Theoretical relationship question, hex 38 and 40

[lightofdarkness]

Hi Jerryd,

many thanks for the comments.... and ....

> 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.
>

That depends on what you use the I Ching for - to study the nature of our being through the archetypes? or for divination purposes? The SAME patterns we have identified here are applicable to the MBTI categories and as such extend that system way beyond its current format - and there are LOTS of people into that sort of information.

The SAME patterns we have identified here are applicable to the basic set of emotions and so reflect emotion dynamics - an area of intense interest at the moment re EQ etc.

The SAME patterns we have identified here are applicable to such areas as the Philosophy of Mathematics etc - and so academia can use it.

The SAME patterns we have identified here are applicable to dichotomising stock market dynamics - an area of interest for some ;-)

The mapping of experiences to LINES allows one to zoom-in and detect a particular aspect of the whole, reflected in a line value, that, if changed to its 'opposite', if 'flipped', elicits a new behaviour more suited to a situation. IOW there is a focus on precision in working with 'pathwork' activity - a one-on-one dynamic of analyst and client - paths to self-actualisation.

All of this does not need 20 years of training; yes it needs a period of time exposed to the concepts/methodology and then it is all 'practise', sharing with others - so I suppose a 6 month/1year course of X hours per week? Bit like a course at university spanning one or two semesters?

The material on the websites is large (20+megs and mostly text) but reflects more the background for development of IDM and ICPlus - a course would not focus on all of that material, just the basics of IDM and then all ICPlus focus and/or MBTI with some 'philosophical' reflections at the end. Once you understand the general 'Music-like' nature so all else follows and one does not need a course to go through all of that; the issue at first is the 'novelty', but once you start to 'get it', things do flow quickly..... I think! ;-)

The GENERAL focus of IDM, not ICPlus, is on a 'species 101' course covering how we as a species derive meaning in general, and how the set of qualities are then used to 'seed' a specialisation. A such it is a high-school/1st year college focus. The OTHER focus is on AI systems - giving them the SEEDS of meaning derivation and let things develop from there.

I use FOUR examples of specialisations, and the ICPlus work is one of them. Most who go to the I Ching will use it for divination or for reflection. The latter is 'enhanced' using the material outlined in that it takes us into depths not covered before in the 'usual' I Ching texts.

The point here is that the GENERIC patterns described are general enough to be learnt and habituated-to, forgotten but serving one's intuition and so guidance/direction-setting. The IDM materials is not here to elicit books and books of analysis, re-analysis etc etc its focus is not on expression but what is BEHIND it - thats why it is so GENERAL - the moment you try to talk about it precisely, so you move to specialist perspective and defeat the purpose! ;-)

Yes,I would agree that, say, a book the size of Wilhelm's doubled due to the 64 commentaries on line position expressions for EACH hexagram etc could be a bit much to the novice, but over time can be come invaluable in understanding core aspects of the trigrams, hexagrams, dodecagrams!

From a psychotherapist perspective, the linking of the IC with the MBTI can be very useful - especially when combined with the question-form of 'divining' - see http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/lofting/proact.html

Chris.

 

[lightofdarkness]

Hi again Jerryd,

> 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."

!LOL! sorry, I write alot of the top of my head and here assumed some prior knowledge re information theory without due consideration of all of the other readers! ;-)

Shannon was the originator, is considered a founder, of information theory and focused on information being represented discretely as a BIT (BInary digiT). As is with most specialist perspectives there is a second format, one devised by the discoverer of the hologram - Gabor. HIS model of information was of holons, particle-wave structures reflecting a continuum rather than the discrete.

The QUALITIES in IDM/ICPlus are covered in the IDM pages where they are derived from the dynamics of WHAT/WHERE processing in the brain. These same qualities are found to be expressed in the I Ching etc. They are represented in most of my prose, due to lack of graphics etc, as sequences of 1s and 0s. Thus the sequence 111000 represents the qualities encapsulated in hexagram 11. Some will take these representations as if discrete, 1-to-1 forms of expression. They are not. The relationship of each PAIR in the sequence is of a CONTEXT within which is operating a TEXT. There are qualitative differences here - reflected in one of my emails on this thread in the differences of absolute values in dichotomies.

