...life can be translucent

Menu

An etymology of Qian.15

confucius

visitor
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
199
Reaction score
0
Etymology of the ideogram Qian.15






The two ideograms expressing the hexagram fifteen are disposed side-by-side. The one on the left is a general group recognized as expressing the idea of speech, to speak. The square-looking ideogram on the bottom left representing the mouth topped by a series of horizontal lines depicting the sound waves issued from the action of speaking. On the right side is a bushy-looking ideogram resulting from a many historical modifications.

The basic core was the common character used to suggest the idea of cereals; a plant whose central stem (the one supporting the grain) is bending towards the ground. Here, that symbol is drawn twice, explaining a plurality and suggesting in great numbers.

Always with simplicity in mind, the drawing of these two strokes was modified: the top part mutated to become two small strokes in the shape of a small V. The strokes that were originally depicted in the middle of the stem are no more; this is to create the understanding that the plants are tightly assembled and close to each other. They are gathered in a sheaf by the hand drawn at mid-stem.

From this illustration comes the definition of this group when used isolated: to hold, to behold, to unite, to assemble…

Together, finally, these two ideograms create the name of Qian.15: To Hold-Back, To Withhold, To Be Modest…the core idea is not to impose a point of view. This discretion is a very present and a characteristic attribute of the Chinese people, a sign of politeness, of good manners.

Confucius




:bows:
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
From the universal position, here we have contractive blending (earth in top = total trust in another/others) operating in a context of contractive bonding (mountain in bottom = self-restraint). Thus this reads "with/from self-restraint comes total trust in another/others" - this focus related to the traditional issue on keeping words close to the facts and on to the focus on filling in the lows, levelling the highs and so on into the concept of 'modesty'.

The infrastructure is described by analogy to:

001000
100001
--------
101001 - 22 facading, cover up, 'beautify', also covers to gloss over, to draw attention away from the inside and so hide it.

Chris.
 

martin

visitor
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
0
From selfrestraint comes total trust in others. :confused:
Again this "from .. comes .." format and it doesn't work!
What did you say? "Science! Fact! Period!"?

I suggest that you restrain your theoretical thinking a bit and keep it closer to the reality of the Yi, dear Lightofreason. ;)
 

rosada

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
7,107
Reaction score
124
Actually, I can see the value of the "from self restraint comes trust in others" interpretation. When we merely express our views, but do not try to impose them on others, we encourage others to honestly express themselves. When there is honest expression, we can trust each other. Example: I saw and got value from the Al Gore movie. I am not saying you should see it, I am only saying I felt it was worthwhile. You may now respond by saying you also saw it, didn't see it or maybe you'll say something else entirely. But because i was not trying to impose my view on you, you feel no obligation to please me with your answer, and thus I can trust that what you say in reply is your own thought, and not some sort of distorted message you think I want to hear. So if I restrain myself, and not try to manipulate your responce, it is more probable that i will get trustworthy answers from you.
 

martin

visitor
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
0
I understand hexagram 15 primarily as not going forward (mountain) although we could easily do so, because the way before us is open (earth). Self restraint, yes, the restraint doesn't come from the environment.

I see your point, though. Trust is implied in earth and our attitude of 'modesty' can inspire trust of others in us. It can also be based on our trust in them or trust in general.

But that is not what Chris says. His idea is: trust _in_ others (not _of_ others in us) comes from our selfrestaint. I find that a bit odd. :)
Okay, maybe selfrestraint ultimately reinforces the trust in others that we already had and on which our selfrestraint was based.
As in "See, they are indeed to be trusted." A kind of positive feedback loop. Maybe. But this is slightly (?) farfetched.

In general, I would say that the "from .. comes .." format makes sense in some cases but I don't believe (like Chris apparently does) that every hexagram should always be read in this way. That is a too rigid approach.
If we want to understand the Yi we need to be flexible and fluid in our thinking. 'Period!" as our friend Chris would say. :D
 

toganm

visitor
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
139
Reaction score
0
lightofreason said:
From the universal position, here we have contractive blending (earth in top = total trust in another/others) operating in a context of contractive bonding (mountain in bottom = self-restraint). Thus this reads "with/from self-restraint comes total trust in another/others" - this focus related to the traditional issue on keeping words close to the facts and on to the focus on filling in the lows, levelling the highs and so on into the concept of 'modesty'.
While your approach in interpretating the Hexagram is fine, it does not help to clarify the meaning of the word Qian in terms of etymology

From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]:

Etymology \Et`y*mol"o*gy\ (-j[y^]), n.; pl. {Etymologies}
(-j[i^]z). [L. etymologia, Gr. 'etymologi`a; 'e`tymon etymon
+ lo`gos discourse, description: cf. F. ['e]tymologie. See
{Etymon}, and {-logy}.]
1. That branch of philological science which treats of the
history of words, tracing out their origin, primitive
significance, and changes of form and meaning.

