Imho

[fkegan]

The ancient Chou Yi remains centuries ahead of academic understanding...

In your mind, does this even have names, or is it utterly ineffable? If you aren't drawing from somewhere deep within your own being, are you doing some sort of telepathy when you divine? Are you channeling? Are you reading the Buddha's mind? Are you going to the Akashic record? An astral plane? Are you going to a magical place? Is it the place of no place or not a place at all? Or is it so irrational or non-rational that you can't even express or name it?

Hi Brad,

You are mistaking my remarks about the limitations of the phony claims of academia to any real rationality or logical consistency with projections about alleged magic in any other perspective.

Let me start over. The principles of gestalt perception are well known millennia ago in traditions that use personal meditation and introspection to understand the limits of human perception. They are barely known in the academic world that thinks all truth was revealed only to them long ago.

The gua of the I Ching, either trigrams or hexagrams are elegant gestalt symbolism which therefore have the capacity to describe in simple, objective graphic black-and-white as it were whatever any human perceives in terms of situation and ongoing process.

There is an overall timing current in the Big Bang gravity which physics has yet to even imagine that makes simple observations capable of forming meaningful descriptions of what is possible to observe of what is in flux here-and-now. These have been formed into the ritual explanations of casting horoscopes and casting the Yi Oracle.

There is a four millennium latency period between human advances in technology and understanding and they being available for general use. In recent centuries, the 4 millennia ritual only understanding has passed (almost at least) for writing and mathematics. The more recent innovation of the Chou I Ching just passed 3 millennia, so its close enough for some of us who have great old school training in creative science research and the limitations of the academic to figure it out, but not yet so obvious for those without any background in researching premises, axioms, limitations in assumptions and the like to have a clue.

Human understanding is quite limited and anyone starting from any basis that assumes their teachers knew all truth and they just have to listen and learn to join that perfect system are at a severe disadvantage. Prof Tim Leary of LSD fame had a great comment that his understanding changed when he went from expecting his teachers to explain it all to him to realizing grad students were looking to him to explain it all, though his learning had taught him that the field knew nothing.

So, rejoice the wait is down to only 3 digits of years when it will be clear to all. Or you can clear your expectations, open your mind to the empty tea cup it should be and read my Flux Tome pages.

Best regards,
Frank

 

[solun]

Then too, when looking too hard and closely at cultural context, the larger context of human nature is often ignored, and to the extent that the Yi is identifying or using archetypes and such, the broader and more useful meaning of the text is not seen. ~ Bradford

Almost makes one want to go with a more 'cleanly' structural approach. But that, too, has to be informed by the canon of thought, at least in consideration.

In general -
How we relate and respond to knowledge or wisdom is at least as important as the knowledge itself, and in point of fact, demonstrates real mastery of it. Without it, we are in danger of missing the points entirely, which tends to make one more of a clanging cymbal, rather than any real fount of knowledge.
a quote by Anne Morrow Linderbergh -
"We had the experience, but missed the meaning." ...?
And there's a proverb I like (Book of Proverbs, OT ch 16?), but can't find right now, has to do with those who won't accept correction or instruction being on the foolish side of things - something like that. And there's nothing we can do about that, except for ourselves, depending which side of the equation we're on at the time. Isn't always so easy to see that though, imho ...

 

[44bob123]

Hi solun, is this it ?

Proverbs 15 vv31-32

If you listen to constructive criticism, you will be at home amongst the wise.
If you reject criticism, you will only harm yourself; but if you listen to correction, you will grow in understanding.

bob

 

[meng]

as I see it..

Whenever I've done some drawings or toyed around with poetry, much has been discarded as "not good enough". Some of the results though have been quite enlightening, and I have the feeling that I haven't drawn or composed them, it's been someone else.



I think everything has to get to us via our mind, which is why I wonder about the implications of so much info being absorbed by the mind which we aren't conscious of.
Whether our unconscious is simply that or whether it allows a connection to some "other", I don't know.

Bob, (conscious at the moment but soon becoming unconscious) !

Channeling is certainly possible, so why not be a conduit for creative thought or art?

I sometimes channel Jimi Hendrix. Whether he knows it or not is something else . It is my memory of Jimi's energy, that which has bonded with me over time (cellular memory), combined with my imagination, which creates the channeling experience. At least that's how I see it.

I'm not saying literal channeling of people/souls isn't possible. I happen to believe it is. How much is literal and how much is strictly memory/fantasy generated, well, the new age woman who is convinced she channels Lao Tzu probably isn't.

But as far as creative energy flowing from unconscious to conscious, yes. Whether it carries information, other than through linear inheritance/memory, I'm skeptical.

(the word "your" here is used generically)

I think our superego plays a dominant role in this area, and not saying that it's necessarily a negative thing, if it assists in the creation process. It is only delusional when you believe it at face value, for example being the chosen one, or the holy man, or fool, or any archetype. But if you know you play the part of one, then it is part the creative process to be that. If not, then superego becomes the manifestation of your belief. Applied to channeling, this gets a little dicey.

 

[bamboo]

ooops, I just channeled Marilyn

 

[bamboo]

from my dads book of characters

http://"> http://