not, as yet, quite intelligent enough

[lightofreason]

... 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.

Yes - I expect you to know the basics of the IC etc and I supply you with the basics of neurology etc in the IDM material. This is not 'lite' stuff - we are dealing with something very 'deep' and demanding of concentration, of focus, and it is all ongoing work.

If you dont have the depth, or are not prepared to study then dont worry about it all - you just keep going with your 10th century BC style of thinking and totally ignore 3000 years of development in neurosciences, psychology, sociology, anthropology, cognitive science, computer science, mathematics, logic, statistics etc etc etc I am sure you will be just fine.

Chris.


Chris.

 

[ewald]

If you dont have the depth, or are not prepared to study then dont worry about it all - you just keep going with your 10th century BC style of thinking and totally ignore 3000 years of development in neurosciences, psychology, sociology, anthropology, cognitive science, computer science, mathematics, logic, statistics etc etc etc I am sure you will be just fine.

Or in other words: It would be stupid to ignore Chris's work, as it is based on lots of Science. If you don't study it, your are stuck with some of the oldest fashioned texts you could think of. Chris won't bother to make his work more accessible, he's just going to continue repeating it ad nauseum in its obscure state on this forum.

 

[lightofreason]

Or in other words: It would be stupid to ignore Chris's work, as it is based on lots of Science. If you don't study it, your are stuck with some of the oldest fashioned texts you could think of. Chris won't bother to make his work more accessible, he's just going to continue repeating it ad nauseum in its obscure state on this forum.

IDM/IC+ is on going work. Maybe one day it might evolve into something even you can understand ;-)

 

[ewald]

IDM/IC+ is on going work. Maybe one day it might evolve into something even you can understand ;-)

You mean something that more than a few people on this forum can understand.

Anyway, my general impression is that your work is in essence not really complicated. It's just worded obscurely.

 

[martin]

At last Martin you reveal your true colours.

Something wrong with your eyes? Color blind? I'm revealing my true colors to you already for years!

 

[autumn]

I am sincerely glad to hear of your publishing success, and sincerely wish you, (and all others) the very best in their lives.

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

Response:No, That is ONE aspect of the whole (and a preferred one for me personally), not the whole.

The whole what? Why are we back to focusing on the whole? To go back to a marcrocosmic "origin of all thought" focus here is derailed. We are drawing a concrete conclusion. Is that a valid conclusion, or is it not? Is it possible to conclude that the meaning solely exists within the biology of the querent sometimes, and sometimes not?

ResponseThe IDM focus covers what is POSSIBLE given our neurology. Heuristics then determines what is USEFUL for the local context.

What it is possible to conceive. But again, not the focus of the argument. The argument begins like this:

********Either the meaning of a divination query is found within the brain of the querent, and is therefore only made relevant given the "local context" of that brain, or there are alternative explanations that supersede the brain of the querent.

Because, if in fact divination works because our brains find meaning in what is essentially meaningless (Freud), then it is not possible for others to know anything about another person on the basis of a randomly generated set of sticks.

Your idea is that all thought is represented by the principles in IDM, which arise from the idea that there is a particular structure of thought (wavelengths, I gather) that seeds the structure of thought, inherent to neuronal wiring.

If we assume the above is true, then it follows that all possible knowing (epistemology) is limited to the physical structure of the individual brain.

Therefore, there is no inherent meaning (local, immediately relevant meaning) in a hexagram.

It would seem you would wholeheartedly support and agree with this, but you keep trying to move the level of analysis up to the "whole". Why? We must be able to draw concrete, simple, meaningful conclusions about what we experience as the physical world in a useful epistemology.

 

[jesed]

Hi autumn

If I understand well your posts, here is some central issue/question:

Human brains and how human brain derivate meaning is the only valid aproach to reality?

In other words: Could reality exist without human brains?

Answer: yes... reality existed long time before human brain exist... and will exist long time after human specie extintion...

So, to find out how human brain derivate meaning is interesting, but is not the unique focus of my atention.