2. That part of grammar which relates to the changes in the
form of the words in a language; inflection.

So to me the idea in the way you express your thoughts does not suit the purposes of etymology. You have valid points yet it does not show how the word was used by Chinese, how it was constructed are there any hidden meanings if you keep the radical there but play with the other parts.

Togan
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
martin said:
From selfrestraint comes total trust in others. :confused:
Again this "from .. comes .." format and it doesn't work!
What did you say? "Science! Fact! Period!"?

I suggest that you restrain your theoretical thinking a bit and keep it closer to the reality of the Yi, dear Lightofreason. ;)
My thinking is fine - yours seems to lack resolution power so lets go through this slowly.

"Keeping words close to facts" is an act of self-restraint and so reflective of 'mountain'; we stop/block our 'excessive' expressions and stop/block/self-restrain are properties of mountain in lower.

Keeping words close to facts elicits trust amongst those interacting, and so socialising. IOW there is consideration of context where, in the yang world, there is none - we each assert our personal perspectives and damn the consequences! ;-)

SO - how are you 'confused' with "with/from self-restraint comes total trust in another/others"? It covers the general 'vibe' of the hexagram, where we can generalise it more to contractive blending IN contractive bonding. NOTE the BOND emphasis - covers issues of sharing space with another/others

Chris.
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
toganm said:
While your approach in interpretating the Hexagram is fine, it does not help to clarify the meaning of the word Qian in terms of etymology
...
...
So to me the idea in the way you express your thoughts does not suit the purposes of etymology. You have valid points yet it does not show how the word was used by Chinese, how it was constructed are there any hidden meanings if you keep the radical there but play with the other parts.

Togan
Confucius is mapping the entymology of meaning from local context, ancient Chinese, perspectives. I am adding the roots of the FEELINGS that elicit the representatio s/interpretations locally where those feelings are derived from the brain oscillations across WHAT/WHERE.

I suggest you review this:

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

IOW the mappings I give operate unconsciously, are elements of our species-nature, and for that matter are in all neuron-dependent life forms but not as refined as in us.
The traditional IC reflects the LOCAL attempts to describe these feelings through forming categories such as hexagrams. BEHIND the 'resonance' that the hexagrams etc elicit is our species-nature such that all members of the species can 'understand' the IC in that it will elicit the same 'resonances' but with local associations.

IOW behind the local is a universal and as such I AM showing the entymology of the IC meanings - but from the level of the species and so unconscious influences on categorising.

Chris.
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
martin said:
In general, I would say that the "from .. comes .." format makes sense in some cases but I don't believe (like Chris apparently does) that every hexagram should always be read in this way. That is a too rigid approach.
If we want to understand the Yi we need to be flexible and fluid in our thinking. 'Period!" as our friend Chris would say. :D
But it is all 'flexible' in that it is general. If you like we can write it more general as "with/from contractive bonding comes contractive blending" and so ANYTHING that fits those generic categories will fit the hexagram. All I have done is make it a bit easier to understand through the grounding the general categories in pairs of raw/refined qualities:

Earth - devotion to another/others : absolute trust in another/others(dualmindedness)
Mountain - self-restraint : discernment
Water - containment : control
Wind - cultivation : become influencial
Thunder - enlightening : awareness
Fire - guidance : direction-setting (ideology)
Lake - self-refection : intensity in expresion
Heaven - perseverence : singlemindedness

You can make up your own variations if you wish but the traditional material does not make the raw/refined distinctions etc clear.

We can introduce the more 'archetypal' forms of earth = darkness and heaven = light but such a fovus misses a lot of the refinement issues.

As for the 'with/from ... comes ...' it works for lines, digrams, trigrams, hexagrams, dodecagrams (from hex X comes hex Y rather than from tri X comes tri Y).

