not, as yet, quite intelligent enough

[martin]

Did I misunderstand or is Jesus now also on that incredably long list of people who didn't get it?

 

[martin]

The real meaning and etymology of the word "divination" are obscure. One scholar (Smith) explains it from the Arabic "ann" (to murmur, or hum hoarsely), this being the practice of the Arabic soothsayer. The explanation suggested by the Hebrew and adopted by most commentators and lexicographers is "the observation of the movement of the clouds".

Lenormant, in his 1878 book Magie und Wahrsagekunst der Chaldaer, quotes a Babylonia rule, "When bluish dark clouds rise on the horizon the wind will blow during the day" and a divination from the movement of clouds from the time of the Byzantine emperor Leo I favors this explanation of divination from the movements of air currents. Luther's translation, "Tageswachter" (Observer of Auspicious Times), rests on an etymological combination of Hebrew words that mean "time".

Confucius II

 

[dobro p]

Chris -

"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."

I don't think I'm confusing them, cuz in my book prediction is a subset of divination. But perhaps we're speaking a slightly different language here. Here are my meanings for these terms:

prediction: saying what you think will happen in the future

divination: using a mechanical oracle or an inherent oracular ability to perceive the non-evident contours of a situation or moment

What do *you* understand by 'divination'?

 

[jte]

"The explanation suggested by the Hebrew and adopted by most commentators and lexicographers is "the observation of the movement of the clouds"."

Wow, Martin, that's kind of an amazing bit of info, considering what the I Ching character looks like. Think there might be any association between our Yi and "cloud divination"? Or perhaps some other reason for the Yi character looking as it does?

- Jeff

 

[martin]

Does it look like a cloud and rain to you? People have seen different things in it. A lizard, sun and moon, sun and rain .. And the older characters (on oracle bones) are different.
Predicting the weather - by looking at the clouds or by another form of divination - must have been important for the Zhou people, as agriculture flourished in that time.
But I don't know if the character for Yi (or the older forms that seem to show drops, rain?) refers to that.

 

[lightofreason]

Chris - What do *you* understand by 'divination'?

Commonist form:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divination

Prediction covers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction

there is an overlap but prediction focuses on scientific work more than divination that has a strong spiritual bias (to divine, the divine etc)

 

[jte]

Yes, my personal view is that the Yi character shows the sun breaking through clouds. I suspect that at some point this is/was a metaphor for God or "heaven", much as it is for many in our culture today. Not having any etymological background, I can only speculate whether this came before or after the "change" meaning. Just my personal pet theory, I suppose...

- Jeff

 

[dobro p]

Chris -

It seems you're using 'prediction' and 'divination' in the same way I do.

Here's what I think: the Yi's less useful for prediction than for divination. I think it's an oracle, and an oracle is primarily about divination, not prediction. You *can* use it for prediction, but it's a bit like using a screwdriver to pound in a nail - it can be done, but it's not the best use of the tool.

So, without putting too fine a head on it, are you and I basically in agreement on this one?

 

[heylise]

View attachment 56
The oldest character "Yi" I know is a picture of two hands, holding a vase, and pouring the contents, or some of it, into another vase or cup. "Exchange".
I had found it somewhere, but did not know how it was related to the modern character. Harmen found the development. So it has nothing to do with sun, lizard, rain.

At left the old character, i guess you can easily see what part disappeared, so only the handle of one vase, and the 'pouring' were still there.

LiSe

 

[bruce_g]

At left the old character, i guess you can easily see what part disappeared, so only the handle of one vase, and the 'pouring' were still there.

LiSe

That's very interesting. First/left image.. the vessel being poured into has no legs or arms/handle, which means one must be open to it without trying to make something of it.

 

[jte]

Thanks for sharing that Lise, and it is interesting to watch the progression. I'm not really equipped to argue/defend my position etymologically. However, I'm curious as to what the exchange character means.

For example, in my view, the character at some point (about where it turns into the sun ray form) means, loosely, "heaven". So, for some amount of time, the title becomes "Classic of Heaven" before it becomes "Classic of Changes" (once the "change" meaning for the Yi character becomes widely accepted).

Do you have any views on what the title would be with the earlier versions of the character? "Classic of Exchange" wouldn't seem to make too much sense to me, *but* it's very very hard to step into the shoes of an ancient Chinese person to understand their concept of "exchange." Maybe they had a concept of exchange that would apply to the Yi/divination?

I guess what I'm asking is, do you have any thoughts/theories on what the Yi's title started out as, given the etymology of the Yi character?

