An open letter to Chris: Defend your methodology!

[lienshan]

You're just using a different sequence than either the binary sequence or the Wen sequence... that doesn't make it better, just different.

The difference is, that the number system shown only flips the sixth line while lightofreason flips both the sixth and the first line. Both systems treat the hexagrams as build from below, but lightofreason contradict this rule by too flipping the first line. A flaw of his system is this way, that he reverses the lines one and three of the trigrams below. It's only obvious to see when comparing to the hexagram number system.

I'm not trying to make anything better? The Wen order of the hexagrams is to me the I Ching order of the hexagrams.
I'm only interested in this kind of nummerology in order to reconstruct the original yarrowstalk oracle

 

[getojack]

... Arguing against arguing, which of course, will have the opposite effect...

The day everyone agrees on everything is the day the universe will pop out of existence.

 

[luz]

Chris is like everybody else, except more blunt??

I really don't see it. He's in a category of his own. Dealing with him is not unlike dealing with.. Grief. You have to go through 5 stages before life can be normal again:


(1) Interest.
You read his posts and become intrigued, you think there is something to this and it even looks exciting. It is at this stage when you perhaps find the gold nuggets in his work. It would be recommended to back out at this point, take your loot and leave. But for most people, stage two, and its consequent descent and rise from frustration is unavoidable.

(2) Questioning
In this stage people want to ask questions and they also wonder how this actually works in practice. So they ask a few questions of Chris and he responds by repeating what you already read and by giving you the same links time after time. This goes on and on in a puzzling way, it seems you can't get a real explanation from the guy. You start to think that he's pulling your leg. After all, how can he answer all of your questions with the same arguments and the same.. links!

(3) Disgust
In this stage you become completely angry at him, you can not believe the guy can't stop insulting you and telling him you are just afraid and living in the 10th century. You actually wanted to know more and are appalled at his uncalled for
defensiveness.

(4) Pity.
You feel sorry for him. He is, after all, obviously not normal. You don't like it when other people that are a bit behind you in the cycle are insulting him and making him all defensive and scared.

(5) Acceptance.
You accept that he is a pain in the b.. but that he also doesn't want your pity and that the only way to make life easier for him and for yourself is to let him ramble again and again, as he swallows more people into the Chris cycle.

Some people are known to jump in again on the cycle after stage 5, at different staged but most usually they jump into stage 3 which seems to have great appeal to inquiring minds. ;-)

So don't tell me everybody else in this forum is just like him. It would certainly be exhausting!

 

[Sparhawk]

The day everyone agrees on everything is the day the universe will pop out of existence.

After 20 years that's about the only argument I have left with my wife... It seems to be holding...

 

[Tohpol]

So don't tell me everybody else in this forum is just like him. It would certainly be exhausting!

I personally think the forum wouldn't be the same without Chris. He may irritate the hell out of you at times via his very unyielding ways and overactive intellectual centre, but I'm all for the mavericks and the eccentrics in this world that offer something new - they often have a dash of genius behind the fragile egos. I think they give a little flavour and colour to a world that is fast becoming awash with mediocrity.

Topal

 

[bruce_g]

Chris is like everybody else, except more blunt??

Consider the context of my statement, Angel. I was referring to the frequency of beginning a post with disagreement rather than seeking common ground to start with. It's more the norm than the exception.

Plus, I view everyone I meet as being a part of myself and v.v., including Chris. In this respect, everyone is my teacher, everyone points to something in myself. I can either battle them or deal with those tendencies in myself.

 

[luz]

Plus, I view everyone I meet as being a part of myself and v.v., including Chris. In this respect, everyone is my teacher, everyone points to something in myself. I can either battle them or deal with those tendencies in myself.

Agreed.

I don't want to demonize Chris either, but it just start to sound odd when I start hearing that Hilary is just like him or that he is like everybody else, too attached to his own ideas.

There is a big difference between being stubborn and being insulting. And it's true that this discussion leads to nothing and that it has been played many times before but it just feels odd, as I said, to deny that the behavior is not acceptable. Were we not discussing very recently a 'code of ethics'? Was respect for each other not one of the main items? I just don't like to see these things glossed over, that's all.

