revising, harmonising

[lightofreason]

I have asserted fact - Martin has said false - I have said prove it - Martin has failed, I have repeatedly said put up or shut up and Martin has not put up, all we get is complaints about MY attitude! LOL! smoke to cover the fact that Martin cannot put up and cannot deal with the facts presented.

When dealing with facts, responding with values is meaningless.

1 +1 = 2 is a fact and transcends ANY value system. The XOR material is a fact, a product of the methodology and do transcends ANY value system.

Prove that wrong Martin - put up, or shut up.

 

[lightofreason]

Richmond's work was on the IC only. The IC+ work reflects the application of a bigger picture perspective (IDM) regarding the derivation of meaning through labels of unconscious categories. To understand what the IC, as a metaphor, is dealing with you have to step outside of the box and onto the bigger box of the species. If you dont do that, if you dont focus on properties of self-referencing etc etc then all you are doing is working in a loop, regurgitating the same stuff - to TRANSCEND that is what is required and THAT is what IDM allows us to do - and so move from the 'primitive' 10th century BC perspective into the current 21st century AD.

 

[dobro p]

Chris, I started this thread in order to canvas people's opinions about how best to deal with translations of the obsolete, anachronistic, out-of-date and hopelessly inadequate 10th century version of the Yi. If you can accept that, then you might be able to see how inappropriate it is to keep trying to blow this thread out of the water. If you're going to keep wrecking threads with over-long posts that reiterate the same position and tune you've been retailing here since you showed up, I'm going to be forced to take a very dim view of both your manners and your social intelligence, lad. IQ big. EQ small. Back off for a bit, and let the others have a go, okay?

 

[lightofreason]

Chris, I started this thread in order to canvas people's opinions about how best to deal with translations of the obsolete, anachronistic, out-of-date and hopelessly inadequate 10th century version of the Yi. If you can accept that, then you might be able to see how inappropriate it is to keep trying to blow this thread out of the water. If you're going to keep wrecking threads with over-long posts that reiterate the same position and tune you've been retailing here since you showed up, I'm going to be forced to take a very dim view of both your manners and your social intelligence, lad. IQ big. EQ small. Back off for a bit, and let the others have a go, okay?

fine - as long as the posts are about you. If they keep coming up with the crap they have about me, I will respond. I have addressed YOUR focus from the beginning but then got abuse for it - no contradictions, no proof contradicting my assertions of facts, just abuse and/or useless opinions/values. That does not help and as you have witnessed, when contradictions, proofs, are asked for all we get back is more abuse and people going off in a huff!

Have fun. I shall go and focus on something else - unless my name is used in vain again then I will have to respond, I am not going to be attacked for responding to attacks.... and I will repeat my first assertion of fact, you will NOT be able to develop the IC if you stick to 10th century BC thinking since the methodology is not being used to its maximum... and that is not opinion, it is fact. If you limit yourself to addition and multiplication you are leaving out a LOT of stuff and so disabling development but refusing to use the full spectrum available.

and now .... the others can have a go....

 

[hilary]

Just a note... if you want to reach me personally for now, drop me a direct email. I've set up my 'holiday message' autoresponder, which also means I have to turn off email notification from here (so my server doesn't spend all Christmas emailing itself).

 

[Sparhawk]

Just a note... if you want to reach me personally for now, drop me a direct email. I've set up my 'holiday message' autoresponder, which also means I have to turn off email notification from here (so my server doesn't spend all Christmas emailing itself).

Well, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!!! (before you go)

L

 

[heylise]

Dobro
What we try to find, is not that different. Except maybe that I want to stay as close to the original Yi as possible. Not by making a literal translation, according to dictionaries, but by finding what really was meant. It is another kind of literalness, which is for me closer to the Chinese way. Finding regions of meaning instead of finding places.

I have too much respect for the old one, I want to change as little as possible. I don't disagree at all with your way of translating, or rewriting, I think it is a good way to make a 'working' oracle. But I myself want to make 'this' one accessible. Not even make anything, just open it.

I do like 'contemplate' for 20, but I very much dislike 'modesty' for 15. Words which dictionaries give are good of course, but each on its own is too limited, so usually I cannot choose one of those. I have to find a new one myself, which comes closer to the range of meanings it has in Chinese.

For 22 my "pot of herbs" comes closer to what I think the Yi says, than "adorning" or whatever else I have seen so far. The reader does need some understanding of what this pot means, but after reading it just once, he/she will know. There is nothing complicated about it.

I've let go of the assumption that there is a correct translation of the Yi

I agree completely, and I don't think there will ever be. Which does not mean they are incorrect.

or even that there's a correct version of the Yi in Chinese.

That implies that they are all 'incorrect' .. I don't think they are. There may be different ones, but not something you can call incorrect. When you make one which is different from what I do, then neither yours or mine is incorrect. One is yours, and one is mine. There are bad ones.. ok. But they seldom survive for very long.

What I like, is your comparison to the old and new buildings. But even that is no strict rule. I don't think Chris' Yi clashes with any old Yi (although not everyone may agree, including Chris). When the buildings are good architecture, both, they often can be side by side without any trouble. Bad architecture, that clashes always of course.

Happy Chrismas everyone who is around here!

 

[pakua]

Hi Martin,


"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. "

I understand completely... I'm not disagreeing about the frustration. I was speaking out about the harshness afterwards, and where was that coming from, and was it merited.


