not, as yet, quite intelligent enough

[frank_r]

Hallo Chris,,

Intersting discussion you are having with the group:

Divination is also contact. With some problems of which we are thinking they are fysical we go to a doctor for help, when we look to a problem in a hollistic way we can go with the same problem to somebody who helps you with divination. It's only a different level.

The only thing what is important is that we are on the same level of energy that we are in synchronity , when we are really get into contact with each other, and really touch each other on a deeper level.

Divination can be just as helpfull than any other way of help. You can put this in a theory of neurology or numerology in the end the only thing which is important is that you are on the same level otherwise it is impossible that it will work, not for the one who want's to help and not for the one who is asking for help.

Frank R

 

[lightofreason]

Hallo Chris,,

Intersting discussion you are having with the group:

Divination is also contact.

Sure - As I pointed out to Hilary, divination falls within the realm of BONDING - to share space with another/others. Bonding means that to un-bond is difficult in that is is like being glued together - breaking the bond will leave some residue. This is different to sharing TIME with another/others (BINDING) in that once the time period is over all parties go on their way.

grief/sadness relate to issues of depression and establishing a bond can lift that depression (or share it and so turn it into something proactive - quality control, discernment)

With some problems of which we are thinking they are fysical we go to a doctor for help, when we look to a problem in a hollistic way we can go with the same problem to somebody who helps you with divination. It's only a different level.

modern medicine does not use cat gut or star charts etc to divine the disease - it uses empirical data; repeatable data; open to falsifiability etc.

Current drugs have worked-off determining 'average' doses for disease but with new work we are getting to the level of customising dosage etc and seeking out a disease rather than flooding the whole body with medication (and so side effects).

WITHOUT that empirical research we would still be dead, on average, by our mid 40s. Cat guts, start charts, tarot decks, have not, cannot, do any of this.

If we then move to diseases of the MIND so we find the biochemical response to data HAS helped many become productive, sucessful individuals - prozac alone has been credited with allowing manic-depressives to maintain a level of productivity rather than sink into severe depression spanning years. (and so kept 20 million per year in active, creative, contributions to the species)

Other drugs allow for people to live in society where once they would have been burnt/drowned for being 'evil' or just locked-up in an asylum.

Will there be side effects for some? Yes. That is what working from a particular-general position can do in that the medication lacks personalisation, singularisation. As mentioned before, that is being delt with. On top of that are issues of hardware problems that cannot be fixed with drugs etc.

The only thing what is important is that we are on the same level of energy that we are in synchronity , when we are really get into contact with each other, and really touch each other on a deeper level.

I mentioned before in this thread a focus on 'purity' that allows for the apparent presence of 'synchronicity' that is more due to likemindedness etc or 'chance'. Our conscious minds cannot cover the full spectrum of 64 hexagrams all working at once - with local context sorting them into a 'best fit' ordering. Thus we will miss a lot and in so doing interpret with our imagination that can lead to issues - KNOWING the dynamics of our brains, the limitiations of conscious awareness etc allows us to compensate for the lack of information and make our interpretations better, more precise, more 'realistic', more fitting of the context and so situation.

Shared education/knowledge etc allows for people to 'resonate' with each other such that little needs to be said other than mention of 'differences'. There is no 'spirit' here other than that of the species but lack of understanding the properties and methods of the species allows consciousness to freely interpret and create metaphors that get taken literally.

For education purposes the best metaphor I have seen is the IC in that its structuring is 'just right' for it to reflect in metaphor the dynamics of our brains and be understood by all without need of too specialist training. (and IDM concepts are too vague, too universal to be of immediate use, after all they SEED our meanings such as the IC, they are like algorithms/formulas in guiding output but not being output)

Divination can be just as helpfull than any other way of help. You can put this in a theory of neurology or numerology in the end the only thing which is important is that you are on the same level otherwise it is impossible that it will work, not for the one who want's to help and not for the one who is asking for help.
Frank R

This issue is in taking it all literally - as if the cat gut spread out on the kitchen table is direct reflection of some particular event. Or the derivation of a hexagram is a direct reflection of a situation to the exclusion of all else and that is derived by communicating with 'spirits' and so magical thinking.

