An open letter to Chris: Defend your methodology!

[lightofreason]

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.

I have repeatedly shown the why element as a product of XORing - see the focus on the question of 'what is the purpose of my life' as covered in:

http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/friends/showthread.php?p=56525#post56525

for my own 'purpose', as a generic agent of 'thunder' (51, NT focus in the MBTI) so the purpose is described by analogy to 35 - to bring things into the light - and that is exactly what I do and enjoy doing, digging around in the dark with my flashlight -- "oooh what is THIS??!!". With IDM the flashlight is a little bigger.

What the IDM material does is take things back to the basics of what our brains deal with and so seed the labels used by our consciousness, seed the creation of metaphors.
If you cannot accept that, even though you indicate your understanding of it, that is not my concern - I dont focus on LOCAL CONTEXT but on the universals. SURELY you understand that by now! IDM is about unconscious and seeding universals that than get customised etc.

When applied to fleshing out hexagram details it is far far superior than the traditional material of the IC - IMHO ;-)

It is almost like you are unaware of the very source of yourself which may act as a “strange attractor” to the material.

In self-referencing each hexagram PAIR maps out a strange attractor and so brings out such as being 'in our heads'. Your current persona is a strange attractor in that if it were not, if it were a limit or point attractor than you would have little or no consciousness since differentiating is required for consciousness and the cycle involves transcends the limit to introduce variations and so the strange.

“....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.

you miss the point. The IDENTIFICATION of the source of issues allows us to deal with the issues more efficiently. At the moment we lack information about our inner, unconscious workings and the IC+ and IDM material comes to the rescue IN GENERAL ;-)

the emotional IC etc can aid in clear identification of a situation, clear identification of issues between consciousness and unconscious, clear identification of outcomes (endings) and so clear choices to the individual to (a) go with the flow (b) fight it or (c) move on.

FREEDOM is for the singular consciousness - if you think you are free in the realm of the particular/general then you are experiencing an illusion that seeds delusion.

FROM the singular can come psychosis as can come original, innovative, ideas - but the common ground is in being pushed by context and that being subtle to unconscious. We now have tools to deal with that. simple.

If you choose to suffer at the horse and cart level that is your choice but I think when given 3000+ years of research to improve our lives and reduce suffering I know what I would, do, prefer.

Chris

 

[lightofreason]

...
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.

The TWO methods that come out of analysis of the I Ching by IDM are really simple to understand. The issues in tossing coins etc come up in debate re science and religion, the spiritual vs the secular. The IDM material has gone back to focus on what our brains do in the processing of information and so has identified the two methods that free one from the magical/random 'debate' and return to simple, pragmatic, use of the IC where such use is validated by the dynamics of the neurology. In other words regardless of spiritual or secular belief systems we can get the IC to work well through a different path that is enlightening as well as pragmatic and consistant in its results.

Method 1:

For ANY question posed, apply it to each hexagram and work through the generic 64 descriptions or the 4096 - up to you. For example given the question "what is the meaning of life?" apply that sort of philosophical question to each hexagram since each will give you an aspect that completes the answer. As you cover all hexagrams your PERSONAL preferences will then order the hexagrams into 'best fit' to 'worst fit' order where that fits YOU - in other words we incorporate your personal meanings into the general to give us a 'small world network' form of meaning, unique to you and yet also covering 'life'.

Method 2:

The 'quick reply' method, in particular the Emotional I Ching method, is where we get the I Ching to ask YOU questions about some situation (no need for details on what situation). The ability to do this is due to the methodology in generating I Ching hexagrams, we can use self-referencing and in doing so get the I Ching to describe itself.

Since our emotions operate semi-autonomously to consciousness, and have different motives (as in looking out for the individual whereas consciousness takes in social rules and so can suppress emotions) we can get them to assess a situation through the I Ching images and THEN use our consciousness to fill in any missing dots (our consciousness is more precise than our emotions and so can see things that our emotions cannot - just as they can respond to things our consciousness tries to block)

Method 1 is really easy to use and if you add-in the XOR material can get complex very quickly but it does flesh out high details of a hexagram NOT covered in the 'traditional' material and it does not require magical/random methods.

