...life can be translucent

Menu

GATEWAY to new TEMPLATE with I-Ching

martin

visitor
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
11
No change Bruce ... surprise?
 

kevin

visitor
Joined
Jan 11, 1973
Messages
738
Reaction score
74
I was deeply shocked Martin - I always thought you were a scientist!

Still hoping Chris is going to confirm that the two folk he steers me toward in his post are actually trained neurologists... Of course there will be gifted untrained folk - But then there are the others...

Chris?

--K
 

gypsy

visitor
Joined
Feb 26, 1970
Messages
34
Reaction score
1
Martin, you are a woman?????? oh my god.does lightangel know?
 

martin

visitor
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
11
LOL. For the moment I would rather keep this a mystery, if you don't mind, as there is already so much "this is how it is" going on with all the science in this thread.
And yes, Lightangel knows all about it.
 

luz

visitor
Joined
Jan 31, 1970
Messages
778
Reaction score
1
Martine??? She's quite the witch! But she's also smart and charming and pretty darn cute!
 

lightofdarkness

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

McCrone is the the author of the book "Going Inside" - covering a day in the life of the neurology etc.

http://www1.dragonet.es/users/markbcki/mccrone.htm

Stan is a professor emeritus - website:

http://www.nbi.dk/~natphil/salthe/

Stan 'contributes' to the Complex Science list mentioned before, besides being an author as well:

http://www.nbi.dk/~natphil/salthe/bookdescr.html

You can also go through material on the MindBrain list, run by a neuroscience-imaging-in-training ;-) ( http://www.ramsoy.dk/ ) and editor of an online journal with other editors such as Baar etc:

http://sci-con.org/

Thomas' List:

MindBrain@yahoogroups.com - recent discussions re IDM have been with a hard-core nominalist you may find of interest (and so a philosophical perspective - likes the material but not the way it is expressed).

I am not published in any journals etc - I am not representitive of current 'dogma' and being a drop out not considered a 'peer' ;-)

That said, if I can get the mathematics sorted then it can speak for itself and so may get published.... but that would lead back to the IC and many still dont get it and see the IC as 'all of that new age stuff'! ;-)

I AM doing a paper for the Journal of Psychological Type (suggested by a member of the editorial board) re the MBTI material (and so leading into IDM, XOR/AND, I Ching etc) but the completion and publication is a long way off!

Chris.
 

lightofdarkness

visitor
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
I use the term 'ignorant' in its 'true' sense where many ARE ignorant OF Science stuff. I think the issue is in an over-emotive 'reading' of the term by many. If some of you take the term out of the particular context and generalise it to apply to yourselves 'in toto', that is an 'error' - being ignorant is not at all a problem in that it can be delt with by finding things out, doing the research etc ;-)

-------------------------------
ig?no?rant ( P ) Pronunciation Key (gnr-nt)
adj.
Lacking education or knowledge.
Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
Unaware or uninformed.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English ignoraunt, from Old French ignorant, from Latin ignrns, ignrant- present participle of ignrre, to be ignorant, not to know. See gn- in Indo-European Roots.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
B

bruce

Guest
I'm definitely ig?no?rant. But then, Chris, so are you. We're just ignorant in different ways. Not everyone wants to be a scientist and not everyone possesses the aptitude to be one. That doesn't make them less, just different. I'm happy with how I am and you obviously delight in how you are. S'all good, man.

It would be wrong of me to assume that because you are analytical that you don't possesses intuitive qualities. It is also presumptuous of you to assume that because I am not scientifically minded that I do not see Universals as well as localizations, or that I view the IC in an exclusively religious context. It doesn't have to be either/or, all or nothing.