IDM/IC+ makes the point that this perspective is not necessary and is in fact less precise than using other methods (e.g. questioning of context etc).

"Divination" is a sub-set of BONDING in that the focus is on sharing space and getting advice from that space - in mountain the focus is dominated by INNER space and a focus on imagined relationships (be they with dead/gone loves or on imagined forms).

When you go to a doctor and show them the ulcer on your foot, they do not consult the stars or cat gut to determine why you have this. Same process at work with dealing with the psyche (and these days that covers consideration of how psychosomatic elements could explain that ulcer)

There is no need for 'magical' thinking given what we now know but there is a need for guidance - be it general/particular or religious/secular.

Thus hexagrams become sources of analogy and the use of questions etc brings out the analogy such that X is not hex 35 but X is described by analogy to hex 35. The Emotional IC covers this where the emotions need a medium through which to express interpretations and we use the IC to do that.

Chris.

 

[bruce_g]

I think what you are picking up here is the sense of the 'objective', the loss of personal identity that comes out of the realm of Science - and so the particula-general focus excluding the singular.

Chris.

What I am picking up on here is your own religious idealism, which so closes you off from things you can not bare to think or feel, that you are no longer able to agree with anyone who does not agree with your ideals. I can’t recall the last time you agreed with anyone on this forum about anything, unless they were expressing agreement with your “new fundamentalist religion” of species evolution. And even then you must show how they somehow fall short of rising to your level of understanding. No-one “gets it”, according to you, but you. That isolation protects your heart and your theology from being penetrated.

 

[lightofreason]

What I am picking up on here is your own religious idealism, which so closes you off from things you can not bare to think or feel, that you are no longer able to agree with anyone who does not agree with your ideals. I can’t recall the last time you agreed with anyone on this forum about anything, unless they were expressing agreement with your “new fundamentalist religion” of species evolution. And even then you must show how they somehow fall short of rising to your level of understanding. No-one “gets it”, according to you, but you. That isolation protects your heart and your theology from being penetrated.

LOL! interesting post in the context of your interpretations of me. My perspective is GENERAL and SECULAR. Perhaps what your picking up is your own antagonisms projected onto my prose interpreted as singular; IOW my prose is pushing buttons of yours sensitive to some past experience that you are generalising and applying to me.

A religious perspective has no empirical support, my perspective does. A fundamentalist perspective will REPLACE existing (or be sold as such) whereas the IDM perspective identifies the ROOTS of of meaning and so replaces nothing- the emphasis is on COEXISTING. In that process so we identify methods of the past/current that are inefficient - there is nothing to stop you using them other than their efficiency when you are in the presence of other methods.

That said, the IDM/IC+ perspective introduces to the IC elements not covered in the original, traditional, IC, that are more efficient as well as demonstrating the metaphoric nature of the IC - IOW the 'divination' process, when believed to be a literal, real, communication with 'spirits' etc appears to be more so a mis-interpretatation of the meanings derivable from the IC. (we get back to the Rabbi interpretation of angels as his understanding of feelings of being pushed/guided when the fact is more so him feeling the 'push' of context on instincts/habits - any context can do that to us, and the trigger can be miniscule and so un-noticable by consciousness - NOT being aware of such dynamics will make our consciousness try and interpret what is going on using our conscious selves as the measure.

Chris.

 

[bruce_g]

LOL! interesting post in the context of your interpretations of me. My perspective is GENERAL and SECULAR. Perhaps what your picking up is your own antagonisms projected onto my prose interpreted as singular; IOW my prose is pushing buttons of yours sensitive to some past experience that you are generalising and applying to me.

