I ching translation

[lightofdarkness]

>
> According with traditional teachings
>
> 1.- Every hexagram points, among other meanings, both to objective
> situations and subjective positions.
>

In IDM and its focus on the IC in ICPlus there is a set of qualities derived to serve as universals in describing 'anything' real or imagined - IOW at the general level there is no distinction of subjective/objective. THAT distinction is made LOCALLY. The IC symbolisms are a set of labels mapped to the set of generic qualities derived by the neurology.

It is thus LOCAL CONTEXT that adds colour to these universals. When we map the binary sequence of the IC to the template of qualities identified above we have the cell that is labelled in the IC as hex 18 'containing' the qualities of a context of issues with sharing time with another/others - be it positive (cultivating right) or negative (anticipating wrong)

ANY local context that elicits the generic qualities in this cell will, by association, 'fit' the label of "hexagram 18" of the I Ching.

In the ad hoc development of the I Ching WITHOUT understanding the underlying neurology seeding meaning will emerge MANY particular associations to this ONE GENERAL cell of meaning.

In the ICPLus pages I use a number of labels etc to communicate this generic quality that is represented in the IC as 'hexagram 18':

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/lofting/x100010.html

The generic focus is on (a) corruption by neglect and (b) criminal corruption. The ACTION involved is on correcting that corruption where the skeletal form of that action is described by analogy to hexagram 11 with a focus on harmonising/balancing - IOW the generic 'vibe' seeding hex 18 is on mediation to 'restore' balance etc. (the reverse is also for 11 where its focus on harmonising/balancing is seeded by a need to 'correct')

Given the use of 'bit' values in representations (0/1 dichotomy) we discover that we can extract the spectrum of 18 to show ALL of the other hexagrams being expressed through 18. (and so the '27-hess' of 18 is 11).

This XOR work is 'mathematical' in that it is not 'derived' by me, it is a product of recursion such that we can elicit a LOT of details about any hexagram by using logic operators that are parts of our brains and thinking (e.g. hexagram 18's "correct sequence" - how it completes without interference etc is derived by XOR-ing 18 with the hexagram of correct sequence - 63. This gives us:

010001
101010
------
111011 = 09 the making of small gains (and so small 'corrections') is the 'correct sequence' through the quality represented in 18. With this can come prose covering the issues of making too large corrections or no corrections at all etc where the 'correct' path is to make small corrections and so gains. In the realm of personal relationships this gets into the need to maintain and develop the relationship through continual 'correcting' of misunderstanding etc - and so avoid things building-up and getting out of hand etc.

The ICPlus covers the 'language of the vague' and so covers all possible expressions of hexagrams as universals. LOCAL context then adds the 'colour'.

BTW - In IC PLUS there are thousands of binary sequences but all derived from the one 'natural' sequence of recursing yin/yang. The fact that you are not aware of this shows how much time you have spent going through the ICPlus material - very little!

For discussion etc see such pages as:

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

...and the collection of pages etc into the ICPlus page:

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/IChingPlus


... or ask me more questions ;-) .....

..... or go through the following about the use of micro 'binary sequences' in the IC ( I have pasted this from my own list due to the content covering some aspects of 18):

--------------fractal nature of self-referencing/self-similar --------

If we take the binary sequence of the IC and fold it into its eight
octets we get a matrix of:

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

We can interpret the full sequence as a sequence of 32 pairs where
the 16 yin-based pairs structurally 'oppose' the 16 yang-based pairs
such that we can form pairs of 'opposites' a la 02/01, 23/43, 08/14
etc etc

BUT, since EACH octet is itself a representitive of a binary sequence
so we can form opposites in each octet such as:

02/12, 23/45, 08/35, 20/16 etc etc

BUT, since the ordering of the octets is in opposites so we can form
opposite octets to give 16-hexagram 'binary' sequences:

02 23 08 20 16 35 45 12 (earth base)
11 26 05 09 34 14 43 01 (heaven base)

'opposite' pairs 02/01, 23/43, 08/14, 20/34, 16/09, 35/05, 45/26,
12/11

15 52 39 53 62 56 31 33 (mountain base)
19 41 60 61 54 38 58 10 (lake base)

07 04 29 59 40 64 47 06 (water base)
36 22 63 37 55 30 49 13 (fire base)

46 18 48 57 32 50 28 44 (wind base)
24 27 03 42 51 21 17 25 (thunder base)

BUT, being binary we can apply a method here that is applied at
the 'big scale' binary sequence - variations on a theme. Rather
than 'oppose' one side of the binary with the other, we 'slide' one
side over the other.

