Chris is in Wikipedia

autumn · Nov 3, 2006

Are you aware that you're in Wikipedia?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Ching_hexagram_42

Just seems kind of odd. Wilhelm is used in some places as a translation, but then you are used for the main commentary on the hexagram pages. Yet I can't find you cited anywhere.

lightofreason · Nov 4, 2006

That must be a section 'they' forgot to delete - see discussions in:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:I_Ching

re 27-ness etc.

To them I am guilty of 'thought crime' ;-) -- I can understand their concerns in that they are 10th century BC 'minded' ;-) - I note that the link to the IC+ material is still in the talk section but removed from the main section (indicating a bias perhaps?! ;-)) - and my use of the term recursion is spot on (conforms with wikipedia's ) so whoever made the comments is 'wrong' - the sad part being 'they' are supposed to be formal wikipedia editors etc!!

Their loss ;-)

Sparhawk · Nov 4, 2006

lightofreason said:
To them I am guilty of 'thought crime' ;-) -- I can understand their concerns in that they are 10th century BC 'minded' ;-)

Well, Chris, you've always been quite the heretic in the bunch. Good thing by now, many years later, you are like family. Those one cannot choose but learn to love and accept... LOL!

L

peter · Nov 4, 2006

Re

Nope, Chris, it is you who tries to look so cool and modern.

Don't be ashamed to explain the basics of your approach in brief and easy terms. Many times. When you just give a link to your site, it is simply not polite to your readers. Show how your names and terms are connected with 10 BC names or 11 AD or whatever, and people will understand. Now it looks like you come to Yi Jing related pages and try to speak in a language that no one knows. Surely it can't be approved.

rosada · Nov 5, 2006

I think Wikipedia has some rule about you not being allowed to quote yourself as an authority. I haven't studied the entry we're refering to so this rule might not apply here. But the way Chris phrased something may go against some basic tenent. Perhaps worth investigating further just what the objection was.

lightofreason · Nov 5, 2006

rosada said:
I think Wikipedia has some rule about you not being allowed to quote yourself as an authority. I haven't studied the entry we're refering to so this rule might not apply here. But the way Chris phrased something may go against some basic tenent. Perhaps worth investigating further just what the objection was.

yes - this issue is covered in the discussion in the link I supplied.

lightofreason · Nov 5, 2006

peter said:
Nope, Chris, it is you who tries to look so cool and modern.

Don't be ashamed to explain the basics of your approach in brief and easy terms. Many times. When you just give a link to your site, it is simply not polite to your readers.

This is the internet Peter, it is driven by the use of links - I find it facinating how many people refuse to follow links! that is very 'un-internet' behaviour. There is nothing 'rude' going on. I have often posted link material onto this list due to issues with some not following links! (and then been asked to use links instead!)

If you have not read the intro to IDM page then may I suggest you do, as I suggest refering to self-referencing and the I Ching and the properties of trigrams derived and used in IC+ intepretations of the IC (or you could search for "species I ching" on this list to get that information)

Introduction to IDM :

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

Introduction to recursion and the IC:

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

There is also am old but still meaningful 'lite' essay : The Logic of the Esoteric :

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

READ THESE LINKS PLEASE!

THEN add-in a read of the Emotional I Ching material :

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

If you want a summary of the 'book of structures' then, ONLY WITH Internet Explorer Browser, see the introduction page for:

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

What you dont understand - ASK. there is nothing to be ashamed of if you dont understand what is going on - this is all 'instinctive' to me and I conserve energy so may be too 'intense' at times - IOW if you dont understand, consider that MY fault and ask me to rephrase it for you.

Chris.

martin · Nov 5, 2006

lightofreason said:
To them I am guilty of 'thought crime' ;-) -- I can understand their concerns in that they are 10th century BC 'minded' ;-)

I guess you are joking?

In case you are not, of course an encylopedia can only pay attention to work that is more or less "widely believed" (a phrase the editor uses in the discussion section). If it tried to do more the articles would become too long. It's simply a practical matter.

