Michael's question about why Qian and Kun are where they are in the Later Heaven sequence kept bugging me, so I set out to come up with a solution. If you put the trigrams in a row from Chen to Ken as in the LH sequence, then put another row of trigrams in a row underneath in the Wen Family sequence (Father, Eldest Son, Middle Son, Youngest Son, Mother, Eldest Daughter, Middle Daughter, Youngest Daughter) you get a correlation between the Family sequence and the Later Heaven sequence.

Drawing directional arrows between each trigram in the lower row (Family sequence) to each trigram in the upper row (Later Heaven) and transferring the arrows to the LH bagua, you get an interesting symmetrical pattern that looks something like a butterfly, as shown in the picture. This suggests to me that the Wen Family sequence shows the static nature of the trigrams while the LH sequence shows the dynamic relationships between the trigrams.

-Getojack
:bows:

View attachment 206

There are many compass patterns but the main ones cover magnitude (structure, Fu Hsi ordering), sequence (King Wen), and hierarchy (Family)

TO map them out just take each hexagram and apply all of them to being the top trigrams in a hexagram.

E.g. Fu Hsi trigram order is 000, 001, 010, 011, 100, 101, 110, 111

Then map out the hexagrams in eight octets formed thus:

Fu Hsi

Base - top
000 - 000
000 - 001
000 - 010
000 - 011
000 - 100
000 - 110
000 - 111

etc for remaining seven bases.

Same for King Wen (although the CYCLIC nature favours a symmetric focus in the form of repeating sameness so one needs to consider the irreversible formats using the IMP operator to bring out pure difference)

100 - 100
100 - 011
100 - 101
100 - 000
100 - 110
100 - 111
100 - 010
100 - 001

Family pattern:

111 - 111
111 - 000
111 - 100
111 - 011
111 - 001
111 - 110
111 - 001
111 - 110

The three different sequences will contain patterns of relationships due to the ordering method with a focus on pairs (and so XOR, EQV etc operators become useful as long as CONTEXT is considered)

Hi Lightofreason

I am very interested in what you say above but I am having a little trouble fathoming the following sentence:

the CYCLIC nature favours a symmetric focus in the form of repeating sameness so one needs to consider the irreversible formats using the IMP operator to bring out pure difference

Click to expand...

If you can spare the time, could you please illustrate or describe a bit more:
-how 'sameness' is repeated within the sequence
-what you mean by 'irreversible formats'
-what an IMP operator is

Many thanks

erime said:

Hi Lightofreason

If you can spare the time, could you please illustrate or describe a bit more:
-how 'sameness' is repeated within the sequence
-what you mean by 'irreversible formats'
-what an IMP operator is

Click to expand...

Any cycle reflects the identification of some form of repeating - birth/death. day/night, sunrise/sunset. However what is ignored for the convenience of sameness is the differences of each moment from a date/time stamp perspective - no birth is identical with any other but in the formation of the concept of birth we form an aggregate of births and extract the general similiarities into a concept of 'birth'. We then identify samenesses of 'death' and form a cycle of birth/death - interpretable as the repeating of sameness (and so "history repeats" when in fact it never can in details, only form where form reflects an attraction to identifying sameness - this is manifest in the human eye where the fovea deals with details and the parafovea with form, edge detection etc - and our brain is strongly adapted to vision etc)

In Mathematics the symmetry of real numbers (and their associated commutative, associative, and distributive laws) is extended to include sequence through the use of imaginary numbers that allow us to represent cyclic/morphic change.

When we move into complex. quaternion, and octonion forms of number so the symmetry laws start to break down due to exposure to an asymmetric reality (and so the notion of vectors etc)

As an emotion-driven species we utilise sameness to deal with reality in the form of instincts/habits and emotional interactions. Thus presented with a difference we will distort it to fit into our models based on sameness. This reflects a symmetric focus on reality and is useful but also lacking in precision in that the universe is asymmetric.

Symmetric thinking allows for instinct/habit formatations and as such is really useful from a primate species perspective, but gets confusing from a unique consciousness perspective. (Symmetric thinking is also dominated by metaphor since substitution is necessary and symmetry allows for that - one word to represent another etc)

The self-referencing used in creating hexagrams reflects the self-referencing of yin/yang, and as such patterns of sameness/difference. The problem is that the only pure asymmetric logic operator is IMP (implies) and it cannot be recursed - so we 'distort' it by using the only difference operator that is close to IMP, XOR (exclusive or) in that the operator covers differences but is symmetric in form.

The symmetric perspective on meaning of IC symbols covers representations of magnitudes; a hexagram represents some expression.

The asymmetric perspective on meaning of IC symbols covers representations of sequences; a hexagram emphasis on lines from bottom to top covers the 'steps' of such.

The anti-symmetric perspective on meaning of IC symbols covers representations of hierarchies where we combine magnitude and sequences.

The IMP operator comes out in hierarchy in that we move from general to particular and cannot reverse our path without some change in perspective, 1 to 2 is not the same as 2 to 1 (whereas a symmetric perspective allows for that mechanistic nature)

We can see the IMP operator at work in such cases as when using the X, Y, and Z coordinates system in that, only given Z it implies the presence of X and Y; only given Y it implies the existance of X. BUT only given X does NOT imply the presence of Y nor it of Z. This is an example of asymmetric natures.

Lightofreason,

Thanks for the explanations, however they are over my head unfortunately.

I was hoping you would be able to illustrate a sequence or steps which lead to the conclusions you made in your first post above. It seems now that it would take a few papers to put it across. Thank you all the same for trying. I am acquainted with logic gates and operators so you have at least whetted my appetite some more for exploring them deeper.