Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).
lightofreason said:No - I lift the I Ching into what is it capable of doing and so bring it into the 21st century AD. Traditionalists treat the I Ching as a horse and cart show - I demonstrate that it is in fact a spaceship capable of representing 'all there is', not just 10th century BC China. It is transportable to any context covered by neuron-dependent life forms - at any level of being (and so yin/yang line or 12 line dodecagrams)
Chris.
topal said:Very interesting Chris thank you. Any creator of new way of interpreting the IC and thus reality, must be open to answering a few questions about himself, especially with some of the above statements in mind...
Several questions:
How do you see your work on the I Ching in relation to yourself? Do you apply the same rigorous standards to your Self as you do your work? A negative or positive answer has implications for any methodology.
Do you see yourself as separate from this particular interpretation of the IC and therefore largely objective? Or do you see yourself as inextricably PART of this method and therefore identified with it to the detriment of objectivity? In other words, have you created a world that works for you because it perfectly meshes with your type of intellect and the way you and others prefer to see the world?
Is there a danger that we become focused too much on the form or framework of a particular method and forget the "substance" or are we entirely objective in engineering of reality as we see it?
Can you give examples in your own life regarding certain readings you have done for yourself (real life examples please) so that we are better able to adapt it to daily life and apply the principles beyond the confines of the neuro-biological machine and binary sequences, for example.
Topal
Several questions:
How do you see your work on the I Ching in relation to yourself? Do you apply the same rigorous standards to your Self as you do your work? A negative or positive answer has implications for any methodology.
topal said:Do you see yourself as separate from this particular interpretation of the IC and therefore largely objective? Or do you see yourself as inextricably PART of this method and therefore identified with it to the detriment of objectivity? In other words, have you created a world that works for you because it perfectly meshes with your type of intellect and the way you and others prefer to see the world?
topal said:Is there a danger that we become focused too much on the form or framework of a particular method and forget the "substance" or are we entirely objective in engineering of reality as we see it?
topal said:Can you give examples in your own life regarding certain readings you have done for yourself (real life examples please) so that we are better able to adapt it to daily life and apply the principles beyond the confines of the neuro-biological machine and binary sequences, for example.
Topal
The methodology is not 'mine' - it is the methodology of self-referencing (recursion) where the application of the work on self-referencing has brought out a lot about the I Ching.
I dont 'read' any more - I have internalised the IDM material and so I Ching Plus in general and I apply it day to day. If I need an emotional assessment I just run the emotional I Ching in my head as I can access the equivalent categories in the MBTI (persona mappings) or basic emotions or explaining basic mathematics or social dynamics etc etc etc
So you've lost objectivity about it, because it is so much a part of you now. You've lost the ability to think critically about IDM. Too bad. I thought we could have a normal discussion about it, but now I see that we can't.
I'm not so sure. See, he uses a different Yi than you and me and he uses it in a different way. He doesn't 'ask the Oracle by tossing coins', he uses a series or cluster of questions to explore the emotional character of what's happening (is that right, Chris?) that he was previously not so aware of. If I understand his method correctly, then you don't need coins and pen and paper. You just need you and the questions.
The methodology is not 'mine' - it is the methodology of self-referencing (recursion) where the application of the work on self-referencing has brought out a lot about the I Ching. The same IDM work applies to the realm of emotion and the consideration of the self-referencing of the fight/flight dichotomy where, due to the method, it is isomorphic to the I Ching and so I can derive the Emotional I Ching material. (IDM and emotion see http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/emote.html )
There was also application to the MBTI categorisation (and other categorisation systems all based on how our brains categorise and label) but I was asked by the MBTI people to remove that material so I will have to re-format it)
[...]
