...life can be translucent

Menu

The Artistic and Scientific Perspectives of the I Ching

chrislofting

visitor
Joined
Nov 19, 1971
Messages
394
Reaction score
0
Hi all,

in a couple of threads of late on the Clarity list some perspectives have emerged that show biases in focus on the I Ching and these perspectives can be summed into the dynamics of the dichotomy of Artistic/Scientific.

As the philosopher Heidegger realised, to get at the core sense of being, of *consciousness*, of IS-ness, the focus has to be on the artistic not the scientific in that the artist seeks to either (a) replicate an existing form 'perfectly' or (b) product a variation of a theme that extends understanding of that theme or (c) create something considered 'new' that reflects a universal sense of 'perfection' without reference to any past work.

As such the above approaches to expression serve as the artist's way of communication, they have difficulty communicating directly, they can only do so through their art in that they do not directly 'shine', their art does and so BY IMPLICATION they do and so there is a STRONG entanglement of artist with what he/she has produced/re-produced (and this extends into collectives overall as in 'Greek art' or 'Chinese art' etc where local works are collected to reflect the identity of the collective as a whole)

In the context of the particular works of the I Ching, whether they be the work of modern writers such as Karcher or Marshall or Wilhelm or Bradford's work, the focus is more artistic than scientific.

The problem with replication, with generating the 'perfect' image of an original is that it must be 'as the original' and as such the perfect I Ching will ALWAYS be in Chinese, reflecting perfectly the dynamics of a 10th century BC perspective of reality from a context of ancient China. It cannot 'transcend' this perspective in that to do so means it no longer IS that perspective.

Note that in the I Ching the realm of the artist is in the world of LAKE with its focus on replication, reflection and so cooperative exchange - in fact the more 'ideal' form of IS-ness is the warrior, the realm of competitive exchange, the blending of weapon system and individual such that there is no seperation, they 'communicate' as one, a 'cyborg' form mixing organic and mechanistic into 'one', a hybrid and so a 'transcendence' from the 'norm'. (perhaps that explains Heidegger's cooperation with the Nazis in WW2 as well as the Nazi focus on immortality and the ONE ('one reich, one fuhrer, one fatherland' - as well as the promotion of the 'thousand year reich')

The focus in the realm of competitive exchange on asserting the context and 'taking no prisoners' (and so erradicating all 'inferiors') reflects the ultimate in 'IS-ness' where 'IS-ness' by implication sharply differentiates itself from the IS-NOT ;-) The problem for the artist is that he/she needs an audience whereas in the warrior format he/she serve as their own audience - self-referencing in an extreme! ;-)

Thus, any TRANSLATION of a 'perfect' form into ANY other language will FAIL to be 'perfect' simply due to the high detail involved in the replication where that includes the symbols besides the words where the pictograms reflect core elements of the expression.

AN ontology is a perspective on IS-ness and as such is aimed at being very precise about reality, to reflect reality 'perfectly' and so be used to interpret reality.

From a consciousness perspective, there are BILLIONS of ontologies, one for each consciousness in that LOCAL differences in an individual ensure a unique perspective for each individual. As such, any interpretation/translation of the original I Ching derived by an individual is a work of Art, not of Science, in that the intent is to focus on the high details of the expression, to replicate the original 'perfectly' (or bring out an aspect of the original) and so reflect our consciousness and its need for 'ideal' forms.

The problem with Art, as such, is that it can stimulate but 'says' nothing about the epistemological, the HOW of our being, it just focuses on the EXPRESSION of being and a such serves as a celebration of being and so each expression will be a PART of the TOTAL pool of expressions possible across the species.

A work of art can 'capture' core expressions we all share and as such set-off aesthetic 'resonances' in each of us, but more often, the LOCAL focus of the art ties the art to the local collective, and so 'Chinese art' vs 'German art' vs 'Columbian art' etc etc.

As an artist tries to capture the 'perfect form' of a particular expression of a rainbow, to capture 'the moment' and hopefully, through 'perfect' replication capture BY IMPLICATION the universal within the local, so the scientist looks BEHIND the expression to the laws of the Universe that allow for that expression to occur. In other words, the Science perspect goes 'beyond' the moment to aid in understanding the moment, its sameness to other moments, its differences from other moments.

The scientific perspective is on repeatability, and so 'replication' but not of the ONE expression, not of the specialisation, the moment, but through the application of algorithms and formulas to serve as a template which can then be 'coloured' by the local conditions for ANY like-moment. Thus science finds its 'artist' in the laws of the Universe, not the expressions of those laws - IOW there is dual focus here, the ability to (a) appreciate the moment and (b) to appreciate the laws, the GENERAL, that led to, and supports, that moment.

The focus on replication for the artist means there is a STRONG link of personal identity with expression, it is difficult for the artist to seperate themselves from their art whereas in Science the alogorithms and formulas reflect patterns that existed prior to their discovery. E=MC^2 may be associated with Einstein but it does not reflect the identity of Einstein as a work of art reflects the artist (or their core 'world view' at the time of their art).

The artistic perspective as such is more associated with our consciousness-nature than our species-nature in that the latter is the source of the former and as such is the source of the 'algorithms and formulas', the GENERAL, that is then specialised by the artist to reflect a particular that, if possible, can reflect 'universals' and so be appreciated by others of like-consciousness.

MY work, the IDM and ICPlus material - see http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting - focuses on the SCIENTIFIC aspects of how we AS A SPECIES generate meaning and as such is more a meta-ontology, the IS-ness OF IS-ness, the epistemological ROOTS of ontologies, the HOW.

As such, the IDM material does not need to refer at all to LOCAL expressions, to the specialisations, the particulars, of the 10th Century BC I Ching simply because, based on the research of Science into our properties and methods as a species, the 10th century BC I Ching is a specialisation and as such an expression of a set of GENERAL qualities we all share as species-members. The IDM material serves to identify what is behind the I Ching, and so move 'on' to a 21st Century AD perspective where we can USE the I Ching way beyond its original 'artistic' form but still appreciate the 10th BC model as a work of art as well as appreciate the attempts by many to replicate that 10th BC work (or bring out aspects WITHIN the context of that work - e.g. Marshall's recent work covering, as far as I understand, historic links in that the original IC)

Thus the IDM/ICPlus focus is always GENERAL, it works at the level of universals but generic in form, templates that LOCAL context can then refine with more words, more 'cuts' to bring-out facets in the images that reflect that local context.

To differentiate an expression from its template, the ICPlus material is the expression using the IC symbolism of finding made in the IDM material - where the analysis of the GENERAL METHODOLOGY we use as a species comes with relationships not clearly identified in toto (as against in part) in the more 'artistic' expressions of the I Ching - simply because the original work itself did not identify these relationships explicitly.

Thus the IDM material will be reflected in ALL expressions of the I Ching in that it covers the GENERIC species-nature material then refined by consciousness for a PARTICULAR context, be it a personal context or that of a collective - as in ancient China circa 10BC.

Understanding the IDM material, or the ICPlus in particular, can AID in bringing-out aspects of the I Ching in particular contexts, aspects not identified in the original expressions. As such, the ICPlus is an ongoing expression in that data from neurosciences keep it changing, keep it dynamic and as such is not 'static' as most art is.

