>))) / good chuckle Candid.Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).
Response of Yi to Anger ...
- Thread starter RindaR
- Start date
martin
(deceased)
- Joined
- Oct 2, 1971
- Messages
- 2,705
- Reaction score
- 61
I like to read hexagrams as processes, from bottom to top (upward).
The bottom trigram represents the first stage (initial condition), the top trigram the last and there are two stages in between, represented by the inner trigrams.
In the case of hex 39 - the second hex of the answer that Jerry got - the initial condition is mountain. In an upward flow mountain comes after earth and represents the beginning of differentiation. I will read it here (there are other ways) as differentiation between self and other or organism and environment.
So in mountain one becomes aware of and meets the not-self, that which is more or less unfamiliar/alien, not 'me', not like 'me', not part of ones territory. Consequently one becomes aware of oneself as distinct from others/the environment. 'I am not you/that.' The beginning of a sense of self, the birth of 'I'.
Okay, so Jerry meets something that is alien to him, i.e. the material of Chris.
His first reaction (first inner trigram water) is rejection, repulsion, 'I don't want this, go away!'
But his second reaction (second inner trigram fire) is acceptance, attraction, interest.
'Okay, maybe there is something in it, let's try to understand, make contact, get into it.'
However, the upper trigram is again water (rejection) which indicates that this effort has failed.
Sob.
Try again?
The bottom trigram represents the first stage (initial condition), the top trigram the last and there are two stages in between, represented by the inner trigrams.
In the case of hex 39 - the second hex of the answer that Jerry got - the initial condition is mountain. In an upward flow mountain comes after earth and represents the beginning of differentiation. I will read it here (there are other ways) as differentiation between self and other or organism and environment.
So in mountain one becomes aware of and meets the not-self, that which is more or less unfamiliar/alien, not 'me', not like 'me', not part of ones territory. Consequently one becomes aware of oneself as distinct from others/the environment. 'I am not you/that.' The beginning of a sense of self, the birth of 'I'.
Okay, so Jerry meets something that is alien to him, i.e. the material of Chris.
His first reaction (first inner trigram water) is rejection, repulsion, 'I don't want this, go away!'
But his second reaction (second inner trigram fire) is acceptance, attraction, interest.
'Okay, maybe there is something in it, let's try to understand, make contact, get into it.'
However, the upper trigram is again water (rejection) which indicates that this effort has failed.
Sob.
Try again?
martin
(deceased)
- Joined
- Oct 2, 1971
- Messages
- 2,705
- Reaction score
- 61
Politically hex 39 (in the way I read it, as a process) could represent a potential conflict near a border (mountain) that doesn't escalate yet but cannot be resolved.
Kind of cold war situation.
Kind of cold war situation.
lightofdarkness
(deceased)
- Joined
- Mar 16, 1970
- Messages
- 1,025
- Reaction score
- 3
Martin,
From my perspective mountain in the bottom position represents blockage, stopped etc. water in the top position represents control; so we can read 39 as 'from stoppage comes control'. This can be interpreted as "going against the mindless flow elicits control" or "best solution to this is to bypass it (flow around the control seeking)" etc - 'negative' edge is in the focus by the book of changes on change where it is being fought against here. Thus there is the long term interpretation of obstructions to change, and the short term interpretation of a need to 'fight' change.
Lets analyse 39 from the inside.
Its basic architecture, it skelatal form (XOR with 27) is described by analogy to the characteristics of wind over fire - from guidance comes a sense of direction, an ideology (emotion is of acceptance) - hex 37. What this indicates is a core focus on tension release through rigid structure, where the release is IMPLICIT - walk into the context and you 'relax' - like arriving at home after a long work day - walk in the door and all is 'clear', 'ordered'. I think you can see how this focus, serving as 'raw' architecture feeds the 'going against the mindless flow' where that flow elicits stress.
This perspective favours one being 'obstructive', fighting change, attempting to 'ground' things. Reflection on this perspective will eventually lead to consideration of its opposite - bypassing obstructions etc as a response to the unsolicited enforcing of such a structure, such an obstruction.
The containment/control dynamics of 39 (XOR with 29) are described by analogy to the characteristics of water over wind - with containment comes influence - hex 48. As such 39 reflects the use of establishing foundations, a particular source of nourishment to contain/control.
Seeing 39 from the outside (XOR with 22) shows us an expression, described by analogy to wind over thunder - hex 42 - of augmentation, to 'dress up' to 'lift above', to 'stick out' - as an 'obstruction' would; very noticable.
Seeing 39 from the inside (XOR with 47) shows us an expression, described by analogy to thunder over wind - hex 32 - of a focus on strong commitment to the task at hand (integrating with the context through enclosure)
The 'beginnings' of 39 (XOR with 24) are described by analogy to 63 - a focus on 'correct sequencing', seeking 'closure' and as such reflecting trying to deal with the 'mindless flow'.
Determining where 39 gets its nourishment, what keeps it going (XOR with 48), gives us a description extracted from the properties of hexagram 07 - uniformity (army). This reflects the notion of a 'need' to establish uniformity and that need is driving the whole show.
I wont do the complete list here, but as you go through these associations so a 'feeling' for the core elements of 39 develops. (using "AND" will give cause-effect dynamics given a context)
Chris.
From my perspective mountain in the bottom position represents blockage, stopped etc. water in the top position represents control; so we can read 39 as 'from stoppage comes control'. This can be interpreted as "going against the mindless flow elicits control" or "best solution to this is to bypass it (flow around the control seeking)" etc - 'negative' edge is in the focus by the book of changes on change where it is being fought against here. Thus there is the long term interpretation of obstructions to change, and the short term interpretation of a need to 'fight' change.
Lets analyse 39 from the inside.
Its basic architecture, it skelatal form (XOR with 27) is described by analogy to the characteristics of wind over fire - from guidance comes a sense of direction, an ideology (emotion is of acceptance) - hex 37. What this indicates is a core focus on tension release through rigid structure, where the release is IMPLICIT - walk into the context and you 'relax' - like arriving at home after a long work day - walk in the door and all is 'clear', 'ordered'. I think you can see how this focus, serving as 'raw' architecture feeds the 'going against the mindless flow' where that flow elicits stress.
This perspective favours one being 'obstructive', fighting change, attempting to 'ground' things. Reflection on this perspective will eventually lead to consideration of its opposite - bypassing obstructions etc as a response to the unsolicited enforcing of such a structure, such an obstruction.
The containment/control dynamics of 39 (XOR with 29) are described by analogy to the characteristics of water over wind - with containment comes influence - hex 48. As such 39 reflects the use of establishing foundations, a particular source of nourishment to contain/control.
Seeing 39 from the outside (XOR with 22) shows us an expression, described by analogy to wind over thunder - hex 42 - of augmentation, to 'dress up' to 'lift above', to 'stick out' - as an 'obstruction' would; very noticable.
Seeing 39 from the inside (XOR with 47) shows us an expression, described by analogy to thunder over wind - hex 32 - of a focus on strong commitment to the task at hand (integrating with the context through enclosure)
The 'beginnings' of 39 (XOR with 24) are described by analogy to 63 - a focus on 'correct sequencing', seeking 'closure' and as such reflecting trying to deal with the 'mindless flow'.
Determining where 39 gets its nourishment, what keeps it going (XOR with 48), gives us a description extracted from the properties of hexagram 07 - uniformity (army). This reflects the notion of a 'need' to establish uniformity and that need is driving the whole show.
I wont do the complete list here, but as you go through these associations so a 'feeling' for the core elements of 39 develops. (using "AND" will give cause-effect dynamics given a context)
Chris.
Hello Martin and everyone, Martin your reading is closer to what I came up with in most of my attempts to make sense of these Hexs.
Chris, if one is to make use of any Hex which is thrown there should be some clearly defined way to place the approperate reading to a set of circumstance associated to the reason the question was ask in the beginning.
If one is allowed to manipulate a Hex by just saying it has more than one meaning the other meanings devalue from the main purpose of the initial question. I am to fall back here into a previous position, I ask in another thread "can a reading berift of factuals and the questioner unknown to the person who devines the question,be accurate or useful? I think it can be, but if the questioner decides to interpert it in another light there is nothing to be said, as the questioner makes this choice not the reader. Possible outcomes are good to know but are worthless if one does not have access to real time questioner.
Chris, if one is to make use of any Hex which is thrown there should be some clearly defined way to place the approperate reading to a set of circumstance associated to the reason the question was ask in the beginning.