The IDM material covers the ONLY method we use as neuron-dependent species and from there comes sub-methods - ie. using the I Ching, each hexagram is representative of a method to use to interpret reality. These classifications, due to them stemming from the dynamics of the chaos game, cover all levels of perception with differences being in resolution power. The issues are that the IDM level is generic and unconscious. The classifiers derived 'seed' higher levels and in doing so allow for bifurcations of more classifiers as we move from general to particular, approximate to precise, objective to subjective, whole to part, essences to instances of essences that are labelled to differentiate one from another. THEN comes part-to-whole dynamics that also includes the breaking of symmetry at the surface level (symmetry is retained at the deep level since it is essential for general communications) in the form of labels.
I dont 'read' any more - I have internalised the IDM material and so I Ching Plus in general and I apply it day to day. If I need an emotional assessment I just run the emotional I Ching in my head as I can access the equivalent categories in the MBTI (persona mappings) or basic emotions or explaining basic mathematics or social dynamics etc etc etc
The IDM material works as a guide to dealing with material outside of my immediate consciousness such that if I come across something I dont understand at the surface level I can go deep since I know what is POSSIBLE at the deep structure to seed the surface structure - I then need to map labels to qualities, to essences the labels represent and from there pick up on the overall structure.
I know what the hexagrams represent from a neurological and emotional position and so their UNIVERSAL forms that then get customised at local levels. Given understanding of the self-referencing we now move into XOR realm where we can identify the 'purpose' of each hexagram as we can 'neutralise' that development.
We can then extend the I Ching into its use as a coordinate system for QUALITIES rather than quantities. The issues with most Western categorisations is that they have not developed depth, there are MANY of them but all limited to 8 or 16 categories before they then get into quantitative expressions and so lose the qualitative. The I Ching is developed to 64/4096 categories and we keep going if need be and still retain the qualitative - the point is the qualitative is communicatable to all species members without an intense 'need' for training in mathematics etc.
What the Emotional I Ching shows clearly is that the I Ching works without any need for references to magical/random methods and as such is open to further refinement that makes the I Ching 'fit' the every day life of the species without raising issues of belief systems - the Emotional I Ching has empirical support for its dynamics, there is no need to focus on 'magic' or 'random' methods etc etc.
Come on, Chris... that's not a very logical answer... the methodology is indeed yours, so take credit for it. It comes from your brain, doesn't it? If it's not yours, then whose is it?
So you've lost objectivity about it, because it is so much a part of you now. You've lost the ability to think critically about IDM. Too bad. I thought we could have a normal discussion about it, but now I see that we can't.
I'm not so sure. See, he uses a different Yi than you and me and he uses it in a different way. He doesn't 'ask the Oracle by tossing coins', he uses a series or cluster of questions to explore the emotional character of what's happening (is that right, Chris?) that he was previously not so aware of. If I understand his method correctly, then you don't need coins and pen and paper. You just need you and the questions.
Yes, I understand this... I understand that Chris's method doesn't use the I Ching at all.
getojack said:I understand that it is derived from categorization of personality types and so on.
me said:Yes, I understand this... I understand that Chris's method doesn't use the I Ching at all.
you said:yes I do. See my pages. But I also EXTEND the traditional due to the understanding of IDM and the creations of metaphors such as the I Ching.
me said:I understand that it is derived from categorization of personality types and so on.
you said:Wrong. The I Ching Plus material comes out of applying IDM to the I Ching where IDM covers general brain dynamics in the derivation of categories used to communicate in ANY discipline. Thus I use examples of I Ching, Mathematics, MBTI, human emotions, socioeconomic categories, five-phase categories etc to show the isomorphism across these specialisations all due to them coming from the ONE set of categories derived from the dynamics of our neurology.
me said:Come on, Chris... that's not a very logical answer... the methodology is indeed yours, so take credit for it. It comes from your brain, doesn't it? If it's not yours, then whose is it?
you said:Our brains - the brain of the species. It has properties and methods in dealing with information and we share all of those as species members. THEN comes local context that can customise the general to be particular and so hide the sameness behind local difference.
..
