...life can be translucent

Menu

GATEWAY to new TEMPLATE with I-Ching

hilary

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 8, 1970
Messages
15,563
Reaction score
1,061
Hi Chris!

As someone who pulled out of the debate with you years ago
, I don't see any sign that Matt is 'overwhelmed'. There's such a thing as saying your piece, recognising you've done all you can to communicate it, and agreeing to differ.

Bruce's lizard is great. (You know one of the meanings 'Yi' has gathered over the years is 'lizard'?) You sit at your computer, you engage in serious debate, and Yi darts across the floor and snaps up a spider.
 
B

bruce

Guest
dragon in lake?



This one found its way into a small bowl of water I had put out for Mojo (my dog). It?s called a ?blue tail lizard?.

Online writing leaves conspicuous gaps where it can be too easy to project things like emotions and intent where, in fact, none exist. When I read Chris? last post on this thread last night I was stunned by how much he reads into things that do not exist, like fear and angst over the dreadful thought that old ways will need to be changed into his new ways. Frontal lobe competitiveness indeed.
 

lightofdarkness

visitor
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
Hilary, Bruce - both of you are still skirting the issue re XOR-ing - perhaps you miss the implications of it all in the context of understanding, of meaning categorisations etc

fine - your loss I suppose ;-)

What instigated this flurry of emails was my reply to the enquiry re refering to the 27-ness and I gave my reply re the original ddiamond website work. I then added that these sorts of dicoveries take time to be taken seriously since the discovery comes with consequences the more 'traditionists' may find unacceptable - but then I did emphasis my perspective as being on the Science of Nature rather than on the Science of Freedom.

I can work with both, can you?

The IC moves on, change is inevitable, the Science of Nature side of the IC is being brought up to date whether you like it or not - it is not an issue of ethics, it is an issue of 'physics' and as such a fact of nature.

If you find a problem with taking my word for it, go through the supplied references in IDM etc - practice XOR-ing yourself to flesh out a hexagram, its full spectrum - or look at it applied to the MBTI categories to flesh out personas:

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

The realm of the Science of Nature is starting to focus on the dynamics of the IC and in doing so is finding material that is of benefit and also raising questions about past methodologies, interpretations etc. THAT is what Science is a about and that is where it can be disturbing to the Science of Freedom side of things - tough, adapt/adopt. simple.

Chris.
 
B

bruce

Guest
Chris, should I take this to mean that you don?t encourage individuals to follow their own path?
 

lightofdarkness

visitor
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
In the context of Science of Freedom - do follow your path in that local nuances will influence you oughts/ought-nots.

BUT in the context of Science of Nature the 'fact' element is external to any particular in that it is a universal and so on all paths. BEING on all paths it is useful to know these universals on one's particular path - when you run in to them you can identify them quickly ;-)
 

martin

visitor
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
11
"fear and angst over the dreadful thought that old ways will need to be changed"

One thing I noticed is that it are so often the science minded people who react emotionally (and sometimes quite unreasonably) when confronted with ideas and phenomena that do not fit in with their world view.
The most common reaction seems to be one of blind denial.
I cannot explain it, therefore it doesn't exist.

What are THEY afraid of?
Are they afraid to lose (the illusion of) control?
I think so ..
 

martin

visitor
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
11
Not so long ago, when I felt ill again and started to worry if it could perhaps be something fatal I asked the IC about it.
The answer was 16.5.
In Legges translation: "The fifth line, divided, shows one with a chronic complaint, but who lives on without dying."

What could be more direct and to the point than this response?
It is this kind of answers that make me doubt the validity of "new" ways such as IDM, even apart from doubts about the science aspect (as expressed earlier in this thread).
They occur far too often to be discarded as coincidences and it's clearly the 'local expression' that matters.
What would remain of this particular answer if I tried to "universalize" it? And what could applying algebraic operations (such as XORing) add to it?
It is complete and crystal clear, it is exactly what I wanted to know.
 

lightofdarkness

visitor
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
If one bothered to take time to understand probability one would realise that using random methods allows for Legge's particular translation coming up with that question - the WHOLE of the IC applies for ANY moment and random methods, some biased some not, allow for the interpretation of seeming synchronies.

REPEAT the trial and you will not get the same result consistantly - it will reflect a random distribution. THAT is what Science is about, repeatability allows for predicitability IN GENERAL and down to such levels as 1 + 1 = 2.

Use vague questions and you CAN refine the chance of getting the 'best fit'. As covered in the proactive IC pages.

All I see from the rest of your prose Martin is a certain degree of ignorance re what is Science about .... and I note for you and others there is STILL no focus on the XOR material so you are skirting the issue, putting up smokescreens, laying down red herrings! LOL!
 
B

bruce

Guest
"seeming synchronies"?