If one is allowed to manipulate a Hex by just saying it has more than one meaning the other meanings devalue from the main purpose of the initial question. I am to fall back here into a previous position, I ask in another thread "can a reading berift of factuals and the questioner unknown to the person who devines the question,be accurate or useful? I think it can be, but if the questioner decides to interpert it in another light there is nothing to be said, as the questioner makes this choice not the reader. Possible outcomes are good to know but are worthless if one does not have access to real time questioner.
lightofdarkness
(deceased)
- Joined
- Mar 16, 1970
- Messages
- 1,025
- Reaction score
- 3
Jerryd,
To understand the I Ching particulars, you need to understand the I Ching as a whole. The I Ching reflects us, our brains, being a product of those brains. As such the I Ching covers XOR/AND interpretations; "XOR" is parts oriented, in mathematics we can map this to the concept of a set of Xs. "AND" is wholes oriented, or more so the sequencing of Xs, and so in mathematics we can map this to the concept of a sequence of Xs.
It is this 'dual' interpretations mode that makes the I Ching the "Book of Gerunds"; the "Book of 'ings'" - and so applicable to ANY context; each hexagram has 'dual' expressions. CONTEXT, and that includes your consciousness, your source of ego, will 'push' your species-nature - all of the instincts/habits of the species, of each of us, are encoded into the input areas of our neurons. Why? conservation of energy. We habituate to sameness, are over-sensitive to difference. By habituting to the 'usual' context so we allow context to push us - we dont waste energy on monitoring sameness, what we 'know'.
Since the IC reflects us, and our neurology reflects adaptation to context, so the IC reflects context. Your 'western' mind appears to be XOR oriented, seeking of clarity, but the method you use will elicit AND states of interpretation - a 'superposition' - and it is CONTEXT that will draw-out the 'bestfit', XOR, hexagram from that superposition.
The realm of the IC, its roots, is in the GENERAL so it encompasses, represents, "all there is" and "all there is" is an implicit whole working off XOR/AND dynamics (where, with consciousness, there is the potential for 'paradox' if you dont know what is going on univerally ;-) see the IDM page on paradox processing and the possible source of our 'need' to argue - http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/paradox.html
You are not independent of the IC, your consciousness plays a big part in interpretation, methods of enquiry etc etc.
Obviously this is all 'umfamiliar' to you if you have been educated in the 'traditional' IC texts - but thats why my material is ICPlus in that the focus is that one cannot bring the IC into the 21st century without taking into consideration a few decades of intense analysis of brain/mind.
How do I 'know' all of this? using IDM to flesh-out the IC. If you cannot read my prose then read the prose of otthers in the the references/abstracts/further reading lists for IDM - links at the bottom of http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/idm001.html
BTW - you still have not told me how you went with the 'proactive' IC questions ;-)
Chris.
To understand the I Ching particulars, you need to understand the I Ching as a whole. The I Ching reflects us, our brains, being a product of those brains. As such the I Ching covers XOR/AND interpretations; "XOR" is parts oriented, in mathematics we can map this to the concept of a set of Xs. "AND" is wholes oriented, or more so the sequencing of Xs, and so in mathematics we can map this to the concept of a sequence of Xs.
It is this 'dual' interpretations mode that makes the I Ching the "Book of Gerunds"; the "Book of 'ings'" - and so applicable to ANY context; each hexagram has 'dual' expressions. CONTEXT, and that includes your consciousness, your source of ego, will 'push' your species-nature - all of the instincts/habits of the species, of each of us, are encoded into the input areas of our neurons. Why? conservation of energy. We habituate to sameness, are over-sensitive to difference. By habituting to the 'usual' context so we allow context to push us - we dont waste energy on monitoring sameness, what we 'know'.
Since the IC reflects us, and our neurology reflects adaptation to context, so the IC reflects context. Your 'western' mind appears to be XOR oriented, seeking of clarity, but the method you use will elicit AND states of interpretation - a 'superposition' - and it is CONTEXT that will draw-out the 'bestfit', XOR, hexagram from that superposition.
The realm of the IC, its roots, is in the GENERAL so it encompasses, represents, "all there is" and "all there is" is an implicit whole working off XOR/AND dynamics (where, with consciousness, there is the potential for 'paradox' if you dont know what is going on univerally ;-) see the IDM page on paradox processing and the possible source of our 'need' to argue - http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/paradox.html
You are not independent of the IC, your consciousness plays a big part in interpretation, methods of enquiry etc etc.
Obviously this is all 'umfamiliar' to you if you have been educated in the 'traditional' IC texts - but thats why my material is ICPlus in that the focus is that one cannot bring the IC into the 21st century without taking into consideration a few decades of intense analysis of brain/mind.
How do I 'know' all of this? using IDM to flesh-out the IC. If you cannot read my prose then read the prose of otthers in the the references/abstracts/further reading lists for IDM - links at the bottom of http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/idm001.html
BTW - you still have not told me how you went with the 'proactive' IC questions ;-)
Chris.
lightofdarkness
(deceased)
- Joined
- Mar 16, 1970
- Messages
- 1,025
- Reaction score
- 3
Jerryd,
to make a point. You cannot 'consult' the IC without a question in that the question is the 'whole' and overlays the 'whole' that is the I Ching and so allows for the I Ching to 'shine through' that whole - IOW the WHOLE of the IC is applicable. Consciousness is PARTS oriented, it is not 'the whole' - there is no need for it to be 'the whole' in that instincts/habits take care of things. Consciousness is the agent of mediation and in that medition will focus upon the 'bright end' of the sequence of hexagrams sorted by a context into bestfit/worstfit. 'random' methods will always give you a hexagram that you will, in some way, find 'meaningful' - as long as you have a question.
The ICPlus focus is on recognising how the brain works in general and forming that dynamic into words relating to generic feelings about a situation. That process allows one to zoom-in on the bestfit more consistantly then when using alternative methods. The issue is in the trust in oneself to answer the questions 'honestly' ;-)
Chris.
to make a point. You cannot 'consult' the IC without a question in that the question is the 'whole' and overlays the 'whole' that is the I Ching and so allows for the I Ching to 'shine through' that whole - IOW the WHOLE of the IC is applicable. Consciousness is PARTS oriented, it is not 'the whole' - there is no need for it to be 'the whole' in that instincts/habits take care of things. Consciousness is the agent of mediation and in that medition will focus upon the 'bright end' of the sequence of hexagrams sorted by a context into bestfit/worstfit. 'random' methods will always give you a hexagram that you will, in some way, find 'meaningful' - as long as you have a question.
The ICPlus focus is on recognising how the brain works in general and forming that dynamic into words relating to generic feelings about a situation. That process allows one to zoom-in on the bestfit more consistantly then when using alternative methods. The issue is in the trust in oneself to answer the questions 'honestly' ;-)
Chris.
Chris, the Proactive IC lead me to hex 12. The work you put into you writings and web sight are outstanding. I am just not at your level of understanding and perhaps never will understand it from your prespective. This does not make me less or you more, we just are on different levels of the same journey.
lightofdarkness
(deceased)
- Joined
- Mar 16, 1970
- Messages
- 1,025
- Reaction score
- 3
Jerryd,
no problem ;-)
Hex 12 covers defending one's "faith" and in so doing validating that faith. You can interpret this as your perspective as to "why is CL answering to this thread" given as my reply to Calumet that was 'my perspective' and so demonstrating its 'value' as a form of "defending one's faith" ;-)
12 is interpretable as "with/from devotion comes singlemindedness"
Chris.
no problem ;-)
Hex 12 covers defending one's "faith" and in so doing validating that faith. You can interpret this as your perspective as to "why is CL answering to this thread" given as my reply to Calumet that was 'my perspective' and so demonstrating its 'value' as a form of "defending one's faith" ;-)
12 is interpretable as "with/from devotion comes singlemindedness"
Chris.
lightofdarkness
(deceased)
- Joined
- Mar 16, 1970
- Messages
- 1,025
- Reaction score
- 3
just to make the point re 12 - in many texts it is labelled as 'stagnation' etc - this reflects the perspective of the IC as a focus on CHANGE. The defending of one's perspective is considered as against change!
The opposite of 12 is 11 - it focuses on mediation activity where harmonising/balancing (rather than neutralising) allows for change and so potentials.
If we map heaven to being competitive, singleminded, so it reflects mediation dynamics - in 12 it is against change, and there is no potential of it in 11 it is all change - but as potential.
Chris.
The opposite of 12 is 11 - it focuses on mediation activity where harmonising/balancing (rather than neutralising) allows for change and so potentials.
If we map heaven to being competitive, singleminded, so it reflects mediation dynamics - in 12 it is against change, and there is no potential of it in 11 it is all change - but as potential.
