...life can be translucent

Menu

THE SEVEN LAWS

gene

visitor
Joined
May 3, 1971
Messages
2,140
Reaction score
88
Oh, and I just wanted to clear up. By saying evolution is not possible, I was not supporting the religious theory either. Both are wrong. And the website I gave out, when I looked at it yesterday, it didn't seem to have the information I originally found on it. There may be a related website out there. I will see if I can find it.

Gene
 

frandoch

visitor
Joined
Oct 22, 1971
Messages
151
Reaction score
1
Grown up is boring. I owned a manufacturing company which went 'belly-up' due to cheap imports from the Far East, and I owe Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise about £100,000. They might bankrupt me too, but I've got nothing of value. But I'm happy.

Blessings.

Michael (Frandoch)
 

martin

(deceased)
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
60
Hi Chris,

A random quote:
"From the level of our consciousness, each individual, each PART, makes local distinctions that give 'life' to the whole that is the immediate collective and that collective, treatable as an individual, can in turn reflect distinctions that sum with other collectives to be finally expressed as a 'behaviour' of the whole."

spin.gif
biggrin.gif

Too many different messages in one sentence ...
Please UNPACK
happy.gif
 

heylise

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 15, 1970
Messages
3,128
Reaction score
202
"From the level of our consciousness, each individual, each PART, makes local distinctions: *I like chocolate, you like ice-cream*
that give 'life' to the whole that is the immediate collective *we all like sweet stuff, many different kinds*
and that collective, treatable as an individual, can in turn reflect distinctions
*our people love sweet, cold, chocolatey stuff, so they found out chodolate soft ice*
that sum with other collectives to be finally expressed as a 'behaviour' of the whole".
*at the neighbor's they love crunchy things*
*So we all together are hooked to crunchy cones filled with soft ice with chocolate chunks and with whipped cream on top*

LiSe
 

chrislofting

(deceased)
Joined
Nov 19, 1971
Messages
394
Reaction score
3
Hi Gene,

you wrote:
> Hi Chris
>
> Your story about owing the IRS, and no college degree etc.
> is a lot like mine. I have seven years of college study and
> no degree. It amazes me. We are too smart for this. With our
> knowledge of the I Ching and our knowledge overall we should
> have very comfortable positions. What went wrong? In my
> case, I suppose it was my own attitudes. I didn't really
> grow up until I was forty. Come to think of it, I still
> haven't grown up totally.
>

:) there is a lot of work required to flesh-out the IC and it is at the moment a specialist area. I dont envision current perspectives developing beyond their specialisation in that to get to a generation you need to get to the teachers of that generation. People instinctively try to avoid change in that it also can threaten one's sense of identity and our culture is strongly into promotion of personal identity, and that includes the badges of education (as in high school diploma, degree etc etc, more often badges of socialisation rather than education)

I lived in 18 different countries between my birth ( in India, british 'raj' family) and my coming to Australia (1970). 12 years of that was in asian countries (thailand, hong kong, japan, singapore) and the rest in Europe (english boarding school, 'tours' through Europe with the showbiz side of the family etc) so my education has been 'wide' ;-) - When I eventually got out of rock music and went to university to do a BSc I got bored in that I was being sold a Western perspective that was often at odds with my experiences re the species as a whole. I took an aptitude test for a programming course and did 'really well' and took to programming as a duck takes to water.

There are two general approaches to change, one is the explicit form of thunder, to walk up to someone any pointedly say 'you will change, NOW'. The other is the way of wind, to change the context and so get the individual to adapt to the change in that the context will 'push' the individual. The latter takes time, even generations, but then the Universe is in no hurry, we are! ;-)

The act of socialisation demands conformity to social norms, to be 'like us' and so with that one can lead a 'comfortable' life but into this mix comes particular personalities that can 'suffer' as outsiders but in that suffering come up with perspectives that can aid others over the longterm through paradigm change. As such these outsiders live on the borders of society but in doing so also happen to live in the most 'dynamic' of areas in that complexity/chaos, and so 'creativity' etc rules in these border areas, the 'cost' is a degree of instability but the benefit is also a sense of ongoing, perpetual, wonder, like that of a child and as such we can lift our heads every now and then and look up to the stars etc and go 'WOW!' - not many do that, too socialised, too busy! ;-)

The IDM perspective demonstrates the universal properties of the species and as such the value in perspectives of other cultures and so can aid in appreciating the value of these perspectives - however, despite the 'new age' publicity, to many the I Ching is something 'Chinese' and so 'alien' and as such through the IDM material that 'division' can be perhaps overcome ;-) I can honestly say that I think I have done a lot more research into the areas of meaning derivation that your average PhD etc but no 'proof' of that! ;-)

Some academics have shown 'interest' in my MBTI material but since I am not 'likeminded' overall (as in have a PhD etc) so that interest is restricted and at times patronising. I can also get the same reactions from 'hard core' I Chingers where their perspective is too entrenched in the 10th century BC world and so into the more 'arts' perspective of the IC and so at odds with the 'science' perspective that I focus upon where we take what we have learnt about ourselves over the last 3000 years and analyse the IC from there.

I agree that one's attitudes can affect social interactions, I can be quick to rise (I used to smoke 60 a day to 'solve' that problem but stopped smoking 14 years ago - and with that came the occasional 'issue' - but understanding certain things aids in the disciplining of such 'outbursts', as does mellowing with age! ;-) - I dont tolerate the technically 'inept' too easily but I am better than I was!

Chris.
 

chrislofting

(deceased)
Joined
Nov 19, 1971
Messages
394
Reaction score
3
Dharma,

you wrote:
> Chris,
> Your present limitations have less to do with your
> qualifications and your state of finances and more to do
> with the fact that, as you said yourself "there is to me a
> LOT of work still required to flesh-out the patterns
> discovered".
>
> Just keep the "perseverence furthers" mantra going and
> continue sowing the seeds and your work will find
> appreciation in the relevant few who will in time carry your
> ideas to the next logical level. You aren't that old... you
> will likely be fortunate enough to experience it in this
> lifetime!
>

Thanks! that would be cream! ;-)

Chris.
 

chrislofting

(deceased)
Joined
Nov 19, 1971
Messages
394
Reaction score
3
Hi Michael,

you wrote:
>
> Grown up is boring. I owned a manufacturing company which
> went 'belly-up' due to cheap imports from the Far East, and
> I owe Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise about £100,000.
> They might bankrupt me too, but I've got nothing of value.
> But I'm happy.
>

jeeze you owe more than me! (A$130,000+ which is a about 40,000 to 50,000 pounds) - and I too have nothing of value.

