...life can be translucent

Menu

GATEWAY to new TEMPLATE with I-Ching

yly2pg1

visitor
Joined
Dec 29, 1972
Messages
830
Reaction score
0
Sometimes, in threading through a template with Yi, i notice that it is possible to look for signs or gateway through which new field of activities and opportunities are laid ahead (new TEMPLATE).

Questions like the kind of roles I-Ching could render, the way to read the signs, and the 'Gateway' in the Yi text/line position are perhaps potential areas for exploration. Your tips may be very helpful here to 'unmask' the doorway?
 

yly2pg1

visitor
Joined
Dec 29, 1972
Messages
830
Reaction score
0
(1) Line 6 in upper trigram
(2) Line 3 in lower trigram
(3) 51 as 'filter' in a Hexagram

Is that what you mean by 'Mountain'?
 

lightofdarkness

visitor
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
52 as filter ;-)

There is an association with mountain of being a gateway to 'something'.

When we map in the MBTI we find the same position of mountain includes XNFJ personas - psychics, Seers, prophets etc.

(more so the first four hexagrams, with yin 4th line: 15, 52, 39, 53 - the last four, 62, 56, 31, 33, map more to mentors, ringmasters etc)

There is the association of mountain to the basic principles of Buddhism and so of learning through suffering - we learn quality control, discernment.

If we map in basic emotions categories so the focus is on sharing space with another 'in here' (contractive bonding) - and with emotions that is grief, sadness that relate to 'lost loves' etc and from those memories we learn quality control and so discernment.

The BOND emphasis is on some form of connection, a link in space, sharing the same space, eternal and so 'timeless'.

15 - modesty, remove highs/lows, keep words close to facts.

52 - self-restraint doubled = discernment.

39 - obstruction - going against the mindless flow, standing out (also covers bypassing obstructions using the flow).

53 - maturing.

vague stuff but there is still 'something', use of discipline etc to 'mature' ;-)

The other half get into issues of loyalty (62,56) and enticement (31,33).

With mountain on top so discernment rules - and so the general quality control emphasis of 23, 52, 04, 18, 27, 22, 41, 26 etc.

Discernment means making quality choices and so a path to 'transcending' the everyday qualities but 'in here'.... and buddhism focuses on this 'inner light' state that gives one an aire of quality.

23 covers discernment re faith.
52 covers pure discernment.
04 covers socialisation using discernment.
18 covers correcting corruptions.
27 covers being discerning about what goes in the 'new' structure.
22 covers discernment in look from the outside etc
41 covers distillation processes (alchemy like)
26 covers discernment in holding firm to the tried and true.

The discernment, the quality control is subtle, controlled, elegant, 'pure' etc. (but can fail at times - as with 41 where the distillation process can fail and we have true 'decrease')

The discerning nature of the mindset that goes with mountain - self-restraint/discernment - is what is useful in exploring 'gateways' since gateways are often guarded so one must be careful and the self-restraint of mountain has that carefulness built-in.

the nature of a mountain bottom puts basic architecture issues etc as sourced in fire-based hexagrams (recall the 27-ness of hexagrams means change lines 1 and 6.) and so a sense of light, of expanding 'boundaries' but all 'in here' through bonding - note how hex 52 has its core architecture in hex 36 - 'darkening of the light' - the emphasis being on covering up the inner light for future times - and so be discerning in exposure of that light etc - IOW the discernment recognises an INNER light and that fuels mountain.

hex 15 on the other hand has hex 22 as its architecture and so the focus on covering up - but with the light base it is an extreme in 22 and so the sense of 'beautyfy' and 'gloss over' when compared to 15s covering up by reducing highs, filling in the lows.

Chris.
 

yly2pg1

visitor
Joined
Dec 29, 1972
Messages
830
Reaction score
0
Quote
<font size="-2">Then note that each of these hexagrams in the binary sequence express all of the others. And so we move into the XOR dynamic of extracting the '27-ness' etc of each hexagram.</font>

Chris, you mention about '27-ness' many times. Why '27-ness' is so important(?) in XOR dynamic?
 

lightofdarkness

visitor
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
I use it as an example, and it was the first quality I discovered that led to the formal recognition of the XOR methodology so it has become habit in that 27-ness is the first that enters my mind when writting about XOR etc.

See the old ddiamond site for comments on bottom and top line changes to hexagrams that appear to elicit a description of the 'mud', the 'clay' that formed them.
( http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond ) - this was a vague observation that I developed without formally recognising the XOR dynamic at work.

Later on I realised that it was the XOR operator at work where XORing ANY hexagram with 27 brings out the expression of 27 THROUGH that hexagram (and so the 'clay' which formed 01 is described by analogy to 28 (27 XOR 01 = 28) - too much yang, excess.)

SO, we can apply to each hexagram ALL of the others to bring out THEIR expression through EACH hexagram by analogy to some other; and so the IC describes itself ;-)

(e.g. how does X 'complete'? XOR it with 63 - how does X 'prune'? XOR it with 23. How does X 'seed' (spread the word), XOR it with 43 etc etc etc)

Many dont 'get it' yet but given time I think they will ;-)

I have given the X-ness of a hexagram in the line meaning section in the X pages of my website (off the table in http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/icstruct.html

OR off the links to hexagrams by name on the left frame of the main ICPlus page:

http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/newindex.html)
 

lightofdarkness

visitor
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
For a particular link to the old pages consider:

http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond/cardinal.html

It is 'old' stuff but useful to see the development path re 'raw'/'refined' etc. It was not until I got into brain analysis of paradox that the 'insight' occured re the use of XOR to extract parts from a whole (a complex system).

Many have played with logic operators and the I Ching but the play has been lacking grounding; fun but 'what does it mean!?'. The IDM work through brain analysis in information processing gives us a meaning for the IC - using the XOR allows us to extract details from a complex form, here being a hexagram.

The hexagram is, with all of the others, a part of the integrated whole and the XOR (recursion) brings it out (to implement XOR in the brain requires TWO neurons and so the implementation forces recursive processes, self-referencing as a property of the neurology)

Once you have a hexagram it is now a whole and the same process of XORing brings out all of its parts. BUT the DESCRIPTION of those parts can only be done using the IC 'language' and so the use of analogy/metaphor. Thus the 27-ness of a hexagram is brought out by XORing the hexagram with 27 to elicit the analogy hexagram; and so for 01 so 27 XOR 01 = 28 where the basic architecture of 01 is LIKE the qualities represented in 28 - excess, too much yang.

Thus many have played with XOR and other logic operators but have limited that play to universals generating universals 27 XOR 01 = 28 - so what? By knowing what the brain does so we ground this dynamic into parts extraction from a whole. It is the 'bit' REPRESENTATION that allows us to do this, different representations (colours, sounds etc) may not have allowed for the insight.

From the IDM perspective, this is a major insight into the IC and in general into packing/unpacking meaning in the brain.

But, as is the case with these sorts of insights - it takes a while for the understanding to sink in and replace past perspectives (and some dont want those past perspectives to be replaced! gets into issues of identity etc)

There are LOTS of applications here but my main focus is fleshing-out the categories and relationships from an abstract 'bit' level and then ground the universal in different contexts (e.g. the MBTI extensions - see my brief page http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/type.html)

The XOR/AND dynamic reflects the particle/wave dynamic at work. The recursion of generals into particulars shows all particulars being linked together and so a whole realm of information processing not touched on before. (I have been through a lot of literature and no references to anything like this)

Since my 'day gig' has nothing to do with all of this so it all takes time ;-)
 

martin

visitor
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
11
"and some dont want those past perspectives to be replaced! gets into issues of identity etc"

Why issues of identity? I come to the IC and other ancient texts exactly because of these past perspectives. So it's only natural that I have no - or not much - desire to replace them.
It's like traveling to a foreign country and immersing myself in the way of life of the people there and their outlook. Looking through their eyes, walking in their shoes, thinking their thoughts. Becoming one of them.
 

luz

visitor
Joined
Jan 31, 1970
Messages
778
Reaction score
1
But Martin... (btw, is that still your name?)