- Jeff

 

[lightofreason]

"Classic of Exchange" wouldn't seem to make too much sense to me, *but* it's very very hard to step into the shoes of an ancient Chinese person to understand their concept of "exchange." Maybe they had a concept of exchange that would apply to the Yi/divination?
- Jeff

It is in fact very EASY to understand an ancient Chinese person in that their brain operated the same as ours and so focused on differentiating/integrating. When we analyse (a) five phase theory and (b) Western socio-economic categories and (c) the IC expressed in five phase so we find the isomorphism of (a) with (b) and on into (c) as:

WOOD - production - wind/thunder
FIRE - external distribition - fire
EARTH - filtration - earth/mountain
METAL -exchange - lake/heaven
WATER - internal distribution (consumption) - water

Heaven maps to metal and in particular competitive exchange (lake maps to cooperative exchange).

For five phase / western enconomic categories and the IC See http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/icfive0.html

the above ordering is temporal, the STRUCTURE of the categories is reflected in the IC binary ordering:

FILTRATION - INTERNSAL DISTRIBUTION - PRODUCTION - EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION - EXCHANGE

This reflects energy expenditure, low for filtration, high for exchange.

Chris.

 

[jte]

So, Chris, do you have an understanding (or at least a theory) of what the "exchange" character would mean as the title of the I Ching?

I was hoping for an answer from Lise, but I'm happy to hear your take on this, too.

- Jeff

 

[getojack]

It seems obvious to me that the meaning of the "Yi" character must be interpreted in terms of the meaning of the ideogram used at the time it was written... not what the character might have meant before or after that time. So the question I have is which one of those characters that Lise posted was in common usage at the time of the writing of the Yi Jing?

 

[lightofreason]

So, Chris, do you have an understanding (or at least a theory) of what the "exchange" character would mean as the title of the I Ching?

I was hoping for an answer from Lise, but I'm happy to hear your take on this, too.

- Jeff

As I identified - the quality represented covers issues of competitive exchange - from a generic IDM focus it is all 'expanding blending' and covers issues of becoming 'one' by interacting with the 'outside' - to pour out yang into the context and so try to mediate with it, assert one's own, exchange with it - the latter being in the perpetual development of skills as a result of the competitive exchange (we learn instincts etc and so rooted in a process of perpetual training, skill development. All of that is not 'passive'!)

Given this overall focus of high energy expenditure so we have the 'book of exchange' or 'book of mediating' or 'book of skills' or 'book of leadership' etc etc etc

IF we add-in behavioural consequences so we have a focus on the mediation eliciting 'transcendence' - to 'what' is unknown, but the dynamic will elicit the expeirence of personal transcendence - high energy expenditure will do that to any member of the species and so it can lead to some new paradigm (positive) as it can to psychosis (negative)

Note that mediation etc will focus on the space inbetween 'things' and so has a relational bias - no relational dynamics, no change ;-)

When we also map in the categories of the MBTI so this area maps to troubleshooters, negotiators etc - where these types of persona get off on their skills, IOW they will negotatiate anything for anyone where they can refine their skills in general - gets into the image of 11, of being in the middle linked to either side. 11 exaggerated gives you 01.

The focus on all of this representation is more on what is being represented and THAT is determined by the neurology - in this case 'pure' differentiating - assertion of self that includes pushing out from the middle of 'something' and in so doing participating in the exchange dynamic but in a competitive manner.

The emphasis on yang is to pour OUT. In yin it is to pour, or draw, IN. This dynamic of yang reflects the intense energy, the need to seek perpetual engagement with others, between others; to pour out oneself, to be 'driven' etc and good negotiators/trouble shooters are like that. (also gets into issues of charisma that is where the individual seems to extend their influence beyond their body - they can be disarming etc by their presences alone)

When we review heaven as a trigram, it stems from space it shares with lake. This space covers context replacement - heaven by erradication (competitive, replace current with something/one considered 'better' - this includes buying etc and so an exchange focus)- or lake by replication (cooperative)

Thus I find no issue with LiSe's comments etc re the focus on pouring out, on exchange, assertion of context etc (all covered in the hexagrams with heaven as base - 11, 26, 05, 09, 34, 14, 43, 01)

Note that with earth the focus is not on devotion to self but devotion to another/others and reflects the drawing-in of yang to 'fill' yin and so elicit a sense of 'wholeness' of being 'one'. With yang this sense is on pouring out to get that experience of oneness, of wholeness etc.

WE can focus on the quartet of 01,11,12,02 to cover all of this and in doing so bring out what is represented in all of the different symbolisms - be they chameleons or moon/sun dynamics.

In five phase the link is to the lungs - and so the exchange of oxygen/carbon-dioxide etc -- something that can make on 'dizzy' if not careful ;-)


BTW - the focus on being 'full' of yang to pour out is reflected in the hexagram describing the infrastructure of heaven (27-ness, from the XOR material) - hex 28 where the analogy is to excess, too much yang, extended into excess as in going the extra distance for someone/something.

IOW these QUALITIES seed the form of representations and so it is easy to see pouring out, as is the focus on exchange.

Chris.

