Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).
Sincerity
- Thread starter stevev
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 15, 1970
- Messages
- 3,128
- Reaction score
- 207
two worlds
"those who believe the world is flat are delusional"
Well, my world is flat. I stand on flat ground, walk to another place without going around something round, and lakes don't run over here.
Yes, I know, science says it is round, and as long nobody proves it different, I believe them. And I like those pictures of a beautiful round earth. But still my world is flat.
I love, even though science never said it exists, not this thing I feel. And I am sad and happy and inspired. I know, there are hormones and stuff, but I feel something hormones or other scientific things inside cannot explain. And certainly not feeling happy for no reason at all.
Yi responds to this part of me. Not to the one which knows the earth is a round ball in space. And I think Chris is totally right with everthing he says – about that part which knows the earth is round. That part is not happy without any reason, and that part cannot see anything else in random than just random.
My flat earth knows about meaningful random happenings, about paradoxes which exist peacefully side by side, and about imagination making things come true.
LiSe
"those who believe the world is flat are delusional"
Well, my world is flat. I stand on flat ground, walk to another place without going around something round, and lakes don't run over here.
Yes, I know, science says it is round, and as long nobody proves it different, I believe them. And I like those pictures of a beautiful round earth. But still my world is flat.
I love, even though science never said it exists, not this thing I feel. And I am sad and happy and inspired. I know, there are hormones and stuff, but I feel something hormones or other scientific things inside cannot explain. And certainly not feeling happy for no reason at all.
Yi responds to this part of me. Not to the one which knows the earth is a round ball in space. And I think Chris is totally right with everthing he says – about that part which knows the earth is round. That part is not happy without any reason, and that part cannot see anything else in random than just random.
My flat earth knows about meaningful random happenings, about paradoxes which exist peacefully side by side, and about imagination making things come true.
LiSe
B
bruce_g
Guest
good to see coyote tracks on this trail
B
bruce_g
Guest
Yes, a bit like a dingo, from what little I know of dingos. Coyotes are fascinating creatures, and earn their reputation as nature’s tricksters, or if you will, magicians. They’re seen when they choose to be seen, and can seemingly disappear right before you. Their wisdom isn’t born of thinking but of what the moment requires. They have a uniquely penetrating relationship with the human psyche, as reflected in American Indigenous People’s lore.
Does the dingo share this?
Does the dingo share this?
B
bruce_g
Guest
I know this thread isn’t about coyote, but someone may enjoy this. The other side of science, perhaps.
“Coyote is a trickster celebrated in Indian songs and stories from the Gulf of Mexico to the Northern Plains and from the Pacific Ocean to the Mississippi River. But nowhere is he more infamous than in the Southwest, where he appears in many forms. Coyote is a wise fool who teaches tribal rules by breaking them. No matter how tricky he is, the joke is always on Coyote in the end. The most important thing he teaches is that people shouldn't take themselves too seriously.”
A PIMA TALE
Coyote is appointed to the study the stars. This guy, Coyote, was always appointing himself over people, wanting to show them he could do anything, however hard it was. So the medicine men, wanting to find out if it was true, said, "Maybe he's just a fraud." They say to him: Uncle ! Uncle !! You're so fast and wise about everything that you should go and find out for us what those things are doing shinning up there every night." As they said this, they pointed to the stars. Coyote took them seriously. So Coyote went off and didn't return for a long time. Then suddenly, he came back, singing..........
Beneath the heavens above us
There are round pools of water
Each time coyote drinks from one
He sees his reflection and says
“I-Toi” (all drunk up)
but when he catches on
he laughs quietly at himself
“Coyote is a trickster celebrated in Indian songs and stories from the Gulf of Mexico to the Northern Plains and from the Pacific Ocean to the Mississippi River. But nowhere is he more infamous than in the Southwest, where he appears in many forms. Coyote is a wise fool who teaches tribal rules by breaking them. No matter how tricky he is, the joke is always on Coyote in the end. The most important thing he teaches is that people shouldn't take themselves too seriously.”
A PIMA TALE
Coyote is appointed to the study the stars. This guy, Coyote, was always appointing himself over people, wanting to show them he could do anything, however hard it was. So the medicine men, wanting to find out if it was true, said, "Maybe he's just a fraud." They say to him: Uncle ! Uncle !! You're so fast and wise about everything that you should go and find out for us what those things are doing shinning up there every night." As they said this, they pointed to the stars. Coyote took them seriously. So Coyote went off and didn't return for a long time. Then suddenly, he came back, singing..........
Beneath the heavens above us
There are round pools of water
Each time coyote drinks from one
He sees his reflection and says
“I-Toi” (all drunk up)
but when he catches on
he laughs quietly at himself
Similarly cunning solitary predators
The Australian Indigenous People do have a close relationship with the dingo, I think it's safe to say. In some cases they domesticated them, I don't know about a uniquely penetrating relationship with the human psyche, mind you there's no Peyote in Oz.
The Australian Indigenous People do have a close relationship with the dingo, I think it's safe to say. In some cases they domesticated them, I don't know about a uniquely penetrating relationship with the human psyche, mind you there's no Peyote in Oz.
martin
(deceased)
- Joined
- Oct 2, 1971
- Messages
- 2,705
- Reaction score
- 61
I very much like LiSe's two-worlds-hypothesis but I would like to expand it to a many-worlds-hypothesis. 
There are many worlds inbetween the world of pure science and the worlds (these are again many) in which the earth is flat and lakes don't overflow.
When Chris states that the answers of oracles must be random he is not talking as a pure scientist IMO. He is talking from a world in which science and personal opinion are mixed.
