Who are you ?

[portakal]

p.s. yes, i did.

 

[lenardthefast]

Quote: "I am and all the readers are aware that i am the most "unwise guy" here and in many other places as well."

Hmmmm...*chuckles* I am not sure I agree, Han, I think that I have filled that position since my arrival. ...I don't mind sharing my 'unwise' status with one such as yourself. Welcome.

Namaste,

Leonard

 

[cheiron]

Thank you

Innocense is something I aspire too, but it is so very difficult in this world.

Yes, I followed your thread with interest.

I shall be forward here... hope that is OK.

Did you learn anything by askng about me?

Having used the Yijing for almost thirty years I am beginning to develop a relationship with it... it does take a lot of time for some of us -

Seriously.

And that relationship is worth all the commentaries ever written... It is about feeling the small nuances... perceiving the jokes too.

Doing readings to perceive others is a thing that the Yijing can be very funny about in my experience.

Most often it tells me that it is none of my business...

Remember there are very transformative parts in the Yijing Like Hx.10 'Changes like a Tiger'... The ordinary person who suddenly transforms under certain circumstances... This raise the problem of still photography in a moving life when perceiving situations.

Sometimes the Yijing answers not the posed question but gives an answer to a question one would have been better to have asked.

Could it be that the Yi answered you (about me) in terms of the I who am to you this moment? -

That would have been a very Yijing sort of answer you know.

The question with which you began his thread did you honour in my book... your consideration afterwards did the same.

And so it is that I greet you!

--Kevin

PS - Thanks

 

[cheiron]

Hi Leonard

The fool who knows the back way out of the burning building is wise indeed!

--K

 

[portakal]

Cheiron,
You are innocently sweet. I learned that you were a Graceful Man of Innocent Nature, if thats not too backward...

Not interested in your work, house, car, pet, money etc.
Thanks..them you get.

p.s. this is too western you know, you cant feel content enjoying the movie, you have got to know the bestboy's sexual life to its limits...It says you are GMIN, thats all.
Good night.

 

[cheiron]

Dear Portakal

There is never a 'that's all'... for that is very much too Western methinks.

I wish you a good nights sleep.

I wonder... will you complete the cycle with a reading of your nature?

--Kevin

 

[cheiron]

Sorry that was obscure

Movies have 'characters' and 'endings'

Life is fluid and the people in it make echoes?

There was much in what I said to you in my post friend... For someone who might want to know the Yijing

I bid you sleep well

--Kevin

 

[chrislofting]

> It is a filter language which is understandbly for
> communicating with "the" species.

since the species appears to have adapted to the universe so it reflects that universe and so the I Ching reflects "all there is" or more so reflects all our species can know about 'in here' as well as 'out there'. The richness of the language ensures its survival and use over thousands of years.

> Casting coins is ridiculous.

sort of. It can be useful in that given one's reflections on a situation, using random methods can elicit a hexagram, an aspect of the situation, not considered in one's reflections. Our consciousness is tuned to focus on a particular, the best fit, and so will not cover all aspects 'naturally'. IOW consciousness will ignore 'minor' points that can be important over the long run.

> There are other filter systems based on the same structure
> (MBTI).

All specialisations, to be meaningful, will use the ONE generic structure we all share as neuron-dependent life forms. We can 'see' the I Ching in everything, and everything in the I Ching, due to the fact that the labels are different but the qualities the same.

The more precise we become in a specialisation so the more 'different' that specialisation becomes - it creates its 'own little world'. Despite that, it will use the one set of qualities in deriving meaning with the words used to tie-down the quality to a particular context.

See the IDM material - http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/idm001.html

Chris.

 

[cheiron]

Chris

You said, "Casting coins is ridiculous."

Hello? To me that is the most ignorant thing I have heard from on this site! (also arogant?)

On what basis?... Where is the science underpinning your statement?

I refer you too Lynne Mc Taggart 'The Field'.

It is one thing to find a radical and fruitful paradigm - As you may have done... it is wholly another to rubbish another paradigm without giving evidence.

That is the sort of behaviour I would expect in 20 century BCE or perhaps also of the shamans we called scientists in 20 C AD ? But not now. Not in the days when physics is moving beyond such simplistic statements which view the universe as a mechanical thing.

Angry - but also respectful

--Kevin

 

[candid]

Funny how meekness can be misconstrued as weakness.

