...life can be translucent

Menu

reading spiritual books

elvis

(deceased)
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
241
Reaction score
1
What you call "the language of the I Ching" is based on the idea that the I Ching was created by the human mind not higher mind. To understand its symbolism it is necessary to penetrate beyond any culturally influenced interpretations that developed historically.

The Emotional I Ching (EIC) is based on considerations of the human brain and nothing more. GIVEN the neurology and its senses what can be achieved WITHOUT consideration of the many interpretations of what is going on, all of which have been grounded in a LACK of understanding the human brain and so what is going on 'in here'.

The EIC demonstrates that a LOT can be achieved WITHOUT consideration of traditional/mystical perspectives REGARDLESS of their 'truth'. IOW I don't NEED occult/mystical material to get the IC to elicit value in its assessments of my situations.

In the EIC my assessment is grounded in emotions and is then translated, using the IDM template, into an I Ching representation that, through the use of logic operators, can give me access to a lot of details NOT OBVIOUS in the emotional, holistic, experience and NOT covered in the traditional material that forms the ground of traditional I Ching dogma.

IOW there is no NEED for belief in a 'higher mind' creating the I Ching - we can show it to be a NATURAL product of a HUMAN MIND but that mind lacking understanding of what is going on neurologically and so creating stories through analogies to local history/legends/myths - as most 'primitive' tribes will do. (e.g. see the prose of a rabbi covering the dynamics of angels when from a neurological perspective we are seeing the encoding of instincts/habits in neuron input areas that allow context to PUSH us. Consciousness had NO IDEA what was going on but can feel the push and so came up with a story .... The Angels Page


The play of "AS IS" vs "AS INTERPRETED" is common in us all - see such texts as:

Gazzaniga, M., Ivry, R., & Mangun, G., (1998)"Cognitive Neuroscience : The Biology of the Mind" Norton

Now if you NEED to believe in a more occult/mystical element that is fine, it is your choice, but the EIC shows how such is not necessary in getting the I Ching to work well in a scientific format.

Furthermore, the IDM/EIC material offers extension of current occult/mystical approaches through use of the EIC language capabilities (XOR/EQV etc) - IOW those perspectives can be retained and elements of the IDM/EIC material added to give a richer experience in understanding hexagram details wihin an occult/mystic context and the whole philosophical element of the I Ching.
 
Last edited:

dobro p

visitor
Joined
May 19, 1972
Messages
3,223
Reaction score
205
maybe by going back to the start and taking the advice of the very good teacher you mentioned in your first post? :bag:

what is sangha btw??


Sangha is the group. And I can't work with the teacher I mentioned so easily. He died thirty years ago. :)
 

dobro p

visitor
Joined
May 19, 1972
Messages
3,223
Reaction score
205
What spiritual book were you thinking of reading?


I read stuff all the time. It takes time though, and the reason I asked the original question is cuz that teacher I mentioned said that at a certain point, all that reading of spiritual books is actually counterproductive. I have no objection to wondering if I might be at that point. :D

Anyway, these days I'm reading Huston Smith, Nisargadatta, Adyashanti, and I'm dipping into Ruper Spira from time to time. And I've got other books lined up waiting to be read as well. I enjoy reading, and I have this idea, although maybe it's an illusion, that it's actually making a difference. So, if it's an illusion, I'd like to know about it, so that I'd cut down on the reading. Hence the Yi consultation. But right now, I'm looking at two different interpretations of what I drew, and they're quite different.
 
Last edited:

rodaki

visitor
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
2,176
Reaction score
78
thanks for further explaining, I didn't mean to disregard your dilemma but why does there have to be an either/or with this? You say you derive pleasure from reading and I have the same feeling about books. I think that everything that we do on a regular basis shapes us both in pragmatic terms (time management for example) and for me, internally too -in the way I think, interact with the world or express my ideas . . and in a sense, books are like fellowships, they accompany us, and if taken as such, also provide guidance by agreement or disagreement. I think the most extreme case where the power of books shows is that of academics . . one can see how books have shaped their whole countenance and even how deep they have dwelled in their company . .

Yi's answer was not negative about you and books as I see it, but the Creative can take all forms and shapes, no? Maybe your answer says that the Creative is present in anything that makes us feel that we have found a friend and friendships are not exclusive (as in 13.2) nor are they meant to cut us from mingling with others . .

Why not stay with what works for you and why not stay open to other sources of knowledge, as in a good teacher, if you find one you can follow?

Wilhelm 1.2:
. . what distinguishes him form the others is his seriousness of purpose, his unqualified reliability, and the influence he exerts on his environment with out conscious effort. Such a [friend] is destined to gain great influence and to set the world in order. Therefore it is favorable to see him

if I were you, I would look for the above qualities both in books, teachers, or even in other fellowships -even a pet can be like that and we can learn from it, not in the way that a book teaches us, but in the way we can learn from everything around us- and I would keep close to all the things that exemplify such traits . . but then again that is how I would read this answer, things might be different for you, and if so, just ignore this, I won't hamper this discussion further :)

:bows:
 

ginnie

visitor
Joined
Dec 2, 2008
Messages
4,342
Reaction score
307
Books are great but they are nothing without a daily practice of some kind; that's what I think. Books feed us so many ideas, but it takes so long to change that way.

One important thing we want to change is to bring more discipline to our thoughts, the famous "monkey mind," you know. This can only be attained with a coherent practice of some kind.
 
