...life can be translucent

Menu

revising, harmonising

martin

(deceased)
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
60
Oh well, even if you look at it rationally, while your soul is off to the pub :) - what Chris presents is only a theory, based on assumptions about the IC (and also about how the brain works) that may very well be wrong.

And judging from the strange - to say the least - interpretations that often come out of IDM (in sofar they are really based on it, in IC+ a lot is tradition) there MUST be something wrong with it.

But Chris presents it all as if it is proven fact.

For example:
lightofreason said:
ALL of these relationships are built-in to the methodology of self-referencing, the method used to create the hexagrams
Fact? Really? Come on!

I think there is maybe maybe something right in IDM, but it needs correction, a lot of it.
Hexagram 18!
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
martin said:
Fact? Really? Come on!

Fact. You cannot create the IC representations other than through self-referencing of yin/yang.

You CAN come up with hexagram qualities in an ad hoc manner but over time they will link together to show their roots in self-referencing. The fact YOU find this hard to deal with suggests you intuitively know what is going on but cannot accept it since it will mean you will need to change your perspectives too much and so it threatens your identity. (Since the same method is behind element thinking a la air/earth and its elicitation of water/fire etc in Western perspectives - the IC does better in maintaining order by explicitly adding the next level of dichotomies)

The reference material for IDM is extensive - I suggest you go through it - and the isomorphism across the specialisations I use - IC, MBTI, Emotions, Mathematics - is well demonstrated - so if you disagree then present facts to contradict.

Simply said Martin - put up or shut up.

Chris.
 

martin

(deceased)
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
60
You can shout FACT till the moon falls on the earth, my dear. But all you have is science fiction and you know it, somewhere deep down in the dark cave of your hopelessly confused reasoning.
Isn't it? :)
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
martin said:
You can shout FACT till the moon falls on the earth, my dear. But all you have is science fiction and you know it, somewhere deep down in the dark cave of your hopelessly confused reasoning.
Isn't it? :)

this is pathetic stuff 'martin' - I challange you to put you money where you mouth is and all you can do is offer more abuse - you rhetoric does nothing but lower your standing.

Science is about the clear demonstration of repeatable properties/methods that withstand all attempts at falsification. You have not contributed to this in any way - all you offer is abuse and in so doing demonstrate your fear and/or ignorance of what is going on.

Since you seem to promote yourself as a mathematician and a psychologist it is astounding that you have the nerve to do so when writing such drival as you have to date. Shame martin, Shame.

Understand the properties and methods of self-referencing as covered in IDM and there may be help for you yet - but past experiences indicate you wont, you prefer you limited, safe, perspective which is fine but you also promote yourself as a professional - doing THAT is immoral. Shame martin, shame.

IF you want to 'abuse' IDM then do it professionally, with Science, not Rhetoric.... but that will be an issue since I know any scientific research on neurosciences, brain, emotions etc etc will support the IDM model since at least *I* have done my homework.
 

martin

(deceased)
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
60
lightofreason said:
IF you want to 'abuse' IDM then do it professionally, with Science, not Rhetoric.... but that will be an issue since I know any scientific research on neurosciences, brain, emotions etc etc will support the IDM model since at least *I* have done my homework.

I suggest that you use the search function of this forum. If you do that you will find many posts in which I address your work scientifically and in detail.
I'm not going to repeat all that. Why should I? You don't listen, not to me nor to anyone else on this forum. Instead you prefer to lecture endlessly from a position of "I know and you don't".

It's a pity, if you would only listen to reasonable objections - I'm sure you could improve your theories a lot.

You are not that old, Chris, you can still grow ears. And once you have ears we can perhaps finally have a REAL discussion and not this one way street thing that is now going on all the time. The sarcasm that you are sometimes confronted with will then also stop. It's up to you.

GROW EARS! Do you hear me? :)
 

martin

(deceased)
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
60
In case you don't understand what I mean, look how you responded to LiSe's post in this thread.
Did you listen to her, did you even try to understand her a little bit?
No, you immediately went off into your IDM world and responded with a lecture about hex 18 (and other things) from the IDM perspective.
Do you really think that LiSe was waiting or hoping for that?

