PO Box 6945,
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).
We understand the neurology of all these in general, all the way up to us. Of essential note is that when you go past the monkey there is a sharp difference emerging in that monkies and lower lifeforms have issues dealing with mime. In other words they lack imagination and it is imagination, focusing what could be, that elicits magical thinking.bruce_g said:Animals appear very child-like. What they don’t do is wind up their brains over explanations for “magical” experiences, such as synchronistic events, with complex, quaternions, octonions and such. They take it all in stride, as nature’s way. We can learn a lot from a dog, cat, deer, coyote, bird, horse or housefly.
...mo so ignorant of their full nature as human beings. They are only 'diminshed' if they maintain that ignorance despite the presence of information that clearly shows their perspective to be 'magical'. One needs to understand the Science of one's Art as one does the Art of one's Science.ewald said:In other words Chris/Lightofreason says:
The people who consult the I Ching (and that is most of the people who visit this website), are:
it is not an enemy, it is a hinderance. If it is an enemy it is removed from its acceptable position of showing a lack of education. There is no issue with that, the issue is in knowingly working from a position of ignorance; IOW despite information that can do a hex 56, you keep that position for political/social/psychological reasons; it comes out of fear of loss of identity given some revelation - a fear many demonstrate when dealing with the IC. THAT action of remaining ignorant by choice reflects the maintaining of a child-minded perspective and that is not good when the focus is on species development - it reflects issues of identity, vanity etc where the IC is not taken seriously, with depth, but treated superfiscially and so not fully appreciated in its full spectrum form, but only as some 'ancient chinese divination system'. THAT is 'stupid'.ewald said:4.6Attacking ignorance.:brickwall:
It is a disadvantage to turn into an enemy:
One better guards against enemies.
Go through the reference material I supplied in the earlier post - learn about yourself and other animals; differences in thinking, influences of genetics, etc etc and so understand about 'intelligence' - be it as IQ or EQ.nicky_p said:OK, so this is a subject that get's me notoriously hot under the collor and laughed at but to hell with it
Seems the only stupidity - read arrogance - is man's/woman's assumption that we have the mandate on 'intellegence'.
not any more. It is more useful as a UNIVERSAL guide in the form of metaphor and a source of analogy in dealing with reality and issues of ethics etc. See the work with the Emotional I Ching (see link in earlier email) or the IDM/IC+ material that applies the last 3000 years of research on the brain/mind to the elicitation of meaning (covered in IDM see link in earlier email)denis_m said:The I CHING was composed as a divination manual. Therefore, it makes sense to read it using a divinitory approach.
LOL! You are out of your depth Jesed. You have spent much time in working with the IC as a 'divination system of ancient china' but it is time to move on if one wishes to contribute to the development of the representations into something useful outside of the 'divination' constraints. The Emotional IC, the XOR material etc etc are clear examples of what the 'ancients' have explicitly missed; the price of staying in the box too long is decadence, decay, hex 18, and that is what the 'traditional' perspective shows - it is 'corrupt' and in need of 'being cleaned up, moved from the 10th century BC to the 21st century AD. Simple ;-)jesed said:I had found that expecting to have a mature and real dialogue with Cris is primitive, naïve, child-like, local, thinking trying to immediately interpret something it knows nothing about AS IF it does.
LOL! - you miss the point when you say "be happy with what you've got" This is not about me, I am happy with what I have got/am doing, I am not happy about what our species is doing to itself - all apparently rooted in vanity and general ignorance of what is behind all of the expression - IOW the child-minded takes things literally and so will kill or die for what is in fact metaphor and not worth the suffering.getojack said:I know I'm just adding fuel to the fire here, but to paraphrase Lao Tzu and a cartoon chihuahua,
"STEEMPY, YOU EEDIOT!
Do you think you can change the world?
I doubt whether it's even possible."
IOW, be happy with what you've got.
Simple. Easy. ;-)
I have used divination lots of times to clarify my situation of a particular moment. This has allowed me to assess how accurate Yijing divination is in describing situations. After all, I could immediately check if it fitted or not.lightofreason said:The issue here is on people who use the divination focus when dealing with the IC; a focus on prediction or moral learning etc etc is fine, but tossing coins or yarrow sticks to elicit some response from some 'being' is child-like thinking and not helpful in the long run.
Unfortunately there is nothing clear about your system and your writings. You make excessive use of jargon, make simple things complicated, and write in a very verbose unfocussed way. My guess is that even most of the people who have bothered to dig into your haystacks to find some needles, are not able to make use of your system. Simply because you present it in an excessively theoretical, very impractical, unclear way.lightofreason said:The Emotional IC has clearly shown [....]