Best wishes

ps. Is interesting how Cris adopt a antropocentric philosophy (the center of reality is human as specie)... beacuse that is a 10th Centruty BC thinking (See the Genesis in Bible just as one example in the cristian field), when 21th Century thinking is about leave that antropocentrism (see, just as one example in cristian field, to follow in the same field of the previous example, the new Teology of the Earth...or Teology of Nature, where humans as specie is not the center of reality, but just one element to integrate with all the others)

 

[lightofreason]

Response:No, That is ONE aspect of the whole (and a preferred one for me personally), not the whole.

The whole what?

our brain as a whole functions instinctively with a 'whole' derived from sensory processing where that whole is greater than the one we are consciously aware of. See refs etc in http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/wavedicho.html

There is a lot going on unconsciously and that includes biases in interpretations where those biases include instincts/habits/memories working on the filtering processes. Thus the full spectrum of meaning covers a dimension of categories made-up of differentiating/integrating where local context then sorts the categories into the best-fit/worst-fit order. This includes marginalising or even expunging categories from conscious experience - and so we all reflect 'small world network' dynamics.

Therefore, there is no inherent meaning (local, immediately relevant meaning) in a hexagram.

All hexagrams are meaningful as universals. Local context adds colour and the depth of our interpretations will add emotion as part of that colouring and so positive/negative attributes. The core meanings, universals, are determined by the dynamics of differentiate/integrate - expressed in more 'feeling' terms through blend, bond, bound, bind and their composites (search the archives for the "Species I Ching" thread where all 64 are described)

Our experiences in the physical world include access to 'full spectrum' IC data in the form of intuitions where we gain limited access of the parallel world in which we interact with the environment. To build up those intuitions requires understanding of the full spectrum of the IC, and so all of the XOR material etc and that is the level of the 'whole'.

The self-referencing of WHAT/WHERE means that both elements of the dichotomy are operating at the same time. The asymmetric element means that in this operation the WHAT side (differentiating) is variable, energy expending, and operating out of a context set down in the WHERE side (integrating).

As such our differentiating side includes consciousness with its mediating activity and parts focus where the parts get treated as if wholes - this is the metonymy/metaphor dichotomy at work where we can easily create paradox (as covered in the paradox page link given previously).

your focus is obviously on a parts perspective; you want it 'simple'. It isnt if you try and stick to parts processing and so the realm of the discrete ;-) We have to move to working in parallel, all hexagrams active at the same time, all contributing to the expression of each, and local context sorting that into an order where our consciousness can extract what it can handle - a subset of the whole. The issue of course being that it will, unless trained to understand the physiology going on and so able to compensate, treat the subset AS IF the whole.

There are issues here in interpretions by our singular nature, sourced in consciousness development in the first 24 months of life, vs our particular nature (as genetically-determined members of a species) and general nature (species as a whole).

Chris.

 

[lightofreason]

Hi autumn

If I understand well your posts, here is some central issue/question:

Human brains and how human brain derivate meaning is the only valid aproach to reality?

In other words: Could reality exist without human brains?

Answer: yes... reality existed long time before human brain exist... and will exist long time after human specie extintion...

So, to find out how human brain derivate meaning is interesting, but is not the unique focus of my atention.

Best wishes

ps. Is interesting how Cris adopt a antropocentric philosophy (the center of reality is human as specie)... beacuse that is a 10th Centruty BC thinking (See the Genesis in Bible just as one example in the cristian field), when 21th Century thinking is about leave that antropocentrism (see, just as one example in cristian field, to follow in the same field of the previous example, the new Teology of the Earth...or Teology of Nature, where humans as specie is not the center of reality, but just one element to integrate with all the others)

Jesed - your getting confused. The IDM focus is on meaning derivation from as neurological position and so span ALL LIFE FORMS that are neuro-dependent. In this is the implication, based on basic evolution principles, that any intelligent life 'out there' will have adapted in the same manner as we have - IOW to differentiating/integrating - and so share basic meanings (the universals).

The tiny, silvery-transparent, zebra fish has the same asymmetry in its 'brain' as we do in ours and so make the same distinctions of 'known' from 'unknown'. The differences are in the degree of precision in us where our neurological complexity makes us so precise we move into dealing with universals - be they words or handedness.