And this happens so often ..
And then you talk about the need to be context sensitive?

Clear? I hope so because I have other things to do now.
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
martin said:
I suggest that you use the search function of this forum. If you do that you will find many posts in which I address your work scientifically and in detail.

never done. You never address what you complain/bitch about - as shown here! You never offer a contradiction to the approach - all I 'hear' is winge.

martin said:
GROW EARS! Do you hear me? :)

I have very attuned ears and all I hear is noise.
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
martin said:
In case you don't understand what I mean, look how you responded to LiSe's post in this thread.
Did you listen to her, did you even try to understand her a little bit?
No, you immediately went off into your IDM world and responded with a lecture about hex 18 (and other things) from the IDM perspective.
Do you really think that LiSe was waiting or hoping for that?

And this happens so often ..
And then you talk about the need to be context sensitive?

Clear? I hope so because I have other things to do now.

my comments to LiSe where about 17/18 - if you bothered to read it - prior to that I commented on LiSe overly negative portrayal of hex 18.

Simple.
 

dobro p

visitor
Joined
May 19, 1972
Messages
3,223
Reaction score
205
Anyway, Simple, to get this thread back on track, I was saying something like this: "The approach I've plumped for is one I learned from the world of architecture, where you design a new building so that it harmonizes with the other (older) buildings in the vicinity."

And so when you trashed the traditional Yi as being *so* 10th Century, so *local*, I took that to mean that you didn't like the approach I described, the one in which the Yi you're writing harmonises with the whole line of Yi development since the beginning and tries to usefully meet present needs as well. I mean you never said so in so many words, so I'm having to do some of your thinking for you. But I want to check with you: do you see your Yi as harmonising with Yi development up to now, or do you see yours as leaving it completely behind?

It's not a difficult idea I'm asking you to speak to, and there's not a lot of extra material you have to read to understand it. I'm sure you're a bit disappointed about that. But you could summarise your answer, and that way you wouldn't have to spend much time on it.
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
dobro said:
Anyway, Simple, to get this thread back on track, I was saying something like this: "The approach I've plumped for is one I learned from the world of architecture, where you design a new building so that it harmonizes with the other (older) buildings in the vicinity."

your are doing a LiSe - leaving out the other half. ;-)

From the IDM work we find the dichotomy of replace/coexist. What you propose above is a coexistence position but the reality is BOTH (and so yin and yang).

There are aspects of the traditional material that are fine if a little 'dated' but there also aspects that are shown to be invalid or lacking consistancy and in need of replacement - e.g. methods of enquiry where the questions methods etc are more consistent in their results and it can pick up the 'snow in the sahara' patterns as can the random, but it also picks up all of the 'everyday' stuff as well and in a more consistant manner.

ANY form of development/evolution will reflect coexistance as well as replacement issues. IDM identifies these forms of dichotomy and the possible outcomes from self-referencing and LOCAL context does the rest. YOUR local context given above is, from an IDM perspective, idealist, extreme, in that you want to keep everything even if new data comes along that shows the old to be outdated and in need of replacement.

I realise that there are some who still focus on the Earth being 'flat' but I think there is enough evidence from scientific research to demonstrate that that focus is not a 'best fit' these days; and the same thing goes for the 10th century BC I Ching perspectives when considered in the light of day circa 21st century AD.

There is also enough data around to show the 'primitive' level of understandings of Legge and WIlhelm, and all who have followed mindlessly, to be misleading in that they did not know, from a science perspective, what they were dealing with - in depth work on neurosciences, information theory, cognitive science, anthropology, psychology etc etc shows we knew very little about 'in here' going back from Broca's work on language and hemispheres to 1000BC or more - IOW it is only in the last 200 years or so we have made exponential development in understanding 'in here'.

The IDM template, derived from cognitive analysis of differences to flesh out sameness, maps out the generic, possible, qualities/categories we use as a species to communicate with. The local context will skew perspectives to fit the context such that 10th century BC perspectives were fine for the 10th century but are lacking in meaning 'now' or more so we are in a position to refine their meaning, add more flesh to the bone and so bring out the whole of the IC rather than some local, primitive, esoteric, version.