Thus a symmetric dichotomy has the absolute values of the elements 'equal' - e.g. +1/-1 becomes 1/1 - and so the elements are swappable. In an asymmetric dichotomy the absolute values are NOT the same - we are dealing with such dichotomies as 0/infinity or 0/+1. There are subtle QUALITATIVE differences here that need to be considered when seeing 111000. If you use the WAVE format then those difference become 'seeable' in the wave function, not seeable when expressed as 111000.

> 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?
>

The core foundations of meaning derivation are of differentiating(WHAT, WHO, WHICH)/integrating(WHERE, WHEN, HOW). The core dichotomy comes in two forms:

Symmetric: differentiating/differentiating OR integrating/integrating (and so +1/-1)
Asymmetric : differentiating/integrating (WHAT/WHERE) (1/0 etc)

The LATTER, when applied recursively will elicit a spectrum, a power law pattern. The FORMER, when applied recursively will elicit a normal distribution curve.

These differences have an affect on the interpretations of the I Ching since yin/yang is generic, EITHER type of dichotomy will fit.

The more COMMON, the more NATURAL dichotomy is the asymmetric and its specialisation is reflected in such dichotomies as:

differentiate/integrate
WHAT/WHERE
crisp/vague
precise/approximate
point/field
particular/general
discrete/continous

etc etc -- all of this is defined across my websites or on various threads on this list. Simply put, apply recursion to differentiate/integrate and you get a sequence of qualities used for meaning derivation. That sequence is mapped-out in IDM and then shown to be reflected in the I Ching, MBTI, catergory of basic emotions, and the generic qualities of number types used in Mathematics.

I would suggest a review of the 'natural' binary sequence of the I Ching, as given in http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/icpoints.html, OR have a look at the diagram http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/DIAG1.gif

> 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 am not sure what you mean (but I do get 'attacked' a lot, and I respond in kind at times, so maybe my responses have habituated to being 'defencive'! ;-)) - please give an example.

Chris.

 

[jerryd]

Chris; this is all well and good for just about everyone who is into indepth study of the esoteric. I cannot say it is altogether where I am at the moment. I would suggest that if this is a philosophy you are developing it would be easier to express to others in the mannor more suited to Symbolic Logic and can be a verified result, as the use of words, which are easily and often misconstrued or misplaced, create aberations and misunderstanding.
As for me seeing you as defensive, this is probably only my interpertation of your desire to completly explaine a very complex subject.

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my querys.

 

[calumet]

Chris: Granted. But bear in mind your own use of the terms "metaphor," "model," and so on. Models and metaphors are useful in gaining an understanding of a thing, but they are limited. They are representations of the real thing, and not--it bears repeating--the thing itself. Hewn to too closely, models, metaphors, and their ilk give a distorted picture of the real thing. I'm not saying you do this; you may or may not, but my overall understanding of the meanings of the hexes seems to match yours fairly well, whatever that means. That our brains are roughly similar, I suppose. Big shock there.

Re your comments about Buddhism, aside from the personality cult that inevitably develops around any form of spirituality--and I think there are good psychological or if you prefer neurobiological reasons for this unfortunate inevitability--aside from that, my major problem with Buddhism is that it posits we can transcend our emotions. We can't. Show me a Buddhist mother whose 2-year-old is about to run into traffic and I'll show you a raving maniac. I rest my case.

Regarding your claim that Buddhism is an early form of the scientific method: It doesn't work for the same reason that it doesn't work to insist that the Yi is a binary computer and hence an exact analogue of the brain. An interesting analogue, sure, but ultimately as inexact as an astrophysicist's explanation of why 8th-century astrologers had it exactly right.

Still, an interesting perspective.

 

[martin]

Hi Chris,

" If you prefer to maintain a degree of mystery for personal choice that is up to you; if you don't want to improve/refine the nature of the species etc that is up to you."

That's not what I'm after, refinement is fine with me.

