Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).
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.You're just using a different sequence than either the binary sequence or the Wen sequence... that doesn't make it better, just different.
... 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.
So don't tell me everybody else in this forum is just like him. It would certainly be exhausting!
Chris is like everybody else, except more blunt??
Agreed.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.
hilary said: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...
...
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
The difference is, that the number system shown only flips the sixth line while lightofreason flips both the sixth and the first line.
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.
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 ARE confused by your own mind! LOL!
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'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:
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 ..
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.
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
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
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.
Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).