PO Box 6945,
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).
martin said:"with containment comes control" ?!
Hmm, Chris, perhaps. But I think this is typically one of those cases in which your system narrows the core meaning of a hexagram down to one aspect of it.
martin said:Well, I don't think that your efforts to contain - or should I say tame? - the Yi dragon will give you much real control over it. Or much real understanding of its nature.
And anyway, what is the use of a tamed dragon? When you imprison the beast it loses most of its power.
martin said:Back to hexagram 29 - enclosure, narrow spaces, yes.
But it also indicates danger and unfamiliar and unstable conditions.
These are all essential meanings (universal, not local) that are, as far as I see, not covered by your concepts.
And control and protection - often hexagram 29 means just the opposite: conditions that one cannot control (metaphorically turbulent water) and a lack of protection and safety.
Hexagram 29 can perhaps mean "from containment comes control" in some cases but it can also mean something very different and IMO that phrase doesn't adequately represent the universal core meaning of the hexagram.
Probably not ..
Lightofreason said:IC+ comes out of our species-nature, the realm of particular-general, of Science, ...
Lightofreason said:This gets into my distinctions of 'small world networks' where your personal experiences in a particular collective can marginalise or even expunge universals from your mindset.
Lightofreason said:Too see issues of CONTROL at work, go through all of the hexagrams with water in the TOP position. (e.g. 08, 05)
martin said:Chris, your interpretations don't come out of 'Science'. They come out of an interesting but highly speculative personal (!) theory of yours. You use scientific language and you cite scientific research but that doesn't make your work any more scientific than a painting of Salvator Dali or the philosophy of Schopenhauer.
Your work is clearly personal, I recognize you in every page that you write and in all your interpretations of trigrams and hexagrams. You!
I see you as needing this to be so. As SINGULARS our selectivity aids in the creative, the 'genetic diversity' element, but as PARTICULARS there is no choice, 1 + 1 = 2. period.martin said:Marginalizing universals in the I Ching - you are doing that too. Like everybody else. You are no exception. Certain aspects of the universals are highlighted, others are pushed into the background.
I applaud your or anyone elses effort to capture the universals as a whole, not just a part of it. But we are all selective. I believe this is unavoidable.
martin said:And what about hexagram 26 for example? No water on top and yet ...
you see, you lack precision in your thinking, DIAGRAMS are NOT trigrams. Different level of analysis. In DIGRAMS we have:martin said:I think that such concepts as control, containment and contractive bounding can be associated with several trigrams.
All the trigrams that have a yang line above a yin line in them, to be more specific (water, fire, mountain and wood). There is an element of contractive bounding in all of them.
martin said:In water on top the control seems to be temporary or partial. It may indicate an effort at control that fails or giving up (or relaxing) efforts at control.
You can see that in hexagram 5 where the 'waiting' is temporary, in hexagram 60 ("if the regulations which it prescribes be severe and difficult they cannot be permanent" according to Legge) and in hexagram 8.
Especially in line 5: the king relaxes efforts to control/contain the game and allows it to escape in one direction.
Lightofreason said:yin/yang or yang/yin = bounding
THAT is why you an detect the bounding, BUT it is generic, vague, not clearly differentiated.
martin said:Hmm, I wouldn't read yin above yang as bounding. It is the opposite, unbounding (if that is a word), opening the gates, let go.
And yang above yin is not only bounding, it is also (already) contractive.
So, IMO, the digram language is already specific.
martin said:But the issue here is perhaps that we read trigrams in a different way. I read them more as a temporal sequence:
Water, 010, as 01 followed by 10. First bound then unbound, first contract then expand, first retreat then advance, first close then open, first become tense then relax, and so on.
Water, when read in this way, also suggests hesitation (as in not knowing if one should retreat or advance) and while you associate it with repulsion (if I remember correctly) I associate it with both repulsion and attraction, hence the ambivalence (mixed feelings) that I mentioned in my response to Blink.
martin said:Lol, perhaps _you_ zoom in too late!
But where do you get this notion that yin (in the context of the Yi) stands for contraction?
There is nothing more expanded and open than hexagram 2. And nothing more contracted and closed than hexagram 1.