I don't want to maintain or protect the mystery or the unknown (a better word maybe, less religious/spiritual connotations).
But I also don't want to explain it away.
It's there and it pops up whenever and wherever we try to go too far with our maps, theories, models, explanations, algorithms and so on.

It's interesting that you mention Buddhism in one of your posts, because Buddhists are on the whole very much aware of the limitations of knowing through the mind i.e. through reasoning, modeling, mapping or whatever you wish to call it.
What do you think will happen when you visit a Zen master and tell him that you have discovered how all meanings are generated?

 

[RindaR]

Thump! ?


Rinda

 

[martin]

Up?

 

[lightofdarkness]

Hi Martin,

> What do you think will happen when you visit a Zen master
> and tell him that you have discovered how all meanings are
> generated? [ happy ]
>

I would not bother. If he/she is a master then they have spent a lot of time 'developing' their perspectives; and so not useful to show it can be done 'quicker' or more 'efficiently' --- in general! That said, their PARTICULAR perspective, as in 'Zen Buddhism' is a specialisation and so a PART of our being - it comes with its own language etc and belief system re it is 'the one' - not recognising that all specialisations are 'the one' as long as they are kept LOCAL ;-)

My comments on buddhism were on the GENERAL aspects that reflect recursion at work in the generation of the language, the core qualities expressed etc. These SAME qualities are sourced in earlier civilisations - especially reflected in the Rig Veda where the same concepts of 'noble truths' are found but with different labels. The Veda material would have been known to Sidartha has part of his education in 'upper class' India.

Chris.

 

[lightofdarkness]

Calumet,

>
> Re your comments about Buddhism, aside from the personality
> cult that inevitably develops around any form of
> spirituality--and I think there are good psychological or if
> you prefer neurobiological reasons for this unfortunate
> inevitability--aside from that, my major problem with
> Buddhism is that it posits we can transcend our emotions.
> We can't. Show me a Buddhist mother whose 2-year-old is
> about to run into traffic and I'll show you a raving maniac.
> I rest my case.
>

Ah -- but you are focusing on the physical and social! no no no! ;-) LOL!

the neurological role of the frontal lobes is to supress emotional outbursts, to DELAY 'instinctive' response and so allow for extending of time to acquire 'more information'. The development of frontal lobes to allow for control of emotions allows for the experience of such an activity and the exaggeration of that ability - note that the 'drive' in development is to increased autonomy - single parent households will increase, as will singles with no kids. This is an 'issue' (consider current pressures to 'have more kids' in that capitalism is losing its source of surplus value - human labour)

The mindless drive of evolution is to fragment social structure, to REDUCE dependencies on others and so be 'self-sufficient'. There is nothing in this dynamic that suggests any recognition of consciousness - it is all 'mindless'. The price here is that our consciousness, being 'emergent' has to come to grips with the fact that it has not been factored-in to the evolution process! As such there is a 'battle' emerging between mindless evolution and our mindful species where our erradication is 'of no consequence' to anyone/anything but us! - it is the PROACTIVE nature of consciousness, its focus on mediation etc that allows for us to 'dominate' things and so DELAY our erradication as a species.

Buddhism focuses on MIND, it considers mind the 6th sense, and as such reflects a 'self' oriented path where the path to 'buddha-hood' is within - all others are as such excluded other than what one can gain from 'following in the footsteps of...'. IOW social interactions are for the purpose of personal gain on one's path to enlightenment but in that passage so one becomes 'wise' and 'compassionate'; as such we 'share space with the likeminded', hex 13 - but in doing that we also lose some of the 'social connections' as in family 'cat fights' stemming from our social primate nature! ;-)

Now, this goes against our species-nature, our social nature and that is a problem - compassion and wisdom is the 'goal' but so is non-attachment such that the intensity of a mother seeing here 2 year old about to be erradicated is 'softened' by the perspective re such concepts as karma; there is a degree of 'fatalism' present even if the focus is on each of use being responsible for our actions etc - iow there is no 'god' or 'magic' around to come to the rescue - what she did, or the kid did, in some past life is coming home to roost!

