...life can be translucent

Menu

Hexagram 15. Ch'ien / Modesty

Sparhawk

One of those men your mother warned you about...
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 17, 1971
Messages
5,109
Reaction score
75
BTW, Chris, is that POV anywhere in your site notes?

L
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
sparhawk said:
You know what,? it makes some logical sense to me. Thanks. This point of view is very interesting. Not sure if I will ever be able to dare switch line results but I think is useful as another perspective. As a corollary, I wonder if these reactive/proactive biases --let's call them "big picture biases"-- are cyclical in any way...

L

they are. See the material on history in my "Language of the Vague" page:

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/Vague.pdf

The interesting parts are on recent work in small world networks that indicate a 'destiny' aspect or more so the 'purpose' encoded into each hexagram/event where no matter what 'random' events experienced, the goal is achieved. This gets into previous comments on superdeterminism. The references covered are:

Marx, K., ([1859]) Dobb,M.(ed)(1970)"A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy" International Publishers
Fidlon David, (trans) - Various(1968)"Historical Materialism : Basic Problems" Progress Publishers, Moscow
Cohen, G.A. (1978)"Karl Marx's Theory of History" PUP
Elster, J., (1985)"Making Sense of Marx [part 2:theory of history]" CUP
Gladwell, M., (2000)"The Tipping Point" Little Brown
Buchanan, M., (2002)"Small World" Phoenix
Wolff, J.,(2002)"Why Read Marx Today?" OUP
Popper, K., (2002)"The Povery of Historicism" Routledge
Barabasi, A-L (2002)"Linked : The New Science of Networks" Perseus
Strogatz, S., (2003)"Sync" Allen Lane
Watts, J.D., (2003)"Six Degrees" Heinemann
Ball, P., (2004)"Critical Mass : How one thing leads to another"Heinemann


BUT - note that this development/'purpose' focus works on social COLLECTIVES where there are no 'unique' individuals, just a lot of 'same' - it covers the millions of sperm required to get ONE/FEW to fertilise an egg. The purpose is present as a genetic 'drive' to fertilise and the success is due to numbers; thus MANY die by lack of 'swimming' power or being blocked/distracted etc etc

When we introduce neural complexity we introduce a PROACTIVE state - we can pre-empt, plan etc we are not dumped into some channel and 'go for it' - crossing our fingers at the same time! - proactivity means natural selection becomes conscious selection.

What the IC+ work shows is PURPOSE for EACH hexagram expression, we can identify its 'begin' and 'end' focus but it is exposure of such IN NUMBERS that allow for the, ensure the reaching of the, goal.

Thus the determinism IS present in the IC but the error is in not recognising these representations as ideals. What the questions method does is bring in 'micromanagement' by allowing the 'random' consciousness to mediate and so be more proactive in achieving a goal (or allowing one to change goals to some degree!)

Chris.
 

martin

visitor
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
25
lightofreaoson said:
From the IC+ perspective super determinism is a dead end, sterile, corrupt and in need of 'correction'

Not only from the IC+ perspective. Traditional divination goes very well with an open undetermined future where there is plenty of room for initiative and free will. And even for randomness, although the coins or whatever is used are supposed to behave non-random in the divination setting.
There is no need for a belief in superdeterminism.

There is also nothing particularly 'reactive' about the use of oracles. Oracles have been and still are a source of information that help people to get more insight into their situation and make better decisions.
I would agree that oracles CAN be used in a reactive way (in combination with deterministic beliefs) but so can nearly everything else, including Google and IC+.
Or a book. As the Sufis say: every book can be used as a pillow to sleep on.
 

Sparhawk

One of those men your mother warned you about...
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 17, 1971
Messages
5,109
Reaction score
75
lightofreason said:
Thus the determinism IS present in the IC but the error is in not recognising these representations as ideals. What the questions method does is bring in 'micromanagement' by allowing the 'random' consciousness to mediate and so be more proactive in achieving a goal (or allowing one to change goals to some degree!)

Chris.

People, behold!!!! :D

Seriously though, that bias POV was very enlightening and useful. Thanks.

L
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
martin said:
... As the Sufis say: every book can be used as a pillow to sleep on.

Sleep on a pillow?! - I have a tough time on a single bed! -- and then comes 23 with its 're-configuration' dynamic - but then books get pruned as well... the pillow gets smaller and one ends up with a pillow the size of a Reader's Digest.
 

dobro p

visitor
Joined
May 19, 1972
Messages
3,043
Reaction score
46
lightofreason said:
if you believe this then there is no need to use the sticks at all. Super determinism 'says' that all is foreseen, even the act of questioning superdeterminism is foreseen ;-) This is REALLY reactive, passive stuff - it means do nothing since all will be done no matter what you try to do to express 'freedom'.

No, you should have asked me more first.