NOWHERE do I assert humans are the centre of reality - that is stupid, infantile, primitive thinking when we take into consideration all we have discovered on our planet and off it.

Our sensory systems feed into our brain and in so doing act as the source of information where that information is consolidated, concentrated, distilled, by the neurology into meaning - and so the blend, bond, bound, bind categories span ALL sensory data, are particular to none, and so are universals. These are derived from the neurology dynamics and that is tracable back to before our ancestors came out of the sea (and so the behaviours are present in fish).

Thus sensory neurons feed motor neurons with filtering in between through reference to memory etc - association neurons in frontal lobes for planning, pre-emption, delay, etc etc

For information processing purposes, and so the derivation of, and communication of, meaning, the neuron dominates. It is specialist in that it stems from endocrine dynamics (use of horomone delivery) where it allows for precise communications (and has gone full circle in that we have some neurons in our brain that feed hormones into the blood system)

YOu need to read more, focus your attention carefully on what I have discussed in the past as well as now (and also cover in the websites) - dont try and understand by making analogies to 'ancient' perspectives as of they describe what I am on about - they dont.

Chris.

 

[martin]

Intelligence, 'mind', manifests everywhere in nature. It is not limited to neuronbased life forms or even to 'life' (biology) as we see it nowadays. Nature as a whole is alive and intelligent. This includes animals, plants, ecosystems, the weather, mountains, and so on. Everything.

For ancient and in our view 'primitive' cultures this was obvious. But for us .. we are so used to the notion of dead mindless matter that it is difficult for us to realise that we have invented it somewhere along the way. Dead mindless matter is only an idea.
The belief that something like that actually exists has become very strong because we are brought up with it and share it all the time, but it is still just a belief, a theory. In fact we don't know.

How can life evolve from dead matter? How can the mindless become intelligent and conscious? And how to define 'alive'? Is a virus alive? It depends on who you ask.
We have a lot of problems when it comes to explaining and defining life that older 'primitive' cultures didn't have. Because for them there was no such thing as dead mindless matter. It was not yet invented!

Science is okay, including neuroscience, but a problem with science as it is often practised nowadays is a lack of awareness of hidden assumptions. On closer inspection it turns out that some of the 'facts' are not facts at all. They are only collective convictions.

Is the universe indeed basically mindless? Science in fact doesn't know.
Is our intelligence and consciousness a product of our nervous system? We see correlations, but causation? Again, science doesn't know.
And divination? It is difficult (perhaps impossible) to verify or falsify experimentally if divination works. And if it works, science cannot explain how. Current science cannot help us much in this case. But does this mean that divination cannot possibly work? No, there is no scientific reason for that conclusion.

If I would go back to the year AD 1606 and tell a few scientists of that time that there are invisible 'waves' and that it is possible to use them to send moving images through empty space from one place to another, what would they say? "Nonsense! black magic! witchcraft!!"?
I think I would have to run for my life!
We know now that there is nothing magical about TV. But the science of 1606 was not, as yet, quite intelligent enough to understand such things.
How about our science? What will scientists in the year AD 2406 think about this idea that belief in divination is childish magical thinking?
"Oh well, in 2006 they were not, as yet ......"?

 

[lightofreason]

divination, magical thinking, child-mindedness is inefficient. Time to grow up. It may take one generation, probably more, but it IS time to grow up and in so doing move from sequential to parallel processing.

The full spectrum, universal, IC aids in that process.

Chris.

 

[ewald]

divination, magical thinking, child-mindedness is inefficient.

So if we want clarity about a situation we shouldn't divine and get one or a few answers, but we should consider 64 hexagrams, each XOR-ed 64 times, so 4096 different answers to our question? Is that efficient?

 

[lightofreason]

So if we want clarity about a situation we shouldn't divine and get one or a few answers, but we should consider 64 hexagrams, each XOR-ed 64 times, so 4096 different answers to our question? Is that efficient?

In the long run - yes.

