...life can be translucent

Menu

The I Ching being silly

andrea

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Jan 13, 1971
Messages
449
Reaction score
147
Occasionally -- not often, but with increasing frequency lately, as I get more comfortable consulting it -- I get the distinct impression that the I Ching is joking around with me: sometimes rolling its eyes and making fun of me, sometimes saying things to make me laugh.

Any of the rest of you ever notice anything similar?
 

crystal_blue

visitor
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
123
Reaction score
0
Occasionally -- not often, but with increasing frequency lately, as I get more comfortable consulting it -- I get the distinct impression that the I Ching is joking around with me: sometimes rolling its eyes and making fun of me, sometimes saying things to make me laugh.

Any of the rest of you ever notice anything similar?

When I stop taking things seriously.
 

dobro p

visitor
Joined
May 19, 1972
Messages
3,223
Reaction score
205
Occasionally -- not often, but with increasing frequency lately, as I get more comfortable consulting it -- I get the distinct impression that the I Ching is joking around with me: sometimes rolling its eyes and making fun of me, sometimes saying things to make me laugh.

Any of the rest of you ever notice anything similar?

On the one hand, the Yi mirrors *you*, your state of mind and being and the situation you're in when you consult it. On the other hand, when you interpret it, you use...*you*, your understanding, which operates on both conscious and unconscious levels. (When I say your understanding operates on unconscious levels, I mean that your unconscious attitudes and assumptions really influence both what you notice and the meaning you ascribe to it. There are *tons* of preconscious filters at work in all of us.)

So in the context of your recent experience with the Yi, this means that on the one hand the Yi is giving you *exactly* what you need right now (because it acts as a mirror, what it gives you cannot help but be appropriate to your situation; it's like the echo in a canyon that is a function of your own voice - it's an automatic reflection of the living thing), and on the other hand, when you see the Yi as being playful, that's most likely what *you're* seeing in what the Yi's giving you.

People like Chris, the guy who posted just before me in this thread, think and say that the traditional way of consulting the Yi is magical and random. By contrast, I think and say that there are two parts, what the Yi gives you and how you interpret it, the former being as mechanical and accurate and impersonal as the readout on a radar or sonar unit, and the latter being terribly subject to subjective interpretation. None of this is random or magical, but it can be less than useful unless you find a way to find a meaning in what the Yi gives you. So okay, I've got a question for you now: when you feel that the Yi's joking with you and making you laugh, do you think it's the Yi's message for you (ie "C'mon, lighten up - it's time to see the silliness of things.") or do you think that you might be stumbling on one of those unconscious formations I mentioned earlier ("It's as if I feel the universe is just playing with me, not taking me seriously.")?
 

dobro p

visitor
Joined
May 19, 1972
Messages
3,223
Reaction score
205
Andrea, it might be interesting to post a particular consultation you did with the result you got and the way you saw it as 'a message of silliness' in the Friends' Area, and see how other people read it. This place offers a *huge* range of interpretations sometimes, because of that subjective factor I mentioned before. If the range of interpretations doesn't confuse you, it will at least show you that there are different ways of reading it, and possibly even help you find the one that feels best to you. The one that rings true.
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
People like Chris, the guy who posted just before me in this thread, think and say that the traditional way of consulting the Yi is magical and random.

no. magical/random. it depends on your belief system as to whether the derivation is by random means or some magical connection with the moment. Any coin toss, yarrow stick use, marble use, 'drop the book to open at a page' use is not consistant in coming up with the best fit hexagram.

What traditional methods fail to understand is the dynamics of processing information through consciousness - ALL 64 hexagrams apply to the moment but they are sorted into best-fit/worst-fit order by the nature of that local context.

Furthermore our consciousness can only be aware of 7+- 2 entities at once and so wiil focus on what IT considers as the 'best fit' of the 64 - the top 7 to 9 and hope that that set contains the right hexagram to fit the situation (and will often force such a fit even if the 'true' best fit is not in the 7 to 9)

The I Ching IS a mirror in that it is a metaphor representing all POSSIBLE expressions of the human brain and reality but in GENERAL. YOUR contribution is grounding the vague terms in the local context and it is your consciousness that does that; you dont find mention of some place/time you are familiar with but it can give a generic image that lets you fill in the dots.