 

[lightofreason]

So you've echoed many of my own thoughts and things I've already tried back to me. You've also provided one idea I hadn't thought of: to ask him to recommend someone else. No doubt with much charm and admiration for how tremendously busy he is. I'm not sure whether this new idea is testimony to the benefits of your system, or of your particular way of thinking...

What is echoed is what your feelings are about the situation and so can concure with your conscious assessment but it can also bring out some 'home truth' suppressed by consciousness for social reasons or some applicable perspective not recognised yet.

the main focus is on using three 'vague' questions and from that being able to derive a particular state of mind - all due to the isomorphism of emotions and yin/yang - determined by self-referencing. As an interpreter for others I think you can see the benefits - and there is no need for magical/random methods (that, BTW, I have WELL researched since the 60s so I am WELL aware of your divination perspective but have found a 'third way' if you like, no magic, no randomness, just basic neuroscience information applied to the I Ching as an assessor of reality.)

If we just focused on the bottom trigram of 31 we get self-restraint, feeling of being blocked, loss of something dear (a passion issue etc) and that is not obvious with the three questions asked - that being because the questions are coat-hangers for your emotions to 'hang' the feelings on and so elicit an image (common focus in dealing with the unconscious is through implicit ways, projection onto images etc)

If we had doubled the trigram then the situation would have been represented by 52 and its focus on blocking doubled and so a situation covering quality control, discernment - and that too covers your issues but in GENERAL. The more we can fill out the more particular the answers become but all within the original general.

The CHANGE line of the trigram shifts us to fire and its bottom focus on issues with guidance, a 'preferred' direction etc (that when doubled gives us fire in upper and so hard-core ideology issues, being in the 'gang', acceptance issues etc)

The CHANGE of line 1 covers the influence of the line position controller - 24 - with its focus on coming back to, or a new beginning - repetition etc etc There is no reference to traditional line changes etc material since we are dealing with entanglement and getting the IC to describe itself.

Thus the universal in the 31.1 to 49 change will reflect all sorts of situations like yours - hexagrams are classifers and local events instances of that classification. THEN come customisation as we apply the universal to the specifics of the situation.

SInce I have EXTENSIVE experience in IC 'divination' methods, as I have in the science perspective, I can flesh out what works consistantly and cover both consciousness and the unconscious through the Emotional IC work. Thus when I promote IDM methods, I do it with lots of experience behind me - I DO know what I am talking about despite what others seem to think (based on their LACK of knowledge about what we are dealing with here - note the completion stuff I mentioned comes out of XORing the hexagrams with 63, just as the description of basic infrastructure etc is brought out through XORing with 27, and so on)

Chris.

 

[lightofreason]

...
The 64 hexagrams counted as numbers show the flaws of the lightofreason system. He says e.g. that "In the variation on a theme sequence, hexagram 01 complements hexagram 44". These two hexagrams are the binary numbers 1 and 3 as shown above.

Do the number 1 complement the number 3

you ARE confused by your own mind! LOL!

The BINARY sequence introduces a variation on a theme perspective by sliding the 32 yin-based hexagrams with the 32 yang-based hexagrams. This variation goes all the way 'up' to the top line issues. Thus 02 is a variation of 24, 23 of 27 and so on through 44/01. Get to the top line and we have 02 is a variation of 23, 08 of 20 and so on.

02
23
08
20
...
...
28
44 yin base
==========
24 yang base
27
...
...
14
43
01


The Binary NUMBER sequence requires the ROTATION of the binary sequence to give:

02 - 000000 - 0
24 - 100000 - 1
07 - 010000 - 2
19 - 110000 - 3
15 - 001000 - 4
...
...
44 - 011111 - 62
01 - 111111 - 63

etc etc etc (this is in fact the changing line sequence through 02/01 - there is a lot more here, see the matrix page: http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/icmatrix.html )

Thus the variations on a theme perspective is GENERAL (02 with 24, 44 with 01) or PARTICULAR (02 with 23, 43 with 01). This brings out such perspectives as the unconditional nature of hexagrams with yin tops vs the conditional nature of those with yang tops etc etc. the first five lines are same, the last one different. At the GENERAL level so the first line is different, all others same.

Given all of this you may then use the WAVE interpretations as covered in:

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

Chris.

 

[lightofreason]

The difference is, that the number system shown only flips the sixth line while lightofreason flips both the sixth and the first line.