I think that people are on different levels of freedom, depending on how much work they've done on themselves. And I believe that the Yi accurately reflects that. Just as you can take a picture of a robot and you can take a picture of a free person, you can get useful Yi results whatever your level of being. For me, the Yi is a mirror or reflection or echo of what is. I also think that you can use the Yi in a way that enhances your tendencies to freedom, or you can use it in a way that reinforces your conditioning. But the freedom (or lack of it) is in the person and how they use the Yi; it isn't in the Yi itself. The Yi's a very flexible mirror.
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
dobro said:
... But the freedom (or lack of it) is in the person and how they use the Yi; it isn't in the Yi itself. The Yi's a very flexible mirror.

As in any mirror, It is a closed system - you cannot go outside of yin/yang, all you can do is make finer distinctions. In that making, the number of elements in the set of all distinctions is 'outside' of immediate conscious awareness. From a post I did recently to a different list:

-----------------------
"Our consciousness is a specialist tool, it acts as an agent of mediation to aid in the development of instincts/habits. It is limited in awareness to 7+/-2 events at the same time - but if the number of choices of event etc is far greater than 9 we can sense that and feel 'free will' - the free will is in fact limited in scope but the set of choices can contain a 'snow in the sahara' event - rare, far from equilibrium, but equilibrium is quickly restored.

The uniqueness of our individual consciousness maps consciousness to the dynamics of randomness where from the random comes 'pure' information in the form of something irreducible; not compressed, no redundancy. - The Markovian perspective is the present predicts the next, no history applicable.

This SINGULAR nature of ours works WITHIN a PARTICULAR nature that is determined in the form of our genetics as specialist members of the species, and that WITHIN our GENERAL nature as a species. Thus in the particular/general realms history plays a vital part in decision making etc.

As such, levels of determinism are general, free-will particular. BUT then comes determinism at the particular, free-will at the singular. All issues of hierarchy.

Given the nature of the singular, conscious decisions work off a set of possibles that allow for a novel decision in a determined context where the decision allows for an escape from the instinct/habit involved in interacting with that context. As such our consciousness is Darwin's mutation now working 24/7 rather than over millennia.

Since the range of mutation is SET by limits of the context, and we can define the set of POSSIBLE generic forms given the limits, so we can predict from a probabilities position all outcomes. It is the SELECTION of which outcome is the 'best fit' that brings in 'free will' where an 'out of context' call can enable escape from a situation or the exploitation of a situation to one's advantage - thus the push of context can be pushed against through 'free will' aka 'random' or 'unique' behaviours."
------------

Education/experience etc goes to making 'refined' choices and so exposure to the IC and XOR material will, over time, extend the awareness of the distinctions, link the dots, for one to work off intuition - thus the context pushes but the responses are 'smooth' due to our education and development of a rich associative memory. It is this development of 'smoothness' that indicates a 'superior'.

If you live off instincts alone, then the context will still push but the responses will lack understanding. Super determinism requires no understanding, just faith ;-) - the issues of course are in a need to kill someone and claim that 'god' pushed me to do it! yeh - right!!

The problem with superdeterminism is that it allows for fundamentalism, literal interpretations of texts rather than seeing the figurative. IT reflects a 'random' focus in that the present determines the future, no history considered - a common theme in fundamentalism is on being 'born again' - no history ;-) (OTHER THAN that supplied by Bible/Koran/Tora etc etc etc - all historical documents! --- OR, even better, evangelical states, direct communication with 'god' or some other 'spirit'. "God just told me to kill you...." -- lots of entries in DSM-IV for this!

Chris.
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
BTW - superdeterminism is a pure yin state - total devotion to another/others where all filtration (five-phase EARTH) is unconditional, supplied in the rules of religious or secular texts. It is a form of freedom in which one takes no responsibility for it - one does as one likes since it is believed to be determined!

Add some yang and we move to mountain and the conditional filtration where YOU can come up with context-sensitive variations. Keep going and we move to the other end of the dimension - pure yang and THAT is all mediation, high energy EXCHANGE focus (five-phase METAL) - this end gets into SELF determination, SELF-devotion, self-regulation, self-maintainance, and is competitive, can lead to transcendence but in doing do can also lead to madness.

ITS focus is on knowing ALL of the entanglements of the IC, internalising it as such rather than having it as an external reference (and so the blend outwards is a blend inwards!) - there is a focus on skill development etc.

These paths can lead into the same intelligence in that the associative memory is refined - but with yin it is all 'magic' since there is no understanding of history that seeds things. In yang the rules are known due to mediation dynamics, the competitiveness elicits refined skills. BUT from yang we can over do it to become a 'god' and so charismatic dynamics emerge and the yang becomes what is followed by, internalised by, the yin. - this is fundamentalism from the position of the charismatic leader rather than follower.

If we dont over do it, if we refine the skills and become intuitive without seeking to take over the world we become yin - filtration takes over, we conserve energy but KNOWINGLY - in other words the yin is now at a higher level or plane of being (which is what you are getting at re different people)

Chris.
 

dobro p

visitor
Joined
May 19, 1972
Messages
3,043
Reaction score
46
frank_r said:
So I don't see a very big difference, if you use a questionairy or at random. it is both a mirror of your state of mind. They are both working, your method and also the at random method.