If you want to toss coins or yarrow sticks or whatever then you will get any hexagram from the set of 64 and it is possible for that to be the 'best fit' but it usually is not (it could be the 5th best fit or the 45 or worst fit but it will be 'meaningful' since any moment will reflect ALL aspects of the moment in the 64 hexagrams sorted best-to-worst fit - or 4096 if you are working with moving lines or 8 if you are working with trigrams or 2 if you are working with just yin/yang)

To supplement this, and to get more consistantly the 'best fit', try using questions. E.g.

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

The attraction of the magical/random is it can give you a hexagram covering some aspect not considered by you but that aspect is exactly that, an ASPECT and not the whole (the whole is described by the sequence of 64 sorted from best-to-worst)

Any meaning derived from self-referencing will bring out patterns rooted in symmetry - it is through symmetry and so sameness that we communicate, get meaning through resonance. Properties of symmetry cover reflection, rotation, repeatition, translation etc and brings out the 'all is connected' nature we find in the I Ching (and brought out in the XOR material of I Ching Plus)

Not understanding these properties/methods associated with the I Ching will mean that in some coin toss you will get a hexagram you consider to be the best fit and in that consideration think the IC is 'being silly'!

Chris.
 

dobro p

visitor
Joined
May 19, 1972
Messages
3,223
Reaction score
205
no. magical/random. it depends on your belief system as to whether the derivation is by random means or some magical connection with the moment. Any coin toss, yarrow stick use, marble use, 'drop the book to open at a page' use is not consistant in coming up with the best fit hexagram.

I disagree. Not only that, you don't actually know for a fact that what you say is true. You're as opinionated as I am. What you say is merely your opinion. Like me, you're just another bozo on this bus, no matter *how* long your posts are, no matter *how* many times you post the same old same old.

To supplement this, and to get more consistantly the 'best fit', try using questions. E.g.

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

What I like about your method of arriving at a hexagram is that it's intelligent and it takes work. I like how it turns attention inward - there's no way you can get a hexagram using your method without doing the inner work required. It's also true that it appeals to me because I'm a person in whom intellectual function takes precedence over the other functions of emotion, sensation, and movement. Shifting now...

What I like about tossing the coins is that it bypasses my intellect - it helps counterbalance my overdependence on intellect. I also like it because it works with uncanny utility. You call it magical, but I say you don't know what you're talking about, for two reasons: the coin toss method works, as I said, with uncanny utility for me; second, whether I use your method of getting a hexagram or my method, I'm still faced with interpreting the bugger. And in that (if you take the time to read what I wrote to the poster, above), it is very, very difficult to escape subjectivity. In fact, it's impossible. But in MAKING THE EFFORT to understand what it means in the context of my life and my question, insights do arise. And it makes NOT A BIT OF DIFFERENCE which method is used, as long as real work is being done inwardly, reflectively, self-attentively. Your method puts the work in at the beginning of the process. Nice. My method puts the work in at the intepretive stage. Nice. Benefit all around.


Not understanding these properties/methods associated with the I Ching will mean that in some coin toss you will get a hexagram you consider to be the best fit and in that consideration think the IC is 'being silly'!

But even if I use your method of 'hunching' my way into a hexagram by asking myself the feeling-type questions you use to get there, I may *still* think the Yi is being 'silly' if the configuration of my personality, especially unconsciously, predisposes me to assume and feel and think that the universe typically deals with me capriciously, slightingly, or in a belittling way.
 

crystal_blue

visitor
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
123
Reaction score
0
What I like about tossing the coins is that it bypasses my intellect - it helps counterbalance my overdependence on intellect. I also like it because it works with uncanny utility. You call it magical, but I say you don't know what you're talking about, for two reasons: the coin toss method works, as I said, with uncanny utility for me; second, whether I use your method of getting a hexagram or my method, I'm still faced with interpreting the bugger. And in that (if you take the time to read what I wrote to the poster, above), it is very, very difficult to escape subjectivity. In fact, it's impossible. But in MAKING THE EFFORT to understand what it means in the context of my life and my question, insights do arise.

The danger here is the assumption that it will have a meaning in that context, which is only guaranteed if one 'puts the work in at the beginning of the process', as it were.
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
I disagree. Not only that, you don't actually know for a fact that what you say is true. You're as opinionated as I am.

No. aware of basic probability theory and the use of statistical analysis and how that is manifest in our brains - hard-wired in fact.

The patterns of the I Ching, as derived from self-referencing yin/yang reflect determinism and form a hypothesis about reality - as such we DEDUCE from the pool of hexagrams to some local context. This pool is symmetric and so closed, all is conserved, all is determined.

