Theoretical relationship question, hex 38 and 40

[lightofdarkness]

Hilary,

Andreas and Stephen missed the point due to their 'traditional' focus on change across hexagrams for divination etc. My original 2000 page re line POSITION values (and its extension of late - now at http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/linemean.html) is about STRUCTURE of hexagrams, core innateness derived from the METHOD used to derive the hexagrams. Andreas, being the mathematician of the two, correctly applied operations from analytical logic on changing A into B etc as part of the divination process, and that all done with the traditional I Ching in mind (as far as Stephen is concerned since that has been his 'rigid' focus all along.... and so my sending of that email to you to forward to him re THIS material)

We are NOT talking divination methods here, we are talking primary methods of categorisations of symbols of meaning through how our brain uses recursion of dichotomies to do that. This action in fact reflects the method of deriving codons for DNA/RNA representations from their source dichotomy of pyramidines/purines. IOW what we seem to be witnessing is the same method for encoding 'meaning' derivation at the molecular biology level (and that includes code for a structure of some form) being utilised at the level of consciousness (or more so just 'underneath' it, where local context allows for differences in expressions, phenotype, and we are covering the genotype-to-phenotype dynamic).

What we have here is the mapping of the 'genes' of the I Ching through each hexagram, where the method described works like a key to unlock a door into the hexagram to show us its particular characteristics. There is nothing about derivation here, we are not going from A to B, we are zooming-in on A where it is 'programmed' by all of the other hexagrams - it is the line POSITIONS configurations that are giving us the information.

As such, these patterns come from recursion and are applicable to any system derived from recursion of differentiating/integrating (or synonymous dichotomies - and so it covers revealing our 'internal' natures due to the ability to use the same methods on the MBTI typology system etc etc)

The ONLY historical reference to this perspective that I am aware of is in the vague SINGLE LINE POSITION associations given in the traditional text re line position 6 = sage, 5 = king, 4 = minister etc etc. The 'truth' of the matter is that these associations in fact reflect the characteristics of their associated 'controlling' hexagrams (see the other recent thread on line position meanings in the IC) - where line position 6 = hex 23, 5 = hex 8, 4 = hex 16, 3 = hex 15, 2 = hex 7, 1 = hex 24.
Note in this the traditional number pairings as well.

This weaving of all hexagrams into expression by one reflects the dynamics of genetics. THAT is what we are dealing with here, not basic application of logic operators to I Ching from the LOCAL context perspective of divination and so changing lines etc etc.

If you go back to my original site, ddiamond site, there are references there to a discovered 'pattern' regarding pairs of lines, as in 1 & 6, 2 & 5 etc where the 1 & 6, if 'flipped', elicit a description of the 'mud' or 'clay' from which the original hexagram seemed to have developed. What in fact was happening was this 'flipping' of mine was in fact application of hexagram 27 to any other hexagram, using the method described (and so XOR-ing) - hex 27 covers the concept of skeletal form, building in need of furnishing etc., and 'flipping' lines 1 and 6 in ANY hexagram will bring-out that perspective as filtered through whichever hexagram we have 'flipped' 1 & 6. This is all about STRUCTURE, not divination etc.

So ARCHETYPE -> CONTEXT -> EXPRESSION (X -> Y -> Z) shows us the X-ness of the context, where what we are focused upon is that context represented by a hexagram. The archetype, the gene, is trying to 'express' itself but THROUGH the Y, and so there is varying degrees of filtering going on. THAT expression is described by analogy to the characteristics of hexagram Z (call it phenotype).

The core ordering of hexagrams in binary form - 00000 to 11111 reflects the nature of the realm of POTENTIALS (000000 - 1 hexagram of YIN expression) vs ACTUALS (63 patterns of YANG expression).

You can only reveal these patterns easily by using the 'natural' sequence of yin/yang, that derived from recursion of yin/yang into what we can call a binary ordering. All other sequences are DERIVED and as such will reflect some particular 'bias' in perspective placed 'over' the basic structure. There is reference to this focus in IC texts but the meaning is 'vague' (as in such a focus on King Wen 'overlaying' Fu Hsi etc - Fu Hsi is the binary ordering and reflects STRUCTURE. Once one understands that core level THEN all else follows and is easier to comprehend. - playing with the 'traditional' sequence etc is playing with a particular EXPRESSION of the IC, not its general STRUCTURE.)

SO, the local focusing on XOR/AND dynamics by Andreas and Stephen, IMHO did not cover the above material - their focus was on dynamics, divination processes, not on core universal structure, core elements of meaning, which is my focus ;-)

As such, what is covered here is a MAJOR contribution to our understanding of meaning derivation IN GENERAL as well as to the IC in particular... now we have to flesh it all out more and consider consequences re our being, our source of meaning, applications to divination etc etc etc

Chris.

 

[lightofdarkness]

Hilary,

Just to make the point. I reread their paper and Andreas and Stephen use the 'difference' operator (aka XOR) on 22 and 50 to give 54. They then comment:

"The difference between 50 Vessel and 22 Adorning is 54 Marrying the Maiden. This difference operator can represent energy difference between two gua or the application of the energy of one gua to another in order to generate change"

They missed the 'big picture' in the context of structure. Whis is in fact at work here is we see how 50 'facades' itself, the expression of 22 through 50, the 22-ness of 50, the impression 50 creates, what we 'see' superficially - and that is of a lot of initial expending of energy - as reflected in the generic characteristics of 54 with its 'abnormal', seemingly 'immature' nature --- and this 'fits' the nature of the caldron as we cook its contents ;-)

Our brains will use XOR to extract from a pool of POTENTIALS (BOTH/AND) an ACTUAL. Here the POTENTIAL is the archetype of 22 working THROUGH 50 as a filter to give us the EXPRESSION described by analogy to 54.

Go back and re-read their paper, it is all LOCAL focus, logical operators applied to hexagrams in the context of the traditional I Ching perspective of divination etc. IOW it starts 'in' the context of the I Ching. My material starts in the context of meaning derivation in general, and so in the brain, and THEN moves that into the I Ching where the I Ching is seen as a metaphor for what the brain does.

Their paper is fine, within the bounds of their focus; but that focus did not cover what I am on about here.

Chris.

