Link to some more etymology (hexagram 3)

[kevin]

lol

--k

 

[kevin]

Hmm - I tried to start a new thread to discuss upgrade issues... It did not work.

Hilary!!!!?

--K

 

[hilary]

OK, I think I have something to email Discus about. Will do. But I don't have this problem myself, so could someone who does tell me about the OS and browser you're using? Thanks!

I would have to start a thread about this hexagram, wouldn't I? Asking for it, really.

 

[hilary]

I've started an Upgrade issues thread for bug reports!

 

[candid]

Sure.

Win XP Home
IE 6
Display 1024 x 768

 

[bradford_h]

Just more veggies for the stew, from my glossary.
In sum, pulling it together to hold or defend a position.

tun2 ?? 6592 427a 45+1 03.0 (to) rally, muster, collect (together), store up, bank (up), assemble, accumulate, pull together, bring together, summon (help), congregate, secure; need help, need assistance, struggle, sprout, start (out) small (s, ed, ing); (to be) in difficulty, in need of (help, assistance), sparing, hard, difficult; (a, the) village, congregation, camp, rally, initial difficulty, difficult start, birth pains, early trials, rites of passage; a single blade of grass, bending and twisting; (to consolidate gains while cutting losses); to garrison or station soldiers; ap Zhun1

 

[lightofdarkness]

dont forget to look at the opposite - 50

 

[lightofdarkness]

... and then dont forget to look at 42 - the conditional for of what 03 is unconditional about!

Any etymology that does NOT maintain the links across these hexagrams is 'poor' in the context of the IC. We can see in the associations with 03 mappings of its skeletal form - 20.

...and that is the benefit of reviewing all of the universal associations and so outside of the local, 10th century BC perspectives where those perspectives were TRYING to cover the universals.

As said before, if the IC covers 'all there is' then it includes itself in that coverage such that each hexagram is defined by all of the others... one must be wary of looking at the trees and so forgetting the forest.

Chris.

 

[hmesker]

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

Any etymology that does NOT maintain the links across these hexagrams is 'poor' in the context of the IC.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
Well, that is your assumption. In my opinion etymology in the true sense of the word does not incorporate subjective interpretations of forced hexagram relations. According to Websters Dictionary etymology is "the history of a linguistic form (as a word) shown by tracing its development since its earliest recorded occurrence in the language where it is found...". What you want has nothing to do with etymology.

I do not believe in 'universal associations'. 'Universal associations' are often applied when a subject is not understood in its local, original context. But a lack of understanding does not justify this use.

Harmen.

 

[lightofdarkness]

words do not come out of nowhere Harmen, they are rooted in feelings.

Each hexagram has associated with it a set of feelings. These feelings link the hexagrams together due to the FACT that the recursion of yin/yang generates the hexagrams and that process guarantees all is linked together. -- and that process is a reflection of what our brains do, it is NOT restricted to 10th century BC China.

IOW the I Ching format, its FEELINGS go back way before any spoken/written word and as such SEED the word(s). The FEELINGS stem from our SPECIES nature - and it is that that allows the IC to be understood across the whole species.

The fact YOU have problems with dealing with universals does not mean they are worthless in consideration. (and even words are univerals - HOUSE is a universal in need of a grounding in MY HOUSE vs YOUR HOUSE - and the I Ching hexagrams are just the same)

local, orginal context of the IC is SEEDED by the unconscious processes of our neurology that DETERMINE meanings as universals to then be grounded in some "local, original context".

Thus to try and understand the IC in its fullest, UNIVERSAL, form, from a focus on 10th century BC labels seems to miss the point that the IC defines itself and as such meanings etc are reflected in the links of hexagrams to each other through the METHOD in which the IC is DERIVED, not LABELLED.

The UNIVERSALITY of the IC is what makes it so useful outside of 10th century BC China. It looks as if you dont seem to get that.

Chris.

 

[hmesker]

Chris,

The Yijing does not 'define itself', nowhere says the Yijing what it is and how it is to be used. That is all based on later commentaries and other additions. Sweep away these later views and their is hardly anything left - and then the challenge begins. I am not having problems with 'universals' (which in my opinion are different from 'universal associations') and I have not said they are worthless, but the Yi does not need nor deserve these artificial inventions. Simply start at the beginning, that's all there is to it. And that beginning is probably, whether you like it or not, the 1000 BC culture of China of which we hardly know anything that can help us understand the Yijing. But that is no excuse to use Western biases which are alien to the origin of the book and its culture. If you don't understand its origin (and to be honest, who does?) you are bound to make up things which hardly have anything to do with what the Yi was probably intended to be.