From the 21st century AD IC perspective, the traditional version is 'quaint'.

quaint (kwnt)
adj. quaint·er, quaint·est
1. Charmingly odd, especially in an old-fashioned way: "Sarah Orne Jewett . . . was dismissed by one critic as merely a New England old maid who wrote quaint, plotless sketches of late 19th-century coastal Maine" James McManus.
2. Unfamiliar or unusual in character; strange: quaint dialect words. See Synonyms at strange.
3. Cleverly made; artful.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Middle English, clever, cunning, peculiar, from Old French queinte, cointe, from Latin cognitus, past participle of cognscere, to learn; see cognition.]

From the IC+ position we can use the IC to describe itself in general - all due to the method used to create it - self-referencing of a dichotomy. No one here from a traditionalist perspective seems to understand that and I think that can come from (a) a failure to detect the patterns in the first place and (b) all of the effort put in to nail down a hexagram can be shown to perhaps have been in vain in that the general format is hard-coded - the roots of 17 are always in a state described by analogy to generic qualities of 12 - this is all of the XOR work focusing on within a hexagram - its spectrum. THEN comes the logic of relationships mappings and so on - there is LOTS of work here and it can dishearten some who think their work has been enough - it hasnt - we have only scratched the surface but we now have an idea of what we are dealing with and so can progress a little faster than has been done with the traditional IC over the last 3000 years.

The traditionalist perspectives on hexagram names and interpretations are ok if you want to 'grok' 10th century BC thinking but we live and work in the 21st century AD and so clinging to the past is not helping us at the moment in the context of utlising the IC in the best way we can (e.g. consideration of emotional states from the Emotional IC etc etc etc)

Chris.
 

dobro p

visitor
Joined
May 19, 1972
Messages
3,223
Reaction score
205
lightofreason said:
your are doing a LiSe - leaving out the other half. ;-)

Maybe, but I don't know what a LiSe is, aside from a nice woman who lives in Holland. What I was trying to do though was two things: find out whether you thought your Yi harmonises with what's gone before or whether you think your Yi leaves it behind, and also to find out if you'd actually answer my question at all. I think you tried to answer my question, but you also skittered away into all the words you usually use.

This is why I think you may have tried to answer my question:

lightofreason said:
From the IDM work we find the dichotomy of replace/coexist. What you propose above is a coexistence position but the reality is BOTH (and so yin and yang).

This looks true, but isn't. What I propose is using the past and changing what needs to be changed. Sure, that means coexistence; but it also means replacing when it's necessary. Probably that doesn't mean enough change for your taste though.

lightofreason said:
YOUR local context given above is, from an IDM perspective, idealist, extreme, in that you want to keep everything even if new data comes along that shows the old to be outdated and in need of replacement.

It's interesting how my approach, which seems so balanced to me (because it uses the past and outgrows it when necessary) seems so extreme to you.

I really don't know how to get the best out of you. I keep banging away at trying to reach connection and common ground, but I get lost in all the words and concepts you churn out when you respond by basically reiterating your message. I mean, don't you *want* to connect or reach agreement?
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
dobro said:
It's interesting how my approach, which seems so balanced to me (because it uses the past and outgrows it when necessary) seems so extreme to you.

The extreme is in the assertion you made about fitting in a new building with the old. I made the point that that is a one sided, idealist, perspective, you made NO reference AT ALL in that assertion about replacement. NOW that that fact has been brought to your attention you try and recruit it as if you asserted it when you didnt. Your not really sure about anything are you!?

dobro said:
I really don't know how to get the best out of you.

Why do you need to? your need should be on the material that is a property of self-referencing and that is not sourced in me, all I have done is bring it to peoples attention. Utilise THAT in your studies of the I Ching and it will be beneficial and you dont need to talk to me at all ;-)

The XOR work is well documented and really easy to understand - it is just hard for some to accept since it is so easy, works so well, and yet does not seem to be in the mainstream IC works! Simply put, 'they', be they early traditionalists or modern day forms, had/have no idea what they have been dealing with. Only someone coming from OUTSIDE, and with some understanding of neurosciences, psychology, information theory, and mathematics, has been able to figure things out since my perspective is on meaning in general, not the IC in particular; my focus is on meaning derivation across the species, not in one specialist location on the planet (i.e. ancient china).

