HOW IT WORKS (...maybe)

[davidl]

Michael,
I was really interested in your reference to holography. I was involved in this technology for some years. It is definitely most recently discovered by the west but there are many references to this knowledge of glass and light in ancient texts.
A really nice way to explain the wonders of the parts reflecting the whole and how this can be, goes something like this.
Imagine sitting in a room with a large window in front of you. The view is expansive. Now, imagine the curtains begin to close, and your view becomes less and less expansive. The blinds are closed with only a very small gap between them. Lets say one inch apart. You now dont see much of the view. Now you get up and start walking toward the window. As you get closer you see more and more of the view through the one inch gap until you walk right up to the gap and looking through can now see the whole view again. Theoretically if the curtains were one photon or atom width apart and you could get your eye close enough you could see the whole view with all that information through the lens of one photon. So theoretically every photon or light point is a lens or window to the whole universe, hence containing the visual information of the whole universe.
I hope this has made sense.
(By the way this technology is really one of the best ways to find out 'how it works'.)

 

[pedro]

Chris, so to you it is all neuro-biology... I understand your arguments, and I cant by no means produce evidence that would sustain my opinion. Appart from that itchy feeling that says it cant be just plain physics.
You seem to believe that science has an answer for everything, but that cannot be true. If it was then that would be the end of science. Even as we speak, lots of "proved" theories are collapsing on the light of some new discovery.
Your theories are very interesting, and I admit I prefer excessive skepticness than credulity. Yet I seem to read in your words a total lack of profound meaning in our existences. In the best case everything spiritual is a malfunctioning of the brain.
If this is your belief, then (I fear to ask) what is our purpose in life (yes, I need a purpose)? And if there's no need for a purpose, why cant we just go as we please, satifying our egos in any way we see fit, without any concern for other persons lives, or any remorse for eventual harm we may provoke?
What happens to moral, if there is nothing more than simple logic? Is it another malfunction of our species?

David, Im not saying there are no astral beings or high intelligences or whatever you want to call them (am I?). Im stating my belief that they are not responsible for the coins falling a particular way. The scientific view (want it or not, it is still the only way for us to prove or disprove anything) is that one should choose the simplest answer that explains the facts, and the truth is you dont need astral beings to explain the oracle's works, as you dont need them to explain channeling entities or ouija boards. Appart from that I generally agree with your views (Im really not contradicting any, am I?) and I do indeed believe in other intelligences, not finding it even slightly probable that man has some special role in the creation, let alone a leading role.
And you're right, I may not exist

 

[pedro]

PS David, I realise earlier I overlooked some of the more colorful criticism you present in your post. I suggest you may want to actually read what I wrote in its entirety (ie past the first paragraph), prior to defending yourself from attacks I didnt make
Just a thought

 

[pedro]

If anyone wants to read the revised version of my article above it is here

 

[dharma]

I am noticing that as each tries to validate and give credence to their own version of reality they are inadverently denying others the validity of THEIR experience. By maintaining strictly faithful to one's own viewpoint, one's understanding of reality, which is naturally enhanced by the many viewpoints available, remains narrow and limited.

Though someone else has yet to experience our version of reality doesn't invalidate their perspective, however limited and contrary it may be in comparison to our own at present. And OUR personal reality, as rich as it may be from our perspective, in comparison to others' versions, isn't the final declaration on the NATURE of reality.

Each of us is sorely limited by our personally narrow perspectives and can therefore not claim to the last conclusion that can be drawn about the NATURE of reality.

If the NATURE of reality could be summed up in any one way it would be that the WHOLE contains each and every possible viewpoint - none by themselves can wholeheartedly validate its nature, but TOGETHER they confirm it.

Since we each manage to glean only small and divergent aspects of the Whole, despite the oftentimes paradoxically opposite viewpoints, it is in the sharing amongst ourselves and in the validating (not struggling against) all our findings, that the image of the WHOLE begins to take shape for us individually.

But what do I know..

