PO Box 6945,
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).
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.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!
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! )The philosophy of dichotomy has no null content, it is just one set of principles in contrast to another. Yin is never zero.
your off in gaga-land again Frank - I asked you a really simple question covering your claimed understanding and you failed to answer.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.
I am not aboriginal Frank so your comments are meaningless - obviously an example of you tendency for self aggrandizement.P.S. I just realized you seem to be using the Australian Aboriginal battle style of taunt and boast.
"join together"! I would not trust you as far as I could throw you Frank.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.
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.The X-ness material is covered in the EIC website...
Here is an example from April 2005 easily found in the archives:
be wary of confusing classes with instances - the former has no 'better' relationship, the latter does.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.
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:Personally, I find that XORing hexagrams is a useful tool in interpretation.
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,
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.
Hi Elvis,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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DichotomyA 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.
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!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 ...
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))
The formal definitions given for dichotomy cover the opposites format and the complementary format (bifurcation). I suggest you read a bit more - such as: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.
Firstly, the focus is on logic operators and their role in our brains through top-down management of meaning generation. See such research as:The connection you presume with the computer binary dichotomy of zero/one has NO Place At All in I Ching studies...
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: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.
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.
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.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
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.
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?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?
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)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
or more to the point: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.
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?
Hi Chris,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?
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.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.
Computers nowadays are considered hexadecimal based.
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.I thank you for your clear and positive confession that your work has no semantic content or useful meaning for understanding the I Ching.
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.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.
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'.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?
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.Other than you are living now and seem to lack any awareness of prior philosophy or more sophisticated understanding,
IDM and EIC.have you any evidence that your work is anything new, special or better than any other computer programmer or gamer?
rubbish. I suggest you cover all of the IDM material before you make such assertions. E.g.You mention often neuroscience and brain function, but only manage some details of computer programming in the actual workings of your system.
PO Box 6945,
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).