The XOR work, the Logic of Relationships work etc is all revolutionary in the context of current Western dealings with the IC but the Legges, Wilhelms, Karchers, Marshalls, Anthonys etc etc etc are so embedded in their promotion of their perspectives on the traditional that to recognise such work can be 'disturbing' if not embaressing. These people have been so focused on the trees and so WITHIN the forest that they have missed the forest totally (and its relation to all of the other forests)... or perhaps it has all been an exercise in vanity, promotion of a singular perspective at the cost of ignoring the determined particular/general perspective that is more consistant, spanning generations, and rooted at a level far greater than any individual (most of the prediction stuff focuses on collective development and does not recognise the individual as a unique form but the conscious individual wants that recognition!)

The XOR material and all of the other material IC+ comes up with is not rooted in me, it is in the methodology of self-referencing. Understand the method and associated properties and your understanding of one of the specialisations of the method, the I Ching, will reach new hights that you did not imagine possible when you came to the traditional material. You may have sensed some 'vibe' that there is more but not where to find it - IC+ shows you where to find it and how, in general, to use it. HOW you use it personally is up to you.

Rather than bang away trying to reach ME, bang away with the XOR material and so reach yourself.

A message gets reiterated in various forms such that some form will eventually get through - unless all forms are rejected out of hand since one does not really want to change, to refine oneself. ;-)

Since 1 + 1 = 2 so 17 XOR 27 = 12 where 12 describes the 'mud' context from which 17 is built. None of this is 'me', all of this comes out of basic developments of our species and its neurology to our environment through self-referencing. As such these assertions are all objective truths in that they existed before me and will do so after me. That being the case, I have identified core properties/methods of the IC not touched on before (or if so, done in extreme metaphor and not considered of value) - they are VERY useful but to 'get that' you will have to get experience with them (and XOR is REALLY easy to get experience with, and in doing so pick up on the IC structure etc - but it will mean some 'modifications' to one's past perceptions on the IC etc etc

All the traditional stuff will do is keep you in a loop that will be frustrating in that it will not let you achieve what you want due to its lack of details in understanding how it it all works and fits together within us as conscious individuals.

Chris.
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
toganm said:
No past; no future

another one leaving out half the story - there is also no past, new future and that is reflected in fundamentalism etc and the notion of being 'born again'. This is VERY common in such countries as USA and Australia since many fled 'old ways' to come to new countries to be 'born again' and so appear to REPLACE the past with something 'new'.

The problem of course is on the differences of soma and psyche - your mind may change but your 'look' cannot and so genetic/racial issues etc still influence one's 'new' beginning mentally and so draw one back to a past preferably forgotten.

This also gets into randomness amd what develops from such to give a random event a history following on from the event - the meaningless becomes meaningful.

A 'point' has no meaning until it relates and in that relation is named. This gets into the development of our singular natures from interactions with a random environment.
 

heylise

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 15, 1970
Messages
3,128
Reaction score
202
I find simple images for hexagrams. They are not positive or negative. A can of worms is not negative, neither is "about a sick whatever". Medicine, which has to do with sickness, is not negative either.

To me, 11 is not more positive than 18, or 47 more negative than 42.
Especially simple images lose the quality of judgment. A tree, water, a bird. Are they positive or negative?
That is one of the reasons, why I want them simple. I need images which work beyond reasoning and morality.

LiSe
 

martin

(deceased)
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
60
lightofreason said:
Since 1 + 1 = 2 so 17 XOR 27 = 12 where 12 describes the 'mud' context from which 17 is built. None of this is 'me', all of this comes out of basic developments of our species and its neurology to our environment through self-referencing. As such these assertions are all objective truths in that they existed before me and will do so after me.

You are running too fast. These assertions are objective hypotheses, but objective TRUTH is another matter.
'17 XOR 27 = 12' is a (true) mathematical statement but what comes after it ('12 decribes the 'mud' context ...') is not.

