THE SEVEN LAWS

[martin]

Hi Chris,

It looks like you want to sent me back to Academia. No way!
I've tried to find the cow (the source of the milk) there in all the places that seemed appropriate.
Till I found greener grass elsewhere .. and the cow

Martin

 

[martin]

Nevertheless, Chris, you made me curious and I followed your link .. did they find the cow?
Skimming through the articles I saw the term "neural correlates of consciousness". Apparently there has been some progress in the last ten years or so (since I stopped following developments in this area) in this sense that the "mapping" has been refined.
OK, that's interesting research but it doesn't answer my question. Where does consciousness come from? Showing "correlations" (however refined) is not enough if the question is about causes.
And the researcher are aware of that. One of them wrote that he is not addressing the "hard problems".

Of course I didn't read all the articles yet, we will see ..
Thanks for the link!

 

[chrislofting]

Hi Michael,

you wrote:
> 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'.
>

want you want is not necessarily what you will get ;-)


> 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. ???'
>

no idea at this time, and not really interested in such a generality other than recognising that with the data we have at the moment there is currently no need for the 'god' hypothesis other than as a support mechanism in situations that require integration concepts to enforce protection issues - instant gratification over delayed. (and so the need for, an attraction to, such divination systems as the IC etc. I come to the IC from a context of understanding the derivation of meaning in general, not as a source of 'divine advice' etc in that I recognise the IC as metaphor for us)

What is your fundamental need for an answer to such a question, knowing that we are still investigating things and have a long way to go? Perhaps this question reflects your attraction to Physics, to seek-out the 'origin' ;-) A friend of mine who lectures on Quantum Mechanics once commented on the large proportion of the class that was made-up of religious fundamentalists! This 'religous' element in Physics is reflected in the attitudes to females in the research - see the book "Pythagoras' Trousers".

All I AM interested in is the qualities we use to DESCRIBE such concepts. In IDM we can identify the properties of idealism (and so a spiritualist bias) and those of materialism where these terms are relabelling of the concepts of differentiating/integrating. From that we can map-out the qualities that will be expressed in the attempts to describe 'god' etc etc

From IDM we can identify the NOTION of a 'guiding hand' as an expression of interpretation of expressions where the interpretations lacks data to the extent WE will use ourselves as the measure - anthropomorphism at work.

A good example of this is in observations of lifeforms that have adapted to a context extremely well to a degree where they have a form of map of the context internalised such that it can be used for prediction and so pre-empting situations. Not recognising the internalisation of a map means that observers will 'see' behaviour that suggests some form of 'guiding hand' at work, a teleological perspective, where in fact there is none - just a map ;-) Our 'map' is in the form of the qualities derived from the dynamics of the differentiate/integrate dichotomy. If you are not aware of such a map then observation of us can elicit consideration of some teleological influence at work.

As indicated in the IDM pages, we can trace the source of the concept of the 'spiritual' to instincts focused on the PROTECTION of the species, instincts that when exaggerated, and so anthropomorphised, allow for belief in some 'external' intelligence and that belief will then be exploited - where exploit/protect is a fundamental dichotomy that also reflects the relabelling of the more generic differentiate/integrate dichotomy. (and so all of those TV ministries offering salvation for 'donation' of $77.50 etc ;-) - good talkers, good salespeople, charmismatic etc in the selling of 'god', can be fun to watch and they make their pitch)

For a good analysis of collectives and charisma etc see:

Bradley, R.T. (1987) "Charisma and Social Structure : A Study of Love and Power, Wholeness and Transformation" New York : Paragon House
Bradley, R.T., & Pribram, K.(1998) "Communication and Stability in Social Collectives" IN Journal of Social and Evolutionary Systems 21(1):29-81

Ray Bradley is a Sociologist, Karl Pribram a neuroscientist. Both are into the more holographic model of information processing as presented by Gabor (who was the discoverer of holograms) as compare to the more 'bit', and so discrete, perspective upon information processing as presented by Shannon. (again we find a basic dichotomy as fundamental to a discipline, information theory, where we see 'discrete/continuous' aka 'differentiated/integrated', Shannon/Gabor)

The areas of idealist expression reflect the realm of METAL, of EXCHANGE, both competitive and cooperative, the anger of the vengeful 'god' [heaven] and the love of the 'born again' [lake] - both forms of exchange reflecting a focus on REPLACEMENT of X with something considered 'better'. The FOLLOWERS of the charismatics of metal reflect the perspectives of Earth where the 'teachings' of the charismatics are used as filters in dealing with reality

Note that all of the above-mentioned properties are sourcable in abstraction of the transcendence and transformation functions we can identify as expressions of the neuron.

IOW there is nothing here that NEEDS reference to an external source. OF note is that if we come across anything external, due to our sensory systems focus on differentiating/integrating all we can ever see will appear as an oscillation across the differentiate(object)/integrate(relationship) dichotomy and as such apparently 'paradoxical' - to our consciousness-nature - our species-nature just detects a complex, integrated, pattern.

Chris.

 

[martin]

Chris, another point, it seems that when you talk about religion you are in most cases referring to frozen beliefs, fundamentalism, bible banging and so on. But religion can be so much more than that.
As I see it, true religion is a quest for truth, much like science. One difference is that religion has more affinity with feeling, while science has more affinity with thinking. In the Myers-Briggs scheme religion perhaps attracts more NF's (identity seekers) and science more NT's (solution seekers).
But it's the same truth-game. Unless the security seekers take over, of course ...

 

[chrislofting]

Hi Martin,

Your wrote:
>
> Chris, another point, it seems that when you talk about
> religion you are in most cases referring to frozen beliefs,
> fundamentalism, bible banging and so on.

more on the concept of fundamentalism, a focus on differentiating (more below...)

> But religion can be so much more than that.

I think the more gentle term is spirituality. The roots in the species focus on integration and so protection.

> As I see it, true religion is a quest for truth, much like
> science. One difference is that religion has more affinity
> with feeling, while science has more affinity with thinking.

I think the argument about Science as a search for 'truth' is an idealist focus - the intent is more on problem solving through application of a methodology that ensures some degree of good predictability on expressions/events. Interestingly, the FEELING we associate with something being 'true' or 'correct' seems to have its roots in the method many lifeforms use to mark territory - waypoint mapping - as such the feeling is associated with ownership, possession. In the brain it has developed into a left-hemisphere sourced feeling that is also applied to issues in syntax processing.

> In the Myers-Briggs scheme religion perhaps attracts more
> NF's (identity seekers) and science more NT's (solution
> seekers).

that right, but this gets into issues of religion vs spirituality, the latter I have often mentioned as seemingly identifiable in the species, sourced in instincts that act to integrate and so protect. The *exaggeration* of those acts, their shift from integrating to differentiating is the issue. Thus the charismatics, the leaders of fundamentalism etc aim to ASSERT the context and are more sensation-seeking (SPs) and as such overly rigid in asserting their perspective over all others - this is the 'replacement' focus of SPs and the charismatic types and the overall focus on transcendence.

The NF persona types reflect integration being used as the method to assert identity in different contexts, the focus is on shape-shifting etc where devotion to the context, be it family or church or football club, aids in asserting identity and as a form of protection. This is more of a focus on transformation and a sense of spirituality as uniting and serving to protect.