We currently spend 15 to 25 years being educated to tertiary levels ;-) - so whats the problem with learning about universals? ;-)

it is surprisingly easy to pick-up on the harmonics of hexagrams (as covered in the XOR material, once you understand the basic methodology of the binary sequence)

Treat the IC with the respect it is due - a full spectrum 'filter' for dealing with any context in a consistant, smooth, easy, intuition-driven way; and so we move way beyond 'divination'.

Thus we study the 4096 qualities and in so doing allow context to 'push' one's buttons and so elicit the 'best fit' for the context. With the knowledge of the best fit comes awareness of all of the aspects etc that THEN get localised through relabelling etc.

(and if you want to go to dodecagram levels you will, over time, pick up intuition of 16+ million!)

As such one's introduction to some 'new' context is more so an exercise in mapping the unique labels of that specialist context to the universals and so develop a feedback loop far more efficient than 'traditional' methods.

ANY specialisation will be derived from the IDM-identified material and so be able to 'resonate' with any other specialisation due to the similarity in basic structure. Thus we can pick up on specialist perspectives quicker than we do now.

To start off with, in the IC the questions methodology gives 'best fit' consistantly and from the best fit we can map out the rest of the sequence.

This is a formal exercise in learning ewald - one can make this into a full year course (or more) if one wanted to and it maps out basic concepts sourced in Sciences and Humanities where they are metaphors and sources of analogy for describing our dealings with reality.

Consider this page - http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/type.html - it is 'messy' at the moment but if you 'get it' then you understand the connotations of the approach re dealing with types etc and on into social dynamics etc. Note this deals with our PARTICULAR nature - THEN add in the 'random seed' of our SINGULAR nature.

There is a LOT here and it goes way beyond memorising Wilhelm. As I said before, this is not 'lite' stuff.

Chris.

 

[autumn]

You are completely ignoring the point of the questions I've posed to you. Absolutely and completely avoiding it and ignoring it.

What is your position on where the "whole of consciousness" exists in time and space? If you answered that question, then you'd be in a position to debate about empiricism, and you don't want to do that, so you ignore the question.

You are also completely avoiding the problem of underlying assumptions inherent in the concept of Univerals.

You are familiar with Plato? The existence of Universals is on-going philosophical debate. There is nothing paradigm-shattering in the concept.

The arrogance of men is amazing.

What is the IDM/IC explanation for the hormonal insistence on condescension?

 

[autumn]

Why'd you cut this part out of your quote?

The whole what? (You end your quote here) Why are we back to focusing on the whole? To go back to a macrocosmic "origin of all thought" focus here is derailed. We are drawing a concrete conclusion. (One, small, necessary, concrete, conclusion logically deduced from your precept, as any epistemology demands we be able to do)

You agree with this statement, "THEREFORE, the meaning to any divination query exists within the biology of the querent, and cannot exist anywhere else", and yet for some reason you find it absolutely impossible to say, "yes, this is my position on the matter".

OR IN OTHER WORDS " The whole is the whole of thought. You are speaking about the "unconscious". (In primitive Word Form)

Which means- yes, the meaning to a diviniation query (according to you) is located within the biology of the querent, and it cannot exist anywhere else. Which means- it is impossible for anyone on this board to see the hexagram "3" and conclude anything whatsoever about me on the basis of it.

Are you even reading what I'm writing here, or did you assume that my gender made that unnecessary?

And for that matter, how dare someone break in to the conversastion and tell me what I'm talking about? Clearly also motivated by my gender.

It is futile to debate with people who so insist on being smarter than everyone else that they refuse to allow another person to re-state something they've clearly said. In other words, no, I will not admit you understand anything of what I have said and can progress into a deeper examination of the subject. I refuse to do that. I must always be unclear. You cannot understand me.

I am beyond disgusted.

Thank you boys. Have fun. Goodbye.

 

[lightofreason]

You are completely ignoring the point of the questions I've posed to you. Absolutely and completely avoiding it and ignoring it.

perhaps you did not make it clear ... or is this it:

What is your position on where the "whole of consciousness" exists in time and space?

