Please... some input concerning Hex 55....

[lightofreason]

...Other people find a materialist perspective to be too contrived, and remain open to the possibility of unknown, personal signficiance in divination.

IC is a FINITE resource that reflects determinist qualities. ALL unknowns are KNOWN in the form of what we can use to *describe* them. As such the IC covers 4096 possible categories for ANYTHING where the original description is in the form of a dichotomy. Our SINGULAR natures, and so individual consciousness, can paint these categories to give them "personal significance" and so we extract difference from sameness through relabelling.

That is the way we, as a conscious species, works. We can NEVER known anything OUTSIDE of our categories of differentiating/integrating (yang/yin) since we will interpret any such categories from WITHIN ours - THAT can elicit paradox (http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/paradox.html )

However, the SCOPE of what the yang/yin dichotomy can cover is so wide, so deep, that its limits are not really an issue - unless one does not like the feel of being in any way 'constrained'. ;-)

Note that if the development from idealist perspectives of some form of 'consciousness' or 'god' outside of us (as covered in such texts as Tippler's "The Physics of Immortality" or De Chardin's works - IOW there is no 'god' but we are making one!) the forms of descriptions will STILL fall within the yang/yin bounds since that is hard coded in us and is reflected in any products of us.

Chris.

 

[pakua]

Autumn,

"Other people find a materialist perspective to be too contrived, and remain open to the possibility of unknown, personal signficiance in divination."

fwiw, I myself (always have, although less so lately) lean towards the idea that there is more, divinity, etc, but I also remain open to the idea that there may be nothing, nothing at all.

I haven't seen one iota of "proof" that there is more, but in fact Chris's "proofs" make compelling arguments for the materialist point of view, at least to this layman.

I think we all know how great the human capacity is to twist anything into "personal significance".

 

[pakua]

Chris,

"Try the Emotional IC in these situations "

As mentioned before, I can't use those questions... I don't trust the conscious mind.

 

[autumn]

Here is what I consider..certainly the symbols of the IC resonate with and correlate with the hardwiring of the brain, and all possible finite thought- (though how truly comprehensively, I don't know that that can be or has been examined). However, so do many symbolic systems. Take the alphabet and the capacity for language that resonates with the structure of the brain and the mechanics of information processing.

I am not convinced there is anything about dichotomies that resonate more closely with human information processes than other symbolic systems. But, that's the argument Chris has, and I'm not necessarily staunchly opposed to it. Perhaps the differentiation of sensory information through the recursion of dichotomies functions most closely to nuerobiological functioning. Who knows.

The problem is from where meaning is derived in the 'received answer' to an i-ching query. Is there the introduction of specific facts that are previously unknown and unknowable by the brain doing the query, or is that impossible? Can something meaningless (random number generation) create and communicate specific meaning? No, something that is not conscious, something that is not inherently meaningful, cannot communicate meaning, it can only serve as catalyst for the subconscious to create meaning. What has happened when meaning appears that could not have been knowable? You have two choices- rationalize this- and trust your reason- that in fact this could not have happened and in fact your subconscious mind truly did know the answer- or consider that something both meaningful and purposeful is creating the answer outside of one's own consciousness.

 

[pakua]

"You have two choices"

Isn't there a third choice - you created an answer out of nothing; as some have said, the image made you think outside your box. If I understand Chris's theory correctly, you create that answer automatically because of how the brain is wired, and in fact the whole system is created automatically because of how the brain is wired.

"Can something meaningless (random number generation) create and communicate specific meaning? "

How about when you see an omen- for example, two birds fly across your path, and immediately you realize something... is that not just as random and meaningless? Yet many wise people follow omens.

Or the whole system of astrology - planets moving and creating random angles with each other and going through imaginary signs and houses.

Either everything is random or it is not. Who knows?

People seem to love seeing patterns everywhere, and where none exist they make them up.

And then there's random but connected - the possibilities seem endless

 

[autumn]

I guess you didn't understand what I was saying. The "third" choice you mentioned is stated here:

You have two choices- rationalize this- and trust your reason- that in fact this could not have happened and in fact your subconscious mind truly did know the answer- or consider that something both meaningful and purposeful is creating the answer outside of one's own consciousness.

If I understand Chris's theory correctly, you create that answer automatically because of how the brain is wired, and in fact the whole system is created automatically because of how the brain is wired.

Well, projective analysis is not Chris' theory, and that's the theory you've stated. But-

This is my response: "Can something meaningless (random number generation) create and communicate specific meaning? No. Therefore..."

