Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).
Some changing lines don't make sense
- Thread starter pagan
- Start date
lightofdarkness
(deceased)
- Joined
- Mar 16, 1970
- Messages
- 1,025
- Reaction score
- 3
Hi Martin,
you wrote:
>
> What I'm talking about or rather pointing to is not
> something that can be understood as (for instance) chaos or
> paradox, it's much more "irrational" than that. The mind can
> simply get no hold on it.
> This means that no model/theory can really "cover" it.
...but that will elicit paradox where it will span generations, not milliseconds. In paradox we find:
(1) sensory paradox where XOR/AND conditions get 'confused', or more so the XOR tries to reduce an irreducable.
(2) categorical paradox where we have not clearing differentiated our universal categories such that CONTEXT is required to identify. In principle a universal category is context-free (or context-universal) and so must NOT be dependent on context.
(3) dimensional paradox where what is detected is outside of the spectrum of our senses and their extensions no matter what categories we throw at it. IOW all we see are what falls within the bounds of our senses etc ... and if there is anything outside of those bounds in toto, and so not even a part is 'seen' - we will be unaware of it.
Since the neurology focuses on differentiating/integrating, there is nothing I can think of that is outside of that dynamic in that that dynamic covers mapping particle physics dynamics to mapping our personal thoughts etc.
ALL of the above points re paradox will elicit oscillation, be it at the level of our senses or at the level of our minds where we will argue. DETAILS can (A) resolve paradox but also (B) create paradox - and our details oriented, mediating (and so oscillating) consciousness is the root of paradox as far as we are concerned - after all, our species-nature sees a 'complex' line drawing - no more, no less. ;-)
Chris.
you wrote:
>
> What I'm talking about or rather pointing to is not
> something that can be understood as (for instance) chaos or
> paradox, it's much more "irrational" than that. The mind can
> simply get no hold on it.
> This means that no model/theory can really "cover" it.
...but that will elicit paradox where it will span generations, not milliseconds. In paradox we find:
(1) sensory paradox where XOR/AND conditions get 'confused', or more so the XOR tries to reduce an irreducable.
(2) categorical paradox where we have not clearing differentiated our universal categories such that CONTEXT is required to identify. In principle a universal category is context-free (or context-universal) and so must NOT be dependent on context.
(3) dimensional paradox where what is detected is outside of the spectrum of our senses and their extensions no matter what categories we throw at it. IOW all we see are what falls within the bounds of our senses etc ... and if there is anything outside of those bounds in toto, and so not even a part is 'seen' - we will be unaware of it.
Since the neurology focuses on differentiating/integrating, there is nothing I can think of that is outside of that dynamic in that that dynamic covers mapping particle physics dynamics to mapping our personal thoughts etc.
ALL of the above points re paradox will elicit oscillation, be it at the level of our senses or at the level of our minds where we will argue. DETAILS can (A) resolve paradox but also (B) create paradox - and our details oriented, mediating (and so oscillating) consciousness is the root of paradox as far as we are concerned - after all, our species-nature sees a 'complex' line drawing - no more, no less. ;-)
Chris.
C
candid
Guest
Chris,
But see, I DO relate the IC as universal. You make a line of differentiation where none exists. I really don't think much about the tradition. The tradition exists but not apart from the universal. It could have been developed 5,000,000 years ago or just last week. It?s universal value would not have changed, either way.
I will say though, the fact that it "has" a tradition provides more grounding, but the tradition to me is not the essential. What is essential to me is that it WORKS on a local level, though it itself in UNIVERSAL. Yes, local provides the color, texture, contour, harmonics, flexibility and application. But IC to me is essentially universal in principles. No one invented it. It has always existed.
"nature it is "contractive bonding in a context of expansive binding'" - aka static relationships in a context of dynamic relationships with a base on differentiating." Yes, I whole-heartedly agree. This is the LOCAL and SUBJECTIVE field that I kept referring to; the part I felt was missing from Pagan's equations.
Regardless of this, the localized event of drawing a particular hexagram for a particular question at a particular time, is what I perceive that has no value in your system; commonly called synchronicity. NOT the universal properties which exists in the whole. We agree on the whole and universal.
The difference between our understanding is that to you, any answer is applicable, because our minds will find our answer therein. Whereas I believe that only the one hexagram received is applicable to the specific question. That too is part of the universal-ness of IC. The local is in recognizing its meaning, not in creating it.
But see, I DO relate the IC as universal. You make a line of differentiation where none exists. I really don't think much about the tradition. The tradition exists but not apart from the universal. It could have been developed 5,000,000 years ago or just last week. It?s universal value would not have changed, either way.