I think that Chris means... oops, forgot what I was going to say!
 

lightofdarkness

visitor
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
The issue Martin is in that we are dealing with universals, not locals, and we are dealing with Science not Religion. In Science, if something comes up that raises issues, that offers better perspectives, on past data then there is replacement, the 'better' perspective is used but elements of the past that are still valid are retained (coexistance element). Overall we are dealing dialectical negation (we keep the 'good' bits of the old, utilise the new)

Peer reviewed journals etc ensure repeatability of experiments and so their validation and incorporation into the species perspectives. IOW we use XORing and derive the same generic qualities as covered in the original material and so validate that material (LOCAL interpretations will more often reflect an ad-hoc development perspective such that comparisons will be 'vague', but move to the universal level, and so universal terms, and the comparisons become very 'crisp'! ;-))

In Religion any material that comes up that goes against the current dogma, that raises issues on intepretations of core texts is fought against tooth n nail (in the INSTITUTION of Science this also occurs but that just reflects the religious aspects in that institution). This often leads to fundamentalism where the current dogma has to compete with the new and rhetoric is the determiner of success of not (and so the role of charisma in such interactions - Science has nothing to do with it since univerally 1 + 1 = 2; indicating that the fundamentalism is not universal, it is local!)

The differences are in Science having its 'facts' outside of the belief system of any particular individual, whereas Religion is matter of faith and so very much INSIDE the individual. There is also the focus on the power of charisma not being as strong as it can be in religion (sure there are some members of the institution of Science that are charismatic and can skew perspectives, but not for long if they are wrong - the data soon determines what is 'fact' or 'fiction')

IOW Science will focus on many universals and recognise the diversity in the actualisation of those universals; piecemeal work at the level of the local will then aid in refining the universals. IOW the formality of review etc tries to ensure objectivity and so bring out what is 'behind' all of the small world networks (and mathematical/logical representations soon disolve any subjective issues)

Religion will focus on one universal ("god") but all else is subjective (interpretations of what "god" says/does) but that subjectivity will include attempts to impose that subjectivity on all others as if universal 'fact' but WITHOUT proof - it is all a matter of faith.

To me, your comments above reflect someone who has come to a small world network perspective and entered that perspective accepting the dogma as 'fact' - beyond question. That immersion entangles personal identity with the dogma, there is a bond and/or blend at work where any focus on changing that relationship will change one's identity. That to many would be threatening if the focus is on analytical negation, total replacement - my work is not, it is dialectial negation (and so in the spirit of the IC ;-))

MY perspective comes from the regular network outlook, the realm of universals, where as more and more research is done on the psyche so small world perspectives come under review and so possible need for change (which is what the IC is about from a universal perspective).

The fact that the XOR material (a) works and (b) has not been published in the IC dogma texts indicates a discovery of something 'new'.

That discovery comes from OUTSIDE of the IC where the focus has been on how the IC, MBTI, Mathematics etc etc could have developed 'naturally' from brain dynamics - we are dealing with our reflection as such.

Only in recent times has there been enough data from neurosciences to give us insight into 'in here' and my IDM work has taken that data and built a model of information processing that works at the level of GENERIC qualities, universals, that we then 'colour' with local nuances to give the small world networks.

To introduce this material to the traditional IC can be threatening in that that IC has been around for 3000+ years and indicates that the local, small world network of ancient china, IC dogma has excluded major aspects of the universal IC. That exclusion has not, I believe, been intentional, it has simply been due to ignorance about how our brains work and how we derive meaning. (that said, it is possible for some 'secret sect' to have come up with the material and kept it hidden or 'reserved' for initiates etc! ;-) IOW there could be elements of the XOR perspective in ancient texts but they have not appeared to date, and the properties and methods of the XOR material are so major that if they were discovered in the past they would have found their way into the 'traditional' material and so be part of the dogma.)

Think carefully here Martin, it is possible to use the XOR to describe in rich detail the generic properties of each hexagram and how those properties are expressed through all other hexagrams. There has been NOTHING like that available for the IC to date. To those who like the 'freedom' of meandering interpretations of hexagrams this is an issue in that now we have a set of more precise meanings "hard wired" into the hexagrams themselves allowing them to define themselves. The advantage is a richer IC (and so still allowing for 'meandering' interpretations but more localised ;-))

What we are looking at is the 'wave' nature of the realm of AND, out of which we use XOR to extract parts (as shown in the paradox processing material - also see this visually in http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/WaveStructure.html ).

We are also seeing the hierarchy at work where recursion of 64 hexagrams (or 8 trigrams, 4 digrams, or 4096 dodecagrams) gives us PARTS that in turn can be treated as WHOLES and so we can apply XOR to them to extract the 'entanglement' of the waves that allow for the bringing-out of a particular 'particle'.

If you wish to stay with the traditional perspective that is fine - but over time MY perspective, or one like it, will become increasingly attractive due to its better precision in analysing the IC universals.

The ancients did a good job in fleshing-out the trigrams/hexagrams etc but they did not know what they were dealing with universally (other than imagining they were dealing with the 'spirits' etc - their RICH metaphor shows their lack in precision and so the 'struggles' later in trying to interpret that metaphor, they did the best they could given the times)

In the 3000+ years since the original material, and in particular over the last 30 years, we have done considerable work in the areas of brain function and information processing by the neurology. To exclude that work in considering the properties and methods of the I Ching is, IMHO, corrupt - reflecting a religious perspective where the past must be preserved regardless of any indication that it is 'limited' or even 'wrong'. (as you know, I am on the lookout for some maths for all of this - so far the maths of particle physics seems to 'fit' but still more work to do re Kaufman etc)

The MANY interpretations/translations of the IC currently available are sourced from the traditional 'small world network' of the ancient chinese IC. A LOT of energy has been put into those works based on a perspective of taking the IC as the 'ground', not our brains as the 'ground'.

Introducing a brain-based perspective that is BETTER, offers better precision of categorisation, understanding of relationships etc, but at the GENERAL level of universals, can be an 'issue' for the past translators/interpreters - tough. We evolve, we do not stand still, things CHANGE.

The 'good side' of this is that the IC *in general* does not change, its basic representations remain. The IC has been demonstrated to be a very usable, easily teachable, metaphor for interpreting past, present, and future (you dont need a PhD in Maths to understand things! ;-)) BUT we do need to move up to its regular network format, the universals, to re-interpret details and so link them back to local contexts.

Chris.
 
B

bruce

Guest
Hi Chris,

I have to differ with your perspective on three things. One is that ?you? are dealing with science, not everyone. Secondly, you make the leap to assume that if someone doesn?t 'scientize' the Yi that they make it a religion, complete with all the inflexible dogma that goes with fundamentalism. There?s a vast amount of space between Science and Religion. Thirdly, you say, approaches other than yours ONLY deal with ?local interpretation? and not universalism. I could never understand how you arrive at that conclusion when clearly archetypes and universal images are discussed here, at length.

A religious view typically makes itself the only true way.
 

lightofdarkness

visitor
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
Hi Bruce,

I think you do not recognise the LOCAL nature of archetypes when working from the level of spoken/written words (ego realm) and of visions (psyche realm). BENEATH those specialist realms is the general realm that we ALL share as members of a neuron-dependent species. Those archetypes are true universals in that they are NOT linked to any sense, they cover ALL senses.

The IDM material focus on the properties that come out of the neurology as it deals with information from specialist sources. IOW when I talk of universals I am not talking ancient chinese archetypes of the dragon etc nore of the set of Western archetypes from Jung et al- the focus is on archetypal FEELINGS derivable from neurons differentiating/integrating.

