Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).
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'.
martin said:From selfrestraint comes total trust in others.
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.
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
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.
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.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.
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.
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 - 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: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.
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?
I think you protest too much.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?
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
My IDM material comes out of the neurology - not the IC.
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 say this so often. It seems everybody, except you, misses the point.lightofreason said:You miss the point
I am? Great! Because that is exactly what I am trying to do: separate objective facts from subjective emotional feelings.IOW you show practising of hex 12 ;-)
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.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....
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.
lightofreason said:SO - Harmen, are you XOR-ing or rejecting it ;-)Chris.
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.
And feeling very comfortable there, thank you.lightofreason said:Thanks you Harmen - because now you have painted yourself into a corner.
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.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.
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.or are you rejecting something out of a need to maintain one's belief? and so not prepared to understand what you reject?
toganm said:Actually you are hijacking the thread of etymology of every hexagram. That is the fact.
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.
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.hmesker said:the Yi can be molded to fit almost anything
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.
. 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'.hmesker said:the Yi can be molded to fit almost anything
Using recursion with the Yijing and the interpretation you give to the results is your personal way.lightofreason said:Recursion is recursion, it is not 'my personal way',
That is a prejudice.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.
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 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.
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'.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!
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.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'!
Lightofreason said:Recursion is recursion, it is not 'my personal way', it is a methodology not associated with me, ...
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.htmlhmesker said:Using recursion with the Yijing and the interpretation you give to the results is your personal way.
That is a prejudice.
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.
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.
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'.
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.
go through the references - start with those at the end of :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)
? 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:However this may be, you focus, you zoom in on recursion and that focus is personal. Science doesn't force you to do that.
;-) thats ok - they are stuck in looking at trees and so missing the forest.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.
You are (deliberately?) taking my remark out of its original context. You saidlightofreason said:now your being silly.
And that's a prejudice.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.SO - you are suggesting that since these are not covered in the chinese they cannot be part of the IC.
That's right. It is of no value to me.I see - so the fact that the IC can describe itself through use of XOR is of 'no value'. LOL!
lightofreason said:What is being covered is the etymology of qualities of hexagrams as represented by ancient chinese characters
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.
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.
Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).