Hilary's blog on 6,7,8 sequence

[aleyn]

Chris, I really appreciate all the time and effort you put into your postings. I note you have written 457 of them to this forum since the end of January, and many, many more before that. But somehow they all seem the same. They all seem to take the form: IDM fully explains whatever is currently being discussed.

Maybe that is true. But so what? It looks to me like most people in this forum do not care to see the world through IDM goggles. It looks to me like you are trying to sell refrigerators to the eskimos. Sometimes your posts remind me of local fundamentalist preachers who can find the answer to everything in the Bible. Whatever topic is proposed, the Bible contains the final truth on the matter because it is the revealed Word of God. End of discussion.

IDM is just another map. It isn't difficult to make maps that include everything - you just have to be content with broad principles and lots of white-space. Accounting for everything is then just an exercise in deduction.

Let's say IDM does explain everything. That's about as interesting as a library cataloguing system, which also accounts for all possible knowledge and human activity. What is interesting, Chris, is this: can IDM generate new knowledge? Can it reveal ideas and information we do not know yet? Can it show us the way to solve our problems? Can it predict the future? Can it explain the meaning of life and death? Does it account for the existence of evil? Can it plumb the human soul? Can it establish world peace? Can it manufacture great art? Can it perform beautiful music or raise athletes to new levels of skill?

If IDM can really solve such big problems and create new insights and generate art and science and literature and technology and everything, then I wonder why you are wasting your time with us in this modest little forum? You have a lot of work to do. You need to contact world leaders and the finest minds in the world to show them you have all the answers. This little corner of the www is really nothing compared to the needs of the world at large.

Or maybe IDM is just another way to slosh old wine into new jars.

From my perspective, it looks like IDM is simply a thinly coded representation of Chris Lofting. It is Chris Lofting who knows everything, who can explain every secret of the universe, who finds nothing new or surprising or original under the sun. In this regard, Chris Lofting is surely one of greatest minds of all time - few other men have claimed their own systems and theories embrace the cosmos so comprehensively. It's all there in IDM, isn't it, Chris? Awesome. Godlike.

Here is another interesting acronym: DSM-IV. You might find a copy and look up its description of "megalomania". I am sure you could learn a lot about yourself in its pages.

 

[lightofdarkness]

Aleyn,

I find the previous post of yours unnecessary and insulting. It seems to originate from someone of limited ability who fails totally to understand what is going on by trying to argue about something they have not bothered to understand. IOW we see mix of ignorance and arrogance. LOL! You come across as someone who feels comfortable in their knowledge but has suddenly found they are not as smart as they think - and we cant accept that can we, and so the vanity pops out. LOL!

Nowhere have I attacked you or presented you with 'rubbish' in this thread. What I have done is touched on material you are obviously ignorant of and yet not prepared to check if it is 'rubbish' or not - your vanity showing in that if YOU cant understand it, and YOU think a lot of yourself, well it MUST be rubbish since accepting the alternative - ie your 'slow' - is unacceptable! LOL!

Your attempts to contribute are obviously based on what I would consider a primitive level of understanding that you think is 'worthy'! You have a LOT to learn my friend.

IDM is nothing about the realm of expression - the realm you appear to be caught in - it is about what is BEHIND that realm, and so identifies the properties and methods of the GENERAL that seeds our particulars.

As such it DOES bring 'new' knowledge about the IC, how it works, how it contains a lot more than the 'primitive' traditional sequence, and in doing so maps out the UNIVERSAL that the TRADITIONAL has developed from - something some of you past emails show a distinct lack in appreciating. IDM also covers other disciplines since it covers the roots of meaning in us all from the position of neurology. BUT, it is GENERAL, it REPLACES NOTHING, it is a GUIDE.

For a summary of IDM/ICPLus findings try to get through The Book of Structures (http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/icstruct.html) - or all of the other ICPlus material (http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/newindex.html)

If you bothered to do some proper homework other than count how many posts I have written perhaps your prose would be better appreciated, you would 'get it', but obviously your ego has a problem with that - whats the matter dude, all too competitive for you?! Suddenly realise you are out of your depth?

IDM is not a map, it is a meta-map. If you bothered to do some homework you would have found that out, but it is obvious that you are not prepared to do that - you just dont like being corrected, being shown your limitations etc etc etc

Get a grip dude, stay around and you may learn something - or if it is all to hard for you then ignore it, I am sure you will be just fine.

