...life can be translucent

Menu

not, as yet, quite intelligent enough

L

lightofreason

Guest
"You never see animals going through the absurd and often horrible fooleries of magic and religion...Dogs do not ritually urinate in the hope of persuading heaven to do the same and send down rain. Asses do not bray a liturgy to cloudless skies. Nor do cats attempt, by abstinence from cat's meat, to wheedle the feline spirits into benevolence. Only man behaves with such gratuitous folly. It is the price he has to pay for being intelligent but not, as yet, quite intelligent enough". -- Aldous Huxley

The above covers the divination elements of the I Ching; it covers the attempts by primitive, naïve, child-like, local, thinking trying to immediately interpret something it knows nothing about AS IF it does.

The IDM focus on the I Ching has clearly demonstrated:

(1) ANY moment is interpretable through the IC filter where the local context sorts the universal categories of meaning into a best-fit/worst-fit order. (for the derivation of these categories see http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/introIDM.html )

Thus 'miraculous' or 'random' methods of deriving a best-fit hexagram come out of errors in understanding re what is going on. Our brains, or more so our consciousness, can deal with limited number of 'things' (7+/-2; see G. A. Miller, E. Galanter, and K. H. Pribram. Plans and the Structure of Behavior. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1960.) at once and so the whole that 'is' is outside of conscious experience and that whole covers the filter being used at any moment - e.g. the 64 hexagrams/4096 dodecagrams of the IC.
(For current science on these issues of foreground/background dynamics see the references in http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/wavedicho.html . Also see, for more IC specific material, the introduction of http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/IChingPlus but only use the IE browser to do so, do NOT use Firefox as it will go into a load loop at the moment.

For an example of the realm of the 'spiritual' being given as the cause of activities clearly sourced in basic neurology at work - see http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/angels.html )

(2) The IC DOES do a good job in reflecting a local context situations and we can bypass the 'filtering' of social rules, restraints on taboo thinking, through access to our semi-autonomous emotions system. That access is through the use of generic questions working as 'skeletal' forms that allow for answers to be returned from our emotions by 'fleshing out' the skeletal forms that allow for the derivation of a hexagram representing what the emotions are sensing the context is about. This methodology is more consistent in deriving the 'best fit' hexagram than any 'miraculous/random'
methodology. (http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/EmotionalIC.html
)

(3) The XOR material covered in IDM/IC+ demonstrates properties not covered in the 'traditional' material due to ignorance of the properties and methods of self-referencing, the methodology used in creating the hexagrams through self-referencing of the yin/yang dichotomy. (The links of XOR with hexagram rotations shows possible awareness of 'something' but no formal assertions of what is going on - as covered in my post "hexagrams, dodecagrams, XOR and rotations"- also see http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/introXOR as well as http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/properties.html ) - from the XOR work we can get the I Ching to describe itself in some detail to which we can then add local context 'colourings'.

(4) The emotional IC material and the XOR material clearly show the delusion of divination (delusion = beliefs still used but past their 'use by/best before' date). BUT they also show the depth and value of the IC as a filter through which to interact with reality. IOW we can move it from a 10th century BC perspective to the 21st century AD.

(5) The usefulness of 'coin tossing' can be in coming up with a hexagram that gives one a different perspective upon the situation, derived from the set of perspectives applicable to the moment (ALL 64 hexagrams apply to the moment but our consciousness cannot deal with that many and so we try to work on the 'best fit' and then consider the others as well). BUT this method of derivation does not consistently give the 'best fit' so what is derived has to be considered an aspect, not the whole. (the questioning system gives the best fit and from there can be derived for full sequence of the hexagrams in their best-to-worst fit order where even the worst fit will elicit meaning; and consciousness will 'fill in' the dots! - IOW this divination method will ALWAYS elicit 'meaning' even if the context 'best fit' is not to the derived hexagram - thus the perspective of 'synchronicity' etc falls within the coin tossing paradigm in that no matter what hexagram is derived, since ALL apply so detection of 'synchronicity' is easy to do)

(6) The contribution of the realm of the particular to species survival reflects survival through numbers such that particular collectives of members of the species have a 'purpose' in serving the species but have no singular identify. This purpose thus covers generations and allows for prediction of behaviour but from the particular perspective, not necessarily the singular perspective (see the section on history in the .pdf file http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/Vague.pdf )