Method 2 is really easy to use but can require a degree of self-trust OR the aid of another to make assessments and then compare the results. Method 2 can be done in your head but I have put up a program to help and IT is also simple (but perhaps too simple once you get the idea - you can see things coming and so may 'complete' the questions without due consideration)

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

The ability to do these methods comes out of analysis of how our brains process information as covered in the IDM material. That material is presented in a way where there is additional references etc available so it can be hard to understand. You dont need to understand it to get values from the above methods but others on this list want to understand the methodology without doing the work required to do so and so will be frustrated in that they can see the material gives insights but cannot see the how or why. (these issues cover the XOR material for example where understanding that does require understanding of self-referencing etc - as covered in http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/properties.html )

Chris.

 

[martin]

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.

What's the matter? Running out of ammunition?

 

[lienshan]

The Yi methodology of lightofreason is to me 100% OK seen from my historical point of view. I think that the IDM and XOR material belong to the number and image school, while the main critics belong to the philosophical metaphysical school. The discussion is quite simple old wine on new bottles. Lightofreason is in fact more traditionalist than his critics, because his school developed first:

http://zhouyi.sdu.edu.cn/english/yiology/sub3/tangDynasty.asp

The Yi metholodology of lightofreason is to me wrong seen from my personal point of view. The king Wen structure of the oracle is hexagrams pairs in two groups of eighteen. The IDM and XOR material use another structure with binary connections between the hexagrams. This is wrong, because the main purpose of the king Wen order is to remove the numerology from the oracle.

 

[hmesker]

What Chris has made is not the Yijing but something which is (partly) based on the Yijing. It can be compared to The I Ching in Ten Minutes by Kaser or the I Ching of Jim, two products which also are based on the Yijing but are not the Yijing . We should not confuse such derivations with the original. Yijing=hexagrams + original-chinese-text. If it doesn't contain the hexagrams or the original Chinese text, then it's not the Yijing. Whether such a derivation is an improvement is up to the user.

Harmen.

 

[lightofreason]

... I think that the IDM and XOR material belong to the number and image school, while the main critics belong to the philosophical metaphysical school. The discussion is quite simple old wine on new bottles. Lightofreason is in fact more traditionalist than his critics, because his school developed first:

http://zhouyi.sdu.edu.cn/english/yiology/sub3/tangDynasty.asp

nice try but no lollypop the IDM/XOR material comes out of the neurology and so the I Ching from IT. The IDM/XOR material goes back to the origin of the universe (http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/symmetry.html ) with the development of the neuron from the basic dynamics of sponges millions and millons of years ago before amphibians/fish/reptiles/mammals/humans etc.

The categories of the I Ching, and so the set of categories we call 'The I Ching", stem from ad-hoc development of brain dynamics where over time the set of POSSIBLE categories got actualised as recognition of the EXPRESSION of life got aggregated into recognition of underlying essences - what the traditional I Ching covered in the development of 'dark' and 'light' etc and later the formal assertions of 'yin' and 'yang'.

The ad hoc development of the traditional I Ching was done, is still done, via ignorance of the method we use as a species to derive meaning - as such there is confusion of the literal with the figurative and issues of magic vs random methods where such block the dvelopment of a tool for accessing the unconscious an covering the dynamics of reality through the metaphor of yin/yang.

The BINARY sequence reflects the derivation of hexagrams naturally fom self-referencing yin/yang and this is in accord with the chaos game where IT covers the consequences of ANY containment of noise (which is what our senses do, as does our brain) where we get order from self-referencing.

Rotate the binary sequence to give you the binary NUMBER sequence. This dynamic covering rotations then leads us into XOR focus where that focus has its roots in the original methodology of te chaos game that ensures 'all is connected' and so the sense of the I Ching as a monad.

The ordering of the traditional sequence, when reviewed from an IDM'/XOR position brings out another featue of self-referencing and that is formation of logic of relationships. As such there the focus IS on the qualitative in the the numeric representations (the focus on lines etc) are removed to bring out the qualitative.

The ancient Chinese and the modern Chinese have failed to understand the underlying neurology that shows the IC to be a metaphor for what our SPECIES does in processing information. The differences are in forms of representations where some are easy, some are hard. Th IC representation makes it easy to represent 'all there is' but in GENERAL.

What researchers to date have NOT done is recognise the IC as a metaphor and so failed to analyse the properties of metaphor that is covered in IDM.