A religious perspective has no empirical support, my perspective does. A fundamentalist perspective will REPLACE existing (or be sold as such) whereas the IDM perspective identifies the ROOTS of of meaning and so replaces nothing- the emphasis is on COEXISTING. In that process so we identify methods of the past/current that are inefficient - there is nothing to stop you using them other than their efficiency when you are in the presence of other methods.

That said, the IDM/IC+ perspective introduces to the IC elements not covered in the original, traditional, IC, that are more efficient as well as demonstrating the metaphoric nature of the IC - IOW the 'divination' process, when believed to be a literal, real, communication with 'spirits' etc appears to be more so a mis-interpretatation of the meanings derivable from the IC. (we get back to the Rabbi interpretation of angels as his understanding of feelings of being pushed/guided when the fact is more so him feeling the 'push' of context on instincts/habits - any context can do that to us, and the trigger can be miniscule and so un-noticable by consciousness - NOT being aware of such dynamics will make our consciousness try and interpret what is going on using our conscious selves as the measure.

Chris.

Exactly my point. By focusing solely on the general you don't have to deal with the personal.

All fundamentalist religions claim to have empirical evidence to support their claims, and each claims to hold the exclusive answers to species evolution, i.e. salvation, enlightenment, detachment from self.

I have no personal antagonisms concerning you or your ideologies. Sorry to disappoint you.

 

[lightofreason]

Exactly my point. By focusing solely on the general you don't have to deal with the personal.

But that is not the intent in the first place. The FOCUS of IDM is on our SPECIES nature, the particular-general. The realm of the singular is of no concern in that that is a realm of ontology, a focus on personal journals of "IS-ness" and that includes interpretations that are 'imaginative'.

IDM has no interest in the personal, it recognises uniqueness etc and so unique interpretations in local contexts but those interpretations are in the form of labels seeded in the general.

With IDM we have:

(a) a course of general information processing of the species.
(b) a seed for AI systems to develop a sense of meaning.

All IDM covers is, given the work in neurosciences etc, a template of meaning that covers the species. FROM that template comes all specialist perspectives, be they of a discipline, collective, or individual. THEN comes local context stuff. Fundamentalism as you see it in fact comes out of the LOCAL contexts and then tries to sell itself as a GENERAL. IDM does no such thing, it is GENERAL to start with and remains GENERAL. IC+ is the PARTICULARISATION of the general where the context is on analysis of the IC.

I think your trying to be too singular and in so doing missing the particular-general and so "Language of the Vague" - which is what universals are - vague, lacking colour etc - how you interpret some hexagram is your singular nature - BUT that interpretation, no matter how unique, will still contain the core categories sourced on your species-nature since you cannot have notions of "yin/yang" without that.

Chris.

 

[bruce_g]

I think your trying to be too singular and in so doing missing the particular-general and so "Language of the Vague" - which is what universals are - vague, lacking colour etc - how you interpret some hexagram is your singular nature - BUT that interpretation, no matter how unique, will still contain the core categories sourced on your species-nature since you cannot have notions of "yin/yang" without that.

Chris.

Yes, of course. I think everything one here is privy to that understanding to one degree or another. I’ve never denied the value of “cold”, unbiased reasoning. I’ve only suggested that it be balanced with the value of “warm”, subjective feeling. You can know about something but you can’t know something unless you experience it: the yin to the yang, you speak of so frequently.

Allow me a trite example. Yesterday I spent nine grueling hours tournament fishing on a high desert lake in 109F temperatures. I can tell you all about the experience, but unless you spent the night before awake with anticipation of the event, unless you’re exhausted and fried to crisp from the relentless sun, unless you enjoyed the fellowship of other competitors, and the reward and the fun of the experience, personally, you can only know about it. To know it you have to experience it on a subjective level.

 

[lightofreason]

...personally, you can only know about it. To know it you have to experience it on a subjective level.