Well at least you've finally come out with it and admitted that you fail to recognize synchronies as such. I suppose it's easier for you to construct your own rationalizations and your own cryptic language to justify what you can't explain.

It seems to me that the fear you accuse others as having are, in actuality, your own fears. I think that?s pretty funny, though also a bit sad for someone to spend so much time and energy trying to disprove the obvious. Talk about red herrings.
 
H

hmesker

Guest
<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

If one bothered to take time to understand probability one would realise that using random methods allows for Legge's particular translation coming up with that question - the WHOLE of the IC applies for ANY moment and random methods, some biased some not, allow for the interpretation of seeming synchronies.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
Chris, you are not listening. Martin said that the answer was "complete and crystal clear, it is exactly what I wanted to know." That does not show randomness, because every other answer from the Yi would not have had the same impact. Of course every hexagram from the Yi fits every situation, but there is always one which fits best, and captures the essence - and that is the one you are going to get.

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

REPEAT the trial and you will not get the same result consistantly - it will reflect a random distribution.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
If that is how you assume the Yi works, then that is what you are going to get. But it is a subjective - not objective - point of view. If you accept that the answer you get from the Yi is the best answer you can have in your situation, and that there are no alternatives which are better, then that is what you are going to get. The answer from the Yi involves every facet of the situation, also your specific mindset of how you think about the Yi.

Harmen.
 

martin

visitor
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
11
This is becoming grotesque!
I'm beginning to wonder if the founder of IDM (sounds nice, uh?
) is playing a joke on us and meanwhile laughing his *ss off.
He presents us with a crackpot theory that is obviously a house of cards and calls it "science". When we make objections he produces long unreadable texts full of "scientific data" and then calls us ignorant if we don't "get" it. In passing he lets us know that such big shots as Heisenberg, Bohr, Einstein, Schroedinger and Jung also didn't "get" it, and that there was in fact nobody on the face of this earth who ever did.
Until the founder of IDM appeared, as by a miracle, and spoke "let there be light!". And there was light!

I mean, he cannot possibly be serious, can he?
 

lightofdarkness

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

(1) for something to be 'synchronous' from a Science perspective it has to be proven under formal conditions. simple. UNTIL that happens it is 'seemingly' so. Science works off delayed gratification, not instant where "oh look at that, that MUST be connected!" is the mindset - no focus on proof etc - childmindedness; literalmindedness where we can demonstrate metaphor at work.

(2) given what is coming out of neurology, the WHOLE of the IC applies for ANY question - that is why you MUST HAVE a question to start with as it sets the context that is then interpreted by the IC metaphor; and GIVEN a question you will ALWAYS get an answer that appears to 'fit'. This then gets into the best_fit/worst_fit ordering and so issues of METHOD.

(3) Given the different methods in deriving hexagrams, be it by coins (50/50) or yarrow sticks (bias to yin) or generic questions (more sensitive to generating a 'best fit' than either of the above) so one can detect synchronicities easily if one looks - and nine times out of ten the question asked will NOT generate a synchrony but we notice it more when it DOES and that DOING is a manifestation of basic probabilities dynamics.
(that said, using yarrow sticks the yin bias reflects the overall social bias to be REACTIVE such that that method or types like it can generate better 'best fits' due solely to the overall yin bias in the method and in the society in general - move to high energy societies and so a more yang bias and coins work better (as would REVERSING the yarrow bias from yin to yang)

All of this gets back to Martin's claim re asking about his illness etc - given that single result, how many other times has he asked the SAME question and got the SAME result? REPEATABILITY is what is required when mapping universals; if that is not the case then the claims of synchrony etc are just anecdotal and so fine LOCALLY but not UNIVERSALLY (which is what appears to be claimed) and/or a product of the above mentioned 'bestfit/worstfit' mappings.

Now, from the Jungean level, the sychronicities where of events 'near' each other as in DAYS or less, not in 1:1 so I think you notion of synchrony is a touch distorted (go back and read Jung more) - and making the scope that large but WITHIN the bounds of IC possibles they would HAVE TO BE the perception of synchronies - but again in need of testing formally.

The traditional focus on the IC comes out of the realm of moral philosphy, not natural philosophy - and so realm of freedom not the realm of physics.

The SUBJECTIVE nature of the realm of freedom allows for that realm to operate without verification, without repeatability etc and thats fine. BUT, move into Science and thing change in that the focus is on UNIVERSALS - and as I said before, in the realm of universals they are on ALL paths and that makes a difference in how to deal with them.

As for Martin's comments to date - weak stuff to the degree of being obnoxious; failure to address the issues other than from some emotionally-charged, and so realm of freedom, perspective. A cheap attempt to heat things for no reason other than to be hostile.

