...life can be translucent

Menu

For Elvis and Frank

elvis

visitor
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
241
Reaction score
0
Elvis/C. Lofting's use of zero/1 as his I Ching digits, is not new or anything but just plain ignorant. The Yi is based upon a symbolic unit number (like the dots on dice or in the Pythagorean eidos) and uses the digits 2 and 3 to build the hexagrams. Totally different world view and number philosophy. Like most of his work, he slips easily from I Ching into his own low level computer programming understanding as fixed ideas for his dogma. In either the philosophy of belief systems or math or Chinese philosophy his work is total crap!:duh:

Frank
poor Frank - there is no way he could understand the language aspect of the IC given his archaic mindset. The confusion of the qualitative usage of the 0/1 REPRESENTATIONS with his bias to a quantitative limitation brings out the abject failure in Frank's overall focus.

Lets try him out - tell us Frank what in your readings of the EIC does the notion of 27-ness cover? This should be an easy one Frank.
 

Trojina

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
19,904
Reaction score
198
Hmmm..I think there's been enought drinking wine in confidence and now people are risking getting their heads wet ..
rosada.
I think you're right.....
 

elvis

visitor
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
241
Reaction score
0
The philosophy of dichotomy has no null content, it is just one set of principles in contrast to another. Yin is never zero.
Frank
Oh look - the literal minded at work and so no understanding of classes of dichotomies (that cover trichotomies) and forms of representation (e.g. in the EIC, if Frank had read it) we come across '0' as representing potentials and '1' as actuals. Material covered on this list eons ago but Frank could not have read such even though he claims he as read and understood the EIC! (even after acknowledging that he had not followed links I supplied!:rofl: )

YOur prose so far Frank indicates FEAR in that to understand the EIC will be, for you, a serious problem in regard to having to re-assess your own 'work':mischief:
 

fkegan

visitor
Joined
Aug 31, 2007
Messages
2,052
Reaction score
0
Hi Elvis,

Have you read the history of the Battle of the Monitor and the Merrimack? Each crew stayed in their own chosen situation ready to destroy the other if it would venture to join them. Neither did.

When you start out denying common ground there is nowhere to go. I read your sources to see that they were phony. You ask to test me in your terms? That assumes you have some valid objective content. I have already engaged you at least twice and you FAILED to be able to answer my simple question of your material. That is all the answer you get until you demonstrate any understanding.

To claim all prior work is obsolete is a simple dodge. What you call your new work went obsolete decades ago. Reasonable work cannot be valid only to the faithful believer in it. The I Ching from my perspective is valid for millennia past and future, at least until the human species goes extinct.

Try working with Luis, he seems to believe in your nonsense. I know better. That is exactly equal and opposite to you position that the traditional I Ching is obsolete. Stalemate.

Good luck in your personal bubble.:) :p :bows:

Frank

P.S. I just realized you seem to be using the Australian Aboriginal battle style of taunt and boast. I have great respect for all indigenous people, so let me offer you a compromise. My problem with your material is that there is no logical consistency from your premises to conclusions and you seem to not be able to answer simple questions about your material.
So, rather than the silly set up of saying OK repeat my conclusions or your taking my comments out of context (I have looked at your links, I just don't find them logically related to your conclusions).

So, why not we join together to each do equivalent work. You post what you mean by YOU mean by hex 27-ness with its supporting documentation and I will indicate in detail how your premises do not logically connect to your conclusions. For example, zero doesn't exist in any magnitude based number system, you just assume you can use it anyway. You assume I need to reassess my work in light of yours; however, mine is aligned with the Chou Yi that has done just fine for 3 millennia. Yours seems to need reassessment to deal with the current state of the mathematics of various number base systems. So far you have indicated no understanding of the concept let alone being able to engage in the discussion.
So y = x^2 +1 Therefore you work is only in your imagination. R.S.V.P.
Cheers...
 
Last edited:

hilary

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 8, 1970
Messages
14,193
Reaction score
154
And if you (plural) could start a new thread for your exchanges, that would be much appreciated.
 

fkegan

visitor
Joined
Aug 31, 2007
Messages
2,052
Reaction score
0
Hmmm..I think there's been enough drinking wine in confidence and now people are risking getting their heads wet ..
rosada.

Hi Rosada,

OK, then Quo Vadis? What's next now that the party's Over...:)

Who turns out the lights?

Frank
 

elvis

visitor
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
241
Reaction score
0
Hi Elvis,

When you start out denying common ground there is nowhere to go. I read your sources to see that they were phony. You ask to test me in your terms? That assumes you have some valid objective content. I have already engaged you at least twice and you FAILED to be able to answer my simple question of your material. That is all the answer you get until you demonstrate any understanding.
your off in gaga-land again Frank - I asked you a really simple question covering your claimed understanding and you failed to answer.

P.S. I just realized you seem to be using the Australian Aboriginal battle style of taunt and boast.
I am not aboriginal Frank so your comments are meaningless - obviously an example of you tendency for self aggrandizement.

So, why not we join together to each do equivalent work. You post what you mean by YOU mean by hex 27-ness with its supporting documentation and I will indicate in detail how your premises do not logically connect to your conclusions.
"join together"! :rofl: I would not trust you as far as I could throw you Frank.

The X-ness material is covered in the EIC website, book, and in the archives on this list so I suggest you stop trying to hide the fact that you have NO IDEA about the concepts and do some work Frank.

Here is an example from April 2005 easily found in the archives:

http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/friends/showthread.php?t=2073&highlight=27-ness

Hilary, your comment noted but please note I RESPONDED to others, I did not instigate such and included in the comments was one interested in the EIC focus GIVEN that the journey of the traditional focus is completed (I.e. Rosada's presentation of Wilhelm etc over the years)
 

elvis

visitor
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
241
Reaction score
0
btw - development of the EIC focus from IDM covers the development of ICPlus from the same source. The EIC work was not formalised until well after the ICPlus focus on XORing etc where work on meaning derivation presented me with the ties to brain function, mythic languages, and so the EIC as a "Language of the Vague".

The TABLES in the EIC hexagram pages cover the use of the IC as a source of analogy in describing each element of the IC - e.g. for hex 27 see http://www.emotionaliching.com/lofting/bx100001.html and for the 27-ness of EACH hexagram see the table entry for 27 under the column of genotype.
 

elvis

visitor
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
241
Reaction score
0
... this is of course a serious problem for the likes of Frank in that we can get the IC to describe itself if but at a class level - which puts Frank's perspectives a bit under a cloud.
 

fkegan

visitor
Joined
Aug 31, 2007
Messages
2,052
Reaction score
0
Hi Elvis,

Our discussion has moved over to Moderation under the thread "Complaint Department"

I have already set out my challenge to you. Make a logical argument how your perspective leads to an understanding of some hexagram and we can discuss it. This is the hex 64 thread, try that one if you can...