? your confused - this flipping of 1 and 6 is 27-ness and covers the derivation of a description of a hexagram's infrastructure - XOR 27 with any hexagram will give you a description by analogy of that hexagram's skeletal form.

XOR ANY hexagram (N) with some other will give the the N-ness of a hexagram - see http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/introXOR.html

Chris.

 

[lightofreason]

It isn't the method but the certainty of absolute superiority of the method, which in question. I don't think anyone objects to Chris' method, for him. In fact, I think that more people have understanding of many of the bottom line points Chris repeatedly makes than Chris is either willing or capable of seeing. For example: most everyone here, if not everyone, comprehends universal v.s. individual meanings of hexagrams, yet to hear him speak of it, no one understands this but him. ..

The issue for you is you are a regular on a public list - most are not and as such I have the habit of repeating things since most will not follow links etc and so are not aware of the IDM/IC+ perspectives. Thus when I write I am addressing not only some particular individual but also all readers of the list - new or not. So the encapsulation of IDM/IC+ background into an email is not a problem for me, but it is obviously a problem for you - focus dude, I repeat, this is a public list with LOTS of readers on it that are not regulars or not members or not prepared to follow links etc etc... so bare with me in that I usually will spell out material AS IF I think you dont know about it, but you are taking it too personally, imagine a whole tribe of people reading over your shoulder with some asking 'what does THAT mean?' of something you already know.

Chris.

 

[dobro p]

The issue for you is you are a regular on a public list - most are not and as such I have the habit of repeating things since most will not follow links etc and so are not aware of the IDM/IC+ perspectives. Thus when I write I am addressing not only some particular individual but also all readers of the list - new or not. So the encapsulation of IDM/IC+ background into an email is not a problem for me, but it is obviously a problem for you - focus dude, I repeat, this is a public list with LOTS of readers on it that are not regulars or not members or not prepared to follow links etc etc... so bare with me in that I usually will spell out material AS IF I think you dont know about it, but you are taking it too personally, imagine a whole tribe of people reading over your shoulder with some asking 'what does THAT mean?' of something you already know.

I'm not sure that I understand what you're saying, because that bit at the end of your post is a bit ambiguous. Are you saying that you post full reiterations of your ideas here because you think there are a lot of people who read stuff here who never announce their presence, but who are wondering what your stuff means?

 

[lienshan]

you ARE confused by your own mind! LOL!

I'm not confused? I just show You an numerical order of the 64 hexagrams from 1 to 64 based on simple binary math.
You say that I'm confused, because You have no arguments. Even You can't argue against mathematically facts:

The sixth line is either I = 1 or : = 2. The five lines below have value 32, 16, 8, 4, 2, if they differ from the sixth line,
or value 0, if they are equal to the sixth line. A few examples:

IIIIII (1+0+0+0+0+0 = number 1) II: (1+32+16+8+0+2 = number 63)
(2+0+0+0+0+0 = number 2) :III:I (2+32+16+8+0+2 = number 60)
IIIII: (1+0+0+0+0+2 = number 3) I:I (1+32+16+8+4+0 = number 61)
::I (2+0+0+0+0+2 = number 4) :IIII: (2+32+16+8+4+0 = number 62)
IIII:I (1+0+0+0+4+0 = number 5) I:: (1+32+16+8+4+2 = number 63)
:I: (2+0+0+0+4+0 = number 6) :IIIII (2+32+16+8+4+2 = number 64)

I could show You other ways to treat the 64 hexagrams as numbers, but the method above is enough to show others, that your methodology is only one of more nummerological I Ching theories. You give the lines the values 0 and 1, while the method above gives the lines other nummerical values. Your method needs lots of explanation. The method above only needs simple counting: 1-2-3-4-5-6-7 etc. to 64

I do not know but theorize, that King Wen knew the nummerical order of the hexagrams. The chinese archaeologists have found an early western Zhou pottery pat with four sets of six numbers, the four hexagrams 7, 8, 9 and 10 in the King Wen order. Each of the hexagram lines were numbers and not whole/broken lines. This indicate, that King Wen was familiar with nummerology.

