...life can be translucent

Menu

Pairs and followup questions

marisa

visitor
Joined
Jun 26, 1970
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Hi,
I have been doing a bit of reading about pairs and have been wondering if it's usual to ask a question, and then a follow-up question on a similar topic and get hexagram pairs. Specifically, my 1st question was "What is happening with my relationship with my spouse now" and I got hexagram 23, with no changing lines. After reading about that one, with dread at first, and then hope, I asked, "What can I do to improve my relationship with my spouse" and got hexagram 24 with no changing lines. I have been feeling that my spouse and I have been a bit disconnected lately, but with no major problems. I was just blown away about the pairs though! It seems to me that it is a message of hope... a natural progression from 23 to 24. Has anyone else out there ever gotten pairs like this?
 

lightofdarkness

visitor
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
From a universal, structural, perspective, both deal with issues of faith/belief. They are tied to degree where 23 is the skeletal form of 24 as 24 is the skeletal form of 23.

See the thread:

http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?92/4387

23 focuses on bring out the core, the 'true' by removing all of the accumulated 'rubbish' - in a generic sense 23 it is about housekeeping.

24 focuses on returning to the 'true', having experiencing many distractions along the way (and so more 'rubbish')

The overall message would seem to be to focus on getting back to basics, core 'truths', do some housekeeping and getting onto the 'right' path.

In the binary sequence 23 pairs with 02 where the focus is on devotion to another/other. In 23 that devotion is conditional, particular.

24 pairs with 27 - the focus being on the 'new' or 'enlightened' or 'beginning'. The unconditional return/beginning of 24 is qualified through the quality control focus of 27.

27 is the universal of skeletal forms, the clay out of which is made the complete 'thing'. If you XOR it with any other hexagram you get the expression of 27 in that hexagram (and so 27 XOR 24 = 23, as 27 XOR 23 = 24)

Chris.
 

luz

visitor
Joined
Jan 31, 1970
Messages
778
Reaction score
0
Chris,
why is 27 the 'clay'? meaning, how did you determine that? What makes it that? I might be asking for trouble, but maybe you do have a simple explanation, who knows!
Also, if you don't mind, how do you XOR (I did study this but a long time ago!)?
0 xor 1 = 1
0 xor 0 = 0
1 xor 1 = 1

????
 

lightofdarkness

visitor
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
(1) Working from a universal perspective, the I Ching is an integrated whole. (see comments etc in the "Book of Structures" - http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/icstruct.html)

(2) Being an integrated whole so each hexagram is describable by association with *all* of the others.

(3) This association is in the form of a 'genetic code' reflecting 'ISness' where the qualities of a particular hexagram are expressed through another by analogy to another. This is a consequence of trying to use a finite language, the IC, to describe 'all there is'. In this description so we have to use analogy/metaphor in our descriptions.

(4) To extract this 'isness' from any particular hexagram we use the XOR operator.

(5) In the particular context of the above re 27, hexagram 27 represents 'hungering' in that when we have something 'new' with no content, so we hunger to be filled. The warning in 27 is to use quality control to ensure you 'fill' yourself with the 'quality' material.

(6) If we XOR 27 with each hexagram we will get that hexagram's 'skeletal' form, its form prior to being filled out, prior to moving in the furnishings etc. E.g. 27 XOR 01 = 28. This 'says' that the skeletal form of 01 is described by analogy to the characteristics of 28 - too much yang; excess.

(7) We can thus extract from each hexagram the expressions of all of the others THROUGH that hexagram. In so doing we flesh out the 'genetic code' of that hexagram, how the universals, archetypes, are expressed, distorted, THROUGH a particular hexagram.

(7) The 'discovery' of this method is due to the IDM perspective where we identity how the brain processes information through extracting parts details - it does this using the XOR operator. Thus each hexagram is interpretable as an integrated whole (AND-ness) and we use XOR to derive its parts (XOR-ness). (we use recursion to derive the parts list, XOR brings out each individual)

(8) For more comments etc on this also see http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/linemean.html#Details


(9) XOR-ing means flipping the lines in a hexagram according to the rule:

1 xor 1 = 0
1 xor 0 = 1
0 xor 1 = 1
0 xor 0 = 0

Thus 27, read bottom to top, = 100001, hex 01 = 111111 and we have:

111111
100001 XOR
--------
011110 - which is hex 28

These are all mapped out for each hexagram in the ICPlus website. Use the table in the icstruct page (link given in (1) above) to work through each hexagram's line meaning patterns.

If you don?t 'get' any of this, tell me where you get stuck and I will try and rephrase ;-)

Chris.
 

jte

visitor
Joined
May 31, 1972
Messages
724
Reaction score
1
"I asked, "What can I do to improve my relationship with my spouse" and got hexagram 24 with no changing lines. I have been feeling that my spouse and I have been a bit disconnected lately, but with no major problems. I was just blown away about the pairs though! It seems to me that it is a message of hope... a natural progression from 23 to 24. Has anyone else out there ever gotten pairs like this?"

Yes, I've had that happen and other things that seem, well, eerie if one considers that the answers are random (which btw, they indeed are...)

Random, and yet meaningful. Interesting, huh...