..thoroughly enjoying all the viewpoints, Dharma

 

[pedro]

Dharma, I dont know if you had me in mind with that last post, but ayway let me reply. I think I stated it plain and clear: Im just presenting my convictions and I try not to deny anyone else's. I dont pretend to know the truth, but as far as all this metaphysical stuff goes there is no way to determine what the truth is. The only way we can perceive some of it is by a fruitful dialogue, based on logic in the first place. Its not enough to say that one thinks so and so is like that. One has to present logical arguments that sustain that position, even if these arguments speak of things beyond our physical realm.
What I would like would be for people to actually tell me what is it they dont agree, like Chris did and I thank him for it, so I could benefit from all your views. I keep revising my belifs on a daily baisis, anyone that doesnt challenge his own belifs is either enlightened or dumb. I wouldnt have posted it here if I didnt want to be contested, and this particular text suffered from many incarnations before I settled on a version that I thought wouldnt offend anyone.
I have no trouble in declaring I am wrong, I just wish someone would argue me into believing Im wrong.

 

[pedro]

Martin, forgot to reply your post about your chinese friend and his delightful reply.
Yes we should all have a good laugh

But I suspect that god is the one who is laughing out loud on our account

Just imagine: we only start to understand life when we're about to die; we waste the richness we're born with, not realising its value until we lost it; we learn all our lifes only to find out in the end that not knowing a thing is the only true knowledge... the list could go on

I guess it deserves a good laugh indeed... or maybe I just wanna cry

 

[dharma]

Pedro,
you said: "I have no trouble in declaring I am wrong, I just wish someone would argue me into believing Im wrong."

You present yourself as someone with very definite ideas and theories yet you also say that you could perhaps be "wrong". I don't think you are really seeking someone who WOULD challenge you, but rather someone who COULD, which is very different.

The differing ideas posted here are all doing the former (WOULD) but to accept their ideas as the latter (COULD) would be to invalidate your own experience of existence. Now, how silly is that?

My point of view is this: share your ideas, allow others to do the same and don't feel the need to stand too firmly in one position nor to invalidate anyone else's perspective (which I don't think you do) - otherwise you limit yourself to your own version and convince yourself that you are truly open-minded when your intent is very different and the only person you end up kidding is yourself.

I personally like your perspective, as well as the others that have been presented, they each add one more to my understanding of the Whole... but none by themselves ARE the Whole and can never claim to be, so how useful is an arguement, really?

If the four legs of a table all argued that they were important to the table, could any of them possibly be wrong? No. Clearly, they are all right, however, for them to BE right, the table, if it is to be a table, needs ALL of them to stand together, but from different positions.

Dharma

 

[chrislofting]

Hi Pedro,

Your wrote:
> Chris, so to you it is all neuro-biology... I understand
> your arguments, and I cant by no means produce evidence that
> would sustain my opinion. Appart from that itchy feeling
> that says it cant be just plain physics.

it isnt. It is physics and then chemistry and then biology and then neurosciences and then cognitive science and then psychology that then feeds back into physics in that the methodology we use in describing things is rooted in, and feeds back upon, physics etc etc. Thus our methods determine what we 'see' - as covered in the page of symmetry - http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/symmetry.html - all mapped into thousands of years of development ;-)

For example, in collectives, be they of neurons or birds or bees or humans, the making of individual distinctions elicits a behaviour in the collective not reducable to any particular individual. IOW the sum of all parts creates something 'else' ;-) This is called 'flocking behaviour'. There is an algorithm to do that - very simple rules, very complex behaviours - see for example any website running 'boids' programs - e.g. http://www.red3d.com/cwr/boids/ BUT the generic patterns are still patterns of differentiations and integrations, objects and relationships, yang and yin (and the recursion then mixes these terms into composite forms of meaning).

> You seem to believe that science has an answer for
> everything, but that cannot be true. If it was then that
> would be the end of science.

your not making sense here. Science is not a 'finished' product, a thing, it is a process, a methodology for clear identification of 'facts' as in properties and methods that are repeatable. It is on-going such that in 3000 years, or more so in the last 50 years, we have learnt about how we as a species function at generic levels to a degree where we can now identify how we derive meaning etc., and keep developing.