(7) The realm of the singular, that part of us that develops over the first
24 months of our birth and develops into the sense of 'Self', is a source of 'random', novel, interpretations. As such the 'self' is reflected in 'coin tossing' but it is applied to a given context, a determined context, that is not derivable from 'coin tossing' but from clear consideration of sensory inputs (see emotional IC comments above). GIVEN the context one can then use 'coin tossing' to give some novel interpretation that may introduce some perspective upon the context that can 'change the world' ( or else one goes through all of the possible 64/4096 aspects to see what each contributes)

(8) It is unfortunate that the perpetuation of divination continues in that it does the IC a huge disservice and the action reflects the shameful, disgraceful, efforts by the vain to cling to their 'image' as long as possible and so avoid change. As a conscious species we are still growing up and so, given empirical studies on our psyche etc, we need to foster that growing rather than continue to live in the dark ages of 'gods' and 'demons'
where that living allows us to shun responsibilities of each of us to the development of the species.

Chris
-----------------------------
generic categories of meaning:
------------------------------
Objects bias (differentiating):
BLEND - wholeness, whole numbers
BOUND - partness, rational numbers
Relationships bias (integrating):
BOND - share space, irrational numbers
BIND - share time, imaginary numbers

From these come composites as reals, complex, quaternions, octonions. All else follows....
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/introIDM.html
 
B

bruce_g

Guest
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.
 

ewald

Administrator
Joined
May 28, 2006
Messages
510
Reaction score
0
not, as yet, quite intelligent enough
primitive, naïve, child-like, local, thinking
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:

STUPID.
 

ewald

Administrator
Joined
May 28, 2006
Messages
510
Reaction score
0
4.6
Attacking ignorance.
It is a disadvantage to turn into an enemy:
One better guards against enemies.



:brickwall:
 

nicky_p

visitor
Joined
Jan 14, 1971
Messages
368
Reaction score
0
OK, so this is a subject that get's me notoriously hot under the collor and laughed at but to hell with it :)

Why does a cock crow when the sun rises or a wolf howl at the full moon. My mum's cat goes absolutely mental when there's a change in the wind and a farmer told me a story last week of how a herd of cows surrounded a party of ramblers braying for blood it seemed. The big old bull who normally kept out of the fights between the cows cames striding over and barged a couple of the cows out of the way to let the ramblers through. Makes me wonder whether the bull knew that if the cows had been left to have their fun the farmer would have been forced to shoot them all for being a danger LOL

Seems the only stupidity - read arrogance - is man's/woman's assumption that we have the mandate on 'intellegence'.

:rant: OK rant over :D
 

hilary

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 8, 1970
Messages
14,220
Reaction score
170
Welcome back, Chris ;)

(Ewald, I'm not sure whether he thinks we're stupid, or just morally flawed for not using our intelligence correctly. I don't mind in the least, either way.)

Y'know, this thread is kind-of in the wrong forum. It's 'divination discussion', isn't it? So I'll move it.
 

denis_m

visitor
Joined
Aug 3, 2006
Messages
45
Reaction score
0
The I CHING was composed as a divination manual. Therefore, it makes sense to read it using a divinitory approach. That's an avenue of reflective thinking. Who says that philosophy has to presented using rigid logical arguments? It can also be presented in a matrix of symbols and images. The matrix has its own methodology for tapping content from spaces of implication between images. It takes a gradual tending---allowing the associations of various symbols to grow until they connect into something organic. To do that involves talking, to develop the associations. So discussing divinations is useful for this text.

George Lakoff tells us how metaphors are part of the fabric of language even when we think we're being coldly logical. When we discuss symbols in light of situations, we bring our use of metaphor out in the open and watch it work.

The I CHING has subtlety that repays study. We have not exhausted it yet. According to the "Great Treatise," the found a way to convey something about divine creativity in the symbols. The interelations among components at different levels show a coherence that our understanding hungers to address. It is a model for the subtlety of thinking we could use to grapple with things like gene interactions, neural networking and real life chaotic problems. These things don't yield to blunt categorical schemes. Somewhere in what Chris L. says is an appreciation for the I CHING'S subtlety, but no appreciation for use of a methodology native to the I CHING'S own design.