The "images" etc discussed most of the time on these lists are LOCAL archetypes, universals operating WITHIN a 'small world network' and so CULTURAL in form.

EACH specialisation will come with its own set of archetypes/universals but these in turn represent more generic qualities that allow us to share those qualities across the species.

Thus IDM comes with blending, bonding, bounding, and binding - and their composites. These form a pool of feelings used in meaning generation at the unconscious levels, FREE of any particular sense (at the level of the neurology we are dealing with frequencies, wavelengths, and amplitudes and our senses SHARE the neurology as well as have customised areas. What allows that sharing is the SAMENESS factor, a factor mapped to dealing with wholes (blending), parts (bounding), static relationships (sharing space - bonding), and dynmaic relationships (sharing time - binding). These patterns of frequencies/wavelengths/amplitudes are harmonics and elicit emotions - our more primitive language pre spoken/written words etc. Frontal lobe development allows for the DELAY of the expression of emotions and so we move into CHOICES and MEDIATION - stimulus/response becomes stimulus/considered_response that, once habituated, returns to stimulus/response but in a far more refined form.

In the universal IC position for trigram qualities we have:

http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/lofting/t1.html
http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/lofting/t2.html
http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/lofting/t3.html
http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/lofting/t4.html
http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/lofting/t5.html
http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/lofting/t6.html
http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/lofting/t7.html
http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/lofting/t8.html

Thus all hexagrams with 'contractive bounding' - aka water - as a member there is a focus on 'us vs them' dynamics with an aim on protection. With 'expansive bounding' - aka fire - the focus us also us vs them but more on expanding than contracting (gets into issues of guidance and direction-setting rather than containment/control)

I think you fail to see the hierarchy present in LOCAL dynamics - WITHIN a 'small world network' can emerge smaller networks that take the main one AS IF a regular, universal, network. As such, the elements of the main get interpreted as if 'universals' and that is fine LOCALLY but when we move to the increasingly general so we recognise that all senses are SPECIALISATIONS and as such 'small world networks' showing adaptation to LOCAL contexts.

Filter out the specialisations leaves one with the neurology. Filter THAT out and you have no sensations, no meanings etc etc IOW, for US, the neurology is the ground, the principle universal. Focus on THAT and out pops the patterns of differentiating/integrating, free of any PARTICULAR - THOSE patterns are the core universals that all others will represent as we try to derive meaning, to communicate.

IOW your comments are to me a touch 'short sighted', too LOCAL - the universals you speak of are LOCAL when compared to what IDM/ICPlus deals with ;-)

AS to my perspective on Science - no Science no internet. Please show me some religion fantatics building technology that allows us to communicate across the planet one on one. What you do see is religous fanatatics using the internet to plan the destruction of their 'competition'! Science is more egalitarian in that its products are for all to use - and that includes the 'dark' elements who's education, more often NOT determined by Science (e.g. the plethora of religious schools), is extreme to the point of being psychotic.

The IC structure, its universal nature free of LOCAL expressions (and so ancient chinese) is an extremely useful metaphor for teaching etc and in that teaching incorporating understanding of both the competitive and cooperative natures of our being as a species.

It can be EXPRESSED locally as in the traditional ancient chinese perspective or any other local perspective but with the work at the level of universals so that expression is shown to be currently 'limited' - if you choose to stay 'limited' that is up to you, but for me I think the current state of the species requires some reanalysis etc and focusing on the universal form of the IC can do that far better than the limited traditional perspective - IMHO ;-)

Chris.
 

martin

visitor
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
11
Hmm, I believe that the explanations and concepts of our sciences are no less "local" than those of ancient cultures.
Our sciences don't exist in a vacuum. They are rooted in this-our culture and reflect our way of life, our outlook and our (partly hidden) assumptions.
Our thinking is perhaps more abstract than it was in ancient times but is it also more universal, more objective?
I doubt it.
 

matt

visitor
Joined
Sep 10, 1970
Messages
198
Reaction score
0
It is fair to say that the scientific/mathematical side of the I Ching is a "universal form"....though only if it is fair to say the intuitive/hidden side of the I Ching is a "universal form" also.

Thought is defined as to reason or formulate in the mind.

Intuition is defined as the act of knowing or sensing without the use of rational processes, a perceptive insight.

Thought is commonplace and overused, where as intuition is a rarity. If any one of us was able to live in constant intuitive awareness for just 1 day, the whole mystery of the I Ching would probably unravel before our insightful eyes.

The brain isnt the source of energy, its merely the conduit for the energy. And not all energy is recieved via the brain. Sushil's article about thought-emotion was very enlightening and outlined how little neuro-science actually knows about the brain.

Most people you refer to as using "Local" or "Small networks" are trying to build their intuitive faculties, their understanding of processes rational thought cannot deal with. These people would be quite capable of exploring the mathematical side if they applied and trained their brain in this way, but many feel this would restrict their vision.

In that sense, the world they are perceiving is of a "Universal" form, because intuitive insight sees a broader spectrum than mathematics.

Do you think Lao Tzu was more concerned with the structure or the space the structure occupied? This is the origin of Tao, to abandon cleverness, diminish thought, attain peace, so that other processes may start blossoming and gaining momentum, like intuition and insight.

What could be more "Universal" than that?
 
B

bruce

Guest
Matt, I like what you?ve said and it reminds me of something I saw this morning.

I was sitting at the computer when I saw a small lizard walk out into the hallway. I live in the desert and occasionally one of the smaller lizards find their way into the house. He stopped for a moment, dead still. Then I noticed a lanky spider crawling across the floor until it was right at the lizard?s mouth. The lizard snapped up the spider, turned its head, giving me a perfect profile shot; the spider?s legs sticking out of all sides of his mouth. The lizard did a 180 and scooted under the spare bedroom door to finish his meal.

The whole scene lasted less then a minute but was so totally primitive. It happened here and now, but it could just as well have happened a few million years ago. I doubt there was any thought involved in the whole process.
 

gypsy

visitor
Joined
Feb 26, 1970
Messages
34
Reaction score
1
"The camel driver knew what the boy was saying. He knew that any given thing on the face of the earth could reveal the history of all things. One could open a book to any page, or look at a person's hand; one could turn a card, or watch the flight of birds....whatever the thing observed, one could find a connection with his experience of the moment. Actually, it wasnt that those things, in themselves, revealed anything at all: it was just that people, looking at what was occuring around them, could find a means of penetration to the Soul of The World."

from The Alchemist by Paulo Coelho
 

lightofdarkness

visitor
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
Matt,

(1) what you dont seem to 'get' is that the IDM emphasis is more primitive, more in tune with the species-nature than of consciousness - it in fact shows where Mathematics comes from in that it maps the basic qualities of numbers to the blend, bond, bound, and bind qualities derived from the dynamics of differentiating(yanging)/integrating(yinning) - so please dont equate my position as rooted in Mathematics etc - Mathematics is metaphor just like the IC and as such its use in describing other disciplines is due to all specialist disciplines sharing the ONE set of core qualities; different labels, same qualities.

The labels act to differentiate the qualities from different contexts, otherwise there would be confusion when trying to describe literally context X with the same terms as context Y. It is to what the labels represent that allows us to make analogies/metaphors such that you can see the IC in all other specialist perspectives, you can use the IC as analogy/metaphor to describe properties of quantum mechanics or mathematics or logic or religion or history etc just as one an use Mathematics to represent the properties etc due to all of these 'differences' using the ONE set of sameness as core meanings.

(2) what you dont get is that the IDM emphasis maps out the core emotions, and so source of intuitive 'feelings', stemming from the neurology and so usable in the IC (see the trigram links above where these core emotions are covered - or go to the IDM material on emotions:

http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/emote.html )

The CORE focus of IDM, and so its application to analysis of the IC as ICPlus, is on HOW we derive meaning as a species. To be able to do that has required access to empirical research, well documented, clear, precise - not the ad hoc material that comes out of other areas with little or no validation/repeatability.