Chris.
martin
(deceased)
- Joined
- Oct 2, 1971
- Messages
- 2,705
- Reaction score
- 61
Hi Chris,
The method that I used in my previous post differs from your approach and I think we should be careful not to mix things up. If you see hexagrams as upward flows in the way I did the meaning of mountain - for instance - depends on where it comes from (earth or thunder, if there is a predecessor) and goes to (water or wood, if there is a successor).
Mountain coming from thunder and going to water (10010) suggests blockage but this is less clear in other cases. In 00010 there is nothing to block - so to speak - although there are still 'boundary issues' (010). But these are absent in 00011.
If 001 is the bottom trigram (no predecessor) the question arises what happened 'before'. On the level of hexagrams there are also predecessors and successors.
001010 (hex 39) comes from 100101 (hex 21) or 000101 (hex 35).
Coming from 21 we see a blockage pattern (10010). This is less clear when we come from 35.
The predecessor/successor mechanism defines a binary tree structure on the spaces of trigrams and hexagrams, while you seem to work mainly with linear sequences in your approach.
I think this shows that the perspectives are basically different. I have not yet looked deeply into possible applications of XOR and other line by line operations, but I suspect that they are not compatible with this method.
The method that I used in my previous post differs from your approach and I think we should be careful not to mix things up. If you see hexagrams as upward flows in the way I did the meaning of mountain - for instance - depends on where it comes from (earth or thunder, if there is a predecessor) and goes to (water or wood, if there is a successor).
Mountain coming from thunder and going to water (10010) suggests blockage but this is less clear in other cases. In 00010 there is nothing to block - so to speak - although there are still 'boundary issues' (010). But these are absent in 00011.
If 001 is the bottom trigram (no predecessor) the question arises what happened 'before'. On the level of hexagrams there are also predecessors and successors.
001010 (hex 39) comes from 100101 (hex 21) or 000101 (hex 35).
Coming from 21 we see a blockage pattern (10010). This is less clear when we come from 35.
The predecessor/successor mechanism defines a binary tree structure on the spaces of trigrams and hexagrams, while you seem to work mainly with linear sequences in your approach.
I think this shows that the perspectives are basically different. I have not yet looked deeply into possible applications of XOR and other line by line operations, but I suspect that they are not compatible with this method.
martin
(deceased)
- Joined
- Oct 2, 1971
- Messages
- 2,705
- Reaction score
- 61
This is the flow chart for trigrams.
I will not try to make one for hexagrams.
lightofdarkness
(deceased)
- Joined
- Mar 16, 1970
- Messages
- 1,025
- Reaction score
- 3
Martin,
Thanks for the diagram etc. (looks like something in my discrete mathematics texts ;-))
I think your perspective is strongly temporal and AND oriented, sequence, - A leads to B leads to C etc. MY focus is structural and so XOR oriented, A, B, C, and then A-ness of C, B-ness of C etc etc, but in uncovering that work have also uncovered some AND elements where CONTEXT needs to be included, it is not as simply 'universal' as you propose above.
MY focus is on recursion and so IS binary-tree oriented (e.g.
http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/btree.gif)
My general focus is on how the brain derives meaning from the 'mindless' oscillations across the WHAT/WHERE dichotomy (WHAT being differentiated into what, who, which; WHERE being differentiated into when, where, how. WHY being a product of consciousness and as such of 'value judgment' and mediation.)
The dynamic in the brain allows for the derivation of meanings based around patterns of differentiating(WHAT) and integrating(WHERE). This dynamic recurses differentiate/integrate and in doing so gives us a set of universal qualities usable in ANY context to derive, communicate, meaning.
WE ensure 'difference' by relabelling the qualities to associate with the unique context - and the IC is one of those 'unique' perspectives - where the recursion of differentiate/integrate, relabelled as 'yin/yang', gives us the digrams, trigrams, hexagrams, dodecagrams.
The line position work shows that IN THE METHOD AS A WHOLE there is more encoded in each 'cell' of the recursion but we need to 'right' representations to bring that information out - and 1s/0s or fix/broken lines allow for that.
Since the brain works off XOR/AND (summed to IOR) so our models will reflect that. Across the hemispheres of the brain the XOR sensitive areas deal with PARTS, particulars, coming out of an AND, a whole.
The line position material shows how to see 'inside' a hexagram, read its 'genetic code' and so how it expresses itself both in structure (XOR) and in process (AND). As I said, from a mathematical perspective it is the difference between a set vs a sequence (aka ordered-set, n-tuple, vector, etc)
Working from the perspective of 000000 reflecting all POTENTIALS, so adding energy draws out the ACTUALS. We are dealing with structure.
Since the sequence of hexagrams, or more so the set, represents the WHOLE and the hexagrams themselves PARTS, the XOR nature of their derivation (as in YIN XOR YANG) applies 'all the way down' and that includes WITHIN.
IOW what we see is what we see in a cell, the DNA of the whole is encoded in each part since DNA codons are made-up, are structured, by recursion of purines/pyramidines (and so the various publications of DNA-I Ching associations).
Thus in each hexagram, all of the others are represented and can influence the expression of that hexagram. To bring out that expression you take a particular hexagram and XOR it with the hexagram under analysis. As given above, to find out the STRUCTURE of 27 expressed in 34 you XOR 27 with 34 and the result is fire over wind - 50 - reflecting the 'skelatal' form of 34 is about transformation, turning raw into refined.
If we AND 27 with 34 we get 03. What this appears to indicate is the passage of 27 through a context of 34 leads to 03 - interpretable as "a skeletal form passing through a context of explicit invigoration inevitably leads to 'sprouting'".
I have not investigated this in detail as yet since I am currently updating the websites on the XOR focus on a hexagram's 'genetic code'. You may be interested in reflecting on the AND focus re line position patterns.
I am also fleshing out the GENERIC dynamics here, we are not dealing with the IC as such, but with what it is developed from - recursion. IOW the XOR material is applicable to any categorisation system - e.g. the MBTI where we 'type' people - so the XOR material brings out aspects of the category. (reflects BCF dynamics a la 'boolean reasoning')
for example, the XNTP persona type has particular characterstics now derivable, through the XOR process, from the 'inside'.
(e.g. the skeletal form of 51, the XNTP representation, is described by 35 - bringing something into the light. I think reflection on the IC/MBTI material may show you the magnitude of what we are dealing with in the context of categorisation methods - see
http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/MBTIX.htm)
Chris.
Thanks for the diagram etc. (looks like something in my discrete mathematics texts ;-))
I think your perspective is strongly temporal and AND oriented, sequence, - A leads to B leads to C etc. MY focus is structural and so XOR oriented, A, B, C, and then A-ness of C, B-ness of C etc etc, but in uncovering that work have also uncovered some AND elements where CONTEXT needs to be included, it is not as simply 'universal' as you propose above.
MY focus is on recursion and so IS binary-tree oriented (e.g.
http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/btree.gif)
My general focus is on how the brain derives meaning from the 'mindless' oscillations across the WHAT/WHERE dichotomy (WHAT being differentiated into what, who, which; WHERE being differentiated into when, where, how. WHY being a product of consciousness and as such of 'value judgment' and mediation.)
The dynamic in the brain allows for the derivation of meanings based around patterns of differentiating(WHAT) and integrating(WHERE). This dynamic recurses differentiate/integrate and in doing so gives us a set of universal qualities usable in ANY context to derive, communicate, meaning.
WE ensure 'difference' by relabelling the qualities to associate with the unique context - and the IC is one of those 'unique' perspectives - where the recursion of differentiate/integrate, relabelled as 'yin/yang', gives us the digrams, trigrams, hexagrams, dodecagrams.
The line position work shows that IN THE METHOD AS A WHOLE there is more encoded in each 'cell' of the recursion but we need to 'right' representations to bring that information out - and 1s/0s or fix/broken lines allow for that.
Since the brain works off XOR/AND (summed to IOR) so our models will reflect that. Across the hemispheres of the brain the XOR sensitive areas deal with PARTS, particulars, coming out of an AND, a whole.
The line position material shows how to see 'inside' a hexagram, read its 'genetic code' and so how it expresses itself both in structure (XOR) and in process (AND). As I said, from a mathematical perspective it is the difference between a set vs a sequence (aka ordered-set, n-tuple, vector, etc)
Working from the perspective of 000000 reflecting all POTENTIALS, so adding energy draws out the ACTUALS. We are dealing with structure.
Since the sequence of hexagrams, or more so the set, represents the WHOLE and the hexagrams themselves PARTS, the XOR nature of their derivation (as in YIN XOR YANG) applies 'all the way down' and that includes WITHIN.