The problem wit the Yi is that what you look for you will find. When I decide the book is an oracle, then it is that. If I decide it talks about 'universal associations' then I will find just that in it. Do away with these assumptions, look at the Yi as it just is: a book from about 1000 BC which does not (or hardly) give a clue about its purpose or use.

 

[lightofdarkness]

To make a point Harmen, there is no practical need AT ALL to understand the 10th century BC interpretations of the IC, and that is simply because they are LOCAL interpretations of a UNIVERSAL form; and so something that transcend ancient china and is a product of, a reflection of, the species.

This repeated exercise in trying to figure out the core meaning of an ancient sign, when there is no need for such an exercise given what we now know, is at times disheartening in the context of bringing the IC into the 21st century AD. - other than as an academic exercise in some school of Asian Studies as part of a focus on getting a PhD or something! ;-)

Sure a lot of people have put in work to try and 'decode' the ancient texts (you included), but that is now not really necessary since we know what it is they were TRYING to identify and in fact could 'do better' given our understandings.

IOW you could come up with a Dutch version with no reference at all to the original IC since the IC itself shows you how it is linked together generally, and so how to derive modern terms without intense pondering on ancient, LOCAL, associations.

I suppose there is the 'issue' re having spent so much energy in coming up with material and then fearing one having to surrender it for the 'new' - but then even though the horse and cart have been superceded by 747s they are still around - so I dont see any threat re the 10th century BC perspective other than its marginalisation to a position of being a LOCAL demonstration, once considered universal, of a truely universal form 'outside' of ancient China and chinese.

Change is inevitable Harmen. It is what the IC is about. To stick rigidly to 10th century BC LOCAL perspectives is more hex 12 than hex 11.

As a 'hobby' I suppose it is ok - but IMHO a waste of your obviously well developed skills in understanding the IC in general.

Maybe we should change the name, use the "Book Of Changes" title as a universal, compared to using the "I Ching" to reflect the local?

Chris.

 

[lightofdarkness]

Harmen, the line meanings work (http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/linemean.html) demonstrates WITHOUT A DOUBT that the I Ching DOES define itself. I suggest STRONGLY that you spend some time understanding this and so understanding what we are dealing with - something WAY beyond you current perspectives re the I Ching.

There is no 'WESTERN' bias here since the material comes out of basic understandings on how our brains work AS A SPECIES and so how the METHOD used to generate the I Ching is the SAME as used in all of our brains and ENCODES the whole in ALL parts, as DNA is encoded into a cell.

The closest I have seen to understanding this has been the 'vague' comments re line position meanings (6 - sage, 5 - king) etc etc where those comments touch on something FAR FAR greater than any of us have imagined to date!

I DO understand your passion 'against' my perspectives Harmen, but this is not me, I am just the messenger and perhaps it is time for you and all of the other 'traditionalists' to loosen up a bit re what current findings in brain dynamics can show us about the FULL structure of the IC.

If you do not understand what I have written, or the XOR/AND material, dont hesitate to ask for qualification - I am MORE than happy to oblige, to re-write things etc until you 'get it' since 'it' is not some fantasy of mine - it comes right out of research on the brain and how we derive, represent, meaning.

Chris.

 

[lightofdarkness]

Oh -- and the 'beginning' was NOT 10th century BC China - that was a local EXPRESSION of the universal - it goes back to basic emotions and prior to that basic acts of differentiating/integrating by neuron-dependent species, and so hundreds of thousands to millions of years - IOW Harmen, the IC is 'encoded' in our brains -- our consciousness (not so old) just needed to LABEL things ;-)

Chris.

 

[hmesker]

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

there is no practical need AT ALL to understand the 10th century BC interpretations of the IC, and that is simply because they are LOCAL interpretations of a UNIVERSAL form; and so something that transcend ancient china and is a product of, a reflection of, the species.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
That is your interpretation of the Yi, on which you decide how you want to treat the Yi. You talk about "the 10th century BC interpretations of the IC", that is not what I am talking about.

