...life can be translucent

Menu

Hilary's blog on 6,7,8 sequence

lightofdarkness

visitor
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
1
Hilary, there are LOTS of derived sequences, the traditional one being one of them. The 'natural' sequence derives from a STRUCTURAL focus on qualities that get labelled as yin/yang. The methodology (recursion) reflects the development of a language - but at this level of analysis each level of recursion will elicit a set of QUALITIES rather than letters and those qualities are usable to describe 'all there is'; and so there is an immediacy about hexagrams as compared to having to string letters together to derive meaning.

Included in that description of the IC as a language are such abilities to see a lunar cycle in 384 lines or a seasons calendar (four seasons, two seasons, whatever you like). These perspectives are very AND oriented - link things together, but in that pespective you can exclude a lot, the XOR side of things, the structural content etc.

What our brains come up with are the qualities but they are unconscious; what experience comes up with are 'small world networks' derived from exposure of the universal qualities to local contexts.

Summing the 'small world networks' allows us to bring out the universal elements 'behind' the perspectives - e.g. the traditional interpretatons etc of the IC - these are of course vague but serve to refine our understandings and show us a language system pre the spoken/written word - coming out of the Psyche rather than the Ego (and the psyche path comes out of our species-nature where these qualities have their roots - Psyche is 'specialist' in that it has a visual bias, as ego has a serial, auditory, bias)

Sure the qualities of 6, 7, 8 are linked by water but then so is 5. Due to the language factor so we can derive meanings from associations of hexagrams into pairs etc and all extracted from different sequences.

Thus 5,6 and 7,8 form pairs and we can derive meaning from them (a focus on a need to compromise etc in 5,6 - establish uniformity/unity in 7,8 etc). Move to the binary and we have:

5,9
6,47
7,4
8,20

and all 'meaningful' - the scope of 'blending, bonding, bounding, and binding' is huge in that that scope covers all our neurology/cognition can deal with - LOCAL labels then establish relationships - note that the recursion of yin/yang means all is linked together and as such 'anything' is possible as a potential, then comes the issue of actualisations and they can be spot on or 'vague' depending on context.

The focus is on a 'logic of relationships' where recursion can generate sequences mapping qualities of one pair into all of the others in some way - thus the binary focus, the structural focus, is on ordering yin(2) to yang(1). In that order of 32 pairs each PAIR is such that the elements of each are 'the same' as 2 is to 1. (and so 02/23, 08/20 etc reflect relational qualities similar to the global relationship of 02 to 01 - "A is to B as Y is to Z" - the commonest theme in the binary is being the unconditional/conditional natures of the elements in those pairs; (and we can map-in a lot of other dichotomies applicable but biased to positive/negative etc and so relative - unconditional/conditional is the 'best fit' dichotomy that is 'neutral' in colourings - and so 02 is unconditional darkness or unconditional devotion to another etc)

The 'traditional' focus is more on qualities derived from mapping the qualities of 1/64 (pure/mixed - and so in a context of purity we have 01/02 where 02 is closer to 64 and 01 is self-referencing).

We can generate sequences that reflect ANY binary sequence 'opposites' mapping their qualities into pairs (e.g. a sequence of 23/43 gives us all hexagrams mapped into pairs where element A/B are to each other as 23 is to 43 etc etc)

There is a LOT of material at the level of the universal in need of fleshing-out and in so doing aid in understanding the more 'specialist' perspectives, the local context interpretations/projections etc.
 

kevin

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Jan 11, 1973
Messages
748
Reaction score
82
Hi Chris

Proposal:

The Yijing is a representation of a chaos system.

If so: There are infinite paths which can create models. - or infinite truths indeed.

Thus your perspective can demonstrate a degree of logical coherance, as can that of the early bronze age sage scrawling out the first texts...

Choose one or any other... it will not be truth, or it will not be absolute.

If my proposal that this is a chaos system is correct then we are all on thin ice.

I think maths has demonstrated that the pursuit of singular truths is dead... Singular models are false? Bye bye Newton.

In this light I embrace your approach.... and add that it is as flawed as mine.

?

--K
 

kevin

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Jan 11, 1973
Messages
748
Reaction score
82
Hi Chris - Please read online - major edit - thanks

--K
 

lightofdarkness

visitor
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
1
K - a longish, buthopefully informative, reply:

The TRADITIONAL I Ching reflects a small world network and as such is also a METAPHOR for the full range of POSSIBLE expressions as defined by our neurology. (for diagrams etc see material and associated links in:
http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/icstruct.html )

The 'chaos' element is in the differentiations, the more cuts so the more borders created so the more we let loose what lives on borders - complexity/chaos dynamics - in the form of different interpretations of the one 'thing' - each local context elicits a variation on a hexagram interpretation etc., since the conscious perspective is particular, not general. There is as such an 'ad hoc' manner in identifying universals.

However, these days, through understanding the METHODOLOGY we use, so we can map-out the GENERAL and use it to aid us in our expressing of particulars. IOW we know, in general, what the regular network looks like etc and so can refine our understandings of the IC as a universal.

ALL meaning has its roots in definite qualities we all share as neuron-dependent life forms - differences come out in the LOCAL associations of those qualities with local context - IOW we all have a sense of 'wholeness' aka 'blending' but WHAT we associate with that sense is locally determined.

If, in that determination it is found to 'fit' the collectives mapping of wholes and the species mapping of wholes then we have a universal where the association of X to Y maps across all levels of knowing - and we can flesh this out by summing all the particular expressions and in so doing being out universal patterns.

The realm of complexity/chaos comes out of cutting the whole and in so doing allowing for 'emergences' in interpretations but the bounds of interpretations are set by the neurology - anything outside of those bounds will be interpreted from within those bounds and in doing so present as if paradox (see my page:

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

Mathematics is shown to be a metaphor as well in that it symbolises wholes, parts, static relationships, dynamic relationships, and their composites (as covered in IDM).

The IC can be used to describe a complexity/chaos system, as it can be used to describe anything else due to its overall structure that is a language used to describe 'all there is' - being FINITE, and focused on qualities etc its descriptions will be, in most cases, by analogy/metaphor.

The DEGREE of description reflects what level of recursion we are using, what language we are using (in the sense of possible representations).

Thus at the yin/yang level all is general and absolute. At 2^3 we have a language based on trigrams, at 2^6 on hexagrams, at 2^12 on dodecagrams (compressed into hexagrams with changing lines).

The regular network represented in our neurology is where all is connected together - and recursion ensures that in the context of meaning derivation BUT although the recursion is possibly infinite, we lose resolution at a certain point and so no more 'cuts' are possible - we are then dealing with a continuum and it is FINITE even if hard to imagine as such ;-)

The realm of complexity/chaos theory is about STRUCTURE within the dynamics, and so behind all of the 'noise' are patterns of bifurcations etc that reflect recursive processes at work - and so the IC is also about the UNCHANGING as well as about CHANGE. (see my page "The Book of Structures" - http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/icstruct.html )

The Bronze age texts reflect a PART of the WHOLE that is identifiable when one works from the level of universals etc. Simply put, they had no idea what they were dealing with but did a good job with their 'limited' perspective - they used analogy/metaphor to existing history/myths etc to communicate the qualities inherant in the IC, sourced in the universal qualities unconscious to us.