 

[lightofdarkness]

BTW Hilary (et al)

re the above identifying of the '22-ness' of hexagram 50. We found that this is expressed by analogy to hexagram 54. 54 covers issues of initial high energy expenditure, be it of necessity or not. As such this expenditure reflects what we SEE in the intensity in the 'cooking' taking place in the Cauldron represented in 50.

22-ness is described by a focus on a facade, the external appearence and as such 54 'fits' this expression when seen in relation to the tranformation process of 50. Given this 22-ness giving us what something appears like externally, the implication is that the opposite of 22, 47, can be used to extract what is going on INSIDE, behind the mask.

When we apply this 'rule' to our particular example, so if the exterior is 'reflecting' characteristics of 54, then the inside must be reflecting the characteristics of the opposite of 54 - 53, gradual development, maturing; good terms to describe what is happening inside the cauldron to the raw materials being 'cooked'.

Thus, for any hexagram, to see how what that hexagram represents looks like from the outside, apply 22 to that hexagram to bring out its 22-ness. TO see the INSIDE, apply 47 to the hexagram to bring out its 47-ness.

Chris.

 

[martin]

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

Martin, you may well be happy here, if you are algebraically inclined...<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh yes, I love 'mathematical fun'.

But I should say that I have a somewhat different take on this because I really don't believe that the meaning of hexagrams (or meaning in general) can be derived in a systematic methodical way.
The I Ching and what is 'behind' it is essentially irrational IMO. What we find when we look behind the I Ching are maybe fragments of a system, a method with fixed rules, but there is always something that escapes from the box.
I think it could not be otherwise because a completely logical oracle cannot represent life.
So, although systems are interesting - and useful sometimes - the mystery remains.
Let it be.

 

[candid]

Being inept in mathematical reasoning, I'm not qualified to comment on the accuracy of these formulas. However what Martin says here rings true to me. There is something stiff and un-living about the 'this means this and that means that' definitive and conclusive approach that renders the IC impotent to influence one soul to another, like computer generated music or art. IMO, of course.

 

[hilary]

Chris, I didn't mean to imply 'it's all been done before'. Obviously it hasn't. I was looking more at this as a way in which the relationship you're talking about between hexagrams is or can be involved in traditional divination.

I actually find the more incisive, detailed way you are talking about the meaning of the relationship to be very helpful. If I get my head round it properly - in such a way that it sticks for more than 3 minutes after I stop reading, for instance - then I think it will make a substantial difference to the usefulness of 'change operators' for me and the people I read for.

I imagine talking to someone who received hexagram 50 with lines 1,3 and 6 changing, about how the Vessel is expressing or presenting itself to them
in the form of the particular challenges of 54. Perhaps! (I need to work more on this first, try to integrate it with what I already know of yang change operators, test it out on a lot of my own readings, etc, etc...)

Probably this wasn't what you intended to achieve at all. Hope you can regard it as a bonus rather than a source of exasperation, though.

Martin, Candid - I agree about systems, logic and the limits thereof. But they make good doorways, I think.

 

[lightofdarkness]

Martin,

>
> Oh yes, I love 'mathematical fun'. [ happy ] But I should
> say that I have a somewhat different take on this because I
> really don't believe that the meaning of hexagrams (or
> meaning in general) can be derived in a systematic
> methodical way.

Your wrong - just ;-) The I Ching is a METAPHOR for what the brain does in its derivation of POSSIBLE meanings, all derived from recursion of differentiating/integrating (WHAT/WHERE). The DETERMINED generals are then CUSTOMISED by context to elicit DIFFERENCES - and so one hexagram can have an infinite number of labels but will reflect in all of those particulars a GENERAL pattern of meaning.

IMHO you need to understand how your brain/mind works at the general, unconscious, levels to appreciate what is going on here. (see reference material links at the bottom of my IDM title page - http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/idm001.html)

> The I Ching and what is 'behind' it is essentially
> irrational IMO.

The frontal lobes of your brain are the source of 'rational' behaviours in the form of DELAYING emotional responses. This DELAY element is a property of a mediating consciousness.

The I Ching, as in the EXPRESSIVE parts, is a product of consciousness where we use words/labels to represent things. BEHIND the expression are emotions and behind them are core qualities derived from the dynamics of the neurology (and that includes the source of Mathematical symbolisms - no "ideal forms" here!)

SO -- yes the roots of the I Ching are, in a psychological, Jungean sense, 'irrational' in that they are sourced in the sensing/intuiting realm rather than thinking/feeling.

But the nature of the rational is a sense for suppressing the expressions of the irrational, to suspend 'instincts' to allow for increase in bandwidth to allow for 'considered' response. This allows for the 'refinement' of instincts over the short term expenditure of energy to then allow for the working off those refined instincts to conserve energy over the long term.

The success of consciousness has allowed for the perpetuation of this focus on delay and mediation, such that we over delay, over mediate, and waste a lot of energy labelling everything and maintaining that database of labels! ;-)

> What we find when we look behind the I
> Ching are maybe fragments of a system, a method with fixed
> rules, but there is always something that escapes from the
> box.

No. The box is so huge as to be outside of your conscious experiences. It is so GENERAL as to allow for a wide range of labels to apply to any general form - the sense of 'wholeness' is fixed by the neurology, WHAT that is applied-to is up to local conditions, a mix of physiological, psychological, and sociological filterings.

WITHIN that box form specialisations and the I Ching is one of those. These specialisations reflect the associating of generic qualities with particular contexts form which emerges a lexicon to ensure that those specialist perspectives do not clash, are clearly differentiated from, other specialisations.

> I think it could not be otherwise because a completely
> logical oracle cannot represent life.

Full spectrum Logic comes from, is a part of, life. I think you fail to recognise that the formal logic as taught by Science is 'flawed' in that it excludes TIME from its representations - full spectrum Logic needs to cover the temporal as well as the spacial, and so the dialectical as well as the analytical - see http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/logic.html

Your assessments are, as such, pre-mature (54) due to a demand for, a need for, 'closure' perhaps? Science is not closed but IS contained by the rage of senses, both in our physiology and their extension in our equipment, such that, IN GENERAL, there is a closed system at work. Specialisations then REFLECT that system where meaning WITHIN the specialisation is defined by the bounds set by the qualities - as in the bounds derived from recursion of yin/yang, where the recursion can go on until e can no longer detect difference, it all becomes a 'continuum'. ;-)

> So, although systems are interesting - and useful sometimes
> - the mystery remains.
> Let it be.