I got caught in the 'tech wreck' where my capital gains tax (gained from selling my options in a computer company) was invested in the market and the market never recovered ( I was away when the crash happened but it was not exactly unexpected, as 'corrections' are, so I did not worry as I still had a year to pay the tax and 'traditionally' the market recovers. I found work with Sun Microsystems and started to save to pay the tax bill but then Sun and the US IT companies 'fell apart' in 2001 and so my contract ended prematurly (as in I was there 'for ever' until the ruling of no contract extensions for all other than emergencies etc etc)

Sun's shares fell from US$120 in August 2000 to US$8 in 2001 - not good, and they have still not recovered. As a consequence all of my savings etc have gone on trying to stay alive - you cannot have a company nore use the dole to maintain websites so I have not been on social security and have incurred some additional debt in attempts to develop the IDM material as well as look for work in IT.

My problem was I took my eye off the ball (as in the US market), I was happy at Sun and making enough money to make the tax payment not a problem. Thus I failed to recognise how much of a 'service' town Australia is to US IT companies - when they go down we go with them. The IT market is not expected to improve until 2004 or some even say 2007!

I wanted to move into the IDM/ICPlus material focus in 1999 when I was laid-off from a corporation that employed me (and so the source of my options). I went to the US to attend and make a presentation at a Humanist Psychology conference in 2000 and made some connections that could have developed into some useful material on the web for councellors etc. but everyone backed-off with the tech-wreck, and to be honest I think the attempt was premature - the work over the last few years has demonstrated that.

So.. here we all are ;-) Since my education is specialist, outside of IT I am a 54 year old with a high school diploma (I used to pick up gross A$10,000 to 12,000 a month, now I live on a budget of A$800 a month!!) - not good for repaying debts whereas in IT there is no issue, I earn a lot and these days there is only me to support so repaying the taxman would not take that long... but they are not prepared to keep waiting any longer(whilst charging interest)... so things dont look too good...

BUT that still does not stop me from the IDM/IC+ work and that has kept me sane where others may have hit the bottle, pill-jar etc by now! Overall I too am 'happy' but also 'pissed off' ;-)

To develop the IDM work etc into analysis of the market etc is possible (see for example my comments in http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/patterns.html ) but then the act of using such a system would change the dynamics if made too useful! Capitalism works off the 'early bird' principle where the surplus value comes from the exploitation prior to the agents of balance, the protectors, turning up. I suppose with some packaging it may be of interest but again the material is more as 'research notes' than anything useful - IOW there is a LOT of work to be done to get the IDM/IC+ material into the 'centre' of the collective from out here on the periphery.

Chris.
 

chrislofting

(deceased)
Joined
Nov 19, 1971
Messages
394
Reaction score
3
Hi Martin,

You Wrote
> Hi Chris,
>
> A random quote:
> "From the level of our consciousness, each individual, each
> PART, makes local distinctions that give 'life' to the whole
> that is the immediate collective and that collective,
> treatable as an individual, can in turn reflect distinctions
> that sum with other collectives to be finally expressed as a
> 'behaviour' of the whole."
>
> [ spin ] [ biggrin ]
> Too many different messages in one sentence ...
> Please UNPACK [ happy ]
>

:) ok... try this:

A collection of neurons can work as a whole through synchronisations, iow they all fire as if one. The synchronisations are not 'precise' where each neuron can make local distinctions, reactions to its immediate environment, that get amplified across the collective such that there is a 'flow' at work, a pattern in the expression of the collective not locatable in any single neuron. (recall my comments in an earlier post on cymatics, where sand particles oscillating reflect patterns that change with the change in frequency of vibrations. This still gets into 'flocking' behaviour etc. These patterns can be beneficial such that the lifeform 'encourages' their repetition and the patterns become instincts/habits.)

Different collectives of neurons can, due to the synchronisations, manifest as if 'individuals' such that the same amplifications take place such that a WHOLE behaviour reflects the summing of all of the collectives making 'local' distinctions, where this behaviour is not locatable in any one individual, where that 'individual' is an individual or a collective. Thus we see both a localised system (particular) as well as a distributed system (general).

Since we can determine that the instincts/habits of the species/individual are encoded in the input areas of neurons ('post-synaptic') so the presence of collectives of neurons allows for encoding of instincts in the *collection* of inputs - IOW a single neuron could encode a WHOLE instinct or a PART of an instinct. You can see here the 'whole/part' relationships at work across the neurology.

The prime focus is on synchronisations, which reflects the dynamics, the complexity/chaos that is present in all of us as patterns of 'meaning' in dynamic context.

At the level of the neuron, or at a collective of neurons (and that includes the level of hemisphere function and brain/mind function overall) the passage from input to output is 'interrupted' by the cell of the neuron that acts to sum inputs to reach a 'threshold' level that elicits a firing, the output.

The interrupt is where neuron outputs from OTHER neurons/collectives act to excite or inhibit firing. Since the habits/instincts are encoded in the input areas so a 'push' by the context can set-off a pulse-train reflecting that instinct. Synchronisation then modulates that firing.

Synchronisation can be 'slack' or 'precise' and it is a function of recruitment, where neurons can be recruited by another neuron (or collective) to increase the bandwidth to process, or communicate, data - IOW we can get a 'clearer' picture of things through recruitment (we see this recruitment in such areas as limb applications or congenital disorders such as an eye or ear that is damaged but the brain area remains intact. The immediately adjacent neurons will 'recruit' these 'underworking' areas to increase THEIR bandwidth. This is the source of such concepts as the 'phantom limb' etc)

Since the habits/instincts are encoded in the input areas, so the synchronisation processes can either (a) increase the bandwidth to process the instinct or (b) make an 'error' in the timing of the execution of the instinct where the flow from input to output is disrupted.

(a) above gives us a clear, precise, 'in the groove' feeling of getting it 'right' where the instinct operates perfectly and reflects the tight integration of lifeform with context.

(b) above leads to two possibilities - (1) the execution of the instinct is 'sloppy' such that it could even lead to death or (2) the 'error' scrambles the instinct to a degree where the lifeform gets a 'new perspective' on a situation that is to its benefit.