Note that the development of capitalism and an overly competitive perspective in development favours self-sufficiency and an over-exggeration of energy; the social structure reflects a 'yang' type collective - high energy mediation, a focus on EXCHANGE for personal gain - profit, recognition, etc. IOW our current socioeconomic systems reflect this focus on becoming self-sufficient - and we are doing it 'mindlessly', 'pushed' by the context where that context is overly high energy focused.

It is this high energy that drives one to 'go beyond' the moment, put in the extra yards and that is reflected in monadic faiths that focus on some external force/being; the fundamentalism that comes out of this can be fun inside, disturbing from the outside. The non-belief in karma, and repetition of one's being, means a lot goes into the moment, things are not so 'passive' in their suffering.

But also note that the high energy focus elicits the mindset of a child - and so a collective strongly focused on exploitation of that mindedness - our collectives become huge disneylands, fail to consider consequences of actions, and are driven to 'defeat' the enemy of eternal youth - death. Thus business develops focused on delaying decay etc - rather than accept death 'passively', as part of the 'whole thing', the focus is on being proactive in defeating it.

In the I Ching symbolisms, Buddhism is tieable to the trigram of Mountain, with a focus on suffering leading to quality control/discernment at the 'one' level (the focus on meditation etc associates with the nature of 'keeping still' and the finding of way 'over' the blockages. Through IDM we also find a link to mentoring in education - another strong, general, property in buddhism re finding the 'right' teacher etc (the whole set of yin-based hexagrams map to the realm of the MBTI that reflects 80+% of teachers, mostly primary to secondary. As we move into the tertiary levels, so the teaching is even more 1-to-1 with the lake/heaven realm focusing on master and apprentice type relationships. If we maintain mountain as the core essence of buddhism, then heaven over mountain is 33 - a focus on use of trickary in drawing, enticing, the enemy 'in'! This is competitive. It shares space with the more cooperative side of enticement - 31 - wooing).

Monadic faiths aim to transcend, to climb higher rather than develop in the current level 'more finer'. This former case ties monadic faiths to Wind. That said, the INTERNAL focus of Buddhism contains the enlightenment 'aim' and as such reflects a transition from the yin-based hexagrams to the first set of yang-based hexagrams - all sourced in the properties of Thunder.

Note how mountain 'over' thunder is hex 27 - a focus on the 'new' building in need of furnishing ;-)

Keep moving along the line of hexagrams in 'natural' sequence and we reach Heaven - the realm of the charismatic, mediating type focused on 'balancing' and getting-off on that focus. Here resides all of the 'leaders' of the 'followers' sourced in Earth to Wind. Overall, since 'Religion' is a specialisation, and Buddhism is a form of religion (if allowed to be) then the WHOLE of the I Ching is applicable to 'flesh out' its qualities.

The IDM material focuses on the need to be aware of what our species-nature contributes, and 'seeds', our conciousness-nature - otherwise we can disappear into gagaland in that the realm of consciousness, being the realm of imagination and fragmentation, is also the realm of psychosis - we all end up in our own little worlds - where all is 'fine' from inside!

> Regarding your claim that Buddhism is an early form of the
> scientific method: It doesn't work for the same reason that
> it doesn't work to insist that the Yi is a binary computer
> and hence an exact analogue of the brain. An interesting
> analogue, sure, but ultimately as inexact as an
> astrophysicist's explanation of why 8th-century astrologers
> had it exactly right.
>

time will tell.

Chris.

 

[lightofdarkness]

rinda,

with my usual irreverence - I would thump back! ;-)

Chris.

 

[calumet]

Chris writes:

"Ah -- but you are focusing on the physical and social!"

Yeah, because I think that's all there is. And I strongly suspect that the social simply is another form of the physical.

No sale on Buddhism. Karma, past lives, Samsara, etc., seem to me to be manifestations of magical thinking. I can see you're passionate about it, though. Your analysis of 52, which you associate with Buddhism, is one of your best. As for me, one day my views may change; but for the moment I remain an absolute and irredeemable heathen.