If you divine, and you believe you've received an "answer", there are two choices- either the answer was generated by your brain or it was NOT generated by your brain.

If you pick up the telephone, same two choices. When you hear someone ask you if you'd like to have your carpets cleaned, either your brain is reacting to a stimulus from another sentient being, or it is NOT. (If it is NOT, then you are hallucinating).

The question is this- if I ask the I-ching what is going to happen, and I receive an an answer I understand, and believe I have pre-knowledge of the event- and in fact I am correct- was my "pre- knowledge" experience elicited through focusing on the general idea of a hexagram and creating the "best fit" with my specific situation, (Chris and Freud), or did I know things I could not have known subconsciously?

It's quite simple to test the question. You simply ask many questions about things that you cannot know the answers to, and see how accurate you are.

 

[lightofreason]

Chris,

"Try the Emotional IC in these situations "

As mentioned before, I can't use those questions... I don't trust the conscious mind.

;-) that is why it is about emotions and the questions are so vague. The questions serve as coathangers upon which your feelings (working sub/un consciously) will hang emotional choices that will give a symbol (hexagram) representing the emotions perception of what is going on. You will be surprised at how easy it all works - sometimes the response fits your conscious assessment, other times it will give you an answer you did not expect but recognise it as valid (your consciousness censors and it will recognise censored material such that it can be embarassing ;-))

Chris.

 

[martin]

People seem to love seeing patterns everywhere, and where none exist they make them up.

Yes, but we also love to deny the existence of such patterns and the idea that what happens is on the whole random and meaningless can be very attractive sometimes.

I think, if we see an omen in everything that happens, that is illusion.
But the opposite, the belief that it is all 'coincidence' is also an illusion.
The truth - or reality - is somewhere in the middle?

Where this 'somewhere' is - today it's here, tomorrow it's there.
It seems that my 'middle' is always changing.

 

[lightofreason]

This is my response: "Can something meaningless (random number generation) create and communicate specific meaning? No. Therefore..."

If you divine, and you believe you've received an "answer", there are two choices- either the answer was generated by your brain or it was NOT generated by your brain.

The term 'believe' is the main point here in that it covers the imagined as it does the real. Furthermore, the feedback dynamics of your brain allow for creating a hybrid model that mixes the real with the imagined.

As for brain dynamics - if I take two words from a dictionary and place them side by side, either (a) they will have obvious, immediate, literal, meaning or (b) over time my brain will try to interprete them figuratively. This reflects our DRIVE to interpret and we will grab whatever we can to do so - even invent spiritual beings to explain the influence of small changes in context on our instincts/habits - see:

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

Also see the page on paradox where our sense of arguement seems to reflect issues of experiencing A/NOT-A and a need to resolve it by rhetoric alone! (http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/paradox.html )

If you pick up the telephone, same two choices. When you hear someone ask you if you'd like to have your carpets cleaned, either your brain is reacting to a stimulus from another sentient being, or it is NOT. (If it is NOT, then you are hallucinating).

No. More issues of feedback here in that you could mis-hear 'carpets' for 'armpits' and interpret the call differently, call in the police etc etc and all based on misinterpretation of what you brain is saying and what the stimulus is about.

The question is this- if I ask the I-ching what is going to happen,

-- so the I Ching is a living entity is it? you literally talk to it and it talks back? arnt you mixing imagined and real here? ;-) - a bit of anthropomorphism going on? - the IC is a product of OUR minds and so contains a lot of input. As such it can 'reflect' the aggrgates of all of those minds but in doing so it will bring out their SAMENESS not their DIFFERENCES. What we sense in general is the sameness and so a 'rapport' can develop that gives the IC 'life'.

and I receive an an answer I understand,

what happens when you recieve and answer you dont understand? what is given priority, your rejection of the answer or you thinking the IC knows more and so it must be right but you dont 'get it' and so you dimiss your assessment for reconsideration of the IC assessment?

and believe I have pre-knowledge of the event- and in fact I am correct- was my "pre- knowledge" experience elicited through focusing on the general idea of a hexagram and creating the "best fit" with my specific situation, (Chris and Freud), or did I know things I could not have known subconsciously?

You know a LOT in the form of instincts/habits developed over your lifetime. You just need to trust them. The IC aids in doing that through analysis of the hexagrams etc from a philosophical position, a metaphysical position of understanding properties and methods of each hexagram as a universal. LOCAL context will colour the universals to such a degree they are hard to see from a details position, too many details hide the form, BUT part of our unconscious nature (sub conscious if you like in the form of analogy to peripheral vision) is on edge detection and so identification of the form free of details and our emotions wrapped up in instincts/habits can do that.
[/quote]

It's quite simple to test the question. You simply ask many questions about things that you cannot know the answers to, and see how accurate you are.