The NT persona types reflect integration WITHIN differentiation where a problem is solved through differentiating and then integrating to find the solution and so the REPLACEMENT of an existing state (the problem) with something better - the solution. The NF realm, being more integrating does not focus on replacement.

The best the NF will do competitively is to neutralise (reflected in the attributes of hexagram 12) or trick (hexagram 33) to try and make things more 'fair', and both of these acts reflect the acknowledgement of the 'other perspective' to exist with it - the yang emphasis, on the other hand, is more into erradication of that 'other perspective'. The more cooperative fundamentalism in NFs is reflected in the interactions with the trigram of lake - 45 (massing to celebrate the faith) and 31 (wooing, enticing, tempting).

The spiritual element (earth and mountain) in NTs are in hexagrams 24 and 27 for XNTPs, 36 and 22 for XNTJs.

The fundamentalist elements are more in the SP realm and so, for XNTPs are the METAL hexagrams of 17 (belief formation (to follow)) and 25 (the assertion of belief without considering, or caring about, consequences)

Note that in the distribution of personas in the USA the SP and SJs dominate (70%+ of the population) and, by implication, a more 'fundamentalist' approach to faith dominates - be it as security seeking (SJs) or sensation seeking (SPs).

The fundamentalism in the SPs comes through in hexagrams 43 (spread the word) and 01 (competitive, context-setting).
The spirituality in the SPs comes through in 11 and 26 - the less exaggerated, more balanced, focus (note how these pair, 11-01, 26-43 reflecting issues of exaggerations vs dampening, balancing, in binary sequence octets.)

The spirituality in the SJs comes through in 46 and 18. Their fundamentalism in 28 and 44.

So the ROOTS of spirituality seem to be in the realm of integration, balancing, dampening, protecting. The *exaggeration* of spirituality moves us into the fundamentalism that comes with differentiating, 'my god' over 'your god' etc etc.

The IC maps all of this, especially when viewed from the binary sequence. Thus the GENERIC WHOLE is 'spirituality' and that is cut into 'yin' elements vs 'yang' elements and the WHOLE of the I Ching becomes usable to interpret the harmonics of spirituality/religion ;-)

Chris.

 

[Sparhawk]

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT>

no idea at this time, and not really interested in such a generality other than recognising that with the data we have at the moment there is currently no need for the 'god' hypothesis other than as a support mechanism in situations that require integration concepts to enforce protection issues - instant gratification over delayed. (and so the need for, an attraction to, such divination systems as the IC etc. I come to the IC from a context of understanding the derivation of meaning in general, not as a source of 'divine advice' etc in that I recognise the IC as metaphor for us)<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE>

...And continues for another km...

If "Yes" is white and "No" is black, this answer is the darkest grey I have ever seen. And I have a photographic eye...

Luis

 

[dharma]

Hi Luis!

don't mind me

go on with whatever you were doing

[whistle ... hum]

+

= <CENTER>

</CENTER>

 

[Sparhawk]

Did I said that loud.....? Oh, don't mind my mental droppings....

Luis

 

[davidl]

Dear Chris,
Your constant references to religious fundamentalists is your proof somehow that a greater intelligence than man does not exist. This is not logical and Im sorry incredibly naive. This is like referring to Dr. Frankenstein as the representative of scientism and writing off all scientific pursuit as body snatching madness.
Firstly the people who you describe, are 'political' fundamentalists not religious. There guise as religious is clearly a bad cover that any five year old can see through.
You also hold up the internet as a creation, Im sorry it is innovation and manipulation of natural forces. Minus 5 points. (Maybe the internet is just a way to slowly get it through peoples skulls that 'we are all connected'.The creator having passed this information onto us some thousands of years ago knows that some of us need to see to believe). When I talk about creation I am talking about for example a rose. No, not a genetically altered one, this is also manipulation. Can any scientist claim to have created anything like a rose? or maybe an ant? No.
Simply stated scientists aren't even close to even thinking up something like these simple life forms.
Im sorry Chris that your education in spiritual matters seems to be limited to CNN but maybe by letting go a little and using your wonderful brain to attempt the seemingly impossible, you too will be able to see the forest for the trees.

One last question, how does prediction of future events fit into your neuronal theory. I was shown mental images of aeroplanes slamming into office buildings some time before the 9/11 events. I recorded the description of these images with 2 reliable witnesses. One a Phd physicist. At the time I was practicing an ancient meditation technique that described the successful outcome of the technique as the ability to view future events. It worked. Please send a link to a scientific site that can explain this phenomena.

 

[chrislofting]

Hi Luis,

you wrote:
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> Quote:
> no idea at this time, and not really interested in
> such a generality other than recognising that with
> the data we have at the moment there is currently
> no need for the 'god' hypothesis other than as a
> support mechanism in situations that require
> integration concepts to enforce protection issues
> - instant gratification over delayed. (and so the
> need for, an attraction to, such divination
> systems as the IC etc. I come to the IC from a
> context of understanding the derivation of meaning
> in general, not as a source of 'divine advice' etc
> in that I recognise the IC as metaphor for us)
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> ...And continues for another km...
>
> If "Yes" is white and "No" is black, this answer is the
> darkest grey I have ever seen. And I have a photographic
> eye... [ happy ]
>

no no no! you must work in colours!

white all is reflected. (yang, expands)
black all is absorbed. (yin, contracts)
for a colour (harmonics of white), all is absorbed EXCEPT the particular colour that is reflected.

This is how the I Ching works, as an abstract form of spectrum processing where each hexagram is a colour and any moment is a surface that reflects one colour, absorbs all others ;-) Closer examination will often show 'nuances' in the expressed colour where other harmonics are adding-in their 2c worth ;-) - thus each moment is an expression of a spectrum with a STRONG bias to one colour over the others.

Thus each colour at this level is generic, basic. Zoom-in and you get nuances in expression. Those nuances are expressed in the I Ching as distortions, be they exaggerations or dampenings, of the hexagram 'colour' through the changing line concepts.

Thus heaven can be categorised as white but add harmonics influences and within the white are 'tinges' of the harmonics. More so T'ai Chi is white and the hexagrams the harmonics so heaven is blue/ultraviolet and earth is read/infra-red.

This harmonics emphasis reflects high energy (blue) to low energy (red) and as such reflects (!) the differences in differentiation (high energy requirement to make something 'stick out') and integration.

We can see this in the brain where in general the left-hemisphere is 'blue' and the right 'red' - the left is single context, very clear perspective, FM oriented (Frequency Modulation - like FM radio) and the right is multi context, 'blured' images, AM oriented (Amplitude Modulation - like AM radio).

These SAME AM/FM patterns are also at the level of the neuron, the input areas are AM biased (dendrites process data as waves), the output area is FM biased (axon processes data as a train of pulses, discrete forms). The whole system reflects analogue-to-digital/digital-to-analogue conversions and overall indicates communication is through exchanges of spectra - the order of colours is fixed, the distortion of a colour manipulated to allow modulation that reflects the 'message'.