Describing, labeling, identifying something doesn?t create it. Knowing what a medicine is made of doesn?t cure the patient. You focus on universalisms. Great! But someone still has to give the cart wheels to help them with their local problem or question. It doesn?t mean they?re necessarily ig?no?rant, just that their intelligence is used in a different way.
 

lightofdarkness

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

I did emphasise the point about context sensitivity in the use of the term. The GENERAL focus of the TRADITIONAL I Ching is towards the realm of MORAL philosophy. Questions usually deal with actions of one to another/others or actions upon one by others - these focus on "I am right about this or am I wrong?" or "I cannot decide, 'you' decide for me". Even when considered as interactions with some 'spirit' of some form, these questions still focus on the more ethical considerations - am I RIGHT in doing this? are they WRONG? Will the hunt be successful, and so 'right' as compared to being 'wrong' - IOW if the answer is no then the rule is "I should not/must not go hunting" - should, must, ought, ought not etc are terms that come out of the more ethics realm in the context of asking questions etc about LOCAL dynamics.

This dynamic is fine, been going on for thousands of years and is 'unchanging' - but the developments in discoveries in NATURAL philosophy, with the focus on universals, HAS change and that material is in need of updating as far as the IC is concerned.

Dont confuse a MORAL, an ETHICAL, perspective with a RELIGIOUS one - religion is a PART of that perspective. This all gets into the realm of FILTRATION and the roles of earth and mountain on the yin path, thunder and fire on the yang path - the unconditional filtration that goes with earth is where all 'rules' are sourced from outside of consciousness - be they in some religious text or secular text or word-of-mouth from some charismatic leader etc., OR from one's genetics in the form of instincts (many of which we are ignorant of until some new context pushes a button we did not think existed! ;-))

The SCIENCE bias in this filtering is where the 'rules' are universals of fact, not of values. Values will bias personal paths, facts are on all paths; values affect the expression of local collectives, facts affect the expression of all collectives.

The 'small world network' of the traditional, local IC, serves a more ethical perspective and does aid personally and I think most work on the IC is in that area and I have no complaints about that OTHER THAN the impoverishment of the 'regular network' perspectives that allow us to see it 'all linked together' formally. With that linking come questions re the 'best use' of the IC locally - different local methods based on universals that can give better advice.

The 'anti science' perspective acts to stunt the development of the IC beyond its ethical (confusian) pseudo-religious elements that seem to be 'stuck' in 10th century BC thinking and so excluding material developed since then and on into the current 21st century AD.

Working on the natural philosophy side of things for the IC allows for the refining of the use of the IC where findings in that area can add new aspects to the ethics-focused areas re depth of understanding what one is dealing with etc. - from cybernetics we have the Law of Requisite Variety - the system with the MOST choices will benefit over all others IN THE LONG TERM.

By bringing the other aspects of the IC up-to-date (and so the realms covering natural philosophy and logic) so we formally refine the IC, bring out all of its aspects and so increase choices in behaviour, or aid the available ones through giving more details about possible outcomes/natures etc.
 
B

bruce

Guest
Moral, philosophical, religious, ethical, archetypal, metaphorical or the science of same?

 

martin

visitor
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
11
I'm not exactly "ignorant" when it comes to science (no, really
) and certainly not anti science.
Science is fine. But I'm also aware of the limitations of the scientific method.
For instance, I know very well that any evidence that I can present regarding the accuracy of answers of an oracle is from a science perspective merely anecdotical.
Does that mean that there is no evidence? No. The fact that current science cannot detect or explain certain phenomena does not mean that they don't exist.
Science is not the ultimate judge of things. It is as simple as that.

When we believe that it is that judge we put it on a pedestal where it doesn't belong and create a kind of religion around it that it doesn't need.
 
B

bruce

Guest
Martin, I agree. Science may be defined as the objective study of a subject. But it is not the subject itself, nor the object.
 

ithaki

visitor
Joined
Sep 10, 1970
Messages
47
Reaction score
0
So, although Divination is not a religion, would it be fair to say that it is a bit like religion, in that it definitely falls out of the realm of Science as we know it; that it's unexplainable, as it is synergistic and personal and based on feelings and not on ideas or rational thinking? Is it perhaps a bit irrational??? (rational: "Consistent with or based on reason; logical")
 
B

bruce

Guest
Can IC evoke religious feelings? Yes. Is it religious? Only if it is to you.
 

ithaki

visitor
Joined
Sep 10, 1970
Messages
47
Reaction score
0
Right, but I didn't mean religious, I meant "like religion"... irrational...
 

martin

visitor
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
11
I get stuck with the word "rational" here.
Could we say that those who are convinced that oracles "work" are not necessarily irrational but rational in a different way, i.e. that they have a different kind of "rationality"?
 