Last edited:

pantherpanther

visitor
Joined
May 2, 2008
Messages
762
Reaction score
1
The Emotional I Ching (EIC) is based on considerations of the human brain and nothing more. GIVEN the neurology and its senses what can be achieved WITHOUT consideration of the many interpretations of what is going on, all of which have been grounded in a LACK of understanding the human brain and so what is going on 'in here'.

The EIC demonstrates that a LOT can be achieved WITHOUT consideration of traditional/mystical perspectives REGARDLESS of their 'truth'. IOW I don't NEED occult/mystical material to get the IC to elicit value in its assessments of my situations.

In the EIC my assessment is grounded in emotions and is then translated, using the IDM template, into an I Ching representation that, through the use of logic operators, can give me access to a lot of details NOT OBVIOUS in the emotional, holistic, experience and NOT covered in the traditional material that forms the ground of traditional I Ching dogma.

IOW there is no NEED for belief in a 'higher mind' creating the I Ching - we can show it to be a NATURAL product of a HUMAN MIND but that mind lacking understanding of what is going on neurologically and so creating stories through analogies to local history/legends/myths - as most 'primitive' tribes will do. (e.g. see the prose of a rabbi covering the dynamics of angels when from a neurological perspective we are seeing the encoding of instincts/habits in neuron input areas that allow context to PUSH us. Consciousness had NO IDEA what was going on but can feel the push and so came up with a story .... The Angels Page


The play of "AS IS" vs "AS INTERPRETED" is common in us all - see such texts as:

Gazzaniga, M., Ivry, R., & Mangun, G., (1998)"Cognitive Neuroscience : The Biology of the Mind" Norton

Now if you NEED to believe in a more occult/mystical element that is fine, it is your choice, but the EIC shows how such is not necessary in getting the I Ching to work well in a scientific format.

Furthermore, the IDM/EIC material offers extension of current occult/mystical approaches through use of the EIC language capabilities (XOR/EQV etc) - IOW those perspectives can be retained and elements of the IDM/EIC material added to give a richer experience in understanding hexagram details wihin an occult/mystic context and the whole philosophical element of the I Ching.

>>>

You limit yourself to logical reasoning and do not see beyond the dualism of opposing binary pairs: subject/object, subjectivity/objectivity, matter/consciousness, nature/divine, simplicity/complexity, reductionism/holism, diversity/unity which have marked the history of ideas for millennia. You don't get to the roots of knowledge, or question your way of thinking and your construction and organization of knowledge. This requires a discipline of self-inquiry that integrates the knower in the process of knowing. You are trapped in cognicentrism by this focus on analytic intelligence. It is insufficent to posit the links between experiences, disciplines, creativity and ideas. One has to develop methods, strategies and practices that will transform those links into real connections. We have to recognize interdependence in order to understand it and know how to act once we have developed that recognition.

The great neuroscientist V.S. Ramachandran has suggested that the most puzzling aspect of our existence is that we can ask questions about the physical and psychological nature of the brain and the mind. And we do this as if we can somehow step outside of the parameters of our own physiology and see into consciousness. Whatever the merits of this type of research, it cannot avoid the necessity of integration. It is ironic that one of the most important of the physical sciences relating to the brain, neuroscience, has become a combination of anatomy, physiology, chemistry, biology, pharmacology and genetics and a deep interest in applying it to culture, ethics and society. Genetics also makes use of many different disciplines. The neurosciences will have to link all of their parts even further and bring genetics, the environment, and the socio-cultural context together in order to develop more complex models of mind. You have no understanding of the universality of consciousness or its scale.

There is nothing "mythic/mystical/religious/spiritual" in the knowledge I have described. Everything in the universe is material and measurable mathematically. Because of your dualistic thinking you have not observed there are three forces (passive,active and reconciling) that interact in time and space in ascending and descending directions, relating different levels or worlds and producing definite results on each level ,subject to the law of hazard. The human energy anatomy is constructed to receive and process energies from the whole universe . The human is a transmitter of the energies it receives from all levels of the cosmos or "multiverse." The human has many centers or "bodies" that relate to all the levels of universe. The physical body is neither the whole human nor is the human isolated from the life of the rest of universe. It is a functioning part of a whole, which is always changing in time according to evolutionary laws of creation and destruction, more precisely, the interaction of the three principles of positive, negative and neutralizing or passive,active and reconciling. Energy flows both upward and downward and the process is both symmetric and asymmetric.There is always present the principle of hazard, for three forces are involved - the positive, negative and neutralizing.The same laws apply to everything according to scale. "As above,so below." Different physical sciences have rediscovered "quantum entanglement" in nature,that everything interacts and communicates - even bacteria talk to each other. How consciousness works throughout the the universe and man has hardly begun to be rediscovered by modern science.

When I suggest that the I Ching is metaphorical and represents an ancient teaching, sourced from higher mind , I mean it can be a catalyst and guide to relating to a level of intelligence - beyond the mind - that perceives the working of the laws which the I Ching describes . The keys to the knowledge it represents - as the keys to other systems and teachings sourced from higher mind - have to be known .Knowing the keys is the task of the learner to discover through right discipline and practice. In the case of the I Ching we know of some of the practical methods that were taught in various schools.

The rabbi Kaplan's discourse on Angels, God , Man, Heaven and Hell, Good and Evil,the "spiritual" and "physical" worlds are addressed to ordinary members of a monotheistic, tribal culture as guidance. Their meaning can be understood if one has the keys , but not according to the template* you have constructed. What the rabbi may have known and taught to select pupils, may have been in a very different language and included practices and ideas not made available to most.