The full spectrum gets to the input areas where filters (instincts/habits) then cut out 'noise'. At the level of consciousness those filters are the sociologically and psychologically derived forms of filters.

for some diagrams see:

http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/Neuron.jpg
http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/neuron1.gif
http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/neuron2.gif
http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/neuron3.gif

In general, the left hemisphere, being FM, is thus LOCAL, short range, 'line of sight', VERY precise, VERY explicit. The right hemisphere is more NON-LOCAL, long range, can bounce off the atmosphere to travel long distances. More into approximations, IMPLICIT identifications, more associated to "AS IS" when compared to the left that is more "AS INTERPRETED" - thus the left perspective is our source of specialisations, of story-telling and so of rationalisations. The right can indicate, point, but it is the left that 'speaks' and as such is more precise, however is also more serial where the right is more parallel ;-)

The single context of left reflects the concept of a fundamental harmonic, a key, as used in music. The right contains ALL harmonics, including the fundamental but as 'one of the boys'. IOW the left reflects an EXAGGERATION of a harmonic to be the 'context setter'. (see references, quotes etc in http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/general.html )

This single context nature of the left, combined with its sense of clarity, and frequency bias, moves us into the realm of holograms where the single frequency of the left serves as both the reference and interference 'beam' used in hologram creation and interpretation. IOW to get a 'precise' image you need the correct frequency.

Now, zoom-in to either hemisphere and the relationships seen as left/right differences are reflected in relationships of lobes (different large scale 'parts' of each hemisphere) and even relationships of areas WITHIN a lobe. IOW we are seeing a 'fractal-like' expression of the NEURON, all the way 'up' from simple neuron to the whole brain working as if a neuron, each moment is a 'firing' etc etc.

Note also that this 'dimension of precision' across left/right is also repeated front/back as well as surface/core (left+surface+front is all PARTS, high detail and so one step 'down' from species-nature reality and into the realm of "AS INTERPRETED" right+core+back is more WHOLES, integrations and so closer to species-nature reality and so "AS IS".)

Our overall brain functions shows a STRONG adaptation to LIGHT, to VISION, such that the recruitment of properties of light etc for communications would be 'natural' but in doing so would also bias our perspectives on reality - see my page http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/light.html

The development of the use of sound, audition, to communicate over-plays the dominance of the left in communications of a serial kind such that different perspectives upon reality can show their root 'source' as in sensory system.

Relativity theory has its source in vision. Quantum mechanics is sourced more in audition where the precision of audition is reflected in that our eye cannot see the harmonics in a colour, just the colour, but our ear CAN hear the harmonics in a chord, it can extract from the chord each note used. Audition is more precise than vision in that it allows for a high focus on PARTS. In vision we get a 'hue' and thats about it unless we do a lot more work.

See http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/vision.html for more on issues of sensory systems and map making.

Overall, white is 'boring' for us over-sensitive, harmonics processing, natures ;-)

lets see, thats about a kilometre so I shall stop! ;-) More than enough there to 'reflect' upon.

Chris.

 

[chrislofting]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: I Ching Community Discussion Forum
> [mailto:support@onlineClarity.co.uk]
> Sent: Tuesday, 16 September 2003 3:17 PM
> To: ddiamond@ozemail.com.au
> Subject: THE SEVEN LAWS
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> I Ching Community Discussion Forum: Open Space: THE SEVEN
> LAWS
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> By Davidl (Davidl) on Tuesday, September 16, 2003 - 06:17
> am:
>
> Dear Chris,
> Your constant references to religious fundamentalists is
> your proof somehow that a greater intelligence than man does
> not exist.

Huh? not at all. My focus on religious fundamentalism, or even secular fundamentalism, is that these expresses are EXAGGERATIONS of reality and more PART oriented. The realm of the WHOLE is IMPLIED, it is out of our consciousness, it is the realm of the species-nature where that nature is integrated with reality through instincts/habits. See my recent post to Martin re differences in spirituality, religion, and fundamentalism.

As I said to Michael re his question on 'is there or isnt there' - I have no idea BUT I noted that the data we have requires no NEED for such a concept. Now maybe for YOU there is a need. For many there is a need in that sprituality serves as an aid to integrate people in 'down' times and reduce anxieties and for a social lifeform that is useful - protection through numbers, through 'connectedness' through a sense of belonging.

Problems come when this diffuse sense of 'connectedness' is exaggerated, where ancient texts are taken literally rather than as metaphor, and out pops the differentiations focus, and with it a focus on competitive exchange, where it is 'idealist VS materialist' etc etc - delusions on a grand scale. (and with that comes ignoring 3000+ years of development and exaggerating the 'ancient texts' as if they knew something we dont. They WERE more in contact with a sense of wholeness due to their LACK of precision. In 3000 we have 'sliced n diced' to give as an excess of parts that we are now putting back together to re-establish links with the whole but also with more CHOICES in expressing that whole)

The process of exaggerations is useful LOCALLY, to exaggerate some part to make a point, bring out an aspect, but to apply exaggerations universally leads to 'issues' that are not necessary, every perspective made by all of the BILLIONS of people on this planet reflect PARTS of the whole that is our species. These are all 'specialisations' and given enough room we would all be speaking in different tongues where each specialisation automatically tries to generate its own language to describe itself.

It is our species-nature, the SAMENESS, that grounds us and forces consensus in creation and use of terminologies etc and the IDM material focuses on the properties and methods of that SAMENESS, to be able to teach that can aid in developing a stronger sense of sameness across the many parts of the species (parts that consider themselves wholes, autonomous) and get around some of the 'issues' we are currently dealing-with as a species.



>
> One last question, how does prediction of future events fit
> into your neuronal theory. I was shown mental images of
> aeroplanes slamming into office buildings some time before
> the 9/11 events. I recorded the description of these images
> with 2 reliable witnesses. One a Phd physicist. At the time
> I was practicing an ancient meditation technique that
> described the successful outcome of the technique as the
> ability to view future events. It worked.

(1) If this was the case then you should be totally and utterly ashamed of yourself - you can hold yourself, and your friends, personally responsible for the death of thousands. You are demonstrating a tone of elitism that is horrifying to the extreme, as well as a strong degree of passive-aggressiveness, of excessive criticality. If I were you I would not publise this work as 'fact', it just makes you look really bad under the circumstances! How dare you *boast* about being able to 'see' all of 9/11 ('some time' before the event). This does not make you look big and powerful, it makes you look weak, sneaky, and overall 'anti-social'. Go through DSM-IV, find yourself.

(2) I doubt if it was the case and you should know that any claim to authority as you have used above is one of the weakest forms of argument. Being a PhD in physics is meaningless in that it is the rigour of the experiments and the repeatability of the results that is the core - and a well-trained amateur can do that. Overall your prose places you very much into the 'power' trip of idealists where strong hierarchy, lots of badges of 'rank', and a focus on 'everyone should know their place' etc etc dominates. (as well as the 'us vs them' and the 'secret societies' etc perspectives).

(3) For remote viewing concepts see http://www.psiexplorer.com/targ1.htm

I communicate with PhDs and Professors on a regular basis and they are fine WITHIN their speciality but outside of that they still forget to take the rubbish out and have 'issues' in changing nappies so throwing 'authorities' at me will get you nowhere! Give me results from an experiment and the properties and methods of that experiment so I can repeat it and we can talk. Other than that your prose comes across as nothing but rhetoric - manipulation of emotive terms to 'sell' a perspective that lacks any other form of support - and as such is all wind.