This is the realm of the SINGULAR. Science comes in when the reporting indicates a repetition of 'something' that is also falisifiable (and so the NOT element required by scientists to do their statistical work) and we move to the PARTICULAR and on to the GENERAL where we identify some trait of some sort shared across the speices or some sub-set of.

Your articulation of your experience is possible due to (a) the sharing of a language/culture and (b) the hard-coding of qualities that seed the language. Thus yin/yang aka integrating/differentiating aka negative/positive feedback aka relationships/objects are hard-coded in our brains.

We work off general that is THEN customised to particular (MBTI type categories etc) that is THEN customised to singular (unique consciousness developing in the first 24 months or so after birth) and that is then turned around to move back outwards through possible contribution of a singular perspective to the particular-general.

For example, 'big' discoveries in Science etc are more often due to some insight from the singular level due to the 'random' factor in the singular - we 'break' a rule and so gain an insight - BUT to do that you also need to know the rules, but not too much otherwise you get drowned by the current dogma. IOW dogma is 'Kansas', is 'inland', away from borders, and the 'new' comes from the border areas - the areas where complexity/chaos 'lives' - where we are no longer in 'Kansas'.

The creativity of this area allows for living on the edge of sanity (well documented feature of innovative creativity), oscillating across the borders (and so manic depression can be creative as can borderline schizophrenia) allows for 'emergence' and so that unique, special insight that then goes on to influence current dogma or even replace it. (and this area also includes fundamentalism and the magical etc but the scientist angle is to always look BEHIND expression - thus you apprecite some unique moment shared with a rainbow whereas I appreciate what is behind, leads to, that rainbow. WITH that knowledge I can REPEAT the rainbow in different contexts - be they real or imagined (special effects in movies).

Heidedgger and a lot of the Existentialist perspectives are on the singular areas in that the focus was on the moment of individual and reality but Science will always focus on what is BEHIND the expression and in doing so de-magicalise (!) the magical if possible.
This method can improve efficency but also appear 'cold' in that it ignores the singular since that is not its focus.

Understanding all of this dynamic is covered in IDM in understanding blend, bond, bound, and bind etc. where we are GENERAL; the singular 'insight' is seeded by the boundaries of our neurology (or else we wrestle with paradox in that what is outside of the boundary is interpreted from inside the boundary and as such never settles on a particular category)

The development of the particular and on to the singular is indicative of maximising bandwidth from the species position to give us a wide range of information sensing systems (i.e. individuals) that contribute their unique perspectives to the information pool of the species. The VALUE of that information is in its use across the species - thus your experience may seed some 'fishing video' that is found to be useful in general and all of a sudden you are a video star! It is this aspect of the singular, the ability for one person to change the world, that is the benefit of the singular.

If we use taste as an example, each of us is to the species as bitter, sweet, sour, salt is to taste - we are unique sources of meaning - each seeded with blend, bond, bound, and bind but the 'earth' in which the seeds are planeted will vary and so differ the expressions - and so 'small world networks' develop.

KNOWING all of this aids in better understanding of the nature of each of us as with the nature of the species. As such we can be more efficient since we know ourselves better than in the past - we can take responsibility for our lives, get involved in its determination, in identifying issues we can deal with rather than link them to 'magic' and shrug our shoulders saying 'it is all out of my hands' - lets toss some coins and see what god/the spirits 'say'.

Knowing how the Emotional IC works aids in accessing a part of our being that is unique to each of us and very focused on personal survival - to a degree it can identify states that are repressed by our rational/conscious selves and in that identification give us insights into our personal natures and so serve as a GUIDE.

The methodology used is derived from the realm of the particular-general, not the singular. The singular contribution is in the integrating of all of the neuroscience data into a model of meaning.

Chris.

 

[bruce_g]

Chris, you're repeating yourself like a recorded message . I'm trying to talk to you on a somewhat personal level. If I was interested in reading your beliefs of science and focus on singular vs universal, etc, I'd read from your website or from the numerous posts you've offered here. But to be candid, I didn't expect a warm or personal response from you, and I didn't expect you to answer in any other way than the way you have. But that's cool. Each to their own beliefs, understanding and way.