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

Sure a lot of people have put in work to try and 'decode' the ancient texts (you included), but that is now not really necessary since we know what it is they were TRYING to identify and in fact could 'do better' given our understandings.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
I am not 'decoding' anything, because I think there is no 'code'. There is no 'key' to the understanding of the Yi, it has all to do with translating properly - however difficult that may be. When you say "that is now not really necessary since we know what it is they were TRYING to identify and in fact could 'do better' given our understandings" then you probably mean "I know", after all, who is this 'we' you are talking about? It doesn't include me. And again you are interpreting, instead of looking at the bare facts we have at hand and deal with these.

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

IOW you could come up with a Dutch version with no reference at all to the original IC since the IC itself shows you how it is linked together generally, and so how to derive modern terms without intense pondering on ancient, LOCAL, associations.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
That would be fine if you worked from an objective knowledge of what the Yi originally was. But lack of such knowledge does often make way for 1000 versions of over-elaborate assumptions and subjective views. Yours is just one of them, and you might wonder what all these views have to do with the Yi. As I said in a book review, it is like write a book with persons named Abraham and Jesus and call it the Bible.

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

Change is inevitable Harmen. It is what the IC is about. To stick rigidly to 10th century BC LOCAL perspectives is more hex 12 than hex 11.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
I don't know what 11 & 12 mean to you so I can just assume yours is a traditional one. If you mean that 12 is Standstill and 11 is Peace/Progress or something like that, then you are absolutely right. It is easy to contend yourself with a false feeling peace because you think you have discovered it all, when you have skipped the basics of the field you are studying because they don't (or might not) support what you want the Yi to be. It is better, but more daring, to place yourself in a position of standing still, separate facts from feelings and trying to look back to find out 'what the hell had happened way back there'. Standstill is as much a necessary position as any other hexagram. Defining 12 as something that should not be is (again) a subjective view which does not aid in our understanding of the Yi.

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

Maybe we should change the name, use the "Book Of Changes" title as a universal, compared to using the "I Ching" to reflect the local?<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
That is (again) denying its origin. But then, we don't even know if 'Book of Changes' is an appropriate translation.

Harmen.

 

[hmesker]

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

Oh -- and the 'beginning' was NOT 10th century BC China - that was a local EXPRESSION of the universal - it goes back to basic emotions and prior to that basic acts of differentiating/integrating by neuron-dependent species, and so hundreds of thousands to millions of years - IOW Harmen, the IC is 'encoded' in our brains -- our consciousness (not so old) just needed to LABEL things ;-)<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
Interpretation - not fact.

HM

 

[hmesker]

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

The closest I have seen to understanding this has been the 'vague' comments re line position meanings (6 - sage, 5 - king) etc etc where those comments touch on something FAR FAR greater than any of us have imagined to date!<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

Exactly! Comments! Not the Yi itself! The Yi - or better Zhouyi - does not talk about 'line positions'. That is later interpretation. Helpful in the use of the Yi as an oracle, but nevertheless interpretation. Try to skip that - what is left?

HM

 

[lightofdarkness]

Harmen, in all of this you obviously miss the point totally about how your senses feed your neurology and its feeds your category formation and from there we move into concepts and on into their expression through emotions, symbols, and metaphors.

The FACT is that through the work in neurosciences alone we can trace the qualities associated with the trigrams and so onto the hexagrams - and no LOCAL dynamics is required, no 'interpretations' occur since it is all mindless stimulus/response operating at the general level of brain function of the species.

It is like pure mathematics vs applied mathematics. Pure mathematics is a UNIVERSAL, and one still being fleshed-out BTW, whereas applied mathematics is LOCAL. SAME distinctions as in the I Ching and what it represents in that BOTH specialist perspectives use the SAME set of qualities to describe reality, just different labels, nuances etc - a property of specialisations where they try to create their own language to differentiate them from all other specialisations.

(try reading Newton's representations of Calculus and you will see marked differences between his EXPRESSION and modern day EXPRESSIONS but the underlying material is the same - a universal that is expressed differently, and with increase in precision, over the ages)

From the oscillation across the brain of differentiating/integrating we can derive a set of generic qualities that 'map' to behaviours of neuron-dependent life forms without 'awareness'. IOW the tiny zebra fish has the SAME generic method of determining the KNOWN from the UNKNOWN as we do - we just do it better and have 24/7 awareness! - IOW the basic properties of differentiating/integrating, and so yang/yin, are reflected 'all the way down' the chain of neuron-dependent life forms - and in turn, through evolution, so we have internalised 'out there' such that our maps reflect 'out there' very well.