Since the IC is ASYMMETRIC so we have THREE forms of representations:

(1) Z <= Y <= X (asymmetric)
(2) Z = Y = X (symmetric)
(3) Z < Y < X (anti-symmetric - hierarchic)

SO you can interpret using each. MY point is on the general to particular movement 'up' and the consequences of that movement for meaning derivation. This general to particular movement is isomorphic to how our brains moves from general to particular to elicit a label.

Chris.
 

ewald

Administrator
Joined
May 28, 2006
Messages
510
Reaction score
0
toganm said:
Etymology \Et`y*mol"o*gy\ (-j[y^]), n.; pl. {Etymologies}
(-j[i^]z). [L. etymologia, Gr. 'etymologi`a; 'e`tymon etymon
+ lo`gos discourse, description: cf. F. ['e]tymologie. See
{Etymon}, and {-logy}.]
1. That branch of philological science which treats of the
history of words, tracing out their origin, primitive
significance, and changes of form and meaning.

2. That part of grammar which relates to the changes in the
form of the words in a language; inflection.
Chris' posts in these etymology threads are definitely off-topic. Chris is not stupid, he understands that. But he doesn't care. That's because his posts are propaganda, or advertising or whatever you want to call them. He wants people to pay attention to his ideas.

However, as his version of the I Ching is so very different from the one we know, he won't have much success. The meanings he attributes to the hexagrams are often even much different from the range of meanings that translators have found.

As the roots of his system are in my view not very accurate, I take it that not only does his system seem quite inaccurate (as it probably is to most), it also is inaccurate. Why would I want to pay attention to that?

Also, why would I want to pay attention to someone who doesn't believe that divination works, while I notice every time that it does? Why would I want to pay attention to someone who doesn't care about explaining his system in a clear way, but instead relies on repeating (copying and pasting) the same stuff, like annoying advertising?

And with Chris writing quite a lot, why would I even pay a lot of attention?
 

toganm

visitor
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
139
Reaction score
0
lightofreason said:
Confucius is mapping the entymology of meaning from local context, ancient Chinese, perspectives. I am adding the roots of the FEELINGS that elicit the representatio s/interpretations locally where those feelings are derived from the brain oscillations across WHAT/WHERE.

IOW behind the local is a universal and as such I AM showing the entymology of the IC meanings - but from the level of the species and so unconscious influences on categorising.
Sorry but you are way off. What you are talking about has nothing to do with etymology of the Chinese characters. Actually you are hijacking the thread of etymology of every hexagram. That is the fact.

Togan
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
ewald said:
Chris' posts in these etymology threads are definitely off-topic. Chris is not stupid, he understands that. But he doesn't care. That's because his posts are propaganda, or advertising or whatever you want to call them. He wants people to pay attention to his ideas.
No. The etymology of the IC representations do not start with ancient chinese - they start with hard-coded categories operating in their brains, SEEDING their thinking, their associations. All my posts have done is add-in the missing bits of the etymology, those parts of their unconscious seeding their associations, their making of analogies to try and describe what they feel.

ewald said:
However, as his version of the I Ching is so very different from the one we know, he won't have much success. The meanings he attributes to the hexagrams are often even much different from the range of meanings that translators have found.
no - they GENERAL and as such cover a lot more than the orginal translators - but then they did not know what their brains do in categorisations.[/quote]

ewald said:
As the roots of his system are in my view not very accurate, I take it that not only does his system seem quite inaccurate (as it probably is to most), it also is inaccurate. Why would I want to pay attention to that?
The roots of my 'system' as you call it is in our neurology - our species-ness and as such comes out of the realm of the particular-general. YOUR perspective is obviously from a SINGULAR perspective where you are trying to be 'unique'... but all you can do is translate WITHIN the bounds of the traditional perspective where that perspective is 'limited'. There is as LOT more but you choose to avoid that, it is perhaps all too much for you? That is understandable but unfortunately for you we live in a time of neurosciences and so the unravelling of what is going on in our brains. In that unravelling we find what is behind the traditional and it is a 'bigger' IC - a universal form - that makes the traditional perspective but a drop of water in a huge ocean.

ewald said:
Also, why would I want to pay attention to someone who doesn't believe that divination works, while I notice every time that it does? Why would I want to pay attention to someone who doesn't care about explaining his system in a clear way, but instead relies on repeating (copying and pasting) the same stuff, like annoying advertising?
I think you protest too much.

