An open letter to Chris: Defend your methodology!

[lightofreason]

Chris, You say that the proof is in the pudding... just try it and you'll see. Well that doesn't work with me. Give me some proof. It's up to YOU to prove to me why I should try your method.

No. I dont care if you do or dont. I suggest you try it but you refuse - a bit like refusing chocolate since you have no proof of it being edible or not laced with poison - that it paranoia working, you wish to avoid the possibility of change and so trust no one, they must prove X to you before you will risk it. The point is that the method is just that, a method for accessing the IC - SO SIMPLE and yet you reject even using it! LOL! your funny! (or more so a joke).

I can understand your fear in that you have worked hard on the traditional material in generation of your own texts etc and so for something new to come along and clearly demonstrate the failings of your 10th century BC position can be a bit 'shattering'!

To understand IDM, ICPlus to the level you want YOU need to go through the material and the supplied references and you will not be able to do that in a 'day or two' so I consider your comments a joke. If you want to get serious about what is going on with the method then do some homework. If you do not but you want a more consistant method in dealing with reality through the I Ching, then use the IC+ methods.

If you are NOT serious about the work then go away since all I can detect is spite and fear. IOW put up or shut up. I can drown you in material supporting the IDM/IC+ perspectives - if you want to address particulars, no problem. So dude, put up or shut up.

Chris.

 

[lightofreason]

Very well said! :bows:

For you too:

If you are NOT serious about the work then go away since all I can detect is spite and fear. IOW put up or shut up. I can drown you in material supporting the IDM/IC+ perspectives - if you want to address particulars, no problem. So dude, put up or shut up.

Chris.

 

[getojack]

No. I dont care if you do or dont. I suggest you try it but you refuse - a bit like refusing chocolate since you have no proof of it being edible or not laced with poison - that it paranoia working, you wish to avoid the possibility of change and so trust no one, they must prove X to you before you will risk it. The point is that the method is just that, a method for accessing the IC - SO SIMPLE and yet you reject even using it! LOL! your funny! (or more so a joke).

The fool sees the dao and laughs. If he didn't laugh, it wouldn't be the dao. I still maintain that if you wish to be taken seriously in the scientific establishment, you must prove the reliability and validity of your methods... something that you have continually failed to do.

I can understand your fear in that you have worked hard on the traditional material in generation of your own texts etc and so for something new to come along and clearly demonstrate the failings of your 10th century BC position can be a bit 'shattering'!

You don't know me at all. You are making assumptions about me that are not based in reality. I haven't generated any of my own texts based on the traditional material except for what I've posted here on Clarity. I have no interest in doing so. I am not a "traditionalist." And it's only your own ego that makes you think you have shattered any cherished traditions of mine.

To understand IDM, ICPlus to the level you want YOU need to go through the material and the supplied references and you will not be able to do that in a 'day or two' so I consider your comments a joke. If you want to get serious about what is going on with the method then do some homework. If you do not but you want a more consistant method in dealing with reality through the I Ching, then use the IC+ methods.

Maybe I will, maybe I won't.

If you are NOT serious about the work then go away since all I can detect is spite and fear. IOW put up or shut up.

You'd like me to go away, wouldn't you? You'd like me to stop being a thorn in your side, which I can understand. I've shattered your cherished notions about IDM and your flawed 21st century thinking. And yes, I'm serious.

I can drown you in material supporting the IDM/IC+ perspectives - if you want to address particulars, no problem. So dude, put up or shut up.

Where have you been? I HAVE been addressing the particular problems of you and your ideas all along. No spite or fear here... just the facts.

Peace,
GJ

p.s. Part 2 coming soon

 

[lightofreason]

The fool sees the dao and laughs. If he didn't laugh, it wouldn't be the dao. I still maintain that if you wish to be taken seriously in the scientific establishment, you must prove the reliability and validity of your methods... something that you have continually failed to do.

It passes muster repeatedly by those who test it by using it. It is not for ME to test my own material, it is for others, for peers, to test and so validate. That is what Science is about - peer review through repetition of experiments as well as the construction of experiments to prove it WRONG. I have not seen anything like that from you and your pals - all I see is rhetoric, wind, all used to try and blow it all away - your wind is weak.

