I ching translation

[bruce]

That?s what I love most about this forum, and I?m the lucky one for it: Strong views from all directions, meeting at the well. There?s a lot to be said for endurance.

 

[luz]

Chris,
You say that we don't need to understand the chinese to understand the Universals. But the alternative you present to us is to understand YOU and think like you.. that might prove more difficult than learning chinese and understanding their culture.. i think..

 

[hmesker]

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

religion has no science behind it.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
So what? The way you talk about your stuff makes it sound like a religion to me.

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

The traditional IC has more of a 'religious' element in it as the continous promotion of that partial material as if the only material.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
Nowhere does the Yi say 'this is it, there is no more, deal with it'. The Yi hardly promotes anything, it is just what the viewer sees in it, and how much he is guided by commentary.

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

The amount of references, quotes etc of the 'traditional' IC on this list outweights my material and as such shows the degree of fundamentalism present - as you show in you attack upon something you obviously dont understand nore consider trying to - a common behaviour in fundamentalism ;-)<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
Thank you. I do my best. Your so-called science is pretty fundamentalistic too, as you present it as The Only True Way. So we are not that far apart from each other. But fundamentalism is not necessarily bad.

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

Because you are so rooted in the traditional material does not mean you know what you are dealing with from the position of the 'big picture' - you may imagine your position is the only 'real' one but I assure you you are mistaken....<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
I do not 'imagine' anything. Never have I said that I know 'the big picture' or that my position is 'the real one'. On the contrary. The most difficult question people can ask me is 'what is the Yijing?' Honest, I haven't got the slightest clue.

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

and that is unfortunate in that if you bothered to take the time to understand the Science etc your world would open up a bit.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
It seems yours is pretty closed too - everytime someone mentions traditional views you have to go against it. That is not an attitude of openess.

Harmen.

 

[hmesker]

But there is one difference between fundamentalism and me: I allow myself quite some room for doubt. I question almost everything. 'He says that, but is it really so?' Without this doubt the learning stops. For me, that is.

HM

 

[lightofdarkness]

lightangel - I NEVER say 'think like me' since that would be to be as particular as everyone else - what I suggest is to understand the GENERAL methodology we all use as species members to create such particular expressions as the IC - IOW by understanding the CAUSE of the IC one can get a better idea re understand the EFFECTS.

The cause is NOT ancient china, the cause is rooted in the properties and methods of our neurology and the ICPlus material shows how it all happens. That is not MY thinking, it is the seeding of all thoughts by our species-nature.

Understanding that realm of the GENERAL and REGULAR network that is the 'universal I Ching' so one can get a richer understanding of LOCAL expressions as well as witness that which has been excluded from the local by ad hoc development.

 

[lightofdarkness]

HM I say nothing - I indicate the research that says something; I put it all together to bring out the universal IC. That is what Science is about, it is not out of the meanderings of my mind over a cup of tea; I channel nothing. IT is all rooted in the hard work, the empirical studies, on how we as a species derive meaning and from there how such particular metaphors as the IC come about.

As to my comments on traditional views - prior to my prose that is all that was expressed on this thread as an answer to a question covering the whole IC concept - IOW there were only 'traditional' translations/interpretations and that is FALSE. But as long as you traditionalists refuse to recognise the universal aspects so there will be these issues where I will say 'but wait, there is more!'.

BTW - a give LOTS of links since I dont like repeating myself - why expound for the nth time something covered in a page one can link to?

AS for being closed - no way in that the traditional perspectives are recognised parts of the universal IC - it is YOU who are closed in not recognising that your work has been on a PART of a greater whole.

I suppose we should not worry too much about it all - the system with the most choices will suceed in the long run - Law of Requisite Variety - and I assure you the universal perspective has more choices....

Chris.

 

[bradford_h]

Hi all
What Bruce said about niche markets, things working and endurance, reminds me of something not said here yet. Meme theory suggests an extended analogy between cultural and biological evolution, and that selective processes and the survival of fitness act on cultural elements as well. And fitness eventually comes to mean appropriateness more than might.
In my comment to Susan I mentioned multiple versions of Laozi. Many survived above ground in the culture (Wang Bi, Heshang Gong, Fuyi, etc) and some "went extinct" and just got exhumed. Only one Yi survived above ground in the culture. The question is, what do we make of this?
What did humans lose when we lost the gene lines of Neanderthal and Habilis?
Certainly any twelve year old Erectus kid would win most of our Olympic strength events without breaking a sweat (even thought they're invariably shown as clumsy on TV). What went on in a Neanderthal brain that was 20% larger than ours?
I suppose my decision to stand by the received text of the Yi had a little bit to do with a Darwinian sort of snobbery, as well as a need to say Enough, this book has to get written sometime before I die. As to the things we've brought back from the dead, they still have things to teach us. I've used glosses from the Mawangdui Yijing to help me understand ideas in the received text, but mostly I just don't find it to be as good, or as insightful, or as clear.