I will say though, the fact that it "has" a tradition provides more grounding, but the tradition to me is not the essential. What is essential to me is that it WORKS on a local level, though it itself in UNIVERSAL. Yes, local provides the color, texture, contour, harmonics, flexibility and application. But IC to me is essentially universal in principles. No one invented it. It has always existed.
"nature it is "contractive bonding in a context of expansive binding'" - aka static relationships in a context of dynamic relationships with a base on differentiating." Yes, I whole-heartedly agree. This is the LOCAL and SUBJECTIVE field that I kept referring to; the part I felt was missing from Pagan's equations.
Regardless of this, the localized event of drawing a particular hexagram for a particular question at a particular time, is what I perceive that has no value in your system; commonly called synchronicity. NOT the universal properties which exists in the whole. We agree on the whole and universal.
The difference between our understanding is that to you, any answer is applicable, because our minds will find our answer therein. Whereas I believe that only the one hexagram received is applicable to the specific question. That too is part of the universal-ness of IC. The local is in recognizing its meaning, not in creating it.
lightofdarkness
(deceased)
- Joined
- Mar 16, 1970
- Messages
- 1,025
- Reaction score
- 3
>
> Chris. I have a world of life experience 60 + years of it.
> I also have a better than average education. You failed to
> tell me who your students are and if thay understand it
> (IDM) at any level?
>
(1) I have no 'students' - I am not a teacher, more R&D ;-) I do this for me, *I* want to know. I then put my findings onto my lists/website etc to share. If people dont get the prose, or dont have the time to, so be it. I am a lot better than I was back in the mid 90s so more do 'get it' these days and I am constantly refining etc - this is not a 'finished' product, this is an inquiry into meaning derivation. ;-)
(2) my daughter is 21 - she understand it and uses it to aid in picking up 'specialist' perspectives - as does my Ex who has absorbed it 'passively' and has found it useful in dealing with the non-medical (lawyers etc - she is a professor of general practice at a local university) - but neither have gone through the details, they just use it as a guide in certain situations. I would need to organise some formal lectures or something like that.
MY IDM list has about 50+ on it and my icplus about 170 and if they dont 'get it' they understand there is 'something' there! ;-) ... but I do know of some who use it (again more uni oriented re processing information jargon etc) ... and there has been academic interest from the MBTI/typology crowd ... and someone in LA is interested in the application to linguistics and story structure etc.... so .... things are 'cooking' still (50). I persevere ;-) (but have to pay my debt to the taxman first and so have to work outside of my interests! - maybe I will eventually do a 'world tour' of talks at some time! ;-))
> Chris. I have a world of life experience 60 + years of it.
> I also have a better than average education. You failed to
> tell me who your students are and if thay understand it
> (IDM) at any level?
>
(1) I have no 'students' - I am not a teacher, more R&D ;-) I do this for me, *I* want to know. I then put my findings onto my lists/website etc to share. If people dont get the prose, or dont have the time to, so be it. I am a lot better than I was back in the mid 90s so more do 'get it' these days and I am constantly refining etc - this is not a 'finished' product, this is an inquiry into meaning derivation. ;-)
(2) my daughter is 21 - she understand it and uses it to aid in picking up 'specialist' perspectives - as does my Ex who has absorbed it 'passively' and has found it useful in dealing with the non-medical (lawyers etc - she is a professor of general practice at a local university) - but neither have gone through the details, they just use it as a guide in certain situations. I would need to organise some formal lectures or something like that.
MY IDM list has about 50+ on it and my icplus about 170 and if they dont 'get it' they understand there is 'something' there! ;-) ... but I do know of some who use it (again more uni oriented re processing information jargon etc) ... and there has been academic interest from the MBTI/typology crowd ... and someone in LA is interested in the application to linguistics and story structure etc.... so .... things are 'cooking' still (50). I persevere ;-) (but have to pay my debt to the taxman first and so have to work outside of my interests! - maybe I will eventually do a 'world tour' of talks at some time! ;-))
Jerryd,
I can't say I am a student of Chris's in a formal sense, but I have taken a lot of my time to try to assimilate his ideas. I have to limit myself there, because I am very intent in developing my own research and sometimes feel pinched to have to drudge through such complex concepts.
And I want to say that Chris is very thorough in the way that he covers a potential application in his model, often to the point of losing the concentration of others. I really sympathize with him because in many ways, I share this same frustration of having too few others to share my astrological models with.
p.
I can't say I am a student of Chris's in a formal sense, but I have taken a lot of my time to try to assimilate his ideas. I have to limit myself there, because I am very intent in developing my own research and sometimes feel pinched to have to drudge through such complex concepts.
And I want to say that Chris is very thorough in the way that he covers a potential application in his model, often to the point of losing the concentration of others. I really sympathize with him because in many ways, I share this same frustration of having too few others to share my astrological models with.
p.