 

[martin]

Perhaps it's a good idea to disentangle things a bit, because it seems that there are at least two issues here.
(1) knowing-about versus (more direct) knowing
(2) personal versus not personal, subjective versus objective, and so on.

Chris addresses the second issue. I think, by the way, that it would be better to avoid such terms as 'singular' and 'particular'. Or if they cannot be avoided, to define them first. For the sake of clarity, because not everyone is familiar with these terms and how some philosophers use them ....

"Firstly then the subject, the individual as individual (in the Singular judgment), is a universal. But (2) secondly, in this relation it is elevated above its singularity. This enlargement is external, due to subjective reflection, and at first is an indefinite number of particulars. (This is seen in the Particular judgment, which is obviously negative as well as positive: the individual is divided in itself: partly it is self-related, partly related to something else.)"

Need aspirin? Welcome to Hegel!


Let's look at 'knowing-about vs knowing' first and take self-reference as an example.
What is this self, I, me that is referred to?
What happens exactly when we refer to ourselves? Can we actually perceive what is going on when we use words like 'I' or 'me', when we point at ourselves or become aware of ourselves?

One thing I noticed is that so many people (and especially the more educated) immediately start to theorize when there are asked such questions. They come up with ideas about the self and self-reference, ideas about how it works and what it means or might mean for us or simpler organisms or automata, and so on and so on.
But they refuse to observe it in themselves. Not think about it, OBSERVE.

One popular theory about our 'self' among the science-minded is that it is nothing but an imaginary 'ghost in the machine'.
Okay, perhaps. However - people say such things one minute and the next minute they go on with taking their supposedly nonexistent 'self' so bloody seriously.

Could this happen if they had actually SEEN that there is no real self?
Probably not. But there was no direct knowing here, only knowing-about or perhaps even less. This ghost-in-the machine theory is only blablabla, salon philosophy, juggling with concepts. It has no power, it doesn't change anything.

Now back to the second issue. What if these salon philosophers had indeed SEEN it? Would this only count as personal, subjective knowing?
Or is it general, objective, universal?
If you ask a Buddhist he will probably say that the methodology is indeed objective. Because everybody can do this experiment of 'looking inside', not thinking about it but observing.
The experiment is repeatable. Different observers might arrive at different conclusions but the method is objective and in principle scientific.

In principle - the problem is that science as we know it doesn't trust 'introspective' data. And there are good reasons for that. Looking inside, observing what goes on there - most of us are not very good at it.
But I think it can be learned, in the same way that we can learn to read and interpret Rontgen pictures or dots on a radar screen correctly.
I also think that we need to learn it. Our sciences have become too dependent on external data. There is so much (objective) information waiting 'inside' that we don't use. 48.3?

 

[lightofreason]

Chris addresses the second issue. I think, by the way, that it would be better to avoid such terms as 'singular' and 'particular'. Or if they cannot be avoided, to define them first. For the sake of clarity, because not everyone is familiar with these terms and how some philosophers use them ....

I am not a philosopher and I use the term in a well-defined way (as covered many times in these thread) where the SINGULAR is our sense of personal SELF where that self develops in the first 24 months post birth and, in parallel, also develops emotions dependent on that sense of self - and so different from our primate emotions that are hard-coded pre birth. This sense of SELF is based on empirical studies.

Keeping to the context of beings so:

The PARTICULAR is our individual membership of the our species and so 'variations on a theme' but genetically so - genetic diversity elicits the variations. Here we have local versions (genetic diversity applied to fight/flight) of primate emotions and the Emotional IC 'talks' to these.

The particular covers mnay individuals forming a collective where the survival of that collective, and so its continuing contribution to the species, is through numbers - most could die or be blocked from their path but enough survive to satisfy the 'purpose' of that collective in its contributions to the species.