There is a new paradigm emerging from the work in neurosciences etc and the feedback of that work onto such specialisations as the I Ching, the MBTI, and understanding of Mathematics etc.

The roots of Science are in dealing with fear through the act of problem-solving, of mapping-out reality and using the maps as guides to 'avoid' the holes in the road ;-) Problems can come in that Science can be too precise, too focused on the PART and so miss the 'flocking behaviour' ;-)

> Even as we speak, lots of
> "proved" theories are collapsing on the light of some new
> discovery.

All these theories are specialisations and as such PART perspectives that the originators consider wholes. That is their 'error' in that most are totally unaware of their specialisation as being a metaphor rooted in the properties and methods of our species-nature.

the intepretations of quantum mechanics etc reflects this 'misunderstanding' where the focus from consciousness, the originator of all of these interpretations, fails to deal with our species-nature and so we keep hitting paradox. See my page on paradox (http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/paradox.html) as well as those on QM issues and our map making (http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/vision.html, http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/light.html)


> Your theories are very interesting, and I admit I prefer
> excessive skepticness than credulity. Yet I seem to read in
> your words a total lack of profound meaning in our
> existences. In the best case everything spiritual is a
> malfunctioning of the brain.

Huh? what 'malfunction'? the sense of the spiritual is a fundamental property of the species in that it serves to integrate and so protect the collective. Exaggerations emerge when consciousness comes on the scene and exaggerates and mis-interprets data, where the spiritual is believed as sourced external to the species and worshipped as such. The sense of the spiritual is a property of the species, its exaggeration is the cause of 'issues' at the level of consciousness-nature in that at that level of high energy expenditure emerges fundamentalism etc., due to a lack in understanding of neurocognitive processes.

See the 'lite' essay the 'Dance of the Neurons' - http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/ideal.html

> If this is your belief, then (I fear to ask) what is our
> purpose in life (yes, I need a purpose)? And if there's no
> need for a purpose, why cant we just go as we please,
> satifying our egos in any way we see fit, without any
> concern for other persons lives, or any remorse for eventual
> harm we may provoke?
> What happens to moral, if there is nothing more than simple
> logic? Is it another malfunction of our species?
>

There is no 'malfunction' at the species-nature level, there ARE malfunctions at the consciousness-nature level - and so we experience paradoxes as well as fundamentalist perspective where the PARTS believe they are WHOLES and so try to assert 'their god' over 'your god' etc etc etc.

If you need a purpose then focus on our species and its survival and development through the expression of all parts of that species - IOW all us individuals. You want purpose within that context? fine, take a quick MBTI test and get a rough idea as to where you 'fit' as a part of the collective - and so recognise your purpose, you role as a contributor to the species.

Once that is done you can move 'up' to the level of development of your consciousness through pathwork through all hexagrams etc of the I Ching, and so refine your instincts and learn to 'fit in' with different contexts and so refine the species even more as you refine yourself.

(Note that the parts nature of consciousness allows for multiple minds in the one brain! - all reflecting context-sensitive interactions such that one's work 'mind' is different to one's 'home' mind at specialist levels but reflects an overall sameness at the general level)

If you treat Science as a 'thing', or even Religion as a 'thing' then the perspective is static, these processes become nominalised and so objectified and that is a 'problem'. Science serves to solve problems - solution seeking. Religion gets into issues of identity seeking. Added to these are the notions of sensation seeking and security seeking. Our species is built-up of these 'seeking' categories with different collectives showing biases as do individuals.

The dynamics of Science is in conjectures and refutations. References at 20 paces ;-) The overall focus on rationalism is on 'control' of emotions, and so of rhetoric, to map reality. A mathematical proof is VERY hard to defeat. A rhetorical proof is far easier to defeat but it is also used to 'sway' from an irrational perspective. In the long run that is a problem ;-)

the richness of the species in all of us is reflected in every hexagram, dodecagram of the I Ching being an aspect of you as you are an aspect of the species. The 'childnature' of our consciousness reflects its youth, we have a lot to develop ;-)

BTW note that the traditional perspective on logic is distorted in our current education systems - see the page on Logic - http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/logic.html

The advantage of the I Ching is that it can be used to present all of this material in an 'easy' format ;-)

Chris.