_______________________________________________________
*"Any 'ancient knowledge teaching' will conform to communications using patterns of differentiating/integrating, objects/relationships, and the composite patterns elicited from recursion of those dichotomies. The I Ching reflects that process where we can trace the process down to the neurology and from there out into the universe (the neuron reflecting 600 million years of development of a robust form of communication)"
 

pantherpanther

visitor
Joined
May 2, 2008
Messages
762
Reaction score
1
I read stuff all the time. It takes time though, and the reason I asked the original question is cuz that teacher I mentioned said that at a certain point, all that reading of spiritual books is actually counterproductive. I have no objection to wondering if I might be at that point. :D
"
Anyway, these days I'm reading Huston Smith, Nisargadatta, Adyashanti, and I'm dipping into Ruper Spira from time to time. And I've got other books lined up waiting to be read as well. I enjoy reading, and I have this idea, although maybe it's an illusion, that it's actually making a difference. So, if it's an illusion, I'd like to know about it, so that I'd cut down on the reading. Hence the Yi consultation. But right now, I'm looking at two different interpretations of what I drew, and they're quite different.

I am reminded of a teacher who said , "Work or just go to school." If you asked a question that was weak and perhaps in the head and not felt, she might say, "You think!" (Which meant you didn't think seriously, you weren't there.)
 

dobro p

visitor
Joined
May 19, 1972
Messages
3,223
Reaction score
205
thanks for further explaining, I didn't mean to disregard your dilemma but why does there have to be an either/or with this? You say you derive pleasure from reading and I have the same feeling about books. I think that everything that we do on a regular basis shapes us both in pragmatic terms (time management for example) and for me, internally too -in the way I think, interact with the world or express my ideas . . and in a sense, books are like fellowships, they accompany us, and if taken as such, also provide guidance by agreement or disagreement. I think the most extreme case where the power of books shows is that of academics . . one can see how books have shaped their whole countenance and even how deep they have dwelled in their company . .

Yi's answer was not negative about you and books as I see it, but the Creative can take all forms and shapes, no? Maybe your answer says that the Creative is present in anything that makes us feel that we have found a friend and friendships are not exclusive (as in 13.2) nor are they meant to cut us from mingling with others . .

Why not stay with what works for you and why not stay open to other sources of knowledge, as in a good teacher, if you find one you can follow?



if I were you, I would look for the above qualities both in books, teachers, or even in other fellowships -even a pet can be like that and we can learn from it, not in the way that a book teaches us, but in the way we can learn from everything around us- and I would keep close to all the things that exemplify such traits . . but then again that is how I would read this answer, things might be different for you, and if so, just ignore this, I won't hamper this discussion further :)

:bows:

Yes. Wherein this site reveals its value. I hadn't thought that it might be *both*. Thanks. :)

Also, I asked in an offshoot of this thread if the Yi can take us beyond thought. Maybe it can, maybe it can't, but by avoiding the mind's predilection for either/or thinking in this case, your reading sort of reins in the mind's worst kneejerk excess. Cheers.
 

dobro p

visitor
Joined
May 19, 1972
Messages
3,223
Reaction score
205
Books are great but they are nothing without a daily practice of some kind; that's what I think. Books feed us so many ideas, but it takes so long to change that way.

One important thing we want to change is to bring more discipline to our thoughts, the famous "monkey mind," you know. This can only be attained with a coherent practice of some kind.

That's right. Either coherent practice, or a gift of grace. But like Ouspensky used to say, yes you *can* find money in street sometimes, but it's not really a reliable source of income. :)
 

dobro p

visitor
Joined
May 19, 1972
Messages
3,223
Reaction score
205
I am reminded of a teacher who said , "Work or just go to school." If you asked a question that was weak and perhaps in the head and not felt, she might say, "You think!" (Which meant you didn't think seriously, you weren't there.)

Yeah, the best Yi results come of being seriously interested in the question, when it really matters. That's why I got a good result in this case.
 

rodaki

visitor
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
2,176
Reaction score
78
Yes. Wherein this site reveals its value. I hadn't thought that it might be *both*. Thanks. :)

Also, I asked in an offshoot of this thread if the Yi can take us beyond thought. Maybe it can, maybe it can't, but by avoiding the mind's predilection for either/or thinking in this case, your reading sort of reins in the mind's worst kneejerk excess. Cheers.

aw, you're welcome :blush:
truth is, I've received so much help myself from reading past posts from so many people in this site (yours included) that I'm only trying to give something back . . cheers it is indeed! :)
 

elvis

(deceased)
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
241
Reaction score
1
>>>

You limit yourself to logical reasoning and do not see beyond the dualism of opposing binary pairs: subject/object, subjectivity/objectivity, matter/consciousness, nature/divine, simplicity/complexity, reductionism/holism, diversity/unity which have marked the history of ideas for millennia.

(1) You obviously don't understand the methodology of recursion applied to dichotomies where what emerges is a continuum.

(2) you obviously don't understand that the neurology has three core form of basic interpretation covering the symmetry (equivalence, wholes, sameness), anti-symmetry (exclusive or, aspects, differences), and asymmetry (mediations across difference/sameness where such elicits languages) - these stem from the neurology itself and no need for some 'mystical' link to anything else.

(3) you obviously don't understand the basics of logic and the brain's use of such where there are differences between asymmetric logic and symmetric logic.