Frank
 

elvis

visitor
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
241
Reaction score
0
the links etc have been supplied Frank - nothing to do with 'complaints', they seem to be all about you and your prose from what I have read so far and I am not interested in such and all I see is your need to direct it into such (you obviously get off on it!).

Now if you want to start a thread covering X-ness be my guest and I will endevour to straighten you out.:mischief:
 

hilary

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 8, 1970
Messages
14,193
Reaction score
154
(Moderator's note: well, I can always start the new thread for you. Here you go.)
 

elvis

visitor
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
241
Reaction score
0
Implicit in your action Hilary is YOU appear to have an interest in the EIC ;-) No problem - here is the book preface:

This book serves three purposes; one is to supply an example of a form of the I Ching that is consistent, testable, and useful for analysis of those moments of emotion-based uncertainties in regard to some situation. For those interested in only using this focus, reading just the questions format section will be enough to be off and running in using the Emotional I Ching.

The second purpose of the book is to supply a source for continued analysis of the psychological, sociological, and philosophical aspects of reality as experienced through the I Ching filter.

The third purpose of the book is to show the Emotional I Ching as a product of applying a methodology in interpreting the source of meaning and language – this methodology is called IDM (Integration, Differentiation, and Meaning) and covers the roots of meaning in our neurology. IDM is summarised in the appendix of this book. This methodology identifies the I Ching as a form of language, a “Language of the Vague” and at the same time identifies patterns associatable with the AI focus on an “Upper Ontology”, and Carl Jung’s concept of the “Collective Unconscious”.

The Emotional I Ching material is in no way complete – we could easily, and may eventually, write complete books on each of the I Ching hexagrams and the meanings contained. This text can be considered as a pointer to the direction to follow to achieve such a task. As such the hexagram details are (a) enough to satisfy the quick assessments when using the questioning system and (b) enough to supply a good summary of details and to highlight paths for further development. The summaries vary, some vague, some to the point, others with more, perhaps unnecessary, details.

There is little spoon feeding here, there is little ‘traditional’ content. If you want a traditional perspective for comparison then Richard Wilhelm’s “I Ching” text is the most well known and such texts as Stephen Marshall’s “Mandate of Heaven” adds some insight into ancient Chinese traditional history/legends/myths serving as sources of analogy/metaphor in describing symbols. Also see such texts as Richard Smith’s “Fathoming the Cosmos and Ordering the World” where the coverage is on the evolution of the I Ching in China.

The intent of the Emotional I Ching is to promote interest and motivate the reader to transcend the 10th century BC nature of the traditional material and move the I Ching into the 21st century AD as a useful aid for psychotherapy and self-development and for continued reflections on the nature of our being as a conscious species. As such there is a bias to considering the last few thousand years of study in psychology, sociology, cognitive science and neuroscience to bring out the fact of the I Ching as a supplier of rich meaning to its many fans beyond any ‘mystical’ or ‘divinational’ emphasis. (I often use single quotes to generalise a word, to make it a little vaguer than its formal definition and so introduce a touch of uncertainty to the meaning. Thus the expression ‘mystical’ covers the apparent perception of such but also includes misunderstood elements that could make things not as mystical as one thought. The absolute expression of mystical is a clear assertion, with single quotes there is some ambiguity present. I also often fully capitalise a word for EMPHASIS.)

The material presented consolidates material on the internet and adds additional material to present a comprehensive, portable, introduction to the Emotional I Ching and its foundations. I thank my family & friends for their support in my undertaking this task.

Chris Lofting, Sydney, Australia March 2009
Discussion group: http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/EmotionalIC
 

sparhawk

One of those your mother warned you about...
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 17, 1971
Messages
5,068
Reaction score
5

fkegan

visitor
Joined
Aug 31, 2007
Messages
2,052
Reaction score
0
Hi Elvis,

Is there some reason you use the royal "we" or just a bit uncomfortable admitting all your perspective exists only in your own imagination?

Let me set out a few guidelines to cut through the crap and allow other people to understand our discussion. You have a website, I have a website anyone who wishes can go check them out, so references or links to them are only a distraction. Try to make a logical argument here and now to actual questions.

You have your notions and diagnoses of me, and I of you. I also have a doctorate in psychology and you have only contempt for and failure to complete any academic degree.

You have critiques of the academic perspective, and so do I, mine are stated on my website. Yours seem to come pouring out whenever that button in your is pushed in reaction to some comment.

You speak of a basis for your work in "brain neurology" I note the current term is neuroscience and it has for decades gone far passed the simplistic notions you use. Let us put aside claims of what science has to suggest about brain function, the literature is available to all, some of the recent findings I have posted on other threads lately.

You seem intent upon having others join you in your private bubble of complicated binary analysis based upon a variant of the Yi hexagrams as viewed in computer programming. That is all about decimal system mathematics converted to base two since all mechanical or technological devices can do is use voltage ON/OFF for their calculations. It is ultimately similar to confusing the philosophical concept of Time with the workings of the mechanical clock.

You delight in declaring everything other than your own work obsolete. So simple equality suggests your work can be arbitrarily considered is obsolete or meaningless as well. You views are supported solely by your beliefs; my views can not be required to have any other basis than my belief.

So, where does that leave us in our discussion? It arose upon a thread discussing hex 64--ERGO--

Can you make a logical argument about how your system or perspective explains hexagram 64, the set of 6 lines that are Yin in the odd-numbered places and Yang in the even? Mine finds just that fact of the line pattern sufficient explanation of its meaning.

R.S.V.P.

Frank
 

elvis

visitor
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
241
Reaction score
0
Hey, I even have a cartoon from way back then (when I had a little time for them...) when we were talking about the 63rdness of hexagrams. :D

:) be wary of confusing classes with instances - the former has no 'better' relationship, the latter does.

23 - 63 covers the 'purpose/outcome' of 23, its 63-ness, is described by analogy to 37. The generic focus of 37 is on the exploitation of rigid structure to elicit tension release (as compared to 40 that covers exploitation of relaxed structure to elicit such).

Thus the purpose of 23, its focus on a class of meaning covering pruning brings out the cutting back to essentials for the journey into the next cycle (on the other hand, the 27-ness of 23, where 27 represents the class of meaning describing a hexagram's infrastructure, is described by analogy to hex 24 with ITS focus on a 'return' or 'beginning' or 're-beginning' where such covers the cycles focus.

Personally, I find that XORing hexagrams is a useful tool in interpretation.
so you should - the IDM work shows that the classes covered in IDM and extended into the EIC are hard-coded into our brains and as such cover the derivation of a language from 'mindless' neurological dynamics that allow for a phase transition from mechanistic recursion to an organic form. This dynamic brings out a 'standard property' of recursion mappable to music or genetics or basic linguistics etc - From the book:

"When you use the Emotional I Ching you will derive one of the 64 hexagrams as representing the current situation and also, if there are 'moving lines', derive a second hexagram covering responses to, and so movement away from, the current situation.