The same is true for me when I state that the answers of oracles are NOT random. When I put my pure-science hat on and you ask me if oracles give random answers or not I can only say "I don't know".
A science of the future can perhaps shed more light on this question but science as it is now doesn't - as far as I can see - provide us with the tools that we would need to decide either way, yes or no.
From the point of view of pure science the question seems undecided and, for the moment, undecidable.
I think it is important to distinguish between (pure) science and certain opinions that have become losely associated with it, opinions that could in general perhaps be decribed as "anti-magical".
Scientists and outsiders who are interested in science tend to have a kind of allergic reaction when confronted with anything that sounds like magic or religion. They respond with irritation and often refuse to listen.
There are historical and personal reasons for this allergy, but it has nothing to do with the scientific method as such.
Pure science is completely open to the magical and fortunately there are and have been many scientists who demonstrate this openness in their work and their personal lives.
We do not all respond to magical ideas as if we are stung by a wasp.
There are many worlds inbetween the world of pure science and the worlds (these are again many) in which the earth is flat and lakes don't overflow.
When Chris states that the answers of oracles must be random he is not talking as a pure scientist IMO. He is talking from a world in which science and personal opinion are mixed.
The same is true for me when I state that the answers of oracles are NOT random. When I put my pure-science hat on and you ask me if oracles give random answers or not I can only say "I don't know".
A science of the future can perhaps shed more light on this question but science as it is now doesn't - as far as I can see - provide us with the tools that we would need to decide either way, yes or no.
From the point of view of pure science the question seems undecided and, for the moment, undecidable.
I think it is important to distinguish between (pure) science and certain opinions that have become losely associated with it, opinions that could in general perhaps be decribed as "anti-magical".
Scientists and outsiders who are interested in science tend to have a kind of allergic reaction when confronted with anything that sounds like magic or religion. They respond with irritation and often refuse to listen.
There are historical and personal reasons for this allergy, but it has nothing to do with the scientific method as such.
Pure science is completely open to the magical and fortunately there are and have been many scientists who demonstrate this openness in their work and their personal lives.
We do not all respond to magical ideas as if we are stung by a wasp.
rosada
visitor
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2006
- Messages
- 9,906
- Reaction score
- 3,212
Thank you for those quotes from Blake, Bruce. I can't explain my thinking (to paraphrase Blake, I'd like to submit my ideas, but I can't get my ideas to submit), but you've triggered ideas about this subject under discussion. I'm wondering if there is a clue in the idea that thoughts are things. If we do seriously consider a "thought" a "thing" then we can study them applying the sam principals we apply to material objects. This means we should assume thoughts have a gravitational force - and thus would attracted like ideas. Thus the question one asks of IC would somehow attract an idea on the same wave length much the way a magnet attracks metal.
Not a scientist,
Rosada
Not a scientist,
Rosada
B
bruce_g
Guest
LOL, Steve. Thanks for the insight into dingos. Oz may not have mescaline but no doubt there must be something similar growing in the outback.
Rosada, glad you could relate, and offer another great quote of his. Funny that if Blake’s words came from LaoTzu they would be revered as a deep, nearly impenetrable daoist secret. As it is, he’s mostly perceived as just another whacky and opinionated artist. And if you or I said it.. pphht!
Rosada, glad you could relate, and offer another great quote of his. Funny that if Blake’s words came from LaoTzu they would be revered as a deep, nearly impenetrable daoist secret. As it is, he’s mostly perceived as just another whacky and opinionated artist. And if you or I said it.. pphht!
L
lightofreason
Guest
If you work from the position of the particular/general, with its focus on consequences of self-referencing etc - so the BIG picture is outside of our immediate experience - as are the I Ching hexagrams being expressed at the same time, with local context sorting them into best-fit/worst-fit order. (something NOT understood in the 'singular' form of the IC)
EACH of the hexagrams serve as context out of which 'different' perspectives develop but these are all WITHIN the bounds of the whole. The issue gets into the dynamics of metonymy/metaphor dichotomy.
If we fold back these categories, so we move back to generic states out of which all has come. From a particular psychological position (and so a statistical realm of 'types') we have:
Yin biased development:
identity seekers (yin/yin - fear, others-devotion)
security seekers (yin/yang - rejection)
Yang biased development:
solution seekers (yang/yin - acceptance)
sensation seekers (yang/yang - anger, self-devotion)
Science comes out of solution seeking BUT due to the self-referencing is also present in all of the other categories. This is not clearly defined until you get to hexagrams and beyond - it is this level where clear differentiation is enough to see the pure and the mixed.
Solution seeking comes out of sensation seeking in that BAD sensations mean we move away from immediacy of experience, we need to make maps to clearly identify the ups and downs etc. In the IC this is reflected in the trigrams of fire and thunder. (the NEED for clear distinctions is reflected in the boundary of fire as it is in the 'suddeness' of thunder.)
Sensation seeking goes for the 'buzz', perpetual engagement with reality to sharpen skills, to assert identity directly. In the IC this is reflected in the trigrams of lake and heaven. (life is all competitive, and that includes the cooperative; all is high energy, 'rock n roll', take no prisoners - there is perpetual mediation dynamics going on as one tests one's skills - be it in marital arts or hexagram line interpretations!) - the main focus of trust is in oneself, compared to a lack of trust in solution seeking (we need the maps)
Identity seeking comes out of the dynamics of the universe determining identity and so pre-emptying that determination - it is all pattern matching, guru seeking, current trends etc and so a perpetual focus on change that elicits issues of identity (and this is a realm associated with depression etc) - these are covered in the trigrams of earth and mountain with total devotion to, trust in, another/others.