Chris.
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
toganm said:
Sorry but you are way off. What you are talking about has nothing to do with etymology of the Chinese characters. Actually you are hijacking the thread of etymology of every hexagram. That is the fact. Togan
No. What is being covered is the etymology of qualities of hexagrams as represented by ancient chinese characters. What my add-on covers is what seeds those associations, the analogies/metaphors used to describe the feelings and so meanings that the characters are trying to represent. IOW the history does not start with ancient chinese - it starts with us as conscious individuals, as a conscious species, that is THEN localising the meanings through the making of local analogies to the context - be it direct or to history/legend/myth.

The IC is hard-coded into your brain but it is not 'written' in Chinese ;-)

Chris.
 
H

hmesker

Guest
Well Chris, as you said in another thread:

My IDM material comes out of the neurology - not the IC.
Which says it all, I think. You bend your view of the Yijing to fit it in your IDM stuff. But such a local perception is not universal, no matter how much fancy theories you come up with to prove otherwise.

Harmen.
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
hmesker said:
Well Chris, as you said in another thread:



Which says it all, I think. You bend your view of the Yijing to fit it in your IDM stuff. But such a local perception is not universal, no matter how much fancy theories you come up with to prove otherwise.

Harmen.
You miss the point, your IC is but a PART of something FAR greater and that is our species nature and its method in deriving meaning. Understand that and the traditional IC is brought into the 21st century - as I stated in the above link.

To put it simply, XOR works and that comes out of IDM analysis of self-referencing and so applies to ANY self-referencing of a dichotomy, and in the IC that is recursion of yin/yang. You can try and reject it as much as you like but the relationships shown generate a lot of value and they work in other self-referencing systems (MBTI etc) and so this is not some wild thought of mine - it is a definite part of the IC and your rejection of such indicates you need to 'keep the faith' - IOW you show practising of hex 12 ;-)

I can understand you 'anti' approach since I recognise the dedicated work you have done, and continue to do, on the traditional material - but there is more Harmen....

Chris.
 
H

hmesker

Guest
lightofreason said:
You miss the point
You say this so often. It seems everybody, except you, misses the point.

IOW you show practising of hex 12 ;-)
I am? Great! Because that is exactly what I am trying to do: separate objective facts from subjective emotional feelings.

I can understand you 'anti' approach since I recognise the dedicated work you have done, and continue to do, on the traditional material - but there is more Harmen....
For every individual 'there is more'. That is a personal journey everyone has to decide for themselves. But without a proper understanding of what you call the 'traditional material' and the scope of it it is difficult and unconvincing to use it for other purposes. Then you can only rely on the interpretations that others have made through the ages. In other words, then you are not working with the Yi, you are using others view of the Yi. You are also doing that, when I see you referencing to material from Ritsema etc. You have created a view of the Yi which nicely fits all your theories, but there is hardly anything universal in it. It is your personal perception, that's all. But of course I am 'missing the point' here.

Harmen.
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
hmesker said:
You say this so often. It seems everybody, except you, misses the point.


I am? Great! Because that is exactly what I am trying to do: separate objective facts from subjective emotional feelings.


For every individual 'there is more'. That is a personal journey everyone has to decide for themselves. But without a proper understanding of what you call the 'traditional material' and the scope of it it is difficult and unconvincing to use it for other purposes. Then you can only rely on the interpretations that others have made through the ages. In other words, then you are not working with the Yi, you are using others view of the Yi. You are also doing that, when I see you referencing to material from Ritsema etc. You have created a view of the Yi which nicely fits all your theories, but there is hardly anything universal in it. It is your personal perception, that's all. But of course I am 'missing the point' here.

Harmen.
I think the issue is you are imprisoned - 12 can do that - and so cannot, or are not prepared, to go outside of the box, read the research and then come back into the box and perhaps see it all with 'new' eyes. Your world is strongly 'traditional' and you have spent a lot of energy building and maintaining that perspective. To then discover 'there is a lot more' can be unsettling. But that is something one has to live with - times change, and that includes the IC in that the core is constant but then out comes 23 as we prune the 'chaff' ;-)

As I said before, the XOR works. Since it works so the perspective presented by IC+ and IDM is valid. Being valid it does introduce a bit of a paradigm shift - but that is what change is all about ;-)

SO - Harmen, are you XOR-ing or rejecting it ;-)
Chris.
 