IOW what we see is what we see in a cell, the DNA of the whole is encoded in each part since DNA codons are made-up, are structured, by recursion of purines/pyramidines (and so the various publications of DNA-I Ching associations).
Thus in each hexagram, all of the others are represented and can influence the expression of that hexagram. To bring out that expression you take a particular hexagram and XOR it with the hexagram under analysis. As given above, to find out the STRUCTURE of 27 expressed in 34 you XOR 27 with 34 and the result is fire over wind - 50 - reflecting the 'skelatal' form of 34 is about transformation, turning raw into refined.
If we AND 27 with 34 we get 03. What this appears to indicate is the passage of 27 through a context of 34 leads to 03 - interpretable as "a skeletal form passing through a context of explicit invigoration inevitably leads to 'sprouting'".
I have not investigated this in detail as yet since I am currently updating the websites on the XOR focus on a hexagram's 'genetic code'. You may be interested in reflecting on the AND focus re line position patterns.
I am also fleshing out the GENERIC dynamics here, we are not dealing with the IC as such, but with what it is developed from - recursion. IOW the XOR material is applicable to any categorisation system - e.g. the MBTI where we 'type' people - so the XOR material brings out aspects of the category. (reflects BCF dynamics a la 'boolean reasoning')
for example, the XNTP persona type has particular characterstics now derivable, through the XOR process, from the 'inside'.
(e.g. the skeletal form of 51, the XNTP representation, is described by 35 - bringing something into the light. I think reflection on the IC/MBTI material may show you the magnitude of what we are dealing with in the context of categorisation methods - see
http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/MBTIX.htm)
Chris.
lightofdarkness
(deceased)
- Joined
- Mar 16, 1970
- Messages
- 1,025
- Reaction score
- 3
Hi Martin, the following is applicable - comes from a post of mine to my ichingplus list:
To make the point re XOR/AND,
the neurology shows that as we have developed so we have moved from a LOCAL perspective to a UNIVERSAL perspective - but that is half the story in that the universal perspective is algebraic - IOW it is all formulas/algorithms referencing variables. The NAMES, the LABELS, of the variables are expressed (being universals themselves) but their CONTENT requires information from LOCAL conditions to allow the 'genotype' to express the correct 'phenotype' to 'fit' the context fully.
Thus a move from the WHOLE, that is GEOMETRIC, dimensional, to PARTS reflects discretisation (and is reflected in current trends in Mathematics where moving to the dimensionless, the 'dot' gives us more precision. As such a 'tangent' can be mapped to passing through one dot shared between the 'circle' and the 'line' where 'circle' and 'line' are arrangements of dots.)
To COMPLETE the journey requires RE-integration with the whole; IOW AND goes to XOR that then 'returns' to AND. BUT, the fragmentation that comes out of XOR elicits borders and so lets loose complexity/chaos - and so allows for emergence; IOW out of an XOR realm can come 'transcendence' to an AND state but also to something 'new' and 'discrete', seperate from what it came from (as a child is from its parents - mix of their genes but also 'unique').
The I Ching focus reflects this dynamic (it would have to since it reflects 'us') in that the XOR process allows us to see 'inside' the hexgram, its genetic code, and THROUGH the whole that is the hexagram, see the expression of that genetics. The AND function still needs focus in that it appears to indicate that given hex X and a context described by hex Z, so the passage of X through the context, Z, will inevitably lead to W. We can 'link' these together into threads, where given X passage to W so we can map W passage through some context and so on.
X -> Z -> W
X1(W) -> Z1 -> W2
X2(W2) -> Z2 -> W3
...
...
This needs to be looked at - but I am currently focused on XOR-ing (updating webpages etc).
Chris.
To make the point re XOR/AND,
the neurology shows that as we have developed so we have moved from a LOCAL perspective to a UNIVERSAL perspective - but that is half the story in that the universal perspective is algebraic - IOW it is all formulas/algorithms referencing variables. The NAMES, the LABELS, of the variables are expressed (being universals themselves) but their CONTENT requires information from LOCAL conditions to allow the 'genotype' to express the correct 'phenotype' to 'fit' the context fully.
Thus a move from the WHOLE, that is GEOMETRIC, dimensional, to PARTS reflects discretisation (and is reflected in current trends in Mathematics where moving to the dimensionless, the 'dot' gives us more precision. As such a 'tangent' can be mapped to passing through one dot shared between the 'circle' and the 'line' where 'circle' and 'line' are arrangements of dots.)
To COMPLETE the journey requires RE-integration with the whole; IOW AND goes to XOR that then 'returns' to AND. BUT, the fragmentation that comes out of XOR elicits borders and so lets loose complexity/chaos - and so allows for emergence; IOW out of an XOR realm can come 'transcendence' to an AND state but also to something 'new' and 'discrete', seperate from what it came from (as a child is from its parents - mix of their genes but also 'unique').
The I Ching focus reflects this dynamic (it would have to since it reflects 'us') in that the XOR process allows us to see 'inside' the hexgram, its genetic code, and THROUGH the whole that is the hexagram, see the expression of that genetics. The AND function still needs focus in that it appears to indicate that given hex X and a context described by hex Z, so the passage of X through the context, Z, will inevitably lead to W. We can 'link' these together into threads, where given X passage to W so we can map W passage through some context and so on.
X -> Z -> W
X1(W) -> Z1 -> W2
X2(W2) -> Z2 -> W3
...
...
This needs to be looked at - but I am currently focused on XOR-ing (updating webpages etc).
Chris.
martin
(deceased)
- Joined
- Oct 2, 1971
- Messages
- 2,705
- Reaction score
- 61
Hi Chris,
After 1 beer + 6 or so cigarettes + 1 aspirin
my mind comes up with this:
In the flow of successors the WHAT (top trigram) of the original hexagram gradually moves to the WHERE (base trigram). This seems to reflect what happens when we explore new environments or learn new skills. As we become more familiar with them they move into the 'background' - in Gestalt terms - and we are ready for other new objects and skills.
The mechanism is the same on the level of hexagrams. For instance, if we take hex 56 in the context of hex 37 and let it evolve by adding yin lines on top (I think this corresponds to the 'line of least resistance' or 'let it go as it wants to, don't interfere') we get:
101011001101 (37+56)
#010110011010 (47+48)
##101100110100 (55+54)
###011001101000 (18+36)
####110011010000 (61+07)
#####100110100000 (17+24)
######001101000000 (56+02)
This looks a bit like thermodynamic death, but we can follow other paths instead of 'least resistance'. One interesting thing is that a path can be represented by a hexagram. For instance hex 48 (011010) means: add 0 to derive the first successor, 1 to derive the next, 1 to derive the next, and so on. The path of the example corresponds to hex 2 (000000).
When we use 011010 instead of 000000 we get:
101011001101 (37+56)
#010110011010 (47+48)
##101100110101 (55+38)
###011001101011 (18+37)
####110011010110 (61+47)
#####100110101101 (17+30)
######001101011010 (56+48)
Now, what does this mean?
48 appears finally as the WHAT so we can perhaps see it as a goal, something that we want to find or create.
If that is so the sequence of pairs of hexagrams seems to give an answer to the question 'what happens to 56 in the context of 37 when the goal is to find/create 48?'
Free translation: 'how does a restless guy (56) in an organization with fixed roles (37) find nourishment'?
Of course this is all quite (?) speculative. Does it come anywhere near your 'moving through context'?
As you see I have introduced a third element, a goal (or perhaps an attractor?). That is realistic, I think. Organism-in-environment - for instance - is not the complete picture. The beast or whatever it is wants something from life!
Apart from adapting ...
The higher evolved the more it wants?
Time for a second beer.
After 1 beer + 6 or so cigarettes + 1 aspirin
In the flow of successors the WHAT (top trigram) of the original hexagram gradually moves to the WHERE (base trigram). This seems to reflect what happens when we explore new environments or learn new skills. As we become more familiar with them they move into the 'background' - in Gestalt terms - and we are ready for other new objects and skills.
The mechanism is the same on the level of hexagrams. For instance, if we take hex 56 in the context of hex 37 and let it evolve by adding yin lines on top (I think this corresponds to the 'line of least resistance' or 'let it go as it wants to, don't interfere') we get:
101011001101 (37+56)
#010110011010 (47+48)
##101100110100 (55+54)
###011001101000 (18+36)
####110011010000 (61+07)
#####100110100000 (17+24)
######001101000000 (56+02)
This looks a bit like thermodynamic death, but we can follow other paths instead of 'least resistance'. One interesting thing is that a path can be represented by a hexagram. For instance hex 48 (011010) means: add 0 to derive the first successor, 1 to derive the next, 1 to derive the next, and so on. The path of the example corresponds to hex 2 (000000).