 

[lightofdarkness]

Hi Calumet,

you may be missing my main point. I am not a buddhist. My original point was, in the context of a scientist seeking spiritualisation, from an analysis of the existentialist perspectives, buddhism seems to 'fit' the data and as such would 'fit' in general a scientific mindset.

The IDM focus covers all general 'meaning' and as such identifies all *possible* specialist perspectives, and that includes religion and within it, the categories of each religion. That link means the IC covers all 'meaning' and as such can identify all *possible* perspectives.

Each differentiation brings out the IC as a source of interpretation. Thus from the level of 'religion' I can map buddhism to 52. Then zoom-in on buddhism and the WHOLE of the I Ching is again available, and will work, to flesh-out the full spectrum of buddhism, from devotion to another/others in earth to devotion to self in heaven; from the 'do as the book says' in earth to the 'I am the book' in heaven ;-) (more so, we can take the line position data and work through the XOR-ing of all hexagrams with 52 to bring out the general 'behaviour' of that hexagram and so all that it represents - in this case, buddhism in general)

I can get into the characteristics of taoism if you like, or the competitive natures of the more monadic faiths ;-) My passion as such is on meaning derivation and how 'in here' does it and how, by understanding that 'how', we as conscious individuals can develop ;-) Thus the IDM material covers the source of the spiritual in social dynamics of our species-nature where it is sourced in a form of protection (see the IDM pages). With consciousness comes the EXAGGERATION of that 'sense', more so its EXPLOITATION into the institutions we see these days.

Chris.

 

[jerryd]

Chris, are not all meanings derived (implied) through social associations and learning experiences<? Then dont we as individuals chooses to interpert or use the meaning to his or her best advantage or purpose? How do you plan to retrain the whole of western society to your method? Are not all institutions already beyond de-contamination?

 

[RindaR]

"with my usual irreverence - I would thump back! ;-) "

...and miss the point then. ...?...

Rinda

 

[lightofdarkness]

Rinda,

nah - he/she missed the point... of the point

Chris.

 

[lightofdarkness]

Calumet,

you wrote:

"are not all meanings derived (implied) through social associations and learning experiences?"

no. They are 'filled-in' at the level of expression, of local dynamics; the archetypes gain colour (colour being a harmonic of light).

The core adaptation to the universe has been the neuron and/or any system that interprets patterns of differentiating/integrating into basic categories of WHOLES, PARTS, STATIC RELATIONSHIPS, DYNAMIC RELATIONSHIPS. From there all else follows. LOCAL context determines what we apply our sense of 'wholeness' to - but the basic categories come from mindless differentiating/integrating (and when you get to the 'top' of the hierarchy so differentiating becomes nouns (wholes, parts) and integrating becomes verbs (static, dynamic relationships.

Zoom-in on either and recursion takes over where we get a spectrum of qualities reflecting the possible mixes of nouns-verbs etc.

From these basics comes development where each level in this hierarchy of development is the mediation/representation level for the level below that works off stimulus/response (instincts/habits).

Social dynamics will mold genetics to 'fit' the context - nature/nurture work together but nurture comes after nature; phenotype from genotype.

And note from my Line Position material that this 'genetic' perspective seems to be present in the I Ching and Music, as notes/chords operating in a key.

With the development of consciousness at the 'top' of this hierarchy so we see the development of (a) conscious mediation and (b) use of imagination - a rich realm of mediation/representation activities - BUT each level also reflects more precision than the previous, we get increasingly 'crisp' as compared to 'vague' --- but in that process I also move PAST the reality of the species and into the reality of consciousness - and out of that can come paradox when it fails to recognise what is 'below' it ;-)

I dont need to retrain the whole of society - just get the teachers of the next generation interested ;-) - the kids will take it back to their parents... and then there is the AI focus where giving AI systems a sense of 'meaning' would attract interest as in "how did IT figure THAT out?"

Chris.