The second hexagram can represent actions-to-date in response to the original stimulus of the situation where such actions are shifting the focus of the situation and so cover change elicited instinctively or thoughtfully by you and/or by others.

Note that all we are doing here is repeatedly using a dichotomy to assess a situation but from a general to particular perspective and so extracting finer and finer details of the situation. From a musical perspective this is akin to building a chord, each note being a particular frequency and all notes summed to form the full sound we hear that sets the context for expression.

Continuing with the music analogy, in the I Ching the notes are the yin/yang lines and the general to particular format is of each line being a frequency of 1/2n (n=line position number) and so half of the previous line's frequency. These notes/waves then sum into the general quality we associate with a hexagram and so our ability to 'feel' a hexagram (this brings out the tie-in to music through our tie-in of the I Ching with emotions and THEIR tie-in with music)

With the 64 hexagrams each like chords so they come with 'rules' about expression of notes (the 64 hexagrams now serving as representations of secondary+ harmonics; thus the set of all possible notes in music will include one of those notes as (a) a note and (b) a key within which other notes can associate but with some conditions).

The meaning of a hexagram expressed in its own context is a literal form but when expressed in a different context, and so out its own context, will be distorted due to the rules of the 'key' (equivalent to music’s sharps and flats) of that different context and so we move into a figurative form.

For example, the nature of hexagram 27 is about infrastructure and covers being careful of what you fill that infrastructure with - and so a sense of quality control. If I express this infrastructure state in any other context I have to apply a filtering process to conform to the 'key' of that context. Thus the characteristics of hexagram 27 expressed in a context represented by hexagram 01 are manifest in a form analogous to the generic categories of hexagram 28 with its focus on excess. Thus the infrastructure of hexagram 01, a hexagram representing strong yang traits, its skeletal form or original ‘mud’, is described by analogy to the generic characteristics of hexagram 28 (excess, too much yang).

Another overall analogy here is that of the I Ching to the genetic code and the distinctions of genotype and phenotype – where the latter reflecting the former expressed through some particular context." P19 EIC
 

elvis

visitor
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
241
Reaction score
0
Hi Elvis,

Can you make a logical argument about how your system or perspective explains hexagram 64, the set of 6 lines that are Yin in the odd-numbered places and Yang in the even? Mine finds just that fact of the line pattern sufficient explanation of its meaning.
The making of assessments of situations using recursive means allows for different perspectives grounded in some recursed dichotomy - e.g. yang/yin or fight/flight.

The encapsulation process of our attention system allows for building meaning from layering of the dichotomy from a general perspective to a particular perspective. Symbolically this can be represented by hexagrams and as such covers the dynamics of positive feedback (i.e. discretisation and amplification - we push others away, we differentiate, to bring our focus on some particular)

The IDM work covers a proposed set of classes of meanings derivable from our brain dynamics and then re-labelled, abstracted, to cover some specialist point of view (e.g. a 'yin/yang' point of view) - as such the focus is on an abstract domain model and so upper ontology:

"Upper Ontology : An upper ontology is limited to concepts that are meta, generic, abstract and philosophical, and therefore are general enough to address (at a high level) a broad range of domain areas. Concepts specific to given domains will not be included; however, this standard will provide a structure and a set of general concepts upon which domain ontologies (e.g. medical, financial, engineering, etc.) could be constructed.”

Analysis of the dynamics of recursion and dichotomisations has brought out a property of these seemingly symmetric, closed, systems in that, given DEPTH in the derivation of the classes of meanings we find that the whole set can be used to describe finer details of each element of that set.

Thus we can get each hexagram to be described by all of the other hexagrams and this can be done using logic operators and the 0/1 dichotomy as a substitute for yin/yang. From the intro of the book (free on the website Frank):

"The hexagram form of representation gives us access to the use of what are called “logic operators” and we can apply them to the binary values of the I Ching (yin becomes 0, yang becomes 1 – thus the ... traditional style of hexagram 23 is represented bottom-up as 000001) This application allows us to manipulate the hexagram representations to extract finer details of a situation and so cover the hexagram’s full spectrum, from its beginning to preferred ending, and all expressions in between. What this brings out is a feature of our neurology, namely data compression. The more ‘random’ a piece of information the longer the sequence of 0s and 1s required to represent it. The more order present, the shorter the sequence where a lot of data is compressed due to the presence of order contributing to that sequence. Understanding such, we can use tools, such as logic operators, to extract the ‘compressed’ data.

As such, if a hexagram is derived from assessments of a whole, a situation, so we can extract from such an image all of the temporal and spatial aspects of that whole, the quality of its beginning (from a class of beginnings), the quality of its ending (from a class of endings). This is akin to the hexagram as ‘white light’ and a method is available to extract the colours that make up that ‘white light’; the method being something like passing the white light through a prism and so get its spectrum. A spectrum is a source of information about what something is made of, its parts, and the Emotional I Ching gives us this access to the holistic, emotional, assessment made of some situation." p17

So - in the context of hexagram 64 we can flesh out details using the XOR operator and 0/1 dichotomy and present such as a table for deeper analysis of the IC and as such getting the IC, operating at the CLASS level, to describe itself and in doing so reflect the language element present in recursive activities - if done DEEP enough (most dont bother since they 'see' an infinite regression developing and so stop; their error ;-))

http://www.emotionaliching.com/lofting/bx101010.html

Note there is a development path from symmetry (whole) to anti-symmetry (aspects) to asymmetry (mediation) with the latter emerging only after 6 loops of recursion - prior to that there is a lack of resolution power to derive meaning other than as literals.
 
Last edited:

fkegan

visitor
Joined
Aug 31, 2007
Messages
2,052
Reaction score
0
The making of assessments of situations using recursive means allows for different perspectives grounded in some recursed dichotomy - e.g. yang/yin or fight/flight.
Hi Elvis,

Let's go line by line. There is no connection between yang/yin or fight/flight and the definition of dichotomy. Check out Wikipedia whose definition you cite as one of your many references:
A dichotomy is any splitting of a whole into exactly two non-overlapping parts.

In other words, it is a partition of a whole (or a set) into two parts (subsets) that are:

* mutually exclusive: nothing can belong simultaneously to both parts, and
* jointly exhaustive: everything must belong to one part or the other.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichotomy

Let me go through it a bit so everyone may understand. Yin and Yang are very much overlapping concepts. What is Yin in one context becomes Yang in another, they naturally evolve into each other (cf. moving lines) and thus they NEVER form a dichotomy.