;-)

- Jeff
 

dobro p

visitor
Joined
May 19, 1972
Messages
3,043
Reaction score
3
"Specifically, my 1st question was "What is happening with my relationship with my spouse now" and I got hexagram 23, with no changing lines. After reading about that one, with dread at first, and then hope, I asked, "What can I do to improve my relationship with my spouse" and got hexagram 24 with no changing lines"

I think it doesn't get better than this. 23 talks about stripping (or getting stripped) down to the nubs. It's a pretty painful experience if it applies to relationship or emotion. There's nothing much you can do about it except know that it's required, that it has its purpose, and that that single solid line at the top means that the situation's going to change.

The appearance of Hex 24 with your next question is really gracious - it talks about a return to where you should be, a return to the beginning of a new cycle. So, what can you do to improve things? Well, get back to square one in terms of the relationship - what's the basis of your relationship? What does your relationship (or any relationship for that matter) arise out of and start with? But in addition to all that, I see one more possibility in the two hexagrams you drew: the Yi seems to be telling you: working at improving it is as natural as the way 24 follows on from 23.

JTE says: "Yes, I've had that happen and other things that seem, well, eerie if one considers that the answers are random (which btw, they indeed are...)"

JTE says that as if he knows, but it's just an opinion. If there were an unseen intelligence that informed the outcome of an I Ching consultation, how would JTE know? And equally true, if it were only random, how would JTE know? If JTE knew enough to answer either of those questions, he wouldn't need an oracle to get through life. He'd be the oracle. Ain't that right JTE? :)
 

luz

visitor
Joined
Jan 31, 1970
Messages
778
Reaction score
0
I think I agree with JTE. According to the world as we know it, the answers ARE random.
Because in this case it is (or seems to be) meaningful, we suspect that there is no such thing as randomness but until we understand the background process(es).... it's all random to us.
 

luz

visitor
Joined
Jan 31, 1970
Messages
778
Reaction score
0
(1) - I can't get to that website from work, for some reason (it's not blocked, it just doesn't come up)

(2) - "Each hexagram is described by its association with the others". Each and every one of them? I think I saw in a thread that you would answer questions about a hex by XOR-ing (I think) it with each or the other 63, so I think I'm with you so far.

..... I see. From re-reading and remembering the thread I mention above I gues the answer to my question is that Hex 27 is not 'special' or 'different' from other hexes, it's just that its characteristic is being 'bare bones' and xor-ing it with any hex gives you the 'skeletal' form of that hex.

Okay, I understand (probably in a rather superficial way).

What I would love to see, I guess, is examples of applying these concepts to a reading. I know you contribute to readings often by pointing out the something-ness of a hex and how it relates to the other, etc. Maybe you don't do readings as I know them but it would be nice to see how these concepts would change or complement the traditional interpretation of an answer, the advice derived from it, the "prediction" if there is such a thing. Question: how do you see/use the I ching as it applies to 'real life'?
 

lightofdarkness

visitor
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
The answers are 'random' and yet not. The WHOLE of the IC applies to each moment and so ALL hexagrams are meaningful but local context sorts them into bestfit/worstfit order. (so even getting the worst fit will elicit some form of meaning)

Using 'random' methods reflects the aquiring of ONE of the sixty-four AS IF it is the 'best fit'. Depending on the system used, so the odds of getting that 'best fit' vary from 1 in 64 to less - BUT it will still be 'meaningful' as long as you have a question to which ALL hexagrams are 'harmonics' of the full meaning.

The question method has a higher chance of consistantly getting the 'best fit' but requires some personal 'honesty' ;-)

(http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/lofting/icplusProact.html )

For ANY question, the WHOLE of the IC applies as a source of deriving meaning but the requirement for it all to work 'properly' is the sorting of the hexagrams into an order that 'best fits' the context.

Yarrow stick methods have odds skewed to a yin bias in the answers. Coin tossing is more 'balanced' in principle but context is the final determination of 'best fit'. - focusing on more ancient perspectives favours the 'reactive-ness' of yin answers and so yarrow stick methods.

The questions move us into a more 'yang' mindset in that we are being proactive.

For the IC to work you MUST have a question since the IC acts as a filter for that 'whole' - without a question is like playing with numbers - no 'meaning' as such, just 'numbers'.
 

lightofdarkness

visitor
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
The IC plus perspective is on fleshing out the roots of meaning, the universals used that then get grounded in some local context.

Imagine ICPlus as a realm of universals, like numbers etc, and so work (a) within themselves a la pure mathematics and (b) with others in the form of applied mathematics.

The roots of the hexagrams are in feelings, qualities, we use as a species to derive meaning - and so are universals. We can 'play' with these universals as we do with pure mathematics where there are 'rules' that allow, for example, for us to link all qualities together etc etc.

This playing then extends our toolkit that we can use to derive meaning, we can discover and use the XOR/AND dynamic of our brain in the dynamic of fleshing-out the universal IC - and so the "Book of Structures" ;-) In this area, divination is through such methods as the question system since it gives a consistant 'particular' that fits a situation.

The MAIN focus here is on deriving the full spectrum of these archetypal forms, and the XOR lets us do that.

As for divination etc, a recent query on my own list shows application of XOR etc in fleshing out details of a hexagram's structure/meaning PRIOR to considerating any 'change' processes (this covers a question of 10 changing into 25):

> Could this hexagram reflect the change of life cycle?
>
>

Lets break the whole into its parts.

Hexagram 10, in its pure form is here associated with YOU or the
QUESTIONER/QUESTION in its unchanging form. Traditionally we have:

"LU : step, path, track; footsteps; walk a path or way; course of the stars;
act, practise, conduct; salary, means of subsistance. The ideogram: body and
repeating steps, follow a trail."