In the experiencing of reality as individuals we live an asymmetric life but to communicate such we need sameness to a degree we will forcably convert difference to sameness and so make the asymmetric symmetric - thus a unique moment is mapped to some known hexagram where it is the SAMENESS we try to impose on the moment to understand it. The 64 hexagrams can NEVER capture a moment - all they can do is capture the SAMENESS of that moment to past moments (or imagined ones).

Our basic method in dealing with difference, the unknown, is to filter it through sameness in the form if instincts/habits/I Ching hexagrams. This dynamic allows for the rapid assessment of a situation IN GENERAL and THEN consciousness, our unique and so asymmetric nature, can fill in the dots, reduce or enhance fears.

Each of as as conscious beings are unique and so reflect the asymmetric. The GROUP of us are connected and so reflect the symmetric; a such the connections of the asymmetric brings out the properties and methods of the symmetric.

The I Ching captures this, reflects it, and so we resonate with it - BUT there are properties that are PARTS of he whole that we take AS IF the whole (metonymy at work). THis includes the use of random/miraculous methods in deriving hexagrams describing some moment - in other words whjen you get the hexagram from coin tossing you think it is representing the 'whole' when the FACT is that it usually does not.

The whole we experience as a species-member is OUTSIDE the whole we experience in consciousness - well covered in the research referenced in:

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

That unconscious whole is 'overlayed' with the symbols of the I Ching and acts as a filter for each moment. What we then focus upon consciously is 7+/-2 things at a time and this is refined by the use of coins etc hoping that we are 'in sync' with reality etc. This method LACKS consistancy.

dobro said:
What I like about tossing the coins is that it bypasses my intellect - it helps counterbalance my overdependence on intellect.

All that does is give you one of the hexagrams possibly outside of consciousness - the 50+ not in immediate awareness etc and not in order either (as is its best-fit-ness, is it 34th or 56th?)

All you are bypassing as such is the 7 +/- 2 realm and doing it using a 'random' method.
The Emotional I Ching method is more consistant when applied to emotions but it needs further refinement in that your intellect can see things coming BUT if you trust yourself you can get the feelings to communicate properly - suspend consciousness, let the emotions pick and then analyse the results using consciousness where IT can identify details missed by the emotions and so change the perspective.

From the trials done so far the emotional IC works well when compared to the 'random/miraculous' methods (and note that given the best fit we can map out the full 64 hexagram sequence for an event and so go through it in detail if we like)

dobro said:
I also like it because it works with uncanny utility.

no. Thats YOU filling in the dots to make what you get the 'best fit'. If you toss coins and get the 10th best fit, that is only 9 off the real best fit and easily 'made to fit' by your consciousness filling in the dots - and even the worst fit will be meaningful (if but considered 'silly' etc!)

You dont seem to appreciate the skill of your brain in deriving meaning from anything - take two words from the dictionary, juxtaposition them and reflect upon them - if there is no literal meaning, reflect a little more and your brain will move into metaphor mode, interpreting what is written as figurative and work on that. THAT is basic brain dynamics and so allows us to solve puzzles as it does create illusions etc

The WHOLE of the I Ching is applicable to the analysis of ANY moment. That is its power and all due to it being a metaphor for our brains. Take the binary sequence of the I Ching and apply it to ANY moment and all 64 hexagrams will be found to be capable of deriving meaning for that moment. ONE will be found to be the best fit and the rest will line up behind it to add nuances, depth. THEN comes XORing to flesh out that best fit .... and the flesh out each of the others! LOTS of information available for any moment!

There is no problem in getting the IC to work to predict outcomes and to describe current conditions - and all without the use of random/miraculous methods (or more so with methods offering more consistancy than random/miraculous)

The use of emotion to assess a situation reflects the development of our emotions pre our consciousness. As such, since our basic emotions are NOT developed by our socialisations (only our secondary emotions are) but come out of our genetics to serve the individual they lack the censorship aspects of consciousness BUT they also lack the precision of consciousness - thus an assessment by them that is 'fearful' can be recognised as not so when consciousnes maps in some local details.

As such there is STRONG differences between the use of random/magical methods vs questions etc in that the questions will give a consistant representation of the context when compared to the use of random/miraculous methods. THEN comes interpretations and better to have an good representation to interpret either positive or negative than some representation that is potentially the 'worst fit'.

Your basic emotions are out to protect YOU and so will always give an assessment free of socialisation - free of the 'superego' aspect of our being where we learn social rules, taboos etc. and so free of censorship. As such their assessment is 'objective' when compared to the subjective censorship rules we get from our education/socialisation - the basic emotions are not focused on 'dobro' or 'chris' but on your species-nature as a primate. Their assessment will be 'vague' but will give enough ground that fits the relationship of you and the context such that your consciousness can then do some detail work as to what is going on, what to do (or use XOR to help) etc.