The connection you presume with the computer binary dichotomy of zero/one has NO Place At All in I Ching studies...

Your argument fails logically at its very inception.

Fight/Flight is also not a dichotomy either. They are related and connected responses. For example a dog may bare its teeth an growl in a fight reaction, which can then erode into a tentative flight stance and then return to either barking as a fight ploy or actual flight as a final gambit.

In children the standard gesture of intimidation is the beating posture which can be a prelude to either a defensive or aggressive move.
Nicholas Blurton Jones - 1974 - Psychology - 400 pages
For example, in agonistic interactions, pre-school children frequently adopt a beating posture in which the hand is raised as if preparing for a blow as ...
books.google.com/books?isbn=0521098556...
There is no dichotomy in either of the examples you cite. Your argument fails the test of fundamental logic or any ability to relate your idiosyncratic notions to even the fundamental definitions you claim, cite, but clearly DO NOT AT ALL UNDERSTAND!
Q.E.D. R.S.V.P.

Frank
 

elvis

visitor
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
241
Reaction score
0
Hi Elvis,

Let's go line by line. There is no connection between yang/yin or fight/flight and the definition of dichotomy. Check out Wikipedia whose definition you cite as one of your many references:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichotomy
tsk tsk - you need to do better than this Frank. You missed the first entry in the "External Links" section which refers to my work on dichotomisation/recursion and as such takes us into areas YOU have not considered (which includes different classes of dichotomy that covers the asymmetric form that is a dynamic form of trichotomy (or more so oscillates across the dichotomy/trichotomy distinction))

Let me go through it a bit so everyone may understand. Yin and Yang are very much overlapping concepts. What is Yin in one context becomes Yang in another, they naturally evolve into each other (cf. moving lines) and thus they NEVER form a dichotomy.
The formal definitions given for dichotomy cover the opposites format and the complementary format (bifurcation). I suggest you read a bit more - such as:

Scott-Kelso's "The Complementary Nature" (http://www.thecomplementarynature.com )

or John McCrone's pages http://www.dichotomistic.com

We have been discussing all of this sort of material in various lists since I came on the 'web in 1995 with the ddiamond website. The use of BIT representations allows for the use of representing recursive dynamics covering movement from general to particular and so the 'layering' of meanings that emerge as we move from a whole to fleshing out its parts and internal relationships through the SIMPLE act of recursing a dichotomy.

The complementary format identified in the IDM focus brings out classes covering symmetric forms, anti-symmetric forms (the 'traditional' Aristotle format) and asymmetric forms. The latter brings out part/whole focus and an emphasis on power law patterns etc. Symmetric gives us even distributions, anti-symmetric gives us normal distributions.

Your comments so far Frank reflect an antiquated mindset lacking comprehension of what the brain DOES in processing information at a class level - all you seem to be able to do is 'parrot' current (or more so archaic) dogma. Time to move on Frank.

The connection you presume with the computer binary dichotomy of zero/one has NO Place At All in I Ching studies...
Firstly, the focus is on logic operators and their role in our brains through top-down management of meaning generation. See such research as:

Parsons, L.M., & Osherton, D., (2001) “New Evidence for Distinct Right and Left Brain Systems for Deductive versus Probabilistic Reasoning” Cerebral Cortex, Vol. 11, No. 10, 954-965, October 2001

or

Oaksford, M., and Chater, N., (2001) "The probabilistic approach to human reasoning" IN Trends in Cognitive Sciences Vol 5. No8 August 2001: 349-357

or

Ivry, R.B., & Robertson, L.C., (1998) "The Two Sides of Perception" MITP

or

Kelly G.A. (1955, 1991)"The Psychology of Personal Constructs Vol 1" Norton/Routledge

or

Kelly, G.A. (1969) A mathematical approach to psychology. Maher, B. Ed. Clinical Psychology and Personality: The Selected Papers of George Kelly. pp.94-113. New York: Wiley.

Kelly makes the point:

"Our psychological geometry is a geometry of dichotomies rather than the geometry of areas envisioned by the classical logic of concepts, or the geometry of lines envisioned by classical mathematical geometries. Each of our dichotomies has both a differentiating and an integrating function. That is to say it is the generalized form of the differentiating and integrating act by which man intervenes in his world. By such an act he interposes a difference between incidents -- incidents that would otherwise be imperceptible to him because they are infinitely homogeneous. But also, by such an intervening act, he ascribes integrity to incidents that are otherwise imperceptible because they are infinitesimally fragmented. In this kind of geometrically structured world there are no distances. Each axis of reference represents not a line or continuum, as in analytic geometry, but one, and only one, distinction. However, there are angles. These are represented by contingencies or overlapping frequencies of incidents. Moreover, these angles of relationship between personal constructs change with the context of incidents to which the constructs are applied. Thus our psychological space is a space without distance, and, as in the case of non-Euclidian geometries, the relationships between directions change with the context." (Kelly, 1969)

Secondly, as covered in the book preface, the focus moves beyond your traditionalist perspective and as such your rigour is ignorable (recognising the issues for you when you start to understand what is going on - your focus becomes marginalised Frank - and with lots of empirically-derived support for such marginalisation)

The IDM focus is, GIVEN what we have found in neuroscience, cognitive science, psychology, psychiatry, anthropology etc what can we come up with that reflects an IC mindset that is testable and consistent. The core focus has been on consequences of recursive activities. For a rigid focus on such from a logic perspective see:

Kauffman, L., H., & Varela, F,.” Form dynamics”. Journal of Social and Biological Structures (1980), 171-206.

Kauffman, L., H.,.” Self-reference and recursive forms.” Journal of Social and Biological Structures (1987), 53-72.

Matte Blanco I., (1991)“The Unconscious as Infinite Sets”, Karnac Books, (originally published 1975)

Spencer-Brown, G., (1979) “Laws of Form” Dutton

Fight/Flight is also not a dichotomy either. They are related and connected responses. For example a dog may bare its teeth an growl in a fight reaction, which can then erode into a tentative flight stance and then return to either barking as a fight ploy or actual flight as a final gambit.

In children the standard gesture of intimidation is the beating posture which can be a prelude to either a defensive or aggressive move.
tsk tsk Frank, you really DO need to read empirically-derived material covering such as the hard-coding of recursion of dichotomies in our brains. For the NATURAL interdigitation of elements of a dichotomy, where such comes out of recursive development of meaning etc, I suggest some of the early invasive work covered in such as:

Constantine-Paton, M., and Law, M.I.,(1982) "The Development of Maps and Stripes in the Brain" IN "The Workings of the Brain" A.H. Freeman.