 

[jerryd]

Chris don't dump that line on Calumet, I wrote it and cannot comprehend you or the thinking you are pondering at all. If you try to stuff the teachers then the children with this line of thought I think we do not have to worry to much in the near future about any changes to the norms of learning and developement. Agreed there is a lot of improvement necessary and just perhaps your way will someday turn out as The Way in the future. I wish you the best of luck in that.

 

[yly2pg1]

"I dont need to retrain the whole of society - just get the teachers of the next generation interested ;-) - the kids will take it back to their parents... and then there is the AI focus where giving AI systems a sense of 'meaning' would attract interest as in "how did IT figure THAT out?"

That could spell the beginning of the erosion of human languages ... and some other institutions
... for good!

 

[lightofdarkness]

Jerryd,

you dont 'get it' since you miss the point - the IDM material replaces NOTHING. It is there to serve as a GUIDE in that it covers what we use to seed our specialisations; as expressive people we NEED specialisations but there is the need to recognise their nature as METAPHOR - and so not something to die or kill for. simple.

See if you can get anything out of my draft paper "The Language of the Vague"
http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/Vague.pdf - take a look at the section covering history etc - the paths being identified are INEVITABLE given the current conditions - as such, KNOWING that means you can speed up or slow down their passage etc.

Chris.

 

[lightofdarkness]

Hi Yly2pg1,

The IDM material, being a SEED, is the pre tower of babel state, where increasing energy increases differentiations and so introduces diversity in expressions (which is what the story tells us - the ONE language is that of our species-nature, from there came specialisations, the price being that many could not communicate with many! - as we find today with the overload of jargon ;-)

Chris.

 

[jerryd]

Chris, If your title "The Language of the Vague"is not any clearer than what you are saying here I cannot be bothered. Sorry if this is an offence but I think there is just something no quite right inside my head. I just cannot fathom someone trying to explain to a teacher what you are proposing here and expecting them to teach it to a child then have the child educate the parent.

 

[candid]

Chris,

I wonder how you might explain your most important couple of points to a child of say... 13 years old. Kids get lots of stuff that their parents find too complicated, these days.

As in threads past, I have occasional ?Ahh? moments when grazing off your material, though I lack the tenacity, and frankly the intense interest to dig deeply into it. Yet there are moments when I think I do ?get it?; or at least a glimpse of ?it?.

So, if you were sitting with a young teen over a Pepsi, how would you explain the main thrust of your ideas? If you don?t mind.

Also, the written word omits a great deal of humanity that can be better heard/read through voice and body language. Sometimes I wonder if you?re really as hard/cold/closed as you appear in writing. I know I?m not.

 

[lightofdarkness]

Hi Candid,

Keep the pepsi-cola. Get a coca-cola. Taste the difference, note the sameness behind the difference (as in cola base and cola name). Note the difference is in expression, the details - after all, cola is cola and that is the background, the context. Get a schweppes cola. Note the difference. Note the sameness. Note the qualitative difference between it and pepsi/coke. How is that so? Note the power of the labels, the universality they project, the exaggerations they represent - after all, cola is cola, yes? Note the ads for coke. for pepsi, for the others. Note we can order the energy in those ads, from a few, short ones, to the long, expensive ones of coke and pepsi.

Note that we can scale this energy output, from high to low, from expending to conserving. Note how we can make analogies here to, say, a classroom where some students are full of energy and 'charismatic', others conserve energy and are considered 'dull'. Lets label things ourselves - lets label the 'high energy', universals-focus, 'yang', and the 'low energy', locals-focus, 'yin'. Recognise the differences between the individual and the group, note that a NAME will draw out an individual from a group; a label aids in identifying the individual and so allows us to differentiate the many individuals from the one group - as labels help us identify the many colas from the basic group of colas.

Reflect on all of this; on what else we could label 'yin' or 'yang'. Make a list. Come back tomorrow, same table, same time, bring the list, and we can talk some more.

Chris.

 

[martin]

Hmm, teens + Pepsi, interesting question Candid.
I believe that explaining this material to teens is a good idea, because it can help to clarify it and make it more 'alive' and 'warmer'.
I think I would start with blending-bonding-bounding-binding. Applied to relationships with others, a subject that interests teens very much. These are alive concepts for teens and they are easy to demonstrate in a group setting.