B

bruce

Guest
Is love rational? Is laughing in the rain rational? Is the taste of real chocolate rational? Is Dao rational? Sure, they can be rationalized but there's something more than rational that makes them enjoyable and enriching to experience. Yi, imo, is both rational and irrational. To eliminate either is to diminish it?s usefulness.
 

luz

visitor
Joined
Jan 31, 1970
Messages
778
Reaction score
1
I love it when discussions come down to words...
what do words mean, anyway?

"Words are the source of misunderstandings"

Maybe everybody here agrees on everything but they just don't know it...

 

martin

visitor
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
11
The river doesn't think, yet it flows orderly, natural order, you can FEEL it.
Did the Taoists not have a word for that, "Li" or something?
Shall we misunderstand that word then?
 

ithaki

visitor
Joined
Sep 10, 1970
Messages
47
Reaction score
0
Yeah, the river is not rational.
But I never said that it was a bad thing, to be irrational!
Let it be irrational! Let's stop trying to explain it, let science mind its own business.
Let's just flow, like the river! (well, and then we stop from time to time, to ask the Yi, of course)
 

martin

visitor
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
11
I wrote a little story about a river once.
That river was sitting on one of its banks. I approached it and asked it if it knew how odd it looked, sitting there.
It said: I forgot how to flow and I will stay here until I've figured out how to do it!

 

lightofdarkness

visitor
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
From a brain dynamics perspective, the realm of the rational is the realm of LATER development in brain function - frontal lobe dynamics, that if not trained can retain a degree of rationality but still overwhelmed by what the frontal lobes suppress - immediate, emotional, expressions.

As the SERIAL nature of 'rational' communication occurs, so it also uses the older 'irrational' levels of communication in the modulation of serial communication to carry emotional messages.

Our emotions go back to the times of non-verbal communications and so lack serial precision and can be overwhelming at times - but they have their roots in issues of context - to REPLACE (anger/sex) or COEXIST (grief/fear). As such they reflect an underlying logic but it is LOCAL and so can appear 'illogical' to others.

Generic 'love' is sexual and is focused on context replacement through replication, drown out the opposition with copies of self. This moves us into the realm of LAKE with its focus reflection, mirroring, mimicry etc. Next to lake is Heaven with its focus on single mindedness, agressive, competitive - IOW love and anger share the same roots and can easily slide into each other (and so killing can be sexual etc)

All 'basic' emotions cover the communications of intent in dealing with context, to stick out (anger/sex) and so replace or to use it to disappear (grief/fear) and so coexist with it.

From these basics comes refined emotions in the form of devotion to others, devotion to self, discernment, 'show biz' dynamics, rejection, accepting, cultivating etc.

IOW, using a Science perspective we can map out more efficently the universals of 'emotions' and use those to better define LOCAL events etc. and so FEED into the "science of freedom" realm covering issues of morality etc (confuscian ethics etc)

A I have said before, and I say again, there is no issue with the more ethics-focused dynamics of the traditional IC OTHER THAN the impoverishment of the 'natural philosophy' elements of the IC as a whole. IOW there is recognition of ethics threads, physics threads, logic threads. What I DO find of interest is the recent posts that attempt to maintain that impoverishment of the Science aspects - indicating issues with accepting the other aspects of the IC that aid in completing the IC - most seem to prefer the local, ethics-driven focus on divinations of 'what ought to be' etc.

In this day and age, IMHO, that thinking is out of date, and so in need of updating when viewed from a universals perspective. The data is available to achieve that updating but it then comes down to LOCAL dynamics and the ethics realm of "should I?, ought I?" ;-)

- there is an issue here in that the realm of the universals ARE ON ALL PATHS such that the FACT nature overrides any LOCAL, ethical, considerations over the long term; if one ignores the facts they will not go away and over time one's position becomes increasingly 'extreme' until any change in perspective can be extreme and so feeds back on the self to make things more extreme!

Change is inevitable, especially when new information comes regarding universals etc. - this is not about the realm of ethics where different moral perspectives operate in parallel, universals are about sameness not differences so dont confuse that.

