Who/what are you? 61-4

[dobro p]

When you turn to use the I Ching for an immediate assessment of a situation it is usually due to an inability to assess an emotion-painted situation that has come to the attention of consciousness.

Even if you extend your awareness of the situation by using the approach you outline, there will still be a HUGE amount which is unconscious or unknown to you. That's the nature of reality - most of it is unknown to us. So what do you do about that unknown portion? I'd consult the Yi using the magical method, if I were you.

Here's one BIG advantage of your approach: it increases self-knowledge. This is huge.

Here's one BIG disadvantage of your approach: real self-knowledge takes a long time. Which means it's less than useful for issues that you feel require immediate decisions.

Here's another BIG disadvantage of your approach: like I said before, no matter how much knowledge you get, there will ALWAYS be a larger portion of reality that is unknown to you.

Okay, here's one BIG advantage of using the Yi the traditional way: it goes beyond what is known and gives you a useful analog of what is unknown.

And here's one BIG disadvantage of using the Yi the traditional way: it largely bypasses the work of self-enquiry that leads to self-knowledge; it's a shortcut, in other words. Me, I wouldn't use it if it weren't so useful. Like Lise says, it goes to the seeds where things have no name. It goes to the darkness. Your approach operates in the light.

Me, I like operating in the light and increasing the domain of the light, and I like balancing that by harmonizing with what's going on beyond the range of the light. I use the Yi for the latter. I use self-enquiry for the former. You seem not to use the Yi for what's it's best designed to do, and instead to be using it for what it wasn't designed to do. Like using an airplane to travel down a motorway.

 

[lightofreason]

Even if you extend your awareness of the situation by using the approach you outline, there will still be a HUGE amount which is unconscious or unknown to you. That's the nature of reality - most of it is unknown to us. So what do you do about that unknown portion? I'd consult the Yi using the magical method, if I were you.

You make no sense here. (1) all we can EVER know is defined by the method we use to derive meaning and the base level is by categories derived from brain oscillations across the differentiate/integrate dichotomy. (2) The categories of the I Ching (hexagrams, dodecagrams etc) stem from brain dynamics and so it is a specialist metaphor for what our brains do - manipulate patterns derived from self-referencing.

As such there is NOTHING 'unknown' but there is much 'unlabelled' - we KNOW the POSSIBLE patterns of nature GIVEN our sensory systems but not the unique contexts to which they are applied (this gets into the 'chaos game' in that that game applies at all levels of reality - the moment you contain noise you elicit order through self-referencing - it is this that lets the I Ching represent so much since the I Ching is a container self-referencing 'yin/yang' and deriving order from such. This makes the I Ching isomorphic to all other 'containers' of noise - e.g. the dichotomy of purine/pyramidine that derives from self-referencing the neucleotides seeding the codons of DNA/RNA.)

What the IC+ question method does is complement the full search method by accessing the unconscious to get it to give its assessment of a situation based on the set of POSSIBLE feelings derived from self-referencing fight/flight and then translating the results to a hexagram.

Here's one BIG advantage of your approach: it increases self-knowledge. This is huge.

Here's one BIG disadvantage of your approach: real self-knowledge takes a long time. Which means it's less than useful for issues that you feel require immediate decisions.

.... and so the question method of the Emotional I Ching. If one turns to the I Ching for instant help then let the I Ching help by asking the questions, if it lets you pose the questions there are still issues in censorship by consciousness such that the question posed is in fact a smoke screen for something not addressed that needs addressing - immediate requests have roots in emotional states open to censorships etc.

By using the IC questions and its focus on emotions we can get a good assessment of the situation in the form of a hexagram that consciousness can fill in any dots and we have the scope to (a) go with the flow, (b) fight it and set down own context or (c) move on.

(often the returned hexagram 'surprises' consciousness is that we can see the censorship that has been going on - it is revealed and so consciousness intent is brought out and we can sheepishly admit what has been hidden and so deal with it rather than cover it up - these surprises reflect the need for emotion to have its concerns met and how it can do so by bringing out its assessment of a situation through a hexagram image)

Here's another BIG disadvantage of your approach: like I said before, no matter how much knowledge you get, there will ALWAYS be a larger portion of reality that is unknown to you.

.....only in local context details. Through the IDM work we identify the structure of all meaning in the form of the blend,bond,bound,and bind patterns and their composites. These then translate into specialist perspectives that include the I Ching and allow us to map top-down (whole->part) and bottom-up (part->whole) dynamics and predict their GENERAL outcomes from understanding their GENERAL purpose.

Okay, here's one BIG advantage of using the Yi the traditional way: it goes beyond what is known and gives you a useful analog of what is unknown.

No. The traditional method takes all that is known (the hexagrams and so determinism) and adds a randomiser to extract some different perspective. The randomise ADDS NOTHING, what it does is apply the whole set of determined meanings to each meaning randomly. In other words it works off self-referencing but lacks consciousness that can be more detailed in analysis and more proactive in method.