Now that I'm talking about the B's, a question for Chris: what happened to the 3 other B's, banding, building and bridging? As far as I know you don't mention them in your pages. Do you see them as not fundamental?

 

[candid]

Seems pretty basic, when you get right down to it. Sort of like demographic/psychographic cells in advertising/marketing/branding, niche verses mass distinctions. Interesting.

I?ll have my people call your people. Maybe we?ll do lunch.

 

[lightofdarkness]

Jerryd,

It is obvious that you are having difficulties with things. I cant help you simply because I am talking about the vague, the general, the realm of templates etc whereas you seem to be focused on the point, the expression, the precision. That 'issue' is causing a degree of frustration, anger, etc (and so brings out you operating from the realm of differentiating)

I am talking about the generic meanings of hexagrams shared with all members of the species, and those meanings then differentiated into countless words linking those generals, universals, to unique contexts.

Your focus seems to be on those unique contexts, the realm of expression, and as such you find me 'vague', 'confusing', etc etc. Not surprising ;-)

If you find my level of communications upsetting, frustrating, I am sorry but I get a vibe from you of a need for 'precision' from material that is intentionally 'vague' and you dont seem to 'get' that.

For example, hexagram 28 is about expansive bonding in a context of contractive binding. You have the links to the trigrams for that, the link to the 'species I Ching' that covers this level of vagueness. Can you cope with that level of vagueness without a 'demand' to 'ground it', to 'make it crystal clear'? ;-) Can you not FEEL that meaning?

Understand THAT level of 'meaning' and you will start to appreciate the 'one' language we all share as a species. FROM there comes the specialisations, the fragmentations, the precision etc.

Apply that understanding to your reflections on the I Ching.

If you want, lets move to a touch more precision - basic emotions and the trigrams:

heaven - anger/singlemindedness/devotion-to-self
lake - love/sex/joy
fire - acceptance ('my' gang)
thunder - surprise (new)
wind - anticipation (of wrong/right)
water - rejection/protection
mountain - grief/sadness/discernment
earth - fear/dualmindedness/devotion-to-others

Note that 'behind' these are qualities relating to how to deal with context - to REPLACE IT (heaven/lake pair) or to COEXIST with it (earth/mountain pair) or something 'in between'.

With emotions 28 now becomes love/sex/joy in a context of anticipation. See if you can FEEL that before you label it as a whole. (generalised to something like REPLACEMENT (THROUGH REPLICATION) in a context of ANTICIPATION OF COEXISTENCE)

Go through all hexagrams, associate the emotions with the trigrams and 'feel' the hexagrams prior to labelling them. See if you can work through them all without pinning them down; FEEL their positive, proactive states emotionally. FEEL there negative, reactive states emotionally.

'Get' the sense of precision possible at this level of feelings and then the 'improvement' when you start using labels.

Simple stuff but requires discipline to be 'vague' and yet 'knowing' ;-)

Chris.

 

[lightofdarkness]

Hi Martin,

the four Bs would come up in day 2 or 3 ;-) The idea at first is to get the student to use the surrounding context to aid in eliciting meaning, and then show the internalisation of those methods in the form of the 4 Bs 'template'. This use of context 'instinctively' demonstrates our focus on recruitment of 'something' to aid us in describing something else.

From there comes the focus on WHAT we recruit, our use of differentiating etc. The INTEGRATION of all elements then feeds into a final differentiation of 'the thing' we are talking about etc etc -- and so we realise how much integrating and differentiating we do --- and then we zoom-in to focus on 'what' was doing the differentiating, the agent of mediation, consciousness.

From there comes reflection on WHAT/WHERE and their mediation - working from the '/' position and so self-referencing, recursing to derive 'meanings'.

From there we can take pen and paper and map out those meanings in the form of objects, relationships etc.

From there comes the realisation that this is a general method usable for ANY dichotomy... then comes a study on the two forms of dichotomy - symmetric vs asymmetric and how those differences affect our interpretations....