And well, as far as I know, you don't have that many followers. It seems, on the contrary, that your work is very widely DISbelieved.

autumn · Nov 5, 2006

I think you must be psychologically invested in becoming a genius that is unearthed by archeologists in the year 3500 and made into a bronze bust. This is why you don't take very simple, logical steps to disseminate your theories. Such as writing as if your audience is a group of 9th graders. Citations. Crystal- clear organization. Dis-entangling each separate issue- dis-entangling the interpretive text from the neurological analogies. Dis-entanging the pragmatic theories from the mathematics.

"I don't want to engage you in discussion of all these details, although I may read your web pages later because it does kind of interest me. I just want to say this -- it's my opinion, and I'd like some other editors to weigh in on this -- that you're violating the Wikipedia rule of "no original research" (See Wikipedia:No original research) by including your own theories here. Cbogart2 01:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)" editor

"good point but the material specifically for the IC is derived from a property of recursion and that is not original - just not noticed before ;-) - IOW the material comes out of an existing, identified methodology (as I have referenced in the wikipedia definition of recursion).
If I was Einstein and came up with something like:

E = MC^2

are you saying that this would be forbidden on wikipedia due to it being 'original' work? - Einstein could give a LOT of references to the physics of his times supporting his equation, as I can to supporting the derivation of meaning and specialisations from work in neurosciences. That said, I am not promoting IDM here, and the only reference to ICPlus is in an external link that is thus the same form of reference as all of the other links supplied in the main IC page." chris

Sparhawk · Nov 6, 2006

autumn said:
I think you must be psychologically invested in becoming a genius that is unearthed by archeologists in the year 3500 and made into a bronze bust.

Wow! Funny, it looks like your were reading my post from last night in my Yi-Blog but I don't see you in the stats (unless you are in Russia, which I doubt...

). If you didn't, that "archeologist" metaphor is very, very spooky to have come up from two different people...

L

autumn · Nov 6, 2006

Hi, Sparhawk. No, I wasn't looking at your blog.. but I'm glad you're speaking to me.

I'll have to look at it. I'm in Kansas City. We are famous for barbeque and really big, nice houses for 1/5 the price of what you pay on the coasts.

autumn · Nov 6, 2006

That is kind of funny I thought of Archeologists in year 3500 in the same context as Chris, but I think it's Chris' fault. I think he said somewhere that he wants his brain to be frozen to be used as a template for a new human race in the year 3500 and that's been floating around the forum's collective consciousness.
(I'm kidding)

Sparhawk · Nov 6, 2006

autumn said:
I'll have to look at it. I'm in Kansas City. We are famous for barbeque and really big, nice houses for 1/5 the price of what you pay on the coasts.

Kansas is also famous for being the home of Smallville and Clark Kent...

L

Sparhawk · Nov 6, 2006

autumn said:
I think he said somewhere that he wants his brain to be frozen to be used as a template for a new human race in the year 3500 and that's been floating around the forum's collective consciousness.

I think we've been watching too many episodes of Futurama.

L

autumn · Nov 6, 2006

sparhawk said:
Kansas is also famous for being the home of Smallville and Clark Kent...

I'm surprised you didn't mention Dorothy.

Here's a piece of trivia- KC isn't really in Kansas. It straddles the state line.

luz · Nov 6, 2006

But there is also a Kansas City, Kansas, right?
Is it right next to Kansas City, Missouri?
I was in one of the two once, but can't remember which..

autumn · Nov 6, 2006

Right- exactly. In Kansas there are two big counties- Wyandotte and Johnson. Johnson is one of the wealthiest counties in the US. Sprint HQ is there. A town called Mission Hills, with mansions. Wyandotte not so wealthy, but interesting in other ways. KCMO is where downtown Kansas City is. The airport is way, way, up north.

luz · Nov 6, 2006

Then I was in KCMO... nice downtown and a very nice children's museum..

...life can be translucent

Chris is in Wikipedia

autumn

visitor

lightofreason

Guest

Sparhawk

One of those men your mother warned you about...

peter

visitor

rosada

visitor

lightofreason

Guest

lightofreason

Guest

martin

(deceased)

autumn

visitor

Sparhawk

One of those men your mother warned you about...

autumn

visitor

autumn

visitor

Sparhawk

One of those men your mother warned you about...

Sparhawk

One of those men your mother warned you about...

autumn

visitor

luz

visitor

autumn

visitor

luz

visitor