 

[martin]

" .... the cause is rooted in the properties and methods of our neurology and the ICPlus material shows how it all happens. That is not MY thinking, it is the seeding of all thoughts by our species-nature."

Of course this is YOUR thinking, Chris. There is no general agreement about anything like that, not even among psychologists and neuroscientists.
And among those who would agree more or less there are still many differences in opinion as to the how (the role of recursion for example).

 

[lightofdarkness]

HM wrote: "I allow myself quite some room for doubt"

but 1 + 1 = 2 - that is what universals can do give some good degree of certainty.

For example, the ICPlus XOR material shows the encoding of all hexagrams in each. That is not MY doing it is a fact of the methodology in deriving hexagrams using recursion. IOW the '27-ness' of 01 is ALWAYS 28. no question. no doubt.

The use of recursion to encode yin/yang ensures a rich tapastry of meaning is created that is only extractable using logic operators a la what our brains do in extracting parts from a whole (XOR/AND dynamio).

There is no doubt here. There IS 'vagueness' in that LOCAL expression is required to ground the universal, to bring out the particular, and so bring out its full colour LOCALLY.

Focus too much on the trees and one will lose sight of the forest.

Chris.

 

[lightofdarkness]

Martin - GO THROUGH THE REFERENCES. NOT doing that weakens your assertions in that you offer no counter claims, no supporting material from neurosciences or psychology - I DO.

This is all 'new paradigm' stuff so take the time and get into it. From an I Ching perspective you WILL benefit.

(refs/abstracts/reading lists are in pages linked to the end of the IDM main page:

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/idm001.html

There is additional supporting refs in such pages as:

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

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

Chris.

 

[martin]

Chris, as you know, I already did my "homework". And we discussed your approach in detail, remember?

 

[lightofdarkness]

BTW - basic recursion in the asymmetric brain:

with no memory each moment is of:

T1 A OR B
T2 A OR B
T3 A OR B

Add memory and a context to give:

T1 A OR B
T2 A OR B in a context set by T1 give us AA, OR AB OR BA OR BB
etc etc etc

The set of POSSIBLE meanings then becomes a binary tree format with a personal life (or moment) being a thread through that tree.

Given the facts re differentiating/integrating aka WHAT/WHERE so we can derive the set of POSSIBLE meanings at Tn. (as covered in the 'species I ching' thread on clarity list archives)

IDM shows that mapping these out gives us the whole, part, statics, dynamics qualities that are fundamental to the trigrams of the IC.... and to the qualities used in describing human emotions.... and to the qualities used in describing personas.... and to the qualities use in describing types of numbers used in Mathematics....

As covered in IDM there are TWO types of dichotomies and the IC can map both. The core type is asymmetric (WHAT/WHERE, PARTICULAR/GENERAL, DIFFERENTIATING/INTEGRATING) as shown in such neuroscience work as:

Cerebral Cortex, Vol. 11, No. 10, 954-965, October 2001
? 2001 Oxford University Press

New Evidence for Distinct Right and Left Brain Systems for Deductive versus Probabilistic Reasoning
Lawrence M. Parsons and Daniel Osherson1
University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX and
1 Rice University, Houston, TX, USA

Lawrence M. Parsons, Director, Cognitive Neuroscience Program, Division of Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences, Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230, USA.