So you've used self-referencing as the primary foundation to this work.
topal said:The way you have interpreted this, and adapted it to the I Ching is your analysis which gave rise to your method which is why you are here explaining it to this forum right?
topal said:There isn't another Chris Lofting doing the same thing. (at least not in this reality) So, logically, and inescapably you are persuaded by it - it works. Therefore, you have faith in it - you share the results and conclusions you have come to because you believe in it. You have a belief in this methodology which you have made your own? Correct?
... no eyes involved. The IDM material identifies the sameness across all sensory systems, thus blend, bond, bound, bind and their composities communicate in any 'sense' in that they allow for difference senses to communicate the same meanings.topal said:However logical and mathematically precise this method is and however all-encompassing, it can still give rise to a belief as all methods must go through the subjective filter of interpretation. Reductionist science is no exception. Yet it is not so much this as your conviction that excludes other forms based on an assumption that you have all the knowledge you need to dismiss what you see as "magical" when in fact, there is much more to this than meets the eye.
topal said:Magical ideas have been distorted and corrupted. Our history is not as we think it is. And it is dangerous to assume that magical thinking or rather more intuitive methods of interpretating reality are without merit. We know so little about our origins as a species. Next to nothing and even that reason alone must ensure that we remain open to methods that are not exclusive to our mindset. Indeed, it is imperative that we do.
topal said:Now that to me suggests a danger in that you are relying on yourself, your own subjective interpretation of reality to navigate through perceptual minefields that occur daily - every second.
topal said:Accessing new data is one thing, but the application and qualitative amplifying of this data can only be done through the action of networking and constant self- analysis outside normal forms of conditioning. You are conditioned Chris to think and FEEL in a certain way, just like the rest of us.
topal said:As such, the difference between you and I is how we've processed our experiences and what method we have chosen to live through to contextualise meaning or lack of it.
topal said:If you want to initiate people into this new way of interpreting the IC you must give REAL LIFE, LIVING, BREATHING EXAMPLES that speak to our FEELINGS not just the INTELLECT.
..then use the emotional I Ching. That said, you can also use the other method to ask questions of hexagrams to balance out thinking and feeling. (and I mean ask a question, not use magical/random methods, just ask a question and go through the hexagrams seeing how they bring out aspects of the answers to that question)topal said:If you do indeed "go deep" into the dark of emotions give examples - open up the system. All new methods of interpretation are only as good as their practical use for people.
I dont think so in the context of the emotional I Ching. Have you read the preamble? the focus on body language etc comes from experiences that tie to different types of memory and so operating emotionally in parallel as well as serial.topal said:Otherwise they remain an exercise in cognitive masturbation. Life can be viewed mechanistically but it is is also bursting with emotion which, so far is atrophying in your overall framework.
My particular type has changed as a result of using the material - as such I have moved in the MBTI from an INTP to a XNTP and on to a XNXP - in other words the Xs rely on context to give us the I/E and T/F elements - which is what Jung was on about, to be XXXX and so adapt to context. Something the MBTI does NOT like in that they focus on clear identifications for group/team membership etc.topal said:Do you feel that there is at least, a danger that your particular personality type is dependent on this system for a sense of self worth? Or are you perceive yourself above such things?
not in hierarchies where the level can produce material not possible in the level below. this gets into top-down (whole->part) and bottom-up(part-whole) dynamics. Some of this is covered in my posts to my Seldon Project list (http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/SeldonProject )topal said:<snip>
Each is only as good as the sum of its parts.
.....it covers both theoretical and practical understandings and with neuroscience research so a lot of the 'magic' is shown to be delusion - based on working at the level of surface structure with a lack of comprehension of deep structure due to lack of research available - Crowley's "Magik" is a good read with good insights into Physics dynamics etc but shrowded with a lot of 'stuff' related to linking in 'magical' elements not required - imagination at work. These issues are also covered in taoist perspectives on eternal life and alchemy as is other material covered in such texts as Fraser's "Golden Bough" etc.topal said:Your understanding of "magic" implies particular assumptions and interpretations which may or may not be correct.