The absolute trust in another/others gives way to the consequences of experiencing betrayal by others and so the 'walls go up' - identity seeking changes to security seeking
all covered by the IC with the trigrams of water and wind.
EACH of these categories are 'worlds', more so 'small world' networks derived from exposing the WHOLE (the IC) as a set of POTENTIALS to local environment.
The issue with the 'magical' is that the connectivity etc of each of us is reflected, not discoverable other than by first person narratives, not in the realm of the singular, but in the realm of the particular/general - not as 'mysticism' but as increasingly recognisable 'fact'... and the XOR work with recursion demonstrates this - So I think some of you are missing the point made about 'divination' etc in that if you review the particular/general dynamics there is prediction possible but it is mostly focused on our particular nature rather than singular nature. (see the pages on issues of history http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/history.html also in the Language of the Vague paper)
Note also that due to the recursion eliciting the above categories so they all appear in each category and so we all share these natures but have our 'genetically' determined 'traits' WITHIN WHICH operates our singular nature allowing for 'novel' combinations of all ofthe other categories and so 'unique' perspectives.
Chris.
EACH of the hexagrams serve as context out of which 'different' perspectives develop but these are all WITHIN the bounds of the whole. The issue gets into the dynamics of metonymy/metaphor dichotomy.
If we fold back these categories, so we move back to generic states out of which all has come. From a particular psychological position (and so a statistical realm of 'types') we have:
Yin biased development:
identity seekers (yin/yin - fear, others-devotion)
security seekers (yin/yang - rejection)
Yang biased development:
solution seekers (yang/yin - acceptance)
sensation seekers (yang/yang - anger, self-devotion)
Science comes out of solution seeking BUT due to the self-referencing is also present in all of the other categories. This is not clearly defined until you get to hexagrams and beyond - it is this level where clear differentiation is enough to see the pure and the mixed.
Solution seeking comes out of sensation seeking in that BAD sensations mean we move away from immediacy of experience, we need to make maps to clearly identify the ups and downs etc. In the IC this is reflected in the trigrams of fire and thunder. (the NEED for clear distinctions is reflected in the boundary of fire as it is in the 'suddeness' of thunder.)
Sensation seeking goes for the 'buzz', perpetual engagement with reality to sharpen skills, to assert identity directly. In the IC this is reflected in the trigrams of lake and heaven. (life is all competitive, and that includes the cooperative; all is high energy, 'rock n roll', take no prisoners - there is perpetual mediation dynamics going on as one tests one's skills - be it in marital arts or hexagram line interpretations!) - the main focus of trust is in oneself, compared to a lack of trust in solution seeking (we need the maps)
Identity seeking comes out of the dynamics of the universe determining identity and so pre-emptying that determination - it is all pattern matching, guru seeking, current trends etc and so a perpetual focus on change that elicits issues of identity (and this is a realm associated with depression etc) - these are covered in the trigrams of earth and mountain with total devotion to, trust in, another/others.
The absolute trust in another/others gives way to the consequences of experiencing betrayal by others and so the 'walls go up' - identity seeking changes to security seeking
all covered by the IC with the trigrams of water and wind.
EACH of these categories are 'worlds', more so 'small world' networks derived from exposing the WHOLE (the IC) as a set of POTENTIALS to local environment.
The issue with the 'magical' is that the connectivity etc of each of us is reflected, not discoverable other than by first person narratives, not in the realm of the singular, but in the realm of the particular/general - not as 'mysticism' but as increasingly recognisable 'fact'... and the XOR work with recursion demonstrates this - So I think some of you are missing the point made about 'divination' etc in that if you review the particular/general dynamics there is prediction possible but it is mostly focused on our particular nature rather than singular nature. (see the pages on issues of history http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/history.html also in the Language of the Vague paper)
Note also that due to the recursion eliciting the above categories so they all appear in each category and so we all share these natures but have our 'genetically' determined 'traits' WITHIN WHICH operates our singular nature allowing for 'novel' combinations of all ofthe other categories and so 'unique' perspectives.
Chris.
L
lightofreason
Guest
Rosada, because of the nature of our brains, or more so their methodology in categorising information, so we find that the qualities described in the IC are metaphors for the qualities derived from our brain's methodology in processing information. These GENERIC qualities determine all meaning and so serve US as universals and the IC captures their nature and so the ease with which we can use the IC to interpret 'all there is'.
The identification of these qualities/categories come out of the realm of particular/general in that they are derived from analysis of sameness across differences and so a statistical focus. IOW for each of us as singulars, no matter how singular we are, our particular nature will give us away as members of a species due to the sameness in behaviours etc we share with other species members.
Chris.
The identification of these qualities/categories come out of the realm of particular/general in that they are derived from analysis of sameness across differences and so a statistical focus. IOW for each of us as singulars, no matter how singular we are, our particular nature will give us away as members of a species due to the sameness in behaviours etc we share with other species members.
Chris.
B
bruce_g
Guest
Steve,
Back to your original question and answer (remember that?). I’m curious if you’ve made any conclusions about 59? There was certainly plenty of feedback on it.
It’s an interesting answer to a good question, and it reflects the diversity of opinions one might expect from an esoteric and ancient text like the Yijing.
So, what say you about the answer?
Back to your original question and answer (remember that?). I’m curious if you’ve made any conclusions about 59? There was certainly plenty of feedback on it.
It’s an interesting answer to a good question, and it reflects the diversity of opinions one might expect from an esoteric and ancient text like the Yijing.
So, what say you about the answer?
Does anybody want to start this argument from the beginning ?