> Now that I'm talking about the B's, a question for Chris:
> what happened to the 3 other B's, banding, building and
> bridging? As far as I know you don't mention them in your
> pages. Do you see them as not fundamental?
>

Good points but not as fundamental feelings. Grouping etc is enfolded in blending issues; hierarchy, and so building, develops 'naturally' from the need to make compounds out of the basics - once the 'natural' element is shown, so it becomes labeled. Bridging comes out of bonding and binding, especially bonding where the relationship focus means a connection, a tie, between X and Y that is long-term, stable etc., and can be refined, reinforced etc etc.

Once we have the blending, bonding, bounding, binding, so comes the qualifying dichotomy - in the form of a differentiating/integrating dichotomy such as expansive/contractive, positive/negative, explicit/implicit etc to give, for example, the notions of 'explicit blending/implicit blending' or 'positive bonding/negative bonding' or 'expansive binding/contractive binding'.... and from there comes the mapping of particular, specialist, dichotomies 'over' the template.
THEN we can, if we want, re-label things into 'bridging' etc


Chris.

 

[Sparhawk]

Found it!! An old picture of Chris...

<CENTER>

</CENTER>

Here is one of his famous quote:<BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT>

You have here an unusual opportunity to appraise the human mind, or to examine, in Earth terms, the roles of good and evil in a man. His negative side, which you call hostility, lust, violence; and his positive side, which Earth people express as compassion, love, tenderness. And what is it that makes one man an exceptional leader? We see here indications that it is his negative side which makes him strong -- that his evil side, if you will, properly controlled and disciplined, is vital to his strength. Your negative side, removed from you, the power of command begins to elude you.

"The Enemy Within," stardate 1673.1.<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE>


He has more to say here...

Luis

 

[jerryd]

Luis;

Thank you for this enlightenment>) it explains some of the missing pieces.

 

[lightofdarkness]

Hi Luis,

Firstly, my ears are not so 'pointed' ;-)

Secondly, note this website that shows that Sherlock Holmes must have been a Vulcan: http://home.cfl.rr.com/dscott8/spock.htm

so these seems to have been 'mixing' going on for some time.

Thirdly, a long thirdly:

Despite all of the actual and potential differences in expressions of species - the more complex, the more intelligent species will all reflect adaptations to the universe and so utilise some form of 'meaning system' developed around differentiating/integrating, and with the complex, some form of mediation-with-intent and so awareness/consciousness.

IOW any life form 'out there', may express themselves 'uniquely' but will be understandable in some way due to the underlying SAMENESS in information processing.

Our maps of the universe are so good due to our adaptation to that universe through our sensory systems, abstractable to adaption to frequencies, wavelengths, amplitudes. Implicit in this is that different planets in different galaxies will work under the same generic conditions and thus force adaptation to those conditions out of which will come local 'differences'; and so the 'traditional I Ching' is an example of one of those LOCAL 'differences'.

IOW the IDM categories apply to any system that reflects adaptation to differentiating/integrating (and, if developed, conscious mediating) and so the I Ching would be applicable to all 'alien' intelligent species.

In fact, if you zoom-in to the brain of a zebra fish, that tiny silvery-transparent fish, its 'brain' is lateralised like ours and reflects the same dynamics re a right bias to dealing with the vague, the UNKNOWN, and a left bias to dealing with the crisp, the KNOWN. The differences of course are in the degree of differentiating these qualities further, as well as establishing good memory systems etc that are required for 24/7 consciousness! IOW, from an I Ching perspective, the zebra fish realm is limited, say, to the di-gram, tri-gram levels of qualities usable to derive 'meaning'.... and to 'snippets' of what we could call 'awareness', but living mostly off instincts developed over generations of evolution.

Reptiles also have the same brain structure as we do, but there 'mediation' skills are also lacking such that they will strike regardless of the necessity to do so - they are not too context-sensitive and so will not hold-back their 'punches'; reflecting a bias to "instincts rule".

Live long and prosper ;-)

Chris.