Chris.
 

martin

visitor
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
11
The issue here is not a focus on ethics. It is that the scientific method - as it is currently - is relatively blind for certain aspects of reality.
We ARE talking 'physics' here, at least that is what I am talking about. I focus on what-is and then note that science doesn't cover all of that. It evidently has problems with the detection (and explanation) of synchronistic events, for instance. We could say, slightly exaggerating, that science is as blind as a bat in certain areas.

Of course there are many scientists who are aware of this blindness but opinions differ as to how "deep" the problem is. Some maintain that fundamental changes will be necessary while others believe that the "paradigm shifters" make way too much fuzz and that science will almost automatically correct itself as it plods along.

What concerns me at the moment is not so much this discussion about what the problem really is as the tendency to deny the existence of phenomena that science - for whatever reason - cannot detect or account for.
This tendency is unfortunately widespread and that is what I take issue with. As I said before, this does not imply that I'm anti science. And the issue is not an ethical one, it is 'physics', what-is.
I don't allow science to decide for me what is real and what is not real. Is that difficult to understand?
 

lightofdarkness

visitor
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
Scientific method focuses on formal steps that are reflected in Buddhism and the four noble truths.

That said, as I am sure you are aware, within the Institutions of Science and of Buddhism are 'traits' that are more focused on political dynamics, power games etc. and basic primate social dynamics.

Science as such could not care less about you - you are just 'data'; something/someone LOCAL - and so unique but lacking immediate universality other than your species-nature (or unless you have 'charisma' and so open to investigation from some social psychologist! ;-))

Buddhism does appear to care about you or more so the development of consciousness and 'your' contribution - but in that sense again you are 'data' ;-)

The focus is on building up information re reality , consciousness etc that spans generations and as such transcends 'you'; the contributions are to the collective.

Now if you contribute to Science or to Buddhism then you become known, recognised etc., otherwise, you are nothing but 'data'.

Science does not focus on the LOCAL, the immediate other than as data to be used to draw out universals, REPEATABLE patterns of 'meaning' etc. and so can PREDICT the local IN GENERAL.

Thus when you see a rainbow you see a rainbow, the moment, the intenseness of the moment, the colours etc etc etc and with that you will describe that experience in a personal narrative etc etc and so highly subjective and thats fine.

When a scientist sees a rainbow he/she may see the immediate but also sees what is BEHIND it that makes it REPEATABLE in GENERAL and so PREDICTABLE in GENERAL given conditions X,Y, and Z etc. It is what is BEHIND it that is more 'attracting' ;-)

The overall focus in 'physics' is on (a) PURE forms (universals derived from theoretical) and (b) Empirical - experiments on LOCALS that aid in eliciting a GENERAL, a UNIVERSAL.

In LOGIC the traditional focus is on REASON, on the 'pure' - there has been a bias to considering logic as not having any empirical elements, it is all a priori - but IDM shows this to be 'mistaken', there IS an empirical element.

if we reduce this to basic persona types (as is possible given research into personas and so general personality expressions etc) then the focus of WHAT WAS/WHAT IS/WHAT WILL BE is a focus on (a) sensation seeking and/or (b) security seeking and an overall bias to 'yang'.

Emotionally that covers (a) anger and sex (direct replacement) and/or (b) rejection and anticipation (of wrong doing)

In the realm of Science the focus is more on WHAT COULD BE, IS NOT, COULD HAVE BEEN (and so yin bias). earth/mountain and thunder/fire dominate (recall the mapping of Buddhism to mountain etc and new ideas, maps etc to thunder/fire))

Deriving algorithms and formulas, seeing BEHIND things, DELAYS gratification over some immediate 'hit' - the focus is LONG TERM, not short term - BUT with the detection of formulas/algorithms so the short term is achieved more efficiently. - we have richer 'toolkits' to deal with reality. IOW we see a dynamic of moral vs natural philosophies.