(a) reflects the concept of transformation, of 'shape shifting' where a lifeform is integrated with the context and responds 'smoothly' to any changes in the context. Thus the surface can change, the core remains constant. This area reflects the realm of wind, of cultivation and eventual becoming influencial in the context, push allows for some development of pull.

(b) reflects the concept of transcendence, where the 'enlightenment' that comes with breaking the habit can save your life (as in the instinct/habit does not work in the current context). This function of transcendence reflects a process of escape, we escape FROM a context or TO a context, a focus on moving to something considered 'better' than the existing context. This focus on 'sudden' events reflects the realm of thunder.

(a) is reversible, it reflects transition phases, like different expressions of water as you freeze it, boil it etc etc
(b) is not reversible, it reflects 'new' insights etc and not being able to 'go back' but the 'suddeness' allows for one to be 'reborn', to start again.

As such (a) reflects evolution, (b) reflects revolution. ;-) Processing of instinct/habits reflects evolution, escape, transcendence, reflects revolution.

The expression of the whole, regardless of level, falls within the dynamic of revolution/evolution where these terms reflect the focus in differentiating/integrating and so the concepts of transcendence/transformation, yang/yin.

The differences in levels are where differentiating at one level is reflects as integrating at the 'higher' level just as integrating at one level is reflected as differentiating at a 'lower' level.

Thus PARTS (differentiating) sum to WHOLES (integrating) etc. etc. This oscillation was labelled by the ancient greeks as enantiodromia where an individual/collective can have a history that reflects this dynamic in development, yin to yang to yin to yang .....

Chris.
 

chrislofting

(deceased)
Joined
Nov 19, 1971
Messages
394
Reaction score
3
Hi LiSe,

You wrote:
>
> "From the level of our consciousness, each individual, each
> PART, makes local distinctions: *I like chocolate, you like
> ice-cream*
> that give 'life' to the whole that is the immediate
> collective *we all like sweet stuff, many different kinds*
> and that collective, treatable as an individual, can in turn
> reflect distinctions
> *our people love sweet, cold, chocolatey stuff, so they
> found out chodolate soft ice*
> that sum with other collectives to be finally expressed as a
> 'behaviour' of the whole".
> *at the neighbor's they love crunchy things*
> *So we all together are hooked to crunchy cones filled with
> soft ice with chocolate chunks and with whipped cream on
> top*
>

yummy! -- and we eat this every day until things 'change' and we start to focus on 'veggies' and all things 'sweet' are taboo unless artifically sweet (sweeteners with that 'edge' of bitterness)...

I heard the other day that to get the maximum benefit from chocolate you must eat DARK chocolate with NO milk. The milk has an affect on the chemistry of the dark chocolate that removes any benefit -- so no whipped cream and the chunks are dark chocolate! ;-)

Chris.
 

heylise

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 15, 1970
Messages
3,128
Reaction score
202
Aha, so that is why I love the blacker-than-black, with at least 70% chocolate.
smooch.gif

LiSe
 

gene

visitor
Joined
May 3, 1971
Messages
2,140
Reaction score
88
Chris

I have had first hand experience with college professors who stick up their nose at anyone else's ideas or knowledge unless they have a higher degree than the teacher. There was an old song popular probably in the 70's that starts out, "when I think of all the crap I learned in high school...its a wonder I can hardly think at all." College is worse, it is a government think tank in which at least the more academic classes are taught with foolish outworn ideas past off as gospel truth. We are told we are being taught to think for ourselves when in reality we are being taught to spew out the teachers philosophy verbatim on some ridiculous test that means nothing and prepares nobody for real life. But employers think that by going through that for four years you might be able to just as well go through the crap the company is going to throw at you over the years. At this point the United States is just starting on a serious, serious economic downturn in which a lot of people are falling through the cracks in the system. Once you fall through the cracks, well, it is not impossible to pick yourself back up, but the system works against you. Stronger personalities will prevail and find a new place in the system for themselves, but many people never recover.

Gene
 

frandoch

visitor
Joined
Oct 22, 1971
Messages
151
Reaction score
1
Chris - Milk is out, but cream is fine. Milk contains a protein, casein, whose function is to turn small calves into f***ing great cows within a few months - but our bodies can't process this protein. We have evolved to drink milk from our mothers' breasts for a short time, and then go on to solid foods. By continually taking in a substance that we are unable to process - we develop intolerances and even allergies. Milk is a trigger for many of the auto-immune diseases that plague people. But cream and butter don't contain this protein - just the fat content.

Gene - In the UK it's the same. When I was at University reading for a degree in Physics, I found a very serious error in the published text that we used in Nuclear Physics. I told my tutor about the error, and he said 'When you sit the finals, you'd better answer according to the published text, because the author is one of the examiners.'

I didn't - I answered with the 'truth' - part of the reason I didn't get the double first I was expected to get. No regrets.

Michael (Frandoch)
 

chrislofting

(deceased)
Joined
Nov 19, 1971
Messages
394
Reaction score
3
Hi Gene,

you wrote:
> Chris
>
> I have had first hand experience with college professors who
> stick up their nose at anyone else's ideas or knowledge
> unless they have a higher degree than the teacher. There was
> an old song popular probably in the 70's that starts out,
> "when I think of all the crap I learned in high school...its
> a wonder I can hardly think at all." College is worse, it is
> a government think tank in which at least the more academic
> classes are taught with foolish outworn ideas past off as
> gospel truth. We are told we are being taught to think for
> ourselves when in reality we are being taught to spew out
> the teachers philosophy verbatim on some ridiculous test
> that means nothing and prepares nobody for real life. But
> employers think that by going through that for four years
> you might be able to just as well go through the crap the
> company is going to throw at you over the years. At this
> point the United States is just starting on a serious,
> serious economic downturn in which a lot of people are
> falling through the cracks in the system. Once you fall
> through the cracks, well, it is not impossible to pick
> yourself back up, but the system works against you. Stronger
> personalities will prevail and find a new place in the
> system for themselves, but many people never recover.
>

In the current US situation the statistics of the MBTI combined with the IC (as IDM allows) gives us some interesting perspectives on group and individual influences. In the US 76% of the population are made-up of two groups, the SJs and the SPs. The SJs are what we can call 'security seekers', the SPs are 'sensation seekers'. These categories map to four trigrams of the I Ching, SPs to lake and heaven, SJs to water and wind. Overall there is a strong 'yang' bias and so more into transcendence than transformation, more into replacement than integrating ;-)

Zoom-in and there are 16 hexagrams in each group, hexagrams that reflect archetypal influences on expressions. These expressions reflect the journey of the individual as well as of the collective.