Now when I said Sincerity 59. I meant Sincerity 61, not Dispersion 59. Obviously I looked that up in my dyslexic mathematically challenged sequence ! But it’s pretty funny really, I still have the same feelings I had when I threw it, it was a great answer and when others agreed how appropriate it was I thought that was obvious, what others saw that was appropriate about Dispersion I don’t know, I always thought we were talking about Sincerity. I guess it just goes to show how subjective the IChing is. I love it for it’s personal relationship to me, I love it for it’s perfect mix of logic and mystic, I love it for it’s understanding of the light and the dark in me, at an emotional level it has never let me down. At an intellectual level it still stimulates me and encourages me to try and get to the heart of it. I treat it like a koan, some ancient master gave it to me to solve, but in the end the logic turns out to be the logic of simple truth and the mystic turns out to be thin and sensible. I don’t believe in the mysterious agencies, but I love the idea of them. I love the fact that the IChing’s history goes back to my evolutionary roots, and when we had nothing but sticks, the IChing rode on sticks, and today it rides on my Pentium 4 dual core running thru threads created in C++ that process text and images accessed via SQL. That’s just some of what I still think about my original question and answer.
I think we are in serious danger of taking ourselves and the IChing too seriously.
Regards
Steve
Now when I said Sincerity 59. I meant Sincerity 61, not Dispersion 59. Obviously I looked that up in my dyslexic mathematically challenged sequence ! But it’s pretty funny really, I still have the same feelings I had when I threw it, it was a great answer and when others agreed how appropriate it was I thought that was obvious, what others saw that was appropriate about Dispersion I don’t know, I always thought we were talking about Sincerity. I guess it just goes to show how subjective the IChing is. I love it for it’s personal relationship to me, I love it for it’s perfect mix of logic and mystic, I love it for it’s understanding of the light and the dark in me, at an emotional level it has never let me down. At an intellectual level it still stimulates me and encourages me to try and get to the heart of it. I treat it like a koan, some ancient master gave it to me to solve, but in the end the logic turns out to be the logic of simple truth and the mystic turns out to be thin and sensible. I don’t believe in the mysterious agencies, but I love the idea of them. I love the fact that the IChing’s history goes back to my evolutionary roots, and when we had nothing but sticks, the IChing rode on sticks, and today it rides on my Pentium 4 dual core running thru threads created in C++ that process text and images accessed via SQL. That’s just some of what I still think about my original question and answer.
I think we are in serious danger of taking ourselves and the IChing too seriously.
Regards
Steve
L
lightofreason
Guest
> Now when I said Sincerity 59. I meant Sincerity 61, not Dispersion 59.
View this from the realm of particular/general and in the variations on a theme sequence, hexagram 59 complements hexagram 61.
In XOR, 61 describes the 24-ness of 59. IOW "how does 59 'begin' or 'return'" with the analogy being 61 - IOW to dispel illusions one starts with a preparedness to 'yield' within. In reverse, 59 describes the 24-ness of 61 - to begin 'yielding within' one starts with lifting the 'fog', dispelling illusions.
From the emotional perspective, 59 is rooted in issues of containment, issues of rejection/rejecting within which is operating anticipation. 61 is rooted in issues of sharing space with another, love, self-reflection within which is operating anticipation.
<snip>
> I think we are in serious danger of taking ourselves and the IChing too
> seriously.
>
We currently don’t take it, or ourselves, seriously enough.
Chris.
View this from the realm of particular/general and in the variations on a theme sequence, hexagram 59 complements hexagram 61.
In XOR, 61 describes the 24-ness of 59. IOW "how does 59 'begin' or 'return'" with the analogy being 61 - IOW to dispel illusions one starts with a preparedness to 'yield' within. In reverse, 59 describes the 24-ness of 61 - to begin 'yielding within' one starts with lifting the 'fog', dispelling illusions.
From the emotional perspective, 59 is rooted in issues of containment, issues of rejection/rejecting within which is operating anticipation. 61 is rooted in issues of sharing space with another, love, self-reflection within which is operating anticipation.
<snip>
> I think we are in serious danger of taking ourselves and the IChing too
> seriously.
>
We currently don’t take it, or ourselves, seriously enough.
Chris.
martin
(deceased)
- Joined
- Oct 2, 1971
- Messages
- 2,705
- Reaction score
- 61
Lol Steve, that was an inspiring error!
I wonder what we would have said if you had written 37 or 49 or <substitute your favorite hexagram here> instead of 59.
It's true, every hexagram fits more or less or can be made to fit by us. I agree with Chris here although I don't believe, like he does, that the answers of the I Ching are random.
You really should take the I Ching more seriously Chris!
I wonder what we would have said if you had written 37 or 49 or <substitute your favorite hexagram here> instead of 59.
It's true, every hexagram fits more or less or can be made to fit by us. I agree with Chris here although I don't believe, like he does, that the answers of the I Ching are random.
You really should take the I Ching more seriously Chris!
B
bruce_g
Guest
My thoughts as well, Martin. In spite of the occasional fun I poke at Chris, he’s opened my mind to some things I hadn’t really considered, at least not in the way Chris presents it. I still entertain the possibility of Yi operating sans any ‘miraculous’ element.
Take it too seriously or not seriously enough? Good question.
We went off on a philosophical trail and pretty much left Steve’s reading in a cloud of dust. Maybe 59 didn’t ‘feel’ right enough to comment? 61 certainly does, as a more direct answer to the original question: I ask what is the important point (of I Ching) ? That seems like a pretty miraculous answer to me.
Take it too seriously or not seriously enough? Good question.