In the full sequence this will give us:

02 23 08 20 16 35 45 12 (earth base)
24 27 03 42 51 21 17 25 (thunder base)

15 52 39 53 62 56 31 33 (mountain base)
36 22 63 37 55 30 49 13 (fire base)

07 04 29 59 40 64 47 06 (water base)
19 41 60 61 54 38 58 10 (lake base)

46 18 48 57 32 50 28 44 (wind base)
11 26 05 09 34 14 43 01 (heaven base)

Here each column in the pairs of octets reflects a one line
difference between the bottom hexagram and the top (02/24, 23/27 etc
etc)

This is applicable to the 'micro' binary sequences made up of octet
pairs such that we get:

opposites
(earth base - heaven base)
02 23 08 20 16 35 45 12 - 11 26 05 09 34 14 43 01

becomes

variations
02 23 08 20 16 35 45 12
11 26 05 09 34 14 43 01

where the columns are variations on a theme. To complete the sets:

(mountain - lake)
15 52 39 53 62 56 31 33 - 19 41 60 61 54 38 58 10

(15 opposes 10, 52 opposes 58)

becomes:

15 52 39 53 62 56 31 33
19 41 60 61 54 38 58 10

15 and 19 share a theme.
52 and 41 share a theme. etc

(water vs fire opposites)
07 04 29 59 40 64 47 06 - 36 22 63 37 55 30 49 13

(water vs fire as variations (columns))

07 04 29 59 40 64 47 06 (water base)
36 22 63 37 55 30 49 13 (fire base)

07 and 36 share a theme, 04 and 22 etc etc

(wind vs thunder opposites)
46 18 48 57 32 50 28 44 - 24 27 03 42 51 21 17 25

(wind vs thunder as variations (columns))

46 18 48 57 32 50 28 44
24 27 03 42 51 21 17 25

46 and 24 share a theme
18 and 27 share a theme etc etc

Due to this 'fractal' nature reflected in the binary sequence, we can
reduce these 'binary' sequences from 64 to 2 x 32 to 4 x 16 to 8 x 8
to 16 x 4 to 32 x 2.

IOW in each octet we have (a) the binary sequence (e.g. 46 18 48 57
32 50 28 44) and also (b) the variations (e.g.

46 18 48 57
32 50 28 44

46 and 32 share a theme etc etc

Then we have 46 18 48 57 'binary sequence' that becomes

46 18
48 57

These in turn 'reduce' to pairs of 46, 18 that are (a) opposites and
(b) variations.

If we follow octet sequences through analysis we have a binary
sequence of 16 hexagrams - two 'opposing' octets - e.g. wind and
thunder:

46 18 48 57 32 50 28 44 - 24 27 03 42 51 21 17 25

Here 46 opposes 25 structurally but the only difference of 46 to 18
is the top trigram

Make variations and we have:

46 18 48 57 32 50 28 44
24 27 03 42 51 21 17 25

The variation for 46 to 24 is the bottom trigram. IOW there is a
semantic element at work in these columns. (pushing upwards, becoming
MORE involved as reflected in 46 is a variation of the theme
of 'returning' to a particular/preferred 'path' a la 24. 18 with its
focus on correcting corruption is in a variation with 27 where we are
warned to watch what we take-in etc etc for these column pairs)

Reduce the binary sequence to within an octet and
interpret 'opposites':

46 18 48 57 - 32 50 28 44

e.g. 46 'opposes' 44

go to variations:

46 18 48 57
32 50 28 44

46 variation is with 32.
18 with 50 etc etc

reduce the binary sequence to:

46 18 - 48 57

46 'opposes' 57
18 'opposes' 48

reduce to variations:

46 18
48 57

46 variation with 48
18 variation with 57



Chris.

 

[lightofdarkness]

Jesed, 18.4 turns into this dodecagram (which is what hexagrams with changing lines in fact represent:

011001 -> 011x01 -> 001111010011)

What does THAT represent? still working on it. from a 'hexagram over hexagram' perspective it is 59 over 33.

If we stick to hexagrams alone then line 4 is related to qualities of 16 (see pages on wave interpretations etc -

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/IChingPlus/WaveInterpret.html )

The ICPlus INTERPRETATION of 18.4 based on the 'traditional' ERANOS text is covered in the line comments at page:

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/lofting/100010.html

but the derivation method used re 'random' methods comes with doubts - so try the proactive methodology for an ICPlus interpretation:

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

Chris

 

[lightofdarkness]

oops,

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/lofting/100010.html should be http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/lofting/100110.html

line 4 is:

Line 4
"To be able to talk about the problems, to know what they are (map them out) and yet do nothing brings humiliation."

sorry -

Chris.

