALL the answers? And understandably they will be turned off by that impression? Are you sufficiently aware of your own system and how it intimately relates to the work and allows you to feel confident enough to make statements like: " I can deal with the Science of my Art as I can the Art of my Science..." or "...my interest is not ruled by some local collective impositions of perspectives."
How can you be so sure? Do you have all knowledge within yourself and can access it at will? I think not. Your interest and perceptions are formed not only from genetics but by trauma and societal conditioning; moulded by forces that even you may be unaware of. We all alike in that respect.
PART 2
Topal
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2007
- Messages
- 3,566
- Reaction score
- 174
Hmm. I think that's over confident. Are you aware of the Sufi alchemists, the toltecs, not to mention some aspects of Castaneda and Gurdjieff which talk about the capabilities we have to deceive ourselves? Especially through the emotions. I think we could just be feeding the "Predator" so to say, and initiating a self-induced anaesthetic on real discoveries... big danger there.
However, I don't dispute the basic validity of the Emotional I Ching. It can work in this way. What I am disputing is your unwillingness to step down into the land of mere mortals and SHARE beyond the confines of dry data. Whether you like it or not Chris, you are part of this methodology. Not all people are alike as you well know. Do you believe in living as an example? Or do you prefer the comfort of the realm of the intellect that applies this work? The proof is in the sharing of yourself as a process of networking which is also a principle at work in systems and perhaps creates the potential for bifurcations within us...
As it stands what you have said is a cop out. But I won't force you - free-will and all that...
[snip]
I think I read the preamble sometime ago- but will read again.But the Emotional I Ching is still pretty binary in its presentation and slightly intimidating. Couldn't you put some colour codes in their somewhere? Some nice photos maybe?
I feel like I'm in an engineering class on that page.Yes, I understand.
Yes, but thats' the thing about all the personality type stuff it's so one-dimensional. Humans are HIGHLY complex, multi-dimensional and multi-faceted. I hope your methodology does expand on it as those personality type questions are designed to ellict responses that are both subjective and simplistic.
I haven't read that - I shall do so. But why are hierarchies a good thing here...? I was under the impression that hierarchies are largely a form of involution - certainly in a social context
Well, Chris I find it very hard to believe that you have included all areas of meaning generation. Or perhaps I am misunderstanding. Can you explain that a bit more?
I'm sure you have experience in Magick - though I wouldn't recommend to anyone that they do the same however - least of all with Crowley - he was an absolute fool but a excellent example of how Magick can be used by small minds and gargantuan egos. But then that's Magick the magical source of narcissism. A lot of it IS delusional but it still has potent effects which cannot be explained by neuroscience - though that is certainly part of it.
Regarding you - see above.
Ok. but empirical work while very valuable is only part of the story, a bias that is a focus. No problem with that. I think you've said it very nicely and with some humility in the above paragraph.
I agree with some of the above and understand this reasoning. However, your "meaninglessness" will still inform the model /method that is being created. I don't subscribe to science as being wholly objective. Clearly if you look around most of the scientific establishment it is about as objective as the Church. Indeed, it can and does represent another Church of a different kind. We are far too feeble us humans and delude ourselves into thinking that we have a handle on things whether in the 10th century or 21st. Someone else would have done it - sure. but what does that prove? Not much. This isn't about putting you in the spotlight and asking you to juggle - rather it was an exploration of methods and modus operandi and how work is the individual and the individual is the work - back to the Art and the science. There is no separation and as such, there comes big responsibility in giving birth to something authentic - whatever it is - and that demands that we live up to those principles we are giving to the world, or at least to try. That was my point. How far we do that will determine the quality and future progress of that work.
The material stands on it's own, but you gave birth to it and I see Chris Lofting's oscillations on every page. And let's be honest Chris, your "Charisma" is not lost on Willow Fox...