The methods described by me in the previous posts are superior to any 'traditional' methods in that they directly equate with how the brain works and then allow for local customisation of identifications through the use of consciousness. There are no issues of magic/random and there is consistancy in the results gained using the methods.

The research by the Chinese on the I Ching is limited in that it tries to stay in the box of the IC and so covers traditional perspectives that can only offer adaptive creativity not innovative (which IDM does).

Chris.

 

[lightofreason]

What Chris has made is not the Yijing but something which is (partly) based on the Yijing..

No - what iDM covers is what the I Ching is based upon and so the ability to introduce I Ching PLUS in that the work shows the full spectrum of the universal I Ching that lifts the traditional from the 10th century BC perspective to the 21st century AD.

AS such the traditional I Ching is a SUBSET of the categories that come out of self-referencing - a small world network reflecting the customisation of the properties/methods of self-referencing and the relabelling of such to fit the local, ancient chinese context. In that customisation a LOT was left out due to lack of understanding self-referencing and the brain. Through IDM we bring out clearly what is missing and so can be used to make the IC more than what is currently presented.

Chris.

 

[hmesker]

No - what iDM covers is what the I Ching is based upon

How can you say that when we don't know who wrote the Yijing, why he/they wrote it; we don't know what the Yijing is nor what its intended purpose is. We only know how the book is used, but we don't know what it is. We only know what 'we' turned the Yijing into. Therefore we also don't know what the Yijing is based upon, is my opinion.

Harmen.

 

[lightofreason]

How can you say that when we don't know who wrote the Yijing, why he/they wrote it; we don't know what the Yijing is nor what its intended purpose is.

The I Ching is a product of human brains - built up ad hoc over time to eventually form into the LOCAL expression of brain dynamics - the patterns derived from self-referencing where they have been relabelled to eventually form the concepts of 'yin' and 'yang'.

It makes no difference WHO wrote the I Ching, its structure reflects self-referencing and so all it can represent is known due to the methodology of self-referencing.

The success of the I Ching is due to the 'tight fit' of its dynamics with our brains and with self-referencing in general. Western systems usually dont retain the methodology as rigidly as the IC has - thus Western self-referencing of air/earth led to air/earth and water/fire. The I Ching makes the essential step to go one further and in doing so bring out relational space, that is marginalised in Western perspectives - the West is more object oriented and idealist and so marginalises the time dimension.

The IDM template maps out the POSSIBLE qualities/categories/classifiers GIVEN self-referencing. We then can identify isomorphism with the qualities that come out of the I Ching, out of human emotion categories, out of Mathematics categories (types of numbers), put of persona categories (MBTI) etc etc etc

To be able to do that means we are dealing with metaphors for the ONE set of qualities derived from the neurology. LOCAL context has given us the expressions of those universal qualities, such as the qualities of hexagrams in the I Ching.

We only know how the book is used, but we don't know what it is. We only know what 'we' turned the Yijing into. Therefore we also don't know what the Yijing is based upon, is my opinion. Harmen.

The I Ching is based upon what our brains can come up with - categories used to communicate reality - be it imagined or real, the SAME, SINGLE, set of qualities is used - those derived from self-referencing, as our brain does where from self-referencing differentiating/integrating comes basic qualities covering wholeness, partness, static relatedness (sharing space), dynamic relatedness (Sharing of time).

SInce the qualities of the I Ching map to those of Mathematics, Emotions, Persona categorisations etc and these are all forms of language so the qualities stem from the development of communication abilities and THOSE are sourced in the dynamics of the neurology and senses.

The traditional text emphasises Fu Hsi's focus on observing nature and so using the senses to identify patterns - and the categorisation of those patterns is by the containment of 'noise' and the use of self-referencing to derive order - and the brain is the container of sensory containers and so orders sensory 'noise' to give us a meaning system based on objects/relationships.

Historically this has been done in an ad hoc, local context, manner but with scientific methods we identify the categories through aggregation of sameness and differentiation of differences such that NOW we can map out all POSSIBLE expressions, identify all POTENTIALS and so flesh out their actualisation - and in doing so we find that self-referenced systems can identify themselves - as covered in XORing etc.

New world Harmen. LOTS of work in mapping out details etc and seeing where all of this takes us in that this does not just cover the I Ching, it covers ALL of our categorisation systems and so we can flesh out the previous forms derived from ad-hoc means. (and so XOR is not a product of the I Ching, it is a product of self-referencing and so comes as a property of ANY categorisation system, such as the I Ching, derived from self-referencing)

Chris.