In the last 30 years we have moved from a vague understanding, at times fanciful understanding, of how we as a species derive and communicate meaning, to a richer understanding through the use of Science, not Religion, not Philosphy nor any other 'humanities'.

What I find interesting in the comments by you and others is that you all fail to address what the original post that started this flurry of posts, was about - the XOR operator and its use in extracting the spectrum of a hexagram - and in doing so showing the linkage of all hexagrams to each other - beneath the discrete is a continuum, the whole.

By failing to address that fact you are showing exactly what my comments were about - how something radically 'new'/'discovered' can take time to be adopted by others in that its adopting can lead to 'issues' re the current dogma that can, depending on the degree of personal entanglement with the dogma, lead to 'issues' in personal, or collective, identity.

Foe example, by IDM coming up with XOR perspective so the rest of the IDM material is of possible value - but that means accepting that disciplines are analogies/metaphors and so not to be taken literally - and that includes all 'faiths/beliefs'. To many that is an issue. The point is we cannot deny the research from Science, despite how mechanistic it can be, in that we can see the organic as well.

A religious perspective establishes some creed, a thing, as fact (e.g. the Bible or Koran or Torah being the 'words of god' - or even the traditional IC) and does not move from that position despite new discoveries (e.g. the Spanish Inquisition being a classic example of attempts to preserve the status quo despite new ideas/discoveries coming forward. - and this is still going on through Creationism and Intelligent Design arguements 'against' the Scientists - as is the treatment of 50% of the population - females - where the perspective of most religions (secular buddhism trying to be a little different) is disgusting, shameful, in its repression of 'yin' mindedness.

Science sets down a METHODOLOGY to use in the analysis/discovery processes and as such is open to change, to the 'new' as long as it conforms to the tenants of the methodology re repeatability etc and is open to peer review. In this realm all competition is references at 10 paces - in religion it is more rhetoric at 10 paces with only ONE reference - 'words of god' - the holy book etc. more often taken literally.

What IS noticable is that within the INSTITUTION of Science we find a religious, patriarchic, perspective still present and so ill treatment of the female unless the mind in that female shows extreme talents worthy of 'ignoring' the femininity! ;-) (go through the history of the discovery of DNA structure to see what I mean - or read such books as "Pythagoras' Trousers")

As a species we have moved on from our primate nature to where what is inbetween our ears is of more value that what is inbetween our legs. In that movement the Science perspective is of obvious value but is also open to abuse - something we will have to deal with over time, but we have the skill and the will to do that.

From my perspective we should keep our spiritual elements to ourselves and just get on with developing the species in a rational, precise, discerning, way - and the only way to do that is to use the methodology of Science to 'enlighten' our monkey minds and so recognise the yin mind and the yang mind as aspects of the whole and in so doing teach that. Given what the "Science of Nature" gives us (i.e. physics et al) so we then explore the "Science of Freedom" - ethics - it is there we start to become more discerning etc but to do that we need to know the full spectrum of what we are dealing with - and that includes the full spectrum of the universal IC - regardless of any 'suffering' that exploration does in bringing out properties not considered before and potentially threatening to personal identity. (and it is from suffering that we learn quality control ;-))

Chris.
 

lightofdarkness

visitor
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
I suppose the main emphasis in the approach to the IC here is of that of "science of nature" (physics extended into chemistry, biology, neurology etc) vs "science of freedom" (ethics and so moral philosophy etc - the Confusian 'bias' in the traditional IC + comments)

We can add the science focused on logic but logic had not been traditional sourced in empirical perspectives, more on the 'pure', a priori (see Kant etc on this); OTOH nature and freedom have both 'pure' and 'empirical' formats.

IOW logic is often impoverished in its application to the IC, as shown by the XOR work that comes about by asking the 'right' questions based on empirical work re the brain dynamics of XOR/AND processing - IOW the empirical comes to the rescue of logic (and about time too! ;-))

Ethics basically covers (a) what ought to be done, (b) what ought not to be done, and I think you can see how this moves into the realm of mountain, of discernment, quality control etc. (and the basic 'rules' of scientific method are reflected in the basic truths of Buddhism so there is a tie of science to a science of 'within' - of development of consciousness, compassion, etc etc without any 'god' requirement - there are issues with the INSTITUTION of Buddhism than can be as 'corrupt' as other religious/secular 'spiritual' perspectives)

The traditional IC, the divinational, perspective focuses these days more on the science of freedom, than the science of nature but that focus impoverishes 'nature' and so associates with 'nature' perspectives of 3000BC rather than 2005AD - those perspectives have been allowed to waste, have been neglected (hex 18).

What IDM does is 'update', correct (hex 18), that perspective, introduce recent discoveries that then require the re-analysis of the IC from the 'science of nature' perspective, but in doing so also aids the ethical, the 'science of freedom'.

The use of the IC as a source of rules of ethics, and so freedoms, rather than a source of rules of 'physics' (here meaning the hard sciences and moving into psychology etc) is the more common attraction of the IC.

All ethical considerations are surrendered, one has issues with trying to assert what should/should-not be done in a particular situation based on one's own self and one has had little or contradictory training in ethics from whatever collective one is in, be it immediate family or the general culture (and in a time of existentialism/postmodernism that is understandable where the 'need' for an understanding of ethics gives way to 'randomness rules' and really nothing 'matters'!)

Thus the structure of the IC, its reflection of 'us', contains within it both the science of nature and the science of freedom and so serves as a GUIDE when there is no guidance from the local collectives or that guidance is in some way too local, too flawed for those who sense what is behind expressions.

Martin reflects in his comments a 'bias' to the 'science of freedom' perspective where there develops a reluctance to give up freedom or to add more freedoms - the 'small world network' for him is stable enough to allow one to 'plod along' in comfort. The problem here is that the universe is not static and the speed of Science is such that change happens within one's generation (one can no longer leave school and get a job at the bank until one retires etc - change is now at the level of re-training being a common demand etc - BUT with the ICPlus so that re-training can be quicker, easier to bare - the science of nature comes to the rescue of the science of freedom.)

Chris.
 

matt

visitor
Joined
Sep 10, 1970
Messages
198
Reaction score
0
Chris,

1/ What you dont seem to 'get' is that you cannot analyse human emotion/feeling using thought. Instead we should feel it, thereby returning to simplicity.

2/ What you dont seem to 'get' is how XORing a hexagram is another fantastic way to dissect the beautiful system, and will without doubt give glimpses to hidden processes, but if one were to XOR a hexagram with a specific function in mind for personal growth, they would miss out on the natural cycle of energy.

Example. If you recieved a letter from your girlfriend, but "XORed" how it completed itself - 63 - and read only the last part, you would be denying yourself the journey.

3/ What you dont seem to 'get' is that the way you are portraying your own system is a far more accurate representation of the word "dogma" or "religious". As Bruce rightly pointed out, the "dogmatic or religious" way normally assumes it is the ONLY correct way.

4/ What you dont seem to 'get' is that I have developed my own system (If you did not know, I am Simple_Complexities) that is based upon a scientific standpoint. I use it to correlate sunspot and earth cycles, I use it to measure time, I use it to see how energy flows from its birth to its end and back to its birth again. Its very different from your model, though I admire a lot of the scientific work in your model. But the Science cannot explain everything. You cannot label everything that is NOT science in the religion or philosophy category. And even if you are able to do this...following JUST science would limit your potential dramatically. My view on the IC is not religious, it is personal perspective BASED on science with the intention of building INTUITION, the lesser known of human faculties.