With OUR current perspective (neurosciences, cognitive science, psychology etc) we can do better - as I have repeatedly emphasised before, every person on this planet can generate a LOCAL I Ching equivalent, but despite the 'chaos' element, reviewing all texts will bring out the regular network that seeds them all - and THAT network is a universal for all neuron-dependent life forms; but in us there is more detail etc etc etc we use longer 'words' ;-)

The traditional approach lacks fuller, precise, comprehension re the IC as an example of a language. Most traditionalists dont know that and/or dont appreciate the fact since to appreciate the fact means having to come to grips with the size of what they are in fact dealing with - the very structure of our being in the context of meaning derivation.

Pragmatics means that we deal with 64/4096 qualities to describe 'all there is' (as we deal with 26 letters and 10 digits etc). To go beyond that means to move from 4096 to 16+million - too much and not necessary.

Given the FINITE nature of our language, so we refine it through discernment, we make 'quality' associations to aid in dealing with potentially infinite contexts - we recognise the use of analogy/metaphor in using what has been fleshed-out for one context to describe another etc.

Chris.
 

kevin

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Jan 11, 1973
Messages
748
Reaction score
82
I read your post very carefully. Thank you for taking so much trouble.

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

The Bronze age texts reflect a PART of the WHOLE that is identifiable when one works from the level of universals etc. Simply put, they had no idea what they were dealing with but did a good job with their 'limited' perspective - they used analogy/metaphor to existing history/myths etc to communicate the qualities inherent in the IC, sourced in the universal qualities unconscious to us.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

Absolutely agree with you on this. The texts are very good starting points.

Currently I have been working to unpack the symbolism represented in the trigrams as parts (or vocabulary) and the hexagrams as dynamic exchanges between those parts. I think there is a lot there which the text summarises. However in summarising it does limit it to specifics.

I think I can appreciate more what you are trying to do in your approach now.

Thanks
 

pagan

visitor
Joined
Jan 6, 1970
Messages
198
Reaction score
3
I think the crucial point that Chris is making is the notion that there is a way to apply the IC in such a way that it is free of local bias and that being so, the method that he advocates is 'true' regardless of what else is also true--Chaos Theory, Creationist theory etc.

What is unique about all true metaphysical systems is the fact that they are always able to describe every facet and iota in life, regardless of how many millions of years of evolution pass, regardless of the local contexts that are assigned to any one part of the metaphysical system. The kings and queens and knights in Tarot have their equivalents in today's society but in transferring the meaning over you lose some of the archetypal value that our species consciousness already knows at a very deep level.

Take astrology for example. It is a universal system. The Chaldeans developed a religion around it called the Chaldean astral religion. The Greeks and Romans personified these same core planetary forces into colorful Gods and Goddesses. We base astrology on the movements of heavenly bodies, and the angular relationships they make. But, if you look into the world of the very small, what makes the difference between ice and liquid water is also the ANGULAR relationships of atoms within a molecule.
Even if all the planets fell out of our solar system, the system of astrology would still be completely valid, because it is not dependent on any external thing to make it valid.

When you fuss and fight over what the meaning of say for example, hex 36 line 5, you can talk about that certain personality in history: "Prince Chi lived at the court of the evil tyrant Chou Hsin, who, although not mentioned by name, furnished the historical example on which this whole situation is based. Prince Chi was a relative of the tyrant and could not withdraw from the court; therefore he concealed his true sentiments and feigned insanity. Although he was held a slave, he did not allow external misery to deflect him from his convictions." (Wilhelm)

This historical moment is used to describe the meaning of this line, but it isn't required. If there never was a Prince Chi, the fifth line of hexagram 36 would carry the exact same universal meaning regardless. Leaving in these colorful examples in history helps us ground ourselves in the archetypal nature of the line, but they can also be flawed to the point that the farther you get away from that historical moment, the less clarity there is about the event, and so the more contamination can infuse the meaning of that line.

The meaning of any hexagram or line can be derived through the careful and profound study of the progressively complex relationships between yang and yin. You never have to have the commentaries, the Zhouyi (sp?) or any historical references to gain the meanings of the hexagrams and lines. You just need to possess the level of insight equal to Buddha or equivalent.

When Chris says:
"The traditional approach lacks fuller, precise, comprehension re the IC as an example of a language. Most traditionalists don't know that and/or don't appreciate the fact since to appreciate the fact means having to come to grips with the size of what they are in fact dealing with - the very structure of our being in the context of meaning derivation."

This statement can scare the bejesus out of anyone who would prefer a more romantic explanation of existence. But I think what doesn't come across well in Chris's communication is that the entire paradigm that he asserts is based on the relationship(s) of yin and yang as they grow more and more complex.

This is the essential core truth of EVERY metaphysical system. And I will go so far as to say that if this were not the truth about a specific metaphysical system, then that system is not valid.

Furthermore, I think it is becoming clearer and clearer to hard core physicists that this increasing complexity of yin and yang is the basic truth of all physical existence as well. Mother nature tends to hum the same tune over and over again, in many different styles and rhythms. But it is the same tune: yin, yang, yang yinness, yin yangness, yang yin yangness, yin yang yiness and so on and on and on to infinitum. We can also look at the fact that the whole multifaceted magnificence of nature was built out of two things; hydrogen and helium. How could just two atoms, as gases, make a tree and a person and a car? Beneath it is yin and yang; that is what the whole world is built out of.

So, the bottom line is you may not want to take the time to sort through Chris's infinitely complex formulas, but to understand the basis of them is to understand that he is simply following a logical pattern of order that happens quite spontaneously in nature, although it is not all that easy to comprehend because it becomes so complex so quickly.
 

lightofdarkness

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

The 'success' one gets out of Tarot or Astrology is due to them being specialisations derived from recursion of dichotomies. Those dichotomies are specialist in that they are LOCAL manifestations of GLOBAL dynamics of differentiating/integrating. As such they elicits feelings of 'value' regardless of differentiating reality from the imagined.

The LOCAL forms are in the four elements dichotomies of earth/air, fire/water. These are (a) hierarchic in that first comes earth/air and then its recursion will elicit water/fire, and (b) metaphors for the qualities derived in our neurology from recursion of differentiating/integrating.

It is this association that will give ANY LOCAL, SPECIALIST, perspective enough meaning to be taken literally rather than as metaphor.

Thus the success of the esoteric is due not to their mapping reality but to their mapping the qualities we use to interpret reality, and so within the 'fiction' there is 'fact' - or more so with the imagined are snippets of reality that make the whole system appear is if directly representing reality.

ALL specialisations are DERIVED from associating the ONE set of universal categories we all share as a species to LOCAL contexts. The issue at that point is that there is no DIFFERENCE mapping - a whole is a whole is a whole! So -- we relabel that quality to be more precise, and so whole becomes "Chris" or "Pagan" etc etc - IOW the labels link the universals to a local context and so differentiate that context from all others.

Specialist disciplines will create their own languages in this process of differentiation but in doing so all they do is relabel what we already know - the universal qualities derived from our neurology.