 

[jesed]

straight answer..indeed

but remains some doubst to me

1.- when you wrote "The generic focus is on (a) corruption by neglect and (b) criminal corruption",
how can you know that the corruption is in the traditional teachings and not in your own idea against traditional teaching? (even more, because the questions was your idea and not traditional teachings)

2.- when you wrote. "The ACTION involved is on correcting that corruption where the skeletal form of that action is described by analogy to hexagram 11 with a focus on armonising/balancing",
how can you know that the action is correct traditonal teachings and not correct your idea against traditional teachings? (even more, because the questions was your idea and not traditional teachings)

3.- When you wrote "With this can come prose covering the issues of making too large corrections or no corrections at all etc where the 'correct' path is to make small corrections and so gains",
how can you know that you should do large corrections to traditional teachings instead not-doing corrections to traditional teachings at all? (remember, this Universals are used to solve a concrete question)

4.- You wrote "In the realm of personal relationships this gets into the need to maintain and develop the relationship through continual 'correcting' of misunderstanding etc "
If this is related to the first question (why you acted like you did), how can you know that you should try to "correct" Harmen instead of correct your own conduct? or yur own idea in the case of the second question?

5.- You wrote: "In IC PLUS there are thousands of binary sequences but all derived from the one 'natural' sequence of recursing yin/yang. The fact that you are not aware of this shows how much time you have spent going through the ICPlus material - very little!"
Your thounsands secuences, are really the "resultant" of doing the unique "one natural" secuence of yin/yang with diferent hexagrams, isn't?.
So, you have only one secuence (one way to derivate those resultants), isn't?.
(Otherwise, you contradict yourself with thousands secuences derivated of the one natural secuence. The 8 secuences I wrote about are 8 diferent ways to derivate "resultants". By the way, I had read your articles, but you hadn't read many of traditional teachings, as you said weeks ago)


As you can see, yes I had a lot of questions...
but know I now that I cnn't expect straight answers to those questions

 

[jesed]

ps... in order you notice that I read your linked pages:

In your comment about 18 (http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/lofting/100110.html), you wote that the "degeneration caused by spiritual neglect" sy,mbolized in 18 is "the price of too much cultivation"
But, how can you know which "too much cultivation" is? harmen's cultivation? bradford's cultivation? yours? (You wouldn't think that I have "much cultivation" at all, isn't?)

 

[hmesker]

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

HM of you bothered to go through the IC plus material you would perhaps start to 'get it'!<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
You always assume that I do not read what you write on your site (you do a lot of these assumptions), it seems to be your standard answer when someone disagrees with what you say: 'just read my website!'. But you know that your site is totally incomprehensible to me. Again, you use a lot of words but you are not communicating. If you want me to understand/believe what you say you at least have to try to speak my language. You can't expect me to turn into an amateur neuro-scientist just to understand your website. The problem is also that you have a lot of old stuff lying around on the web, there are a lot of broken links, and I cannot judge what is still relevant and what isn't.

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

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.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
If there is 'no chinese element here', then why do you still use the Chinese labels? If you still use the Chinese labels/names, then there are still Chinese elements in your work.

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

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.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
And you really expect me to understand this sentence?

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

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

Still, with at the basis the traditional labels. Suppose if you did not know that hexagram 18 was called 'corruption' or something similar, would your system (it is nothing more than that) still point to that meaning? I believe your first starting point will always be the traditional views/names of the hexagrams. Because without it, you are lost.

HM

 

[lightofdarkness]

> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Posted by Jesed (Jesed) on Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 10:07 am:
>
> straight answer..indeed
>
> but remains some doubst to me
>
> 1.- when you wrote "The generic focus is on (a) corruption by neglect
> and (b) criminal corruption",
> how can you know that the corruption is in the traditional teachings
> and not in your own idea against traditional teaching? (even more,
> because the questions was your idea and not traditional teachings)
>

? I think you may be confused. The traditional sequence and associated prose presents a perspective rooted in the local context of ancient china. That perspective, as presented in the I Ching texts is based on lack of knowledge of the inner workings of how we, as a species, derive meaning. As such, the traditional IC has been derived from an ad hoc development path at the level of expression and in that development contains explanations of IC development that is 'fanciful'.

When we analyse the general meanings associated with hexagrams and trigrams we find they express universal qualities in local terms. When we move to the general so we also move to the vague where we come across the level from which all meaning is seeded and all words are attempts to describe those 'vague' qualities.