 

[malka]

David, Thank you, thank you for speaking what I "feel" and "know" to be true without any evidence or even direct personal experience to support it. But I know. I know.

And I want to know you, too!

All the best,
Malka

 

[tashiiij]

still a bit premature to comment, stilllll......

Chris,,,, can you tell me (or retell if you already have) what is the relationship or significance in your work between the line (broken unbroken changing or not) and the language that accompanies it????

 

[tashiiij]

i mean uhh, duhhh, the language always accompanies a changing line doesn't it. sorry. bulb on auxilary power today.

 

[tashiiij]

late night too and all, well, no night actually, reading all deb's lovely dreams at 3 a.m. this morning. nice to read all that deb. friends married at dawn. in their underwear. nice to go to a wedding in pajamas and a red velvet jacket.

 

[pedro]

Dharma, you said:
>I don't think you are really seeking someone who WOULD challenge you,
>but rather someone who COULD, which is very different.

precisely

(not that Im that knowledgeable, or something)

>My point of view is this: share your ideas, allow others to do the
>same and don't feel the need to stand too firmly in one position nor
>to invalidate anyone else's perspective (which I don't think you do) -
>otherwise you limit yourself to your own version and convince yourself
>that you are truly open-minded when your intent is very different and
>the only person you end up kidding is yourself.

Thats not my point. What I mean is that by logical reasoning and dialog, we could all reach some ideas that Im not able to come up with myself. Yet, by my own "theory", no one will tell me anything that I dont need to know.
I am not taking this half way as seriously as you seem to have pictured me, deep down I dont really care what any of you has to say if it goes against my belifs. Not out of stubborness, or because I think my belifs are the ultimate belifs, but because I wont take anything for granted just because someone says it (untested truths? or what was it Buddha called it?). People say dumb stuff all the time, I know cause I say a lot. But the point is each and everyone of us has to find his own truth. You wont hear me say or act otherwise. My belifs arent imutable though, I change them all the time by listening to other peoples beliefs, and the logical (or ilogical) reasoning behind them. Its precisely from the "my truth is better than your truth" that I want to escape when I propose a debate and a dialog about these themes. I just dont run from any fight (more easily will I start them)

 

[pedro]

Chris, you said
>it isnt. It is physics and then chemistry and then biology and then
>neurosciences and then cognitive science and then psychology that then
>feeds back into physics in that the methodology we use in describing
>things is rooted in, and feeds back upon, physics etc etc.

yet, it all depends on the biological functioning of the body and brain, right? what, no unperishable soul then?

I admit I have always been thorn between my logical scientific brain and my intuition. Now I believe in the truth as Buddha put it (Im not buddhist or any other -ist, though), but it has come to my acceptance not by the usual logical reasoning but by opening myself more and more to the intuitive side, till I could real feel there was something else under the superficial shell of material reality. But I know youre gonna say that are just my neuro-cognitive cells havin'a party

>Science is not a 'finished' product, a thing, it is a process, a
>methodology for clear identification of 'facts' as in properties and
>methods that are repeatable.

I see, you are right I expressed myself poorly. What I meant is science has yet to discover the "mind force". Perhaps thats the missing force that is preventing an unified theory of forces

>Huh? what 'malfunction'? the sense of the spiritual is a fundamental
>property of the species in that it serves to integrate and so protect
>the collective. Exaggerations emerge when consciousness comes on the
>scene and exaggerates and mis-interprets data, where the spiritual is
>believed as sourced external to the species and worshipped as such.
>The sense of the spiritual is a property of the species, its exaggeration
>is the cause of 'issues' at the level of consciousness-nature in that at
>that level of high energy expenditure emerges fundamentalism etc., due
>to a lack in understanding of neurocognitive processes.

Hum.. youre making my brain

no, really, I see what you mean, and cant seem to find a way to convince you that I'M THE ONE WHO'S RIGHT!!!!!!