We are dealing with universals Martin, not local dynamics. When dealing with them it is Science perspective, the rational, over rhetoric.

Going back over this thread Martin has increased the emotional, rhetorical, element unjustifiable and so indicating a perspective that is not prepared to deal with facts, but only his fictions.

His prose is increasingly not worthy of comment other than as indicating an example of ignorance; primitive thinking when we are in a time of sophisticated thinking - and that includes recognising that the 'big shots' had no idea what they were dealing with regarding HOW we perceive reality and how the XOR/AND dynmaic works across the conscious/unconscious in our brains and so can the QM interpretations are more ARTIFACTS of the METHOD and so not neccessarily 'out there'.
As shown in such pages as:

http://www.iimetro.com.ayu/~lofting/myweb/WaveStructure.html

(your comments about Bohr etc seem to be rooted in 'hero worship' - not these days; their work was fine FOR ITS TIME, times change (as the IC reflects) but you choose to cling to past perspectives WITHOUT consideration of the last decades of work in neurosciences etc that raise issues with the interpretations etc (see above link as an example)

IOW more work is required in the realm of ontology creation and epistemology to flesh out the QM issues (and IDM has done some of that)

You need to do a LOT more reading Martin than you have - but I doubt if you will since you are not a Scientist (who would and it would then be references at 10 paces as is should when dealing with universals, natural philosophy etc)
 

gypsy

visitor
Joined
Feb 26, 1970
Messages
34
Reaction score
1
<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

Going back over this thread Martin has increased the emotional, rhetorical, element unjustifiable and so indicating a perspective that is not prepared to deal with facts, but only his fictions. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

Chris I respectfully maintain that you dont write too clearly. Maybe this is a part of the problem..........your meanings get lost in translation and befuddle rather than challenge.

I think you need to read The Alchemist and then stop reading at all for a long time. Do you have any fun? What makes you happy? Whe was the last time you had a belly laugh?
 

kevin

visitor
Joined
Jan 11, 1973
Messages
738
Reaction score
74
My feelings are that neurology has been pushed way beyond its current limits here.

But as Chris says - Science is not about feelings but of proof.

In actualite the Sociology of Science demonstrates that hypotheses are most often formed from feelings - The research is most often guided by hunches and the results have often been poorly understood even when they are demonstrably true - Until further work had been done to understand the events involved.

Be that as it may... Does anyone know a qualified neurologist who can put this argument to bed once and for all?

--K
 

lightofdarkness

visitor
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
Bruce, just to flesh out the synchrony perspective a bit. There IS 'something' going on re connectivity and it is rooted in the notion of PURITY. We have:

(1) The 100 monkeys story
(2) The cancer cells story (HeLa etc)
(3) The radio crystals story
(4) The identical twins story
(5) The EPR correlations story
(6) Sheldrake's Lab Rat story
etc etc

These ALL focus on correlation of participants in the stories due to PURITY - this maps to what I call the "Continuum Effect" and gets into patterns from the Harmonic series.

We are not interested in this data being real or imagined in that the neurology makes no distinctions, more interested in the commonality in the themes indicates these patterns as being part of our toolkit for describing things. TESTING is required to validate these stories where the indication is of one thing being in two places at the same time (identical twins being an example) - The Pauli Exclusion principle asserts two things cannot share the same quantum states (and so same 'space' - bias is to fermions, bosons CAN share the same space in the form of superpositions) but nothing about sharing different spaces.

So, you eager interpretation of my comment about SEEMINGLY synchronous as if I am 'anti' or something is in error. My science-favouring perspective allows me to be open to all sorts of '
stuff' but until it is repeated in formal experiments there are issues. That said, note that the XOR stuff comes out of LOGIC and is self-referencing (see the "book of Structures" material) but the synchrony stuff is coming out of PHYSICS (as in 'natural' philosophy and so empirical areas besides 'pure' realms)

Chris.
 

hilary

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 8, 1970
Messages
15,563
Reaction score
1,061
Isn't the bottom line that I Ching divination - the old-fashioned sort - isn't a science? Surely no-one ever claimed it was...

On that subject - for anything to be a scientific theory, it needs to be falsifiable, right? So, Chris, how could someone experimentally disprove your arguments?
 

lightofdarkness

visitor
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
Gypsy, Kevin, two more who still fail to address the original issue - XOR-ing. Your both going along with the others OTHER THAN Yly who asked the question - why do I use 27-ness so much when discussing XOR. I replied and with a link together with a comment about such material being difficult to accept etc ... and so the flurry of emails but NOT about XOR-ing!

As I said to Bruce, I am NOT pushing following one's own path IN THE CONTEXT OF moral philosophy (e.g. tossing coins to as 'what ought/should I/X do?' etc) I AM pushing the discovery of UNIVERSALS and so perspectives that apply to ALL paths; natural philosophy. Simple.

