Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).
dobro said:Chris - What do *you* understand by 'divination'?
heylise said: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
jte said:"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
jte said: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
martin said: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.
dobro said: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?
dobro said:Piddle. The light of reason has passed me by.
autumn said: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.
autumn said: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)
autumn said: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 )
autumn said: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.
autumn said: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.
autumn said: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.
autumn said: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?
autumn said: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?
autumn said: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.
autumn said: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 ).
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.lightofreason said: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! ;-)
autumn said: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.
autumn said: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.
autumn said: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?
autumn said: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 said: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?
Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).