You don't know me at all. You are making assumptions about me that are not based in reality. I haven't generated any of my own texts based on the traditional material except for what I've posted here on Clarity. I have no interest in doing so. I am not a "traditionalist." And it's only your own ego that makes you think you have shattered any cherished traditions of mine.

LOL! funny boy! - if you read your texts and the manner in which you access the IC, you are a traditionalist. If you cannot see that then you have some self-examination ahead.

You'd like me to go away, wouldn't you?

I dont care other than your use of lies to try and flame my work. You have no supporting evidence to contradict the IDM material and yet believe that is not an issue since your own sense of importance makes you think people MUST listen to your rubbish. Your refusal to read the references on IDM or to read IDM or IC+ demonstrates how much of a problem you have.

You'd like me to stop being a thorn in your side which I can understand.

delusion.

I've shattered your cherished notions about IDM and your flawed 21st century thinking. And yes, I'm serious.

even more delusion. You have some serious problems dude if this thread is supposed to
cover your attempts to address particular points in IDM/IC+! LOL!

I see nothing so far that covers issues of IC+ and the traditional perspectives - you came up with some rubbish about my not representing the IC and when I showed you I have you went on about 'oh I havent seen that for a year or so' - rubbish pal since those pages HAVE NOT CHANGED over that time other than adding the XOR material and that did not touch any of the other stuff you complain about! Your full of rubbish dude - superficial nonsense. If you want to discuss this properly then I suggest you lift your game cause right now it is all 'lite' and rubbish.

Chris.

 

[getojack]

Hey shithead, it's you who has repeatedly failed to address the methodological issues of IDM and IC+, even though I have asked you repeatedly to address those issues. Look at the title of this thread. It is addressing YOU. If you want specifics, you won't get them from me. I'm all about generalities. Things like "you are a pompous twit" and so on. Why don't you try addressing that issue first?

 

[Tohpol]

Part 1

Chris,

Firstly, thanks for providing info on this, in this particular thread. There are things that make sense, some things I don’t agree with and some things I need to look into - which I will. Your site is vast so it has to be an ongoing process. However, overall, your work remains very interesting and very rich to me. Sometimes the mapping of connections and "isomorphic" layers really are breath-taking. In my mind, It certainly has value and is well worth the time to read and absorb.

That’s the positive stuff. To the not so positive… (Skip all of it if you wish but I thought I'd share my thoughts in conclusion for those interested - which might include you you never know...)

In one sense, I think you’re right, the work does stand on its own and doesn’t need you to carry it. However, you are the mediator shall we say. It is your baby. So, there is a responsibility for this mediation and therefore the communication regarding the material which choose to post here copiously. I assume you are not trying to convet anyone so therefore you must do ti for the sheer joy of sharing knowledge, or as I suspect, as an antidote, as you see to the skull-duggery of 10th century thinking! Eiter way you are obviously extremely identified with the material.

As it stands, you have a wonderful intellect that precisely soaks up facts, figures, themes and intricate minutae etc. into a synthesis of connections. But you seem to be so immersed in the jargon of the cognitive sciences that it is becoming exclusive and lacks emotional intelligence. It seems to be designed to appeal in syntax and content towards those who possess a particular personality type. This occurs both in the way you explain the material on the site and in the communications here. If it is your art as well as your science then you cannot forget your public, as Picasso used to say. This is one limitation which detracts from the content. Thus it has an intimate connection to the personal and the way you conduct yourself here.

The language you use clearly appeals to those with engineering, mathematical/logical or reductionist backgrounds / personality traits. I know your work is not purely reductionist, but the "flavour" and means of communication certainly is. It really is like a machine. indeed, you give the impression that one is speaking with a computer. Only when you feel to be exposed to unjust criticism do we see some reaction.

However, from my limited perspective this is from the "Predator" or self-important, brain-stem reaction of image-survival rather than pondering on the significance of the POSSIBILITY that something in your personality/material needs addressing. You're no different to any of us in that respect, of course. However, this was the reason I wanted to get to know the human behind the complex "readouts" and know something about how this IC manifests itself through your life.