- Joined
- Sep 17, 1971
- Messages
- 5,120
- Reaction score
- 109
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="ff0000"><FONT SIZE="+2"> Resilience</FONT></FONT></CENTER>
Teflon also comes to mind. I understand Jerryd's plea. He appears to be newly exposed to Chris (Hi Chris!!!) On the other hand, Candid is the surprise here...
One image that comes to mind is of those Shiite Muslims one sees in the news that self-flog themselves (with all due respect to them, of course).
What Chris writes has great value and I keep saying that he should organize himself and place all those ideas in book format. For people to read and digest at their leisure The moment he comes down to the level of the rest of the mortals, that is. There is no point in arguing his POV. That Chris can write is obvious. Also, I see no arrogance in his writing, perhaps some patronizing, but arrogance? No. Just in case the word is brought up.
Following the path laid down in this thread will lead to a bunch of pissed off people, with some of them leaving, again...
L
PS: carry on. Don't mind me... Complaints accepted from 0000hrs to 0001hrs EST.
Teflon also comes to mind. I understand Jerryd's plea. He appears to be newly exposed to Chris (Hi Chris!!!) On the other hand, Candid is the surprise here...
What Chris writes has great value and I keep saying that he should organize himself and place all those ideas in book format. For people to read and digest at their leisure The moment he comes down to the level of the rest of the mortals, that is. There is no point in arguing his POV. That Chris can write is obvious. Also, I see no arrogance in his writing, perhaps some patronizing, but arrogance? No. Just in case the word is brought up.
Following the path laid down in this thread will lead to a bunch of pissed off people, with some of them leaving, again...
L
PS: carry on. Don't mind me... Complaints accepted from 0000hrs to 0001hrs EST.
C
candid
Guest
Luis, huh? I am flogging myself? In what way? Am curious.
C
candid
Guest
Luis,
"Following the path laid down in this thread will lead to a bunch of pissed off people, with some of them leaving, again..."
I'm at a loss here. I don't see anyone here as being pissed off or entertaining leaving.. again.
"Following the path laid down in this thread will lead to a bunch of pissed off people, with some of them leaving, again..."
I'm at a loss here. I don't see anyone here as being pissed off or entertaining leaving.. again.
lightofdarkness
(deceased)
- Joined
- Mar 16, 1970
- Messages
- 1,025
- Reaction score
- 3
Hi Candid,
>
> I will say though, the fact that it "has" a tradition
> provides more grounding, but the tradition to me is not the
> essential. What is essential to me is that it WORKS on a
> local level, though it itself in UNIVERSAL. Yes, local
> provides the color, texture, contour, harmonics, flexibility
> and application. But IC to me is essentially universal in
> principles. No one invented it. It has always existed.
>
ah.... here is the issue. For me, what the IC REPRESENTS goes back to the beginnings of the Universe (see http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/symmetry.html) - IOW the IC is a metaphor, more figurative than literal; it is a book of gerunds and so one step removed where the user is the final arbiter of meaning - and so collapses things into verb XOR noun etc.
The development of life, and in particular, of the neuron, encapsulated the 'basics' of the Universe and, over billions of years, 'refined' those basics such that they served as a foundation for the formal structuring of the IC as a metaphor for describing "all there is".
It is this internalisation of 'out there', together with its refinement through hierarchic processes, that has led to the IC 'as we know it' (IOW traditional perspective).
> Regardless of this, the localized event of drawing a
> particular hexagram for a particular question at a
> particular time, is what I perceive that has no value in
> your system; commonly called synchronicity. NOT the
> universal properties which exists in the whole. We agree on
> the whole and universal.
>
Not in the form of using coins etc, only in the form of asking general questions (as done in ICPlus). What the random/oracle element does is bring to one's attention a property of the moment outside of that attention OR the EXACT reflection of that attention. This is a 1/64 chance using coins. Yarrow sticks etc are different in their bias to YIN states and so more 'conserving of energy' focus. IOW from a TRADITIONAL perspective, yarrow sticks are better.
Now for the 'traditionalist' so there is no 'random' element, each line drawn is drawn by some 'force' talking to you THROUGH the context that is the IC. IOW you are not 'involved', all you have done is pose the question and toss the coins etc to 'draw out' the force, to particularise the force to focus on YOUR concerns. Given the IC and its prediction skills, given our reflection of 'out there' 'in here', so such an interpretation is easily accepted and becomes built-in to the 'whole IC paradigm'.
The point from Science is - is this necessary? What happens if we focus on such concepts as randomness etc etc Can that show us more? Yes it can. What happens if we surrender our faith in some external force and put it in our species-nature? A LOT. We learn to PARTICIPATE in our species, and its existence in this context. Not in the local collectives etc, but across all humans.