There are benefits in tossing coins and getting something that appears 'out of left field' but that something is NOT the whole, it is a part and should be recognised as such - it is one of 64 parts of the moment - it COULD be the 'best fit' but more than likely it is not - one cannot predict 'snow in the sahara' events repeatedly - they just dont happen!
the "every day'' is what happens, is more consistant, and questions do a better job in identifying the dynamics of those moments. - yes I do need to add more to stop the intellect from seeing too much and so interfering but at the moment there is some trust required that you can suspend your intellect and let your guts answer the questions! ;-)

NOTE that the questions are about the situation, the context, what is pushing your buttons; they are general in that they serve as coathangers onto which your emotions can 'hang' their answers - YOU ask nothing, the focus is on the IC asking YOU (or more so your emotions) about the situation without details and IT then gives you a detailed reply.... all possible due to being able to identify, in general, the properties/methods of self-referencing in the use of deriving meaning.

Chris.
 

martin

(deceased)
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
60
You skip the hot issue, Chris: 'do the coins fall random during an IC consultation or not?'.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'basic probability theory' but as far as the math goes, there is nothing there that states that the coins should fall random or not in such a situation.

From a physics perspective nonrandomness would be hard to explain, that is true. Why would coins that usually seem to behave random take a 'holiday from randomness' - so to speak - during an IC consultation? Okay, that's a problem, but 'we can't explain it, therefore it cannot happen' is not a scientific principle. :)

The question is, or should be, first of all, does it indeed happen? Do the coins indeed take a holiday from randomness when somebody uses them to consult the IC? Is there something odd going on?
As far as I know nobody has ever tried to answer this question with scientific rigour. All the 'evidence' is merely anecdotical.
And this is somewhat surprising because it is not diffucult to devise experiments that put the nonrandomness of the IC (in traditional divination) to the test. There is no problem in principle, I can describe such an experiment if you like.
The hurdles are entirely practical. Researchers who have the necessary knowledge and equipment are rarely interested in 'such things', they are not willing to invest time in it (and experiments like these are time consuming) or if they are they can't find the funds.
It's a pity ...
 
B

bruce_g

Guest
Occasionally -- not often, but with increasing frequency lately, as I get more comfortable consulting it -- I get the distinct impression that the I Ching is joking around with me: sometimes rolling its eyes and making fun of me, sometimes saying things to make me laugh.

Any of the rest of you ever notice anything similar?

As I see it, Yi speaks to who you are about the condition you’re in. If you have humor, Yi makes you laugh. If you are pious, Yi makes you reverent. If you are optimistic, Yi makes you hopeful. If you are fearful, Yi makes you worry. If you are judgmental, Yi judges you.
 

crystal_blue

visitor
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
123
Reaction score
0
You skip the hot issue, Chris: 'do the coins fall random during an IC consultation or not?'.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'basic probability theory' but as far as the math goes, there is nothing there that states that the coins should fall random or not in such a situation.

From a physics perspective nonrandomness would be hard to explain, that is true.

From a physics perspective, non-randomness is the expected outcome - the whole endeavour of physics asserts that the universe is fundamentally predictable. The question is whether the factors affecting how the coins fall are meaningfully connected to the issues they are purported to elucidate.
 
B

bruce_g

Guest
I think the random coin falling thing is a red herring. Either coins always fall “randomly” or they never do. Random is what we call what appears to have no order, but order - whether we can recognize it or not – is inherent in all things. The natural world doesn’t stop simply because someone has a question, nor does it begin. We just happen to notice it through the use of a divinatory tool. Magical or scientific are both red herrings. Magic says “this exists”, science says “this exists because.” Neither magic nor science makes things exist or not exist. Order either exists or it doesn't.
 

martin

(deceased)
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
60
To 19th century physics the universe seemed entirely predictable, at least in principle. But with 20th century physics behind us (quantum mechanics and later chaos theory) we are not so sure anymore. :) The universe is in fact, as far as we know, basically random on the quantum level.

However, this is perhaps not important for coin throws. Perhaps we are able to manipulate coins with great precision, unconsciously ? (possibly guided by the intelligence that answers us through the IC?)
If that is the case the process wouldn't be random, although it seems so. For computer generated casts we would need another explanation, but anyway, the random number generators that I Ching programs use only fake randomness, they are predictable.
 