 

[lightofreason]

Harmen, we do not know who came up with Mathematics but through IDM we can identify the core qualities of number types in Mathematics and also show their isomorphism with I Ching qualities - we dont know who came up with linguistics but we can identify the categories of such (noun-ness/verb-ness and their interactions) through IDM categories of wholes, parts etc etc.

We use the ONE brain format to communicate/process information and IDM covers the GENERIC categories derived from such. It covers the "Language of the Vague" that is then refined by local contexts into the many specialisations we see and so their LOCAL labels where they represent customisation of universals - as the I Ching and its lexicon represents those universals. GIven all of these specialisations, the I Ching is one of the easiest to learn and so is useful in understanding what IDM covers since it is an example of such.


Chris.

 

[hmesker]

The I Ching is a product of human brains - built up ad hoc over time to eventually form into the LOCAL expression of brain dynamics - the patterns derived from self-referencing where they have been relabelled to eventually form the concepts of 'yin' and 'yang'.

Ehrm, that's an assumption. We don't know if the Yijing -or Zhouyi if you like- incorporates yin & yang. Only the Ten WIngs talk about it; the Yijing proper does not mention it. And that's how 'it' normally starts - with assumptions.

It makes no difference WHO wrote the I Ching, its structure reflects self-referencing and so all it can represent is known due to the methodology of self-referencing.

If you talk about structure in the Yijing, which structure are you referring to? If I skip all existing commentary to the Yijing then there is hardly any structure in the Yijing, only a bunch of disorganised sets of six lines.

The I Ching is based upon what our brains can come up with

You see things in the Yijing, but that does not mean that they are actually there. You see the Yijing in a certain way, but there are other ways without IDM which are equally valid, I think.

New world Harmen. LOTS of work in mapping out details etc and seeing where all of this takes us in that this does not just cover the I Ching, it covers ALL of our categorisation systems and so we can flesh out the previous forms derived from ad-hoc means. (and so XOR is not a product of the I Ching, it is a product of self-referencing and so comes as a property of ANY categorisation system, such as the I Ching, derived from self-referencing)

Well, that's my point, actually. You use the Yijing to demonstrate the appliance of a certain system, but that system has nothing to do with the Yijing itself, only how you use the Yijing to show the use of that system. Your system could do well without the Yijing. It's like folding a boat from a piece of paper to demonstrate the usage of Origami, but it doesn't say anything about the paper, only how you use it.

we do not know who came up with Mathematics but through IDM we can identify the core qualities of number types in Mathematics and also show their isomorphism with I Ching qualities - we dont know who came up with linguistics but we can identify the categories of such (noun-ness/verb-ness and their interactions) through IDM categories of wholes, parts etc etc.

You can link mathematics DNA etc to the Yijing, but that does not mean it has anything to do with the Yijing. Funny that you mention linguistics and verbs, nouns and all that. The same categories are used to describe the Chinese language, while it is generally agreed on that Chinese does not really know verbs, nouns etc. It is only categorization to grasp the language - but it doesn't say anything about the language itself. Just as IDM isn't saying anything about the Yijing, it only incorporates a way to apply the Yijing. I Ching+ is not the Yijing, it is a different way of using the Yijing.

Harmen.

 

[getojack]

Chris,

Thank you for the link to your Commutative Symmetry page. It explains a lot, although the calculus is beyond me. Here's a question... you have concentrated all of this time and effort on integration/differentiation and symmetric/asymmetric dichotomies, right? What is your opinion on the void from which all of that springs?

 

[Sparhawk]

In other words regardless of spiritual or secular belief systems we can get the IC to work well through a different path that is enlightening as well as pragmatic and consistant in its results.

In case everybody missed it by concentrating on the "hardcore" stuff...

 

[lienshan]

It makes no difference WHO wrote the I Ching, its structure reflects self-referencing and so all it can represent is known due to the methodology of self-referencing.

King Wen wrote the Judgements and his son, the Duke of Zhou, wrote the Lines. This knowledge makes a big difference to me, because it helps me to understand the meaning of the texts, when I compare to the early Zhou history. Esspecially the Lines are easy to understand, when reading them as the memoires of the Duke of Zhou. Everything in the texts happend during his lifetime and nothing in the texts happend after his death. Only one single man knew all the different informations in the texts, because he actually ruled the dynasty for seven years. Then he retired and had the time to memorize his experiences.