What the random perspective does is ensure there is no guarantee here of regularly getting the 'bestfit' hexagram for a given situation, BUT whatever hexagam you DO get will elicit meaning for the question asked - because ALL hexagrams are applicable, are harmonics of the whole.
What the 'oracle' nature does is say 'what i give you is the best fit' - and our consciousness looks at that and says 'WRONG' or else does not question - but that is a fundamentalist, blind faith perspective, a focus on the miraculous and THAT shares the SAME semantic SPACE as the concept of the random; IOW we have a space that contains a 'generic' meaning as a universal that is collapsable into the concepts of the 'miraculous' or of the 'random'. - IOW the random perspective or the oracular perspective are associated with the same probability patterns, 1 in 64, where YOU, consciously, decide to accept what comes up.
The question method is based on applying what your brain does in assessing information - it moves from general to particular as it 'zooms-in' and it does this unconsciously as well as consciously; IOW allowing for your sensing/intuiting to be used in answering the questions just as much as your thinking/feeling.
If you develop your understanding of the IC then you can intuitively 'fit in' to the context quickly, but also 'move on' if need be. IOW there is no need for coins, yarrow sticks, or anything else - you and context are 'one' and so you can PRE-EMPT situations; you have become the oracle ;-)
That said, if you learn the IC from the universal level then you need to 'familarise' yourself with local conditions prior to moving in the 'new' context.
Chris.
>
> I will say though, the fact that it "has" a tradition
> provides more grounding, but the tradition to me is not the
> essential. What is essential to me is that it WORKS on a
> local level, though it itself in UNIVERSAL. Yes, local
> provides the color, texture, contour, harmonics, flexibility
> and application. But IC to me is essentially universal in
> principles. No one invented it. It has always existed.
>
ah.... here is the issue. For me, what the IC REPRESENTS goes back to the beginnings of the Universe (see http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/symmetry.html) - IOW the IC is a metaphor, more figurative than literal; it is a book of gerunds and so one step removed where the user is the final arbiter of meaning - and so collapses things into verb XOR noun etc.
The development of life, and in particular, of the neuron, encapsulated the 'basics' of the Universe and, over billions of years, 'refined' those basics such that they served as a foundation for the formal structuring of the IC as a metaphor for describing "all there is".
It is this internalisation of 'out there', together with its refinement through hierarchic processes, that has led to the IC 'as we know it' (IOW traditional perspective).
> Regardless of this, the localized event of drawing a
> particular hexagram for a particular question at a
> particular time, is what I perceive that has no value in
> your system; commonly called synchronicity. NOT the
> universal properties which exists in the whole. We agree on
> the whole and universal.
>
Not in the form of using coins etc, only in the form of asking general questions (as done in ICPlus). What the random/oracle element does is bring to one's attention a property of the moment outside of that attention OR the EXACT reflection of that attention. This is a 1/64 chance using coins. Yarrow sticks etc are different in their bias to YIN states and so more 'conserving of energy' focus. IOW from a TRADITIONAL perspective, yarrow sticks are better.
Now for the 'traditionalist' so there is no 'random' element, each line drawn is drawn by some 'force' talking to you THROUGH the context that is the IC. IOW you are not 'involved', all you have done is pose the question and toss the coins etc to 'draw out' the force, to particularise the force to focus on YOUR concerns. Given the IC and its prediction skills, given our reflection of 'out there' 'in here', so such an interpretation is easily accepted and becomes built-in to the 'whole IC paradigm'.
The point from Science is - is this necessary? What happens if we focus on such concepts as randomness etc etc Can that show us more? Yes it can. What happens if we surrender our faith in some external force and put it in our species-nature? A LOT. We learn to PARTICIPATE in our species, and its existence in this context. Not in the local collectives etc, but across all humans.
What the random perspective does is ensure there is no guarantee here of regularly getting the 'bestfit' hexagram for a given situation, BUT whatever hexagam you DO get will elicit meaning for the question asked - because ALL hexagrams are applicable, are harmonics of the whole.
What the 'oracle' nature does is say 'what i give you is the best fit' - and our consciousness looks at that and says 'WRONG' or else does not question - but that is a fundamentalist, blind faith perspective, a focus on the miraculous and THAT shares the SAME semantic SPACE as the concept of the random; IOW we have a space that contains a 'generic' meaning as a universal that is collapsable into the concepts of the 'miraculous' or of the 'random'. - IOW the random perspective or the oracular perspective are associated with the same probability patterns, 1 in 64, where YOU, consciously, decide to accept what comes up.
The question method is based on applying what your brain does in assessing information - it moves from general to particular as it 'zooms-in' and it does this unconsciously as well as consciously; IOW allowing for your sensing/intuiting to be used in answering the questions just as much as your thinking/feeling.