ALL of what I write about, all of the IDM material, is supported by empirically-derived data, done by 'grunt' researchers as well as 'top notch' Professors etc. The experiments are published in journals where there is a high regard for repeatability
and so a good chance the results can be interpreted as 'facts'. (the review process in most of these journals REMOVES any reference to the author's name, position, etc, IOW any claim to authority - all that is focused upon are the 'facts' and whether they can be repeated or not etc etc For the sake of 'consensus' in presentations a rigid structure is often imposed (a la 'scientific method') so that there are no distractions, no interpretations required other than the data)

I take this data and link it together to come up with a MODEL of meaning derivation - IDM. simple. It is not an ontology, it is meta-ontology, the isness of iseness. simple. Not only does it reflect materialist perspectives but also idealist perspectives, the properties and methods of both perspectives and so the 'good' with the 'bad' - where context determines things.

Chris.

 

[cal val]

Davidl...

I'm having the best laugh the last couple of days reading this thread.

I don't know if you were here reading this forum when I first came here at the beginning of this year, but I had an answer for my own psychic awareness, my own ability to see things that ended up manifesting at future times, and it's explained my earliest posts here. My own 'answer' was basically the same as Chris'. I believed I was tapping into the 'collective synaptic energy output/input' pool floating around in the atmosphere that comprised all the knowledge that's ever been discovered, learned, manufactured, whatever. I did not believe there was any intelligence that did not eminate from life here on earth. I did not believe there was a Creator. But then...

I had those ever-so-bothersome visits day after day in my waking dreams from those wonderfully non-judgmental, ultimately wise and peaceful men in grey robes showing me a concept I just did not believe in. Chris, and whoever else wants to, can believe they were manifestations of my own neurotransmission...that they came from within, not without...whatever...they can knock themselves out believing it. But they (the men in grey robes) presented me with a concept day after day after day, relentless, that I considered folly, a concept that did live within me...in any part of me, a concept I could not possibly embrace in my then-current belief system...the concept of fate and destiny and the interconnectedness of all. So...

The Chrises of the world can knock themselves out believing what they choose, but they are pissing in the wind if they think they can ever convince me my experience wasn't what I know in my heart it was. They ain't got nothin' on those men in grey...*grin*

I still marvel at the power of the human brain...I am just not so arrogant anymore that I believe it's the ALL. And I'm not the 'either/or' type. There's room in my brain for both science and the Creator.

With love,

Val

 

[chrislofting]

Hi Val,

it is interesting dont you think that to describe your preferred perspective you have to use either/or thinking. This is a consequence of trying to be precise in expression - nothing to do with your consciousness, all to do with your speciesness.

The more idealist so the more competitive in thinking, the more partial in thinking, the more 'part-as-whole' in thinking. If you and Davidl chilled a bit you would find you instinctively become more cooperative in thinking, as well as less hierarchic in thinking (where hierarchy is a property of idealism - reflects in such areas as hexagram 10 when compared to the more integrating, 'flat' focus of hexagram 19).

The point you seem to miss is that the IDM material is focused on what we can ever describe from a generic level and that covers BOTH idealist perspectives, materialist perspectives, and all inbetween. The ability to do that stems from analysis of what came BEFORE individual consciousness, our species-nature ;-)

From that comes the examples of the *specialisations* of our species-nature and so the development of parts analysis and of consciousness-nature.

Have you read Tippler's "The Physics of Immortality", or any of De Chardin's work? They cover the concept that there has been no 'god' but *consciousness* is creating one.

As I have stated before, the neuroscience data favours materialism as 'primary', idealism as derived. From a hybridisation of these perspectives comes our reality and so a rich set of possibles.

Chris.

 

[martin]

In the year 2100 ...

- Two priests of the Church of Science confess that they have doubts about mindless evolution and are imprisoned.

- The US starts a war against antineurobiology terrorism and bombs the Vatican. A grandgranddaughter of Dharma is reported to have said: 'See, my grandgrandmother told Luis that such a thing could happen!'
Scientists all over the world are puzzled. Who the hell is Luis?

- Another priest of the Church of Science confesses that he has talked to a disembodied intelligence in grey clothes. He receives a blow from a grandgrandson of Chris and says: waw, thank you, now I see those clothes in colors!

- A grandgranddaugther of David doesn't tell a another grandgrandson of Chris that he has seen that a wasp will sting him ...

- A grandgranddaugther of Chris proves that Schroedinger's cat is braindead and receives a Nobel prize.

.....

 

[davidl]

Chris,
There is no need for me to be ashamed, my vision did not show me where or when, I did not recognise the buildings or the city, nor was I supposed to. My adventures in consciousness are guided by entities that are teaching me valuable techniques, not to change the world or the free will of any being and not to enhance my fame or notoriety. I simply asked for this teaching, for my own development. Anyway what was I to do, call all city mayors in the world and tell them I had a vision using an ancient meditation technique, of aeroplanes flying into buildings? What would your reaction have been Chris? Think about that and then aportion the shame my friend. People not unlike yourself have stiffled this species for too long, with your empirical puff. With regards to your comment about boasting, claims to authority, secret societies , squawk, squawk, squawk. I actually dont know what your talking about, unless its yourself and your own delusions regards your own power and rightness, I simply stated evidence of a vision of a future event, that can be verified by sane and modest people. Just because you dont have a three page answer that satisfies you or your scientism chronies, you attack. It reminds me a little of the robot in Lost in Space. Waving his arms around , danger, danger, Will Robinson, this does not compute! this does not compute! Smoke rising from the circuit boards.
I have come to this forum with an open heart and mind, I like others here are talking from the depths of our hearts and minds and should feel no fear in talking about their experiences. My understanding is that this is what a forum such as this is about. I am not promoting myself or any system, and seek no fame or honor. Lets face it this forum isn't the Herald Tribune. Can you honestly say the same?

By the way thousands of people die every day from curable disease, hundreds of thousands die every year from lack of food and water. Millions die every year needlessly. 30 million people in the US take anti depressants every day. No one needs to practice any meditation technique to know where the imbalances are. 9/11 although shocking was minor in the scheme of things, but of course in our ego centric western world it was penultimate. If only one person could dream or envision the cure for malaria millions of young childrens lives would be saved. But no, lets first envision a space shield so that California can't be nuked by someone.
Chris, the world doesn't need more brains it needs more hearts, tell us what is in your heart, and your ability to relate to all here and everywhere will expand exponetially. Its not cleverness that counts in the end, thats what JC meant, its whats in your heart, there is where the secret lies to happiness and peace. There is where the species is connected to the rest of the universe, its called love.

 

[davidl]

Martin,
Just saw your post, love it!

 

[Sparhawk]

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT>

> If "Yes" is white and "No" is black, this answer is the
> darkest grey I have ever seen. And I have a photographic
> eye... [ happy ]
>

no no no! you must work in colours!

white all is reflected. (yang, expands)
black all is absorbed. (yin, contracts)
for a colour (harmonics of white), all is absorbed EXCEPT the particular colour that is reflected.
.
.
.
BIG SNIP!!!
.
.
.

lets see, thats about a kilometre so I shall stop! ;-) More than enough there to 'reflect' upon.

Chris.<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, it really felt like a couple of miles, but who's counting anyway...

Didn't I say "if Yes is..."?

I think I should rest my case on the basis that your real issue is with the concept around the word "IF". Just a two characters little word with a truckload of meaning.