No. The things you ask about have structures determined by your sensory systems such that you already know a lot about them in general, the issues are in the particulars, the details and the establishing of a relationship with the context.

I can ask "Is there a God" and ALL hexagrams of the IC will give me an set covering all POSSIBLE answers to that question. LOCAL context will then select the 'best fit' for you. THEN comes the validation of that through empirical research or you just make it a 'faith' issue - you feel it is right or the IC answer fitted with your exposure to past contexts (your social group) etc etc.

We are naturally 'lazy' or more so 'conserving of energy' such that an easy answer can be accepted when it is in fact the wrong answer but to show that requires too much energy expenditure etc etc

Chris.

 

[martin]

"Can something meaningless (random number generation) create and communicate specific meaning?"

How random is it really?
The RNG that I use for hashing in one of my programs is completely predictable. It cycles through all numbers between 0 and 2^64-1 (all numbers that can be represented by 64 bits) in a fixed order, same order in every cycle.
I assume that I Ching programs use the same principle: they cycle through 64*64 numbers (each number represents a pair of hexagrams) and always in the same order.
Or through 4 numbers if they generate hexagrams line by line.

If we assume that we - when we divine - are connected to some kind of intelligence (external or part of ourself) that is much faster than the cycling of the RNG, that intelligence could send a pulse to our muscles that makes us click the mouse at the right time, when the RNG produces the number that corresponds to the number of the hexagram pair it wants to show us.

Nothing random there, the only problem with this 'explanation' is that super fast intelligence. Does it exist? Why not?

What if we use coins or yarrow stalks? Umm, well, I will explain that soon.

 

[autumn]

No. The things you ask about have structures determined by your sensory systems such that you already know a lot about them in general, the issues are in the particulars, the details and the establishing of a relationship with the context

No. Most of the questions people ask of their own lives and most of the questions about others' lives that are posted have enough information to cold read. But it is entirely possible to ask a question that you cannot know the answer to, and to test the accuracy of a conclusion that a mind reached intuitively (rather than the hexagram fit) based on a reading. In the very few and far between but real controlled studies that have taken place on people who "divine" information- even the question is blind. Simply the fact that all possible answers were represented by a symbolic system- (or finite knowledge- for that matter-) does not explain repeated accuracy of intuitive readings when those readings are blind to any input from the querent.

No. More issues of feedback here in that you could mis-hear 'carpets' for 'armpits' and interpret the call differently, call in the police etc etc and all based on misinterpretation of what you brain is saying and what the stimulus is about.

Detracts from the point. The question is what is going on - is the information source you are connecting to in a reading your subconscious mind as created by the functioning of the brain, and thus limited in knoweledge of others' inner states and future events, or is that not an adequate explanation. This was an illustration to attempt to explain the point of the question.

what happens when you recieve and answer you dont understand?

That almost never happens to me, so I can't answer that question from a personal perspective. But, I have had readings where the meaning was entirely clear- but I believed the reading/conclusion- had to be dead wrong. It was counter-intuitive. Later, and only after distinct, suprising, unknown future events had unfolded, the meaning became clear. That pattern doesn't fit well with the hypothesis that the subconscious mind was resolving an issue and assigning meaning on its own, unless you want to argue that we all have latent subconscious abilities to predict essentially rationally unpredictable events. And, I guess some people need to rationalize to that extreme.

- a bit of anthropomorphism going on?

I sense a bit of projected shame. Embrace that inner child. Healthy integration of the early childhood developmental stage should result in a balance of skepticism and open-mindedness, not disdain of openness, and not cynically labelling openness with labels designed to imply inferior, anti-intellectual thinking .

I can ask "Is there a God" and ALL hexagrams of the IC will give me an set covering all POSSIBLE answers to that question.

Thanks for jogging my memory. There have been at least two questions- one more philosophical- the other very mundane- that were asked by one person here, and then independently by others- that had identical and near-identical hexagram results. It was really interesting. I understand it's very easily reasoned away by you,of course, and that's ok. But it's interesting to me so I'm posting it.