H

hmesker

Guest
lightofreason said:
SO - Harmen, are you XOR-ing or rejecting it ;-)Chris.
Rejecting it, of course. I don't need another's personal subjective opinions about the Yi, there is already too much of that available and it doesn't add anything valuable to my own understanding of the Yi. You do not hold the truth Chris. You only have one personal truth. You can share it with others, but it will never become the only reality we live in.

Harmen.
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
hmesker said:
Rejecting it, of course. I don't need another's personal subjective opinions about the Yi, there is already too much of that available and it doesn't add anything valuable to my own understanding of the Yi. You do not hold the truth Chris. You only have one personal truth. You can share it with others, but it will never become the only reality we live in.

Harmen.
Thanks you Harmen - because now you have painted yourself into a corner. You see the XOR material, the methodology, is not mine, it is not subjective, it is objective in that it is a discovered property of self-referencing and so applies to ANY dichotomy and that includes yin/yang. The evidence is given in the IDM material references to well researched properties and methods of the brain.

IOW this is not 'my truth', it is a truth of the methodology that is nothing to do with me, it does not come from me, it comes from the basic dynamics of applying a dichotomy to itself.

The XOR material works since it reflects how the brain extracts parts from a whole - and it can even create seeming paradox at times. For an example of sensory dynamics creating paradox see the examples in http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/paradox.html

The other material (with refs) is in such pages as:

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/properties.html - or are you rejecting something out of a need to maintain one's belief? and so not prepared to understand what you reject?

Chris.
 
H

hmesker

Guest
lightofreason said:
Thanks you Harmen - because now you have painted yourself into a corner.
And feeling very comfortable there, thank you.

You see the XOR material, the methodology, is not mine, it is not subjective, it is objective in that it is a discovered property of self-referencing and so applies to ANY dichotomy and that includes yin/yang. The evidence is given in the IDM material references to well researched properties and methods of the brain.
IOW this is not 'my truth', it is a truth of the methodology that is nothing to do with me, it does not come from me, it comes from the basic dynamics of applying a dichotomy to itself.
The way you apply the material with the Yijing is your 'truth'. There is nothing objective or 'evidence' in that, it is you personal way of applying scientific stuff using the traditional accepted meaning(s) of the Yi. Which is possible because the Yi can be molded to fit almost anything, that is why it is regarded a valuable book.

or are you rejecting something out of a need to maintain one's belief? and so not prepared to understand what you reject?
Maybe, but that could apply to you as well. You have no idea about the original language of the Yi or Chinese characters in general and how they were used, and you do not bother to study this in detail to broaden your understanding of the book, just because your theories tell you it is unnecessary to do so. Well, my theories tell me your material is a narrow subjective view that does not help my understanding of the Yi as it was received in ancient China. There is so much similar boring material around, I just can't be bothered by it. They all say it is The Truth, it is Science, Facts. Hardly ever is this the case.

Harmen.
 

martin

visitor
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
0
toganm said:
Actually you are hijacking the thread of etymology of every hexagram. That is the fact.
Well, I don't know. We study etymology mainly to understand the hexagrams better (and I read Confucius with great interest), so a more general discussion about the meaning of hexagrams is appropriate here, IMO.

True, Chris approaches the subject from a different angle and I think he is waaaaaaay off sometimes - and incredably stubborn too :) - but, otoh, I also see a lot of value in what he does and I find his contributions inspiring.
Without people like Chris, who go against the grain, Clarity would be a lot less interesting and alive, I think.

If you want posts that stay strictly 'on topic', if you don't want to be disturbed in your pseudospiritual dream, then go to one of these other forums - there are many - where they will throw you out unless you agree with the local guru.
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
hmesker said:
The way you apply the material with the Yijing is your 'truth'. There is nothing objective or 'evidence' in that, it is you personal way of applying scientific stuff using the traditional accepted meaning(s) of the Yi. Which is possible because the Yi can be molded to fit almost anything, that is why it is regarded a valuable book.
Recursion is recursion, it is not 'my personal way', it is a methodology not associated with me, it is in all of us, and the qualities derived, the categorises created, the emotions involved serve us as a species.

The binary ordering of the IC is the 'natural' form of recursing yin/yang but unfortunately the 'traditional' sequence is what was taken as 'gospel' - and treated as such. However it can be demonstrated that the traditional sequence is also derived recursively, but with different 'seeds'. (the pairs give away the presence of recursion in its derivation).