In the particular, traditional IC material for hex 18 the focus is on issues of corruption, neglect, etc. In the universal it is on qualities described by association with issues of a context of sharing time with another/others in which is operating a text of sharing space with another/others - simply put to contractive bonding in a context of contractive binding.

This vague composite of basic qualities serves as a source for reference to MANY local contexts, especially one covering 'corruption, neglect, etc'. The focus on neglect, decay in the traditional text indicates an association with something rotting - only possible over time (gets into the sharing of time with another/others of the general meaning).

The focus on bonding, is sharing space with another/others covers generic qualities associated with relationships that are static, eternal. In the IC these particular qualities when contracting are associated with quality control, discernment that come out of the more primitive being blocked, stopped etc. (the sense of the eternal reflect this focus on static, stay still, not moving)

IOW the particulars of the hexagram and its associated trigrams etc have their roots in qualities derived from what our brains do in deriving generic meaning unconsciously. IOW the making of the particular hexagrams etc come from the attempts to describe feelings sourced in our unconscious as a species, not as Chinese. What is Chinese is the LOCAL forms of expression.

The contractive bonding/binding qualities that are identified in the IC through hexagram 18 are the same qualities that are identified in the MBTI, in categories of emotions, and of types of numbers of Mathematics.

The qualities are generic and unconscious - we communicate through use of words to elicit resonance. LOCAL languages use visual/auditory methods to elicit resonance.


> 2.- when you wrote. "The ACTION involved is on correcting that
> corruption where the skeletal form of that action is described by
> analogy to hexagram 11 with a focus on armonising/balancing",
> how can you know that the action is correct traditonal teachings and
> not correct your idea against traditional teachings? (even more,
> because the questions was your idea and not traditional teachings)
>

As the above comments to point 1 show, the generic qualities are part of our species nature, unconscious to us as conscious being but serving as a seed for communicating. IOW the generic qualities associated with 18 are qualities we all share as species-members. LOCAL differences can then add variations etc.

The methodology in deriving the hexagrams from recursion of yin/yang also encodes relationships to all hexagrams THROUGH each. This gets into the ICPlus focus on a hexagram's spectrum.

IOW there is a relationship of the hex 18 labelled cell and the hex 11 labelled cell where they serve as sources of analogy/metaphor to describe each other's skeletal (27-ness) form. This relationship is universal for recursion such that the 18-11 relationship is not open to discussion as 'could be' or 'could not be' in that it is certain given the methodology of recursion. (as is the 63-ness or 34-ness etc etc. What IS open to discussion are the LOCAL expressions, the LOCAL biases that colour these expressions.)

> 3.- When you wrote "With this can come prose covering the issues of
> making too large corrections or no corrections at all etc where the
> 'correct' path is to make small corrections and so gains",
> how can you know that you should do large corrections to traditional
> teachings instead not-doing corrections to traditional teachings at
> all? (remember, this Universals are used to solve a concrete question)
>

These comments of mine relate to the prose that can follow identifying the 'correct sequence' as 09. IOW here we have a hard-coded behaviour as the 'correct sequence' for 18 where all others, be they large correcting or non-correcting, are considered as 'not correct'.

This does not make them 'wrong', just 'not correct' ;-) - ideal conditions for a 'correct sequence' are not common but are useful as a guide.

> 4.- You wrote "In the realm of personal relationships this gets into
> the need to maintain and develop the relationship through continual
> 'correcting' of misunderstanding etc "
> If this is related to the first question (why you acted like you did),
> how can you know that you should try to "correct" Harmen instead of
> correct your own conduct? or yur own idea in the case of the second
> question?
>

Harmen is focused on maintaining a 'traditional' perspective without consideration of what has happened in the area of psychology, neurosciences, etc etc over the last 3000+ years. THAT is an example of corrupt thinking, an example of neglect, a failure to keep the IC up-to-date (and so either (a) prove its universality or (b) let it fade out. I think (a) is the path to go))

As I said to Harmen etc before, all comments upto my post re the subject of this thread were focused on perpetuating the 'traditional' perspective and that is, to me, an act of neglect of the universal IC in favour of the 'traditional' material a la "but we have always done it that way"

> 5.- You wrote: "In IC PLUS there are thousands of binary sequences but
> all derived from the one 'natural' sequence of recursing yin/yang. The
> fact that you are not aware of this shows how much time you have spent
> going through the ICPlus material - very little!"
> Your thounsands secuences, are really the "resultant" of doing the
> unique "one natural" secuence of yin/yang with diferent hexagrams,
> isn't?.
> So, you have only one secuence (one way to derivate those resultants),
> isn't?.
> (Otherwise, you contradict yourself with thousands secuences derivated
> of the one natural secuence. The 8 secuences I wrote about are 8
> diferent ways to derivate "resultants". By the way, I had read your
> articles, but you hadn't read many of traditional teachings, as you
> said weeks ago)
>