PART 3
Topal
Last edited:
L
lightofreason
Guest
you cannot sense anything outside of what the neurology deals with (sensory data). Anything that IS outside will be interpreted from INSIDE and so elicit paradox (see the paradox page - http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/paradox.html )
The elicitation is due to not recognising the ASYMMETRIC and pushing for the symmetric. Our brains have a bias of part-whole/whole-part processing (bottomup/topdown, differentiating/integrating) and that can influence consciousness where it is consciousness that is the source of the perception of paradox by not compensating for the asymmetric dichotomy dynamics in our brains.
topal said:
The brain has led to the extension of our filtering to cover the full specturm, long range to very short range where we do this through instruments designed and built to extend our brains. You cannot have meaning without consensus/symmetry such that our instruments are extensions, not alternatives.
The brain is derived from aggregation of neurons and their specialisations into lobes etc to handle different sensory systems and association mappings. As such the core focus for information processing is in the development of the neuron from sponges hundreds of millions of years ago.
The neuron as such represents an adaptation to the environment in the context of information transmission, the encoding of instincts/habits and the ability of context to push such. the general focus on waves and integration vs pulse and differentiation brings out the core focus on discrete/continuum, FM/AM, objects/relationships, differentiating/integrating. This feeds all the way 'up' to our brains and out into our collectives - this 'fractal' nature is what allows are maps to work so well.
The chaos game is an originating methodology for information processing through self-referencing (you cannot use the exclusive OR without one neuron feeding back onto another - the XOR is the only logic operator that needs more than one neuron to function - this self-referencing comes out of the chaos game and is enhanced through the specific sensory systems of smell and vision - both of these systems being specialist containers of noise and so showing self-referencing within self-referencing ;-))
ALL of our maps reflect self-referencing and so the METHOD we use as a species to interpret reality and to communicate such to others of 'like' form. Self-referencing has been the 'best fit' since the universe began in the context of information processing - the differences are in the complexity of structure that had led to the development of consciousness from that self-referencing and so natural selection gives way to conscious selection.
The dynamics of the species cover the dynamics of the asymmetric/symmetric. The formation of the species reflects developing a symmetric focus that is favoured for communications. Thus the development of instincts/habits reflects this conversion of difference to sameness that allows for context to push and so we conserve energy.
The later development from the symmetric is the asymmetric in the form of consciousness, a frontal lobe focus that works to regulate (top down) as well as transcend (bottom up).
topal said:
You seem to be talking from a singular perspective. Beneath that is the particular and the general. The general seeds species behaviour, the particular seeds specialists within the species behaviour (MBTI sort of stuff) and the singular is our unique being derived in the first 24 months of life through relationships with local context. Thus after that 24 months or so our sense of SELF emerges (gets into Freud's focus on the 'superego' etc and covers the ease in training of frontal lobes/pre-frontal cortext to add to our genetics. The Emotional I Ching sits on this border between consciousness and the unconscious) - we can associate the term 'mind' with the development of the superego in that the training of the brain brings out a level focused on reason, regulation etc that we can call 'mind'.
topal said:
IMHO thats a belief system derived from LACK of information about mind/brain dynamics. As the processing of pardox shows us there is a realm of the parallel that we do not experience consciously since our consciousness is serial - other than as a result of intuitions. Intuitions reflect the development of a rich association memory derived from genetics and XOR, rote, learning and so develops over time (usually, some have it well developed earlier than others, some have it later developed - depends on local context dynamics etc)
BUT that realm of the parallel reflects hierarchy where each level in the hierarchy operates semi-autonomously from the others - that is how we can get the Emotional I Ching to 'do its thing' in that we access consciousness and the unconscious.
Also note that there are secondary emotions that develop in tandem with our sense of self since those emotions are dependent upon that sense of self for their definition. The Emotional I Ching focus is on the raw set of emotions, primary set where we get the 'primate' responses (IDM and emotions see http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/emote.html ) and so the 'gut' feelings we need to make an assessment of a situation.
topal said:
yes it is possible but no you could not detect it other than as paradox since the interpretations would be from WITHIN your sensory systems. It could occur that someone is born with a mutation that gives an added perceptual dimension of reality but they could not communicate it since we focus on resonance, sameness. This could be what we call 'psychosis' in that the unique nature, the creative, does live on this border of highly subjective perspective and so oscillates across insanity/sanity and so meaningless/genius.