You write
hmesker said:
the Yi can be molded to fit almost anything
how? why? You have no idea, you just use it since it 'works for you' and you say the above like it was as mantra - and so said 'mindlessly', without consideration of what your assertion means.

The IDM focus answers the how and the why and the answers are not in some mystic perspective but in basic brain dynamics that the IC serves as a metaphor.

With that understanding comes the addition of properties of the methodology not covered in the traditional material since 'they' had no idea what they were involved with. BUT you cannot accept that. You must reject it since you have set yourself up as 'defender of the faith'. LOL!

hmesker said:
You have no idea about the original language of the Yi or Chinese characters in general and how they were used, and you do not bother to study this in detail to broaden your understanding of the book, just because your theories tell you it is unnecessary to do so. Well, my theories tell me your material is a narrow subjective view that does not help my understanding of the Yi as it was received in ancient China.
But there is no intent on doing that. There is no interest in "understanding of the Yi as it was received in ancient China" simply because to understand what is going in such a focus is not necessary to appreciate the properties and methods of the IC as a universal. Your focus is thus in expression, not on what is behind it, and thats okay but you treat it as some absolute, as if there is nothing 'behind it' and, IMHO, that is an error of judgement.

At the level of the universal the representations remain constant as do the core, universal, qualities, but the LOCAL is replacable and that is covered in you statement
hmesker said:
the Yi can be molded to fit almost anything
. IOW you admit that the ancient Chinese perspective can be REPLACED with some other but still be the I Ching and yet you REJECT any such replacement if it offers MORE than what is presented 'traditionally'! LOL! your logic is 'interesting'.

Chris.
 
H

hmesker

Guest
lightofreason said:
Recursion is recursion, it is not 'my personal way',
Using recursion with the Yijing and the interpretation you give to the results is your personal way.

You write how? why? You have no idea, you just use it since it 'works for you' and you say the above like it was as mantra - and so said 'mindlessly', without consideration of what your assertion means.
That is a prejudice.

The IDM focus answers the how and the why and the answers are not in some mystic perspective but in basic brain dynamics that the IC serves as a metaphor.
But you still fall back to the traditional meanings of the hexagrams to give it all a sense of meaning. Without that you would be lost, because then you had nothing but a buch of lines to relate your interpretations to.

With that understanding comes the addition of properties of the methodology not covered in the traditional material since 'they' had no idea what they were involved with. BUT you cannot accept that. You must reject it since you have set yourself up as 'defender of the faith'. LOL!
This has nothing to do with faith. It has everything to do with accepting that every appliance of the Yi is a personal matter which can never be made universal. If I don't accept the traditional meanings of the hexagrams I could also not use your material because you constantly refer to it. The fact that you apply these accepted meanings make it a personal matter. That is your choice which does not have to work for me, and therfore cannot be 'universal'.

IOW you admit that the ancient Chinese perspective can be REPLACED with some other but still be the I Ching and yet you REJECT any such replacement if it offers MORE than what is presented 'traditionally'!
Whether such a replacement presents more than the traditional perspective is an entirely subjective matter. I see no need in replacing the Chinese perspective; if I did see the need I would turn to the hundreds of Western Yijing interpretations that exist (your material is one of them). But I just don't see the need, there is no point in doing that.

Harmen.
 

martin

visitor
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
0
Lightofreason said:
Recursion is recursion, it is not 'my personal way', it is a methodology not associated with me, ...
Are you sure? I remember a discussion on another forum, some time ago, where one of the posters remarked jokingly that only your brain was purely recursive! (I don't remember the exact wording, but it was something like that) :D

However this may be, you focus, you zoom in on recursion and that focus is personal. Science doesn't force you to do that.
And, as you know, there is no general agreement among scientists about the importance of recursion in the brain, in language (Chomsky makes a lot of recursion, others don't) and so on.
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
hmesker said:
Using recursion with the Yijing and the interpretation you give to the results is your personal way.