The reasoning that leads you to the conclusion that 12 has this meaning can be convincing or not but it cannot be watertight & bulletproof. That is not a shortcoming of the reasoning, it's simply a consequence of the fact that we have left the domain of pure mathematics.

What you have is a model that is perhaps internally consistent. Fine, however, it needs to be interpreted when applied to reality. That is where the uncertainty creeps in.
The other issue is that the model (like any model) is based on assumptions. Are these true in reality?
You do make assumptions about the role and importance of recursion and selfreference in the brain but - as you know - there is no agreement about this among neuroscientists.
You also make assumptions concerning basic emotions (how many there are and what they are) and there is no agreement among psychologists about that either.
The FACT is ... that there is not much established objective truth in all these areas. Not yet.
 

dobro p

visitor
Joined
May 19, 1972
Messages
3,223
Reaction score
205
lightofreason said:
The extreme is in the assertion you made about fitting in a new building with the old. I made the point that that is a one sided, idealist, perspective, you made NO reference AT ALL in that assertion about replacement. NOW that that fact has been brought to your attention you try and recruit it as if you asserted it when you didnt. Your not really sure about anything are you!?

I'm sure I said this in the post which started this thread, and which you seem not to have read, or noticed, or acknowledged:

"So, I might change a meaning slightly, or introduce a new meaning, but it will harmonize with what's gone before."



lightofreason said:
Why do you need to? your need should be on the material that is a property of self-referencing and that is not sourced in me, all I have done is bring it to peoples attention. Utilise THAT in your studies of the I Ching and it will be beneficial and you dont need to talk to me at all ;-)

Well, the reason I spend time on sites like this is because I like exchanging meanings with people and connecting with them - that's my joy. As for XORIDMIC+ or whatever you call it, I'll check it out. But I resent having to read the damn instruction manual just to talk to you. How come you come with an instruction manual? Don't you know how to just talk to people?



lightofreason said:
Rather than bang away trying to reach ME, bang away with the XOR material and so reach yourself.

I know how to reach myself with what the Buddhists call mindfulness and meditation. I know how to use any oracle to reach what's beyond myself - I just familiarize myself with the variables and it starts talking to me. But with other people, I like to exchange conversationally. I'm not talking about conversation lite here, I'm talking about things that interest me, like the Yi. But when I try to talk with you, it's like you're hiding out in that world of ideas you've come up with and you either don't want or don't know how to actually CONVERSE in more or less ordinary ways. Like, I ask a question about what you think and you answer it in terms that I more or less understand. Don't wriggle out of this by insulting the level of my intelligence either lol.



lightofreason said:
A message gets reiterated in various forms such that some form will eventually get through - unless all forms are rejected out of hand since one does not really want to change, to refine oneself. ;-)

There is so much more to life than the message you're promoting, Chris. It's not so terribly important that I understand your message. It's important to me that we understand each other though, or that we at least come closer to understanding. It looks like I might have to learn a whole new language for that to happen, however. Sad.
 

Sparhawk

One of those men your mother warned you about...
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 17, 1971
Messages
5,120
Reaction score
107
lightofreason said:
your are doing a LiSe - leaving out the other half. ;-)

Well, Dobro, or anybody else for that matter, can do MUCH worse than doing a LiSe. :D

Now, if I ever do a Chris, would somebody euthanize me, please?? The man can't be imitated properly and the effort to do so would most likely bring your brain to a melting point. Death will come soon after that, anyway. :rofl:

L
 

martin

(deceased)
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
60
I'm trying to imagine now what it would be like if Chris tries to do a Luis. Give me a moment ...

OMG, help! My brain .... :D
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
martin said:
The reasoning that leads you to the conclusion that 12 has this meaning can be convincing or not but it cannot be watertight & bulletproof. That is not a shortcoming of the reasoning, it's simply a consequence of the fact that we have left the domain of pure mathematics.

Wrong. We are never in the domain of pure mathematics, we are in the greater domain of meaning derivation that spans the species, sourced in the neurology, and THAT is watertight/bulletproof since it determines 'all there is'.