Ah -- IOW you dont want to go there in case it 'upsets' your belief systems ;-) You can do it Martin, it just takes a step...

Chris.

 

[lightofdarkness]

Candid, Martin, Hilary,

what you guys dont yet get is that your consciousness is a PART of your whole nature - it is a TOOL for delaying information processing, refining it, categorising it, and allowing for eventual habituation. As such it is a tool of mediation that will disappear once its job is done (and so one habituates the hexagrams, they become intuitive in understandings etc and you can throw away the book.)

Since our culture over-mediates so we seem to be perpetually 'on' - not so; consciousness has a 'stand-by' mode when we work off autopilot ;-)

Hilary,

You need to focus a bit more on this - THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DIVINATION PROCESSES IT DEALS WITH BASIC STRUCTURES OF MEANING. That needs to be clearly understood first, prior to 'extending' things into divination etc.

As such, the LINE POSITION focus unlocks a key to the INNATE natures of a hexagram - so dont confuse divination 'changing lines 1,3,6' with what is being covered here.

What is being covered is the equivalent of the genes in each hexagram that determine its general expression that is then customised through filters.

Our microbiology uses the SAME method of recursion to derive codons from the purine/pyramidine dichotomy. Those codons form our genetic code. The METHOD is also reflected in the IC and as such gives us the SAME properties - codes that represent meanings.

THis is not about 'changing lines 1,3,6 in 50 gives us 54' - there is no transformation FROM 50 to 54 involved here.

This is about the fact that the recursion will encode all parts into each whole and how we can detect those parts, their expressions, through a whole where that whole is a particular hexagram.

Thus, ALL hexagrams are 'genes' for all others and the mix of one hexagram's expression with each of the others elicits an expression.

Thus, if you take hexagram 50 as the one to focus upon, the 22-ness of that hexagram is extracted by XOR-ing 22 with 50. The result is 54.

The nature of 22, IN GENERAL, is on a facade, the outside of the boundary as such. What we are seeing here is the EXPRESSION 22 IN 50.

It is like detecting the gene for eye colour where the expression, phenotype, is 'blue' or 'green' in 50, 'red' or 'brown' in some other form.

So, to generalise the process, to see the outside of any hexagram, XOR it with 22.

To see the inside of any hexagram, XOR it with 47.

hexagrams are REPRESENTATIONS of whole qualities that have parts. Through the method covered we are in a position to see the parts where those parts are 'genes' that are expressing themselves through this particular 'whole'.

I dont think you guys 'get' the magnitude of what we are covering here so I ask you all to focus a little more attention on this - I assure you it will be worth your while!

Chris.

 

[lightofdarkness]

Just to emphasise the point about individual consciousness. At any moment, ALL of the hexagrams of the I Ching are applicable but locsal context will 'sort' that list into a sequence of 'bestfit'/'worstfit'. Our consciousness is 'attracted' to the light, the 'best fit' emd, but in doing so marginalises the rest that in fact contribute to the whole. It is the failure to consider that contribution that elicits the sense of 'uncertainty' that comes with our 'reflections' ;-)

These properties applied to the I Ching apply to consciousness itself. Thus the WHOLE of our being spans the differentiate/integrate dichotomy but out 'individual' awareness operates out of the 'bright lights' end, the differentiating end, the mediating element of 'yang-ness'. We thus marginalise sub-conscious, unconscious aspects of 'mind' in our reflections. What the recognition of this process does is allow us to review the 'full spectrum' prior to expression - which means we use our frontal lobes 'rationality' to aid in integrating hidden 'irrational' elements of our being with the 'rational' to express a whole ;-)

IOW our current neurosciences etc has 'discovered' the GENERAL, full spectrum, of our derivation of meaning and we work from there.

Chris.

 

[pakua]

"I think it could not be otherwise because a completely logical oracle cannot represent life. "

Why can't it? Maybe there's a logic we haven't figured out yet.... the laws of chaos etc

Chris, did the people who created these hexagrams deliberately use these binary sequences, or are you extrapolating after the fact, and they happen to fit your particular line of reasoning. If they had used a different sequence, how would that have affected your theories?

 

[martin]

Hi Chris,

You wrote:
"Ah -- IOW you don't want to go there in case it 'upsets' your belief systems ;-) You can do it Martin, it just takes a step..."

Hey, I can turn that around and ask: don't you want to allow what I called the mystery because it might upset your belief systems?
You can do it Chris, it just takes a step ...
LOL.

Rational, irrational, logical, etcetera - there are confusing semantic issues here so maybe I should try to rephrase my point.
It's really about map making. As you know, if we make a flat map of the surface of the earth, we introduce distortions. If we start at the north pole and extend the map toward the south pole the distortion will become bigger and near the south pole it becomes huge. A small circle around the south pole will be represented on this map as a big circle near its boundary and the south pole itself is left out.
Because of these distortions, that are unavoidable if one projects the surface of a 3D globe on a 2D plane, we use local maps and all these local maps together form an 'atlas'. The local maps are not completely accurate but accurate enough for practical purposes and if we want more precision we use smaller maps.
In mathematics this idea is generalized. The globe + the atlas is an example of a 'manifold'.

What I am saying is that I don't believe that one algorithm can generate the meanings of all the 64 hexagrams. An algorithm will generate some of the meanings quite accurately, other meanings will come out somewhat distorted and for some hexagrams the distortion will be huge.
This is analogous to saying that there is no 'algorithmic' map that can represent the meaning space of all the 64 hexagrams accurate enough.
Whatever map you devise, there will always be hexagrams that are distorted to such an extent as to be unrecognizable.

Now, if you say that this is 'just' a belief, you are right of course.
I have no way to prove that there is no map that covers the whole territory. But if you think that such a map does exist (and I think you do, am I right?) than that is also a belief. Can you prove it?

I don't mean 'proof by reasoning'. You showed already (on this forum and in your own pages) that your method is quite well grounded in neurobiology and other disciplines. No problem so far, but what I (and maybe others) would like to have is some kind of empirical proof.
One of the things that strikes me is that when you use your method you always seem to come up with something that is not very far away from the traditional meanings of the hexagrams. But you know the traditional I Ching. Is it possible that your reasoning is influenced by what you know about the I Ching? I think you will try to avoid being influenced by it, but that is not so easy.