Thus the SJ group (38%) is dominated by events reflected in the hexagrams of:

07, 04, 29, 59, 40, 64, 47, 06 (water based) (19%)
46, 18, 48, 57, 32, 50, 28, 44 (wind based) (19%)

The SP group (38%) is reflected in:

19, 41, 60, 61, 54, 38, 58, 10 (lake based) (19%)
11, 26, 05, 09, 34, 14, 43, 01 (heaven based) (19%)

the remaining 24% are made-up of the NF and NT groups (12% each)

NFs (identity seekers):

02, 23, 08, 20, 16, 35, 45, 12 (earth based) (6%)
15, 52, 39, 53, 62, 56, 31, 33 (mountain based) (6%)

NTs (solution seekers (problem solvers)):

24, 27, 03, 42, 51, 21, 17, 25 (thunder based) (6%)
36, 22, 63, 37, 55, 30, 49, 13 (fire based) (6%)

these hexagrams serve to reflect issues of the collective but also of the individual due to the whole reflected in the parts nature of the categorisations. Thus derive your 'basic' temperament (SP, SJ, NF, NT) and the associated hexagrams will reflect 'main issues' in personality development (and so the masks, the personas, we all put on, but that also includes the personality of collectives).

Our consciousness-nature allows us to put-on masks 'outside' of those preferred by our species-nature and so develop a rich choice of behaviours given a context - this goes against what the collectives want, where due to the hierarchic formats so they prefer one to stick with a persona that 'fits' into a team. See my page http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/teammbti.html as well as the linking of I Ching with MBTI - http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/MBTIX.htm

My species-nature category is NT - trigram of thunder, where I have wrestled with being distracted away and having to come back to the 'true' path (24), difficult beginnings (03), hungering for 'brain food' (27), focused on augmentation (42), focused on enlightenment (51), on problem solving (21), on developing/adopting a belief system (17) and often standing to 'say my piece' ignoring all consequences of that action! (25)) ;-) - if we zoom in more then I fit more to the range of 24, 27, 03, 42 (the INTP category of the MBTI, 1 in 100) but span in general the XNTP range (6 in 100, where the ENTP makes-up the other 5% of the NT category).

From the root species-nature levels consciousness-nature allows for 'playing' with the other categories that are not part of my species-nature. As such I can get on well with other NTs but can have 'issues' dealing with the other 99% of the population, and thats where exercises benefit in improving understandings of these other categories, these other parts of the whole ;-)

Given all of this 'new' material perhaps recovery is by starting again, a 'new' perspective based on ignoring the existing, let it 'fade away' perhaps ;-)

Chris.
 

malka

visitor
Joined
Nov 4, 1971
Messages
301
Reaction score
3
Wow - okay, this is a most interesting dialogue. I wish to give a quick response to Frandoch's first email where he lists the spiritual laws as he understands them. I agree with some, and I must strongly disagree with others.

Definitely, the universe is not personal. I agree. Thinking that things happens to us specifically, for example, is absolutely the EGO. However, as a holistically educated person myself, I do not believe that the views expressed are necessarily holistic at all. Especially the description of cause and effect as a spiritual law. It is not.

Cause and effect is mechanistic. It's theory is based upon Newtonian science and this is out of date and out of touch with both spiritual truths, and that beautiful place where spirituality and science meet.

Similar to Yellowbird, what I know to be true is the world is not about simple cause and effect. The world is about relationships. In a nutshell, relationship is all there is. Everything we see and experience involves relationship. In it's simplest form, quantum science "proves" (for those of us who need the help of science for validating spiritual truths) that the observer, and the observed, are in intimate relationship always. I'll explain:

When scientists set out to look at the smallest unit (a photon) and the test is setup to see the photon as a wave - it's indeed a wave. When the test is setup to see the photon as a particle - it's indeed a particle. No, it's not that the photon is both things at the same time. It's that the relationship of the observer INFLUENCES the very nature of what is being observed. Nothing exists totally on it's own. We are intimately interconnected. We affect each other's existence. WE ARE ALL IN INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP WITH ONE ANOTHER ALWAYS.

Please keep in mind that I share all of this in laywoman's terms. I am not a scientist. Those so inclined among us will see that while my language is simple, I accurately describe the phenomena.

Then there is Schrödinger's Cat:

"A cat which is neither alive nor dead, but rather in a state of stasis, in a box. There is also in the box a Geiger counter and a tiny radioactive particle, the counter wired to a vial of hydrochloric acid (that got your attention). After a set amount of time, the particle is 50% likely to decay, setting off a mechanism triggered by the Geiger counter which smashes the vial and kills the cat. Supposedly, after that set amount of time, if no one looks in the box, the whole system is in a state of stasis because the cat is 50% likely to be alive and 50% likely to be dead, and is thus neither alive nor dead, but both. At least, until someone opens the box. There are all sorts of conundrums associated with this thesis, and it is very controversial."

Mathematically, the cat is both equally alive and dead, and the only thing that influences one or the other is someone opening the box and looking inside. Hmmm...

And of course, this discussion is missing all the Albert Einstein amazing contributions to understanding the nature of our world... (www.westegg.com/einstein/)

And, there's systems theory...which tells us that the WHOLE is greater than the sum of it's parts. We can take something apart, study the parts, understand the parts, but under no illusion can we believe that we now understand the whole. We do not. And -- when we put the parts back together again after having studied them - we've changed the nature of the whole forever. It'll never be the same. THIS IS HOLISM. It is all about relationships. It is not about simple cause and effect.

The intricate nature of everything is so VAST -- it's HUGE -- it's DELICATE -- it exists only in relationship.

We know this from Yi. It's not just about the question and the coins - it's about the relationship. Relationship, in it's many forms, is how we learn and grow. And that's what the whole universe of which we are a part has been doing ever since the big bang. We've been learning and growing. Every moment is a moment of such fantastic creation.