No really, really, you are making me realise that perhaps Im a skeptic after all. Your model seems to account for everything that could be explained in a not so scientific way. If I read you correctly, then spirituallity (or that mind force, or whatever) is a consequence of the functioning of human species as a whole, and not something real per se. We have a sense of the spiritual, but there is no real spirituallity. Is that what youre saying?

But was it man that created spirituality or was its cause? We didnt evolve eyes and then the visible spectrum appeared, it was there all along and we grew receptors to see it. Maybe thats what ultimately the mind is, a receptor to those mind waves or spiritual principle or whatever. Does a radio make its own music? It surely could look so...

>You want purpose within that context? fine, take a quick MBTI test
>and get a rough idea as to where you 'fit' as a part of the collective -
>and so recognise your purpose, you role as a contributor to the species.

hum, I have tried some of that stuff in the past but nothing that has striked me... my astrological lunar node was a revelation, though, and it also deals with purpose (and it portraits very well my deepest aspirations).

I'll try to comment more after Ive gone through the materials you propose
'Later

 

[pedro]

Malka,
No need to feel like Im thretning your belifs. You dont have to believe or not believe in spirits, my words or any other thing. You have to believe in the Yi. Period.
Whatever I say cannot deny the evidence that it works. It will always work if you really need, and despite any interferences that may arise. Thats reassuring.

I do believe in spirits though, I think it is plausible that souls not only incarnate but have existence out of human or other bodies.

More often than we'de like to believe, though, there is nothing happening outside ourselves. That could seem magical, and inspiring, but we have all the magic and inspiration we need inside ourselves. Why look for it elsewhere?

 

[dharma]

Pedro,
There is nothing wrong with dialog.. you perhaps think that I am "arguing" against this, but I'm not. However, you have not fully appreciated my point of view as I have expressed it. As a result I feel that my perspective has been prematurely "judged" and my input pushed aside as not "valid" in your zealous attempt to find "truth". You fail to recognize what you seek because you expect it to "look" like something that you are already familiar with.

In that sense, I rest my case - you made my point,
Dharma

 

[malka]

Pedro - Whhoooaaa, slow down. There isn't an inch of me that feels you've threatened my beleifs at all. Please help me to understand where your comment comes from?

Blessings,
Malka

 

[pedro]

Dear Dharma,
You said:
>There is nothing wrong with dialog.. you perhaps think that
>I am "arguing" against this, but I'm not.

I dont, I know youre clever

>However, you have not fully appreciated my point of view as
>I have expressed it.

actually I did fully appreciate it (I just didnt show it)

you said:
>My point of view is this: share your ideas, allow others to do the
>same and don't feel the need to stand too firmly in one position nor
>to invalidate anyone else's perspective (which I don't think you do) -

I try not to do, because I realised that mistake in the past.
anyway, point taken

>otherwise you limit yourself to your own version and convince yourself
>that you are truly open-minded when your intent is very different and
>the only person you end up kidding is yourself.

yes and no. Im indeed convinced of my "own version", but I keep revising my own version
you also suggest I could try to force "my version" on other people:
I quote myself: "I try not to do [that anymore], because I realised that mistake in the past.
anyway, point taken"

I actually thought that was very perspective of you, identifying these traits I have, so much perspective that you had to have them yourself to know the sympthoms so well *wink*

>As a result I feel that my perspective has been prematurely "judged"
>and my input pushed aside as not "valid"

nope

>in your zealous attempt to find "truth".

ah, "zealous" is a good word, but I wish I was that zealous
I already found the truth, my truth anyway (not refering to this topic of "how it works", mean life in general)
Its treading the true path that is hard (until it becomes soft), and I could be more zealous about that

>You fail to recognize what you seek because you expect it to "look" like
>something that you are already familiar with.

actually, the only thing that I designate "da truth", the realization of the deepest *I* or the pure mind or whatever, is something youre already familiar with. Its like returning to the place you were born after long years

 

[yellowblue]

Chris--

you wrote

"'resonance' in wholeness issues where that resonance can open-up a string of associations that really fit well to the existing situation (and its natural development into something else) such that one feels as if in touch with something 'mystical' - the experience of that connection is done through the PARTS oriented consciousness that considers the moment as a WHOLE. 'synchronistic' events (and Jung did NOT mean at the exact same time, just over a short time period) are reflected in 'holistic' moments where the sense of all is connected is reinforced. Thus the more 'integrationist' personas will experience these moments more than the 'differentiationist' personas - and the more you understand the linking of all parts of the I Ching into a whole so the more these sorts of moments can appear to occur. It has to do with the METHOD of interpretations and not necessarily 'reality' ;-) "

Again spatial and relative context... which equals perception--- a point of interception, the dark (or light) turning into day (or night) Coming or going (angels, symmetry) awareness with understanding, awareness without understanding (the fog).