For example, LiSe and Rosada’s explanations show wisdom and emotional intelligence because, although from a traditionalist perspective, as you say, they nevertheless have the “human touch” i.e. they are able to use the method and imbue it with emotional content and intuitive feeling which, while it may not be wholly accurate, all of the time, whereas your interpretations and the bias might well be, it is accurate enough in this setting, to speak to something other than our intellect. It makes a connection to a positive quarter of our emotions a visual archetypal response that has it's roots in myth and archetypal resonances. Sure, it's a "best fit" but in my experience it does a fine job. Maybe I'm a 10th century Dude on the rebound...

This is not a question of doing more work, it’s a question of taking down unnecessary barriers by simplifying the syntax and labels you use in order to facilitate better “flow.” If a method of this nature cannot be clearly explained to people, simply and without recourse to undue complication then your work becomes devalued. Where there is a linguistic deference to your own preferences and by extension, to your mode of being, then you will be selective in your perceptions as to what is correct and what works. You will be inside your own world but you won’t know it. (“20 is not my way at the moment - still too much to do so more the set of 24, 27, 03, 42, 51,21,17, 25.”) Then of course you are going to have reactions which are not just about people being ignorant.

Topal

 

[Trojina]

I think Chris is definately trying to convert us but so far I don't think he has converted one member.

If he has converted one member perhaps they would raise their hand

 

[martin]

It is not for ME to test my own material, it is for others, for peers, to test and so validate.

I think your attitude towards science is rather ambiguous, Chris. You are science minded, obviously, but you refuse to play the game all the way.
It's of course true that you don't need to test everything yourself but as long as hypotheses are not empirically verified they remain just that, hypotheses.
Presenting them as proven facts is premature. And that is what you do. You go even further than that, you present your theories as ground breaking, constituting a major 'paradigm shift', and so on.
This is very premature and it only puts people off.

If I was so sure about my theories as you are and if I wanted to play the game of science (all the way) I would do everything to get my material published in scientific journals. You keep postponing that. Why?

Okay, you don't have a degree, you are not 'one of them' and you will have to rewrite things too. But these are only minor hurdles. There is no real problem there, certainly not if you have contacts in the scientific world (as you say you have). They can help you with that.

So why? You talk a lot about people being afraid of your material. Are you projecting? Are YOU afraid?
You don't know? Use your emotional IC then.

Come on Chris, stop the grandiosity, come down to earth and take those hurdles!

 

[Tohpol]

Part 2

Perhaps it's not a question of how many more connections and mappings you can introduce but your focus on “how” as a preference. We all know how many things function but the “why” is traditionally lacking which is why collectively we are all in the doo-doo. Without "why" there is no progress forward. With "how" there can be progress which it dependent on values and intent - whose agenda will then decree in what way the results of the "how" may then be used? "Why" opens up a much wider field of awareness and is much more than just a purely functional exploration. How is vital too, and must be utilised but I think it's secondary, imo. For example, we can dominate this planet if we wish but because we are not asking and questioning “why” we want to dominate and consume and why our social systems are inherently anti-human, we are not led to solutions.

Why are we doing it? What is our motivation and intent? These are key questions related to who you are and what you have to learn as individual member of the human species. If these are not relevant questions to you then nor is the growth of your personality. It's a possibility.

You see Chris, your pride is VERY evident and on the whole, it is not the ignorance of others that create the reactions around you but the obstinacy of your communication. If you are aware of this, you either do not care or you believe yourself to be misunderstood, or both. Either way, it implies a lack of self-knowledge which will have implications on your work due to it's precise nature. It will still be limited in scope despite your claim to have found a new paradigm - all paradigms are stepping stones to the next based on those gaps in awareness.

It is almost like you are unaware of the very source of yourself which may act as a “strange attractor” to the material. Not the printout on paper - but the mode...The fail-safe mechanism can never be YOU. You are human and thus limited but you seem to think you have ALL the answers. This is indeed close to pathological thinking which is outside of any theoretical constructs (though it may well be very paradoxical). Fundamentalism can certainly exist in a person for whom theory is paramount. One can write – “…it’s not fundamentalist because look…I’ve written A = B! So, I must be wholly objective and a free-thinker! I have found the Grail!” It becomes a Bible. What the intellect extracts and the eye of the emotion perceives maybe quite another from the facts of our behaviour. That is not the “Language of Vague” merely the “ambivalence of history;” where we must always be aware of past patterns that have created the present. If things are not within your sphere of interest or are not specific then it doesn’t necessarily preclude insights or new possibilities.