For the rest, I am a simple creature. I cannot think in colors when it comes to the Great Architect. I rather stick to the Zone System...

Luis

 

[Sparhawk]

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT>

Scientists all over the world are puzzled. Who the hell is Luis?<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup. That pretty much sums it up...

On the other hand, although I will not see it, there is my fifteen minutes of fame!

I imagine all those scientist going through heaps of dusty hard drives, sniffing for clues about "THE" Luis...

Luis

 

[dharma]

This is what is in my heart. My perspective is in many ways similar to Chris' and while he uses scientific terms I don't but the gist is still the same. I hope I don't step on anyone's toes. (Why does the mixing of science and spiritual stuff always cause such a ruckus?)

I, too, have had strong and definite impressions about the nature of reality, not just once or sometimes, but ALL my life. As a youngster, I had explicit dreams that I could not articulate because of my age but they were pronounced and clear enough that I would not forgot them. In my effort to understand these experiences more completely as an adult, I followed their curious lead and studied both psychology and theology in-depth, as a means to this end.

The messages/teachings were/are simple:

THE MIRROR GAME

** there is only ONE of us in existence playing a mirror-game that creates the distinctly false impression that there are MANY others when in fact there is only ONE

** the ego-mind IS the principle lens behind this magic hall-of-mirrors producing the illusion

** strong desire is the driving force that energizes the mirror-game into producing tangible fantasies

** and then, the ego-mind justifies everything it witnesses by inventing compelling stories to "explain" and give credence to it's experiences

The Universe is playful so there is nothing wrong with any of this. It's only a problem when we fall into the trap of believing that the storyline for the movie-of-the-week is REALITY and we fail to recognize that we are bit players ONLY because WE'VE chosen to be. Rather than take hold of the reins of power and play the game KNOWINGLY we prefer the immaturity of projecting this power outwards, and personifying it with a name (and sometimes even a gender) like children who haven't outgrown the stage of seeing their parents as gods.

This 'Grand Director' is then ultimately responsible for everything that happens to us that we are not conscious of having produced ourselves. The problem is that until we WITHDRAW the energy of this projection back into ourSelves we are indeed helpless against, and at the mercy of, our own dis-owned collective forces that build-up over time and spill out onto the world stage, as world wars, for instance, and also environmental disasters.

I expected that as an adult that I might be able to convey this 'truth' more elegantly but it is just as difficult today as it was back then. The problem now is not so much a difficulty in articulating but in getting around the entrenched fear that is conjured up from the mere suggestion that there is only ONE of us. This 'possibility' causes a whole host of feelings to surface regarding ALONE-ness that most people cannot bear to work through, much less consider, even briefly.

Fear has an incredible grip that makes clinging tenaciously to any branch we are familiar with preferable than letting go and experiencing other possibilities that the downstream might have to offer us (if we would only quit trying to manipulate all of our experiences out of anxiety.) Allowing oneself to drift vulnerably even momentarily by admitting that one's BELIEFS may be flawed is too distressful to the average pride, so most will argue and fight to maintain the status quo. And so the fortressed walls of one's limitations restrict one from discovering newer levels of wisdom where they can process, integrate and expand beyond their present comfort zones.

Piercing the 'veil of illusion' and seeing the eternity of reality as it REALLY is is something most only give great lip-service to, never having actually experienced it. You are greatly mistaken if you take KNOWLEDGE of enlightenment based on interactions with the projections in the Grand Illusion as THE reality; focus and preoccupation primarily dependent on one's projections is progress and evolution only in the IMAGINARY sense. BELIEVING in the power of illusions and KNOWING reality from illusions are two different things. The former lulls you into a false sense of security where the illusions convince you that a belief in a Grand Director embues you with some special "holiness" that others who don't feel the need to believe, aren't blessed with. How ego-centric is that?

©2003 Demitra M. N.

 

[chrislofting]

Hi Davidl,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: I Ching Community Discussion Forum
> [mailto:support@onlineClarity.co.uk]
> Sent: Tuesday, 16 September 2003 11:49 PM
> To: ddiamond@ozemail.com.au
> Subject: THE SEVEN LAWS
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> I Ching Community Discussion Forum: Open Space: THE SEVEN
> LAWS
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> By Davidl (Davidl) on Tuesday, September 16, 2003 - 02:48
> pm:
>
> Chris,
> There is no need for me to be ashamed, my vision did not
> show me where or when, I did not recognise the buildings or
> the city, nor was I supposed to.

ah-ha - ok... that did not come across in the email, more a claim to have seen 9-11 and so particular aircraft hitting particular buildings on a particular day. If on the otherhand you saw 'planes flying into buildings' that is not novel. The idea alone was around for some time as a security issue (as in 'what if'...)

> My adventures in
> consciousness are guided by entities that are teaching me
> valuable techniques, not to change the world or the free
> will of any being and not to enhance my fame or notoriety. I
> simply asked for this teaching, for my own development.
> Anyway what was I to do, call all city mayors in the world
> and tell them I had a vision using an ancient meditation
> technique, of aeroplanes flying into buildings? What would
> your reaction have been Chris?

depends - Could have demonstrated my insight into something more 'local', and so developed trust and then 'suggested' people get out of town (example of protection at work)- or I could have done what bin laden did, make money on insurance futures the day before the attack (example of exploitation at work).

> Think about that and then
> aportion the shame my friend. People not unlike yourself
> have stiffled this species for too long, with your empirical
> puff.

oh look... exaggeration at work. LOL! your exaggerative nature emerging (and the underlying anger ;-)).

> With regards to your comment about boasting, claims to
> authority, secret societies , squawk, squawk, squawk. I
> actually dont know what your talking about, unless its
> yourself and your own delusions regards your own power and
> rightness, I simply stated evidence of a vision of a future
> event, that can be verified by sane and modest people.

prove it. simple. repeatable experiments giving same results and so multiple support for some future event that is not prophecy (as in "if you keep doing X, Y will happen", so you stop doing X) but prediction ("X will happen" and so nothing will stop it. Reminds me of a scene in the Matrix "if he is the 'one' then I wont be able to do this...." as he tries to remove the link from the back of Neo's head - and gets shot by 'tank' (?) who 'magically' survived being shot earlier!).

> Just
> because you dont have a three page answer that satisfies you
> or your scientism chronies, you attack. It reminds me a
> little of the robot in Lost in Space. Waving his arms around
> , danger, danger, Will Robinson, this does not compute! this
> does not compute! Smoke rising from the circuit boards.
> I have come to this forum with an open heart and mind, I
> like others here are talking from the depths of our hearts
> and minds and should feel no fear in talking about their
> experiences. My understanding is that this is what a forum
> such as this is about. I am not promoting myself or any
> system, and seek no fame or honor. Lets face it this forum
> isn't the Herald Tribune. Can you honestly say the same?
>

Wonderful rhetoric Davidl, classic format of a focus on manipulating emotive terms to 'puff up' when there is nothing else to support the perspective.

> By the way thousands of people die every day from curable
> disease, hundreds of thousands die every year from lack of
> food and water.

yes, and often due to idealists who favour capitalism and so seek 'transcendence' without consideration of consequences (as long as what happens does not damage them.).