Chris.
 

frandoch

visitor
Joined
Oct 22, 1971
Messages
151
Reaction score
0
Hi Chris,

Thanks for that explanation - great stuff. It makes where you're coming from much clearer.

Michael F.
 

heylise

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 15, 1970
Messages
3,079
Reaction score
7
First of all: I enjoyed your post. Like in every single one of them, I found many gems here too. But I have a few remarks.

Quote: "The artist seeks to either (a) replicate an existing form 'perfectly' "
Not complete: an artist does not try to replicate perfectly, he uses existing forms to express something else. Usually feelings like love, beauty, fear, loneliness, whatever.

Quote: "or (b) product a variation of a theme that extends understanding of that theme "
More or less the same incompleteness: using a theme to extend understanding period. It may be understanding of that theme, or of quite other things.

Quote: "or (c) create something considered 'new' that reflects a universal sense of 'perfection' without reference to any past work "
I think the word perfection does not apply to most artists. There are some who try to find real perfection, but the result very often looks a bit scientific. It looks like a perfect photo, or a survey or measurement of an object.
Most artists only try to get close to perfection, in the knowledge that it will not be reached. If they get too close to it, they deliberately 'make things happen' which disturb the process, which make their work alive and far from perfect.

Anton (artist): "They have the being-in-the-right, I have the beauty".
I searched for a word for 'right', but English does not have one it seems. Dutch 'gelijk' comes closer to the scientific 'to be right' than to the emotional meaning. A better translation would be "they are right", but that sounds different.

Quote: "The problem with replication, with generating the 'perfect' image of an original is that it must be 'as the original' and as such the perfect I Ching will ALWAYS be in Chinese"

Yes, the perfect scientific IC has to be in Chinese.
But for art it is different. A perfect image of an original is useless (why duplicate something?), but an image which is art (and not perfect) can be very useful. Of course every time, every person, will see another IC as his best one. But some of them will survive the times because they have a value which goes beyond the individual, or beyond the short time of their birth.
The original IC did, and the 'Confucian' IC did too. At this moment a new IC is growing, from the combination of East and West. My (very personal) belief is, that it should be founded as much as possible on the original one, including the myths and beliefs and habits of its time. Not literally, but the understanding of all these things. And from out that solid base, we can create an IC for this time. Pass on the ancient wisdom in a form people of now can grasp and use.
In order to give it endurance beyond 'only now', and also to make it a richer, more universal, source for the people who use it, the pattern or canvas of the original IC is the best base to start with.

So I love your work, it is one of the ways to uncover the original canvas.
I also love Marshall's work, he sure uncovers a lot.
I love the modernists, not to follow them literally, but as still others who uncover possible meanings hidden in the obvious ones.
I love the people, like on this list, who 'read' and exchange their feelings and findings.

I think all of us together are creating a piece of art.

LiSe
 

heylise

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 15, 1970
Messages
3,079
Reaction score
7
And Bradford's work!! If anyone makes a solid canvas we all can work on, it sure is him!

LiSe
 

tashiiij

visitor
Joined
Oct 10, 1971
Messages
132
Reaction score
0
Love your stuff too LiSe.

Been spending time on your website.

You provide a link to people like myself, who benefit from encouragement to take up studying the characters. That link between the scholar and the 'innate-ist'. Joining these two worlds only improves one's intuition and sharpens one's discernment and critical faculties. All so important in understanding the Yi.
 

chrislofting

visitor
Joined
Nov 19, 1971
Messages
394
Reaction score
0
Hi LiSe,

you wrote:

> Quote: "or (c) create something considered 'new' that
> reflects a universal sense of 'perfection' without reference
> to any past work "
> I think the word perfection does not apply to most
> artists. There are some who try to find real perfection, but
> the result very often looks a bit scientific. It looks like
> a perfect photo, or a survey or measurement of an object.
> Most artists only try to get close to perfection, in the
> knowledge that it will not be reached. If they get too close
> to it, they deliberately 'make things happen' which disturb
> the process, which make their work alive and far from
> perfect.
>

:) Your perspectives overall are ok but I think you are missing a point here about a VERY human behaviour, exploitation, where forgers pride themselves on their ability to copy/mimic/replicate masters or even not-so-masters.


> Anton (artist): "They have the being-in-the-right, I have
> the beauty".
> I searched for a word for 'right', but English does not have
> one it seems. Dutch 'gelijk' comes closer to the scientific
> 'to be right' than to the emotional meaning. A better
> translation would be "they are right", but that sounds
> different.
>
> Quote: "The problem with replication, with generating the
> 'perfect' image of an original is that it must be 'as the
> original' and as such the perfect I Ching will ALWAYS be in
> Chinese"
>
> Yes, the perfect scientific IC has to be in Chinese.

IMHO - No. the perfect replication is done by an artist, not a scientist in that the focus of the scientist is one step removed - they will try to build a computer to run programs that 'mimic' the style etc of an artist and so mass produce it, make it 'repeatable' but I think it is more common to find individuals endevouring in their art to 'reflect' perfection.

Perhaps to you 'perfection' means 'order', to me artistic perfection is organic rather than mechanistic. Thus mass-produced works of art will usually lack the organic elements where placing the art in a context will make it 'blend in' with that context as if it reached-out to immediately integrate with the context and so be 'perfect' in form and location.

The scientist will not link their identity to the product, they will focus on the algorithms and formulas rather than the finished product. In Science the names of scientists go with the equations, not their product. In art the names of the Artists go directly with the product, not the equations. This linking of identity with product makes the work more organic than if it is mass-produced using algorithms and formulas and so more 'mechanistic'.

The precision of the Scientist is to focus on repeatable, the artist on a 'unique' expression or a 'perfect' copy of a unique expression, hand-crafted with love and care and so reflecting that focus of attention.

That said, what artists WILL do is get into a 'style', as in 'Picasso's cubist period' etc and other artists will COPY that style but the style is IN the expression more so than the methodology - to understand cubism you have to see it, not imply it.

> But for art it is different. A perfect image of an original
> is useless (why duplicate something?)

...to sell it as a 'replica' or even attempt to sell it as an original. I am not being 'idealist' in my comments, there is practicality involved in that the points made incorporate 'everyday' life and that means lots of struggling artists all tuned to replicating, even 'forging' originals to make a living. Some do it so well that they have no 'original' work!

IOW replication is part of our being, be it in self-replication (reproduction through sex) or replication to make a living (prints, copies, forgeries etc) - and we can trace this 'cut n paste' drive down to the level of genetic adaptations to context, find something that 'fits' and then milk it for all its worth - copies copies copies ;-)

the drive to replicate is so strong, as is the drive to own, to label, that a mediation business has developed - patent law, copyright law!

>, but an image which is
> art (and not perfect) can be very useful. Of course every
> time, every person, will see another IC as his best one. But
> some of them will survive the times because they have a
> value which goes beyond the individual, or beyond the short
> time of their birth.

I do not deny that, what I do say is that is not science, that is art and with that survival is usually tied a name - as in 'Confucius' etc. The idealist, the artistic, perspective is on issues of identity as 'value' such that a common trait in Chinese philosphy is to try and link some assertion to a past 'master' - from a Western perspective this is an act of trickary, of forgery in that to the West the 'high precision' focus links to names and so all credit must be precisely linked to the person, not their 'spirit'. The West miss the point that the linking is a form of honouring! ;-)

When you go to the Louvre so all paintings are linked to their producers. When you go to the Science Museum you will get algorithms, formulas, 'hypotheses' many expressed with a name (as in "Darwin" or "Einstein") but overall you get a showing of 'principles of the universe' etc and their expression that need no names, they existed before their discoverers and will exist after they are dead. the Arts is more 'fundamentalist' in perspective in that art and artist are tighly entwined.