The focus on information processing brings out the dynamics of the neuron as the be all and end all of rich communication systems. The patterns derived from differentiating/integrating, the chaos game dynamics across all scales ensures consistancy. The moment noise is contained the chaos game pops up. Any scale. It is this that allows for identification of all of the isomorphism we see in information processing systems - and so the RNA/DNA dichotomy, itself sourced in the purine/pyramidine dichotomy, seeds genetic codings and so representations of properties/methods of species.
The differentiating 'end' of DNA vs the integrating 'end' brings out a dimension of unchanging at one end, changing by the minute at the other end. This is manifest in viral DNA or in the third codon/neucleotide of DNA and all the way 'up' to brain dynamics out of which comes consciousness (and all forms as covered in our typologies). The DIFFERENCE is in the extreme differentiations in our neurology that allows for consciousness to emerge but the foundations are set in the basic differentiate/integrate dichotomy.
topal said:
no idea - all we can EVER know is determined by the method used across the species to derive meaning. Anything outside of that will be presented as paradox. To communicate meaning, to derive it, label it, etc comes out of understanding the method we use as a species. Wasting time on paradox will do nothing but oscillate across all POSSIBLE categories, never able to settle on one since there are none that can fit. BUT the SCOPE of the differentiating/integrating dichotomy is so large that we have more than enough room to map what is there for us to know.
topal said:
all developments will come out of the middle of dichotomies. Thus the third force covered in IC+ reflects consideration of the magic/random dichotomy and what can come out of that that is useful and not 'arguementative' ;-)
Chris
L
lightofreason
Guest
frequencies are energies, they have finite limits (amplitude of a wave cannot exceed a certain amount, E = nfh = E = Mc^2). This limit gives us frequencies of a wave with a fixed amplitude (as we find in axon pulses etc). In our neurology, through hormone dynamics, we have a range of perception determined by frequency - too slow and we cannot link the dots (cretanism), too fast and we enter psychosis (we also experience subjective time slowing down and appear as if slowable, stopable, reversible - this is illusion in that increase metabolic rates elicit the inverse relationship of energy/time that converts thermodynamics to mechanics)
the sameness is general, deep structure. The symmetry focus keeps it simple but also distorts logic (symmetric thinking lacks precision since it cannot deal with the asymmetric logic operator of IMP (implies) - it treats it as if the converse of IF..THEN.. is also true. It is this sameness that links up the dots in all metaphors such that we get the post modernism focus on 'any metaphor will do'. Education of such removes the necessary focus on DIFFERENCE and so the ASYMMETRIC. By identifying the sameness so we get a better focus on the borders with difference and so cover the issues of precision etc. and so maintain an 'interest' in 'out there' but also understand the sameness BENEATH our perceptions that can allow us to link the dots quickly but also discerningly.topal said:
topal said:
The focus is on us - the species and so all within that from general to particular to singular.
In a sense I do - by covering the method we use to derive meaning so all POSSIBLE meanings are identified and so become the pool of possible meanings for some particular context. BUT this is all GENERAL and so no explicit, detailed, surface-structure identification, no local symbolism etc, since that is all LOCAL CONTEXT. As such all answers are in the form of selecting the right classifier for processing some question and THAT will then give you an answer in the form of an instance of the classification. The Emotional I Ching takes three questions and derives from that a classifier, a category of the situation through which then comes details where consciousness fills in details upon being presented with the classification.topal said:
Because I know what I am dealing with ;-) -- in general ;-) This is all "The Language of the Vague" and so answers come as classifiers not instances - as essences not expressions. This IS a 'new paradigm' and there is a lot to cover but what has come out so far is enough to indicate I am on the right path in fleshing out this "Language"... perseverence furthers.topal said:
Chris.
L
lightofreason
Guest
I have read the texts but prefer the more upto-to-date, clear, precise, descriptions of HOW our brain confabulates ; "Brain Fiction" :
http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=11086
topal said:
20 is not my way at the moment - still too much to do so more the set of 24, 27, 03, 42, 51,21,17, 25.