Deductive and probabilistic reasoning are central to cognition but the functional neuroanatomy underlying them is poorly understood. The present study contrasted these two kinds of reasoning via positron emission tomography. Relying on changes in instruction and psychological ?set?, deductive versus probabilistic reasoning was induced using identical stimuli. The stimuli were arguments in propositional calculus not readily solved via mental diagrams. Probabilistic reasoning activated mostly left brain areas whereas deductive activated mostly right. Deduction activated areas near right brain homologues of left language areas in middle temporal lobe, inferior frontal cortex and basal ganglia, as well as right amygdala, but not spatial?visual areas. Right hemisphere activations in the deduction task cannot be explained by spill-over from overtaxed, left language areas. Probabilistic reasoning was mostly associated with left hemispheric areas in inferior frontal, posterior cingulate, parahippocampal, medial temporal, and superior and medial prefrontal cortices. The foregoing regions are implicated in recalling and evaluating a range of world knowledge, operations required during probabilistic thought. The findings confirm that deduction and induction are distinct processes, consistent with psychological theories enforcing their partial separation. The results also suggest that, except for statement decoding, deduction is largely independent of language, and that some forms of logical thinking are non-diagrammatic.

ALSO SEE:


Oaksford, M., and Chater, N., (2001) "The probabilistic approach to human reasoning" IN Trends in Cognitive Sciences Vol 5. No8 August 2001: 349-357

(published PRIOR to the above) From the intro:

"In a standard reasoning task, performance is compared with the inferences people should make according to logic, so a judgement can be made on the rationality of people's reasoning. It has been found that people make large and systematic (i.e. non-random) errors, which suggests that humans might be irrational. However, the probabilistic approach argues against this interpretation" (p349)

For such work showing the differences in accumulated time in brain oscillations over hemispheres influence one's general thinking then consider:

http://www.uq.edu.au/nuq/jack/procroysoc.html

The above allows for persona types to emerge in behaviour in that the oscillations in the brain is across the differentiate(left bias)/integrate(right bias) dichotomy that translates to the binary sequence of the IC....

ICPlus = new paradigm.

Chris.

 

[martin]

My main conclusion is and was: this is ingenious and imaginative work, quite fitting for an NT type .
However, as it is now it is still too speculative for current scientific standards. There is as yet not enough experimental/empirical proof.
That may change in the future though and I wish you good luck!

 

[martin]

Crossed posts!

 

[lightofdarkness]

Martin - I recall you did not finish your homework.

The IDM material and recursion leads into the XOR/AND processing in the brain and that leads into the extracting of parts from a whole and that leads to the XOR material applied to hexagram and their 'N-ness' - a methodology of extracting a hexagram's spectrum and it DOES work.

(and we can see the roots in our unconscious sensory processing as covered in:

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

The IDM/ICPlus research never stops ;-)

Chris.

 

[lightofdarkness]

I sdont consider the XOR work on hexagrams as "speculative" - there is clearly a relationship there that is rooted in the methodology of recursing the dichotomy where that material also applies to ALL self-referencing of dichotomies and so the MBTI etc.

If know NT types then you know they 'map' to Thunder and can be represented as:

100100

XOR this with 100001 to get their skeletal form and it is - 35 (000101) where we do exactly what NTs do - bring something into the light:

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/lofting/x101000.html

Check out the full spectrum for the NT covered in thunder:

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/lofting/x001001.html


Chris.

 

[martin]

Of course I finished my homework. I played a lot with XOR (also with other operators) and it indeed does seem to make sense.
But "it makes sense" is subjective, that's why I would like to have some kind of "hard" test.

Not easy to do, I know, but if it's supposed to be "science" such tests are ultimately necessary.
Beyond a certain point documenting doesn't add much anymore. Even if the facts and the reasoning that support a theory seem to leave no room for doubt (and this is rare) the question remains "is this really true?". And only new experiments can help to answer that question.

 

[martin]

Btw, I link NT with heaven, not with thunder.
Now, how are we going to find out if I am right or you?

 

[hmesker]

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

As to my comments on traditional views - prior to my prose that is all that was expressed on this thread as an answer to a question covering the whole IC concept - IOW there were only 'traditional' translations/interpretations and that is FALSE. But as long as you traditionalists refuse to recognise the universal aspects so there will be these issues where I will say 'but wait, there is more!'.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
Yet on your site you rely almost solely on traditional views to explain the hexagrams. On http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/lofting/x001001.html I read questions like
(24) : How does this hexagram 'start', express 'beginning'?
(36) : How does this hexagram protect its 'light' when not its time?
(51) : How does this hexagram express surprise, enlightenment, shock?
(55) : How does this hexagram deal with abundance/overflowing?
(03) : How does this hexagram 'sprout'?