When we use 011010 instead of 000000 we get:
101011001101 (37+56)
#010110011010 (47+48)
##101100110101 (55+38)
###011001101011 (18+37)
####110011010110 (61+47)
#####100110101101 (17+30)
######001101011010 (56+48)
Now, what does this mean?
48 appears finally as the WHAT so we can perhaps see it as a goal, something that we want to find or create.
If that is so the sequence of pairs of hexagrams seems to give an answer to the question 'what happens to 56 in the context of 37 when the goal is to find/create 48?'
Free translation: 'how does a restless guy (56) in an organization with fixed roles (37) find nourishment'?
Of course this is all quite (?) speculative. Does it come anywhere near your 'moving through context'?
As you see I have introduced a third element, a goal (or perhaps an attractor?). That is realistic, I think. Organism-in-environment - for instance - is not the complete picture. The beast or whatever it is wants something from life!
Apart from adapting ...
The higher evolved the more it wants?
Time for a second beer.
lightofdarkness
(deceased)
- Joined
- Mar 16, 1970
- Messages
- 1,025
- Reaction score
- 3
Hi Martin,
you wrote:
> In the flow of successors the WHAT (top trigram) of the
> original hexagram gradually moves to the WHERE (base
> trigram). This seems to reflect what happens when we explore
> new environments or learn new skills. As we become more
> familiar with them they move into the 'background' - in
> Gestalt terms - and we are ready for other new objects and
> skills.
>
Sure - the what/where is relabelled to be KNOWN/UNKNOWN or PRECISE/VAGUE or CRISP/APPROXIMATE or PROACTIVE/REACTIVE with the left element coming out of the right (and so the top trigram emerges from the bottom to reflect mediation that is interpretable as then sinking back into the bottom; this reflects energy dynamics where the conservation state is in the bottom position, the expenditure in the top. Thus triagrams in the top reflect exaggerations of base states e.g. mountain bottom is stopping, blocked, and so REACTIVE. Add energy and in the top position that reactive nature is turned around to be PROACTIVE - we turn the stopping into the concept of discernment and so quality control). All of the above dichotomies are relabels of the differentiating/integrating 'template' dichotomy.
The what/where dichotomy is asymmetric, the elements are not swappable. IOW a symmetric dichotomy of +1/-1 allows for the taking of their absolute value 1/1 and so 'swap' these terms. In an asymmetric dichotomy, e.g. 0/infinity, this is not possible -- this gets us into the differences on wave perspectives vs pulse perspectives etc and as such influences interpretations.
On the IDM dimension of precision the overall movement is right to left - but there are oscillations over time where, with experience, so we dont go so far 'right' with the known - in fact once something is labelled so that label is 'stored' in the left/back part of the brain in the form of a 'universal' (which is what labels are). This allows for 'immediate' response. Only if there is a detected 'anomoly' do we then go 'right' again to re-analyse the immediate context.
The structural, XOR, set, matrix that comes out of this is:
111, 110, 101, 100, 011, 010, 001, 000
The temporal, AND, sequence, matrix is:
111, 011, 101, 001, 110, 010, 100, 000
111 is the realm of mediation, 000 of filtering (instinct process) Thus 'brain-wise' with a structural focus we have:
111, 110, 101, 100, 011, 010, 001, 000
110..
101..
100..
011..
010..
001..
000, 001, 010, 011, 100, 101, 110, 111
Note the left column reflecting the increase, as we move down the page, in a mediated position (111) to a filtering position (000) in the context of the increasing KNOWN. The far right column reflects movement from a filtering position to a mediation position where the set of instincts etc does not work and we have to mediate, IOW deal with the UNKNOWN. The matrix allows for middle positions that stay in those positions due to limited experiences. (there is also a diagonal path to connect poles - gets into the semiotic square (?) etc)
Your focus on WHAT on top of WHERE is valid for reading from the general to the particular, unknown to known where, once the known is reached it becomes habituated - mediation transforms into representation (and so integrated and so oriented to WHERE). Being habituated so it becomes part of our toolkit of habits/instincts, but that also allow for WHAT/WHAT and WHERE/WHERE states - but these then move into the realm of opposites interpretations, symmetric dichotomies.
The trigram or hexagram 'stack' reflects a base position of stimulus/response and a top position of mediation/representation. the top position is the realm of differentiating, something needed to mediate parts to then re-integrate through a label, representation. The bottom position reflects the realm of integrated and so what the representation will sink back into - BUT there is a hybrid reality forming from this, mixing species-level instincts with consciousness-level habits, the latter can cover up the former but in intense 'threat' conditions the instincts will more often 'rule'.
What the XOR dynamic does is bring out the hard-coded elements, the instincts that go to make the trigram/hexagram/dodecagram what it is (as our genetic make up does with its interaction with context).
> The mechanism is the same on the level of hexagrams. For
> instance, if we take hex 56 in the context of hex 37 and let
> it evolve by adding yin lines on top (I think this
> corresponds to the 'line of least resistance' or 'let it go
> as it wants to, don't interfere') we get:
>
> 101011001101 (37+56)
> #010110011010 (47+48)
> ##101100110100 (55+54)
> ###011001101000 (18+36)
> ####110011010000 (61+07)
> #####100110100000 (17+24)
> ######001101000000 (56+02)
>
Ok, I get it ... I think the possible issue here is that (a) the top line is the easiest to change but (b) to maintain the 6 or 12-line perspective, adding a top removes the bottom, the supposed hardest line to change! The focus therefore is on adding a line at the top to change the context at the bottom where the 'removal' of 1 by adding a new 6 reflects a dynamic of top changing affecting bottom expression.
Since, at the level of hexagrams, adding a top reflects a change in relationships of all line positions to line position 6 so it would affect the 1-6 relationship overall and so basic skelatal form of the hexagram (hex 27).
That said, adding a new 6 and associating it now with the old 2 that now becomes the 1 so there is a focus on 2-6. 2-6 is covered by hexagram 04 and covers issues of masking, socialising etc., covering-up 'something' to socialise (04 shares space with 07 where the uniformity is unconditional)
If we interpret bottom as stimulus/response in need of 'change', and that done through mediation/representation so the consequences WOULD be a change in the level of stimulus/response as its issues are resolved.
If we look at the 37+56 dynamic as hexagrams, with 56 in a context of 37, from XOR/AND, we have:
101011 (37 context)
001101 (56 text) XOR
100110 -> (expression of 56-ness of 37) : 17
37 expresses loyalty in the form of following.
101011 (37 context)
001101 (56 text) AND
011001 -> (expression of 56 passing through 37) : 18
loyalty passing through a context of 37 leads to 18.
IOW the influence of context (37) on 56 is to elicit a development to focus on, become, 18.
This would occur in three steps in your sequence where 56 top leads to 18 bottom.
Given the level of representation, 64 hexagrams, so a hexagram can pass through 64 descriptions of contexts, with each giving a particular outcome. Move to dodecagrams and you have increased resolution power to one dodecagram passing through 4096 descriptions of contexts. Your focus appears to be changing context as you go, XOR/AND seems to focus on maintaining context and noticing its 'push' on what passes through it or the expression of something within it. IOW the WHERE is held constant and the WHAT is dynamic - either in passage across the context (temporal, AND focus) or as an element WITHIN the context (structural, XOR focus).
> When we use 011010 instead of 000000 we get:
>
> 101011001101 (37+56)
> #010110011010 (47+48)
> ##101100110101 (55+38)
> ###011001101011 (18+37)
> ####110011010110 (61+47)
> #####100110101101 (17+30)
> ######001101011010 (56+48)
>
> Now, what does this mean? [ howmuch ]
if you map out 000000 and then use any other hexagram pattern, you move from a general realm of potentials to those restriced by the particular filter - here in the form of 011010. If you move to allow your filter to eventually being 'top' so you move to your filter becoming the agent of mediation, differentiating bias. Adding 'bits' to the top position reflects adding mediation dynamics and the consequence of feedback on the context in that you dont hold the context as a constant.
> Of course this is all quite (?) speculative. Does it come
> anywhere near your 'moving through context'?
> As you see I have introduced a third element, a goal (or
> perhaps an attractor?).
yes, this is reflected in XOR-ing or AND-ing. We have A -> B -> C
where for XOR it is C expressing the A-ness in B. ( and so WITHIN)
For AND it is C appearing to be the outcome of A passing over/across/through B. (and so cause->effect, BETWEEN). With the AND-ing focus one should be able to form strings:
A -> B -> C
A1(C) -> B -> C1
A2(C1) -> B -> C2
etc
etc
(and of course vary the context, B, for other developments).