We went off on a philosophical trail and pretty much left Steve’s reading in a cloud of dust. Maybe 59 didn’t ‘feel’ right enough to comment? 61 certainly does, as a more direct answer to the original question: I ask what is the important point (of I Ching) ? That seems like a pretty miraculous answer to me.
That's why I posted it
I ask plenty of questions and get obscure answers, and even when the Hexagram labels sound good, most of the text is a bit vague. It's good to get an answer that you can't or don't want to argue with on occassions.
I ask plenty of questions and get obscure answers, and even when the Hexagram labels sound good, most of the text is a bit vague. It's good to get an answer that you can't or don't want to argue with on occassions.
L
lightofreason
Guest
Martin, you ignore/miss an essential point when we review things from the realm of particular/general and that is ANY moment is described IN FULL by the I Ching, IOW AS A WHOLE. This is due to using the IC as a filter to see 'all there is'.
IOW the IC will ALWAYS have a correct answer to some moment where the PARTS (as in hexagrams or dodecagrams, depending on your scale of analysis) will be sortable by the local context into best-fit/worst-fit order.
Thus learning the IC in full, from the particular/general position, can develop one's intuitive side to be able to 'pick up' the local 'vibe' and so associate it with the 'best fit'.
As such we have IDM/ICPlus as a 'species 101' course in basic information processing covering universals, and local context then grounds things.
If one does not follow this learning methodology then one can use the 'random/miraculous' approach where belief in such methods means you think you are getting the 'best fit' in consistant manner when, from the particular/general perspective, you are not.
This latter form of learning lacks depth in that you could NEVER get some hexagrams based on probabilities alone. IOW this 'singular' approach is REACTIVE where we now have enought information etc to be PROACTIVE if need be. Thats what Science is about in the context of mapping is presenting 'all that could be' as well as 'all that is'. With the map one can deal with reality better. INTERNALISE the generic map, integrate it with one's being, and one can work smoothly in any context.
You cannot do that internalisation quickly, efficiently, using reactive methods - you spend a lot of time 'fighting' the context of the 10th century BC perspective as well as the ancient Chinese perspective. You CAN internalise using proactive methods in the form of mapping the universals (and so vague natures) and then let context fill-in with colour. IOW the the grounding is left up to the SINGULAR (and so your unique perspective) but in that process the singular has access to well researched, well defined, set of categories to work with.
Given the random/miraculous methodology, there will always be events that link the moment with its 'best fit' OR a hexagram in the local ordering of hexagrams CLOSE TO that best fit such that the qualitative closeness will feel as if you have the 'best fit'. IOW using the IC 'traditionally' will always elicit a qualitative sense of 'value' and in doing so will allow for 'magical' interpretations of HOW it does this, when current work in neurosciences etc show how it all works without any need for 'magical' elements. (not I said, "NEED" - that does not negate the use of magical methods but just that there is no need for them given what we know)
Chris.
IOW the IC will ALWAYS have a correct answer to some moment where the PARTS (as in hexagrams or dodecagrams, depending on your scale of analysis) will be sortable by the local context into best-fit/worst-fit order.
Thus learning the IC in full, from the particular/general position, can develop one's intuitive side to be able to 'pick up' the local 'vibe' and so associate it with the 'best fit'.
As such we have IDM/ICPlus as a 'species 101' course in basic information processing covering universals, and local context then grounds things.
If one does not follow this learning methodology then one can use the 'random/miraculous' approach where belief in such methods means you think you are getting the 'best fit' in consistant manner when, from the particular/general perspective, you are not.
This latter form of learning lacks depth in that you could NEVER get some hexagrams based on probabilities alone. IOW this 'singular' approach is REACTIVE where we now have enought information etc to be PROACTIVE if need be. Thats what Science is about in the context of mapping is presenting 'all that could be' as well as 'all that is'. With the map one can deal with reality better. INTERNALISE the generic map, integrate it with one's being, and one can work smoothly in any context.
You cannot do that internalisation quickly, efficiently, using reactive methods - you spend a lot of time 'fighting' the context of the 10th century BC perspective as well as the ancient Chinese perspective. You CAN internalise using proactive methods in the form of mapping the universals (and so vague natures) and then let context fill-in with colour. IOW the the grounding is left up to the SINGULAR (and so your unique perspective) but in that process the singular has access to well researched, well defined, set of categories to work with.
Given the random/miraculous methodology, there will always be events that link the moment with its 'best fit' OR a hexagram in the local ordering of hexagrams CLOSE TO that best fit such that the qualitative closeness will feel as if you have the 'best fit'. IOW using the IC 'traditionally' will always elicit a qualitative sense of 'value' and in doing so will allow for 'magical' interpretations of HOW it does this, when current work in neurosciences etc show how it all works without any need for 'magical' elements. (not I said, "NEED" - that does not negate the use of magical methods but just that there is no need for them given what we know)
Chris.
L
lightofreason
Guest
Bruce, go deeper. Dont consider ONE hexagram, go through each of them as singular expressions of the set of particulars that make up the general, the IC as whole.
Each hexagram serves as a context out of which one can interpret reality and that means the IC itself - we are always dealing with self-referencing. From the particular/general perspective we can use XOR etc to get the IC to tell us about itself but in GENERAL, as UNIVERSALS, and then local context, the SINGULAR can add local 'colour' and so makes the descriptions grounded.
Steve's original analysis, be it 59 or 61, covers the use of the random/miraculous position - but the SAME question can be asked by each of us and we will not get the same results consistantly - we will in fact get, over time, ALL hexagrams as answers to the question. UTILISE that fact. GO with it. FOCUS on EACH with the SAME question and map what comes out - and what comes out is a LOT of depth ignored or treated lightly at the level of the singular where that level is often into immediate gratification over delayed gratification.