We have the skills to resolve a lot of these problems, but when most idealist countries spend X times the budget on weapon systems to support the fundamentalism rather than health and education so we will suffer.

The idealist emphasis DEMANDS massive expending of energy just to keep the lights on so we can see USA/Europe/Japan from space! it looks 'nice'! Savings alone on such waste could pay for better, free, health services and education.

The idealist demand for transcendence (something you seem to be seeking) is an exaggeration that is causing severe problems to the species as a whole. Idealism reflects 'child-mindedness' and so no consideration of consequence of actions, a DEMAND for the 'new', for 'fresh blood' (hate leftovers - idealism is also very 'male' ;-)), the 'magical' solution to problems ('god will help us, he/she is on OUR side'..) and a need to remain young for ever, a focus on the sense of the 'eternal', a sense derived from, a side effect of, physiological processes in deriving details on 'something' and so not a 'fundamental' as idealists think.

And so idealism comes up with industries focused on fashion, games, charismatic leaderships (promotion of - both political and entertaiment industries), cosmetics, and plastic surgery - overall an extreme focus on exaggerations - all massively consuming of energy and creating a planet full of waste products of this 'need' for unbridled transcendence.

The root of the idealism perspective, the escape nature of the transcendence function, comes to the fore in the 'demand' to escape our species nature (genetic engineering) and our planet (space exploration). These are all natural products of the evolution of the neuron, exploit/protect is built-in to the system. Capitalism (exploit) is an exaggeration that comes out of natural socialism (protect) and in doing so elicits exaggerations as 'dampeners' - Socialism in the form of dealing with issues of labour exploitation, and Conservationism in the form of dealing with issues of exploitation of natural resources.

This dynamic is too extreme at the moment and that is more due to ignorance of our species-nature than anything else.

> Millions die every year needlessly. 30
> million people in the US take anti depressants every day. No
> one needs to practice any meditation technique to know where
> the imbalances are. 9/11 although shocking was minor in the
> scheme of things, but of course in our ego centric western
> world it was penultimate. If only one person could dream or
> envision the cure for malaria millions of young childrens
> lives would be saved. But no, lets first envision a space
> shield so that California can't be nuked by someone.
> Chris, the world doesn't need more brains it needs more
> hearts, tell us what is in your heart, and your ability to
> relate to all here and everywhere will expand exponetially.

if you read my emails slowly, carefully, as well as the articles on my webpage it will become very obvious to you where my heart is.

> Its not cleverness that counts in the end, thats what JC
> meant, its whats in your heart, there is where the secret
> lies to happiness and peace. There is where the species is
> connected to the rest of the universe, its called love.
>

No. This is your idealism talking. Love reflects the cooperative form of anger and both reflect the focus on replacement of the existing with something 'better'. This is analytical negation. I Ching etc work off a more species-nature perspective that is on dialectical negation, thus integration is 'foundational' but not exaggerated, the sense of belonging is rooted in our species-nature and so teach that and the need to belong to some 'exaggerated' collective can be dampened a bit. There is a degree of pragmatism and reason involved.

In the realm of the analytical, a realm rooted in the focus of attention and so the distortion of subjective time experience, the concept of time is converted from its links with thermodynamics - the arrow of time - to something mechanistic and so slowable, stoppable, and even reversible! This is useful in object identification but it also creates a false picture, an exaggerated, idealist, picture of reality. (see discussion on this in my IDM pages etc)

the basic cycle of development is surprisingly (as in it was not expected to be a property linked to recursion) reflected in five-phase where our current perspective is 'stuck' in the realm of METAL, this realm is exaggerated and so the energy flow is in need of modification and that comes through understanding species-nature and working from there - IOW as the IC does, general-to-particular, Our consciousness-nature stems from the particular-to-general and as such is half-way in the process and not aware of it!

Read my comments on five-phase and the IC etc in http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/icfive0.html

The IDM material 'transcends' the A VS B perspective in that its focus is on what is possible and as such covers all bases rather than a particular base. That said, my research is such that I am led to favour the emergence of idealism from materialism - not idealism VS materialism. The BENEFITS of either perspective is determined by context but with our consciousness-nature we can pre-empt things, refine our skills in idealist and materialist thinking and so 'integrate' better with the Universe.

Chris

 

[martin]

Ahem, I would like to make a few statements:

(1) Each of us is the ONE

(2) We are MANY

Is (1) reality and (2) illusion or the other way around?
I prefer to embrace both statements, because both seem to be true, that is what life tells me every minute.
We are both the ONE _and_ I am not you.
I don't mind the paradox, I don't try to resolve it, I rather embrace it. So:

(3) Life is a paradox

And last but not least:

(4) Please forget 1, 2 and 3. The ultimate truth is unthinkable.

Martin

 

[bradford_h]

Unsolicited Opinion from Meister Eckhart

And of course, if you are wholly that One, you shall remain so, even where distinctions are....and separation would be one to you, so nothing could stand in your way. The One remains the One in thousands of thousands of stones as much as in four stones.

 

[frandoch]

Hi there,

One of the problems with 'mystical' experiences is that they are 'one-offs' and therefore not amenable to the 'scientific method' of 'repeatability'.

The same goes for casting the coins for a 'Yi' reading. This is why the arguments about probabilities re. the coin method vs. the yarrow stalk method are flawed.

Michael F.

 

[chrislofting]

Hi Martin,

you wrote:
>
> Ahem, I would like to make a few statements:
>
> (1) Each of us is the ONE
>

in the realm of consciousness-nature, yes. we consider ourselves to be wholes.

> (2) We are MANY
>

in the realm of species-nature yes in that we are all parts.

> Is (1) reality and (2) illusion or the other way around?

species-nature is where we, as members of a collective, interface with the universe and as such is a realm of the unconscious in that the interactions are through instincts and habits - stimulus/response.

species-nature is also the realm of the collective unconscious which 'contains' archetypes we all share as species-members (e.g. the sense of 'wholeness' etc). The basic, raw, qualities used to derive meaning, those identified in IDM reside 'here'.

consciousness-nature seems to have emerged from species-nature and as such reflects (a) a parts perspective on reality where consciousness-nature reflects the development of 'high details' processing by the species that allows for refinements of instincts/habits, and (b) a wholes perspective in the form of a source of original ideas etc possible due to the high precision skills.
With consciousness-nature we also have a source for multiple minds in the one brain where the minds reflect parts of consciousness being 'set off' by a particular context.

Issues re interactions with, interpretations of, reality come about due to the distinct differences in species-nature vs consciousness-nature and these are detectable through analysis of how we process sensory 'paradox' (http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/paradox.html).

Thus, if you stay in either box that fine, but try and interpret things from both boxes, species-nature and consciousness-nature and you will get 'issues'.

Species-nature as such works in parallel. Consciousness-nature more in serial - to think immediately puts one in serial mode. The overall issues of consciousness-nature is its embodiment where it seeks to 'break free' ;-)

> I prefer to embrace both statements, because both seem to be
> true, that is what life tells me every minute.

sure. There is a parallel reality just as there is a serial reality.

> We are both the ONE _and_ I am not you.

We are all one in the form of the integrated species.
We are all individuals in the form of being PARTS of the species.
We are all conscious individuals in being self-referencing, our own 'wholes'.