If you develop your understanding of the IC then you can intuitively 'fit in' to the context quickly, but also 'move on' if need be. IOW there is no need for coins, yarrow sticks, or anything else - you and context are 'one' and so you can PRE-EMPT situations; you have become the oracle ;-)
That said, if you learn the IC from the universal level then you need to 'familarise' yourself with local conditions prior to moving in the 'new' context.
Chris.
C
candid
Guest
Chris,
Makes sense. And it is how I perceived our differences. However, I do not suggest that your way of viewing it is less correct. It just operates on a different level. That said, I too reverse the process on a regular basis, applying the whole to my local, without consulting or looking for confirmation from without. But not always.
Makes sense. And it is how I perceived our differences. However, I do not suggest that your way of viewing it is less correct. It just operates on a different level. That said, I too reverse the process on a regular basis, applying the whole to my local, without consulting or looking for confirmation from without. But not always.
lightofdarkness
(deceased)
- Joined
- Mar 16, 1970
- Messages
- 1,025
- Reaction score
- 3
>
> So, how to start a flesh blank sheet of universal, like the
> pure love between a girl and a boy [ hug ]... from the
> dynamics of XOR-AND? Any medication for that?
>
Bonding. Expansive. Lake. How does it start? pure form of Lake is 58, XOR with 24 (beginning, rebeginning, return etc)
110110
100000
------
010110 -> enclosure ;-) makes whomever is enclosed integrate with the context. Gets into finding a shared context when viewed positively. Also allows for the sharing of STRESS to elicit a bond and so the negative can work as well. As such it covers the extremes where an infatuation can lead to kidnap and confinement as an attempt to establish a relationship.
58 is overall bonding (share space with another), 24 is structurally binding (share time with another) but with a trusting in another 'top'.
Useful?
Chris.
> So, how to start a flesh blank sheet of universal, like the
> pure love between a girl and a boy [ hug ]... from the
> dynamics of XOR-AND? Any medication for that?
>
Bonding. Expansive. Lake. How does it start? pure form of Lake is 58, XOR with 24 (beginning, rebeginning, return etc)
110110
100000
------
010110 -> enclosure ;-) makes whomever is enclosed integrate with the context. Gets into finding a shared context when viewed positively. Also allows for the sharing of STRESS to elicit a bond and so the negative can work as well. As such it covers the extremes where an infatuation can lead to kidnap and confinement as an attempt to establish a relationship.
58 is overall bonding (share space with another), 24 is structurally binding (share time with another) but with a trusting in another 'top'.
Useful?
Chris.
lightofdarkness
(deceased)
- Joined
- Mar 16, 1970
- Messages
- 1,025
- Reaction score
- 3
BTW - 47 deals with a contractive bounding base and an expansive bonding top.
To bound means some sort of boundary - yin is to keep things in, protect, etc. Yang (fire) is to expand outwards, convert difference to sameness.
47 Reflects (!) intensity of expression (lake in top. Lake in bottom is self-reflection, both literal and figurative) WITHIN a containment (water in bottom is contaimment, water in top is control).
This can be interpreted negatively as 'oppression' or positively as encouragement to integrate with the context (the ideogram is of a fenced-in tree - force the roots to go deep). The yin top line in the hexagram indicates it is all unconditional (brings out the 02/23 pair influence on 6)
To bound means some sort of boundary - yin is to keep things in, protect, etc. Yang (fire) is to expand outwards, convert difference to sameness.
47 Reflects (!) intensity of expression (lake in top. Lake in bottom is self-reflection, both literal and figurative) WITHIN a containment (water in bottom is contaimment, water in top is control).
This can be interpreted negatively as 'oppression' or positively as encouragement to integrate with the context (the ideogram is of a fenced-in tree - force the roots to go deep). The yin top line in the hexagram indicates it is all unconditional (brings out the 02/23 pair influence on 6)
lightofdarkness
(deceased)
- Joined
- Mar 16, 1970
- Messages
- 1,025
- Reaction score
- 3
... and so note with a yang top things become conditional - compromise (06)
There is an aire of legality here, but then forming relationships does head in that direction! Love is bonding as is loss of love in that the focus becomes sadness into discernment (52) - love is maintained 'in here'.
Chris.
There is an aire of legality here, but then forming relationships does head in that direction! Love is bonding as is loss of love in that the focus becomes sadness into discernment (52) - love is maintained 'in here'.
Chris.
martin
(deceased)
- Joined
- Oct 2, 1971
- Messages
- 2,705
- Reaction score
- 61
Now for something completely different ..