So my question is: what will happen when you explain your method to someone who doesn't know anything about the I Ching and ask him or her to interpret the hexagrams with your method. Will he or she come up with meanings that are not too far away from the traditional meanings or the meanings that you derive?
Based on my belief I expect that the results will be mixed. He or she will get some hexagrams right (i.e. near your or the traditional meanings), some slightly wrong and some completely wrong (unrecognizable).
But it remains to be seen.

 

[martin]

Hi Pakua,

We crossed posts. Perhaps I answered your question (why can a logical oracle not represent life?) already. As to chaos, the phenomena that are studied in chaos theory are still logical in my book because the systems that behave chaotically are described by precise (and often fairly simple) recursive functions.
But the term 'logical' can be confusing in this context, so I avoided it in my last post and talked instead about map making.

What we see nowadays in many disciplines is that people don't use only one map (model, theory). They use a collection of maps, an 'atlas'. Psychotherapists, for instance, use different psychological models, depending on the problems and needs of the client and their own inclinations. In physics we have different theories for different subjects and it's still not clear if there is a theory (a 'unified theory') that covers all physical phenomena.
And I have the impression that philosophers, on the whole, have given up on the 'one map for everything'. You do not see many Hegels these days.
So, if you look at what is going on in many diciplines the idea that one map for everything (or for a large territory) doesn't and cannot exist is not so strange. Perhaps one day an incarnation of Godel will prove it.

 

[pakua]

Hi Martin,

Maybe just semantics... I agree one map is not enough to encompass all of life, otherwise the map would have to be huge. And yet, we do have world globes, and you can put as much detail on them as you want.

I thought you were saying, a map of life could not be completely logical, in other words, *only* logical, implying there had to be more than logic to it. Why should life not follow logic? Hmm, that implies there is no randomness. Maybe we only call it random when we don't see the beginning of an event, only the end.

 

[candid]

Pakua,

I don't think it is the size of the map but the problem of contour and topography; if I understand Martin's analogy.

Being of a "sound mind", it is to me most clearly expressed in terms of harmonics and timing. It is easy to map an exact scale, but it is harmonics and timing which makes it unpredictable and therefore irreproducible. True, digital processing has emulated exact pitch and cadence, but it lacks the breath and warmth of living tone. This is not to say that emulation modeling is without use, but it is a poor substitute for the sound of a baby crying or wind through the trees.

 

[lightofdarkness]

Hi Martin,

The role of our consciousness is to lift the fog, that is why it has its roots in mediation dynamics. If you prefer to maintain a degree of mystery for personal choice that is up to you; if you dont want to improve/refine the nature of the species etc that is up to you. Disease was a mystery but now we track it down, identify it, take steps to stop or neutralise it - We dont, or most dont, treat disease as some 'affliction' imposed by a 'god' or some 'bad karma' from a past life and so overall 'mysterious' and 'fated'.

The role of consciousness in its mediation dynamic is to differentiate, and then re-integrate what was differentiated but now including the 'knowing' of that original 'undifferentiated' whole.

The issues with consciousness is that it is 'unbridled' to some degree in that the differentiating can be 'manic' and overly done - and so there is the guarantee, derived from revealing the mystery behind dynamic processes, that the more 'cuts' you make the more de-stabilising that can be since the borders created in those cuts lets loose what lives on those borders - complexity/chaos. IOW there is room these days for a little 'discernment' in our cutting - no mystery in that but many who do NOT know these sorts of findings still consider it all a mystery - for some ignorance is bliss! ;-) - what is noteworthy here is that this realm of differentiating can also allow for 'transcendence' but also collapse.

Your focus on map making is a focus on EXPRESSION. To understand what is going on re meaning derivation, where maps are not restricted to visual representations but are allowable in ANY sensory system, one needs to understand, to de-mystify, the source of all representations - and that is not in language a la spoken/written but in qualities rooted in the core system we use for derivation of, and transmission of, meaning - our neurology.

Simply, put, regardless of sense, it is all objects and relationships, aka wholes, parts, static relationships, dynamic relationships. Those are the core categories used in representations (generalise it and the focus is on differentiating/integrating. the OBJECT nature, the THING nature, of differentiating stems form the fact that the act of differentiation PUSHES AWAY all else to assert 'something' (self for us). Particularise it and objects/relationships, differentiating/integrating become nouns and verbs (and apply THAT recursively will give all of the 'variations' on noun/verb categories, including nouns that act like verbs, and verbs that act line nouns)

ALL neuron-dependent life forms will make their maps based on these neuron-derived categories - labelled in neursciences as WHAT/WHERE patterns (WHAT being the specialist term for differentiating activities, WHERE being the specialist term for integrating activities, and recursion gives the full spectrum of possibles derived from 'mixing' these basics. What will differentiate to include WHO and WHICH, where will differentiate to include WHEN and HOW. WHY comes out of consciousness as a value judgment ;-)

Note I ALWAYS supply empirical proof for all of this under the IDM material - read it. ;-) http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/idm001.html (ref lists etc are at the bottom of the TOC page).

> What I am saying is that I don't believe that one algorithm
> can generate the meanings of all the 64 hexagrams.

thats because you are focusing meaning on the EXPRESSIONS layer, what we TALK about. The realm of expressions is the realm of REPRESENTATIONS such that each hexagram can have as many expressed, locally-derived meanings to it as there are people on the planet. BEHIND all of that difference is sameness - the core qualities that we, as a neuron-dependent species, use to 'resonate' meaning - thus reflecting our natural ability to mimic, empathise with other neuron-dependent life forms, be they of our species or others.

> An
> algorithm will generate some of the meanings quite
> accurately, other meanings will come out somewhat distorted
> and for some hexagrams the distortion will be huge.

No. The algorithm identified in IDM, the recursion of what/where qualities, re-labelled to express these qualities in feelings of blending, bonding, bounding, and binding, is one 'hard coded' into all neuron-dependent life forms with increased complexity allowing for increased number of qualities usable in the representation levels of expression.

At the level of expression, the LOCAL levels, the level we are aware of, explicitly communicate in, allows for the association of the core qualities with unique contexts through labels. These associations allow for the creation of specialisations, such as the I Ching, or such as you and me (given the chance, each of us would create our own language to describe reality - it is education that allows us to maintain a constant language, although each generation will have its own terms, re-labellings, of things)

The IDM-identified dynamic sets-down core qualities that span ALL specialisations - and so I use FOUR specialisations as examples - I Ching, MBTI, basic emotions, and the qualities of the types of numbers we use in Mathematics (IOW mathematics is a specialisation as well. The benefits of the methodology described in IDM mean that one specialisation can be used as a source of analogy/metaphor to represent, and flesh-out, another.)