 

[martin]

Interesting, LiSe. Makes me think of representations of the astrologial sign Aquarius that show a vase or something like it and liquid pouring from it.
I don't know if there are any historical connections to the Yi but I read somewhere that such representations of Aquarius are very old, they were found on early Babylonian stones.

What is perhaps also interesting is that an ancient Egyptian character for "a man pouring out a libation from a vase, or a vase with liquid pouring from it, or even a simple vase inverted signified "a priest" "
See this site (scroll a few pages down)

 

[lightofreason]

Interesting, LiSe. Makes me think of representations of the astrologial sign Aquarius that show a vase or something like it and liquid pouring from it.
I don't know if there are any historical connections to the Yi but I read somewhere that such representations of Aquarius are very old, they were found on early Babylonian stones.

DIfferent 'local contexts' will elicit unique representations for the core universals. These universals are vague/unconscious sensations rooted in our neurological developments so searching through all of the ancient symbolisms will uncover the universal 'seeding' of meaning.

There is also a claimed historical link to the IC having roots in Persia areas. - but this could be due to the detection of isomorphism of IC with middle east divination/categorisation methods ( due to the common neurology ) and the assumption that for there to be a link there must have been contact - not necessarily so. ;-) one brain, many interpretations, many representations, ONE set of core qualities.

Chris.

 

[dobro p]

Chris -

It seems you're using 'prediction' and 'divination' in the same way I do.

Here's what I think: the Yi's less useful for prediction than for divination. I think it's an oracle, and an oracle is primarily about divination, not prediction. You *can* use it for prediction, but it's a bit like using a screwdriver to pound in a nail - it can be done, but it's not the best use of the tool.

So, without putting too fine a head on it, are you and I basically in agreement on this one?

Piddle. The light of reason has passed me by.

 

[heylise]

When I try to find a meaning of a character, I work very much like Chris describes:

"DIfferent 'local contexts' will elicit unique representations for the core universals. These universals are vague/unconscious sensations rooted in our neurological developments so searching through all of the ancient symbolisms will uncover the universal 'seeding' of meaning."

And on the page Martin links to, the whole paragraph (simply hit 'edit' > 'find' in your browser, and enter 'priest', then you get straight there ) also makes it clear. The examples are even for a part identical to the Chinese ideograms: sun – day, moon – month, ink - scribe. Egg – child, in Chinese this is seed – child. Head of lion – vigilance, in Chinese: a bear - able. A meaning which starts out very literally, will be used for abstract meanings which have some connection with the original image. Sometimes this connection is hard to find, expecially because we do not know people's daily life and associations of that time. very often it still gives clues, though.

I don't think a character changes in the course of time in such a simple way as Jeff describes. It does change, but in a vague way, adopting a wider meaning, or more abstract meanings, or sometimes narrower. Some meanings got specified by radicals, and the original character narrowed down to the meanings which were not covered by that specific one.

I don't think there was any difference in the character yi, in its meaning of change and its meaning of exchange. Even in english, these two words are very close together. The meaning is much wider than just change or exchange. Give or gift, to accord, to offer, calm down (of disease). It also included 'easy': something which is not rigid but flexible, changing form easily.
There was a sacrifice which was called 'Yi', performed when they hoped for better weather. "Yi ri" gift of the sun: the sun reappearing again (thanks to an ancestor or spirit).
Nowadays it is a very common character for 'trade', another form of exchange. Part of the name of many companies.

In many languages the words for 'pour' and 'give' are identical, like in German, schenken.

Yong yi (availing of yi) means 'use so (the ancestor will) grant (a certain favor)'. Using Yi, using for being granted something, for a gift from the spirits.

Yi: hold up your cup, and the spirits will quench your thirst.

LiSe

 

[lightofreason]

Piddle. The light of reason has passed me by.

LOL! - I got distracted --- umm... lers see divination vs prediction...

The concept of divination covers the communicating with 'higher powers' that know all there is, past, present, future. (well, to US these concepts are valid, to the 'higher powers' all is 'NOW' since the only differences are in position)

There is no 'prediction' since all is known it is just that the diviners have to use methods to link 'lower powers' with 'higher powers'.

Thus when one asks "will the hunt be good" the 'higher powers' already know and communicate that knowing through the local medium - be it IC or some other divination process (or the Oracle at Delphi ;-)) - these sorts of questions include "does my XXX love me/hate me" etc where the higher powers have direct knowledge of the 'fact'!

(Nostradamus used a bowl of water as his source of access)

IOW there is no 'prediction' here, what is received is supposed to be 'fact'. All is known to the 'higher powers' - we humble beings are not worthy of direct access. There are issues of course - the laws of thermodynamics being one of them! (1st law is okay - it covers conservation; the 2nd law is an issue in that it covers entropy/negentropy dynamics and so the 'arrow of time' etc)

Thus when the divination is made it is an assertion of fact.

