Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).
Nice metaphor, but wrong applied. You have not 'refined the topsoil', you have just uprooted a plant, modified it, decorated it with all kinds of stuff, planted it back in different soil, and you are claiming that it has become a better plant.
hmesker said:But, as I said, you don't use the text of the Yijing, therefore what you make of it is not the Yijing. To me the Yijing=text+hexagrams. If one of these is lacking it is not the Yijing, but only a part or a derivation of it.
hmesker said:It would be nice to see how the original Chinese text has a place in your system. I mean, you do it with the names of the trigrams and the hexagrams, so why not with the complete text? What is withholding you from that?
Harmen.
What if we have other means of communication and existence outside the realm of sense and mechanism? There is a vast array of evidence that that is so.
topal said:Again, those focused and bias towards things that which can be SEEN and judged to be "factual" will prefer to interpret such phenomena as a product of the senses when it is nothing of the kind. Anything you can imagine is not necessarily tied to the senses and thus to neurology.
topal said:Yours is ONE expression of development only in a sea of limitless potentials whether you want to call it LOCAL, GENERAL, UNIVERSAL, genetic, Neurological or self-referencing. You may THINK you've covered everything, but it does not, CANNOT encompass every reality permutation because it is a creation of your/our LIMITED extrapolations - brilliant as it is - it is indeed drawn CONTEXTUALLY from our perceptions, from our senses. And we still know very VERY little about the how the brain or the consciousness behind the brain mechanism - works.
topal said:What of OBEs and NDEs?
topal said:What of numerous accounts of experiences non-local to the brain? i.e. persons giving perfect descriptions of rooms and people not known to them and all this while they were clinically dead. At the same Countless other and more whacky phenomena that defy explanation via neurology.
topal said:Therefore, what is consciousness?
Do you KNOW what consciousness is? Does anybody? So, I guess it comes down to brain or mind? Neurology or soul? Personally I think the latter makes more "sense."
Chris is trapped, and anybody who enters into an exchange with him will find the exchange characteristic of the trap he's in.
... Chris is trapped, and anybody who enters into an exchange with him will find the exchange characteristic of the trap he's in.
I can think of only one reason why a person might battle non-stop, endlessly repeating himself despite every attempt by others to coax or criticize him away from his rigid standpoint: because his self-image is so built on rigidly defending the system of ideas it so identifies .
Yup - the thread title invited Chris to do exactly what he's doing. Can't argue with that.
Chris - I know this was suggested before, but how about some case studies? Or come to that, a few anecdotes? Joe had this problem, he used this method, got this answer, and applied it in this way to create this solution. Repeat ad lib. People relate to stories and find them convincing.
Chris - I know this was suggested before, but how about some case studies? Or come to that, a few anecdotes? Joe had this problem, he used this method, got this answer, and applied it in this way to create this solution. Repeat ad lib. People relate to stories and find them convincing.
I cannot, will not, supply my use of it since that would be interpreted negatively by the likes of Dobro, Harmen, etc etc
its like a chef making food, it is the eaters who decide the success or not - the chef is naturally biased ;-)
Um, no, you were right the first time. I'm just asking for examples of ordinary people getting ordinary kinds of help with your method. Could you link to that story of your daughter's?
I don't remember ever trying your method before. It's not clear what questions I could ask it - I'm guessing only 'What should I know about this?' rather than requesting advice or getting more specific?
OK, I asked your system about the current situation with my absentee web designer. Basically he is months overdue with the finished product, slow as a wet week to respond to emails, and I wish I'd saved my money. My current concerns on this are about the best way to get finished, regardless of how indignant I may feel.
First hexagram 31, second 49.
I think we should stop criticizing his system, and stop trying to reason with him, because on the one hand it's useless (he'll never ever change) and on the other hand, it might even be harmful (at some level, his real self knows what's going on, and the more he puts into defending a mere intellectual construct, the more dangerous it becomes for him).
- true enough. In fact, you've picked up on a lot of what I've already been doing and thinking (though you might have done that just from the background information I gave ) : ask, with charm, for a detailed progress report; this elicited a response which was startlingly promising, though on closer examination less so (things missing we'd agreed on before). The unspoken premise behind this was 'It's getting done, whether you do it, or I do it, or I find someone else.'You need to 'woo' him entice him to reveal all that has been done, will be done, and by when... That said, the change indicates you have been doing this
On the broader subject at hand, namely Chris's faith in his own system and what this has to say about his mental health, etc, etc.
Um. Cough. That seems to describe Chris and IC+, and also to describe me and old-fashioned divination. Maybe some others here also. Cough.
No, his system is not betterYour system falls in the same category - a derivation of the original, and therefore not the same as the original. And maybe your system is better - but it is not the Yijing.
Ummm... yeah, I am doing what I was asked to do "Chris: Defend your methodology!" - the title of the thread. SO.... your accusing me of doing what I was asked to do! LOL! your a joke dude; your practicing selective attention again tsk tsk. limiting.
No, his system is not better
Try look at the 64 hexagrams as 64 numbers from 1 to 64. 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)
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
What pisses me off is that Chris repeatedly puts anyone with another viewpoint down. I've said all this before in this thread, I know, but maybe it's worth repeating. Chris, you do piss a lot of people off... repeatedly. Why do you think you've been thrown off of other boards? Because they've failed to understand your material? Yeah, right. It's because you're a major prick to the people you claim to be helping.
Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).