There will be LOT of folks who do not resonate to the way you extrapolate your insights which are based on your personality led choice of preferences. It seems like you have an overactive intellectual centre which to keep it's dominance i.e. control, excludes other possibilities of different paradigms while claiming that it has all the answers. "It" the intellect as the primary "I" in one's expression of self).The latter is perhaps the most worrying. It could be said that anyone who believes they have all the answers - even - "in a sense" is immediately operating from a limited perspective with elements of delusion of their own, as they so completely identify themselves as “Creator.” History is strewn with the psychotic shells of people that have thought they had THE answers.

"Maybe", "possibly", "perhaps" are are conspicuously absent from your responses. This is not healthy nor is it good science. Sure, science is about facts and unequivocal proclamations of truth. Unfortunately, this is seldom the case. Your work isn't scientific enough to be beyond a little protocol when claiming absolutes on a variety of data where the truth is always somewhat fluid.

“....values are too subjective to be able to flesh out facts, if you put values first you will always have issues. Thus you may live a happy social life, a moral focus, and ethics focus but these are determined by local context and so emotional colourings etc - to get at what is BEHIND all of this requires going past it all to core, generic, essences - to the bedrock that supports the topsoil.”

LIFE is about issues. Being human is about issues. Learning is about issues. To get at what is behind things means to incorporate issues into the whole picture. The bedrock exists due to issues. Issues and the resolution of such, one way or the other, “brings forth” the bedrock of whatever quality it may be and on which inevitably we stand. Creatvity demands tension and friction whether at "local" or "general." Values are of course, subjective, but we must use the medium of subjectivity in socio-cultural contexts to arrive at the objective - even in pure science. If you are saying you have no need of values then you are destined to lead a very colourless life. If you are saying ethics and morals - inadequate as they are - get in the way of the truth, then I agree but it is also paradoxcal in that we need a formal set of values in order to go to the next level - otherwise we are just droids. We might as well plug ourselves into the computer and be done with it.

“If you put values first you always have issues.”

Bit scary Chris. This could be the words of a dictator. And as with any dictator they are convinced of their superiority:

“That’s OK - I know I am right and so, over time, my perspective will be in the majority be it through me or as the psychologists catch up on their neurosciences! ;-)

Was that dry humour? I suspect not...

“It passes muster repeatedly by those who test it by using it. It is not for ME to test my own material, it is for others, for peers, to test and so validate. That is what Science is about - peer review through repetition of experiments as well as the construction of experiments to prove it WRONG.”

Agreed. But it is for you to have the humility and courage to put your money where your mouth is and SHARE a little. People will understand much better when its personalised with clear examples from the man himself. For some reason you don' t like that idea but it fits with your profile.

Science also isn’t just about peer review and intellectual slaps on the back. Science is about being open and responsive to other points of view (before they reach the stage of abuse ). Some things cannot be conveniently placed in a laboratory and tested. Realities do not reside in a test-tube but are fluid and very often cannot be pinned down - only the materialist layer. Real science has a direct and provable, workable application to real life. Are you designing this system to help people or is it largely for your own satisfaction? If we are to exclude the latter then some examples of the creator's 24 moment or a 51 shock that deftly illustrates the richness of the methodology. Any good mediator, inventor, lecturer or facilitator sees this as a natural requirement rather than a option.

Limitations. Hmm. Again, know one knows what consciousness is. This is what makes for possibilities only. This is what requires humility. If that is missing then so too the quality of refinement needed to make any step at all towards the unknown. Anything else is just playing in the sand pit of human delusion. Neuroscience or not. And ALL of us are deep in that pit in many, many ways. We all cope with reality in the best way we know how, right from when we were pulled from the womb with a pair of forceps wrapped round our lugholes.

Remember ole' C.J. when he said: “Science is the tool of the Western mind and with it more doors can be opened than with bare hands. It is part and parcel of our knowledge and obscures our insight only when it holds that the understanding given by it is the only kind there is.”

Thanks for the discussion and I sincerely wish you best of luck with your work.

Topal

 

[Sparhawk]

I think Chris is definately trying to convert us but so far I don't think he has converted one member.