The generic focus is on following a path carefully with the added state that
one is being watched whilst doing so (relates to the Lake trigram reflecting
interactions with an audience of some form - and the top heaven trigram
reflecting singlemindedness and a sense of the competitive operating in a
context of the cooperative)

Lets see the 'genetic code' of 10 - I have commented on a few of the
expressions:

00 :: (02) : What is this hexagrams's potential form? :: 10

the 10-ness of 10 is reflected in its potential 'embedded' in 02.

01 :: (24) : How does this hexagram 'start', express 'beginning'? :: 6

the above indicates that the path of 10, the journey taken, starts through
some issues of compromise in a competitive context; here is the 24-ness of
10 described by analogy to 06.


02 :: (07) : How does this hexagram express uniformity, establishment of? ::
25

Note the above is the hexagram derived from the CHANGE in yours - but here
we focus on the STATIC element where 25 is the analogy describing the
07-ness of 10.

03 :: (19) : How does this hexagram express approaching the 'high'; defer to
the 'low'? :: 12
04 :: (15) : How does this hexagram level things out, keep words close to
facts? :: 1
05 :: (36) : How does this hexagram protect its 'light' when not its time?
:: 44
06 :: (46) : How does this hexagram become more entangled with
something/someone? :: 13
07 :: (11) : How does this hexagram balance/harmonise, mediate? :: 33
08 :: (16) : How does this hexagram express foresight/planning? :: 61
09 :: (51) : How does this hexagram express surprise, enlightenment, shock?
:: 59
10 :: (40) : How does this hexagram express tension release through relaxing
structure? :: 42
11 :: (54) : How does this hexagram expend early energy, imaturity? :: 20
12 :: (62) : How does this hexagram express overacting to establish
unconditional loyalty? :: 9
13 :: (55) : How does this hexagram deal with abundance/overflowing? :: 57
14 :: (32) : How does this hexagram express commitment? :: 37
15 :: (34) : How does this hexagram actively invigorate others? :: 53
16 :: (08) : How does this hexagram passively attract? :: 38
17 :: (03) : How does this hexagram 'sprout'? :: 64
18 :: (29) : How does this hexagram assert containment/control? :: 21
19 :: (60) : How does this hexagram standardise? :: 35
20 :: (39) : How does this hexagram obstruct, go against, stand up to, the
flow? :: 14
21 :: (63) : How does this hexagram complete, 'get it right'? :: 50

Hexagram 10 expresses completing, 63-ness, getting it in the 'correct'
sequence, through 'alchemy' - cooking the raw to make it 'consumable,
transformed. (note the vague link in the chinese with "means of
subsistance" - you could even equate this with investing etc to elicit
surplus value etc) - the basic, IDM, format of 10 is expansive blending (to
become whole through pouring outwards) in a context of expansive bonding
(sharing space with another/others - and so the 'audience')

22 :: (48) : Where does this hexagram get its nutrition, what sustains it,
keeps it going? :: 30
23 :: (05) : How does this hexagram wait for opportunity to come? :: 56
24 :: (45) : How does this hexagram celebrate its 'faith'? :: 41
25 :: (17) : How does this hexagram find a faith? What is its faith? :: 4
26 :: (47) : How does this hexagram integrate with the context, be it by
choice or otherwise? :: 27
27 :: (58) : How does this hexagram express itself intensely, self-reflect?
:: 23
28 :: (31) : How does this hexagram 'woo', express restrained enticement? ::
26
29 :: (49) : How does this hexagram reveal, unmask? :: 18
30 :: (28) : How does this hexagram express excess, go beyond what is
required? :: 22
31 :: (43) : How does this hexagram 'seed', spread the word? :: 52
32 :: (23) : How does this hexagram 'housekeep', clear chaff to bring out
the wheat? :: 58
33 :: (27) : What is the basic, skelatal form of this hexagram, The mud from
which it has emerged? :: 47

The above shows us the skeletal form, the basic structure without fillings,
the 27-ness, of 10, described by analogy to the characteristics reflected in
hexagram 47. In 47 there is focus on FORCED enclosure(but in 10 this is in
the from of a path, linear) where that can mean either (a) an involuntary
enclosure or (b) a willing enclosure (force the roots to go deep and
integrate with context)

34 :: (04) : How does this hexagram learn social skills? :: 17
35 :: (41) : How does this hexagram achieve clarity, concentration,
distillation? :: 45
36 :: (52) : How does this hexagram express blocking, discernment? :: 43
37 :: (22) : What does this hexagram look like, how does it present itself
to the outside? :: 28
38 :: (18) : How does this hexagram correct corruption, express that
correction? :: 49
39 :: (26) : How does this hexagram express 'holding firm' to traditions? ::
31
40 :: (35) : How does this hexagram bring something into the 'light'? :: 60
41 :: (21) : How does this hexagram resolve problems? :: 29
42 :: (64) : How does this hexagram remain 'open', mis-sequence? :: 3

Hex 10 makes mistakes (64-ness) by getting the steps wrong at the
beginning - this can set down a path that will eventually fail or be
'messy' in its completion etc etc.