Consciousness as we know it for our species is an agent of mediation developing from dealing with novelty issues. Neurology works off stimulus/response and so is 'immediate' in expression. The success in developing DELAY in expression, and so allowing for acquisition of more information and/or the planning of responses etc has benefited our species as it has other neuron-dependent species. The issue has been on enough complexity to support 24/7 consciousness activity.

The delay element is present at the neurological level in the form of (a) hormone dynamics at the synaptic gaps (influences emotional expression) and (b) excite/inhibit links at the soma of the neuron that allows for synchronisation and so recruitment of other neurons to maximise bandwidth to deal with some complex/new information.

The fact that refined delay activity is a product of evolution is reflected in the structure of brains where well developed frontal lobes indicative of planning skills and the use of consciousness as an agent of mediation. These areas are the last to develop and do not complete development until our 20s- IOW they include internalisation of local social dynamics, dealing with 'taboo' concepts etc and so show regulation at work.

The Emotional I Ching material shows how to 'bypass' this regulation in that the use of the material can elicit identification of 'issues' that our social training is trying to repress.

Damage the frontal lobe, pre-frontal cortex, areas and our control/regulation skills go out the window and we revert to more 'primitive' behaviours. That said, early removal of a hemisphere allows for compensation by the other (or limbic systems) where the overall dynamics on dealing with differentiating/integrating is maintained if not as precise/efficient when all parts have developed.

Thus the delay dynamics at the neuron level allow for the development of consciousness with the increased complexity of the neurology (see comments below on complexity/chaos processes)

As we move 'up' the brain so we move into increasing levels of control/regulation starting with the ability to express ourselves emotionally and so start to control our environment. With further development in the brain so reason has emerged as a regulator of emotion. Keep going and it appears consciousness has emerged as a regulator of reason - its mediation focus allows for escape from fall reasoning by allowing for 'irrational' to escape the rational developed to regulate the irrational. - IOW we develop choices and so diversity in thinking - in cybernetics we have the Law of Requisite Variety in that the system with the most choices will, in the long run, be the most successful in survival/development.

The serial nature of consciousness and its affect on the parallel nature of our behaviour in interacting with reality is demonstrated in such research as that of Libet where in learning new skills etc where mediation is required there is about a 0.5 sec delay in reaction times. Once the learning is enough to develop a habit and/or refine an instinct, so the delay, and conscious awareness, disappears and we fall back on stimulus/response aka autopilot.

With the development of consciousness as an agent of mediation has come the development of imagination - something not apparently present in 'lower' life forms starting with monkeys on down. This is detectable through studies on mirror neurons and the identification of monkeys not being able to deal with mime.

The development of imagination allows the species to pre-empt contexts by imagining them and so adapting to them 'in theory' prior to actual exposure to them. The issues of course are that our basic brains do not differentiate between real/imagined and so we can have issues with dealing with reality if our education is not up to scratch - we can imagine 'magical' processes etc that do not exist in our current environment and cannot do so given the local context Physics.

The success of awareness (and I include snippet awareness where lower life forms can show some degree of awareness for minutes or hours that, without strong reinforcement, disappears - life can be one long 'groundhog' day! - see the movie ;-)) has allowed for the development of life forms past their holistic, parallel, interactions with the environment and so move from 'equilibrium' positions to 'far-from-equilibrium' positions. All done through the expenditure of energy and so differentiating skills.

The consequence of differentiation is that it creates borders and so lets loose what lives on borders - complexity/chaos dynamics and so 'emergence' - this gets into the development of individual consciousness as we see develop in the first 24 months of our lives - and so we have the development of the singular from the realm of the particular/general. With this development of the singular, and so fragmentation of the species, comes the notion of the unique and so incomparable - IOW we move out of the realm of Science (where the need is for some element of sameness) and into issues of pure difference. At this level, due to the fragmentation and so unique individual, the only applicable 'science' is that of Ethics - the Science of Freedom - and so the strong mediation dynamics of consciousness.

Does that help you in understanding my position? (I can flesh it out more if you want ;-))

You are also completely avoiding the problem of underlying assumptions inherent in the concept of Univerals.