From basic categories derived from neurology we move into the development of emotions as a language and from there on into concepts/symbols/metaphors. The unconscious qualities SEED the INTERPRETATIONS where they are BIASED by local conditions.

What is SEEDED is the UNIVERSAL format of category formation that, given a LOCAL context, is labelled and forms into the "I Ching".

When we analyse this UNIVERSAL we find it has properties and methods reflecting the manner in which the universal is created - recursion of a dichotomy, and in particular the HARD CODED form of differentiating (interpretable as 'yang') and integrating (interpretable as 'yin').

The ancients had no idea what they were dealing with other than good but vague notions. As such the line position work is a breakthrough in understanding the I Ching in that, through the products of Science, we have been able to map out the FULL SPECTRUM of what the traditional I Ching tries to represent.

As such, we have access to the TEMPLATE, the universal, out of which the LOCAL IC has developed in an 'ad hoc' manner - and so being 'ad hoc' has missed things or else only touched on them 'vaguely'. (it is like the differences of nature/nurture - genes product a 'perfect', universal, form and nurture then 'biases' it to local conditions and in that biasing can miss out a lot, over-emphasis the other)

The I Ching as such is a LOCAL METAPHOR created from UNCONSCIOUS qualities used by us as a species to map reality and in so doing try to predict reality. WE NOW HAVE ACCESS to those qualities; how they are formed etc.

The ancient texts, or the translations and interpretations we all have seen, come nowhere near the depth possible through analysis of the FULL spectrum of the IC and that is the challange to us - to use our knowledge gained in the last 3000+ years re 'meaning' to give the IC its rightful place as a universal reflection of 'us' as a species, not some 'mystic' something buried in ancient chinese perspectives.

IOW we have access to all the objectivity you require to clearly identify the IC -- but you then reject that! ;-)

We can zoom-in to FEEL the IC, no words necessary, such that we can get direct resonance of trigrams with feelings etc but you reject that! ;-)

We can trace the qualities of the IC back to the realm of non-verbal communications - a FACT - but you reject that! ;-)

I suppose you insistence that there is no code/key becomes a problem when it is shown that there IS - IOW rather than look at the material you must deny it since it can perhaps threaten one's identity in some way; your 'world view' has to adapt - but then that is what change is about ;-)

BTW - to see the generation of I Ching qualities from basic neurological dynamics, go through the "Species I Ching" thread on this site.

Simply put, the development of such a concept as the IC was INEVITABLE given the method we use to derive meaning as a species. The DIFFERENCES that make the IC what it is, localised it in ancient china, is in the REPRESENTATION; if colours had been used rather than lines then there would be a LACK in precision when compared to what we get out of lines.

Chris.

 

[lightofdarkness]

Using the Mathematics perspective - ancient mathematics, be it Chinese or Indian or Greek etc touched on basic roots of Mathematics, PARTS of it, and in an 'ad hoc' manner. Through the thousands of years we have developed the rich TOOL, the rich UNIVERSAL, we have today to aid us in mapping reality. SAME PRINCIPLES apply to the I Ching.

As such, the realm of the irrational and negatives and imaginary were either not considered by the ancients or else considered 'evil' etc etc and it took centuries for these number types to be shown as valide componants of mathematics.

Through analysis of how the brain processes information, and so the XOR/AND dynamic, we can flesh out the full spectrum of the IC. (and for that matter, as IDM does, show the building blocks of Mathematics are in our neurology) Simple FACT.

Chris.

 

[martin]

One problem is apparently that we don't really know what these ancient guys were doing. Even if we assume that their brains derived meaning by recursing dichotomies on the neurological level it's still not clear if their thinking also did that. I don't know what exactly happened but it seems that they sometimes entered 'Rohrschach mode' and then 'saw' fire in the trigram 101, a ram in hex 34, a cauldron in hex 50, and so on.
The question is: is what they 'saw' in this mode compatible with recursion of yin-yang? Or did they create new (or changed) meanings in this way that recursion of yin-yang cannot generate?
If they did their IC is essentially different from the recursion based 'universal' IC and not just a local version of it.

 

[Sparhawk]

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

One problem is apparently that we don't really know what these ancient guys were doing.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

Here is one theory:

The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind

If we can accept that such a change occurred on a global scale within a certain amount of time. I would think that such changes are tied to ease of communication between people and cultures and in the time such a change happened most ancient civilizations were pretty much isolated. But, who knows? I find it interesting as a concept.