Blessings,
Malka
 

gene

visitor
Joined
May 3, 1971
Messages
2,140
Reaction score
88
Hi Malka, and others

When the cosmos divided itself, it divided itself completely. So we have hexagram one and hexagram two. Since they are not just opposite, but also complementary, in other words, they interrelate, and have a relationship as you say, then you cannot have an up without a down. An in without an out. And, by extension, it is also impossible to have an impersonal universe without a personal one, and impossible to have a personal universe without an impersonal one. Therefore, the more impersonal the universe becomes, the more personal it becomes. At the same time you cannot have a non causal universe without having a causal universe. They are one and the same thing. Often we argue and disagree because we are seeing things, and the things others say, through the filter of our consciousness. The positive side of that is that it does lead to discussion, but often discussion that misperceives the points others make. And again, if the universe is relational, then it is by necessity nonrelational. We cannot have an in without an out.

Gene
 

malka

visitor
Joined
Nov 4, 1971
Messages
301
Reaction score
3
Gene - I enjoyed your post. Does it sound to you that I was not allowing room for Frandoch's expression of "holisic?" Perhaps I was enjoying the intellectual joust, and getting my own thoughts on to the page, but I hope it didn't sound otherwise. Please do tell me directly! (And Frandoch - I welcome hearing frm you also!)

Malka
 
Y

yellowblue

Guest
To all--

In my post I said:

"every thing is relevant and no one is wrong or right... that is the interactiveness of the web... that is what forms the web, redefines the web... constant change... "

Obviously this is about relationships...the parts that make up the whole, etc., etc., etc.,.

And again, it is about perspective...our individual perception from the point we are at in relation to others (people in our life out of our life, etc.), and every THING, act, response, etc., etc., etc.,

If my post is reread it is obvious that I am not leaving out the importance of individualism....but intergrating it (and what causes individualism).

The yin and yang can also refer to individuality and group, etc., etc., etc., I was simply discussing the different aspects and dualities that if seen from a particular aspect cease to be dual in nature.

Deb
 
Y

yellowblue

Guest
P.S.

A big point that was missed was that I was saying that neither Chris or Michael F. or anyone was absolutely correct...it is a combination of all and not important who was "wrong or right" because we all get out of everything what we need at the time, and also because of flux an absolute and fixed conclusion that was correct or "true" is not possible at the human level of comprehension. We are too limited in knowledge and intuition to perceive it ALL.

So relax and leave the ego behind. That was my point.

Deb
 

gene

visitor
Joined
May 3, 1971
Messages
2,140
Reaction score
88
Hi Malka

I don't know that your post had anything in it that had a flavor that I reacted to necessarily. As a general rule I do not engage in philosophical discussions, but here I thought I would put my two cents worth in. In many posts, and not necessarily yours, I have had the feeling that someone else's post was misunderstood, and as a result there was a reaction to it. That's okay, it does open up lively debate, debate which I normally do not engage in. Here I just felt there was a reason to bring up a reminder of the duality that we live in when we are not one with the tao, and because of that duality, often one person takes a stance from one side of that duality, and another from the opposite, and they don't realize that in many respects they are saying the same thing. Sometimes it is possible for people to sit down at coffee and discuss something, thinking, this person understands exactly what I am talking about when in fact, they are talking about something very different. It is also highly possible for two people to sit down and get into a heated argument not realizing they are saying exactly the same thing. Sometimes an outside observer can help us see this, often it cannot be helped. Was just throwing in what may be a little illumination on the debate.

Gene
 

chrislofting

(deceased)
Joined
Nov 19, 1971
Messages
394
Reaction score
3
Malka,

you wrote:
>
> When scientists set out to look at the smallest unit (a
> photon) and the test is setup to see the photon as a wave -
> it's indeed a wave. When the test is setup to see the photon
> as a particle - it's indeed a particle. No, it's not that
> the photon is both things at the same time. It's that the
> relationship of the observer INFLUENCES the very nature of
> what is being observed. Nothing exists totally on it's own.
> We are intimately interconnected. We affect each other's
> existence. WE ARE ALL IN INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP WITH ONE
> ANOTHER ALWAYS.
>

Uummm... ok .. but there is an element of delusion here, a delusion perpetuated by modern texts, based on not understanding the differences between a species-nature perspective of reality vs a consciousness-nature perspective.

A simple example focused upon the double-slit experiments or in fact ANY experiment that uses recursion of a dichotomy combined with indeterminacy:

I set up a photon/electron source that 'fires' these 'particles' at two slits, with a very small distance between the slits, in a piece of metal.

If I put detectors 'flush' to each slit then when I fire the electron etc at the slits it will pass through ONE OR THE OTHER where that passage is detected by the detectors. Note that this measurement is VERY precise, VERY differentiating of slit A XOR slit B, never both.

I now change my perspective totally, from a focus on the particular, each slit, to a focus on the general, the output of both slits projected onto a photographic plate a small distance 'behind' the slits.

This act shifts the focus from a 'dot' perspective, a single unit, to a 'field' perspective, a PAIR. The moment I do any such thing I shift from a differentiating perspective to an integrating perspective. The moment I move from differentiating to integrating my precision changes from a unit of ONE to that of a TWO - a PAIR.

When the PAIR becomes my unit of measure I LOSE resolution on the ORDER of the elements in that PAIR, I cannot tell which one comes first etc.

Thus, at the level of the detectors flush to the slits I get A XOR B and I can plot this out BUT since I am summing the data so each trial is performed within the context of the previous and so a binary tree forms as a plot of the set of POSSIBLE expressions. This will over time form into a normal distribution curve that reflects recursion in that:

At trial 1 (T1) I have two choices, A or B.
At trial 2 (T2) I have two choices, A or B.
at trial n (tn) I have two choices, A or B.

BUT for recording purposes, for a statistical perspective I SUM the data such that at:

T1 I have 2 possible states.
T2 I have 4 possible states (T1 + T2)
T3 I have 8 possible stated (T1 + T2 + T3)
and so on. This reflects recursion of a dichotomy such that the set of possible states forms a binary-tree like structure.

At the PARTICULAR level I will draw a 'line' through a set of possible states, one for each trial, but as I keep firing the photons so all trials/2 possible states will fill-up to give me what we call an emerging normal distribution curve.

Now comes the fun. When I take a step back from the slits, remove the detectors and shift my focus to the photographic plate and so work from IMPLICATIONS, I have introduced indeterminacy, I cannot detect precisely WHICH slit the electron passes through. This shift in precision, a shift into a focus on integrations, will FORCE a developing pattern, a frequency distribution that will appear on the photographic plate as a wave interference pattern - I WILL see each 'dot' representing the point of impact of the particle on the plate, but over time the dots form into a pattern - the wave-interference pattern.