The container of noise we label as 'mathematics' is identical in general form to the container of noise we label as 'I Ching' as they are both identical in form (isomorphic) to the container of noise we label as 'human emotions'. All three derive categories of meaning from self-referencing a dichotomy - as our brain does in general.

Thus the certainty of 1 + 1 = 2 in mathematics will have its correlates in the other disciplines. The categories of XOR apply to ALL of these self-referencing specialisations as watertight/bulletproof since the categories are derived from the methodology not some ad hoc, local, make-up of some singular consciousness.

martin said:
What you have is a model that is perhaps internally consistent. Fine, however, it needs to be interpreted when applied to reality. That is where the uncertainty creeps in.
The other issue is that the model (like any model) is based on assumptions. Are these true in reality?

(1) The IDM model covers all meaning derivation from self-referencing. All specialisations have these roots such that for each one that is internally consistent so they are isomorphic to all of the others in that consistancy since they are all metaphors for the ONE form of generic meaning derivation.

(2) The application of a specialisation to the environment exposes the application to a 'random' context and allows for the development of a 'small world network'. Analysis of an aggregate of these networks will bring out the universals distorted by the local dynamics - IDM has done this through IC+ in the analysis of a number of interpretations/translations (http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/irefs.html )

I make no assumptions - I follow the research data and my training in information processing. That work leads to the IDM template. The application of that template to the specialisations I use as examples takes us way beyond the current dogma.

The consistent, positive results from application of the template, where the results ADD new understandings and re-configure old perspectives (e,g, the categories of, and composites of, emotions etc) indicate that the IDM material is on the right track.

If the categories of emotions, derived from self-referencing of fight/flight (as covered in http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/emote.html ) were wrong then the consistant results from work with the Emotional IC would not happen - they DO happen and so validate experimentally the IDM/IC+/Emotion dynamic where they all share the same space and so allow for translation of findings in one to expressions in another.

I dont think you or many of the others on this list understand what is going on here - the large paradigm shift covered in IDM. You seem to think I dont interact with the neuroscientists etc!

I am in communication with many academics each day on this, some like it, some dont or do not understand it (current dogma can 'blind' ;-)) but over time they will come around due to the success in the predications etc made when using the IDM model in the context of understanding meaning derivation and how to analyse the 'new' through analogy to others where the ONE method in categorisations is a constant for all specialisations - and so 17 (100110) XOR 27 (100001) = 12 (000111) and that relates to the 27-ness of 17. We can remove the numbers and focus on the template positions in binary number form if you like - but most ICers get 'confused' with that.

I have been doing this for a long time Martin , I DO know what I am dealing with and your dismissiveness and/or complaints to date contribute nothing to offering contradictions to the material and so scientific evidence indicating the model does not work in its application to identifying the basic template for meaning derivation.

As I said before, put up or shut up. All you have put up to date is wind. Not useful.

Chris.
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
heylise said:
I find simple images for hexagrams. They are not positive or negative. A can of worms is not negative, neither is "about a sick whatever". Medicine, which has to do with sickness, is not negative either.

(1) sickness is considered negative and the images you used in describing 18 etc were indicative of a negative approach to 18 overall - it was, to me, too reactive.

(2) Images lack precision in identifying universal qualities where these universals work free of any sense. Blend, Bond, Bound, and Bind are sense-free in that they relate to the universal RESPONSE system, our emotions. Thus I can experience the representiation of blending in that I can see it, hear it, feel it, smell it, taste it.

Thus the contractive binding nature of 18 covers all senses, not just an image. Close you eyes - feel 18, smell it, taste it. If a response is negative, FIND the positive.

(3) to extend yourself into the more precise realm of audition I suggest a read of this sort of material:

http://www.conknet.com/~mmagnus/

Audition is more precise than vision - we cannot reduce the colours we see to their RGB makeup (or CYMK form in destructive interference bias). We CAN extract each note from any complex chord of music/noise etc The advantage of vision is its immediate nature but audition brings in delay and so the build-up of details over time.