The template allows you to put in any pair of hexagrams to derive a sequence of qualities spanning the pair. For example the 'natural' binary sequence of recursing yin/yang is in fact interpretable as recursing the hexagram pair of 01/02. The traditional sequence indicates the recursion of the hexagram pair of 01/64 (see my page: http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/cracked.html )

For work on compass patterns using the binary and traditional etc see such pages as http://members.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond/onemany.html

Due to the nature of the sequences of 64 (which can be converted to sequences of 4096 etc) it becomes obvious that we are dealing with the properties and methods of the brain in its creation and use of languages - the IC being a language.

Chris.

 

[lightofdarkness]

Harmen, to understand the universal IC you will need to step out of your box and into mine and so learn new terms and understanding of XOR dynamics etc.

If you refuse to do that and feel 'safer' in your box then I suggest you (a) stay in your box and (b) do not venture out into the deep in future - you will flounder and I will not rescue you - you need to learn to swim in the 'new paradigm' or leave it alone. To just complain about what you obviously dont understand and/or are not interested in serves no purpose.

Chris.

 

[lightofdarkness]

Jesed, a note on references - the particular IC material is listed in:

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

it is not up to date but it gives you an idea of what went in to the cognitive analysis of the translations/interpretations.

For the neurosciences etc refs see the links off my IDM pages.

Chris.

 

[jesed]

So, if I understood your last post... all the tools of ICPlus cann't allows us to answer the questions i did?

Because, in the empiric case that I was wondering if your idea against traditional teachings are correct or not, I got 18.4 ==> 50: I can get with ICPlus "universals", that allows me to know how human brain works, and describe characteristics that all we share as specie... but even if ICPlus points that 18 "generic focus is on (a) corruption by neglect and (b) criminal corruption", and that "The ACTION involved is on correcting that corruption where the skeletal form of that action is described by analogy to hexagram 11 with a focus on armonising/balancing" and even more.. the fact is that nothing of that can be apply to know if your idea against traditional teachings is correct or not????

In this case, the way ICPlus describe it, the I Ching allows us to know how our brain derivate meaning, but it is unpractical to solve concrete questions.

Now, talking about empiric demostrations... the empiric fact is that I ching has been useful to solve practical questions.

mmmm something is wrong, isn't?

But as any fundamentalist can say: "if the reality clash with my theory, worst for the reality".

 

[jesed]

Now, using your own words:

"to understand traditional teachings you will need to step out of your box and into mine and so learn new terms and understanding of "microcosmical" and "macrocosmical" dynamics etc.

If you refuse to do that and feel 'safer' in your box then I suggest you (a) stay in your box... To just despise about what you obviously dont understand and/or are not interested in serves no purpose."

"shows the degree of fundamentalism present - as you show in you attack upon something (traditional teachings) you obviously dont understand nore consider trying to - a common behaviour in fundamentalism ;-) "

 

[hmesker]

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

Harmen, to understand the universal IC you will need to step out of your box and into mine and so learn new terms and understanding of XOR dynamics etc.

If you refuse to do that and feel 'safer' in your box then I suggest you (a) stay in your box and (b) do not venture out into the deep in future - you will flounder and I will not rescue you - you need to learn to swim in the 'new paradigm' or leave it alone. To just complain about what you obviously dont understand and/or are not interested in serves no purpose.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
And this is what you always do: others have to adapt to your standards to understand what you write. That is not very realistic, is it? Instead of pointing at others and say "it's not my fault they don't understand it. They don't talk my language" you could take responsability for your writing and accept that it is, as Steve Marshall puts it, 'unpalatable tripe'. After a few centuries the traditional view of the Yijing will still hold up, and if you don't change your way of writing and use easier language that a layman can understand, your website and ideas will die out the moment you have to let it all go and dissolve in eternity.

And still you are not communicating and you are not addressing what I present you. You selectively ignore what does not fit in your theories. So who's in a box here?

 

[martin]

Hexagram 18, "system thinking"? It is saturn over mercury in my planet .. err .. system. Lol.

The term "system" could refer to traditional systems as well as IDM here.
In contrast hexagram 50 in the background - jupiter over mercury - corresponds to a more open, more fluid and alive kind of thinking.