Paradox comes when consciousness fails to recognise its PARTS nature when in relationship to the species. In such 'paradoxes' as the Necker Cube, your species-ness (which is more A AND B oriented) will see a complex line drawing, an integrated system, a whole, but not for long in that your parts perspective, and with it your consciousness perspective, will zoom-in for details and in doing so will 'discover' what appears to be two wholes sharing the same space. Since the parts perspective is exclusive, A XOR B, so our brain will oscillate to present these 'wholes' as first one and then the other etc etc.

Our species-nature is more 'right brained' and reflects things received by the senses 'AS IS' - its realm is of integration with the universe and so a focus on symmetry, on a NON-LOCAL reality.

Our consciousness-natue is more 'left brained' and reflects things derived from, exaggerated from, the 'AS IS' data to become "AS INTERPRETED" data. THIS realm is a source of illusion/delusion when compared to the species-nature BUT it is also 'real' when we stay in its box - IOW we ignore the species-nature.

Zoom-in on all of this and the 'left brain, right brain' distinctions are not so rigid, they are generals where the same patterns of differences are tracable down to the level of the neuron - dendrites (input areas) are "AS IS", species-nature (waves, continuous, wholes), axons (output areas) are "AS INTERPRETED", consciousness-nature (discreteness, parts).

The processes of dynamics allows for complex patterns of expression to emerge from 'mindless' neural activity. The increased complexity in the processing of parts, of harmonics of the whole, seems to have allows for the 'linking of the dots' to give us 24/7 consciousness. In lower lifeforms the 'seeds' of this appear in levels of awareness limited to minutes or hours.

Chris.

 

[martin]

Hi Chris,

You wrote that our species-nature is more 'right brained' and our consciousness-nature is more 'left brained'.
I thought that your dichotomy species nature - consciousness nature was more like 'old brain' (or 'reptilian brain' ?) versus 'new brain'.

The precision and consciousness aspects are also not clear to me.

- precision: it seems that you attribute precision to consciousness-nature and it can indeed come up with very precise descriptions (or maps), as in mathematics, physics and so on.
But instinctual/habitual behavior can also be amazingly precise. And conscious thought can be very vague ... (as in the mind of this poster

)

- consciousness: you wrote 'In lower lifeforms the 'seeds' of this appear in levels of awareness limited to minutes or hours.'
Does 'awareness' imply that a lower life form also 'has' consciousness-nature, although in a more limited way?
Or do you mean 'intellect' (or something that comes near) when you use the term 'consciousness' (which for me implies awareness)?

Martin

 

[cal val]

Chris...

How fast do you type?

Val

 

[martin]

Do you mean how many kilometers/minute?

 

[davidl]

Dharma,
If I understand correctly your saying, someone can distinguish the illusion from reality, sorry thats an illusion. You also describe those that believe in a creator as feeling superior or holier than those who dont, sorry thats crap, in fact it is possibly a reflection of your own feelings of superiority towards 'believers' thats coming right back at you. What you and Chris are failing to see is that the 'scientific method' has been perfected by various spiritual systems and has developed past the stage that the current European modern scientific method finds itself. Fortunately some of these advanced systems are still maintained, although over the last few hundred years European culture has done its best to destroy as many people or documents necessary to eliminate them from the consciousness of our species. This current stage is what has been called by hindu mystics as the 'mundane' phase. Bodies are dissected, readings are taken of electrical impulses, experiments are carried out to determine what chemicals make up the body etc.
The methods I am more familiar with to further my development have also been tried, tested, recorded , debated for thousands of years, they need no special holiness to learn and are available to all who care to move out of the 'mundane' sciences into the 'spiritual' sciences.
My description of viewing future events is actually no big deal in these systems, its just another step, towards remembering our true innate skills, those that have been bashed out of us over the centuries by well meaning or not so well meaning pragmatists, those skills that lie dormant in all of us.

Chris,
I will ask the question again, does your 'neuronal' theory have an answer for the ability to view future events. If not then maybe you should open your mind to the possibility that this theory is faulty and at best limited. If so , please explain. By the way a simple reply such as "no, my current theory does not allow for the mind to view future events" will suffice, then we may be on track to discuss this in more depth.

 

[chrislofting]

Hi Martin,

You Wrote:
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> You wrote that our species-nature is more 'right brained'
> and our consciousness-nature is more 'left brained'.
> I thought that your dichotomy species nature - consciousness
> nature was more like 'old brain' (or 'reptilian brain' ?)
> versus 'new brain'.
>

The generic dichotomy is differentiate/integrate. A dichotomy is a dimension but too generic to get details. Applying recursion this can be mapped-out to what we call a dimension geometrically (as in the sequence of hexagrams derived from recursion of yin/yang, or the x-axis or y-axis etc in a graph) I have pointed out in previous posts, this dimension applies left/right but also front/back and surface/core and in fact, when we keep zooming-in to the neurology, this dimension reflects a fractal that is sourced in the nature of the neuron where the axon is differentiating and the dendrites integrating.

If I take the brain and spinal chord out of the body and lay it out I have a tree structure with a trunk (spinal chord) and branching (bifurcations aka dichotomisations) at the top (reptillian, mammallian, neo-mammallian). The hemispheres of the neomammallian contain more branching etc (ventral pathways, dorsal pathways, different lobes, sensory band, motor band etc etc) and the hemispheres are reflected in, have their origins in, the mammalian in the limbic system to a lesser degree of differentiation (thus we have the amygdala and hippocampus with 'left' and 'right' expressions and the whole system looking a bit like a ram's horn). In the limbic system you will also find a switching system (thalamus etc). This 'split' is also reflected in the reptillian in the pons and Reticular Activating System (RAS) but again to a lesser degree of differentiation.

As such the hemispheres of the neocortex are like giant sensors of differentations and integrations where new, unlabelled, data is spread across the hemispheres but once labelled and integrated, upon recall, that information will light-up lesser areas, more concentrated and so reflecting an encapsulation. Running in parallel as well as in series are the other 'brains' to give us both conscious and unconscious interactions with reality.

Thus all neuron-dependent lifeforms, when dealing with the UNKNOWN aka approximate will show a right bias in initial processing, reflecting the need to integrate surrounding data to aid in identification. Presented with a KNOWN we see left bias in processing.

In this 'tree' of the brain, the main sensory systems are crowded around the branches (vision, taste, smell, audition) whereas tactile/kinesthetic senses are all over the body (and as such feed into the spinal chord as roots feed into a trunk - reflecting the source of 'nourishment' for this 'tree' is information sucked-in from the context) -- although there is also a 'brain' in the gut and it is reasonably autonomous - see:

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_105441.html
http://www.aikidoaus.com.au/dojo/docs/2nd_braina.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060930721/104-1857489-0883910?v=glance

Note that the realm of touch allows us to feel radiation, as such some seem to be able to feel vivid colours etc. (also see any text on synesthesia, or read my page http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/synth.html where we have, for example, people who experience auditory harmonics (chords) as colours, where colour is the harmonics of vision.)

> The precision and consciousness aspects are also not clear
> to me.
>

the dimension of differentiate/integrate has different units of measure for the elements. A focus on differentiation is a focus on exaggeration, to make something 'stick out'. Differentiation is also associated with derivation of parts from a whole, to cut the whole up, to derive its constituents. Thus the unit of measurement for differentiation is at the level of the 'dot' or the 'one'. VERY precise where at the level of the 'dot' we are at the level of the dimensionless and this also moves us into 'clarity' in perspective where the dot reflects a node in a network of dots - which is what holograms are made of dots in patterns of interference.