(4) and then move into emotions and syesthesia dynamics. In that movement you will find, regardless of what sense or mixing of, the four Bs. In other words the 4 Bs are constants and they form composite forms applicable to composite sensations with local 'adaptations' allowing for local uniqueness.

Thus 17 in its vague form covers issues of a context of sharing time (temporal issues, the 'new', the 'now' etc binding) in which is sharing space (bonding). These qualities are built-in to all species members regardless of their sensory biases.

Chris.
 

martin

(deceased)
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
60
lightofreason said:
As I said before, put up or shut up

Be happy that I still respond to your posts. Why I do that, I don't know. :)
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
martin said:
Be happy that I still respond to your posts. Why I do that, I don't know. :)

..because you know I am right - but dont want to admit it (or bother trying to refute it since there are no contradictions to date and so the model tolerates refutations as it is open to their testing.)

A paradigm shift comes with the acceptance of the IDM/IC+ material but it is a positive one in that it makes things a lot clearer regarding the associations of the IC and the formation of associative memory in general.

The issue then is can traditionalists accept such a shift with its resulting re-configuration regarding notions of the spiritual etc? Too much entanglement with dogma, and so more of a bond than a bind, means separation is not easy - in bonding issues there is always stuff left over after unbonding, there is always residue. This gets into taking perspectives literally rather than ans metaphor in that with the latter one can 'un-bind' without residue issues; you make a contract for time X and thats that = with bonding the time factor is ignored etc such that a marriage is considered 'for ever' and that seeds residue issues when the forever is not so.

To unbind from the traditional and bind with the 'new' is not an issue as much as un-bonding etc.

Contractive Binding reflects the seasonal dynamics, the change of local seasons but retaining of global (as in the concept of season) etc - in cultivation we utilise correcting of errors (18) as we do elicit of transformation (50), foundation setting (48), commitment (32), prepared to get entangled more (46), to go beyond the norm (28), to cultivate and become influencial (57) and to work on promotion through persuasion/seduction (44). The TIME emphasis here is strong. IN Expansive binding the time element is also strong but in a 'now' focus - I stand up NOW to assert my perspective (25), I start NOW (24), I sprout NOW (03), I change levels NOW (42), the clap of thunder is NOW (51), I FIND something to follow NOW (17) (or re-follow, I note the difference NOW).

For bonding the overall focus is on passion and so love etc where it is a living experience (Lake) or a missed/lost experience (Mountain) - both cover the suffering that comes with the bonding where the link is of one part 'inside' the other part and so no obvious point of contact that is removeable; there is no entanglement but more an emmersion - there is an umbilical chord forever present as one nourishes the other in a bond context - (and so it is symbiotic but can also be parasitic)

In BOUNDING the border is present but as two parts of a whole; the chord has been cut and we have two 'independent' forms up against each other - In BINDING we can wrap something/someone around us but can also unbind and move on.

In BLENDING the distinctions of 'other' and 'self' disappear, we become 'one' - as disciples (contractive blending) draw-in their leader to give them identity and so a sense of being 'one' but as such being dualminded. The expansive form is pouring oneself out, asserting one's own context as 'the' context and so blending outwards in a singleminded manner.

If one has blended with the traditional IC then there would be real problems in that one has blended with a metaphor as if the thing represented in that metaphor - this is fundamentalist thinking where the figurative is taken literally.

Chris.
 

martin

(deceased)
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
60
lightofreason said:
..because you know I am right - but dont want to admit it (or bother trying to refute it since there are no contradictions to date and so the model tolerates refutations as it is open to their testing.)

I don't have a problem with your theories as theories. I only take issue with you calling them 'facts' or 'the truth'. And what I usually do in my posts is that I try to show that it is all not so certain as you say it it.
As to refutation, your model is open to refutation in principle, but are you? If I say that this or that is questionable (and I have done that many times and with arguments) you answer with one of your long posts and the end conclusion is invariably that you are right.
But I don't remember one instance in which you have convinced me that there should be a '!' behind one of your propositions instead of my '?'. You have never refuted my '?'.