43 :: (38) : How does this hexagram 'mirror', deal with opposition? :: 8
44 :: (56) : How does this hexagram demonstrate conditional loyalty; loyalty
at a distance? :: 5
45 :: (30) : How does this hexagram express guidance/direction setting? ::
48
46 :: (50) : How does this hexagram express conversion of the raw to the
cooked, transformation? :: 63
47 :: (14) : How does this hexagram manage from the centre? Direct
operations? Push ideology? :: 39
48 :: (20) : How does this hexagram elicit admiration and so invigorate
others passively? :: 54
49 :: (42) : How does this hexagram reflect augmentation? :: 40
50 :: (59) : How does this hexagram make things clear, dispell illusions?
lift the fog? :: 51
51 :: (61) : How does this hexagram express empathy? yielding, soft core,
hard exterior? :: 16
52 :: (53) : How does this hexagram express gradual development, maturity?
:: 34

Hex 10 expresses maturing etc through a positive, invigorating focus.

53 :: (37) : How does this hexagram reflect rigid structure as a form of
tension release? :: 32
54 :: (57) : How does this hexagram cultivate and become influencial? :: 55
55 :: (09) : How does this hexagram express making small gains to be
noticed? :: 62
56 :: (12) : How does this hexagram neutralise attacks on its core beliefs?
:: 19
57 :: (25) : How does this hexagram stand up to say its piece, ignoring
consequences, disentangle? :: 7
58 :: (06) : How does this hexagram compromise, meet half way? :: 24

Hex 10 'compromises' by going back to the beginning, starting again, which
reflects the nature of 24-ness, the path starts with some form of compromise
etc.

59 :: (10) : How does this hexagram traverse a path carefully? :: 2
60 :: (33) : How does this hexagram draw-in its enemies, competitively
entice? :: 11
61 :: (13) : How does this hexagram express association with the likeminded?
:: 46
62 :: (44) : How does this hexagram persuade/seduce? :: 36
63 :: (01) : How does this hexagram express singlemindedness,
competitiveness? :: 15

When in its 'highly competitive' mindset, the 01-ness of 10, hex 10 focuses
on levelling things out, evening things out - no prisoners.


Note the path of 10 is to start in 06, to complete in 50. There is thus a
focus on (a) compromise and (b) internal change, transformation so you can
see where you got the inkling re some 'change of life' process.

If we work solely on the XOR dynamics, then the question asked reflects an
expression of the 07-ness of 10 and that is 25. This focus is purely on
STRUCTURE, not change.

If we work on the changing lines perspective, 10 is then placed in a context
that is forcing the line changes to elicit 25. Implied in that is a context
of 34 eliciting the change.
 

lightofdarkness

visitor
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
BTW - I tried out the link and it works fine, so keep trying! ;-)

What XOR does is give us high precision details about the characteristics of a hexagram but from a universals, read genetic, perspective. IOW we as members of the species have 'biases' in our expression due to our genetics - and the IC has the same pattern.

WHere all of this is leading us is 'new' and so still being investigated using the IDM perspective.
 

luz

visitor
Joined
Jan 31, 1970
Messages
778
Reaction score
0
You know, it's interesting because people skeptical about the I ching say that also: that all hexagrams can fit a particular situation and that's why people find the answers meaningful no matter what. I personally don't have a problem with that but I'd like to know how the narrowing down works.
I do know that the link works, for some reason here at work I can't use it though, sometime at home I use your 'yarrow stalk' i ching. But when I try to do the method where I answer questions I have two issues: one is that I guess I don't fully understand the questions (text and context are not that clear to me in this 'context') and the other is that no matter what question I ask, if the settings are the same I seem to be getting the same answer. I'd also like to know how you narrow things down based on the questions you ask. And the 'personal honesty' reference mystifies me a little... what do you mean?
As for the applied example you gave above, what is the conclusion? what would you give as an answer to somebody who doesn't want to hear or understand the x-ness for a hex?
Do you use the I Ching to ask questions for yourself? Do you see it as divinatory or just as advice?
A lot of questions, I know. But in any case thank you for your generosity in replying all the time.
 

dobro p

visitor
Joined
May 19, 1972
Messages
3,043
Reaction score
3
About the randomness of I Ching results, there are three main possibilities that I see:

* Results are random.

* Results are the outcome of an unseen intelligence which guides the fall of the coins.

* Results are random if you believe they're random; results are informed to the extent that you believe they're informed. Intelligence doesn't waste its time on non-believers. Leave them to their own god.

I see each of these as entirely possible possibilities. I don't see how anyone can say categorically that it's this way or that. Unless you're a seer of some sort. And then you wouldn't use the Yi, right?

But I imagine that the people who say Yi results are random are among the same group of people who believe that accidents happen.
 

luz

visitor
Joined
Jan 31, 1970
Messages
778
Reaction score
0
Well, the way I see it is that these things (including accidents) are random as far as our scientific understanding goes. Just like the atom was the tiniest unit of matter before we knew better.
Even considering that there is a hand guiding the coins I think that it doesn't contradicts the randomness because then I view randomness as just an unknown process, I don't know how the Intelligence works. Also, if the randomness didn't somehow need to be preserved (and I don't think it's preserved just for our observation, just so we don't freak out) we would get the exact same answer to the exact same question a thousand times in a row, if necessary. Or maybe from time to time the I Ching would try to put it in a different way so you understand but it would be far more consistent, at least within a short period of time because I do believe that circumstances can change very quickly too (and maybe there is some randomness there? in the way people's feelings and inclinations and attitudes fluctuate?) Maybe there's this randomness connected to that other randomness over there, kind of the particles that have been found to communicate. That still leaves us in the dark as to HOW do they decide to communicate.
In any case, I firmly believe that option 3 from those above is very unlikely. If there is an Intelligence, it can not help it but to express itself, regardless of the beliefs of the person asking the question. Regardless of their intentions. I know there was a thread about the I ching helping you to do evil. I think not because the Yi "shows you the way". It would tell you that what you're thinking of doing is a BAD idea because doing evil is always a BAD IDEA.
MHO's, of course.
 

marisa

visitor
Joined
Jun 26, 1970
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Thank you all for your insights. Wow, I sure have some more reading to do!
 

pakua

visitor
Joined
Aug 26, 1972
Messages
359
Reaction score
0
It seems to me that if you believe everything is connected, then how can there be randomness? We just don't see the connection between seemingly random events.