If he has converted one member perhaps they would raise their hand

Would the little finger of the left hand suffice?? IMO, there is a lot of value in Chris work. The main issue here is perhaps with the messenger, not the message. That work matching MBTI with the Yi, for example, although not completely novel, is very good. I've been studying and using that material for a while. While people like Jessica Morrell can write --and publish-- a book called "I Ching for Writers", that for me isn't more than a "prompting tool" to tackle writer's block, Chris ideas can be applied to the actual roots of fiction writing. Among other things, of course, but my interest in the material has always been in regard to its use in characterization and plot structure. I believe there's much of use there for those inclined towards fiction writing, for example. In comparison, Jessica's book is a thick toddler's ABC's book put next to what can be done with some of Chris' material. I know, this use departs from what we consider a "normal" use of the Yi but I've never seen the Yi as a simple divination tool or even an ethical and philosophical treatise. I believe the Yi can be what each of us can make of it.

Perhaps, the main problem is that Chris has "dared" to use the Classic in his own "Futurama" vision of it while most of us remain firmly seated in our romantic and "magical" personal views of it, what he calls our 10th Century BC mentality. That's is the cause of his frustration, granting he can feel frustrated about anything, and his plowing along down his single mindedness path is what frustrate us. However, once you realize that what he offers and preaches is "HIS" version of the Yi, just like JIm Nammack was doing, the frustration should go away. I've made peace within and am happy with the realization.

I know for a fact that no matter how many millions of bytes he throws my way, explaining his theories, he will NOT change my personal view of the Yi and I will remain a happy resident of 10thC BC till I die. I also know that I will NOT change his view of it, no matter how much I foam at the mouth. So, what's left? For me is a form of "scavenging"... As I said, there's much value, a lot of it, in many of his ideas. Find what's useful to you. I did.

 

[getojack]

Luis,

I agree with you completely about the problem being more with the messenger than the work itself. Actually, I have found a lot of use from Chris's work. Just one example to illustrate the point. One day my pet skink Rufus had a nasty case of the runs. I was changing his litter about every hour until finally it ran out. Then I thought of the IDM pages I had printed from the internet. It's amazing how wonderfully absorbent they are when put through a shredder and used as litter. Rufus thanks you, Chris. Now I'd never go back to that store-bought brand.

Cheers,
GJ

 

[Sparhawk]

Luis,

I agree with you completely about the problem being more with the messenger than the work itself. Actually, I have found a lot of use from Chris's work. Just one example to illustrate the point. One day my pet skink Rufus had a nasty case of the runs. I was changing his litter about every hour until finally it ran out. Then I thought of the IDM pages I had printed from the internet. It's amazing how wonderfully absorbent they are when put through a shredder and used as litter. Rufus thanks you, Chris. Now I'd never go back to that store-bought brand.

Cheers,
GJ

Hey man, it is a known fact that "inked" paper is more absorbent that plain paper. Just don't use it to actually wipe yourself or your pet: you may be allergic to the ink/toner. We don't want to blame Chris for a nasty rash in our bottoms...

 

[luz]

For you too:

If you are NOT serious about the work then go away since all I can detect is spite and fear. IOW put up or shut up. I can drown you in material supporting the IDM/IC+ perspectives - if you want to address particulars, no problem. So dude, put up or shut up.

Chris.

Is that the wind blowing against the window?
Sounds like a mad cat howling to the night... oh well...

 

[luz]

Chris,

Nothing you have said so far in all of your tomes has convinced me of anything other than my original viewpoint, which was that you are so totally involved in your IDM material that you are incapable of seeing other viewpoints as equally or perhaps even more valid than your own. This is a sign of a fundamentalist, dogmatic viewpoint. You claim that you are interested in falsifiability, in order to be in accord with the scientific method and yet you disallow any dissenting opinions about your work. You claim reliability of your methods with no evidence whatsoever. You say that the proof is in the pudding... just try it and you'll see. Well that doesn't work with me. Give me some proof. It's up to YOU to prove to me why I should try your method. Otherwise, I'll just stick with what I know works for me. You claim scientific objectivity while rabidly defending your own particular views. You claim insight and emotional mastery while putting down others and looking down on other viewpoints. You, sir, are a hypocrite. You don't practice what you preach. You try to force your own viewpoint on others and tell them how wrong their views are. You claim you have all the answers... the facts. You are wrong.

