Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).
"a rough or fragmented geometric shape that can be split into parts, each of which is (at least approximately) a reduced-size copy of the whole," a property called self-similarity.
Sorting-out, after hundreds of nights and as many ideograms, then comparing during twice as many days entire phrases to there find symbols deliberately ommited, has brought me back to where I should have started with in the first place : counting one by one all the ideograms composing the 64 chapters of the Canonical text. As I was going along, I was surprised no other author had, to date, the same innocent curiosity. The only ones who dare advance such endeavor repeated what the Chinese have always said : ''that the Canonical text is composed of about 4000 characters, adding the roughly 6000 characters found in the Canonical Commentaries, give a total global figure of about 10 000 ideograms'', as you say...
...but, when you consider the clockwork precision with which the Yi was chiseled over the centuries, ''about 4000 characters'' is no longer acceptable
There are 4082 written characters and 14 spatial ommissions in the Canonical text.
I feel silly explaining this, but, what number of symbols do you have when you combine the eight trigrams amongst themselves? Take it one step further and combine sixty-four hexagrams (which is the equivalent of an hexagram changing into any of the other sixty-three; or, if you like to visualize it that way, stack the different hexagrams as if they were trigrams) and tell me how many you obtain...(((( ---- I am not a very clever man and trying to understand how you can multiply 64 mutating hexagrams into a total of 4096 possibilities since, for example, if you take
Khien(1) and change the exiting line, it becomes Kwai(43), not to be added in the multiplicity equation, since it is already accounted for as hexagram 43 !!!! or if you change the entry Hsiao, Khien(1) becomes Khou(44), so each level transmutation becomes a known hexagram and since 8 X 8 possibilities = 64, what would, say, hexagram 65 look like ?
...if I stack-up hexagrams to total 4096, they are not hexagrams anymore.
That's why I said "If you like to visualize it that way"... The thing is that the same occurs when 1.1>44; 1.1.2>33; 1.1.2.3>12; and so on for every possible combination of changing lines in any given hexagram. Any hexagram can become any other; thus, 64x64=4096 hexagrams.
Luis
OK - I think I'm following this thread.........
So are you saying that each line is a quantum of energy that contributes to a bigger blob (the hexagram). Then the way in which we move the energy or move with it gives us a possible 4096 outcome. Now if my thinking is sound, with 4096 possible outcomes we have 4095 degrees of freedom and these constitute our free will - the choices we choose to make at any one time.
If this thinking is on the right track what are your thoughts that free will is limited to 4095 options?
Mike
Taoism has that virtue that no other method of comprehension has : a binary code, Yin and Yang, it is that simple. Each of these are in their turn either active Yin or passive Yin, same with Yang ( hence the well-known Tai Chi symbol everyone calls Yin-Yang)
Fractals are interesting contemporary notions. They were developed by Mandelbrot as a means to deal with questions about two-dimensional representations of solid objects. They are mostly about confusing computer drawings with real objects they are expected to represent. Thus the term fractal from fractional dimension since they are not linear or areas or volumes but somewhere in between--a drawing of area that looks like a solid object but isn't since it is just a drawing on paper. Some folks play with these tricks of the Eye like Escher others take them to be deep mathematical and theoretical discoveries like Mandelbrot.
I am sorry you think the Northern Hemisphere to be unreachable; I presume Hidden is more attainable, so do you describe your position !
It is perspective that is constructive here; In the end, we all all right according to everyone very own perspective but seek out to share other's point of views. Winston Churchill once said : '' I have absolutely no respect for a person which cannot change his mind''
I would praise less egoticism from your part.
The Humanist Montaigne in France said :
''You may well be seating on the world's highest throne, there are you still sitting but on your butt''
I have not learn to appreciate that phrase you offered me :
You've placed yourself so "way up in the northern hemisphere" as to be unreachable...
perhaps 1971 is not a vintage ?
...I will modestly go on with the sharing of my etymological elaborations on the Hsiao...good life to you, Grasshopper
Yeah Confucious I am Luis' Master er Mistress
THE YI IS NOT A FRACTAL LOTUS
To myself who has no clue what a 'fractal lotus' is and so never suspected the Yi of being one anyway, this title has a certain poetic beauty....it calls for a second line, a verse infact...
The Yi is not a fractal lotus
The Y is not a fractal Lotus
Simplicity or Magnum Opus?
Lotus petals are concentric
Mandelbrot? (That's ethnocentric)
Little things please little minds
And little pants fit little behinds
My love life's fu**ed
My heart is sore
The ching won't answer anymore
(I asked for 1 it gave me 4)
churchill............? Dios mio!
Happy New Year everyone
Lucia
I know truth when confronted with it... (ahem, Trojan, the other fellows here will start fantasizing of me chained to the ceiling and you switching me with a pink whip...)
.
Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).