Contrariwise, if you believe everything is not connected, then it's easy to believe things just happen for no reason.
 

brian

visitor
Joined
Apr 11, 1970
Messages
53
Reaction score
0
Nothing is random in the way things are interpreted from randomness by a mind.

The universe is nothing but white noise--it is we who see faces, clouds, trees and oceans in the mess.

I look at a particular knot of mass and energy and see a rabbit, I tell another person to look and they see the same--this is because all like minds read the same way--and yet, had I asked a spider, a sparrow or a tortise to look at what I call a rabbit, they would each see something else.

Just as no hand is exactly the same as any other, so no mind is identical to another, and yet the differences between hands is not so great as to prevent a hand being called a hand, so it is with minds and the things they interpret from the void of chaos.

A mind exists only by defining itself, interpreting itself, using the body to control its access to the timeless confusion, using the senses to seperate, gather, pair and divide the chaos into the pigments we use to paint our world.

In the end there is nowhere to go and nothing to do--other than to just simply be or become.
 

luz

visitor
Joined
Jan 31, 1970
Messages
778
Reaction score
0
Pakua, I know what you mean. I, too, believe in some level that nothing is really random but my point is that from our worldly perception it is random. It's known that if I toss a coin 1000 times I will get roughly 500 heads and 500 tails. There's no denying that. That's my perception of the world and that's what has been proved to be true. When I use Clarity's free I Ching there's a simulator generating random outcomes, it's a fact well known to the programmer who wrote the code.

Is there an intelligence behind the I Ching? I think so. I've no idea who it is where it comes from but if I didn't believe that I would not cast the coins. I don't know how it works, though. It is random but meaningful, as JTE said above.

Maybe everything that seems random has a meaning but it's a good thing we don't go through life trying to figure out those meanings, it would be a great overload of information.

Brian said: <font color="ff0000">"Nothing is random in the way things are interpreted from randomness by a mind"</font>
It might be. Most children wonder at one time or another whether what they call hand (and everyone, as a convetion, calls hand) is the same for everyone or whether blue is really blue for everyone. The truth is we can't really tell if we all see things identically, can we? There's only conventions, patterns. From this perspective, everything is random but these concious beings that we are spend their whole life giving it meaning.

And this rings very true:
<font color="ff0000">"In the end there is nowhere to go and nothing to do--other than to just simply be or become."</font>

How random!
 

dobro p

visitor
Joined
May 19, 1972
Messages
3,043
Reaction score
3
"In any case, I firmly believe that option 3 from those above is very unlikely. If there is an Intelligence, it can not help it but to express itself, regardless of the beliefs of the person asking the question."

Why unlikely? Can't intelligence adapt itself to variables? For at least two thousand years, very religious people have seriously believed that God favors people who believe in God. It might be superstition. It might be symbolic. Or it might be true.

See, for me the universe is meaningful, and its moment to moment arising is informed by an intellgicence that shapes at least the contours of every situation, if not the details.

But the reason I don't tell people who see things differently just how wrong they are is because of this other thing I see, which is this: we see very little of reality. We see just a tiny little bit of what's really going on, and even that tiny little bit is probably distorted. We get hints, nothing more. (A person from Missouri, by contrast, thinks that what they experience is the whole picture, complete and reliable.) Which is also why I tell people they're getting it wrong when they say categorically that the universe is this way or that way. It's not their view of the universe that's wrong; it's the fact that they say their view is the only view which is wrong.

Having said that, I'm guilty of doing that myself, so I'm smiling.
 

lightofdarkness

visitor
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
> Posted by Lightangel (Lightangel) on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 3:27 pm:
>
> You know, it's interesting because people skeptical about the I ching
> say that also: that all hexagrams can fit a particular situation and
> that's why people find the answers meaningful no matter what. I
> personally don't have a problem with that but I'd like to know how the
> narrowing down works.

From a neurosciences perspective, the WHOLE is made up of individual consciousness, and so a focus on particular, and the unconscious where it comes out of our species-nature, our primateness, our use of instincts to interact with reality, and so, in comparison to the particular, the general.

As such we appear to communicate through spectrum exchange and in that exchange our consciousness favours the 'blue' end of the spectrum, highly differentiating, highly focused on mediation, and highly schooled in *serial* communications and VERY precise, often TOO precise, we can go past the forest and get stuck in looking at the trees; also reflects the attraction to the 'bright lights' that can hide subtleties important to one's understanding of the whole.

The FULL spectrum is thus outside of the range of our consciousness and we focus on the discrete, the differentiated, the 'best fit' AS IF it is the only fit - it isn?t.

Look at this from the position of all people on this list. The COMMON ground is our species nature, the differences are in our personal expressions. ALL of those expressions reflect aspects of the whole being expressed at the same time. Consensus will elicit a 'group' resonance where we all think the same but arriving at a consensus more often involves compromises where the particular gives way to a general.