 

[pakua]

"I guess you didn't understand what I was saying. The "third" choice you mentioned is stated here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by autumn
You have two choices- rationalize this- and trust your reason- that in fact this could not have happened and in fact your subconscious mind truly did know the answer- or consider that something both meaningful and purposeful is creating the answer outside of one's own consciousness. "

I guess I still don't understand.

I'm saying the third choice is that you make up the answer. It does not come from the subconscious mind, it either comes from creative thinking, or it comes from the hard-wiring of the brain ie you don't have a choice. Don't you think that's possible?

" projective analysis is not Chris' theory, and that's the theory you've stated"

What's projective analysis?

"The question is this- if I ask the I-ching what is going to happen, and I receive an an answer I understand, and believe I have pre-knowledge of the event- "

Maybe it is not pre-knowledge. Maybe it's just a reasonable normal outcome of the situation as it evolves, whether it evolves randomly or not.

Anyway I don't really see it as getting an answer - I see it more as fleshing out a situation.

 

[pakua]

Yes, but we also love to deny the existence of such patterns and the idea that what happens is on the whole random and meaningless can be very attractive sometimes.

I think, if we see an omen in everything that happens, that is illusion.
But the opposite, the belief that it is all 'coincidence' is also an illusion.
The truth - or reality - is somewhere in the middle?

Where this 'somewhere' is - today it's here, tomorrow it's there.
It seems that my 'middle' is always changing.

"Co-incidentally" , I just happened to notice this in the paper last night, after I wrote my post:

"The great French molecular biologist and Nobel Prize winner, Francois Jacob, believes "the human brain is hardwired for order." We find chaos or disorder frightening"

If the middle is always changing, aren't you just making it up as to how it suits you, picking and choosing what you like?

 

[pakua]

" In the very few and far between but real controlled studies that have taken place on people who "divine" information- even the question is blind. Simply the fact that all possible answers were represented by a symbolic system- (or finite knowledge- for that matter-) does not explain repeated accuracy of intuitive readings when those readings are blind to any input from the querent."

It seems we don't even need to worry about whether we're asking a good or correct question, the answer will arrive.

Maybe we don't even need the question, just make the cast???

 

[autumn]

Maybe we don't even need the question, just make the cast??

These are general readings that have been transcribed by researches at VERITAS. No, they had no questions.

I'm saying the third choice is that you make up the answer. It does not come from the subconscious mind, it either comes from creative thinking, or it comes from the hard-wiring of the brain ie you don't have a choice. Don't you think that's possible?

Of course. But it's not a third choice. It's the same thing. The answer is coming from YOU and YOU are a finite brain. The "rational" explanation, in other words, in terms of "today's" knowledge about the universe.

 

[lightofreason]

""The great French molecular biologist and Nobel Prize winner, Francois Jacob, believes "the human brain is hardwired for order." We find chaos or disorder frightening")

The dynamics are in the CONTAINMENT of noise where that containment guarantees the emergence of order in the form of self-referencing (Google "chaos game") The hard wiring emerges over time where each level of contaiment will eilcit the same dynamics and so also elicit isomorphisms - thus reviewing molecular biology (RNA/DNA) or particle physics (fermions/bosons) we wil find the same behaviours in general - and so the ability of one perspective to serve as a source of analogy/metaphor for any other (thus we can see the IC in anything, anything in the IC)

Chris.

 

[lightofreason]

...Maybe we don't even need the question, just make the cast???

Ya starting to get it! ;-) The emotional IC starts with no particular question but a consideration of the general situation and so the properties/methods to which ANY question is applied.

In the 'ask no questions, just cast' the cast will give all hexagrams as an answer but no ability by consciousness to ground it in some context - IOW you need a question to 'collapse the wave function' OR a sequence of generic questions about a situation to do the same.

Just reading the IC with no particular question is a philosophy act, more associated with metaphysics, in the consideration of the properties/methods of each hexagram as a universal. This is hard to do with the traditional material since it is written in a Q/A format with a bias to 10th century BC ancient China history, legends, myths etc - there is no supply of a spectrum of each hexagram etc to give details on that hexagram as a universal, a general, as done with IC+

You cannot ask the Emotional IC about your boyfriend/girlfriend etc etc since these are particulars too local, too tied to YOU consciously. You CAN ask your emotions to paint a picture of the environment, the situation, and then consciousness can link the dots - sometimes unexpectedly in that censorship is going on.