It is being uncentered vs. centered or close to center and our perception of the ball (which would correspond to what our position is relative of that of the ball), what is in front, behind, left right and EVERY point and depth of field in between.

That is of course my perception at this point.. : )

Which BTW seems to allow us to see the parts, the whole and the parts amidst the whole and the whole amidst the parts...

Deb

 

[yellowblue]

Tashi--

Dreams are fun, aren't they??

Ah, friend bonding in the closest way and expressing it with such openess : ) despite the formal social implications....

Nice, if I'm reading this right...
This is a refreshing picture : )

Deb

 

[yellowblue]

Dharma,

You said

"I am noticing that as each tries to validate and give credence to their own version of reality they are
inadverently denying others the validity of THEIR
experience. By maintaining strictly faithful to one's own viewpoint, one's understanding of reality, which is naturally enhanced by the many viewpoints available, remains
narrow and limited."

The tower of babel????

Deb

 

[pedro]

Dear Malka, I felt like I was going against your conviction that there were "other beings" behind the particular fall of the coins or whatever method. It was not intended, I was only trying to say I believed there were no other beings interveening in the Yi, not that there were no other beings at all.
I even asked the Yi if it was "other beings" that made it work
Reply: 40, line 1 to 54... now is this a yes or a no?

 

[malka]

Pedro, I'm confused. I'm unaware of sharing any "convictions" about "other beings," and I'm not threatened nor upset with you in any way.

I do recall writing above that I appreciated all of the richness shared in this thread, and I do. I don't agree with all of it, and I'm comfortable with that. I still appreciate it.

Blessings,
Malka

 

[pedro]

I thought you were referring to David's post on 'other beings' when you said: "David, Thank you, thank you for speaking what I "feel" and "know" to be true without any evidence or even direct personal experience to support it. But I know. I know."

Forget it, I shouldnt have replied your post to David in the first place. My mistake, sorry

 

[dharma]

Pedro,
Initially, I said:
"There is nothing wrong with dialog.. you perhaps think that I am "arguing" against this, but I'm not."

And you responded with:
"I dont, I know youre clever [ wink ]"

Can this mean anything other than the obvious? If I'm wrong, I stand corrected. But the fact is, my attempt to communicate with you was sincere and genuine. If you expected that I was conning you with some special talent for intelligence trickery then I expect that this perception of me may affect how clever you think you need to be in your responses to me. Right or wrong, the rest of your response comes across as glib and flippant so I guess it's time to drop the ball and chalk it up to experience.


Deb,
you said:
"The tower of babel????"

It would seem so.

Dharma

 

[davidl]

Pedro,

There is a little bit of a misunderstanding happening.
My view is that yes, most of the time you are giving 'yourself' a reading with no intervention or 'assistance'. So I agree with the balance of your post, (although I still sense a degree of uncertainty. )
This of course does not exclude for me the possibility of asking for assistance from 'other ' sources and using the Yi as the 'decoder' for the transmission of this information.

Im sorry if I jumped on you a bit, but I do wonder why you included the first paragraph with its description of 'other ' assistance as fallacy when the rest of the post didn't really need it.
Anyway, no, 'other' beings don't make it work, or flip the coins . But they may have suggested the idea of doing a reading in the first place!

Quote: Somehow our paths in life take us to the knowledge we need, at the precise time we need it. (Pedro)

Maybe thats how?