Regards,

Denis M.
 
Last edited:
L

lightofreason

Guest
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.
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.
What these 'lower' life forms can do, or be trained to do, is respond to words where the words associate with a learnt behaviour and so recall that behaviour - but there is lack of ability to deal with mime.

To discuss this one needs to be aware of the empirically-derived findings so here are some refs, I am sure your local libary can help:

Dehaene, S., et al (eds)(2005)"From Monkey Brain to Human Brain" MITP
Kircher, T., & David, A., (2003)"The Self in Neuroscience and Psychiatry" CUP
Plutchik, R., (2003)"Emotions and Life" APA
Hugdahl, K., & Davidson, R., (2003)"The Asymmetric Brain" MITP
Rogers, L.J., (2000) "Minds of Their Own" Westview

Also so such texts as "Thinking Without Words" or "Essays on NonConceptual Content" etc

Genetics gives us the particular-general nature, Nurture gives us our singular nature. Neural Complexity gives our species its well-refined consciousness that operates 24/7; lower life forms can manage awareness for minutes/hours before they 'start again' and so cannot go past those steps. Mammals get into more acceptance of learning but still lack our refinements. When you get to extreme singular development you get to extreme differentiation and so fundamentalism (strong discreteness focus). Thus we can associate genius with the singular as we can psychosis.

Given a lack of education re what is going on unconsciously, we are driven to interpret and in doing so wil elicit the magical (as covered in the link to angels.html where the rabbi is in fact describing consequences of context pushing instincts and our singular nature having no idea what is going on and so comes up with a story interpreted as if fact - a ,metaphor taken literally)

Chris.
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
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:

STUPID.
...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.

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.

The Emotional IC has clearly shown a methodology in communicating with the unconscious or 'censored' aspects of our nature where our emotions give clear, precise, interpretations of a situation 'outside' of the regulatory, socially-imposed, controls of our reason. IOW it shows access to 'taboo' thinking that is eliciting emotional 'discomfort'.

The categories of blend, bond, bound, bind, show the development of metaphors from basic brain dynamics and so how recursion of yin/yang can elicit categories reflecting our species nature and so reality in general (where our neurology reflects the adaptation to context)

The distinctions of singular/particular-general give us clear understanding of issues of consciousness (operating out of the singular realm) vs our species-nature (operating out of the particular-general)

The fundmentalist, 'magical' aspects of the singular are well documented where consciousness works out of a position that can elicit paradox due to the asymmetry involved but driven by a need to interpret and so works off 'as intepreted' reality compared to 'as is' reality.

Science-derived work has brought out our speices-nature and so how the singular develops from the particular-general, not the other way around.

TO understand the IC in its full spectrum form you need to 'adjust' by incorporating 3000+ years of research into the dynamics of psyche/soma. That adjustment includes understanding what 'coin tossing' offers as a 'superficial' tool, combined with the 'magical' focus, compared to the depth possible in understanding self-referencing (recursion of yin/yang) and so the metaphors that reflect that self-referencing such as the IC.

Chris.
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
ewald said:
4.6
Attacking ignorance.
It is a disadvantage to turn into an enemy:
One better guards against enemies.​
:brickwall:
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'.

Chris.
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
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'.
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.

BTW issues of cyclic/morphic change are covered in the trigrams of wind/thunder where the focus is on temporal issues - dynamics, time, binding. Issues of invarience, and so sharing space, bonding etc, are covered in the trigrams of mountain/wind where the focus is on invarient relationships - be it to one's spouse or to the moon (the moon elicits tidal influences that can affect hormonal distributions in the body and so elicit differences in behaviours and that includes being territorial or social or expressions of such - for an Astrological perspective see Gauqualin's "The Cosmic Clocks" that covers early work in chronobiology from a focus on Astrology and so planetary influences on behaviour - there is also a good general science book out on the influence of the Moon on life forms)

Chris.
 
J

jesed

Guest
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.