Thus, from a species perspective, there are many 'sensation seekers' where the contribute to the 'sensation seeking' of the species and so span generations - there is no specific individual of concern here.

The GENERAL is our collective, our species nature and covers traits we all share as a species (Emotions in general etc Brains in general etc)

For refs on the observations of development of Self etc I suggest:

Kircher, T., & David, A., (eds) (2003) "The SELFin Neuroscience and Psychiatry" CUP
Dehaene, S., et al (Eds) (2005)"From Monkety Brain to Human Brain" MITP
Hugdahl, K., & Davidson, R., (eds) (2003)"The Asymmetrical Brain" MITP
Pockett, S., Bansks, W., & Gallagher, S., (eds)(2006)"Does Consciousness Cause Behaviour?" MITP

If you want to add some philosophy to it - try:

Dealeuze, G., (1997) "Difference and Repetition" Continuum

And if you REALLY want to get serious - then study the SELF THROUGH the binary ordering of the I Ching. This gets into TYPOLOGY where MBTI categories map to I Ching trigrams/hexagrams due to the shared methodology in deriving the categories (the IDM factor). This gives us the PARTICULAR and then ALL hexagrams apply WITHIN the context of the particular hexagram to give you the scope of SINGULAR expressions (and so touches on 'hexagrams with changing lines'. Add more detail, more self-referencing and we add more singular nature but indetermined - IOW acting as 'randomisers' within the particular context.)

Chris.

 

[ewald]

I'm pretty sure I'm going to forget these definitions of singular, particular and general, as there is very little in these words that remind of what they mean. And when I encounter these obscure terms in a post, I stop reading, as many do, probably.

Is there anything wrong with using the much clearer terms they refer to, like "sense of personal self," "individual membership of the our species" and "our species nature?"

 

[martin]

You are absolutely amazing, Chris!
I emphasize the need to OBSERVE it in oneself and NOT think about it and you answer with a list of articles that I should read??

You don't get it, don't you?

 

[getojack]

Dehaene, S., et al (Eds) (2005)"From Monkety Brain to Human Brain" MITP

Monkety brain? I HAVE to read that one! Anyway, Chris, you can read all the books you want about Aikido, but unless you actually practice it, you'll never gain any real knowledge.

 

[lightofreason]

You are absolutely amazing, Chris!
I emphasize the need to OBSERVE it in oneself and NOT think about it and you answer with a list of articles that I should read??

You don't get it, don't you?

I get it fine - what you seem to avoid is the realm of the particular-general that is where IDM/IC+ focuses.

To observe in oneself comes out of the realm of the singular and that is not operating in the realm of Science - you are in the realm of Philosophy, Phenomenology, Existentialism, Transcendental Psychology etc

The IDM focus is ALWAYS towards the particular-general in that we are dealing with universals and so lacking of local colour. The material I gave you contains empirical studies on the development of the singular but from a particular-general position.

The emphasis is on understanding the particular-general position and in doing so getting a better idea of what supports the singular. With that comes the innovative side where the singular can 'singlemindedly' link particular-general into a model that is innovative rather than adaptive.

The sense of Self is made, it does not come out of 'nowhere', as if by magic. Consciousness as such is derived, it works as an agent of mediation etc. but its core nature comes out of properties and methods sourced in the particular-general - our species-nature.

The IC hexagrams are metaphors for qualities derived from the neurology self-referencing and so are representatives of universal categories of meaning. THEN comes the singular contribution in the form of unique interpretations of a universal tied to some local context and so develops a 'small world' network.

If you want to focus on your singular nature thats fine - follow methods set-down in Phenomenology etc but that does not cover what is BEHIND your singular nature - IOW you are focusing on the rainbow, not what is behind it, what causes it, wht seeds things to elicit a rainbow expression.

To appreciate the singular you need to understand the particular-general, one needs to understand the science of one's art as well as the art of one's science. OUR nature as humans works off the elements of the art/science dichotomy operating in parallel and so the IC+ material reflects that dynamic.