Included in 'specialist disciplines' are (a) each generation, where 'teenage' lingo takes form, and (b) one's own interpretations (given the chance we would all create our own languages to communicate with ourselves! - education stops that)

The 'problem' with the qualities derived from our neurology is that they are universals and as such apply across imagined states as well as real states. Thus, without training in Physics/Astronomy etc etc a successful analogy ('Your nature is like that or that red planet') becomes metaphor (you are Martian in temperament) and then the 'reverse' process takes over where the figurative is literalised - it is believed that Mars affects your behaviour - and so fact and fiction 'mix' - labelled as "guerrilla ontology". (Ignoring for the moment gauqualin's work on planets influences, but we can ignore constellation influences - all of these are METAPHORS for a categorisation system based on circles and connections of points - and so the dimension that comes from recursion of a dichotomy is turned into a compass format - that process will guarantee relationships that are then overlayed with labels)

Given the work in neurosciences we are now in a position to 'deal' with guerrilla ontology, to separate chaff from wheat and so avoid any increase in 'collapse' (all very 23).

The advantage of the IC over all of the other 'esoteric' disciplines is that its form of representation is close to the reality of the neurology - it did not wander off in to rich, colourful, harmonics processing a la Tarot etc etc - it continued with the recursion to go from earth, water, fire, air into earth, mountain, water, wind, thunder, fire, lake, heaven. IOW it maintained 'tight' precision and in doing so captured in its representations the fundamental qualities, the universals, of meaning derivation.


(see my old page "Logic of the Esoteric" - http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/esoter.html)

The richness of the methodology of recursion ensures a richness in any discipline derived using that method - and so a Mathematician will get out of their specialist view the same 'value' as a hard-core Astrologer gets out of theirs. The issues are in mapping the models to reality. As such, Tarot and Astrology are fine as TYPOLOGIES but they contain elements that are, from a Science perspective, 'imaginative' - where the line between figurative and literal 'fades'.

"In" the specialist box, all appears 'fine' until analysis gets too much, we start to hit the walls of the specialisation, it shows 'incompleteness' and that is primarily due to the specialist perspective - time to step out of the box and into the bigger one, the one of our species and so of our neurological and cognitive processes - and that area is what IDM covers.

Each specialisation is its own little world - a small world network. IDM shows (a) the set of GENERIC qualities usable by the species and (b) four specialist category systems demonstrating the general shinning through.

IDM as such is general, not particular, where any particularisation turns it into one of the specialisations (e.g. The I Ching ;-))

As for complexity, sure it can get complex very quickly, all due to its built-in dynamics - but most of that which is summarised in the "Book of Structures" page (http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/icstruct.html) and especially the XOR material, is not that difficult to comprehend (and I have done the extraction process for each hexagram, listed in my pages as summaries, so it is more up to the individual to flesh out interpretation details - or I can do some if you prefer ;-))

Chris.
 

lightofdarkness

visitor
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
1
BTW - Some apparent 'complexity' - what is this matrix about?

23 02 20 08 35 16 12 45
52 15 53 39 56 62 33 31
04 07 59 29 64 40 06 47
18 46 57 48 50 32 44 28
27 24 42 03 21 51 25 17
22 36 37 63 30 55 13 49
41 19 61 60 38 54 10 58
26 11 09 05 14 34 01 43

This is a 64-hexagram sequence folded into an 8 x 8 matrix. The sequence is of what? It is a mapping of the logic of relationships with the core relationship under analysis being that of 23/43; IOW we have applied recursion to the QUALITIES represented in 23/43 to give us a spectrum covering the expression of those qualities spanning a 'dimension' of 64 hexagrams.

IOW, for each PAIR of hexagrams, read top left to bottom right, left-to-right, we are showing the 23/43 dynamic. Thus in the first row (top) we have four pairs all reflecting the 23/43 relationship expressed in the pairs:

23 43 - core relationship A to B
------
23 02 - local X to Y (and so X is to Y as A is to B)
20 08
35 16
12 45

23 is about, in general, PRUNING.
43 is about, in general, SEEDING.

Thus the relationship of the hexagrams above is that of PRUNING to SEEDING.
Thus if 20 is more pruning in nature, so 08 is more seeding, 12 is more pruning, 45 more seeding. Etc etc etc.

For EVERY hexagram we can map out its pairing in different contexts in the form of it being an element of a pair of hexagrams. The different contexts are in the form of the opposite hexagram pairs (01-02, 23-43, 44-24 etc etc)

The 'natural' sequence is the binary one of 02 to 01, (02,23,08,20...) in THAT sequence we have 45 again paired with 12 but in reverse order, 45, 12, and as such the interpretation is '45 is to yin(02) as 12 is to yang(01)'.

There is a LOT of depth here in fleshing out the qualities of hexagrams and their relationships with all of the others. IOW when asked 'what is the dominating relationship of 12 with 45?' (and note the order - in the binary sequence of 01-02 the order is 45,12) the answer is '12 is to pruning as 45 is to seeding'. Focus on the hexagrams themselves and 12 deals with neutralising 'chaff' to focus on the wheat, the 'preferred' faith, whereas 45 deals with the congregating and celebrating of faith and so is more 'seeding'.

Another example is 35/16 where the pruning factor is in 35 in the form of tidying-up a particular that is being brought into the light (and so 'pruning' that particular). OTOH, 16 covers the use of foresight and enthusiasm in planning etc and so is more 'seeding'.

I don?t think any of this is difficult to understand, just that there is a LOT of it and so reflections on this material can take up time! ;-)

The IDM point is that the derivation of all of this material is from understanding the METHOD used to derive the original hexagrams etc - recursion of a dichotomy. IOW there is a LOT to comprehend without going outside to find analogies/metaphors; welcome to the world of self-referencing! ;-)

(to add fuel to the fire, the above sequence is in fact derived from rotation - a basic operator in the IC - Interestingly, it is the TRADITIONAL sequence that does keeps the PAIRS of hexagrams constant under rotation (they just swap their positions)- all other rotations will give different orderings etc - see http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/icmatrix.html )

Chris.
 

aleyn

visitor
Joined
Jul 6, 1970
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
What an interesting discussion about traditional metaphysical systems! While I feel much could be said about excellent points made by Kevin and Chris - you guys have broken some new ground, I think - I would like to add a little footnote to what Pagan said.

Another characteristic of traditional metaphysical systems (besides their tendency to explain everything) is that they are closed systems. This is especially true of the Yi. By selecting a symbol set developing every possible mutation of six incidences of two variables (solid, broken lines), the Yi has made it impossible to expand its footprint. In other words, there can never be a 65, 66 or 67 hexagram - no matter how much new information we learn about the world and the universe. Ironically, the Classic of Change cannot grow and change to accommodate progressively complex and sophisticated understandings of how things are and function. In a way, the Yi is as much an inflexible relic of the past as the astrolabe or the slide rule. A good tool to organize reality as it was understood at a certain point in history, but a little creaky for today's view of the world.

To bring the Yi into the present, one must convert it entirely into a metaphors. This stands for that, that stands for this, and so on. The problem with such metaphors is they are imperfect representations of things we can view directly through our own eyes. Perhaps the metaphors would be an acceptable price to pay if one had confidence in the underlying patterns. But this is where the rigid and inflexible structure of the Yi most clashes with contemporary viewpoints. The universe does not seem to be set and fixed for all time in 64 patterns. The map is too small, too sketchy, and too rigid.
 

aleyn

visitor
Joined
Jul 6, 1970
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
On the other hand . . . what I meant to say is we should not be any great hurry to pull science out of the schools and teach our children the Yi as the explanation for everything. Some things in the world don't fit very well.