Davidson, R.J., & Hugdahl, K., (Eds) (2004) "The Asymmetrical Brain " MITP

Dehaene, S., Duhamel, J-R., Hauser, M., & Rozolatti, G., (2005)"From Monkey Brain to Human Brain" MITP

Gainotti, G., and Caltagirone, C., (eds) (1989) "Emotions and the Dual Brain" Springer-Verlag

Plutchik, R., (2003)"Emotions and Life : Perspectives From Psychology, Biology, and Evolution" APA

The interdigitation of Fight/flight across the amygdala is reflective of recursive activities applied to the dichotomy. In such a dynamic, we move from general to particular so the area under analysis will transform from general distinctions to particulars thus (F = fight, f = flight):

FFFFFFFF-ffffffff (general, 'yang' vs 'yin' or A/NOT-A split of our 'universe of discourse')
FFFFffff-FFFFffff
FFffFFff-FFffFFff
FfFfFfFf-FfFfFfFf (particular, interdigitation of elements. This is akin to the top line patterns we see when we recurse yang/yin in the process of creating meaning in the form of hexagrams. SAME methodology, different contexts, SAME classes of meanings then open to abstraction)

These patterns operate at all scales, be it the basic neuron or a collective of humans. What is also noteworthy is the derivation of 'positive/negative' emotions from the basic fight/flight dichotomy where such is reflective of more generic behaviours in context management - to take over or coexist.

Due to the AD HOC nature of our nurture compared to our nature, the patterns cam become diffuse, lacking in clear distinction due to some areas not developing, other areas over-developing. Thus our ideal focus on interdigitation can be customised to look something like:

FfFfFFfF-fffFFfff

This is reflective of an INSTANCE of development where local context customises the POTENTIALS of our nature into the ACTUALS of our nurture.

Simple stuff Frank, but it can be an issue for the dogmatically over-educated! :mischief:
 

fkegan

visitor
Joined
Aug 31, 2007
Messages
2,052
Reaction score
0
Hi Elvis,

Sorry, you are just lapsing back into your tired routine of double talk and unlimited repetition. You clearly have no idea what the term dichotomy means, nor can you relate in any logical way to philosophical discussion. Try it again from first principles. The zero/one dichotomy of computer binary computation has no relationship to the I Ching.

So far you simply cannot understand any of the basics. Let's stay with the difference between dichotomy and binary math. Can you focus upon that and answer in plain English?

Sorry...for your loss. It is like in the Proof by Mathematical Induction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_induction

All your vast verbiage is the part where you prove that IF your stuff were true for X, then it is true for all x+1. However, there is also the requirement to prove it true for X=1. That is where your fail totally and miserably. It is not at all true in its very premise of dichotomy relating to Yang and Yin.

Don't just keep returning to your vast structure of stuff. Unless and until you can deal with the application of the concept of dichotomy to Yang and Yin, your work remains its own binary number game for 6 digit bytes, but without any relationship to the I Ching.

Frank
 

elvis

visitor
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
241
Reaction score
0
Hi Elvis,

Sorry, you are just lapsing back into your tired routine of double talk and unlimited repetition. You clearly have no idea what the term dichotomy means, nor can you relate in any logical way to philosophical discussion. Try it again from first principles. The zero/one dichotomy of computer binary computation has no relationship to the I Ching.
Rubbish.

We are talking REPRESENTATIONS and so classes of meaning operating at a concrete level then open to abstractions. THAT is what allows us to create analogies/metaphors Frank but obviously your understanding of basic semiotics etc is lacking to appreciate such (and with that your comprehension of meaning generation from neurological and cognitive perspectives).

As such Frank your above statement is False, naive, or more so deceitful in that we are wandering off what YOU want to talk about - YOU. Perhaps a list focused on psychoanalysis?

Your problem Frank is YOU appear to have some warped perspective that is contrary to that of others (try making your assertion to the others I have mentioned - you will be dually laughed at since you lack any understanding of languages and representations). S0 - end of 'discussion' Frank.
(that said, I do reserve the right of reply to your often obnoxious posts)

The Fu Hsi arrangement alone covers OPPOSITES (structural) as it does COMPLEMENTS but obviously that is all a bit out of your depth Frank so it is not worth the effort to continue - others have no problems with the material other than some of the implications of such and some not understanding the dynamics of recursion and the specialist perspective of your traditional sequence. As such I am not focused on 'pleasing Frank' since I think your a waste of time.

So - Frank - if you didn't want to talk about it all why start the discussion in the first place? ... although I note that it was Hilary who made this thread, all YOU wanted to talk about was YOU in the context of complaints etc - what a waste of time and effort on an IC list Frank. (I am still trying to decide if Hilary supports your prose in the context of contemporary IC focus - you are obviously 'traditionalist' (in a warped way I suppose) so letting your tongue loose is possibly entertainment for some and keeps the 'demons' away from serious considerations of what we are dealing with from the class level. Sad stuff Frank, your Freudian household must have been, continue to be (?), hell and it is unfortunate that it has all ended up here and so 'infecting' others - you spoiler you.
 

elvis

visitor
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
241
Reaction score
0
BTW just to cover the focus on REPRESENATION. You will NEVER EVER find 0/1 literally operating in a computer system - you WILL find the REPRESENTATION of such expressed in the form of switches covering such as +12volts/-12volts. IOW we see here more of Frank's ignorance and his midset stuck in the previous century (or before, say 10th century BC!)

Since the Language of the binary has only two letters (0 and 1) so all that can be represented is done so through such a language:

""Anything that can be represented can be represented (in principle) as a string of binary digits via an isomorphic mapping, ... The process is similar to producing a string that is rather like the record of an extended game of twenty questions, with 1s conventionally representing affirmation and 0s representing negation. A successful series of guesses produces a truth table row that represents the original thing."
(http://www.kli.ac.at/theorylab/jdc/information/information.html)

In IDM we identify core qualities represented as 'bit' patterns (orderings of 1/0) serving as sources of meaning across the species, in GENERAL where the set of meanings are derived from mediation dynamics" see section on the BIT domain covered in http://www.emotionaliching.com/AbstractD.html

As such meaning is built general to particular in bit representations that elicit qualities associated with meanings covering sense of wholeness, partness, static relatedness, dynamic relatedness etc.
 

fkegan

visitor
Joined
Aug 31, 2007
Messages
2,052
Reaction score
0
Hi Elvis, Chris Lofting,

I am trying to have a discussion with you beyond your constant diatribes of what I consider nonsense. We are still stuck in the first sentence of a logical debate. You have yet to relate to anything outside your Website, to put it objectively, and engage in human discussion in terms all can objectively notice and understand.

Let me start with a compliment for you as a person. You have done well to manage in a world that does not agree with your views of the obsolete nature of the academic degree system.
Getting Hired When You Don't Have a College Degree
From AOL ---Filed under: Interview Tips, Job Searching Tips, No Degree Required Print Article
Posted Mar 15th 2010 5:54AM
Share8

By Barbara Safani

I listened in on a recruiter panel recently where an HR person from a Fortune 500 company admitted that he added a Bachelor's degree to the list of requirements for all his job postings because it was an easy way to screen out candidates.