My pointe is, that his order of the hexagrams was by purpose made non-nummerologic. He choose instead to focus on the hexagrams in pairs. That's why your metodology isn't I Ching, because You focus on binary nummerology possibilities and this way read your own theories into I Ching. The proof is your flipping of line one. It's against binary math as everyone can see, when comparing to the method shown above:

Hexagrams are build and counted from bottom to top. You too build your hexagrams from bottom to top, but You count the hexagrams from top to bottom ... You have invented your own counting rules to make your theories match ...

 

[getojack]

The sixth line is either I = 1 or : = 2. The five lines below have value 32, 16, 8, 4, 2, if they differ from the sixth line,
or value 0, if they are equal to the sixth line. A few examples:

IIIIII (1+0+0+0+0+0 = number 1) II: (1+32+16+8+0+2 = number 63)
(2+0+0+0+0+0 = number 2) :III:I (2+32+16+8+0+2 = number 60)
IIIII: (1+0+0+0+0+2 = number 3) I:I (1+32+16+8+4+0 = number 61)
::I (2+0+0+0+0+2 = number 4) :IIII: (2+32+16+8+4+0 = number 62)
IIII:I (1+0+0+0+4+0 = number 5) I:: (1+32+16+8+4+2 = number 63)
:I: (2+0+0+0+4+0 = number 6) :IIIII (2+32+16+8+4+2 = number 64)

Nice counting system, by the way. But you have number 63 twice. I think the first one's supposed to be 59 using this method, right? All this binary arithmetic talk reminds me of a mathematical puzzle, maybe something like this...

A man uses a big 40 kilo rock as a weight for measuring his grain into 40 kilo bags. He loans the rock to a neighbor, and when he gets it back, the neighbor apologizes profusely for breaking the stone into 4 pieces. But the man thanks his neighbor and says, "Now I can use these four stones to measure any amount of grain up to 40 kilos in one-kilo increments." So how much do the four stones weigh? First person to answer correctly gets a sacrificial cow and some millet wine.

 

[lightofreason]

I'm not confused? I just show You an numerical order of the 64 hexagrams from 1 to 64 based on simple binary math.
You say that I'm confused, because You have no arguments. Even You can't argue against mathematically facts:

you are confused. your playing with maps and territory and so confusing one with the other, binary numbering with wave summing. Here is a primer on BINARY number representations:

(1) there are only two values, 0 and 1 (that is why it is called BINARY).
(2) The ORDERING of numbers follows that of a number line. The number line for binary is an ordeing of powers of 2 (2^n for n= 0 onwards) as where in a decimal system the line is made up of powers of 10.

2^0 = 1
2^1 = 2
2^2 = 4
2^3 = 8 (trigrams)
2^4 = 16
2^5 = 32
2^6 = 64 (hexagrams)
2^7 = 128
2^8 = 256
2^9 = 512
2^10 = 1024
2^11 = 2048
2^12 = 4096 (dodecagrams)

Thus we START with an order of POSSIBLE values 0000.... to infinity if need be! We then 'flip' the required position to reflect 'we have a value here'. Thus 2^0 = 1 and we have 1000... or 2^3 = 000100.... or 9 = 100100 (2^0 + 2^3) - if we count from 0 to 63 rather than 1 to 64 we cover 000000 to 111111.

In the I Ching, if we develop hexagrams using bottom-up (and so left to right) we end up with such pairings of:

000000
000001
000010
000011

Since we are developing bottom to top (left to right) and in principle can extend beyond 64 (e.g. 2^12 = 4096) it is obvious from the above that we are limited by the restriction to 6 places (the numbers in binary format are developing right to left). We would need to add bits at the 'bottom' to get values and it all gets messy - but if we ROTATE the hexagrams that gives us a binary NUMBER ordering that includes adding more lines and so the open-endedness required for a number line representation without the need to 'modify' things on the fly or change the mode of representations and so confuse map with territory. (you confuse the REPRESENTATION of a value WITH the value and in doing so deriving a so-called 'binary math' representation that is NOT 'binary numbering'!)

The alternative to 0/1 is to reinterpret 0 = 'on' and 1 = 'off' and so hex 02 maps to 63 and hex 01 maps to 0 - and so valid numeric sequence but confusing due to the change in representation (and confusion when manipulating logic operators where the formal usage is on 0 as false, 1 as true) - as covered in your somewhat convoluted:

"The sixth line is either I = 1 or : = 2. The five lines below have value 32, 16, 8, 4, 2, if they differ from the sixth line, or value 0, if they are equal to the sixth line" - here you confuse territory (decimal numbers) and binary representations (0,1) to call it 'binary maths' - there are no conditionals in binary maths re position issues!