If I start a thread on 'lets talk about hex 37', a plethora of emails will turn up all with ASPECTS that are different but all applicable to the WHOLE that is 'hex 37'. This gets into the 'small world network' perspective I present in the "Book of Structures" link. (also see the recent thread on Clarity referencing the IC and the Dodecahedron)

The realm of consciousness is a realm of mediation, no mediation and we live off our instincts, autopilot - no questions; no need to enquire of the IC etc.

The apparent use of consciousness, from a species perspective, is in REFINING our instincts/habits in realtime rather than over generations. With this refinement so we 'fit in' quickly to any context, we become 'universals' that can be dropped-in to a context and adapt almost immediately OR assert our own context immediately.

From the set of qualities we all use AS A SPECIES to communicate comes their relabelling into specialisations - out of the specialisations come local languages (and specialisation includes each of us as conscious beings - if allowed-to we would create our own languages to describe reality - group education limits that. Note in this that words act as universals and allow us to communicate with generalities and our consciousness makes links to local expressions to 'ground' the meanings.)

The indication in all of this is that the UNIVERSAL I Ching is a metaphor, or at least a source of analogies, for describing in finer detail what our neurology deals with - patterns of differentiating/integrating.

LOCAL interactions of the universal with local 'randomness' will elicit specialist views - e.g. the Traditional I Ching - a small world network. (see diagrams in the links).

As such, the IC, be it from its universal format or its local, traditional, format, is a FILTER through which we perceive reality and through which we try to predict reality (internalisation of a 'map' of the context is really useful in pre-empting events in that context. Knowing the fact that context PUSHES, with our consciousness we can refine what it pushes and put ourselves in contexts of our choice to 'push' us along. To be in the 'tao' of a context is to fit-in to that context, experience the local push on our universal instincts and adapt 'quickly' to the local - this is very energy conserving and more in tune with nature than our attempts to assert context through high energy expenditure etc)


> I do know that the link works, for some reason here at work I can't
> use it though, sometime at home I use your 'yarrow stalk' i ching. But
> when I try to do the method where I answer questions I have two
> issues: one is that I guess I don't fully understand the questions
> (text and context are not that clear to me in this 'context')

You can create your own, as long as they are in the correct hierarchical order - general to particular. Dilt's categories from NLP can be useful in that they map to the six lines with no distinctions required of text/context, see:

http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/mbti4.html


If you like, I will make-up a page using those categories. They just require more thought in their use.

Then there is the three question IC but it is lacking in precision in that it works off changing line trigrams and so is only useful from a general perspective where you fill in the dots (see http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/lofting/proact3.html)

(I Have not changed the format for that link - if you find it useful let me know and I will format it better)

> and the
> other is that no matter what question I ask, if the settings are the
> same I seem to be getting the same answer.

The focus is on universals such that if the same general states apply to context A as they do to context B then you get the same answer showing the pattern of universals at work locally. LOCAL differences between A and B cannot be represented since, from the IC perspective, they are not predictable and considered 'random' (note that the sense of 'random' and the sense of the 'miraculous' share the same space; no detectable cause-effect. The *interpretations* then introduce 'colour' a la a miracle or random)

> I'd also like to know how
> you narrow things down based on the questions you ask.

We are working with universals reflecting the dynamics of your brain where it moves from general to particular in dealing with novel situations. As such we identify the general conditions of a situation, what is pushing what buttons etc. Your consciousness then supplies the local details, the labels that apply to the universals.

Deriving hexagrams is not going to give you name, rank, and serial number - other than some sense of the 'high' influencing the 'low', or the 'raw' being transformed into the 'refined' etc etc. These are archetypal dynamics derived from 'mindless' differentiating/integrating; as a language we arfe dealing with the 'Language of the Vague'. Add consciousness and we add local colour, the 'crisp', to give these patterns local names etc.

By learning the details of these forms (and so the XOR material) aids in identifying the participants in the situation clearly. Once learnt so we 'forget' in that the learning has been habituated and context will then 'push' - you no longer need to use the book that much ;-)

> And the
> 'personal honesty' reference mystifies me a little... what do you
> mean?

Such questions as if one is being proactive or reactive can elicit a preferred response rather than the 'true' response ;-) The limited number of questions allows for the unconscious to 'guide' the outcome into a particular outcome of one's choice rather than an outcome describing the 'real' situation. It can be useful to get someone else to interpret the situation and then compare the results.

Using 'random' methods can be useful in getting something out of 'left field' (that part of the full spectrum we more often miss/ignore).

> As for the applied example you gave above, what is the conclusion?

Ask the questioner. Mapping the universals gives an IDEA IN GENERAL about a situation. What the questioner then does with that is up to them; they can adopt the change to fit in to the context, or move on, or try to assert their own context over the existing - IOW they can COEXIST, or REPLACE, or MOVE ON.

The 'tao' way is to fit in or move on. The way of hard-core, high intensity, consciousness is to assert one's own context and take over (and so the need to build McDonalds in every land so one feels 'at home' wherever one is! ;-))

From a yin/yang position, the realm of YANG is to take over, exaggerate, exploit the situation. The realm of YIN is to neutralise the excess, to restore/maintain balance and so an overall focus on protection.

Yang IN Yin is a focus on cultivation of a context but not the exploitation of it to a degree of replacing it with something subjectively considered 'better'.

> what would you give as an answer to somebody who doesn't want to hear
> or understand the x-ness for a hex?