He didn't try to make the case that the degree is a key predictor of success in corporate jobs, an argument you often hear. He was honest in saying that the requirement was just a way to winnow out candidates in a competitive job market.

He's not alone in this practice and it presents a challenge for job seekers who lack the crucial piece of parchment.
However, it remains important to at least be able to carry on civil debate with those of us who succumbed to the System and graduated with degrees. Some, such as myself, managed to get the institutions to recognize our innovative ideas or at least make a reasonable compromise that allowed me to graduate without surrendering to the conventional wisdom.

So, we remain with the first step of our discussion of I Ching in terms of the Mathematical Induction style, can you make a sensible argument for your views from the f(x)= 1 starting point. Can you say anything about your system without insisting others read your website until they believe it.

I did not fall for that crap from the distinguished professors of Thermodynamics, I have no reason to accept it from you. So, can you show any evidence or discussion of your views of Yang and Yin within the received knowledge of the Confucian view of those concepts and other commentary?

If not, doesn't your view require the qualifying label: Does not relate to the I Ching as known or experienced by anyone other source other than Chris Lofting!

:):bows::p

Your pal still,
Frank
 

elvis

visitor
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
241
Reaction score
0
So, can you show any evidence or discussion of your views of Yang and Yin within the received knowledge of the Confucian view of those concepts and other commentary?
Certainly not. The EIC covers what we can get out of understanding brain dynamics, there is no focus on traditional ancient Chinese perspectives. In other words we go back to first principles and see where that takes us. What we find is it takes us to the same place but with better understanding of what we are dealing with. The ancient Chinese point of view has the problem of being -- ancient, with no reference to 3000+ years of research into neuroscience, psychology, anthropology etc etc. The question then is what do we get if we make such references?

If not, doesn't your view require the qualifying label: Does not relate to the I Ching as known or experienced by anyone other source other than Chris Lofting
My ICPlus/EIC work has ALWAYS been presented as different to the traditionalist point of view and as such is original work stemming from the IDM research. One does NOT need ANY reference to ancient China to understand what is going on with the IC in that beneath the local context, Chinese instance, of recursion of a dichotomy is a universal level covering classes of meanings we all share as species members - and as such the IC becomes trainable as a universal. (the SAME classes allow us to map different domains to each other and in doing so bring out the SAMENESS beneath all local DIFFERENCES in representing reality and covering the nature of language creation - see the IDM templates covering different models and their sameness)

The EIC identifies the same CLASSES of meanings applicable as used in the traditional IC material. The differences are in the local INSTANCES as manifest in the association of the symbolisms with the Chinese language/history.

Thus in the EIC we identify four basic classes of meanings covering the sensations of, issues with, wholeness, partness, static relatedness, dynamic relatedness, and their composites. Cognitive analysis ties these to generic qualities of IC trigrams and on into hexagrams etc.

As such the EIC is "Contemporary I Ching" where the properties and methods of recursion of yang/yin apply at the class level and elicit emotional resonances that tie the abstract IDM classes to the traditional classes.

As the EIC preface covers (and I have highlighted prose you seem to have missed):

"This book serves three purposes; one is to supply an example of a form of the I Ching that is consistent, testable, and useful for analysis of those moments of emotion-based uncertainties in regard to some situation. For those interested in only using this focus, reading just the questions format section will be enough to be off and running in using the Emotional I Ching.

The second purpose of the book is to supply a source for continued analysis of the psychological, sociological, and philosophical aspects of reality as experienced through the I Ching filter.

The third purpose of the book is to show the Emotional I Ching as a product of applying a methodology in interpreting the source of meaning and language – this methodology is called IDM (Integration, Differentiation, and Meaning) and covers the roots of meaning in our neurology. IDM is summarised in the appendix of this book. This methodology identifies the I Ching as a form of language, a “Language of the Vague” and at the same time identifies patterns associatable with the AI focus on an “Upper Ontology”, and Carl Jung’s concept of the “Collective Unconscious”.

The Emotional I Ching material is in no way complete – we could easily, and may eventually, write complete books on each of the I Ching hexagrams and the meanings contained. This text can be considered as a pointer to the direction to follow to achieve such a task. As such the hexagram details are (a) enough to satisfy the quick assessments when using the questioning system and (b) enough to supply a good summary of details and to highlight paths for further development. The summaries vary, some vague, some to the point, others with more, perhaps unnecessary, details.

There is little spoon feeding here, there is little ‘traditional’ content. If you want a traditional perspective for comparison then Richard Wilhelm’s “I Ching” text is the most well known and such texts as Stephen Marshall’s “Mandate of Heaven” adds some insight into ancient Chinese traditional history/legends/myths serving as sources of analogy/metaphor in describing symbols. Also see such texts as Richard Smith’s “Fathoming the Cosmos and Ordering the World” where the coverage is on the evolution of the I Ching in China." EIC preface.

The EIC as such is an example of applying the IDM Abstract Domain Model to specialist models that include the properties and methods of the I Ching. In so doing it covers the revelation that the traditional work lacks careful investigation from a scientific position but when this done reveals material NOT covered in the traditional, 10th century BC, perspective where such includes identification of the hard-coding of the language nature of the I Ching and so ability to get it to describe itself by reference to itself through use of analogy.

As I have said MANY times before, if you CHOOSE to stick to a 10th century BC mindset that is fine, but you will find that the 21st century AD mindset covered in IDM and the EIC is more consistant and testable since it is grounded on understanding of meaning derivation by our brains at the concrete level such that our abstractions can be re-assessed and refined.

if you CHOOSE to adopt a 10th century BC mindset to live in the 21st century AD that is up to you, but such a mindset will lack precision and access to information NOT covered in ancient material due to the ignorance of such material re the properties and methods of brain/mind.
 

elvis

visitor
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
241
Reaction score
0
BTW note that the LANGUAGE nature identified in IDM/EIC applies to the traditional perspective and as such indicates the presence of such going un-noticed in the official, formal, traditional texts (and so covering the formal imperial edition etc) for 3000+ years. IOW it has taken that long for a scientific analysis to occur and bring out properties of recursion grounded in the binary sequence - as such the traditional sequence has been a 'con', a form of 'smoke screen', a part presented as if a whole, an instance presented as if a class, that has drawn attention away from considering the natural dynamics of recursion and what it covers. The nature of X-ness as such is a major revelation in understanding the play of mechanistic vs organic recursion in general and getting the IC to describe itself in particular.
 

fkegan

visitor
Joined
Aug 31, 2007
Messages
2,052
Reaction score
0
The conclusion of consideration of Chris Lofting and his EIC