Chris.
you wrote:
> In the flow of successors the WHAT (top trigram) of the
> original hexagram gradually moves to the WHERE (base
> trigram). This seems to reflect what happens when we explore
> new environments or learn new skills. As we become more
> familiar with them they move into the 'background' - in
> Gestalt terms - and we are ready for other new objects and
> skills.
>
Sure - the what/where is relabelled to be KNOWN/UNKNOWN or PRECISE/VAGUE or CRISP/APPROXIMATE or PROACTIVE/REACTIVE with the left element coming out of the right (and so the top trigram emerges from the bottom to reflect mediation that is interpretable as then sinking back into the bottom; this reflects energy dynamics where the conservation state is in the bottom position, the expenditure in the top. Thus triagrams in the top reflect exaggerations of base states e.g. mountain bottom is stopping, blocked, and so REACTIVE. Add energy and in the top position that reactive nature is turned around to be PROACTIVE - we turn the stopping into the concept of discernment and so quality control). All of the above dichotomies are relabels of the differentiating/integrating 'template' dichotomy.
The what/where dichotomy is asymmetric, the elements are not swappable. IOW a symmetric dichotomy of +1/-1 allows for the taking of their absolute value 1/1 and so 'swap' these terms. In an asymmetric dichotomy, e.g. 0/infinity, this is not possible -- this gets us into the differences on wave perspectives vs pulse perspectives etc and as such influences interpretations.
On the IDM dimension of precision the overall movement is right to left - but there are oscillations over time where, with experience, so we dont go so far 'right' with the known - in fact once something is labelled so that label is 'stored' in the left/back part of the brain in the form of a 'universal' (which is what labels are). This allows for 'immediate' response. Only if there is a detected 'anomoly' do we then go 'right' again to re-analyse the immediate context.
The structural, XOR, set, matrix that comes out of this is:
111, 110, 101, 100, 011, 010, 001, 000
The temporal, AND, sequence, matrix is:
111, 011, 101, 001, 110, 010, 100, 000
111 is the realm of mediation, 000 of filtering (instinct process) Thus 'brain-wise' with a structural focus we have:
111, 110, 101, 100, 011, 010, 001, 000
110..
101..
100..
011..
010..
001..
000, 001, 010, 011, 100, 101, 110, 111
Note the left column reflecting the increase, as we move down the page, in a mediated position (111) to a filtering position (000) in the context of the increasing KNOWN. The far right column reflects movement from a filtering position to a mediation position where the set of instincts etc does not work and we have to mediate, IOW deal with the UNKNOWN. The matrix allows for middle positions that stay in those positions due to limited experiences. (there is also a diagonal path to connect poles - gets into the semiotic square (?) etc)
Your focus on WHAT on top of WHERE is valid for reading from the general to the particular, unknown to known where, once the known is reached it becomes habituated - mediation transforms into representation (and so integrated and so oriented to WHERE). Being habituated so it becomes part of our toolkit of habits/instincts, but that also allow for WHAT/WHAT and WHERE/WHERE states - but these then move into the realm of opposites interpretations, symmetric dichotomies.
The trigram or hexagram 'stack' reflects a base position of stimulus/response and a top position of mediation/representation. the top position is the realm of differentiating, something needed to mediate parts to then re-integrate through a label, representation. The bottom position reflects the realm of integrated and so what the representation will sink back into - BUT there is a hybrid reality forming from this, mixing species-level instincts with consciousness-level habits, the latter can cover up the former but in intense 'threat' conditions the instincts will more often 'rule'.
What the XOR dynamic does is bring out the hard-coded elements, the instincts that go to make the trigram/hexagram/dodecagram what it is (as our genetic make up does with its interaction with context).
> The mechanism is the same on the level of hexagrams. For
> instance, if we take hex 56 in the context of hex 37 and let
> it evolve by adding yin lines on top (I think this
> corresponds to the 'line of least resistance' or 'let it go
> as it wants to, don't interfere') we get:
>
> 101011001101 (37+56)
> #010110011010 (47+48)
> ##101100110100 (55+54)
> ###011001101000 (18+36)
> ####110011010000 (61+07)
> #####100110100000 (17+24)
> ######001101000000 (56+02)
>
Ok, I get it ... I think the possible issue here is that (a) the top line is the easiest to change but (b) to maintain the 6 or 12-line perspective, adding a top removes the bottom, the supposed hardest line to change! The focus therefore is on adding a line at the top to change the context at the bottom where the 'removal' of 1 by adding a new 6 reflects a dynamic of top changing affecting bottom expression.
Since, at the level of hexagrams, adding a top reflects a change in relationships of all line positions to line position 6 so it would affect the 1-6 relationship overall and so basic skelatal form of the hexagram (hex 27).
That said, adding a new 6 and associating it now with the old 2 that now becomes the 1 so there is a focus on 2-6. 2-6 is covered by hexagram 04 and covers issues of masking, socialising etc., covering-up 'something' to socialise (04 shares space with 07 where the uniformity is unconditional)
If we interpret bottom as stimulus/response in need of 'change', and that done through mediation/representation so the consequences WOULD be a change in the level of stimulus/response as its issues are resolved.
If we look at the 37+56 dynamic as hexagrams, with 56 in a context of 37, from XOR/AND, we have:
101011 (37 context)
001101 (56 text) XOR
100110 -> (expression of 56-ness of 37) : 17
37 expresses loyalty in the form of following.
101011 (37 context)
001101 (56 text) AND
011001 -> (expression of 56 passing through 37) : 18
loyalty passing through a context of 37 leads to 18.
IOW the influence of context (37) on 56 is to elicit a development to focus on, become, 18.
This would occur in three steps in your sequence where 56 top leads to 18 bottom.
Given the level of representation, 64 hexagrams, so a hexagram can pass through 64 descriptions of contexts, with each giving a particular outcome. Move to dodecagrams and you have increased resolution power to one dodecagram passing through 4096 descriptions of contexts. Your focus appears to be changing context as you go, XOR/AND seems to focus on maintaining context and noticing its 'push' on what passes through it or the expression of something within it. IOW the WHERE is held constant and the WHAT is dynamic - either in passage across the context (temporal, AND focus) or as an element WITHIN the context (structural, XOR focus).
> When we use 011010 instead of 000000 we get:
>
> 101011001101 (37+56)
> #010110011010 (47+48)
> ##101100110101 (55+38)
> ###011001101011 (18+37)
> ####110011010110 (61+47)
> #####100110101101 (17+30)
> ######001101011010 (56+48)
>
> Now, what does this mean? [ howmuch ]
if you map out 000000 and then use any other hexagram pattern, you move from a general realm of potentials to those restriced by the particular filter - here in the form of 011010. If you move to allow your filter to eventually being 'top' so you move to your filter becoming the agent of mediation, differentiating bias. Adding 'bits' to the top position reflects adding mediation dynamics and the consequence of feedback on the context in that you dont hold the context as a constant.
> Of course this is all quite (?) speculative. Does it come
> anywhere near your 'moving through context'?
> As you see I have introduced a third element, a goal (or
> perhaps an attractor?).
yes, this is reflected in XOR-ing or AND-ing. We have A -> B -> C
where for XOR it is C expressing the A-ness in B. ( and so WITHIN)
For AND it is C appearing to be the outcome of A passing over/across/through B. (and so cause->effect, BETWEEN). With the AND-ing focus one should be able to form strings:
A -> B -> C
A1(C) -> B -> C1
A2(C1) -> B -> C2
etc
etc
(and of course vary the context, B, for other developments).
Chris.
martin
(deceased)
- Joined
- Oct 2, 1971
- Messages
- 2,705
- Reaction score
- 61
Hi Chris,
A question about XOR and how you interpret it: if we XOR 37 with 22 we get 8. One possible interpretation would be that 8 reflects how 37 looks from the outside (22). That seems to make sense. However, when we XOR 8 again with 22 we get 37 back!
Is that not at least a little bit strange?
It's not just a coincidence because (a XOR b) XOR b = a for all hexagrams a and b.
For instance, the skeleton of the skeleton (XOR with 27) of 37 is .. 37 again.
???
I mentioned another potential problem (the commutativity of XOR) already in earlier posts. The 'culprit' in this case is not commutativity - you don't need it to prove (a XOR b) XOR b = a.
It is x XOR x = 0 (0 stands for 000000, hex 2), apparently.
A question about XOR and how you interpret it: if we XOR 37 with 22 we get 8. One possible interpretation would be that 8 reflects how 37 looks from the outside (22). That seems to make sense. However, when we XOR 8 again with 22 we get 37 back!