I've seen your pages... you give a completely different meaning for each hexagram than the traditional one... so imo it's not the I Ching.
really? here is ICPlus focus on hexagram 01 - please comment on whether or not this captures the qualities of the traditional I Ching view as well as add perspectives that flesh out that view further:
...
No. I have identified self-referencing as the primary foundation of our brains at work. All that done in the IDM material. FROM that self-referencing I have identified core classifications of meaning from that self-referencing of the differentiating/integrating dichotomy that is 'hard coded' into our brains. That gives us blend, bond, bound, and bind. Cognitive analysis of the I Ching brings out those qualities 'beneath' the traditional material when we order the material in the binary or fu hsi sequence.
I have done no 'adapting it to the I Ching', the hexagrams, trigrams, dodecagrams of the I Ching are all derived from self-referencing yin/yang. I have focused on THAT rather than the 'traditional sequence' and from that focus derived a lot more details etc on the I Ching than is covered in the published texts/mindset. The focus is on a cognitive analysis of the IDM template, the I Ching trigrams etc etc - see comments in:
yes and no - the focus is on it being (a) consistant and so repeatable and (b) falsifiable. Basic 'rules' of a scientific perspective. The work goes on, it is not a 'completed' system as such since there is a lot to still uncover but the approach generates value more consistantly than traditional methods (and that is not just me talking ;-))
... no eyes involved. The IDM material identifies the sameness across all sensory systems, thus blend, bond, bound, bind and their composities communicate in any 'sense' in that they allow for difference senses to communicate the same meanings.
As for the 'magical', there is now strong evidence showing that the whole perceived by consciousness is not the 'true' whole we deal with as species members - see refs etc in http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/wavedicho.html - as such each moment is mapped by the whole of the I Ching but sorts the I C into a sequence of symbols covering 'best fit' to 'worst fit'. "Magical" methods access that sequence and can come up with the best fit or 3rd best or 15th best or 63rd best. Combined with consciousness 'forcing' meaning they can all be meaningful but the methods are inconsistant in getting the 'best fit' - the questions method is better and all due to identifying how our brains work in deriving meaning from novel situations - how we oscillate and move from general to particular and so the resulting questions I have set up to get the emotional I C to work.
we know a LOT about 'in here' and the focus is on the pragmatics of the situation. The Emotional I Ching, complemented by the applying of a question to all of the hexagrams, is more consistant than the random/magical methods and so is easier to deal with, easier to teach, and it leaves the issues of magical/random to one side in that it bypasses the religion/science issue covered in that magical/random dichotomy. I emphasise in my prose the magical AND the random - I intentionally cover BOTH perspectives to bring out the THIRD perspective that is the I Ching Plus one of GIVEN the neurology etc what does it show us we can do to get consistant results from the I Ching without stuffing around philosophically re magic/random.
Having a science bias I have my preferences in that magic/random dichotomy but with the IC Plus material I dont have to worry about it - I have identified a consistant method in getting the IC to work WELL without having to deal with the ideal/material, religious/secular dichotomies.
Simply put, if you use the approaches presented from my I Ching Plus material you will get consistant results - be it for an immediate 'hit' using the Emotional I Ching or on the focus of a question to each hexagram and reflecting on that. Simple. ;-)
I am a species member and so my brain in general will work like all other species members (or those in my sub-class as covered in the MBTI etc typologies). The I Ching Plus material comes out of examination of empirical research on brain dynamics, basic psychology, sociology etc to derive the IDM categories. Verification of their value comes not from me but from those who have used such and have observed the benefits of the perspective re understanding things quickly.
species-member yes, "Chris lofting" no. My life has been extraordinary and so given me insights many do not have.