BTW note that the LANGUAGE nature identified in IDM/EIC applies to the traditional perspective and as such indicates the presence of such going un-noticed in the official, formal, traditional texts (and so covering the formal imperial edition etc) for 3000+ years. IOW it has taken that long for a scientific analysis to occur and bring out properties of recursion grounded in the binary sequence - as such the traditional sequence has been a 'con', a form of 'smoke screen', a part presented as if a whole, an instance presented as if a class, that has drawn attention away from considering the natural dynamics of recursion and what it covers. The nature of X-ness as such is a major revelation in understanding the play of mechanistic vs organic recursion in general and getting the IC to describe itself in particular.
or more to the point:
So, can you show any evidence or discussion of your views of Yang and Yin within the received knowledge of the Confucian view of those concepts and other commentary?
Certainly not. The EIC covers what we can get out of understanding brain dynamics, there is no focus on traditional ancient Chinese perspectives. In other words we go back to first principles and see where that takes us. What we find is it takes us to the same place but with better understanding of what we are dealing with. The ancient Chinese point of view has the problem of being -- ancient, with no reference to 3000+ years of research into neuroscience, psychology, anthropology etc etc. The question then is what do we get if we make such references?
Hi Chris,

Unfortunately, those of us, such as myself who have been conversant with BOTH modern neuroscience and its roots in theoretical biophysics AND binary number as an aspect of mathematics of the entire range of number base systems find your level of understanding woefully deficient.

Cf. http://www.purplemath.com/modules/numbbase.htm
for basics on the subject of various number bases. Computers nowadays are considered hexadecimal based. The binary math you speak of is only useful to point out what is involved is standard modern math of base 10 reduced to base 2 in order to adjust to the limits of electric or electronic circuits based upon just on/off.

This is not at all any advance over any of the ancient math systems which manage to relate human experience, abstract symbolism and the celestial dynamics of our Planet's tilt upon its axis to its orbit about the sun. That is what establishes the seasons and the Water Cycle and what matters to understanding human life continuing through millennia.

I thank you for your clear and positive confession that your work has no semantic content or useful meaning for understanding the I Ching.

As your own belief system based upon the obsolete technology of the electrical relay and early computers it is your absolute right to use it as the rose-colored glasses through which to view your experience. I salute you in your own reality and wish you well.

Q.E.D. :)
:bows:

Frank

Go in Peace,
 

elvis

visitor
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
241
Reaction score
0
Unfortunately, those of us, such as myself who have been conversant with BOTH modern neuroscience and its roots in theoretical biophysics AND binary number as an aspect of mathematics of the entire range of number base systems find your level of understanding woefully deficient.
:rofl: The deficiency is yours - IDM covers the foundations of meaning and so the neural roots of classes of meanings we then abstract into different languages - mathematics and logic included. So - your perspective is out date and what more operating at a level of abstractions when the focus is on the concrete - WHAT does the basic neurology give us and it gives us the IDM categories where such cover any recursively derived meaning system where the recursion eventually transforms from a mechanistic to an organic form.

Computers nowadays are considered hexadecimal based.
:rofl:
Again you confuse representation with what is represented. Hexadecimal is a form of NOTATION where it is easer to use 16 characters than two characters in human 'reading' of computer instructions. That does no change the fact that at the base level it is all the exploitation of binary dynamics (as covered in my previous quote/post)

You really are out of your depth here Frank.

I thank you for your clear and positive confession that your work has no semantic content or useful meaning for understanding the I Ching.
I said nothing of the sort Frank - I in fact pointed out that the IDM/EIC material is identifiable as present in the IC representations and as such can get the IC to describe itself - something way more efficient then the limited stuff you keep coming up with from a KWS perspective.

There is nothing 'obsolete' about the IDM perspective in that it maps to what our brains do - the issue is more in YOUR need for some 'external force' when the IDM work suggests such is not necessary and in fact is inefficient in dealing with predictions of situations etc.

For summary of the maths/logic domain see the tables in the sections covering such in http://www.emotionaliching.com/AbstractD.html
 

fkegan

visitor
Joined
Aug 31, 2007
Messages
2,052
Reaction score
0
Hi Chris,

You seem to lack any understanding of the notion of number bases and how that limits the philosophy involved. Any binary math system (or hexadecimal representation) is NOT an independent reality. It is just our common decimal math reduced to just one digit (and the modern Zero) for ease of mechanical technologies of calculation.

So, let us move on. You insist that just because the calendar reads 2010 CE that automatically things are newer or more modern or advanced beyond prior calendar dates. Have you any evidence of that? Other than you are living now and seem to lack any awareness of prior philosophy or more sophisticated understanding, have you any evidence that your work is anything new, special or better than any other computer programmer or gamer?

You mention often neuroscience and brain function, but only manage some details of computer programming in the actual workings of your system. Let me take you back to the basics, again to show how there are no roots to your crop and it all blows away as the chaff in the wind with any thrashing of critical analysis.

The functioning of any and all nerve cells is based upon the electro-chemistry of the nerve cell wall. It is there special property that they are able to maintain a stable barrier, building up a higher concentration of Na+ ions on one side and K+ ions on the other. My ole prof of biophysics and theoretical biophysics noted that this is generally considered an electrical potential, but any attempt to connect that special chemistry to the physics definitions of voltage or electrical potential fails. It is actually an undefined concept. Strike ONE.

Next, this ability to maintain a barrier and thus allow increasing concentrations of one alkali metal ion on one side of the cell wall and away from the other is limited to a particular intensity or potential or maximum concentration. Then this barrier property collapses and diffusion causes the ions to mix and all 'voltage' to be extinguished. What controls this breaking of the barrier to result in nerve cell firing is controlled by the realities and activities between the atoms the cell wall. This is small relative to Planck constant and therefore by Heisenberg uncertainty theorem, beyond the reach of physics. Or to use the term of art from Augustin of Hippo: 'A mystery.' Any notions based upon nerve firings or function is not subject to scientific observation or empirical demonstration except at a more macro level. What is built upon mystery is not science. Strike Two.

And finally, how it is that the firings of other nerves, transmitted through the synapse connections to influence and eventually trigger the next nerve cell firings is not at all binary or knowable by modern (primitive) understanding. The inflow from some other synapses may add to any specific connected nerve cell, other limit or subtract and all manner of other equations are possible, square root and other relations being options too. Further, your assumption of there being a binary dichotomy involved somehow neglects the reality that the nerve cells fire in their own rhythms whether transmitting data or not. It appears that the brain operates, not upon simple firing/not firing binary dichotomy; but rather rhythms and complex patterns that are of the same order in all nerve firings, but result in totally different messages being communicated to the brain depending upon the area involved. Strike Three...And you're OUT.