Luis

 

[lightofdarkness]

Consider this:

"etymology of the qualities associated with the trigram labelled as 'water' and 'fire'."

We go back to the basic methods used in the brain to categorise. This method is in the form of an oscillation across the WHAT/WHERE dichotomy - that dichotomy being a specialist labelling of a root quality of PARTS vs WHOLE analysis, of differentiating bias as compared to an integrating bias. The oscillations will set up a 'pattern' of meaning from a network of neurons (Imagine a spider's web where the threads link things together that resonates in a particular way to elicit a sense of what or where or who, which, when, how etc.)

When we focus on the extraction of parts from a whole, using a dichotomy, we can derive the following:

Sense of wholeness through differentiating (explicit, pointed, definite)
Sense of wholeness through integrating (implicit, field-like, diffuse)
Sense of partness through differentiating
Sense of partness through integrating
Sense of invarient relationship through differentiating (sharing SPACE with another/others)
Sense of invarient relationship through integrating
Sense of varient relationship through differentiating (sharing TIME with another/others)
Sense of varient relationship through integrating

In the brain this set of qualities is in the form of a dimension right-left, front-back, core-surface. The 'wholeness' as a species bias (and so 'linked', continuum) is to the right/back/core. Wholeness as a consciousness bias (and so 'discrete') is to the left/front/surface. These properties are tracable down to the level of neuron dynamics.

Zoom-in on the characteristics of differentiating/integrating and we have properties where differentiation, due to its focus on pushing others away to assert self, to indicate an identity, so comes a sense of REPLACEMENT. On the other hand, integration reflects pulling things together and covers the hiding of identity, or more so the assertion of identity THROUGH something/someone else - this reflects a sense of COEXISTING.

The basic life form is focused on interactions with its CONTEXT and as such a focus on (a) REPLACING the existing with something 'better' (as in oneself) and (b) COEXISTING with the existing, trying to 'fit in' rather than 'take over'.

These basics derived from analysis of mindless patterns of differentiating/integrating, get refined when LOCALISED in one of the basic methods of communication - emotions (and feed the dichotomy of competitive/cooperative feelings)

Emotions are NOT limited to us, they are reflects in *many* other life forms where the DICHOTOMY that sources emotions is that of FIGHT/FLIGHT - a dichotomy 'hard coded' into our brains - operating mainly through the amygdala, a part of our brains that is called the 'limbic system' or 'mammalian brain'. We can differentiate emotions from feelings if you like - where emotions are what are expressed, feelings are what we talk about and often have issues in expressing! ;-)

We note the correspondence of FIGHT/FLIGHT with REPLACE/COEXIST and back to the more abstract levels of differentiating/integrating. Thus the focus in replace/coexist reflects a focus on issues with context, take it over or blend in with it and so 'dissapear' (and so PROTECT)

If we apply recursion to fight/flight we can derive a set of basic emotions in the ordering of (From fight, differentiating, to flight, integrating - for references on research into emotions etc see http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/emote.html):

Anger, Love(Sex), Acceptance, Surprise, Anticipation, Rejection, Grief, Fear

These qualities reflect the 'fleshing out' of fight/flight using recursion, but due to the 'isomorphism' of emotions and qualities of differentiating/integrating, also reflect the refinement of the replace/coexist dichotomy.

As such, the PAIR of ANGER,LOVE(Sex) reflects (a) the replace/coexist elements in the pair, but (b) the ROOT nature of a focus on replacement. IOW anger reflects replacement through erradication, sexual love reflects replacement through replication.

If we move to the other 'end' of the dimension, or spectrum of emotion, so we have the pair of GRIEF/FEAR. BOTH deal with issues of potential or actual LOSS, fear is the loss of life, of self, grief is the loss of a love, of another. Both reflect the use of CONTEXT to dissapear into and so survive - be it a social context or into one's mental context.

What we also note is the REACTIVE nature of the emotions that can be changed when they are exploited, made PROACTIVE. Thus from fear comes devotion to another/others where the context is now used to assert identity through it - and so identity is through one's family, football club, church, nation, etc etc. From grief comes discernment where we use the loss of a loved one or thing as a source of quality control. From anger comes the sense of self-devotion, self-respect, singlemindedness, competitiveness in actions.... and so on and so on.