But . . . when we talk about the "inner world," that is a different story. I think the Yi is a uniquely valuable tool for exploring the psyche. In that world we cannot see things directly and we must rely on metaphors and symbols to get our bearings. This has nothing to do with ancient system-building. The wisdom of the Yi seems to be organic, asymmetrical, crooked, grown in rocky soil. The truth about human beings cannot, I think, be found in geometric figures and mathematical patterns.
 

lightofdarkness

visitor
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
1
HI Aleyn,

FYI the IC is NOT a closed system of 64 - each level of recursion, where we move from general to particular, makes finer cuts. (and it already is metaphor - the finite nature ensures that - as is common in all languages - we use the ROWS of recursion as our source of representations - see http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/btree.gif).

The root dichotomy of yin/yang, aka integrating/differentiating is huge in size, spans the universe. Each cut makes finer distinctions (the uncarved block is carved ;-)) IOW in creating representations we are moving from general to particular, not particular to general.

In the development of information processing all that can be known is already known in the form of basic qualities used to represent reality. LABELS then elicit difference where they allow us to communicate one context as different to another.

The I Ching goes to a level of 4096 qualities. These are compressed into 64 moving line hexagrams. This process of going from 8 to 64 to 4096 is called 'hyperbolic' development, rather than 2^N we develop N^2.

At the level of 4096 the next step is to 4096^2 = 16+million qualities and that is too much, we dont need that UNLESS we move into high precision engineering etc (and better to use the other specialisation - mathematics to map that since it is better mapped-out in that area, but still reflects the IC (see the IDM material on this).

These 4096 qualities represent 'all there is' and labels then allow us to differentiate - that is a very efficient system - conserving energy.

The main difference here is that the representations are QUALITIES, FEELINGS, and so WHOLES, whereas in the more traditional serial languages the representations are LETTERS that when summed elicit qualities.

If you go through the material in the "Book of Structures" yo may find how 'big' the IC is - or more so its universal form rather than its traditional form. See

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

Note also the XOR section, applicable to each level of recursion where we find the whole encoded in all parts. (this is akin to each hexagram, level 6 stuff, being 'white light' and we can pass it through a spectrometre to get its parts list (the spectral lines that make something unique).

SO - the IC CAN 'grow and change' when viewed from the ICPlus/IDM perspective. The issue is many dont like that or dont understand it or dont want to, they are fine 'as is' ;-)

Perseverence furthers.

BTW - from an EMOTIONAL perspective the ICPlus maps ENOUGH to communicate IN GENERAL and from their our particulars-oriented consciousness can take over.

The IDM material is about a 'species 101' course where we learn about how we make metaphors/analogies etc and so learn to not take too much literally. And note we have 4096 qualities to describe ONE dichotomy! Thats a lot of detail but none have gone there as yet other than the ICPLus/IDM material.

Chris.
 

lightofdarkness

visitor
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
1
"we should not be any great hurry to pull science out of the schools and teach our children the Yi " -

aha - but we should, sort of. In IDM/ICPlus the focus is rooted in science where we can show the patterns of the IC as examples of neurocognitive processes at work in the creation and communication of meaning.

I use four metaphors to show the neurology 'shinning through' - IC, MBTI, categories of human emotions, and the types of numbers used in Mathematics.

The IDM focus is on teaching IDM and using the above four as examples in that teaching. By understanding how our unconscious works in deriving meaning we can understand our specialisations for what they are - metaphors for what the brain deals with - objects and relationships, WHAT/WHERE, differentiating/integrating.

IOW the qualities of the IC are hard-wired into all us, we just need to differentiate them more to understand them and so ourselves.

Chris.
 

martin

visitor
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
29
Hi Chris,

You wrote:
"The advantage of the IC over all of the other 'esoteric' disciplines is that its form of representation is close to the reality of the neurology - it did not wander off in to rich, colourful, harmonics processing a la Tarot etc etc"

I think this is partly an illusion, caused by the binary notation system (whole and broken lines or 1 and 0) that gives a mathematical 'look' to trigrams and hexagrams.
The IC is perhaps less colorful than the Tarot or astrology but it does 'wander' off quite a lot. And in so doing it departs from the mathematical recursive structure that the notation system suggests.
It is often like the authors used the trigrams and hexagrams merely as a canvas on which they painted meanings.
And although every canvas limits the possibilities of what they could paint on it they allowed themselves a lot of freedom. Consequently the relationship between the canvas and the painting (the binary structure and its meaning) is not a tight one, far from it.

It could be said that what the authors did was 'local' and partly ad hoc.
It is certainly local in the sense that they used the metaphores of their culture (we also do that, btw, even in science, for instance information technology metaphores nowadays) and the historical events of that area to describe what they saw in the trigrams and hexagrams
But I doubt that it was ad hoc. My impression is that they never intended to stay close to the structure that is suggested by the notation system.
The idea of recursion was on their mind and it must have had some influence but there were other ideas that also infuenced them.
IMO the IC cannot be reduced to recursion of yin/yang alone. It is more complicated than that. Recursion is only a part of its 'secret' and perhaps not even a very important part.

The same is true for the mind and the nervous system.
Recursion of dichotomies seems to be only one of its many 'tricks'.
How important it is - from the IDM perspective the trick is apparently very important but it doesn't seem to feature very prominently in current neurological studies.
In fact, when I use Google, the universal oracle of our time
happy.gif
, it turns out that a certain author with initials C.L. is one of the very few who writes about recursion as if it is the key to the brain & all & everything.
biggrin.gif


So, if you say "Given the work in neurosciences we are now in a position to 'deal' with guerrilla ontology, to separate chaff from wheat and so avoid any increase in 'collapse'" I must ask who is this WE that is now in this position to deal with named ontology?
I don't know, perhaps Chomsky would agree with you at least partly, but apart from that?
I suspect there is no WE here, or only a very small WE.
It's mainly I, right?
happy.gif
 

lightofdarkness

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

you wrote:
> I think this is partly an illusion, caused by the binary notation
> system (whole and broken lines or 1 and 0) that gives a mathematical
> 'look' to trigrams and hexagrams.

More of a 'precision' look. That said, when working from the universal perspective, you have to deal with the TWO forms of 0/1 in what they REPRESENT. When dealing with a symmetric dichotomy one is dealing with +1/-1 concepts and so 'opposites' (+/-) WITHIN sameness (the 1). When dealing with an asymmetric dichotomy you are dealing with 0/infinity concepts (worthless/priceless, vague/crisp, infra-red/ultra-violet etc) and so covering a spectrum, picking out SAMENESS across DIFFERENCE.

> The IC is perhaps less colorful than the Tarot or astrology but it
> does 'wander' off quite a lot.

The TRADITIONAL IC may do so, but the universal IC is self-referencing such that there is no need for making analogies to external sources (it is like pure mathematics that is also self-referencing).

> And in so doing it departs from the
> mathematical recursive structure that the notation system suggests.
> It is often like the authors used the trigrams and hexagrams merely as
> a canvas on which they painted meanings.

That?s right, and so my comments on the bronze age perspective not knowing what it was dealing with ;-)

> And although every canvas limits the possibilities of what they could
> paint on it they allowed themselves a lot of freedom. Consequently the
> relationship between the canvas and the painting (the binary structure
> and its meaning) is not a tight one, far from it.
>

For the TRADITIONAL IC, sure, but then all they could do to describe the IC was through analogies to surroundings, incapable of mapping out the dynamics of neurons etc directly and so discovering the IC 'in here'.