If you talk about structure in the Yijing, which structure are you referring to? If I skip all existing commentary to the Yijing then there is hardly any structure in the Yijing, only a bunch of disorganised sets of six lines.

The Duke of Zhou used his father's oracle when writing his own memoires. That's why the texts are not in chronological order. He treated the king Wen Judgements as tortoise oracle answers and the Lines tell what did happen. Exactly like the shang diviners wrote both their divinations and what did happen on their tortoise shells. Reading binary structures into the Lines of the Yi is bluffing oneself.

nice try but no lollypop the IDM/XOR material comes out of the neurology and so the I Ching from IT. The IDM/XOR material goes back to the origin of the universe (http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/symmetry.html ) with the development of the neuron from the basic dynamics of sponges millions and millons of years ago before amphibians/fish/reptiles/mammals/humans etc.

I Ching comes out of studying the scapula of tortoises. All the numerology of the yarrowstalk oracle can be counted on the top of a tortoise scapula. I ching doesn't come out of neurology. You are wrong. Neolitic people didn't study neurology but tortoise shells.

 

[Sparhawk]

King Wen wrote the Judgements and his son, the Duke of Zhou, wrote the Lines. This knowledge makes a big difference to me, because it helps me to understand the meaning of the texts, when I compare to the early Zhou history. Esspecially the Lines are easy to understand, when reading them as the memoires of the Duke of Zhou. Everything in the texts happend during his lifetime and nothing in the texts happend after his death. Only one single man knew all the different informations in the texts, because he actually ruled the dynasty for seven years. Then he retired and had the time to memorize his experiences.

Correction, third party attribution isn't the same as authorship. Yes, it is attributed to the persons you mentioned but to affirm that it was actually them who wrote the text is a huge leap of faith. All ancient cultures, specially the Chinese, have a long history of attributing lots and portents to their contemporary leaders. The same way we have illuminated CEO's that take all the credit, and the big bucks, for the good fate of their companies while most likely it is the base of the pyramid that bears all the weight... In the case of the Yijing we cannot assert that this or that person is the "author" of it, specially with all the apocryphal texts and systems that are contemporary with it and that bear similarities with the Yi. As for "leaps of faith", well..., faith is, I don't know..., "dogmatic"?

 

[Tohpol]

I Ching comes out of studying the scapula of tortoises. All the numerology of the yarrowstalk oracle can be counted on the top of a tortoise scapula. I ching doesn't come out of neurology. You are wrong. Neolitic people didn't study neurology but tortoise shells.

Well, Chris would say everything arises from self-referencing and neurological constructs so the tortoise shells are a product of these neurological processes.

Hold on a minute I'm arguing for Chris! This can't be right aaargh! I've been assmililated!

Topal

 

[Sparhawk]

Neolitic people didn't study neurology but tortoise shells.

No, but, they did have a "brain", didn't they? That's the point Chris is trying to make...

2of9 of the Borg

 

[Tohpol]

Ehrm, that's an assumption. We don't know if the Yijing -or Zhouyi if you like- incorporates yin & yang. Only the Ten WIngs talk about it; the Yijing proper does not mention it. And that's how 'it' normally starts - with assumptions.

If you talk about structure in the Yijing, which structure are you referring to? If I skip all existing commentary to the Yijing then there is hardly any structure in the Yijing, only a bunch of disorganised sets of six lines.

You see things in the Yijing, but that does not mean that they are actually there. You see the Yijing in a certain way, but there are other ways without IDM which are equally valid, I think.

Yeah, I said all this in the proceeding pages. I do like Chris's work but the key blindspot - apart from all the assumptions and selective responses in this thread - seems to be that he cannot or will not countenance the possibility of other ways of seeing reality, which is connected with his own perception of the world.

So, there's not much point - at least for me - going further with Chris on that as it's like a stuck record where self-referencing and other labels are the gatekeepers of his truth. But it was interesting to see how people's minds work and a good insight into his work.

Weeeeell - Each to his own.

Topal

 

[bruce_g]

Chris is Chris and Chris' way is Chris' way.

When ones way becomes everyone's Way, it's time to reinvent humanity and start over.
Harder yet is to reinvent ones self.
Which is the "real" Yijing?