As much as I appreciate Chris' individual approach to Yi, I feel one thing lacking: synchronicity. It is an old argument between us, and I've resolved that it won't ever be resolved.

The missing element is that Yi is only a reflection of nature and universal law. As such it encompasses nature, which never operates independently from the rest of nature's cycles. One can accurately "predict" the approach of spring because all the rest of nature is in accord with the prediction. Its not isolated and therefore it is synchronized with universal law, including the laws of nature and time which are in affect at the moment of asking the Universe a question concerning the moment.

 

[cheiron]

Candid

Greetings friend

You should have been in the Emporial entourage!

Such subtlety - Yet a clear message too (grin)

This thing of prediction causes so much confusion.

All these debates re. decisions of free will vs a fixed future. Sigh.

There is so much in your post... for those who might pause...

--Kevin

 

[chrislofting]

Kevin,

>
> By Cheiron (Cheiron) on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 11:38
> pm:
>
> Chris
>
> You said, "Casting coins is ridiculous."
>
> Hello? To me that is the most ignorant thing I have heard
> from on this site! (also arogant?)
>

I did not say what you quoted; Portakal said that. I responded by saying:

"sort of. It can be useful in that given one's reflections on a situation, using random methods can elicit a hexagram, an aspect of the situation, not considered in one's reflections. Our consciousness is tuned to focus on a particular, the best fit, and so will not cover all aspects 'naturally'. IOW consciousness will ignore 'minor' points that can be important over the long run."

> On what basis?... Where is the science underpinning your
> statement?
>

neurocognitive dynamics. Our consciousness is arrogant enough to believe it is the 'center' of the universe - it isnt. The whole encompasses our speciesness as well as consciousness and so the GENERAL that leads to the PARTICULAR. Our consciousness works out of the particular and as such is 'blind' to the full goings-on of our neurocognitive processes. That blindness can elicit paradox (see http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/paradox.html or http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~lofting/species.html)

Our interactions with reality are as species-members, LOTS of non-verbal communications etc (and so issues when interacting over internet!) Our species-nature interacts holistically, instincts/habits elicit IMMEDIATE responses to stimuli - and more than often prior to consciousness being aware as to what is going on.

Our consciousness is more precise than our speciesness and so allows us to refine the instincts BUT we are dealing with topology here, distortion of a surface that is the WHOLE, rather than 'free standing' elements of that whole.

The PARTS nature, the DISCRETE nature of individual consciousness is so attracted to 'the light' that it ignores, it impoverishes, the other elements of thought, the FULL SPECTRUM of thought that covers the precise to the approximate.

If we focus on brain dynamics we find a dimension of precision present, mappable to the trigram level of:

111, 110, 101, 100 / 011, 010, 001, 000

Our full consciousness, our FULL SPECTRUM thinking is ALL of these. The consciousness of our current collective is focused upon the 111,110 pair and so ignores, impoverishes, the contributions possible from the others. Zoom in more and the 64 hexagrams are spread here, zoom-in more and the 4096 dodecagrams are here. These are all UNIVERSALS that, linked to a LOCAL context will resort the ordering to fit the context. IOW depending on the scale, one can view reality from yin/yang or from trigrams or from hexagrams or from dodecagrams.

ANY random method will give you, from the hexagram level, a 1 in 64 chance of getting the best fit hexagram for a particular situation. ANY hexagram derived will be 'meaningful' for the context simply because ALL hexagrams are meaningful - they just vary in degree and our consciousness, given one hexagram will MAKE IT more meaningful!

The questions method uses analysis of neurocognitive dynamics to derive meaning and so a better chance to getting the 'best fit' - and from that the ordering of all of the other hexagrams.

> I refer you too Lynne Mc Taggart 'The Field'.
>

!LOL! I think you need to do some more reading than that particular text. Heavy reading. Try some of these:

http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/neurorefs.html (abstracts from empirical studies)
http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/dencerefs.html (more abstracts)
http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/formrefs.html (more abstracts)
http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/brefs.html (general ref list format)
http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/irefs.html )(more general ref list format)


> It is one thing to find a radical and fruitful paradigm - As
> you may have done... it is wholly another to rubbish another
> paradigm without giving evidence.
>

I have continuously supplied evidence to this list and others - perhaps you are one of the many who have problems following links and reading what is at the end of them! Have you gone through http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/idm001.html - or perhaps you found it 'confusing' ;-)

Many dont want to know since there is a bit of a paradigm shift involved if you accept what is being presented.