You are familiar with Plato? The existence of Universals is on-going philosophical debate. There is nothing paradigm-shattering in the concept.

Plato's perspective was idealist; his ideal forms are shown to be nothing but 'natural' consequences of positive/negative feedback dynamics in the development of systems (e.g. our sense of taste, in its ideal form, will elicit a structure of a tetrahedron - the basic Platonic form. There is no 'magical' universe etc doing this, it is basic consequence of positive/negative feedback operating in parallel - the IDM categories when limited to blend, bond, bound, bind will take on a tetrahedron 'meaning space' - all due to mindless dynamics of positive/negative feeback)

IOW there is no 'ideal' universe serving as an 'origin', nore is there any need for consciousness to be considered originating.

The universals I reference are those of meaning generation across all neuron-dependent species as a consequence of self-referencing differentiating/integrating. This is nothing to do with 'philosophical debate' since there is no 'debate' in that these are natural processes that exist in all neurological activities - be they of us or the zebra fish or turtles!

You cannot do Philosophy these days without clear, precise, understanding of neurosciences.

The arrogance of men is amazing

LOL! ;-) The arrogance of old-school, over-educated individuals is also stunning.

 

[lightofreason]

Are you even reading what I'm writing here, or did you assume that my gender made that unnecessary?

You make no sense here in that I have had no idea what your gender is until your last post comment about 'men'. The fact is I dont care about gender - my focus is on what is inbetween your ears not your legs.

You bringing gender in to this (I note your previous comment on 'men') indicates you have issues with gender - that is unfortunate since here, as far as I am concerned, there is no such issue - we are conscious beings and so put mind ahead of gender. I cannot help you with your issues - maybe the IC can ;-)

That said, consider (*I* see the below as more mapping the full spectrum of brain dynamics and so reflective of yin/yang natures - natures that can span gender in that consciousness can make choices and genetic diversity can elicit 'different' thinking in 'different' bodies - we are looking at differences in singular/particular dynamics and so 'individual' vs male-female, hormone controlled, particulars - if education is left as an act of socialisation then gender issues WILL influence - but consciousness can transcend that to a large degree):

Study Confirms Males/females Use Different Parts Of Brain In Language And Visuospatial Tasks

Differences in the way men and women perform verbal and visuospatial tasks have been well documented in scientific literature, but findings have been inconsistent as to whether men and women actually use different parts of their brains. This inconsistency has been attributed to many factors, including variability in the tasks used in studies and failure to match study participants on performance equivalency. But a new study published in the journal Brain and Language, which accounted for and corrected these methodological factors, confirmed that men and women do indeed use different parts of their brains when processing both language and visuospatial information.

At a time when 37% of boys score below basic levels on standardized academic tests, compared to 15% of girls (National Center for Education Statistics) and the rate of ADHD in boys in twice that of girls (Centers for Disease Control), this study provides a solid benchmark to use in comparing whether underlying sex differences also exist in all children. Such an inquiry can pave the way towards understanding the extent to which sex differences are developmental, sociological and/or hormonal and which differences may become more, or possibly less, distinct with age.

The study, led by Dr. Laurie Cutting and research scientist Amy Clements, both of the Kennedy Krieger Institute in Baltimore, used functional magnetic resonance imaging to study thirty adult participants while performing language and visuospatial tasks. Distinct differences were evident between male and female participants. Specifically, females showed more bilateral activation in the inferior frontal gyrus for the language task than males, who were more left lateralized. The opposite pattern of lateralization was found for the visuospatial task, with males showing more bilateral activation in the parietal lobe while processing visuospatial information than females, whose activations were more right lateralized.

"What we found most compelling was that male and female participants performed equally on tasks, both in terms of accuracy and timing; they just used different parts of their brains to get the tasks done," said Amy Clements, lead author of the study. "This study forms the basis for understanding early developmental preferences that may differ between boys and girls. Future studies based on these findings may help illuminate more about improved special and mainstream education techniques for males and females."