You can create this pattern using pen and paper and the I Ching where we focus on PAIRS of lines such that a yin pair is yin, a yang pair is yang, but a yin-yang or yang-yin pair is indeterminate and so is represented as an x.

Thus hexagram 23, 000001 collapses into 00x and so on. When you do this the 64 hexagrams reduce to 28 forms that take-on the form of a wave-interference pattern -to see this reduction see http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/wave.jpg - if I increase the number of trials, all that happens is the pattern gets bolder, more solid in expression.

Thus, ANY experiment, regardless of scale, based on combining recursion of a dichotomy with indeterminacy will create these patterns.

Now, what we see represented here are the differences in our consciousness-nature, that is highly precise, very EITHER/OR, and so reflecting the use of detectors flush to each slit, compared to the less-precise species-nature that is more representative of the photographic plate, a focus on integration rather than differentiation and so a focus on the WHOLE that is the PAIR of slits, not one vs the other (where that perspective is one on PARTS).

The EPR 'paradox' is only so when we fail to recognise the differences in precision when we try to interpret reality without differentiating the consciousness-nature perspective (all PARTS, the discrete slits) from the species-nature (the WHOLE that is the integration of the PARTS, where that is reflected as a wave-interference pattern, the discreteness is now at the level of the PAIR of slits, not EACH slit)

For other examples of 'issues' of consciousness-nature perspectives 'conflicting' with species-nature perspectives see my page on paradox processing - http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/paradox.html

You may also want to see the other pages on QM interpretations:

http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/vision.html
http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/svector.html
http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/bits.html

The problem with this for most to accept it is that no one wants to believe it since it means that the 'gurus' of Physics etc have screwed-up their interpretations by failing to consider the neurology BUT they had no chance to do that since the information did not exist in their time but they were pressured to come-up with a 'story' and so what they said became 'dogma' and all later physicists have taken the dogma and keep trying to 'sell' it, still with no understanding that our experiments reflect our minds, and in particular our consciousness-nature with its focus on details and so its focus on PARTS that it interprets as if WHOLES.

The realm of the species-nature is the realm of integration, of relationships in that 'all is connected' at the level of the species, there is no 'cut' of species from universe, we are all 'one' in that the focus in the realm of the material is balance, symmetry, and the species interacts with the universe 'immediately' through instincts/habits - and so interacts in parallel.

As such this species-nature realm is also a realm of potentials where it is local context that 'collapses' a superposition of states into one *particular* state. IOW the realm of the species-nature is what we call in Physics, the state vector, the realm of A AND B rather than A XOR B, right-brained rather than left-brained.

Our consciousness-nature is a mutation, a refinement where it allows us to go for details. The ability of our consciousness-nature to focus on DETAILS means it works with PARTS and is thus one step removed from the species-nature reality and so creates its own that is more precise, BUT, due to the embodiment of consciousness 'in' species so BOTH perspectives share the same space and that can cause 'paradox' if you fail to note the differences in the perspectives (as 'professional' interpreters have done to date ;-))

What I am saying here is REALLY simple stuff, but to many it is too simple in that it demands a major paradigm shift in understanding and that for many is hard to do, and since it reflects on so many 'gurus' so it can put noses out of joint ;-)


> Then there is Schrödinger's Cat:
>
> "A cat which is neither alive nor dead, but rather in a
> state of stasis, in a box. There is also in the box a Geiger
> counter and a tiny radioactive particle, the counter wired
> to a vial of hydrochloric acid (that got your attention).
> After a set amount of time, the particle is 50% likely to
> decay, setting off a mechanism triggered by the Geiger
> counter which smashes the vial and kills the cat.
> Supposedly, after that set amount of time, if no one looks
> in the box, the whole system is in a state of stasis because
> the cat is 50% likely to be alive and 50% likely to be dead,
> and is thus neither alive nor dead, but both. At least,
> until someone opens the box. There are all sorts of
> conundrums associated with this thesis, and it is very
> controversial."
>
> Mathematically, the cat is both equally alive and dead, and
> the only thing that influences one or the other is someone
> opening the box and looking inside. Hmmm...
>

This is just an example of a superposition in the mind, the act of looking collapses the set of potentials into an actual - but then we can also make the box out of glass ;-)

> THIS IS HOLISM. It
> is all about relationships. It is not about simple cause and
> effect.
>
cause and effect is a relationship. It reflects the precision of 'discreteness', of a 'parts' perspective that strongly differentiates cause/effect vs the more approximations perspective that links the two.

Cause and effect is reflected in stimulus/response, the main function of our species-nature in communicating with the universe, the context. As such the context PUSHES the instincts and so the lifeform mindlessly 'responds'. For US the difference is in our consciousness-nature that allows us to mediate between the stimulus/response and REFINE the response (and so refine instincts through linking them with habits) as well as SYMBOLISE the stimulus, create a representation that elicits the same response as did the original stimulus.

The representation format is usually, initially iconic in form, it looks like the original. As time goes on so the icon can become less representitive of the 'thing', it ages and becomes firstly more indicative of the thing and then more symbolic and so more subjective. At that point we can refurbish the symbol to make it once more an icon.

> The intricate nature of everything is so VAST -- it's HUGE
> -- it's DELICATE -- it exists only in relationship.
>

...and this hugeness is reflected in the simple nature of the I Ching in that our consciousness-nature sees hexagrams as discrete units, totally 'independent' forms and so ONE hexagram is interpreted as fitting one moment. The truth is that ALL hexagrams fit the one moment but the PARTICULAR nature of that moment distorts the hexagrams into a 64-hexagram (or 4096-dodecagram) sequence from 'best fit' to 'worst fit' - which moves us into the realm of topology - rubber-sheet geometry - where an surface, a set of integrated points, cannot be cut, just distorted ;-)

Chris.
 

malka

visitor
Joined
Nov 4, 1971
Messages
301
Reaction score
3
Deb,

I agree with you - it's VAST, and none of us consciously understands it all. (Though I like to believe there is a part hidden inside all of us that "knows") and I agree that we are all expressing pieces of the whole. That's what is so beautiful.

Gene,

I agree with everything you've written, and I have this to add...

There are times I adore the wonder of the internet - the ability to converse with people from all over the world I would otherwise probably have never met. And there are times I feel the limitations of this dialogue - because the give and take and flow and glances and body language and sighs are missing. I am dependent upon my writing ability to convey it all. And, the my turn/your turn nature of posting places so much emphasis on a particular response. It's not always real or accurate.