As I have said before, if you wish to live in a 10BC perspective thats fine but as time goes on you will become increasingly isolated if you do not incorporate 3000+ years of investigations into how 'in here' works.

I also suggest you review my post on "Historical Materialism" ;-)

http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/messages/48/1600.html?1076233753

- all of my material validates the I Ching but in a manner way beyond the 'traditional' perspectives, and that includes going beyond the concept of 'coin tossing' as reflecting one's 'entanglement' with the universe.

If you want to get serious about what we are dealing with Kevin, you will have to go a lot deeper than your current mindset ;-) If you dont want to deal with that, thats fine by me, but I assure you I have all the evidence needed to validate the IDM material and so the IC+ perspective and so making statements as Portakal summarised from my posts. I did not say what was said, but I did say that it was close to fact and yet it had positive elements.

Chris.

 

[portakal]

Chrislofting;

According to "sort of ridiculous" means you are
pushing upward through constantly paired phenomena (book and coins, if i may, whilst i shouldn't). I think the "retreated" doesnt sort of kick himheritsself to limits to try to ridicule you. (32->46)

Dear Candid;
You will sustain peace by nourishing (5-11)
You must be a very special one, congrac.
(i am jealous) :=)

Dear folks;
I am the reason of order after the completion.
63->29

Bye.

 

[cheiron]

Chris

Appologies I should read more carefully.

Yes I know Marx and Popper quite well... And you know what? I agree with you re. Historical Materialism... Reification is also a major problem.

As for your other references thanks - but seven years of psychology at university gave me sufficient to get by... and saddly I have a very low aptitude for maths and physics which is why I need those fields pre-digested for me. That saddens me as it means that I cannot usefully pursue some of the approaches I would like to with regard the Yijing.

But you know we will have to continue to disagree about the 'Bronze Age' approach being second best.

In time I have little doubt that there will be a mariage between the text and phsics / maths / psychology. But the work Mc Taggart reports would sugest that there is a lot more to that possible relationship than we can as yet perceive.

For this reason I prefer to marry the Yi Jing to Analytic Psychology... not quite cutting edge technology I grant you... but not so primitive either.

I will browse more of those links in time - thank you.
--Kevin

 

[Sparhawk]

Kevin,

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

For this reason I prefer to marry the Yi Jing to Analytic Psychology... not quite cutting edge technology I grant you... but not so primitive either.<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE>

Speaking of the Yi and Psychology, have you read "I Ching and Transpersonal Psychology" by Marysol Gonzalez Sterling? I think is a cool book and a great addition to any Yi library.

L

 

[cheiron]

Hi Leonard

No... But at $4.50 I suspect I shall be reading it shortly - thanks for the link

--Kevin

 

[Sparhawk]

Leonard?

I am honored by the confusion, however, I am the other "L"...

Funny thing, I've been the host for a Spanish speaking list for Uruguayan folks for over 10 years. Because "Luis" is such a common name in order to avoid confusion, early on, people started to call me "Aquel", which in Spanish means: "That one"

To this day that's my name in the list. I'm telling you, there is no respect for hosts anywhere on the Net...

L (that one)

 

[cheiron]

Luis!

arghhhh... Embarrassed!

That will teach me to take a quick peep at threads whilst writing a report.

Chuckle? no respect,,, tut tut

I have done a quick Google search on your identity and tt seems they have gone to some trouble to point you out?

--Kevin

 

[candid]

P

so that's why

but doesn't everyone sustain peace by nourishing?

seriously

C

 

[chrislofting]

Kevin,

> As for your other references thanks - but seven years of
> psychology at university gave me sufficient to get by...

IMHO not any more. Neurosciences and Cognitive Science feed into Psychology and that feed takes time. The abstracts referred to in the links cover mostly neuroscience data and cognitive science with a little psychology. The IDM focus is on the border between speciesness and consciousness and so not focused upon consciousness other than seeing it as a specialisation - its parts focus emerging from speciesness.