Quoting you;-

"From my perspective we should keep our spiritual elements to ourselves and just get on with developing the species in a rational, precise, discerning, way"

This is why we know so little about emotion, because we are obsessed with the "rational" or "logical" way. I emphasise again, you CANNOT understand emotion or feeling by rationalising or logistically analysing.

The BBC is running a fascinating 3 part documentary about the human Brain at the moment in the UK.

I have read your website Chris, and printed out pages of the information you offer, I have studied the XOR technique extensively and pondered upon its implications, something I have still not RATIONALLY decided upon based upon the SCIENTIFIC model I am using.

Your work is very good and would be even better IF you integrated the left side of your brain with your right. If you look to solve your problems using logic only, then those brain receptors of yours will be firing at a lonely rate.

Thought is important. Emotion is important. Most people see them as separate entities. Most people see Thought as superior to Emotion (normally thought-dominated-brains). Its the balance I seek, and many others seek.

If I saw a complex mathematical equation and wanted to solve it, I would not solve it using emotion:- "mmmmmm equation I love you...very much". You would have to think.

If you wanted to describe the feeling of love, you cannot do this using logical or rational arguments:- "Love is a chemical reaction the body experiences whilst eating chocolate".
You would have to feel it, to know it.

This is what you do not 'get' Chris. Logic cannot solve or explain everything. And everything that isnt logic is not religious or philosophical.

I know you will argue many of these points pragmatically and logically, its in your nature :) But just try to 'get' that not everyone is made the same way you are, each has his own journey and there is enough space for all of our views. There are many ways up and down a mountain.
 

lightofdarkness

visitor
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
Hi Matt,

> Posted by Matt (Matt) on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 6:21 am:
>
> Chris,
>
> 1/ What you dont seem to 'get' is that you cannot analyse human
> emotion/feeling using thought. Instead we should feel it, thereby
> returning to simplicity.
>

(1) We CAN and ARE analysing human emotions and it is developing very nicely - see some of the refs at the end of http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/emote.html - all part of the science of nature - and see the links to IC trigrams etc as presented in previous links. (there are some threads of the emotions and the IC etc on the clarity site as well - search for those)

(2) perhaps it is more that you think we SHOULD NOT analyse - that is an ETHICAL perspective, science of freedom and relates perhaps to a personal preference 'not to go there'?

> 2/ What you dont seem to 'get' is how XORing a hexagram is another
> fantastic way to dissect the beautiful system, and will without doubt
> give glimpses to hidden processes, but if one were to XOR a hexagram
> with a specific function in mind for personal growth, they would miss
> out on the natural cycle of energy.
>
> Example. If you recieved a letter from your girlfriend, but "XORed"
> how it completed itself - 63 - and read only the last part, you would
> be denying yourself the journey.
>

To me it is REALLY obvious from this statement that you have NOT yet understood the ICPlus XOR material OR you perspective is overly one-sided, focuses on the Science of Freedom. In my material we are dealing with "The Book of Structures" - go and read it again. Your above comments appear to be out of context totally in what the XOR-ing is about (and your example makes no sense in the context of XORing - rephrase it or give some other example).

http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/icstruct.html OR the particular page: http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/linemean.html


> 3/ What you dont seem to 'get' is that the way you are portraying your
> own system is a far more accurate representation of the word "dogma"
> or "religious". As Bruce rightly pointed out, the "dogmatic or
> religious" way normally assumes it is the ONLY correct way.
>

Again, IMHO you are not reading things carefully. I made the distinctions between the Science of Nature and the Science of Freedom - the ICPlus material extends all of that but with focus on the Science of Nature path. Furthermore I make emphasis on PROOF, IOW what I have presented is verifiable, testable and so in no way 'religious'. Your also don?t seem to understand my use of the term 'dogma' - it is not the same as being 'dogmatic', it refers to the current canon, the current set of perspectives that reflect the authoritative view. In the IC the traditional perspective is the current 'dogma' as such.

dog?ma ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d?gm, dg-)
n. pl. dog?mas or dog?ma?ta (-m-t)
A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine.
A principle or belief or a group of them: ?The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present? (Abraham Lincoln).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Latin, from Greek, opinion, belief, from dokein, to seem, think. See dek- in Indo-European Roots.]

In the realm of complexity/chaos dynamics the area of stability are 'inland' and reflect, from an intellectual position, the areas of current dogma for some specialist perspective; the stable ground. The 'new' comes from the periphery, the border areas where complexity/chaos lives.

> 4/ What you dont seem to 'get' is that I have developed my own system
> (If you did not know, I am Simple_Complexities) that is based upon a
> scientific standpoint. I use it to correlate sunspot and earth cycles,
> I use it to measure time, I use it to see how energy flows from its
> birth to its end and back to its birth again. Its very different from
> your model, though I admire a lot of the scientific work in your
> model. But the Science cannot explain everything. You cannot label
> everything that is NOT science in the religion or philosophy category.
> And even if you are able to do this...following JUST science would
> limit your potential dramatically. My view on the IC is not religious,
> it is personal perspective BASED on science with the intention of
> building INTUITION, the lesser known of human faculties.
>

:) I find this amusing in that you have dogmatically determined my nature by your limited exposure to me! LOL! You have a lot to learn grasshopper.

Lets consider the term "Science":

sci?ence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sns)
n.

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
Science Christian Science.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English, knowledge, learning, from Old French, from Latin scientia, from scins, scient- present participle of scre, to know. See skei- in Indo-European Roots.]

This is very different to religion where there is no questioning or if there is then any difficult answers are in the form of 'its gods will!' or 'that?s what the good book says!' That said, you can have a 'Science of Religion' but it will form part of the "Science of Freedom" in rather than focusing on what you ought to do or not do we remove the responsibilities to considering what would GOD want you to do or not do! This is equivalent to deriving the 'ought' from a book like the IC rather than from what we feel. That said, exposure to the IC long enough can habituate the ethics and so the book is no longer required ;-) (all gets into the realm of FILTRATION - see the five phase IC:

http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/icfive0.html)

> Quoting you;-
>
> "From my perspective we should keep our spiritual elements to
> ourselves and just get on with developing the species in a rational,
> precise, discerning, way"
>
> This is why we know so little about emotion, because we are obsessed
> with the "rational" or "logical" way. I emphasise again, you CANNOT
> understand emotion or feeling by rationalising or logistically
> analysing.
>

All I see here is ignorance of what is going on in the research areas and in the nature of you ego/psyche/self overall. Go and read the reference material in the supplied link previously. You cannot research emotions emotionally. You can differentiate emotions and THEN place yourself in contexts that will set them off to experience them 'in toto' - and the IC can show you how to do that. IOW you use the PURE form of differentiating universals and then the EMPIRICAL form of integrating with some PARTICULAR context to push your buttons.


> The BBC is running a fascinating 3 part documentary about the human
> Brain at the moment in the UK.
>
> I have read your website Chris, and printed out pages of the
> information you offer, I have studied the XOR technique extensively
> and pondered upon its implications, something I have still not
> RATIONALLY decided upon based upon the SCIENTIFIC model I am using.
>

:) if you are going to continue with the IC then you will eventually have to incorporate the ICPlus material or something like it to develop further. That is basic 'fact' in that the material comes out of the data, not out of me, I am just the messenger. If, in that process you find anomalies with your perspectives then you may need to adjust... but that again reflects an ethics problem (should I? Shouldn?t I?) - the science side is more in the data being irrefutable and so there is no choice if you want to develop further than where you are.