Now if you want to use the WAVE model then you can stick to the natural bottom up development where each yin/yang position is a marker of frequencies and the whole is an expression of constructive and destructive wave interference.

See the derivation described in http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/WaveInterpret.html

All of this has NOTHING to do with the I Ching in that it is not originated there but in basic mathematics that we use to represent yin/yang.

Chris.

 

[martin]

A man uses a big 40 kilo rock as a weight for measuring his grain into 40 kilo bags. He loans the rock to a neighbor, and when he gets it back, the neighbor apologizes profusely for breaking the stone into 4 pieces. But the man thanks his neighbor and says, "Now I can use these four stones to measure any amount of grain up to 40 kilos in one-kilo increments." So how much do the four stones weigh? First person to answer correctly gets a sacrificial cow and some millet wine.

Millet wine? Yummie!
The stones are 1,3,9 and 27 kg ..

PS Keep the cow, I'm vegetarian.

 

[lightofreason]

Millet wine? Yummie!
The stones are 1,3,9 and 27 kg ..

aka 3^0, 3^1, 3^2, 3^3

 

[lienshan]

All of this has NOTHING to do with the I Ching in that it is not originated there but in basic mathematics that we use to represent yin/yang.

I think it depends on how You define I Ching? It has much to do with I Ching if it includes the Ten Wings commentaries, because the counting method shown isn't my own idea but actually described in Shuo Gua (the 8th wing):

"To Heaven they assigned the number three, to Earth the number two,
and from these they computed the other numbers."

Back in olden days the number one was shown as a line and the number zero as a blank space. This notification doesn't work with binary (0,1) math, so they invented a mysterious way to display binary math using odd numbers to symbolize 1's and even numbers to symbolize 0's. A few examples:

The first (bottom) line is either I = 3 (odd) or : = 2 (even). The five lines above have value 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, if they differ from the first line, or value 0, if they are equal to the first line. A few examples:

(0+0+0+0+0+2 = number 2) :I: (0+4+0+0+0+2 = number 6) :IIII: (0+4+8+16+32+2 = number 62)
IIIIII (0+0+0+0+0+3 = number 3) I:IIII (0+4+0+0+0+3 = number 7) I:I (0+4+8+16+32+3 = number 63)
I:: (2+0+0+0+0+2 = number 4) II: (2+4+0+0+0+2 = number 8) IIIII: (2+4+8+16+32+2 = number 64)
:IIIII (2+0+0+0+0+3 = number 5) ::IIII (2+4+0+0+0+3 = number 9) ::I (2+4+8+16+32+3 = number 65)

The 64 legendary binary numbers were from 2 to 65. The first number was Earth and the ancient name of these 64 "pre-hexagrams" was Kuei Ts'ang (Reverting to the Hidden). If arranged in a nummerical order from 2 to 65 in four horisontal rows of sixteen vertical collumns, then the upper trigrams display the Fu Xi order of the trigrams vertical.

I think that your methodology is compatibel with the method shown, if You don't flip both the first and the sixth line. The problem is, that You revert one of the trigrams when doing so, but they are on top of each other and their toplines are the hexagram lines three and six. The advantage of this change is, that your methodology in future will link directly to the I Ching + Ten Wings text. Then You can simply ask getojack to read / explain the text of Shuo Gua 1th chapter and ask Harmen to translate / date this specific chinese text concerning the binary aspect of I Ching.

 

[Sparhawk]

Speaking of serendipity, tonight I was browsing through some books in my favorite bookstore and I found an old author that was dear to me in my teens, together with the Yijing. I know, I told you I was a weird teenager... This quote comes from the first page of the book. I chuckled when I read it. One must but admire a person with such conviction...

My manner of thinking, so you say, cannot be approved. Do you suppose I care? A poor fool indeed is he who adopts a manner of thinking for others! My manner of thinking stems straight from my considered reflections; it holds with my existence, with the way I am made. It is not in my power to alter it; and were it, I'd not do so. This manner of thinking you find fault with is my sole consolation in life; it alleviates all my sufferings in prison, it composes all my pleasures in the world outside, it is dearer to me than life itself. Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness.