> and
> saddly I have a very low aptitude for maths and physics
> which is why I need those fields pre-digested for me. That
> saddens me as it means that I cannot usefully pursue some of
> the approaches I would like to with regard the Yijing.
>
> But you know we will have to continue to disagree about the
> 'Bronze Age' approach being second best.
>

It isnt. it is just approximate, limited in its precision. If I map out the dimension of precision as:

111, 110, 101, 100 / 011, 010, 001, 000

Then the 'Bronze Age' approach is more yin (000 end) but tries to present itself as yang and in doing so excludes all of the yang work derived from research over the centuries. As such it 'evolves' vertically, the drive is to 'stay in the box' and so the conversations at times are a bit like priests discussing how many angels are on the tip of a needle!

The IC is about change and as such will change in expression. Thus each of the above qualities can create its own I Ching with which to interpret reality but the IDM/IC+ perspective is to uncover the unchanging elements and those are the qualities we use as *species-members* to derive meaning. IOW the focus is on the WHOLE spectrum, not just a part.

One can maintain the use of the language but to continue to use the content as if nothing has changed over 3000 years does a dis-service to the IC.

The DYNAMIC in development is from 000 to 111 and then to integrate the whole and so work more efficiently from the speciesness level - our instincts are refined to reflect all aspects of the IC and so our interactions with the context are 'smooth', we 'flow' rather that jerk along ;-)

IOW we let CONTEXT determine which form of interpretations we use to express things but WHAT is expressed is constant. Full spectrum thinking means covering all aspects rather than just one aspect but to do that can be extreme in learning all possible expressions (infinite) but not so extreme in learning all possible qualities behind the expressions (finite). IOW to understand the qualitative differences between 'wholes', 'parts', 'static relationship', and 'dynamic relationship' allows one to see past the infinite number of labels associated with these qualities, where the labels reflect linking quality with a particular context.

> In time I have little doubt that there will be a mariage
> between the text and phsics / maths / psychology. But the
> work Mc Taggart reports would sugest that there is a lot
> more to that possible relationship than we can as yet
> perceive.
>

Perhaps you need to review the IDM material where its focus is on the general, not analysis of particulars. All we CAN know in the form of feelings of 'meaningfulness' are covered in IDM. All else are specialisations and as such metaphors for the general. The IC is one of those metaphors.

> For this reason I prefer to marry the Yi Jing to Analytic
> Psychology... not quite cutting edge technology I grant
> you... but not so primitive either.
>

If this is your interest then see http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/MBTIX.htm

Jung's categories are in the form of dichotomies and their core feelings are defined by our speciesness - the labels are different for each specialisation but the feelings the same - it is all blend, bond, bound, bind ;-)

Jung's perspectives on some areas (collective unconscious) are covered in such pages as:

http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/jungcollect.html

(blend, bond, bound, and bind in the IC are covered in the descriptions of the trigrams:

http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/lofting/t1.html
http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/lofting/t2.html
http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/lofting/t3.html
http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/lofting/t4.html
http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/lofting/t5.html
http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/lofting/t6.html
http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/lofting/t7.html
http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/lofting/t8.html

The template material is described in IDM:

http://pages.prodigy.net/lofting/idm001.html

No maths etc (or very limited ;-))

Chris.

 

[cheiron]

Chuckles Chris

It is late here and I only read you post once through...

Hmmm... yes!

Your energy is phenomenal and you patience something in addition.

Were it not that you are apparently rational I might almost suspect you were 'obsessive / compulsive (tease)

I shall read those links - thanks - But it will take me some time.

And then I look forward to talking about them with you.

With respect (and a smile)

--Kevin

 

[portakal]

Kevin,
K: Doing readings to perceive others is a thing that the Yijing can be very funny about in my experience. Most often it tells me that it is none of my business...
P: IT told me as an answer for a very important question; ?turning point and union?
I have to know the people for a try.

K: ... This raise the problem of still photography in a moving life when perceiving situations. ...
P: Yes, i think i am aware that time, space and unfortunately comparisonal quantities are different for the asking and the answering parts, the measures of degree are also profoundly different and i am afraid almost too hard to overcome.

 

[cheiron]

P

I wish you a good Turning Point and Union...

Which is a silly thing for me to say as that is already the nature of your time it seems.

I do hope you stick arround and hope your journey goes well.

--Kevin

 

[tashij]

i pledge to the turning point and union - ; )

 

[portakal]

Hello,

Some personal/ intimate experiences led me to accept the answer as, " i have retreated and become me".

Fyi.