...life can be translucent

Menu

The I Ching interpretable as, showing characteristics of, a Monad

L

lightofreason

Guest
:)

There you go getojack - let your fingers do the talking -
 

getojack

visitor
Joined
Jun 13, 1971
Messages
589
Reaction score
10
Thanks, LoR. Wow, I guess you really can teach an old dog new tricks. :)

Liebniz's philosophy is rooted in the idea that there is an indivisible quality in the universe, which he calls a monad. This entity is supposed to be inherent in everything, which is sort of a neo-pantheistic idea couched in philosophical terms.

If the I Ching is believed to be ''all that is'', then it could indeed be interpreted as having the qualities of a monad, as Chris believes. The I Ching, however, is not ''all that is.'' Without someone there to throw the coins or separate the yarrow or click the mouse or cook the turtle, it remains a dead book... In this way, the I Ching is like a mirror. The mirror image is not me. Without me, there would be no image. Without people asking questions, there would be no I Ching.

The I Ching is not all that is; neither is a monad all that is. All that is is all that is, and that includes you and your IC+, me and my crazy ideas, Liebniz and his monad, and the I Ching.
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
Thanks, LoR. Wow, I guess you really can teach an old dog new tricks. :)

Liebniz's philosophy is rooted in the idea that there is an indivisible quality in the universe, which he calls a monad. This entity is supposed to be inherent in everything, which is sort of a neo-pantheistic idea couched in philosophical terms.

Thats the philosophy and so speculative - I am not coming from there, I am coming from 'here is empirically-derived evidence of how we categorise, how we derive meaning,' and we find the evidence 'fits' the notion of a monad. There are MANY monads - see the references I gave covering Leibniz's paper and additional commentary.

As such, in self-referencing the I Ching the hexagrams are aspects of the whole (the monad) but are intepretable as monads themselves (and so allowing for XOR). The recursion of yin/yang is the XORIng of the I Ching as a whole. THe SAME method is then applied to each hexagram to give the descriptions of IT.

getojack said:
If the I Ching is believed to be ''all that is'', then it could indeed be interpreted as having the qualities of a monad, as Chris believes.

No. The I Ching as metaphor can REPRESENT 'all there is' in that it is a metaphor and all metaphors derived from self-referencing will be isomorphic, interchangable. Emotion is metaphor and sourced in self-referencing fight/flight. Cognition is metaphor and sourced in self-referencing of difference/sameness. This I can map emotions to the I Ching or cognitions to the I Ching. All of these specialist perspectives are metaphors and so symmetric in form and interchangable.

What the IDM work uncovers is ismorphism across all of these metaphors where that includes, from a monad perspective, the ability to describe it-self by analogy to itself - and that is what XOR does. The empirically-derived material of IDM supports the notion of a monad and we see this monad as being the source of categorisation and a fundamental dynamic of the neurology.

Given this focus on monads, so each of us is a monad and the I Ching is a mirror of us (which is what monads can do - reflect others as they can themselves - emotionally this is through resonance etc)

The I Ching can represent 'all there is' due to its monadic structure - each of us can do so as well and so we can achieve, do achieve, resonance across the IC with us.

Go back and read the original monad material and replace the word 'monad' with the word 'metaphor'.

I have covered before the notion of the hexagrams or trigrams or dodecagrams being aspects of the whole and as such revealing one facade of the whole when stimuluted by a context; IOW there are no parts or independent forms - it has resembled a tensor where a vector as input elicits the tensor to reconfigure itself and make a response - monad does the same.

GIven the XOR etc work the monad is the only form that maps to what is being uncovered in the brain's dynamic is categorising - and the focus on self-referencing goes all the way to the basic notion of deriving order from the containment of noise where such containment elicits spontaneous order through self-referencing - and the monad is a consequence of such a dynamic.

Go through the comments etc on the monad and compare to the self-referencing dynamics of the I Ching and the derivation of XOR - the sameness is VERY strong.

I repeat, I am coming from empirical studies on brain dynamics and the use of self-referencing so there is much that can be wrong with Leibniz's perspective, his moand can be too ideal etc but the isomorphism between the monad properties and the IC+ properties indicate we are dealing with something real and fundamental.

The XOR work is irrefutable and the focus therefore is in what has gone before that comes anywhere near XORing, and that is the monad perspective. It was ignored due to it being an idea developed to contradict Cartesian perspectives - but those dominated and so the monad properties/methods have been marginalised. The work from neurosciences indicates this was perhaps an error!