....values are too subjective to be able to flesh out facts, if you put values first you will always have issues. Thus you may live a happy social life, a moral focus, and ethics focus but these are determined by local context and so emotional colourings etc - to get at what is BEHIND all of this requires going past it all to core, generic, essences - to the bedrock that supports the topsoil.
For example, focusing on the fight/flight dichotomy which is loaded with values issues takes us past that focus into what is being communicated and that is intent in dealing with context, to replace it or coexist with it. There are no 'values' at THAT level, it is highly generic, very 'universal' focus, basic survival, in need of local colourings to add 'life'. That replace/coexist focus is rooted in differentiating/integrating such that fight/flight is three levels up in the hierarchy and presenting emotions as derived from basic neurological dynamics (use of hormones for signalling etc - thus we can map in the endocrine system with its categories of hormones that 'map' to the neurology - in fact the neurology releases hormones in the blood system to elicit global changes etc)
topal said:But the Emotional I Ching is still pretty binary in its presentation and slightly intimidating. Couldn't you put some colour codes in their somewhere? Some nice photos maybe?
I will see if I can come up with something 'gentler'.
topal said:
Firstly note that the modern typologies such as the MBTI etc cover our species nature - they have little to do with the individual; the focus in the species is the formation of specialists in the species where enough of them allow for some feature to succeed regardless of local context issues (death, distractions of individuals etc)
Secondly note that the structure of personality is in all of us and so ALL MBTI types are present but to differing degrees related to genetics.
THEN comes the development of the singular being, our pure difference. This being develops post birth in a combination of genetics and nurture. The singular being is the one who comes up with novel ideas and/or spends time with the psychiatrist etc.
Most basic issues are covered in our general-particular natures and so advertising companies, corporations, military etc use the MBTI and other typologies to cover the basics of persona in some team dynamic.
What the IDM work shows, through self-referencing, is that there is a LOT more information available at the level of the particular that includes identification of purpose - not for the individual who is 'meaningless' but for the sub-groups, the specialist collectives. See more on this on the SeldonProject list with the focus on (a) prediction of collective events etc and (b) the use of charismatic types to assert change for any form of collective.
The formation of symmetry acts to 'simplify' and so 'down-grade' information to make it palatable to all. THEN comes specialisations and the increase in asymmetric.
The MIX of symmetric/asymmetric brings out hierarchy with the most precise form being non-nested (pyramid form) where all meaning is highly precise and so semantics is relabelled to become syntax - all that matters is position. The precision can be too much although it can lead to 'transcendance'. The more symmetric form is flat - all is known and so transfer across levels is trusted etc. and there are dependencies on a casual level as compared to the more formal pyramid form of hierarchy.
These hierarchies reflect the dichotomy of control/flux.
topal said:
All meaning is derived from the method used to derive it. For neuron-dependent species that method is through patterns of meaning derived from self-referencing differentiate/integrate and eliciting resonance in others through use of labels.
You can have specialist perspectives and so seemingly unique forms but they are in fact metaphors for what the brain deals with - objects/relationships, differentiating/integratring. With the self-referencing comes mediation/representation as in:
representation = mediation(stimulus,response) - first time through, and then
representation = mediation(representation) - ad infinitum
Thus a hexagram as a universal form is a mediation of yin/yang and once formed is then open to local interpretations ad infinitum.
topal said:
We are at the level of the "Language of the Vague" and so the science/religion dichotomy is a specialist form of differentiating/integrating. Recurse that dichotomy and out will pop all of the difference classifiers covering all of the possible contexts out of which come classes of science/religion mixes.
Due to the isomorphism that comes out of the self-referencing, so the I Ching hexagrams can represent these classes as the hexagrams represent the IDM patterns derived from the neurology.
Chris.
getojack
visitor
- Joined
- Jun 13, 1971
- Messages
- 589
- Reaction score
- 14
I'll take a look at it later. Are you familiar with Stephen Pinker's book, "How the Mind Works"? It's from a psycholinguistic perspective. IMO cognitive science is interesting but seriously flawed, in that it takes an entirely too mechanistic, reductionist viewpoint... kind of like you, actually.