This moves art into the area of fundamentalist faith, the total absolute faith in oneself such that there is no possiblity of error, of denial. This is NOT a scientific perspective in that science DEMANDS the presence of, the use of, NEGATION to survive - when you see 'blind faith' you see a more 'artistic' perspective than a 'scientific' perspective.

Thus the overally-idealist artist will sacrifice much for his/her 'art'. For some this works well, for many it does not and overall this is not a very 'pragmatic' perspective, pragmatism I think perhaps being a more 'science' perspective - the GENERAL formulas ensure things over time 'come out in the wash'.

The IDM material is, as such, more Science than Art and as such more general than particular. The focus is on the METHODOLOGY and so the 'science' over the 'art' to serve not as a replacement but as an AIDE - to do well one needs to understand the Science of one's Art just as one needs to understand the Art of one's Science ;-)

I do understand the points you made but perhaps to me they were a little idealist in the context of Art - but then, as far as I understand, you have a tight relationship with Art than I do! ;-)

Basically speaking, my point is that we do not need to have the 'perfect', organic, expression of the 10th century BC I Ching to be 'true' to the principles of the I Ching in that Science has aided in uncovering what is BEHIND the I Ching and that can be recruited and used to 'enhance' the artistic as we move into the 21st century AD.

There will be many who oppose that, their focus is more 'artistic' than 'scientific' and so prefer to seek the 'perfect' expression of the 'original' material and that is fine but that 'perfection' denies access to modern research into the methods in creation and as such can miss important links that could make the 'perfect' transcendent ;-)

Chris.
 

martin

visitor
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
0
Hello Chris,

I think we left something out. Apart from science and art there is also ... religion.

Quote:
"Thus the IDM material will be reflected in ALL expressions of the I Ching in that it covers the GENERIC species-nature material then refined by consciousness for a PARTICULAR context, be it a personal context or that of a collective - as in ancient China circa 10BC."

*ALL* expressions of the I Ching?
Is this a scientific statement? If so it must be open to some kind of test that can verify or falsify it, but I don´t see how it can be. It seems that what we have here is not a scientific (i.e. testable) proposition but simply an article of faith. Religion!
And this is not the only example of "faith" in your work. What to think of the belief that everything that we experience is caused by/sourced in neurology? Religion!
You use scientific terminology but underneath that there are very strong beliefs and assumptions that are apparently not open to discussion. There is a religious (sometimes even prophetic) undercurrent in your work that gives me the feeling that you are not a scientist at all, even though you ´speak´science.
I think science is just the ritual that you have chosen to express your priesthood.
And that is fine. Your work is fascinating, you are fascinating, you are smart and I think you are really on to something with your IDM material.
The only thing that lacks is a sincere ´hallelujah!´ once in a while!
I hope this picture will inspire you:

 

cal val

visitor
Joined
Apr 30, 1971
Messages
1,507
Reaction score
1
Chris...

Perfection is not in every artist's vocabulary. Perfection is not a goal of every artist. Pefection is not even very high on the list of many artists.

I don't even like the word perfection actually. I much prefer the word imperfection.

Lise...

I love it exactly the way Anton said it. If I understand him correctly, another way to say the same thing would be "having a strong need to be right."

Love,

Val
 

chrislofting

visitor
Joined
Nov 19, 1971
Messages
394
Reaction score
0
Hi Martin,

you wrote:
> Hello Chris,
>
> I think we left something out. Apart from science and art
> there is also ... religion.
>

No. it is incorporated in the Science/Art differences where religion-as-exploitation is 'artistic' and there are MANY religions, each reflecting an ontological focus with an aim to transcend, there is the focus on 'perfection' etc etc. Lump them all together and out will pop their underlying SAMENESS as in the soul of the species acting to protect thorough integration and that reflects the 'law', the algorithm/formula and so the Science perspective at work.

As I pointed-out in the 61+62 thread, we see in ourselves the properties of 'wave/particle' duality that is a property of our method of generating meaning. Each 'dot' on the photographic plate behind the double-slit experiments reflects a particular and the emerging 'wave interference' pattern reflects the general. The dots reflect differentiation, the IMPLICIT wave pattern reflects integration.

Each religion is reflected as a 'dot' and the sense of the spiritual, the underlying structure we all share as species-members is reflected in the integration of the 'dots'.

> Quote:
> "Thus the IDM material will be reflected in ALL expressions
> of the I Ching in that it covers the GENERIC species-nature
> material then refined by consciousness for a PARTICULAR
> context, be it a personal context or that of a collective -
> as in ancient China circa 10BC."
>
> *ALL* expressions of the I Ching?

yes.

> Is this a scientific statement?

Yes, as in the fact of '1 + 1 = 2' in that the IDM material identifies the properties and method of our species-nature, that which links us all together IN GENERAL where consciousness then particularises. Since all expressions of the I Ching come from US then ALL expressions of the I Ching will reflect the same methodology in deriving hexagrams, recursion of yin/yang, and so all of the relational data covered in IDM where the relationships stem from the METHODOLOGY and that methodology is not limited to the I Ching but is in fact how our brains categorise etc.

If a new intelligent lifeform was discovered tomorrow so they could have something like the I Ching but reflect their own internal states and so not 'be' our I Ching. Each species can have its own I Ching but all members of that species, despite attempts to be 'different' will only be so at the particular level and summing the differences will bring-out the sameness that makes them a species.

As such the I Ching reflects a 'species' and all of the different interpretations etc are individuals with their own personal and cultural 'nuances' but taken all together their species-ness will shine through.

The IDM material focuses on our species-ness and as such the species-ness of the I Ching ;-)

some kind of test that can verify or falsify it, but I don´t
> see how it can be.

yes it can - in the form of how ALL of us as a species use the ONE set of generic qualities to derive meaning. The IDM material covers what is BEHIND expression, the GENERALS from which we use consciousness to specialise. The ONE set of meanings in the form of qualities, feelings, is what allows us to sympathise, empathise, with fellow species-members, we resonate since we share the same general pool of meanings.

The testing of the WHAT/WHERE, aka differentiate/integrate etc has been going on in neurosciences, cognitive sciences, psychology for some time - see the IDM sources of data:

http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/neuorefs.html (abstracts of general brain functions)
http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/dencerefs.html (abstracts that support the IDM concept of Transcendence function)
http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/formrefs.html (abstracts that support the IDM concept of Transformation function)
http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/brefs.html (general reference/further-reading list on brain etc)
http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/irefs.html (I Ching/MBTI ref list)

These links are supplied in the IDM pages (start with http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/idm001.html - links to the refs at the bottom of that page)

> It seems that what we have here is not a
> scientific (i.e. testable) proposition but simply an article
> of faith. Religion!

since it has been, is, and will go on being tested and validated I see no religion ;-) IDM is GENERAL and as such reflects the UNCONSCIOUS processes that determine our specialist outputs. ALL of the above abstracts reflect current research data, there is a lot more going back over decades. IDM is fully testable since it is rooted in research data, not out of some 'dream' I had or an example of me 'channelling' Fu Hsi etc!