Given asymmetry so all of the 'opposing binary pairs' you mention are in fact interpretable as far-from-equilibrium/equilibrium or parts/whole relationships - in other words your limitations of 'binary pairs' fails in understanding that those pairs have THREE core forms of interpretation with anti-symmetry/symmetry dominating and asymmetry allowing for details analysis and the recursion of the 'binary pairs' give us a dimension of parts, a spectrum of the universe of discourse 'cut' in those pairings.

Thus, foe example, 'subject/object' is NOT an example of an opposing binary pair since there are qualitative differences present that map subject to particular and object to general with subject EMERGENT FROM object as anti-symmetry is from symmetry, asymmetry from anti-symmetry.

Your prose shows a level of naïveté re these issues (or perhaps more so a form of confusion due to your occult bias) and until you start to understand what is going on your prose will just present as if ramblings of out-moded perspectives.

There is nothing "mythic/mystical/religious/spiritual" in the knowledge I have described. Everything in the universe is material and measurable mathematically. Because of your dualistic thinking you have not observed there are three forces (passive,active and reconciling) that interact in time and space in ascending and descending directions, relating different levels or worlds and producing definite results on each level ,subject to the law of hazard.

My thinking 'transcends' any dualism (it is more triadic than dyadic but also understands the energy-conserving nature of dyadic and monadic perspectives). Your 'three forces' are in fact representative of symmetry (the static whole), anti-symmetry (the dynamic, local context, of parts processing), and asymmetry (the realm of mediation and language creation) where such are hard-coded properties of the neurology. The neural hierarchy present covers the play of WHY (increased abstraction) and HOW (increased concrete) as reflected in the I Ching binary number sequence (and by association to IDM, a dynamic present in our brains) - and as such covers ascending/descending (which IS a binary opposing pair) and with that the transition of levels from the basic concrete/physical to the increasingly abstract/metaphysical.

"As above,so below."

Not totally. "as above, so below" is a SYMMETRIC perspective, but consciousness is ASYMMETRIC and as such self-determining, unique, absolute difference in that each of us is NEVER repeatable and so there in no copy 'up there' or 'down here'. The basics of integration and differentiation covers patterns developed in the neurology as it has interacted with the context to elicit 'sameness' but at the CLASS level, not the level of the individual, the instance and so 'difference'.

CLASS level dynamics allow for resonances and that includes emotional resonances and so the use of the EIC to give us GENERAL assessments of situations then open to closer analysis by our unique consciousness. In other words 'as above, so below' covers the basic patterns of differentiating/integrating operating at the class level but the 'random' element is always our unique consciousness.

Of note is that if that consciousness confuses its instance with its class then that consciousness can work towards fulfilling the purpose of its class AS IF it was its own purpose. This is akin to those who categorise themselves as MBTI 'types' when they are more so unique beings emergent from such a type and so NOT such a 'type'. The properties of the CLASS are then taken as if THEIR properties and they try and live to that class 'ideal' - and in doing so miss out on the expression of their pure difference.

When I suggest that the I Ching is metaphorical and represents an ancient teaching, sourced from higher mind , I mean it can be a catalyst and guide to relating to a level of intelligence - beyond the mind - that perceives the working of the laws which the I Ching describes .

There is no NEED for such a fanciful perspective. Given the EIC work, grounded in the basics of neurology and its senses, we are at a better level of application and learning of I Ching perspectives than we have from the past, traditional, perspectives that have been grounded in basic ignorance of 'in here'. Even the ancient Greeks realised the necessity of "Know[ing] Thy Self" and neuroscience work etc offers us exactly that.

The keys to the knowledge it represents - as the keys to other systems and teachings sourced from higher mind - have to be known .Knowing the keys is the task of the learner to discover through right discipline and practice. In the case of the I Ching we know of some of the practical methods that were taught in various schools.

There is no need for such a perspective, there is no need for considering a 'higher mind' when we can identify the sources of rich details of the I Ching in the 'lower mind' of basic neurology - but a neurology operating holistically as compared to its serial, partials, format of consciousness.

The rabbi Kaplan's discourse on Angels, God , Man, Heaven and Hell, Good and Evil,the "spiritual" and "physical" worlds are addressed to ordinary members of a monotheistic, tribal culture as guidance. Their meaning can be understood if one has the keys , but not according to the template* you have constructed. What the rabbi may have known and taught to select pupils, may have been in a very different language and included practices and ideas not made available to most.

Prove it. ;) All I see here is your NEED to believe in 'hidden' knowledge etc and when faced with the facts of such knowledge now being revealed due to scientific endeavours is 'upsetting'. Not my problem dude - we all have to grow up at some time or another and that means understanding what I wrote and you have quoted below:

_______________________________________________________
*"Any 'ancient knowledge teaching' will conform to communications using patterns of differentiating/integrating, objects/relationships, and the composite patterns elicited from recursion of those dichotomies. The I Ching reflects that process where we can trace the process down to the neurology and from there out into the universe (the neuron reflecting 600 million years of development of a robust form of communication)"
 

pantherpanther

visitor
Joined
May 2, 2008
Messages
762
Reaction score
1
(1) You obviously don't understand the methodology of recursion applied to dichotomies where what emerges is a continuum.

(2) you obviously don't understand that the neurology has three core form of basic interpretation covering the symmetry (equivalence, wholes, sameness), anti-symmetry (exclusive or, aspects, differences), and asymmetry (mediations across difference/sameness where such elicits languages) - these stem from the neurology itself and no need for some 'mystical' link to anything else.