Given all of this, lets take a step backwards for a moment. In the realm of differentiating/integrating, of WHOLES vs ASPECTS, so we can derive a set of generic feelings for those categories that are specific enough to be of value and yet generic enough to 'fit in' between the development of the basic whole/aspects categories vs the development of emotions used to communicate those categories in a strongly social context.

We have from a sense of wholeness the feeling of blending.
From a sense of invarient relationship the feeling of bonding.
From a sense of partness (a boundary, a cut, of 'them' vs 'us') the feeling of bounding.
From a sense of varient relationship the feeling of binding.

We can qualify these through the use of the differentiate/integrate dichotomy or its synonyms -

differentiate/integrate
expand/contract
push away, push out/pull in, hold in
XOR / AND
positive / negative
explicit / implicit
exploit / protect
etc etc etc

If we map these to the dimension of emotions (using D as differentiate, I as integrate) we have:

D-blend, D-bond, D-bound, D-bind, I-bind, I-bound, I-bond, I-blend
anger, love, acceptance, surprise, anticipation, rejection, grief, fear

If we REPRESENT these qualities through use of D/I symbols to reflect the recursion that led to these qualities (and so moving in a hierarchy (from general, bottom, to particular, top) we have:

DDD, DDI, DID, DII, IDD, IDI, IID, III

These are directly translatable into yin/yang lines and as such, with NO reference to the IC TEXT, JUST the representation, we have:

heaven, lake, fire, thunder, wind, water, mountain, earth

or using 1s and 0s - 111, 110, 101, 100, 011, 010, 001, 000

Given these mappings of differentiating/integrating, of fight/flight, of blend, bond, bound, bind, to the REPRESENTATIONS of the IC trigrams, where those trigrams have been derived in the same manner as D/I etc, is there any correspondance at all in the generic qualities described in the TEXT associated with the trigram representations vs the generic qualities covered above re D/I, fight/flight etc. IOW we do a COGNITIVE analysis and in that analysis we find that the answer is - yes there is.

If we focus on D/I mappings - the DID (fire) and IDI (water) mappings reflect BOUNDING, some form of enclosure, boundary. For DID (equiv to the trigram of fire) the enclosure/boundary is moving OUTWARDS ( it is differentiating). For IDI (equiv to the trigram of water) the enclosure is focused inwards (it is integrating), it contains, protects, and as such controls.

If we map these to emotions we have:

DID - ACCEPTANCE - fire
IDI - REJECTION - water

The issues here are on rejecting as well as being rejected, on socialisation, containment, control. Overall, the focus is on the boundary - for fire it is also considered a facade (e.g. 22). The accepting nature of fire is (a) to the exaggerate facade and also (b) to the 'mindset' that is enclosed by the boundary - as the boundary moves outwards, being 'fire' so it converts all different to sameness - ash - and as such reflects the passage across the boundary into being one of 'us' - likeminded and so operating out of some ideology, some 'guide' of some form.

Thus fire relates to guidance that is refined into a sense of direction, an ideology to 'distribute' as the boundary expands (note that this also maps to the five-phase category of FIRE aka external distribution - wholesalers). On the other hand, water relates to containment this is refined into a sense of control and so of PROTECTING what is within the boundary but also of containing (and so associations with 'imprisonment' as well as socialisation etc) (in five-phase it covers internal distribution, and so what is taken IN etc)

If we review all of the hexagrams using fire/water trigrams, these basic attributes shine through - attributes not sourced in ancient china or some unique perspective of some individual, attributes sourced in the very foundations of our being - our neurology. As such, regardless of era, the GENERIC thinking patterns of all members of the species will be the 'same' - and that will operate at unconscious levels acting to SEED local expressions.

Thus we can trace the LOCAL EXPRESSIONS of the qualities of the water trigram back to the core expressions of our neurology as it differentiates/integrates. The LOCAL expressions are fueled by our mediating consciousness, at odds with what is being 'felt' and so using imagination to rationalise those feelings.

LOCAL conditions, given no awareness of the universal template, will develop labels for these qualities in an imaginative and ad hoc manner and as such some highly localised labels that could be mis-applied. (e.g. if each hexagram reflects all of the others in some way, then it is easy for a skew in perspective given a unique context - where moving to the universal level can 'resolve' any of the issues.)

... and as for the bicameral mind, the perspective appears to reflect the initial development of increasingly dominating XOR perspectives out of the realm of the general AND. - IOW, as members of the species so any LOCAL activity would reflect the influences of UNIVERSAL forms of meaning derivation/communication - different times, different labels, same qualities.