etc. Just a few samples. You clearly connect 'starting' with 24, 36 with 'protecting its light', etc. These are all traditional views. In other words, you use the traditional views as a basis for (a part of) your own material. There is nothing wrong with that, but why do you despise the 'traditional view' if without the traditional view your work lacks a foundation? After all, without the traditional views of the hexagrams their meaning can only be guessed. Discard the 'traditional view' and you have to start from the beginning (as I try to do). There is nothing 'universal' in the traditional view, it is all firmly grounded in Chinese culture. And you use a lot of it. There does not exist a 'universal I Ching' because it is unseparately linked with Chinese culture. Without the Chinese culture there would not be a Yijing. After all, the Yijing is the hexagrams + the text (and if you want you may add the Ten Wings). It is this specific combination which makes up the Yi. Without the hexagrams it is not the Yi, without the text it is also not the Yi. If you only work with the hexagrams, or with their names, you do not use the Yi. Because the Yi is more than that.

and if you say in a former post

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

Those who attempt to translate the traditional IC are taking that particular work as the 'gospel' when in fact it is not, it is but one of MANY attempts to express the underlying, species-wide, universals at work in all of us.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

...then I can only say, that is not science. Because science has never proven that the Yijing 'is but one of MANY attempts to express the underlying, species-wide, universals at work in all of us'. That is your LOCAL assumption

HM

 

[bruce]

Brad, of course I can?t know this, but I?d imagine that the Neanderthal would have found the same consistent and recordable phenomenal laws as the Erectus. Perhaps weaker in some areas and stronger in others. The stories and myths which illustrate truths would have their own characters, but the outcomes would be the same; just as Tibetan culture isn?t so far removed from indigenous native American culture.

 

[jesed]

Hi Cris

I have learned that, when there are debates respect of the I Ching, the best thing is ask the I Ching directly "its opinion". (take this sentence as a metaphora, not like I Ching is an outer person)

I propose you an exercise.

I consulted to I Ching two questions:
1.-What buttons were pushed in order that Cris was behaving as he has done in this thread? 18.4 ==> 50
2.-Which is your judgment with regard to Cris's idea against traditional teachings? 18.4 ==> 50
(again)

With all honesty, i post the answers that i received. The proposal is... you ask the same questions to the i Ching, and with the same honesty you post the answers you'll get

And then, with both traditional interpretation and ICPlus interpretation, maybe we could get some conclusions.

What do you think?

 

[lightofdarkness]

Martin,

*cognitive* analysis of the different categories such as IC or MBTI show 'sameness' at the level of blending, bonding, bounding, and binding. At that level we have MBTI correlates with IC that correlates with categories of emotions that correlate with categories of number types in Mathematics.

Given that consistancy the NT tempermant maps to the DIGRAM of yin over yang. Move to the trigrams and we have Thunder with XNTP and Fire with XNTJ. (the I/E dichotomy is not differentiated until level 4 and so replaced with X.)

The consistancy in data patterns/predictions when 'eating' this way suggest your association of NT and Heaven is FALSE.

See the mappings in:

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

(I had to remove the explicit MBTIPlus material as the owners of the MBTI got 'upset' ;-))

The point with the XOR is that applied to the MBTI categories it brings out not just properties but methods used in interacting with the environment and those 'fit' the prose applied to the MBTI types (and HBDI etc) from outside of IDM.

Using the IDM recursive processes takes us WAY beyond the current dogma re type etc., and allows us to detect the 'drive' of emotions on persona expression. All of which can be mapped to the IC to give more depth.

Chris.

 

[lightofdarkness]

Jesed,

18 = correcting corruption
50 = transformation

so correcting current corruptions (interpretable as correcting the maintaining of traditional perspectives in the light of current research in neurosciences) leads to transformations.

;-)

Chris.

 

[lightofdarkness]

HM,

If you read through the IC Plus material it takes the 'traditional' and extends it through application of additional material. To maintain the connections of universal with traditional I include the traditional names (showing that the traditional is a PART of the universal)

If you move to the IDM material it all covers IDM terms a la blend, bond, bound, bind. Terms I have used in the 'species I Ching' thread to bring out the underlying, generic, feelings of the qualities derived from recursion of yin/yang.

The 'questions' you have quoted above relate to the XOR material that allows us to extract a hexagram's spectrum and you have left out the FULL context that is:

01 :: (24) : How does this hexagram 'start', express 'beginning'? :: 16

02 :: (07) : How does this hexagram express uniformity, establishment of? :: 54

03 :: (19) : How does this hexagram express approaching the 'high'; defer to the 'low'? :: 40

04 :: (15) : How does this hexagram level things out, keep words close to facts? :: 55

05 :: (36) : How does this hexagram protect its 'light' when not its time? :: 62

etc etc

IOW the questions are rhetorical where the answer is given by analogy to the hexagram whose number is at the end of each 'question'. This 'spectrum' comes from the XOR-ing methodology.