(3) you obviously don't understand the basics of logic and the brain's use of such where there are differences between asymmetric logic and symmetric logic.

Given asymmetry so all of the 'opposing binary pairs' you mention are in fact interpretable as far-from-equilibrium/equilibrium or parts/whole relationships - in other words your limitations of 'binary pairs' fails in understanding that those pairs have THREE core forms of interpretation with anti-symmetry/symmetry dominating and asymmetry allowing for details analysis and the recursion of the 'binary pairs' give us a dimension of parts, a spectrum of the universe of discourse 'cut' in those pairings.

Thus, foe example, 'subject/object' is NOT an example of an opposing binary pair since there are qualitative differences present that map subject to particular and object to general with subject EMERGENT FROM object as anti-symmetry is from symmetry, asymmetry from anti-symmetry.

Your prose shows a level of naïveté re these issues (or perhaps more so a form of confusion due to your occult bias) and until you start to understand what is going on your prose will just present as if ramblings of out-moded perspectives.



My thinking 'transcends' any dualism (it is more triadic than dyadic but also understands the energy-conserving nature of dyadic and monadic perspectives). Your 'three forces' are in fact representative of symmetry (the static whole), anti-symmetry (the dynamic, local context, of parts processing), and asymmetry (the realm of mediation and language creation) where such are hard-coded properties of the neurology. The neural hierarchy present covers the play of WHY (increased abstraction) and HOW (increased concrete) as reflected in the I Ching binary number sequence (and by association to IDM, a dynamic present in our brains) - and as such covers ascending/descending (which IS a binary opposing pair) and with that the transition of levels from the basic concrete/physical to the increasingly abstract/metaphysical.



Not totally. "as above, so below" is a SYMMETRIC perspective, but consciousness is ASYMMETRIC and as such self-determining, unique, absolute difference in that each of us is NEVER repeatable and so there in no copy 'up there' or 'down here'. The basics of integration and differentiation covers patterns developed in the neurology as it has interacted with the context to elicit 'sameness' but at the CLASS level, not the level of the individual, the instance and so 'difference'.

CLASS level dynamics allow for resonances and that includes emotional resonances and so the use of the EIC to give us GENERAL assessments of situations then open to closer analysis by our unique consciousness. In other words 'as above, so below' covers the basic patterns of differentiating/integrating operating at the class level but the 'random' element is always our unique consciousness.

Of note is that if that consciousness confuses its instance with its class then that consciousness can work towards fulfilling the purpose of its class AS IF it was its own purpose. This is akin to those who categorise themselves as MBTI 'types' when they are more so unique beings emergent from such a type and so NOT such a 'type'. The properties of the CLASS are then taken as if THEIR properties and they try and live to that class 'ideal' - and in doing so miss out on the expression of their pure difference.



There is no NEED for such a fanciful perspective. Given the EIC work, grounded in the basics of neurology and its senses, we are at a better level of application and learning of I Ching perspectives than we have from the past, traditional, perspectives that have been grounded in basic ignorance of 'in here'. Even the ancient Greeks realised the necessity of "Know[ing] Thy Self" and neuroscience work etc offers us exactly that.



There is no need for such a perspective, there is no need for considering a 'higher mind' when we can identify the sources of rich details of the I Ching in the 'lower mind' of basic neurology - but a neurology operating holistically as compared to its serial, partials, format of consciousness.



Prove it. ;) All I see here is your NEED to believe in 'hidden' knowledge etc and when faced with the facts of such knowledge now being revealed due to scientific endeavours is 'upsetting'. Not my problem dude - we all have to grow up at some time or another and that means understanding what I wrote and you have quoted below:

_______________________________________________________
*"Any 'ancient knowledge teaching' will conform to communications using patterns of differentiating/integrating, objects/relationships, and the composite patterns elicited from recursion of those dichotomies. The I Ching reflects that process where we can trace the process down to the neurology and from there out into the universe (the neuron reflecting 600 million years of development of a robust form of communication)"

You are a true believer in your rationalistic and materialistc thinking, superstitious of any knowledge that you imagine a threat. What you don't have experience of you call "hidden." No matter your view contradicts the experience of most of humanity. It's foolish,and not half so clever as the "idiot" little boy who couldn't learn to milk a cow. "If I don't learn to milk cows, then I don't have to milk cows ."

You play bead games by twisting other ideas and statements to affirm your thoughts and theories.

You quote :
[Originally Posted by pantherpanther
"As above,so below."and comment without including any of the context,

Not totally. "as above, so below" is a SYMMETRIC perspective, but consciousness is ASYMMETRIC and as such self-determining, unique, absolute difference in that each of us is NEVER repeatable and so there in no copy 'up there' or 'down here'. The basics of integration and differentiation covers patterns developed in the neurology as it has interacted with the context to elicit 'sameness' but at the CLASS level, not the level of the individual, the instance and so 'difference'

What I wrote was:
There is always present the principle of hazard, for three forces are involved - the positive, negative and neutralizing.The same laws apply to everything according to scale. "As above,so below." Different
physical sciences have rediscovered "quantum entanglement" in nature, that everything interacts and communicates - even bacteria [in a laboratory] talk to each other. How consciousness works throughout the the universe and man has hardly begun to be rediscovered by modern science.