That is a prejudice.
now your being silly. The only way to derive the hexagrams is from recursion of yin/yang. - 1 - 2 - 4 - 8 - 16 - 32 - 64 THEN comes methods to derive sequences in different formats to bring out a particular - as covered in the matrix page http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/icmatrix.html

You need to understand the Science of your art Harmen ;-)

hmesker said:
But you still fall back to the traditional meanings of the hexagrams to give it all a sense of meaning. Without that you would be lost, because then you had nothing but a buch of lines to relate your interpretations to.
the blend, bond, bound, bind qualities are not 'traditional', they are hard-coded qualities in our unconscious that 'seed' meaning such that, given the use of recursion so there is clear differentiation of the qualities and all that is then needed is local labels and they will 'fit' those qualities in general. The same methodology operates on defining types of numbers in mathematics or categories of emotions or persona types in the MBTI.

The qualities derived from what the brain does over three loops of self-referencing are generic but still useful as categories and they allow for isomorphism across the disciplines I have mentioned. IOW there is no need for the IC to map this out but it is inevitable that something like the IC would be used if it did not exist - we are DRIVEN to to make up these metaphors. LOCAL context will show preference for representations etc.

hmesker said:
This has nothing to do with faith. It has everything to do with accepting that every appliance of the Yi is a personal matter which can never be made universal.
ah - here is your issue. You focus on the realm of the SINGULAR and so local consciousness and thats fine from a divination perspective but there is more going on than you imagine and that is going on at the PARTICULAR-GENERAL level, unconscious activities that 'seed' thought.

Your singular nature allows for unique perspectives as contributors to the general information processing skills of the collective. The IC is not limited to the singular, it is a metaphor derived from the dynamics of the particular-general nature of our brains and so seeds meaning at the expressive, the singular, level of our being.

You seem to think that yin/yang is not universal, it is personal. That makes no sense at all since all use yin/yang to refer to traits that are distinctly identified. LOCAL context will determine what is associated with what but the DICHOTOMY is self-referenced and the patterns that come out are FIXED - they are universals in need of colouring - which is what we do with hexagrams.

From a human perspective, the consensus is yin = female, yang = male etc etc. There is nothing to stop you reversing the associations but when we derive the hexagrams their meanings may not 'fit' reality until swapped. Thus the consensus reflects a universal and the distinct physiological differences make the associations 'hard coded'.

Our brains operate of an asymmetric dichotomy such that the elements of the dichotomy are not swappable - this is not +1/-1 issues where we can swap the 1. We are dealing with a bias, a spectrum focus that clearly differentiates the properties of one from the other and so yin = integrating, yang = differentiating and all else follows. That includes males who can be integrating as is does females who can be differentiating. IOW there is order present within which we mix things.

hmesker said:
If I don't accept the traditional meanings of the hexagrams I could also not use your material because you constantly refer to it. The fact that you apply these accepted meanings make it a personal matter. That is your choice which does not have to work for me, and therfore cannot be 'universal'.
The generic qualities of the traditional meanings are seeded by the blend, bond, bound, bind categories of our brains such that there is no issue in using the traditional meanings to some degree since they will be 'the same' due to their seeding!

BUT with that methodology also comes XOR etc and so we move beyond the 'traditional' and can do more - we can get the IC to describe itself through use of XOR simply due to understanding the methodology involved in creating the hexagrams - self-referencing.

If you recurse differentiate/integrate you will get, after three loops, eight qualities. These qualities, when compared to those used in the IC (trigrams), are generically identical - IOW the categories of the IC are isomorphic to categories that come out of brain oscillations and it is that alone that elicits 'resonance' with the IC in that it serves as a metaphor for mapping what our brains are doing in processing information.

That said, analysis of the methodology in category creation shows there is more there than is found in the traditional IC material - IOW the ancient missed some bits and they are not covered in the chinese. SO - you are suggesting that since these are not covered in the chinese they cannot be part of the IC. LOL! that is amazingly fundamentalist "if it is not in the Bible then it cannot be so"!

hmesker said:
Whether such a replacement presents more than the traditional perspective is an entirely subjective matter. I see no need in replacing the Chinese perspective; if I did see the need I would turn to the hundreds of Western Yijing interpretations that exist (your material is one of them). But I just don't see the need, there is no point in doing that. Harmen.
I see - so the fact that the IC can describe itself through use of XOR is of 'no value'. LOL!