There is no connection between your system of simplified 6-bit bytes for computer games and anything having to do with either the I Ching or the neuroscience of nerve cell firing or brain functioning. Your system is just too primitive and simplistic.

However, it is nice to see you have worked out your own game in your own terms. It is becoming popular with folks looking for complicated patterns rather than simple Clarity.
The next step for you would be to get comfortable enough with you pile of web pages and references and arguments so that you can give a simple, straightforward, meaningful answer to questions raised. I have faith you can figure that out, eventually.

Frank
 

elvis

visitor
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
241
Reaction score
0
Hi Chris,

You seem to lack any understanding of the notion of number bases and how that limits the philosophy involved. Any binary math system (or hexadecimal representation) is NOT an independent reality. It is just our common decimal math reduced to just one digit (and the modern Zero) for ease of mechanical technologies of calculation.
:rofl: you are again confused by forms of representation Frank, and in that failing appear blind to the dynamics of the unconscious and 'mythic' forms of thinking that precede 'directed' forms of thinking. 'Lower' life forms can count Frank, and as such reflect basic classes of meanings covering numeracy sharable with our more 'advanced' forms of numeracy.

The FACT is that pre any specialist form of sensory representation is a generic form grounded in patterns that come out of neural function and primary emotions. The patterns are GENERIC and as such lack the resolution power of the brains of our species (and some of our ape cousins, dolphins etc etc) but the basic qualitative nature of numeracy are present as they are grounded in the patterns derived from neural activity.

the dynamics of representation can be expressed as:

REPRESENTATION = MEDIATION (stimulus, response) first time through, and then
REPRESENTATION = MEDIATION (REPRESENTATION). This can go on ad-infinitum if you like but the IDM work shows there is a phase transition present where the classes of meanings derived from into a language and as such can be refined using self-referencing.

The neuron has an etymology going back 600 million years (sponge life) and as such reflect a stable, robust, form of information processing grounded in patterns of differentiating (expanding, positive feedback))/integrating(contracting, negative feedback)

The adaptation of the neuron indicates its 'reflection' of basic dynamics of the context, i.e. the universe, and so the success in our maps reflecting 'out there'.

So, let us move on. You insist that just because the calendar reads 2010 CE that automatically things are newer or more modern or advanced beyond prior calendar dates. Have you any evidence of that?
Sure - spanning different levels of neural/cognitive development. The IDM work shows there is a phase transition present in recursive acts that reflect the emergence of language from basic classes of meanings - and it takes 2^6 classes of meanings to be derived for such to 'magically' appear. This covers mindless, mechanistic, recursion reaching a level of becoming organic and in doing so revealing a brake system to any 'infinite regression'.

"...The hypothesis, which we shall call the "2^6 rule", is, then, that irrespective of race, culture, or evolutionary level, culturally institutionalized folk taxonomies will not contain more than 2^6 entities and consequently will not require more than six orthogonally related binary dimensions for the definitions of all of the terms. ...In the area of cultural semantics, we are suggesting that a somewhat similar principle applies...the evolution of cultural complexity is limited, in so far as folk taxonomies are concerned, by the two-to-the-sixth-power rule. ...What is limited is the complexity of the taxonomies which are components of the various cultural sub-systems" (Wallace 1961)

Wallace,A.F.C.,(1961) "On Being Just Complicated Enough" Proc. of N.A.S. 47 (1961): 458-464

IDM validates this in that the phase transition occurs at the 6th level of recursion.

From basic hemisphere development we can identify a right bias in dominance at birth that then, over time, becomes a left bias as our differentiating skills develop and so directed thinking (words) takes over from mythic thinking (senses). This dynamic reflects the development from a genetically-determined, holistic, organic, symmetric form through an increasingly anti-symmetric form covering partial, mechanistic perspectives, and on into frontal lobe/pfc development covering asymmetry in the form of personal consciousness working as an agent of mediation.

From anthropology/linguistics comes a focus on primitive/indiginous tribes and their development of language and relation to local context. The findings show a strong tie of self to local environment to a degree their sense of self is entangled with such and as such their communications mixes the literal with the figurative. Removed from their context they can deteriorate mentally due to the dependences. Thus the dominating form of thinking is on the border of mythic/directed and the dependencies on local history/myth/legend are reflected in such as the traditional I Ching prose.

The MORE educated one becomes, the more differentiating, so the more personal consciousness develops and we become more 'universal' - we can live anywhere and in doing so assert our own context. Jung etc found this pattern in work in psychotherapy:

"We can say that individuals are equal only in so far as they are in a large measure unconscious - unconscious, that is, of their actual differences. The more unconscious a man is, the more he will conform to the general canon of psychic behaviour. But the more conscious he becomes of his individuality, the more pronounced will be his difference from other subjects and the less he will come up to common expectations. Further, his reactions are much less predictable. This is due to the fact that an individual consciousness is more highly differentiated and more extensive. But the more extensive it becomes the more differences it will perceive and the more it will emancipate itself from the collective rules, for the empirical freedom of the will grows in proportion to the extension of consciousness.
As the individual differentiation of consciousness proceeds, the objective validity of its views decreases and their subjectivity increases, at least in the eyes of the environment, if not in actual fact. For if a view is to be valid, it must have the acclaim of the greatest possible number, regardless of the arguments put forward in its favour. "True" and "valid" describe what the majority believe, for this confirms the equality of all. But differentiated consciousness no longer takes it for granted that one's own preconceptions are applicable to others, and vice versa
" p83 C. Jung, The Nature of the Psyche (RKP)

Other than you are living now and seem to lack any awareness of prior philosophy or more sophisticated understanding,
:rofl: in the focus on meaning I have covered "prior philosophy" etc where such reflects speculations where such lack knowledge of brain function. Since such philosophy is derived from brain function so it will reflect all possible classes of meaning given that function.

have you any evidence that your work is anything new, special or better than any other computer programmer or gamer?
IDM and EIC.

You mention often neuroscience and brain function, but only manage some details of computer programming in the actual workings of your system.
rubbish. I suggest you cover all of the IDM material before you make such assertions. E.g.

http://www.emotionaliching.com/myweb/brefs.html
http://www.emotionaliching.com/myweb/irefs.html
http://www.emotionaliching.com/myweb/neurorefs.html
http://www.emotionaliching.com/myweb/dencerefs.html
http://www.emotionaliching.com/myweb/formrefs.html

your attempt to cover neuroscience work was amusing but demonstrated your struggles in understanding the basics of information processing in the brain - you try to focus on a particular you did work on but in doing so confuse a part with the whole! So YOU are the one who strikes out - one, two, three - your OUT :mischief:

The above are linked to the original IDM webpage http://www.emotionaliching.com/myweb/idm001.html that has material covering the basics but not as up-to- date as the IDM book that is coming out in a month or two.
 

Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom

Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).

Top