As such, the Institution of Science can be 'conservative' and rightly so. Findings are published and experimental design is 'rigid' to allow for repeatability and falsification. Arguements are with references at 10 paces, rather than AK47s (the latter being a property more strongly associated with ethical dynamics re right/wrong 'my god' vs 'your god' (with no proof of 'god', just personal beliefs - all very 'primate'-like))

Thus there is a LOT of anecedotal material that is still 'outstanding' in that it is in need of investigation - lots of "WHAT IS", "AS IS" states still in need of research - simple; Science is an ongoing, piecemeal, process focused on universals so dont expect it to cover everything, explain everything 'NOW'. It plays with the bandwidth/time dichotomy and so some stuff is known NOW and other will take time. OVERALL we are moving to an increase in understanding, identifying universals but this is not NOW. IDM can help in dealing with the complex languages and so speed-up some comprehension but TIME is an essential part of all of this - we can maximise BANDWIDTH to a point, then we have to 'wait' and that can span generations.

Over time Science will come up with material that will in some way cover the issues you raise - if that is in YOUR lifetime or not is of no concern to Science, it is not here to satisfy YOU, it is here to aid in the development of the collective even if some are focused, driven, by personal 'needs to know'.

As to the 'troubles' associated with Science, it is more often the science-ignorant who USE the products of Science for some local dispute without consideration of consequences (and in doing so often ignore the warnings from the scientists about those consequences - the ERROR here is the PASSIVE nature of scientists in the context of social dynamics, there is a degree of 'seperation' and even 'ivory tower-ness' combined with an ease in being exploited and so compromised ethically)

What CAN help in this is in directing perspectives not AGAINST each other but THROUGH some third where the competitive can swing to become cooperative - where is that third? The IC.

Chris.
 

martin

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

Sure, science can be slow sometimes. It has to go through the ritual. Even math can be terribly slow. It took about 350 years to prove the last theorem of Fermat. It was already clear for quite some time that Fermat was probably right (for the wrong reasons, though, it's very unlikely that he indeed had a proof) but there was still no formal proof.
But that is not the problem. I don't expect instant gratification. The reality principle is functioning as it should in my case, well, usually.

You probably know how the research of the Gauquelins was received in the scientific world. I have studied their work and I think it was good research, better in fact than a lot of research that I have seen in the social sciences. Others who had access to the raw data (which I had not) checked their statistical methods and calculations and found nothing wrong with them.
Of course, with work like this, there can always be doubt about the interpretation of the results but it didn't deserve the reception that it got.
Eysenck and Nias of London University write (in "Astrology, science or superstition?"): "We have come to the definite conclusion that the critics have often behaved in an irrational and scientifically unusual manner, violating principles that they themselves have laid down, failing to adhere to their own rules .."
And "We have not found any similar misdemeanor on the part of the Gauguelins, who seem to have behaved throughout in a calm, rational and scientifically acceptable manner, meeting criticism by appropriate re-analysis of the data, by the collection of new data, however laborious the process might have been, and by rational argument. We do not feel that the 'scientific' community emerges with any great credit from these encounters."

That is the problem. Not science itself, but scientists (and science minded outsiders), people who react with blind and irrational denial when confronted with phenomena that do not fit in with their beliefs. Even when they are, as in this case, presented with results of solid research that meets the standards of science.
 

martin

visitor
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
11
XOR!

->
1. Science as a method
2. Science as an institution
3. Certain beliefs that are quite common among scientists and science minded outsiders.

(1) The method is fine, it works. Not that there are no issues. For instance in psychology / anthropology the issue of objectivity. Can I become part of a group/culture that I study or should I remain an outsider? Opinions differ.

(2) Yes, power games, politics, cliques, charismatic leaders, "popes". Was it Kuhn who said that such problems ultimately solve themselves because those who are an obstacle to progress are mortal?

(3) This is what I focused on in my previous posts. The 'believers' tend to deny that they believe in anything. They are generally unaware of their assumptions. "Science has proven X" while "X?" is in fact scientifically an open question. Religious over- and undertones. Dogmatism. Fundamentalism. The believers look in the mirror of fundamentalist religion and hate what they see: themselves.
 

martin

visitor
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
11
Of course there are links between (2) and (3) so the XOR may not be entirely XOR, more like OR.
Anyway, it's a bit more precise, I hope ..
 

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