Last edited:
B

bruce_g

Guest
The only difference between 19th and 20th century is the location of the ears.
 

crystal_blue

visitor
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
123
Reaction score
0
To 19th century physics the universe seemed entirely predictable, at least in principle. But with 20th century physics behind us (quantum mechanics and later chaos theory) we are not so sure anymore. :) The universe is in fact, as far as we know, basically random on the quantum level.

However, this is perhaps not important for coin throws. Perhaps we are able to manipulate coins with great precision, unconsciously ?

To the extent it overcomes all the other factors affecting the coins? Not to mention that if the universe is basically random then nothing we can do will affect the coins in a meaningful way, since causality breaks down.
 
B

bruce_g

Guest
Predictability is like a worm: it squiggles. There, I just invented the Squiggle Theory. Rosada, get me that gold star! But I don't associate predictability to an objective view of where I am or what I'm experiencing, which from a whole order perspective, is easy to map. No magic, no science.
 

martin

(deceased)
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
60
. Random is what we call what appears to have no order, but order - whether we can recognize it or not – is inherent in all things.

That's one of those rather big questions. Some things, no doubt, only appear to be random to us because we don't have enough information. If I remember correctly this is sometimes called practical or 'soft' randomness, as opposed to 'hard' randomness, that is 'real', whatever that means. :)
Does 'hard' randomness exist? On the quantum level, yes, it seems so now, but we might come to different conclusions in the future.
And even if there is hard randomness there, is it relevant for the level on which we live?
Opinions differ ..
 

martin

(deceased)
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
60
The difference between the 20th and the 21th century is the location of scientists.
During this century most scientists will escape to a parallel universe through a worm hole in their mind that was created by one of Bruce's squiggling worms. :)
 
B

bruce_g

Guest
Yup. My opinion is, there's no such thing as random - hard, soft or moderately firm. :rofl:
 
B

bruce_g

Guest
The difference between the 20th and the 21th century is the location of scientists.
During this century most scientists will escape to a parallel universe through a worm hole in their mind that was created by one of Bruce's squiggling worms. :)

Well, I'll leave that up to you scientists. ;)
 

martin

(deceased)
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
60
I already escaped, I guess. Still busy trying to figure out where I am now. :D
 
B

bruce_g

Guest
To me you are there, to you you are here.
To you I am there, to me I am here.
We are both here and there.

:D
 

rosada

visitor
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
9,891
Reaction score
3,174
The one blond stands at the river's edge. She looks up the river and she looks down. There is no boat and no bridge, but she see's another blond on the other side. She calls to her, "How do I get over there?"
The other blond tries to help. She looks up the river and she looks down. There is no boat and there is no bridge. So she calls back, "You're already over there!"
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
You skip the hot issue, Chris: 'do the coins fall random during an IC consultation or not?'

Who cares? The issue is on consistancy such that given the findings on meaning derivatiion through self-referencing and on complexity/chaos dynamics, the coin toss method, or any other using similar dynamics, is akin to predicting events equivalent to 'snow in the sahara' events on a regular basis (as in it snows there everyday! - it doesnt).

Given the perspective derived from focusing on what the neurology indicates, dismissing random/miraculous events we can still find a use for the I Ching in identifying events etc through questions and the results appear to be more consistant than coins etc. in the context of deriving the 'best fit' hexagram.

The differences between the coin/question methods is that the question method focuses on the context and what buttons are being pushed by such. When someone asks "does he/she still love me?" we recognise that the IC does NOT have direct contact to his/her mind and as such those sorts of questions are not to be asked but the IC DOES have contact to what made that someone ask the question in the first place - e.g. the behaviour of someone sets a context that is identifiable by emotions outside of awareness. IOW we CAN consider those conditions and get the person to work from there.

Given identification of the context and what is pushing buttons so we have choices to (a) go with the flow (b) stay and assert one's own flow or (c) move on. The basic dynamics of behaviour are in the pushing of buttons, instincts/habits etc. Consciousness works to give us choices in behaviour as responses to stimuli. Consciousness favours being proactive but also covers the choice of being reactive - what we are dealing with is choices given some event, any 'fate' and so 'determined' aspect is operating at the genetic, mindless species-member level where context pushes buttons and one has no choice but to go where directed. Consciousness adds a dimension of 'randomness' in the form of breaking symmetry amd the IC shows us the properties/methods of that symmetry and so acts as a guide.