 

[pedro]

Dharma, please believe that I meant nothing more than just that indeed I think that you are clever. Honest, I usually read your comments with interest, and I agree with your views as far as I recall
I realise now it may have seeme like I was being ironic or cynical, but Im not trying to be a smart ass or something
Love, pedro

 

[pedro]

David, lets just forget it, Im not upset with you or anything, and I realise I shoud have put more emphasis on the fact that what I said were merely my ideas, which I dont want to convince anyone of. I usually agree with you, and value your comments, and it was my teasing side that couldnt refrain from responding your somehow upset response. I still have little need to explain the odd things in my life with other beings, but that is just me, I cant impose my convictions on you, and you shouldnt let me (as you didnt). For me the first source of explanation is the mind, and only that fails I have to look further. Perhaps Im not spiritual enough to let those influences hit me in the first place. I do believe there are other entities, but there is so much credulity and superstition also involved in that that its easy not to know where to stop, and in that case excessive skepticism may be the antidote.
Please dont think Im mad at you or something. Nothing of the sort.
Incidentally, Ive been willing to experience a ouija board for a long time. I have my doubts if there are actually spirits involved or just the subconscious involved, but Ive heard so many weird stories from people I know that use it regularly, that I am curious
I wish there was some individual ouija that one could use alone... In any case I would love to have some spirit answer some questions of mine. They surely must know better what this is all about...
Keep cool, and best wishes

 

[chrislofting]

Hi Pedro,

You wrote:

>Now I believe in the
> truth as Buddha put it (Im not buddhist or any other -ist,
> though), but it has come to my acceptance not by the usual
> logical reasoning but by opening myself more and more to the
> intuitive side, till I could real feel there was something
> else under the superficial shell of material reality. But I
> know youre gonna say that are just my neuro-cognitive cells
> havin'a party [ biggrin ]
>



No. You interact with the universe from a species-perspective that includes ALL aspects of your persona, even the hidden ones (body language still determines about 55% of communications - and so the 'problems' we can have on the internet lists! ;-)). Thus the more you 'dig' so the more parts you uncover and with those parts come different persona perspectives. The structure of personality is in all of us and we all 'specialise' on that structure, a mix of nature and nurture. Thus every hexagram of the I Ching reflects a perspective that is adoptable by an individual as 'the' perspective upon reality.

The I Ching (and the underlying IDM material and associated MBTI material) can aid in fleshing-out all of the properties of those personas and so one can learn to 'shape shift' as well as 'transcend' ;-)

The IDM material focuses on our species-nature, and so properties we share with our ape cousins and all other neuron-dependent lifeforms. From that level all else is EXAGGERATIONS and that includes the properties and methods of our consciousness. IOW there is nothing 'reductionist' about the IDM or ICPlus work. All it does is (a) identify the BASE level properties of the I Ching as being in our species-nature and (b) focuses on the exaggerations from that base of our consciousness in its making of maps of reality.

> >Science is not a 'finished' product, a thing, it is a
> process, a
> >methodology for clear identification of 'facts' as in
> properties and
> >methods that are repeatable.
>
> I see, you are right I expressed myself poorly. What I meant
> is science has yet to discover the "mind force". Perhaps
> thats the missing force that is preventing an unified theory
> of forces
>

The overall focus for most in Science is problem-solving. The issue is in to understand C you need good knowledge of A and B. Traditional Science is only now recognising the realm of emotions etc and the development of consciousness. My own focus is on the source of meaning and that seems to be going well so eventually..... ;-) At the moment it takes us 9 months to create consciousness and then 15-20 years to train it. In AI the attempt is to speed that up ;-)


> No really, really, you are making me realise that perhaps Im
> a skeptic after all. Your model seems to account for
> everything that could be explained in a not so scientific
> way. If I read you correctly, then spirituallity (or that
> mind force, or whatever) is a consequence of the functioning
> of human species as a whole, and not something real per se.
> We have a sense of the spiritual, but there is no real
> spirituallity. Is that what youre saying?
>

...there is no need for a concept of spirituality as being 'originating'. Whether there is or not is of no interest in that with the way things are progressing there is no need for such a hypothesis. That said the IDM material lists out all of the persona types and that includes types who 'intuitively' focus on the 'spiritual' - IOW the perspective is 'useful' in certain contexts, be it as analogy/metaphor in describing reality.

