revising, harmonising

[lightofreason]

Martin's problem, and now intense demand for my removal, seems to stem from my repeated requests to put up or shut up and the obvious failure by Martin to put up. The denial as such is Martin's in that being unable to put up and refusing to shut up demands I be shut down. That, to me, indicates a serious issue for Martin in not being able to cope with the 'new'. I find it facinating that someone so focused on prediction and so determinism should reject the clear identification of such at the level of the general. Perhaps it is the idenfying of the roots of Mathematics in metaphor that is upsetting - realising that you cannot find the roots of Mathematics IN Mathematics - something Martin has tried to do given the comments to date re interest etc.

The IDM material is a new paradigm in understanding meaning derivation and all of our specialisations etc. It is manifest in the IC material in the identification of XOR etc etc etc and the clear demonstration of the IC as a language and so being able to describe itself. 10th century BC thinking will always limit your perspectives, marginalise the full spectrum IC into a space labelled "ancient chinese divination". The fact that so many of you favour this marginalisation shows the fear of change that is amusing to see in those so interested in a book about change (as it is about non-change).

Chris

 

[lightofreason]

I don't think of Chris as a bad person, I would rather call him a bad boy. A very naughty one.
And I see the humor of it too (as you know ) but I also see the other side. He is bullying people all the time and some have left because of him. And he is misusing this forum for his own purposes. That's not funny at all.

Part of the problem is, I think, that we have become used to him and his ways and don't see anymore how odd the situation really is.
He is testing the limits of our tolerance and how far will we allow him to go? This is a clear case of 44.1 if you ask me.

put up or shut up Martin - you complain but have NEVER offered any proof of the IDM/IC+ material being wrong, you offer no contradictions just personal attacks on me - and the intensity of such in this thread suggests you find yourself in a corner in that you cannot put up but refuse to shut up but need to escape and so pour derision on me (as lightangel and others have done) without any justification... If you go through the material I NEVER start any of this sort of attacks - it is usually in response to some assertion re some particular I Ching related interpretation using IC+ methodology. If you think that methodology is wrong then supply proof, not rhetoric.

Chris.

 

[lightofreason]

I'm constantly surprised why you guys are so put off by Chris.

Is it because he has a different view of Yi?

Is it because it seems he thinks he's always in the right, or he thinks his is the only right view?

it is not me that is 'right', it is the logic stemming from the neurology. I produce material that is testable and rooted in empirical studies rather than what most others seem to do here in producing untestable, rhetoric-based, perspectives. They put values before facts. That has its positive side in social developments but it also leads into being cornered where awareness of facts has been blocked for some emotional 'high' - 'out there' is not emotional and to understand the dynamics of 'in here' and 'out there' requires facts. If those facts force a re-consideration of the I Ching then so be it for in the long run we benefit.


BTW - in the context of 'logic' we cover all mentioned in http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/logic.html as well as such material as:

http://www.scispirit.com/matteblanco5web.htm

where we cover what some consider the 'illogical' in that it lacks sequencing - but in dreams our sequence processor is asleep when REM is active so the findings/considerations in the above link are 'logical' ;-)

This bilogic reflects more primitive thought processes that get enhanced when sequencing, date-time stamps appear with the development of hippocamus processing of information (magnitudes used over time)

Chris.

 

[lightofreason]

Me, I prefer to think I'm having a conversation.[/B]

you? think? LOL! - you refuse to read so how can you attack something you know nothing about!?

UNDERSTAND IDM/IC+ and then negate it through providing empirically-derived material that contradicts. As with Martin, you seem to be unable to understand this or just unable to think of anything - and so the attacks - and I am supposed to sit here all sweet and nice?! LOL! GET YOUR ACT TOGETHER!

 

[stevev]

See you can do it ...

This is REALLY silly thinking - it is akin to saying "I wont read an introduction to Mathematics until they make the numbers smaller!"

What this also implies is your professional understanding of recursion is obviously limited.

and I even understand what your saying, and that's exactly what I've done with mathematics, not interested in it, the world doesn't need another mathematician and I've got a calculator.

Also there are 50 million opinions in the world, I reakon I'll get around to understanding 1 of them, mine, I might get a handle on a couple more, I'm starting with the ones I like.

If I had any respect for your opinion I'd be prepared to discuss my understanding of recursion, which is pretty good, use it all the time.