If you go through the "Species I Ching" thread on this list you will find the generic qualities mapped-out for each hexagram where those qualities are the 'base' qualities out of which all of the 'correct' representations are made.

We can go down to whatever level you like, 4096 seems to be the limit for the IC, to derive more generic qualities that we can then re-label to 'fit' a unique context.

In English we have a mix of languages, Old English going back to the celts etc, French, Latin, OldNorse (mostly in the North-Eastern areas of the UK) etc such that there is a lot of redundancy at work (e.g. sick vs ill - one is old english, the other old norse) but behind all of these terms is the ONE set of generic qualities we use as a species.

This is all provable, and it is done in the IDM material where I map core qualities derived from integrating/differentiating to specialist expressions through emotions, to more specialist, rationalist, expressions through the written/spoken word (or mathematical symbolisms! ;-))

The material is rooted in empirical research, not just a priori (but the findings shows how we CAN derive 'facts' from a reasoning in that reasoning comes from, utilises, the same foundations - all we can EVER know is determined by the METHOD in deriving that knowing, and that method takes sensory data and categorises it into patterns of differentiating/integrating that form into categories and from there come concepts, emotions, symbols, metaphors. Included in the metaphors is the specialisations, such as the I Ching) ... if you want to see, experience, the XOR-AND dynamic in your brain, go through the examples of sensory paradox presented in http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/paradox.html. In the realm of meaning, so the I Ching is, as a whole, an AND state of POTENTIALS which we then XOR to draw out the ACTUALS (or what we consider them to be). This dynamic feeds all the way up from 'mindless' sensory paradox to wave/particle duality 'paradox' - created by our consciousness not understanding the dynamics of XOR-AND processing overall)

When I use the I Ching I will often transcend 'traditional' perspectives due to the understanding of what is BEHIND the specialist perspective; this is my argument re 10th century BC perspectives vs 21st century AD perspectives - where it is from that latter focus that the line position material has emerged etc., in that the METHOD is a property of recursion in general, not the I Ching in particular.

Here is an example from the species I Ching - hex 22. It represents the core qualities of contractive bonding operating on a context of expansive bounding - aka a static relationships state (and so 'something' to do with sharing space with another/others) operating within an expanding enclosure, a 'parts' focus as in a definite 'cut' distinguishing 'in here' from 'out there', a rational number quality where the whole is cut into two parts, outside vs inside. Thats it. Thats what comes from recursion of differentiating/integrating and that is what we then customise to ANY context by labelling.

Now try and imagine what you can put into, associate with, that generic quality - A LOT! ;-) That is how each person on the planet could create their own IC but in doing so will 'reflect' their brain at work and so behind all of the WORDS will be found the above generic patterns of 'meaning' which allows us to share understanding in general; to resonate with meanings often derived from the most 'vague' of expressions (and these qualities allow us to communicate through emotions alone in that they 'map' to the same generic categories - thus 22, populated with emotional terms, reflects discernment, quality control, something derived from sadness/grief where we share space with another 'in here' as a loss but from that loss learn discernment), all operating in a context of acceptance).


> So my question is: what will happen when you explain your
> method to someone who doesn't know anything about the I
> Ching and ask him or her to interpret the hexagrams with
> your method. Will he or she come up with meanings that are
> not too far away from the traditional meanings or the
> meanings that you derive?

Should do. The meanings derived from the MBTI, a categorisation system developed independent of the IC, reflect the same qualities as those covered in the IC - the reason being that the MBTI is dependent on dichotomies to categorise and as such reflects the SAME overall dynamic as used in the IC. (http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/MBTIX.htm)

The meanings derived from the categorisation of emotions reflects the same patterns since that categorisation stems from recursion of the fight/flight dichotomy. (http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/emote.html)

There is a draft article on my site called "The Language of the Vague" and that is what the IDM material is dealing with - enough generality to cover a lot, and yet enough particularity to generate usable, particular, meanings - and with our mediating, details-focusing, consciousness we will 'fill in the dots' ;-) (http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/Vague.pdf)

Due to the encoding of the whole into all parts by recursion so ANY dichotomy will map to the basic qualities, the PARTICULARS of that dichotomy, its LABELS, will reflect the CONTEXT to which that dichotomy is applied and so the confines in which all meaning derived is applied.

Chris.

 

[lightofdarkness]

Candid,

all of this IS about harmonics processing where in the brain all meaning is derived etc from neural dynamics focusing on frequencies, wavelengths, amplitudes.

The XOR state extracts a particular frequency working as a 'key' and all meaning is derived in that context. The pool of all keys is the pool of archetypes, all hexagrams. Each hexagram is then a key within which we can derive many patterns of meaning but all 'guided' in expression by that key.

Chris.

 

[RindaR]

Chris,

It scares me a little when I think I might understand -(a little) what I read from you ... I've often wondered what miracle allows us to communicate with each other at all.

Rinda

 

[RindaR]

I see/feel a resonance between "God speaking" creation into existence, to speak one must differentiate, make a mental boundary. hmm...

Rinda

 

[candid]

Chris,

This will probably sound like a really lame question, but I?m speaking to the musician in you, not the scientist.

If I want to plug in and play my Strat (actually, Warmoth/Callaham/Fralin

), for the shear inspirational pleasure of it, why would I need to know all this you are speaking of? How would it enhance the playing experience? How might it enhance the listening experience, either mine or the audience?s?

 

[lightofdarkness]

Candid,

To answer your question, it allows for a refined perspective and so 'better' quality. In music, notes that dont 'fit' the key can sometimes be used as 'passing' notes etc - understanding when and where that can be used intuitively gives you wider scope in your expressions.

In the brain the "AND" nature is the pool of all notes (and so frequencies). The XOR nature is where we take one note, make it the key and then play all other notes in that context. Map each note to a quality and so in some contexts the note will be distorted due to the key requirments - and we will 'feel' that.