People will ALWAYS have values... and issues. There's no getting around that. Perhaps you mean that seeing what's behind that will help you put those values in a larger perspective? No argument here. People often have blind, unquestioning faith in their values and that can lead to many social problems when interacting with people with opposite values... Fundamentalists of all stripes are a perfect example of blind faith. But do you really think that you are beyond all of that? A fundamentalist will tell you without hesitation that what they believe is "the truth" or the "the facts." How are you any different from that?
What you are describing in terms of fight/flight, etc. is the "How" of the matter. This tells you NOTHING about the "Why" of the matter. As you've said before, you are interested in the "how" of the rainbow. But that is only one very small part of reality. I have serious doubts about reality being discovered through the "how". You can tell me "how" till you're blue in the face, and I'll just keep coming back with "why?" But that's just me.
I think you're in the minority opinion here, Chris. References, please. Where are psychologists saying the MBTI represents our species nature and has little to do with the individual?
lightofreason said:
See above. Who is saying the MBTI covers our species nature? If this is indeed what psychologists are thinking now, I think they're on the wrong track.
lightofreason said:
What?
getojack
visitor
- Joined
- Jun 13, 1971
- Messages
- 589
- Reaction score
- 14
Chris,
Nothing you have said so far in all of your tomes has convinced me of anything other than my original viewpoint, which was that you are so totally involved in your IDM material that you are incapable of seeing other viewpoints as equally or perhaps even more valid than your own. This is a sign of a fundamentalist, dogmatic viewpoint. You claim that you are interested in falsifiability, in order to be in accord with the scientific method and yet you disallow any dissenting opinions about your work. You claim reliability of your methods with no evidence whatsoever. You say that the proof is in the pudding... just try it and you'll see. Well that doesn't work with me. Give me some proof. It's up to YOU to prove to me why I should try your method. Otherwise, I'll just stick with what I know works for me. You claim scientific objectivity while rabidly defending your own particular views. You claim insight and emotional mastery while putting down others and looking down on other viewpoints. You, sir, are a hypocrite. You don't practice what you preach. You try to force your own viewpoint on others and tell them how wrong their views are. You claim you have all the answers... the facts. You are wrong.
Nothing you have said so far in all of your tomes has convinced me of anything other than my original viewpoint, which was that you are so totally involved in your IDM material that you are incapable of seeing other viewpoints as equally or perhaps even more valid than your own. This is a sign of a fundamentalist, dogmatic viewpoint. You claim that you are interested in falsifiability, in order to be in accord with the scientific method and yet you disallow any dissenting opinions about your work. You claim reliability of your methods with no evidence whatsoever. You say that the proof is in the pudding... just try it and you'll see. Well that doesn't work with me. Give me some proof. It's up to YOU to prove to me why I should try your method. Otherwise, I'll just stick with what I know works for me. You claim scientific objectivity while rabidly defending your own particular views. You claim insight and emotional mastery while putting down others and looking down on other viewpoints. You, sir, are a hypocrite. You don't practice what you preach. You try to force your own viewpoint on others and tell them how wrong their views are. You claim you have all the answers... the facts. You are wrong.
Very well said! :bows:
L
lightofreason
Guest
getojack said:
Boring. Out of date. He is too focused in the trees to see the forest as he is too far up the ladder - you don’t START with linguistics you have to step out of the human box and into the general neurology box to identify roots of meaning.
getojack said:
My view spans the mechanistic and the organic. You obviously haven’t worked through all of the IDM material nor understood the I Ching Plus material.
getojack said:
There is empirical evidence to support the material and none derived by me or any associates. See the references lists/abstracts in the pages linked to the bottom of the IDM home page:
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/idm001.html
By understanding what is behind so we get a better idea of what pushes.
Fundamentalists focus only on A, they igore/marginalise NOT-A. The IDM work covers the full spectrum of A/NOT-A and include the categories derived from the self-referencing of such. Fundamentalists do not do this since their singlemindedness (too much yang) blocks consideration of the negative. Science OTOH DOES focus on the negative but has a positive, object focused, grounding (and so cover the digram that leads into fire and thunder, wheras fundamentalism covers the digram that leads into heaven and lake).
getojack said:
"why" questions usually just elicit value judgements and as such a scientific approach is more on what,where,when,who,how,which. That said, the IDM work in self-referencing brings out a vague 'why' in the form of general purpose.