> It could be said that what the authors did was 'local' and partly ad
> hoc.

Yup - and so they created a small world network thinking their product to be a regular network.

> It is certainly local in the sense that they used the metaphores of
> their culture (we also do that, btw, even in science, for instance
> information technology metaphores nowadays) and the historical events
> of that erea to describe what they saw in the trigrams and hexagrams
> But I doubt that is was ad hoc. My impression is that they never
> intended to stay close to the structure that is suggested by the
> notation system.


As IDM indicates, as species-members they were programmed with the set of all possible qualities that the neurology can deal with. Consciousness, being 'new', had no idea what was going on but was driven to interpret, to mediate, environment with the qualities but ignorant of the full spectrum of those qualities. One of the traits of consciousness in its 'engineering' mode is if something works, use it. Thus engineers where using imaginary numbers before they were accepted by the pure mathematicians!


> The idea of recursion was on their mind and it must have had some
> influence but there were other ideas that also infuenced them.

The idea of recursion was not 'on their mind', it was, still is, a fundamental property OF mind. The creation of the TRADITIONAL IC is a good example of ad-hoc processes at work where as the IC developed so 'new' discoveries were made but a dogma set-in, due to the lack of knowledge about 'in here' combined with an abundance of texts, and so the traditional was born; the 'imperial' edition created; formal dogma set.

If the material I have come up with was known at that time then it would have become part of that dogma (especially the XOR material and the wave natures etc). The fact that it is not part of that dogma indicates it was either 'esoteric', and so in some of the thousands of ancient texts where 'someone' had an inkling (and the traditional associations to line position meanings indicates that) but it was just that - and so not fleshed-out - OR the material was never discovered due to the formal dogma 'limiting' such discoveries.

> IMO the IC cannot be reduced to recursion of yin/yang alone. It is
> more complicated than that. Recursion is only a part of its 'secret'
> and perhaps not even a very important part.
>

Disagree. I think that is your 'romantic' side coming out - if you go through all of the IDM/ICPlus material there is a LOT there that has not been recognised by the more 'traditionalist' perspectives - IOW the secrets are being revealed in general, and from there we work into the realm of particulars. There is a LOT of work here and it may seem to some as overwhelming and so to leave it as 'secret', to continue to discover things 'ad hoc', but from a social development perspective I disagree where GIVEN the opportunity to understand as much as possible you take that opportunity.

Note that my perspective uses IDM to flesh-out the IC and it has been very successful in doing that. As such, the findings in IC, MBTI, emotion categories etc validates the IDM perspective and moves us into a 'new' paradigm re understand our nature and our derivation of meaning.

> The same is true for the mind and the nervous system.
> Recursion of dichotomies seems to be only one of its many 'tricks'.
> How important it is - from the IDM perspective the trick is apparently
> very important but it doesn't seem to feature very prominently in
> current neurological studies.

Current neurological studies are too focused on the trees, they have no focus on the forest and THAT is their problem overall. IDM is focused on MEANING derivation regardless of media, IOW once the method is discovered so it is applicable in carbon or silicon etc etc.

The specialisation game has its upside in the precision it can come up with, but has its downs when it comes to 'big picture' mappings - IDM comes out of the analysis of research in neurosciences, cognitive science, psychology to get that 'big picture'. EACH specialisation is a 'small world network' and as such only an inter-disciplinary, cognitive analysis, of these networks allows one to come up with the regular network that they all represent locally. THAT network is VAGUE (and so the concept of the "Language of the Vague") but in understanding it so we reduce our 'ad-hoc' natures and have a GENERAL understanding of what is going on 'in here'.

> In fact, when I use Google, the universal oracle of our time , it
> turns out that a certain author with initials C.L. is one of the very
> few who writes about recursion as if it is the key to the brain & all
> & everything.
>

IDM is about GENERAL information processing and is original work. Neurology is about information processing in PARTICULAR life forms. As such neurology is specialist and operates with its own language and is focused on invasive and non-invasive mappings of brain function etc. MOST neuroscientists have no knowledge of the IDM material since their specialisations are too specialist - too focused on local details.

If you bothered to go through the abstracts I have collected I think you may start to see what IDM is on about. I USE the research from neurosciences to support the IDM perspectives - and they do, and the perspective works. Simple. ;-)

> So, if you say "Given the work in neurosciences we are now in a
> position to 'deal' with guerrilla ontology, to separate chaff from
> wheat and so avoid any increase in 'collapse'" I must ask who is this
> WE that is now in this position to deal with named ontology?

"We" as a conscious species.

> I don't know, perhaps Chomsky would agree with you at least partly,
> but apart from that?
> I suspect there is no WE here, or only a very small WE.
> It's mainly I, right?
>

Wrong. You still need to do some work to 'get it'. If you are happy where you are, that?s fine - ignore it all - but my feedback is positive and increasing by the day, from neuroscientists, linguists, psychologists ;-) The only publications are what I put on the 'net and on lists like this but that is to be expected with 'new' paradigms ;-)

In the context of the universal IC, if you go through all of the material summarised in http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/icstruct.html you will find that it 'works' - IOW the proof is in the eating, so - if it leaves you with a bad taste in your mouth - don?t eat it. Simple ;-)

The fact of the matter is that you cannot ignore it - you sense there is 'something' here in that you keep coming back to it. I think there is an 'issue' re commitment to it - willingness to sacrifice past perspectives to incorporate the new - and that is understandable in this context - we have a document of 3K+ years of age and all of a sudden we 'discover' a whole lot of 'other' stuff not formally covered in that 3K - Why not? Surely 'someone' would have come across it? No - it all depends on what questions you ask and also how much local dogma has limited one's risk taking.

I am not your average 'well trained' bunny - I have travelled the world too much, seen too much, to accept local dogma and in my travels have picked up things that are in need of explanation from the level of the species (and other neuron-dependent species). The Science perspective is the only one that 'works' at that general level.

Chris.
 

aleyn

visitor
Joined
Jul 6, 1970
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
I agree with Martin in his speculations about the development of the Yi. It is very tempting to run wild with the hexagram symbol set, and posit all sorts of pseudo-mathematical patterns and fake correlations. This is, in fact, exactly the route Chinese thinkers pursued for centuries in developing their "science" of correlative correspondences.

The problem, as Martin points out, is explaining the Zhouyi texts in a convincing way on the basis of their symbolic attachment to specific lines. Theoretically, if structuralists like Chris are correct in their analysis of the Yi, we ought to be able to derive the texts from the symbolic values of the lines. We should be able to hand the 64 hexagrams to an expert, and watch him or her explain the symbolic nature of each line with complete accuracy, perfectly matching the meaning of the received text. Can this be done? No. Why not? Read Martin above.

Having said this, I would like to retract my own statement above about the Yi being too small and limited to map modern life. The fact there are only 64 hexagrams has worried me for a long time. I have also been concerned there are no "escape hatches" in the Yi, no wild cards or unknowns, no waffles or zeros. What if we have misidentified even one of the hexagrams? Think of the consquences! This is not such a wild idea: my memory is that a couple of the hexagrams in the Mawangdui Yi (oldest surviving text) are completely different in meaning from the received text. What does this uncertainty do for the idea that the Yi explains everything? Which Yi?