From an evolution perspective the level of the singular is a level of maximising the information bandwidth of the SPECIES/COLLECTIVE. What our individual natures allow is for the that maximisation through distancing oneself from all others (this is an activity of positive feedback) and so of clear differentiation; we all offer unique perspectives. This is reflected of, for example, the development of the sense of taste were the distancing of core qualities - sweet, sour, bitter, salt - make the sense AS A WHOLE very efficient in the processing of information. As such, each of us is equivalent to one of those archetypal 'tastes' - we reflect their distancing WITHIN the WHOLE to give a meaning space that is as wide as possible.
Our species as such is a sense with billions of 'points' that make up the 'meaning space' of that species and so makes us so successful in our dealings with reality, when compared to our lesser cousins lacking refined differentiation in the form of unique consciousness. From the particular/general position, there are COLLECTIVES within the species that cover a specialist form of meaning as our individual natures do but the precision is 'vague' - these reflect 'types' rather than individuals (and so MBTI etc etc in categories). These collectives show us the roots of 'purpose' etc but they span generations, not individuals - IOW there is a 'hard coded' purpose in these collectives WITHIN WHICH operates our individual natures that allow us to CHOOSE across all of the possible 'hard coded' elements - it is this choice factor of individual consciousness that allows for variations and 'new' insights, innovative creativity, in the species where just ONE of us can 'change the world' through some insight.
Chris.
Each hexagram serves as a context out of which one can interpret reality and that means the IC itself - we are always dealing with self-referencing. From the particular/general perspective we can use XOR etc to get the IC to tell us about itself but in GENERAL, as UNIVERSALS, and then local context, the SINGULAR can add local 'colour' and so makes the descriptions grounded.
Steve's original analysis, be it 59 or 61, covers the use of the random/miraculous position - but the SAME question can be asked by each of us and we will not get the same results consistantly - we will in fact get, over time, ALL hexagrams as answers to the question. UTILISE that fact. GO with it. FOCUS on EACH with the SAME question and map what comes out - and what comes out is a LOT of depth ignored or treated lightly at the level of the singular where that level is often into immediate gratification over delayed gratification.
From an evolution perspective the level of the singular is a level of maximising the information bandwidth of the SPECIES/COLLECTIVE. What our individual natures allow is for the that maximisation through distancing oneself from all others (this is an activity of positive feedback) and so of clear differentiation; we all offer unique perspectives. This is reflected of, for example, the development of the sense of taste were the distancing of core qualities - sweet, sour, bitter, salt - make the sense AS A WHOLE very efficient in the processing of information. As such, each of us is equivalent to one of those archetypal 'tastes' - we reflect their distancing WITHIN the WHOLE to give a meaning space that is as wide as possible.
Our species as such is a sense with billions of 'points' that make up the 'meaning space' of that species and so makes us so successful in our dealings with reality, when compared to our lesser cousins lacking refined differentiation in the form of unique consciousness. From the particular/general position, there are COLLECTIVES within the species that cover a specialist form of meaning as our individual natures do but the precision is 'vague' - these reflect 'types' rather than individuals (and so MBTI etc etc in categories). These collectives show us the roots of 'purpose' etc but they span generations, not individuals - IOW there is a 'hard coded' purpose in these collectives WITHIN WHICH operates our individual natures that allow us to CHOOSE across all of the possible 'hard coded' elements - it is this choice factor of individual consciousness that allows for variations and 'new' insights, innovative creativity, in the species where just ONE of us can 'change the world' through some insight.
Chris.
L
lightofreason
Guest
Steve wrote:
"I ask what is the important point [of the IC]" and he got 59 .... 61.
Now flesh it out - move to cover all possible answers and what can be gleamed from summing each. Given ANY question there are 64 generic 'answers' at the level of hexagrams, 4096 at the level of dodecagrams (aka hexagrams with changing lines), 8 at the level of trigrams.
Due to the general-to-particular nature of self-referencing so the high precision of 4096 is rooted in that of 64 that is rooted in that of 8 that is rooted in that of 2.
Try a singular focus "Who Am I?" - work through each hexagram 1 to 64; where does the singular give way to the particular? To toss coins and ask IC such a question is, to me, a waste of energy since each of us is ALL of the IC, not one hexagram. OTOH you can ask "WHO AM I NOW?" and the temporal element with the single hexagram returned is grounded in a moment (or better still, use best-fit methods using questions since the answers to the questions will reflect your current emotional state and so bring out some hexagram describing that state)
In the IC you are seeing 'all there is' but not with too much details that it is all 'too much' nore with too little information to make it all 'useless'.
From the particular/general perspective, for each hexagram we can describe the contribution of all of the others to its expression (using XOR) and from there singularise to one's unique perspective. IOW beyond the 'traditional' prose there is access to 64 'harmonics' of a hexagram (or 4096 harmonics of a dodecagram but that can be too much to start with).
To seriously understand our speices, our collectives, and our selves, requires a little effort in analysis of the IC from the particular/general perspective but it is worth the energy to "Know Thyself" spanning singular, particular, and general.
Chris.
"I ask what is the important point [of the IC]" and he got 59 .... 61.
Now flesh it out - move to cover all possible answers and what can be gleamed from summing each. Given ANY question there are 64 generic 'answers' at the level of hexagrams, 4096 at the level of dodecagrams (aka hexagrams with changing lines), 8 at the level of trigrams.
Due to the general-to-particular nature of self-referencing so the high precision of 4096 is rooted in that of 64 that is rooted in that of 8 that is rooted in that of 2.