It is from the singular perspective that innovations emerge and that has been the path of IDM as such in that my focus, my singlemindedness as "Chris Lofting" comes out in the putting together of the jigsaw puzzle covering meaning derivation. That is combined with my science biased nature that comes from my genetic history and is reflected in most males of the Lofting line - i.e. I am attracted to identifying essences more than experiences - most see a rainbow and go 'wow' for the moment, OTOH I see a rainbow, go 'wow' and then ask 'how?' and go into that realm. My travels have allowed me to avoid too rigid an education such that my interest is not ruled by some local collective impositions of perspectives - I can deal with the Science of my Art as I can the Art of my Science... we can talk Astrology or Tarot or Quantum Mechanics or Monet or Pain-of-Salvation or Bill Evans ;-) it is all metaphor and so has sameness behind all of that difference.
PART 2
[snip]
consciousness/emotions and so consciousness/unconscious and so better TRUST in your feelings.
I dont think so in the context of the emotional I Ching. Have you read the preamble? the focus on body language etc comes from experiences that tie to different types of memory and so operating emotionally in parallel as well as serial.
There is more work coming out of these areas that map to the dark side of the I Ching, and so the interpretations are archetypal covering dark/light rather than the traditional form that is biased to female/male etc - this gets into I Ching compass formats and their use in deriving meaning - see comments in the old page http://members.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond/onemany.html
As for 'selling' the material - it is free, take it or leave it - it is all my research papers etc as I focus on uncovering the source of meaning and derive (a) a species 101 course on such for education pre specialisation and (b) ability to give AI systems a sense of 'meaning' ;-) I share that through my websites (first one was the ddiamond one I put on the 'net in 1995 - http://members.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond - still there for historic reasons as well as some extra space!)
My particular type has changed as a result of using the material - as such I have moved in the MBTI from an INTP to a XNTP and on to a XNXP - in other words the Xs rely on context to give us the I/E and T/F elements - which is what Jung was on about, to be XXXX and so adapt to context. Something the MBTI does NOT like in that they focus on clear identifications for group/team membership etc.
The combination of I Ching, IDM, MBTI allows for focusing on path development, identifications of buttons being pushed and choices in dealing with that, refining them, amplifying them or moving on etc.
.
My social self-worth comes out of my work (I do contract work - computer industry, 150K or thereabouts per year - so I have a middle class perspective/life and the IDM material is my 'other' work - keeps me thinking and I have a 'need' to know what is behind things ;-))
not in hierarchies where the level can produce material not possible in the level below. this gets into top-down (whole->part) and bottom-up(part-whole) dynamics. Some of this is covered in my posts to my Seldon Project list (http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/SeldonProject )
.....it covers both theoretical and practical understandings and with neuroscience research so a lot of the 'magic' is shown to be delusion - based on working at the level of surface structure with a lack of comprehension of deep structure due to lack of research available - Crowley's "Magik" is a good read with good insights into Physics dynamics etc but shrowded with a lot of 'stuff' related to linking in 'magical' elements not required - imagination at work. These issues are also covered in taoist perspectives on eternal life and alchemy as is other material covered in such texts as Fraser's "Golden Bough" etc.
I have well covered the categories/dynamics of sympathetic magic etc - you seem to think I have no experience in these areas - I do, I would not attempt what I have without covering ALL areas of meaning generation in that IDM covers all that is considered real and imagined - the base categories are consistant across all collectives within the species.
I am not here for you to experience 'me', you need to experience yourself through the methods I have described. If they work for you - fine. If not, thats fine to, but I would say that over the long run, the methods I have come up with seem to be more consistant, more productive of useful insights etc then using the magical/random methods on the I Ching... that said there IS a Science bias but that serves to link well researched, empirical work coving the last 3000+ years into the I Ching.
As such, I am 'meaningless' in this exercise, you dont need me to understand or appreciate the methods described - that is the success of a scientific approach, non-involvement and so not confusing my 'charisma' with the material in that the material stands on its own and so is not dependent on me to work ,nor dependent on me to be understood/used. Sure, I may be the 'discoverer' of the method (and that includes XORing etc) but if I didnt do it someoneelse with a scientific bent would eventually have done it since this is not 'my' method as such - it is me identifying a method our brains use and applying such to exposing properties/methods of the I Ching etc that take it beyond its 10th century BC 'wrapping'. ;-)
Ok, fair enough, I'll have a look.
