Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).
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.
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??
What spiritual book were you thinking of reading?
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
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.
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.
"
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.
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:
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.
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.)
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.
>>>
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.
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.
"As above,so below."
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.
(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 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.
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 .
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.
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.
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.
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.I have no interest in dogma, just where the data takes me
Fine with all of us, but I once asked you not to hit others over the head with what you consider to be truth.
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
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.
Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).