Similarities between trigrams, Jungean types, planets in western astrology and Plato's ideas:
Intuition (Spirit, the Real)
000 extravert, Neptune
111 introvert, Uranus
Thinking (Mind, the True)
011 extravert, Mercury
001 introvert, Saturn
Feeling (Soul, the Good)
101 extravert, Jupiter
010 introvert, Moon
Sensation (Body, the Beautiful)
110 extravert, Venus
100 introvert, Mars
The Sun and Pluto represent the life force and don't correspond to trigrams.
What da ya think?
Similarities between trigrams, Jungean types, planets in western astrology and Plato's ideas:
Intuition (Spirit, the Real)
000 extravert, Neptune
111 introvert, Uranus
Thinking (Mind, the True)
011 extravert, Mercury
001 introvert, Saturn
Feeling (Soul, the Good)
101 extravert, Jupiter
010 introvert, Moon
Sensation (Body, the Beautiful)
110 extravert, Venus
100 introvert, Mars
The Sun and Pluto represent the life force and don't correspond to trigrams.
What da ya think?
- Joined
- Sep 17, 1971
- Messages
- 5,120
- Reaction score
- 109
It appears that something was missing from my last post. Before anybody put the necessary twist to the old phrase missing above, here it is:
L
L
- Joined
- Sep 17, 1971
- Messages
- 5,120
- Reaction score
- 109
<CENTER>
</CENTER>
Sorry, too small before...
L
Sorry, too small before...
L
martin
(deceased)
- Joined
- Oct 2, 1971
- Messages
- 2,705
- Reaction score
- 61
Hi Pagan,
I think it depends on how we define 'introvert' and 'extravert'. These terms are used in different ways (sometimes reflected in different spellings: extrAvert versus extrOvert).
I use them in the meaning that Jung gave to them. The introvert attitude moves away from the object of perception and abstracts from it while the extravert attitude moves towards the object and its concreteness. Jung sometimes said that the introvert attitude seems to involve a kind of defense against the (magical?) power of the object. The extravert attitude, on the other hand, allows and even invites this power.
I link Uranus with abstraction and therefore with introversion. This is somewhat confusing because we associate Neptune and its sign Pisces with otherworldliness. Neptune/Pisces can come across as not being entirely 'here' (on earth) and we call this 'introvert', where we use the word in its more popular meaning. But if you look why it is not entirely here, you discover that it is because it is focused on the experience of inner objects (feelings, dream and fantasy images, etcetera). And it allows itself to be overwhelmed by what it perceives inside, even to the point where it gets lost in what it perceives. No 'defense'. This is typical for the extravert attitude, if we use Jung's definition of extraversion.
The confusion is caused by a mix up of different meanings of the words 'introvert' and 'extravert'.
Does that make sense?
I think it depends on how we define 'introvert' and 'extravert'. These terms are used in different ways (sometimes reflected in different spellings: extrAvert versus extrOvert).
I use them in the meaning that Jung gave to them. The introvert attitude moves away from the object of perception and abstracts from it while the extravert attitude moves towards the object and its concreteness. Jung sometimes said that the introvert attitude seems to involve a kind of defense against the (magical?) power of the object. The extravert attitude, on the other hand, allows and even invites this power.
I link Uranus with abstraction and therefore with introversion. This is somewhat confusing because we associate Neptune and its sign Pisces with otherworldliness. Neptune/Pisces can come across as not being entirely 'here' (on earth) and we call this 'introvert', where we use the word in its more popular meaning. But if you look why it is not entirely here, you discover that it is because it is focused on the experience of inner objects (feelings, dream and fantasy images, etcetera). And it allows itself to be overwhelmed by what it perceives inside, even to the point where it gets lost in what it perceives. No 'defense'. This is typical for the extravert attitude, if we use Jung's definition of extraversion.
The confusion is caused by a mix up of different meanings of the words 'introvert' and 'extravert'.
Does that make sense?
Hi Martin,
I am an astrologer first and a student of the IC second. I suppose I have a very set notion of the planets and I think Uranus is sooooo extraverted. It rules Aquarius as the social animal, the nut, the eccentric, the genius. The personification of Uranus is anything but introverted. Not from the mythology of the God to the application of it in a horoscope chart. Uranus as 000 'the receptive' which, if you read your ICHING is dark, void, moist, weak, etc. doesn't groove with the Uranian nature that is creative, spontaneous, and light giving. Uranus the a symbol for the trigram heaven and hexagram 1 all the way (111). In San Diego, the San Diego Astrological Society calls their newsletter THE URANIAN for this very reason!
000 which is earth and hexagram 2, corresponds to Pluto more than Neptune in my model because all the mutable signs are ruled by planets that represent mind (Mercury and Jupiter and Neptune)as the 'field'. Pluto is dark and rules physical matter, like Lucifer is king of the earth in mythology, and like Hades is king of the underworld (earth is under heaven). Neptune is very introverted in its expression in a chart, as is Pisces, and its natural house is the 12: hidden things. Hard to make it look extroverted unless you really tweak definitions.