 

[bruce_g]

antes up his 2 cents…

I think ignore is a great feature, either through the forum system or just mental ignore. I choose the mental ignore option, and have long since given up on trying to have any sort of meaningful exchange with Chris. I know what to expect if I attempt to converse with him. Been there, done that, no thanks. So, if Hilary doesn’t mind Chris’ use of her bandwidth, who am I to say? If my tolerance gets too thin, I’ll just use the system ignore feature. But chances are I’ll continue using the skim and scroll feature.

We study and play with this thing called Book of Changes. It seems that any serious student would, over the course of a few years, exhibit changes in themselves, hopefully for the better. Chris is onto a very cool system, but if that system doesn’t come through as refinements in his person, then why would that system interest me? I want to learn from people who are the evidence of what they know.

 

[lightofreason]

If I had any respect for your opinion I'd be prepared to discuss my understanding of recursion, which is pretty good, use it all the time.

no - as a programmer you would be trained to use it something like this:

A = Function(b,c)

A = Function(A)

with appropriate exit strategies to avoid the infinite loops etc.

The IDM material goes way beyond this in that the method comes with properties not identified before in the context of category formation etc.

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

IMHO you need to seriously read more.

 

[lightofreason]

...
We study and play with this thing called Book of Changes. It seems that any serious student would, over the course of a few years, exhibit changes in themselves, hopefully for the better. Chris is onto a very cool system, but if that system doesn’t come through as refinements in his person, then why would that system interest me? I want to learn from people who are the evidence of what they know.

you seek a teacher - I am not a teacher, I do research, come up with findings etc that teachers then use. I dont have the inclination to serve 'newbies' - I expect you to know the basics - I suggest you understand the methodology through your reflections upon it - you dont need me to do that. Consider yourself bopped on the head grasshopper.

AS for my life? I live well usually ;-) --- and the IDM material is leading into many areas of interest, I am not totally pinned down in IC land ;-)

All I have done is indicate a methodology, THE methodology, and its properties in application to the IC. USe it and you will benefit. DOnt ask me to do it for you - I dont spoon feed, I point in a direction and the rest is up to you (but I HAVE been along that path ;-))


Chris.

 

[stevev]

I probably should read more ...

but I’m not going to, I just bought a whole stack of I Ching books and gave up on most of them immediately, words just don’t do it for me. Personally I think there is something to be said for illiteracy, I generally prefer to stumble around by myself.

I’ve said it before to you, that I don’t mind falling over and bumping into things, most of the time it doesn’t hurt and you can just pick yourself up and continue, I like to find things myself, not understand through reading someone else’s understanding. Hey that’s just me, I like it this way.

 

[luz]

Chris is onto a very cool system, but if that system doesn’t come through as refinements in his person, then why would that system interest me? I want to learn from people who are the evidence of what they know.

Nicely put!

Chris, I'm glad you were amused by my pop psychology, obviousy I was not taking myself very seriously either or I would have omitted the part about having just read about it

If I wanted to know more, sure I would need to read more, get out more, etc.

But I believe everything I said was very accurate. I don't need to study more Math to do a long division, you know. So I don't need a doctoate in Psychology see who you are.

I like Math very much, am not afraid of it. I tried to understand you at one point in time but when my questions are not answered in a direct manner, well, I kind of get tired, is that terribly bad?

I am not an avid studier of the Yi, don't really believe in fortune telling so I could hardly find your theories threatening to my identity.

In fact, my modus operandi around you is the same as Bruce's : skim and ignore. But I can't help noticing that you repeat the same things over and over again and that they are a bit offensive to the people that do you the favor of paying attention to you. I think you shoud know it is very disrespectful. I understand you only do it when you feel 'attacked' but you feel attacked whenever people challenge your dogmas. Make no mistake about it, they are dogmas! You insist that others shoud prove you wrong but you have not proved yourself right yet. I think you are the one that really needs to grow up. I'm sure that deep inside there is a nice person lurking.. give it a try.

 

[lightofreason]

You insist that others shoud prove you wrong but you have not proved yourself right yet. I think you are the one that really needs to grow up. I'm sure that deep inside there is a nice person lurking.. give it a try.

I make no assertions without validation in the form of empirical research - see IDM and its references etc. If you think you can argue against me without reference to these sources then your comments become meaningless, drivel, value judgements with no foundations at all, wind, rhetoric.

A scientific perspective is not about the individuals it is about the findings and their presentation in a manner that (a) reflects repeatability and (b) falsifiability.