I'm still getting the impression that the Holy Grail of discovery is through the brain and it's neuro-chemistry. I think this is merely one facet rather than a primary one.
topal said:The brain, imo, is merely a filter that isolates specific frequencies and allows us to function, to make sense of this density of being.
topal said:I happen to think the quality of Knowledge and how it is applied is intimately linked to our own state of awareness which will inform our intellect and our emotions.
topal said:... Ultimately I think wisdom, intellect and higher emotion is outside the sphere of any one localisation and thus the methods evoked.
topal said:It MAY be that self-referencing and sensory systems provide a big chrk of the answer but it may also be that this is still in the box which is defined by your perceptions.
Is that not a possibility?
topal said:it is highly likely that this Universe of ours is stranger than we can possibly conceive. Would you agree?
topal said:The "third force" I'm familiar with and could be applied to most avenues of enlightened orthodox science as it has it's roots in esotericism - which at its best is a science.
.......Again, are you so sure that it is JUST about the brain? Though you can explain it and organise it towards a high degree of scientific validation this does not necessarily displace other influences permeating the more material processes which are, in my view only material manifestations of higher reality frequencies.
the sameness is general, deep structure. The symmetry focus keeps it simple but also distorts logic (symmetric thinking lacks precision since it cannot deal with the asymmetric logic operator of IMP (implies) - it treats it as if the converse of IF..THEN.. is also true. It is this sameness that links up the dots in all metaphors such that we get the post modernism focus on 'any metaphor will do'. Education of such removes the necessary focus on DIFFERENCE and so the ASYMMETRIC. By identifying the sameness so we get a better focus on the borders with difference and so cover the issues of precision etc. and so maintain an 'interest' in 'out there' but also understand the sameness BENEATH our perceptions that can allow us to link the dots quickly but also discerningly.topal said:So does that mean that it is all passé? That this sameness is devoid of learning experiences and mystery?
topal said:And when your drive to take things apart and ask "how"? is resolved, is this reflected back into your OWN realm? i.e. YOU? Are you seeking to understand yourself in all this? Is the "how" applied to yourself? That it seems to me is one of the most vital questions we can ask.
In a sense I do - by covering the method we use to derive meaning so all POSSIBLE meanings are identified and so become the pool of possible meanings for some particular context. BUT this is all GENERAL and so no explicit, detailed, surface-structure identification, no local symbolism etc, since that is all LOCAL CONTEXT. As such all answers are in the form of selecting the right classifier for processing some question and THAT will then give you an answer in the form of an instance of the classification. The Emotional I Ching takes three questions and derives from that a classifier, a category of the situation through which then comes details where consciousness fills in details upon being presented with the classification.topal said:Here's the thing Chris - do you see how people will get the impression that you have ALL the answers?
Because I know what I am dealing with ;-) -- in general ;-) This is all "The Language of the Vague" and so answers come as classifiers not instances - as essences not expressions. This IS a 'new paradigm' and there is a lot to cover but what has come out so far is enough to indicate I am on the right path in fleshing out this "Language"... perseverence furthers.topal said:And understandably they will be turned off by that impression? Are you sufficiently aware of your own system and how it intimately relates to the work and allows you to feel confident enough to make statements like: " I can deal with the Science of my Art as I can the Art of my Science..." or "...my interest is not ruled by some local collective impositions of perspectives."
How can you be so sure?