If you dont like my particular prose, go through the abstracts/references that support it all - all at the main website:

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

If that is all to hard for you then you need to recognise that I use IDM to bring out the universal qualities of the IC that you obviously have no idea about (and MOST others involved in the traditional IC have no idea about as well, other than what I have presented for their use, if they want to ;-)). As such, in using IDM I will refer to it - As you would if you used the traditional IC - If I wrote "from the traditional IC perspective" would you complain? I doubt it.

At this moment you are way out of your depth in dealing with me and IDM and ICPLus etc etc etc Get up to speed, present something 'intelligent' and we can get along. Your choice.

Oh - and please note, I started this thread so dont tell me to stop posting to something I started! Idiot. (the last to cover some category that fits YOU in DSM-IV - since you find a need to be that insulting - idiot).

 

[kevin]

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

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.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

It has done wonders for me like this ? Indeed I think one could argue that this is one of the core functions of the Yi.

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

When I come out of it I realize that I was "somewhere else". I feel somewhat disoriented and I need time to adapt to "somewhere here" again.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

I am so pleased to hear that ? I thought there was something wrong with me. Being here after light trancing can feel quite heavy and the sort of gross real which is like being blind again ? sense of loss too? but a lovely hum of charge. Making a cup of tea then seems strangely practical and unreal.

Also, as far as I can understand your discussion with Chris you make convincing points.


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

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.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

Yes, agreed I think that is one expression of Gen? Ritsema Karcher make this their main expression of 52. Take a look at Hx22 also? Here the bright Li is stilled under Gen? For me one expression of this hexagram is the Daoist master acting through small things. If for beauty and adornment one were to read beautified spirit? The Guaci or Judgement gives this lead ? See Wilhelm and his commentary (thought he wanders around in all sorts of line position theory).

Trigrams with Gen in the upper position are very interesting and give an indication as to its nature or the process it represents.


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

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.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

I am not sure of the value of such a mapping exercise. The Chinese were great integrationists and absorbers. Even the Mongols were absorbed when they invaded. Zen is the Japanese ?version? of the Chinese school of Chan. Chan was an integration of Buddhism and Daoism. It would not be surprising to find Buddhist values had been adopted into the standard Yijing text. The model of the Yijing as represented in the hexagrams and trigrams is so very sympathetic to Buddhist thought.

It is so sympathetic that I wonder whether there was fertilisation across to India which might have seeded some Buddhist ideas.

Indeed hexagrams 63:64 can be read as a description of the post life reincarnation/ascension processes. Further it can be read as a brief instruction set similar to the Tibetan Book of the Dead. If this expression was intentional or not my imagining then it would predate Buddhism by at least a millennia.

However the Hindus had a concept of reincarnation at least 4000 years BC. Very hard to see what came from where? those Zoroastrian wanderers carried a lot of ideas from place to place up to a 1000 years before Buddha.

One last thought re. your approach? and this is not a side swipe believe me:
Is it really possible for a system of thought, devised by people, to generate a model of reality which is not itself seated in the species own understanding?

For example we do not have the concept of happily bearing many children after a good meal of eating ones male mate? which some species would find to be a central concept of fulfilment.

--Kevin

 

[martin]

Hi Chris,

LOL! Which idiot? Gurdjieff had 24 of them!
And he used armagnac to find out which idiots were present at a meal.
Try it, it is much better than IDM!

 

[lightofdarkness]

> One last thought re. your approach and this is not a side swipe
> believe me:
> Is it really possible for a system of thought, devised by people, to
> generate a model of reality which is not itself seated in the species
> own understanding?
>

fiction is produced every day - it is the reflection of imagination practicing 'WHAT IF' as consiousness is driven to interpret reality from a position of ignorance - and so ad-hoc developments, local 'fictions' etc etc etc

The SPECIES understanding is of objects/relationships - no labels. Our CONSCIOUSNESS adds labels to differentiate one context from another - to derive difference from sameness. In the brain there is no distinction of real from imagined since the general methodology is MODEL MAKING where the model is then introduced into reality and survives or dies, depending on usefulness etc etc. Our imagination, let loose in fiction films etc comes up with models that many take as 'real' when they are not. People believe that startrek transporters, warpspeed etc exist, they cannot differentiate the imagined from the real until introduced to a Science model that is validated through experiments etc.