Neverthess, I have decided I can live with only 64 hexagrams. Does anyone complain there are not enough different playing cards in a standard deck to permit challenging games? Is chess such a ridiculously easy game because there are only 32 pieces? Do the small number of letters in our alphabet severely limit our ability to speak and think with any degree of complexity or subtlety?

In all these cases, the number of objects is small, but the number of meaningful combinations and relationships is vast. This, I think, was Chris's main point - and he is right.
 

lightofdarkness

visitor
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
1
Aleyn,

Lets focus on the universal IC for a moment. The QUALITIES derived in this universal IC are directly derived from the METHOD used in our brains that allow us to categorise. WITHOUT understanding this, the only source of description is to external events as sources of analogy/metaphor, that in fact get taken literally over time.

What you appear to 'miss' is that we are dealing with a template of meaning BENEATH expressions - our expressions are representations of that meaning.

Given the oscillations in our brain across the WHAT/WHERE, aka differentiating/integrating dichotomy, combined with an attention system than encapsulates 'something', we derive recursively a finite set of POSSIBLE meanings in the form of a set of qualities - FEELINGS.

If we map-out just three levels of recursion we get eight generic qualities that map to the generic qualities attributed to the trigrams of the traditional I Ching - IOW we can map trigram qualities to qualities derived by the SAME METHOD but in our brains.

These feelings, given no comprehension as to their origins, will form the foundations for analogy/metaphors in trying to describe what something means to each of us, and in so doing derive a universal, a consensus, meaning.

Given the findings in neurosciences, we can map out:

Wholeness through differentiation (heaven)
Wholeness trough integration (earth)
Partness through differentiation (fire)
Partness through integration (water)
Static Relationships through differentiation (lake)
Static Relationships through integration (mountain)
Dynamic Relationships through differentiation (thunder)
Dynamic Relationships through integration (wind)

Using hyperbolic development, these are applied to each to give us what I call the 'species I Ching' - a sequence of 64 qualities that map directly to the qualities expressed in hexagrams - many different words, same qualities.

We can convert the above terms of wholes, parts, statics, dynamics into terms more sensitive to being FELT:

Whole - sense of blending
Part - sense of bounding (enclosure, boundary, 'cut')
Static relationship (Share space with another/others) - sense of Bonding
Dynamic relationship (share time with another/others) - sense of Binding

The species IC, aka the universal IC, is a set of universals sourced WITHIN us as a species, that are then used to describe LOCAL contexts - and that is done through linking each universal with a local aspect and labelling that association. That act of labelling DIFFERENTIATES the context from all others - and so we can create our own language in specialist perspectives - and so create a LOCAL IC - which is what the traditional IC material manifests.

The point here is that all of these qualities are HARD CODED - they are part of US and as such full determined in their natures. Furthermore, due to the use of recursion to flesh-out these qualities so each quality contains all of the others as sources of expression contributing to the general expression of that particular quality (This is reflected in the XOR material).

The qualities are BEDROCK. The difference expressions are TOPSOIL. Given this, you wrote:

> Theoretically, if structuralists like Chris are correct in
> their analysis of the Yi, we ought to be able to derive the texts from
> the symbolic values of the lines. We should be able to hand the 64
> hexagrams to an expert, and watch him or her explain the symbolic
> nature of each line with complete accuracy, perfectly matching the
> meaning of the received text.

That?s right and is starting to happen as things are fleshed-out more, BUT this will always be GENERAL in that LOCAL dynamics, labels, etc are not the quality, they are the representation of that quality. Thus the hexagram of Earth (000000) is representing 'wholeness through integrating' and that GENERAL feeling is 'grounded' locally in such notions as total devotion to another/others AS WELL AS total darkness (a black hole where not even light can escape) etc etc.

The received texts were made by analogy to external events as attempts to describe internal 'feelings' of meaning. If you go through all of the current translations/interpretations of the traditional material you will find the GENERAL qualities covered above 'shinning through'. IOW we are now in a position to map-out those 'feelings' into categories of differentiating/integrating (and that included mediation dynamics) and in doing so ground meaning 'in' us and allow us to extract the 'full spectrum' of meaning we use as a species when we categorise.

(and so the ease in which I can map IC to MBTI to emotions etc etc)

Chris.
 

kevin

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Jan 11, 1973
Messages
748
Reaction score
82
Martin
I found your proposition very convincing - thanks

Alleyn - Enjoying your posts. I am being quite cautious in my work on trigrams as a vocabulary of the hexagrams for the very reason you state.

The trigrams are now believed to have been developed much later than the hexagrams. However I am beginning to doubt this as so far they fit all too perfectly.

It seems to me that there is considerable scope in the 64 hexagrams not the least because there are 4000+ combinations, but also because the language is about the quality of situations.

So the answer to a casting is that it is 'like' this. (I know you know this - am building a position here). That gives the diviner considerable scope to infer what the answer is.

Lastly, my own experience is that another process takes place:

I have heard very little discussion about trance on this board. However traditionally (historically)diviners were always held to go into a light trance before giving the oracle. This is so even now amongst traditional peoples.

I do my most important readings in this manner. What actually happens is that whilst preparing for the casting, doing the casting, and considering the casting, other images and ideas come into my mind and these qualify the question and answer.

Example:

Q:?How might I best proceed with regards to this relationship.?

Oracle: 39 Difficulties Limping / Obstruction

However I might have an image in my mind of say the other in the relationship being hampered by something else? or the querrant being hampered, or of something hampering etc. This often allows me to say exactly how the oracle applies rather than having to explore the who or what is being hampered / hampering.

When one starts to work with an Oracle like this then the text becomes a little less important. And understanding the precise meanings of a word or line very much less so? as they start to become triggers for images and seeing.

On occasion I have known precisely what was happening for the person without having to cast the Yi. I believe this is not unusual. However it is very difficult, if not impossible to do with relationships, online.

So in this way two readings for two people who get the same hexagram are often qualitatively distinctly different.

--Kevin
 

martin

visitor
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
29
Hi Chris,

I wrote "IMO the IC cannot be reduced to recursion of yin/yang alone. It is more complicated than that. Recursion is only a part of its 'secret' and perhaps not even a very important part."

& you wrote: "I think that is your 'romantic' side coming out"

I'm only saying that your model of the IC is IMO too simple. What is so romantic about that?
I don't hear any violins in my statement.
happy.gif

But your belief that you have found the Golden Key to the universe - recursion explains it all!
Violins, candles, starry eyes! THAT is romantic, Chris!
happy.gif


"Note that my perspective uses IDM to flesh-out the IC and it has been very successful in doing that."

You do make sense sometimes! But the question is, how much is of that is really based on IDM? How much is based on your knowledge of the traditional IC? You know what the trigrams and hexagrams are supposed to mean, more or less. Does that influence your reasoning?
I trust that you will try to avoid such an influence, but that is not easy.
Aleyn suggested a test that I also proposed in earlier posts. Let others (who are not familiar with te IC) flesh out the IC based on IDM ..


"You still need to do some work to 'get it'"

Your standard argument. The authors of the IC didn't get it, Jung didn't get it, all the physicists of the 20th century didn't get it and 21th century neurology also doesn't get it ...