One does not need to understand Einstein to understand E = MC^2 or to understand Newton to understand F = M x A. You do not need to understand me to understand XORing in the I Ching.

In a realm of VALUES that may be necessary since the teaching is of values, of morals etc, not of facts.

The differences are:

Christianity is not Judaism or Taoism or Islam etc - these are all value systems and exclude and/or try to convert followers of one into another. To appreciate Christianity you MUST know about Jesus, to appreciate Taoism you MUST know about LaoTsu etc etc etc

In the realm of facts we have 1 + 1 = 2; there is no value judgement involved, the method etc is universal and is valid in ANY of the above value systems and being so transcends them - as does the IC universals reflected through the IDM material.

Most people on this list seem to focus on a particular values determined system and so a need to understand the orginator of such. But in Science there is no need for such since the work stands on its own, free of any values other than those imposed by local contexts.

Here is the TOC for IDM with references etc in pages at the bottom. WHEN you have taken the time to check out the material THEN come back and argue a case for it being false - until then you contribute nothing but personal opinions.

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/idm001.html

For the application of IDM to the IC etc go through the IC+ material that covers than application and so the XOR work etc:

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

ALL the material is there for consideration/analysis/use. Trying to get me involved in some personal relationship in order to understand the material is silly; there is no need for such. It is like learning mathematics - you dont need Pythagoras to communicate with to 'get it' - all you need is the material in any introduction written by unknowns - the material is universal, free of the individual and so of benefit to all individuals - no 'cause', no 'value' system is demanded; IDM is not a value system it is about categories, qualities of meaning used to EXPRESS such systems as it covers qualities used to express systems of facts. IDM is something to USE not worship, pray to, etc etc - if you seek THAT then go somewhere else.

(although what it CAN do is show you the different types of prayer etc - all 64 of them, 4096 of them, 8 of them, 2 of them, 16+ million of them)

Chris.

 

[lightofreason]

Everybody is here for their own purposes! Take me, for example, I'm here for the ladies... (and that's a real misuse of the place...)

Although, Martin, I've no luck with any of them yet. The only one that liked me, and winked an eye at me, was Val and she's gone... sigh... Life is unfair.

L

get on a plane to the Netherlands and get Martin to introduce you to Margi.

 

[Sparhawk]

get on a plane to the Netherlands and get Martin to introduce you to Margi.

Not a bad idea, I need a vacation. Although, if I go to Amsterdam, the place is full or Margi's (and Anneke's, Ada's, Adela's, Adeline's--I'd really like to find an Adeline; love the name-- and that's just on the A's...), not to mention legal pot (if one if so inclined; personally, I'll take the wine please... ) Besides, Margi is most likely taken... (heck, I'm taken too!! small details... )

I'll still take Martin, LiSe, Harmen and Frank out to dinner though...

And if I go to Aussie, I'll certainly like to meet you. Not only to talk about the IC+ but to share family stories. Mine is utterly boring, I'm afraid, but I know yours, specially your Mom's artistic career, must be full of great stories.

L

 

[pakua]

Hey Martin,

I have a question for you. Of everyone here, you have had the most ongoing discussion with Chris, which I usually found interesting, and I assume you must have at some point, or you wouldn't have continued all this time.

What was your objective?

If it was to obtain or exchange information, wasn't that successful?

If it was to convert him, surely you can't be upset because you failed?

What happened all of a sudden to get you so upset you have to demonize someone? If I can't convince someone of something, I let them go and I move on.

"Well, as long as you don't respond or at least don't respond with an opinion that differs from his you will be okay, I think."

That's not my perception. As long as you respond with respect I see he does the same.

 

[pakua]

Bruce,

"if Hilary doesn’t mind Chris’ use of her bandwidth, who am I to say?"

We're talking about a few Kb - in these days of Terrabytes moving across the net, it's not even worth mentioning. A couple of uploaded images far surpasses text.

"if that system doesn’t come through as refinements in his person, then why would that system interest me? I want to learn from people who are the evidence of what they know."

Without any personal intimate contact, how would you know if it did or not? And how would you judge - using your own values?

As far as that goes, I observe less-than-model behaviour from other participants in here, yet the only talk of banning is for Chris. Why is that?

 

[bruce_g]

Hey Martin,

I have a question for you. Of everyone here, you have had the most ongoing discussion with Chris, which I usually found interesting, and I assume you must have at some point, or you wouldn't have continued all this time.