> And this is not the only example of "faith" in your work.

since the references are 'free' of me, not my product, so there is no 'faith' involved per se. Any 'faith' is in the repeatability of the research and so that repeatability making things *generally* predictable.

One point to make is that the aim in Science is not on asserting something 'right' but in trying to prove it 'wrong' and as long as that does not happen so the 'rightness' of that something is IMPLIED. That focus is not 'faith' in the something, it is faith in the METHOD of experimentation - Science does not function at the level of religious faith in that that faith is too 'blind', so single context, fundamentalist, as to be useless to generate algorithms and formulas since there is no recognition of negation ;-) (denial at work ;-))

One of the leaders in Philosophy of Science was Karl Popper, a strong advocate of the 'negation' process in Science in that he distrusted induction, favoured deduction such that validation of work is done by trying to prove it wrong and so always in a position of checking and re-checking, there is no 'stopping' and resting on one's faith.

As such, the IDM material is 'scientific' in that the assertions it makes are always under review BUT at the core level we find indeterminacy in that all we can ever know are objects and relationships, that appears or be 'hard coded' at a VERY fundamental level of our being and so we will come across paradox if something exists 'outside' of those 'hard coded' concepts.

There is self-referencing here in that from the Science we uncover a limitation to our being, a limitation of no real consequence in that the immensity of the Universe, its variations in expression, gives us room to move but at the same time 'bounds' are enquiries and so bounds Science. The 'childmindedness' of religion favours the 'know no bounds' perspective and any discovered bound must be rejected! ;-) - but that reflects the exaggerations of the Transcendence function where the need for 'freedom', the sense of an ability to escape ANY context clashes with our species-ness, with the embodyment of consciousness.

> What to think of the belief that everything that we
> experience is caused by/sourced in neurology? Religion!

Dogma in Science is common in the form of failures to invalidate a hypothesis act to reinforce that hypothesis but the attempts to invalidate keep going, and you DONT find that in religion - the RC church does not focus on experiments to invalidate itself, that would be against its own interests. In Science its methods are under review all of the time such that the attempts at invalidation serves to strengthen the discipline!

> You use scientific terminology but underneath that there are
> very strong beliefs and assumptions that are apparently not
> open to discussion.

how? this comes across as a general statement, it needs details to determine its value.

> There is a religious (sometimes even
> prophetic) undercurrent in your work that gives me the
> feeling that you are not a scientist at all, even though you
> ´speak´science.

I put my species-ness ahead of my being some particular, as in Scientist, and that would come through in my prose. All of the IDM material is supported by empirically-derived data. The differences between prophetic vs predictive is that the latter is precise and definite, X will happen, whereas the former says 'X will happen if you keep doing what you are doing' and so the latter allows for change, the former suggests there is none possible!

This DICHOTOMY pans-out into the I Ching hexagrams, 64 possible 'aspects' of prediction (the POINT, the DEFINITE, the YANG) vs prophecy (the FIELD, the APPROXIMATE, the YIN). You will NOT find terms in the current, traditional I Ching, covering these points since it is too 'artistic', too particular. What the IDM material shows is that you CAN use the I Ching to flesh-out ANY dichotomy and so analyse the PARTS of the WHOLE that the original dichotomy 'cuts' - even that of Art/Science or Religion/Science etc etc

Remove these specialist labels and you are left with the IDM focus on differentiation/integration.

> I think science is just the ritual that you have chosen to
> express your priesthood.
> And that is fine. Your work is fascinating, you are
> fascinating, you are smart and I think you are really on to
> something with your IDM material.
> The only thing that lacks is a sincere ´hallelujah!´ once in
> a while!

I cannot do that since that goes against my continuous review of the 'facts', which reflects my Science bias, the demand to keep checking, something you DONT find in 'blind faith' which you DO find in Religion (and Art for that matter - All that said, 'blind faith' will come up with some persona types within Science but that immediately goes against the grain of Science and they dont survive too long!)

My promotion of the IDM perspective is NOT fundamentalist in that it does not focus on REPLACING all else with IDM! IDM is a TOOL to AID in the refining of the particular, not in replacing all particulars. That said, if I do come across at times as 'intense' that is due to my 'excitement' with the use of the tool, in the extended perspective it gives me over other tools. Thus I will show 'human traits' ;-)

Chris.
 

chrislofting

visitor
Joined
Nov 19, 1971
Messages
394
Reaction score
0
A point to note,

what IDM does is validate the general properties and methods of the I Ching SCIENTIFICALLY and as such removes it from the Western perspective as some 'divination' system full of 'hocus pocus' ;-)

There has been no material in the past that does that - that supplies TESTABLE predictions re properties and methods of the I Ching. the IDM matieral DOES 'question' some of the more 'spiritual' interpretations of the IC but demonstrates how those interpretations could arise and how the IC can serve as a 'window' onto the Universe that is easier to use, to comprehend, than needing to do courses in university-level Mathematics etc!

As such, the ICPlus is teachable in schools as a guide to understanding our being as a species - Astrology, Tarot etc etc are not (more so the ICPlus material aids in describing how the METAPHORS of Astrology and Tarot etc etc have arisen)

Chris.
 
Y

yellowblue

Guest
eeeeeee

Let me be outa control for a moment and scream!!!!!!!!!!!......

Chris--- do you not understand that we are all saying the same thing....??????

Classic biblical representation====the tower of babel. We're all making the same point. trying to complete the tower of bable through teamwork, but when one asks for a hammer because they need that at the moment, the other misinterprets and hands them a pick or whatever.... it's the mind set and words that get in the way because we only can relate to our perspective, our specific task, and can't understand the tools of the other trade.....

Egads.... are we all so dense and tunnel visioned??????

Trying to justify why our tools are the only ones that are appropriate???? What in the heck is the logic here?????

Venting....

Deb
 

chrislofting

visitor
Joined
Nov 19, 1971
Messages
394
Reaction score
0
Hi Deb,

you wrote
> eeeeeee
>
> Let me be outa control for a moment and
> scream!!!!!!!!!!!......
>
> Chris--- do you not understand that we are all saying the
> same thing....??????
>

thats what IDM is about ;-) The SAMENESS that we can only clearly detect at the level of our species-ness.


> Classic biblical representation====the tower of babel.

yes. the PARTICULARS reflect the different languages, specialisations, the GENERAL reflects the ONE language, that of our species-ness. The tower of babel story is a metaphor to describe this process. The Bible, Koran, Tao Te Ching etc etc are FULL of metaphor reflecting a 'scientific' focus that lacked symbolism as we use today in high level mathematics etc.

There is a 'cross over' here in that to the artistic is the ONE of expression, uniqueness, whereas to the scientific there is the ONE BEHIND expression, the algorithm/formula, the 'law'.

The 'problems' with ancient texts has been in the LITERAL interpretations of these texts rather than seeing them as 'approximations', lacking in high detail, 'mathematical' precision but still saying what we today are saying but we today are more precise ;-)


> Egads.... are we all so dense and tunnel visioned??????
>

yes. Being all parts-oriented but conscious parts so we are SPECIALISATIONS and so suffer 'tunnel vision'. The advantage of that vision is in the specialisation skills, but the disadvantage in the past has been due to our considering ourselves as WHOLES. The research into our being, as in neurosciences etc, is bring all of this out and the IDM material focues on the GENERAL method we use to derive meaning, recursion.