As an alternative to the traditional focus, the questions method would suffice. If they want more details, want to get into the IC as a whole etc then the material is there to do that. The ICPlus is an EXAMPLE of what IDM is on about - a universal template of meaning that we all use to make our specialist views.

If they want to work with the traditional material that?s up to them but, IMHO, they are limiting themselves given what is available. Personal preferences I suppose, horse and cart or 747? Horse and cart are more local, more 'organic' in a sense; 747 is more detailed, more comfort, faster, but universals oriented and so can be mechanistic; lacking in local colour, flavourless food etc etc - but then universals are not supposed to 'take over', they are their to GUIDE, to work as GENERALS and one's consciousness makes the link to the local.

Every person on this planet could create their own IC. The language, manner of expression etc would be unique but the GENERAL qualities expressed would be the same as that expressed by all others. What ICPLus does is identify more clearly those general qualities - gives more details on their properties/methods and so works to GUIDE, not take over.

> Do you use the I Ching to ask questions for yourself? Do you see it as
> divinatory or just as advice?

Understanding the 'full spectrum' nature and how our consciousness can exclude the many for one, changes one's perspective about what one is dealing with. Thus the IC is a well structured metaphor/source of analogy, for reality in general. The ICPlus perspective has always been on STRUCTURE and the set of POSSIBLE expressions given our neurology and its focus on differentiating/integrating.

It is this focus on XOR rather than AND that has allowed for the discovery of fine details and so 'divination' is not interpreted from its 'divine' perspective - thus the inevitability of situations is still rooted in probabilities - bestfit/worstfit. High energy expenditure can force the bestfit to be actualised but then consequences of that action need to be considered. With ICPlus questions so we identify precise line states that we use to work on to elicit a change - IOW given a changing situation we can fight back (assert one's own context), surrender (adapt immediately to the preferred response), or move on.

For a review of the inevitable in history see the history section in my draft "The Language of the Vague" - http://www.iimetro.com.au/lofting/myweb/Vague.pdf

Chris.
 

lightofdarkness

visitor
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
Leibnitz, who had experience with the IC, worked on probability theory as expressing logic. INDUCTIVE processing is based on probabilities, we move from particular to general. DEDUCTIVE processing is based more on certainties, we move from general to particular.

This is actually 'in' the brain, reflecting differentiating (particulars) vs integrating (generals) - an abstract :

===========================
Cerebral Cortex, Vol. 11, No. 10, 954-965, October 2001
? 2001 Oxford University Press

New Evidence for Distinct Right and Left Brain Systems for Deductive versus Probabilistic Reasoning
Lawrence M. Parsons and Daniel Osherson1
University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX and
1 Rice University, Houston, TX, USA

Lawrence M. Parsons, Director, Cognitive Neuroscience Program, Division of Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences, Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230, USA.

Deductive and probabilistic reasoning are central to cognition but the functional neuroanatomy underlying them is poorly understood. The present study contrasted these two kinds of reasoning via positron emission tomography. Relying on changes in instruction and psychological ?set?, deductive versus probabilistic reasoning was induced using identical stimuli. The stimuli were arguments in propositional calculus not readily solved via mental diagrams. Probabilistic reasoning activated mostly left brain areas whereas deductive activated mostly right. Deduction activated areas near right brain homologues of left language areas in middle temporal lobe, inferior frontal cortex and basal ganglia, as well as right amygdala, but not spatial?visual areas. Right hemisphere activations in the deduction task cannot be explained by spill-over from overtaxed, left language areas. Probabilistic reasoning was mostly associated with left hemispheric areas in inferior frontal, posterior cingulate, parahippocampal, medial temporal, and superior and medial prefrontal cortices. The foregoing regions are implicated in recalling and evaluating a range of world knowledge, operations required during probabilistic thought. The findings confirm that deduction and induction are distinct processes, consistent with psychological theories enforcing their partial separation. The results also suggest that, except for statement decoding, deduction is largely independent of language, and that some forms of logical thinking are non-diagrammatic.

ALSO SEE:


Oaksford, M., and Chater, N., (2001) "The probabilistic approach to human reasoning" IN Trends in Cognitive Sciences Vol 5. No8 August 2001: 349-357

(published PRIOR to the above) From the intro:

"In a standard reasoning task, performance is compared with the inferences people should make according to logic, so a judgement can be made on the rationality of people's reasoning. It has been found that people make large and systematic (i.e. non-random) errors, which suggests that humans might be irrational. However, the probabilistic approach argues against this interpretation" (p349)

============================


Map that to the Universal IC and the realm of universals is DEDUCTIVE in that the realm is FINITE, all is linked to all else (a 'regular' network - diagram follows). Exposure to the universe and the LOCAL introduces an ad-hoc methodology where, lacking any understanding of the whole set of probables, so we sum actuals and in that come across 'anomolies' that favour a more probabilities perspective.

The 'anomolies' are in an XOR perspective (local, particular, parts) trying to deal with an AND perspective (non-local, general, wholes).

The IC is a complete system and so we can make DEDUCTIONS from it but to the level of universals. LOCAL dynamics works through INDUCTION/ABDUCTION - particular-to-general - and so 'meets' the deductive element in the middle. That middle is the realm of 'small world networks':



Chris.
 

lightofdarkness

visitor
Joined
Mar 16, 1970
Messages
1,025
Reaction score
0
... and just to complete things, the realm of the deductive is the realm of models, hypotheses etc. These are all specialisations of the GENERAL model/hypothesis we have about reality - in the form of the sum of all of our instincts - and so we are born naturally 'deductive'.