Try a singular focus "Who Am I?" - work through each hexagram 1 to 64; where does the singular give way to the particular? To toss coins and ask IC such a question is, to me, a waste of energy since each of us is ALL of the IC, not one hexagram. OTOH you can ask "WHO AM I NOW?" and the temporal element with the single hexagram returned is grounded in a moment (or better still, use best-fit methods using questions since the answers to the questions will reflect your current emotional state and so bring out some hexagram describing that state)
In the IC you are seeing 'all there is' but not with too much details that it is all 'too much' nore with too little information to make it all 'useless'.
From the particular/general perspective, for each hexagram we can describe the contribution of all of the others to its expression (using XOR) and from there singularise to one's unique perspective. IOW beyond the 'traditional' prose there is access to 64 'harmonics' of a hexagram (or 4096 harmonics of a dodecagram but that can be too much to start with).
To seriously understand our speices, our collectives, and our selves, requires a little effort in analysis of the IC from the particular/general perspective but it is worth the energy to "Know Thyself" spanning singular, particular, and general.
Chris.
Slowly starting to appreciate your position
My main problem is consumtion, I have to chew for days. Although I do like the instant hit of a consultation the pogram I'm working on has a focus on explorartion. I don't know if you've seen it but one of the windows acts as both a consultation facility and one part of an exploration mode. The other part that I have intended to implement for a long time now is a logic window where I will have a few controls that allow spining thru various sequences and logical operators: H1 Op H2 = H3. I said in a previous post I was going to play XORs, this is what I meant.
My main problem is consumtion, I have to chew for days. Although I do like the instant hit of a consultation the pogram I'm working on has a focus on explorartion. I don't know if you've seen it but one of the windows acts as both a consultation facility and one part of an exploration mode. The other part that I have intended to implement for a long time now is a logic window where I will have a few controls that allow spining thru various sequences and logical operators: H1 Op H2 = H3. I said in a previous post I was going to play XORs, this is what I meant.
L
lightofreason
Guest
The issue with H1 op H2 = H3 is in what is being representated. MANY have focused on the use of logic operators on the IC but they have failed to ask the 'right' question regarding what the product means. The IDM focus on how the brain deals with pardox was the answer to what does XOR 'mean' where it shows the extraction of parts from a complex pattern, whole. When we move into basic cryptography we find XOR-ing as a fundamental in information encoding/decoding, encryption/decryption, and so related 'in some way' to the neural code for processing pulses/waves.
Furthermore, to implement XOR in the brain requires one neuron to feedback onto another - IOW there is a strong association of self-referencing with XOR-ing - confirmed by the oscillations over WHAT/WHERE in our brains manifesting the self-referencing of that dichotomy and out of which come categories we use in PRECISE descriptions of 'reality' - and so reflective of the dynamics of language.
This is all asymmetric and the only true asymmetric logic operator is IMP. IMP (implies) is all about predictions, use of probabilities etc and all linked to the differentiating element of our brains and so rooted in XOR.
(1) The asymmetry is in Z <= Y <= X.
(2) The symmetric form is Z = Y = X (idealism)
(3) The anti-symmetric form is Z < Y < X (hierarchy)
IOW (1) 'contains' (2) and (3) and our brains 'know this' in the bias in lateralisation of left/right etc allowing for the asymmetric perspective WITHIN which is all else. Thus the IC can be used to represent all of these.
(Paradox processing - http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/paradox.html )
Chris.
I have downloaded the program - a bit buggy! ;-)
Furthermore, to implement XOR in the brain requires one neuron to feedback onto another - IOW there is a strong association of self-referencing with XOR-ing - confirmed by the oscillations over WHAT/WHERE in our brains manifesting the self-referencing of that dichotomy and out of which come categories we use in PRECISE descriptions of 'reality' - and so reflective of the dynamics of language.
This is all asymmetric and the only true asymmetric logic operator is IMP. IMP (implies) is all about predictions, use of probabilities etc and all linked to the differentiating element of our brains and so rooted in XOR.
(1) The asymmetry is in Z <= Y <= X.
(2) The symmetric form is Z = Y = X (idealism)
(3) The anti-symmetric form is Z < Y < X (hierarchy)
IOW (1) 'contains' (2) and (3) and our brains 'know this' in the bias in lateralisation of left/right etc allowing for the asymmetric perspective WITHIN which is all else. Thus the IC can be used to represent all of these.
(Paradox processing - http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/paradox.html )
Chris.
I have downloaded the program - a bit buggy! ;-)
Last edited:
martin
(deceased)
- Joined
- Oct 2, 1971
- Messages
- 2,705
- Reaction score
- 61
lightofreason said:
It depends on what your purpose is.
If you want to use the I Ching as a map, a categorical system, if that is your purpose, fine. In that case you don't need a "magical" element, you don't need to toss coins or something similar. You may do it if you like (as an experiment or a game, "give me an idea") but there is no need to assume that it is anything else but random. There is nothing magical about it.
But the I ching is obviously more than a map. It's not only a system that you can use to categorize nearly everything, it is also a device that can select ONE of those categories for you, one point on its map, or at least a limited area, one country, one city.
The I ching is also an oracle.
It is not supposed to say "Hey listen, here is the book, there are 64 possible perspectives in it - or 64*64 if you want more precision - read the book, explore your situation from all these perspectives, good luck and see you next year. Perhaps we can talk more about XORing then."
We definitely don't want to hear that from an oracle, right?
But then, if it is our purpose to use the I Ching as an oracle, we will need a "magical" element, we cannot do without it.