OTOH we can cover 'Prediction' into two basic forms:

Prophecy where prophecy covers predicting event A if the current situation continues uninterrupted. Thus to avoid the prophecy one changes the situation - to fulfil it one lets things develop. IOW there is cause-effect at work.

Algorithmic/Formulae prediction covers not being able to change the current path. The outcome will be precise or within a probability range but it will happen. (1 + 1 always = 2; the wave equation will always predict where the particle is - within a set of probabilities - same with weather forcasting!) - note that here to is cause-effect at work here, as there is with prophecy, but in divination there often is none.

Association with divination introduces the recognition of the sense of the 'eternal' - this sense is artifical in that it is an artifact of increased metabolism to process information. Lack of knowledge regarding this artifact allows for speculations of our consciousness when experiencing the artifact and out pops all sorts of 'novel' interpretations of reality ;-) (time gets marginalised, converted from its thermodynamic form to a mechanistic form - or time is even expunged - and then the push of context on our neurology can get consciousness coming up with all sorts of ideas re spiritual beings 'pushing/guiding' us)

The realm of the spiritual comes out of our singular nature, our developing sense of self exposed to cultural myths etc seed the concepts and so perpetuates the concept of the eternal etc. and on into the exaggerated spiritual sense. (that said, there is also the influence of charisma that can give someone seemingly 'magical' qualities)

The education etc allows for the development of 'likemindedness' and that can elicit issues we find in identical twins where shared 'purity' can elicit what appears as 'psychic' connectivity etc.

Thus there are differences relating to time issues - mechanistic vs thermodynamic etc.

Chris.

 

[autumn]

I did read the IDM introduction before my first post. Your response to it did not address the question at all. As far as I can tell what you have here is the notion of an all-encompassing, universal, epistemology.

“IDM is about the derivation of meaning given the basic dynamics of category and concept creation by our neurological, cognitive, and emotional faculties.”

I think the underlined is where you get into trouble because there is nothing substantial to what you are saying. Your reason for stating the underlined is, “it must be so”. Our brains do this. Yes? And?

What in the world does that have to say about “magical thinking”, (are you using the DSM-IV definition, or something else?) It says NOTHING about it. It doesn’t even approach engagement with a philosophical examination of your vehicle of universal intelligence.

Conceptually, you seem to be saying that this is reality (your theory). Do not bother with other cognitive systems of synthesis and analysis. Do not compare and contrast with other systems of explaining experience. This is the Universal Intelligence.

Your explanation for divination, by the way, is wrong.

 

[autumn]

Reading your work, it is elaborately self-defining, but does not connect with other thought systems (except to say either that they are imperfect versions of your thought system, or that they are un-investigated-in-light-of-this-theory, yet perfect justifiers of it, i.e., Neuropsychology ). Therefore, it allows no other point of reference, except to say that the other external reference is but a shadow of your thought system.

Philosophically, a thought system that is completely self-referencing is simply another version of a prototype for One Consciousness, or God. You “swallow up” the concept of external reference in differentiating/integrating, and say, anything that does such a thing is just part of this Universal ontology.

Here's the question: where is the answer in an I-ching consultation? Physically located in space and time, in our individual brains, or somewhere else? Don't reference yourself. Don't try to chastise me for not reading something you said correctly. Is this how people behave who are respected thinkers?

You know, great teachers, great thinkers, they integrate and differentiate the criticism of their peers. They become like little children (hexagram 4) to become great. Do you have peers? Does anyone have anything to teach you through discussion and exchange? Is genius not a relative term? Relative to whom; relative to what; relative to how. A professor would rip through this writing in a heartbeat because it is so freaking difficult to read. That doesn’t mean you’re smart, it means you don’t communicate well.

 

[lightofreason]

I did read the IDM introduction before my first post. Your response to it did not address the question at all. As far as I can tell what you have here is the notion of an all-encompassing, universal, epistemology.

“IDM is about the derivation of meaning given the basic dynamics of category and concept creation by our neurological, cognitive, and emotional faculties.”

I think the underlined is where you get into trouble because there is nothing substantial to what you are saying. Your reason for stating the underlined is, “it must be so”. Our brains do this. Yes? And? [/quote/]

There is MUCH that is substantial - go through the supplied reference material for IDM. The references, abstracts etc are on pages off the main IDM page TofC (http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/idm001.html )

As the intro mapped out, IDM used a number of specialisations as examples of the general 'shining through' - number types in Mathematics, categories of persona types (e.g. MBTI etc), categories of human emotions, categories of yin/yang (IC), categories of Chinese five-phase theory, and categories of Western socio-economic terms.

By identifying the isomorphism and the roots of such in self-referencing of differentiate/integrate we identify the source of all analogies/metaphors derived to describe what our brains deal with - patterns of differentiating/integrating. All else follows.

Thus the methodology allows for one specialisation to be a source of analogy/metaphor is describing another - as Mathematics does, as the I Ching does etc.

