...life can be translucent

Menu

59.2

B

bruce_g

Guest
I don’t believe the original writers were different from us, other than the time and space landscape they lived in. On to something, yes. Possessing deep insight, yes. But not any sort of superhuman with unfathomable intelligence. They paid keen attention, and made notes of their observations. The outcome was something even they would not have imagined: the unexpected born of innocence, or the epiphanies of self analysis.
 

martin

visitor
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
9
Well, perhaps they were not that different from us. But considering that the IC is an oracle (I don't know but I assume that it was meant to be an oracle already at an early stage of its development?) is it so strange to assume that at least part of it was channeled somehow? Or created with the help of other oracles? Or maybe created in unusual trance-like states of consciousness?
 
B

bruce_g

Guest
martin said:
Well, perhaps they were not that different from us. But considering that the IC is an oracle (I don't know but I assume that it was meant to be an oracle already at an early stage of its development?) is it so strange to assume that at least part of it was channeled somehow? Or created with the help of other oracles? Or maybe created in unusual trance-like states of consciousness?
Only thinking aloud, cuz I dunno, and don't know anyone who does.

The oracle phenomenon itself can be duplicated. That's not the hard part. I've a friend who created a set of cards, each with different (won't say archetype :D) image with a wide meaning. She had a famous fantasy artist draw characters for each card. She then wrote attributes of each card and character. The oracle works, spot on. The oracle phenomenon itself can be easily produced.

The second hardest thing, I think, is to create continuity, and what Chris refers to as self referencing ability.

But to me, the really difficult part is the depth of each meaning contained within each Gua and each change line. There's no bottom to it, and yet there is a clear path which leads down into it, each and every time - if our contemplation is both focused and open enough.

As I see it, it is our own consciousness which goes into the realm of consciousness itself, and from there we find the meaning we were seeking. The interplay between our local and universal is what we’re talking about here. Many say they feel they are having a conversation with themselves, and I think that’s exactly what’s happening. So if there’s a superhuman involved, the Great One, it is consciousness itself. Our own Prince wears the mantle and seal of the King, and this gives us (our separate and individual self) the sensation or impression of our answers coming from a god-like being.
 

denis_m

visitor
Joined
Aug 3, 2006
Messages
45
Reaction score
0
bruce_g said:
But to me, the really difficult part is the depth of each meaning contained within each Gua and each change line. There's no bottom to it....As I see it, it is our own consciousness which goes into the realm of consciousness itself, and from there we find the meaning we were seeking. The interplay between our local and universal is what we’re talking about here.
But "consciousness" as we know it registers an event in time and space. It is karmically conditioned and limited. We can only infer a consciousness that underlies things or permeates them across boundaries. Would such a consciousness share any of our concerns?
Suppose the whole universe were one big quantum computer? It could produce complexity and order far beyond any artifact that humans can produce. It could produce design features more fundamental that what the "intelligent design" people are talking about so far.
The number of fluctuation-states at the quantuum level far exceed the number of particles in the universe. Thus a complex order could have been worked out on that level before being concretized in the most basic design features of matter---for instance, the ratios among subatomic forces and particle weights.
That kind of conception--out of pure energy fluctuations--is not much like our kind of thinking. Can we call it thinking? At any rate, something was arrived at, and its governing principles can be teased out and talked about as concepts.
I was led to these reflections by the Yi. It led me toward them just as the natural world has led people to faith---by the promise of explanations that lie below explanations....Always beginning from something right before us, always "holding compositions within"---the texture and composition of soil, or the habits of family life.
The people who made up the Yi were given privileged insights ahead of their time. They did not have the conceptual tools we have now, yet the system they conceived is an imaginative model for quantum reality. It is also a model for systems in which the units are multiply determined and have multiple functions. Our scientific minds are just now learning terminologies to talk about such systems---the nesting levels of rules informing the genome, and the multiple functions of code segments.
The difference is, the terminology of the Yi uses metaphors from everyone's life experience---emotional, practical, interpersonal, environmental, initiatory...
Anyone who says the Yi was put together hapahazardly hasn't really studied it.
 

martin

visitor
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
9
bruce_g said:
So if there’s a superhuman involved, the Great One, it is consciousness itself. Our own Prince wears the mantle and seal of the King, and this gives us (our separate and individual self) the sensation or impression of our answers coming from a god-like being.

Love that and, yes, it must be true. :)
Not sure though where this self begins or ends. And with 'this self' I don't mean only this apelike creature that is now staring at the screen and pushing keys.
I mean, the ape means - this is getting a bit confusing isn't it? :D - well, more than this ape, a bigger, vaster self ...

I used to think that there is no such thing as a personal vast self. My idea was that I - and everyone else - is all & everything in fact. Or the One that looks through all eyes and lives in all bodies.
And overtime this became more than just an idea, more than just an interesting thought in my monkey mind.
It became a feeling. And the feeling deepened. It deepened and deepened until it finally pierced the bottom of the monkey mind and became a reality.
The ape overflowed.

However, after that things started to happen that I still find impossible to describe. So I will not try.
But part of it was metaphorically like meeting the One - God. The ape was ready and willing to dissolve in Him but somewhat to his surprise God refused the present.
He said 'no, thank you' and gave the ape back to himself.

So here I am. :D
 

Sparhawk

One of those your mother warned you about...
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 17, 1971
Messages
5,077
Reaction score
32
bruce_g said:
I don’t believe the original writers were different from us, other than the time and space landscape they lived in. On to something, yes.
Certainly not, but only in the sense they were fellow humans. No superpowers or special abilities other than being more attuned to their environment in a way we can only wish for and, I believe, that's the missing link, what's hidden from us in the present. We can speculate and interpolate ideas and theories until we are no more but, at the end of the day, there's much we'll ignore.