Thus the emotional state of 'loss of boyfriend' can elicit the same hexagram as 'loss of pet dog' but consciousness then fills in the local history that differentiates boyfriend from dog. The spectrum of the hexagram covers all properties and methods of that hexagram and so a prediction in general as to where things are going (if at all)

Resolving the discomfort of emotions is through consciousness regulating which it can do now supplied with the general history of what is going on (properties of the hexagram) and so not be too overwhelmed emotionally whilst trying to work things out - to move on, or to fight or to let things flow and go with that flow.

TO summarise waht is covered in the emotional IC pages, an issue re extreme emotional experience can be a lack of history that goes with the emotion. Using the IC as a general advisor gives you general history and so GROUNDS things and allows consciousness to function without being overwhelmed too much; there is no 'superdeterminism' operating on each individual (genetics is a determinism but in particular/general, not singular), there IS choice of action, to be reactive/proactive or a mix of strategies.

Note that asking no question and just casting is equivalent to asking a question through random/miraculous methods such that, since all hexagrams apply to the moment, so the cast with no question can elicit meaning in the form of self-referencing - i.e. comments on the cast with no question! ;-) - gets into psychoanalysis - if you are late for the session you are passive-aggressive, early means you are anxious, and on time means compulsive/obsessive - you cannnot escape! (other than not playing the game by not going in the first place!)\

Chris
.

 

[lightofreason]

Thanks for jogging my memory. There have been at least two questions- one more philosophical- the other very mundane- that were asked by one person here, and then independently by others- that had identical and near-identical hexagram results. It was really interesting. I understand it's very easily reasoned away by you,of course, and that's ok. But it's interesting to me so I'm posting it.

As mentioned to pakua, the same hexagram can cover the loss of a human relationship as it can the loss of a pet dog. The EMOTIONAL content lacks precision in particularising, or more so, singularising, dog or person, it is CONSCIOUSNESS that does that.

The set of possible outcomes in the IC is 8 to 64 to 4096 possible GENERIC states. Thus a state of joy or grief will map to particular hexagrams in that the EMOTION is what links them together. Furthermore, the formation of categories of meaning from self-referencing guarantees the perception of all is linked together - that does not mean it is necessarily so 'out there' but it does mean we can perceive it as such through our method of knowing - self-referencing.

Given the containment of noise elicits order dynamic so at any level of containment we will find the same general patterns as at all other levels of containment and THAT will elicit thoughts of 'all is linked together' where the fact is the METHOD does the linking.

The development of information is from senses to neurology to categories to concepts to cognition. THEN comes customisation through emotions and on to the communication through symbols/metaphors where the tightness of fit can make the figurative to be taken literally - and in an evolution sense this is acceptable in that it allows for the SYMBOL of something to elicit the same response as the original experience with that something - BUT it does not make the symbol the thing and so we can confuse map with territory.

The IC representations, as a language, represent 'all there is' such that, since 'all there is' is more than 4096 items - thus the IC representations cover the literal as well as the figurative - a hexagram in its own context can be taken literally, whereas in another context it serves as a metaphor for a quality expressed in that different context and so skewed in expression by such.

It is our consciousness and reason that gives us precision - the frontal lobes and PFC areas show us the evolution of regulation of emotions or more so the ability to learn regulation - and so the issues of unlearned freedom vs learned freedom. Anarchy through democracy to totalitarianism.

Without any learning so emotion can run free - if I see someone in the street I dont like I can walk up and shoot them or smack them in the mouth etc or I can rape someone that turns me on - IOW there is no delay of gratification.

BUT the frontal lobes etc FAVOUR such a delay - delayed gratification overall is shown to be of benefit economically and socially etc., and as the Emotional IC shows there is usefulness is fleshing out basic, species-level, emotional responses to situations BUT one needs to recognise they serve the individual and lack precision that consciousness deals with - in other words the dynamics of 'genetic needs' vs 'social needs' differentiate nature/nurture and so the yang of 'freedom', exploitation etc from the security, the protection, of yin.

Knowing the full spectrum of the IC hexagrams/dodecagrams, not their specialist formats but their general species-wide properties allows for developing a moral/ethical dynamic free of local contexts where the set of universals then serve as the bedrock for social development, allowing for local context to specialise. Without that you get what we have today - competitive contexts run on lack of discipline since there has been little education of frontal lobe/PFC areas (and so the price of not educating high precision areas, areas that operate more at the blue end of the energy spectrum and so are prone to scattering - and so we have these areas associated with ADD/ADHD issues etc - it is also possible (likely) that over-education in the form of excesssive information stimulation, the demand for quick learning without structuring of such, can also lead to the same issues in that these areas are still developing into our 20s so being too hasty can also cause problems!)