Purpose is encoded into the self-referencing and can be extracted using the I Ching metaphor. The purpose is focused at the species level (particular-general) where we as individuals, singular consciousness, are 'coins' and so magical/random elements of such. In other words we represent Darwin's mutation but now where natural selection gives way to conscious selection.
getojack said:
That’s OK - I know I am right and so, over time, my perspective will be in the majority be it through me or as the psychologists catch up on their neurosciences! ;-)
The MBTI material had to be withdrawn due to reguests by their legal people so I am having to re-write it to cover general consumption - that said I have been asked to do a paper for the Journal of Psychological Type (all MBTI - see http://www.capt.org/ - but my thinking is to see how far I can got it alone without reference to the MBTI labels (since that is all they are)
The full spectrum of MBTI categories comes out of self-referencing the differentiate/integrate dichotomy and THAT translates into yang/yin and so the ease in mapping MBTI to IDM to I Ching to Emotions etc different labels SAME generic qualities.
The only MBTI stuff still on the sites are:
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond/mbti.html
and
the extension of XOR in MBTI:
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/type.html
Note Wallace's comment:
"...The hypothesis, which we shall call the "2^6 rule", is, then, that irrespective of race, culture, or evolutionary level, culturally institutionalized folk taxonomies will not contain more than 2^6 entities and consequently will not require more than six orthogonally related binary dimensions for the definitions of all of the terms. ...In the area of cultural semantics, we are suggesting that a somewhat similar principle applies...the evolution of cultural complexity is limited, in so far as folk taxonomies are concerned, by the two-to-the-sixth-power rule. ...What is limited is the complexity of the taxonomies which are components of the various cultural sub-systems" (Wallace 1961)
Wallace,A.F.C.,(1961) "On Being Just Complicated Enough" Proc. of N.A.S. 47 (1961): 458-464
This was stated well before neurosciences stepped in and IDM developed identifying the isomorphism across cultural/specialist models. The 'truth' is we can go past 2^6 but it gets too complex for most to deal with (pithy line change comments in the IC don’t cover the 64 possible expressions for each hexagram etc)
getojack said:
The METHOD we use to derive meaning 'says' it - brain oscillations across left/right brain form the foundations of categorisations through self-referencing. As the above link covered, we can map the dichotomies of the MBTI to self-referencing of the differentiate/integrate dichotomy that 'rules' our brains. The original work of the MBTI came from ad-hoc processes out of which came Jung's three dichotomies and Myers-Briggs fourth. What IDM shows is behind all of the ad-hoc focus is order in the form of our brains deriving meaning from oscillations.
With the development of consciousness has come the use of labels to differentiate types of 'wholes' etc. and so extract difference from sameness.
Since the I Ching hexagrams come out of self-referencing of yang/yin and IDM categories come out of self-referencing differentiate/integrate and emotion categories come out of self-referencing fight/flight and MBTI categories come out of self-referencing the qualities represented in NF/SP, we map the ONE method to derive all categories. This brings out isomorphism and allows us to use one category to flesh out details of the others since they are all metaphors and so interchangeable.
It is this interchangability that allows the I Ching to work, to lets us 'see' yin/yang across all disciplines since these represent the ONE basic method we use to derive meaning - self-referencing of differentiate/integrate (aka what/who/which vs where/when/how)
"WHY" then brings out consciousness dynamics as we seek reason. The IDM work shows the why but at a generic, species-level position where, as individuals, we are 'meaningless'.
The focus on begin/end brings out a focus on some form of purpose, reason. Due to the XOR material each hexagram contains identification of begin/end and so of purpose - we can identify the 'end' of a hexagram if it represents a situation and we can also prematurely 'end' a situation by eliciting the end state of a hexagram before it develops - this is identified through XORing with 63. (this also covers the "Nash Equilibrium" state covered in game theory)
Chris.