What was your objective?

If it was to obtain or exchange information, wasn't that successful?

If it was to convert him, surely you can't be upset because you failed?

What happened all of a sudden to get you so upset you have to demonize someone? If I can't convince someone of something, I let them go and I move on.

"Well, as long as you don't respond or at least don't respond with an opinion that differs from his you will be okay, I think."

That's not my perception. As long as you respond with respect I see he does the same.

Hey, Pakua,

I have a question for you. How come about the only time you show up is to antagonize someone who has had enough of someone’s abusiveness? It never fails.

I in no way perceive that Martin’s decision to place Chris on ignore is some deep rooted psychological problem, as you insinuate. It’s his rightful choice, clean and simple. I have also placed Chris on ignore, so I guess that means I too have fallen under your oh-so-righteous judgment?

Contribute something meaningful to the forum, besides acting as the forum’s morality police.

 

[heylise]

If I came here in this forum for the first time, I would look around a bit. After seeing those endless posts filled with numbers and very often denigratory remarks, I would leave again. I think that happens to quite a lot of newcomers. It happens seldom, that someone new comes here, and joins in the discussions.

I also think Chris is (let's say, might be) a nice person, and very often he says good things, even very good. But I gave up searching for them in the big haystack, so I scroll past.

LiSe

 

[martin]

What happened all of a sudden to get you so upset you have to demonize someone?

I don't think I demonized Chris and I also wasn't particularly upset. But yes, there was something like a shift in my perception of the situation, like in those Gestalt pictures.

But if you don't mind, I really don't want to discuss this any further. The problem is solved as far as I am concerned.
If Chris is no problem for you, fine!

 

[pakua]

Bruce,

Funny you choose to respond to my question for Martin, but not to anything I said to you.

I am not the one who has judged anyone and tried to get him banished. When I speak up about something I see, I think I have that right, unless you want to ban me too?

I simply asked a question or two, and gave my perception. Any insinuation is entirely in your own imagination (especially considering I wasn't even addressing you in the example you quote).

It's especially ironic you react this way, considering your repeated posts about people who point fingers and how you simply point back at yourself, and your other posts about not judging people.

Can you not have a discussion in a rational and reasoned manner, without resorting to anger and rhetoric? I think I asked a couple of reasonable questions. If it's too much trouble for you to answer, then you can just ignore them.

 

[martin]

Yeah, lets put Pakua on ignore!
Just kidding!

But about judging, IMO that is part of life. Implicitly you judge me too, because I was judging somebody else.
That is okay, but it shows how unavoidable it is.

I guess the only thing we can do is avoid judging what people are. Their behavior may be "bad" or whatever we call it, but their value as human beings is not at stake.

 

[bruce_g]

If it's too much trouble for you to answer, then you can just ignore them.

Excellent idea, pakua.

 

[pakua]

"I guess the only thing we can do is avoid judging what people are. Their behavior may be "bad" or whatever we call it, but their value as human beings is not at stake."

The thing is, what do you do after the judgement? Do you give up on the person and indulge in name-calling, temper tantrums, banning?

Or do you let them find their own way... after all, it's their life.

 

[martin]

Do you give up on the person and indulge in name-calling, temper tantrums, banning?

Is that a question or are you saying that I indulge in name-calling and temper tantrums?
Please be clear.

 

[pakua]

Partly both, speaking in my case and yours but also others.

I wouldn't say exactly name-calling, altho imo it comes close.

"fundamentalist church of Chris Lofting.
absolutist preaching
unwelcome noise
the problem "Chris Lofting"
no reason why he should be allowed to stay here"

If someone said those things about me, in my presence, I would find it upsetting, and I think probably others would as well. Is he not a person any more, but a problem?

Temper tantrum - I'm guessing also close? My thinking is I can't see any rational reason to suddenly ban someone you've been conversing with for several(?) years. He hasn't changed, which indicates you did.

Others talk about him as if he's not here. Let me ask, if you're standing in the hallway chatting with friends, would you make comments about another person who's standing within earshot and can hear you - things like:

" the obfuscation created by the hyperintellectual verbiage is an unconscious way for him to accomplish two things: elevate himself above the hoipolloi and maintain a distance between himself and others because he doesn't know how to 'meet' people because he doesn't have much of a sense of self. 'I am a worthless servant of an immortal message.' Standard issue psychological dynamics, in other words - lies, defenses and denial, basically. "

"Pity I can't actually connect with the guy"

What do you think about those things?