What in the world does that have to say about “magical thinking”, (are you using the DSM-IV definition, or something else?) It says NOTHING about it. It doesn’t even approach engagement with a philosophical examination of your vehicle of universal intelligence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_thinking

Magical thinking is common in children and comes out of the development of our singular consciousness in the first 24 months of our lives, combined with the physiological immaturity of the brain where we move from the general to the particular as we develop and so become increasingly precise, discrete, with our communications.

The trust of the infant in the parent and on into the collective means there is a degree of gullability such that the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, angels and demons etc are presented to the infant as fact rather than as examples of imagination trying to interpret reality from a position of ignorance. (and in adult hood this goes on into 'lucky shirts' etc as covered in the above link)

I suggest you review the neurological, cognitive, and emotional development of children and their interactions with adults (and the adults actions to them) to get the picture of how the singular consciousness is formed and covering issues of (a) trust-distrust in others (yin path) and (b) trust-distrust in self (yang path)

Conceptually, you seem to be saying that this is reality (your theory). Do not bother with other cognitive systems of synthesis and analysis. Do not compare and contrast with other systems of explaining experience. This is the Universal Intelligence.

lovely touch focusing on the dichotomy of synthesis/analysis - or maybe you slipped-up, letting your 'instincts' to come up with a dichotomy. There are no 'other' systems - there is only one and that is how our brains map reality through self-referencing of an asymmetric dichotomy. WITHIN that dichotomy are the sub-types of the symmetric and anti-symmetric.

ANY act to describe ANYTHING else will be done from WITHIN the IDM-described dynamic such that anything OUTSIDE of that dynamic will be interpreted from WITHIN that dynamic and in doing so will elicit paradox. As covered in my paradox page : http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/paradox.html

Note in that page we cover issues of paradox due to (a) ignorance of methodology of the brain or (b) issues of failure in creating philosophical categories that are NOT context-sensitive where context sensitivity implies a local context focus etc

The IDM focus is on the GENERAL - and so not useful for communicating directly in such as language - we, with our precision of consciousness have to work with analogies/metaphors that, unfortunately, get taken literally and so elicit confusion in understandings.

By understanding the blend, bond, bound, bind etc categories that come out of IDM so we get a better idea regarding the development of meaning from the neurology and out into symbolisms/metaphors. When we add-in the properties of XOR-ing etc - a property discovered in the IDM focus on meaning - so we find our selves dealing with something not covered clearly covered in the past - with the local focus, as in this list, on hexagram properties where we get the IC to describe itself (see the XOR intros for the IC in http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/introXOR.html )

Your explanation for divination, by the way, is wrong.

Not a very helpful/informative comment - how is it 'wrong', what specifically is the issue for you?

Chris.

 

[lightofreason]

Reading your work, it is elaborately self-defining, but does not connect with other thought systems (except to say either that they are imperfect versions of your thought system, or that they are un-investigated-in-light-of-this-theory, yet perfect justifiers of it, i.e., Neuropsychology ). Therefore, it allows no other point of reference, except to say that the other external reference is but a shadow of your thought system.

The only point of reference is our brains. All 'external reference' is made through the filtering of our neurology and so our brains of sensory data. period. The abstraction of the sensory systems data allows for working general to particular and then particular to general - covering deductive, abductive, and inductive dynamics in meaning processing.

The diversity that comes with the specialisations is covered in the basics of sensory differentiations after birth - and so the development of synsethesia etc (http://members.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond/synth.html )

The focus is on the GENERALITY of that development where we are dealing with our species-nature, our genetically-determined, instincts-driven, unconscious nature where we share all meaning with other neuron-dependent life forms. That meaning is in the form of universals of blend/bond/bound/bind and the composites out of which comes our specialist languages - be they our own language, our collective language, or the languages of our disciplines.

The IDM categories cover ALL senses and show the common theme behind all of the differences. Out of the neurology comes the form of our interpretations and these seeded by the self-referencing of dichotomies.

Given the set of universals derived from our neurology, so we customise where the universals are linked to local contexts and so out pop what we call 'small world networks' - see intro and diagrams in

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/IChingPlus

(you will need to use IE to see this site - Netscape or Firefox browsers will play up due to javascript differences I have not fixed yet)

Philosophically, a thought system that is completely self-referencing is simply another version of a prototype for One Consciousness, or God. You “swallow up” the concept of external reference in differentiating/integrating, and say, anything that does such a thing is just part of this Universal ontology.

The self-referencing of our brains is ASYMMETRIC and so comes with consequences. From a spiritual focus there is a divide behaviourally from the differentiating focus ( a drive to 'be god') vs the integrating focus (a drive to have a relationship with 'god') With these dichotomies being asymmetric so the elements are active in parallel with each other.

We find these behaviours exaggerated through use of drugs etc (cocaine/speed to 'be', exstacy/LSD to 'have a relationship with')

Here's the question: where is the answer in an I-ching consultation? Physically located in space and time, in our individual brains, or somewhere else? Don't reference yourself. Don't try to chastise me for not reading something you said correctly. Is this how people behave who are respected thinkers?