What the line position material does, in its context of the I Ching, is show those distortions. Imagine each hexagram as a key and we want to play all of the other notes in that key - but we cant due to the nature of the key; thus note 22 (aka hexagram 22 aka the qualities represented by 22) when played through a particular key will require some augmentation/diminishment etc to 'fit' the key - otherwise all you have is as dischord (or what we label as 'paradoxical') - that is done in the EXPRESSION. So we have:

ARCHETYPE -> CONTEXT -> EXPRESSION to BASIC NOTE -> KEY -> EXPRESSION that can become CHORD -> KEY -> EXPRESSION

IOW the line position material is showing a fundamental property of our being re meaning derivation - the use of harmonics, be they literal or metaphor. It is this dynamic that allows music to be so 'meaningful' and it is this dynamic that is generalised in the mind to cover all XOR-AND dynamics where the recursion gives us all POSSIBLES, the AND, state, out of which we the extract particulars, XOR, to form harmonies/melodies. CHORDS can then be created from basic notes, as we can extract harmonics from them - and so on.

This XOR-AND nature is sourced in the dynamics of our brain in the form of generic differentiating/integrating for ANY sense - and we can go 'buddhist' and include the 'sense' of mind. For references to the visual system doing this (to which our brains have adapted big time and then generalised that adaptation) see http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/general.html

There is a 'holon' format here, where what is XORed from the AND can itself be considered an AND and XORed to bring out some 'hidden' harmonic etc. Holons reflect parts also working as wholes.

The pleasure gained, or the pain felt, at the level of EXPRESSION, of PERFORMANCE, is determined by physioligical, psychological, and sociological 'influences' and as such this realm of expression is VERY diverse. BUT, beneath all of that diversity is structure, sameness, the pool of notes, the dynamics of keys and notes etc that go to allowing you to REPRESENT a core feeling - and so music can project pain or pleasure, it in fact resonates with emotion, and the IDM material shows the categories of emotion are mappable to the IC and in being mappable will show the same 'musical' dynamics.

Understanding all of that allows for precision not only in expression but in the depth of interpreting that expression; on eliciting empathy etc, resonance with the material that transcends the superficial resonace, call it a lack in resolution power, that we often experience due to lack of understanding ourselves.

Chris.

 

[lightofdarkness]

Rinda,

yes this can get a touch scary at times when first understood; the 'a-ha' can be insightful and yet de-stabilising as one has to familiarise oneself with 'new' territory -- all reflected in the dynamics of the trigram of Thunder ;-)

Chris.

 

[candid]

Honestly, Chris, if playing music was that complicated I'd take up building popsicle stick houses. But then no doubt all your same mapping principles would apply there as well.

However, what you said about distortions/expression/harmonics, as it relates to IC does make sense to me. Guess your ideas aren?t as sterile as they sometimes appear.

 

[calumet]

The following is unvarnished, uninformed editorial opinion.

Chris implies that the Yi is a metaphor for how the brain works. I agree, but the key word here is "metaphor." A metaphor is not an exact representation. To say that the Yi works the way the brain does is very like saying that a digital computer works the way the brain does--and a lot of people are saying that these days. I beg to differ. The workings of a digital computer do not precisely mirror the workings of the brain. One runs on numbers; the other runs on chemicals. (Please don't tell me they're fundamentally the same or I'll introduce you to a physicist I know, and then you'll be sorry.) If you try to demonstrate an exact correspondence between a numbers-based system and a chemistry-based system, you're going to distort things pretty significantly in places. However, like a good metaphor, the brain-computer analogy works fairly well in key ways.

Nowadays, the planet is crawling with neurobiologists, psychobiologists, psychoethnobiopaleontologists, Chris, and God knows who-all, each wanting to describe behavior using sexy new computer and math metaphors. Social organization is game theory. The brain is a computer. Spaghetti follows the rules of string theory.

I say this in the most complimentary way possible. I thoroughly approve of "reductionist" approaches, because I don't believe in mysteries and magic; and I like Chris's take on how and why the Yi works, for what that is worth. I think it's likely that the ancient writers of the Yi stumbled across the system, rather than deliberately going about making an analogy to the brain. They'd have had no solid information, only intuitions and of course their own brain-mirrors, to understand how the grey matter goes about its business; and I don't think they had much in the way of algebraic logic or knew much about the binary system (though clearly they understood yes/no quite well).

Again FWIW, I like the notion of using Boolean operators to derive hexes, and do it myself when I'm working with change operators. But somebody else can play with row upon row of 0's and 1's. Give me words!

 

[lightofdarkness]

Hi Calumet,

> The
> workings of a digital computer do not precisely mirror the
> workings of the brain. One runs on numbers; the other runs
> on chemicals. (Please don't tell me they're fundamentally
> the same or I'll introduce you to a physicist I know, and
> then you'll be sorry.)

;-) introduce me - your physicist I think perhaps lacks knowledge re categories and concepts! ;-) It makes NO DIFFERENCE if you are dealing with numbers or chemicals, the REPRESENTATIONS are constant - wholes, parts, static relationships, dynamic relationships. These are representable in the abstract notion of BITS ordered from GENERAL to PARTICULAR reflecting the process of recursion to derive qualities.

In computers at the core levels we are dealing with +12V/-12V to REPRESENT 0/1 so we are already one step 'up' from the mindless realm of volts etc. In the neuron we have AM (amplitude modulation) and FM (frequency modulation) that ENFORCES an AND/XOR dynamic overall in the brain, reflected all the way 'up' from neurons to brain hemispheres (left is more FM when compared to the right is more AM, frontal lobes more FM when compared to back areas more AM etc etc)

WHAT is being represented are patterns of differentiating/integrating that, at the level of consciousness are in the form of nouns and verbs. We note here that the neurology runs off biochemistry but that is used to represent BITS - information.

The I Ching is a SPECIALISATION of this realm of differentiating/integrating and as such RE-LABELS categories that are 'felt' into words/symbols. The moment you REPLACE X by Y and use Y to communicate X so you are in the realm of analogies/metaphor.


>
> Nowadays, the planet is crawling with neurobiologists,
> psychobiologists, psychoethnobiopaleontologists, Chris, and
> God knows who-all, each wanting to describe behavior using
> sexy new computer and math metaphors. Social organization
> is game theory. The brain is a computer. Spaghetti follows
> the rules of string theory.
>

True in the sense that 'brain is a computer' should be re-written as 'computer is like a stripped-down brain'. IOW their focus is the wrong way around.