> Your work is very good and would be even better IF you integrated the
> left side of your brain with your right. If you look to solve your
> problems using logic only, then those brain receptors of yours will be
> firing at a lonely rate.
>

Your not making sense here, or perhaps have not covered to total IDM material - your use of the term 'logic' is for one thing misleading in that I think you are focusing on the analytical form that is 'one sided' - the sum is both sides, as covered in such pages as http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/logic.html - as such I am not such an extremist as you think! ;-)

> Thought is important. Emotion is important. Most people see them as
> separate entities. Most people see Thought as superior to Emotion
> (normally thought-dominated-brains). Its the balance I seek, and many
> others seek.
>

Then go through IDM and discover it all - and that includes the realm of emotions. ;-) The IDM material, and so the specialist format in ICPlus, cover the full range of emotions and derivation of meanings and their communications. The focus is on universals where LOCAL context will then 'customise' things to fit that context. If you want the empirical evidence then at the bottom of the main IDM page are links to files of abstracts and further reading etc.

> If I saw a complex mathematical equation and wanted to solve it, I
> would not solve it using emotion:- "mmmmmm equation I love you...very
> much". You would have to think.
>

If trained properly you could FEEL the equation, its beauty or ugliness - that being due to the FACT that emotions are a SPECIALIST tool for communicating as is Mathematics and so each is in the other - as shown by IDM (blend, bond, bound, bind 'rule' emotions as well as Mathematics, I CHing, MBTI, etc etc etc)

> If you wanted to describe the feeling of love, you cannot do this
> using logical or rational arguments:- "Love is a chemical reaction the
> body experiences whilst eating chocolate".
> You would have to feel it, to know it.
>

All done through IDM and ICPlus. You need to read more, think more, feel more. Your attempts to teach me how to suck eggs are amusing. ;-) You have a LOT of work to do despite what you have done to date - but as the IC says 'perseverance furthers'

Here is an exercise for you, take the binary tree format of the IC and in the position of the whole insert "LOVE" - then derive the 64 representations of that whole as universals ;-)
Have fun - and if you cannot experience them all, then figure out what context is required to 'push' the right buttons and go and place yourself in that context ;-)

Chris.
 

martin

visitor
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
11
Hi Chris,

"Furthermore I make emphasis on PROOF, IOW what I have presented is verifiable, testable ..."

As I have argued in other posts that is IMO one of the main problems with your approach, if you look at it from a science perspective. There is as yet not enough hard empirical evidence to support your theory. And with some of your statements I don't even see how they could ever be tested empirically.
Does the XOR operator do what you think it does? People play with it and nod, it seems to make sense. The resulting hexagram seems to fit as an answer to the question. But, as you have often said yourself, every hexagram always "fits" more or less. So this doesn't prove anything.
Does trigram y or hexagram x really mean what you think it means? Who knows, who can know? What does "really mean" mean in this case? Who is going to decide if an interpretation is right or wrong? Based on what?
Do you see the problem? You can test the statement "the earth revolves around the sun" but how are you going to test "hexagram x means a"?
Is there a recursive structure 'behind' MBTI or 'behind' basic emotions?
What you can do is generate/build/explain the MBTI categories or basic emotions in that way. And you can argue, based on neurological findings, that the brain REALLY builds/generates them recursively.
Fine, you have done that. But now a hard nosed scientist comes along and says "Okay, I follow your logic, I understand what you mean and perhaps you are right, but that's not enough for me, is there any direct evidence that the brain does this? Can I hook my brain up to some device and watch this process on a screen? Or can I at least do experiments that eliminate other explanations?"
Problem ..

If I were you I wouldn't make too many scientific claims at the moment. I would build a recursive IC, for example, and say "See, this is how it can be done, this is my IC". I wouldn't say "This is the UNIVERSAL IC" even if I believed that it was. Why create unnecessary resistance? Let people find out for themselves ..

But you are not me, that is a scientific fact, isn't it?
 

lightofdarkness

visitor
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
Hi Martin,

>
> Posted by Martin (Martin) on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 10:49 am:
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> "Furthermore I make emphasis on PROOF, IOW what I have presented is
> verifiable, testable ..."
>
> As I have argued in other posts that is IMO one of the main problems
> with your approach, if you look at it from a science perspective.
> There is as yet not enough hard empirical evidence to support your
> theory. And with some of your statements I don't even see how they
> could ever be tested empirically.
> Does the XOR operator do what you think it does? People play with it
> and nod, it seems to make sense. The resulting hexagram seems to fit
> as an answer to the question. But, as you have often said yourself,
> every hexagram always "fits" more or less. So this doesn't prove
> anything.

The difference in 'fitting' is in the context, is it a universal or a local? What I say is that for any given moment the WHOLE of the I Ching, EVERY hexagram, is applicable and it is local context that SORTS that list into 'best fit/worst fit' - which is what the standard wave equation does but using probabilities not dice. (in physics the probabilities are figured out prior to insertion into the equation, then measurement collapses the 'wave' into giving a particular)

If you ask a question that sets a context, that context will 'fit' the brain's single context format when dealing with a particular (for refs see the IDM material). If you then ask particular questions about that context then the sort will be better, closer to the 'best fit' - as the proactive IC page does.

Our focus is attracted to the 'bright end' of the spectrum of bestfit/worstfit and so we will more than often exclude the rest of the hexagrams in interpreting things and so often miss details.

IOW the WHOLE of the 64 hexagrams, or more so the whole of whatever row of recursion you are dealing with, apply to any moment and that WHOLE is what allows the XOR to work. The whole is an integrated system as is a complex drawing etc and we see in the processing of paradox how we extract an object, something of 'meaning' from that whole where in some cases that extraction is delusion, a paradox forms.

To EXPERIENCE this extraction process, see the examples in the paradox page but now imagine what is extracted is not a necker cube or some 'distorted' image, but a sequence of 64 hexagrams, seemingly discrete, clearly apart from each other.

The AND state, the 'complex pattern' is represented in IC perspectives as a hierarchic journey from Wu Chi to T'ai Chi to yan&yang to yin XOR yang and so the building of the hexagrams/dodecagrams etc. This process is clearly mapped to the methodology of recursion of the dichotomy.

Thus, the perceived discreteness is in fact illusion where we are still 'seeing' the WHOLE but our details processor, the XOR nature, extracts the parts instinctively. We can reveal that illusion when we use the XOR operator where we find the contribution of EACH hexagram to the expression of any particular hexagram - IOW we find a hexagram's spectrum. With that finding comes the association of discreteness (particle, mechanistic) with a continuum (wave, organic). This reflects (!) the brain's core adaptation to light such that communication is through spectrum exchange and the sequences in the IC reflect that spectrum, a RIGID sequence that allows for modulations in energy, we use amplitudes into frequences etc to communicate.

To implement the XOR operator in our brains DEMANDS self-referencing, recursion, in that we have to feedback one neuron into another; IOW you cannot have clear, precise, discreteness WITHOUT recursion as far as the brain is concerned.

The referenced material in IDM covers all of these points and allows for the derivation of a particular, consistant, meaning, a repeated meaning, from applying XOR of hexagram X to Y to give a qualitative representation of that expression by analogy to hexagram Z. This is a natural product of language processing where to stay at the level of 64 or 4096 etc means the language can only represent things through mostly analogy/metaphor to other qualities in the language (we note that using hexagrams so our language is of qualitities, feelings, not letters.)

As the usual example I use the 27-ness influence where the UNIVERSAL nature of 27, when it is all by itself, is of issues relating to the 'new' architecture, the infrastructure of 'something' or 'someone' that is in need of filling. When we move to the LOCAL, the expression of that universal through a hexagram expressing the LOCAL is derived by XOR-ing 27 with that local expression, e.g. 01. That gives us 28 where we learn something about 01, how its 27-ness is indicated by analogy/metaphor to hexagram 28.

We can thus apply the XOR to all hexagrams (AND THEIR LINES) to bring out FINER details than ever done before in the IC - simply because IDM identifies the METHODOLOGY of meaning creation IN GENERAL in our brains and the IC is a METAPHOR of that methodology.