Did I tell you this was a GREAT post, Getojack??

 

[heylise]

Golddiggers throw the mud of the river through a sieve. The mud falls through, the gold remains. I guess that is the best way to look at anyone's work. Don't try to gather all of it, don't blame the mud. Bring a sieve and use it to get what you want.

Lots of nuggets in Chris' work.

LiSe

 

[Trojina]

Actually i admire those who have the intellectual stamina to question Chris and his methods. For a start they have done him the honour of taking the time and interest to find out what he is actually saying - they have actually engaged with his work (which is more than i have done )

Seems to me Luis and Lise are saying 'don't argue just take whats of value' but they've come to that position because they've been around a long time and seen all this before as I have. Myself I just don't read it at all - the only part that has value for me is Chris' line interpretations - when he does a kind of 10bcc interpretation of a reading its quite neat i find. IOW I've been here too long too bother to try to argue with him having seen it all before.

But its good and natural for the forum and indeed for Chris' work that newer people - with hardier brains than mine take up the challenge with him sometimes - and if they get mad (eventually) in the process I don't blame them - and anyway its still of value to us and Chris to have his ideas challenged occasionally, I think it leads to greater understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of his work.

I still think Chris is trying to convert us all away from random methods and i don't think he has ever succeeded in that in one single case over many years so I'm not sure what fuels the evangelical aspect of his work - I think it is this aspect that causes some friction, ie when he insists we are all 'doing it wrong' . I've no problem with him expounding his theories but sometimes I don't get why he doesn't stop trying to convert us - well you'd certainly be wasting your time in my case Chris, lol 10bc and proud of it

 

[martin]

Golddiggers throw the mud of the river through a sieve.

Yes sure, but this river is an entirely different story. It's throwing its mud at the golddiggers!
There are maybe nuggets in it, maybe, but also stones.
And if anyone objects, more mud, more stones ..

 

[martin]

Is that the wind blowing against the window?
Sounds like a mad cat howling to the night... oh well...

Did you try throwing a shoe at it? It helps with some of the cats on my roof.

 

[charly]

...
There are maybe nuggets in it, maybe, but also stones.
And if anyone objects, more mud, more stones ..

Originally Posted by LiSe: ...Golddiggers throw the mud of the river through a sieve... Lots of nuggets in Chris' work.

People who search nuggets can find stones, but nuggets or stones, it must not be thrown against your neighbour:

Jesus said: «The one among you who is without sin, let him cast the first stone»

See:
http://www.bsw.org/project/biblica/bibl80/Ani01.htm

Charly

 

[luz]

Oh, I won't waste my 8 inch stilettos on that cat!
But yes, these cats are very loud but they are easily scared..

 

[maremaria]

Hi Chris,

If you don’t mind, I would like to ask you a question. Which is the target group of your methodology ?

Maybe is my poor English, maybe my too little experience in IC, maybe my college degree, maybe I follow the wrong links but when I try to use your way I see everywhere sings, “You are dummy !!!”.

You say you have developed a method that can go beyond the limits of tossing coins etc. , and I can’t disagree with you because I don’t have a opinion yet. But I have the feeling that in a way you don’t want to share it or you want to share with a specific group of people and not with everyone who wants to find his/her path.

I recall a teacher in college. Once a gave a paper which was out of subject. He told me “there is something very good in this paper but you hide it very well” I correct it and I got A+. I ‘ll never forget him. Maybe he wasn’t the best professor in the world but he was a good teacher. He wanted not to show off but to share his knowledge with us and help us to use it. This course was an IT course. The knowledge a gain from that course I use it more often in my life than in my work.

Maybe if there was a ‘ IC+ ..for dummies” version maybe we all could gain the benefits of it or at least try and find out if it fit with us.

Just a thought.

Maria

 

[Sparhawk]

Oh, I won't waste my 8 inch stilettos on that cat!

Oh my..., red or black? Don't be throwing those mental images around without backing it up with pictures...

 

[luz]

I believe they are RED but it's rather hard to tell, as I find it impossible to see my feet as long as I'm wearing this lacy corset

 

[Sparhawk]

I believe they are RED but it's rather hard to tell, as I find it impossible to see my feet as long as I'm wearing this lacy corset

 

[martin]

Yeah right, now Luis is on the roof. Meow!
Where are my shoes?