:duh:


 
L

lightofreason

Guest
denis_m said:
The I CHING was composed as a divination manual. Therefore, it makes sense to read it using a divinitory approach.
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)

IOW it is way past its 'use by' date as a tool of divination. What the ancients were not aware of were the dynamics of the brain in how it derives meaning. That methodology, self-referencing, is represented in the IC symbolisms and as such is easier to use/teach etc that other metaphors.

The IDM/IC+ material is about analogy/metaphor in that it identifies the core template used for deriving meaning by analogy/metaphor in that the template categories seed all specialisations and so allow for each to describe any other through the underlying sameness.

see the derivation process in the IDM introduction:

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

In IDM/IC+ we move WAY BEYOND such works as Lakoff's. Your comments as such show lack of awareness/understanding of the IDM/IC+ material; I would suggest familarisation - for a generic view on recursion and the development of the XOR material I suggest also going through:

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/properties.html
and
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/introXOR.html

Our neurology is the base out of which all meaning, all language etc develops. The focus on frequencies, wavelengths, amplitudes shows a general methodology for processing sensory data. The development of consciousness shows us one step removed from reality 'as is' and dominated in our thinking by reality 'as interpreted' - IOW the use of analogy/metaphor. The IC is a metaphor.

Chris.
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
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.

:duh:


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 ;-)

What I find facinating with all of the 'traditionalists' on this list is the reluctance to accept change - lots of hex 12 activity!

If you understand evolution that is understandable behaviour for the 'mindless', for those living of stimulus/response; but given consciousness so natural selection becomes conscious selection and change becomes understandable, acknowledgable as 'necessary' if the species is to develop and so survive - otherwise it is back to the trees and throwing 's*it' at each other.

The universal IC is a path for development. Simple. Easy. ;-)

Chris.
 

getojack

visitor
Joined
Jun 13, 1971
Messages
589
Reaction score
1
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. ;-)
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
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. ;-)
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.

Your words reflect being 'reasonable', modest, etc but to elicit change we use consciousness to allow escape from being 'reasonable' in that the 'reasonable' is obviously not working!

Since the realm of the singular, our individual consciousness, CAN "Change the world" so a focus of attention on the dynamics of that change (which is what the IC covers as well as the unchanging) can elicit 'new' thinking about ourselves, our species, our planet etc.

Tossing coins or some other 'miraculous/random' methodology whilst asking "what is happening in the middle east" or "what is happening with my girfriend/boyfriend/job" etc is delusion (as in a belief in something no longer viable, demonstrated as 'false' or 'not as good as ...' etc)

What the neurology indicates is that we use the IC as a WHOLE filter and as such ALL aspects apply to any moment as POTENTIALS. LOCAL CONTEXT will then sort those potentials into best-fit/worst-fit order. Our consciousness is not aware of this unconscious activity and so is open to 'false' interpretations of what is going on (our consciousness is the source of paradox when it excludes consideration of time and so change. This is a property of the neurology alone and is reflected in the asymmetric nature of our brains where we can extract 'fine detail' to idealise - but in that idealisation, if we exclude consideration of time, then we can create paradox - as covered in my paradox page)

Chance methods, aka belief in some 'synchronicity' as if you are totally determined etc, CAN give you the best fit or, close to, such that you will find value in the method - and in doing so will ignore 'inconsistancies' etc

Furthermore, since the IC applies in toto to each moment so ANY hexagram will elicit meaning as long as there is a question (where the question bounds, sets the context, out of which meaning is derived) - and the more 'worst fit' will be manipulated by consciousness to become a 'best fit'! (even if intepreted 'negatively')

BUT the reality is that, depending on the resolution power, be one working with yin/yang or digrams or trigrams, or hexagrams, or dodecagrams or more, all apply to the moment and value can be derived more consistantly using such methods as general questions where, given the 'best fit' we can map out the order of all of the hexagrams for any moment from best fit to worst fit. They ALL say 'something' about what is going on but with different levels of contribution to the 'whole'.

Futhermore, given such questions as 'what is going on with my X?' the result will be more fitting the reason for the question, will identify the reason and so bring out aspects of one's behaviour that might be under social/conscious supression/repression. This dynamic is scale-free and so applies to all questions, be they personal, cultural or about the universe.