Is that not at least a little bit strange?
It's not just a coincidence because (a XOR b) XOR b = a for all hexagrams a and b.
For instance, the skeleton of the skeleton (XOR with 27) of 37 is .. 37 again.
???
I mentioned another potential problem (the commutativity of XOR) already in earlier posts. The 'culprit' in this case is not commutativity - you don't need it to prove (a XOR b) XOR b = a.
It is x XOR x = 0 (0 stands for 000000, hex 2), apparently.
lightofdarkness
(deceased)
- Joined
- Mar 16, 1970
- Messages
- 1,025
- Reaction score
- 3
i Martin,
If we have A XOR B = C where B is CONTEXT so C is a description of the A-ness of B. Given the finite language we are using, as in 64 hexagrams, or 4096 dodecagrams or just eight trigrams, all meaning is covered by those symbols. Thus C is description by analogy/metaphor. It is CONTEXT that 'grounds' things.
So, given 22 XOR 37 = 8 and 37 XOR 22 = 8 the difference is in the MIDDLE; 8 is used as the analogy to describe the 22-ness of 37 as in can be used to describe the 37-ness of 22.
if we move to a level of 2^12 then we have 4096 symbols/qualities to serve as a source of description (same as compressing the 4096 into 64 changing-line hexagrams (4^6 representations rather than 2^6))
The issue in the past re attempts to XOR/IOR/AND has been due to the failure to consider context and the consequences of having a very generic, and limited, form of representations - IOW we have to use the same 64 for all meaning - but then we also use the same letters in our language for all meaning ;-)
SO -- with 22 XOR 37 the focus is on 'what does 37 look like from the outside, how does it present itself?" - the answer is by analogy to the qualities of 08, the focus on passive attraction, being drawn-in by the context.
With 37 XOR 22 we are focusing on how does 22 express tension release through rigid structure? what is the 37-ness of 22. The facade nature of 22 reflects the passive attraction element, where the look itself 'attracts the masses' and in doing so elicits tension release - the 'rigid' element is in the construction of the facade.
In 22 XOR 37 the focus is on 37. In 37 XOR 22 the focus is on 22. It is the CONTEXT that elicits the differences in perspectives - 22 XOR 37 without context is just an exercise in 'pure mathematics' and symmetric. We could introduce a more 'asymmetric' notion using the IMP operator but I find no real issue with the XOR-ing as long as the relationship of A XOR B = C covers 'archetype(gene)' -> Context -> Expression.
IOW the SAME 'language' is used in A, B, C - the CONTEXT makes the differences.
As for A XOR B = C where A and B are the same hexagram, this is 'logical' in that the result of 02 reflects the realm of POTENTIALS (self-referencing, infinite loop etc -what is the 'skeletal nature of skeletal nature...'). We also have A XOR B = C where A or B is 02 then C will be the other value (27 XOR 2 = 27). This represents the 'reflection' of the actual in the pool of potentials (02). IOW 'what is the skeletal form of 02?' Since 02 is the pool of archetypes, of potentials, so it will reflect all of the hexagrams in their unique states - and this is reflected in the reverse - what is the 02-ness of 27? (02 XOR 27) and it will be 27 - again, a focus on the self-referencing, a sort of "I AM WHAT I AM WHAT I AM....."
If you look at all of this from the perspective of 'pure mathematics', of UNIVERSALS, such that A XOR B is no different to B XOR A, you will miss the point re CONTEXT; add context and you introduce difference and from there derive meaning.
Chris.
If we have A XOR B = C where B is CONTEXT so C is a description of the A-ness of B. Given the finite language we are using, as in 64 hexagrams, or 4096 dodecagrams or just eight trigrams, all meaning is covered by those symbols. Thus C is description by analogy/metaphor. It is CONTEXT that 'grounds' things.
So, given 22 XOR 37 = 8 and 37 XOR 22 = 8 the difference is in the MIDDLE; 8 is used as the analogy to describe the 22-ness of 37 as in can be used to describe the 37-ness of 22.
if we move to a level of 2^12 then we have 4096 symbols/qualities to serve as a source of description (same as compressing the 4096 into 64 changing-line hexagrams (4^6 representations rather than 2^6))
The issue in the past re attempts to XOR/IOR/AND has been due to the failure to consider context and the consequences of having a very generic, and limited, form of representations - IOW we have to use the same 64 for all meaning - but then we also use the same letters in our language for all meaning ;-)
SO -- with 22 XOR 37 the focus is on 'what does 37 look like from the outside, how does it present itself?" - the answer is by analogy to the qualities of 08, the focus on passive attraction, being drawn-in by the context.
With 37 XOR 22 we are focusing on how does 22 express tension release through rigid structure? what is the 37-ness of 22. The facade nature of 22 reflects the passive attraction element, where the look itself 'attracts the masses' and in doing so elicits tension release - the 'rigid' element is in the construction of the facade.
In 22 XOR 37 the focus is on 37. In 37 XOR 22 the focus is on 22. It is the CONTEXT that elicits the differences in perspectives - 22 XOR 37 without context is just an exercise in 'pure mathematics' and symmetric. We could introduce a more 'asymmetric' notion using the IMP operator but I find no real issue with the XOR-ing as long as the relationship of A XOR B = C covers 'archetype(gene)' -> Context -> Expression.
IOW the SAME 'language' is used in A, B, C - the CONTEXT makes the differences.
As for A XOR B = C where A and B are the same hexagram, this is 'logical' in that the result of 02 reflects the realm of POTENTIALS (self-referencing, infinite loop etc -what is the 'skeletal nature of skeletal nature...'). We also have A XOR B = C where A or B is 02 then C will be the other value (27 XOR 2 = 27). This represents the 'reflection' of the actual in the pool of potentials (02). IOW 'what is the skeletal form of 02?' Since 02 is the pool of archetypes, of potentials, so it will reflect all of the hexagrams in their unique states - and this is reflected in the reverse - what is the 02-ness of 27? (02 XOR 27) and it will be 27 - again, a focus on the self-referencing, a sort of "I AM WHAT I AM WHAT I AM....."
If you look at all of this from the perspective of 'pure mathematics', of UNIVERSALS, such that A XOR B is no different to B XOR A, you will miss the point re CONTEXT; add context and you introduce difference and from there derive meaning.
Chris.
martin
(deceased)
- Joined
- Oct 2, 1971
- Messages
- 2,705
- Reaction score
- 61
Hi Chris,
Yes, I understand what you mean. In the math mapping information is left out and we sometimes have to go back to the territory to recover what was lost. Or to a finer map.
Apparently we differ here in that I would like to have a finer map that represents more of what 'a XOR b' is supposed to mean while you seem to be satisfied with what XOR can give you.
Are all Australians like that, I mean, so easy to satisfy?
I want MORE!
Yes, I understand what you mean. In the math mapping information is left out and we sometimes have to go back to the territory to recover what was lost. Or to a finer map.
Apparently we differ here in that I would like to have a finer map that represents more of what 'a XOR b' is supposed to mean while you seem to be satisfied with what XOR can give you.
Are all Australians like that, I mean, so easy to satisfy?
I want MORE!
lightofdarkness
(deceased)
- Joined
- Mar 16, 1970
- Messages
- 1,025
- Reaction score
- 3
Hi Martin,
you wrote:
> Apparently we differ here in that I would like to have a
> finer map that represents more of what 'a XOR b' is supposed
> to mean while you seem to be satisfied with what XOR can
> give you.
Not at all. You seem to have been selective in your readings of my posts! ;-)
The XOR function is a function that elicits a PARTS perspective, allowing for clear differentiating of what is WITHIN 'something' where that 'something' is a complex whole. The dynamic of XOR/AND dominates brain function in the processing of information, and, since brain reflects adaptation to context so the XOR/AND dynamic is 'out there'. IOW any XOR/AND oriented categorisation system will do well in reflecting us and the universe ;-)
Since, in a hierarchy, what is a WHOLE at one level is a PART at another, there is a cascading element at work in XOR/AND dynamics. Thus the AND is the I Ching and the XOR is the hexagrams etc. At this point each hexagram is considered an AND< a whole, and WITHIN it we can XOR to give us what makes it up - its 'genetic code' that feeds its full expression.