Yeah, that's what I think. The first part at least, that's what I understand. The second part as well, I'm thinking, just cuz it sounds nice. (Doing it for that reason is a random act, by the way :)

frank_r said:
The only reason more people think that a questionairy is better is because that has the Mandate of heaven at the moment and at random not. Science only needs a paradigme shift to see that on a certain level at random also works and for some area's even better.

What's a questionairy? Cuz if it's anything like a questionnaire, I'm not interested. You're not a telemarketer, are you?
 

dobro p

visitor
Joined
May 19, 1972
Messages
3,043
Reaction score
46
lightofreason said:
As in any mirror, It is a closed system - you cannot go outside of yin/yang... Chris.

Sure you can. Cuz you're the observer of the snapshot in the mirror. You know there's more to you than that. So it's not a closed system, especially since, if you're anything like me, you have no ideas of the dimension of what that 'there's more to you than that' might be, but you sense it's vast - so vast that it goes not just way beyond the snapshot in the mirror, but probably way beyond yin/yang even. That don't sound like a closed system to me.
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
dobro said:
Sure you can. Cuz you're the observer of the snapshot in the mirror. You know there's more to you than that. .. .

the mirror is a product of the context it reflects - be it a reflection in the surface of a lake, or in a manufactured mirror. The mirror is not free of the context, it is part of it - as are you. Since you reflect the basic information processing of the context so your reflection in the mirror does the same. There is no need for trying to look 'past' the mirror, all you need to do is to focus many mirrors around you to capture the 3D in 2D (or else just use a hologram - a focus possible given the neurology findings to date).

Since yin/yang is a local dichotomy covering the general dichotomy hard-coded into our brains so trying to see 'outside' of the set of POSSIBLE categories, but limited to using those categories for description, will only elicit paradox; given the adaptations of differentiating/integrating there is nothing observable beyond that - see the comments etc in the page:

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/paradox.html

The issue is more having the NEED for there to be 'more' - given the range of what there IS I dont see the need for such a need ;-) - we are still playing with 64 when there is a realm of 4096 to flesh out (and that goes WAY beyond line comments! - just as there are 64 aspects to a hexagram, so there are 4096 aspects to a dodecagram - and so 16+million categorties of possible meaning! - all of this not from going outside of the bounds, but from making finer distinctions WITHIN the bounds - and whats more this is all POTENTIALS - then there are all of the contexts to apply all of the potentials! - there is no need for anything 'outside', there is an abundance of stuff inside still in need of analysis)

Chris.
 

frank_r

visitor
Joined
Jun 20, 1971
Messages
639
Reaction score
12
dobro said:
What's a questionairy? Cuz if it's anything like a questionnaire, I'm not interested. You're not a telemarketer, are you?

Yes, I'm such a huge guy, with a grey beard and wearing socks of wool and sandals.
 

Sparhawk

One of those men your mother warned you about...
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 17, 1971
Messages
5,109
Reaction score
75
frank_r said:
Yes, I'm such a huge guy, with a grey beard and wearing socks of wool and sandals.

Hemmingway in Havana?!?!? :rofl:

L
 

martin

visitor
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
25
lightofreason said:
The problem with superdeterminism is that it allows for fundamentalism, literal interpretations of texts rather than seeing the figurative. IT reflects a 'random' focus in that the present determines the future, no history considered - a common theme in fundamentalism is on being 'born again' - no history ;-) (OTHER THAN that supplied by Bible/Koran/Tora etc etc etc - all historical documents! --- OR, even better, evangelical states, direct communication with 'god' or some other 'spirit'. "God just told me to kill you...." -- lots of entries in DSM-IV for this!

What on trigram earth are you talking about? What has this to do with the I Ching? You mix up everything with everything, I have rarely seen so much confusion and you are supposed to be a scientist?!
Get a hold on your Neptune man! :D
 

Sparhawk

One of those men your mother warned you about...
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 17, 1971
Messages
5,109
Reaction score
75
frank_r said:
Do you recognice me?

Yeah!! That arm behind the center most "Hemmingway" is yours... :D

L
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
martin said:
What on trigram earth are you talking about? What has this to do with the I Ching? You mix up everything with everything, I have rarely seen so much confusion and you are supposed to be a scientist?!
Get a hold on your Neptune man! :D

get your act together - this is ALL about the I Ching in the methods of interpretation being literal and reflecting fundamentalism; childmindedness; escape etc etc etc - you really do need to try and understand the Science behind your Art. There is nothing confusing here - all I see is you showing lack of association skills - you are still 'young' ;-) - go through XOR, learn something about how it is all entangled and how basic fundamentalism behaviours are manifest in, described by, the IC.
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
martin said:
Lol, hello Aries! :D

tsk tsk - such lack of precision! you forgot virgo rising, Saturn in Virgo, Moon in Cancer, mars, venus, mercury, sun setting etc etc etc
 

martin

visitor
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
25
Well, it is very Aries. Sun, Mars, Mercurius and Venus in that sign.
Opposed by Neptune. Projecting Neptunian stuff on others? Hey!

Talking about precision, Saturn is not in Virgo, it's still in Leo. :D
 

Sparhawk

One of those men your mother warned you about...
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 17, 1971
Messages
5,109
Reaction score
75
yicard15.jpg
 

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