You take "As above, so below" to mean "what you want it to mean," and distort what I said. The meaning of an evolutionary process on a universal scale is not understood, although I described it for a whole paragraph and summed up with the just quoted sentences. There is no reason to say that I view simply from " a SYMMETRIC perspective," or there is no "self-determining, unique" aspect.
You imagine "consciousness" developed in the brain through evolution. Consciousness develops everything in the universe - including our body and brain - in time, according to certain laws, and the process always has an element of hazard, indeterminancy or choice at every level, whether for stars and planets, man or molluscs. The Oriental idea of Heaven, Earth and Man indicates this. For everything at every level there is a level above and a level below, not merely an "up there" and "down here". Energies move up and down the scale. Everything eats and is eaten and so evolution proceeds. There is getting, using and spending. For man, tihere is the potential of developing higher bodies through work with this body, which must from birth serve the whole of life , supply food for the earth yet can also transform food from the angels and thereby serve the Creator by pursuing the evolutionary way of return to the source.
 
Last edited:

elvis

(deceased)
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
241
Reaction score
1
You imagine "consciousness" developed in the brain through evolution. Consciousness develops everything in the universe - including our body and brain - in time, according to certain laws, and the process always has an element of hazard, indeterminancy or choice at every level, whether for stars and planets, man or molluscs.

prove such, supply empirically-derived evidence for such.

All of your prose to date is nothing more than 'wind' - lots of speculation and rhetoric, sweeping generalisations about 'higher minds' etc and with no supporting, empirically derived, evidence. As I have repeatedly stated, the IDM model, and its practical use in the EIC, covers what we can get GIVEN the neurology and its senses and no more; and the EIC shows we can get a LOT more than is presented in traditional, 'ancient' IC perspectives.

IOW, from the EIC perspective, THERE IS NO NEED for what you are offering. What you are offering is archaic, past its best-before/use-by date and as such is in need of refurbishment, and the more this is NOT done, the more you fight change, the more marginalised, fossilised, your perspective will become. You rave on about evolution and yet stick to a path that is devolving not evolving. Come on dude, snap out of it - this is the 21st century AD with LOTS of good research etc uncovering 'in here' and 'out there'. Time to grow up perhaps? ;) - go through a 'transcendence' rather than 'transformation'?
 

pantherpanther

visitor
Joined
May 2, 2008
Messages
762
Reaction score
1
elvis,
You can verify for yourself what consciousness is if you study any genuine teaching, preferably, for most ,with those who have experience and are responsible. Teachers come in all flavors, so you have to be discriminating and use common sense. A responsible teacher may be helpful for a time, and then you may wish to find one who can teach you what he/she can't. If you don't wish to learn, so be it.

I know something about neurology and your knowledge seems to be out-of-date, as is that of some scientists in the field who still accept the so-called "Neuron Doctrine," which has changed little since since the 18th century. I worked in cancer research for a quarter century and know what empirical research,microscopy, laboratory work etc. is about. Some of my friends received Nobles for their discoveries.

You believe in your theories but it is clear they are based on several false assumptions, which I have described . Your results may confirm what you have designed things to have them confirm, but that can be like pouring from the empty into the void. It is easy to deceive oneself . Perhaps the I Ching would say "No blame." This stuff happens all the time, no less in science than in other areas. The practice can prepare one for further,new work.
 
Last edited:

elvis

(deceased)
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
241
Reaction score
1
elvis,
You can verify for yourself what consciousness is if you study any genuine teaching, preferably, for most ,with those who have experience and are responsible. Teachers come in all flavors, so you have to be discriminating and use common sense. A responsible teacher may be helpful for a time, and then you may wish to find one who can teach you what he/she can't. If you don't wish to learn, so be it.

I think the one in need of unlearning is you! :rofl:

I know something about neurology and your knowledge seems to be out-of-date, as is that of some scientists in the field who still accept the so-called "Neuron Doctrine," which has changed little since since the 18th century. I worked in cancer research for a quarter century

... and still nothing ...

and know what empirical research,microscopy, laboratory work etc. is about. Some of my friends received Nobles for their discoveries.

I have no interest in dogma, just where the data takes me, and the ability to derive the fundamentals of classes of numbers from basic recursion of the neurology shows mathematics to be a language, just as the I Ching and all other specialist points of view - including those of you and your friends.

Current dogma functions under a delusional mindset and as such is in need of updating - yours included as are the perspectives of neuroscientists (as compared to the data coming out of neuroscience work where, GIVEN that data we can map meaning from the neuron and on into cognition, emotion, symbols and metaphors. IOW there is no NEED for your perspective or that of your friends at this time - noting that, for example, the Nobel prize for economics includes a prize for options/futures trading that elicited the GEC! :rofl:)

You believe in your theories but it is clear they are based on several false assumptions, which I have described .

IMHO YOUR assumptions are false, the data validates MY perspectives and on into the formal IDM and EIC work.

So dude - you seem to be a bit out of date, past your 'best before' date. There IS the ability to deal with the change but perhaps there is an issue in teaching old dogs new tricks! ;) - as such you show properties of hexagram 12 - it has an interesting goal/purpose covered in analogy to the generic properties and hexagram 30 and its focus on ideology etc. where such reflects your need to maintain your 'occult/mystical/'higher minds'' ideology.

The IDM/EIC point is really simple, to get GOOD results from emotional/IChing assessments of the environment, across ALL scales, the IDM model works extremely well and there is NO NEED for your sort of perspective. Now there is nothing to stop you maintaining your perspective other than the chance of it becoming 'marginalised' due to it lacking the precision covered in the IDM perspective and the EIC methodology.