Recursion will (a) give us all of the 'dots' and (b) as we see more dots so will emerge a pattern that by IMPLICATION links them all together - the 'law'. It is this latter pattern that the IDM material, and Science in general, identifies and so acts as a AID in fleshing-out even more our specialisations but in doing so shows how our specialisations are metaphors used to link the generalisation with a context to create a language to talk about that particular context.


> Trying to justify why our tools are the only ones that are
> appropriate???? What in the heck is the logic here?????
>

The words do 'get in the way' in that there are a potentially infinite number of them. Each consciousness could create their own language but upon analysis they are using the ONE set of generic qualities we all use to derive meaning - the words serve as tools of 'precision' in identifying something in a context that is then communicatable.

The 'traditional' form of Logic has some issues in that it is too parts oriented, too static, too idealist. too 'dot' oriented. Logic AS A WHOLE incorporates the dialectical as well as the analytical (http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/logic.html) and the I Ching IN GENERAL reflects more the dialectical (focus on change etc). the MANY interpretations, and so the STATIC forms, reflect more the analytical. The clarity in each is 'perfect' for the originator and other like-minded individuals but will think it is THE interpretation whereas it is in fact one of MANY - another language if you like, a dialect, of the 'unspeakable' language of the species - differentiations and integrations, 'blend, bond, bound, bind' etc etc.

Understanding the sameness allows us to pickup other tools, other trades 'quickly' in that behind the words are the same general qualities. We then 'zoom in' for specialisations.

Chris.
 

davidl

visitor
Joined
Oct 31, 1971
Messages
120
Reaction score
0
Chris,
You have explained duality perfectly, and how our species is 'built' to live in this state.
You say our 'oneness' can be described perfectly by our species nature.
You see the ancient chinese view, or 10BC, as possibly 'unnecessary' by todays standards, naive. You dont count the spiritual material.
Now that you have mastered the 3d world, there is only one master left, time.
This world is ruled by 'time'.
The great wheel.
The 10bc view to me, in all its glory, tends to centre me, It takes me 'out of time' for a moment. It is the master of time.
Your view of the world seems to make me feel like Im on the extreme edges of the wheel. Deep in dualistic consciousness. Split.
Quote Chris.

"The words do 'get in the way' in that there are a potentially infinite number of them."
End quote.

This is one way of explaining the phenomena.
Or is this *exaggeration*.

Im still in there Chris trying to work out what you are on about, really.

How would you 'IDM', the difference between an engineer and a mechanic?
 
Y

yellowblue

Guest
Hells fire.....

That's what comes to mind. Maybe this is really Hex 50...

Expressions will count for nothing...for anyone.

Chris was generous from his perception... yeilding in a place of not being able to yeild because of his percepion of the focus and his positition in the field.

daivid l... you know as well as I about dualism.... that it is not black and white but that grey area ... there is no sunrise or sunset just the merging of the two.

Why play the game. Just call it as it is.

Blue to gold and gold to blue.

Or gold orange to orange blue... sunrise.

It is where we are... there is no "time line..."

just where we are in the point of reference. Lineal is existent in the frame of mind. Otherwise time and all other points of reference are intersecting and beyond what is precisive, especially in verbalisation.

Carpe diem....

What about this????

Even Yi answers to this... moment to moment. That is in the time frame to the question. How can we dispair of the yi, when it is fluid energy and evolves within the fluidity of the moment???

The fault is our limitedness, not Yi. Our holding on to the moment in time rather than following the path of least resistance and moving with the fluid moment.

Just jawing,
Deb
 
Y

yellowblue

Guest
And in retrospect, David L, it seems that you have chosen yourself as the "one" and put yourself on the pedestal....

Condescendingly and beneficially confering your perceptions on those you see as worthy, usually those either beneath you but only to a degree and those you "fear" are above you and whom you contend with (like Chris).

Of course once in a while you throw out a bone and expect the dogs to grovel at the crumbs of the table and you may pat one or to on the head, depending on who is closest....

You may think your nick name is Christ, but reconsider.

I may be a wanderer and burning down my inn, but so be it.

Deb
 

chrislofting

visitor
Joined
Nov 19, 1971
Messages
394
Reaction score
0
Hi Davidl,

you wrote:
> Chris,
> You have explained duality perfectly, and how our species is
> 'built' to live in this state.
> You say our 'oneness' can be described perfectly by our
> species nature.
> You see the ancient chinese view, or 10BC, as possibly
> 'unnecessary' by todays standards, naive.

umm... 'unrefined' - we can do 'better' from linking-in a scientific perspective ;-)

> You dont count the
> spiritual material.

Umm... i didnt say that exactly. The IDM material recognises a sense of the spiritual as a property of the collective, it is a sense that serves to integrate and so keep the collective together in the form of PROTECTION. The development of consciousness has individualised that sense as well as exaggerated it. Our consciousness is 'new' and we seem to behave in dealing with something that we cannot find a measure for by defaulting to use ourselves as the measure - anthropomorphism, projection.

Recall my past comments on 'flocking behaviour' where individuals make local distinctions and those actions sum to give the collective a behaviour not sourcable in any individual at that moment of expression. There is nothing to stop feedback from this behaviour where 'waving my hands magically causes X to happen' and so I make a practice of waving my hands. Someone else sees the waving and asks 'why is he/she doing that? perhaps it is a warning or something - I had better wave back'.

The feedback loops that can come from these 'misunderstandings' can get embedded in the collective - become 'traditions' etc etc and as such elicit a spirit of the collective that is experiencable, identifiable with etc - the common theme of Amway meetings, revival meetings, 'motivational speakers' etc etc is in this sense of 'lift' that can come in a group, 'mindless' interactions elicit a sense of communion - conversations about 'nothing' serve to establish linkage, a sense of 'connectedness' such that meeting can achieve nothing other than give everyone a 'lift'.

The sense of the spiritual in the individual can be strong and our adaptations as species-members to the context means we have some VERY refined instincts and that included those easily set-off by the smallest of differences in a context such that we feel, our minds feel, as if we are being 'pushed' or 'guided' such that we will create whole universe of 'invisible' beings. That is an inevitable consequence of the emergence of consciousness where the details of scientific inquiry are not acquired for thousands of years.

As in my past comments on the concept of angels, demons etc where the rabbi's description of angels reflects the properties and methods of instincts being set-off by context, our species design has evolved into our instincts being encoded in our nervous system's input areas and context PUSHING us - these are species-nature processes that our consciousness-nature is still coming to grips with through Science. As it does so, past interpretations are replaced by the new ones, those associated with some empirically-derive evidence. (http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/angels.html)

Whether or not there IS such a universe is not so much in question but more so an issue of necessity given what we are starting to understand about brain behaviour and the development of consciousness.

The overall point is that there is no need for consciousness to be 'originating' - the data suggests more so individual consciousness emerging from the more materialist species-nature and its interactions through instincts with the Universe.

As De Chardin and Tippler have presented through the concept of "Omega Point Theory", there is no 'god' now but with the development of consciousness there could be one developing!