Hmm. I think that's over confident. Are you aware of the Sufi alchemists, the toltecs, not to mention some aspects of Castaneda and Gurdjieff which talk about the capabilities we have to deceive ourselves? Especially through the emotions. I think we could just be feeding the "Predator" so to say, and initiating a self-induced anaesthetic on real discoveries... big danger there.
topal said:However, I don't dispute the basic validity of the Emotional I Ching. It can work in this way. What I am disputing is your unwillingness to step down into the land of mere mortals and SHARE beyond the confines of dry data. Whether you like it or not Chris, you are part of this methodology. Not all people are alike as you well know. Do you believe in living as an example?
topal said:But the Emotional I Ching is still pretty binary in its presentation and slightly intimidating. Couldn't you put some colour codes in their somewhere? Some nice photos maybe? I feel like I'm in an engineering class on that page.
topal said:the thing about all the personality type stuff it's so one-dimensional. Humans are HIGHLY complex, multi-dimensional and multi-faceted. I hope your methodology does expand on it as those personality type questions are designed to ellict responses that are both subjective and simplistic.
topal said:I find it very hard to believe that you have included all areas of meaning generation. Or perhaps I am misunderstanding. Can you explain that a bit more?
topal said:I agree with some of the above and understand this reasoning. However, your "meaninglessness" will still inform the model /method that is being created. I don't subscribe to science as being wholly objective. Clearly if you look around most of the scientific establishment it is about as objective as the Church. Indeed, it can and does represent another Church of a different kind.
I have read the texts but prefer the more upto-to-date, clear, precise, descriptions of HOW our brain confabulates ; "Brain Fiction" :
http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=11086
....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.
For example, focusing on the fight/flight dichotomy which is loaded with values issues takes us past that focus into what is being communicated and that is intent in dealing with context, to replace it or coexist with it. There are no 'values' at THAT level, it is highly generic, very 'universal' focus, basic survival, in need of local colourings to add 'life'. That replace/coexist focus is rooted in differentiating/integrating such that fight/flight is three levels up in the hierarchy and presenting emotions as derived from basic neurological dynamics (use of hormones for signalling etc - thus we can map in the endocrine system with its categories of hormones that 'map' to the neurology - in fact the neurology releases hormones in the blood system to elicit global changes etc)
<snip>
Firstly note that the modern typologies such as the MBTI etc cover our species nature - they have little to do with the individual; the focus in the species is the formation of specialists in the species where enough of them allow for some feature to succeed regardless of local context issues (death, distractions of individuals etc)
Secondly note that the structure of personality is in all of us and so ALL MBTI types are present but to differing degrees related to genetics.
lightofreason said:THEN comes the development of the singular being, our pure difference. This being develops post birth in a combination of genetics and nurture. The singular being is the one who comes up with novel ideas and/or spends time with the psychiatrist etc.
Most basic issues are covered in our general-particular natures and so advertising companies, corporations, military etc use the MBTI and other typologies to cover the basics of persona in some team dynamic.
lightofreason said:<big snip due to my dislike of logical syllogisms>
Due to the isomorphism that comes out of the self-referencing, so the I Ching hexagrams can represent these classes as the hexagrams represent the IDM patterns derived from the neurology.
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.
getojack said:Are you familiar with Stephen Pinker's book, "How the Mind Works"? It's from a psycholinguistic perspective.
getojack said:IMO cognitive science is interesting but seriously flawed, in that it takes an entirely too mechanistic, reductionist viewpoint... kind of like you, actually.
getojack said:People will ALWAYS have values... and issues. There's no getting around that. Perhaps you mean that seeing what's behind that will help you put those values in a larger perspective? No argument here. People often have blind, unquestioning faith in their values and that can lead to many social problems when interacting with people with opposite values...
Fundamentalists of all stripes are a perfect example of blind faith. But do you really think that you are beyond all of that? A fundamentalist will tell you without hesitation that what they believe is "the truth" or the "the facts." How are you any different from that?
getojack said:What you are describing in terms of fight/flight, etc. is the "How" of the matter. This tells you NOTHING about the "Why" of the matter. As you've said before, you are interested in the "how" of the rainbow. But that is only one very small part of reality. I have serious doubts about reality being discovered through the "how". You can tell me "how" till you're blue in the face, and I'll just keep coming back with "why?" But that's just me.
getojack said:(re MBTI)I think you're in the minority opinion here, Chris.
getojack said:Who is saying the MBTI covers our species nature? If this is indeed what psychologists are thinking now, I think they're on the wrong track.
Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).