Chris.

 

[Sparhawk]

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

... and as for the bicameral mind, the perspective appears to reflect the initial development of increasingly dominating XOR perspectives out of the realm of the general AND. - IOW, as members of the species so any LOCAL activity would reflect the influences of UNIVERSAL forms of meaning derivation/communication - different times, different labels, same qualities.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

<center>

</center>

L

 

[candid]

Whoever or however they were, they had the sense to know what works. Imagine if this conversation was about the wheel? Hmm.... round. Yes, a round wheel works better than a square one. Let?s go with that!

If some scientifically minded individual is finding universal recursive principles working within or behind the metaphor of a wheel, great! But let?s load these pigs in the wagon and get them to market before they lose their weight!

 

[candid]

Luis!

 

[lightofdarkness]

Luis,

thinks of resonance, of the realm of the immediate, the instinctive, just on the border of becoming 'split' into parts. Associations of patterns, be they auditory or visual etc start to pop out of 'complex' patterns - as we see in paradox processing.

The reverse is what we do from the XOR, differentiating realm, where the analogy is to the two slit experiments in quantum mechanics - each 'dot' on the photographic plate 'behind' the slits is a particular perspective of the electon passing through the slits, and this is apparently 'unique' and so 'free' of all others. Over time however the dots on the photographic plate start to form a pattern, showing deterministic elements at the level of the GENERAL contrasted with 'free will' elements at the level of the PARTICULAR.

Reality, from the perspective of our species, is reflected in the photographic plate that reflects AND, or more so, IOR (XOR + AND). Reality, from the perspective of our consciousness, is located more at the slits position, the A/NOT-A position (XOR).

A dimension, left-to-right, can be formed mapping from XOR to AND to IOR - and each 'dot' on that dimension represents a perspective on reality developing 'vertically'.... gets us into a huge, asymmetric matrix of meanings etc.

 

[hmesker]

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

Harmen, in all of this you obviously miss the point totally about how your senses feed your neurology and its feeds your category formation and from there we move into concepts and on into their expression through emotions, symbols, and metaphors.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
I don't "miss the point", I just regard it as not important in the study of the origin of the Yi. That should be obvious by now.

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

The I Ching as such is a LOCAL METAPHOR created from UNCONSCIOUS qualities used by us as a species to map reality and in so doing try to predict reality.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
Again, that is what you make of the Yijing.

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

Consider this:

"etymology of the qualities associated with the trigram labelled as 'water' and 'fire'."<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
Ah, there you go again. You use symbols which are only mentioned in the commentary - not the (Zhou) Yi itself. As I said earlier: skip that commentary, what is left?

But basically it comes to this: you don't read what I write (if you really did you wouldn't come up with sentences like "in all of this you obviously miss the point...") and I don't read what you write (I'm not interested), because our worlds are too far separated and we judge each other by the values we find in our own world. You know nothing of etymology of Chinese characters, which makes it easy for you to make something of it which it simply is not (that's where this discussion started). For your assumptions (that is still what they are) you rely solely on (images derived from) commentary. You can't seem to do without that, where that is what I want to do: look at the Yi without later added material which tells me how I should look at the book.

But I am repeating myself, so these are my final words about it (not that it matters, though).

Harmen.

 

[lightofdarkness]

Harmen,

Firstly, I used terms understandable buy the general re water/fire. If you want to get 'picky' then we can use K'an and Li.

K'an covers issues of holes, cavities, hollow, pit, trap, grave etc etc IOW distinct BOUNDARY of one side vs the other. The ideogram is, from the Eranos text, of earth and pit.

Li covers glowing light, spreading in all directions (and so an EXPANDING boundary); light-giving, discriminating (and so 'us' vs 'them', likeminded vs not likeminded); divide and arrange in order; the magical fire-bird with brilliant plumage (and so reflecting a FACADE etc)

BOTH the general qualities of K'an and Li map to the general qualities covered in my comments on 'fire' and 'water' - so you dismissal re commentary is ridiculous! - you seem to be trying to avoid the point.

if you are not interested then why do you comment? why do you engage me (as you did). Firstly note that to focus on the original of the Yi means you would have to be there - and your not. BUT it is possible to be there from the perspective of the universal and so use that to get closer to your 'ideal'. But you dont. IMHO you sound depressed! Come on Harmen, 'lift' ;-)

Chris.