 

[Sparhawk]

Which is the "real" Yijing?

Mine, of course.

 

[lienshan]

Correction, third party attribution isn't the same as authorship. Yes, it is attributed to the persons you mentioned but to affirm that it was actually them who wrote the text is a huge leap of faith.

Faith?

Only one single man, the Duke of Zhou, knew all the special informations of the Yi Line texts

Elementary, my dear Watson

 

[Sparhawk]

Faith?

Only one single man, the Duke of Zhou, knew all the special informations of the Yi Line texts

Elementary, my dear Watson

And you know this for a FACT?

Again, attribution is NOT the same as authorship. How exactly do you know it was, without a doubt, the Duke of Zhou the one with all the "special information" and as being the author you assert him to be? Unless you are "Dr. Who" and can go back in time and peek over his shoulder, there is no way to know for certain ANYBODY in particular is the author of ANY classic, least of all, the Yijing.

 

[Tohpol]

Chris is Chris and Chris' way is Chris' way.

When ones way becomes everyone's Way, it's time to reinvent humanity and start over.

We may well be reaching that point...

Topal

 

[bruce_g]

Mine, of course.

Nuh uh! Mine is!

 

[lightofreason]

Ehrm, that's an assumption. We don't know if the Yijing -or Zhouyi if you like- incorporates yin & yang. Only the Ten WIngs talk about it; the Yijing proper does not mention it. And that's how 'it' normally starts - with assumptions.

If you bothered to read CAREFULLY what I wrote, I emphasised the EVENTUAL development of the formal notions of yin and yang. The original material developed in an ad hoc manner before the formalisation of the I Ching introduced the making of distinctions which is what our brains do. Those distinctions are then aggregated into a formal system of categorisation and that aggregation can be 'vague' or 'crisp'.

The ad hoc manner serves to 'link the dots' of the set of POTENTIAL forms of meaning where each distinction is summed to bring out the actual forms as having binary roots.

If you know the EPR experiment in physics, the XOR nature of the slits seed the emergence of a rich pattern of association over time. Thus at first it all looks 'random' and then the order emerges due to the self-referencing built-in to the experiment.

If you talk about structure in the Yijing, which structure are you referring to? If I skip all existing commentary to the Yijing then there is hardly any structure in the Yijing, only a bunch of disorganised sets of six lines.

disorganised?! LOL! go back and review the method of symbol creation where it reflects the use of self-referencing a dichotomy. The order comes out as a sequence of 64 symbols from 000000 to 111111. LOCAL perspectives then re-order that sequence into many possible sequences to bring out some trait of the whole - as in, for example, the 'traditional' or 'imperial' version or all of the other possible versions. We can in fact form a 'logic of relationships' covering all hexagram pairs using the full set of 64 symbols.

The template for the I Ching existed as a property of brain dynamics and distinction making way before the formal ancient Chinese system appeared. In fact the template is millions, more so billions, of years old.

You see things in the Yijing, but that does not mean that they are actually there. You see the Yijing in a certain way, but there are other ways without IDM which are equally valid, I think.

No. The IDM focus brings out the orginal format and what can be done with such all due to the mapping of distinction making where there are finite ways to do such using the neurology - symmetric or asymmetric and on into anti-symmetric. Since the neurology is the prime source for meaning generation so capturing what is POSSIBLE from there gives us the spectrum of meaning.

The I Ching is a local metaphor covering distinction making and as such can represent 'all there is' as can, for example, the metaphor of Mathematics and through IDM we can map out the isomorphism of all metaphors created by us to represent, carry the meaning of, reality. It is the nature of metaphors to be interchangable such that I can use them to describe the real or the imagined of mixes of both - it is then up to local context heuristics to validate.

Well, that's my point, actually. You use the Yijing to demonstrate the appliance of a certain system, but that system has nothing to do with the Yijing itself, only how you use the Yijing to show the use of that system. Your system could do well without the Yijing. It's like folding a boat from a piece of paper to demonstrate the usage of Origami, but it doesn't say anything about the paper, only how you use it.

you fail to understand that the making of distinctions elicits order. The moment you differentiate A from B, where B can be one or many, order develops in that the distinction 'cuts' noise into what I am focusing on and all else. That ACT elicits order through self-referencing and LOCAL customisation is in the form of labels that form a lexicon to communicate locally - as the 'traditional' I Ching does, but ALL of these local forms are sourced in the general act of distinction making and so the properties of that act, when we make distinctions within distinctions and so self-reference, are brought out in the symbolisms of the I Ching - showing the IC to be sourced in distinction making and so containing properties of the method of distinction making.