What CAN be done is setting down some GENERIC structure that shows all of the information is nine times out of ten re-information, same stuff, different packaging. This can aid in reduction of anxiety etc and an ease in picking up 'new' things in that all that is 'new' will, from a categories/concepts position, have roots in categories created in our brains - same hexagrams, different contexts, same GENERAL emotional dynamics with consciousness dealing with the details.

Chris.

 

[martin]

What always amazes me about people who hold a materialist or similar position is that they so often refuse to admit that they 'believe' in anything.
Those who have a more spiritual or idealist view are 'believers' but materialists (or similar) are not?!

"Awareness is a byproduct of somatic processes and can in pinciple be fully explained that way. We cannot explain it now, but we will surely be able to do so in the future."

Maybe, but nobody has yet offered a satisfactory explanation.
Can we explain it tomorrow? Perhaps!
It's all belief, isn'it?


As far as we know a computer is unaware, no matter which program we run on the thing. There is 'nobody there'.
If the brain, or the body as a whole, indeed generates awareness then what does the brain/body have that computers don't have?
Some form of 'selfreference' (the word is used in different ways, which can be confusing) is probably implied but that is not enough to explain awareness, because a machine or a computer program can also selfreference, build and use internal representations of itself, and so on.

Then what is it, awareness, being awake? Where does it come from?
All we know for sure is that certain areas of the brain are involved. If there is damage in one of those areas we might slide into a coma, have problems with our wake/sleep rythm, and so on.
So the brain (at least some parts of it) should be intact, that is a necessary condition. But that doesn't imply that the brain actually generates awareness.
My TV set needs to be intact to receive images. Necessary condition. But it doesn't produce these images ..

Of course theories abound. Some say that awareness will automatically emerge at some point when complexity increases. Others dive into the quantum world and hope that they can catch the elusive fish there.
Still others try to argue that there is really no such thing as awareness ...

All pretty speculative.

 

[pakua]

Autumn,

Ok, I guess I should give up, but I'm really curious as to what I'm missing.

Your two choices:

1. "your subconscious mind truly did know the answer"

2. "something both meaningful and purposeful is creating the answer outside of one's own consciousness"

I assume you're saying my hardwiring choice or my creative thinking choice (creating the answer out of nothing) is the same as your #1 - accessing the subconscious?

Why are you saying they are the same, outside of the obvious that they all originate from inside?

 

[autumn]

Why are you saying they are the same, outside of the obvious that they all originate from inside?

Yes, that's why- but that's pretty profound. Why would anyone ask a question of coins? What meaning is there in the resulting symbol? According to Chris, all symbols are equally potentially meaningful, and the brain (through a combination of conscious creativity and subconscious assignment of meaning) resolves inherent anxiety by perceiving an answer to the question in the symbol.

If that is true, then why ask predictive questions, or questions about unknoweable answers? The only reason why anyone would ask a question like that and fantasize an answer would be because they are choosing to employ projetive analysis, a technique pioneered by Freud. They think perhaps their brain is smarter than consciousness.

But if that's all your doing, why use random coin tosses? If that's what you are doing, then you should be able to choose the hexagrams consciously and meditate on them. That's what Chris' emotional IC does.

What I am saying is that explanation is insufficient for me, because I believe it is highly unlikely that the brain (as we understand it) is capable of predicting the future or knowing information about world events or others' inner states. I believe it is more likely that the perception of being a separate brain that does not know certain things is illusory, and that we are tapping an interconnected source of real knowledge- not fantasy.

 

[lightofreason]

Yes, that's why- but that's pretty profound. Why would anyone ask a question of coins? What meaning is there in the resulting symbol? According to Chris, all symbols are equally potentially meaningful, and the brain (through a combination of conscious creativity and subconscious assignment of meaning) resolves inherent anxiety by perceiving an answer to the question in the symbol.

If that is true, then why ask predictive questions, or questions about unknoweable answers?

Resonance. The categories of meaning 'in here' have been derived from adaptations to the environment and as such are reflected 'out there'. The categories, derived from self-referencing, and concepts (rules linking categories) form cognition. FUrther adaptation move us into the communication of cognition through the non-verbal realm of basic emotions and on into symbolisms and metaphors.

Semiotics gives us the dynamics of signs from their iconic form (what you see is what you get) through the indicative forms (signs as pointers etc) and on to symbolic forms (sign has no obvious realation to what it represents, becomes highly specialist, socially and/or personally subjective) See anything by Charles Peirce (or see http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/peirce.html )

As the XOR material shows, the generic forms, the universals, come with properties and methods that include, for example, a vague sense of purpose BUT to access that information you need to identify the 'best fit' hexagram for a situation and you WONT do that consistantly using random/miraculous methods (coins etc).