Chris.
 

getojack

visitor
Joined
Jun 13, 1971
Messages
589
Reaction score
10
So people use their brain to derive meaning through metaphors. The I Ching is a metaphor and the monad is a metaphor. Chris Lofting's brain uses the metaphor of XOR to describe itself. Liebniz's brain used the metaphor of the monad to describe itself. So what?
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
So people use their brain to derive meaning through metaphors. The I Ching is a metaphor and the monad is a metaphor. Chris Lofting's brain uses the metaphor of XOR to describe itself. Liebniz's brain used the metaphor of the monad to describe itself. So what?

The use of self-referencing is embedded in the universe in the form of the rule covering the containment of noise eliciting order through self-referencing. In the neurlology this is hard coded, as it is with emotions etc - IOW there is a hard-coding of dynamics that indicate the hard-coding of monadic structure.

The distinctions derived from the oscillations in our brains across the elements of a dichotomy, and so oscillation across the whole that is the 'universe of course' aka monad, brings out aspects of that whole that, in their own right, due to the ONE method we use to analyse/categorise, are interpretable as monads.

The XOR is a methodology, a doing, that allows for extracting aspects of the I Ching or hexagrams or dodecagrams or trigrams etc. The metaphor to which it is associated is that of using bit representations of reality where the bit sequences are descriptions of some form where the description is derived from self-referencing 0/1. This 'bit-map' is a metaphor and as such its properties and methods are interchangable with any other metaphor derived from self-referencing a dichotomy.

The yin/yang metaphor of self-referencing is labelled the "I Ching" and as such the descriptors of the 'bit-map' are interchangable with the I Ching AS ARE THE METHODS USED IN PROCESSING THE BITS - e.g. XOR and EQV.

The what/where metaphor of self-referencing covers the set of descriptors of reality derived from brain oscillations. As such the descriptors of that metaphor are interchangable with those of yin/yang as they are with 0/1.

The fight/flight metaphor of self-referencing covers the set of descriptors covering emotions used to communicate across species-members (and even across species). The set of descriptors, due to the self-referencing, will be interchangable with those mentioned above.

Note that fight/flight and what/were (aka differentiating/integrating) are HARD-CODED into our brains and as such form the foundations of meaning derivation/communication. The level of such communication is 'basic', animal, primate, levels, but with the development of consciousness so we can relabel these basics to localise meaning as well as specialise in such forms as the I Ching.

The UNIVERSAL nature of the descriptors derived from self-referencing are customised by exposure to local context and as such these universals are open to exaggeration, marginalisation, and/or deletion. THus each of us can experience the hexagrams of the I Ching in theory as universals and then as local expressions that can be distorted by that context (and so we can have knowledge of a universal but never able to identify it locally since the local culture can marginalise it or even expunge it from the set of what is 'meaningful' to the collective)

Note that for Leibniz the monad as folded on itself and as such 'lacked' a window to the outside - this is a very 'genetics' perspective but when we add-in the environment so the genetics get customised into phenotype that is then customised (we add colour, feathers etc etc!)

Since the 0/1 metaphor is interchangable with the yin/yang metaphor so too are the operators used in the 0/1 metaphor - XOR, EQV, IOR, AND, NOT, IMP (the IMP being the only asymmetric operator).

Given this interchangabilty, the interchanging with the what/where, aka differentiate/integrate metaphor will include the ASYMMETRIC aspects reflected in THAT metaphor along with the symmetric that comes with self-referencing.

In other words as we work our way through specialist metaphors we can acquire a toolkit to use in ALL metaphors in that they all represent the dynamics of the neurology and so, through evolution where we internalise 'out there', so the dynamics of the universe (a property of the monad - seeing the universe within it).

What we call 'parts' are more so aspects of the whole than can, due to the self-referencing, be treated as if idependent from the whole and so as monadic in form - and so open to the operators of the 0/1 metaphor.

BUT - ADDED to this is the asymmetric/symmetric nature of our neurology as covered in the what/where metaphor. What THAT means is that in the use of XOR, it is not just the 'opposite' of EQV, and so the difference in the difference/sameness dichotomy, but has an asymmetric nature (even though a symmetric operator) and THAT allows us to extract parts from a whole (and so in some cases create paradox - http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/paradox.html )

Thus, given the XOR from 0/1 and the asymmetric from what/where, so when applied to yin/yang the ASYMMETIC allows us to extract, using XOR, the aspects, the X-ness of hexagrams, where the X is the nature of hexagram A present in hexagram B and described (using XOR) by analogy to hexagram C.