With the development of neurosciences, and MRI/PET etc technology so we can now see 'behind' all of those labels, we can see what they represent. In that seeing we are in a position to REFINE our models, improve our representations etc etc etc.

Interesting times ;-)

Chris.

 

[aleyn]

Chris, I am satisfied you found my posting insulting - it was certainly intended to be so. As far as I can see, you have been a leech on this forum for years. Nearly every serious discussion in recent months has been stifled by your arrogant rhetoric and obtuse approach to other people. It seems Chris always has THE ANSWER, Chris can always be counted on to flood the forum with paragraph after paragraph of self-inflated blather. I marvel at your insane energy - where do you find the time to be so completely omnipresent? Even Hilary doesn't monitor the forum as closely as you do. But, ever and always, everything that goes on here is really about Chris, isn't it?

I know this is my swan-song: no one wants to associate with someone who makes "unprovoked" attacks on others. But Chris, after months of forebearance, you have finally pushed me beyond endurance with your utter selfishness.

There is one big difference between my ad hominem attack and yours: precision. I really do think you are slightly insane, and you know full well I am not an idiot.

What a shame! It was certainly a wretched day for students of the Yi when your shadow fell over this forum.

 

[lightofdarkness]

BTW Kevin, in further response to:

> One last thought re. your approach and this is not a side swipe
> believe me:
> Is it really possible for a system of thought, devised by people, to
> generate a model of reality which is not itself seated in the species
> own understanding?
>

consider what we call 'paradox' where there is none - just misinterpretations due to the feeling of self consciousness creates the illusions -

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

This 'issue' can also feed into our models of reality in general - consider:

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

Chris.

 

[lightofdarkness]

Aleyn,

"arrogant rhetoric"?

I think in the majority of cases I supply some reference to support what i say - so no 'rhetoric' - OTOH all I have seen from you so far IS rhetoric -
'wind' as you try to 'have a go' - why? I suspect frustration, envy perhaps? whatever.

As for being a 'leech' - I dont think so, I give more than I get but then thats my nature ;-) (If i needed to take then I would be charging for things! ;-))

Now if YOU feel that my presence 'sucks' your blood, makes you feel 'weak', then I suggest a closer analysis of yourself - consider your ability to product, to give; gets back to that issue of vanity.

 

[demitramn]

Alyen, I had to laugh when I read your post to Chris earlier. It sounded so much like something I said to him about 4 yrs ago after encountering him for the first time. So I do understand where you're coming from and can sympathize. But, over the years, I had to eventually admit that aside from his being utterly harmless, what Chris has to offer is benefiting some of us reading this board. And on occasion these days, I happen to be one of those people.

I don't always understand Chris but when I'm inclined to, when my mind is uncluttered with other issues, I find that I am able to make room for his point-of-view. In a way, opening up to Chris serves as a form of meditative practice for me. The level of stillness I personally can reach within, determines the clarity of my understanding. In doing so, I've discovered that his ideas nicely sum up many of my own personal theories and experiences with the brain's function and with perception.

I don't really know Chris other than what I've seen of his committment to his work on this board. And I admire him for it. And yes, he is indeed generous and tireless with it. This too I admire. It is my hope that his work-efforts will eventually be fitted into their proper place of honour in the overall puzzle of life. And when it does, I kind of like the idea of being able to say "I was there" while it was coming together. Well.. kinda.. you know what I mean

Demitra

 

[aleyn]

Demitra, thank you. I thought I would feel much better after vocalizing my frustration with Chris, but I don't. I thought I was saying something that needed to be said, but now I doubt it. I still feel the same way about him, but perhaps that is MY problem, not his. This isn't my website; chastizing Chris isn't my responsibility. As they say in these parts, "the whole thing isn't worth a hill of beans." Still, it is gratifying to know other people have felt a similar irritation from time to time.

 

[martin]

Well, in my opinion it is perfectly okay that you voiced your irritation, Aleyn. And it's also perfectly okay that Chris voiced his irritation about how you expressed yourself.
I don't know how you two think about it but my feeling is that is has cleared the air - like the crash of thunder in 51 - and that no harm is done.
No need to let go of the cup of sacrificial Armagnac!