Furthermore, since the binary ordering of the IC reflects the nature of our brains, so observing that sequence covers more than we can in immediate consciousness and so self-reflections.

Combining the universals with consciousness allows us to cover ground that can be missed with just consciousness alone; your singular nature has developed in accord with a focus on nurture and so will be biased in expression. Using the universal IC perspective aids in dealing with the biases and in so doing refining your singular nature.

IOW the developmental focus is on general to particular, not particular to general.

Chris.

 

[lightofreason]

Monkety brain? I HAVE to read that one! Anyway, Chris, you can read all the books you want about Aikido, but unless you actually practice it, you'll never gain any real knowledge.

my focus is on thinking and the creation of meaning - I practice that almost continually and so have LOTS of experience in theory as well as practice.

Chris.

 

[lightofreason]

I'm pretty sure I'm going to forget these definitions of singular, particular and general, as there is very little in these words that remind of what they mean. And when I encounter these obscure terms in a post, I stop reading, as many do, probably.

Is there anything wrong with using the much clearer terms they refer to, like "sense of personal self," "individual membership of the our species" and "our species nature?"

There are some subtle issues:

"sense of personal self" indicates also a sense of Non-personal self. There is no such sense since to make the distinction of NOT implies awareness of IS and the point is that other than the singular there is no sense at the level of the particular-general or more so there is no importance of self-identity.

Singular nature maps to 'one'. Particular nature maps to a PART and so the indication of other parts (or at least one other). Thus singular is unique, high precision differentiating. Particular is not so unique, there are others of 'like' nature.

I havd used the distinctions of conscousness-nature vs species-nature but there is a lack of precision there - the particular-general natures are indicative of association with history, genetics etc. OTOH the singular has no such apparent link other than to post-birth experiences.

Chris.

 

[jesed]

Watch the news - observe, record. Review statistics etc magical thinking includes institutionalised religion = opiate of the people (Marx). It is easier to go to an 'opium' den (be it church or local diviner etc) than it is to deal with reality 'as is'. UNLESS one is aware of the basic level of meaning derivation, the filter, and so able to utilise the filter - be more proactive - than reactive. To get off the drugs requires proactivity, education, showing benefits of that education, 'new' understanding etc. At the same time this all needs to be grounded in reality 'as is' and so as close to that reality as possible (IOW we dont need a 'born again' focus, a fundamentalist focus, since we then only give up one drug for another! - thus I have repeatedly emphasised that IDM/IC+ does not REPLACE, it focuses more on COEXISTENCE in that we recognise local nuances, personal perspectives that can serve as a source of insight that can elicit change across the species but these are LOCAL and so have a replace focus WITHIN the coexistence focus. That local focus elicits finer details, finer precision but always seeded by universals - IOW one cannot replace 'yin/yang' universally but we can refined it locally where a bias can emerge that appears to expunge or marginalise some yin/yang aspect such that, being born into tht local context one can be 'blind' to the full spectrum of yin/yang - THAT sort of baggage needs to be delt with for our continued development as a species)

Chris.

This is scientific proof? wow

 

[ewald]

There are some subtle issues:

"sense of personal self" indicates also a sense of Non-personal self. There is no such sense since to make the distinction of NOT implies awareness of IS and the point is that other than the singular [blah..blah..blah..] particular-general [blah..blah..blah..]
[...]
[...]

I'll say it once more:
When I encounter these obscure terms in a post, I stop reading, as many do, probably.

 

[bruce_g]

I think, therefore I think.
I do, therefore I am.
I am, therefore I know.

Chris, have you ever thrown a reading for yourself, with an opened mind? Ya know, experienced the magic stuff for yourself?

 

[Trojina]

(Anyone dare to ask the Yi what it thinks of IDM and all that maybe someone already did)

 

[bruce_g]

(Anyone dare to ask the Yi what it thinks of IDM and all that maybe someone already did)

I did once, quite awhile back. It was a positive reading as I recall. Maybe 42 or something close.