The traditional method works in the same sort of manner as consciousness does in its relationship to speciesness, randomisation of determinism to elicit some 'difference' out of sameness - as such we mix 'free will' (our choice of hexagrams) and determinism (the hexagrams) to elicit something 'novel'. This 'mix' is a subtle illusion in that we derive hexagrams with moving lines that are in fact dodecagrams with fixed lines - the movement aspect is 'illusion'.

This can be creative in giving some aspect of the whole we have not covered before (it gets into the concept of abduction rather than induction - see my page on Charles Peirce's semiotics and the I Ching etc - http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/peirce.html ) but it does not necessarily resolve the issues at hand due to lack in consistancy, there is no mapping of the outcome to the issue, it is a 'random' outcome then applied to the issue to 'see if it works'. This is like an animal trapped in some context where it will then go through all of its arsenal of behaviours to try and escape - this is NOT done methodically and so with any thought/reasoning, the animal just tries things out until it escapes (something 'works' but for no apparent reason - but then in seeking escape, who cares about the how/why!) or tires and dies.

WIth consciousness rather than coins/marbles etc we introduce intent, we introduce understanding of the methodology involved and how we can refine it through (a) applying a question to each hexagrams to cover all aspects (e.g. "what is life?") or (b) apply questions from the IC to aid in some 'immediate' requirement working through our emotions that will not censor since they look out for No. 1 whereas consciousness includes social censorships etc.

And here's one BIG disadvantage of using the Yi the traditional way: it largely bypasses the work of self-enquiry that leads to self-knowledge; it's a shortcut, in other words. Me, I wouldn't use it if it weren't so useful. Like Lise says, it goes to the seeds where things have no name. It goes to the darkness. Your approach operates in the light.

No - my approach uses the light upon the darkness. The traditional method perpetuates darkness where there need not be darkness. The traditional method ensures the maintaining of 10th century BC darkness where now in the 21st century AD we have better lighting and so dont need to maintain such a method.

The development path in the past has been from a level of surface structure and so a focus on local contexts and lacking understanding of essences, deep structure, in favour of expressions. We can now map out the essences to give us the set of POSSIBLE qualities then customised to describe some local event - we can even determine in general the purpose and outcome of such.

Me, I like operating in the light and increasing the domain of the light, and I like balancing that by harmonizing with what's going on beyond the range of the light. I use the Yi for the latter. I use self-enquiry for the former. You seem not to use the Yi for what's it's best designed to do, and instead to be using it for what it wasn't designed to do. Like using an airplane to travel down a motorway.

No - I lift the I Ching into what is it capable of doing and so bring it into the 21st century AD. Traditionalists treat the I Ching as a horse and cart show - I demonstrate that it is in fact a spaceship capable of representing 'all there is', not just 10th century BC China. It is transportable to any context covered by neuron-dependent life forms - at any level of being (and so yin/yang line or 12 line dodecagrams)

Chris.

 

[getojack]

I like monkeys.

 

[Sparhawk]

I like monkeys.

Monkeys and Karmic Cycles...

That's one that'll reincarnate as a dolphin...

 

[getojack]

Monkeys and Karmic Cycles...

That's one that'll reincarnate as a dolphin...

 

[Tohpol]

No - I lift the I Ching into what is it capable of doing and so bring it into the 21st century AD. Traditionalists treat the I Ching as a horse and cart show - I demonstrate that it is in fact a spaceship capable of representing 'all there is', not just 10th century BC China. It is transportable to any context covered by neuron-dependent life forms - at any level of being (and so yin/yang line or 12 line dodecagrams)

Chris.

Very interesting Chris thank you. Any creator of new way of interpreting the IC and thus reality, must be open to answering a few questions about himself, especially with some of the above statements in mind...

Several questions:

How do you see your work on the I Ching in relation to yourself? Do you apply the same rigorous standards to your Self as you do your work? A negative or positive answer has implications for any methodology.

Do you see yourself as separate from this particular interpretation of the IC and therefore largely objective? Or do you see yourself as inextricably PART of this method and therefore identified with it to the detriment of objectivity? In other words, have you created a world that works for you because it perfectly meshes with your type of intellect and the way you and others prefer to see the world?

Is there a danger that we become focused too much on the form or framework of a particular method and forget the "substance" or are we entirely objective in engineering of reality as we see it?

Can you give examples in your own life regarding certain readings you have done for yourself (real life examples please) so that we are better able to adapt it to daily life and apply the principles beyond the confines of the neuro-biological machine and binary sequences, for example.

Topal

 

[getojack]

Very interesting Chris thank you. Any creator of new way of interpreting the IC and thus reality, must be open to answering a few questions about himself, especially with some of the above statements in mind...

Several questions:

How do you see your work on the I Ching in relation to yourself? Do you apply the same rigorous standards to your Self as you do your work? A negative or positive answer has implications for any methodology.