And, let's face it, such statements as "Analysis of research in neurosciences shows that the sun is merely local interpretation of the mountain trigram that revolves around the moon!" are indeed slightly provocative, aren't they?

 

[kevin]

"Analysis of research in neurosciences shows that the sun is merely local interpretation of the mountain trigram that revolves around the moon!"

I didn't see that! ? Chuckles.

Aleyn - Yup, I?ve been there too with Chris.

Mostly I do not have time to read those long posts as I have no particular interest in that model and they jump me into a ?not a Yijing frame of mind/feeling? when I am trying to read a thread and perceive many different views anyway.

IMO - Whereas cognitive / analytic frameworks have given us wonderful technologies and understandings they have also led to a world where our hearts and souls are increasingly suffocated.

For me it is far more important to use the Yi as a way of exploring those areas of our inner world and its interface with the outer world in an experiential way. Reclaiming the numinous which the epoch of the Enlightenment has been trying to excise.

So to also I do not think that Chris? model explains the way that light / trance meditation can lead to deep insights into things of which we should not be aware of in others or in times yet to come. The veracity of which can be shown later. This is only one example.

All this said and done occasionally Chris says something which sparks my interest and which helps me on my path.

--K

 

[lightofdarkness]

What Kevin has yet to comprehend is that the TRADITIONAL IC is a PART of the UNIVERSAL IC and that universal covers far more details regarding the inner world than he realises. But thats ok, his current journey will reach a level of frustration that will only be resolved by coming to the ICPLus material! ;-)

light trance etc is associated with inhibiting of the 'monkey mind' connections of our 'primate' being and is associated with focus of attention and frontal lobe dynamics (and so the need for training in most - but genetic diversity allows for some to be born with the skill well developed)

All that CAN be known, that can elicit a sense of 'meaning', is already determined in general in the form of universals - LOCAL, 'random' dynamics will then ground a universal in some moment and elicit an 'a-HA' experience.

Analysis of hypnosis can help - I suggest the reading of this paper:

http://www.ernestrossi.com/InSearchOfDeepPsychobiolog.htm

(more stuff on the site's home page)

The IDM analysis of NLP (NeuroLinguisticProgramming in this case, other areas cover Natural Language Processing) took it into the works of Milton Erickson and hypnosis etc - Rossi is also an investigator into Erickson's work.

Note that developing a rhythm is useful in these processes - reflecting the 'need' to use a wave to get through a wall ;-) (advertisers do it all of the time by recruiting popular songs etc to get their message past psychic defences)


Chris.

 

[martin]

What Chris has yet to comprehend is that the TRADITIONAL IC, the LOFTING IC and our nervous system reflect the structure of the solar system.

But thats okay, his current journey will reach a level of frustration that will only be resolved when he finally decides to use a telescope.

 

[lightofdarkness]

> What Chris has yet to comprehend is that the TRADITIONAL IC, the
> LOFTING IC and our nervous system reflect the structure of the solar
> system.



I already know that (more so they all reflect the properties and methods of the universe). The adaptation of the neuron to its environment reflects the internalisation of the properties and methods of information processing as present 'out there' - it is this that allows for our neuron-derives maps of reality to reflect 'out there'. ;-) The issue of course is that the neuron 'knows' patterns of differentiating/integrating and as such all is 'vague'. Development of neural networks and up into brains has set down a robust context out of which develops such concepts as individual consciousness where IT communicates by labelling the patterns in an arbitrary form as it links the patterns to local contexts - and so all of those languages develop, all being metaphors for describing what the brain deals with universally - objects and relationships.

>
> But thats okay, his current journey will reach a level of frustration
> that will only be resolved when he finally decides to use a telescope.
>
>

Oh - you mean when I start fleshing-out the details of dodecagrams? for sure ;-) - but as I have said before, need to learn to walk first ;-)

 

[hilary]

You know, on any ordinary forum some poor mug would have to 'moderate' this thread. But thanks to Demitra and Martin and everyone, I just have to enjoy it. Can I just say how much I admire you all?

OK, one moderator-ly suggestion (

): personal attacks may be better via private email. Or if you want to make it public, we have the 'Open Space' section for exactly that.

Back to webinar preparations for me. By the way, especially for any friends in the US, there's a nice book bundle for sale on Ebay at the moment.