The study's language task consisted of participants viewing two 4-letter pronounceable nonsense word strings, one above the other. Participants were instructed to push a button with their right index finger if the words rhymed, and their left index finger if they did not rhyme. The visuospatial task involved displaying a fan of eleven lines, with nine lines in blue and two in yellow. Above the fan was a pair of yellow lines oriented in either the same or different positions as the two yellow lines highlighted in the fan. Participants pushed a button with their right index finger if all the yellow lines were aligned or pushed a button with their left hand finger if the lines were not aligned. In order to ensure performance equivalency, all participants were right handed, had English as their first language, finished at least some college coursework and completed tasks with an average of 90% accuracy.

"Only by understanding what constitutes normal brain development can we increase our capabilities for treating pediatric learning disorders," said Dr. Goldstein, M.D., President and CEO of the Kennedy Krieger Institute. "Through our many research projects at Kennedy Krieger, our experts are unlocking the mysteries of the brain and translating those findings into better outcomes for children and their families."

"We know that there are frequent and significant gender differences in intellectual developmental disabilities," said Ljubisa Vitkovic, Ph.D., of the Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Branch of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH. "Knowledge of gender differences in normally functioning brains is essential for understanding what may go wrong during development."

Source: Kennedy Krieger Institute
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/07/060718180450.htm

 

[getojack]

Uhh, Chris?

I think she left, so you can stop trying to intellectually rape (force your "facts" on) her now. Autumn, I wouldn't take it personally. Chris adopts a superior, know-it-all attitude toward all life-forms unfortunate enough not to be himself... men, women, cats, dogs, lizards, whatever. As Confucius said (in this very thread!),

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

Peace,
Getojack

 

[jte]

Hi, Lise –

“I don't think a character changes in the course of time in such a simple way as Jeff describes…”

Yes, that point is well taken – I’m pretty much focussing on one “slice” of the meaning – the slice I’m interested in. But I was certainly aware that like most ancient Chinese characters, it mostly likely had numerous meanings.

I *assume* (and I might be wrong) that one of the meanings of the original Yi character was intended in its use in/as the title of the Classic.

So, based on what you wrote, the title would be something like “Classic of Exchange (with the spirits/ancestors)” – with the part about spirits/ancestors being inferred from the cultural purpose/usage of the book. Is this approximately correct?

Any idea what happened when the character changed from two cups to one? Was there a shift in meaning?

How about with the shift from the one cup to the sun-like form? That seems like a pretty big change to me – were new meanings added? Did the Yi Ru practice have anything to do with it?

I’m curious, and my “pet theory” is compelling enough to me that I’d be interested in any supporting evidence. On the other hand, a complete lack of supporting evidence must also be recognized, if that’s the reality.

Also, if I may ask (sorry about the multiplying questions) where did the ancient Chinese suppose the ancestors/spirits to “live” (well, exist, anyway). In “heaven”, in a way that is somewhat parallel to the Judeo-Christian concept or somewhere else?

Thanks in advance!

- Jeff

 

[lightofreason]

Uhh, Chris?

I think she left, so you can stop trying to intellectually rape (force your "facts" on) her now. ..Getojack

I find this claim unacceptable. I answered her question regarding my position on consciousness and 'universals' as best I could given the space with no condescention etc (and I even avoided the overload with references/links ;-))

Her second email was upsetting in that it showed a person who has written in the past with clarity and insight but who has experienced in her life a lot 'sh#t' - enough to make her over-sensitive and even outright hateful to dealings with males (as some of your posts have been indicative of a 'chauvanist' perspective at times! ;-)) such that any discussion between minds is 'filtered' through this gender issue. Sad, frustrating, anger-eliciting stuff.

I think her natural competitiveness and 'need to know' would have brought her into realms dominated by males and that could have been an issue - leaving her open to betrayals etc as the men 'ganged' up on her. This is the price we pay for NOT growing up and working from the realm of the particular where good minds are damaged through a focus on what is inbetween the legs rather than ears.