I can exclude the traditional IC material to give a universal model based on generic terms of blending, bonding etc but why? This is about the IC not about something totally different. To SHOW the traditional material as sourced from the general material one needs to maintain the links ;-) - over time it could be possible to have no reference at all to the traditional IC but to see the links to the traditional IC we use elements of that IC in our showing of what is going on neurologically etc.

At the generic level, hexagram 24 covers a context of binding (sharing time with another/others) in which is a text of blending (becoming 'one', through integration, drawing someone/something 'in') - this comes out of qualities derived from basic brain dynamics, no reference at all to the IC in particular.

IOW the labels of the traditional are labels given to the cells of meaning derived from recursion of differentiate(yang)/integrate(yin) by the brain.

Move up to the more particular in the context of emotions and we have issues of fear and resolving it through devotion to another/others in a context of surprise/the sudden.

Move to the IC and this is a context of thunder in which is operating a text of earth and the traditional text maintains, to varying degrees, the same meanings. FROM there comes the additional work re XOR etc derived from analysis of the method of recursion.

The UNIVERSAL level is the qualities of blend, bond, bound, bind (aka issues of wholeness, static relatedness, partness, dynamic relatedness) there is no IC labels here (in IDM we focus on bit patterns representing wave forms or binary values etc etc). The IC labels are at the level of LOCAL EXPRESSION of these universal patterns of meaning derived from the species recursion of a dichotomy.

What you seem to dismiss is the SAMENESS across all members of the species and over-focus on the DIFFERENCES as shown in expressions. IOW to you it is all 'rooted' in the Chinese. No. The form of representation, of symbolism, is, but the qualities represented are in all of us as a species, it is not something 'unique' to the Chinese (if it was then non-chinese would not understand it at all)

Chris.

 

[bruce]

<font size="-2">saw that one coming, ie:18-50</font>

 

[jesed]

"interpretable as correcting the maintaining of traditional perspectives in the light of current research in neurosciences"

it is a posibility of interpretation, indeed.. but not the only one, isn't?
specially if one read the changing line (beacuse, if what was spoiled="traditonal perspectives", then the line 4 would mean that you are accepting and tolerating "traditonal perspectives". And it is obvious that you aren't doing that)

But what about your own exercise? because, if you read the proposal, there was steps: a)i did some questions and post the answer; b) you do the same questions and post the answers; c) i do the traditional interpretation; d) you do the ICPlus interpretation; e)we both try to get some conclusions.

But I guess you don't accept what others think or other's proposal. Is all about what you think and your own proposal only.

 

[hmesker]

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

HM,

If you read through the IC Plus material it takes the 'traditional' and extends it through application of additional material. Blahblah etc.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
Funny: you are completely ignoring what I said. You use a lot of words but you are not communicating.

And still, when you say to Jesed that
<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

18 = correcting corruption
50 = transformation<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
you are still using traditional views to explain the meaning of hexagrams, instead of your own material. It seems that when it comes to it there is nothing that can beat that.

HM

 

[jesed]

Hi Cris

Since you avoid the step b), let's move to the step c):

According with traditional teachings

1.- Every hexagram points, among other meanings, both to objective situations and subjective positions.

2.- In hex 18, the objective situation is like having worms in the food. That is why, the name of the hexagram can be translated as: "corruption, decay, decadence, rot, putrefaction, worms (in food or the belly), toxicity, poison, pestilence; bad medicine, bad magic, slow poison, venom; fixation (s), stagnation, deception, guile, delusion, insanity" (Bradford translation)

3.- The same hex 18, as subjective position, is the responsability of repair that objective situation (as the Judgment says, specially if you take the Tuan Zhuan). That is why, another way to translate the name is "renewal, healing, curing, purging,detoxifying" (Bradford's translation)

4.- The same hex 18, as a cualification of a person/idea/undertake, is the result from face the changing line(s) with both the subjective and objective situation. In line 4, we can see that in an objective situation of putrefaction and a subjective position of resposability of repair that situation, the person/idea/undertake is not doing what he/she/it should do but tolerating that wrong situation. Of course, that means a bad cualification of the person/idea/undertake

5.- If the question is the cualification of an idea, the above can be "translate" like: the person have a dogmatic/wrong idea; he/she should review his/her conceptions; but he/she is holding to his/her own point of view.