GIVEN a best fit, using XOR methods we can flesh out a LOT more detail than given by the 'traditional' IC methods - and detail that will be reflected in the current situation as it develops (change situation and there is another hexagram applicable)

By working through all of the material, rather than working in an ad hoc manner, allows for the integration of the properties/methods of the IC as a set of universal potentials, into one's universal nature as a unique individual. As such, one becomes more aware of undercurrents without reference to any particular context (e.g. ancient china), and so can work from there such that the questions one needs to ask can be answered by oneself.

We thus retain the individual but also introduce a shared perspecitive sourced at the level of the species, not some local, fundamentalist, collective. Here emerges the universals that seed the IC as agents of mediation, of ethics etc etc where they resonate with our speices nature in general.

SO --- given the work from neurosciences etc about how we work 'in here' we both validate the IC as a useful metaphor for interpreting reality, but at the same time 'grow up' by bringing out the depth of the IC rather than treating it as a 'ancient chinese divination system' - the methodology is far more than that and needs to be recognised as such, brought out if the 'dark ages' mentality and so made more useful than tossing coins to see if my boyfriend/girlfriend 'loves me' or not!

Chris.
 

ewald

Administrator
Joined
May 28, 2006
Messages
510
Reaction score
0
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.
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.
Most of time, the Yijing was spot on. Differences often could be attributed to problematic translations.
So from my own experience it is clear to me that anyone who's trying to convince others that divination doesn't work, is child-like etc., is acting from an unfounded and incorrect belief. A belief that is usually rooted in an overly firm confidence in theory. It is usually Science worshippers that have such a belief (note the capital "S" of Science). People who don't notice that the work of scientists is often proven wrong or incomplete after some time.


lightofreason said:
The Emotional IC has clearly shown [....]
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.
It is therefore unreasonable to blame people for not understanding your system, let alone for not using it.
 

jte

visitor
Joined
May 31, 1972
Messages
724
Reaction score
1
"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?

- Jeff
 
J

jesed

Guest
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,

:p

 

autumn

visitor
Joined
Jun 12, 2006
Messages
430
Reaction score
0
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.

Therefore "thought" recognizes itself within the man-made system, and dervies meaning by connecting symbols with its drive (inherent within the brain) to solve problems and find meaning. The idea being that we build structures in the outside world that reflect our neurological wiring. We interpret sensory information (looking at the patterns in the stars, or an ink blot) because the brain is driven to find patterns and label, thus creating meaning. At least- I think that's what you're saying, but forgive me if I state that incorrectly, as I haven't read everything on your site.

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.

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. Or, perhaps that statement should be qualified. Certainly society could not exist if there were not "shared" meanings outside of the individual brain. I suppose it would disagreement about whether a diviner's answer can provide information to the individual that would not and could not have existed within the diviner's own brain. Is that an accurate description of the fundamental disagreement?

If it is- and certainly I may be missing something, your writing is quite complex and I've only just skimmed it, then I propose that such a disagreement can be answered empirically.

Is it not possible to quantify the variable, "best fit", use magic, and divine, and statistically analyze whether or not the answers received were most likely the result of chance, or if there are statistical variations based on the context of the question?

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)?

If we cannot empirically investigate a method, then what we have is..
 

confucius

visitor
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
199
Reaction score
0
Please. be nice

No matter what it looks like, we are gathered here to share a common destination, that of understanding the Yi...

remember what the Master said:

If I am walking with two other men, each of them will serve as my teacher. I will pick out the good points of the one and imitate them, and the bad points of the other and correct them in myself.
 

dobro p

visitor
Joined
May 19, 1972
Messages
3,043
Reaction score
3
Hey, Chris - still trying to convince a forum full of botanists that zoology is where it's at, huh? lol

You 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."

It seems in this bit that you equate divination with prediction or moral learning. Is that right? Cuz if that's what you think divination is, I think you're way off base. But if you're taking issue with people who use the Yi that way, then I'm with you, cuz I think *they're* way off base.

"The Emotional IC has clearly shown a methodology in communicating with the unconscious or 'censored' aspects of our nature where our emotions give clear, precise, interpretations of a situation 'outside' of the regulatory, socially-imposed, controls of our reason. IOW it shows access to 'taboo' thinking that is eliciting emotional 'discomfort'."