Chris.
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
martin said:
Are you sure? I remember a discussion on another forum, some time ago, where one of the posters remarked jokingly that only your brain was purely recursive! (I don't remember the exact wording, but it was something like that) :D
go through the references - start with those at the end of :

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

The fact that XOR works shows the recursion since you dont get the properties identified without it.

martin said:
However this may be, you focus, you zoom in on recursion and that focus is personal. Science doesn't force you to do that.
? but Science does that - there is no forcing, it is instinctive for all of us. The issues are in the conservation of energy that makes us work in ad hoc manners when categorising etc. Over time we start to fill in so many dots that patterns emerge - as we find in EPR experiments in QM etc. THOSE patterns reflect our integrated, 'all is connected' nature operating at the general. XOR brings all of that detail out at the particular.

martin said:
And, as you know, there is no general agreement among scientists about the importance of recursion in the brain, in language (Chomsky makes a lot of recursion, others don't) and so on.
;-) thats ok - they are stuck in looking at trees and so missing the forest.

it is late (12:51AM) so I am off to bed.

Chris.
 
H

hmesker

Guest
lightofreason said:
now your being silly.
You are (deliberately?) taking my remark out of its original context. You said

You write how? why? You have no idea, you just use it since it 'works for you' and you say the above like it was as mantra - and so said 'mindlessly', without consideration of what your assertion means.
And that's a prejudice.

If you recurse differentiate/integrate you will get, after three loops, eight qualities. These qualities, when compared to those used in the IC (trigrams), are generically identical - IOW the categories of the IC are isomorphic to categories that come out of brain oscillations and it is that alone that elicits 'resonance' with the IC in that it serves as a metaphor for mapping what our brains are doing in processing information.
But when you correlate these qualities with the trigrams you do so by their traditional accepted names and meanings, as found in the Ten Wings. The same goes for the hexagrams and their names. Your material, however, would to a certain extent not fit the Mawangdui Yijing, or the Chujian Yijing, because they apply different names with likely different meanings. Yet these are also Yijings. Everywhere on your site you apply the traditional, accepted meanings of the hexagrams as known from the received Yijing. If the received version were replaced by another version, you would have a problem. Those who use the Yi as an oracle would not have that problem.

That said, analysis of the methodology in category creation shows there is more there than is found in the traditional IC material - IOW the ancient missed some bits and they are not covered in the chinese.
The fact that it is not covered in the traditional material does not mean that the ancient Chinese 'missed' it. Every manuscript is a reflection of its time. The basic associations of the trigrams (which you apply so abundantly on your site) are derived from the Ten Wings. Only about 1000 years later this was expanded to long lists of categorized associations which we still use today. This does not mean that these later associations were 'missed' by the writers of the Ten Wings. There just was no need and/or use for it at that time.
Everybody can expand on the material of the Yi. But every expansion is most likely an expansion of the traditional Yi with its traditional associations from a subjective point of view. Without this foundation you have nothing to build on. Therefore I think we should first study this foundation, instead of making up fancy theories.

SO - you are suggesting that since these are not covered in the chinese they cannot be part of the IC.
I never said that, you are misjudging my remarks. But whatever you see in the Yijing will be your personal view, and not a universal one.

I see - so the fact that the IC can describe itself through use of XOR is of 'no value'. LOL!
That's right. It is of no value to me.

Harmen.
 
Last edited:
J

jesed

Guest
lightofreason said:
What is being covered is the etymology of qualities of hexagrams as represented by ancient chinese characters
Now, this is a total nonsense (maybe I should say a "Nonsense Plus"?)

Etymology is not about qualities of a six-line figure; but about words.
 

toganm

visitor
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
139
Reaction score
0
martin said:
Well, I don't know. We study etymology mainly to understand the hexagrams better (and I read Confucius with great interest), so a more general discussion about the meaning of hexagrams is appropriate here, IMO.
As I have inserted the meaning of etymology before please refer
http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/friends/showpost.php?p=36513&postcount=6

If you want posts that stay strictly 'on topic', if you don't want to be disturbed in your pseudospiritual dream, then go to one of these other forums - there are many - where they will throw you out unless you agree with the local guru.
Staying within the OP's topic is generally considered as a courtesy in most of of the mailinglist and forums.

Best wishes
Togan
 
J

jesed

Guest
Hi Martin

Maybe I don't understand you well, maybe your quote is out of context, but ...are you saying that etymology is a "pseudospiritual dream"?... wow

I feel sorry for those people devoted to linguistics and etymology, they use to think that etymology is some kind of Science. Poor guys.

And, since you are asking Togan to leave this forum to go into others, because he doesn't agree with your idea about not stay with the etimological discussion but go into more general meaning discussion, this mean that you are becoming the local guru around here?
 
Last edited:

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