P.
I am an astrologer first and a student of the IC second. I suppose I have a very set notion of the planets and I think Uranus is sooooo extraverted. It rules Aquarius as the social animal, the nut, the eccentric, the genius. The personification of Uranus is anything but introverted. Not from the mythology of the God to the application of it in a horoscope chart. Uranus as 000 'the receptive' which, if you read your ICHING is dark, void, moist, weak, etc. doesn't groove with the Uranian nature that is creative, spontaneous, and light giving. Uranus the a symbol for the trigram heaven and hexagram 1 all the way (111). In San Diego, the San Diego Astrological Society calls their newsletter THE URANIAN for this very reason!
000 which is earth and hexagram 2, corresponds to Pluto more than Neptune in my model because all the mutable signs are ruled by planets that represent mind (Mercury and Jupiter and Neptune)as the 'field'. Pluto is dark and rules physical matter, like Lucifer is king of the earth in mythology, and like Hades is king of the underworld (earth is under heaven). Neptune is very introverted in its expression in a chart, as is Pisces, and its natural house is the 12: hidden things. Hard to make it look extroverted unless you really tweak definitions.
P.
martin
(deceased)
- Joined
- Oct 2, 1971
- Messages
- 2,705
- Reaction score
- 61
Hi Pagan,
I guess I'm also more an astrologer than an IC student. And how could I not be an astrologer, the Sun is conjunct Uranus in my chart.
.
And yes, Uranus corresponds with 111 in my model.
About introvert-extravert, these terms are confusing, as I tried to explain in my other post. Introvert in the popular meaning of the word (not outgoing, withdrawn, not social, not expressive, etcetera) is not the same as introvert in the Jungean sense. Jung thought of himself as an introvert, by the way, and although he sometimes retired from the world he had a rich social life. And he was very creative and expressive.
Personally I see the nut-eccentric-genius aspect of Uranus/Aquarius as a manifestation of introversion, even although this animal is also very social, as you say, and would therefore considered to be 'extravert' in the popular meaning of the word (outgoing and so on).
The problem, I think, is that 'outgoing' behavior can very well go with an inward tendency to 'withdraw from the object', so behavior can be somewhat misleading and one has to look deeper.
With respect to astrology there is another complicating factor and that is that the sun sign doesn't necessarily indicate ones favorite attitude (if there is one). There is probably no hard rule for this but I believe that the sign of the moon is often a better indicator.
But, well, perhaps it's better to avoid a tower of Babel and use other words instead of introvert and extravert. Abstract-concrete, for instance. Or monistic-pluralistic.
000 = Neptune or Pluto? I associate Pluto with closed spaces, strong magnetic fields and power in the air. That somehow doesn't fit with the unconditional and innocent openness of 000. And Pluto as the last planet in the solar system seems to point beyond life (corresponding to the death and rebirth symbolism associated with it) while the sun 'is' life.
They are opposites, more or less, two extremes and between those extremes is life as we know it and that is where the trigrams are, so to speak. So I don't associate the Sun and Pluto with trigrams.
But that is perhaps a matter of taste?
I think there is a subjective factor in all this. The model that we prefer reflects our own 'feel' for the universe and for what is important.
I guess I'm also more an astrologer than an IC student. And how could I not be an astrologer, the Sun is conjunct Uranus in my chart.
And yes, Uranus corresponds with 111 in my model.
About introvert-extravert, these terms are confusing, as I tried to explain in my other post. Introvert in the popular meaning of the word (not outgoing, withdrawn, not social, not expressive, etcetera) is not the same as introvert in the Jungean sense. Jung thought of himself as an introvert, by the way, and although he sometimes retired from the world he had a rich social life. And he was very creative and expressive.
Personally I see the nut-eccentric-genius aspect of Uranus/Aquarius as a manifestation of introversion, even although this animal is also very social, as you say, and would therefore considered to be 'extravert' in the popular meaning of the word (outgoing and so on).
The problem, I think, is that 'outgoing' behavior can very well go with an inward tendency to 'withdraw from the object', so behavior can be somewhat misleading and one has to look deeper.
With respect to astrology there is another complicating factor and that is that the sun sign doesn't necessarily indicate ones favorite attitude (if there is one). There is probably no hard rule for this but I believe that the sign of the moon is often a better indicator.
But, well, perhaps it's better to avoid a tower of Babel and use other words instead of introvert and extravert. Abstract-concrete, for instance. Or monistic-pluralistic.