IDM maps out those properties and methods and so shows the universal level of meaning that serves as bedrock for all of the local customisations of the universals where such reflect the top soil.

You can link mathematics DNA etc to the Yijing, but that does not mean it has anything to do with the Yijing.

these are all specialisations, metaphors, local customisations. Their context/lexicons may be local expressions but their essences are all the same - grounded in distinction making and distinction making comes with properties. The RNA/DNA neucleotides and codons have their order DETERMINED by the self-referencing of the purine/pyramidine dichotomy (an asymmetric dichotomy). The categories of types of numbers are derived from self-referencing whole-part distinctions etc. These are ALL metaphors and so all share properties and methods of metaphorcation where at that level there is still no customisation.

Funny that you mention linguistics and verbs, nouns and all that. The same categories are used to describe the Chinese language, while it is generally agreed on that Chinese does not really know verbs, nouns etc.

you need to focus a little more on what is being covered. The act of distinction will derive qualities covering wholes, parts, static relationships, dynamic relationships. The HIGHER the precision, the higher the differentiation, so the more whole/part aka 'noun' focused becomes the language. Those languages with less precision will reflect more a focus on relationship than things, and so be more demanding of context sensitivity to derive meaning - as the Chinese symbols etc demand.

If we take a step back to focus on the noun/verb dichotomy, its self-referencing will give us a dimension of categories all covering the POSSIBLE combinations of the elements of that dichotomy and so cover all types of languages - from those dominated by object focus to those dominated by relationship focus. These 'rules' are defined by the neurology and exposure to locsl context customisations and the analysis of brain functions of mandarin speakers or cantonese or Japanese or Korean all conform to the general focus on differentiating/integrating with LOCAL customisations. Thus your comments on nouns/verbs are 'lite' and so lack precision in understanding Chinese etc.

It is only categorization to grasp the language - but it doesn't say anything about the language itself. Just as IDM isn't saying anything about the Yijing, it only incorporates a way to apply the Yijing. I Ching+ is not the Yijing, it is a different way of using the Yijing.

I Ching comes out of the making of distinctions, be they spatial or temporal or a mix - it is A/NOT-A where NOT-A can be 1 (and so symmetric focus) or many (and so asymmetric focus). The ACT applies the differentiating/integrating dichotomy and self-references it - all else follows with local customisations, often done in an ad-hoc manner, bring out specialisations such as the I Ching.

By uncovering the brain dynamics in distinction making so we map out all possible forms of such and so all properties/methods that go with the distinction making and so structure ANY specialist perspective.

The dynamics of whole->part (top down processing) act to 'guide' the formation of elements into parts that seed part->whole (bottom up). The brain and its neurology is the 'whole' and so its structure will influence the dynamics of parts through constraints (and so a limitation on meaning to patterns of differentiating/integrating)

The associated mathematics is of irrational numbers serving as guides to any 'sharing of space' and this moves into issues of precision (see the IDM page http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/idm006.html ) where the IC comes out of high precision (binary sequence on the border with complexity/chaos dynamics)

you cannot get meaning outside of your brain from something not reflected in your brain - in these circumstances all you would get is paradox since your brain would not be able to 'pin down', categorise, what it is experiencing. For the I Ching to be meaningful it MUST represent what we know 'in here' and that is categories of differentiating/integrating. ANY metaphor will cover this, it HAS to since that is the way we communicate - through symmetric and asymmetric dynamics with a bias to the symmetric. With higher precision comes out the asymmetric and the symbolisms of the IC allow us to represent both in one (as it also allows us to capture hierarchy etc)

Chris.

 

[lightofreason]

Chris,

Thank you for the link to your Commutative Symmetry page. It explains a lot, although the calculus is beyond me. Here's a question... you have concentrated all of this time and effort on integration/differentiation and symmetric/asymmetric dichotomies, right? What is your opinion on the void from which all of that springs?

Wu Chi.