Religion has roots in a need for closure within one's lifetime. Science works where each individual makes a contribution to a problem but the solution may not be in their lifetime. As such closure is LOCAL. Religion seems to favour a more GLOBAL sense of closure as immediate gratification, IOW "God IS - what more do you want?" This can be interpreted as a form of cop-out in focusing on the development of the species, a rejection of species-ness as 'basic' and so a rejection of evolution concepts etc etc. If we took the fundamentalist approach of 'God IS' then we would not be communicating on the Internet etc in that any form of 'unnatural' invention would be the mark of the devil etc etc etc (but fundamentalists are happy to use those 'unnatural' inventions as weapons, be they in the form of AK-47s or Boeing-737s)

Also note that Science has extended the lifespan of the species, 100 years ago most on this list would be dead or near-to! ;-) Now we look to reaching 80s+ and still be mentally 'active' etc... thats unless those fundamentalists dont blow us up so they can move on to 'heaven' etc.

The IDM work focuses on two instincts that easily transform into a sense of there being 'purpose' in that the instincts are rooted in integration and serve to protect a collective. As such the instincts are not restricted to humans, they will be part of any collective. It is their *exaggeration* that is the issue re our idealist sense of the spiritual where that idealism takes us into the realm of exploitation where the 'spiritual' sense is exploited, exaggerated for personal gain etc etc.

> But was it man that created spirituality or was its cause?

See above comments. A lot of lifeforms developed before we did but we all share a common theme in communications, i.e. the use of neurons etc.

> We didnt evolve eyes and then the visible spectrum appeared,
> it was there all along and we grew receptors to see it.

We started-off with feel, then smell/taste, then vision (where our brains 'took off' in development) and then into audition, parts processing and the development of rich serial communications.

Such notions as the 'law of the excluded middle' in analytical logic seems to stem from our smell and vision systems requiring 'sharp' distinctions of objects etc.IWO our increase in precision forced a focus on EITHER/OR etc that was then recruited and abstracted into Logic etc.

See my comments on A=A and A!=A in my page on Logic - http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/logic.html


> >You want purpose within that context? fine, take a quick
> MBTI test
> >and get a rough idea as to where you 'fit' as a part of the
> collective -
> >and so recognise your purpose, you role as a contributor to
> the species.
>
> hum, I have tried some of that stuff in the past but nothing
> that has striked me... my astrological lunar node was a
> revelation, though, and it also deals with purpose (and it
> portraits very well my deepest aspirations).
>

I was making the distinctions between your PART nature, being a part of the species, as compared to your CONSCIOUSNESS-nature. The MBTI focuses on team-work and so on fitting parts to be a whole. The MBTI therefore 'demands' you keep to your part, otherwise you let the collective down. Thus the MBTI can aid in identifying your PART nature and so what you can contribute to the 'team' that is our species. I, for example, map to an XNTP 'type' and I fit that realm as an analyst/programmer, a professional problem-solver ;-) That also satisfies me personally but as you should be aware by now I 'extend' into areas outside of basic computer programming! (and I started-off in show-biz, rock bands of the 60s/70s but that was more 'nurture' - I still had a 'need' to focus on the NT elements of my being and so got into computers and cognitive sciences, psychology and meaning issues)

The MBTI material acts to ground your species-nature, your partness, into a purpose for the benefit of the species. What you want to do as a conscious, autonomous, being is then up to you (unless you find that your job, your profession, is also your hobby, your personal interest, then you are lucky ;-))

The identifying of a basic temperament using the MBTI or Keirsey tests (latter is on the 'net and free) is useful generically, it is species-nature stuff (and so corporations etc love it as a tool for team creation) and can serve to give you a grounding, a foundation, from which you can develop, make some money, a living, as you decide what else you want to do (and so forfill the abilities of your consciousness-nature).

See some of the pages on my mbtiplus material (http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/mbtiplus.html)

BTW, my IChing 'totem', stemming from the IDM/MBTI work is the trigram of Thunder.

Chris.