The relationship of coin method to I Ching is the same as that of individual consciousness to the environment; random dynamics allow for diversity (small world networks are derived from random graphs etc) such that you can live an anarchistic life if you wish but that will have issues when being social (read "The Dice Man")

The point with coming to use the I Ching is that one comes to it with a history issue - some past events have led to the current and one wants to see where things are going. THAT means there is determinism in the first place and so that determinism will have a structure reflected by some IC hexagram. Questions focus on the CONTEXT and so derive the representation of that history and so can offer a hexagram that includes information on where things will go - YOU then have a choice to leave the context, go with the context, or fight it by introducing your own.

On the other hand, random methods do not consistantly identify the history since randomness has no history (same with the miraculous, there is no clearly identifiable cause to the effect, it is all 'magic').

What XOR methods allow for is given a derived hexagram we can identify its 'best fit' through reflection on the past. the context, where, for example, we can identify a beginning through 24-ness etc IOW we can identify a history and see if it 'fits' the history we are dealing with locally.

Determinism associates with the symmetric and the creation of the symmetric. 'Free Will' associates with the asymmetric and so symmetry breaking (there is also the dis-symmetric, a slight distortion rather than break).

Our consciousness comes out of the asymmetric in that it is unique, our singular nature operating WITHIN our particular nature that comes out of our genetics as members of a primate species and so open to having buttons pushed.

Given all of this, questions are more consistant in getting best-fit hexagrams for some situation.

Chris.
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
Each of us are unique and so NOT determined, NOT repeatable. We also 'contain' our species-nature in the form of genetic etc but the first two years or so of life cover social interactions, and so relationship dynamics, that, with our species-nature, develops into our unique consciousness. As such, that consciousness shares space with the random due to the uniqueness.

What our uniqueness gives us is a universal - we can be consistant in behaviour regardless of context by asserting our own context. Science, on the other hand, derives universals through aggregation of particular to identify some sameness.

Thus we have universals derived from difference (unique consciousness, existance focus) and universals derived from sameness (science perspective, essence focus).

As for quantum mechanics etc, it is a METAPHOR reflecting the application of brain dynamics to some specialist context. As a metaphor it will show properties of metaphors and that includes entanglement - all is 'connected'. This connectedness comes out of our METHOD used to communicate - the use of symmetry and manifest in metaphors and symbols.

As such, ANY specialist perspective is a metaphor and will show the same entanglements of QM - as we find in the IC when we use XOR. It is the METHODOLOGY that brings out entanglements etc. The universe is NOT symmetric, it is Asymmetric. BUT our nature is to communicate through converting difference to sameness and so the asymmetric to the symmetric. If you are born into the symmetric without training regarding the asymmetric then you will adopt a symmetric mindset - this is useful in every-day social interactions but it will hit problems when trying to map an asymmetric reality.

Chris.
 

dobro p

visitor
Joined
May 19, 1972
Messages
3,223
Reaction score
205
I think the random coin falling thing is a red herring. Either coins always fall “randomly” or they never do.

Nope, not true. You disproved yourself in your previous post. In that post, you said that 'the Yi speaks to who you are about the condition you're in'. Well, people are at different levels of being, with different capacities of will. (Jesus and the Buddha were different than you and me, in other words, and had way more control over their wills, which had way more power than you or I do.) So I can easily see that for one person, the coins will fall randomly, and that for another person, the coins will fall meaningfully.

It's a variation of why I don't believe Chris when he describes the Yi coin toss as random and magical. I don't believe it. And none of his scientific and quasi-scientific theories have one little bit more certainty to them than my belief that the coins fall meaningfully.
 
B

bruce_g

Guest
Nope, not true. You disproved yourself in your previous post. In that post, you said that 'the Yi speaks to who you are about the condition you're in'. Well, people are at different levels of being, with different capacities of will. (Jesus and the Buddha were different than you and me, in other words, and had way more control over their wills, which had way more power than you or I do.) So I can easily see that for one person, the coins will fall randomly, and that for another person, the coins will fall meaningfully.

It's a variation of why I don't believe Chris when he describes the Yi coin toss as random and magical. I don't believe it. And none of his scientific and quasi-scientific theories have one little bit more certainty to them than my belief that the coins fall meaningfully.

I can't speak for Chris' reasons, but I can speak for mine. I don't make such a distinction between Jesus, the Buddha, or you or I. These different levels, as you call them, are merely our different perceptions of the same thing.

I don't see where I've disproved myself by saying the Yi speaks to individuals as they are, and also saying that order is inherent in all things. Order is the way things are arranged, not that all things are identical. In the universal order, they each play a part.
 

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