6.- The effect of this cualification is described in the line 4 of hex 50: "A cauldron with a broken leg. Overturning the duke?s meal
His person is soiled. Woe" (Bradford's translation) (note that the relationship between 18.4 and 50.4 is cause/efect: 50.4 is the effect of 18.4 and 18.4 is the cause of 50.4 but not viceversa. Is what Bradford name fan yao)

7.- If the question is the cualification of an idea, the above can be "translate" like: the idea is "uneatable".

8.- In traditional teachings there is not one binary secuence (as seems to be in ICPlus).. but 8 binary secuences (4 "microcosmical" and 4 "macrocosmical"). Normally I don't use them in the forum, because the general consecuences of them are implicit in the traditional commentaries of the principal hex, but if you want it I could transcript the pairs of 18 in the 8 secuences.

best wishes

 

[lightofdarkness]

HM of you bothered to go through the IC plus material you would perhaps start to 'get it'! The ICPlus material covers the application of recursion to a dichotomy and the qualities that emerge as universal that are then localised, given colour, by the local context.

That LOCAL context will assign arbitrary labels to the universals where the set of labels we are covering here are what we call the 'traditional sequence'.

From the universal level, the quality in the cell that the label "hexagram 18" represents is of a context of sharing time with another/others (contractive binding) within which is operating a text of sharing space with another/others (contractive bonding).

There is no 'chinese' element here, it is all pure expression at the general, species-level of our being. LOCALISE the binding and bonding universals in a chinese context and out will pop labels linking the universals to local conditions/language.

Refine these generic qualities and the sharing of time with another/others is refined into the properties, in the IC, of wind with its focus on cultivation/anticipation (and these cover both 'right' doing and 'wrong' doing).

IOW the qualities associated with contractive binding, a category derived from recursion of differentiate/integrate dichotomy operating in our brains, are expressed LOCALLY, culturally and so collectively in the Chinese label of 'wind' - as they are expressed in the emotional label derived from research into the categories of emotions of 'anticipation'.

The SAME 'cells' of qualities are used in ALL category systems based on recursion of a dichotomy - there is ONE set of qualities used in MANY specialist perspectives.

The LABEL is arbitrary, what it represents is hard-coded into all of us as species-members.

Knowing the method of deriving the qualities so we find that the method comes with properties such as described in the ICPlus XOR material - where, for example, the skeletal form of 18 is described by analogy to the under-exaggerated qualities of hexagram 11.

IOW from understanding the GENERAL, UNIVERSAL, properties and methods of recursion we bring out qualities etc at the LOCAL level that are useful in understanding what hexagram 18 covers - and it all comes from the certainty of the methodology.

This does not 'remove' the traditional labels of the IC, it does allow for their refinement in meaning in that we can be more precise in labelling what is represented. (e.g. the pattern of contractive blending is 000000 and is known as 'earth' or 'the receptive'. But what is represented is more general in that we cover (a) the competitive nature of darkness vs light and (b) the cooperative nature of female with male. The ICPlus pages cover all of this 'dual' or 'paired' interpretations all the way up to quartets, octets, and to the full 64 hexagram sequences and so extend understanding of 000000 way beyond the 'traditional' material.

The ability to do this comes from understanding the derivation of meaning by us as a species - the traditional IC as such is a collection of metaphors/anologies used to describe qualities we all share as neuron-dependent life forms - that is 'why' it all 'works'.

The traditional texts etc are extremely limiting in their scope simply because they are specialist and so 'demand' understanding of the local. Through the IDM analysis of meaning derivation so there is no longer the demand to understand the local, all you need to do is understand the GENERAL qualities out of which you can make your own local.

Chris.

 

[jesed]

Hi cris

You had said that.. and I had notice that.

If you read the previous post, you can see that I did the proposal "i do the traditional interpretation and you do the ICPlus interpretation".

So, you has decide no to do your own questions and answer... is ok. I had do the c) step (traditional interpretation. Of course, it means that you can not expect that I do a traditional interpretation using the ICPlus, isn't? I think is obvious).

Now, maybe you can do an ICPlus interpretation of the answer 18.4 to one of the questions (or both, as you wish)

Just a favor (in case you wish to do that): try to respond with a straight conclusion.

best wishes