Yes, yang will expand eventually, the seed will germinate, if it falls on fertile ground, if gets the opportunity, the space. That is yin. No expansion without it. Right?
martin said:When you use the Yi as an oracle for a long time and receive the same hexagrams repeatedly you get a pretty accurate idea of their general (universal) meaning. And then, when you go back to the text of the Yi and read it again, you often discover that it is all there. Passages that were opaque suddenly become transparent.
martin said:It's all there, albeit in metaphorical language that is sometimes hard to understand, but the ancients did a very good job, on the whole.
martin said:This is the reality of the Yi, these are the "facts" that are uncovered gradually by reading and practical experience with the Yi as an oracle. I trust that reality, those facts. They are my empirical "ground".
martin said:Based on your insights about how it all works in the brain you get results (interpretations) that sometimes come near to this reality and sometimes not. Some of your interpretations contradict the facts.
martin said:So I say, because I trust those facts, that there is probably something wrong with your insights.
If it is indeed all neurologically determined (I doubt it, btw, but okay, let's assume it is for now) the question is still: how exactly? Perhaps not exactly like you think?
lightofreason said:show me. I will show you, using XOR, how we can get the IC to describe itself and in so doing validate my interpretations IN GENERAL. IOW I can show you where the 'traditional facts' are in error or 'misled' where local context has gotten confused ;-)
The IDM perspective is that you dont need to work with the IC for such a long time to understand what is going on. The METHODOLOGY in its creation will set down a template of categories, qualities, that, in that 'long time', you will in fact be
'filling in the dots' - there is nothing 'new' in general, only in particular, as in some novel experience of 'contractive blending' etc.
The categories of the IC are derived from the neurology as it self-references WHAT/WHERE aka differentiating/integrating. These are universals in that they lack local colouring, which is what 'filling in the dots' does. As you 'fill in the dots' what you are doing is becoming aware of finer distinctions - the point is that you start off by flying 'blind' in you need to get into the LOCAL nature in the form of the traditional IC. Given the work in neurosciences etc and so the IDM model, that period of time is no longer necessary, one can 'get it' quickly if but generally.
We then start to see how the IC can reflect 'all there is' as 'all there is' can reflect the IC - we are dealing with a template of meaning applied to ANY specialist perspective where the specialisations are METAPHORS etc for describing reality.
"on the whole", sure, but they also introduced a lot of 'local interpretations' that are not present other than as 'primitive' attempts to try and describe how it all does what it does. They had no idea of properties and methods of self-referencing and the brain's use such. WITH that knowledge we can now make things a lot clearer in understanding, we move way beyond the traditional material in that we can flesh out a lot more detail and in doing so show a property of self-referencing not restricted to the IC but covering any self-referencing methodology using dichotomies.
and there is your 'issue' with things, and IDM. You have spent a LOT of time/energy in trying to understand the IC and along comes IDM etc and shows how the basics can be done quicker and not requiring 'local knowledge'. The IDM perspective is inevitable given the research. IT does not diminish the IC, it in fact shows there is a lot there not covered in the traditional material due to ignorance of the findings coming out of scientific research on meaning generation etc.
There is nothing 'wrong' with the traditional perspective other than it being 'primitive' at times. But that just reflects the age when it was 'born' and how, over 3000 years we have learnt a lot about 'in here' and 'out there' - and the IC has ignored that but times change, the IC is in need of 'refurbishment' ;-)
show me. I will show you, using XOR, how we can get the IC to describe itself and in so doing validate my interpretations IN GENERAL. IOW I can show you where the 'traditional facts' are in error or 'misled' where local context has gotten confused ;-) - recall I have said before that local context will marginalise or even expunge universal aspects and then consider than local context as if it is THE context - it isnt.
MY contribution, YOUR contribution, as singulars, as mindful species-members, will show unique local perspectives on the IC but always WITHIN the GENERAL as identified in blending, bonding, bounding, and binding.
Issues can develop if you do not know what you are dealing with at the GENERAL level in that one can step across boundaries that ARE there as if they were not - and THAT leads to 'bad interpretations' but with a touch of charisma etc can be sold as if 'true' and so lead to some 'local context' issues. Understanding what is BEHIND the IC allows one to be more efficent in working with it and so using it.
;-) Exactly has how IDM has presented (read the neurology ref abstracts) to date. Nothing has come up that throws a spanner in the works.
The facts you trust are derived from within a 'traditional' perspective and so are 'small world'. The facts I deal with come out of research in neurosciences etc and so cover the global as well as the local. I think it is time for the local to re-appraise their position since it is becoming increasingly 'marginalised' when viewed from the facts we are getting out of neurosciences.
As such, the emotional IC work etc shows us a very exiting tool for interactions with emotions and shows how well the IC categories work when applied to reality without any of the 'miraculous' or 'random' methods. IOW the IDM/IC+ material validates the IC but with some minor 'adjustments' and/or major new insights.
PO Box 6945,
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).