A problem with 18, if it is interpreted in this way, is that the mind is more or less caught up in a system, it tends to be a "closed" mind that cannot see what is outside its perspective.
(interestingly contrasting it with the openmindedness of 50 brings out line 4, troubles caused by the father. Father, saturn, system?)
And it seems that this is what the discussion in this thread is all about. For Chris traditional views are too closed and for others IDM is too closed.
Right?

 

[hmesker]

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

And it seems that this is what the discussion in this thread is all about. For Chris traditional views are too closed and for others IDM is too closed.
Right?<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
Yes. Well put, as far as I'm concerned.

HM

 

[jesed]

Hi Martin

Even if i personally don't like mix Yi Jing with astrology, I always find your comment interesting.

Just a little precision about me: I don't think IDM is too closed. I had said, and it is not rethorical, that I find intersting Chris' work.

My point is not about ICplus itself... but about the idea against traditional techings.

As I said in the thread "are traditional teachings a lacking knowledgment": so much of Chris' work are saying the same than traditional teachings on Yi Jing, with other lenguage (as most of neuroscience are saying the same than traditional teaching on mind development or most of quantic science are saying the same than traditional techings on energy).

So, the fact that now we can describe the same "laws" with a modern leanguage, doesn't mean that the traditional teachings are less truthful.. just diferent lenguages

 

[lightofdarkness]

> Posted by Jesed (Jesed) on Sunday, January 15, 2006 - 1:51 pm:
>
> So, if I understood your last post... all the tools of ICPlus cann't
> allows us to answer the questions i did?
>

ICPlus can in fact do better than the 'traditional' methods.


> Because, in the empiric case that I was wondering if your idea against
> traditional teachings are correct or not, I got 18.4 ==> 50:


How? Tossing coins or yarrow sticks? Possible delusion. What happens with this sort of 'random/miraculous' methodology is that the WHOLE of the I Ching, and so that whole with all of its parts, and that includes 64 hexagrams, filters the context (your question) and as such will guarantee 'meaning' no matter what particular hexagram you get.

The I Ching as a 'universal' filter will ALWAYS 'fit' some context where the particular context will sort the hexagrams into a sequence of 64 from best fit to worst fit.

Your consciousness is an agent of mediation and will focus on the 'best fit'. The 'random/miraculous' methodologies will give you a 1 in 64 chance of the hexagram you derive as being the 'best fit'.

To make sense of the IC you MUST have a question since the filter will not work without a context it can overlay. All hexagrams are applicable to ANY moment so the tossing of coins etc is just that, a random process (or you can use yarrow stick method and get a bias to yin) such that you will get a particular hexagram supposedly being the 'best fit' but it is not consistently so - you can get the 2nd best, 13th best, 64th best (aka worst).

To understand whole/part, background/foreground processing in the brain (and so applied to the IC) see http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/wavedicho.html

Investigation by IDM shows that there IS a way of getting the best fit more consistently and it involves the use of questions. So I suggest you phrase your question to the proactive IC pages:

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

This is VERY practical in answering concrete questions (and it will be improved upon with the XOR data etc).

Using the 'traditional' methods of consulting the I Ching will not consistently give you the 'best fit' hexagram for the particular context you are working with. The use of that method will give enough 'meaning' to appear as if the IC 'replied' to you. It didn?t. You did or more so the 'confused' belief systems that can go with these sorts of 'divination' systems.

What one can do is use the random methods to give an aspect of the whole one may not have considered when analysing/reflecting-upon the problem/situation - this being that ALL hexagrams will contribute to the meaning of a situation where their contribution is in their position in the best-fit/worst-fit ordering. If you don?t know the ordering etc that?s fine, just toss coins etc and consider what you get as an aspect of the situation and not necessarily the 'best fit' - using questions will do better in getting thst 'best fit'.


So .. as to your questions, if derived using random/miraculous methods show an eduction lacking understanding of how 'in here' actually works - here is an example of what happens in other contexts when people are ignorant or fail to include modern research in their assertions about reality etc:

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

Simply put, the originators of the IC had no idea what they were dealing with, they just 'felt' that they got value out of what they did - but as above demonstrates any moment will be a WHOLE and each part of that whole will elicit 'meaning' when presented - but with a sort of best-fit to worst-fit.

The above is all covered at my websites, previous threads on clarity etc and since you seem to no be aware of this I can assume you have not read the material as yet ;-)

To use the IC as a universal means to step out of the traditional box and into the bigger box where the traditional is not 'the whole' but an aspec of it. From that position the IC moves into the 21st century.

Chris.

 

[jesed]

Chris

I did a proposal to you: i do the questions and interpretation in the way I know.. and you do the questions and interpretation in the way you know...