Thus I dont NEED a belief system on 'higher minds' and occult/mystical states etc to get good results from using the EIC grounded in the basics of neurology and its senses; I dont need the huge amount of abstraction/learning etc that comes with your sort of perspective. Simple.

So, come on dude, lets see your usual attempt to have the last word! :rofl:
 

pantherpanther

visitor
Joined
May 2, 2008
Messages
762
Reaction score
1
I feel like a therapist listening to a client who projects her/his beliefs.
What you say I think is about what you think, not what I have said
or think, ad infinitum. This is the problem with your work. It is a
theoretical construct that can generate results which have no reality .
This is analogous to inventing a magic potion that contains no
magic, or a "Bible Code" that doesn't work. Yet you believe
your system works. True believers are like that. Scholastics
can get carried away into abstractions. They have dogs that
can't hunt.

It is not surprising you fear that reality is a threat to your world of
abstractions and theories, and any wish to accept yourself is blocked
by this fear. The "other" is seen as "occult and mystical" and
the authority of reason or higher mind denied. There is a desire to
be in one's imagined world - even when it is miserable - for that desire
affirms one's sense of identity and control. We wish to be loved but find it
hard to love. The struggle of desires and non-desires is the essential
challenge all humans face. The Buddha taught this in a profound way and
demonstrated how to deal with it.

You are not serious about yourself and I take your adolescent remarks
about me in that context. I see your identification with your theories.
Psychologically,this resembles adolescents' belief in their " immortality"
used as a negative defense against dealing with the challenge of becoming
adults. "No blame"

If you wish to learn about consciousness there is nothing standing in your
way. The gate is there but no one can go through but yourself. I have
merely pointed to the gate in describing how consciousness and energy works.

There was in reality no first or "last word" in our exchanges. Perhaps one
day you will grow up and be able to exchange as a more adult person.
 
Last edited:

elvis

(deceased)
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
241
Reaction score
1
I feel like a therapist listening to a client who projects her/his beliefs.
What you say I think is about what you think, not what I have said
or think, ad infinitum.

...so you have had lots of experience with therapists have you?! :mischief:

This is the problem with your work. It is a
theoretical construct that can generate results which have no reality .

The EIC works. simple fact. The problem for you is that it works well and exists outside of your mindset and that is a problem since you believe your mindset is 'special' when it is obviously out of date and overly complicated - all of those special handshakes to remember! :mischief:

This is analogous to inventing a magic potion that contains no
magic, or a "Bible Code" that doesn't work. Yet you believe
your system works. True believers are like that. Scholastics
can get carried away into abstractions. They have dogs that
can't hunt.

The EIC focus is on emotional assessments of situations and so the mapping of parallel, holistic, experiences into serial, partial, format allowing for extraction of fine details. Simple. It works. Simple. So your above prose is more some lashing out by you since you cannot accept it working as such since that is some threat to your identity. Perhaps you need more experience with therapists! :mischief:

It is not surprising you fear that reality is a threat to your world of
abstractions and theories, and any wish to accept yourself is blocked
by this fear.

The EIC is a practical example of the IDM model and as such we have moved beyond theory/abstractions. The IDM work deals with the concrete and covers the foundations for all abstractions, including yours.

It is the realm of the concrete that allows us to translate one set of specialist abstractions into terms of another set - and so classes of fight/flight into classes of yang/yin. Simple. You obviously have some issues with that and your prose here and on other threads indicates the degree of issue where the identity/control problems are yours, not mine.

We can see your concern when you prose turns into a rant as you try to re-validate your beliefs (hexagram 12 again) and use disimissiveness as a way of denying what is going on combined with comments on your perception of my apparent control issues and my apparent struggles with desire and apparent need to be loved and so on and so on and so on. All I see in this prose is projection.

You are not serious about yourself and I take your adolescent remarks
about me in that context. I see your identification with your theories.
Psychologically, this resembles adolescents' belief in their " immortality"
used as a negative defense against dealing with the challenge of becoming
adults.

:rofl: - all the above does is reinforce my sorrow for your condition.

If you wish to learn about consciousness there is nothing standing in your
way. The gate is there but no one can go through but yourself. I have
merely pointed to the gate in describing how conscious and energy works.

IMHO you have no idea what you are talking about. To understand classes of consciousness and their purposes etc one just utilises the EIC/IDM material that covers all POSSIBLE classes GIVEN the neurology/senses and in doing so recognise the mediation role of consciousness in resolving stimulus/response issues. I realise that can be an issue for you as the amount of energy you have put in to establishing your elitist perspective is large, and to have all of that revealed as now 'meaningless' or at least marginalised can be a problem. It is your problem, not mine. Perhaps the EIC can aid you in reviewing your mindset and so solving your problem ;)
 

lloyd

(deceased)
Joined
Sep 9, 2009
Messages
265
Reaction score
3
I have no interest in dogma, just where the data takes me
Your dogmatism is all about producing more data. After all the "data" you have mentioned, on what one should take into account before starting to think at all, I can but conclude that ANYBODY will just get carried away by your overwhelming amount of information, without ever getting anywhere at all.
Fine with all of us, but I once asked you not to hit others over the head with what you consider to be truth. But the dogmatist in you refuses to listen.
To be sure, my truth is a poetic truth, but if I'd quote you a sonnet of Shakespeare you would take it apart as a car, without ever being able to put it together again.
Which is to say, I do not for one nanosecond believe that you are on top of all the data and pre-conditions for thinking, that you have mentioned in this thread :D
 

elvis

(deceased)
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
241
Reaction score
1
Fine with all of us, but I once asked you not to hit others over the head with what you consider to be truth.