Like in conversation, I may pick up on just one thing someone has said to which I add a new thought. But if I don't respond to everything someone has said, that doesn't mean I didn't read it all. It also doesn't mean I didn't understand it all. The time lag gets in the way of us "checking-in" with each other along the way as easily as we all would if in the same room with each other. If we write from one particular perspective, it doesn't mean anything about our knowledge, understanding, or awareness of the other many sides...just the many aspects of connecting on the web!

Blessings,
Malka
 

malka

visitor
Joined
Nov 4, 1971
Messages
301
Reaction score
3
Chris,

I agree and understand that cause and effect is relationship. What I meant to say is that relationship itself is far more intricate than mere cause and effect. There are many more levels, and from a holistic perspective there is more to relationship than simple a > b. But I've already written about this and so have you...
 

chrislofting

(deceased)
Joined
Nov 19, 1971
Messages
394
Reaction score
3
OOOPS...

I wrote:
> Thus hexagram 23, 000001 collapses into 00x and so on. When
> you do this the 64 hexagrams reduce to 28 forms

that should read 27 forms. Of those forms 19 are 'superpositions' in that they contain two or more hexagrams such that context will select the most appropriate. The remaining eight forms are invarient in the translation, they are thus constants (01,02 20,34 19,33 61,62)

This area is also that of translation from a focus on powers of two to powers of three.

Chris.
 

davidl

visitor
Joined
Oct 31, 1971
Messages
120
Reaction score
0
This thread is touching on many subjects but I would like to say that the scientific notion that all 'spiritual experiences' are purely neuronal events is like saying that milk comes from milk bottles. I find it interesting that Chris our local scientism preacher (no offence, Im in rave mode) calls those views that dont agree with scientism childish. Scientisms recent appearance as the new faith of the west , replacing Catholicism from which it was derived has yet to prove its value beyond stating the obvious. To date scientism has 'discovered' many things about nature and man but as yet has not given us any whys or hows, other than to attempt to limit our 'species nature' while it catches up. Most recent discoveries include multi universes (known to the ancients for a few thousand years, age of our local universe 15 billion years (estimated by kabalists about 1000 years ago.)
Neuronal events or electrical storms my dear child are just the delivery system of spiritual or multi dimensional communication. One of course can stand up on the top of a television antena measuring 'electrical storms' while other people are sitting in their loungerooms watching television.
When are scientists going to stop confusing the delivery system for the whole network.
One last question, has scienctism created anything lately or is manipulation and derivation the 'new' creation.
Five points to anyone who can name 1 thing that has been created by scientism in the last 500 years.
 

cal val

visitor
Joined
Apr 30, 1971
Messages
1,507
Reaction score
19
Deb...

I love your post. I wonder which comes first...ceasing to try to figure it all out and just accepting it as it is...mysterious and wonderful and beautiful...or ceasing to see it in terms of black and white, wrong or right and, therefore, needing to define it accordingly and declare it universal truth.

Love,

Val
 

chrislofting

(deceased)
Joined
Nov 19, 1971
Messages
394
Reaction score
3
Hi Davidl,

you wrote:
>
> This thread is touching on many subjects but I would like
> to say that the scientific notion that all 'spiritual
> experiences' are purely neuronal events is like saying that
> milk comes from milk bottles. I find it interesting that
> Chris our local scientism preacher (no offence, Im in rave
> mode) calls those views that dont agree with scientism
> childish.

No. I said that they reflect 'child-mindedness', a fundamental requirement to enter the kingdom of heaven according to JC, and a fundamental requirement taking things at face value, total and utter trust in another/others and so not prepared to ask questions and so to accept the assertions of the priests etc and accept their 'magic' without question. Child-mindedness is a favourite mental state to be exploited by used-car salesmen, politicians, lawyers, priests etc etc and all interested in power and so control.

Extreme science can also reflect this 'child-mindedness' but usually in the form of an unjustified faith in a theory or theorist and as such reflecting the SAME generic focus as that of religious fundamentalists and so examples of secular fundamentalism. BUT one difference is that the Scientists 'dispute' with papers in academic journals and the 'absoluteness' of a mathematical proof or some repeatable experiments usually solves the problem, unlike religious fundamentalism that is strong on rhetoric and charisma, very weak on facts, and prepared to use AK-47s or Boing-737s to make its point.

My point, based on analysis of what the research data from neurosciences, cognitive sciences, and psychology are showing, is that this realm of absolute faith is an extreme. As I pointed out to Gene, he assumed that showing a dependency to use empirically-derived data suggests I favour Darwin etc, but his assumption was wrong in that I am not interested in 'this specialisation' or 'that specialisation' but more so on the source of specialisations themselves, IOW the properties and methods of how we as a species derive meaning, be it 'scientifically' derived or 'religiously' derived or 'whatever'.

The ONLY reliable, consistant, repeatable, 'facts' to do this sort of work comes out of Science and no other discipline. Material from Anthropology, Religion, and general Mythology is useful but also examples of 'specialisations' and as such come with their own language etc but LACK the precision possible in Science, or that precision is so overloaded with metaphor as requiring eons to decode it, and so are more from the realm of 'waving of hands'.

'scientism' is defined as:

1 a a method or doctrine regarded as characteristic of scientists. b the use or practice of this.
2 often derog. an excessive belief in or application of scientific method.

This term is more applicable to the Institution of Science than to Science in that it applies to the people. I am not a scientist, I am a human being FIRST and USE the principles of scientific enquiry to derive data that is constant and so useable for prediction.

> Scientisms recent appearance as the new faith of
> the west , replacing Catholicism from which it was derived
> has yet to prove its value beyond stating the obvious.

Science existed prior to 'Catholicism' but was expressed in overly rich metaphor, something the more literal-minded dont understand, dont like, because they have to think to decode the metaphor ;-) The literal interpretations of the Bible, Koran, Torah etc etc reflect the 'Dark Ages' and even today there are still examples of the 'Dark Ages' around.

> To
> date scientism has 'discovered' many things about nature and
> man but as yet has not given us any whys or hows, other than
> to attempt to limit our 'species nature' while it catches
> up.