(Noticing the link of DNA codons to yin/yang is well covered in the I Ching studies area - but it is not just simile, the METHOD of both, recursion, seems to be the source of analogy - see my old site page:
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond/dna.html )
By understanding recursion and the XOR/AND dynamics so we get a better 'view' of categorisation systems that operate that way and that includes the I Ching (as covered in IDM, and for a particular demonstration of your brain working in this manner, and so at times eliciting paradox when consciousness is not aware of what is going on - see http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/paradox.html))
If you read http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/linemean.html from beginning to end you may get what a XOR b 'means' ;-) .... as well as a AND b etc etc etc
The basic XOR/AND properties reflect the characteristics of differentiating/integrating and as such properties sourced at the level of neurons and repeated all the way 'up' the hierarchy of our neurology - and so be reflected in hemisphere activity and on into consciousness and out into the properties and methods of collectives/species (at least the neuron-dependent ones ;-))
The dynamics of recursion, where it allows for the encoding we see, where all elements in one level of recursion are encoded in EACH element, and so reflecting the whole encoded in all parts, operates throughout our biology, even down to mRNA/DNA encoding (the recursion is of the dichotomy of purines/pyramidines) and on down to basic categories in particle physics (and so the fermion/boson dichotomy where the generic characteristics reflect XOR/AND dynamics, biases to differentiating/integrating).
The above said, the truth of the matter is more that our neurology is made up such that all we can detect are patterns of differentiating/integrating (and that includes mediation dynamics) - IOW there could be 'more' but a 'more' we could never detect other than as paradox (see above link on paradox).
Chris.
you wrote:
> Apparently we differ here in that I would like to have a
> finer map that represents more of what 'a XOR b' is supposed
> to mean while you seem to be satisfied with what XOR can
> give you.
Not at all. You seem to have been selective in your readings of my posts! ;-)
The XOR function is a function that elicits a PARTS perspective, allowing for clear differentiating of what is WITHIN 'something' where that 'something' is a complex whole. The dynamic of XOR/AND dominates brain function in the processing of information, and, since brain reflects adaptation to context so the XOR/AND dynamic is 'out there'. IOW any XOR/AND oriented categorisation system will do well in reflecting us and the universe ;-)
Since, in a hierarchy, what is a WHOLE at one level is a PART at another, there is a cascading element at work in XOR/AND dynamics. Thus the AND is the I Ching and the XOR is the hexagrams etc. At this point each hexagram is considered an AND< a whole, and WITHIN it we can XOR to give us what makes it up - its 'genetic code' that feeds its full expression.
(Noticing the link of DNA codons to yin/yang is well covered in the I Ching studies area - but it is not just simile, the METHOD of both, recursion, seems to be the source of analogy - see my old site page:
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond/dna.html )
By understanding recursion and the XOR/AND dynamics so we get a better 'view' of categorisation systems that operate that way and that includes the I Ching (as covered in IDM, and for a particular demonstration of your brain working in this manner, and so at times eliciting paradox when consciousness is not aware of what is going on - see http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/paradox.html))
If you read http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/linemean.html from beginning to end you may get what a XOR b 'means' ;-) .... as well as a AND b etc etc etc
The basic XOR/AND properties reflect the characteristics of differentiating/integrating and as such properties sourced at the level of neurons and repeated all the way 'up' the hierarchy of our neurology - and so be reflected in hemisphere activity and on into consciousness and out into the properties and methods of collectives/species (at least the neuron-dependent ones ;-))
The dynamics of recursion, where it allows for the encoding we see, where all elements in one level of recursion are encoded in EACH element, and so reflecting the whole encoded in all parts, operates throughout our biology, even down to mRNA/DNA encoding (the recursion is of the dichotomy of purines/pyramidines) and on down to basic categories in particle physics (and so the fermion/boson dichotomy where the generic characteristics reflect XOR/AND dynamics, biases to differentiating/integrating).
The above said, the truth of the matter is more that our neurology is made up such that all we can detect are patterns of differentiating/integrating (and that includes mediation dynamics) - IOW there could be 'more' but a 'more' we could never detect other than as paradox (see above link on paradox).
Chris.
martin
(deceased)
- Joined
- Oct 2, 1971
- Messages
- 2,705
- Reaction score
- 61
There is perhaps a misunderstanding here. My issue was that XOR maps oriented pairs of hexagrams on only 64 hexagrams, so a lot of information is lost. I think you said that yourself earlier, in other words.
What I would like to have is a mapping that shows more detail. That is what I mean by 'more' (more detail, a finer map). I don't think that 'more' in this sense could only be detected as paradox.
Are you talking about another 'more'?
LOL.
What I would like to have is a mapping that shows more detail. That is what I mean by 'more' (more detail, a finer map). I don't think that 'more' in this sense could only be detected as paradox.
Are you talking about another 'more'?
LOL.
lightofdarkness
(deceased)
- Joined
- Mar 16, 1970
- Messages
- 1,025
- Reaction score
- 3
Hi Martin,
I get ya - No problem. The method applies to any level of recursion of a dichotomy. I have mentioned before that you can zoom-in to dodecagrams and so 4096 'genes' per each dodecagram giving 16+ million descriptions! - but that whole realm has to be fleshed out so we walk before we run! ;-)
As we 'cut' the whole so each row of cutting gives us a set of qualities usable to describe 'all there is'. The I Ching comes in trigram form (8), hexagram form (64) or hexagram-with-moving-lines form (4096). When we add-in XOR-ing so we get more details per level. IOW at the hexagram level we have 64 'genes' per hexagram and so 64 descriptions x 64 = 4096 - all using the 64 as analogies in that the level we are at determines the set of qualities useable to represent; the 64 are as such archetypes, universals, and then CONTEXT 'grounds' them to bring out local 'colour'.
If we move to changing-lines realm (and so 4096 expressions), with XOR so EACH of these expressions contain a 'dna' sequence encoding 4096 qualities! - and so at the level of 4096 we have 16+million descriptions all covered by the 4096 universals where linking to context brings out the meaning for that context.
The issues re 'more details' are where we XOR the expression. I mean if we have A XOR B = C. then the A-ness of B is described by C so we can XOR C to bring out ITS elements and so on. That would give more details but also increase confusion in that all of this is constrained by the 64 hexagram limit - and so the 'need' to go to 4096 etc., increase bandwidth ;-)
What stops this process is (a) our resolution power is lost, we cannot detect the differences identified or (b) pragmatism steps in where we dont need to go so deep, either for intellectual or socioeconomic reasons - or basic time constraints ;-).
For most, reading 64 hexagrams with limited line comments is enough. To get into hexagram 'genetics' so we have 64 hexagrams with their associated listing of 64 'genes' derived from the line meanings material. This allows for a deeper understanding of the archetypes, how they are all linked together by the recursion etc, and so useful to understand a particular hexagram as a universal. THEN comes the linkage of universal to local context and that elicits 'colour', all experienced by the person doing the linkage.
Chris.
I get ya - No problem. The method applies to any level of recursion of a dichotomy. I have mentioned before that you can zoom-in to dodecagrams and so 4096 'genes' per each dodecagram giving 16+ million descriptions! - but that whole realm has to be fleshed out so we walk before we run! ;-)
As we 'cut' the whole so each row of cutting gives us a set of qualities usable to describe 'all there is'. The I Ching comes in trigram form (8), hexagram form (64) or hexagram-with-moving-lines form (4096). When we add-in XOR-ing so we get more details per level. IOW at the hexagram level we have 64 'genes' per hexagram and so 64 descriptions x 64 = 4096 - all using the 64 as analogies in that the level we are at determines the set of qualities useable to represent; the 64 are as such archetypes, universals, and then CONTEXT 'grounds' them to bring out local 'colour'.
If we move to changing-lines realm (and so 4096 expressions), with XOR so EACH of these expressions contain a 'dna' sequence encoding 4096 qualities! - and so at the level of 4096 we have 16+million descriptions all covered by the 4096 universals where linking to context brings out the meaning for that context.
The issues re 'more details' are where we XOR the expression. I mean if we have A XOR B = C. then the A-ness of B is described by C so we can XOR C to bring out ITS elements and so on. That would give more details but also increase confusion in that all of this is constrained by the 64 hexagram limit - and so the 'need' to go to 4096 etc., increase bandwidth ;-)
What stops this process is (a) our resolution power is lost, we cannot detect the differences identified or (b) pragmatism steps in where we dont need to go so deep, either for intellectual or socioeconomic reasons - or basic time constraints ;-).
For most, reading 64 hexagrams with limited line comments is enough. To get into hexagram 'genetics' so we have 64 hexagrams with their associated listing of 64 'genes' derived from the line meanings material. This allows for a deeper understanding of the archetypes, how they are all linked together by the recursion etc, and so useful to understand a particular hexagram as a universal. THEN comes the linkage of universal to local context and that elicits 'colour', all experienced by the person doing the linkage.
Chris.