Take your explanation of those QM experiments, for example. I put a big '?' behind that and we have talked about it on several occasions. I guess you must also have talked about it to other academics who know more about physics than I do. Did they not find your ideas questionable?
Yet I see now that you again link to your page about it in another thread ('The holographic Universe' in Open Space) as if nothing has happened. Your explanation is the right one, period. And people who believe otherwise, well, they are dogmatic, too specialist, not ready for your 'paradigm shift' and so on.
A favorite of you here on this forum is 'you are afraid, your identity is at stake'. Lol.

Chris, how do you expect that anyone can ever refute your opinions if you always brush their arguments aside in this way?

As to your communication with academics in general, I don't know what happens when you meet people in person (perhaps you are more open and mellow in real life than you are as a writer) but I have followed your adventures on fora that have a high density of academics/experts.
What happens there is not very different from what happens here. People sooner or later get fed up with your absolutism. Depending on their temperament they stop responding to you, start to make jokes (like I do here sometimes, I don't know why you took my last one about science fiction suddenly so serious, btw, you usually don't) or simply tell you that you should f*ck off.
What else can they do?
 

martin

(deceased)
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
60
Anyway, putting question marks behind what people say is one of my hobbies. 'Are you sure?' 'How do you know that ..?'
This started when I was about 15, when I discovered that I and others got stuck with some of the math and physics problems because of wrong hidden assumptions. In the way we visualized things, for example. That was also the time that I really became interested in math (till then it seemed a rather silly pointless game to me) because math tries to make hidden assumptions explicit. Axioms ..

And of course, when I went to the university to study math, what interested me most was the foundations of mathematics, the assumptions behind the assumptions ..
I had the good luck that one of the professors there was a pupil of Brouwer, the man who invented 'intuitionism', a branch of mathematics that doesn't accept some of the axioms of classical formal logic, such as the principle of the exclusion of the middle. Although this professor was much older than me (close to 60) we soon became friends and spent hours and hours discussing all kinds of things. All and everything. Those were the days. :)

Why am I telling you this? I guess to make clear where I come from and why I put so many question marks behind your propositions. I ultimately left math and - after a pause - went over to psychology, but this tendency to look for hidden assumptions everywhere has never left me. I still do it.
Perhaps I overdo it?
Okay, I will from now on explicitly state it if I think you are right. Promise! And you ARE right, umm, sometimes. :D
 
B

bruce_g

Guest
I don’t mind that Chris is always right, but it’s tiring that everyone else is always wrong, and that the means of reaching this position is most often entirely out of context with what he is disagreeing with; i.e. 'The holographic Universe' in Open Space. It’s like saying to someone “Nice day, isn’t it?” and they respond with “Contractive Binding reflects the seasonal dynamics, the change of local seasons but retaining of global (as in the concept of season) etc - in cultivation we utilise correcting of errors (18) as we do elicit of transformation (50), foundation setting (48), commitment (32), prepared to get entangled more (46), to go beyond the norm (28), to cultivate and become influencial (57) and to work on promotion through persuasion/seduction (44).”

Huh? Yeah, um, ok.. I gotta go now. :rolleyes:
 

mudpie

visitor
Joined
Feb 22, 1971
Messages
687
Reaction score
22
Chris is the holographic representation of the collective madness.

If there is a Hell, it might well be the place where we are in the greater domain of meaning derivation that spans the species, sourced in the neurology, and THAT is watertight/bulletproof since it determines 'all there is'.

does this mean "heaven in a grain of sand"?

what does it mean? what do you mean? This is Hell: intellectual wrestling with words that seem to convey something but don't convey anything.

I held a small child who had hydrocephalus and we sat in silence looking out the window at a green field. her head was the size of a watermelon, her body the size of an infants, and of course she couldn't speak, but her huge blue sapphire eyes just blinked, and watched. utter peace emanated from her and pulled me into her circle. I dont know what her intellectual functioning was, possibly nil, and her lifespan in the human form she'd assumed was nearly over already. But she was the alpha and the omega. All of this took place in a home for "defective children".....aptly called Holy Angels Nursery . And after the time I would spend in there, I only reluctantly re-entered the world of collective madness where Lords of Darkness could glibly dismiss/explain "all there is"
 

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

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

Top