I did it in the way i know... you didn't in the way you know. With this fact, is unfair and useles to now avoid the questions to your position with the descalification of the way i got the hexagram.

But, here another oportunity for you. Don't just say ICPlus can respond the questions I did better than the 'traditional' methods (as we must have some kind of religious faith in your saying).. SHOW IT.

Give us a straight answer with the way you know of getting the "best fit" hexagram and the way of interpreting it. And the, we continue the comparison.

Other wise, you actually wants that we believe that ICPlus can give a better answer just because you say it does. And that is just like any other faith.

 

[lightofdarkness]

Hermen,

you wrote:

"After a few centuries the traditional view of the Yijing will still hold up, and if you don't change your way of writing and use easier language that a layman can understand, your website and ideas will die out the moment you have to let it all go and dissolve in eternity."

you still dont get it - you focus on expression and so fail to see behind it for that is where IDM comes from. The traditional view is NOT replaced by ICPlus, it is enhanced and is 'allowed' to coexist with the universal in that there is no need to replace it. As a historical document etc and foundational to Chinese culture etc it will continue - BUT there is now additional material that 'adds light' to how the IC has survived for so long - showing it for what it is, a source of analogy/metaphor in describing what our brains communicate - patterns of differentiating/integrating.

Oh - and as for that quote of Marshall's - LOL! he is in the same boat as you - over-specialised and suddenly faced with something not considered in your specialisation and so a threat to that specialisation. The energy that you and Marshall have put into working with the traditional material will force you to 'reject' any 'new paradigms' since they can impoverish your own work, marginalise your efforts and so your identity that is also wrapped-up in your specialisation. There is little I can do to hep you deal with these issues - I just go where the research data takes me ;-) and that means that perspectives based on out-of-date information will need to adapt to remain 'valid' perspectives.

Chris.

 

[jesed]

ps... had you notice one FACT? you repeat the sames ARGUMENTS and ASUMPTIONS (ideas.. so not empiric comprobations), but you avoid commitment with the empiric exercise I proposed to you. Argument without empiric comprobation is science to you? even more.. basis your arguments on asumptions is a scientific aproach?

 

[lightofdarkness]

Jesed, I have given you the explanation of ICPlus 'questions' and given you a link to the proactive pages so you can try it out for yourself. SO ... use your method to ask the question, toss your coins, etc and then use the ICPlus questions method and see which comes up more consistantly with the 'best fit' hexagram. simple. No involvement with me at all, just the computer. ;-)

Chris.

 

[jesed]

nooooo
since the begining, the proposal was that YOU shows how your sistem works...

but of course, you can accept others proposals, isn't?

 

[martin]

"Using the 'traditional' methods of consulting the I Ching will not consistently give you the 'best fit' hexagram for the particular context you are working with. The use of that method will give enough 'meaning' to appear as if the IC 'replied' to you. It didn?t."

How can you be so sure about that, Chris?
Personally I have little doubt that there is indeed something/somebody that replies.
I think we hide a lot behind the word "random" that we - at least scientifically - don't understand.

 

[lightofdarkness]

Jesed, you are now being irrational. I supplied a link to a page that described how it all works and you can try it out. What is the issue with that? The page, written by me, shows how it works so it is my agent ;-)

I dont understand how you find this a problem unless you think there is some competitiveness here - maybe from you but not from me, I am being overally cooperative.

Chris.

 

[lightofdarkness]

Martin, if you need to believe what you believe that is fine, but the IDM material indicates that there is no need for such a belief to explain things - it can be explained from simple work in neurosciences and issues of consciousness/unconsciousness etc etc. IOW there is no need for the 'god hypothesis' at this time ;-)

I think a major 'issue' has been with consciousness thinking it is the 'all' when the data suggests it is in fact a PART of a whole. The conceit, the vanity of consciousness has, and will continue, to cause 'problems' in interpreting reality since its purpose is to mediate and so interpret BUT it knows nothing of 'out there' other than what comes from instincts or imagination!

Chris.

 

[jesed]

Hi Chris:

You misunderstand again ( i use to believe you did misunderstand unintentionally, but now i doubt it).

I had try your proactive page several times. Is not about that. And it is not about competitiveness, but about a concrete empiric exercise of comparison. But, again you try to avoid empiric issues.

 

[jesed]

ps.
since you are not willing to accept the proposal i did for you, i have no interest in continue in this thread

 

[martin]

Lol, if you need to believe what you believe (or if you need to not believe what you don't believe, for that matter) that is also fine with me, Chris.
But from a science viewpoint "this is random" and "this is not random" are both just beliefs, aren't they?
As far as I see this whole issue is scientifically undecidable at the moment.
I know that many socalled "rational" people will discard the idea that the IC indeed responds as utter nonsense. But that is not an argument, or is it? And these people are not really "rational", or are they?