I use the Yi to reveal non-evident aspects of the situation I'm enquiring about. You seem to be using it to reveal non-evident aspects of one's own psyche, especially repressed emotional content. If that's the case, then we're using the oracle very, very similarly. Care to comment or elaborate?
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
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?

- Jeff
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)
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
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,

:p

Given your remarks, you dont know me dude. the price of trying to understand somebody through email!
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
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.
what? ;-) your trying too hard.

Firstly there is no 'mathematics/textual' system - we start with basic neurology out of which come representations, specialisations serving as metaphors and sources of analogy to represent things.

Mathematics is a specialist metaphor and so a language, as is Logic, Quantum Mechanics, Astrology, Biology, I Ching, Taoism etc etc BEHIND all of these specialist forms is ONE general form that sets down all possible meaning in the form of qualities that the labels point to.

IDM covers this with blend, bond, bound, and bind - see the intro : http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/introIDM.html

Secondly, given a set of possible meanings (represented as yin/yang or trigrams or hexagrams or dodecagrams) so this finite set forms the language we use to describe 'all there is'.

ANY moment is filtered through ALL of the possible meanings in that the methodology used to create the set of meanings, of categories, entangles all elements of the set, all parts of the whole, such that there is no discrete form - using any method to derive one category from the many does not exclude the many, it just exaggerates the one from the many - IOW they are all tied together.

Thus, any moment is an 'IC moment' but with the parts of the IC all ordered into some sequence that fits the context; thus, if working from the level of using hexagrams, the sequence is of 64 hexagrams ordered from best fit to worst fit by the local context.

Our consciousness cannot percieve 'all there is' when we go beyond a small number of 'things' - thus our consciousness cannot comprehend directly all 64 hexagrams operating in parallel with 'the moment' and being sorted into a best-fit/worst-fit order.

In 'ancient' methods of divination etc - be it by reading rat gut entrails or 'burnt' patterns in the shoulder bones of animals - the focus was trying to particularise the general, trying to convert all possibles to an actual.

The issue is that if you are not aware of the possibles so one's methodology will be 'limited' and, if one imagines 'spirit' beings guiding things then imagination can run riot. (as covered in such pages as:

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

Note that with IDM we are not starting with 'thought', we are starting with what allows 'thought' to occur for us and other neuron-dependent life forms - the dynamics of differentiating/integrating aka what/where aka positive/negative feedback aka yang/yin. Thus we can see in the 'brain' of the tiny zebra fish the same dynamics of dealing with known/unknown as we have in our brains - just that we are far more sophisticated and our complexity allows for developments not possible in less complex contexts.

autumn said:
I haven't read everything on your site.
ah -- well, there is your problem in trying to interact with IDM/IC+ material without reading any of it!

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.
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.

The fundamental properties are derived from analysis of the form of the dichotomy where it is asymmetric and that implies one element has emerged from the other. From an energy perspective, as reflected in our brains focusing attention to differentiate, so there is an increase in recognising the discrete. This is useful but also energy-expending where, given a thermodynamic universe, so life is more energy conserving.

Again from a focus on brains, the 'as is' reality is one of 'past-future' where our instincts are encoded into the input areas of our neurons and allow conservation of energy through letting contex PUSH.

With the development of precision we move past 'as is' and into 'as interpreted' - we make finer distinctions etc. but based on analysis of relationships.

Thus the 'individual', be it a human or as whole number, is a representation of some ratio and so is derived, not originating.

The 'pure' individual, our singular nature of unique consciousness is 'derived' but in that derivation maintains hidden links to the rest of the species - our 'idealist', 'magical' thinking natures have been unaware until recent times of the degree of linkage. This unaware-ness is also present in the understanding of the I Ching. For seeing the connections see the XOR material:

(1) http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/properties.html
and
(2) http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/introXOR.html

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.
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.

JC commented on the need to have the mind of a child to 'enter the kingdom of god' - IOW he knew that with questioning so the 'truth' of that kingdom is shown to be 'false' and so we cannot have people growing up can we! - he would have made a good used care salesman or TV evangelist (with the same 'weaknesses'!)