Sorry, I don't buy it. Apart from the prose sometimes (and you are improving!
happy.gif
) there is nothing particularly difficult to get here for people with a background in science.
On the contrary, your theory is very simple. Way too simple IMO.
You are trying to explain too much based on too little.
The reason that I keeping coming back to you is not that I believe (as you suggested) that there is much in it.
I also return to Freud once in a while. Why? Because he has this same tendency to "explain too much based on too little".
I like that. It's so romantic!
biggrin.gif



"As such, the findings in IC, MBTI, emotion categories etc validates the IDM perspective"

Doubtful ..
As to basic emotions, there is no agreement about what they are and how many there are. Some theories mention only 3 basic emotions while others mention 9.

And is MBTI a recursive system? It is based on 4 more or less independent variables. The 3 variables of Jung's typology + judging/perceiving.
The MBTI map is not a linear scale that you get when you recurse one dichotomy. I don't know if it is really 4 dimensional (a factor analysis of test results would be needed to find that out) but it's clearly not one dimensional.
Apart from that, MBTI is popular in certain circles, but as far as I know very little work has been done with regards to the validity and reliability of this typology. Some research on introvert/extravert but that seems to be about it. It is possible that there is more recent research that I don't know of but it wouldn't surprise me if there wasn't much more. Testing the validity/reliability of typologies is very difficult.
 

aleyn

visitor
Joined
Jul 6, 1970
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Kevin, what you say about trance is fascinating! It opens up the idea of divination - I use the word loosely - as a meditative discipline. Discipline is a scary word that turns off a lot of people, but really a discipline is any activity or approach that can be improved and perfected through practice. The more you play the violin, the better the results. The more you meditate, the better the results. The goal is achieving skill. Some people become so skilled it doesn't look like they are doing anything special at all!

I don't usually read for other people. But I have heard that some Chinese advocated using the Yi as a contemplative guidebook. By meditating on texts or symbols from the Yi, it is said, one can untie knots in the mind and restore harmony. This is probably done much like any other reading, except one spends more time preparing, executing, and thinking about the reading. The whole reading is done in a state of concentrated attention - "mindfulness" is the word often used - one can achieve in trance or meditation.

There are a couple of advantages to such a meditative practice. It unleashes, develops and refines one's intuition, a shy beast used to being ignored by most of us. It is said we have all sorts of mental powers we never use. Second, it is enormously refreshing and envigorating. One feels energized by such contemplation. Third, it cuts through all the confusion, false impressions, and doubts clouding the mind, and produces clarity, like throwing open the curtains to discover it is a sunny day after all. The Tibetans talk about this quality as the diamond-cutter, the diamond-edged sword that slices relentlessly through the fog of illusion.

Kevin, I cannot imagine a better use for the Yi. I wonder if other people beside yourself are using it this way?
 

lightofdarkness

visitor
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
1
> And is MBTI a recursive system? It is based on 4 more or less
> independent variables. The 3 variables of Jung's typology +
> judging/perceiving.

Your stuck at the level of labels rather than what they represent. The MBTI is based on four dichotomies serving as EXPRESSIONS of underlying qualities. Cognitive analysis of those expressions shows the recursion in the categories where the QUALITIES map to IDM. The cognitive analysis brings out this process:

(T0) NF / SP (these are REPRESENTATIONS of qualities - NF is integrating bias, SP differentiating bias)
(T1) NF, SJ, NF, SP
(T2) XNFP, XNFJ, XSFJ, XSTJ, XNTP, XNTJ, XSFP, XSTP

Cognitive analysis maps the qualities associated with the labels of T2 to the eight trigrams in binary order, 000 to 111.

> The MBTI map is not a linear scale that you get when you recurse one
> dichotomy.

Your lack in precision is showing. The FOUR dichotomies used are three structural and one functional. The focus in IDM is on STRUCTURE and we find the functional dichotomy does not apply until T3 above. (see my quick MBTI test - http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond/qmbt.html )

Note that the dichotomies are SPECIALIST labels for generic qualities of differentiating/integrating (Think/Feel, Sense/Intuite, Perceive/Judge, Extrovert/Introvert). The underlying SAMENESS reflects the SAME process use in Mathematics in creating the Cartesian Coordinate system. First is the X axis, then the Y, then the Z. The ORDER is essential and reflected in the IMP operator as Z <= Y <= X. IOW at 2^3 we have a cube meaning space. 2^2 we have a tetrahedron meaning space.

> I don't know if it is really 4 dimensional (a factor
> analysis of test results would be needed to find that out) but it's
> clearly not one dimensional.

You dont get it do you. EACH level of recursion ADDS dimensions such that a geometric representation of 2^3 is equivalent to a cube as a form of meaning space. Move back to FOUR qualities and we are dealing with a tetrahedron.

> Apart from that, MBTI is popular in certain circles, but as far as I
> know very little work has been done with regards to the validity and
> reliability of this typology.

I find all of this post amusing in that you seem to think I have not done my homework! LOL! I have investigated all of this material in high detail over a LOT of years so please stop trying to teach me how to suck eggs ;-)

Those who have used the material support it as working - and that includes some academics. There is a LOT of work to be done here - and as to IDM being too simple, it reflects DNA dynamics - something really simple leading to extreme complexity.

As for mapping emotions - again I HAVE done my homework - read the page:

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

..and the associated references/further reading at the end of that page.

We are dealing with the VAGUE, but a well structured 'vague' and that is what IDM brings out, that structure that 'seeds' our expressions.
MANY words, ONE set of qualities.

Chris.
 

martin

visitor
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
29
Hi Kevin,

I recognize what you said about trance.
I don't do IC readings for others much but I often seem to go in a kind of altered state when I do horoscope readings. The transition to that state is gradual and I usually don't notice it.
When I come out of it I realize that I was "somewhere else". I feel somewhat disoriented
spin.gif
and I need time to adapt to "somewhere here"
biggrin.gif
again.

It seems that the horoscope is in such a state mainly a means to tune in and to stay tuned to the client. As if it opens up a channel.
The communication through that channel may have no or no direct relationship with what the horoscope shows. I sometimes know more than I possibly could have known, based on astrological reasoning.
 

martin

visitor
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
29
Hi Chris,

Homework? Have you tested the validity/reliability of MBTI? I don't know how much space there is in your home, but you need hundreds or perhaps thousands of subjects for such a test.
happy.gif

Okay, I know that you have internet. Where is the test page then? And the statistical analysis of the results?

On your page on emotions (I've read that one already) you mention one of the many classifications and then you go off into your own world. This is not what I or anyone else except you would call 'validation of IDM'.

If you want to speculate, no problem, that's fine, but please don't call it science. That's another egg to suck.
happy.gif
 

lightofdarkness

visitor
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
1
>
> Homework? Have you tested the validity/reliability of MBTI?

I Dont need to - it is already well researched and all over the web etc. There is a book by the NSF that contains info re its usefulness (as in it was the test most associated with). It is BIG business in the corporate areas as well as in research covered in http://www.capt.org/ and such journals as the Journal of Psychological Type (http://www.capt.org/jptsubmissions.cfm)

As for emotions, the proof is in the eating - use the categories in IDM applied to the IC - they work well.

Chris.
 

martin

visitor
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
29
Reliability is not very interesting in this case.
I have seen tests that are very reliable (even internally) but what they measure is anyone's guess. Lol.
So what about validity? I think I have to buy the book to find out! Brrr. Are these people commercial?