"....you insist on your point of view."

Isn't that a problem? If two people both insist they're right? What can be the result? Isn't this hex 6? Who is wrong here?

That's why I questioned your objective previously.

 

[martin]

Hi Pakua,

I think insisting on a viewpoint is no problem, as long as there is respect for the other and his or her opinions and one can "agree to disagree".
The issue is that Lightofreason rarely shows any respect and apparently is unable or unwilling to agree to disagree.

Responding to him with harsh remarks is maybe not the best or wisest or saintliest thing to do but IMO it is understandable that people react that way, considering how "harsh" and disrespectful he treats them when he discovers that he can't convert them.

It's kind of silly and childish to say "Look, HE started!" but in this case, there is perhaps some truth in it.

However ... I have heard (soft and friendly ) complaints about hijacking this thread. So, if you want to discuss this further, it's maybe a good idea if you start a new thread in Open Space?

 

[martin]

I don't have anything to add, btw, and would like to stop talking about this now.
But perhaps others have something to say.

 

[yly2pg1]

Chris, I started this thread in order to canvas people's opinions about how best to deal with translations of the obsolete, anachronistic, out-of-date and hopelessly inadequate 10th century version of the Yi. ...

The practice of Yi - in the text form, is not in the priority list for making divination among those well verse with Yi. The text is used as a reference to imbue a right meanings via metaphorization. IOW, you do not have to be a Chinese to keep an "I Ching diary" of what you have gone thru, your experience, your feelings emotions etc ...

In this light, what Chris can offer and contribute is a book called "the I Ching diary". The diary could be in the form of a "mandel" format (like the "nine-palace" template). With this "nine-palace" template, the Primary hexagram will constitute the middle column. The IDM materials (IC+) can be used to "frame" and dictate the "validity" of the hexagram with respect to a particular event.

The template may be used in the following manner:

(A) The progress of the event will fill up the eight columns of the template in a clock-wise manner (represented with an hexagram) in each column with respect to the flow of time, or

(B) since each event may present different facets from various angles, which in turn calls for various approaches simultaneously, the eight columns that surround the middle column may as well be used to represent each and every approach (reflected by hexagram) that will be implemented to fulfill the "totality" of the Primary hexagram in the middle template.

 

[lightofreason]

...
(B) since each event may present different facets from various angles, which in turn calls for various approaches simultaneously, the eight columns that surround the middle column may as well be used to represent each and every approach (reflected by hexagram) that will be implemented to fulfill the "totality" of the Primary hexagram in the middle template.

Yes - but we extend this into a compass format. To map out a three-dimensional form into a two-dimensional space requires us to form an aggregate of all aspects of that form, we need to represent it from all angles. To do this we put the form in the centre of a circle and 'walk' the circle. Each point on that circle will give us a unique perspective of the centred form and so a part of the whole.

Since our language is limited to a finite set of categories (hexagrams or trigrams or dodecagrams etc) we can map the categories onto the circumference of the circle to give us each category representing the unique perspective upon the form in the centre.

If we use yin/yang or 0/1 (bit) representations, each 'point' on the circle is represented by a unique bit pattern - e.g. 010010 - or yin/yang sequence (here hex 29).

Since we are dealing with a language so it must be able to describe itself so the same method is used to describe these categories themselves.

Thus, if, working from hexagrams, we place 000000 in the centre of the circle and the binary sequence as our language, XORing the position with the centre returns the position - in other words we are dealing with reflection.

E.g. 111000 (position on circle) XOR 000000 (centre image, what is being perceived) = 111000 and so on. This gives us a formal structure, the binary sequence, on the circumference with each position and so 'perspective' upon the centre represented by a hexagram.

Thus as we walk the circle, in any position, e.g. 111000, I will look at the centre and so 000000 and get back a reflection of my position, e.g. 111000. This is equivalent to XORing.

If I remain in my position but change the image in the centre then my perspective will change though the position has not; I must use the same language in all cases but retain the position. Thus if my position is 111000 and the centre is now 101010 then the perspective from that position is now described by analogy to another hexagram and THAT is identified by XORing and so 111000 XOR 101010 gives us 010010 - thus the perspective of 101010 from the position of 111000 is described by analogy to 010010.

Each position represents an aspect of the whole and we use the binary sequence (and so 000000 as centre) to set-down the position markers and so X-ness. XOR-ing the position marker with the centre will give the analogy to describe that unique perspective.

In the IC+ pages I map these as the hexagram's spectrum where for each hexagram we put it in the middle of the circle and 'walk' the circle with the binary sequence as the foundation for the positions and so we move from 000000 to 111111 etc (or any other sequence as covered in the icmatrix page)

The traditional use of compasses etc tries to bring out this 3D to 2D mapping but is vague and misses the clear XOR dynamics and the explanation of 3D to 2D translations - there is an intuition of 'something' but it not fleshed out in the original material and so reflects the lack of knowledge of what is being delt with.

(recall the Fu Hsi trigram models etc where the centre is no change and the trigrams on the circumference representing change)

If we want more precision we move the circle outwards, what THAT does is reflect the recursion of the sequence that makes up the circle - we move from trigrams to hexagrams to dodecagrams as we make finer distinctions (and so avoid the spaces problem as we move the original eight categories 'outwards' to 64, and eight point circumference becomes 64, 64 becomes 4096, 4096 becomes 16+million etc)

Chris.