Whether this is possible or not is an interesting area to ponder upon but we still need to 'integrate' our consciousness-nature with our species-nature FIRST and then 'speculate' in that the integration grounds our imagination such that we dont wander off into 'gaga-land' to much (e.g. quantum mechanics interpretations of their experiments!). As far as can be determined there is no 'freedom' from our embodyment no matter how much 'astral travel' we do, we come back to the body ;-)

The high intensity of conscious focus is reflected in the achievement of belief, of faith in self or others in that faith can move mountains just as it can create mountains out of molehills but this faith appears to be exaggeration of basic survival skills developed over millions of years by the species (and even down to properties and methods of neurons and so a 'singlemindedness' is in all neuron-dependent lifeform, the differences being in the 24/7 linking of the 'dots' that we conscious individuals can achieve).

BUT with the development of consciousness we may be moving into high levels in that organised states of consciousness could behave like organised photons of light - as lasers, and so an increase in precision at the parallel level rather than serial. Integration of individual minds, of 'likemindedness' that elicits 'resonances' across a collective that is precise enough to reflect the sharing of mental states as if all in the one space, as a superposition of parts, minds, into a 'whole'!

We already resonate to some degree through empathy but with consciousness there is 'more' if worked upon. This reflects 'flocking behaviour' but where the local distinctions are not 'random', as in personal focus, but orchestrated such that a collective elicits a behavour that IS sourcable in the individuals, more so in EVERY individual at the same time!

The IDM work is not focused upon these sorts of developments, it is focused upon the GENERAL consciousness-nature/species-nature interactions that need to be understood for us to develop as a conscious species.

SO, in the context of the I Ching, we are communicating with the WHOLE of the species-nature through direct communication with PARTS. The overall methodology indicated no need for a 'spiritual' aspect as in 'it is the spirits doing all of this, I just think of a question, toss coins, and all is revealed' - this appears to NOT be so BUT communicating with the species-nature from a consciousness-nature position can elicit a sense of the 'spiritual' that can act to PROTECT the individual, give them a sense of 'connectedness' in a time of feeling 'disconnected'.

Our consciousness, being 'exploiting', being a seeker of 'transcendence' the 'new' (as reflected in Capitalism etc) DOES exploit the sense of the spiritual for gain both financial and personal, spiritual, and as such reflects a development path BUT we need to clearly understand the interactions of parts with whole before we can get too carried away in the development of consciousness from a species perspective rather than individual.

The IDM work, and so ICPlus focuses more on identifying the link of consciousness-nature and species-nature. The development of the personal, specialisations, is not of concern other than IDM aiding that development through clearer identification of cause-effect issues etc.

> Now that you have mastered the 3d world, there is only one
> master left, time.
> This world is ruled by 'time'.
> The great wheel.

thermodynamics suggests there is no universal wheel ;-) LOCAL, mechanistic processes favour the LOCAL interpretations of a wheel as in the cycles of the seasons that are replicated in our circadian and diurnal rhythms - and so our mood changes etc.

In the distant future, based on the evidence of the development of G2 type stars as is our Sun, we, this planet, will be no more. So either we are destined to fade into oblivion OR spread-out into the Universe. How? I have no idea, I am more focused on fleshing out how we derive meaning than on where we are going ;-) - How good is your existentialist perspective? ;-) --

Note that Heidegger and Satre both focus on differentiations and integrations but didnt know it 'clearly' - thus BEING and TIME is about differentiating (BEING) and integrating (TIME) just as BEING and NOTHINGNESS is also about the same where NOTHINGNESS reflects the mental state that comes as you move closer and closer to the integrating side - you lose consciousness, the sense of the individual, and so dissapear into species-ness! (gets into some ideas in Chinese meditation techniques etc as described in the Wilhelm and Jung text re the Golden Flower rtc)

Heidegger got carried away with dichotomisations in his attempt to focus on 'reality' and 'being' etc (dasein/mitsein) whereas the IDM material seems to give a good picture of events without the thickness of the prose! ;-) As such it can aid in reading Heidegger, you can 'see' the mind at work as it tries to be 'precise' without access to understanding what is going on neurocognitively.

> The 10bc view to me, in all its glory, tends to centre me,
> It takes me 'out of time' for a moment.

which is what art can do. Its totality in expression can set-off all sorts of mental dynamics etc and as such the focusing of attention will set-off physiological processes that will distort subjective time experience and as such elicit a sense of 'the eternal'. This does not take anything away from that sense in its own right but it does ground that sense in the brain rather than necessarily something 'out there' - high energy focus will impoverish the experience of thermodynamic time into mechanistic time and that sort of time is slowable, stoppable, and even reversible.

Reflections upon these sorts of experiences without understanding the Science will elicit all sorts of interpretations about what is going on etc - and we CAN 'FEEL' the sense of the eternal, we can SENSE it, even if it is 'delusion' stemming from the USEFUL trait of slowing/stopping the perception of dynamics to enable us to 'freeze' something so we can label it 'forever'.

> It is the master of
> time.
> Your view of the world seems to make me feel like Im on the
> extreme edges of the wheel. Deep in dualistic
> consciousness. Split.

:) The path is:

the undifferentiate whole.
differentiation.
re-integration.

Our current state is more differentiating and so with the recognition of the issues of PART/WHOLE, consciousness/speciesness interactions so we can go onto the path of re-integration. This can be very destablising in that the more the cuts so the more borders we create and so increase complexity-chaos events. As we start to re-integrate so we reduce borders and stability can be re-established, but with a deeper sense of who we are and where we wish to go ;-)

Lots of work ahead where re-configuration of belief systems can cause 'stress' if not done carefully.

> Quote Chris.
>
> "The words do 'get in the way' in that there are a
> potentially infinite number of them."
> End quote.
>
> This is one way of explaining the phenomena.
> Or is this *exaggeration*.
>

the words are distinctions in the form of labels and as indicated above, the more distinctions, the more cuts, as we try to be over-precise, as we try to label every single point in the context, so the more dynamics, the more unstable things become.
Eventually too many choices affect decision making and can paralyse! We need to find the 'middle' from which to evolve - gets into 'tuning' ;-)

Being discerning (and so quality control, tuning) in the generation of labels, letting local context aid in deriving meaning and so allow for superpositions, gerunds, aids in cutting-back on all of those words which are exaggerations.

In very specialist areas we may need to label every point in a context, but living in the everyday of the species that is not necessary as a 'must do', more so just know that if it needs to be done it can be done but usually there is no need.

The IDM material serves as a 'ground' where understanding the template means not becoming over-dependent on the words, you can figure things out 'on the fly' if need be.

> Im still in there Chris trying to work out what you are on
> about, really.
>
> How would you 'IDM', the difference between an engineer and
> a mechanic?
>

:) the mechanic maintains and repairs what the engineer developed. The mechanic RE-tunes the car after it was taken from the factory and 'thrashed' on the highway. IDM indentifies the engineering and as such allows for a deeper understanding of that engineering as well as allow one to 'retune' ;-)

Chris.
 

davidl

visitor
Joined
Oct 31, 1971
Messages
120
Reaction score
0
Hi Chris,

I know that sometimes my feelings come through as a little 'frustrated' its only because I know from reading your material that you are a conscientious seeker of the truth. You have done an incredible amount of work to cover your hypothesis and as far as I am concerned have gone further than any others here in committing to it. My problem or frustration comes from simply not understanding well enough or not being able to fully appreciate your message.
This is my problem I know. So, how do I respond to your posts? how do I deal with them? Well, I just let them flow over me and see how I feel. At this stage the feelings are still disoriented, please don't see this as criticism, its just how I feel. Telling you this is not to 'have a go', but to maybe nudge you a little. If I didn't care about what you were saying or want to understand I would of course have no reason to respond at all.