The proof is in the eating? - depends. For a scientific meal it is not enough to apply the categories and conclude that they 'work well'.
For me personally it's okay, but you want to do science, uh?
happy.gif


"The MBTI is based on four dichotomies (*) serving as EXPRESSIONS of underlying qualities. Cognitive analysis of those expressions shows the recursion in the categories where the QUALITIES map to IDM."

I know, that's your theory (I did my homework!).
I inserted a * after dichotomies, because after that it is all speculation for me.
Sorry!
happy.gif
 

heylise

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 15, 1970
Messages
3,125
Reaction score
139
Aleyn: "trance or meditation ... I cannot imagine a better use for the Yi. I wonder if other people beside yourself are using it this way?"

I made an entire Yi-website this way. And I made "LiSe"..

www.anton-heyboer.org
LiSe
 

luz

visitor
Joined
Jan 31, 1970
Messages
778
Reaction score
3
Hi LiSe,

I'm curious about what you mean when you say:

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

And I made "LiSe".. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

Can you explain?

Thanks
 

aleyn

visitor
Joined
Jul 6, 1970
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Thank you, LiSe. I am going to be spending a lot of time enjoying your website. It is indeed "entrancing"! I am so glad Kevin brought up this whole dimension of the Yi.

I know this isn't an original idea, but I can't help but think Hex 52 is about this very subject - stilling the body and the mind to discover our true nature. All the translations of the guaci and line texts I have read sound very much like yoga or meditation. Even the Daxiang suggests the noble person is familiar with such a practice.

If this is true, then it brings up the interesting possibility that meditative trance was practiced in China before the introduction of Buddhism in the first century A.D. Although the use of trance and advanced meditative techniques is usually associated with religious developments in ancient India (beginning in Harappa and Mohenjo Daro), especially with yoga and Buddhism, it is also true that trance was an integral practice in Central Asian (and perhaps Chinese) shamanism. Most likely the practice extended back into remote antiquity, and also formed the basis of Native American shamanism in North and South America, since Central Asia was probably the original homeland of all the American Indians. Many parallels exist between ancient Chinese and indigenous American cultures. No one (to my knowledge) has ever investigated possible links between Chinese and Native American divination practices.
 

lightofdarkness

visitor
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
1
Aleyn,


>
> If this is true, then it brings up the interesting possibility that
> meditative trance was practiced in China before the introduction of
> Buddhism in the first century A.D.

Since hex 52 manifests a fundamental property of our species-nature, regardless of local collectives, its characteristics are available for exploitation in all species-members; it is LOCAL conditions that either exaggerate or dampen its expression.

The SUCCESS in the introduction of Buddhism (associated with 52 when we map religions to the 64 qualities) indicates that if the characteristics of 52 were being expressed they were not being expressed enough to ward-off the acceptance of Buddhism.

ANY parallels between different collectives of the species reflect the species nature 'shinning through' the local differences. VALUE comes out in the choice of representations where some collectives do '52' better than others - small world networks doing their thing ;-)

Chris.
 

aleyn

visitor
Joined
Jul 6, 1970
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Yes, Chris, I suppose the power of trance has been understood and practiced pretty much everywhere at all times. It is indeed a feature of the human brain/mind/consciousness that often produces a desirable result, however it is achieved.

But what I see in Hex 52 are clues that the practice of meditation was well developed and thoroughly understood in China before meditation was introduced as a central practice in Buddhism. Buddhism is literally founded on the practice of meditation. All its tenets are based on realizations and insights achieved in various states of trance. Meditation is to Buddhism what prophecy is to Judaism, or revelation is to Christianity and Islam.

So we know the Chinese encountered very sophisticated techniques of meditation when they first embraced Buddhism, but in fact the cultivation of trance may have already been familiar in China a thousand years before the arrival of Buddhism in some indigenous form - if we read the Yi correctly.

And - if we read the Yi correctly on this point - it may also be true that trance played a role in divination itself. From a practical standpoint, as Kevin suggests, this seems very likely, since trance grants access to parts of the mind not normally accessible in ordinary consciousness.

And if this is true - keep in mind this is only speculation - then our modern hyper-rational approach to the Yi, which stresses fine discriminations of meaning, symbolic analysis, and also often a good deal of moralizing, may not at all be the way the ancient Chinese approached the oracle.

This could explain certain features of the text. We know that meditative texts are not always clear to discursive thinking. I offer Zen koans as an example, but other examples could be found. Such texts do however offer powerful insights to trained and guided meditators.

It is possible there were Yi masters, much like the Zen masters of modern times. Perhaps there were even lineages of Yi practice and wisdom. If such things existed, the transmission of knowledge would have been fragile and tenuous. Everything would have depended on master-disciple bonding. And, as has happened in similar situations, the transmission of venerable wisdom could have been snapped and lost forever, because the master-disciple bond was intensely personal and experiential, possibly even non-verbal at its deepest core. How easily a chance accident could intervene before full transmission had taken place. Such a loss would have been unrecoverable, and would have left no trace in history.
 

lightofdarkness

visitor
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
1
Master/Apprentice teaching operates predominately out of the realm of Yang.

There are four levels of teaching styles, derived from two basic formats - (a) to socialise and (b) to 'better'.

Social teaching is covered by the Earth/Mountain/Water/Wind realm. Over 80% of teachers come out of this realm and so are the 'best fit' in it. This is all the realm of Yin - a focus on integrating overall. This area covers mostly the primary/secondary levels of teaching where socialisation demands dominate. Master/Apprentice modes are limited to 8 states out of the possible 32.

hex 52 comes out of the Yin realm and is complemented by hex 58 operating out of the Yang realm. They BOTH cover sharing space with another/others (and so the Buddhist focus on learning by 'walking in my footsteps/shoes')

The Yin realm focuses more on issues of coexisting with current context externally, developing internally. The Yang realm focuses more on replacing the external context with one's own perspective.

Betterment teaching is covered in the Thunder/Fire/Lake/Heaven realm and comes in the form of (a) formal tertiary level teaching (Thunder/Fire) and (b) practical, master/apprentice teaching (Lake/Heaven).

ALL of these teaching teach the SAME qualities but with different labels and different levels of understanding.

In modern teaching, the socialisation realm, when focused on technical processes, teaches by procedures - A to B to C. This is 'rote' such that those educated at tertiary levels can make finer distinctions, step into something and redirect it LOCALLY - and in doing so can 'stress' those trained more in procedures since *they* 'sense' the procedure was 'incomplete'!

Aa we move into specialist (tertiary levels) and master/apprentice realms so we move into over-specialisation, one sees the world from the one box as if 'the' world.

Despite all of the differences in expression, the expressions are all about the SAME qualities - IOW nothing can be 'lost', it is all recoverable if you ask the right questions ;-)

By understanding the realm of the general, the vague, so we understand all POSSIBLE expressions and in doing so we also understand the dynamics of each expression.

IOW, to work with the universals we don?t need history to 'recover' anything, nothing is lost since all possible states are known as universals - all that can be lost is the link of universal to particular context. BUT that can be recovered if one (a) knows the universals and (b) puts oneself in that context to see which buttons it pushes.

Of course recursing the socialise/betterment dichotomy will give the full spectrum of POSSIBLE expressions and LOCAL context will then favour the 'best fit' expression.

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