 

[martin]

Hi Chris,

You get acceptance and D-bound for the trigram Li, independent of the tradition. Fine, but from there to the archetypical image of fire, the association of Li with the sun and sight (eye), and so on, is still a long way to go.
The ancients probably saw an eye or the sun in Li as a picture and perhaps also a flame (rotated 90 degrees). In any case, Li became a rich symbol. Can recursion of yin-yang account for that richness?
What recursion brings out is, as far as I Li, I mean see

, only a small part of the meaning and perhaps not even the essence or the core meaning. I don't think that acceptance or D-bound represents the core meaning of Li, for instance. The core meaning is, uh, fire, sun .. And I don't cook my food on acceptance nor do I get a tan from D-bound. Or do I?

I'm not saying that recursion of yin-yang misses the bulls eye (Li!) completely. I think it reveals something, but a few parts of the elephant are missing, I would say.
And I believe that that (and not necessarily fear of progress) is the main reason why not so many IC lovers are interested in this approach.
What happened to the rich symbols? Where is the whole elephant? Should we declare it 'merely' local? I can do that with an elephant (never met one here, except in the zoo) but not with fire or the sun.
Fire and the sun are universal!

So ...

 

[lightofdarkness]

Martin,

firstly we are dealing with a UNIVERSAL and so lacking in LOCAL colour. Secondly, you forget the XOR process ;-) it applies to trigrams as well as hexagrams and dodecagrams - but is more 'generic' at that trigram level.

Thirdly, the GENERIC focus of 'expansive bounding' covers ALL descriptions of that process. The LOCAL symbol 'Li' - and the associations given by various sources of chinese terms - map to the GENERIC qualities covered; and that is the point - we can identify a developmental path from 'differentiating/integrating' into categories, emotions and on into the particular, but still generic, symbols/metaphors of li/fire, etc.

That is all that is needed to demonstrate a 'human' source for the symbols/metaphors. FROM that generic realm comes the 'details', the 'specialisations' the LOCAL.

The IDM material is not interested in the LOCAL, the focus is on identifying a clear path from mindless dynamics of neurology to a TEMPLATE used to derive MEANING in general, a set of universals. FROM there all else follows and we use FOUR examples of specialisations THROUGH which we can detect the ONE generalisation - I Ching, MBTI, human emotions, and number types in Mathematics.

FROM that we have also identified XOR dynamics that allow you to derive the 'genetic code' of trigrams/hexagrams/dodecagrams - depending on what level of resolution power you seek.

The universal is the 'elephant', the LOCAL version is what you ride on, sweep up after, play with, touch, smell, see, etc etc and so associate particular, personal, labels etc.

As for fire, it is the feeling, the burning, the scalding, the warming etc - as it is for the sun (although there is a difference in the IC - the burning power of the sun is more associated with heaven ;-) - li is about 'radiance', a glow, and so not as 'precise' as the sun can be in its power.)

When you EXPRESS things, it is rare for you to think of what you are going to say, it just 'comes out' - if you try to watch the words as they form etc so you will 'trip up' in that your consciousness is a PART of your being and as such is a TOOL of that being. IOW when you open your mouth to speak, what is to be said has already been formatted, error checked and linked to a FEELING one is trying to communicate to the other/others.

When you consciously 'think' the QUALITY of 'expansive bounding' has already seeded your mind.
LOCAL labels are linked to it as part of the expression focus.

The traditional IC focus on 'fire' is strongly visual, but the IDM work is free of all senses, and as such applies to audition, gustation, olfaction etc. It so happens that the locals used fire, they could have used a sound as an expanding boundary, a smell, a taste. SAME quality, DIFFERENT senses. It this this SAMENESS that makes the template universal and so not restricted to a sense, just to the QUALITIES of those senses.

The focus is thus not on FIRE but more so on a QUALITY of it in the form of expanding outwards and so a BOUNDARY.

The focus for WATER is the same - note the terms for K'an easily associate with a focus on CONTAINMENT/CONTROL - a boundary around something to protect it or protect against it - all properties of the TRIGRAM regardless of its water emphasis.

The blending, bonding, bounding, binding etc are FEELINGS and can be generated by ANY sense. They are used as sources of ANALOGY such that the descriptions of 'fire' map to the qualities of expansive bounding etc - but we could use sound if you like ;-)

The 'traditional' terms of Li reflect a bias in sense processing to vision and fire - work backwards and we end up with a UNIVERSAL, and so SENSE-free quality - expansive bounding.

Chris.