The oscillations in the brain allowing for recursion of a dichotomy are well documented.
The WHAT/WHERE, aka differentiating/integrating, is well documented.
The GENERAL-to-PARTICULAR/PARTICULAR-to-GENERAL dynamic in the brain is well documented.
The XOR/AND dynamic at work in perceptions is well documented.
The DEMAND for TWO neurons at least to elicit XOR processing in the brain is documented.
The particle/wave nature is well documented (and links to the XOR/AND dynamic).
The particle/wave nature in the form of issues of precision is well documented and even easily demonstrated using pencil and paper - see http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/WaveStructure.html - this dynamic reflects the XOR/AND processing extending into the abstract symbolisms of consciousness in the derivation of meaning in the IC (See the end section on wave patterns and the trigram qualities etc.) AND ANY OTHER DICHOTOMY-BIASED CATEGORISATION SYSTEM (and so this applies to the MBTI - as summarised in http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/type.html)


The main point is that the blend, bond, bound, bind qualities are derived from the neurology through 'mindless' dynamics - the properties of differentiating/integrating GUARANTEE those qualities. They are UNIVERSALS where LOCAL interpretations become the issue, not the universals. IOW the sense of expansive bounding covers all possible expressions of some distinction of 'us' from 'them', some boundary of some form that is expanding, pushing outwards and in doing so converting the unknown to the known, the accepted. The positive/negative aspects are not applicable here in that THEY are LOCAL and so open to interpretations - what is 'positive' to you may be 'negative' to me but the generic state is 'expansive bounding'. period.

Given these HARD CODED qualities, all derived from 'mindless', natural, immediate, oscillations in the neurology, so we can map the qualities of trigrams and hexagrams to the hard codings but as universals - and so LOCAL context then brings things out and so we find that 'contractive blending' is the negative of a black hole or the positive of one's devotion to another/others. -- and you can FEEL 'contractive blending' etc.

TO CREATE categories, to be discrete, you need XOR. To create XOR you need recursion. Simple. Examples of category creation, of thingness from 'complex forms' is demonstrated in paradox processing, is EXPERIENCED, in that processing, and so we see XOR-AND dynamics.

Working from the AND position, it is a position of INTEGRATION and we can use XOR to extract its 'parts', to differentiate. That XOR works through RECURSION, it HAS TO since you cannot implement XOR without it. SO - categories derived from recursion show AND-to-XOR dynamics and that MUST include the recursion of yin/yang and the representations of the qualities derived through the symbolisms of hexagrams. IOW the qualities represented by hexagrams are the qualities represented in recursion of differentiating/integrating and so the associating of blend, bond, bound, and bind. FROM there, all else follows in that ANY dichotomy will 'fit over' this template of qualities and allow for the extraction of details re wholeness, partness, partness THROUGH wholeness etc etc etc.

Thus the TRIGRAM of fire will ALWAYS represent expansive bounding. period. THAT is the universal. That is the quality built-in to the neurology. LOCAL conditions will then add colourings, turn it into a 'local' universal in some way (e.g. 'Fire' in the traditional IC). We have a DIRECT link of QUALITIES of trigrams with the neurology and so can use those trigrams to represent what is POSSIBLE, what is POTENTIAL, in the neurology where LOCAL CONTEXT will actualise those potentials. There is no 'arbitraryness' here, the qualities represented in 101 come out of the neurology being '101' - there is no subjective association, the qualities are emergent from the dynamics of the neurology. THEN comes all of the 'differences' through arbitary, ad-hoc, RELABELLING of those qualities to fit the local context.

There has been recent work on the brain SHOWING the general labelling process going on in the left hemisphere (in most). If I ask someone to give me a tactile, a kinsethetic, description of an MBTI category it will 'fit' IN GENERAL the above categories of blend, bond, bound, bind etc. simply because the METHODOLOGY used to create the MBTI was on using dichotomies to layer meaning (if you use the orthogonality arguement of X axis, Y axis, Z axis etc you will find that this is in fact recursive where X is first (0/1), Y is orthogonal (00, 01 / 10, 11) and Z orthoganal to them (000....111). Using the IMP operator, given Z you can determine the existance of Y and X. Given X you can determine the existence of X (but not Z). Given X you cannot determine the existance of Y or Z. THIS reflects hierarchy and the Z <= Y <= X dynamic of the IMP operator.)

For fMRI, CAT scans, PET work, invasive research that validates all of this, go through the abstracts/references - it is all there in some form or another.

To go through the set of 64 universal 'feelings', search out the Species I Ching thread on this site. THEN go through the XOR processing to bring out this perspective of the discrete being more the exaggerations of a whole where beneath the discrete they are all connected (then GENERALISE that in that our neurology reflects the ADAPTATION of life to the universe and so teh REFLECTION of that universe and so the notion of it all being connected UNIVERSALLY with LOCAL dynamics favouring the discrete, the realm of expressions as compares to what they represent.

What IDM presents is the set of vague, universal qualities used to derive and communicate meaning. ANY specialist perspective will recruit those universals, relabel them to their 'universals' but in doing so become increasingly 'small world' and allow for 'smaller worlds' to develop within them as LOCAL context 'demands' conformity to local conditions.

(On I forget to mention the encoding of instincts/habits into the dendrites of neurons and so allowing local context to PUSH is also well documented).

The XOR aspects of all of this are just that, aspects of a much bigger story than the traditional IC has been presenting and we are in the position to flesh all of this out and so bring the universal IC to the fore. ;-)

Chris.
 

matt

visitor
Joined
Sep 10, 1970
Messages
198
Reaction score
0
Chris, you said:-

"(2) perhaps it is more that you think we SHOULD NOT analyse - that is an ETHICAL perspective, science of freedom and relates perhaps to a personal preference 'not to go there'?"

An ethical perspective is defined as:- Being in accordance with the accepted principles of right and wrong that govern the conduct of a profession.

I did not suggest it was "right or wrong" or that it was going against the accordance of "principles that govern the conduct of a profession".

I said it was impossible to understand a feeling without feeling it. To analyse and disect emotion using thought is not a moral view I have, its more of a logical one! Surely you must grasp the concept here?

You said I quote:-
"To me it is REALLY obvious from this statement that you have NOT yet understood the ICPlus XOR material OR you perspective is overly one-sided, focuses on the Science of Freedom. In my material we are dealing with "The Book of Structures" - go and read it again."

I understand the process of XORing a hexagram. If I'm to debate something, then I certainly want to understand the subject beforehand. I spent a little over 2 hours XORing various hexagrams. For example I would XOR hexagram 32 with hexagram 49 to find how it skins/transforms, hexagram 64 to find how it accumulates energy ready for the transformation, hexagram 41 to find out how it diminishes itself in order to augment with heaxagram 42. I am not being unfair, I have read your material.

I was simply hoping to clarify that too much knowledge only hinders the journey. It takes our attention away from the moment and into the past or future.

* Dogma - An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.

Quoting you:- "If you wish to stay with the traditional perspective that is fine - but over time MY perspective, or one like it, will become increasingly attractive due to its better precision in analysing the IC universals."

and later;

" if you choose to stay 'limited' that is up to you, but for me I think the current state of the species requires some reanalysis etc and focusing on the universal form of the IC can do that far better than the limited traditional perspective - IMHO ;-)"

Far from humble, not far from dogmatic.


You said, quoting;

":) I find this amusing in that you have dogmatically determined my nature by your limited exposure to me! LOL! You have a lot to learn grasshopper."

I would agree, I do have a lot to learn, or I should say I have a lot to "unlearn". Though I did not need to determine your nature dogmatically, your posts are long and detailed enough for you to determine your own nature. The one thing I will learn or "unlearn" from this subject, is to observe quietly next time, rather than venture in! Its a lot more peaceful


You thought my following comment was one of ignorance:-

" I emphasise again, you CANNOT understand emotion or feeling by rationalising or logistically analysing."

I stand by that without comment.