This is possible across ANY metaphor derived from self-referencing a dichotomy - and that includes RNA/DNA, fermions/bosons, particles/waves etc etc etc The moment one sets down a dichotomy and recurses it, it is a metaphor and as such interchangable with all others so derived and as such open to extension of meaning through analogy to all of the other metaphors and their methods (and this is how mathematics can work in that it is metaphor and so interchangable with any other to be used as a descriptor of such)

So - in the context of the I Ching we can get hexagrams to describe themselves in GENERAL - no need for all of the 'fantasies' that can come from ad-hoc considerations of what the symbols 'mean'; there is definite, fixed, structure but GENERAL - our consciousness then adds in LOCAL differences to fit the general to some local; issues come when we try to force the general into the local without customisation (it can work only of the context is the same as the general and that is rare)

Lost yet?

;-)

Chris.
 
L

lightofreason

Guest
BTW - the use of logic operators on the I Ching has been going on for eons, but the results gained from the IC+ perspective (derived from IDM) come only when we consider how the brain deals with self-referencing an ASYMMETRIC form of dichotomy; how what comes from the process is interpreted. IOW we have asked the right question about what the results of XORing hexagrams represent in the context of meaning derivation.

The XOR/EQV pair cover difference/sameness but when we map in the brain dynamics where XOR/EQV cover part/whole dynamics and XOR plays a role in paradox creation as well as data cryptology in the form of compression/encryption and de-compression/decryption so out comes the X-ess of hexagrams material and the link to the formal monad perspective where all are contained in, contribute to the identification of, each.

NOW apply all of that to, for example, the study of RNA/DNA dynamics or fermion/boson dynamics or psychological/sociological dynamics (e.g. self-reference the dichotomy of aristocratic/egalitarian and compare with I Ching hexagram meanings)

The IDM work fleshes out the what/where, aka differentiate/integrate, metaphor and labels the categories using blend, bond, bound, bind - through that we detect the isomorphism across all of our distinctions where it is all metaphor (Emotion FORCES such through use of fight/flight and so a focus on extracting sameness from difference - the price is that emotion is intuitively symmetric, and so metaphor is symmetric and with that so we can often take asymmetric logic and make it symmetric and in doing so elicit a 'false logic' - aka symmetric thinking - in interacting with reality.

Chris.
 

getojack

visitor
Joined
Jun 13, 1971
Messages
589
Reaction score
10
Lost yet?

;-)

Chris.

You talkin' to me?

Not so much lost as bored. To be honest, I don't give a flying fig about XOR, monads, IC+, etc. And I don't see why I should care.

BTW, that's nothing against you. I never saw the point in learning calculus either.
 
Last edited:
L

lightofreason

Guest
You talkin' to me?

Not so much lost as bored. To be honest, I don't give a flying fig about XOR, monads, IC+, etc. And I don't see why I should care.

BTW, that's nothing against you. I never saw the point in learning calculus either.

You asked for this thread, and now you back off pleading ignorance!

The benefit of XORing is in getting the IC to describe itself in general and so aid in understanding.

Usually one expects XOR/EQV to be balanced, symmetric, and so XOR gives differences, EQV gives sameness. BUT there is a twist in that due to our brains working ASYMETRICALLY so we get more out of XOR than we bargained for, we also get PARTS details or ASPECTS details of a hexagram where the hexagram is described in detail through XOR and the making of analogy with all 64 hexagrams.

So - from the symmetric form of XOR interpretations we have:

what is the difference of 27 and 01? and it is given in the form of 28 - The difference focus as such is simplistic but symmetric; the image we get reflects exactly the differences in structure of 27/01.

Now add-in the ASYMMETRIC form of interpretation, covering the focus on the brains part/whole interactions and we get what is the 27-ness of 01 and it is described by analogy to the meaning of 28 (exclusive of any consideration of lines etc); the infrastructure of 01, its 27-ness, is described by analogy to the characteristics of 28; now we are getting into depth and moving beyond the 'simplistic', symmetric form of XOR - we are truely breaking symmetry and from such gaining meaning and in so doing bringing out properties associated with monadic perspectives.

Chris.
 

Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom

Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).

Top