000 = Neptune or Pluto? I associate Pluto with closed spaces, strong magnetic fields and power in the air. That somehow doesn't fit with the unconditional and innocent openness of 000. And Pluto as the last planet in the solar system seems to point beyond life (corresponding to the death and rebirth symbolism associated with it) while the sun 'is' life.
They are opposites, more or less, two extremes and between those extremes is life as we know it and that is where the trigrams are, so to speak. So I don't associate the Sun and Pluto with trigrams.
But that is perhaps a matter of taste?
I think there is a subjective factor in all this. The model that we prefer reflects our own 'feel' for the universe and for what is important.
bradford_h
(deceased)
- Joined
- Nov 16, 1971
- Messages
- 1,115
- Reaction score
- 68
Hi guys-
Just wanted to concur with 111 for Uranus and 000 for Neptune. The Old Chinese really didn't have an ocean or sea so they found their mystical breadth in the land instead of the oceanic symbols.
Hard to fit more than 8 planets into the scheme.
I left Pluto out of my system. Now the astronomers are doing it too by calling it a KBO.
Just wanted to concur with 111 for Uranus and 000 for Neptune. The Old Chinese really didn't have an ocean or sea so they found their mystical breadth in the land instead of the oceanic symbols.
Hard to fit more than 8 planets into the scheme.
I left Pluto out of my system. Now the astronomers are doing it too by calling it a KBO.
martin
(deceased)
- Joined
- Oct 2, 1971
- Messages
- 2,705
- Reaction score
- 61
KBO ???
think ..
think ..
think ..
AHA!
Kuiper Belt Object!
think ..
think ..
think ..
AHA!
Kuiper Belt Object!
bradford_h
(deceased)
- Joined
- Nov 16, 1971
- Messages
- 1,115
- Reaction score
- 68
You got it. Piddly little Pluto.
I'm also with you on
Kan and Luna
Dui and Venus (Crowley got this one wrong)
Zhen and Mars
Sun(011) and Mercury
But I give Li to Sol (both fire)
And Gen to Jupiter (Poise, accretion, equilibrium, axis)
But Gen has several Saturnian qualities as well
I do something else with Saturn and Rhea as time and space. Saturn had the most unusual place for the ancients because it was the last thing known at the time, hence our limitations.
I'm also with you on
Kan and Luna
Dui and Venus (Crowley got this one wrong)
Zhen and Mars
Sun(011) and Mercury
But I give Li to Sol (both fire)
And Gen to Jupiter (Poise, accretion, equilibrium, axis)
But Gen has several Saturnian qualities as well
I do something else with Saturn and Rhea as time and space. Saturn had the most unusual place for the ancients because it was the last thing known at the time, hence our limitations.
martin
(deceased)
- Joined
- Oct 2, 1971
- Messages
- 2,705
- Reaction score
- 61
Yes, I can understand why you would give Gen (001) to Jupiter. Gen feels more like Saturn to me. It seems to be a lighter (less heavy) version of Saturn though, so the 'fit' is certainly not perfect.
And Li is 'solar' in many ways. But because the sun is life itself (or chi) I associate the sun with all trigrams or no trigram in particular and give Li to Jupiter, the most 'solar' planet.
I never thought of Rhea as 'space'. Interesting ..
And Li is 'solar' in many ways. But because the sun is life itself (or chi) I associate the sun with all trigrams or no trigram in particular and give Li to Jupiter, the most 'solar' planet.
I never thought of Rhea as 'space'. Interesting ..
bradford_h
(deceased)
- Joined
- Nov 16, 1971
- Messages
- 1,115
- Reaction score
- 68
Martin-
Maybe the hardest thing for me to accept was that no set of corespondences is perfect, so there's no real "equation", just lots of helpful insights. There's always one thing, like subjective vs objective Gen to gum up your whole perect system. Or getting metal and wood to fit with air and earth.
At least you seem to be avoiding the trap of making systems of translation while knowing only one of the languages. Almost everyone I've ever seen try has been next to totally ignorant of all but one of the systems.
b
Maybe the hardest thing for me to accept was that no set of corespondences is perfect, so there's no real "equation", just lots of helpful insights. There's always one thing, like subjective vs objective Gen to gum up your whole perect system. Or getting metal and wood to fit with air and earth.
At least you seem to be avoiding the trap of making systems of translation while knowing only one of the languages. Almost everyone I've ever seen try has been next to totally ignorant of all but one of the systems.
b
martin
(deceased)
- Joined
- Oct 2, 1971
- Messages
- 2,705
- Reaction score
- 61
I think that if you always look at life through the lens of only one system, that system is bound to become a trap.
One system is a prison. Two is already better, then you are at least free while you walk from one prison to the other.
One system is a prison. Two is already better, then you are at least free while you walk from one prison to the other.