I have had some experience of witnessing this from my ex-wifes dealings in Academia as she worked up the ladder, and I have witnessed with my mother's dealings with males in showbusiness (she died last Dec so I put up a website covering her career - click on the image/text to get to the details, life pictures, music etc - http://www.geryscott.com )

She got a MMus at 75 - did a micro thesis on "the Chick Singer in Jazz" - covering issues of the male dominated institution of Jazz. - IOW I am sensitive to what Autumn is wrestling with, projecting, etc.

When I saw the list name "autumn" I allowed for two forms of representation - (a) a real name or (b) someone male or female moving into the 'autumn' of their lives and working with the IC.

I address my material to all as minds first.

Chris.

 

[bruce_g]

I didn’t think Chris was being sexist at all. Tenacious, stubborn, relentless, single minded, yes, but definitely not hostile, as Autumn obviously was.

 

[bruce_g]

I too was hostile toward Chris, once, about 4-5 years ago, back when I took things too personally. :bag:

 

[bruce_g]

(pardon the gab.. I don't get out much)

Chris is like a right of passage. (said only half jokingly) Part of the initiation is to go around full circle with him, at least once. If not directly confrontational, such was Autumn and I, then inside their own heads. His ideas are to be reckoned with for sure.

 

[hilary]

Chris, that site about your Mum is lovely. Thanks for sharing the link.

 

[martin]

I address my material to all as minds first.

I have no doubts about it that that is indeed what you do, Chris, and I also didn't see anything sexist in your responses to Autumn.
Nevertheless, in the way you express yourself the 'yang' tends to have the upperhand and so it's perhaps not surprising that some mistake you for a male chauvinist.

In your last post, from which I took the above quote, it's like an altogether different Chris is speaking. You are not only more personal in this post (thank you for the link to the site about your mother, very interesting), you also show your softer, your 'yin' side much more.
And I find it remarkable that your style is suddenly crystal clear, the usual Hegelian (?) denseness has completely disappeared.

I think that if you would write more like this, it would help a lot to ease the tensions that sometimes arise. It's not your 'message' that occasionally causes irritations, it is how you communicate it.

 

[heylise]

Chris, thanks for the link to the beautiful site about your mother.

Agreeing with Bruce and Martin. I have never seen anything sexist in any of your posts.

LiSe

 

[mudpie]

I really admire the people - like autumn and many others - who can ride out the waves, hanging on to the boat and actually following the discussion as it weathers the storm ......I fall off promptly in the still shallow waters

when I grow up I hope to be smart enough to follow one of these talks

for now, I think I may just order one of the cd's of Chris' lovely late mom and enjoy the rythym of our universal language, music. a big hug to Chris for his fairly recent loss.

 

[Sparhawk]

I too was hostile toward Chris, once, about 4-5 years ago, back when I took things too personally. :bag:

Hey,! who wasn't?? I've been reading Chris since he was booted out of the Hex-8 forum and he was never short of controversial and counterculture... He can write though, and he's much more mellow, right Chris? He's not taking things too personally either.

Now for a little secret: He's NOT human. He's a Borg and any resistance is futile. Beware! A big giveaway is having the keyboard wired to his brain and the giveaway for that is how much he can write in 5 minutes while still holding firmly to his thought.... LOL!!


L

 

[jesed]

NOWHERE do I assert humans are the centre of reality - that is stupid, infantile, primitive thinking when we take into consideration all we have discovered on our planet and off it.

I agree with you about stupidity of the position; but is what you are saying everytime you say the most important thing in your aproach of IC is human as specie.

 

[bruce_g]

Hey,! who wasn't?? I've been reading Chris since he was booted out of the Hex-8 forum and he was never short of controversial and counterculture... He can write though, and he's much more mellow, right Chris? He's not taking things too personally either.

Now for a little secret: He's NOT human. He's a Borg and any resistance is futile. Beware! A big giveaway is having the keyboard wired to his brain and the giveaway for that is how much he can write in 5 minutes while still holding firmly to his thought.... LOL!!


L

mmmyeah, but I'm not convinced he's borg. The pictures of him on his mom's site isn't that of a borg. More like a fringe lunatic buddy I'd hang with.