All meaning is derived from the method used to create it. In the IC the method is self-referencing of yin/yang to give the categories of yin/yang dynamics in the form of hexagrams. The 64 hexagrams cover the whole that is the IC and that whole applies to every moment as a set of universals that get sorted into best-fit/worst-fit order by the LOCAL context.

NOT understanding this dynamic, nor understanding the limitations of consciousness where we cannot experience all 64 hexagrams at the one moment but a small subset, allows us to come up with methodologies in interpretations such as the sense of the miraculous/random that elicits a belief of derving one hexagram that is the 'best fit' for the moment. (and belief in the system overall means that whatever hexagram you get you will force it to be the best fit even if it isnt).

The IDM research on the IC shows how it DOES work as filter for dealing with reality but there are more efficient means to use the filter (e.g. the Emotional IC work - http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/EmotionalIC.html ). IOW the originators were on to 'something' but in their primitive times were more reactive than proactive and more believing in the spiritual, in the 'gods' and so using the methodology of yarrow sticks or coins or marbles or 'whatever' to communicate thorugh the IC with these 'gods'.

IDM/IC+ shows (a) a questioning method that is more consistant in deriving the 'best fit' and (b) the XOR material allowing for extraction of a hexagram's 'spectrum' and so finer parts analysis etc. These are not properties of the IC, they are properties of self-referencing. (as covered in the page on the discovery of this property - http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/properties.html )

You know, great teachers, great thinkers, they integrate and differentiate the criticism of their peers. They become like little children (hexagram 4) to become great. Do you have peers? Does anyone have anything to teach you through discussion and exchange?

I dont consider myself as a teacher - I just do research into the roots of meaning. Through that we can develop an (a) intro to information processing at the species level and (b) refining the development of meaning in AI systems (c) get as better idea of what we are dealing with from an ideological perspective (and so recognise fundamentalisms etc as such, rather than as some 'real' world to kill for etc)

The LOCAL context can give us novel expressions of the universal categories and so there are an infinite number of expressions of the universals but they will still map to object/relationships aka differentiating/integrating aka positive/negative feedback dynamics. That is 'fixed' due to the adaptation of the neurology to the universe that is itself derived from these dynamics (or appears to be - the issue is on the filter being local, restricted to this planet and our sensory systems. However, the success of our maps of 'out there' indicate adaptation to context through internalisation of the properties and methods of differentiating/integrating. - IOW we internalise space, time, and the dynamics of evolution. The latter changing from natural selection to conscious selection (genetic engineering etc)

See my comments on tracing the roots of consciousness back to the beginnings of the universe - http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/symmetry.html

Is genius not a relative term? Relative to whom; relative to what; relative to how. A professor would rip through this writing in a heartbeat because it is so freaking difficult to read. That doesn’t mean you’re smart, it means you don’t communicate well.

I know a number of professors (ex wife being one) who 'value' what is being done with this material. Yes it does require focus but it is not as difficult in prose as is, for example, wading one's way through Hegel! ;-)

All new paradigms, being new, will come up with perspectives not in common use - as they will be difficult to understand from a 'dogma' position in that they are not dogma, they come from the periphary (a product of differentiation is fragmentation and the emergence of complexity/chaos dynamics out of the borders. These areas are the 'creative' and so move 'inland' if useful. In that movement they can become 'dogma' for the next generation etc etc enantiodromia at work ;-)

From an IC perspective, the XOR material works, as does the emotional IC, and so, since these are derived from the IDM/IC+ perspective, that perspective is validated. If you find it too difficult to understand, too 'left field' for you, then the implication is you are more rooted in the position of 'dogma' - you are in 'Kansas' where IDM suggests we are not in 'Kansas' anymore ;-)

Chris.

 

[lightofreason]

Reading your work, it is elaborately self-defining, but does not connect with other thought systems (except to say either that they are imperfect versions of your thought system, or that they are un-investigated-in-light-of-this-theory, yet perfect justifiers of it, i.e., Neuropsychology ).

All other maps of thought systems are more ontological in form - exercises on 'is-ness'. The IDM material covers the border between ontological and epistemological and so is 'vague' - it covers the "Language of the Vague".

For our consciousness we need precision, well differentiated terms etc to allow for clear, precise, expression. But all of this precision did not come out of nothing - it came out of the general, the qualitative.

Mathematics etc has its roots in the IDM categories but IDM cannot replace it - IDM just shows where it all comes from and covers aspects of self-referencing not considered before. IOW IDM shows the dynamics of specialisation creation and how one specialisation can be used to describe another in that they ALL come from the general categories identified by IDM where their source is in the neurology.