The IDM material identifies the core qualities that ALL of these specialisations use to represent things. The words you write are labels for qualities that elicit meaning through resonance - the pool of emotions we all share as a species. The IDM material describes the properties and methods of METAPHOR and as such is META-METAPHOR ;-)

The aim of IDM is to serve as a 'species 101' course in understanding how we derive, process, communicate meaning IN GENERAL. It is intended for use PRIOR to the learning of specialisations and in so doing 'speeds up' understanding of those specialisations, recognising that the language is metaphor for what the brain deals with.

Our consciousness takes the IMMEDIATE communications we have as a species, and converts the analogue to digital, AM to FM, continuum to discrete, AND to XOR. It then 'refines' that information and re-communicates it such that the information now contains elements of mediation, or elements acquired from mediation. This process is a process of metaphorcation - words are not the thing, they are labels and as such formed into 'maps'.

As we take a hexagram and analyse it and then 'return' it to the pool of hexagrams, so that return includes elements of our consciousness' meditation on that hexagram, the forming of LOCAL connections to serve as sources of examples of what that hex is about.

The realm of our consciousness is thus mechanistic, partial, and so can experience the 'incomplete' (as I have covered in other emails re interpretations of the I Ching in the form of a sequence of 64 hexagrams sorted into best-fit/wors-fit rather than one hexagram covering the WHOLE situation) As we age so we gather more and more information to a point where the complete is in the form of intuitions. I suppose here there is "scientific" knowing vs "other", where the scientific allows one to work backwards to validate the intuition!

As to the ancients, yes, I think they did not know what they were dealing with but did a good job LOCALLY and INTUITIVELY based on the EXPRESSIONS of the 'wetware'. One of the traits of our nature is if we dont understand the measure of something we will use ourselves as the measure - and so a lot of anthropomorphism occured that we now have to 'dismantle' as we learn more about 'in here'. That said, there is the indication of some visual communications system of some form

What the current material in neurosciences gives us, and in the IDM analysis of things, is a refined set of tools and data that allow for the mapping of generic qualities of neuron-dependent life forms all the way up from 'basic' forms to our complex forms. Since evolution reflects adaptation to context, so we appear to have internalised the general information processing of differentiating/integrating and then externalised the information in the form of representations and thats why our maps are so good. Thus 'as above, so below' fits to a high degree, but then comes consiousness that appears to be all sourced 'below' and appears to be temporary, given the dynamics of the universe as a whole ;-)

All of the SPECIALISATIONS formed in our search for meaning, in our map-making, will be 'incomplete' in their mappings of reality, UNTIL they incorporate what IDM is on about, our species-nature for that is where the 'whole' is; our consciousness is a part of that whole, and is pushing hard to 'escape' that whole but I dont see that happening for some time if at all!

The I Ching allows us to differentiate all of the 'essential' qualities of meaning and then re-integrate with our own 'colourings' - knowing what is going on is helpful in that differentiating/integrating process, even if it is all a bit 'vague' ;-)

Chris.

 

[calumet]

Chris says:

"... introduce me - your physicist I think perhaps lacks knowledge re categories and concepts!"

Maybe. Mostly what I notice is that he gets into loud, passionate arguments about whether chemistry or physics is the Queen of Sciences. A physicist waxing passionate about physics is not a pretty sight, at least not to us mathematically challenged individuals. Pretty soon, he starts to look slightly barmy. And the chemists! Don't get me started. It's pretty obvious to me that physics wears the crown (see below), but chemistry also has its passionate proponents, I regret to say.

"It makes NO DIFFERENCE if you are dealing with numbers or chemicals ... "

I knew you were going to use that argument. And you're right. However, the reason isn't what you state. It's that chemistry operates according to physical, ergo mathematical, laws. Is that what you were saying and I missed it?

I still don't think the binary brain/Yi metaphor is as precise as you theorize it to be. I think the metaphor is downright labored in some places. To begin with, I don't think the brain is completely binary, or even mainly binary. Or maybe we just don't have the math yet to plumb all the depths of the binary brain, or anyway I don't have the math. So I confess I'm unable to follow your 0's and 1's, and cannot reason with them. However, I maintain the suspicion that they have their limits simply because they are an attempt to force an intuitively-developed system into modern scientific shape. It's as though a quantum physicist were trying to explain EVERYTHING Newton discovered. It just won't work; Newton, brilliant as he was, inevitably missed too much.

" ... a lot of anthropomorphism occured that we now have to 'dismantle' as we learn more about 'in here'."

Why would we want to dismantle the anthropomorphism? Isn't what's "in here" anthropomorphic?

 

[lightofdarkness]

Hi Calmut,

I think your 'issue' reflects a bias to a different perspective on bits to that of Shannon - you may favour Gabor (holons). With that, note that the 1/0 I use are REPRESENTIONS of QUALITIES of differentiating/integrating. Furthermore, the focus is on the sequences moving from general to particular, and so from vague to crisp so there is more to the 10 representation than appears.

If we use the wave analogy, then each position in a sequence of 1s/0s reflects a wave-form with a frequency that increases as powers of 2. Thus in 6 'bit' representations we are summing a set of base waves of 2,4,8,16,32,64 'beats' per second. If you know your constructive/destructive interference models then summing different patterns will generate a unique waveform representing a hexagram. E.g. summing 0 of 2, 0 of 4, 0 of 8, 1 of 16, 1 of 32, 1 of 64 will give us a wave representing 000111 - hexagram 12. I will see if I can derive these images and put them up on my websites with the traditional images.

To go further, this particular waveform now becomes the BASE form for a hexagram, and so the KEY within which we then 'play' all of other hexagrams - as in the Line positions concept - XOR-ing each hexagram with the 'key' hexagram to get the expression of that relationship.

What is implied here, is that this material applied to the I Ching is in fact a property of recursion in general and as such applicable to any recursion of a dichotomy.

> Why would we want to dismantle the anthropomorphism? Isn't
> what's "in here" anthropomorphic?
>

sure - its self-referencing all the way 'in here', the issues have been on the projections of 'in here' on 'out there'. The current work into consciousness etc shows how we are attracted to generating TRIADIC models of reality but these fail since consciousness, the mediating element in those models, is temporary when we consider the stimulus-response dynamic of the universe. IOW DYADIC models work 'better' given their stimulus/response dynamic - and we can represent mediation in the form of hierarchic analysis (mediation/representation being one level 'up' from stimulus/response) and so allowing for it to fall back to stimulus/response when all of that mediation is done! ;-)

Given this understanding, there is a possible development of a triadic, but dynamically so, form of categorisation that allows for the mediation to disappear.