 

[hmesker]

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

you still dont get it - you focus on expression and so fail to see behind it for that is where IDM comes from. The traditional view is NOT replaced by ICPlus, it is enhanced and is 'allowed' to coexist with the universal in that there is no need to replace it.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
If ICPlus does not replace the traditional view, then why do you want as to disregard the traditional view? All your messages say the same over and over again: that the traditional view is outmoded and we should all switch to ICPlus (which is based on the traditional view).

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

As a historical document etc and foundational to Chinese culture etc it will continue - BUT there is now additional material that 'adds light' to how the IC has survived for so long - showing it for what it is, a source of analogy/metaphor in describing what our brains communicate - patterns of differentiating/integrating.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
These are your assumptions, it is not science, there is no proof for this. Odd, since you cling so much to science.

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

The energy that you and Marshall have put into working with the traditional material will force you to 'reject' any 'new paradigms' since they can impoverish your own work, marginalise your efforts and so your identity that is also wrapped-up in your specialisation.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
Ah, look who's 'in a box' here. My identity is not connected to my work. And I leave room for doubt, which you seem to be afraid of. You fail to see that your material vaporizes if you leave out the traditional view. You use the traditional or accepted meanings of the trigrams and hexagrams as the foundation of your system, along with the assumption that the Yijing is 'a source of analogy/metaphor in describing what our brains communicate'. And when I ask you "Suppose if you did not know that hexagram 18 was called 'corruption' or something similar, would your system still point to that meaning? I believe your first starting point will always be the traditional views/names of the hexagrams. Because without it, you are lost" you selectively ignore it. Again: you are not communicating.

 

[lightofdarkness]

Jesed, I supplied a page for use in empirical analysis of questions to the IC - that said I would never bother with such questions as that asked by Hilary in your example - you obviously know VERY little about probabilities etc and seem to ignore the 'need' for the question to be 'correct' in form.

It is obvious to me that, if you have been to the proactive page you realise that you cannot ask that style of question since that style is for those who believe they are talking to someone actively and there is no evidence for this. There IS evidence for the format used at the proactive page to elicit useful meaning re the current context.

Go through my comments re ICPlus, my daughter, and her car in:

http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/messages/92/5822.html

January 11th post.

Chris.

 

[lightofdarkness]

HM wrote:

"If ICPlus does not replace the traditional view, then why do you want as to disregard the traditional view? All your messages say the same over and over again: that the traditional view is outmoded and we should all switch to ICPlus (which is based on the traditional view). "

I strongly suggest you go back and try and find where I have said this - since I have NEVER said it. I focus on INCLUDING the material 'discovered' in ICPlus in consideration of the UNIVERSAL I CHING.

My posts are that the promotion of the traditional perspective as the only perspective is at fault. YOU promote that perspective as do other 'traditionalists' but in doing so you do the IC a diservice.

To bring the IC into the 21st century one needs to include consideration of the last 3000 years of psychology, neurosciences, biology etc etc. YOU fail to do this and in so doing do the IC a diservice.

I include the traditional but with some 'alternatives' that suggest some of the methods used in the traditional are possibly 'misleading' and can be supplemented with better thought-out methods.

As for proof of the brain differentiating/integrating - read the research data material I supply with IDM. If you do not understand the language of the papers that is your problem - find a neuroscience dictionary. I say this since it is obvious that if I translated it for you you would accuse me of lying etc!

you wrote:

"You fail to see that your material vaporizes if you leave out the traditional view"

I DONT LEAVE IT OUT - I ADD TO IT AND CORRECT SOME "MISUNDERSTANDINGS". BY THAT CORRECTION SO THE 10century BC model moves into the 21st century AD. You really do need to be careful how you read things HM, your instinctive 'need' for competitiveness does not aid you.

Go to my websites, see the hexagram pages, the old and the new are present. Those elements of the old I consider 'out of date' or 'primitive thinking' I comment upon or leave out as not part of ICPlus but as being part of the LOCAL manifestation of the IC in its ancient chinese format.

coin tossing or yarrow sticks are NOT acceptable as methods to acquire consistant 'advice' from the IC - questions ARE consistant. That is what the research data indicates and that is what is promoted in ICPlus (and note I use ICPlus not IC in that I recognise the material ADDS TO the existing and so lifts it from a 10th century BC perspective to something more up to date)