Is that what Bruce meant about an example of what we're studying?

Or is Chris not worthy for some reason? and what would that reason be?

 

[stevev]

Why is everybody ...

"I guess the only thing we can do is avoid judging what people are. Their behavior may be "bad" ...

so averse to judging humanity, we have a battery of tests we apply to everything else. I could understand if it were an aversion to bad judgment but it’s never expressed in that way. PC sucks !

Happy holidays, or as I always say, thank christ for christmas.

 

[hilary]

Well, at least we're not holding back...

I think there are enough people interested in hearing Chris, and enough people who can find the 'ignore' function, to leave things be. I take LiSe's point about (would-be) newcomers - but maybe Chris can just bottle and sell some of that time and prolific enthusiasm for the rest of us?

 

[martin]

Hi Pakua,

Well, as I said earlier, I really don't want to discuss Chris and his ways (and why my position has changed) any further.
It could only lead to more qualifications of his behaviour that could be labeled as "name calling". We don't want that, do we?

But if you wish to understand why people get frustrated - I suggest that you engage Chris in a longer conversation in which you express opinions that are different from his. A conversation in which you insist on your point of view.
You will see for yourself what happens ...

Did you do that already and no frustration?! Okay, then maybe you are not like most of us. In that case I can only suggest that you (re)read some of the conversations that he had with others. I think you will understand ...

 

[bruce_g]

so averse to judging humanity, we have a battery of tests we apply to everything else. I could understand if it were an aversion to bad judgment but it’s never expressed in that way. PC sucks !

Happy holidays, or as I always say, thank christ for christmas.

Well, because “good” is wrapped in the persona of passivity, even if it is poisonously aggressive.

I’d rather be beaten with a cane than submit to deceit.

 

[dobro p]

I tried to find a field of meaning for each ideogram, the ones of the names of the hexagrams. Something which encompasses all meanings that character has had and still has, or has acquired. Because I think, that a character does not have a meaning that can be translated into one word.

Sure, I try to work with a field of meaning as well, but with this difference - I'm working toward an English version of the Yi that has either one or a very few meanings for each character based on that original field of meaning. Why?

1 Because I think it's counterproductive trying to do an English translation of a Chinese text. Chinese is really different from English, so it seems pretty dumb to try to achieve in English what Chinese achieves in Chinese. I mean, why not just learn Chinese and use the Yi in Chinese and stop messing about in English? It's really cumbersome to have to get out the Chinese/English lexicon every time you do a consultation and start wondering which of the 30 meanings for that term is the appropriate one in your case.

2 The Yi works translated into English and with a greatly restricted range of meanings for each character. I know this based on my own experience of using the Yi in English for a lot of years. I want a Yi that's fairly easy to understand and use, and which is fairly easy for other people to understand and use. That means simplifying the 'meaning range' for each character. If that's not the same as the way the Chinese Yi works, well I'm okay with it, cuz I'm not trying to make my Yi work like a Chinese Yi. Why not? See Point 1 above.

3 Even if the Yi is translated into English and simplified, there will still be a range of meanings for many of the English terms. For instance, I use 'Contemplating' for Hex 20. That term is rich in its own associations. And if those associations take a slightly different direction than the Chinese version, I'm not very worried. See, what it comes down to for me is this: I'm looking for an oracle that works. If I want one that works like the Chinese one, I'll learn Chinese. But if the English one works in a different way than the Chinese one, but works anyway, I'm fine with that.

4 So why do I bother with the range of meanings in the Chinese version at all? Why not just rewrite the whole thing, like Chris seems to be doing? Well, because I've got this idea that the source has important and useful meanings as a place to start.

I'm not trying to convince anybody of the usefulness of my approach. But I'm interested in how many people here are willing to abandon aspects of the traditional Yi in favor of a simpler, stripped-down version in English for the 21st century West. Chris obviously is one of that number. And I wonder how many people think the cumbersome approach is best, that of laboriously considering *all* the possible meanings *every* time you consult the oracle.

Public announcement: But please feel free to hijack the thread for another 100 off-topic posts lol.

 

[martin]

Are you familiar with the "inner" IC of Nigel Richmond, Dobro?
It's not what you have in mind, he didn't strip down the IC but reconstructed it (there is some similarity with what Chris is doing).
But the result is very compact, short evocative texts. I like it a lot and perhaps it can be useful for you.