L
 
B

bruce_g

Guest
Hi Denis,

I think we’re saying the same thing using different terminology. “Consciousness as we know it” is our individual self. What you’re calling “one big quantum computer” I’m calling “consciousness itself”. Not merely your or my experience of consciousness but consciousness itself.

Where you make a huge leap is in stating “At any rate, something was arrived at …. The people who made up the Yi were given privileged insights ahead of their time.” Who said something was ever arrived at? Or that this arrival distinguishes “the people [who] made up the Yi” from you or I? And, what facilities that we have now gives us such an advantage over them back there? The Upanishads were created farther back than was the Yi. Did the understanding of the Upanishads writers also come from somewhere outside of their own contemplations of consciousness itself? I don’t believe so. If anything, we have more distractions now that they did then.


Hi Martin,

These are vague concepts and can only be described in crude (monkey) ways. For sake of explanation to myself and you, I drew a monkey image to try and show how I perceive it.

The circle at left is Monkey. The circle at right is King. Where they intersect in the middle is Prince. So, Monkey asks a question of King. King reflects the answer back to Monkey. Prince stands in the middle: an intercessor, translator or messenger. Monkey experiences an “Ah Ha!”.

View attachment 118

We reflect and ask, where did this answer come from? “It came from King through Prince,” Monkey concludes. But if King is consciousness itself, now where did the answer come from? “Maybe from the Prince?” Monkey asks. But, isn’t Monkey and Prince also King? Can there be consciousness in Monkey that is not consciousness itself?
 
Last edited:
B

bruce_g

Guest
sparhawk said:
Certainly not, but only in the sense they were fellow humans. No superpowers or special abilities other than being more attuned to their environment in a way we can only wish for and, I believe, that's the missing link, what's hidden from us in the present. We can speculate and interpolate ideas and theories until we are no more but, at the end of the day, there's much we'll ignore.

L
"If anything, we have more distractions now than they did then."

Agrees!
 
Last edited:
L

lightofreason

Guest
The making of a distinction moves us into the chaos game realm where we derive order from noise. See:

http://math.bu.edu/DYSYS/chaos-game/chaos-game.html

This property coming out of the containment of noise operates at ALL levels, ALL scales of reality.

Note how the dynamic focuses on the 'middle' of two points etc and so the middle of a dichotomy.

ANY attempt to encapsulate noise will elicit order within that encapsulation - and our attention system does just that, encapsulate noise.

LOCAL context then customises the 'template' of the gasket - this is reflected in material that comes out of Wolfram's Cellular Automata work.

The Sierpinski gasket is the foundation of Pascal's Triangle and so the Binomial theorem - which is what the I Ching comes out of : (A + B)^n where A and B = 1 and n = 6.

(the gasket comes to the fore when you make different colours of the positive and negative values (and so a dichotomy) of the numbers in the triangle.

http://mathforum.org/workshops/usi/pascal/pascal_sierpinski.html

Since our method of thinking maps to encapsulation of noise (into the left-brain/right-brain dynamic aka differentiating/integrating etc etc) so ANY container can be used as a source of analogy/metaphor in describing all other containers - the issues are in the representations. Mathematics uses numbers, IC uses yin/yang lines etc etc but BOTH depend on qualities derived from the self-referencing - and so the IDM identified blending, bonding, bounding, and binding.

Chris.
 

martin

visitor
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
9
bruce_g said:
We reflect and ask, where did this answer come from? “It came from King through Prince,” Monkey concludes. But if King is consciousness itself, now where did the answer come from? “Maybe from the Prince?” Monkey asks. But, isn’t Monkey and Prince also King? Can there be consciousness in Monkey that is not consciousness itself?
It's all the same one consciousness, I would say. I think what you mean is basically the same as the idea that it is the One that looks through all eyes? Ultimately there is only One.
However, as the story goes, the One became bored and decided to create the Many .. :)

So here we are. You and I are the same consciousness, this is true. Yet it is also true that I am not you and you are not me.
We are two branches of the same tree or two flowers on the same branch perhaps (or hey, two monkeys! :D) but still different individuals.

If I consult the I ching is it me (or an extension of myself, or a projection of myself) that I'm talking to or is it somebody else? It's often hard to say, also because the boundaries between individuals are not so sharp in the inner realms.
But when I clearly sense 'otherness' I will accept that 'other' as such and not try to reduce him/her/it to myself. :)
 

martin

visitor
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
9
This reminds me of what a Dutch author once wrote: ik wou dat ik twee hondjes was, dan kon ik samen spelen. (I wished I was two puppies, then we could play with eachother)
Perhaps the One had similar thoughts? :)

Without others no fun. And two monkeys know more than one, sometimes. Well, the other creates a lot of problems for us too of course.
Sartre: Hell, that is the other. :eek:
 

Sparhawk

One of those your mother warned you about...
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 17, 1971
Messages
5,077
Reaction score
32
martin said:
(I wished I was two puppies, then we could play with each other)
Perhaps the One had similar thoughts? :)
But we are!! :D Well, at least the Yi is full of puppies... LOL! Have you seen my latest toon from last Saturday? :)

L
 
B

bruce_g

Guest
Martin,

Aye, mate. I hear ye. Like I started off by saying - I dunno. I'm just singing my song to the choir.

View attachment 120 rrruff!
 
Last edited:

hilary

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 8, 1970
Messages
15,368
Reaction score
901
I love this thread. Anyone else get the feeling it's moved on to 59.3?
 

yxeli

visitor
Joined
Jun 28, 2011
Messages
633
Reaction score
2
this is epic. why can't I read threads like this for every line in the whole Yi! :)

Yx
 

Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom

Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).

Top