From the neurological level, increased differentiation elicits increased fragmentation and so specialisation - culturally labelled as 'fundamentalism'. This can be secular or religious. The IC is included in this, as is quantum mechanics or astrology but so are the the intense forms such as those having a go at each other at the moment in different parts of the world.

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.
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.

The realm of the singular has a focus on high precision. It reflects the importing of energy to maximise bandwidth and so covert past-future into 'now' - all gets concentrated into 'the moment' but this also requires full access to details, to context ,etc and so is local and needs purity in relationships (like identical twins - where the correlations drop off really fast, at a rate of 1/2^n; you can find 'synchroncity' in those of the same education etc but being unaware of such relationships one gets 'surprised' by certain events that are predictable) - as such, given our conserving attitude to energy, so the questions methodology is more consistant in deriving hexagrams for situation than is any 'divination' method.

In quantum mechanics we find the IC sequence in the form of the 'wave equation' wherer each point represents a probability of finding X in that position - same with the IC where the WHOLE 64 apply and then comes the probability of finding the 'best fit' position for a situation.

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)?
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:

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


Chris.
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
Dobro - the IC+ material comes out of the IDM material as an example of a specialisation. As such the IC can be used for anything. The issues are in its use for prediction of 'future' events and in a consistant manner. There is no such consistancy, but lots of 'close' fits due simply to the WHOLE being applied to any moment and ANY hexagram selected will 'be meaningful' as long as there is a question.

For ANY context, be it analysis of the unconscious or of current political events, the IC will give you results, but not consistantly if you limit yourself to 'divination' methods and do not understand the science of one's art.

Chris.
 

dobro p

visitor
Joined
May 19, 1972
Messages
3,043
Reaction score
3
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?
 

autumn

visitor
Joined
Jun 12, 2006
Messages
430
Reaction score
0
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.

Why such the aversion to Jesus? ;)
Matthew 18
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."
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
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?
Hi Dobro,

dont confuse prediction with divination. Mathematics predicts and the IC correlates with it in general - IOW it too predicts. This is not the same as divining.

The XOR material of the IC+ focus shows the characteristics of all of the other hexagrams operating 'through' each hexagram. That includes hexagrams covering beginning/ending and so a form of prediction where, if a hexagram reflects a context so we can predict its development to its end as long as that flow is not interrupted OR we proactively ensure it is not - IOW in some situations you 'leave it alone' and in others one must get involved to get the required outcome.

The use of IC as reflecting the holistic present is fine and the Emotional IC work covers that, but FROM there, if we have the 'best fit' so the XOR work can be useful in predicting outcomes - as Mathematics is when given the initial conditions (APPLIED) or when we 'play' (PURE) - IOW the IC also comes in applied and pure forms.

Chris.
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
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.
READ THE LINKS I SUPPLIED. Especially the IDM intro.

autumn said:
Why such the aversion to Jesus? ;)
Matthew 18
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."
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.

Thus a lot of 'ancient' religions etc are past their 'best before' or 'use by' dates and are a source of concern re their updating ;-) The sense of the spiritual is in all of us as social creatures, it is what links us together, we share the same 'space' as members of the one species. To then EXAGGERATE that linkage is an issue where a lot of the 'mumbo jumbo' has come out of childish ignorance of what is going on neurologically and so we build whole universes out of our imagination (as re the rabbi talking about angels in the angels.html link I gave before - or the work on 'Out of Body' experiences showing it being a product of neural anomolies)

The only spiritual path I have seen that appears worthwhile is Buddhism/Taoism etc in the recognition of cause-effect, development of the 'inner light' etc - the only issues then become those of reincarnation and some of the 'magical' elements in some of the branches of these paths.

Faiths based on worship of a particular, and so monism, cause too many issues and do not allow the individual to become like that particular - Buddhism does and so recognises many Buddhas since the first one, where the focus is on individual consciousness, not someone elses.

The focus on 'walk in my shoes' allows for learning the current dogma but there is also scope for personalisation and adding to the 'dogma'. IOW one could share the same space with all of the other buddhas, but not with JC since his links are 'magical' (son of God etc, 'special powers' etc)

Chris.
 

Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom

Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).

Top