You obviously have not been following pantherpanther's attacks, I did not start these discussions, all I have done is give EIC interpretations that WORK but pantherpanther has issues with such - and continues on this thread stuff started on other threads.

I do not for one nanosecond believe that you are on top of all the data and pre-conditions for thinking, that you have mentioned in this thread :D

This is interpretable as fear and puts you in the same position as pantherpanther, you cannot afford to have the IDM/EIC material shown to be representative of how 'in here' works, since to do so will invalidate your current mindset. As with pantherpanther, that is not my problem, that is your problem.

The success of the IDM/EIC work will continue despite the rhetoric by you and others (and I stress 'rhetoric' since none of you have presented one iota of empirically-derived evidence that negates the IDM/EIC work). It does not matter how much you and others attack using rhetoric, it is ONLY scientific data that can contradict the model so I think you need to change your methodology else, like pantherpanther, your perspective becomes increasingly marginalised and heading into be 'meaningless' - just another set of 'primitive' interpretations, abstractions, of our being, all grounded in ignorance of 'in here' and our concrete nature and as such replaceable by more up-to-date material, such as the EIC ;)

I think the main issue for you and pantherpanther is that I can ignore you but obviously cannot ignore me. ;) The capabilities of the EIC material will continue to gnaw away at the 10th century BC mindset until eventually you will have to adopt and adapt else fade away. Your choice.
 

lloyd

(deceased)
Joined
Sep 9, 2009
Messages
265
Reaction score
3
I have read all your stuff, including this thread.
Many on Clarity, besides Panther and me, have difficulties with your EIC approach.
And you know that. But you will not be ignored ...
 

pantherpanther

visitor
Joined
May 2, 2008
Messages
762
Reaction score
1
I have no interest in dogma, just where the data takes me, and the ability to derive the fundamentals of classes of numbers from basic recursion of the neurology shows mathematics to be a language, just as the I Ching and all other specialist points of view - including those of you and your friends.

Current dogma functions under a delusional mindset and as such is in need of updating - yours included as are the perspectives of neuroscientists (as compared to the data coming out of neuroscience work where, GIVEN that data we can map meaning from the neuron and on into cognition, emotion, symbols and metaphors.
-elvis

I have never seen anyone,including neuroscientists, defend Chris' views.
The data found in neurons contain some information about the brain but the brain doesn't indicate consciousness at any time for it is not located in the brain. There is no basis for linking data observed in the brain to cognition . Consciousness uses the brain as a tool, a very complex one that can trained. Effects have causes but the brain is dependent on consciousness to function.
 
Last edited:

elvis

(deceased)
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
241
Reaction score
1
There is no basis for linking data observed in the brain to cognition . Consciousness uses the brain as a tool, a very complex one that can trained. Effects have causes but the brain is dependent on consciousness to function.

Delusion. Which is fine, for over time my perspective will demonstrate its value in the form of deriving the source of meaning and that includes the classes of consciousness - as well as the need for consciousness depending on frontal lobe/pfc dynamics where damage to such makes us fall back on our more 'ape' natures.

There is also the tie to the mediation dynamics present, the need for distinction making to allow for individual consciousness to emerge from species awareness (the differences being in one being conscious of being conscious! Monkeys etc have issues with such, apes are ok - dolphins too :

http://news.discovery.com/animals/dolphins-smarter-brain-function.html

Dolphins: Second-Smartest Animals?

By Jennifer Viegas

When human measures for intelligence are applied to other species, dolphins come in just behind humans in brainpower, according to new research.
Dolphins demonstrate skills and awareness previously thought to be present only in humans.

New MRI scans show that dolphin brains are four to five times larger for their body size when compared to another animal of similar size, according to Lori Marino, a senior lecturer in neuroscience and behavioral biology at Emory University, and one of the world's leading dolphin experts. Humans also possess an impressive brain-to-body ratio.

"If we use relative brain size as a metric of 'intelligence' then one would have to conclude that dolphins are second in intelligence to modern humans," said Marino, who performed several MRI scans on dolphin brains.

Marino will be presenting her findings at next month's American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting.

"Size isn't everything," she admitted, but she says at least two other lines of evidence support her claims about dolphin intelligence.

First, various features of the dolphin neocortex
-- the part of the brain involved in higher-order thinking and processing of emotional information
-- are "particularly expanded" in dolphins.

Second, behavioral studies conducted by Marino and other experts demonstrate that dolphins exhibit human-like skills. These include mirror self-recognition, cultural learning, comprehension of symbol-based communication systems, and an understanding of abstract concepts.

© 2009 Discovery Communications, LLC
 

pantherpanther

visitor
Joined
May 2, 2008
Messages
762
Reaction score
1
"The person born with the large brain can easily be outstripped by someone with a smaller brain. ...No matter what your brain size is, it's what you do with it that counts.It has been shown that some parts of the brain are fairly plastic - they can change and develop. The more we learn about these structures and function the more we can understand the circuits that promote memory and learning."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8471182.stm

But the consciousness of human beings can't be developed by simply training the brain.
Erich Fromm analyzed this in The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness (1973). He had noted much earlier, "The problem of the 19th century was God is dead. The problem of the 20th century is that Man is dead."

If you have ever had a serious thought in your life it isn't apparent from what you have posted.
 
Last edited:

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