You said;

"All done through IDM and ICPlus. You need to read more, think more, feel more. Your attempts to teach me how to suck eggs are amusing. ;-) You have a LOT of work to do despite what you have done to date - but as the IC says 'perseverance furthers'"

I was not trying to teach you how to "suck eggs", I was trying to offer a perspective that I felt you had not viewed properly. Any offense I may have caused was not intentional, apologies to you, though I stand by what I said.

Our brains are not "wired" the same way, hence you see one way, I see another, making neither of us right or wrong, they are just perspectives.

I know you feel that your work provides a better point of accuray when dealing with the universal nature of the IC, scientifically I would agree.

Though, you call the "inner" part of ourselves, i.e. faith, insight as more religious, therefore not reflecting the accuracy of science. Here I disagree, and if I have not been able to express this well enough in my earlier posts, I sadly admit defeat in being able to express it at all.

Nothing more from me.
Matt
 

pakua

visitor
Joined
Aug 26, 1972
Messages
359
Reaction score
0
In essence, isn't this the same old argument about whether we're just a bunch of chemicals reacting and firing off nerve impulses, which affects the mind, or whether the mind causes the chemicals to react?

Can't it be both?
 

martin

visitor
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
11
Parallelism, correlations, mirroring.
The tendency to reduce it all to chemistry or neurology is typical for our time.
It is based on beliefs that have nothing to do with science as such.
 

ithaki

visitor
Joined
Sep 10, 1970
Messages
47
Reaction score
0
"you CANNOT understand emotion or feeling by rationalising or logistically analysing"

Roger that!
 

ithaki

visitor
Joined
Sep 10, 1970
Messages
47
Reaction score
0
"In essence, isn't this the same old argument about whether we're just a bunch of chemicals reacting and firing off nerve impulses, which affects the mind, or whether the mind causes the chemicals to react?

Can't it be both?"

Absolutely!!!
 

lightofdarkness

visitor
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
Firstly to Matt - I think your pulling out of this discussion shows how overwhelmed you can be to discussion that can elicit emotions seemingly out of your control. Discipline dude. Debate is a fundamental requirement for any development in Science where it is references at 10 paces. Focus on that area and you should be able to deal with the discussions better.

Secondly, I think most of you who have replied above are perhaps a little naive re the dynamics of emotion and reason where the latter is more of a frontal lobe dynamic that suppresses the more 'primitive' emotional REACTIONS to allow for increase in bandwidth to allow for more information to be gathered prior to some rational or emotional response. IOW we move from being REACTIVE to being PROACTIVE.

As such we move from emotions to feelings and so from undifferentiated wholes into the subtle nuances that comes from analysis of parts; we express emotions, they can overwhelm at times, we talk about our feelings - and so serialise the parallel.

The formation of frontal lobes activity is refined through socialisation such that being in a competitive context will elicit a more competitive mindset and if that is habituated then that mindset is for 'life' and so hard to remove/soften etc (but perhaps to impossible)
(and so increases in ADD/ADHD diagnosis reflect more adaptations to high precision where high precision is easily scattered - as a blue sky shows us (and our neurology reflects adaptation to light etc) - IOW the noticing of ADD/ADHD problems associating with with the frontal lobes is 'logical')

If the society is overally 'emotional' in its nature, too 'hot blooded', too quick to respond to stimulus, then that can 'socialise' the brain, allowing for the formation of local archetypes of culture - the 'classic aussie' or the 'classic brasilian' etc etc.

Since emotions reflect responses to sensory harmonics, these being in chords and colours, so the more emotional collectives will be rich in these harmonics as expressions, they are not as 'black or white' as the more emotionally 'restrained' or emotionally untrained collectives. BUT, they can lack the PRECISION of black/white collectives. Thus the more precise collectives create space ships, the less precise create the samba. ;-) (That said, the precision collectives DO create fundamentalist groups that show the lack in emotional training, their emotions are extreme, be it in love for some 'god' or hate for others not of their 'kind' - and so 'childlike'. Simply put, education without discipline is not a good idea (and that means in focusing of attention, consideration of consequences of actions etc and so an ethics element in that education - punishment need not be physical but more mental, eliciting challenges to improve etc, make it 'fun' - that said, some recognise that we learn quality control more from our sufferings).

Since, as a species, we are still coming down from the trees so the instinctive emotional communications will continue to dominate (current fanaticism being an example) WITHOUT education that allows for development of more rational, and so more controlled, perspectives.

Some may like to wallow in 'love' but in doing so elicit the presence of, the fear of, loss of love and so of severe episodes of grief. Since sexual love and anger share the same generic space of context replacement one can also 'wallow' in the love-hate dynamic which can be a waste of potentials as a conscious individual. Being ignorant of what is going on and so the individual can be 'pushed' by that love-hate dynamic, feeling unable to deal with it or control it. Once controlled, using the rational, the frontal lobe delay skills (and so reflect consciousness in action as an agent of mediation interacting with oneself) redirect the energy into more beneficial activities for self and species.

The mapping of basic categories of emotion to the IC allow one to predict the outcomes of emotional expressions and their consequences. By such activity so one can introduce mediation into one's emotional outbursts, learn to be more context-sensitive and so move more smoothly in the context; become more unflappable and be able to wallow out of choice rather than whim... and so the way of the 'superior'.

In this realm of the way of the superior there IS consideration of precise ethical dynamics rather than mindless stimulus/response. That consideration allows for the mindless stimulus/response to be 'educated', refined, such that we are not overwhelmed by emotional reactions that can be 'over the top' at times - and the IC can 'educate' proactively in reading it as a guide rather than using it as divinitation system.

As IDM shows, the path of information processing and its communication is from the generic issues of dealing with context (to replace or to coexist) at a level of mindless stimulus/response. We then move into communications of that dealing through the development of hormonal communications and so emotional dynamics. Those dynamics allow for the encoding of memories etc in that the highs and lows act to sum frequencies into a superposition of 'meaning'.

BUT, at the primate and lower levels of dynamics the use of the parallel to communicate has lacked efficency in adapting to context such that the development of SERIAL communications takes us PAST the holistic and into the partial. In the partial, the mechanistic, through the development of serial communications, we become more precise in our dealings and in doing so more proactive, we assert our context, develop our technology etc and so 'progress'.

The problem here is the feedback from this progress can elicit an overally positive outlook that is deceptive and so alientating from our species-nature - we create our own little worlds and from the inside interpret them as if THE world - so we need to be wary, discerning.

Continued progression includes coming to grips with our more 'primate' natures through the training of discipline, self-control rather than self-expression where the latter is the mindset of a child in that it is fun to start with but fails to consider consequences of actions and so can take one down a path hard to return from (and there IS a need to return in that protection of natural resources and protection against extreme exploitation of others is required where these are exploited at the level of child-mindedness and so unconditional self-expression)

IOW discipline is required and it is the realm of the rational that sources that discipline (as reflected in the East in Taoism, Buddhism etc - dont get caught by the monkey mind - and the focus on the Science of Freedom - ethics and morality - in Western philosophy)

To move from mindless stimulus/response is to move into the realm of mindful stimulus/considered_response and so into a TRIADIC realm where well trained consciousness acts as the agent of mediation. The teaching of that consciousness can be in formal institutions or through such texts and the I Ching, and the categorisation of emotions by current Science feeds into the IC symbolisms and so allows for developing a rich understanding of emotions/feelings. Given those universals so the IC also can indicate the best local context to enter to experience having those emotional 'buttons' pushed. As such you can be PROACTIVE in working through emotions rather than waiting around, un-trained, for something to 'happen'.

I am sure that many of you have experienced a novel context that pushes your species buttons and your mind has no idea what is going on! - Consciousness through the IC can aid in 'smoothing' that ride and so developing confidence in dealing with any situation, be it emotional or rational, 'immediately' ;-)

Chris.
 

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