(Kevin, you want proof from neurosciences? read the references etc but that is all in IDM pages, not IC pages)

If some of you cant take that, tough. I am not the originator, I am the messenger with LOTS of references etc supporting the material. We will all find the need to adapt as more information comes out and our local perspectives are open to 'modifications'.
 

lightofdarkness

visitor
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
Hilary, as covered previously in this thread, the traditional IC is more focused on the science of freedom, ethics, morality (what should, what ought etc and that gets into divination)

But the universal IC is MORE than that it that it also includes the science of physics, natural philosophy, as it does the science of logic.

As for disproving my arguements - not for me to say since any model I come up with would be considered 'biased'! The XOR etc IS repeatable and that is in its favour and there is plenty of coverage to come up with to prove it NOT to be the case - but I dont design that ;-)

The first thing is that the methodology etc is repeatable and so experiments designed around that - random choices, juxtapositions of hexes etc - something like that.

Chris.
 

kevin

visitor
Joined
Jan 11, 1973
Messages
738
Reaction score
74
No Chris

Your work applies the material from the references to the material from the Yijing. It therefore extrapolates.

If I want to know whether a model is true / false I do not read the underpinning theory. It has to be tested.

In addition I am aware of this years Reith Lectures were given by a world leader in neurology... Though he did not address your model directly, I did note that nothing in his lectures claimed anything near the level of understanding you propose.

Every model has circumstances in which it breaks down. Where does yours fail?

--Kevin
 

hilary

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 8, 1970
Messages
15,563
Reaction score
1,061
Yes, slightly dumb question on my part. I would need to read and assimilate all your stuff, single out a particular theory, and then ask you to design the experiment that could prove/disprove it. (And I've an idea that designing experiments to disprove your own theories is a pretty routine part of science.) Though mind you, you could also do all the above, and you do have something of a head start.
 

martin

visitor
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
11
Chris, I suggest that you consider my posts as laughing mirrors, that's how they are meant.

As to me not being a scientist, my occupation is in my profile, lol.
 

lightofdarkness

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

see some recent discussion with John McCrone on the JCS-online list (you can join, check the archives and leave etc)

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jcs-online/

- discussions also held some months ago with him and Stan on the "Complex Science" list - see archives of:

http://necsi.org/

Stan and John's perspectives have a triadic element that I suggest is not fixed but variable where once mediation is over so we all sink back to stimulus/response so there is an issue there - BUT IDM focuses on the GENERAL and states PRE development of individual consciousness and the spoken/written word and so the realm of formal, intentful, mediation.

John also set up a webpage to cover the perspective:

http://george.fri.uni-lj.si/HICwiki/FrontPage

The XOR/AND research etc is 'new' and as far as I can see 'original' in that it does not appear to be formally covered elsewhere - but the supporting data does (see the list I gave Martin a few emails 'up' this thread) - IOW it is not something unique to the IC, it is something unique to IDM/recursion /neurology etc - and so my search for some Mathematics to formalise it.

That said, since it has roots in logic so there is an a priori element present - it comes out of the method, the self-referencing, and so is an artifact of that - but a really useful one.

As for the current 'top' neurologists - they focus on trees more than the forest ;-) - IDM is not current neuroscience 'dogma', it is a model developed from analysis of a LOT of specialist texts but working at a generalist level.

As I said, the only 'issue' at the moment is the dyadic/triadic perspectives but the model of John and Stan does not lead directly to MBTI, IC, Mathematics, emotions etc where IDM does.

Chris.
 

kevin

visitor
Joined
Jan 11, 1973
Messages
738
Reaction score
74
Thanks Chris

Will read links before returning.

These two are trained neurologists I take it?

--Kevin
 

martin

visitor
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
11
Chris, I think Kevin made a point that I also tried to make earlier: some of the building blocks of your theory may be "well documented", as you put it. However, the building as a whole still needs to be tested.
This implies verifying/falsifying NEW hypotheses that come out of the theory.
Because you are so much into IDM it is perhaps difficult for you to see the speculative elements in it. They are very clear to others, like me, who look at it from the outside, though.

Apart from everything else, I think that these discussions, which are IMO very interesting, would be easier if you showed a bit more respect for others. You keep suggesting that others are ignorant, backward, afraid and things like that and then get upset when I fire back at you with a joking post. What do you expect?
 
B

bruce

Guest
Martin, did you undergo a sex change? If so, good job!

Chris, I have to agree with Martin here. Your work doesn't offend at all, but your demeaning comments do.

I disagree that those who don't buy into your work wholesale necessarily see the IC as something which tells them what to do or what is right or wrong from strictly a moral perspective. You underestimate a lot of us, it seems.
 

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