Integration is associated with a focus on pulling things together and is dependent on a coordinates system, as holograms require a particular frequency, such that the unit of measure is no less than a PAIR - two dot resolution power and as such LESS precise than differentiation but close to 'reality' as we know it (an integrated, thermodynamic whole rather than a differentiated, mechanistic 'whole').

We can see this interaction of differentiate/integrate, precise/approximate, operating in the eye where we have the distinctions of fovea and parafovea (and note that our brains are very attuned to vision etc). The parafovea is the external areas surrounding the fovea. The parafovea is more generic in deriving information in that it lacks the precision of the fovea and is more sensitive to FORMS, edge-detection, generic pattern matching etc. The fovea is high detail, colour vision etc etc

The elements that make-up the eye reflect the elements of the neuron:

rods&cones - dendrites (input)
bipolar cells - neuron body (soma)
ganglion cells - axon (optic nerve feeding into brain)

BUT there is also a very generic form of communication using hormones where direct light onto the ganglions and a hormone is released that resets diurnal/circadian rhythms.

At the level of the hemispheres, partial LEFT hemisphere damage will affect expressions of precision. For example, asked 'what is the answer to 2 + 3', a left-damaged person (still able to speak) would say 3 or 8 or 7 etc but never 2million or 'rain clouds' etc What we see here is a sense of APPROXIMATION at work trying to compensate for a loss in 'dot' precision, as such the answers are close but not 'spot on'.

I have re-labelled the differentiate/integrate dimension as the 'dimension of precision' where the integrating 'end' is focused on the symmetry, balanced, un-differentiated. In the neocortex, and so left/right distinctions, the realm of integration LACKS the 'dot' precision of the realm of differentiations and culturally reflects the processing of information through IMPLICATION, the use of geometric intepretations, linking of 'dots' to form patterns that *imply* meaning.

This is the realm of approximations, of charts, card spreads, stone patterns, tea leaf patterns, etc etc. This part of the brain is VERY good at pattern matching, blending-IN, as well as processing metaphors (IOW detecting symbolic representations, signs etc where the message is BEHIND the expression - and so IMPLICIT in form)

As you move along the dimension, and so towards increased differentation, you shift precision from a generic, unary form (integrating) to a strongly binary form (differentiating A from NOT-A) and you also move from a geometric perspective to an algebraic perspective. (go down to the level of characteristics associated with fundamental particles and you find the SAME patterns - see http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/symmetry.html )

Thus at the level of pure integration all is 'one' but implicitly-so in that to *express* that means you are already differentiating! (the tao that can be spoken of is NOT the true tao).

At the level of differentiation the 'one' is clearly expressed but as standing out from the background, the MANY.

With all of this differentiating/integrating we have to add our attention system that acts to focus and so isolate, encapsulate 'something' and that has an affect on our interpretations of reality, iow if you think too much it can screw-up 'instinctive' behaviours - like trying to watch your feet as you run up some stairs.

With the attention system and the dimension of precision we have to add the NATURAL function of oscillation across the brain. Individuals will have subtle differences in timing such that excessive accumulated time over one area (the differentiating for example) will affect general mental expression. Thus too much accumulated time over the right hemisphere (for most) will elicit depression due to the fact that the individual is poorly defined due to the overall integrating nature where our personal identity requires differentiating!


This is all covered in the IDM material including abstracts, references etc etc.

> - precision: it seems that you attribute precision to
> consciousness-nature and it can indeed come up with very
> precise descriptions (or maps), as in mathematics, physics
> and so on.
> But instinctual/habitual behavior can also be amazingly
> precise. And conscious thought can be very vague ... (as in
> the mind of this poster [ biggrin ])
>

The precision of consciousness-nature is to 'dots', that of our species-nature to 'fields', a field of dots ;-) Precision comes in when I LABEL a field (or dot) and so remove any sense of 'approximation', of 'waving of hands'. Another way to look at it is in resolution power. The right has a 'dot' size almost the size of the field - gets into pattern matching, edge detection, 'holistic' mappings etc - e.g. the species-nature is the realm of instincts.

An instinct is a parallel process in that a lot of parts of the body are linked-in to the expression. That expression is a 'dot' but a big one! The development of our consciousness-nature has led to the development of subtlty in communications where we serialise the communications and in doing so move from coarse grain to fine grain processing, smaller dots, all linked together to express a whole (as we do in spoken language).

> - consciousness: you wrote 'In lower lifeforms the 'seeds'
> of this appear in levels of awareness limited to minutes or
> hours.'
> Does 'awareness' imply that a lower life form also 'has'
> consciousness-nature, although in a more limited way?

for us our consciousness-nature is made-up of (a) self-awareness and (b) others-awareness as in aware of other MINDS (this is called a 'theory of mind'). In our primate cousins, chimps etc show (a) not (b) - as do human infants upto about 2 where the surrounding population come across as 'automatons', there to do ones bidding.

Drop down to 'lower' lifeforms (e.g. chicks) and there is awareness but limited to hours unless strongly re-inforced. This reflects the linkage of MEMORY that gives a sense of continuity. Furthermore, the chicks seem to have a limited sense of structure, work more off harmonics. For example (see the work of Stephen Rose on this), if given something red to eat, and that something causes sickness, so the chick will avoid all things red, regardless of their shape. IOW their 'objectness' is secondary to their 'relational' element, the colour that is a harmonic of vision. This avoidence will last for a few hours only, indicating a loss of awareness and the importance of memory in awareness.

Interstingly, some of this sort of behaviour re ignoring shape/cut and being over-sensitive to harmonics is reflected in autistic humans.

The overall emphasis on differentiations/integrations we see expressed in the brain 'feed out' into the collective in general, expressed through our interactions in emotion (derived from the fight/flight dichotomy - see http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/emote.html )

The I Ching reflects the differentiate/integrate dichotomy and as such is a reflection of us. ;-)

Chris.

 

[chrislofting]

Hi Michael,

you wrote:
>
> Hi there,
>
> One of the problems with 'mystical' experiences is that they
> are 'one-offs' and therefore not amenable to the 'scientific
> method' of 'repeatability'.
>

true.

> The same goes for casting the coins for a 'Yi' reading. This
> is why the arguments about probabilities re. the coin method
> vs. the yarrow stalk method are flawed.
>

umm.. false-ish. Context plays a part here. In the yarrow stick method there is a bias to yin and so to integration, to perspectives of the collective, to issues of devotion and generic spirituality. A such, yin hexagrams would be closer to reflecting 10th century BC reality that yang hexagrams that would be 'exaggerations' ;-)

In our times (21st century AD) this distortion of yin/yang is not so strong, although in some cases we have gone to the extreme of YANG being more reflective of the collective!. As such the BINARY perspective of heads XOR tails would elicit hexagrams more in tune with reality. (or perhaps we can do a reverse yarrow, given the results reverse yin and yang to give a modern day bias! ;-))

That said, the IDM focus is that it does not matter what you use to derive a hexagram since you are deriving a part 'randomly' - use the proactive approach to get a better 'fit' ;-)

Chris