As our brains develop and SERIAL communications takes over, so we move 'left' and into the realm of inductive/abductive dynamics, highly differentiating.

This realm is (a) very XOR and (b) focused on the IMP (implies) operator - the operator that allows us to pre-empt situations etc (within probabilities of success! ;-))

Induction works off building something from 'nothing'. Abduction works off finding a local something and ASSUMING there is a hypothesis that describes it or else immediately connecting that local with a hypothesis and so validating/invalidating that hypothesis.

It is from the realm of the particular that paradox emerges (http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/paradox.html)

phew -- I think all of the above answers your questions! ;-)

Chris.
 

luz

visitor
Joined
Jan 31, 1970
Messages
778
Reaction score
0
Hi Chris,

There's a lot to read up there!
.
Do you copy/paste a lot? you can't possibly type so much.
I just skimmed through it all a little bit and will read it more carefully now. But what did catch my attention was this:

<font color="0000ff">"Ask the questioner. Mapping the universals gives an IDEA IN GENERAL about a situation. What the questioner then does with that is up to them; they can adopt the change to fit in to the context, or move on, or try to assert their own context over the existing - IOW they can COEXIST, or REPLACE, or MOVE ON. "</font>

That's an interestnig idea... I mean, the same can be said about any interpretation of a reading but the interpretations are usually more 'opinionated' than that...

well, I have some reading to do.
 

luz

visitor
Joined
Jan 31, 1970
Messages
778
Reaction score
0
Dobro,
FWIW, I totally agree with you. The one thing that bothers me the most about religion is the illusion of certainty. I really believe that nobody on this Earth knows much about what the ultimate big picture is really about. We can only be humble in the things that we believe or that we want to believe. I want to believe that if there is an intelligence it behaves the same towards everyone. I have never bought the notion that God loves you only if you love him. It fits more with my notion that the Universe 'exists', that it's guided by unknowable laws but that the things in them can't help but just 'be', in a non-judgemental, selfless way. A God or Intelligence that shows preference for those that are aware of him doesn't make sense to me. Unless, of course, it's all a figment of our imagination and the Intelligence or the God is not one but one for each living being and it's really a part of us that we only unleash if we 'believe'.
I can't say it enough, I'm aware this is just MHO.
 

pakua

visitor
Joined
Aug 26, 1972
Messages
359
Reaction score
0
"we see very little of reality. We see just a tiny little bit of what's really going on, and even that tiny little bit is probably distorted. We get hints, nothing more. "

Maybe there's nothing really going on


Maybe we're just imagining it all!
 

dobro p

visitor
Joined
May 19, 1972
Messages
3,043
Reaction score
3
Lightangel -

"I have never bought the notion that God loves you only if you love him. It fits more with my notion that the Universe 'exists', that it's guided by unknowable laws but that the things in them can't help but just 'be', in a non-judgemental, selfless way. A God or Intelligence that shows preference for those that are aware of him doesn't make sense to me."

Well, it doesn't make sense to me either. I was just being slightly provocative earlier. What I *really* think is this: the reality that people call 'God' is essentially love, or some energy very much like love, and this love is available to everybody. The thing is, not everybody knows this; in fact, very few people know it. Which reduces the whole thing to the level of belief for most people. Anyway, it's not so much that God favors people who believe in God, it's more that people who perceive the essential unity of everything whose essential nature is love, well, those people have a far more gracious existence than the rest of us. They're integrated, they're more at peace, and they're more 'light' and loving. Their lives are better. God doesn't love them better. But they love God better, and so their lives are better. I'm using very traditional language here, but you get my point. (I'd like to use different language, cuz the 'G' word seems to put off so many Brits, but I don't want to have to invent an entire worldview just for the sake of the squeamish lol.)

Anyway, translate the above into Yi work. It means that people who see the intelligence that informs not only the Yi, not only the person consulting the Yi, but the whole universe - well, those people will be seeing everything more clearly and will be more in tune with the cosmos (which is one of the main aims of the Yi, if I understand it). They will get better results from their use of the oracle than the people who don't see that intelligence at work - the people who see it as random.

That's my understanding. It's not a humble opinion; I really think I've got it right lol. But I don't *know* I've got it right. Not only that, I've been thinking I've had it right for years, but my view of things keeps changing lol. So I don't insist, cuz I know that no matter how certain I feel about it, I don't really see things very clearly or completely at all.
 

luz

visitor
Joined
Jan 31, 1970
Messages
778
Reaction score
0
I agree with all of the above. Including the fact that our humble opinions are really our understandings. They have to be. One has to have some degree of certainty but still be open to the notion to one might be wrong...
And yeah, God is a controversial word but it's hard to find another one that represents the concept.
I thought YOU were maybe british, living in Singapore and all... (yes I do look at the profiles)
 

martin

visitor
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
0
Randomness? Deus ex machina!
If we can't explain something we call it 'random' and that gives us the feeling that we have explained it.
The odd thing is that those who don't believe in this socalled randomness are seen as superstitious or involved in 'magical thinking'.
But believing that you have tamed the Unknown when you have put a label on it, how superstitious and magical is that?
 

dobro p

visitor
Joined
May 19, 1972
Messages
3,043
Reaction score
3
Lightangel - no, I'm Canadian, and very soon to be moving back to Canada. Brrrr!

Martin - exactly, and exactly!
 

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

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

Top