Do you see yourself as separate from this particular interpretation of the IC and therefore largely objective? Or do you see yourself as inextricably PART of this method and therefore identified with it to the detriment of objectivity? In other words, have you created a world that works for you because it perfectly meshes with your type of intellect and the way you and others prefer to see the world?

Is there a danger that we become focused too much on the form or framework of a particular method and forget the "substance" or are we entirely objective in engineering of reality as we see it?

Can you give examples in your own life regarding certain readings you have done for yourself (real life examples please) so that we are better able to adapt it to daily life and apply the principles beyond the confines of the neuro-biological machine and binary sequences, for example.

Topal

Just a suggestion... how about starting a new thread on this... doesn't have much to do with Bruce's reading of 61 to 4, does it?

p.s. Actually, I think I'll start a new thread myself... I'm kind of interested too.

 

[lightofreason]

Several questions:

How do you see your work on the I Ching in relation to yourself? Do you apply the same rigorous standards to your Self as you do your work? A negative or positive answer has implications for any methodology.

The I Ching (or more so I Ching Plus) comes out of the use of IDM in interpreting the properties and methods of classification systems based on self-referencing (and so associated with the "chaos game" - google that. ;-)) In that analysis were discovered aspects of self-referencing not covered before (entanglement (specific appliction of XORing)) and so a movement of the traditional IC into modern times.

Do you see yourself as separate from this particular interpretation of the IC and therefore largely objective? Or do you see yourself as inextricably PART of this method and therefore identified with it to the detriment of objectivity? In other words, have you created a world that works for you because it perfectly meshes with your type of intellect and the way you and others prefer to see the world?

The methodology is not 'mine' - it is the methodology of self-referencing (recursion) where the application of the work on self-referencing has brought out a lot about the I Ching. The same IDM work applies to the realm of emotion and the consideration of the self-referencing of the fight/flight dichotomy where, due to the method, it is isomorphic to the I Ching and so I can derive the Emotional I Ching material. (IDM and emotion see http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/emote.html )
There was also application to the MBTI categorisation (and other categorisation systems all based on how our brains categorise and label) but I was asked by the MBTI people to remove that material so I will have to re-format it)

The template format of blend, bond, bound, bind and composite forms is covered in the IDM introduction:

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/introIDM.html

The focus on properties of dichotomisation is covered in:

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/dicho.html

Is there a danger that we become focused too much on the form or framework of a particular method and forget the "substance" or are we entirely objective in engineering of reality as we see it?

The IDM material covers the ONLY method we use as neuron-dependent species and from there comes sub-methods - ie. using the I Ching, each hexagram is representative of a method to use to interpret reality. These classifications, due to them stemming from the dynamics of the chaos game, cover all levels of perception with differences being in resolution power. The issues are that the IDM level is generic and unconscious. The classifiers derived 'seed' higher levels and in doing so allow for bifurcations of more classifiers as we move from general to particular, approximate to precise, objective to subjective, whole to part, essences to instances of essences that are labelled to differentiate one from another. THEN comes part-to-whole dynamics that also includes the breaking of symmetry at the surface level (symmetry is retained at the deep level since it is essential for general communications) in the form of labels.

Can you give examples in your own life regarding certain readings you have done for yourself (real life examples please) so that we are better able to adapt it to daily life and apply the principles beyond the confines of the neuro-biological machine and binary sequences, for example.
Topal

I dont 'read' any more - I have internalised the IDM material and so I Ching Plus in general and I apply it day to day. If I need an emotional assessment I just run the emotional I Ching in my head as I can access the equivalent categories in the MBTI (persona mappings) or basic emotions or explaining basic mathematics or social dynamics etc etc etc

The IDM material works as a guide to dealing with material outside of my immediate consciousness such that if I come across something I dont understand at the surface level I can go deep since I know what is POSSIBLE at the deep structure to seed the surface structure - I then need to map labels to qualities, to essences the labels represent and from there pick up on the overall structure.

I know what the hexagrams represent from a neurological and emotional position and so their UNIVERSAL forms that then get customised at local levels. Given understanding of the self-referencing we now move into XOR realm where we can identify the 'purpose' of each hexagram as we can 'neutralise' that development.

We can then extend the I Ching into its use as a coordinate system for QUALITIES rather than quantities. The issues with most Western categorisations is that they have not developed depth, there are MANY of them but all limited to 8 or 16 categories before they then get into quantitative expressions and so lose the qualitative. The I Ching is developed to 64/4096 categories and we keep going if need be and still retain the qualitative - the point is the qualitative is communicatable to all species members without an intense 'need' for training in mathematics etc.

What the Emotional I Ching shows clearly is that the I Ching works without any need for references to magical/random methods and as such is open to further refinement that makes the I Ching 'fit' the every day life of the species without raising issues of belief systems - the Emotional I Ching has empirical support for its dynamics, there is no need to focus on 'magic' or 'random' methods etc etc.

Chris.