This is IMHO a naive perspective. The 'passion' in which you write your prose suggests perhaps a need for instant gratification and so some sort of frustration. Science will not 'solve' all problems 'today' and in fact will still be working after you are dead. A religious, or general fundamentalism often is preferred in that they offer 'instant' solutions but unfortunately also too extreme in that they threaten the species overall (as modern times show, be it the religious elements in the White House or in Afghanistan or in the Middle East ;-))

> Most recent discoveries include multi universes (known
> to the ancients for a few thousand years, age of our local
> universe 15 billion years (estimated by kabalists about 1000
> years ago.)

There have been no discoveries of 'multi-universes'. There is THEORY but the THEORY reflects avenues our consciousness-nature will follow in that it works from a PARTS perspective where it takes the PARTS as WHOLES. Our consciousness-nature, and so our idealist nature, is ignorant of the scope of our species-nature and of the realm of the psyche in general where the collective unconscious makes a strong contribution from an unconscious level to our conscious states.

Thus, it is INEVITABLE for such concepts as 'multi universes' to emerge in a conscious lifeform unaware of the full scope of our psyche and so our species-nature in that the PARTS perspective of consciousness will FORCE such perspectives.

Quantum mechanics (and more so the prose of the commentors of) is riddled with examples of 'story-telling' based upon (a) a demand for instant gratification re interpretation and prediction and (b) ignorance of what is going on 'in here'.

The IDM material is starting to open all of this up, to ground perspectives by demonstrating the properties and methods of the species, of which our consciousness-nature is but a PART, not a WHOLE. To be a whole it needs to be disembodied, autonomous and so 'free' - it isnt, its 'freedom' is always WITHIN the bounds set by the species that in turn operates within the bounds set by the neuron in general - a bound we share with all other neuron-dependent lifeforms.


> One last question, has scienctism created anything lately or
> is manipulation and derivation the 'new' creation.
> Five points to anyone who can name 1 thing that has been
> created by scientism in the last 500 years.
>

umm...scientism. (you see, it is all about self-referencing - so you owe me 5)

The focus on Science is revelation, discovery, and on problem solving and it has discovered more about our selves and our Universe that any other discipline to date and it continues to solve problems every day. As a result of such discoveries you and I are able to communicate 'instantly' across the planet through the creation of the Internet. (you now owe me 10 - noting that to implement such a concept as the 'net requires STRONG science supported by some faith ;-). The advantage of some Science education is that one can comprehend the properties and methods of the 'net and even solve computer problems.)

The GENERIC set of meanings available to us all as species-members is a constant such that it is traceable to 'ancient' interpretations of reality but those are often overloaded with metaphors and anthropomorphisms showing a lack in precision. We have developed since those times and in doing so have been increasingly more precise, in some cases TOO precise, but the generic meanings are still constants.

As such I can IMAGINE whatever I wish and it is trial and error that allows for my imagination to 'resonate' with reality and so be useful as a map. Science reflects map-making par excellence so rather than reject it it should be recruited to aid in fleshing-out reality.

One of the problems with Science, or more so those attracted to it, is it can be over-objective and so 'alienated' from the species-nature just as religious fundamentalism, there is a sense of 'isolationism' or 'elitism' that develops in the mindset of the individuals - thus if asked to make the deadliest weapon in the world, where the task is a challenge, a problem to solve, they will happily do it. The USE of that weapon on cities is not their decision, it is a 'political' decision and that includes the attempts by fundmentalists groups, be they considered 'freedom fighters' or 'terrorists', to acquire those 'weapons of mass destruction' to aid in their assertion of their 'faith' (complicated by belief in heaven (and so the 'magical') and so no fear of the consequences to the planet/species in the use of those weapons).

In BOTH areas of Science and Religion we can find 'child-mindedness' but in Science there is a degree of delayed gratification built-in to the methodology and as such a 'cooling down' period that 'neutralises' extremes in rhetoric for the sake of empirically-derived facts. In the more 'religious' perspectives (and you can include in that personality cults, both secular and religious) the rhetoric dominates, the focus on charisma etc etc

To understand Science you have to learn, in Religion there is no such requirement and that is a problem in understanding the universe - unless you wish to maintain the 'mind of a child' to enter the kingdom of 'god'? ... interesting in buying a bridge?... I have one for sale across Sydney harbour... great location .... ;-)

Chris.
 

martin

(deceased)
Joined
Oct 2, 1971
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
60
Still, the question remains, where does the milk come from?
happy.gif

Is our consciousness (awareness, knowing) generated by neurological activity in our nervous system?
If so, then how? Nobody seems to have an answer to that question and as long as there is no answer the statement "our brain is the source of our consciousness" is just another unproven hypothesis. A belief.

The milk might as well come from the milky way ..
 

chrislofting

(deceased)
Joined
Nov 19, 1971
Messages
394
Reaction score
3
Hi Martin, (and others for that matter)

to keep up to date on current perspectives I suggest you go through the articles in the Science & Consciousness Review:

http://www.sci-con.org/

and join the mailing list to get regular updates. Far better than the 'general waving of hands' perspective that comes across in your post ;-) The summing of data in such journals, reflecting continuing research following scientific method, as in repeatability of data to confirm the assertions, is enough to suggest that your statement that it is all 'just another unproven hypothesis' is perhaps a little too dismissive.

Chris.
 

frandoch

visitor
Joined
Oct 22, 1971
Messages
151
Reaction score
1
Hi Chris,

If you'll allow, I want to put you on the spot. I can't talk with you unless I know where you are coming from.

I have many questions to ask you - but they all reduce to one. And I want a one word answer - 'Yes' or 'No'.

You may follow up your answer on an extra post, with as many pages as you feel necessary to explain the intricate details, but I would love to see you post just one word.

I ask you to humour me, please.

I may be a random chance event, or I may be here for a purpose.

My question is:

'Is there an intelligence controlling the universe. ???'

Michael F.
 

chrislofting

(deceased)
Joined
Nov 19, 1971
Messages
394
Reaction score
3
Hi Martin,

another source to aid in keeping up to date is:

http://human-nature.com/nibbs/

to understand our nature as a species and as a conscious species requires understanding:

(a) the art of one's science
(b) the science of one's art

Thus the ability to read and comprehend Mythology, Occult, Religion and Humanities in general needs to be complemented by being up to date at least in areas of neurosciences, cognitive science, psychology and the two links I have supplied should allow you to do that with ease.

Add the IDM material and one's overall perspective becomes more refined and through that refinement such specialisations as the I Ching become even stronger in their source as a guide in interpreting reality.

Chris.
 

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