Yellowblue,
Sorry you feel that my participation on the forum is one of being 'condescending'. As far as the Christ comment, no, Christ is not my nickname, but it definitely is a part of who I am, and who all of us are. I was trying to explain to Chris how his stuff makes me 'feel'. Should I perhaps not do this in the future ?
 

martin

visitor
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
0
Today I buried a friend. His two daughters cried and laughed.
After the ceremony we had a feast. His daughters cried and laughed and danced.
They cried because they missed their father, they danced and laughed because they knew that his life did not end. They knew that he was somewhere else now, reborn into an other world.
They celebrated his freedom.

They knew, they know, many of us know.
Religion is about trying to believe, science is about trying to prove or disprove.
This knowing doesn't try anything. It doesn't need to, it simply ... knows.
 

cal val

visitor
Joined
Apr 30, 1971
Messages
1,507
Reaction score
1
Lise...

Who's work is that? I feel a fishing trawler on a glassy sea in the foggy early morning hours. Aboard are two people...quietly content to be with each other where there are. They have little need of words.

Love,

Val
 
C

candid

Guest
Chris,

I must take issue with your statement - ?The problem for the artist is that he/she needs an audience whereas in the warrior format he/she serve as their own audience - self-referencing in an extreme!?

Where the heck did you get that from? An artist?s obligation is to their art, not to their audience. That?s the job of the entertainer. And are you really saying that scientists are free or apart from their audience, their peers? Surely you know how critical and skeptical, not to mention political, the scientific establishment is and always has been.

Its things like this that you slip into your diatribe which hurts the credibility of your hypothesis.

Candid
 
Y

yellowblue

Guest
Davidl,

Sincere apologies for my outburst and the words that I wrote in an angry moment. Those words were rude and should not have been said.

I do appreciate most of what you contribute.

Please accept my apology.

In fact I feel that I should apologize to everyone in this forum.

Deb
 

chrislofting

visitor
Joined
Nov 19, 1971
Messages
394
Reaction score
0
Hi Candid,

you wrote:
>
> Chris,
>
> I must take issue with your statement - ?The problem for the
> artist is that he/she needs an audience whereas in the
> warrior format he/she serve as their own audience -
> self-referencing in an extreme!?
>
> Where the heck did you get that from?

depth psychology. You would be surprised how much goes on in the unconscious ;-)

> An artist?s obligation
> is to their art, not to their audience. That?s the job of
> the entertainer.

the realm of the artist and entertainer is generically the same and falls into the areas of Lake where we see the self-reflection (depth) as well as self-reflection (surface).

the artist will use their art as an act of communication and as such a need for appreciation, as does the entertainer form explicitly seek an audience and so appreciation. Overall focus is on cooperative exchange, self-replication, sexuality, love etc etc IOW a sense of 'wholeness' is achieved through cooperation with someone/something other than self BUT still maintain that sense of self, you dont 'dissapear' into the audience/art!

The overall focus at the really generic level of species-nature is to BOND, to share space with another/others etc but to also retain a sense of identity - two heads, one body so to speak. The entertainer bonds directly with audience, the artist indirectly, THROUGH their art such that they appear to 'bond' with the art. BUT BOTH forms of interaction are focused on 'out there', on explicit expression.

Mountain is the 'other side' and we see the relationship of manic-depression in the BONDING realm overall, Lake is the mania, the intensity, the passion, Mountain is the depression, the experiencing of being 'blocked' in expression with 'out there' etc but is also the realm of quality control. If a manic-depressive can 'catch themselves' as they pass from lake to mountain they can 'profit' from their mania prior to dissapearing into the 'darkness', the edge of darkness reflects a boundary where the quality control acts selectively on the products of mania and so select the 'best bits' for profit etc. Our consciousness, its training, can enable this, otherwise it is all 'cyclic' and we get pushed by context and genetics! - we just thoughtlessly 'react' (often hard to NOT do)

The disease of manic-depression means that in the mania the behaviour is so intense as to be borderline schizoid (it is OVER exaggeration of the creative element) and when the swing into depression occurs (again reflecting an OVER exaggeration of the integrating element and so an affect on persona identity) so we move into the cycloid (as in the precision in integration is to a PAIR and so a LOSS of the ONE that is 'identity'). The overall relationships reflect issues of neurotransmitter 'imbalances' combined with issues of the attention system that acts to exaggerate functions (gets into issues of the natural oscillations across the brain - timing issues, distribution issues etc various issues that can elicit the behaviour)

The CONSCIOUS focus in the artist will be idealist, and so 'to their art' (NOT themselves - they will 'impoverish' themselves, sacrifice themselves for the 'other' - their art, a warrior will risk their life in the focus on practising their skills with their weapons as as such their 'art' but the risk for the warrior is more, the competitiveness is stronger than the cooperativeness - lovers vs fighters! same passion, different focus ;-))

The MOTIVATION for that focus is deep in the roots of the psyche where direct communication is often redirected through the art - the art as such REFLECTS the artist and as such COMMUNICATES TO OTHERS the artist and his/her sense of identity. For the entertainer there can be an obvious duality in the form of 'stage name' vs the 'other person' ;-) As such many entertainers reflect 'duel' personalities, their stage form and their 'home' form. As such they too communicate THROUGH another but in the form of a persona rather than an object ;-)

The acceptence of artist/warrior reflects the underlying 'drive' to REPLACE. I either take-over the context by anger or by reproduction where I 'flood' the context with images of 'me', be it as a pop star or in artistic creations (song writer (artist) vs song singer (performer) etc or in the form of children, the 'sex' link of lake.

the CORE sense here for lake in the context of species-nature 'drives' is on REPLACEMENT through cooperation and in METAL, with the exchange focus comes the sense of, the need to, DISPLAY a very common behaviour in neuron-dependent lifeforms ;-)

There is a LOT of dynamics going on here - you could write a book on the dynamics of bonding and so of just lake-mountain interactions!

When we move from lake to the position of heaven we move from BONDING to BLENDING but expansive - at the other end is mountain into earth and so bonding into blending but contractive. In the realm of heaven you are dealing more with self-referencing as a samurai 'blends' with their sword or a trouble-shooter blends with their negotiation skills - they 'harmonise' others but their focus is on their skills in doing so - they dont care WHAT is being harmonised, what is being negotiated, what is being fought etc - they just 'get off' on their own buzz, their precision, their skill and as such the direction of 'anger' into the earning of 'respect' where their opionions are seeked and valued and we have a sense of 'leadership' etc etc

Their success reflects THEIR setting of the context overall. They 'win' even when working for someone else.