 

[Tohpol]

I believe they are RED but it's rather hard to tell, as I find it impossible to see my feet as long as I'm wearing this lacy corset

Oh geeze, you really know how to bait him don't you?

Incidentally Luis, where did you get your dragon? I want one. Well, maybe not that one but I wouldn't mind something like a hare or a frog hopping across the screen.

Maybe that's classified info....

Topal

 

[Sparhawk]

Incidentally Luis, where did you get your dragon? I want one. Well, maybe not that one but I wouldn't mind something like a hare or a frog hopping across the screen.

Maybe that's classified info....

Topal

Try here: Bunch of 'em dragons

 

[lightofreason]

Hey shithead, it's you who has repeatedly failed to address the methodological issues of IDM and IC+, even though I have asked you repeatedly to address those issues. Look at the title of this thread. It is addressing YOU. If you want specifics, you won't get them from me. I'm all about generalities. Things like "you are a pompous twit" and so on. Why don't you try addressing that issue first?

Oh look - its bozo the clown! I have not yet seen, from YOU, anything particular regarding IC+ which is what your original intent appeared to be - or were you just confused? The above is meaningless drival aimed at nothing to do with the IC+ method but with your lack of, frustration with, addressing particulars that you are concerned with.

The details on the emotional I Ching are on the emotional I Ching pages. If you fear using such since you think it may corrupt your traditionalist perspectives that is your problem but it is not going to help understanding if you dont go through that material - why should I have to repeat all of that here? For a start the 10k page limit would not allow it and so we have to go into part1,2,n etc and all through repeating what is on the links. UNLESS you go though and address particulars I cannot help you deal with the generals - this is not 'lite' stuff dude.

The details on IDM are on the IDM pages. If you fear reading them and the associated references since it may corrupt your perceptions of reality, that is your problem.

If you dont understand something then ask in particular rather than the waving-of-hands format you use at the moment (together with the waving of emotions! )

Topal seems to cope with it all with useful questions and thoughtful considerations. There will be points of contention and we work in those but you have offered nothing other than 'lite' questions answered in webpage texts or else negative emotion-loads comments that achieve nothing.

Chris.

 

[lightofreason]

I think Chris is definately trying to convert us but so far I don't think he has converted one member.

If he has converted one member perhaps they would raise their hand

....All those who use the Emotional I Ching and XOR-ing in their considerations of the I Ching, be it in part or in whole. To use such demonstrates the methods are useful and so offer something the traditional material does not and as such is on par with the traditional. Over time the EIC and XOR material will start to dominate perspectives since the value will start to emerge and show the '10th century BC' methods to be weak in constancy etc. This will take time since the beliefs of the traditionalist perspectives are strong and they dont want to have to consider the possiblity that their perspectives are not as 'real' as they would like them to be.

If you and getojack dislike or fear me or IC+ etc then I suggest you ask Hilary to put it to a vote. If you dont like me or my work here then vote me off the list - simple. I am happy to abide by such (although I am more used to being thrown off by the 'traditionalists' ;-)) - the work will continue despite your attacks so I am not overly concerned with the rants of you or others - especially when there is no engagement in facts, it is all about values, about emotion-driven likes/dislikes/fears etc.

When you and getojack and martin etc etc dont 'flame' things work out fine in the context of traditional and modern methods being presented and people have choices - you propose no choices and so reflect a fundamentalist position, unable to 'grow up' with the research of the last 3000 years or so.

The IC+ material has more choices than the traditional material and as such will, in the long run, survive better (Law of Requisite Variety - system with the most choices benefits more over the long tun) Now since the IC 'as is' has stayed around for 3000 years or so then there is a long life for IC+ in that it not only applies to the IC but to ANY categorisation system grounded in self-referencing of a dichotomy.

Chris.

 

[lightofreason]

Martin - I have for some time treated your comments with contempt - and I still do.
sorry but you have produced enough rubbish over the last few years to make me think you are not worth engaging with (as I recall in a post of mine a while back - if asked by someone for a recommendation of a psychologist I definitely would NOT advice them to see you.)

cordially,

Chris.