You misinterpreted - my statement covers the GENERAL nature of Huxley's statement applied to the PARTICULAR focus on divination AS covered in the traditional IC (or more so the divinationist interpretion of such)jte said:"The above covers the divination elements of the I Ching..."
Actually, if you read it, it does not. Huxley makes no mention of divination in his quote. You've inferred what you wanted to see in what he actually wrote. I'm not familiar enough with Huxley's writings to say whether he would have indeed grouped divination with these other practices, perhaps someone can enlighten us?
Given your remarks, you dont know me dude. the price of trying to understand somebody through email!jesed said:You miss my point Cris... I wasn't talk about your material (I had suggested some people to use your material, as anybody can see reading the forum), I was talking about you.
You confirmed my point with your answer,
what? ;-) your trying too hard.autumn said:I haven't read all of your material, (there's so much of it, and it looks quite fascinating), but I believe I get the basic premise of what you're saying from my memories of Neuropsychology and Philosophy.
Here's the question I've always had with this perspective; (which is, essentially, if I am correct in understanding you), that dervied meaning from the random generation of a binary sequence which generates a specific "answer", and that answer being but one very particular aspect of a man-made, self-referencing, mathematical/textual system, is the result of inherent properties of the system that reflect neurological structuring and their subsequent cognitive processes.
ah -- well, there is your problem in trying to interact with IDM/IC+ material without reading any of it!autumn said:I haven't read everything on your site.
again trying too hard! Simpler. REALLY simple stuff that comes out of 'mindless' dynamics, no need for 'originating' consciousness etc in that we cover all neuron-dependent life forms. What IS essential is understanding the properties of differentiating/integrating and what can come out of those properties when they are mixed through self-referencing the differentiate/integrate dichotomy.autumn said:In that case what you're really saying is that "meaning" is not derived, but contrived, and a function of the physically-rooted conscious mind interacting with the unconscious mind. A person who believes in magic, or anything resembling the God in the Machine, would say that meaning is dervied, and exists in divination because all energy is inter-connected, and that the delusion is that our brains are separate and the sole creators of personal reality.
Your confusing levels of analysis. The magical emerges from the same neurology as the empirical. The differences are in the failure in the magical to question the magic - to try and see what is behind it. Children have 'magical' thinking until experience and basic physics show their imagination to be at times the creator of illusions/delusions.autumn said:The difference between a neurologically-based analysis and a magical analysis would be, then, disagreement about the existence of meaning outside of one's own brain.
it is our species-nature that allows for shared meanings and that means the development of a common form across the species and so particular expressions - i.e. the properties and methods of the neurology (that allows for communication across neuron-dependent species as well) - out of that has developed the realm of the singular.autumn said:Or, perhaps that statement should be qualified. Certainly society could not exist if there were not "shared" meanings outside of the individual brain.
if you use the emotional IC approach (or just the basic questioning method) you will get better, more consistant, results than any 'coin toss' methodology in that the questioning covers the unconscious purpose in asking the question is the first place - and so the warning given in the material:autumn said:If I am person "A", and I am asking about my relationship with persons "B" and "C", could we not see a statistical difference in the quality of the hexagrams received (if the magic hypothesis is correct), or not, (if the meaning-resides-soley-within-the-brain hypothesis is correct)?
Hi Dobro,dobro said:So, it's not just predictions that your IC isn't best suited to, but *any* specialized use or question. That's exactly how I view the utility of the traditional IC as well. My understanding is that it works best holistically and in the present - a snapshot of the present moment, if you like. How are you with that idea?
READ THE LINKS I SUPPLIED. Especially the IDM intro.autumn said:I'm disappointed that I've failed to articulate your fundamental premise and how it deviates from a spiritual perspective. Perhaps you could do so for me in 2-3 sentences? Sort of a- thesis, point A, point B, conclusion format that demonstrates the bare logic.
No aversion as such - the point is that this behaviour of 'child mindedness' or 'magical thinking' is not rooted in JC, it is in fact a natural part of our being where the exaggeration element leads to perceptual distortions (such as religious or secular fundamentalism) IOW he was right about what he said but 'misguided' about what he was dealing with where the fundamentalism elicits 'issues' and is at odds with our species nature 'as is'. BTW it also elicit competitiveness between the different collectives - this being a natural product of excessive differentiating.autumn said:Why such the aversion to Jesus?
At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"
He called a little child and had him stand among them. And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven."
PO Box 6945,
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).