From a Chinese perspective we can identify a hierarchy from general to particular:

T'ai Chi / Wu Chi (grand extension / without extension)
yinEQVyang/T'ai Chi
yinXORyang/yinEQVyang
yang/yin

From an energy perspective we have levels of the dichotomy of far-from-equilibrium/equilibrium and so the focus on negentropy/entropy in the dynamics as we have a focus on actualisation(yang)/potentials(yin).

Since life demands distinction to make meaning, the realm of being without extension is meaningless - there are no highs/lows as such, all is 'balanced' but there are potentials. We can add to the Chinese hierarchy:

I Chi / Wu Chi
T'ai Chi / I Chi
...
...

where wu chi is no extension, I chi is a 'change in extension', and T'ai chi is our consciousness encapsulating that change into a 'thing' and if we hold it long enough in our brains then it breaks down into yin/yang (all of this covering self-referencing from noise to elicit order). We can then analyse yin/yang and once done return the now fleshed-out T'ai Chi to Wu Chi.

the hierarchy here seeds the same patterns in the levels such that that T'ai chi/wu chi dynamic is reflected in the universe as it is in us. Note carefully here that we are dealing with an ASYMMETRIC dichotomy that we then try to make symmetric for the sake of communications - in doing so we lose some precision.

We can use the binary sequence of the I Ching (since that sequence develops naturally from self-referencing yin/yang (deriving such from the whole that is t'ai chi) as a general dimension to measure the qualities of anything (and so make up quality space by repetition of the dimension to give hexagrams, dodecagrams etc)

Given the chaos game rule, what we can know is that the containment of noise elicits order - which is what happens in T'ai Chi from wu chi in that the containment then elicits recognition of yin/yang etc - this also gets into taoism focus on alchemy - see my old website page http://members.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond/tao.html

Chris.

 

[lightofreason]

I Ching comes out of studying the scapula of tortoises. All the numerology of the yarrowstalk oracle can be counted on the top of a tortoise scapula. I ching doesn't come out of neurology. You are wrong. Neolitic people didn't study neurology but tortoise shells.

really? and what did they use to study and so make distinctions about those shells - their feet or their brains?

Chris.

 

[Sparhawk]

Chris, it just occurred to me, with all this that you mention about the chaos game, etc., have you been reviewing Ron Hale-Evans material on game theory? Many of his theories are similar to yours. Shame the Hex-8 list is defunct...

 

[lightofreason]

Chris is Chris and Chris' way is Chris' way.

the blending, bonding, bounding, binding is not 'my way' - those qualities seed all of us. When I apply local labels to flesh out a hexagram for some current situation then we move from the objective, particular species member, to the unique and so singular perspective. The point with IDM is that we can identify the general qualities of the unconscious that seed consciousness and so be more precise, consistant, in using the IC material.

When ones way becomes everyone's Way, it's time to reinvent humanity and start over.
Harder yet is to reinvent ones self.
Which is the "real" Yijing?

IDM is a template and we can fill in the dots using yin/yang and out will pop the qualities used in seeding the I Ching texts. 'everyone's' way as such is too generic to be meaningful, it requires customisation so there is no need to reinvent humanity (a very yang, replacement focused perspective BTW! - the drive to be 'born again' and so break free of any history - the singular at work)

As the work on synesthesia shows us, our sensory systems vary given genetics and context in their development, but being containers of noise they still elicit self-referencing in the identification of experiences - they still work off wholes, parts etc and so blending, bonding, bounding, and binding. The aggregator of all of the sensory info is our brain and so our neurology. Thus IDM identifies the universal source of meaning usable for all sensory systems, concrete or abstract (such as the I Ching).

This is not 'my way' since I can have differences in what I decree to be a 'whole' or 'part', and 'object' or 'relationship' and this will come out in customisation but the sensation of wholness or object or relationship is property of the neurology and allows the sharing of such through communications across the species.

Chris.

 

[lightofreason]

Chris, it just occurred to me, with all this that you mention about the chaos game, etc., have you been reviewing Ron Hale-Evans material on game theory? Many of his theories are similar to yours. Shame the Hex-8 list is defunct...

I have not delt with Ron since I was thrown off the hex-8 list in the late 90s (see his archives). If his work is 'recent' then perhaps my work posted on his list had an conscious/unconscious influence in the direction of his thinking! ;-)

That eviction was a classic example of values before facts.

Chris.