 

[Trojina]

The Yi must 'get it' then, weak joke but it amuses me

 

[jesed]

The problem is not Cris' work... is Cris' pretension about his work.

 

[getojack]

my focus is on thinking and the creation of meaning - I practice that almost continually and so have LOTS of experience in theory as well as practice.

Chris.

Ahh, but that part's easy... I could just as easily say that my focus is on object recognition, and I practice it every day. Whenever I see a group of shapes, I can automatically interpret that group of shapes as a dog, or a cat, or my friend, or a lawnmower, or whatever.

What takes practice is learning to live harmoniously with the other singular entities (people) you run across every day. And that's what I think you need to work on.

 

[lightofreason]

What takes practice is learning to live harmoniously with the other singular entities (people) you run across every day. And that's what I think you need to work on.

I work fine - the realm of Exchange is both cooperative and competitive. The realm of innovation is rooted in competitive - the interactions make one 'think' and in doing so let loose complexity/chaos dynamics. ("[He] battles in the sign of the Creative")

If you knew me personally you would discover an engagement element that pushes buttons in the endevour to elicit 'discovery'.

Note that ADAPTIVE creativity is more cooperative. ;-) The issue then is I use both Exchange methods in that the creative replaces something BUT the focus is on replacing a void in the current level of meaning that seeds all else - and so is cooperative (to 'seed'). In that cooperative focus IDM covers the refinements in understanding what is BEHIND expressions and so what seeds them.

Chris.

 

[lightofreason]

I'll say it once more:
When I encounter these obscure terms in a post, I stop reading, as many do, probably.

thats ok ewald. I dont have to please all of the people and over time the use of XOR etc will make it an issue for you in you needing to use it too to avoid being marginalised, to be considered 'out of date' ;-) Thus you will need to read the material at some time - right now is obviously not the 'right' time ;-)

Some read it and understand it, others dont. The IDM/IC+ material is still developing so maybe at some time in the future it may start to be understandable for you but blend, bond, bound, bind with singular/particular/general are basic terms - perhaps the issue is you cannot flesh them out for yourself. Use a theasuarus ;-)

Chris.

 

[lightofreason]

I think, therefore I think.
I do, therefore I am.
I am, therefore I know.

Chris, have you ever thrown a reading for yourself, with an opened mind? Ya know, experienced the magic stuff for yourself?

Absolutely Man - I am a 'child of the 60s' ;-) I was exposed to the IC in the late 50s and on into the 60s but my 'natural' bent to look behind things (and so 'scientific' seeding) took me further into issues of meaning generation. In my rock n roll days I was nicknamed 'the Doc' since I was (a) always reading and (b) always had an answer or hypothesis ;-)

As a PARTICULAR nature I map to the MBTI's XNTP category - generically to solution seeking (problem solving). This maps to Thunder (XNTJ maps to Fire). A singular element being heaven in thunder and so standing up to assert one's following regardless of context/consequence. ;-) (hex 25) (that said , this is pseudo-singular, to get the full spectrum of possible expressions we have to go a little deeper in the self-referencing, but you should get the idea from this)

When we focus on XOR-ing so the infrastructure of XNTPs (27-ness) - expressed in thunder doubled - we come across hex 35 - a focus on bringing something into the light ;-)

100100
100001
--------
000101

Its all connected Man
Chris.

 

[ewald]

[...] will make it an issue for you in you needing to use it too to avoid being marginalised, to be considered 'out of date' ;-)

And how do you think it will ever come to that when over 99% of the people cannot read your prose because of its complexity? I'm a representitive of those more than 99% ;-)

 

[lightofreason]

And how do you think it will ever come to that when over 99% of the people cannot read your prose because of its complexity? I'm a representitive of those more than 99% ;-)

87%

work on it - you can do it. Linking the dots can take time but the benfits later can make the effort worthwhile.

Chris.