In a way, the I Ching is like a TV-set. It can pick up subtle signals and translate them into images that we can perceive and understand.
The internal structure of the TV-Yi is no doubt very interesting and worth studying. We all do that here in different ways. But if you focus exclusively on the internals of the device and refuse to use its magical antenna you will miss ... the eight o'clock news.
However, if that is your choice, so be it.
Last edited:
martin
(deceased)
- Joined
- Oct 2, 1971
- Messages
- 2,705
- Reaction score
- 61
Of course, I forgot to say this, I know that you also select ONE answer sometimes, but with nonmagical (pro-active) methods. And I don't doubt the usefulness of such "antenna's". But I think that the traditional magical antenna's are sometimes better.
They are not controlled by our consciousness and because of that they can pick up subtler signals.
They are not controlled by our consciousness and because of that they can pick up subtler signals.
L
lightofreason
Guest
grumpy old man part:
One issue with this new format is I dont get all emails posted to a thread I have subscribed to and so have to keep coming back to check things - not good. If I subscribe and want email then I should get all posts to the thread.
17-year-old-mind part:
Our consciousness deals with a 'whole' that is but a part of our nature. The 'full whole' is unconscious (see refs etc in http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/wavedicho.html )
Thus the notion of some 'oracle' at work is understandable where our intuition can pick up this differenced in whole and, through lack of knowledge about what is going on, project it onto 'out there' - as the angels page of my website covers our imagination at work in trying to understand something will little information available.
An interesting difference between monkey brains vs primate brains (more so OUR brains) is the monky brain cannot deal with mime. Thus their mirror neurons allow them to mimic but they cannot mimic pretence - we can. What is implicit in understanding here is that monkeys have no imagination and so imagination is a PRODUCT of our minds. The benefit of imagination is that it allows us to adapt to a context before actually experiencing it. This is very efficient but it does not come with a course on basic Physics etc and so allows us to imagine anything - even spirits, oracles, gnomes, Cardassians, Romulans, and Alice in Wonderland ;-)
BTW - think about this regarding REM sleep dynamics - what REM does for us vs what we see in dogs sleeping etc. - IOW their REM covers (a) replay of real events or (b) random firing of neurons whereas OUR REM includes the mixing of real with imagined.
Chris.
One issue with this new format is I dont get all emails posted to a thread I have subscribed to and so have to keep coming back to check things - not good. If I subscribe and want email then I should get all posts to the thread.
17-year-old-mind part:
Our consciousness deals with a 'whole' that is but a part of our nature. The 'full whole' is unconscious (see refs etc in http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/wavedicho.html )
Thus the notion of some 'oracle' at work is understandable where our intuition can pick up this differenced in whole and, through lack of knowledge about what is going on, project it onto 'out there' - as the angels page of my website covers our imagination at work in trying to understand something will little information available.
An interesting difference between monkey brains vs primate brains (more so OUR brains) is the monky brain cannot deal with mime. Thus their mirror neurons allow them to mimic but they cannot mimic pretence - we can. What is implicit in understanding here is that monkeys have no imagination and so imagination is a PRODUCT of our minds. The benefit of imagination is that it allows us to adapt to a context before actually experiencing it. This is very efficient but it does not come with a course on basic Physics etc and so allows us to imagine anything - even spirits, oracles, gnomes, Cardassians, Romulans, and Alice in Wonderland ;-)
BTW - think about this regarding REM sleep dynamics - what REM does for us vs what we see in dogs sleeping etc. - IOW their REM covers (a) replay of real events or (b) random firing of neurons whereas OUR REM includes the mixing of real with imagined.
Chris.
martin
(deceased)
- Joined
- Oct 2, 1971
- Messages
- 2,705
- Reaction score
- 61
lightofreason said:
You can see gods, angels and so on as symbols or metaphors for parts of our psyche, if you like. This has been a popular line of thought since Freud wrote about God as a father projection.
But it doesn't rule out the possibility that such beings also exist in their own right, independent of our imagination.
Psychologising them comes in handy for those of us who don't want to believe in them, yet it should be obvious that it constitutes no proof of their nonexistence whatsoever.
What happened to logic?
B
bruce_g
Guest
Hi Martin,
I’m quite sure the more learned Hindus, Tibetan Buddhists and other such belief systems view(ed) angels/gods/daemons in terms of psyche, long before Freud arrived on the psyche scene. The Tibetan Book of the Dead speaks to this directly. That said, I don’t see how anyone can disprove the literal existence of these beings. Or prove them, except by way of personal experience.
If ascended beings do literally exist in the ether realm, I doubt they care very much whether they’re acknowledged as literal individual entities, or, as manifestations of the subject’s mind. What I imagine matters to them is the beneficial influence they create. And then there’s the question: What if what appears from our imagination is what these literal beings become? We operate under the perception (illusion?) that we are separate beings from angels and such. Perhaps that separation exists only in our ego-self-mind.
I’m quite sure the more learned Hindus, Tibetan Buddhists and other such belief systems view(ed) angels/gods/daemons in terms of psyche, long before Freud arrived on the psyche scene. The Tibetan Book of the Dead speaks to this directly. That said, I don’t see how anyone can disprove the literal existence of these beings. Or prove them, except by way of personal experience.
If ascended beings do literally exist in the ether realm, I doubt they care very much whether they’re acknowledged as literal individual entities, or, as manifestations of the subject’s mind. What I imagine matters to them is the beneficial influence they create. And then there’s the question: What if what appears from our imagination is what these literal beings become? We operate under the perception (illusion?) that we are separate beings from angels and such. Perhaps that separation exists only in our ego-self-mind.