Thus these specialisations are idealisations of the IDM general categories and so allow for a metaphysical development that can be too extreme in that we cut off a category from its full nature where it is integrated with all of the others - and so idealisation of a hexagram etc.

From an information processing position, our idealism focuses on concepts of information theory as covered by Shannon (bits) and in so doing we marginalise the concepts of Gabor (holons)

The elements of the Shannon/Gabor dichotomy are not working against each other but more so in parallel. One is strongly differrentiating (Shannon), the other more integrating (Gabor).

The 'perfection' of these concepts are in the form of their clear differentiating but that come from 'somewhere' to start with - and that is what IDM covers - the basic categories as qualities of meaning derived from the neurology that in turn develops from interactions with the universe - and so the IC can map 'all there is' in that it is an example of the methodology used by all neuron-dependent life forms to process meaning. The benefit to us is in the complexity of our neurology that allows us to be increditably 'precise' - but as precision that is 'past' our wholeness as a species and so can create paradox at times.

Chris.

 

[autumn]

I am in Kansas City, not Kansas.

"By identifying the isomorphism and the roots of such in self-referencing of differentiate/integrate we identify the source of all analogies/metaphors derived to describe what our brains deal with - patterns of differentiating/integrating. All else follows."

What are the underlying assumptions built into this argument?

A) Reality is objective
B) Our brains are where objective reality is (located) and experienced as consciousness
D) Consciousness is further reduced to non-physical (but physically generated) Universals
E) The system of i-ching is a template for these Univerals
E1) The ancients intuitively/unconsciously accessed the code when creating this complete work of Universals and thus expressed the underlying structure of all possible thought as can be created by our biology (brains representing themselves)

THEREFORE, the meaning to any divination query exists within the biology of the querent, and cannot exist anywhere else.

Why is your definition of divination wrong? Because you think (without examination) it is the material you've referenced on magical thinking. It's quite a simplistic , highly value-driven method of thinking about human thought.

Shall we examine the underlying assumptions? Shall we operationalize the definitions?

On the other hand, as long as you understand that your theory is an interesting, thought-provoking examination of the underlying process of concept formation in the cognitive sciences, and does not by its own existence and without examination knock off competing epistemologies, you could connect your theories with empirical study.

You could, for example, embark on a qualitative study of ancient texts (or modern texts, for that matter) and determine whether or not the concepts you have developed inform the underlying roots of thought inherent within the texts. And I am sure there are million other possibilities for connecting your work with empirical investigation and dialouge with other philosophies.

But to do so, to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, would require adherence to the tradition of, "this is a testable hypothesis". And of course, I understand you assert this is the "reality behind the reality", but if it exists only there, then what is its use?

I never said this was "not valuable", it is not being communicated appropriately. The vehicle of communication you are employing does not justify your philosophical work.

 

[martin]

I wonder, dear Twilightofreason, what do you hope to achieve by repeating mainstream opinions about divination, spiritual beings etcetera again and again - ad nauseam - on a forum like this?

We know very well what the average 'rational' human of our time thinks about such things. We hear and read it all the time. There is no awakening effect there, no revelation, nothing. It's not even entertaining, it is just plain boring.

So .. why? Are you trying to hypnotize us, perhaps?

 

[ewald]

I know a number of professors (ex wife being one) who 'value' what is being done with this material. Yes it does require focus but it is not as difficult in prose as is, for example, wading one's way through Hegel! ;-)

My level of intelligence is well above average, however I find your prose way to difficult. I've elsewhere said a few things about that already. It's absolutely not just a matter of focus.

Keep in mind that not everyone has studied philosophy. Or actually, most people haven't. Then how are people to understand your prose? It relies heavily on philosophical jargon and expects the reader to have an extensive amount of background information.

I have e-mailed quite a lot with a philosophy professor. She knew exactly what philosophical stuff I'd understand and what not. When I asked her to go deeper into some philosophical area, she'd simply refuse. She was never unclear.

It would be a good idea for you to learn communicating your ideas in a simplified, clear way. No jargon, no need for background information. No extensive amounts of text, keep it consise. And respect for your readers.

 

[lightofreason]

What are the underlying assumptions built into this argument?

A) Reality is objective
B) Our brains are where objective reality is (located) and experienced as consciousness
D) Consciousness is further reduced to non-physical (but physically generated) Universals
E) The system of i-ching is a template for these Univerals
E1) The ancients intuitively/unconsciously accessed the code when creating this complete work of Universals and thus expressed the underlying structure of all possible thought as can be created by our biology (brains representing themselves)

THEREFORE, the meaning to any divination query exists within the biology of the querent, and cannot exist anywhere else.

No, That is ONE aspect of the whole (and a preferred one for me personally), not the whole. The IDM focus covers what is POSSIBLE given our neurology. Heurstics then determines what is USEFUL for the local context. Thus in some contexts (A) above is considered false in that reality is subjective and (B) is false in that all is outside of the brain where the brain is but a receiver etc.