In the realm of the 'spiritual', from a scientific perspective, the only one I have seen to date that 'fits the data' well is Buddhism - it complements the 'starkness' of the existential perspectives re 'out there' that comes out of Science, and so reflects the pairing nature overall without the 'need' for external forces a al 'god' or 'magic' etc - it recognises the impermanence factor etc but also the focus on becoming an 'enlightened one'. The 'four noble truths' are in fact glossed-up terms for basic research methods of (a) identify the 'thing' (b) map its cause/beginning, (c) map its effect/ending, (d) map the path from cause to effect.

(a) = the notion of T'ai Chi
(b) and (c) yang/yin
(d) recursion of (b)/(c) presenting the MINIMUM level of resolution required to get a 'good' grasp of things - this level in the I Ching in the form of the eight trigrams. (eight fold path in Buddhism)

Communication of experiences reflects the 'follow in my shoes' form of teaching and that reflects the 'repeatability' focus in Science re verification of experiments and data.

These patterns reflect the basic structures of 'in here' but in moderation. Apply excess energy, lots of consciousness and we move into the realm of the charismatic - and so the more 'monadic' faiths in the form of personality cults (Buddhism has elements of that, until you recognise that there is a line of 'buddhas' (male and female) all 'following in the footsteps' of the first buddha. In the personality cults you 'praise' the persona, but cannot become such. In Buddhism the focus is on showing HOW to become 'enlightened' and the path is up to you; no notions of 'god' or 'soul' etc, just a focus on consciousness and mindfulness etc to experience 'nirvana'.)

With the I Ching so we can 'do' (a) to (d) (each hexagram being a form of 'sutra') and in that doing, through such material as line position mappings etc, learn the 'tune' of the hexagram and get others to 'resonate' with it - and we follow in the shoes of the IC and so of our brains ;-)

Chris.

 

[RindaR]

Chris,

Taking my reins in my teeth, I ask hesitantly,

________
"Given this understanding, there is a possible development of a triadic, but dynamically so, form of categorisation that allows for the mediation to disappear. "
_________

...could this be related to quarks? ...there are three kinds, and awareness of their location/form is said to affect their expression? is that another fractal layer? The categorization being congruent with awareness?

My limited understanding of that may be deforming the question or making it silly.

My limited understanding of brain chemistry tells me that although there are myriad neurotransmitters, they are either on/present or off/not-present at each receptor site in the synapse where the nerves communicate with each other.

Rinda, thinking in layers of correspondence rather than cause/effect at this point

 

[lightofdarkness]

Hi Rinda,

the IDM perspective is that all meaning is derived by the method used which means the generic meanings are rooted in patterns of integrating, differentiating, and some circumstances, mediating - the latter encoded into triadic models.

There is hierarchy involved such that final expression 'rests' on layers of meaning from general to particular.

All of this dynamics, its structure and methods, elicit representations in our theories of reality that can reflect properties of the METHOD rather than what is 'out there'.

For example, the manner in which our neurology deals with sensory paradox is reflected in our mapping of reality - see text and examples in:

(1) http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/paradox.html
(2) http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/species.html
(3) http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/light.html

As for brain dynamics, firstly to create an XOR gate you need at least TWO neurons, IOW our fundamental notion of XOR is sourced in a PAIR. Secondly, the neurons can form into groups, networks, where they synchronise to behave in the same general manner as single neuron. This is reflected all the way 'up' into the hemispheres of the brain and out into our collectives in that our differentiating/integrating/mediating reflect the same patterns as in the neuron levels.

There is a property of networks of individuals all 'doing their own thing' called flocking behaviour where the individual distinction-making sums into a wave pattern expressed by the whole collection - this is seeable in flocks of birds, swarms of insects. Coordinate this activity and the patterns of a flock take-on 'intent' rather than the outcome of 'random' events.

(see any website on the 'net that is running a boids program to see this activity - it applies to ANY collective of individuals making local distinctions - and so people in a crowd, or neurons in a network)

Chris.

 

[jerryd]

Chris; Without any bias, I am sending you my thoughts. I will introduce my self with a bit of background and identify my lack of qualifications as I continue. I have been following your thread here since the beginning and find my self in awe and stupified at the same time. I have some 40 years background in medicine working in an ancellary capacity. I have experience as a councelor with intellectual and physically challenged individuals and have spent time worling with the addicted and homeless alcoholics. I have a varied and comprehensive understanding of how and why things are the way they are. I do not possess any fancy degrees nor make any clame to wisdom beyond rational commonsense. I am also a neophite studying the I Ching.
Now having said these things and knowing the social defination society generally uses to describe normal and abnormal based on cultural prescriptions I will continue.

I would say up front I am impressed with the knowledge you apperently have and see you are beyond average intellect. I think your theories and understanding of your speciality are so far above the average person reading it ( perhaps so intellectually advanced only someone in your specialized field will be able to follow your retoric and benefit from it.) It appears briliant and well thought out. I would never attempt to question, or bring it into challenge.

I can also never find a practical use for it as I do not have 20 years to devote to accepting it as a method I can find useable.

 

[jerryd]

This is not a criticism of you or the method but an inditement of my self. I find you writing in relationship to some of the questions here very intelligent and clear, others I cannot follow at all, an example is your answer to Calumet, you said and I paraphrase when you make a reference to a person Sharon? and then follow with a reference to Gabor (holos)then go on and say," with that, note that the 0/01 I use are Representations of Qualities." I have no idea what qualities you refer to, then you say, "Furthurmore, the focus is on sequences moving from general to particular, so from vague to crisp. So there is moreto the 10 representations than appear."

Perhaps I am to slow to comprehend as I have not mastered the fundamentals well enough but this is terribly un clear as to you meaning. If the sequence you speak of here is the 0/01 How do we move from vague to crisp and general to particular with this order of metaphysics and metaphore un-defined?

As you write you evaluations of what you know it is mostly clear when you are analysing a qiven question. In your definations of tour method you almost sound defensive, am I reading something into this?

I do have to applaud you retorical comments ans thay seem very decisive and clear to you. But for me it is perhaps like myself trying to explain to an audience more nieve than I am, how I came to the value or result of an analysis I have run in a laboratory on a blood or serum sample. I doubt any there would remember past the method I began with and the final result.

With respect/ jerryd