Furthermore, the sense of purpose is associated with the statistical dynamics of a collective - it does not apply to the individual but to the collective that forms 'like' individuals. The example I have given in the past is to the millions of sperm out to fertilse one egg. Nature works in numbers to ensure deterministic processes work.

For humans, we, as species members, form specialist collectives the traits of which are detected in our typologies (MBTI, Big-5, HBDI etc etc etc) - thus the ability through IDM to map hexagrams to MBTI categories in that the mapping reflects the use of self-referencing of dichotomies to elicit the categories.

THEN comes 'us' - our unique, singular, natures. At this level we can ask questions of our selves to customise. zoom-in, on meanings applicable, in GENERAL, to a situation and our consciousness fills in the details. (as done in the Emotional I Ching)

The only reason why anyone would ask a question like that and fantasize an answer would be because they are choosing to employ projetive analysis, a technique pioneered by Freud. They think perhaps their brain is smarter than consciousness.

It is an old perspective understood by shamans etc but it was clearly identified by Freud/Jung etc where the only way to communicate with the unconscious was through projection and the possible communications through projection etc are described in the section in the Emotional I Ching preamble page. Our consciousness is but a PART of our nature as a communicating species where a LOT is communicated through the face etc given the chance - we dont do it much since we learn to talk and use that - but 55%+ of communication is STILL non-verbal.

But if that's all your doing, why use random coin tosses?

tradition. The original methods of yarrowe sticks etc was 'refined', made more efficient through coin tossing etc. There was no question as to the core 'magic' of the IC at the time - now we have 3000+ years of neurosciences, psychology, anthropology etc etc etc and so can see the attraction of the 'random/miraculous' method in that understnading how the brain deals with wholes etc so we see ALL hexagrams apply and can elicit meaning given ANY question - and if the hexagram is nearer the 'worst fit' end of the 64-hexagram sequence it will STILL elicit meaning with conscousness force-fitting the hexagram into the situation.

What I am saying is that explanation is insufficient for me, because I believe it is highly unlikely that the brain (as we understand it) is capable of predicting the future or knowing information about world events or others' inner states.

...then you dont understand resonance nore the properties and methods of the core categories that are expressed in the trigrams/hexagrams. Identify the 'best fit' and there will be general, collective level, purpose identified. THEN it becomes your singular choice to stay with things, leave the context, or try to assert your own context.

The point here is the nature of your SINGULAR being as compared to your PARTICULAR/GENERAL being that is strongly linked to determinism.

I believe it is more likely that the perception of being a separate brain that does not know certain things is illusory, and that we are tapping an interconnected source of real knowledge- not fantasy.

Not exactly - you fail to pick up the need for purity to establish the links. THAT is the issue here - the use of traditional methods reflects attempts to score a 'snow in the sahara' prediction at every attempt - no can do. And so the IDM focus is more consistant, can pick up 'normal' as well as exceptions but all applied to a GENERAL perspective that consciousness then grounds in the local.

Search the archives for comments of the purity issues as manifest in:

(1) research on identical twins
(2) research on lab rats (Sheldrake etc)
(3) resesrch on cancer cells
(4) research on the old methods of creating radio crystals
(5) resesrch on quantum mechanics dynamics

These allow for communication across space-like distances in that time/distance does not exist, only correlation exists.

In the IDM material, since a degree of collective, statistical, purpose exists in hexagrams so there is scope for prediction of events and then YOU as a 'random singular' being can make your choices. BUT the 'random/miraculous' methods lack consistancy in getting the 'best fit' needed to identify the patterns and make choices.

Chris.

 

[martin]

I believe it is more likely that the perception of being a separate brain that does not know certain things is illusory, and that we are tapping an interconnected source of real knowledge- not fantasy.

Perhaps it is better to think of ourselves, not as bodies that know, but as 'knowing fields' that surround the body and extend into space as well as into time, past and future.
We are not (in) the body, the body is in us.

As a field we can actually be present at different locations in space (at a distance from the body) and directly sense what is going on there, without using our physical senses.
In the same way, we can actually be present in the past and directly know it, without the need to access memories.
And we can know the future directly, or possible futures, because part of the field that we are is there.