At the surface level of METAL, of lake and heaven, we deal with 'sensation seeking' that covers both lake and heaven when applied to personas etc The artist/entertainer gets the 'buzz' from the audience etc, the warrior the 'buzz' from their own skills. BENEATH these foci are 'deeper' issues ;-) - for METAL there is a sense of risk involved, a drive for independence, for freedom, that is explicit for the warrior but comes with a degree of dependence for the 'players', the entertainers/artists etc (in IDM this METAL area reflects strongly the dynamics of the TRANSCENDENCE function)

All of this said note that due to recursion so when we move into hexagrams so we have more detail where the WHOLE is encoded in all parts such that we have 'entertainer/artist' types WITHIN a warrior base as in the form of hexagram 43 where the focus is on spreading the word where the word is the art be it a work or a performance, there is still a focus on communicating with others. In hexagram 01 the focus is on pure personal expression, self-referencing etc etc.

Hexagram 43 covers the concept of 'seeding' and so of preference, using MY seed over OTHER seeds and so 'take over' the context. This is reflected in collectives in such areas as pop stars, movie stars, art stars, sports stars etc etc etc and their fans seeking to 'be like them' and so promote them over others in a very competitive manner.

The 'entertainer/artist', or more so expansive BONDING, in other contexts is reflected in general in:

43 (lake in heaven)
58 (self-referencing - lake in lake - intensity in reflection etc)
49 (lake in fire - revelations)
17 (lake in thunder - develop a faith)

move to the more integrating side of things as we have:

28 (lake in wind - to go beyond what is required)
47 (lake in water - to contain (willingly or not and so go 'deep'))
31 (lake in mountain - note the love interest of general bond in bond)
45 (lake in earth - to celebrate faith with and so through others)

WITHIN the realm of Lake, the persona mappings to hexagram expressions are:

(a) entertainers/performers/revellers - covered in general in hexagrams 54, 38, 58, 10

(b) artist/composer/appreciator - covered in general in hexagrams 19, 41, 60, 61

(Note that in the ICPlus material, the roots of hexagram 58, lake doubled, are identified as being in the general dynamics of the under-exaggerated expressions of 10, 06, and 47 - where 06 and 47 have their base as water demonstrating a protection bias, a sense of the 'hidden' and as such possible roots of artist/performer in dealing with issues of fear (general 'yin' base), and in particular for water, of core issues of rejection and so a possible 'need' to be loved etc))

At the really core level of emotions we deal with the flight/fight dichotomy, and so fear/anger. Recursion of that dichotomy gives us eight categories of emotions used in the ICPlus material, mapped to trigrams etc.

> And are you really saying that scientists
> are free or apart from their audience, their peers? Surely
> you know how critical and skeptical, not to mention
> political, the scientific establishment is and always has
> been.
>

Their prime 'issue' in the context of the species is to be 'dissociated', insensitive, too theoretical. What happens WITHIN the bounds, as in the INSTITUTION of Science, is covered by ALL persona aspects being expressed (and so the politics etc) but a BIAS to problem solving overall. Thus within the institution of science you will find 'artists' and 'warriors' as well as 'conservators' and 'advocates' etc besides your base 'problem solver types' - the 'pure' scientists etc. The 'pure' scientists are more 'apart' from their audience and are often forced to publish (or they perish, they lose their grants etc and so stick instead of carrot ;-)).

The dissociation is in the form of obtuseness in the use of language etc, their specialisations make it all VERY specialist and so in need of training to appreciate what is going on. As such we are all born 'artists' but need training to look BEHIND things. Primitive tribes dont move past 1,2,3.. many but are very artistic (as in the cave paintings of Neanderthals etc) and have a rich but GENERAL *sense* of the scientific in the form of ecology management but expressed through stories, rich metaphors etc

In the distribution of persona types in the USA the scientists reflect 15% overall, the artists/warriors 35%. In the general relationship of expression vs behind-expression there is a BIG bias of 70% (expression) to 30% (behind expression) - this is reflected in the I Ching as 70% bias to hexagrams with a base of heaven, lake, water, and wind.

These distributions will differ across different cultures but not by that much, there is still a bias to expression which reflects a bias to development of consciousness.

The 'problem solving' focus is reflected in the dynamics of two trigrams, thunder and fire (they are broken-up in five-phase to half of WOOD (production, new paradigms etc) and the whole of FIRE (distribution - wholesale etc))

See the MBTI/Keirsey mappings to the I Ching (and overall reflecting the sameness in these disciplines in their expression of the general categories of IDM) - http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/MBTIX.htm

MY preferred persona expression is XNTP that maps to the trigram of Thunder ;-) - engineering in general, philosopher/architext/designer/inventor/debator in particulars.

From the very generic IDM levels this is (moving from general to particular) 'differentiating to then integrate to then integrate'

> Its things like this that you slip into your diatribe which
> hurts the credibility of your hypothesis.
>

:) perhaps you need to 'focus' a bit more on my 'diatribe' as in go through the IDM material including the references etc ;-)

Chris.
 

chrislofting

visitor
Joined
Nov 19, 1971
Messages
394
Reaction score
0
Hi Davidl,

you wrote:

>how do I respond to your
> posts? how do I deal with them? Well, I just let them flow
> over me and see how I feel. At this stage the feelings are
> still disoriented, please don't see this as criticism, its
> just how I feel. Telling you this is not to 'have a go', but
> to maybe nudge you a little. If I didn't care about what you
> were saying or want to understand I would of course have no
> reason to respond at all.
>

:) I dont take your comments in any way other than trying to 'get it' or 'reject it' ;-) If what I am saying is of 'value', even if you consciously have 'doubts' etc any value will be revealed through processing of the unconscious where you 'try' the perspective and start to get 'good insights' into things.

The IDM focus on such issues as 'wave/particle' duality etc is 'useful' but there will be a 'need' to resist by the 'professionals' in the context of having to accept the fact that our scientists have 'misunderstood' things for over 100 years as in what is 'happening' in quantum mechanics etc., and worse still I am an 'amateur' (degree-less) but have probably done a lot more work than your average PhD! ;-)

The data does not change, the interpretation does, the structure of the experiments reflect recursion of a dichotomy, and so a cutting of the whole and attempts to interpret from a parts perspective.

Perseverence furthers. If what I produce is 'useful' then thats fine for me. ;-) My nature as well as nurture is to problem-solving. simple ;-)

Chris.
 
C

candid

Guest
"depth psychology. You would be surprised how much goes on in the unconscious ;-)"

This explains that artists need an audience to be an artist? And being a lake explains this further?


hmmm guess I should either go find an audience to play/compose for, or jump in a lake.
 
C

candid

Guest
Chris,

Isn't the "unconscious" mind a concept rather than a scientific fact?

I'm getting a bit confused with your position on belief systems. I thought you had none, but I see that I was mistaken. You do believe after all.

By over classifying you create your own abstract. By micro-focusing you create your own view. I think that's very creative.
 
D

dharma

Guest
Chris,
continuing to appreciate what you offer.

what used to be about 10% clarity, 15% vagueness, and 75% darkness has become roughly 50% clarity, 25% vague, and 25% darkness.

just reading your stuff regularly seems to be doing the trick but a great deal of it seems to be burrowing itself in through osmosis.
Hey, who cares as long as its working...

...aside from this,
your patient persistence is immensely inspiring!
 

heylise

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 15, 1970
Messages
3,079
Reaction score
7
Val:
The artist is this one: http://www.anton-heyboer.nl

You were right about everything except the two people: just one. Being on the ship, and also being the ship itself.

LiSe
 

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

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

Top