IOW from the general universals we can 'fit' in to any local context. This covers the notion of the whole of the IC being active for any moment and local context will sort the universal categories into 'best fit' order for local context.

The XOR material shows us the whole is all hexagrams of the IC (or, depending on scale, all trigrams or dodecagrams etc) where our experience of them as discrete forms is useful but deceiving in that we deal with the discrete and the continuous at the same time - but outside of our consciousness.

The work of Libet and others shows us consciousness as being an agent of mediation where, once the mediation is over so we fall back onto instincts, onto autopilot, and consciousness disappears - moves on.

( an interesting read (so far) is the recent publication:

Pocket, S., et al (eds)(2006)"Does Consciousness Cause Behavior?" MITP)

That said, the IDM categories allow for the consideration of consciousness being all incompassing, seemingly originating etc BUT the heuristics in the form of empirical studies suggest the 'mediating' bias is the 'best fit'.

The 'full spectrum' of our thinking is the elements of the differentiating/integrating dichotomy operating in parallel as well as interacting in a 'zig-zag' manner 'up' the page.

You could, for example, embark on a qualitative study of ancient texts (or modern texts, for that matter) and determine whether or not the concepts you have developed inform the underlying roots of thought inherent within the texts. And I am sure there are million other possibilities for connecting your work with empirical investigation and dialouge with other philosophies.

The 'qualitative' study aka cognitive analysis of ancient texts and modern texts has already been done over a considerable time period - the references listing given for IDM are but a part of the material covered. The IC references cover most of the interpretations/translations analysed prior the the IDM pages going onto the web (and there have been more since) for those refs see:

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

There is also material at my original, 1995 website - http://members.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond (starting to get a lot of missing links but most of the pages of interest are still up)

But to do so, to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, would require adherence to the tradition of, "this is a testable hypothesis". And of course, I understand you assert this is the "reality behind the reality", but if it exists only there, then what is its use?

The IDM/IC+ material is on the web pages, open to all. The validation of the perspective, from the IC position, is in the XOR and Emotional IC material. All available off the web pages. Simple - and it is all testable as a number have used the material to date and found it of use. The value of understanding the IDM template is in knowing where all meaning comes from and how that template seeds our meanings and so links us all together as a species - NOT being aware of this allows for fundamentalist positions to take over and elicit fragmentation of the species to a level of focusing on erradication as 'acceptable' etc.

The MBTI/typology material is also available and testable on the web pages - although I had to take down the MBTI Plus material as 'they' got upset with it since they considered it to be offering the MBTI test without authorisation! They obviously didnt go through it all in fine detail!

FROM the development of the IDM template has come understanding of XOR etc in self-referencing so that too is value.

I never said this was "not valuable", it is not being communicated appropriately. The vehicle of communication you are employing does not justify your philosophical work.

I just focus on my interest on what is going on re the derivation of meaning. I suppose my webpages are more like research notes - and my lists reflect the same approach.

For some my work has benefited their understanding of the IC, Mathematics, MBTI, human emotions etc and thats fine by me. If others dont get it or it is too complex for them - thats ok too. I am on a number of lists covering Science and the Humanities where those leaning towards Humanities/Alternatives dont like my Science content, and those leaning towards the Sciences dont like my Humanities/Alternatives content - but I understand that in that I am coming out of the middle of that dichotomy - new paradigm etc.

I am not here to please all of the people all of the time and I will stir people when they get too 'sterile' in their ways when working with the IC. IOW I will alienate (but in doing so get people to get off the fence and so show their colours! ;-))

SO - if you find the XOR material on the IC etc useful then it validates the IDM perspective. I have not seen anything like it anywhere so to me it is an original contribution to the understanding of self-referencing in general and the IC in particular (call it the Eleventh Wing ;-)). If you dont get it or think I must be wrong because no one else has come up with it to date (and how could someone like me come up with that!) then thats ok - enough are starting to 'get it' such that I can start to ignore those who dont or dont want to - or just spend time stirring them until they back themselves into a corner! ;-)

For a history of the 'hate chris' exercise (together with my pushing of peoples buttons), go through the archives for material authored by (a) lightofreason, (b) lightofdarkness, (c) chrislofting

As is the usual case, I am just the messenger that all of the 'divination favouring' would like to burn! LOL!

BTW- with Science and Technology so our nature becomes increasingly 'yang' - see the comments on history etc in http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/Vague.pdf

Chris.

 

[lightofreason]

I wonder, dear Twilightofreason, what do you hope to achieve by repeating mainstream opinions about divination, spiritual beings etcetera again and again - ad nauseam - on a forum like this?

We know very well what the average 'rational' human of our time thinks about such things. We hear and read it all the time. There is no awakening effect there, no revelation, nothing. It's not even entertaining, it is just plain boring.

So .. why? Are you trying to hypnotize us, perhaps?

At last Martin you reveal your true colours.