Possible futures - we, as fields, extend into parallel future universes!
Of course this makes prophecy a risky business.
But .. perhaps there are also many possible pasts instead of only one. That would make looking back no less risky.

The field and its knowing is subtle. And quiet, compared to the noise of our thoughts, emotions and senses. It is very easy to overlook, overhear, oversense it.
It is very easy to mistakenly identify with the body, that noisy thing, and overknow the fact that we are the field around it.

 

[autumn]

I wasn't talking to you, Chris, but as usual, your arguments are wholly derailed and your immersion in semantics regarding the dynamics of the brain irrelevant to the point I was attempting to make.

 

[bruce_g]

Over-knowing, that’s an interesting idea, which sounds a bit like over-eating or over-indulging in general.

As I get older I am often humorously struck at how simple ideas are made to sound so complicated and hard to grasp. Oh, I do it too. I love playing with ideas, pulling them here and there. But I have become increasingly aware that an alert child already intrinsically knows all this stuff. They don’t over-know it, though, as though making it something solid and certain. A playhouse is very real while the child plays in it, but they also know it lives almost entirely in their imagination; when they leave it they forget all about it, engaging in their next reality of the moment. Maybe it’s all as simple as that. Maybe the Yijing is a playhouse, designed to release the imagination into a landscape. I think what’s being discussed here is, is that landscape chosen or meaninglessly random? Is the imagination an integral part of order, whereby a “chosen” answer arrives? Or, does imagination live a soupy existence in chaos, whereby a “random” answer appears, from which we contrive an answer to our question?

I've tested them both, and conclude that the answer I receive is an integral part of universal order, rather than extracting meaning from radom chaos. I have a pretty good imagination, but not that good!

 

[Sparhawk]

Over-knowing, that’s an interesting idea, which sounds a bit like over-eating or over-indulging in general.

As I get older I am often humorously struck at how simple ideas are made to sound so complicated and hard to grasp. Oh, I do it too. I love playing with ideas, pulling them here and there.

LOL! Yup, that's the parting joke of all major philosophers. They had it very clear in their minds until they got old and decided to share their "insights" with the world... I'm almost sure that with the exception of Socrates, who poisoned himself with hemlock (that thing is supposed to be vile tasting...), they all died with an amused smile in their faces...

L

 

[pakua]

Autumn and Martin,

Yes, I see your points and it all sounds very nice, "knowing fields", "inter-connected knowledge (the old Akashic records thingie?)" etc. but I don't see any proof, although when I read or see the odd bit of physics or biology and so on, they do seem to corroborate these ideas, but on the other hand they also corroborate Chris's (or the materialist) ideas.

for me it all comes down to beliefs and how you get there. Whatever evidence you select and how you select it and what weight you give it is not even under your control.

It all depends on where your Mercury is

 

[autumn]

I’m going to try to articulate the point one more (last?) time in case I wasn’t clear. Yes- it all comes down to belief. I believe you are right, Pakua.

Why would anyone ask questions, flip coins, and perceive an answer in the patterns?

If I do so because I believe I am talking to my brain- whatever you call it- imagination, subconscious drives, accessing secret codes that unlock the source of all possible knowledge within the recursive dichotomies of neuronal function…..

Well then I better ask a question my brain knows the answer to, or I’m not going to get an answer that makes any sense.

If I see a really hot guy sitting across the room and I ask the I-ching, “am I going to marry that really hot guy sitting there?”- then either I believe that my brain can legitimately answer the question because my brain is the source of all knowledge (Chris et al.) and my brain could actually know the future and how the really hot guy feels about me- or my answer isn’t very meaningful- since it comes from my limited knowledge of my own inner state and the present. My brain doesn’t know the future. My brain doesn’t know the inner states of others.

So, why would I waste my time asking my self (brain) questions that my self (brain) cannot know the answer to?

Because I believe in God, and that God talks, and God is not my brain. That’s the argument I have with Chris.

 

[Sparhawk]

If I see a really hot guy sitting across the room and I ask the I-ching, “am I going to marry that really hot guy sitting there?”-

Hmmmm, must be me you are eyeballing... Then, why ask?? Where is the sense of adventure; the fluttering sensation of a fling? And no, I cannot marry you, sorry...

L

PS: hey, don't blame me, I can't resist that kind wording hooks... I'll die by my fingertips...

 

[autumn]

Hmmmm, must be me you are eyeballing... Then, why ask?? Where is the sense of adventure; the fluttering sensation of a fling? And no, I cannot marry you, sorry...

Ah. My loss, Mrs. Sparhawk's gain.