Marquis de Sade, in a letter to his wife, early 1780's
​

 

[Tohpol]

Speaking of serendipity, tonight I was browsing through some books in my favorite bookstore and I found an old author that was dear to me in my teens, together with the Yijing. I know, I told you I was a weird teenager... This quote comes from the first page of the book. I chuckled when I read it. One must but admire a person with such conviction...

My manner of thinking, so you say, cannot be approved. Do you suppose I care? A poor fool indeed is he who adopts a manner of thinking for others! My manner of thinking stems straight from my considered reflections; it holds with my existence, with the way I am made. It is not in my power to alter it; and were it, I'd not do so. This manner of thinking you find fault with is my sole consolation in life; it alleviates all my sufferings in prison, it composes all my pleasures in the world outside, it is dearer to me than life itself. Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness.

Marquis de Sade, in a letter to his wife, early 1780's
​

Well, he didn't let the "manner of thinking of others" hold him back from expressing those "considered reflections"! Chris is the Marquis de Sade expressed through the intellect - is that what you're saying?

(Reading Sade in your teens...Hmmm all becomes clear...

Topal

 

[Sparhawk]

Well, he didn't let the "manner of thinking of others" hold him back from expressing those "considered reflections"! Chris is the Marquis de Sade expressed through the intellect - is that what you're saying?

(Reading Sade in your teens...Hmmm all becomes clear...

Topal

No, of course he didn't... Never has. He would go against the king, if he had to and end up in jail, as Sade did, hence the parallel. OTOH, sticking to one's principles, as twisted and misguieded as Sade's were, in the face of adversity, is always admirable. I would never have the patience he has to repeat myself, for years on end. Patience, another admirable treat.

As for me reading Sade in my teens..., what can I say? The books were in the possession of a cousin of mine, much older than I, and I've always been an omnivorous reader. To say it was a "discovery" would do no justice to the firing of my neurons and hormones at that time. Forget about porn materials and racy magazines (no Internet back then...), after you read a couple of Sade books, everything else are pre-schoolers' books...

 

[Tohpol]

No, of course he didn't... Never has. He would go against the king, if he had to and end up in jail, as Sade did, hence the parallel. OTOH, sticking to one's principles, as twisted and misguieded as Sade's were, in the face of adversity, is always admirable. I would never have the patience he has to repeat myself, for years on end. Patience, another admirable treat.

As for me reading Sade in my teens..., what can I say? The books were in the possession of a cousin of mine, much older than I, and I've always been an omnivorous reader. To say it was a "discovery" would do no justice to the firing of my neurons and hormones at that time. Forget about porn materials and racy magazines (no Internet back then...), after you read a couple of Sade books, everything else are pre-schoolers' books...

Yes I know what you mean. All I can say is thank God I didn't read Sade then as I think my teenage hormones would have been propelled into space and beyond.

Yes, I suppose he can be admired for his stamina and imagination at least... But where do you draw the line between admirable resistance and simple addiction? Sex (and what could loosely be termed sex) was such a shot in the vein for him, such an opiate rush, like any addict he wasn't capable of giving it up.

Topal

 

[Sparhawk]

Yes I know what you mean. All I can say is thank God I didn't read Sade then as I think my teenage hormones would have been propelled into space and beyond.

Yes, I suppose he can be admired for his stamina and imagination at least... But where do you draw the line between admirable resistance and simple addiction? Sex (and what could loosely be termed sex) was such a shot in the vein for him, such an opiate rush, like any addict he wasn't capable of giving it up.

Topal

Actually, Sade's real addiction was "writing". The man just could not stop spilling his brain droppings. He lived more in his mind than outside and had no choice but to let it out in the best way he could. Despite biographies, I question how much of his life was actually lived in debauchery and excess.

 

[cesca]

Actually, Sade's real addiction was "writing". The man just could not stop spilling his brain droppings. He lived more in his mind than outside and had no choice but to let it out in the best way he could. Despite biographies, I question how much of his life was actually lived in debauchery and excess.

Not all that much, apparently. Have you read "Dark Eros" by Thomas Moore? It's excellent -- he uses Sade's life and work to discuss various sexual shadow themes.
Cesca